UK Defence Journal tricks Russian state media

Russian state media outlet RT has published a story claiming that the United Kingdom is preparing to build a third Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier — this one supposedly named HMS Prince Andrew — citing the UK Defence Journal as its source.

However, the article RT relied on was satire.

Published on April 1st as an April Fools’ piece, the story was clearly tongue-in-cheek, packed with intentionally absurd claims designed to amuse rather than inform.

The satirical article claimed the new supercarrier would carry “infinity-hundred” aircraft, be armed with Cold War-era Harriers or “naval Typhoons” launched via six catapults, and cost the taxpayer a modest £987.6 billion.

RT’s report lifted lines from the April 1st article and presented them as genuine analysis, omitting all context that marked the piece as parody. It quoted: “Brian Robertson, a senior analyst at the DMCS think tank, called the decision to expand the fleet ‘a waste of money and lives.’ He stressed that one strike would turn the carrier into ‘a pile of scrap metal.’”

In the original article, this came from a fictional expert at the obviously fake “Daily Mail Comment Section” think tank, who actually said: “Waste of funds & Human Life! One correctly placed Smart-Bomb will see Today’s heap of steel turn into Tomorrow’s heap of Scrap!” Whether through poor editorial standards or by design, RT stripped away the satirical context to present a fabricated quote as fact — a tactic consistent with efforts to discredit Western defence decisions by reframing humour as incompetence.

UK to order third aircraft carrier due to Russia threat

RT, formerly known as Russia Today, is a state-funded international broadcaster often criticised for promoting Kremlin-aligned narratives and for blurring the line between news and propaganda. Banned from broadcasting in the UK and elsewhere, RT has long been accused of spreading disinformation to undermine confidence in Western institutions.

RT’s article, titled “Britain to Expand Navy Due to ‘Russian Threat’,” failed to note that the UK Defence Journal article was published on April 1st and made no mention of the satirical elements or the comically exaggerated content. Instead, it presented the fictional carrier plan as a legitimate news story, quoting the fabricated sources as if they were credible analysts.

This raises a critical question: was this a case of incompetence, or intention?

If RT genuinely mistook an obvious April Fools’ joke for real news, it would suggest a worrying lapse in basic journalistic scrutiny. On the other hand, if RT knowingly published the satirical piece as fact, it would reflect a deliberate effort to mislead readers and paint British defence policy as irrational or absurd — a tactic not uncommon in disinformation campaigns aimed at Western audiences.

Commenting on the situation, George Allison — the original author of the article — said:

“As part of our usual April Fools’ Day tradition, we published a clearly satirical piece about a fictional third aircraft carrier—HMS Prince Andrew—complete with absurd details like “go faster stripes” and “crayons”. It was meant to be obviously fake, and it was written to make people laugh. But there was also a secondary layer to it. We suspected that some outlets—particularly those eager to undermine the UK—might pick up the story without checking it properly. If they took it seriously, it would highlight a lack of basic editorial scrutiny. If they knew it was satire and published it anyway, it would say something more deliberate about their intent. Either outcome would be revealing.

That’s exactly what happened. A Russian state media outlet picked up the story and presented it as real. It’s easy to laugh, but it also points to something important: how easily disinformation or narrative-shaping content can spread when verification is skipped in favour of a message. It’s strange to call something so silly a “serious moment,” but in a way, it was. It showed how quickly falsehoods can travel when they align with preexisting narratives. It also demonstrated something we value at UKDJ—credibility. That the story was treated as plausible, even in jest, says a lot about the trust people place in our reporting (which we don’t take lightly). This IS a reminder—playful, yes, but pointed—that context, source-checking, and editorial integrity matter.”

As of now, there is no plan to build a third Queen Elizabeth-class carrier, let alone one named after Prince Andrew. No catapults, no vintage jets, no billion-pound budget blowouts — and certainly no “go-faster stripes.”