Audacious class - Guide 245
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- The Audacious class carriers of the Royal Navy, are today's subject.
Read more about the ships here:
www.amazon.co.uk/British-Aircraft-Carriers-Development-Histories/dp/1848321384
www.amazon.co.uk/Nelson-Vanguard-Development-1923-1945-Distinguished-ebook/dp/B00L1E1V3O
www.amazon.co.uk/British-Carrier-Aviation-Evolution-Aircraft/dp/0851774881
Naval photos and more - www.drachinifel.co.uk
Model ships of many periods - store.warlordga...?aff=21
Want to support the channel? - / drachinifel
Want a shirt/mug/hoodie - shop.spreadshi....
Want a poster? - www.etsy.com/u...
Want to talk about ships? / discord
Want to get some books? www.amazon.co.uk/shop/drachinifel
Next on the list:
Malta class
Tennessee-class cruiser
The Merrimack and Mersey class of frigates
Henri IV
USS Marblehead
Pinguin
German Auxiliary Cruiser Atlantis
Project 24 Sovetsky Soyuz class Battleship
HMS Caroline
Des Moines Heavy cruisers.
Ships of Battle of Campeche
PT Boats
Pinned post for Q&A :)
Two questions today
1. I noticed that at least from what I've seen, some of the sources covering the belt and deck thicknesses on the KGV class differ on what the base stats were (15in belt & 6in deck or 14.7in & 5.8in), now I know armour would be close but not exact when made but I don't think that explains why some books differ about this(also which set of data is more accurate to use)
2. Awhile back in a live drydock you mentioned that at the time of Warspites scrapping British politicians had wasted enough money to preserve four ships, if these politicians had been good at their job right, been decent human beings, and not wasted so much what ships could have been saved?
Production question sir: The intro music to this video is excellent as is the rest of them. Could you tell me what it is? I may use it when my students enter my classroom to mess with them. (US history teacher)
Any chance we can get a few episodes on convoy escorts? I think one on escort carriers, MAC's and CAM's would be fun.
An obvious question about the Audacious class: How would the Falklands conflict had been different if Ark Royal and Eagle weren't Decommissioned in 1979 and 1972 respectively
Do you think we could see a video covering various types of monitors? I'd be interested to see how they changed over time
The discussion of the 1960's British government and the Royal Navy reminds me of a caution from an old Wehrmacht soldier: "The French soldier and the French civilian are capable and brave combatants, skilled in attack and tenacious in defense, but fated to face the one European force especially designed and motivated to destroy them utterly at every turn.'
"The Germans?"
'The French Government.'
I had the privilege of serving onboard EAGLE 1956/57 during the Suez War (Operation Musketeer). We were 2,500 souls (war complement) living in extremely close proximity to each other. We embarked and operated 6 squadrons of aircraft and a flight of 4 Skyraiders. We left Devonport in April 1956, embarked our aircraft and were at sea in the Mediterranean exercising and operating our aircraft day and night almost continuously until Musketeer started on 1st November. From then on the tenacity of our Commanding Officer and his concentration on the rigorous training programme paid off and the First Sea Lord later documented that "EAGLE was the linchpin on which the whole operation depended and it is hard to see how it could have taken place at all without you...." The main problem which our incredibly efficient Navy has always suffered is politicians.
Royal Navy: scraps Ark Royal in 1980.
Argentine Junta: *Mmmm, interesante.*
Not only was Ark scrapped, Bulwark suffered fires in her hangar (November 1980) and boiler room (March 1980). Damage from neither was repaired, and she decommissioned March 27th of 81. The Argies invaded the Falklands on April 2.
Maggie: I won't stop cutting naval budget until Falklands are totally defenseless. Hope no one notices.
I'm Argentinean btw.
Don't forget all those aging German "expats" living in Argentina going "Verrrdy Interesting Mein Herr...ach! nein, senor".
@@augustosolari7721. As long as you don’t believe, that you have the right to take something by force, that isn’t and hasn’t ever been yours, then where you come from, is of no never mind..........
To me,
at least.................
@@norrinradd3549 no need of calling Argentineans "Argies" then, it is rude. I don't comment on politics, which i'm not an expert on, but I guess both our countries would then know a thing or two about taking things by force. 😜
As a modern Marine Engineer I always get a slight pang of envy whenever he describes a ship as "unfortunately only making 31kn", then realising any ship I've ever worked on in the modern era would get lapped by these 80-90 year old designs...
