Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Bits keep faling off
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
I watched the Channel 5 programe Sailor last week. Lusty staright out of a multi million pound refit sufered major defects. The press made a big thing over her age. (She is about 25 years old) The U S expect to get at least 50 years work out of a major asset such as a carrier. Add to this, the remarks about the Nimrods not being fit for service while U S Aircraft such as the B 52s are ecxpected to be in service almost 100 years after their first flight, I have to ask is it down to the way we service our stuff. You would expect after a major refit, the ship would be treated as new and under go trials. You would also expect after such things as a prop shaft problem, somebodies head (At the yard)would roll. So, are we only doing Make do and mend? Do we need to look at out whole refit rebuild programes for the safety of the people we expect to put their lives on the line. One newspaper suggested that a number of people have refused to fly in the Nimrods and The A W A Cs suffered bits falling off a few months back
-
Message 2
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Tuesday, 27th May 2008
I think there are a couple of points to consider.
Firstly that the US is infinitley richer than the UK and has more available platforms at its disposal,whereas the RN had three small carriers to undertake it various roles,being a super power they also have the cash to properly refit their carriers to a high standard and carry out full refits as opposed to the "make and mend" philosophy of the M.O.D.This is not a new school of thought but one I would argue that the RN has had to use since 1945.I would argue that this was the reason that you see the likes of HMS Victorious being refitted ( at great cost as it turned out ),ignoring the old adage that "reconstruction never pays".Other exampes would include the "Tiger" class helicopter conversions and the refit of HMS Ark Royal (iv)instead of the HMS Eagle (although this was as much political as a finacial descison)
The other argument I would put foward is that the "Invincible" class ended up taking on a role they were never really intended on when designed.The initial design was for an ASW warship to compliment the CVA-01/02,when these two vessels were cancelled they became the focal point of the RN airbourne precence at sea.That doesnt excuse gearing failures or problems with props (ironically Im pretty sure that that HMS Invincible suffered a major breakdown on the way down to the Falklands)and yes Grumpy it probably comes down money.
As for the Nimrod? Same problem,cash and a protracted development of a replacement.
I dont think its anything new,the RAF used the Shackleton for may years ( an aircraft descibed as 4 engines and 30000 rivets flying in close formation !) before a replacement was found.
Going back to the RN, if you get the chance to read "The Rise And Fall Of British Seapower" by Paul Kennedy,do so as it maps the RN's fortunes very neatly to the economic success of the UK as a whole.
Vf -
Message 3
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Virtual...
So it's all about money ? - Nothing to do with the old "British Leyland " syndrome where cars made on Monday and Fridays were suspect with bits falling off here and there - how many British cars are made to-day -Riley - Armstrong - Austin - Morris - Wolesley - Rover - Jaguar etc in Britain that is ?
Is this syndrome also embedded in the armed services with landings on the wrong beaches - bumping into Australian Islands - captured sailors by terrorists - and now hitting rocks in the Red Sea where the RN has been sailing for many years ? How do they get the submarine back to port - that question never arose in the past !
From this distance I see too many British craftsmen retiring to foreign parts and leaving the engineering and maintenance to others not quite as well trained, including bridge builders et al.
Made a journey from Edinburgh to London three years ago by rail - after a supposedly "Luxury" coach ride from London to Edinburgh - both were disasters - I could only shake my head and wonder why the Brits continue to put up with this high priced nonsense !
I think there might be a few more points to consider rather than the US has all the money in the world although they have always tended to over ice the cake ! Some of their cars are also recalled now and again ! -
Message 4
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
I am not sure that any other navy is very different from the Royal Navy when it comes to refits and retirement of warships.
Just look at the number of US Navy warships that have been sold off or laid up recently. All the Spruance class are gone, as well as the four Kid class.
Ticonderoga and some of her sisters have already been retired and they cost more each than Illustrious and yet are much newer.
As the number of ships in each navy declines the effects of faults are magnified and appear to be so much more influential on deployments. But again this is no different in any other navy.
Australia has had huge problems with their very limited number of ships with each administration blaming the other for bad choices.
France has faced huge internal disagreements and accusations over its sole aircraft carrier, in fact they have even referred to is as half a carrier because only half of it works!
The Royal Navy is luckier than most navies in having more than one carrier in operation and even luckier if they do get two new large carriers. As it stands at the moment the Royal Navy has some very new and very good warships, certainly a lot better than most other nations. -
Message 5
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
To be fair, the world's first jet bomber the Canberra entered service in 1949 and is still going strong.
