By: swerve
- 5th November 2006 at 22:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The "Principe De Asturias" is soon to be replaced by the "Buque de Proyección Estratégica" to be launched next year. At 27,000 shes quiet a big pocket carrier.
Her main role is intended to be amphibious warfare, replacing the last LSTs, not PdA. She's been allocated an amphibious ship number. But she will be capable of operating STOVL aircraft as a back-up to PdA. When she enters service, PdA will go in for refit, & the new ship (Aragon has been suggested as a likely name, which fits with Galicia & Castilla in the amphibious series) will operate her Harriers for a while. But then they will operate together.
AFAIK, the Armada wants to replace PdA with something more like Cavour.
By: Super Nimrod
- 5th November 2006 at 23:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She is not exactly small either as said by Stingray, being marginally longer but slightly less wide than the UK Invincible class.
New
Posts: 869
By: WisePanda
- 6th November 2006 at 04:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
while the AG/ADS-1 are nice to have, I dont see any activity on the front where IN really needs some teeth - "Nueva Moskva" :p ASW helicopter carriers to dominate and sanitize large areas against the submarine threat.
20Kt (vikrant sized)
25 knots top, 15 knots cruising
60 days endurance on internal fuel and cruise speed
15 assorted ASW NH90/Dhruv/SeaKing helos, 5 utility Bell407 for csar,people
barak-1 (32 cells) in sponsons along sides
barark-NG (16 cells) aft side of island for opportunistic attacks on LRMP
BEL 3DCAR for seach/or S1850 if money is good
MF-star radar for Barak-NG guidance
16 cell vl-club ASW fwd side of island
rbu anti torpedo weapons
some facility for fleet command control room
facility to control sonar equipped FFG and UUV 'beaters' to flush the prey
into jaws of trap
these imo would make life a lot tougher for SSKs trying to ambush SAG/convoys or submarines trying to get through chokepoints like the
Malacca.
in a emergency by keeping the helis on deck, the hanger can probably house
700 troops and their equipment. enough to subdue some minor colonial revolt
in the far flung shores of Empire. :diablo:
By: pred
- 6th November 2006 at 09:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Her main role is intended to be amphibious warfare, replacing the last LSTs, not PdA. She's been allocated an amphibious ship number. But she will be capable of operating STOVL aircraft as a back-up to PdA. When she enters service, PdA will go in for refit, & the new ship (Aragon has been suggested as a likely name, which fits with Galicia & Castilla in the amphibious series) will operate her Harriers for a while. But then they will operate together.
AFAIK, the Armada wants to replace PdA with something more like Cavour.
Make the SPS Cervantes for the BPE.
Let's hope the Spanish Navy avoids a CFV(-FR) like battle over its Principe de Asturias replacement...
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 6th November 2006 at 11:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIK, the Armada wants to replace PdA with something more like Cavour.
Whats the diffrence, the Cavour and the Buque de Proyección Estratégica are both 27,000 ton, amphibious carriers of simular dimentions. Seem pretty simular to me. Why design a all new 27,000 ton ship that already performs the same task?
I can't see Spain forking out for a new design. At best there may be some sort of variation to the Buque de Proyección Estratégica design and ordered after the Australian ships are built.
Unless spain is thinking of moving up to 40,000 ton class.
From where I am sitting the Buque de Proyección Estratégica does look like the new replacement. It looks like a nice vessel, and will suit Spain and Australia well. For Australia is really providing capability that hasn't existed since the carriers were retired. Of the newer small carriers for the price its a great buy.
By: Storch
- 6th November 2006 at 12:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whats the diffrence, the Cavour and the Buque de Proyección Estratégica are both 27,000 ton, amphibious carriers of simular dimentions. Seem pretty simular to me. Why design a all new 27,000 ton ship that already performs the same task?
The difference is that BPE is an amphibius ship that can operate harrier and jsf, is built whith commercial standard and cannot operate as flagship with a full command, Cavour is a light carrier built with military standard with all the space to support an harrier/jsf group and act as a flagship.
Cavour has only limited amphib capabilities because it have no dock (only heli assault and transport).
Thus u have a big difference of price cavour cost from 4 to 5 times a bpe (electronics cost more than steel)....
Now u can see the difference??? :D :D :D :D
By: swerve
- 6th November 2006 at 13:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whats the diffrence, the Cavour and the Buque de Proyección Estratégica are both 27,000 ton, amphibious carriers of simular dimentions. Seem pretty simular to me. Why design a all new 27,000 ton ship that already performs the same task?
As well as what Storch said -
Cavour - sustained speed 27 knots, 236x39m lengthxbeam, Empar phased-array radar, quite heavy armament (76 mm guns, Aster 15), no dock (yes, he said that, but it needs emphasising). 27100 tonnes full load.
BPE - max sustained speed 19.5 knots (21 knots light, as in air operations configuration) , 231x32m, currently very lightly armed (20mm AA guns), though ESSM or similar may be fitted, & a floodable dock. Full load in air operations configuration 24660 tonnes.
BPE is, as you can see, somewhat smaller. The oft-quoted tonnage may be docked-down. She's much slower, having far less powerful engines. So really, not that similar.
New
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003
- 7th November 2006 at 04:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok I can see the diffrence now.
However the price makes it awefully tempting. I know Australia would not mind the slower speed (20 kts would mean collins can keep up).
I suppose neither navy will use it as a primary carrier. Spain as a backup, and Australia as a LHD/amphibious with potential fixed wing carrier capability if required. Australia certainly needs amphib cabability more than a full blown carrier as Australia can't land its MBT or sustain a decent fighting force with its current capability.
I find it interesting that the tonnage is so low. Its very close to the extended French Mistral Class (~24,000t) as the other less favoured option (due to its smaller size and less carrier abilities). Australia wants something big, so perhaps Australia is looking at a BPE varient PA replacement more than the current BPE.
Australia wants 1,200 troop capability, a stack of whirlies, and the ability to stick in a few M1A1's into something that looks like a carrier. This is to ensure the ability to deploy forces to the pacific rim nations that are always in trouble which is specifically a Australian duty (no way would these countries allow the yanks in).
If spain was to offer OZ something a little larger (27,000-30,000) with space for more troops and vechicals, a better hospital etc they would be a shoe in.
Australia would love something like the US Wasp amphibs, but without the crew requirements.
New
Posts: 20
By: ChiCumRen
- 7th November 2006 at 05:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India maybe better of with English Invicilbe carrier or go on their own. you do not want one more big fire again on gorksov
By: swerve
- 7th November 2006 at 09:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India maybe better of with English Invicilbe carrier or go on their own. you do not want one more big fire again on gorksov
Invincible & her sisters can only operate STOVL aircraft. They're too small for STOBAR. No more Harriers are being built, so you can't buy ships to operate Harriers from them. The only potential STOVL replacement is the F-35B, so buying a STOVL ship ties India to buying it - if the USA will sell it. And if it will, whether it'll be on terms India finds acceptable.
By: harryRIEDL
- 10th November 2006 at 14:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wouldn't there be a lot AV-8 comming on streem in 2012 - 2013 comming from the marine corps. are they just to old be useful.
the ADS seems to have quite large overhanges for the angled flight deck in the pictures i have seen
New
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe
- 10th November 2006 at 17:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Invincible & her sisters can only operate STOVL aircraft. They're too small for STOBAR. No more Harriers are being built, so you can't buy ships to operate Harriers from them. The only potential STOVL replacement is the F-35B, so buying a STOVL ship ties India to buying it - if the USA will sell it. And if it will, whether it'll be on terms India finds acceptable.
what is the problem. India can buy Invincible and use Sea Harier on it, no need to buy new airplane. Plus lot of Sea Harier and Land Harier to be on the market when the British sell the Invincible. The Sea Harier already have success on Mirage.. the airplane Pakistan use. maybe it will have tough time, reallytough time when Pakistan use FC-1 though. but it is better than say MiG-29. It will use most of the fuel just for take off, then have to return to carrier so soon.
By: HuntingHawk
- 10th November 2006 at 17:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember hearing that someone or something said that Su-33s wingspan is just too wide for Gorky and that the ships superstructual would block its path to the Ski jump....but thats just a rumour...
According to Adm. Arun Prakash...
The Su-33, though more capable, being dimensionally larger would not only not fit in the smaller hangar of the 44,500-ton Gorshkov, but would have marginal wing-tip clearances from the island structure during deck launch. It was
therefore decided that the Mig-29K would equip the Gorshkov, to be renamed INS Vikramaditya in Indian service.
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 10th November 2006 at 19:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but will any one want Invincible as it will be used a spare parts hulk to keep lusty and ark in commisson. isn't ?
Any warship sold to another country isn't just handed over as is; a full refit and update takes place including the addition of any new weapons/radars etc, and the Invincibles were designed on the principle of upkeep by replacement (components as large as the engines can be 'unplugged' and replaced as and when needed), and in the meantime the components that are removed for re use in her sisters are probably ones that would have to be replaced prior to transfer anyway, and at least she has a maintenance party assigned to keep her nominally in working order for the time being. The two type 22 frigates transferred to Romania had been stripped for spares and left 'cold and dark' for some time prior to their sale and refitting, a state which Invincible is unlikely to be allowed to fall into for the forseeable future.
Previous examples of this situaton are HMS Bulwark R08 being kept viable after paying off in 1976 and recommissioning after a refit in 1979, and HMS Hermes being kept likewise at Portsmouth from 1984 to 86 when she was sold to India, and they seem to have gotten their money's worth out of her. It's a different situation to that of HMS Eagle post 1972 which was used for spares to keep Ark Royal running, as she was left 'cold and dark' and allowed to 'rot' at her moorings as there was no intention of either returning her to service or selling her abroad. Even so, as late as when she was sold for scrap in 78 she could have been returned to service had the will been there, she was structurally sound, but the cost of refitting her would have been several times that which she would have required if she had been kept in fully maintained reserve. Just illustrating a point.
As to the possibility of Invincible having a post RN career abroad, this would hinge more on what aircraft she were to operate. Second hand AV-8B Harriers/Sea Harriers will probably be coming onto the market around the same time, or she may go to a country that is in Americas 'good books' enough for the purchase of F-35B Lightnings (less likely, but stranger things have happened). India already has Sea Harriers, which are being upgraded for service well beyond the projected life of INS Viraat, and despite having turned down an offer to buy ex RN Sea Harriers for now they may change their minds in the future (or mend their fences with the USA enough to buy ex USMC Harriers). Has anyone considered Pakistan as a potential buyer? (unlikely again, I know, but they are getting close to the west and may try to address the massive imbalance between the Pakistani Navy and the IN). Other Potential buyers would be Australia (not if the RAAF has any say in it), and Chile (big chunk of the Pacific to patrol, they already operate ex RN ships and only real obstacle would be cost).
By: harryRIEDL
- 10th November 2006 at 20:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks obi wan for the info so it isn't like Clemenceau in relaction to condion and combat abliltiy.
so if the RN don't keep her in commission[i know that its deccomisand i just ment paid off]
it would have a long commission in an other navy if they bought it.
also won't the Aus BPE be about the same size as Invincibles.
its amazing how much good servies hermes has given to the RN and the indians from a a WW2 desine. also what are the size diffrance between hermes and cavor
slightly o.t what was the carrier the US offered britan was a deccomeisond essex or somthing eles
By: Obi Wan Russell
- 10th November 2006 at 22:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are referring to the post CVA-01 cancellation offer by the US Government in 1966 of THREE Essex class CVs to the RN in order to keep it's main ally in the carrier club. The actual ships have not been named, although most writers assumed they would be three of the six SCB-27C/ SCB-125 modernisations (ie two steam catapults, angled deck, hurricane bow etc) but now it seems they may have been offering unmodernised vessel held in reserve which could be modernised to British standards as a 'blank slate' (British catapults, arrestor gear, radars etc). The offer was turned down on the flimsy excuse of incompatability with existing British equipment (incomprehensible nonsense), when the truth was that the government had already decided to abandon carrier aviation altogether, primarily for financial reasons but publicly they decided to concoct bogus and unsupportable justifications for this policy ( if I sound a little wound up about this, it is because I am allergic to stupidity and hypocrisy).
