Mid-late 1970s HMAS Melbourne modernization?

Aircrew numbers

Thanks a lot badger for the explanition.
It is always nice to be able to get an answer by somebody who really should know it.

The reason I originally asked if the Trackers had been re-engined successfully was because I thought I had read [somewhere some time ago ]that it had not worked with any real success. Anyhow we can still use them with original engines on our upgraded HMAS Melbourne with success I think

KJ:
OK, so the FAB never installed the upgrade kits… fair enough.

Actually, since the Canuks also decided not to install the PT6As in their S-2s, except for the evaluation airframe, then it appears that that engine was non-satisfactory from the start!

SL:
Practice varies from country to country, but in the USN/USMC each squadron usually has just enough aircrew for each aircraft (maybe 1 or 2 extra, but that’s all).

Even with the fantastic reliability of the F-18 versions there are always some aircraft in maintenance.

Shipboard operations (or land-based without proper facilities) reduce aircraft availibility rates even further, due to salt water/sand/mold growth creating additional failures.

At any given time, only about 75% (60% in the 1980s) of the squadron’s planes are mission-ready, that provides the extra flight crews for those high-tempo schedules.

Turbo-Tracker programs:
# IMP performed an update for 12 Brazilian Air Force Trackers, fitting them with PT6A turboprops, five-bladed Hartzell propellers, and other updates. The first of these updates was performed by IMP in Canada and flew in 1990, the others were provided to Brazil as upgrade kits.

Brazil planned to perform a turbo upgrade on their Trackers, working with IMP of Halifax, Nova Scotia, to upgrade an initial machine as a prototype using PT6A engines. The upgrade was not regarded as satisfactory, the turboprops lacking adequate performance to get the aircraft back up into the air after a “bolter” on carrier deck landing, and the program was cancelled.
The Brazilian Trackers were then retired, one being donated to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) museum in Rio de Janiero, and the others were mothballed. Incidentally, although the Trackers were operated off the Brazilian Navy carrier MINAS GERAIS (named after a Brazilian state), they were flown and maintained by FAB crews. However, the Brazilian Navy has considered pulling them out of storage and converting them to an AEW configuration, using a compact radar like the Brazilian Searchwater 2000 that could fit into the original Tracker belly radome.

Source: http://www.vectorsite.net/avtraker.html

Thats the version I knew of, just one prototype was converted, flown from MB Minas Gerais and then mothballed. Hence, no pictures of brazilian Turbo Trackers around.

Here the info from a brazilian site (in portuguise) :
Durante o início da década de 80, os P-16A e UP-16 já estavam sentindo o peso de seus mais de vinte anos de operação. Em 1984 todos foram retirados de serviço, deixando o 2°/1° GAE mais uma vez sem aeronaves. Enquanto isso, a FAB já estudava uma possível modernização da versão “Echo”, ainda em operação. Em 1988 foi dado início ao processo de modernização das aeronaves para o padrão S-2T Turbo Tracker. Uma das principais alterações foi nos motores, com a troca dos velhos Wright R-1820-82C pelos turbo-hélices Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67CF. A aeronave 7036 foi enviada para as instalações da IMP, empresa vencedora da licitação, no Canadá. O novo Turbo Tracker da FAB voou pela primeira vez em 1990 e no mesmo ano seguiu para a Base Aérea de Santa Cruz para dar prosseguimento aos testes. No ano seguinte, já ostentando a nomenclatura P-16H, a aeronave fez seus primeiros pousos e decolagens do Porta-Aviões Minas Gerais.

Com a iminência da modernização dos demais P-16E, o 2°/1°GAE recebeu em 1992 duas aeronaves P-95A (7056 e 7057) para que os pilotos se adaptassem ao vôo com motor turbo-hélice. No entanto, nada estava bem com o programa de modernização dos Trackers. A falta de recursos em conjunto com a inexperiência da empresa responsável fez com que o programa fosse cancelado em 1996, selando definitivamente o futuro do Grumman S-2 Tracker na FAB. Como já era esperado, os P-16 foram aposentados no mesmo ano, o que causou um grande choque no Grupo. O 1° Grupo de Aviação Embarcada, de tantas glórias, perdera o motivo de sua existência. Porém continuou voando com os dois P-95A recebidos em 1992 e um terceiro (7060) recebido em 1994, até que em 1999 o Grupo foi definitivamente desativado.

Source: http://www.basemilitar.com.br/artigos/cardeal/index.htm (search for the Google cache, the real site seems to be gone).

I had indeed completely missed the taiwanese conversions, but I feel I´m excused as Taiwan does not operate them on carriers.

King Jester

May be a stupid question

Hello Bager!

I asked myself various times and no I dare ask somebody who should know it.
How many pilots/crews are assign to one plane?
On the aircraft their can be read the name of one pilot. There could be a different name on the other side: if a plane makes two or even three missions a day this seems too much for one pilot so there should be at least two crews for each plane -could you tell me?

Turbo-Tracker programs:

Military:
# Grumman updated 32 Taiwanese S-2Es and S-2Fs to the “S-2T” Turbo Tracker configuration following a contract award in 1986. The S-2Ts featured TPE331 engines, four-bladed propellers, and a new avionics and electronic systems fit.

# In 1988, there was a project undertaken between the Canadian Forces and IMP Aerospace of Halifax to re-engine the Trackers with Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67 turboprop engines. However, just as the first Tracker was converted, the project was cancelled and the Trackers retired from service.

# IMP performed an update for 12 Brazilian Air Force Trackers, fitting them with PT6A turboprops, five-bladed Hartzell propellers, and other updates. The first of these updates was performed by IMP in Canada and flew in 1990, the others were provided to Brazil as upgrade kits.

# Israel Aircraft Industries’ (IAI) Bedek division updated six Trackers for the Argentine Navy to the “S-2E(UP)” Turbo Tracker configuration, using Garrett engine kits provided by Marsh and also implementing environmental and electronics systems updates.

Civilian:
# Marsh Aviation of Mesa, Arizona, has been selling Turbo Tracker updates using TPE331 engines and Hartzell five-bladed fully reversible propellers. They offer a “TS-2F1” (previously “S-2AT”) conversion for firefighting, and a “TS-2F3” (previously “S-2ET”) conversion for maritime patrol.

The first Marsh water-bomber conversion flew in 1986 and was certified in 1990. A number have been supplied to the CDF. The first maritime patrol conversion flew in 1991, was carrier-qualified in 1992, and several have been sold. The maritime patrol conversions also include electronic system updates and other refinements.

# Conair of Abbotsford, Canada, following up their “Firecat” water-bomber Tracker conversions, with a “Turbo Firecat” conversion featuring PT6A engines and the five-bladed Hartzell propellers as used on the Marsh conversions. The first Conair Turbo Firecat conversion flew in 1988 and a number have been sold.

My proposal would have used GE T58 [RR Gnome], which was in widespread service at the time, and which is of similar dimensions & weight to the ones fitted in the RW conversions.

Tiddles, as anyone who has served aboard a carrier will tell you, which aircraft are “spotted” where on the flight and hangar decks is a function of how many of which type need repair, which missions are being prepared for, personal preference of the chief aircraft handler, and which part of the hangar is closest to which repair shops.

Thus, each USN CV puts its planes in different places, even if they have the same numbers of the same types. During my time aboard CV-61 Ranger in 1985-87, there were several changes in where each squadron wanted its planes spotted in the hangar, for example.

Here a pic of an argie Tracker (T) on MB Sao Paolo.

http://www.jetfly.hu/rovatok/repules/katonai/legierok/brazil_041013/Argentin%20Turbo%20Tracker-3.jpg

Knig Jester

I know that some tracker upgrades to turboprop have been attempted, do you know if they had been successful….
I like this air group especially the AEW aspect ,it would have been well balanced .

The argie CANA is AFAIK the only navy which operates Turbo Trackers (all other operators are civilian firefighters) in the ASW role. The CANA has upgraded 5 cells with isreali avionics and Garret Turboprops.

The program was started after ARA 25 de Mayo had been decommisioned, so the re-engined Trackers never operated on that Colossus type. I don´t know if the got to operate on MB Minas Gerais (there is a mutul training program with the MB since ARA lost the carrier), but for sure they train every year on MB Sao Paolo (Foch class). Will post some pictures later.

I always had the idea of re-engining a copuple of Gruman Tracers for the ARA. Would have been a flexible and cost-saving alternative AEW for the CANA.

King Jester

Re-engine projects are seriously expensive, it’s not just new turbines and boilers (there were plenty of options for new high power/ higher efficiency boilers and turbines) but all the auxilliary equipment, wiring, pipes etc. The hull is still an old and limited hull, it’s still very crew intensive and would be very limited in aircraft suitable for deployment without placing major restrictions on payload. Ships can be re-engineered very successfully, but it isn’t cheap and there are still limitations from the hull and size capacity.

If I might say so, you appear to be pissing in the wind, Mr. Turbinia!;)

I know that some tracker upgrades to turboprop have been attempted, do you know if they had been successful. I like this air group especially the AEW aspect ,it would have been well balanced .Spending on upgraded equipment is often less politically dangerous than spending on big ticket items [new carriers] that do not always attract votes.Can you tell me which planes would have been in the hanger and what & where on deck pls.

Position of lift

Hello Badger!

I like your idea of rebuilding a Colossus class carrier. An interesting what if design could be Leviathan finished in the early 70’ies – capable of carrying Super Etendard perhaps the first German Carrier in cooperation with France?
Another interesting conversion could be 25 de Mayo with new engines in the early 90’ies.
Your attempt to replace the after elevator on the starbord edge seems logical.
On the other side I am afraid that it would not have worked. The lift is only two decks above sealevel. This seems too little. If I am not mistaken only the Iwo Jima Class and Conte di Cavour have a deckedgelift that close to sealevel.
Do you know The book “Rebuilding the Royal Navy” by Brown and Moore?
There is a description of the problems of rebuilding a ship with a closed hangar with a deck edge lift. It causes structural problems. It was difficult to fit into Hermes and in Ark Royal it was abandoned after some years of service with a deckedge lift.

Re-engine projects are seriously expensive, it’s not just new turbines and boilers (there were plenty of options for new high power/ higher efficiency boilers and turbines) but all the auxilliary equipment, wiring, pipes etc. The hull is still an old and limited hull, it’s still very crew intensive and would be very limited in aircraft suitable for deployment without placing major restrictions on payload. Ships can be re-engineered very successfully, but it isn’t cheap and there are still limitations from the hull and size capacity.

What say, while bring the Melbourne upto a more modern standard, that either a carrier based variant of the Northrop F-5E Tiger II (after all Northrop did propose a carrier-based version of its F-5 series to both the US Navy and the RAN!) or what about a true fighter capability in the way of a modernised Vought F-8 Crusader replace the A-4 Skyhawk’s???

Note the E-1[T] Tracers… no Gannets allowed!

The RAN had already replaced its ASW Gannets (they had never operated AEW Gannets) with S-2 Trackers in 1967, so there would be no reason to return an obsolete type to service when the E-1 would share parts (engines, most of the airframe, & base avionics) with the modernizd S-2s.

dont forget to modernize AEW Gannets with a Searchwater radar…….

As for the aircraft issue… If used A-4B & C models are purchased and fitted with 1 – F404 and a small-antenna APG-65, then it will have the same radar and engine as the F-18, and probably most of the rest of avionics would be the same, but simplified. This would mean that most of the supply and maintenance load would be shared with the F-18 anyway.

Yes, I have that link. My ideas are more a starting point for discussion and refinement, than a finalized item.

Here is some more info on the reasons for replacing the boilers rather than re-building them.

Well, the main reason I proposed replacement was to get an increase in total steam pressure & volume. I fully realize that bloody great holes would need to be opened in either the hull or hangar deck to do this.

These CVLs had already seen their max. speed drop from 26 knots to 24.5 due to their increased hull depth from earlier mods… I would expect this one to drop it to 24. The second cat could further exacerbate this issue (drawing off even more steam from the turbines), thus the desire to install a more compact (per cubic meter/Kilo-Newton of steam produced), efficient, modern boiler suite that could provide more steam in the same ship volume.

The turbine replacement is because turbines are what place an absolute limit on speed (power to the propellors). They are built for a certain maximum output, and cannot do more.

In order to increase speed (back to the original), or even keep it the same, there will need to be an increase in shaft horsepower… which requires both more steam and stronger turbines.

The elevator move is to clear the landing path. As it was, they had to unhook the forward arresting cable to use the aft el, as it stretched across the elevator. This made use of the elevator nearly impossible while landing ops were underway.

*Boiler options:
Originally installed are 4 RN-WW2 standard 400 psi 700° Admiralty 3-drum. This was used to produce 10,000 shp per boiler (4 boilers = 40,000 shp).

1. The USN 600 psi 950° Combustion Engineering boilers used on all its post-WW2 amphibs (including the LSDs, LPDs, Iwo Jima LPHs, Tarawa LHAs, and the first 7 Wasp LHDs) (normally ~12,000 shp per boiler.) for 48,000 shp total if they can be exchanged 1-for-1.

2. All-UK alternative would be the 650 psi 850° Admiralty 3-drum boilers used in the Daring class DDs (of which the RAN had 3 in 1964-78). They put out 26,000 shp per boiler, so this would mean replacing the 4 old (40,000 shp) with 2 new (52,000 shp)… unless 1 original is also kept for back-up use if space allows.
This has the advantage of not introducing a new type, but this boiler had the reputation of being “touchy” and maintenance-heavy.

**Elevator:
Since the hull width was 80′, and the hangar deck was 52′, this meant a 14′ (including two bulkheads) space on either side of the hangar. It is this space that I propose for the overlap of the elevator.

This would allow 12′ (plus 2′ for the weather door) of the 34′ elevator width to overlap the hull, thus the elevator would only extend 22′ past the hull. This significantly reduces both spray and possible wave effects on both the elevator and aircraft on it.

Plans of Minas Gerais

Hello board members!

I am new and start my first attempt posting here. I hope it will work – if not please don’t kill me.
I am interested in aircraft carriers – especially small ones and never wheres.
I very much like the Colossus/Majestic classes and it is very sad that Minas Gerais and 25 de Mayo have gone.

Here is a link to plans of Minas Gerais.
Most decks are copied. The quality is not the best but very detailed. The plans do not exactly fit the true ship because the guns are to a different (earlier?) plan.
The other pages are nice but sad too, because she has been scrapped last year. They will help to check badger1968 ideas to refit Melbourne or Minas Gerais.

Enjoy to study the plans
http://www.hms-vengeance.co.uk/plans.htm

Here is what I have:
RCAN Bonaventure 1968, Melbourne 1980, Minas Gerais 1973…

and an updated M.G. with the upgraded Melb.

Note that while the Melbourne and Bonaventure (and Hermes) all had a 6.5° angle… and this was described by the RN as “the largest that can be fitten on this size of ship”… the Dutch put an 8.5° angle on M.G. when they modernized her for Brazil!

These drawings are from Conway’s Warships of the World 1947-1982 part 1 (Nato & Allied Navies).

Prob would have been cheaper to build a whole new ship………nice tho.