Also, for those that persist with the "glorified OPV" label - please bear in mind that one of the designs is a current NATO partner's Tier 1 frigate design, that has been fully shock-tested, meets current NATO noise standards for ASW warfare, design and survivabiliy and is RN FOST-approved (for the same design standards). Also consider that the same Nato partner's related logistic derivative of the same design is currently deployed with one of the NATO standing groups (SNMG1) and their Tier 2 "frigate" is operating in MCM "command ship" mode to SNMCMG1.
Another of the designs is in service with two Five-eyes allies. three NATO partners and two other allied Navies, for most of them as their Tier 1 (or only) class of frigate.
The third is a new design, but built to ANEP warship standards (the MOD is a founder member of that standards organisation, so we had a big say in agreeing those standard). It's unproven, but BAE is a very capable ship-builder and designer, when it chooses to be. It has, however contributed to the perception that naval construction costs are much higher than they need to be.
Repulse wrote:Buying a £400-500mn design and cutting it back to a £250mn budget is a bad way to go about things,
And yet, so many propose that that is exactly what we do with the T26 design (only in that case it's a £750-850m design that we would have to cut back to £250m)
And I notice that you haven't answered the point that the companies proposing these designs don't feel that it's an issue. They went into this process knowing the cost parameters (and the actual
build costs) and felt that they could not only take part, but make a profit.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.