Thanks Thanks:  639
Likes Likes:  1,353
Dislikes Dislikes:  37
Page 83 of 89 FirstFirst ... 33738182838485 ... LastLast
Results 2,051 to 2,075 of 2221
  1. #2051
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    tip of iceland
    Posts
    252
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Because it did have a heli (wasnít deployed very often but it was there) and it did have an air search radar (which AFAIK was linked to the 57mm)
    it had lots of things , so why try go down that route again it has been done and failed. most capable ship in the history of the navy and it was taken away because heli didnt want to land. well what a waist of tax payer money, so the most advanced ship in the fleet was basically turned into PV because it couldnt keep up with technology or it was to advanced for what we needed..

  2. #2052
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zone 1 View Post
    it had lots of things , so why try go down that route again it has been done and failed. most capable ship in the history of the navy and it was taken away because heli didnt want to land. well what a waist of tax payer money, so the most advanced ship in the fleet was basically turned into PV because it couldnt keep up with technology or it was to advanced for what we needed..
    Going back over ship type histories is instructive. We had all those capabilities and could have had more if the DA05 targeting had been fully integrated with the Bofrs 57mm. The ship brought the knowledge base in the service to a higher level and introduced electrical/electronic officers to sea duty. We were fully Helicopter- on - Ship trained with all required facilities. We must now pursue ship types with a helicopter flight deck capable of providing
    a land-on facility for most types of shipborne rotary aircraft. In joint exercises or common Task Groups such decks provide ease of access and an alternative deck for those that need it for fuel or refuge. We must never again depend on other units for the functionality of our ships nor should we have redacted any part of our capability.

  3. Likes hptmurphy, Turkey, DaithiDub liked this post
  4. #2053
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zone 1 View Post
    it had lots of things , so why try go down that route again it has been done and failed. most capable ship in the history of the navy and it was taken away because heli didnt want to land. well what a waist of tax payer money, so the most advanced ship in the fleet was basically turned into PV because it couldnt keep up with technology or it was to advanced for what we needed..
    The change in fisheries policy meant there was no requirement for the helo in the perceived role after a given time, plus its was the wrong helo for the job and internal wranglings in the AC meant that the NS was not prioritized, bearing in mind the helo at sea had limited capabilities.

    Everything else about the ship remains in place with its capabilities enhanced during its life time. Adding a basic flight deck to any future ship would not be impossible and it would enhance the role of future ships, what we learned from the Eithne model is what you can't do with helos from certain sized ships.

    North Atlantic sea state changes have shown that the Eithne hull form is sub optimal for Helo ops so this played into the change as well.

    Eithne is now nearing the end of her time which may come quicker than some would think and we need to have a replacement in place that will be as ground breaking as Eithne was back in 1985
    Time for another break I think......

  5. Thanks Turkey, DeV, DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes Turkey, DeV, restless, DaithiDub liked this post
  6. #2054
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    moving rapidly away.......
    Posts
    2,562
    Post Thanks / Like
    If the DF ever goes down that route again, then the Helicopters will have to be Navy owned, Navy operated, and Navy maintained...and they will have to be real helicopters, not the present near useless toys.
    "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
    Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  7. Likes Graylion liked this post
  8. #2055
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The change in fisheries policy meant there was no requirement for the helo in the perceived role after a given time, plus its was the wrong helo for the job and internal wranglings in the AC meant that the NS was not prioritized, bearing in mind the helo at sea had limited capabilities.

    Everything else about the ship remains in place with its capabilities enhanced during its life time. Adding a basic flight deck to any future ship would not be impossible and it would enhance the role of future ships, what we learned from the Eithne model is what you can't do with helos from certain sized ships.

    North Atlantic sea state changes have shown that the Eithne hull form is sub optimal for Helo ops so this played into the change as well.

    Eithne is now nearing the end of her time which may come quicker than some would think and we need to have a replacement in place that will be as ground breaking as Eithne was back in 1985
    P 31 was dynamically evaluated, using motion and wind sensors, by a French Naval maritime trials team, off the South coast, West of Kinsale. The trials results surprised the Lead Scientist as the flight deck motions were better than D610 Tourville and could provide a good environment for a Dauphin. There were 5 Dauphins, of which two were marinised for use with ships and harpoon landings. They were used as an integrated unit by the AC and tasked accordingly immediately impacting availability slots for potential ship board use. In one coastal SAR mission a marinised Helo became a fatal casualty reducing the marine capability of helos to one. This usage coupled with a reluctance to a permanent deployment to sea terminated the project. The North Atlantic is a large body of water subject to the variability of the Gulf Stream and cyclone tracks towards the British Isles. Wave heights always vary with changes in frequency of wave heights for 1/50 years and 1/100 years. We can say in standard storms, force 10+, that waves approaching 15/20m are probable, however everybody is battened down or sheltering if forewarned.

  9. Thanks DeV, DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  10. #2056
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,854
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkey View Post
    If the DF ever goes down that route again, then the Helicopters will have to be Navy owned, Navy operated, and Navy maintained...and they will have to be real helicopters, not the present near useless toys.
    I disagree - though with your solution, rather than the problem.

    Any future Naval air arm would simply be too small to function, the only option that makes any sense at all is to have a single military air arm and for that air arm to provide all the military air functions. The solution is not to have, and pay for, a naval air arm for ship based helicopters, an Army air arm for helicopters that get their wheels dirty, and the present AC for that bunch of bluffing lady gardens in the Don, it's simply to change the ingrained culture within the AC.

    How is it that in the UK both RAF and Army AC helicopters regularly and without hassle or resignations manage to deploy on RN ships every day of the week and for months at a time - it's the culture, it's recruiting people who understand that deploying on ships, or to dusty hellholes, is a part of the job, and making crystal clear to current members that deploying on board ship for months at a time is part of the job, and that if they don't like it the DF will happily give them a reference.

  11. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
  12. #2057
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    And no doubt pay

  13. #2058
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    There were 5 Dauphins, of which two were marinised for use with ships and harpoon landings. They were used as an integrated unit by the AC and tasked accordingly immediately impacting availability slots for potential ship board use. In one coastal SAR mission a marinised Helo became a fatal casualty reducing the marine capability of helos to one. This usage coupled with a reluctance to a permanent deployment to sea terminated the project.
    DH248 wasn't one of the navalized ones and naval ops had stopped long before she became a casualty...I assume this is the matter you refer to?
    Time for another break I think......

  14. Likes sofa liked this post
  15. #2059
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    DH248 wasn't one of the navalized ones and naval ops had stopped long before she became a casualty...I assume this is the matter you refer to?
    It was, but as you point out I was wrong about DH 248 type, however it's loss in 1999 when the project was 15 years old meant BOTH the Dauphin and shipboard use would remain a memory. Mea Culpa,I should have read the report .
    The Naval use of the Dauphin was discussed with RN Overseas Training department which laid out a possible training scheme for Irish naval Pilots. Basic idea was to select trainee pilots from junior seagoing officers. Quailify in Ireland or Uk to about 50 hours fixed wing flying. Then proceed to the Joint Services Rotary School in UK. Convert to Lynx and do deck landing exercises to the training barge in UK, followed by ship deck landings to an RN Frigate. Then move to a facility ( France ) for conversion to Dauphin and a series of deck landings. Base helicopters (2) at a new facility at Cork Airport for local maintenance by the resident Helicopter Servicing Company and operation by the Naval Detachment to build hours. A unit would join ship at Sea, on Ship departure from Cork and Fly off to return to Cork Airport on day before arrival for maintenace and continued flight hours. An experienced head of Department could be secunded from the RN (Conversion required) or FNS ( Conversion not required ) pro temp.

  16. Thanks morpheus, Auldsod, DeV, Turkey, DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes Tempest, sofa, na grohmití, Turkey liked this post
  17. #2060
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    It was, but as you point out I was wrong about DH 248 type, however it's loss in 1999 when the project was 15 years old meant BOTH the Dauphin and shipboard use would remain a memory. Mea Culpa,I should have read the report .
    The Naval use of the Dauphin was discussed with RN Overseas Training department which laid out a possible training scheme for Irish naval Pilots. Basic idea was to select trainee pilots from junior seagoing officers. Quailify in Ireland or Uk to about 50 hours fixed wing flying. Then proceed to the Joint Services Rotary School in UK. Convert to Lynx and do deck landing exercises to the training barge in UK, followed by ship deck landings to an RN Frigate. Then move to a facility ( France ) for conversion to Dauphin and a series of deck landings. Base helicopters (2) at a new facility at Cork Airport for local maintenance by the resident Helicopter Servicing Company and operation by the Naval Detachment to build hours. A unit would join ship at Sea, on Ship departure from Cork and Fly off to return to Cork Airport on day before arrival for maintenace and continued flight hours. An experienced head of Department could be secunded from the RN (Conversion required) or FNS ( Conversion not required ) pro temp.

