SinoDefence Forum

Pointblank · 02-11-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neutral Zone

Do you mean the Invincibles?

Well there's rumours that India would like to buy Invincible as a replacement for Viraat before their indigenous carriers enter service. Illustrious and Ark Royal are scheduled to carry on in service until the second of the CVF's enter service after which they'll be disposed of. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them ends up being sold to another navy, they're still both very capable ships and can even serve as LPH's or as pure ASW helicopter carriers.

The Aussies are were also listed as buyers of HMS Invincible as well. In fact, the deal was almost complete, but the Brits took Invincible off the market after the Falklands.

Obi Wan Russell · 02-12-2007

Considering how popular carriers are now (compared with the decline of the 70s and 80s) I find it hard to believe the Invincibles won't be sold to other navies for further service. Unlike the previous generation of steam powered CVs that were sold widely around the world (ie the Colossus/Majestic class and the Hermes) which officially weren't built to last(!) the Invincibles were designed on the 'upkeep by replacement' principle, and indeed all three have been constantly updated over the years so that apart from the hull and super structure very little of the original ships' equipment remains. Anyone buying the ships may be getting a 25+year old hull but all the important 'stuff', engines (gas turbines are replaced regularly, indeed Invincible changed one whilst UNDERWAY during the Falklands operation), wiring (replaced at their last major refits) Radars (regularly updated and in some cases replaced with more up to date systems), accomodaton (now including facilities for female sailors, satellite phones and internet connections for the crew to keep in touch with home, and satellite TV! A far cry from conditions even in the 80s) is as close to new as possible.
Also, the JSF will fit on the Invincibles lifts and hangars as British influence on the design has kept the dimensions down (with an eye to future export sales, no doubt), so I would not be surprised if the sale of the ships was part of a package deal with F-35Bs in a similar manner to the sale of the Admiral Gorshkov to India was tied to the sale of Mig 29Ks. The French CV Foch sold to Brazil for a 'giveaway price' of $15million whilst the A-4 skyhawks were bought for $74million, and I would expect the sale of an Invincible to be by far the smallest part of any such future deal, going for a token sum. This would be a wise move financially as the real money comes from the support contracts afterwards.

bd popeye · 02-12-2007

Obi Wan. Do you have any idea what year the Invincibles may be sold off? I cannot any info on that subject. I'm glad the RN has the forsite to keep their ships so well maintained.

The USN does keeps it ships in good repair..unless of course it wants to get rid of one. Like the USS John F Kennedy CV-67(JFK). It is now scheduled to be decomissioned on 23 March 2007. The JFK was undergoing SLEP in '92 or '93 when the BRAC(Base realingnment an Closure) commitee decided to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard where the JFK was undergoing it's re-fit. The work was stopped on the ship an many loose ends never tied up. It's been downhill ever since for the JFK. The JFK was left to wither away.

Neutral Zone · 02-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Obi Wan. Do you have any idea what year the Invincibles may be sold off? I cannot any info on that subject. I'm glad the RN has the forsite to keep their ships so well maintained.

The USN does keeps it ships in good repair..unless of course it wants to get rid of one. Like the USS John F Kennedy CV-67(JFK). It is now scheduled to be decomissioned on 23 March 2007. The JFK was undergoing SLEP in '92 or '93 when the BRAC(Base realingnment an Closure) commitee decided to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard where the JFK was undergoing it's re-fit. The work was stopped on the ship an many loose ends never tied up. It's been downhill ever since for the JFK. The JFK was left to wither away.

Someone should be held to account for that!

Wasn't JFK due to stay in service until 2018 outlasting Enterprise? The USN may regret not having JFK around in the next few years.

bd popeye · 02-12-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neutral Zone

Someone should be held to account for that!

Wasn't JFK due to stay in service until 2018 outlasting Enterprise? The USN may regret not having JFK around in the next few years.

You are correct sir. 2018..that 11 years from now. Oh well..

And you are right someone needs to be held accountable. In my opinion if the BRAC comission had let the Philadelphia shipyard finish the SLEP of the JFK it could have been in service in a excellent condition for it's entire life span. The same Philadelphia shipyard SLED'ed the Kitty Hawk in '91-'93 and the ship is still going strong. It is scheduled to be retired late next year or early 2009. The Kitty Hawk was comissioned in 1961.

In all fairness the JFK is 38 years old. The Normal service life for a CV(N) is 50years.

Another factor in decomissioning CV's is the extreme cost of operating these fossiled fueled ships.

Obi Wan Russell · 02-12-2007

Officially Invincible will be held at 18 months notice for sea (and experience in 1982 showed that could be drastically shortened in an emergency) until 2010, which was originally going to be her decommissioning date until the Iraq war costs cut in. Illustrious is currently scheduled to pay off in 2012 and Ark Royal in 2015 (30 years after first commissioning), but these dates are tied to the commissioning dates of the CVFs, which have now slipped back a couple of years. Extending the service lives of these two ships will not present any difficulties beyond extracting the money from the treasury. I would expect therefore Invincible to be on the market in 2010, Illustrious in 2014 and Ark Royal in 2017, or there abouts. There is some talk of giving Ark Royal a SLEP after the CVFs are commissioned in order to retain her as an LPH and a spare deck, but nothing official.

IDonT · 02-12-2007

It looks like the Cavour is ready to be commissioned

Jeff Head · 02-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by IDonT

It looks like the Cavour is ready to be commissioned

http://img321.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cavourfu4.jpg

Thanks...that is an EXCELLENT pic and a newer one than I had seen in some time. Were there more at the site you found it? I would think that the italians would be anxious to show their new carrier off. it is a well designed and capable vessel and the Italians have quite a bit of experience with this type of vessel. I believe it will be a very effective, multi-role carrier.

Obi Wan Russell · 02-13-2007

Here's a few more of Cavour at sea on trials:

No flight deck markings as yet and it'll be a few months before she is ready for service but certainly a positive and welcome development. Well done to her builders.

Jeff Head · 02-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

More excellent pics...thanks Obi Wan!

The Spanish BPE will be very similar and I expect to see quite a few more of these type vessels plowing the waves from various countries. Basically, the new indigenous Indian carrier will also be similar as will a potential Australian variant at some point. They are basically larger and a little more versatile (in the multi-role variants) versions of the HMS Invinsible class and the UK has shown us all the viability and usefulness of the design.

Obi Wan Russell · 02-13-2007

Big CVs are always good to have, the danger comes when people become trapped into thinking 'Big or nothing', and some thing is always better than nothing as the RN showed in the Falklands. As much as I want to see the CVFs in service I would accept a larger number of smaller ships (eg 30,000tons) if the alternative was cancellation. Four Victorious sized CVs would provide a more flexible solution as they can be in twice as many places as two ships can (including in dock for repairs).

bd popeye · 02-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Big CVs are always good to have, the danger comes when people become trapped into thinking 'Big or nothing', and some thing is always better than nothing as the RN showed in the Falklands. As much as I want to see the CVFs in service I would accept a larger number of smaller ships (eg 30,000tons) if the alternative was cancellation. Four Victorious sized CVs would provide a more flexible solution as they can be in twice as many places as two ships can (including in dock for repairs).

True, but >>>when you have 11Cv's and 11 LHA/LHD's..well what can you say? Sorry about the blatant nationlism

Scratch · 02-15-2007

Just a quick question. I've heared/read several times that when landing on (US) CVs, the pilot shell try to catch the third cable from the four that are there.
Now after some not clear statements, is it the third from the aft, or starting from the foremost one??

Obi Wan Russell · 02-15-2007

No1 wire is the furthest aft, so they count them going forwards. The idea is to land with the hook in the middle of all four wires, and since the aircraft is moving forwards the next wire the hook comes to is number three.

bd popeye · 02-15-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

No1 wire is the furthest aft, so they count them going forwards. The idea is to land with the hook in the middle of all four wires, and since the aircraft is moving forwards the next wire the hook comes to is number three.

You know that CVN-76 has only three arresting wires. This design was because the 1st wire was seldom if ever used. In many cases I've seen the first wire removed from the deck.

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers

Aircraft Carriers

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

vBulletin Tweet Poster