Large Scale Central

Aussie Sub Sinks U.S. Destroyer!

General Discussion
#1

Well, with the negative posts here by some Australians aimed at the U. S. I guess I shouldn’t be totally surprised, but the evening news just reported that an Australian submarine torpedoed and sank the U.S. missile destroyer (Edited to correct ship name per Mark Dash) USS David R. Ray off Hawaii! The ‘advanced’ torpedo scored a direct hit and it looked like the Ray sank in just a couple of minutes. No injuries reported.

I assume the war mongering U.S. forced the peace-loving Australian navy to develop this advanced torpedo and to use it on our ship. According to the earlier information here, I wouldn’t think it could be a matter of mutual defense / cooperation. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :lol: :lol:

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#2

The USS David R. Ray was sunk by the Australian submarine HMAS Waller yesterday (or the day before) while testing a variant of the ADCAP Torpedo (Mod 7, was it?), most of the Spruance class Destroyers are sunk in life-fire tests these days

#3

Mark:

Thanks for the correction. I went back to the news story and it definitely said “Fletcher”, which I couldn’t make sense of.

I edited my original post.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#4

Ohhhhhh, I am feeling old, now. David R. Ray sailed with us on several deployments. Two of my best friends served in her as the Corpsman. One of them was drinking coffee on the flight deck early in the morning when he noticed Iraqi tanks rolling down the pier. They had just finished refueling in Kuwait on August 2, 1990. He is the one who sounded the alarm and started hacking at the mooring lines with a fire ax.

David R. Ray was a US Navy Hospital Corpsman serving with the Marines. He earned the Medal of Honor while serving with the 11th Marines at An Hoa, Republic of Vietnam. Awarded posthumously.

#5
Jerry Bowers said:
I went back to the news story and it definitely said "Fletcher", which I couldn't make sense of.
Fletcher class DDs served with distinction with the USN from about 1943 onwards.

When the recent search for the wreck of HMAS Sydney succeeded in finding her off the Western Australian coast, she was described on TV and in the papers as everything from a frigate to a battleship! In fact, she was a light cruiser of pre-WWII British design.

So much for editorial accuracy.

#6

I frequently watch “The Military Channel” here in beautiful downtown Deer Park when it gets too hot to work on the railroad. This channel shows nothing but military themed shows, and is generally pretty accurate. However, when they make mistakes, they can make some really boneheaded mistakes. Recently, they had a show about the Ticonderoga Class Aegis equipped cruisers, and frequently showed members of the Kidd Class Guided Missle Destroyer (DDG), sometimes called the Ayatollah Class DDG. This class was 4 ships that were ordered by the Shah of Iran and acquired by the US Navy in 1981 and 1982. The physical difference is startling.

I’ve even seen them use the SBD Dauntless when they meant the Nakijima Kate. Nobody’s perfect.

#7

Or the shows on B-17’s…and footage of C-47’s, C-46, B-25, B-25, and even an R5D.
Boneheads.

Funny, too, is the B-29 programs that show post-war B-50’s in alleged WWII footage.

Street footage of 1963, with a 1970 Chevrolet in the shot.

Or, how about open stairwells on the Alabama?

Periscopes in the Control Room of a dismal boat?
Hoisting a torpedo with a single chainfall?

I recall one of those History Channel shows filmed on one of the Foxtrots.

“Diving” had one “extra” spinning air bank control valves in opposite directions as he went down the manifold.

Same show (came out just before the movie on the first Russkie Nuke) showed the “reactor” going into uncontrolled reaction.

It was a sea-water flex coupling for one of the diesels, with a bunch of threaded rods through the mounts, and pulsing red lights…

#8

The Ukaih Daily Journal, our ‘local’ newspaper, is running lots of stories about the fires here in Mendocino County.