    The issue was partially with the type as once the AC had increased the spec and the weight went up, the performance and range came down and it became inherintely unsafe to operate from ship due to the limitations of the flight envelope during take off and landing procedures.

    The owner ship and pilot issue wasn't Insurmountable but the DH244 and 245 should have been bought as extras as opposed to being included in the AC compliment of aircraft. It was the shortage of aircraft that ulimately lead to the down fall, had the air assets no been under control of the AC and Naval officers were given the opportunity to broaden their horizons , it would have worked or at least established the precedent that AC ownership in the DF was the sole preserve of the AC
    Time for another break I think......

  18. Likes DeV, Spark23, Graylion, Turkey liked this post
  19. #2061
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like
    If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?

  20. #2062
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?
    There isn't!!

    99% of warships that carry Helos use them in an anti submarine capacity or to deploy boarding parties . We already do this quite efficiently using ships boats which are far cheaper...and we don't have any anti submarine capacity.

    What we can't offer is the use of a flight deck to other parties who may require it in any eventuality and this should be on the wish list for any future build.
    Time for another break I think......

  21. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #2063
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    If we are talking naval choppers, which role do we foresee for them?
    Originally the job of the heli was to provide a greater visible range to observe vessels of interest. The heli could also do much of the eyeball interrogation. Most of this work is no longer necessary as AIS and CASA with flir can do the same work in the designated patrol area.
    However there is still a role for naval helicopters.
    Primarily at present the priority would to reclaim the skillbase required to operate helicopters from the deck of a moving ship, so quite a lot of training of ships crew would be necessary. Committing an aircraft or two to this task would be vital. Having an aircraft for a few hours a year is insufficient. I believe the first qualified FDO recently retired from his civvy job (long gone from the NS) so that's how behind we are on those skills.
    Then the ability to operate rotary wing drone aircraft would be a useful skill in all operations.
    Once that is achieved then you can look at being in a position to operate a non integrated aircraft aboard ship, when engaged on overseas operation. For example a Spanish SH-60 or NH-90 when operating in the Med.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  23. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  24. #2064
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    The naval helicopter is traditionally largely an extension to the range of the shipís sensors (radar, sonar, eyeball, ESM etc) it can use them for ASW, anti-ship, fishery protection etc.

    It can also be used for SAR, maritime interdiction (anti-piracy, boardings etc).

    Then of course it could be used to land recce troops, resupply (troops or the ship).

    We could use it to invade Rockall.

    The point is a helipad (even without a hanger) increases the capabilities of a ship.

    If nothing else a hanger is a useful extra space to have (although it is more useful if you have a heli to put in it)

  25. Likes EUFighter, Graylion liked this post
  26. #2065
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    The naval helicopter is traditionally largely an extension to the range of the shipís sensors (radar, sonar, eyeball, ESM etc) it can use them for ASW, anti-ship, fishery protection etc.

    It can also be used for SAR, maritime interdiction (anti-piracy, boardings etc).

    Then of course it could be used to land recce troops, resupply (troops or the ship).

    We could use it to invade Rockall.

    The point is a helipad (even without a hanger) increases the capabilities of a ship.

    If nothing else a hanger is a useful extra space to have (although it is more useful if you have a heli to put in it)
    The hangar only becomes a necessity for an assigned helicopter. As well as SAR, we can add specific and general recce duties, and provide Early Warning using airborne radar. Weapon delivery systems are also a possibility.

  27. Likes DeV, EUFighter liked this post
  28. #2066
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    The issue was partially with the type as once the AC had increased the spec and the weight went up, the performance and range came down and it became inherintely unsafe to operate from ship due to the limitations of the flight envelope during take off and landing procedures.

    The owner ship and pilot issue wasn't Insurmountable but the DH244 and 245 should have been bought as extras as opposed to being included in the AC compliment of aircraft. It was the shortage of aircraft that ulimately lead to the down fall, had the air assets no been under control of the AC and Naval officers were given the opportunity to broaden their horizons , it would have worked or at least established the precedent that AC ownership in the DF was the sole preserve of the AC
    The launch and recovery of helos from P31 was NEVER inherently unsafe. True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).

  29. #2067
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    The launch and recovery of helos from P31 was NEVER inherently unsafe. True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).
    Given what was unearthed during the Waterford /Tramore incident about the severe limitations of the SA 365fi and its inability to carry out various manouvres when approaching MTOW (Max Take of Weight )the machine was unsafe by current standards.The single engine performance was marginal even at empty weights and there was no was no way of recovering the helo close to max weights with one engine out. Any loss of power during any take off evolution while close to MTOW was also a potential disaster. Now given that the machine was operated with a full crew compliment and max fuel while departing it was a significant risk factor and the power to weight limitations were either brushed over or ignored

    The issue has always been the helicopter and never the ship, the only flaw from the ships perspective was the expected method of rescues in the vent of a crash on deck using the foil suits, which were only ever used in military or naval ops. I only later found this out when I qualified with the UK CAA as a firefighter, specializing in aircraft! Snatch rescue as practised is a major no - no!

    True, there were limitations on the SHOL, but this is to be expected on what is a relatively small heli platform (85m OPV).
    I don't disagree but this wasn't the issue I was highlighting, my issue was with the helicopter and not the ship. Although the practise of carrying out landings and take offs with the hanger door was not optimal as it presented a hazard to the ship if the helo had crashed.
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 4th April 2018 at 15:09.
    Time for another break I think......

  30. #2068
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Given what was unearthed during the Waterford /Tramore incident about the severe limitations of the SA 365fi and its inability to carry out various manouvres when approaching MTOW (Max Take of Weight )the machine was unsafe by current standards.The single engine performance was marginal even at empty weights and there was no was no way of recovering the helo close to max weights with one engine out. Any loss of power during any take off evolution while close to MTOW was also a potential disaster. Now given that the machine was operated with a full crew compliment and max fuel while departing it was a significant risk factor and the power to weight limitations were either brushed over or ignored

    The issue has always been the helicopter and never the ship, the only flaw from the ships perspective was the expected method of rescues in the vent of a crash on deck using the foil suits, which were only ever used in military or naval ops. I only later found this out when I qualified with the UK CAA as a firefighter, specializing in aircraft! Snatch rescue as practised is a major no - no!



    I don't disagree but this wasn't the issue I was highlighting, my issue was with the helicopter and not the ship. Although the practise of carrying out landings and take offs with the hanger door was not optimal as it presented a hazard to the ship if the helo had crashed.
    Just to point out that the weight of DH248ís SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).

    Wasnít there also an issue with water in the shipís aircraft fuel tank?

  31. #2069
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Just to point out that the weight of DH248ís SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).

    Wasnít there also an issue with water in the shipís aircraft fuel tank?
    Water contamination in JET A! is always a fear, especially in a helo over water, the oncern in the early days was how the fuel would be contaminated as the water is held in suspension as opposed to being layered. Contamination in suspension is normally caused by condensation forming in the storage facility on the ship.It was believed that the location of the Jet A1 storage was a possible cause.

    If Jet A1 is left sitting samples can be contaminated but repeated sampling will provide clear samples eventually. Wasn't my department at the time but I became very familiar with the product and its associated problems in my next job after the NS.

    ust to point out that the weight of DH248ís SAR kit at the time of the crash (excluding winch) was 180 kg (it was 90kg in 1990).
    The MTOW for the navalized Daupins was compatible as they had winches fitted and various other bits of kit such as Harpoon that the others didn't have. The ones leaving the ships were full to the gills with people and kit and tools...and duty free!
    Last edited by hptmurphy; 5th April 2018 at 13:15.
    Time for another break I think......

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post
  33. #2070
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Water contamination in JET A! is always a fear, especially in a helo over water, the oncern in the arly days was how the fuel would be contaminated as the water is held in suspension as opposed to being layered. Contamination in suspension is normally caused by condensation forming in the storage facility on the ship.It was believed that the location of the Jet A1 storage was a possible cause.

