ANDY123
Well-Known Member
With all the unemployment in the UK, why do we need Turkey to break our ships?
Hms invincible
- Thread starter ANDY123
- Start date
Csail
N/A
Cost.Don't understand why though....must cost loads to drop the ship there.
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
There was a plan to build a massive dismantling facility somewhere on the east coast but the greens blocked it.
Bru
Well-Known Member
there is a major ship breaking and recycling facility at Hartlepool run by Able UK (which is probable the company the earlier post was referring to) - Able had all sorts of grief with Friends of the Earth over getting this facility up and running (not, as the media often misreported, with Greenpeace who were broadly supportive of the proposals seeing them as the lesser of two evils compared to ships being smashed up on a beach in the Far East) but they persisted and got there in the end (although I believe the original contract that started the ball rolling, dealing with vessels from the USN "ghost fleet" fell through due to the objections and delays)
Able dismantled the French aircraft carrier Le Clemenceau in 2009/2010 so would have the capabilty to deal with Invincible. Presumably they either haven't got the capacity in their schedule or were too expensive
Able dismantled the French aircraft carrier Le Clemenceau in 2009/2010 so would have the capabilty to deal with Invincible. Presumably they either haven't got the capacity in their schedule or were too expensive
Poignard
Well-Known Member
I remember seeing a programme about that on TV. It was pretty horrendous. Men working in flip-flops and amputees hanging around the place. Oil and asbestos everywhere.
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I was thinking of, I saw a thing not long ago that was about their difficulties, I didn't realise they'd managed to get going in the end.
Seajet
...
Actually there was a major ship-breaking enterprise at Craig Ryan, ( sp ?) near Stranraer,well along to the North East of the loch compared to where the ferries for Ireland come & go.
The old conventional fixed wing ( as opposed to VSTOL Harriers ) Ark Royal was scrapped there, the pub/ hotel near Sandhead nearby Luce Bay - still a target area - has the ship's 'flooding diagram' for engineers to follow as a guide if the **** hit the fan as a souvenir wall display.
Re. scrapping A, Harriers, B, Ark Royal & in effect Illustrious, please pass me a rifle if Cameron & co wander across my sights, and if anyone gives me that BS about 'necessary after the last lot' I'll ask why bankers are being rewarded; as I fire !
The old conventional fixed wing ( as opposed to VSTOL Harriers ) Ark Royal was scrapped there, the pub/ hotel near Sandhead nearby Luce Bay - still a target area - has the ship's 'flooding diagram' for engineers to follow as a guide if the **** hit the fan as a souvenir wall display.
Re. scrapping A, Harriers, B, Ark Royal & in effect Illustrious, please pass me a rifle if Cameron & co wander across my sights, and if anyone gives me that BS about 'necessary after the last lot' I'll ask why bankers are being rewarded; as I fire !
Last edited:
Bru
Well-Known Member
Actually, neither did I until I checked up before posting to make sure I got my facts straight! (For once
)I for one am pleased they did in the end - although I'd rather see ships being built in the North East again rather than taken apart
photodog
Lord High Commander of Upper Broughton and Gunthor
errr... it doesnt work like that... the ship was disposed of by auction to the highest bidder.... they then decide on how to recylce her... So the MOD has no say on how the ship is disposed of.
Last edited:
cliff
Well-Known Member
Cairn Ryan for the english or Càrn Rìoghain for the locals.
Seajet
...
Cliff,
thanks, I remembered about the same time as you posted !
I recall there were some interesting wrecks of small boats, and a good place for smoked salmon, just along the shore North from the scrapyard.
The hotel / pub with the previous Ark Royal's flooding plan ( I'm talking of 1989-92 ish ) is the Torrs Warren at Sandhead, it was well run but with shared ( very good ) facilities, so we on Harrier trials at the nearby West Freugh Test Range usually tried to stay at the Crown Hotel, Portpatrick, incidentally the best place I've ever stayed in, including supposedly 'posher' hotels at much higher prices.
Clemencau was shuffled around like the proverbial hot potato for a fair while, as she had nasty things like asbestos etc, I suspect Invincible may be the same.
It should be remembered that before the Argentinians blundered into view and saved Thatcher's political arse, she was all for selling Invincible to Australia; a few months later and history would have taken a very different turn.
Now why am I sensing deja vu, on seeing a true plank of a PM effectively binning the Harriers, Carriers and Fleet Air Arm ?!
The same thing happened just before about every major conflict of the last century, including a little thing known by some as World War 2...
Still as long as our bankers are cosy, we can say goodbye to ships like Invincible and the men who built and operated her so well...
A book worth reading is ' Sea Harrier Over The Falklands' by Sharkey Ward, the top fighter pilot of the conflict whose squadron was based on Invincible; not a chap to mince words, but generally spot on !
There is a thread about Invincible's last voyage on the aviation website www.Pprune.org; 'Military Aircrew' section,
- ( Pro Pilots Rumour Network ) like here it's free to view, and to join if one has reason.
If really suffering insomnia and interested in those times, try www.Harrier.org.uk/history, scroll down to 'Harrier Testing' by yours truly. There are some minor errors in detail and grammar by the editor and self, hopefully put right in a forthcoming book on the Harrier by Tim McLelland.
Enough of all that; Invincible deserves a proper farewell with a flypast by the RN Historic Flight; Oh, but they haven't got a Sea Harrier, as the Admiralty couldn't bear the embarassment of binning the best naval fighter in Europe if not the world - what was that ratio of ships to admirals again ?!
She would normally have been saluted by serving warships on her way out of Portsmouth, but that would also be a reflection on the current Admiralty and 'Government'...
thanks, I remembered about the same time as you posted !
I recall there were some interesting wrecks of small boats, and a good place for smoked salmon, just along the shore North from the scrapyard.
The hotel / pub with the previous Ark Royal's flooding plan ( I'm talking of 1989-92 ish ) is the Torrs Warren at Sandhead, it was well run but with shared ( very good ) facilities, so we on Harrier trials at the nearby West Freugh Test Range usually tried to stay at the Crown Hotel, Portpatrick, incidentally the best place I've ever stayed in, including supposedly 'posher' hotels at much higher prices.
Clemencau was shuffled around like the proverbial hot potato for a fair while, as she had nasty things like asbestos etc, I suspect Invincible may be the same.
It should be remembered that before the Argentinians blundered into view and saved Thatcher's political arse, she was all for selling Invincible to Australia; a few months later and history would have taken a very different turn.
Now why am I sensing deja vu, on seeing a true plank of a PM effectively binning the Harriers, Carriers and Fleet Air Arm ?!
The same thing happened just before about every major conflict of the last century, including a little thing known by some as World War 2...
Still as long as our bankers are cosy, we can say goodbye to ships like Invincible and the men who built and operated her so well...
A book worth reading is ' Sea Harrier Over The Falklands' by Sharkey Ward, the top fighter pilot of the conflict whose squadron was based on Invincible; not a chap to mince words, but generally spot on !
There is a thread about Invincible's last voyage on the aviation website www.Pprune.org; 'Military Aircrew' section,
- ( Pro Pilots Rumour Network ) like here it's free to view, and to join if one has reason.
If really suffering insomnia and interested in those times, try www.Harrier.org.uk/history, scroll down to 'Harrier Testing' by yours truly. There are some minor errors in detail and grammar by the editor and self, hopefully put right in a forthcoming book on the Harrier by Tim McLelland.
Enough of all that; Invincible deserves a proper farewell with a flypast by the RN Historic Flight; Oh, but they haven't got a Sea Harrier, as the Admiralty couldn't bear the embarassment of binning the best naval fighter in Europe if not the world - what was that ratio of ships to admirals again ?!
She would normally have been saluted by serving warships on her way out of Portsmouth, but that would also be a reflection on the current Admiralty and 'Government'...
Last edited:
Bosun Higgs
N/A
Bankers do something useful - most of the time.
And their sector pays much the largest tax contribution towards running the military - they earn , you spend.In the end, military power comes from a powerful economy - you cant have the former without the latter. And the fact that we were reduced to one small aircraft carrier flying slow and obsolete aircraft reflects what the economy could then support. Now we cant afford one at all.
Good. As far as I am aware, the Germans dont have one. Neither do the Italians. Nor the Spanish. Only the French who have the same problem with past glories that we have.
alant
Well-Known Member
Giants Grave
When I was a kid, a place at the entrance to the Neath River (near Briton ferry), was always pointed out when on bus trips - look there's Giants Grave.
Nearby, there was a long hillock & I assumed that it was some ancient burial site - hence Giants Grave.
Only later did I realise it was the sad last resting place of countless merchant ships - a breakers yard!
long gone I think.
When I was a kid, a place at the entrance to the Neath River (near Briton ferry), was always pointed out when on bus trips - look there's Giants Grave.
Nearby, there was a long hillock & I assumed that it was some ancient burial site - hence Giants Grave.
Only later did I realise it was the sad last resting place of countless merchant ships - a breakers yard!
long gone I think.
sarabande
Well-Known Member
the Italians do have two carriers - Guiseppi Garibaldi, and Andrea Doria.
GG has room for 8 Harriers - now there's a surprise.
EDIT Spain has 1, 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_de_Asturias_(R11)
GG has room for 8 Harriers - now there's a surprise.
EDIT Spain has 1, 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principe_de_Asturias_(R11)
Last edited:
ANDY123
Well-Known Member
There goes the bankers......getting it wrong......again!
Seajet
...
Bankers do something useful - most of the time.
In the end, military power comes from a powerful economy - you cant have the former without the latter. And the fact that we were reduced to one small aircraft carrier flying slow and obsolete aircraft reflects what the economy could then support. Now we cant afford one at all.
Good. As far as I am aware, the Germans dont have one. Neither do the Italians. Nor the Spanish. Only the French who have the same problem with past glories that we have.
A good example of what common sense is up against !!!
Actually the Spanish and Italians have aircraft carriers, equipped with the Harrier 2+ , which while not as good a fleet defence fighter as the all - British Sea Harrier FA2 - as it eventually got called, with a weapon range of shall we say 'over 40 miles', is very well able to see off the guys in black hats and drop precision guided bombs on their chums.
Incidentally it has recently been mentioned by people a lot more qualified than me that having Ark Royal and Harriers would be more efective for a great deal less money - the current GR9's would be ideal- would be MUCH cheaper and more effective than the current 'face-saving' method of using Tornados.
Basing Tornados in italy is a hugely expensive pain, try 'Military Aircrew, Libya NFZ ' at www.pprune.org ( pro pilots rumour network, free to read as here )
Having the air-to-air-combat Typhoons along is nothing but a PR / sales stunt ( 'combat proven' is apparently a good line even if there was no opposition ! ).
I could go on and mention that in supposedly less civilised times Cameron & co would be hung as traitors to their country.
Then what do I know, I was only on the Harrier & Hawk development teams.
Last edited:
xxyyzz
Well-Known Member
Incidentally I saw in a plane mag the other day, there is some suggestion that a Naval version of the Typhoon could be built that could take off from the QE class carriers with the addition of a ski-jump.
Claimed the power to weight ratio was enough to do without catapult launch, and that modifying the frame for arrester gear was relatively inexpensive...
Claimed the power to weight ratio was enough to do without catapult launch, and that modifying the frame for arrester gear was relatively inexpensive...
Seajet
...
The naval version of the Europhoon has been mooted for years, and is not going to happen as the undercarriage is not designed for the huge loadings of carrier landings.
The take-off is relatively straightforward, a mild ski-ramp gives the thing sufficient ballistic energy upwards; the Russians have done this for years with Mig-29's, and are now proposing Mig-29M's to the Indian Navy - who are busy building carriers, including at least one nuclear powered job.
Recovering aircraft, especially if they are carrying unexpended weapons and in a hot climate where jet engines are at their lowest peformance, is the real challenge; when I was last involved, AMRAAM state of the art air-to-air missliles were a million a piece, and there are other problems for the hapless pilot if he has to jettison them to land...
The Harrier had the same 'bring-back' penalty, but could usually get over it; and as regards recovering onto a carrier, the phrase
" better to stop, then land " wasn't invented for nothing - when Test Pilot Bill Bedford conducted the first harrier landing on a ship, the RN chap in charge said " what impressed me most was the complete absence of fright on the faces of the spectators ! "
Below, Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 in the hover before coming to a landing, in this case carrying just 190 gallon fuel drop tanks ( jettisonable in combat ) and empty LAU-7 Sidewinder AIM 9L missile launcher rails; the best carrier fighter yet produced, with Blue Vixen long range radar and AMRAAM long range missiles, a book very worth reading is 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands' by Sharkey Ward. Not my photo.
The take-off is relatively straightforward, a mild ski-ramp gives the thing sufficient ballistic energy upwards; the Russians have done this for years with Mig-29's, and are now proposing Mig-29M's to the Indian Navy - who are busy building carriers, including at least one nuclear powered job.
Recovering aircraft, especially if they are carrying unexpended weapons and in a hot climate where jet engines are at their lowest peformance, is the real challenge; when I was last involved, AMRAAM state of the art air-to-air missliles were a million a piece, and there are other problems for the hapless pilot if he has to jettison them to land...
The Harrier had the same 'bring-back' penalty, but could usually get over it; and as regards recovering onto a carrier, the phrase
" better to stop, then land " wasn't invented for nothing - when Test Pilot Bill Bedford conducted the first harrier landing on a ship, the RN chap in charge said " what impressed me most was the complete absence of fright on the faces of the spectators ! "
Below, Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 in the hover before coming to a landing, in this case carrying just 190 gallon fuel drop tanks ( jettisonable in combat ) and empty LAU-7 Sidewinder AIM 9L missile launcher rails; the best carrier fighter yet produced, with Blue Vixen long range radar and AMRAAM long range missiles, a book very worth reading is 'Sea Harrier Over The Falklands' by Sharkey Ward. Not my photo.
Last edited:
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Sorry but it was that awfully stupid man, my MP Gordon that got rid of the harriers and particularly the FA2.
PS I can remeber when we had real carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers.
It was old Labour that sold them down the river, a lot of my mates had to recat from fast jet to something else.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
In reality the Disposals Agency does specify how things sould be recycled , and the dismantler has to report and prove what has been recycled and how they have done it.
The Turks will have contracted to do the breaking up in an environmentally sound way and maximise the ammount of the ship that is recycled. Not only that they will have to report how they have done it and what they have achieved.
