Renovate Britannia

[Keen_Ed]

Did I hear a radio program talking about how one role for HMY Britannia was going to be a floating bunker in the case of WW3 with Russia? Spending the time hiding in Scottish lochs, and moving about.

Here we go: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...plan-to-help-Queen-escape-nuclear-attack.html

 

[paul.norton]

The below link may be of interest to posters on this subject.

http://www.commonwealthflagship.com/

This is the first I have heard of this project - it seems to be a lot more practical than the sail training type of vessel proposed earlier.

It has been well documented by various ex-Foreign Secretaries of the pulling power of Britannia. Businessmen would fall over themselves to come on board to sign contracts, even if the royal family were not present. Would these same people have been prepared to attend some anonymous hotel room?

We need to export more and a piece of UK floating around the world to promote trade would be well worth the cost.

Paul

 

[Romeo]

Perhaps HMQ could fund the purchase of a new yacht by selling off one of her holiday homes. I am sure she would get a packet for either Balmoral or Sandringham to cover not only purchase but some of the running costs. Surely worth a thought if a floating home/ workplace is desirable?

 

[Seajet]

Using Brittania - or any ship - as a moveable bunker seems almost as daft to me as the American idea of bundling the President into Air Force One if trouble breaks out; 'let's put them somewhere really inherently dangerous and difficult to defend, rather than in a deep concrete air conditioned discreet place' !

I did hear that they'd have loved to use Brittania as a hospital ship in the Falklands but her fuel was of a type difficult to provide ?

Don't know the ins and outs of that, though I suspect finding ' 2 para woz ere' carved into the woodwork might be unpopular.

As far as renovating Brittania now, I'm reminded of Lew Grades' comment after the disastrous turkey of a film 'Raise the Titanic' - he chipped " It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic ! "

 

[lw395]

Using Brittania - or any ship - as a moveable bunker seems almost as daft to me as the American idea of bundling the President into Air Force One if trouble breaks out; 'let's put them somewhere really inherently dangerous and difficult to defend, rather than in a deep concrete air conditioned discreet place' !

I did hear that they'd have loved to use Brittania as a hospital ship in the Falklands but her fuel was of a type difficult to provide ?

Don't know the ins and outs of that, though I suspect finding ' 2 para woz ere' carved into the woodwork might be unpopular.

As far as renovating Brittania now, I'm reminded of Lew Grades' comment after the disastrous turkey of a film 'Raise the Titanic' - he chipped " It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic ! "

I think these alternative uses for the Royal Floaty Caravan are desperate attempts to justify it, which mostly make it look ridiculous.
If we want a new royal yacht, make out a proper business case and do it properly.
I suspect there would be diplomatic advantages in having it basically civilian, rather than RN.
A decent mid-size sailing superyacht would be my choice.

 

[pmyatt]

The below link may be of interest to posters on this subject.

http://www.commonwealthflagship.com/

Had Britannia's alleged secondary role of hospital ship actually happened it may have assisted the case to keep her. She was berthed at Whale Island when I sailed South in 1982 and she was still there when I got back with not a mark on her immaculate paintwork!

The reason she didn't sail was that her engines use/used "Heavy Fuel Oil" and no other ship in the Navy does - she cannot be re-fuelled at sea. The possibility of removing the old engines and fuel bunkers, and replacing them with diesel, was examined but would have required the wholesale cutting-up of the ship to do so - not an economic project

 

[maxi77]

The reason she didn't sail was that her engines use/used "Heavy Fuel Oil" and no other ship in the Navy does - she cannot be re-fuelled at sea. The possibility of removing the old engines and fuel bunkers, and replacing them with diesel, was examined but would have required the wholesale cutting-up of the ship to do so - not an economic project

She could have been refuelled at sea, but the real cost would have been in supplying the fuel, either tank for what was by then a unique set of steam raising gear.space in one of the existing tankers would have had to be given up for her fuel, or a further dedicated tanker converted and supplied.

