Talk:HMAS Melbourne (R21)

message: An edit was made by 58.169.65.33 replacing Sea King in the list of aircraft with Wessex and the edit comment stated that the Wessex replaced the Sea King.
This is completely incorrect, if anything it was the reverse.  The Wessex was the original ASW helo embarked on Melbourne and was replaced in this role by the introduction of the Sea Kings at which time the dunking sonar was removed from the Wessex and fitted to the Sea Kings.  Wessex helos continued to embark in Melbourne as utility helos, typically with 2 helos from 723 squadron.  During the time of my service on VS816 squadron in the late 70's and early 80's, Melbourne would typically embark 6 A-4 Skyhawks, 6 S-2 Trackers, 6 Sea Kings and 2 Wessex.  At this time one of the main roles for the Wessex was to fly in the rescue helo position astern and to port of the ship when Melbourne was at flying stations during daylight hours.Nick Thorne 06:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea King Vs Wessex helicopters 

message: According to this http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/china/surface.htm, the hulk of the Melbourne was still in China being studied as of 1994. Anybody know about this?--Commking 05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...Bob Hawke and the Labour PartyDervish6 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently the Chinese were interested in acquiring aircraft carrier technology in an effort to gain blue water projection, presumably to enforce claims over the Spratlys and Paracels. One report has the deck of the Melbourne removed and bolted to an airfield near Beijing, where it is used for practice. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i am quite sure the ship is scrapped, they only want the steam catapult. Akinkhoo (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Melbourne was scrapped, but the majority of the ship was intact into at least the 1990s, and the flight deck was around until at least 2002. -- saberwyn 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne was not scrapped after all? 

message: The picture on the right of this page could not have been taken in 1961 ,as the Catapult extensions were not carried out untill the 1970s. Also there are Tracker aircraft shown on the filght deck of Melbourne , and these were not carried by Melbourne until 1969 for operational duties .
:Above comment originally entered on main page by Millview moved here
Does anyone have any accurate information about when the photograph really was taken?
Nick Thorne 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Photo 

message: :Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif 

message: There are some additional images I'd like to see in this article, but cannot find a legally usable example of at this time
* A size comparison between Melbourne and another carrier (preferably a US supercarrier)... see  for a comparison shot of Melbourne and USS Enterprise
* A photograph of Melbourne being towed out to China in 1985
If anyone comes across these or other useful images, do not hesitate to upload them. -- saberwyn 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional images 

message: I think the kitchen sink from the galley ;o)
BTW, wasn't she also know as "Skippy" (informally) on the count of the ship's crest?--mrg3105mrg3105 06:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats missing 

message: Because this well-cited article had a wonderful bibliography section with all the details for books spelled out completely, I shortened the notes enclosed in  tags to "Author, p. NN" rather than "Joseph P. Author (year). Book title: Which can be really long with all of the subtitle included, p. NN". (In the case of Tom Frame who had three books, a notation of the particular book indicated was left in the tags.) Shortening them saves on page size (almost 5 Kb), and — since most of the references are really short — allows a three-column format for  — Bellhalla (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference shortening 

message: Concerns have been expressed during the peer review that the section on the collision with USS Frank E Evans does not represent a neutral point of view as required by Wikipedia. The material currently in the article is an improvement on what was there, but there are still problems with neutrality, and I will attempt to work on those over the next few months. Indications of the specific problem areas and any assistance in fixing them would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evans collision 

message: pardon me, but an aircraft carrier career isn't to fire shot but launch aircraft... what is going on here? Akinkhoo (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career 

message: The article states that the wing tip clearance between a tracker and the superstructure was less than one metre.  This is incorrect, the clearance was 9ft 6in which is near enough to 3 metres.  Nevertheless "The Beast", Melbourne's crash recovery vehicle (basically a mobile crane), was parked in the gap and the clerance between The Beast and a tracker's wing tip would indeed only have been a metre or so.  In fact, as 816 squadron duty officer one day, I actually saw a tracker land on well right of centre and the pilot actually had to lift the starboard wing over The Beast to avoid hitting it - although just how voluntary the movement was is open to conjecture, I suspected it was an artifact of the shakey landing etc.Nick Thorne talk 13:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a poster that was produced for Melbourne's 25th anniversary - it is a lovely colour photo taken from the air close up looking aft, it would be perfect for the article, but I have no idea where the image could be sourced from and no doubt it is Crown copyright - anyway, the photo clearly shows the "foul deck line" which was a line painted on the deck equivalent to the position of a tracker's wingtip as it travels down the centreline.  Anyway, in the photo, there is a man standing at the point of closest approach to the island and the distance is clearly signicantly greater than his height and consistant with a gap of around 3m if he is of normal stature.  Interestingly, the photo shows The Beast, plus a Wessex parked immediately aft of it.  No way that could fit into 1m!  I'm looking to see if I have a photo that shows the clear deck line so that we can correct the article with a verifiable source.  (Pity we can't use the poster.) Nick Thorne talk 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The only problem I can see is that doing that is probably going to be interpreted as WP:original research. Although I have no doubts that you are correct, as the standard for Wikipedia is WP:verifiability, not truth, we may have to let this one slide. -- saberwyn 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: He has to stay right on centre line because in the Grumman, for example, he has less than a metre clearance with his wings.
Hall does not state that this clearance is between the wing and the island, in fact what he says is entirely consistant with what I have been saying, that is, that the clearance of less than one metre refers to the distance between the wing tip and The Beast.  I will modify the article to simply reflect the reference and remove the additional information that has been added that this clearance refers to the superstructure.  This resolves the problem as far as I can see, the comment is now consistant with the reference and is not incorrect - a win win! Nick Thorne talk 09:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what the book says, so I am 100% cool with it. Now, I need to work out how I got from what was on Hall's page to the phraseology that was in the article... probably an embarrassing side effect of taking notes from the book in a library I can't borrow from and rarely visit. I am ashamed. -- saberwyn 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracker wingtip clearance 

message: I do not think that categoring this article as a warship involved in the Vietnam War or tagging it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam is appropriate.
The only connection Melbourne has to the nation of Vietnam or the is that she escorted the troopship  for short periods (7 days, 4 days, 3 days, 4 days respectively) of four of the twenty-five month-long voyages the latter made to/from Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Melbourne did not enter Vietnamese waters or the conflict's boundaries at any point during any of these escort runs, made no contribution to the Vietnam War, and proceeded on to her intended destination once she completed her 'leg' of the escort run.
I will not remove the category or wikiproject tag at this time, as the relevant category is under discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 28#Category:Vietnam War aircraft carriers of Australia. If anybody has a second opinion to the relevance of the project tag, please comment. -- saberwyn 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove it. It's hardly a big deal at all YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't think tagging for Wikiproject Vietnam is appropriate 

message: Is it just me, or is there lots of random bold and italicised text in this section? It only seems to appear when the current revision of the page is viewed. Hayden120 (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not your imagination. An editor used a script to replace curly apostrophes ( ’ ) with straight apostrophes ('). Straight apostrophes are the 'right' ones according to MOS, but they don't play well with italics and bolding, and said editor apparently did not preview changes, resulting in the seemingly-random bolding and italics you noticed. I've patched it up. Thanks for pointing it out. Maralia (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank E. Evans collision 

message: Does anyone actually measure nautical speeds in mph? I'm from the US and I've never seen this. Can we remove this conversion? Rees11 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ship speeds are usualy measured in knots (which are nautical miles per hour). All speeds in the article are listed in knots, with conversions for both statute (land) miles per hour and kilometres per hour, so that readers who do not know how fast a knot is have a standard of comparison. -- saberwyn 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I am also from the USA and  a knot is about 1.852 MPH so it is good for there to be conversion. History Buff1239ubj (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the conversion factor you quote is for knots to km/h.  The correct conversion for knots to mph is about 1.15. - Nick Thorne talk 01:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed units 

message: The edit made my Nick-D on the name of the carrier is dubious, i have a book in my possession with the same image that quotes it is the enterprise in the background. the book is HMAS Melbourne by Timothy Hall published in 1982.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aantoniou 1 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the same book.  Hall is incorrect on this point.  Careful examination of the photo shows that the island is too small for Enterprise and is a good match for other head-on photos of Midway. Probably Hall was tricked by the large overhang and certainly without looking too close I can see how it might be confused for Enterprise.  However, do not forget that the Midways had very large flight decks and at about the stage the photo was taken the largest flight deck in area was not Enterprise but the Constellation - although Enterprise was longer.  This is probably aided by another famous photo which was of Melbourne and Enterprise, but that was the famous overhead at Peal Harbour of "The Big E" and "The Little M". - Nick Thorne talk 11:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source of the image (the US military's central photo dissemination website) says that the carrier in the background is Midway, and from looking at the uncropped original image it's clear that the carrier isn't Enterprise as the design of her island is quite different. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity of carrier in background of main image 

message: "Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career"
Does anyone else think that statement sounds rather odd? After all, carriers attack with their aircraft, not guns.184.1.69.46 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  "Never fired a shot in anger" is a common phrase that encompasses more than just not using a ship's guns.  In the case of a carrier, it includes not using aircraft in combat, whether it be air to air, air to surface or air to sub-surface, in either offensive or defensive action. - Nick Thorne talk 05:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fired in anger? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMAS Melbourne (R21). 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/20090214233110/http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/MSC07a.html to http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/MSC07a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614023207/http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/ffc60b3e-d2e6-4142-9b71-6dfa247051f2/China-s-Aircraft-Carrier-Ambitions--Seeking-Truth- to http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/ffc60b3e-d2e6-4142-9b71-6dfa247051f2/China-s-Aircraft-Carrier-Ambitions--Seeking-Truth-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212202838/http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii to http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HMAS Melbourne (R21). 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://www.webcitation.org/66UpT0zuo?url=http://www.skyhawk.org/install.php?profile=default to http://www.skyhawk.org/2c/productionhistory.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830235056/http://members.optusnet.com.au/hmas.melbourne/hmas_melbourneNew.htm to http://members.optusnet.com.au/hmas.melbourne/hmas_melbourneNew.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208054646/http://users.qld.chariot.net.au/~dialabull/R21%20Service.htm to http://users.qld.chariot.net.au/~dialabull/R21%20Service.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have a previously top secret report from the National Archives of Australia detailing an Royal Australian Navy (RAN) proposal to replace HMAS Melbourne and the then-current Fleet Air Arm (FAA) inventory with a refurbished and modified Essex-class carrier and carrier aircraft. I must say, it makes for impressive and compelling reading. It is hard to determine the exact author. All it says is that it was handed to the Minister of Defence by the Minister of the Navy and 24 other people, to include a 'MR Sweeney'. The report's actual title is 'A Replacement Aircraft Carrier and Fixed-Wing Aircraft for the R.A.N.'.
The rationale for the proposal was the growing Indonesia and China submarine force, as well as acquisition by then-USSR-friendly Indonesia of a Sverdlov-class cruiser, missile boats and ASCM-capable Tu-16 Badger bombers. The RAN felt that they were unable to conduct SEATO-related convoy escort and sea control operations in the face of such threats. The air-defence capability provided by the three Tartar Surface-To-Air missile-equipped Perth-class destroyers was considered inadequate against inbound missiles. Additionally, the report reads that, due to the Melbourne's and the then-FAA's limitations, Australia would be totally reliant on UK or US carrier support for any offensive operation that it may chose to conduct (ie. amphibious assaults), even against small air threats.
In terms of the ship, the RAN report called for the acquisition and modification of an Essex-class carrier to 'Oriskany 27C' standard, with a projected in-service date/year of 1968 if the go-ahead for the procurement was made immediately (1964/65). The modifications included hull-strengthening and the inclusion of hull blisters, the reconstruction of the flight deck and island superstructure, and the installation of modern radars and electronics. 
Since the RAN were looking for ships mothballed immediately after WW2, and that were in good condition, one can speculate that it could have been earlier 27/27A standard ships (that were in mothballs), or either USS Franklin (CV-13) or USS Bunker Hill (CV-17). Overall, the projected cost for the modernisation was estimated at A£58.1 million.
Also, in terms of aircraft, this is where it gets even more interesting. The RAN proposal called for the purchase of F-4 Phantoms, in addition to S-2 Trackers and E-1 Tracers for the FAA. The embarked air group for the modified carrier would have been as follows:
* 16 F-4B Phantoms (Fighter/Attack)
* 12 S-2E Trackers (Anti-Submarine Warfare)
* 4 E-1B Tracers (Airborne Early Warning)
* 18 Wessex (16 Anti-Submarine Helicopters and 2 for SAR)
The Naval Air Station at Nowra (HMAS Albatross) would go through several modifications to support the FAA, and would have a training force composed of:
* 6 F-4B Phantoms 
* 6 S-2E Trackers
* 2 E-1B Tracers
Also, the attrition reserve force would have been composed of:
* 6 F-4B Phantoms 
* 6 S-2E Trackers
* 2 E-1B Tracers
So, the total amount of aircraft the RAN wanted for their carrier was to have been:
* 28 F-4B Phantoms
* 24 S-2E Trackers
* 8 E-1B Tracers
The author of the report does acknowledge manning and support issues, as well as operating costs, but the overall tone of the report (not surprisingly) was that it was achievable. It is filled with a lots of technical data and various correspondences between individuals in the government and abroad. Needless to say, from the correspondences at the end of the report, the idea was heavily criticised. Anyway, what could have been, eh?
:Very interesting. This file and two others about the same topic have been digitalised, and are available on the NAA's website (the file in question here looks to be the one at https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=1565492 ) Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1964 R.A.N. proposal on the modification of an Essex-class carrier for Australian service. 

message: I believe the Melbourne had a walk on role in the 1959 film version of "On the Beach" staring Gregory Peck, Ava Gardener, and Fred Astare.  Making a star studded film in Melbourne in 1959, the Australians went all out to provide whatever the director wanted, including a nice dramatic ride on a aircraft lift.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.125.39.26 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On The Beach" 

message: I believe the original 40 mm AA armament also comprised a number of CRBFD (Close Range Blind Firing Directors) with Type 262 target tracking radar.  I think there were 4 of these directors, one on each quarter.  Not sure whether they controlled only the twin 40 mm mountings or could direct the singles as well.  This meant at least part of the 40 mm armament was radar directed with tachymetric fire control computers.  Presumably the CRBFD were removed to save weight along with a substantial number of 40 mm, and both these factors would have reduced the effectiveness of the close range AA.
222.153.177.236 (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 222.153.177.236. I believe it is possible as removal of 40 mm AA guns to save weight was common on some ships and certainly could have been the case with this ship History Buff1239ubj (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Radar carried prior to 1968 (4 x Type 262 in 4 x CRBFD)