The RAF top brass st the time thought if they could get the carrier force disbanded then the funds for the ships and their aircraft could be transferred to the Air Force budget (The RAAF were thinking the same thing when they persuaded the Aussie government to abandon plans to replace HMAS Melbourne), but funds cut from one part of the defence budget are almost never reallocated to another part. Instead they tend to be swallowed up by some failing government social program or pet project and are lost forever. The RAF didn't get their beloved TSR 2s, nor did they get the proposed replacement for the carrier force, the F-111K, which was also cancelled shortly afterwards. Instead they had to make do with second hand Buccaneers from the rapidly shrinking Fleet Air Arm (which the RAF had been deriding for years as too slow and too short ranged, oddly when it became the RAFs primary strike aircraft they began to sing it's praises!), Phantoms diverted from Navy orders became the RAFs primary interceptor and the AEW radars from now redundant FAA Gannets were retrofitted to ageing Shackleton MPAs. Hardly the result the RAF was hoping for in 66.
The Aussie BPE will be comparable in size to Invincible, actually somewhat larger, but as they will have a floodable dock aft the aviation facilities will balance out closer to the British ship. If properly refitted, Invincible would be viable for at least twenty plus years depending on who gets her and how well they look after her.
Hermes/Viraat and Cavour are very similar in size although the older ship has a larger flight deck due to her angled deck extension, something that would benefit carriers not intended to operate CTOL aircraft as flight deck space is always at a premium.
By: harryRIEDL
- 11th November 2006 at 11:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
not eactly i ment during the falklands when we were offered an extra carrier by the US which was refused by thatcher because of how long itwould take to understand the sytem
By: swerve
- 11th November 2006 at 14:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what is the problem. India can buy Invincible and use Sea Harier on it, no need to buy new airplane. Plus lot of Sea Harier and Land Harier to be on the market when the British sell the Invincible.
The UK has retired all the Sea Harriers, so the sale of Invincible will not cause Sea Harriers to come onto the market. The RAFs Harriers are being rebuilt to GR.9 standard to extend their lives. They're expected to be run on until worn out, then scrapped. In the meantime, we have no spare Harriers. The retired Sea Harriers are being offered for sale without radars & some other equipment, which is why India rejected them, deciding it wasn't worthwhile to refit them. By the time Invincible is sold, they'll probably have been scrapped.
The only possible source of secondhand Harriers is the USMC, & I'm not sure any of their AV-8Bs will be worth buying. They'll be old & well-used, & Harriers have a hard life.
By: Fedaykin
- 11th November 2006 at 16:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK has retired all the Sea Harriers, so the sale of Invincible will not cause Sea Harriers to come onto the market. The RAFs Harriers are being rebuilt to GR.9 standard to extend their lives. They're expected to be run on until worn out, then scrapped. In the meantime, we have no spare Harriers. The retired Sea Harriers are being offered for sale without radars & some other equipment, which is why India rejected them, deciding it wasn't worthwhile to refit them. By the time Invincible is sold, they'll probably have been scrapped.
The only possible source of secondhand Harriers is the USMC, & I'm not sure any of their AV-8Bs will be worth buying. They'll be old & well-used, & Harriers have a hard life.
Exactly the problem for any prospective purchaser of Invinceable and her sisters. I doubt there will be any suitable Harriers to make up a fixed wing element to their air group. All the present Harrier users intend to replace them with a different type, either the F-35 or in India's case the Mig-29. Whilst you could operate an F-35 from an Invinceable class carrier there isn't much room for a sizeable air group and I wonder if countries that would be interested in Invinceable could afford them.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 5th November 2006 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Her main role is intended to be amphibious warfare, replacing the last LSTs, not PdA. She's been allocated an amphibious ship number. But she will be capable of operating STOVL aircraft as a back-up to PdA. When she enters service, PdA will go in for refit, & the new ship (Aragon has been suggested as a likely name, which fits with Galicia & Castilla in the amphibious series) will operate her Harriers for a while. But then they will operate together.
AFAIK, the Armada wants to replace PdA with something more like Cavour.
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 5th November 2006 at 23:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
She is not exactly small either as said by Stingray, being marginally longer but slightly less wide than the UK Invincible class.
Posts: 869
By: WisePanda - 6th November 2006 at 04:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
while the AG/ADS-1 are nice to have, I dont see any activity on the front where IN really needs some teeth - "Nueva Moskva" :p ASW helicopter carriers to dominate and sanitize large areas against the submarine threat.
20Kt (vikrant sized)
25 knots top, 15 knots cruising
60 days endurance on internal fuel and cruise speed
15 assorted ASW NH90/Dhruv/SeaKing helos, 5 utility Bell407 for csar,people
barak-1 (32 cells) in sponsons along sides
barark-NG (16 cells) aft side of island for opportunistic attacks on LRMP
BEL 3DCAR for seach/or S1850 if money is good
MF-star radar for Barak-NG guidance
16 cell vl-club ASW fwd side of island
rbu anti torpedo weapons
some facility for fleet command control room
facility to control sonar equipped FFG and UUV 'beaters' to flush the prey
into jaws of trap
these imo would make life a lot tougher for SSKs trying to ambush SAG/convoys or submarines trying to get through chokepoints like the
Malacca.
in a emergency by keeping the helis on deck, the hanger can probably house
700 troops and their equipment. enough to subdue some minor colonial revolt
in the far flung shores of Empire. :diablo:
Posts: 158
By: pred - 6th November 2006 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Make the SPS Cervantes for the BPE.
Let's hope the Spanish Navy avoids a CFV(-FR) like battle over its Principe de Asturias replacement...
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 6th November 2006 at 11:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whats the diffrence, the Cavour and the Buque de Proyección Estratégica are both 27,000 ton, amphibious carriers of simular dimentions. Seem pretty simular to me. Why design a all new 27,000 ton ship that already performs the same task?
I can't see Spain forking out for a new design. At best there may be some sort of variation to the Buque de Proyección Estratégica design and ordered after the Australian ships are built.
Unless spain is thinking of moving up to 40,000 ton class.
From where I am sitting the Buque de Proyección Estratégica does look like the new replacement. It looks like a nice vessel, and will suit Spain and Australia well. For Australia is really providing capability that hasn't existed since the carriers were retired. Of the newer small carriers for the price its a great buy.
Posts: 29
By: Storch - 6th November 2006 at 12:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference is that BPE is an amphibius ship that can operate harrier and jsf, is built whith commercial standard and cannot operate as flagship with a full command, Cavour is a light carrier built with military standard with all the space to support an harrier/jsf group and act as a flagship.
Cavour has only limited amphib capabilities because it have no dock (only heli assault and transport).
Thus u have a big difference of price cavour cost from 4 to 5 times a bpe (electronics cost more than steel)....
Now u can see the difference??? :D :D :D :D
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 6th November 2006 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As well as what Storch said -
Cavour - sustained speed 27 knots, 236x39m lengthxbeam, Empar phased-array radar, quite heavy armament (76 mm guns, Aster 15), no dock (yes, he said that, but it needs emphasising). 27100 tonnes full load.
BPE - max sustained speed 19.5 knots (21 knots light, as in air operations configuration) , 231x32m, currently very lightly armed (20mm AA guns), though ESSM or similar may be fitted, & a floodable dock. Full load in air operations configuration 24660 tonnes.
BPE is, as you can see, somewhat smaller. The oft-quoted tonnage may be docked-down. She's much slower, having far less powerful engines. So really, not that similar.
Posts: 55
By: stingray1003 - 7th November 2006 at 04:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok I can see the diffrence now.
However the price makes it awefully tempting. I know Australia would not mind the slower speed (20 kts would mean collins can keep up).
I suppose neither navy will use it as a primary carrier. Spain as a backup, and Australia as a LHD/amphibious with potential fixed wing carrier capability if required. Australia certainly needs amphib cabability more than a full blown carrier as Australia can't land its MBT or sustain a decent fighting force with its current capability.
I find it interesting that the tonnage is so low. Its very close to the extended French Mistral Class (~24,000t) as the other less favoured option (due to its smaller size and less carrier abilities). Australia wants something big, so perhaps Australia is looking at a BPE varient PA replacement more than the current BPE.
Australia wants 1,200 troop capability, a stack of whirlies, and the ability to stick in a few M1A1's into something that looks like a carrier. This is to ensure the ability to deploy forces to the pacific rim nations that are always in trouble which is specifically a Australian duty (no way would these countries allow the yanks in).
If spain was to offer OZ something a little larger (27,000-30,000) with space for more troops and vechicals, a better hospital etc they would be a shoe in.
Australia would love something like the US Wasp amphibs, but without the crew requirements.
Posts: 20
By: ChiCumRen - 7th November 2006 at 05:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
India maybe better of with English Invicilbe carrier or go on their own. you do not want one more big fire again on gorksov
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 7th November 2006 at 09:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Invincible & her sisters can only operate STOVL aircraft. They're too small for STOBAR. No more Harriers are being built, so you can't buy ships to operate Harriers from them. The only potential STOVL replacement is the F-35B, so buying a STOVL ship ties India to buying it - if the USA will sell it. And if it will, whether it'll be on terms India finds acceptable.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 10th November 2006 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
wouldn't there be a lot AV-8 comming on streem in 2012 - 2013 comming from the marine corps. are they just to old be useful.
the ADS seems to have quite large overhanges for the angled flight deck in the pictures i have seen
Posts: 110
By: AdmarilZhengHe - 10th November 2006 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what is the problem. India can buy Invincible and use Sea Harier on it, no need to buy new airplane. Plus lot of Sea Harier and Land Harier to be on the market when the British sell the Invincible. The Sea Harier already have success on Mirage.. the airplane Pakistan use. maybe it will have tough time, reallytough time when Pakistan use FC-1 though. but it is better than say MiG-29. It will use most of the fuel just for take off, then have to return to carrier so soon.
Posts: 348
By: HuntingHawk - 10th November 2006 at 17:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to Adm. Arun Prakash...
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 10th November 2006 at 17:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but will any one want Invincible as it will be used a spare parts hulk to keep lusty and ark in commisson. isn't ?
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 10th November 2006 at 19:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any warship sold to another country isn't just handed over as is; a full refit and update takes place including the addition of any new weapons/radars etc, and the Invincibles were designed on the principle of upkeep by replacement (components as large as the engines can be 'unplugged' and replaced as and when needed), and in the meantime the components that are removed for re use in her sisters are probably ones that would have to be replaced prior to transfer anyway, and at least she has a maintenance party assigned to keep her nominally in working order for the time being. The two type 22 frigates transferred to Romania had been stripped for spares and left 'cold and dark' for some time prior to their sale and refitting, a state which Invincible is unlikely to be allowed to fall into for the forseeable future.
Previous examples of this situaton are HMS Bulwark R08 being kept viable after paying off in 1976 and recommissioning after a refit in 1979, and HMS Hermes being kept likewise at Portsmouth from 1984 to 86 when she was sold to India, and they seem to have gotten their money's worth out of her. It's a different situation to that of HMS Eagle post 1972 which was used for spares to keep Ark Royal running, as she was left 'cold and dark' and allowed to 'rot' at her moorings as there was no intention of either returning her to service or selling her abroad. Even so, as late as when she was sold for scrap in 78 she could have been returned to service had the will been there, she was structurally sound, but the cost of refitting her would have been several times that which she would have required if she had been kept in fully maintained reserve. Just illustrating a point.
As to the possibility of Invincible having a post RN career abroad, this would hinge more on what aircraft she were to operate. Second hand AV-8B Harriers/Sea Harriers will probably be coming onto the market around the same time, or she may go to a country that is in Americas 'good books' enough for the purchase of F-35B Lightnings (less likely, but stranger things have happened). India already has Sea Harriers, which are being upgraded for service well beyond the projected life of INS Viraat, and despite having turned down an offer to buy ex RN Sea Harriers for now they may change their minds in the future (or mend their fences with the USA enough to buy ex USMC Harriers). Has anyone considered Pakistan as a potential buyer? (unlikely again, I know, but they are getting close to the west and may try to address the massive imbalance between the Pakistani Navy and the IN). Other Potential buyers would be Australia (not if the RAAF has any say in it), and Chile (big chunk of the Pacific to patrol, they already operate ex RN ships and only real obstacle would be cost).
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 10th November 2006 at 20:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks obi wan for the info so it isn't like Clemenceau in relaction to condion and combat abliltiy.
so if the RN don't keep her in commission[i know that its deccomisand i just ment paid off]
it would have a long commission in an other navy if they bought it.
also won't the Aus BPE be about the same size as Invincibles.
its amazing how much good servies hermes has given to the RN and the indians from a a WW2 desine. also what are the size diffrance between hermes and cavor
slightly o.t what was the carrier the US offered britan was a deccomeisond essex or somthing eles
Posts: 519
By: Obi Wan Russell - 10th November 2006 at 22:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are referring to the post CVA-01 cancellation offer by the US Government in 1966 of THREE Essex class CVs to the RN in order to keep it's main ally in the carrier club. The actual ships have not been named, although most writers assumed they would be three of the six SCB-27C/ SCB-125 modernisations (ie two steam catapults, angled deck, hurricane bow etc) but now it seems they may have been offering unmodernised vessel held in reserve which could be modernised to British standards as a 'blank slate' (British catapults, arrestor gear, radars etc). The offer was turned down on the flimsy excuse of incompatability with existing British equipment (incomprehensible nonsense), when the truth was that the government had already decided to abandon carrier aviation altogether, primarily for financial reasons but publicly they decided to concoct bogus and unsupportable justifications for this policy ( if I sound a little wound up about this, it is because I am allergic to stupidity and hypocrisy).
The RAF top brass st the time thought if they could get the carrier force disbanded then the funds for the ships and their aircraft could be transferred to the Air Force budget (The RAAF were thinking the same thing when they persuaded the Aussie government to abandon plans to replace HMAS Melbourne), but funds cut from one part of the defence budget are almost never reallocated to another part. Instead they tend to be swallowed up by some failing government social program or pet project and are lost forever. The RAF didn't get their beloved TSR 2s, nor did they get the proposed replacement for the carrier force, the F-111K, which was also cancelled shortly afterwards. Instead they had to make do with second hand Buccaneers from the rapidly shrinking Fleet Air Arm (which the RAF had been deriding for years as too slow and too short ranged, oddly when it became the RAFs primary strike aircraft they began to sing it's praises!), Phantoms diverted from Navy orders became the RAFs primary interceptor and the AEW radars from now redundant FAA Gannets were retrofitted to ageing Shackleton MPAs. Hardly the result the RAF was hoping for in 66.
The Aussie BPE will be comparable in size to Invincible, actually somewhat larger, but as they will have a floodable dock aft the aviation facilities will balance out closer to the British ship. If properly refitted, Invincible would be viable for at least twenty plus years depending on who gets her and how well they look after her.
Hermes/Viraat and Cavour are very similar in size although the older ship has a larger flight deck due to her angled deck extension, something that would benefit carriers not intended to operate CTOL aircraft as flight deck space is always at a premium.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 11th November 2006 at 11:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
not eactly i ment during the falklands when we were offered an extra carrier by the US which was refused by thatcher because of how long itwould take to understand the sytem
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 11th November 2006 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The UK has retired all the Sea Harriers, so the sale of Invincible will not cause Sea Harriers to come onto the market. The RAFs Harriers are being rebuilt to GR.9 standard to extend their lives. They're expected to be run on until worn out, then scrapped. In the meantime, we have no spare Harriers. The retired Sea Harriers are being offered for sale without radars & some other equipment, which is why India rejected them, deciding it wasn't worthwhile to refit them. By the time Invincible is sold, they'll probably have been scrapped.
The only possible source of secondhand Harriers is the USMC, & I'm not sure any of their AV-8Bs will be worth buying. They'll be old & well-used, & Harriers have a hard life.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 11th November 2006 at 16:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly the problem for any prospective purchaser of Invinceable and her sisters. I doubt there will be any suitable Harriers to make up a fixed wing element to their air group. All the present Harrier users intend to replace them with a different type, either the F-35 or in India's case the Mig-29. Whilst you could operate an F-35 from an Invinceable class carrier there isn't much room for a sizeable air group and I wonder if countries that would be interested in Invinceable could afford them.