Slashdot Mirror


British Aircraft Carrier For Sale On Auction Site

Hugh Pickens writes "Time Magazine reports that just in time for the holidays, the British Navy has put the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible up for sale on an eBay-like website. The proud 690-foot warship sailed Her Majesty's seas from 1980 to 2005, and took part in the Falklands, Balkans and Iraq campaigns. The ship underwent a major refit in 2004 but was decommissioned in 2005 with the proviso that she could be 'reactivated' at 18 months notice if a crisis beckoned but over the years her engines, pumps and gear boxes were cannibalized for use in other ships. If interested go to the auction site and put her to your 'wish list,' or add her to your 'cart.' Interestingly enough, the Australian government had originally planned to purchase the ship in 1982 but the Falklands war intervened and in July 1982 the British Ministry of Defence announced that it had withdrawn its offer to sell Invincible and that it would maintain a three-carrier force."

224 comments

  1. *looks at christmas tree* by santax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuck.

    1. Re:*looks at christmas tree* by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're going to need a considerably bigger chimney.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    2. Re:*looks at christmas tree* by santax · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am glad someone got the joke lol ;)

    3. Re:*looks at christmas tree* by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I was a kid I asked Santa for the USS Intrepid, back when that was up for sale. All I got in response was a note chiding me for unreasonable expectations and letting me know how many elves were hurt trying to reload the ordnance.

      I got a Logistics Support Submarine the next year. But it just wasn't the same.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:*looks at christmas tree* by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      No, just build yourself a moat.

    5. Re:*looks at christmas tree* by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      Oh Bravo.

      *applause*

      The funniest thing I read today.

  2. Datacenter by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Cue floating datacenter posts in 3... 2...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Datacenter by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If the guy at Sealand could "annex" this, that would be something.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Datacenter by c0lo · · Score: 1

      If not, maybe the flags ship for Pirate Parties?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Datacenter by sempir · · Score: 0

      I hate to see people unhappy at this time of year.....So:

      Anybody think this would make a cool floating datacenter?

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    4. Re:Datacenter by Eraesr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does the bid include free shipping?
      Get it? shipping? eh, nevermind...

    5. Re:Datacenter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fill it with Indian programmer's.

      Then sink it.

    6. Re:Datacenter by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      To Hell with a floating datacenter. Give us a floating Data Haven, a lá Cryptonomicon. (That one wasn't floating but the principle was the same). A nice defensible storage for our critical data. It could be the World's first floating, private bank. ;)

      Seriously, we can't discuss what options are viable (data centre, offshore pleasure palace, whatever) until we have some idea of the cost of this thing. There's no reserve price so anyone guesstimate what sort of resale value this thing would have? Are we talking hundreds of thousands? Millions? Are they selling it for the full value it theoretically has, or are they selling it the same way I sell my old sofa - cheap, because trying to get rid of it myself would just cost me money and effort in transport, dump fees, etc.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    7. Re:Datacenter by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Datacenter...? P2P hub is more like it.

      Being a pirate is one thing, being one on an aircraft carrier...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:Datacenter by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      With Indian programmer's what?

    9. Re:Datacenter by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To Hell with a floating datacenter. Give us a floating Data Haven, a lá Cryptonomicon. (That one wasn't floating but the principle was the same). A nice defensible storage for our critical data. It could be the World's first floating, private bank. ;)

      This would be an absolutely terrible idea because anyone with a few thousand dollars to rub together can use existing underwater UAV technology to sink it. It would be the least defensible data center in history.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Datacenter by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      A nice defensible storage for our critical data.

      It's not defensible - not even if it came with nukes.

      Besides, L. Bob Rife is going to purchase it.

    11. Re:Datacenter by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Does the bid include free shipping?

      Get it? shipping? eh, nevermind...

      Yes. It is delivered at your door in 15,000 standard containers.

    12. Re:Datacenter by cide1 · · Score: 2

      Scrap steel is purportedly going for $800 US per/ US ton according to http://www.scrapmonster.com/PricesCharts/Metals/Steel.aspx I think this is for bare clean steel. I know locally in the US midwest the junk yards are buying scrap steel + iron for $200 US per US ton. Based on this, the 10,000 british ton ship at $200 / ton is worth $2.2 million USD to a dealer who will put a lot of labor into tearing it down. Torn down into just scrap, I would say the ship is worth about $8.8 million. I don't think $2.2 million is completely out of line for a data center facility, but it would need a lot more capital to make it usable, and since a data center needs connection to the outside world, building one on a ship has little benefit, as there is no data cables in the middle of the ocean. On the upside, there is plenty of sea water to use for cooling.

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    13. Re:Datacenter by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      With their largely useless contributions to programming blogs and forums everywhere.

      "Hi I have made flash slideshow and it not working now, please fix and email to rajesh@popadom.com"

      *wall of badly tabulated copy-pasted code follows*

    14. Re:Datacenter by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sure, but batteries are not included. Get it? Batteries, as in artiller... ok, it wasn't really better than yours.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Datacenter by DemingBuiltMyHotRod · · Score: 1

      I know locally in the US midwest the junk yards are buying scrap steel + iron for $200 US per US ton. Based on this, the 10,000 british ton ship at $200 / ton is worth $2.2 million USD to a dealer who will put a lot of labor into tearing it down. Torn down into just scrap, I would say the ship is worth about $8.8 million.

      Good luck getting a carrier to the US midwest!

    16. Re:Datacenter by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      a data center needs connection to the outside world

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of an aircraft carrier complement of jet fighters hurtling across the countryside dropping DVD-R discs ...

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    17. Re:Datacenter by hitmark · · Score: 1

      An old container transport or tanker would be a more viable option.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    18. Re:Datacenter by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It could be the World's first sinkable, private bank

      TFTFY

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Datacenter by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      That's what I thought.

      Anything that floats can be sunk.

      If you had an island that would be more practical...

  3. Potential Buyer by mtinsley · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing China will try to get its hands on it. They've acquired four other aircraft carriers in the past.

    1. Re:Potential Buyer by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      she's too small for the PRC. They're going for carriers easily twice this size. I would have expected india to consider purchasing the ship (as they have in the past) but frankly, the invincible class is small, old and not the sort of thing of interest to the future naval powers. Spain has modernish carriers about the size of invincible, and those would be much easier to buy designs for. Though PRC doesn't need to learn to build carrier systems on this size when they have much bigger russian carriers already, and india is in basically the same situation.

      The other thing is this isn't exactly a sale to the highest bidder. Basically the MOD is looking for the best value for the money they can get, and will assess from there. She might be broken up for scrap, if someone can throw together a good deal she'll end up a museum ship (though that would be presumably hard), or any number of other schemes.

    2. Re:Potential Buyer by MachDelta · · Score: 2

      Canada will buy it and put it in a mall as an amusement ride. Gotta have something to replace the subs in WEM.

      -A proud Canadian not afraid to take shots at my own country.

    3. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last time Canada bought derelict military equipment from the British, it killed one of our sailors.

    4. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the /b/tards buy it. Imagine the lulz to be had driving that baby down I90.

    5. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hope your remaining sailor was unhurt.

    6. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was helicopters.

    7. Re:Potential Buyer by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      They don't need to add to their collection of crappy old carriers, they have enough already. If they want to squander resources on building already outdated 20th century ships, more power to them. The carrier is obsolete in the face of modern supersonic antiship missiles. The last time anyone took a shot at a US carrier was kamikazes. If you're ever in Shanghai be sure to visit the carrier theme park.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Potential Buyer by arivanov · · Score: 1

      It is useless for anyone who does not have VTOL.

      This limits it to:

      Britain -does not want it

      USA - you gotta be kidding

      Russia - it has been successfully getting rid of the comparable Kiev class which is actually slightly bigger as a ship, just with the same size flight deck and the "spare" taken up by heavy missile armament.

      China already has Kiev and Minsk which are considerably better fit for a 3rd world navy (if it develops VTOL) because while they have the same length flight deck they can also carry some very heavy missile armament (enough by itself to take out a NATO carrier group without using any of its aircraft). Kiev however is an amusement attraction and Minsk is not a part of PLANavy either. In fact the only "bought" aircraft carrier to end up in the hands of the Chinese Army AFAIK is Varyag which should have been at sea by now if the Chinese are serious about reactivating it.

      My guess is that the Invincible will either end up as an attraction in Argentina (revenge is a dish best served ice cold) or sold for scrap or both - sold for scrap to an Argentinian company.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    9. Re:Potential Buyer by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      >Basically the MOD is looking for the best value for the money they can get
      Always a great way to plan for wars. I'm sure Churchill took value for money into account when trying to fight off Germany.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    10. Re:Potential Buyer by geogob · · Score: 2

      I think he is referring to the submarine incident. The HMCS Chicoutimi (the ship formally known as HMS Upholder) was bought by Canada in 2004 and suffered a major fire during its transfer! To my knowledge, the ship is still commissioned but in dry-dock since the incident, awaiting repair.

    11. Re:Potential Buyer by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      We love to build reefs with these old ships. It is a huge positive for sports fishing.

    12. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the fuck is a /b/tard?

    13. Re:Potential Buyer by icebrain · · Score: 1

      But Argentina doesn't operate any STOVL aircraft, and the only two countries that produce them (UK and US) won't sell.

      What might be more interesting is if Brazil purchases it and a Harrier fleet to replace their existing carrier.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    14. Re:Potential Buyer by arivanov · · Score: 1

      You are clearly missing the propaganda value of the Inivincible parked as an amusement Park attraction on the Buenos Aires beach-front. That is also one of the few places in the world where it will generate revenue as an attraction as well.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    15. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Russia made a VTOL/STOVL jet as well? The Yak-something?

    16. Re:Potential Buyer by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      key word: made

      They no longer make them, the aircraft you're referring to is the Yak-38.

    17. Re:Potential Buyer by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      She's not that old, commissioned in 1980. The US still has two Tarawa class LHAs from that period, the Nassau and Peleliu, although LHAs are about twice the displacement of Invincible.

    18. Re:Potential Buyer by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      No carrier has been damaged or even fired on by modern supersonic antiship missiles in over 35 years of their existence, so how can you say that carriers are obsolete because of them?

      A carrier never sails alone, and for the US, the Aegis cruisers and destroyers carrying a large number of Standard surface to air and anti-ballestic missiles will make it hard for supersonic ASMs to get to a carrier. Hell the US Navy is already figuring out how to stop China's rumored anti-carrier ballistic missile.

      The threat of ASMs to carriers has never kept the US from deploying a carrier anywhere in the world, even the Iranian Silkworms didn't keep the US out of the Straights of Hormuz or the Gulf of Sidra in the 80s or the Taiwan Straights in the 1990s.

    19. Re:Potential Buyer by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      The Yakovlev Yak-141 "freestyle" didn't enter production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

    20. Re:Potential Buyer by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 1

      I would have expected india to consider purchasing the ship (as they have in the past) ...

      India is too busy fucking around with the Admiral Gorshkov. They're essentially being bent over by the Russians, though the statements are that they didn't "really expect" the price of refitting to be as low as originally quoted. I don't know about you, but if the car repairs on my car jump by an order of magnitude from the quote, I'd be mighty pissed off.

    21. Re:Potential Buyer by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Always a great way to plan for wars. I'm sure Churchill took value for money into account when trying to fight off Germany.

      Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern warfare. Wars are won or lost by economics. The fall of the Soviet Union was largely triggered by two actions (although there were a lot of other contributing factors):

      1. The US funding of the Afghan insurgency, where a $100K missile from the US would destroy a $20m Soviet helicopter. The US spent a lot, but forced the Soviets to outspend them by orders of magnitude.
      2. The Star Wars project, a pipe dream with little chance of actually working and a lot of superb counterintelligence work that convinced the Soviets that it was real and workable, forcing them to spend vastly more to maintain a MAD threat than they actually needed to.

      Winning military objectives counts for nothing if the winner is bankrupt afterwards. Actually, this isn't even a feature of modern warfare - see Sparta and Rome for some earlier examples.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Potential Buyer by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      It's the name given to someone on 4chan....

    23. Re:Potential Buyer by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No carrier has been damaged or even fired on by modern supersonic antiship missiles in over 35 years of their existence

      However, several Exocets flying at just under the speed of sound were launched with the intention of sinking the very carrier that's for sale.

      Fortunately none of them hit.

    24. Re:Potential Buyer by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You're an evil man, taunting those poor brave pilots who went to the limit of their fuel supply, survived the superior harriers and still failed.

      I'll give a tenner towards it though ;)

    25. Re:Potential Buyer by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And the Argentines dropped dumb bombs at it, but none of that makes the carrier concept obsolete.

    26. Re:Potential Buyer by The+Mgt · · Score: 1

      The fall of the Soviet Union was largely triggered by repeated disastrous grain harvests in the late 1980s. The cost of the Afghan war was certainly a contributing factor but not to the extent that is generally claimed. I suspect the Star Wars stuff was just an attempt to justify the money spent by hitching it to the "Our plan was to bankrupt the Soviets all along" story.

    27. Re:Potential Buyer by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Those are the only subs we have that actually work.

  4. HMS Invincible by mavasplode · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not so invincible now.

    --
    ACTUAL SIZE!!!
    1. Re:HMS Invincible by bazorg · · Score: 2

      I will buy it an rename it HMS Failboat.

    2. Re:HMS Invincible by jd · · Score: 1

      Nyah! Not if I win! I bid 3 herring and the toenail clippings of a troll.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  5. Rip-off by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

    Engines - Removed

    Generators and Pumps - Generally unserviceable or not working

    And I had my hopes up :(

    1. Re:Rip-off by santax · · Score: 2

      Hey, but you still get an awesome ramp to skate on!

    2. Re:Rip-off by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      No air wing either.

      And all the handsome British sailors have mustered out. This carrier is seriously not worth it.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Rip-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just swap in a big block Ford and a C6 with a shift kit. That always works.

    4. Re:Rip-off by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Party barge! Does Charlie Sheen have any money left?

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Rip-off by andi75 · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up. I was wondering why this article isn't tagged 'snowcrash'.

    6. Re:Rip-off by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      It could make an awesome skate park and general party place.

      They're only after a couple of million, too. I bet Tony Hawk and Bam Margera could get together and buy it for filming Jackass 4...

      --
      No sig today...
  6. towing costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as it doesn't have an engine the buyer would have to factor in towing costs of some description. I would hate to see how much the towing bill would be to somewhere like Australia.

    1. Re:towing costs by digitig · · Score: 1

      If it's bought to be used it would only have to be towed to the nearest shipyard willing and capable of refitting it. It's presumably already in a shipyard capable of refitting it, and they might be willing for the right customer and price.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  7. WOOOOO! by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have an aircraft carrier in my freakin' shopping cart! I'm only two steps away from owning an aircraft carrier! God! I love the freakin future!

    1. Re:WOOOOO! by santax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blame amazon for those 2 steps!

    2. Re:WOOOOO! by microcars · · Score: 3, Funny

      I did too but changed quantity to "3" so now I will have 2 for spares!

      --
      I like microcars
    3. Re:WOOOOO! by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? If it were amazon you could 1-click it!

    4. Re:WOOOOO! by mtinsley · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it qualifies for free 2-day shipping or gift wrap.

    5. Re:WOOOOO! by failedlogic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having it in your shopping cart is one thing. I suggest you refresh your screen. Sorry to spoil all your fun. But, while you were busy posting about buying it on Slashdot, to get +5 funny .... I bought it.

      I need to get that Harrier Jet from Pepsi now. I think it will make a nice accessory to my purchase.

    6. Re:WOOOOO! by nonguru · · Score: 0

      What, Neiman Marcus couldn't squeeze this into their Christmas catalogue? Either missed the print run deadline or their clientele were looking for something - say- more upmarket.

    7. Re:WOOOOO! by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if they offer airmail!

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    8. Re:WOOOOO! by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And now to press that "BUY NOW!" button... Hey wait a minu%@5c~ NO CARRIER .

    9. Re:WOOOOO! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Why are you still on dial-up? You could had bought it quickly before losing your Internet dial-up modem connection! [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    10. Re:WOOOOO! by Rashdot · · Score: 1

      Indeed, NO AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Because I just bought it.

      Mwuhahahahaha.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
    11. Re:WOOOOO! by magpie · · Score: 1

      Or you can buy one here, I wonder if they do a multi buy deal?

    12. Re:WOOOOO! by daffmeister · · Score: 1

      You could put this replica Harrier on the deck.

    13. Re:WOOOOO! by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      Oh dear oh dear... (Woooooosh, and all that)

    14. Re:WOOOOO! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      You sir have just won the internets.

    15. Re:WOOOOO! by ruthless+reader · · Score: 1

      Think of the fun you can have with this with those Somali pirates

    16. Re:WOOOOO! by deroby · · Score: 1

      But, but I already have it's renovation completely planned out !!

      http://lolsnaps.com/upload_images/real/1030.jpg

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    17. Re:WOOOOO! by Dabido · · Score: 1
      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    18. Re:WOOOOO! by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they offer air DROP!

    19. Re:WOOOOO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funniest. post. ever. :)

  8. *looks at lameass post* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fuck you.

  9. An odd object... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously, anything made of that much steel, and capable of being tugged where you want it, has a floor value as a substantial amount of quality scrap; but I have to wonder if it has much more than that. Given its age and poor condition, refitting it will be fairly expensive and require some expertise. It also presumably lacks any refinements made in carrier design in the past 20-30 years.

    Unlike, say, low end armored vehicles, for which there is always demand because even tinpot dictators have even more tinpot rebels to crush with them, aircraft carriers are sort of a "superpower or nothing" weapon. Unless you have the cash to maintain one, the air force to be worth projecting into blue water, and the support/defense/meat-shield carrier group ships to protect the thing, it is nearly useless to you. I would assume, therefore, that your standard "diamond/oil/cocaine/etc. kingpin who buys weapons because his country is a shithole with no internal industry" is basically off the table, unlike the case of some APCs or crates of RPGs or such. On the other hand, even if the ship is actually a good deal for some developing wannabe power, enough military procurement decisions are made as pork/spoils/makework deals that support for just buying the thing, rather than having some native shipyard build one, would seem doubtful, unless a country simply has no such capabilities.

    Can anyone think of a buyer, without invoking Snow Crash?

    1. Re:An odd object... by shoor · · Score: 1

      I went on a tour of an American carrier that had been decommissioned, the Hornet. One of the guides said the Chinese had wanted to buy it. Maybe the Chinese would want this one if only to study the technology.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    2. Re:An odd object... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The UK was building to a budget and dreaming of US supported Soviet sub hunting. The Falklands showed what the Exocet missiles could to to that 'dream'.
      As a big support ship for black ops vs a new medium sized amphibious assault ships?
      Brazil, India, South Korea, Thailand do like to buy the bigger navy club toys.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:An odd object... by rumournz · · Score: 1

      New Zealand should buy it so we can store our defunct air force capability on it

    4. Re:An odd object... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of this is not to sell a carrier, but to get people to visit the government disposal website to purchase something else.

    5. Re:An odd object... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Plus it's a bit cursed being the last lead of a carrier battle group to lose a ship (HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry and MV Atlantic Conveyor)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:An odd object... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are Exocets in the Falklands really a great example? The best they did was to cripple HMS Sheffield, it's not like it even sunk it directly- the Sheffield was afloat for 6 days after being hit but it was the rough seas coupled with the damage and the fact the crew was removed and hence couldn't deal with such problems that eventually took it under. The Atlantic Conveyor, a mere merchant navy ship took two exocets and stayed afloat. Other than the Sheffield they were pretty ineffective, certainly didn't prove to be quite the threat that was presumed and of course, the Invincible never took a hit.

      The effect of exocets was rather lacklustre and of course British subs did far more damage to the Argentine navy than the exocets did to the British as demonstrated by the sinking of the Belgrano. Perhaps the biggest testament to this was the fact the British won the war, despite being much further from home and vastly more dependent on naval forces than the Argentinians.

      All in all with the massive home advantage the Argentinians had I'd say the Falklands showed that a heavily anti-ship missile equipped force working from it's own shores can't even do much harm to a well equipped navy.

    7. Re:An odd object... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK was building to a budget and dreaming of US supported Soviet sub hunting. The Falklands showed what the Exocet missiles could to to that 'dream'. ...

      The fact that you used "Falklands" instead of "Malvinas" also shows what the Exocet missiles could do: not much.

      The only reason the HMS Sheffield sunk was poor design and poor control of flammables on Brit ships. The Sheffield had all her fire pumps in one compartment - and guess where the missile hit. Whoops. And the Brits had forgotten the lessons learned from the kamikazi attacks off Okinawa and Japan in 1945 (the Royal Navy sent a significant number of ships to the Pacific once Germany was done for) and I was told that they had started doing things like putting wood paneling in their ships.

      Look at it this way - the smaller USS Stark was hit not by one but by two Exocet missiles and it survived easily. I actually know someone who was on her when she was hit. The USS Samuel B. Roberts - same size as the Stark at 3,000 tons or so - hit a mine designed to sink supertankers in the hundreds of thousands of tons range and didn't sink.

      FWIW, I spent part of my time in the US Navy as the Damage Control Division Officer on a US carrier.

    8. Re:An odd object... by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are Exocets in the Falklands really a great example? The best they did was to cripple HMS Sheffield, it's not like it even sunk it directly- the Sheffield was afloat for 6 days after being hit but it was the rough seas coupled with the damage and the fact the crew was removed and hence couldn't deal with such problems that eventually took it under. The Atlantic Conveyor, a mere merchant navy ship took two exocets and stayed afloat. Other than the Sheffield they were pretty ineffective, certainly didn't prove to be quite the threat that was presumed and of course, the Invincible never took a hit.

      Apparently, the Exocet would have been more effective earlier in the war, if it had been set up correct. I gather the fuse was set up to penetrate armor while most targets which were hit were unarmored and small. For some period of time, the missiles passed through the target causing little damage.

      By the time, the Exocet was fixed, the UK had air superiority, meaning any (crazy) Argentina pilots had to come in fast and only had one shot at hitting anything.

    9. Re:An odd object... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      Can anyone think of a buyer, without invoking Snow Crash?

      Slashdot.

      C'mon everybody; chip in $5.00 Let's be the first Internet website with its own aircraft carrier.

      Watch out, Digg!

    10. Re:An odd object... by Skater · · Score: 1

      We already have our own PT Cruiser. This is the next logical step!

    11. Re:An odd object... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Is the iCarrier a bait-and-switch?

    12. Re:An odd object... by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      A ship doesn't have to be sunk in order for a strike against it to be successful. If it is unmanned and floundering it is still out of the fight.

      The fact that it could be eventually be repaired and refitted only matters in extended conflicts like the world wars.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    13. Re:An odd object... by snakecoder · · Score: 2

      >Apparently, the Exocet would have been more effective earlier in the war, if it had been set up correct.

      I think this is wrong. The Exocet did it's job. The Argentines only had a limited number. (I think 8 or less) by the time the war started. They were also hampered in there ability to search for ships due to equipment maintenance issues. Had they had the missiles en mass and the ability to correctly search for ships, the brits would have been in trouble.

      The bombs going through the ships unexploded were dumb bombs. It was a testament to the Argentinian pilots that in a day and age of smart weapons, they still managed to get the job done using old fashion approach and drop methods. What failed them was what you stated. The fuses on these bombs were set for too long a time period. They hit one side of the ship and came out the other side without exploding.

      --
      -Nuke the moon
    14. Re:An odd object... by rossdee · · Score: 2

      That wasn't the exocet, that were the dumb bombs.. Quite a few ships were hit in San Carlos Water, and the bombs (dropped at low level and high speed) went straight through the lightweight alloy british frigates.
      The problem with the Sheffield was that she was hit near the control room, and the fire from the remaining fuel set the aluminium structure ablaze.. Even though the missile didn't sink the ship straight away, it did put it completely out of action. Maybe it isn't a smart idea to have the combat control centre amidships in the days of radar guided missiles.

      If an exocet had hit the Invinceble during that conflict it would most likely have survived, but may have been unable to operate its aircraft for a while. The other carrier (I think it was the Hermes) would have kept right on fighting.

      Anyway if a country wants to buy the Invinceable as a combat ship they will probably need a squadron of Sea Harriers to equip it with. The VSTOL JSF would work with it, but half a dozen of those would cost twice as much as the carrier.

    15. Re:An odd object... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      HMS Invincible's airgroup was responsible for 21 Argentine aircraft kills.

      Then in the world of subsonic and supersonic ASMs it served for another 23 years, not sure that the Exocet did anything to any dreams.

    16. Re:An odd object... by wisty · · Score: 1

      Obviously, anything made of that much steel, and capable of being tugged where you want it, has a floor value as a substantial amount of quality scrap; but I have to wonder if it has much more than that. Given its age and poor condition, refitting it will be fairly expensive and require some expertise. It also presumably lacks any refinements made in carrier design in the past 20-30 years.

      Unlike, say, low end armored vehicles, for which there is always demand because even tinpot dictators have even more tinpot rebels to crush with them, aircraft carriers are sort of a "superpower or nothing" weapon. Unless you have the cash to maintain one, the air force to be worth projecting into blue water, and the support/defense/meat-shield carrier group ships to protect the thing, it is nearly useless to you. I would assume, therefore, that your standard "diamond/oil/cocaine/etc. kingpin who buys weapons because his country is a shithole with no internal industry" is basically off the table, unlike the case of some APCs or crates of RPGs or such. On the other hand, even if the ship is actually a good deal for some developing wannabe power, enough military procurement decisions are made as pork/spoils/makework deals that support for just buying the thing, rather than having some native shipyard build one, would seem doubtful, unless a country simply has no such capabilities.

      Can anyone think of a buyer, without invoking Snow Crash?

      I can think of a few Russian billionaires. And the CEO of a company known for its database software.

    17. Re:An odd object... by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

      I think the Indians would want something larger than the Invincible. The South Koreans have the shipyards and technology to build their own (and probably would to feed their own military-industrial complex). The Thai and Brazilians have carriers, but I'm not sure if they have the money to buy and maintain a second one. Even if they did, this may not be the best choice if what they say is true about the level of cannibalization that's already taken place for this ship.

    18. Re:An odd object... by el_cepi · · Score: 1

      The best bar ever!!!

    19. Re:An odd object... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somalia. >:)

    20. Re:An odd object... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I invoke Cryptonomicon? Anyone care to start a data haven with this bad boy?

    21. Re:An odd object... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      A billionaire who just HAS to win the yacht dicksize wars.

    22. Re:An odd object... by brirus · · Score: 1

      China.

  10. fallout 3 by __aaeuwj6541 · · Score: 1

    anyone else make that connection, also floating data centre would be awesome. hell, who wouldn't want to turn one of those into a city, put photovoltic cells all over the tarmac, or floating car show ..... THE POSSIBLITIES ARE ENDLESS

    1. Re:fallout 3 by mgblst · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about, we do not have floating cars yet.

      But anyway, I guess the problem with converting this into a city is that there are no windows, this is a war vessel. Staying below the deck for any length of time would probably not be fun. And it would just be too expensive to run. I think it will come though, floating cities.

    2. Re:fallout 3 by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      +5 funny if you ask me
      But it's not entirely accurate.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:fallout 3 by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      I'd sign up as a resident for a floating city in a heartbeat.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    4. Re:fallout 3 by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about, we do not have floating cars yet.

      The Schwimmwagen & DUKW date from WW2, although the latter is big enough to be considered as more of a truck.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. The future I always wanted is coming true. by Jookey · · Score: 2

    First Google earth then second life then this. Neal I salute you.

  12. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I would go with the plane.

  13. Damaged goods by tumutbound · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope it goes cheap, the deck is warped.

    1. Re:Damaged goods by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has warp engines? Sign me up!!!

  14. Hubris by Formalin · · Score: 0

    Nothing quite as arrogant as naming a ship "Invincible".

    That's like the kids in grade school that come up with "Team Winner" as their team name.

    1. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    2. Re:Hubris by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      IIRC it was on the point of being sold to Australia when the Falklands conflict started so the UK held on to it.

    3. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Became a traditional name in the Royal Navy after the capture of the French 74 L'Invincible in 1747

    4. Re:Hubris by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The HMS Pretty-Good-All-Things-Considered was already in service with the Canadian Navy.

      Now I see why formalin sensitivity is so common... a little exposure to you and I'm already irritated.

    5. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... he belongs to Team Douche.

    6. Re:Hubris by Xest · · Score: 1

      Seeing as she survived despite being posted thousands of miles from home in a warzone that put her in range of a heavily hostile nation equipped with air launched and land launched anti-ship missiles twice (Falklands, Iraq) I'd say the name turned out pretty well for her!

    7. Re:Hubris by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Royal Navy has had five ships named "Invincible"
      1. The first Invincible was a 74 gun ship of the line built in 1765. She was lost in 1801 during a gale after being driven ashore.
      2. The second Invincible was another 74 gun ship of the line built in 1809. She was scrapped in 1861.
      3. The third Invincible was a central battery ironclad (Audacious class) and was built in 1870. She sank in 1914 while under tow to a scrap yard.
      4. The fourth Invincible was a battlecruiser (name ship of the class) and was built in 1906-07. She blew up following a magazine explosion at the Battle of Jutland in 1916.
      5. The fifth Invincible is the subject of this article.

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    8. Re:Hubris by DarthVain · · Score: 2

      Considering we bought all their crappy second hand subs, we might as well get an aircraft carrier...

      I know what Steven Harper wants under his Christmas tree now!

      Too bad he's been a very naughty boy! He will have to make do with coal (ore at least tar sands...)

    9. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they could have re-used the name when we re-named it HMCS Over-Priced-Slightly-Damaged.

  15. So... by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 1

    Is shipping free?

    1. Re:So... by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see what you did there!

      CAPTCHA: Vesselage - something that ships itself

  16. Sad Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched them build Invincible - I was 5 years old when she was commissioned. She left a big gap in the skyline when she sailed.

    1. Re:Sad Day by symbolset · · Score: 2

      And now she's a big hole in the ocean for throwing money in.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  17. I can just hear the radio adverts.... by libkarl2 · · Score: 1

    A romantic gift for her this holiday season...

    --
    You are where you are at the time you are there.
    1. Re:I can just hear the radio adverts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but honey, it is so romantic in the Malvinas^H^H^H^H^H^HFalklands this time of year...

    2. Re:I can just hear the radio adverts.... by santax · · Score: 1

      Don't be fooled by the boat I got, I'm still Jenny from the block.

  18. Re:WOOOOOSH! by Trintech · · Score: 1

    What do you mean? If it were amazon you could 1-click it!

    Because Amazon patented 1-click shopping they would have to license it from Amazon to offer a 1 click buying option just like Apple has to for iTunes.

  19. Do they take Pepsi Points? by schlameel · · Score: 1

    What a great compliment this would make to my last purchase.

  20. Ramp by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    The ramp is kinda neat. How come US aircraft carriers don't have one?

    1. Re:Ramp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because our carriers carry real jets, not just Harriers...

    2. Re:Ramp by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Because they don't need it. All USN aircraft either go off via catapult or vertically.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Ramp by stoolpigeon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's funny (in a non-humorous way) is that the US attempt to build a jump jet, that the UK plans on purchasing, is way behind schedule, over budget and having all kinds of issues. Which makes the Harrier, for all its warts, maybe not look quite as bad.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    4. Re:Ramp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ramp is kinda neat. How come US aircraft carriers don't have one?

      The Invincible class is designed to basically fly only one jet aircraft, the Harrier, plus helicopters. Harriers have a very useful quality for aircraft carrier operations: STOVL, or short takeoff/vertical landing. (They can technically take off vertically, but a fully loaded Harrier burns fuel so fast doing so that it's essentially an airshow stunt, not something practical to do for real missions. For the same reason, they tend to do slow landings rather than vertical, though it's not as bad by landing time since the airplane has expended most of its fuel and/or ordnance and is a lot lighter.) By doing a takeoff roll with the thrust nozzles directed partially downward to add some lift, the Harrier can take off at a much lower airspeed (and therefore a much shorter takeoff roll) than conventional jet aircraft of similar weight and engine performance.

      It turns out you can shorten the takeoff roll even further if you add the ramp. This is nice if you're making small aircraft carriers on a budget, as the British were.

      There are some carriers out there which use ramps for non-STOVL aircraft, but they're restricted to lighter planes with a high thrust-to-weight ratio.

      The big US carriers are designed to operate a wide variety of aircraft, ranging from small and light to large and heavy. Not many of them are STOVL. Even with the long deck, the big ones can't possibly accelerate fast enough to be above stall speed before running out of deck. So US carriers use catapult-assisted takeoff instead. If you look at the launch area of the deck, you can see the catapult slots. There's a mating thingy which sticks up through the slot and pushes on the nose gear of an aircraft during takeoff. It's pulled along the deck by some very powerful machinery.

    5. Re:Ramp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Invincible only carries helicopters and Harriers. Helicopters take off vertically and Harriers take off vertically or with a short roll, so they can get away with a ramp instead of all the steam catpult and arrestor gear. Heavier or slower planes need catapult assist. Since US ships generally don't have many planes that are small and light enough to take off from a ramp, they all need catapults instead.

      dom

    6. Re:Ramp by afidel · · Score: 1

      The VTOL variant of the F35 was bound to have problems, who's crazy enough to think it would be easy to build a drive shaft capable of those kind of forces (I know I laughed when they announced the design). Besides the Brits changed their order to the F35C in October.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:Ramp by radi0man · · Score: 1

      Because the US doesn't try to launch cars from the deck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eiJkQzpzRc

    8. Re:Ramp by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

      It's pulled along the deck by some very powerful machinery.

      For you cyberpunks out there, note that it is steam machinery.

    9. Re:Ramp by Slider451 · · Score: 1

      The US has helicopter/Harrier carriers, too. LHA, amphibious assault. Google USS Peleliu.

      --
      Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
    10. Re:Ramp by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The ramp is kinda neat. How come US aircraft carriers don't have one?

