RN Trident failure

[Asturias56]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395The test firing of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine has failed, for the second time in a row.

The latest test was carried out from HMS Vanguard off the east coast of the United States. The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site, according to the Sun (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26070479/trident-nuke-sub-missile-launch-fails/), which first reported the malfunction. When on patrol the missiles would usually be armed with a nuclear warhead but they are not fitted for test fires.

This is highly embarrassing for both the UK and the US manufacturer of the Trident missile. British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the costs. The price tag of each missile is around £17m. Both the Defence Secretary Grant Shapps and the head of the Navy were on board HMS Vanguard when it fired the unarmed test missile in January.

It was supposed to have flown several thousand miles before landing harmlessly in the Atlantic between Brazil and West Africa. Instead the missile dropped into the ocean near to where it was launched. The previous test from a UK submarine in 2016 also ended in failure, when the missile veered off course. At the time, the Sunday Times reported that the test fire was launched from HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida.

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.

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.

In a statement the Ministry of Defence admitted an anomaly had occurred in the most recent launch. But it also said that HMS Vanguard and its crew had been "proven fully capable" in their operations and the test had "reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK's nuclear deterrent". The statement added that Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.

[typerated]

Cant believe this is public - Beadwindow?

[Biggus]

"Beadwindow"?

That's just SO 1980's! Get with the program, we wash all our dirty linen in public these days. Also, best you tell the BBC, who currently have it as a lead story.

No doubt it will also be discussed in the Houses of Parliament soon.

[ORAC]

Three points to make here.

1. This was a DASO test for HMS Vanguard which tests the onboard procedures for lunching a missile, it passed. The test concluded the moment cleared the missile tube. Vanguard is now qualified and will rejoin the patrol schedule as planned.

2. This was an American telemetry missile, no different from any of those used in any other test firing of which there have been dozens, this is not a generic fault and should not generate alarm about the missile in general, certainly not the operation missiles on patrol.

3. What is known of the investigation* into the previous failure indicates it was a telemetry issue which automatically terminated the test by preventing the booster ignition. Where the telemetry problem occurred will undoubtedly not be released, but a second occurrence, if related, will probably mean changes to test equipment and/or procedures - but not related to the operations of the deterrent itself.

* https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/6604/html/

Q20 Douglas Chapman: Can I ask a very quick question about Vengeance? Sir Michael Fallon made it clear yesterday that it was back in operation and had been certified and so on. Where a problem exists, such as misfiring or the issue we had with this particular launch, how can that be certified as being okay in terms of its ability to do the job it is required to do if there had been a failure in the test? Who would tick the box and sign that off? Does it go as far as the Prime Minister, or is it at a more naval end?

Lord West: Well, it would never be the team on their own. Basically, the submarine was put in the right position. It was in the right mode. Everything was done correctly, with all the right firing checks. Everything was done internally and the missile was fired. It fired properly and went up in the air, so that was a correct firing. You know that you will fire a missile properly. From everything that has been said, it sounds as though there was an issue with telemetry within that missile. If you are not 100% certain, you do not even take a risk. It sounds as though they were not 100% certain of some of the telemetry and therefore took it down. That is the missile itself. That is an American issue.

[Procrastinus]

"That is the missile itself. That is an American issue"
Sounds like a warranty claim to me, but perhaps that it too simplistic

[pr00ne]

Nevertheless our sole nuclear deterrent has failed the last twice that it was tested.
Some deterrent…

[Uberteknik]

Exactly ORAC. Reported correctly on the BBC Radio4 'Today' news broadcast this morning. The test proved correct operation of the system with the 'anomally' caused by eroneous telemetry resulting in a correct fail-safe termination.

No doubt the anti-nuclear deterrent brigade ^^, political opposition parties, Kremlin, PRC et.al. will push the 'embarrassing failure' and 'useless waste of taxpayers money' narrative.

Yet more slaps on Putin's collective SMO success back.

[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 ultimmate 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).

[Low average]

I don't find 2 failed tests reassuring at all, no matter how many excuses they can throw at it.

The events of the last 2 years have highlighted the importance of the Nuclear deterrent to our safety and has proven we were absolutely right to see off the CND/Greenham Common lot when they sought to leave us defenceless...much to Putin's disappointment.

[Asturias56]

"Beadwindow"?

That's just SO 1980's! Get with the program, we wash all our dirty linen in public these days. Also, best you tell the BBC, who currently have it as a lead story.

No doubt it will also be discussed in the Houses of Parliament soon.
And Grant Shapps was on board - I'm sure he would keep it secret..... ;)

[Asturias56]

Nevertheless our sole nuclear deterrent has failed the last twice that it was tested.
Some deterrent…

It's not a good look - especially after the well known issues elsewhere in the RN.

[ORAC]

There have been 192 test firings of the D5, which are drawn from a common pool of missiles, of which 10 are acknowledged as having failed. Several of these have been terminated due to telemetry issues for safety reasons. That’s about a 95% success rate.

I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.

Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/697x960/ovrrvimtyne61_b2db7e55efdd9af93fd16dd007b3b5a759259c63.jpg

[Low average]

If we can't even successfully fire telemetry rounds, it points to deeper issues and lowers my confidence that we're capable of vaporising Moscow or Beijing from thousands of miles away.

That said, I still think there is a deterrent, as the Russians and Chinese can never be quite sure whether at least one will work!

Something needs fixing, perhaps divert funding from the carriers?

[superplum]

There have been 192 test firings of the D5, which are drawn from a common pool of missiles, of which 10 are acknowledged as having failed. Several of these have been terminated due to telemetry issues for safety reasons. That’s about a 95% success rate.

I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.

Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.



Is Fujitsu involved?

[bugged on the right]

Low average, I wonder if they actually care? The way Russia has thrown its troops into human wave attacks would they would give a hoot about the civilian population being vaporised. After all the leaders must have billions stashed away and will be the seed population for the new Russia.

[NutLoose]

They don't call it a Trident for nothing you know, third time lucky. ;)

[NutLoose]

Low average, I wonder if they actually care? The way Russia has thrown its troops into human wave attacks would they would give a hoot about the civilian population being vaporised. After all the leaders must have billions stashed away and will be the seed population for the new Russia.


Those billions post WW3 will just be good for one thing, toilet paper.

[bugged on the right]

Well I know it will be a very long time before Natasha and Svetlana get a shopping trip to Paris or Genady will be able to leave the yacht and ponce about the prom in Nice but I once read that the Russians were very patient and were prepared to gradually grind the West down. Perhaps they will have to wait for several half lives?

[DuncanDoenitz]

"That is the missile itself. That is an American issue"
Sounds like a warranty claim to me, but perhaps that it too simplistic
Definitely a warranty issue. In the post-apocalyptic armageddon, however, not sure where we should send any additional claims; Lockheed Martin being a smoking crater in what used to be California.

[Kiltrash]

Surely better to have a failure in Test mode, and let Moscow etc know we are still have a active system? however what benefit to having the Dec Sec on board, unless a cunning plan to say we need more money?





​​​

[Low average]

Low average, I wonder if they actually care? The way Russia has thrown its troops into human wave attacks would they would give a hoot about the civilian population being vaporised. After all the leaders must have billions stashed away and will be the seed population for the new Russia.

Well, I think they would like us to believe they're suicidal, but I've not seen any evidence for that, just a lot of propoganda.

Also, they've done a good job of protecting their Regular forces by sending prisoners, homeless, migrants, mercenaries and peasant conscripts into human wave attacks.

I fear we may be drifting away from the topic of this thread though....

[4321NMC]

The operation was a success but the patient died?

[Lonewolf_50]

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? :}:E
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.
"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. :E:}
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 ...) :mad:
I expect that the folks at SUBPAC and SUBLANT are asking a few questions about our stuff this morning. :confused:

[Fortissimo]

If we can't even successfully fire telemetry rounds, it points to deeper issues and lowers my confidence that we're capable of vaporising Moscow or Beijing from thousands of miles away.

ORAC has covered this in his previous posts. Adding telemetry also adds a different layer of complexity but the telemetry is there to measure performance and allow intervention in the event of a malfunction after launch. Without the telemetry you cannot guarantee the misssile is performing as expected, and you cannot intervene if it is not, which means your safety calculus (risk to 3rd parties, geo-political effects, etc.) becomes invalid unless you know even a malfunctioning missile will stay within the range safety trace.

You might expect a salvage or destroy in situ op will be under way, and any investigation will look at the data to determine exactly where/why the termination happened. I hope we will not be told the outcome, because we do not need to know. Warshots of any weapon can and do fail, and it would be reasonable to expect there to be a back-up process in the event a launch against a primary target fails at an early stage. It would be even more reasonable to expect it will not be discussed on PPrune.

The fact that the crew was able to execute a firing at the end of a complex chain of events should raise confidence rather than lower it - every other time they have run this sequence it will have been a simulation or a 'switches safe' practice.

[Sue Vêtements]

This was the bit that stood out for me:

the missiles would usually be armed with a nuclear warhead but they are not fitted for test fires.

Well that's good to know

[Low average]

Sorry Fortissimo, but 2 successive failures does not raise confidence in my opinion. In 2017 the target was off the West Coast of Africa - it went in the opposite direction, and now again something has happened on this attempt.

Two misses.

Great that the crew did their job though...

The fact that the crew was able to execute a firing at the end of a complex chain of events should raise confidence rather than lower it - every other time they have run this sequence it will have been a simulation or a 'switches safe' practice.

[NutLoose]

however what benefit to having the Dec Sec on board, unless a cunning plan to say we need more money?

​​​

Possibly as a countermeasure in case of attack, they could flush him out of the Torpedo Tube with some waste oil and a pile of dirty underwear.

I've seen it in several good films.. It always works.

[BFSGrad]

Three points to make here.
3. What is known of the investigation* into the previous failure indicates it was a telemetry issue which automatically terminated the test by preventing the booster ignition. Where the telemetry problem occurred will undoubtedly not be released, but a second occurrence, if related, will probably mean changes to test equipment and/or procedures - but not related to the operations of the deterrent itself.If accurate, the news reports stating that there was no 1st stage ignition would seem to eliminate faulty telemetry as a potential cause of the failure. It would also indicate that there was no activation of the flight termination system; i.e., there was no human safety intervention to terminate the missile flight.

[DaveReidUK]

When asked to confirm that the test had involved a dummy, the MoD stated that Grant Shapps had indeed been on board.

(credit: HIGNFY)

[minigundiplomat]

Can’t blame the RAF for moving Australia this time…..,

[NutLoose]

If accurate, the news reports stating that there was no 1st stage ignition would seem to eliminate faulty telemetry as a potential cause of the failure. It would also indicate that there was no activation of the flight termination system; i.e., there was no human safety intervention to terminate the missile flight.

Someone forgot to light the blue touchpaper?

[NutLoose]

There have been 192 test firings of the D5, which are drawn from a common pool of missiles, of which 10 are acknowledged as having failed. Several of these have been terminated due to telemetry issues for safety reasons. That’s about a 95% success rate.

I think knowing we have a boat at sea with between 8-12 missiles with a 95%+ success rate counts as a deterrent.

Reference the difference between firing a DASO telemetry round and an operational round, the photo below is of Vanguard with the DASO telemetry mast for a test firing. If there is an issue it’s probably related to either the hardware or software interface between the test equipment, missile, sub and shore flight termination system than the missile itself.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/697x960/ovrrvimtyne61_b2db7e55efdd9af93fd16dd007b3b5a759259c63.jpg


That’s a seriously long pitot tube on the missile, it puts the Jag to shame ;)

[BFSGrad]

Ancillary question is when and how will the Brits will recover the dud missile. I don’t think it’s a floater.

[Asturias56]

Not our problem - it belongs to the US.................

[The Helpful Stacker]

Can’t blame the RAF for moving Australia this time…..,

Perhaps the Andrew should consider moving their proposed targets a bit closer to their boats?

It'd certainly be of benefit to both their SSBNs and aircraft carrying barges.

[Lomon]

Sorry Fortissimo, but 2 successive failures does not raise confidence in my opinion.

What we don't know is how many test article missiles have been launched successfully or not by the USN in that time?

Just because we have had two failures in 8 years the USN could have launched 10, 20 or even more with a 100% success rate. The weapons all come from a shared pool so it really could be just bad luck that we got two faulty units.

[artee]

What we don't know is how many test article missiles have been launched successfully or not by the USN in that time?

Just because we have had two failures in 8 years the USN could have launched 10, 20 or even more with a 100% success rate. The weapons all come from a shared pool so it really could be just bad luck that we got two faulty units.
ORAC covers that upthread here: https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/657713-rn-trident-failure.html#post11601255

[NutLoose]

Testing, Testing 1...2... oops, prepare 3...

Perhaps next time they should consider launching from shallower waters, that will make the recovery easier.

[Asturias56]

"it really could be just bad luck that we got two faulty units."

of course but we also got 2 faulty carriers, at least one dodgy Astute and 6 faulty T45's

"Mr Bond - once is happenstance, twice is co-coincidence, three times is enemy action" - Auric Goldfinger

[Union Jack]

"it really could be just bad luck that we got two faulty units."

of course but we also got 2 faulty carriers, at least one dodgy Astute and 6 faulty T45's

"Mr Bond - once is happenstance, twice is co-coincidence, three times is enemy action" - Auric Goldfinger
Oh dear Mr Asturias, did you get out the wrong side of your civilian bed this morning? Not like you at all, especially coming from a welcome "honorary" member of this forum!:D

Jack

[The Helpful Stacker]

Oh dear Mr Asturias, did you get out the wrong side of your civilian bed this morning? Not like you at all, especially coming from a welcome "honorary" member of this forum!:D

Jack

Ad hominem...
​​​​​

[Asturias56]

If I bought 3 vehicles and they all had reliability issues I'd be worried - so I think its reasonable to ask what is going on.

It is quite possible that lack of investment over the years in maintenance, in facilities and in people is a part of the problem

PS I wouldn't want to be Admiral Kay- Mr Shapps has a well deserved reputation for holding a grudge ......................;)

[Union Jack]

Ad hominem...
​​​​​
No, not really, Stacks, especially when complete with the emoji concerned, and Asturias doesn't seem to be too bothered. I might also add that I write as someone who was in the control room of an SSBN when a similar event occurred - although the missile got a lot further before the destruct ordnance was initiated! - and so I am perhaps a little sensitive about the title of the thread, which should perhaps more realistically read "USN/RN Trident failure" in view of the missile's origin.

Jack

[BFSGrad]

What we don't know is how many test article missiles have been launched successfully or not by the USN in that time?

Just because we have had two failures in 8 years the USN could have launched 10, 20 or even more with a 100% success rate. The weapons all come from a shared pool so it really could be just bad luck that we got two faulty units.
The U.S. rate of test successes (or failures) is not directly extensible to the UK. A Trident missile test is the ultimate end-to-end test (minus the “boom”) that depends on the entire system, not just the missile. While the U.S. and UK systems overlap almost entirely in hardware and software, there are also the system components of maintenance and operation where the U.S. and UK systems largely diverge. Any of these components can contribute to a missile test failure.

As to the quip in post #34 (it’s not our problem…), what a wonderful attitude from a partner in a 60-year program critical to UK strategic security. But the reality is that the U.S. likely will recover the dud missile simply because the U.S. can and the UK can not.

[NutLoose]

How deep is it?

BTW we just recovered a Bell for you.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/february/13/20240213-bell-from-famous-us-destroyer-sunk-off-scillies-returned-to-its-owners

We have the capability down to 2,000 meters
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-salmo-uses-new-rov-for-wartime-wreck-recovery

[ORAC]

So, who wants to recover a solid fuelled booster stage where it’s uncertain what stopped it igniting, and what might restart the sequence?

[nevillestyke]

At least it didn't come down near Staines.

[Dan Gerous]

Out of curiosity, would the sub firing the Trident be the one with the telemetry mast fitted, and can a Trident be launched from the surface, or would it be fired sub surface then the sub surface and the mast raised?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/697x960/ovrrvimtyne61_b2db7e55efdd9af93fd16dd007b3b5a759259c63.jpg

[BFSGrad]

Out of curiosity, would the sub firing the Trident be the one with the telemetry mast fitted, and can a Trident be launched from the surface, or would it be fired sub surface then the sub surface and the mast raised?The DASO mast is not a normal piece of kit for either US or UK SSBNs. It is fitted only for the DASO missile test and then removed. Yes, the sub with the DASO mast so fitted is the sub that fires the missile. Launching from the surface defeats the whole purpose of being a submarine. For the DASO test, the sub is submerged at launch depth, which allows the top portion of the mast to remain about the surface providing connectivity with other test range assets. The DASO missile test is used only (at least for the US) for the ship/crew to gain/re-gain certification; i.e., new construction or after an overhaul.

[Spunky Monkey]

With the Norkers happily wanging missiles on a monthly basis towards Japan, there will be a lot of navel gazing in the West, while in Russia, China, Norkers and Iran, they will be laughing into their collective tea.
I am very much surprised that this was actually made public, after all, I can't see our collective foe being able to track our test launches.
Unless we let everyone know we are conducting a test and all they see on their monitors is a huge whale fart, a float popping to the surface and it all goes quiet.

Perhaps we could have spun this like the Kremlin and said that it was a test of our new Double-Secret Super-Hypersonic Trident that flies with such speed and stealth its invisible to radar and doesn't make a splash.

[Finningley Boy]

Incidentally, is it the case that German Tiffies and their future Dave As are/will be capable of carrying a nuclear device? B61 or whatever will follow it?!

FB

[BFSGrad]

I am very much surprised that this was actually made public, after all, I can't see our collective foe being able to track our test launches. Unless we let everyone know we are conducting a test and all they see on their monitors is a huge whale fart, a float popping to the surface and it all goes quiet.
Impossible to keep a missile test “quiet” for several reasons:

1. For U.S. missile tests, the U.S. still provides notifications to Russia under the 1988 Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement.
2. For U.S. and UK sub missile tests, Notice to Mariners (and NOTAM) are announced with closure areas for the launch zone.
3. A large ballistic missile after launch makes a highly detectable thermal signature. Any country with the appropriate space-based assets can detect such an event.

Easier to keep the results of a missile test quiet, which is what the Brits did for the 2016 test.

[falcon900]

The comments re the DASO telemetry monitoring are interesting, but surely highlight that the “ nothing to see here, we were only really testing the bit about spitting it out of the boat” is somewhat disingenuous.
Of course tests sometimes don’t work, but two in a row is for sure concerning, the more so given the suggestion that the rounds are selected at random from a pool . Based on what has been said about the demonstrated reliability levels of the pool, the statistics would tend to point at the launcher rather than the launchee, so to speak.
Still, I suppose it’s not the end of the world…..
Hat, coat……!

[tdracer]

Impossible to keep a missile test “quiet” for several reasons:

1. For U.S. missile tests, the U.S. still provides notifications to Russia under the 1988 Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement.
2. For U.S. and UK sub missile tests, Notice to Mariners (and NOTAM) are announced with closure areas for the launch zone.
3. A large ballistic missile after launch makes a highly detectable thermal signature. Any country with the appropriate space-based assets can detect such an event.

