More details have emerged about how the new ‘National Flagship’ will operate.

According to a ‘Prior Information Notice’ regarding the upcoming tendering process to design and build the vessel, the Ministry of Defence say:

“On 31 May 2021 the UK Prime Minister announced a new National Flagship for the UK. This Flagship will give British businesses a new global platform to promote their products. The ship, the first of its kind to be built and commissioned by the UK, will boost British trade and drive investment into our economy.

The vessel will be used to host high level trade negotiations and trade shows and will sail all over the world promoting British interests. A typical six month itinerary for the flagship might include docking at a port in a country where a British Prime Ministerial visit is taking place to accommodate parallel discussions between British and local businesses, hosting trade fairs to sell British products to an emerging market and providing the venue for an international ministerial summit or major trade negotiations between the UK and another government.

The ship, the name of which will be announced in due course, will be the first national flagship since 1997 when the HMY Britannia was decommissioned.

However, its role will be distinct from that of any previous national flagship, reflecting the UK’s new status as an independent trading nation and helping us to seize the opportunities that status presents. As well as being a resource for British firms looking to export globally, the ship will also be a tangible manifestation of British ingenuity and shipbuilding expertise.

The Government’s intention is to build the ship in the UK.

This will create jobs, help drive a renaissance in the UK’s shipbuilding industry and showcase the best of British engineering around the world. As well as promoting trade, it is expected that the flagship will play an important role in achieving the UK’s foreign policy and security objectives, including by hosting summits and other diplomatic talks. Construction of the ship is expected to begin as soon as next year and the ship will enter service within the next four years. The tendering process for the design and construction of the ship will launch shortly, with an emphasis on building a vessel which reflects British design expertise and the latest innovations in green technology.

The ship will be crewed by the Royal Navy and is expected to be in service for around 30 years.

The ship will be built in the UK, the design will be open to international competition to ensure that we can procure a world class design. Costs for the construction and operation of the ship will be confirmed following the completion of a competitive tendering process.

The purpose of this PIN is to invite potential suppliers to a period of market engagement prior to the commencement of future competitions for the flagship requirement. The Authority may use feedback from interested parties to further shape its approach and commercial construct. Parties should note that this is an accelerated programme with constrained timeframes and interested parties should be prepared to work in an agile way to ensure timeframes are met.

As part of this engagement the Authority intends to share the following documents with interested parties. – High level technical specification; and – Level 1 procurement plan showing stages and timeframes.”

You can read the above for yourself here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
192 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
peter french
peter french
3 months ago

Sorry to be a Party Pooper but I think the whole idea is a nonsense. A waist of money. The idea is well past its sell by date and should be shelved

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

the previous flagship Britannia is moored as a tourist attraction why can’t that be restored for a fraction of the price?

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Because it would literally be attempting to maintain a museum piece in service?

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Other than having to replace engines, propulsion systems, and electronics systems, having it out of the water for hull inspection and repair and possible fire supression systems plus new kitchens. Other than that it was in working order. All thatcould have been done for a measley 20 to 30 million.

Nick C
Nick C
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

She was commissioned in 1953 and is pretty much worn out. She has steam main engines and was the last ship in the RN to burn heavy fuel oil, so I reckon it might cost more than a new one. But I agree with Peter French, the idea is ludicrous and someone should tell the idiot in Downing St.

Alan Cartwright
Alan Cartwright
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick C

Sorry, but you have fallen into the trap of misinformation that was broadcast by HMY’s enemies, in the 1990s. BRITANNIA was converted to burn Dieso F76 in the late 1970s, and was certainly not ‘clapped out’ when she was decommissioned. The 1991-92 refit ensured that she was ready to run for another 20 years. Only weak will, at senior levels of RN and Major’s cabinet caused HMY’s demise.

Nick C
Nick C
3 months ago

Interesting, thank you. I had not realised that she had been converted to dieso, I thought that was the reason that she did not deploy as a hospital ship in 1982, as the only ship still burning FFO she would have been a logistic impossibility. And the weak will in the RN allowed Blair to polish his “man of the people” credentials.

Alan Cartwright
Alan Cartwright
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick C

HERMES and a couple of the older RFAs were burning FO-FO, down South, in 1982. Remember, that period coincided with a particularly hot period of the Cold War (I was chasing Soviet submarines out of Scottish Lochs). The real reason that HMY did not go South, is because her SECONDARY role was as seat of Government / Crown, should the ‘balloon go up’. In the days before satellites imagery, the Scottish sea lochs were a safe haven for alternative location of Government. That role wasn’t known, at tbe time, but the procedures for speedy conversion were in my cabin bookshelf,… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

It was considered too old to modernise a 1954-era yacht in 1997. Its even less likely now. It would also first have to be bought back from the city of Leith.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The fiat family originally owned yacht was built in that era, it was completely refurbished approx 10 years ago at a cost of a few millions. It is still in private ownership and still cruising europe and the world. It is similar size to Britannia. Britannia was never filled up like a palace it was reasonably sparse but all quality.

Brendan Foley
Brendan Foley
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Leith isn’t a city – it’s a suburb of Edinburgh

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Ha ha.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago

Ha ha you ever seen it. The queen had it specifically sparse but evefthing there was quality at her request.

TrevorH
TrevorH
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

I’ve been over it.
The story goes that an American admiral was taken round and visited the engine room, with all its polished brass. He said it was absolutely fantastic, ‘but where is the real one?’

Gareth
Gareth
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Agree. If we wanted some kind of soft-power platform we could build a hospital/humanitarian aid vessel.

Alternatively we could spend the money on weapons integration e.g. give the T45s their Strike Length VLS, buy tomahawk for T26s etc etc. Anything would be better than this.

Paul42
Paul42
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Its a waste of badly needed Defence budget money! If someone else wants to fund it thats their business. It could be something like this to represent what is after all an island nation does have its place, but not at the cost of badly needed weapons and kit to give our boys and girls the best possible chance in a war time scenario.

