RN Trident failure
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
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 ......................
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 ......................
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
Jack
The following 2 users liked this post by Union Jack:
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.
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.
The following 2 users liked this post by BFSGrad:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,882 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
How deep is it?
BTW we just recovered a Bell for you.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-to-its-owners
We have the capability down to 2,000 meters
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...wreck-recovery
BTW we just recovered a Bell for you.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-to-its-owners
We have the capability down to 2,000 meters
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...wreck-recovery
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So, who wants to recover a solid fuelled booster stage where it’s uncertain what stopped it igniting, and what might restart the sequence?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes
on
17 Posts
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.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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
FB
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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……!
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……!
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
.Granted, NK has never been worried about that part, although I suspect they think of that more of a feature than a bug...
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
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..............
"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..............
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?
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?
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.
German Tiffies and their future Dave As
I assume you mean Eurofighters and F-35As?