The new National Flagship, what many refer to as a new ‘Royal Yacht’, is now unlikely to proceed, according to reports.
In an exclusive here, Nigel Nelson, Political Editor at the Mirror, reports that Chancellor Jeremy Hunt plans to end the former Prime Minister’s dream for a £250million national flagship for which the Ministry of Defence has spent nearly £2.5m on staff costs and consultants.
Former Labour defence minister Kevan Jones was quoted as saying:
“This complete waste of taxpayer money has obviously been sunk. And quite right, too. The Navy never wanted it in the first place and It was just one big Boris Johnson vanity project.”
You can read more on this here.
What was it to be used for?
The new ‘National Flagship’ was to cost £250m and be “in the water by 2024 or 2025”.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was speaking at the National Flagship Engagement Day for industry, where he stated:
“Our ambition is for something special, not just a cutting-edge ship, but a truly national flagship. A floating embassy to promote the UK’s diplomatic and trading interests in coastal capitals around the world: hosting high level negotiations, trade shows, summits and other diplomatic talks. A prestigious showcase for UK skills and expertise. Designed to incorporate leading technologies in power, propulsion and practice. Making the most of digital systems and autonomy to support its crew from the Royal Navy. The greenest ship of its kind, environmentally and ecologically advanced, maximising the use of sustainable fuels and materials.”
More details also emerged in July this year 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:
“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 vessel was to be funded out of an already stretched Royal Navy budget.
If Sunak becomes PM the defence spending plans will be scrapped anyway😎
Luckily for defence, events in Ukraine will temper the usual budget knife damage. It won’t ring-fence as such but caution should prevail.
Given the performance of the Russians it’s hard to justify much more for defence. The biggest threat to the UK is the populist wing of the Tory party and The bond market. We cant just keep borrowing money every time there is a hint of a crisis and after 12 years of austerity it’s hard to think there is much more for cutting. People just need to suck it up and pay a bit more tax with no more public spending. We need the deficit back down and the debt falling ASAP. Just because America can borrow more than us… Read more »
One factor that is eminently clear is how good the flow of money has been in the UK in recent years. If you want a new car lease it the same goes for general goods put it on the cards at low interest rates. Many have not witnessed 15% interest rates on their mortgages and don’t understand restraint in terms of spending. Hence the current panic about the cost of living, which will challenge all of us. In regards to Russia, it is having a direct impact on our missile stocks, which will need to be replaced and the threat… Read more »
The personal debt burden is much lower now than it was prior to 2008. The major difference is that peoples incomes have been getting squeezed since the late 90’s. There has been almost no wage inflation adjusted wage growth since 98. That was partly offset by a reduction in interest rates making goods bought via credit more accessible and mortgage payments lower. However the main thing that’s made inflation adjusted wages go down is the rise in house prices fulled by lower interest rates.
Certainly agree that the state of UK finances was a contributing factor to the decline of the empire.
Fighting two world wars, especially the amount that was borrowed from the US in the second world war was the ultimate downfall of the empire.
Something that both Russia, covid and Chinese behaviours have really driven home is security covers many domains. If your not energy, food, water, infrastructure, digitally secure with good bio security (health protection and health prevention) you can end up in trouble quickly. The problem is markets don’t tend to do this sort of complex long term planning well and governments have gone off it. BuT it needs to be done.
The only government’s who are willing to do all those things aren’t Liberal or western. You pretty much described communism. I don’t see health prevention as market lead or government lead, we all know what’s good and bad for us. Just we all at times make the wrong choices. I certainly don’t want government meddling in the internet. I’d sooner have the choice than government impose it upon me. Markets do look medium term most large companies plans extend beyond a government’s 5 year term for instance as investorslive stability. Markets are also much quicker to adapt, governments have a… Read more »
secur of key national infrastructure is not communist or authoritarian, it’s a fundamental requirement of modern government. It’s not about crack Downs ect. It’s about making sure there are correct levels of things live power generation, transport systems work ect…markets don’t do that complex planning, they just aim to make profits quickly and can only really be left to run in simple supply and demand systems ( which they do very very well). But complex and chaotic systems, like national infrastructure, markets are shit at supporting. Take public health I can pretty much guarantee most people really don’t know as… Read more »
Not sure where you get the impression markets are only after quick profits. Most investors are institutions and need regular income to make payments ie pension funds. Take a drugs company as an example, if it takes the portion of profits it puts to RnD and pays it out, investors will flee as the long term value ie earning per share can’t be maintained as there will be no new products. The share price will fall. Investors look at capital growth and profit, the 2 are linked. yes there’s practices like shorting which are not value investing and short term… Read more »
But and this important, they are not that long term and profit is their only driver. Take exon…in the 1980s they had the best research dept in the world looking at the impact of fossil fuel and global warming, partnered to that they had a massive RD working on renewables. But they looked at what would make them the most money over the next few decades and buried all their evidence on global warming and closed down the renewable RD teams…as a final thing they then employed the old Tobacco company teams to obviscate the climate change science, even though… Read more »
Not that long term. GSK was founded in 1715. Nat West 1727. There’s a long list of companies that have been around hundreds of years and predate both UK political parties.!!!! Yes there’s bad examples and mistakes do get made, Ford famous covered up exploding fuel tanks in the 70s but they understand the demage this does and know it must be addressed. Governments also make mistakes however politicians tend to be more belligerent and wedded to their ideology thus defend it no matter what. Prime example of how government is about to.put energy security at risk is by locating… Read more »
Well you will be please to know butter is not that bad. The big bad wolf is artificial transfats, these are found most in your traditional margarine, which is essentially heart disease in a tub. Will the olive type Spreads, it depends on how they are made ( so you have to ask the manufacturer). If they use partial hydrogenation ( adding hydrogen to the vegetable oil) then they are still effectively death in a spread as this creates a ton of trans fats. If they use full hydrogenation that prevents the production of trans fats. But many will use… Read more »
So the question is do you ban the products, give people the information to make a choice, go nanny state or withdraw services…. I agree most people don’t know in as much detail as you’ve posted but in general people do understand processed foods are not good and most foods are processed as you point out. I’m 100% in favour of educated choice, as why shouldn’t I be allowed to indulge once in a while, otherwise Christmas’s are looking rather dull. We know that moderation is really the key to this not blanket bans. Otherwise stopping manufacturers selling it altogether… Read more »
In regards to what do you do. As you say it needs to be a very mixed approach depending on need, so you need a very wide ranging and complex set of public health policy. But a founding principle should be that its better to manage health problems up stream ( prevention) that down stream ( treatment). Around what a good public health health protection policy should look like it needs to be layered, from top to bottom, top being the most widespread, bottom being used least 1) very good health education at school, how to take care of yourself,… Read more »
OK your starting to convince me but. A few points. Media neess to be held to account for false or politically motivated headlines. This is in the same category as advertising and is counter the education policy proposed. Adult education is key, kids get fed by there parents or guardians and kids are influenced by their peers. So one parent making bad choices can impact a number of kids, . Its better to.prioritise teens and adults imo this will by default impact young kid’s. Younger kids if theres budget to do so. There’s a balance here, some schools are forcing… Read more »
Hi expat yes it’s all very complicated. Let me go through a couple of things you have said as they are interesting. 1) the media thing is massive and I completely agree with you, people forget media is not neutral or good public health messaging. It’s a product which is sold like any other and overblown untrue sells a lot. There have been media stores that have done untold harm, but they get away with it. A classic example was the reporting around MMR…they took sudo science that was at best a single study needing further review and ran with… Read more »
Completely agree.
Is Rishi actually interested in defence in any form?
Back in 2017, before anybody had heard of him, he wrote this https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/undersea-cables-indispensable-insecure/
Indeed, Andy. So we’ll have to see. He’s the only one left over the 100, then. Have I missed where he’s said he’s actually thrown his hat in?
Not long ago I think. Could all happen today. Charles’s second PM in as many months – only two more PM’s until Christmas.😀
Nice comment to finish. Never been superstitious, but gatting twitchy about Halloween 😨
Hmmm let’s see. This sounds hopeful although perhaps he was handing in someone else’s homework. It would be a disaster for the UK if Britain started to slow support in Ukraine. We must accept whomever is chosen as our PM – to do otherwise is ridiculous. I am going to be positive about the future although it is difficult.
Slow support for Ukraine? Are you a Ukraine loyalist or British loyalist? Why should British tax payers fund Ukraine a former Soviet country that comes at the top of the most corrupt countries in the world ? Do you realise the desperate situation many Brits are in financially including many Falklands veterans? There are more food banks than McDonald’s restaurants now in the UK ! Fund Ukraine with your pocket, but not with British tax payers money!
Former soviet country, corrupt… Speak to the point not 20-year ideas.
Go take a flight and fight for oligarch buddy Zelensky the most corrupt country in Europe! But don’t come on here with your Zelensky Propaganda that serves not British national interest! Want to deter Russia ? If that much afraid increase the defence budget and build a credible British army which is cut to the bones currently. But don’t on come here whole Brits can’t even afford food for us spend billions on Ukraine a country related more closely to Russia culturally linguistically geographically and religiously .
I’m afraid none of us bought that nonsense about Ukraine. Indeed I suspect people have a more positive view of Ukraine now than ever before.
Because we are a guarantor of Ukraine soveriegnty, encouraged them to be free of Russia, a permanent member of the UN security council & failed miserably to deter Russian neo-colonialism in their direction. That & it is the right thing to do. Ultimately is also contributes to peace in Europe which is always in our best interests.
There is plenty of money in the UK, it is just that we choose to keep it mainly for the rich rather than funding the things that make us a decent civil society.
So you want Britain national security to be put at risk for Ukraine?? Why dont you go to Ukraine yourself and die for Ukraine rather than encouraging others ? Ukraine serves zero interest to Britain ! Yes Russia is a rival , however Ukraine serves not British national security at all. Russia is a nuclear power and the idea to engage Russia directly while they pose no direct threat to us all for Ukraine betrayal of the British people. Specially after Iraq who is going to trust politicians fear mongering? A government with 3 PM’s in less than 3 months!… Read more »
Come on James you know perfectly well Russia & China are hard at work fighting against us. They oppose free democratic societies & have been trying to undermine & subvert us. Russia has happily spread nerve agents about to eliminate “traitors” & anyone who accidentally get in the way on our own soil. You’re welcome to think standing back is best, but that is exactly what all Putins threats are aimed at acheiving. All that will do is fuel their atrocities & eventually we’ll have to act with millions suffering or dying along the way. Appeasement & isolationism only aid… Read more »
Well said Frank.
Modern Britain tends to support free peoples (as does the rest of the free world) against autocrats like Putin especially when they have been invaded for no good reason. Indeed I suspect that the Russian people are against this war. Ukraine has been invaded and have the right to defend themselves. Falklands veterans fought to free some far away islands from an invasion from a neighbour. Similar circumstances except that was British sovereign territory. In my view the free countries of the world need to continue to adequately fund defence. The UK is no different. In future I suspect the… Read more »
Put simply…. nope!
to be honest, i think that’s going to happen anyway regardless of who is in and who is chancellor
Agreed. It is also not lost on the thinking public that we have armed ourselves with hugely expensive gear to deter a foe who has turned out to be utterly useless. I hope R&D, and intelligence are ring fenced however. A Royal Yacht is a much less attractive idea now. Different times need different solutions.
Which thinking public is that? Russia’s not disappeared and there’s plenty more autocrats in the pipeline (those that have not yet been blown up that is). Xi has just made it abundantly clear that he’s abandoned pretence at accommodation with the west. Acts just like Kim (same size, surely some relation!)
I could say ‘We shall see’. My expectation is that out two pennyworth will be cut and the world won’t notice any difference. China, Iran or North Korea will be American issues today and tomorrow just as they were yesterday.
Interesting Times so far on our C21st Discworld. Could be one of those pivotal moments. I’m more or less too old to care, now. Had it good for majority of the time.
As always, it’s the kids you reflect on. And, more strangely I realised from my perspective the other day, the likely fate of indigenous tribes😐 for 🤑
I think the PM is irrelevant. The markets are running the country now, as they probably always were. The only difference is that the Tories are in the same clubs as the hedge fund managers.
Shortermisum instead of a long-term earner for the UK. This ship would generate millions if not billions just as its predecessor did.
Yes because every other nation has a yacht to do it’s trade deals on!
I’m pretty sure an aircraft carrier entering a harbour is a more impressive prospect anyway.
Agree, especially when it’s Big Lizzie,
I’m with you. But leaving harbour’s been a slightly different kettle of fish 🙂
Rgs
Exactly, we can use other Navy ships like MRSS or CV, but why not just rent venues rather than willy wave with a fancy ship? We’ve managed fine without one and so has everyone else, money is better spent building FSS or actually getting ASMs that aren’t obsolete.
Yep I agree shortsighted short-term ism..they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. £250 million seems a steal for what it would provide, compared to what’s been wasted at the moment. The Britannia wasn’t just the Queen’s jolly little boat was it it served a far greater diplomatic purpose. You listen to the guys who were on the Britannia try telling me they didn’t have immense pride or didn’t want it .As for sending an Aircraft carrier on a trade delegation as implied ..are you serious ?
Seriously. Most trade deals are done online or via teams type meetings. Then when it comes to formal signature a minister can fly out to ink the final contract. We dont need a £250 million floating gin palace for this country’s over privileged elite.
Not when we have Type 45s, which double up as billion-pound gin palaces instead.
For signature we just use digital docusign in reality, a bloody yacht makes us look stupidly old fashioned. Glad this is idea hasn’t stood the necessity test. Shame MoD had already lost money on it.
G wrote: “”You listen to the guys who were on the Britannia try telling me they didn’t have immense pride or didn’t want it “” So my first posting was to 24 field Sqn Royal Engineers based at Kitchener Barracks Chatham, across the road from the Naval Base. Anyway we used to go on the lash in town. In the main shopping centre was a bar called the Blue Grotto, my mate terry and I walked in wearing Britiannia polo shirts (Britannia label that is) The bar maid asked if we were in town on shore leave from the Britannia, we… Read more »
Blue oyster bar?
The argument that it would generate trade deals assumes that some how without a big ship that these deals would not happen.
Nobody is going to buy large ships to be built in the U.K.
much better use would be a 2nd David Attenborough or an HMS Scott replacement. Either of them could have a convertible space for a show off events, rich people piss up parties.
Or an extra type 31 using a mission bay.
Agree, there is a lot more we could do ship wise with the 250million. Another RRS ship would be a better generator soft power, or an extra escort if it can be crewed.
The fact is 250m will now not be spent at all in the UK economy.
true indeed. But they had never actually promised the ship would be built in the U.K…..so probably no actual loss to industry.
The purpose of the ship was to showcase our industry made clear in the government’s blurb
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-national-flagship-to-promote-british-businesses-around-the-world
Yes but they were very careful not to be pinned down on where it would be built, the question was asked and deflected.
The PIN clearly states uk suppliers. Do not recall any articles stating anything other than uk built. PDF in the link below.
https://www.contracts.mod.uk/esop/toolkit/opportunity/current/53070/detail.si
It was not going to be a royal yacht so would anyone be that interested in it? You can use Queen Elizabeth Class for the same role. Also it’s costs £250 million for a mid sized luxury yacht these days so what were we really getting with the national flagship?
Charles is trimming the monarchy. My guess is that he would support cancellation.
Exactly.
He would use a jet in the Royal flight more anyway.
If Britannia was in service sustaining it would be more sensible as it had the attached history. It isn’t.
