As if the Royal Navy did not already have enough negative headlines to contend with, The Sun newspaper reports a Trident ballistic missile failed to launch during a recent test. Here we provide some context to this story.
Following her lengthy refit and regeneration, HMS Vanguard headed across the Atlantic in October to the United States for her long-planned Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO). This is a standard event for the deterrent submarines following a Deep Maintenance Period (DMP) and is intended to certify the boat and its crew are safe, competent and able to launch a Trident ballistic missile, should they ever be called on to respond to a highly unlikely nuclear attack on the UK or NATO.
The missile test took place on 30th January. The Sun report states that the first-stage boosters did not ignite and the missile fell back into the ocean. When launching Trident, the SSBN ‘hovers’ just below the surface, the tube is pressurised to equal the pressure of the sea above and then the hatch opens. The missile is expelled vertically from the boat by very high-pressure steam. It rises rapidly to the surface and into the air where the first-stage booster rocket ignites just above the water and propels the weapon up to speeds of Mach 18 and eventually beyond the earth’s atmosphere. This sequence may sound simple but is a highly complex engineering challenge, both in terms of the missile and submarine design.
Previous notifications to mariners indicate the intention for this test was that the missile would cover approximately 6,000km, descending to an impact point in the mid-Atlantic ocean between Africa and Brazil. By Trident standards this was a relatively short flight as the weapon has a range of at least double this distance.
The MoD says “the anomaly was event specific, and therefore there are no implications for the reliability of the wider Trident missile systems and stockpile”. Assuming this statement is correct then there were particular parameters, limitations or conditions for the test that would not be the case in a live firing scenario.
The Trident II D5LE missiles are shared by the UK and US from a common stockpile and are maintained by Lockheed Martin Space Systems with US Atlantic fleet and RN boats embarking the missiles at the Kings Bay facility in Georgia. (Northrop Grumman manufactures the rocket motors for all three stages of the Trident missile). This is a US industry failure as much as it is a UK problem as they are responsible for selecting the missile and preparing it for the test. The testing range is also managed by the US and data is shared by both parties.
HMS Vanguard arrived in Kings Bay at the end of October 2023 to load missiles. It should be noted that the nuclear warheads are not shared, the UK manufactures its own at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield and mates them with the missiles at RNAD Coulport. For the missile test, nuclear warheads are not fitted and dummies of equal weight are carried instead.
There have already been 191 successful tests of the Trident system which has an outstanding reliability record since its development in the 1990s, having only failed on around 10 occasions before. The USN conducted a successful test as recently as September 2023 during USS Louisiana’s DASO event in the Pacific. Unfortunately, this is the second test failure in a row involving the RN and does not look good, even if there are nuanced reasons for the issue which cannot be made public.
In June 2016 HMS Vengeance successfully launched a missile but it took off in the opposite direction intended, heading towards the US and range safety staff commanded the missile to self-destruct. The cause of this has never been confirmed but human error seems more likely than a technical problem. Notoriously, the 2016 failure was not revealed to Parliament ahead of the vote on Trident renewal and is a much-beloved grievance held by the anti-nuclear lobby.
Since the RN draws missiles from a common pool shared with the USN, it raises the question of whether a second failure was just bad luck or indicates a systemic problem with RN procedures or the interface between boat and missile. Due to the incredible sensitivity around Trident technology and SSBNs, this kind of analysis can never be made public. The limited information available suggests this was a technical, test-related issue and not the fault of the highly professional RN submariners or a problem with the newly refitted HMS Vanguard.
The key question is the credibility of the UK nuclear deterrent. While this recent setback is unwelcome, the overall reliability of Trident is well-proven and the state of the ageing submarines should probably be of greater concern than their missile system. The Vanguard class can carry up to 16 missiles although in 2010 it was announced that only 8 missiles would be carried routinely (5 warheads per missile). Test results, which may not fully replicate a real scenario, show Trident having a failure rate of about 6%. A very crude projection would suggest if a Vanguard boat fired its 8 missiles then only one might fail and 35 nuclear warheads would still be on their way.
“the overall reliability of Trident is well-proven “
“Trident having a failure rate of about 6%”
What if your cars brakes failed 6% of the time?
And if only one in eight missiles fail, where will it land and where will its warheads detonate?
Think I would have kept firing till I had 3 in a row working!
I think only the Russians have test fired a full salvo- all or most in a ripple firing- from one of their nuclear boats.
US and UK and French only done singles test firings
its a second strike weapon. the russians or whom ever have flattened the UK, nuclear winter has come, if one missile goes astray of less concern.
Theres only one British boat at sea at anytime, and it has only 8 missiles on board. Its a bigger deal than your numbers suggest
We now have the ability to destroy Faslane, let’s wait and see what the SNP have to say!
The SNP have said several times that they want to close Faslane and remove the deterrent.
Further proof that neither the SNP nor its supporters live in reality. Very sad.
If they want top be like Ireland and neutral thats fine. Geography means they arent like a similar population Finland, thats the reality too
They also have wanted to abolish monarchy but now want to keep it , keep the NHS and the BBC and the pound . None of those are even possible either.
Faslane would most likely become like Akrotiri in Cyprus for a a few decades anyway.
The Westminster payments to Scotlands government are just £1 bill ahead of the full MOD budget of £54 bill
I’m no fan of the SNP, Duker.
But for clarity, Scotland raises much more than the defence budget in taxation.
During year 2022-23, Scots raised about £87 Billion in taxes.
But overall, public expenditure in Scotland was £106 Billion.
So, like many other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland has a notional fiscal deficit. In year 2022/23, this amounted to about £19 Billion.
(Figures from the Scottish Government).
They need somewhere to park their motorhome(s)!
It ain’t so bad.. worse things happen at sea….
All our eggs in one basket. WE.177 – albeit a tactical weapon – was withdrawn hastily and optimistically. Might this prompt a re-evaluation of that decision? Time there was when this bomb and its foreunners could be delivered – if the sortie were successful – from carrier borne aircraft. For it to add to deterrence, however, you have to be able to show that your carriers are reliable and that you have a sufficient number of aircraft for a penetration mission. Whether WE.177 could be integrated with the F-35 is another question. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for the RAF – with Typhoon – to re-emerge as a partner in nuclear deterrence.
All of the technical questions aside, it’s missing the point to aver that Trident will work in practice (where, on our boats at least, it doesn’t appear to be working in practise). Nuclear deterrence is about placing beyond doubt the near certainty in your opponent’s head that your retaliatory system will work. As with the law, which must not only be done but be seen to be done, nuclear weapons must work not only in anger, but on show too.
Bloody typos, a sign of getting old: ‘…forerunners’.
Tactical US nuclear weapons are integrated on F35A.
So it is not an impossibility.
F35 would be a better platform due to its stealth as it needs to get close to target.
WE177 wasn’t, as far as I know, a glide bomb so it had to be dropped pretty much on top of the target.
Yes, like Red Beard before it, WE.177 was a free fall weapon delivered by one of the various release trajectories practised.
The real point is that we still develop and manufacture our own warheads. Whilst it might be eminently possible to re-manufacture WE.177 from scratch, there must be scope for us to integrate a warhead into a stand off weapon either in service or under development.
What I failed to mention in my original post is that we cannot, as some people seem to be doing already, blame the Americans for this even if they are responsible for maintaining the shared missile pool.
The reason we can’t is that, since the inception of the submarine launched nuclear deterrent, British opposition has made great play that the capability is not sovereign – with some suggestion that we can’t launch without US’ say so. Advocates and proponents of the deterrent contend that this is not the case. To vindicate this case, we need to be the ones carrying the can when it goes belly up (sheesh, mixed metaphors…).
Toss bombing was preferred method then.
Guided (GPS or INS) drop ‘ kit’s would be preferred now( plus removal of parachute) if WE-177 was still around- as is used by USAF and European allies for the B61-12
Lofting …..not on a wasp it wasnt
Trident, strategic weapon.
WE.177, a tactical weapon.
Completely different.
Ok Sean. There are a lot of visitors to this website who have served in the Navy, I privately and affectionately refer to them as ‘seeker fixers’ because their in-depth knowledge of the nitty gritty and minutiae of the Grey Funnel Line is beyond question. It is they who, figuratively, know what the cells of tree bark look like through a microscope. Then we can swing right to the other end, beyond the amateur analysts – call them enthusiasts or if you want to be disparaging, ‘armchair admirals’. I lie beyond this end of the spectrum, because – many, many years ago now and having failed to get into the forces – I decided it wasn’t enough to be a keen amateur, so I went to university and took a degree in International Politics and Strategic Studies. Here I learned more about the bigger picture, the wood and the wider ecosystem into which the wood fits. So not then the cells of tree bark, about which I am clueless. At university, we did in fact refer to those whose interest was more of the ‘Top Trumps’ variety as, disparagingly, the ‘guns and ammo’ brigade, after a magazine then available. Broadly speaking these are the kind of people who say that Ship ‘A’ with ‘x’ Mk41 VLS tubes is less potent than any Ship ‘B’ with ‘x+y’ Mk41 VLS tubes irrespective of any of the myriad of other factors.
So what’s my point? Well, nuclear weapons are of a different order of magnitude – in terms of doctrine – to all conventional weapons, even today. A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, whether it’s a nuclear depth charge or a megaton plus MIRVed ballistic missile, its use crosses a threshold beyond which a different set of rules then come into play. Nuclear deterrence is about forestalling the onset of that set of rules because then the game becomes just about impossible to control and mutually disastrous for all of the protagonists and bystanders alike. All nuclear weapons contribute to nuclear deterrence be they theatre weapons or city busters.
In the 1960s and 1970s our Scimitars, Sea Vixens and Buccaneers – to mention only naval aircraft – were Red Beard capable (sorry to sound a touch ‘guns and ammo’) not only to take out Sverdlovs, but to add another strand of uncertainty to our adversaries’ reckoning on whether they could risk our not responding in kind should they go nuclear.
So, yes different, but not ‘completely different’ as you so confidently assert.
What an excruciatingly long waffle to say absolutely nothing.
Tactical nuclear weapons are envisioned as devices that can be used in theatre where conventional forces are in danger of failing, to avoid defeat.
MAD only applies to strategic nuclear weapons, the use of which ensures nobody wins and everybody loses. Their purpose is deterrence, not use.
Well thank you Thomas Schelling.
Thank you too for that insight. Odd – I must have missed that seminar, which is a shame as I was priveleged to be exposed to some of the best minds in academia.
Books, you’ll find, have a lot of words in them.
I like books. I love the written word. It is – enlightening. The opposite of enlightenment is of course benightedness.
‘…privileged…’
Don’t need to be on par with Thomas Schelling to understand the simple difference between tactical and strategic weapons. (Being a computer scientist I’m well aware of his contributions to game theory.)
Well if you’re going to study an arts degree like Politics you are going to miss useful things. I suggest a proper science degree next-time.
Politics? Arts degree? I did International Politics and Strategic Studies. Did you do a Master’s in Strategic Studies after your proper science degree? I just wonder where your wisdom in this field stems from, being a computer scientist?
By the way, I did maths, physics and chemistry ‘A’ Levels and a year of a BSc in chemistry – a proper, proper science – before switching and shamelessly indulging my interest in strategic studies via formal study. No mistake, strategic studies was far more interesting than chemistry, to me anyway. I will add that whilst I was still doing my ‘proper’ science degree, I don’t recall ever covering nuclear deterrence theory.
I also recall, whilst a chemistry undergraduate, a mathematics undergrad telling me, having applied Lanchester’s laws, that Britain could never win another war – scientifically, it was an impossibility.
Britain then went on to win the Falklands War.
My guess would be that you are at the very start of your career in computer science, in which I wish you well.
Politics is an Arts & Humanties degree.
No I didn’t do a Masters, the headhunters in the Square Mile were offering big bucks back then – start of the 90’s.
(So you’re completely wrong about being “at the very start of your (sic) career”.)
Maths, Physics, Chemistry were amongst the 6 A-Levels that I did – overkill TBH and a total drag on my social life at the time…
I actually had a few friends like you, transferred at the end of their first-year from a hard science course to an easier arts/ humanities course.
Although my final year specialism was AI, my course also covered Game Theory and, of course, Operational Research. The latter really growing out of work done during WW2. The classic examples being the study of how long the battle of Iwo Jima would last, the optimal depth to set depth charges to sink Japanese submarines, etc.
O.R. is more tactical than strategic admittedly, but you don’t need in depth knowledge to know the difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Sean, there are innumerable sources to corroborate this but I’ll offer you just one, the current NATO statement on nuclear deterrence:
‘NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, as well as on the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. A number of NATO countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear weapons in a conflict, and personnel are trained accordingly.‘
See
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm
I suggested that you are at the start of your career because the manner in which you engage with your interlocutors points to a lack of experience of interacting with adults. It is not just how you have responded to my contributions, I have looked at how you have followed the contributions of others, it is indicative of social immaturity.
Inbetween my switching from chemistry to ‘International Politics and Strategic Studies’ I had to study for a couple more A Levels, I think to demonstrate my resolve to continue with study more than anything. I didn’t mention these in my post above – neither of them were General Studies.
Prior to taking up IPSS at university I also went to work for a couple of years. Guess what I was doing? Operational research. The OR concerned was about developing computer models for vehicle routeing – easy now, difficult back then. The computers I worked with were tape-loaded mainframes, midis and remote facilities via acoustic couplers.
You don’t have to be rude to people to make your point. Nor do you have to ‘win’. I hope you will learn this, you will influence more people by so doing.
Nuclear deterrence doesn’t just refer to strategic deterrence, aka MAD. We have conventional deterrence too.
In fact the first aim of any county’s armed forces is to deter attack. It’s only if this fails that they engage an enemy to defend it.
So your attempt to muddle the different degrees of deterrence that exist in order to justify your position that tactical and strategic weapons are the same is rather disingenuous.
Yes well the middle-classes could afford to chop and change, redo A Levels, go back to university again, etc.
It’s funny, your patronising manner, and need to harp on about academic qualifications, gave the immediate impression of an old duffer who thinks age and education give you the authority to talk down to everyone else. Continuing the historical ramble shows you live in the past and are as obsolete as the mainframes you reference.
BTW you didn’t work with “midi computers”, no such thing. Minicomputers, such as the ubiquitous DEC PDP-11, were the only step-down below mainframes before workstations and then PCs.)
Ah bucket of sunshine …the most boring functional ever….well it was for a young AEM….is it time for watchkeepers sran yet chief
Yet again a lack of reasonable openness will make the RN’s life more difficult. Whilst it’s totally understandable that the details of what happened need to be kept secret the fact that the test failed should have been make public within a day or two of it happening. This sort of thing was always going to come out, by waiting for it to come out in a newspaper leak the RN starts from behind the ball in PR terms.
It be interesting to know exactly when they were planning on releasing this to the public.
You are right, the attempt to keep it a secret makes it look so much worse, when they should have been on the font foot, within a week with a plan for when they would have another attempt.
If the MoD kept quiet about a high profile failure like this, then what other everyday failure of equipment are they hiding?
If the MoD is asking for more money, then they need to be transparent about performance of equipment we already paid for. No point throwing good money after bad.
We laugh at Russian equipment and logistical failures but when put to the test, will we do any better?
Well HMS Diamond seems to perform way better than the S-400 at swatting enemy drones out of the sky.
And we have PoW on exercise in the North Sea. Whereas the Russian carrier has been out of service since 2018…
Here he is old Iqbal, about to start trolling again? There is limited comparison between the serviceability of UK kit compared to the Russian crap, and you know, that but it does not suit your agenda to say that!
It’s a good job HMS Richmond hasn’t s**t itself with its own 30mm out in the red sea…… That would be really embarrassing too!
Obviously not a good look, but the public creditability of the UK deterrent is on the line. It is not Trident, but the RN’s ability execute that is in question. We are very quick to be critical whenever the Russian experience a launch failure. A lot of people will be have a good laugh at the RN’s expense today, which is unfortunate.
The RN needs to organize another demonstration launch to prove this was just an isolated incident. Once they pull of a successful launch the RN can return to business as usual, but not until.
No mate it doesn’t need to organise another launch to show the system works. To date there have been 192 Trident test firings of which 10 have been unsuccessful, with two being ours. It’s a reliable system, things go wrong, that’s technology for you. Admittedly it’s not a good look, but all the negativity around this event is laughable.
How else do you propose that Vanguard to be certified as missile launch ready then ?
The missile left the tube, so, job done, they are certified to launch missiles. What did/didn’t/might happen to the missile after that has no bearing on missile launch certification and is beyond the control of the crew.
The two UK failures are different issues, happened after the missiles left the SM, both crews did their parts.
What is causing such ‘angst’ amongst the media et al is the fact that our last two firings were unsuccessful. Ignoring the fact that the system has a 94% reliability rate over the 192 test firings.
Believe that when the Russians tested there Bulova(?) missile they had 5 consecutive failures, so it’s not a new thing, it happens.
Failure just after launch is still a fail
Bulava was a new missile Trident D5 is how old ?
The problem is the sub- just out of major overhaul , not much point ignoring it.
Could well be not enough impulse provided by the steam generator launch gases as thats what the missiles inertial sensors detect to fire the rocket motors when are ‘clear’ of the water
Fire too early and you burn the boat so an invalid missile ejection will only end up falling back into sea , as happened
The test was a failure granted, but, the missile successfully left the tube -period.
The Russians tend to design and build new missiles, whereas the US(Trident) tend to evolve the system over the years. Old it might be but the latest missiles/system is far removed from that first introduced.
Fella, the rest of your post is just pie in the sky random theories, lacking in credibility. Some of us have been there, seen it done, read the book and have got the T shirt as the saying goes, while others, well just haven’t. I will let you go figure which camp you are in.
The missile/ launch system is the SAME as introduced all those years ago, first in the USN Ohio class ( 1990) and then RN Vanguard class.
New boats will have new launch tubes but the same D5 Trident, the RN has only had the Polaris A-3 type previously ( same missile launch system for the life of the boats)
The missiles have type numbers for a reason as they remain the same, no known Mod numbers have been revealed.
The war heads , not used in a test, may change over the years.
the USN for instance no longer carries MIRV , just a single warhead for political reasons
I think Deep might know that, as he has crewed these things for years. Word getting about is that it was part of the testing kit that went wrong, on the missile, something that would not be fitted for a live launch! But hey what do I know, I admit knowledge gaps, others should also, cheers.
The warheads are British, the missile itself is entirely USN with no UK involvement. As the story says , the test missile was loaded at Port Canaveral and ordinary missiles came from US stocks. Those on board arent privy to its secrets at all. Theres no maintenance to be done while underway anyway
The D-5 was quite an accomplishment when first deployed all those years ago and no changes made since other than life extension
Reminds me of SeaCat firings….. by ‘eck, them were the days! ????
I am not sure how Sea Cat is comparable to Trident?
Sea Cat, generally, came off the rails but failed to hit anything other than expanses of sea water.
BTW did you ever manage to hit anything with Sea Cat other than a slow towed target flying in a straight line at the right range and bearing?
Sea cat was modified over the years-GWS 20 -21-22-24 so the last version was on a different planet for fire control than the earliest 1950s version- when it was the first of its kind and example of British innovation.
I’m very well aware of Sea Cat’s many versions having fired a good few of a number of version. The performance was uniformly poor.
At the end it was still a very basic sub sonic missile that wasn’t particularly agile.
Compared to Sea Wolf it was close to useless.
It was Sea Wolf that was the first system that was really useful.
The official Seacat ‘score’ published by the MoD after the Falklands war system was eight enemy aircraft.
But of course the knockers, as they do, believe what they will.
People who’ve worked with the systems will know how poor they were?
And maybe those of us involved in the post ‘82 analysis might know a bit more?
So what was the discharged-to-kill ratio?
It wasn’t good and will have been single digit %.
Most of the hits were on helicopters or turbo props like Tucano. So relatively slow moving targets.
He is incorrect, there were not confirmed Seacat hits in Falklands.
False.
Were you there in Woodwards CIC keeping tally then?
Were you ever in the Falklands then? C-130? Harrier? Kyiv? HMS Vanguard? B61-12 bunker?
official MoD numbers say different. Thats all Im saying. Any different claims need a very high hurdle to show why , instead they are the knockers usual BS
So are just BS-ing as usual and not at the Falklands? nor even at B-61 bunkers?
“Falklands Air War”
Chris Hobson, Andrew Noble (2002)
The initial postwar claims of 8 kills did not stand up to scrutiny. It may have contributed to some, but none were due to Seacat alone.
I was referring to failed missile launches/tests….. Although a nuclear armed SeaCat , tremble Putin ????????????
I got exactly what you were saying, some on here seem to be oblivious to actual Navy related discussions.
RN submarine worked, shared missile failed.
While the optics are bad, the overall reliability of Trident is fine. Still, bringing forward the next RN test launch might be politically expedient.
The previous RN failure was human error on the boat. While it’s entirely possible it is a technical failure (keep in mind the Trident D-5 is literally a space rocket launched from under the ocean) The Americans have had far less failures on far more launches from the same missile stock and tube system.
If I had to guess, it comes down to a lack of recency and proficiency. The RN practices this so infrequently, every sailor on the boat is on their first launch.
The MOD needs to drop coin on a test for every boat, and increasing the testing/training schedule.
From the information coming out so far, the launch from Vanguard was successful. It was the ignition of the missile out after it had cleared the surface that failed. That sounds like an issue with the missile rather than anything done aboard Vanguard.
Yes, it is an article in The Sun that reported the failure and is another Trident sticking up you now? lol
Bob/Alf – any more aliases comrade?
They said its ‘event specific’ and would work if it were the real thing… that says to me that it was a problem with the test warhead. if the missile detects a fault with the warhead it would make sense not to commence launch as you don’t want to be sending a bunch of known duds to a target- at least i would think so. dummy warheads aren’t just ballast- they’re test vehicles for all sorts of things so since the RN use a different real warhead than the americans it makes sense they use their own dummy warhead, which would explain why the americans dont have this problem. i could be completely wrong but thats what makes the most sense to me.
Yes. That would make sense if the likely separation of the multiple ( dummy) warheads was tested while still in upper atmosphere . But that might not be the submarine-missile launch test they were doing.
True, i was just trying to make sense of the comment ‘it would work if it were the real thing’ – which obviously they dont know since it never launched. but considering the RN only test these once every few years i’d expect they’d want to test everything including the reentry vehicles. if you go to youtube theres compilations of US tests showing the actual reentry footage of MIRVs and you can see them exploding above the ground in certain cases- sometimes right above where the camera is and that is so they can test the fusing/targeting etc. surely the RN periodically tests this as well. from what i can find it looks like the US had a successful trident test as recently as 4 months ago
Event specific seems can be 2 things:
It typically should exclude a missile internal problem since that would imply having to check all missiles in stock and that not an “event specific”
Maybe a cover in the nozzle should have been taken out…
This second missile failure is embarrassing. It costs £3 billion a year to maintain the Trident Nuclear detterent. And right wing types on Navy Lookout and UKDJ want the defence budget increased because of Ukraine and Gaza at a time of economic distress and cost of living crisis for ordinary citizens.
If you lot criticise NHS expenditure because the NHS is missing its targets eg. A&E and Cancer waiting lists, then we have every right to criticise the RN and MoD for equipment failure and non delivery of equipment eg. Ajax Vehicles. Waste and mismangement doesn’t only happen on Civvie Street!
In any case, the US maintenance of Trident means that its not truely independent. Like the French system. We could fire the first salvo but within months would need US infrastructure to maintain the missiles. Its inconceivable that we would engage in a nuclear exchange without US support.
The reason for the crisis in Defence is that Britain post Suez is a middling power trying to ‘keep up with the Jones’ and act as a Super power. We lack the resources, industrial base and political will to support our ambitious foreign policy aims. Eventually, we will have to accept this and sacrifice more nuclear and conventional capabilities.
Our military role is to support the US and NATO. Not act as an independent military power. There is nothing wrong or ‘unpatriotic’ with acknowledging this reality.
CASD is cheap. Most of that money goes to keeping AWE, the boats themselves are just a fraction.
The biggest mistake during the Cold War was keeping forces in Germany. We should have spent our money on the RN and RAF. The French and the Germans took the pee somewhat.
Completely agree.
I though the Germans paid for ( some/all) basing costs ? The major forces were 4 armoured divisions the British Army had anyway
I don’t think anyone views the UK as outside its lane militarily. The real issue is a lack of long term strategic vision and constant priority changes with every government.
Look at how big of a mess (read CHANGES) to the QE class development. STOVL, small carrier, now large, now CATOBAR, now STOVL. Compare this with the French PANG development.
The C-130J’s are retired and they were literally brand new. The newest engines, avionics, everything. Retired in favor of a political show (A400) that adds no material capabilities. There are C130’s in service from the 1970’s still. Total waste of money.
Why was the Tornado and Harrier removed from service? Save money. Now the Typhoon costs are spiraling out of control because their utilization rate is so high covering all 3 roles.
It’s piss poor strategic planning. The money is there.
The C130J’s were not “literally brand new”. The came into RAF service from 2000 all of the airframes were more than 15 years old with some over 20 years old.
Try to get your facts straight, doing so might improve your credibility.
And they’d been ragged to feck supporting Balkan ops, TELIC and HERRICK.
The previous model served for 35 years ( since 67) , although 60 plus bought. The J model served alongside the C-17 so that took a lot of the long distance route flying
C-130 very amenable for life extension , but money …
The QE class was developed and in-service, whereas PANG isn’t even expected to begin construction until 2031!!
The A400 carries more, flies higher, flies faster, and can use shorter take-off and landing distances by comparison to the C-130J. So clearly they do “add material capabilities”.
https://www.key.aero/article/raf-airlift-debate-can-a400m-atlas-effectively-replace-c-130j-hercules
Our C-130Js were also knackered from so much use.
The Tornado was obsolete, that’s why it was retired from service.
Harrier was removed from service apparently as a cost-cutting measuring, and arguably should have been retained longer. But definitely obsolete now.
Typhoon costs are not “spiraling out of control”.
Harrier’s main problem was lack of radar. If we had been flying AV8x then keeping them to bridge the gap between CVS and the QE’s would have had some merit. But a simple aging mud mover? Not really.
We are where we are with carriers.
Sea harrier had a good radar. Who cares about the RAF harriers – was the wrong call to put on a deck.
The RAF harriers did fine in ME
But the FAA wasn’t flying Sea Harrier when the type was deconmissioned.
The RAF GRx did fine against stationary objects on the ground.
No air to air capability.
You seem rather ignorant of what Trident is for. If we “fire the first salvo” then we won’t be firing any further ones and wouldn’t be waiting for any replacements.
If Tridents are flying, human life on earth as we know it is over.
I can’t disagree that the MOD appears to be falling short here and there. It is, however, doing so with 2% of GDP. The NHS is woeful on 12% of GDP. Level playing field? By the way, in regard of my observation concerning the NHS, to borrow from you ‘[t]here is nothing wrong or “unpatriotic” with acknowledging this reality’.
You also suggest that the UK is playing keeping up with the Jones’ whilst appearing to laud France – a state with a slightly smaller economy and defence budget – for maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent. One judgement on the UK and another for France?
In the mid-1980s I remember reading an article in one of the broadsheet newspapers then in circulation which revealed that the French had received more assistance from the United States developing thier nuclear deterrent than they cared to make common knowledge. I regret that I cannot cite this source, but I’d suggest that if you do sufficient rooting around you’ll find it to be so.
Given that Russia has also developed S-500 and soon S-550 for ballistic missile defence, there is no longer a credible nuclear deterrence presented by the UK.
You should watch the US missile defense agency videos on Youtube for the LRDR in Alaska and what it takes to get a kill chain on a strategic ballistic missile. The Russians don’t even have a radar capable of identifying the warheads in space among the debris field.
Chris, S-500 is not Star Wars. I suggest that you find out what it is and how it works. And with the 5th Borei class SSBN recently commissioned, downplay what is happening over there at your peril.
Also, I did not say that the US deterrent is ineffective. But, for the sake of argument if there were a decapitation strike on the UK, expect Realpolitik to prevail and Article 5 to collapse. Fortunately though (and for the UK) this is not what Russia really wants. (I am not Russian, but very smart.)
And modest too!
So “very smart” that you write replies to your own comments…
its funny you bring up the Borei while trying to criticize trident. the Bulava has a what, 50% success rate in test? while trident is 94%… Sarmat has also had its fair share of failures. something tells me the majority of russia’s nukes wouldn’t go bang when they want them to. they require regular, very expensive refurbishment of the warheads. russia’s already small defense budget has somehow afforded a lot of people connected to their military a billionaire’s lifestyle. i think we can connect the dots.
Fair points as far as they go, patrick. But Ivan still has a trainload of nukes and I for one say he should be left well enough alone for the most part.
Every nuclear national does regular expensive refurb of their warheads. Bulava is fairly new while Trident D5 is in service for almost 35 years….
It’s best to check the facts before talking about connecting dots
Different approaches to ICBMs. The US approach is to service, refreshes, and upgrade its missiles, rather than replace with new designs as the Russians do. The US approach is this a more incremental and evolutionary approach, which from a engineering perspective will give a higher reliability.
Very different approach indeed. I wasnt aware of its design details. It seems unlike the single stage solid fuel Trident its a 3 stage with the last stage liquid fueled ( higher impulse) for manoeuvrability.
Its seems its called quasi ballistic as it uses a flatter trajectory.
Elon Musk has his own theory about reliability in his rockets, which comes from ‘fast failing’ to learn from problems quickly
The concept of fast failing is for the development phase only. Which is why Falcon 9 has only had 2 failures in its 300+ commercial launch history.
Compare with Starship which is still in development.
Yes . A remarkable system
Given that Russia can’t stop $300 drones from hitting moscow or a 1960s tier neptune missile from striking their S-400s i don’t think anyone with an IQ above room temperature believes russia could shoot down an ICBM. the patriot has proven vastly better than russian systems but even the US Ground Based Midcourse defense is expected to only have a 50% chance of intercepting a single ICBM. How anyone can see what is going on in russia and still believe anything their marketing brochure says is astonishing
False comparison. Kyiv has saturation attacks and ringed with air defences, while Moscow isnt.
Plus Kyiv doesnt allow any reporting of successful attack on its territory ( unless it serves a propaganda purpose, quite rightly).
So dont assume you are receiving the full picture in our media based in Ukraine. That young airman in US national Guard released quite of bit US intell which didnt match the happy news from the ordinary media. Now the funding has stopped , expect more ‘bad news’ to be released until the tap is turned on again.
Since WW2, Moscow has always been circled by the most extensive air-defences of any city on the planet.
Currently it consists of
• A-135M strategic missile defence
• S–50M, which includes the Baikal-1 and Universal-1 automated control systems,
• S-400 and S-300PM2 complexes
• Pantsir anti-aircraft units
Kyiv reports after every attack the number of Russian missiles fired, the number of intercepts, and the number of hits. It always allows reporting on successful strikes on its territory – it serves its purposes to show Russia’s wanton destructiveness.
If you’re employing wanton destruction against your enemy then all your doing is wasting your offensive resources and placing your servicemen at potentially unnecessary risk. You only target what needs to be destroyed in order to defeat the enemy.
Clearly you’ve not read Sun Tzu.
As for Gaza, I bat for peace, believing in a two state solution. You obviously see things from a one-sided perspective… which is no surprise.
Anyone remembers Mathias Rust?
Ah but that was in the communist days before Duker’s idol, Vladimir Putin arose to save Russia and the whole of Christendom from the evils of democracy. Everything now is perfect in Russian, nobody is ill, nobody is poor, and anyone who says different is poisoned.
Not my idol. Hes as stupid as George Bush who invaded Iraq , with his useful ….. Blair
The misinformation coming out of Kyiv is well known, and the ‘real information’ is a basis for the Republicans in US congress blocking the billions of aid that Biden wants to spend
He always mentions Putin. He is obsessed with him I think.
Posts the other Russian shill…
Not your idol yet unlike every civilised human being you don’t condemn is aggression and butchery. Next you’ll be an apologist for Hitler’s action.
It may be “well known” to the idiots who believe or peddle lies, such as yourself.
As for those blocking the aid bill in Congress, it’s only the lunatic MAGA wing of the Republican Party that are doing so. And MAGA never make their decisions based on actual facts.
Still denying it was Ukraine who did the job on Nordstream, despite the overwhelming intelligence consensus – Germans, Dutch, US
But you and Boris are fellow travellers on ‘making wars last’
Still denying Russian war crimes of torturing, raping, and murdering innocent Ukrainian men, women, and children?
Given the performance of the S-400 so far in the war with Ukraine, the one thing we can be certain of is that the S-500 doesn’t perform as well as the Russians claim. It appears to be inferior to THAAD and lacks exoatmospheric interception. The S-550 seems to be vapourware.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/10/05/where-is-russias-s-500-air-defense-system/
Thaad radar/batteries are ‘deployed’ in Turkiye, Qatar ,Israel, South Korea and Romania, so how do you measure its sucess in a war ? Lockheed Martin blurbs I think
Its only operational use was against a Houthi missile in UAE- ah yes
So you suggest launching a war just to test a system? Ridiculous comment.
Meanwhile Patriot successfully intercepts Russian missiles, including their ‘hypersonic’ missiles.
Then why make claims about the THAAD ?
Claims can validly be made about THAAD given the test results.
So you don’t before test results?..
you might have faked them in whatever dead end job you had, but don’t judge others by your own standards.
Probably explains why deny climate-change, etc, etc.
Climate change always happened my friend. Once CO2 was 10 x that we have now. Thats the good news. The bad news is that we’re in an ‘interglacial’ where the ice retreats and advances again
Climate change has always happened naturally and continues to do so. The difference this time is that mankind’s industrialisation is contributing towards it greatly and causing a far greater effect short-term than would ever been seen naturally. T
You’d know that if you’d read the posts of Novel Prize winning in this area that I’ve previously posted. But you prefer to ignore inconvenient facts and prefer to peddle lies instead.
You rejected ‘my’ Nobel Prize winners claims about ‘your peoples computer models’
The weather computer models are mostly accurate – for a few days at least- but my brother in another country shared the email reply he got from the weather forecast people.
Computer models are run multiple times each time with different outcomes, I knew that part but very surprised they have a ‘beauty contest’ for choosing one
Your climate models results for the future are also chosen to given the answer they want from the actual widely varying results – this isnt science
No, after you ranted that you only believed in science that was baked up by Nobel Prizes, I posted the links to the winning of the Noble Prize for proving that man was causing climate change.
You consequently ignored them, as you ignore all facts and links that are at odds with your political beliefs.
You have been corrected by both myself and others on previous occasions regarding your disingenuous equating of climate models with weather forecasts. Yet you still trot out this old trope, because you have no other evidence to back up your viewpoint.
I think if I were looking down the gun barrell that I knew failed 6% of the time, I think its still stay out of its cross hairs.
For the cost of a test flight, £17m according to BBC this is awful. For reputation, not so bad.
