Poll: Trident - would you renew? (Poll)

Would you renew Trident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 701 73.7%

  • No

    Votes: 250 26.3%
  • Total voters
    951
jimjamuk said:
This is such a non story

Whats the misfire / jam rate of the weapons used by soldiers maybe we should have a winge at that as well.

You can bet if a missile didnt do as was expected for the cost that someone is looking into why it happened - stuff breaks big deal...
Click to expand...

yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................

If you are being serious then you need to go back and finish your primary and secondary education, otherwise I'll chalk you down as a 3/10 troll, and you must try harder next time
 
wildman said:
yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................
Click to expand...

Of course not, the first one's actually possible.

The guy you quoted was pretty spot on, it's essentially a non story. The whole reason we have tests is to make sure it goes alright on the night.
 
ubersonic said:
Of course not, the first one's actually possible.

The guy you quoted was pretty spot on, it's essentially a non story. The whole reason we have tests is to make sure it goes alright on the night.
Click to expand...

Question is whether it is within the expected margin of failure or indicative of a larger reliability issue - which it seemed to initially be reported as but they've now kind of backtracked on.
 
Missiles failing isn't a new thing. I recall a Rapier live fire exercise in the Falklands where several missiles either didn't get off the launcher or went awry when in the air.
 
wildman said:
yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................
Click to expand...

except that the missile wasnt even armed in this scenario...and it was a test run.

The very reason you run tests is to figure out if something works correctly, clearly something/someone messed up so their fix it and run more tests.

such a non-event.

Rroff said:
Question is whether it is within the expected margin of failure or indicative of a larger reliability issue - which it seemed to initially be reported as but they've now kind of backtracked on.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
George Hincapie said:
Missiles failing isn't a new thing. I recall a Rapier live fire exercise in the Falklands where several missiles either didn't get off the launcher or went awry when in the air.
Click to expand...

Ukraine once tested a SAM that flew off course, refused it's self destruct order then shot down a Russian airliner. Tests can go much worse lol.
 
George Hincapie said:
Missiles failing isn't a new thing. I recall a Rapier live fire exercise in the Falklands where several missiles either didn't get off the launcher or went awry when in the air.
Click to expand...

When I was a mere sprog of an apprentice at BAe, I remember the old salts discussing a Sea Skua flight trial where the missile went off course, didn't respond to the RO's destruct commands and flew merrily through several air traffic corridors before ditching off the Irish coast.

Many sets of underwear went very brown as 150 kilos of missile hurtled towards Ireland at 500 knots!
 
Terminal_Boy said:
Many sets of underwear went very brown as 150 kilos of missile hurtled towards Ireland at 500 knots!
Click to expand...

Seems much of the detail is kept under wraps but apparently awhile back one of the Watchkeeper drones went off on a wander of its own ignoring commands and merrily acquiring targets over southern UK (its not an armed drone however). I was under the impression that the UK didn't use autonomous mode on drones though.
 
wildman said:
yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................

If you are being serious then you need to go back and finish your primary and secondary education, otherwise I'll chalk you down as a 3/10 troll, and you must try harder next time
Click to expand...

Your reply earns 2/10

Im sure there are so many fail safes in these lovely devices that it just wouldn't happen should one go wrong and teh chance we will ever launch any in anger is close to zero (because they are a great deterrant) - but then if we are launching the lot well who cares at that point. You can bet that a load of engineers have been looking at the data to fix whatever the problem is

Its actually a more serious point that to send troops out into combat with under performing kit than one "failed" missile test. Soldiers are out in the field everyday so any issues with kit mean people dying
 
how come the subs need renewing i thoguht they where fairly new?

has some new exploit againsty thier technology turned up or soemthing?

or is it the reactors are at end of life and are non replaceable?
 
wildman said:
yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................

If you are being serious then you need to go back and finish your primary and secondary education, otherwise I'll chalk you down as a 3/10 troll, and you must try harder next time
Click to expand...

you mean a warhead hitting the ground in the wrong place.

it would be deactivated long before impact.

plus the test that went arwy do we know if it was just astandard missile being etsted?

or was it say a new software update being tested before roll out, new sensors, chips, gyros, general componets before roll out.

test following impact, radiation exposure, over/underpressure, missile past end of life?


ie was it a test of a fully functional missile or a test of failure modes/something new?
 
jimjamuk said:
Its actually a more serious point that to send troops out into combat with under performing kit than one "failed" missile test. Soldiers are out in the field everyday so any issues with kit mean people dying
Click to expand...

this.

troops going out with boots that fail is something that should never of happened and people should have lost thier jobs.

it's a boot, is possibly the most basic and essential peice of equipment a solider has.

it should be to a standard that civilians want to buy them, not troops having to buy civilian boots.
 
Tefal said:
how come the subs need renewing i thoguht they where fairly new?

has some new exploit againsty thier technology turned up or soemthing?

or is it the reactors are at end of life and are non replaceable?
Click to expand...

A replacement program for a ballistic missile sub takes a long time and needs to be started (and secured) a long time in advance. The lifespan of the reactors are also going to be an aspect in the timetable as well.

Tefal said:
ie was it a test of a fully functional missile or a test of failure modes/something new?
Click to expand...

AFAIK it was a test of the "launch vehicle" and wasn't populated with MIRVs.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
A replacement program for a ballistic missile sub takes a long time and needs to be started (and secured) a long time in advance. The lifespan of the reactors are also going to be an aspect in the timetable as well.
Click to expand...

doh, lol i honestly didn't think of development time.

stupidly thought they already had a design and where looking agt construction lol
 
Tefal said:
doh, lol i honestly didn't think of development time.

stupidly thought they already had a design and where looking agt construction lol
Click to expand...

They have a design approved 2011? - but there is only so far you can test it before committing to building stuff.
 
wildman said:
yes thats right because a gun jam in the field has exactly the same consequences has a multiple megaton nuke accidental vaporising the wrong target..................

If you are being serious then you need to go back and finish your primary and secondary education, otherwise I'll chalk you down as a 3/10 troll, and you must try harder next time
Click to expand...

It's kind of embarassing that you're in here debating when you think a nuke is going to explode if it hits the ground
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom