Well, there is this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57293882
Lol! I am all for a replacement for 'Btitannia! The 'Thames Barge' was embarrassing! At least 'mock up' LOOKS' like a ship... rather than the sci-fi yachts of the 'really rich'!
Initial 200M ain't much! Last workplace 'shed' cost 2m in the 90s...and didn't go anywhere! :o
Given that 'The NEW Royals', are increasingly pulling away from their role... hmm. >:(
Lol comments on design? Looks great! BUT... would be dwarfed by 'Pontentates' craft! Not much space for an ASW torp or AA silo. Ok 'ambassadorial'... BUT!. So 'escort' needed... lol!!! Aft... no sign of hangar.. and not a lot of room for Helo use.... VERY much required! Could support a nice 'Awning' , tho... some decking and a BBQ! ;)
Still, 'Owt's better than Nowt'! :)
Just to be 'REALY SILLY.'.. Why not a Sub? Who needs 'deck parties'? Dual purpose... marine exploration/rescue... if not 'officially armed'! Just Imagine the reaction if 'someone 'surfaced 'a refurbished' but still 'capable' Nuke sub alongside 'yacht'... with an invite for 'Drinkies'... LOL!!! :'( :'( :'( Oh Well... ;D ;D ;D
I am not convinced that it will support the UK's "burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation" as leaving aside anything else it is named after someone who was mainly known for sneering at foreigners, particularly those from developing nations. Its NUL POINTS from me.
The Britania was not needed, nor is a replacement.
Spending that £200 million fixing the potholes would serve our economy better, although it would be a drop in the ocean of the repairs needed.
But as ever, a classic example of the elites wasting money on vanity projects as their societies collapse around them due to overshoot.
"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" Polemics deleted >:( AKA If m'am would like a boat, surely m'am has all the assets needed to build her own?
If you're gonna build a boat, it should at least have a dock landing bay for landing craft, a hospital and hanger space for Merlins and Chinook sized helicopters, as disaster relief is going to be the largest amount of work carried out by such ships in the coming decades. If I recall correctly the old royal yatcht was used quite often in such missions.
As I have said before. If we need a hospital/relief ship we need to build that.
We do not need a Royal Yacht. If the Royals want one they can buy their own using their own vast wealth (.stolen from their subjects by previous royals)
Quote from: Orcs on 30 May 2021, 09:28:58 AM
As I have said before. If we need a hospital/relief ship we need to build that.
We do not need a Royal Yacht. If the Royals want one they can buy their own using their own vast wealth (.stolen from their subjects by previous royals)
Agreed.
"The new royals are increasingly pulling away from their role" .... by which I assume you mean they are at last beginning to behave like normal human beings. Well thank gods for that! Less weirdness, less mental illness among them and less for the prurient Daily Mail readers to slaver over behind their lace curtains. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Quote from: Leman on 30 May 2021, 09:37:09 AM
"The new royals are increasingly pulling away from their role" .... by which I assume you mean they are at last beginning to behave like normal human beings. Well thank gods for that! Less weirdness, less mental illness among them and less for the prurient Daily Mail readers to slaver over behind their lace curtains. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
I think these days Daily Mail readers are more interested in pics of Rita Ora in her underwear.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/nintchdbpict000363541741.jpg)(https://www.classicboat.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Royal-yacht1.jpg)
Quote from: Leman on 30 May 2021, 09:37:09 AM
"The new royals are increasingly pulling away from their role" .... by which I assume you mean they are at last beginning to behave like normal human beings.
Would that be he normal human beings that keep will keep giving lucrative media interviews until they get the privacy they deserve?
a Daily Mail Reader
Fantastic news, one in the eye for all the misery guts out there!
All things considered this might be a more appropriate design, bearing in the mind the Zeitgeist
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R7e1be700af0a44c935cd52ad14a05bb1?rik=ysSnoA7fJxWqmA&riu=http%3a%2f%2fnurgle.stelio.net%2fimages%2fPlagueFleet_Plagueship.png&ehk=DfOcILlU0ARro56V309YfqMCiBYJ9yLImKLGIfPxLP4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw)
Well, Chaps, comments noted. BUT... FOR ME , (previously dubious!), they rather CONFIRM the NEED !!! :o
'Britain' has always 'been wobbly'... BUT with an underlying faith in itself.. to 'get through', somehow. :o ;)
As 'wargamers' you know the importance of 'Flags' or 'Command Stands'! ;D
Who, in their right mind. would strive, fight or die for some gilded Eagle or Rag...???
But people do.
Some fought for a 'better society' 'aftrerwards'... as you know, That is often a sad LOL. :(
But... to get there...even as a possibility... 'symbols' or 'figureheads' HELP!
Whether, as a Nation, (or on a personal level)...once 'self belief' is lost, it is VERY difficult to get it back... so HOLD onto what IS there!
Look at how the 'Falklands' ... or the previous 'Royal Wedding'... 'Boosted' our'belief'... in 'things' in general... and, cynically, the 'economy' ... for a while!
So, just as a 'symbol'... even if of little 'practical' value... I say 'GO FOR IT'!
And, WTH !!!... call it 'BRITANNIA'... even as a 'poke in the eye' with a BLUNT lol stick!... to those who would happily see US down! lol. ;D
The Americans are currently buying/building a new fleet of "Marine One" helicopters at about $205 million each, so £200 million for one large boat seems not too bad.
Still not needed though. Another one of Boris's 'distraction' plans. See also Boris Island, the Thames Garden Bridge.
Quote from: Raider4 on 30 May 2021, 07:31:20 PM
The Americans are currently buying/building a new fleet of "Marine One" helicopters at about $205 million each, so £200 million for one large boat seems not too bad.
Still not needed though. Another one of Boris's 'distraction' plans. See also Boris Island, the Thames Garden Bridge.
There was the London fleet of water cannons as well
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 30 May 2021, 08:19:02 PM
There was the London fleet of water cannons as well
And we should have kept them for all the marches/riot's during last years lockdown
Quote from: Raider4 on 30 May 2021, 07:31:20 PM
The Americans are currently buying/building a new fleet of "Marine One" helicopters at about $205 million each, so £200 million for one large boat seems not too bad.
Still not needed though. Another one of Boris's 'distraction' plans. See also Boris Island, the Thames Garden Bridge.
A couple of months back it was a tunnel complex under the Irish Sea.
Hands up, who thinks the final cost will be anything close to £200 million.
Quote from: Orcs on 30 May 2021, 08:34:13 PM
And we should have kept them for all the marches/riot's during last years lockdown
We ?
Quote from: Orcs on 30 May 2021, 08:34:13 PM
And we should have kept them for all the marches/riot's during last years lockdown
Yeah, but "somebody" neglected to purchase parts and maintenance when be bought them on a whim. Details, details.
In its favour the Prince Phillip Yacht would have almost the same amount of offensive airpower as our second 'aircraft carrier' all for a fraction of the cost.
Water cannons are illegal in the UK.
Quote from: Lord Speedy of Leighton on 31 May 2021, 08:41:58 AM
Water cannons are illegal in the UK.
Strangely it was Theresa May who banned them
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss)
The 'fleet' of water cannon was a VERY sensible precaution. Recent events proven. But, popular 'politics' and 'sense' do not always agree. :(
if the 'rules' don't fit the occurrence, then it is the 'rules' that need to be 'reviewed'...
As wargamers, it does seem a tad odd that some have forgotten what weapons are for, and triumphalist nationalism doesn't really seem to be getting anyone anywhere, other than having to deal with the smouldering rubble afterwards, be it real or metaphorical. In reality the Wright brothers destroyed the need for national borders. It lingers in Britain because it is an island. I'm always surprised that the British don't look more closely at the Northern Ireland land border to realise its futility.
Quote from: Leman on 31 May 2021, 09:02:10 AM
As wargamers, it does seem a tad odd that some have forgotten what weapons are for, and triumphalist nationalism doesn't really seem to be getting anyone anywhere, other than having to deal with the smouldering rubble afterwards, be it real or metaphorical. In reality the Wright brothers destroyed the need for national borders. It lingers in Britain because it is an island. I'm always surprised that the British don't look more closely at the Northern Ireland land border to realise its futility.
Weapons are for kiling. 'Remove figs or knock them over' and they are still DEAD men.... WITH consequences. There will always be smouldering rubble,,, which will reignite...again and again. The point about a 'weapon' is... if you have it...and the other guy 'thinks' that you might use it... he might think twice before using his.
'Triumphalist Nationalism' worked...when you could 'send a gunboat' to send a 'message' Now... airstrikes / drone strikes/ nukes are the same deal as a sword. It does not HAVE to be drawn... it is for 'display'...unless...
If the Wright brothers could have fore-seen Dresden or Nagasaki, they wouldn't have tried... but THEY DID. And, yes, they destroyed 'borders'... they made 'The Game' much bigger and more horrifying... but that is what happens... not their fault.
