Sad Day- HMS Illustrious leaving Pompey to be scrapped today

[Julien]

I dont think the MOD will ever give anyone a chance if there is even a remote possibility it will come back on them.

[Vince1159]

24 minutes ago, Julien said:

I dont think the MOD will ever give anyone a chance if there is even a remote possibility it will come back on them.

Doesn't say a lot about them if they're not prepared to take the odd risk though,they could even cover themselves legally...

[sinnerboy]

TBH, yes the cost of a single attraction visit to The Historical Dockyard is a bit pricey  ie 18 beer tokens for HMS Victory, you can buy an all attraction ticket on line at the moment at a discount price of 26.60, this entitles you to visit all the attractions plus harbour tour, for as many times as you like for 12 months, so if you live within a reasonable distance that I think, is a bargain. 

[Thud4444]

2 hours ago, Julien said:

I think the issue is if they had sold it and you hade a situation like HMS Plymouth, would they then be expected to step in and help run it?

 

 

I had to Google what you where talking about.  That's awful. I don't feel so ashamed of our treatment of Olympia now.  The guy who runs Texas,  who has had a fair amount of troubles herself,  was absolutely livid about Olympia.  He said for a ship to get that bad, the neglect has to be criminal.  

 

 

 

But to just scrap her, that's unsettling.  Or maybe I'm just too sensitive,  I grew up restoring old machines. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Thud4444

[junglierating]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM, sinnerboy said:

TBH, yes the cost of a single attraction visit to The Historical Dockyard is a bit pricey  ie 18 beer tokens for HMS Victory, you can buy an all attraction ticket on line at the moment at a discount price of 26.60, this entitles you to visit all the attractions plus harbour tour, for as many times as you like for 12 months, so if you live within a reasonable distance that I think, is a bargain. 

Yeah but multiply that by a family and it gets expensive add food drinks blah blah and the majority of the UK don't live a reasonable distance from Portsmouth .

Then the RAF  x2 and the national army museums are free....then you can understand my annoyance....The victory is expensive to keep going so no way are you going to keep a

 

20,000 ton gash barge going.

What gets the priority..the Victory obviously.

It's enough to keep current warships crewed and underway.

[junglierating]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Vince1159 said:

Doesn't say a lot about them if they're not prepared to take the odd risk though,they could even cover themselves legally...

That risk costs money effort and manpower ....we ain't got much of the first and third one.plenty of effort mind you if you can get HMG to go in to business and form a theme park or helo joy rides

On a personal note I find your comment a bit insulting ....I've got seven attendance gongs mate some people will never get to wear them .....tell their families about effort and risk!!!!!!

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by junglierating

[junglierating]

Just now, junglierating said:

That risk costs money effort and manpower ....we ain't got much of the first and third one.plenty of effort mind you if you can get HMG to go in to business and form a theme park or helo joy rides

On a personal note I find your comment a bit insulting ....I've got seven attendance gongs mate some people will never get to wear them .....tell their families about effort!!!!

 

[Procopius]

On 12/9/2016 at 2:42 AM, Thud4444 said:

 

 

Most of our naval ships are "owned" by an nonprofit.  The three local battleships that where saved from the breakers where done via donations and support from there namesake states.  The Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas are all protected state parks now. All charge around $15 for admission and most have a museum that is included in the admission.  The Alabama has an excellent, if small, flight museum and submarine.  The Texas isn't far from the site of an battle for its independence.  And the North Carolina has a small display showing all the US Navy and the Confederate ships that bore her name.  However when we went the Carolina was the only one who offered guided tours. They use the ticket sales and hold fundraisers to maintain the ships.  What little bit I was involved in was ( I helped return and restore some old AL ANG planes to the flight museums in Mobile and Birmingham) a bureaucratic nightmare.  Nothing at all like the company run museums I was used to dealing with. 

 

 

I think two factors really make this tough in the UK: one being that space is at a premium, with under 100,000 square miles of total area, whereas the USA is immense, with 2.8 million square miles. Obviously not all of this is by water, but enough of it is, and the land will be cheaper and easier to afford/retain for anyone who needs somewhere to moor a ship. Secondly, to be frank, a helluva lot more wealth kicking around in the USA for this sort of thing. (The USA has a GDP between five and eight times that of the United Kingdom, depending on what day it is and accounting for windage).

[sinnerboy]

22 minutes ago, junglierating said:

Yeah but multiply that by a family and it gets expensive add food drinks blah blah and the majority of the UK don't live a reasonable distance from Portsmouth .

Then the RAF  x2 and the national army museums are free....then you can understand my annoyance....The victory is expensive to keep going so no way are you going to keep a

 

yeah I get your point about the other museums being free to enter ( how much longer tho, thin edge Hendon parking? and is also looking very,very tired )

but I still think a year long, all attraction ticket, for less than a single trip up the Shard   is pretty good value.

Food & drink, agree not cheap but the same issue every where, some more that others ....see London again, don't ever buy a drink near the Tower!

Location, well it's where we are, I'm lucky I only live 25 miles from Pompy so get down there 6-7 times a year, but thats the way it is, I wouldn't mind having Cosford or Kubinka or the Smithsonian on my door step but I don't.

That said, I agree a day out is not cheap, maybe our heritage should be free for UK residents but as we know there just aint enough in the pot to go around these days.

 

  

[Thud4444]

10 hours ago, Procopius said:

 

 

I think two factors really make this tough in the UK: one being that space is at a premium, with under 100,000 square miles of total area, whereas the USA is immense, with 2.8 million square miles. Obviously not all of this is by water, but enough of it is, and the land will be cheaper and easier to afford/retain for anyone who needs somewhere to moor a ship. Secondly, to be frank, a helluva lot more wealth kicking around in the USA for this sort of thing. (The USA has a GDP between five and eight times that of the United Kingdom, depending on what day it is and accounting for windage).

 

I meant no disrespect,  I was just pointing out how some things are done here. It's not as easy as some posters were thinking.  I was heavily involved with the restoration of a few projects after the massive campaign to save a lot of historical airframes from the scrappers during the last few years of the Clinton presidency.We saved a lot of planes, including almost all of the remaining Thunderchiefs, Crusaders, Voodoos and saved almost all the Blackbirds.  The irony was that our campaign motto was "be like England. "  I was constantly told that the English would never allow this to happen to their historic military equipment.  We even tried to be like y'all to the point of founding nonprofits to restore a F-106 and F-105 to flight status.  And to keep some F-4s flying in private hands. (Like how there where still Lightnings and Vixens in the U.K.) But the Air Force told us that it wasn't ever going to happen.  A local Thud driver said if was because the USAF didn't want it advertised that a 105 could easily outperform any operational  western strike fighter.  He would laugh that the only  bird he ever saw that could catch a clean 105 was a Lightning,  and it was retired too.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Thud4444
My

[Thud4444]

Double post

Edited December 12, 2016 by Thud4444

[Vince1159]

11 hours ago, junglierating said:

That risk costs money effort and manpower ....we ain't got much of the first and third one.plenty of effort mind you if you can get HMG to go in to business and form a theme park or helo joy rides

On a personal note I find your comment a bit insulting ....I've got seven attendance gongs mate some people will never get to wear them .....tell their families about effort and risk!!!!!!

 

My apologies,never intendid to insult anyone so i'll think a bit more carefully before posting in future....

[junglierating]

12 hours ago, junglierating said:

 

No worries probably went a bit OTT myself.

[Giorgio N]

On 10/12/2016 at 5:48 PM, Vince1159 said:

Good point but it would be nice to have saved one as a museum,the MOD flatly refused to sell it to be turned into one and two million's nothing when you consider the amount that vintage vehicles are bought for (Lancia/Ferrari/Aston) and when you think about the amount of money that enthusiasts/groups spend on keeping Steam trains alive and running....It's the UK's heritage/history that's being sold off and for what a couple a million...

 

The difference with the vintage car world is that a collector paying 10-15 milions for a 1950's Ferrari will have an asset in his garage, asset that tomorrow can easily be sold at a higher price.

If the same milion is donated to support a museum warship, what does the man get in return ? Sure the satisfaction of having helped in preserving the heritage of the Country, most likely a plaque with his name. If however donating to say a ship preservation trust could lead to a good saving on taxes, then we may see more money donated from wealthy individuals. I'm not familiar with the UK legislation on these matters but if I understand right this kind of system works pretty well in the US.

 

 

 

On 12/12/2016 at 7:27 AM, Thud4444 said:

 

I meant no disrespect,  I was just pointing out how some things are done here. It's not as easy as some posters were thinking.  I was heavily involved with the restoration of a few projects after the massive campaign to save a lot of historical airframes from the scrappers during the last few years of the Clinton presidency.We saved a lot of planes, including almost all of the remaining Thunderchiefs, Crusaders, Voodoos and saved almost all the Blackbirds.  The irony was that our campaign motto was "be like England. "  I was constantly told that the English would never allow this to happen to their historic military equipment.  We even tried to be like y'all to the point of founding nonprofits to restore a F-106 and F-105 to flight status.  And to keep some F-4s flying in private hands. (Like how there where still Lightnings and Vixens in the U.K.) But the Air Force told us that it wasn't ever going to happen.  A local Thud driver said if was because the USAF didn't want it advertised that a 105 could easily outperform any operational  western strike fighter.  He would laugh that the only  bird he ever saw that could catch a clean 105 was a Lightning,  and it was retired too.

 

I'd love to see an F-105 trying to outperform an F-15..

[Thud4444]

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

 

I'd love to see an F-105 trying to outperform an F-15..

 

 

According to Ed Rasimus and Blake Morrison (both ex-105 pilots) If you'd been on the tarmac for Red Flag 80-2,  you'd got to see it every day. According to Morrison,  it wasn't even close.  At low altitudes it would just walk away from the Eagles. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Thud4444

[Giorgio N]

54 minutes ago, Thud4444 said:

 

 

According to Ed Rasimus and Blake Morrison (both ex-105 pilots) If you'd been on the tarmac for Red Flag 80-2,  you'd got to see it every day. According to Morrison,  it wasn't even close.  At low altitudes it would just walk away from the Eagles. 

 

 

I don't doubt it, the Thud was an incredibly fast aircraft at low level, with a very responsive engine producing lot of thrust and a relatively small drag. There are many recorded instances of F-105s hitting very high speed when egressing from target areas in Vietnam, with 800 Kts and higher easily achievable at low level.

However in my book the term "outperform" means doing better than the opponent in a sizeable part of the flight envelope, not in a limited part of this.  The comment mentioned above should have probably been more correctsomething like " USAF didn't want it advertised that a 105 could easily outperform any operational  western strike fighter between x and y level when starting between speed v and w with a weight of z".

Of course nothing against the Thud, a fantastic aircraft that bore a large part of the US effort in Vietnam and did a great job, including giving several MiGs a nasty surprise

 

[bentwaters81tfw]

http://www.suffolkgazette.com/business/aircraft-carrier/

[Paul Bradley]

19 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

http://www.suffolkgazette.com/business/aircraft-carrier/

 

Blimey, it's April 1st already....!