By: Bager1968
- 1st March 2009 at 13:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Work on their design began in ~1936-37, and they were thought at that time to be a sufficient improvement on the Illustrious design.
To get something very different ready would slow things down considerably... it took (at the time) a couple of years and hundreds of engineers & draftsmen to produce a new (or significantly modified) major ship design.
Which was better, Implacable and Indefatigable a bit small & cramped, but in service May/August 1944... or mid-1946 (and still smaller than the Audacious class... and still with cramped double-hangars [probably 16' both])?
By: Paul Holtom
- 1st March 2009 at 14:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One of the last three Buccs delivered in 77 which went to the MOD(PE) for trials work was fitted with the Tornado GR1 nose and avionics. this may give some idea of what could be achieved. The pseudo naval colour scheme is harder to explain, as the Navy had switched to all over dark sea grey ten years before this aircraft was built, and no naval aircraft had fin flashes either
Obi Wan,Your Bucc, with the Tornado nose and avionics got me thinking how if things were different a mark 3 might have looked in Navy squadron service. Could you doctor the image to look like an 800 or 801 cab with "E" or "V" code? Your phantonised carriers were a real treat!
Back in the mid 70s when we sailed out of Devonport on Ark Royal we would pass the mighty Eagle laid up in Plymouth sound. As I looked over her empty flight deck I would imagine what might have been, her air wing on board...899 Phantoms with the flying fist on the fin and 800 Buccaneers etc. However she had now taken on a stillness. Where her jets once thundered, now nothing but silence... eerie but still a sense of awe about her.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 15:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obi Wan,Your Bucc, with the Tornado nose and avionics got me thinking how if things were different a mark 3 might have looked in Navy squadron service. Could you doctor the image to look like an 800 or 801 cab with "E" or "V" code? Your phantonised carriers were a real treat!
Back in the mid 70s when we sailed out of Devonport on Ark Royal we would pass the mighty Eagle laid up in Plymouth sound. As I looked over her empty flight deck I would imagine what might have been, her air wing on board...899 Phantoms with the flying fist on the fin and 800 Buccaneers etc. However she had now taken on a stillness. Where her jets once thundered, now nothing but silence... eerie but still a sense of awe about her.
That particular aircraft's colour scheme has always intrigued me, it first flew in 1997 as one of the final three built, and was never intended for either the Navy or the RAF but the MOD Procurement Executive for trials work. The pseudo naval scheme was already ten years outof date. Possibly a tribute and reminder of the Buccs origins. Certainly if you hear RAF types (though by no means all of them) talking about the Phantom and Bucc they seem to be oblivious to it's naval origins (selective amnesia?). Have a read of some of the threads over on PPRuNe and you'll see what I mean.
I think the premature paying off of Eagle was a travesty as she had so much life left in her. At the time she was paid off, she was not only the largest (by displacement) Aircraft Carrier in RN service, she also had the largest gun battery of any ship in service and the largest missile battery too! Add to that the complete failure to preserve either her or Ark Royal, well don't get me started. Excuse like they were too big to preserve successfully are frankly nonsense, since the americans have had no problem preserving six Battleships and six carriers of similar size if not larger. Imagine Pompey today with the Historic corner of the dockyard containing not just Victory, Mary Rose, Warrior and that Monitor from WW1, But Eagle as well, with representative aircraft on deck and displays in the hangars. Tell me she wouldn't earn her keep! Although many suggested Ark should have been preserved at Greenwhich, I would have kept her in her home port at Guz, to help attract tourists to the west country. It's beautiful down there and much more fitting than London. Actually, They could earn their keep anyway if the engines were overhauled, as power stations generating electricity! An American carrier did this in the 1930s for a whole city...
As for the photo of the Bucc, I don't have photoshop on my computer, which is what that kind of mod requires. I only have paint which is a lot simpler but a lot less subtle. If anyone else wants to have a go, please feel free.
By: Paul Holtom
- 1st March 2009 at 16:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obi Wan, I think your quite right! The addition of the Eagle to the historic ships would have been the jewell in the crown for Portsmouth. And in my opinion the biggest crowd puller of any ship on display...if only!
I have been on the USS Midway museum at San Deigo, California. It was packed with tourists! There were volunteers running tours around different aspects of the ship. Information boards against the aircraft and ships equipment were very informitive. I spent the whole day aboard and could have done the same the following day, however the wife has no passion for aircraft carriers.... or ex sailors any more come to think of it! The restaurant on the quarter deck proved the most intresting attraction of her and other companions who didn't want to do the tours.
The carrier display at Yeovilton is the best that can be done in the UK, however it will never capture the "awe" factor a real carrier would have done.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obi Wan, I think your quite right! The addition of the Eagle to the historic ships would have been the jewell in the crown for Portsmouth. And in my opinion the biggest crowd puller of any ship on display...if only!
I have been on the USS Midway museum at San Deigo, California. It was packed with tourists! There were volunteers running tours around different aspects of the ship. Information boards against the aircraft and ships equipment were very informitive. I spent the whole day aboard and could have done the same the following day, however the wife has no passion for aircraft carriers.... or ex sailors any more come to think of it! The restaurant on the quarter deck proved the most intresting attraction of her and other companions who didn't want to do the tours.
The carrier display at Yeovilton is the best that can be done in the UK, however it will never capture the "awe" factor a real carrier would have done.
Sadly the carrier at yeovilton will probably be the nearest any of us will get to a RN ctol carrier for the forseeable future. Oh and here is that 'S mk3' Bucc in 801 colours! BTW if you get your hands on this months Navy News there is a deck by deck cutaway of Ark Royal IV, showing just how 2700 sailors could be fitted into a ship that size!
I always thought the MOD/government in general would not allow Ark Royal to be preserved because they saw her as an embarrassment (ie because they were getting rid of CTOL naval aviation) and thought the sooner she was gone the sooner everyone would forget about the whole carrier crisis and the 'end of empire'. On the other hand, when the Falklands were invaded, Admiral Leach briefed Margaret Thatcher about the Task Force he was assembling, and after telling her that Hermes and Invincible would be sent along with all the Sea Harriers available, she apparently replied "And you'll be sending the Ark Royal with her Phantoms and Buccaneers of course?", only to be told that her government had scrapped the Ark Royal 18 months earlier, and the Phantoms and Buccaneers were now effectively impotent in the hands of the land based RAF. Lessons of history...
By: Paul Holtom
- 1st March 2009 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh well, I had a go anyway. But this does show the limitataions of Paint as opposed to photoshop:
Thanks for that Obi Wan. What an addition to a carrier air group this a/c would have been, Tornado avionics at sea without having to develop a complete new airframe. In the opinion of quite a few people the Buccaneer was a better aircraft than its replacement!
In the long run a refitted Eagle with Phantoms and an upgraded Buccaneer would have been a lot cheaper than building the three harrier carriers. I don't think the Argentine would have even thought of an invasion of the Falklands had we had such a strike capability. Think of the lives saved not to mention the money the campaign to re-capture cost!
By: hawkdriver05
- 1st March 2009 at 19:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Visited the Midway last August. WONDERFUL experience! Now........were the 3in AA guns on Vicky the only mounts of their type in the RN? I see Tiger and Blake had 3in guns, but the mounts seem different.
By: hawkdriver05
- 1st March 2009 at 19:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sadly the carrier at yeovilton will probably be the nearest any of us will get to a RN ctol carrier for the forseeable future. Oh and here is that 'S mk3' Bucc in 801 colours! BTW if you get your hands on this months Navy News there is a deck by deck cutaway of Ark Royal IV, showing just how 2700 sailors could be fitted into a ship that size!
I always thought the MOD/government in general would not allow Ark Royal to be preserved because they saw her as an embarrassment (ie because they were getting rid of CTOL naval aviation) and thought the sooner she was gone the sooner everyone would forget about the whole carrier crisis and the 'end of empire'. On the other hand, when the Falklands were invaded, Admiral Leach briefed Margaret Thatcher about the Task Force he was assembling, and after telling her that Hermes and Invincible would be sent along with all the Sea Harriers available, she apparently replied "And you'll be sending the Ark Royal with her Phantoms and Buccaneers of course?", only to be told that her government had scrapped the Ark Royal 18 months earlier, and the Phantoms and Buccaneers were now effectively impotent in the hands of the land based RAF. Lessons of history...
Lessons of history?! Now you.ve done it! Certain posters here dont believe in that! Prepare for PARAGRAPHS of why you are just wrong and "history" means nothing!n
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 19:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Visited the Midway last August. WONDERFUL experience! Now........were the 3in AA guns on Vicky the only mounts of their type in the RN? I see Tiger and Blake had 3in guns, but the mounts seem different.
Victorious was originally scheduled to recieve the same type of 3 inch guns as Tiger, Lion and Blake, indeed these guns were designed to be the standard Frigate gun of the 1950s replacing the 4.5 inch Mk 6, but delays in their development meant Victorious was fitted with American pattern 3 inch twin mounts. 3inch guns were determined to be the best calibre for AA use as a direct or proximity hit from a 3 inch shell was reckoned to guarantee a kill on an attacking aircraft, whereas in Ww2 many aircraft could survive direct hits from 20mm or 40mm and press home their attack. The 3 inch gun mounts fitted to the Tiger class were also fitted to some Canadian frigates in the early 60s, but the calibre didn't catch on as it is too lightweight for anti ship or NGFS use. Current trends toward calibres as light as 57mm show a bias toward AAW rather than surface fire, despite statements to the contrary. The RN and USN are leaning the other way, looking to move up from 4.5 inch (114mm)and 5 inch (127mm) respectively, to 6.1 inch (155mm) guns in future.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 19:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lessons of history?! Now you.ve done it! Certain posters here dont believe in that! Prepare for PARAGRAPHS of why you are just wrong and "history" means nothing!n
"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemmed to repeat them!" as said by a much more famous philosopher than I! And if that doesn't work, my fallback position has always been "I'm not wrong, my reality is just different from yours!":D
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 1st March 2009 at 20:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lessons of history?! Now you.ve done it! Certain posters here dont believe in that! Prepare for PARAGRAPHS of why you are just wrong and "history" means nothing!n
The only lesson in that example is the detachment of politicians from their decisions and more specifically defence policy. As has to be pointed out here all to frequently the UK won the Falklands war despite apparently being chastised by the loss of its fleet carriers.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 20:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only lesson in that example is the detachment of politicians from their decisions and more specifically defence policy. As has to be pointed out here all to frequently the UK won the Falklands war despite apparently being chastised by the loss of its fleet carriers.
Agreed, though I would add that the Falklands proved some carrierborne aircraft would in the circumstances always be preferrable to none. The RN understood this back in the 60s which is why they circumvented Healy's anti carrier policies and ordered a different kind of carrier, ie one that would be less likely to attract political opposition than the large CVAs.
Here's another one for you Manta:;)
Attachments
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 1st March 2009 at 20:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed, though I would add that the Falklands proved some carrierborne aircraft would in the circumstances always be preferrable to none. The RN understood this back in the 60s which is why they circumvented Healy's anti carrier policies and ordered a different kind of carrier, ie one that would be less likely to attract political opposition than the large CVAs.
Here's another one for you Manta:;)
I have never stated that the RN should have had no carriers;). My argument has always been that they chose the correct choice and that is borne out in the Falklands victory and the utility extracted from the ships since.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 21:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have never stated that the RN should have had no carriers;). My argument has always been that they chose the correct choice and that is borne out in the Falklands victory and the utility extracted from the ships since.
Fair enough. My point is that even limited carrierborne organic air power is preferrable to none. :cool:
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 1st March 2009 at 21:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My only complaints about the Invincibles would be a matter of detail, ie I would prefer a normal complement of 12 Sea Harriers as opposed to the 5 they were originally commissioned with, and the lack of shipboard AEW as provided from late 1982 onwards by the Sea King AEW, which was offered to the Navy before the Falklands but blocked by the RAF, who said their Shackletons could provide the RN with all the AEW cover it would need (in the North Atlantic; clearly a move intended to prevent the RN from becoming a force capable of deploying worldwide once more). That the RN already had a 'Wartime strength' for it's SHAR sqns shows they were well aware that five aircraft per ship was utterly inadequate. Five aircraft was the number selected so as not to ring any alarm bells with the anti carrier elements within the RAF and MOD. Also post Falklands I wish we could have hung on to Hermes, give her a proper SLEP refit and buy enough SHARs to equip her properly as well. Perhaps when the RAF was replacing it's GR3s with GR5s they could have been passed to the RN and navalised to equip a couple of dedicated strike sqns. Many of the GR3s were low mileage, some were only ordered after 1982 as attrition replacements so would have been withdrawn with relatively few hours on their airframes. In the wake of the Falklands it would have been a lot easier to go on a recruitment drive for the RN and the FAA to rebuild it's strength, especially considering the high unemployment. My brother joined the RN in 1986, and had it not been for my interest in naval matters might not have considered it as a career (our father was an army man during the sixties). He quizzed me a lot during the preceeding months about almost everything to do with naval life before joining up, though he went on submarines (mainly for the better money) rather than becoming a WAFU!:eek::D
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 1st March 2009 at 21:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough. My point is that even limited carrierborne organic air power is preferrable to none. :cool:
And my point is that this a decision that has to be made upon the needs of foreign policy and economy.;)
By: F-18RN
- 2nd March 2009 at 12:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sadly the carrier at yeovilton will probably be the nearest any of us will get to a RN ctol carrier for the forseeable future. Oh and here is that 'S mk3' Bucc in 801 colours! BTW if you get your hands on this months Navy News there is a deck by deck cutaway of Ark Royal IV, showing just how 2700 sailors could be fitted into a ship that size!
I always thought the MOD/government in general would not allow Ark Royal to be preserved because they saw her as an embarrassment (ie because they were getting rid of CTOL naval aviation) and thought the sooner she was gone the sooner everyone would forget about the whole carrier crisis and the 'end of empire'. On the other hand, when the Falklands were invaded, Admiral Leach briefed Margaret Thatcher about the Task Force he was assembling, and after telling her that Hermes and Invincible would be sent along with all the Sea Harriers available, she apparently replied "And you'll be sending the Ark Royal with her Phantoms and Buccaneers of course?", only to be told that her government had scrapped the Ark Royal 18 months earlier, and the Phantoms and Buccaneers were now effectively impotent in the hands of the land based RAF. Lessons of history...
Hi Obi
First off I like the new picture (you did that using just Paint?). Secondly I checked the Navy News website and found that the cutaway was of Ark Royal in the 1950s. I was kind of hoping for a cutaway of her from the '70s, ah well perhaps next time. Am I the only one who when they think of Ark IV sees her post Phantomisation? Oh and I've almost finished my attempt at a Phanomised Victorious. I hope to post it soon.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 2nd March 2009 at 13:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Obi
First off I like the new picture (you did that using just Paint?). Secondly I checked the Navy News website and found that the cutaway was of Ark Royal in the 1950s. I was kind of hoping for a cutaway of her from the '70s, ah well perhaps next time. Am I the only one who when they think of Ark IV sees her post Phantomisation? Oh and I've almost finished my attempt at a Phanomised Victorious. I hope to post it soon.
I think Navy News will bedoing another cutaway of Ark in her later years in the next issue...
I only have paint, not photoshop. It is somewhat limiting, but if you choose the pic carefully you can still manage quite a lot. I'm still on my first computer, a laptop I bought four years ago and the hard drive is getting a bit full (only about 5 Gb left) so I'm waiting until I can afford a new computer before I start adding fancy programs like photoshop!:D
If you are Phantomising Victorious, you may need a sqn of these: (see below) I reckon Victorious would be large enough for a sqn of 12 FG1s, plus 8 Buccs, four Gannets and six Wessex/ Sea King. The RN at the time tended to favour fighters over strike aircraft if it had to reduce from ideal sqn size (ie Eagle's air group was the benchmark) due to limited space aboard ship. Hermes for example had a full sized fighter sqn (12 Vixens) embarked during the sixties but only 8 Scimitar/ six Buccs. Eagle had the 'standard' 14 Buccs (in the 60s Ark had 16 Scimitars, and in the 70s 14 Buccs). The thinking was probably for strike missions the Buccs would be strike leaders and could be augmented by Vixens/Phantoms as 'bomb trucks' to add numbers.
By: alertken
- 2nd March 2009 at 14:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MM/OWR: "Mk.3 Bucc": HSAL had bid Mk.2* in 1965 with ex-TSR.2 avionics. In 1971, for MRCA avionics integration trials the Project Systems House EASAMS requested a hack, carrying B-model prototype boxes representative in form/function of the definitive articles. Weapon System Prime Contractor Panavia (owned by BAC/MBB/FIAT) suggested either Bucc 2 (kit largely in bomb bay) or TF-104 (largely underwing pods). The Buyer, NAMMA, caused a competition...and did not suggest adding HSAL to the tender list. BAC chose to nominate Marshall's, with a record on Canberra of EE funnies. MCE did bid the required fixed price, as MBB did not, and delivered 2 a/c, flying 1974-80 (one was lost in 1978). The avionics suite and digital data bus were proven in them (and in MRCA PO4, with definitive C-model boxes from 1975). So: why no Mk.3 retrofit of RAFG Mk.2B?
It might have been practical to supplement the MRCA integration task with a Bucc Mk.3, from, say, 1978, but...why bother? From April,1977 HSAL shared (ex-BAC) BAe.'s commitment to Tornado. After about 1977 there was little chance of any one of the 4 MRCA User Arms deleting it: what they all wanted was that it be delivered, on-Spec, on time, on-budget, for a production run of 997 ship sets (inc spare boxes). To divert for 40-or-so, oddly-boxed to go in a different hole...too hard, prejudicing both timescales. The Tory Govt. of 1970-74 had chosen not to revisit Labour's 1/68 decision to withdraw Ark/East of Suez by 12/1978, so no Mk.3(RN).
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 1st March 2009 at 13:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Work on their design began in ~1936-37, and they were thought at that time to be a sufficient improvement on the Illustrious design.
To get something very different ready would slow things down considerably... it took (at the time) a couple of years and hundreds of engineers & draftsmen to produce a new (or significantly modified) major ship design.
Which was better, Implacable and Indefatigable a bit small & cramped, but in service May/August 1944... or mid-1946 (and still smaller than the Audacious class... and still with cramped double-hangars [probably 16' both])?
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 1st March 2009 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obi Wan,Your Bucc, with the Tornado nose and avionics got me thinking how if things were different a mark 3 might have looked in Navy squadron service. Could you doctor the image to look like an 800 or 801 cab with "E" or "V" code? Your phantonised carriers were a real treat!
Back in the mid 70s when we sailed out of Devonport on Ark Royal we would pass the mighty Eagle laid up in Plymouth sound. As I looked over her empty flight deck I would imagine what might have been, her air wing on board...899 Phantoms with the flying fist on the fin and 800 Buccaneers etc. However she had now taken on a stillness. Where her jets once thundered, now nothing but silence... eerie but still a sense of awe about her.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 15:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That particular aircraft's colour scheme has always intrigued me, it first flew in 1997 as one of the final three built, and was never intended for either the Navy or the RAF but the MOD Procurement Executive for trials work. The pseudo naval scheme was already ten years outof date. Possibly a tribute and reminder of the Buccs origins. Certainly if you hear RAF types (though by no means all of them) talking about the Phantom and Bucc they seem to be oblivious to it's naval origins (selective amnesia?). Have a read of some of the threads over on PPRuNe and you'll see what I mean.
I think the premature paying off of Eagle was a travesty as she had so much life left in her. At the time she was paid off, she was not only the largest (by displacement) Aircraft Carrier in RN service, she also had the largest gun battery of any ship in service and the largest missile battery too! Add to that the complete failure to preserve either her or Ark Royal, well don't get me started. Excuse like they were too big to preserve successfully are frankly nonsense, since the americans have had no problem preserving six Battleships and six carriers of similar size if not larger. Imagine Pompey today with the Historic corner of the dockyard containing not just Victory, Mary Rose, Warrior and that Monitor from WW1, But Eagle as well, with representative aircraft on deck and displays in the hangars. Tell me she wouldn't earn her keep! Although many suggested Ark should have been preserved at Greenwhich, I would have kept her in her home port at Guz, to help attract tourists to the west country. It's beautiful down there and much more fitting than London. Actually, They could earn their keep anyway if the engines were overhauled, as power stations generating electricity! An American carrier did this in the 1930s for a whole city...
As for the photo of the Bucc, I don't have photoshop on my computer, which is what that kind of mod requires. I only have paint which is a lot simpler but a lot less subtle. If anyone else wants to have a go, please feel free.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 16:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh well, I had a go anyway. But this does show the limitataions of Paint as opposed to photoshop:
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 1st March 2009 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obi Wan, I think your quite right! The addition of the Eagle to the historic ships would have been the jewell in the crown for Portsmouth. And in my opinion the biggest crowd puller of any ship on display...if only!
I have been on the USS Midway museum at San Deigo, California. It was packed with tourists! There were volunteers running tours around different aspects of the ship. Information boards against the aircraft and ships equipment were very informitive. I spent the whole day aboard and could have done the same the following day, however the wife has no passion for aircraft carriers.... or ex sailors any more come to think of it! The restaurant on the quarter deck proved the most intresting attraction of her and other companions who didn't want to do the tours.
The carrier display at Yeovilton is the best that can be done in the UK, however it will never capture the "awe" factor a real carrier would have done.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sadly the carrier at yeovilton will probably be the nearest any of us will get to a RN ctol carrier for the forseeable future. Oh and here is that 'S mk3' Bucc in 801 colours! BTW if you get your hands on this months Navy News there is a deck by deck cutaway of Ark Royal IV, showing just how 2700 sailors could be fitted into a ship that size!
I always thought the MOD/government in general would not allow Ark Royal to be preserved because they saw her as an embarrassment (ie because they were getting rid of CTOL naval aviation) and thought the sooner she was gone the sooner everyone would forget about the whole carrier crisis and the 'end of empire'. On the other hand, when the Falklands were invaded, Admiral Leach briefed Margaret Thatcher about the Task Force he was assembling, and after telling her that Hermes and Invincible would be sent along with all the Sea Harriers available, she apparently replied "And you'll be sending the Ark Royal with her Phantoms and Buccaneers of course?", only to be told that her government had scrapped the Ark Royal 18 months earlier, and the Phantoms and Buccaneers were now effectively impotent in the hands of the land based RAF. Lessons of history...
Posts: 136
By: Paul Holtom - 1st March 2009 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for that Obi Wan. What an addition to a carrier air group this a/c would have been, Tornado avionics at sea without having to develop a complete new airframe. In the opinion of quite a few people the Buccaneer was a better aircraft than its replacement!
In the long run a refitted Eagle with Phantoms and an upgraded Buccaneer would have been a lot cheaper than building the three harrier carriers. I don't think the Argentine would have even thought of an invasion of the Falklands had we had such a strike capability. Think of the lives saved not to mention the money the campaign to re-capture cost!
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 1st March 2009 at 19:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Visited the Midway last August. WONDERFUL experience! Now........were the 3in AA guns on Vicky the only mounts of their type in the RN? I see Tiger and Blake had 3in guns, but the mounts seem different.
Posts: 1,190
By: hawkdriver05 - 1st March 2009 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lessons of history?! Now you.ve done it! Certain posters here dont believe in that! Prepare for PARAGRAPHS of why you are just wrong and "history" means nothing!n
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Victorious was originally scheduled to recieve the same type of 3 inch guns as Tiger, Lion and Blake, indeed these guns were designed to be the standard Frigate gun of the 1950s replacing the 4.5 inch Mk 6, but delays in their development meant Victorious was fitted with American pattern 3 inch twin mounts. 3inch guns were determined to be the best calibre for AA use as a direct or proximity hit from a 3 inch shell was reckoned to guarantee a kill on an attacking aircraft, whereas in Ww2 many aircraft could survive direct hits from 20mm or 40mm and press home their attack. The 3 inch gun mounts fitted to the Tiger class were also fitted to some Canadian frigates in the early 60s, but the calibre didn't catch on as it is too lightweight for anti ship or NGFS use. Current trends toward calibres as light as 57mm show a bias toward AAW rather than surface fire, despite statements to the contrary. The RN and USN are leaning the other way, looking to move up from 4.5 inch (114mm)and 5 inch (127mm) respectively, to 6.1 inch (155mm) guns in future.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 19:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemmed to repeat them!" as said by a much more famous philosopher than I! And if that doesn't work, my fallback position has always been "I'm not wrong, my reality is just different from yours!":D
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 1st March 2009 at 20:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The only lesson in that example is the detachment of politicians from their decisions and more specifically defence policy. As has to be pointed out here all to frequently the UK won the Falklands war despite apparently being chastised by the loss of its fleet carriers.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed, though I would add that the Falklands proved some carrierborne aircraft would in the circumstances always be preferrable to none. The RN understood this back in the 60s which is why they circumvented Healy's anti carrier policies and ordered a different kind of carrier, ie one that would be less likely to attract political opposition than the large CVAs.
Here's another one for you Manta:;)
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 1st March 2009 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have never stated that the RN should have had no carriers;). My argument has always been that they chose the correct choice and that is borne out in the Falklands victory and the utility extracted from the ships since.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair enough. My point is that even limited carrierborne organic air power is preferrable to none. :cool:
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 1st March 2009 at 21:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My only complaints about the Invincibles would be a matter of detail, ie I would prefer a normal complement of 12 Sea Harriers as opposed to the 5 they were originally commissioned with, and the lack of shipboard AEW as provided from late 1982 onwards by the Sea King AEW, which was offered to the Navy before the Falklands but blocked by the RAF, who said their Shackletons could provide the RN with all the AEW cover it would need (in the North Atlantic; clearly a move intended to prevent the RN from becoming a force capable of deploying worldwide once more). That the RN already had a 'Wartime strength' for it's SHAR sqns shows they were well aware that five aircraft per ship was utterly inadequate. Five aircraft was the number selected so as not to ring any alarm bells with the anti carrier elements within the RAF and MOD. Also post Falklands I wish we could have hung on to Hermes, give her a proper SLEP refit and buy enough SHARs to equip her properly as well. Perhaps when the RAF was replacing it's GR3s with GR5s they could have been passed to the RN and navalised to equip a couple of dedicated strike sqns. Many of the GR3s were low mileage, some were only ordered after 1982 as attrition replacements so would have been withdrawn with relatively few hours on their airframes. In the wake of the Falklands it would have been a lot easier to go on a recruitment drive for the RN and the FAA to rebuild it's strength, especially considering the high unemployment. My brother joined the RN in 1986, and had it not been for my interest in naval matters might not have considered it as a career (our father was an army man during the sixties). He quizzed me a lot during the preceeding months about almost everything to do with naval life before joining up, though he went on submarines (mainly for the better money) rather than becoming a WAFU!:eek::D
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 1st March 2009 at 21:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And my point is that this a decision that has to be made upon the needs of foreign policy and economy.;)
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 2nd March 2009 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Obi
First off I like the new picture (you did that using just Paint?). Secondly I checked the Navy News website and found that the cutaway was of Ark Royal in the 1950s. I was kind of hoping for a cutaway of her from the '70s, ah well perhaps next time. Am I the only one who when they think of Ark IV sees her post Phantomisation? Oh and I've almost finished my attempt at a Phanomised Victorious. I hope to post it soon.
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 2nd March 2009 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Navy News will bedoing another cutaway of Ark in her later years in the next issue...
I only have paint, not photoshop. It is somewhat limiting, but if you choose the pic carefully you can still manage quite a lot. I'm still on my first computer, a laptop I bought four years ago and the hard drive is getting a bit full (only about 5 Gb left) so I'm waiting until I can afford a new computer before I start adding fancy programs like photoshop!:D
If you are Phantomising Victorious, you may need a sqn of these: (see below) I reckon Victorious would be large enough for a sqn of 12 FG1s, plus 8 Buccs, four Gannets and six Wessex/ Sea King. The RN at the time tended to favour fighters over strike aircraft if it had to reduce from ideal sqn size (ie Eagle's air group was the benchmark) due to limited space aboard ship. Hermes for example had a full sized fighter sqn (12 Vixens) embarked during the sixties but only 8 Scimitar/ six Buccs. Eagle had the 'standard' 14 Buccs (in the 60s Ark had 16 Scimitars, and in the 70s 14 Buccs). The thinking was probably for strike missions the Buccs would be strike leaders and could be augmented by Vixens/Phantoms as 'bomb trucks' to add numbers.
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 2nd March 2009 at 14:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MM/OWR: "Mk.3 Bucc": HSAL had bid Mk.2* in 1965 with ex-TSR.2 avionics. In 1971, for MRCA avionics integration trials the Project Systems House EASAMS requested a hack, carrying B-model prototype boxes representative in form/function of the definitive articles. Weapon System Prime Contractor Panavia (owned by BAC/MBB/FIAT) suggested either Bucc 2 (kit largely in bomb bay) or TF-104 (largely underwing pods). The Buyer, NAMMA, caused a competition...and did not suggest adding HSAL to the tender list. BAC chose to nominate Marshall's, with a record on Canberra of EE funnies. MCE did bid the required fixed price, as MBB did not, and delivered 2 a/c, flying 1974-80 (one was lost in 1978). The avionics suite and digital data bus were proven in them (and in MRCA PO4, with definitive C-model boxes from 1975). So: why no Mk.3 retrofit of RAFG Mk.2B?
It might have been practical to supplement the MRCA integration task with a Bucc Mk.3, from, say, 1978, but...why bother? From April,1977 HSAL shared (ex-BAC) BAe.'s commitment to Tornado. After about 1977 there was little chance of any one of the 4 MRCA User Arms deleting it: what they all wanted was that it be delivered, on-Spec, on time, on-budget, for a production run of 997 ship sets (inc spare boxes). To divert for 40-or-so, oddly-boxed to go in a different hole...too hard, prejudicing both timescales. The Tory Govt. of 1970-74 had chosen not to revisit Labour's 1/68 decision to withdraw Ark/East of Suez by 12/1978, so no Mk.3(RN).