Should the MOD sell off our Historic military assets?

…id thought it closer to 100 :D:D:D

If the MOD need to raise funds to maintain HMS Vistory and the BBMF then all they need to do is sell off some of those 70+ Spitfires stored in those underground hangers…………

Sorry – couldn’t resist that.

I suspect that there’s not a whole lot of originalmaterial left in the ‘Victory’ anyway…but no, no sale thank you.

what i like about how she’s displayed, is it almost looks like she’s afloat, as you approach her, just looks like she’s tied up at a dock!

Have you seen the ss Great Britain in Bristol? That sit’s in a dry dock, but surrounded by a glass ‘sea’- so it really DOES look like it’s afloat, and you can go ‘underwater’ into the climate controlled dock, too! Also very non-original these days, but a brilliant day out nonetheless.

“Victory should remain on the navy list, and remain where she is, where the sea breeze can still blow across her decks – not as a commercially exploited “dry-exhibit” encased in a museum building somewhere (probably licensed for Wedding receptions and kids parties!!).”

A some what different tack from a lot of people on this forum, who believe that all planes outside should be moved inside post haste.

Different rules for boats than?

I would never seek to impose any “rules” on anyone else. It is merely my own (humble) opinion. But you have to agree that most aircraft are a bit smaller than Victory! It’s a question of practicality as well as opinion or emotion: when you think about it, it would have to be a bloomin’ big “hangar” to put Victory in – even the B52’s fin at Duxford isn’t as tall as as “Victory’s mainmast! Unless you were going to remove most of the masts, I think it would be very difficult (and expensive) to construct a building to house her: and housing the hull in such a cut-down state would be a bit of a travesty (imho). It’s different with something like “Mary Rose” or “Vasa” where because of the state the vessel was in when recovered it is physically impossible to re-instate all the original masts, spars etc.

The only location where such an “under-cover” approach might work would be to remove Victory to Chatham Dockyard (where she was built of course), clear out the No.3 dock and house under cover there in a sort of “re-fit” diorama. Actually, I quite like the sound of that, hmmmm But you could imagine what Pompey would have to say about that!!

I seem to remember a book about the BBMF a few years ago featuring comments from the then Officer Commanding.

He seemed to fear for the Flights long term survival and that powers from “within” were looking to rid the MOD of the responsibility ie sell the aircraft off to private owners.

i think there is considerable difference between modern aircraft and a 270 year old ship,

Victory, was designed for, built and indeed spent many years, afloat on the sea. so her being outside next to the sea, wouldnt cause the same damage in 4 months that would be caused by leaving an aircraft, like a vulcan, outside. (wales air musem at cardiff i think is a good example) yes it costs masses to maintain, etc

what i like about how she’s displayed, is it almost looks like she’s afloat, as you approach her, just looks like she’s tied up at a dock!

Maybe the we could sell it to the chinese,as we have done with 80% of the engineering and 90% of all loose metal in the country

“Victory should remain on the navy list, and remain where she is, where the sea breeze can still blow across her decks – not as a commercially exploited “dry-exhibit” encased in a museum building somewhere (probably licensed for Wedding receptions and kids parties!!).”

A some what different tack from a lot of people on this forum, who believe that all planes outside should be moved inside post haste.

Different rules for boats than?

I was going to mention the RNHF myself.
I believe it went to self funding in the late 1990s, I remember being disapointed about that then.
For fear of being shot down here, ready to be corrected, and this is in no way a dig, the BBMF dosen’t seem to run into the same down time issues as the RNHF, who seem to mention lack of funding when aircraft are awaiting repairs/parts etc.
Example, last years Yeovilton show didn’t have one RNHF aircraft on flying display, and that is their home ground, yet the BBMF showed up with its formation.
It seems to be quite rare that the BBMF don’t show up with the aircraft promised for a particular display.
At the end of the day there will always be an issue with funding privately versus MoD and government – ie our taxes.

Isn’t the RNHF effectively ‘privately’ run?

Do any of us really notice the difference when watching aircraft of the RNHF display, as opposed to watching aircraft of the BBMF?

As JDK says, The Victory has about as much chance of being sold as Heather Mills has of becoming Queen.

