
Theresa May 'faith' in Trident after test 'malfunction' - Alex3917
https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Famp%2F38708823#pt0-728789
======
cameldrv
There appears to be a recent reliability problem with the Trident. There seem
to have been at least two failures in the past 35 launches.

Lockheed often issues press releases after successful tests. Up until 2012,
with the 135th, all of their press releases talked about the "XXXth
consecutive successful launch." Starting in 2012 with the 137th, they all say
"the XXXth successful launch." I take this to mean that #136 was unsuccessful.
Their latest release talks about the 161st successful launch.

------
Theodores
Where this gets interesting is that the British Prime Minister may or may not
have known about this before the vote went to parliament to renew/upgrade this
white elephant.

The funny thing is that the nuclear deterrent of the UK is obsolete for
reasons not widely discussed. Nowadays anyone with enough money to bother can
make themselves a 'drone submarine' to track the nuclear subs out of Scotland
and to wherever they hide in the ocean depths. This is a game changer and the
people in GCHQ really are not pleased with this.

The other thing about the 'British' nuclear deterrent is that the U.S. holds
the keys to the launch buttons, so the UK would not be able to 'nuke Trump'
(or take out the Pentagon for the good of the world...).

Anyway, keep watching this story and the political ramifications, if the Prime
Minister did know that Trident was not working before the vote to waste more
money on this 'preparation for war' then that could be a sackable offence...

~~~
gerdesj
"Nowadays anyone with enough money to bother can make themselves a 'drone
submarine' to track the nuclear subs out of Scotland and to wherever they hide
in the ocean depths. "

Your drone is going to have to quite a piece of kit:

* This: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Lyubov_Orlova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Lyubov_Orlova) floated around the Atlantic for some time and sort of vanished. A sub goes somewhat faster than a drifting ship and has three dimensions to play with.

* It will have to surface to relay the tracked sub's position or deploy buoys or something

* It will have to be able to match the tracked sub's endurance

There are probably some mitigations for the above but if your drone loses its
quarry it is useless. If it is detected then it will be useless and in pieces
- it will almost certainly end up in a fishing net or some other plausible
accident.

I doubt GCHQ are really fussed with your drone given that they are not part of
the Royal Navy. I doubt the RN are too bothered with your drones but mitigate
for it anyway as part of the broader effort to secure the effectiveness of the
subs.

~~~
Theodores
Here is a speculative piece from the mainstream media, obviously no better
than fake news for those with made-up minds:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-
secur...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-
blog/2016/feb/29/new-trident-submarines-doomed-by-drones-of-the-future-says-
new-report)

My knowledge of the 'sub drone threat' is from countryside walks with folks
that work for GCHQ and what they are up to in Ascencion Island. Obviously that
is mere second hand gossip, however it is a serious existential threat to
Trident when the one nuclear sub that is seaworthy at a given time can be
tracked out of Scotland and wherever it goes in the ocean. It is only a matter
of time before this happens.

~~~
gerdesj
I've no doubt that you have spoken to people who are involved with GCHQ - you
have said so yourself and I'll take that as trustworthy - why would you fib
about that, it seems innocent enough? However how many of those people have
actually sat down and _really_ evaluated the threat that you posit?

GCHQ employees are not submariners. Your mates in Ascension might be kitchen
staff for all I know and given how you spell Ascension and the use of "folks",
you are not from around here are you?

Its all very well denigrating something, perhaps you are doing this for
someone's operational reasons, but it's not very convincing. _sigh_

Cheers Jon

~~~
Theodores
...my first job was to do with hiding submarines between hot/cold currents in
the ocean for the Royal Navy. The people I worked with were not the sharpest
'knives in the drawer' (whereas the civilian scientists I worked with on other
projects most certainly were). There were only so many bits of the ocean that
we looked at, I imagine that given the range of the missiles and the likely
targets there are only so many places the one active nuclear armed submarine
actually goes.

Although I have a passing interest in the UK deterrent that has 'protected me
all these years', intellectually I lost interest after learning at an early
age that it wasn't all that it was cracked up to be. (For starters, me being
given any involvement with no skills whatsoever was a sign of such flakiness.)

I know that GCHQ are mostly about reading people's Facebook posts and emails
these days, but, they are the 'government communications headquarters' and,
compared to the chumps I got burdened with, they are from the drawer with
slightly sharper knives. I have no real idea what they are up to in
Ascenscion, however, the guys sent out from Gloucestershire were far too far
along the Civil Service road to retirement on final salary pension to be
'catering staff'. However, most of those 'submariners' are doing things like
catering, polishing boots and all those things that happen to keep things
'ship shaped'. I am sure the brains are in 'the doughnut' (GCHQ) and not in
the tin can doing as it is told somewhere beneath the waves.

Although GCHQ people work in a giant doughnut instead of at sea, GCHQ came out
of the Royal Navy. It is a vital part of the setup and not this 'email-
stalking identity that does ship to shore communications on the side'.

Obviously without photographic evidence of a Russian undersea drone the idea
that someone could theoretically follow the Royal Navy's solo operational
nuclear armed submarine is pure speculation, but, with secretly muttered
gossip from Gloucestershire, articles in the mainstream news and my own
appreciation of 'how to hide a submarine', I personally feel that the nucular
deterrent is not all it is cracked up to be.

------
sergers
Title a bit misleading... And not title of article its linked to.

Details are sparse, but they were test firing off the coast of Florida.

The missile veered to the mainland instead of the intended target in the
water.

Malfunction was in flight and raises issues with their system, that's hardly
tested.

~~~
mikeash
To elaborate, it's misleading because no nuke was involved. The missile was
(of course!) not carrying a nuclear warhead for the test.

------
synicalx
I wonder what would happen if by some bizarre twist of fate they accidentally
nuked Florida? As in, same scenario but someone forgot to take a nuclear
warhead off first.

Even if it was a demonstrable accident, a stupid number of people would still
die. Would America be somewhat obliged to retaliate, even if just to show the
rest of the world that they don't have a free pass to pull off an 'accident'
of their own?

If anyone wants to turn this into a book, I'll buy it!

------
hoodoof
"England nukes Florida."

That would be one of the most unlikely collection of words ever strung into a
single sentence, but hey in this topsy turvy Trumpy world, anything is
possible I guess.

~~~
pasquinelli
i disagree, because since "Florida" is one of those words, anything could
happen.

~~~
krapp
"England nukes Florida - United States responds with a collective sigh of
relief."

~~~
hoodoof
Trump declares that England has always been the deepest enemy of the U.S.A,
receives instructions from Putin to retaliate.

U.S.A. nukes London.

