Admiral Lord West Trident demands

[Basil]

What are our views on the Admiral's comments?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/defence/military-campaigns/news/82592/ex-defence-chief-government-acting-north-korea-over

A former senior military official has accused the Government of acting "like North Korea" by refusing to come clean about a Trident nuclear missile test that went awry.
Admiral Lord West, the former head of the navy, said it was “bizarre and stupid” that ministers had chosen to keep quiet about the reported malfunction.
Lord West demanded the Government comes to Parliament to explain why the “absolutely stupid” decision was made and to reassure MPs that the Trident system is working properly.

[glad rag]

how old are the m->?

[Onceapilot]

Think the thoughts of VSOs re armed forces's performance should be placed under the 30yr rule!:D

OAP

[airsound]

The Admiral's words are interesting - and there's obviously more to this than meets the eye.

That Politics Home report that you evince, Basil, also includes an account of Andrew Marr asking the Prime Minister four times whether she knew about the embarrassing tack the missile took before she took part in the debate about whether we should continue with Trident. And four times she avoided answering the question. Here's what she said, according to Politics Home.Mrs May ducked four questions on whether she knew about the incident in an interview with the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
“I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles,” she replied the first time.
“When I made that speech in the House of Commons, what we were talking about was whether or not we should renew our Trident, whether or not we should have Trident missiles and an independent nuclear deterrent in the future.”
Asked again, the Prime Minister tried to turn the issue to Jeremy Corbyn’s scepticism on Trident:
“I think we should defend our country, I think we should play our role in Nato with an independent nuclear deterrent; Jeremy Corbyn thinks differently, Jeremy Corbyn thinks we shouldn’t defend our country.”
The third time, Mrs May said she had been talking about important matters in the Commons.
“The issue we were talking about in the House of Commons was a very serious issue. It was about whether or not we should renew Trident, whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident. That’s what we were talking about in the House of Commons, that’s what the House of Commons voted for. I believe in defending our country; Jeremy Corbyn voted against it, he doesn’t want to defend our country with an independent nuclear deterrent.”
Asked bluntly by Mr Marr – “Prime Minister, did you know?” – she replied: “There are tests that take place all the time, regularly for our nuclear deterrents.”
You can see the clip here
Theresa May refuses to answer questions on Trident 'misfire' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38711200)

Her evasions look like a smoking gun to me.

airsound

[A_Van]

Looks like a piece of cake for various groups of journalists that are good in tossing dead flies and convert them into combat elephants.

Here is one more article, from a former dominion: http://shoofee.ca/2017/01/22/uk-cover-up-as-botched-missile-veers-to-us/

The reality is that things happen, and "all concerned" were/are, no doubt, monitoring such launches and did not cry outloud.

[airsound]

That may be true, A Van, but surely the fact that a missile had significantly malfunctioned would have been relevant to a parliamentary debate about the missile's future?

airsound

[ORAC]

Aircraft crash and missiles fail. The deterrent does not depend on every missile working - each boat carries up to 16 and half of those are redundant - so there is multiple redundancy. So I don't see what the great problem is.

[Lyneham Lad]

Well Orac, unlike on test missiles there isn't a 'whoops, its gone off-course' destruct button for the real things (according to The Sunday Times anyway). So, the balloon goes up, the dreadful decision to launch is made - & we nuke our allies... :sad: :ouch:

[ORAC]

Well Orac, unlike on test missiles there isn't a 'whoops, its gone off-course' destruct button for the real things You think?

The bus holding the warheads is programmed to manoeuvre exactly to release each warhead in the precise position and course/speed for a ballistic re-entry exactly on target.

Any of the paramaneters don't match the warhead isn't activated, the batteries not started and the warheads remain multiply safed and in the bus. And if we fire a live armed missile in anger, I doubt an inert warhead and bus falling to earth will be the top of the problem list.

[Lyneham Lad]

The bus holding the warheads is programmed to manoeuvre exactly to release each warhead in the precise position and course/speed for a ballistic re-entry exactly on target.

Any of the paramaneters don't match the warhead isn't activated, the batteries not started and the warheads remain multiply safed and in the bus. And if we fire a live armed missile in anger, I doubt an inert warhead and bus falling to earth will be the top of the problem list.

