RN Trident failure
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.
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....
The following 4 users liked this post by 4321NMC:
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.
Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.
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).
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 309 Likes
on
143 Posts
This was the bit that stood out for me:
Well that's good to know
the missiles would usually be armed with a nuclear warhead but they are not fitted for test fires.
The following 6 users liked this post by Sue Vêtements:
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...
Two misses.
Great that the crew did their job though...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,884 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
I've seen it in several good films.. It always works.
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.
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.
The following 13 users liked this post by DaveReidUK:
The following 2 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,884 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,884 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
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.
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.
That’s a seriously long pitot tube on the missile, it puts the Jag to shame
Thread Starter
Not our problem - it belongs to the US.................
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,884 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Testing, Testing 1...2... oops, prepare 3...
Perhaps next time they should consider launching from shallower waters, that will make the recovery easier.
Perhaps next time they should consider launching from shallower waters, that will make the recovery easier.
Thread Starter
"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
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
Jack