Invincible-class carriers scrapped - and not sold to other countries ? Why ?

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
11,811
Reaction score
13,456
I've just learned that HMS Ocean was sold to Brazil to replace their cranky Foch carrier.

And then all three Invincible-class carriers were sold for scrap to the same Turkish blowtorches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_aircraft_carrier

The hell, was there no country in the entire world interested by a second-hand Invincible class ? Were they in such a poor shape, that nobody was interested in them ? Even if the Harrier is a temperamental aircraft to fly (just ask all those dead USMC pilots) one country could based attack choppers on them.

- checked, same for Principe de Asturias. Sold to Turkish scrapyards. If I were Turkey, I would have kept one of the Invicible as an helicopter carrier. I'm left wondering if Erdogan won't pull a Liaoning out of this. In the 90's the chinese famously build an impressive collection of carriers - Melbourne to Minsk - and we all know how that ended.
 
The Harrier is not a temperamental aircraft to fly. All those USMC pilots who died flying it weren't trained properly, particularly in the early days of it's career. The Corps had decided early on that they didn't need a two seat trainer and didn't buy any. They quickly realised their mistake and bought some and their loss rate plummeted.

The Invincibles were designed for use of a V/STOL aircraft - a Harrier or an F-35. Both are controlled basically by the US Government and they won't export the former and the latter is just expensive to purchase.
 
Kadija_Man said:
The Invincibles were designed for use of a V/STOL aircraft - a Harrier or an F-35. Both are controlled basically by the US Government and they won't export the former and the latter is just expensive to purchase.
Click to expand...
"

BAe tends to disagree with you on that. ;)
 
RyanC said:
Kadija_Man said:
The Invincibles were designed for use of a V/STOL aircraft - a Harrier or an F-35. Both are controlled basically by the US Government and they won't export the former and the latter is just expensive to purchase.
Click to expand...
"

BAe tends to disagree with you on that. ;)
Click to expand...

Unless we are talking essentially a new design, the last Harriers produced contained substantial US equipment. The US Government retains control over the export of that material. As the USMC is the last major user of the Harrier, I don't think they'll be exporting them without Uncle Sam's say so.

Personally, I don't think the Harrier's day is done yet. There is still considerable potential there but I don't think BAE agrees with me for some reason...
 
A bit off topic but why did HMS Ocean seem to have such a short career with the Royal Navy? She was only launched in 1995 while the first of the Wasp class LHDs are several years older than that.
 
HMS Ocean was built to commercial standards, not to full warship standards.
She was only planned with a 20-25 year lifespan in mind. That is not to say she couldn't have been refitted for further service, but with the Navy facing shortages of manpower and money and the desire to put all the eggs in the new carrier fleet, that was never going to happen politically.

To answer Archibald's original question, the Invincibles were old, pushing 35 years. There was little practical life left in them without serious refitting and for smaller countries they want second-hand warships that have life left in them and that can be modernised at reasonable prices.
Put this another way, would you buy a 1982 Ford Sierra as your family car today?
 
My family car is a 1971 VW Type 3 Variant but I suppose I do not exactly fit in the same bracket as Sierra drivers.
 
Hood said:
HMS Ocean was built to commercial standards, not to full warship standards.
She was only planned with a 20-25 year lifespan in mind. That is not to say she couldn't have been refitted for further service, but with the Navy facing shortages of manpower and money and the desire to put all the eggs in the new carrier fleet, that was never going to happen politically.

To answer Archibald's original question, the Invincibles were old, pushing 35 years. There was little practical life left in them without serious refitting and for smaller countries they want second-hand warships that have life left in them and that can be modernised at reasonable prices.
Put this another way, would you buy a 1982 Ford Sierra as your family car today?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose the North Sea and North Atlantic took a toll on their hulls ?
 
A bit off topic maybe, but in what ways was Ocean built to commercial standards? Cheaper steel? Less compartmentation?
 
Ocean was actually a mix of naval and commercial standards. The subdivision was to naval standards but was longitudinally framed to Lloyd's rules except for the lower decks and fore and aft ends. The steel was of commercial standard, ductile at low temperatures.
 
Hood said:
Ocean was actually a mix of naval and commercial standards. The subdivision was to naval standards but was longitudinally framed to Lloyd's rules except for the lower decks and fore and aft ends. The steel was of commercial standard, ductile at low temperatures.
Click to expand...

Isn't that brittle at low temperatures?
 
If a steel remains ductile at low temperatures then its less brittle and keeps its impact resistance.
The steel used was apparently good quality commercial steel that kept its ductility better than standard commercial shipbuilding steels.

I guess though it won't bother the Brazilian Navy as much. But I wonder how much the mix of standards really saved on the shipbuilding costs? Probably less than the MoD were hoping for.
 
Hood said:
There was little practical life left in them without serious refitting and for smaller countries they want second-hand warships that have life left in them and that can be modernised at reasonable prices.
Put this another way, would you buy a 1982 Ford Sierra as your family car today?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just ask Canada about a bunch of cheap submarines we got from the Brits

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-submarine-fleet-never-worked-its-time-to-stop-ignoring-the-problem/article12468338/
 
There was, and no doubt about it, a problem from the UK side. BUT, the Canadian navy must have had some kind of inspection process. Pity everyone snafu'd. The boats should have provided good service. Losing a submarine force would be a modern equivalent of an old decision not to develop manned fighters but concentrate on missiles instead and about as daft.
 
When the RAN announced they were purchasing the COLLINS class submarines, they received an unfair amount of criticism from those that suffered from cultural cringe. Many suggested that we should have bought British conventional submarines instead. Now they have been proved wrong with the Canadian experience. After the KANIMBLA and MANOORA fiascos it is easy for mistakes to be made by the purchasing navy it seems, so don't be too hard on the Canadians. I don't doubt the RN were glad to be shot of the submarines, just as the USN was glad to be rid of the Fairfax County and Saginaw.
 
kitnut617 said:
Hood said:
There was little practical life left in them without serious refitting and for smaller countries they want second-hand warships that have life left in them and that can be modernised at reasonable prices.
Put this another way, would you buy a 1982 Ford Sierra as your family car today?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just ask Canada about a bunch of cheap submarines we got from the Brits

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-submarine-fleet-never-worked-its-time-to-stop-ignoring-the-problem/article12468338/
Click to expand...

This opinion piece is from a Legal Scholar, and someone who is a graduate of "Critical Security Studies", which is apparently a discipline which is "critical of mainstream/orthodox realist approaches" and linked to Marxism.

The tone is set by the weasel words: Purchased from Britain in 1998 for a suspiciously low price

The facts are, Canada would not pay the original asked price, and political decisions had made them surplus to Royal Navy requirements. A price was agreed and they were sold - to a government famed for underspending on defence.
 
The Upholder sale is a sad and strange case. A lot of bad luck perhaps during the refitting programme, but its more than likely that being tied up for four years before they were sold didn't do them any good, even though they were more or less brand new when mothballed.
 
I was told that one of the reasons they appeared cheap was because there was an agreement for the UK military to lease training grounds here in Canada in exchange.
 
A plausible suggestion but no idea, the BATUS training site is hugely valuable though and a visit one of the highlights of my service.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom