From Yahoo a few mins ago

Two American fighter jets dropped four bombs on the Great Barrier Reef after a training exercise went wrong, it has emerged.

US officials said the pilots of two AV-8B Harrier jets were forced to jettison the unarmed devices on Tuesday because both aircrafts were running low on fuel and could not land with the bombs on board.

The pilots intended to drop the munitions on a designated bombing range on Townshend Island but aborted the mission when controllers reported the area was not clear of hazards.

Instead, they jettisoned two bombs from each aircraft on the World Heritage-listed marine park off the coast of Queensland state.

The pilots tried to minimise the damage by releasing the devices over deep water of more than 164 feet (50 meters) and away from coral reefs, officials said.

All four bombs were inert and so did not explode. It is unclear whether any environmental damage was caused.

An Australian Defence Force spokesman was quoted as saying the bombs posed "minimal risk or threat to the public, the marine environment or civilian shipping transiting the reef area".

The two jets were launched from aircraft carrier USS Bonhomme Richard during a three-week joint military training exercise involving around 28,000 US and Australian personnel.

Graeme Dunstan, who is among the environmentalists and anti-war activists protesting against the joint exercise, claimed the US military could no longer be trusted to protect the environment.

"How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real," Mr Dunstan said from the Queensland coastal town of Yepoon near where the military exercise is taking place.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest network of coral structures rich in marine life that stretches more than 1,,800 miles (3,000 kms) along the Australian northeast coast.

"How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real,"

Another prime example of rational thinking by those who have a "Cause"! They did NOT BOMB the reef! They jettisoned inert (that means not armed) bombs to keep themselves in the air long enough to return to base!! Should they have just crashed??? Or should they have flown away from the coast (remember, they were low on fuel) and crashed multi-million dollar aircraft into the ocean? Nothing like a little spin to get your talking point printed.

KB

KB TEXAS Wrote

Another prime example of rational thinking by those who have a "Cause"! They did NOT BOMB the reef! They jettisoned inert (that means not armed) bombs to keep themselves in the air long enough to return to base!! Should they have just crashed??? Or should they have flown away from the coast (remember, they were low on fuel) and crashed multi-million dollar aircraft into the ocean? Nothing like a little spin to get your talking point printed.

KBT......Grahame Dunstan was only offering his opinion. He may be right, he may be wrong, however, in Aussie Land the good people are entitled to offer their opinion. It then is up to others if they agree, or disagree, to said opinion....I would of thought.....but then again I may be wrong... in my opinion......cheers harpo

I would have thought that the more important items that needed answering would have been.

Why were they there in the first place (US is plenty big enough for them to do their own "dirty work" in their OWN back yard)
and Why when the mission was aborted were they low on fuel ......... whoever did the planning of a peace time exercise where the pilots get left so short that they have to "jettison inert bombs" just to keep themselves in the sky long enough to land should be stood against the nearest wall and shot !! (just for the sake of all the future pilots)
Oh and KB .....Given that they dropped 4 bombs onto the reef how can you possibly say "They did NOT BOMB the reef"

because per the article they DIDN'T drop four bombs on the reef, "The pilots tried to minimise the damage by releasing the devices over deep water of more than 164 feet (50 meters) and away from coral reefs, officials said."

by FrazeeDK » July 21, 2013, 5:05 pm

Wrote: because per the article they DIDN'T drop four bombs on the reef, "The pilots tried to minimise the damage by releasing the devices over deep water of more than 164 feet (50 meters) and away from coral reefs, officials said."

Frazee old chap, I do think you missed the "big Issue" If the navy boys (combined effort) had not f**d up, then the pilots would not have had to drop the bombs into the deep water, and excuse the pun, would not find themselves in deep sh*t, very embarrassing I would of thought...... .....cheers harpo

An inert "bomb" is a hunk of concrete in the shape and weight of the real thing. There is no explosive.
Dropping one into 50m of water will make a small splash and eventually a nice home for assorted fish, corals and crustaceans. All this at no charge to the Aussies. The reason the US Navy is flying around Australia likely has something to do with the decidedly one-sided mutual defense treaty.

Quanteen, I am sure that dropping four 500lb "bits of metal" from god knows how high into what can only be described as very shallow (50m) water can, and will make more than a "small splash" in what is already a very delicate ecosystem. The sediment alone could have devastating effects on the living coral for many many miles around the "drop zone".

stattointhailand wrote: Oh and KB .....Given that they dropped 4 bombs onto the reef how can you possibly say "They did NOT BOMB the reef"

Perhaps this is one of those separations in our languages? My understanding of the words 'they bombed the reef' would be they dropped explosive munitions that exploded and damaged the reef. They did not. What I got from the article is that they dropped 4 inert pieces of metal into deeper (50 meter) water. That is 164 ft deep, or well beyond where a normal scuba diver can dive. I am fairly certain that there are ships, parts of ships, and dumped metal rubbish that far outweighs those near the reef, humans being what they are, yet there is a quote/outcry about the 'environmental' impact...even AFTER the pilots tried to 'minimize' any impact by dropping into deeper water.

Harpo...I am well aware that many countries have the right to freedom of speech. Mr. Dunstan is entitled to his opinion. My issue was that it was presented in a rather dire quote as proof of environmental disregard. To me, it was at best overdone to get the environmentalist talking point published. (and do not get me wrong, I do think the environment is worth protecting, but I certainly see no environmental disaster here.) I think this part of the article sums it up nicely:

Graeme Dunstan, who is among the environmentalists and anti-war activists protesting against the joint exercise, claimed the US military could no longer be trusted to protect the environment.

"How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real,"

I would say his political views may far outweigh his scientific objectivity on the damage done, which was my meaning in my original post: Those that have a Cause (capitol C) usually are not very good at critical/rational thinking. And, as you point out, this is my opinion. Others may agree or disagree as they fancy.

KB

Quanteen wrote:The reason the US Navy is flying around Australia likely has something to do with the decidedly one-sided mutual defense treaty.

Given that it is so one-sided, goodness knows what is keeping the US in the treaty.

Could it have something to do with having a secure marine base in Darwin to help box China in; the Echelon signal listening station in WA; the Harold Holt VLF radio station essential for submarine communications, also in WA; the Pine Gap satellite tracking station in the NT; etc etc ?

I wonder if they could all be moved back onto US soil?

Quanteen wrote:An inert "bomb" is a hunk of concrete in the shape and weight of the real thing. There is no explosive.
Dropping one into 50m of water will make a small splash and eventually a nice home for assorted fish, corals and crustaceans. All this at no charge to the Aussies. The reason the US Navy is flying around Australia likely has something to do with the decidedly one-sided mutual defense treaty.

Sometimes the rubbish you spout is unbelievable. Concrete bombs indeed ,you obviously know nothing about planes . They are fully fledged bombs in every sense of the word but without being fused. They have to fit in the bomb holder under the wings , so must be the standard product .The exercise they were meant to be carrying them for is to test the accuracy of both the pilots and the weaponry, which includes the glide path, a lump of concrete would just drop , well like a stone.
The same goes for KB's inert metal. In my experience they would have contained explosives but wouldn't have been fused .
As Statts said. I would be more concerned why the two planes were low on fuel having aborted the original mission. I would have thought they had too much which if they had discarded that would have damaged the eco system . :-"

I bow to your superior knowledge Trubrit. You really do seem to know-it-all.
Best have a tonic and a sitdown before playing this video that was posted last week from RAF Lakenheath (perhaps you've heard of it).

U.S. Air Force 48th Munitions Squadron Builds BDU-50 Concrete Practice bombs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnJpZ8Tl6QA

I realize this is Air Force, but the Navy uses them, too. And yes, they make a splash when they hit the water.

Can you explain to us why boats float, Unkle Truebrit?

Quanteen wrote:I bow to your superior knowledge Trubrit. You really do seem to know-it-all.
Best have a tonic and a sitdown before playing this video that was posted last week from RAF Lakenheath (perhaps you've heard of it).

U.S. Air Force 48th Munitions Squadron Builds BDU-50 Concrete Practice bombs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnJpZ8Tl6QA

I realize this is Air Force, but the Navy uses them, too. And yes, they make a splash when they hit the water.

Can you explain to us why boats float, Unkle Truebrit?

I must admit we didn't make them like that in my days in the RAF, However to call them concrete bombs is rather wild. Whilst the concrete has replaced the body of the bomb and I would think equals the weight of the explosive, it's obvious the tail section and the nose are still metal. Yes after 15 years in fighter command I do know rather a lot about flying .

Seems like a bunch of wasted ink in the press. 4 inert 'bombs' or whatever, dropped where nobody will be harmed, won't be seen, didn't hurt or probably damage anything, unless landing on a great white not paying attention. A few plastic bags thrown in the water are much more dangerous. Entertainment Spin News.

That's why it's a 'training exercise', so if sh*t happens...........nothing happens. Rules are rules, and they probably could of returned with no incident, but ordinance must be dropped no matter. Ask Laos how that rule feels.

That it even made the news...........should be the news.

I'm sure there was no real problem with the integrity of the reef by the bombs being dropped but Towneshend island is virtually on the mainland, a tall bloke could maybe walk there at low tide. It is used by the australian armed services for a lot of practice exercises. The questions aussies will rightfully request answers to why a practice run for accuracy tests by pilots was commenced without the so called hazards not being cleared. Was there some US personnel on a sightseeing drive around the island high on something. They took off from an aircraft carrier which would have maybe been outside the barrier reef and most certainly in more than 50 meters of water, so why not get back nearer to the boat then drop the munitions whether they be concrete , metal, or paper mache" close by to be monitored.

It has already been correctly commented on about Aussie / US treaties being 1 way. Stupid comment. there are and have been many co-operation between us. Keep what global friends you have left i think.

by WhoUrDaddy » July 21, 2013, 9:33 pm

Wrote: Seems like a bunch of wasted ink in the press. 4 inert 'bombs' or whatever, dropped where nobody will be harmed, won't be seen, didn't hurt or probably damage anything, unless landing on a great white not paying attention. A few plastic bags thrown in the water are much more dangerous. Entertainment Spin News.

That's why it's a 'training exercise', so if sh*t happens...........nothing happens. Rules are rules, and they probably could of returned with no incident, but ordinance must be dropped no matter. Ask Laos how that rule feels.
That it even made the news...........should be the news.

WYD..just wondering did you scan Goggle for a more informed media opinion, and the fact that it did make the news, on the Navy boys dropping their whatevers during their good o'l training exercise, if ya all did, maybe ya all woulda noticed that the world wide media has picked it up, the following is an example from CNN.... cheers harpo

U.S. military jettisons bombs near Australia's Great Barrier Reef
From Ben Brumfield and Barbara Starr, CNN
July 21, 2013 -- Updated 1913 GMT (0313 HKT)

The Great Barrier Reef is composed of more than 3,000 individual reefs interspersed with more than 600 islands.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• NEW: Official: The Navy is looking at how it can get the bombs out
• U.S. aircraft dropped four unarmed bombs not far from the Great Barrier Reef
• Navy: The planes were running out of fuel and could not land with such cargo
• Report: An Australian lawmaker calls the action "outrageous"
(CNN) -- Two U.S. military aircraft jettisoned four bombs near the Great Barrier Reef off the Australian coast last week, the U.S. Navy says.
Now, the Navy is looking at how it can get the bombs out, a U.S. Navy official who declined to be identified told CNN.
The two Marine planes abandoned the bombs Tuesday in the national park containing the natural wonder because they were running out of fuel and could not land with the amount of ordnance on board, the Navy said. The two Marine aircraft were launched from a Navy ship, the USS Bonhomme Richard.
Two of the projectiles were explosive bombs that were disarmed before they were dropped. They did not explode, the Navy said. The other two were inert or non-explosive bombs, the Navy said.

It appears both of you were correct re: the 'bombs' dropped.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's chairman Russell Reichelt said while it was not an ideal situation the consequences of the dumping were minimal.

"The impacts on the environment are negligible and since there was four weapons dropped, two were filled with concrete and two with explosives, they weren't armed and they were essentially inert so the environment affects where they land on the flat sea bottom,'' he said.

"It was well away from any sensitive habitat."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/us ... 6682767552

It also appears that the 'issue' forcing them into an unplanned drop was due to civilian boaters in the drop zone...perhaps Mr Dunstan's group?

The US military says it had to dump the ordinance in an unplanned location after "civilian vessels'' were detected inside a pre-approved drop zone.

"There were civilian boats right below them."

KB

What a shame?? How would Americans feel if all the Countries where they have left countless numbers of unexploded bombs [Cambodia, Laos] did the same to their Country?????.. Australia spend thousands of Dollars in clearing away live bombs from Countries in Asia. If you create a mess you should do everything to clear it up, Action speaks louder than excuses.

Total beat up story - waste of space and printers ink

KB_Texas » July 22, 2013, 10:27 am
Wrote
It also appears that the 'issue' forcing them into an unplanned drop was due to civilian boaters in the drop zone...perhaps Mr Dunstan's group?

KG Texas good observation, and the post does add to the discussion

My observations would be this. One would of thought that as we are constantly reminded that the US of A has the most technologically advanced navy, and weapons systems in the world, coupled together with the most advanced computer assisted programs to alert pilots e.g.: of possible system failures ( low fuel pending x amount of flying time left or something like that) that the collective flight crews, and coordinators, on the aircraft carrier, that to my under standing monitor the planes systems, so as to avoid pilot error....one would think that the navy pilots would have had advanced warning that they were getting low on fuel, and would have had to dump the 4 bombs at sea, I have no augment with that. Therefore if that being the case then the question is this, why simply didn't the pilots receive orders from the command on the flight deck to go well out to sea, and away from the Great Barrier Reef away from harms way and dump the bombs....This is the issue that is pissing the Aussies off, and I might also add, some of the Australian Senators..... I say to those fat, cigar chewing, fat arses, with their fancy braided peaked hats, and shinny sunglasses, on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, next time, just show a little bit of respect mate. However, sadly, that may be beneath their position, and station ....cheers harpo