Better to spend the money on the Solid Support ships. Or upgrading more CH3. Or updating HIMARS etc, etc
If the money is to be spent on a ship, given what has just happened in Shetland, this ticks both the urgent and important priority boxes.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-build-second-undersea-cable-protection-ship/
Agreed, certainly nice to have, all things being equal; unfortunately, at the moment they are not. Reasonably certain Admiralty would prefer another T-31 or interim surface to surface missiles, or contribution to FSS ships. There will always be an opportunity to revisit issue in less fraught geopolitical time period.
Used right, a new national yacht, could have been a good trade/diplomatic asset, but given a £2.5 trillion national debt & rising interest rates + Ukraine conflict, it would be better to bring back the interim anti ship missile and/or MK41 for T31.
Good. Lets just get another type 32/31 frigate instead. We have 2 national flagships already. They are called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
Mr Bell, you have my vote yet again! Well said! Hope the T32 eventuates soon.
Eventuates !
Well they aren’t are they ,they are ships of war and do not -would not-serve the same purpose…Most on here only consider as such any ( it is the aim of the site after all) so I’m not sure the straw poll on here gives a balanced view, but I think if it provided half the service Britannia did it would be a valuable asset and well worth the cost
You are right, they don’t serve the same purpose and shouldn’t come out of the same budget.
If it were paid for by the Department for International Trade, manned by the merchant navy, with maybe a visit by the Royal Marines band on trade agreement signing days, I’d say fair enough.
If the DTI don’t want to put the money in, they obviously aren’t sure it will pay for itself.
All of that
But naval vessels have traditionally spent far more time showing the flag than firing cannon.
I agree that getting another T31 would be a good idea, if it could be tacked onto the existing contract. Or we could spend it on ammunition and missiles, which if the current fracas in Ukraine is anything to go by, are likely to be in very short supply if/when we ever go to war.
Even to see 2-3 of the current T31s upgraded of new builds to be AAW variants to provide additional regional/ LRG aircover so the T45s can concentrate on the CSGs or other major fleet deployments. But prioritising to fully fix the T45s first!
It was a vanity project of a bygone era, nice to have but do we really need it. As far as the Defence Budget is concerned I’m extremely worried. I can see the old smoke and mirrors excersise that governments have used before. The procurement process is unfit for purpose and has wasted billions and the MOD is bloated with civil servants so make savings there.
Yes indeed ‘smoke and mirrors.’ I predict two Treasury moves when the Russians are finally defeated in Ukraine. First, these unelected, abacus wielding mandarins, will demand a ‘peace dividend’ arguing that now Russia is a spent force, we can further reduce our armed forces. Second, the ‘promise’ to replace all UK equipment, rightly sent to support Ukraine, will be quietly forgotten.
Boris loves a vanity project….garden bridge and the cable car in London that does not work on a windy day….. A330 union flag paint job and very expensive wall paper….Not a royal yacht , but use the money for another Type 31….
Shame, we need to get some shipbuilding going south of the border sooner rather than later.
Be interesting to see who gets the FSS order. I think the Team UK bid envisages work for A&P and Cammell Laird as well as Rosyth and Belfast, whereas the Navantia – Harland and Wolffe bid sees more work being done in Belfast. That said, isn’t Appledore now part of H&W?
Yes it is, but unless it get’s to build a few smaller segments I think the location limits the size of the ships build (depth of the water). So Big ships like FSS are pretty much out. Really I think the hope should be that A&P and CL get either FSS or MRSS, and H&W gets the other. Really the reason I liked the NFS project was that it would be a good project to keep one of those yards in business while the MRSS project matured, and the other focused on FSS. As it is, I only hope that… Read more »
What you say makes sense. I think Appledore is on life support refitting HMS Quorn.
Appledore would be perfect for the smaller vessels, such as the replacement for the P2000s and the Border Force cutters.
Last I heard this summer, the contract for the 37 BF and port support boats was written in a way to make it less likely that a UK yard would get the job.
This report is dated March 2021
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/new-details-emerge-on-uk-built-facm-vessels-for-ukraine/
Tht sounds like a good one for Appledore too for the building, but I’m guessing skills transfer work is more a Babcock or BAES thing.
They where on life support before H&W bought them, god knows what they’re on now.
If enough business can be generated to keep a shipyard going that would be great. It’s going to have to run on government contracts as I doubt anyone is going to order a large ship from a U.K. yard. The competition in the ship building world is very tight. So we have Clyde doing type 26, rosyth doing type 31/32, carrier refits and whatever else they get, barrow doing the subs. Either those yards do the additional work or enough is work is made available for another yard (cammel laird seems to carry the smallest risk) If long term work… Read more »
Harland and Wolff building largeauxiliary vessels, Rosyth frigates, Barrow and Camel Laird SSN and SSBN, Tyne building SSK’s with Teesside and Appledore building minor warships. 150 battle force ships creating the third biggest navy in the world and largest submarine force.
Take all UK government cutters and patrol ships in to Navy or RFA.
Very doable with a modest increase in the budget and focus on Navy.
I think for me the big question is can H&W survive long enough to get either FSS or MRSS. CL have repair contracts so although they carry the smallest risk and most benefit (no Navantia), it might be an idea to give FSS to keep H&W afloat to Belfast, and save MRSS for CL.
This is kind of where I saw the National Flagship as having value, because if we palmed that off the H&W they’d have a nice job to keep them ticking over.
For me personally there would be a big budget increase and plenty of works for both HW and CL. However with no budget increase their is not enough work. HW probably has the more important facilities to rebuild and Belfast needs the jobs more. CL seems to be getting on well with ship repair work although if it was up to me it would be building submarines again. Get a fleet of 12 SSK’s to take the pressure off the SSN force. The issues with Prince of Wales and the need for a large dry dock probably shows the folly… Read more »
‘the Ministry of Defence has spent nearly £2.5m on staff costs and consultants.’ Now that the Boris Johnson is apparently earning £4000 per min on the corporate speech circuit, maybe he should be sent the bill for this total waste of money. I am astonished that the Inland Revenue has not seen fit to investigate his tax affairs prior to becoming PM …
Remember Ken Livingston all edged that Doris was paid off books?
Doris then released his tax returns shoring he had paid PAYE.
So nearly £2.5 million spent on something that was never going to happen anyway. And some service veterans in urgent need of help for mental health and other support. There folks you have what the likes of Boris The Grand Narcissist do with public money. P*ss it up a wall and move on to the next blob of waste.
I think that is a bit unnecessary. I did initially support Royal Yacht II but changed my mind. Boris had a vision driven by better relationships outside of the EU. Investing in that made sense. As did investing in having a proper VIP transport fleet. Brown vetoing Blair Force One wasn’t sensible as commercial is not a secure environment for comms or for more challenging security environments. To a certain extent he was playing to the the audience and to repeat history. Britannia was part of the history. As was our late, and much loved, QEII. Britannia was always a… Read more »
Convert a cross channel ferry for this. Spend the money on another frigate or up-arming what we already have
The first but not the last. The current rabble fighting over No 10 will have no incentive to increase Defence spend. Starmer will be no different. Labours priorities will be NHS in particular and the public sector in general. Labour exists because of the public sector unions. It’s an existential issue for them. Then overseas aid and the EU. Probably the biggest difference between the parties as far as Defence is concerned will be Foreign policy. We’ll get an ‘ethical’ foreign policy as regards Defence exports. Under Blair this halved the size of our defence industry in 10 years. By… Read more »
I think defence spending is stable for now and for the future. 2% is a floor well worked in and NATO will probably move to 2.5% by 2030. The days if cutting defence to pay for the NHS are over now as defence budget is tiny in comparison. People are just going to have start paying more tax.
Tory government raising taxes above what they have done already is unlikely. If an effort was put into not overspending so much then borrowing could drop as that is a large cost and has only got larger. I wouldn’t go for large cuts just a better management. Just like this £2.5m spent on a national yacht project. No spending until it is fully funded. Imagine if every project that ever gets dreamed up spends 1% of the estimated cost before it’s decided to go ahead. Their are 10,000s of projects all around the country that get thought of then don’t… Read more »
Better management is a nonsense, it’s a £700 billion + a year organisation employing 5 million people providing services and benefits to almost 60 million. It’s biggest single department (NHS) is frequently rated by the OECD in the top two or three most efficient systems in the world. The cost of finding better management in such a system usually far out ways the money saved unless your looking to slash defence spending which is by far and away the easiest and most efficient thing to cut. Better management along with efficiency savings is code for take no action. The issue… Read more »
Agree on 2% but less optimistic about 2.5%. I know 0.5% doesn’t sound much but if the election is in 2024 that would amount to £13 or £14bn p/a. Politics being politics you have to wonder whether they’d get more applause spending that on something else rather than defence.
Increases on defence spending are well supported now, spending on infrastructure is toxic for politicians now HS2, cross rail etc. The 2.5% will depend on NATO but I think it’s very possible and it will be the UK leading the charge in Europe. Personally I think 2.5% is fine for the current environment.
This ships should go up there with the Boris Bridge, Boris Island and the dozen oftener vanity projects dreamed up by Bojo.
A royal yacht may have made sense but it was never going to happen as the royal were too reluctant.
A national flagship for a nation that has two Queen Elizabeth class carriers made no sense.
You could probably get an Ocean replacement for the money.
Lots of these projects have something in common. A persons name in front of them.
The boris airport was a good idea in that a new big airport was needed near London.
Heathrow expansion is ok but not the best solution due to location.
Should think RN would prefer a frigate or Destroyer no doubt ,however was not against it but the way things are it’s going to be a fight for every penny for MOD 💰
Merits or not of a new Royal Yacht – and I can see both sides of the argument – but why is/was the MoD footing the bill? That one always boggled my mind!
I get that it would be crewed by the Royal Navy but why is the already overstretched defence budget required to foot the bill?
The moment it was annouced that this would be paid for by the defence budget it’s days were numbered. I was neutral about a National Flag ship until it was defence that had to pay.
I’d rather have the money go on accelerating autonomous craft or an extra T31 for the fleet. Especially as it seems we can use a QE class on some occasions…
Cheers CR
I think foreign dignitaries would be far more impressed with a QEC than a yacht.
State visits also, with all the pageantry that goes with it.
No need for a National Flag ship in my view.
Planning approval for a new Steam Generation Facility at Barrow to replace the existing mobile steam generation facility. The steam is piped to boats being commissioned for testing their systems.
https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/23068711.bae-systems-barrow-approval-steam-generation-facility/
Lost going in at Barrow, bigger carparks and 1200 more staff as well, not enough though we should double SSN production and re open Camel Laird. Producing one SSN a year gives us all the conventional protection we could very need from China or what’s left of Russia.
I work opposite Cammell laird and it looks pretty open to me.
Yeah not building submarines though.
Oh, I see your point. I think they will be more fitting for the new support ships or one of the new specialist ships. CL’s most recent build was the David Attenborough. But It has only been helping with the maintenance and repair of Aux ships and Type 45 fitting.
The death nell was when someone said Royal Yacht. If the Chancellor (?) wants to save money but also achieve something very worthwhile lets do away completely with the overseas aid budget and the department that runs it. Replace with a contingency reserve of £2/3/4 billion that doesn’t have to be spent but is available for real disasters such as Pakistan. Build two disaster relief and hospital ships, one for the Indian Ocean and one for the Atlantic. Built in the U.K. of course. Maybe a flat top?
Foreign aid budget needs to take a hit when we are fighting a war and the countries finances are dire. No way should it go back to 0.7. I think Blair’s millennium goal target of 0.5% is more than reasonable and even that should be cut down for next few years.
As I said, my target for a fixed sum is zero.
Good, it was yet another load of wasted money
The only purpose I saw in this was as a conference center in international waters, for whatever that’s worth.
Couldn’t we just charter a private yacht for such occasions?
This was always a bad a idea in the context of a defence budget where a vessel like Type 31 is not even properly equipped and the surface fleet can’t even sustain its anti-ship missile capability. The scrapping of this “national flag ship” or whatever one calls it, was the only sensible decision. What should be feared now however are what additional cuts will soon be on the table.
Obviously a trade conference center has no place on the defence budget, but that isn’t what I’m discussing.
Was unaware it was still officially a thing. No sooner left the headlines than forgotten. Bojo Bull…
The ‘National Flagship’ is clearly defunct now Rushi seems set to enter No.10 tomorrow (Monday). It’s also safe to say that the MOD’s recent exuberant spending is about to come to a crashing halt as Truss’ proposed 3% of GDP spending on defence by 2030 reverts to something between 1.9% to 2.2%.
Totally Richard – Sunak is going to be disastrous for defence. The MoD budget will be another kitty to raid as it always has been.
The royal yacht wasn’t just used as a taxi for the royals, it was used to broker financial deals around the world, by its high profile visits. One deal could have easily paid the cost of building it
hms boris sunk, the 100 vessels failed to appear on the horizon.
Good. Whatever the benefits of the previous Britannia, I think we need to remember it was decommissioned in 1997 and the way the world thinks about public displays of extravagance -especially from an ex-empirial power- has changed drastically in 25 years. None of our new/potential trade partners, whether ex-Commonwealth or not, are going to feel particularly comfortable about the optics of inking a trade deal on Britain’s new “Royal Yacht”. Particularly those countries with a history involving colonial repression (either on the receiving or delivering end), regardless of who held the colony. That would mean most of the world. They… Read more »
Well the UK would be better thought of if we did two disaster relief and hospital ships which could do some real good. As for need of things that go bang, our ships need some real weapons that can kill, above, on and below the waters and hit distant targets ashore. New ships coming online in the future have the space and with modern tech no need to up the crew numbers either. Come on MOD sort your life out and give us what we really need to show force. You only get a place at the table when you… Read more »
Not sure why we need to build one, when we can just as easily requisition a Russian Oligarchs super yacht……
Navy news have an interesting article on BAE concept for type 32 frigate.
Link should be here.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-bae-systems-adaptable-strike-frigate-concept/
Looks like Sunak and Hunt combo. So expect Hunt to remain chancellor Sunak as PM.
Blinking marvellous. Expect austerity mark 2. No extra money for anything. Just cuts cuts cuts.
It might work. Its all about establishing credibility of the UK to the markets and allies and credibility of the conservatives in time for the next election. Hunt will be in charge, Sunak will spin the policies to the hedge fund managers to keep the markets onside ( Winchester, Oxford, Goldman Sachs…) and Mordaunt will likely get the foreign secretary job. Benefits and the NHS will be protected and taxes will rise but in subtle ways. As a good soldier Wallace will compromise on defence spending and the right wing Brexiteer carnivores will go very quiet so the Tories look… Read more »
Another of bozo’s big boy’s toys. Good riddance.
Better off getting another Type 31 frigate than a vanity flagship. Or pay nurses etc properly. Claps don’t cut it. Why don’t we clap MPs rather than pay them & subsidise their bar & resturant?
Let’s be clear this means 250m will not be spent at all. Means a UK yard won’t get the chance show case a non military commercial build ir UK naval architects exercise their expertise on something different. Politics aside non of the above are positives. It very difficult with WTO rules the support commercial development, ask Boeing or Airbus.
All I can say is: good!
It was only ever a Boris vanity project; a floating gin palace to be paid for out of the MoD budget. It was a stupid idea from the start.
Hard to justify potential cuts coming – even if Defence is spared, just general cuts – whilst going ahead with this.
Wallace has been tasked with ‘trimming the fat’ (this is a reference to the defence budget rather than his weight) so this will likely be top of his list with a huge red bullseye drawn on it. Surprised he didn’t bin Ajax too in favour of COTS buy.
Confirmed! Sunak has cancelled it.