HMS Victorious - Was Her Rebuild Worth It?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- The rebuild of HMS Victorious was a long and drawn out process. One that suffered multiple fits and starts, ending up far more expensive than intended. The ship that came out was a capable one, yes, but not as capable as hoped. And a ship that would, in the end, only see about a decade of further service.
Even so, one can hardly argue that she was a waste of time. Her service was good and she paved the way for a lot of tricks and tactics the Royal Navy would use in the Cold War. That's not a bad legacy to have.
Served on her mid 60's when a Singapore based ship as part of Far East Fleet. Very modern 2 deck and above but very pre 1938 down below. We carried Sea Vixen Mark 1 and the fabulous Buccaneer Mark 1 at the time. A very potent ship. Fly Navy!
Her next (and last) deployment saw the introduction of the far superior Mark 2
Buccaneer which continued in service
into the 90's
Have you any contact with new HMS QE or HMS POW ships?
I knew a former RN seaman who served on her and stated that the RN wanted to sell her to the RAN as a replacement for the HMAS Melbourne. He had pictures of A4 Skyhawks landing and taking off from HMS Victorious. He came to Australia on her, and Victorious delivered a Fairey Gannet for transfer to the RAN, He loved Australia so much, he discharged when he arrived back in the UK. And moved to Australia. He had so any pictures of Victorious, HMS Eagle, Illustrious and HMS Perseus.
@@dorahyeireann256
It was HMS Hermes which the UK offered to sell (being too small for F-4 Phantom operation) although Victorious too cross-decked Skyhawks during her post-rebuild career
@@dorahyeireann256 yes this is true I have read this in a naval magazine regarding Victorious possible sale to Australia which would have permitted SKYHAWKS to operate with full combat loads from the flight deck
I served on the Victorious 1959/62. The happiest period of my RN 25yrs service. it was a happy and efficient ship. Our presence off the coast of Zanzibar with a low level flyover of our aircraft resulted in the first attempted coup collapsing. Great memories.
It's great to get first hand accounts in the comments to what are in effect second or third source videos. If I'd made it I'd be talking to guys like you and incorporating primary source material. Great vid like.
My Dad was a CPO on Victorious during that period
Served last commission baby stoker
Served on The Mighty Vic 1966/67 I’d previously served on Ark Royal 1963/64 a truly unhappy ship, so I was dreading going to another carrier. I shouldn’t have worried The Vic was without doubt the best ship I served on. I went on to serve another 24 yrs in the RN. I agree with the comments re below 2 deck in the machinery spaces she was a museum and DC to boot, lots of work to keep that going. An old Greenie
It's great to get first hand accounts in the comments to what are in effect second or third source videos. If I'd made it I'd be talking to guys like you and incorporating primary source material. Great vid like.
I've always had a down on the Ark Royal considering the blatantly political decision to replace the far more effective Eagle with a ship littered with 'fitted for but not with' to save money.
Eagle proved that she could operate Phantoms. It would have been far cheaper to make the permanent mods to her to give her the full capability.
What did the Ark Royal have that was 'better'? A couple of bridle catchers?
@@cowbanchalam9725 Ark was my first ship out of training and I wondered what I’d done. The crew had just been East of Suez in 62 and because of the govt 2 carrier policy was about to do another tour. Hammocks, no air con ,overcrowded messdecks and a demoralised crew many of whom would lose their relationships during this 2nd spell in the tropics. We soon went on water rationing most suffered from sweat rash, Chinese toe rot you name it, the greenies mess average a warrant a month
Happy days!
Interesting video about an interesting subject. I guess building a brand new ship might have been more effective in the long run. Interesting to read the comments from men who actually served and who distinguish between happy and unhappy ships. This is obviously important although it’s not something you’d necessarily read about in the usual histories!
It was major increase in cost when they decided to replace her engines AFTER they had laid down the hanger and flight deck. The better choice would have been to rebuild HMS Implacable and Indefatigable merging her two hangers providing a 21 foot clear height and an additional deck under or above the hanger. They were the newest, though they had been used as training carriers into 1950. These two carriers were also slightly larger. Another cost increase came from the Type 984 and the CDS being adopted. The USN was impressed by the Type 984 radar, though less was the CDS, when HMS Victorious was involved in an exercise off the US coast on her first service deployment.
My dad served 27 years in the RN as a shipwright eventually being a Chief Shipwright. He was involved in her rebuilding phase. The crew adored her first skipper- Sam Cooke and there was a near mutiny when he was to be replaced. The Admiralty agreed to let Captain Cooke remain In charge until his retirement.
The only photographs that I have of ships that Dad served on in all those years are of Victorious- a lovely looking ship served from top to bottom by a first rate bunch of crew.
The modifiedEssex Class carriers operated way more than 50 aircraft. The ships refit as CVAs could operate only slightly less aircraft than the did in WWII. The final cruise of Oriskany in 1975 saw her airgroup consist of 24 F8, 36 A7 and a combination 10 SH3, E1 and F8 recce aircraft.
Don't US carriers keep the majority of their aircraft on the flight deck rather than in the hangar?
@@cowbanchalam9725 This isn't *as* true after the second world war as they no longer cover the deck but merely frame the edges, but it is true that ANY being kept on deck is unusual compared to other naval forces with flat tops. 70+ jets sounds a bit high for an Essex post-Skyhawk, though. I could see it WITH the tiny scooter? But not without, everything else we used in that era was considerably larger. Do remember the A4 was so petite it didn't even have wing folds. I seem to recall my dad (Randolph, '59-'61) saying they could fit like two and a half in the space it took to fit one Skyraider? Cannot confirm though.
As David Brown and Norman Friedman both pointed out, with a little foresight, instead of completing light carriers for imperial policing on the cheap, the RN should have scrapped the Eagle and Ark Royal on the stocks and used what materials that could be recovered to conduct a long term completion of the three "Malta" class carriers, which were more or less equivalent to the USN's "Midway" class carriers. They could have been completed with angled decks and steam catapults supported by the new machinery using the operating pressures and temperatures the USN had introduced back in 1937. They then could have scrapped all the left over "armored" carriers from WW2. And they should have put a hard sell on the "Hermes" class light carriers in place of the "Majestic" and "Colossus" classes. One to the RAN, one to the RCN, one to the RNethN, all completed in the mid-50's which would have them serve as CVS into the 1980s or even 1990s.
A fair assessment, but I think that her east of Suez deployments represented very good value for money as a deterrent, which is always cheaper than war. Particularly of note in the Malaya-Indonesia stand-off where her air group was likely more potent than the airforce of either wouldbe combatant. Furthermore, the completion of Hermes, virtually obselete as a carrier by first commission and the money pit that was Ark Royal both represent much bigger and more avoidable bungling.
You took the words right out of my mouth!. She was a Beautiful ship!, I had a Airfax model of her. The next best!, The Midway CV-41, and the Coral Sea CV-43 !. And the HMS Ark Royal R 05, and her sister HMS Eagle!.
I've been looking forward to this one 👍
I love this bro!! Thank you for taking the trouble of telling the story. This ship was my Dad's favourite and last ship. This means so much to me. You are a star, brother xx
She's beautiful ❤️
Thanks for this.. I been on 3 aircraft carriers that visited NZ when I was younger.. I think we have a predisposition for being interested in this sort of thing as boys get older their toys get bigger!.. thanks mate 👍🇳🇿
Toured this ship in the early '60s, along w/ her escorts: Lots of square turrets, big lighthouse radars, & a completely different take on smartness versus the USN. Due 2 excitment & flightdeck heat in NY harbor, i got a bloody nose & a rating escorted me down 2 a head, 2 square myself away. Here he curteously left me solo, so i took the opportunity 2 catch a peek @ the engineroom, which i had then assumed 2 have been put 2 work chasing the Bismarck (a new space dominated by sea green finish). The ease of getting about suggested her rather small size, but the visit was a great honor (thanx, Pa)
Seeing photos of HMS Victorious always make me think she has had a fairly close profile to the modern French carrier charles de gaulle
Awesome to hear your feelings on the Saratoga. My father served on her in the 70s
And all the while paying back the Americans for lend-lease in WWII right up to 2008. Britain was financially punished for saving the World between 1939-42 and has never recovered after another costly adventure into the EEC which again cost them dearly.
Fully agree plus they weren’t IN the war like the UK, just involved as they didn’t have bombs raining down on them plus how much should they have paid for the Tizard Trunk technology?
@StewartWalker-hy1eo bro, you act like we didn't 1v1 the Japanese for the majority of the war L take
served in her in 1964/65. in broad terms, her conversion was probably appropriate for a whole host of reasons for which you could not attribute a financial value! However, one has to question the original configuration which gave her one rudder, two starboard screws and one port screw, which promoted tremendous vibration at speeds required for launch and recovery of aircraft. The asymmetric pressures on the rudder required regular dry-docking to replace rudder bushes. Having said that, I can endorse other opinions here, that she was a happy ship and I will always remember Tug Wilson running a series of cartoons featuring a stoker and the angel from the ship's badge (the normal front page plate got broken!) - a brilliant FDO and super carotonist, whose work on restaurant napkins was framed and featured in a number of places!
I’m with you in alll that! Served 1964/65. That Tug Wilson series so funny!
Many thanks.
My joint favourite carrier along with Eagle, the other RN rebuild.
Was hoping for different pictures of the rebuild. Funny how there's only the couple you showed 'out there' considering how long she was in rebuild.
'Have oft times wondered if the cut-downs in British military strength was underhandedly directed by Soviet sleepers given the communist infiltration of the British secret services. After all a soviet spy was a respected art expert who had royal patronage.
🤦♂️😆
I used to live next to an old navy veteran whi served on USS midway. He told me about doing joint naval exercises with the RN not long after Victorious was rebuilt and he sais when he saw her he was jealous of how beautifully built she was. The RN definitely did build some good looking ships. 3 of my top 5 favorite naval vessels are British
One thing she had going for her was that monstrous Type 984 early warning Radar which had an enormous range for the time due to brute force basically, which was too heavy for anything smaller than a carrier. That thing on her bridge that looks like a giant searchlight
My Grandad served on this ship from 1941. He was part of the crew that helped take down the Bismarck and other important missions. He was commissioned to join the USA on this ship also and fraught against Japan. 80 years of the Battle of the Atlantic and I have never been more prouder of him and the men and women alike who gave their lives.
He also went to Pearl Harbour for the refit
I always have thought that the RN should have brought the Implacables in first, they were larger, had one more boilers and 4 shafts as opposed to three, having been commissioned in 1944 they had not done many miles. With the double hanger there was the opportunity to convert to a single hanger etc. The only down side is that most likely not all the technological improvements eventually put on Victorious would have been available at the end of the rebuild for the first one as replacing the boilers added quite a time. Just my thoughts
I have always thought the exact same thing. And since they were doing re-construction there would have been the opportunity to move the entire island backwards and install two deck-edge elevators starboard forward and one more deck-edge elevator port side just behind the angled deck. IMHO.
They were looking to do Implacable. Then it became clear how much it would cost. Game over.
@@MattVF not sure I understand, do you mean the cost of her conversion after Victorious or as a first to go through the process?
They started on Victorious and realised that the costs were already spiralling. It became very clear reasonably early on that it would be crazy to refit Implacable ,especially with the treasury breathing down the RN necks (and this before the 1957 “Sandys Axe” Remember it took 7 years to complete the refit. Even if it had taken 5 years that would still mean that Implacable wouldn’t have been started till 1956/7 and even they had learned lessons your probably looking at a 3 year refit. So your looking at best at 1960 for completion. In 1966 the RN are looking to procure CVA-01 to replace Ark Royal,Eagle and Victorious.
I would argue that Implacables only chance was if she had commenced refit at the same time as Victorious.
Also bear in mind that Victorious was effectively a pre war build with good steel. Implacable was war built with the steel to match.
@@MattVF sorry my point was that if they had not started on Victorious, instead one of the larger Implacables, there was a chance that the whole process would have been quicker and thus cheaper, possibly giving the opportunity for both to be done. To be brought to the standard that Victorious and Eagle got to it might have had to have had a second go, the rate of change in technology.... All academic anyway.
She was a Prestige ship for the UK. The UK was in serious financial woes and needed a way too be placed well upon Super Power status. For the British that meant CV's,Subs,Nukes and Bombers but on a Shoe string budget. Capable vessels however ridiculously expensive too field in service.
My first ship, a happy ship and a great way to start my service in the RN
My first carrier as a Naval Airman, next was HMS Albion as a Leading Airman Far East, Great ship then after a few year HMS Hermes as a Petty Officer, very modern compared to Vic and Albion but known as the Happy H was a true reflection of life onboard.
Angled deck carriers; another RN invention, along with many other carrier innovations...
Good video, and a very pretty ship.
I wonder what would have happened if the ship wasn’t decommissioned/had a fire, would be super cool to see her operate the Phantom!
'Rebuilds' come out of a different budget to 'new builds'. It was probably a political decision to 'rebuild' her, not a decision based on practicality. .
Ok. There is a degree of politics. If your are the chancellor you see your fleet is 10 years old. You also have to rebuild the merchant marine. You also have extremely rapid progress in aviation and carrier development.
What started off as cost effective was ended up costing more than new construction.
If you want a real example of RN crazy expenditure look at HMS Tiger and Blake. Crazy money spent on two ships that could have kept HMS Eagle in service till the early 80’s.
Victorious was costly but useful. I’d argue that the Tigers were a far more unforgivable exercise.
And Victorious should have been preserved. Beautiful ship (imho one of the best looking the RN ever had) and pedigree. Britain being Britain it never happened
Remember the Royal Navy rebuilt the Queen Elizabeth's in the inter war era so there was some precedents for this. What hit the Victorious was scope creep plus rapid technological change - jet aircraft, angled flight deck, new catapults ...etc. then there was the fire...!
USS Midway was refitted in a similar manner but was found to be too expensive. Coral Sea never received a full modification and the FDR was scrapped rather than receive her modification
I went aboard Hermes and Victorious in Aden in 1964-5 for a visit with my Dad who was in the RAF at the time.
Would have been useful in the Falklands War. Perhaps she could have been kept going instead of HMS Bulwark and fulfilled some of her Commando Carrier roles
My Dad was a PO Electrician on Victorious (up to 67 I Believe - sadly hes no longer with us) and he always said it was his favorite ship ( unlike HMS Grafton (F51) which he detested :) )
Awesome video
Would have been cheaper for Britain to buy a non modernized Essex and go from there. But, since the end of WW2, the British Royal Navy has lacked serious funding and training in carrier operations as was high lighted in the Falkland's campaign of the late 80's
Weren’t there plans to do that?
To be fair, this is how the British Government and civil servants in MOD and Treasury work: Ineptly and alway under estimating true cost. As always, it's the RN and our other Armed Services that suffer.
Excellent video, thank you. I would say worth it but the way politicians didn't listen to the Navy made the cost horrendous.
Very interesting! This ship got, what I have often felt should have been done to other ships. Was it worth it? Size and budget really matter. Her size was too small, only the budget was smaller. Given shrinking budgets? Without this rebuild? It's likely that the Royal Navy would have been left with out her, and perhaps the fleet aircraft carrier, would have become like the battleship. Just another part of the Royal Navy's fondly remembered history. One wonders what the result would have been. Had the funds wasted on Vanguard been invested in Aircraft carriers instead. Perhaps the US Navy could have been persuaded to sell a surplus Essex class carrier. The primary problem with small carriers, is their small size. Just because a larger aircraft, like an F-4 Phantom lands onboard. Doesn't mean that she has sufficient space for an effective airwing onboard.
As the United States Navy has learned. The airwing defines the carrier. If it's the other way around? Then the cost vs benefits ratio starts moving into the not worth it direction. Nimitz and her sisters, have more than proven their worth in service.
When they actually see Naval warfare the truth of size will come to light as a major mistake.
Making them larger was just so it was easier for the pilots to land but the vessels are much easier targets for the enemy and powering them with Nuclear Reactors is also a major mistake as it’s great in peacetime but not warfare
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo Size doesn't matter? Lol! The US Navy's aircraft carriers are designed for the airwing. Lots of things have changed since WW-II. It was the optimal airwing size, that was determined in war. As a US Navy veteran who served aboard USS Ranger CV-61. I understand carrier operations quite well. During the Falklands war, Argentina's aircraft carrier was too small, and too slow, to effectively deploy its aircraft. The US Navy CVNs grossly outperformed their conventional carriers in service. More than that, is classified. As a mobile airfield, the combat effectiveness of any aircraft carrier is determined by its aircraft. The optimal mix of aircraft deployed. In naval warfare. A 30,000 ton ship isn't significantly more difficult to hit, than 100,000 ton ship. But the larger ship is substantially more survivable, seaworthy, and far less vulnerable to heavy weather.
CV-63, CV-64, and CVN-65, were all improved variants of the Forrestal class carriers. Enterprise cost so much more to build? The next two carriers CV-66 and CV-67 were not nuclear powered. CVN-65 was retired years after these newer ships. As she routinely greatly outperformed them in service. So CVN-68, and CVN-69 were built. USS Nimitz and USS Eisenhower quickly proved themselves in service, while the politicians debated. Too many years passed before CVN-70, was laid down.
Recent SINKEX tests with the decommissioned CV-66. showed that rusty old ship, to be far more survivable than expected. Or perhaps the weapons used, were far less effective than expected. Which ever, CV-66 was scuttled instead of sunk. As for nuclear power? Any one who thinks that nuclear technology will not be part of the next major war? Isn't thinking in realistic terms. However popular the no nukes, movement may be.
If today's Navy is defeated at sea? It will be caused by poor leadership, wokeism and poor airwing composition. Todays airwing has far too many "multirole" fighers. However budget friendly that may be?:Such fighters have no long range strike capability, no long range interception capability, and no anti-submarine capabilities. These major factors are exacerbated by the relative lack of effective escorts to protect the carrier, and break up attacks, on the battle group. The Arleigh Burke class destroyers are good ships. But they are old designs, and there isn't enough of them. Additional both larger and smaller escorts are needed.
Like it or not? The aircraft carrier remains the best way to forward deploy short range combat aircraft to a remote location. Modern sea power is the aircraft carrier! Whether or not those carriers will belong to the US Navy, remains to be seen.
0:49 her rebuild was the most extensive rebuild done on a carrier.
USS Midway: Am I a joke to you?
Midway vs Vicky is an interesting one on rebuilds. Midway’s largely focused (other than corrective refits) on her aviation facilities. A vastly increased flight deck size and better elevators.
Vicky had changes made down to nearly the waterline, as well as being cut down completely to rebuild her hangar (possibly twice, sources conflict on how they swapped her powerplant). In addition to the new powerplant and catapults and superstructure.
It is, in the end, probably true that either can claim ‘most rebuilt carrier’ status in their own ways.
@@skyneahistory2306 Hey skynea, I have a request.
While Warspite gets a lot of attention, and rightfully so, I feel like the rest of the Queen Elizibeth class (besides QE herself) all had amazing careers, and don't get enough attention, besides maybe Barham but only because she sank. Malaya, Barham, and Valiant were all at Jutland, and I've only manage to find detailed accounts of Barham's actions in the battle on the Internet, so I've very interested to hear detailed breakdowns of Malaya and Valiant's action. Valiant helped to crippled the battleship Bretagne before Hood scored the kill shot and helped to sink the battleship Provence at the battle of Mirs El Kiber, Malaya exchanged fire with Conte De Cavour at Calabria and chased off the Scharnhorst twins on convoy hunting, while Barham duked it out with Richelieu at Dakar before she and Valiant both served at Cape Mattapan.
@@skyneahistory2306 Could we see you do a video on the Malta Class? I'm particularly interested to know what you think a modernised version of the class with an angled flight deck would look like.
That big dustbin radar was the most advanced of its type in the world.
Remember that WW2 bankrupted Great Britain. So, building a new ship was out of the question!
the should have taken every thing of value from germany as compensation.
Building a new ship might have been cheaper. The rebuild was part political nenuvering, so you could still say you were "marking no new ships" while achieving the same
@@dave8599Ruining Germany didn't work well after The Great War. Why would it be good after WWII?
@@j_taylor
nope - taking the foot off germanys throat , let it re-arm for WW2
WW1 reps were TOTALLY justified and in-scale LOWER than the reps the French had to pay for the Franco-Prussian war, Germany crashed its post-war ecomony by spending its forign currency reserves causin g the Mark's devaluation,
as a % of GDP the WW1 reps were totally payable
@@dave8599 If you ruin west-germany you will have to pick up the slack caused by less german troops being available on the continent. So more funding would have to go to the army of the rhine and less being available for the navy.
For clarification, it was the loss of the tea that killed the man, not the actual fire.
All sounds about right for the English government. Incidentally, don't forget that financial cost cutting, waste and mismanagement is the default.
Let's not forget the UK is the Country that needed a new National Library in the 1960's. The Government did the sensible thing and put it out to tender and went with the cheapest. Thirty years later after far exceeding the original budget (they had to replace the original shelves as they rusted, but were never used), it finally opened.
No, it got Vanguard scrapped.
Nerf CVs pls
WHY ARE YOU EVERYWHERE
The rebuild in modern inflation adjusted dollars was no doubt dirt cheap versus what it costs for ships today
Great vid Skynea! Well researched.
I served on HMS Ark Royal R 09 from 75 until about 1977 Victorious was laid up in Plymouth awaiting scrap in Rosyth. We took the ships boats several times to her to raid parts, I remember getting a PunkahLouvre because the one above my bunk was broken. The flight deck chaps took steam catapult parts to repair the Rusty Ark.
That was Eagle
@@stephenchappell7512. My mistake, Nostalgia is not what it used to be.
@@stevegrace2134
both had a 'Dustbin' so easily mistaken 😉
Everything that was wrong with GB after WW2 , 8 years in dock 🤦🏻♂️ we needed a kick up the ‘Jacksy’ !
When HMS Victorious was scrapped there was an article in "Navy News" which included the poem;
Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust
If the Navy don't want her
Gillette must.
She carried F4s yes, but they were the worst F4s built (especially when the RAF never got F4Es).
My Uncle went to the Gulf on her but before the F4s.
I think that “no” with benefit of the Mk1 retroscope the conversion shouldn’t have proceeded - and yes,the Admiralty and dockyard completely cocked it up. However….
Funds were exceptionally tight and the RN had a number of ships that were theoretically “young” on paper. If your going to the chancellor with a begging bowl it’s hard to say in 1949 that we need a brand new ship when you have 3 decent hulls in the water that are between 5 and 8 years old (Victorious and the Implacable’s). The Admiralty doesn’t do sentimentality,so that’s not a reason behind it.
Perhaps a better solution would have been to complete the third Audacious (the original Eagle) which had been in a position to be launched and completed rather than refit the Victorious. However she was scrapped on the slipway prior.
Probably the biggest issue was that the RN was in no way prepared mentally for going from its largest ever to being stripped to the bone. Just look at how much BISCO got its hands on in the late 40’s. All occurring within 5 years post war
Great ship, Bloody Terrible Government/MOD decision as usual !!!! 🤬
I often play Germany in the game Hearts of Iron: Doomsday. I always notice that England quickly sends Victorious to attack my Bismarck when it first starts destroying British convoys in the Atlantic and English channel. I have to try to intercept the British fleet with subs so that my planes have a lot of time to weaken them before I send in the Bismarck fleet. Otherwise Bismarck quickly takes damage and is destroyed half the time, no matter how many screening ships and other capital ships I have in addition to submarines and complete air superiority.
In hindsight surely just building a new ship to a new design would have been cheaper, more efficient, more capable and longer lasting. 8+ years laid up for 10 years use does seem rather pointless when a brand new vessel commissioned at the same time she re-emerged could very well have lived to see the Gulf War.
Remember, you are talking about a Govt which would insist on calling the later RN aircraft carriers, "Throughdeck Cruisers" just because they didn't like to admit scrapping carriers had been a mistake.
@@navydonald
To be fair the I class were designed as ASW cruisers, though I always thought it was the RN sticking with the term lest HMG get ideas again.
Final cost of 30 Mio. pounds...would that have been enough for another Audacious-class being completed? Of course that question involves hindsight as the rebuild wasn't supposed to be that expensive.
USS Midway modernization from 1966 cost 230M when Enterprise cost 500M new in 1960. Ford took about 8 years to build and 12 Billion.
3 years on in the rebuild, it's decided that the boiler's must be replaced ?
Very suspicious.
Also, a lack of qualified workers at the shipyard ?
🤔 Wonder what caused that.
Its hard to believe britain had these great carriers .
Where did the RN get all the people from? Now I read they struggle to man two carriers. How did they do ten plus other ships?
@@yahoo463 In wartime Britain had Conscription, today it's a volunteer force.
At end of war with Japan, great uncle wounded attacking convoy ‘knowing Japan had no aircraft carriers operating’…but Army converted their own even from Empty oil tankers like the aircraft shot him down from.
Almost no naval book, even ‘James’ mentions these wartime ‘conversions’ supposedly because under Army budget?
A plane ✈️ n your tail from a converted oil tanker is no less scary to me than from the most expensive super carrier. Doesn’t matter if it sunk easier later, damage done. Planes can land on new home.
An ill planned and executed rebuild for sure especially the "late" decision to change out the engineering plant. Also suffered for the correct decision to incorporate all the goodies being produced by a rapidly evolving technology. But, IMO she was a good result and gave the RN a very capable and thoroughly modern ship that admittedly was on the small side. At least one of her sisters should have been similarly rebuilt. I'll bet with the lessons learnt from Victorious it would have gone a lot quicker and cost a whole lot less. Victorious could have and should have been kept in service for decades longer than she was.
Regardless of size and age she was and would have remained a potent weapons platform. Buccaneer Mk2 and Phantom nuff said.
Good film!
It's sad that the royal navy couldn't modernize and keep most of their fleet in tact like we did in the US they had a great navy at the end of the war and just have been hit and hit and hit again by politics and other things to the point where they are a shadow of the navy that ruled the waves for the longest time
Didn't the R.N. rebuild the Lion class cruisers into hybrid helicopter carriers? I've read that they spent huge amounts of money to take 4 helicopters to sea.
Tiger and Blake rebuilt, but not Lion. Tiger and Blake just too far gone I believe by the time the Falklands war came around. The state of British ships laid up in reserve often appears to be little above than of scrap.
They should have stopped after Blake
If she had been around in 1982 she would have been far superior to Hermes although not as good as Ark Royal and Eagle
She was scheduled to serve until 1972
being replaced by CVA-01
following CVA-01's cancellation she was
instead scheduled to be replaced by
Ark Royal fresh out of a 5 year rebuild
The 67 sterling crisis changed all this
Ark Royal's rebuild was cut back to 3
years which meant many of her long
standing issues remained unresolved
+ as we know the Victorious too was
decommissioned following a minor fire
Talking of 82, the Eagle's refit completed
in 64 was meant to give her 20 more years
service so we should have had her at least
with her Phantoms/Buccaneers providing
I believe a far better deterrent possibly
deterring Argentina??
I think she was worth the rebuild,she gave good service before Healy and Wilson axed her. Would it have been better to scrap the Navys legacy carriers and build new?, yes. I still think Eagle and Ark Royal should have been built as well, but getting rid of the Illustrious and Implacable classes and selling on the Centaurs and Hermes and concentrating on a big five would have been better ( Although Albion and Bullwark and later Hermes did good work as comando carriers and Hermes wouldn't have been available for the Falklands campeign. Thing is the carrier crisis of the mid 1960's might still occur. Labour backed by the RAF wanted shot of them.. Wether the treasury would agree is another matter.
My favourite royal navy aircraft carrier
Admitted that it was a costly refit. Largely down to delays changes of minds and requirements, the a late stage decision to upgrade the power plant. However having learnt the lessons from this refit, later ships going through the process would have been cheaper and faster.
But with standard British political processes, usually resulting in military projects being cancelled at the last minute, what else can you expect?
The British economy and thus the Royal Navy was doomed by the government unfortunately. Britain could’ve operated many modernist fleet carriers during this time if funds had been available. I think the biggest issue with Victorious was ultimately still her size. The money might have been better spent finishing another audacious or possibly Malta class off. If the Navy could cut and modernise quick enough. Who knows maybe the funds could’ve gone the CVA-01 projects of the 1960s that were ultimately white papered.
Part 2! Good stuff
My dad served on Victorious
The should have re-built Indomitable or Indefatigable. They were slightly larger and definitely faster than Victorious.
You should do a story about the simaler fate and story on HMCS Bonivencher who underwent a similar situation
The Eagle was in a terrible state through looting parts for What carriers we had left. Bulwark Hermes and a Carrier at Chatham.
We do have to remember why the then British empire was so broke and that was down to the machinations of the USA in both WWI and WWII
General mismanagement, cost overruns, delays..... nothing changes.
What about HMAS SYDNEY and HMAS MELBOURNE, Australian carrier's.
Good they did it as she was needed but in terms of bang for buck they would have done better building a new ship, the British post war carrier force was run on a shoe string using what it had but in terms of value for money the British need would have been better met by the RN to have pursued a strategy which saw it start the 60s with something like 4 Clemenceau class carriers leveraged with 4 through deck cruisers based on the County Class destroyer to take helicopter operations away from using scarce carrier capability. This would have given the RN capability it needed for its role in the last 30 years of the Cold War and after to the end of the 20th Century, whereas what it got was as demonstrated in the Falklands and 1st Gulf War incapable of meeting the needs.
Britain should have continued with the Maltas with the plan to decommission all other fleet carriers once they were in service.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
@@stephenchappell7512 it is, but the lessons were there from cancelling the Admiral class at the end of the Great War.
Labour government pro USSR. Need I say more. VICTORIOUs was a great upgrade and a perfect blueprint for a new carrier+20%size.radar on her,hermes and eagle waaay ahead of its time. Only shortfall was lemgth and reduced efficiency of both bow steam catapults.
Acknowledged as short pre commissioning.
Thatcher was as anti-communist as they come and still felt she needed to reduce spending on the armed forces in 1981 because the money wasn't there. Today considered a major mistake, contributing to Argentinias decision to invade the Falklands.
@@gildor8866
Indeed and her Labour predecessor
deterred Argentina with a show of
force in 77 (Operation Journeyman)
Muppet right winger with no clue.
Something very suspicious about this. One doesn't boil a teapot..I suggest you mean kettle ?
How the Victorious compares with the Clemenceau ?
We are even worse today in no actual decision makers being identified and held responsible. This only r encourages more not less waste.
Remember ‘too big to fail’ the death nell to American middle class?
No accountability, no responsibility.
I think she was offered to Australia’s navy but the RAN preferred to upgrade Melbourne instead because victorious was considered an old WW2 ship.
You are correct Lindsay. I made this comment earlier in this post. But, The Australian government didn't see the value of aircraft carriers and the Fleet air arm was always underappreciated, by successive governments. Culminating in 1983 and the Hawke government under Gordon Scoles along with Kim Beazley who absolutely decimated the Australian defence forces.
HMS Hermes was offered and the Australians flew Skyhawks and trackers off of Hermes. They turned it down because they thought Hermes was too much. They should have bought an Invincible class carrier, but then falklands war and all
@@dorahyeireann256 I don’t think this will happen or offer much for the RAN, but F-35Bs off the Canberras would be hella cool
@@IohannesCR before the Falklands war, I think it was 1980 or 1981, the RAN sent an inspection team and apparently weren’t totally impressed and I think that is why their preferred option was a modified Iwo Jima LPH with gas turbines, ski jump, Mk13 missile launcher and two Mk15 CIWS. They even set up an office with the intention of going down this road but then the UK defence cuts came about with Invincible being offered for sale.
She would go to the Canadians I think.
This is a typical British way of doing things. I remember when they took HMS eagle out of service. She was in far far better condition and much more modern than HMS Ark Royal, which was falling apart, but they kept the royal till 1978 and scrapped eagle would’ve still been serving during the Falklands war had she gone through the refit she was supposed to get given us fixed when aircraft, the government has done this for decades supposedly saving money but actually in the long run costing us much more money when they suddenly realize they’ve made a mistake. Cameron is a prime person for this scrap the lustrous 289,000,000 pound refit with less than a year service on it and then sold all the Harriers to the Americans who broke them up for spare parts the same Harriers that could’ve been flying off the decks of Wales and Queen Elizabeth while they get up to speed with the number of 35s that they need which they will never achieve because lustrous is a prime example of what happens when you rely on a government to look after people our defense is a shambles and we would probably last a week in a real warsoldiers not enough Navy not enough aircraft when you consider at the end of the Cold War we had 18 fighter quadrants and now we can just about six
I am ANGRY and I am RANTING!!! There I didn't want to disappoint you hehehehehehe
Was she similar to Ark Royal and Eagle?
That is a classic case of throwing good money after bad money
With it's glorious history, it's an absolute national disgrace that more RN Warships haven't been kept for posterity! Just my opinion, but WW2 carriers are better looking than the new ones!!
It would have been cheaper to build a Malta class carrier
Any info on that funky radar she sported?
It was a Sea-Slug guidance radar. The original Batch 1 County class didn't carry their own guidance radar for their Sea-Slug SAMs so Victorious, Ark Royal or Eagle and Hermes originally received a radar, however, the Batch 2 County class received their own
No it wasn’t .(seaslug radar)
Victorious’s 984 was a 3D S band radar. Seaslug used 901 which is X band. Also 901 used parabolic reflectors and 984 did not. Finally Seaslug was a beam rider 901 used 3 beams for Seaslug as guidance.
984 with its intergrated CDS was one of the best systems of its day.
It was known as a 3D or 'Dustbin'
British engineering on British engineering
So typically British to do a cost-cutting measure and spend as much on doing that as they would have building an entirely new carrier (which would have been FAR more useful and longer lived than a rebuilt Victorious was).
It frustrates me no end that time and again, these decisions are made (I think in Government), it goes horrendously wrong AND WE NEVER LEARN.
the effort and money spent was worth it,the problem was the pro soviet labour government
Did you now I’ve never heard off her and am ex and English
GB, a country that still thinks that they are a world power but is at best a normal country.
The government neglected the RN for decades. Now they're trying to make up for past mistakes. The RN needs numbers but the government won't provide what's needed.
I rant against the title.