And fails to meet the role intended. The Invincibles are not tiny carriers they are very large ASW platforms with potent area air defence capability. That can be in three places at the same time.
The role of the Ark Royal in the 70s when Britain pivoted from South East Asia to NATO from 1968 was the centre of 'strike group 2' in NATO Strike Fleet Atlantic, a USN carrier was the centre of 'strike group 1'. When the Ark retired and the Herme/Invincibles took over strike group 2 was
downgraded to ASW Group 2; however if the 2 CVAs were built instead of the 3 Invincibles they would have been committed to 'strike group 2' which would have retained an offensive mission.
Does not have to be as big as Kitty just the same layout - the same "ethos" - can have smaller airgroup but like the Kitty built to primarily operate aircraft at maximum possible efficiency above all else unlike the CVA-01 which was designed by a committee of good idea fairies
Bit like what they have done with QE with it just fitting under that bridge etc - so as big as then possible.
I agree about getting too smart with the design, that was to fool/satisfy politicians and certain Admirals who were obsessed with particular tonnage limits, in particular while the flight deck was 5% bigger than Eagle it was some 15% smaller than could have been supported by the hull. A little less obsessive scrutiny over the tonnage would have worked wonder for the design.
That all being said they (Invincible class) were the right ships for the latter Cold war for the UK - with the correct focus on the RAFG and BAOR with the real then threat of the Warsaw Pact and quite rightly relegating larger carriers to the 'nice to have but cannot afford' list
I disagree with this. I doubt the Soviets would have much noticed that BAOR had one less Brigade and RAFG one less wing if the RN had 2 strike carriers instead. Any little country can raise a mechanised/armoured brigade and a few fighter-bomber squadrons but to operate a pair of strike carriers in the 70s and 80s is a very rare thing indeed.
Would be a lot better if the government weren't in denial about not needing new carriers anymore and start with a carrier design instead of the OTL route of evolving from a "through deck cruiser" (which despite the salad title was not actually an attempt to sneak a carrier but actually what it says it is: a cruiser with some extra aviation facilities).
Amen to that!
Without going into "larger Carriers", could the Invincible class have been better designed for Harrier operations, or could the RN for not huge money gotten something bigger (again not talking Conventional Carrier, just wondering could there have been an "improved Invincible class"?)
Yes, in the 90s they removed the Sea Dart facilities and converted the area into a bomb magazine and deck parking space for the GR5/7/9s that joined 'Joint Force Harrier' in 2000.
However back in the early 70s when the ships were laid down the Sea Harrier wasn't even thought of, so they were designed as better Blake/Tiger helo cruisers with Sea Darts and their main weapon.