Well, that's OK then! ;) (I did write it was "according to The Sunday Times"... Journalistic accuracy strikes again.) :hmm: :ugh:

[A_Van]

ORAC is right. It can't fly off course for a long time and hit, say, NYC.


Airsound: these are definitely UK internal practice and procedures, but for me, as a foreigner, it sounds counter-productive to raise such issues to crowds of politicians. IMHO, it is purely technical/mil issue. Their investigation board should take care, and only if they come to a conclusion that there are fundamental problems, some request should be brought at the highest level. Again, MHO only.

[ORAC]

Lyneham Lad, see page 258.

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_15.pdf

"The D5 missile has the capability of carrying either Mk 4 or Mk 5 re-entry vehicles as its payload. The D5 re-entry subsystem consists of either Mk 4 or Mk 5 re- entry vehicle assemblies attached by four captive bolts to their release assembly and mounted on the ES. STAS and pre arming signals are transferred to each re-entry vehicle shortly before deployment through the separation sequencer unit. When released, the re-entry vehicle follows a ballistic trajectory to the target where detonation occurs in accordance with the fuse option selected by fire control through the preset subsystem.

The re-entry vehicle contains an AF&F assembly, a nuclear assembly, and electronics. The AF&F provides a safeguard to prevent detonation of the warhead during storage and inhibits re-entry vehicle detonation until all qualifying arming inputs have been received. The nuclear assembly is a Department of Energy (DoE) supplied physics package........."

[Expatrick]

Not sure you want to tell your enemies too clearly that your missiles suck rather than blow!

[pax britanica]

Ex Patrick


Who are our enemies??

You cannot nuke the whole middle east. Well the Americans could but we can't

The Russians are best friends of the new Pres who presumeably has the final word over whether we can launch 'our' 6 nukes. I know we have a few more but assume like the rest of the UK they have post it notes stuck on them with some form of excuse as to why they don't work

We are trying to suck up to not blow up China (even though we mortally offended them over the power station debacle)

We are not an enemy of North Korea (indeed we seem to be trying to emulate it as far as isolation is concerned)

So just who are these missiles targeted at-I mean if we do not know who to point them at does it matter if they go wrong -especially if they were to fall on mainland Europe.

[air pig]

Airsound

That may be true, A Van, but surely the fact that a missile had significantly malfunctioned would have been relevant to a parliamentary debate about the missile's future?



The debate was to renew the submarines not the missile which has just had a warhead upgrade in the UK.

[Expatrick]

Ex Patrick


Who are our enemies??

You cannot nuke the whole middle east. Well the Americans could but we can't

The Russians are best friends of the new Pres who presumeably has the final word over whether we can launch 'our' 6 nukes. I know we have a few more but assume like the rest of the UK they have post it notes stuck on them with some form of excuse as to why they don't work

We are trying to suck up to not blow up China (even though we mortally offended them over the power station debacle)

We are not an enemy of North Korea (indeed we seem to be trying to emulate it as far as isolation is concerned)

So just who are these missiles targeted at-I mean if we do not know who to point them at does it matter if they go wrong -especially if they were to fall on mainland Europe.

Its irrelevant, the UK maintains Trident as its ultimate deterrent against any actual, perceived or forthcoming enemy. Of course if you are saying the deterrent should be dispensed with altogether that's a different matter altogether.

[Pontius Navigator]

A Van is correct. The reality is that things happen, and "all concerned" were/are, no doubt, monitoring such launches and did not cry outloud.

The importance of deterrence is not whether is will work but whether the other side thinks it will work.

I know of one occasion when an aircraft On State for 10 days could not have dropped its weapon. Nothing would have been gained by broadcasting it in the Daily Express*.

*The Daily Express in those days was the 'must read' paper at breakfast when you could read the secret at the same time as the MOD Box :)

[Expatrick]

A Van is correct.

The importance of deterrence is not whether it will work but whether the other side thinks it will work.

Precisely!

[airsound]

Air Pig

debate was to renew the submarines not the missileAs a lowly long-retired officer, and an even lowlier journo, I merely quote the Prime Minister (as above):“The issue we were talking about in the House of Commons was a very serious issue. It was about whether or not we should renew Tridentairsound

[Pontius Navigator]

You have to admire politicians who have such command of their mouths and body language that they can avoid a yes/no answer.

Probably why we mere mortals have to remember the mantra "It is not HMG policy to confirm or deny . . . "

[airsound]

A Vancounter-productive to raise such issues to crowds of politicians.Well, as a past First Sea Lord, Admiral The Lord West probably knows more about the missiles than most of us, even if he's not absolutely current. And as a past Minister for Security, he certainly knows about the security implications of what he said (see the thread starter).

I still think that, for the parliamentary debate to have gone ahead when Mrs May, at least, apparently knew about the problem, was undemocratic, and, as Lord West says, smacks of totalitarian states.

airsound

[Simplythebeast]

Rearrange these words.... Teacup, a, in,Storm.

[Expatrick]

A Van
I still think that, for the parliamentary debate to have gone ahead when Mrs May, at least, apparently knew about the problem, was undemocratic, and, as Lord West says, smacks of totalitarian states.


Yes, now this has become a real issue.

[Wycombe]

The evasion of the question was a bit cringeworthy and will not help her going forward. Surely, much easier just to say "we never discuss publicly the position or status of the nuclear deterrent etc...." That excuse could have been used (rightly or wrongly) to explain her failure to mention in parliament also.

[Geordie_Expat]

The evasion of the question was a bit cringeworthy and will not help her going forward. Surely, much easier just to say "we never discuss publicly the position or status of the nuclear deterrent etc...." That excuse could have been used (rightly or wrongly) to explain her failure to mention in parliament also.


Totally agree ! However, the tactic of not answering any question seems to be totally ingrained with all politicians,

[sitigeltfel]

Labour MPs are demanding an enquiry into their Trident failure.

They say that the trio of Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott fail spectacularly everytime they stick their heads above water.
One of the MPs summed them up by saying, "They are totally ineffective, a waste of money, always veer off course and consistently fail to hit enemy targets".

[ORAC]

Airsound.

Lord West was a Sea Lord, he now is a Labour party peer and previously an Undersecretary of State under Gordon Brown in his cabinet - and as such any statements he makes must be considered as political to attack the government than independent.

If you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.

[Simplythebeast]

Cant understand why she didnt use Trump's methods... ie "That is a lie perpetuated by the dishonest media, its false news. That missile worked as intended, it was a beautiful thing".

[Just This Once...]

Nobody in the UK is authorised to talk about D5 missile capabilities, potential failures or potential issues past or present.

Nobody.

Not even Mrs May.

Want to talk D5? Then try phoning the country that designs, builds and maintains them and issues a very tight policy on disclosures for their one and only foreign customer (and rightly so).

So the PM evaded the question - well done her.

[Chinny Crewman]

The problem is LM and MoD make a song and dance about every successful test releasing videos and fact sheets (search You Tube), inevitably when one fails and that fact is covered up it doesn't look good. A simple statement at the time 'failed launch, no danger, inquiry, absolute confidence in system etc...' and it would be the non story some on here think it is. Govt hushed it up and now others will make political capital out of it, well they would if JC was capable. The worst thing is it further erodes public confidence in politicians; the deceitful, untrustworthy political elite stereotype has been further reinforced.

[Bigbux]

Lord West was a Sea Lord, he now is a Labour party peer and previously an Undersecretary of State under Gordon Brown in his cabinet - and as such any statements he makes must be considered as political to attack the government than independent.

Quite so. I don't recall hearing Lord West pipe up when Gordon Brown refused to divulge to Mumsnet what his favourite biscuit was.;)

[MACH2NUMBER]

A Van,
Spot on .

[parabellum]

Comes back to that old chestnut, "Need to know". People who don't need to know get so pissed off when they are excluded from briefings etc. including this ex Sea Lord, now a Labour politician, who has ventured out on a sh*t stirring exercise against his opposition. A "we don't discuss etc" should have been enough.

Weapon fired, weapon failed, problem identified, problem solved, NFA. It is a weapon of war and we don't provide our potential enemy with the minutes of a political discussion, we are back to Need to Know.

[ShotOne]

Lets keep in mind that while Lord West may be a FORMER Admiral, he is now a Labour politician. And as such has a strong interest in diverting as much attention as possible from the shambolic nuclear stance of his own party leader.

[MACH2NUMBER]

Why be so defensive? There was no danger to anyone. If every trial missile failure the UK has ever had ended up on the Marr show, it would be the only topic!
The press are ill informed and over-sensitive.

[superplum]

Does Trident have a valid "Safety Case"?
;)

[Hangarshuffle]

Its not a trial missile- Trident is fully operational and this launch was to confirm that it is thus- the fact that it has gone entirely wrong is deeply worrying if you are minded to think the ultimate weapon system you are employing will actually work.
Not a storm in a tea cup at all- multiple issues militarily and politically.
Timing of this release in a major newspaper was possibly done to undermine PM May by a right wing newspaper as she goes into the most demanding of periods of negotiation over Brexit and with new POTUS (and she is relatively inexperienced as a PM). It damns her all ways and she cannot win here.
This is a lead domestic story tonight on all UK TV news .
To suggest Lord West as some sort of Labour mouthpiece owned by them is disingenuous and almost a slur. Hide behind your keyboard in shame.
The missile was supposed to be launched and delivered under planned circumstance to have it firing possibly 180 degree wrong trajectory is a safety issue in anybody's book.

I expect better from Pruners, given your backgrounds, former ranks and relative experience.

[TURIN]

So, the balloon goes up, the dreadful decision to launch is made - & we nuke our allies...

Who will be left to care?:uhoh:

[pr00ne]

Or even know?

[parabellum]

I expect better from Pruners, given your backgrounds, former ranks and relative experienceSorry Hangarshuffle but I strongly doubt, you are going to shame anyone here who has served in the military and understands military security. This is nothing more than a political witch hunt exacerbated by a left wing media.

[Jimlad1]

Its a witchhunt driven by people who dont fully understand the challenges of missile testing. The Russians average a 50% fail rate on their Bulava Missile (SLBM) which is at 12 tests failed from 24. The Americans historically design their missiles for a 90% success rate (stats elsewhere) but every single American programme has had as a percentage a far larger failure rate.

Missiles should work, but sometimes they don't. On this occasion it seems like it didnt but thats one of those things. Saying people will think the UK is a laughing stock or doesnt have a credible deterrent only makes sense sense if you apply exactly the same logic to the US, French, Russians who have all had identical problems.

[MSOCS]

Indeed!

This whole thing is being sensationalised by "should-know-better" politicians using it for their own anti-Trident agenda. The SNP and CND luvvie, Jeremy Corbyn. They are trying to undermine last year's vote on renewal, simple as.

And there was me thinking that 'test' firings of the delivery system had to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time....!

[cdtaylor_nats]

Wouldn't a real headline be

Weapon system works 100% of the time

[ImageGear]

...and, of course, nothing happened while the Lord Admiral was on watch did it. Or perhaps it was because he chose very sensibly, not to comment on the status of our defence capability.

Pot = Kettle :=

Imagegear

[Mick Stability]

Presumably this is T S NUC UK EYES ONLY

- so I don't expect to know.

To address an earlier q on who these are targetted at?

- Well whomsoever fired one at us - that's why it's called a detterent.

[Basil]

Thank you all for your comments in the light of which here's Flight Lieutenant Basil's opinion (Yes, even the lower orders have an opinion even if it may not have the validity of that of a VSO).

With hindsight, the PM should have responded that we do not discuss that sort of thing publicly and that includes Parliament which is a public forum. OTOH, she DID take the opportunity of a good sideswipe at The Leader of the Opposition.

Re the comments by Admiral Lord West:
The Admiral should be ashamed of himself.
The Lord? Well, just another point-scoring pollie.

[ShotOne]

For sure we want to know that the issue which sent this missile off course is being fixed, but no system works 100%; some well below 50% The political head of steam being worked up by Labour is naked opportunism. Their own leader has publicly stated he would not press the button even if we were attacked. So if by some calamity they come to power, we don't even have a deterrent at all!

[ORAC]

From The Times........

Steve Aitken, a former nuclear submarine commander and member of the Ulster Unionist Party, defended Theresa May, saying that she is under no obligation to speak about sensitive national security matters.

“There is a convention that we don’t talk about the deterrent,” he said on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning. “It’s the nature of the security of this nation and I would fully support the prime minister in avoiding these questions.”

He added that the row had turned into “politicking”.

