Not that I can see gf.
Pretty sure it was forward of the citadel. (some imagery taken plugging FOC)
will check at work tomorrow, hopefully I can find the link
otherwise I'm at risk
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Pretty sure it was forward of the citadel. (some imagery taken plugging FOC)
will check at work tomorrow, hopefully I can find the link
otherwise I'm at risk
SouthernSky
Member
No worries. Will check in tomorrow for a look.
t68
Well-Known Member
Not saying we should do it more of how it could possably be utilised by the RAN. But saying that it depends on how much coin you want to throw at it, just look at Bill & Ben the money we ended up throwing at them we most probably bought a new buil Iwo Jima. The Majestic class carriers were only meant to be cheap throw away ships look how long they lasted.
SouthernSky
Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Grow up,90% a majority of post's can lead to exactly what you are suggesting that being the off topic world. Suggest you look context of the post and see where it fits in the broader scheme of things.
Play Nice
Ocean's only ASW capability is from being able to carry helicopters. Unlike Hyuga & Ise, she doesn't have a stonking great big bow sonar, high speed, storage for lots of air-launched ASW torpedoes, etc. She's also nearing the end of her planned life. She was skimped on in build to save money, necessitating remedial work, & by all accounts some things were never put right. The RN's found her very useful despite that, but if it could get a better-built replacement I think there'd be a huge collective sigh of relief.
Muar River
Member
I was impressed with the CN's information regarding the continuous shipbuilding programme.
Exciting times ahead for the RAN with the steel cut for patrol boat replacements in 2018 and future frigate in 2020.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into what the CN said but does this give a hint to the preferred future frigate? What was said below to me appears to rule out older design(s) and improves the chances of the F125 export variant?
"But to do so, we will need to think differently about our approach to acquisition and asset management. We will need to embrace new concepts; – ship zero; sustainment in design, true asset management. We need to consider new basing arrangements and manning concepts. We need to be innovative and agile."
t68
Well-Known Member
Agreed, I did know about those things I am not advocating getting Ocean merely pointing out that it could have benifits to the RAN, a dumded down version of Hyuga. I believe it's an area (ASW/ASuW) which are capabilty should be increasing
The Majestics were not particularly old nor did they serve for particularly long lives.
Many ships large and small built during the emergency of WW2 lasted longer in various guises in various navies.
Any large ship say 20,000 tonnes+ is built with plate thickness appropriate to their use and size and in normal circumstances a 30 + year life could be expected. The "throw away" term you use may possibly be used in a political/financial sense but not in a ship life way.
FYI HMAS Sydney served in 2 commissions, the first as a carrier from Feb 49 - May 58 and as a transport from Jun 62 - Nov 73, just 20 yrs service.
HMAS Melbourne served from Oct 55 to Jun 82, 27 yrs.
t68
Well-Known Member
It's my understanding that the Majestics are a sub-class of the 1942 Light fleet carrier design for their claim to fame was to be designed in civillian yards with service life of 5 years or less, and much cheaper than a full size fleet carrier at the time, if memory serves me correct INS Vikrant serves for just shy of 40 years, not bad for a ship that was only supposed to last a few years.
No worries. Will check in tomorrow for a look.
trawled through my history at work and couldn't find anything but aft of the island shots. so have put a request out for happy snaps
she's still swanning around the eastern seaboard, so maybe I'll have to see if someone can get a closer look when she pulls up next to wooly next
next time I'll dump the screen
The service life limitation was simply a fact that they would not serve beyond WW2 as there was no purpose for them in the RN having provided air cover for Atlantic convoys and would never be refitted.
They were designed to civilian rules with added w/t compartments so they could be completed in civilian yards.
This concept is not much different to JC1. (Our LHDs are built o Lloyds Naval Rules although the difference is not huge). The RAN places a 40 yr life expectancy on ours, hardly "throw away" ships.
It's all about terminology and circumstance.
trawled through my history at work and couldn't find anything but aft of the island shots. so have put a request out for happy snaps
she's still swanning around the eastern seaboard, so maybe I'll have to see if someone can get a closer look when she pulls up next to wooly next
next time I'll dump the screen
She could need the warning in a couple of years when the USMC starts bringing F-35Bs to Darwin.
The (non) replacement of Melbourne is an interesting one and to me seems to hark back to the late 50s when the government of the day tried to convert her to a helicopter carrier while the RAN were lobbying to acquire a larger more capable strike carrier. The issue at the time was it was not believed possible for her to operate a new generation of aircraft making replacement or re-roling the only apparent options.
New build and transferred (modernised) options were seen as to expensive and rejected in favour of a cheap ASW helicarrier conversion backed up by new and converted missile ships which would take on the air defence role. Reality raised its head with changing a strategic situation only a few years later when there were no readily available replacements which led to a stay of execution on fixed wing aviation and the order of the Shyhawks and Trackers which carried her through to her retirement and the failed acquisition of a helicopter / VSTOL carrier.
I can't help but wonder if the reason we lost both carriers after comparatively short lives was because the government (an maybe sections of the ADF) thought them too large and expensive for what they offered, while the carrier supporters had spent years saying they were too small and lacking in capability. Maybe if we had just been happy with what we had and planned accordingly, we could have got more out of them.
The "Melbourne" replacement was an ongoing project and in its final iteration, it was led by Capt Tos Dadswell RAN. It was almost a certainty until the catapult failed during the 1980 deployment which then limited fixed wing ops to only the Trackers (less stressful launch). This spooked the govt. who started to re-think the expense and gave the incoming Hawke govt. one of their excuses to ditch it until the Invincible/Falklands canned it altogether.
By 1981 the carrier supporters were desperate and had been willing to accept a "Through Deck Cruiser" despite losing a vast amount of capability.
On a personal note, the failure by govt. to replace Melbourne was the major reason why I resigned from the RAN. As an ASW specialist and CAG ASW at the time, I reasoned if the people of Aust., through their government, were happy to move our navy from the bottom of the First Division of navies to the Third division of Frigate navies, I no longer had the desire to serve. It neutered our naval effectiveness.
I'm sure those same sentiments resonate with many who have transferred from other navies to an invigorated RAN.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
I guess the history of the RAN Light Fleet Carriers is going to be modified and modified again down through the years however there are some errors in your example - not worth rehashing however IMHO except at the end HMAS Melbourne was really really ratshit. It was in that condition during my time aboard late 1971 - early 1972 so I would have to define ratshit (without the really really). Of course MELBOURNE soldiered on with the hard work of all concerned to keep her going despite the ratshitness - all those concerned should be applauded many times over and not forgotten. The living conditions for most of the crew would not pass muster then and not today of course.
MELBOURNE was at the limit of smallness for operating both the Twacker and the A4G. Note the limited wing tip to island space when S-2 on centreline - around 6 feet. TINS This Is No Shit. USN NATOPS required their A-4s to have a minimum of 6.5 feet hook to ramp clearance. MELBOURNE was 6 foot with a slightly higher approach angle to get it. Every time I see a 'taxi 1' clip of an A4G (the same one) my heart stops.
Thank goodness the catapult - though short, was up to the task - most of the time and when it was bad it was really really bad. The cat problem (that caused the loss of A4G 889 with SBLT Barry Evans surviving spectacularly) could not be replicated. The last A4G catapult, when 885 was lost with SBLT Dave Baddams ejecting at the end, was caused by poor performance of the cat crew closing up quickly and not so accurately AFAIK.
A faulty under deck wire connection after a refit caused the loss of A4G 888 with LCDR Kevin Finan USN ejecting just as the aircraft left the angle deck. BZ all.
Losing A4G 886 overboard when being moved during a storm, when the carrier without warning changed course (apparently the bridge could not see the movement) was one of those fish head things. MELBOURNE was a tough ship to operate from with the A4Gs and S2E/Gs. It was a tough ship for the crew to operate and live within - hammocks and no aircon for them in the tropics is just beyond belief bad all round - but they did it and BZ them. I could go on but will stop there if you get my drift. I have seen different non-aviators make claims about MELBOURNE but birdies know their stuff.
I see 'Assail' has posted as I typed - I'll read it now....
I have a report about the catapult crew and the loss of 885 and will post an URL to it soonish....
This 3 page 'loss of A4G 885' report PDF is 3.5Mb deliberately so as to make the small text graphic readable. The original photocopy scan given to me was very poor. Perhaps it can be made into text - hang on - it has.... That URL to another website at ADFserials. com to follow. Meanwhile:
Main SpazSinbad OneDrive Page: https://onedrive.live.com/?id=root&cid=CBCD63D6340707E6
OneDrive Folder: FAA A-4G Skyhawk RAN PDFs
3.5Mb PDF file: Loss885reportA4GcatapultMalfunction21oct1980.pdf
Last edited:
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Go here for the story and start from the top of the page to work down to the 'text version of the 885 pdf' mentioned above: 'ASSAIL' will know 'Nick Thorne' (I do not but know him personally but know who he is etc.)
Loss of Skyhawk 885
ADF Serials Message Board -> Loss of Skyhawk 885
I should elaborate on my last sentence on being happy with what we had and better planning. Melbourne's poor condition, substandard accommodation, marginal ability to operate modern aircraft was exacerbated by poor planning and under investment, due in a large part to under investment in maintenance and upgrades (a persistent problem in the RAN), which can mostly be attributed to the stated intention to replace or retire Melbourne for most of her career.
My experience with the RAN, or more to the point the government, is they push their assets hard and penny pinch on sustainment, just look at the fat ships and their condition by 2010. Platforms have been run into the ground, missing out on needed upgrades and maintenance, let alone significant modernisations.
Melbourne would never have operated modern aircraft as well as a newer, larger design, but many of the other issues could have been remedied when she was younger, had it been planned and the money been spent. Part of the reason this work would not have been funded was the 1950s intention to get out of fixed wing naval aviation and latter due to plans to replace her, meaning the investment was not seen as worthwhile.
My experience with the RAN, or more to the point the government, is they push their assets hard and penny pinch on sustainment, just look at the fat ships and their condition by 2010. Platforms have been run into the ground, missing out on needed upgrades and maintenance, let alone significant modernisations.
Melbourne would never have operated modern aircraft as well as a newer, larger design, but many of the other issues could have been remedied when she was younger, had it been planned and the money been spent. Part of the reason this work would not have been funded was the 1950s intention to get out of fixed wing naval aviation and latter due to plans to replace her, meaning the investment was not seen as worthwhile.
SouthernSky
Member
trawled through my history at work and couldn't find anything but aft of the island shots. so have put a request out for happy snaps
she's still swanning around the eastern seaboard, so maybe I'll have to see if someone can get a closer look when she pulls up next to wooly next
next time I'll dump the screen
Fair enough. I must admit I had my doubts about contradicting you as you're generally spot on with these things.
- Status