A test firing of a Trident missile from a Royal Navy submarine has ended in failure for the second consecutive time.
The recent malfunction occurred during a test from HMS Vanguard, positioned off the east coast of the United States.
According to reports from the Sun, which first highlighted the issue, the missile’s failure was due to the malfunction of its booster rockets, resulting in the missile plummeting into the sea close to the launch site.
Given the rarity of British Trident missile tests—attributable to their high costs, estimated at around £17m per missile—each failure has significant implications. The presence of both the Defence Secretary Grant Shapps and the head of the Navy aboard HMS Vanguard during the January test underscores the high stakes involved.
Intended to demonstrate the missile’s capability to travel thousands of miles before landing harmlessly in the Atlantic, the missile instead fell into the ocean not far from its launch point. This recent failure echoes a similar incident in 2016 when a test missile from HMS Vengeance veered off course.
In response to the latest failure, the Ministry of Defence issued a statement acknowledging an “anomaly” in the launch. However, it also sought to reassure the public and international observers of the operational capability of HMS Vanguard and its crew, as well as the overall effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Despite this setback, the Ministry of Defence describes Trident as the “most reliable weapons system in the world,” with a track record of over 190 successful tests.
The January 30 exercise off Florida, despite its failure, was intended to reaffirm the strength and reliability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, the malfunction, described vividly as the missile going “plop” into the ocean immediately after launch, serves as a stark reminder of the inherent challenges in maintaining such capabilities.
The Sun reported that “it is understood that had the firing taken place on a real patrol mission rather than under test conditions it would have been successful”.
In short, it was a successful launch by HMS Vanguard; the missile itself, however, failed after launch.
Wooosh…Plop !
That’s the technical jargon the BBC used.
yup, sort of apt really……..
Various news outlets are using the same headline: “fails for the second time”, but the small print then reveals that the ‘first time’ in that context was in 2016.
Yes. The last time it was fired by the RN, so that’s two fails in a row.
It is not the second sequential test of a Trident II that has failed, which is what would actually be significant. The USN has been conducting its own test firings in the meantime from the exact same pool of missiles. The missile failed, not the V-boat’s systems. If the implication was that the Trident system has systemic reliability problems then that would be a problem for the entire USN as well- but it isn’t. The 2016 test wasn’t actually a failure either- it launched successfully and the RSO subsequently took the decision to destroy it for risk-based reasons best known to the RSO.
I think the definition of successful launch appears to be quite a loose term here. I work in the world of space and a rocket leaving the pad is not a successful launch in itself. These aren’t successful launches, both failed to fly as intended.
So are we sure that if the missile fails twice in British launches but not in US launches that the issue isn’t to do with the British end of things…
Yes, the RSO destroyed the 2016 missile in flight because it was heading towards Florida! He surely knew it was a bad idea if it landed on an American tourist beach!
so it failed then – unless it was aimed it there in the first place.
I feel the only thing that can validate what you’re saying – is a successful firing of the missile from a RN vessel.
USN success does little to satisfy me or anyone else that we have a fully functioning nuclear deterrent, when we’re incapable of demonstrating that fact.
I suppose we’re now expected to wait another eight years before we again fail-fire this missile for the world to see. Only then might we accept that there is indeed – a problem.
I’d agree… Getting another test in ASAP (hopefully successful) would be worth the cost.
Also two different modes of failure.
2016 – mid programmed
2024 – primary ignition failure
None the less – not a good look when UK has destroyed conventional deterrence on the promise of CASD.
Conventional deterrence is a vital partner to CASD so nobody gets tempted to start pushing at the edges of NATO.
That was my first thought as well SB,
It basically underlines that fact that relying on one system for the entirety of our deterrence is a very risky place to go. Without a creditable conventional force capable of deterring aggression we have a single point of failure, which has failed at least in part.
Relying on a nuclear deterrent also risks lowering the threshold of a strategic exchange.
Our conventional forces must be rebuilt. Rearmament needs to be a thing at the next General Election – at least Keir Starmer has used the word on one occasion that I know of, now we need more politicians to start talking about rearmament before before someone pushes their luck too far and things really kick off.
It not like there’s a major war in Europe or that there is chaos in the Middle East – oops…
CR
And without a layered defence system and a second option, namely Tomahawk. A third would also be useful to have.
“The Tomahawk Missile System is an autonomous, long-range strike weapon that can deliver a variety of payloads. The system was developed in the early 1980s to deliver nuclear and conventional munitions.”
“Eurofighter says it is comfortable with delivering integration of the U.S. B61 nuclear weapon onto the aircraft, a process that requires U.S. certification. Paltzo said he was confident the U.S. government would not use the certification requirements of the weapon as “leverage” to force Germany towards a U.S. platform.”
Nuclear Tomahawk was decommissioned ages ago.
Time will tell.
U.S Naval Institute-TLAM-N
“Bringing back the TLAM-N into the U.S. arsenal would not violate any treaty. It would not start an arms race; Russia already has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons that can be delivered from land, air, and sea.
The U.S. TLAM-N capability carries a number of inherent advantages:
It would show Russia that its violation of the INF Treaty is a mistake that has costs and needs to be corrected, even if it does so without actually admitting the violation, as long as the resolution is verifiable. For those who want to preserve the INF Treaty and the New START Treaty (as the United States does), demonstrating to Russia that there are consequences to cheating on existing treaties is essential.
While NATO would retain its dual-capable— conventionally and/or nuclear-armed—aircraft (DCA) capability to maintain the alliance’s “skin in the game,” deployment of TLAM-N would not require any action by or concurrence from our allies, who would be politically skittish over any new ground-based deployment.
The capability is essentially invulnerable, as the missiles likely would be placed only on board submarines. Any attack submarine can carry these missiles; the Ohio-class guided-missile submarines could carry even more, as could the Vertical Payload Module Virginia-class follow-on boats.
It would not be overly costly to reintroduce this capability. The required warhead could leverage the B-61 life-extension program and/or the planned warhead for the long-range standoff (LRSO) system.
New missiles would need to be modified to carry the warhead, and the Navy would need to re-certify boats assigned to carry these missiles. But these are modifications to existing programs; no new weapon would need to be dragged through the acquisition system.
Such a capability not only would provide a credible and survivable option for extended deterrence in Europe, but also would bolster deterrence and assurance in the Pacific at a time when North Korea is growing its nuclear capability.”
https://
usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/may/bring-back-nuclear-tomahawks
Yes but conventional armies are very expensive. Its much cheaper to just press a button as Humphrey pointed out.
