New article on why in 1978 the Royal Navy looked at keeping HMS ARK ROYAL into the 1980s

S

Sir Humphrey

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
15 August 2025
Messages
11
Reaction score
57
I'm proud to have done a 'collaboration with the Navy Lookout website on files in Kew showing that in 1978 SACLANT (Adm Kidd USN) requested to 1SL that the RN ran on HMS ARK ROYAL into the 1980s - it was seriously looked at, although the challenge of no crew, awful material state and reality it would cause 4-6 escorts to be paid off to enable people and dockyard refit capacity killed it. They also looked at using ARK as a CVS, and keeping her in reserve till the INVINCIBLES turned up - but gave up due to the sheer challenge of finding the people to keep her in preservation by order.

Full article is here - the twitter thread with images of the primary source documents is here -
https://twitter.com/x/status/1965086395036565766
View: https://x.com/twitter/status/1965086395036565766


Of note, there is a handwritten note in the twitter thread talking about CAH04 (e.g. a 4th INVINCIBLE) - the first time I've seen reference to this.

www.navylookout.com

Running on empty – how the Royal Navy nearly kept HMS Ark Royal into the 1980s - Navy Lookout

Based on historical research in the National Archives, in the guest article, veteran defence blogger 'Sir Humphrey', outlines how serious consideration was given to extending the service life of HMS Ark Royal (RO9). In December 1978, HMS Ark Royal, the Royal Navy’s last conventional aircraft...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
The Clemenceaus would have joined NATO in
the Atlantic had WWIII broke out.
Click to expand...

I knew someone would pick up on that! Yes they likely would, but given word count was very constrained, trying to explain the French 'being in NATO but not in NATO' in context of carriers was just not worth the waste of words, when you could correctly state that ARK was at the time the sole non US carrier!
 
No offense taken, sir ! It is a very interesting reading, including the little Falklands what if at the end. Once again, it is a pity Eagle - by far the best of the two Audacious - was sacrificed in the late 1960's.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Also, oof, she really was in terrible shape.
Click to expand...
ARK ROYAL was in poor shape when it entered service, and only got worse.
Sir Humphrey said:
Full article is here - the twitter thread with images of the primary source documents is here -
Click to expand...
Unfortunately inaccessible to those of us who no longer use Twitter.
 
Yellow Palace said:
ARK ROYAL was in poor shape when it entered service, and only got worse.

Unfortunately inaccessible to those of us who no longer use Twitter.
Click to expand...

Given that the Twitter thread has had, as of today about 35,000 views in 24hrs its where I am going to prioritise posting content I'm afraid! I have finite time and have to prioritise posting where it has most impact. Sadly repackaging the thread for a small forum isn't the best use of my time - sorry!
 
SecretSailor said:
A fourth Invincible? Now that is interesting seeing the stress and strain operating the three the RN had.......
Click to expand...

Agree - I've never seen a reference to it before, but this was handwritten advice from Naval Staff to 1SL, so clearly in some form it was seen as a runner as late as 1978 - but this is the first reference I've seen to it.
 
Yellow Palace said:
ARK ROYAL was in poor shape when it entered service, and only got worse.

Unfortunately inaccessible to those of us who no longer use Twitter.
Click to expand...

Sir Humphrey said:
Given that the Twitter thread has had, as of today about 35,000 views in 24hrs its where I am going to prioritise posting content I'm afraid! I have finite time and have to prioritise posting where it has most impact. Sadly repackaging the thread for a small forum isn't the best use of my time - sorry!
Click to expand...
I've copied the twitter thread to Image Chest so that it can be read.
 
This does put a new light on the perennial AH of some other, better condition carrier being in her place.
Whether that would be New Build (third Audacious, 1952CV, Medium Fleet, or CVA-01) or Eagle or even......whisper it quietly to not upset some...Victorious.

Then a reprieve in the 80's wasn't impossible if the will had been available.
 
zen said:
This does put a new light on the perennial AH of some other, better condition carrier being in her place.
Whether that would be New Build (third Audacious, 1952CV, Medium Fleet, or CVA-01) or Eagle or even......whisper it quietly to not upset some...Victorious.

Then a reprieve in the 80's wasn't impossible if the will had been available.
Click to expand...

VICTORIOUS wasn't possible - I was looking only the other day at RN files showing the very, very latest they could run her on till, with refit, was 1974, in part of a wider discussion about refitting ARK or EAGLE for phantom.
 
Sir Humphrey said:
VICTORIOUS wasn't possible - I was looking only the other day at RN files showing the very, very latest they could run her on till, with refit, was 1974, in part of a wider discussion about refitting ARK or EAGLE for phantom.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the issue was? Her machinery had been replaced in her rebuild, so it should've still been good up to that point. Was it structural issues like Ark was showing by 1978?
 
I think the larger context here is that the US Navy had identified a need for at least 15 carriers and was hovering at around 12. So it's not surprising that somebody in the US Navy was pressuring the Royal Navy to keep a carrier going. The same pressure was happening in the US.
 
Martes said:
Is there an explanation for difference in longevity between Hermes and Ark/Eagle/Victorious?
Click to expand...
The difference is that for the last 30-odd years of her life Hermes was operated by India, who were willing, able, and had no choice but to put up with her aging with various refits. She had three major refits in 25 years of Royal Navy service; she had five in 30 years of Indian service, three of which were explicitly life-extension refits.
 
CV12Hornet said:
who were willing, able, and had no choice but to put up with her aging with various refits.
Click to expand...

Like I noted in another thread:

Martes said:
For comparison, Hermes was in service until 2016-17, with refits in :

April 1986
July 1999
Mid-2003-November 2004
August 2008-November 2009
November 2012-July 2013
Click to expand...

Martes said:
Which demonstrates the physical service life stretch potential of the hull and machinery. Only when the refits became more frequent (2004 and forward, 4 years cycle) suggests the structure began to deteriorate beyond feasible maintenance level. So by western standard it could have been possible to keep Vic/Eagle/Ark Royal in service till about 2000, and with some effort make a smooth transition into 3-unit QE class. Technically, of course, politics aside.
Click to expand...

At the same time Victorious was considered to have a life limit at 1974 -

Sir Humphrey said:
VICTORIOUS wasn't possible - I was looking only the other day at RN files showing the very, very latest they could run her on till, with refit, was 1974
Click to expand...

Why? What was so critically different in the condition of their internal structure?
 
Last edited:
CV12Hornet said:
Do you know what the issue was? Her machinery had been replaced in her rebuild, so it should've still been good up to that point. Was it structural issues like Ark was showing by 1978?
Click to expand...
While that is what appears on many internet sites about her "machinery" it needs to be broken down.

She retained her original steam turbines, propulsion and steering gear, albeit in overhauled form. Her auxiliary machinery and famously her boilers were replaced in her 1950-58 reconstruction.
 
Interesting read, as a nudge to various AH scenarios, given that the Midways served until the early 1990s, can it be said that if Ark Royal and Eagle has been given the proper refits and maintenance, they could have easily served into the 1980s and even 1990s as the X post seems to suggest? Would the Phantoms and Buccaneers have enough life to serve until then? The Gannets could have been replaced by Sea King AEWs if it ever comes to that.
 
lancer21 said:
Interesting read, as a nudge to various AH scenarios, given that the Midways served until the early 1990s, can it be said that if Ark Royal and Eagle has been given the proper refits and maintenance, they could have easily served into the 1980s and even 1990s as the X post seems to suggest? Would the Phantoms and Buccaneers have enough life to serve until then? The Gannets could have been replaced by Sea King AEWs if it ever comes to that.
Click to expand...
I think that, IF they had kept both Eagle and Ark Royal in service that, even with her 'Phantomisation', Ark Royal would have had to have been retired first. Don't forget, her 'Special Refit' did next to nothing as regards structural repairs or machinery upgrading. She only lasted to 1978 because Eagle was available for spares cannibalisation. She was scheduled (reckoned?) for retirement earlier when the original plans of the construction of CVA-01 and her sisters were in the making. She had been something like TEN years in shipyard hands when she was originally completed and her electronics etc, etc were hopelessly dated which was recognised at the start of the 1960's. Even Eagle's rebuild did not properly address her electrical systems, she ended up with a mixture of A.C. and D.C. electrical systems, I believe in an effort to keep her rebuild costs down. Victorious on the other hand had a completely new electrical system installed which no doubt helped with the resulting ever increasing cost of her reconstruction.
Hermes was not suitable for Phantom Operations and I think Victorious, with the best will in the world would be marginal to say the least!
Regrettably, NEW carriers were what was needed, and we all know how that went!
 
Pirate Pete said:
I think that, IF they had kept both Eagle and Ark Royal in service that, even with her 'Phantomisation', Ark Royal would have had to have been retired first.
Click to expand...
When refits of both ships were expected, EAGLE was supposed to run to 1984 and ARK ROYAL was expected to be retired in the 1974-1976 timeframe. I can't find the original source, but my notes have:
  • VICTORIOUS out of service 1972
  • ARK ROYAL out of service 1974-1976
  • HERMES out of service 1978-1980
  • EAGLE out of service 1984
The later dates line up a little too well with replacements on a 4-year drumbeat. Making that schedule work relies on either getting Phantoms on HERMES, running on Sea Vixen until the late 1970s, or accepting no fighters on one of the carriers. None of those is a great option.
 
It's worth mentioning that both Eagle and Ark Royal had wartime standard steam machinery. This was (by US standards) low tech, inefficient, and was fitted in very cramped machinery spaces. This really limited the scope to prolong the vessels in-service life, post war. The RN did eventually catch up with USN standards of machinery performance, and better designed spaces, but this wasn't until well post war, with the YEAD and Y100 series steam plant. I'm sure the Midways were better fitted to the life extensions they achieved.
 
Victorious was decommissioned too early, when she still had enough remaining service life. She could definitely have been used until the mid-1970s. The same applies to Eagle. She would have needed a refit to continue operating, but the decision was made not to do this in order to save money. Two boilers were replaced on Ark Royal during her last stay in the shipyard. However, she proved on one voyage that she still had enough speed to launch Phantoms despite two damaged boilers.

The AWACS was problematic. The Gannet's radar was outdated. However, the Phantom was still perfectly usable until the mid-1980s.

It was a decision by the MoD to deploy RAF pilots on aircraft carriers. This was not a decision made because there were too few pilots, but a clear decision by the MoD, for whatever reason. The intention was to have the aircraft operated entirely by the RAF. To this end, the training opportunities offered by the Navy began to be phased out step by step in the 1960s.

From the outside, some decisions in the UK don't make much sense.
 
xena said:
Victorious was decommissioned too early, when she still had enough remaining service life. She could definitely have been used until the mid-1970s. The same applies to Eagle. She would have needed a refit to continue operating, but the decision was made not to do this in order to save money. Two boilers were replaced on Ark Royal during her last stay in the shipyard. However, she proved on one voyage that she still had enough speed to launch Phantoms despite two damaged boilers.

The AWACS was problematic. The Gannet's radar was outdated. However, the Phantom was still perfectly usable until the mid-1980s.

It was a decision by the MoD to deploy RAF pilots on aircraft carriers. This was not a decision made because there were too few pilots, but a clear decision by the MoD, for whatever reason. The intention was to have the aircraft operated entirely by the RAF. To this end, the training opportunities offered by the Navy began to be phased out step by step in the 1960s.

From the outside, some decisions in the UK don't make much sense.
Click to expand...
Interesting points!
 
xena said:
Victorious was decommissioned too early, when she still had enough remaining service life. She could definitely have been used until the mid-1970s. The same applies to Eagle. She would have needed a refit to continue operating, but the decision was made not to do this in order to save money. Two boilers were replaced on Ark Royal during her last stay in the shipyard. However, she proved on one voyage that she still had enough speed to launch Phantoms despite two damaged boilers.

The AWACS was problematic. The Gannet's radar was outdated. However, the Phantom was still perfectly usable until the mid-1980s.

It was a decision by the MoD to deploy RAF pilots on aircraft carriers. This was not a decision made because there were too few pilots, but a clear decision by the MoD, for whatever reason. The intention was to have the aircraft operated entirely by the RAF. To this end, the training opportunities offered by the Navy began to be phased out step by step in the 1960s.

From the outside, some decisions in the UK don't make much sense.
Click to expand...
On YouTube, there is the old BBC television series 'Sailor' which was an early 'fly-on'the'wall' type documentary. In the very first episode, Ark Royal is shown departing from Plymouth (Devonport), and it is clearly apparent that she is suffering from engine (shaft) issues as at least one shaft was unavailable while they were manoeuvring. If I recall correctly, the series originally aired in 1976 when the Ark was Twenty-One years old and she was most definitely showing symptoms of not being in the first flush of youth.
In retrospect, as I said in an earlier post, Eagle should have been retained, even with her mixed D.C./A.C. power supply. She had a much better electronics suite (Type 984 3D radar as well as a Type 965 AKE.2. All she really needed was a "relatively" minor refit to effectively operate Phantoms. Then, in conjunction with Hermes (as a Strike Carrier operating Buccaneers) and allowing Victorious to continue running (She was scheduled to run until 1972 anyway), and I'm pretty sure that she would have lasted at least as long as the poor old Ark Royal did, i.e., 1978.
Just as an aside, I stumbled across this Photoshopped image of Eagle as if she had undergone a proper refit to operate Phantoms.
 

Attachments

  • HMS Eagle Phantom Modernisation.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 68
xena said:
Victorious was decommissioned too early, when she still had enough remaining service life. She could definitely have been used until the mid-1970s. The same applies to Eagle. She would have needed a refit to continue operating, but the decision was made not to do this in order to save money.
Click to expand...

Pirate Pete said:
Then, in conjunction with Hermes (as a Strike Carrier operating Buccaneers) and allowing Victorious to continue running (She was scheduled to run until 1972 anyway), and I'm pretty sure that she would have lasted at least as long as the poor old Ark Royal did, i.e., 1978.
Click to expand...
It's worth remembering that the objective, dictated at the highest level, was not to maximise Royal Navy carrier capability. It was to maintain a minimum capability at minimal cost. That's the mindset that makes it make sense.

When EAGLE and VICTORIOUS were disposed of, the required number of carriers dropped from four to one as a result of the decisions taken in the early-mid 1960s. ARK ROYAL had the lowest in-year cost to keep in role.

Likewise using RAF aircrew in FAA squadrons. There were no career prospects for FAA fast jet aircrew past a certain point, because the carrier capability was being run down. But aircrew were still needed. The options are (a) recruit and train FAA personnel, knowing they'll need to convert to helicopters or leave early, and (b) put some RAF aircrew through carrier qualification. Option (b) is a better way of getting and keeping people who actually want to fly fast jets.

A policy of maintaining a carrier fleet pushes the Royal Navy down an entirely different decision tree. But that decision was made in 1963-1964, the lid placed on the coffin in 1966, and the nails hammered in in 1968.
 
The Gannet AEW AN/APS-20 radar was fitted to modified Shackleton MR 2, redesignated AEW 2 from 1972 and served through to 1991 with No. 8 Sqn RAF.
 
Pirate Pete said:
In retrospect, as I said in an earlier post, Eagle should have been retained, even with her mixed D.C./A.C. power supply. She had a much better electronics suite (Type 984 3D radar as well as a Type 965 AKE.2. All she really needed was a "relatively" minor refit to effectively operate Phantoms. Then, in conjunction with Hermes (as a Strike Carrier operating Buccaneers) and allowing Victorious to continue running (She was scheduled to run until 1972 anyway), and I'm pretty sure that she would have lasted at least as long as the poor old Ark Royal did, i.e., 1978.
Just as an aside, I stumbled across this Photoshopped image of Eagle as if she had undergone a proper refit to operate Phantoms.
Click to expand...
Eagle was perfectly capable of using Phantoms. Alongside Ark Royal, Eagle was one of the carriers on which the Phantom was tested. The catapults could be used by the Phantom. A steel plate was welded behind one catapult to protect the deck from the engines, which were angled downwards. After the tests, they were asked to leave the plate in place so that Eagle could be used as an alternative carrier for the Phantoms if necessary. All that would have been needed to use the Phantom permanently would have been the cooled jet deflectors, as on Ark Royal. That's why I don't understand the decision that was made. With two carriers, one would always have been in service while the other was in the shipyard. But yes, the reason was money.
 
xena said:
Eagle was perfectly capable of using Phantoms. Alongside Ark Royal, Eagle was one of the carriers on which the Phantom was tested. The catapults could be used by the Phantom. A steel plate was welded behind one catapult to protect the deck from the engines, which were angled downwards. After the tests, they were asked to leave the plate in place so that Eagle could be used as an alternative carrier for the Phantoms if necessary. All that would have been needed to use the Phantom permanently would have been the cooled jet deflectors, as on Ark Royal. That's why I don't understand the decision that was made. With two carriers, one would always have been in service while the other was in the shipyard. But yes, the reason was money.
Click to expand...
The usual rule of thumb is 3 for 1. 1 carrier at sea, 1 carrier in refit, 1 carrier working up for a 6month deployment.
 
xena said:
Eagle was perfectly capable of using Phantoms. Alongside Ark Royal, Eagle was one of the carriers on which the Phantom was tested. The catapults could be used by the Phantom. A steel plate was welded behind one catapult to protect the deck from the engines, which were angled downwards. After the tests, they were asked to leave the plate in place so that Eagle could be used as an alternative carrier for the Phantoms if necessary. All that would have been needed to use the Phantom permanently would have been the cooled jet deflectors, as on Ark Royal. That's why I don't understand the decision that was made. With two carriers, one would always have been in service while the other was in the shipyard. But yes, the reason was money.
Click to expand...
There is one feature that you fail to mention that is rather important in carrier operations - the ability to recover the aircraft after an operation. You make no mention of that.

As modernised Eagle had 4 sets of Mk.13 wires capable of stopping a 35,000lb aircraft with an entry speed of 103 knots. For the Phantom trials she had just one replaced with a new experimental Direct Acting DAX.2 system needed to operate the Phantom.

Ark Royal received 4 sets of the finalised DA.2 arrester gear design in her 1967-70 reconstruction. These were capable of arresting 40,000lb aircraft at an entry speed of 115 knots.

Ratings from Hobbs " British Aircraft Carriers".

While one of the uprated Direct Acting arrester systems was adequate for the Phantom trials undertaken in controlled circumstances, all 4 wires would have needed replaced to make her viable in an operational role.

Like the welded plate on the deck as protection from the reheat of a Phantom, what was acceptable for trials was not acceptable for a fully operational carrier.

Hobbs notes that the cost of acquiring and fitting those other 3 DA.2 arrester wires for Eagle became " a major factor in the political decision to withdraw her from service early."
 
EwenS said:
Hobbs notes that the cost of acquiring and fitting those other 3 DA.2 arrester wires for Eagle became " a major factor in the political decision to withdraw her from service early."
Click to expand...
Still Eagle was the best of the two. Whatever.
What a bunch of pathetic penny pinchers...
 
EwenS said:
There is one feature that you fail to mention that is rather important in carrier operations - the ability to recover the aircraft after an operation. You make no mention of that.

As modernised Eagle had 4 sets of Mk.13 wires capable of stopping a 35,000lb aircraft with an entry speed of 103 knots. For the Phantom trials she had just one replaced with a new experimental Direct Acting DAX.2 system needed to operate the Phantom.

Ark Royal received 4 sets of the finalised DA.2 arrester gear design in her 1967-70 reconstruction. These were capable of arresting 40,000lb aircraft at an entry speed of 115 knots.

Ratings from Hobbs " British Aircraft Carriers".

While one of the uprated Direct Acting arrester systems was adequate for the Phantom trials undertaken in controlled circumstances, all 4 wires would have needed replaced to make her viable in an operational role.

Like the welded plate on the deck as protection from the reheat of a Phantom, what was acceptable for trials was not acceptable for a fully operational carrier.

Hobbs notes that the cost of acquiring and fitting those other 3 DA.2 arrester wires for Eagle became " a major factor in the political decision to withdraw her from service early."
Click to expand...
What was the difference in landing speed between the Buccaneer and Spey Phantom?
There is very little difference in weight between the two aircraft, and Eagle operated Buccs with no problem.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The usual rule of thumb is 3 for 1. 1 carrier at sea, 1 carrier in refit, 1 carrier working up for a 6month deployment.
Click to expand...
That's a rule of thumb that works for a specific deployment model – in particular 3 ships to maintain one in station.

The Royal Navy's planning that justified four carriers and three air wings was one in the Indian Ocean, one in the Med, one in home waters, and one refitting. The one at home was working up for deployment, and the one in the Med was on the way to or from the Indian Ocean.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom