Ev. Standard: "Ark Royal Could Be A Museum In The Docklands"

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Dec 1, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I think this is a great idea if it's affordable. I've been on Intrepid in NYC and it's awesome. Stick a few old cabs on deck and hey-ho instant money maker.
  2. I couldn't agree more! This seems like an excellant way to retire the old girl.
  3. Unlikely to happen in UK unfortunately. Joe Public couldn't give a flying f8ck about naval heritage if they have to pay for it, as witnessed by the continuing saga of HMS Plymouth. When we've had the chance to bring back really significant UK warships (eg ex-Vengeance and ex-Whimbrel), both have foundered on a wave of apathy.

    Something similar happened when Ark IV was decommissioned - IIRC there was a hare-brained plan to turn her into a docklands heliport, which came to nothing.

    Would love to see something like this though.......

  4. Re: Ev. Standard: "Ark Royal Could Be A Museum In The Dockla

    Lottery cash maybe ?......... like Cavalier :)
  5. I read on a comment about this article that if the Ark Royal name is used for a ship in this situtation, then it cannot be used again for an active ship.
    Is this correct or have I been misled?
  6. Re: Ev. Standard: "Ark Royal Could Be A Museum In The Dockla

    Regeneration for the East End ?

    As what ? Social Housing perhaps, or halfway house for the mob coming from over the Channel ?

    I know what for! It'd be a damned good place to accomodate all these MPs dishonestly claiming oodles of cash for 'flats/houses' in the Capital.
    Nominal rent, at market prices for an Officers cabin - or maybe bunkbeds in the Hangar .... :wink:
  7. Not sure. Is that why when Warrior was restored she was known as HMS Warrior 1860 to avoid confusion with Northwood? Perhaps she could be called Ark Royal 1985 to free up the name.
  8. jockpopeye

    jockpopeye Badgeman Book Reviewer

    Re: Ev. Standard: "Ark Royal Could Be A Museum In The Dockla

    I have suggested this before but sell it to the Chinese who will make it into a "Casino"...
    Chinese Casino

    Alternatively a mausoleum "Here lies the Royal Navy, 16th century - 2010, defender of a nation, its people and its empire for centuries, destroyed to pay for jobseekers allowance." This inscription should also be available in Chinese for the benefit of our future imperial masters.
  9. Old Joiner, I think you are right, that is why they changed the name of Victory Barracks to HMS Nelson apparently it confused the postmen amongst othe people as mentioned the name of Warrior was the same
  10. Re: Ev. Standard: "Ark Royal Could Be A Museum In The Dockla

  11. Thanks for the confirmation.
  12. I think most people knew the difference between HMS Victory barracks & HMS Victory the ship way back in the 60s, so I can't say I agree with you here - most of Pompey's posties were/are probably ex RN anyway. ;)

    More like someone in MOD probably thought it'd be a spiffing idea !!

  13. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    When HMS Nelson aka RNB was also HMS Victory, the ship had a sign by the gangway reading "HMS Victory (Ship)" to help out anyone who was didn't know the difference. 'Victory' was the base ship for pay for all the odds and sods in Portsmouth. During the war there were HMS Victory I, II, III etc and so also for HMS Vernon as various outstations were commissioned along the coast.

    It is possible that RNB, when it came ashore replacing various insanitary hulks, became HMS Victory because RN people always had to be on the books of a commissioned, real, floating ship, so the barrack stanchions were actually on the books of the wooden, real warship. Other shore establishments with an apparent HMS name seemed to have some piece of small fry as a tender which actually bore the name as a commisisoned ship and allthe hndreds of bods ashore were on 'her' books.

    It took the Andrew some time to figure out that people couldlegally serve ashore and still be paid for it.

    Nowadays I think this isn't about tradition, it's about obvious scope for screwups over mail.
  14. Not wishing to start up the 42 thread again, but I still don't understand why our governments make such a public show when scrapping ships. Surely it would be considerably better value to keep all our dead ships, sail or tow them to our few foreign interests, i.e. The Falklands, Gib, Diego Garcia etc. and keep them looking vaguely serviceable with a small skeleton crew.

    The Argies would definitely think twice before their next lot of sabre rattling, if there was a carrier permanently docked in Stanley. Like I said, the thing doesn't need to be able to move, it just needs to look mean and create the element of doubt in order to deter. All it would take is a few lads on the upper deck once a day, fresh lick of paint every now and then, the odd helo landing on deck etc. The crew could even be made up of sick chit biffs or trainees, it's not like they are actually going to sea.

    The Russians have been doing this for years and have even been known to swap pennant numbers on ships in order to look like they have more serviceable gear.

Share This Page