UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 18 Oct 2018, 11:09

No I would go with trying to build 10 type 26 for the 9.25 billion and 15 Venari 100 from a new budget

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Lord Jim » 18 Oct 2018, 12:00

The MHPC programme is a great opportunity for he UK to design and build a platform that is flexible, effective, innovative and affordable. This should make it a platform with sales potential. Now all we have to do is not screw it up like we seem to do most of the time.

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 743
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Aethulwulf » 18 Oct 2018, 15:05

The focus of the UK MHC programme is very much on the remote and autonomous systems. That is where the innovation and technical risks lie. That is where there is most potential for international sales. This is where the MOD has been investing in research and technology demonstrators.

The actual MHC vessel, while not exactly an after-though, has not received very much MOD attention at all. Apart from integration and comms links to the remote and autonomous systems, the future MHC vessel is not going to be cutting edge or innovative. Any number of nations will be more than capable of building there own similar platforms. Why would they be interested in buying such a platform from the UK?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby shark bait » 18 Oct 2018, 20:25

donald_of_tokyo wrote:?? Your "20 multi mission ships" are high end? At least for MHC, what we need is low end, I guess.

Nope, go for a nice civilian platform painted grey.

Lord Jim wrote:This should make it a platform with sales potential.

It won't.

No one buys cheap shit from the UK because they can always buy cheap shit cheaper from somewhere else. The T26 is the only item in the RN's catalog with sales potential.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 796
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 Nov 2018, 21:45

Moved across...
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I really think MHC must adopt bulky hull. Large deck space, more flexibility to future MCM drones. I think we must omit "high speed" requirement, which will significantly degrade the effectiveness as MHC ship, by requiring more slender hull. I think, 18 knot is max. Even 16 knots is doable.
I think it all depends on how this programme now proceeds. The crucial question appears to be, is the patrol capability still a major requirement or not? The perceived wisdom is that the RB2's are effectively the patrol element and we now have an MHC programme rather than a MHPC programme. This may be true but could this be effected by Brexit? Will at least 4 of the RB2's now be required to police the EEZ? Personally I think the minimum number required will be more like 6, hence the retained RB1's. A lot depends on the Brexit deal so time will tell.

If we proceed on the basis that it is now an MHC programme are we effectively just replacing the Echo Class with a similar sized vessel with a more modern configuration?

Here's the baseline,
Echo Class
Length: 90.6m
Beam: 16.8m
Top Speed: 15 knots
image.jpg


And the heir apparent,
Venari 85
Dimensions to be confirmed but broadly similar to the Echo Class.
image.jpg
Is Venari just a modernised Echo with a flight deck and garage added? The similarities are striking.

BMT tell us that Venari is available from 70m to 100m which provides plenty of options.


Another 90m vessel with 16.7m beam possibly worthy of consideration is the Kership LSPV90. http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... pv-90.html
image.jpg
At first glance it's hard to believe this vessel has virtually identical dimensions as an Echo and is the same length as an RB2.
image.jpg
Clearly the superstructure has been supersized to provide maximum accommodation but such high capacity in an OPV sized vessel is impressive.
image.jpg
The stern ramp is probably completely unnecessary on an MHC vessel but the side loading ramp might be a useful addition to Venari.
image.jpg
There are lots of things about this design that I don't like but equally I think there a number of things that this vessel does better than Venari. Overall for an OPV sized vessel the Kership LSPV90 is an impressive design especially when compared to something like an RB2.


Damen also have some interesting options that are a bit more conventional than the Kership.
image.jpg


The Damen MRAV 3600 has length of 85m, a 16m beam and a top speed of 16knots.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg


So lots of possible options for the MHC programme and it's interesting that all of these vessels are configured in a broadly similar way. If adopted Venari type vessels could become some of the most versatile assets that RN possess and this may be the reason the speed requirement rises above 16knots. Stretched out to 105m, a Wildcat embarked and a top speed of around 21/22 knots they could be very useful additions to the fleet.

Would vessels such as these actually be well suited to a wider patrol and HADR role?

Is it possible that outside of a conflict scenario they might just become a whole more useful that a basic Leander style T31?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Nov 2018, 22:46

If the Damen design mentioned is affordable under the MPHC budget I think it would be good fit for the RN, possibly reducing the need for the T-31e, and greatly increasing the flexibility of the fleet. To be perfect I would like to see the ability to "Bolt on", a three cell ExLS and have the CMS able to handle it for firing both Sea Ceptor and NLOS. In addition the new BAe/Bofors lightweight 40mm automatic mount would be a good fit, both for it and the Rivers. Modularity is going to be key to the design of the MPHC platform unless we are happy to accept different platforms using the same hull. Having 12+ platforms that can all carry out all the roles covered by the MPHC requirement and even exceed them to a certain extent would be where I would go. With that the B1 River would be transferred to other Government Departments to be used in a similar war to the larger cutters used by the USCG, but manned by non-military personnel.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Nov 2018, 10:52

I for one can't see how the patrol part can be left out as all of the MCM and the Echo class have a patrol role second to there main role always have had . I would still like to see a Venari-95/100 with a wildcat capable hangar and a 20 knot top speed. as i said in the past we need to take this opportunity to build a multi-mission sloop that can carry out MCM , Littoral ASW , Hydrograthic , Patrol and will help balance out the fleet . Also as said before I feel it should have

Scanter 4100 radar
hull mounted sonar
BAE CMS
wildcat capable hangar
Phalanx mount on hangar roof ( weapon to come from RN stock when needed )
armament as seen fit ( as said I would like to see a 57mm )

Off board systems

Unmanned MCM
CAPTAS-1 TAS
Hydrograthic systems
Hero UAV
Wildcat

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 837
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Jake1992 » 07 Nov 2018, 12:29

Tempest414 wrote:I for one can't see how the patrol part can be left out as all of the MCM and the Echo class have a patrol role second to there main role always have had . I would still like to see a Venari-95/100 with a wildcat capable hangar and a 20 knot top speed. as i said in the past we need to take this opportunity to build a multi-mission sloop that can carry out MCM , Littoral ASW , Hydrograthic , Patrol and will help balance out the fleet . Also as said before I feel it should have

Scanter 4100 radar
hull mounted sonar
BAE CMS
wildcat capable hangar
Phalanx mount on hangar roof ( weapon to come from RN stock when needed )
armament as seen fit ( as said I would like to see a 57mm )

Off board systems

Unmanned MCM
CAPTAS-1 TAS
Hydrograthic systems
Hero UAV
Wildcat


That pretty much spot on what Iv been thinking of for the MHCP set up, even though I'd like to see an couple more knots but that's by the by.
Something like this would add the much needed flexibility to the RN

My concern is the numbers, to do MCM, survay work, patrol and costal ASW a good amount will be needed.

MCM would need at least 4 active ( 2 in the gulf, 1 in home waters and 1 for standing NATO group )

Survey will need at least 1 active

Patrol id say would need at least 3 active ( 1 in the med, 1 around Africa and 1 in the Carrabean ) maybe more.

ASW I'd say at least 2 active

This means we need enough numbers to put out 10+ active vessels at any one time
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Nov 2018, 12:51

Jake1992 wrote:My concern is the numbers, to do MCM, survay work, patrol and costal ASW a good amount will be needed.


Most of tasks have no imperative for being contemporaneous
=> modularity is "the" answer

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Nov 2018, 13:04

I have always said I would like 12 to 15 of this type of ship I don't see them carrying all the tasks all the time however I would put a 3 ship squadron in the gulf 2 active and 1 in port at the new base for MCM we could also keep a ASW and Hydrograthic kit to use as needed

Jake1992
Member
Posts: 837
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Jake1992 » 07 Nov 2018, 13:48

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:My concern is the numbers, to do MCM, survay work, patrol and costal ASW a good amount will be needed.


Most of tasks have no imperative for being contemporaneous
=> modularity is "the" answer


Yes the kit is modular but the vessels to carry those kits will need to be avalible, this is why numbers concern me. No point in of having all this modular kit if you've only got enough vessels to only ever do one task at any one time whether that be MCM ASW or Patrole.

Tempest414 wrote:I have always said I would like 12 to 15 of this type of ship I don't see them carrying all the tasks all the time however I would put a 3 ship squadron in the gulf 2 active and 1 in port at the new base for MCM we could also keep a ASW and Hydrograthic kit to use as needed


MCM in the gulf and MCM training in home waters will need to be conducted at the same time though as is done now, the same goes for MCM in the gulf and patrol off Africa or the carrebean being done at the same time. These tasks are not done one at a time they are simultaneously done and this is where the numbers are needed.
Yes the joy of the off bored systems is that a vessels that was doing patrol one month could do MCM the next but the number of host vessels to do these jobs is still needed. Like you posted you'd still have 2 active in the gulf with 1 at dock just as I said you need to be active there

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Nov 2018, 14:52

There is no MHPC, but only MHC.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -00528.pdf
Hydrographic and Patrol Capability Programme (MHPC) has now been renamed the Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic Capability (MHC). The name was changed following the announcement of the Maritime Composite Option (MCO) deal between MoD and BAE on 6 November 2013, which included the purchase of 3 new Offshore Patrol Vessels and therefore delivered the 'Patrol' solution.

So, no patrol anymore. Specifically, as Hunts and Sundowns are covering patrol now, MHC will also do the same. But I think the "high-speed" requirement has been happily omitted, thanks to the 5 River B2s. It enabled huge capability increase (or big cost decrease and more number) by enabling fat and bulky hull to be used.

Again, I think 18 knots is the most we need.

Also I think 8 unit will replace the current 12 MCMV and 2 Hydro. ships. 6 to replace 12 MCMVs and 2 for 2 Echos. By doing that, the huge costs for RoV MCM kits will be covered.

Also note that "light-role" MCM = just deploying side-scan sonar equipped drones, will be done by many assets: 5 River B2, 8 T26s, 5 T31s, in addition to "8" MHCs.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Nov 2018, 16:47

Here we go again, halving the MCN fleet leaves us with too few platforms. The threat of mines is increasing and we in out own brand of stupidity cut yet another area where we were looked upon as global leaders in capability. It is amazing how effective the MoD and Government are at getting information out about topics like this under the radar. Many must be thanking God for BREXIT and the attention it attracts daily from the media, even though this was announced prior to this event.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Nov 2018, 22:31

Lord Jim wrote:Here we go again, halving the MCN fleet leaves us with too few platforms. The threat of mines is increasing and we in out own brand of stupidity cut yet another area where we were looked upon as global leaders in capability. It is amazing how effective the MoD and Government are at getting information out about topics like this under the radar. Many must be thanking God for BREXIT and the attention it attracts daily from the media, even though this was announced prior to this event.
Sorry, the number "8" is only my personal proposal. (MHPC --> MHC is official, as I understand).

And, my "6 for MCM" is based on replacements for 12 MCMVs and I intend no cut. Sorry if I mislead you.

I think MHC vessel shall carry hi-end remote MCM kits. Even two sets of them. In my view, MCM is very time consuming activity, requiring "days to months" to conduct one task. If a new MHC (with MCM kits) can cover twice the speed of current one, its "1:1 replacement" will be "2 MCMVs replaced with 1 MHC", because the time needed to finish the task will be the same.

Here I am not proposing any cuts. Contrary, I am proposing the "hi-end remote MCM kits" shall be hi-end and thus expensive. Do not spend money on hulls, this is my point.

I think French navy is replacing their MCMVs with 4 large PSV-like ships?

If patrol needs is there, fully utilize River B2s (we know the 4 River B1s are not fully utilized those few years). And if not enough, build more OPVs.

The lo-end remote MCM kits, which is just scanning with side-scan sonar, can now be done with many many assets, including the OPV itself (T31, T26, MHC, OPV or any PSVs-like ships).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Lord Jim » 07 Nov 2018, 23:49

Ok that makes more sense. I would still like 12 larger MHC vessels that are able to carry out multiple roles through "Modules", six of which would be the high end MCM sets, and day up to four sets for hydro graphics and other survey work. That would mean you could have >six operating as MCM platforms, >2 as Survey and >2 for patrol, but able to mix things up and cover maintenance cycles. I still like the idea of being able to mount a single three cell ExLS if needed, taken from the T-31 stockpile in my world and space to bolt on a Phalanx so they can operate in higher threat environments if needed. The former being able to fire NLOS as well as Sea Ceptor would significantly boost their defence against swarm attacks. These vessels are a golden opportunity for the UK to generate a platform that be a real force multiplier and be of interest to other nations.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby shark bait » 08 Nov 2018, 09:35

Not seen that French concept, it looks the bees knees, a bit fat simple hull painted grey, and the RORO ramp is a nice touch. A bunch of something similar to replace everything that isn't an escort would do nice.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Nov 2018, 10:23

Lord Jim wrote:Ok that makes more sense. I would still like 12 larger MHC vessels that are able to carry out multiple roles through "Modules", six of which would be the high end MCM sets, and day up to four sets for hydro graphics and other survey work. That would mean you could have >six operating as MCM platforms, >2 as Survey and >2 for patrol, but able to mix things up and cover maintenance cycles. I still like the idea of being able to mount a single three cell ExLS if needed, taken from the T-31 stockpile in my world and space to bolt on a Phalanx so they can operate in higher threat environments if needed. The former being able to fire NLOS as well as Sea Ceptor would significantly boost their defence against swarm attacks. These vessels are a golden opportunity for the UK to generate a platform that be a real force multiplier and be of interest to other nations.
Very powerful fleet I agree but,
1: it will be very expensive. Bulky enough hull, with fast enough speed, with good enough damage control, with hi-end capable CMS (AAW is never a easy job). (CIWS is no problem, but its capability will not allow the ship to go med-level threat) I cannot see how it can be built in number = cheap enough.
2: the concept will interest other navies, but the ship itself is very simple, so many of them will build by their own, while the kits onboard could be sold.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Nov 2018, 10:51

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry, the number "8" is only my personal proposal. (MHPC --> MHC is official, as I understand).

donald_of_tokyo wrote:And, my "6 for MCM" is based on replacements for 12 MCMVs and I intend no cut. Sorry if I mislead you.


For me when we talk about replacing hulls 2 for 1 it makes me very worried indeed yes I get the fact that with the new systems lets say 1 Venari -95 could do the job of 2 MCMVs and maybe there Bay Mother ship. But I would see this as opportunity to increase the fleets capability so in this case I would be looking to replace the 15 ships ( 13 MCMV & 2 Echos ) with 12 ships it still means the RN would lose 3 ships from the fleet however it would increase its capability with said kit

7 x Unmanned MCM kits = 14 current MCMVs
4 x Littoral ASW kits = A 4 x uplift in capability
3 x Hydrograthic kits = 3 current Echo class
Hero UAVs

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5297
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby shark bait » 08 Nov 2018, 10:58

Lord Jim wrote:These vessels are a golden opportunity for the UK to generate a platform that be a real force multiplier and be of interest to other nations.


It not about the ship. Payloads over platforms.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Nov 2018, 11:36

Tempest414 wrote:For me when we talk about replacing hulls 2 for 1 it makes me very worried indeed yes I get the fact that with the new systems lets say 1 Venari -95 could do the job of 2 MCMVs and maybe there Bay Mother ship. But I would see this as opportunity to increase the fleets capability so in this case I would be looking to replace the 15 ships ( 13 MCMV & 2 Echos ) with 12 ships it still means the RN would lose 3 ships from the fleet however it would increase its capability with said kit

7 x Unmanned MCM kits = 14 current MCMVs
4 x Littoral ASW kits = A 4 x uplift in capability
3 x Hydrograthic kits = 3 current Echo class
Hero UAVs
I’m pretty much afraid, it will either cost a lot to even cutting 1 or 2 T26s, the whole T31, or capability of each vessel will be very low.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 08 Nov 2018, 12:00

I disagree if the first 4 ships come on line with 3 MCM kits and 1 ASW kit with the next batch of 4 doing the same and the last batch of 4 coming on line with with 2 hyrograthic kits and 2 ASW kits the whole program can be spread out

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2541
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 08 Nov 2018, 12:32

Tempest414 wrote:I disagree if the first 4 ships come on line with 3 MCM kits and 1 ASW kit with the next batch of 4 doing the same and the last batch of 4 coming on line with with 2 hyrograthic kits and 2 ASW kits the whole program can be spread out
? Sorry, I am talking about total cost. "Coming on line" will contribute to make it cheap how?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1798
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Nov 2018, 23:16

Ok looking at a cheaper core design, as I want all twelve to be the same, I would arm them with the new light weight BAe/Bofors 40mm but have them FFBNW a single Phalanx and two pedestal mounts for Starstreak/LMM, similar to the one used by the Army, and of course two to four MGs ranging from the M2HB to the 7.62 Gatling. This at least gives them some self defence capability against air and sea threat. To cover the various roles a vessel of between 1000t and 1200t would be needed. This is substantially more than the Hunt Class which is the RNs largest MCM. However this would allow for greater endurance and habitability. Although the 'P' has gone for now I would like to see it put back into the list of requirements as a secondary duty as I do not think the current numbers of Rivers is sufficient for the UK's needs.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8027
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Nov 2018, 05:06

Lord Jim wrote: and of course two to four MGs ranging from the M2HB to the 7.62 Gatling.
I would go for the latter
as fast boats approaching head-on are not much taller a target than a standing man
http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/found ... _iran1.jpg showing an an armed copy of British shipmaker Ice Marine’s Bladerunner series - and for once you can carry enough ammo. Belts just need to be longer :D

... or you could constantly rotate one of these http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/found ... 2-jddc.jpg over the area of clearing ops, as they did in the 'Combat Hammer' that The Drive has documented for the wider public.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Mine countermeasures and Hydrographic capability (MHC) (MHPC)

Postby Tempest414 » 09 Nov 2018, 10:50

donald_of_tokyo wrote:? Sorry, I am talking about total cost. "Coming on line" will contribute to make it cheap how?


Sorry Donald you are right. However most should know by now that I feel if the RN/UK are to get what it needs it needs to start planning and funding properly. And as I have said many times MHPC should make up 150 million of a 1.1 billion per year ship building plan for the next 30 years with 12 to 14 MHPC ships built in the first 15 years of this plan. Now when we look at the current funding for surface ships for 2016-2026 it is set at 19 billion with a rule of thumb that this is split 50/50 for new ships and upkeep of the fleet this would give a new ship fund of 9.5 billion which if we split into per year is 950 million per year which is only 150 million per year short of my wanted budget to build a proper balanced fleet. which as I laid out before could look like this after 15 years

7 x Type 26 ASW built 1 every 2 years cost per year 500 million ( program to run over 30 years)
5 x Type 31 ASW built 1 every 2 years cost per year 225 million ( program to run over 10 years )
12 x MHPC Multi-mission sloops built 1 every year cost per year 150 million ( program to run over 12 years)
3 x FSS built 1 every 2 years cost per year 175 million ( program to run over 6 years)
3 x B2 Bays built 1 every 16 months cost per year 175 million ( program to run over 4 years)
1 x LPH built over 3 years cost per year 250 million
1 x Hospital ship built over 2 years cost per years 150 million

Note this funding would leave 150 million free for other programs between years 10 and 15


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests