Cammell Laird say that they welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that the construction of the new National Flagship will commence in 12 months, with the ship entering service by 2025.

The Prime Minister’s announcement was accompanied by a visual of the new ship, which will be the first of its kind to be built and commissioned by the UK and will showcase British design, engineering and green technology.

Today David McGinley, CEO, said that Cammell Laird is ready to deliver the new national Flagship, which will be used promote British interests around the world.

“From HMS Ark Royal to the RRS Sir David Attenborough, Cammell Laird knows what it takes to deliver vessels of vital national importance. We have completed some of the most ambitious ship building projects in modern times, through the recent construction of the RSS Sir David Attenborough, the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, and delivering critical units of the next generation nuclear submarines, Astute and Dreadnought on behalf of BAE. It is this experience that makes Cammell Laird the only UK shipyard who can partner with Government to deliver this vessel, a partnership that will significantly de-risk the project, enable it to be delivered at speed and maximise value for money.”

In addition to the construction of the RRS Sir David Attenborough, Cammell Laird has recently delivered a range of specialised vessels including RoRo and RoPax ferries for Red Funnel, Western Ferries and Strangford Ferries.

David McGinley added:

“The construction of the new vessel will unlock the full social benefits of the contract for the people of Wirral / Merseyside and the wider maritime supply chain, as well as supporting the Government’s levelling up agenda by delivering a significant national infrastructure programme in the North West of England.

We will continue to develop our successful apprenticeship and training programme that has already recruited over 300 apprentices, including 46 in the past year alone. Furthermore, the contract will enable us to accelerate one of our strategic objectives to create a ‘Shipbuilding Centre of Excellence’ on the banks of the River Mersey at Cammell Laird, which will incentivise innovation and create the skilled workforce the UK will need to compete in the global economic marketplace.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
142 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

30mm or 57mm? CIWS? Dazzle paint a La RB2? Hanger and heli? UAV?

What, you say, it’s “just a flagship” ? Well RB2s are only OPVs but that’s not stopping the dissenters!

Incase anyone’s not realised this post is loaded with sarcasm.

Great news, I support its construction and purpose.

Last edited 4 months ago by Daniele Mandelli
Jonathan
Jonathan
4 months ago

just a thought though and seriously this would be a ship with a great big target painted on its side for any and all nut jobs wanting to make a point or get even with a wester democracy.

So it would either need to stay in safe waters or be looked after unless it could provide its own security.

So I would imagine some level of security, GPMGs, small arms lockers ect will be needed ?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It’s fair comment. What was the set up re RY Britannia?

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago

Chief Ryback ……….. Here’s a bigger Britannia Target
( pic too big to upload )

Last edited 4 months ago by captain p wash
Nic
Nic
4 months ago

They probably had small arms on board it needed, but they were never evident on any tv footage .

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
4 months ago

Original had a detachment of Royal Marines to provide security, wernt any ship mounted weapons but it was supposed to be a refuge in the event of nuclear war so presume at least initially it had some NBC equipment.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Indeed Watcherzero, hiding in Scottish lochs once Op Candid was initiated.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago

Hi Daniele,

I rmember watching the Royals using RY Britannia as a kid and I am sure there was mention of an escort. Can’t imagine that such an obvious target would have sailed without an escort to be honest.

Cheers CR

stephen mercer
stephen mercer
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

When I was a boy in 1962, Britannia came into Dartmouth with the Queen and had a frigate and minesweeper in attendance.

Pete
Pete
4 months ago

Type 42 always in the rear view when HM was on board.

dan
dan
4 months ago
Reply to  Pete

And an unseen SSN creeping underneath the waves probably.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The first report on it stated that it would be crewed by the RN so they would be able to provide a secure ship. It will interesting to see how it evolves and how it is used.
Will it have a second roll .

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Would it be built to Naval or Civilian build standards?

John Colam
John Colam
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It will always be escorted by RN Ships

KeithD
KeithD
4 months ago
Reply to  John Colam

Would it though? 1. That would seem a waste of a RN ship there are few enough as it is. 2. It’s not a royal yacht so won’t be carry her maj around. If we were at war it would be tucked up cosy in the basin at Portsmouth. When we’re not at war any threat would be from terrorism or piracy. I’d have thought a RM team with small arms / sniper / HMGs would be fine.

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago

Nah mate. Twenty 20″ guns in five quadruple turrets. It will be 1707ft long, with the capacity to hold 1927 troops in a time of war. I also heard the masts will be 18′ 05″ tall. Can carry 100 double decker busses and 18,000 sausages. No baguettes, though. Yeah, loaded with references – I couldn’t resist a jibe or two!  😂 

I agree with you of course.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

😆 Any idea on my question above re Brittania?

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago

She had a detachment of Royal Marines and a dedicated frigate escort (usually an RFA as well). I can’t ever recall her having GPMG and the like on show, as she was obviously meant for strictly diplomatic purposes, with a secondary role as a hospital ship.

Different times, sadly.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Thanks mate. So as Jonathan suggests some self defence will be needed.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Britannia still sailed in the era of the IRA, so hardly threat-free times

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Graham

Yes, I think Lusty meant different times in the assets the RN could assign.

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago

Bit of both mate. I will note that I didn’t say that things were ‘threat free’ then, but it’s worth unpacking a little. Back then, there was a far larger pool of assets that could be assigned to protect her (dedicated escort). I suspect the drive to fully-utilise what we have and expand the sufrace fleet (at least, escort numbers) will tie into the ambtion to operate the flagship, as the powers that be know she would be a high-value target for certain groups and organisations. Sure, terrorist groups existed then and they do to this day. But the threats… Read more »

Nick C
Nick C
4 months ago

Britannia did have some self defence capability but I think it was limited to nothing much more than a few GPMG. Whenever she was on official duty with the Royals embarked there was always a frigate, or sometimes a destroyer, as escort. Out of that came the self defence, the RM’s if needed, and divers when necessary. Don’t forget that she went out of service over 20 years ago, and the threat has changed mightily since then. I think I agree with the concept of a Royal Yacht, but a National Flagship does sound rather jingoistic. With Bojo in charge… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Nick C

Thank you Nic.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago
Reply to  Nick C

Rather National Flagship than something nominally called a Royal Yacht hardly a 21st Century theme and the thought of Prince Andrew having a new plaything is vomit inducing. Perhaps a better name than either of those might be appropriate mind, though can’t think of one offhand the whole concept seems a little Ruritanian to me. While we laboriously sailed the previous RY anywhere far away the French, Germans, Americans and various others took the plane and without a song and dance signed most of the contracts before we even arrived. Projecting the resident Royal of the moment to do a… Read more »

Last edited 4 months ago by Spyinthesky
Nick C
Nick C
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Agreed, if there is a strategy to use it to sell things, fine, otherwise it does appear rather Ruritanian in the 21st century. It was fun and hard work being Royal Escort, but it did take out a ship full time, and we haven’t got enough to do it now.

Pete
Pete
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Indeed. With a LSG to be based in the East, type 31’s and I assume Type 32’s to be globally dispersed and occassional deployments by other capital ships such as the QE class would there not be enough assets around to be used for flag waiving when required.

Pete
Pete
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

And…if it is being effectively crowd funded by British Industry and commercial interest to serve their business interests then would it not be better to be run by likes of the DTI and/or CBI or along the lines of a collaborative model such as ‘Oilandgasuk’ (which is a pan Industry funded representative entity that promotes or works on behalf of the industry in a number of issues).

Derek
Derek
4 months ago
Reply to  Pete

Well, Pete, with some RN planners in the mix and new global RN deployments, I can see the flagship being escorted by one or more RN vessels en route to their deployment destination with stops along the way for diplomacy and an ‘official visit’ alongside at destination.

Then the flagship can be escorted on the way back to UK by the replaced vessel(s) returning home. It would be fitting in with planned RN deployments and being escorted by ships that were sailing anyway – thus not reducing availability.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Should be called The State Yacht.

Jon
Jon
4 months ago
Reply to  Graham

It doesn’t matter what Boris calls it officially, the press will call it whatever they want and that will stick. My guess is Royal Yacht.

DaveNBC
DaveNBC
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

For us it was always about ‘quiet’ diplomacy. When I visited RYB last month, I think I read that during its lifetime it ‘earned’ the UK upwards of £3bn in deals.

Jonathan
Jonathan
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Come on you missed out the number of cans of baked beans .

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yeah, I was going to throw out three olympic swimming pools of baked beans (literally three pools!), but alas, it slipped my mind.

Trevor
Trevor
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

Well if I recall they did use HMS Vanguard for a trip to Australia, I know it was only equipped with 8 x 15″ and there might be some problem making those from new these days….

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

Poppycock. 3D print a few of them out; piece of cake!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

Isn’t there’s a couple on display outside the National Maritime Museum? Slap on a new coat of paint, a drop or two of 3in1 and boom you’re ready to go.

Just let me know when you’re doing live firing and I’ll stand well away, e.g. 10 miles back 🙂

I’ll get me coat.

CR

Trevor
Trevor
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Yes there are two at the entrance to the IWM in London, as you indicate they might need a bit of TLC to get them into tip top condition. The ammo is another matter altogether!

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

I believe that the armour plate might actually be a bigger problem.

Gareth
Gareth
4 months ago
Reply to  Lusty

“Twenty 20″ guns in five quadruple turrets. It will be 1707ft long, with the capacity to hold 1927 troops in a time of war. I also heard the masts will be 18′ 05″ tall. Can carry 100 double decker busses and 18,000 sausages. ”

….and they called her the Irish Rover

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago
Reply to  Gareth

The Pogues would be the nightly entertainment.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

All jokes aside though, I won’t be happy unless the staterooms can be used to accomodate a Battlegroup or at a minimum a Field Hospital embarked.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

If there is wide exhibition space as suggested why not a FH.
I support its build but it should have a secondary role when not in use for state visits and build costs not be paid out of MoD budget. RN crew fine. Could RNR do some of it?

Dern
Dern
4 months ago

Would certainly be a great opportunity for RNR’s, join the Navy, see the world, all of that.
Not Joing the Navy, occasionally go for a jolly in a inshore Patrol Boat in the North Sea.

Ideally I think an Exhibition space should be usable either as a field hospital or for embarked troops, but that is the kind of think that does have to be thought of when designing the ship in the first place.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago

When not deployed on vip duties it could be used as a officer training ship for RN, RFA or merchant navy.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
4 months ago

Short turnaround if they expect to tender the design and construction work and have the keel laid in under a year.

Order of the Ditch
Order of the Ditch
4 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Not really, commercial vessels are knocked out pretty quickly.
Allure of the Seas, the world’s largest cruise ship was ordered in 2007, laid down in 2008 and sailed with fare paying passengers in December 2010.

James H
James H
4 months ago

As long as it doesn’t come out of the defence budget to pay for it.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  James H

It probably will and the fact that RN will crew it , The fact that they are saying it is to promote trade and industry , no reason why it can’t be government owned and crewed by the merchant Navy

simon alexander
simon alexander
4 months ago
Reply to  James H

bojo likes bikes, buses, riot trucks, planes and now Britannia 2.

Peter S
Peter S
4 months ago

I understand this will be paid for by the MOD and manned by RN personnel. Is this a good use of scarce defence funds and personnel? If this is to be a floating trade advert for “Global Britain”, it should be funded by the DTI. No objection if that happens but do we also need to send warships to the India Pacific area to fulfil largely the same role.
The US pivot to the Pacific is a purely military move: ours is more of a marketing exercise.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Share your thoughts over this particular concept. But such an MOD pivot is never just a marketing exercise.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

I support its build and purpose but agree it should come from a budget other than the MoD. FCO or whatever it’s called now?

Herodotus
Herodotus
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Yes, my thoughts exactly! This shouldn’t be an MOD project and, quite frankly, the RN shouldn’t be involved at all! Why don’t they trial a couple of years using a hired ferry to see how the idea takes off…or not! This looks to me as if it’s a Bojo vanity project. Looking at the images of the ship, it’s a vessel without a helo deck and probably of limited use as an auxiliary RN vessel. And 200 million…isn’t that another Type 31.

Jonathan
Jonathan
4 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Yes very much agree with you on that. I would want a ship costing 200 million of taxpayers money to have a very specific purpose with a proven need or benefit to the state that justifies the capital spend and on costs.

Herodotus
Herodotus
4 months ago
Reply to  Peter S

Sorry to use your slot as a way of communicating with the admin team Peter. I have emailed Lisa about constantly flagging my posts without a response.

Lisa West (Comment Moderator)
Lisa West (Comment Moderator)
4 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Hello. I don’t have any e-mails from you. Can you please re-try e-mailing [email protected] ?
Thank you.

Herodotus
Herodotus
4 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Not my original post….but never mind!

Lisa West (Comment Moderator)
Lisa West (Comment Moderator)
4 months ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Hello. Have you tried e-mailing me again? I still haven’t received anything from you.

farouk
farouk
4 months ago

I wonder if this will have a secondary role as a Hospital ship?

Springer
Springer
4 months ago
Reply to  farouk

The last one was supposed to have that capability but I can’t remember if it was ever used in that role

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
4 months ago
Reply to  Springer

It wasnt, The 1951 design had a theoretical capacity of 200 beds when converted (the 1939 was larger). The conversion process wasnt really a built in feature though, it was basically stripping out all the furniture and treating it like an empty room, similar to what was done for the Nightingale hospitals.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago
Reply to  Springer

I seem to remember that there was a minor uproar during the Falklands when what seemed the perfect scenario for it to be used in that role only showed up the fallacy of its much hyped ability in that regard that was revealed to be purely employed to help alleviate criticism of its white elephantism to many. Just hope the new one won’t be just another updated exercise in overt historical symbolism to impress and massage the egos of the masses in a PR exercise in place of real purpose in supporting exports and technology for a dynamic modern Britain.… Read more »

Tim
Tim
4 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Yes, but she was only 4000 tons and quite frankly too small at 200 beds. Also as described in Woodwards book 100 Days, she used a heavy oil fuel so would have needed her own dedicated tanker. Uganda at 16000 tons with cabins and beds a plenty was a good choice and was used post war to bring the Gurkas home.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Hi Tim,

I think your point and Spyinthesky’s point highlight the incompatibility of the role of Royal Yacht and Hospital Ship. The latter needs space for beds and a lot of specialist equipment not least of which is oxygen supplies on tap which is can be a serious fire hazard in its self.

A Royal Yacht built the meet the size requirements of a sensible Hospital Ship would like look way over the top size wise. So I am not convinced that the two roles go well together.

Cheers CR

BigH1979
BigH1979
4 months ago
Reply to  Tim

Didn’t Hermes use Heavy Fuel Oil too though? Steam Turbines and Boilers?

John Hampson
John Hampson
4 months ago

Don’t think there would be much support if there was a prospect of Queen Megan using it.
A couple of Disaster Relief ships, paid for out of the Aid budget, may be a better alternative. Provide UK jobs, fly the flag in a positive way and would not hurt if they happened to be dual purpose.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

Exactly but that’s far too sensible and indicative of modern thinking.

Simon Cooper
Simon Cooper
4 months ago
Reply to  John Hampson

Good point. USNS Comfort and Mercy have these roles. However, not sure how to measure their Return on Investment.

Jonathan
Jonathan
4 months ago

I’m just not sure on this one to be honest. It’s effectively an invest to gain project but I’ve not seen anything published on the cost vs benefits etc. Im a bit adverse to senior leaders getting nice toys to play with at tax payers expense. I think if we were promoting a global Britain we should be looking at red ships doing: 1)research and survey helping open up new resources and showcase our science. 2)Hospital ships that are showcasing our medical and biotechnology. While supporting health and well being in expanding markets. 3) disaster relief showing that the U.K.… Read more »

Lt Aldo Raine
Lt Aldo Raine
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

i agree Jonathan, there are probably better ways to spend the money on more productive ships. I’m pretty sceptical a foreign government or foreign business will invest in the U.K. because they attend an event on a flash ship instead of in an embassy or conference venue.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

All excellent ideas. I’d support those too.

DRS
DRS
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agree, but I think we also need this as (4). 2/3 should be out of Foreign Aid budget, and (4) should be out of Department for Trade and Industry /Foreign Office budget. All of it is incentives/stimulus for UK industry and help abroad so win win.

Cymbeline
Cymbeline
4 months ago
Reply to  DRS

As a side note the Dept for Trade and Industry has been reborn a couple of times since then, it’s now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. A real mouthful.

Last edited 4 months ago by Cymbeline
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago
Reply to  DRS

Also, the FCO is now the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) so the Foreign Aid budget is now rolled into the old FCO budget.

Lots of reorganisations dressed up as progress…

Cheers CR

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Sadly I tend to agree. Better to show things that actually do things rather than floating display cases of things that we might be able to do if you give us some dosh. But Boris does love his history so I suspect he still thinks the Crystal Palace exhibition is pretty cool and so avant garde.

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I would agree with your suggestions fund a ship that is going to both fly the flag and contribute something to the environment or healthcare.
Trade deals and meetings can be conducted in hotels or business centres.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

We already do 1 and 3 however. 1) Through RSS Sir David Attenborough, HMS Echo, HMS Enterprise, HMS Scott, HMS Protector and (to stretch a point) HMS Magpie. 3) We have ships effectively permanently stationed in the Carribean for HADR, and have a track record of deploying both the Navy and the Army to support humanitarian crises, most of our ships including the QE’s are designed with the option of providing HADR as a secondary purpose. That leaves 2), and yes RFA Argus will need a replacement, but if CL bashes out a Flagship in short order, on time, and… Read more »

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

This would put shipbuilding back on the map in Great Britain and Northern Ireland . It will be good for employment and local suppliers

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
4 months ago

Love the whole concept, great stuff. Also great reporting where most of the rest of the press are far too political on this topic

fearlesstunafish
fearlesstunafish
4 months ago

so when they say “showcase green technologies” does that mean it’ll be hydrogen/solar/electric powered like bill gates new superyacht?

oh yea, also wind…

if not then it’s not gonna be that green or much of a showcase…. but in that render i see a huge funnel that implies it’ll still run on fossil fuels… if so they could at least be honest about it!

Last edited 4 months ago by fearlesstunafish
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago

Exactly it will actually be more symbolic of yesterday’s thinking than tomorrow’s in its very concept. Foreign dignitaries will love the show but won’t be coughing up the investment it supposed to pull in. Especially when Elon Musk lands a Starship next door or Chinese E-Copters race the guests away to their plush hotels while we pay the bills leaving Boris and co knocking back the bubbly congratulating each other over a perceived job well done flogging Eton education scholarships to dodgy Middle Eastern potentates.

JJ Smallpiece
JJ Smallpiece
4 months ago

A waste of money.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
4 months ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

Ignoring the perfectly valid justifications in benefits to trade, diplomacy and business that the yacht offers, I think enough justification exists in simply that it is cool.

We could self-flagellate until the universe ends if we want, and we could go for longer in pouring money into endless gravy-train bureaucracies. Why not use a tiny fraction of that money to create a national symbol? Something we can project the skills of our craftsmen, the depth of our design and artistic culture and our national identity onto.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 months ago

Bravo.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
4 months ago

That’s what worries me.
😀

Last edited 4 months ago by Spyinthesky
Darren
Darren
4 months ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

A Persimmon house, or any other house from the main parasite UK builders (land dealers) in a rigged up disfunctional UK house building sector, is a waste of money. No UK built ship is a waste of money.

Dan
Dan
4 months ago
Reply to  Darren

Would it be built in the UK, though? As it isn’t a warship, it would have to be put out to public tender, wouldn’t it?

Andrew
Andrew
4 months ago
Reply to  Dan

The benefits of Brexit, I assume, now no requirement for an international tender…. Plus it would be a bit embarrassing, the British Royal Yacht, build in Korea/China/Poland…..

Karl
Karl
4 months ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

Spot on.

Aethelstanthecurious
Aethelstanthecurious
4 months ago

This is good! High time we stopped apologising for our existence in the world.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
4 months ago

If its supposed to be a mobile convention centre as well it will need better large cargo handling than that render. Ability to crane some cars or other large objects on board and display them would be a must.

Graham
Graham
4 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Britannia regularly carried a posh car.

PaulW
PaulW
4 months ago

What about a 32 cell Mk41 VLS under the swimming pool. Stick some ABMs in there. Handy force multiplier.

Last edited 4 months ago by PaulW
Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago

Having read the comments (so far) I guess I’m in the minority that think this is a waste of money and a massive vanity project. All the talk of ‘green’ technology etc is great as far as it goes but I’m not sure how green it will be in 30 years when things have moved on etc… nah, I can’t get past the vanity project, we’ve just spent money pimping one of the tankers as a ‘Check us out, we’re #GB 🖕 ‘. Now we need a yacht to do the same thing…. Yeah, makes sense seeing as how we… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Symbols are important. Notwithstanding positioning of the carriers as ‘sovereign territory’ and flag tailplane painting efforts on RAF transports a Royal Yacht would be our equivalent of the US ‘Airforce One’. When it docks everyone takes note, the UK is in town.

Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Our Voyager with the fancy paint job is our Airforce One. As for the symbolism, plenty on here are creaming themselves over the new carriers, I’d suggest they’re a much more practical symbol that the “UK is in town”.

Each to their own but I want more for my initial 200M (plus ongoing expenses) than a super yacht to represent the UK on the odd occasion that its needed.

Cjeam
Cjeam
4 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

No they aren’t, capability and actions are important. Symbols speak of vanity and compensatory insecurity. Russia’s aircraft carrier is a symbol, men driving around in lifted trucks are a symbol, and excessive flag waving is a symbol.

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago
Reply to  Cjeam

Symbols express identity, whether it be the Red Devil or a Gun on a football club flag, national flag or kangaroo on a aircraft tailplane. Normally this sense of identity indicates an organisation. Some symbols are icons. I think the fashionable term is ‘meme’; a unit of cultural information. Aircraft carriers don’t quite qualify as symbols because they are not unique to one country; they do not convey identity. A Royal Yacht does so long as we are the only nation which has one. Agree that excessive flag waving does probably indicate an ego problem. When signalling identity less if… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago

When this was first mooted sometime ago it was talked about as a Royal Yacht (by Boris if I remember rightly), interesting to note that description has been dropped. However, I am struck by the fact that the rendered image bares a striking resemblance in style and colour scheme to RY Birtannia. If it has no declared naval function, e.g. hospital ship, I’m not sure that the resources of the MoD / Royal Navy should be exploited by what appears to be something of an oddball. If it is going to be about promoting the UK then we need more… Read more »

Nic
Nic
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I am sure Stena or one of the other ferry companies would have a spare ferry and crew for character when needed.
It would have all the space needed for displays and all the hospitality needed.

JOHNT
JOHNT
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Hmmmmmm Nearest thing I could find was a pledge of £5 million in a Daily Mail Story dating back to 2012. Could you please provide a link of where you read about this?

Lusty
Lusty
4 months ago
Reply to  JOHNT

It was reported that Sir Donald Gosling left £50m in his will to pay for a new yacht in 2019.

Paul T
Paul T
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Im in agreement,the prospect of a New Royal Yacht/Britannia has been mentioned before – if its to promote British Industry ,Culture and Good Will fair enough, let British Industry Pay for it and its upkeep etc.The consensus on this site is that the RN is short of Crews for its Ships so to add another Ship to the list doesn’t make much sense to me.If it comes in at around £200 million to build i think id prefer another Type 31.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Thanks for the heads up. According to Tatler (12 Dec 2019) Sir Donald Gosling left £50m in his will to the Royal family towards a new Royal Yacht. I also found a story in The Guardian (2012) aiming to raise £80m for a new sail training / Royal Yacht. There are also more recent reports that Buckingham Palace isn’t pleased with the idea as they are well aware of the optics. which suggests that Her Majesty has more common sense than some others. With regards to costs, Boris Johnson is also reported (before he was PM) as saying the cost… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Got to agree CR, there ‘could’ be a whip round to pay the 200M to build the thing (a very large COULD) but the ongoing maintenance, especially as a platform ages and then the crewing, especially if they’re getting Pussers pensions etc…. that stuff is going to add up for the Daily Mail readers who are getting moist over this idea. I’m assuming there won’t be a fuel bill as its going to be green.  😎  If as you say the Royal’s are wary I’m not surprised, they’re becoming a lot more savvy about the cost of stuff… Read more »

