mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
US giving us their old stock :)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trident
- Thread starter Lowtower
- Start date
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
US giving us their old stock :)
does its meter take a currency we don't use lol?
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,328
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
Can people not see that this is a stunt?
"ooh look at the 'failure' of this Trident test. LOL, It's not fit for purpose!"
"Indeed it isn't, Citizen. Guess it needs a £50billion investment, what with Russia and all!"
And you all fall for it.
"ooh look at the 'failure' of this Trident test. LOL, It's not fit for purpose!"
"Indeed it isn't, Citizen. Guess it needs a £50billion investment, what with Russia and all!"
And you all fall for it.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Marconi (I think) developed a supposedly sophisticated homing torpedo a good number of years ago. They test-fired it at a static target the first time but it couldn't pick up the target and just went around aimlessly till it ran out of fuel.
So they made adjustments to the software and tried again. This time it was more successful in picking up a target. However the target it locked onto was the sub that had fired it. Fortunately it wasn't armed.
bit like ‘blue streak’ the British missile that the UK spent £300 million
on … the spec outlined a 30 minute launch time
despite the fact we knew we would only have a four minute warning .
Lions led by Donkeys……….
Gremlin
Well-Known Member
The submarines and the warheads are made in the UK but the bit that actually failed (the missile) is made in the US and not subject to any investment requirements by the UK government, other than buying them. So, no - not a stunt.Can people not see that this is a stunt?
"ooh look at the 'failure' of this Trident test. LOL, It's not fit for purpose!"
"Indeed it isn't, Citizen. Guess it needs a £50billion investment, what with Russia and all!"
And you all fall for it.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
It seems that - according to Shapps - both launch failures were caused by damp .............. from a submarine launched missile.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
You need to know the environment that the missiles are required to be kept in to understand that damp inside the missile was not a cause of the missile misfiring.It seems that - according to Shapps - both launch failures were caused by damp .............. from a submarine launched missile.
Shapps will know that, so not sure what he is saying
Metal Biker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 21,328
- Team supported
- Manchester City (and McLaren F1)
Which is an investment...The submarines and the warheads are made in the UK but the bit that actually failed (the missile) is made in the US and not subject to any investment requirements by the UK government, other than buying them. So, no - not a stunt.
It's not the leaves on the track - it's the wrong kind of leaves.It seems that - according to Shapps - both launch failures were caused by damp .............. from a submarine launched missile.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
You need to know the environment that the missiles are required to be kept in to understand that damp inside the missile was not a cause of the missile misfiring.
Shapps will know that, so not sure what he is saying
anything that comes into his vacuous head is my guess