Easier to keep the results of a missile test quiet, which is what the Brits did for the 2016 test.

There is also the issue that you need to let people know you're doing it, lest the other side mistake it for an actual attack and respond in kind :eek:.

Granted, NK has never been worried about that part, although I suspect they think of that more of a feature than a bug...

[Asturias56]

Many years ago Senora A was at a conference in Las Vegas (that's her story...) when the breakfast table was set a-jingling.

"Earthquake?" she asked the waiter - "yes & no ma'am - it's the Brits testing one of their nuclear warheads underground".................. ahh the good old days..............

[artee]

Ad hominem...
​​​​​
If Asturias were a female would that be an ad womanem? :hmm:

[DuncanDoenitz]

Out of curiosity, would the sub firing the Trident be the one with the telemetry mast fitted, and can a Trident be launched from the surface, or would it be fired sub surface then the sub surface and the mast raised?

Don't think so. Chemical motor ignition occurs after the missile has breached the surface; the force which ejects the missile from its tube and clear of the water is in the form of a massive bubble of steam, assisted to some extent by the missile's bouyancy. Can't see that happening if the sub is on the surface and the silo is dry.

[Biggus]

So how do/did Russian SLBMs work?

I seem to remember talk of Typhoon SSBNs lurking beneath the polar ice cap for safety, behind a protective screen of SSNs and where they can't be reached by aircraft/helos, but surfacing, breaking through the ice, to launch their missiles.

So presumably they could fire while surfaced?

[DuncanDoenitz]

Not my speciallist subject I must add, but I can't see it happening. Terrestrial based ICBMs are housed in concrete silos which can tolerate the high temperatures and pressures of an initial boost-phase motor, as well as accommodating ducting for the exhaust gasses. Can't see that on a surfaced sub where the weapons are packed in like sardines, and I don't know how else you are going to get the missile far enough from the host vessel to avoid damage.

[BEagle]

German Tiffies and their future Dave As

Please don't contaminate this thread with spotter slang!

I assume you mean Eurofighters and F-35As?

[Recc]

Not my speciallist subject I must add, but I can't see it happening. Terrestrial based ICBMs are housed in concrete silos which can tolerate the high temperatures and pressures of an initial boost-phase motor, as well as accommodating ducting for the exhaust gasses. Can't see that on a surfaced sub where the weapons are packed in like sardines, and I don't know how else you are going to get the missile far enough from the host vessel to avoid damage.

I don't think the only other option is to hot-launch the missile! Being on the surface does not preclude the launch tubes from being flooded, and in any case public-source information suggests that the steam generator is separate from the launch tube. It is more complex than surface-only cold-launch systems because it has to work underwater, but there is no reason to think that it wouldn't work on the surface.

[DogTailRed2]

Isn't it a good thing the nukes don't work? Maybe their failure will ultimately save us all. Okay that's a joke but hoping your nukes work is kind of funny in a weird way.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Incidentally, is it the case that German Tiffies and their future Dave As are/will be capable of carrying a nuclear device? B61 or whatever will follow it?!

FB
Luftwaffe Eurofighter will not carry nuclear weapons - making the necessary changes to the weapon system and electrical systems - and then the US certification - would be prohibitively expensive.

Germany has bought the F-35A specifically to replace the Tornado IDS that are in the Dual Capable Aircraft (DCA) role as part of the NATO Nuclear Sharing Program with B61.

All B61 in the NATO Nuclear Sharing Program will eventually be B61-12 which the F-35A is already certified to carry.

The specialist USAF C-17A transport unit for nuclear weapons has already been certified to move B61-12 as cargo to facilitate the changeover.

All other NATO countries that participate in the NATO Nuclear Sharing Program are replacing their F-16Cs with F-35A as well - Belgium, Netherlands, Italy.