USN Hornet crashes off QLD coast.

[corsair67]

From the ABC this morning.

US jet crashes off Queensland

United States officials have confirmed an FA-18 Hornet strike fighter plane has ditched into the sea while attempting a night landing near Brisbane.

The aircraft was attempting to land on the flight deck of the USS Ronald Reagan during a training exercise early yesterday morning about 120 nautical miles south-east of Brisbane.

Lieutenant Commander Gary Ross says the pilot ejected safely but the $37 million aircraft was lost. The pilot was rescued from the sea.

Lieutenant Commander Ross says five other jets were forced to fly in to Brisbane because they were short on fuel.

"There were five aircraft that were sent into Brisbane International Airport. The reason why they went into Brisbane was because of their fuel state," he said.

The USS Ronald Reagan is the world's largest aircraft carrier. It left Brisbane on Friday after a five-day visit.

"It should be noted that there was no damage or impact in the operational capability of the USS Ronald Reagan during the incident," Lieutenant Commander Ross said.

The US Navy is investigating the accident.

[Dave Homewood]

Isn't it odd that the US Navy has named an aircraft carrier after a B-Grade actor. What else in in the same class? The USS John Wayne? USS Roy Rogers? USS Abbott and Costello?

If it's because of Reagan's presidency, half of which was conducted during mental illness, which I'm sure it is, can we expect to see the USS Dubya in the future?

[corsair67]

This will make your day then, Dave: it's not Dubya, but it's just about as bad!


Taken from the Northrop Grumman website:

"The George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. This evolutionary ship will pave the way to a new class of carriers.

Named after the nation’s 41st president, this powerful warship of the 21st century will feature numerous improvements and modernizations. The island house will include a new radar tower, navigation system upgrades, communication systems enhancements, and transparent armor windows. Modernized aircraft launch and recovery equipment as well as a new fuel system for improved storage and handling of aircraft fuel will also be among the carrier’s significant enhancements.

George H. W. Bush, with its state-of-the-art technology, will serve as a strong force in protecting our nation’s interests. As a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, George H. W. Bush will stretch 1,092 feet, weigh 97,000 tons and carry more than 80 combat aircraft. It will be among the world’s largest warships. Its top speed will exceed 30 knots and powered with two nuclear reactors, it will operate for more than 20 years without refueling.

The journey to build CVN 77 began when the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman Newport News a contract in January 2001. In December 2002, a ceremony marked the formal naming of the carrier, after the former president and distinguished World War II Naval aviator.

Northrop Grumman Newport News commemorated the laying of the ship’s keel, the traditional beginning of the ship’s life, on September 6, 2003. President George H. W. Bush, the ship’s namesake, served as the keel authenticator. Bush's daughter, Doro Bush Koch, is the ship's sponsor."

[Dave Homewood]

Hmmm. It seems odd that living ex-Presidents are being honoured in this way. I don't know much about the US Navy carriers but are there other presidential carriers or any planned? USS William Clinton? USS James Carter?

How about the USS Richard M. Nixon? ;D

I doubt Gerald Ford will have one named after him as he was the only US President of the 20th Century who did not send his troops into harm's way. Awful statistic when you think about it, one that's being carried on into the 21st Century.

I think people should be proud of Ford for that fact, but instead all he's remembered for was falling down the aeroplane steps.

What does it mean by Bush's daughter being the ship's sponsor?

[corsair67]

Yeah, I was wondering about the sponsor thing too: maybe she has to guarantee that she will support the carrier if it's ever out of work? ;D

As for Jimmy Carter, he has been remembered!

"USS JIMMY CARTER is the third and final SEAWOLF - class nuclear-powered attack submarine and the first ship in the Navy to honor the 39th president of the United States and the only U.S. president to qualify in submarines.

As the most advanced submarine in the SEAWOLF - class, the JIMMY CARTER has built-in flexibility and an array of new warfighting features that enable her to prevail in any scenario and against any threat – from beneath Arctic ice to shallow water. Differentiating the JIMMY CARTER from all previous undersea vessels is its Multi-Mission Platform (MMP), which includes a 100-foot hull extension to enhance payload capability. The MMP enables JIMMY CARTER to accommodate the advanced technology required to develop and test new generation of weapons, sensors and undersea vehicles for naval special warfare, tactical surveillance and mine-warfare operations.

General Characteristics: Awarded: June 29, 1996
Keel laid: 1998
Launched: May 13, 2004
Commissioned: 2005
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, Groton, Conn.
Propulsion system: one nuclear reactor
Propellers: one
Length: 453 feet (138.1 meters)
Beam: 40 feet (12.2 meters)
Draft: 35 feet (10.67 meters)
Displacement: Surfaced: approx. 10,460 tons - Submerged: approx. 12,158 tons
Speed: Surfaced: approx. 20 knots - Submerged: approx. 35 knots
Armament: Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles from VLS-tubes, eight 660 mm torpedo Tubes for Mk-48 torpedoes, ability to lay mines
Homeport: will be homeported in Bangor, Wash.
Crew: 12 Officers, 121 Enlisted"

[steve]

Lets give old ronnie some credit ...he collapsed that USSR with his projection of a 600 ship USN and the BShi.. but effective starwars agenda.........Who amongst us would turn down a tour of USS Ronald Regan in Auckland Harbour for a couple of days because it was nuclear powered then holiday or visit Sydney,LA ,London etc with its own nuclear Power plants???
The Yanks know very well that the policy was always anti US in essence...