I am pretty sure the cost of supplying a liner to do the job was less than the cost of converting Brittania and supplying her fuel.

The fuel was Furnace Fuel Oil, something like a slightly diluted tar. It can be diluted with diesel but the machinery can't take it neat without modification which in her case would have been a very considerable effort to cary out the convertion

 

[Sybarite]

The reason she didn't sail was that her engines use/used "Heavy Fuel Oil" and no other ship in the Navy does - she cannot be re-fuelled at sea. The possibility of removing the old engines and fuel bunkers, and replacing them with diesel, was examined but would have required the wholesale cutting-up of the ship to do so - not an economic project

Extracts from the technical report :


"Because of urgency, the choice of main machinery was limited to the selection of a modern well-proven unit which could be produced in a reasonably short time. (NB as used in modern ferries at that time). It was important for both the Royal Yacht and hospital ship roles that noise and vibration should be kept to the absolute minimum and this ruled out diesel machinery which was otherwise attractive from the point of view of endurance.

Fuel consumption was measured during trials of four hours’ duration, each at a steady horsepower. After making adjustments for the maximum seagoing auxiliary load likely to be met on service, the fuel consumption is estimated to be about 47 tons/day at 2,800 shp and 117 tons/day at 12,000 shp."

In the load condition carrying 330 tons of oil fuel the endurance will be about 2,100 miles at 20 knots and 2,400 miles at the economical speed of 15 knots, with clean bottom.

"Using the extra fuel tank capacity available for long ocean passages and carrying 490 tons of oil fuel the endurance is increased to approximately 3,100 miles at 20 knots and 3,560 miles at 15 knots. It will be recalled that oiling at sea arrangements are fitted so that if necessary Britannia can refuel at sea from the attendant ship."

"Filling connections are fitted amidships and forward, and fuel may be embarked either side of the ship. The forward position will be used mainly for replenishment at sea, for which a standard naval light jackstay rig is provided. It is expected to achieve a fuelling rate of 250 tons/hour at sea".

 

[lw395]

The reason she didn't sail was that her engines use/used "Heavy Fuel Oil" and no other ship in the Navy does - she cannot be re-fuelled at sea. The possibility of removing the old engines and fuel bunkers, and replacing them with diesel, was examined but would have required the wholesale cutting-up of the ship to do so - not an economic project

The real reason is that she was basically useless for that task.

She was not alone in that of course!

 

[ccscott49]

Perhaps HMQ could fund the purchase of a new yacht by selling off one of her holiday homes. I am sure she would get a packet for either Balmoral or Sandringham to cover not only purchase but some of the running costs. Surely worth a thought if a floating home/ workplace is desirable?

Her "holiday" homes probably cost more to run than Brittania did!
I would love to see who would come up with the money to buy and convert Balmoral to a hotel!

 

[alant]

There is no doubt that she could be put back into commission. She has a certain style that has not diminished even today, an air about her that is far superior to any grand, billionaire's crass super yacht. I am biased though as I prefer traditional steam ship lines. However, would it be worth it, she is now soiled and lost some of her esteem.

A new Royal Yacht, on similar lines and style could be built probably for a better price than renovation. This new yacht could reflect Britannia in ascendance, which will come one day.

But probably in Korea!

 

[Keen_Ed]

Actually, I would think Germany or Holland would beat Korea for this sort of thing.

But Pendennis might like the contract!

 

[AntarcticPilot]

There is no doubt that she could be put back into commission.

Actually, given her age, it may NOT be possible to put her back in commission - at least, not as a go anywhere ambassador for the UK.

The steel hulls of ships don't last indefinitely; I gather that the plates eventually suffer from a sort of splitting in the thickness of the plate. One of the former ships of British Antarctic Survey was retired for exactly this reason - the hull was becoming unsafe for use in Antarctic waters because of age-related deterioration of the hull plates. This is not related to ice damage. I'm not sure if it was RRS John Biscoe or RRS Bransfield. Both ships were of similar (or younger) vintage than HMS Britannia.

So, even if her machinery was updated, there is a strong possibility that her hull is no longer structurally as sound as it should be.

I am sure she could be renovated as a museum ship, and even be capable of being relocated from port to port on an occasional basis, but whether she could be brought back to being used as a sea-going embassy is another question.

 

[maxi77]

Actually, given her age, it may NOT be possible to put her back in commission - at least, not as a go anywhere ambassador for the UK.

The steel hulls of ships don't last indefinitely; I gather that the plates eventually suffer from a sort of splitting in the thickness of the plate. One of the former ships of British Antarctic Survey was retired for exactly this reason - the hull was becoming unsafe for use in Antarctic waters because of age-related deterioration of the hull plates. This is not related to ice damage. I'm not sure if it was RRS John Biscoe or RRS Bransfield. Both ships were of similar (or younger) vintage than HMS Britannia.

So, even if her machinery was updated, there is a strong possibility that her hull is no longer structurally as sound as it should be.

I am sure she could be renovated as a museum ship, and even be capable of being relocated from port to port on an occasional basis, but whether she could be brought back to being used as a sea-going embassy is another question.

Agree entirely, her systems are 60 years old, even if the hull could take it the cost of updating both the propulsion systems and all the other services would be exhorbitant. I must admit that I think a yacht on the scale of Britannia is out of date, when she was built we still relied on liners for long distance travel, but now that is all done by aircraft.

 

[Swg]

She's in Edinburgh, available for subjects to visit, for a fee which keeps her available to visit and is therefore more available to those interested who would never get aboard a Royal Yacht in commission. Utterly democratic decision to decommission!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

.... I gather that the plates eventually suffer from a sort of splitting in the thickness of the plate. ...... Both ships were of similar (or younger) vintage than HMS Britannia. ....

It could be this you are referring to (from Wikipedia): -

Lamellar tearing
Lamellar tearing is a type of welding defect that occurs in rolled steel plates.[16] It has rarely been an issue since the 1970s because steel produced since then has less sulfur.[17]
There is a combination of causes: non-metallic inclusions, too much hydrogen in the material, and shrinkage forces perpendicular to the face of the plates. The main factor among these reasons is the non-metal inclusions, of which the sulfur is the main problem. Lamellar tearing is no longer a problem anymore because sulfur levels are typical kept below 0.005%. .....

Some drilling rigs built in the late 1960's and placed on North Sea Platforms developed failures in the sub structures (the main load bearing bit of a rig) in the late 1990s. Such weaknesses were exploited by the constant vibration and flexing.

The claim about restoring her was in response to a previous post, anything is possible at a price, but the practicalities would likely be economically prohibitive and as you suggest, technically prohibitive as well.

 

[alant]

It could be this you are referring to (from Wikipedia): -



Some drilling rigs built in the late 1960's and placed on North Sea Platforms developed failures in the sub structures (the main load bearing bit of a rig) in the late 1990s. Such weaknesses were exploited by the constant vibration and flexing.

The claim about restoring her was in response to a previous post, anything is possible at a price, but the practicalities would likely be economically prohibitive and as you suggest, technically prohibitive as well.

Bit like hydrogen embrittlement that put paid to many Liberty ships, when in cold waters. Hydrogen either side of the major welds & hey presto, you now have 2 smaller ships.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It could be this you are referring to (from Wikipedia): -



Some drilling rigs built in the late 1960's and placed on North Sea Platforms developed failures in the sub structures (the main load bearing bit of a rig) in the late 1990s. Such weaknesses were exploited by the constant vibration and flexing.

The claim about restoring her was in response to a previous post, anything is possible at a price, but the practicalities would likely be economically prohibitive and as you suggest, technically prohibitive as well.

That sounds exactly right; I think you have managed to put flesh on my rather vague and non-technical recollection! And the period is also right; HMS Britannia was built in the early 50s; the ships I was thinking of were late 50s/early 60s.