1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
In the early 60's HMAS Melbourne was rated as an ASW carrier and fated to carry helicopters only. This made sense as her speed was becoming problematical to operate modern aircraft in all conditions...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
The A-7A flew its first combat missions on December 4, 1967. I don't know if the assembly lines at Vought were at full capacity, or if they were only building them fast enough for the contracts in...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Maybe not double but certainly over 50% more. You do pay for it in terms of ability to move aircraft around in the hanger though. Yes the delta does have that advantage.
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
What is the RAN going to do with the extra payload/range of the A7 over the A4? The A4 is a handy plane which did great work in the USMC, who didn't bother replacing it with the A7, I think that says...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
When the A-7 came out, the USMC was planning to replace the A-4 with it, but the Brits got in the way. They came over to demonstrate something they called a "Kestrel"... and the USMC fell in love. The...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
If the Australians could wait until 1970, they could have the newly refitted HMCS Bonaventure. Though she might not be any better than simply refitting HMAS Melbourne.
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
No, she would require some work as well. She had been in commission just as long as Melbourne, and while she was 2 years out of a major overhaul, she would need modifications to operate the Skyhawks...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Supposedly, when Bonaventure was being towed from Canada to Tiawan in February 1971 for scrapping, India decided to pull a switch. INS Vikrant, (ex-Hercules) was a sister ship to HMCS Bonaventure....
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Were there any alternatives to the A-4 in the 1960s for the ex-Brit CVLs? India did well with its Sea Hawks until the arrival of the Sea Harrier. How would the Sea Hawk do against the Skyhawk? I...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Armstrong Whitworth Sea Hawk The first prototype flew on the 2nd September 1947, piloted by Bill Humble. A fully navalised prototype did not fly until the following year. A third prototype which flew...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
The A-4 entered USN service at the same time as the Supermarine Scimitar and de Havilland Sea Vixen. If A-4 was not available or chosen, would these two have been suitable aircraft for the ex-Brit...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Both the Scimitar and Sea Vixen were only marginally compatible with the smallest of British carriers, such as the Centaur - and the Centaur was far larger and faster than Melbourne. Judging by the...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
What makes most sense is to make the Swift an attack type for the RN. This plane was not that good as a fighter but earned a good reputation in ground attack and reconasense operations. Light in...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Navalised FR5 Length 42ft, Span 32.5ft, Height 13.6ft, Wing Area 328sqft. Loaded weight: 22,900lb. Avon 116? Speed 713mph, Climb 14,660ft/min, Ceiling 45,800ft, Range 630miles. Four 30mm cannon, eight...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
Two words: Navalised Gnat. from the Vectorsite article on the Gnat: "UNBUILT VERSIONS There were a number of unbuilt Gnat concepts. A navalized Gnat, with the wing of the trainer, plus arresting gear...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
I think the Fo.146 was the VG machine based on the Gnat mkV fusilage. The MkV would be the most potent, virtualy Lightning style performance on a much more affordable machine. Had it gone ahead it...
View ArticleRe: 1967 Replace HMAS Melbourne?
I'm very dubious about Australia ordering paper planes and taking on the cost and risk. Was there a multirole variant for the F8E?
View Article