Register here

Author Topic: Australian Invincible  (Read 18623 times)

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2190
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2018, 10:00:49 am »
Marine Olympus powered a lot of ships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Marine_Olympus

Many Olympus engines are still in use as peak demand power generators in static installations.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 10:05:02 am by Arjen »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2018, 10:18:24 am »
Not that odd.  Olympus was a very successful power plant in industrial power generation and marine applications.  It was pretty much the standard turbine for the Royal Navy: Bristol, Invincibles, Type 21, Type 42, Type 22.  It was widely exported as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Marine_Olympus


Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2018, 12:13:37 pm »
Do you guys know the armament of any other data of this Vickers modified Invincible? (Dimensions, aircraft complement etc)
The little drawing shows a single Goalkeeper CIWS forward of the Bridge and what looks like a SAM aft which can be lowered down under the flight deck in case of aircraft operations.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #48 on: September 17, 2018, 04:58:11 am »
The modified Australian had two CIWS but there was no SAM armament.

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #49 on: September 17, 2018, 05:25:46 am »
I see!
Thank you!
Ahh that is the letter M (or W? ) on the aft and not a "pop-up" missile launcher I first thought of!
Could this proposal a variation of this other Vickers Light carrier design from around 1982?
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5326&start=20

pdf of an article at that time:
www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1983/1983%20-%201847.PDF

And the Secret Projects thread:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3727.0
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 05:33:57 am by Tzoli »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2018, 05:58:18 am »
Yes, that's the carrier deck letter code M (for Melbourne).  The British Invincible-class carriers had the deck letter codes N (Invincible), L (Illustrious) and R (Ark Royal).  Sort of a last check to make sure you're landing on the correct carrier.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 06:55:19 am by TomS »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #51 on: September 17, 2018, 12:14:53 pm »
Could this proposal a variation of this other Vickers Light carrier design from around 1982?
http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5326&start=20

pdf of an article at that time:
www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1983/1983%20-%201847.PDF

And the Secret Projects thread:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3727.0

Had a chance to think about this part of your post.

No, the Australian Invincible proposal was not related to the Vickers Light Fleet Carrier design at your links.  The RAN Invincible was a relatively modest modification of the original RN Invincible (reduced armament, expanded hangar space). The Light Fleet Carrier was basically a clean sheet design intended to be much cheaper than the Invincible. 

The Vickers light fleet offering had a new hull shape based on a passenger liner, commercial design practices with a few military modifications, and other cost savings throughout.  Notice the difference in engine exhausts, for example.  Invincible had two widely-separated stacks, reflecting two well-separated main propulsion machinery spaces with four turbines.  The Vickers Light Fleet has only two turbnes (and about half the horsepower) and only one stack, suggesting that there is one machinery space or perhaps two without much separation. 

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #52 on: October 15, 2018, 05:58:29 am »
I will intend to draw this modified Invincible for the Australians in the near future and I would like to aks to what kind of Sensor suite should I put on her?
The same as the Invincibles?
Some newer radars?
Mixed British and maerican?
If yes what types?

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #53 on: October 15, 2018, 06:05:54 am »
I also wonder if the Shah of Iran before the 1979 revolution would buy the original Invincible design (if I remember he too wanted 3-4 such ships) or this modified proposal?

Offline RLBH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2018, 03:29:45 pm »
I also wonder if the Shah of Iran before the 1979 revolution would buy the original Invincible design (if I remember he too wanted 3-4 such ships) or this modified proposal?
There are certainly such claims, but it's not clear how serious the Shah's enthusiasm was, and what exactly he wanted. In a lot of respects, he seems to have treated defence exhibitions the same way a child treats a sweet shop.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2094
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2018, 11:32:10 pm »
I also wonder if the Shah of Iran before the 1979 revolution would buy the original Invincible design (if I remember he too wanted 3-4 such ships) or this modified proposal?
There are certainly such claims, but it's not clear how serious the Shah's enthusiasm was, and what exactly he wanted. In a lot of respects, he seems to have treated defence exhibitions the same way a child treats a sweet shop.

Bingo. You nailed it well, and I share your opinion. Before buying Tomcats, the Shah got a proposal from Lockheed to turn the mothballed fleet of A-12 Oxcart into YF-12s. I suppose Lockheed reasonned in the same way as you.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2018, 04:00:45 am »
I have a question or rather two:
1. Does anybody have a high quality high resolution drawing of the Invincible class?

2. More importantly what is the accurate dimensions of the Invinvible class?
I've found two set of data regarding this in various books and sites:
A: 192,6m pp, 206m (206,3) oa length x 35m beam flight deck (27,5 wl)
B: 193m wl, 210m oa length x 36m beam flight deck (27,5 wl)
British Aircraft Carriers by David Hobbs states the following (I assume all are overall)
206,58 x 31,85m

As I'm started to draw this modified Invincible accurate data on the original would be quite helpful!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2018, 12:10:50 pm by Tzoli »

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2018, 06:44:31 am »
The discrepancy is because Ark Royal had slightly larger dimensions. Ark Royal was actually 209.1m overall, not 210m.

Offline Tzoli

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 576
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2018, 12:35:17 pm »
I see!

I have two other questions:

1. This modified Vickers Invincible lacks the 2nd mast between her funnels. Why is that? I know that it's superstructure is shorter because she lacks the Sea Dart SAM and it's associated pair of large radars forward and aft, but could the main mast above and behind the bridge house all the necessary sensory equipment the ship needs?

2. I wonder if this Vickers Invincible is a modified Invincible to be built for the RAN or Vickers idea to modify the Invincible herself?
I've asking this because I've read this in British Aircraft Carriers: Design, Development & Service Histories by David Hobbs:

"As the RN moved towards larger carriers and aircraft, withdrawing its smaller light fleet carriers from service, Australia followed Canada in procuring USN aircraft for carrierborne operation; S-2G Trackers replaced the Gannets and A-4G Skyhawk strike fighters replaced Sea Venoms. Sea Kings built under licence by Westland in the UK replaced Wessex antisubmarine helicopters. Sydney was not modernised, but provided a significant capability as an LPH during the Vietnam War, while the replacement of Melbourne became a major political issue in the 1970s. Several international designs were evaluated, but the British Invincible design was not taken forward because of its high cost and the complexity of the Sea Dart missile system, which was not used by the RAN. The preferred option was the USN Iwo Jima Class design, which was affordable, needed less then half the ship's company of Melbourne, was capable of operating large helicopters and could be modified with an antisubmarine command system without losing a significant amphibious capability as an LPH. Other contenders were the USN Sea Control Ship design, subsequently built by Spain and Thailand as small carriers, and the Italian Garibaldi design. However after the 1981 Nott Defence Review the British Government decided to retain only two of its three Invincible Class ships, and Invincible herself was offered for sale at 175 million pounds, considerably less then her estimated build cost. A study was instigated to decide whatever to retain the GWS-30 Sea Dart system, and the balance of probability is that it would have been removed, since other RAN ships were fitted with USN Standard SAM and Australia could not afford to support two separate systems. Royal Navy technical assistance would have been available and GWS-30 would have been removed to create more deck space, as it eventually was in the RN. The Australian Government never took the decision to procure Sea Harriers for Operation from the ship, although, since she had a 'ski-jump' and support facilities for the type, its eventual operation would have remained an attractive option and the RAN pilots on exchange duty had flown the type with the RN. The ship would have been recommissioned as HMAS Melbourne after being taken over by the RAN It was not to be, however. After the Falklands Conflict the Australian Government offered to release the UK from the sales contract if it wished. The offer was accepted, Invincible was retained by the RN and Melbourne was withdrawn from service in 1982 without replacement."

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2018, 01:49:36 am »
Originally the mainmast held the Type 992Q target-indication radar, plus radio aerials and antennas, so with a different radar fit I think the mast could have been disposed of and other arrangements made for trailing the radio aerials and VHF antennas.
Over time in RN service, the mainmast was used for the Type 996 and later became the main ESM location. All three Invincibles received various additional masts over time and there would still have been space for the Australians to have upgraded over time.

I agree the Vickers plan was conversion work for Invincible and not a new-build ship. The economics of a new build would have killed RAN interest I think.