Argentina purchased Super Etendard's as A-4 replacements with operation from Vienticinco de Mayo very much desired. As it turned out the Super Etendard was entirely unsuited to operations from that ship and the A-4's were retained even after the Falkland's conflict and resumption of Super Etendard deliveries. The A-4 really is the biggest CTOL "fast jet" that could operate from even the most modernized of the Majestic/Colossus class carriers.

The Majestic class differed initially only in minor detail from the Colossus class, changed internally to suit a new messing scheme primarily, and to operate slightly heavier aircraft - 20,000 lb vs. 15,000 lb for a Colossus. During 1949-51 most Colossus were refitted to similar standard making the distinction between the two classes largely moot. Post-War though, not all Majestic/Colossus class ships were created equal, which is reflected in their various histories. As built a Colossus sported 15,000 lb lifts of 45 x 34 ft (20,000 lb and 54 x 34 ft on a Majestic), a 20,000 lb BH3 catapult (BH5 on some Majestics) and 10 arrester wires of 15,000 lb capacity (8-9 x 20,000 lb on a Majestic). Colossus class ships were brought up to Majestic spec by the early 1950's for the most part. From there though, things get more interesting. Canada's HMCS Bonaventure, a Majestic class unit was rebuilt with an 8-degree angled deck and 24,000 lb lifts as well as a 40,000 lb BH4 catapult, mirror landing aid and 6 x 20,000 lb arrester wires. And oh yes, a 14 ft longer flight deck. Bonaventure could operate jets. Her predecessor, HMCS Magnificent, also a Majestic class never got an angled deck or the other above mentioned upgrades and never operated jets. HMAS Melbourne recieved similar modifications as HMCS Bonaventure and could operate jets. In 1969 her flight deck was strengthened further and other modifications made to allow operation of the A-4 Skyhawk and S-2 Tracker. Her predecessor the Sydney, also of the Majestic class had not received those modifications and by 1961 was a troop and cargo ship. The Vikrant of the Indian navy recieved similar modifications as outlined above and again, could operate jets (Sea Hawks). If anything the big difference between the two classes is that most of the Majestics were suspended after the war and later completed to much-modified designs reflecting post-war realities. This shows in the Colossus class, where just 3 were ever given the necessary modifications to operate jets, and only one of those for the RN. Colossus was modified with a 4-degree angled deck in 1957 while in service with the French but operated turboprop ASW aircraft and helicopters, not jets. HMS Glory of the Colossus class saw extensive combat in Korea with piston engined aircraft but never got an angled deck and never operated jets. Same with HMS Ocean and Theseus. When HMS Vengeance was sold to Brazil she was refitted with a 6-degree angled deck, steam catapult, larger Majestic-type lifts, strengthened flight deck of much greater area and mirror landing aid in the hopes of operating jets but never operated anything more menacing than the S-2 Tracker. She gained 1,800 tons of full load displacement in the process. HMS Warrior was the last Colossus completed for the RN and thus saw more modifcation than others, recieving a slighly angled deck, moderately strenghtened flight deck, mirror landing aid and the stronger arrester gear of Majestic's completed for foriegn service. Transferred to Argentina as Independencia in 1958, she was withdrawn in 1970 in favor of the much more capable Colossus class Vienticinco de Mayo (ex-Karel Doorman, ex-Vengeance). She was by far the most heavily modernized of the Colossus class. She was by no means however, identical to the Melbourne as stated by someone earlier. Island structure and flight deck arrangements for example were very different. If anything de Mayo most closely resembles the Brazilian Minas Gerais, whose modernization was also performed in the Netherlands. Further, in 1981 de Mayo had its catapult lengthened and deck area increased to allow 2 more deck park spots in order to operate Super Etendard. And for the record, Vienticinco de Mayo did not stay home during the Falkland's conflict, though she was unsuccessful in attempts to locate and then attack the RN Task Force before being sent home, allegedly with a machinery casualty.

Sorry fella's. I used a bit of poetic licence when I said De Mayo & Melbourne were identical. I should have said that the original design & concept were not that much different. Same ship different model. Re the Falklands, it doesn't matter why the De Mayo left early. The Argies were simply not prepared to lose her in the same way as the Belgrano.

Not really, ;) Just as a side note. My father served on HMAS Sydney during her Korean War days. I've got some classic shots of Sea Furies and Fireflies getting belted about during Cyclone Ruth off Japan. They ended up tossing some aircraft overboard - something that the RAN would really only have done under sufference. At that stage she also embarked a Sikorsky Dragon-Fly whilst in theatre. She was an excellent troop carrier post 60's and could possibly be considered the first real CVH due to task shifting. My father was actually part of the HMAS Melbourne handover process, so at one stage Australia technically had 3 aircraft carriers at once.

I haven't looked at this thread for a while. Its nice to have somebody who has experience with both the A-4 and the HMAS Melbourne, who can give us definative answers on this topic, rather than just pontificating why or why not the F-8 would have been able to operate from the Melbourne based on analysis of Internet specs. Thanks.

yeah, but I did say that in September! mumble mumble mumble.... ;)

GF, Yea, but you were only theorising and didn't provide any definative information as to why the F-8 wouldn't take off from the Melbourne. The comparable weights of the Tracker and F-8, when combined with the F-8's thrust vs the Tracker's extra lift, meant that I wasn't going to be definatively convinced until somebody could prove it with documentation, a convincing story of how they had been there or a really good scientific argument. Anyway, now its settled I'm happy. All I wanted to know was whether it was possible and didn't really care which way it turned out. Skyhawk, What about the Sea Vixen? Didn't the Indians use those off a similar class of carrier? It was suggested earlier that they might be a better option for fleet defence than the Skyhawk, due to their all-weather intercept capability, via radar?

The Vixen was old technology. Like vitually all pommy aircraft it was built like the proverbial brick house. It's avionics were really 1950's stuff. Once again it was simply too big for a Majestic class ship. The catapult was simply too short to develop enough speed & the arrestor gear was simply inadequate for the job. The Indians only had 1 carrier, ex HMS Hercules, & as of 1976 it was still flying Seahawk aicraft. For your info, the A4's whilst in Australian hands did not have air intercept radar. Guess work only. Not sure what the Kiwi's did to them in this regard. Our A4's carried 4 sidewinder missiles. Remember "Topgun". The adversary aircraft were A'4's. Speed & power is not every thing. Armed with a clutch of Zuuni rocket pods they were able to provide a formidable defence against shipping also.

Didn't know Sea Vixen had been exported?? 151 produced in total. 2 DH.110 prototypes. 1 Sea Vixen prototype. 119 FAW.1 29 FAW.2 RN FAA stopped operations in January 1972, with some continuing to fly with the RN Air Directors School until 1974. Some subsequently going on to illustrious careers as D.3 target drones.

[ Armed with a clutch of Zuuni rocket pods they were able to provide a formidable defence against shipping also ] just as a piece of trivia, the AusGovt donated about 600 of the old Zuni stock to some of the universities and provateer aerospace entities do conduct low altitude tests. They've been firing those little suckers with happy abandon..