Shooting on Royal Navy Sub

[SCAFITE]

There has been a shooting on a Royal Navy Sub (HMS Astute the one that grounded on a sand bank)

One Dead and one other injured

Sad news for the Navy and the families of those Killed and Injured

link BBC News - One killed in HMS Astute nuclear submarine shooting (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13014640)

[Heathrow Harry]

That ship is building up an unfortunate record

[Tankertrashnav]

It's a boat, not a ship Harry, in point of fact, but you're right.

How long before the Green Party say the incident posed a radiation risk to the people of Southampton? :ugh:

[c-bert]

How long before the Green Party say the incident posed a radiation risk to the people of Southampton?

How would anyone tell in Southampton? :E

[cavortingcheetah]

You'll end up with a gunless navy once someone twigs that the deranged gunman could have had access to a school filled with children.

[Agaricus bisporus]

But the entire quote was It's a boat, not a ship Harry, in point of fact, but you're right.
, so "all you can worry about" was blatantly cherry-picking a part of the reply.

That's what I like about PPRuNe, idiots who can't even bother to read a single sentence all the way through, or who choose to only read part of it and then make self-righteous snotty replies based on that partial reading.

Do you have a problem with accuracy, RA?


Priceless.

[AlanM]

Local news reporting an Able Seaman with the weapon, and the death of one officer and another officer seriously injured. They also said that the Lord Mayor and others were onboard and helped to disarm the gunman.

Sad news all round.

[Clearedtoroll]

RIP to the dead sailor and condolences to his family and crew.

Well done to all involved in the disarming as well... That goes against natural instinct.

[waveskimmer]

One is tempted to look back,grounding,rollockings administered, sour grapes,just a thought from an old matelot,and stoker to boot :suspect:

[SRENNAPS]

Agaricus bisporus

I find your post far sadder than the post about whether it is a ship or a bloody boat.

Who cares what the lump of metal is called; somebody has died and somebody else is near to death. RA was just making a point….and to be honest I happen to agree with his point.

I just happen to know somebody that works with Astute, and trust me the atmosphere is not good.

My thoughts just go to all the families involved in this very tragic incident.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

I just happen to know somebody that works with Astute, and trust me the atmosphere is not good

So what is that supposed to mean?
This perhaps?

One is tempted to look back,grounding,rollockings administered, sour grapes

Deranged AB, or overbearing Officers, or both, or neither. We will never know.
My thoughts are with the families of the two Officers, and the family of the AB.

[SRENNAPS]

Romeo Oscar Golf

The atmosphere is not good because of this incident.

Nothing to do with anything else. No conspiracy, no cover up, NOTHING!!!!!

[Tankertrashnav]

Well apologies to all who were offended - in my defence all I can say is that my natural home is on Jet Blast where such comments generally go unremarked.

To carry on, though, I've just watched the 10 o'clock news where it seems that the gunman, who was still firing, was disarmed by a member of the visiting civic party. If events were as he described he is a very brave guy, so let's hope he will be rewarded for his courage in due course.

[waveskimmer]

AH big society,not

[glojo]

A terribly tragic incident but I do fully understand the very polite tongue in cheek remark regarding the 'ship' vs 'boat' comment.

It was tongue in cheek and all the author was possibly attempting to say was that the Royal Navy has always called a submarine a 'boat' and no submariner would want his boat to be called a ship :). (apologies for the smiley but I want folks to know I am trying to be tactful)

My thoughts are also with the relatives of all those effected by this tragic incident.

[NutLoose]

Wessex FM - News - Council Leader Tackles Nuclear Sub Gunman (http://www.wessexfm.com/news/review.php?article=402160)

Mr Smith, 46, a former RAF engineer, said he wrestled the gunman to the ground and disarmed him. None of the civic party was hurt.
He said the man burst into the control room brandishing an SA80 assault rifle, then disappeared out of view and fired two shots.
Seconds later he reappeared and fired two more shots. One just missed Mr Smith who said it was then he decided to take action.
Mr Smith said the gunman, later identified as an Able Seaman, was wearing body armour and camouflage gear
He said afterwards: "I don't feel like a hero, I wish it hadn't happened. It's awful for the boys on the submarine. They will never forget the events of todaySo sad and such a waste, those poor victims and their families, :(

Man shot dead on nuclear submarine HMS Astute and another fighting for life | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374850/Man-shot-dead-nuclear-submarine-HMS-Astute-fighting-life.html)

[Mike7777777]

Difficult to conceive of the circumstances that permitted this to happen, boat is heading towards a jinxed reputation.

