And so missiles made of crap, fall into the sea, eventually: Missile test fails

[Bill]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...d-test-firing/

Trident ‘Nuclear’ Missile Crashed Into Sea During Failed Test Firing Off Cape Canaveral

A British-launched nuclear missile test in January in the presence of the head of the Royal Navy and the Minister of Defence failed and splashed back into the sea.

A Trident missile launched off the East Coast of the United States in January from British ‘bomber’ submarine HMS Vanguard “crashed into the ocean” after launch. The missile had a ‘dummy’ warhead and no nuclear material onboard.

British tabloid newspaper The Sun revealed the launch failure, and stated the Ministry of Defence had confirmed the story. The ministry insisted despite the training test-firing failure the nuclear deterrent remains “effective”, and that the “anomaly” was “event specific”. The Sun report states claims from the government that it was the test conditions themselves which contributed to the failure, although there was no discussion of what they may have been, although a preference towards using time-expired older missiles due to be scrapped for training could feasibly play a part.

Update 1600: Testing equipment caused failure

UK Defence Minister says the government has “absolute confidence” in Trident after the failed nuclear delivery system test last month. The Times notes he called the missiles: “effective, dependable and formidable… beyond doubt”.

The report further notes former defence committee chairman Tobias Elwood MP said the crash was directly caused by testing equipment “strapped on to the missile itself”. Had the equipment not been present, the missile would have launched properly, he said. Nevertheless, the MP remarked: “yes, of course, this is embarrassing. We don’t like to see this happen.”

A government spokesman said the weapon “could absolutely fire in a real world situation” if required and “The issue that occurred during the test was specific to the event and would not have occurred during a live armed fire”.

An anonymous source cited by the paper stated “It left the submarine but it just went plop, right next to them”, suggesting the first launch stage — where the missile is pushed out of the submarine and to the surface by a rush of gas, succeeded. The missile is then supposed to ride on several rocket stages, allowing it to leave the Earth’s atmosphere at thousands of miles an hour.

The failed launch took place off the coast of Cape Canaveral, where the United States and United Kingdom perform all nuclear ballistic missile testing. Another British-launched test failed there in 2016.

A specific January date was not given but British Minister of Defence Grant Shapps, who was present for the 2024 test, was in Washington D.C. on January 31st.

Given British and American Trident missiles come from the same “commingled” stock, unless the U.S. consciously passed substandard missiles to the British during routine rotation, and if the failed launch in January occurred after the missile had left the submarine as is claimed, circumstances suggest this could be a problem for the United States submarine deterrent as well.

Although most aspects of the Trident missiles are of course classified, it is well known considerable parts of the system are American in design, construction, and even execution. The Trident missiles themselves are leased from the U.S., and are not wholly British-owned. While the UK’s nuclear submarines themselves are made in Britain, they depend on U.S. technology and systems to perform their primary mission.

[Jughead]

[Steve_R]

And the problem is what, exactly? The U.S. has enough nuke missiles, with multiple independently targeted warheads on each missile, that can be launched from subs that one missile "crashing into the sea" doesn't matter. And that doesn't even count the land-based missiles, bombs, or other nuke warhead delivery methods.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

And the problem is what, exactly? The U.S. has enough nuke missiles, with multiple independently targeted warheads on each missile, that can be launched from subs that one missile "crashing into the sea" doesn't matter. And that doesn't even count the land-based missiles, bombs, or other nuke warhead delivery methods.

This was a British missile, but as I read it, they're basically the same as ours. So sure, we've got plenty of subs, plenty of missiles, and those missiles have multiple warheads on each tip. The problem is, we need to be sure they all actually work. We don't want to find out the hard way.

[KenHorse]

The missile had a ‘dummy’ warhead and no nuclear material onboard.

OAC was the warhead?

[the new me]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/202...d-test-firing/

Re your thread title:
"And so missiles made of crap, fall into the sea, eventually"

Jimi predicted it in 1967.
Imagine what he'd have predicted if he was still alive.

[Unsuspicious]

Dang, north korea mastered missiles that could hit the sea many years ago

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

This was a British missile, but as I read it, they're basically the same as ours. So sure, we've got plenty of subs, plenty of missiles, and those missiles have multiple warheads on each tip. The problem is, we need to be sure they all actually work. We don't want to find out the hard way.

British owned missile. the US made it many many moons ago and sold it to them.

[Tikiman]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

British owned missile. the US made it many many moons ago and sold it to them.

Plus, the Brits had strapped some extra test equipment to the missile prompting some to blame that on the launch failure.


I don't know what happened to that particular missile, but we've been launching Tridents from underwater for many decades now. The subs I worked on were Lafayette class (616) and we carried sixteen of them in two rows of eight. I don't recall any launch failures during my tenure.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by the new me

Re your thread title:
"And so missiles made of crap, fall into the sea, eventually"

Jimi predicted it in 1967.
Imagine what he'd have predicted if he was still alive.

A great song. Sweet & sad at the same time...

Down the street you can hear her scream "you're a disgrace"
As she slams the door in his drunken face,
And now he stands outside
And all the neighbors start to gossip and drool

He cries "Oh girl, you must be mad,
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?"
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green

And so castles made of sand,
Fall in the sea, eventually

A little Indian brave who before he was ten,
Played war games in the woods with his Indian friends,
And he built a dream that when he grew up,
He would be a fearless warrior Indian Chief

Many moons passed and more the dream grew stronger,
Until tomorrow, he would sing his first war song,
And fight his first battle, but something went wrong,
Surprise attack killed him in his sleep that night

And so castles made of sand,
Melts into the sea, eventually

There was a young girl, whose heart was a frown,
'Cause she was crippled for life, and she couldn't speak a sound
And she wished and prayed she could stop living,
So she decided to die

She drew her wheel chair to the edge of the shore, and to her legs she smiled
"You won't hurt me no more"
But then a sight she'd never seen made her jump and say
"Look, a golden winged ship is passing my way"
And it really didn't have to stop, it just kept on going

And so castles made of sand
Slips into the sea, eventually

[ZipZap]

You get this off TMZ?

Shit happens. We will still rain death and destruction upon you with the other "claimed" nearly 4 thousand warheads that are hot.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Steve_R

And the problem is what, exactly? The U.S. has enough nuke missiles, with multiple independently targeted warheads on each missile, that can be launched from subs that one missile "crashing into the sea" doesn't matter. And that doesn't even count the land-based missiles, bombs, or other nuke warhead delivery methods.

Ok, but it would instill more confidence if our missiles went where they were supposed to go. A "shotgun blast" is not the best strategy.

[Steve_R]

Originally Posted by Aerovette

Ok, but it would instill more confidence if our missiles went where they were supposed to go. A "shotgun blast" is not the best strategy.

With nuke weapons close counts.

[Vette40th]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

This was a British missile, but as I read it, they're basically the same as ours. So sure, we've got plenty of subs, plenty of missiles, and those missiles have multiple warheads on each tip. The problem is, we need to be sure they all actually work. We don't want to find out the hard way.

They lease our missiles.
Their missile firing systems are pretty much ours.
Every C4 and D5 missile I shot worked off the coast of FLorida.. The all went to a target in Africa. All dummys. Just checking to see systems worked.