[ORAC]

It should be noted that it has not been 5 years since a Trident UGM-133 test firing. It has been 5 years since the U.K. performed a test firing as part of the recommissioning of one of our boats after a refit - but the USN also do test firings on a regular basis.

The UK does not own its own missiles, but shares a common pool with the USN held at King's Bay, Georgia and which are rotated on a regular basis. Hence the test firings are valid as a data source whichever boat or service fires them.

The last firing was by the USS Maryland on 31st August 2016 - and it was successful, the 161st successful firing since 1989.

[falcon900]

All in all, quite an interesting worked example of what is wrong with our politicians and media. If the pun can be forgiven, "ready, fire, aim".
If a system could be guaranteed to be 100% reliable, there would be no need to test it. For such a critical system, nobody could possibly guarantee 100% reliability, so testing is necessary. Arguably the most valuable tests are the ones where something goes wrong (as long as nobody is injured obviously), as a point of failure can be identified and eliminated.
There was no risk to life or limb here, other than to any passing fish, and there would be no danger posed by a live firing going astray.
For me the biggest disappointment was the Prime Minister's inability to state the bleeding obvious: Love Trident or hate it, the debate doesn't hinge on a single test failure. The failure in question was and is absolutely irrelevant to the debate regarding nuclear deterrence.
Finally, and the point has been made already, it is dumb to trumpet successful tests on you tube etc. This sort of activity should be conducted discretely, which would have created a more accommodating backdrop for occasional failures.

[Pontius Navigator]

It isn't the first time a retired VSO has cast a light on that which should be kept secret. Sadly I guess Parliamentary privilege applies to the upper house too.

[Heathrow Harry]

I though the story was published first in the Sunday Times -

West just jumped in as rent-a-quote

[Onceapilot]

As I said in post #3, West should keep his trap shut. He knows the situation. His actions must call into question the merit of his (considerable) retired VSO pay.

Basil, yes the PM is weak on this sort thing, like most pollies!:rolleyes:

OAP

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

ORAC, just a minor point; you are spot on about the King's Bay pooled servicing arrangement but our 2D5s are fully bought and paid for, as per the Trident Amendment to the Polaris Sales Agreement. The missiles in the post Upkeep Outload just don't necessarily have the same Serial Nos as those landed pre Upkeep.

My, how we miss Adml Alan as 1SL. I wonder if his documentary security skills have improved since '86?

[ShotOne]

Quote for the day: "A unilateralist complaining about Trident is like a eunuch complaining about Viagra."(M Gove Esq).

(...and, yes the UK Labour Party under present leadership is de facto unilateralist since Mr Corbyn (contrary to party policy) has publicly stated he would not use the deterrent even in the face of a nuclear attack.)

[langleybaston]

On a lighter note.

QUOTE: However, the tactic of not answering any question seems to be totally ingrained with all politicians,

Not only politicians, my wife, for example.

Being deaf [I have deafaids] I always always craft questions to SWMBO very carefully so as to elicit either "yes", "no" or "dunno" or "mind your own business".

The answer is never less than the length of The Lords Prayer, and therefore incomprehensible in whole or in part.

This does not make for domestic bliss.

[pax britanica]

So who are our enemies ? I still don't know

No use saying its a sort of general deterrent because it doesn't deter terrorism . Of the people on my list none of them are enemies at the moment and saying well it can be targeted at some future foe doesnt make much of a case. At the moment the two most likely foes would be the Eu- silly because its on our own doorstep or the USA because they have a megalomaniac president but I suspect we cannot fire them without his say so and he likes the Russians.

As to the anyone who fires a missile at us scenario , no good because its already to late.

So who are the tridents targeted at today - or are they all aimed at Ascension Island like the alleged mis fire. They must be targeted at someone otherwise they could hardly be called operational on one hand and if it isnt targeted at something how do they know it went off course.

As for the national security issue please ....,in todays post truth world everyone knows no comment means yes .

Its a lot of money that we havent got; to defend ourselves from enemies when we do not know who they are or what form they take and the biggest threats to UK security are:-
1 Serious terrorism incident
2 Cyber attack on Infrastructure or financial system
3 Another Wall St inspired financial crisis.

The response to none of these is 'launch nuclear missiles'

Dump the whole shooting match and with the money saved pump £350M a week into the NHS...have I heard that somewhere else tho'?

[Pontius Navigator]

PB, how much space do you have in your room with that elephant in the corner.

Seriously I guess the only valid target is another State. That it is already too late if someone has fired a missile at us is true, but that is what deterrence is about; retaliation is a secondary aim.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I suspect we cannot fire them without his say so .

Another popular myth Mr PB. Again part of the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended, the deterrent is independent. The US has no more say over how we deploy and use our missiles than they do over our TLAMs or Harpoons.

[ORAC]

Collating two reports, the Times and CNN, this would seem to indicate the missile itself was performing nominally, it was a failure in the range safety abort system which triggered the self-destruct mechanism.

Times: "The £17 million unarmed D5 missile is believed to have been obliterated in an automatic self-destruct sequence when it went off course after being launched from HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida. A failure in the data communications system of the US-made weapon system has been blamed."......

CNN: "Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported that the missile veered towards the US coast, but the US official told CNN that this trajectory was part of an automatic self-destruct sequence. The official said the missile diverted into the ocean -- an automatic procedure when missile electronics detect an anomaly."

[MAINJAFAD]

Not the first time that a missile test has failed due to range safety equipment failure / operator error by a long shot.

[Party Animal]

Has anyone checked to see if the son of Dr No is back up and running from Crab Key again!! ;)

[Basil]

I wonder if his documentary security skills have improved since '86?
Didn't harm his subsequent career ;)
I've no wish to badmouth a brave and gallant officer but I do wish he'd remained silent on this matter.

[PhilipG]

Will some people now want test results for all Trident missile training launches reported to the house of commons?
As I see it the report says HMS Vengeance has successfully completed her post refit work up..

[Chinny Crewman]

Phillip all previous launches have been reported in the form of press releases. LM and MoD have even in the past invited dignitaries and the press to view launches.

[PhilipG]

CC my point was the USN has tested a fair number of Tridents, there have been some failed launches, as both navies use the same system, why not report the USN launches as well. I did hear yesterday that there was a group of VIPs watching the launch, so that the press release could be put out.

[ORAC]

You mean like this? They brag about the 161 successful launches - no mention about the failures. But given the limited number of launches per year the failure rate must be below 1%.


Successful Trident II D5 Missile Flight Test Supports Navy Submarine Certification for Strategic Patrol · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2016/september/ssc-space-trdent.html)

"...... The missile was converted into a test configuration using a test missile kit produced by Lockheed Martin that contains range safety devices, tracking systems and flight telemetry instrumentation."........

[Finningley Boy]

There's a rather smug radio talk show host on LBC 9.73 FM, his name is James O'Brien, he normally succeeds in getting quite far up my nose and I expected his take on this particular incident/saga to be predictable. But instead, yesterday lunch time he produced a brilliant argument in defence of Theresa May's position on Trident. His criticism was purely reserved for how she floundered like a... well a Flounder on the end of a line. His own suggestion was simple and one I couldn't help but agree with; that is, instead of making yourself look utterly incapable of affording Mr Marr and his wider audience the credibility to spot frantic waffle when its present in overdrive but simply own up. Say, yes I did know, these tests are carried out for this very purpose, to determine whether anything will go wrong and when it does, to resolve the issue.

I would add, that by way of further explanation, to have mentioned this at the time of the Trident Submarine renewal debate may well have unduly prejudiced the debate alarming toward the anti-nuclear sentiments of the Labour front bench.

There, simple:}

FB:)

[MAINJAFAD]

Around 358 Trident C-4 and D-5 missiles have be fired in both R&D work and operational tests up to the end of 2015. Total number of failures was 12 (7 of which were C-4's). The 5 D-5 failures were all in the R&D and early operational testing phases (like the first SSBN launch in the video below) and up to the end of 2015, 184 D-5 missiles had been fired, including all of the R&D firings at the start of the program, plus missiles used for ABM target use.

d5nZ-SwngnE


The 161 launches quoted are operational systems tests from SSBN's and this is most likely the first confirmed failure. This gives a failure rate of 0.6% which isn't bad for any guided weapon system

All listed here Trident (http://www.astronautix.com/t/trident.html)

[Treble one]

I'm not sure if I was a potential aggressor that news of a failed missile test would make me anymore likely to 'take a chance' it might happen if the missiles were used in anger.....