I could see it being given to a non-profit trust for preservation (to get it off the MOD books which could perhaps spend extra funds for long term preservation the MOD doesn’t have…that might make sense)…but if they say it isn’t going to happen, then I guess it won’t for now.

The British love their history and reminders of their glorious past.
How they could have scrapped the Stirling (and others) to extinction is beyond me.

On the other hand if they didn’t sell off historic assets, there would be a lot of empty museums and private collections in the UK……..

HMS Victory did have a ‘sister’ ship (can’t remember its name) that was towed out to sea in the 1950s and blown-up…

…hope this government review doesn’t rediscover that ‘preservation’ option! :diablo:

Edit: The ship I mentioned above was HMS Implacable, the former 74-gun Duguay Trouin, captured from the French after Trafalgar. Apparently she was offered back to France but sadly the offer was not accepted on the grounds of the cost of restoring and maintaining her. She was scuttled in 1947.

Nasho, did you read the Daily Telegraph link I posted? Notice the ‘not for sale’ statement?

The Mail has (as usual) deliberately misinterpreted a statement, liked up a bunch of people and misinformed them to get a line of rent-o-rants (just like here). The Telegraph, as used by right wingers who don’t need to run their fingers below the words, actually has several statements quoted from the MoD, not a negative spin on one as per the Mail.

Certain people want you fulminating over utter rubbish like this rather than thinking for yourself, and worrying about what’s important. The fact remains Britain (and anyone’s) historic heritage does not remain in the hands of the Defence organisations in perpetuity; including numerous ex-military historic sites and artefacts in the UK we all treasure.

HMS Victory is not under any real threat (and I’m sorry, but you’d have to be remarkably credulous to believe so) – but a pile of tripe is selling papers and causing discussion – which is what the real point is here. Time to read up (Like how USS Constitution ‘sails’) learn a bit and move on.

If you actually learn a few of the facts (as ‘not provided by your tabloid’) no other country in the world has as much 20 century military material preserved (per area) and raises as much revenue through tourism (internal and external) from it. Rather than crying into your beer, maybe you might like to recognise how well provided Britain is.

Regards,

Some reason at last…

Back to the original question…
No I don’t think the MoD should sell of its historic assets, I know they are primarily a defence organisation, but I do think they have a certain responsibility to look after and present their past – the BBMF being an excellent example of this.

Nasho, did you read the Daily Telegraph link I posted? Notice the ‘not for sale’ statement?

The Mail has (as usual) deliberately misinterpreted a statement, liked up a bunch of people and misinformed them to get a line of rent-o-rants (just like here). The Telegraph, as used by right wingers who don’t need to run their fingers below the words, actually has several statements quoted from the MoD, not a negative spin on one as per the Mail.

Certain people want you fulminating over utter rubbish like this rather than thinking for yourself, and worrying about what’s important. The fact remains Britain (and anyone’s) historic heritage does not remain in the hands of the Defence organisations in perpetuity; including numerous ex-military historic sites and artefacts in the UK we all treasure.

HMS Victory is not under any real threat (and I’m sorry, but you’d have to be remarkably credulous to believe so) – but a pile of tripe is selling papers and causing discussion – which is what the real point is here. Time to read up (Like how USS Constitution ‘sails’) learn a bit and move on.

If you actually learn a few of the facts (as ‘not provided by your tabloid’) no other country in the world has as much 20 century military material preserved (per area) and raises as much revenue through tourism (internal and external) from it. Rather than crying into your beer, maybe you might like to recognise how well provided Britain is.

Regards,

Politics and money I think are the two key words you are groping for Nash mate.

John.

what i dont get about the jag fleet, is why they arent being run into the ground out in the east, the harriers, from what ive heard, dont take to the conditions that well

Victory’s £1.5m per year is a pittance to the MOD……when it probably wastes that much every month……they could probably save that amount annually by turning of the lights in Whitehall at night when no one’s there.:rolleyes:

Lets not forget the MoD canned the Jaguar fleet early to save less than 1.5m so it’s not exactly a ‘pittance’ to them.

Regards,

John.

The MOD cant sell here off she’s got the most guns of any warship left in the fleet:):)