A very informative article but unfortunately it’s further bad optics for the RN. Alongside the well documented Type 45 propulsion problems and the Carrier propeller issues it gives the impression of service in decline and crisis particularly given the ongoing recruitment issues. Unfortunately we have Govts that talk big on defence but act small.
All
Two points:
Firstly is the engineering question:.
“Why does the RN never invest in proper infrastructure! Why are we reliant on a UK submarine being available to test a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)?”
To the uninitiated…..and the under-educated………that may sound like a very silly question ……so read on…..
Thus we have waited several years – until Vanguard has come out from its extended tea break (sorry: extended deep mid-life refit) at Devonport – until we tested a missile.
—
The French – whom we ought to remember, design and build all their own submarine’s missiles and warheads………. do it rather differently…..there it is obviously deemed to be an essential national strategic capability = because they drive on the wrong side of the road….
———————
So, meanwhile, over at a top secret French facility (to be found on a large set of military ranges just west of the outskirts of Bordeaux)
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/france-successfully-test-fires-new-m51-3-slbm/
On the other side of La Manche they have a properly engineered missile test facility on the outskirts of Bordeaux. (PS nice city: well worth a visit, especially when the wine testing festivals(s) are on).
There, as this Naval News article strongly hints at, they have full set of missile tubes compartments built underwater (essentially all under a big and deep swimming pool) = and thus they can test their SLBM’s by launching up through the water.
Therefore they can test every single component and launch procedure properly = long before they do a full launch test out at sea using a submarine.
This last French SLBM test was, of course, timed early evening: so just after dinner and (obviously) before the cheese, biscuits and port were served….
By the way, this French SLBM test last November was given the full blaze of media publicity, all well in advance…..
Secondly,the media coverage……..
Unlike the Frenchman – the RN waits until there is a really bad news story before it gets plastered all over the front pages….
The (admittedly brilliant) Matt cartoon on the front of today’s Daily Torygraph sums it up:
“Our Trident missile is veering off course. I hope it doesn’t hit our only working aircraft carrier!”
When are we going to court-martial (and then shoot; preferably Admiral Byng style) the officer(s) responsible for the RN’s quite-pathetic media “relations” over the past few months…..
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
.
It would be nice to be slightly more indpendent as are the French.
Unfortunately…. They just kept the help. Undercover.
Which is why I said slightly.
Well that’s obviously a great facility to test missiles. But the RN’s test was of Vanguard, not the missile.
There was something similar stateside.
We did have something similar in UK when the gas bubble launch was developed.
This is a credible sounding account:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop
Probably at AUTEC?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Undersea_Test_and_Evaluation_Center
So you are suggesting that we spend a few hundred million to replicate what the US already does! Sounds like a sensible approach! We are not testing the missiles, we are testing the delivery system.
They too have test launched from a sub …. which failed
https://basicint.org/blogs/2013/06/m51-missile-failure-where-does-leave-french-nuclear-modernization
The development test/production costs were said to be Eu8.5 bill
The most recent test was a land launch, as described.
Being independent for the full test program means you need one of these
FS Monge
It’s only bad optics if you believe in a schoolboy’s comic book world where everything works at 100% all the time and nothing ever goes wrong. Perhaps that’s the fault of our journalists and teachers.
I used to work on high end IT kit. It broke down. Everything breaks.
Doesnt your high end gear have ‘redundancy’. It was a breakthrough when a disk array could be arranged so that the software is always creating a back up in real time and ‘striped’ as well. this was when disks were far away the most unreliable part
I’m sitting in the Bunker under the Kremlin and after hearing of this Trident “failure” I order a strike on the UK. Really?? Risk everything on the fact that one out of the eight each Vanguard carries has failed? It’s called Deterrence for a reason and if only one warhead out of all fired hits a target then that policy is affirmed. Utterly and completely illogical to think that anyone would engage in a Nuclear Exchange but it has worked for the past many decades and even Putin can’t be that deranged, can he?
True. If we had reached that stage they would be nobody left to hold an enquiriy or indeed be enquired about.
Tom Sharpe’s article n the Daily Telegraph is the best assessment that I have seen
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/21/trident-missile-misfire-anomaly-nuclear-deterrent/
“As this is written, as it has been for every minute of every day since 1969, a nuclear deterrent submarine of the Royal Navy is on operational patrol. The boat is armed with up-and-ready Trident missiles, each of which carries several nuclear warheads, each one of which could destroy a Russian city. The submariners aboard that boat have probably been underwater, continuously, for months. Maintenance problems with the Vanguard class – they have been extended well beyond their design life – have meant that more than once in recent years, a submarine has had to stay out for more than six months. That, for the ship’s company, is more than six months with almost no communication with the outside world.We can all be thankful that they are there. It is a privilege of being British or American or French, that when Putin or his allies rave on TV about London being destroyed by Russia’s nukes, it is bluster. He knows what would happen if he tried.Or would it?Rewind to the end of January. Unseen, beneath the surface of the Atlantic, HMS Vanguard prepared to demonstrate the lethal potential of the Royal Navy. Royal Navy’s Trident-class nuclear submarine Vanguard. HMS Vanguard’s expensive refit was delayed and it is causing problems for the Navy. The submarine had just emerged from a seven-year refit and Grant Shapps, only Defence Secretary since August last year, and First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key, are on board the vessel to witness the test firing of a Trident missile. All seemed to be going well. The drill completes smoothly and the Trident II D5 missile propels from its launch tube into the air. Instead, though, of snaking through the skies towards its intended target somewhere in the mid-Atlantic between Brazil and West Africa, its booster rockets fail and the 58-ton missile nosedives into the murky waters and sinks to the bottom of the ocean. The Ministry of Defence confirmed on Tuesday night that the UK’s latest Trident missile test firing had suffered an “anomaly”. Rocket motors failing to ignite and causing a missile to fall back into the sea, passing the boat on the way back down, is quite an anomaly. It is also not the first time there has been a problem. The last UK test firing in 2016 resulted in an early termination as well. The rockets ignited in that case, but the missile was aborted because telemetry