The Trident kerfuffle...

[drdel]

So everyone an his uncle in the press are uptight with the PM because she did not make public details of the summer's missile testing.

No government (with any sense: UK or elsewhere) publishes details of weapons testing; other than for propaganda reasons.

Why is it that the UK media and anyone else who can shout loud enough to get a microphone stuffed up their nose seems it is sensible to broadcast to the world large what our defence capabilities are?

 

[Tashyboy]

The fact it went anywhere bar where it should of done, dosent really bother me. It was a test fire after all. But when she is asked if she knew about it, and she th rattles on about something completely different, shows the ignorance of her. " a simple yes I did, but in the interests of national security am telling you sod all Mr Marr", would and should of sufficed.
you now have Nicola Sturgeon and that pathetic excuse of a labour leader rambling on about it.
Own up then shut up would of been the best reply.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The issue here is that the failure occurred shortly before the renewal, at a very high cost, was debated in parliament. It looks shifty, hidden under the table. What looks worse is the way TM avoided answering a very straight and simple question on the subject yesterday. Very poor.

Because of the timing of the renewal the MoD should have released a statement at the time highlighting the results but mentioning it was a test. TM should have said exactly the same yesterday. This is why we have tests, to trial and check for errors. No big deal. They have made it a big deal by trying to sweep this under the carpet.

No one was going to invade us after this test failed. We have plenty of other capabilities, we are part of NATO, we have lots of other, armed versions of Trident. The PM has handled this badly.

(Tashy typed slightly quicker but the point is the same)

 

[Leftie]

No need to publish details drdel. It's a well established "practice range" and all interested parties i.e. USA, Russia, et al were fully aware of the test - in fact other countries would have had ships in the area to observe. Apparently, is has been commonplace in the past for the Russians to send congratulatory messages following successful test firings.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Leftie - I'm presuming everyone is checking everyone out on radar, warnings have to be given of testing so there are no misunderstandings etc. I doubt very little is done in genuine secrecy in terms of rocket testing. They will be tracked every step of the way.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think it's exactly what Lord T said, it's not the fact it failed it's the fact it wasn't disclosed before an important vote, surely they could/should've waited until the fault is identified before putting it to the vote, what if this fault now increases the cost or a better missile is available?

 

[SocketRocket]

I think it's exactly what Lord T said, it's not the fact it failed it's the fact it wasn't disclosed before an important vote, surely they could/should've waited until the fault is identified before putting it to the vote, what if this fault now increases the cost or a better missile is available?

All such systems can develop a fail. there has never been or never will be anything made by man that is 100% failproof. It's another typical example of the twitter warriors and their never ending quest to complain about something.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

All such systems can develop a fail. there has never been or never will be anything made by man that is 100% failproof. It's another typical example of the twitter warriors and their never ending quest to complain about something.

Wow, just wow, your intolerance levels are going lower and lower, there are other missile systems that will do the same job as Trident, they voted to spend billions, don't you think there should be checks and balances and assurances we are spending our money wisely?

 

[USER1999]

Wow, just wow, your intolerance levels are going lower and lower, there are other missile systems that will do the same job as Trident, they voted to spend billions, don't you think there should be checks and balances and assurances we are spending our money wisely?

As far as i know, the expense is in replacing worn out obsolete submarines. The missiles are a bit of a red herring.

 

[Leftie]

Leftie - I'm presuming everyone is checking everyone out on radar, warnings have to be given of testing so there are no misunderstandings etc. I doubt very little is done in genuine secrecy in terms of rocket testing. They will be tracked every step of the way.

As I understand it, any interested party would have known about it and would have been on hand to track it - surface vessels, radar, satellites, etc. We only test trident once every 4 years or so. As far as I'm aware, this particular boat (sub) and crew was being worked up after a major refit and the test was as much crew training as a missile test.

 

[Hobbit]

I think it's exactly what Lord T said, it's not the fact it failed it's the fact it wasn't disclosed before an important vote, surely they could/should've waited until the fault is identified before putting it to the vote, what if this fault now increases the cost or a better missile is available?

What him and him said.

 

[SocketRocket]

Wow, just wow, your intolerance levels are going lower and lower, there are other missile systems that will do the same job as Trident, they voted to spend billions, don't you think there should be checks and balances and assurances we are spending our money wisely?

Wow, just wow It was a single missile that developed a fault,that does not mean the system is not suitable or we need to replace it. This is just another non story and yet again an example of people expecting to be kept in touch with things that they dont need to. Leave these issues to the experts.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Wow, just wow It was a single missile that developed a fault,that does not mean the system is not suitable or we need to replace it. This is just another non story and yet again an example of people expecting to be kept in touch with things that they dont need to. Leave these issues to the experts.

How do you know? Or are you guessing? If it's that simple, why hide it?

 

[USER1999]

How do you know? Or are you guessing? If it's that simple, why hide it?

May be because the public cant cope with the idea of nuclear missiles being fired, that could come down anywhere. We prefer the missiles you see on the news, where you can choose which window it goes through.

 

[SocketRocket]

How do you know? Or are you guessing? If it's that simple, why hide it?

I worked as an Engineer in the defense industry for a long time and especially in missile systems. I have been at test firings and experienced failures, we would work out what had failed and do what we could to minimise it happening again. Weapon testing and system training tend to happen simultaneously but the results are not normally subject to public scrutiny.

 

[Fish]

How do you know? Or are you guessing? If it's that simple, why hide it?

May be because the public cant cope with the idea of nuclear missiles being fired, that could come down anywhere. We prefer the missiles you see on the news, where you can choose which window it goes through.

I agree.

I'm surprised with your stance on this Paul, you should know more than most that the public couldn't cope with knowing everything that goes on or is deterred on a daily, weekly, monthly or every 4 year basis. this is just a dog with a bone scenario that the opposition and media just want use and exploit but it's a nothing story for me.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I agree.

I'm surprised with your stance on this Paul, you should know more than most that the public couldn't cope with knowing everything that goes on or is deterred on a daily, weekly, monthly or every 4 year basis. this is just a dog with a bone scenario that the opposition and media just want use and exploit but it's a nothing story for me.

I understand the Military angle, but not the political one, Trident has been a big issue for years by succesive governments and the timing of this smells of a cover up, the PM could've simply played the national security card but instead played dumb, some smells with this to me.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I think it's exactly what Lord T said, it's not the fact it failed it's the fact it wasn't disclosed before an important vote, surely they could/should've waited until the fault is identified before putting it to the vote, what if this fault now increases the cost or a better missile is available?

Exactly. What if Trident now has an inherent reliability issue, given the age, how many more will go astray and what would happen in the dark reality of it ever being needed for real. It needed to be disclosed to parliament to give them the full facts to vote on

 

[FairwayDodger]

As I understand it, every other Trident test was fully briefed to the media complete with video footage. So the "national security" line doesn't wash. Of course, those were successful tests.

 

[SocketRocket]

Exactly. What if Trident now has an inherent reliability issue, given the age, how many more will go astray and what would happen in the dark reality of it ever being needed for real. It needed to be disclosed to parliament to give them the full facts to vote on

If a missile went wrong in a real life scenario there are another 15 on board. Do you honestly believe Trident the main defensive nuclear system for the UK and the USA is that flakey. This failure is something that happens at times and is being (excuse the pun) 'blown up' by the media and politicians as political sensationalism and opportunism.

Here's one we did earlier:
[video=youtube;p5fOaBnlT2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOaBnlT2E[/video]