I cant believe they are asking stupid questions like are they worth the money?? I guess they expect to be totally protected by the united states or something. The invincible proved to be an excellent little ship. Nothing wrong with The uk doing it's part in Nato.
I agree with the Commander Air. Supersonic is not a necessity. How many dog fights take place at Mach 1 plus? The Mirage and Super Etendards in the Falklands were supersonic, didn't prevent them from being shot down in numbers. However this documentary does have a slightly anti-Royal Navy feel to it. Like all three services we do the best with what we are given. Any failings belong solely to our masters in Government.
***** Here is an idea to you. Grow up. Stop talking, especially about things you know nothing about. Stop hurling insults over the safety of the Internet when it a reasonable question. Any right to talk to me has now been lost by your comments above.
Just 21 Sea Harriers 8000 miles from home against an argenswine airforce of around 150 aircraft. And they were operating just a few hundred miles from their bases. The Americans said we would not be able to recapture the Islands. But Hey Hey - Up The British. We took Our Islands back in style!! God bless the Harriers and their pilots!
she is to damn unprofessional for this documentary she puts the brilliance of the ships aside and grabs every mistake she can an miss the positive things she betray the Royal Navy.
If you are asking if HMS Invincible was worth the money, then you are asking that to Illustrious & Ark Royal also, seeing as Invincible was the first ship of the class. We had to just had the Falklands war and the Cold War was at it's height! If the RN had no carriers during the 1980's it would not of been a good & powerful navy and would of been a fleet made up of just surface ships with some submarines. NOT good at all!!!
this iis a very good doco on the problems of Royal Navy reeuquipment in the 1960-1990 period- where Royal Navy frigates and destroyers were build to be shop windows of Britains revolutinary white light modern tech, rather than 'effective modern weapons channels. both the Leanders and Type 21 were built with two ineffective anti aircraft and anti missile weapons and directors, both the Mk 6/8 4.5s and Seacat were largely useless except for shore bombardment and sinking merchant shipping. Neither gun could deal with even subsonic jets and both classes completly lack any close in weapons other than a few later fitted with Seawolf. Even four 40mm 60s would greatly have boosted defence against Argie Mirages and Skyhawks. The Mk 5 twin 40/60 was probably the most effective cheap AA weapon used by the RN during the cold war but not fitted after 1960, Rothesay, Hermes and Belfasst were the last ships fitted.
One unmentioned huge problem with the Invicibles, T22 and T42 is the higher level of noise of the gas turbines which is the main reason the Leanders and T12 were maintained long after there useby date. Probably a comprehensive modrnsiation and rewiring of the Hermes and Bulwark in the early 1970s would have served the RN better in the Cold war than just relying on the impression of competence and strut of the officers.
Of course it was worthwhile. Aside from any actual military use it may or may not have had, it provided employment for countless people from Naval Architects and shipbuilders to the RN personnel who sailed in her or who maintained her to the small companies providing engineering support. It will have provided meaning to a huge number of lives. This of course costs the country money, perhaps the money could be spent on what some might consider more socially conscious state initiatives such as the NHS but the reality is that if all that money was transferred to these pop-causes all that would be achieved would be large scale unemployment for those who rely on state employment but to whom caring professions will never be suitable nor of interest. This might seem like a advocacy for 'jobs-for-the-boys' but why not - everyone needs to work even those who have naval aspirations. This is also aside from the reality that the ship actually was useful and would continue to be useful even if not specifically optimised for purpose.
36:16 "Take off 3 a minute, that's faster than the Americans." What they do not mention is the fact that American carriers are large enough to have the necessary fuel stores aboard to keep a constant fighter CAP above the carrier group to intercept much, much quicker than any fighter scrambled from deck.
flip inheck rofl...oh my God, it really does make me laugh at just how much Britts let envy, pure and simple envy, cause them to try their hardest to distort truth as much as they can. "Yanks have never, ever won a war"...those were YOUR words, not mine. First of all, we won the war that makes Britts cringe with shame, we won the American Revolution, The war against Mexico, US funds and infusion of fresh troops enabled the French and British who had suffered appalling losses at the hands of the Germans and their allies ( lets not forget Gallipoli where the lowly TURKS kicked the snot out of a British led force...really...beaten by Turks rofl), then there is the fact that not even that only the most deluded Britt would try to deny, that if not for US aid during the Battle of the Atlantic in the form of both convoy escort vessels, supply ships (since Britain had lost nearly ALL of its merchantmen just as the US began making those ship losses good in the form of Liberty ships being built in record time, due to US industrial might...something the British did not have then, and STILL do not have), food stuffs, etc., etc., etc.,. After the Battle of the Atlantic it was sheer us military might and US industrial might along with that of the Soviet Union. The men at arms that Britain not Canada, Australia, etc..but Britain itself supplied to the war effort was laughable compared to the number sent by the US and the USSR. Before embarrassing yourself again, you might want to pick up a history book or do at least SOME research before making a complete fool of yourself again. Not to mention that the fact remains that even the British military considered the Invincible a pathetic attempt at an aircraft carrier... my God, the poor little thing only carry's 8 lonely ground attack aircraft, Harriers. Now that I am quite finished here, I think I am going to pop on over to the local pawn shop and put a bid in on the yacht that USED to belong to the King and Queen of England, but, seeing as how they couldn't afford to keep it up anymore, they were forced to sell it. Next, the Crown Jewels will be hocked. There was even an article not too long ago outlining how Britain's present day merchant fleet is continually shrinking. Well, that stands to reason I suppose, as the UK has NO empire left so, they don't need them.
flip inheck Oh, and trying to use Sept. 11 as an example is hardly an accurate display. Considering there are plenty in the military who do not believe that 9/11 was even perpetrated by any external enemy. Additionally, if it was carried out by terrorists flying civilian aircraft, it speaks WELL that those aircraft WERE NOT shot down. As every conceivable effort has to be made first to rule out communications problems, hydraulics or electrical problems, a complete range of issues which could cause a civilian aircraft to stray off course. So, it speak well that they were not just shot down with no thought given to it at all, as you obviously would have done. But, that is because you are obviously, quite ignorant, AND an amateur. lol
+Singular Purpose Bear in mind that a major reason for the shrinking navies - both merchant and military - of the UK is that America didn't give her assistance to Britain during WWII for free. Britain had to PAY for it, and only finished paying for it a few years ago. ALL other countries that received US aid had their debts wiped out. Even the USSR, though they simply refused to be blackmailed. Sorry, I meant that they just didn't pay. It has been US policy since Truman came to power to reduce the military capability of the UK to the extent that America no longer has reason to fear Britain, to make her a subjugate, minor NATO member. Add to that their deliberate destruction of Britain's aircraft industry, as evidenced by the Lockheed conspiracy with Germany - amongst others - the deliberate withholding of research that should have been shared, but wasn't, along with intelligence, despite Britain's willingness to co-operate MORE than was fair, and you can see who was the real envious party. Also, in both world wars, America only deigned to align themselves with the UK when it became clear that it was the allied forces that were going to win. America never backs the losing side. There is no profit in it for her. As to the numbers of troops supplied - did you bother to consider that the _entire_ population of the UK during WWII - INCLUDING women, children and the elderly - was about the same as that of Washington state? Of course you didn't. You're only interested in scoring points over a perceived opponent. And even without US participation, Russia would have conquered Germany. However, having said all that, and if you actually bother to read this far, I personally am more than grateful for the assistance rendered by America during both world wars. Their entry into these conflicts shortened the fighting quite considerably, and probably saved the lives of many allied combatants, and civilians. Many US servicemen gave their lives, their looks or their mobility. Ultimately, though, we are all just pawns in the games of those who run the planet, and their biggest, most effective weapon against us is ourselves, as shown by such arguments as that between yourself and flipineck there. They rule us easily by dividing us, and they do it so successfully because they've had so much practice and because humans are all too willing to fight each other.
Tom Foyle Well, if you would do some research sir, you would find that the reason that Britain's war debt wasn't just "wished" away is that Britain BY FAR received the most aid, war material (i.e., aircraft, tanks, etc.) food, natural resources...the list is far to vast to itemize...at least I certainly wouldn't want to as it would likely give one carpel tunnel. And then there is the "little" matter of the fact that the US shouldered the COMPLETE financial burden in funding the development of the Atomic Bombs and the US simply handed over all of the technology to Britain. The cost, as you may or may not know, ran into the billions. Yet, Britain did not pay a single cent and that is not an opinion, it is a fact...look it up. Are you aware that an armored division during WWII used 25,000 gallons of fuel PER DAY? All supplied by Uncle Sam. Montgomery, and every other British commander could not have moved their collective "arse's" without aforementioned resource...and that's just one example of a great many. In regards to the USSR, neither the US nor Britain supplied the USSR with any great amount of war materials (less than 5% of the war resources used by the USSR during the whole of the War, if you wish to be precise). Thus, it is little wonder this was not a pressing issue. Let us also not forget the reality that there was a bitter "Cold War" between the USSR and the "West". One would hardly expect their enemy to actually volunteer to pay for aid that was GIVEN..that's right, Britain AND the US freely gave the USSR the trickle of materials which were sent in order to try and appease Stalin's constant demands for a Second Front to be opened. However, this was not the case with Britain. So, in essence, you are kicking and screaming because the British "Empire" (well, not so much) was expected to honor financial agreements entered into in order to keep Britain from collapsing. You will pardon me if I can not help but think this not much more than simply trying to make the US into the "bad guy" simply because of injured pride in that Britain no longer has access to easy money taken from countries which it had forcibly colonized. Now, when people in India sweat when they are working, the fruits of their labor do not flow out of their country to support another nation. India being only one example of course, but it was the "jewel" of the conquests. It truly does remind you of someone being insulted and stark raving mad that a bill collector should expect the person on the other end of the line to actually pay back what they had agreed to, and this after the debtor had already utilized the funds, gained and benefited from having access to them. So much for British "honor"...?
+Singular Purpose It was in America's own interests to support Britain, as it was the one country left standing, and willing and able to fight Hitler. Up until Germany declared war on the US, American material support, though provided, was given somewhat grudgingly, as the isolationist Americans didn't want in ANY way to be involved in "Britain's" war. Perhaps YOU should do some research regarding Truman's policy towards Britain. The Atomic bomb research wasn't "handed over" because there were extremely competent British scientists working on the project as well. But there was technology that Britain face freely to the Americans, as well. The first US jet was powered by a whittle-type engine, an example of which was sent to America along with the blueprints and a team from Powerjets, who built the thing in the first place. The cavity magnetron was passed over at no cost, together with radar designs which utilised it. There are other examples, but I don't have time right now. Britain's empire was already on the way out, and she knew it, which was why it was the only country that gave up its colonies just post-war with little effort to keep hold of them. WWII bankrupted Britain, and the US was the beneficiary. Easy money, anyone?
It's important to realise that this class of ship was never really designed as an aircraft carrier. Politicians of both sides decided, during the 1970s, that, after the last of our big fast jet carriers was paid off, we'd get out of that game, and stick to taking on Soviet subs. Hence three big through-deck cruisers, equipped with antisub helis, escorted by frigates. The Admiralty didn't fancy that though, hence the use of Harriers..
Like your use of the term 'Through Deck Cruiser' which this entire documentary lacks. All three Invincible Class vessels were Through Deck Cruisers - Invincible, Illustrious and the Ark Royal.
An odd documentary - I wonder for who it was produced? She asked some odd questions at times, and undoubtedly had an agenda regarding the equipment procurers (well the MOD are appallingly bad in this respect). I can't help but think that the Queen Elizabeth class is too big however, and the reliance on the unproven Lightning II a little risky. Better a conventional carrier with regular aircraft but hey...
The IOWA class BATTLESHIP, can go from "Full Ahead Flank", to a DEAD STOP, in only "3" of her lengths too . . . but the IOWA "Weighs", almost "3" times what this ship does. Bit of a difference there ( lol )
I don't think the narrator really knows what she's talking about. Perhaps during WWII a ship's ability to stop in 3 deck lengths might have afforded a measure of protection, but since the 1960s the torpedoes of most navy's were sonar-guided. Regardless of whatever defensive maneuver you might wish to employ (stop, reverse, etc.), once the torpedo had acquired the target, it was probably going to hit.
+CaesarInVa The point is, such acoustic torpedoes are going to go for the noisiest source - propellor cavitation. And since the rear of this particular vessel was much more strongly-constructed than the more vulnerable engineering spaces, torpedo damage was that much more likely to be survivable. And the narrator was not responsible for the text of the narration, it was written for her. She very likely had next to no knowledge of naval operations, ship construction or wartime tactics. The torpedoes of most NAVIES are today wire-guided. Particularly those launched sub-surface, but increasingly so in surface vessels. Which means much greater accuracy at point impact. In the eighties, however, this technology was barely out of the laboratory, so her point was valid when this was filmed. Just saying.
+Tom Foyle Modern torpedoes are also designed to detonate under a vessel lifting her out of the water and breaking the ships back, and not detonate on impact.
I was in the US Navy, I've been with the Royal Navy making many friends. I have the highest respect for British sailors. The thing I could never understand is how Britain went from being the largest navy in the world to the point it's navy could barely defend it's citizens in the Falklands. I was in tears at seeing the Royal Navy take such an unnecessary beating from a third rate country. It's fine to depend on the US in a major conflict, but Britain should be able to defend itself. Thomas
@@aljack1979 the through deck carrier itself was the mistake. You need a platform like F-14 to trully defend your own carrier. Argentinians demonstrated that with just old A-4s and a saturation attack, flying at low level 30 feet...at 450 knots they could strike the core of the fleet. Harriers are marvelous macines but they cannot defend the fleet.
Harriers, as mentioned at 2:45, do/did not have swivelling jets. The jet is the engine that allows the plane to fly. Instead, it is/was the nozzles for directing the stream of air that swivelled. She mentions, at 4:04, that the rudders can "...spin the ship on a dime." That is an American coin so why could she not use a British denomination? When she showed her ignorance concerning Naval and ship terminology and technical logistics, etc., I had to turn it off as that and her voice made me blanch. I was in the R.N. and served aboard Centaur and Hermes, although they were different from Invincible, many of these hold steady across all vessels, both war ships and commercial.
Is there a British coin expression that means the same as "turn on a dime"? Americans use the expression "in for a penny, in for a pound". We call our 1 cent coin a penny, but we don't use pence or pound. Just saying some expressions are so widely known there is no need to change them.
thepezfeo Thank you for your enquiry. I was born in Fulham, London and am now 73 years old and live between Toronto and Bangkok and familiar with your "dime" which is a 10 cent piece. The expression "turn on a dime" is an expression from the U.S.A. but we had/have an older one, "turn on a sixpence." The sixpence piece was part of the old currency and introduced in 1551, and obviously in use before any of your coinage. Before it ended its days it was approximately the size of the dime. The decimal currency came into being in 1971 and changed many things. To my knowledge your expression may be used but to what degree is unknown, however people of my generation and even those after the introduction of decimal coinage would commonly use the original idiomatic expression. She, because of her age, should know that and use the more familiar one, especially as it was a documentary about the Royal Navy and made for British television. English people often retain old sayings even when they are antiquated and may seem inappropriate to people of other countries, even those whose mother tongue is a form of English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat_%28R22%29#Royal_Navy_Service one more awesome ship In active maritime service with the Indian Navy for the last 28 years - HMS Hermes / INS Viraat...Taken part in Falklands War and now proudly serving the Indian Navy in many an operational duties en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_%28R12%29 still serving the Indian Navy very well and she has gone through 5 major refits she has changed a lot... Though India now has the INS Vikramaditya the much larger aircraft carrier and 2 more indigenous aircraft carriers under construction...HMS Hermes / INS Viraat might stay operational till 2020...that would be like 60+ years of overall service!!
From memory this was from a series called "The Goldring Audit" where a business woman was sent to look at whether or not various things were cost effective. These pocket carriers were built because UK governments of the 70s didn't want to finance proper aircraft carriers anymore, and were the navy's way of hanging on to at least some air defence capability. Better than nothing but not really adequate for the job. And the usual problem for the British of not investing enough when they do have a good invention like the harrier. The same issue is true now where the government is kidding itself that a small handful of unproven aircraft and a ship shared with France, is enough to hold the world at bay. One day the UK will face a major threat and will be utterly exposed. Praying for the Americans to intervene is not a defence strategy.
although her occasional comments about Americans were polite and professional, her tone led me to believe that she still holds a grudge against the colonies for throwing a hissy fit some time back.
did you know that Richard Cheney, when he was Sec. of Defense, ordered the F14 jigs, etc, to be destroyed...and the UK did cancel great jets, the TS-2 comes to mind - had to save some money..
granskare Yes its strange, also the destruction of many many retired F14's to stop the spares finding their way to Iran. The F14 still is a potent platform (Iranian).
F-14 squadron with a Grumman HAWKEYE is still unsurpassed in naval history when it comes to carrier protection.The digital APG-71 had a range of close to 250 miles that could track 24 simultaneous targets. She had a multi platform data link, IRST, an electro optical system, an EW suite. All tied together and able to work with the radar. All this 25 years ago..Tom Reilly,the legendary program manager of F-14 said that F-14D was capable of taking out todays 4 -4.5 Gen fighters easily before they realize what hit them..
How have the terms 'Through Deck Cruiser' and more importantly 'Air Supremacy' been missed out of this entire documentary? Both are essential to this particular Class of vessel. This documentary without these has been made to shut the kids up on a wet Sunday afternoon ...
Many people here are missing the point, the Invincible and Harrier was always a compromise solution and the Navy knew that deep down. It did sterling work in the Falklands but everyone seems to forget that against an opponent like the Soviet Union which is was meant to fight at the time, I'm not sure what good it would have been. Would be interested to know from any ex RN that served in the 80s/ early 90s how they expected to cope with a raid from a TU22 Backfire regiment, compared to say with what the Americans had with AEGIS and F-14.
They make a big deal of the at sea refueling but this was done routinely in rough seas during WW2 all the time. US Navy carriers were never in port except for much-needed overhauls. After Pearl Harbor it was understood that a ship was safer at sea than being a sitting duck in a harbor.
Wow! Never served with women, that must of been something... That Red Head would have caused me to walk off the end of the deck! Cheers to an old Warrior and her crew!
After years of getting a quart out of a pint pot with the Invincible class, now the Navy might just squeeze a pint out of the quart pot that is the Queen Elizabeth class...
Nothing but a "Floating Target" . . . as it DOESN'T carry enough weapons to even come "Close", to being able to defending itself !. They have learned NOTHING, from the Falklands !
@@montanabulldog9687 actually the QE Class is accompanied by the Daring Class Destroyers which are, for their role, better than the Burke Class of the USN
@@tomvandaalen273 Were NOT talking about the DARING class . . . I was "Specific", the QE-2 CAN NOT even defend "Itself".! As for the Daring's, they too, CAN NOT match the Burkes armament, Missile OR Guns.
As an ext stoker on her sister ship, illustrious, for 4 years; I found her criticism of my former home, hard to swallow at first but she’s right; the navy has to make do with some crappy old kit and seems to care more about distracting everyone with tradition father than providing better gear
Unfortunately our new carrier will be launching F-35Bs (i.e. the least effective) The second carrier is being considered for a redesign to use EMALS (magnetic launch system) capable of launching anything from a fighter to a portable AWACS system, just like the nimitz. EMALS makes a carrier look better anyways.
I was that guy coming down the gangway at the end!!!! Thanks for letting me know MYK1200LT, it was good to catch up. I remember us having the reporter on the ship for quite some weeks and she tried to get access to all sorts of places. Alas her luck was out, she never did see the 'very' interesting areas!!! I think it was shot in 1992 on our return from Orient 92 or it may have been our trip to the Med but being as the wife was there it was probably the former!!! The good old days.......
They act as if they were lost at sea and had no way to communicate or find each other due to a radio blackout. Were the Brits still working with WWII equipment in the 80's? What about all those satellites the United States out up there? Couldn't the modern Royal Navy buy some airtime from their closest allie?
Not the best solution for world wide power projection like the classic carriers Hermes and Eagle with multi task capabilities provided by various specialized aircraft but surelly it's better than no aircraft carrier at all (Falklands proved it). In the 70's, RN's budget could only be focused on the SSBN force, I believe the Invencible class was projected mainly for their defence at sea: ASW (anti-sub) helis to catch enemy SSN on the hunt and Sea Harrier to intercept ASW aircraft on patrol.
You're quite right, if my memory serves me right, WRNS first went to sea on the Brilliant in 1990, thanks for jogging the old grey matter. I have changed the title to the 1990's.
Where did BBC get this script? Rolling & Pitching Deck on a Bird Farm? BS. Lived on a Gearing class destroyer 4 yrs; know ;picoting & rolling when I see it. Carriers on a steady course for optimal winds over the flight deck. Romeo flag is for Refueling Ops. Carriers have their own ATC system.
Women on ships, there must be a law that forbids telling the truth. How interesting when she asked the question of what it was like when women first came on board. The answered, the men were worried the women would do a better job. How utterly stupid does a person have to be to believe that? Navies with women on board ships have had to seriously alter their lives at sea to accommodate women. Women do not do equal work and the physical strength required during damage control will cost lives because women can't do the job. As we see women getting more rights than men our military and society will get weaker. Women didn't earn their positions, they cried to the courts and legislators to give them what they want. Especially in the military, women do not earn their positions, standards are lowered to accommodate them. We will all eventually pay a very high price for giving women more rights than men. BTW, I spent 5 1/2 years at sea in the US Navy and Coast Guard. Thomas
my knickers wer never in a twist you started out insulting us first if you wish to have a proper chat about it im willing but im not anti american iether im just honest in what see around me in the world in word war 2 japan occording to them in a documentry i saw only ever set sight on australia becouse of our ties to america and it was the american agression in politics that they bombed pearl harbour ive seen over the years a lot of american politics putting thier nose in wanting certain nations to think the way they think and do as you say , im not muslim im cristian but i honestly wouldnt trust america any more than the muslim millitants and america would never have thier nose in middle east if wasnt for the oil and riches there,,theres many nations where evil is being done but your doing nothing about it as there is no money in those countries; i agree our prices are high but your wages are lousy you pay crap wages so your goods should be cheaper and as for you not liking australians you met its proberly that they punched your lights out fo mouthing of so arrogantly we are not racist any more than you guys are we just come across that way becouse we take the piss out of everything and everyoneand most of us dont believe in political correctness
jimmy cricket The Aussie insults have been going on for over 15 years I've been on the internet. They've been saying the same things you are. Every time I tried to have a rational discussion they just kept on going, so more and more Americans fought back. Seriously, did you really think all this criticism came out of the blue recently? Honestly, do you really believe what those Japanese documentary film makers claimed in having no interest in invading Australia? The Japanese build up was very close to Australia and they weren't tourists. There is only one reason the Japanese put over 20,000 troops on Guadalcanal with a lot more on the way. Australia was a British Commonwealth and would have declared war on Japan as soon as British interests were attacked. You have to be really gullible and seriously lacking in WWII knowledge to believe the Japanese didn't attack Australia because of your association with us. Right after Pearl Harbor the Japanese sank two British battleships and invaded British colonies in Southeast Asia. Then they bombed Port Moresby and there's only one reason for that, it's a very short hop to Australia. Even the most amateur of ameteur military historians know that Japan intended to control all of the Western Pacific, including Australia. There is absolutely no way that the British Commonwealth could have prevented an invasion of Australia. I'd sure appreciate it if you would check your history of what happened between Japan and America prior to Pearl Harbor. The US imposed an embargo on Japan because of their invasion of Manchuria and the horrific brutality they inflicted on the Chinese. What's really interesting here is the contrast between Nazi Germany and Japan. Japan blatantly conquered countries to solidify possession of natural resources they were so dependant on with imports. Germany, on the other hand, didn't conquer anyone. Every single military action was to stop brutality of Germans. regain the territory taken by the League of Nations and secure Northern countries that Britain was using. Countries like Holland, Norway and Denmark claimed neutrality, but helped the British anyway. They broke their neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland did not break their neutrality and were left alone. It was Britain and France who declared war. What's interesting about that is Britain claimed their justification was because of a defense treaty with Poland. That was a fake justification because Britain didn't declare war on the Soviets who did the same thing, with the same brutality to Poland. Also, and more despicably, the British treated the Polish like garbage, even though they were extremely good troops and exceptional airmen. Matter of fact, the Polish fighter pilots had the largest number of kills in the RAF. It's even more interesting that so many of other English speaking people criticise us for butting into other people's business and condemn us for waiting to fight Germany. We can't very well take such duplicity very seriously, but we do get get piss off after awhile. There, you have your rational discussion without insults. We'll see if you are any different than all those Aussies who slam the US. BTW, in your previous message you offered the probability of my being so anti-Australian because one must have kicked my ass in the past. The last fight I lost I was 16 (I'm 66 now) and of all the Australians I've met, not one would even think of taking me on. Thomas
i would in a heart beat dont care how good you think you are. your an anti australian and you read the history to suit your self like most your country world war 2 to be honest if japan had not waded into it youd still be on side lines thinking about it it took quite a while before you country waded into ww2. its the u.s that seems to think they all that and to be real honest we dont really care what you country wants or likes i say this if you cant watch a film without insulting dont watch it your very insulting and anti australian and anti british it seems seems if its not u.s its not worth anything good to say as for the talent shows i dont like em much either so i just dont watch em i suggest you try it its better than insulting them as we might not admire the talent but others do and as far as i knew we are free to like what we want
edwardpf123 Fortunately there's no chance of having a major naval battle and they can get by with telling their fairy tales. I feel sorry for those women who go in the military and think it's like those movies and TV shows with what I call "Super Wonder Women". I really wish navy veterans who sailed with women would tell the real truth. The feminazis get by with claiming absurd numbers of sexual assault. I'd love to see them eat their words if it were made public how many women have sex on the ship to get what they want and, the equivalent to a vicious rape, wrongful accusations. Thomas
There new Carriers are really the hot setup for the Britts. This was cheap,not cheaply made mind you but at the time for a little Falkland war it worked. Facing a Russian threat would be another story.
I doub't it. Two ships something like HMS Ocean could have been built as commando ships and Hermes and Eagle could have continued as strike carriers till the end of the 1980s. There are many who claim that the Eagle was stuffed when she was withdrawn in 1972, but it was inevitable she was being run down to justify the withdrawal. In the mid 1960s it had definitely been planned to continue with the Eagle till the mid l1980s and scrap the Ark Royal in 1967. Eagle and Hermes could have got Dutch3D
Are you not aware that we are constructing 2 65,000 aircraft carriers that are due in service in 2016 and 2018 with helicopters and by 2020 will finally have proper aircraft flying off them.
