Trident Missile test fail

[dangie]

From the BBC:

Trident missile test fails for second time in a row

The UK's nuclear deterrent failed to fire a test missile reportedly landing close to the launch site.

www.bbc.co.uk

The test firing of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine has failed, for the second time in a row… The missile's booster rockets failed and it landed in the sea close to the launch site…. The previous test from a UK submarine in 2016 also ended in failure, when the missile veered off course.

This reminded me of of work colleague who used to be in the Royal Marines. He told of a torpedo firing exercise off the coast of Greenland. They fired a torpedo at an iceberg. The torpedo hit the sloping edge of the iceberg, went up out of the water, then slid back down and headed back towards the ship. Either it missed or they were able to destroy it, but he said it was a very close call.

 

[birchesgreen]

Should have kept it simple and fired him out of a cannon.



Alt text: NAVY FLOP, British nuclear sub missile launch FAILS as Trident misfires and plots into the sea just yards away - with Shapps on board

 

[ainsworth74]

Meh. Trident is a complex weapon system and they do go wrong sometimes. But of the nearly 200 test launches maybe ten have gone wrong. Not bad odds really.

Still, could be worse. This is what happened to the first submerged test launch:

 

[Gloster]

I think Bernard Woolley once explained it all to Hacker in Yes, Prime Minister.

 

[dgl]

I understand (listening to the news) that basically the wrong coordinates were put in and as such it failed safe, basically the system works as it should have with the information it was given.
Still it's a poor show.

 

[DustyBin]

I understand (listening to the news) that basically the wrong coordinates were put in and as such it failed safe, basically the system works as it should have with the information it was given.
Still it's a poor show.

I thought that was in reference to the previous failed test (I may be wrong though)?

 

[dangie]

I understand (listening to the news) that basically the wrong coordinates were put in….

‘What do you mean, you misheard….’
’Moscow and Washington don’t sound anything like the same…..’

 

[DarloRich]

it all sounds very dramatic and incompetent but what EXACTLY went wrong here:

The submarine launched a missile: the communications & chain of command worked to deliver a valid launch order to the submarine, the launch sequence worked, the crew worked correctly, the submarine worked correctly & the missile left the submarine.

That is, apparently, the test criteria met and the submarine is out on patrol, somewhere

The previous "failed" test was only failed because the range safety officer blew up the missile in flight as it was off target. This happens on a fairly regular basis with missile firings.

Should have kept it simple and fired him.

fixed for you.

 

[najaB]

It does sound very much like either a safety plug wasn't removed, so that the solid ignitor didn't fire or, as @dgl said, it failed safe due to mal-programming.

They did say that it was something specific to this being a test.

 

[Iskra]

It seems like the test did its job then really!

 

[najaB]

It seems like the test did its job then really!

The tube flooded and the missile ejected. So, as a test of the submarine, it was a 100% successful!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They did say that it was something specific to this being a test.

"Now then Dimitri... I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call... Listen, if it wasn't friendly... you probably wouldn't have even got it..."

 

[birchesgreen]

"There has been a bit of a cock-up... no not chicken. Say, you arn't in St Petersberg right now are you? OK thats good..."

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Serious topic, but this certainly made me laugh.


("Matt" cartoon as appeared in the 'Daily Telegraph' on Wednesday 21st February 2024)

Caption says... 'Our Trident missile is veering off course. I hope it doesn't hit the UK's only working aircraft carrier'.