[Closed] Trident submarines without the missiles

Who really gives a shit whether it works or not ? ..........anyone ?

wanna buy a bridge ?

tell everyone we have one of these 😉

If it's such a non-story why was May so evasive in her answer to Andrew Marr?

Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.

Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.

Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?

If they did would you believe them ?

Do you really think that they could say it was 100% reliable ?

I think theyd rather not say.

If they did would you believe them ?

Not personally, I think it'd be almost absurd. But some seemed shocked at it not apparently being the case.

First failure in over 160 launches isn't it?

First failure in over 160 launches isn't it?

[url= http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/17/us/trident-failures-in-tests-are-tied-to-flawed-design.html ]No[/url]

Hmm, you're relying on pre-service development testing?

Sunnyvale, Calif., Nov. 10, 2015 – The U.S. Navy conducted successful test flights Nov. 7 and 9 of two Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missiles built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). The world’s most reliable large ballistic missile, the D5 missile has achieved a total of 157 successful test flights since design completion in 1989.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/missile-space-trident.html

That story is from 1989 .. so no failures since in 160 launches ? (EDIT: I see ninfan has the answer)

Nothing is 100% reliable, missiles included. Not every gps guided bomb lands in the targeted place.

As I said even more reason to crack on with the new ones. We've already wasted 5 years at least.

We've already wasted 5 years at least.

no shit Sherlock, I think we can all pretty much agree that the most basic thing that ANY weapon from a catapult to a nuclear tipped missile has to be to achieve is that it goes where you point it, no?

I mean that's a pretty fundamental cock up! Great! We **** daren't use the damned thing 'cos it might hit us! I don't think that's what they meant when they said it's a deterrent

OK, so we know it doesn't go where it's pointed, shall we launch a missile at North Korea? Where will it land, hmm? South Korea maybe, Japan? China..?

How about we fire one off to Iran, where will that land? Turkey? Israel?

Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet

Well, the Americans have been hitting the wrong targets for years, killing significant numbers of people, including British troops in a clearly identified vehicle, and getting away with it.

Yes.... but I think we all have to agree that this is definitely the nuclear option in retaliation for past friendly fire

the issue is more the fact that the PM did not seem to be aware of the failure , and it was days before a vote in the Commons on the Trident funding .

Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet

You do realise that these things are based on rocket science?

Rocket science is exactly rocket science.

Yesterday we had a deterrent, now we have a pointless underwater whale impersonator fleet

Because if the weapons aren't 100% reliable it would be a very poor political outcome even if it is militarily acceptable.

Nothing is 100% reliable.

This is a political drama (rightly so) and not a technical one, despite all the armchair engineers coming out to play.

Missiles are an engineering nightmare because they sit dormant for years, occasionally doing some built-in-test. Then you warm one up and shoot it, expecting it to work first time. If you add in too much redundancy then you end up with something too heavy to fly.

Missiles are an engineering nightmare because they sit dormant for years, occasionally doing some built-in-test. Then you warm one up and shoot it, expecting it to work first time.

Sounds like a good reason to scrap the whole Trident programme. If it isn't going to work whem we suddenly need it, why spend loads of money on it???

natrix - 'cos we are never going to need it so why does it matter if it works. Its just a giant phallus for impotent tories

cchris2lou - Member

the issue is more the fact that the PM did not seem to be aware of the failure , and it was days before a vote in the Commons on the Trident funding .

Weeeel that's part of the question isn't it. Did she know, and suppress the news til after the vote? Or did she not know, when she should have. She's going to take flak for it either way and right now she doesn't seem to be able to decide.

It's all a bit of a nonsense really from a capability point of view, tests sometimes go wrong, that's one of the reasons you do tests. If this test exposes a systematic issue then that's obviously a massive deal but this isn't the first test ever and it's worked before. Probably just needs to go back to a system restore point or get hit with a hammer.

But it's created an interesting wee stramash. If it turns out that they really did bury the news, that'll be kind of fascinating, because there was absolutely no need- they'd still have steamrollered the vote. And with the whole brexit politicking backdrop, anything about keeping information from the House while also showing dodgy judgement is pretty toxic.

But is the actual incident important? Doubt it.

Sounds like a good reason to scrap the whole Trident programme. If it isn't going to work whem we suddenly need it, why spend loads of money on it???

Which is why you carry more than one missile. It isn't like you actually nuke London by mistake - there are safeguards in the case of missile failures.

Same is true of pretty much everything. Small arms jam or misfire so why use them? Why have a mobile when it might not work when you need it?

Anyway, Trident works everyday - it is a deterrent (and also the cost of our permanent seat at the UN Security Council). I'm all for global nuclear disarmament but our nuclear forces are at a realistic minimum level and I wouldn't advocate reducing them further until other, more prolific nuclear powers disarm significantly. Unfortunately, Trump.

grumpysculler - Member

(and also the cost of our permanent seat at the UN Security Council)

People say that but there doesn't seem to be much to support it. We have our permanent seat as a winner of WW2 and UN founder, basically. We weren't a nuclear power then. And there's been no changes in the permanent membership since- other nuclear powers haven't gained access of course.

The other thing you have to ask is, why is it important? What has it gained us? We've only used the veto unilaterally 5 times and they were all about Rhodesia. The last time we used it was the invasion of Panama! It's not all about the veto of course, but that's quite emblematic. We don't use our seat to lead policy. So mostly what remains is the capacity to use it to shape international relations, which is hard to quantify and seems to be largely about sucking up to the US, which we never struggle to find ways to do...

So, even if it's true that it keeps us our seat, is that worth it?

Turns out May did know about the trident test before the vote, but kept it quiet.
Confused Greg Clark caught out on sky news, when he thought he'd be talking about the big new skils/investment plans
MPs blaming spin doctors who are blaming Cameron...

Wonder how many other test failures they are covering up?

Be sadly ironic if in some (far fetched) future Prime Minister Corbyn is forced after much agonsing and soul searching ultimately to sacrifice his last remaining principle and order a nuclear strike only to accidently blow up Aberystwyth with an off target missile

Wonder how many other test failures they are covering up?

My guess would be quite a lot across the military.

It makes a lot of sense.

Sunday Times reporting that the government have been covering up problems with the guidance system for years !

[img] [/img]

Weapons do seem to be a problem