My mate (a handler) told me a story about 4 or 5 Sailors who were adrift (AWOL) from the Melbourne, and fronted the Captain later. They each made up a story about no taxi's available so they got the horse and cart but each time the horses ended up dropping dead, for various reasons, at an inter section so they had to walk back to the Ship, thus the AWOL charge. (Captain was very suss and frustrated at this point). Anyway, the last Sailor to front the Captain stated that he had no trouble getting a cab but was late because they got stuck at an intersection that was full of all these dead horses and carts. (Story via Alex Dalgleish).
(81 -82) having been in the Navy for nearly 11 years and seeing the MELBOURNE tied up alongside in GI over the years I always looked at her as being the filthiest , dirties ship in the Fleet and felt sorry for the crew. When my posting in the WLSP in December of 80 came out I was very upset and threw a hissy fit. My! how impression can change. Like a good sailor I joined Melbourne, yes she was dirty and filthy, and I learnt several reasons for this during my time in Her. Although glad to leave Her in 1982 I came to realise what a great ship She is. The Ship's Company was the best I ever served with especially when it cam to playing war games the unity that kicked in and working as one was fantastic, I consider to this day that she was the Best Ship I ever served on and really get frustrated and hate it when people call her a jinxed ship
She was my first ship. I did the Jubilee trip in 77 and the USA trip to San Diego to pick-up the new Grumman Trackers. Good ship, had some great times on her.
Whenever one sees these old films, one always remembers - well, for me, the twenty-year holiday sailing around the world. I served on 9 ships from 1975, aged 17 - 1995, and everyone from Barbette to the JB, Supply, Darwin, Adelaide, Torrens, Yarra, Hobart, and Perth was filled with great mates and great runs.
Was in the RAAF and landed on the Melbourne as part of an exchange to promote inter service operability, swapped flight caps (CVS 21), now a very valued possession.
They sold it to a Singaporean company that was supposed to scrap her in India, but China bought it from the Singaporean company. Which was probably a CCP tentacle company. There was supposedly quite a bit of tech still on board. The Chinese tried to reverse engineer the catapult system and even contacted the Australian Govt. to see if they would release the blueprints. Australia politely ignored the request.
Not many countries carriers have catapult system, even the mighty Soviet Union. At times steam catapult is one of the toughest system to maintain and calibrate the strength output ratio. Now China is developing its own EMAL system, its more future proof system.
@@markprance6351 Liberals unwisely deferred the decision on replacement until after the election - Labor cancelled the plans for a replacement as soon as they won the election. Crazy, crazy stuff. Political incompetence and dereliction of duty on one hand, and traitorous behaviour on the other. Apparently the flight deck was still in existence for training purposes, somewhere in China for donkeys years after.
Worked with her during my time in nz navy. Always had lookout posted just to keep eye on her! Her pendant number 21 - two down - one to go! We didn't want to be the 'one'
The press loved the "jinx ship" bullshit. Yes, it was old. Yes, it was hard Yakka keeping her going, but you take what you have and do your job. Whenever I was at sea with her, and all the blokes I joined with who were posted to her, most enjoyed their time onboard. But the gloom and doom press ONLY ever focused on anything negative. The thousands of hours of flight deck ops, with the exemplary safety record? Pffft, that doesn't interest the media. We may have had a laugh about her now and then, but she served us well.
Robert Chinnock They struggle to find enough money to keep the 3500t Vampire in decent condition, so where would the money have come from to maintain a 20,000t Carrier? She was laid down in 1943 for 3-5;years of war service, nearly 40 years later. New Carrier by 1985 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@Harldin We had HMS Invincible on order from the British for delivery by 1983 although that plan went down the drain when the Argentines attacked the Falklands
@@devonlord99 The Invincible was offered to us 2nd Hand, originally we were going to order a modified Iwo Jima off the Americans which in all honesty would have been more useful anyway. The Invincible would have been virtually useless for most of the next Decade The RAN had about 8 Sea kings all up, so that's about 4 Aircraft deployed at once. The new Hawke Government would have tried to cancel the deal anyway. Within days of coming to power they announced the cancellation of the Carrier replacement project. We would have been lucky to get Harriers by the early 90s and they would have been AV-8Bs. Did you know that the RAN held a competition for a new Carrier in 80-81, the contenders were the US Sea Control Ship(design sold to Spain and was built as the Princepe De'Asturis), the Invincible design, the Italian Garibaldi and a modified Iwo Jima. It was won by the Iwo Jima,
I though U.S.S. Oriskany attack carrier and same class CVA's were way too small for aircraft operated. But this ship makes Oriskany look like Enterprise. It is so tiny. S-3 Tracker ASW is almost as wide , with wings spread, as the flight deck at the crotch. A-4 looks huge sitting on its deck. The smaller the carrier , the bigger the balls (of aviators), I gather.
Considering that Phantoms could operate from RN carriers and Trackers from Melbourne and Karel Doorman I suspect that the US Navy's argument that their Essex class carriers were too small for modern aircraft was an excuse to pressure Congress into building new ones, instead of upgrading the old ones.
@@iangodfrey4518 It depends. HMS Ark Royal could operate 12 Phantoms and 14 Buccaneers plus support aircraft with her weight of 43.000 tons and she looks small compared to a modified Essex which was only 3000 tons heavier and 21 meters longer. And a modified Essex carrier carried 2 F8 Crusader squadrons and 3 A4 Skyhawk squadrons plus support aircraft. Which is a lot more bang for the buck. USS Oriskany even operated 2 squadrons of A7 Corsairs in the 70's. So it's not like an Essex carried that small an airgroup. Although she would probably carry less Phantoms then Crusaders. Like she carried less Corsairs compared to the Skyhawk. I think the reason why British carriers carried less aircraft for similar tonnage is that they were cramped as f*** and hard to modify with their armored decks and hangars. The refit of HMS Victorious after the war was so difficult and costly they decided to scrap the refits of the rest of her class. I suspect the main reason for ditching the Essex class for the super carriers was bigger is better, the one shipyard capable of building them needs to stay in business with new orders and they figured that if Congress was going to give them X amount of carriers, they better make them bigger to get more bang for the buck. The downside however is, put all your eggs in one basket and if you lose one in battle, that's going to be a major loss with major political fallout. If you got 24 medium sized carriers and you lose like 4 of them, you have enough spare capacity to continue the war. If you only got 11, like now and you lose 1, or god forbid 4, your fleet is going to be crippled and chances are Washington is going to panic. Like with everything, there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. 1 carrier that can do the job of 2 offers economic savings. quantity however has a quality of its own too.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 Also A4 was tiny compared to Phantoms and Buccaneers. The Phantom was arguably too big for British carriers I'd say. They had extra long nose wheel strut to get some angle of attack going on launch. Probably should have gone the A4 route and had a larger air group, with some loss in capability probably. But yes, British boats of the period never had the best ergonomics nor layout.
The new Hawke Government had no interest in Australia having a Carrier they would have scuppered the deal in 1983. And to be an Aircraft Carrier you need to have Aircraft to carry on it, a 20,000t Carrier is a very expensive way to take 4 Sea Kings to sea, because that would have been her Air Group into the early 90s, she may have finally got AV-8B Harriers by the mid 90s.
HMS Hermes not impressing the Ozzies is kinda deliciously ironic though as she survived the three Invincible class carriers that replaced her while in Indian service. That ship served whoever owned her very well.
I been on hmas Melbourne and went on a Australian tiger cruise with my dad he was in Australian army reserves special forces and he took me aboard on hmas Melbourne and hmas Onslow submarine
Thanks for the post!!!! I DO plan on building a 1/700 scale HMAS Melbourne for my fleet of carriers...maybe this year of 2021P!!! It is a resin kit that I plan to put together, was wondering if you have Any Other info on her...mostly her guns, numbers, and radar sets. Thanks!! USN Veteran 84-05.
Got an idea that is Dave Duel on throttles fwd machinery space with Chief Finnucine , I started there but ended up aft machinery space , punching sprayers and T3 generator , small boats and lived in 2 Delta Stb Mess , served on her from mid 80s till 82 great ship and greater ship mates
nathan 007 Speaking of morons.. You should do some research before running your mouth off, so you don’t look like a fool. In fact the US destroyer turned in front of the carrier and was cut in half. I believe it happened at night. God rest their souls. All sea operations are dangerous, having multiple warships operating in proximity more so.
Melbourne was to be replace by Illustrious or Invincible as the RN was down sizing then the Falklands War happened and the RN needed two carriers. Australia agreed too forgo the purchase which left Australia carrier less really to this day.
You can thank Labor ... they cancelled the plans to buy one from the Yanks. Typical commie socialists, haven't changed a bit. Although to be fair - the Liberals (unwisely) deferred any plans for purchase in 1983 until after the forthcoming election. Labor cancelled when they won it. In hindsight, Libs should have signed a contract for replacement ship and planes before the election, so if they lost Labor would have been stuck with it. In reality, their heart probably wasn't in it either - tight budgets, inflation, etc.
They can't last forever but the basic ship would still be very useful today and quite frankly a small catapult launched jet fighter is better than a ski jump VSTOL aircraft all other factors being equal. Similarly the Grumman Tracker is also better than any helicopter at ASW.
Australia still had the last vestiges of a cultural divide between the upper class going very English style private schools and the rest going to Government and religious schools.
killbot86 + I was in that war HMS Plymouth, Australia could have bought a full price Invincible class carrier, but they wanted a cheap give away cost carrier.
@@henryvagincourt Well that was the thing, Australia in the 1980's had a very shaky economy, so they wouldn't have the budget for a brand new carrier. So when they couldn't get a discounted, used carrier then they had no choice but to say goodbye to having a blue-water navy
Australian Labor party sold HMAS Melbourne (R21) to China just as the UK Labour party sold Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine to the USSR (which aid the development of MiG 15).
We should get a new built most likely cost 3 billion dollars depends were it gets built but not Australia it would most cost 5 billion and with new technologies you would a crew of 700-750 maybe
25/09/2121 Interesting comments from viewers. Yes, our political leaders have left us "neutered". We certainly do still require ships with Melbournes' potential. The two ships we have have the capability to work with F35's and I believe should be upgraded to do so. We are not in a good situation with our "wonderful" northern neighbour and should do everything to give us some "PULL". The AUSUK idea of nuc subs is just a start.
It is criminal that the Melbourne as not replaced. Considering we operated 2 carriers for so long, this capability should never have been allowed to lapse. Unfortunately both the Sydney and the Melbourne were scrapped by Labor governments who saw no value in them. Whitlam and Hawke were to blame. They both thought that defense could be done on the cheap. Of course coalition governments share some blame, by not investing in carriers while they had the chance. The current white paper defense strategy, while imperfect, has at least put defense back into long term planning mode and both parties have supported a steady build up of defense spending. It needs to go higher still, and getting back to a 2 carrier navy needs to be an urgent goal. Large carriers are not necessary, and ships similar in size to the America Class at around 45,000 tons and a mix of F35, and helicopters including a naval attack helicopter capability are needed. If a military crisis happens while someone like Trump is in power, we cannot rely of American assistance like we once could. The US has become unreliable and self-interested. Defense spending should increase as needed. The way China has been very aggressive in recent years means it is time to get more serious about defense and accept that it is expensive, but necessary.
Hard to see what two aircraft carriers would do against an "aggressive" China. Reality is it would probably be too dangerous to deploy them in a a high-level conflict. Question is basically opportunity cost. Buying two large aircraft carriers, lots of expensive carrier aircraft and helicopters comes at the expense of something else eg. air force, army, other ships, submarines etc.
@@davidcarey9135 Australian defence spending was at too low a level for a long time under the idea that we ride on American coattails. It is only recently that it has reached 2% of budget. To make up for the years of neglect it should rise to close to 4% for several years. That is how it should be paid for.
@@artistjoh Even then would be better off using the money to invest in other capabilities eg. submarines, aircraft, cyber security, army, mine countermeasures, fuel security etc. It would simply be too dangerous to deploy an aircraft carrier to a high-level conflict in this day and age due to advances in missile technology, submarines etc. Doesn't really serve any defensive purpose as long as you have air bases to take off aircraft from. Only really useful against a low-level opponent a long way from Australia. Not sure what would be achieved by sending an aircraft carrier to bomb some third world country a long way away.
@@davidcarey9135 Well a lot of nations out there disagree with your take of "it is simply too dangerous to deploy an aircraft carrier in a high level conflict in this day and age". More and more countries are pursuing fixed wing aviation capabilities for their fleets. So maybe consider letting go of this dead "carriers are obsolete" talk.
Probaly the same with the brits imagine ark royals f4 and buccaneers trying land or take of or even with the 3 invincibles the hot harrier exhaust would damage the deck
Bullshit. USN and USMC pilots flew off of Melbourne while on exchange duty with VF805 (A4s) and VS816 (S2s) over many years. We also cross decked with USS Ticonderoga in 1971 i.e. some of our aircraft operated off of Ticonderoga and some of their aircraft operated off of Melbourne for periods of 3 or 4 daya.
@@richardprice7763 The falklands war convinced the UK to keep HMS Invincible so they could maintain a 3 carrier force. Malcolm Frazer allowed them out of the sale contract.
Once decommissioned. She sat in Sydney harbour for a couple of years, next to Taronga zoo. From memory was then towed to South Korea for scrapping. During that last journey i think a south korean worker fell to his death inside the ship.
Wasn't sold to China but ended up there via the old switcharoo. They took the deck off and put it on land to practice landings for development of their own carrier. If memory serves they also bought a Russian carrier that was incomplete for similar development purposes.
All this talk about Australia getting a new carrier. The best option we have is buying an America-class Lightning carrier from the US. But then we would need the 26 F-35 B’s to operate off it. I think a better investment would be into more Agis destroyers. We only have three. Practically nothing compared to our future enemies.
Reporter: "She's *OLD* nearly geriatric, she should have been *scrapped* years ago" Sailor: " *HEY* man" Reporter: "wait, wait, I'm going somewhere with this" Sailor: "You *better* be man"
@@terryirons1966 The second one was due to our Admiral being an arrogant arsehole and our failure to learn any lessons from the first one. PS I was there.
It was and still is "Foolishness", not to have another aircraft carrier ( Australia actually needs 2 ) , :Lets hope future Governments will look at this in a more serious manner , we cannot go on relying on our allies !
Something tells me that wouldn't have been much. She was made when? And China got carriers when? Honestly, scrap was just about all it was worth at 40 or so years old.
