7 ms·

I've read a couple of articles, and as I understand it a missile veered off course. During a test. Which is kind of the point of a test. Oh, except apparently

by misnome 10y ago

I've read a couple of articles, and as I understand it a missile veered off course. During a test. Which is kind of the point of a test. Oh, except apparently it 'veered' towards the US. And this was before the vote to renew, so naturally people are trying to call it a cover up.

NamTaf 10y ago
The test had intended to fire the missile towards the Atlantic. After launch, it turned around and flew the other way towards Florida. From the sibling posts's response I made: According to the Sunday Times, the unarmed Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) from the coast of Florida to a sea target off the west coast of Africa - but veered towards the US.
fidget 10y ago
It was before the vote to renew, and was not disclosed to people making that vote.
- dingaling 10y ago
  But the test and its result was orthogonal to the issue before Parliament. It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    It's more like discussing the Galaxy 7 strategy whist hiding that they are malfunctioning.
  - PaulKeeble 10y ago
    If the missles don't work I would argue that is pertinent information! Its all well and good discussing a strategy but if its based on a range of options where some are proven to work and some are apparently not working but its being covered up so they appear to work its subverted the entire process of oversight of government.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      The question is, whether they were covering it up a real problem there, or they just wanted to avoid some idiot higher-up completely overblowing the importance of a single incident. I can somewhat understand their thinking if the latter was the case, given that overblowing stuff way beyond their importance is what politicians do as a part of their jobs.
      - XorNot 10y ago
        Exactly - the point of a nuclear deterrant is to be credible, but never used. In a situation you need to launch, whether all the missiles work properly is irrelevant - you just need the majority of them to be assured to.
  - touristtam 10y ago
    That is so disingenuous. It's part of the Trident system that malfunctioned. Not just a specific consumer device.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    How is the correct and safe functioning of the system they are voting to renew "orthogonal"?
  - onion2k 10y ago
    It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'. It's more like an executive team discussing whether or not to equip the entire company with Galaxy Note 7 phones, and the CEO not mentioning the fires.
    - arethuza 10y ago
      Only if your expectation is that missiles work 100% of the time - which nobody really expects an individual component of any weapons system to work 100% of the time and is explicitly allowed for in the way nuclear weapons are targeted.
      - onion2k 10y ago
        I don't expect anything to work 100% of the time. I do expect a missile to fail in a way that wouldn't mean accidentally obliterating tens of thousands of people in the wrong country though. I would also expect a politician to mention that failure mode is a possibility when politicians are considering spending £30b on renewing it.
        arethuza 10y ago
        Personally I'm actually against the UK having nuclear weapons - but I can't get too excited about this particular incident. Missiles will go wrong, Trident actually has a fairly reasonable level of success and probably is far more reliable than equivalent weapons from other countries. It's a political mess not a military/technical one.
        rys 10y ago
        "probably" isn't a good enough standard when the weapon system can end hundreds of thousands of lives and is paid for by the taxpayer. And really it's the second thing that people are upset about. If renewing Trident cost a few hundreds of millions say, it'd likely be a non-issue. But it doesn't, so it isn't. That it might be unsafe is worth investigating given what's on the line.
Shivetya 10y ago
I am impressed how quickly they tried to spin it by claiming a successful test of the submarine and the crew. considering that the UK has four of these subs of which only one is on deployment it does beg the question, what is the point of such a fleet half or more is not in usable condition?
- evgen 10y ago
  Because you need to be able to have one boat in repair/refurbishment, one en route to deployment or returning from, and another being replenished and preparing for its next deployment. Four is a minimum to get by and as you increase the number of boats you still only get an on-station percentage less than 50%.

by misnome 10y ago

NamTaf 10y ago

The test had intended to fire the missile towards the Atlantic. After launch, it turned around and flew the other way towards Florida. From the sibling posts's response I made: According to the Sunday Times, the unarmed Trident II D5 missile was intended to be fired 5,600 miles (9,012 km) from the coast of Florida to a sea target off the west coast of Africa - but veered towards the US.

fidget 10y ago

It was before the vote to renew, and was not disclosed to people making that vote.

dingaling 10y ago
But the test and its result was orthogonal to the issue before Parliament. It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  It's more like discussing the Galaxy 7 strategy whist hiding that they are malfunctioning.
- PaulKeeble 10y ago
  If the missles don't work I would argue that is pertinent information! Its all well and good discussing a strategy but if its based on a range of options where some are proven to work and some are apparently not working but its being covered up so they appear to work its subverted the entire process of oversight of government.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    The question is, whether they were covering it up a real problem there, or they just wanted to avoid some idiot higher-up completely overblowing the importance of a single incident. I can somewhat understand their thinking if the latter was the case, given that overblowing stuff way beyond their importance is what politicians do as a part of their jobs.
    - XorNot 10y ago
      Exactly - the point of a nuclear deterrant is to be credible, but never used. In a situation you need to launch, whether all the missiles work properly is irrelevant - you just need the majority of them to be assured to.
- touristtam 10y ago
  That is so disingenuous. It's part of the Trident system that malfunctioned. Not just a specific consumer device.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  How is the correct and safe functioning of the system they are voting to renew "orthogonal"?
- onion2k 10y ago
  It's like an executive team discussing whether to adopt a mobile-first strategy and then someone blurts 'but Galaxy 7 phones caught fire!'. It's more like an executive team discussing whether or not to equip the entire company with Galaxy Note 7 phones, and the CEO not mentioning the fires.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Only if your expectation is that missiles work 100% of the time - which nobody really expects an individual component of any weapons system to work 100% of the time and is explicitly allowed for in the way nuclear weapons are targeted.
    - onion2k 10y ago
      I don't expect anything to work 100% of the time. I do expect a missile to fail in a way that wouldn't mean accidentally obliterating tens of thousands of people in the wrong country though. I would also expect a politician to mention that failure mode is a possibility when politicians are considering spending £30b on renewing it.
      - arethuza 10y ago
        Personally I'm actually against the UK having nuclear weapons - but I can't get too excited about this particular incident. Missiles will go wrong, Trident actually has a fairly reasonable level of success and probably is far more reliable than equivalent weapons from other countries. It's a political mess not a military/technical one.
        rys 10y ago
        "probably" isn't a good enough standard when the weapon system can end hundreds of thousands of lives and is paid for by the taxpayer. And really it's the second thing that people are upset about. If renewing Trident cost a few hundreds of millions say, it'd likely be a non-issue. But it doesn't, so it isn't. That it might be unsafe is worth investigating given what's on the line.

Shivetya 10y ago

I am impressed how quickly they tried to spin it by claiming a successful test of the submarine and the crew. considering that the UK has four of these subs of which only one is on deployment it does beg the question, what is the point of such a fleet half or more is not in usable condition?

evgen 10y ago
Because you need to be able to have one boat in repair/refurbishment, one en route to deployment or returning from, and another being replenished and preparing for its next deployment. Four is a minimum to get by and as you increase the number of boats you still only get an on-station percentage less than 50%.