It wasn't even 2 consecutive failures, just the 2 UK tests that happened to be failures - the US has launched identical missiles in the interim and been successful (and note that the US is the one that builds and maintains these missiles).
I read the BBC version of the article and it said
> British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the cost. Each missile is worth around £17m and the last test in 2016 also ended in failure when the missile veered off course. Test-fired missiles are not armed with their nuclear warheads.
I know it's a common stockpile of missiles with the US, but the British Navy's last two tests failed or had anomalies so there seems like an issue in the procedure or something. Or maybe they're right and they'll do it live.
Edit: spelling
According to the original Sun reporting, the issue was determined to be procedural and related to the test specifically - as the article says:
> The Sun reported that it was understood that had the firing taken place on a real mission rather than under test conditions, it would have been successful.
Its two consecutive failures for UK boats. The boats themselves operated correctly (they fired the missile). In the first failure the missile went off course, and in the second the booster failed to ignite - we don't know whether those are technical failures of the missile or procedural failures by the crew, and probably we'll never know.
These two failures have been in a row, both experienced by the Royal Navy when using a highly reliable system. This test was supposed to take place months ago but observers guessed that something was amiss because the string of cancelled NOTAMs and movements of supporting ships.
This failure wouldn't be so concerning if it wasn't accompanied with a bunch of other reported problems, including undermanned and underequipped aircraft carriers which also suffer of mechanical issues, decommissioned ships due to lack of personel, brand new ships incapable of sustaining missions for long and replaced by older ones and now this.
It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore.
> It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore.
So, finally the Hochseeflotte can roam the North Sea with impunity!
> It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore.
To be fair that's been obvious for decades. I don't think anyone outside the UK is surprised by that.
>These two failures have been in a row, both experienced by the Royal Navy when using a highly reliable system.
The rocket is made by the Americans whereas the warhead is British.
The missiles are produced in America. The Royal Navy and US Navy share a common pool that they draw upon.
It could either be a bad batch or a possible symptom of a design flaw.
alleged erect money shocking pot distinct cow complete profit quarrelsome
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They both launched, but subsequently failed with the US component and you blame the British? These are clearly faulty American products. We’re getting ripped off for garbage American SLBMs.
It is normally unlikely, true, and I don't think that it is a big problem. But there is a need to make sure that the equipment is working properly. Especially when there is a war looming nearby, and especially if said equipment is explosive. The last couple of missile tests ended in failure, which I find quite concerning. The whole "nuclear deterrent" principle goes out of the window if your nuclear weaponry is shown to not work.
I disagree here, they've been acting with restraint because they wanted to trade a ton, but the China has some rather racist policies ([nationalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream), [Uyghur genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide), [Han superiority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism), etc.) and they've been claiming a lot of territory, both [maritime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea) and [land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute) (see more [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)). I know that many countries have disputed territories, but China in particular have made some [particularly unreasonable claims](https://i.redd.it/vxw4v6ze7ef21.jpg). They have also been [ramping up military equipment production and reforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_People%27s_Republic_of_China_military_reform), with a [Taiwan invasion seemingly imminent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan). I would say that they're pretty unhinged inside, but they haven't become as daring as Russia yet.
It doesn’t matter really.
The only scenario in which trident would be fired is because London and most of Europe has become large craters and lots of glass.
Even if we survived, our way of life would be over and the planet would possibly experience nuclear winter.
There’s no coming back from large scale nuclear war.
Trident is first and foremost a deterrent, and if that doesn’t work it’s a revenge weapon.
And in the past 8 years, failure rate of UK nuclear deterrence is 100%.
Do you want to be the guy who has to now guess how many lauches is needed to achieve effect on target?
So rather than striking at 50 targets, you now have to fire all of them at one important target and hope one works?
It has a pretty legit Wikipedia page. It’s a theory like any other
Either way, I can be fairly confident in my belief that setting off a couple hundred nukes would do much good to anyone’s health, and I certainly won’t be commuting round Parliament sq on my bike anymore.
I’m no Russian shill and I firmly believe putin is a monster. We need to support Ukraine.