As for the Irish border... most people just want to get along, but SOME do not.
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 31 May 2021, 10:19:35 AM
'Triumphalist Nationalism' worked.
No it didn't see the 1940s
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 31 May 2021, 10:31:12 AM
No it didn't see the 1940s
Agreed.
Also 1914... and before... and 1950s on... Nationalism IS 'natural'... it is Tribal, Speciesist... it will NEVER go away. :( What we HAVE to do is to negate iit somewhat... and, seeing as NO-ONE will be making swords into plaughshares anytime soon... axes to grind aren't getting anyone anywhere, either.
Quote from: Lord Speedy of Leighton on 31 May 2021, 08:41:58 AM
Water cannons are illegal in the UK.
They are not 'illegal', but their use requires Ministerial authorisation.
Water cannon are authorised for use in Northern Ireland, still part of the UK.
The Home Secretary's decision in 2015 was against authorisation for England and Wales and the Scottish Assembly Justice and Home Affairs spokesperson said that Scottish Ministers would not authorise their use either.
I find it hard to believe they would have been useful this year given their wonderful record of preventing rioting and violence in NI.
The Irish I know would proudly say that you couldn't control them with nukes!
Quote from: FierceKitty on 31 May 2021, 12:25:50 PM
The Irish I know would proudly say that you couldn't control them with nukes!
The RUC who got into my 'local' pub 1980s were 'relatively' well behaved.... MOST of the time... but NOT to be messed with! Still, they were 'on holliday'... on a 'course.'.. so 'best let them be' ! (Who would want what They had to LIVE with?). :( ;)
Quote from: FierceKitty on 31 May 2021, 12:25:50 PM
The Irish I know would proudly say that you couldn't control them with nukes!
The use of them against the Irish would make this point moot.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html)
Actually, I think the guy might be on to something.
Well Boris is related to Clarke Kent, and can do ANYTHING, very badly ;)
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 21 June 2021, 07:29:11 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html)
Actually, I think the guy might be on to something.
Whoever's really designing this needs a clear brief on its primary function:
* Museum ship of the future (Resilient hull and fittings).
* Pleasure yacht for the royals (Smokeless fuel, and stabling for the horses).
* Floating gin palace for trade missions (Handy if it isn't the smallest Yacht at the mooring).
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 21 June 2021, 09:24:14 AM
Whoever's really designing this needs a clear brief on its primary function:
* Floating gin palace for trade missions (Handy if it isn't the smallest Yacht at the mooring).
Green energy powered floating seraglio for trade missions
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 21 June 2021, 07:29:11 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html)
Actually, I think the guy might be on to something.
Yeah, it does look very retro, and a bit dull frankly.
But then I think most modern superyachts are generally very, very ugly.
Quote from: Raider4 on 21 June 2021, 07:31:26 PM
Yeah, it does look very retro, and a bit dull frankly.
But then I think most modern superyachts are generally very, very ugly.
This is what we need
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/the-guided-missile-destroyer-uss-zumwalt-transits-naval-news-photo-1616013786.?crop=0.915xw:0.683xh;0.0256xw,0.206xh&resize=1200:*)
At 4+ billion dollars each I don't think so.
Quote from: jimduncanuk on 21 June 2021, 07:52:24 PM
At 4+ billion dollars each I don't think so.
Aye, that's what the USN thought as well.
Quote from: jimduncanuk on 21 June 2021, 07:52:24 PM
At 4+ billion dollars each I don't think so.
You can't spare 4 billion for the Queen after all the service she's done for us?
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 21 June 2021, 10:12:39 PM
You can't spare 4 billion for the Queen after all the service she's done for us?
"The Queen can't spare 4 billion for us after all the service we've done for her?"
Hey look, it works the other way around as well . . . :d :d :d
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 21 June 2021, 07:29:11 AM
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/royal-yacht-britannia-boris-johnson-b1869473.html)
Actually, I think the guy might be on to something.
It's been bothering me why that looks familiar. And then it hit me. It's exactly the sort of image you'd see in "The Ladybird book of Sailing".
Quote from: Raider4 on 22 June 2021, 09:38:15 AM
"The Queen can't spare 4 billion for us after all the service we've done for her?"
Hey look, it works the other way around as well . . . :d :d :d
No it doesn't
As so many nations seem to be slipping under 'other spheres of influence'... a bit of passive 'flag waving' may be more essential than ever. Though probably, too late. :(
As for 'Monarchy'... there will always be opposite camps. For me, the value of 'The Crown' to national pride and self belief is beyond price.
People tend to forget the billions' brought in', over the years, in many ways.
I would prefer a Bigger boat! ;D
(But NOT a Zumwalt!) ;D
The best argument I've ever seen for keeping the monarchy are two simple words: "President Blair"
Quote from: Ben Waterhouse on 30 May 2021, 05:27:36 PM
Fantastic news, one in the eye for all the misery guts out there!
Quite agree. They'd reduce us to something like Belgium.
Quote from: John Cook on 22 June 2021, 02:03:27 PM
Quite agree. They'd reduce us to something like Belgium.
If only - we are well on the way to becoming the Kingdom of Wessex
Raider 4, John Cook, flamingpigO, Ben Waterhouse, JmDuncanUK... :)
Just to be silly...If the Zumwalt was actually a heavily armoured Ram, (lol!), with non stealthy extra armament, a 1940s designed structure and construction, ERA, and radars, engines that would work in global climates... just might accept it looking like an Utterly Horrible 'Thing'!
Please forgive ignorance, but I just cannot understand the 'stealth' concept for larger ships. Fast attack craft, YES! But, given the capability of weapons/detection systems to innovate/be upgraded VS the lead in time for warship design/construction.. and COSTS/reliability therin... 'stealth' will always be behind threats. A large ship will ALWAYS be a larger.. aqquirable... target.
So, why not improve 'survivability' and 'defences'', instead of 'designer sexy' stealth concepts?
It seems to me that a good place to 'hide' a warship might be under the water?
I wonder if anyone else has thought of that?
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 23 June 2021, 06:46:43 AM
Raider 4, John Cook, flamingpigO, Ben Waterhouse, JmDuncanUK... :)
Just to be silly...If the Zumwalt was actually a heavily armoured Ram, (lol!), with non stealthy extra armament, a 1940s designed structure and construction, ERA, and radars, engines that would work in global climates... just might accept it looking like an Utterly Horrible 'Thing'!
It does look like a high tech Ram
Quote from: Raider4 on 23 June 2021, 07:14:17 AM
It seems to me that a good place to 'hide' a warship might be under the water?
I wonder if anyone else has thought of that?
Chinese thought so. Pity That...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57547885
Only Joking...maybe...
I still can't believe this. The RN has enough trouble manning its warships without having to pay for and crew a floating gin palace.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 23 June 2021, 12:35:45 PM
I still can't believe this. The RN has enough trouble manning its warships without having to pay for and crew a floating gin palace.
Maybe they could get Harry to Captain it and raise a crew for it.
Unfortuneatly Harry is Army, not Navy
I think it was Admiral Zumwalt who wanted to use the Village People's "In the Navy" song as part of a recruitment drive. It was vetoed as it supposedly gave completely the wrong idea as to what the US navy was about. Supposedly
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 23 June 2021, 03:14:13 PM
I think it was Admiral Zumwalt who wanted to use the Village People's "In the Navy" song as part of a recruitment drive. It was vetoed as it supposedly gave completely the wrong idea as to what the US navy was about. Supposedly
Ooh! Salve nautae!
Don't think there would be much trouble 'crewing' it! There IS a Naval Air ranking Royal Whom HM 'might' like to give a job to for a while... and would probably jump at it! ;) ;D
Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 23 June 2021, 02:58:21 PM
Unfortuneatly Harry is Army, not Navy
Currently he id out of a job and while shouting about privacy he and his wife are selling themselves anywhere they can to raise a few bob. So I expect he would do it especially if it got him some dosh.
Hmm...Harry out of a job?
BetterUp, Netflix and Spotify ' just pin money then? :D
Quote from: flamingpig0 on 23 June 2021, 03:14:13 PM
I think it was Admiral Zumwalt who wanted to use the Village People's "In the Navy" song as part of a recruitment drive. It was vetoed as it supposedly gave completely the wrong idea as to what the US navy was about. Supposedly
The YMCA seems to have recovered.
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 23 June 2021, 04:06:32 PM
Don't think there would be much trouble 'crewing' it! There IS a Naval Air ranking Royal Whom HM 'might' like to give a job to for a while... and would probably jump at it! ;) ;D
I am not sure we would want to draw attention to his existence and the ship couldn't visit the US without the FBI forcibly taking him in for questioning.
More's the pity.
(Oops...did I say that ?.....I'm supposed to be a moderator ;))
Cheers - Phil. :)
Nor do I think they'd want to risk it being nicknamed The Love Boat.