Printable View
How do we know we are defenceless, whether it be by land, sea or air, do we honestly think that we, the man in the street, is told everything about our country's capabilities in time of need. I think on matters like this the barbers and the taxi drivers don't know everything and that we have somehow got to put our trust in those that serve in unseen (per se unknown) services that work in a cloak of secrecy and whose workings are known only to a select few, which is as it should be.
It is on google about the Russian Sub and the trawler s nets. under the Nimrod articles.
Brian
It is only when the emergency occurs that you find out just how good your troops are, your survailence systems and who is your friends in a time of war.
John just imagine being on an Aussie Sub. built by a foreign power and having a dormant pinger or even a number of such built into the construction of. Your last thoughts would be on the brilliant minds who decided to buy foreign as were cheaper. The technology that I was aware of in the late 70"s and early 80"s were, minefields laid on the seabed, the passage of a vessel overhead, and in some cases looking for a particular vessel, the particular noise the vessel made was probably on tape and could confirm it was the target wanted by the noise (propeller) and explode. This was in the early 80"s. The stingray torpedo also worked on the same principles, every vessel has its own particular noise pattern and one knows what vessel it is by such. The Stingray used to home in on this. The building of submarines was always to get their noise pattern down as low as possible. This is why listening devices were laid on the approaches to the Clyde in those days and probably still are, was to get the name of the sub. on patrol and its noise pattern for any future use. That was 35 years ago and technology must have advanced in leaps and bounds since then and is still probably still in the Official Secrets Acts category. Saying that the particular ship I was on with only the part of a blade on the propellor would have been obvious 1000 nautical miles away at least, however she would hopefully have been considered not wasting a torpedo on. Cheers JS
How many have laid marker buoys for recovery of objects on the sea bed. There must be various ways of doing this but the way we did was with a heavy concrete weight attached by a length of chain to a wire of a length suitable to the depth of water and the tidal expectations. To this concrete weight was also attached a length of chain and a small anchor or large grapnel. To the end of the upgoing wire was attached the spar buoy complete with Radar reflector and light if required. To the spar buoy was attached a couple of fathoms of rope tail with the ineffitable big orange bouncy buoy or sometimes known as a Norwegian fender. This was for grapnelling and recovery of the buoy after completion of underwater operations. Laying this buoy was done by streaming all this equipment over the stern so only the cement block chain and anchor remained on board. With all this lot trailing astern and approaching the drop zone, on a signal from the bridge would be pushed over the stern. This could happen two or three times a day. Was the target the ship had to finish alongside of at a 4 point moor this was another job in itself as depended on wind and tide and any obstructions on the sea bed. Usually off the West coast of Scotland the listening devices recovered of supposedly of Russian manufacture were small square objects about a foot square. These were found how I don't know by RN minehunters who directed the diving ship (us) onto the target by means I should imagine by side scan imagery. How they found in the first place I havent a clue. Another case of us not to reason why. Used to take in good weather conditions about 3 hours to lay a 4 point moor, and had to have an AB on each self tensioning winch to drive, if ABs away in a boat or working elsewhere the two mates stepped in to drive the winches. The same principles applied mostly to all dives with the Bell and saturation divers. Sometimes the recoveries were bodies and parts of downed aircraft which were not a very pretty sight and best not dwelt on. However during my time working for the MOD was never dull or humdrum, and worked with some very competent people, Cheers JS PS The concrete weights were circular and could be rolled along the deck, I doubt even two men could have lifted. JS
The governments defence review has now chucked a load of dosh at the M.O.D. New stealth planes for the two new aircraft carriers, new surveillance aircraft, new vehicles for the army , new ships for the navy.
This is in addition to new Trident submarines.
Good on them I say but can anyone explain how come all M.O.D projects suffer massive cost overruns? Trident is 9 billion over and the latest is that hackers could make them obsolete before they even come into service.
Before the M.O.D sign any contract they should be made to tie down the manufacturers to a fixed price. I know that warfare machines are continually evolving but for ships, submarines, planes to be such high cost overruns means that there has to be something amiss in the bidding process.
rgds
JA
Yes John I can tell you having had a M O D contract, my first and last (my choice). You make a bid after a long expensive process, tying up many man and computer hours, you get the contract, you are told in a round a bout way to inflate your price because you will not see any money from the M O D for many months, in the meantime you have to finance your project with high interest bank loans. Halfway through the project the M O D will alter the specifications, always higher, never lower, meanwhile you have had no money from the M O D but you may have to purchase some extra equipment to meet these new specifications, so more high interest loans needed, not forgetting you still have to pay your staff. You then have various M O D and Service personnel visiting you and you have to entertain them, they don't like cheap lunches or wine. You then complete the order which they want delivered straightaway, and have to deliver it some hundreds (or thousands ) of miles away and it has to be delivered within a time window (usually a spread of a few hours) even if involves transport modes (ferries, weather, etc) over which you have no control, also Customs controls over which you have no control. Of course M O D will liaise with Customs to ensure smooth passage, alas that never happens! Meanwhile you still have not been paid anything, after the goods have arrived they are subject to further tests by personnel on base who even if they are not satisfied with the shade of grey will not sign the product off, even though their colleagues have signed off the equipment in the tests at factory. Until such sign off you cannot even apply for payment, after waiting months you will get 90% of the due amount, the remaining 10% with held until the expiry of the guarantee period, so that is the shortest explanation I can give for expensive over runs, you have to inflate your product prices just to break even and make a profit if lucky. A lot of smaller firms will not have any truck with the M O D on a direct supply basis as they know the M O D could bankrupt themQuote:
Originally Posted by John Arton
Is that what they call Red tape Ivan. Being a government department suppose it is. I know they can spend money no problems what I saw, am not complaining as really meant no difference to me apart that the Charter rate kept the company going and myself and others in jobs. I know when they talk about the cost of this and the cost of that and they talk in billions I always wonder are they talking off the top of their heads as a billion here or there is apparently immaterial to them. This putting jobs out to tender when it comes to protection re armed forces, always seems wrong to me as the long established contractors of the past properly vetted and of national origin would seem to me the proper way to go. Maybe this so called free trade and ones making huge profit margins by the big boys should start getting deflated, and instead of costing, the quality should be once again and not the Width should be the primary aim. As the good old Jewish statement says. In my opinion every country should not be dependant on others to keep them supplied with arms. In years gone by Checkoslovakia was considered the armanents centre of the world, now it is apparently the US plus our former enemies. Bet your pleased to be not involved with the spivs anymore. Cheers JS
Mr Cameron has promised 13 new frigates besides everything else surely this is now time that our steel industry is bailed out in the same way in which the banks were.Lets have British steel to save British jobs even if it is subsidised,the majority of the men in places like Redcar may never work again.
Regards.
Jim.B.
Cameron has just done a Trade Deal with China, bet the steel that builds these warships will be from China, if not even built by China.
Brian