HMS Ark Royal 1970's How Good Was it?

[davros]

Hi
Just wondering what your opinions on the rebuilt ark royal 4 of the 70's are, how did its air group of 12 phantoms 14 Buccaneer's and 4 gannets compare to French and American air groups of the time? How well would this air group perform against any Russian aggression against the UK at the time. And would you consider this air group more capable than the current Invincible class air group.

 

[kato]

French airgroups depended heavily on mission of course:

1972 - 18 Etendard IV M, 4 Etendard IV P, 8 F-8E(FN), 10 Br.1050, 2 SA-316
(ASW and air intercept vs Soviets, Norwegian Sea)

1977 - 16 Etendard IV M, 4 Etendard IV P, 10 F-8E(FN), 6 Br.1050, 2 SA-321G, 2 SA-316
(presence operation with primary air intercept component, Gulf of Aden)

1983 - 15 Super Etendard, 3 Etendard IV P, 6 F-8E(FN), 5 Br.1050, 6 SA-321G
(landing operation support, off Lebanon)

Oh, and only 4 ASW aircraft on Ark Royal? Bit low for serious operations.

 

[davros]

I think the gannets were AEW, the ark used sea kings for ASW

 

[Sea Toby]

The old HMS Ark Royal, the last of the big British carriers, the Hermes being the last much smaller British carrier of that generation. I recall seeing her in the Hampton Roads area during her last deployment to the US. This computer graphic video recalls her memory: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At6aTcGQE5I"]YouTube - "HMS Ark Royal IV" FS2004 Video[/ame]

Notice that her television series song "Sailing" became the song of the Royal Navy and was still popular a few years later during the Falklands War. By the way her song is still popular.

In a twist, there is a bit more color in the computer graphic video with her as compared to the computer graphic video for the new HMS Queen Elizabeth: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEQgBKXkME"]YouTube - Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier[/ame]

Frankly, I liked the older music better.

Phantoms, Buccaneers, Gannets, and Sea Kings. What a memory.

 

[Sea Toby]

While the American super carriers carried more aircraft and were much larger, the HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle were comparable in size to the U.S. navy's Midway class. The British big carriers were finished during the 1950s after WW II from hulls laid down during and just after the war. It was the British which developed the angle deck and the steam catapults.

Up until the development of the F-14 Tomcats and F-15 Eagles the F-4 Phantoms were the cream of the crop of American fighter-bombers. Unfortunately, the F-4 Phantoms were too large for the smaller carriers sold and operated by Australia, Brazil, and Argentina. They, much like the American Essex class, were limited to A-4 Skyhawks and S-2 Traders. Many of the smaller British carriers operated similar smaller aircraft and some of the smaller carriers were developed for amphibious duties.

Are the Sea Harriers as good an aircraft as the Phantom and Buccaneer? Not really, but they were able to carry the latest and newest Sidewinders which made them very effective. However, the Harriers never had their range or speed. Most of the Harrier kills during the Falklands conflict happened when the Argies were returning to Argentina. With the Phantoms, I dare to say many aircraft would have been splashed in the opposite direction.

Frankly, if the British had held kept the Ark Royal and Eagle in commission, I don't think the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands. When the British announced the non replacement of the Endeavour too, they were not sending the right signals to avoid the conflict.

 

[mikehotwheelz]

I have heard that CATOBAR operations would not have been possible in some of the severe sea-states that the Taskforce encountered off the Falklands, and that the Sea Harrier was able to launch and recover in conditions that would have kept the Phantoms and Buccaneers on the deck or in the hanger. Does anybody know if this is correct?

 

[Jon K]

Frankly, if the British had held kept the Ark Royal and Eagle in commission, I don't think the Argentinians would have invaded the Falklands. When the British announced the non replacement of the Endeavour too, they were not sending the right signals to avoid the conflict.

How about more embarassing scenario; enough funds to operate just Ark Royal which would be in midst of a major refit just when the Falklands blow up?

 

[davros]

Sadly i doubt that ark royal could have last until the Falklands war from what i know her material state was very bad she would have needed a massive rebuild/refit. The eagle was a much better ship and imo should have been the ship to get the refit. she could well have lasted till the early 80's

 

[davros]

I have heard that CATOBAR operations would not have been possible in some of the severe sea-states that the Taskforce encountered off the Falklands, and that the Sea Harrier was able to launch and recover in conditions that would have kept the Phantoms and Buccaneers on the deck or in the hanger. Does anybody know if this is correct?

that could well be possible.

 

[Jon K]

Sadly i doubt that ark royal could have last until the Falklands war from what i know her material state was very bad she would have needed a massive rebuild/refit. The eagle was a much better ship and imo should have been the ship to get the refit. she could well have lasted till the early 80's

Well, with either Ark Royal or Eagle alone the RN would have discovered the curse of a single carrier navy. While the carrier would have been the main unit of the navy, it would have been operational only part of the time. Thus much of the RN budget would have been used for carrier air wing, infrastructure etc. while RN would have been able to use services of a carrier only part time.

Even assuming the single carrier does a sterling job in the Falklands, should that ensue, would it not just mean that instead of the death of RN in early 21st Century the death of RN would have happened already during 1980's?

 

[davros]

The navy did operate a single carrier fleet once the eagle was placed into reserve and striped to help maintain the ark.

 

[Sea Toby]

Operating in tough sea sonditions is probably the main reason the British wish to use the VSTOL version and the F-35B aircraft with the Queen Elizabeth class. Otherwise, the British could go the other route and follow the French...

 

[skyrider]

While the American super carriers carried more aircraft and were much larger, the HMS Ark Royal and HMS Eagle were comparable in size to the U.S. navy's Midway class. The British big carriers were finished during the 1950s after WW II from hulls laid down during and just after the war. It was the British which developed the angle deck and the steam catapults.

I believe the Midway carried far more aircraft than Ark Royal (more than 50 I think).

 

[Sea Toby]

Actually the Midway carried more than 60 aircraft at her end: 36 Hornets, 18 Intruders, 4 Prowlers, 4 Hawkeyes, and 6 Sea Kings. Never-the-less, Midway's 62,000 tons displacement is closer to Ark Royal's 53,000 ton displacement than say the Ranger's 78,500 ton displacement. With dimensions the Midway was around 100 feet longer than the Ark Royal, but with similar beam and draught. At least the Midways and Ark Royal were able to fit into the locks of the Panama Canal, something the super carriers could not do.

Notice the Midway didn't have F-14 Tomcat fighters or S-3 Viking ASW aircrafts either. I would have thought if the cancelled CVA-01 had been built during the 1970s, the Hornets may have been added to their air groups eventually replacing the Phantoms. Who knows whether the British would have added Hawkeyes, Prowlers, and/or Vikings?

One thing is for certain, at the time Phantoms and Buccaneers were very good aircrafts during the 1970s.

 

[Tasman]

Sadly i doubt that ark royal could have last until the Falklands war from what i know her material state was very bad she would have needed a massive rebuild/refit. The eagle was a much better ship and imo should have been the ship to get the refit. she could well have lasted till the early 80's

Although she was completed earlier than Ark Royal, Eagle was completely reconstructed in 1959/64. Consequently she was in far better material shape and her layout was better. She could easily have been updated (as planned) to operate Phantoms, and would have outlived the unreconstructed Ark Royal. Ironically she was stripped of parts to keep the Ark going. Of course, Ark Royal could also have been reconstructed but instead was given a comparatively austere refit to enable her to operate Phantoms. If both had been reconstructed and kept up to date the FAA would have been a potent force well into the 80s.

Tas

 

[davros]

Although she was completed earlier than Ark Royal, Eagle was completely reconstructed in 1959/64. Consequently she was in far better material shape and her layout was better. She could easily have been updated (as planned) to operate Phantoms, and would have outlived the unreconstructed Ark Royal. Ironically she was stripped of parts to keep the Ark going. Of course, Ark Royal could also have been reconstructed but instead was given a comparatively austere refit to enable her to operate Phantoms. If both had been reconstructed and kept up to date the FAA would have been a potent force well into the 80s.

Tas

True they could have rebuilt ark to eagle/victorious standard but i think the navy considered it poor value for money. I have been reading my rebuilding the royal navy book which is an excellent read and it says that there were originally plans to reconstruct the ark to eagle standards but these were abandoned. by 1963 the decision had been made to replace her with a new ship as she was already in a bad way due to her structure being made out of poor quality metal and much of her equipment dating from the 2nd world war which was apparently already unreliable after just 8 years in service. Its a shame that after the canceling of the CVA01 eagle and ark were not both given big refits to keep them in service.
Imo ark royal after her 67-70 refit was a very good looking ship i loved the look of British post war carrier's. my fav was victorious.