My brother in law used to work for Rolls Royce and part of his job was doing ultra-sound, etc. testing on parts after someone else stripped them down - there was a whole massive process with in-depth fatigue testing, etc. before anything would get remotely close to being reused. I don't know the ins and outs of it but I believe they handle a lot of that stuff for the military now rather than the military having the same scale of engineering sections - though obviously they maintain some of that ability.
No one talking about the "attack" on the RAF refueling aircraft?
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
My brother in law used to work for Rolls Royce and part of his job was doing ultra-sound, etc. testing on parts after someone else stripped them down - there was a whole massive process with in-depth fatigue testing, etc. before anything would get remotely close to being reused. I don't know the ins and outs of it but I believe they handle a lot of that stuff for the military now rather than the military having the same scale of engineering sections - though obviously they maintain some of that ability.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,799
- Location
- Cheltenham
RR will have determined what level of component can be replaced at first line, and the manuals will reflect that. At a certain point it becomes quicker to simply replace the engine and return the aircraft to service - operational output is priority one and there’ll be contractual obligations to meet.
Some testing is still done by us - we have non-destructive testing teams who can do ultrasonics and dye penetrant for example, and us normal technicians can do oil sampling from filters. Any concerns can then have samples sent for analysis by specialists to determine the exact metal involved and locations it’s used in the engine/gearbox.
Completely irrelevant but still interesting, at my work one of our client's clients is RR, and they frequently do DNA sampling on remnants on bird strikes. The recent one where an engine ingested a whole flock of birds was a notable one, RR sent some of the fan blades to our client to find out what birds they were, and they were able to determine the bids' breed, age, sex and how many there were. Not bad for a £25m machine
Last edited:
I imagine the years they're likely to spend in jail is more of a problem. They'd deal with damages by declaring bankruptcy anyway.
Sure but that's also crippling. No more leased Cupras or mortgages. Then as soon as they get any money, it will start being taken to pay for the damage.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,347
getting some paint on an engine is quite a mild way of putting almost writing off a £10million + jet engine. it's not like accidentally splashing a bit of white paint on next doors car whilst painting the outside window sills!
the fact they also physically tried to damage the engine as well rules out it being accidental serious damage with an aim of just painting it.
that said..... terrorism.... not sure where I stand on that!. IMO you need to be very careful bringing out the big guns in case you dilute their meaning
Last edited:
Do the guards actually have loaded weapons ?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,799
- Location
- Cheltenham
Yes. Rules of Engagement are incredibly strict though.
Lee Clegg - fired four shots in the space of a few seconds at presumed terrorists running a checkpoint in Belfast (who turned out to be rather stupid joyriders), 3 shots were deemed legal and the 4th illegal, which landed him in jail for 5 years (exonerated later though).
That would give anyone on guard duty a pause for thought.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,799
- Location
- Cheltenham
Indeed - immediate threat to life is the only reason for firing, and it’s usually a split second decision.
Britain really is blessed when it comes to gun control even in these military situations. I never knew it was so strict, go some degree sure, but I feel like the military should have more ability to act without fear of persecution.
Breaking and entering a military base should warrant a bullet wound.
I do think it's all falling a bit far behind the times though, an unarmed police force is still such a novelty. (But seeing how bad some are maybe that's a good thing)
I'd hate it to look like the USA where multiple officers mag dump you if they feel like your being hostile enough.
I've been living here with armed police and armed military police all around me for ten years now. It does feel like there's a lot less f around and find out crime. Though it still happens, i don't live in the lost south of Sweden, it's still ok here.
Breaking and entering a military base should warrant a bullet wound.
I do think it's all falling a bit far behind the times though, an unarmed police force is still such a novelty. (But seeing how bad some are maybe that's a good thing)
I'd hate it to look like the USA where multiple officers mag dump you if they feel like your being hostile enough.
I've been living here with armed police and armed military police all around me for ten years now. It does feel like there's a lot less f around and find out crime. Though it still happens, i don't live in the lost south of Sweden, it's still ok here.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,799
- Location
- Cheltenham
As a member of the military, even though you are authorised and trained to carry firearms, you have no more inherent right to self defence than a civilian.
Military law applies on bases though. They probably could have fired at them as they don't know what their intentions are. The guards are there to protect the base even if it means using legal force. But it looks like they caught these guys after the damage was done.
A guy was shot at breaking in to a US base in the UK less than 10 years ago (by the American troops there, so they missed obviously).
A guy was shot at breaking in to a US base in the UK less than 10 years ago (by the American troops there, so they missed obviously).
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,799
- Location
- Cheltenham
No. The rules of engagement are that lethal force is only to be used when there is an imminent threat to life.
That’s it.
If you see someone with a gun, you cannot just open fire. If that person takes aim at someone, then you can.
“I didn’t know what he was doing with the fire extinguisher, so I killed him” is murder and will get you life in prison.
I don't mean to "pick it apart" but there are quite a few bits that just aren't really true:
Are you sure about that? To civilians?
No they couldn't have, the rules of engagement are extremely clear. Threat of damage to assets or lack of understanding of intentions is not enough, it needs to be an imminent threat to life and there needs to be no other way to prevent it. If they were suspected to be committing/about to commit an act that could threaten human life and there was no other way to stop it then, yes. Whether this is rule is flawed is another discussion.
Yes, but using lethal force on someone simply intruding and damaging assets wouldn't have been legal force.
They didn't catch them at all!
Their rules of engagement might well be different, but the UK armed forces would have needed to have reason to believe that they were committing or about to commit, oh you get it by now
I don't mean to "pick it apart" but there are quite a few bits that just aren't really true:
Are you sure about that? To civilians?
No they couldn't have, the rules of engagement are extremely clear. Threat of damage to assets or lack of understanding of intentions is not enough, it needs to be an imminent threat to life and there needs to be no other way to prevent it. If they were suspected to be committing/about to commit an act that could threaten human life and there was no other way to stop it then, yes. Whether this is rule is flawed is another discussion.
Yes, but using lethal force on someone simply intruding and damaging assets wouldn't have been legal force.
They didn't catch them at all!
Their rules of engagement might well be different, but the UK armed forces would have needed to have reason to believe that they were committing or about to commit, oh you get it by now
Beat me to it
Was typing away and saw the "There are new posts whilst you've been typing" notification.Glad I checked
As it should be.
You also need to issue a challenge before firing unless it is unsafe to life to do so. When on guard or whenever you are armed you have to carry a JSP 385 card which is the rules of engagement. It tells you when you can shoot someone….lol
When I was on guard it was a full magazine of 30 rounds. More chance of it actually working if the magazine is full.
I issued a challenge once on guard to someone unknown walking through the gate. Did not do much and the RAF police came and sorted it out.
When I was on guard it was a full magazine of 30 rounds. More chance of it actually working if the magazine is full.
I issued a challenge once on guard to someone unknown walking through the gate. Did not do much and the RAF police came and sorted it out.
Last edited: