Thread: Re: RAN

Might have something to do with it. We've been retiring a bunch of LPDs
and selling them off, but they're about the same vintage as the Newports.
And the RAN already has OH Perrys, so don't need any of those (and
retiring the ones they had, right?). I think the US was hoping to sell
some of the LCSs, but I don't think they're fooling anyone.

> One of them has definitely been retired, the other I believe was declared
> unseaworthy last year and has been replaced with a LSD purchased from the
> downsizing Royal Navy. In the meantime we are having built two LHDs built
> in
> Spain. I could not find them on the RANs website.
> http://www.navy.gov.au/The_Fleet
>
> I don't know if it was the result of problems with the ex-Newports but our
> navy has not bought anything major from the US since. It looks like most
> of
> the fleet is now based on European designs. The ANZAC class frigates were
> a
> Meko design for example, the LHDs and air warfare destroyers Spanish.
>
> Antony
>
> -----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 3:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Capital Ship Lineage of the Third Imperium
>
> (I'm assuming you're Australian.)
>
> Are you guys still running those two ex-Newport class LSTs? I thought the
> conversion the RAN did on them was pretty sweet, and felt really bad when
> I
> heard that they had all kinds of material problems which was going to
> require them to be pulled out of service early, that existed when the USN
> handed them over. I felt really bad that we would dump crappy goods on a
> major ally like that. We had 20 of the things, we couldn't have given you
> two good ones?
>
>> I know which of these battleships I'd prefer to be in, though Victory
>> is apparently undergoing a major refit so may not be available for
>> awhile.
>>
>>
>>
>> Antony
>
>
>

The oldest pair were decommissioned some years ago leaving 4 still
commissioned but these will be progressively decommissioned. Our warships
seem to be being turned into dive wrecks when disposed of an there is a lot
of competition to get one. Don't know what the fate of the ex-Newports will
be though.

Antony

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] RAN

Might have something to do with it. We've been retiring a bunch of LPDs and
selling them off, but they're about the same vintage as the Newports.
And the RAN already has OH Perrys, so don't need any of those (and retiring
the ones they had, right?). I think the US was hoping to sell some of the
LCSs, but I don't think they're fooling anyone.

> One of them has definitely been retired, the other I believe was
> declared unseaworthy last year and has been replaced with a LSD
> purchased from the downsizing Royal Navy. In the meantime we are
> having built two LHDs built in Spain. I could not find them on the
> RANs website.
> http://www.navy.gov.au/The_Fleet
>
> I don't know if it was the result of problems with the ex-Newports but
> our navy has not bought anything major from the US since. It looks
> like most of the fleet is now based on European designs. The ANZAC
> class frigates were a Meko design for example, the LHDs and air
> warfare destroyers Spanish.
>
> Antony

I've noticed that the RAN seems to scuttle a large portion of its decomms.
We've started doing some of that over here, but not at what appears to be
the same frequency. We do some of ours as dive reefs, but others explained
explicitly as fisheries reefs. I don't know how much meaningful overlap is
in those two categories, but would imagine that dive reefs must be much
more shallow. We dumped a lot of tanks and airplanes into the water to
make fish reefs as well. Which is not the most obvious idea of what to do
with old tanks and planes.

Back to ships, though, we sink far more of them in operational SinkExes to
get in weapons training. Too bad, because I would have liked to see some
of the old SpruCans in service someplace else.

> The oldest pair were decommissioned some years ago leaving 4 still
> commissioned but these will be progressively decommissioned. Our warships
> seem to be being turned into dive wrecks when disposed of an there is a
> lot
> of competition to get one. Don't know what the fate of the ex-Newports
> will
> be though.
>
> Antony
>
> -----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] RAN
>
> Might have something to do with it. We've been retiring a bunch of LPDs
> and
> selling them off, but they're about the same vintage as the Newports.
> And the RAN already has OH Perrys, so don't need any of those (and
> retiring
> the ones they had, right?). I think the US was hoping to sell some of the
> LCSs, but I don't think they're fooling anyone.
>
>> One of them has definitely been retired, the other I believe was
>> declared unseaworthy last year and has been replaced with a LSD
>> purchased from the downsizing Royal Navy. In the meantime we are
>> having built two LHDs built in Spain. I could not find them on the
>> RANs website.
>> http://www.navy.gov.au/The_Fleet
>>
>> I don't know if it was the result of problems with the ex-Newports but
>> our navy has not bought anything major from the US since. It looks
>> like most of the fleet is now based on European designs. The ANZAC
>> class frigates were a Meko design for example, the LHDs and air
>> warfare destroyers Spanish.
>>
>> Antony
>
>

You might find this article interesting regarding Australia's amphibious
capacity in 2011. It was the reason we obtained a vessel from the RN since
the two Spanish ships are still some way from completion.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3139605.htm

Antony

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] RAN

I've noticed that the RAN seems to scuttle a large portion of its decomms.
We've started doing some of that over here, but not at what appears to be
the same frequency. We do some of ours as dive reefs, but others explained
explicitly as fisheries reefs. I don't know how much meaningful overlap is
in those two categories, but would imagine that dive reefs must be much more
shallow. We dumped a lot of tanks and airplanes into the water to make fish
reefs as well. Which is not the most obvious idea of what to do with old
tanks and planes.

Back to ships, though, we sink far more of them in operational SinkExes to
get in weapons training. Too bad, because I would have liked to see some of
the old SpruCans in service someplace else.

> The oldest pair were decommissioned some years ago leaving 4 still
> commissioned but these will be progressively decommissioned. Our
> warships seem to be being turned into dive wrecks when disposed of an
> there is a lot of competition to get one. Don't know what the fate of
> the ex-Newports will be though.
>
> Antony

And now there are problems with the ex-Royal Navy vessel as well!

--- In , "Antony Farrell" <skaran@...> wrote:
>
> You might find this article interesting regarding Australia's amphibious
> capacity in 2011. It was the reason we obtained a vessel from the RN since
> the two Spanish ships are still some way from completion.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3139605.htm
>
> Antony
>
> -----Original Message-----
From: dcndcn13@...
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] RAN
>
> I've noticed that the RAN seems to scuttle a large portion of its decomms.
> We've started doing some of that over here, but not at what appears to be
> the same frequency. We do some of ours as dive reefs, but others explained
> explicitly as fisheries reefs. I don't know how much meaningful overlap is
> in those two categories, but would imagine that dive reefs must be much more
> shallow. We dumped a lot of tanks and airplanes into the water to make fish
> reefs as well. Which is not the most obvious idea of what to do with old
> tanks and planes.
>
> Back to ships, though, we sink far more of them in operational SinkExes to
> get in weapons training. Too bad, because I would have liked to see some of
> the old SpruCans in service someplace else.
>
> > The oldest pair were decommissioned some years ago leaving 4 still
> > commissioned but these will be progressively decommissioned. Our
> > warships seem to be being turned into dive wrecks when disposed of an
> > there is a lot of competition to get one. Don't know what the fate of
> > the ex-Newports will be though.
> >
> > Antony
>

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Jake <> wrote:

> And now there are problems with the ex-Royal Navy vessel as well!

You know every Navel vessel has pretty much the same set of problems, we
let 19 year-olds operate them.... I say this with great affection, as I was
once one of those 19 year-olds....
--
Evyn

Interesting how people can talk for so long about a problem and never say
anything substantive about it. They just kept talking about their
maintenance culture, whatever that means, but not one word about what the
physical problems are. However, thay may have to do with official secrets
and all that.

> You might find this article interesting regarding Australia's amphibious
> capacity in 2011. It was the reason we obtained a vessel from the RN since
> the two Spanish ships are still some way from completion.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3139605.htm
>
> Antony