Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Engines, thank you for your comprehensive response - appreciated.
I would like to qualify my original quote, if I may:
My sources tell me (they who are currently working on the QE) that the flight deck surface has 'lifted' because of the incorrect process of laying it, in the first instance - nothing to do with the 'type' of material used....maybe that will surface once deck trials are completed.
Noise signature - I have a contact in Pax who flies these. He tells me they are still having discussions about the noise signature of the STOL F35. It is of such an intensity - they are struggling to come to terms with it, to date.
Now, if one is to accept that the RN has already built this into their calculations already (protecting deck crews), I wouldn't hold ones breath. Noise cancellation headgear for aircrew was widely available for over a decade commercially - before the MoD purchased it for their use way back in the early '90's. God only knew what the flight deck crew were wearing at the time!
I operated off Bulwark, Invincible and Illustrious as aircrew for a decade and "suddenly (with regard to noise issues on the flight deck) - nothing happened"! Which is why so many of us subsequently learned through our commercial medicals (after leaving the mil) that our hearing was damaged.
I would like to qualify my original quote, if I may:
My sources tell me (they who are currently working on the QE) that the flight deck surface has 'lifted' because of the incorrect process of laying it, in the first instance - nothing to do with the 'type' of material used....maybe that will surface once deck trials are completed.
Noise signature - I have a contact in Pax who flies these. He tells me they are still having discussions about the noise signature of the STOL F35. It is of such an intensity - they are struggling to come to terms with it, to date.
Now, if one is to accept that the RN has already built this into their calculations already (protecting deck crews), I wouldn't hold ones breath. Noise cancellation headgear for aircrew was widely available for over a decade commercially - before the MoD purchased it for their use way back in the early '90's. God only knew what the flight deck crew were wearing at the time!
I operated off Bulwark, Invincible and Illustrious as aircrew for a decade and "suddenly (with regard to noise issues on the flight deck) - nothing happened"! Which is why so many of us subsequently learned through our commercial medicals (after leaving the mil) that our hearing was damaged.
A clip from last night's final episode of the excellent BBC2 series 'Britain's Biggest Warship':
Aircraft for the Carrier
The entire series can be watched again on iPlayer:
Britain's Biggest Warship
Aircraft for the Carrier
The entire series can be watched again on iPlayer:
Britain's Biggest Warship
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas,
Thanks for coming back. Taking your points one at a time:
1. Putting coatings down on flight decks can be surprisingly difficult to achieve reliably. The RN, the USN and many other navies have had experience of coatings lifting. It's easy to blame the people doing the job, and on occasions it's the right thing to do. Sometime's it's 'the unforeseen' or just bad luck. My guess (and that's all it is) is that QE may have had a bit of all three. I'd guess that it's the Camrex that has caused the issue, rather than the newer Thermion - but I stand ready to be corrected.
2. Noise. All I can say is that unless there is some form of new mechanism causing an increase in noise intensity the F-35B noise signature was pretty well characterised by the end of initial flight trials. Incidentally, the signature is far better understood than the Harrier's ever was. I stand by my assessment that it shouldn't present an insuperable problem, as long as decent hearing protection is provided. The measured noise levels during VLs and STOs were higher than the Harrier's, but certainly not 'off the scale'. The highest F-35 noise levels we found were those encountered by deck crews close to the F-35C during catapult launches. As far as hearing protection goes, I cleared the RN's first use of Active Noise Reduction (ANR) aircrew equipment on the Harrier T8, where we stumbled across very high noise levels in the rear cockpit. It's fair to say that the RN's understanding of the potential for noise related damage to hearing was about as good as anyone else's in the 90s, which wasn't very good at all. The kit I wore on flight decks in the 80s was frankly poor, and anyone who cared about their hearing did their best to source a USN flight deck headset once they got across the pond. (I got my USN headset in exchange for a No. 8 shirt, which the USN guys coveted greatly). By 2002, when I joined the F-35 programme, hearing protection was a MAJOR issue not only for the UK but also for the USN, as their bill for paying compensation to ex USN flight deck personnel started to go stratospheric. As I mentioned earlier, the UK's decision to comply with the EU's Directive 2003/10/EC on noise exposure was a real challenge, which gave the problem even higher visibility.
The teams were looking at just about anything that could help, including (but not limited to) 'deep in ear plugs' (the 'wet snail'), ANR, and more effective ear cups. Once you'd exhausted that, they were looking at noise transmission through the skull, and I believe people were looking at some form of fully enclosed helmet, a little like the ones used by firefighters these days. One problem was that if you sealed the deck crews off from all external noise, it made any sort of verbal comms a bit of a challenge - it would also rob them of useful audio cues for when something bad happened on the deck - such as loud bangs or grinding metal. I'd be interested to learn what solution the RN has come up with for flight deck comms - the 'mag loop' systems we were using were really not fit for service.
As ever, working a flight deck can throw up new and unexpected challenges. If there's ONE thing I have confidence in, it's the ingenuity and good sense of the Fleet Air Arm, which has overcome these challenges for many years. it's a fine tradition, and I think it will win through again this time.
Best regards as ever to all our great new, young, flight deck crews,
Engines
Thanks for coming back. Taking your points one at a time:
1. Putting coatings down on flight decks can be surprisingly difficult to achieve reliably. The RN, the USN and many other navies have had experience of coatings lifting. It's easy to blame the people doing the job, and on occasions it's the right thing to do. Sometime's it's 'the unforeseen' or just bad luck. My guess (and that's all it is) is that QE may have had a bit of all three. I'd guess that it's the Camrex that has caused the issue, rather than the newer Thermion - but I stand ready to be corrected.
2. Noise. All I can say is that unless there is some form of new mechanism causing an increase in noise intensity the F-35B noise signature was pretty well characterised by the end of initial flight trials. Incidentally, the signature is far better understood than the Harrier's ever was. I stand by my assessment that it shouldn't present an insuperable problem, as long as decent hearing protection is provided. The measured noise levels during VLs and STOs were higher than the Harrier's, but certainly not 'off the scale'. The highest F-35 noise levels we found were those encountered by deck crews close to the F-35C during catapult launches. As far as hearing protection goes, I cleared the RN's first use of Active Noise Reduction (ANR) aircrew equipment on the Harrier T8, where we stumbled across very high noise levels in the rear cockpit. It's fair to say that the RN's understanding of the potential for noise related damage to hearing was about as good as anyone else's in the 90s, which wasn't very good at all. The kit I wore on flight decks in the 80s was frankly poor, and anyone who cared about their hearing did their best to source a USN flight deck headset once they got across the pond. (I got my USN headset in exchange for a No. 8 shirt, which the USN guys coveted greatly). By 2002, when I joined the F-35 programme, hearing protection was a MAJOR issue not only for the UK but also for the USN, as their bill for paying compensation to ex USN flight deck personnel started to go stratospheric. As I mentioned earlier, the UK's decision to comply with the EU's Directive 2003/10/EC on noise exposure was a real challenge, which gave the problem even higher visibility.
The teams were looking at just about anything that could help, including (but not limited to) 'deep in ear plugs' (the 'wet snail'), ANR, and more effective ear cups. Once you'd exhausted that, they were looking at noise transmission through the skull, and I believe people were looking at some form of fully enclosed helmet, a little like the ones used by firefighters these days. One problem was that if you sealed the deck crews off from all external noise, it made any sort of verbal comms a bit of a challenge - it would also rob them of useful audio cues for when something bad happened on the deck - such as loud bangs or grinding metal. I'd be interested to learn what solution the RN has come up with for flight deck comms - the 'mag loop' systems we were using were really not fit for service.
As ever, working a flight deck can throw up new and unexpected challenges. If there's ONE thing I have confidence in, it's the ingenuity and good sense of the Fleet Air Arm, which has overcome these challenges for many years. it's a fine tradition, and I think it will win through again this time.
Best regards as ever to all our great new, young, flight deck crews,
Engines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas,
I don't know why you're posting this link, but working on the assumption that you want to know a bit more about the issue (as opposed to just throwing up carrier related 'bad news' ), here goes...
There was no requirement for all of the F-35 support equipment, spares, etc. to be transportable by COD, or V-22 for that matter. There was a requirement for the F135 engine to be capable of being moved from ship to ship by wire RAS in its container. Incidentally, the F135 is Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), so responsibility for sorting out how it gets on a ship lies with the US DoD and in the case of the RN, the MoD. LM's main task was was working out how to change an F135 while the ship was moving about - and that was quite a challenge.
The USMC already, some time back, demonstrated a concept for moving the power module of the F135 (the core of the engine) around in a V-22, using a specially developed 'sled' to reduce overall size. The complete F135 is a very large piece of kit, and is normally (as far as I know) moved around in its sections (or 'modules'). The UK operated for some years with Sea Harriers and their Pegasus engines, which could only be brought on board by crane alongside, or possibly by (very) short range vertical replenishment as an underslung load. (We once moved a Peggie from the ship to ashore in Bermuda using a Sea King).
So, my take would be that spare engine modules (or even complete engines) would normally be brought on board ship by crane whilst alongside, before the ship sailed, or at designated ports during deployment - just like any other large items of stores required during a deployment. Modules would be assembled into complete engines on board in the designated bay near the hangar. Next step along would be via ship to ship RAS, and if that failed, perhaps using a friendly local USMC V-22. Or perhaps they could embark a Chinook for those occasional 'big lift' jobs - the RAF have plenty of them, and the ship has a bit of space. Perhaps the RAF would be able to provide a continuously embarked flight of, say, three aircraft for those unforeseen arisings (humanitarian work, lift and shift, rescue work, disaster relief, etc.).
Hope this helps. Best regards as ever to all those superbly professional types who handle maritime logistics,
Engines
I don't know why you're posting this link, but working on the assumption that you want to know a bit more about the issue (as opposed to just throwing up carrier related 'bad news' ), here goes...
There was no requirement for all of the F-35 support equipment, spares, etc. to be transportable by COD, or V-22 for that matter. There was a requirement for the F135 engine to be capable of being moved from ship to ship by wire RAS in its container. Incidentally, the F135 is Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), so responsibility for sorting out how it gets on a ship lies with the US DoD and in the case of the RN, the MoD. LM's main task was was working out how to change an F135 while the ship was moving about - and that was quite a challenge.
The USMC already, some time back, demonstrated a concept for moving the power module of the F135 (the core of the engine) around in a V-22, using a specially developed 'sled' to reduce overall size. The complete F135 is a very large piece of kit, and is normally (as far as I know) moved around in its sections (or 'modules'). The UK operated for some years with Sea Harriers and their Pegasus engines, which could only be brought on board by crane alongside, or possibly by (very) short range vertical replenishment as an underslung load. (We once moved a Peggie from the ship to ashore in Bermuda using a Sea King).
So, my take would be that spare engine modules (or even complete engines) would normally be brought on board ship by crane whilst alongside, before the ship sailed, or at designated ports during deployment - just like any other large items of stores required during a deployment. Modules would be assembled into complete engines on board in the designated bay near the hangar. Next step along would be via ship to ship RAS, and if that failed, perhaps using a friendly local USMC V-22. Or perhaps they could embark a Chinook for those occasional 'big lift' jobs - the RAF have plenty of them, and the ship has a bit of space. Perhaps the RAF would be able to provide a continuously embarked flight of, say, three aircraft for those unforeseen arisings (humanitarian work, lift and shift, rescue work, disaster relief, etc.).
Hope this helps. Best regards as ever to all those superbly professional types who handle maritime logistics,
Engines
Noise
Engine's recollection about noise and what action the RN took is accurate. In August 1998, having completed flight trials of the first fully integrated ANR in Sea King (that is, the helmet becomes an Intercom LRU as well as an AEA, as it is powered and sits within the TEMPEST boundary), DOR(Sea) asked me to prepare an Admiralty Board Submission to develop and introduce hearing protection across the FAA, including ground/deck crew. (Used to be a DGA(N) job, but they got rid of the posts in 1988 so I was paid to do something I'd done as a lad). I submitted it on 1 September 1998. Such things need a champion, and when the OR officer moved on matters seem to have slowed considerably.
