Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Azzizzi t1_jdmzwot wrote

Sea service is dangerous to begin with.

9

UpInWoodsDownonMind t1_jdn4fq3 wrote

Now imagine what Australia can do with the $300 billion nuclear submarines once we get them in 2 decades...

2

wrextnight t1_jdnezdf wrote

>aircraft carrier never fired a shot in anger

I don't like this.

−1

jervoise t1_jdngv2e wrote

It’s usually pretty dire if your aircraft carrier is firing shots

37

TheSorge t1_jdnpelv wrote

They nicknamed her HMAS Can Opener, since destroyers are sometimes called tin cans.

5

Trellix t1_jdo3zc8 wrote

"Fire in anger" for those of us who didn't know what it means.

>(military, idiomatic) To fire a weapon with the intent of causing damage or harm to an opponent (as opposed to a warning shot or a practice shot).

6

StampYoPassport t1_jdo8p73 wrote

Maybe it's algorithm bias but I keep seeing stories about how the Australian Navy was a fucking shit show mid 20th century.

4

JoLeTrembleur t1_jdq9wa7 wrote

Ten years between the launching and the commissionning, that's unusual.

1

Craw__ t1_jdqewnj wrote

I used to work with someone ho was stationed on the Melbourne. This does not surprise me.

1

Captain-Griffen t1_jdqjtge wrote

As you might expect, fault in both cases was primarily assigned to the destroyers rather than the carrier. What fault that lay with the carrier was mostly in not screaming "wtf are you doing?" early enough at the destroyers.

2