Last edited 3 months ago by Paul42
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

Only a small percentage of MoD money would be used; the rest is from the private sector.

Paul42
Paul42
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

What would a small percentage be? I can understand the thinking behind this, and if funded by private industry then it’s not such a bad idea.

Nic
Nic
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I don’t see how it would be a small percentage of MOD money.
The MOD will be paying for the build and will supply the crews and also carry out the maintenance on it .

Robert Billington
Robert Billington
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

With 3 trillion dollars of British manufacturing ties up in the States, do you seriously think we would be out on a limb if another hot war befell us? We’d do what we did in the 40s and get any asset made there! We have what navy asset we have as a minimum and we’d pay for more if we needed it.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

The money and influence generated by Brittania during its lifetime earned millions if not billions in direct and indirect UK business. She also was an important part of Royal visits and a venue for countless engagements, in short, a golden asset. The new ship, HMS The Duke of Edinburgh(?) will possibly, accomplish even more international business during its life, and I welcome this whole project and wish it well.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Maurice, while I don’t expect you to furnish facts and figures (I doubt there are any) I’m curious as to what you’re basing your wealth creation figures on.

We didn’t have a yacht last week when Nissan decided to build their new gigafactory in Sunderland. In fact most countries somehow manage to trade without one just fine. I’d be looking at the life cost of this (not just the initial 200m against any nebulous prediction) for value, then factor in the message it says about the country (ie the elites treating themselves at our expense…. Yeah very ‘levelled up’).

Pacman27
Pacman27
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

I think its worth a punt, as you say no other country has one, so that gives us a unique diplomatic asset. We also have a history of having one. The US have Air Force One, we have a royal yacht…. In the scale of things this is very little money and at least we have a PM who has a view on PR and raising the UK’s profile in a positive manner and surely we have to try and regain our national identity. For all the money spent on Foreign aid, I suspect the outcry in its reduction is… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Actually saudi have one which is constantly moored in france named K5R. Originally built for Kashoggi the arms dealer.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

You may not recognize ‘Global Britain’ and that would not surprise me in the slightest. The new yacht will be a fantastic asset and will be fully supported by the UK industry to grasp new business opportunities across the World. However, you continue to cast a typical lack of enterprise by demanding facts and figures, to support what appears to be a lack of business acumen? Maybe you would call the new ship HMS Leftist?

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

 😂  😂  😂  Thank you Maurice, I genuinely ‘LOL’ed’ at that. For some reason, ‘Disgusted of Tumbridge Wells’ seemed to leap unbidden into my mind.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Sometimes ‘Disgusted of Tumbridge Wells’ gets it right and this is a good case in point. 🖕 

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

The UK would get more ROI from supporting an Americas Cup Britannia! This is not to suggest the government support Ben Ainslie and co, rather that there are surer bets. Winning and then hosting an AC event would create revenue gains in numerous sectors, as it has for NZ’s tourism, boat building and technology industry’s. This is real and proven, unlike this venture.
There are plenty of better options than this one for promoting and growing Global Britain.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Bluemoonday

Americas cup, two areas bit of tourism while the races are on some income froma bit of yacht building. With a royal yacht it covers all business areas including attracting tourism and covers attracting business in all areas bringing in billions not just a bit of yacht building bringing in millions.

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

You make it sound so easy. Simply build Britannia and we are guaranteed billions in business, we otherwise would have missed out on.
I don’t buy the argument that without this boat, billions of trade deals would somehow go unsigned. I know entertaining and such are common practice in business, but if a national flagship can be shown to generate so much extra revenue, then why has no one else built one?

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Trouble is when leftist groups get power what is the first thing they do. Look at french revoloution and communist countries. They dont move into a slum they move into palaces buy the best for themselves use the peasants to work and earn. Peasants starve first when there are food shortages. Leftists power hungry money grabbing users. Perfect example tony blair.

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Hold on a second. The Credit Crunch was hardly the fault of the left and that is largely the reason why we have no money for defence at the moment.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Wait what now….. you’re lumping Tony Blair in with the French Revolution and communism ????? Does that mean Boris is on the same sliding scale as Hitler ??? Should we expect Dumfries and Galloway to be annexed and certain members of society to be wearing yellow stars ????

This article has brought forth some pretty interesting views.

Expat
Expat
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

So when the fleet support ship tender went out to overseas bidders there was uproar. Unions claimed 65% of the building cost would be returned to the treasury. So that 200m looks more like 70m. The crew will also be tax payers and most will likely be sunk costs ie the RN won’t be going on recruitment drive to crew her. Fuel well its supposed to green so it should sip fuel. Stock her up with uk products before she sales and you have the same 65% returned back into the tax system for running costs. We happily throw tax… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Expat
Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Expat

What’s negative about wanting value for that tax pound. There are certain things that a country (any country) expects from their government, we don’t always get them and sometimes views can vary on what we expect. A ‘National’ yacht will be pretty much down the list for most populations, if not all. Back in the day, yeah, it was a way to wave your national willy, we’ve all kind of moved on. We have a PM (love him or loath him) who is deeply fond of the past, he’s a massive Churchill fan, fair do’s but he seems to have… Read more »

Expat
Expat
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

In short there’s no real way of knowing it will generate a return.we do know it will create jobs though. And whilst there’s other things money could be spent on how else do you propose we support uk shipbuilding? Any other vessel is likely to cost more to build and run. Other areas of the economy like construction are very busy already, we’re sinking billions into HS2. And with material shortages adding another project will only.make that worse. This is not yacht by the way, its a floating business centre. Personally I would prefer we support industry with a hospital… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Embassies are ok for hosting, having an event on a yacht that appeals to personal vanities of the invitees hopefully making them feel extra special and therefore making them more pliable to creating trade deals.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

If it wasnt for that past and for Churchill, today you could have been under a Nazi controlled state.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

 😂  😂 
Why stop there Martin, lets go back to the halcyon days of Nelson and Wellington, keeping those beastly Frenchies at bay, a utopic time when the revolting peasants knew their place and universal suffrage was a dirty word. What what, pip pip.

Bloody Churchill and the Nazis, great logic for getting a National Yacht.  😂 

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

A certain person was being sarcastic about boris wanting to call the yacht churchill. Was also sounding derogotary about churchill.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Ah, apologies, yeah, the guys who ‘crossed the floor’ twice for political expediency should be put on a pedestal. He was also a fan of eugenics but in fairness, quite a few were at the time. Don’t get me wrong, it was ‘cometh the moment, cometh the man’ and he did a great job at the ‘warry stuff’ but lets be honest, he wasn’t exactly a ‘stand up guy’ and I don’t mean he couldn’t tell a joke (he could, he was a funny guy). Don’t know how much you know about the fellah but its safe to say that… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Donald trump once had a yacht, he had a july 4th party the numbers of business elite vying for access and invites was quite staggering. A royal yacht with members of a royal household business elite in whatever country would want an invite. Something for their ego and to brag about. That is how people think and while there get business deals out of them. That is how a royal yacht earns for the country.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Yes Martin, we get the premise. Do you think though that nothing would have happened if he didn’t have his party on his yacht ???

It seems all these rich and assuming clever people are really dumb if all it takes is a yacht for them to sign on the dotted line.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Vanity is a curious thing it is funny how rich and so called famous like to meet royalty.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

rich and so called famous like to meet royalty.”

Really ??? I’m sure they like to meet Bono and The Rock too, the Queen seems to be averse to the idea of this new National Yacht too so maybe (just maybe) the allure of BoJo and Co. won’t have the same pull, even for all those Royal loving business types who will be queueing up to open their cheque books at the mere sight of blue blood.

Richard D-W
Richard D-W
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

“…Britannia was decommissioned in 1997 after more than 40 years in service. She conducted 968 official visits and clocked up more than a million miles at sea. In her later years—between 1991 and 1995—she is estimated to have brought £3 billion of commercial trade deals to our country. In 1993, on one trip to India alone, £1.3 billion of trade deals were signed. It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event, but the presence of Britannia sped up the negotiations from years to days. To put that into the context of the renewal and running… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Seconded maurice.

john melling
john melling
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Couldn’t agree more, well said

A new ship is most welcome in my view 🇬🇧 

Russ Barlow
Russ Barlow
3 months ago
Reply to  john melling

Demanding facts and figures rather than just accepting what we are told is “Leftist”???? FFS

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Russ Barlow

I hope he feels better for it, no point having the debate with a mindset like that.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

What being British and proud of it, you just don’t stop do you Andy P. By the way old chap, I feel much better now! 😄 

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  Russ Barlow

Absolutely Russ Barlow, a perfect example of leftism when there exists a complete lack of imagination! This ship will be British from top to bottom and proud to sell UK products and diplomacy. Come on, you know it makes sense.  👋 

Tams
Tams
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Eh… do you have proof that it earned so much? I’m not denying that the old Royal Yacht wasn’t useful and it was certainly a nice thing to have. But I don’t think it really added much in the end. Perhaps for its era it was more useful, but I think it was rather fitting to permanently dock it and not replace as the century, neigh, millennia came to a close. It is of another time. So not only would a new one be a waste of money, to name it HMY The Duke Edinburgh would be highly offensive to… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  Tams

Trams, what pig swill! The Queen loved Brittania and probably has agreed to name it after her great husband who loved the Royal Navy as much as he loved the United Kingdom. There is nothing more offensive than reading your view point.

David
David
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Times have changed. This concept is well past its sell by date.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Sadly David you are incorrect, but thankfully, the powers at be know the value of such a vessel rather than calling it an outdated concept. Imagine selling goods to the international markets in their countries’ ports. No need to hire expensive exhibition centres as the ship will have dedicated space for display and sales. In addition, the chance to meet the UK’s high command and royalty in an environment literally fit for a king. Maybe we should build two, that’s how effective the idea will be. Admit it, David, it’s a bloody good idea.

David
David
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Its a stupid idea. The whole concept of having a floating palace in which poor foreigners can be greeted by our leaders is so nineteenth century. Face it, the complete silence from the palace suggests that HM has little interest in this: its just another ridiculous idea from the overgrown schoolboy in No10, who loves his toys.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Your contempt is complete, why would the Queen need to make her joy public until the vessel is completed. TB wanted to build this ship but could not get it past the bone heads in his party. As for the comments about No10….I rest my case, your narrow thinking is complete. 😐 

Expat
Expat
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Why do you think it’s a floating Palace? I read floating conference facilities show case goods and host foreign diplomats or business leaders. Its interior will be more akin to a hotels conference facilities than Buckingham Palace.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  David

The foreigners are not so poor as you would believe.

Alan Cartwright
Alan Cartwright
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

Well said, Peter. By way of example BRITANNIA’s presence at the Anglo-British Partnership Initiative, Mumbai in 1993, earned the UK £6Bn in exports, funded by external investment from the City of London (so earning huge amounts of additional interest for UK, over years).

And that was just ONE six day visit. The February 1994 visit to New York raised over half the money for the Museum of Scotland, in one night.

How do I know?

I was there, and saw it happen!

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago

Thank God Alan for putting the truth out there. What I can’t comprehend is the notion that such a vessel is a waste of money and effort, when Britannia was immediately recognised as British throughout the World. Having the capability to deliver your nation’s best qualities into the heart of countries is a winning concept. Those who complain about the cost of building such a vessel don’t understand that it generates so much revenue for Britain.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Must admit on balance I tend to agree. The RN has always exercised UK diplomatic soft power and promoted UK industry. At this moment the CSG has split up in the Med and different ships are visiting Greece, Cyprus, Israel. I envisage the T31s doing this routinely. This ‘Global UK’ thing is in danger of getting a bit silly. I see when we drive our cars abroad in future we will have to replace the GB sticker with a UK sticker. Conservative MP Simon Hoare has just felt obliged to apologise for a tweet joke at the expense of the… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I am afraid i would have a GB sticker, and remind europe it was Britains stance under churchill against hitler that gave european governments somewhere to base and set up resistance after their countries were overrun. Britain was the base for the stand against hitler. French free ressistance the polish fighter pilots and soldiers funny how everyone forgets even those in this country who just see history as not relevant to their lives today. Your freedom is as a result of that past.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

I am retired now and locked down in GB for now but to be honest in my business and family travels in Europe I have always been pleased to receive gracious and respectful greetings. The Germans actual like and respect us, the Norwegians remember Churchills failed campaign, the Dutch remember the food parcels the RAF dropped, the Poles remember we honoured our treaty commitment, the people of Crete remember fighting side by side with British (and New Zealand) soldiers. Even the French quite envy us our stabilty. Its a complete myth that the continental European nations dislike us or are… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Well over brexit you tell me in those tadd deals they treated us like friends. The way the frdnch and germans got on it certainly appeared they felt no friendship towards us. You only need to remember merkel and juncker and some others and the comments they made. Personally i would have not done any deals with them

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Well, we are drifting off topic now into politics so this post might not see the light of day. But if it does I can’t help but note the pointed posts I have seen from our ‘kith and kin’ in Australia and New Zealand who are still resentful at being dumped when we joined the EU in the first place and to whom we are are now turning to bale us out with trade deals. They have a point. Given the way we treat them we are lucky to have any friends left. In the immortal words of Terry Wogan,… Read more »

David
David
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Totally agree. Not just the capital cost, but also the running costs. The defence budget is severely stretched and the RN seriously undermanned, this will only make things worse for no gain.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Nonsense David……pure nonsense.

David
David
3 months ago
Reply to  maurice10

What is nonsense, terrifying nonsense, is the view that £200m plus whatever the running cost will be, is well spent out of a defence budget that is so hard pushed that we are, for example, buying frigates without any form of sonar.

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago
Reply to  David

David, why don’t you make contact with the CBI and put your case to them? If I and the other supporters of this ship are not supported by them, then I’d be happy to accept their position, but somehow I feel our position is a safe bet?

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Not everyone likes partying man so no need to apologise . 200 million on what will be the greatest promotional party machine these islands have produced is going to propel UK plc back to the future as the kingpins of worldwide trade and commerce once again 👍🏻🇬🇧 If you want to talk about wasting money then one needs look no further than the KLF burning a million quid back in 94 on Jura 🙈 now that was a spectacular waste of money! The Merchants of Tarshish need to encourage trade and HM interests abroad and this vessel will do just… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
3 months ago

Brilliant! 😀 

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  peter french

Waste of money. Waist is that bit of your body just above your ass.

Jonathan
Jonathan
3 months ago

The irony that a ship that will showcase the best of British engineering, design and innovation is having the design open to international tender to ensure we procure the best world class design…..🎼🎼it’s like rain on your wedding day….it’s the good advice you just can’t take🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶🤣🤣

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 months ago

Remember HMS Mermaid? Built as a flagship & presidential yacht for Ghana, but a coup stopped delivery. Ended up a frigate with the RN until 1977. I like the idea of a frigate that can double up as a VIP/diplomatic/trade ship. A modern version would have a 57 or 127 deck gun, with SeaCeptor launchers & a 8x anti ship missile launchers. So the pointy end would be tooled up RN Frigate. Midships, you would have an adaptable space that could be used for conferences/receptions/dining/trade exhibitions. Above would be VIP cabins. The stern would have a helideck. Hangar would hold… Read more »

Pete
Pete
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hartley

They will need that VIP helo on the back to collect dignitaries from landlocked capital cities.

Mr_Hardwick G J
Mr_Hardwick G J
3 months ago
Reply to  Pete

The capital cities where the British Embassy is already located and ready to sponsor British trading initiatives.

Pete
Pete
3 months ago

Exactly 😉

Tams
Tams
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hartley

That would just be greatly compromising an otherwise decent combat ship.

If it is to be multi-purpose, then a hospital ship would make more sense. But then there is also near constant use for a hospital ship as a hospital, not for hospitality.

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 months ago
Reply to  Tams

Not really. At the end of say a major NATO naval exercise, a modern frigate/yacht, would be a great place for the admirals & dignitaries to meet. It would be a good piece of kit for defence diplomacy & perhaps the only way to get an extra frigate out of Boris.

Andy Poulton
Andy Poulton
3 months ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Sounds like a mullet. Business up front, party at the back

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy Poulton

 😂  HMS Mullet, I love it. It can be launched by Kenny (Effing) Powers.

Eufster
Eufster
3 months ago

China is launching new heavily armed vessels left and right, but at least we’ll have this thing…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  Eufster

We cannot compete with China. We are building T26, 31, and eventually 32.

How many of these would you like?

We have aircraft carriers with 5th gen jets and nuclear submarines.

Nothing to do with whether to have the national flagship or not.

The issue is how much of MoD budget is paying, as it should ideally come from the trade sector, the whole point of the vessel.

David
David
3 months ago

However, the issue of whole life costs including manning is planted firmly on Defence. Indeed, if we could hypothecate to alledged income to the whole life costs, no problem… but, you know that will never happen just as we have tic tocs and gee gees living in Central London at eye watering costs (the tourists love them) their costs come out of the defence budget not Trade to the detriment of the defence budget. Sure, let Bluffer have his vanity project but fund it out of the correct budget and as for design, its hull and machinery should share commonality… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  David

You’ll be in for a stoning with that kind of heresy David.  😂 

David Barry
David Barry
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Had worse. I was married 😉

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

I wish I was was married.  😕 

Esteban
Esteban
2 months ago

You need to curb your enthusiasm…. And take a realistic look at what is going on in the world. Look at what is going on with the UK defense forces right now… And try not to project what the politicians tell you might happen in the future. It’s not good. Deal in facts not fantasy.

Rob
Rob
3 months ago

As well as promoting trade, it is expected that the flagship will play an important role in achieving the UK’s foreign policy and security objectives, including by hosting summits and other diplomatic talks.’

Sounds to me like the Foreign office and the Department for Trade should pay for it then….

Andrew
Andrew
3 months ago

Oh ffs. Are they still serious about this nonsense.

David
David
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Bozo has to have his toys. Poor chap has been deprived of his garden bridge, and a bridge across the Irish Sea will never happen, so this is just a sop to his vanity….

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  David

I guess the Voyager with the fancy tail isn’t cutting it any more.

yacht hater
yacht hater
3 months ago

People seem to have changed their tune compared to a couple of weeks ago where there was an article on this where everyone was saying “this yacht is a great idea”

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  yacht hater

Not everyone mate.  😉 

Pete
Pete
3 months ago
Reply to  yacht hater

Great idea if funded and operated by those who benefit and vessel provides added utility such as humanitarian relief support or marine survey capability etc.

If MOD operated then at least make it dual-purpose. Littoral/ amphibious ops support capability should the need ever arise or perhaps a Dive training / recovery rescue support vessel etc between engagements.

IMHO, no point trying to compete on glitz….many of those controlling the cash and decisions in emerging market nations already have wealth and glitz in abundance. Better to exhibit on a platform of innovation, capability and technology.

P

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago

16 x Mk 41 VLS or gold plated taps, bidet and other bathroom fittings, come on get your priorities right. I know it can get a little ‘hot’ in the Black Sea south of Crimea but hell don’t you know how many showers a politician/civil servant/flunky/Mistress needs sailing off the shore of the Bahamas.

Roy
Roy
3 months ago

… and meanwhile the Type 31 will be without any SSMs, inadequate sensors and inadequate numbers of SAMs while the Rivers will go east of Suez with a 30mm gun.

h20
h20
3 months ago
Reply to  Roy

designed, built, launched, and in service in four years, pity they can’t commit the same kind of urgency to our frigate program,

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Roy

This was only a matter of time wasn’t it *sigh*

Roy
Roy
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

… and the Type 45s will lose their SSMs in two years … and F-35 orders are being scaled back … and, and … there are just so many other higher priorities in my view.

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Roy

I wasn’t critisising the Royal Navy.

Russ Barlow
Russ Barlow
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

What-we can’t disagree with you?

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Russ Barlow

I meant it was only a matter of time before the same tired OPV comments show up.

dan
dan
3 months ago

This would have made sense in 1800s and early 1900s but makes no sense now.

Trevor
Trevor
3 months ago

None of the functions envisaged for this ship appear to have anything to do with national defence, so I still don’t understand why the defence budget is being used to fund it. Furthermore, if it is intended to demonstrate the “best of Britain” why is the design open to foreign competition?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
3 months ago

Perhaps are they going to rent the space on board to British companies using it and this will cover cost etc? I don’t know enough about large companies trade shows etc. Do they already use yachts for these type of fair things. If we had some brilliant new shipbuilding/propulsion ideas that this ship would showcase that could be a great way to show off but I fear we do not. Some secret paint that cuts 50% off fuel costs? A propeller that boosts speed dramatically without increasing fuel use. Maybe an engine that runs on irnbru. When friends and I… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 months ago

Said a few weeks back if it helps getting investment to UK great.But think the RN would be better off with Extra Frigate.Plus it’s finding manpower.🤔

Peter S
Peter S
3 months ago

The only use for this ship would be to conduct FOM missions. N This would not only avoid risking a destroyer but being unarmed clearly pose no threat even to the most paranoid Russian.
Otherwise what a really silly idea and waste of scarce defence funding.

Andy a
Andy a
3 months ago

Why not use foreign aid cash the mps are arguing about to make a hospital/ disaster relief ship. That way leftie liberals can feel good, military don’t pay and we get a hospital ship for war time

JJ Smallpiece
JJ Smallpiece
3 months ago

Waste of money

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
3 months ago

only in Britain, would everyone be so against this. That negative attitude is shining though in spades. Everyone loved, and greatly missed the Britannia when it was withdrawn from service to crys of national scandal and Britain’s decline, and Tony Blair got a lot of grief for it. 200M will not buy a Frigate, let alone the operating costs. And 16 VSL tubes in a T45 will not help sign billion pound trade deals. I think it’s worth a shot. Like high speed rail, everyone else wants or already has it, but when we do it, everyone moans about it,… Read more »

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I agree, and hopefully if it does make go on to generate revenue for the UK it’ll be like the RN’s hydrographic survey ships: actually generating revenue for the armed forces. Yes I’m not a fan of suddenly having this come out of the MoD’s budget, but perhaps the Navy is a victim of it’s own success there *shrug*. We also keep saying we need a drumbeat of ship construction projects for our yards, here is a ship construction project, and a really cheep one, delivering a ship that’ll be in the weight range of anything from a large Frigate… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

I agree, and such a vessel could generate a lot of good press for the RN. Very high profile, lot’s of interest. 👍

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The only issue I have is that all the UK based Yacht makers are now foreign owned (the two biggest by French and Chinese firms respectively), so you kind of have to hope Cammel Laird or H&W can knock out a good yacht. (Also pretty sure UK based yacht companies specialise in the below 1000t displacement range, which is too small for what we need)

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

I think the term ‘yacht ‘ is to be used lightly. It won’t be a yacht at all. I think the final design will be a lot more graceful than the CGI image.

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

*shrug* I mean it’ll be in the size range of yachts like the Serene (price point similiar as well). The internal layout will probably be different, more conference spaces and fewer pools. But yeah it’ll generally fit into that category of “superyachts.”
(You’d also hope that the exhibition spaces could double as embarked troop quaters or a vehicle deck but that might be wishful thinking by me. Superyacht/Littoral Strike Ship in disguise!)

SYT_116010-large.jpg
Last edited 3 months ago by Dern
Sonik
Sonik
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

“so you kind of have to hope Cammel Laird or H&W can knock out a good yacht”

I agree, and I think that’s the whole purpose of the exercise, it’s a showcase to help UK industry diversify away from dependence on MOD orders.

If UK yards can get more of this type of work it will put the industry on a more sustainable footing, which ultimately benefits RN procurement too.

Dern
Dern
3 months ago
Reply to  Sonik

I think there is a bit of a double edged sword at play here too though.
A yard that is full of commerical orders is a sign of a healthy ship building industry true, but also a yard that is not available for military contracts.

Sonik
Sonik
3 months ago
Reply to  Dern

That’s potentially true, but that’s what I would call a high quality problem.

It’s surely better to have a few quite busy yards, one or more which should be able to fit something in, than yards that have closed because they have no work. And scale creates efficiencies in any business, whichever way it’s achieved. So it can lower build costs.

Essentially it’s about making the overall shipbuilding industry more resilient, to ride out the peaks and troughs, so capacity is available when needed for MOD procurement.

StevenW
StevenW
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Me too Robert, well said. It should be crewed and maintained by the RN because that is good for prestige and logistics although I agree funding needs to be added to the MOD budget to pay for it.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 months ago
Reply to  StevenW

Yes, I agree, industry definitely needs to chip in, and I’m sure they will. 👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Yep, there are are few others out there mate. We should all just hide in the dustbin and close the lid maybe!

Well said all round.

Russ Barlow
Russ Barlow
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

“everyone loved and greatly missed the Britannia” Not where I came from they didn’t! You don’t have to be a Royalist to like this country…….

DRS
DRS
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Agree we need this plus a couple of hospital ships. Stop with the negative waves. In the least it is a industrial stimulus.

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Only in Britain is everyone against this idea, because it is only Britain who has this idea! It is hardly a revolutionary idea now is it? If it is as brilliant as we are being led to believe than surely there would be plenty of real world examples to prove it?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 months ago
Reply to  Bluemoonday

Maybe we are the only ones to have the balls to do it. And there are many examples around world, they are just owned by Billionaire’s instead of governments.

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The key difference here and to my point is that Britannia will be publicly financed whereas the Billionaire yachts are not.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 months ago
Reply to  Bluemoonday

And it could be a good investment, that helps return significant sums of money back into the public purse, just like the Royal Estate does.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 months ago

Interesting that nowhere is the Royal Family mentioned. They clearly are not involved.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The Royals have very much kept a 10 foot pole between them and it so far, as and when it comes to pass it will be interesting to see if they use it though.

Jon
Jon
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Could have something to do with the fact Buckingham palace has been boarded up for about a year apparently it’s getting redecorated 😂

David
David
3 months ago

Remind me why we have embassies again?

John Clark
John Clark
3 months ago
Reply to  David

Blimey, a united thumbs down, possibly a first for UKDJ……..

David Barry
David Barry
3 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Imagine the take on the security cameras from those shin-digs…

Click!

Spiffing idea, I’ve changed my mind!

Michael
Michael
3 months ago

Pleased that Government is going ahead with this. Not just because it will be a great asset but it will play its part in revitalising British commercial shipbuilding.

Lindsay Green
Lindsay Green
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael

Building one 100% public funded ship is not going to revitalise British commercial shipbuilding. What will is building the right ships, at the right time and at the right price. Our shipbuilding competitors didn’t need a Royal Yacht to be successful. Perhaps we should build a Royal HST to kickstart British train construction? We all know that when the HS2 infrastructure is complete the trains that run on it will be Spanish, French, German, Japanese or Canadian.

Michael
Michael
3 months ago
Reply to  Lindsay Green

We are no longer in the EU. The EU did its very best to keep industry out of UK. They funded Turkey to get the Transit work from Eastleigh. The EU regionalise functions, like defence roles, in readiness for their Eurasia. We have already started getting industry back. Nissan is staying and expanding. Vauxhall building a new car. We will build trains and planes again.

Lindsay Green
Lindsay Green
3 months ago
Reply to  Michael

Yes, I voted to leave the EU. The fact remains that Vauxhall are owned by Peugeot and Nissan are Japanese. The shortlist has been announced for HS2 trains: Alston, Hitachi, Bombardier, Talbot and Siemens. Shortlist for the massive signalling contract: Siemens,Thales, Hitachi and Alston.

Paul Corcoran
Paul Corcoran
3 months ago

A vanity project dreamt up by that narcissistic, sociopathic, falstaffian buffoon of a PM (think I’ve covered all the bases there) much like the garden bridge and the new routemaster buses that he was involved with.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul Corcoran

I thought the Garden bridge was an excellent idea. Or do you prefer concrete everywhere and not a piece of greenery in sight? OK. I guess people also scoffed at the London Eye, look what a draw that turned out to be.

Also, it was Joanna Lumley who had the idea.

DRS
DRS
3 months ago

Same firm did pier park in New York and that is a massive tourist draw. Khan just did the not invented here, it was a good idea

Paul Corcoran
Paul Corcoran
3 months ago

Surprisingly so did I until I saw the costs involved. At that point it should have been firmly kicked into the long grass. It wasn’t, more money was wasted until common sense prevailed And I said the buffoon was “involved with” not the originator of the idea.

simon alexander
simon alexander
3 months ago

MoD should refuse this, let foreign office own it if there is a proper business case for it. what are the optics, just looks like a luxury vessel for elites.

Jason Barnes
Jason Barnes
3 months ago

I can see the ‘soft diplomacy’ argument and how this might relate to defence but it’s far from being core defence and it shouldn’t come out of the defence budget. It’s an FCO/BERR project, if you look at the description.

By all means crew it from the RN, but reimburse the MOD fully for the costs. Or even find some way of reinstating the Royal Yachts(wo)men positions and look at how to fill those – again, the answers, and people, need not necessarily be from the RN.

DJ
DJ
3 months ago

Excellent idea, though the design shown here needs improving.
As any sales person knows, you need to get out there, and this new ship is one way of doing it.
I saw Britannia in action some years ago, while she was anchored in Lisbon harbour. The ticket list of keen VVIPs was lengthy, as were the opportunities to meet, greet, and trade.

Tim
Tim
3 months ago

Madness. Build a barrage ship loaded with cruise and aster missiles to accompany the carriers.

Nic
Nic
3 months ago

If this ship is to be built it should be financed by the DTI and it should be crewed by the Merchant Navy , This way it will not take money from the Defence budget and not tie up Royal Navy crews .

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
3 months ago

Well if it is going to be built and considering the Royal Family don’t particularly want it I propose the name to be HMY Cromwell!

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Fedaykin

 😂  Brilliant.

As the Royals seem to be keeping their distance and apparently weren’t keen on ‘HMS Chookie Embra’, the smart money must surely be on ‘HMS Churchill’ if BoJo is still calling the shots.

Fedaykin
Fedaykin
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

the smart money must surely be on ‘HMS Churchill’ if BoJo is still calling the shots.”

Oh Zardoz protect us I didn’t even consider ‘Churchill’…yes that wouldn’t be a surprise.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
3 months ago

If it had some role as a hospital ship or supporting humanitarian operations then maybe that could justify the diversion of funds from defence..
If the ship is projected to bring in so much money then the other ministries can surely tighten their belts in the short term and cover any shortfalls in the Defence budget?

I won’t be counting on it.

Finney
Finney
3 months ago

This is so badly thought-through, this just reeks of being someone’s pet project that they’re too proud to drop. If it’s supposed to showcase “the best of British” then why is the design being tendered internationally?! We’ve already got the T31 to show we’re perfectly capable of selecting the best of foreign designs/engineering. The only way this would be of any use would be to build it as a highly flexible technology demonstrator with a bold design, not like that 80’s carbuncle in the image (which I appreciate is probably just an early placeholder). If we teamed up with British… Read more »

Lageraemia
3 months ago

Aesthetically that ship looks awful. The design cue should start with the curved forward superstructure and bridge wings of Britannia, Canberra, Orianana and QE2. If it doesn’t look ‘British’ then what’s the point?

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago

If we want to stop waste in the mod we need to stop the use of military personnel as servants for top brass and remove the right to large houses and flying around the world to trade shows, most of those senior brass havent got a clue over weapons systems and equipment. Other waste 2.5 billion to vickers on a vehicle that is unfit for purpose due to severe noise and vibration. Who authorised blowing 2.5 billion to fix it?

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

What are you on about? Vickers has nothing to do with Ajax.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Ryan Brewis

Actually vickers defence systems and general dynamics were a joint venture company in respect of Ajax. Please check your facts before making spurious uninformed incorrect. comments

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
3 months ago

The suggested price of £200 million is two F35’s. Long term I know which will of most use to U.K. Ltd. In the end detractors there will always be but This is a positive step.

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick
3 months ago

To all those ‘party poopers’, please re read the article. This ship will NOT, repeat NOT be a new Royal Yacht. She will be a floating ambassador of our Nation, showcasing the best of British industry and innovation. And there’s no better way to do that than have this ship crewed by the Royal Navy, with the White Ensign fluttering in the breeze for all to see. Impressive and vital if the UK is to forge new and lasting partnerships with friendly Nations post Brexit.

Last edited 3 months ago by Phil Chadwick
RK
RK
3 months ago
Reply to  Phil Chadwick

How can something be a showcase of British ingenuity and innovation of it is, as the article says, an international (ie foreign) design? If it isn’t designed in Britain, how can it be considered ‘British’? What am I missing?

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick
3 months ago
Reply to  RK

I think you should put that question to the powers that be, regarding the design competition.

Nic
Nic
3 months ago
Reply to  Phil Chadwick

I don’t think we need to tie up Royal Navy crews on the ship , Surely it could be crewed by Merchant Navy and when needed bring in a hospitality crew .

Phil Chadwick
Phil Chadwick
3 months ago
Reply to  Nic

Can you imagine the prestige of serving on a ship such as this? Also, recruitment is up by over 40%, retention is also up.. HMS Raleigh is over capacity to the point that basic training is now taking place in HMS Collingwood and BRNC Dartmouth. So I think we do have the personnel available to crew this new addition to the Fleet.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Nic

We dont have a merchant navy anymore. And as it is built mainly for the monarch it needsa military crew asthey will be armed and have arms and munitions on board.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

And as it is built mainly for the monarch”

I don’t think the Queen got that memo, they’ve kept a distance from the whole idea.

JOHNT
JOHNT
3 months ago

Reminds me of a Bond Villains ship! Now where is the pool full crocodiles?

Lageraemia
3 months ago
Reply to  JOHNT

Its sharks mate. With ‘lasers’ attached to their heads.

Steven Howe
Steven Howe
3 months ago

Great way to promote trade with, say, Switzerland or Botswana!

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago

The bridge area looks like it was an afterthought sloping outwards like that.

M Pilgrim
M Pilgrim
3 months ago

I would recomend that everybody take a look at the project being proposed by the British Maritime Aid (BMA) charity for a multi-role, disaster relief, training, commercial and diplomatic mission platform. It might be a far more useful and efficient way of spending tax payers money.

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  M Pilgrim

What was Britania used for during the falklands war?

Kenneth Linton
Kenneth Linton
3 months ago

Fantastic idea. We should be proud of our country and this is a great opportunity to showcase who we are

Expat
Expat
3 months ago

So.many people can’t see the logic in building this. But UK ship building hasn’t built a proper commercial ship in years. Directly throwing money at a yard to gain knowledge is a breach of wto rules ask Boeing and Airbus. Funding military ship building is allowed and great way to give industry a leg up. This up skills us and show cases industry. Its not a floating palce but a hotel/ conference centre. And if the unions are right that a UK built ship returns 65% to the treasury its not a huge investment. Stock her with uk made products… Read more »

Robert Billington
Robert Billington
3 months ago

Sounds good, as with all the doom-mongers that said Nissan would leave UK, eat your words!

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago

A complete and utter waste of money. Someone’s idea of a vanity project. If it is for trade purposes why are MoD and the Navy funding and crewing it?

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Why did britannia fall under the navy? Or why does airforce one fall under military? Put your brain in gear and think before opening your mouth.
Ps did you vote against brexit?

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

Put your own brain in gear and ask the question which was also valid for the previous ship! If the Navy were involved because it was for military pruposes and while the Royal Family were using it then fair enough. Brittannia was ‘sold’ to us as a hospital ship yet became the private preserve of the Royal Family and a few senior politicians. This new ship is ‘supposedly’ for trade business purposes and has no military value whatsoever. Or is it another state provided indulgence for an already wealthy family only? And what on earth has Brexit go to do… Read more »

Martin Burns
Martin Burns
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

It was never designed or sold as a hospital ship. Stop making things up or i will start referring to you as megan.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

I distinctly remember it from the 60s! Also it was referred to that prior tot he Falklands task force, when they admitted it wasn’t suitable for that job. Nothing is made up. BUT the point of it being a complete and utter waste of MoD money remains valid regardless of whether or not we need a super yacht for a few people to ponce around in.

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin Burns

I suggest that you actually read what I have said. I did not say it WAS a hospital ship, but that it was classed as one way back in the 50s and 60s. Perhaps hospitality ship may have been a more accurate description. And a) I am not in my 70s, and b) I can read and research. During the Falklands war much was made of this so-called ‘hospital ship’ that couldn’t be used because it was unsuitable, so it was still considered as such even then, and that was 70s to 80s. The point is not about semantic cedscriptions… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Instead of being childish and using stuoid names which could easily be escalated ‘Mr Trump’ engage in proper debate. The article and thread is about the new non defence ship. Research the previous ship properly and look at the various historical references. Keep to the thread instead of engaing in blinkered and ill-informed QUOTE FROM THE HISTORY IN 1952: THE LAST ROYAL YACHTIt was decided that a new Royal Yacht should be commissioned that could travel the globe and double as a hospital ship in time of war. It was also hoped a convalescence cruise would help the King’s ailing… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

You are, in part, correct – she was designed to fill the role of a hospital ship if needed. As stated by Her Majesty The Queen: “With the wise advice of the Admiralty and of your firm, he laid the plans of a vessel which should wear the Royal Standard in days of peace and which, in the event of a war, should serve the cause of humanity as a hospital ship.” It would have been a well-furnished ship, with a lot of equipment embarked for the role… I guess you could say it would have been a mini Argus.… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Lusty
Philip
Philip
3 months ago

Difficult to justify the Red Arrows in a decreasing miltary budget however they are a great ambassador for the UK. If a royal yacht could be constructed with little public money I’d say yes but keep the build in the UK.

NSC nick
NSC nick
3 months ago

The previous ship was built and in use well before we joined the EU so the new one’s role will be no different to what it was when we were previously an independent trading nation.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  NSC nick

There’s been a few advances since the last one was built Nick, passenger jet flight was in its infancy being a fairly big one, since then there have been other advances like the internet and skype/teams etc, the Forces (and I’m assuming other government depts have secure video facilities. Gone are the days when the Head of State (or in the case of the new one) Prime Minister need to spend a few days on ‘their’ yacht after flying in to a conference etc. For me your logic doesn’t stack up, I get it, some like the idea of it,… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

I wasn’t proposing that it was a good idea! Merely remarking on the comment ‘now we are an independent trading nation’ and pointing out that was the case when the previous ship was built. As you say the world has moved on. A vanity project for some minor (I hesitate to use the word) political or royal celebrity to prance around on is not value for money. It wasn’t in 1952 either! The anomaly is that MoD are expected to pay for it, crew it, and presumably maintain it. At least Brittania had the ‘hospital ship’ tag to justify that… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Nick Cole

Sorry for the confusion Nick Cole, I was responding to NSC Nick. Too many Nicks.  😂  Couldn’t agree more with the gist of your post though, if for some reason big business think this is a great idea and the government are willing to buy into it then a different approach might be more apt. I accept that (at least when we were in the EU) this vessel could only be guaranteed to be British if it was bought through the MOD although I’m not sure its still the case (not sure as in don’t know as opposed… Read more »

Nick Cole
Nick Cole
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

No problem I have a couple of identities. Not sure how I logged in with the other one!

Bluemoonday
Bluemoonday
3 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Do you mean like a mental health type of intervention?
I am not in favour of the project and dispute most of the popular arguments made in support of it. One of the most annoying being that it can be used as a hospital ship in a conflict or emergency. There are plenty of other vessels available to the Royal Navy more suitable to that role.

Andy P
Andy P
3 months ago
Reply to  Bluemoonday

Hi mate, I was playing a bit ‘free and easy’ with the term intervention, I was basically meaning someone would have a word with our ‘Dear Leader’ and distract him with another project or the like, maybe have a tidy female friend to distract him….. whatever. You’ve probably gathered I’m pretty much against it for a number of reasons.

Dave Holland
Dave Holland
2 months ago

A fantastic project to promote British products, Expertise, Industry, Diplomacy and a brilliant Showcase for Great Britain PLC. The Royal Yacht Britannia did this and a replacement is way overdue. It’s a Big World out there,
the UK is a trading nation and needs to be part of it. This has my 100% backing and the relatively small sum of £250 million will be a sound investment.