Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th July 2006 at 18:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The fire was basically used as an excuse to decommision her by the government. She underwent a massive reconstruction between 1950 and 1955 from which she came out as the most modern aircraft carrier in the world fitted with the Type-984 3-D radar. The reconstruction was huge one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken on any ship, everything from the Hangar deck upwards was rebuilt- hence why it took 5 years.
I can imagine that she would have been pretty expensive to operate, bearing in mind she was the only one of her kind by this time in comparison to the vast number of the light fleet carriers which were floating around, not to mention her being significantly bigger and heavier with alot of expensive kit. Below is a link with some great Victorious pictures (post reconstruction). In my opinion she is one of the best looking warships ever built after her refit.
http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/victorious.htm
In one of the pics you will see that she has 27 aircraft on deck, 7 Westland Wessex, 4 fairy Gannet, 10 DeHavilland Sea Vixens and six supermarine Scimitars. So I dont think that it is inconcievable that she could have operated an airwing of upto 30 A-4's and S-2's.
By: - 4th July 2006 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She operated until 1967 when following a trivial fire after routine shipyard work, the government ordered her decommissioned. Many of her crew were transferred to HMS Hermes, then recommissioning.
This was as result of 2 factors:
1. The FAA had started acquiring Phantoms (F-4K/FG.mk.1), and Vicky was determined to be too small to be modified to operate them.
2. This was just after the cancellation of the CVA-01 project, and the MOD had decided that long-range land-based strike aircraft (F-111K) would make carrier-based Tac-air unnecessary. The decision had been made to focus primarily on keeping the Ark Royal & Eagle in service, and the Hermes had just completed a refit that allowed her to carry the Buccaneer, so there was little loss of capability by "replacing" Vicky with Hermes (same types of aircraft, but fewer).
Of course, the "can't operate Phantoms" excuse was also used to decomission Eagle ("she can't now & it would cost too much to modify her") despite the fact that she had already been operating them for years!
The simple fact is that the MOD had decided to start reducing the carrier fleet, and the Vicky, being the oldest of the 4 strike carriers, was just the first victim... within 10 years, all 4 were gone: Eagle in 1972, Ark Royal in 1978, & Hermes had been re-designated as a "Commando Carrier" in 1971 (and as "Helicopter ASW carrier" in 1975, but was saved by the introduction of the Sea Harrier, and is still in service in the Indian Navy).
By: - 6th July 2006 at 01:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Allways thought she was a pretty ship. Shame Vicky or Ark wasnt made into a museum.
By: - 9th July 2006 at 12:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She operated until 1967 when following a trivial fire after routine shipyard work, the government ordered her decommissioned. Many of her crew were transferred to HMS Hermes, then recommissioning.This was as result of 2 factors:
1. The FAA had started acquiring Phantoms (F-4K/FG.mk.1), and Vicky was determined to be too small to be modified to operate them.2. This was just after the cancellation of the CVA-01 project, and the MOD had decided that long-range land-based strike aircraft (F-111K) would make carrier-based Tac-air unnecessary. The decision had been made to focus primarily on keeping the Ark Royal & Eagle in service, and the Hermes had just completed a refit that allowed her to carry the Buccaneer, so there was little loss of capability by "replacing" Vicky with Hermes (same types of aircraft, but fewer).
Actually, Victorious could carry Buccaneer S2s just like Hermes. And like Eagle 'Phantomisation' would have (only?) required the following additions/alterations to her flight deck equipment, new Jet Blast Deflectors, Van Zelm bridle cathers, 4 direct acting arrestor wires and possible an AN/SPN 35 CCA radar. Removal of her remaining gun armament and replacing it with some additional extentions to her flight deck aft of the Island and possibly on the port-side aft of the overhang of the anged deck might have also increased deck parking space.
Also there was serious talk of operating Phantoms from Hermes and that ship did cross-operate with US Navy F4s.
By: - 9th July 2006 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sounds like yet another politically expedient decision, along the same lines as TSR2, the paying off of the first of the Invincible carriers early, the gradual but inexorable running down of the UK frigate force and the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier.
Unicorn
By: - 9th July 2006 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And reducing the FAA to one fast jet squadron. Really......with 2 big CVs the RN should have more than ONE jet sqd.
By: - 10th July 2006 at 03:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I never said that the Vicky couldn't operate Buccs... just that the Hermes had just been modified to operate them. Vicky had been operating them since the early 1960s. Note the sentence: "so there was little loss of capability by "replacing" Vicky with Hermes (same types of aircraft, but fewer)."
Phantomizing the Vicky would have required FAR more than you list.. the catapults would have to be replaced with longer and more powerful ones, for a BIG start!
type: shuttle run: overall length: capacity: ships
BS4: 103ft: 160ft: 40,000lb@78kt: Mod Majestics, Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes
BS4: 145ft: 200ft: 50,000lb@97kt: Mod Hermes, Ark Royal (1960), Victorious
BS5: 151ft: 220ft: 50,000lb@91kt: Eagle 1964, Ark Royal 1970
33,000lb@150kt
BS5: 199ft: 268ft: 50,000lb@105kt: Eagle 1964, Ark Royal 1970 (on angle)
If you look at the flight deck layout of Vicky, this places the starboard catapult in conflict with the forward elevator and Island. In order to install the longer cats needed, Vicky would also have to delete the starboard bow cat and install the longer one on the angle... which would require a lot of work!
Lifts:
HMS Victorious = 58ft long x 40ft wide (fwd lift) & 54ft long x 34ft wide (aft lift) both with a 42,000lb capacity
HMS Eagle= 54ft long x 44ft wide (fwd lift) & 54ft long x 33ft wide (aft lift) both with a 40,000lb capacity
If the Phantom has a folded span of less than 40", then Vicky's lifts are fine. If the span is greater than that then the forward lift needs to be widened as well, which would increase the bow catapult-lift conflict.
And as for Phantoms "operating" from Hermes... only with a very light payload... little more than its A-A missiles OR 2 full drop tanks! NOT both, and certainly not with a large bomb-load!
By: - 10th July 2006 at 10:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Could Victorious have operated Crusaders? Or SuEs?
By: - 10th July 2006 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do apologise Bager1968, I simply misinterpreted the expression
so there was little loss of capability by "replacing" Vicky with Hermes.as meaning
given that Vicky couldn't operate Buccs, its not as if there was any loss of capability.I'm very sorry. Though I do think from reading various books and articles on the subject such as Paul Beaver's 'The British Aircraft Carrier' that Victorious was better suited for jet ops than Hermes at least where Sea Vixen FAW1s and Scimitars F1s were concerned (1st edition Chapter 19 'Halcyon Days' pages 200-201).
On the subject of cats requiring lengthening and relocating the forward lift, I do see your point. One Idea might have been to relocate the lift to the deck-edge as in Hermes and thus extended the cats aft and rebuild the JBDs. The only problem with this is the unsufficient freeboard of the Carrier which prcluded the idea when it was first broached during the 1950-58 reconstruction.
That said, it doesn't get away from the fact that the Victorious operated both Buccaneer S1s and 2s. The latter weighing in at 62,000ibs to the Phantom's 56,000. Also according to the book 'Mcdonnell Douglas F-4K and F4-M Phantom II' by Michael Burns, the dimensions of the Phantom are as follows -
Wingspan: 38ft 4.9in
Wingspan (folded): 27ft 6.6in
Length: 57 ft 7.1in
Length (nose folded): 51ft 8.6in
The Buccaneer S2 according to 'Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1967/68' is as follows -
Wingspan: 42ft 4in
Wingspan (folded): 19ft 11in
Length: 63ft 5in
Length (nose folded): 51ft 10in
I'm not saying Buccaneer ops aboard Victorious were as easy or safe as aboard Eagle or Ark Royal, or in the same numbers but they do suggest that with her existing facilities she could have operated Phantoms.
On a sidebar note when Eagle operated Buccaneer S1s she also carried a detachment of Scimitar F1s to operate as tankers specifically to top the Buccs up following take off. With the coming of the S2 this wasn't needed. Did Victorious have the same arrangement or for space reasons were they not carried?
By: - 11th July 2006 at 01:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The big difference between the Bucc and the Phantom was in their T/O & Landing speed... the Bucc used a bleed-air surface-blowing technology that produced a significantly lower T/O & Landing speed... even after the RN lengthened the nose gear of the FG.Mk.1 (F-4K) to do the same.
I do not know the figures, but just consider that the Bucc could launch from the "long" BS-4 [Vicky & Hermes post-66] and "short" BS-5 cats [Eagle & Ark bow] with a full bomb load, while the Phantom required the "long" BS-5 [Eagle & Ark angle] to do the same (although it could use the "short" one on the bow when only carrying an A-A load).
By: - 12th July 2006 at 10:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didn't realise that. Though upon thinking about it I can see why Phantoms and Buccaneers would have very different landing/take off speeds and that consequently the cats on Victorious and Hermes wouldn't necessarily be able to cope. I did read where the Phantom could land at a sink rate of 24 feet per second for landing on at higher weights and steeper approach angles, and that when fully extended the nose-wheel leg confired the equivalent of an extra 11 knots of speed with the Wind Over Deck (WOD) effect.
I've also read your post in the historic aircraft forum looking for info on Phantom and Buccaneer take off/landing speeds and I was wondering if this website would be useful:
http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk
By: - 13th July 2006 at 01:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmmmm... the Aircraft Carrier Operations section is labelled "Coming Soon"... maybe I can piece the data together from the Technical Specifications & External Payload & Airframe Configurations sections?
If it is any consolation, however, I am sure the Hornet could have launched from Vicky & Hermes with a nearly full payload :diablo:
By: - 13th July 2006 at 01:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyways.....its probably a good thing that Argentina didnt cast an eye on Vicky when they were shopping for a new CV........
By: - 13th July 2006 at 03:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True... how would the Harriers have dealt with an Argie strike force of F-8 Crusader fighters (or Sea Vixen, if the US won't sell them), Super Entards, and A4 Skyhawks... all with plenty of fuel to hang around a while?
Vicky could carry 10 Buccs, 10 Sea Vix, 5 Gannet, & 8 Wessex... they would probably have 8 F-8/Sea Vix, 8 SuE, 8 A-4, 5 Alize, & 5 Alouette III (or Wessex). This would allow for decent ASW protection and a strike package of 4-5 of each combat type. Could the SHAR 1 defend against that?
By: - 13th July 2006 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And could probably have gotten enough speed up to actually LAUNCH them.
By: - 14th July 2006 at 01:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering the difference in power from 25 de Mayo's cat and Vicky's:
BS4; shuttle run 103ft; length 160ft; 40,000lb@78kt; Mod. Colossus & Majestics, Centaur, Albion, Bulwark, Hermes
BS4; shuttle run 145ft; length 200ft; 50,000lb@97kt; Mod Hermes, Ark Royal (1960), Victorious
then they might not need much speed at that!
By: - 14th July 2006 at 01:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True... how would the Harriers have dealt with an Argie strike force of F-8 Crusader fighters (or Sea Vixen, if the US won't sell them), Super Entards, and A4 Skyhawks... all with plenty of fuel to hang around a while?Vicky could carry 10 Buccs, 10 Sea Vix, 5 Gannet, & 8 Wessex... they would probably have 8 F-8/Sea Vix, 8 SuE, 8 A-4, 5 Alize, & 5 Alouette III (or Wessex). This would allow for decent ASW protection and a strike package of 4-5 of each combat type. Could the SHAR 1 defend against that?
Most likely the way they intended to deal with the De Mayo, a SSN.
Given the threat that the air group of a Victorious in Argentinian service would have posed, you can bet the RN would have had SSNs frantically looking for her with the intention of putting her on the bottom at the earliest possible opportunity.
Unicorn
By: - 14th July 2006 at 07:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also assumes Argentina had the money to operate a strike carrier with an air group of that size. The De Mayo was retained on their active list for years when the ship was little more than a hulk.
By: - 15th July 2006 at 01:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes... after they had determined that they could not operate SuEs from her with a full payload, and found no other aircraft that could both carry the Exocet and launch from her with them!
With nothing but Skyhawks (non-radar versions at that time) they had no real combat air wing to justify spending a large amount of scarce cash for the propulsion plant re-build she desperately needed.
If they had been able to get their A-4 P&Q models upgraded with new engines and a good radar, maybe things would have been different. [they were ex-B&C models... like Singapore had and upgraded with the 10,800 lbst F404]
As it was, they had to wait (until 1995) for the USMC to retire their A-4Ms to get a model with a powerful engine (the P&Q had the ancient J65 (Bristol Sapphire) with a max of 8,400 lbst, while the ex-Ms [A-4AR] have the 11,200 lbst J52-408), which they then upgraded with the APG-66 radar [from the early model F-16s]. These were delivered from 1995.
By: - 27th October 2007 at 11:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Travalogue HMS Victorious
Several ships wre named Victorious prior to the aircraft carrier. During World War Two, the ship operated against German Battleships, Tirpitz and Bismarck, served in Malta and Russian convoys, and in support of landings in North Africa. From 1943 to 1945 (as USS Robin) she served in Pacific and Indian Oceans, taking part in strikes against New Georgia, Sumatra and Palembang. She was hit by a Japanese Kamikaze aircraft in May 1945, but was in action after a few hours repair. During a 7-year refit from l950, the ship was completely rebuilt from the hanger deck up, culminating in angle flight deck,steam catapults and mirror landing gear. All three of these innovations (now very familiar sights to US Navy personnel) were invented by the British and developed by them after World War Two. She was equipped (l960 onwards) with a long-range radar system, giving simultaneous bearings, ranges, and heights of aircraft, further, higher and more accurately than any other operational system. Aircraft (1960-1962): Sea Vixens all-weather aircraft, Scimitar day interceptor and attack aircraft, Gannet airborne early-warning turbo-prop aircraft, and Whirlwind Helicopters for anti-submarine operations. (Buccaneers came after this commission.) The Victorious had a displacement of 34000 tons, length 775 feet, and carried a complement of 2000 officers and men. Her normal tour of deployment should have been 19 months but was extended by another 3 months. She could steam 29.5 knots but better maintained 23-27 knots. She was a beautiful ship to steer. I miss her still (sometime QM and helmsman).
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 4th July 2006 at 03:04
I understand that the CV HMS Victorious was taken out of service in the late 60s because of an engine room fire........How serious was this fire? Was the damage economicaly repairable? What I'm getting at is......could Argentina have possibly been interested in this ship? Would she have been affordable? Certainly she would have been more capable than the 25 de Mayo. How large of an air group could she have operated based on A-4s and S-2s? As you can see, I'm VERY bored at the moment...and....oh good..."Family Guy" is on!