No Melbourne Collisions...

MacCaulay

Banned
In early 1964, the Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne was doing air exercises off New South Wales along with the rest of her carrier group. One of the vessels in the group was a destroyer: HMAS Voyager. The destroyer took up station off to the left of the carrier, crossing her path to do so. After a time, she inexplicably crossed back into the carrier's path, and was hit. The Melbourne almost literally ran the destroyer over, killing dozens of the crew on board the smaller ship and sustaining severe damage to the bow...






In early June 1969, the Melbourne was taking part in joint SEATO exercises in the South China Sea when the US destroyer Frank E. Evans made an abrupt turn into it's path (in remarkably similar circumstances to the first collision) and was overtaken by the carrier.
A joint USN/RAN commission was set up, and the Melbourne's captain was cleared of any wrongdoing. Multiple officers on board the Evans, however, were charged with negligence.




These two collisions (along with an incident where the carrier took on water while at dock) took some time off the Melbourne's service life, and left a bad taste in the mouth of the Australian political scene as to the use of carriers in RAN service.

So...what if neither of these collisions had happened? What if the Melbourne had been able to maintain a fairly smooth lifespan? Would their be any difference at all in the RAN as we know it today, or in the RAN's history?
 
So...what if neither of these collisions had happened? What if the Melbourne had been able to maintain a fairly smooth lifespan? Would their be any difference at all in the RAN as we know it today, or in the RAN's history?


Mac,

I'd say no.

Yes, the collisions did shave a few years off her operational life and, yes, they did result in substantial repair bills but we're looking at a carrier here, one of the most expensive warships to keep in operation.

The budgetary knives were out for Melbourne already, even the UK wasn't planning on paying to maintain a carrier with fixed wing aircraft any much longer so why should Australia?

All the collisions did was remove her from the active list a few years sooner than would have happened by shortening her service life. The people who wanted her to go un-replaced after being decommissioned had already won that argument, so a few more talking points in the form of collisions weren't needed. Conversely, a lack of collisions isn't going to change anyone's mind on the subject.


Bill
 
Perhaps is the cycle of refits was different as a result of no collisions, or the buckling of her hull that time she transitted the Bight during that storm in the 70s, she might not have been vulnerable to the specific circumstances that saw her laid up in need of an $11 million refit while the Invincible deal was made, accepted, withdrawn and govt changed.

If for example if Melbourne had just had her $11 million refit (which included at catapult rebuild) when the Invincible deal was made she would be in commision and operating at sea while it was accepted and then withdrawn. So when Hawke came in he would be faced with a carrier at sea wehich had just had a cat rebuild and was right for a few more years. However Melbourne would face the axe from Dibbs Defence White paper in 1987, by whch time she would be well and truly buggered.
 
Perhaps is the cycle of refits was different as a result of no collisions, or the buckling of her hull that time she transitted the Bight during that storm in the 70s, she might not have been vulnerable to the specific circumstances that saw her laid up in need of an $11 million refit while the Invincible deal was made, accepted, withdrawn and govt changed.

If for example if Melbourne had just had her $11 million refit (which included at catapult rebuild) when the Invincible deal was made she would be in commision and operating at sea while it was accepted and then withdrawn. So when Hawke came in he would be faced with a carrier at sea wehich had just had a cat rebuild and was right for a few more years. However Melbourne would face the axe from Dibbs Defence White paper in 1987, by whch time she would be well and truly buggered.

Possibly not if a contract was signed for the construction of a fourth and possibly fifth Invincible class as replacement for Invincible herself. Ships to serve as both LPH and CV, with a single fixed wing airgroup for the two ships.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Possibly not if a contract was signed for the construction of a fourth and possibly fifth Invincible class as replacement for Invincible herself. Ships to serve as both LPH and CV, with a single fixed wing airgroup for the two ships.

That's an interesting idea.
 
The whole point of the Invincible deal was that spending cuts were reducing the RN to 2 TDC carriers, making the Invincible redundant.
 
The whole point of the Invincible deal was that spending cuts were reducing the RN to 2 TDC carriers, making the Invincible redundant.

Yes, but if Melbourne could stay in service longer, putting less pressure on getting a replacement into service, the British could have said, ok, we want to keep Invincible now, but as a show of good will, we'll supply a new build ship (Invincible class #4) at the same or a similar price.

I could see an Australian Government taking up that option. Depending on cost, I could then see the Government ordering a second ship to increase availability of the ships and fullfill the secondary LPH role. Basically the Canberra class ~25 years early.
 
Top