Invincible-class aircraft carrier | Small in size, giant in combat

[@WeaponDetective]

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_Lq9j4Wz2QHo6dptTW3-tdIo Please click the link to watch our other British Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrA_rFwr_1Gk4JBymGPNxSJ Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Legends-Sea videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LqMGUzwZdeFlgQ9LHuY32ZX

[@randyross5630]

Short but Sharp Sword... One Thing I Found Interesting is that a Good Modern Sword beat all but the Mythical Ancient Blades made from Mysterious Metals and only the Very Best of Sword Smiths can Make a Folded Blade that isn't Weaker than a few hundred dollar plus Regularly Forged Modern Sword, because they Folded Swords to make Impurities to bad mixing thinner and not such big clumps within the steel, but today Steel is So Pure, so properly spread in Carbon that a Modern Sword, even plain Cold Steel not even Tempered would be Preferable to an Ancient Blade, and You Start Getting Into the Real High Grade Modern Sword Metal, Old Blades ain't Nothing... Most People Don't Realize how often a Hard Blade Would Break, and Hard Equals Sharp, but Most Swords it seems on average across Cultures were Soft, and Cheap, and Wouldn't Shatter, but just get Ruined, and How Many Armies had to have allot of Extra Swords to Finish the Job, that is why the Romans lil Short Sword they generally just Jabbed/Stabbed through the Shield Wall to those right up against it worked so well, Short, lil Thick & Fat, just Stabbing, and unless you were a Skirmisher not Blocking with it or throwing Wild Swings because it wouldn't Break Down as easy as others Swords Used in other Ways, one of the Countless Reasons the Roman War Machine was so Good, even less Logistics needed in it's Swords, even though Romans had the Best Logisitics...

[@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P]

It's one of my Favorite foreign warship!!! "...a short, but Sharp Sword." Like the Japanese Kodachi Sword!! THEN, there was the Falklands War!! I now have all Three (3) ships of the Invincible-class and the other 'small carriers' of the world!!

[@allgood6760]

Ty.. actually called a through deck crusier.... HMS Invincible visited NZ in the early 80's.. it was awesome there was an airshow and a Sea Harrier did a bow to the crowd 👍🇳🇿

[@Xenophaige_reads]

Loved the dancing harrier displays at airshows. Definitely something lacking without them these days.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

My Dad's ship was Invincible. Practically a second home, we were always going on board. I even got to sail on her for 2 weeks as she came home, joining the crew at Gibralter. Taught firearms, fire fighting, damage control and fit up close and personal with the Goalkeeper and Sea Dart systems. Good times.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Those Harriers GR.9s were pretty special, extra 6,000lbf thrust compared to the original Harrier

[@scottl6012]

Always look forward to your videos. Very educational.

[@dogsnads5634]

Ok....some bits are quite wrong... - The Royal Navy did not 'realize the threat of modern anti-ship missiles' at the end of the Falklands War....in fact they had realised the threat over 15 years before, along with everyone else, with the sinking of the INS Eilat. The Royal Navy had then spent a decade developing the Sea Wolf missile system, specifically to deal with supersonic sea skimming anti ship missiles. In fact the Royal Navy was the best equipped Navy on earth for dealing with sea skimmers....primarily because most Navies had no defences whatsoever, the issue was that there were only 4 ships equipped with Sea Wolf at the time. 2, the latest Type 22 Frigates, went with the Task Force and acted as 'Goal Keepers' for the carriers, but had to stay close to do that role, another ship joined the Task Force towards the end of the War, 1 other was stuck on other duties. As a result the Sea Wolf equipped ships could not be everywhere....(And before anyone mentions the USN....Phalanx had only entered service 1 year before...and didn't really work for its first decade in service. Aegis had entered service the year before as well on the USS Ticonderoga....but Aegis was focused on Soviet high altitude diving missiles and couldn't engage Sea skimming missiles...it wasn't until the late 80's that the Aegis system and Standard missiles were upgraded to cope with sea skimmers... - HMS Invincible did not operate GR.3 Harrier during the Falklands...they were all on HMS Hermes.

[@brunol-p_g8800]

The sea wolf literally never intercepted a sea skimming missile, compromising test firings.. It was a missile mainly against aircrafts

[@itzyaboimemez2074]

First off, The Royal Navy did realized the threat of anti-ship missiles when they installed two Phalanx CIWS onboard their Type 42 destroyers sometime after the war. Second, the Sea Wolf was for high-flying aircraft and sea-skimming and high-angled anti-ship missiles when it was developed, not against low-flying aircraft. Before the Falklands, the focus on air defense was against high-altitude Soviet bombers armed with anti-ship missiles. So when they encountered Argentine aircraft armed with bombs, which flew low below British radar, they didn't got a lot of chances to shoot them down because the Sea Wolf was never designed for such situation. Addition to that is the constant failure of the system to even work properly due to sea conditions in the South Atlantic. Its those reasons why HMS Coventry was hit and sunk. Third, The Royal Navy were not the best-equipped navy back in the 1980s. They had dozens of problems during that time, especially when it comes to funding. So much so that the task force sent to the Falklands were literal hodge-posh of ships available, they had to borrow Air Force Harriers for the carriers, and a lot of their systems were suffering problems. They even had to requisition civilian ships to ferry troops and equipment to the Falklands. I can't argue that they're well-equipped. But best? In the 1980s where funding continued to decrease? Where the US literally had offered a few ships to the British should one carrier was sunk during the war? I don't think so. Fourth, Britain wasn't the only one with anti-AShM missile. The US had the Sea Sparrow much earlier (1976) than the British got their Sea Wolf (1979). The US realized much much earlier that sea-skimming anti-ship missiles are a bigger threat to their ships should a war with the USSR come to fruition. So they developed the Sea Sparrow for that role. Hell, development for a point-defense weapon started in 1959 with the MIM-46 Mauler. The Navy planned for the Mauler to be installed on navy ships in 1960 before its cancellation. Fifth, the Phalanx CIWS did work when test trials showed results. When it entered service, it did pretty well. And before you mention any of the accidents: The Drone Exercise accidents only happened twice. One was because the drone that the CIWS shot bounced and struck the USS Antrim with one guy getting killed. (I wouldn't call this one the fault of the CIWS) The second happened because it re-engaged the burning drone as it fell, which resulted in the USS Iwo Jima getting struck. One officer got killed and one petty office got wounded. The attack on the USS Stark was due to the crew not really expecting an attack against them. The Phalanx of the USS Jarrett was on automatic targeting-acquisition mode when the USS Missouri launched chaff. This means that anything with a heat-signature not identified as friendly gets automatically shot, which it happened with the chaff of USS Missouri. The accidental discharge of the Phalanx CIWS was due to sailors conducting a firing circuit test during maintenance in Pearl Harbor. The JDS Yugiri's Phalanx shot down an Intruder because it locked onto the Intruder instead of the drone. The fault is due to human error. And Sixth, Aegis was never really developed against sea-skimming missiles until the late 80s or 90s. That role is for the Phalanx CIWS or the Sea Sparrow.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

​@@itzyaboimemez2074 You've mixed up Sea Wolf and Sea Dart. Sea Wolf was designed for short range low altitude engagements down to around 10m, Sea Dart was the long range high altitude weapon.

[@itzyaboimemez2074]

@@FallenPhoenix86 Sea Wolf is designed for high-altitude aircraft/anti-ship missiles with a range of 1,000 to 6,000 meters in an altitude of 10 meters to 3,000 meters. Its much like the Sea Sparrow in operation.

[@itzyaboimemez2074]

@FallenPhoenix86 If it were, HMS Coventry would've lived.

[@cwf_media9200]

Love your content have a nice week ❤

[@WeaponDetective]

Thanks. You too

[@Junker-u3z]

It was a huge mistake by the Brazilian Navy not to have tried to acquire one or two of these English aircraft carriers when they were deactivated in the Royal Navy, falling into the French Foch trap

[@barrycrosby8602]

Two of these 3 carrier's built at swan hunters wallsend yard sadly not there anymore thanks to a corrupt tory government, they gave a contract for hms ocean to vsel barrow despite the fact that they didn't have the capability to build the helicopter carrier of which swan hunters did in order to remove the UK best shipbuilders to reduce capacity

[@admiralmallard7500]

@@barrycrosby8602 I mean, yes. But what work would've sustained them after ocean. We're hardly flush with orders

[@cra83]

I served on HMS illustrious in the years before her decommissioning, been looking forward to a video on the class!

[@gar6446]

These make perfect sense for the time. GIUK gap faced miltiple threats and in a hot war losses would have been high. Should have built more and sold a couple to Australia with Aussie specific fitout.

[@admiralmallard7500]

Austrlia wasnt gonna buy one of these full price, they were gonna buy one of ours 2nd hand

[@tinysaxon3826]

These were great ships for their size, the Royal Navy needs to build 3 modern versions of these at 30,000tons!

[@admiralmallard7500]

No we don't? We have 2 superior carriers now, the supporting assets need much more attention like aircraft and escorts

[@dogsnads5634]

We looked at that as an option...and it made no sense. Neither did 45,000 tonne carriers. Hence why they build the QE Class.

[@tinysaxon3826]

What I was saying, was as well as the two QEs, WE need the fleets size of 79

[@richardthornton3775]

Great video as always, thank you🙏 I do feel the need to offer up a correction on the missile ‘hit’ & The British denial. The Argentine’s claimed they had sunk HMS Invincible, not ‘just’ hit, her, I think that’s important to bear in mind here. They’re claims, backed up with (obviously)fake photos, on the front pages of their newspaper. I reckon that’s a bold statement to make, especially a month or so later when HMS Invincible sailed back into Portsmouth.

[@trevortrevortsr2]

Now we need a dedicated drone launcher

[@admiralmallard7500]

@@trevortrevortsr2 why when we have carriers they could operate off

[@AndyAshworth-h6w]

The prototype aew seakings were on board illustrious when she sailed down to replace hmw hermes towards the end of the falklands war. The AEW seaking has been replaced with an add on kit which can be used by the merlin helicopter.

[@paulsandford3345]

Australia should have purchased one of the Invincible class carriers when we had the chance!

[@robd8577]

Why?

[@admiralmallard7500]

@@paulsandford3345 they tried. We decided to keep them

[@teddy2738]

Fue una verdadera lástima que la Chilean Navy no adquiriera uno de los 3 Portaaviones clase INVICIBLE una vez dados de baja ( el ARK ROYAL estaba practicamente NUEVO cuando se dio de baja )

[@Butch1086]

Should have kept one for smaller oversea issues like Guyana and Venezuela and Falklands.

[@admiralmallard7500]

They were unreliable in their later years. No point in keeping them around.

[@martinbayliss3868]

Fine ships scrapped twenty years prematurely.

[@admiralmallard7500]

Hardly, Illustrious was well worn out when it was retired.

[@martinbayliss3868]

@@admiralmallard7500 probably because she was poorly maintained or mothballed at some point. At least Illustrious was not knackered before she even left Portsmouth naval base and it more that often had aircraft on her deck.

[@admiralmallard7500]

@martinbayliss3868 No she was knackered because she was 30 years old and the last of her class. And in her final years Illustrious and her sisters had numerous high profile break downs that resulted in returns to port

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

The flight deck was not 13.5m wide... The beam of the ship was ~36m.

[@mrdelaney4440]

Id rather we have 10 of these than 2 elizabeth class carriers.

[@admiralmallard7500]

@@mrdelaney4440 you would not get 10 of these for the 2 qnlz class. And half of them would be empty and even more uncrewed!

[@habahan4257]

Thanks for the video. Nice content as always. Yes, the Britsh did not buy but we, the Turks, did. You're welcome China for Lioniang

[@CabbageBloke]

42 years later Argentinians (some) genuinely believe they sunk HMS Invincible. SMH.

[@christianjunghanel6724]

Its like saying `` we lost the war only a little``! Sure let them believe this pointless lie ! The Falklands are still british ! Only that counts!

[@OsvaldoRafaelCenturiónLeiva]

No, no creemos haber hundido al Hms Invincible, pero si creemos que fue atacado y dañado.