[corsair67]

I'd love to visit one of the American carriers. They used to have open days whenever they'd visit Aussie, but since September 11 2001 they have stopped doing that. The USS Constellation used to visit Sydney once or twice a year but I think she's been retired now.

I don't really know if the Anti-Nuke policy was ever meant to be specifically anti-American, but it did come across that way because the Americans were the only country to ever really bring nuke powered/capable ships or submarines to NZ anyway.

I actually thought that the Americans showed their true colours in some ways when that policy was introduced, in the way they tried to bully NZ and by calling us "commie", etc. There's too many Rednecks running the US for my liking!

[phil82]

Quite right Corsair, but NZ didn't withdraw from ANZUS, the US did, then blamed us. I don't have a lot of time for politicians, largely because, as an ex-servicemen, you rarely see any of them buried in Military Cemeteries, but in respect of the nuclear issue I think everyone of us should have a copy of David Lange's speech at the Oxford Union debate in a prominent place in his home.

You may recall a truly magnificent comment in that speech: "And there's no humanity at all in the logic which holds that my country, New Zealand, must be obliged to play host to nuclear weapons because others in the West are playing host to nuclear weapons. That is the logic which refuses to admit that there is any alternative to nuclear weapons, when plainly there is.It is self-defeating logic, just as the weapons themselves are self-defeating: to compel an ally to accept nuclear weapons against the wishes of that ally is to take the moral position of totalitarianism, which allows for no self-determination, and which is exactly the evil that we are supposed to be fighting against".

In short, I don't agree with the anti-nuclear legislation because it is all rather pointless, but we are a democracy, as is the US, and we made a decision they didn't like and we suffered for it.

I was still 'in' at the time, and the NZ Defence budget took some big hits. We had a US-manufactured fleet of aircraft, and we used to buy aircraft spares from the relevant US Military arm; the USN for the Orions, and the USAF for the Hercs,etc; and those deals were promptly removed meaning we had to buy from the original equipment manufacturer which was, and remains, hugely expensive.


I've sat on a genuine nuclear weapon by the way, and I still don't glow in the dark 40 years later!

Incidentally, Lange also made the following comment to retiring US Ambassador H Monroe Brown, who owned a race-horse named "Lacka Reason": "You must be the only ambassador in the world who owns a horse named after his country's foreign policy".

[Dave Homewood]

"Who amongst us would turn down a tour of USS Ronald Regan in Auckland Harbour for a couple of days "

I feel no compulsion whatsoever to step aboard any modern US ship. I used to have much admiration for the USN supercarrier crews. Now I am not so sure. Today US politicians instead of preventing conflict, use them to start and to wage war on innocents, striking countries illegally, killing women and children with their laser guided smart bombs designed to prevent killing women and chilren.

The carriers are used to also threaten further war, flexing them as a hugely powerful symbol of America's might and wrath when the USA is displeased with another country's business, which is usually none of the USA's business to start with. They use jingoistic excuses such as National Security and Terror Threat to justify invading countries that never posed threat to the USA's security.

Sure, the crews are mere pawns in the political game, but since the war on terror began many have flocked to join these ships. They have a choice, the contract in the US Navy is four years. Most who were serving before 2001 would and could be out now if they decided against the wars. those on the ships now chose to be there in a state of war.

So these mighty ships no longer look to me as great, glorious peacekeepers roaming our seas on behalf of the world. They are dirty weapons of dirty war for a dirty president.

However, I would definately not hesitate to take the opportunity of touring one of their WWII carriers, if it were loaded with Corsairs, Hellcats, Wildcats, Avengers and Helldivers. Tey at least were fighting the good fight. Alas, none are left to tour these days.

A very good point about how Kiwis don't mind flocking to nuclear powered cities Steve. Maybe that should be pointed out in public. Though I love London, I'm glad I have little desire to visit Sydney, and less to visit LA. When you're travelling you don't really stop to think where the electricity is coming from (except in places like Norfolk Island when it suddenly switches off and on again as the generators swithc over!)

"Americans were the only country to ever really bring nuke powered/capable ships or submarines to NZ anyway"

What about Russia? Their nuclear subs have been well into our waters. And then there was the reactor aboard the Mikhail Lermentov accordin to Winston.

Doesn't Aussie and the UK have nuclear subs too? Or did I dream that bit?

Colin, I agree with you about the power of Lange's speech. It was phenominal. I think it really convinced a lot of those sitting on the fence with the issue.

A few weeks ago TV1 replayed an old miniseries called 'Aftermath' about David Lange's rise to power. Mark Mitchell (of Con the Fruiterer fame!) played him, remarkably well. Even watching an actor portraying Lange giving that speech, it was still incredibly powerful. It must surely be one of New Zealand's greatest political hours.

I have never decided whether the policy was good or bad. I think I would probably take Lange's own stance where weapons should be banned, but visits by ships using nuclear propulsion was kind of ok. Even with disasters such as Kursk and the recent sub that they saved the crew from, there was little risk and no resulting danger from the reactors. And after all, it's only Auckland if it does happen. No problems there. ;D

[phil82]

Dave, there are a number of issues you've raised there!

The US Armed Forces, like ours, are all volunteers, there is no conscription, so those serving are doing so because they want to be. I agree, however, that it is the projection of that force which is the problem, but if you've ever read anything about the formulation of US foreign policy, you will know that it comes from a place called Foggy Bottom!

You're also right about other nuclear ships, although to my knowledge there has never been a visit to NZ by a Royal Navy nuclear sub, the only nuclear powered ships they have.

The Australians do not have any nuclear powered ships or submarines.

The "Russian" navy is virtually non-existant these days.

[Dave Homewood]

The Russian Navy is a dead duck, but in 1984 it was a force to be reckoned with of course, although I doubt any would have been invited for a port visit.

[steve]

"They are dirty weapons of dirty war for a dirty president...."

Dave..Dave..a little strong...would you say the same regarding PM Blair and Queen Elizabeth , as head of state..After all .. HMs UK Govt policy was the same or very similar to the US position before Gulf 2.......Back to the nuclear issue and David Lange...
I was in Helen Clarks organisational local Mt Albert electorate in 1985..... (Oh the in fighting between Roger and the left!!)and I come from a very pro labour family.....Lange was never anti Nuclear power.. just anti nuclear weapons......I respect your views (but disagree) as many kiwis share the same......ie ...Nuclear is evil..america is semi evil..(except in WW2) .UK and Aus by default ...and little New Zealand with its immature foreign policy has got it right... that no other country on earth has adopted in legislation...

Phil..You are right regarding RN Nuclear Subs...they never came here...however a RN flag ship Air carrier came here in the early 90s....all 25000 tonns tied up at Princess Wharf with no doubt ..tactical anti sub Nucs on board....No protest.....??

Question..If a Cat 8 earthquate hit Wellington and the city was half abilerated ...(pray not)..would the govt exclude the USS Ronald Regan from helping us because of its Nuclear propelsion system? i think not......by the way..

I saw "aftermath" an excxellent show on TV and very close to the truth from my insight...I enjoyed it...at the time I was very proud of our "independent" foreign policy and standing up to the US who did bully us because of the fear of the anti Nuc policy might spread...however times have moved on.... Maybe we are anti Nuclear because we are at the bottom of the earth and just seek attention...to be noticed as differerent from Australia?

[Dave Homewood]

Actually I think Blair's just as bad, yes. And the Queen, she's a nice old lady who's very ruch but with little power, and is only there for the tourists.

I think the time will eventually come when NZ builds a nuclar power plant, but well offshore with cables transporting the power. Mind you, there is a reactor in Hamilton that no-one gives a toss about!

Australia is only evil when they're playing cricket or rugby against us, and I like the UK. Both countries' Governments could be better, but you never get perfect Govt's anywhere.

Question..If a Cat 8 earthquate hit Wellington and the city was half abilerated ...(pray not)..would the govt exclude the USS Ronald Regan from helping us because of its Nuclear propelsion system?

Hopefully the Govt would all have drowned!

Oh ye, and there is one US Navy carrier I would like a tour of, the SS Essess. (Hot Shots!)

Rememebr the non-nuclear policy spread and was embraced by many other countries too. Basically most of the Pacific nations are nuclear free now, as is Scandanavia I believe. I rememebr a poll that showed in the late 1980's most Aussies also wanted nuclear free. They didn't get it though.

I was thinking the other day, it was a Kiwi who first split the atom and started all this, why are we not the superpower! Mind you, thankfully we're not, I prefer us as we are.

[corsair67]

OH MY GOD - BY POSTING THIS ITEM I'VE CREATED A MONSTER! ;D

My comment about the Americans being the only ones to bring nuke armed vessels to NZ was referring to invited guests only, not uninvited i.e. those 'evil' Russian.

The nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights is only used for research, nuclear medicine isotope production/processing, medical equipment sterilisation, etc.

[Dave Homewood]

Same as the one at Waikato Hospital then I guess.

[steve]

How many countries still have aircraft carriers...US,UK France Spain India...Iam sure there are few more..?.Australia...should still have one ...I remember a tour of HMAS Melbourne in Auckland in 1969 ...a real buzz ...

Nuclear power in NZ..I wouldn't loose sleep over it however i believe the zero ommission coal technology could be our long term power answer and get Huntley out of the crap?

[zknsj]

university of canterbury had a reactor as well, apparently part of it is still there