donald_of_tokyo wrote: Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I think T31e shall better be more smaller, to be on the largest end of heavy corvettes. Mission bay is particularly unpopular for export, neither long range/endurance. Export customers can just ban mission bays amidship, and fill VLS there. Also, "looking fighty" is very important for export, as well.
I agree with a lot of your analysis Donald especially concerning the export potential of Corvettes but do RN really need a class of Corvettes or Frigates?
Going by previous history the obvious answer is Frigates but if RN is moving towards a forward basing strategy to offset the movement of resources towards enabling Carrier Strike just maybe shorter range heavily armed Corvettes may work. If not, it would be asking RN to have 5 heavy corvettes that they don't want or need.
My question would be, if you were to design the perfect export oriented heavy corvette that you described above, what would the spec look like and are you confident 5 such vessels could be built for £1.25bn?
Thanks. My proposal is not much far from Leander, a ~120m ship with ~3500t FLD. Also, the original Venator 110 (in 3 years ago), when it was more narrow, with the 117m length and 3500t FLD. Actually, I prefer a bit smaller option, say, 110m length and ~3300t FLD.
This is the typical size of light frigate we saw in 1990s. M-class, MEKO-200 class and so on. So, they can go blue water "so-so" conveniently.
- As a (relatively) narrow ship, it can obtain 25 kt+ speed with the propulsion of Khareef, 2x 9200kW diesels.
- For export, it must be able to be heavily armed. Because it is one-rank larger than heavy corvette, it must have "add one" to a heavy corvette, (i.e. Khareef) which has a 57/76 mm gun, 12-16 CAMM, and a few 30mm canons.
- The "add one" will be either 16-cell Mk 41 VLS with large SSM, or 16-tubes of canistered SSMs, or option to carry Aster 15/30 in place of CAMM.
- These "add ones" can be accommodated amidship. In case of Leander, where the mission bay is located. No need for mission bay in export. Even I doubt the need for RN. (*1)
- Also, long range is not good. Being forward based, the RN can also live with shorter range. How about 4500nm @ 15kts/28 days?
*1: not saying RN fleet as a whole do not need the mission bay. Just saying, T31e do not need to have it.
Overall, I am just looking for a stretched Khareef, a bit shorter than Leander, with reduced mission bay area. Not both 2 ISO containers and 2 ORCs, but only one of them. Make it simple, much more similar the Khareef, to make the design more reusable.
Jake1992 wrote:Eg if the MOD for example could of been allowed to spend like this say
Year 1 - £3bn
Year 2 - £3bn
Year 3 - £2bn
Year 4 - £1bn
Year 5 -£1bn
Year 1 - £2bn
Year 2 - £2bn
Year 3 - £2bn
And so on
They could of saved money for the same out come
It was more a point to forced yearly budgeted by the treasurey instead of multi annual budgets are cost the MOD and tax payers more
I understand your point. But, there is not "£3bn" in the Year-1. Treasury does not have a big strong room full of money.
Annual cash flow is the reality. If there is not cash to flow in, you are just bankrupt, or just shut-down as we see in USA. If RN really wants the £3bn in the Year-1, they shall just have a debt. And then, the "£1bn" in Year-5 will simply disappear because of the interest of the debt.