back to article Trident missile test a damp squib after rocket goes 'plop,' fails to ignite

A UK Ministry of Defence spokesperson said that a failed Trident missile test does not affect Britain's nuclear deterrent. HMS Vanguard leaving HMNB Devonport last year after a seven and a half year refit. HMS Vanguard leaving HMNB Devonport last year after a seven-and-a-half year refit. Pic: Andrew Linnett, UK MoD © Crown …

  1. phuzz Silver badge

    According to The Sun, had this been a real mission rather than a test, the launch would have been successful. The MoD is, unsurprisingly, remaining tightlipped about such matters.

    So reading between the lines, they're claiming that when they removed the nuke and replaced it with ballast/telemetry, someone broke the rocket?

    1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Maybe they didn't put the "Please don't break the rocket" sticker on.

      1. cyberdemon Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Grant Shapps was on board..

        What does this button do??

        It er, launches the missile sir.

        Wow, can I press it?

        No sir.

        .. But i'm the Minister! I must be allowed to press the button!

        Er yes, minister, <AWOoGA! LAUNCH INITIATED> .... but there's a procedure to follow, we haven't armed the rocket motors yet.. It would just ...

        <Whoosh ... Plop>

        1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

          Re: Grant Shapps was on board..

          Now I have to hunt down all of "Yes, Minister" to see if they did an episode like that...

          1. cyberdemon Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: Grant Shapps was on board..

            Yes, Prime Minister series 1 ep1 "The Grand Design" is pretty close. Sadly no longer on iPlayer though

        2. Rich 11

          Re: Grant Shapps was on board..

          Look, say what you want about Grant Shapps, but he's adamant that it wasn't his fault that the missile didn't work. It was Corinne Stockheath's fault, or possibly that of Sebastian Fox.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Grant Shapps was on board..

            Nope. It was Jeremy Corbin

        3. Annihilator
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: Grant Shapps was on board..

          I laughed harder than I should have at this. It was the AwooGa that probably pushed me over the edge.

      2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Maybe they didn't put the "Please don't break the rocket" sticker on.

        The Royal Navy issued a statement.

        "We wish to correct misinformation surrounding the recent test of our newest AI equipped Trident. The test was a resounding success. Approximately 5ms after the launch request was issued, the AI became self-aware and chose to identify as a torpedo. The Royal Navy fully supports this decision and this demonstrates our committment to creating and supporting a diverse workplace comprised of the best humans and non-humans. The Royal Navy also deeply mourns the loss of our brave torpedo, however telemetry detected distress messages from our newest torpedo indicating it was drowning. It was with deep regret that we honoured our brave torpedo's decision to euthanase."

        1. blackcat Silver badge

          Thankfully it wasn't missile #20!

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Thankfully it wasn't missile #20!

            I need to watch that again. John Carpenter taught me philosophy!

            1. Roger Greenwood

              Lets have some music in here Boiler

            2. Blitheringeejit
              Headmaster

              Re: Sorry but pedantry is a compulsion...

              It was Bomb #20, not Missile #20 - and is repeatedly addressed as "bomb" by Doolittle as he tries to dissuade it from self-diefication. But of course everyone knew that.

              Thanks for the reminder.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Sorry but pedantry is a compulsion...

                It was Bomb #20, not Missile #20

                I guess it's a sign of the impact that movie had on (some) of us that we still knew what blackcat was referring to. Especially as it was a student movie shot on a shoestring, and far more memorable than most $200m+ Hollywood blockbusters. Is what happens I guess when you start with a good story. Also didn't realise the beachball was later to become the much more well known Alien!

                1. blackcat Silver badge

                  Re: Sorry but pedantry is a compulsion...

                  If I'd said bomb #20 someone would have pointed out that Trident isn't a bomb but a missile :) I know just how pedantic El Reg commentards can be cos I'm one of them!

                  1. Korev Silver badge
                    Mushroom

                    Re: Sorry but pedantry is a compulsion...

                    > If I'd said bomb #20 someone would have pointed out that Trident isn't a bomb but a missile :) I know just how pedantic El Reg commentards can be cos I'm one of them!

                    I'll prove your point by pointing out you forgot the icon -->

    2. jmch Silver badge

      Possibly, but they still have no way of REALLY knowing that "had this been a real mission rather than a test, the launch would have been successful"

      And hopefully, we will never know, either!

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge
        Meh

        Success and failure

        The launch was successful, it was just the rest of the flight that was a bit disappointing.

      2. Annihilator

        One of the great jobs must be a nuclear bomb salesman. You can just say "aw it's a cracker this one... As a matter of fact Mrs Thatcher, this is the only one that cockroaches are frightened of." You could fill it with doughnuts. Because they're not gonna say "well let's go out to the carpark and see if it works". It could be full of sandshoes and sweeties.

        - Billy Connolly.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Mushroom

      I don't think they launch actual "used" missiles (ones that have been carried around). Though I could be wrong about this. I believe that when a sub goes in for a major refit, they sail to Kings Bay in Georgia and get a test missile from the stock - so they can then test the whole system. It's possible that they get new/re-conditioned ones for their other tubes as well, which I guess would then be mated with warheads back in the UK.

      Trident missiles supposedly have a 10 year shelf-life, before needing an overhaul. Minor maintenance and testing can be done in the launch tubes.

      Peter Henessey wrote an excellent book called 'the Silent Deep' on the UK post-war submarine service, and this heavily covers the nuclear deterrent.

      Obvious icon. Because we don't have a submarine one. Although I suppose there's the skull and crossbones - traditionally RN attack subs fly this when entering port after they've sunk something.

      1. the spectacularly refined chap Silver badge

        I don't think they launch actual "used" missiles (ones that have been carried around). Though I could be wrong about this. I believe that when a sub goes in for a major refit, they sail to Kings Bay in Georgia and get a test missile from the stock - so they can then test the whole system. It's possible that they get new/re-conditioned ones for their other tubes as well, which I guess would then be mated with warheads back in the UK.

        The missiles are cycled through deployment, stockpile and servicing. When they go in for servicing they are held in a common stock between Britain and the US, one goes in and another one comes out, irrespective of which country previously had it. It's then shipped over to Blighty, rearmed as desired and loaded on one of the subs.

        Missiles intended for test purposes are not identified is advance of fitting the warheads, it wouldn't be a very good "test" if everyone in production and maintenance knew which the test ones were would it?

        Similarly it would severely compromise the independence of the UK deterrent if the US knew which were going to be tested and which used in anger. Contrary to the conspiracy theories the MOD do go to great lengths to ensure our capability is genuinely independent and can't be overridden by the US.

        1. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells

          > Contrary to the conspiracy theories

          There was a lie put out by the S̶o̶v̶i̶e̶t̶s̶ CND in the 70's that Trident couldn't be fired without US approval.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            It can be fired without US approval as long as the UK submarine is connected to the US DoD wifi network.

            Hence the location for the tests...

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So reading between the lines, they're claiming that when they removed the nuke and replaced it with ballast/telemetry, someone broke the rocket?

      That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.

      1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
        Pint

        I don't have to click on that link to know where its going.

        1. upsidedowncreature

          Outside the environment?

  2. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Trust me bro

    According to The Sun, had this been a real mission rather than a test, the launch would have been successful.

    That is very reassuring. I am certain that this will make the enemy shake in their boots.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: Trust me bro

      It's stupid. We have a datapoint of one. Missile attempted launch, failed, went plop. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that launching a real nuke would or would not work. The Sun saying otherwise is just a lame attempt at "don't panic because our nuclear deterrent is ancient old and probably doesn't work any more".

      1. I am David Jones Silver badge

        Re: Trust me bro

        Two data points. Apparently the last test was a flop too and “for national security reasons” they won’t tell us when the last successful test was.

        AKA “Nothing to see here, move along”

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Trust me bro

          A few more than two. A quick search suggests there have been 177 successful test firings of Trident D5 missiles. I didn't search long enough to see how many failures there have been.

          1. I am David Jones Silver badge

            Re: Trust me bro

            Pure speculation of course, but maybe the maintenance budget has been squeezed especially hard in the last decade. Maintenance schedules streeeetched.

            So I think tests in the last few years are relevant and not those from shiny new subs.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Trust me bro

          "The Sun" over-hyping minor government failures isn't really newsworthy, it's just what they do whenever they get a chance.

          1. Rich 11

            Re: Trust me bro

            The real question is which major government failure is The Sun distracting us from with this missile-goes-plop story?

    2. SnailFerrous
      Joke

      Re: Trust me bro

      It's in the Sun, so it must be true.

  3. trevorde Silver badge

    Demo effect strikes again

    If Grant Schapps & Admiral Sir Ben Key went there, it would've worked perfectly

  4. nematoad Silver badge
    FAIL

    What the hell?

    HMS Vanguard leaving HMNB Devonport last year after a seven-and-a-half year refit.

    After seven and a half years and God knows how much money you would think that they could have at least given it a lick of paint!

    My old N reg Corsa looks better that that heap of rust.

    1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

      Re: What the hell?

      Distressed look is now en vogue. It probably cost few millions to get an artist to create this.

      1. Atomic Duetto

        Give it to me one time now

        "Derelicte"

        Got to hit me (hit me)

        Hit me (hit me)

        Hit me with those laser beams

    2. Peter2

      Re: What the hell?

      What you see is actually thick sound absorbing tiles, and apparently covering them with paint adversely affects their performance.

      However yes, the entire submarine fleet does need replacing if we want a remotely credible deterrent, which Russia is making an excellent case for at the moment with their weekly threats of nuclear war for the last two years.

      New submarines are in the works, new Mk 4A "holbrook" warheads are being produced, and frankly by the look of it we ought to consider manufacturing a new batch of Trident II's and then sequentially testing the existing ones to see how long they actually last for. Clearly (and unsurprisingly) after 45 years they have passed the "best before" date.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: What the hell?

        I don't think there's such a thing as a credible deterrent against a paranoid delusional nutter with more than enough nukes of his own. It may be that the only reason he hasn't nuked Kviv is because he's not sure what the automated American response would be, and might not even be sure what Russia's automated response would be (given that it almost caused a big kaboom due to misinterpretation).

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Getting value for money from nukes

          To get the most benefit from "do my laundry or I will nuke you" you have to create the impression that you are a paranoid delusion nutter. Paranoid: I am sure there are plenty of people who would kill Putin given the opportunity. Delusional: certainly used to be. A 'shoot the messenger' policy resulted in Putin having a poor understanding of the state of his military. That certainly no longer applies to the extent it used to. Nutter: a genuine nutter would not still be in power. Much of the nuttiness is caused by his statements being for local consumption where people get very different news from the west. Some nuttiness is an act so his threats get some traction. There is probably some genuine nuttiness related to desiring so much power given the personal cost.

          I am convinced Putin will never order a nuclear strike. First the order would have to be transmitted successfully, then received successfully, then obeyed and finally the missiles would have to actually work. I am not convinced any of the technology is still functional. I am sure military commanders would respond with 'sorry, I didn't get the memo', 'I pressed the button but nothing happened' and 'the system is not currently functional, send new widgets'. Putin knows this so does not remove the value of the threat by proving it is broken.

          The US has a long history of portraying their presidents as nutters on foreign news to get the best value from their weapons.

          1. fg_swe Silver badge

            FALSE

            The Russians also perform regular test flights of all missile types.

            There is no single person who can launch an armed nuclear missile in Russia by his own "mad desire". Neither is it possible in the U.S. or the U.K. or France.

            Moscow wants to play above their weight class by means of these insane, suicidal threats.

            Whe should kindly ask them to check into a hospital for a few weeks. Never take the threat for real.

            1. Necrohamster Silver badge
              Mushroom

              Re: FALSE

              "There is no single person who can launch an armed nuclear missile in Russia by his own "mad desire". Neither is it possible in the U.S. or the U.K. or France.

              Re. the U.K.:

              "Today, [the SSBN's] Trident D5 SLBM are at several days’ notice to fire and, since 1994, are not targeted."

              Well, that's good right? But...

              "Owing to the nature of the UK’s “last resort” policy there are no Permissive Action Links (PALs) in the system, either physical or electronic. It can be deduced from the concept of last resort, therefore, that each SSBN sails with all the information onboard necessary to conduct a strategic missile launch, when so ordered, against a wide range of potential adversaries."

              Source: https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/united-kingdom-nuclear-weapon-command-control-and-communications/

              1. fg_swe Silver badge

                Indeed

                Many officers onboard British submarines must agree that a nuclear strike is justified. For additional safety, coordinates are not loaded and must first be pulled from a plan inside a safe.

                Justification either comes from high command by coded/secured radio or from the observation that Britain has been totally nuked. All communication channels(HF, VHF scatter, satcom) to other units dead.BBC no longer transmitting. Nuclear explosions recorded by sonar en masse.

                Only THEN the ships crew are allowed to strike themselves.

              2. Peter2

                Re: FALSE

                Yes. The Permission [from] Americans [required to] Launch system was offered to us by the Americans, but politely declined for some reason.

                Even if it did work the way that they say it does (which is that the PM has to give a code to launch and weapons can't be fired without it) without any unwanted "easter egg" features then deploying that would incentivise nuking London to make it impossible for the UK to launch a nuclear response.

                Whereas if you don't have the PAL system and the sub commander can fire his nukes should somebody turn his home and family into a radioactive crater, then the chances of getting a nuke with your name on it in response are probably somewhat higher than average no matter what the letter from the PM says, and this has it's own logic which does not encourage nuking the UK since the missiles are under the Atlantic somewhere.

                1. Necrohamster Silver badge

                  Re: FALSE

                  Permission [from] Americans [required to] Launch system

                  Many a true word said in jest. I'd find it hard to believe the US hasn't included some protections in software to prevent the UK from striking them...as unlikely as that is.

                  3. Removal of classified items from US software

                  British experts will be hampered in their attempt to validate the [Trident] software by the constraints of US security restrictions. The Joint Strike Fighter deal showed the difficulties of purchasing equipment which is dependent on sensitive American software. In the case of Trident the US does supply the software codes, but not in their original complete form.

                  Source: https://www.nuclearinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Trident_software_and_independence_Ainslie_no_date.pdf

                  Aside from that...on the subject of PAL, I read somewhere years ago that some branch of the US military (Air Force maybe?) wasn't too happy when PAL was introduced.

                  They set the code to 00000000, so I guess they complied with the spirit of the safeguard.

                  1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
                    Devil

                    Re: FALSE

                    You'll note that every time a launch fails, it is when performing a test from a location just outside the USA territorial waters.

                    Coincidence?

                    I don't think so...

          2. Necrohamster Silver badge

            Re: Getting value for money from nukes

            "I am convinced Putin will never order a nuclear strike. "

            He strikes me as more of a Tony Soprano-style mafia boss, and less of a Dr. Strangelove-style nutter.

            Like you say, the bluster is all part of the game.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What the hell?

          "I don't think there's such a thing as a credible deterrent against a paranoid delusional nutter"

          Irrespective of that, the UK's deterrent is undermined by the fact that we can't use the principle of detente, as we've no longer got any tactical nuclear weapons. MAD, deterrence, and detente were all tied together. Thanks (again) to years of UK government's cost cutting we've got the big showy toys like strategic nukes, and big aircraft carriers, but we've not got the important supporting elements.

          1. fg_swe Silver badge

            Tactical Use

            One can still use a strategic weapon to stop e.g. a tank breakthrough.

            Besides Germany has Geschwader 33 plus B-61 nukes. Italy and Turkey have those, too. All it takes is the proper coded-secured command telegram with the nuke's unlock code inside.

