Originally Posted by
Asturias56
The paper said the Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) to a sea target off the west coast of Africa but veered towards the US.
Look, I know a lot of folks in the UK don't like a certain orange-haired person, but was that really necessary?
The cause of what went wrong remains top secret, the paper reported, but quoted a senior naval source as saying the missile suffered an in-flight malfunction after launching out of the water.
No kidding?
Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.
OK, that makes me feel better.
Originally Posted by
Procrastinus
"That is the missile itself. That is an American issue" Sounds like a warranty claim to me, but perhaps that it too simplistic
Maybe it's a homing missile. (See above, it apparently wanted to go home to the US where it was made.
Originally Posted by
Biggus
If our nuclear deterrent were ever used in anger then it would be "American" missiles that would be fired. While the technicalities of the missiles performance might well be an American responsibility, the ultimate success or failure of the mission is very much a UK concern. If the telemetry in a test missile fails, it raises the inevitable questions about the reliability of the components of a war shot missile (yes, I know war shot missiles aren't fitted with test telemetry).
Not just a UK concern but a NATO concern.
Trident: putting the D into Deterrence. (As in a letter grade ...)
I expect that the folks at SUBPAC and SUBLANT are asking a few questions about our stuff this morning.
