Why doesn't the RN buy some of these?

Have a look at this video and then tell me we need more Astutes.
http://www.rontini.com/cgi-bin/eboard40/index2.cgi?frames=no&board=main&mode=Current&threads=Collapse&message=70244&index=

 

I suggest we do buy ------


The Germans usually make a very good product
very reliable and usually cost effective.


Vorsprung derch Technic :lol: :lol:

 

Subs for show, ships for a pro.
We need Frigates, big **** off shiny ones arf arf

 

The trouble is going to be rataining the personnel, or even recruiting, to man them (if Brown ever allows the money to purchase extra hulls)and with all the garbage coming from the MoD civs about reduction of personnel for 'the modern .....' etc etc, how long will it be before we are a totally defenceless nation ?

 

Oh no - not more bleedin' submarines. :roll:

SF

 

Not long, by present cutbacks.

 

You do realise that if you buy a German Submarine then other submarines won't let you out at T-junctions and you'll forget how to indicate.

 

Also the Sea Beds will be littered with Beach towels every morning!!

 

And the crew will have to sing the English Song in bad German accents... It's a long, long way to bein tipsy, it's a long wait for the beer... (to the Tipperery tune).

 

As I stated in another place dump the Bombers and buy 15 of these. Keep the SSN's for long range deep water ops. the SSK's for Gib home waters, we will try to avoid the Med. not a good pl;ace for boats of any type.

Nutty

 

With that many we could have our first all wo-manned crew :wink:

 

That would make "The Crimson Tide" a reality :lol:

 

XE-Milkystuff

Unlike most on this forum I have no problem with birds in boats, be they single sex crews or mixed. In the case of a mixed crew they would suffer a lack of privacy and poor hygine if we go back to D/E's. My problem is with ladies on surface ships. Especially in the Damage Control context, however they perform in the controlled simulators at Collingwood?. The instructors are hardly going to let them fail and do their own cushy number no good or the confidence of the trainees. Experience during WW11 clearly showed that good DC practice saved many ships and upper body strength is without doubt required to prevent further flooding and shut doors/hatches or valves is a must. Save the ship, save lives.

On boats if any one compartment floods to any extent you sink, ladies can do all the other jobs.

Hence
Girls of Boats Yes
Girls on Targets No

Nutty

 

They certainly appear to be the BMW of boats. Most of this type of technology has been around since the 80's but Pusser only has yes for Nukes.

Love or loath BMW's you have to admit they are a class act.

Nutty

 

Yet some women can outperform some men in upper body strength, far better to have sensible standards which are measurable and let all who pass whatever their sex join. The reason this is usually not done is that not enough of either sex will pass and you then end up with a recruiting problem. I suspect that in reality you would be quite happy if all in the crew were 'person' enough to do the job required.

Peter

 

Hate to say it guys, but the only reason we now only have nukes is that during the defence review at the start of the 90's FOSM was asked to come up with a saving. Either SSN's/SSBN's or SSK's. Realising that he didnt really want to get rid of any, as the SSBNs kept our place on the UN Security council and were a big stick hit threaten people with, the SSN's were bloody useful - see Belgrano - and the new SSKs were some of the best in the world he thought - and I have had this on fairly good authority - that if he offered up something that the Treasury would be stupid to take then he would be on to a winner. So he offered up the SSK's - and the treasury took them with open arms and they sat in a dock in Barrow for years unitl we flogged them to the Canadians - who then decided to sail them in a huge storm whilst not running shut down - as a result they flooded, had a fire, one man died and the press blamed us - CNUTS!!

we will quite likely get SSKs again in the future as they are loads cheapers than SSN's - but we will always need SSNs for their reach, capability, payload, endurance and a million other reasons.

 

The DRIU is still at Phoenix on Whale Island, t'other side of the water from Colingrad. While it may be a simulator, it still has large amounts of cold water and stress in abundance.

Rather than citing / accusing the DRIU instructors of allowing people through with relaxed standards, perhaps we should look at recent requirements for DC in the fleet and the potential impact that women at see may have had, for instance, was the Nottingham jeopardised by female members of her ship's company?

 

Peter YES but neither of us really believe that to be the current situation nor will it ever be.

Flag-Wagger. Unfortunately right across the field of Education, Training, Apprenticeships, Entry Tests standards have been lowered to allow the required amount of people to reach the standard required. Having read many postings on this board I have no reason to doubt that this also applies to Pusser. To quote one incident i.e. HMS Nottingham and say that she was not jeopardized by any member of her female crew is rather immature and as I understand it a member of the bridge watch keeping staff was a female who failed to notice using the Captains words, "a 1 metre high wall of white water breaking over the reef up to 100 metres on my side of th ship as I walked to th bridge". Given to th Oz press in Sydney

Read up on WW11 DC operations, a daily event on both military and merchant ships and see how much long term effort and strength was used to save vessels. We will reap what we sew in DC terms if another full blooded surface war returns.

Nutty

 

Agreed - I've seen it with my own four eyes (it used to be two - the perils of ageing )

I didn't actually say that - I asked whether there was any evidence that having females on board had been jeopardised the Nottingham from the DC perspective.

So upper body strength wasn't the issue, nor was her performance in DC - the problem in this case was a lack of basic observation skills and/or CDF; while some may maintain that these are female traits, I'm not sure there's objective evidence to support this view. Coming back to the specific case of the Nottingham; none of the officers who faced court martial, i.e. CO, NO, OOW and OOW2 were female, and I'm sure that there would have been other people on the bridge as well as these 4 and the Jenny you single out- why didn't they see "the 1 metre high wall of water" - to single out a single female on the bridge as being at fault is, in your words, immature.

In all honesty, with shrinking crew sizes and increasing destructive powers of weapons, if we ever get into a full blooded shooting war, the amount of DC requried to save a ship would be beyond the powers of all but a crew comprised of Superman clones - take HMS Coventry & HMS Sheffield as examples of major damage - the Coventry went down in about 2-3 minutes and no amount of DC could have saved her; the Sheffield lost he Engine Room, Ops Room and Fire Main and proved, again, that DC was not sufficient. DC can save one of today's ships in a far narrower range of circumstances than in WW2.

Nutty[/quote]

 

Nutty,

Surely the solution to the DC problem is longer (OK, more expensive) basic training during which the lasses can develop their muscles. Obviously these days it would need to be practical tasks, like carrying cases of rum across Dartmoor or doubling round Raleigh delivering heavy crates full of beer can - but this would confer the same or similar upper body strength as most of the blokes.

Where's this extra money going to come from? Well you could begin by selling off all those grace and favour residences for people who earn enough to be able to afford their own property! You could also pay those Admirals in mothballs the same as ABs...

Steve.