      Because they'd probably install it at the wrong end.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Ramp by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The US has has a V/STOL for over 35 years in the form of the Harrier and Harrier II.

      They don't operate off US Super carriers like the Enterprise or Nimitz classes, but off the amphibious warfare ships of the LHA and LHD classes, what most other countries call a carrier the US classes as an amphibious warfare ship.

      F-35 is suposed to be the successor for the US and UK's Harrier fleets.

      Currently the US Marine Corps has 99 McDonald Douglas/Boeing built Harrier IIs in service

    12. Re:Ramp by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      US ships that carry V/STOL aircraft have longer decks than most other nation's carriers, so the Harriers can either VTOL or do a long rolling takeoff into a headwind.

      USS Nassau (LHA-4) is 833 feet long, USS Wasp (LHD-1) is 844 feet long while HMS Invincible (R05) is 689 feet long

      The 1092 foot long Nimitz class have four steam powered catapults for launching larger aircraft

    13. Re:Ramp by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The Harrier is a great machine for showing off, not so much for tactical deployment. You'll note that when you see them at air shows they are completely unloaded, fly a very short distance (maybe 5 minutes in the air, if you're lucky), and don't hover for very long. With a full weapons load, a vertical take off uses so much of their fuel that their range is very limited, so if you actually need the VTOL capability then you need to make some serious compromises in ordinance. A helicopter or a surface to air missile is often a better choice than a Harrier.

      Oh, they also have a nasty habit of melting the tarmac on normal runways. I remember one normally quite reserved officer screaming at a harrier pilot because he'd chosen to do a vertical landing on the runway instead of one of the designated concrete circles, and had made six inch deep holes in it, putting it out of action for a day.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Ramp by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      For you cyberpunks out there, note that it is steam machinery.

      At least until the Ford class carriers are built. Those will use electromagnetic catapults. AFAIK the British Queen Elizabeth class will also use electromagnetic.

    15. Re:Ramp by takowl · · Score: 1

      And in fact, we (the British) have now given up on the jump jet variant. We'll get the carrier variant, and fit our new carrier (or carriers, as and when there's the money) with catapults and arrestor wires.

      I reckon a few Harriers will live on for airshows. I've seen them, and they are impressive to watch. Plus, there's a certain patriotic satisfaction in knowing that we made a successful VTOL jet decades ago (the Russians also had one in service, but it was a bizarre design with two extra vertically-mounted engines).

    16. Re:Ramp by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Not great for tactical deployment?

      You never heard about the Falklands War have you? - 20 air to air kills with no losses when deployed 12,000 miles.

      Marines used them successfully in Gulf War.

    17. Re:Ramp by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No combat losses. Two were lost due to colliding with each other.

      It also disregards that the Argies were operating at the limit of their range with no fuel to spare for air-to-air combat, but harriers were still immeasurably superior to the alternative - no air support. In fact, as you highlight, almost the perfect poster child for tactical deployment.

    18. Re:Ramp by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Gator Navy. They've got some real problems as the F-35 and the Osprey are both pretty big. If they get rid of the well deck, like they are with some of the newer LHAs they'll still be tight on space. But on the others where the well deck is left in they will really have issues.
       
      I was an ABE so I never had to mess around on any of those smaller carriers - but the F-35 has some real issues, the fighter gap is a real problem, and it's conceivable that it wont be all that long before the US will no longer be able to assume air superiority in a number of theaters.
       
      Through the cold war the idea was that the Russians had more but we had better. And I think that was true. With the PAK FA, I think we find that we may find we are behind on both counts.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    19. Re:Ramp by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I don't worry so much about PAK FA. Late Soviet and Russian OMG-it's-so-awesome military programs either flounder in development hell or the Russians only build 14-15 of them.

      I remember reading in Soviet Military Power from 86-89 that the Mi-28 was coming and it would be a game changer. The Russians finally got some operational Mi-28s in 2006 and they have 28 of them. Venezuela is getting 10 someday.

      Then we had the Ka-50/52, that was supposed to be even more awesome. The Russian Federation finally got 25 of them 24 years after first flight.

      The best program the Russians have had was the Su-27/30/33 and they've drug it out as long and far as the Americans have with F-15 and 16. However from the Indians at Red Flag and Mountain Home pre-Red Flag, the Su-30MKI's AL-31FP engines are even more FOD susceptible than NATO fighters are

      If the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-22 and F-35 have shown a fifth generation fighter program takes a ton of time and a whole lot of money and industrial infrastructure. The Russian Federation might have the cash and brain power, but their industrial infrastructure is dated at best and they don't have a great history with brand new programs in the last 30 years.

      I agree that F-35 is a very troubled program, but with late model F-15/16s and the overwhelming numbers of F-15s/16s/18 E-G and the F-22s we have, the Iranians, Chinese, Indians don't have the numbers of front line fighters to cause a true "fighter gap".

      All out fight between the US and Russian Federation, yeah 440+ Su-27/30/33s and a couple hundred MiG-29s and about a 100 MiG-31s will kill alot of Americans, but realistically there will never be a full out conventional fight between Russia and the US.

    20. Re:Ramp by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      We are going to be retiring Hornets much faster than we are bringing anything new on-line to replace them. (I was in the Navy - spend more time hanging out with Navy folks so I'm more familiar with their situation). I don't know how it compares for the zoomers - but the USN, unless something changes will be putting more and more workload onto fewer aircraft and people in the years to come.
       
        This is from last year but I haven't seen anything to make me believe the situation has improved.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    21. Re:Ramp by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yea, but even with declining numbers of Hornet Cs, the 350+ plus Rhinos make the USN, what, 3rd largest air force in fighter/attack alone?

      Boeing's production costs and delivery costs of F-18E/F are actually declining while F-35 costs are spiraling upwards faster than an F-22 can climb.

      http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/09/super-hornet-price-tag-spirali.html

      F-35 is going to be too damned expensive for the Navy, Marines and USAF to buy (if they ever get done) and to operate

      http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/chart-f-35bc-operating-costs-v.html

      USN/USMC are going to have to suck it up and buy alot more Super Hornets, probably finally fund and get those towed decoys and USAF is going to have to suck it up and buy more F-22s and F-15SE and F-16 block 60s

  21. not worth much as scrap by hawguy · · Score: 2

    The article says the ship weighs 10,000 tons. Scrap steel is worth around 15 cents a pound, so the whole ship is only worth around $3M as scrap. They said that they are hoping to get $1.5M for it, but I'm not sure that's realistic after the towing, drydock and labor costs are added in (though I guess if they tow it to some third world country for scrapping, the docking and labor fees would be minimal)

    1. Re:not worth much as scrap by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ship breakers in India and Pakistan prefer the ship to have a working engine so it can be sailed right up to the scrap yard door. It's then broken up with blowtorches and carried to shore by hand.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  22. If I could afford the tow... by wiredmikey · · Score: 1

    If I could afford to have it towed across the atlantic I'd put a bid in :)

  23. Cruise Ship! by magister · · Score: 2

    A cruise ship company needs to pick this up and add free flyovers of the port cities they visit. I might actually consider going on one of those trips if they launched the flights from the deck.

    --
    -magister-
  24. Not even useful as a Carrier by jandrese · · Score: 0

    The problem with Carriers this small is that they can keep up just about enough birds to protect themselves, but no more. So it has barely any threat projection capability. Obviously this one won't even come with any aircraft, you would have to supply your own.

    I guess we could fantasize about some billionaire grabbing this, fixing it up, and flying his personal jet off of it when he needs to dash off to a meeting somewhere, but it seems a lot more likely that it will just be broken up for scrap instead.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Not even useful as a Carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt your average Citation has the structural integrity to handle a carrier deck landing.... Nor the thrust to ever get off the deck, even if it did...

      But neat idea. :-)

    2. Re:Not even useful as a Carrier by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Pretty much - especially one this small.

      And aircraft on ships are insanely expensive to maintain due to the additional corrosion issues on top of what you mention.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    3. Re:Not even useful as a Carrier by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The problem with Carriers this small is that they can keep up just about enough birds to protect themselves, but no more.

      You are aware that this carrier projected air superiority into a war zone within range of a hostile land based airforce equipped with anti-ship missiles? Not theoretically, not a training exercise, not a third world conflict against untrained troops armed with AK47s but a very real very hot military conflict.

      Not bad for a couple of small carriers supported by a bunch of aluminium fire hazards and a cruise liner.

  25. Not that Unusual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Believe it or not, this isn't that uncommon, I've been involved in the purchase of ex-airforce aircraft, Dry-bulk Carriers and Tankers using crappy shopping cart software. It's not as if you can do it solely online, they're just re-purposing the cart for appointments and the like.

  26. A buyer in the works? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Apparently a guy named "L. Bob Rife" has put in a bid...

  27. 690 foot? by EricX2 · · Score: 1

    Come on, how am I supposed to impress my neighbors with a small aircraft carrier like that? I heard they were getting an 1,100 foot supercarrier for Christmas this year.

  28. Private Yacht by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    I work for a company that does work on private yachts and we joke occasionally about their owners continually trying to out-do each other. The first one to buy an aircraft carrier and refit it for private accommodations will win that battle. Though the stuff their building custom is getting close to the length of HMS Invincible!

    http://www.yachteclipse.com/

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Private Yacht by Barny · · Score: 1

      Nah, forget private use. I foresee a company fitting it out as a floating shopping mall, towing it around the world but keeping just outside a nations water, that way you can avoid sales tax.

      Yeah, a pirate shopping centre, those pirate radio guys told me it would never work, but would would listen to those do gooders (ies).

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Private Yacht by Barny · · Score: 1

      Argg, writing while on painkillers fail.
        "who would listen" :/

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Private Yacht by Falconhell · · Score: 2

      What, Oh no not a Walk In The Black Forrest on permanent play?-AHHHHHHH

    4. Re:Private Yacht by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      That would be great! A shopping mall in international waters, no taxes, no restrictions! You could have gambling too, with blackjack! And hookers!

      In fact, forget the shopping mall, and the blackjack!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:Private Yacht by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Good idea! But you'd also have to have some ferry system, and to my knowledge you have to be pretty far out to be in international waters. Price of admission would outway savings on taxes. And there are limitations on what you can bring into a city.

      Hookers and blow, my friend. Hookers and blow.

      But I don't think you could push it far beyond that sort of thing, lest you start encouraging the morality police to attack you. Just because it's an aircraft carrier doesn't mean it's invulnerable to low grade attacks.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    6. Re:Private Yacht by blackpig · · Score: 1

      What, Oh no not a Walk In The Black Forrest on permanent play?-AHHHHHHH

      Ahhh, memories...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8celEsW17E

    7. Re:Private Yacht by Barny · · Score: 1

      Then what we need is to speed up development of flying cars, it would be perfect for this, you have the landing deck and timed parking underneath.

      OR you could use some of those cheap cruise missiles that chap from New Zealand chap was building as delivery systems, online order and your product arrives at your lat/long within the hour, just, uh, try and stand clear of the 'target area'.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    8. Re:Private Yacht by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      No way that would work. The USAF would shoot down every missile full of "school girl panties" before they even crossed the coast line. But if the shipshore customer transport was missiles the travel time would be greatly reduced for anyone going to the ship. And you get two rides inside a missile.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    9. Re:Private Yacht by Barny · · Score: 1

      Yes, I see that, they would not dare shoot down a missile that has a US citizen inside it :)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  29. HMS Stig Killer by Misao-Chan · · Score: 2

    It's also the carrier where The Stig was shot off the bow in an earlier series of Top Gear.

    --
    -Misao Little Weasel Girl
  30. HMS Invincible on Top Gear by kale77in · · Score: 1

    But pretty cool all the same...

    Here was the HMS invincible's appearance on Top Gear when they killed off the first Stig...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eiJkQzpzRc (3 mins)

    1. Re:HMS Invincible on Top Gear by mavasplode · · Score: 0

      Ah I was just thinking about Top Gear before. I say the BBC should buy the carrier for them. Think of the special challenge episode they could come up with that.

      --
      ACTUAL SIZE!!!
  31. Who says it has to be fixed-wing? by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Can anyone think of a buyer, without invoking Snow Crash?

    Sure, if you don't want to use it as a fixed wing carrier. It would be a cheap way of getting a helicopter assault ship (in the mold of the old USN Iwo Jima class). Considering how India has both cultural and economic ties with the UK, and has a history of buying their old warships... see the Indian carriers Vikrant and Viraat... I wouldn't be shocked to the see the Indians snap this up as a helo-carrying assault ship.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  32. Scientologists? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    The Scientologists can buy it, rehab it, and then their "Sea Org" nutters can have a real warship to tool around in...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Scientologists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do NOT give them ideas.

    2. Re:Scientologists? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the idea is one that can get all the leadership in one, confined, sinkable place, maybe it isn't so bad?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Scientologists? by Vahokif · · Score: 1

      Neal Stephenson did it.

  33. Sergey Brin? by symbolset · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heck, at that price Sergey could refit it so that he could have a "my yacht is bigger than your yacht" game with Steve Ballmer. Steve's yacht is only 126m. This is 210m. That's a lot of m's.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Sergey Brin? by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's Paul Allen's yacht not Ballmer's, though I heard that Gates once quipped that he was going to purchase a surplus supertanker and convert it to a yacht just to shut Allen and Elison both up =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  34. Oracle should buy it for America's Cup by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Larry Ellison is an avid sailor and seems to have plenty of money. He'd dump a lot of junk from the ship, and then charge folks a fee for just looking at the ship. A Premium fee will allow folks to actually board the ship. Steering the ship, is right out: Larry is always at the helm.

    How can an aircraft carrier not win the America's Cup race?

