HMS Illustrious off to the Breaker's Yard!

When I saw HMS Cavalier at Chatham Historic Dockyard I could not help notice the huge amount of rust, that you could see through in places. It seems that she has has repairs to corrosion twice since then. Lots of effort by volunteers on a much smaller vessel in comparison to a carrier.
Were there any solutions for Illustrious that folk here think were viable?
Mind you, it’s moot now that all three have gone.

I don’t know; although the Thames is certainly tidal I don’t suppose you get much seawater that far up the Thames.

Well, the tide will certainly be dragging something in since the tides won’t be affected by how much is coming down the river. I know Thames Water makes all sorts of claims about it being clean, but I’m certain that no one here would wish to drink it without treatment.
You could always see what anglers are fishing out, if you care that much, or just accept that the Thames is brackish.

The Invincibles had embarked other nations Harriers before (Most recently Ark Royal hosted a USMC squadron) so retaining the ski jump would have been sensible if retaining the ship.

I would assume that the US marine Harrier pilots had no problem in using the ramp – their ships don’t have them.
When Ark Royal went to war in the Gulf in 2003 she went without any SHars, operating just helicopters; I have a recollection of some comment about the ramp being a waste of space only used by officers to practise their skiing stances, on some TV programme and said by a non officer type, probably only half in jest.

I believe her last refit was more of a marking time type of thing, making sure that she WAS SEAWORTHY and could be used until she was paid off for the last time, which was why it was ‘just’ £40m. Had they had serious plans for using her beyond 2014 then they would lopped off the ramp, no need for it since there were no Harriers to be had and it was useless for anything else – but that would cost more than they would be prepared to pay, even for just a bit more deck space.

The Invincibles had embarked other nations Harriers before (Most recently Ark Royal hosted a USMC squadron) so retaining the ski jump would have been sensible if retaining the ship.

I don’t know; although the Thames is certainly tidal I don’t suppose you get much seawater that far up the Thames.

Does HMS President sit in salt or freshwater?

Moggy

Had it been left to fend for itself for a couple of years more under the same conditions then there could have been concerns for potentially dangerous corrosion problems…

I doubt it; after three or four decades maybe, but certainly not after ‘a couple more years’!

For comparison, HMS Cavalier, launched in 1944 would have been constructed from far thinner hull plates under wartime conditions and has been ‘preserved’ afloat, in salt water at various locations, for over forty years (and on active service for thirty years before that)!

HMS Wellington, launched in 1934, again constructed (riveted) from thinner hull plates has been moored on the Thames for nearly seventy years with only one period of dry-docking (I think).

And HMS President, launched in 1918 (!), seems to have managed to stay afloat on the Thames for nearly one hundred years without too many problems!

£40m isn’t really a lot of money for a ship refit.

I never said that it was! 🙂

I merely wished to point out that there was no physical condition of the hull or the machinery that would have prevented HMS Illustrious from becoming a museum ship.

As I said, I’m not really into ships – but that seems a LOT of money for three years’ service to the nation. Does someone in charge of our defence have a lack of foresight? … or is technology moving faster than I think?

So if she’s not actually unseaworthy how come we’re so sure she won’t be sold on?

I believe her last refit was more of a marking time type of thing, making sure that she WAS SEAWORTHY and could be used until she was paid off for the last time, which was why it was ‘just’ £40m. Had they had serious plans for using her beyond 2014 then they would lopped off the ramp, no need for it since there were no Harriers to be had and it was useless for anything else – but that would cost more than they would be prepared to pay, even for just a bit more deck space.

Who would we have sold it on to? It was a Harrier-carrier and we had just blotted the copybook by showing how much confidence we had in them by unloading all of our Harriers!
The Harrier was a real bit of kit, but it was apparently very man intensive for both the pilot and maintenance schedules. You fly Harriers you can bank on there being problems – witness the Thai navy and their history with HTMS Chakri Naruebet (they commissioned their carrier in 1997, buy nine former Spanish Matadors (first generation Harriers) to fly from it and in under two years there was just one in flyable condition due to a lack of spares. The Matador was officially retired from Thai service in 2006 and the Thai navy is left with a ‘white elephant’ that has little point other than use as a royal yacht) then ask yourself why another small nation would saddle themselves with V/STOL capability when there are other solutions which don’t require so much financial outlay.
The MoD tried to sell Sea Harriers to India and there was interest from Thailand but, as we all know, no one bought them; I am not sure if there was any attempt to sell the Harriers elsewhere but most of them went for spares use with the US marines.

There is seaworthy and there is seaworthy. When a carrier goes to sea, especially when there is tension in international relations, there is the possibility that it might have to delay going into port for several weeks; the matelots might be happy to keep the ship going for as long as possible themselves but eventually the ship would have to come in for essential maintenance – it would be be unseaworthy.
Since Illustrious paid off it would not be having any sort of maintenance what so ever unless there was a danger of it becoming majorly dangerous; lots of stuff had been taken off (tech, engineering, etc) to help with keeping the last of the Type 42s going or to be passed on to other vessels when theirs went technical.
Illustrious was not unseaworthy in the sense that it would be towed out into the Solent, let go and would have sunk within a few hours; it was unseaworthy in the sense that it had no way to generate power or propulsion, it was unable to do anything for itself. Had it been left to fend for itself for a couple of years more under the same conditions then there could have been concerns for potentially dangerous corrosion problems – with ships you will always be running to stand still, and a ship that is running will be easier to work with than one that has been sitting doing nothing for a few years.

Curlyboy…..A good example is in the US They have at least 7 battleships preserved and at least 2 (from memory) carriers all much bigger than HMS Illustrious and with large deck areas for display of aircraft that our carriers never had (or needed) but they are all in central areas with a big call for visitors……

On the US side, there are currently 5 Aircraft carriers and 8 battleships as museum ships.

Of these, some are much better attended, funded and have better long term prospects than others. Some are not in heavy tourist areas, have dwindling visitors and dwindling volunteers as the WWII generation and their children age, and I fear some hard decisions may have to be made in the next 10 years on a few of them. Truly a massive undertaking to keep them going, and some of the museums are barely getting by.

Of the carriers only the Intrepid (New York) and Midway (San Diego) seem to be money makers. They both enjoy good access and are in tourist towns. Hornet (in Alameda across from San Francisco) is well off the tourist circuit in the Bay area and in rough shape. Lexington and Yorktown get modest visitors and are not exactly in high tourist areas (or not at least right where the main tourists gather). Several efforts to preserve a super carrier have fizzled with several than were on museum hold going to the scrapper.

The Battleships are a mixed bag. Texas has iconic status and support form the state and Missouri has a huge history and site better guaranteeing long term preservation, but some are well off the beaten path and get modest visitors. And with 8 to see, many casual visitors don’t need to see more than one. (I have been on 5). The Iowas are in better shape since they were all active more recently, but some of the others are getting tired and have not been dry docked in decades.

Please no criticisms of the great organizations and folks that keep them going. They do great work, but many understand they are only holding off the inevitable.

I think we should get any thoughts that HMS Illustrious is ‘unseaworthy’ out of our heads; she is not now, nor was she ever, unseaworthy in the accepted sense of the word!

From a preservation point of view I doubt it would be possible to find a comparable warship in such good condition anywhere in the world; she had a £40million refit in 2011 and was only decommissioned at the end of August 2014.

£40m isn’t really a lot of money for a ship refit.

If up to a half of that is the cost of materials, then assuming an hourly rate of £20, that is only a million man hours. A million man hours is a lot less than it seems. That’s 500 people working 8 hrs a day for 8 months. But all the ships I work on usually have two or three shifts a day, you could divide the time taken refitting in three. That rough estimate doesn’t include the cost of the pre-job planning or the procurement process, so the estimates on ship labour or cost of equipment would be lower.

Kind Regards,
Scotty

Does someone in charge of our defence have a lack of foresight?

Yes, the government(s)!

As I said, I’m not really into ships – but that seems a LOT of money for three years’ service to the nation. Does someone in charge of our defence have a lack of foresight? … or is technology moving faster than I think?

So if she’s not actually unseaworthy how come we’re so sure she won’t be sold on?

If the Illustrious is in such unseaworthy a condition…

I think we should get any thoughts that HMS Illustrious is ‘unseaworthy’ out of our heads; she is not now, nor was she ever, unseaworthy in the accepted sense of the word!

From a preservation point of view I doubt it would be possible to find a comparable warship in such good condition anywhere in the world; she had a £40million refit in 2011 and was only decommissioned at the end of August 2014.

Ill ustrious – Not so much a carrier – more a large Motor Boat with a Flat Roof (except the ski jump o course) ; ).

Is there any comparable place in London where they could place Illustrious?

Greenwich would have been the obvious spot.

Moggy

Close, but no cigar…

You seem to recall wrong – Belgrano was ex USN.

And I believe the condition of such vessels, having usually been through storage without any attention other than to make sure it doesn’t sink and cause more cost, is not great; you will notice that recently former naval vessels have not gone very far to be scrapped, ie not India. Plus the contract of sale (or whatever it is called) probably stipulates that the vessel will be scrapped – no discussion, certainly no sell-on.

Ah well -I never claimed infallibility for my memory – least of all now!
And my knowledge of things naval was never a matter driven by enthusiasm… which was a disappointment to my RNVR father.
I may also be wrong in my lack of confidence in how binding a contract between different nations might be. Not that this will have the slightest bearing on anything of course. It’s about as valuable as my vote while within the EU.

If the Illustrious is in such unseaworthy a condition I suppose we should be praying for the crew as they pass through Biscay and the Med… and hoping it’s not a case of CoD!

No offence but did you actually read any of the above? Illustrious has already been towed away.

Yes, I understand that it’s already a done deal and the ship won’t be preserved.

I could have made it more clear that my question was theoretical.

The General Belgrano survived Pearl Harbor

Yes, as the USS Phoenix.
Launched in 1938, put into storage in 1946, sold to Argentina 1951.

“They have been patched with concrete, plywood and epoxy”

Repair works on the “TEXAS”………………..really?

Quoting Wikipedia:
“By 1968, the wooden main deck of the ship was so rotted that rainwater was leaking through the deck into the interior of the ship and pooling in various compartments. The Commission found that replacing the decayed deck timbers was prohibitively expensive. The solution at the time was to remove the wooden deck and replace it with concrete.

“…On 24 February 1990, tugboats moved Texas from dry dock to a repair facility on Green’s Bayou for further repairs. It was here that the wood deck was installed”

I agree with WL747 I recently went to HMS Belfast in the tourist trap in London and one of the guides was saying that the costs to keep her there almost outweigh the money they make but the IWM still want her as their largest item and have the continued help of the Royal Navy to differ towing and hull cleaning etc if not she would probably have gone to the breakers already and she costs around £5000 a week to maintain and operate.

A good example is in the US They have at least 7 battleships preserved and at least 2 (from memory) carriers all much bigger than HMS Illustrious and with large deck areas for display of aircraft that our carriers never had (or needed) but they are all in central areas with a big call for visitors but the US has lots of ports and places out of the elements to keep them where here we as said only have a couple of places who could never generate visitor numbers to keep a ship that fought no major wars or have some claim to fame unlike the HMS Belfast for example safe for future generations.

Curlyboy