 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Well done the Royal Navy!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Phot Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:07 AM My God! A Type 42 at sea! Whatever next! Wassail! Chris |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: bubblyrat Date: 28 Aug 08 - 11:49 AM Mistakes can,and do,happen aboard military vessels----personally, having served in the Royal Navy for some years, I am AMAZED that there have been no catastrophes, or even major incidents,involving nuclear-powered submarines ,since their introduction into service.Well, not as far as I have been permitted to know about, anyway !! On the other hand, I feel certain that the same cannot be said for the Russians, or indeed ( as far as we know !! ) our American cousins ! A trifling 5 million pounds worth of damage to HMS Trafalgar is a small price to offset against an otherwise enviable safety record----in fact, since the whole point of obscuring some navigational data from the aspiring submarine commanders was to test their resourcefulness and abilities, the exercise can be viewed as a total SUCCESS! ( it's a "British Thing", you see ),as it highlighted their shortcomings in that capacity. So, you see, it was a GOOD THING, after all !! As to the use of "Class A" drugs on ships --- I just don't understand it !! What are these TWATS doing in the Royal Navy in the first place ?? Bring back flogging (and The Tot ), I say !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Teribus Date: 28 Aug 08 - 10:56 AM Discovered during random drug tests I believe, 18 out of 240 which equates to about 7.5% - very high for the armed forces, the occurance in the Royal Navy has been about 0.4%. What was discovered in this instance is roughly what would have been expected if any work-force of any company in the UK had been randomly tested. Big difference here of course is that they (Naval personnel involved) will all, quite rightly, be out on their ears. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Aug 08 - 07:32 AM "Class A drugs" is a pretty wide range - "Ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines (if prepared for injection." I imagine rum would be included if they were starting from scratch today... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Fairhill Date: 28 Aug 08 - 03:56 AM Sad news just coming through on the BBC. Around 20 sailors on-board HMS Liverpool have tested positive for drugs and quantities of class A drugs have been discovered. A Royal Navy spokesperson has said disciplinary action will be taken against those found guilty. This Royal Navy destroyer visited her home city last year after a successful deployment combating drug smuggling. The Type 42 Destroyer spend time in in Liverpool supporting local community groups, businesses and opening her doors to the public and promoting a clear message against the use of drugs. HMS Liverpool took part in some of the largest operations against drug smuggling. Her crew captured drugs valued at several million pounds. Now it has been shamed in the largest positive anti-drugs operation in the history of the Royal Navy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Treakson Date: 24 May 08 - 12:29 PM Yes that's what I read in the Times. It's still dammed funny though. LMAO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 May 08 - 11:54 AM I think the root cause, using tracing paper to prevent the charts from being defaced and thus save a couple of quid, is typical of the "penny pinching" attutude our Armed Forces have been forced to adopt because of Brown's unwillingness to fund them properly. LOL, Typical... It appears the incident happened in 2002. From the North West Evening News:
Full article here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Treakson Date: 24 May 08 - 11:02 AM Brilliant Micca ! Hard to believe in the age of technology so called skilled Tars can't read a chart. it's so funny really, they probably couldn't locate your own naval ! Those red faced individuals involved should be made to pay for their cock-up, not the tax payer. Priceless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Micca Date: 24 May 08 - 08:32 AM I offer this without further comment Encounter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 May 08 - 08:22 AM And I have nothing but contempt for smart-arse dickheads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Treakson Date: 24 May 08 - 08:01 AM "Got a lot of experience of the art and science of submarining, have you? " No I haven't, and clearly neither had they when they sent it into a nose dive! so that's why I stay away from them. But I never cost the British taxpayer five million pounds either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: sapper82 Date: 24 May 08 - 08:01 AM I think the root cause, using tracing paper to prevent the charts from being defaced and thus save a couple of quid, is typical of the "penny pinching" attutude our Armed Forces have been forced to adopt because of Brown's unwillingness to fund them properly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Megan L Date: 24 May 08 - 05:27 AM We are in safe hands. Hands of young men like my nephew who are willing to go to sea in submarines to patrol our shores. It always makes big news when a mistake is made people mocking instead of seeing what can be done to improve matters. tracing paper has been used for generations to plot courses and protect charts for the simple reason that it can be rolled up and kept if needed. Acetate is certainly more transparent but it requires special pens and is very slippy and stiff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 May 08 - 04:57 AM "Well I couldn't do much worse !" A very dangerous boast, my friend. Got a lot of experience of the art and science of submarining, have you? Often, things that seem simple turn out to be just the opposite. As one who's spent a fair bit of time at sea, I have nothing but respect for men and women who risk their lives in the service of the nation, and especially in what's probably the most dangerous branch of Naval operations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Treakson Date: 23 May 08 - 05:37 PM Well I couldn't do much worse ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Backwoodsman Date: 23 May 08 - 01:40 PM Maybe you could do better? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Treakson Date: 23 May 08 - 07:54 AM A great story in today's Times. A British nuclear submarine crashed into the seabed after tracing paper was used to help plot its course obscuring vital symbols from commanders. Priceless ! The hunter-killer sub HMS Trafalgar needed five million pounds worth of repairs after the incident, which occurred off the coast of western Scotland. Three crewmen were injured after the 5,200-tonne submarine steered into the seabed at a depth of 165 feet off the Isle of Skye. One and a half minutes before the impact, someone in the sub's command room was quoted as saying: "We're going to have to change course. This is too dangerous." But it was too late, and the vessel crashed into the increasingly shallow seabed at a speed of 16 miles per hour. Nice to know we are in safe hands ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Charley Noble Date: 12 Aug 05 - 12:38 PM "Diesel and Shale? Thought it was Cyril Tawney's." You're certainly correct! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Aug 05 - 12:15 PM HMS Conqueror was the focus of a lot of criticism at home and abroad, which the Argentinian Junta made good use of as propaganda at the time. I would like to make two points clear to the readers here. 1. Operating under The Rules Of Engagement and Levels of Force she was well within her right to sink both escorts, but she did not. The Admiralty and her Commanding Officer displayed humanitarian judgement and no reasonable person can dispute that her actions were honourable. The two destroyers did not pose a significant threat by themselves; and indeed, they did not enter the 200 mile exclusion zone. The Argentinian aircraft carrier group retreated back to port and did not pose a significant threat after the sinking of the Belgrano. 2. Had this been a major protracted war, with doubt about the outcome being in favour of the British, both escorts would have been sunk or attacked by aircraft, missiles or ships, during their transit home. They were not attacked, and allowed safe passage home. I seriously doubt that British ships would have been granted such mercy had the situation been reversed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 11 Aug 05 - 10:10 PM When I said callously left to die in the water, I didn't mean the Conqueror had. Was responding to the guest that brought up the Falklands. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: robomatic Date: 11 Aug 05 - 06:22 PM Nothing beats knowing what you're doing down under! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic Date: 11 Aug 05 - 05:55 PM I responded to the line 'men callously left to die in the water' I was one of the crew of Conqueror at the time. As a former submariner I can only praise the rescue operation and the fact that our navy has such a capability. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 11 Aug 05 - 02:01 PM I certainly can and have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Paco Rabanne Date: 11 Aug 05 - 12:02 PM Bloody typical thread! You can't all just rejoice at the fact that seven Russians were saved and leave it at that, can you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 11 Aug 05 - 11:18 AM What song, Diesel and Shale? Thought it was Cyril Tawney's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Joe Public Date: 10 Aug 05 - 08:14 PM Privatise the Army. That's next! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 10 Aug 05 - 07:52 PM When Conqueror sank the Belgrano the escorts made a counter attack, Conqueror left the area deep and fast the normal thing to do. Some hours later she returned to the area and observed that the escorts were trying to pick up survivors. She did not surface to assist because open warfare had been made. The men were not callously left to die in the water. Conqueror did not attack the escorts that were picking up survivors. As a result of that action the Argentine surface units stayed in port and stayed out of the war, possibly saving more of their lives. Had the aircraft carrier 5th De Mayo come out she would have been torpedoed as she posed a threat to the whole of the operation. The RN was operating 4 nuclear and one conventional submarine in the SA at the time. At one time the RN worked under the USN to train operators for deep sea recovery vessels (DSRV's) these were proper mini submarines that could do a dry transfer on a stricken boat using the escape towers that were a from of dry lock connection. At that time (late 1970's) our navy did not have such a capability. The problem was that transporting one of the mini-subs from the US to otherparts of the world would have