[@CabbageBloke]

@@OsvaldoRafaelCenturiónLeiva Intentaste atacarla, pero fracasaste cuando el misil impactó en Atlantic Conveyor. Nunca fue golpeado ni dañado, pero sí hay muchos argentinos que piensan que fue hundido. He visto comentarios que incluyen información propagandística al respecto.

[@bendreczko9054]

@@OsvaldoRafaelCenturiónLeiva but there was no damage on her when she got back to the uk and there was no were to repair her before she got back so the Argentinians never damage her.

[@OsvaldoRafaelCenturiónLeiva]

Esto lo digo en base a testimonio de los 2 pilotos que sobrevivieron al ataque, además es una muestra de la capacidad de dicho buque. ​@@bendreczko9054

[@rustcohle349]

With these, RN knew what they wanted. With QE class, they got 2 giant conventional STOVL super carriers with plenty of limitations. Will always remain a weird decision.

[@admiralmallard7500]

That is arguably the other way round. The Invincible class were cobbled together to cope with the end of catobar carriers in the royal Navy, the Qnlz class were designed off of years of experience operating the Invincibles and Stovl aircraft and have plenty of room for upgrades and expansion, unlike the Invincible

[@johnathanhughes4367]

You always get weird compromises with ships. Assuming the normal process happens, the RN will work through the strengths and limitations of the QE class, refit them to alleviate the worst of those limitations and work around those that can't be alleviated, and develop strategies to maximise the impact of the ships. Ultimately they will be paid off and replaced many years in the future, and people will wonder what on Earth they're thinking with their replacement. And the great circle continues. :)

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Ending the use of CATOBAR Carriers was monumentally stupid. The RN did the best that could be expected with the crap they were given - but they were and are given crap. They were told - that they could revert the new Carriers to CATOBAR carriers - but when they decided to do that after construction had begun - they found out that the cost of the conversion was to great - so that was dropped. Now they are stuck with a mistaken design. There are a lot of dead British Sailors because they did not have CATOBAR Carriers in the Falklands. There will be more dead ones if they have to rely on what they have now in a future conflict. VSTOL is fine for things like Helicopter Carriers that are designed as Amphibious Assault Ships - but - not for implementing Air Superiority. You just lose to much. Again - the RN will doe the best that can be done with the crap they are given to work with - but - that doesn't change the fact that they are being given crap to work with. .

[@gusgone4527]

@@johnathanhughes4367 Well said. Your insight is 20/20. The only things you fail to note are the available budget and political will. NATO has already changed due to the ill-fated EU Army Project and the rise of Poland. It remains to be seen if GB will fully integrate it's current miniscule armed forces with with the EU Army Project or increase in line with NATO guidelines. With the current EU friendly pseudo Marxist government in power, the future looks bleak. I'm expecting one of the carriers to be decommissioned or sold, and the other to be expected to alternate duties with the new French carrier for the EU's ineffective blue water capability. No further F35B airframes will be purchased. Leaving no capacity to replace combat losses. We will need to see the Defence Review currently underway. Expect further reductions in all areas other than trans gender and pronoun policing. The very nature of the once extremely effective and aggressive RN is changing.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

​@@gusgone4527 "Pseudo Marxist" How to tell the world you know literally nothing about politics without actually saying so.

[@ENGBriseB]

Great work horse well worth its money. We should be building more ships we are an Island Nation. We Can't leave it up to someone else. We have the Money. The UK is the 3rd Highest holder of American debt with 700 billion dollars of US debt Nov 24. And not even a trade deal with the US..

[@thomaslanders2073]

The UK is always doing things on a shoe string budget and it shows...

[@WikiWijaya-ul3cm]

🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩👍💪

[@WikiWijaya-ul3cm]

🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩👍💪

[@davidbarlow4454]

Every time they put to sea with a full airwing, not like the embarrassment of the QE class

[@admiralmallard7500]

Youre deluding yourself, their full air wing is close to what were deploying on the Qnlz class currently, better to have space to expand than be limited to these tin cans

[@williamdodds1394]

This thing sailed with the Nimitz carriers you though it was its tug boat. lol.

[@WikiWijaya-ul3cm]

🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍

[@WikiWijaya-ul3cm]

🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