Jackonicko - apart from the fact that tourists enjoy the spectacle, I don't know how you can even think of comparing HMS Victory and the Red Arrows.
Easy. Both are non-essential, non-core items being paid for from the over-stretched Defence Budget, when real, urgently needed capabilities are being sacrificed because they can't be afforded.
I happen to think that both are worth preserving, but that if I'm right, and if there is such a case, then they should be paid for by the Department for Culture (or whatever it's called this week), or perhaps even by industry/corporate sponsorship. And if that meant that Victory would survive, and that the Reds wouldn't, then that wouldn't be a disaster, in my view. It's all about priorities. Neither is a defence priority (though the Reds might rank slightly higher in defence terms, for their training value and potential war role), but in heritage terms, Victory is infinitely more valuable than the Reds, and is (in those terms) a much higher priority.
How much more key capability has to be sacrificed before Victory and the Reds are deemed unaffordable, or is Victory to be the very last ship to go, and are the Reds to be the very last flying unit in the RAF?
Hulahoop,
When we're losing core capabilities that we need every single time we go on ops, then anything that diverts money away from what's NEEDED to pay for something that merely 'might be useful' is a bloody disgrace.
I'm sorry if that grinds your gears.
And the fact that plenty of people think it has benefits is immaterial. Plenty of people can be badly wrong, as is apparent every time the subject of disbanding the RAF comes up!