[glojo]

Difficult to conceive of the circumstances that permitted this to happen, boat is heading towards a jinxed reputation.

Hi Mike,
It is indeed rare for a weapon to be discharged in this apparent manner but sadly attacks on officers, senior NCO's etc does happen. I have witnessed a leading cook attacking the first lieutenant of minesweeper with a carving knife. There were not any serious injuries, and no publicity. There was no way this latest incident could be hidden from the media.

Regarding your second point:

The Duchess of Cornwall launched this vessel...

Nuff said :E

[sitigeltfel]

The councillor is ex RAF..

Royston’s background is rooted in aeronautical engineering; he spent 10 years in the Royal Air Force flying as ground engineer with the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance fleet before taking up a position with British Airways in 1990.It has also been quoted that the shooter was confined to the boat, probably due to a disciplinary matter. Maybe not a good idea to arm someone who could be bearing a grudge?

[MAINJAFAD]

Not the first time I've seen the navy make that kind of mistake (though the result was a lot more funny than tragic). There was an incident back in 1984 (which made the national press) when a seamen under close arrest awaiting a serious charge was used to make up the numbers on the naval equivalent of an AOC formal inspection parade at a major naval base. Needless to say the Matlot in question decided that if he was going down, he was going to do it in style. So when the Admiral got to him during the open order part of the parade, He punched the Admiral in the face.

[green granite]

I thought that while weapons were easily available in the forces, ammunition was very strictly controlled and that people leaving ranges were checked to make sure no live ammo was taken away. So either this guy was lucky and managed to squirrel some away, or, he'd been issued it for guard duty in which case someone's judgement was clearly not as good as it should be but of course as we don't know the full story we cannot really judge the issue.

[Shell Management]

Are there not extra psychological evaluations of crew on nuclear submarines.:confused::confused:

[Really annoyed]

Yes. You have to be mad to want to spend months on end underwater not seeing any day light.

[goudie]

My dad did a stint on subs during the war. He did it purely for the extra money. My concern, as with Green Granite, in this tragic case, is how a junior sailor could get his hands on a weapon and ammo whilst the boat is in port.

[Charlie Time]

Because he was an armed upper deck sentry?

[goudie]

Thanks for the explanation. One must assume all subs and ships have this precautionary procedure when in a home port?

[Biggus]

I don't know about inside RN facilities, but this sub was alongside in the civilian port of Southampton......does that actually count as a "home port"!



I'm sure if terrorists had tried to seize a floating nuclear reactor and a hull full of weapons the public would all be demanding to know why it WASN'T GUARDED! Well, we all now know that it obviously is!


For the Hollywood version see:

Under Siege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege) Worth a watch, at least Erika is! ;)

[Kreuger flap]

Do all subs and ships have this procedure when in a home port?

Do you want any other details of security arrangements whilst ships are in port? I mean we may as well discuss them on an open internet forum so that the whole world can see.:ugh:

[green granite]

If he was an upper deck sentry, then he would be plainly visible to any one who looked Kreuger flap. secrecy is therefore not necessary.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Really Annoyed said:

"Yes. You have to be mad to want to spend months on end underwater not seeing any day light."

My older Brother was a submariner aboard HMS Swiftsure for several years in the 90s. Also a member of the Devonport Field Gun team in the early 90s. Currently manages an amateur Rugby team in the North East.

In other words, he's a big tough bloke. And would be happy to discuss allegations of mental instability with anyone, down a dark alleyway round the back of the pub...:eek::ok:

Personally I think you have to be mad...etc. But I'm bigger than him!:E

[D O Guerrero]

I don't think that the broad security arrangements in any HM Ships are a secret. At the end of they day, I'm pretty sure that the general public would be quite keen for nuclear vessels to be guarded by armed sentries. This is the case at all times with one or two very exceptional exceptions.
All RN Warships, nuclear or otherwise, have armed sentries whether in base port or elsewhere. I've counted the bloody bullets often enough to know.... Anyone who has visited an RN Warship will know this - it is not secret. They usually carry batons as well (not of the the Majorette variety, the "ouch my leg doesn't work anymore" variety). Obviously the level of defence is always under review and is closely related to the overall security posture at the time, but I can't recall any occasions during my service when armed sentries were not a minimum requirement.
What does surprise me is that a former Minister of the Crown is seeking assurances that there was no risk to the public (presumably because he read that nuclear=bad somewhere in the Socialist Worker). My advice would be to give Bob Ainsworth a ring if he's really that ignorant.

[goudie]

What I find rather disturbing is that, HMS Astute requires an armed guard, whilst in port, because it's a possible target for an armed attack, and yet there it is welcoming aboard Civic dignitaries and children. The two situations just do not sit sensibly together, in my opinion.

[Biggus]

goudie,

In this day and age possible terrorist attack and the presence of civic dignitaries and children unfortunately almost go hand in hand.....whether or not there is any direct military involvement.


For example - Everywhere they go, meeting both civic dignitaries and children, members of the Royal Family are also potential targets for terrorist attack. Do we stop the Royal Family meeting the public, as the two possibilities "do not sit sensibly together", or do we accept the risk and take adequate/sensible precautions to cater for the worse case?

[nick185]

D O Guerrero (http://www.pprune.org/members/169934-d-o-guerrero),

Back in my OTC days - we were at camp near a certian submarine base in Scotland - the Marines were the guards of the docked subs...

Wouldnt the Marines be responsible for guarding here too?

[Charlie Time]

Not usually for this class of boat.

[Biggus]

If you were in the OTC you should be bright enough, and informed enough, to work out the answer to your own question.....

[glojo]

Wouldnt the Marines be responsible for guarding here too?

No

Hi Nick,
Earlier in this thread folks were politely told the difference between ships and boats..

May I now very politely point out that the United States of America have 'Marines'

Here in Great Britain we have our 'roughy, toughy' Royal Marines :)

[goudie]

do we accept the risk and take adequate/sensible precautions to cater for the worse case? Should the worse case ever happen, and it could have in this instance, I can hear the time honoured phrases now, 'lessons will be learned, we will be revising our procedures, blah, blah!'

Comparing the Royal family exposure to risks, with that of innocent children, doesn't work either!

[Piltdown Man]

It is a shame that plod has got in on this one. They'll just be looking for evidence to prosecute and not dealing with the root cause. I truly feel for the family of the victim and his colleagues, not only for their loss but for the fact that it will a long time before anything constructive can be accomplished to prevent a reoccurrence. Like it or not, it is totally reasonable to protect MOD equipment with armed guards, but someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are issued with firearms.

[AlpineSkier]

Should the worse case ever happen, and it could have in this instance,

What is this worst case that seems to be perturbing you so ? It is not clear to me.

[goudie]

Several VIP guests, including Cllr Smith, were on board at the time, and a party of schoolchildren was standing on the dockside waiting to board the vessel when the shooting happened.

Work it out yourself!

[Biggus]

goudie,

I wasn't comparing the "the Royal family exposure to risks, with that of innocent children".

I was, fairly obviously in my opinion, comparing the risks run by children meeting members of the Royal Family to the risks run by children visiting a military establishment, or any other possible terrorist target.

These days possible terorist targets that might be visited by children could include, railway/tube/bus stations, museums, sporting events, hospitals, airports, etc, etc. One could argue that terrorists may be more likely to attack targets that they know not to be defended at all, in which case a military facility could be seen as a safer place for children to visit than a crowded but unprotected railway station in a city centre.

If you deliberately wish to misinterpret would other posters say, I would suggest that you will rapidly run out of sympathy from anyone else posting on this thread.

I have taken the time and effort to try to meaningfully explain my point of view, as opposed to your, "work it out yourself" type comment to Alpineskier.

Given that this is obviously a serious discussion, as opposed to one where humour and banter are loose and running, perhaps you could give your responses equal care and consideration.

[D O Guerrero]

I would feel much happier with the little Guerreros onboard a British nuclear submarine than at almost any public event in Britain. Well, as long as they're kept away from the stokers.
Submarines are ships of war - designed and frequently used for battle. They contain things that go bang. Sensibly managed, however, visits from the general public should be encouraged. They paid for it after all and they find these things fascinating. The risk of someone going crackers with a firearm is present in any such environment, but given that I think it is unprecedented (I could be wrong), I'm pretty sure that it has never and should never feature in a risk assessment of such activities. Driving your kids to school is inherently more risky than letting them walk - yet many of us do that every day. You cannot legislate for a lone nut.
Psychological assessment for the suitability to handle firearms is achieved in the RN through the recruitment and training process and the Divisional System of supervision and leadership. Submariners are a highly professional bunch and that someone seems to have slipped through the net is unfortunate and deeply, deeply sad for the individuals and the RN as a whole, but it is not a reason to change a system that clearly works very well.

[goudie]

If you were in the OTC you should be bright enough, and informed enough, to work out the answer to your own question....
I have taken the time and effort to try to meaningfully explain my point of view, as opposed to your, "work it out yourself" type comment to Alpineskier.



Biggus, I did not deliberately misinterpret anything. I read it as it was written!
BTW why is ok for you to be dismissive but not me?

In view of the fact that a man lost his life in this incident I think we should now put our views to one side

[Trim Stab]

Victim named here:

BBC News - Submariner Lt Cdr Ian Molyneux was 'devoted to family' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13023686)

[LookingNorth]

Ch Supt David Thomas said HMS Astute remained a crime scene and was yet to be released back to the MoD.

How long have plod had primacy over the mob? How the hell does a strategic weapon get taken out of service by the local motorist persecution team? In short, WTF?

[Junglydaz]

Because it is a murder scene. No different from a crash site in that respect. Police always have primacy, especially when there is a loss of life.

[Really annoyed]

How the hell does a strategic weapon get taken out of service by the local motorist persecution team? In short, WTF?

Go on then what did the Police do to you that makes you hate them so much? Did you get stopped for using your mobile whilst driving or drink driving maybe? Knob.

[green granite]

Unless there's a war on.

[glojo]

How long have plod had primacy over the mob? How the hell does a strategic weapon get taken out of service by the local motorist persecution team? In short, WTF?

In short....

I think you will find that in the military if the following offences are committed in the UK then they must be dealt with by the civil authorities:

treason, murder, manslaughter, treason-felony or rape

persons who are accused of these offences committed in the United Kingdom must be proceeded with by means of a jury trial in the civil courts

[LookingNorth]

And how, pray tell, does that translate into removing part of our strategic nuclear deterrent from service? Matelot shoots matelot = give a nuclear submarine to people who aren't even cleared to read the bloody name plate? This is insanity. If the poor Russkis had only known that to wipe out our nuke force all they needed to do was bribe a sentry or three to blaze away at an officer they didn't like....

[glojo]

And how, pray tell, does that translate into removing part of our strategic nuclear deterrent from service?

We live in a democracy and thankfully no one is exempt from the law..

Common sense will always apply and if the Astute has to sail then no doubt she would proceed to sea with a number of 'passengers' that would carry on with the investigation.

Are you making too much of this?

[muppetofthenorth]

And how, pray tell, does that translate into removing part of our strategic nuclear deterrent from service?

Am I the only one here thinking that Astute is not a Trident-carrying boat and therefore has precisely sod all to do with the nuclear deterrent? [Other than it's role as a hunter-killer to protect it]

[glojo]

Astute is not a Trident-carrying boat and therefore has precisely sod all to do with the nuclear deterrent? :)P

She is indeed the first of the new 'hunter killer' Astute class submarines and as you rightly point out, has nothing to do with any nuclear deterrent. Some folks though are determined to try to put their own spin on this very tragic incident.

This appears to be a typical goodwill visit that has gone terribly wrong and looking at some of the news footage there appears to be a recruiting type marque on the jetty? adjacent to the submarine. However

[Shack37]

Like it or not, it is totally reasonable to protect MOD equipment with armed guards, but someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are issued with firearms.


OK lads, fall in for psychiatric tests prior to issue of small arms.
PS.....look lively, the taliban are at the gates.

[Modern Elmo]

LiLike it or not, it is totally reasonable to protect MOD equipment with armed guards, but someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are issued with firearms.

That statement is a short step away from saying that men who willingly choose infantry or similar combat arms service branches are probably dangerous gun nuts. That's what you're really thinking, isn't it?

Try this: "Someone has to have a method of determining the sanity of those who are allowed to have sharp kitchen knives or cars to drive."

[TEEEJ]

LookingNorth,

This will keep you up-to-date on RN submarines.

Submarine Service (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/index.htm)

Fleet Submarines SSN (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/index.htm)

Astute Class (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/astute-class/index.htm)

Trafalgar Class (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/fleet-submarines-ssn/trafalgar-class/index.htm)

RN Trident ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBN). HMS Astute is not an SSBN.

Ballistic Submarines SSBN (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/submarine-service/ballistic-submarines-ssbn/index.htm)

TJ

[Landroger]

What I find rather disturbing is that, HMS Astute requires an armed guard, whilst in port, because it's a possible target for an armed attack, and yet there it is welcoming aboard Civic dignitaries and children. The two situations just do not sit sensibly together, in my opinion.

As a Scout Leader, I have been in the position of requesting and accompanying a visit to a warship, alongside a building in Docklands that had been blown up by the IRA. We were on a water activities weekend and I originally asked to speak to the OOW while in 'civies'. The whole attitude was very much arms length, stand behind the white line stuff - including an armed sentry. Three actually. This didn't seem the slightest bit unusual. The visit was agreed for the following day and thus I turned up with about thirty kids - in their uniforms (however askew :rolleyes:) me in mine.

Suddenly it was all different, the ships company couldn't have been more welcoming. I've always thought it was the uniforms; we were identifiable and recognisable. At no time did I regard it as unusual to have three armed sentries in plain view, while inside the ship the crew members told off to show our three groups around were terrific with the Scouts. Neither talking down to them nor over their heads. The kids loved it. It was not considered necessary to have armed guards accompanying my Scouts - the threat was from outside.

Very sad news about Astute - will she ever recover?

Roger.

[LookingNorth]

Yes, let's concentrate on nit picking about whether a boat that protects a boat carrying nukes is part of the deterrent or not rather than the real issue that an entire sub can be taken out of service by Dixon of Dock Green. :ugh:

[handysnaks]

Yes, let's concentrate on nit picking about whether a boat that protects a boat carrying nukes is part of the deterrent or not rather than the real issue that an entire sub can be taken out of service by Dixon of Dock Green.
Look North, I take it that you weren't one of the people complaining about shoddy police investigation during the Deepcut incidents?
:rolleyes:

[glojo]

Yes, let's concentrate on nit picking about whether a boat that protects a boat carrying nukes is part of the deterrent or not rather than the real issue that an entire sub can be taken out of service by Dixon of Dock Green.

I really cannot understand the point you are trying to make and it is not coming across very well at all.

I have explained very politely that this submarine is NOT taken out of service, it is still in commission and to the best of my knowledge is still fully operational.

You have made a statement that this vessel has been taken out of service so please 'put up, or shut up!' :) Please do not get me wrong, I am NOT being sarcastic, I am curious and need you to explain how the police could actually have this type of power! In my opinion you are just plain factually incorrect.

My sympathies are with the families of all those that have been effected by this unique incident and hopefully a one off!

I would guess that certain areas of this submarine will have to be thoroughly examined as an 'ounce' of lead hurtling around the interior of this highly complex piece of electronic equipment may well cause damage.

She has also very, very sadly lost two heads of department and these will need replacing at the earliest convenience :(

This thread has nothing to do with aircraft but for the information of those that might not be aware... these boats when turning at speed will actually bank just like our flying friends and these lean angles can be impressive. An emergency surface will also possibly see the bows well out of the water :)

[Shack37]

I suspect lookingnorth's opinion is prompted more by his own attitude to/history with, the police than any real concern for national security.

[Kreuger flap]

these boats when turning at speed will actually bank just like our flying friends and these lean angles can be impressive. An emergency surface will also possibly see the bows well out of the water

It's still got nothing to do with aircraft. Nor for that matter has that thread about barbecues.
Oh well carry on arguing over whether it was right for the Police to cordon off a crime scene or not.

[Shack37]

It's still got nothing to do with aircraft. Nor for that matter has that thread about barbecues.
Oh well carry on arguing over whether it was right for the Police to cordon off a crime scene or not.

Kf..........have a nice day

[LookingNorth]

I really cannot understand the point you are trying to make and it is not coming across very well at all.

I have explained very politely that this submarine is NOT taken out of service, it is still in commission and to the best of my knowledge is still fully operational.

But, sir, but but... the rozzers have the boat and "have not released it to the MoD" as per the news story previously linked to. Seems to be firmly out of service to me if it's in the charge of the cops and that is what I find so astonishing.

No doubt the ex or current coppers on this thread believe the police rule the world but some of us do believe things like defence should have priority!

[glojo]

But, sir, but but... the rozzers have the boat and "have not released it to the MoD" as per the news story previously linked to. Seems to be firmly out of service to me if it's in the charge of the cops and that is what I find so astonishing.

Hi Lookingnorth,
I am very aware of the comments made by KF and hopefully I am not coming across as being argumentative?

The submarine has NOT been seized by the police, they have not taken possession of the boat and as long as the vessel is fit for sea, then she is free to go wherever and whenever she pleases. could you please post any link that corroborates your statement?

Certain areas of the boat are indeed a crime scene and I have no idea how many hours the police will need to carry out the detailed forensic investigation, but if the boat has to go to sea, then to sea it will go. If the investigation has not been completed then there will simply be a few extra folks onboard that will carry on with that task.

The same procedures would apply if this incident had occured inside an RAF aircraft.

[Really annoyed]

Oh FFS Look North Why don't you write to the Chief Constable concerned and complain if it is upsetting you that much. The Police in general have obviously upset you somehow and you just want to take any opportunity to bleat on like a little lamb to anybody who will listen.

You are getting really BORING now.