failed. It could no longer be tracked to be sure it would come down according to range safety conditions. Both times, the failure was due to additional test-firing items which would not have been required for a live firing. To be clear: neither failure was a failure of the weapons, both were failures of test safety equipment. The “say nothing” policy of the 2016 failure meant this important information was missing. The subsequent media frenzy lasted two weeks – I was the Navy Spokesman at the time and it was not a lot of fun. This time, the official statement says the anomaly was “event specific”, code meaning that this “wouldn’t have happened for real”. The more proactive comms stance taken this time (possibly because The Sun was going to break it anyway) is crucial because the credibility of the deterrent, and therefore its pivotal role in the defence of NATO and the West, depends on whether or not you believe in it. The MoD has confirmed an “anomaly occurred” on January 30 when a test Trident missile was fired from nuclear-powered submarine HMS Vanguard near Florida The MoD has confirmed an “anomaly occurred” on January 30 when a test Trident missile was fired by HMS Vanguard off the coast of Florida. How many people will dig into the nuance of test-equipment failures and how many will just see two failed firings in a row? How many will extrapolate further and look back to the decision to delay the build of the replacement submarines? It is the delay in replacing the boats that has led to overrun refits and the length of patrols the submarines are being asked to do as a result and the condition they are returning in. What do our potential adversaries make of this? I would imagine that Putin and Xi are looking at the tensions across the service(s) and thinking we’ve probably gone a bit soft. They will be looking at our logistics and infrastructure fragilities and assuming that the excellence of our training and people can no longer mitigate that.But we need to be realistic. Specifically for Trident, its 6 per cent failure rate is exceptionally reliable. Russian equivalents fail at a rate of at least 30 per cent. A Trident boat of today might suffer one failure to launch, but it carries at least eight missiles. If only six worked, Russia would still be wrecked.Our deterrent is real. But it is “running hot”? That is true. The length of HMS Vanguard’s refit – double what it should have been – is part of the wider ballistic missile submarine issue that has forced other boats on increasingly long patrols. The month or so delay involved in reloading and refiring another test missile (i.e. warhead removed and extra tracking kit installed) would perpetuate the very problem the arrival of Vanguard is set to relieve. So, the thing that would close this discussion for good – another test firing – is unlikely until the next boat comes out of refit and needs to work itself up to operational readiness. People may suggest that we have four submarines and more than one could be at sea at any given time: the fact is that only happens when one is coming out to take over the deterrence task, before the on-task submarine comes in. In the meantime, this incident presents an opportunity to the Government today; for clear and concise communications around what happened, not hiding behind secrecy, so that we have a better chance of believing that there isn’t an issue here. If a missile, designed to fly into space before re-entering and unleashing armageddon falls out of the submarine instead, the “nothing to report, time to go on patrol” line has a lot of work to do if people are to believe it. And they have to believe it – the credibility of our most important defence asset depends on it.”
At the beginning of the Polaris programme the Royal Navy wanted five R-boats as the service wasn’t sure it could maintain CASD with just four given the importance of the task.
The UK ended up with 4 R-boats. And these were replaced with larger and more complicated V-boats. And we are now seeing that 4 hulls to maintain CASD isn’t optimum in reality.
The UK has always compromised on the deterrent. This missile fail is just another instance.
If the balloon went up and these systems were used it would be the end anyway.
When dealing with nuclear systems you have to suspend reality.
Paragraphs.
“ best assessment that I have seen”
Pleeese. Its journalese for ‘something went wrong’
years ago I remember a journalist retiring and thanking those who gave support and guidance. She described one person who showed her how to write a whole sports story from just the barebones of a cricket score.
Hes done the same from almost no actual detail, which how journalism works when ‘almost paid by the word’
He expains why there was a test firing in the first place, points out that the failure was due to the test equipment, gives the reason why he thinks it’s unlikely there will be a repeat firing and adds his opinion that there is a requirement for better communication and why.
I found it clear and useful. Now whether or not it was also true or just made up, either by the journalist or the MOD, is always a very different question when reading news reports.
I think hes wrong on most of the detail.
Better information from this story is that Shapps and 1SL were on the RN support vessel HMS Scott not in the sub itself.
Why does the UK always seem to have issues with their test equipment?. They have not had a successful trident missile launch in over a decade. Vanguard has been alongside for over 8 years… What the hell?
Not alongside, being refitted and reactor refuelled – the class were designed not to be refuelled and Vanguard is the only one that will be. Not clear why just Vanguard was affected, though Vanguard previously required repair after a French submarine rammed her.
Thatcher.
The new reactor ‘core’ design wasnt ready yet, so Vanguard was built without it- from 1986- even though Victorious launched 18 months later had the newer version
Thatcher? What’s that supposed to mean.
Wrong, Vanguard was built with the same Core H PWR-2 as the others of her class. Digging deeper, all have actually been refuelled already, this is Vanguard’s second.
I agree. Tom Sharpe is a former Royal Navy officer who commanded four different warships and so is probably more to provide an assessment than “Mr Duck”!
Tom Sharpe is a former Royal Navy officer who commanded four different warships! I rather suspect that he is slightly more knowledgeable than you!
Interesting background to the the first Trident D5 submarine missile launch- from USS Tennesee-, it was a quite dramatic failure
March 1989
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013/january/trident-ii-flipping-flop
That’s a really cool story from 35 years ago…
He was not even born then!
Thats what I said …the FIRST
First launch, 35 years ago.
As up to date and irrelevant as ever.
Missile hasnt changed since- why would they when its been very very reliable – when fired by USN
Anyway it was background on the first sub launch, not even suggesting it was relevant today
fat chance of the RN releasing any pictures which they would have been taking ‘ as it rose majestically from the below the surface …………’
“Background”… yeah right.
And the RN test firing in 2012 for Vigilant when she returned to service after refit (the same test as for Vanguard), was a complete success, as was the one 3 years before that, and the one before that…
The test configuration kit, used on these test flights, is provided by Lockheed Martin
https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/uk-trident/royal-navy-conducts-test-firing-trident-missile