Obummers final act against the UK..
Discussion
Sylvaforever said:
I bet this fat boy is laughing his ass off this morning.
Seriously though who cares, some politicians are calling for yet another enquiry so they can waste more of our money. I'm pretty sure the military will already be investigating what went wrong and why and putting measures in place to prevent it happening again.
Seriously though who cares, some politicians are calling for yet another enquiry so they can waste more of our money. I'm pretty sure the military will already be investigating what went wrong and why and putting measures in place to prevent it happening again.
Gogoplata said:
The news and people on social media are making a big deal about this, but Shirley this is the whole point of testing them.
Better to fix any gremlins in test rather than on deployment, besides it's complete fantasy to expect 100% reliability on any weapons platform.There's a reason why there's 16 tubes on a boomer, so one fails, what about the other 15?
Gogoplata said:
but Shirley this is the whole point of testing them.
Yep this.I head up a team whose purpose it is to test equipment.
It's amazing the number of people in the company who think this is just a routine paper exercise, feel the testing we do is unnecessary. The pen pushers always set deadlines based on the assumption that the equipment will always pass and are shocked when we actually find failures.
If there was a 0% failure rate and all equipment 'just worked' - there would be no need for my job to exist at all.
Finding failures during testing is a good thing. It allows you to identify potential failure modes and correct them before the equipment is used in anger (of course - no amount of testing will completely mitigate in-use failures, but you can at least minimise them as far as possible).
Sylvaforever said:
Hmm slight malfunction?
At this level there can be no question of weapon deployment and effectiveness.
What, good, bad, indifferent? It was a test, the test failed. What were they testing? The full system, part system, new component, the human element? And so on. I expect they have taken the whole process apart to see what went wrong and learn from it.At this level there can be no question of weapon deployment and effectiveness.
Have a look at the Mercury program. Failures abound there but they ended up getting a monkey in space.
jmorgan said:
What, good, bad, indifferent? It was a test, the test failed. What were they testing? The full system, part system, new component, the human element? And so on. I expect they have taken the whole process apart to see what went wrong and learn from it.
Sometimes routine testing is carried out specifically to determine whether there is an increase in trend of failures (that's why we have things like in-process control charts, periodic reviews etc).It may give some indication as to the general state of health of the system as a whole - especially if that system is ageing.
What is also missing here is:
1. How many tests are typically carried out (does this failure represent a 50% failure rate, 1%, 0.01%)?
2. What is the expected failure rate of a ballistic missile system - no system is 100% without fault, so a certain failure rate is to be expected. Was this failure within the expected limits of the system.
3. Did the safeguards (and there are bound to be many of them) operate as intended once the failure was detected?
So this meme by Nye Bevan News is being shared as fact on social media, it has a graph of the cost of Trident compared to that of the NHS, although I'm not sue if the two costs are calculated over the same time period as the graph doesn't specify a timeline which looks misleading imo.
It then goes on to state:
"The MoD has admitted that in June 2016, just weeks before the vote on its renewal, the Trident Missile system malfunctioned off the coast of Florida, and nearly bombed the USA.
Members of Parliament, like us ignorant of this horrendous malfunction, backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.."
https://www.facebook.com/NyeBevanNews/photos/a.171...
This is being shared by my friends who are otherwise intelligent people as fact, when it's actually extremely misleading and they'd be the first to cry "Fake News" if this story didn't allign with their political outlook.
It then goes on to state:
"The MoD has admitted that in June 2016, just weeks before the vote on its renewal, the Trident Missile system malfunctioned off the coast of Florida, and nearly bombed the USA.
Members of Parliament, like us ignorant of this horrendous malfunction, backed the renewal of Trident by 472 votes to 117, approving the manufacture of four replacement submarines at a current estimated cost of £31bn.."
https://www.facebook.com/NyeBevanNews/photos/a.171...
This is being shared by my friends who are otherwise intelligent people as fact, when it's actually extremely misleading and they'd be the first to cry "Fake News" if this story didn't allign with their political outlook.
Moonhawk said:
jmorgan said:
What, good, bad, indifferent? It was a test, the test failed. What were they testing? The full system, part system, new component, the human element? And so on. I expect they have taken the whole process apart to see what went wrong and learn from it.
Sometimes routine testing is carried out specifically to determine whether there is an increase in trend of failures (that's why we have things like in-process control charts, periodic reviews etc).It may give some indication as to the general state of health of the system as a whole - especially if that system is ageing.
What is also missing here is:
1. How many tests are typically carried out (does this failure represent a 50% failure rate, 1%, 0.01%)?
2. What is the expected failure rate of a ballistic missile system - no system is 100% without fault, so a certain failure rate is to be expected. Was this failure within the expected limits of the system.
3. Did the safeguards (and there are bound to be many of them) operate as intended once the failure was detected?
Moonhawk said:
Sometimes routine testing is carried out specifically to determine whether there is an increase in trend of failures (that's why we have things like in-process control charts, periodic reviews etc).
It may give some indication as to the general state of health of the system as a whole - especially if that system is ageing.
What is also missing here is:
1. How many tests are typically carried out (does this failure represent a 50% failure rate, 1%, 0.01%)?
2. What is the expected failure rate of a ballistic missile system - no system is 100% without fault, so a certain failure rate is to be expected. Was this failure within the expected limits of the system.
3. Did the safeguards (and there are bound to be many of them) operate as intended once the failure was detected?
Doesn't matter to the feels generation. How stuff works and why isn't important.It may give some indication as to the general state of health of the system as a whole - especially if that system is ageing.
What is also missing here is:
1. How many tests are typically carried out (does this failure represent a 50% failure rate, 1%, 0.01%)?
2. What is the expected failure rate of a ballistic missile system - no system is 100% without fault, so a certain failure rate is to be expected. Was this failure within the expected limits of the system.
3. Did the safeguards (and there are bound to be many of them) operate as intended once the failure was detected?
Missiles = bad
Failed test = they were right and white men waste money on war and it doesn't even work and they knew it.north Korea laughs at us etc etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff