Clearly they changed something for this test in particular and it broke the system. It is likely something fairly minor that just doesn't work when part of it is removed.
Also, if it just went through a retrofit and has actually never fired a missile, then it's not unlikely for something to have been not quite placed back where it was supposed to be.
This is the difference between doing a release with a QA process that takes some time and testing versus doing development and just launching the new version into production.
They changed the code or hardware for this particular test. That not working does not prove that the system has fundamental flaws or that other systems that have been tested and not modified will have the same issue.
Most people do not understand the inherent brittleness in engineered systems. Even those that are designed to be fault tolerant. That can cause confusion about outcomes and the necessity of testing every release.
They probably just said "Well, it was _only_ a retrofit, and you just changed a couple of minor things for the test. Are you sure we need to spend $17 million on another throwaway test?" And the engineer said he's not 100% sure it's necessary, but it would be advisable. So the higher up, not understanding how brittle and complex systems are or how development works, decided that meant it wasn't necessary.
I think the main issue might be that there is no way to do a good test without spending millions of dollars. Which I think might be because of structural issues in the defense industry.
This was the second test-firing since 2016; that one failed too. I think that means they haven't done a successful test-firing in eight years. That doesn't inspire confidence (or awe, depending on who it's supposed to impress).
Mind you, I am not even taking a moral stance here, I am just saying that if we have nuclear weapons can we please not lower the bar on competency in their handling.
1) maybe the reasons you give are plausible but they are essentially based on no real information about what happened here
I assume in a real nuclear war, some number of US ICBMs fail in boost and come down the US, likewise for Russia. These have been sitting in silos for decades.
See: broken arrows.
At least one came so close to exploding it's a case study on the question of why it didn't ...
The test that we did to show that it would work, didn't work but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. Of course!
OK, so, this might be the kind of thing you'd say, but that is also entirely plausible.
With Trident, either there will be no live usage, or there will be no UK left to do anything about the failure of the second strike weapons.
Is one of the US nuclear triad non-functional? — how would we know?
Edit:
Apparently the US can successfully launch them — and lets everyone know.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/09/u-s-navy-ssbn-u...
https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...
https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Articl...
(former US Boomer sailor here)
The crew must have been shattered. Six months is a long time to spend at sea.
Links: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a452796... https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-nuclear-deterrent-sub...
If the UK is out that leaves France, and if Le Pen wins France will be in the Putinist camp.
My guess is Putin would nuke some US cities too just to make a point, and his fans in the US will be very surprised when that happens.
Right! That's what I keep telling our QA engineers, too.
Why do I see a recipe for utter failure?
