Concrete barges

Whilst walking the final stretch of the London Loop path near Coldharbour Point, I came across 16 concrete boats wallowing in the mud. Some had their bows pointing towards shore, as if trying to clamber onto dry land, whilst others lay marooned at random angles. Lengths of rusty reinforcing bar showed through gaps where the concrete had decayed.

When I got home, I decided to research them. These boats were built in the early 1940s to cope with the increased wartime need for vessels. They are technically called ferro-cement barges - the advantage of concrete being that less steel was required in their construction, at a time when steel was scarce. The barges were also not expected to last long, whereas a ship might be designed to serve for decades. Each weighs about 200 tons, and were constructed at the London Docks before being craned into the water. These particular ones were built for handling and transporting petrol.

It is rumoured that barges of this sort were used in the D-Day landings and Mulberry Harbours, perhaps as parts of the floating roadway. Whether these particular vessels were used or not, they were dumped on the riverside after the 1953 floods to act as coastal protection, and have lain there ever since.

Or have they? They seem in a slightly odd arrangement and location for that to be the case, at least to my inexpert eyes. Were they used, and then moved to be dumped at their current location once the defences had been repaired?

They appear to be in surprisingly good condition given they were built around 75 years ago, and have been abandoned for over 65. Whereas wooden vessels soon disintegrate except where they are buried in sand, and metal rusts to nothing, some of these concrete boats appear as though they could be refloated and used - although that is almost certainly a false appearance.

The concretebarge.co.uk website has details on how similar vessels were made (although I believe not these particular ones) - including an interview with the designer! It's interesting to see Gunite was used - an early version of the shotcrete used in civil engineering nowadays.

At times the Second World War can seem rather distant. It is therefore good to see some concrete reminders of the war - even if it is in a rather bleak, industrial and wind-blown spot on the Thames Estuary.

North Korea

With the situation in Korea sadly warming up, I found this excellent graphic in NationalPost that details North Korea's military equipment.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/graphic-north-koreas-conventional-arms/

Whilst much of the equipment is old and out of date compared to the latest and greatest western models, the quantity will have a quality of its own.

There is also another graphic, detailing the probable capabilities of their missile systems.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/graphic-dprk-intentions/

Goodness knows where this is going. Hopefully North Korea are only sabre rattling. But if they are not, world geopolitics is going to become very complex, very quickly.

The risks of technology

A couple of weeks ago the US announced that they had lost contact with one of their exceptionally high-tech and modern RQ-170 Sentinel drones. Later the Iranians said that an electronic warfare unit had captured the drone.

The Iranians later showed detailed video of what appears to be an RQ-170. It seemed remarkably intact - although the underside and undercarriage could not be seen, the top seemed nowhere near as damaged as would be expected from a shoot-down or even a crash landing. However the video and pictures are far clearer than would be expected if they were trying to fake the images.

Naturally, some people have been in denial about this. One theory has it that the Iranians had a mock-up ready made, and when the US lost contact with their drone the Iranians used the mock-up to pretend they had captured it. Whilst it is likely that nations may construct mock-ups of aggressor craft - for identification training if nothing else - it would be an embarrassing strategy if the real wreckage was discovered.

Another is that a rogue Iranian agent in the US military had deliberately crashed the plane within Iran. This seems rather unrealistic.

Today it is alleged that the Iranians forced the craft to land. The control protocols for the aircraft are certainly encrypted (although embarrassingly some of the data such as the video may not be) and I doubted that they had actually taken control of it. However today's claim does make sense, at least to an armchair (in)expert such as myself.

The drones are controlled from stations that can be anywhere in the world; for instance Britain's Predator and Reaper drones are flown from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada (*). Control signals are encrypted and sent over to the drones, presumably by satellite. If the radio signal is lost then the drones are programmed to fly automatically to a friendly base for landing, using GPS for positional information (**).

The Iranians are claiming that they jammed the 'proper' control signals coming from the US. This is important; they are not claiming to have hacked and decrypted the control signals, just to have blocked them. Without the signals, the drones would have automatically flown back to a base. This is where the Iranians got clever. It is possible to block and alter ('spoof') GPS signals; this is believed to be what is going on when GPS and SatNav users are warned that their devices will not work. The Iranians are claimed to have spoofed the drone's GPS signals so that it thought it was flying back to a friendly base.

Damage possibly occurred to the drone's underside on landing as the strip in Iran had a slightly different altitude to the base the drone believed it was landing at.

This claim is more plausible than the other alternatives. No real 'hacking' in the traditional senses was needed; instead gaping holes in the security logic were exploited. As much as I dislike the Iranian regime, the engineers must be congratulated for a very clever coup. My only question is why they have shown their hand so early; it gives the west time to understand the problems and close the exploits.

Unfortunately this will have serious implications. The obvious one - that the Americans have lost some of their top-secret military technology - might not be the most important. It it alleged that, although new, the RQ-170 does not use cutting-edge technology as they expected to lose one over enemy territory eventually, either through accident or combat. Far worse is the fact that American (and indeed western) commanders will have large doubts about the chances of their drones reaching a target in battle. And that may mean more manned aircraft are needed, and more friendly lives put at risk.

I am less bothered about the Iranian's claims that they will be able to reverse-engineer the aircraft. Although they have very capable engineers - they have allegedly been keeping some F14's in the air despite US sanctions and lack of spares - it would be a major task and money better spent on more useful platforms. It would be much more likely they would learn important lessons about how the drones work and how they can be combated. The Russians or Chinese would be in a much better position to take advantage of the aircraft.

(*) There is a valid debate to be had about how much we really control these drones. We have purchased them; would the US allow us to use them in a campaign that was against US interests? I am amazed that we have not paid to have the control stations here in the UK for a truly independent system.

(**) I would be surprised if they only used GPS for positional information, but it is possible. If so it was a major lack of foresight.

The bonefields of Volvograd

The story of the Volvograd bonefields horrifies me. I say story, because its mere existence is still debated to this day. The claims first emerged in a book called  "Aftermath: The Remnants of War", where the author claims to have visited a field near Volograd (nee Stalingrad). There, he found a vast area containing the bones of German soldiers still lying on the ground. Walter Seledec describes the horror as quoted on the quikmaneuvers website:

"There you are, standing beside an open field, and you are confronted with things you cannot believe, things you have never seen in your life, things you would not think possible in this day and age. There in the open fields, all the way to the horizon, are the skeletons of human beings, just lying there in the open fields. I dont mean a few. There are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands...Human remains lying in the fields. Human skeletons as far as the eye can see."

The many photographs that Seledec took have preserved the horror for all time. In those photographs, "...(to) the distant horizon...(the) surface is littered with the remains of human skeletons--arms, legs, pelvic bones, skulls, an occasional rib... large piles of bones...fragments, shell cases, and an undetonated projectile; a rusted machine gun; a battered metal container...Skulls...hundreds of them, thousands of them, Just lying around out there in the open fields...Skulls lie in helmets, decayed bones still stand in boots, on the spines hang the identity tags...No cross. No wreath. This unknown soldier never made it into a mass grave. Today, he lies on the steppe outside Volgograd exactly as he fell fifty years ago. His shirt and uniform buttons still lie between his ribs."

Evidence of these fields are sparse. Apparently the photographs have never come to light, and the Russians deny all knowledge. They do admit to having buried many bodies since the 1990's, but the number and scale of these burials is unknown.

What is definite is that vast numbers of German and Russian soldiers must have died in the area. The fact that such a bone field could have existed is horrifying enough, whether it existed or not. People are not debating its existence because it was impossible; after all,at Stalingrad the Germans lost an estimated 750,000 killed, missing or wounded, and the Russians 478,000 killed or missing.

Just pause to think about those numbers, of the hopes and dreams that the (mostly young) men would have had. Of the wives, sweethearts and children left behind. So much human potential wiped out. Stalin once famously said: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". It is important for everyone to ensure that a million deaths is seen as a million individual tragedies; one million grieving mothers, one million grieving sweethearts.

The vast majority of these men would have been innocent; they had no choice but to fight for one of the murderous tyrants Stalin and Hitler were different sides of the same coin, and neither side believed in the concept of the conscientious objector.

We should never forget that war, whilst sometimes necessary, is always horrific.