Engines mentions other solutions. In 1995 the FAA specifically rejected in-ear devices, so ANR earshells were the only viable solution. The Sea King system was of no use in a Lynx for example, but purely by coincidence worked in a Sea Harrier. Different noise sources, but very similar frequencies. Janes DW published an extensive article at the time, and the Portsmouth MP (Hancock) raised it in the House, due to the threat of litigation. (Search ANR + Hansard). What made HQ twitch was the way the requirement was expressed, as 'allowable flying hours'. 600 were needed per year; without ANR only 59 were permitted, which of course was conveniently kept under wraps until Janes published. If you ever feel like submitting a claim, it's all on record......and backdateable to 1998.
Engines mentions other solutions. In 1995 the FAA specifically rejected in-ear devices, so ANR earshells were the only viable solution. The Sea King system was of no use in a Lynx for example, but purely by coincidence worked in a Sea Harrier. Different noise sources, but very similar frequencies. Janes DW published an extensive article at the time, and the Portsmouth MP (Hancock) raised it in the House, due to the threat of litigation. (Search ANR + Hansard). What made HQ twitch was the way the requirement was expressed, as 'allowable flying hours'. 600 were needed per year; without ANR only 59 were permitted, which of course was conveniently kept under wraps until Janes published. If you ever feel like submitting a claim, it's all on record......and backdateable to 1998.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Here
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my experience of music events in sports stadia - noise cancelling microphones are easy.
If the noise is so loud (Rolling Stones,Stereophonics,etc) no earpiece arrangement will work.
I suspect that having some form of helmet mounted visor display with voice recognition from the noise cancelling microphone over radio might work.
If the noise is so loud (Rolling Stones,Stereophonics,etc) no earpiece arrangement will work.
I suspect that having some form of helmet mounted visor display with voice recognition from the noise cancelling microphone over radio might work.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had some exposure to the issue of F35B noise in the cockpit some time ago wrt its potential effects on TP aircrew following the EU directive 2003/10/EC. The noise levels in the hover are a bit of a challenge to say the least. When I discussed ANR with a specialist he seemed sceptical whether it was a truly viable solution. The problem was how to put in sufficient energy to counteract enough of the noise - not that easy (and current ANR systems don't reduce the noise energy by very much at all). It also created the problems of ANR failure; it could fail and result in no protection or fail and multiply the effects on the aircrew. Not good...
EAP
EAP
That Avionics link looks like a thinly veiled paid pitch for the V-22, it even suggests one of the reasons the US Marines have deployed the B to ships is that they have the V-22 to carry extra engines- a bit of a stretch, I'm sure the Marines took a few spares aboard before setting sail, or could get them from shore or via UNREP as Engines suggests. The articles mentions some spare slots in the V-22 production run and even has these clinchers: "....and other foreign partners would probably want to get in on this, too, since we’re getting a great deal, pre-negotiated prices ...". Hurry now, these sale prices won't last! No mentions of "No money down! Bad credit? No credit? no-problem! drive today!"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was there....
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/aircr...craft-carriers
"Thales is providing the communications systems on-board both carriers. The systems, from wireless on-board to satellite connectivity,.."
"Thales leads the Power and Propulsion element of the QEC programme..."
"...the long-range S1850M radar, which has been supplied by Thales ..."
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-success-story
"One of these is the leadership of the platform design and aviation teams..."
"... Thales has been deeply involved in the provision of the radar, communications, power and propulsion systems right from the start. ..."
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-years-service
Thales - A French MultiNational Company.
I was there..............................
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/aircr...craft-carriers
"Thales is providing the communications systems on-board both carriers. The systems, from wireless on-board to satellite connectivity,.."
"Thales leads the Power and Propulsion element of the QEC programme..."
"...the long-range S1850M radar, which has been supplied by Thales ..."
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-success-story
"One of these is the leadership of the platform design and aviation teams..."
"... Thales has been deeply involved in the provision of the radar, communications, power and propulsion systems right from the start. ..."
