moonraker

Based on Sundays performance provided we stay solid in defence and the cJack and Morgan do their thing midfield and get the ball Rickie, Gaston Adam and Punch regularly Norwich will have plenty to think about, they wont want to man mark 4 players.

Alps , none of those examples were close to a loss, i.e. the irretrievable loss of the capability, the correct answer is 1971 when HMS Artemis sank alongside at HMS Dolphin with no loss of life. The V Class and Astute were human error and not close to a loss but of great concern all the same. Yes some T boats had defects like every boat or ship since man carved out a log for a dug out canoe or indeed built anything. I didn't say you slated the RN, I said ex-servicemen. I do not know which industry you work in so am unable to proffer examples of its failures but I am sure there are plenty. The problem with military failures is that they get a far worse press than commercial ones due to politicians and journalists seeing them as an soft target and all and sundry having an opinion more often than not ill informed. More people have been killed or maimed by industrial catastrophes than by military ones (active service excepted where that is the objective). The awful incident on Tireless was a tragedy but it was caused by an item of consumable stores, and was essentially due to Treasurery penny pinching and MoD failure to challenge it, nothing to do with the design of the submarine or the operators. The full coroners report is available on line, Google Tireless SCOG.

Alps your final comment is completely out of order. As an ex-serviceman who has attempted to bring some reality and knowledge (based on 40 yrs SM experience) to this discussion I do not recognise your slur on the ex-servicemen who have commented. What they have pointed out, some more diplomatically than others, is that your position is vulnerable to your lack of experience in the design, manufacture and operation of the most complex safety critical engineered product known to man. In previous threads you have stated that you work in a complex safety critical engineering sector, I am certain that if some of us ex-servicemen came on here slating your industry based on Newspaper articles and wiki you might point out a few flaws in the article / wiki as you have inside knowledge. A couple of easy questions for you: when was the last time we lost a SM? When was the last time a commercial organisation had a catastrophic fatal failure of a safety critical process? The fact that retiring Nuclear Qualified Submarine Engineers are amongst the most sought after across the UK engineering sector illustrates that they know their stuff. Finally I thought Simon Lister’s letter said all that was needed in the public domain.

Cook or captain the thing that differentiates submariners from their above water colleges is the requirement to qualify in all aspects of the submarine, its called a part III. Whilst they do not have to operate everything they have to have a working knowledge of the whole boat. The interest in how a submarine works and what it is both capable of and actually does is part of being a submariner, in any case I believe DD is a weapons engineer not a cook. Your comments do I am afraid demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge and therefore leave you open to less than polite replies.

If my car analogy is bit dodgy I don’t know where that puts then your pesky Russian analogy. For over 40 years during the cold war NATO boats and Russian boats stalked each other, often playing very dangerous cat and mouse games however there was never a direct SM on SM weapon engagement, if it didn’t happen then the likelihood of it happening now are of an order of liklihood so small it doesn’t warrant consideration. I do agree some of the alleged shortfalls in the ASTUTE performance are of concern, but ever was the case with first of class and highly complex systems, ask the French, the USA in deed any nation.

An SSN top speed has two potential uses, getting to an operational area as speedily as possible, as happened in the Falkland’s with the Valiant class (not as fast as T Class), or running away. 99% of a submarines life is spent at less than 10 knots. So failure to achieve the designed top speed, whatever it might be, is not significant. Most vessels Surface and Sub Surface only ever achieve their design top speed once in a lifetime and that is on trials. An analogy of the top speed is with your car, most modern cars are capable of speeds well in excess of 100mph how often do you use it? In aircraft carrier opps the key is not ship speed alone it is wind speed over the deck hence why a carrier will always turn into wind when flying sorties, the top speed is only required when there is no wind. No military ships spend any notable time at high speed it is both uneconomical and detrimental to effective mission system operations.

Because Scotland provides a key chain in the surveillance network for the North Sea and Iceland Faroes gap. This surveillance is currently undertaken by the UK Military as part of its commitment to NATO's collective security principle. The SNP's catalogue of sound bites on defence now require some substance and detail this one is classic “I will bring home all Scots” - Actually no you won’t. If the deal includes the transfer of current UK servicemen to the Scottish forces this will take some time and the individuals would have to agree / volunteer, also could Welsh, Irish and English servicemen request a transfer, those who don’t want to transfer will remain subject to UK military discipline and orders, so another hollow sound bite. There is a precednet for thsi: following the Irish partition many Irish Republic citizens remined in and continued to join the UK armed forces once they had signed the dotted line they were subject to all of the military regulations with no course for redress from the Irish Gov.

There is a motion on the table at the SNP conference to reverse the policy on NATO membership, Norway and Denmark are not happy with their policy. I believe that as the independence debate moves on the SNP and the supporters of independence will be continually found out as not having a clue as to realities of independent statehood compared to regional autonomous government. The debate is all around the SNP’s policies post independence when there is no guarantee that they will be the government as there will be a general election, unless King Alex adopts the Mugabe model. King Alex is also refusing to reveal the leagal advice he received on their possible EU status despite a FOI Commsioners juddegment against him. A question for legal profession, the Faslane Naval Base is UK Crown property is it agreed that all UK crown property will transfer to the new independent Scotland or will they have to buy it from the crown?

You are right I should have said that ships have a greater degree of complexity; aircraft have far fewer systems than a ship. The majority of preserved aircraft are static, the range and scale of operational systems required to maintain a ship the size of QEII in a static condition and allow public access is significantly greater than that required for static aviation exhibits (that in the main are only viewed from afar). XH558's problems stem from a very laudable desire to keep her flying and the complex problem with the turbines not present in static preservation; her problems are a function of failure of a complex system and the absence of a supply chain. QEII would require the majority of her non propulsion systems to either be live or at least replicated and functioning, HVAC, Lighting, safety systems, flood control, fire protection, watertight subdivisions, potable water, waste disposal, power distribution and possible generation etc. whilst in addition other (new) systems would be required to comply with the necessary H&S legislation to gain a safety certificate for public access. I am a very keen supporter of aviation and maritime the preservation scene having been a volunteer at an aviation museum and actively supported maritime projects, but the preservation of something like QEII is in all honesty is wholly impracticable and the amount of money required would be far better spent on a wider range of projects. For another sad example see HMS Plymouth.

No she isn’t, but it illustrates the problems with keeping a complex engineering structure viable. Aviation preservation is in reality far less complex than maritime and especially something like the QEII. Strangely for a maritime nation aviation heritage seems more able to get public support than maritime heritage.

The costs and source of funding will never add up for this type of vessel. People point to other maritime heritage attractions the vast majority of these live hand to mouth and have to establish a brand much wider than a single ship. The sheer scale of the QEII means that she would not be an easy vessel to interpret and present to the general public and I cannot see any business case where she would be self financing. HMS VICTORY does not pay her way, the MoD subsidise her upkeep to the tune of several million pounds and yet she is possibly the most famous preserved ship in the UK if not the world. The current project to ensure the continued preservation and viability of HMS ALLIANCE, the only WWII designed SM in the UK, will cost close to £7m and has required a significant grant from the Lottery (approx 50%). The reefing option is not as simple as people seem to think HMS SCYLLA was the first ship reefed in the UK in 2002 (I think), not accounting for all of the work by the MOD in striping her of equipment and asbestos prior to transfer for the reefing preparation work that cost £1m. Asbestos is only one of many environmental issues that need to be addressed, also to ensure divers safety a great deal of the structure and systems has to stripped out. The desire to preserve historic icons must be tempered by the reality that the preservation and maintenance of complex engineering structures is an extremely costly enterprise, for an example see the recent stories on VULCAN XH558, and not everything can be preserved and funded.

Boris is a breath of fresh air, the current political class are soulless, uninspiring and boring, shame he's a Tory.

Just one thing to say Gaston

I expect it is part of thier sponsorship strataegy that according to their website started in 2008. "From UEFA EURO 2008™ to the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ and beyond… At Castrol we’ve cemented our commitment to football over the years by supporting some of the biggest footballing events on the planet."

Its the MC and Wigan games, certainly some interesting outcomes, the Guly and Fox knockers wont like it. The video explanation points out that all other rankings are subjective, including the great player debates on here.

Just for the fun this would be my line up ------------------------------------Shilton-------------------------------------- Mills------------Watson ----------------Wright----------------------Bridge Paine--------------Keegan------------------Ball------------------Le Tiss ---------------------------------Channon Shearer---------------------------------- Subs Flowers Chivers Williams Chamberlain Reid Ruddock

Seems we are now very popular in Zambia, particularly liked this comment on one on the Zambia Watchdog website "I’m buying a Mayuka Southampton t-shirt whilst the rest of Zambia goes around wearing their man U ones with a picture of lucifer on the heart….."

The biggest surprise to me is QPR who based on the survey draw their fans form a wider area than Saints?

TDD I fully understand your frustration 20 years operating and now nearly 20 years designing, believe me there is no easy answer. Design teams are very professional and truly try to provide the best possible solution to the front line but have to operate within the available budget and technology constraints. The 2 elements that designers cannot plan for are politicians and service driven requirements creep. The politician interfere and the series change their mind depending on the latest events. One of the reasons so many projects overspend is changing requirements (QEC will cost more because of Cameron’s complete mis-judgment on the type of Aircraft).

Ah Astute, please tell me which current SSN's available in the world are better. The design of a nuclear submarine is recognised as one of if not the most complex engineering systems in the world. The design process requires that technology is de-risked before it can be included in the design, I would bet my shirt your examples were not mature enough when the design freeze decisions had to be taken hence designers include growth margin in all designs to allow for capability inserts/upgrades throughout the life of the system. Minor question TDD do you understand DLODS?

Well as I said I speak daily to your colleagues in the Navy and Army (rarely the RAF) who have also been on the front line, on land and at sea (above and below the water), and they tell it differently. I can assure you what you have today is far superior not just in technical capability but also in quality to what I and my oppos put up with in the 70’s and 80’s.

Your comment on the size of the armed forces is spot on, I am no shoulder shrugger, unfortunately no party understands the importance of strong properly constituted armed forces, the Tory’s happen to have the worst record on cuts, not just this incarnation but all post war Tory govs. My point on aid was that it is a cross bench view not a LD only view.

The aid programme is essentilly a tory policy yes the LDs support it but it would be there anyway. And what has it to do with armed forces equipment. The UK armed forces currently have the best equipment available, I speak daily to members of the armed forces and whilst there will always be grumbling kit is a minor issue on the other hand force reductions are areal concern, and as history tells us vote tory and you reduce the size of the armed forces.

Not at all, who one supports is a matter of free choice, however whenever the LD's part in the coalition is brought up on here the usual suspects just jump on the media bandwagon. They criticise the LD’s as though they are the government not the minority partner in a coalition, a coalition that despite our voting system is what we voted for, not as individuals but as a nation.

Sadly no national media want to tell this story. The press barons are only interested in the Tories or Labour; misrepresenting the LD's is nothing new. It’s a shame so many voters are either too thick or to ideological to understand / acknowledge this. The one good thing will be that Cameron and his unpleasant self serving backbenchers are going to be a one term government.