Nuking the Yanks
Discussion
"An unarmed Trident II D5 missile veered in the wrong direction towards the US when it was launched from a British Submarine."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/22/lt...
What an collosal waste of money for something which, if ever used in anger might obliterate our allies.
Starts to make the ISIS air force look like credible opposition.
davepoth said:
Yes, these things should definitely work first time, every time. It's hardly rocket science, is it?
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. 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.
alfie2244 said:
Slasher could be the go to man for this thread?
If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
Sure, but if you stress test something then you expect it to fail as a matter of course. So why the need for a cover up?If you want to improve something then you need to find it limits 1st, so who's to say this test was not designed to do exactly that?
ps How many tests have failed JK?........Some things are best left as national secrets, results of nuclear weapons tests should be one of them IMO.
This appeared instead to be a drill, designed to mimick the expected usage of the system. If this failure doesn't tease the nuclear payload out of your arsenal even just a little then you're a braver man than me.
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.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?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.
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.
jmorgan said:
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.
If you've plundered tens of billions of pounds of our money on something which has just been found to have a pretty serious defect, then that is certainly relevant to a debate on whether to spend hundreds of billions more on it.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.
jmorgan said:
You are arguing from the point of one issue being the argument to ditch it. And using words like "plundered", OK, for your point of view. I like the big stick. So I am happy to go with "my taxes have been used".
Back to the defect. You have provided no information appertaining to previous successes or failures, no information as to why this failed, no information as to the fix. Other than "it went the wrong way", what else happened in the test. I see no metric to judge it as a system wide total failure and it must be binned.
Not being a missile expert or expert in anything here, I am happy to get the information to take my stance further. You do not have that info, so I stick with my big stick.
Where have I said we should ditch it? Back to the defect. You have provided no information appertaining to previous successes or failures, no information as to why this failed, no information as to the fix. Other than "it went the wrong way", what else happened in the test. I see no metric to judge it as a system wide total failure and it must be binned.
Not being a missile expert or expert in anything here, I am happy to get the information to take my stance further. You do not have that info, so I stick with my big stick.
If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.
jmorgan said:
JawKnee said:
Where have I said we should ditch it?
If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.
My mistake. You like a nuclear deterrent then.If we are going to spend that much money on it, you'd expect it to work very reliably, no matter what caused the issue. This, "oh well, it doesn't work all the time", laissez faire attitude seems careless when it comes to such humongously deadly weapons.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.jsf said:
JawKnee said:
Undecided.
Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to fking work. It doesn't look like it does.
Do you use any form of engineered product or service that relies on engineered products?Though if we're going to pay for it, it needs to f
king work. It doesn't look like it does.jsf said:
Does software ever receive a patch to rectify a function issue post release?
Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Yes, though you only generally "fix forward" if the defect's severity isn't critical. If it is, then you fall back to a working version. If that defect has been there all along then you've failed in delivering a minimum viable product.Do software companies have support teams in place to rectify issues that arise post release?
I know the answer is of course, yes they do, as I worked as an engineer who used to apply patches and updates to the worlds leading IT platforms.
Test Driven Development helps reduce these sort of cock ups.
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
Tests sometimes go wrong...that's why they're called tests.
Non story hyped by left wing media.
It wasn't the test which went wrong, more the missile. We learnt from it our very expensive nukes can hit the wrong country. More than a non story if you think about it.Non story hyped by left wing media.
mybrainhurts said:
JawKnee said:
We learnt from it our very expensive nukes can hit the wrong country. More than a non story if you think about it.
Don't quite understand what you're getting at. Do you think any other country's missiles are fault free?Ceeejay said:
Software is 100% reliable. 1's and 0's dont wear out... they dont get cold or hot, they arent affected by extreeme vibrations, they dont age..
If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
Ha. Sounds like you have some project management issues. The devs don't set the budget, nor do they necessarily gather the requirements or test the product. They are pressured to cut corners to get the job done by people who don't have a clue about the technical challenges involved and are then blamed for those corners.If there's a fault in software its because it never worked correctly in the first place.
Software engineers first call is to blame the hardware engineers, who have to deal with tech that changes speed and performance on a daily basis.
Then they blame the Systems engineers, you didnt give us the right requirements, you never said these cases would exist.
Its never the softies fault. They baffle you with terms to cover up the inadequacies, but half the time they're too busy thinking about levelling up on some online role playing game.
If there's a reason for a development programme to go wrong, always look at the softies... Theyll double the budget to develop anything, which needs triple the budget to fix the major defects, and another huge chunk to cater for the latent defects. Project Management 101 - Never trust a softie when he says he's done.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff