A contract has been awarded to keep a Royal Navy warship stored and unready for sea in dock for five years. The amount to be paid is approximately double what the ship cost to purchase in the first place. HMS Victory on display in Portsmouth's Historic Dockyard 'Steal in measure,' quo' Brygandyne. 'There's measure in all things …
But where does the charitable trust get it's money from to run the HMS Victory? It can't get it all from the public via donations etc. So if it's getting it from the the MoD it's still tax payers money.
You do have to pay £20 for a ticket into Portsmouth Historic Dockyard, which includes only one tour of HMS Victory.
"One of the most influential of the King's officers was Robert Brygandine, who was originally appointed Clerk of the King's Ships in 1495 by Henry VII. His position was confirmed by Henry VIII in a warrant of 1509. Throughout his period of office he appears to have been stationed mainly in Portsmouth."
The History of the Mary Rose
"£8m in today's money"
Hmm... you forget that the price of labour has not increased in line with general inflation. To build that ship now from scratch- even assuming you could find the necessary skilled trades- would cost vastly more than £8m because people expect to be paid at least an order of magnitude more in real terms than they did then.
I suspect their "aircraft carrier" estimate is therefore not as wild as you might imagine, although my guess would be somewhere between the two figures.
You're also looking after a 250-year-old antique which is exposed to the elements, and is basically a pile of biodegradable material (wood) held together with other biodegradable material (more wood and some hemp ropes).
Not saying £16m is a *fair* price mind you, but Lewis's obvious dislike of all-things BAE has lead to a pretty biased article.
Thats only about 30 years older than the wooden windows and roof on my parents house, no wonder they cost so many millions to treat each winter...
"Treat" is not the same as "preserve".
Why don't they move it indoors? sure, it may ruin the experience of standing on the ship and looking out to sea, but it wouldn't need so much work then.
Not to mention the nails
'Twas ever thus:
"But I see it is impossible for the King to have things done as cheap as other men"
thank you, Captain Obvious
Yes. That's why Lewis included the quotation.
I could do it cheaper!
thats 3.2m per year
I've got a paintbrush and a few woodworking tools , you could pay me 1m per year and I'd get 4 mates in to help.... we'd be making a comfy 100k each. minus paint or whatever
Seriously though, what are they getting for that 16m?
what does "storage and maintenence" entail?
Some very, very skilled work, I would guess, This is a conservation job.
Try maintaining a modest-sized wooden yacht for a few years: you might want to revise your estimate on the Victory job!
Are you suggesting
they should have put AMERICAN guns on the Victory?
That would have been a mite difficult, HMS Victory is older than the United States is.
I think you mean
Commissioned in 1778
At that time we were the hated enemy.
Makes me feel all warm inside.
The United States didn't spring magically into existence in 1776. It was here before then. It was just called something else. The Victory might even still have bits of colonial timber in it.
Just an insignificant little colony in rebellion, hardly a hated enemy. If America had of been a hated enemy then they'd have sent another army after having effectively taken France out of the war. Given Yorktown was really a french victory (french ships, troops and artillery were the decisive factors) another army would have almost certainly put down the revolution. Simply keeping the war going with a force in being and not actually attacking would have bankrupted the US as it did France. Frankly, the most significant thing to come out of the American revolutionary war at the time was actually France going bankrupt which then caused the French revolutionary wars, and the Napoleonic wars.
Objectively, the 13 colonies weren't really worth the hassle at the time and still would be pretty insignificant had they have kept to those borders. It was only slaughtering the Indians and taking their land (apart from a few relatively minute areas) across the entire continent that made America as powerful as it is, and that didn't happen until much later on.
It's not £16m to keep it maintained, it's a £16m contract to restore the ship over 5 years. The actual cost of maintenance is £1.5m per year, your normal anti-BAE (which is steadily heading towards defamation) is going beyond a joke, we all get it, you hate BAE but at least *try* to be impartial, especially on a story that was on BBC News 6 days ago.
...why should anyone like BAE?
That company that gives such great value for money every time.
...should be made ready for active duty. There's no way by 2020 that the RN will be able to afford the diesel to run their single aircraft carrier!
Falkland Islands/Malvinas is kicking off again
What would it cost to convert Victory to a (very small) carrier?
If we hire another team of chippies, we might be able to get Marie Rose to float again.
There, that's a fleet of two.
Isn't it gas turbine (when it arrives)?
You'd have to cut off the masts and rigging, and probably the poop as well, and you would still have a more capable ship than the new carriers...
Nice straw man you've built, Lewis.
Gas turbines need to run on more than hopes, tears and fairy dust. What do you think the turbines would burn when warships are also fitted with diesel engines/generators?
Icon is fed by oxygen and Lewis' troll articles.
Depends if you go by inflation or average earnings
According to http://www.measuringworth.com
Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, £63176 0s 0d from 1759 is worth
£8,720,000.00 using the retail price index
£91,300,000.00 using average earnings
So I guess that means we are ten times richer now than then?
It's recognised by most historians to be utterly impossible to accurately put prices from 250 years ago in todays terms. With inflation, deflation, changing rates of pay and the different worth of the money when coins were gold and therefore occasionally worth more as metal than they were nominally as coinage it's a nightmare coming up with figures anywhere near accurate. Not to mention that taxing individuals 250 years ago didn't happen until the advent of taxation, so your money went a lot further than it does now. (since you didn't get taxed heavily from the headline amount you were theoretically paid, and then again every single time you bought something)
The best way of comparing the price would be to see how much she'd cost to build now. The problem is that we simply wouldn't be able to build Victory from scratch now because there is not enough military grade english (slow grown & seasoned) oak on the face of the planet for the wood, let alone the other issues.
And there it was, a dig at the RAF!
Thought we were doing well with the article for a moment.
New low in reporting
In 1760's the GDP per capita (average) was £12. This means the cost of the ship was 5300 the average GDP (or there abouts).
Today's GDP per capita is around 23k.
A lot more than the 8M in the article. It took 6 years to build. Today 8M would not even cover your stationary over 6 years.
You have to admire Lewis's persistence...
but bashing BAe seems to be like bashing Clarkson, the bastards just seem to make more and more money.
There's no need for a fleet of ships to protect ourselves from the French/Spanish navy.
The French capitulate at anyone with a stern gaze and the Spanish can't afford to put a canoe to sea these days.
Maynot be the French and Spanish. I can well imagine Argentina noticing we have no way to defend the oil rich falklands and wanting it back. There are also other threats around - even these pirates off Africa - think how much better we could do if we had sent Ark Royal with a few planes - would be able to respond fast and sink pirate vessels quickly - it would have stopped the problem. Finally, we found out in WW2 and the Falklands that ANY ship is vulnerable to air attack, the only defence against this is aircraft of your own on site, This means having aircraft carrierS, that is plural - one can be damaged relatively easily, if you have only one then your entire mobile airforce is out of action. A huge carrier can be sunk by a single torpedo, its flight deck put out of action by a single lucky missile. At least at the moment we have (sorry had) 3 of them and a helicopter ship which could easily gain a skiramp.
I'm aftraid the idiots in charge at the treasury have no interest in protecting this country but every interest in sucking up to their banker mates and securing a decent job for themselves. This is then portrayed to gullible and stupid ministers (er.... diffference between a torpedo and tornado... no I don't know you will have to ask someone else) and even more out of touch idiot prime ministers (and all the major parties seem to delight in fielding the most gullible idiots they can to be ministers - most 6 year olds can do better).
So in a nutshell, we might as well sail Victory to the next conflict as it doesn't matter what ship you take to it the ship will be sunk, the convoys of food we need, amunition we import etc. will all be sunk and we will have no choice but to surrender in approximately 12 hours.
What does BAE know about
about oak and hemp?
Fantastic wonder crop for so many reasons. Unfortunately it's actually cannabis, so move on, please.
The hemp they grow has little or no THC content, so it's legal and useless to smoke.
THC content has stuff all to do with it. It is an offence to cultivate any plant of the Genus Cannabis, without a home office licence.
O'Course it's expensive
Military grade oak is rare as hen's teeth nowadays.
there's an informational plaque in Central Park, Burnaby (that's Canada, for those playing along at home) noting that it was first set aside not for recreational purposes but in order to supply wood to the Royal Navy. Still has the same trees it had back then, pretty much. If we're going back to the age of sail, drop me a note and I'll head down there with a chainsaw...
It takes over 100 years to grow a mature oak to the required standard i know where i was brought up there are a load which where planted for ship building in the 1700s and never used as the demand disspeared due to the arrival of the iron clads.
And any trees old enough will be protected by a preservation order so we will be importing from india.
Is BAE the same company...
...that built the four leaky, fire-prone, dented, almost-always-in-drydock Victoria/Upholder Class submarines that you guys pawned off on to us about ten years ago?
Oh look! It IS the same company!
not our fault
not our fault you bought the crap we offered you.... many people buy Chinese toys for their kids every xmas and have thrown the broken remains of the non-functional crap in the bin before new year. Sales is all about selling over priced crap to gullible idiots. There are very few things we are good at :)
We may note Pepys' remark...
... but we won't note it as being about the Victory, because Pepys died a century before the keel was laid on Nelson's flagship. Naughty Register, to mislead the public so.
... I expected Lewis to say that we should scrap the Victory, sell it off for firewood and import an historic US ship to put in its place...
What - I thought Victory was American
After all if you watch Hollywood and listen to our politicians and historians the Americans are the ones that have won every single battle the world has ever seen... so Trafalgar was a win, it must have been by the Americans in American ships manned by good 'ol American boys
American Ship In Her Place . . .
We did that! The problem is that the USS Chesapeake got dismantled in 1812 to build the mill up the road from Portsmouth in Wickham (sadly it's now only an antiques shop rather than the flour mill it originally was).
There were plenty of American sailors at Trafalgar - the Royal Navy tended to impress them as well as British sailors. It was one of the causes of the war of 1812.
"The fact that military equipment has inflated in price faster than other things is quite well shown by the fact that at the time of Trafalgar Britain had no fewer than 22 triple-decker heavy line-of-battle ships and a further 69 two-deck, seventy-four-gun battleships all on active status - some 91 capital warships ready to fight, then.
That was just Britain's wealth and sea power over the last 250 years, nothing to do with the relative price of tanks vs tractors. In the 19th century Britain dominated the planet. Not any more.
Yes contractors rip off governments. It was the same in Nelson's day no doubt, and fortunately for us, it happens in other countries too.
Lost veteran ship
Having been at the National Maritime Museum at the weekend I heard about HMS Implacable.
Another ship that fought at Trafalgar (albeit on the French side from where she was captured at the battle of of Cape Ortegal), wasn't finally sunk (deliberately) by the Navy until 1949 because there wasn't the money to preserve her!
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON