The quality control on the fleet carriers was actually very good and the Hermes, Eagle and Ark Royal can only just be considered war builds. Any new build design prior to the CVA-01 was unlikely to offer any reasonable life cycle cost advantage compared to a properly reconstructured Victorious. Even systems integration would have been difficult, everything was short in British yards, including skilled personel. If the 1952 carrier had been built it would not have lasted any longer than Eagle or Ark Royal did, the path of the RN would not have been changed, Victorious was not removed from service becouse she was worn out she was removed becouse she could not be afforded.

Victorious was removed from service because the Labour government WOULD not afford her. The fire that was the excuse for her premature demise was nowhere near as bad as the government stated, and her captain said that it would not delay her recommissioning by even one day. The descision was purely political. As to the longevity of the refitted carriers, again this is clouded by their premature withdrawal for political reasons. Both Victorious’ and Eagle’s reconstructions were said at the time of their completion to extend the ship’s lives by twenty years, which would more than justify their costs. Victorious when recommissioned in 1958 was effectively a new ship, new engines new boilers, rewired throughout and everything above hangar deck level was new. Eagle retained more of her hull structure and her engines and boilers, but these had not seen strenuous war service and were in good condition. Ark Royal never recieved as extensive a refit as Eagle yet still soldiered on until 1978, and she was always described as being in the poorest mechanical condition. Even after the 66 Healy axe the RN was planning on keeping two carriers operational through the seventies and ordered enough Phantoms for three squadrons (two frontline and one HQ/training+spares). They were hoping two carriers would maintain the minimum capability long enough for a change of government to reverse the 66 axing, so even while Healy was telling parliament that the carrier force would be all gone by 1972 (including Ark Royal, her three year refit was only to produce two years service!), the Navy was making other plans. The government got wind of this and cancelled Eagle’s proposed ‘Phantomisation’, and the FG1s intended for her air group were diverted to the RAF. The first the RN knew of this was when they were delivered in RAF camouflage for 43sqn. Eagle could otherwise have remained in frontline service until around 1984 (Victorious could have lasted to at least 1978).

There was no need to refit Hermes as a commando carrier (£25million, compared to £5million to phantomise Eagle) as there were already two LPHs in service (Albion and Bulwark) which had plenty of hull life left and were only five years older than Hermes. Albion was paid off for further commercial service though that deal fell through and she was quietly scrapped whilst Bulwark remained until 1981(and could have served longer if not for the 81 defence review, as she was the same age as Albion it only illustrates how long the latter could have served) so if Hermes had been retained as an ASW carrier unmodified and still operating an airgroup of Sea Vixens (plenty of fatigue life left, plenty of airframes available and support infrastructure already in place) for air defence and Buccs for anti shipping strike alongside Sea Kings and Gannets, albeit with the numbers adjusted in favour of the helos, then the money wasted on her LPH conversion could have been better spent (on Eagle for a start).

This may sound like a stupid question, but I wonder why the Type 984 radar wasn’t chosen for the Type 82s, given its apparent performance. Working alongside the usual Type 965s, it could have yielded an excellent capability, and with the potential for a universal fitting (i.e. on all the new ships and carriers). Might it have simplified things?

The type 984 was a brilliant radar, when it worked. It suffered from being a valve (vacuum tube) driven piece of electronic kit. Valves are fragile and like lightbulbs can die unexpectedly. They also take up a lot of space and weight compared to any equivalent solid state (transistorised) equipment and proposals to fit a county class DLG would have included deleting the forward guns as weight compensation! There was a proposal in the sixties for a solid state version of the Type 984 (imaginatively designated type 985) but it never got past the proposal stage, as the ‘984 was associated with the carriers and the politicians were against anything to do with them. The ‘984 was thus declared obsolete in 1966 (despite still being the most advanced and capable radar in RN service) adding another reason for phasing out the existing carriers, ie they would need a lot of money spent on them to update their radar fit to keep them viable. The type 985 was also in competition with the Anglo Dutch type 988 ‘Broomstick’ radar intended for the CVA-01 class and the type 82 DLGs (Bristol class) and the latter was seen as more modern so ‘984 would have to soldier on in the existing ships until they themselves were replaced.

[ATTACH]157234[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]157235[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]157236[/ATTACH]

More likely they will keep her in the reserve for 10 years then mothball her.

Talking of other american aircraft carriers does any one have pics of them in storage

eg, the forristal, America, Constellation.

These any good?

I disagree. Something like 12, maybe – 4-6 would be a waste.

I think you may have got yourself mixed up. Officially they will carry 4 helicopters, but they have room for around 11. If that has changed I would appreciate an article with full details.

The ‘4 helos’ plan sounds to my like a measure to appease or calm the Japanese politicians, to counter any claims of building any kind of strike carrier, however small or limited in the size of it’s air group. The preceding DDHs could operate three large helos so to say the new class will operate four isn’t a big step up. However the older DDHs only had room aboard for three helos in time of war whereas the new ships can take a whole sqn if required. 4-6 fighters or even the theoretical twelve with deck parking may not sound a lot but in combat they will always be preferrable to none at all. sail two of these ships together and you have a potential air group of twelve to twenty four strike fighters, and now you are back in the game. Perhaps concentrating in the capacity of a single ship can be too misleading, as the Japanese have a long history of operating in Task forces cooperatively, and it could be that they have decided that rather than building a single large carrier they will build several smaller ones that individually seem to pose little threat (either to an enemy or to domestic anti carrier factions) but when combined in a task force can match any potential threat in the region (ie a Chinese CV). The Japanese are known for innovative thinking and this may be their solution to aquiring carrier capability without building a large carrier and sparking off a huge political argument. The current opposition to the DDH16 class seems to have been successfully contained as the ships are being built, and as F-35Bs arem’t even flying yet there is no need to stir things up by talking about them openly. The new ships will go to sea for the next few years as helo only ships, taking four with them regularly and occassionally embarking more for excercises to gain experience with operating a larger air group. Ten years from now, if the threat from China has increased for example, the JMSDF will have a much better case for buying F-35Bs, and will probably face much less opposition too. This seems to be the same approach we are taking in the UK, ie get the ships built first then fight for the aircraft. Trying to do both at once seems to be too much of a hurdle, and as ships take longer to build than aircraft it is logical to do it that way round.

Argentina’s SUE Fighters and S2T Trackers are not able to be catapulted from US carriers because they still use a bridle, and A4F Brazilian figthers too.
French Navy E2C are able to land and be catapulted from US carriers and already did it. French SEM have the same problem as Argentinians, bridle! French Rafale fighter should be able to land and be catapulted from US carriers, because French Carrier CDG is fitted with US Catapults! US E2C, C2A, F18C have already landed and be catapulted from CDG. French CDG is able to use bridle or not (so Argentina’s aircraft and Brazilian’s should be able to operate from this carrier)
X:cool:

Of course the Trackers and SEMs could probably perform free takeoffs from a US CVN if sufficient deck was cleared. Trackers used to do this from the ARA Independencia in the 60s with less powerful engines than they have now, and the prototype Sea Vixen (a much heavier and larger aircraft than a SEM) carried out unassisted takeoff from Ark Royal during trials back in the late 50s. Just saying they can do it, but don’t hold your breath for any pics anytime soon.

Did Sea Vixen have a gun?

Alas no, but it did have two retractable unguided rocket packs fitted under the ‘chin’, which could be used in close quarter combat like a gun. A bit like a SNEB rocket pod (they could also carry RN 2 in rocket pods under the wings, the Sea Vixen had six pylons four of which were used for Red Top missiles and the other two for drop tanks, but rocket pods could be substituted.) and it wouldn’t have been too difficult to clear them to carry a gun pod like the Phanton FGR2, had the need arose.

During th first half of the 60s the Sea Vixen was partnered with the Supermarine Scimitar F1, which was employed mainly as a strike aircraft but was originally designed as a fighter. It had no radar (although one was proposed for later models, which were cancelled in favour of the Buccaneer), but it did have four 30mm ADEN cannon fitted internally below the jet intakes. It was a very fast transonic (could break the sound barrier in a dive)and agile day fighter with 20,000lbs of thrust on tap (2 RR Avon engines) and while the Sea Vixens could provide the outer layer of air defence the Scimitars could provide an inner ring under the ships radar control. The scimitar was cleared to fire AIM-9B Sidewinders as well as Bullpup air to ground missiles from it’s four underwing pylons.

Just been thinking…….but……could the Sea Vixen have adequatly defended an RN carrier TG? It seems to me that against Bears or Badgers it would have been ok, but what bout MIG-17s an 21s? Could Sea Slug have worked?

The Sea Vixen was equipped with the same weapon system as the RAF’s Lightnings (Red Top IR homing AAMs), which were still considered viable front line fighters up to 1989. The only difference is the Lightning was supersonic, but it only carried two missiles against the Sea Vixens four. It was also cosidered highly manouverable for it’s time (it was effectively a flying wing design) and would have been a match in a dogfight for most Soviet fighters of the era. Sea Slug was a ‘Beam Rider’ which meant accuracy decreased at longer ranges, something that affected all first generation SAMs.