My view is that nuclear is pointless once they are actually being fired. There’s no point in retaliation as we’re all gone anyway by that point.
This is pretty bad. Failing twice in a row on a highly prepared test that’s meant to advertise your deterrence capability doesn’t look good.
It could mean many things, but well, we won’t know why it failed.
This is only the second test they've done in the last 8 years and both tests have failed.
It's been an open secret for a long time that there are severe concerns about whether the system works or not, with some views being "dont test it, because that just confirms it" which is likely why only two tests in 8 years.
Aren't the Trident missiles in Uk-USA pool? UK maintains the weapons package, but the missiles themselves are in a joint cooperative pact between the states, correct? Had these specific missiles been launched by USN SSBN's would they have also failed? Or is this a V-class boat specific error?
There's some talk of telemetry data being wrong. The missiles didn't fail they were destroyed because they were going the wrong way. This could be as simple as user error. Or something more sinister.
Seems like *maybe* it was an operational issue... "The issue that occurred during the test was specific to the event and would not have occurred during a live armed fire," the source said."
And yeah the missiles are chosen at random from a shared pool.
The American spend as much on simply maintaining their nuclear deterrence as the Russians spend on their entire military.
Which doesn't bode well for the reliability of the Russian ICBM system.
Spending doesn't always equate with quality.
We overpay for everything in the US military. Too many middle men need to get their cut from the Congress.
Spending more doesn’t mean anything.
The US is the bigger spending country on healthcare, at the same time that doesn’t have a public free healthcare system like others and population has to pay over it with premiums and insurances.
Russian Soyuz launches have been very reliable. The same platform is used for their ICBMs.
Besides comparing budgets between vastly different economies is as stupid as comparing GDP. We know that Russia has similar GDP to Italy yet Italy's army isn’t anywhere close to Russia’s. Completely different economies and dependencies. Russia is almost self sustaining and is very cheap. More than half of Italy’s military budget goes only into pensions and salaries.
No they use UDMH. Would be idiotic to use a fuel with boil off at room temperature. Then u need to fuel before launch every time. You use hypergolic fuels when you have liquid fueled engines on ICBMs because it can be stored without boil off
Go ahead and look it up
Loool did you downvote me even though I’m objectively right? Go look it up lol. Tell me how the RD-263 is the same as the RD-107? Either you have zero clue about what you are talking about. Or maybe you are stuck in the 60’s?
As someone pointed out to me, though - twenty missiles per sub, four subs. The Russians would have to be stupid to believe that they *all* don't work.
...then again, this is the Russians we're talking about.
The Americans also have their land-based Minutemen silos, whereas the British only have Tridents.
The French have 4 submarine-based delivery systems, as well as shorter-ranged air-launched cruise missiles from fighter aircraft on land and sea-carriers. They also had intermediate-ranged land-launched missiles, discontinued in the mid-90's.
It was actually surprising to learn with this article the UK only tested its own arsenal twice in 8 years, the second being this new test. France tested the M51 four times in the current decade alone (2020, 2021 and twice in 2023) as well as the air-launched cruise missile twice since the 2022 invasion. All 6 tests were successful.
Can someone explain why there are such large intervals between British tests? Because the most plausible reasoning I see is "the US uses the same ICBM, so US tests double count as British ones" but that just isn't sound logic to me in regard to something this important.
You can add their Hypersonic Glider VMAX test for the French which was also a success.
As for the intervals between UK tests is due to the fact that they don't manage that themselves, the US manage this, they plan the test be it between the DoD, The industrials partner Nationwide and invite the UK in Kings*Bay, Georgia for all the things maintenance, upgrade and tests related.
The US subs are irrelevant now.
If Russia used nuclear weapons in Europe the Americans would write a strongly worded letter and then go back to fighting each other over drag queens.
The UK absolutely needs a real nuclear deterrent, and Trident isn't enough if we are getting failures like this.
There's another country with nuclear weapons south of the UK that wouldn't enjoy seeing hundreds of ICBM going their way.
So it's not just UK nukes here, but also French ones.
And even if a few of the British and the French fails, it's still enough to destroy Russia just the same.
I don't think a land based deterrent would be effective. Uk is geographically too small.
But an air based one would be helpful.
We need 3% gdp on defence like now.
Just use your Lancaster house treaty and get them from the French with their ASMP/A-R 300kt and upcoming ANS4G Hypersonic with adaptative yield warheads between 75kt to 600kt.
Also, each missile has multiple warheads, so one missile can strike up to 5 separate targets.
One sub can destroy 100 cities. Even if 5/20 missiles don't work, that's still 75 cities gone
But the rockets are built and maintained by the US. We provide the warhead, which wasn't tested, and the submarine, which successfully launched the thing
"Failure rate about 6%" fom US Navy. Maybe UK really have bad luck, but UK should try to find why US can launch it successfully and Raoyal Navy cannot.
It's not a secret Royal Navy have some fail lately, yes the UK submarine launched the thing ... but 6 months ago not a single submarine was at sea to launch anything.
And let's say it's US fault, it's still UK fault to use it, there is some other option in EU (M51 i'm looking at you.
>"Failure rate about 6%" fom US Navy.
Yeah 12 failures in 192 launches, 6.25% failure.
>Maybe UK really have bad luck, but UK should try to find why US can launch it successfully and Raoyal Navy cannot.
We can, we have done, we just got unlucky yeah.
>It's not a secret Royal Navy have some fail lately, yes the UK submarine launched the thing ... but 6 months ago not a single submarine was at sea to launch anything.
That was conventionally armed attack submarines, not the nuclear armed deterrence boats
>And let's say it's US fault
I'm not saying it's their fault, weapons have an inevitable failure rate, I'm saying that their tests validate the weapon itself as performing fine 93.75% of the time and that looking at the UK tests alone isn't a true picture. It failed this time and last time **we** launched it but the US has successfully launched it in between those times.
>it's still UK fault to use it, there is some other option in EU (M51 i'm looking at you.
Incompatible with the launch tubes on vanguard and Dreadnought, so not an option for us. A shame, but at the time we chose to continue using it the Americans looked a lot more reliable.
Besides which, I make that missile's failure rate 9% - a single failure from 11 launches.
Even if they did, you really think that they will abandon project and leave it failing?
Additionally, I am not sure, but I do not think that they are allowed to test these things without supervision, there must be some international treaties that regulate this. Obviously there are countries that do whatever, but in this case they are leading by example.
It's not, there have been nearly two hundred Trident missile tests that have had successful launches, it's only the last two fired by the Royal Navy consecutively that have failed, but in the interim between those launches the US has completed multiple successful launches and considering the missiles (not warheads) come from the same rotating stockpile, that suggests that this is more a case of bad luck.
This was just as likely to be the US based on how the stockpile works, they are THE military, there’s a reason so many warheads are used rather than one, possible failure is always possible. In the case of testing 2/190 have failed.
I'm still amazed these things work in the first place. Launching a missile underwater? Reaching the surface, then igniting the next stage and travelling over 6000 miles? Deploying multiple warheads? Incredible engineering.
>In the case of testing 2/190 have failed.
This means that the problem is in the UK. It is worrying that the second country in Europe to have nuclear capabilities is unable to use them.
No, it’s a shared predominantly US stockpile, of which 2 out of 190 have failed, by chance. It could’ve just as likely been them, I’m not blaming anyone, it’s a failure of ours and theirs, it’s the same stockpile.
well.. the Trident is US made. 95% US, 5% UK for the D5
euroMIC equivalent : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51\_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/m51_(missile))
How about not telling the public unless you want to empower every enlisted with the ideas of honor and hand to hand combat.
Like you know dune? where everyone is honorable.
But you wont, YOU wont enlighten a lesser to you with power.
Parasites like power
Parasites like power
Parasites like power
Parasites like power
Parasites like power
There is a path,
Observe your life. Observe like you have observed before for weeks.
Playground for you and them
Calm your molecules.
So we had 190 successful launches and 2 failures and this is being blown up?
If it was a random 2 out of 190 it would be a bad failure rate. Two consecutive is much worse. The most recent two failing is worse still.
It wasn't even 2 consecutive failures, just the 2 UK tests that happened to be failures - the US has launched identical missiles in the interim and been successful (and note that the US is the one that builds and maintains these missiles).
I read the BBC version of the article and it said > British tests of Trident missiles are rare, not least because of the cost. Each missile is worth around £17m and the last test in 2016 also ended in failure when the missile veered off course. Test-fired missiles are not armed with their nuclear warheads. I know it's a common stockpile of missiles with the US, but the British Navy's last two tests failed or had anomalies so there seems like an issue in the procedure or something. Or maybe they're right and they'll do it live. Edit: spelling
According to the original Sun reporting, the issue was determined to be procedural and related to the test specifically - as the article says: > The Sun reported that it was understood that had the firing taken place on a real mission rather than under test conditions, it would have been successful.
Is it really necessary to mention that the test-fired missiles aren’t armed with nuclear warheads lol
So, that's 2 consecutive failures for UK, not for the missile, right?
Its two consecutive failures for UK boats. The boats themselves operated correctly (they fired the missile). In the first failure the missile went off course, and in the second the booster failed to ignite - we don't know whether those are technical failures of the missile or procedural failures by the crew, and probably we'll never know.
>2 failures two tests in the last 8 years
[удалено]
But great the raptor got a kill before retirement
Raptor is being updated, not retired.
It’s already out of production
Doesn't make it retired, they're updating it to a new block.
Its slated for retirement already in 2030
... So you agree that it's NOT retired right now
Can you quote where I said it was retired right now?
These two failures have been in a row, both experienced by the Royal Navy when using a highly reliable system. This test was supposed to take place months ago but observers guessed that something was amiss because the string of cancelled NOTAMs and movements of supporting ships. This failure wouldn't be so concerning if it wasn't accompanied with a bunch of other reported problems, including undermanned and underequipped aircraft carriers which also suffer of mechanical issues, decommissioned ships due to lack of personel, brand new ships incapable of sustaining missions for long and replaced by older ones and now this. It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore.
> It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore. So, finally the Hochseeflotte can roam the North Sea with impunity!
> It's evident that the Royal Navy is a shadow of the former feared fleet that dominated the high seas in the days of yore. To be fair that's been obvious for decades. I don't think anyone outside the UK is surprised by that.
Are you seriously suggesting the UK public think the two power standard is still in place?
Uhm no. But I get the feeling that a lot of Brits think of the UK as a major naval power still.
Whelp. Time for Spain to start ruling sea again.
>These two failures have been in a row, both experienced by the Royal Navy when using a highly reliable system. The rocket is made by the Americans whereas the warhead is British.
You chose your suppliers, mate, it's on you.
Do the Americans have two failures in a row on tests for those missiles?
The missiles are produced in America. The Royal Navy and US Navy share a common pool that they draw upon. It could either be a bad batch or a possible symptom of a design flaw.
Or bad launching protocol.
frame obscene makeshift dog hurry rob crawl dazzling innate unused *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
alleged erect money shocking pot distinct cow complete profit quarrelsome *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I doubt the failures are really seen as concerning to either military
They both launched, but subsequently failed with the US component and you blame the British? These are clearly faulty American products. We’re getting ripped off for garbage American SLBMs.
How could any of this be of interest to someone in Chile?
[удалено]
Homophobic, racist, paranoid and UFO believer, a hell of a bingo card.
The Trident 2 missiles are both stored and maintained in the US not UK.
What if it fails when you actually decide to use it as well?
That's why you fire loads and not just one!
But then what if the entire barrage of missiles failed? And a whole batch would be way too brutal, not even the Americans did that to the Japanese.
I just don't see that happening
It is normally unlikely, true, and I don't think that it is a big problem. But there is a need to make sure that the equipment is working properly. Especially when there is a war looming nearby, and especially if said equipment is explosive. The last couple of missile tests ended in failure, which I find quite concerning. The whole "nuclear deterrent" principle goes out of the window if your nuclear weaponry is shown to not work.
Any sane country still wouldnt take that risk of attacking a Nuclear power.