    First mate: "Um, Captain, that Norwegian catamaran is getting ahead of us."

    Captain: "Launch an assault team. Fire at will."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  35. Sea Shepherds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you imagine the look on the Japanese whaling fleet if the Sea Shepherds turned up in this next whaling ... sorry "scientific research" season.

  36. If I had the money by eltora49 · · Score: 1

    If i had the money.. I would buy that baby and turn it into floating nite club.. PS : wonder how many drunk people would fall off and drown annually ...... interesting statistics

  37. But by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

    Will it blend?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  38. Maybe Sarah Palin and the tea Party could buy it by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Maybe Sarah Palin and the tea Party could buy it to launch a strike against any country giving Julian Assange safe harbour

  39. 1.5million... Floating estate, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Consider this: don't even bother refitting the damn thing for sailing. Just use it as a giant floating estate! These things are designed to carry food and supplies for a couple thousand people for several months at a time- just imagine a couple of families living on it. Half the deck could be covered in dirt to grow food in, the other half used as a runway for a plane to go back and forth to land for supplies (though you could store enough food and water on the thing for like.. a hundred years). A ship that big wouldn't have to worry about much... and you could just drop anchor out in the middle of some ocean and sit there. Utopia, anyone?

  40. Costa Rican Navy by JustCallMeRich · · Score: 1

    Costa Rica is rather famous in Central America for not having a military of any sort. What better gift for a country with no military than an aircraft carrier with no engines, gear boxes, or pumps!

    Well, at least the next time they declare war, the enemy will have something to sink.

    You see, Costa Rica jumped into WWI by declaring war against Germany and Japan - still, with no army, navy, or air force, mind you - and Germany sent a U Boat to go sink some of Costa Ricas navy. The German U Boat commanders tried to be sneaky and went down and around the cape of good hope and attacked from the Atlantic side - thinking that is where the navy was hiding. Imagine the disgust in that German officers heart when all he found were fishing boats.

    Now do you get it?

    --
    http://Communityville.com - A free place for new and old neighborhood webmasters to hang out.
  41. No "buy it now" price? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    How else am I supposed to estimate my maximum bid?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  42. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Brits figure they can always get the US to come in and save their asses. And then complain for the next hundred years how stupid and fat Americans are. I guess it sounds like a pretty good deal in London.

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I like your thinking. Although, this time, could you turn up in time and not charge us for a further 60 fucking years for the privilege?

  43. Floating hulk by DrXym · · Score: 1

    The thing is basically gutted. Propellers gone, rudder locked, machinery removed or broken, much of the super structure gone, electrics shot to pieces. It's a floating bathtub. I suppose someone could tow it somewhere, a naval museum or whatever and restore it sufficiently for tours. But I expect it's really destined to be scrapped. It's sad in a way. Looking back on WWII it's a shame all the military hardware which ended up just getting scuttled or dumped overboard and the value it would have had if it had been saved.

    1. Re:Floating hulk by jolyonr · · Score: 1

      > Looking back on WWII it's a shame all the military hardware which ended up just getting scuttled or dumped overboard and the value it would have had if it had been saved.

      Of course, that's a somewhat false calculation because the value nowadays of a lot of WW2 equipment is based on the current rarity value as most of them were scrapped.

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  44. Sadly, he had to by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2

    Obviously not an engineer. Despite converting more of its economy percentage wise to a war economy than anyone else, the UK was basically bankrupted by WW2. Churchill was always being frustrated in his initiatives by not having the money or the resources. And the Allied advance into Germany was stalled, at a crucial point, by lack of logistical support, prolonging the war (summary and bibliography in book by Max Hastings).

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  45. My dialup said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CARRIER LOST :(

  46. The obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    feel sorry for Will.

  47. Maybe Argentina will buy it and seek their revenge by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    That would be strange.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  48. This was foolish by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Regardless of who the winner is, they will simply be offered 2 to 10 x what they paid to sell it to another bidder. And the ship will end up in China. This is the last thing that the brits need to do. And for the last time that an aircraft carrier was sold this way, it was the Russians and it went to the Chinese for a casino. Never turned up as a casino, but CHina now has several backbones done for an aircraft carrier.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  49. Not the kind of carrier you're used to ... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Take a good look at her flight deck. This ship is designed for STOL jet aircraft such as Harriers. Conventional jet aircraft such as F14-F16's wouldn't have enough runway to takeoff or land. You could manage a fleet of small Cessnas such as 172/182 aircraft or even aerobatic stuff such as Pit's specials though.

    1. Re:Not the kind of carrier you're used to ... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      F-16s have never been carrier based.

      US Navy and Marine carrier fixed wing aircraft of the last 30 years would be...
      A-4 (not in service), A-5 (not in service), F-4 (not in service), A-6 (not in service) EA-6 (in service), F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E-G, A-7 (not in service), F-14 (not in service), E-2, F-8 (not in service), C-2. S-3 (leaving service), AV-8B.

      With arresting wires this class of ship could trap jets and prop planes, but without catapults it can't operate large STOL/CTOL aircraft

  50. Pirate Radio by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    It would be a great platform for a Pirate Radio station.

  51. WikiLeaks Host Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About the last place left to host WikiLeaks.

  52. wikileaks server space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone should buy this for Julian Assange with a lot of cable off the back end.
    and park it in international waters.

  53. USCG should buy it for Humanitarian Missions by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    This would be great for the civil-assistance/rescue mission of the US Coast Guard if used for search-and-rescue helicopters and air-ambulances. Something like this would have been handy to park in the Gulf of Mexico as a mobile operating base during the oil-spill or to twin up with the USNS Mercy during the Haiti Earthquake or Indonesian Tsuanmi missions. Since the USNS Mercy and its sister [the USNS Comfort] have limited helicopter capacity, this would be a good supplement.

    1. Re:USCG should buy it for Humanitarian Missions by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      The USCG could buy a Tarawa class LHA like USS Nassau when it leaves US Navy service. Bigger, training manuals, facilities are here, and it still has engines in it.

  54. Didn't they learn their lessons by sconeu · · Score: 1

    back in the '60, when The Penguin bought a surplus nuke sub?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  55. Ship for sale by Nineteen-Delta · · Score: 1

    Maybe once it's sold, the space it once occupied can be used by the Brits to park all their non-existant aircraft on. Britannia no-longer rules the waves, -the waves are all she owns :(

  56. Fair use of an aircraft carrier? by KingRatMass · · Score: 1

    How many lawyers would this hold? Filled with attorneys and scuttled into the Marianas Trench... WIN!

  57. Damaged Goods? by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1

    Potential buyers better be sure to kick the tires and take it fir a test drive (...er cruise). To this day, the Argentine Air Force claims they dropped some bombs on the HMS Invincible during the Falklands War. The UK government denies the claim, saying instead that it was the HMS Avenger that got hit.

  58. Yes please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stick it in international waters, put a geostationary satellite above it and run a large electronic micronation from it. Include black jack and strippers, fly in the stupidly rich; Profit!