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
4 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Perhaps Mr Dyson and Mr Ratcliffe would like to kick off and donate to add to the £50m? Must be some loose change worth having down the back of their sofas and perhaps reinforcing their political stance vis-a-vis the UK, that they have underwhelming demonstrated in other ventures. Definitely shouldn’t be positioned as a “Royal” Yacht. IIRC the Queen indicated when the last one went away that it wasn’t required for the roles the Royal family perform. The optics wouldn’t be great, even by association, but £200m isn’t that much for a billionaires super-yacht nowadays. Ratcliffe owns two yachts valued… Read more »

Challenger
Challenger
4 months ago

Not against the idea in principle but as others have said it seems an extravagance if the funding and manpower is coming from the Royal Navy budget with no recompense, at a time of serious financial constraint and when other ideas in the ether such as hospital/humanitarian aid vessels would arguably carry a similar level of support.

12 months from now until the start of construction also seems extremely ambitious and I imagine there are some questions over Cammell Laird building something like this solo considering the delays and problems experienced with RSS David Attenborough.

Trevor
Trevor
4 months ago

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of building such a vessel, I really hope that the illustration does not represent a serious design proposal. Speaking as a naval architect, the picture shows a very dated, pedestrian appearance and I know we can do much better than that – RB2, Type 26 and Type 31 show that clearly.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
4 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

I can’t comment on seaworthiness but I will say the hull form does at least look nice. Its the bridge and funnel that look very awkward and anachronistic to my eye

QuentinD63
QuentinD63
4 months ago

Yes, from the image above it does look quite modest compared to some super yachts these days. Hope it’s got a decent helipad and hangar.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

Hi Trevor, I agree that both RB2 and T26 are nice looking, well proportioned ships. But T31 looks a right ugly mother! What a jumble of a design.

JOHNT
JOHNT
4 months ago

Now we know where the money to keep the Type 23’s that are retiring early operational went.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 months ago

Couldnt we just get another type 31 or type 32frigate please? Unless funding for what appears to be the prime minister holiday yacht is coming from Foreign aid budget? If its funding is coming from MOD funds then I would much rather scrap this idea and just get another much more useful (and needed) frigate.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

200 million wouldn’t pay for a single type 31….

Meirion x
Meirion x
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

£200m would pay for a few more Merlin helo’s for ASW taskings!

AndyCee
AndyCee
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

£200m would pay for upgunning the T31s though… an extra 12 SAM silos and some AShMs, for example, or dipping sonar on the Wildcats.

My view is that if there is £200m in the defence budget, it’s better spent there and then use the forward deployed vessels for defence and trade diplomacy as a matter of course.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Yup, couldn’t agree more, especially the dipping sonar for the Wildcats that was penny pinching gone mad.

Cheers CR

Pete
Pete
4 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Would throw in the 2 way data link on wildcat as well and the ability for Merlin to Launch Sea Venom. Any of those ahead of a show boat.

Pete
Pete
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Spot on.

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Perhaps, I’m skeptical about the whole Yacht concept but if it brings extra cash flow then I’m happy for the 200m investment to go ahead. Hopefully it works and showcases the utility of the armed forces for OTTW, which hopefully will result in better budgets overall.
Ideal outcome would be that we get enough cash to improve the Army’s orbat.

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
4 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Ah but Yeah but no but…… We are now at the “Designed For, but not Built ” stage…….  😉 

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

Fitted For But Not With a Hull? 😛

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 months ago

I have long supported a Royal Yacht replacement. Whatever we cynical Brits think, it works. We have few ways now that are authentically British; many have been co-opted by others but the use of a ship like this in the right way, intelligently could be useful in more than trade. Let’s face it. Who does ceremonial better than we do?

Last edited 4 months ago by Barry Larking
TrevorH
TrevorH
4 months ago

Yawn. It’s not a Royal Yacht. No Royals or VIPs will ‘sail’ on it in the context of swanning around half way round the world. That notion is locked back in the 50’s, when planes were turboprops. It will go from A to B and C and back again on one Expo or another. VIPs will fly there and then stand on the quarterdeck glad handing as we hand out the export contracts. It’s no more likely to go in harms way than any cruise liner or ferry. Do they carry heavy machine guns? It won’t be a hospital ship,… Read more »

Dern
Dern
4 months ago
Reply to  TrevorH

You see a large exhibition space, I see a large parking area for a Battlegroups AFVs.

dan
dan
4 months ago

But will Prince Harry and his lovely wife be able to use it when they want? lol

Billythefish
Billythefish
4 months ago

I am sure Cammell Laird are happy to try to build this ship, however given the vessel type and need to showcase real world leading skills and a vessel that will really turn heads, I would plumb for Pendennis…https://pendennis.com/

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
4 months ago

Keep the Scottish happy and give the contract to Ferguson Marine…They have a sterling record for delivering gas powered “green” ships to customers on time and on budget…
Oh…
Wait a minute…

 😂 

Andy P
Andy P
4 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I suppose we could use one of their ‘current(ish)’ offerings as a STUFT and give it a fancy paint job (which seems to be in vogue). We could call it a Royal yacht and itshould be ready for 2030 (and I don’t mean half past eight  😂 ) although that might be a bit late for Boris’s uses.

Paul.P
Paul.P
4 months ago

Here you go….RN sail training ship promoting zero carbon green agenda and high tech composites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopylae_(clipper)
I even like the name 🙂

Ross
Ross
4 months ago

I initially saw this in the Telegraph a few weeks back and genuinely pleased to see it’s official endorsement…long time coming and very chuffed.

But like a lot of the below comments have pointed out, there’s an open question in regards to self-defence. naturally they’ll have to be small arms for the naval crew, but in truth a phalanx and some GPMGs wouldn’t go amiss.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
4 months ago

Nice design ❤

Finney
Finney
4 months ago

Only 3 union jacks flying? Someone call Conservative Central Office!

Anthony Merrill
Anthony Merrill
4 months ago

The vessel would be the ideal size for construction at Appledore, which is surely why they bought the yard in the first place. There is already plenty of shipbuilding work in the North West, whereas there is very little work in North Devon.

captain p wash
captain p wash
4 months ago

Noooooo ! please don’t mention Appledore mate……. there are Billions of folk on here who will tell you Off for even daring to mention the place……… “Too small ” “not enough Skilled Workers” “The Estuary is full of Mud”….. “nothing bigger than the Golden Hind could be built there”…… “They’re all Janner’s”…… and some other bright Sparks have mentioned that no Weapons can be fitted “….. Lol……….

AndrewZ
AndrewZ
4 months ago

The statement from David McGinley of Cammell Laird at the top of this article emphasises jobs, infrastructure and “the Government’s levelling up agenda”. So maybe that’s all this is really about. Perhaps it is just a way of subsidising industrial jobs in the north of England, and any actual use they eventually find for the ship is incidental to its main purpose.

expat
expat
4 months ago
Reply to  AndrewZ

I would agree, there’s plenty who complain we don’t build enough ships and yet adding one more now appears to be a bad idea!. I will assume like all new ships that automation and reduced crew will be central to the design thus keeping running costs low. I think the world knows we can build warships, this shows we can do other builds to. However I would like to see this funded from other budgets as the return on this investment is unlikely to come back to the MoD.

expat
expat
4 months ago

Not getting too excited, if the 0.7% foreign aid budget is restored axe will likely fall on this and a few other defence projects.

Last edited 4 months ago by expat
Rob Stewart
Rob Stewart
4 months ago

Brilliant news. we need British ships built in UK yards, We are world beaters and we must never again give our Ship building away again.

Steve
Steve
4 months ago

Why wouldn’t you spend that money on up arming the T31? That’s enough money for 16 mk41 cells and antiship missiles for each T31.

Springer
Springer
3 months ago

Looks like it will be funded by the MOD then, I was up for this originally as long as it didn’t come at the cost of much need military equipment, be interesting to see how it will be paid for eventually