HMAS MELBOURNE conducts airstrikes over Vietnam

MacCaulay

Banned
Well, the RAN might have been way more interested in pursuing an aircraft carrier purchase after the whole thing fell through in '82 after the British decided they really didn't want to sell there's.

Being able to point to actual combat sorties would let the Navy hold the spectre of losing a proven and used platform.
Then the Australians might look elsewhere for a carrier. I don't think they would've gone to the Forrestal-class, since that was way to large and expensive to operate, but the Midway- or Colossus-class might have been feasible. The Brazilians are still using a Colussus-class carrier to this day, and operating A-4s off of it.

Or they could've also just talked to the Spanish yard that was working on building the Principe De Asturias, which would end up being the VTOL carrier for the Spanish Navy. Some deal could've been reached, possibly, where they could build two carriers.

Those are some of my thoughts...most of them are probably ASB, though. Including the new carrier concept.
 
If Melbourne had been used to conduct actual strikes in Vietnam, it would have given a big boost to Australia's prestige, for starters. Other than the US, only the UK has ever conducted actual combat operations off of CVs. (OK, India sorta has.) They probably woulda lost some Skyhawks to SAMs and MiGs, but it woulda made a real difference.

When the time came to replace Melbourne, I can see Australia making a bid for the former USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (retired in 1977), which is much bigger than Melbourne and much more powerful. If Australia can afford to operate it, I don't doubt it'll serve them well. Problem might be costs. Australia might also want to consider at that time buying a Clemenceau-class carrier from the French, as well as the Invincible. They also considered an Iwo Jima-class LPH from the US.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
When the time came to replace Melbourne, I can see Australia making a bid for the former USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (retired in 1977), which is much bigger than Melbourne and much more powerful. If Australia can afford to operate it, I don't doubt it'll serve them well. Problem might be costs. Australia might also want to consider at that time buying a Clemenceau-class carrier from the French, as well as the Invincible. They also considered an Iwo Jima-class LPH from the US.

It'd be kinda cool to see them using the Roosevelt, but...I don't know if they Australians could afford it. I mean...they had to put off buying a submarine just to buy the rest of the air group for the Melbourne. I don't know if they could afford the larger air group that the FDR would use. Not that I wouldn't like to see Aussies launching Phantoms off a carrier, but I'm not so sure they wouldn't drive their Navy into the ground doing it...

They wanted to buy an Invincible-class carrier, and would have if Britain hadn't ended up deciding they liked them so much after they used them in the Falklands.
 

the-simpsons-d-oh-mini-posters-71133.jpg
 
An unfortunate byproduct of the Aussies flying strikes into NVN would be that a few brave RAN pilots would have wound up serving in Hanoi, alongside such fellows as Jim Stockdale, Jerry Denton, John McCain, Robbie Risner, et al. As for a successor carrier, the FDR began the scrapping process about a year after her last cruise (to the Med, with a USMC AV-8A squadron aboard, in 1977). One of the mothballed Essexes might have become available (Oriskany or Shangri-La were CVA-attack carriers), while Hornet and Bennington were CVS-ASW carriers), and Hancock had been scrapped by then. The CVV program in the Carter years (killed by Congressional opposition, that of the carrier admrials, and Admrial Rickover himself), envisioned carriers from a minimium of 40,000 tons, up to a repeat of the John F. Kennedy design. One of the 40K tonners might have been possible for the RAN under these circumstances, even though the USN was by now (1982) fully committed to the Nimitz class (despite some opposition from the likes of then-Sen. Gary Hart, before his..shall we say, Monkey Business?). The Newport News Yard might have a slip available to build a CVV for the Aussies in this case.
 
The Wiki article mentions several occasions during 1965/6/7 when Melbourne was proposed as an ASW asset, using her Sea Venoms, Gannets and Wessex. She was refitted from late 1967 to early 1969 for Skyhawks, so a cruise with Skyhawks would have to be from 1969-72. I could possibly see her heading north as some sort of stopgap to cover the wind-down of Australian commitments in Vietnam. She could do multiple tours, one or two as an ASW carrier and another with Skyhawks as an attack carrier. Perhaps with an ASW combat tour under her belt in 1966 (for example) the Govt and Navy might make plans for another tour when refitted, and expand the initial A4G buy from 8 + 2 to a larger number to sustain imminent combat ops.

I think the RAN would start screaming for her replacement immediately upon Skyhakw ops starting. Primarily for space and speed reasons rather than that she was knackered. Melbourne could only do 24kts, and in low-wind conditions in the South China Sea would struggle to keep up enough speed and catapult steam to launch heavily laden Skyhawks. The Brits encountered this problem with Buccaneers off the 28Kt Hermes in the same period, in the Sth China Sea. However a Brit ship such as the Centaur (laid up in reserve in 1965) could provide 28kt and cat steam to launch the much lighter Skyhawks, as well as having room to operate a lot more as part of a balanced airgroup. In addition a Centaur could probably sustain more than the Melbourne's 10 days of combat ops at sea, which would be something else the Navy could put forward. A Centaur would only need another 2-300 men more than the Melb, and perhaps 20-24 Skyhawks instead of 16, 14 Trackers and 10 Sea kings should be sufficient. Anything more than that is not going to happen in Australia post Vietnam.
 
HMAS SYDNEY in Korean War

If Melbourne had been used to conduct actual strikes in Vietnam, it would have given a big boost to Australia's prestige, for starters. Other than the US, only the UK has ever conducted actual combat operations off of CVs. (OK, India sorta has.) They probably woulda lost some Skyhawks to SAMs and MiGs, but it woulda made a real difference.

QUOTE]

Mate, the RAN already had some carrier experience from Korea, when HMAS SYDNEY's Fairey Fireflies & hawker Sea Furies flew combat missions alongside HMS OCEAN. As for the A4 Skyhawk strikes by the RAN's FAA, maybe they could've just flown directly in support of Australian soldiers needing air support instead of being sent to bomb PRVN as the fliers on YANKEE STATION did (thereby preventing any FAA fliers from falling into PAVN hands) ?


'Not that I wouldn't like to see Aussies launching Phantoms off a carrier, but I'm not so sure they wouldn't drive their Navy into the ground doing it...'

Well, the RAAF borrowed approx 2 doz F4 Phantom IIs from the USAF during 1970-71 while awaiting delivery of the F111- I saw 1 of these Phantoms on display at the RAAF Museum Point Cook when I was there after Avalon airshow :) maybe, if the RAN had somehow acquired another new carrier after Vietnam, they could've held onto those 24-odd Phantoms for a new FAA strikeforce to supplement or replace the A4s ?
 
An unfortunate byproduct of the Aussies flying strikes into NVN would be that a few brave RAN pilots would have wound up serving in Hanoi, alongside such fellows as Jim Stockdale, Jerry Denton, John McCain, Robbie Risner, et al.

That seems to me to be the major meaningful "what if" in this question. How would this have affected Australian public opinion during the conflict and Australia's willingness to participate with the US in future conflicts? It is my recollection Australian participation in the Vietnam War was quite unpopular long before the US population soured on the war. Is it possible the North Vietnamese would attept to drive a wedge between the Yanks and Aussies, by unilaterally releasing its Australian POW's?
 
A few points.

The RAAF leased 24 F4Es, the USAF model with the gun not a USN model. We crashed 1 and handed the other 23 back, 21 of which were later converted into F4G Wild Weasels.

In Australia Vietnam's popularity followed similar lines to the US, possibly lagging by 6 months. So in the mainstream it had popular support even after Tet, despite the students and hippes carry-on.

I doubt the Melbourne's Skyhawks would be used over the North. By 1969 when the Skyhawk refit was finished NthV was a very hard target, USN strike packages were beyond what a RAN Skyhawk could readily fit into. However there was still plenty of bombing to do over SthV without the SAMs and Migs. Even in this scenario the limitations of Melbourne would be illustrated, and the RAN could push for a faster, bigger carrier while such ships were still around.
 
There were two Navy, at least two USMC, and seven USAF aircrew shot down over SVN who did make the trip up the Trail to Hanoi, so it's still possible for a RAN pilot or two to wind up in similar circumstances, had Melbourne flown strikes against SVN only (1971-72 time frame). Or her Sea Venoms could have flown strikes into NVN in 1965-66 (say, just north of the DMZ into Route Package I, where the threat at that time was just light AAA and small-arms fire. Come 1967-68, it's different, with medium and heavy-caliber AAA: 57-mm and 85-mm, and a few SA-2 sites...) before the overhaul. MiGs generally did not show up south of Vinh, though they did show up on occasion.
 
By 1965 Sea Venoms were prety much osbolete, which is why the 1965-7 requests for Melbourne were for an ASW asset I assume.

Perhaps this, and the simultaneous marginalising of Sabre Ops in Thailand, could be the kick in the arse our govt needed to focus on our high-tech RAAF and RAN instead of having infantry as our commitment of choice. I feel a new thread coming on.
 
Top