Dating back to the Second World War, 809 Naval Air Squadron was selected by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir George Zambellas, because of its illustrious history as a strike and attack squadron.
In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, the Royal Navy said: “Lightning is forecast this Friday… A phoenix is rising from the flames… Are you ready for the Immortals? Friday, December 8, 2023, RAF Marham.”
The F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth jet that is capable of ground attack, air superiority and air-to-air combat – all of which will be carried out by the pilots of 809 Naval Air Squadron.
The squadron first saw action in 1941 in the Arctic, operating the Fairey Fulmar, going on to serve in Malta, North Africa, Salerno, the south of France, the Aegean, Burma, Suez and the Falklands.
It was decommissioned in December 1982, with its eight Sea Harriers having served in the Falklands conflict – with none being lost.
The F-35B is capable of conducting air-to-surface, electronic warfare, intelligence gathering and air-to-air missions simultaneously (Picture: RAF).
The UK’s current fleet of F-35Bs is operated by 617 Squadron, which draws its personnel from both the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The fleet of F-35s is being maintained and supported by Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems thanks to a £161m contract.
The deal looks to support the F-35 fleet until 2027, allowing the UK more freedom to operate the aircraft, increase the number of flying hours and deliver mission planning, training and maintenance.
When most people think about ancient Rome, it is likely they are picturing huge stone amphitheaters, gladiators, and roving armies. However, it is the massive and almost immeasurable unseen logistical efforts of the Empire that demonstrate the true genius of Rome. Much has been written about Rome’s legions and the wars they fought across a territory that covered more than 1.5 million square miles—from modern-day Britain in the west to Iraq in the east. Yet these military operations would not have been possible without naval logistics on a grand scale, since the movement of men and matériel by sea was often swifter and more efficient as compared to land routes.
The Roman Empire’s invasion of Britain required organization and planning on a grand scale; it marked the beginning of four and a half decades of conquest, as Rome extended its reach ever farther inland and established the province of Britannia. Alamy
In the year 43 AD, Rome invaded Britain, a feat that required a staggering movement of troops, horses, grain, and equipment. The difficulties and complexities associated with amphibious warfare are immense. Today it would require extensive use of computers, electronic communications, tide charts, weather predictions, and thousands of other variables, but the Romans had no such capacity. What they did have was an exceptional level of organization—which made for a relentless method of warfare.
Historians note various reasons for the Roman invasion of Britain, including Emperor Claudius’s need for prestige, new avenues for taxation, access to natural resources, and regional politics. But the baseline is that the early Roman Empire was focused on expansionism. Assimilating peoples and nations brought resources, slaves, land, and taxes into the coffers. With these attainments in mind, four Roman legions totaling approximately 20,000 troops were dispatched to Britain’s shores in nearly 1,000 ships.
Many sources put the entire force—including servants, slaves and auxiliary combat detachments—at between 35,000 and 40,000. Before the invasion these troops were moved up from Central and Southern Europe, a sizable task. Researchers estimate that the average Roman soldier had 54 to 100 pounds of equipment, which would have created a significant baggage train of wagons and mules—all needing transport by ship.
Emperor Claudius had numerous motivations for invading Britain—prestige, wealth, the expansion of the Empire’s borders. The massive logistical demands of the invasion, which would have required lengthy and Herculean levels of preparation, testified to his determinedness. Alamy
In addition, the army, and the individual soldiers, routinely had slaves and servants who traveled with them during combat operations. Estimates range between 400 and 1,400 per legion, thus four legions would have brought along 1,600 to 5,600 additional persons needing to be transported.
The movement of troops and personnel was enormous, but the amount of shipping needed was even greater, as a large number of horses, mules, and other animals would have accompanied them to carry equipment and serve the cavalry. It is estimated that the average legion required 1,400 mules, which would mean at least 5,600 needed for the invasion. Some researchers put that number at upwards of 10,000. Since the Romans made use of heavy siege tools and battlefield artillery (carroballistae, onagers/catapults, towers, and rams), this number is not outside the realm of possibility. Artillery likely comprised a large portion of a typical military baggage train. There are historical references indicating a Roman legion might have 60 to 65 pieces of artillery. Each legion thus would require 70 wagons and 160 animals for these weapons and their ammunition, equating to 280 wagons and 640 animals. A mule weighs between 800 and 1,000 pounds, thus adding a substantial increase in the aggregate need for shipping.
In addition, each legion usually had a detachment of approximately 150 to 400 cavalry (equites legionis) who were often used for reconnaissance and screening. It would seem that initially 600 to 1,600 horses would be needed, but spares also would have been required because of attrition stemming from accidents, combat, and disease. Adding to this, senior officers likely had more than one horse.
Expansionist Rome had been casting a covetous eye on Britain for quite some time. In 55—54 BC, Julius Caesar (far left) had invaded twice, but no lasting Roman presence had resulted. And Claudius’s notoriously bizarre emperor-predecessor Gaius (left), better known as Caligula, had made ambitious plans to invade as well, but they came to naught. Public Domain; New Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen
The transport of horses by ship is a delicate process that requires special attention to loading and unloading, especially for an amphibious landing. Ancient sources observed the negative impact of moving animals by sea. There is also the possibility that elephants were part of the invasion force. A substantial amount of food/fodder for animals would have been shipped, because the Romans would not have known what kind of reception they would receive upon landing on the shores of Britain; free-grazing might not be possible. When Julius Caesar had made a brief invasion of the island nearly a century before, his forces met with immediate armed resistance on the beach, and they soon returned to the continent. It was one of the first recorded mentions in history of ship-to-shore fire.
All armies march on their stomachs, and Rome’s was no exception. In a time when the average citizen had a rather limited diet, soldiers are known to have had quite a bit of variety. Their ration consisted mainly of grain (the frumentum) for bread and other foodstuffs (the cibaria). Research has shown that cattle, pigs, cheese, beans, oil, and wine, along with numerous fruits and vegetables, were frequently consumed in garrisons.
Four Roman legions totaling some 20,000 troops took part in the invasion—but factoring in auxiliary combat detachments, servants, slaves, and camp followers, the invasion involved an estimated 35,000 to 40,000 individuals. Alamy
It cannot be presumed that troops on the move in combat would eat like those stationed in garrisons, but also it is unlikely that grain/bread could sustain tens of thousands of men burning through large sums of daily calories for long periods of time. Herds of animals likely were brought along to provide meat, again increasing the need for transport. It has been calculated that a six-month supply of grain for 40,000 personnel would have weighed 6,967 tons (nearly 14 million pounds). A few decades prior to the invasion of Britain, when the Roman Army was fighting in Germany, the soldiers likely were consuming 25 tons of wheat and 7.5 tons of other foods, as well as nearly 25 tons of barley for their animals—each day. The cross-sea provision of food for the soldiers in Britain must have been a monumental naval task in and of itself.
It is not known exactly when in 43 AD the invasion took place, but sources point to late spring or early summer. The southeastern coast of Britain is not known for its fine weather and hospitable currents even during the warmer months. Caesar’s earlier invasion was greatly delayed due to gales. Sea temperatures in May are in the low 50s. Air temperatures are in the upper 50s to low 60s, with nights in the mid- to upper 40s, which is important to note, since Caesar’s brief prior invasion force likely had arrived at night. This allowed for a full day’s worth of daylight for the landing and disembarkation. However, this also meant that the soldiers and animals were in open-air ships for several hours during the crossing and prior to landing. It is likely that the arrival of the invasion force in 43 AD also occurred at night. This would have required an enormous amount of planning, coordination, and signaling of various forms to keep the fleet operating in unison.
Sources note that the invasion likely required 724 to 1,041 ships. Even if it took multiple trips (and thus fewer vessels) to get all of the troops and equipment across, it was still a sizable fleet. Estimates are that a single ship could hold 80 to 120 personnel or 30 horses. The number of trees needing to be felled, and the lead time to build these vessels, is staggering. Reconstruction archaeology of a small Roman riverine patrol boat, which would have held 20 to 22 people and weighed six tons, required 18 trees. The average weight of a Roman cargo vessel was between 33 and 44 tons. Thus, building nearly 1,000 would have consumed tens of thousands of trees. Needless to say, the creation of such a fleet was an industrial undertaking with regard to felling, prepping, and moving of timber.
It is known that the Romans would transport timber across great distances when necessary, and the legions may well have participated in this process. That makes sense, since it literally would require a well-organized army to accomplish such an enormous task. There are many historical references to the use of the army for building bridges, aqueducts, fortifications, and roads. For example, the 72-mile-long fortification line known as Hadrian’s Wall was built in Britain by the legions in the early part of the 2nd century.
One result of the conquest was the creation of the Classis Britannica—Rome’s provincial British naval fleet. In a sense, the Classis Britannica was a harbinger—an ancient precursor to the great naval power Britain someday would become. Public Domain
Greco-Roman shipbuilders were keenly aware of the specific properties and hardiness of different types of wood. Analysis of three Roman cargo vessels found in the harbor of Naples, Italy, noted that many different types of trees were used in each one depending on their various properties of sturdiness, straightness, and resistance to decay in water.
As for other needs, several years before invading Britain the previous emperor, Gaius (known as Caligula), had contemplated the endeavor and ordered the initial preparations for the attack, including the building of ships. He also built portions of the naval port at Gesoriacum (modern day Bolougne) and its lighthouse—all of which likely played a role in 43 AD.
The Roman invasion of Britain required a massive logistical effort that must have taken years to prepare. Each individual supply requirement (food, ships, lumber, horses, etc.) was an astronomical task in and of itself. Roman naval forces were able not only to provide for a successful amphibious assault, but also to sustain it for months and years to come. Over time, this would become the nucleus for the Classis Britannica, one of the few Roman fleets outside of the Mediterranean. For the next three and a half centuries, Britain would be colonized and ruled by Rome as a vassal nation.
Sources:
E. Allevato, E. Russo Ermolli, G. Boetto, and G. Di Pasquale, “Pollen-wood Analysis at the Neapolis Harbour Site (1st–3rd Century AD, Southern Italy) and Its Archaeobotanical Implications,” Journal of Archaeological Science 37, no. 9 (September 2010): 2365–2375.
R. W. Davies, “The Supply of Animals to the Roman Army and the Remount System,” Latomus 28, no. 2 (April-June 1969): 429–59.
Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, book 60, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/60*.html.
Adrian Goldsworthy, The Complete Roman Army (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003).
Adrian Goldsworthy, The Roman Army at War, 100 BC–AD 200 (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1996).
Gerald Grainge, The Roman Channel Crossing of AD 43: The Constraints on Claudius’s Naval Strategy (Oxford, UK: Archaeopress, 2002).
Peter Kehne, “War and Peacetime Logistics: Supplying Imperial Armies in East and West,” in Paul Erdkamp, ed., A Companion to the Roman Army (London: Blackwell-Wiley, 2007).
David Mason, Roman Britain and the Roman Navy (Gloucestershire, UK: History Press, 2009).
Russell Meiggs, “Sea-borne Timber Supplies to Rome” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 36 (1980): 185–96.
Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. 1982).
“Logbook of Shipbuilding: Reconstruction of a Late Roman Danube Ship,” interreg-danube.eu/approved-projects/living-danube-limes/section/logbook-of-shipbuilding.
Michael Pavkovic, “The Legionary Horsemen: An Essay on the Equites Legionis and Equites Promoti,” doctoral thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1991, scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/e186ff6a-c917-482b-87f1-db69beb5a744.
Jonathan Roth, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War, 264 BC–AD 235 (Leiden, NL: Brill Publishing, 1999).
Jonathan Roth, “The Size and Organization of the Roman Imperial Legion,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 43, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 346–62.
Rose Mary Sheldon, “Caesar, Intelligence, and Ancient Britain, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 15, no. 1 (2002): 77–100.
Richard Thomas and Sue Stallibrass, eds., Feeding the Roman Army: The Archaeology of Production and Supply in NW Europe (Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books, 2008).
Jorit Wintjes, “Technology with an Impact: Field Artillery in the Ancient World, Vulcan 3, no. 1 (May 2015): 19–41.
An Ocius Bluebottle is loaded onto HMNZS Aotearoa in Sydney, Australia. (Crown Copyright)
Royal New Zealand Navy To Trial Ocius Bluebottle
The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) will soon take delivery of a 6.8-metre renewable-powered Uncrewed Surface Vessel (USV) to trial on a short-term lease.
USVs offer potential to undertake a wide variety of roles for the New Zealand Government. These could include fishery protection, border protection or providing meteorological data.
HMNZS Aotearoa is transporting the vesselfrom Sydney to Auckland and once operational it will be able to undertake maritime tasks at sea without fuel or personnel on a trial basis.
An Ocius Bluebottle is loaded onto HMNZS Aotearoa in Sydney, Australia. (Crown Copyright)
The Bluebottle is designed and manufactured by Sydney-based Ocius Technology, which has already sold a number of USVs to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and worked with Australian Border Force (ABF) and other energy and scientific agencies.
The solar-, wind- or wave- powered vessel uses a retractable rigid sail to provide wind propulsion. Photo-electric cells on the sail can drive its motor. In the absence of sunlight and wind, the Bluebottle has a unique flipper and rudder device to steer and propel itself. It has a top speed of five knots and the ability to operate at sea indefinitely in sea states up to 7 (wave heights of six to nine metres).
Sensors allow both safe and effective control of the system and identification of other vessels. Sensors include radar, and electro-optic and infra-red cameras.The USV will be constantly monitored and operated from a control room at Devonport Naval Base. Communication with the control room is through mobile phone signal while close to shore or via high- and low- bandwidth satellite when further offshore.
The sheer size of New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is one of the reasons the RNZN’s Maritime Component Commander, Commodore Garin Golding, is excited about the potential capability of the USV.
“Our EEZ is the fifth largest in the world at more than four million square kilometres. Coupled with the 30 million square kilometre search and rescue area that New Zealand has responsibility for, that is a lot of ocean to cover,” Commodore Golding said. “The evidence we’ve seen from our partner militaries overseas is that uncrewed drone aircraft and vessels can provide real value in fulfilling some of these search and surveillance tasks.”
The RNZN’s Autonomous Systems Staff Officer, Commander Andy Bryant, is also looking forward to the USV demonstrating its potential.
“The Bluebottle has already undertaken a range of activities in support of the Australian Government for long periods of time without the need for refuelling, recharging or crew respite. I’m confident we will see similar benefits from the time we have with the vessel, particularly a better understanding of how to operate and sustain uncrewed vessels, and this will provide a great opportunity to share experiences on the new system with the Royal Australian Navy.”
An Ocius Bluebottle Class Unmanned Surface Vessel in RNZN colours on display at Exercise Autonomous Warrior at HMAS Creswell. (Commonwealth of Australia)
The USV can be transported by trailer to almost anywhere in New Zealand where it can be launched and recovered from a boat ramp. It can also craned on and off a Navy ship to launch on operations while deployed overseas.
The Indian Navy’s Kadmatt antisubmarine ship has arrived at the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Yokosuka base in Kanagawa Prefecture.
The defense of the waters linking India and Japan is very important, Indian Ambassador to Japan Sibi George said at a news conference at the base on Sunday, showing his country’s readiness to deepen defense cooperation with Japan.
The two countries are working to strengthen their relations through “the Quad” framework, which also includes the United States and Australia. The Quad framework is partly aimed at keeping a check on China.
The Indo-Pacific region is now one of the most important regions geopolitically, George said, adding that India and Japan will work together as democratic countries for the peace and stability of the region.
The Kadmatt and the MSDF’s Towada replenishment vessel conducted a joint exercise in waters around Okinawa last Tuesday based on the Japan-India acquisition and cross-servicing agreement.
The Indian warship arrived at the Yokosuka base on Saturday for replenishment.
This is the USS Eagle 2 (PE-2) on builder’s trials in 1918. An identical sister ship, USS Eagle 56 (PE-56), was lost due to a mysterious explosion April 23, 1945. Although Eagle 56 survivors stated they had spotted a submarine during the sinking, the official Navy Investigation declared it lost due to a boiler explosion. Through the work of a dedicated researcher and the Naval Historical Center’s senior archivist the Navy changed this to a combat loss in 2002. Both ships were members of 60 Eagle Boats built by automaker Henry Ford for World War I. None of them were completed in time to see service in that war due to the Armistice, November 11, 1918. They were not very popular due to poor sea-keeping characteristics. The Navy discarded all but eight, before World War II. The term Eagle Boat came from a 1917 editorial in the Washington Post that called for an eagle to scour the seas and pounce upon and destroy every German submarine. U.S. Navy photo. (RELEASED) 030415-N-0000X-001 Naval Historical Center, Washington, DC (Apr. 15, 2003)
They were steel-hulled ships smaller than contemporary destroyers but having a greater operational radius than the wooden-hulled, 110-foot (34 m) submarine chasers developed in 1917. The submarine chasers’ range of about 900 miles (1,400 km) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) restricted their operations to off-shore anti-submarine work and denied them an open-ocean escort capability; their high consumption of gasoline and limited fuel storage were handicaps the Eagle class sought to remedy.
They were originally commissioned USS Eagle Boat No.1 (or 2,3..etc.) but this was changed to PE-1 (or 2,4.. etc.) in 1920. They never officially saw combat in World War I, but some were used during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.[1] PE-19, 27, 32, 38, 48 and 55–57 survived to be used in World War II.[2]
Attention turned to building steel patrol vessels. In their construction, it was necessary to eliminate the established shipbuilding facilities as possible sources of construction as they were totally engaged in the building of destroyers, larger warships, and merchant shipping. Accordingly, a design was developed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair which was sufficiently simplified to permit speedy construction by less experienced shipyards
The Eagle-class patrol craft were anti-submarine vessels of the United States Navy that were built during World War I using mass production techniques. They were steel-hulled ships smaller than contemporary destroyers but having a greater operational radius than the wooden-hulled, 110-foot (34 m) submarine chasers developed in 1917. The submarine chasers’ range of about 900 miles (1,400 km) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) restricted their operations to off-shore anti-submarine work and denied them an open-ocean escort capability; their high consumption of gasoline and limited fuel storage were handicaps the Eagle class sought to remedy.
They were originally commissioned USS Eagle Boat No.1 (or 2,3..etc.) but this was changed to PE-1 (or 2,4.. etc.) in 1920. They never officially saw combat in World War I, but some were used during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.[1] PE-19, 27, 32, 38, 48 and 55–57 survived to be used in World War II.[2]
Attention turned to building steel patrol vessels. In their construction, it was necessary to eliminate the established shipbuilding facilities as possible sources of construction as they were totally engaged in the building of destroyers, larger warships, and merchant shipping. Accordingly, a design was developed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair which was sufficiently simplified to permit speedy construction by less experienced shipyards
The third Gettysburg (CG-64) was laid down on 17 August 1988, at Bath, Maine, by Bath Iron Works; launched on 22 July 1989; sponsored by Julie Nixon Eisenhower, wife of Dwight D. Eisenhower II, grandson of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower and son-in-law of former President Richard M. Nixon; and commissioned on 22 June 1991, Captain John M. Langknecht in command.
A tugboat prepares to turn the stationary US Navy (USN) Spruance Class Destroyer USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 791) as the ship idles in the harbor –The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) approaching Naval Facility Subic Bay, Philippines. Midway, with assigned Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW-5), was deployed to the Western Pacific from 14 September to 11 December 1982. In the floating dry dock in the foreground is the Spruance-class destroyer USS David R. Ray (DD-971). Moored side-by-side at the pier are the Knox-class frigates USS Kirk (FF-1087) and USS Francis Hammond (FF-1067). The guided missile cruiser USS Sterett (CG-31) is visible in the background.The U.S. Navy destroyer USS David R. Ray (DD-971) launches a RUR-5 ASROC missile.A port bow view of the destroyer USS DAVID R. RAY (DD-971) underway. Location: SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (CA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)The Destroyer USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) (Spruance class), in the Pacific Northwest during the People’s Republic of China “Goodwill Cruise 2000.”USS David R. Ray entering San Francisco in 1995
The David R. Ray was built by the Ingalls Shipbuilding Division of Litton Industries at Pascagoula, Mississippi, and commissioned on November 19, 1977, in Pascagoula. The principal speaker at the event was James R. Sasser, U.S. Senator from Tennessee and the ships sponsor was Mrs. Donnie M. Ray, HM2 Ray’s mother. The David R. Ray was decommissioned in 2002 and sunk as a target in 2008.
Ship’s history
On the voyage from Pascagoula to her new homeport of San Diego, the David R. Ray passed through the Panama Canal. David R. Ray, nicknamed “Sting Ray”, crossed the equator for the first time on 16 May 1978. On 19 February 1979, she became the first ship to intercept a supersonic drone with the NATO RIM-7 Seasparrow Missile System. The ship first deployed on 8 September 1979 and made port calls in Pearl Harbor, Guam, Yokosuka, Inchon, Subic Bay, and Hong Kong. In 1982, David R. Ray went through her first major overhaul in Seattle, Washington. On 18 October 1983, David R. Ray began another “WESTPAC” to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. After port visits to Pearl Harbor, Subic Bay, Pusan, Chinhae, Hong Kong and Pattaya, the ship participated in a joint Thailand-U.S. naval exercise. Later, the Ray spent 54 continuous days underway, spanning from the northwest Indian Ocean to northernmost Sea of Japan following and performing surveillance operations (SURVOPS) on the newest Soviet carrier, “Novorossiysk”.
David R. Ray with RAM launcher aft.
Late in 1984, David R. Ray became the Navy’s primary test platform for the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) System. On 15 January 1986, David R. Ray deployed with Battle Group Foxtrot. During this deployment, the ship made worldwide news when it prevented the boarding of the U.S. Vessel President McKinley by an Iranian Saam class frigate on 12 May 1986.
David R. Ray’s second major overhaul began in June 1988, which coincided with the ship’s shift of homeport from San Diego to Long Beach, California. During this overhaul, the ship received a Vertical Launch System. After the overhaul, the ship completed four CNO projects, including RAM, NATO Seasparrow RIM-7P, BGM-109 Tomahawk Block 2 and ASROC. David R. Ray deployed on 27 April 1990 and was in the Persian Gulf at the onset of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The ship played a critical role in the early stages of Operation Desert Shield before returning to the United States. Deploying again to the Middle East Force on 22 April 1992, the ship served as flagship during Maritime Interception Force Operations before returning to Long Beach, California, on 22 October 1992.
David R. Ray with VLS.
David R. Ray deployed to the Persian Gulf in October 1994 and served as flagship to Commander, Destroyer Squadron Fifty conducting Maritime Interception Operations in boarding numerous suspect vessels resulting in the diversion and detention of three vessels. Upon return from deployment in April 1995, the ship continued a very fast operational tempo, including trips to Catalina Island, Seattle Sea Fair, and San Francisco Fleet Week.
David R. Ray completed a nine-month regular overhaul at Long Beach Naval Shipyard in June 1996 and then a homeport change to Everett, Washington, in July 1996. The ship completed a full workup cycle before deploying on 20 May 1997 to the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf as senior ship of a Middle East Force / Surface Action Group. During this deployment, the ship conducted 49 boardings and over 700 flight hours in support of Maritime Interception Operations. Upon return in November 1997, the ship went into holiday stand down and commenced a nine-week maintenance availability on 11 February 1998 which ended 15 April 1998. David R. Ray spent the remainder of 1998 preparing for its next deployment. On 9 March 1999, David R. Ray received no notice tasking to act as the Surface Action Group Commander for the sinking of the M/V New Carissa off the coast of Oregon. The ship’s quick response and control of the elements of the Surface Action Group averted a potentially disastrous oil spill. The ship and her crew earned the Coast Guard Unit Commendation with Operational Device for its participation in this effort.
