Trident missile test fails for a second time in a row

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68355395

by shaftoe444 • 2 years ago

25 56 2 years ago

bbc.co.uk

sinuhe69• 2 years ago

The thing is mission critical. The test is extremely expensive so test will not conducted regularly. The whole process is highly sensitive but opaque at best.

Why do I see a recipe for utter failure?

zmgsabst• 2 years ago

This seems hugely destabilizing.

Is one of the US nuclear triad non-functional? — how would we know?

Edit:

Apparently the US can successfully launch them — and lets everyone know.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/09/u-s-navy-ssbn-u...

https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...

RandomLensman6• 2 years ago

The US tested successfully in October 2023, I think, and regularly before - this was the UK. The US has something like close to 200 successful launches so far on D5.

arethuza5• 2 years ago

The UK and US missiles come from the same stockpile though - mind you it does rather remind me on Beatty at Jutland "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today".

phyalow2• 2 years ago

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/us-planning-... Maybe related? From a month ago.

oldpersonintx• 2 years ago

Regrettable from a PR perspective but realistically, there are going to be some dud rockets.

I assume in a real nuclear war, some number of US ICBMs fail in boost and come down the US, likewise for Russia. These have been sitting in silos for decades.

defrost• 2 years ago

In the real Cold War some number of US bomb delivery systems did fail and live bombs did fall down on mainland US soil (and a few off shore).

See: broken arrows.

At least one came so close to exploding it's a case study on the question of why it didn't ...

arethuza5• 2 years ago

Presumably the 1961 Goldsboro incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

phyalow2• 2 years ago

190 UK tests, only 2 failures, and those failures are on the 2 most recent launches. Something is obviously wrong.

captaincaveman• 2 years ago

yes it's time for more funding, nothing gets funding better than a burning platform ...

shaftoe444• 2 years ago

But for the UK this is our only nuclear weapon, if it fails there are no planes or land based missiles to back it up. Different for the US.

morsch• 2 years ago

"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.

Right! That's what I keep telling our QA engineers, too.

A1vis• 2 years ago

- So it comes back to Trident? - When it comes. - If it works. - If it wor... - What do you mean? - Normally, when new weapons are delivered, the warheads don't fit the ends of the rockets. That's what happened to Polaris. You know the sort of thing, wiring faults, microchip failure. We couldn't fire Polaris for some years. Cruise is probably the same. Trident might be too.

matthewfelgate• 2 years ago

A timeless TV show.

alecco• 2 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKQlQlQ6_pk&t=70s

belter• 2 years ago

"The Red Hot Nuclear Button" - https://youtu.be/P7YR6WICIAI

ilaksh3• 2 years ago

When you make a change to a complex software/hardware system, you should expect something to go wrong the first time you test it.

Clearly they changed something for this test in particular and it broke the system. It is likely something fairly minor that just doesn't work when part of it is removed.

Also, if it just went through a retrofit and has actually never fired a missile, then it's not unlikely for something to have been not quite placed back where it was supposed to be.

This is the difference between doing a release with a QA process that takes some time and testing versus doing development and just launching the new version into production.

They changed the code or hardware for this particular test. That not working does not prove that the system has fundamental flaws or that other systems that have been tested and not modified will have the same issue.

Most people do not understand the inherent brittleness in engineered systems. Even those that are designed to be fault tolerant. That can cause confusion about outcomes and the necessity of testing every release.

robertlagrant3• 2 years ago

It does depend on the approach, though. If you're SpaceX and switched on to this stuff, and testing is part of development that's one thing. If you've done your real testing already and this is more like a demonstration sort of test, that's different.

ilaksh3• 2 years ago

My theory is that they should have done a development test before the demo, but because it's so expensive , the higher ups just told the engineers to skip it.

They probably just said "Well, it was _only_ a retrofit, and you just changed a couple of minor things for the test. Are you sure we need to spend $17 million on another throwaway test?" And the engineer said he's not 100% sure it's necessary, but it would be advisable. So the higher up, not understanding how brittle and complex systems are or how development works, decided that meant it wasn't necessary.

I think the main issue might be that there is no way to do a good test without spending millions of dollars. Which I think might be because of structural issues in the defense industry.

jvmboi4• 2 years ago

I don't understand your motivation to type this many words in order to make, what amounts to, generic excuses (1) for people that take a huge chunk of your paycheck in order to balance the world on the knives edge of nuclear deterrence and somehow managing to fuck up the one thing that is the whole point of the exercise.

Mind you, I am not even taking a moral stance here, I am just saying that if we have nuclear weapons can we please not lower the bar on competency in their handling.

1) maybe the reasons you give are plausible but they are essentially based on no real information about what happened here

ilaksh3• 2 years ago

I'm not making excuses I am trying to give my theory on their error which was simply to not spend the money to do a real test before doing a demo.

denton-scratch• 2 years ago

you should expect something to go wrong the first time you test it.

This was the second test-firing since 2016; that one failed too. I think that means they haven't done a successful test-firing in eight years. That doesn't inspire confidence (or awe, depending on who it's supposed to impress).

57FkMytWjyFu• 2 years ago

Seems somewhat related to the miserable paint and preservation on the hull.

(former US Boomer sailor here)

pja• 2 years ago

A little digging suggests that photo was taken at the end of a six month deployment. Which probably explains the state of the hull - it’s absolutely covered in barnacles & other marine growth.

The crew must have been shattered. Six months is a long time to spend at sea.

Links: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a452796... https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-nuclear-deterrent-sub...

pjc503• 2 years ago

There's some real staffing and morale problems around Trident, which nobody wants to look too closely at because that would be actual governance. The real purpose of Trident is to threaten left-wing MPs with.

booi• 2 years ago

I guess the left-wing MPs have nothing to worry about

eunos• 2 years ago

Somebody stole the fuel to boil tea /s ?

TheOtherHobbes• 2 years ago

Say Trump wins in 2025 - he pulls the US out of NATO, Putin threatens the EU with nukes, and only the UK and France can offer any kind of resistance.

If the UK is out that leaves France, and if Le Pen wins France will be in the Putinist camp.

My guess is Putin would nuke some US cities too just to make a point, and his fans in the US will be very surprised when that happens.

gambiting• 2 years ago

I mean, that's a "fun" little fantasy scenario to think through, but it doesn't change the fact that it's absolutely insane. Russia and US are not nuking each other no matter what. I can see Russia nuking a target in Ukraine in a "what are you going to do about it" kind of way, but again, Nato countries would not be attacked, US support present or not.

hermitcrab2• 2 years ago

I'm usually a fan of government transparency. But I'm not sure it helps with deterrence to be public with this. Maybe it wasn't possible to cover it up?

bondarchuk• 2 years ago

Think of the second order effects of what you're proposing.

hermitcrab2• 2 years ago

I've thought about it. I still can't see a good reason to broadcast that our deterrent isn't as effective as we have been making out.

jvmboi4• 2 years ago

The Ministry of Defence said the "nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and effective".

The test that we did to show that it would work, didn't work but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Of course!

jvanderbot2• 2 years ago

"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.

OK, so, this might be the kind of thing you'd say, but that is also entirely plausible.

jvmboi4• 2 years ago

well it's very easy for them to say that, right? Because they'll never have to prove this in detail to anyone that could hold them accountable because SECRETS and COMPLICATED TECHNOLOGY.

pjc503• 2 years ago

Famously, the USN had the reverse problem with torpedoes in WW2: they worked in testing but were extremely unreliable in live situations, and it took a while before HQ believed that the problem was real.

With Trident, either there will be no live usage, or there will be no UK left to do anything about the failure of the second strike weapons.

Guthur• 2 years ago

It's suppose to be a deterrent, the other side just needs to believe it will work at least some of the time.

temac• 2 years ago

Off topic: usually british websites are pretty good but apparently the bbc website has become absolute garbage. I had to confirm 5 or 6 times that no thank you I don't want cookies, at which point the fine site is still constantly nagging me in a third of the display to accept them or go configure them in yet another page, which fixes nothing. People accepting to implement such bullshit should be ashamed.

Trident missile test fails for a second time in a row

Related Stories