Talk:HMAS Melbourne (R21)

Sea King Vs Wessex helicopters
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)

Melbourne was not scrapped after all?
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)
 * Yeah...Bob Hawke and the Labour PartyDervish6 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * i am quite sure the ship is scrapped, they only want the steam catapult. Akinkhoo (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Date of Photo
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) Pic shot May 16, 1981 - Catshot

Fair use rationale for Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif
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 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)

Additional images
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)

1980 deployment
I served in 816 squadron during this deplyment. The period when fixed wing flying was banned was for 10 days. This was due to the catapault being stripped down following a malfunction that threw an A4 Skyhawk from 805 squadron over the bows. I do not recall any issues witht he arresting gear or ship's radar, although the opportunity to perform maintenance on these while the catapault was being worked on may have been taken. The ultimate cause of the incident was never determined, although it was known that somehow the dump valve between the steam collectors and the carrot valve on the catapault had incorrectly closed and thus steam pressure had built up behind the catapault until it was enough to break the hold back fiting but not enough to fly. Apparently during the strip down a number of discrepancies were found between the catapault and the drawings and when it was re-assembled it was done according to specificatio.

The pilot of this ill fated aircraft intially thinking that it was a simple "break out" tried to stop the jet with his brakes (the black stripes left on the deck were testament to this) but when, as he put it "the front of the ship kept approaching so I pulled the aircraft jettison handle" - in other words he ejected. This led to a further issue as when he landed in the water his parachute wrapped around the tail of the sinking aircraft and he was dragged under. The oxygen masks and seat supply were supposed to work under water but apparently in this case they did not, but luckilly the pilot was able to free himself and he bobbed to the surface a short while later. We shouted him free drinks in the Wardroon that night! (Oops, forgot to sign this entry, Nick Thorne)


 * I'm assuming that the incident you are referring to was in the "Assorted facts need a home" that was left-over from my userspace drafting. That fact was only present in Timothy Hall's work (which was only published in 1982). The information about what he implied were major malfunctions halting fixed-wing flying for the duration of the tour was not confirmed elsewhere, so I was a bit suspicious of it and left it in that (now removed) section. If I could find a published source for your (correct) version of events, I'd be happy to add in the incident, but for now its probably best to leave it out. Lucky for your Skyhawk pilot that the jinx didn't claim him.
 * As someone who's served aboard the carrier, how do you feel about the rest of the writeup? -- saberwyn 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, that is where I found it. Of course my recollectiuon does not qualify as a source for Wikipedia purposes, but I will have a look through what material I have here to see if I can find anything.
 * WRT the remainder of the article, I think it is a fair description of this ship. BTW, the nicknames commonly in use when I served in her were "war canoe" and (less compimentarily) "the offal barge". Nick Thorne  talk  02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard the nickname "Steel War Canoe" (my grandfather told me that one), but again, don't have a print source for it. -- saberwyn 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats missing
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)
 * Find me a source, and I'll be happy to whack it in. -- saberwyn 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference shortening
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 Reflist — Bellhalla (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a combination of the way I have taught to cite texts at university, and my percieved need to provide enough information for a reader to begin hunting down the correct text without having to trawl through a third section to establish which book is which. -- saberwyn 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, the JSpeerreview (Automated peer review) does not like the current layout of the citations, and tries to insert a "cite web" template into most of them. But that's the software's problem. -- saberwyn 10:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Evans collision
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)
 * The current solution is to farm most of the material on the investigations of both the Evans and Voyager collisions to the subarticles, and leave a neutral, 1-paragraph summary here. -- saberwyn 08:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne never fired a shot in anger during her career
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)
 * Basically, Melbourne, the aircraft embarked on her, the Bofors bolted to her deck, and the small arms carried by the ship and her crew, were never used in a combat situation, thus the ship "never fired a shot in anger". -- saberwyn 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tracker wingtip clearance
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)
 * The problem is the source says "less than one metre". Maybe Hall was incorrect, maybe he was counting The Beast as well but didn't mention it. -- saberwyn 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a poster that was produced for Melbournes 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)

I found an aerial photo I took when Melbourne visited Freemantle in 1980. I have marked up a detail from the photo and by cut and paste have been able to compare the distance between the Tracker foul deck line and the island with the wingspan of an A4 Skyhawk parked on the deck. The distance shown is consostent with my recollection f 9ft 6 in or just under 3 metres. How we can use this, I am not sure, mainly because I do not know if this constitutes original research, within the meaning of the policy. If we just need for the information to be verifiable, perhaps the photo is all we need, I don't know. Anyway, here it is:

I will wait a while to see if anyone objects, if not I will alter the article to reflect the truth. Nick Thorne talk  11:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

OK, I checked my copy of Hall. On page 83 he says:
 * 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)


 * 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)

Aircraft Carried
I have a recollection of a tour of the Melbourne in Brisbane as a youngster. Possibly, around 1955. I have, always, thought the aircraft on board were Hawker Sea Furies and Fairey Fireflies. Not Sea Venoms and Gannets. I thought they came later.

