disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu (12/20/90)
From: disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu HELP! About maybe, a year ago, there was a discussion of SR-71s, as there always is in SCI.MILITARY and someone sent me a list of all SR-71s and i thought it wsa A-12s in service, and the A-12 was meant to be the attack version of the SR-71.. now that I have heard about the Navy A-12, I was wonder- ing whether I was incorrect about A-12 being a designation for an Attack version of the SR-71.. Help... also, Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option of staying in the US or goin gback to Australia, but if Australia has no carriers, it may be a bit hard to fly of a Carrier that isnt there.. Lastly, is Australia getting its A-4 Skyhawks back from New Zealand??? Scott Marshall (Call Fightertown, USA BBS at (713)868-4372 24 hours a day.. I'm the Sysop)
rxtgep@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Glen Pill) (12/21/90)
From: rxtgep@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU (Glen Pill) >From article <1990Dec20.015931.28940@cbnews.att.com>, by disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu: > Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get > an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option > of staying in the US or goin gback to Australia, but if Australia has no > carriers, it may be a bit hard to fly of a Carrier that isnt there.. Lastly, > is Australia getting its A-4 Skyhawks back from New Zealand??? Australia was in the process of getting a carrier full of harriers back in 1984 (around that time) but before we got it the Falklands was invaded and you can guess where the carrier and harriers went then. -- Glen Pill ACSNet: rxtgep@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au RMIT Computer Centre Snail : 124 LaTrobe St, Melb. Oz. 3000. Phone : +61 3 660 2538
raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (richard oxbrow) (12/21/90)
From: raob@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (richard oxbrow) In article <1990Dec20.015931.28940@cbnews.att.com> disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu writes: >From: disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu > > HELP! About maybe, a year ago, there was a discussion of SR-71s, as there > ... >version of the SR-71.. Help... also, Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get >an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option In a word NO simply because we are never likely to have enough money in the till to pay for a REAL aircraft carrier let alone paying the people on board. There is possibly a very slim chance that we could get a `claytons' carrier, ie. one that launches harrier like aircraft and helicopters. At the moment all the naval money is being sunk into a bunch of kockum submarines (it was suggested we buy French nuclear subs.),blohm & voss frigates and minehunting cat's. >is Australia getting its A-4 Skyhawks back from New Zealand??? >Scott Marshall >(Call Fightertown, USA BBS at (713)868-4372 24 hours a day.. I'm the Sysop) > I don't think so, by the time we dumped them (we sold them for $20 million) they we being catapulted into the sea instead of the air (by accident) and the aircaft carrier was literally falling to pieces. In any case both the F-18s and F-111s were designed/modified for carrier use ;-) (but they were configured for land-based runways) richard.. richard oxbrow |internet raob@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU dept. ee eng, uni of melbourne |uunet ..!uunet!munnari!mullian!raob parkville victoria 3052 |fax +[613] 344 6678 australia |phone +[613] 344 6782
a481@mindlink.UUCP (J.D. Frazer) (12/21/90)
From: a481@mindlink.UUCP (J.D. Frazer) I believe the Royal Australian Navy had a CV a while back. The HMAS Melbourne, I think it was. Or was it a heli carrier? I'm still amazed that us Canadians had a carrier as well. :) The Bonaventure. -- <-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><+><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-> < J.D. Frazer | "How can the same sh*t happen to the > < a481@mindlink.UUCP | same guy TWICE?!" - Officer John McLain > < Vancouver, B.C. | in a bad situation; DIE HARD II > < CANADA | > <-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><+><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au (12/21/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au In article <1990Dec20.015931.28940@cbnews.att.com>, disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu writes: > > > From: disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu > Help... also, Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get > an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option > of staying in the US or goin gback to Australia, but if Australia has no > carriers, it may be a bit hard to fly of a Carrier that isnt there.. Lastly, > is Australia getting its A-4 Skyhawks back from New Zealand??? I think your best bet Scott if that is your wish would be either to go to England and join the RAN and learn to fly Harrier FRS-1 or -2's or alternatively join the US Navy and fly off their monster flattops. Another alternative if you really desire to get in on the bottom floor is to either go to the Soviet Union and fly off their new carriers or go to Japan. Apparently Japan is about to let contracts for several new carriers in the same sort of class as the Illustrious class of through deck cruisers. There is no chance (well about as much as a snowball's in hell :-) of Australia ever getting another carrier. They are simply too expensive and out threat environment does not call for such a vessel. The Department of Defence in its wisdom (and all major political parties now basically agree) that there is no need for such a ship and that the Navy if it needs to operate in a hostile air environment it will be able to get sufficient air cover from the RAAF. Personally I think its short sighted but the cost benefits are rather obvious. Australia is not getting its A4 Skyhawks back from New Zealand. What is happening is that the RNZAF is having is A4 Skyhawks temporarily stationed for an extended period in Oz while the base from which they operate is being upgraded. It was decided as an experiment in extended defence co-operation betweed the two countries to have the aircraft stationed in Oz rather than shifting to a sub-standard RNZAF base. They chose, not unsurprisingly, Nowra RANAS (Royal Australian Navy Air Station for the US audience out there) as their base. This means a return to where they originally operated from for the A4's that the RAN had sold to the kiwis when they had decided to finally decommision Melbourne. Apparently quite a few ex-RAN pilots shook their heads at the irony of this. Brian Ross
greg@uunet.UU.NET (Greg Fabian) (12/21/90)
From: cti1!greg@uunet.UU.NET (Greg Fabian) disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu writes: > HELP! About maybe, a year ago, there was a discussion of SR-71s, as there >always is in SCI.MILITARY and someone sent me a list of all SR-71s and i >thought it wsa A-12s in service, and the A-12 was meant to be the attack >version of the SR-71.. now that I have heard about the Navy A-12, I was wonder- >ing whether I was incorrect about A-12 being a designation for an Attack >version of the SR-71.. The A-12 you are thinking of is a new Navy attack aircraft under development to ultimately replace the A-6 Intruder. It is supposed to utilize stealth technology and be the Navy's attack aircraft into the 21st century. Unfortunately, the A-12 program is in trouble at this time. The Navy is having difficulty in proving that the ship is capable of meeting its design requirements. Some funny stuff has been going on in this program (IG investigated it), and as a result, the Commander NAVAIR, another Admiral, and a Captain (the program manager at NAVAIR) were fired and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Aquisitions (not the full official title) quit. I don't know if an A-12 prototype has flown yet, but it has already left some bodies in its wake. -- Greg Fabian ////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ CTI (703) 685-5400 | 2121 Crystal Drive | When the going gets weird Suite 103 | the weird turn pro Arlington, VA 22202 greg@cti.com | - Hunter S. Thompson \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|////////////////////////////////////
stoffel@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Stoffel) (12/21/90)
From: stoffel@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Stoffel) In article <1990Dec20.015931.28940@cbnews.att.com> disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu writes: >From: disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu > >version of the SR-71.. now that I have heard about the Navy A-12, I was wonder- >ing whether I was incorrect about A-12 being a designation for an Attack >version of the SR-71.. Help... also, Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get >an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option The Navy A12 is the planned replacement for the venerable Intruder. As far as I know, the first plane still hasn't flown. Last night's news (CNN I think) said that the Navy is threatening to cancel the contract for various cost & schedule reasons. They also showed an artist's concept of what the plane would look like. It looked very stealthy, but more like the Air Force's new stealth fighter than an SR71. Bill
warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) (12/22/90)
From: warack@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Christopher Warack) >From: stoffel@dtoa3.dt.navy.mil (Stoffel) >>From: disc3c1@jetson.uh.edu >> >>version of the SR-71.. now that I have heard about the Navy A-12, I was wonder- >>ing whether I was incorrect about A-12 being a designation for an Attack >>version of the SR-71.. Help... also, Can anybody Tell me, will Australia get >>an Aircraft carrier EVER??? I wanna be a Carrier Pilot, and I have the option > >The Navy A12 is the planned replacement for the venerable Intruder. >As far as I know, the first plane still hasn't flown. Last night's news >(CNN I think) said that the Navy is threatening to cancel the contract >for various cost & schedule reasons. They also showed an artist's concept >of what the plane would look like. It looked very stealthy, but more >like the Air Force's new stealth fighter than an SR71. > >Bill For the other-side of the story... From "Deep Black" by Wm Burroughs, pp.156-160: The U-2 needed a successor. Lockheed submitted a dozen proposals during '58 and '59. These they numbered A-1 through A-12. The A-12 won and entered production. "The A-12, which first flew on April 26, 1962, was designed from the outset as a reconnaissance aircraft and was the first of three high-performance planes whose dimensions were to vary slightly but whose appearance and flight characteristics were essentially the same." Lockheed tried to modify it for other purposes. One of these was the YF-12, an interceptor version. Only a few were built and flight tested. The final version was the SR-71. Supposedly, it was supposed to be the RS-71; with RS for Recon/Strike, and 71 the next number after the B-70 Valkyrie. When Pres Johnson announced the existence of the plane, he reversed the letters. It was easier to rename it (SR meaning Strategic Recon) than correct it. (*end Deep Black excerpts*) For your edification, but take motives and folklore with a grain of salt. Chris (Sorry if this is a FAQ answer) -- Christopher A. Warack warack@eecs.umich.edu Graduate Dept, EECS (313) 665-4789 University of Michigan
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (12/28/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) >Australia was in the process of getting a carrier full of harriers back in >1984 (around that time) but before we got it the Falklands was invaded and >you can guess where the carrier and harriers went then. Hmmm... didn't at least one of the carriers from the Falklands end up in the Indian navy? Did they get the Harriers too? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (12/28/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >I believe the Royal Australian Navy had a CV a while back. The HMAS Melbourne, >I think it was. Or was it a heli carrier? Yeah, the Royal Australian Navy did have an aircraft carrier back then, It was the Melbourne. It was ex-Majestic, built by Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow-in-Furness. She was laid down in April 15, 1943, launched February 28, 1945, and commissioned on October 28, 1955. At the end of the Second World War, when she was still incomplete, work on this ship was brought to a standstill pending a decision as to future naval requirements. When full-scale work was resumed during 1949-55, and after her design had several times been re-cast, she underwent reconstruction in Great Britian, including the fitting of the angled deck, steam catapult and mirror deck landing sights, and was transferred to the RAN on completion. She was commissioned and renamed at Barrow-in- Furness on October 28, 1955, sailed from Portsmouth on March 5, 1956, and arrived at Fremantle, Australia, on April 23, 1956. She became flagship of the Royal Australian Navy at Sydney on May 14, 1956. She cost LA8,309,000. Displacement, tons 16,000 standard; 19,966 full load Length, feet (metres) 650.0 (198.1) wl (waterlength) Beam, feet (metres) 80.2 (24.5) hull Draught, feet (metres) 25.5 (7.8) Width, feet (metres) 80.0 (24.4) flight deck 126.0 (38.4) including 6 deg. angled deck and mirrors Hanger, feet (metres) 444x52x17.5 (135.3x15.8x5.3) Aircraft 8 Sky Hawk jet fighters 6 Tracker aircraft 10 Westland Wessex A/S helicopters Guns, AA 12-40mm (4 twin, 4 single) Bofors Boilers 4 Admiralty 3-drum type Main engines Parsons single reduction geared turbines; 2 shafts; 42,000 shp Speed, knots 24; sea speed 23 max Range, miles 12,000 at 14 knots; 6,200 at 23 knots Complement 1,335 (includes 347 Carrier Air Group personnel); 1,070 (75 officers and 995 sailers as Flagship MELBOURNE was paid off for disposal on June 30, 1982 and broken up at South Korea on August, 1984. Sources: Jane's Fighting Ships 1974-75 & 1985-86