Channel 5 - Warship

#1
Another 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary following HMS Illustrious, shown at 2100, 19th of May on the ever-informative channel 5. We got to see Jack get all emotional as they leave port then come back 2 days later as the freezer breaks, then out for pre-deployment beat-up (failed) and then Lusty completely breaks (buggered propshaft) so now it looks like they might not even make it out of UK waters...

Thing that struck me most was the incredible amount of whinging that seemed to be going on...the old 'stiff upper lip' was only present in the older sweats aboard. One of the female Lts seemed to be permanently on the verge of tears. There was talk about how 'hard' and 'tiring' the routine was (only 5 or 6 hours of sleep a night, bless em) and how, after about 10 days, they all needed a nice day off and a chance to hit the bars.

Anyone else see it? Any thoughts?

Edit: link: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12771/changeNav/6568
 
#2
Thoughts? Yes.
The editors of the program will create the image of whingers and over emotional types if they want to, regardless of the real state of affairs.
If one in 500 members of Illustrious' crew has dust in their eyes then thats the one that will end up on the telly.....

However, with regard to other threads about the new carriers, I think this program prooves that some of our Navy vessels are long overdue replacement. I think a 1982 Austin Metro is probably as reliable piece of kit!
 
#5
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
Is it repeated during the week do you know?


Wonder if they will show this; 8O

Will they show the recovery of the 5T tractor in Istanbul harbour as HRH is inbound.....................
 
#6
jagman said:
Thoughts? Yes.
The editors of the program will create the image of whingers and over emotional types if they want to, regardless of the real state of affairs.
If one in 500 members of Illustrious' crew has dust in their eyes then thats the one that will end up on the telly.....

However, with regard to other threads about the new carriers, I think this program prooves that some of our Navy vessels are long overdue replacement. I think a 1982 Austin Metro is probably as reliable piece of kit!
Editorial bias is always present but even to my jaundiced eye there seemed to be a lot of moaning...stuff like griping about not getting enough sleep, only having Fosters in the bar...you're on deployment ffs... Have a watch and see for yourself.

Dunno when it'll be repeated Flashy - doubtless it'll pop up on youtube at some point though.

EDIT for linky: More info here: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12771/changeNav/6568
 
#7
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
Is it repeated during the week do you know?


Wonder if they will show this; 8O

mmm had wondered if they will show that.

My only thought was that if that had been the army how many attempts would the CO be given and how many lives lost before land told him to hand in his kit with the rest of his ship. I know that a boat has many mechanical issues but twice back to shore with shore leave, i dont know if i was in the senior service this seems some what lax
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
easesprings said:
My only thought was that if that had been the army how many attempts would the CO be given and how many lives lost before land told him to hand in his kit with the rest of his ship. I know that a boat has many mechanical issues but twice back to shore with shore leave, i dont know if i was in the senior service this seems some what lax
Or you could just crack on and waste £50,000 worth of food, needing another resupply later on and still having to fix the freezers.

Or ignore the advice of your Senior SO1 Engineer and see if the HPAC blows up, that would be fun.

Of course I am sure you would have brought the ship alongside and kept everyone on board. Moral boaster that one. Boys would have loved that.
 
#9
Carcass said:
One of the female Lts seemed to be permanently on the verge of tears.
Sub Lieutenant actually (1 stripe) and still under training (white shit on the shoulder). She'll be straight out of Dartmouth, pre-Fleet Board so still under training for perhaps another 1-2 years.


easesprings said:
My only thought was that if that had been the army how many attempts would the CO be given and how many lives lost before land told him to hand in his kit with the rest of his ship. I know that a boat has many mechanical issues but twice back to shore with shore leave, i dont know if i was in the senior service this seems some what lax
It is unusual for a ship to fail FOST - they're usually well worked up prior to arriving. It is a training serial, and a new CO - hardly his fault I think.

Shore leave is one evening - what else would you do with them? Besides - shore leave not granted first time back.

Will see how it develops.
 
#10
I thought the Engr Boss girl was nails. Competent, knew how to handle both her lads and her bits to camera.

Looks like she could bump start the 'Lusty' on her own..
 
#11
I must admit, from a soldier point of view, it didnt look good.
Not the sort of job i would join for either. Stewards on a deployment, "the Officers like their plate of cheese!"? I know someone has to do it , but rubbish detail and sorting out the fecking stuff!
And im sure an Army CO wouldnt let his lads go on the piss after failing a readiness type inspection?
But having spoke to a CPO a few years ago, he said its not a "proper" ship to serve on in the Navy anyway, the Frigates and Destroyers are the ones to sail in!
 
#12
You'd think the Navy would've sent the camera crews on HMS Ocean or another newer ship, best to show off the newer kit for recruiting surely. You can see why the sailors say they need those 2 new carriers though, Illustrious did look like it was on its last legs...That stewardess seemed very happy in her work as basically a servant, but then looking how she did when they were going on the lash she must be getting rooted near constantly!!
 
#13
Billy Ruffian said:
I thought the Engr Boss girl was nails. Competent, knew how to handle both her lads and her bits to camera.

Looks like she could bump start the 'Lusty' on her own..
She looked like she could suck the fuel through pipes on her own as well. A good advert for the navy if you ask me.
 
#14
'You'd think the Navy would've sent the camera crews on HMS Ocean or another newer ship'

Believe me, Ocean is more prone to breakdowns than Illustrious.
 
#15
Carcass said:
jagman said:
Thoughts? Yes.
The editors of the program will create the image of whingers and over emotional types if they want to, regardless of the real state of affairs.
If one in 500 members of Illustrious' crew has dust in their eyes then thats the one that will end up on the telly.....

However, with regard to other threads about the new carriers, I think this program prooves that some of our Navy vessels are long overdue replacement. I think a 1982 Austin Metro is probably as reliable piece of kit!
Editorial bias is always present but even to my jaundiced eye there seemed to be a lot of moaning...stuff like griping about not getting enough sleep, only having Fosters in the bar...you're on deployment ffs... Have a watch and see for yourself.

Dunno when it'll be repeated Flashy - doubtless it'll pop up on youtube at some point though.

EDIT for linky: More info here: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12771/changeNav/6568
I did watch it, with much interest.
What I saw was nothing more than normal moaning that you get from staff of any sort in any establishment, it didn't amount to a great deal to me and the majority of it seemed light hearted (if not an outright pisstake), the lad spending three months emptying the bins for example moaned non stop but was clearly tongue in cheek about pretty much everything he said.
I thought the Chief Engineer woman was a star with an impossible mountain to climb. I cant say the Navy is to blame for having shite/old kit anymore than the RAF is responsible for having to use Tristars to cart people round the planet with.

I do think it was embarrasing to show a TV program that portrays the RN to be lumbered with a situation were even their flagship is clapped out.
But then we can lay the blame for that firmly at the Treasonous cnut Brown's door cant we?
 
#16
I'll be reserving judgement until I see more. TV editting; it grips my shit when they give us five seconds of interesting footage of repair work going on followed by five minutes of Lusty sailing through a bit of grey water with zany camera angles. As noted above the Lt cmdr engineer would be given the good news and keeping thirty year old kit going can be a challenge. That said, I had a the chance to inspect the insides of HMS Repulse shortly before her 2nd last patrol and she was a lot grottier than that. Machinery going down in the manner shown is often as a result of having sat through the layup period without being properly preserved, plus compressors are a cow generally, HP ones doubly so.
 
#17
Bradstyley said:
You'd think the Navy would've sent the camera crews on HMS Ocean or another newer ship, best to show off the newer kit for recruiting surely.
Or the cleverer angle being 'show what peices of crap we have to defend the Oceans with'. :wink:
 
#18
mnairb said:
'You'd think the Navy would've sent the camera crews on HMS Ocean or another newer ship'

Believe me, Ocean is more prone to breakdowns than Illustrious.
How? She's got the simplest propulsion set in the whole RN! Or is it just shit build quality by BAE?
 
#19
mcnairb wrote
Believe me, Ocean is more prone to breakdowns than Illustrious.

Thats...very reassuring....so, are any of the Navy's ships actually fit for purpose? Or has fighting 2 wars on a peacetime budget worked its usual magic? Them Astute submarines work at least, right? Need more cash, sure the Taliban don't have much of a fleet but one day other enemies might and we are an island country, after all...
 
#20
Or the cleverer angle being 'show what peices of crap we have to defend the Oceans with'

Ahhh, the Admiralty has 'a plan so cunning' etc....
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top