On 16 April 1999 the David R. Ray deployed to the Persian Gulf on PACMEF 99-2 as the Surface Action Group Commander. The ship and crew conducted 55 boardings and over 850 hours of flight operations. David R. Ray was again in the news when her crew helped to delivery a healthy baby girl on aboard an Iraqi ferry. The ship returned to its homeport on 4 October 1999. Since returning from deployment, David R. Ray participated in various training opportunities, including Anti-Air Warfare and Naval Surface Fire Support exercises. Prior to the ship’s change of command on 29 April 2000, David R. Ray visited Puerto Vallarta and escorted the ex-USS South Carolina (CGN-37) as she was towed to Bremerton, Washington, for deactivation and nuclear-powered vessel recycling.
In May 2001 the “David R. Ray” deployed on her final assignment to the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific on a Counter Narcotic Deployment, returning to its home port in October 2001.
On 28 February 2002, USS David R. Ray was decommissioned and spent its remaining years anchored in Sinclair Inlet off Highway 303 in Bremerton, Washington. On 17 June 2008, the ex-USS David R. Ray was towed by fleet tug to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where she was to be sunk as a target as part of the annual RIMPAC exercises.[2] ex-David R. Ray was sunk during RIMPAC 2008 on 11 July 2008 by fire from eight U.S. and Japanese ships along with three aircraft using naval artillery and Harpoon missiles. ex-David R. Ray sank after sunset that night
U.S. Navy Sailors with Company 1-2, Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 1, inflate salvage roller bags to position a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon for extraction from waters off Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Dec. 2, 2023. (Hunter Jones/U.S. Marine Corps)
HONOLULU (Tribune News Service) — Thirteen days after a Navy P-8A Poseidon slid off the runway in rainy weather while trying to land at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, the Navy, Marines and civilian contractors spent Saturday floating the plane and pulling it backward onto the base runway.
The recovery operation began at 6:30 a.m. and progressed slowly and methodically. By sundown, most of the 130-foot-long P-8A was on the runway while the front portion continued to float on “roller bags“ that lifted the 60-ton warplane from two points of contact with the coral reef.
The Navy had planned to spend no more than 16 hours bringing the Poseidon ashore to ensure the operation would occur during daylight and because the work was expected to be exhaustive. Navy officials estimate that it will cost $1.5 million to salvage the plane.
“The conditions have been ideal and the operation is progressing exactly as planned,“ Rear Adm. Kevin P. Lenox, the salvage operation’s on-scene commander, said in a statement at midafternoon Saturday. “(Saturday) morning we floated the aircraft and moved it toward land. As of early afternoon we have begun the stage where we pull the aircraft out of the water and onto the runway. Throughout the process, divers in the water have maintained close observation of the aircraft to ensure no further contact with coral or the sea bottom.”
Private industry diving and salvage experts working alongside U.S. Navy sailors and Marines coordinate the placement of inflatable salvage roller bags as they position the U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon for extraction from waters just off the runway at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Dec. 2, 2023. (Tania Guerrero/U.S. Marine Corps)
After skidding off the runway while trying to land from the makai side of the base Nov. 20, the plane ended up 100 feet off the end of the runway in waters no deeper than 30 feet, with the front landing gear coming to rest in a pocket of coral and the left engine sitting on other parts of the reef.
But last week’s storm caused the front landing gear to rotate about 30 degrees inside the coral pocket, leading to fears that the shift damaged more sections of reef.
After the P-8A is back on land, divers with the state Department of Land and Natural Resources will be able to document any damage.
U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda grew up in Kaneohe, where she lives with her husband and two school-age boys. She told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Saturday that the military cannot do enough testing to measure water quality and document any harm to Kaneohe Bay’s marine life, including how a sea turtle in the area ended up discovered dead on Friday.
“We have to recognize that there was a plane in our bay,“ Tokuda said. “This is not a normal condition. As a result we’re going to have to look at potential impacts on the bay for marine life, for water quality.”
As for what killed the sea turtle, she said “we cannot rule out anything.”
“The real work begins after we get the Poseidon out of the water,“ Tokuda said. “As I’ve said, you can’t test enough, you can’t evaluate this enough. Water quality for the bay is absolutely critical. Assessing damage and repairing damage to the coral, that’s going to be the big work ahead.”
Kaneohe Bay serves as a source of marine food for numerous families and has a rich cultural history. The base also was a military target during the Japanese attack on Dec. 7, 1941, that launched America into World War II.
Private industry diving and salvage experts working alongside U.S. Navy sailors use inflatable salvage roller bags to position the U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon for extraction from waters just off the runway at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Dec. 2, 2023. (Tania Guerrero/U.S. Marine Corps)
Donald Sakamoto was born and raised in Kaneohe, serves as treasurer of the Kaneohe Neighborhood Board and worked on the Marine Corps base for 21 years as a civilian product specialist in electronics at the Marine Corps exchange until 2009.
“I appreciate the marine life and I appreciate what the service men and women do to protect us, so I see it from different perspectives,“ Sakamoto told the Star-Advertiser on Saturday. “Accidents do happen. There was a lot of rain (when the crew and plane skidded off the runway). But they need to do whatever they can to repair the reef and protect the natural habitat.”
Fellow Kaneohe Neighborhood Board member Neil Fleitell emphasized that “it was an accident. We’ve got to cut them a break. This is our U.S. military, all of our military.”
At the same time, Fleitell said, “I want to protect all of the bay, the reef, everything. I can see the bay from the front of my house. … I’m a scuba diver. I love the bay and we need to protect the bay.”
Immediately after the P-8A and its nine-member crew missed the landing, elected officials and environmentalists began demanding transparency from the Navy and Marines in detailing any environmental damage to Kaneohe Bay — particularly following years of fuel leaks at the Navy’s Red Hill storage facility that contaminated Oahu’s drinking supply and were only recently disclosed.
But it took more than a week for the Navy and Marines to hold their first news conference on the accident.
Wayne Tanaka, executive director of the Sierra Club, grew up fishing around and on Kaneohe Bay and wants DLNR to conduct a thorough assessment of the plane’s impact on the water, marine life and coral reef — followed by “appropriate“ monetary compensation that’s costly enough so the military works to prevent a repeat of the accident.
“The Navy needs to do the right thing and provide adequate compensation to remediate the harm, “ Tanaka said. “We need to count our blessings because it could have been a lot worse—fire, toxins in the water. But there need to be consequences. It shouldn’t be on Hawaii residents to bear all of the burden of the Navy’s mistakes that may have damaged our ecosystem. I just hope the Navy does the right thing, which is what they said they wanted to.”
Civilian contractors SMIT Salvage and Center Lift on Saturday deployed inflatable roller bags beneath the plane to lift it off the reef and then roll it backward onto the runway using heavy machinery.
The P-8A crew of three pilots and six crew members assigned to the Whidbey Island, Wash.-based Patrol Squadron 4 “Skinny Dragon“ was arriving at Marine Corps Base Hawaii around 2 p.m. Nov. 20 for “maritime homeland defense“ operations.
No one was injured when the plane failed to land and ended up in the water.
The plane’s presence in the bay caused fixed-wing takeoffs and landings to shut down out of concern their exhaust blasts could cause the P-8A to shift in the water and cause further environmental damage.
A replacement crew and plane later landed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam to fill in for the crew that skidded into Kaneohe Bay.
The Navy planned to conduct an off-the-record safety investigation designed to prevent similar mishaps, followed by an official accident investigation that could have disciplinary and legal implications.
None of the information uncovered in the safety investigation can be used in the formal investigation into the cause of the mishap, Lenox previously said.
