It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
There are TWO shipyards in the US that have the capacity to build carriers. BOTH were in full production and had no room for a hull the size of the Invincible in 1982. Even if they did you CAN NOT keep a ship that size secret while it is being built and it CERTAINLY wouldn't have been built in two years. They wouldn't have even laid the hull down until mid to late 1983, and it would have been AT LEAST two years if not longer to complete it. They would have had to pull construction crews off of every project under construction to complete it in a year, and the US Navy ships would have gone way behind schedule. I think that everyone with eyes would have seen the new hull and seen the US Navy hulls sitting there with very few people working on them while everyone in the shipyard worked on a hull that was OBVIOUSLY not meant for the USN. If you think that they can build a ship in a year or less then you REALLY need to do some research. Even a SMALL hull takes two to four years to complete AT MINIMUM.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Zaphod58]




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Sent its construction in 1982 (some site in USA, after the visit of the Illustrious) in 1984 already it was sailing and in trials (finished in 1985). Very showy, by its gray upper works, to already have in its first version the disposition of the Phalanx in the semicircular platform of stern port. And the balcony in the port windows.... It is the R08, the fourth twin, that takes the name of Ark Royal, and the original R07 has been renamed like R07, third twin of the series was hurled in 1981, and was the definitive replacement of the sunk Invincible, and therefore renamed like R05.




So if what you are saying is true then the original Invincible (no phalanx) sunk 30th May 1982 it could never have been pictured with Illustrious (released 2nd June 1982 from shipyard for sea trials and commissioning on the way to Falklands with phalanx hastily fitted) then meet up in the South Atlantic with Invincible and that for 3 year until 85 there was really only one Invincible class ship (plus a hologram contructed by Q from MI6)





Note Illustrious in the foreground with her hastily fitted Phalanx one in front and to the right of the sea dart emplacement at the front of the ship and one on the port stern.

Note Invincible in the background (Flight Deck Code N) had no phalanx these were fitted when returned to the UK and had her post Falkand refit - (she had the front phalanx fitted in a different position to Illustrious) - as the Falkland taught the RN it was a priority to have them hence the hasty fitting to Illustrious

Of course you will say this never happened as Invincible was on the sea bed at the time of this photo.



[edit on 3-9-2005 by Popeye]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Exocet is a good weapon. Kudos to "La belle France"! However, exocets did not sink USS Stark, an Oliver Hazard Perry frigate at about 3700 tons displacement, let alone a 20,000 ton displacement carrier! Exocet hit HMS Sheffield yet it was resulting fires that sank Sheff not the hole caused by the warhead. It has been argued that damage control could have saved Sheff. I don't know. I do know that RN is very good at damage control. HMS Glamorgan was damaged by land-based exocet. I don't believe that a single exocet sunk HMS Invincible.
Just forget about the US building a "replacement". We were in the middle of putting together a 600 ship navy and there was not a shipyard available to build it. You could NOT have kept that a secret. There was way too much USN building and funding and inquiries and it would have been noticed. My hats off to very competent and brave Argentine pilots but guys, you sunk Atlantic Conveyor!
The argument about HMS Dasher doesn't hold. Nobody was hiding that Dasher had been sunk. Just the details. If Invincible had been sunk, you could not have hidden the casualties. You could withold info on them but not that many hundreds had been killed/wounded. You could not have put the evacuated crew of Invincible anywhere, the task force was hard-pressed for space for the landing force.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Not being a Ship man what really stands out to me is the difference in lenght between the two ships.

HMS Invincable I believe is 16 metres shorter.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There are TWO shipyards in the US that have the capacity to build carriers. BOTH were in full production and had no room for a hull the size of the Invincible in 1982. Even if they did you CAN NOT keep a ship that size secret while it is being built and it CERTAINLY wouldn't have been built in two years. They wouldn't have even laid the hull down until mid to late 1983, and it would have been AT LEAST two years if not longer to complete it. They would have had to pull construction crews off of every project under construction to complete it in a year, and the US Navy ships would have gone way behind schedule. I think that everyone with eyes would have seen the new hull and seen the US Navy hulls sitting there with very few people working on them while everyone in the shipyard worked on a hull that was OBVIOUSLY not meant for the USN. If you think that they can build a ship in a year or less then you REALLY need to do some research. Even a SMALL hull takes two to four years to complete AT MINIMUM.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by Zaphod58]


i have watched this thread get trolled more and more..my brother served on this ship and it did not get sunk...listen to zaphod..IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER in this time and to keep it quiet..

an end to this thread already




[edit on 3-9-2005 by Heratix]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Going by other difference's between the two ships.

Grouping of the Life Boats down the side of the ships.

Inv 3 4 3 4 3 5
Ill 3 4 4 4 4 4

Which make sthe ship on the 17th Sept HMS Invincible.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
this is a promotional photo of R06 and R07 at the ending of 1982.
Anyway the phalanx system is easy to install or to disassemble.


The real R05 HMS Invincible had black towers and never ever had phalanx.


make questions more difficult.!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for an explanation how two shipyards already operating at peak capacity were able to somehow build an aircraft carrier in secret in less than two years, without ANYONE noticing, and STILL managing to keep to their building schedules with the hulls already being built. Not only did they build them in less than two years, but they built them without having built any ship EVER of an even remotely similar design, so they had no experience building that type of ship. If you can explain THAT to me and prove it, then I'll believe you.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
In Litton Ingalls the USA carriers become class Tarawa and Wasp of the displacement double of the Invincible class in a time of 2 years and that between 1982 and 1985 there are no registries that have produced something for the U.S. Navy. In which they were occupied?



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The Tarawa Class ships are a TOTALLY different design than the Invincible. They would have had to retool the shipyards, get the designs, lay the hulls, figure out the things they didn't know about the design, etc. And according to you have it done in LESS than two years. According to you the Invincible was sank towards the end of 1982, and back in the water by 1985 having completed her acceptance trials. The Tarawas are based on the WWII carriers that the USN used, so they already know all the tricks to building them quickly. The USN has NEVER used a half deck ski jump carrier like the Invincible. Not only would they have to do all those things to build them, they would have had to do them in the middle of being at max production of USN ships to build up OUR OWN fleet. There is NO WAY they would stop production of some of our own ships to build a ship for a foreign navy.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
this is a promotional photo of R06 and R07 at the ending of 1982.
Anyway the phalanx system is easy to install or to disassemble.


The real R05 HMS Invincible had black towers and never ever had phalanx.


make questions more difficult.!!!


So if picture is R06 and R07 at the end of 1982 then R07 was built nearly 3 years ahead of scheduled and fully fitted out. British shipyards were that never that efficient could have accomplished 3 years work in a couple of months. Remember the 3 carrier were scheduled for commisssioning in 1980 1982/3 and 1985 and that each crrier took about 7 years to complete, so I have difficulty seeing where this mysterious 'third' carrier appears from in 1982 to star in the picture above?

By the way in the picture R05 had no phalanx that one of the reasons you can tell it is Invincible at the back of the 2 ships as Illustrious (R06 June 1982) and Ark Royal (R07 commisssioned July 1 1985) were commisssioned with Phalanx.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
HMS Dasher them fire and sunk by a fire by accident of own airplane. An aircraft carrier never must be hit by anything less by an exocet and 3 bombs of 500 lbs.
The HMS Invincible is hollow on the inside and narrow, full of gas liquefied for its turbines, fuel for its airplanes and all the arsenal of missiles, and artilleria explosive.
Also HMS Invincible took atomics depth charges for anti-submarine warfare against the Russian submarines.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Atomic depth charges had NOTHING to do with ever sinking a ship. lol. You REALLY wouldn't have been able to hide it if they had caused it to sink.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
the fires in carriers are often uncontrollable, and worse even in carriers as Invincible for the very low temperature of fusion of alumnium that colapsan the rigidity of the structures.

with two bombs of 500 lbs. of those the Coventry was sink in 15 minutes



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
So I guess that means that the USS Forrestal and Enterprise were lost to those fires then. They had them under control in hours, and saved the ships from taking much damage. Fires are more dangerous to carriers, they're not uncontrollable, or even going to kill the ship. Look at the USS Benjamin Franklin in WWII. Two to three kamikaze hits, burned for days, and sailed all the way back from the South Pacific to Virginia under her own power.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
this is a promotional photo of R06 and R07 at the ending of 1982.
Anyway the phalanx system is easy to install or to disassemble.


The real R05 HMS Invincible had black towers and never ever had phalanx.


make questions more difficult.!!!



There are plenty fo picture of the Invincible leaving with the task force sailing south with grey smoke stacks





posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
You want to know it is made carrier in two years?
in 1940 you made colossus class in two years
but in this case it made by USA.
For they a Invincible is an micro-carrier.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
You want to know it is made carrier in two years?
in 1940 you made colossus class in two years
but in this case it made by USA.
For they a Invincible is an micro-carrier.



But not 2 months which what they would have had to done if there were 2 Invincible class carriers at the end 1982 and Invincible had been sunk.

Also carrier are far more complex now, the colussus class was a very simple design light escort carrier. In modern carriers it is the fitting of all the system and electronics that takes alot of time. In addition all these system and electronics radar etc would have to have beeen manufactured and installed in under a couple of months in the third invincible.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Actually the Colossus wasn't built until 1942 when the US was gearing up 25% of the NATIONS industry towards building war supplies. They were also as was stated very simple ships, designed to be built as quickly as possible to get as many in the water as possible in the shortest amount of time. They were like Liberty ships. Build them fast, build them cheap and get them in the water. You will probably never see something like that again ever, and they CERTAINLY couldn't have done it since the end of WWII and definately not with the more modern warships.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by 55heroes
this is a promotional photo of R06 and R07 at the ending of 1982.
Anyway the phalanx system is easy to install or to disassemble.


The real R05 HMS Invincible had black towers and never ever had phalanx.


make questions more difficult.!!!



There are plenty fo picture of the Invincible leaving with the task force sailing south with grey smoke stacks





Is Invincible in Falklands.
grey? they are black



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join