Spitfires to fly again?

[Griffin]

Genuine qustion, What's the logic behind a sinkex being one of or the most dignified end?

To me that seems insulting, a sort of "We don't need you anymore, this is your new sexy replacement, look how much better it is *Boom*" kinda thing.

[Mikey]

Better than "we'll tear your hull apart and make cat food tins out of it."

[Deepcrush]

Sinkex is still a burial at sea, though it is often of benefit for up and coming sailors and or local wildlife. Even in death, the ship still serves a purpose.

[GrahamKennedy]

Genuine qustion, What's the logic behind a sinkex being one of or the most dignified end?

To me that seems insulting, a sort of "We don't need you anymore, this is your new sexy replacement, look how much better it is *Boom*" kinda thing.

At a guess, the Navy learns from a sinkex how to make ships more battle resistant and/or how to make weapons more effective, thus giving sailors a better chance of surviving and winning in future conflicts? Thus, a worthy sacrifice.

[McAvoy]

Serving her duty to the end. Making a better design or even training sailors to be better sailors is worthy.

It all depends thought honestly how much attachment you place on a non-living thing. Do you are care about a certain object and even think of it as a 'person'? I mean, I place high value onto my car and she even has a name, Cassandra, and when it is her time, I will miss her... up to a point. Some people view it differently.

[Captain Seafort]

Again... bullshit. I don't know what "1st Sea Lord" means

So fuck off until you have some basic knowledge of the subject.

I lurk on a couple of military forums that have a high membership from service and ex-service types, and their attitude is almost universally that scrapping is an undignified end to a ship. They far prefer to see them converted to museums.

Actually scrapping ships is considered to be the least dignified way for a ship to be disposed of. All you have to do is read reports on various famous ships from WW2 about going to the scrap yard. British or American, it's the same idea.

Going to have to agree with McAvoy, as far as I've ever heard. Selling a ship for scrap is the most disgraceful way any ship can be retired. If this 1st lord thinks that just chunking a ship to earn some cash is a "dignified" end, I wouldn't trust that inbred fool with a can opener.

Then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. When a former 1st Sea Lord expresses a view on how ships are to be treated, I pay attention. If others disagree then that's their prerogative, but given that his experience is obviously much greater than theirs I know who I'm paying attention to.

[Reliant121]

There was a point earlier that was made that warships are good to hang around for educational purposes; that may gel well over in the 'States but I only looked at English maritime history for a grand total of a single half term (we use a trimester system with each being called a term) of about 8 weeks. The rest was served on the politics in WWII or the Victorian Era or some such and I live right across the harbour from three of the ships we have actually bothered to preserve (Victory, Warrior and Mary Rose despite the latter effectively being a few planks of damp wood). Truth is, education in this country doesn't consider our military history particularly relevant...arguably even our own cultural history is left by the way side compared to international history. The preserved ships are tourist attractions, sure, but most people really don't care about the history behind them, they simply go to go and have a poke around a pretty old ship.

Perhaps it is a cultural difference but the ships that have been preserved over here don't seem particularly important or pertinent to people's lives, despite Portsmouth's status as arguably the City of the Navy.



As to the proper and respectful way to dispose a ship; That depends how much connection you place with the ship. If it's an inanimate object that floats and has guns then scrapping is the best way to get rid of it; give it a sense of nobility by allowing it to be made into further materialist goods; nobility through pragmatism. If you are particularly emotionally connected then I'd suggest either keeping her around as a museum piece or sentimental value.

My personal preference would be, if I was a ship (which is a thought I have never come across before), to go down in fire. Target practice or an offshore sinking; turn me into a reef or diving attraction or use me as a training method so the ships that follow me are manned by effective sailors who do their jobs right.

[Mikey]

So fuck off until you have some basic knowledge of the subject.

I know exactly who the man is whom you referenced; my lack of knowledge (or desire to have knowledge) of your interminable British titling system has nothing to do with my knowledge of the subject at hand. Dropping titles does nothing to validate the fact that you get upset when other people form their own opinions rather than waiting to be told what their opinions are.

[Captain Seafort]

I get irritated when people form opinions while ignoring the views of people who know vastly more about the subject than they do - in this case Admiral Leach.

[Mikey]

I get irritated when people form opinions while ignoring the views of people who know vastly more about the subject than they do - in this case Admiral Leach.

I get irritated when people are too lazy to form their own opinions, and instead argue that people should be deferred to whose expertise is in a different area. If, however, you choose to let others do your thinking for you, other people in this discussion have stated that the weight of expert opinion differs from that of the single opinion of the good Lord Admiral which you cite. Therefore, your own reasoning dictates an opinion which is contrary to the one you've adopted.

[Sonic Glitch]

I get irritated when people form opinions while ignoring the views of people who know vastly more about the subject than they do - in this case Admiral Leach.

You may remember Graham's post about a couple other ex-military types who disagree with Admiral Leach's opinion. If not here it is,

I lurk on a couple of military forums that have a high membership from service and ex-service type....

What makes one ex-military members opinion any more valid than another?

[McAvoy]

So fuck off until you have some basic knowledge of the subject.

I know exactly who the man is whom you referenced; my lack of knowledge (or desire to have knowledge) of your interminable British titling system has nothing to do with my knowledge of the subject at hand. Dropping titles does nothing to validate the fact that you get upset when other people form their own opinions rather than waiting to be told what their opinions are.

Mikey, 1st Sea Lord is the equivilant to the Chief of Naval Operations. He is the highest ranking officer within the Navy.

[Deepcrush]

Sonic, safe answer is because he's a high ranking British officer and seafort would be happy point out how it's impossible for him to be wrong...

Seriously, this guy must have cock sucked his way up the chain of command to be this pathetic. Who in their right mind would think that stripping a ship down to trash bits is a good way to end a career?

[McAvoy]

I agree but some people I guess do not put as much love into inanimate objects.

Hell it goes for planes too. When I worked on F-14s, we had this one plane called the Bulldog. First off all planes have a personality unique to them the older they get. Many times when it comes troubleshooting a problem you have to take into account that. Same problem in two jets, the same solution will not work on both. Anyway Bulldog was this ugly as fuck plane because the plane broke maybe once a year so it never got a good paint job like the others. But everyone loved that plane because it was reliable. Usually with the Bulldog, if it had an issue a good tap with a maglight would fix the problem.

I don't think I need to tell you about the whole F-14 community when those planes retired and we had to transition to Super Hornets.

[Captain Seafort]

You may remember Graham's post about a couple other ex-military types who disagree with Admiral Leach's opinion.

It's the fact that Graham, McAvoy and Deep were, directly or indirectly, providing the opinions of those who know what they're talking about that I went into more detail.

What makes one ex-military members opinion any more valid than another?

Experience and seniority. It's the equivalent of some random NCO or junior officer saying one thing about counterinsurgency and Templer or Petraeus saying something else.