As a chief mate I feel the pain of this lol but hey I did see 19.8knts once ....flying
don't worry, I'm sure the poor marine engineers who had to somehow keep that high-pressure steam machinery going envy you ;)
Speaking of speed... I see we have Americas Cup catamarans with foils flying at 40 knots. A sailboat that can out racecar a carrier.⛵
Mores the reason I don't understand why we replace them every 30 years. In the US. In 2005 the retired the USS America (commissioned 1965) to weapons testing, after a week of the USNs best attempt to sink her they blew scuttle charges and she sank.
I sailed as 3rd Assistant on an SL-7 that was taken over by the US Navy but still had a civilian operating crew. 31-32 knots from 2 60,000 hp steam turbines. Only steam ship I've worked on that was younger than me!! I was born in 1971 and USNS Regulus was built in 1973.
There's an apocryphal tale of a young officer walking down Whitehall, when he stops a senior officer and asks him, which side is the MoD (Ministry of Defence) on?
The senior officer replies, "Our side, I hope."
Thank you Drac. I have fond memories of these two ships, specially eagle. My father took me to 1966 navydays in Plymouth and Eagle was the star turn. We queued for ages to get onboard but she made a lasting impression on me. In 1967 I witnessed the dockyard putting the Ark into drydock at the start of her Phantomisation refit. They had to move Eagle out of the way so she could pass through the entrance to the main basin. BZ Drac, you've cheered an old ex matlot no end.
The British have the best ship names
And don’t you forget it
Don't forget the US "Action" class (re badged Flower class corvettes.)
HMS Pickle
HMS Black Joke
HMS Beaver
HMS Happy Entrance
The chad HMS Dainty vs the virgin HMS Devastation
@@silverhost9782 don't forget the mega-chad HMS Cockchafer
Just to make you Brits feel that you're not alone when it comes to the government defense spending: our former defense minister (Ursula von der Leyen) purchased the new PUMA APC/IFV. To push it through budget discussions, they ordered ca. 350 vehicles, all without spare parts (!). After a few months/years in service, only a third of these vehicles are in service, the others servicing as spare part sources.
Then we let U.v.L loose on the EU. I am really sorry, Europe. Poland, Netherlands, Switzerland, feel free to liberate us any time you want !
Presumably, Angela sent Ursula to The Commission assuming that she couldn't wreak further havoc there? Didn't turn out well, if my memory is accurate.
Government's seem to do things they shouldn't & pass on things they should do. Rich morons.
I would criticise von der Leyen for failing upwards, but as a Brit, can't really say that given the career of our PM :(
@@dovetonsturdee7033 even as a remainer, the tendency to put failed national politicians to pasture in Brussels is a bit frustrating
@@OhSome1HasThisName I repeat: I am really sorry for UVL. It explains Brexit.
Has it ever come to your mind that Boris Johnson looks a lot like an illegitimate son of Donald Trump ?
Aircraft: the literal reason we can't have nice things anymore.
Well i mean we do have the Avro Lancaster
Another person who thinks "literal" means the exact OPPOSITE of what it means.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 no, i know what he meant, i meant we also have legendary aircraft like the Avro Lancaster
@@princeofcupspoc9073 another person who gets off thinking they know more than everyone else. Who's more insufferable?
@@princeofcupspoc9073 also, ftr, Aircraft are factually the reason we don't have battleships anymore. Literally why we don't have nice things. How is that using the word wrong?
Audacious, Malta, CVA01 and the frustration of post war UK defense spending, yes we didn't have any money, but what we did have we spent badly.
It's one of the reason's to stop at 1950 for RN/ UK navy history, not that the Army and Airforce escaped lightly either, but they could recover quicker from the mid 70s onwards.
We got a decent amount of ballistic missile nuclear submarines and have a decent amount of nuclear attack subs in service with China and Russia both relying a lot more on older units but don't outnumber the UK currently by much.
China are clearly planning to grow, Russia it's more wishing than reality.
One reason for the decline of the RN is that by the end of the '50s, England had lost most of her colonial possesions so didn't need a large navy any longer.
Yeah that and leave it to politicians to squandor any amount of money they can get their hands on! /facepalm
@@kms_scharnhorst still annoys me that the UK take away from Suez was that we could only do stuff with the US (so didn't need carriers and should withdraw from East of Eden) when we could have taken the French road of realising that the US really only has our back when it suits them
@@korbell1089 Decolonialisation in Africa and the Caribbean only really got going in the 1960s and 1970s
@@OhSome1HasThisName Indian independence is 47. its clear that the colonial empire is on way out and is no will to pay for its defense or upkeep not long after that, and through the 50´s its clear the empire has no long term future, even if a large part of it hung around for while longer cos divesting one selves of an empire that took hundreds of years to make cannot be done in a fortnight,
I think my father served on the Eagle. It was mainly aircraft carriers he served on , he was a Royal Marine. He once told me that he flew from the deck of a carrier in the backseat of a Swordfish, if only I could ask him about it now, he's been dead 30 years.
Speaking of carriers. When are you going to do part 3 of the history of aircraft carriers?
It will come, eventually. Just be patient.
I would dispute the characterization of the Essex class as "non-treaty restricted" ships. The treaty limit for carriers through Washington and First London was 27,000 tons. The Essex, according to Wiki, came in at a standard displacement of 27,100 (close enough). I submit that Essex was based on a design the USN had been developing through the 30s as a treaty-max concept, that had been shelved when Second London reduced carrier tonnage to 23,000, then quickly dusted off and updated when the treaty system collapsed and Congress authorized two new carriers. I would say the Audacious class is closer to a Midway in being a completely post-treaty, clean-sheet, design.
Audacious is half-way between the Essex and Midway IMO.
@@Akm72 The class is similar to the SCB-27 Essex refit.
There is also the Panama Canal locks to consider as a design factor.
Excellent video, as always. It amazes me how ships of a given type, regardless of type, continue to grow, and grow, and grow. The Gearing class I served on in Vietnam was approximately twice the displacement of a Clemson class of less than a half century earlier, and today's Arleigh Burke class are something like four times my ship's displacement after another half century.
And now the Germans and Italians have 10,000 tonne frigates in the pipeline
Hopefully this will make it into the drydock questions for the Audacious class. If both Eagle and Ark Royal were still in service, how do you think they would of faired in the Falklands War compared to Hermes and Invincible? Keep up the amazing work!
I'm still dirty on the British government for reneging on their deal to sell us the Invincible.
Me when this question will be answered in a future drydock:
Wait a second I know this question!
The answer is simple.
There wouldn't have been a Falklands War...Argentina wouldn't have invaded if it knew the RN could bring 2 CV's loaded with Phantom's and Buccaneers off their coast.
Even old RN Phantoms armed with the same sidewinders the Harriers got from the US would have been a game changer. The answer is that Argentina would never have invaded in the first place.
it would never have happened at all
Government defence over budgets are quite common in various countries. Defence spending is like an ATM banking machine.
I saw Ark Royal enter the harbor at Naval Station Mayport in Florida in 1975 for a port visit (I was attending the Aviation Fire Fighting School in Mayport at the time).
Leave it to any government to make the bill even bigger when it comes to spending, and trying to save money. I'm beginning to think that governments saving money should be considering an oxymoron what do you think?
What makes it worse is they already fell into this trap with Victorious - the first of three WWII-era carriers they planned to modernise, thinking it would be cheaper than building new ships. By the time work on Victorious was completed (very late) the cost had gone through the roof, and modernisation plans for Implacable and Indefatigable were cancelled.
I think you're right, its almost like somebody is making an active effort of being silly and following poor advice.
@@LazyLifeIFreak More the Empire was going away. The need for a huge navy no longer made sense.
Hit the nail on the head mate!
@@WALTERBROADDUS But that does not really address the fundamentally poor choices and bad management made then, and since.
Shame they didn't build enough of them to name one HMS Bodacious.
All AL ships are bodacious enough thank you. With the exception of the underage ones of course; pedophiles be damned.
You, Sir, are now on my Christmas card list.
this comment is underrated. My head canon now includes the royal navy wanting to use this name but always coming up one or two ship orders short of commissioning one
Or the HMS Tata
@@josephtriola9053 The irony is that bodacious has the same meaning as audacious lol
Cheer~~~showing a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks.
The Royal Navy needs a HMS Bootylicious.
This CZcams Channel is truly *Audacious*
My father passed some (or most) of his midshipmancy on my Eagle, then transferred to Conqs for his period as a lieutenant. Beautiful ship and some of the slides he has shown me through the years, Bucs, Gannets and Sea Vixens are incredible.
Been a visitor, as a boy, to HMS Eagle, in 1965 when she visited Aden
I asked and I received. Thank you, Sir!
Sextuple bofurs mounts, for when 4 gun daka barrages won't cut it
Need to do something on the Malta Class.
it's the next guide according to the description
5:50 Are you sure it's only typical in the 1960's ?
Sounds like any governement at any given time, and not just the British...
Defense spending is a balance of priorities.
Britain's defence expenditure was exceptionally ineptly considered during that time period. To be fair, the end of empire and lack of capital after the war were heavily featured in decisions.
For all of my Georgist and Keansian Leanings, I have to respect Milton's addage “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”
@@bskorupk I perfere the paraphrased version: "Nothing is more permanent then a temporary solution."
Supposedly it's maight also be an old russian proverb ... but idk.
i was in eastern cornwall in 1980, and my family took a trip on the tamar. i was 4, and ark royal was rusty, and waiting to be broken. still magnificent though.
I saw her in Stranraer a couple of years later - sad.
More that 50k views in a day, amazing. I still remember the robot voice days ahahahah
Ark Royal was sold for scrap in 1980....just 2 years before the Falklands War. If she would have been kept just a little longer, would she make a difference in that conflict?
Possible the argies may never have even tried it if the Royal Navy had an extra fleet carrier or two available
Yes, assuming she could actually have made it down there and steamed through the South Atlantic winter for two months without breaking down...
@@Solidboat123 I doubt she'd have needed to steam down there. Her deterrence on paper would have been the important thing. It's a bit like the Tsushima Straight situation - on paper it seems almost a fair clash excluding the antiques #sinkbythemselves. But the meatspace reality is a different thing. If the existence of the carrier on paper convinced the Argentines that it was a bad idea, then she'd have been beneficial - but it's equally likely that if she'd have been Sir Galahad'd and either crippled or sunk she might have had the opposite effect or worse - it would be a propaganda nightmare.. Even worse if she broke down like that Russian deathtrap carrier a while ago, if that happened even undiscovered tribes in the backside of the asshole of Brazil would be telling British Leyland jokes... #andthenitgotworse
@@Solidboat123 As to their reliability, more would have had to be done than just - not scrapping the Eagle and Ark Royal. They would have had to be maintained in a useful state. Unwillingness to do that would - I would assume - being the reason for the scrapping.
.
@@BobSmith-dk8nw Absolutely, and the government was indeed unwilling to do so, partially because of what happened with Victorious in the '50s, where a modernization refit intended to save money ended up costing around as much as a brand new ship. Ark Royal and Eagle would have needed similar (maybe even more costly) refits to keep going into the '80s. Add that to the shift in foreign policy post-war, with the resultant running-down of the RN's carrier force and cancellation of CVA-01, and you get to what actually happened in reality.
So Ark Royal was permitted to continue her "Phantomization" refit (which was apparently something of a "bare-minimum" job focussed almost exclusively on modifications required to operate the Phantom), while the same refit for Eagle was cancelled and the ship herself decommissioned. Ark Royal then made it through the '70s through a combination of intensive maintenance and cannibalisation of Eagle for spares. The fact that she actually functioned in a useful manner at all during this time is testament to the people responsible for maintaining her. By the end of the '70s however she really was reaching her limit (and spares from Eagle were probably running out), and so she was finally decommissioned as well.
Getting back then to the original question of "what if Ark Royal had been held in service for another 3 years?" (assuming that nothing else previous to that point in history had changed), it's debatable if she would have been anywhere close to reliable enough to actually participate.
Of course, as others have mentioned, it's possible that her mere existence would have deterred an invasion in the first place. But even this is perhaps dubious, as given her likely state by this point, it's possible the Argentines would have known (or guessed) that she was in no state to fight a war and proceeded to invade anyway. Then you're back to the question of could she have made the 8,000 mile trip south and survived two months of war in heavy seas. And in this hypothetical timeline where Ark Royal is kept in service longer, does the Royal Navy still have Sea Harrier, and ski jumps on Invincible and Hermes to fly them from? Possibly not.
Some time ago, I ran across a program on CZcams, documenting Ark Royal's last cruise to the US. If memory serves, it was the 1976ish. Much was made of her material condition. She was not shedding parts, like a leper on a pogo stick, but...
Hello Drachinifel. I am a big fan of yours. Would it be possible to cater to your international viewers and add metric equivalents to your measurements? Thanks
I saw Ark Royal at Cairn Ryan as she was being scrapped. Had a little cry.
HMS Audacious my favorit Ship and my only T10 Carrier in WOWs
Thanks ❤👍
Beautifully done as always!
this video... literally AUDACIOUS
This is a proud fleet carrier, the glory of the fleet. But there is a humbler side that was also hugely important. What would be very interesting to me is session on escort carries; how much smaller were they, what was their capacities, what could they not do?
British defence decisions are a classic example of why Politian's (yuk) who know absolutely nowt about the subject should not be allowed to make important decisions for example
" we no longer need an air force and aeroplanes, missiles will do the job".
" we no longer need aircraft carriers scrap them and don't replace them"
remember those gems?
Despite strenuous arguments from the Admiralty and RAF both services were emasculated and it took just one year after the Ark went to the cutting torch to prove the point. I would like to say that we live and learn but we don't, politicians still make those critical military decisions and look where it has got us.
To be fair they have to deal with the financial and political reality in a world where they were expected to fund a cradle to grave system of social security which inevitably takes their attention away from military capability. Having to choose between an aircraft carrier, a school or a home for the elderly is an almost impossible decision for one commitee to make.
@@Akm72 The problem seems to be that, having to choose between the two, our politicians tend to fund neither.
Implacable class next plz, I had family on hms indefatigable and stories kamikaze attacks as well as bombs rolling loose on the floor.
You realize that if Ark Royal was at the Falklands with Phantoms and Bucs there is a very good chance no Argie aircraft would have penetrated the combat air patrol, which would have been way farther out. Also, heavy strikes could be sent against land targets as far as the Argie mainland. Also Gannet AEW?
Well that; and the Argies would never have invaded in the first place, for they knew the capabilities of a fully armed and operational Audacious class.
@@jimtaylor294 I am sure you are correct.
@@jimtaylor294 Most probably yes. The only counter to that is they had no real counter to the nuclear attack subs, let alone nukes, and they still went ahead with the whole crazyness. The one thing I cannot understand is that if you know in the worst case situation it will take 1 month for the brits to get a task force there, why would you not land like 4 army engineering battallions on like day 2 and start crash lengthing Port Stanley airfield and also turning goose green into something real. Then you could base at least A4s over there and they could fly a half descent CAP, if you did a good enough job, even Mirages and Daggers. Very hard to get the taskforce close if theres like 250km of air power around the islands, rather than it all coming from the mainland with vapour in their tanks left on the way back....
What about the Exocets? Shouldn't they have a plan to counter them?
@@Joshua_N-A As it was in '82 the Navy did. *Chaff* (a physical countermeasure that confuses the missile by blinding it with fake targets) successfully protected the ship originally targeted on the day Sheffield was lost. As it was of the two missiles the Argies had loosed off; only one actually hit anything... and it was the wrong ship... and the missile failed to go off.
(the Sheffield being lost to fire rather than the missile itself; and only got hit due to the main radar being switched off for a long range call by the C/O)
Ironically *both* sides had shipboard Exocet missiles; but they were deemed almost useless in combatting any actual ship to ship situation; as the task force commander would otherwise have taken on the Belgrano with missiles, instead of having to go round the red tape houses to get a Submarine strike.
How about the Type 12 Frigate
A popular frigate with design sold to many navies
Original type 12 was probably last class to be ordered with hammocks but with an early version of cafeteria catering
4 of originals were used as the Dartmouth Training Squadron, in days when in mid Atlantic swell Cadets were ordered to off shoes, dive in and swim around the ship. Then be greeted on return with "that will teach you what it means to pipe Abandon ship" TORQUAY 1965
Type 12 M was probably first class with a helicopter and flight deck . YARMOUTH played long stop for Apollo 13 disaster
Type 12 Leander class was largest development and how substituted as light cruisers in last days of Far East fleet when their North Sea designed hull was not put to good use. (76 frigates, mostly Type 12's, were used on the Beira Patrol). Two Type 12 had a good Falklands war
The Falklands War might not have happened if the UK had built those two scheduled replacement carriers in the late 1960s and the Royal Navy had two modern large carriers with 80+ planes each serving through the 1980s. The junta in Argentina was in political trouble and invaded the Falklands as a distraction from internal problems, they would've most likely lost power after a few more years of mismanagement.
There was four carriers 4 ligth carriers and 4 Bristol class destroyers to be built uk government no gou can have 3 ligth carriers only your not allowed to call them carriers as it will up set the raf and one destroyer for escort role . .........
If it didn't happen Thatcher would have been out on her ear because of Pedward Heath and the Kiddiefiddlers Committee, not to mention the three day week etc etc. But to distract from the white paper proposal from an MP, later investigated and found guilty of same, to reduce the gay age of consent to 14 - the Falklands War happened. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't have had Thatcher for 20 years (trashing everything she could her mits on, there is a special place for that creature in Hell - wondering why CV19 has been so bad? The legacy of the Iron Windbag has a *lot* to do with it), Mr Pants-on-his-head, Tory Bliar, etc etc, all downhill towards Publius Quinctillius Boris and his little sidekicks - Priti of the SS, and the Flummoxed Fetus.
Argentina were still stuffed - even with the, almost Elphy Bey grade, stupidity of the Royal Navy (let's put all the helicopters together in the hold of one ship, they might get lonely otherwise... *glugglug* ) - the tightassedness of the British Army (we had the SLR in semi auto, they had the expensive version in full auto, still at least it wasn't the SA80 (80 = seconds before you had to pick up a mag or clear a jam). What? You still thought the route trudge to Goose Green was *planned* ? Not a bloody chance - all the transport helicopters were busy communing with the whales..
@@rosiehawtrey were Thatcher is in Britain history of politics is one of hate or love. My dad was in the navay on a wage below the bread line her government change that .
The generals were also counting on St. Reagan and the rest of his administration to cover for them, since the Yanquis saw them as reliable anti-Communist allies, and were sorely disappointed when they didn't intervene after all.
@@rosiehawtrey i take it you missed the bit where the Edward Heath accuser was jailed for being a fantasist who was wasting police time?
cos, you know, smearing the dead with proven fallacies isnt at all a low blow or anything.
If there is anyone else out there, the service school, St Christophers, I attended in Gibraltar between 74 and 77 used the house names Ark Royal, Bulwark, Eagle and Hermes. Dad was with RNSTS ( navy stores ) and i would often be able to go visit most navy ships, especially the Fleet Auxillary ones.
Why do the Brits have the most gangster names for their ships? Warspite, Illustrious, Colossus, Invincible, Ark Royal, Indomitable, Audacious, on so on. US Navy was/ is decent overall at naming naval vessels, but not awesome like the Royal Navy. In fact, I could see the Brits naming a ship HMS Awesome. Lol!
I think the problem is that Americans name their carriers after politicians, who are not the most respected people in any country, while the Brits usually give their carriers and capital ships inspirational names. What America needs to do is agree to not name anything after politicians or cities ever again and then go through the Big Book of Names for long retired Royal Navy ships and recycle some of them.
@@Dave_Sisson agreed. A ban on naming ships after politicians and a little friendly borrowing from our cousins across the pond.
@@Dave_Sisson USN CVS were initially named for battles or famous ships. Naming them for relatively recent politicians has a bad development driven by flattering pols for budget votes. It is revolting.
@@Dave_Sisson Time to make another Yorktown class :D
@@Dave_Sisson Most UK ship names have a historical basis - they've been used time and again for hundreds of years. The first warship named the Warspite dates to about 1596, and the next one will be the eight ship having that name.
Interestingly, Lord Mountbatten's ship during WW2 (HMS Kelly) was thr first and only ship to have held that name, so there are exceptions.
Should have kept Arc royale for the Faulklands but, who knew
4:24 What a very American AA configuration for "Eagle".
Ah the decision to stand down HMS Eagle , following revelations regarding the crew re Singapore involving Lady Boys, and the "Bermuda" incident . Bit more research perhaps Drach !
HMS Ark royal
as a young boy I used to get up After I'd already been put to bed, as soon as heard the first notes of "sailing" to sit on my Father's knee and watch all about the crew and operations of HMS Ark Royal on the TV program "Sailor"
I heart-brokenly grieved Her scrapping (onions still)
And gave me a life-long hated of scrap men
RIP UK's last true Aircraft carrier
Truth is she was well and truly done by the time we got rid of her. Better off directing anger at short sighted politicians that failed to replace her then expected STOVL CVL's to do the same job.
@@FallenPhoenix86 she shouldve been preserved as a museum ship thpugh . Absolutely criminal that warspite m ark royal went to the scrappers . Still boils my piss to this day
Well, at least you have the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales now. It's a step in the right direction. You boys need to bulk up on escorts though!! Destroyers and frigates are getting kind of scarce over there!!
@@albertoswald8461
QE's are slow oversize helo carriers
a time traveling Ark , with Bucc's Phantoms and Gannets would be more flexible & capable today than them
@@farmerned6 ,no arguments from me. But considering that with the retirement of the Invincibles you had bupkis for a few years,having something now however weak is better than nothing!!
Thank you drach
The last British CATOBARs. The proposed successor CVA-01 was to be christened Queen Elizabeth. There are even images of the latest QE with cats and traps.
Like most Americans, I have no idea how Gerald Ford got his own class of Aircraft Carrier??
I dislike ships being named after people who have not done anything significant militarily.
@@mbryson2899 I agree with you there - All Gerald Ford was known for was not being as corrupt as Nixon and falling down stairs often.
@@KoalaG888 Presumably, USS Joe Biden will be laid down shortly?
They were running low on Republicans who had served in the Navy...
@@gregorywright4918 coming soon- USS Trump. it a hulk where you dump old reactor cores, asbestos and other toxic waste for shipping to disposal sites.
It wasn't just cost that killed CVA-01. The RAF were also claiming that they could provide air cover for the fleet anywhere in the world, thus rendering aircraft carriers unnecessary.
And typically inter sirvice rivalry costs lives .
In general, NATO gave a blanket to Europe. The UK, the Dutch, the Germans, etc. The USN arried the ball in the Cold War. Thus, they cut budgets.
Has Drach done a video on the CVA01? (too lazy to look it up right now :D )
@@Akm72 Not that I'm aware of, no
love this claim given that the RAF didn't really have any 'fighters' for most of the cold war, just interceptors designed to shoot down Tu-95s
Last time I was this early, the British were still building carriers designed for the Pacific.
Last time i was this early the british still had an empire.
When I see those older aircraft carriers I can't help myself think, what if VSTOL aircrafts was available earlier? Would have made those carriers serve life longer?
No. They were old and worn out. They needed replaced and those fot canceled.
3 hours late. Apologies, I must have been using a Japanese radio in the south Pacific
Audacity seems to be a character trait in Royal Naval Ships …. Call it a given….
Thanks for that quick summary. Ah, yes the genius of government.
The scrapping of the Ark Royal.
Probably the number one, military reason why Argentina decided to actually invade the Falklands.
Thanks for the happy Satyrday morning.
At first I thought you said the _Audacious_ had been renamed _Evil_ instead of _Eagle_ and I was thinking, "Damn, the British were getting angry." lol
imagine HMS Evil though lol.
Or maybe HMS Villain, Villainous, Devil, Demon etc.
@@gokbay3057 Ship names straight out of _Star Wars_ for the Empire. "With 'Death Star' and _Evil_ and _Executioner,_ are we the bad guys?"
@@grondhero I mean, Vader's ISD in ANH was "Devastator" and while I am not sure about "Devastator" there has certainly been a "HMS Devastation".
@@gokbay3057 Close enough?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Lucifer
@@Trapperz-zz4qm And there has been 6 of them?
Royal Navy, you absolute madlads, I love you.
The Audacious Class, doing what the others do, but with Classy Audaciousness.
If the battle f Cartagena de Indias would be fought with Yamato Battleships,who would win? And why Blas de Lezo would achieve such an epic victory?
Have you addressed the development of the angled flight deck? If so, I missed it. You folks developed that deck which I think was ingenious. You're hardly credited with it over here, if so grudgingly.
After spending years messing around with a soft rubber flight deck. . . you're welcome.
Will be good if a review of HMS Victorious' modernization post 1945 and her postwar service can be done.
Imagine if they used the money from the TV loicense to actually do something practical like build a new carrier?
Bloody hell we rode these poor things into 1970's.
Beautiful ships.
Very interesting.
No more biplanes on British carriers? (g) They really were elegant carriers. Good video.
Absolute crime to decommission HMS Eagle before Ark Royal.
Heath's government plunged the knife, but it was Wilson and Healy who lit the fuse.
@@davidbirt8486 Absolutely. Phantomisation would have been a bargain compared to putting sheds on the Tigers. Ark Royal was already a knacker by 1972. She should have been laid up in Hamoaze for cannabalisation not Eagle. Heck I’d have kept Victorious over Ark Royal.
All she needed was a full set of DAX 1 arrestor wires and some catapult modifications. They could have done the work during her 1970 refit.
Excellent
Interesting how the name of the class, Audacious, never go used on any ship in the class.
As with the Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet, a lost carrier's name was recycled for use in a later ship. The fact that the ship was the lead of the class was just unfortunate.
Have you done an episode on Naval Cranes?
thanks for the vid
If the RN kept Ark Royal a couple more years they could have had Mach 2 F4K Phantoms patrolling over the Falklands instead of the much slower and much shorter range Harrier. With the Phantom in the equation, not only would the Falklands war have been shorter, but the fleet would have likely had fewer ships sunk by the Argentinians.
The UK government seems to have a vested interest in making as difficult as possible for them self's in this case.
Themselves? Unfortunatelynot, its usually theboys and girls on the sharp end of the stick that get screwed over by their ineptitude, while the Politicians argue in the Commons about whose fault a forty year problem is....
@@alganhar1 Couldn't agree with you more.
What could Sandy Woodward have done with Ark, and 38 Phantoms when sending the task force to the South Atlantic just a little later?
The Ark only carried 12 Phantoms primarily for CAP duties with a supporting strike roll.
It's a pity both ships weren't rebuilt to the same degree as Victorious.
This would have avoided the CVA-01 fiasco and ensured their survival into the 80's.
I always thought Eagle was a fantastic name for an aircraft carrier.
Cover the Royal Australian Navy submarine AE2 from WW1.
Then number of times the British government acted like they were allergic to spending money, so waste just as much (if not more money) trying to cheapskate their way through things... AND THEY NEVER LEARN!
they're a very Audacious design
Hey Drachinifel, do you think you can look up that canceled Soviet Fleet Carrier that was under construction when the Soviet Union dissolved?
Any CV is a good one.
I always thought Eagle looked better with the straight edged sponson at the leading edge of the angled deck...
Bigger, better, faster, stronger!
Great work, looking for any leads on the USS Spot (SS-413)
Balao-class submarine ???
The class is about the size of the SCB-27 refits to the Essex Class than the original design.
What? The British government took a short term look at carriers and refit instead of built a new ship? That sounds like something one of my American politicians would do. Glad to know my country is not the only one with short sighted thinking.
Could you do a guid to the german A-II / A-III carrierhybrid designs ?
Why is it that British Aircraft Carriers rarely have deck edge elevators?
I remember these were moored off Devonport for a few years after decommissioning.
Disappointed! No Rod Stewart😂😂😂😂
I was just looking up HMAS Melbourne and Sydney aircraft carriers. Who would ever name a ship HMS Terrible!
The British.
I'm pretty sure the meaning was that the ship was terrible to its enemies rather than the ship itself being terrible in quality.
"Cancellation of CVA-01" *twitches in Falklands Islands*
On an angled deck aircraft carrier, are you always flying a cross wind landing? I realize this is a slightly out of period question.
I would imagine no, providing the cross wind speed was lower than the speed the ship was steaming. IE if the ship is steaming at 30kts and the wind direction is on the beam so you are landing into the wind, then the crosswind would be 0kt, if she's doing combination recovery and launching then it depends on the angle of the wind to the designated landing deck and the differential speed of the ship, assuming that the wind speed is less than the cruising speed. As I understand it, the forward speed of the ship vs the direction of the wind means that the crosswind is a fraction of the angle of the landing deck to the wind direction - ie if the wind is coming from the bow then whichever side is always a crosswind landing (which it would be with combined operations). But if you were steering for recovery *only* you would con the ship so the wind was a headwind along the line of the recovery deck. That in itself would depend on the aircraft that's landing. Something big and heavy wants the longer deck section (say A6 Intruder) something smaller and lighter (Corsair) could land on the smaller section. That's the ideal at least.
Carrier landings are complicated - the record is held by a bloke called Brown - also flew the me163 - guy who tried to beat his record was actually driven nuts by the stress. Mind you, these are the sort of nutters who fly a Warwick upside down for shits and giggles...
@@rosiehawtrey From what I've seen up close and in person (USS Intrepid, USS Hornet), the angled flight deck is not aligned with the keel of the ship. The course of the carrier will not match the course of the flight deck. Even if the ship is steaming along at 30 knots there should be some crosswind component to the landing - but it may be trivial. I was just wondering how trivial. Is it a full speed landing with the jets at full throttle, and military power reserved for missing the trap? Are you coming in with some or no flaps and no throttle?
Wasent mountbatten who demanded Ark Royal be saved over Eagle.
Fully loaded Albacore? Drunk tuna?
Thank you pity the video wasn’t much longer my only criticism!