Nuking the Yanks
Discussion
jmorgan said:
JawKnee said:
Probably a lot higher than you'd think. That's why they are so keen to keep this information secret.
Do you have a figure or not?Whilst we all love to put ourselves down - you can make yourself look a bit daft at times.
Read: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/reports-...
Read: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/reports-...
JawKnee said:
Even a 1% failure rate for a nuclear weaponry system is ridiculously high. Would you feel confident using it knowing there is a 1% chance of murdering your allies or even this country?
Is the failure rate 1% though?Also - given the missile doesn't appear to have landed on US soil - whatever additional safeguards that are in place in case of a guidance failure (if that is indeed what happened) probably worked as intended.
Even if the failure rate is 1% - the only time a system like this will actually be used is likely to be in the case of all out nuclear war - in which case, 1 stray nuke, even if it did happen to reach an unintended allied target and detonate (which is highly unlikely given the safeguards and simple probability) - it would actually be the least of our problems.
Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 22 January 15:12
JawKnee said:
Even a 1% failure rate for a nuclear weaponry system is ridiculously high. Would you feel confident using it knowing there is a 1% chance of murdering your allies or even this country?
Do you think that if the missile goes off course it will then be a live nuclear weapon heading anywhere? Are you that naive?
Jesus Christ.
JawKnee said:
jmorgan said:
JawKnee said:
Probably a lot higher than you'd think. That's why they are so keen to keep this information secret.
Do you have a figure or not?JawKnee said:
Moonhawk said:
JawKnee said:
You'd think getting it to go in the right direction would be a fairly basic requirement for any weapon. 
30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing.
There is a difference between 99% going in the right direction as opposed to 99% going in the wrong direction 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing. 
No weapon system (or any system for that matter) will be 100% error free - especially when you are talking about something so complex.
someone that knows more than you and I said:
Second issue – ICBM launches are incredibly complicated things to do – you are essentially trying to blast a space rocket from a cold start under the ocean, throw it throw the water, ignite it in the air, then get it into space to fly half way around the world and deliver multiple hydrogen bombs onto different locations with pinpoint accuracy in under an hour. Suddenly that makes the previously astounding feat of Pte Jones succesfully securing two sausages at the cookhouse breakfast look a little bit tame by comparison.
Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there.
Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there.
JawKnee said:
jmorgan said:
JawKnee said:
Even a 1% failure rate for a nuclear weaponry system is ridiculously high. Would you feel confident using it knowing there is a 1% chance of murdering your allies or even this country?
What is the failure rate? I would be interested to know.(98elise Ex RN Weapons Engineer)
Wasn't this a combination of periodic crew evaluation and testing a new specification D3?
Rather than wasting a perfectly serviceable ICBM the opportunity was used to run a test of an updated variant and something maybe didn't go quite to plan. Which is why you test things.
A very long way from destroying the wrong target.
Ps Jawknee is a trolling idiot.
Rather than wasting a perfectly serviceable ICBM the opportunity was used to run a test of an updated variant and something maybe didn't go quite to plan. Which is why you test things.
A very long way from destroying the wrong target.
Ps Jawknee is a trolling idiot.
Evanivitch said:
JawKnee said:
Moonhawk said:
JawKnee said:
You'd think getting it to go in the right direction would be a fairly basic requirement for any weapon. 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing.
There is a difference between 99% going in the right direction as opposed to 99% going in the wrong direction 30 years later and we are still struggling. The sort of thing we rip the piss out of North Korea for. Embarrassing. No weapon system (or any system for that matter) will be 100% error free - especially when you are talking about something so complex.
someone that knows more than you and I said:
Second issue – ICBM launches are incredibly complicated things to do – you are essentially trying to blast a space rocket from a cold start under the ocean, throw it throw the water, ignite it in the air, then get it into space to fly half way around the world and deliver multiple hydrogen bombs onto different locations with pinpoint accuracy in under an hour. Suddenly that makes the previously astounding feat of Pte Jones succesfully securing two sausages at the cookhouse breakfast look a little bit tame by comparison.
Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there.
Trident is astonishingly reliable by ICBM standards. There have been 161 consecutive tests of this missile without incident by the UK and US (only the first one ever failed due to water getting in the motors). By contrast the French equivalent missile, the M51 managed 5 tests before it had an incident. The Russians, with their Bulava missile have so far racked up 24 tests of which 12 have been failures (that’s a 50% failure rate). No one seems to think either of those nations is less of a credible nuclear power as a result. So before we start deciding that the UK is a laughing stock, its worth remembering that actually its an astonishingly reliable missile and chances are that it will work as intended on the day. The reliability rate of Trident is astounding compared to just about any other missile out there.
The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
JawKnee said:
"The reliability rate of Trident is outstanding".
The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
What did they test? Brand new, test item, new software, old software, chef shouted "lunch" at the wrong moment?The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
JawKnee said:
"The reliability rate of Trident is outstanding".
The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
What's more reliable:The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
Car 1 - fails to start on the 100th time. Previously 99 completed.
Car 2 - Fails to start 2nd, third and fourth, but starts on the 5th fine.
Evanivitch said:
JawKnee said:
"The reliability rate of Trident is outstanding".
The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
What's more reliable:The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
Car 1 - fails to start on the 100th time. Previously 99 completed.
Car 2 - Fails to start 2nd, third and fourth, but starts on the 5th fine.
This is well worth a read...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CDBZ6NA/ref=dp-kind...
As Evanivitch posted about how complex the missiles are, the joke doing the rounds when the Polaris system was being developed was that SSBN didn't stand for Submerged Ship, Ballistic, Nuclear but Saturdays, Sundays & a Bunch of Nights due to the amount of work involved.
Lockheed even had a 'blooper reel' of all the missiles going wrong when launched.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CDBZ6NA/ref=dp-kind...
As Evanivitch posted about how complex the missiles are, the joke doing the rounds when the Polaris system was being developed was that SSBN didn't stand for Submerged Ship, Ballistic, Nuclear but Saturdays, Sundays & a Bunch of Nights due to the amount of work involved.
Lockheed even had a 'blooper reel' of all the missiles going wrong when launched.
Thing is, listening to the interview on the BBC with May, it seems that the anti are up in non threatening and padded arms on the basis of one failure without asking a whole bunch of other questions. Being "anti" nuke just means taking what you get fed and using that as the one single thing that symbolises why we should not have them. The thing at the moment seems to be that this was known about just before a debate. I cannot see why this would sway a debate, the need for the end product was at stake, not the testing.
Until the next excuse comes along, this will run for the usual suspects.
I expect we will get to hear about stuff in a few years, today it was one failure and we do not know what and why.
Until the next excuse comes along, this will run for the usual suspects.
I expect we will get to hear about stuff in a few years, today it was one failure and we do not know what and why.
JawKnee said:
Evanivitch said:
JawKnee said:
"The reliability rate of Trident is outstanding".
The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
What's more reliable:The first time we've tested it in 4 years it flew in the wrong direction. I don't know about you but that's doesn't sound very reliable to me.
Car 1 - fails to start on the 100th time. Previously 99 completed.
Car 2 - Fails to start 2nd, third and fourth, but starts on the 5th fine.
Hell, I bet half the labour party wishes Jezza had a killswitch
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff