Talk:HMAS Choules

Armament

Armament is correct and current at 2 x 7.62mm Mk44 Miniguns, 6 x 7.62mm L7 GPMGs as of April 2008. Remains FTR 2 x 30mm, 2 x 20mm Vulcan Phalanx but no sign of these being fitted yet, other than that Cardigan (and only Cardigan) has received the 2 x 30mm. Aimed at Micky750k who amended armament omitting what she is actually fitted with! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anixtu (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have any links showing this armament I'll be happy to change it - but I've taken the details direct from the royal navy website

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5066 --Micky750k (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Navy website is correct, in as much as the ship is fitted to receive (FTR) 2 x Vulcan Phalanx (fo'c'sle deckhouse and abaft mainmast) and 2 x 30mm DS30B (after corners of superstructure) but what she actually carries at present is the miniguns and GPMGs and there is photographic evidence for at least the mountings for all of those. If she ever receives the fixed weapons they will be in addition to the small arms. This is first hand knowledge from having served on the ship. FWIW, the ship's complement on the RN page is also incorrect. Anixtu (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Haiti 2010

Is there a mission name for this effort? There seems to be controversy about it already http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6994452.ece

70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Shifting to RAN

Have started to shift the article to RAN. Completed the infoship box update and the template changes for RAN. Will finish up shifting the rest of the stuff, including the redirects.

LionFlyer 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The question now is when do you rename the page HMAS Choules? Now or when she is actually commissioned into the RAN? Jaxsonjo (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

When she's commissioned, I think. She doesn't get the 'HMAS' part of her name until that time (at present she'll either be Largs Bay or NUSHIP Choules to the RAN) Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to believe tomorrow's edition of Navy News, she's being referred to as "ADF Ship Choules" until commissioning. Maybe because she isn't a new-build? -- saberwyn 10:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 202.156.10.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

I've removed the {{update}} tag, as the article is as updated as possible with the available information. -- saberwyn 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

From memory the name remains Largs Bay (without the RFA designation) until she is commissioned. NUSHIP is used for just that, new builds (so the first LHD will be NUSHIP Canberra after her launch until her commissioning). On that basis given the change in her status should the page also reflect this and be renamed 'Largs Bay', dropping the RFA and the L3006Jaxsonjo (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME of the ship is RFA Largs Bay; even though it is not her name right now, she's been known as this for several years, and its how media reports and other sources refer to her (except when they make the mistake of considering her HMS :P ) So, per Wikipedia's naming conventions (both generally and WP:SHIPNAME), the prefix and name should remain. -- saberwyn 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming?

Following on from the above, the ship is due to be formally commissioned into the RAN this Friday. The question I have is: do we move the article to HMAS Choules (L100) immediately to recognise the new name, or do we leave it here for a while because Largs Bay's four-odd years of operational history is still the primary topic of the article? -- saberwyn 08:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that HMAS Choules will be, in effect, the ship's common name as of Friday, as well as what people navigating to the article will expect to see. It will also be the official name for this vessel. As such, it seems logical to move it as soon as she's commissioned. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A change in operational name is not necessarily a change to WP:COMMONNAME. Whilst in Australia the common name will become Choules very quickly, the common name in the UK will be retained as Largs Bay for a significantly longer period of time and in other places it will be a mix between the two depending on vicinity to either population. I think until her service history as the Choules starts generating noteworthy information to include in the article then according to WP:SHIPNAME, it should remain here with a redirect from HMAS Choules (L100). JonEastham (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically you may be right Jon, although I think this would be a fairly strange solution. Having the name of the article reflect the current name just makes sense to me (i.e. HMAS Choules once it is commissioned). Perhaps a case of WP:IGNORE? Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ARA Belgrano might be a good case to use here: it has two articles. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So do other ships like HMS Vengeance (R71) and Brazilian aircraft carrier Minas Gerais, but I don't think that there is enough material to justify such a split (maybe in the future, but definitely not at the moment). -- saberwyn 10:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Crewing

Does anyone know the reason why the RAN crew numbers are significantly higher than the RFA numbers? --Mrteeve (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess that the RFA crew was the minimum needed to operate the ship, and that the extra personnel needed to look after troops and cargo were added only when these were actually embarked, while the RAN includes these personnel as part of the ship's core complement (eg, Choules has a permanent ships army detachment from the Army assigned to her). That said, inefficiencies and incompetence can't be ruled out given the RAN's many problems at the moment... Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D is correct in regards to the RFA count only including those necessary to 'drive' the ship, while the RAN count also includes those required to operate her as an amphibious vessel. Also (but this is speculation on my part), having to find homes and places to train personnel from both Kanimbla class vessels may have contributed to the difference in personnel numbers. -- saberwyn 08:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Navy will also now be starting to train the crew needed to commission Canberra - she's only two years (a single naval posting cycle, I think) away from completion and there seems to be a lot of anxiety about whether RAN and Army will have sufficient personnel with the skills and experience to operate her effectively. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The permanent RFA complement is enough for basic operations. It does not include mexeflote crews as no landing craft are permanently attached. Nor does it include stevedores for amphibious ops as these are embarked as and when required. RFA Bays perform a variety of roles other than straight amphibious lift and will tend to take naval or Army augmentees as required for the role assigned at the time. Key differences in RAN service are likely to include: permanently attached landing craft crews, enhanced flight deck manning, enhanced medical manning. The RFA complement figure is wrong, but that is because the officially published figures have been wrong since inception and never corrected. The basic complement for a Bay in RFA service is 69. 68 RFA personnel + 1 x Army WO2. A "mission enhanced" Bay class complement is typically around 110. Anixtu (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Flight Deck & TAS

Flight deck has a single spot marked out, as can be seen in the video here: http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Choules Most official/reliable statements say that the flight deck has capacity for two helicopters, not that it can operate two helicopters simultaneously. This is a deliberate fudge. The flight deck is large enough to be marked out for two spots for Merlin sized helicopters (only one Chinook at a time) but only has one spot painted on and flight deck services (e.g. FDO position) are placed to service that single marked spot. A second aircraft could be 'on the flight deck' but parked forward of the actual helicopter launch and recovery area delineated by the yellow and black painted ridge across the deck. Flight deck has 'space for multiple helicopters' but does not have two spots.

The TAS in RFA service is only known or stated to have held a single helicopter, but there is room for an unspecified number. Unspecified because it would depend on type and no-one has yet tried to fit more than one helicopter. In light of this it is false accuracy to say 'capacity for one' or 'capable of holding two'. "Capacity for at least one" would be accurate. Anixtu (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All I have to go off is the information I wrote at Bay class landing ship that I took from the 2008 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships, plus two articles by Richard Scott for Jane's Information group publications. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of the sources to double-check their exact statements, but will try to do so at earliest opportunity. -- saberwyn 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not usable for the article as it would constitute OR, but worth bearing in mind when interpreting the information from reliable sources: I have been inside the TAS with a Lynx stowed. There is room for at least two Lynx, possibly more. Better to leave the article ambiguous than include well-referenced but incorrect information. Anixtu (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo

There's a really nice photo of Largs here - but I'm not sure whether it's available under the OGL, they seem to be tightening up on that for defence images at least. Being from up and behind, it really gives a sense of the purpose of the Bays. 86.25.7.71 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Without an explicit statement indicating the Open Government Licence is in effect, it should be assumed that the image is under Crown Copyright, and is therefore unusable on Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 08:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's a shame though, as that is an excellent photo. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

LPD vs LSD?

I understand that the RAAF doesnt have to follow the American Hull classification symbols, but in the info column it is still listed as the Bay Class LSD. As the Choules has had a hangar permanently added, does this now make it more like an LPD rather than LSD as per the definition on this page Dock landing ship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrteeve (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused: examples of both ship types appear to have hangars and are capable of operating helicopters. Regardless, it is not our place to guess what designation is given to a ship, instaed we should be going off what reliable published sources say. The Royal Australian Navy currently lists HMAS Choules as a "Landing Ship, Dock (LSD)", and other sources I've seen agree. If the RAN changes this designation, the article should be altered to match. -- saberwyn 11:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - unless reliable sources (for instance, Jane's Fighting Ships) call these vessels something other than LSDs, this is what we need to use. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMAS Choules (L100). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206021228/http://www.navy.gov.au/Naming_of_Ex_RFA_Largs_Bay_-_HMAS_Choules to http://www.navy.gov.au/Naming_of_Ex_RFA_Largs_Bay_-_HMAS_Choules

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)