Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

[Tasman]

Quote:I wish I could find this article I once read that stated the RN was not planning on selling off the Invincible. Do you know if,for certain, they do plan on selling the ship off as you stated?

With this government nobody knows anything for certain. They are fond of selling the family silver, so to speak, and even though scrap metal prices are rising again they know they will still get a better price for Invincible as a going concern than as scrap. Warship sales are well established in principle because they lead to lucrative support contracts and follow on sales, and RN ships are only scrapped these days as a last resort...


In the current climate and unless something drastic changes I don't see Invincible going anywhere near a scrapyard anytime in the forseeable future. Part of the British influence on the JSF program has been to insist on keeping the size of the aircraft down so that it would fit on the Invincible class' lifts. Yet they were never scheduled to operate them... could it be a bit of forward sales planning to increse the number of buyers for the F-35B by seeling the Invincible class as cheap second hand platforms for Lightnings (FNS Foch went to Brazil for $15million, but the real money is in support contracts)? Big business has a lot of influence over this Government and I'm sure this thought has crossed a few minds. Just as in the US, scrapping ships here under current environmental and H&S rules is prohibitively expensive and towing them to India to be scrapped small children for a few pennies a month is politically unpopular to say the least. I believe they will sell the class on as going concerns simply for monetary reasons, and money is the only language modern pollies understand.

Who would be among the potential customers for these ships? South American countries come to my mind but I guess the UK would be reluctant to sell Invincible to Argentina. It would certainly be a bit ironic if they did! Maybe India might be interested!


Cheers

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

I have noticed some anti carrier posters here and elswhere keep suggesting that the CVFs will require a crew in excess of 3,000 each, which seems strange as no one has mentioned steam propulsion for them (that's the only reason you would need so many on ships of this size). The GT plant planned for them will require no more engineers than the Invincibles (still only four engines, bigger and more powerful yes but thirty years more advanced in design so even less maintenance intensive) and the airgroup will be supported by the sqns own personnel (which they would have anyway if they were land based, so their cost cannot be lumped onto CVF exclusively). HMS Ocean has lead the way in this respect.

 

[Jeff Head]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

My money would be on India...though I would personally love to see the Aussies pick her up.

I have much more doubt about Pakistan because there is still too great a perception here in the US that Pakistan is just one step away form being overturned and becoming much more of a fundamental Islamic state at any given time.

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010, Illustrious is due to pay off 2012 and Ark Royal 2015, but the latter two dates will probably be put back until the CVFs are ready (more likely to be 2015 for Illustrious and 2018 for Ark) so they will also be potential F-35B platforms, which is around the time production slots for export customers will be more available. The US may make a more concerted effort in the next few years to influence Pakistan into the fold, and arms sales will certainly be a part of any such move. A deal for F-35s may include a deal on one of the Invincibles (America giving Britain a discount on the Lightnings in return for transferring the carrier?). This sort of thing has been done in the past, though not always successfully, but considering India's steadfast intention of remaining non aligned Pakistan may become the US' new best friend in the region. Given a proper SLEP refit an Invincible could last another 25 years in service (no I'm not referring to the 'cut and plug' SLEP proposed for them a few years ago, just a comprehensive renewal and upgrade of existing systems). OK I'd fit a portside flight deck extension to increase deck parking space and free up internal volume by moving the GT downtakes outboard to the new sponson thus increasing hangar space over the current 'dumbell' shape, a modification I believe would be more practical than inserting a hull plug. The latter option was reckoned to increase capacity by only four aircraft, whereas my solution would do that anyway. But they could just be refitted as they are and transferred at very low cost.

 

[Scratch]

Invincible officially comes on the market in 2010...

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

With the indians now getting Vikramaditya in 2010 or a little later and Vikrant in 2012, I somehow doubt they would also buy the Invincible in that same timeframe. Could they really incorporate three carriers in such a short timeframe into their fleet?

The Russians are having problems delivering on time, and it is quite possible the Indians will have problems delivering on time too. I suggested they might lease Invincible as a stopgap for say a five year period, and may hang on to her after Vikramaditya and Vkrant are delivered allowing Viraat to be retired, and pending delivery of Vikrant's projected sister. Their stated aim is for three CVs and this may be the quickest way to achieve it. Invincible requires far less crew than any of the other carriers scheduled to enter service as well as Viraat, and could simply accomodate Viraat's air group so would be the easiest option for putting a new CV into IN service. Further delays with the new CVs may make it inevitable as Viraat cannot run on forever.

 

[Tasman]

India tops the list obviously, but how about an off the wall suggestion, Pakistan? They are cosying up to the US because of the war on terror so give it another ten years and they may have moved far enough into the American's good books to become approved customers for the F-35B. Chile is also on the list, and she would be very compatible with the T22/23s already in service there. Australia may run into problems with their LHDs and lease Invincible as a stopgap (long shot I know).
Running costs aren't as bad as some may think. The Invincible class require a crew of about 685 (nowhere near the thousands needed for a large deck carrier) so roughly equivalent to a couple of Destroyers, plus about 380 in the air group, doable for most medium sized navies. Most of Invincibles systems (ie propulsion etc) are the same as found in most of the worlds escorts, just on a larger scale (four Olympus GTs instead of two in many DDGs/FFGs). Australia may well not have been able to afford her in 1983 but the cost will be a lot less now and she would provide them with far more 'bang for their bucks' than say a fourth DDG.

I have noticed some anti carrier posters here and elswhere keep suggesting that the CVFs will require a crew in excess of 3,000 each, which seems strange as no one has mentioned steam propulsion for them (that's the only reason you would need so many on ships of this size). The GT plant planned for them will require no more engineers than the Invincibles (still only four engines, bigger and more powerful yes but thirty years more advanced in design so even less maintenance intensive) and the airgroup will be supported by the sqns own personnel (which they would have anyway if they were land based, so their cost cannot be lumped onto CVF exclusively). HMS Ocean has lead the way in this respect.

Australia was able to afford Invincible in 1983. A decision was made in January, 1982 to purchase her and the name Australia was officially approved by the Governor General. However, when the Falklands war broke out the Australian Government agreed to her staying on in the RN (had they not done this I am certain it would have made no difference). In 1983 the government re-entered negotiations, this time looking at acquiring what would have been a fourth Invincible class carrier, but in March a new Labor government announced that the RAN would not get a replacement carrier and that fixed wing aviation in the FAA would be wound up. This was a political rather than a financial decision.

Whilst Invincible's complement is comparatively low, it is still far more than the RAN could manage, given that there are too few personnel to man the existing fleet.

Cheers

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998

 

[Obi Wan Russell]

Australia was able to afford Invincible in 1983. A decision was made in January, 1982 to purchase her and the name Australia was officially approved by the Governor General. However, when the Falklands war broke out the Australian Government agreed to her staying on in the RN (had they not done this I am certain it would have made no difference). In 1983 the government re-entered negotiations, this time looking at acquiring what would have been a fourth Invincible class carrier, but in March a new Labor government announced that the RAN would not get a replacement carrier and that fixed wing aviation in the FAA would be wound up. This was a political rather than a financial decision.

Whilst Invincible's complement is comparatively low, it is still far more than the RAN could manage, given that there are too few personnel to man the existing fleet.

Cheers

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998

There is a difference between what a country can affford and what they are willing to afford, and back in the 80s the Australian Government (83 onwards, Labour) was not willing to afford a new carrier. I accept your point though, although on the personnel issue I believe recruitment becomes easier if potential recruits believe there is a bright future ahead of them. Over here there are constant doom laden predictions about not being able to find enough pilots for the Naval sqns for the CVF, but once the orders are confirmed people are more likely to come forward. They have to see there is a real career in prospect before committing to it. The RAN needs to get government approval for increased manning levels then go on a recruitment drive. The prospect of a CV may weel be an enticement to joining up as it would certainly offer more 'Glamour' than a DDG or a Frigate.

Back in 83, I think the RAN would have been better off buying the incomplete Ark Royal (to save on delivery time, as she was at sea from 85 onwards) so that the RN would have been free to order a larger vessel (around 30,000tons, basically an enlarged Invincible without the Sea Dart system) as a replacement for Hermes so that we would have at least one CV large enough to accomodate a large wing of SHARs (30+) in wartime. This would go hand in hand with an further order for SHARS and possibly a transfer of GR3s to the Navy suitable modified for sea duty. The new ship would take the name Ark Royal and also be able to act as LPH if required. For delivery around 89-90, Hermes would be refitted and retained until that date at least.

 

[bd popeye]

Tasman, you have a keen and appreciated knowledge of CV's. Love that.

With your knowledge of the RAN I have a few questions for you.

I once read when the USN was retiring CVA-42 the RAN was offered her but turned her down. However she was in very poor condition. Is there any truth to this at all? I can find no source to back this statement up. Also how may have the RAN outfitted such a large CV?

Also, has the RAN ever inquired to purchased a retire Tarawa as the USN decomissions them? It would be sort of a stop gap if and when the RN ever gets an LHD.

 

[Neutral Zone]

There is a difference between what a country can affford and what they are willing to afford, and back in the 80s the Australian Government (83 onwards, Labour) was not willing to afford a new carrier. I accept your point though, although on the personnel issue I believe recruitment becomes easier if potential recruits believe there is a bright future ahead of them. Over here there are constant doom laden predictions about not being able to find enough pilots for the Naval sqns for the CVF, but once the orders are confirmed people are more likely to come forward. They have to see there is a real career in prospect before committing to it. The RAN needs to get government approval for increased manning levels then go on a recruitment drive. The prospect of a CV may weel be an enticement to joining up as it would certainly offer more 'Glamour' than a DDG or a Frigate.

Isn't the RAN due to get 2 LHD's in the next decade? I've been thinking that with that in mind it would make sense for them to buy/lease Invincible for a few years and operate her as an LPH. They haven't operated anything bigger than a destroyer since Melbourne was retired and it wouldn't hurt to get some "big ship" experience back.

Back in 83, I think the RAN would have been better off buying the incomplete Ark Royal (to save on delivery time, as she was at sea from 85 onwards) so that the RN would have been free to order a larger vessel (around 30,000tons, basically an enlarged Invincible without the Sea Dart system) as a replacement for Hermes so that we would have at least one CV large enough to accomodate a large wing of SHARs (30+) in wartime. This would go hand in hand with an further order for SHARS and possibly a transfer of GR3s to the Navy suitable modified for sea duty. The new ship would take the name Ark Royal and also be able to act as LPH if required. For delivery around 89-90, Hermes would be refitted and retained until that date at least.

I've always felt that a big opportunity was lost after 1982 to reinvigorate the RN. I know a lot of RN fans think that in the wake of the Falklands, the government should have built a new generation of CTOL carriers, but that would have made no sense, especially as the Falklands had vindicated the "Harrier Carrier" concept and the Invincibles were then brand new and it would have made no sense to dump them. Your idea of a "Super Invincible" to round off the class is exactly what should have happened.