Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Did the PM know, and should she have told the Commons?" what happened?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how long it will take before someone asks the important question... considering the number of times the MOD have publicised the successful test firing of a missile, how many other failures have they covered up? " Or the other important questions, were they aiming at Trump? Why did they miss?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It seems a bit of a non story. I think the clue is that it was a test. The idea of a test is to check if something is working as it should or not. In this case not. "Right, a test. How much is the renewal cost for it? £205 Bn? If I paid that much I'd want it to work a bit better than that. I think the bigger issue is not whether it worked or not, but for such a controversial project how the fact the test fail was hidden until after the project was renewed. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It seems a bit of a non story. I think the clue is that it was a test. The idea of a test is to check if something is working as it should or not. In this case not. "I agree it's just the opposition doing what they always do, try to cause a problem for the other side no matter what. If the abort system worked then as far I can see the system worked as It should do. Also why the heck would we want to be shouting to the rest of the world that the misile fucked Up? It went wrong was delt with end of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It seems a bit of a non story. I think the clue is that it was a test. The idea of a test is to check if something is working as it should or not. In this case not. "It would have been a non story if the MoD had announced at the time that there had been a failure in a test firing of a missile. However as the Mod did not, in fact the press release was designed to mislead, here it is: "In June the Royal Navy conducted a routine unarmed Trident missile test launch from HMS Vengeance, as part of an operation which is designed to certify the submarine and its crew. "Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and certified, allowing Vengeance to return into service. We have absolute confidence in our independent nuclear deterrent. "We do not provide further details on submarine operations for obvious national security reasons." Now considering the re-certification was because HMS Vanguard had returned to sea for trials in December 2015 after a £350m refit, which included the installation of new missile launch equipment and upgraded computer systems. Now as certification is required before returning to active service and that includes proving that weapons systems work (it didn't) and it is a new guidance system, it very much becomes a big story! And I for one want to know who is responsible and see them lose their jobs for their dishonesty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It seems a bit of a non story. I think the clue is that it was a test. The idea of a test is to check if something is working as it should or not. In this case not. "It was a test of the submarine and the crew, not the missile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It was a test of the submarine and the crew, not the missile. " No! It was a certification (as in certified fit for purpose) firing of the submarines main armament. To pass not only does the crew have to be able to do their jobs correctly and efficiently but the weapon must also work. THE WEAPON FAILED! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It doesn't matter one way or the other, they'd never cancel the programme because of a misfire during a test, they have tests and trials to make sure things work properly and ensure any problems come to light and can be rectified." Actually it does matter! Let me explain... Every military unit in HM Armed forces needs to be certificated when first formed (or after major alterations) to prove their fitness for roll. Then every year they have to pass a re-certification. In my day certification had a number of elements, unit, sub-unit, individual and administration. Administration was everything from paperwork through stores to the standard of food, hygiene, transport, accommodation and medical facilities. Individual had 3 elements. The BFT (basic fitness test), the APWHT (annual personal weapons handling test and APWT (annual personal weapons test). If individuals fail to pass they are either taken off the unit strength and put into remedial training or discharged as unfit for service. Sub-unit tests ensure that all sub units can fulfil their rolls, and unit tests ensure that everything functions as required. Now all SSBN's have a single purpose, to aim, successfully launch and track missiles to their target. The boat failed that test! Therefore the boat is not fit for roll and should not have been certified as fit. The MoD have a history of doing this and when it costs service personnel their lives reverting to a default position where they claim that there is no problem. Followed quickly by its the fault of the dead and finally after years of denial admitting that the problem was with kit and they knew about it before lives were lost. Now when the problem relates to a rifle jamming, a snatch land rover not being able to survive a mine strike or the forward looking radar on a Tornado not working properly when low level flying the military can live with the costs. But when it is the weapon system that is our ultimate guarantee of security we cant afford the same old lazy dance of there is no problem, everything is fine, we don't comment on operational matters, we have total confidence... To then be told years down the line when the civil servant who cut a corner to save a few quid is living on a nice state pension that "lessons have been learned"... That boat should not have been certified and whoever forced the Naval commissioning team to certify the boat should be looking at criminal prosecution and a long term in jail! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It doesn't matter one way or the other, they'd never cancel the programme because of a misfire during a test, they have tests and trials to make sure things work properly and ensure any problems come to light and can be rectified. Actually it does matter! Let me explain... Every military unit in HM Armed forces needs to be certificated when first formed (or after major alterations) to prove their fitness for roll. Then every year they have to pass a re-certification. In my day certification had a number of elements, unit, sub-unit, individual and administration. Administration was everything from paperwork through stores to the standard of food, hygiene, transport, accommodation and medical facilities. Individual had 3 elements. The BFT (basic fitness test), the APWHT (annual personal weapons handling test and APWT (annual personal weapons test). If individuals fail to pass they are either taken off the unit strength and put into remedial training or discharged as unfit for service. Sub-unit tests ensure that all sub units can fulfil their rolls, and unit tests ensure that everything functions as required. Now all SSBN's have a single purpose, to aim, successfully launch and track missiles to their target. The boat failed that test! Therefore the boat is not fit for roll and should not have been certified as fit. The MoD have a history of doing this and when it costs service personnel their lives reverting to a default position where they claim that there is no problem. Followed quickly by its the fault of the dead and finally after years of denial admitting that the problem was with kit and they knew about it before lives were lost. Now when the problem relates to a rifle jamming, a snatch land rover not being able to survive a mine strike or the forward looking radar on