Colossus/Majestic class

Wholly agree. Same point applies to those impeding land and aerial trade. We should stand up with the good guys, and I am glad that we do, and do not skimp our spend down at 1%/GNP. The issue is where to put us. If we do, say, the heftiest Naval vessel in our history, then we do not do…something else.

The incoming Tory Administration will be confronted with the fact that the defence budget has been grossly underfunded, and after more than fifty years of relentless defence cuts there is nothing left that can be cut. The fat went in the 80s, muscle and sinew in the 90s and we are now left with bare bone. If money has to be cut at all it should be by withdrawal from the ‘Stan. If we aren’t going to fund the operation properly then we should pull out altogether and stop wasting the lives of our service personnel. That would be the stark choice I would present to Cameron, ‘put up or shut up’. You can’t fight wars on a shoestring. We can afford much more than we are at present, as so much is squandered elsewhere (ID cards anyone? £18billion? What about axing the Quangos…).

Could not have said it better. The concept of the “Peace dividend” has to be one of the greatest political smoke and mirror tricks of recent years.

As for pulling your weight militarily, I think its more than just alliance obligtions, its also the price of trading on the world stage. If you have merchant ships at sea, if you have global trade then you are duty bound to assist in maritime security. If you leave it to others then you are reaping the benefits without paying the price. There are too many nations guilty of this.

OBR – won’t spend a penny: the counterview is that each sovereign State can’t do everything solo, in penny packets. Better if, in Coalition, I specialise in X, you in Y. Since 1950, Japan has never spent >1% of its wealth on Defence, because “we had the US”: UK spent upto 10%. Some, inc. me, would link that differential directly to the erosion of our markets/jobs because UK’s metalworking/engineering innovation was on consumption of, not generation of tax revenue: see useless Allegros, excellent Toyotas.

Attlee’s lot faced greater money-pain than the present lot, yet funded what became RAF Medium Bomber Force plus Strike Carriers Ark, Eagle, Victorious, supported by Albion, Bulwark, Centaur, Hermes (though with merely Attacker/Sea Hawk/Venom, Wyvern, Gannet). Logic in 1947, withdrawal from India, was overwhelming, to abandon all this blue-water stuff, but he saw a Threat, in our valiant recent Ally Uncle Joe beloved of many, even Cabinet colleagues; was very right; so RN could do the business at Korea, Suez. It was Wilson’s second lot that funded CVS/SHAR, so ditto, Falklands. It was Blair’s lot that retained CVS, and enhanced RN’s “independent” SLBM…. because they could see a Sovereign Threat to UK-in-Coalition. Not to UK solo, because we stopped thinking like that in November,1956 (Adm.Leach’s advice that we could retake Falklands solo was on the assumption that UK’s freehold territory of Ascension I. would be available to the Fleet with the assistance of the leaseholder, who would help in other ways, too).

Our present lot are grappling with the balance between UK presence in future coalitions, either in many roles, or in fewer. Not in all roles, nor to try anything heavy, solo. The easy way out, taken since 1998, has been to drift vaguely, shifting dates to the right. FIST and FRES on ground; Astute and SSBN and CVF; A400M, F-35B and/or C, 252 Typhoons, wot about FOAS…Now they’re addressing what they want to spend on Now, for capability to half a century hence. If Cameron’s lot get in next May, they, too, will address same issue. But there is no credible Threat at the level of organised hostile Sovereign – first time in modern history. New paradigm. Doesn’t do to rant here that one piece of kit is central to survival. It’s not. Options, choices, consent of the taxed. Don’t rely, for CVF, on its past the point of no return. Healey chose to tell his loony Left that, when he kept 4 of the 5 Vanguards…but he knew it was a tall tale.

They were Resolution class SSBNs, not Vanguards. You cannot look at the CVFs in isolation as just another defence project, the British Warship building industry’s very survival is predicated on them being completed. Without them, it will mean the loss of tens of thousands of skilled jobs being lost, yards closing and effectively an end to our ability to build warships in future. There is no plan B for the shipbuilders, no other warship design is ready to fill the gap. FSC is several years away from being a viable design. If CVF is cut then the next generation of British Warships will be built abroad, of that there can be no doubt. The incoming Tory Administration will be confronted with the fact that the defence budget has been grossly underfunded, and after more than fifty years of relentless defence cuts there is nothing left that can be cut. The fat went in the 80s, muscle and sinew in the 90s and we are now left with bare bone. If money has to be cut at all it should be by withdrawal from the ‘Stan. If we aren’t going to fund the operation properly then we should pull out altogether and stop wasting the lives of our service personnel. That would be the stark choice I would present to Cameron, ‘put up or shut up’. You can’t fight wars on a shoestring. We can afford much more than we are at present, as so much is squandered elsewhere (ID cards anyone? £18billion? What about axing the Quangos…).

Role Sharing

OBR – won’t spend a penny: the counterview is that each sovereign State can’t do everything solo, in penny packets. Better if, in Coalition, I specialise in X, you in Y. Since 1950, Japan has never spent >1% of its wealth on Defence, because “we had the US”: UK spent upto 10%. Some, inc. me, would link that differential directly to the erosion of our markets/jobs because UK’s metalworking/engineering innovation was on consumption of, not generation of tax revenue: see useless Allegros, excellent Toyotas.

Attlee’s lot faced greater money-pain than the present lot, yet funded what became RAF Medium Bomber Force plus Strike Carriers Ark, Eagle, Victorious, supported by Albion, Bulwark, Centaur, Hermes (though with merely Attacker/Sea Hawk/Venom, Wyvern, Gannet). Logic in 1947, withdrawal from India, was overwhelming, to abandon all this blue-water stuff, but he saw a Threat, in our valiant recent Ally Uncle Joe beloved of many, even Cabinet colleagues; was very right; so RN could do the business at Korea, Suez. It was Wilson’s second lot that funded CVS/SHAR, so ditto, Falklands. It was Blair’s lot that retained CVS, and enhanced RN’s “independent” SLBM…. because they could see a Sovereign Threat to UK-in-Coalition. Not to UK solo, because we stopped thinking like that in November,1956 (Adm.Leach’s advice that we could retake Falklands solo was on the assumption that UK’s freehold territory of Ascension I. would be available to the Fleet with the assistance of the leaseholder, who would help in other ways, too).

Our present lot are grappling with the balance between UK presence in future coalitions, either in many roles, or in fewer. Not in all roles, nor to try anything heavy, solo. The easy way out, taken since 1998, has been to drift vaguely, shifting dates to the right. FIST and FRES on ground; Astute and SSBN and CVF; A400M, F-35B and/or C, 252 Typhoons, wot about FOAS…Now they’re addressing what they want to spend on Now, for capability to half a century hence. If Cameron’s lot get in next May, they, too, will address same issue. But there is no credible Threat at the level of organised hostile Sovereign – first time in modern history. New paradigm. Doesn’t do to rant here that one piece of kit is central to survival. It’s not. Options, choices, consent of the taxed. Don’t rely, for CVF, on its past the point of no return. Healey chose to tell his loony Left that, when he kept 4 of the 5 Vanguards…but he knew it was a tall tale.

(Corrected by OBR below – Resolution SSBNs, not Vanguards)

I wonder if you might know the max weight that these ine ships could accommodate and launch.

I do think your right about carrier ops and how the rest of nato really does need to “lend a hand” so to speak.

With the US Marines looking like they will be operating the F-35B and the RN, Spanish and Italians all doing the same of their Carriers, this is the time for other nations to get back in the Carrier game.

Im sure that a Spanish/ Italian design of around 25,000 tonnes would be the answer and provide NATO / the west with cover for lots of scenarios, I would like to see some stats based on a 25 tonne carrier operating 12 F-35B when compared to the new Indian carrier operating the Mig 29 and also russian carriers operating the SU-33

I agree.

Great color pictures of the Bonnie, Obi. It is a shame that we got rid of our carrier. I wish Canada had taken more of an intrest in naval aviation.

During the Korean war we didn’t send our carrier to that theater. We had troops but know naval air support. We had the Magnificent at the time, but I think it might of had something to do with her being on loan and not wanting to put her in harms way.

I know on other forums they say Canada doesn’t need to have carriers because we have the United States. But i’m sure any extra help with carrier rotation would be appreciated.

Voodoo

Quite so. I have often been irritated by those who state member nations of Nato should leave things like carriers to the US, because that’s the start of the slippery slope. Soon it will be just about everything else defence related (eg combat aircraft, MBTs, Air Defence Destroyers etc) that is expensive to buy and run that can be consigned to the ‘we don’t need to buy our own, the Yanks can defend us with theirs’ school of thought. Once you start down that path sooner or later the Americans might just think to themselves ‘Why should we risk our lives for these losers who won’t spend a penny to defend themselves?’. During the 70s the RN was down to one carrier, on it’s own of marginal value due to providing carrier strike capability for only part of the time, but it was justified as being a contribution to the NATO strike carrier force, so was a way of ‘shouldering the burden’ alongside the US. They appreciated it greatly, far beyond any material contribution the ship made.

Bonnie may have only been one carrier, but she was one of many in NATO and she symbolised the Canadian committment to her allies. Her withdrawal was equally symbolic and a great shame too.

Great color pictures of the Bonnie, Obi. It is a shame that we got rid of our carrier. I wish Canada had taken more of an intrest in naval aviation.

During the Korean war we didn’t send our carrier to that theater. We had troops but no naval air support. We had the Magnificent at the time, but I think it might of had something to do with her being on loan and not wanting to put her in harms way.

I know on other forums they say Canada doesn’t need to have carriers because we have the United States. But i’m sure any extra help with carrier rotation would be appreciated.

Voodoo

http://www.ttv.com.tw/news/tdcm/viewnews.asp?news=0059944

1971/04/07:
RCN (Canadian) aircraft carrier scrapped in Kao Hsiung, Taiwan. 8(
A steel company in Kao Hsiung bought it for about US$ 1 mil. Retired, two years ago.
25′ immersion; 128′ width; 404′ length; 20,000 tons. Could carry 25 jet planes.

