To Sail No More - How HMS ARK ROYAL Nearly Became a Museum Ship

 

Few warship names capture the public imagination like that of HMS ARK ROYAL. Inextricably linked to naval aviation for over 100 years, the ‘ARK’ has embodied critical stages of the Royal Navy’s evolution of carrier airpower and operations. From operations in WW2 to participation in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, vessels bearing the name have conducted themselves in the highest traditions of the Service and gained near mythical status. Yet none have been preserved, despite the lamentations from members of the public who would dearly love to have seen a Royal Navy aircraft carrier become a museum ship.

HMS ARK ROYAL (RO9) was the last conventional aircraft carrier in service with the Royal Navy. Laid down in 1943 as an ‘AUDACIOUS’ class carrier, she served from 1955 to 1978, and through her lengthy design, build and service life saw the RN transition from an airwing built around propellor planes to strike Nazi targets to a ‘cats & traps’ angled deck carrier capable of embarking Phantoms, Buccaneers and tactical nuclear weapons.

Soldiering on until the late 1970s, the ARK was in poor mechanical and physical condition at the end of her life. She gained the affection of the nation though after the 1976 BBC documentary series ‘Sailor’ covered her deployment to the USA and inflicted the song ‘we are sailing’ upon the ears of an innocent nation. Ironically she was never intended to be the last of her kind, with her sister ship HMS EAGLE being intended for service into potentially the early 1980s, while ARK was to be have been replaced by the CVA01 design, which in turn was cancelled in 1966.

Crown Copyright

By 1978 the ARK was completely worn out and beyond the point where running her on was either practical or credible. With three new INVINCIBLE class carriers under construction, and HERMES & BULWARK able to carry out the ASW and LPH missions, it was time to pay her off. She decommissioned in early 1979, and the plan was to de-equip the ship and sell the hulk for scrap.

It was at this point that there was growing public demand to preserve the ship in some way as a long-term museum ship in the same way as HMS VICTORY, BELFAST or CAVALIER. This presented the Admiralty Board with a problem – on the one hand it wanted to quickly and efficiently dispose of the former-ARK, but equally the public interest in preserving her meant that they were obliged to credibly consider serious proposals to sell her to a private bidder.  This led the MOD to find itself embroiled in a complex bidding war between three different private entities trying to work out what on earth they could, or should, do with HMS ARK ROYAL.

In early 1979 a senior group of Royal Navy and MOD figures set out in a lengthy policy paper the plans for what should happen post decommissioning. The first priority was to strip ARK of all militarily useful equipment that could be used for spare parts on other ships. This process would see all ammunition, weapons, radar, ECM and other sensitive military equipment removed. Additionally, it was planned to transfer DC electrical power generating equipment to be used as a source of spare parts as “It is vital to transfer to HMS BULWARK to ensure her continued operational availability”. Meanwhile other parts were to go to HMS HERMES too, ensuring that cannibalised parts would live on for some years to come. (A romantic may argue that given this, in spirit at least, ARK did take part in the Falklands War, albeit in parts and a very small way!).

It was clear that this stripping out process was not intended to be done in a sensitive manner – it was to be done with “a minimum of effort and without regards to remaining structures” and would result in a brutally unsympathetic remaining hulk. The paper noted:

“The de-equipping process/carried out with minimum effort and without regard to the effects on the remaining structures. As a result we foresee that at the end of the de-equipping process the structural condition of ARK ROYAL will be disfigured in many areas and in some respects dangerous: open removal points, lack of lift chains to the flight deck, exposed and hanging electrical cables, unguarded sharp steel edges and the existence of significant quantities of loose asbestos (from the lagging) will pose serious health hazards and risks of physical injury as well as marring the appearance of the ship. Electrical systems, lighting, ventilation and power generation and other basic facilities on board will be virtually non-existent once the de-equipping process has been completed. The extent of the effects of such a process are to be seen now in HMS EAGLE which has recently gone to Cairnryan to be broken up.”

While ARK may have remained in existence as a basic hulk, to all intents and purposes she would have ceased to be a usable warship or even used for the most basic accommodation and hotel purposes. At this point the plan was to then send her for scrap in 1980, when the work on EAGLE was expected to be completed at Cairnryan.

The paper went on to note that were any groups interested in preserving the ARK ROYAL, they would face significant challenges just to get her hulk to a point where it was physically safe to be on, or to use. For example, the hull would have been full of exposed asbestos, a known highly dangerous substance that requires expensive procedures to remove safely. The lengthy list of challenges facing any preservation effort from the outset were described in detail:

“Any organisation seeking to preserve ARK ROYAL would therefore have to overcome formidable financial and other obstacles. In the first place the organisation would be faced with trying to restore her to some vestige of her previous appearance. The gaping holes in the flight deck which would be left as a result of the removal of the lifting chains/and other ravages of the de-equipping programme would have to be repaired. The removal of blue asbestos – a prohibitively expensive operation – and other safety hazards would have to be undertaken. External electrical systems would have to be installed and, since the ship's present electrical wiring could not support AC current, new cabling would have to be provided to support basic heating, lighting, ventilation and operating systems in the ship. A new heating and ventilation system would be essential to prevent further deterioration of the ship during preservation; although the whole of the ship would not necessarily be on show the undisplayed sections could not be closed off because of the need to prevent interior deterioration. If the ship were preserved at a buoy she would become a serious fire risk unless all electrical systems were renewed. Moves to replace equipment taken out during the de-equipping process would be very expensive; the items on the de-equipping list, even leaving aside those required for BULWARK and HERMES, are worth at least £3.5M.”

This sets out eloquently why museum ships are so expensive and so often fail – they require constant maintenance, the risk of becoming a fire risk and need constant power, heating and ventilation just to stay in the most basic condition. In modern context, the equipment stripped off from ARK for HERMES and BULWARK is worth at least £18m, which any preservation group would need to find just to keep the ship in the most basic state. Even once this work was done, the ship would still need extensive annual maintenance, which was estimated at £2.5m (£12.5m today) just to retain watertight integrity, and docking every 5-6 years.

The MOD looked at whether it could ‘gift’ the ship to an interested party, but felt that given her considerable scrap value (£1.5m / £7.5m today), it could not pass this loss of revenue up. It was also noted that few bodies had the credibility, resources and capability to manage a museum ship effectively, and even the Imperial War Museum had struggled to make HMS BELFAST a viable going concern.

Despite these challenges, the MOD found itself in mid 1979 with three different proposals from groups who had expressed interest in preserving the vessel and giving her a new life. The challenge for MOD was what to do about this – on the one hand they were keen to dispose of the vessel, and secure as much as possible from her sale. But they were also keen if possible to secure the ships future in a dignified meaningful way that reflected her history and prevented her from becoming tawdry. One only has to look at what happened to the former HMS PLYMOUTH and BRONNINGTON to understand why this was so important to the Royal Navy.

Crown Copyright

The first proposal was known as the “Morley / Seifert” proposal, and envisaged using ARK ROYAL as an entertainment venue in Surrey Quay Docks or Greenwich, playing home to a high-class nightclub, casino and entertainment hub, but not a museum. The ARK ROYAL would have been the centrepiece of a wider urban redevelopment of a run down area. The Royal Navy was troubled by these proposals, noting that although they were commercially sound, the plans would have left the ship looking undignified. The concern too was that if she were to be commercially sold, the RN would have no recourse to future changes of use for the vessel. The recommendation here was that while the Morley proposals were sound financially, they represented a loss of dignity and control that the Royal Navy could not accept. Accordingly, they were rejected.

The second proposal came from a mysterious organisation known as the “Swiss American Trust”, fronted by a Mr Archer, and based in the Turks & Caicos Islands. Their proposals envisaged moving ARK ROYAL to Southend, to replace the pierhead that was destroyed in a fire in 1976. The ship would act as an aviation museum, hosting the collection of the Southend Aviation museum in its hangar, while it would also become a heliport, operating flights between Southend and the continent. The ship would also be converted to a hotel and entertainment venue, offering rooms and high class attractions to bring people to Southend.

The view of the RN was that the proposals lacked any detailed analysis or financial credibility. They felt that there was little understanding of the likely level of demand for the heliport function, and in turn that there had only been cursory engagement with the local authorities about how to make the attraction viable. Given all this, the bid was firmly rejected as lacking in credibility.

The final bid was seen as the most credible of all. The ‘ARK ROYAL preservation trust’ was set up as a charitable body, operating to trustees and with the mission of preserving the ship for the long haul. Their vision was to move the ship to Greenwich, where she would be permanently moored on the Thames. Extensive refurbishment would be made to restore parts of the vessel to being a naval museum, while the ship would also gain a heliport on the flight deck and extensive entertainment and accommodation facilities for paying guests. The vision was of a ship that lived up to her heritage of the past, while also providing education and entertainment opportunities for all, as well as generating revenue from acting as a heliport and ‘hovermarine’ (hovercraft?) port. As the ship would be run by a Charity, the RN saw this proposal as more acceptable to their interests to keep the ships dignity intact. On paper then, this proposal was seen as the only credible one worth further examination by May 1979. But, as always, there was a problem…

The individual behind the proposal was a businessman called Barrie King. He was extremely keen to preserve the ARK and was by all accounts a credible, enthusiastic and compelling orator who clearly believed in his case. In a lengthy series of submissions he pushed for the ship to be given a new life in London, where she would in his eyes become the centre of attention. In one lengthy briefing note, he described how:

“Ark Royal in the evening could and should prove a major lure. In addition to the dining facilities and the associated bars the sports facilities such as for squash and gymnastics should all be operational. A surprising proportion of evening visitors to HMS Belfast who go there to dine ask for a tour of the vessel: it is not the policy of the trustees of that vessel to meet such requests. But what these requests do demonstrate is that there is a class of business and executive evening visitor whose only opportunity, as he sees it, to appreciate an attraction like HMS Belfast or Ark Royal is to combine it with his social activity. There seems every reason to believe that the potential of seeing something of the ship and her displays with a visit to dine will prove an extremely attractive one: Moreover the existence of the cinemas and their proposed evening use offers the attractive option of yet another kind of evening out and one which is likely to appeal to a wide public. Finally Ark Royal seems to enjoy a distinct advantage over most dining venues in that there are certain areas, which are large enough to accommodate major societies and organisations. Very many hundreds of diners could sit down together and there are few comparable places of interesting ambiance where this is true. In much the same vein there have been enquiries quite often for the possible use of HMS Belfast for wedding receptions and even Christenings: In nearly every case, as also with requests for balls, nothing has been possible because space is so restricted. In the case of Ark Royal no such problem exists and an exciting potential is revealed.”

King provided deep financial analysis of his proposals, expecting to see 750,000 visitors per year to the ship, and in turn charging £1 per person admission. He anticipated generating revenue from sales, with 20-50% profit on souvenirs and bar sales. The heliport would charge £70 landing fee per helicopter, and by 1984 be operating a fleet of 60 seater helicopters (effectively Chinook size) capturing 25-50% of the business travel demand out to Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels. It was estimated that there would be up to 10,000 helicopter movements per year (some 30 flights per day).   Given the later popularity of City Airport for short haul business travel, there is potentially something in this analysis that suggests the heliport would have been credible if introduced.

The impression King gave was of a ship that would internally have been turned into an impressive museum and entertainment hub, featuring diverse galleries on the history of ARK ROYAL, the Royal Navy and the oceans. When added to the entertainment features, it was clear in his mind that he thought he was onto a winner. As one MOD memo stated:

“Mr King’s style of presentation both orally and in writing is optimistic and persuasive; and tends, therefore, to obscure from others and perhaps in his own mind how much remains to be done, and justifies a particularly cautious view of his financial and timescale projections.”

The MOD took a cautious view of the proposals put to them for several reasons. Firstly, there was no sense that the numbers added up to make sure that ARK could be made into a profitable venture. Secondly, there was a real challenge that for all of his talk about how the venture could succeed, Mr King seemed unable to provide any details at all about who his financial backers were, or where the money was coming from to fund the ships conversion into a museum.

The charity estimated that it would need at least £7m (nearly £40m today) to make the ship ready for use. This was an enormous amount of money for a small charity without any resources to provide. MOD concerns were raised by the fact that every time they asked to see proof of funding, to confirm that there were genuine financial backers in existence, things got a little bit vague. Assurances were made, plans were always afoot, but at no point did it become clear who was actually going to pay for the charity to acquire the ship – throughout 1979 MOD correspondence shows more and more frustration at the growing sense that there wasn’t actually any funding in place, and that they were being led up the proverbial garden path while King attempted to find funds from somewhere.

At one stage, for example, the Greater London Council became involved in the proposals, offering to provide £1.5m to the charity from local funds to get work underway, but only on the condition that the Government did not charge £1m to the charity for the purchase of the ship in the first place. From a Government perspective this made little sense – they were obliged to secure a reasonable return, and giving the ship away wasn’t a runner. At another point the Trust tried to get the brewery Charrington & Co (which later became Punch) involved – as the MOD stated:

“ DUS(N) will recall that in July last Mr King approached the MOD in a flurry of enthusiasm about his plans to associate Charrington and Co Ltd with the preservation venture. Nothing has since been heard of this possibility, and it must be assumed that Charringtons no longer figure as potential backers. Their abrupt departure from the scene only reinforces our earlier suspicions that Mr King had dressed a very naked Emperor up in some very tatty clothes, and that the possibility of backing from this quarter had in reality been very much less developed than he would have had us believe.”

Other concerns existed over the Trustees, many of whom were elderly naval officers and while seen as credible individuals, seemed to form a habit of stepping away from the Trust as its work continued. There was a concern from MOD that they need a strong board of trustees who would work tirelessly to uphold the goals of the Trust, and not let the management board run riot, which they were not certain would happen. Given their concerns about the preserving the dignity of the ship, this could prove to be a serious concern.

Copyright unknown

By late 1979 the MOD mood was increasingly frustrated – they had learned that costs were growing again, and now King was proposing to launch a savings bond via a bank to raise £9m capital for the ship – some £44m in 2025 prices – yet there was no credible plan  of where this money would be funded from. At the same time the Trust was pressing for the MOD to commit to the selling of ARK to them, asking for an Admiralty Board & Trustee meeting to finalise the deal. This went down very badly in MOD, who responded with a lengthy letter explaining why this could not happen until proof of funds had been confirmed – central to this was their concerns about the risk of the proposals:

“4. There are in our view two related risks; the first that a proposed scheme may not be financially viable and the second that sooner or later the uses to which the ship is put or the standard of maintenance or facilities provided for the public may decline. The two issues are, of course, closely linked.

5. The financial viability of your proposal rests heavily on four factors:

a. The notoriously difficult task of estimating the cost of refurbishing and converting a ship and subsequently maintaining her.

b. The estimating of future income from opening the ship and the proposed facilities to the public.

c. The availability of initial finance and the terms on which it is made available.

d. The financial acumen and background of those principally concerned.”

Point 5D is perhaps the most important one because the MOD knew privately that there were incredibly serious concerns about Mr Kings prior background. Early in its discussions with him over the preservation of the ship, the MOD had uncovered that Mr King was in fact an undischarged bankrupt and the risk of reputational embarrassment was incredibly high – this was increased further by the information that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering bringing charges against him.

“Mr King has been referred to in the Press as an undischarged bankrupt; this has been confirmed by the Official Receiver. The Director of Public Prosecutions has also informed us on a confidential basis that police inquiries into Mr King’s conduct in his bankruptcy concerning substantial sums of money which could not be accounted for will be completed in under a month; depending on the strength of the evidence it seems possible that the prosecution of Mr King will follow, though this would be some weeks away.

13. The personal probity and reliability of Mr King is an important feature of our analysis of the Preservation Campaign’s proposals. The Treasury Solicitor has pointed out (paragraph 30 below) that the terms of the Trust Deed are such that the whole management of the enterprise could be delegated by the Trustees to the prospective senior employees of ARK ROYAL; we should therefore be as much if not more concerned with the prospective senior employees as with the Trustees in considering the competence and reliability of those in charge. If, having sold ARK ROYAL to the Trust, it turned out subsequently that one of her senior employees was the subject of a prosecution leading, possibly, to conviction for fraud or theft, it would reflect adversely on the MOD as well as undermining the whole enterprise at a crucial early stage. The News of the World has already, we understand, uncovered this story though it has not so far published it.”