HMS Astute

So the Royal Navy has had a little embarrassment with their latest submarine. However, I have found the media's rather dramatic reaction to be rather overstating the case. These things happen.

After all, running aground at low speed on shingle in a friendly 'home' area is about as minor an incident as it is posisble to have. For instance, have a look at Queenfish.org for pictures of what happened when the USS San Francisco collided with a seamount at flank (i.e. full) speed in 2005. Unfortunately one sailor died, and the submarine was close to sinking. Nearly half the crew suffered injuries of one sort or another, 23 seriously enough to be evacuated from the ship. Below is a picture of the damage.

Interestingly, they replaced the entire forward section of the San Francisco with that cut off USS Honolulu, a sister ship that was scheduled to be retired. The San Francisco has recently been refuelled, and the Honolulu had not. Despite the damage, it was cheaper to fix the San Francisco than to refuel the Honolulu!

Submarines work in a hostile environment, and accidents will happen. The key is to reducing the number and their impact.

Typhoon costs

Thanks to the excellent ThinkDefence, here is a parliamentary answer to the costs of running our fixed-wing military fleet. It shows the four main aircraft types, along with how much it costs to run them per hour. It can be found near the bottom of this parliamentary answer.


The table is reproduced below:

Aircraft	Cost, financial year 2010-11 (£/hour)
Tornado GR4	35,000
Typhoon FGR4 (previously known as F2)	70,000
Harrier GR7/GR9	37,000
Tornado F3	43,000

These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build up of the fleet with smaller numbers of aircraft currently in service; this cost is expected to reduce significantly over the in-service life of the aircraft.

I have been looking for figures like these for some time. As expected, the figures are very large. The Typhoon's cost is well over double that of the Tornado GR4, but then the Typhoon is still early in its life - running costs tend to reduce as service length increases, only increasing again when the machine nears it end-of-life. However, I doubt the hourly cost will be halved. The Typhoon is an eye-wateringly capable aircraft, but it comes at an eye-wateringly high price to run.

A Wellington in a day.

There is a fascinating article on the BBC news website about how workers in 1943 manufactured an entire Wellington bomber in under 24 hours - from parts to a flying aircraft.

Such records are, of course, largely false. Much preparation of parts goes ahead before them, and the work is just a case of assembling the constituent parts into a whole. Much more famously, the US did a similar thing in the war when they assembled an entire Liberty ship - the Robert E. Peary - in under five days. In the latter case, the ship was not ready for sea after those days, and much other work needed to be done.

However, saying such things is slightly parsimonious. Both cases were extraordinary achievements in organisation and willpower. The women and men working on the Wellington should deservedly have been proud of their record.

It also exemplifies one other point: unlike Germany and America, Britain and Russia put all of its might into winning the war. mobilising all of their industrial and human resources into winning. In comparison, Germany did not mobilise all of its industry until late-on in the war - Hitler was concerned that Germans would be demoralised if they could not get their cars or new cookers.

In comparison, Britain and Russia put all their effort into winning the war. There was little done in Britain between 1939 and 1944 that was not focussed on the war. America mobilised its industry, but such was the scale of their industry that they did not have to mobilise it fully.

The article begs one question: I wonder what happened to that Wellington bomber? Did it survive the war, or did it fall victim like so many of its brethren?

BAe Taranis and the independent nuclear deterrent.

Yesterday the British aerospace company BAE released further information on their unmanned stealth aircraft, Taranis (see right). One of the aims of the project is to "explore and demonstrate how emerging technologies and systems can deliver battle-winning capabilities for the UK armed forces."
 
As such, all of the demonstrator has been built utilising only UK technology - unusual in these days of multinational, multi-billion projects. This prototype has cost £143 million to develop, but it is a long way from a production vehicle - it is purely a prototype. Yet that is remarkably cheap when compared to the billions the US has spent on their X45 experimental aircraft. (It should be noted that the aims and planned missions of the X45 and Taranis are not the same).

Many countries have developed unmanned aircraft (or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) over the years, but Taranis offers a step-up in terms of capability. For one thing, current UAVs require a base-station where they are flown from, whilst  the Taranis can fly autonomously without user input. This is an exceptionally tricky thing to achieve, and poses many technical and ethical questions. This is also one of the first stealthy UAVs, although the term 'stealth' covers a multitude of sins, and is not the battle-winner that many people suppose.


This news has got me thinking. One of the biggest problems for our coalition Government has been the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. The Liberal Democrat's manifesto said they were against a "like-for-like" replacement for the submarine-based system, which will cost many tens of billions over its thirty-year lifespan. The Conservatives, however, are vehement that the nuclear deterrent should remain.

The Liberal Democrat position is interesting. Obviously, they are not in favour of replacing Trident with submarines of similar capabilities, yet they are also not saying that they want to scrap the independent nuclear deterrent. But what could that non-like-for-like replacement be? Most commentators have suggested it could be as simple as having two submarines instead of the three we currently have (something the last Labour Government was already considering). I cannot help but wonder if there is a better alternative.

Trident's predecessor was Polaris, which itself replaced Britain's first nuclear deterrent, the V-Bomber fleet of Victor, Valiant and the infamous Vulcan. The reasons for this change were complex, but could perhaps be summed up as follows:

1. Polaris was cheaper
2. Polaris was safer (no planes flying overhead with nuclear warheads), and less risk of lost weapons (so-called broken arrows)
3. Polaris was more strategically secure; the enemy knew where the V-Bomber bases were, whilst ballistic submarines can remain hidden until needed
4. The V-Bombers had been made largely redundant by anti-aircraft systems.

The situation has changed since the Trident system was envisaged. The delivery system (the ballistic missiles and the submarines) are now far more expensive than the actual warheads.Additionally, the risks of an all-out nuclear war has receded significantly, slightly negating the third point. Stealth technology goes some way to negating the fourth point (especially when combined with cruise missiles).

The current Vanguard submarines will need replacing within the next decade, and work will need to start on that replacement soon. The Trident missiles are hired from Lockheed Martin, and the warheads themselves are now essentially American. The independent nuclear deterrent is far from independent. The British Government retired the WE.177 free-fall nuclear weapon in 1998, meaning that the nuclear deterrent could only be delivered by Trident. All our eggs are firmly in the ballistic-submarine basket.

Could Taranis' successor be used to replace Trident? This would meet both the Conservatives' and Liberal Democrats' aims: to maintain the nuclear deterrent, but not replace the submarines. I wonder if this is where this is all heading. We have time: Trident does not need to be replaced until the 2020's, giving us some breathing space to develop a successor system.

Of course, there is no obvious use for the nuclear deterrent at the moment (except for its use as a deterrent). The chances of all-out nuclear war are currently remote. Yet it is not something that you can develop easily once it is lost, and the lifespan of the systems can be over thirty years. Put simply: we have to develop a system that meets not only today's strategic requirements, but those that we will have in thirty years time. Can we guarantee that the world will be such a friendly place in 2040 or 2050?

Taranis is only a prototype, and much information is not known: maximum load, range without refuelling, speed at low and high altitude, maximum altitude, and aspects of the low-observability amongst many more. These questions will remain secret for many years; as the prototype plane has not flown then many will not be currently known.

So, what shape would the system take? I envisage a series of Taranis planes heading towards enemy territory, their stealth technology helping them evade the enemy's air defenses. Stand-off weapons such as cruise missiles could be used to penetrate further into enemy territory. Use of multiple planes and decoys could help overwhelm defences. Effective range for an attack can be doubled, as there would be no need to get the airframe back after an attack (unlike manned aircraft, although strategic air bombing of Russia was often seen as being a suicide mission - the crews knew that they were unlikely to return).

Such planes would also be multi-use; they could be nuclear-capable but also be used for attacks with conventional munitions as well. Indeed, this would probably (and hopefully) be what they are only ever used for. This would make them far more cost-effective and useful than ballistic missile submarines, which generally have only one use. The capabilities of the planes would make them useful to both the air force and the army, giving those forces buy-in to the scheme. The Navy would, of course, complain.

This is, of course, a simplistic pipe dream. Yet I wonder if the coalition's thinking lies in this direction. It would require a massive change in strategic thinking, but perhaps that is what is needed at this time. Ballistic missile submarines are fascinating, complex beasts, but I cannot help but think that they are not the best fit for a future nuclear deterrent that is more likely to be used against single rogue states than in an all-out nuclear exchange.

Who won the Second World War?

In their latest article, historytimes.com has an interesting section on who really won the Second World War. This is well worth a read, and is a question that I have been giving much though to over the last few months. This debate is also covered in a Times article from 2006.

The historytimes.com conclusion is simple:

But in the final analysis, it is perhaps undeniable that the Western Allies could not have won the war without Stalin, and the price was to be paid for millions of people long after the end of World War II.

On a basic level, I have little problem with this. The Russians spent a massive amount of blood and treasure beating the Germans into submission, and the Western Allies' attacks in North Africa, Italy, Normandy and elsewhere were, in comparison, minor troubles for the Germans. As the Figures in the Times article states, 75-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front. It was the eastern front that broke the back of the German army, not the western.

As they say in a previous posting (historytimes.com) about the battle of Kursk in 1943:

Realising that Allied Forces would not move to liberate France, Hitler had moved a large reserve from Europe to help prosecute the campaign on the Eastern Front.

This points out that Hitler saw the Russians as much more of an immediate threat.

But such thoughts are just as simple (and in my opinion wrong) as the earlier Churchillian line that Britain and the US won the war in the name of democracy, or the viewpoint of many Americans (and I have actually heard this said on more than one occasion) that 'they won the war'. Such a conclusion neglects less visible roles that the various countries played.

Before this is discussed further, a question needs to be asked: What do we actually mean by 'who won the war'? Is it the country who defied Germany for longest, the one who lost the most troops against them, or the one who conquered Berlin first? Or perhaps the one who spent the most in order to gain victory?

For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that Germany was the major axis power that needed defeating. Although Italy and Japan were also major players, the place that the war needed to be won was Europe. Japan pretty much knew that if America chose to prosecute the war after Pearl Harbour then they would lose. Their hope was that Pearl Harbour would give the US a sucker punch that would stop them from wanting to fight. Given the isolationist views of many in the US at that time, it was certainly possible. Thankfully, it turned out to be a vain hope.

Additionally, I am not taking into account the aid given by other allies on both sides - the Romanians, Italians and others for the Axis; the Canadians, Australians, Chinese and others for the Allies. Whilst these countries made valuable contributions, it was not in their power to win the war.

Firstly, I would like to discuss what would have happened if Britain had fallen (or capitulated without a fight) in 1940. The simplistic view is the that Germany would simply have had to keep less troops in France. However, there would have been many other knock-on effects, all of which could have proved vital in Germany's fight against Russia:

• Russia would not have received war materials from Britain; these played a small but significant part in the Russian effort. They may still have received some from the US, however, although this transfer may have become much more difficult with Britain out of the war.
  
• Many divisions (56?) had to be kept in France to counter a western invasion. This kept them from the Russian front. Although 56 is not much in the grand scale of things, the battle on the eastern front was on such a knife-edge that the extra German troops may well have made a significant difference. In addition, the majority of the Luftwaffe fighters and bombers sent against Britain would have been available to be used against Russia.
  
• The minds of the German military leaders would have been able to concentrate solely on the Russian threat.
  
• The US would have found it very difficult to do anything about Germany; in 1944/5 Britain essentially acted as a massive aircraft carrier and ship, allowing US troops to organise before going over to France. It is much easier to fight over 20 miles of water than 2,000. If Britain was not in the war, how would they have been able to liberate France and invade Germany?
  
• Japan would have rolled through the southern Pacific with even more ease; they would have had far less resistance in Burma, China and other places. This probably would not have stopped Japan's defeat, but it may have helped. Also, many German U-Boats have been freed up from the Atlantic to go and help the Japanese.
  

So, what would have happened if the US had not joined the war after Pearl Harbour?

• Britain would have been massively weakened. The food and war materials sent over from the US was a major factor in keeping Britain's fighting power at strength. However, that does not mean that a German invasion later than 1940 would have been attempted, or indeed have worked if it had been tried.
  
• There is a possibility that without US help Britain might have been starved into submission, as they tried (and nearly succeeded) to do in the First World War. However, the U-boats in the Atlantic would have had to be careful not to attack American ships for fear of bringing the US into the war, and that would have severely limited their operations.
  
• The Japanese would have been able to claim far more resources on the Pacific rim, improving their power.
• The weakened position of Britain and the greater power and influence of Japan would have made it much harder for them to do anything later.

What would have happened if Russia had been knocked out of the war in 1941/2?

• The Germans would have had access to many more materials, particularly oil.
• Many German troops would have been tied up trying to manage the Russian populations.
• Many of the German troops on the Eastern front would have been available to be redeployed against an invasion through France.
  
• Perhaps Japan would have tried to invade Russia.
• Britain would probably have lost control of North Africa, Gibraltar and many other outposts.
• However, Germany would still have found an invasion of Britain difficult if the US sided with Britain.
  

All of this leads me to ask and answer the following questions. Each one of these is arguable and could easily be the topic of many theses, but these are my opinions:

• Could Britain and the US have defeated Germany without Russia - no, certainly not in the short term.
• Could the US and Russia have defeated Germany if Britain capitulated in 1940 - doubtful.
• Could Russia have defeated Germany alone - no.
  
• Could Britain and Russia have defeated Germany without the US - perhaps, but Britain would have been left much weaker than it was, and all of mainland Europe would have been left under the Soviet sphere of influence.

So who won the Second World War? In my opinion, all of the Allies did. Although I do not claim to be an expert, it is my contention that it is difficult to remove any one of the three main players - Russia, the US and Britain, and still see an automatic defeat of Germany and Japan.

However, the only way you can guarantee victory is to have Britain in the game. For many awful months in 1940/1, from the fall of France to the launch of Operation Barbarossa, Britain stood alone, the only major power against Germany. It was during this period that the seeds of victory were sown. And that occurred because Britain refused to give in to immense pressure.

By that defiance, Britain did win the war.

Operation Kiebitz

Occasionally you come across a real-life story that you have never heard of before, and which would form the basis of a superb novel or book.

Last night Şencan and I watched the superb Wolfgang Petersen film, 'Das Boot', a frankly brilliant film about the experience of the submariners on board the U-96 U-Boat in the Second World War.

This film is one of the few that really seems to capture the terror of war; much more so than, say 'Saving Private Ryan', and it was rightly nominated for six Oscars. If this had been a film about American or British submariners I believe that it would be much better known; as it is, the subject matter (Germans during the war) and the need for subtitles for non-German speaking audiences probably puts many people off.

After it had finished, I went upstairs to do a little background research into the historical accuracy of the film. As is often the case, I got sidetracked into looking at other matters, and soon settled on the German U-Boats aces of the Second World War and, particularly, of Operation Kiebitz.

Having been brought up on a diet of classic war films from the British perspective - 'Ice Cold in Alex' being a particular favourite - it is sometimes hard to remember that the Germans also have a wealth of tales about their wartime exploits. Whilst the evils of the concentration camps and other horrors should not be forgotten, neither should be the fact that many Germans fought honourably, even if the cause in which they were fighting was morally repugnant.

During the Second World War, many Kriegsmarine sailors were kept in prisoner-of-war camps, some of which were in Canada. One camp, Camp 30, situated near Toronto, held several U-Boat Aces, including Otto Kretschmer, the most successful Ace of the Deep.

The Kriegsmarine decided to attempt to gain a propaganda coup by bringing the men home to Germany. The plan was set to go in September 1943; the men would escape from the camp and make their way to Chaleur Bay in New Brunswick, where they would be picked up by a U-Boat. Wikipedia claims the distance is 870 miles, whilst other sources say it was an easy three or four days walking.

The plan was sent to them in Red Cross packages, and the men started digging tunnels out of the camp. Three tunnels were started, then two were abandoned. If this sounds familiar, then it probably is. There were three tunnels in the Great Escape; Tom, Dick and Harry.

Their plan is foiled when two unfortunate incidents occur in one night; they had been piling the earth from the tunnels in the ceilings of the huts, and one of the ceilings collapses, prompting the guards to search for the tunnels. Secondly, a prisoner digging earth for flower boxes accidentally uncovers the third tunnel.

Unbeknownst to them, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were well aware of the plot. They had been alerted by a message in a Red Cross package, and knew full details of the escape. Instead of stopping it immediately, they decided to let it continue, hoping to capture, or at least sink, the U-Boat sent out to recapture the men. Unfortunately, they cannot ignore such blatant tunnelling, and the four officers were placed under firm arrest.

However, one officer Kapitänleutnant Wolfgang Heyda, decides to make his own escape. From: http://www.mnq-nmq.org/english/vivez/impacts/operation.htm

Though it uses a less scientific approach, Heyda's plan makes up for it by its audacity and recklessness. He is provided with false national registration papers as well as a false document signed by the Naval Chief-of-Staff, Admiral Percy Nelles. In addition, he is given civilian clothing, a boatswain's chair, which is a rope chair that can be attached to cables, and nails are hammered into his boots to make crampons.

After donning his civilian clothing and hiding the mate's chair beneath his clothes, Heyda hides in a hut used for sports while a dummy takes his place for the evening prisoner count. At nightfall, taking advantage of a diversion orchestrated by the other prisoners, Heyda leaves his hiding place and scales a fence pole with the help of his crampons. At the top of the fence he gets into his mate's chair, attaches himself to the ropes and vaults himself over. He manages to land on the other side without mishap and without being intercepted by the camp guards. After his escape from Bowmanville, Heyda makes his way to Bathurst, New Brunswick, on September 26, 1943. He then continues on foot until he reaches the rendezvous point of Pointe Maisonnette. En route, he is intercepted by a military patrol, but his false papers and his civilian clothing save him. At the end of the evening, he finally arrives at the rendezvous site.

Heyda was picked up by the RCMP at Pointe Masonette and returned to the camp. It had been an amazing escape attempt. The RCMP used a signal light to signal to the waiting U-Boat, U-536, hoping to lure it in towards the waiting Destroyers. The plot failed. The U-Boat captain, suspicious of noises on his hydrophones, remains submerged, and despite being depth-charged made his escape.

For more details on the plot, read the superb http://www.mnq-nmq.org/english/vivez/impacts/operation.htm

By rights, Operation Kiebitz should have been made into a film before now - it has a combination of attributes from many classic war films - the heroism of 'The Great Escape' and intelligence services plotting of 'The Man Who Never Was'. It also displays the incredible bravery of several men, most notably Wolfgang Heyda. It is an astounding story, and one that fully deserves to be more widely known.

Aircraft carrier delays.

In a feared announcement, the two new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy will be delayed, for either one or two years. Construction work is going to start, safeguarding jobs, but the tasks will be spread out over a longer period. In the meantime, the two existing Invincible-class aircraft carriers (down from three), will be kept in service to cover the gap.

Firstly, it should become clear what a big deal these ships are. Each one, at a projected 60-65,000 tons, will be larger than any ship the Royal Navy has ever sailed before. They would still be dwarfed by the gigantic 100,000 ton American Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, but are far bigger than the current 22,000-ton Invincible class aircraft carriers that the Royal Navy operates. This shows what a big investment the ships are. Or, as some people claim, what a big target they will make.

As usual for matters on the Royal Navy, the best place to get in-depth information is Richard Beedall 's excellent 'Navy Matters' website.

It would have been very hard for the Government to cancel these ships, although I get the distinct impression that they may have been tempted to. The £3.9 billion contract was only signed on the 1st of July after a wait of many years, and the initial work appeared to have consisted of the ordering of long-lead items (these are items that take a long time to be procured, such as generators, engines, and 80,000 tons of steel). Despite this, it does not look as though any steel has actually yet been cut. The Government has not exactly been in a hurry to see the project go ahead.

Part of the problem is that the Royal Navy, which styles itself as being the 'Senior Service', does not have much of a role in the ongoing and very expensive conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two operations are mostly land-based, and the Royal Navy does not have a natural fit. However, that would be a very short-sighted viewpoint. A strong navy is very important for the UK's security, and should not be run down just because there is no immediate need.

Having said this, there might be some positives to come out of this delay. The carriers will be designed to fly the American F35 plane - a successor to the British Harrier jump jet. The F35 is being built in three variants, only one of which (the F-35B Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) could fly from the carrier. Unfortunately the F35 program is being delayed, the costs are not yet set, and there is a good chance that the first of the ships would have been ready before the plane was delivered to the Royal Navy. The Government's reaction to this capability gap was unclear, but the delay could allow the planes to arrive in time for the ships (assuming that the ships themselves are not further delayed).

However, there are other ways of filling this gap, aside from delaying the ships. When they were first planned, the ships were going to be part of a fleet of three, with one being built and operated by the French. It was hoped that this would reduce costs, but recently the French delayed any decision to build the carrier until much later - 2011 or 2012. However, the French had no interest in the advanced STOVL capabilities, and wanted to fly CATOBAR planes such as the Rafale-M that they currently operate from the troubled Charles DeGaulle nuclear carrier. For this reason the ships were designed to be fitted with catapults (to launch the planes) and arrestor wires (to stop them), something the British ships would not need. It has always been said that the two British ships are being designed to be fitted with catapults and arrestors at a later date if required.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both CATOBAR and STOVL operation, in terms of capabilities, cost, performance and flexibility.

A recent BAe study is claimed to have shown that the Typhoon could be built to land on carriers without major difficulty, and would be more cost-effective. If that is indeed the case, then the Tranche-3 planes could be modified to be carrier planes, and we would not need to purchase the F-35B. It would also probably have a great deal of commonality with the RAF Eurofighters, and increase export potential to those countries that have (or wish to have ) carriers. India, in particular, is spending billions on new Russian fighter planes.

For the last couple of years there has been talk that the British Government wanted to scrap the planned procurement of the final 88 tranche-3 Eurofighter Typhoons for the RAF. However, this would have caused them to pay a hefty penalty (some say £1 billion) to the partner countries. For this reason, it is claimed that the Government are desperately looking around for someone to sell them to.

I, in my capacity as a distinct non-expert, personally favour navalising the Typhoon. The Typhoon is a very capable plane, and has been in service for a few years now, although it is constantly being improved. The F35-B, on the other hand, is late, and only prototypes have flown. The biggest reason that I favour the Typhoon however, is a bit of 'Not Invented Here' syndrome. Some parts of the F-35 are being produced in the UK as what are called 'industrial offsets'. This means that some parts of the planes - aft fuselage and empennage (vertical and horizontal tails), and some subsystems, are going to be built by BAe in the UK. However, we will not be performing the final assembly - that will be done in the US. As the cost of each F-35 increases, the value of those industrial offsets will decrease. For our own national security, we need to be able to assemble and modify the planes - we can do much more of that with the Typhoon than the F-35. There have also been some heated discussions about whether we will be able to modify the systems software to fit our weapons, or whether we would be forced to buy US-made weapons for the plane.

Already the US is trying to cancel the General Electric / Rolls-Royce F136 engine for the F-35, which would leave only the American Pratt and Witney F136 engine available. If we get the F35 with F136 engines, we will just be giving more money to the US.

If the BAe study is corect, and the Typhoon can be relatively easily navalised - then it is the way to go. The major things that will need doing are; addition of an arrestor hook; anti-corrosion measures; strengthening of the undercarriage; and addtion of flight systems to allow carrier-deck landings and take-offs. I would like to see the Government doing an open investigation of this option.

Which plane is the best-fit for the new carriers would depend on exactly what the perceived purpose of the carriers is, and the sort of conflicts that they will be asked to fight in. Eurofighters would have much more range and, perhaps, greater capability, but would lack stealth. At the end of the day, it will be a political decision. Stealth, which the Americans claim is the bee's knees, is not necesarilly as important or perfect as people make out. For one thing, it is exceptionally expensive, both in monetary and performance terms. To simplify the argument, if the role that the carriers will be fulfilling needs stealth, then go for the F-35. If it does not, go for the Typhoon.

However, I am starting to worry that there will not be any ships to fly them off. The carriers are just too easy a target for a cash-strapped Government. Already our two carriers routinely do not carry Harriers, and the crews are havng to be trained using US and Spanish Harriers.

As is the manner of this Government, the announcement was made at the same time as a visit to Yeovil in Somerset to announce the go-ahead for the 62-string fleet of the Augusta-Westland 'future Lynx Helicopter' project. Good news that they hoped would offset the bad?