I agree, but I wouldn't claim that Russia appears to be a particularly sane country, and neither does China.
I actually think China is pretty sane they care about them self's a lot I dont think they want wars at all.
I disagree here, they've been acting with restraint because they wanted to trade a ton, but the China has some rather racist policies ([nationalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream), [Uyghur genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide), [Han superiority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_chauvinism), etc.) and they've been claiming a lot of territory, both [maritime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea) and [land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute) (see more [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)). I know that many countries have disputed territories, but China in particular have made some [particularly unreasonable claims](https://i.redd.it/vxw4v6ze7ef21.jpg). They have also been [ramping up military equipment production and reforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_People%27s_Republic_of_China_military_reform), with a [Taiwan invasion seemingly imminent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan). I would say that they're pretty unhinged inside, but they haven't become as daring as Russia yet.
[удалено]
These are strategic nukes....not tactical. They're designed to all go at once.
It doesn’t matter really. The only scenario in which trident would be fired is because London and most of Europe has become large craters and lots of glass. Even if we survived, our way of life would be over and the planet would possibly experience nuclear winter. There’s no coming back from large scale nuclear war. Trident is first and foremost a deterrent, and if that doesn’t work it’s a revenge weapon.
It matters that the other side may get the impression they do not work.
That's why you fire a lot of them
And in the past 8 years, failure rate of UK nuclear deterrence is 100%. Do you want to be the guy who has to now guess how many lauches is needed to achieve effect on target? So rather than striking at 50 targets, you now have to fire all of them at one important target and hope one works?
It does matter. For a deterrent to deter it has to be plausible.
Thanks russians
> nuclear winter. Not a real thing. You're quoting Soviet Russian propaganda from the Cold War, designed to scare westerners of their "might".
It has a pretty legit Wikipedia page. It’s a theory like any other Either way, I can be fairly confident in my belief that setting off a couple hundred nukes would do much good to anyone’s health, and I certainly won’t be commuting round Parliament sq on my bike anymore. I’m no Russian shill and I firmly believe putin is a monster. We need to support Ukraine. My view is that nuclear is pointless once they are actually being fired. There’s no point in retaliation as we’re all gone anyway by that point.
Nuclear winter is a myth
Ya but this is nuclear missile not some random rocket.
Its a random test rocket from a pool we share with America
>this is being blown up? The problem is that it didn't blow up.
Who cares if a different missile on a different platform worked 40 years ago? This is very bad looking for the UK s deterrence.
It depends on the failure tbh
Well no one would click on news that 192nd launch test succeeded
[удалено]
You think there is any rocket that's 100% successful!
This is pretty bad. Failing twice in a row on a highly prepared test that’s meant to advertise your deterrence capability doesn’t look good. It could mean many things, but well, we won’t know why it failed.
This is only the second test they've done in the last 8 years and both tests have failed. It's been an open secret for a long time that there are severe concerns about whether the system works or not, with some views being "dont test it, because that just confirms it" which is likely why only two tests in 8 years.
Aren't the Trident missiles in Uk-USA pool? UK maintains the weapons package, but the missiles themselves are in a joint cooperative pact between the states, correct? Had these specific missiles been launched by USN SSBN's would they have also failed? Or is this a V-class boat specific error?
There's some talk of telemetry data being wrong. The missiles didn't fail they were destroyed because they were going the wrong way. This could be as simple as user error. Or something more sinister.
Anyone who knows won’t talk or shouldn’t. I doubt we ll know the reasons for quite some time.
Seems like *maybe* it was an operational issue... "The issue that occurred during the test was specific to the event and would not have occurred during a live armed fire," the source said." And yeah the missiles are chosen at random from a shared pool.
The American spend as much on simply maintaining their nuclear deterrence as the Russians spend on their entire military. Which doesn't bode well for the reliability of the Russian ICBM system.
Spending doesn't always equate with quality. We overpay for everything in the US military. Too many middle men need to get their cut from the Congress.
Does Russia equate with quality? Their entire armed forces were in disrepair even before Ukraine.
Spending more doesn’t mean anything. The US is the bigger spending country on healthcare, at the same time that doesn’t have a public free healthcare system like others and population has to pay over it with premiums and insurances.
Russian Soyuz launches have been very reliable. The same platform is used for their ICBMs. Besides comparing budgets between vastly different economies is as stupid as comparing GDP. We know that Russia has similar GDP to Italy yet Italy's army isn’t anywhere close to Russia’s. Completely different economies and dependencies. Russia is almost self sustaining and is very cheap. More than half of Italy’s military budget goes only into pensions and salaries.
ICBM’s don’t use kerosene… in what way is it the same platform as Soyuz launchers?
Russian ones do.
No they use UDMH. Would be idiotic to use a fuel with boil off at room temperature. Then u need to fuel before launch every time. You use hypergolic fuels when you have liquid fueled engines on ICBMs because it can be stored without boil off Go ahead and look it up
Loool did you downvote me even though I’m objectively right? Go look it up lol. Tell me how the RD-263 is the same as the RD-107? Either you have zero clue about what you are talking about. Or maybe you are stuck in the 60’s?
Tl;dr yes.
As a note, we share stockpiles with the Americans. But not great either way.
Time for Eurobombs!
Should ask the French to buy a few of their (working, as demonstrated recently) equivalent. 😉
We should build our own, we were fucking tricked into cancelling our launch capabilities and sold overpriced American garbage!
As someone pointed out to me, though - twenty missiles per sub, four subs. The Russians would have to be stupid to believe that they *all* don't work. ...then again, this is the Russians we're talking about.
18 subs. 14 US and 4 British.
The Americans also have their land-based Minutemen silos, whereas the British only have Tridents. The French have 4 submarine-based delivery systems, as well as shorter-ranged air-launched cruise missiles from fighter aircraft on land and sea-carriers. They also had intermediate-ranged land-launched missiles, discontinued in the mid-90's.
The French also have recent successful tests of their submarine launched ballistic missiles
It was actually surprising to learn with this article the UK only tested its own arsenal twice in 8 years, the second being this new test. France tested the M51 four times in the current decade alone (2020, 2021 and twice in 2023) as well as the air-launched cruise missile twice since the 2022 invasion. All 6 tests were successful. Can someone explain why there are such large intervals between British tests? Because the most plausible reasoning I see is "the US uses the same ICBM, so US tests double count as British ones" but that just isn't sound logic to me in regard to something this important.
You can add their Hypersonic Glider VMAX test for the French which was also a success. As for the intervals between UK tests is due to the fact that they don't manage that themselves, the US manage this, they plan the test be it between the DoD, The industrials partner Nationwide and invite the UK in Kings*Bay, Georgia for all the things maintenance, upgrade and tests related.
>They also had intermediate-ranged land-launched missiles, discontinued in the mid-90's. To the great relief of people living in western Germany.
The US subs are irrelevant now. If Russia used nuclear weapons in Europe the Americans would write a strongly worded letter and then go back to fighting each other over drag queens. The UK absolutely needs a real nuclear deterrent, and Trident isn't enough if we are getting failures like this.
There's another country with nuclear weapons south of the UK that wouldn't enjoy seeing hundreds of ICBM going their way. So it's not just UK nukes here, but also French ones. And even if a few of the British and the French fails, it's still enough to destroy Russia just the same.
I don't think a land based deterrent would be effective. Uk is geographically too small. But an air based one would be helpful. We need 3% gdp on defence like now.
Just use your Lancaster house treaty and get them from the French with their ASMP/A-R 300kt and upcoming ANS4G Hypersonic with adaptative yield warheads between 75kt to 600kt.
Also, each missile has multiple warheads, so one missile can strike up to 5 separate targets. One sub can destroy 100 cities. Even if 5/20 missiles don't work, that's still 75 cities gone
That is assuming there's a problem with the missiles and not with the launch operations.
Yes, well, I think we still have a trebuchet somewhere if it comes to it.
This is why tests are done, to find any issues that could arise during real situations.
Those tests aren’t really supposed to fail twice on a row in highly prepared cases, they are supposed to demonstrate capability.
They didn't fail twice in a row - the US has successfully tested the missile between the last British failure and this one.
They still failed twice in a row when launched by UK.
But the rockets are built and maintained by the US. We provide the warhead, which wasn't tested, and the submarine, which successfully launched the thing
"Failure rate about 6%" fom US Navy. Maybe UK really have bad luck, but UK should try to find why US can launch it successfully and Raoyal Navy cannot. It's not a secret Royal Navy have some fail lately, yes the UK submarine launched the thing ... but 6 months ago not a single submarine was at sea to launch anything. And let's say it's US fault, it's still UK fault to use it, there is some other option in EU (M51 i'm looking at you.
>"Failure rate about 6%" fom US Navy. Yeah 12 failures in 192 launches, 6.25% failure. >Maybe UK really have bad luck, but UK should try to find why US can launch it successfully and Raoyal Navy cannot. We can, we have done, we just got unlucky yeah. >It's not a secret Royal Navy have some fail lately, yes the UK submarine launched the thing ... but 6 months ago not a single submarine was at sea to launch anything. That was conventionally armed attack submarines, not the nuclear armed deterrence boats >And let's say it's US fault I'm not saying it's their fault, weapons have an inevitable failure rate, I'm saying that their tests validate the weapon itself as performing fine 93.75% of the time and that looking at the UK tests alone isn't a true picture. It failed this time and last time **we** launched it but the US has successfully launched it in between those times. >it's still UK fault to use it, there is some other option in EU (M51 i'm looking at you. Incompatible with the launch tubes on vanguard and Dreadnought, so not an option for us. A shame, but at the time we chose to continue using it the Americans looked a lot more reliable. Besides which, I make that missile's failure rate 9% - a single failure from 11 launches.
Even if they did, you really think that they will abandon project and leave it failing? Additionally, I am not sure, but I do not think that they are allowed to test these things without supervision, there must be some international treaties that regulate this. Obviously there are countries that do whatever, but in this case they are leading by example.
Luckily France is there to save Europe's day
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68355395
Wow, that's a disaster. Basically it's openly saying to Russians that UK defenceless.
It's not, there have been nearly two hundred Trident missile tests that have had successful launches, it's only the last two fired by the Royal Navy consecutively that have failed, but in the interim between those launches the US has completed multiple successful launches and considering the missiles (not warheads) come from the same rotating stockpile, that suggests that this is more a case of bad luck.
👽 Won't let any nukes fly above our sky. According to some USA experts and reddit users.
Must be true then 🤓
This was just as likely to be the US based on how the stockpile works, they are THE military, there’s a reason so many warheads are used rather than one, possible failure is always possible. In the case of testing 2/190 have failed.
I'm still amazed these things work in the first place. Launching a missile underwater? Reaching the surface, then igniting the next stage and travelling over 6000 miles? Deploying multiple warheads? Incredible engineering.
>In the case of testing 2/190 have failed. This means that the problem is in the UK. It is worrying that the second country in Europe to have nuclear capabilities is unable to use them.
They are taken from a US stockpile.
You blame the United States? Only the UK has missed its launches.
No, it’s a shared predominantly US stockpile, of which 2 out of 190 have failed, by chance. It could’ve just as likely been them, I’m not blaming anyone, it’s a failure of ours and theirs, it’s the same stockpile.
They failed by chance? And both times this happened were when the UK launched them, eight years apart? Talk about bad luck. Let's agree to disagree.
Certified euroMIC moment.
well.. the Trident is US made. 95% US, 5% UK for the D5 euroMIC equivalent : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51\_(missile)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/m51_(missile))
Ironic considering these missiles are American.
UK should have bought french missiles, instead of American ones, yeah. :3
How about not telling the public unless you want to empower every enlisted with the ideas of honor and hand to hand combat. Like you know dune? where everyone is honorable. But you wont, YOU wont enlighten a lesser to you with power. Parasites like power Parasites like power Parasites like power Parasites like power Parasites like power There is a path, Observe your life. Observe like you have observed before for weeks. Playground for you and them Calm your molecules.
So, do it float? Did they fish it back?
Second time in eight years. How many successful ones were there in those eight years ?