I would appreciate clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.131.52 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne definitely started out with Sea Venoms and Gannets. Sydney and Vengeance carried Sea Furies and Fireflies. I'm at work now and so I don't have access to my references, but I pretty much know them backwards and I can assure you that Melbourne never embarked these older aircraft types. Melbourne was fitted with a steam catapult, mirrir landing aid and an angled flight deck specifically to be able to handle the larger, heavier and faster aircraft. I can get confirmation if you want, this evening. - Nick Thorne  talk  01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Royal Australian Navy history page on HMAS Melbourne (II)

"Following acceptance and work-up trials in the United Kingdom, Melbourne sailed from Glasgow for Australia on 11 March 1956 with 808 Squadron (Sea Venom all-weather fighters) and 816 & 817 Squadrons (Gannet anti-submarine aircraft) embarked."


 * Print sources back this up. On her maiden voyage from England to Australia in 1956, Melbourne was carrying Sea Venoms and Gannets, and operated these aircraft until they were replaced with the Skyhawk and Tracker at the end of the 1960s. You are likely are thinking of sister ship Sydney, which operated Sea Furies and Fireflies for the duration of her career as an aircraft carrier. -- saberwyn 02:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think tagging for Wikiproject Vietnam is appropriate
I do not think that categoring this article as a warship involved in the Vietnam War or tagging it as part of WikiProject Vietnam is appropriate.

The only connection Melbourne has to the nation of Vietnam or the is that she escorted the troopship HMAS Sydney (R17) 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 Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 28. If anybody has a second opinion to the relevance of the project tag, please comment. -- saberwyn 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove it. It's hardly a big deal at all  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

SAR operations after Voyager collission
The following change was removed from the article:
 * Most of the survivors were recovered within fifteen minutes of the collision, however the 2 Search and Rescue craft (HMAS Air Nymph and HMAS Air Sprite) arrived at the collision site approximately cne hour after the collision and picked up 70 survivors from the water and life rafts.  As the survivors could not be transferred to Melbourne because of their injuries, both boats returned to Creswell to disembark the survivors, 34 from Air Nymph and 36 from Air Sprite.   After refuelling they returned to the search area to join the other vessels which continued the search throughout the day until late in the evening of 11 February.

The reference for the previous version of events - Hall (1982) p.131 - does in fact state what was previously in the section. I have noreason to believe that the changed version of events may not be true, but in order for it to stand against a properly referenced version, it needs at the very least a reliable and verifiable source to back it up. If you can find something that meets these criteria, please feel free to then re-insert the change, with the appropriate cite, of course. - Nick Thorne  talk  01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's included, with a reference, in the Melbourne–Voyager collision article. As it covers the activities of two ships other than Melbourne I don't think that it needs to be in this article as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking along the same lines as Nick: if/when sources are provided, the information should go in the collision article, as it is a little on the detailed side for here. -- saberwyn 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the change again. Colseg, please discuss here before changing the article again. And please supply refernces as previously requested here and in response to your request at the help desk. This is a featured article and so all information needs to be reliably sourced. If you can provide suitable sources for your information and personal recollection is, I am afraid, insufficient, then feel free to re-add the info. If you do not know how to use the citation templates, then please advise us here of the references and we can help you out, but do this before you re-add the info. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The help desk comment by Colseg mentioned an article in The Australian, which I have found a copy of. Because the information is a little to detailed and sligtly off-topic for this article, I have added the (slightly trimmed down) content to Melbourne-Voyager collision. User and Help Desk have been notified.

Frank E. Evans collision
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)
 * 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)

Speed units
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

ADJUSTING CITATIONS AFTER REMOVAL OF CITED TEXT
Somebody please help increase my editing ability so current bold red error notes for cites 55 and 56 can be corrected or removed. I see and correct or remove factual errors but don't know how to account for footnotes when I remove footnoted text. Yet again I've removed an obviously lunatic error that somehow went unaddressed a long time, in this case years -- that RAN fell from first to sixth among navies in the "Pacific Area," which area would obviously include the U.S. I speculate "Southwest Pacific" may have been meant but don't know for certain. Maybe someone wants to do that research and see under what definition if any RAM fell from first to sixth -- but it was imperative to immediately remove the claim as written, as it was the type helping to continue to immediately undermine Wiki credibility.

So: How to remove cites when cited text is removed? I didn't see the cites in the editing page, or see them as they appear in the regular article. Further, do the cite numbers automatically reorder when cites are removed, as with, say, Word? I hope so since obviously a gigantic busy-work job or renumbering cites is necessary otherwise. Markwpowell64 (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The removal of the claim has been reverted, as it is cited to published sources. However, I will recheck the sources as soon as I can (next day or two) to ensure that the claim has not been misinterpreted, and alter it as necessary. I imagine that the US is not included in that definition, because it is split between the Pacific and the Atlantic, while the RAN did not have a permanent presence in the Indian until after Melbourne left service.
 * As for the glaring red text, what happened is that the second ref was a 'named ref', which means that the same citation is used in multiple parts of the article, and it is the 'primary', as it contains the citation information. Fixing it would be a matter of finding a secondary use of the citation in the article ( : note the slash) and making it the primary (by removing the slash and adding the citation information). Cites do renumber automatically, so there's no worry there. -- saberwyn 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reporting back. I was only able to find one of the two sources: Stevens gives the "physical and psychological centrepiece" line. Unfortunately, the libaray which used to hold Lind does not carry it anymore, so I can't verify the "first to sixth in the Pacific region" statement. That said, the nature of this statement probably requires a 'stronger' source than Lind, and I have removed that claim until it can be verified, either in Lind or (preferably) elsewhere.
 * The claim in question is "after her decommissioning and lack of replacement, the RAN fell from its position as the most powerful Navy in the Pacific area to sixth most powerful." -- saberwyn 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find a copy this weekend, but it seems like a rather subjective claim; I don't really see how Melbourne was much of an asset by 1982 given that she was worn out, cost a lot to operate and had a small (and not very modern) air group. She alone certainly wouldn't have put the RAN ahead of much larger navies such as those operated by Japan and China as is implied by the statement, and the DDGs, FFGs and Oberon class subs meant that the RAN retained a clear technology lead over the navies in the South East Asia region. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fleet Air Arm Museum link
As I understand it, a "See also" section is intended for links that help further the reader's understanding of an article's subject, but are not/cannot be integrated into the body of the article. I removed the "See Also" section containing the Fleet Air Arm Museum (Australia) link because I don't believe it is particularly relevant to the subject of this article: going to the museum article does not add anything to a reader's understanding of the aircraft carrier Melbourne. -- saberwyn 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree about leaving out of a See Also section but the editor has now integrated what looks like a reasonable statement in the body of the article; however it's currently uncited and I've tagged it accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. I have now added three inline citations to support my new text.  They are not the most brilliant citations but at least they are available on the web so Users can immediately view them and decide whether they provide a measure of verification.  During coming days I will search for a book or two that can also be used in support.  Dolphin  ( t ) 04:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the advantages of a See also section is that it prompts Users to find ways of incorporating the information found in one article into another article. I have now done that in my most recent edit of this article.
 * The See also section is for links to other Wikipedia articles that at least one User, in the interests of being bold, considers relevant to the article or to other Users or to readers in general. Saberwyn appears to have an exclusivist view of what may appear in the See also section - if it doesn't meet some strict, undefined, criteria it must be removed.  An exclusivist view of Wikipedia would be inappropriate. Wikipedia aims to maximise the amount of information available, not restrict it in accordance with some strict set of rules.
 * Saberwyn has written going to the museum article does not add anything to a reader's understanding of the aircraft carrier Melbourne. For the sake of having a debate, let's assume he is correct.  Now let's remove the words article and reader's and see where it takes us:
 * going to the museum does not add anything to understanding of the aircraft carrier Melbourne.
 * Demonstrably untrue! Visiting the museum inevitably adds substantially to any visitor's understanding of the Melbourne!  It contains a substantial amount of historic material about Melbourne, about life on board Melbourne, about the aircraft that Melbourne carried, and about the experiences of the sailors and airmen who served in Melbourne.  There is only one place in the world that displays anything of substance that is left of dear old Melbourne and that is the Fleet Air Arm Museum (Australia).  Dolphin  ( t ) 04:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dolphin, Thank you for integrating your link into the article, and adding sources. You and I appear to have different ideas on the purpose of "See also" sections, and how relevant a target article should be to the host subject: I guess we just have to agree to disagree. -- saberwyn 09:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Saberwyn. I agree that HMAS Melbourne is now better for having some information about the museum incorporated in the article rather than in the See also section, waiting for someone to incorporate it.
 * Our personal views on these matters should not be the primary governor of our actions. Wikipedia has policy on most matters that affect our work here.  On the matter of See also sections, Wikipedia's policy is explained at WP:SEEALSO where it says, among other things, Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.
 * If you are implacably opposed to this the best course of action would be to raise it for discussion on the Talk page associated with WP:SEEALSO with the intention of changing Wikipedia's policy. Happy editing! Dolphin  ( t ) 12:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Identity of carrier in background of main image
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Fired in anger?
"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)


 * 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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

1964 R.A.N. proposal on the modification of an Essex-class carrier for Australian service.
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)

"On The Beach"
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)

Additional Radar carried prior to 1968 (4 x Type 262 in 4 x CRBFD)
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)


 * 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)