HMS Invincible

Paul UK
1st August 2005, 19:42
Anybody know Invincibles Future Ie is she to be sold off as usual or will she be kept in mothballs for the time being.

Paul


Paid off today Monday 1st August at P :@ ortsmouth

moaf
1st August 2005, 19:46
there was a report in yesterdays news off the world saying she is to be turned into a nightclub!! Yeah right!

moaf
1st August 2005, 19:47
although that did come from my missus!

Paul UK
1st August 2005, 19:59
Your Missus is not far off just wrong ship see fearless item above this.

Paul

Fairfield
1st August 2005, 20:57
Seem to remember that when she came into service had not to be called Aircraft Carrier but Through Deck Cruiser or similar.

Paul UK
1st August 2005, 21:22
Correct as the politicians of the day did not think Aircraft carriers where needed, as usual they were wrong.

Paul

Doug Rogers
2nd August 2005, 05:31
It was a good subterfuge though wasnt it, what is a Through Deck Cruiser supposed to be anyway, I dunno!!. But obfurescation seemed to be the name of the game for a while, look at the County Class Destroyers completed in the 60's, more like Light Cruisers than Destroyers from their tonnage!!. Or the American nuclear Frigates armed with missiles when they were first built, more like heavy cruisers than anything else!!. Ah dear whats in a term. (*))

Santos
2nd August 2005, 21:27
According to some news today, she is going to be kept in a state of , I quote, " Low Readiness until 2010" , after which she is to be sold.

Is Low Readiness a state of Mothballs or just off being mothballed, perhaps the RN members can tell us.

Anyway its all very sad. The way things are going the whole R.N. is going to be in Low Readiness, actually its more than sad, its disasterous for everyone in the R.N. and this country we call home. Bloody politicians.

Chris.

Paul UK
3rd August 2005, 00:10
Hear Hear, I guess low readiness is with a skeleton crew just keeping the electrics and equipment in working order same as hermes before she was sold, I expect the chilian navy are looking at her!!! (Cloud)

fred henderson
4th August 2005, 17:03
The use of the term "Through Deck Cruiser" had innocent beginnings, although it then continued to be used for political reasons.

In 1967 an outline staff requirement was produced for a 12,500 ton Command Cruiser carrying 6 Sea Kings aft in an above deck hanger with flight deck above. There was to have been a large superstructure amidships and a heavy gun/missile armament forward. The ship would have been an enlarged HMS Tiger, along the lines of the French Jeanne d'Arc, or the Italian Andrea Doria.

The proposed Command Cruiser would have provided a command, control and communications facility for British/NATO anti-submarine groups operating in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.

It soon became clear that a far more effective ship would be created by cleaning up the superstructure and moving it to the starboard side of the vessel, but the naval designers were concerned that the politicians would reject the design out of hand. Nevertheless work continued on both designs and the studies showed that by adopting a "through deck", nine helicopters could be carried as a result of the extra landing spots, hangar and workshop space.

The politicians were won over and the design was allowed to grow to 17,500 tons and then 19,500 with 14 helicopters. The final sketch design was ready at the end of 1970 but the order for a Through Deck Cruiser was not placed until April 1973.

In May 1975 it was officially announced that some of the helicopters would be replaced by Sea Harriers to provide defence against Soviet bombers. This development had no effect on the construction of the ship, as the naval staff had made provision for 9 Sea Kings and 5 Harriers in the sketch design but had decided not to confuse the politicians by mentioning this detail in the official design brief!

Fred

HarbourCam
29th July 2007, 19:31
Invincible is lying in 3 Basin Portsmouth with not a soul onboard. She has been stripped of all her major components to keep the other two running and it would take 18 months to rebuild and get her fit for sea again. Very sad.

Stevo
30th July 2007, 12:08
Got a glimpse of No 3 basin from the motor way yesterday and could not believe how much hardware there is stored in there. If I'm correct one of the newer 'Fort' stores ships is also laid up in the basin, along with an LSL, a Rover, the Oakleaf, a castle class not to mention a Chilean type 23.Then there's the hulks in the creek, Fearless, Interpid, 3 Tpe 42s and the Rame Head. whlst in the former HMS Dolphin, a Hunt class.....

I thought the early 90s was hectic for laid up ships but this is somehting else.....

boulton
1st August 2007, 22:10
The capital has HSM Belfast, and Edinburgh the (ex-) Royal Yacht Britannia. It is suggested a number of our other seaports could benefit from a similar such endorsement permanently moored on their water fronts - so many of which are now being (re-)developed as tourist attractions, leisure spaces, consumer areas.

Whilst the Royal Navy's current three "carriers" are not the biggest in the world; the biggest the RN has ever had; or will have in the near future; they are still very fine and interesting ships. Particularly so if exhibited with a couple of the airframes parked on deck, of the now withdrawn Sea Harrier.

Evidenced from a many a "Navy Day" attended with enthusiam (at Rosyth), the machinery spaces; control areas; living areas; etc., will always continue to prove a fascinating tourist attraction for the present day, and many a future, generation to come.

Pertinently, the three "carriers" are built around an enormous hanger space below the flight deck. In modern parlance, it is understood we would describe the hanger space as "technical". In addition to the routine day-to-day tourist visitors - such a versatile, covered and enclosed space, on such an impressive ship, with its own infrastructure, would provide an irresistible venue for functions such as corporate events, meetings, promotions; fashion and art shows; concerts (classical and modern); craft fairs, trade shows, and product launches; conventions and conferences.

Further, the three "carriers" have a proven ability to fly-off helicopters - in far more arduous and demanding conditions than moored static at a city centre quayside. The recipient port-towns wishing to enhance the re-generation of their waterfronts, would therefore also find themselves in possession of an instant, fully operational, city centre, heli-port, with possibly the safest possible approaches - over water, along the adjacent rivers/esturies.

Promoted as above, it is possible that the three "carriers" may not be sufficient to meet demand. However, there are always Fearless and Intrepid, that could be similarly utilised. They would need welding shut (to be totally watertight), the stern doors to their rear-dock areas. An inexpensive and uncomplicated arched glass canopy "roof" would be sufficient to fully enclose the (small) open rear-dock area, and ensure that these "technical" exhibition areas below, are then weather proof.

As static, exhibition venues, and tourist attractions, the three "carriers", with Fearless and Intrepid, could be manned by ex-servicemen who could be relied upon to retain and maintain the high level of cleanliness, enthusiasm and efficiency, both above and below decks, appropriate for (former) ships of Her Majesty's Royal Navy.

HarbourCam
1st August 2007, 23:11
I do agree with some of what you say but cannot see anyone putting up the money for such a big idea as this.

As we have seen with the plans to purchase the Fearless and use it as a hostel / venue, they had the money and drew up plans but could not gain permission to berth in the Thames. Nobody wants a huge rusting eye-sore next to where they live.

The historic naval attractions in the UK do not make huge amounts of money and many are currently making a loss, this does not invite investors. The money to fund such projects has mainly come from grants and charities. Do we not already have enough struggling projects to fund, let alone trying to find the money to buy and maintain a 20,000 ton carrier.

Having served on Invincible I do have a certain attachment for the ship. Yes people do enjoy navy days and visiting these ships. However, people enjoyed the millennium done when it opened but that didn't stop it lying empty for six years! I would rather see peoples support for our current historic naval attractions and maybe even the new aircraft carriers.

Peter Eccleson
3rd August 2007, 16:47
State of low readiness you say? Bulwark was in the same situation..... but when they checked her out for the Falklands conflict she was nothing but floating scrap metal. Her engineroom was depleted of anything of any value and her flight deck was a mass of rusty metal which could easily have been poked through as holes.
There was a plan to repair the flight deck and tow her to the South Atlantic....but there was a risk that she would never have made it!

That endorses the view of 'state of low readiness'...... as witnessed already by 'Harbourcam' above.

boulton
4th August 2007, 12:38
I hope the above postings do not discourage others from contributing. Such responses are just what I was hoping for to “test” my proposal.

It is hoped that the problems experienced by other, existing (historic) naval attractions, will not detract from the Unique Selling Proposition (USP), possessed by the three “carriers”, and Fearless/Intrepid.

These bigger ships all have the same interest that is the engine spaces; ops rooms; living quarters of HMS Belfast, and the frigates that are maintained around our coast line - and which attract (some) visitors. However, in addition, the “carriers” offer 7,005 square metres of flight deck (less the island), and (allowing for the curvature of the bow), not much less exhibition floor space below, in the hanger.

The two Type 22 (Batch 2) frigates of 4,166 tonnes, sold to Romania, were purchased from the Government for the scrap value of £100,000-00 each. Pro-rata, the CAPITAL investment needed to purchase a 22,000 tonne “carrier” is only going to be about £528,000-00. Without then the additional problems of actually building such an interesting, comparable exhibition, function, destination, venue, the “start-up” costs are therefore minimal - compared to the purchase cost of prime city-centre water-frontage real-estate, and the additional building development costs.

It is known that our (newly) environmentally conscious Government, will want reassurances that the excess revenues earnt (over a twenty - thirty year period?), will cover the eventual costs of responsibly scrapping the ships - considering the asbestos and pollutants that will have to be dealt with.

With regard to on-going current expenditure, others will have to advise, how many fellas it will take with chipping hammers and pots of grey paint, to prevent the ships deteriorating into a “huge rusting eye-sore”. (This is imagined as an endless “Forth Rail Bridge” job).

Can anyone guess at the (permanent) mooring fees? There is plenty of available river-side berthing space at Hull. Edinburgh (Leith) is similarly in possession of an abundance of dock space - as it might be assumed are plenty of our other once busy ports. Although there is some housing development at the Edinburgh (Leith) docks, it is suggested no-one need necessarily have an “eye-sore next to where they live”.

None of the above costings yet includes the prospect of revenue to be earnt, particularly from a city-centre heli-port operating from the flight deck. Using Hull as an example, with its regional airport the other side of the Humber, the prospect of commuting from the very centre of Hull direct to the airport (and elsewhere), must be appealing to businessmen and holiday makers alike.

Phill
4th August 2007, 20:01
Just a few snaps of ships at Portsmouth , on the disposal list,,,,,R05, HMS Invincible looks in good nick???????????????
taken29.07.2007

Phill