By October 10^th 1979 the situation had got more serious, with the MOD discovering that

“We have at last had confirmation from the Director of Public Prosecutions that Mr King is to be charged in the near future with a number of offences related to his management of past business ventures, and that the charges, although not yet finalised, are almost certain to include theft and fraudulent trading. These are serious charges, and if Mr King is proven guilty, they will very likely involve a lengthy prison sentence.”

This made it even more unlikely that the RN would be comfortable selling the ship to the ARK Trust for fear of the implications were King to have been found guilty. By the end of 1979 then the writing was on the wall for the proposals. An overall analysis of the scheme by the MOD identified numerous concerns ranging from the costs, the challenges of operating the ship as a heliport and the practicalities of just towing her in and out of her berth in Greenwich. ARK would need to be towed via the Thames flood barrier and then moored permanently in the river, requiring specialist shore side support, berthing facilities and the means to tow her to and from dry dock in Amsterdam or elsewhere for docking every 5-6 years. The MOD noted drily “We regard the plan to tow the ship to Greenwich as a hazardous undertaking”.

Perhaps most importantly for the MOD were concerns about what would happen to the ship if the venture were to fail. The MOD was concerned about how to avoid a debacle where the ship was resold, or the dignity of the ship and name lost through inappropriate legal protection and covenants – foremost in the minds of the Admiralty was protecting the name ARK ROYAL at all costs.

It was at this stage that patience and time ran out for the ARK. The MOD tired of waiting for promises that never came over funding from the Trust. Even though the decision was taken by the DPP not to proceed with charging Mr King, it was clearly felt that he was not someone the MOD wished to be associated with.

The decision was taken instead that the time had come to send the ship to the breakers and avoid an undignified end as a nightclub / floating gym on the River Thames. The fact that the project was almost certainly economically unviable, and would have collapsed meant that the Royal Navy felt that rather than let the ship fall into decline and disrepair, and find itself saddled with years of public irritation that this had happened, it would be better to let her be scrapped with quiet dignity in Scotland.  The First Sea Lord agreed, and in a memo stated: “In my view the proper end for ARK ROYAL is a speedy disposal for scrap”.

In 1980 it was all over, with it being publicly announced that she was to be scrapped at the end of August 1980. In the House of Lords it was stated that she could not be preserved due to her poor condition, meaning that talks had broken down, no doubt much to the quiet relief of the MOD and Royal Navy.

Final departure 1980 - Copyright unknown

On 22 September 1980, ARK departed Devonport under tow for Cairnryan, where she was over the next three years broken into scrap metal, ending the story of the Royal Navy fixed wing carrier force. Yet her memory lived on in different ways – her anchors are preserved, while the Fleet Air Arm museum in Yeovilton has the ‘carrier’ exhibition which opened in the 1990s featuring the island and flight deck of ARK ROYAL, providing a fitting memory of the ship. Even if she was not preserved, the museum did an excellent job of creating the memorial for FAA aviation in the Cold War.

The story of the scrapping of ARK ROYAL is a good reminder that ships have a strong emotional hold over us – they are made of steel but we treat them as living creations. Many wish to see their old ‘war canoe’ preserved, but the bleak reality is that most museum ships fail or struggle to live up to expectations, particularly after the final crew are too old to help. It is 47 years since ARK ROYAL ended her career – had she been preserved, she would by now by an 82 year old hull, in desperate material condition and likely on the point of collapse. It is hard to see how preserving her would have done anything other than stave off by a few years the inevitable.

There is, of course the fascinating ‘alternate history’ thread idea that a preserved ARK ROYAL could in 1982 have come to the nations aid once again in the Falkland Islands – a subject likely  to inspire much debate online, even if in reality the chance would zero that this could have happened due to the stripping of all the services off the ship after she paid off.

Perhaps the final word on the subject should rest with the DUS Navy, a senior official post that stated in 1978 that “It can be argued that this is no time to be condoning the creation of an expensive memorial to the Fleet Air Arm whose future is assured, not least through the construction of the though deck cruisers, one of which will bear the same name”…