a Tornado not working properly when low level flying the military can live with the costs. But when it is the weapon system that is our ultimate guarantee of security we cant afford the same old lazy dance of there is no problem, everything is fine, we don't comment on operational matters, we have total confidence... To then be told years down the line when the civil servant who cut a corner to save a few quid is living on a nice state pension that "lessons have been learned"... That boat should not have been certified and whoever forced the Naval commissioning team to certify the boat should be looking at criminal prosecution and a long term in jail! " I fully understand the certification process but to think they are going to scrap a multibillion programme because one missile misfires is ridiculous. Given the sensitive nature of the nuclear submarines much detail will be left out of the press and rightly so. Besides I'm pretty sure that some senior naval officer would be involved with whole recertification issue but you crack on with your civil servant bashing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"its 1 of the most complex systems that mankind gets to play with, think man on the moon and you get ruff idea how complex a sub, crew and weapons can be. hence why we test them if they was 100% effective we would have no need to test them, all matters is the crew passed because if real life we would fire the next and so on i have 100% faith in the people of the royal navy, they credit to this nation and will work out any bugs so to speak in meantime i think its silly that its news, lesser countries have no way of knowing about a fail and the other powers would have been watching anyway"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I fully understand the certification process but to think they are going to scrap a multibillion programme because one missile misfires is ridiculous. Given the sensitive nature of the nuclear submarines much detail will be left out of the press and rightly so. Besides I'm pretty sure that some senior naval officer would be involved with whole recertification issue but you crack on with your civil servant bashing. " I am not suggesting that the system be scrapped. I also know that the commissioning team will have made up of very senior naval officers. But I am absolutely sure that regardless of their rank there are civil servants in the MoD that can overturn any decision of any military officer (there were in my day and I don't believe that has changed). I would be willing to lay a bet that somewhere in the procurement chain a MoD bean counter made an alteration to save some cash on the refit and the new computer and guidance system that has caused this problem whatever it is and now the arse covering is in full swing so rather than correct a problem now it will be fudged and the other 3 boats will go in for their refits and have the same faulty subsystem installed. It is what they do! I mentioned the forward facing radar in the Tornado, I cant remember how many planes had to fly into mountains before it was admitted that the problem was the radar and the minimum operating height was raised to reduce the risk. Rather than admit the whole system was subject to failures the MoD came up with a story that said it was to do with fast flight at low levels, of course eventually a chinny carrying the most senior NI intelligence and staff officers flew into a mountain in fog and then the system was quietly scrapped while the MoD blamed the dead pilots! If you have experience of the military and the civil service you know how the system works. In the end the military take what they are given and the civil service will cut corners to save a few quid just to look good even if it means buying stuff that will never work, sticking it in a warehouse for 20 years and then selling it off as scrap! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"its 1 of the most complex systems that mankind gets to play with, think man on the moon and you get ruff idea how complex a sub, crew and weapons can be. hence why we test them if they was 100% effective we would have no need to test them, all matters is the crew passed because if real life we would fire the next and so on i have 100% faith in the people of the royal navy, they credit to this nation and will work out any bugs so to speak in meantime i think its silly that its news, lesser countries have no way of knowing about a fail and the other powers would have been watching anyway" The problem is not our service personnel, the problem is not the weapons system per say, it has been exhaustively tested and is reliable. The problem is obviously in the new computer or guidance system and in the certification of the boat as fit for duty. It is a new computer! It failed its first live firing test! How can PM and the SSfD stand up and say everything's OK with a strait face. I would have a lot more confidence if the boat had not been certified until the problem had been corrected, and there had been an announcement last June to say there had been a misfire and the upgrade program had been put on hold until the fault had been identified and fixed. But hay ho, I have Ms May telling me everything is fine, she seems to be doing that a lot about a lot of stuff. So I guess its all dandy.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"its 1 of the most complex systems that mankind gets to play with, think man on the moon and you get ruff idea how complex a sub, crew and weapons can be. hence why we test them if they was 100% effective we would have no need to test them, all matters is the crew passed because if real life we would fire the next and so on i have 100% faith in the people of the royal navy, they credit to this nation and will work out any bugs so to speak in meantime i think its silly that its news, lesser countries have no way of knowing about a fail and the other powers would have been watching anyway The problem is not our service personnel, the problem is not the weapons system per say, it has been exhaustively tested and is reliable. The problem is obviously in the new computer or guidance system and in the certification of the boat as fit for duty. It is a new computer! It failed its first live firing test! How can PM and the SSfD stand up and say everything's OK with a strait face. I would have a lot more confidence if the boat had not been certified until the problem had been corrected, and there had been an announcement last June to say there had been a misfire and the upgrade program had been put on hold until the fault had been identified and fixed. But hay ho, I have Ms May telling me everything is fine, she seems to be doing that a lot about a lot of stuff. So I guess its all dandy. "agree it should not be certified until working but the boat would have to be certified to leave port and go test firing a new system to my understanding. i have faith the people of RN and contractors they used will work it out and fix any bugs if not then we have a serious problem that can be fixed with the old system, in meantime its not what a think should be public knowledge as the secret service should be just that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"agree it should not be certified until working but the boat would have to be certified to leave port and go test firing a new system to my understanding" It is not seaworthiness certification, it is RN Fleet certification. The first is about safety, the second is about the crew being able to fight the boat under all conditions. As the first firing of a tried and tested main weapon failed after a control upgrade then the problem has to be in the upgrade and the boat has no business being on fleet strength. Its a bit like sending a tank that cant aim its gun out to Iraq, looks good charging around but is fuck all use! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
