|
Originally Posted by bugged on the right
(Post 11601353)
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 operation was a success but the patient died?
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11601161)
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. Trident was the "most reliable weapons system in the world" having completed more than 190 successful tests.
Originally Posted by Procrastinus
(Post 11601204)
"That is the missile itself. That is an American issue" Sounds like a warranty claim to me, but perhaps that it too simplistic
Originally Posted by Biggus
(Post 11601212)
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 ...) :mad: I expect that the folks at SUBPAC and SUBLANT are asking a few questions about our stuff this morning. :confused: |
Originally Posted by Low average
(Post 11601271)
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.
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. |
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. |
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...
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
(Post 11601401)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Kiltrash
(Post 11601369)
however what benefit to having the Dec Sec on board, unless a cunning plan to say we need more money?
I've seen it in several good films.. It always works. |
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11601197)
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. |
When asked to confirm that the test had involved a dummy, the MoD stated that Grant Shapps had indeed been on board.
(credit: HIGNFY) |
Can’t blame the RAF for moving Australia this time…..,
|
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
(Post 11601558)
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.
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 11601255)
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....a759259c63.jpg That’s a seriously long pitot tube on the missile, it puts the Jag to shame ;) |
Ancillary question is when and how will the Brits will recover the dud missile. I don’t think it’s a floater.
|
Not our problem - it belongs to the US.................
|
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
(Post 11601762)
Can’t blame the RAF for moving Australia this time…..,
It'd certainly be of benefit to both their SSBNs and aircraft carrying barges. |
Originally Posted by Low average
(Post 11601439)
Sorry Fortissimo, but 2 successive failures does not raise confidence in my opinion.
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. |
Originally Posted by Lomon
(Post 11601967)
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. |
Testing, Testing 1...2... oops, prepare 3...
Perhaps next time they should consider launching from shallower waters, that will make the recovery easier. |
"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 |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11601986)
"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 Jack |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.