The incident occurred 40km east of Dublin on September 12, 1989 when an Irish trawler, the MV Contestor, snagged the towed array sonar of a Royal Navy submarine.

Irish media recently reported that Britain attempted to claim ‘state immunity’ after the incident to recover the submarine’s valuable towed array sonar, which detached after snagging in the nets of the Irish fishing trawler.

According to Independent.ie, Irish officials raised serious concerns over the incident with the British authorities as it came less than a decade after an Irish trawler sank after an incident with a British submarine.

The trawler’s owner also commenced legal action for salvage under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 ā€“ with the buoy snagged in its nets (what turned out to be the submarine’s towed array sonar) being retained by the Irish authorities “until payment is made for salvage”.

You can read more on the specifics here.

The timeline of events

  • In 1989, an Irish fishing boat called the MV Contestor snagged on a submerged object in the Irish Sea
  • The object turned out to be a towed sonar array from a Royal Navy attack submarine
  • The fishing boat was subsequently dragged backwards for 1.6km before breaking free
  • The incident occurred less than a decade after another Irish fishing boat sank in an incident involving a British submarine
  • The skipper of the MV Contestor, Sean Daly, began legal action for salvage under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and the Irish authorities retained the buoy until payment was made for salvage
  • The following year, the British government attempted to claim state immunity in an attempt to recover the towed sonar array and avoid litigation
  • Irish officials did not offer specific advice on the matter, but suggested that an agreed settlement would be preferable to litigation.

What is state immunity?

State immunity is a principle of international law that protects a sovereign state or its organs (such as government agencies) from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent. It is based on the idea that sovereign states are equal and sovereign, and that one state should not be able to exercise jurisdiction over another state or its organs without the latter’s consent.

The principle of state immunity is reflected in various international conventions, such as the European Convention on State Immunity and the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property.

There are some exceptions to the principle of state immunity. For example, states may waive their immunity and consent to be sued in the courts of another state. In addition, the principle of state immunity does not apply to certain types of cases, such as cases involving commercial transactions or human rights abuses. Finally, the principle of state immunity may not apply to cases involving the property of a state that is used for commercial purposes, rather than for sovereign or public functions.

What is a towed array sonar?

A towed array sonar is a type of underwater acoustic sensor deployed from a ship or submarine and “towed” behind it as it moves through the water.

The purpose of a towed array sonar is to detect and track underwater objects, such as other ships, submarines, and mines. The hydrophones on the array pick up sounds from the surrounding water, and the data is transmitted back to the tow vessel through the cable. The tow vessel can then use this information to detect and classify the objects, and to determine their location and movement.

Towed array sonars are used by navies and other military organisations for a variety of purposes, including submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and intelligence gathering.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

103 COMMENTS

      • Nail on the head. A lot of websites go ‘quiet’ in the Xmas New yr. period we are now exiting (January blues here I come) for the perfectly reasonable reasons that contributor’s to the same want some down time.

    • I bet that’s what the skipper of the trawler said šŸ™‚ The answer is it just became public knowledge as a part of the regular and periodic release, or declassification of Irish state files

    • Absolutely, ( it’s a shame but these things happen in land/sea/and Air)( Accidents do happen and they must work together remembering it was not deliberately And no lives were lost on this occasion, remember that this submarine was on secret mission?)( This will be resolved eventually, Just glad it was not a Russian Submarine I know what the Answer would be and the last word finishers with ( OFF)

  2. OT
    Those interested in military history may enjoy re-considering the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The received wisdom is that the battle was fought on 14th October at the site now occupied by Battle Abbey.

    Unfortunately, other than tradition, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the battle was fought at the Abbey and when the archaeological TV series Time Team was asked to investigate the site, they found nothing.

    A new analysis of the contemporary records, the famous Bayeux Tapestry and a close examination of the ground in East Sussex by two military historians shows conclusively that the battle was actually fought near Sedlescombe, a few miles to the east. Those interested, who enjoy a good read with maps etc, may like to look into this for themselves. The link below is a good place to start.

    https://www.momentousbritain.co.uk/go/BOH_Sedlescombe_Battlefield

    A happy new year to George and everybody who posts on this excellent blog

      • Mate have a look at Nick Austin and the SOTNI YouTube programmes. Excellent research, great investigative work, ground appreciation and common bloody sense if you were moving heavy armoured men and horses on foot. Have a look mate, think you would like the investigation and none conformist thought process. Once I watched them all itā€™s absolutely in your face obvious about the location of the landings, movement and battle locations!!! Cheers mate.

          • Mid way through 2nd one as we speak.
            I’m sold already.
            Crowhurst. The ditch. The hill. The topography. The ruin beneath found on radar, possibly original Abbey.The location of the old London rd. The obvious fallacy of landing at Pevensey when the coast then differed and an army would have to detour round where’s landing in the inlet have them multiple landing locations.

            Luckily I’ve never spent good money with English Heritage at the Battle site as seemingly there’s not a shred of evidence it happened there.

            I’d not seen these, the research makes sense to me, at least.

          • Lots of good stuff and very convincing mate, although there will always be other ideas and locations! Even time team did one about the battle location and while Nick Austin disagreed with some of the time team findings, time team at least thought the EH site was wrong, and it was in fact nearby on a mini roundabout though cannot remember the exact location. They even did a topographic recce for the dates and agreed Pevensey may have been wrong also! Cheers

          • Do you know of an Austin SOTNI type on YT for B of Watling Street?

            That is where my main interest lies regards historical stuff. Paulinus, Agricola, love it.

          • Agreed mate, finding that battle site would be top notch. As you mate my main historical interest remains Roman Britain, but the so called dark ages and the Anglo Saxon period is fascinating stuff also.

          • Having corresponded with one of the authors (Jonathan Starkey) of the Sedlescombe book, I can report that recent archaeological excavations in one of the deep fosses (ditches) in Killingan Wood have been undertaken. Possible Saxon era strap ends, Norman era horseshoes with calkins and a double footplate stirrup were found and are being examined by professional archaeologists.

            There is a lot of information in the Momentous Britain Sedlescombe website and it takes a while to go through. But Jonathan Starkey will answer emails and is delighted if anyone shows an interest!

          • Had a quick look at momentous Britain, lots of info, time required to read but as always history is sooooo interesting and so full of surprises!!!!!šŸ‘

    • This is interesting stuff , last year I was hooked on the very plausible Utube vjds providing evidence for the battle taking place near at Crowhurst . With the Norman’s landing west of Hastings in a now mostly dried up inlet. The terrain matches historical accounts very well it seems . It was all bought up because the council decided to build an A road accross the battlefield šŸ™‚

    • Agreed, some excellent research by Nick Austin and the SOTNI (secrets of the Northern invasion) in regards to the Norman landing location and battle! All are in the wrong place, most certainly the landings claimed to be at Pevensey! He overlays the coast/landscape at the time and it shows even week one crow 2Lts at Sandhurst would never have even thought of landing at Pevensey bay! Some great YouTube programmes, well researched, thought out and excellent ground appreciation from the air, maps etc of the actual battle! Cheers mate.

      • Yes the amateur team did an excellent job collecting the information and it certainly trumps English Heritages version though they do briefly mention Crowhurst on their website. I keep meaning to walk the area as there are plenty footpaths from the inlet upto Crowhurst to get a good appreciation of area , cheers šŸ™‚

        • It will never be the official version unless solid archeological evidence appears as EH are on to a good money spinner with the Battle Abbey site! Cheers.

  3. I don’t know the whole story, fishing boats know where all the SM exercise areas are and it’s there choice to fish there. Yes a SM will go where it want’s when patrol, so don’t all go shouting at meļ»æšŸ˜Žļ»æ

    • It happened to several Scottish boats as well, the problem was solved however by the conservative government when it decided to massively reduce the SSN fleet to just 7 and gut the fishing fleet as well. There is now very little chance a British submarine could ever meet a British fishing boat. šŸ˜€

      • Oh Jim, the one sided old party politics again. Some balance and perspective please.

        Quote from Navy Lookout.

        “The RN has stated it needs at least 8 Astutes but by 2005 it was clear that the government would only fund 7 boats.”

        Have a look at the reduction from 12 to just 7 SSN ( Hoon vowed 8 ) firstly 1997 SDSR and then 2004 New Chapter SDSR and see just who presided over that. Clue, it was not the Tories.

        With the escalated costs and delays and Successor already coming the force could not be increased short term even if they wanted to.

        • The Torys have been in charge of the defence budget for 32 years out of the Last 43 years so any number of SSNā€™s and fishing boats is almost entirely as a result of their policy.

          Also it was entirely the Tories who choose to delay SSN successor program in the 90ā€™s and nothing to do with labour, these decisions were all taken years before labour had any power.

          The contract for Astute was signed 6 weeks before labour took office so can you please explain to me how the delayed it or took decisions to reduce Astute build.

          It was also the Toryā€™s and Libs who decided to delay successor and and reduced astute buy to 7 from 8.

          Sorry Iā€™m just not seeing any labour influence here?

          Any Actual facts to share?

          • “The Torys have been in charge of the defence budget for 32 years out of the Last 43 years so any number of SSNā€™s and fishing boats is almost entirely as a result of their policy”

            Irrelevant as the still large armed forces inherited by Labour in 1997 were reduced by Labour 97 to 2010, a point I keep making in an effort for balance.

            “The contract for Astute was signed 6 weeks before labour took office so can you please explain to me how the delayed it or took decisions to reduce Astute build.”

            See my post above
            “but by 2005 it was clear that the government would only fund 7 boats.ā€

            Between 97 and 2010 how many Astute boats did they order? Astute Boat No 4. In 13 years.

            “It was also the Toryā€™s and Libs who decided to delay successor and and reduced astute buy to 7 from 8.”

            Yes, quite possibly, and how does that tally with your opening statement
            “the conservative government when it decided to massively reduce the SSN fleet to just 7”

            Reducing by 1 from 8 to 7 is not “massively” Jim, your post implies it was all he Tories responsibility, which I’m correcting.

            “Sorry Iā€™m just not seeing any labour influence here?”

            Look at 1997 to 2010 for your answers which impacts today.

            “Any Actual facts to share?”

            Plenty, see my posts on ORBATS on this site and the one above.

            The below is taken directly from UKAFC, a guy who also knows his stuff regards cuts and our ORBAT, like I do

            But reality is that Labour era from 1998 to 2010 was uniquely devastating. The only saving grace is that what they were cutting into was much, much meatier.

            Army has crumbled over last 12 years, but explosive charge was planted by Labour. Entire Labour era was a roller coaster ride from MRAV/TRACER to FRES, FRES UV and then FRES SV that resulted in zero vehicles. For all their failings, Tories have put 1212 AJAX/BOXER on order so far.

            For the Navy, Labour era meant 3+1 River Batch 1 OPVs, 2 ECHO-class survey ships; 4 BAY LSDs, 6 Type 45 and of course 2 carriers, plus contract for Astute boat 4. But it also meant complete, FRES-like failure of Future Surface Combatant and Maritime Afloat Reach & Sustainability.

            They took a 35 escorts, 12 SSN, 25 MCM vessels Navy and by the time they left there were 24, 7 and 16.
            The Tories inherited 6 troubled Type 45 from them, which they are trying to fix; and virtually no progress at all on new frigates and supply vessels.

            At the moment Tories have ordered/delivered 4 TIDE tankers, 5 River B2s, 3 Type26 (second batch of 5 hopefully soon enough under contract), 5 Type 31 and next year 3 supply ships should also be ordered. Plus 2 SSBN (second pair to follow) and Astute boats 5, 6 and 7.

            Labour got honor (and responsibility) of presiding production phase of Typhoon, since Tranche 1 deal was matured in Sep 98. Tranche 2 followed Dec 04, T3 in July 09. 232 orders planned in SDR98 became 162 because 24 of 91 Tranche 2 went to Saudi Arabia and Tranche 3 capped at 40.

            In meanwhile, Jaguar & Sea Harrier withdrawn early;Tornado GR4 squadrons went down to 7 and Harrier GR9 to just 2, effectively sealing Harrier’s fate before the SDSR2010 even started. Future Offensive Air System never produced anything and only 2 F-35s were ordered under Labour.

            As always, my point, BOTH are just as bad and comments like your original gambit “The Tories did this and that” is meaningless without the background of what came before which was just as devastating.

            TLDR. BOTH are crap and I defend neither, unlike yourself Jim.

            Please correct any of this.

          • V interesting chart. Some things that jump out at me are first how much it dropped in the late 80s even in Cold War years and second the continued decline till 2004 SDSR New Chapter and then from 2006-7 onwards the gradual rise when Des Brown announced the Carriers and (I recall) a 7 billion boost, despite the ongoing cuts to kit. Same is happening now, budget going up but cuts continue.

            Unlike many I’m not against the OD budget, it is how it is spent that I believe could be improved. Soft Power is a useful tool and that budget is a part of that.

          • Agreed mate! The OD budget is essentially a tool (or should be) to help those who help us! A few million of soft power can prevent a few Billion of hard power šŸ‘

          • Defence spending isnā€™t a priority. If u spend half as much you get less than half as much kit and manpower as you still have all the general stuff to fund. It will only get worse without a permanent change of direction.
            The Government need to make a policy for direction. What can the U.K. do on its own in alliance etc. I would take numbers and mission capabilities from SDR 98 as a starting point and have up-to 10 years to reach that. Funding will have to be increased to achieve that. Army may struggle with numbers so use cheap tech to fill gaps.
            Radical solutions could be dump the nuclear deterrent and all nuclear weapon funding and use it for conventional forces. Leave the sunshine bombs to the big boys.
            The issues will be growing forces is harder than shrinking them.

        • Yes, exactly and the accession treaty was sign by one Ted Heath, so I think it is very fair to say the Toryā€™s got rid of the fishing boats and the SSNā€™s

      • You’re on fire today Jim šŸ˜‚

        Jokes aside, if such a similar incident were to occur today between the same protagonists, would the fallout be any different?

  4. Why the boat got dragged backwards for over a mile without dumping its net? If I was on a fishing boat and Iā€™m getting dragged backwards Iā€™m dumping the net pretty quickly.

    • Hi monkey. The nets are secured to the fishing vessels by very strong steal cables, that even under normal fishing are held under extreme tension, (a parting cable can easily kill you, itā€™s one of the hazards of fishing). When a 700 tonne fishing vessel is being towed backwards at 10 knots against its engines those cables will be under a stupid level of tension, you just cut it or it parts that energy is going to come right back at you and cut you half, so itā€™s very very difficult evolution even if your not being dragged by the stern.
      add in the fact most fishing vessels will only have 4-5 Crew and the fact they will have a lot to do, it takes most fishing vessels a fair amount of time to clear their nets in these cases.

    • It’s end of the year, which means State Papers are being released, hence this story. Why it rated an article is another question.

    • Recently declassified state papers in Ireland showed that the UK government tried to claim ‘Sovereign/State Immunity’ to recover part of a towed array sonar caught in the trawlers net. From the Independent.ie article it was stated that the UK Gov felt it better for ‘all’ if there was a direct agreement between the UK Embassy in Dublin and the trawler captain. For better or worse, this is newsworthy in Ireland.

      • Itā€™s the end of the year pretty much anything in the State Papers gets coverage, this year thereā€™s this, thereā€™s tensions between the Government and the President, thereā€™s diplomatic gossip from London, thereā€™s Haughey complaining about the condition of two gifted horses that he got.

        Itā€™s not anything to be worked up about, itā€™s just the papers having easy stories during the period when most of their staff are still on holidays.

        Iā€™m just surprised that itā€™s this rather than the attempts to get permission for landing Nimrods that George went with.

  6. The reason it is probably coming up is that the papers have been released under the 30 year rule?

    Under FOI there is a general principle that all government papers are automatically opened unless there is a pressing reason to close them.

    There are actually quite a few WWII papers that are still closed, however!

    Some of them under the old 75 year rule from the Lord Chancellor’s department.

    In all fairness if you ask the National Archive to review the closure they will generally open them.

    The National Archive don’t have the resources to go through everything themselves and open it. The snag is that you have got to know what you want to know to ask them to open it. The catalogue system is terrible and some of the entries are quite uninformative.

    This is a made up but close to real example of a closed WWII file series.

    Bomb damage claim investigation(s) [addresses withheld] works carried out by [name(s) withheld] investigated by [withheld] in the area(s) of [withheld].

    Doesn’t give you a lot to work with! So you end up doing mass/blanket FOI’s which wastes their time.

    • Nah its the Irish republicans trying to whip up some antiBritish sentiment after the RAF was defending their airspace against Russian bombers earlier this year. And after the RN was monitoring the Russian fleet on exercises off their coast.
      Or it might be that Biden has just appointed one of the dead Kennedy’s as “Speciall Envoy” to the Ulster Protestants

      • Or it’s just the annual “State Papers” day where Ireland and the UK release time sealed documents… It’s not a new event or anything special but if you want to take the hump with it fair enough.

    • They like to protect people and their embarrassing mistakes until they’re dead?

      Even this does not apply to some of the papers I’ve read of being withheld way after they could have been released!

      The FCO has its files at Hanslope Park and they won’t release many of those either.

      A veritable treasure trove for the researcher.

  7. Do salvage rights really apply to something attached to someone else’s boat?

    I definitely think the fishing vessel should have been compensated for losses and damages but claiming salvage after being dragged by it seems blatantly dishonest.

    Ancient history now anyway.

  8. 1/ Was this in international waters?
    2/ Can a submerged SSN even detect it has snagged a net and is dragging a
    fishing boat? Relatively light compared to the sub.
    3/ Timing? What is the politics behind this. I think we know.
    4/ Shit happens, sometimes? If answer to Q1 is that it was in Irish waters then
    this obviously does not apply.

    • The rn changed its procedures in 1997 due to the Antares. The process they have now is to reduce that chance of the fishing boat being dragged under. This does make it a bit pointless dragging this specific incident up as it predates the learning from Antares.

      From the incidents that navyā€™s have reported on and participated in itā€™s always clear that the sub knows when it gets tangled as hitting a net makes a lot of hull noise.

      The big problem is that even western navies tend to be very very poor in complying with and supporting investigations and sinking. With the first response tending to be deny deny deny.

      The best one for utter refusal to admit anything was the US over the ā€œsummer mornā€ this trawler was dragged 10 miles before it could cut itself freeā€¦afterward they found bits of the submarine attached to the trawlers nets stamped with US navy identification. It was only when they realised they had been caught complete red handed that US finally admitted it looked like it was one of their subs..while still utterly refusing the admit anything else.

    • Much of this used to occur when SMs are in transit, often to or from Faslane. Sometimes via the Irish Sea, sometimes West of Ireland, depending on destination. It’s also the reason SMs stopped participating in the Thursday war off Portland in the late 80s, to many close calls for comfort. They were then pushed out into the SFXAs, well past Lands end. Although EX JW is held in the Minch but is a declared exercise area, you still get FV trying their luck!l
      UK SMs do stay out of a countries 12 mile limit when transiting dived, so are perfectly entitled to move about as required.
      In answer to 2&4 – yes.

      • Ah, just the man. Thanks Deep. Exactly, to my mind the way this is reported sometimes it’s as if the real beef is that the sub is even there, and it has every right to be. Accidents happen. The issue also seems to be officialdoms initial response to deflect and deny.

      • Mate the earlier (?) one where some fishermen drowned, strangely enough the captain at the time (Macdonald) was my young best mates older brother! The facts have gone grey in the drift of time, was it a perisher course, not sure, but after the enquiry he was posted to a desk job in Gib! I know you canā€™t say much mate but have I misremembered this or was he bluffing! Not sure but I remember the incident even as a young (ish) whipper snapper! But like Iā€™ve always said, very strange job you boys have down there, probably one of the most dangerous and unknown and unappreciated in the services! But at least you get discounts on sunbeds yes? šŸ˜‚šŸ‘

        • Hi mate, not sure about that one, if it was early 80’s as suggested, had only just joined the RN and was busy doing all sorts in N & S Atlantic at the time. Certainly doesn’t ring any bells with me, although a lot of said incidents were never really reported in those days, denial was the word of the day, especially if the nets came loose and nothing more serious happened!!

          Reading some of the comments, there is a lot of misconception about how and why this can happen. A lot depends on the type of trawl being used, most of these incidents in and around Ireland and the SW approaches involved bottom trawling, where the FV drags the nets along the seabed. As long as the FV is propelling, the SM will detect both the vessel and its trawl which is noisy. It gets a bit exciting if the FV is drifting with no propulsion which makes things difficult for the SM to detect it. If said vessel starts its engines and propels itself, what you get are two contacts pop up on your sonar screens, one is the FV the other is its trawl, pound to a pinch of Dodo droppings you are heading straight between them.

          Its not normally the nets that the SM gets snarled in, but the wire cable which links the FV with the nets, its the strongest part of the trawl, and the only bit you cant actually hear. I imagine that is how the Contestor got dragged backwards before breaking free and snagging the SMs Towed Array. The Towed Array itself isnt strong enough to pull several (hundreds) tonnes of ship backwards without breaking, its only got a Kevlar braided rope running through it for strength, which stops it pulling itself apart when the SM is underway.

      • Dont trawlers now have pingers on the nets now? I vaguely remember some agreement between the RN and trawler operators to fit them so the subs could identify where they are and avoid them. Obviously an issue for non-RN Boats and foreign trawlers but you choose your branch you take your chance.

        • Yes mate, post Antares they are required to have them fitted to all UK registered FVs. Unfortunately there are/where a lot of non UK vessels fishing in UK waters. Believe that Post Brexit there still are, but not as many as pre Brexit, so the opportunity for this to occur is still reasonably high.

      • During the period it seems the U.K. was asking for permission to base an aircraft for ā€œspottingā€ patrols for drug smuggling along with permission for British ships to operate out of Cobh for the same duties. There was an offer to allow Irish officers to ride along but it was Completely tone deaf given the security issues and was refused.

      • I am a bit confused about a bouy on a towed a-ray. As they don’t have a bouy on the end. On the end of a drog yes but not a a-ray. .

        • Perhaps it is a recover buoy..?

          Sometime ago I had an interesting exchange with SB as a result of an article where one of our boats was pictured alongside in Gib. They were apparently fitting the array…

          Submarine towed arrays are ‘attached’ to the sub prior to sailing and then ‘dropped’ by the sub as it approaches harbour. The latter evolution requires some means of identifying where the array is on the sea bed, so I guess a buoy is part of the recovery system.

          Cheers CR

  11. The trawler that sank a decade earlier had traces of titanium on its hauling wires. Which country uses titanium on the hulls of its submarines? Why do British submarines hunt the Irish Sea? In the Irish Republic there is always one, and only one, villain.

    • Pretty sure Russia isn’t afraid to drop by. Of course they were threatening to nuke the UK from the other side, so Ireland is more collateral damage.

    • I think you are referring to the FV Gaul a Hull based vessel which was pulled astern at 10+ knots until the engine rooms flooded then she was pull underwater with the loss of all hands it was thourght at the time that it was a Russian sub which was responcible for the incident but of cause the Russians much like today denied any involvement.

  13. In other submarine related news from the archives, looks like the Dutch considered trying to use Ireland to build subs for Taiwan in the 90s as well after China reacted to them supplying a couple in the 80s. Never went anywhere due to Foreign policy issues but would have been a hell of a sight when I was growing up to see Cobh building subs.

      • The idea of using Cobh for assembling subs for Taiwan long predates that but thereā€™s always been a bit of interest from Dutch companies, Damen have sniffed around in the past at the site as well.

        As for the MRV, while yes the Dutch arenā€™t even being subtle about wanting the contract (thatā€™s two years running the Doorman has made port visits), itā€™s not likely to be anything based on that design, even without being more ship than the Navy needs it would need huge investment to sustain it, or using a non state dockyard for her. What Iā€™ve heard is that itā€™s more likely they want us to be a launch customer for the ā€œCrossoverā€ design, which would be able to use Cobh Drydock.

        • Just had a quick look at the Crossover options.

          Interesting concept, but at 4500tons for the smallest version that is a lot bigger than the existing vessels, largest of which are the Samuel Beckett class at 2,256tons. It would be good to see Eire acquire such a capable ship, although I think they would have to work hard to solve their manning issues as well…

          Cheers CR

          • It depends, I mean the Becketts are themselves over twice the tonnage of the P20 class they replaced. When the MRV project started so long ago it was the Absalon class that was envisioned for example. The major restrain is the width which is limited by the existing dock infrastructure. Put another way the Navy has finally got funding to start a 120m berth at the base. Given he midlife refit of the P50s has discovered they are wearing out quicker than planned, if I had my way Iā€™d go with 3 of the Crossovers but that isnā€™t likely sadly.

            The manpower issue drags on of course with the engineering/trade area continuing to be raided by the private sector. Thereā€™s been recent battles between DOD and DPER over funding and Coveney has been replaced as Minister so who knows? That being said itā€™s not like we are unique in that issue, just read an article on the RNZN having a third of their ships laid up from manpower issues as well.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here