MUTINY!! What, on an HM Ship?

[steve_cronin]

eleven men think than their boat is un-seaworthy and initially refused to re-join her. Eight relented when threatened with Court-Martial but of the three staying off, one is the technician responsible for auditing faults aboard and he claims that there are in excess of 120 faults some of which are serious and involve the reactor's integrity. He also claims that the rest of the H-K fleet are in similar condition.

Should we worry? Is this cause for concern when these men are willing to throw away their careers and get a stretch in the glass house rather than be onboard a British submarine when it takes it's first deep dive following (claimed) botched repairs?

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[mirabriani]

Remember the reported condition of the Russian nuclear submarines some years back? Perhaps we should worry. Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

It was initially reported that they were all suffering from stress and that's why they didn't sail with the sub.

I smell a cover up!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[penfold]

cripes, it's Invergordon all over again!

cheers,
david

<hr width=100% size=1>What we are dealin' with here is a complete lack of respect for the law....

 

[capn666]

They've heard that Claymore Jimi et al are at large in the region!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Years ago

I was quite close to an RAF squadron that had no confidence in its aircraft.

The usual MOD thing had happened where a quite good aircraft had, through role change and bolt on bits of kit been rendered quite dangerous. Nobody mutinied and I'll never forget flying over and area of smoking countryside where I was told
at the time one had just augered in.

The thing with the sub begs the question. Did the guys who refused have all the facts? A sub question might be... Why has the modern matelot got so little faith in his chain of command?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

True courage

Well done the mutinous three. It takes real courage to stand up to the enormous presures that must have been put upon them. Things might be different in a war situation, but in peacetime there should be no reason to risk death or disaster because of faulty kit.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Chris_Robb]

But

Mr Blair thinks we are at war

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Shakey]

Re: True courage

Life in a blue suit innit? They shouldn't have joined if they can't take a joke.

<hr width=100% size=1>At the end of the day - Sunset.

 

[Mirelle]

I devoutly hope...

...that he does not think that these are the weapons that will win it for him!

Picture the scene:

"I am delighted to report that we have suceeded in eliminating Osama bin Laden.

Of course, northern Pakistan will be radioactive for a few millennia, but, as the great Napoleon remarked, one does not make omelettes without breaking eggs!"

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: Years ago

The thing with the sub begs the question. Did the guys who refused have all the facts?

They were most likely the ONLY ones who had all the facts.
Happens all the time - genuine worries expressed by the lower ranks are routinely downplayed because the up and coming admirals in waiting don't want to upset anyone.

Aside: I wonder why I will never make admiral?

<hr width=100% size=1>Experience is a good teacher, but she sends in terrific bills.

 

[Keith]

Re: Years ago

Couldn't agree more, quit often the lower deck voices its concern through the chain of command, only to be told to wind yer necks in, what is the last resort?, i would say these guys probably took it.............keith

<hr width=100% size=1>