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ship in 1982 but the Falklands war intervened and in July 1982 the British Ministry of Defence announced that it had withdrawn its offer to sell Invincible and that it would maintain a three-carrier force."

43 of 224 comments (clear)

  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 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.
  2. 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.

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

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

  4. 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 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.

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

      I wonder if they offer airmail!

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

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

  5. 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 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"
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

  6. The future I always wanted is coming true. by Jookey · · Score: 2

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

  7. 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.

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

    I hope it goes cheap, the deck is warped.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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)

  12. 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-
  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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?
  16. 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. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. Re:Potential Buyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hope your remaining sailor was unhurt.

  20. Re:Rip-off by andi75 · · Score: 2

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

  21. Re:Private Yacht by Falconhell · · Score: 2

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

  22. Re:Datacenter by Eraesr · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  23. But by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

    Will it blend?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  24. 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."
  25. 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...
  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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...)