Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS/LPH) (1980-2014) (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Engaging Strategy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:the Navy had wanted 4 but that was reduced to 2 by the MoD and then to 1 by the Treasury. Estimated cost 56 million. Speculation was that the Treasury didn't trust the 56 million price tag, hence the restriction to one.
Interesting. If 3 gave the availability of 1.5, one would have given the availability of ??
- i.e the military utility would have been restricted to offensive campaigns, planned well in advance
- how many did we have in the top drawer, at the time?

Hence ordering one would have been rational only for the purpose of nurturing the capability and ordering more later.
- perhaps the Gvmnt saw 1967 coming
The plan was never for a single carrier, as you've said that couldn't provide the single ship East of Suez at all times required by HMG. Had HMG chosen the carrier solution and remained East of Suez we'd have built CVA-01& CVA-02 and substantially rebuilt HMS Eagle (much more than the bare bones "phantomisation" Ark RO9 actually got) There's your 3 carrier fleet out to the mid '80s. At that point economics may have dictated a reduction to two ships, with the second CVA built in the early 70s and the final Audacious class paid off ~1983.

Also, the availability of the 3 carrier fleet was more like ~1.8 (with one ship at high readiness in the UK and one forward deployed East of Suez).

Let's not forget that the RAF plan with TSR-2 was nearly as expensive as the projected CVA programme. ~£1000mn for "island bases" and ~£1200mn for 2x CVAs et al. It was also far less able to deliver the required mission than the carriers and many of the proposed bases would've been politically difficult to actually set up.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Engaging Strategy wrote: Had HMG chosen the carrier solution and remained East of Suez we'd have built CVA-01& CVA-02 and substantially rebuilt HMS Eagle (much more than the bare bones "phantomisation" Ark RO9 actually got) There's your 3 carrier fleet out to the mid '80s. At that point economics may have dictated a reduction to two ships, with the second CVA built in the early 70s and the final Audacious class paid off ~1983.

Also, the availability of the 3 carrier fleet was more like ~1.8 (with one ship at high readiness in the UK and one forward deployed East of Suez).

Let's not forget that the RAF plan with TSR-2 was nearly as expensive as the projected CVA programme. ~£1000mn for "island bases" and ~£1200mn for 2x CVAs et al. It was also far less able to deliver the required mission than the carriers
Fascinating stuff... no doubt some articles coming up on the ES blog? Just a couple of comments:
- sustainability (incl. the cost of f-wing carrier aviation, apart from the ships): if you have 1.5 or 1.8 out of 3, the result (as a resource that you can consistently place your plans on) for 1 is no different. I do get the the time horizons for keeping the existing assets in use/ usable, but all decision making is done based on marginal analysis; otherwise e.g. economics, esp. micro economics (that other than for economic history the current branches of economics are based on... one day this will be true for defence economics, as well!)
- not that politicians would be that rational, but they do have to consider trade-off's. Which takes me the bolded part: which mission? Because the missions that carriers (with their a/c) and long range strike a/c can deliver are quite different. OK: the deterrent had gone to sea. But no one wanted to press the button. Where was the middle ground (in the thinking of that time) in reach that "air" could deliver with conventional weapons vs. what tactical air from carriers could deliver?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by SKB »

CVA-01 Class Carriers thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=148
HMS Ark Royal (R09) (1955-1979) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=185
HMS Eagle (R05) (1951-1972) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=186

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I meant a broad view:
- Britain's place in the world " confidence lost and confidence regained" (... at least for a moment!)
- a maritime capability (best of class, ie. in the top 5) to contribute, and, if so decided, ability to act/ project alone
- a view on how this would affect what " a balanced force" means (that would be an unbalanced force then ) when you factor in the broader context ( a full spectrum capability for anything that might come up is B.S.)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Engaging Strategy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:the Navy had wanted 4 but that was reduced to 2 by the MoD and then to 1 by the Treasury. Estimated cost 56 million. Speculation was that the Treasury didn't trust the 56 million price tag, hence the restriction to one.
Interesting. If 3 gave the availability of 1.5, one would have given the availability of ??
- i.e the military utility would have been restricted to offensive campaigns, planned well in advance
- how many did we have in the top drawer, at the time?

Hence ordering one would have been rational only for the purpose of nurturing the capability and ordering more later.
- perhaps the Gvmnt saw 1967 coming
The plan was never for a single carrier, as you've said that couldn't provide the single ship East of Suez at all times required by HMG. Had HMG chosen the carrier solution and remained East of Suez we'd have built CVA-01& CVA-02 and substantially rebuilt HMS Eagle (much more than the bare bones "phantomisation" Ark RO9 actually got) There's your 3 carrier fleet out to the mid '80s. At that point economics may have dictated a reduction to two ships, with the second CVA built in the early 70s and the final Audacious class paid off ~1983.

Also, the availability of the 3 carrier fleet was more like ~1.8 (with one ship at high readiness in the UK and one forward deployed East of Suez).

Let's not forget that the RAF plan with TSR-2 was nearly as expensive as the projected CVA programme. ~£1000mn for "island bases" and ~£1200mn for 2x CVAs et al. It was also far less able to deliver the required mission than the carriers and many of the proposed bases would've been politically difficult to actually set up.
Plan? The plan was to build one carrier, anything else was an aspiration or wish.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Just look at how the USAF in Europe is concentrating its bases now:
- just one unsinkable carrier
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Ron5 wrote:Plan? The plan was to build one carrier, anything else was an aspiration or wish.
One carrier was nominally ordered (long - lead items only at the time of cancellation). The Royal Navy's East of Suez "single stance" force structure, that the conservative government under Macmillan supported, called for three carriers and two LPDs in order to sustain 1 carrier deck East of Suez, 1 at high readiness in the UK and one in refit plus an amphibious landing force. The competing force structures presented to the Labour government in 1966 by the RN and RAF were the "single stance" and "island bases". The carrier programme proposed by the navy, and planned for until 1966 called for three ships: the two new CVA type carriers proposed in '66 plus an extensively modernised Eagle.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Please, this is an Invincible class aircraft carrier thread. This is not the place to discuss other off-topic classes of ships. Please use the other threads:
CVA-01 Class Carriers thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=148
HMS Ark Royal (R09) (1955-1979) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=185
HMS Eagle (R05) (1951-1972) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=186

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Contact:
Niue

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by arfah »

There wouldn't be an invincible class if the CVA-01 had been completed.

The reasons for CVA-01's cancellation are the same reasons for the Invincible class creation.
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Engaging Strategy »

arfah wrote:There wouldn't be an invincible class if the CVA-01 had been completed.

The reasons for CVA-01's cancellation are the same reasons for the Invincible class creation.
A myopic focus on a European NATO role for the Royal Navy and the misguided assumption that Britain could just abandon her interests outside the North Atlantic to the care of the Americans? ;)
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by SKB »

arfah wrote:There wouldn't be an invincible class if the CVA-01 had been completed. The reasons for CVA-01's cancellation are the same reasons for the Invincible class creation.
The Invincible class (Invincible, Illustrious and Indomitable*) were to have been built as helicopter-carrying through-deck escort cruisers for the cancelled CVA-01 carriers. Cancelling the CVA-01 carriers meant the Invincible class design was modified from through-deck cruisers into anti-submarine light carriers (CVS). The Invincible class were then fitted with ski-jump ramps to make them capable of flying the newly developed VSTOL Harrier to give the FAA some form of fixed-wing aviation capability after the Eagle and Ark Royal (R09) were scrapped.

*Indomitable renamed Ark Royal (R07)

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Engaging Strategy »

SKB wrote:No, the Invincible class (Invincible, Illustrious and Indomitable*) were to have been built as helicopter carrying through-deck escort cruisers for the cancelled CVA-01 carriers. Cancelling the CVA-01 carriers just meant the Invincible class were modified from through-deck cruisers into anti-submarine light carriers with ramps (CVS) to make them capable of flying the newly developed VSTOL Harrier on the Invincible class to give the FAA some form of fixed-wing aviation capability after the Eagle and Ark Royal (R09) were scrapped.

*Indomitable renamed Ark Royal (R07)
While it's true the programmes were separate, CVA-01 was always an aircraft carrier but the Invincibles were originally replacements for the Tiger Class ASW cruisers. That's why the class were described as "through deck command cruisers" throughout most of the design process rather than aircraft (or, more accurately, helicopter) carriers.

That said, I'm of the opinion that had the CVA type carriers been built then the Invincibles (if they were actually built, as the manpower needed to run them would likely have been taken up by the strike carriers) probably wouldn't have emerged as a ~20,000 ton through-deck design. Earlier cruiser concept drawings show ships much more akin to the post-ASW refit Tigers rather than the ships that eventually emerged.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Pseudo »

Weren't the Invincible's originally envisaged as helicopter cruisers more along the lines of the Vittorio Veneto or Moskva's?

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Pseudo wrote:Weren't the Invincible's originally envisaged as helicopter cruisers more along the lines of the Vittorio Veneto or Moskva's?
My impression is that this was indeed the case throughout the 1960s and that the design only really underwent serious growth post-1966, after the cancellation of the strike carriers. Originally they were much closer to what the converted Tiger class cruisers were throughout the 70s.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Engaging Strategy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Plan? The plan was to build one carrier, anything else was an aspiration or wish.
One carrier was nominally ordered (long - lead items only at the time of cancellation). The Royal Navy's East of Suez "single stance" force structure, that the conservative government under Macmillan supported, called for three carriers and two LPDs in order to sustain 1 carrier deck East of Suez, 1 at high readiness in the UK and one in refit plus an amphibious landing force. The competing force structures presented to the Labour government in 1966 by the RN and RAF were the "single stance" and "island bases". The carrier programme proposed by the navy, and planned for until 1966 called for three ships: the two new CVA type carriers proposed in '66 plus an extensively modernised Eagle.
1. CVA-01, as I've previousy stated, was never ordered. Tenders had not even been invited.

2. A RN desire for anything is not a plan. I'm sure the RN would like lots more stuff at any given time. Grown ups call that a wish list.

Carry on.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

SKB wrote:Please, this is an Invincible class aircraft carrier thread. This is not the place to discuss other off-topic classes of ships. Please use the other threads:
CVA-01 Class Carriers thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=148
HMS Ark Royal (R09) (1955-1979) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=185
HMS Eagle (R05) (1951-1972) thread: http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=186
Will do.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I second the two posters above, before Ron's comment.

It is not just they are both right. What bothers me is that if threads are restricted to discussing kit only, then the whole board will be stifled as you can't possibly open a separate thread for each broader POV?
- from Kipling's good servants we should retain not only "what" but also "why"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by GibMariner »

Aircraft Carriers: Decommissioning:Written question - 28037

Asked by Emily Thornberry(Islington South and Finsbury)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the amount spent was from the public purse was on decommissioning and disposal of (a) HMS Ark Royal and (b) HMS Illustrious.
Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne
Much of the work to decommission Royal Navy ships is undertaken using contracts that provide support services for all ships conducting Fleet activities at HM Naval Base, Portsmouth. Costs are not attributed to individual vessels.
Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) was responsible for the removal of classified equipment and known hazardous materials from the former HMS ARK ROYAL. This work cost £0.7 million. Similar work is being carried out on the former HMS ILLUSTRIOUS which has yet to be sold. Expenditure incurred to date is £0.5 million.
The Disposal Services Authority (DSA), part of DE&S, disposes of defence equipment that is surplus to requirement. DSA costs are not attributed to individual platforms and information on these ships is not held in the format requested.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -23/28037/

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Contact:
Niue

Re: Invincible Class Carriers (CVS/LPH) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by arfah »

............
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by GibMariner »

arfah wrote:HMS Illustrious news

http://forces.tv/94121673


Bull.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7181
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by SKB »

Wow. They really were going to buy Lusty to use as a border marker afterall??! :shock: :lol:


User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by GibMariner »

Sale of the former HMS Illustrious aircraft carrier
Disposal Services Authority (DSA) is inviting expressions of interest for the potential sale of CVS aircraft carrier, the former HMS Illustrious.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ft-carrier

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by shark bait »

A shame, but understandable. Cost of running such a machine, even as a museum must be prohibitive.
@LandSharkUK

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers (CVS) (1980-2014) (RN)

Post by abc123 »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:The Sun reporting Lusty is to be scrapped:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... scrap.html

A danm shame, if you ask me... :cry:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Post Reply