So much for the UKs nuclear deterrent

Like this one

youtu.be/d5nZ-SwngnE




Our human history contains so many failed firing from mini rockets to space one, spent so much money on science, engineering and their products and services, no guarantee success on every round.

Call me a cynic but:

1. Looked at as a total system, if it fails 2 out 2 (or frankly even 1 out 2 or 3 or 4), then its still a fail. Regardless of the reason. 
2. The original news was suggesting that - not at all surprisingly - they weren't letting on as to the reason. I don't think they did for the 2016 one either.
3. Someone coming onto R4 and saying they know what happened if they are not an official spokesman is purely speculating: the chances of a crew member telling someone else the reason so they can go on R4 is pretty remote (though not entirely impossible).
4. The idea that they regularly get the targeting input wrong on an ICBM I suggest is ridiculous. Especially if its even under test firing conditions, not pressure of doing it for real. if that was the case they'd fix the system so it was rather difficult for it to happen.  I'd also  be surprised if protocol didn't require at least two people to input and check targetting information. Call me daft, but the possibility of running around in a sub with ICBMs which have a tendency to randomly target seems a bit unlikely. Wouldn't go down well with the natives if you took out New York instead of say Tripoli.
5. I see that the BBC is currently reporting that the booster rockets failed. Albeit that is being reported by The Sun, apparently, so unless its attributed its probably about as reliable as some random coming onto R4 and proclaiming that some matelot punched in the wrong numbers. 

I may well be proved wrong, and they may even put that out as the reason in order not to have to admit that it was a hard system failure. but I'm a cynic. £17m a test firing and someone can't figure out how to input the targetting parameters into the system. 

It's worth noting that the Trident missile inventory is shared / pooled between the US and the UK.

Mostly. The warheads on missiles deployed by the UK are of course UK warheads. And you don't take the warhead off as a regular thing. But yes, the missiles themselves are shared. And so if there are issues with the missiles deployed on Trident, there is no reason to suppose these are not equally likely on US SSBN deployments. Except if the two nations have their missiles on a different maintenance cycle length. 

I spent a few weeks working at Kings Bay when Vanguard was out there for her first test firing. It's home to quite a lot of vultures (don't ask me which 'brand'). To my mind there is quite an eerie atmosphere to a place like that, where you can find yourself driving behind a big flat bed lorry carrying a big **** off ICBM, while vultures are looking on or staring at you. 

Had I been aware of the phrase "‘Now I Am Become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds" it would very probably have come in to my head at certain times.

No, you don't. Nor do you include a warhead when doing a missile test firing...

This a not just an embarrassment. I would say this weakens our defence against Russia. The value of these weapons is 99% deterrent and 1% usage. If they ain't going to work when the PM gives the order, they are an expensive waste of time. But its worse than that. The reduced effectiveness of our deterrent will already be factored into the Russian's calculation when it comes to .... I dunno.... dropping a few big conventional weapons over Britain or a nuke in the north sea. Unlikely I think but more likely than it was thanks to our armed forces that badly fcuked up.

Lord West gave a different theory than Adrian's R4 guest, about the test not being worthwhile as it behaves differently with a warhead attached:
"Live active missiles with warheads, we know will work and let’s hope we never have to use them."

The only answer us mortals are ever going to be given as to why this test failed is one which doesn't hugely harm our deterrent. We will not know for decades and decades whether or not there is a systemic problem.

Finally if this really was another case of "wrong coords" put in - a lot of people in charge of process and systems need to be sacked (not the person at the bottom of the food chain who actually made the mistake)