# HMS ARK ROYAL - farewell



## mcl (Jan 23, 2011)

]Today we had the chance to go aboard this vessel for the last time before disposal.

Wealong with our 7 year old grandson queued for almost 3 hours just to board and if we had got to some of the inside spaces it would have been another 2 hours.

Due to the overwhelming number of people aboard her it was impossible for me to take photos of some of the internal spaces - I have mainly concentrated on the deck area.

History taken from ARK ROYAL website.

The fifth vessel to bear the proud name Ark Royal was built by Swan Hunters at Wallsend, launched by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother on 20 June 1981 and accepted into service on 1 July 1985. During her busy life the ship has seen service around the globe in many different roles, including as Fleet Flagship. The ship was deployed in early 2003 leading the UK’s naval forces during Op Telic. After a short period in Extended Readiness Ark Royal moved to Rosyth for modernisation and modification prior to rejoining the fleet as the Royal Navy’s most up to date aircraft carrier. She is currently operating in the Commando Carrier role, capable of carrying an Embarked Military Force of approximately 400 Royal Marines or Army, as well as operating Chinook, Lynx, Apache, and Sea King helicopters. 

http://

Some of the queue.
http://


Bridge area

http://


Hydraulic ram of forrard aircraft lift.

http://

http://


Aircraft lift area

http://


http://


Aircraft hanger showing the very large crowds of people.

http://


http://


Flight deck photos.

http://


http://


http://

http://


http://


http://

http://


Section of deck from lift
http://


Aft aircraft lift

http://


Ships ladders in store

http://


Down the gangplank

http://


----------



## night crawler (Jan 23, 2011)

Well done on that it's a crying shame it has been taken out of service.


----------



## Bunker Bill (Jan 24, 2011)

Nice pic's, such a shame.

Fairly local to me but the crouds put me off going.


----------



## dovydaitis (Jan 24, 2011)

we were going to go but had a feeling it would be like this  still a shame it's had to happen, still had some years left in her


----------



## AndyC (Jan 24, 2011)

Hi,

we went too. I queued while wife/sister/kids went shopping. Was good but it was time for our yougest's nap when we boarded. So we had a whingey 1.5 YO. So like the OP we could not face queuing to go to the lower decks.

End of an era, and a shame, but I am glad I went.


----------



## TiJayLFS (Jan 24, 2011)

Must be awesome to get a close up and final look at the ship  Pretty good pics considering the crowds!


----------



## klempner69 (Jan 24, 2011)

Myself n the good lady took a gander too of the ship..a few of mine to save another report:

































For the rest,see below:
http://news.webshots.com/album/579607283OmrHFL


----------



## chelle (Jan 24, 2011)

*hms ark royal*

A great day out with my other half klempner 69........the ship was awesome & the sailors werent bad either


----------



## scribble (Jan 24, 2011)

She's a grand old lady. What a shame. Thanks fordocumenting her passing.:no:


----------



## mcl (Jan 24, 2011)

klempner69 said:


> Myself n the good lady took a gander too of the ship..a few of mine to save another report:
> 
> Brilliant photos - What time did you get there ?, you must have been early, I couldnt move for people.
> Well worth the wait though


----------



## Lady Grey (Jan 24, 2011)

This sort of thing is not usually my cup of tea(!) but what an honour and privilege it must have been to photograph such an iconic vessel


----------



## hydealfred (Jan 25, 2011)

What a waste - lets hope the Falklands dont kick off again.


----------



## smiffy (Feb 3, 2011)

This idiot government is scrapping/selling/disposing of quite possibly the most useful ships in the Navy..........It would have made way more financial and military sense to lose a load of the sub hunter destroyers / frigates and also the entire completely in-effective and thereby useless nuclear submarine fleet...Never mind ...what do we know hey? I'm sure some twat politician could tell you why a few multi billion£ nuclear submarines that we'll never ever use are better assetts than aircraft carriers.........


----------



## johnb99 (Feb 3, 2011)

*Ark Royal*

I served on both her sister shps, Illustrious and Invincible way back in the 80's. They are all life expired and without Harriers not much use.

John


----------



## smiffy (Feb 4, 2011)

johnb99 said:


> I served on both her sister shps, Illustrious and Invincible way back in the 80's. They are all life expired and without Harriers not much use.
> 
> John


Well even if these ships are 'wore out' it shows what a ridiculous system the MOD is operating..why are the replacements so far behind schedule and why are they such a long way from being servicable?.. Even if they were 'on time' to the original replacement plan they wouldn't be ready for service for a few more years yet...
I acknowledge your expirience mate but the way I see it is this...
Without a carrier capability to get aircraft/helicopters etc to a destination we are effectively hogtied to having 'land based' aircraft to support whatever the army is committed to...
...Now thats ok if there is a handy friendly country nearby that will allow us to use their airfields but you can't always guarrantee that can you?....and anyways....as you rightly point out...we've scrapped the Harriers which were designed for exactly the ground attack role we're talking about... all we've got left is the new Eurofighter which was primarily designed to be a high altitude intercept aircraft.. not the best aircraft for ground interdiction use at all...and they also need proper 'hard standings & runways'.... they can't take off from a carrier anyways so they're not a lot of use........Realistically a Eurofighter can't be used for the kind of 'police work' our armed forces are nowadays called upon to perform..and...oh yeah ...they cost an absolute mint too! (and they're not actually very good either....and thats not my opinion, it's from a fella I know who flys them..)
Also not to be forgotten is the idea of being able to 'project power'...
..A carrier task force loaded with Marines & Soldiers and carrying aircraft & helicopters with a ground strike capability is a good way to 'show force' which in certain situations could possibly stop an incident getting out of control before it even starts....
...A submarine cruising off someones coast doesn't 'project' a capability..
First off ...simply put...it can't be seen ..and even if it surfaces , it 's hardly gonna put any fear into someone hell bent on trouble...because secondly, (and more importantly) ...
...any beligerant nation/army etc knows a submarine isn't going to be carrying many (if any) Soldiers or Marines that could come ashore ..Even the most primitive troublemaker in the world knows we're not gonna hit them with the Nuclear Missiles that are on board... so the submarine in todays world is non effective as a weapon basically....and if you need a thrid reason they are also incredibly expensive, you could probably build 2 or maybe even 3 carriers for what one sub will set you back....
As I said...loads of money for something that can never be used..
I think its very sad the carriers have gone.....and very short sighted of those that made the decision too.


----------



## skeleton key (Feb 4, 2011)

Great to see these pictures im sure it holds alot of memories for so many 

SK


----------



## krela (Feb 4, 2011)

smiffy said:


> Well even if these ships are 'wore out' it shows what a ridiculous system the MOD is operating..why are the replacements so far behind schedule and why are they such a long way from being servicable?.. Even if they were 'on time' to the original replacement plan they wouldn't be ready for service for a few more years yet...
> I acknowledge your expirience mate but the way I see it is this...
> Without a carrier capability to get aircraft/helicopters etc to a destination we are effectively hogtied to having 'land based' aircraft to support whatever the army is committed to...
> ...Now thats ok if there is a handy friendly country nearby that will allow us to use their airfields but you can't always guarrantee that can you?....and anyways....as you rightly point out...we've scrapped the Harriers which were designed for exactly the ground attack role we're talking about... all we've got left is the new Eurofighter which was primarily designed to be a high altitude intercept aircraft.. not the best aircraft for ground interdiction use at all...and they also need proper 'hard standings & runways'.... they can't take off from a carrier anyways so they're not a lot of use........Realistically a Eurofighter can't be used for the kind of 'police work' our armed forces are nowadays called upon to perform..and...oh yeah ...they cost an absolute mint too! (and they're not actually very good either....and thats not my opinion, it's from a fella I know who flys them..)
> ...



Hihi, this is not a politics website. Write to your MP if you feel that strongly about it, off-topic ranting on an internet forum wont change anything.

Ta.


----------



## boothy (Feb 4, 2011)

Thanks for the pics and information.


----------



## Andrew. (Feb 4, 2011)

Good pictures, i wish i could get down there to see it, The pictures really show how big the Ship is, unreal to think they can just get rid of something like that!


----------



## Motley (Mar 18, 2011)

Such a shame such an icon has now gone, lovely pictures


----------



## hydealfred (Mar 21, 2011)

Would have been a useful asset with a few Harriers in light of the days events


----------