There's an awful lot of sunshine that would be potentially be incoming....I guess that deterrence for you?

[airsound]

The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) has an interesting take on this. It's worth a read.
The Implications Of The Trident Test Failure | British American Security Information Council (http://www.basicint.org/blogs/paul-ingram-executive-director/01/2017/implications-trident-test-failure)

Amongst other things, the author, Paul Ingram, talks about.... so much irrational fear within Downing Street that puncturing that collective bubble of confidence in the Trident system could lead to mass defections in the forthcoming vote to renew it. They must have known the long term damage this would cause (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/senior-tory-mp-conservative-julian-lewis-failed-trident-nuclear-missile-test-ommons-defence-a7541516.html) to their reputation ..... It certainly tarnishes the image of a Prime Minister attempting to develop a reputation for straight-talking and openness. Theresa May’s refusal to deny or to clarify the issue yesterday (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-dodges-four-questions-about-whether-she-new-trident-missile-misfired_uk_58848b55e4b02085409889cf) has only made matters worse .... The government could have turned it into an asset by demonstrating its openness. As it is, this episode leaves anyone with an open mind feeling manipulated, and must surely magnify existing cynicism.airsound

[Heathrow Harry]

Ahh BASIC - "
WORKING FOR A SECURE WORLD FREE FROM THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

[airsound]

Well, if you don't like BASIC, HH, (and I confess I don't always agree with their strictures) - here's what the editor of defense-aerospace.com says in response to the UK MoD statement on the subject.EDITOR’S NOTE: The British government’s “absolute confidence” in the “unquestionable” capability of the Trident missile, is more appropriate to a religion than to a man-made system.
The fact that MoD can claim that HMS Vengeance and her crew were “successfully tested and certified” -- and that the submarine was allowed to return to service -- when its Trident missiles suffered their first failure in 40 years is one of the recurring mysteries of British political life.I believe that what some PPRuNers may be missing is that this a political spat, and not really a military or technical one.

If you're a real sucker for punishment, here's the record of the 'urgent question' to the Sec Def in the House of Commons (and the many answers).
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-01-23/debates/F1A6B273-AC23-4408-9B0C-81FE88B081F2/TridentTestFiring

airsound

[Onceapilot]

I think you are correct airsound, it is a political spat. However, your quoted editorial is drivel, worthy of any rubbish source!:yuk:

OAP

[althenick]

From the BBC News Website....
"According to the Sunday Times, an unarmed Trident II D5 missile veered off in the wrong direction towards the US - instead of towards Africa - when it was launched from a British submarine off the coast of Florida."

Perhaps they fed the wrong coordinates into it's navigation hoofer-doofer..... Or maybe they didn't :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The primary objective of a DASO is to examine the competency of the Boat's Company to safely, successfully and competently launch a missile under simulated operational conditions. It also tests the Boat's Weapon System post Upkeep. A failure in the firing range's telemetry calls for a safety destruction of the missile. It does not invalidate the Boat's DASO and operational fitness. It's an opportunistic exercise in political point scoring and sod all to do with the Andrew's day job nor the effectiveness of the weapon.

[Heathrow Harry]

Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun,
A man whose allegiance
Is ruled by expedience.
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
"ha, Nazi sch-mazi," says Wernher von Braun.

Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.

"once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

Tom lehrer

[A_Van]

HH,


OK, though von Braun perhaps did not care, it was his boss - Walter Dornberger who cared. And whose role in applied rocket science/industry is, IMHO, underestimated (only von Braun's name is in the air). In fact, Dornberger was, using modern terminology, the project manager. He hired young and talented Werner in 1932 who then became his tech. lead for V-2/A4.

[Wander00]

aah, the late great Tom Lehrer

[Heathrow Harry]

he's not "late" - still lives near Santa Cruz I beleive aged 88......

"If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while."

[Wander00]

Well, I am delighted that he is still with us - I am reminded of a faux pas committed at the Royal (South Coast) Yacht Club - a member asked to see the Secretary (my predecessor and also formerly of the Light Blue persuasion). "It's about the "obituary" notice on the board", he said "Yes" said the Secretary. "Could you at least wait until I am dead" said the member and stalked off

[langleybaston]

Robert Graves was startled to be able to read his obit. in The Times many many many years before his death. It obviously missed quite a lot out!