State of the fleet!!!

A mate of mine was chippies pom on HMS Norfolk a few years ago (he's outside time done now) and was duty one weekend.
"As you do", he was bored and down the CTO having a look at anything he could get his hands on when he came across the Lloyds of London certification for the ship, which basically said NO CHANCE!! We are NOT insuring this heap for anything but scrap!
Ah, the old MOD get-out clause for warships!!
 

stumpy

War Hero
Can I ask a bone question?

I have never served onboard a type 23, but instead a 42, 22s, MWs and briefly on a CVS.

I have only briefly visited type 23s, and having come off a grotty 42 I always thought they seemed lovely. Why do they get such a raw deal from people? At least I could stand up in them, unlike on much of a type 42!!

(This is a serious question)

Cheers.
 
My last ship was the Norfolk, straight out of build, and to say it was culture shock comparing it to my previous ship, the Glasgow, would be an understatement.

As a Killick Greenie, I went from 1 in 15 duties on the Glasgow, to 1 in 5 on the Norfolk - midday to midday handover to boot!

Did that suck, or what?

Constant scrubbing out on the Norfolk, as there were hardly any JRs. In fact the sole reason there were JRs was to scrub out.

On the whole, I preferred the Glasgow.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Streaky said:
My last ship was the Norfolk, straight out of build, and to say it was culture shock comparing it to my previous ship, the Glasgow, would be an understatement.

As a Killick Greenie, I went from 1 in 15 duties on the Glasgow, to 1 in 5 on the Norfolk - midday to midday handover to boot!

Did that suck, or what?

Constant scrubbing out on the Norfolk, as there were hardly any JRs. In fact the sole reason there were JRs was to scrub out.

On the whole, I preferred the Glasgow.

I believe this was due to the 'reverse pyramid' manning policy, which they were supposed to get rid of :? .

I've only had one Type 23 as a 3-week jolly (after spending all of my previous career at the time on Type 82/Leanders/Type 42s and I have to agree with your comments about Type 23s. But at the end of the day it's different ships - different cap tallies!
 

mikh

MIA
Streaky said:
My last ship was the Norfolk, straight out of build, and to say it was culture shock comparing it to my previous ship, the Glasgow, would be an understatement.

As a Killick Greenie, I went from 1 in 15 duties on the Glasgow, to 1 in 5 on the Norfolk - midday to midday handover to boot!

Did that suck, or what?

Constant scrubbing out on the Norfolk, as there were hardly any JRs. In fact the sole reason there were JRs was to scrub out.

On the whole, I preferred the Glasgow.

Gleaming G 1st class ship - whats duties, heard some rumours but blue card interfered with my hearing
 

FlagWagger

GCM
Book Reviewer
F169 said:
Why was ExETER considered 'unsafe' though? Sometimes even safety is not black and white

Safety is NEVER black and white, there's always a balance to be struck; everything we do involves an element of risk, usually we work in the acceptable region, frequently move to the tolerable region, and then progress to barely tolerable and finally unacceptable (and no, there are no defined boundaries between these regions either, its all a matter of judgement!).

Much of what we see reported in the popular press about "safety" is actually fatuous and based solely on the severity of consequences not the overall risk, i.e. the combination of likelihood and severity. If someone somewhere has taken a decision to withdraw a major surface platform from service then my guess is that its likely to be either a smokescreen to disguise the fact that we can't afford to operate her, or there are serious underlying design factors affecting the safety of the ship and her crew.
 

F169

War Hero
Flag Wagger - disagree, mostly it is black and white. Its totally common dog that you stop at red lights, or in a ship remain within the navigable channel entering harbour. etc etc. Risk management of safety is a pretty formalised system now which covers the grey areas doesn't it?
 
F169 said:
Flag Wagger - disagree, mostly it is black and white. Its totally common dog that you stop at red lights, or in a ship remain within the navigable channel entering harbour. etc etc. Risk management of safety is a pretty formalised system now which covers the grey areas doesn't it?


Now is safety was as simple as that a couple of my engineers would be out of a job. They spend their lives on statistical analysis of certain safety aspects
 

Clouseau

Banned
FlagWagger said:
F169 said:
Why was ExETER considered 'unsafe' though? Sometimes even safety is not black and white

<SNIP>

If someone somewhere has taken a decision to withdraw a major surface platform from service then my guess is that its likely to be either a smokescreen to disguise the fact that we can't afford to operate her, or there are serious underlying design factors affecting the safety of the ship and her crew.

I think that is somewhere near the truth. All ships require constant maintenance/refit/refurbishment if they are to remain operationally effective and safe. I suspect the cost to ensure Exeter remains safe and /or operational is now prohibitive.

Watch this space for more shock announcements?
 

Letsbeavenue

Badgeman
HMS Exeter is the oldest ship in the Fleet.
She runs on an old fashioned scheme of complement which is manpower heavy.
The Navy needs to make in-year savings quickly.
Can you guess what might happen.....? 8O
 
Top