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/unite...-years-service
Thales - A French MultiNational Company.
I was there..............................
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...tyle-conflict/
behind a paywall, to be honest I'd have thought the only likely use of the carriers on our own would have been the Falklands seeing as Argentina has very little to offer in offensive capability. How informed is Sir Mark ?
behind a paywall, to be honest I'd have thought the only likely use of the carriers on our own would have been the Falklands seeing as Argentina has very little to offer in offensive capability. How informed is Sir Mark ?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mail offers a bit more of his thoughts. New £3.5bn ship HMS Queen Elizabeth will never see one-on-one combat | Daily Mail Online
EAP86
EAP, I don't doubt your experience of this, but I'd ask what systems are being used and who did the noise surveys for each application.
I recall that in the mid-90s there was little or no understanding that it wasn't a case of using any old broadband ANR system, such as those used in the back of armoured vehicles where the occupants don't need to hear too many audio cues. Merlin, for example, didn't understand this, as they were fixated on ANR for passengers (troops), ignoring the fact that it was aircrew who were receiving the long term damaging (as distinct from annoying) noise dose. In 2012, a well-known audio company were still selling broadband systems to aircrew. And presumably telling them it was safe. MoD was 30 years ahead of them. Only MoD didn't know this, as it had lost corporate knowledge. Witness, in 2006 the Nimrod IPT issued an Invitation to Tender to develop an 85dB(A) system for aircrew, ignorant of the fact Sea King had already delivered an upgraded 75dB(A) system in 2000 (73 achieved) that actually met the legal requirement. When informed of this by one bidder, the company was blacklisted and removed from the tender list, because the IPT wouldn't admit it was about to let a multi-million development contract for something that was on its own shelf at £750. In fact, and a little sarcastically, they were offered the RN's old 85 system free of charge, if that's what they really wanted. This leads me to believe that a wheel is being reinvented.
(and current ANR systems don't reduce the noise energy by very much at all)
I recall that in the mid-90s there was little or no understanding that it wasn't a case of using any old broadband ANR system, such as those used in the back of armoured vehicles where the occupants don't need to hear too many audio cues. Merlin, for example, didn't understand this, as they were fixated on ANR for passengers (troops), ignoring the fact that it was aircrew who were receiving the long term damaging (as distinct from annoying) noise dose. In 2012, a well-known audio company were still selling broadband systems to aircrew. And presumably telling them it was safe. MoD was 30 years ahead of them. Only MoD didn't know this, as it had lost corporate knowledge. Witness, in 2006 the Nimrod IPT issued an Invitation to Tender to develop an 85dB(A) system for aircrew, ignorant of the fact Sea King had already delivered an upgraded 75dB(A) system in 2000 (73 achieved) that actually met the legal requirement. When informed of this by one bidder, the company was blacklisted and removed from the tender list, because the IPT wouldn't admit it was about to let a multi-million development contract for something that was on its own shelf at £750. In fact, and a little sarcastically, they were offered the RN's old 85 system free of charge, if that's what they really wanted. This leads me to believe that a wheel is being reinvented.
The Mail offers a bit more of his thoughts. New £3.5bn ship HMS Queen Elizabeth will never see one-on-one combat Daily Mail Online
Comes across as a very capable CS, with certain preconceptions about defence and an innate assumption that spending more money is not required - at least not in defence.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc, I'm not familiar at all with any extant ANR systems (apart from the Harrier one) but the specialist may have been. His main MOD poc was the IAM (or RAF CAM or SAM or whatever they were then) as it was seen as an aeromedical matter. I may be wrong but they should know about such things. The challenge with the F35B was the sheer intensity of the noise, far above normal military cockpit or cabin levels. In-ear devices had difficulties with the energy levels even with a well designed helmet and as stated before, the failure behavior was a problem. I confess it wasn't a long conversation but at one point we mused on the possibility of using cockpit side skins as a source of countering noise. Maybe not a serious possible solution but perhaps the panel size does indicate the difficulty the noise intensity levels created.
EAP
EAP
EAP
Long time since I was involved. I know the SHAR noise dose was similar to Sea King. 115-120dB(A) if I recall, making the reduction to 73 an astonishing achievement by the Farnborough scientists. The EFA helmet people came to see me in about 1997, but I don't know what they did. You are right about aeromedical. An RAF Gp Capt ran the Applied Research Package in the 80s. Once he delivered the concept (for RAF Harrier, but they had problems with the Mk10 helmet at the time), it was for the aircraft office to 'pull it through'. That is, apply the science. At that point, speech intelligibility and annoying noise was added to the equation; meaning you have to consider the entire comms sub-system. One stumbling block was the early submissions had pages of decibel notation, and scrutineers toppled. Once changed to 'allowable flying hours' it all made sense - along with the realisation just how serious the problem was. FONAC's attitude changed from not interested, to Critical Health and Safety Constraint in the Constraints Document, in the space of a few days. Which is what kicks off procurement, and makes it very easy to sail through scrutiny. One benefit was a/c soundproofing could be removed, helping CofG and increasing fuel load; so you could mention spend to save. I wouldn't say money was no object, because the one thing denied me was new helmet transducers. I wanted superb French ones, but was told to retain the cheap crap that is in the Mk4A, which is like buying a £50k CD player and using a pair of headphones out of Poundland. Yet, I was able to get money for made-to-measure helmets for everyone in the squadron - none of this short/medium long/if it doesn't fit, tough luck nonsense. I was never sure how many took up the offer, but they would have gone to the company and had their head laser-mapped, waited a couple of hours and gone home with two new helmets. My attitude was, if I've got £20M to modify each cab, then a few grand for each pilot and observer was loose change.
Long time since I was involved. I know the SHAR noise dose was similar to Sea King. 115-120dB(A) if I recall, making the reduction to 73 an astonishing achievement by the Farnborough scientists. The EFA helmet people came to see me in about 1997, but I don't know what they did. You are right about aeromedical. An RAF Gp Capt ran the Applied Research Package in the 80s. Once he delivered the concept (for RAF Harrier, but they had problems with the Mk10 helmet at the time), it was for the aircraft office to 'pull it through'. That is, apply the science. At that point, speech intelligibility and annoying noise was added to the equation; meaning you have to consider the entire comms sub-system. One stumbling block was the early submissions had pages of decibel notation, and scrutineers toppled. Once changed to 'allowable flying hours' it all made sense - along with the realisation just how serious the problem was. FONAC's attitude changed from not interested, to Critical Health and Safety Constraint in the Constraints Document, in the space of a few days. Which is what kicks off procurement, and makes it very easy to sail through scrutiny. One benefit was a/c soundproofing could be removed, helping CofG and increasing fuel load; so you could mention spend to save. I wouldn't say money was no object, because the one thing denied me was new helmet transducers. I wanted superb French ones, but was told to retain the cheap crap that is in the Mk4A, which is like buying a £50k CD player and using a pair of headphones out of Poundland. Yet, I was able to get money for made-to-measure helmets for everyone in the squadron - none of this short/medium long/if it doesn't fit, tough luck nonsense. I was never sure how many took up the offer, but they would have gone to the company and had their head laser-mapped, waited a couple of hours and gone home with two new helmets. My attitude was, if I've got £20M to modify each cab, then a few grand for each pilot and observer was loose change.
Don't forget he looks across the span of National Security, and the rest of it (except maybe GCHQ) is far cheaper than Defence. Money applied elsewhere would get a far greater return.
Indeed. However - and I appreciate that as CS he's unable to voice an opinion - he seemed completely oblivious to the argument that 2%GDP was insufficient when compared to previous levels of budget for the threat. There's an element of institutional capture prevalent in all policy HQs that says here's the budget, deliver the capability irrespective of whether it is deliverable. If not, reduce capability rather than ask for increased budget.
Those are the big boys rules - but it can lead to a certain intellectual blindness. Much like the "there is no submarine threat" view fashionable in MB and elsewhere until relatively recently.
Those are the big boys rules - but it can lead to a certain intellectual blindness. Much like the "there is no submarine threat" view fashionable in MB and elsewhere until relatively recently.