I love it when a newspaper instantly goes from total disinterest in the RN in general to sudden subject matter expertise in one niche area. Agree with Witsend, there are a lot of weasel words and conditionals going on here. Still, it makes for a good fear-mongering dit that hinges for best effect on readers not being well-informed on the detail. And maybe that's the point.
I started reading this report with interest as I have a lot of respect for Andy MacFarlane. As soon as I read comments by John Large and John Ainslie I gave up as these two would never have anything positive to say about "atom-death subs".
"John Large is a nationally and internationally recognised professional, consulting engineer who, not infrequently, contributes comment and opinion on nuclear and technical matters to national and international media."
The man is indeed a grade A tool who will spout a load of half-informed garbage to anyone who asks (pays) him. Because he has some knowledge he is believed by lazy journalists who cannot be arrsed to look anywhere else.
During the Tireless repair, Muzza (God rest his soul) had to take Large to one side in Gib, whilst they suspended the meeting, to explain to him how the pressuriser works. We expect young dabbers to have this level of understanding, and many of them have little in the way of formal educational qualifications, so what does this say about the validity of his views?
Don't see how we're all "upset". You were the one who got it wrong and it seems your not happy about being corrected. I can see now why your articles are badly written, assuming you are John Large of course and not Monty or BR on a wind up.