Interesting, a good find. I just read for a while they and called, Her Majesty's Army Vessels; amazing the War Office ordered them and not the Admiralty. I guess it shows the scale of the BAOR in the 60s.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Anixtu
New Member
You somehow managed to completely miss the point that LSLs spent much/most of their time supporting operations (and a lot of withdrawals!) everywhere except BAOR's area of the near-continent!
1805, I don't think any of those nations choices vindicates your view of rationalising the our fleet down to just 3 ships.
Spain: The Juan Carlos is replacing the Principe De Asturias and will operate mostly as a Harrier carrier until the AV8B fleet runs out, Spain may then opt for F35B, but no guarantee. interestingly Spain also sees the need for LSD's, with the two Galicia class doing most of the amphibious leg work, much the same as the RN. The Spanish way is a good solution to their needs, but they clearly did not identify a 100 sortie a day surge requirement (based on experience of the Balkans, GW1, Falklands etc) We are not Spain, spain is not the UK.
Edit, The intention was for JC to complement PDA, however the PDA may now enter a period of extended readiness possibly to be refitted if the money is found.
Australia: The Australians haven't operated carriers since the 1970's, unless they do opt for F35B down the line, the Canberra's will not be operated as fixed wing carriers. Australia needs the Canberra's due to the requirements of its own geographical situation and foreign policy goals. They have also bought a Bay as a utility vessel so see an economic case for both types.
France, I like the Mistrals but the french have the CdG as the carrier, Mistrals are not carrier replacements, France did not or has not seen the need to combine the two roles and the French are quite an innovative bunch.
Russia. Kuznetsov is the carrier, Mistral as amphibs, possibly used to intimidate neighbours.
The JC's, Mistrals and the BAe design are excellent ships, no one would argue with that, but they do not in any way provide a better option than a proper carrier, if as a country we want to project serious air power. There is no need, the budget savings are arguable and we have perfectly good vessels already paid for and in service.
Spain: The Juan Carlos is replacing the Principe De Asturias and will operate mostly as a Harrier carrier until the AV8B fleet runs out, Spain may then opt for F35B, but no guarantee. interestingly Spain also sees the need for LSD's, with the two Galicia class doing most of the amphibious leg work, much the same as the RN. The Spanish way is a good solution to their needs, but they clearly did not identify a 100 sortie a day surge requirement (based on experience of the Balkans, GW1, Falklands etc) We are not Spain, spain is not the UK.
Edit, The intention was for JC to complement PDA, however the PDA may now enter a period of extended readiness possibly to be refitted if the money is found.
Australia: The Australians haven't operated carriers since the 1970's, unless they do opt for F35B down the line, the Canberra's will not be operated as fixed wing carriers. Australia needs the Canberra's due to the requirements of its own geographical situation and foreign policy goals. They have also bought a Bay as a utility vessel so see an economic case for both types.
France, I like the Mistrals but the french have the CdG as the carrier, Mistrals are not carrier replacements, France did not or has not seen the need to combine the two roles and the French are quite an innovative bunch.
Russia. Kuznetsov is the carrier, Mistral as amphibs, possibly used to intimidate neighbours.
The JC's, Mistrals and the BAe design are excellent ships, no one would argue with that, but they do not in any way provide a better option than a proper carrier, if as a country we want to project serious air power. There is no need, the budget savings are arguable and we have perfectly good vessels already paid for and in service.
I know they did other things, but there is also no mention of runs to Antwerp, their bread and butter role. If you look at the main focus of UK defence in the 60s it was BAOR, they were built for the WO to support the army. Of course they support the withdrawal from empire.
Anixtu
New Member
1805,
After watching the Pathe footage you posted, I think you are confusing LCLs with LSLs. LCLs were directly operated by the Army and stuck mostly to UK/near-European waters.
I raised issues about referring to Wikipedia a few posts ago, but you might like to read the entries there on LCT(8) and LST(3), noting in particular the areas where LST(3) operated in Army/BISN service. LCT(8) were replaced by LCLs in the 70s.
After watching the Pathe footage you posted, I think you are confusing LCLs with LSLs. LCLs were directly operated by the Army and stuck mostly to UK/near-European waters.
I raised issues about referring to Wikipedia a few posts ago, but you might like to read the entries there on LCT(8) and LST(3), noting in particular the areas where LST(3) operated in Army/BISN service. LCT(8) were replaced by LCLs in the 70s.
I've lost track of who is arguing what, but 2 points:
And did someone really claim a graduate engineer is a better judge of optimal designs than the many experts who derived the designs we have. I know the internet has made this the age of the amateur but that is going a bit far
They would have to be one hell of a lot better than invincible for 3 to be worth 2 QECs. I don't think you have understood what a massive leap in capability QEC is from Invincible - far from the factor increase in tonnage, or the extra support needed for F35 over a harrier
And did someone really claim a graduate engineer is a better judge of optimal designs than the many experts who derived the designs we have. I know the internet has made this the age of the amateur but that is going a bit far
I was not confusing the Pathe footage, I just thought it was interesting and worth mention. But I don't think the LSL were ordered (it quotes the year after Suez)/built by the WO as part of a martime strategy (although it does refer to oceanic vessels). I can't find the exact figures but the BAOR must have been over 1/4-1/3 of the armys strengh (there or in prep in the UK) and therefore logically their main focus. Much of the activity quoted is post 1970 and transfer to the RFA.
I was not saying 3 Invincibles would be better than a 2 QEs. I was saying a 45-50,000t ship including a dock similar to the Ablions size, would still have far better aviation capability than an Invincible. 3 such ships (not Invincibles) would be the equal (or not far short) of 2 QEs. Assuming the same air group of c 90 aircraft, between them.
kev 99
Member
Don't forget they are doing the job of the 2 Albions and Ocean too!
So,
if these ships are doing about the same as 2/3 of a QEC, and an amphib as well then presumably they need:
All of the QEC ship's complement
All of the QEC ship's equipment
2/3 of the QEC air wing complement (and that is being generous)
2/3 of the QEC aviation area
255 marines plus equipment
Additional crew to operate the amphib part of the ship
About another 10000 tonnes of displacement for the amphib dock and associated equipment.
What are you proposing to lose in order to squeeze all that in a 45000 tonne ship?
(I reckon you need to lose 30,000 tonnes and 500 crew)
I'm all for more capability in a smaller ship, I would love QEC capability off a frigate sized ship, but there is a good reason they are the size they are.
And I still don't think you can get 2/3 the capability of a QEC off a 45,000 tonne ship (even without the amphib capability as well). Capability does not scale like that
if these ships are doing about the same as 2/3 of a QEC, and an amphib as well then presumably they need:
All of the QEC ship's complement
All of the QEC ship's equipment
2/3 of the QEC air wing complement (and that is being generous)
2/3 of the QEC aviation area
255 marines plus equipment
Additional crew to operate the amphib part of the ship
About another 10000 tonnes of displacement for the amphib dock and associated equipment.
What are you proposing to lose in order to squeeze all that in a 45000 tonne ship?
(I reckon you need to lose 30,000 tonnes and 500 crew)
I'm all for more capability in a smaller ship, I would love QEC capability off a frigate sized ship, but there is a good reason they are the size they are.
And I still don't think you can get 2/3 the capability of a QEC off a 45,000 tonne ship (even without the amphib capability as well). Capability does not scale like that
Yep. Three ships totalling 135000 tons in place of five displacing 190000 tons. Tricky.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
On the other hand.
Four ships totaling 190,000t.
Two Queen Elizabeth class carriers and two Ocean class LHD's (Loosely designed around the JCI class) would give an increase in capability over the current HMS Ocean and the Albion class.
A single ship would have less then the combined capability of Albion and Ocean together, but it would remove the need to operate a carrier as LPH when Ocean is unavailable.
Of course three LHD's would be even better, but two LHD's would require less crew then Ocean plus the Albion class together. And remember that aircrew would be attached on an as needed basis.
Plus you get another pair of flags that can be used at the centre of (for example) an Anti-Submarine taskforce.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Interesting interview with the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier programme Director.
Also in relation to the F-35B choice:
Also in relation to the F-35B choice:
In hind sight, it really is too bad the RN retained all 3 Invincibles post Falklands instead of building a couple of larger ships based on lessons learnt. i.e. carry through with the sale of Invincible to Australia and retain Hermes until such time as a similar sized replacement could be built followed by a second ship a couple of years latter with one or both of the remaining Invincibles retained as Commando carriers instead of building Ocean.
the concerned
Active Member
After the falklands weren't we in the middle of buying near on 400 Tornado's plus buying the harrier gr-5 whilst giving the royal navy T-42/T-22 ships so purchasing more cv's would have been out the question
Tee_Centre_10
Member
I was reading a Navy News from the time (26 March 1982, p6-7 if you can find a PDF) that has a Q&A about the new carrier purchase. In a question about whether to concentrate or distribute ASW helicopters they say:
Bargain. And all we'd have to give up was Newcastle (FFG06) and perhaps Melbourne (FFG05).Navy News said:
Interesting facts:
- Invincible would have a short refit in the UK, delivery at end of 1983, and operational early 1984.
- Modifications to be done in refit: transfer of IFF and TACAN equipment from Melbourne, removal of Type 184 sonar, extra fuel to extend her range from 7000nm at 18kts to 8000nm. The modifications would have cost $5m.
- Modifications at a later date: fitting CIWS and sensor updates.
- UK Gov agreed to an industry offset of $28.5m (17.5m pounds).
Steal is cheap and air in free, the RN and RAF already had the aircraft the UK just needed the appropriate deck / decks to operate from. The Invicibles were the biggest the RN could get away with in the environment they were ordered in even being called "Through Deck Cruisers" initially to pretend they weren't carriers at all. Hermes was probably closer to the size needed but the Queen Elizabeths demonstrate the true requirement.
A larger real carrier would not have needed Seadart or sonar, it would have been comparatively cheap to build, infact the build cost could have been covered by the already contracted sale of Invincible to Australia. I am not sure how much the UK sold Hermes to India for but that could have covered at least a down payment on a second large STO/VL carrier and perhaps the sale of a second Invincible to India or Australia with the third being retained as a Commando carrier.
A larger real carrier would not have needed Seadart or sonar, it would have been comparatively cheap to build, infact the build cost could have been covered by the already contracted sale of Invincible to Australia. I am not sure how much the UK sold Hermes to India for but that could have covered at least a down payment on a second large STO/VL carrier and perhaps the sale of a second Invincible to India or Australia with the third being retained as a Commando carrier.
The RN did NOT already have the aircraft, & RAF Harriers weren't deemed suitable (no radar): a new Harrier model was developed especially for the RN, with development not authorised until two years after HMS Invincible had been ordered.
The Invincibles were designed to operate helicopters for ASW originally: hence the Sea Dart. It was deleted after the Sea Harrier proved itself capable in fleet air defence. The first of class was modified while building to add a ski-jump for Harrier operations.
The ships came first, then the decision to turn them into Harrier carriers (for self-defence only, originally, ASW remaining the main role), then the aircraft.
The Invincibles were designed to operate helicopters for ASW originally: hence the Sea Dart. It was deleted after the Sea Harrier proved itself capable in fleet air defence. The first of class was modified while building to add a ski-jump for Harrier operations.
The ships came first, then the decision to turn them into Harrier carriers (for self-defence only, originally, ASW remaining the main role), then the aircraft.
Just to clarify, I'm saying the RN should have merged the replacement of the: LPD (2 hulls & 25,000t) & CVH (3 hulls & 60,000t) with 3 ships of 45-50,000.
Still a massive increase in tonnage 85,000t (105,000 if you include the LPH) v 135-150,000t. It is worth note what we have available today: 1 x LPH, 2 x LPD (1 reserve) & 1 X CVH = 73,000
The assumption is the LPH/Ocean was not needed as the role could have been covered by a CVH (even before this was proved when one went into reserve).
The trouble with single role focused ships, is they are often not able to be used to the full extent, and people then looking for economies start laying them up. The more multi role a ship is, the more active and visible, a virtuous circle. We see this at the moment with Albion and the proposal with one CVF.
A multi role ship would probably not be able to avoid this either, but it’s more flexible having 1 out of 3 in dock than if you have 2 + 2 and you end up with 1+1 and 1+1 in reserve.
I think it was the right decision to increase carrier aviation, but the scale was quite unaffordable. We had c40 FA2 (just looking at RN numbers), how much better is the F35b, so to equal numbers would be a massive improvement. I think a modest increase in numbers would be good to aspire to, so maybe 3 x 18/20 (or 2 x 30 for CVF).
This does not include GR9 numbers, which were the original F35 proposal of c130, so maybe the CVF size was driven be other consideration (the potential for CATOBAR my original point.
Swerve, if you read the second paragraph of the post you replied to and the start of the post I made previous you will see I am actually speculating on what could have been had the RN gone through with the sale of Invincible to Australia post Falklands and built a new carrier using lessons learnt from that conflict. I was talking mid 80s not late 70s, the Sea harrier and GR 3 were in service and had been combat proven at this point.
All very improbable but just a thought I had.