    If Jet A1 is left sitting samples can be contaminated but repeated sampling will provide clear samples eventually. WAs my department at the time but I became very familiar with the product and its associated problems in my next job after the NS.



    The MTOW for the navalized Daupins was compatible as they had winches fitted and various other bits of kit such as Harpoon that the others didn't have. The ones leaving the ships were full to the gills with people and kit and tools...and duty free!
    There is always water in some form in JET A1. It is present in three forms- dissolved in the fuel- suspended in an emulsion- or layered in the bottom of the tank. The degrees of presence depends on the make up of the fuel which can come from a number of sources- petroleum based from crude oil- Gas to liquid based- animal/plant fats based- or a mixture.
    Dissolved water is generally not a problem as aircraft systems should handle the filtering or heating treatments required. Suspended water should be removable by routine QC and daily processing of the fuel store. Suctions in fuel tanks are higher to avoid bottom water and drains are provided. To be water free may not be entirely possible but the degree or type of presence, to allow for normal fuel useage, is down to handling. A tank with no sea contact would help matters of condensation, however fuel processing on board should resolve such matters.

  34. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy liked this post
  35. #2071
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    The modern solution would appear to be (like all things) a self contained TEU, complete with earthing points and pumping equipment. The Air Corps already use them when deploying aircraft away from home.
    For a ship to be only an occasional operator, let alone fueller of rotary wing aircraft, it appears more practical than designing a ship with built in JET A1 storage and handling.
    https://www.army-technology.com/cont...logistics/ama/
    Just design your ship with somewhere to store TEUs that do not prevent the helideck from being used.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  36. Likes DeV, hptmurphy liked this post
  37. #2072
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmitŪ View Post
    The modern solution would appear to be (like all things) a self contained TEU, complete with earthing points and pumping equipment. The Air Corps already use them when deploying aircraft away from home.
    For a ship to be only an occasional operator, let alone fueller of rotary wing aircraft, it appears more practical than designing a ship with built in JET A1 storage and handling.
    https://www.army-technology.com/cont...logistics/ama/
    Just design your ship with somewhere to store TEUs that do not prevent the helideck from being used.
    just purely as an operator I am not keen to have a bulk fuel unit on deck with a long burn time or an explosive depletion. Hundreds of ships carry their aviation fuel and make provision for all types of fueling both on deck and in flight at the hover. Ships have gone without Heli for more than a year and fuel was fine using daily Quality control measures. Role change TEU's are a norm in some Navies but all in all such scenarios come from commercial technology looking to make a few shekels. Bright ideas lead to ships difficult to operate and difficult to crew with the required knowledge base. Ships must always be good to go when on task.

  38. #2073
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    just purely as an operator I am not keen to have a bulk fuel unit on deck with a long burn time or an explosive depletion
    Jet A1 needs to be heated to 21 degrees centigrade under compression before it reaches it flash point and would only burn without these precursors if atomized so it is relatively stable. Given up to recently ships carried petrol which has a flash point with a minus value and burns at 4000 ft per minute.....its not all bad.

    If a hard point were to be fixed for fue,l a foam flood systems could be rigged to the hard point.
    Time for another break I think......

  39. #2074
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,217
    Post Thanks / Like
    Our Fuel was designated JP5 to ASTM, D1655. DEF STAN 91-91. Flash point 38C and freezing -60C. Treated FS 11. Petrol stowage was in small volume containers, rigged for auto release in case it needed to be jettisoned. JP5 and ships' diesel were similarly stable. However in the right circumstances both will burn which is why ships have fire suppression systems.

  40. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  41. #2075
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know of a company who brings in 1 container a year of a particular dangerous product. On both the main vessel and feeder it has to be stowed on deck, on an outside stack so in the event of fire it can be f*cked over board (along with the empty containers that need to surround it).

  42. Likes na grohmití liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Naval air ops no more?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 29th December 2015, 14:01
  2. Naval Wishlist(realistic)
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 10th April 2007, 23:54
  3. Naval Training Ship?
    By Goldie fish in forum Navy & Naval Reserve
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th February 2003, 01:19

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •