Malcolm says: Does AI know more than we do? Here is a VERY long answer to a short question: “Who will build Titanic II”?
ChatGPT says:
As of September 2026, there is still no officially selected shipyard or signed construction contract for Clive Palmer’s Titanic II. Blue Star Line says it originally worked with CSC Jinling in China, but the revived project is now looking for a yard in Europe.
My best guess: Rauma Marine Constructions (Finland)
If I had to put money on one yard today, I’d pick Rauma Marine Constructions (RMC) in Finland.
Why:
- RMC is one of the relatively few European yards capable of taking on a large passenger-vessel project outside the huge cruise-ship builders.
- Palmer has recently indicated that he wants to build Titanic II in Europe, rather than China, because of shipyard backlogs.
- A specialist Titanic II project source has specifically identified RMC as a serious contender in September 2026.
- RMC has experience with substantial passenger ships, making it a more plausible fit than many conventional European commercial shipyards.
Runner-up: CSC Jinling / a Chinese CSSC yard. Jinling is historically the strongest connection: Blue Star Line explicitly engaged CSC Jinling for the original project. But Palmer’s latest position appears to favour Europe.
One interesting possibility is another Finnish or European yard with available capacity, rather than a conventional mega-cruise shipbuilder. The proposed vessel is around 56,000 GT, so it doesn’t need the enormous facilities required for today’s 200,000+ GT cruise ships.
My rough odds
| Shipyard / region | My estimate |
|---|---|
| Rauma Marine Constructions, Finland | 30% |
| Other European yard | 30% |
| Chinese yard, potentially CSSC/Jinling | 25% |
| Italian/French/German cruise shipyard | 10% |
| Harland & Wolff Belfast | 5% |
The big caveat is that these are informed probabilities, not reported bids. There is currently no public evidence that RMC has actually won—or even formally been awarded—the project.
And I’d put Harland & Wolff Belfast very low, despite the obvious historical appeal. Palmer has reportedly approached it, but its financial difficulties and the modern yard’s lack of a straightforward large-passenger-ship construction programme make it a difficult choice.
If you want, I can also rank the 5–10 European shipyards that could realistically build Titanic II, comparing their dock size, passenger-ship experience, current order books and Palmer’s likely requirements
More:
Yes. I’d revise my earlier ranking somewhat after looking at the current 2026 shipyard situation. The key point is that Titanic II is relatively small by modern cruise-ship standards—roughly 56,000 GT—so the issue isn’t whether a yard can physically build it. It’s whether the yard has passenger-ship expertise, a suitable slot, and a willingness to take on Palmer’s unusual one-off project.
My 2026 ranking
My estimated likelihood of building Titanic II
Subjective assessment based on passenger-ship capability, physical suitability, current workload and project fit; these are not reported bids.0%8%16%24%32%RMC, FinlandFincantieri, ItalyMeyer Werft, GermanyChantiers de l’At…Jinling/CSSC, ChinaMeyer Turku, FinlandOther European yardHarland & Wolff, UK
These percentages are my assessment, not probabilities published by the companies.
| Rank | Yard | Why it could build it | Biggest problem |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rauma Marine Constructions (Finland) | Right-sized facilities, passenger-ferry experience, European location | Not a major cruise-ship builder; current naval workload |
| 2 | Fincantieri (Italy) | Enormous passenger-ship expertise; could easily handle 56,000 GT | Very busy orderbook and Titanic II is tiny compared with its normal projects |
| 3 | Meyer Werft (Germany) | Exceptional passenger/cruise expertise | Huge cruise-ship backlog and little reason to take a quirky one-off |
| 4 | Chantiers de l’Atlantique (France) | One of Europe’s premier passenger-ship builders | Same capacity/opportunity problem as Meyer/Fincantieri |
| 5 | Jinling/CSSC (China) | Was the original Titanic II yard choice | Palmer subsequently indicated Europe was preferred |
| 6 | Meyer Turku (Finland) | Superb cruise-ship capability | Essentially booked solid for years |
| 7 | Other European yard | Potentially a smaller yard could welcome the project | Less obvious candidate |
| 8 | Harland & Wolff Belfast | Immense historical symbolism | Current industrial/financial circumstances make it a very difficult proposition |
1. Rauma Marine Constructions — still my favourite
Rauma Marine Constructions has a surprisingly good physical fit.
Its dry dock is 260 × 85 metres, while its outfitting quays are 220–240 m. That’s comfortably sufficient for a ~270-metre-class Titanic II, assuming the final design remains in that general range.
More importantly, RMC isn’t simply a naval yard. It has substantial passenger-ferry/Ro-Ro experience, which is much more relevant to Titanic II than building oil tankers or naval vessels.
The drawback is workload. In 2026 RMC has all four Pohjanmaa-class corvettes simultaneously in production.
So I wouldn’t interpret “RMC #1” as “RMC has secretly been selected.” Rather, it’s the European yard whose size and capabilities seem unusually well matched to the project.
2. Fincantieri — arguably the technically safest choice
Fincantieri could build Titanic II without breaking a sweat.
Its Monfalcone yard has built more than 45 cruise ships, and the company is currently constructing ships enormously larger than Titanic II.
But that’s actually why I don’t put it #1.
Fincantieri’s orderbook is extraordinary: as of June 2026 it had 92 vessels in its orderbook, with deliveries extending to 2039. Monfalcone alone has new Princess ships scheduled through 2039.
Palmer would therefore have to persuade a giant, extremely busy industrial operation to allocate a production slot to a relatively small, unusual vessel.
3–4. Meyer Werft and Chantiers de l’Atlantique
These are the other two I’d take extremely seriously if money and schedule weren’t constraints.
Meyer Werft has essentially the perfect passenger-ship pedigree. But it is now negotiating a major MSC programme involving four ~180,000-GT ships plus options, with deliveries beginning in 2030.
Chantiers de l’Atlantique is similarly capable. It is one of Europe’s premier large passenger-ship builders, but the European cruise industry is experiencing a massive orderbook boom, making capacity the issue rather than capability.
5. Jinling/CSSC — the wild card
This one shouldn’t be dismissed.
Jinling was the original choice for Titanic II in 2012. More recent reporting says the project has never publicly identified all the yards approached, although Harland & Wolff is known to have been approached unsuccessfully. Palmer subsequently said that Europe had been recommended because European yards had greater passenger-ship experience.
So if the European search proves too expensive or slow, China becomes the obvious fallback.
6. Meyer Turku — technically excellent, practically unlikely
Meyer Turku is almost tailor-made in terms of expertise.
Its dock is 365 × 80 m, and it builds some of the world’s largest cruise ships.
But its orderbook is confirmed through 2028, with building rights secured all the way to 2036. Royal Caribbean also confirmed Icon-class ships 6 and 7 for delivery in 2029 and 2030.
I’d therefore regard Meyer Turku as a “can do it” rather than “likely to do it” candidate.
And Harland & Wolff?
This is where the romantic answer and the commercially sensible answer diverge.
If Palmer wants Titanic II built in Belfast, Harland & Wolff is obviously the ultimate story. But if we’re asking where the ship is most likely to actually be constructed, I wouldn’t put Belfast near the top.
The project has apparently already involved an unsuccessful approach to Harland & Wolff.
The really interesting possibility
I think there is a distinction worth making:
The most capable yard isn’t necessarily the most likely yard.
If Palmer wants:
“Build me a historically styled 56,000-GT passenger ship, but don’t make me wait until 2035.”
then RMC becomes much more interesting than Meyer, Fincantieri or Chantiers.
If he says:
“I want the absolute lowest technical risk and I’ll accept whatever slot you give me.”
then Fincantieri/Meyer/Chantiers become much more attractive.
And if Europe can’t provide an acceptable price or delivery date:
Jinling/CSSC becomes the obvious Plan B.
So my current personal ranking is:
RMC 🇫🇮 > Fincantieri 🇮🇹 > Meyer Werft 🇩🇪 > Chantiers 🇫🇷 > Jinling 🇨🇳 > Meyer Turku 🇫🇮.
The fascinating question is whether RMC actually has enough spare capacity for Titanic II. That’s something we can investigate much more deeply by looking at its current contracts, dry-dock occupancy, expected completion dates and the likely Titanic II construction schedule.
More:
Yes — and after checking RMC’s actual 2026 workload, I think the picture is clearer. My earlier assessment that RMC was the favourite needs one important qualification: RMC is technically plausible, but it is not currently sitting on an obviously empty production slot.
The short answer
I think RMC could build Titanic II, but probably not before 2029—and perhaps 2030.
The decisive issue isn’t gross tonnage. RMC has already built the 48,000-GT, 212-metre Spirit of Tasmania IV/V ferries, which are remarkably close in scale to Titanic II’s proposed ~56,000 GT.
The problem is yard capacity and geometry.
RMC’s main dry dock is 260 × 85 m, while Titanic II is designed at roughly 269 m long. So the ship is actually about 9 metres longer than the dry dock.
That’s not necessarily fatal—but it means Titanic II couldn’t simply be treated as a conventional “put the complete hull in the dock” project.
1. What RMC is building right now
This is the biggest issue.
As of 2026, all four Finnish Navy Pohjanmaa-class corvettes are simultaneously under construction at Rauma. The second was launched in May 2026; the third’s hull is being assembled; and the fourth’s keel was laid in August.
And there’s another major programme:
Two U.S. Coast Guard Arctic Security Cutters
RMC signed the contract in December 2025 and says construction began immediately. Both are scheduled for completion during 2028.
So RMC’s workload looks roughly like:
| Programme | Ships | Current status | Completion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pohjanmaa corvettes | 4 | All four in construction | Project through ~2029 |
| U.S. Arctic Security Cutters | 2 | Construction underway | 2028 |
| Titanic II | 1 | Not contracted | — |
RMC itself says its current order book extends through 2028.
And its 2026 news releases make clear that the yard is already operating several major programmes concurrently.
That makes 2028 the critical year.
If Palmer wanted RMC, I wouldn’t expect Titanic II to go into serious production before the latter part of the decade unless RMC reorganised its production programme specifically to accommodate it.
2. But RMC has exactly the right kind of experience
This is why I don’t dismiss the yard.
RMC has built five car/passenger ferries, including:
- Hammershus
- Aurora Botnia
- MyStar
- Spirit of Tasmania IV
- Spirit of Tasmania V
And the last two are particularly relevant.
Spirit of Tasmania IV/V:
- 212 m long
- 31 m beam
- 48,000 GT
- 1,800 passengers
- 301 cabins
Titanic II is proposed at approximately:
- 269 m
- ~56,000 GT
- roughly 2,400 passengers
- ~835 cabins
So Titanic II would be bigger, but not radically outside RMC’s commercial-ship experience.
That’s a very different situation from asking a naval shipyard that has never built a large passenger ship to suddenly construct Titanic II.
3. The Deltamarin connection is particularly interesting
This is probably the strongest argument for RMC.
Deltamarin is the Finnish naval-architecture company working on Titanic II. Its role includes updating the design, project management/consultancy and, importantly, consultation with potential shipyards and development of the design with the eventual builder.
Deltamarin and RMC already have a substantial working relationship.
Deltamarin worked on several RMC passenger ships, including MyStar, Aurora Botnia and Hammershus.
That matters enormously.
If you’re Palmer and you’re trying to resurrect an unusual project that has already spent years stuck in the “shipyard selection” phase, having the naval architect already familiar with a potential builder is a major advantage.
4. The 260-metre dock problem
This is where things get genuinely interesting.
RMC says its main dry dock is:
260 × 85 × 16 metres
with a heavy-duty launching ramp and semi-submersible-barge capability.
Titanic II: approximately 269 m.
So:
Titanic II > RMC dry dock by ~9 metres.
At first glance, that sounds like a deal-breaker.
I don’t think it necessarily is.
RMC has another way of launching large structures
The yard specifically advertises a 39-metre-wide heavy-duty launch ramp with a load capacity exceeding 5,000 tonnes, capable of being operated with a semi-submersible barge.
That opens up a potential construction method involving:
blocks → hull assembly → launch/transfer → quay/outfitting
rather than:
complete ship → flood dry dock → float out.
However, there is an important caveat: I have not found evidence that RMC has used this arrangement for anything as large as a 269-metre, 56,000-GT passenger ship.
So it is technically plausible, not demonstrated.
5. The quays create another constraint
RMC lists outfitting quays of approximately 220 m and 240 m.
Again, Titanic II at ~269 m exceeds them.
That’s not automatically impossible—ships can extend beyond the end of a quay and there are other ways of handling sections—but it makes the project substantially less straightforward.
In other words:
RMC has enough shipbuilding capability for Titanic II, but its infrastructure isn’t an obvious “plug-and-play” match.
That actually makes me think the design/build team would have to engineer the construction sequence around the yard.
And that’s precisely where having Deltamarin involved in shipyard integration becomes useful.
6. What would a realistic RMC Titanic II schedule look like?
Here’s my best estimate.
2026
Not happening yet.
RMC is heavily occupied with the four corvettes and two U.S. icebreakers. Meanwhile, Titanic II doesn’t even have a publicly announced shipyard contract.
2027
Potentially:
Design finalisation → shipyard tender → contract → detailed engineering
But I would not expect major physical construction.
The originally advertised June 2027 maiden voyage is now impossible; there is still no shipyard, construction contract or steel-cutting milestone.
2028
This is the earliest interesting window.
The RMC icebreakers are scheduled for completion during 2028, although the four corvettes continue through the broader programme.
If RMC wanted Titanic II badly enough, it could potentially start preparatory steel work while other programmes are winding down.
2029
This is the first year I’d regard as genuinely plausible for major Titanic II construction at RMC.
You could imagine:
2028 → contract/design freeze
late 2028/early 2029 → steel cutting
2029–2031 → hull + outfitting
2031/32 → trials
2032 → maiden voyage
That’s far more believable to me than the original 2027 promise.
7. And here’s the really important clue
The fact that Titanic II is still without a shipyard in September 2026 actually makes RMC more interesting to me, not less.
The obvious European cruise yards are drowning in enormous cruise-ship programmes.
RMC is different.
It is:
- large enough to build a ~56,000-GT vessel;
- experienced with passenger ferries;
- experienced with Deltamarin;
- accustomed to relatively specialised vessels;
- considerably smaller than Meyer/Fincantieri/Chantiers;
- already capable of handling ~48,000-GT passenger vessels;
- expanding its industrial capabilities.
And RMC describes itself as having substantial investment in strategic shipbuilding capacity.
That combination is unusually well suited to an eccentric one-off project.
My revised assessment
After looking at the actual 2026 workload, I’d change my numbers slightly:
| Candidate | My current estimate |
|---|---|
| RMC, Finland | 25% |
| Fincantieri, Italy | 17% |
| Meyer Werft, Germany | 13% |
| Chantiers de l’Atlantique, France | 10% |
| Jinling/CSSC, China | 15% |
| Meyer Turku, Finland | 7% |
| Other European yard | 9% |
| Harland & Wolff | 4% |
The interesting change is Jinling moves upward because RMC’s capacity isn’t nearly as open as one might initially assume.
But there’s a bigger conclusion:
If RMC gets the contract, I would expect Titanic II’s maiden voyage to be around 2032—not 2027.
And I think the 260-metre dry dock vs 269-metre ship length is the single technical detail I’d watch most closely. If RMC were selected, I’d expect the construction methodology to be one of the first things Deltamarin and RMC would have to solve.
The other thing I’d watch is whether RMC announces any new commercial passenger-ship order for 2029–2031. If that space remains conspicuously uncommitted while Titanic II negotiations continue, that would be a much stronger signal than Palmer simply saying he is “looking at European yards.”
Bottom line: RMC remains my favourite European candidate, but I now put the probability of RMC actually building Titanic II at roughly 1 in 4, rather than the ~30% I suggested earlier. The yard has the capability; the available production slot and the 269-metre/260-metre infrastructure mismatch are the two big obstacles.
(All text above was generated by ChatGPT)
Malcolm says: In conclusion, that is a lot of words to say “I don’t really know”
