Admiral Lord West Trident demands
Thread Starter
Admiral Lord West Trident demands
What are our views on the Admiral's comments?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...rth-korea-over
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...rth-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.
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.
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.
You can see the clip here
Theresa May refuses to answer questions on Trident 'misfire' - BBC News
Her evasions look like a smoking gun to me.
airsound
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.”
“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.”
Theresa May refuses to answer questions on Trident 'misfire' - BBC News
Her evasions look like a smoking gun to me.
airsound
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-cove...e-veers-to-us/
The reality is that things happen, and "all concerned" were/are, no doubt, monitoring such launches and did not cry outloud.
Here is one more article, from a former dominion: http://shoofee.ca/2017/01/22/uk-cove...e-veers-to-us/
The reality is that things happen, and "all concerned" were/are, no doubt, monitoring such launches and did not cry outloud.
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
airsound
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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... 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well Orac, unlike on test missiles there isn't a 'whoops, its gone off-course' destruct button for the real things
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.
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.
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.
(I did write it was "according to The Sunday Times"... Journalistic accuracy strikes again.) 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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........."
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........."
Not sure you want to tell your enemies too clearly that your missiles suck rather than blow!
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.
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.
Airsound
The debate was to renew the submarines not the missile which has just had a warhead upgrade in the UK.
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?
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A Van is correct.
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
The reality is that things happen, and "all concerned" were/are, no doubt, monitoring such launches and did not cry outloud.
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
Air Pig
As a lowly long-retired officer, and an even lowlier journo, I merely quote the Prime Minister (as above):
airsound
debate was to renew the submarines not the missile
“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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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 . . . "
Probably why we mere mortals have to remember the mantra "It is not HMG policy to confirm or deny . . . "