[glad rag]

Just a minor point in this tragedy, would it not be better if steps were taken now to ensure the security element [at all service establishments] were undertaken by those who's career path is, er, "security" and not some press ganged cook or techie with [or without] a chip on their shoulder?

RIP etc.

GR.

[muppetofthenorth]

No doubt the ex or current coppers on this thread believe the police rule the world but some of us do believe things like defence should have priority!Is Astute the only sub the RN has? No.
Is the UK at a state of war requiring any and all vessels to be at sea to ensure the UK's safety? No.
Is the Astute even fully operational? No.

So, even if it were true that the sub had been temporarily removed from service while police investigations took place, what exactly are 'we' losing, other than more time to conduct trials?

[MATELO]

No doubt the ex or current coppers on this thread believe the police rule the world but some of us do believe things like defence should have priority! When it comes to murder, the "civvy" police have jurisdiction over everything military, regardless of what, who or which station is involved. No matter how good we think we are in the military, when it comes to serious crime the "civvy" police are the SME's on all major crime.

[Mike7777777]

Surprised than any civilians other than - exceptionally - those required for dealing with technical issues are permitted aboard an HM Submarine, either operational or close to. It's not as if the civilians can be entertained on the quarterdeck.

[MATELO]

those required for dealing with technical issues are permitted

Don't think murder is classed as a technical issue. Home Office pathologists have access to anywhere belonging to the UK. (Submarines abroad included)

[Mike7777777]

Probably didn't explain myself clearly.

Surprised that a civilian party was permitted on the boat in the first place.

[LookingNorth]

Hi Lookingnorth,
The submarine has NOT been seized by the police, they have not taken possession of the boat and as long as the vessel is fit for sea, then she is free to go wherever and whenever she pleases. could you please post any link that corroborates your statement?

The link in post #46 on this thread, from which I quoted.

If the situation is as you describe then I am much happier - it just strikes me as insane to hand an entire vessel over the the police, which is what Hampshire Police appeared to be claiming was the case.

[glojo]

Surprised that a civilian party was permitted on the boat in the first place.

Hi Mike,
The vessel was on a goodwill visit to Southampton and as part of these visits the boat will be open to visitors. I have no idea of any restrictions that might be imposed when visiting a state of the art hunter killer submarine, but the visit will have been well planned and all the issues taken cared of.

Just a minor point in this tragedy, would it not be better if steps were taken now to ensure the security element [at all service establishments] were undertaken by those who's career path is, er, "security" and not some press ganged cook or techie with [or without] a chip on their shoulder?
It would be nice if there were specialists for every conceivable task on our warships BUT sadly space is always at a premium. The Astute is over 7400 tonnes and has a published compliment of just 98 Officers and enlisted personnel. That number is amazing when we compare it to the Trafalgar class submarine which has a published compliment of 130 Officers and enlisted personnel and is much, much smaller boat. (5000 tonnes) My point is that there is no room for 'security' personnel that will just 'man the gate' when the boat is in harbour and gangway duties will always be shared out among the crew.

[c130jbloke]

This has not been the first drama with a live armed guard:

Sergeant kills himself at RAF base - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1474683/Sergeant-kills-himself-at-RAF-base.html)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Digressing for a moment onto the incident at Kinloss, the helicopter didn't locate the body using heat-seeking equipment, it was a naked eye spot...which happened while the crew was en route from the police RV to the woods across the airfield, which had been deemed the best place to 'search' while trying to hide from a man with a gun...

[Shack37]

This has not been the first drama with a live armed guard:


No doubt our diligent researchers are looking for more examples as we speak.:rolleyes:

[oxenos]

" those who's career path is, er, "security" "
You mean like the ones we have at airports? Super idea.

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

Nick Hawkins, chief Crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service in Wessex, said: "Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that there is sufficient to charge [Mr Donovan] and that it is in the public interest to do so."

Taken from the BBC website.
Stating the bleedin' obvious isn't it?
Can somebody explain why the police need so long to "investigate"?
A senior Officer was shot and killed, another was seriously injured. A further Officer and two SNCO's were threatened. The boat has only one exit / entrance and an AB was seen firing the fatal shots and was the only person on board "dressed to kill" and had a weapon which had been fired and the ammunition was clearly identifiable and matched to his weapon.
Why waste further time?

[NutLoose]

Wasn't there an incident many moons ago involving a member of the "security" peeps in Germany involving a jammed SMG ?..........

Sorry to be vague but those that know will know what I mean.


Can somebody explain why the police need so long to "investigate"?


Possibly something about the fact we no longer have lynch parties in this country and all the facts are gathered and then put to a court. there may or may not be mitigating circumstances as to whether a charge of murder or Manslaughter etc......... one does not know, could be anything really from bullying to temporary insanity to straight cold bloodied murder......... but these facts all have to be gathered, things have to be looked at and then the CPS has to decide what charges are brought...... that is why they investigate and it takes time....... I for one wouldn't want it any other way, would you?

[OddlyContent]

I'm new here after a long time lurking, so perhaps this isnt the best place to post first, but a thought sprang to mind that doesn't seem to have been brought up...

With ALL due respect to the deceased an injured, the man who will apparently be charged had a DUTY to shoot people under certain circumstances. In the UK it is rare to find someone carrying a loaded assault rifle in a non-training environment without good cause. Now, the overwhelming evidence is that this young chap for whatever reason killed and injured innocent shipmates for some reason which may forever remain locked in his own head. But justice demands that we not jump to conclusions. With no other evidence to go on how do a bunch of know-it-alls on a message board NOT know that the young man was not carrying out his duty to protect the ship? SORRY...BOAT.

Obviously this doesn't appear to be the case, but it would be piss-poor policing to not at least look into that possibility.

As we say here state-side.... just sayin'

cheers

[Tashengurt]

Romeo Oscar Golf,
Why waste further time?
Because the role of the Police isn't just to generate facts to fit the case but to investigate. This means covering all possible scenarios, scrutinising motive, examining backgrounds. The forensics themselves take hours if not days to gather.
I agree, in an apparently clear cut case such as this it seems OTT but who would want to be the Senior Investigating Officer in a case that was thrown out because some i hadn't been dotted?

[glojo]

Nice to see US contribution but hopefully no one on this thread so far has put forward ANY opinions regarding this shooting and quite rightly so, as none of us were present.

I cannot recall ANYTHING like this event ever happening in the Royal Navy and hopefully it will be a 'one off' type incident.

During my time in the armed services a new word came into being... fragging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging)

Thankfully it remained the other side of the 'pond', but sadly it was not confined (http://www.workers.org/2009/world/soldier_0528/) to the Vietnam era.

To all those that were under the impression that the police had taken control of this boat, I will simply say that she was due to sail at approximately 1640 this afternoon, and I have just confirmed that it is in the public domain that she will indeed be sailing at the scheduled time. (providing she is in all respects ready to put to sea).

[GANNET FAN]

Am I not right in thinking that the origins of the shooting came about because AB Donavon was not allowed to leave the boat and visit his parents.

Isn't there a discipline issue here. Or is that too over-simplified?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

AB Donavon [sic] was not allowed to leave the boat and visit his parents.


There are various explanations in the press, of which this is one, all of which have been denied by 'Navy sources'. The Times is reporting that AB Donovan was an aspiring rapper who fantasized about killing sprees, and used the 'rap' name Reggie Moondogg. No doubt this is largely embellished, but he seems an odd character to have on a submarine crew...

[Thomas coupling]

What's all this got to do with aviation then?

[Red Plum]

I cannot recall ANYTHING like this event ever happening in the Royal Navy
1982. Grytviken, South Georgia. ARA Santa Fe (being moved under command of RN prize crew). Argentine CPO Felix Artuso shot dead at close range by armed guard.

[500N]

Slightly different scenarios - one a POW under armed guard believed to be trying to damage the Sub, the other 2 officers in command of a rating.

.

[NutLoose]

What's all this got to do with aviation then?


He was disarmed by an Ex RAF Aircraft Engineer...... and good on him too.

[Thomas coupling]

Has Fragging ever been out of fashion?

[TBM-Legend]

this is sadness personified....

.....pity submarines don't have yardarms...

[glojo]

This is very much tongue in cheek and I know I said it before but here you go:

Modern control systems enable a submarine to operate much like an airplane, but subs fly in a sea of water. Similar to a plane's wings and tail, a sub's hull-mounted hydroplanes allow the boat to ascend or descend several hundred feet per minute. Like planes, submarines must consider the topography of their surroundings. Underwater mountains and valleys, just like the continental ones, limit the maneuverability of submarines. SONAR is used actively to detect underwater obstacles and increase mobility

Next time you are at 40,000ft and see a UFO..... Think submarine :ok:

1982. Grytviken, South Georgia. ARA Santa Fe (being moved under command of RN prize crew). Argentine CPO Felix Artuso shot dead at close range by armed guard. As has been stated previously this person was shot dead by an armed guard (Royal Marine) who was of the opinion that this person was trying to scuttle the boat they were on.

