Which bits are evidence? 99% of it is opinion.

The information being investigated are probably those that the investigators are going to extract while he is being politely interviewed at a fine shore establishment somewhere in this country.

While it may all be tosh in the letter if there are some truths they need to be found out rather than the party line being adopted. We have not lost a boat for a long time ( HMS Affray late forties early fifties istr) but never a time to be complacent. The submarine service is full of dedicated people but we should never let dedication be overtaken by foolhardiness when a hand is raised..... Even if it is out of the mouth of those with less experience it should rightly be listened to.

Ah, the 'something must be done' brigade. Okay.Sorted! Now where's that pot of gold?

dagenham the incident with Artemis in 1971 got very close.
Antiques Roadshow object solves 40-year puzzle of how 280ft Royal Navy submarine SANK in 1971 | Daily Mail Online

OK, we've all listened now. What are you suggesting happens next?

It's fine saying things like "it must be looked into", but what?

Westminster debate secured by SNP
 

SNP secures Westminster debate on Trident safety | UK news | The Guardian


Debate starting next week, so some good has come from this. Maybe Tridents days are numbered now? Hope so. Its neither "independent", a deterrent, and possibly neither very safe either to its crew or the people it is supposed to defend. And incredibly expensive. And housed in a land where the people don't appear to wish to have it.
Incredible leverage tool for SNP to gain independence.
Should the UK remain a nuclear military power at all?
Get your thinking caps on, MP's and military leaders.


AB McNeilly now in Naval Police custody. Hope they go easy on him, butterfly, wheel and all that.


I wouldn't trust the Navy on this with one inch. The submarine service has had just in my recent memory a serious grounding, a shooting where a rating went beserk with an assault rifle, an armed Nuclear boat in a collision with a French sub (yea right), and another recent collision with an ice berg - (yea right). Are they still trustworthy?
Are the military in general still trustworthy? The lies and lies we were all fed about weapons of mass destruction, and about the conduct of war in Iraq in general, and then Afghanistan were a game changer, something changed in Britain after that, and with the UK publics relationship with the military. I stopped believing an awful lot of what I was told after actually visiting Iraq and serving there. The military need to understand they no longer have the peoples implicit trust as they once did.Much work to be done by many I think.

Ahhh hangarshuffle - so you think it was the fault of the military that we went into Iraq then:ugh::ugh::ugh:

The military get forced to do things (especially cutting corners to save money and going to war) by the politicians.

Courtney

I would suggest two things

1. Let the navy process continue. I suspect if nothing is done it will be made public by the lads sponsors . From the document he suggests three issues a. Security in Faslane b. Security on boats c. Operational safety of the boats. All three would seem high priority?

2. If there is something found in the investigation this should be reported to defence committee and there should rightly be an inquiry like haddon cave. This could, I stress could be another nimrod or it might not but at least we know.

I see the danger of immediately dismissing him as a crank means that point 1 becomes light touch, go through the motions and point 2. Only comes at the cost of lives when something truly terrible happens and most likely we will never find out as in most submarine disasters the evidence is far beyond effective investigative reach. The HMS Affray tragedy is a great example of a design fault, an undermanned and inexperienced crew can lead to loss.

Re Artemis, nearly is the point...... We forget how dangerous submarines are when things do go wrong. Thankfully they have been safe in Royal Navy service for a large number of years. However, we are dealing with greatly diminishing budgets and potentially morale. So it is natural to question if this is having an impact on operations, security and safety.

Hangarshuffle,

If you think the 'Military' were responsible for the Iraq debaclè, you are insinuating that the Mil leadership should have told the Government 'no, we're not going'. Insubordination aside, that's about half a step away from a coup, and about 2 inches from 'rebellion'.

All that the Military can do is hope (..it used to be 'expect'..) that the Government sending young men into harms way are doing it for a bloody good reason.

Crab and Hempy, I don't wish to defend hangarshuffle's massive anti-nuclear rant, but to be fair, I don't think he criticised the military going to Iraq, I think he referred to their conduct there.

Dagenham,

Yes, indeed. I wonder if the Navy investigation now is investigating Mr McN or his claims. The latter could very easily be avoided by a senior officer declaring it all a load of hoop and moving on. What may be more likely is that a bunch of boat captains might be asked to confirm that these things don't happen under their commands and a stiffly worded note reminding them to make sure no such things happen in future.

Whilst I do take the point that it's dangerous to ignore a whistle-blower, the whole tone of his memo paints a picture that everyone on board was just being totally gash in every conceivable way. It certainly doesn't chime with the outstanding conduct and professionalism I've seen whenever I've been on board any RN ship.

Of course, this whole thing does come at an amazingly convenient time for the SNP. Naaa, couldn't be anything to do with them. Looking at their policies, the memo is way too well crafted. :E

CM, fair enough, it was just a slur on their planning and actions.

Courtney

Completely agree we are in perfect alignment. The professionalism of the submarine fleet is without question and is amply demonstrated by their safety record, I too suspect the hands of others but also respect that some of the lobbying that has driven major safety changes in many aspects of maritime and aviation safety may have come from those with a strong emotional response and not been a pointedly or even correctly written, but should not diminish it's impact.

Hangarshuffle

You are spectacularly out of order.

Your list that leads you to distrust the RN should lead you to the opposite.

No hull losses since the forties is a spectacular achievement. How many aircraft have we lost?

The grounding was over a decade ago, and if you had any idea what goes on on the Perisher course you would have a lot of respect for how rarely they touch the ground.

The French and British boats colliding is the inevitable result of excellence on both Navies part. If you cannot understand why then you are hard of thinking. Imagine if both the French and the British had B2 Stealth Bombers circling in IMC over Europe for 50 years. Do you think that they might eventually hit? The whole point is that they are invisible and nobody except the captain and the Nav know where they are. You can't deconflict without defeating the whole point of the exercise.

Incidentally, the French Captain got in the sh1t and the Brit did not. There is a reason for that.

re the man who went mad. What exactly would you suggest is done to stop such nutters? German wings?

Since I guess that, for good reason, most MPs know tiddly squit about how the Trident fleets is manage (and I for one think they do a damn fine job, the subs' crews, not the MPs) then it will be a pretty pointless debate - which sums up the relevance of the SNP to Westminster. Good job it is the weekend tomorrow - I might relax!

Point of Order: Less than half that - under 5 years. (22 October 2010)

....sustained

Fair enough, I thought he was referring to a real grounding like HMS Trafalgar, not just a rudder tip.

Astute was the equivalent of a crap landing, whereas Trafalgar was gear up

As was Super B.

One might make the point that two, possibly three (Traf's was a little different) submarines in the last decade or so have argued at varying speeds with what are essentially undetectable features and survived with no casualties. Indicating that the engineering and procedures are essentially safe.

Given that we are all about to be asked to shell out a fortune on Successor (which I think is probably the right decision) going around saying "everything is OK, honest - now move along.." isn't going to get much traction

If the RN don't investigate then the newspapers and the anti-nuke brigade will have an open goal