Originally Posted by Union Jack
(Post 11601996)
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 |
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 ......................;) |
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker
(Post 11602137)
Ad hominem...
Jack |
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. 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. |
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 |
So, who wants to recover a solid fuelled booster stage where it’s uncertain what stopped it igniting, and what might restart the sequence?
|
Off Target.
At least it didn't come down near Staines.
|
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....a759259c63.jpg |
Originally Posted by Dan Gerous
(Post 11602297)
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?
|
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. |
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 |
Originally Posted by Spunky Monkey
(Post 11602338)
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 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……! |
Originally Posted by BFSGrad
(Post 11602408)
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. Granted, NK has never been worried about that part, although I suspect they think of that more of a feature than a bug... |
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.............. |
Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker
(Post 11602137)
Ad hominem...
|
Originally Posted by Dan Gerous
(Post 11602297)
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?
|
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? |
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? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:45. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.