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?

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

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, .... but there's a procedure to follow, we haven't armed the rocket motors yet.. It would just ...

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

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

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."

Thankfully it wasn't missile #20!

Thankfully it wasn't missile #20!

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

Lets have some music in here Boiler

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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".

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”

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Micro-cracks in Titanium?

Someone should've told Stockton Rush

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

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.

"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.

"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.

" 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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Thankfully it wasn't failing Grayling.

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

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

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

"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.

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.

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?

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.

I took [1]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?

[1] https://photos.app.goo.gl/Y4cSrYQk7RX16o4F6

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