Subs or Surface Fleet?

Would you prefer to serve on Subs or in Surface Fleet?

  • Surface Fleet!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    277
#41
RNRC said:
Well, perhaps you know more about it than me.
Just because the forum is 'Newbies' doesn't mean all the posters in here are.

RNRC said:
This is the terminology used in the research conducted by others which I have read
Reading something doesn't make you an expert. If you are basing your arguments on other peoples work or words, you should credit/blame them.

RNRC said:
The hovering depth statement is to my understanding correct. Again, if you know otherwise, I am happy to be corrected.
I am interested to know quite why you believe your understanding of the matter to be of any import, when it is clear that you are not an expert. Yes, Bombers hover to achieve a missile launch, but why should that necessitate the compliance of the entire crew? Do you think that there is a trimming party, akin to those seen on 'Das Boot', comprising the majority of those not directly involved with the launch?
 
#42
Joe_Crow said:
I am interested to know quite why you believe your understanding of the matter to be of any import, when it is clear that you are not an expert. Yes, Bombers hover to achieve a missile launch, but why should that necessitate the compliance of the entire crew? Do you think that there is a trimming party, akin to those seen on 'Das Boot', comprising the majority of those not directly involved with the launch?
I don't recall claiming to be an expert, but I have read fairly extensively on this and I have cited the primary source of the understanding I have gleaned (Professor Hennessy's works). Might I remind you that this is a discussion board and discussion is a free enterprise?

My understanding or otherwise is obviously of procedure and not of experience. If you reduce any procedure down to banalities it is quite possible to make it look ridiculous. The argument made in the procedure for launching Trident - that the compliance of the crew must be ensured by an open process for receiving and relaying orders to the CO - was that the seriousness of what was being done will create anxities which may lead to unpredictable behaviour.

Keep in mind that if that order were ever received, the implication would be that the loved ones of everybody aboard - not to mention the civilisation from which they originate - will almost certainly have been lost entirely. Behaviour in those circumstances, where the outcome of the response procedure is to do the same to (arguably) equally innocent civillians in some other nation, is obviously going to be somewhat unpredictable.

For this reason, great emphasis is placed upon the compliance of the entire crew, as the reluctance to obey orders or even a willingness to disrupt at this stage is obviously disastrous. Getting to hovering depth is obviously crucial to a CO's capacity to order the retaliatory strike, and he cannot achieve any of this alone.

You raised an objection earlier to my use of the term "senior LO" - if I may clarify this somewhat, the account of the procedure I read was of a training exercise conducted off of the coast of Florida, and the on-board presence was more populous than would ordinarily be the case and thus the term was applied in the literature.
 
#43
RNRC said:
I don't recall claiming to be an expert, but I have read fairly extensively on this and I have cited the primary source of the understanding I have gleaned (Professor Hennessy's works). Might I remind you that this is a discussion board and discussion is a free enterprise?
I didn't say that you had claimed to be an expert, I just noted that you weren't when I asked why you thought your opinion to count for something. It is indeed a discussion board, but I wouldn't go onto mumsnet and proclaim the benefits of breastfeeding, no matter how strongly I felt about it, or how many articles I had read in Top Sante about it. This board is populated by, amongst others, serving submariners, so why should a complete nomark like you come on here pontificating without being challenged?

RNRC said:
My understanding or otherwise is obviously of procedure and not of experience. If you reduce any procedure down to banalities it is quite possible to make it look ridiculous. The argument made in the procedure for launching Trident - that the compliance of the crew must be ensured by an open process for receiving and relaying orders to the CO - was that the seriousness of what was being done will create anxities which may lead to unpredictable behaviour.
You have no real understanding of the procedure. You have read some books. All you are doing is repeating what you have heard elsewhere without understanding how that particular process is achieved. You have believed what you have read because you don't know any better.

RNRC said:
Keep in mind that if that order were ever received, the implication would be that the loved ones of everybody aboard - not to mention the civilisation from which they originate - will almost certainly have been lost entirely. Behaviour in those circumstances, where the outcome of the response procedure is to do the same to (arguably) equally innocent civillians in some other nation, is obviously going to be somewhat unpredictable.
Basil Fawlty had a term for this...

RNRC said:
For this reason, great emphasis is placed upon the compliance of the entire crew, as the reluctance to obey orders or even a willingness to disrupt at this stage is obviously disastrous. Getting to hovering depth is obviously crucial to a CO's capacity to order the retaliatory strike, and he cannot achieve any of this alone.
No, he can't achieve it alone, but you are over-dramatising it in a way which is reminiscent of the lowest-common-denominator style of documentary. Why have you picked on hovering as the one thing that requires full compliance of the crew? Is it because it sounds cool, and makes you appear knowledgeable? There are a myriad of other things which need to be right, and as important as it is, hovering is not the be all and end all.

RNRC said:
You raised an objection earlier to my use of the term "senior LO" - if I may clarify this somewhat, the account of the procedure I read was of a training exercise conducted off of the coast of Florida, and the on-board presence was more populous than would ordinarily be the case and thus the term was applied in the literature.
So, you've read one account of a training exercise, and extrapolated from there.
 
#44
Interesting discussion, particularly for those philosophising about the "ifs" and "hows?".

(The "why" being taken as read: "Blue suit" and all that such a uniform pre-supposes.)

More seriously the potential SSBN submariner also has to confront an equally important moral and sartorial dilemma - Whether or not he aspires towards being seen wearing the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) Patrol Pin. A decision that all those involved for the previous 41 years did not have to face until May 2009.

<<HMS RESOLUTION sailed on 15th June 1968 on the first United Kingdom Nuclear Deterrent Patrol, since that date she, her sister boats and successors have maintained a Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD). Throughout this time there has been a desire by the SSBN community for a visible recognition of their service in the provision of the national deterrent in ballistic missile submarines. In May 2009 the Navy Board endorsed the introduction of a recognition badge, to be known as the “Patrol Pinâ€.>>


Oh, and don't forget the Special Service Pay (S/M) or whatever it is called in today's Log-Speak. Some have even had the bald effrontery to postulate that this, and other additional financial remunerations available, have tended to override any "moral" qualms. ££££s?? NEVER!(Well.....hardly ever......)


Bob


PS NZ?? How times change, My CO and I planned to save one as our passport to Brazil....
 

BoxKickerSubs

Lantern Swinger
#45
RNRC quit while you are behind, I am sorry but Joe Crow has you beat and beat bad mate. He is always going to win as you just don't have all the facts.

Box (future V Boat queen)
 
#46
Joe_Crow said:
So, you've read one account of a training exercise, and extrapolated from there.
I've not extrapolated anything, I've relayed the arguments so succinctly described on paper by somebody with first hand experience of the event - albeit a training event.

No offence, but you haven't explained your own part in this at all really. You've cited "conversations", but why are your conversations - unverifiable - any more reliable than the texts I have cited which others can read for themselves?

I have cited examples (hovering depth being an example) of why crew compliance is necessary. There are others but you chose to pick up this in particular and argue it.

I have no idea why you're getting so riled up - my suggestion is to get over it.
 
#47
BoxKickerSubs said:
RNRC quit while you are behind, I am sorry but Joe Crow has you beat and beat bad mate. He is always going to win as you just don't have all the facts.

Box (future V Boat queen)
It's not a pissing contest! Unless you know something I don't and JC is actually an expert then, so far as I can tell, he's not actually cited a single fact just yet?
 

BoxKickerSubs

Lantern Swinger
#48
As I have served with him (both still serving) then what do you think? Could he be an expert could I. As to me being an expert in all things V class then no, I have not been on one yet. On the other hand could Joe be an expert, well he can let you know.
 
#50
RNRC said:
Guzzler said:
ml05039 said:
Whilst I must commend you on your excellent knowledge of the processes involved if such an event were to arise, it also appears that you have disproved your own point by so succinctly outlining just how complex a series of happenings would have to occur to warrant any potential submariner's consideration when considering joining up..

I mean, what if someone had created a giant piano wire that was launched across the globe and killed everyone on land and somehow inexplicably everyone in the air and on/in the water too, except the people that were jumping in the air at the time of course.. Subsequently, all the relevant hierarchy responsible for choosing which sub was to be the sub of the day at Subway were killed and the most senior employee left was a lowly shift manager at Subway Sutton. The mantle of responsibility would fall upon his shoulders, forced to make the decision between Meatball Marinara or Ham and Cheese.. People need to think about these things..

Maybe I digress.. Still, worth a thought though.. Point is, this is an extremely big 'what if' scenario. I guess I'm referring to both our cases. That is all
I owe you a pint sir.
If you want to pursue one of the most serious jobs in the world (perhaps the most serious), I am of the opinion one should have a grasp of the extreme's of one's responsibilities.

However fantastical this might seem to those reading, the process I have described still exists, and as we type there is a CO lurking somewhere in a Vanguard vessel in the seas who has a hand written letter by David Cameron in a safe.

I guarantee you he takes it very seriously!
You'll go far my son, no not where but it'll be far!
 
#53
RNRC said:
Joe_Crow said:
So, you've read one account of a training exercise, and extrapolated from there.
I've not extrapolated anything, I've relayed the arguments so succinctly described on paper by somebody with first hand experience of the event - albeit a training event.
You have read one account of a single event. You have then inferred that this account of that single (training) event is a paradigm. What you have failed to do is recognise that this account was written by a journalist.

RNRC said:
No offence, but you haven't explained your own part in this at all really. You've cited "conversations", but why are your conversations - unverifiable - any more reliable than the texts I have cited which others can read for themselves?
I have stated that the opinions that I was reporting were those of submarine commanding oficers. I am sure that they would not take kindly to me attributing their private comments on an open forum. I will give you one name, however, as I am sure that it will not harm his career for it to be known that he expressed to me that he thought of his time driving fleet boats as a highlight, and that is Niall 'Chuckles' Kilgour. My own credentials are unimportant, as I am not the one who is pontificating.

RNRC said:
I have cited examples (hovering depth being an example) of why crew compliance is necessary. There are others but you chose to pick up this in particular and argue it.
Your point appeared to suggest (and still appears to - lest you take this as a softening of my position) that hovering relies on the compliance of the whole crew, which it does not. If that is not your point, then I fail to see what point you are making, apart from stating the bleeding obvious.

RNRC said:
I have no idea why you're getting so riled up - my suggestion is to get over it.
I am not getting riled up, not even by your churlish sugestion that I should 'get over it'. :|
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#54
RNRC you would be very suprised at just how few can run a Boat for a limited period. The days of running fore and aft to help catch a trim have largely ceased. I suspect that you are still at school/uni and have very little idea of how the real world works.

Whilst your reading is to be commended, it will never better the real experience of some that have commented on this thread to date.

For someone anxious to learn, you attitude needs some adjustment, if you take it into Boats you will have a very rude awakening early in your career.

Good luck
 
#55
Joe_Crow said:
You have read one account of a single event. You have then inferred that this account of that single (training) event is a paradigm. What you have failed to do is recognise that this account was written by a journalist.
Well, actually he's a world-leading academic, and is obviously pretty respected in Navy circles if they let him on board for the procedural 'dry-run' of the launching of a Trident missile. You're still yet to supply a single bit of evidence that the procedure I have outlined is wrong.

Joe_Crow said:
I have stated that the opinions that I was reporting were those of submarine commanding oficers.
"Reporting" ey - almost sounds like a journalistic endeavour! I maintain that your "reporting" is no more credible than the writings of the author I have cited. The difference is, anybody reading can verify my source and decide for themselves.

Joe_Crow said:
Your point appeared to suggest (and still appears to - lest you take this as a softening of my position) that hovering relies on the compliance of the whole crew, which it does not. If that is not your point, then I fail to see what point you are making, apart from stating the bleeding obvious.
The point I was illustrating is that there are established processes for ensuring that the crew are aware of when an order to launch a Trident missile has been received, for witnessing its veracity and that this is designed to induce their compliance.

There are competing priorities in that, for obvious security reasons, it is undesirable that a CO should be able to issue a strike for reasons (even valid ones) known only to himself. Procedure and physics coincide rather well here in that to act upon an order or - heaven forbid - issue one on his own authority, a CO must elicit the compliance of whatever proportion of the crew YOU think is necessary to achieve a specific hovering depth.

I would care to suggest it is a matter of opinion on your part whether the compliance of the whole crew is strictly necessary. I would suggest the procedures for receiving and issuing the order have been designed to elicit this compliance since disruption and reluctance are very real possibilities at this point.

You appear to be more interested in failing to insult me than correcting any factual inaccuracies that I am more than happy to admit I may be making in my assertions. This is the reason for my believing you're getting rather vexed about my posts.
 
#56
janner said:
Whilst your reading is to be commended, it will never better the real experience of some that have commented on this thread to date.
Of course I accept this - when have I said otherwise?

janner said:
For someone anxious to learn, you attitude needs some adjustment, if you take it into Boats you will have a very rude awakening early in your career.
My attitude is that my beliefs must be guided by the best evidence available to me. In spite of some of the posturing undertaken in this thread by some, the best evidence remains the detailed account described by Professor Hennessy and approved by the RN and Security Services for publication. Somebody rambling at me that they "know better" owing to conversations that I can't assess the veracity of will not influence my thinking.

No offence to Mr Crow intended here.
 
#57
RNRC

I've been following this thread with some interest and although you seem very erudite with your posts I think that your comments are just derived from one publication, a bit like a Jesuit who blindly believes in one book.

What does come across is your arrogance, which if your succesful in your application to join the RN. you would be wise to lose.

Trying to tell bomber rates what they're job is and how it's done is an arrogance beyond compare. Yes this is an open forum and every one is entitled to an opinion but take a step back FFS.

And I've never served on bombers, I'll leave the operating scenarios to those that have/are serving on them.
 
#58
WreckerL said:
Trying to tell bomber rates what they're job is and how it's done is an arrogance beyond compare. Yes this is an open forum and every one is entitled to an opinion but take a step back FFS.
I am not aware of Bob Crow's official role, and I have admitted repeatedly that he may well know far more than me and I am happy to admit there may be inaccuracies.

It is not arrogance to rely on the best available evidence whilst being willing to admit your own fallability, all of which I have done. The "one book" argument is frankly nonsense - if it is empirical and based upon reliable evidence/experiences, and corroborates other available literature, why not rely upon it? I repeat that it was 'approved' prior to publication.
 
#60
RNRC said:
WreckerL said:
Trying to tell bomber rates what they're job is and how it's done is an arrogance beyond compare. Yes this is an open forum and every one is entitled to an opinion but take a step back FFS.
I am not aware of Bob Crow's official role, and I have admitted repeatedly that he may well know far more than me and I am happy to admit there may be inaccuracies.

It is not arrogance to rely on the best available evidence whilst being willing to admit your own fallability, all of which I have done. The "one book" argument is frankly nonsense - if it is empirical and based upon reliable evidence/experiences, and corroborates other available literature, why not rely upon it? I repeat that it was 'approved' prior to publication.
"Approved" it may be (by whom incidentally) but you still seem to be relying on an article by (essentially) an outsider who was a guest for a practice firing.
Your arrogance is more your sage advice for the OP with no more experience or background (AFAIK) except reading. If you have no practical knowledge of a subject it's best to keep your silence and listen to those who have.

Just a thought
 

Similar threads

Top