Even if some missiles are unreliable most are mot and an opponent could not take the chance on the odds…
The warheads would be rotated on different missiles throughout the servicing program. Radiation degrades plastic, batteries, electronics and other components over time, expect they thought it cheaper to used one that had not gone through expense of overhaul.
8 years to get it right the second time and still they failed
I guess the fuse was wet or the matches were damp!
How can they say that if it were an actual patrol and there was an actual warhead this would not have happened? Have they given any actual evidence as to why that would affect the ignition of the booster? Or do we just have to go on their word that there is a relationship between these otherwise seemingly separate factors. Any guesses?
They can’t, it’s utter bollocks as usual, the failure has sweet FA to do with what warhead is fitted.
I would guess that in the event of an actual use of the system the sub would be launching more than one missile given its role, therefore unless all of the Trident missiles failed on launch at least some would hit the targets?
We don’t know if any would work. All we know is 2 fires and 2 failures. The assumption is its a once off but its just that
Statement suggests gas booster system to get the missile out of the tube fired correctly – hence the ‘sub’ did it’s job.
A delayed first stage booster ignition (to get the missile further from the sub before ignition) will reduce FOD back towards the tubes and sub. If the timing is off however, gravity will have it’s way before the boosters do their thing. Real hot launch it’ll be fire and go as it has a job to do. Risk is always mitigated in training & testing by adding certain. sometimes restrictive parameters. There’s a chance the whole thing was mistimed while trying to reduce back blast associated wear and tear.
So the subs are OK but the missiles are duds. Great.
Tridents have a 94% success rate- over 180 test launches… either it’s a really unfortunate coincidence or something else is going on.
But is that a software, thus the Sub, issue, or a physical fault with the missile itself?
Hard to say I guess?
I guess it’s back to the US and a serious study into what went wrong. I hope the taxpayer gets some recompense considering the missile costs. Sadly, we don’t hear about Russian ballistic failures. A demonstration of a fully working missile is required to kill silly extreme comments in the bud as soon as practicable.
Dummy warhead fitted and a metric s**t tone of test equipment and telemetry gear which isn’t fitted to a warshot.
Reports indicate that the missile was command aborted because after it broached and before main motor ignition the telemetry failed to give the correct tell backs to the receivers. With no telemetry you couldn’t say if the flight profile, warhead separation etc was working as advertised so it was aborted.
That will go over the heads of most commentators. They just want to criticise.
Would be amusing if they announced that it was fired by someone with a match box and the box was damp.
Apparently, they prefer matches as lighters cost too much.
Who is they? The USN?
so now it’s a USN weapon? i thought you had complete autonomy over it
In its operation, launch, C3 firing chain from NOTC /DCMC to CTF345 to VLF to submarine, in its software ( in co operation with the US at a certain place in the West country ) and also in construction of the warheads, again in close co operation with LANL and other US bodies.
The missiles themselves are in a shared pool with the US and maintained in the US. So yes, this is as much if not more a US problem than a RN one, the RN doesn’t service them.
No one is disputing the performance of the crew, or submarine, or warhead.
its a joint pool of boosters, the UK owns its own but they are placed in a pool with the US weapons…
You are confused by the weapon and the delivery system, maybe take a minute or two to do a google ?
What I take with is… it failed in 2016, why didn’t they do a couple more firings then to ensure that it works properly – and will they do a couple more now to ensure they have got it working? Couldn’t care less where it was made or who maintains the thing – I want to know that the SYSTEM works!
They have…
The test firings have been done by the USN. We use a shared stockpile of missiles….
In 2016 and in 2024 the RN sub did all the right things to get the missile on its way…the failures were in the missile.
Make no mistake the USN will be acutely interested in what happened. Particularly as the Trident D5 had a sensational reliability record, a number of failures in recent years should be worrying everyone, particularly as we’re supposed to be using this for a further 30 years…
Precisely. The failure modes are understood, the USN tests right them.
I appreciate that – the point is public perception. The public will say ‘why are OURS failing’ – so the RN needs a couple to work when fired by the RN to prove that the ones sold to and used by the RN work.
Vanguard? Without a fourth sub there wouldn’t have been the slack to do much testing.
Was wondering when the previous test was, but still 2 failures in a row is concerning even if they are 8 years apart its still consecutive tests.
What great a deterrent.The Navy is run down, A shambles. Those who run it need to hold their heads in shame.
I believe the missiles are serviced in the US? So have a pop at them for it not working! It left the boat as it should after all.
Indeed the UK part of the system seems to have worked fine on both occasions it seems. Which asks the question have there been US failures in recent years, if so how many and what percentage, or is this the otherwise deniable US control over our capability to use our nuclear deterrent independently in action. Sneaky beerstards.
The complete System is never tested in its entirety.
The warhead is in theory a UK design, but likely similar to existing American devices, you will never find the answer to the difference. Both US and USSR have, I think, flown warhead equipped missiles a long time ago before the ban on atmospheric tests.
One might assume the UK design has been tested to a level that gives absolute confidence in the warhead operating properly, or it tested in its entirety before the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty happened.
My 2p’s worth, embarrassing, but really a missile related issue that will concern both US and UK authorities. It only looks, and sounds, worse given two consecutive UK failures.
How many US tests have occurred since last UK failure?
Might be something left off back in the shed .. but this is actually not funny at all. Hope they fix asap. It’s undermining the whole UK nuclear deterrent.
It needs to be understood that the problem was with the missile itself, not the submarine which performed perfectly. The US maintains the Trident stocks so questions need to be asked in that area.
We getting their cast offs then, as the US missiles work. All in all’ sadly the British armed forces is looking a bit of a joke, toothless, under maned and ramshackle equipment its heart breaking to watch.
are the tubes and launch systems the same? the tubes from what i gather are designed so the missile basically rides in a ‘bubble’ of air to the surface which keeps it dry and makes it ‘jump’ out of the water a certain height which is when the engine ignites. if the tubes are different (i really dont know if they are) and/or they use different launch paremeters then that could be a reason why we see a problem.
I have no idea about detail although I would have thought the general designs are similar or identical, otherwise you are simply re-inventing and qualifying the wheel..
Not sure describing it as ‘a bubble air’ that ‘makes it jump out of the water’ is accurate.
Rather a massive amount of steam is produced via a cleaver mechanism that gives a missile weighing 60 tons one almighty push.
Its a Common Missile Module (4x tubes) that is designed in the US. You just design however many modules you require into your SSBN, then build it. The first stage motor ignites when the missile head broaches the surface, thus keeping a large body of water between the rocket motor and SM.
Spot on 👍
And yet, Trident D5 is serviced and maintained in the US. At Kings Bay I recall. We produce the MIRVs.
So I guess you’re just getting a good moan in at the state of the Royal Navy rather than those US contractors or the USN, aren’t you.
More Trolls mate, just have to ignore them, no point in talking sense to them.
I know mate. But I still try as I think one of the great things about this site is the quality of the posters and the knowledge displayed.
If it descends to a Troll fest of ignorant one liners with no thought given or balance to the actual situation and the causes the site is poorer for it and they, the Trolls, win.
Spot on mate…………. I just wish I could be as Normal and Balanced as you ! …… This site gets held together by your ability to remain sane and neutral that’s for sure……. wish I had your restraint at times….😎
Normal??? 😳 That’s boring mate! 🤪
Not Trolls as such, …. more like multiple account holders as usual…. I reckon one or two who like to play games…… I’ve been here for years and i’m way more paranoid than most… that’s because I can see the little things in certain post’s that the newbie’s forget…… “Dave” was a typical example…. Wyn Baynon, another…. Ulya, Redshift, Herodotus, TH, the Russian persona MK…. the list is endless, they come and go all the time……..
Yay, I get a mention lol, I never hidden I am Russian citizen. I’m sorry if I don’t get to be here that often, I understand I am a unpopular nationality in the west at the moment so sometimes just enjoy the comments and as you understand the last 2 years has made life more busy than usual
The nationality is not unpopular, just the Fascist actions of your current government.
I have a work colleague who’s family fled Russia in opposition to Putin. They are as welcome as their anti Nazi German equivalents were in the 1930’s.
As a Putin apologist have you murdered or raped any Ukrainian children recently?
Agreed!
Hi Chris,
While I enjoy your emotional cliches and self righteous anger, I assume you ignore the millions of dead/wounded in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc, I have a question.
With NATO and any western government refusing to talk to Russia about security and with France, Germany and Ukraine admitting they never planned on honouring the Minsk agreements, what did you think would happen? If you remove the option of talks, what does that leave?
I consider the Western interventions above justifiable whereas Russia invasion in 2014 is on a par with many of the crimes addressed at Nurnberg.
I am sure during WW2 many things were said to the Nazis that were not true. Your point is?
Of course you think your countries actioned are justified, I think my countries actions are justified, we both think each other is wrong. Who cares what we think, it is what the non western countries think that matters most and will shape whatever happens next. You will sit in the UK fighting this SMO to the last Ukrainian feeling very brave with your self righteous anger, I do not care about your feelings.
My curiosity is your answer to my question. If you remove the options of talks, what do you leave?
10 of thousands have died because of the refusal to talk seriously
Talks can only be productive if the two sides are close enough for agreement. I think the only just and therefore potentially lasting peace requires the restoration of Ukraine 2014 borders, reparations for all damage and death inflicted, and trials in Ukraine or the West for those in charge in Russia; All followed by Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.
I think we need a few 100k more Russian dead and maimed to get there. If we keep the aid flowing it will come. Your only hope is sabotage by our enemy within. So it depends on the USA rejecting Trump, we are dumping your stooges this year.
The time of talks about the 2014 border is gone, that is not an option, the new border will be decided with fighting, feel free to send your army if you are so enthusiastic about more Russian dead or do nothing and let more Ukrainian die for you.
It is interesting you feel Russian leadership should be held accountable but never hold your own leaders accountable, this is a point I hear often when talking to BRICS partners, Western double standards LOL. Your political class make my job so easy.
You still did not answer my questions or maybe I worded them wrong, before the SMO started Russia tried to talk to the west for years about security, we had Minsk agreements that have since proven to be lies by their own admission, there was also serious talks between Russia/Ukraine that almost worked until Boris turned up (this can all be verified with a little research in your own media), so again, if you remove all options of diplomatic talks to avoid escalation what does that leave?
What does the term ‘Diplomatic talks’ mean (in your perception of geopolitics)? Russia should get a ‘fair’ slice of the cake in Eastern/Central Europe 🙂 ‘Diplomatic talks’ like Hitler and Chamberlain in Munich or Molotov and Ribbentrop or fancy summits like the one in Yalta. Russia, the country with population of about 150 million people has an ambition to rule the world, just because they have nukes.
Hello Filip,
Diplomatic talks in regards to NATO moving to our border and the threat we see it as, we do not see NATO as a peaceful alliance, or at lease some of its member states are not peaceful. Talks in trying to come up with a solution that are mutually beneficial to both sides so we both have a sense of security. It is interesting to me that many in the west seem to equal diplomacy to appeasement
European countries should be free to join or form an alliance of their choice. This is our right as independent nations. Neither do we tell Russia what to do and Russia would certainly not accept such interference (Russia-Chinese alliance or North Korea). The eastern flank of NATO is militarily very weak and the so-called new members are not a credible threat to Russia. By the way, these countries have no long range cruise missiles or ballistic missiles, long range bombers, nuclear submarines or a stockpile of 5000 nuclear warheads and the most advanced IBM in the World, unlike Russia. Also, we could discuss the reasons why some other countries recently applied to join NATO after having been neutral for long decades or even centuries. Some food for thought for you.
Hi Filip,
Russia/China and NK do not have military treaties.
Your correct in that any country can join military treaty but when that treaty becomes a threat to another country then talks are useful. No European country is a threat us, it is when the US move in it becomes a problem, eg mk41 in Poland and Romania.
Sweden and Finland have been defacto NATO for years, becoming formal changes little but Finland will find they will have to spend much more on defence now and if they allow NATO forces to be based in their country they are not to like Russia corps based on their border.
My main interest in diplomatic talks before SMO was about mutual security for both Russia and Europe, new start expires 2026, there are no talks to renew, ABM, INF and open skies are gone. Instead of having diplomatic talks to make sure we all have security we are now in position that none of us have security.
If you reply it will be 3 or 4 days before I can read sorry
Let me try to answer your questions as much as our different worldviews allow.
The Wests ability to communicate with the strand of Russian thought represented by Putin’s clique has always been hamper by your limited contact with reality. I saw quotes recently from one of the diplomats involved where he said Putin had once asked when Russia was going to be invited ti join. The reply was ‘we do not invite, you apply’. Putin allegedly said ‘you cannot expect us to stand in line with little countries’. Outside the fact that you have inherited a superpowers nuclear arsenal you are a small to middling country in economic terms and rather backward in civillizational ones. You are just deluded about it.
Before Boris’ support Ukraine may have felt so abandoned by the West they had to submit to your evil. I am not certain I would see such talks as ‘serious’ to use your words. I am sure you will not accept this analogy but try to understand it is how you look to people like me. You are a rapist. You are in court on trial. Your defence is that before the Police broke in you were on top of your victim, still inside her, holding a knife to her face saying ‘promise never to tell anyone about this and you can keep your face’. She was about to agree when the Police broke in, pulled you off her and started talking about right and wrong. You are standing there indignantly insisting there was no crime until the Police interfered.
Sorry on phone on way to work so corrections needed.
First major paragraph, ‘hampered’ and ‘to join NATO’.
And you spotted that mention amongst a sea of other comments whilst not being on here often….. hmm….. thought so.
Another one that thinks like a child feeding of each other’s comments here.
I asked Chris 2 questions, feel free to try answer them in an adult way, or you can just ignore me or reply in some pointless way to shut down the conversation. I have another day or 2 before I need to go again, I will wait for your reply with low expectations
So you obviously didn’t like that I’d sussed you and replied in a “Child like way to shut down the conversation”… How ironic.
It’s the little things that trip you up, certain words, certain sarcastic ways and certain memory lapses when you forget the details of previous stories you’ve shared.
You are a Fake, this is just one of your multiple accounts ….you enjoy the game and like to Stir things up, plain and simple…. well you might fool a few others on here but not me.
🙄
OK, avoid questions, close down conversation. Thank you Frank
Ulya, your comments are informative. Most of us have difficulty understanding the mindset of the Russian leadership and the acquiscent Russian population.
Good afternoon Graham,
Acquiescent is a new word for me, I had to search it’s meaning, thank you.
Forgive me if this sounds rude, but westerners don’t understand because they do not listen. Words have meaning but that seems to be forgotten to many. If you have questions, please ask, I will try to answer best I can, and I will have my own questions in return.
Thanks Ulya,
I have a few questions:
Good morning Graham
No I have not done national service, females are not required to and i am to short to be accepted anyway, my 4 brothers did and all stayed in the military for careers, my oldest brother raised me so I grew up in VDV camp which is why I have interest in military things.
My partner is a nurse, because she is Spanish citizen she cannot join military so works for civilian volunteer medical company in Donbass and does 3 month trips, she is currently on her third service and I am very proud of her.
There is contract soldier and conscript, conscript is done 2 times a year and last for 1 year. This SMO will change much going forward as traditional way has shown to have limitations so will be interesting to see what changes happen.
Polls show about 75-80% support for SMO and from those I talk to, they understand the reasons. This is a very interesting subject as much has changed in attitudes since the beginning of the SMO, it is something worth talking about but this forum it too limited to do properly. As for number of Russian dead, depends on which media you want to believe, most people I know follow mediazona and accept the cost.
My hope for end state of this conflict? I am mad at the West, this war did not need to happen, I cannot understand why pushing NATO into Ukraine was so important, I cannot understand why the West would not talk to us seriously over the years, I cannot understand why the West would not honour Minsk agreements, ABM, INF and is going to let new start expire. This war is not just Russia/Ukraine, poor Ukraine is just the place the bigger war is being fought. To answer your question, I do care where the new border ends up, I just want peace between Russia/Ukraine but I want to hurt the western system, fortunately the west is doing all the work for us so we can just wait and work on the new alternative geopolitical, financial and trade system. My job is trade/finance in international area so I am very devoted to BRICS and creating new financial institutions.
Sorry for long reply
👏👏👏 “A tangled web we weave, when we plan to deceive”. 🙄
Just to clarify the above: You are claiming to be a woman; In a relationship with another woman; You are claiming she is Spanish and supporting Putin’s activities in occupied Ukraine?
Interesting claims as I see you as a mouthpiece for one of the most homophobic regimes outside the Muslim world. The various NATO countries have accepted many Lesbian and Gay Russians as refugees. I think you have invented a lie to far for plausibility.
Graham, don’t fall for it…. Ulya is no more a Russian than you are.
Who knows?
And this guy gets away with posting crap like this without moderation??
Ok then tell me what facts are wrong, and please get an adult to type this time.
sorry luv ….
Sadly this happens with age….. We should add a 5th V class boat, Call it HMS Viagra and hopefully “Missile Dysfunction” would be a thing of the past…..
OK, I get your joke but a 5th sub wouldn’t have resolved the malfunction of a booster rocket, unless there’s more to this than first read. Good that we are testing, bad that it failed. What’s now important is that we fix it promptly and re-test it. CASD and Trident are massively complex systems but we need them to be ‘platinum-standard’ from a reliability perspective. I dare say those who have it in for the Navy right now will just use it to stick the boot in further. We’ve had recent setbacks but I wouldn’t call us a shambles as some on here have said already!
I agree, needs to be kept in perspective; we aren’t down to sail boats on the Norfolk Broads…. Yet.
👍
My jokes are usually wasted…. thanks for getting it !
🙂 reminds me of that classic episode of “Yes Prime Minister” when Bernard tells the PM ” ….if it (Polaris) works”. A classic comedy, way beyond its time and still rings true to this day.
“Trident is the best and Britain must have the best”
Sir Humphrey Appleby
Stand corrected. Many thanks. Bloody funny.
You are right too.
Bernard did say that.
We spend 6% of our Defence budget on CASD operations, over £3bn annually. Surely a series tests to prove we can get this right would be a good idea, even if that does cost £100m in missiles. There’s £10bn contingency for the new submarine build alone, so the order of magnitude of spend in this area dwarfs those costs.
The point of CASD is the “D”, deterrence. We can’t leave any lingering doubt that Trident works in Russian minds, nor in those of the UK public.
That is a fair point.
Otherwise its D value on Putin and Xi will be reduced……
They must be quaking in their boots as we speak…This second failure is both embarrassing & concerning..atm its tantamount to having no credible nuclear deterent.
They know their own system are just if not more fallible?
But it isn’t a good look.
If we consider the last 2 tests their own can’t be more fallible.
I would like to know statistically the ‘failure rate’ and over how long for us and comparable forces.
I would also like to know test rates – how many & how often, also for comparable forces.
I would also like to know why,if it failed last time, did they wait 7 years to test it again …did someone break a miror or something.
Waiting 7 years between tests seems a long time is in itself regardless of results.
I assume we won’t be waiting 7 years to test this again…£17 mill or no £17 mill (hardly a drop in the ocean-pun intended) …3rd time lucky an all that.
Not great at any time even less so in these times.
NL state the failure rate as 6%
The missiles are tested all the time fella, just last year the US had a test from one of their boats in the Pacific. So it isn’t 7 years between tests, but 7 years since the UK last completed a test firing. BTW, it’s our 12th test firing of a Trident missile, the other 10 went according to plan.
The two failures were also different failings, things go wrong, it’s just not a good look especially in the current climate.
Indeed their latest super Sarmat missile at least if you believe the US failed its last test and there are questions ver its other weapon systems with a test of its Poseidon seemingly cancelled or failed last year so it’s hardly one way. That said they can afford failures, we far less so.
Hmmm…rather highlights the possibilities of a potential single point system failure. Acquisition of a squadron of B-21s, when made available, could increase overall reliability of deterrent. Land based strategic missles are another option, but have significant tradeoffs/constraints. 🤔
We are a bit too small, geographically speaking, to have land-based systems. I think a second leg of the tripod would be impractical for financial reasons. We really need a second strike weapon that is believed in.
Agree, option would not be feasible unless HMG substantially increases defence spending.
…missiles…🙄
A squadron of B21’s would be awesome- even the B1 would be great …I’d even take a redevelopment of TSR2…that may make you reduce the cost of your offerings 😉.
However Isn’t the F35A now capable of carrying nuclear weapons- albeit I assume not strategically the same ?
Probable significant differences in range and payload.
Hardly any conventional forces left ,so rely on Nuks what don’t work oh dear 🙄🇬🇧
” “it is understood that had the firing taken place on a real patrol mission rather than under test conditions it would have been successful” -I don’t get this -please could someone enlighten me as to how it would have been successful in a real patrol mission ?? Thanks
It is puzzling as if the first stage doesn’t ignite…..it doesn’t ignite…..errrr no lift off…..?
The ‘RN’ part of the launch was successful in that the missile left the tube. The issue is with the missile itself, all roads lead back to the US as in LM, who manufacture /maintain the beasts.
Like you say, two failures albeit for different reasons is not a good look and does deserve scrutiny at the highest levels. The rest of the blurb put out is just plain c**p. If it doesnt ignite, then it wouldn’t have on a patrol either…!
Ah, just the man. Was waiting for your take here.
The gas based soft launch to get the missile out of the tubes must have worked otherwise that is a sub issue. So as you say, stage 1 issue.
Delayed ignition to increase distance between sub and missile on ignition. Done to reduce back blast wear and tear on sub? If it’s mistimed even by a second or two, gravity would win the day. Just thinking out loud.
The idea of the gas eject is that missile comes out in a steam/air bubble and then pops above the surface.
The air bubble ejects and the water closes and the first stage fires.
At no point is the submarine exposed to the rocket efflux.
This is all carefully set up.
It *could* be failures of
– steam charge
– submarine depth
– timings of firings (as you say)
– ignition failure
The one thing I’m sure of we won’t get to know the real answer until Trident is out of service in both US & UK.
I have heard that it may be to do with the dummy warhead. Someone set it up wrong, the missile detected the anomaly and it automatically aborted.
Right that’s interesting sounds very pertinent in the present Ai, particularly AGI fueled environment we are entering.
Pfft, that won’t sell newspapers or get long-retired officers blustering behind their newspapers.
Bit disappointed in that I came here for a level headed take and at least half the commenters have leapt to the worst possible conclusion…
thats actually a solid theory. just looked it up there have been 188 successful flight tests of trident and the US hardly ever have an issue- but the RN use a different warhead and so seemingly had to use a unique dummy warhead which isn’t as tested as the american one.
That’s because you’re just an engineer. That quote is prefaced on BBC by – a defence source close to Mr Shapps said. Relax.
I wonder what this might be- as demonstrated the crew and expulsion went without issue. The missile has to know its been launched out the sub and above water to fire its engines (and not to fire them in the tube) so I guess there was a computer ‘hand-over’ problem…in effect the missile thought it was still in its silo even though it was launched perhaps?
Look at this way how many missiles does a boat carry,what is the likelihood of all of them failing? How many missiles does it take to nuke Russia etc?
Considering the last 2 tests statistically the likelihood is 100%.
Realistically there is normally one boat at sea, one in training/standby, each armed with a classified weapon load of up to 16 Missiles with MIRVs….. Russia is huge,
The Dreadnoughts will have 12 Missiles max.
Russia being huge has no relevance when their population centres are grouped up as much as they are.
Nah mate…… We can only scratch the surface with one Sub with maybe 8 Missiles……….. Russia could pretty much destroy the whole UK with just two Sarmats if they worked properly……
Hi mate, you need to remember that each missile can carry up to 8 warheads of different yields. Lots of bang per missile, even if the Dreadnoughts only sailed with 8 missiles, thats anywhere between 8-64 warheads. Probably more than enough to toast most of industrial/residential Russia….
And under select circumstances, all the tubes would have D-5s, regardless of standard op profile.
That is also very true, so 12-96 warheads on a Dreadnought, still more than enough I would venture.
You may fry all of us but we can still fry some of you
Being pedantic it’s not a “British Trident missile” but a “Trident missile fired from a British submarine.
All Trident missile bodies are jointly operated and this failure is as important to the USN as it is to the RN.
Bloody PR disaster. Reminds me of the HMS Cornwall episode, Type 42 mess, and the aircraft carriers with dodgy shaft couplings. Yup, all in a day for the RN. Bit like the NHS this, throw money at it and it gets worse 😅 ps Do not be triggered by my comments, after all I am light infantry and obviously totally unaware of why the RN never seems to work….
You forgot reverse parking by Hms Chiddingfold
I was being kind
There seems too be something wrong with our Navy this year can’t wait for the next 10 months for headline grabbing stories
“There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today”…… Vice Admiral Sir David Beatty, 1916.
Spot on Frank Battle of Jutland after watching somewhat disheartened our ships blowing up and sinking And our gunnery skills weren’t top rate either
There was an investigation carried out at the time by a senior Captain. It was kept secret until relatively recently, well past the usual 30 year rule.
Turns out that the RN commanders were not that confident in their crews gunnery because they had not had the training (if I remember rightly, there was also a suggestion that the sights on RN ships were not the best available…).
Anyway, to counter the perceived inadequacies the RN commanders decided to focus on rapid fire to deluge an enemy. The statistical theory is that the more you fire at an enemy the more likely to you are to achieve a hit or two. The down side is that you use up your ammunition stocks too quickly. So Jellicoe and/or Betty came up with the idea of ‘overloading’ the ships with ammunition. Shells and cordite bags were reportedly stored in passageways..! They over rode the safe procedures even to the point that anti-flash doors and hatches were pinned open to speed up the loading cycle.
Letters from officers on some of the ships have also come to light describing how cordite bags were used to hold doors open and that some of the cordite bags had split open and sailors were ‘crunching’ through sticks of cordite that had fallen out of the split bags.
Basically, Beatty should have known damn well what was wrong with his ships. HE had laid a powder trail to the magazines. The German shells didn’t need to punch through the all the way to the magazines they just had to ignite a powder trail…
Apparently Beatty, featured quite prominentely in the Captain’s report as an architect of the rapid fire policy and he tried to intimidate the Captain into changing the report. Fortunately, man in question was made of sterner stuff and stuck to his guns so the truth eventually came out.
Beatty was a bigger fool than many could have imagined. Not only should have kept the 5th Battle Squadron closer rather than rushing off to seek glory, but he should not have placed explosives outside of hi magazines, let alone laid powder trails…
Just to put the record straight about the RN’s gunnery. When Jellicoe crossed the German ‘T’ (i.e. lined up across the German vanguard) the Germans were horrified and impressed with the accuracy and rate fire from the British dreadnoughts. Fortunately, for them they were able to turn away in good order behind a torpedo attack otherwise the result could have been very different.
My understanding is that ships going bank when they shouldn’t still plays on the minds of RN commanders, quite rightly too.
Cheers CR
I have just found this extract from a report, held by the National Archive, and written after the battle into the loss of the Indefatigable;
“It is now the generally accepted opinion that the fault to which these explosions may be attributed lay in the method adopted in the transportation of charges to the guns, whereby these charges which were not in non-inflammable case had an open course from the magazine to the the gun. This, in association with the number of charges that were usually in the Handling-room, Revolving Truck, Working Chambers, and Gun House provided a direct train of Cordite from the turret to the magazine.”
Ergo – a powder chain…
CR
Just had a look on WIKI rergards Jutland and Beatty in particular.
Now I know wiki isn’t gospel but theres enough in there to suggest what sort of guy & Officer Beatty was…and look at the position he achieved through it …says all you need to know about how to get on in life …still the same today.
Some things never change, ehh ?
Don’t panic John Fujitsu have been brought in to employ their expertise to sort out the faulty software.
Mate, nothing but nothing would surprise me now 😅
Aborted due too the amount of CO2 produced in a full burn can’t upset Greta .We are in a time where the Armed forces should really be looking at protecting the environment next step the Trident longbow no more nasty Gases being emitted this will please the Greens and Mr Corbyn just got too find a Yew tree big enough
Why ? Trident has a blue touch paper
This does raise doubts about the UK deterrent. We are reducing the number of tubes on the Dreadnought class and apparently don’t plan to load them all. Is this enough, by itself, to deter a nuclear attack by the most likely threat, whose leaders might calculate that, whilst they could obliterate our small country in a pre-emptive strike, our ability to damage a much larger country is quite limited.
The deterrent works only if it makes taking such a risk unthinkable. Relying on a single submarine at sea with just 8 of 12 tubes loaded might not achieve that by itself. We don’t need to create a nuclear triad like the US but a second system, based perhaps on cruise missiles, could help to keep the risk unthinkable.
Nuke tipped cruise missiles are a terrible idea, think as the enemy, if you have nuked warheads they have to assume every cruise missile is now a nuclear weapon. A conventional strike on a specific target now gets treated as a full nuclear attack and MAD is triggered, world end! It one of the main reason why the medium range ban came in the 1st place now gone due to EGO.
A designated system means everyone nows what’s launching and can react accordingly, it is a nuke or it’s not any grey area and disasters happen.
Russia has stated publicly that they would assume any cruise missile launched at its territory is nuclear armed and react accordingly. So your argument doesn’t really hold up.
The point is that a deterrent has to be credible to be of any use at all..A single submarine with 8 missiles may not be wholly persuasive. Building more Dreadnoughts would be unaffordable. But a second system could restore the effectiveness of deterrence. France still retains air launched weapons whereas Blair got rid of the UKs equivalent capability.
A cruise missile is not a credible deterrent option, poor range, payload and higher chance of getting intercepted, let alone the increased risk the SSN would have to take to get into a firing position. It’s also 12 ICBMs with multiple warheads, that is going to mess up any country regardless of size.
Was it not decided in 1995 to retire WE.177 by 1998.John Major government
Russia has Only stated that since the break down of the medium range treaty. Because now they have too.
Also Russia aren’t the only adversary.
But we don’t actually know it 8 missiles any number between 1-16 and then 1-12 with dreadnought and between 1-14 warheads although there should only be 4max on each missile according to treaties, so even with 8 d5s on board there’s still the capacity to drops 32x100kt warheads from 1 boat.
Also a side note Trident has had over 170 successful test and only 8 failures.
Do Trdents have a 12 month warrenty or was it over 12 months old?
That’s the whole point of a ‘test’ isn’t it? Now they can sort the glitches out.
It is, but you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say oh well, if it was a real launch it would have worked. We need to see proof it does work. Two consecutive failures, without a successful launch for many years now, is not satisfactory.
Im glad Grant was on board. Now he can be the point of contact for all the uncomfortable questions that are going to be asked both domestic and internationally about the (perceived) state of our Armed Forces.
That is scary stuff considering this is the weapon of last resort at a time when the mad Russians are threatening to launch theirs.
Many of theirs might fail too mate. If this had been real not all would have plopped. But the PR angle isn’t great as the great ignorant British Public will see and decide what the sensationalist press tell them.
They should be asking the Americans they service these things.
“Plopped”…… you stole that from me…. didn’t you mate…. come on, Fess Up !!!!!
I did!!!! 😆
you are a very naughty boy…… 😂
They should repeat the test. Nothing less will reassure the public – the British tax payer as well as our potential opponents.
OK, whatever the issue I’m hoping it’s just a data input/wrong track/command destruct thing, or something that needs to be re-calibrated and just natural in a long-cycle system shake down. However, does this raise an argument for the need of an alternative, back up, “fixed-wing” strategic nuclear deterrent again?
Say 3 or 4 aircraft spread around the world (or just the UK) on QRA and capable of deploying “something(?)” that makes a very big bang? Ex-jumbo with long-range stand-off cruise missile, or even air-launched ballistic? I always thought ex-Concordes would have been great for this role!
French have it sussed. I always though putting a small nuclear warhead on a Tomahawk a good option. Turn each Astute into part of the deterrent. Then folk like us with common sense ideas are never listened to.
Tru-Dat. Sometimes I think I must be mad as others (politicians, military leaders etc.) don’t seem to see the bleedin’ obvious – whereas it comes to me straight away. So either we both are mad or other peeps are a bit ‘fick. I wonder which it is….?
I belonged to a unit that always had a Chinese Parliament before anything happened. “Hofficers” and the other educated idiots could not be trusted. It seems that educated class are still idiots to me. And you are right, whats obvious to us is oblivious to them. Be easier to let a few crackheads run stuff for a few years.
That method used to be a thing. I believe back in WWII, Watson-Watt and the “boffins” trying to invent RADAR used to hold what were called “Sunday Soviets” to try and get everybody from all seniorities to contribute ideas to speed development.
Aye it works, we never lost a man in NI. Other platoons did sadly.
Respect!
The MOD did look into the Concorde in its planning stage but by 1969 the Nuclear deterrent delivery had switched from the RAF to the RN as Air defence systems made it near impossible for airbourne delivery
Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but… times have changed. This is 2024 and what was once received wisdom, may not now be the case. e.g. modern counter-measures, active defence suits … a 4,000 mile stand-off capability would do it. Just the threat of it as a back-up.
I always found it funny that the UK came to that conclusion yet no other Country did….. unless of course Russia was confident that a few noisy, slow Bears could evade the UK’s air defences ?
Maybe we should take another look, especially for Tempest….. ?
Why not as long as the other countries involved in Tempest can see the possibilities that an Airbourne delivery system can offer rather than just a fighter
Germany seems to think It’s still a viable option, as does France with both having 4th Gen Fighter capability… Germany soon to have 5th……
I’m talking about a back-up STRATEGIC deterrent though, not just tactical delivery systems. i.e. long-range, very big bangs.
That sounds like land Based Minuteman type “Very Big Bang ” style stuff then ? ……. I always remember as a kid, watching a film about Chinese tunnels under the USA filled with Nukes and little slitty eyed yellow people in grey overalls and shiney black helmets ….. burrowing under New York to plant their Bombs……. WW1 had a similar programme too…..
Air-launched Trident or at least something with a big Hydrogen based bang to do the job properly if that is what is acting as a deterrent.
That depends on how big a Warhead you can put into Storm Shadow or Tomahawk.
What the fxxk is going on ?2 serious failures, worrying
Next crisis in Russia when they try to break NATO after Trump pulls out US.
“NATO is threatening to intervene now that we’re rolling into Kiev again after the US cut aid. The British prime minister is threatening to attack Crimea.”
“Comrades, we need to target one NATO city with a nuke! Escalate to deescalate!”
“How about he UK?” (Russian hawk #1)
“Right, their Trident so-called detererent does not work!”
“Are we sure of that comrade? The GRU says that they cannot guarantee…”
“What do they know? The UK has tested Trident twice in the real world, each time it has failed! Launch two missiles on Birmingham.Then tell the French – whose missiles work — that we are only is a warning… and the UK that London is next if they don’t surrender…”
It won’t be us they target; however it might be Ukraine with a tactical nuke. The French wont respond (in kind) for somebody else. Trump wouldn’t either. If it’s thought that Britain probably wouldn’t (as we don’t have tactical nukes and the response would be escalating) and even if we did we might be firing dud, it just slightly increases the likelihood of the use of tactical nukes in the current war and breaks another taboo on the road to Armaggedon.
Do we lease the missile bodies from the US and they do the scheduled maintenance on them? So it’s a US-made booster that failed?
I believe so, yes. We do not “own” the missile bodies as such.
But of course it is allll the RN’s fault. 🙄
The USN has had very few failures. The “launch” is programmed and controlled by the boat, specifically software that is unique to the RN V boats and not shared with the Ohio class.
Hi Chris. Thanks for that. This detail is all still sketchy but from the looks of it the “launch” was successful, the missile exited the water. Reads to me that the first stage booster failed. Is that not a physical issue on the missile itself as opposed to software?
This seems an episode of Yes Prime Minister, with Bernard saying about Trident
“if it works…”
This is really worrying, at present we have Russia making nuclear threats…a deterrent needs to have three parts resolve, capability and visibility…the enemy must know you are willing to use the capability you have, they must know that capability can harm them and they must be able to see and understand the capability….if all Russia has seen is failed tests we have a a deterrent that may fail in its purpose…the RN needs to run a another firing pretty soon to be honest…making statements about it would have worked are pointless…a deterrent must be seen..which is what these test firings are all about.
How do we know the yanks aren’t just giving us the dodgy missiles from the “random” shared pool?
this was even a major discussion on politics live..based around the conversation “do we have a credible deterrent”….as an observer or politics I would say we are seeing more and more focus on military matters and concern over strengths.
also what was interesting is that this was not published, but the SUN found out and published..which is embarrassing and damaging.
All i see here is yet another failure of the current British government regards defence, and no doubt will be used by both parties in which to demand a review of the nuclear deterrent with an eye to scrap it based on their view “Why do we spend so much on a weapon system that doesn’t work “when the money saved could be used to benefit mankind , such as rebuild ‘Gaza’ because we all know it the right thing to do.
blimey…..😯
Frank,
Already happening regards the British Nukes, have a look at how the BBC is presenting the subject, as an expensive white elephant , FDont get me wrong I would like nothing more than to see all nukes gone, but at this current time and place, it is needed.(Especially as Iran is supposed to acquire nukes this year) But that wont stop the do-gooder brigade from dancing to the tune of “Keep the red flag flying here”
They are no do-gooders, they hate and are the anti-west.
I bet Biden sold the rocket fuel to China and the tubes are just full of water.
Need to opt for a more affordable and more reliable system, air launched intermediate ballistic system from stealth aircraft. The old Cold War method is outdated costs to much and clearly has issues.
My understanding is that the UK have paid for X number of missile bodies. However these are all held within the USA stockpile and the bodies both for the USA an UK are a random pick. Those remaining in the stock pile are under constant maintainance by the USA. Leaving aside war heads / dummy heads.From what we can asume this must be sending as much of a shiver down the spine of Uncle Sam as us unless this is dummy war head related. Putin must be laughing into his soup. The only other thing that comes to mind is that there was a problem with the dummy war head in terms of conection to the missile and a fail safe came into operation. I presume the UK fit the dummy warhead back in the UK as there are several types especially live warheads. Was it the case a few nuts and bolts missing or more complex than that? It does seem odd that two on the trot fail when fired by the RN. Failure happens but have the USA had two on the trot fail? very worrying
Missiles don’t fail to launch properly because of Dummy Warheads 😏
What a mess the RN is in…
It’s under warranty.
The people at Kings Bay have some questions to answer.
There have been 191 successful launches of the Trident Missile since 1989. The US Navy and Royal Navy know what went wrong this time, or, at least, are conducting an investigation and will determine the cause. Maybe then there is a cause for panic. But there certainly isn’t one now. Talb about over-reaction.
U.S. Navy SSBN USS Louisiana Tests Trident II Ballistic Missile – Naval News.
Tip from SpaceX: just keep firing until it works.
The missiles themselve are leased from the US so technically the failure is theirs only the warheads belong to the UK which was not fitted so no financial lose for the UK. At so many million a pop you’re not going to test fire them all of the time. For even this to be published it should have been covered under the official secret act. Let’s think the UK and US nuclear deterrent may have a slight chance they might not work if that case the chances of Russias missiles working are zero going by the equipment failure in Ukraine.
Really is that a fact,no cost to us? If so let’s try another one next week👍😉
Some how I don’t think the Yanks would let us keep firing the missiles every week.
Yes but not really….. Ukraine is plastered in craters caused by fully functioning Russian Missiles………
It’s just been reported that the so called super Russia Air defence system and their lastest jets are not as good as they made out, even their ships can’t defend against drones. Russia is only good at propaganda and bigging things up.
Listening to the politics show today and the BBC Defence Correspondent said, he was told on the QT that it was human input error… check it out on BBC iPlayer.
This has been a concern of mine with the reduction in missiles on boats. The assumption that all 8 will work as intended is political folly. Should always keep 16 as it’s the only part of the nuclear force.
16 missiles isn’t even a lot for giant land masses. Even with multiple warheads.
Assuming 15% may fail, at least one has a low yield warhead, 1 or 2 could get intercepted doesn’t leave many out of 8 to be a deterrent.
Given that they would be targeted at the main population centers I don’t see how the land mass makes a difference?
Time to get rid of Trident, a superpower weapon system for a superpower country, which the UK is not, the vast amount of money saved from doing so could then be spent on proper numbers of frigates & destroyers, Israel is surrounded by hostile states & operates a far more sensible & affordable nuclear deterrent than trident.
Yeah no, we need Trident to protect ourselves from hostle threats like China and Russia
Was this caught on video? How close did the missile land to Shapps and Adm Radakin?
I’m certain all launches are filmed but I’d be surprised if we see it.
Also, if this was leaked. Who?
Don’t think any footage has been leaked, unlike the footage of the F-35B ‘diving into the drink’.
Maybe they left the engine covers on like the £150m F35B that was promoted to submarine?
Bummer…
Call me old fashioned – something is a success if works as intended through all phases of operation
Info coming out today is saying that the launch was command aborted due to telemetry equipment issues on the missile.
A warshot doesn’t have all the test equipment fitted and would have gone whoosh…
Another rumour but with as much validity as all the others…
The “Remove before Flight” red flag wasn’t pulled by the onboard CD Divers before launch. Same root cause as the F35 crash on QE!
Heard that from a reliable source in the NAFFI queue who wanted to go SWS WE Submariner but became a chef on a skimmer instead because he wanted to sunbathe…
Must be true then…
👌😶Yep.
Why is almost every thing in the military, broken, old, run down. and a shambles. Yes its the goverments fault but also the top brass are dong nothing. Too worried about getting in to the house of lords or their next promotion. The buck stops at the top.
The Trident D5 is stored in the US and maintained by Lockheed Martin. We used to draw them from a shared pool of missiles at Kings Bay but as of 15 years ago Royal Navy D5s are kept separate.
This could not have come at a worse time. The ongoing Ukraine war, things ramping up in the Middle East, other nations questioning the strength and ability of the UK armed forces. The whole thing is a clusterfuck!
Reading further, there was another ‘failure’ back in 2016, when another of these missiles ramps up the chagrin ‘level’ to an 8-10.
Then to cap it all, the £17million price tag attached to each missile, makes retesting difficult and/or unlikely? Why??? The Mod are normally happy enough to piss taxpayers money up the wall, without giving a jot!
It’s a good job putin, kim jong and the Chinese dude are not serious poker players… otherwise they could have called our nuclear bluff, a long time ago!
Madness…
bring back “Cap guns”…. at least they went bang……
It’s just a question… What makes a Trident missile worth £17m?
I am late on this but – Why was this made public, I mean Mr Putin with be very interested in the Woosh Plot nuclear deterrent UK possesses – He won’t be quaking in his boots.
“Woosh Plop”…….
Thank you for the typo correction – “Woosh Plop” it is and Putin. China know this has happened twice.
“Woosh Plop” replaces Woosh Plot. Point us still current….
“Point Is… not us… ? 🤔 did you mean ? deary me….. How many posters here are sharing Dave’s Phone ? 😆
Ok – I am having eye treatment and I seemed to have made mistakes.
Point is really simple – I think that was obvious.
UK Sub did a test firing of Trident – In my word it fell in the water after launch.
So with the 2016 failure you may have thought it would be hushed up, not sending Putin a PM saying we have a problem with our nukes.
That is it in a nutshell.
Whatever the issue it needs to be sorted.
System failures aren’t good at any point, but Trident is our only assurance against Nuclear attack. Putin will be getting his propaganda machine working overtime to embarass the UK and its armed forces.