Minimum distance between DNO feed and another protected circuit.

[Jeremy Harris]

Can't abide things being misrepresented.  Bloody hassle having to précis and re-type text from a typewritten paper document that's a bit too faded and tatty to scan, though.  Not sure why that report is still in a folder on a shelf above my desk, either, but then I'm not good at throwing old stuff away.

[Big Jimbo]

Just twist them all together, and chuck em in the trench.

[MJNewton]

I can't help but be reminded of this xkcd classic (and I mean no offence by this; indeed if anyone deserves it aimed at them I'm as guilty as the next man!):

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by MJNewton

[epsilonGreedy]

14 hours ago, Jeremy Harris said:

Can't abide things being misrepresented.

 

 

Yet in your attempt to prove misrepresentation you actually demonstrated that most of my points were correct. The only point I got wrong was that Glasgow also had a radar contact in addition to the carrier and it was Glasgow that broadcast the warning.

 

The misrepresentations and half truths originated from Navy.

 

Captain Salt should have been ejected from the Navy in disgrace on two counts:

1. He disobeyed orders. His admiral ordered him to take up a position in an aircraft radar picket line whereas he instead decided submarines were the principal threat. He compromised that picket function of protecting the fleet by zigzagging all over trying to save his ship by evading a submarine threat that did not materialize. His ship dismissed multiple intelligence reports about the exocet air threat. He was an arrogant submariner in the wrong command at the wrong time who thought he knew better than his fellow surface fleet commanders who were better acclimatised regarding contemporary threats to surface ships. There was a heavy cost for his arrogance.
2. The second count for dismissal was that he and his officers had abandoned their posts at a time of high military threat. Sheffield had recently being transferred to the hot end of the picket line yet the captain was resting in his cabin. Meanwhile on Coventry that had just transferred to the quiet position the captain was present and able to make the split second decision to call actions stations.

Your suggestion that the navy decided to report half truths at the time was out of concern for public morale is laughable. In the year following the Falklands War admiration for our armed forces and national jingoism was at an all-time-high. There was never a better time for the Navy to publicly report the failures behind the loss of Sheffield and take appropriate corrective action.

 

Instead what happened is that those who failed in combat progressed to higher rank and those who excelled quit in disgust. This is a familiar story in Britain's military establishment and a significant contributory factor to the UK's declining reputation and capability as a warrior nation. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by epsilonGreedy

[Jeremy Harris]

I don't think you understand the responsibilities of a ship's Captain.  He did not disobey any orders at all.  He considered that his ship, which he was in command of at the time, was at greater risk from a submarine attack than an airborne attack.  That was entirely his decision to make, not anyone else's.  He got it wrong, but at the time we knew that the Argentinian Navy had two capable submarines, and we knew that our ASW systems were not very effective in very deep water (the assumption had always been that we'd need ship protection ASW primarily in relatively shallow waters along our Continental Shelf).  The submarine attack threat was such that the Task Force used the entire warstock of sonobuoys in running a 24/7 barrier, and manufacturers here started producing replenishments as fast as they could.  In addition, ASW assets were ripple flying, 24/7, on antisubmarine patrols.  As a former submariner it seems probable that Capt Salt was more acutely aware of the submarine threat then others.

 

It is completely normal for the captain, and other exec officers, to try and get their head down when the alert state is low.  No one can stay awake and functional 24/7 for days on end, and it's normal practice to try and get rest whenever the opportunity arises.  The failing was that the AAWO and his deputy were away from the ops room, and when they returned they failed to alert the captain as the AAWO didn't believe the threat to be real.  The PWO should have checked the AAWOs view and as a precaution, put the ship on Air Warning RED which would have automatically caused the captain to be alerted.

 

FWIW, the reasons for not making the whole BoE report public aren't my view, it's actually written in the report itself!

 

How many years have you spent working with RN personnel?  From 1976 until 1992 I was stationed on an RN base, flew with RN personnel pretty much every week, ate in the Wardroom every day and I remain good friends with quite a few RN personnel that I used to work with back then. I also lived in an RN quarter from 1976 until 1984, with serving personnel as neighbours all around.

[epsilonGreedy]

40 minutes ago, Jeremy Harris said:

The failing was that the AAWO and his deputy were away from the ops room, and when they returned they failed to alert the captain as the AAWO didn't believe the threat to be real.  The PWO should have checked the AAWOs view and as a precaution, put the ship on Air Warning RED which would have automatically caused the captain to be alerted.

 

 

Their failings were his filings, that is how a ship's company is judged particularly when an unequivocal event occurs such as a loss of a ship in combat. You seem to want to assess the issue like finger pointing sub contractors.

 

46 minutes ago, Jeremy Harris said:

How many years have you spent working with RN personnel?  From 1976 until 1992 I was stationed on an RN base, flew with RN personnel pretty much every week, ate in the Wardroom every day and I remain good friends with quite a few RN personnel that I used to work with back then. I also lived in an RN quarter from 1976 until 1984, with serving personnel as neighbours all around.

 

 

None. Despite frequent contact with military types you debate with the mindset of a civilian barrister who has specialized in employment law.

[Jeremy Harris]

I'm out of this debate, as it's getting personal now.

[HerbJ]

It's also way off topic and little relevance to 99+% of the membership of Buildhub.

[joe90]

Regs is regs for safety and they are to be abided with and they are written by experts, if someone wants to “go overboard” because they consider it safer then so be it but that does not mean the regs are wrong. I know a piece of 4x2 will hold up xyz but if the regs say 2x2 is sufficient who am I to argue.?.

[kxi]

FWIW I've found this digression interesting, and empassioned tangents are IMO part of BuildHub's charm. Ad hominems however are not either of those things.

 

From a quick check of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)#Sinking this thread provides additional detail that might be proposed as edits.

[Markblox]

As far as the electrical regs are concerned there is black and there is white.  There are also many shades of grey because of the various ways that electrical regs can and often are interpreted but as far as I can see, none of that applies here simply because there are not any regs that deal with the non issue that is the subject of this post.  

It has been very entertaining though.