HMS Illustrious sets sail for scrapyard after last-ditch bid fails Venerable aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious leaves Britain today on her final journey to a Turkish scrapyard, despite efforts to preserve her for the nation as a museum ship. Affectionately known as "Lusty", the Invincible-class carrier – initially designated a "through-deck cruiser" when she was ordered, to get past …
What's the radar cross section of a Gladiator? It must be pretty low. Even if not, what's the speed cut off on a typical AA radar system? Possibly a Gladiator could fly slow enough to be confused for ground clutter.
What I'm saying is, a Gladiator could be the closest to a stealth aircraft we can afford.
More sensibly* a Swordfish could carry a 700kg torpedo about 600km, so a couple of smallish laser guided bombs should be no problem.
* actual sense may vary
Frankly, I think the question should be asked as to if it would make sense to dig up the designs for the last generation of prop driven aircraft and build a modern version. I don't think the idea is totally crazy.
The Sea Hornet (a metal version of the famous "wooden wonder/timber terror" Mosquito) has a real world demonstrated range of 2,382 km with a full warload, or 4,184 km carrying external fuel tanks instead of bombs. It missed WW2 by a whisker but flew from WW2 carriers one half the size of our new carrier.
The F35B's combat range is 865 km on internal fuel and weapons, and the maximum theoretical range is 1,670 km. Presumably this is with external fuel tanks and internal weapons, but is not confirmed and it's not been said if this is real world achievable or not.
The Sea Hornet might actually be the better aircraft, being considerably cheaper and having a better range and payload. It's also half the size, so you can fit twice the number onboard a carrier. It has a proven service history, it doesn't suffer from problems like melting holes through the decks of ships it lands on, and they have a proven ability to deploy from light fleet carriers. (ahem, "helicopter/commando carriers" which we operate but can't carry jets.)
Personally I think the idea should be seriously considered, it's not a totally crazy idea, just an cheapish aircraft twice the size of a Reaper drone. (and it might be worth building them with the remote control stuff stolen from a Reaper drone if we're worried about prop planes not being survivable in a modern battle)
And if BAE goes nuts about the idea then just dig up the original Mosquito plans from the national archives and get in touch with a furniture maker/woodworkers for a comparative quote!
I'd be tempted to go for the Mossie instead of the Hornet, as the wooden construction should make it a bit more stealthy, but I'd still love to see a Hornet in the air, by all accounts they were fantastic to fly:
"For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket-like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!"
That's what Eric "Winkle" Brown had to say about it, and he ought to know!
Frankly, I think the question should be asked as to if it would make sense to dig up
Why dig up anything. Making a navalized Super Tucano is a trivial engineering task. It fits the spec you describe (slightly smaller range, but still more than F35 model B). It can carry modern guided munitions so no need to do all the work of fitting them on a Mosquito.
Most of modern warfare is counter-insurgency anyway.
Unfortunately, as the aircraft is readily available, operated by half of the world and not made by BAE it will never happen.
By the way, I am not the only one to notice this: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/low-and-slow
The Hornet used the same wooden construction as the Mosquito, which is why none are left, the RAF ones served mostly in the Far East and basically rotted away after they were finished with and left at the side of the airfield. I suspect you'd have issues fitting most of the avionics a modern combat aircraft needs in one though and if you did the performance may become slightly more pedestrian. Also despite popular opinion wooden aircraft aren't invisible to radar, I mean if they used a wooden engine I suppose they might be. But it's a question of what frequency you're searching in. Plus propellers give awesome Dopplar returns.
I still want one though.
Why dig up anything. Making a navalized Super Tucano is a trivial engineering task. It fits the spec you describe (slightly smaller range, but still more than F35 model B).
When loaded with weapons the Super Tucano has a 550km range, compared to the F35 range of 865 km, and the Sea Hornets range of 2,382 km. That's more than a slight difference.
"Making a navalized Super Tucano is a trivial engineering task."
I think material scientists would take exception to "trivial". By no means impossible but I suspect most metal components may need hardening against salt water.
Given the earlier comments about the suitability of older technologies in modern conflict situations, what would be relatively trivial would be the continued manufacture of the Harrier jump jet - given the work has been done and: the manufacturing capability is still available, as are pilots with experience, and the ships (such as HMS Illustrious) that can take them with little or no without modification...
The Falklands War happened as I was growing up and is the first major event I remember clearly; more specifically for HMS Invincible, though I seem to recall wandering Lusty's flight deck at a Rosyth Naval Day some time not long after. Perhaps naval technology doesn't move so fast these days but she still looks modern to me, whereas in WW2 a 32 year old carrier through deck cruiser would look positively archaic. Thanks El Reg for making me feel old!
The Japanese effort was a seaplane carrier and only launched amphibious aircraft, though it did launch the first at-sea air raid on another ship.
The first ship capable of launching and recovering aircraft was HMS Argus, a converted liner, built at the Beardmore yard in Clydebank - she remained in service into WW2, primarily as a landing practice and aircraft ferry ship
I would love to see what a 1907 aircraft carrier or even a 1913 aircraft
1915 actually: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/russia/orlitsa.jpg
This is a sea-plane launcher, fought in the battle of the Riga bay, the battle of the Moonzund straights and various other engagements in the Baltic. I think the Italians, Japanese had several similar ships as well.
In fact, the second (ww1) Ark Royal was a seaplane carrier too.
This post has been deleted by its author
The government should be ashamed of itself. Its bad enough it and previous governments have cut the navy to little more than a costal defense force, but to flog off our naval heritage like this for a paltry sum is just shameful and frankly IMO spiteful. It probably cost more in civil servant wages to sort out the paperwork to export if for scrap than the 2.1m they're going to get for it and don't tell me they couldn't have stopped the sale, they block sales of other national assets when it suits them. Perhaps ministers just don't want a permanent reminder hanging around of their decimation of the navy.
"Hah, there I was assuming you were talking about the Reg linking to that hate-rag. I was going to agree with you, and all. Oh well."
I wonder how long it'll be before the juvenile trend of claiming "hate" against anything or anyone millenials don't like or don't politically agree with will end?
Generally a fair point, 'hate' is rather overused, but in the case of the Daily Heil, I think 'hate' is a mild word. The foul acidic, lying bile that spews out of the Mail can't be described any other way. Calling experienced judges giving a clear and considered verdict 'Enemies of the People', branding a judge a 'gay, former olympic fencer' (as if that's a bad thing?), I hate to think what dirt they'll throw at the Supreme Court after next month's 11-0 decision.
"Generally a fair point, 'hate' is rather overused, but in the case of the Daily Heil, I think 'hate' is a mild word. The foul acidic, lying bile that spews out of the Mail can't be described any other way."
I'm no fan of the Mail, but at the other end of the political spectrum there's just as much bile. However I don't remember the lefties ever shouting about the "hate filled Morning Star" or similar. There's more than a certain amount of bias in the vitriol directed at The Mail. Also frankly, if the Mail really did spew hate its editor would be up before a court. Unpleasent opinion != hate speech. Just an FYI.
"Calling experienced judges giving a clear and considered verdict 'Enemies of the People"
That was out of order, however even more circumspect papers have pointed out a number of them had links to the EU machinary that made their impartiality suspect to say the least.
"It is at the heart of all that is bad with this country, and its popularity diminishes us all."
If the majority of the country disagrees with you, perhaps the problem is with you, not them.
however even more circumspect papers have pointed out a number of them had links to the EU machinary that made their impartiality suspect to say the least.
Actually it doesn't. I really, really don't think the impartiality of Britain's most senior judges can be called into question. I suspect some of them would sentence their own children to life if that was what was legally justified. And of course, unlike in some countries, they aren't elected politicians or personal appointments by the PM. Think about that if you want nightmares.
" I really, really don't think the impartiality of Britain's most senior judges can be called into question"
You can think what you like, but at the end of the day they're just human. There's nothing special about the british judiciary or the people in it (academic qualifications aside). Being promoted to the judiciary is just a nice pat on the back for a barrister after N years at the bar.
"Being promoted to the judiciary is just a nice pat on the back for a barrister after N years at the bar."
I know people who've been through the process. It's not a pat on the back. Becoming a law lord and sitting in the supreme court, even less so. Would you appreciate people speculating that progression in your chosen field is down to pats on the back and time served?
"Would you appreciate people speculating that progression in your chosen field is down to pats on the back and time served?"
It is in most industries. When you're a bit older you'll find that out. Its not what you do, its what you're seen to do and who you know. Don't say you weren't warned.
""Would you appreciate people speculating that progression in your chosen field is down to pats on the back and time served?"
It is in most industries. When you're a bit older you'll find that out. Its not what you do, its what you're seen to do and who you know. Don't say you weren't warned."
I'm in my late 40's, you fool. My progression has very clearly been down to what I've done - each achievement has been a stepping stone to the next challenge and I've never relied on patronage to open doors.
In my experience, people who rubbish the progression of others as "pats on the back" generally haven't progressed very far themselves. Funny that.
"If the majority of the country disagrees with you, perhaps the problem is with you, not them"
Only 1 in 4 people I see in the street voted Brexit, and even in the Brexit camp are a sizeable percentage - one hopes the majority - who don't consider it a crime to be foreign, and don't consider hate to be something to be encouraged.
So no. The problem isn't me. Nobody is going to be living in fear because of my views.
Do you think foreigners deserve what is thrown at them by the Daily Mail? Do you think that the almost non-existent coverage of the trial of the guy who executed an MP as a 'traitor' was appropriate?
The Daily Mail - whipping up hate and hiding the consequences of it.
And here you are, defending it. Well I hope you get the shit off your hands.
'hate' is rather overused, but in the case of the Daily Heil, I think 'hate' is a mild word. The foul acidic, lying bile that spews out of the Mail can't be described any other way
It's not my intention to defend the DM, but when I look at it I just see an unexceptional but top-selling paper targeted at a particular segment of the population. It's news stories seem distinctly ordinary to me, with the odd alarmist story for sensationalism. I can think of many things more deserving of being labelled "hate", for example the endless commenters spreading their seemingly unjustified hatred towards the DM on these forums. I guess everyone has to have their own oppositional 'hate' target to validate the moral righteousness of their own opinion, though it be a fictional construct of their own mind.
then what's the right word to use for a 'newspaper' which goes to absurd lengths to vilify people whose only sin is to have been born on a patch of land across a body of water?
Are you sure they vilify all foreigners just for being foreign, or do they justifiably vilify people who are harming the future of our country?
Illegal immigrants (who by definition have no right to come here) but arrogantly assume they can, should rightly be called imperialist invaders / occupiers who disrespect that our ancestors fought for our respective countries and not for the rights of others to take our country from us. Most foreigners respect our independence but a few (like the EU) want to dictate our laws and undermine our country.
We've started wars against whole nations of people who never invaded us (but our government just invent a reason to fight them), so when people do invade our country, we are entirely justified to be angry and want to defend our country. This isn't "hate" it's righteous defiance.
So the government had a choice, keep a load of scrap iron afloat for dubious propaganda purposes at a high cost, or flog it off and be done with it
It wasn't scrap iron before they spent a lot of money removing various systems. It was a functioning warship which could have been kept in reserve at minimal cost until it's replacement ships were commissioned. Historically foreign nations have bought our old ships and kept them operational for decades, so there's plenty of life left in them.
If the majority of the country disagrees with you, perhaps the problem is with you, not them
Perhaps. The proof is in whether their views are founded on facts and reason. Often the majority are opinionated but not well informed and not capable of good reasoning - hence democracy can result in poor decision making.
"Only 1 in 4 people I see in the street voted Brexit, "
And even less voted remain. I know, an inconvenient fact for you, but a pertinent one.
"So no. The problem isn't me. Nobody is going to be living in fear because of my views."
Ah here we go with the loaded terminology. Hate now fear. Tell me, are you tolerance of anyones views other than your own?
"Do you think that the almost non-existent coverage of the trial of the guy who executed an MP as a 'traitor' was appropriate?"
I don't know how much coverage they gave, I don't read The Mail. However clearly you do presumably in order to be offended so you have something to bang your drum about and feel self righteous.
"And here you are, defending it. Well I hope you get the shit off your hands."
I didn't defend anything, I simply posited a question. Sorry if it was all a bit too high brow for you that you had to resort to the standard issue mud slinging. Anyway snowflake, I suggest you run off to your safe space and hug your teddy bear, you seem stressed you poor thing.
"So, you're just saying that you live in London or Scotland"
Nope. Let's do some special snowflake sums.
UK Population: around 65 million. Votes for Brexit: a little under 17.5 million
17.5 million / 65 million = 0.27... I.e. roughly one in 4 people* I see in the street. Isn't the truth fun! (Better than being told what to think by hate-filled idiot journalists)
In London, it'll be far, far lower, on account of the very low support for Brexit and because it's a world city full of people from around the world.
*(Yes, yes, I know, some of those people weren't real people. Some might be underage - doomed to live in the little brexit prison we're building for them now, or might not have voted. Or might be EU citizens living here because we as a country signed up to a scheme where we could all live where we wanted. Or might be refugees who are living here only because their homes have been destroyed in a war caused by the instability we unleashed elsewhere in the world).
then what's the right word to use for a 'newspaper' which goes to absurd lengths to vilify people whose only sin is to have been born on a patch of land across a body of water? Day after effing day..., turning good people bad with its poisonous diet of lies and hate in the service of nobody other than its tax-avoiding millionaire owner.
It is at the heart of all that is bad with this country, and its popularity diminishes us all.
I suggest having a look on twitter at the work of @dmreporter who shows up the Daily Mail's hypocrisy and through snapshots of the unmoderated comments section to DM articles, the sort of bellowing bile that accompanies them (the comments and the upvoters can't all be trolls)
I'm sure various commentards can verify the costs of keeping a small pleasure boat on the water, keeping an entire aircraft carrier afloat, even as a museum, would cost thousands and thousands every year, and clearly no museum wanted to take it on.
So the government had a choice, keep a load of scrap iron afloat for dubious propaganda purposes at a high cost, or flog it off and be done with it.
I believe that HMS Caroline cost something like 45K per year, back in the day, to keep mothballed in Belfast. She was a WW1 light criuser, converted to RNR and Sea Cadet offices until 2009. She is about to become a tourist attraction in belfast - her initial unveil had attracted some 40K tourists right away, and should be net income generating.
http://www.nmrn.org.uk/exhibitions-projects/hms-caroline
Keeping a ship like this is nothing like keeping a small craft maintained. you take out most breakable bits (engine, tanks of hazardous materials, fuel, asbestos, etc), and effectively manage a big metal box.
In 2008, (when I joined her for a while), the biggest repair was from some burst pipes during a cold snap.
A refit is different altogether - new stuff for the tourists. that cost millions....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hms-caroline-to-open-in-belfasts-titanic-quarter-in-june-2016-after-restoration-34250508.html
F00
As a history buff, all governments are that way. Just look to the late 1800's and early 1900's at the number of wooden ships that were broken up and scrapped. Many should have become museums but upkeep is horrendous. Same for ships from WW1 and WW2. Very few have survived and as time takes it's toll, they'll soon be gone also.
Here in the States USS Olympia may very well be headed to the scrapyard. She's deteriorating quickly.
So, the pragmatics win... save the cost of keeping these old girls afloat and use the money on new ones. But for every one that's broken up, a bit more of history is lost. Even the ones sunk during WWII are now being picked apart for scrap. Very sad.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'd turn Her into the floating museum for which She deserves, plus a personal yacht to live aboard. I'd hire the crew needed to keep Her in tip top shape, let my family & friends live aboard Her too, & travel the world to show Her off in all Her beauty.
*Sigh*
Hell lot of money I am afraid.
I suggest you do a search for Clemenceau class aircraft carriers which are roughly from the same age (either the whole affair on dismantling the Clemenceau or the insanities the Brazilians had to do to upgrade the Sao Paulo). Or the story of rebuilding the Admiral Gorshkov for the Indians. An aircraft carrier from those days is a gigantic floating pile of hazmat by modern day standards.
I am surprised someone found a shipyard to dismantle it.
I am surprised someone found a shipyard to dismantle it.
Who said it was actually going to be dismantled anytime soon, it was sold to a "Ship Recycling" business... Compared to the price of London apartments, £2.1M seems quite a bargain for the amount of temporary accommodation it provides - which was it's main use when moored on the Thames in 2012. Given winter is rapidly approaching and there are rather a lot of displaced people in Turkey, I can certainly see a use in the short term for such an asset.
...to feel a lump in my throat. Even the names of the ships evoke the astounding history of the Royal Navy. I know it all went pear-shaped in the 19th century (the wild impetuous commanders being replaced by pettifogging rules and a sense of superiority), but there was a time when 'courage', 'daring,' 'dauntless', 'invincible' and, yes, 'illustrious' meant the sailors, captains and admirals.
I think it is nuts for a small country to try to have a big naval force, and the UK doesn't, and doesn't need one (let's stop playing in global wars and have a protective force), but we can step off the world stage with heads high. Ave et vale, HMS Illustrious.
"We're a small country who has one of the longest coastlines in europe. You need a large navy to defend it."
True, but a lot of the right sort of ship. Expensive aircraft carriers without any aircraft, even expensive ones, really aren't much help with fishery protection and people-smuggling fast ribs. Any point in our entire 200-mile limit can be reached by one of the few remaining fast RAF jets within about 10 minutes from take-off.
And we'll need to keep an eye open for traditional smugglesr bringing in brandy, bacco and laces once the post-Brexit tariffs bite. Bring back Coastguards pattroling the Cornish cliffs.
When I was at school, in the early 1960's, an 'Old Boy' who'd got big in the FO came back to lecture us. 'We'll hardly need a big Navy in the 1990s', he said, 'we'll need lots of little ships to stop a popular invasion across the Med, and to police the Channel.' I wonder where he is now? Pensioned-off for PC reasons, no doubt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