proved problematical. Even a mini sub has a huge deadweight, so air transport is difficult but not impossible. The mini sub that was going to be used on the Kursk was transported by sea, that takes time. The other problem was having enough trained submariners (RN ones) who would not be at sea serving on a submarine available at short notice to assist in a rescue operation. The RN submarine service was quite lean on manpower. The Mine Warfare section of the RN has good experience in using ROV's for mine countermeasures, but the MW people were not submariners and the type of ROV use. Further the type of ROV used by MW would not be suitable for deep operations on a large craft. So the decision to use a civvy force to run and operate ROV's under the guidance of the Submarine Rescue Section was taken. These teams are permanently available for just such operations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Rumncoke Date: 10 Aug 05 - 07:29 PM The submersible I saw on the TV is bright yellow with various black writing on the side - name of maker and/or operating firm I assume, plus a big RN badge. I'd assume that it goes about commercial salvage and inspection/ maintenance work until called on by the MoD and that it has a crew of Navy specialists and civillian engineers/operators like some larger vessels. Anne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: MMario Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:41 PM jon - the submersible is "operated FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENSE by..." emphasis mine. So while yes, it's a civilian craft - it is under the aegis of the MoD- which means to most of the world it's a military operation. Certainly the civilian contracters the US uses have been accussed often enough of being militaristic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Charley Noble Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:33 PM I was pleased to learn whatever negoitiations took place between parties that they were concluded with enough time to achive a rescue. The rescue itself was surely no easy thing, and brings credit to the technology available and the skill required to run it. We could easily have had a follow-up story of the rescue vehicle becoming entangled in the same netting. Tom Lewis deserves credit for the submariner song pasted in above. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 10 Aug 05 - 02:06 PM Sinking a ship is one thing, callously letting men die in the water is another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: robomatic Date: 10 Aug 05 - 01:51 PM A Hip Hip from this Yank on the fine performance of the Brits and their equipment in saving lives with resolution, despatch, and technology. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Bunnahabhain Date: 10 Aug 05 - 11:19 AM I know we shouldn't respond to guests stirring up trouble, but anyway... If you're refering to the General Belgrano, then I can't see your point. The ship was sunk, as it posed a threat to the fleet. Its escorts were not sunk. They did not pose a significant threat to the fleet on their own. They were left to pick up suvivors. Yes, the circumstances surrounding her sinking were somewhat dubious, but do remember who started that pointless little war, by invading another country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST Date: 10 Aug 05 - 10:49 AM That true during the Falklands, was it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 10 Aug 05 - 06:26 AM Even during wartime it's rare to just let someone die at sea if you can help it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Dixiedoll Date: 10 Aug 05 - 06:16 AM The rescue has carried out by a civilian crew using a civilian owned deep sea exploration vessel. The Royal Navy acted as transport to the search area. Let credit be given to those that deserve it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Joe Public Date: 09 Aug 05 - 10:25 PM Oh... I don't think so Jon. They would happily torpedo each other, if they were told to. When they're not our enemies, we can get as lovey-dovey with them all we like... and for just about as long as the hypothesis lasts. Interesting to see Private Contractors being associated with the military again, however. Everybody seems to be whistling a different tune though, this time around, I've noticed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 09 Aug 05 - 10:17 PM Yes, at sea unless it is open warfare then politics comes second to saving lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Peace Date: 09 Aug 05 - 10:14 PM When people are rescued from certain death, they tend not to care about the rescuer's (rescuers') motives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Aug 05 - 08:45 PM So what are you saying there sc? "All submariners from what ever navy have very common bonds, it is an unusual and often hazardous job and one which submariners will not often discuss with non submariners in detail. Their true work is often never seen, but the results in the cold war period was a standoff for peace." doesn't sound too strange to me. Are you telling me that this comeradeship rises above, in terms of being allowed to do the rescue, politics and government decisions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 09 Aug 05 - 08:14 PM From the 1950's the Russians built up their Navy under Adm Gorshkov to one of the most powerfull fleets in the world. However the submarine fleet in the early years was a disaster. In order to build their nuclear powered capability corners were cut and there were some very bad design flaws in their boats. This resulted in a number of incidents where when a boat was not totally lost the crew suffered from radiation poisoning either due to reactor leaks or poor reactor sheilding. Their boats were noisy too, we could aquire them by passive sonar from a great distance, allowing us to track there movements without giving our position away and often we were where we should not have been. This we know caused a lot of worry and anger to the soviet submarine fleets. The Russians were able to cover the loss of their boats by imposing news blackouts, no help was sought from non Warsaw pact navies. families were instructed not to ask questions but accpet their loved ones had died as patriots. With the end of Communism the funding to the Russian Navy was cut and so too was training. This meant it was easier to track their boats as the crews were not as well trained in submarine operations i.e. keeping quiet. The loss of the Kursk with 118 people was a public distaster for Putin and a tragedy for the families. It is clear Putin resented asking for help, as an ex KGB whatever he appears to be today he is still a man who would willingly go back to the 'good old days'. The 23 men in the aft end of that boat could have been saved. In fact they could well have escaped from the depth they were at had they had the right equipment and training. It was not too deep for a tower or compartment escape. Since I left the RN I have been to both Murmansk and the Kola ports and seen that state of the Russian submarines lying alongside. The crews are often unpaid for months and moral was low. They rob spares from one boat to repair another. Putin knows the state of his Navy and when something like the last incident happens it is more bad publicity for him and his govt. What we dont know is who authorised the call for help, Putin?, his defence mininster? (another ex KGB hand) or the Admiral i/c for the Far East Ports? Whatever, the call was made and lives saved, that is the main thing. Last year the Chinese Navy lost a diesal-electric boat just north of Wei Hai Wei. It was lost with all hands, most likely from CO poisoning due to an internal exhaust leak while running diesals when dived. The enquiry results have never been seen, and probably never will be even though the incident was published (unusually) in the Chinese press. All submariners from what ever navy have very common bonds, it is an unusual and often hazardous job and one which submariners will not often discuss with non submariners in detail. Their true work is often never seen, but the results in the cold war period was a standoff for peace. That is why when something like this does happen sides tend to be forgotten and help offered. I am not being jingoistic when I feel proud that people have been saved by a group of men I once served alongside with. Just pride in a job well done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:21 AM glub glub glub seven men in a sub drowning in Davy Jones lucker when an imperialist nation saved their situation dialectically ...a bit of a fucker |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:13 AM opps, forgot my name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:12 AM No Le Scaramocuce, I was more specifically aiming at our flag waving. I don't think it's nonsense to suggest that the powers do not have mostives beyond saving lives, as you perhaps agree on with "Anyway, could the UK pretty well refuse to lend a hand?" Whatever, the point we all agree on is that it is fantastic that there has been co-operation and lives have been saved. Now if we could just generate the same degree of effort (and I'm guilty too - don't dontate as much as perhaps I could...) to less prestigious crisis like the starving in the world, we may one day have a human race to be proud of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 09 Aug 05 - 07:06 AM Putin deeply resents having to turn to Britain, USA, etc, for help. If you didnt mean among Russians, then never mind. I still think it's nonsense to ascribe an ulterior motive. Anyway, could the UK pretty well refuse to lend a hand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:56 AM I still don't get them LeScaramouche. Please (and I'm not being rude or akward) explain further. What I'm failing to understand is how Putins position would affect whether the UK government would not score brownie points (world wide and UK specific) for being the rescuers except perhaps in Russia itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Liz the Squeak Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:49 AM It's the unwritten rule of the sea... if someone asks for help, no matter who they are, you help them. That's all that matters, saving a life. Political point scoring is bollocks. It's life and humanity that matters. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Le Scaramouche Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:38 AM Yes, I know who you ment. please re-read my comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:32 AM Scaramouch, please re-read my comments. I am saying it is us not the Russians who might have that scoring motive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Well done the Royal Navy! From: Paco Rabanne Date: 09 Aug 05 - 06:23 AM ...and Kate Winslet will be cast as the feisty Russian submarine commander... and Sir Dicky Attenborough will be cast as the crew man permanently on the edge of cracking up. |