(Probably the HMCS Bonaventure.) 8(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_(CVL_22)

That is unmistakebly the Bonaventure. Criminal waste, sending her for scrap after just thirteen years of service. She had a lot of life left in her, and was less than three years out of her mid life refit.

http://www.ttv.com.tw/news/tdcm/viewnews.asp?news=0059944

1971/04/07:
RCN (Canadian) aircraft carrier scrapped in Kao Hsiung, Taiwan. 8(
A steel company in Kao Hsiung bought it for about US$ 1 mil. Retired, two years ago.
25′ immersion; 128′ width; 404′ length; 20,000 tons. Could carry 25 jet planes.

(Probably the HMCS Bonaventure.) 8(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_(CVL_22)

Is leviathan in the spot where leeds castle is shown on google maps?

I believe so.

Well spotted. As far as I know the picture dates from around 1965-66. Leviathan was probably brought back into the no 3 Basin at Pompey to have yet more equipment removed. Centaur has been paid off by this time and is in use as an accomodation ship, probably playing host to Victorious’ ship’s company.

Is leviathan in the spot where leeds castle is shown on google maps?

That last is a neat shot…

2 Counties (Fife & unknown), Leviathan, Centaur, and Victorious in the background.

And is that a 3rd County way in the rear left?

Well spotted. As far as I know the picture dates from around 1965-66. Leviathan was probably brought back into the no 3 Basin at Pompey to have yet more equipment removed. Centaur has been paid off by this time and is in use as an accomodation ship, probably playing host to Victorious’ ship’s company.

That last is a neat shot…

2 Counties (Fife & unknown), Leviathan, Centaur, and Victorious in the background.

And is that a 3rd County way in the rear left?

To be fair the individual components for a steam catapult such as fitted to 25 de Mayo could be copied and manufactured by any of a number of engineering firms worldwide, so access to the original British manufacturer is not that great an obstacle. The Argentine Carrier’s fate was sealed by the parlous state of the economy, precluding either aquisition of the parts or their installation, or indeed any serious attampts to overhaul the ship generally. She thus remained a Harbour Queen for the last decade of her life, officially in commission but realistically of little more value than an accomodation ship.

Some more pics; Arromanches (ex Colossus), Vikrant and Leviathan:

That was ceratinly the plan. Calculations were done beforehand that showed it was certainly feasible. Super Etendards carried out trials aboard 25 de Mayo which confirmed this, though they also proved the ship’s catapult was in need of a major overhaul as well as her boilers and engines; they were in working order but well below what they were capable of. Post Falklands there simply wasn’t any money available for her refit and after 1988 she was laid up in port, officially in commission but in reality non operational. Her decommissioning in 1997 was a formality, prior to be sold for scrap two years later.

Not to mention they couldn’t get parts for the catapults from their original maker (if they were still in business) as the UK placed sanctions on all military equipment to be sold to Argentina.

Could Super Etendards operate off 25 de Mayo with the Excocet?

That was ceratinly the plan. Calculations were done beforehand that showed it was certainly feasible. Super Etendards carried out trials aboard 25 de Mayo which confirmed this, though they also proved the ship’s catapult was in need of a major overhaul as well as her boilers and engines; they were in working order but well below what they were capable of. Post Falklands there simply wasn’t any money available for her refit and after 1988 she was laid up in port, officially in commission but in reality non operational. Her decommissioning in 1997 was a formality, prior to be sold for scrap two years later.

Could Super Etendards operate off 25 de Mayo with the Excocet?

Did Minas Geras get 25 de Mayo”s steam cat in the mid 90s?

Not the whole cat, just some parts from it. 25 de Mayo’s cat was much longer than Minas Gerais cat for a start, and from a different manufacturer, so some of the parts may not have even been compatible. 25 de Mayo’s cat extended back behind the forward lift and was the longest stroke cat ever fitted to a Colossus class carrier, whilts Minas Gerais cat only extended back to the forward end of the lift. During the 90s the Brazillian Air Force’s Trackers were withdrawn from service and for several years Minas Gerais operated solely as a Hleicopter carrier, though the Argentine Navy did use her for Carrier landing practice for their Turbo Trackers and Super Etendards (touch and gos only). One Super Etendard did accidentally ‘hook’ a wire with it’s hook in the up position, due to an excessive nose high atitude, and the aircraft had to remain aboard until the ship returned to port as the cat was non operational at the time (with no fixed wing aircraft normally embarked, this was understandable). Around 1998 some key parts were sourced from Argentina to make Minas Gerais cat serviceable again, but this was by no means the whole cat, which went with 25 de Mayo to the breakers in 1999. 25 de Mayo had a Mitchell Brown BS4 long stroke catapult and Minas Gerais had a McTaggart Scott C1 catapult if memory serves. Below are a few photos that should illustrate the difference between the two ships cats.

Did Minas Geras get 25 de Mayo”s steam cat in the mid 90s?