Last week, they ran a large picture of an aircraft at the Ukiah Airport, telling that it was involved in supporting the firefighting operations being conducted by the National Guard troops. Both the headline and the text below the picture read "DC-10 visits . . . ", but the picture clearly showed an Air National Guard C-130. On top of that, the Ukiah Airport is only ~5,000 feet long, and is totally out of the question for DC-10 operations.

I called to correct them and was told something to the effect that one large airplane was about the same as any other large airplane.

Seems many modern journalists and the media in general have little interest in accuracy. Just fill the space . . .

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#9
Jerry Bowers said:
The Ukaih Daily Journal, our 'local' newspaper, is running lots of stories about the fires here in Mendocino County.

Last week, they ran a large picture of an aircraft at the Ukiah Airport, telling that it was involved in supporting the firefighting operations being conducted by the National Guard troops. Both the headline and the text below the picture read "DC-10 visits . . . ", but the picture clearly showed an Air National Guard C-130. On top of that, the Ukiah Airport is only ~5,000 feet long, and is totally out of the question for DC-10 operations.

I called to correct them and was told something to the effect that one large airplane was about the same as any other large airplane.

Seems many modern journalists and the media in general have little interest in accuracy. Just fill the space . . .

Happy RRing,

Jerry


I hope you let them know that inaccurate information was not worth spending money on.
Ralph

#10

Ralph:

Actually the conversation was a little bizarre. First the ‘reporter’ who wrote the article asked how I knew what airplane had visited. I told him I was a pilot and was also looking at the picture. That was when he said they were both big airplanes. I agreed, but pointed out some differences.

He thanked me for the information, but then said someone else had also called him about the picture and he would “. . . look into it. Goodbye.”

Left me thinking there is a good reason that some drugs are outlawed!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#11
Jerry Bowers said:
Ralph:

Actually the conversation was a little bizarre. First the ‘reporter’ who wrote the article asked how I knew what airplane had visited. I told him I was a pilot and was also looking at the picture. That was when he said they were both big airplanes. I agreed, but pointed out some differences.

He thanked me for the information, but then said someone else had also called him about the picture and he would “. . . look into it. Goodbye.”

Left me thinking there is a good reason that some drugs are outlawed!

Happy RRing,

Jerry


Slackers everywhere!
Goes to show, even “trusted” sources are not to be trusted.
Ralph

#12
Curmudgeon said:
Or the shows on B-17's.......and footage of C-47's, C-46, B-25, B-25, and even an R5D. Boneheads.

Funny, too, is the B-29 programs that show post-war B-50’s in alleged WWII footage.

Street footage of 1963, with a 1970 Chevrolet in the shot.

Or, how about open stairwells on the Alabama?

Periscopes in the Control Room of a dismal boat?
Hoisting a torpedo with a single chainfall?

I recall one of those History Channel shows filmed on one of the Foxtrots.

“Diving” had one “extra” spinning air bank control valves in opposite directions as he went down the manifold.

Same show (came out just before the movie on the first Russkie Nuke) showed the “reactor” going into uncontrolled reaction.

It was a sea-water flex coupling for one of the diesels, with a bunch of threaded rods through the mounts, and pulsing red lights…


I’m kinda surprised they didn’t film it on the U-505!

#13
Dave Healy said:
When the recent search for the wreck of HMAS Sydney succeeded in finding her off the Western Australian coast, she was described on TV and in the papers as everything from a frigate to a battleship! In fact, she was a light cruiser of pre-WWII British design. So much for editorial accuracy.
Warship. Battleship. What's the diff? Yes, I do know, but too many of my juniors don't, nor do they care. Plenty of references to Canada's battleships over the years (RCN never had any). I've had too many run-ins with bright young things who think I'm a pedant for insisting on proper terms. Oh yeah. All armoured vehicles are tanks ... Spitfires were flimsy wooden aircraft ... (someone was thinking of Snoopy's Camel, I guess)

Then again, I don’t know one variety of rock music from another. “Loud noise” covers it all :slight_smile:

#14
Chris Vernell said:
....... Then again, I don't know one variety of rock music from another. "Loud noise" covers it all :)
CV,

Just how old are you really? :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

#15
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Chris Vernell said:
....... Then again, I don't know one variety of rock music from another. "Loud noise" covers it all :)
CV, Just how old are you really? :P :D
What day of the week is it? On Mondays, I'm very old. Friday afternoons, I feel much better.
#16

What about aircraft cockpits the size of football stadiums. 35 years of aviation, I have seen numerous Hollywood bloopers as regards the use of ‘stock’ film footage. Take Airforce 1 in the Harrison Ford movie - like many I have seen Air force 1 and can assure all that it does not contain a C-130/C-5 Galaxy type rear-loading door. Also commercial aircraft do not carry parachutes and I very much doubt that non-combat military aircraft would either.

We have numerous films of WW2 pilots exitting their aircraft after sustaining damage. They slide back the canopy and then climb out into the airstream and simply bail out. To bail, the aircraft really required inverted flight to assist the exit procedure. Tests were conducted in wind tunnels during the war that showed that as aircraft speeds rose, the chances of a successful bailout reduced considerably. This is why ejection seats were developed. Wind resistance at much over 200mph simply prevented a pilot from bailing.

#17
Chris Vernell said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Chris Vernell said:
....... Then again, I don't know one variety of rock music from another. "Loud noise" covers it all :)
CV, Just how old are you really? :P :D
What day of the week is it? On Mondays, I'm very old. Friday afternoons, I feel much better.
OK, that means right about now you must be close to "purrfect" (miao). :lol: :P
#18
Tim Brien said:
commercial aircraft do not carry parachutes
Qantas may have to re-think that if they continue to fly corroded aircraft.
#19
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Chris Vernell said:
What day of the week is it? On Mondays, I'm very old. Friday afternoons, I feel much better.
OK, that means right about now you must be close to "purrfect" (miao). :lol: :P
Oh, I'm a vision of purrfection. Got aches on my aches, cramps in muscles too long dormant, fresh scars on my shins ... this shed building racket (between the rain showers) is a doozie. Actually, I'm enjoying it all except the g--d--n rain delays.
#20

Dave,
as I suspected, an oxygen cylinder explosion. In this area you have the fire extinguisher retardent bottles and around 14 quite large oxygen bottles. They are located in the sidewall aft of the cargo door and in the cargo ceiling below the passenger cabin. Any overpressure thermal relief by either fire extinguisher bottles or oxygen bottles are relieved into the compartment. Obviously a component in the system has failed to provide pressure relief, or simply bottle integrity deterioration leading to it exploding. There is no ‘added’ heat in this area and considering the aircraft was at altitude I fail to see how an overpressure situation could arise.

   I had no knowlege at the time of corrosion in the area.  Corrosion is common as the potable water tanks are also situated in this area across the rear bulkhead of the forward cargo compartment and regular inspections are required to ascertain the presence of the corrosion.  It normally requires removal of the bottles.  Considering that these hold hundreds of litres each and are around a metre in diameter and around two metres high and there are four of them plus ancillary plumbing.


   A simple look at the 'explosion' site shows that the explosion was in the sidewall area,  not in a baggage container as some suspected.  This incident will also highlight the decision by Qantas management to 'offshore' vital maintenance contracts to organisations and countries known to be less expensive but also known to be less than scrupulous with their maintenance.  We are not talking checking the oil and kicking the tyres type maintenance but complete airframe disassembly, inspection and refit.

 
   Remember I told you I do not wish to fly again.  Well,  the writing has been on the wall for years.  We fought for years to keep maintenance within our shores,  carried out by qualified individuals who were prepared to take responsibility for their work and, if necessary,  back that up in a criminal court if an incident should occur.   The licenced engineer who certifies for work carried out is legally liable, under Australian law,  for any criminal action that may be taken against him if negligence is found.    For years now,  maintenance 'quality' has been governed by what the shareholders are prepared to pay.  A dollar spent on maintenance is a cost to the shareholder, with reduced dividends.