A wise man would do well to return to the idea of this kind of ship.The future lies with UAV's and hybrid heli-planes. The UAV's would not require the huge decks and catapults. As the commander said, with hindsight, side lifts should be the way to go on all future carriers. After all, the US Navy has enough super-carriers to full-fill NATO's requirement. The UK defence budget would be better spent on a mini-carrier fleet 'working on the idea of 4 for the price of one super-carrier'. Fast, small and capable of working with an assault group or a main battle fleet the economics add up - four airfields instead of one, four different locations instead of one. Do we really need super-carriers anymore? Are they just expensive 'toys' for admirals' to play with. Are we about to see the super-carrier go the same way as the battleship - too easy a target for the enemy to find, and, too big a target not to miss. As proved in the Falklands, it wasn't the numbers of aircraft that mattered, it was the type of aircraft - and what you could do with it that turned the day in Britain's favour - and it's mini-carrier of course - thank you, Australia..
The U.S. & the U.K. will always be forever tied together. I personally, as John Farley stated recently, would like very much to see a Harrier III come into existance. No need for PCB & all that, but with the right engine/airframe combination, it could supercruise. The F-35B STOVL has TOO many problems & issues and will always be a "problem child" involving maintenance & computer problems. The reason the Harrier is so good is because Great Britain developed it over a VERY long time.
As an american that builds military models ships and aircraft, and have a love for all thing military, i would say that the Invincible class carriers, were worth it. It clearly showed in the falklands war. If britian didn't have them, the falklands would still be under argentine control to this day.
This documentary must have been later than the 80`s as women didnt join the ship until 90/91 and JG Tolhurst didnt take command until around that time !!! Nice to see the old ship , many happy memories of my time on her .
actually the germans built them in 1942 to launch the doodlebug. nope the germans had steam catapults way before america. As for the russians they DID make a working catapult in 1980 but because of the lack of funding the project was cancelled.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? we have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.. You have that luxury of not knowing what I know:. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Steam catapults - british invention, first demonstrated on HMS Perseus in 1950 and then shown to the US in 1952, the US licensed Colin mitchell's design, ever heard of wiki?
yeah i'm sure...not only could lose 12 because news flash we were battling a country w/ runways, mirages, ectr with a 200m long carrier and strike vtol jets. said strike aircraft had more of a chance from crashing than being shot down by an incompetant argentine
I'm ex Royal Navy and there was 3 LITTLE ships, invincible, illustrious, and ask royal. She knows FUCK all about life at sea. She would have been better employed as a split arse ashore in the UPO or accommodation assistant. Even then they always tucked up your LOA, ACCOMMODATION CHARGES, ect.
Even though the hangar space was increased in the mid 1980s by knocking out the officers baths- the number of Sea kings and Harriers was too small to be useful against the Soviets. The Jaguar M carrier trials on TH-cam suggest the Sea Jaguar might have been viable off Hermes.
Correction, Catapults are CHEAP. It's just the same guys who designed invincible designed this. The decision WAS MADE to change from ramp to catapult but by then the pieces were set. You're theory is correct, we are bannkrupt, but the carrier's cost 4 billion a piece. A catapult only costs $5 million, that's a drop in the ocean. The QE class costs 1.5x MORE than the nimitz.
aging frames aging frames an excuse to buy all new planes. A company friendly mindset not a practical one. New planes for older frames, time, parts maintenance saved and combat readiness is worth it, new designs should always be looked for then properly phased in, sometimes it is done, most of the time it is not
I really can't understand the venom directed at this thoroughly professional presenter and the charge that she does the navy no favours at all and assertions that she is ill-informed and anti-service. On the contrary, she explicitly recognises the courage, devotion, adaptability and pride there is in the navy. What she does so well is lay bare the facts behind the navy having to make the best of inadequate, sub-optimal equipment getting very long in the tooth. Examples being the sequence of authorisation and cancellations of the Sea Harrier Mk2, the age of the Sea Kings, the continued use of the hastily improvised AEW systems on the Sea Kings, and most of all the lack of sense of urgency in the MoD and its failure to give the navy the weapons it has asked for. This is about a failure of government, politicians and the civil service. It is NOT about any failures within the navy. The facts she exposes are now all well known and well documented. UK taxpayers deserve people like Mary Goldsmith to call our governments and servants to political, military and financial account. It could be argued that In an indirect way , her exposure of these matters would help the navy better to press its case (which it never has been compared with the RAF), get better equipment designed, made and delivered, and better protect the lives of RN crews (note the case of how the MoD saved money by fitting plastic cable insulation in the Type 22 frigates, plastic laminates for interior panelling, and - worst of all - nylon (which melts) rather than wool (which is pretty-much fire-proof) for anti-flash gear). We either surround ourselves with falsehoods and pay the price in lives, or face the facts and pay the price in money.
I don't think her torpedo analogy @ 4:19 holds up; the designers had rather a torpedo hit the nose & backsides 'that could take a lot of punishment' than the middle? She must never have heard what the Japanese torpedos did to Prince of Wales. A bent shaft removed the waterproofness to the plating below the waterline. It did for her!
England's in so much financial trouble right now nobody knows what that will mean to the eventual launch-date for sea-trials of the QE class. My comment reflects that the UK is outside of treaty obligations right now to their NATO allies. Possibly unavoidable but it is leaving a lot of bad feeling within the upper military circles.
@@7777Scion There is no such agreement to provide an aircraft carrier. There is a budget responsibility to Nato. I agree that we should have not decommissioned the 3 deck cruisers and harrier aircraft until their replacement. We did have a responsibility/agreement to protect Europe from nuclear missile strikes with our nuclear deterrent (an agreement with the USA) however France has their own nuclear weapons now.
Of course they were worth it. Also, the UK needs to pony up the money now - somehow - to meet their NATO treaty commitments about carriers! So far, the USA has not gotten totally bent out of shape over this, but if the gov't does not start building one soon, the U.S. may demand payment for U.S. carrier protection in British waters, which wouldn't be very popular. A carrier is absolutely necessary for UK defense.
worth it and many time over without her and her sister ships britain would have lost the falklands and the reprucsuion of the lost would have been profound to her reputation and international power britian being without any carrier strike group would degrade the royal navy into a brown water navy question would have been raise about uk qualification in being a un sercuirity council.
Very interesting film, thanks for uploading. Sadly the conclusion our narrator draws is still valid in many ways. And apropos of nothing at all, what a desirable voice she has...:~}
EMALS are notouriously simple to anyone with a degree in electromagnetic engineering. If you can build a carrier i'm pretty sure it's simple enough to make a much simpler catapult don't you? My government spends money on whatever it can that isn't important. That's why we're 9 trillion in debt.
Hats off to the sailors and aircrew for dealing politely and patiently with some of the dumbest questions ever asked.
I cant believe they are asking stupid questions like are they worth the money?? I guess they expect to be totally protected by the united states or something. The invincible proved to be an excellent little ship. Nothing wrong with The uk doing it's part in Nato.
I agree with the Commander Air. Supersonic is not a necessity. How many dog fights take place at Mach 1 plus? The Mirage and Super Etendards in the Falklands were supersonic, didn't prevent them from being shot down in numbers. However this documentary does have a slightly anti-Royal Navy feel to it. Like all three services we do the best with what we are given. Any failings belong solely to our masters in Government.
F Hugh What are you talking about?
***** Here is an idea to you. Grow up. Stop talking, especially about things you know nothing about. Stop hurling insults over the safety of the Internet when it a reasonable question. Any right to talk to me has now been lost by your comments above.
The Bolcheviks Broadcasting Communism were beginning to show their leftist agenda by then.
Ask the Argentine air force if the Harriers were worthless..........
well, ask the Royal navy if the argentine planes were wortless. hahahaha
Just 21 Sea Harriers 8000 miles from home against an argenswine airforce of around 150 aircraft. And they were operating just a few hundred miles from their bases. The Americans said we would not be able to recapture the Islands. But Hey Hey - Up The British. We took Our Islands back in style!! God bless the Harriers and their pilots!
@Spanish Armada
it was the Israelis who were the most supportive of Argentina. No other help was necessary!
she is to damn unprofessional for this documentary she puts the brilliance of the ships aside and grabs every mistake she can an miss the positive things she betray the Royal Navy.
Frederik yes sir
you're right
If you are asking if HMS Invincible was worth the money, then you are asking that to Illustrious & Ark Royal also, seeing as Invincible was the first ship of the class. We had to just had the Falklands war and the Cold War was at it's height! If the RN had no carriers during the 1980's it would not of been a good & powerful navy and would of been a fleet made up of just surface ships with some submarines. NOT good at all!!!
this iis a very good doco on the problems of Royal Navy reeuquipment in the 1960-1990 period- where Royal Navy frigates and destroyers were build to be shop windows of Britains revolutinary white light modern tech, rather than 'effective modern weapons channels. both the Leanders and Type 21 were built with two ineffective anti aircraft and anti missile weapons and directors, both the Mk 6/8 4.5s and Seacat were largely useless except for shore bombardment and sinking merchant shipping. Neither gun could deal with even subsonic jets and both classes completly lack any close in weapons other than a few later fitted with Seawolf. Even four 40mm 60s would greatly have boosted defence against Argie Mirages and Skyhawks. The Mk 5 twin 40/60 was probably the most effective cheap AA weapon used by the RN during the cold war but not fitted after 1960, Rothesay, Hermes and Belfasst were the last ships fitted.
Yes we should of kept it along with ark Royal
invincible and her babies were worth lives in the s atlantic !! I know I was there
The 'narrator' does the RN no favours.
High quality documentary, thanks for uploading
One unmentioned huge problem with the Invicibles, T22 and T42 is the higher level of noise of the gas turbines which is the main reason the Leanders and T12 were maintained long after there useby date. Probably a comprehensive modrnsiation and rewiring of the Hermes and Bulwark in the early 1970s would have served the RN better in the Cold war than just relying on the impression of competence and strut of the officers.
Of course it was worthwhile. Aside from any actual military use it may or may not have had, it provided employment for countless people from Naval Architects and shipbuilders to the RN personnel who sailed in her or who maintained her to the small companies providing engineering support. It will have provided meaning to a huge number of lives. This of course costs the country money, perhaps the money could be spent on what some might consider more socially conscious state initiatives such as the NHS but the reality is that if all that money was transferred to these pop-causes all that would be achieved would be large scale unemployment for those who rely on state employment but to whom caring professions will never be suitable nor of interest. This might seem like a advocacy for 'jobs-for-the-boys' but why not - everyone needs to work even those who have naval aspirations. This is also aside from the reality that the ship actually was useful and would continue to be useful even if not specifically optimised for purpose.
a very interesting piece of visual history Kevin...thanks for posting.
36:16 "Take off 3 a minute, that's faster than the Americans." What they do not mention is the fact that American carriers are large enough to have the necessary fuel stores aboard to keep a constant fighter CAP above the carrier group to intercept much, much quicker than any fighter scrambled from deck.
flip inheck rofl...oh my God, it really does make me laugh at just how much Britts let envy, pure and simple envy, cause them to try their hardest to distort truth as much as they can.
"Yanks have never, ever won a war"...those were YOUR words, not mine.
First of all, we won the war that makes Britts cringe with shame, we won the American Revolution, The war against Mexico, US funds and infusion of fresh troops enabled the French and British who had suffered appalling losses at the hands of the Germans and their allies ( lets not forget Gallipoli where the lowly TURKS kicked the snot out of a British led force...really...beaten by Turks rofl), then there is the fact that not even that only the most deluded Britt would try to deny, that if not for US aid during the Battle of the Atlantic in the form of both convoy escort vessels, supply ships (since Britain had lost nearly ALL of its merchantmen just as the US began making those ship losses good in the form of Liberty ships being built in record time, due to US industrial might...something the British did not have then, and STILL do not have), food stuffs, etc., etc., etc.,. After the Battle of the Atlantic it was sheer us military might and US industrial might along with that of the Soviet Union. The men at arms that Britain not Canada, Australia, etc..but Britain itself supplied to the war effort was laughable compared to the number sent by the US and the USSR.
Before embarrassing yourself again, you might want to pick up a history book or do at least SOME research before making a complete fool of yourself again.
Not to mention that the fact remains that even the British military considered the Invincible a pathetic attempt at an aircraft carrier... my God, the poor little thing only carry's 8 lonely ground attack aircraft, Harriers.
Now that I am quite finished here, I think I am going to pop on over to the local pawn shop and put a bid in on the yacht that USED to belong to the King and Queen of England, but, seeing as how they couldn't afford to keep it up anymore, they were forced to sell it.
Next, the Crown Jewels will be hocked.
There was even an article not too long ago outlining how Britain's present day merchant fleet is continually shrinking. Well, that stands to reason I suppose, as the UK has NO empire left so, they don't need them.
flip inheck Oh, and trying to use Sept. 11 as an example is hardly an accurate display. Considering there are plenty in the military who do not believe that 9/11 was even perpetrated by any external enemy. Additionally, if it was carried out by terrorists flying civilian aircraft, it speaks WELL that those aircraft WERE NOT shot down. As every conceivable effort has to be made first to rule out communications problems, hydraulics or electrical problems, a complete range of issues which could cause a civilian aircraft to stray off course.
So, it speak well that they were not just shot down with no thought given to it at all, as you obviously would have done. But, that is because you are obviously, quite ignorant, AND an amateur. lol
+Singular Purpose
Bear in mind that a major reason for the shrinking navies - both merchant and military - of the UK is that America didn't give her assistance to Britain during WWII for free. Britain had to PAY for it, and only finished paying for it a few years ago. ALL other countries that received US aid had their debts wiped out. Even the USSR, though they simply refused to be blackmailed. Sorry, I meant that they just didn't pay. It has been US policy since Truman came to power to reduce the military capability of the UK to the extent that America no longer has reason to fear Britain, to make her a subjugate, minor NATO member. Add to that their deliberate destruction of Britain's aircraft industry, as evidenced by the Lockheed conspiracy with Germany - amongst others - the deliberate withholding of research that should have been shared, but wasn't, along with intelligence, despite Britain's willingness to co-operate MORE than was fair, and you can see who was the real envious party.
Also, in both world wars, America only deigned to align themselves with the UK when it became clear that it was the allied forces that were going to win. America never backs the losing side. There is no profit in it for her.
As to the numbers of troops supplied - did you bother to consider that the _entire_ population of the UK during WWII - INCLUDING women, children and the elderly - was about the same as that of Washington state? Of course you didn't. You're only interested in scoring points over a perceived opponent. And even without US participation, Russia would have conquered Germany.
However, having said all that, and if you actually bother to read this far, I personally am more than grateful for the assistance rendered by America during both world wars. Their entry into these conflicts shortened the fighting quite considerably, and probably saved the lives of many allied combatants, and civilians. Many US servicemen gave their lives, their looks or their mobility.
Ultimately, though, we are all just pawns in the games of those who run the planet, and their biggest, most effective weapon against us is ourselves, as shown by such arguments as that between yourself and flipineck there. They rule us easily by dividing us, and they do it so successfully because they've had so much practice and because humans are all too willing to fight each other.
Tom Foyle Well, if you would do some research sir, you would find that the reason that Britain's war debt wasn't just "wished" away is that Britain BY FAR received the most aid, war material (i.e., aircraft, tanks, etc.) food, natural resources...the list is far to vast to itemize...at least I certainly wouldn't want to as it would likely give one carpel tunnel.
And then there is the "little" matter of the fact that the US shouldered the COMPLETE financial burden in funding the development of the Atomic Bombs and the US simply handed over all of the technology to Britain. The cost, as you may or may not know, ran into the billions. Yet, Britain did not pay a single cent and that is not an opinion, it is a fact...look it up.
Are you aware that an armored division during WWII used 25,000 gallons of fuel PER DAY? All supplied by Uncle Sam. Montgomery, and every other British commander could not have moved their collective "arse's" without aforementioned resource...and that's just one example of a great many.
In regards to the USSR, neither the US nor Britain supplied the USSR with any great amount of war materials (less than 5% of the war resources used by the USSR during the whole of the War, if you wish to be precise).
Thus, it is little wonder this was not a pressing issue. Let us also not forget the reality that there was a bitter "Cold War" between the USSR and the "West". One would hardly expect their enemy to actually volunteer to pay for aid that was GIVEN..that's right, Britain AND the US freely gave the USSR the trickle of materials which were sent in order to try and appease Stalin's constant demands for a Second Front to be opened.
However, this was not the case with Britain.
So, in essence, you are kicking and screaming because the British "Empire" (well, not so much) was expected to honor financial agreements entered into in order to keep Britain from collapsing. You will pardon me if I can not help but think this not much more than simply trying to make the US into the "bad guy" simply because of injured pride in that Britain no longer has access to easy money taken from countries which it had forcibly colonized. Now, when people in India sweat when they are working, the fruits of their labor do not flow out of their country to support another nation. India being only one example of course, but it was the "jewel" of the conquests.
It truly does remind you of someone being insulted and stark raving mad that a bill collector should expect the person on the other end of the line to actually pay back what they had agreed to, and this after the debtor had already utilized the funds, gained and benefited from having access to them.
So much for British "honor"...?
+Singular Purpose
It was in America's own interests to support Britain, as it was the one country left standing, and willing and able to fight Hitler. Up until Germany declared war on the US, American material support, though provided, was given somewhat grudgingly, as the isolationist Americans didn't want in ANY way to be involved in "Britain's" war.
Perhaps YOU should do some research regarding Truman's policy towards Britain.
The Atomic bomb research wasn't "handed over" because there were extremely competent British scientists working on the project as well. But there was technology that Britain face freely to the Americans, as well. The first US jet was powered by a whittle-type engine, an example of which was sent to America along with the blueprints and a team from Powerjets, who built the thing in the first place. The cavity magnetron was passed over at no cost, together with radar designs which utilised it. There are other examples, but I don't have time right now.
Britain's empire was already on the way out, and she knew it, which was why it was the only country that gave up its colonies just post-war with little effort to keep hold of them.
WWII bankrupted Britain, and the US was the beneficiary. Easy money, anyone?
My dad was a petty officer on the ship for 16 years. Have fond memories aboard her
It's important to realise that this class of ship was never really designed as an aircraft carrier. Politicians of both sides decided, during the 1970s, that, after the last of our big fast jet carriers was paid off, we'd get out of that game, and stick to taking on Soviet subs. Hence three big through-deck cruisers, equipped with antisub helis, escorted by frigates. The Admiralty didn't fancy that though, hence the use of Harriers..
Like your use of the term 'Through Deck Cruiser' which this entire documentary lacks. All three Invincible Class vessels were Through Deck Cruisers - Invincible, Illustrious and the Ark Royal.
Very good video. Thank you Kevin Kilpatrick. Enjoyed this a lot.
An odd documentary - I wonder for who it was produced? She asked some odd questions at times, and undoubtedly had an agenda regarding the equipment procurers (well the MOD are appallingly bad in this respect). I can't help but think that the Queen Elizabeth class is too big however, and the reliance on the unproven Lightning II a little risky. Better a conventional carrier with regular aircraft but hey...
The IOWA class BATTLESHIP, can go from "Full Ahead Flank", to a DEAD STOP, in only "3" of her lengths too . . . but the IOWA "Weighs", almost "3" times what this ship does. Bit of a difference there ( lol )
This narrator must have contacts with the Production Company, otherwise she would never have been chosen to speak....disastrous!
I don't think the narrator really knows what she's talking about. Perhaps during WWII a ship's ability to stop in 3 deck lengths might have afforded a measure of protection, but since the 1960s the torpedoes of most navy's were sonar-guided. Regardless of whatever defensive maneuver you might wish to employ (stop, reverse, etc.), once the torpedo had acquired the target, it was probably going to hit.
+CaesarInVa
The point is, such acoustic torpedoes are going to go for the noisiest source - propellor cavitation. And since the rear of this particular vessel was much more strongly-constructed than the more vulnerable engineering spaces, torpedo damage was that much more likely to be survivable. And the narrator was not responsible for the text of the narration, it was written for her. She very likely had next to no knowledge of naval operations, ship construction or wartime tactics.
The torpedoes of most NAVIES are today wire-guided. Particularly those launched sub-surface, but increasingly so in surface vessels. Which means much greater accuracy at point impact. In the eighties, however, this technology was barely out of the laboratory, so her point was valid when this was filmed. Just saying.
+Tom Foyle Modern torpedoes are also designed to detonate under a vessel lifting her out of the water and breaking the ships back, and not detonate on impact.
I wonder how many takes that opening monologue took before she nailed it.
I was in the US Navy, I've been with the Royal Navy making many friends. I have the highest respect for British sailors. The thing I could never understand is how Britain went from being the largest navy in the world to the point it's navy could barely defend it's citizens in the Falklands. I was in tears at seeing the Royal Navy take such an unnecessary beating from a third rate country. It's fine to depend on the US in a major conflict, but Britain should be able to defend itself.
Thomas
Lots of mistakes made in the Falklands that shouldn't have happened which led to great loss of shipping. It shouldn't have happened.
@@aljack1979 the through deck carrier itself was the mistake. You need a platform like F-14 to trully defend your own carrier.
Argentinians demonstrated that with just old A-4s and a saturation attack, flying at low level 30 feet...at 450 knots they could strike the core of the fleet.
Harriers are marvelous macines but they cannot defend the fleet.
Harriers, as mentioned at 2:45, do/did not have swivelling jets. The jet is the engine that allows the plane to fly. Instead, it is/was the nozzles for directing the stream of air that swivelled. She mentions, at 4:04, that the rudders can "...spin the ship on a dime." That is an American coin so why could she not use a British denomination? When she showed her ignorance concerning Naval and ship terminology and technical logistics, etc., I had to turn it off as that and her voice made me blanch. I was in the R.N. and served aboard Centaur and Hermes, although they were different from Invincible, many of these hold steady across all vessels, both war ships and commercial.
Is there a British coin expression that means the same as "turn on a dime"? Americans use the expression "in for a penny, in for a pound". We call our 1 cent coin a penny, but we don't use pence or pound. Just saying some expressions are so widely known there is no need to change them.
thepezfeo Thank you for your enquiry. I was born in Fulham, London and am now 73 years old and live between Toronto and Bangkok and familiar with your "dime" which is a 10 cent piece. The expression "turn on a dime" is an expression from the U.S.A. but we had/have an older one, "turn on a sixpence." The sixpence piece was part of the old currency and introduced in 1551, and obviously in use before any of your coinage. Before it ended its days it was approximately the size of the dime. The decimal currency came into being in 1971 and changed many things. To my knowledge your expression may be used but to what degree is unknown, however people of my generation and even those after the introduction of decimal coinage would commonly use the original idiomatic expression. She, because of her age, should know that and use the more familiar one, especially as it was a documentary about the Royal Navy and made for British television. English people often retain old sayings even when they are antiquated and may seem inappropriate to people of other countries, even those whose mother tongue is a form of English.
A very 1970's programme dressed up for the 1990's - was it worth the money? Pffht!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Viraat_%28R22%29#Royal_Navy_Service
one more awesome ship In active maritime service with the Indian Navy for the last 28 years - HMS Hermes / INS Viraat...Taken part in Falklands War and now proudly serving the Indian Navy in many an operational duties
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Hermes_%28R12%29 still serving the Indian Navy very well and she has gone through 5 major refits she has changed a lot...
Though India now has the INS Vikramaditya the much larger aircraft carrier and 2 more indigenous aircraft carriers under construction...HMS Hermes / INS Viraat might stay operational till 2020...that would be like 60+ years of overall service!!
From memory this was from a series called "The Goldring Audit" where a business woman was sent to look at whether or not various things were cost effective. These pocket carriers were built because UK governments of the 70s didn't want to finance proper aircraft carriers anymore, and were the navy's way of hanging on to at least some air defence capability. Better than nothing but not really adequate for the job. And the usual problem for the British of not investing enough when they do have a good invention like the harrier. The same issue is true now where the government is kidding itself that a small handful of unproven aircraft and a ship shared with France, is enough to hold the world at bay. One day the UK will face a major threat and will be utterly exposed. Praying for the Americans to intervene is not a defence strategy.
although her occasional comments about Americans were polite and professional, her tone led me to believe that she still holds a grudge against the colonies for throwing a hissy fit some time back.
Nice to see praise for the F14 Tomcat
did you know that Richard Cheney, when he was Sec. of Defense, ordered the F14 jigs, etc, to be destroyed...and the UK did cancel great jets, the TS-2 comes to mind - had to save some money..
granskare Yes its strange, also the destruction of many many retired F14's to stop the spares finding their way to Iran. The F14 still is a potent platform (Iranian).
F-14 squadron with a Grumman HAWKEYE is still unsurpassed in naval history when it comes to carrier protection.The digital APG-71 had a range of close to 250 miles that could track 24 simultaneous targets. She had a multi platform data link, IRST, an electro optical system, an EW suite. All tied together and able to work with the radar. All this 25 years ago..Tom Reilly,the legendary program manager of F-14 said that F-14D was capable of taking out todays 4 -4.5 Gen fighters easily before they realize what hit them..
Worth the money YES far better than having none or just one or two big ones.
How have the terms 'Through Deck Cruiser' and more importantly 'Air Supremacy' been missed out of this entire documentary? Both are essential to this particular Class of vessel. This documentary without these has been made to shut the kids up on a wet Sunday afternoon ...
Many people here are missing the point, the Invincible and Harrier was always a compromise solution and the Navy knew that deep down. It did sterling work in the Falklands but everyone seems to forget that against an opponent like the Soviet Union which is was meant to fight at the time, I'm not sure what good it would have been. Would be interested to know from any ex RN that served in the 80s/ early 90s how they expected to cope with a raid from a TU22 Backfire regiment, compared to say with what the Americans had with AEGIS and F-14.
They make a big deal of the at sea refueling but this was done routinely in rough seas during WW2 all the time. US Navy carriers were never in port except for much-needed overhauls. After Pearl Harbor it was understood that a ship was safer at sea than being a sitting duck in a harbor.
Wow! Never served with women, that must of been something...
That Red Head would have caused me to walk off the end of the deck!
Cheers to an old Warrior and her crew!
After years of getting a quart out of a pint pot with the Invincible class, now the Navy might just squeeze a pint out of the quart pot that is the Queen Elizabeth class...
Nothing but a "Floating Target" . . . as it DOESN'T carry enough weapons to even come "Close", to being able to defending itself !. They have learned NOTHING, from the Falklands !
@Brian Coley The "Problem" is . . . it NEVER seems to actually "Get Done" !.
@@montanabulldog9687 actually the QE Class is accompanied by the Daring Class Destroyers which are, for their role, better than the Burke Class of the USN
@@tomvandaalen273 Were NOT talking about the DARING class . . . I was "Specific", the QE-2 CAN NOT even defend "Itself".! As for the Daring's, they too, CAN NOT match the Burkes armament, Missile OR Guns.
As an ext stoker on her sister ship, illustrious, for 4 years; I found her criticism of my former home, hard to swallow at first but she’s right; the navy has to make do with some crappy old kit and seems to care more about distracting everyone with tradition father than providing better gear
hms Invincible was sunk in Falklands war in 1982, what you see is an hologram
Only hit and damaged, not sunk.
As a retired naval rating (me) these were envisiaged as through deck Cruisers. I ended up in submarines and there is no way they could avoid a torpedo
Not a torpedo and not a saturation low level attack with A-4 skyhawks. Thats why they were early retired.
This woman has No idea what she is talking about....
Unfortunately our new carrier will be launching F-35Bs (i.e. the least effective) The second carrier is being considered for a redesign to use EMALS (magnetic launch system) capable of launching anything from a fighter to a portable AWACS system, just like the nimitz. EMALS makes a carrier look better anyways.
She is extremely negative and snobby.
I thought the Eagle had a bent prop shaft and that was why she was taken out of service rather than the old Ark.
Tell me that in english...... Skipper says exactly the same thing again :)
Was it worth the money? Ask Argentina 😂
Size does not matter because the fact is a aircraft carrier is automatic air power no matter where or when
I was that guy coming down the gangway at the end!!!! Thanks for letting me know MYK1200LT, it was good to catch up. I remember us having the reporter on the ship for quite some weeks and she tried to get access to all sorts of places. Alas her luck was out, she never did see the 'very' interesting areas!!! I think it was shot in 1992 on our return from Orient 92 or it may have been our trip to the Med but being as the wife was there it was probably the former!!! The good old days.......
very worth it
They act as if they were lost at sea and had no way to communicate or find each other due to a radio blackout. Were the Brits still working with WWII equipment in the 80's? What about all those satellites the United States out up there? Couldn't the modern Royal Navy buy some airtime from their closest allie?
Not the best solution for world wide power projection like the classic carriers Hermes and Eagle with multi task capabilities provided by various specialized aircraft but surelly it's better than no aircraft carrier at all (Falklands proved it).
In the 70's, RN's budget could only be focused on the SSBN force, I believe the Invencible class was projected mainly for their defence at sea: ASW (anti-sub) helis to catch enemy SSN on the hunt and Sea Harrier to intercept ASW aircraft on patrol.
The problem is is that it should never have been STOVL carriers they should have been CATOBAR carriers with side elevators.
No because they didn't have the money for that.
You're quite right, if my memory serves me right, WRNS first went to sea on the Brilliant in 1990, thanks for jogging the old grey matter. I have changed the title to the 1990's.
Where did BBC get this script? Rolling & Pitching Deck on a Bird Farm? BS. Lived on a Gearing class destroyer 4 yrs; know ;picoting & rolling when I see it. Carriers on a steady course for optimal winds over the flight deck. Romeo flag is for Refueling Ops. Carriers have their own ATC system.
Women on ships, there must be a law that forbids telling the truth. How interesting when she asked the question of what it was like when women first came on board. The answered, the men were worried the women would do a better job. How utterly stupid does a person have to be to believe that? Navies with women on board ships have had to seriously alter their lives at sea to accommodate women. Women do not do equal work and the physical strength required during damage control will cost lives because women can't do the job. As we see women getting more rights than men our military and society will get weaker. Women didn't earn their positions, they cried to the courts and legislators to give them what they want. Especially in the military, women do not earn their positions, standards are lowered to accommodate them. We will all eventually pay a very high price for giving women more rights than men. BTW, I spent 5 1/2 years at sea in the US Navy and Coast Guard.
Thomas
my knickers wer never in a twist you started out insulting us first if you wish to have a proper chat about it im willing but im not anti american iether im just honest in what see around me in the world in word war 2 japan occording to them in a documentry i saw only ever set sight on australia becouse of our ties to america and it was the american agression in politics that they bombed pearl harbour ive seen over the years a lot of american politics putting thier nose in wanting certain nations to think the way they think and do as you say , im not muslim im cristian but i honestly wouldnt trust america any more than the muslim millitants and america would never have thier nose in middle east if wasnt for the oil and riches there,,theres many nations where evil is being done but your doing nothing about it as there is no money in those countries; i agree our prices are high but your wages are lousy you pay crap wages so your goods should be cheaper and as for you not liking australians you met its proberly that they punched your lights out fo mouthing of so arrogantly we are not racist any more than you guys are we just come across that way becouse we take the piss out of everything and everyoneand most of us dont believe in political correctness
jimmy cricket The Aussie insults have been going on for over 15 years I've been on the internet. They've been saying the same things you are. Every time I tried to have a rational discussion they just kept on going, so more and more Americans fought back. Seriously, did you really think all this criticism came out of the blue recently?
Honestly, do you really believe what those Japanese documentary film makers claimed in having no interest in invading Australia? The Japanese build up was very close to Australia and they weren't tourists. There is only one reason the Japanese put over 20,000 troops on Guadalcanal with a lot more on the way. Australia was a British Commonwealth and would have declared war on Japan as soon as British interests were attacked. You have to be really gullible and seriously lacking in WWII knowledge to believe the Japanese didn't attack Australia because of your association with us. Right after Pearl Harbor the Japanese sank two British battleships and invaded British colonies in Southeast Asia. Then they bombed Port Moresby and there's only one reason for that, it's a very short hop to Australia. Even the most amateur of ameteur military historians know that Japan intended to control all of the Western Pacific, including Australia. There is absolutely no way that the British Commonwealth could have prevented an invasion of Australia.
I'd sure appreciate it if you would check your history of what happened between Japan and America prior to Pearl Harbor. The US imposed an embargo on Japan because of their invasion of Manchuria and the horrific brutality they inflicted on the Chinese. What's really interesting here is the contrast between Nazi Germany and Japan. Japan blatantly conquered countries to solidify possession of natural resources they were so dependant on with imports. Germany, on the other hand, didn't conquer anyone. Every single military action was to stop brutality of Germans. regain the territory taken by the League of Nations and secure Northern countries that Britain was using. Countries like Holland, Norway and Denmark claimed neutrality, but helped the British anyway. They broke their neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland did not break their neutrality and were left alone. It was Britain and France who declared war. What's interesting about that is Britain claimed their justification was because of a defense treaty with Poland. That was a fake justification because Britain didn't declare war on the Soviets who did the same thing, with the same brutality to Poland. Also, and more despicably, the British treated the Polish like garbage, even though they were extremely good troops and exceptional airmen. Matter of fact, the Polish fighter pilots had the largest number of kills in the RAF. It's even more interesting that so many of other English speaking people criticise us for butting into other people's business and condemn us for waiting to fight Germany. We can't very well take such duplicity very seriously, but we do get get piss off after awhile.
There, you have your rational discussion without insults. We'll see if you are any different than all those Aussies who slam the US. BTW, in your previous message you offered the probability of my being so anti-Australian because one must have kicked my ass in the past. The last fight I lost I was 16 (I'm 66 now) and of all the Australians I've met, not one would even think of taking me on.
Thomas
i would in a heart beat dont care how good you think you are. your an anti australian and you read the history to suit your self like most your country world war 2 to be honest if japan had not waded into it youd still be on side lines thinking about it it took quite a while before you country waded into ww2. its the u.s that seems to think they all that and to be real honest we dont really care what you country wants or likes i say this if you cant watch a film without insulting dont watch it your very insulting and anti australian and anti british it seems
seems if its not u.s its not worth anything good to say as for the talent shows i dont like em much either so i just dont watch em i suggest you try it its better than insulting them as we might not admire the talent but others do and as far as i knew we are free to like what we want
td fisk Yes, Political correctness trumps national security.
edwardpf123 Fortunately there's no chance of having a major naval battle and they can get by with telling their fairy tales. I feel sorry for those women who go in the military and think it's like those movies and TV shows with what I call "Super Wonder Women". I really wish navy veterans who sailed with women would tell the real truth. The feminazis get by with claiming absurd numbers of sexual assault. I'd love to see them eat their words if it were made public how many women have sex on the ship to get what they want and, the equivalent to a vicious rape, wrongful accusations.
Thomas
Para cuando van a contar la verdad que fue impactado por un misil exocet....cuenten la verdad.
I think they should have made something like the Clemenceau class carriers rather than these.
There new Carriers are really the hot setup for the Britts. This was cheap,not cheaply made mind you but at the time for a little Falkland war it worked. Facing a Russian threat would be another story.
Mary Goldring is utterly aggravating the way she speaks.
What happened to Rum, so do my, and the lash?
I doub't it. Two ships something like HMS Ocean could have been built as commando ships and Hermes and Eagle could have continued as strike carriers till the end of the 1980s. There are many who claim that the Eagle was stuffed when she was withdrawn in 1972, but it was inevitable she was being run down to justify the withdrawal. In the mid 1960s it had definitely been planned to continue with the Eagle till the mid l1980s and scrap the Ark Royal in 1967. Eagle and Hermes could have got Dutch3D
VERY INTERESTING DOC.
Are you not aware that we are constructing 2 65,000 aircraft carriers that are due in service in 2016 and 2018 with helicopters and by 2020 will finally have proper aircraft flying off them.
A wise man would do well to return to the idea of this kind of ship.The future lies with UAV's and hybrid heli-planes. The UAV's would not require the huge decks and catapults. As the commander said, with hindsight, side lifts should be the way to go on all future carriers. After all, the US Navy has enough super-carriers to full-fill NATO's requirement. The UK defence budget would be better spent on a mini-carrier fleet 'working on the idea of 4 for the price of one super-carrier'. Fast, small and capable of working with an assault group or a main battle fleet the economics add up - four airfields instead of one, four different locations instead of one. Do we really need super-carriers anymore? Are they just expensive 'toys' for admirals' to play with. Are we about to see the super-carrier go the same way as the battleship - too easy a target for the enemy to find, and, too big a target not to miss. As proved in the Falklands, it wasn't the numbers of aircraft that mattered, it was the type of aircraft - and what you could do with it that turned the day in Britain's favour - and it's mini-carrier of course - thank you, Australia..
William Rance erm, we hadn't actually given her to Australia yet so they can go whistle for their thanks, she was still ours
The U.S. & the U.K. will always be forever tied together. I personally, as John Farley stated recently, would like very much to see a Harrier III come into existance. No need for PCB & all that, but with the right engine/airframe combination, it could supercruise. The F-35B STOVL has TOO many problems & issues and will always be a "problem child" involving maintenance & computer problems. The reason the Harrier is so good is because Great Britain developed it over a VERY long time.
Don't think Biden thinks like that ?
Too bad the quality of this video is crap - it's fuzzy & out of focus.
Ilustrius suplanta al invincible he sleep whit the fishes in the deep sea
As an american that builds military models ships and aircraft, and have a love for all thing military, i would say that the Invincible class carriers, were worth it. It clearly showed in the falklands war. If britian didn't have them, the falklands would still be under argentine control to this day.
Poor Britain. Used to rule the waves, but now no will to do so... The world is less today because Britain lost her nerve.
half way though and I cant stand that womans negativity any more!
This documentary must have been later than the 80`s as women didnt join the ship until 90/91 and JG Tolhurst didnt take command until around that time !!! Nice to see the old ship , many happy memories of my time on her .
actually the germans built them in 1942 to launch the doodlebug. nope the germans had steam catapults way before america. As for the russians they DID make a working catapult in 1980 but because of the lack of funding the project was cancelled.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? we have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.. You have that luxury of not knowing what I know:. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Steam catapults - british invention, first demonstrated on HMS Perseus in 1950 and then shown to the US in 1952, the US licensed Colin mitchell's design,
ever heard of wiki?
yeah i'm sure...not
only could lose 12 because news flash we were battling a country w/ runways, mirages, ectr with a 200m long carrier and strike vtol jets. said strike aircraft had more of a chance from crashing than being shot down by an incompetant argentine
I'm ex Royal Navy and there was 3 LITTLE ships, invincible, illustrious, and ask royal. She knows FUCK all about life at sea. She would have been better employed as a split arse ashore in the UPO or accommodation assistant. Even then they always tucked up your LOA, ACCOMMODATION CHARGES, ect.
What's a gas turbin? Is that like a turbine?
Even though the hangar space was increased in the mid 1980s by knocking out the officers baths- the number of Sea kings and Harriers was too small to be useful against the Soviets. The Jaguar M carrier trials on TH-cam suggest the Sea Jaguar might have been viable off Hermes.
Frederick Miles you realise at the time the Soviets only had the Kiev with it's Yak-38's right?
My history teacher's farther designed the ski jump 😊
Correction, Catapults are CHEAP. It's just the same guys who designed invincible designed this. The decision WAS MADE to change from ramp to catapult but by then the pieces were set. You're theory is correct, we are bannkrupt, but the carrier's cost 4 billion a piece. A catapult only costs $5 million, that's a drop in the ocean. The QE class costs 1.5x MORE than the nimitz.
aging frames aging frames an excuse to buy all new planes. A company friendly mindset not a practical one.
New planes for older frames, time, parts maintenance saved and combat readiness is worth it, new designs should always be looked for then properly phased in, sometimes it is done, most of the time it is not
I know this is old. my generation. but she's got to go. if ever a big naval war broke out. I would be proud to have the Royal navy along side the USN.
You WOULDN'T last very long, "Without Us" ! . . . with your TIN CAN Navy !.
I would say yes. Having Invincible was a good investment. If you Brits didn't have Hermes or Invincible, you would not have the Falkland Islands.
I only managed to watch 2:33 of it. That woman's voice and attitude put me right off.
You drive a car, it's called being at the helm. Landlubbers! :-)
Thomas
surely 6 quid isn't too much to ask for. maybe new carriers are 12 quid.
I really can't understand the venom directed at this thoroughly professional presenter and the charge that she does the navy no favours at all and assertions that she is ill-informed and anti-service. On the contrary, she explicitly recognises the courage, devotion, adaptability and pride there is in the navy. What she does so well is lay bare the facts behind the navy having to make the best of inadequate, sub-optimal equipment getting very long in the tooth. Examples being the sequence of authorisation and cancellations of the Sea Harrier Mk2, the age of the Sea Kings, the continued use of the hastily improvised AEW systems on the Sea Kings, and most of all the lack of sense of urgency in the MoD and its failure to give the navy the weapons it has asked for. This is about a failure of government, politicians and the civil service. It is NOT about any failures within the navy. The facts she exposes are now all well known and well documented. UK taxpayers deserve people like Mary Goldsmith to call our governments and servants to political, military and financial account. It could be argued that In an indirect way , her exposure of these matters would help the navy better to press its case (which it never has been compared with the RAF), get better equipment designed, made and delivered, and better protect the lives of RN crews (note the case of how the MoD saved money by fitting plastic cable insulation in the Type 22 frigates, plastic laminates for interior panelling, and - worst of all - nylon (which melts) rather than wool (which is pretty-much fire-proof) for anti-flash gear). We either surround ourselves with falsehoods and pay the price in lives, or face the facts and pay the price in money.
I don't think her torpedo analogy @ 4:19 holds up; the designers had rather a torpedo hit the nose & backsides 'that could take a lot of punishment' than the middle? She must never have heard what the Japanese torpedos did to Prince of Wales. A bent shaft removed the waterproofness to the plating below the waterline. It did for her!
" I say, spot a tea please pity"
For some reason, i find this woman's tone of voice repulsive......
She was worth every damn penny.
England's in so much financial trouble right now nobody knows what that will mean to the eventual launch-date for sea-trials of the QE class. My comment reflects that the UK is outside of treaty obligations right now to their NATO allies. Possibly unavoidable but it is leaving a lot of bad feeling within the upper military circles.
You are wrong. The UK is one of of only two members of Nato to pay 2% of GDP towards military spending
@@aljack1979 the UK is obligated for a naval carrier to be provided and has been in violation of that agreement for 10 years
@@7777Scion There is no such agreement to provide an aircraft carrier. There is a budget responsibility to Nato. I agree that we should have not decommissioned the 3 deck cruisers and harrier aircraft until their replacement. We did have a responsibility/agreement to protect Europe from nuclear missile strikes with our nuclear deterrent (an agreement with the USA) however France has their own nuclear weapons now.
Of course they were worth it. Also, the UK needs to pony up the money now - somehow - to meet their NATO treaty commitments about carriers! So far, the USA has not gotten totally bent out of shape over this, but if the gov't does not start building one soon, the U.S. may demand payment for U.S. carrier protection in British waters, which wouldn't be very popular. A carrier is absolutely necessary for UK defense.
she just said. i bet in an emergency they could hang sails off of the radar masts. ... .. . .... im not watching this
worth it and many time over without her and her sister ships britain would have lost the falklands and the reprucsuion of the lost would have been profound to her reputation and international power britian being without any carrier strike group would degrade the royal navy into a brown water navy question would have been raise about uk qualification in being a un sercuirity council.
Very interesting film, thanks for uploading. Sadly the conclusion our narrator draws is still valid in many ways.
And apropos of nothing at all, what a desirable voice she has...:~}
EMALS are notouriously simple to anyone with a degree in electromagnetic engineering. If you can build a carrier i'm pretty sure it's simple enough to make a much simpler catapult don't you? My government spends money on whatever it can that isn't important. That's why we're 9 trillion in debt.
john tolhurst was my commander on illustrious down the falklands
So all the commies Think this is a waste , how surprising.
brilliant
3:09 Shots fired!! XD