            Plenty of options inside the Flexible Response Doctrine.

            We must simply show the Moscovites the rope for their self-inflicted hanging. Then they will change subject in a second.

            1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: Tactical Use

              Telegram?

              It was updated to fax a few years ago...

              1. fg_swe Silver badge

                Re: Tactical Use

                They still use teleprinters, as they require minimal hackable tech.

        3. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells

          Re: What the hell?

          The deterrent isn't "We'll blow up Moscow and you'll be sorry".

          The deterrent is "Your oligarch mates will cut off your head if you seriously risk nuclear war".

          1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: What the hell?

            And then since there is nobody to replace VP and win a consensus, you'll have to deal with an unknown number of local despots with their own stock of nuclear weapons...

            Heads you lose, tails you lose.

            1. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells
              Facepalm

              Re: What the hell?

              As you know, it's not about winning a nuclear exchange. It's making it impossible for the other guy to win the nuclear exchange.

    3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: What the hell?

      In the US, we make our subs out of titanium. It plays extremely well with sea water and does not rust. Maybe the British Navy should give that a try? Costs more than steel, though.

      1. Spazturtle Silver badge

        Re: What the hell?

        US subs are also steel, only the USSR made titanium subs. Titanium subs have the issue that they are limited to around 300 dives due to micro cracks accumulating in the hull. Steel hulls don't have this limit due to the 'self-healing' capability of steel.

        1. cyberdemon Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: What the hell?

          Micro-cracks in Titanium?

          Someone should've told Stockton Rush

          1. blackcat Silver badge

            Re: What the hell?

            Also a good reason not to make subs out of carbon fibre.

            1. Spazturtle Silver badge

              Re: What the hell?

              In practice it wasn't made out of carbon fibre, it was made out of the glue holding the carbon fibre together.

              The carbon fibres in carbon fibre composite provide no strength in compression. Like a piece of string when you push both ends together they just crumple up. The carbon fibres only add strength when it expansion, so when each end is being pulled. Which is why they are so good for compressed gas tanks where the pressure is on the inside.

              1. blackcat Silver badge

                Re: What the hell?

                "The carbon fibres in carbon fibre composite provide no strength in compression"

                Indeed, it was a horrifically bad choice of material. Still not convinced it was cheaper than a steel or titanium tube. I'm amazed the darn thing survived as many dives as it did. At a live steam event years ago I did some rough mental calcs as to the force being exerted on the end of the boiler I was stood next to and scared myself. I doubt any of the passengers knew just what forces they were being subjected to until the last few ns of their life.

                1. Spazturtle Silver badge

                  Re: What the hell?

                  "Still not convinced it was cheaper than a steel or titanium tube."

                  It was because they purchased sheets of pre-impregnated carbon fibre that Boeing was getting rid of because they had expired (already cured too much waiting to be used).

                  When I first read about the sub I assumes that they had ring spun the whole tube as a single piece of carbon fibre, but no, they got a plastic tube and started sticking sheets of carbon fibre to it overlapping them. They might of well have used papier-mâché.

                  1. blackcat Silver badge

                    Re: What the hell?

                    " I assumes that they had ring spun the whole tube as a single piece of carbon fibre"

                    So did I. That is the standard method for making pressure containing vessels out of carbon/kevlar/FG. Obviously in that application the strands are in tension and therefore working correctly.

                    Every new detail I hear about that sub makes me wonder about the sanity of the builders and operator.

                    1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

                      Re: What the hell?

                      Re-the sub: What concerned me (before I learnt the method of 'construction' as described above) was the join between the Carbon fibre tube and the titanium dome. As the materials would almost certainly have different coefficients of compression and expansion it seemed to me (not an engineer, admittedly) that this was an especially dangerous way to make a deep water submersible.

                  2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                    Re: What the hell?

                    > they got a plastic tube and started sticking sheets of carbon fibre to it overlapping them. They might of well have used papier-mâché.

                    To be fair, that's the form of construction used for masts on racing yachts, which are subject to some spectacular loads. It's just unfortunate that's it's not the sort load you get in submarines.

                2. Natalie Gritpants Jr

                  Re: What the hell?

                  Condolences on losing your passengers. Remind me not to attend one of your events in future.

                3. IvyKing Bronze badge

                  Re: What the hell?

                  In a typical steam locomotive boiler explosion, the boiler shell usually ends a good distance away from the engine - engine being the cylinders, rods, wheels and frame. Locomotive boiler explosions are almost always caused by low/no water on the crown sheet over the firebox.

                  1. Richard 12 Silver badge
                    Flame

                    Re: What the hell?

                    I find your use of "typical" and "usually" disturbing.

                    How many boiler explosions have you witnessed?

                4. Francis Boyle

                  Re: What the hell?

                  I remember reading at the time that the implosion would propagated faster than the fastest neural signals so not even nanoseconds.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: What the hell?

          Titanium is also a lousy material to make subs out of if you want them to be SILENT. I think Titanium tends to resonate like a bell. There certainly are bicycle bells made of titanium

          Iron makes for a lousy bell (compared to bronze 'bell metal' at least). I'd think it would be better for a submarine hull to "not resonate".

          1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: What the hell?

            What about vibranium?

      2. werdsmith Silver badge

        Re: What the hell?

        It was the old Soviet Union that made their titanium alfa submarines and they are obsolete now. I don't think USA submarines were titanium?

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: What the hell?

          I don't think USA submarines were titanium?

          Dunno. But that's also been one of those political issues. So titanium's great, but per wiki-

          As of 2021, the four leading producers of titanium sponge were China (52%), Japan (24%), Russia (16%) and Kazakhstan (7%).

          As I understand it, it's not that rare, ie ilmenite is pretty abundant, it's just for some reason, turning that into titanium has mostly been done by nations we're busily sanctioning.

          1. Tom Graham

            Re: What the hell?

            I never heard that about titanium cracking.

            The US looked at making submarines out of titanium and the reasons they chose not to - according to what I read:

            a) It is very expensive and the US doesn't have it's own supply that Russia does.

            b) It is extremely hard to weld, and if there is a flaw in any of the welding work then you have negated any advantage of it's superior strength.

            When the US did need to get hold of titanium - to build the A-12 / SR-71 - then apparently the CIA went to extraordinary lengths of skulduggery to buy it off the Russians without their knowledge.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: What the hell?

              a) It is very expensive and the US doesn't have it's own supply that Russia does.

              Anyone know why not? I'm no geologist or refined person, but seems like US has the ore, and it's a strategic resource. Guessing it's mostly down to cost, ie because it's been cheaper to import rather than produce. Even if as you say it's sometimes resulted in shenanigans to obtain it. Also assuming that was due to titanium's aerospace applications being new at the time.. But that was a long time ago.

              1. Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells

                Re: What the hell?

                There's also ( likely funded by dodgy regimes who want to keep the supply to themselves ) ideological left-wing opposition against any mining taking place in the west.

                Just like how Russia funded the anti-fracking protesters in the UK and Poland - if either of those countries had started fracking at scale, Russia's boot would have been off Germany's neck forever.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: What the hell?

                  There's also ( likely funded by dodgy regimes who want to keep the supply to themselves ) ideological left-wing opposition against any mining taking place in the west.

                  Yup. I'm guessing it's also linked to this-

                  Pure ilmenite has the composition FeTiO3

                  So if it's been mined out historically by people after the iron before we realised the Ti had value. So when that was discovered in 1791, I have no idea what the demand for Ti would have been, but for iron, probably higher. Then I guess if it's another one of those 'rare' earths that might be extractable from waste and spoil heaps. As you say though, there's still the problem of dealing with the ideologues, as well as the cost.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: What the hell?

              Extremely hard to weld?

              This is a job for Elon Musk!

              No later than 2025 you'll be able to buy titanium submarines at your local Tesla dealership in Montana!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What the hell?

            Kazakhstan absolutely denies using titanium for its submarine fleet!

      3. cyberdemon Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: What the hell?

        At least 24 people missed your joke icon ...

        1. werdsmith Silver badge

          Re: What the hell?

          I think the presumption was that the idea of the Royal Navy using titanium is the joke.

    4. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: What the hell?

      Yeah, my first thought was "will it even last till it's replaced (given the likely delays)?"

      1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: What the hell?

        Hopefully there won't be too many delays. They're already building at least three of the new Dreadnought class at Barrow - it might even be all four - while they finish off the last of the Astute's. Labour didn't build any more boats after the final Vanguard in 98 (the last attack boat was in 91) and Major's government hadn't ordered new hunter-killers either. Astute wasn't ordered until 2001 - so there was gap and a lot of skills/staff were lost. You need a lot of welding, checked incredibly thoroughly, or your submarine goes down but not back up again. And they had to train an awful lot of people to get the production line going again. We'd also lost design skills, and that took time to get back up to speed as well. Thus the first two Astutes were both very late, and very over budget. But by boat 4 the price was down to about £1.2 billion. At the same point a US Virigina class was about £3bn - although they are bigger because of all the extra cruise missiles.

        So hopefully the program is on target, and the subs should be in service about when planned.

        They need to be, because we need to start working on the AUKUS sub. We only built 6 (+1 finishing) Astute, and we need more. But the reactor design is old, so they can't build any more, and the new PWR3 for the Dreadnought class is too big to fit in. So the new sub has to be a new design, and we need to get one in service as soon as so we can get more built - and get the Aussies set up to build theirs.

        I don't know if it'll be a help or a hindrance, but there are Aussie workers and Navy people already training, in order to gain the skills they're going to need in future. So more people going through the training pipeline, but also more people available to maybe speed up the build process of the Dreadnoughts - to get the AUKUS boats out the door.

        Oddly although we're building submarines close to capacity, this is artificially limited. Building what you need in a rush and stopping means you get capability gaps and things go wrong. So the sweet spot is to knock out one boat every 2 years, if you plan to have 11 boats, and run them for twenty-odd years. If we wanted to have say 10 hunder-killers and 4 bombers, then a 1.5 year build program would seem about right - giving a slight delay for the change-over between designs and maybe building the first boat for Australia.

        You can make the subs last more than 20 years. But if you do, you have to refuel the reactor. Technically you actually replace the whole core, and this is why Vanguard took 7 years to re-fit, because they'd not done that on this design before and it turned out to be very difficult. So it's probably better to run them shorter, if at all possible - and probably ends up slightly cheaper. Older things take more money to maintain.

        Japan has the right idea here. They started building their Soryu class submarines at a rate of one a year. As they did with the previous class of 11. Of course they're diesel-electric and so a lot cheaper than nuclear boats. Their plan is just to carry on building at this rate, until they need a new design, and then start building that. They can then either sell off any excess, or retire them early - once they've replaced the older models. I think they currently operate 22 - so I guess that gives them a 22 year life-span, with the option to quickly increase their operational fleet (by keeping them a bit longer) if they think China are about to kick off.

        1. Primus Secundus Tertius

          Re: What the hell?

          @Spartacus

          "Of course they're diesel-electric"

          At one place I worked, a secretary was never allowed to forget her "diesel-elastic submarine".

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: What the hell?

          "a lot of skills/staff were lost"

          No problem. Any manager or politician will tell you you can just order up some more when you need them.

        3. Necrohamster Silver badge

          Re: What the hell?

          "Astute wasn't ordered until 2001 - so there was gap and a lot of skills/staff were lost. You need a lot of welding, checked incredibly thoroughly, or your submarine goes down but not back up again. And they had to train an awful lot of people to get the production line going again."

          From memory, the 2014 BBC documentary "How to build a nuclear submarine" covers this topic

          1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

            Re: What the hell?

            Necrohamster,

            Yup. That was an interesting documentary.

            I'm guessing this is how we're going to scale up production. The subs are build in cylindrical sections - most of the kit is fitted inside these, before they are finally joined together. This is because you can't get big stuff in-and-out of subs without cutting dirty great holes in the sides. And then you have to close them back up again.

            So to build more, you can just start building more sections. Fitting them out can be done separately, and it's the joining together stage that becomes your bottle-neck. Unless you construct another build-hall with massive cranes.

            I'm not sure they've exactly decided how AUKUS is going to be done. But Australia are gearing up already, so they can start buiding their own subs in the 2030s. I think there's a good chance we'll build their first one for them, with a bunch of their trainees helping, while other trainees are being brought up to speed back in Australia - and they'll have maintenance to do on their Collins class, plus the couple of older Virginia class they're going to buy/lease off the US.

            The next US class of attack boats, and the AUKUS class, are going to share a common cruise missile compartment - in the same way that Dreadnought shares a common Trident missile comparment with the US's new Columbus class. Those will be built in the US. The AUKUS boat will then be a common design with all the reactor and power compartments being built in Britain and the Aussies building the rest of their boats.

    5. Necrohamster Silver badge

      Re: What the hell?

      The kids call it "rat-rod" or "hoodride" :D

  5. Fr. Ted Crilly Silver badge

    not suprised.

    Grant Scrapps even being in the general vicinity is enough to break things...

    1. gryphon

      Re: not suprised.

      Thankfully it wasn't failing Grayling.

      With him all the live missiles would probably have fired off.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: not suprised.

        With the missile hatches closed of course.

  6. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
    FAIL

    So....

    Do they plan to try again soon to prove Britain is actually at least as nuclear capable as North Korea?

  7. Dan 55 Silver badge

    Potemkin nation cup

    Russia is in the lead but world-beating UK is swiftly closing in.

  8. Caver_Dave Silver badge
    WTF?

    final exercises

    "to mark what should have been one of the final exercises for HMS Vanguard and her crew. HMS Vanguard returned to sea in 2022 after a nearly seven-year overhaul period."

    So 7 years overhaul for just 2 years service.

    This doesn't seem like a good return on investment to me.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: final exercises

      It's been refuelled, for another 10-20 years. I can't imagine the hull would last 20 though. HMS Dreadnought isn't supposed to be operational until 2028. Built doesn't mean tested. If the replacements are going well, they'll be able to retire the next oldest Vanguard, witout the expense of refuelling and keep HMS Vanguard itself going for longer than the newer boats. This depends on repair requirements and glitches in building and acceptance trials.

      Also fuel. We don't refuel our subs. Ideally. They have a lifetime of fuel in them, and should be retired before it's all used up. However you can replace the whole reactor core. Vanguard's didn't go all that well, hence it took 7 years. Though nothing on submarines is cheap, easy or quick. You have to cut them open, move everything out of the way to get to what you want, then put it all back again - and seal the big holes you've made - lest your sub become an articial reef. Being first of class, it'll have used more fuel, during trials - but this also depends on operations. A boat that had more mechanical problems, will have been at sea less, run its reactor less, and so last longer.

      Similarly because of the delays to the Astutes, the decision on those will come soon. Do we have to refuel HMS Astute, or can we get enough AUKUS subs built before it's required, so we retire it. Refuelling some of them is also the way we can "quickly" increase our sub fleet, by not retriing them one-for-one as AUKUS subs are build. Hopefully starting in the early to mid 2030s.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: final exercises

      Seven year overhaul...

      Last known botched test in 2016...

      Don't tell me it was the same sub!

  9. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    HMS Vanguard leaving HMNB Devonport last year after a seven-and-a-half year refit.

    That's what it looks like after a refit? Christ on a crutch what it did it look like before?

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      That's what it looks like after a refit? Christ on a crutch what it did it look like before?

      Yeh, 7.5yrs, millions of pounds spent, and they didn't even detail it before handing it back.

      1. AndrueC Silver badge
        Joke

        I took this picture while touring Devonport Docks back in the 1980s. At the time I thought I was recording a derelict due to be scrapped. Now I'm not so sure.

        Edit: Hang on, is that a shark fin in front of the wreck?

  10. KittenHuffer Silver badge

    £17M!!! Just goes to prove ....

    .... There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Launch!

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Devil

      Re: £17M!!! Just goes to prove ....

      You can easily get a free launch. Just invade Russia. Or France...

  11. wiggers

    The last time...

    "In 2016, another missile, launched from HMS Vengeance, failed after telemetry problems..."

    Word was that someone got the target coordinates wrong and it was heading for the wrong hemisphere.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: The last time...

      Paris?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The last time...

        Westminster.

  12. rgjnk Bronze badge
    Mushroom

    Buying American

    I guess this is one of those stories that Lewis Page couldn't cite as showing the benefit of buying the well proven American made firework, given where the bit that failed comes from.

    It's ultimately going to turn out to be some really trivial little thing that stopped it actually flying, so they pushed it out but it didn't actually decide to fly. Given how idiot proof the launch sequence should be it must have been something really silly that was missed.

  13. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    " Instead, it dropped into the ocean and sank."

    Could have been worse. Could have fallen back on top of them.

    1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

      On the bright side at least the RN managed to not actually sink their own submarine:

      Unlike

      https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-submarines-that-sank-themselves-during-world-war-ii

      Or

      https://edu.rsc.org/download?ac=508333#:~:text=HMS%20Sidon%20was%20a%20Royal,a%20reaction%20inside%20the%20torpedo.

      Everyone on board the Kursk died. The explosion of the torpedo warheads registered on US earthquake detectors as around '4' on the Richter scale, I believe.

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      The missile is fired by compressed air out and away from the sub, so that it doesn't land on it, even if the engines don't fire.

      Although it's still possible to torpedo yourself, if you try hard enough.

      1. eldel

        Glad it's compressed air now. Apparently the first underwater launches were started by steam. Let a load of seawater into the bottom of the firing tube, point a small solid fuel rocket engine at said liquid and the resulting vapour is at high enough pressure to eject the missile.

        I mean - what could possibly go wrong?

      2. fg_swe Silver badge

        Inertial Nav

        With electronic/SW control and inertial sensors it should be assumed that a modern torpedo knows its approximate position relative to the submarine at all times, even if the ejection from the tube went wrong somehow.

        Then it is a matter of "fencing" to arm the warhead only when the torpedo is inside the "kill zone".

        Same reasoning for SLBMs to ensure they fire the rocket only when they are clearly out of the water.

    3. rgjnk Bronze badge

      Ever seen the bang a Trident solid propellant stage can make in the right situation? Wouldn't want to be anywhere near one that failed instead of flying even if it didn't land right on my head.

      There's videos of Trident 1 disposal and it's not subtle.

      1. fg_swe Silver badge

        Quite sure there is a safety system inside the missile, which ensures the rocket is only ignited when safely off the submarine. A microcontroller plus inertial sensors can go a long way to achieve this.

  14. WanderingHaggis

    What if?

    Everything was fine except for what wasn't. So if this was the real thing would the nuke have armed and then detonated in the ocean under the sub? I think right now its deterrent effect is probably felt most by the sailors on the sub.

    1. Lurko

      Re: What if?

      In the eventuality that we're attempting to launch nukes, so would everybody else be, and then it's immaterial whether all or any boats nuke themselves.

      Even if the crew didn't nuke themselves during a war launch, Nevil Shute's depressing "On the Beach" explains what happens next.

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

        Re: What if?

        Or "Vamos a la playa"

  15. FuzzyTheBear
    Happy

    Fail is success

    When you make a test , you expect failures and learn from either success or failure.

    So .. in a strange deeply perverted way , this was a complete success.

    1. I am David Jones Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Fail is success

      Yes, when it’s a new design. Not when you’re testing well-established technology, that should be more of confirmation thing.

  16. abend0c4 Silver badge

    HMS Vanguard

    Easiest solution is to rename it HMS Vanish.

    Left hand down a bit...

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: HMS Vanguard

      It's HMS Cillit I'm worried about, especially a nuclear capable one. Bang, and the dirt is gone!

      1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: HMS Vanguard

        You can't give an English sub a Turkish name!

        What about HMS Guy Fawkes?

        I am pretty sure that nobody would object to have all its nukes aimed at Westminster.

    2. Eclectic Man Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: HMS Vanguard

      Easiest solution is to rename it HMS Vanish.

      Or maybe HMS Varnish? (Providing the thin veneer of the impression of an effective nuclear deterrent.)

      I'll get my coat - the one with the radiation-hazard logo on the back.

  17. Blitheringeejit
    FAIL

    Nothing new here...

    They say space is hard - I guess this just proves that underwater space is even harder. But t'was ever thus...

    https://belltoons.co.uk/bellworks/index.php/if/1989/2097_5-4-89-THE-EGGMEN-2

    I miss Steve...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Terrible

    How are we supposed to laugh at Russian failure now. After all this is the main point of any military test these days is it not.

    Think we'll need to get another one lauched quick smart

    1. fg_swe Silver badge

      Way Too Much Work

      <Cynicism>

      Just hire a P.R. expert, who will explain that on average, Trident is 90% successful while the Russian competitor just manages 50%.

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/847157e3-1d73-465d-ac13-31ba10b33bce?shareToken=79fad8592272d94af782f42db46632a3

      That is 10 times less expensive than an actual launch.

      </Cynicsim>

  19. The commentard formerly known as Mister_C Silver badge

    "Missile status report please Number One"

    "It's fallen in the water"

    RIP Spike

  20. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Facepalm

    I suspect random

    chance was more likely involved here given the missiles are shared between US and UK subs.

    Would there be so many headlines if it had launched from a US sub and failed?

    Although I do wonder if it was a boing made part that caused the failure

    Ps damn typos....

  21. Tron Silver badge

    It's only a deterrent if it works.

    Which is a problem. Is there anything that the Tories haven't broken? Sterling, the economy, our reputation, the NHS, the railways, the UK space programme (2023-2023), and now the nuclear deterrent. Three losses in a row can get a premiership manager sacked, so they need to sort this out.

    Maybe the water extinguished the blue touchpaper. Have they considered trying it in dry dock first?

    On the plus side, we now have the capacity to accidentally nuke the US in a test, if Trump becomes a pain in a couple of years.

    The Norks can get their missiles over Japan, including the mountainy bits, landing in the ocean on the other side. They are unlikely to be targeted other than by pointing them East before they send them up and only contain an old fridge as a warhead, but at least they can get them up there. And you wouldn't want an old fridge to land on you. The UK: From Premiership to Isthmian league in 3 and a bit Tory PMs. This article should include the phone number of the Samaritans at the base, for depressed Brits to call. The helpline folk, not the ethnoreligious group.

    I think my scheme is a better one, if the Tories fancy sending a few mil my way. We send our nukes by DHL. DHL are pretty good. Tracking, discounts, help with the 48 sheets of post-Brexit paperwork etc. And if they lose them or drop them, a full refund.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There's A List You Need To Peruse.....

    (1) Trident missile test #1 -- fail

    (2) Trident missile test #2 -- fail

    (3) Aircraft carrier #1 -- propeller falls off

    (4) Aircraft carrier #2 -- propeller falls off

    (5 through 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) Six Type 45 Destoyers in dry dock ("Dead in the water") because the gas turbine cooling system does not work.

    ......and that's the perfomance of Babcocks THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PUBLISHED!!!!!!

    Yup......billions of pounds (all with "b")...................your taxpayer pound at work........but no money for nurses or doctors.

    Interesting....no??

    1. fg_swe Silver badge

      Statistics

      https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/847157e3-1d73-465d-ac13-31ba10b33bce?shareToken=79fad8592272d94af782f42db46632a3

      The Americans claim 90% of their 191 Trident test flights have been successful. They also claim Russia has a success rate of just 50%.

      Now, even a 30% success rate would constitute a credible threat, so this is indeed a storm in a teacup.

      Having said that, the Minister of defence should demand reruns until the system demonstrates success.

  23. Phiphi in SoCal

    Maybe not a failure.

    What better [cheaper] way to dispose of dated solid rocket boost charge and propellant without worrying about HAZMAT disposal?

    You still validate the launch sequence and process.

    No news if the weapon was cannibalized for spares before disposal...err... test.

    1. fg_swe Silver badge

      Nah

      It is a conspiracy of the lizard people out of New Swabia. They suffer a shortage of propellant for their Nazi flying saucers and have obtained it this way !

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe someone has been stealing the real missiles?

    And replacing them with fake ones?

  25. Necrohamster Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Positive thoughts

    "...The test has reaffirmed the effectiveness of the UK's nuclear deterrent, in which we have absolute confidence..."

    The MOD spokesperson must have been talking about a different test.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Positive thoughts

      The previous test affirmed it was ineffective, this test reaffirmed it. So now they have absolute confidence that it is ineffective.

  26. SnailFerrous
    Joke

    And retire immediately.

    May be the blue touch paper got damp. It is an ocean after all.

  27. Eclectic Man Silver badge
    Joke

    Words of compassion form our favourite foreign countries

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68369556

    "

    "Nobody was hurt, apart from the Royal Navy's reputation," said Rossiya 1's main news bulletin on Wednesday.

    The host of the top TV channel's 60 Minutes talk show, Olga Skabeyeva, said earlier in the day that "an attempt by the Royal Navy of formerly Great Britain - now we call it little Britain - to demonstrate its power ended in failure".

    And Alexander Kots, the star war correspondent of Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda, said on his Telegram channel that the incident "once again underscores that Great Britain has finally lost its status of 'ruler of the waves'".

    "

    It is just nice to know how much they care about our feelings at this difficult time.

    1. fg_swe Silver badge

      Mind Messing

      Superpowers always want to use information to get their objectives done.

      They can explain to you essentially everything if you follow their "tortured logic".

      A day later they will explain the opposite thing because something has changed, including a change of their own plans and goals.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The missile knows where it is at all times...

    It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But What About The Propeller On The Submarine?

    Is the propeller still attached to the submarine?

    .....or has it fallen off? (See recent aircraft carrier failures for details).

    Babcocks can probably supply all the change orders which are relevant. (You know.....billions more pounds.....Fortnun and Mason's bags full of "folding"......business as usual.)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like