The Navy Vol_73_No_4 Oct 2011 - Navy League of Australia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE PRESIDENT’S PAGEMr Graham HarrisNUCLEAR SUBMARINESWhen the Defence White Paper was released in 2009 the most eyecatching proposal was that to acquire 12 submarines.While the League welcomed the submarine plan it differed on thequestion of propulsion. It was and is the League`s view that at the veryleast the option of nuclear propulsion should remain under consideration.The White Paper merely contained a one line rejection of the possibilityof nuclear propulsion.I have on previous occasions raised this issue. Other members of theLeague, in THE NAVY and elsewhere, have continued to argue the casefor nuclear propulsion.It is of noteworthy that commentators whose background is more witheconomic or industry policy, rather than defence, are now starting to takean interest in the submarine programme.What has caught attention is the quoted price for the 12 submarines –$36 Billion. Given that the building programme will run from the 2020sto the 2040s the quoted price may be conservative.Not surprisingly, commentators have been expressing concern aboutthe cost. The argument is now being made that instead of building inAustralia 12 yet to be designed boats, Navy should seek an off the shelfsolution overseas.The off the shelf solution has broadened discussion to take in moregeneral industry policy. The question that has been raised is whatdefence equipment should or need be built in Australia. In this discussioncost saving is of course a significant factor.So far as the submarine programme is concerned there may well beseveral options. To give one example, in the United States Virginia classnuclear powered attack submarines are being built at the rate of twoper year. The price per boat is USD $2 Billion, and falling. These areproven boats being built now. Six such boats would probably meet theRAN requirement.It is to be hoped that the Virginia class will now be considered bygovernment when reviewing its defence plans.The League looks forward to a continuing debate around our futuresubmarine programme.FROM RFA LARGS BAY TO HMAS CHOULESReaders of THE NAVY will know that this magazine took a considerableinterest in the possibility of the RAN acquiring RFA LARGS BAY. Indeed itis fair to say that this magazine strongly advocated the RAN acquiring theship. When the decision to acquire the ship was made it was welcomedas “a magnificent addition to the RAN “In the many words written over several editions of THE NAVY aboutLARGS BAY, one matter not touched upon was what name the ship wouldbear when commissioned into RAN service.On the 18th August at Fleet Base West the Prime Minister and the Ministerfor Defence announced that “the ex Royal Fleet Auxiliary Landing ShipDock LARGS BAY is to commission into the Royal Australian Navy asHMAS CHOULES”It is no dis-respect to the late Chief Petty Officer Choules to say that thiswas something of a surprise.The announcement of the ship`s name included an explanation as to thechoice of name. The explanation can be fairly summarised as follows:Chief Petty Officer Choules passed away this year, the RAN`s centenaryThe Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and the Minister for Defence Stephen Smith announced at HMAS STIRLING that the RAN’s newest ship will be commissioned as HMAS CHOULES. NUSHIP CHOULESin scheduled to arrive in Australia in December and will be commissioned into the RAN in Fremantle as HMAS CHOULES. HMAS CHOULES is expected to be operational in early 2012. (RAN)04 THE NAVY VOL. 73 NO. 4
year, at the age of 110. With his passing the world lost its last living linkwith those who served in WWI. Claude Choules was born in England twodays after the birth of the Australian Navy in March 1901. Like the shipthat will bear his name he started his naval service in the Royal Navy.He joined in 1916. He came to Australia on loan in 1926 and soondecided to transfer to the Royal Australian Navy. He was a member ofthe commissioning crew of HMAS CANBERRA. In 1932 he became aChief Petty Officer Torpedo and Anti Submarine Instructor.During WWII Claude Choules was the Acting Torpedo Officer in Fremantleand Chief Demolition Officer on the west coast. After the war hetransferred to the Naval Dockyard Police. He finally retired in 1956.”No one would wish to demean or diminish the contribution made byClaude Choules over forty years in the Royal and Royal Australian Navies.But there was at least one obvious alternate name for the ship. That wasLARGS BAY.Certainly there are people, particularly in South Australia, who considerLARGS BAY should have been retained as the ships name.The South Australian Colonial Naval Headquarters were in the Naval DrillHall at Largs Bay. The Naval Brigade trained at Largs Bay. The LargsBay depot continued to be used after Federation until 1916, when a newdepot was opened at Birkenhead.Largs Bay was Adelaide`s original passenger port with passengerstransported to and from ships via the jetty. Passenger trains ran ontothe jetty. The Largs Pier Hotel was built to service the traffic. Largs Baycontinued to be used until the Outer Harbour wharves were completedin the early 1900s.The Commonwealth Lines Bay class ships had a particular connectionwith Australia. The SS LARGS BAY ( a sister ship to the more famous AMCJERVIS BAY) made a number of wartime trips from Australia to Britain viaNorth America. It carried many Australian servicemen, including RAAFpersonnel under the Empire Air Training Scheme.Later in the war it was used by the Royal Navy as a command ship duringlandings in Italy, where it was badly damaged by German bombs.The naming of ships can often be the subject of contention. Howeverthat may be, RFA LARGS BAY will hereafter be HMAS CHOULES. Theship is a welcome addition to our amphibious force. We look forward toit serving for many years in the Royal Australian Navy.FROM OUR READERSDear Editor,NAVY DAYI am writing in response to your request forsuggestions towards a RAN specific dateeach year to focus upon our history. It mustbe said that anyone would be very hardpressed to convince the public to embracea specifically naval commemoration withthe level of enthusiasm and reverence thecommunity currently accords 25 April and itwould be folly to advocate distancing the RANfrom ANZAC Day itself. The commemorationof naval service and sacrifice in conflictspast should remain part of both ANZAC andRemembrance Day proceedings, despite theheavily army orientated focus.However I do believe that the Navy requiresone day of the year on which to celebrateand promote its achievements andfortunately this day already exists on theRAN’s commemoration calendar. 4 October1913, the day the first Australian fleet unitentered Sydney Harbour, was celebrated bythe RAN for many years as ‘Navy Day’; butwhilst still observed, perhaps requires somereinvigoration. Prior to the Gallipoli landingsand subsequent myths emerging from themover the ensuing years, the public hadlooked upon the arrival of the ships of theAustralian fleet as the day on which the newAustralian nation came of age. On that daythe responsibility for the defence of Australiaand its waters, exercised by the Royal Navysince the beginning of European settlement,was transferred to the Australian owned andcontrolled RAN answering directly to theCommonwealth Government. As opposed tothe symbolic spilling of blood at ANZAC Cove,which incidentally neglects the memory ofpersonnel killed in New Guinea and aboardSydney at the Cocos Islands during 1914,one would be hard pressed to find an earliersignificant military event in which Australiastood aside from, and independent of, themother country and as such is worthy ofcelebration.Though these facts will likely be lost on thewider Australian public schooled only in theevents of 25 April 1915, there is no reasonnot to promote 4 October 1913 both withinthe navy as well as the general community tothe best of the RAN’s ability, not to mentionthat of its supporters, without the need tosearch for another date. As the current trendof reinterpreting and redirecting emphasisin history flourishes in the modern politicallycorrect age, perhaps all we need to do isreinvigorate what the RAN has traditionallycelebrated in its past.PO Pete CannonDear Editor,Close Air SupportI have followed with interest THE NAVY’s casefor Close Air Support (CAS) to be deployedfrom the new CANBERRA class LHDs. TheLibyan conflict has effectively demonstratedthat there is a requirement for “low and slow”CAS using helicopter-gunships operatingfrom the amphibious assault ships HMSOCEAN and FS TONNERRE.While it is effective, the WAH–64D Apacheis a very expensive helicopter-gunship. Inthese economically straightened times,there appears to be a good case for afixed wing aircraft that could undertake thesame tasks as a helicopter-gunship butat a significantly lower cost. The Crescoagricultural aircraft manufactured by PacificAerospace Corporation Ltd. combines ashort take off and landing performance witha large load carrying capability. This aircrafthas a rugged tricycle undercarriage designedto operate off semi-prepared farm airstripsand is accordingly well suited for flight deckoperations.A naval version of the Cresco could provideCAS from the CANBERRA Class LHDs as wellas other tasks such as anti submarine andanti surface vessel warfare (it is assumedthat the RAN still has Penguin Mk 2 Mod 7ASMs in its inventory). In summary, perhapsthe Cresco has the potential to become the21st Century equivalent of the venerableStringbag (Fairey Swordfish).Kind regardsMurray Dear, Hamilton NZTHE NAVY VOL. 73 NO. 4 05
Page 1: THE RAN’SCENTENARYELECTRONICRESUR
Page 5: larger aircraft carrier cousins it
Page 9 and 10: BOOK LAUNCH: 100 YEARS OF THE ROYAL
Page 11 and 12: THE VERNON PARKER ORATION RANCENTEN
Page 13 and 14: attacks from shore batteries and sh
Page 15 and 16: costs, especially for a jammer, whe
Page 17 and 18: Mounted below the Bridge wing of th
Page 19 and 20: FLASH TRAFFIC. . - . . - . . . - .
Page 21 and 22: . - . . - . . - . . . - . . . - . -
Page 23 and 24: . - . . - . . - . . . - . . . - . -
Page 25 and 26: THE ROAD TO SHIPPING REFORMRevitali
Page 27 and 28: In my view, these arrangements stri
Page 29 and 30: ‘NIITAKAYAMA NOBORE’The Imperia
Page 31 and 32: against the parked fighters, settin
Page 33 and 34: heavily damaged. The seaplane tende
Page 35 and 36: Pacific 2012 Maritime Congress comp

The Navy Vol_73_No_4 Oct 2011 - Navy League of Australia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?