[Pontius Navigator]

Shack you mentioned other armed guard incidents _. Guard commander shot dead, can,t remember where but possibly Aden or Kenya. RAF Policeman asked to be relieved as he would shoot the aircraft, he wasn't relieved and he did. RAF policeman shot his aircraft with an air pistol.

It is always a risk.

[paull]

So, once it becomes known that the injured officer's nickname prior to being shot was 'Bullet' (I kid you not!) , will the defendant claim "he asked for it!":oh:

[glad rag]

RAF policeman shot his aircraft with an air pistol.Kinda puts the kybosh on my suggestion of having "security" actually doing security then.................................................. :bored:

[Tashengurt]

I suppose that since the forces recruit from across the social spectrum there's always the danger (inevitability) a nut job or two will sneak in. I certainly met a few unhinged types in my time.
Personally, I was assigned guard duties the week after what I now call my first, comedy air force marriage ended.
Even at the time I wondered at the wisdom of letting a slightly hacked off twenty something loose with a loaded SA80 for twelve hour nightshifts. I suppose I should have taken it as a compliment!

[paull]

Tashengurt,

Pray tell, which section of the social spectrum is immune from killing?
I happen to believe that one of the few places where the only thing limiting your progress is ability/potential is in the forces. My cousin comes from a modest background, but thanks to a navy education (including elocution lessons) now mixes easily with dockers or captains, and could well have been on the end of one of these bullets. When you take them in, you take them apart and you put them back together again. If this one was broken, don't blame it on his social class.

[Tashengurt]

paull, perhaps i should have said from across society to avoid ruffling your very sensitive feathers?

[Shack37]

PN

Shack you mentioned other armed guard incidents


It was c130bloke who mentioned that one. Closer to home, at BK in the late 60's a disillusioned young RAFP loosed one off in the guardroom to add emphasis to his application to become a civilian again. He didn't actually threaten anyone and I think he got his wish (after a short free holiday).

[Modern Elmo]

Just a minor point in this tragedy, would it not be better if steps were taken now to ensure the security element [at all service establishments] were undertaken by those who's career path is, er, "security" and not some press ganged cook or techie with [or without] a chip on their shoulder?

In what sense do you think this fellow was "press ganged"?

[Pontius Navigator]

to ensure the security element [at all service establishments] were undertaken by those who's career path is, er, "security"

As it happens this was a port visit and not a service establishment.

We got some good photos of Astute as we sailed passed at about 6pm and saw 6-7 police vans etc. Of course we didn't know what had gone on.

[Tankertrashnav]

were undertaken by those whose career path is, er, "security" and not some press ganged cook or techie with (or without) a chip on their shoulder.


Certainly when I was serving there was an unfortunate mind set among a small minority of those in, say, the clerical or technical trades that they were somehow divorced from the nasty "killing people" element of the armed forces. If any cook or techie has a problem with the idea that they may have to one day fire a weapon in anger, then perhaps it is time for them to consider their position and seek civilian employment.

Btw do you imply that those whose career path is, er, "security" are less valuable to the service than those career path is, er "cooking chips"?

[D O Guerrero]

Suggesting that there should be security specialists on board a submarine or ship shows a lack of understanding of how the RN operates. By necessity personnel have to be multi-roled and the smaller the vessel, the more this is required. Every person on board a submarine (from Chefs to the Captain) is highly trained and has a unit-wide systems knowledge that is probably without rival in the UK armed forces. I wouldn't say this to a sun-dodger's face, but they are hugely impressive. It would be completely impractical to carry more people and whether you like it or not, guarding the submarine alongside is secondary to her primary duties - blowing **** up and intelligence gathering. The people that are involved in looking after the SM alongside (basically everyone) are fully trained - I don't think you could really ask a lot more than that.

Thomas Coupling - in response to the question about what this has to do with aviation... I hope you're asking the same about the other topics du jour in the military part of PPRUNE. A couple of examples: "Military Saluting Politicians" & "Enhanced Learning Credits". The answer is that it is a subject of interest to all military personnel, of which aircrew are a part and I would suggest that it is of even greater to members of the FAA. I think the subject is quite obvious from the thread title so my suggestion would be not to read it if you're not interested.

[PICKS135]

Mate of mine is a cook in the Army, and loves going out on patrol in Afghanistan. Says it makes a change from the kitchen, and they are all in the Army not employed in a hotel.

[Neptunus Rex]

Picks 135

Bravo!

[startermotor]

I think we are all in the same BOAT, in Afghanistan. Parden the pun.

[Cunliffe]

With regard to civilian visits aboard subs, the American Navy went one better a few years back. They took a party to sea, but unfortunately the boat surfaced under a Japanese fishing boat. Don't know if a civilian was driving at the time.