The plan to build new National Flagship, what many refer to as a new ‘Royal Yacht’, has now been scrapped.
Th vessel was going to be named after the late Prince Philip.
Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace told MPs today that he would instead prioritise the procurement of the Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ships (MROSS) instead of the flagship.
“In the face of the Russian illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and (Vladimir) Putin’s reckless disregard of international arrangements designed to keep world order, it is right that we prioritise delivering capabilities which safeguard our national infrastructure,” he told Parliament.
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 previously 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’ would operate. According to a ‘Prior Information Notice’ regarding the now abandoned 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.
Now Cammell Laird can refit the Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance ship when procured.
Already has been procured. The money has been spent. Conversion starts soon.
What did they go with? Or is it the capability of UUVs that will be housed on existing vessels? I have only seen articles about them committing to purchasing, but I haven’t articles about the selected ship.
Certain people I know are already prepping to join and oversee the conversion
I’m going to guess that they went with the service style ships that Serco has.
Nothing released on what ship they purchased, my guess would be a large fishing trawler would be the easiest and quickest to convert.
Off-shore supply vessels could make for easy conversion too.
Generally plenty of real-estate to accommodate all sorts of different equipment on the rear deck.
This is from 11/10/22 from the parliament website.
I would go with gun buster. It may be actual announcement hasn’t happened yet and that a ship is ready to go for conversion. Perhaps just crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s on final paperwork.
Hmmm well at the current churn rate for PMs Boris will be back in the spring so it might yet be on again. 😂 Seriously though the problem with the project was that it needed half a dozen military purposes and then it could double as a floating embassy in absolute peacetime when not needed elsewhere. Not sure Charles would have been too keen on it anyway – who wants to go on the same type of holiday as they did when they were kids.
That wasn’t the purpose of it. The fact that it was marketed as a royal yacht was its error; that was not quite to be its role. The floating embassy – yes. Imagine if to something like COP27 we could send the flagship and invite all the delegates to a conference or a mixer. For a cost of only a quarter of a billion pounds, in comparison with the billion dollar American embassy in London or our billion dollar embassy in Japan, we could have the most desirable location for any event at every significant conference – regardless of where… Read more »
I have always said that the American embassy in London looks hideous. But damn, that British embassy in Japan. Stunning.
What do you expect when Hillary Clinton personally selects the design?
That is fair appraisal. However times change and sometimes very quickly as now. Cancelling HS2 several years ago would have helped the national balance sheet rather more.
Don’t hold your breath on HS3. If it doesn’t feed London, it won’t be built.
Yes, HS3 will be the litmus test of the Conservative’s commitment to ‘levelling up’; which I have always understood to mean getting as many people to join the conservative party in the North of England as there are in the South 😂
HS2 employs hundreds of companies & thousands of workers. Not to mention the 200+ apprenticeships. This country hasn’t got anything more than two Victorian lines from north to south. Anyone tried getting to Manchester from London on one train? You have to change at Crewe, then there’s the time it takes.
We need more Trains and light rail systems. They make travelling less elite and opens chances for people. Either that, or we go back to building more roads and the associated costs of that.
I agree all your points. Its clear to me, at any rate, that the sort of (Truss) growth that the country needs is transformation not more of the same. The current ‘net zero’ thinking will mean we will just sit in traffic jams in our electric cars rather than our current cars. We need people to use public transport; which means there needs to be a quantum improvement in its quality. Overhead electrification for long distances and hydrogen fuel cells MUnits and buses for shorter distances. Use surplus wind and solar power to generate the hydrogen. Try not to go… Read more »
Could you send me your drugs prescription, please!
It’s really disingenuos to claim that this thing would have cost £250m. That’s just the construction cost. Over the life of the thing it would have sucked billions out of defence for no benefit to defence whatever. If the city fat cats want this sort of thing to do business on then either BIS or FCDO should have paid for and run it. They don’t seem to be rushing to do so.
I agree.
It was labelled a Royal Yaught by its critics, not it’s supporters.
As usual, mud thrown endlessly sticks.
Personally nothing against a yacht as such but why-o-why was it to be paid from the MoD budget? Surely the Foreign Office or Overseas Aid should have paid for it (the latter’s bloated budget could well afford it – even at 0.5% of GDP!).
I understand it was to be crewed by RN personnel but come on, requiring the RN to pay for it was just ridiculous! Much rather the money be spent on the MROSS of which I understand we are getting 2 – right?
If it’s used as an embassy and for trade deals, then Foreign Office should fund from their general budget or the BEIS should contribute. The overseas aid budget was already cut 30% and of what is left 1/2 is now actually spent in UK rather than in developing countries, so I think there’s been enough clawback there already.
Agree that a national flagship would have significant value as a status symbol to conduct diplomacy, trade, etc. Perhaps a novel idea would be for those departments which would benefit from the vessel to underwrite the cost of construction and O&M. Every department would bear a cost share in proportion to usage. If private industry wishes to participate in a trade fair, charge an appropriate rate. The MoD would contribute a limited number of personnel, principally for security (RM?). Synergies develop, no one is saddled w/ oppressive costs. 🤔
Believe the US would benefit from a vessel similar to this.
Well argued-a good case for the Crown Milord! As you said though, it was wrong to label it as the new Royal Yacht but in these times going ahead with it when most of the public see it as a ‘Royal Toy’ would have damaged both government and monarchy. Maybe for another day.
Thanks for the British empire and the money it gave us, we have pretty impressive embassies globally, why do we need a floating one? If we really needed a floating one we have the QE, which main job seem to be flying the flag and champagne events. The yoat would have been a complete waste of money.
Doubt it. The nation won.t take that narcissistic clown, again.
Although, the great unwashed still think he is great.
Narcissistic? That’s an MP’s only characteristic. :). I have to admit, I only wanted it to happen so Cammell Laird would get the contract. Oh well, let’s hope they get something just as good.
The great unwashed? How quaint you are.
😀
Currently like it or not the people elected a majority of conservative MPs. Narcissistic clown or not I could count on one hand the number of MPs of any party who would have put their heads above the parapet and made that commitment to Ukraine. Had that comittment not been made at best Ukraine would have been enslaved and at worst 40 million Ukrainians would have been wiped off the face of the earth.Politicians are like soldiers – I’d rather have the ones that can fight than the ones who brown nose and never break the rules.
Publicity. Only thing he craves other than sex and power. Not sure as to which order, mind.
A true leader would have fronted Pootin, and immediately gifted training on Tranche 1 tiffies and our chillies. He gave self defence weapons only.
Effective? Tremendously, but, the Ukraine needs offensive weapons with which to regain their sovereign territory.
What Russia needed after 2014 was a British Foreign Secretary who told them to back down and who insisted on shutting down Russian bank flows of capital. Did he do it?
In 2014 the then PM was inexperienced, ineffective & never broke any rules – typical of periods with hung parliaments. You need someone with gravitas to bring the Americans onboard. Clearly you accept that Boris did the right thing. I take your point about offensive vs defensive weapons etc.however clearly the top brass across NATO felt that the job could be done with defencive weapons and we do not want Ukraine moving into Russia using offensive weapons. That might get out of control which would not help anyone. If Putin is removed at some point it should be the Russian… Read more »
I’m going to have so much trouble arguing with your statement about Sir Keir!
However, Rachel Reeves is proven wrt finances and perhaps if the great unwashed understand probity, dignity and honesty when voting, we’ll get Sir Keir… and pigs will fly.
😂
Kier might get in but probably as a minority Government which wouldn’t last long. Rachel has potential but would be wise to refrain from the personal attacks and stick to policy – floating voters might then attach to her. In all probability though the conservatives will push Rishi out just before the election and pull in a compromise candidate untainted by all that has gone before.
Not sure there is any Con untainted by what has gone before.
Can’t imagine Rachel as PM, then again, difficult to identify any real leadership in the Labour Party – which is sad given they’ve had 12 years… of course, there’s always Andy Burnham.
Maybe. Someone like Ben Wallace (although I’m not sure he is interested) might be appropriate. We really need a proper opposition party which can present better policies in this Country. Personal attacks plays well to those that would vote for you anyway but is not attractive to the millions who will switch to the most competent looking candidate available. Has Andy Burnham might be a possibility but personally I think Labour need a fresh young intelligent face who can swipe away the centre ground. Wuold there be support for such a figure?
I suggest Labour still have problems with Momentum (name) and even some of SKS’s cabinet are Corbynistas; a principled politician but Corbyn and his ilk have no role in a modern party. Of course, the Cons suffer from their ‘party’ and love in for the rogue. Of the current Con establishment, it’s been compromised by Braverman and Williams and the Rish! tendency to avoid conflict and bullsh!t at every turn. Now Raab is in the firing line. And that’s the problem – both parties are hopeless; and as you say, we need an effective Govt but we also need an… Read more »
Both parties have factions which would either be unacceptable to the electorate as a whole or as with one wing of the conservative party recently – the markets. The next Government is likely to be one which represents the centre ground and has rejected the extremes. When the public are in the polling booth with their choice of probably two candidates will they really give past errors more prominence than having a vision or actually achieving something? Interestingly people have felt political parties are hopeless for centuries yet still vote for them. Oddly Matt Hancock’s constituents will know him better… Read more »
As stated before: Please, no blonds, ever.
Back in the spring, gone by summer!
Boris won’t be back until after the election. We don’t know why he pulled out of the race, but it’s pretty easy to guess it’s for selfish reasons, considering he had been on speaking tours and holidays since resigning and not doing his job and being in parliament during a cost of living crisis/ economic melt down, so clearly not interested in the national good. Whatever the reason, it won’t have changed in spring. My money is he will return after the conservatives get voted out and return as their savior, which would suit his ego. However I can’t see… Read more »
He might have to change constituency to avoid getting put out at the next election, but even then I really don’t see him wanting to lead an opposition party.
True doubt he will want to lead an opposition party, as that requires doing work to undermine the party in power, and we know his lazy. Maybe return just before the following election or the one after that when labour screw it up. That’s assuming sunak doesn’t pull a rabbit out of the hat and win the next election. If timing is right and we get out of the current recession just before the election it’s possible. Although that assumes the conservatives don’t splinter again before then and avoid any major scandals, which both seem unlikely.
I doubt it Mark. Deep down there is a lot of support for him. I thought he would quietly move on and that may still happen but people knew he was a man with loads of faults at the last election and they like that – what has really changed.
Boris is a figurehead, people person and blue sky thinker. Rishi is good at the figures but it is unclear yet if he has the imagination for leadership. Keir would make a good attorney general but has failed to understand that for Government you need policies and an excelent team around you. I totally understand you pointing out Boris’s imperfections but that is what people love about him as everyone is imperfect. He didn’t run because people still need time to rage at him even though in their heart of hearts they know a virus was the real culprit.
I think you underestimate people there, people won’t forgot that Boris was behind our terrible economy Vs the rest of the g7 or deaths caused by terrible handling of the virus. There was no way the general public would have reelected him. Yes for sure the party members would but that is a tiny proportion of the country. He got in because he put himself forward as having the solution to brexit and he was against Corbin who was unelectable, and yet brexit is still ongoing and Corbin is gone. His lies and lazyness was his downfall.
The deaths were caused by the virus & the economy was caused by a combination of the virus, the Russians (and Boris’s role in saving Ukraine from almost certain defeat) & a disasterous budget due to a knee jerk change in leadsrship. The problem for Labour is that currently the left secretly hate Keir and floating voters still feel that momentum is alive and well just below the surface. The people will not dwell on the past but will look to the future.
Oh well that’ll cover the ridiculous rise in the first T26 I suppose
On a £7Bn project I would hardly call £200m ridiculous given the present rate of inflation. Much as I hate defending BAE…..
This is why a strung out project like T26 makes very little sense other than to maintain as steady drumbeat of shipbuilding and therefore employment. It would make a lot more sense to commit to a higher tempo which would actually reduce unit prices by a lot.
Indeed. The slowdown in the drumbeat of the Astute program was officially admitted to have increased overall costs by £1.6 Billlion, which would have covered the cost of an 8th boat plus spare change
The slowdown of the carriers also increased costs. However, it’s all consistent with political priorities from both main parties for the defence budget:
1) Job creation and sustainment
2) Enriching defence companies to ensure that they offer non-executive directorships to former Ministers
3) Defending the country
Which former Ministers have non-executive directorships at UK defence companies?
Off the top of my head Geoff Hoon went on to become a Director at Augusta Westland and Micheal Portillo at BAe Systems.
I might be wrong but I believe Hoon was Secretary of State for Defence when Augusta Westland was given funding to develop Wildcat.
I hear what you say gentlemen and to an extent agree but also we must bear in mind that for example, a 2016 Pound is not the same as a 2022 Pound. The excercise to compare the two is also not easy to calculate. What it boils down to is a comparison between costs and income. Thus maybe a 2016 Big Mac costs one pound whilst a 2022 BM is one pound twenty five pence, but maybe then your income has risen by 25%!
Or maybe not but you must make the adjustment to calculate the real cost😎
a
Correct
Oh well from one ship to another. Hopefully these ocean surveillance ships will be useful.
I saw a UUV from Saab that can travel around and has an undersea garage that it can dock into. I thought that’s the kind of ideas that are great for this cable, pipeline monitoring work. Put some garages along the route and multiple UUV can monitor the sea bed and can report back to a monitoring ship.
I’ve worked on the UUV and subsea garages. Although good idea, I would also include a mother ship. The garage supplying power and communications to the UUV could also be tampered with. The garage tops up the power supply and uploads tasks and downloads observation via inductive couplers attached to the subsea garage. Subsea oil and gas industry in the UK has been working on subsea observation using ROV’s for years. With the introduction of UUV’s it’s a force multiplier as the term goes.
The video I saw was Saab Sabertooth from sub brief.
https://youtu.be/UCvGT4H7RyU
I had a quick look around the internet and the topic looks fascinating. Industry is using some fancy kit.
Good, the money would be better spent on combat ships, we do not need a floating palace.
we will have’to agrgee to disagree i) you won’t get much by way of combat shops worth their name for the price, ii) it was not a floating palace, iii) I think what it would bring in would far outweigh the spend.
Short sightedeness by many inc, on here who appear only interested in how loud a bing somethign makes.
Soft power projection is an oxymoron to many
Cobblers. Please do quote from the thinpinsrippedline on soft power and influence.
I am not saying it will buy an entire ship, but the money is better put towards what is already in progress or maintaining what we already have.
No the money will.not be spent at all.
If you are going to row back on defence spending, cut HS2, increase taxes, hit pensions and restrict public service pay rises, the political optics of a ‘Royal Yacht’ would be terrible.
However we will not be investing in new cutting edge propulsion, materials etc. That’s also not a great backdrop.
Yip, as the saying goes, we will have to cut our coat according to our cloth.
I bet Harry and Megan aren’t too happy. lol
They are earning millions with their bullshit and nonsense, they are happy as pretend royals in shit! I bet daddy James H is thinking maybe I should ask for a cut!!!!!
The whole thing was badly handled, if it had been called a floating embassy, going from country to country, hosting business events, been far cheaper and paid for by business it could have happened.
Calling it a royal yacht and having the mock up look similar to older ships, then having the MOD pay for it, sunk it from the start.
It was always called a national flagship but as usual the ‘press’ started calling it a Royal yacht and that was it🙄
Yep.
If the government didn’t want it to look like a royal yacht, you don’t fund it through the military, with some military crew and you don’t give it the appearance of a Britannia mk2 if it’s about showcasing modern Britain.
It’s the government’s choice how they sell something.
When did you hear any Govt minister call it a Royal yacht?
How do you know that was the final design from a mock up picture?
You are correct in that it should not have anything to do with the military but the media and of course opposition MPs called it a ‘Royal’ yacht!
If it was going to be a floating embassy then the construction and operating costs should be paid by the Foreign Office
If it was funded from the business/foreign depts then most folks here wouldn’t of minded so much. Stick a civilian crew/RFA on there and job done. No sucking from defence budget. If it was worth it those departments should do it. If I could be shown a spending plan from the last year of how much venue hire, hotel costs etc has cost for hosting functions that would now be hosted on the boat that would also be helpful. Perhaps it is cost effective. Right now we don’t have a clue. In my view it’s not the defence dept job… Read more »
From what I understood it to be, I don’t understand why it was ever in the defence budget and diverting resources from the Navy, if it was a civilian project.
Easiest to bypass WTO rules on State Aid, defence spending is different to “normal” spending so a nation can prevent international tenders and keep it domestic.
Nobody called it a “Royal Yacht” bar its detractors. Even the articles on this site mentioned “yacht” from the outset. It is in the same stable for me as the nonsense about the flag on Voyager for me, it is not allowed for the UK to have such or to display such, which is cobblers. Example, Ed Milliband is keen on reparations to 3rd world countries for the UKs historical contribution to global warming and carbon. That is what matters to some, not the UK selling itself to the world, by whatever means. Should it have come from the defence… Read more »
Reparations are utter nonsense. Unless it’s something that happened in your own life time you can’t claim for it. Applying what we know now to things undertaken by people who didn’t have that knowledge doesn’t make any sense. I demand £50m from Nordic countries due to the suffering of my ancestors at the hands of the vikings. The countries that were part of the Roman Empire owe a bit of compo as well. Those Greeks aren’t getting let off Either. Where would it end? It’s madness and if one thing is paid everyone will want something. As I said if… Read more »
My thoughts exactly! Let’s hope the left think the same way when a Labour gov gets in.
Good!
Fitting MK 41 VLS to T31 would be a better use of the money. If we had unlimited funds, a new Royal yacht would be great, but with the UK £2.5 trillion in debt, we need to be ruthless on spending decisions. A cull of the woke diversity non jobs in the whole public sector, would be where I would start.
There’s lots of folks arguing for Mk41 on the T31 but I’d see that as lower priority than some its other capability gaps. I’d prioritise:
1) ASW capability. Whether that’s fitting the hull sonars from retiring T23 GP’s, a towed array or both. It’s laughable to call to T31 General Purpose or use them to replace T23’s in the Gulf when they have no ASW capability at all (given that we use Wildcat on GP Frigates)
2) Doubling the number of CAMM to 24
3) ASuW capability either through Mk41 or tube launched SSM’s
Have to agree. You don’t need mk41 to field more CAMM or to add CAMM-ER. You don’t need mk41 to field a SSM or ASW missile / light torpedo system. Yes, there are things that can utilise a mk41. But UK doesn’t use ESSM (CAMM-ER competitor) & this is an under armed GP frigate. Spend the money on a hull mounted sonar. Fit a SSM like NSM, fit CAMM-ER, fit more CAMM, fit ship launched light torpedo (either tubes or the Italian system or both). Personally I would be replacing the main gun before thinking about mk41 (& that would… Read more »
100% agree, Sink all them WOKE non jobs and get back to what the majority actually want from Government. The Majority need to start to have a voice to get us sorted or the weeds will kill what really matters off. The Fleet need teeth and fitting the Ships for actual real weapons really count to the guy the other side of the table when you want to talk.
Johnson’s vanity project. Good riddance. Now can we have a fighting ship instead?
No it’s a cut so nothing will get built in its place.
Bad move in my opinion. RYB brought in millions in business opportunities. OK, I accept people will moan about something to be built for the King, yet the business opportunities British Industry will lose out on will be immeasurable. RYB did 986 visits and brought in £1.4bn in trade.
I would also like to know how much the total purchase, running, refit, staff costs were for the boat over the lifetime. Then the prices need to be adjusted so they have the same meaning for income/outcome.
Amazing how so many other nations manage trade deals and international business without a Yacht…
Did you read the part about cutting edge populsion, new materials etc big engineering, science and RND opportunity missed. Apprentices not getting the chance to work on a non military vessel.
For £250 million? How much “Cutting edge, new materials, r&d” are you going to fit into that and still come up with anything close to that budget? It was never anything other than a gimmick that wouldn’t have impressed anyone, but thankfully someone had the guts to can it.
So you’ve seen the design to make that call. More than zero which is the new amount of funding and as I said there training and apprenticeships will loose out. I don’t care about the politics but not spending 250m in industry is a blow which ever way you cut it.
When the UK is about to cut something like 30 billion over the next couple of years, whinning about 250 million for a vanity project is some twisted reasoning. Sure you would also be complaining when some real defence cuts happen. Which would you prefer?
I honestly don’t understand how this has become such a cause for some people.
I guess that depends who you work for H&W don’t see much of that 30b and were short list to the last 2 designs. Its not this project its the principle that RnD and science is being slashed, short changing future generations.
Ah, the vanity project. How much vanity will the people of the UK see from Sunak jizzing £14.23bn as “Climate Reparations” to those countries who already have their hands out? Pakistan is already the largest recipient of UK aid, he just gave them another £500m.
How many Ships, Planes, Tanks and Service Personnel would that have paid for?
Who said he could give our money away like that? Incidentally, it’s five times more than Liz Truss got ousted for in tax cuts!!
The country’s leaders are shameful.
Pakistan has just taken delivery of another 6x J-10CE fighter jets from China. If Pakistan can afford new Chinese fighter jets, then why is the UK giving them aid?
Exactly. People need to wake up to the fact that empire is over. What we need to do is just make things people want to buy and have faith in our products.
Hard to find many supporters for this project, particularly after Boris decided it would be paid for out of the existing defence budget.
Like many people who would have supported a direct replacement of Britannia in the 1990’s, times have moved on and it’s way too late now – even in the form of a national flagship. The optics have become all wrong.
Even she was built, a few damming headlines about how many millions of taxpayer money was being spent every year on booze, food and parties for the privileged guests, and she would soon be up for sale.
Well shocker. Boris vanity project was always going to be scrapped, it was just a matter of how much wasted funds would be spent before it. Boris has a long history of stupid projects with the only one that came to anything being the totally stupid cable car in london.
Here’s hoping not too much public money has been wasted.
This was the easy cut. Next week will be the real moment of truth for the MoD.
It appears the arguments for and against are largely based on the politics of the posters.
Let’s be clear this 250m that will not be spent. Its RnD into new materials, design and propulsion that won’t happen, its new skills in commercial ship building that won’t be acquired or apprentices that won’t be trained. Politics aside, it’s a negative.
I don’t think it’s black and white in that way. I’m fine with it if it comes out of the Foreign Office budget if its purpose is diplomacy and or the Business, Innovation and Skills department budget if its driven by the type of things you talk about. But the construction and operating costs have no place in an already overstretched defence budget
I’m sceptical new materials, designs and propulsion methods would all be possible for £250m. I’m actually sceptical a normal built ship could be made in the uk for £250m.
Then what do the apprentices do when the ship is finished? Can’t see more orders for those types of ships.
If the ship had been funded from other places ok but it wasn’t. So £250m would of had to be found in the defence budget over the next 2-3 years. I can’t see what could be cut to make room for a yacht.
Well the one thing that’s certain there net result is zero research into commercial ship building and training. As an engineer not a politician that’s a negative.
If the uk had some tech ideas, prototypes to make ship building or running ships substantially better, efficient or an improvement then it could be viewed an investment. I don’t know if there is that kind of thing.
For example something like reaction engines that could make a massive difference if it works.
They researching automated shipping and sustainable fuels among other things.
https://www.mtu-solutions.com/eu/en.html
If it’s £250m for a nuts and bolts frigate based on a proven design your ‘sock’ must be soaking if you think this floating gin Palace was going to bring increased R&D investment. You do have access to tin foil, right? Try wrapping it around your head and stop mainlining bleach.
Oh dear.
No argument from me, good call, more useful assets procured instead! If we want a soft power flagship, capable of diplomacy and power projection, we have 2 very useful and capable carriers, which send a better signal in both the political and military spheres.
I cannot see how you could or should use two massive ( both in size & expense) carriers to do the role this ship was intended to do.The ‘projection’ in doing so would give out the wrong message for many. Why would we want to go back to the gunboat diplomacy sticking a warship that size offshore would infer.
Not at all mate, IMHO it’s something capital ships have already done! How important would/will a small nation feel when a QE carrier stops over for a few days (while on a normal rotation/deployment) for trade deals, meetings and a cocktail party or two! It sends the message of soft power and the ability to go hard pier, in defence of these “new/maybe not new” friendly nations. A carrier will never just be sent to do this but multiple stop overs on any deployment has the dual effect. Cheers.
Hard pier? Mmmmm should say power 👍
To be honest, I get a pretty hard pier whenever I see a QE class…
You thinking of all those matelots and Royal on board?
Don’t think the carriers have guns bigger than the gimpy. Big spaces for parties.. oh er… I mean diplomatic receptions… that can’t be held in the UK Embassy on land.
I seem to remember back in the day. a plan was hatched to change the engines of the old Britania as it used heavy oil. Apparently her hull was in good nick and the few upgrades she needed came to peanuts. Mr Blaire claimed it was the one decision he regretted
It was allaways a vanity project any way and under todays financial problems was a guaranteed cancelation
This is what CEO of H&W had to say about it Whilst understandably the UK Government have decided they can’t proceed with the National Flagship Project at the moment I am convinced the project will still happen in time. Harland and Wolff along with our partners put forward a fantastic design (reaching the final two), the economics show that it would have paid for it’s self many times over by driving global trade to the UK. This project will proceed in some shape going forward, it will be interesting to see if private industry picks it up before it comes… Read more »
Man who wants business for his company talks up idea that might get him a contract…
Stunning, that almost never happens.
I wish them good luck and I will be delighted if the private sector fund it. Maybe a big shell logo on one side and BP on the other.
I xan actually see Rolls Royce being interested. They threw money at their record breaking Spirit of Innovation electric plane. A tech demonstrator for shipping is probably not off the cards if other partners are interested.
Get the ship built with money from the “Overseas Aid Budget”. It was meant to be a “soft-power” tool, so shouldn’t have been MOD funded in the first place.It could however still be staffed by MOD, or the RFA / “Red-Duster” gang
Quite. It would have been wining & dining foreigners, so it should have been paid for out of foreign aid.
Good news
I expected this announcement. Not surprised. It was a vanity project. I’d like to say the funds will go towards the type 31/32 programme and adding another ship but I dont think they will. It’s back to austerity for Sunak and Hunt as we relive the Cameron and Osbourne era… again.
Dragonfire testing at Porton Down.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/laser-power-moves-a-step-closer-for-uk-defence
DragonFire | Next Generation Laser | Dstl – YouTube
Absolutely fine with this decision.
If the operation of this vessel had followed that of its predecessor Britannia, it would have taken one of the RNs precious Major Surface Combatants out of real operations for escort duties..