-
Message 6
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
"So it's all about money ? - Nothing to do with the old "British Leyland " syndrome where cars made on Monday and Fridays were suspect with bits falling off here and there - how many British cars are made to-day -Riley - Armstrong - Austin - Morris - Wolesley - Rover - Jaguar etc in Britain that is ?"
Though its on a slightly different tack,the reason you have such a failure as "British Leyland was Harold Wilson's insistance on "consolidating" BMC (Austin and its various brands you mention) and Leyland/Triumph.BMC was in deep,deep trouble.Its management was poor,they had under costed their products, (example:every Mini made was sold at a loss)the products themselves were under developed,Issigonis had the philosophy of "let the public test them" and a work force that had become militant.Leyland,the smaller company actually wasnt doing to badly thank you very much,but such was the insistance on the part of Wilson and Tony Benn,the two ended up as one company.
Except it was one company with 2 models in every catergory and no economy of scale.Government assistance had been given on the proviso that new factories were built in areas not associated with car construction and miles away from the companies "home".They did exactly the same to the "Rootes Group" when they wished to build a new factory.They could have it,but not in Ryton,Coventry (home) but in Linwood,Scotland.
Leyland was eventually crippled by 1973 and nationalised in 1974/5,the striking workforce gave the coup de gras in the years 1975 to 1978. Michael Edwards arrived and conslidated the company (or more to the point,retreated)back to Longbridge and Cowley.Whilst the company made it to the 80's it was in terminal decline,it did not have the capacity to be a big player,but was too big and expensive to be run as a small capacity manufacturer.Its collapse was unfortunatly inevitable.
Thats why the UK has no large scale car industry.
As for the post war RN?
Well I would point out that of the post WW2 carriers the RN operated,with the exception of the "Invincibles" all had been laid down or proposed during the war years.Ark Royal and Eagle were initially projected "Audacious" class,the "Centaurs" were the 1943 "Polyphemus" class,the Victorious was an "Illustrious" class vessel completed in 1941,the Collosus class designed and completed 1945.The Government of the time would not sanction the new design of warships as they were chronically short of cash,the RN would have to do with what it had got,a number of uncompleted vessels(mentioned above) that could be completed to post war specification. If you read "Send her Victorious" the problem with this becomes clear,you cannot fit "new wine into old bottles" you have to compremise in order to get the the refit to work,and it only takes a small amount of further advancement to make the ship obscelecent or unviable (which is what happened incidently to the carriers- the aircraft got bigger and more complex )The other problem was that the ships may have been completed in say 1954 but the keel and structure were 10years older.
So why go along with refit rather than new construction?Because the Governments at the time thought they would save cash,and lets be honest Britain wasnt exactly flush with cash at the time.The UK wanted to maintain a "presence" and they wanted to do it on the cheap.
And yet this is nothing new.In 1906 Britain launched HMS Dreadnought,the largest,fastest,heavily armed ship in the world.She then went on to build 7 more in quick succession,then another 6,then the battlecruisers then another 8,then another 5 plus some more battlecruisers.And how were they able to do this/ because the UK was rich at the time!!!Roll onto 1937(economy weak),when rearmament is underway we can only commence the 5 KGV's a compremised design,but the best we could do at the time.It took till late 1942 to get all those ships completed,5 years.HMS Dreadnought took less than a year,HMS Renown and Repulse 18 months,in wartime conditions.
The US post war was the richest,brightest economy on the planet,they had the economy and infastructure to build exactly the vessels they want when they want.For that reason they completed the first nuclear submarine,the first nuclear carrier and the first nuclear cruiser.The reason that the US had such "greats" as the USS Enterprise,Nimitz,Kitty Hawk,Forrstal,Saratoga,JFK,America,Ranger,Constellation,Independence was because the were the richest country on the planet.The large numbers meant that they would still have enough carriers at sea at any one time to have a couple of them in refit.And because the are flush they do not have to compremise on the refits themselves,unlike the RN,which due to the government finances of the time did have to "make a mend"Example? HMS Tiger being nicknamed HMS "Liger" due to the number of spares "appropriated" from her sistership HMS Lion,crewmen taking guard chains off the (just decommsioned) HMS Victorious to fence off the lift well for HMS Hermes!to name just two!
Post war british governments finished of the british aircaft industry by almagamation in the same way that the did the car industry.
So I would say that the policies of the government of the time dicate the vessels of the RN,the aircraft of the RAF and the equipment of the army.And Goverment policy is inavriably governed by the finances of the government of the time.
As for the incidence of the HMS Superb running aground in the Red Sea?Nothing new, HMS Montagu ran aground off Lundy in 1906,HMS Cochrane in 1917 in the Mersey,HMS Effingham in 1942,HMS Indomitable in 1941 in the West Indies,it happens unfortunatly
Vf -
Message 7
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Evening Englishvote
Good post
Hope life is treating you well
Vf -
Message 8
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Also being fair - the Comet - the worlds first passenger jet aircraft was still flying mail from Bournemouth - London - Liverpool - Newcastle - Norway and back on a daily basis until a few years ago as is the Canberra -
But that was then - do we still have the expertise provided the money is there ? Do we have the Designers - Craftsmen - the Industrial giants who made all these things possible ?
Or do we have too many "Nimrod's" -
Message 9
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
If anybody is interested an intersting artile about the Nimrod AEW 3.
You would laugh if it hadnt cost so much....
enjoy
vf -
Message 10
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Virtual .....
That Nimrod article ... frightening !....ubfortunately - typical ! -
Message 11
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Hi Vf, life’s good thanks but a bit more spare time to spend on these boards would be nice.
Britain post war has obviously had to cut back on military spending and unfortunately has been severely let down by poor political decisions regarding business as well as arm procurement.
Of course Britain could have invested much more in our armed services in the post war period, but instead governments have chosen to build a welfare state, so it was not so much a lack of cash as a different set of priorities.
I do agree that it has mostly been political interference that has handicapped development and led to huge sums being wasted needlessly.
But again I would say that the same could be said for many countries, even the USA has wasted vast sums on weapon systems that never really worked. The DASH programme for anti submarine warfare for the US navy was an enormous waste of time and money.
Cutting edge technology does not always work and you don’t get cutting edge technology by playing it safe and buying off the shelf. For every TRS2 there has been a Canberra or a Hunter, for every Nimrod AEW there has been a Hawk or a Harrier.
If we refused to allow people to take risks and risk failing then we would not have seen the successes either. -
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
T S R 2 was one of Britians best. But it got out of hand with constant interference from government, and back stabbing from Mountbatten. The problem as I see it it two fold. Government contracts are a laugh. If a private company tenders for a private job. What they quote is\almost set in stone. With H M G contracts, that seems to be the price they think of at the time. (Look at London 2012) Then we have governments who want to play on the world stage without coughing up. Its like a Second Div.team wanting to play in the premier league, but not willing to commit to the costs. Meanwhile, its our boys and girls in uniform that have to pay the price.
-
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
GrumpyFred
Im sure you are already aware of this site,but for those who are not....
Truly excellent site,discusses TSR2 and pretty much every post war jet aircraft operated by Britain.
Vf -
Message 14
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Fred,
I well remember when we needed a new tank engine the government went for a Multi fuel engine designed by boffins. They gave the drawings to BL who's engineers fell about laughing and offered a well tried and tested truck engine at half the price.
A big no from HMG then years of frustrated work to produce an engine that was useless.
We could do nothing in situ as with the old tank engines. We could hide them out of site but when they started up in the morning the clouds of smoke could be seen in Moscow. They ran very few hours then had to be lifted for a full overhaul.
The Germans fitted a down rated truck engine and beat us out of sight.
I remember the first Russian tank I saw it was as basic as they come but solid and reliable, they could make six to one of ours?
When HMG wanted a new set of vehicles instead of painting a standard truck Khaki and fitting a canopy they needed the trucks cost in extras, hooks racks and fitments which I never saw used but there just in case???
If they left the refitting of the ships to people who know they would get ships fit for purpose and without all the things some boffin thinks they may need at some time in the future.
The less the government interfere the better units the forces will get.
I can only speak from my own experience but that is exactly what my service was, an experience?
Frank. -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Thu, 29 May 2008 11:41 GMT, in reply to JB in message 5
the world's first jet bomber the Canberra entered service in 1949Ìý
Um... no. The world's first jet bomber was the Arado Ar 234 'Blitz', which entered service with the Luftwaffe in 1944. -
Message 16
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Hi all,
looking at bits of MOD kit falling apart over the past few years take a look at the SA80 rifle! introduced to replace the SLR in the eighties it was quite a suspect product at a high price. It took the MOD until 2002 to get the A2 version which actually works without falling apart or jamming if a little sand gets into it.
As for the rest of this matter, read the following book by a former officer:
Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military by Lewis Page
Raybans13 -
Message 17
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
I don’t want to sound as if I am defending the incompetent idiots at the Ministry of defence, but as I said before it is not a lot different in most other countries, civil servants are pretty useless everywhere.
Unfortunately politicians make war and soldiers fight them, if the politicians had to do the fighting the equipment would be a lot better with no expense spared.
I remember the first Russian tank I saw it was as basic as they come but solid and reliable, they could make six to one of ours?
Ìý
Yes but when it came to a stand up fight between cheap Soviet built tanks and expensive British Challenger’s the T72’s and T62’s proved to be worse than useless and just steel coffins for their crews.
The same can be said for many other things, Royal navy warships are as good as anybody else’s, granted the Royal Navy would not last 5 minutes against the US navy but nor would any other Navy.
The Royal air force has some of the best equipment in the world, but nowhere near enough to fight wars all over the globe.
On the whole British military equipment is better than most, I agree it could be better and certainly cheaper, but show one country where the military get everything they want on time and on budget? -
Message 18
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
English,
I hear what you say and would agree the forces get good equiptment but it always takes time.
The SLR came to us as the Belgium FN for testing, it was a great weapon then they took it away and we got the A1 L1.
The New SLR had no rapid fire facility as the FN had, just single shot or repeat firing, not the same if you need to put a short burst in to keep heads down.
A Tank unit needs at least 75% of its units working, at one time they were lucky to have 40%, as the heading says "bits fell off" and usually the most technical bits. It is no good beating every other tank in Nato to the fight when your gun stabaliser has been knocked out in the rush.
We had to go to an Infantry unit because their transport was out of action. 30 brand new trucks all with cylinder head gaskets gone lined up on a field. As it happened I had just come off a course at Bordon and knew straight away what the problem was.
They were torqued down as new then ran 500 miles and had to be torqued down again to the working level. The instruction EMER's had not got to the unit doing the maintenance. Stupid but units unable to operate are no good what ever kit they get.
You will have noticed the UN forces take a lot of their vehicles straight from civvy street, no extras apart from a gun rack and a lot cheaper than special orders.
You obviously cannot get armour ships or planes that way but simplification would speed things up and make them more available.
All this is just my own musings and experience, given the choice I would prefer something that worked rather than all the bells and whistles only bto find it did not work.
Frank. -
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Who remembers the Austin Champ? built as an army option to the Land Rover, but requiring servicing by a qualified engineer because of its engine.
-
Message 20
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Fred, Nearly killed myself in one proving it could go backwards as fast as forward. I was young and daft and would have been OK if it had been a straight road. It did not help I had been driving Jeeps, a wonderful desert vehicle and so easy to maintain.
Frank. -
Message 21
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Frank
Ive got to ask,how fast did you end up going and how the hell did you not end up upside down or in a ditch?
Vf -
Message 22
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
I always thought that compared to the Landrover, the Champs centre of balance was wrong. Driven the L R at some strange angles.
-
Message 23
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Virual,
No idea? I was too busy staying upright and my passenger was screaming.
They were too top heavy when loaded with weapons and ammunition.
Anyone with any sense dismounted the weapons and dived out when fired on, you were too big a target stood up on the thing.
Luckily we got issued with Rovers and that saved a few lives I think.
Frank. -
Message 24
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
Frank,what made them so complicated? was it the gearbox or the engine or the design as a whole?Wasn't the "Champ" fitted with the B40 Rolls Royce engine,which was later fitted to the Vanden Plas 4L? Ive heard that when Austin used for themselves they had all sorts of problems with it (if its the same engine).
VF -
Message 25
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Friday, 30th May 2008
Virtual,
We were REME, we never found them complicated. They were very modern in that they had Rack and Pinion steering, all vehicles have them now.
Reverse gear was in the rear axle transfer box which gave them the five forward and five reverse gears. The reverse gear also acted as the PTO lever (power take off) for the winch.
They had pressurised cooling system, again unheard of then and they would wade up to three feet without having to be waterproofed.
That meant everything in the engine pit had to be sealed and that made things awkward for driver mechanics as they were called then, who were expected to do normal daily maintenance.
Most had a Rolls Royce B40 though some had the Austen A90 and very few a Humber engine I cannot remember which one as there were not many of them.
They first ones were Jeep shaped but never went into production to my knowledge then they took on a Land Rover Shape and if my memory is correct were called Mudlarks.
In 1951 we got the bull nosed types and they went into mass production from then.
They were supposed to pull a half ton trailer but we often lost them over heavy ground so REME came up with a mod, we lashed them to the hook, chewing gum did not work.
I did hear but cannot prove it, there were so many serious accidents with them they were phased out for the Rover, we got Rover very early on and I for one was glad of it, a much better vehicle to work on and drive.
Frank. -
Message 26
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 30th May 2008
Frank,no offence was meant!
I can remember reading an article in a classic car magazine which had a quote along the lines of:
"When the Austin Champ was superceded by the Land Rover,the REME undertook a collective sigh of relief"
It also went on to say that the "Champ" was more "mantainence intensive" than the Land Rover or Jeep.Is that true?
regards
Vf -
Message 27
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Friday, 30th May 2008
Virtual,
I never take offence, we have erudite discussions on subjects that interest us and I am always willing to learn.
As with all things there are people who can and some who cannot. I did hear that if the Germans captured a REME workshop they just burnt all the EMER's and let the lads go.
EMER's are Electrical Mechanical Engineering Regulations and contain all the relevent information on every piece of kit the army have from weapons to toilets. So without them some people would be less than useless.
Of course they were not properly used and one workshop I went to I spent six weeks bringing the EMER library up to date. It was normnally a clerks job, some had no idea what they were looking at so you would find the changes to Comet tank track pins in the EMER for gas cooker kitchen for the use of.
The collective sigh of relief you quote would turn to a groan of dispair when we started to work on the Multi Fuel Engine, that was a monster of classic proportions.
Many army vehicles were classed maintenance intensive but proved to be able to run well past their schedule. It was some boffin laying down rules as to what machinery will do and not what it could actually do, it happens in all walks of life.
The Rover was almost bomb proof, it took some breaking apart from ignition problems. We all carried spare distributers and a quick change over usually cleared up the fault.
The best one was with Saladin and Saracen, they had wilson automatic gear boxes with belt change and self adjusting nuts.
They did not have a clutch just a change lever, foot operated. The drivers would come in with the Clutch has gone sir, "OK leave it on the park and come back this afternoon". They would look at us as if we were daft as they could see a couple of days easy time while we changed the clutch.
I would shout a VM and say give it 25, he would climb in start it up kick down hard on the change lever (Clutch) and it would harden up the self adjusting bolts giving all the gears back, job done.
Those lads thought we were super engineers, we could change a clutch in a couple of hours. It did not matter how many times you told them, they still did not kick down hard enough.
It kept us in work which is what life is about.
Frank. -
Message 28
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
The MOD have done it again. Brand new helicopters standing doing nothing for years because the MOD would not take them off the shelf but wanted changes.
As is normal their changes do not work, cause us to pay out millions of pounds (us tax payers I mean) and the troops are crying out for them.
When if ever will they learn and why do they think they know better than the engineers who design these things.
The sooner we get rid of those people the better for the forces and certainly cheaper for us tax payers.
Frank. -
Message 29
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
Hi Frank,
Sometimes I get the impresson that the army should be run by the soldiers themselves who know what they need unlike the desk jokeys in Whitehall who decide everything and more often than not make the wrong call.
Raybans13 -
Message 30
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
If some of our Lords and Masters had their way, the Army would still be using the Brown Bess to save money. Three shots a minute is cheaper than full mags.
G F -
Message 31
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
Hi Grumpy.
Not always a good idea to let the army decide what it wants. The SA80 came out of an army design program and look what a bag of knackers that was! -
Message 32
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
Hi Raybans13
The army are the best in the world at improvising, give them s### and they will turn it into gold or more likely a square meal.
When we had visiting big wigs they always headed for the REME ARV's they knew we were organised.
A quickly produced sizzling bacon sandwich oozing tomato or brown sauce cooked up on our own stolen large toaster fired up by the stolen generator bolted to the back of the ARV.
It also ran the fridge full of good German Beer our heating lighting and TV, probably pinched from some Oficers mess.
Soldiers if asked usually have the answer. We loved the SLR and even the Stirling was not a bad weapon but there is always need for change. I was glad I was long gone before the SA80 arrived.
If you left it to soldiers they would probably come up with a Square ring, Boxing gloves and a milling competition to settle war like disagreements.
It would not please the Polititions, there might come a time we did not need them? Now there is a thought!
Frank. -
Message 33
Posted by JB (U11805502) on Thursday, 5th June 2008
Plenty of stories about the 1991 Gulf War, when US Forces were appalled by their MRE's (Meals Ready-to-Eat, or Meals Rejected by Ethiopians.)
The GI's caught an inviting smell on the desert wind, and followed it to British Army field kitchens, where they were invited in like brothers and sat down contentedly tucking in whilst all around them, squaddie boys were slipping away with their kit.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.