Goodbye Lusty

[John]

So today is the last day that HMS Illustrious will enter Portsmouth Harbour, just a few days after HMS Queen Elizabeth was floated out at Rosyth and HMS Ocean returned to service after a massive refit. But there is another (ex) British carrier still afloat and that's this one… http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/w ... 218721.ece Although she looks like she's going to be scrapped there is a slim chance that she may return to being a museum ship.

So it's been an odd year so far for historic Naval assets, even as the WW2 era submarine HMS Alliance was brought back to all her amazing glory, we started to lose HMS Onyx http://rnzngunners.files.wordpress.com/ ... x-2014.jpg

The good news is in a few short years we'll have the biggest and best carrier we've ever had (or maybe two?) and seeing that sail into Portsmouth will be something else!

Kind regards

John

PS I just remembered that HMS Hermes (sort of) is still in service! http://www.military-today.com/navy/viraat_l2.jpg

[paulsl]

It is sad to see a good ship go. I was wandering around the interweb a moment ago and wondered if anyone knows why the Ark Royal, a newer ship, was scrapped ahead of Illustrious. We know that Ark Royal IV was chosen for Phantomisation over the better equipped and more sound Eagle because Devonport needed the jobs, but I can't find anything about the Invincibles to suggest an answer.

Personally I don't like the look of the Queen Elizabeth, two islands is against nature Of course it won't be an aircraft carrier until it gets some aircraft. I wondered if the F35 sitting on the ramp of QE was a plastic model. If so, by all accounts, it would be a much more capable warplane than the real thing!

Paul

[SkippyBing]

I think Ark went first because Illustrious had more recently had a refit. I.e. They saved money by not giving Ark her last refit and retiring her early.

[DaveB]

It's often the case (or has often been the case) that an obvious choice for staying 'live' is put out to grass early. This has happened in the past with aircraft as well as ships.. better to keep one or more running using the 'good' one as a source of spares. Although Eagle was in better shape.. quite a lot better shape by all accounts.. than Ark IV, it wasn't as 'in the groove' for taking fast, heavy jets as Ark which is, I think, one of the main reasons Eagle went first. Ark already had the necessary fit to accommodate the big jets but had crap boilers

On a slightly different note.. the aftersales market for thru-deck-cruisers doesn't seem particularly buoyant. In days of old, our carriers were snapped up sharpish and we were glad to sell 'em on. I suppose the lack of Harriers/VTOL/STOL aircraft is a major factor You could still use em for chopper though.. we have for the last few years

ATB
DaveB

[SkippyBing]

n a slightly different note.. the aftersales market for thru-deck-cruisers doesn't seem particularly buoyant. In days of old, our carriers were snapped up sharpish and we were glad to sell 'em on. I suppose the lack of Harriers/VTOL/STOL aircraft is a major factor You could still use em for chopper though.. we have for the last few years

I think the difference was the old carriers like the Colossus class and the Hermes had actual armour plate in the hull and flight deck which gave them a much greater lifespan. The CVS are pretty much just sheet steel hence the occasional practice bomblet going through the flight deck etc. after 30 odd years there just isn't the life in them to make them attractive to another operator. I also suspect it's easier to run on an old fashioned boiler with locally made parts than it is a gas turbine.

[DaveB]

Good points Skip

ATB
DaveB

[paulsl]

Sorry Dave, I'm not sure I understand "in the groove" but it's interesting to hear an insiders view.

I went and did a bit of re-reading on this and it seems that Eagle was the better choice, but was a victim of the thing that cursed all of the Defence forces in the 60's* - politics. When she had her 59-64 refit Eagle had the full makeover, all the things for aviation, radar fit, new island for better operations and better accommodation throughout the ship. By the time Ark Royal went into refit, the money available would only cover the aviation side. One source mentions that the Labour government were phasing out all the carriers by 1972 so Ark went for a 3 year refit to operate a further 2 years.

As it was Eagle had an arrestor wire fitted for the Phantom trials and shortly after these were successfully completed Ark Royal came out of her refit. Eagle needed only water cooled JBDs, a full arrestor cable fit, a Phantom capable bow catapult and the bridle catchers. The £5m cost seems a bargain compared to the £32m for Ark Royal but the plain fact is that the money was only going to be there to operate one carrier into the future. Better equipped in every department, Eagle fell victim to timing, money and politics.

Paul

*and the 70s, 80s, 90s,..... "plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose" as the English say.

[DaveB]

This would have been an interesting ship too Paul.. fated by timing, money and politics in much the same way as Eagle..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVA-01

Out of this project came the through-deck-cruisers (Illustruious, Invincible, Ark Royal).. so called as to not cause concern with the politicians and bean counters who had already ruled out any new aircraft carriers. It's likely that a similar 'class type naming convention' was responsible for the County Class Destroyers which if anything, were light cruisers but cruisers were also off the 'Yes' list. HMS Bristol suffered through the cancellation of CVA-01 too. She was supposed to be one of a 'class' and ended up being a class of one! In the event, I suppose we were lucky to get 'the one'.

ATB
DaveB

[paulsl]

Ahhh, HMS Bristol.

Perhaps it just her clean lines but she's always been one of my favourties in the looks department. Turns out she was quite capable too - her steam plant was destroyed by fire in 1974. Undettered she sailed on for three years until it was repaired! Her Wikipedia entry is awesome, even without reading between the lines.

Even though a child of those awful, stupid decisions that were being made, she managed to make it into service, I think she proved, by her service, how wrong those decisions were. She is impossibly good looking, just like CVA-01 and this. We know she worked, sadly the others will remain in the 'what if' basket.

At least someone's had the sense to realise that the Queen Elizabeth and PoW will require escorts and support vessels and a building programme is under way. Isn't it?

Paul

[DaveB]

The Type 45 destroyer (Daring Class) is the nominated escort for the new carriers.. Daring is already at sea Once more.. an initial order for 12 hulls was reduced to 8 and subsequently 6

Bristol was certainly a handsome ship albeit slightly oddball. The quote in Wiki saying it was seen very much as a 'white elephant' is, I'm afraid, how it was seen during my time in the Andrew. Reliability was also an issue.. not helped by the fact it was a 'one off'. The Type 42's which replaced it (replaced it as a type) were more capable vessels and importantly.. less manpower intensive.

ATB
DaveB