New Jersey visited for the Bicentienal in 88 and Missouri for the RAN's 75th in 86. Not sure which one this photo is as both years also had RN Harrier carriers. Probably 86 because you have squadrons from both the RCN and RNZN and I don't see the Italian destroyer which I thought was pretty cool as a teenager in 88.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A graphic I saw on Facebook page of the Save the F111 guys.
Last edited:
So wheres the epic photos from the RAN 100th?
Would be epic if the US ever got a BB mobile again (for promotional purposes).. Perhaps at the USN 250th? Aren't they kept in near mothball status, a few years of restoration and they would be atleast moveable?
Would be epic if the US ever got a BB mobile again (for promotional purposes).. Perhaps at the USN 250th? Aren't they kept in near mothball status, a few years of restoration and they would be atleast moveable?
winnyfield
New Member
Bit of both.
Sydney's has had a naval presence for 200+ yrs; munitions, housing, training facilities (+ red light district) have been sorted. RAN is not big enough for it to be spread around.
Did the Royal Australian Navy ever operate the F-111?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I think a certain Squad was saying at one point that is what the RAN should have operated, instead of the Collins-class SSG, the FFG's, the FFH's...
No points awarded for failure to guess correctly on the first try.
-Cheers
No longer as all of the former Iowa class battleships have been donated and are now being used as museum ships or soon will... As I recall the Iowa is at Norfolk VA, New Jersey at Camden NJ, Missouri at Pearl Harbor, and Wisconsin at Bremerton WA... I may have the Iowa and Wisconsin backwards. The US Navy found a home for all four ships.
While they may be in good shape now, it won't be long before they will all be rust buckets sitting on the bottom like the Texas and Intrepid were... As the years and decades pass by the museum ships slowly fade away. I would prefer a dignified end as a diving wreck and reef attraction, but others disagree...
Notice the wreck of the Arizona generates more interest than the museum ships of the Texas, Alabama, and North Carolina... None of the museum ships earn their keep, not even Old Ironsides which by the way is still in commission with the US Navy...
Its one thing trying to preserve an old sailing vessel such as the Victory, Cutty Sark, and Old Ironsides, but trying to preserve too many ironclads and steel warships is folly... One or two, not several...
Oh they are moveable. Not sure which one might be in reserve fleet but i know its there. The other 3 are kept as museum ships. I figure for the price of a new CVN and Maybe a little change you could completely rebuild them and modernize them all. Nuke reactors and all.
If i remember it was thought they could take between 18-28 exocet missile hits before they went to far. Of course if they had heavu modern anti air defenses......
BUT this is a RAN thread so i am going to delurk before the moderators scream at me....i am a derailing person
Sorry my mistake. I've put it on the wrong page.
A missed opportunity?
At the bellow link you can find some good shots of JC-1 underway conducting a RAS-L with one of her escorts.
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - L-61 Juan Carlos I
Whilst a LHD will never be able to replace capability of a AO/AOR, having the ability to "Top Up" one or two escorts is a very handy capability to have . Even the training valve is worth the effort IMHO.
But our LHD's are coming without the RAS-L Rig which I believe is a missed opportunity.
At the bellow link you can find some good shots of JC-1 underway conducting a RAS-L with one of her escorts.
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - L-61 Juan Carlos I
Whilst a LHD will never be able to replace capability of a AO/AOR, having the ability to "Top Up" one or two escorts is a very handy capability to have . Even the training valve is worth the effort IMHO.
But our LHD's are coming without the RAS-L Rig which I believe is a missed opportunity.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I agree, it does seem to be a missed opportunity. Its a capability that the navy did have once upon a time, eg, a capital ship being able to top up an escort.
Have a look at the link below, Its a shot of Melbourne II refuelling Quickmatch back in the 50's:
File:Melbourne Quickmatch 301029.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was there a particular reason that Canberra and Adelaide won't have this capability?
Is it something that could be retrofitted if needed / desired in the future?
Another thing to note in the JC1 photos are a couple of shots of the hull of Canberra fitting out in the background.
EDIT:
Just some additional points to expand on this.
With a decision on Success's replacement, SEA1654/3, coming in the near future and also the fact that, despite the purchase of Choules, JP2048/4c is still in the DCP.
Is it worth considering a couple of ships like the Dutch JSS ship under construction, see link:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuiderkruis_class_JSS[/ame]
As a replacement for both Success and the eventual JP2048/4c?
Two ships of the one class that can fulfill both replenishment and also strategic sealift?
Plus possibly the two LHD's (if retrofitted with replenishment rigs) being able to replenish at sea too?
Last edited:
Aren't they ? I was not aware of this and had not read it anywhere ? Seems a very strange thing to do, is certainly a missed op and a pretty flexible thing to have.
It will be interesting to see what we do go for as far as Success replacement, I personally think a JSS style ship with the troop capability is just a waste of fuel/ammo & supply space, and certainly not needed when we have 2 LHD's, Choule's, LCH replacements coming etc.
At the same time we can't just have an oiler either, it has to support and replenish the LHD's (one possibly 2 depending on the mission) for potentially extended periods, so you would like to expect that the LHD is designed for 50 days and the ship should be able to replenish again for a further 25 each at least ? As well as supporting escorts etc
Tee_Centre_10
Member
The issue I would have with the Dutch-style JSS is a smallish fuel capacity. In Dutch service (as tankers) they are really just to act as a support vessel to a couple of deployed frigates, and not fleet tankers. It would mean that a RAN JSS would have difficulty acting as a tanker for a task force or persist for high endurance missions. It may suit the needs of the Dutch, but I would have thought it is a bit weak as a tanker given the riches of amphibious lift the RAN will soon have. I think this is an excellent example of two dedicated vessels being better than combining the roles.
IMO, in addition to a greater stores capacity over the Success, you would hope its replacement should have at least two helicopters. Space for one or two more would be better, even if it (they?) only carry two.
As for the images attached to my previous post, it is from the RAN's 75th Anniversary in 1986.
In case anyone is wondering, looking at my larger files the colour image contains:
Back to front: USS Missouri (BB-63),
HMAS Adelaide (FFG-01) and a RN Type 42 destroyer (from the longer bow, I assume a Batch 3),
HMCS Qu'Appelle (DDE-254) and two of her Mackenzie-class sisters, and (from the darker RAN gray) either Swan or Torrens on the inside,
HMNZS Canterbury (F-421) , I assume HMNZS Southland (F-104) but cannot be certain, and HMAS Parramatta (DE-46).
On the b&w photo taken just a few minutes later, front to rear:
Three rows as above,
Two OHP-class FFGs (Aust or US?),
Two Spruance-class DDGs,
USS Missouri (BB-63) again (oddly, there isn't anything tied up further down)
Left of the finger wharf an Invincible-class carrier,
Right of the finger wharf a Blue Ridge-class command ship,
To the right of the LCC there is a gray splodge with a black painted mast that looks vaguely like a CFA-class DDG, and in front of the LCC there is something tied up that could either be another DDG or indeed anything at all painted gray with a black top.
IMO, in addition to a greater stores capacity over the Success, you would hope its replacement should have at least two helicopters. Space for one or two more would be better, even if it (they?) only carry two.
As for the images attached to my previous post, it is from the RAN's 75th Anniversary in 1986.
In case anyone is wondering, looking at my larger files the colour image contains:
Back to front: USS Missouri (BB-63),
HMAS Adelaide (FFG-01) and a RN Type 42 destroyer (from the longer bow, I assume a Batch 3),
HMCS Qu'Appelle (DDE-254) and two of her Mackenzie-class sisters, and (from the darker RAN gray) either Swan or Torrens on the inside,
HMNZS Canterbury (F-421) , I assume HMNZS Southland (F-104) but cannot be certain, and HMAS Parramatta (DE-46).
On the b&w photo taken just a few minutes later, front to rear:
Three rows as above,
Two OHP-class FFGs (Aust or US?),
Two Spruance-class DDGs,
USS Missouri (BB-63) again (oddly, there isn't anything tied up further down)
Left of the finger wharf an Invincible-class carrier,
Right of the finger wharf a Blue Ridge-class command ship,
To the right of the LCC there is a gray splodge with a black painted mast that looks vaguely like a CFA-class DDG, and in front of the LCC there is something tied up that could either be another DDG or indeed anything at all painted gray with a black top.
Like the Fincantieri tankers bought by India? INS Deepak & Shakti - 27500 tons, second one just commissioned. Flight deck, hangar - don't know what it can take.
See picture -
INS Shakti
I've no idea. I don't know boats. I just know what a bloke told me.
The JSS doesn't exactly offer much in terms of fuel over the LHD's. I thought our LHD were being fitted with RAS equipment. We had a little chat about this, oh hundred pages ago (?).
Why not just buy a third LHD and a dedicated tanker/fleet oiler. Then you are buying real capability and not a compromised ship that costs almost as much and adds very little. The origional requirement was to have 2 LHD avalible for operations, how is that possible, with only 2 LHD's?
If RAS was fitted to our LHD then they can support a small mission (patrol boats and a frigate) with them, for larger full scale deployments we need a dedicated ship. 2xlhd, 1xawd, 2xanzacs, I would imagine some sort of HSC leased, plus what ever allied ships are deploying with us.
Why not just buy a third LHD and a dedicated tanker/fleet oiler. Then you are buying real capability and not a compromised ship that costs almost as much and adds very little. The origional requirement was to have 2 LHD avalible for operations, how is that possible, with only 2 LHD's?
If RAS was fitted to our LHD then they can support a small mission (patrol boats and a frigate) with them, for larger full scale deployments we need a dedicated ship. 2xlhd, 1xawd, 2xanzacs, I would imagine some sort of HSC leased, plus what ever allied ships are deploying with us.
This has been the RAN's desire for 10 years now. Australian industry not really having the capacity to build a >20,000 tonne ship quickly and inexpensively at the moment. Frontrunners would be the US Lewis and Clark class and the Spanish Cantabaria.
HMAS Choules will need some covering during its scheduled down time for maintenance until HMAS Canberra is ready in 2013/14.
t68
Well-Known Member
With Tobroken in the dry dock and she is being repaired, have they only fixed things for urgent repair or did they use the time for refit as well or is Tobroken too far gone to last till the LHD arrive.
EDIT
I read in a paper a few weeks ago the Tobroken should have been in the water by now and was estimated to cost 30 million (sounds about right) to run until she retires for the next couple of years. We will be stuck with it for the time been unless there is something useful in the USN reserve fleet fit for temporary duty but cannot see anything appropriate in the fleet except for very early 2x Thomaston class LSD (LSD28/31) and 1x Raleigh class LPD (LPD-2) which would not be worth the effort, it would more feasible to sink the money into Kanimbla if this were to happen.
Last edited:
Some interesting possibilities.. isn't MV Westpac Express out of its US leases? While not perfect, it would offer some capability. Given only intrim use, I would assume they are going to go for something light and commerical based.
- Status