Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
Perhaps you could amplify your claim that the FTI is so much better than a Leander.
Yes, the FTI will come fitted with a HMS plus towed array rather than just being fitted to receive. But what else?
In other words, for twice the price, what does the customer get for the extra money?

Many.
- The sensor will be much better.

I assume you mean radar which I disagree. Artisan can project more power in any direction, is mounted higher therefore giving more coverage, and its software (it's a software controlled radar) is second to none being based on UKPAAMS/Sampson with upgrades from the joint Anglo-American program to reduce clutter.

The AAW capability is 16 Aster 30 vs 12 CAMM, significantly different. (quantum leap. Not saying FTI is great, but saying Leander's AAW is fairly basic).

Ok let's upgrade the CAMM cells to 48, aand CAMM to CAMM-ER. No problem with Leander. As a PDS, I cannot think why Aster 15 would be more effective, it is certainly at least an order of magnitude more expensive. I would guess that Aster would be a better area defense missile tho, subject to its range limitations.

As such, the CMS level will be "more than twice" (as cost suggests) better in FTI than Leander.

Oh pulease.

ASW is "so-so good (2nd-tier)" in FTI, and nothing in Leander (*1)

I already said that.

8 SSM vs zero (*1)

I already said that.

But, 2 RHIBs vs 4 RHIBs, better in Leander.

Not only that but Leander can take 11m ribbies, FTI is limited to 8.5m.

I'll do a detailed costing in a later post.

[Ron5]

But thats my point. The T31 price by the RFI seems to indicate it will not have these. The option to = will cost more at some point. Just because it can doesn't mean it has the fitting, the braces, the canisters, the connections, the crew station, the tools etc. FTI does, and it is included in its cost. Hence why it costs more. It's coming out the box, no need for costed refit to use them at some point.

No RN warship has Harpoons assigned. They are pooled and fitted when needed. The below decks support for them is minimal, it's not a sophisticated system.

It does, it has 16x Sylver A50 silos, which can carry Aster-30, along with the connectivity and internal systems fit to use them. (Note that FREMMs 5-6 needed upgraded to go from Aster-15 to Aster-30, there is dedicated stuff for long range AAW that also costs money.)

I was not aware of this, how much will it add to the FTI to have Aster 30's instead of ASter 15's?

Artisan is an older model of radar now compared to modern solid state AESAs. One small aspect doesn't make up for it being almost certainly better in pretty much every other measurable way. It's like sticking with a rifled gun over a smoothbore simply because it can fire one borderline obsolete round a little further.

Incorrect. See my comments to Donald-san. I'm aware of your belief that a fixed AESA is inherently better than any other type of radar including rotating AESA. We've had this discussion before.

But where in the T31 RFI for the £250m price are they?

Included.

It'd need more than that as well, but if they can indeed do Leander for FTIs price with comparable capability I'm all fine. I'm not denying that Leander as a hull design can't match it if given budget and support, I'm saying that the T31 RFI designations to £250m cannot create a comparable ship that is "only just lacking sonar" and nothing else really worth mentioning. That's the part I disagree with.

I'll do a costing later for your (& everyone else's) amusement

[Ron5]

The one thing I would add is, if HMG decided to raise the budget for the T31 programme up to the level required to procure Tier2 Frigates (£400m to £500m) would RN pick Leander as the most suitable hull? Clearly not.

If you insist on a clean sheet, new design, that will swallow up most of your extra budget so you 'll end up with a sexy looking ship with very little extra capability.

How far would Leander get in the FFG(X) competition? I suspect not very far so if it's not good enough for USN why should we be happy to see it forced upon the Royal Navy?

Why would I do that? FFG(X) is a different requirement. The Type 26 doesn't fit it either.

Would you like me to force LCS onto the Royal Navy? If it were me, I'd give the whole lot to you for nothing

[Ron5]

I'm not suggesting the Type 31 program be changed or the budget increased but following the earlier line of thought, how far could a Leander be improved, at what cost and how well would it the match up to the FTI as advertised today.

I don't know, and nobody else on this board knows either, the relative merits of the survivability of the two designs so I am going to make a huge and sweeping assumption that they are broadly equivalent.

So given that, my Super-Leander (TM) gets extended by 3m (per brochure) and taking Aethelwolfs suggestion, that allows for a Merlin size hangar to go with the existing Merlin capable deck (or 2 Wildcats, or 1 Wildcat plus unmanned Firescout type helo), plus Mk 42 5" gun with manually operated magazine (design work already done), plus 48 cells of CAMM-ER (CAMM only VLS are extremely cost effective, essentially they have no systems because the CAMM container/launcher contains them), plus additional quietening for ASW while under (existing) electric drive (a previous survey that I have quoted before, concluded a European ASW frigate costs 25% more than an AA or GP design, so I used that number), plus the same HMS & towed array as the Type 26 plus one Mk 41 VLS.

I did some quick research to find approx prices for the additional bits. This is UPC, I very much doubt that the extra design/service/support required would be significant as all these capabilities are supposed to be allowed for and the extra kit will all be in RN service.

I didn't claim anything for cost avoidance e.g. not fitting a 76mm gun.

UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 plus 25% uplift to ASW (51)
£259 plus Type 2150 HMS (3)
£289 plus Type 2087 Towed array (30)
£297 plus manual 5” Gun (38)
£309 plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12)
£321 plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12)
£331 plus extra CMS licensing cost (10)


So a design that is comfortably superior to FTI for a lot, lot, less.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks Ron5-san. May be I shall wait for your "cost" comment, but technical issue can be discussed independently.

- The sensor will be much better.

I assume you mean radar which I disagree. Artisan can project more power in any direction, is mounted higher therefore giving more coverage, and its software (it's a software controlled radar) is second to none being based on UKPAAMS/Sampson with upgrades from the joint Anglo-American program to reduce clutter.

Do not agree.
- I agree your argument that "being AESA does not mean better", of course. JMSDF uses AESA from 1990s (fact), but I am not saying its radar is better than Sampson.
- Artisan 3D is fairly cheap, 5M GBP per unit, but still losing against Smart-S Mk2 even in Canada and New Zealand, and Chili. I think Artisan is a little expensive than Smart-S Mk2, but if it is very superior in its performance, it shall win. I "guess" losing means Artisan is "is better than, but not super-better than" Smart-S Mk2.
- FTI is design to operate Aster 30, not Aster 15. I think Artisan or Smart-S Mk2 is not designed to do so.
All in all, I have no confidence Artisan 3D is better than Thales SeaFire. Not because SeaFire is AESA, but because SeaFire looks like aiming at higher performance.

The AAW capability is 16 Aster 30 vs 12 CAMM, significantly different. (quantum leap. Not saying FTI is great, but saying Leander's AAW is fairly basic).

Ok let's upgrade the CAMM cells to 48, aand CAMM to CAMM-ER. No problem with Leander.

Leander at 250M GBP carries only 12 CAMM (or even none). Not 48, and not ER.

As a PDS, I cannot think why Aster 15 would be more effective, it is certainly at least an order of magnitude more expensive. I would guess that Aster would be a better area defense missile tho, subject to its range limitations.

It is Aster30 onboard FTI. FREMM with 16 Aster-15 on vs T26 with 48 CAMM, I agree the latter is better. But it looks like France is going to adopt Aster30 for many if not all of their Aster equipped escorts. Interesting move.

As such, the CMS level will be "more than twice" (as cost suggests) better in FTI than Leander.

Oh please.

Sorry, "please" what?

How a CMS level of a 470M GBP unit cost FTI can be lesser than 250M GBP Leander? Zero possibility. FTI's CMS is design to control, Aster 30, CAPTAS4CI, a gun, and all the other sensor-kits, while CMS of Leander is required to handle only 12 CAMM, a gun and its sensor-kits.

ASW is "so-so good (2nd-tier)" in FTI, and nothing in Leander (*1)... 8 SSM vs zero (*1)

I already said that.

ASW kit and SSM kit are NOT included in 250M GBP, so not existing, as I said. FTI has both.

Not only that but Leander can take 11m ribbies, FTI is limited to 8.5m.

Agreed.

No RN warship has Harpoons assigned. They are pooled and fitted when needed. The below decks support for them is minimal, it's not a sophisticated system.

Then cost it. It is not costed in 250M GBP Leander design. But, 8 Exocet is costed in 470M GBP FTI cost. Big difference.

I was not aware of this, how much will it add to the FTI to have Aster 30's instead of ASter 15's?

Aster 30 is within the 3.3B GBP total project cost.

But where in the T31 RFI for the £250m price are they?

Included.

What is included? As I read, SSM, ASW, torpedo defense in NOT included in £250m price. Only a gun, 12 CAMM, and 2 30mm guns (and electric kits).

[Poiuytrewq]

UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 25% uplift to ASW (51)
£259 Type 2150 HMS (3)
£289 Type 2087 Towed array (30)
£297 Plus manual 5” Gun (38)
£309 Plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12)
£321 Plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12)
£331 Extra CMS licensing cost (10)

Very nice Ron

Are these included in your base Leander?
Artisan
Sharpeye Nav radar
Satcom
Decoys
Phalanx mount and integration
Harpoon launchers and integration
2x 30mm's


With these modifications would it make it a Super-Duper Leander (TM)

One query,

To make Leander Merlin capable the width of the hanger will need widened by at least 2 meters. The height of the hanger will also need to be raised by a similar amount. Is this likely to result in the removal of the 30mm's from their current locations? If so where do you suggest putting them?

image.jpg

P.S. At around the £350m price point the Super Leander is firmly in Arrowhead140 territory and approaching Venator 110 or possibly even Venator 120. Pretty stiff competition.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm not suggesting the Type 31 program be changed or the budget increased but following the earlier line of thought, how far could a Leander be improved, at what cost and how well would it the match up to the FTI as advertised today.

Very interesting, thanks. Although I have some questions on the cost, the line of your though is helpful.

£205m Extend to 120m (5) : Interesting. If it includes "redesigning NH90 capable hangar to Merlin capable", I think it may cost more?

£259m plus Type 2150 HMS (3) : It is only sonar cost, and does not include console and software, I guess.

£297m plus manual 5” Gun (38) : Redesign will cost a lot (not power-point but real building, down to each and every screw). Also, anyway the arsenal will be small. Is this worth getting?

£309m plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12) : Not sure. Who pays for this compact cells? Can the "48 CAMM" is compatible with 5inch gun at the same time? Also, I CAMM missile itself cost a lot. I am happy with 24 here.

£321m plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12) : But what front-end electronics to be carried? No TLAM electronics? I am not a fan of mounting Mk 41, if it is not for ESSM (for export). One candidate is VL-ASROC.

£331m plus extra CMS licensing cost (10) : CMS-1 is a scalable CMS, covering from River B2 OPV to T26 or T45. T26's CMS is much much larger than that on T31. So, you need significant upgrade of the CMS itself, in addition to the software licensing costs. And both these two will be much more expensive than +£10m.

So a design that is comfortably superior to FTI for a lot, lot, less.

Not sure. If true, Khareef must have been very successful in export, but not.

But, as you said, Leander could be up-armed to be "so-so comparable to" FTI (except for AAW), but Leander is 3700t FLD, while FTI is 4200t. So, it will have limitation for sure. Everything is not for free.

[Lord Jim]

I do like all this "Micro scrutiny", that goes on here of peoples suggestions and ideas, not. To be honest the T-31e programme is an exercise is guestimation. Leander, super or not or Arrowhead 140 would all meet the RFI as it stands but with the MDP no one knows if this will change up or down. If people are happy to argue over the small details that are based on anything but supposition then fine but do it with a smile on ones face and respect others opinions.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I didn't claim anything for cost avoidance [e.g. not fitting a 76mm gun.]

UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 plus 25% uplift to ASW (51)

For the reason indicated below I stopped at Step3 @£256 million

At around the £350m price point the Super Leander is firmly in Arrowhead140 territory and approaching Venator 110 or possibly even Venator 120. Pretty stiff competition.

As the tail is only costed in later steps, is that +25% purely for enhancements during build, without kitting ASW out in any way? Might not be a bad investment, perhaps to be done in the later batches (when the mix for doing ASW, blue water and littoral, can be better assessed for the cost optimum - with at least one from both classes accepted into RN service!).

Further, I did not add the brackets around the 76mm gun to indicate in any way that the example for cost avoidance would be a bad one. However, cost avoidance is exactly the one argument that could bring T26-Light into the argument, as in
" The difficulty is trying to estimate the amount of money that can be saved by speeding up the build schedule. I think it would be considerable. " which is also a quote, from prev. page, but this system does not do multi-page quotes so copy/ paste, then.
- I am not in the position to guesstimate the £££ saved
- but drawing on studies, the concurrency would need to be 33-37% to yield optimal savings (without creating extra capacity that after the build prgrm would again be 'v expensive')
- so, compress the 2-yr drumbeat by that much, calculate if we can still meet the 1:1 replacement of the T-23 fleet (ASW+GP) by 2035
... and Bob's your uncle; except that we don't have the numbers (£££) to assess the viability of all this

[SW1]

The only reason type 31 exists is because the MoD drove a aircraft carrier sized budget increase thru the type 26 program! The Rn insisted it wanted quality over quantity then when it realised it was only to get 8 new ships in true cap badge protectionism went ooh we didn’t really mean it let’s build something cheap and the type 31 program was started!


Type 26 was the £250m frigate with systems ported from type 23 to reduce risk. Well that’s proved to be about as accurate as those costing above! The MoD has zero credibility for accurately forecasting cost and sticking to budgets hence it current predicamen.

[dmereifield]

UK millions
£200 Base 117m Leander
£205 Extend to 120m (5)
£256 plus 25% uplift to ASW (51)
£259 plus Type 2150 HMS (3)
£289 plus Type 2087 Towed array (30)
£297 plus manual 5” Gun (38)
£309 plus 48 compact CAMM cells (12)
£321 plus 8 cell strike length Mk 41 (12)
£331 plus extra CMS licensing cost (10)


So a design that is comfortably superior to FTI for a lot, lot, less.

If the RN could get that for £350 million they should be ordering as many as they can afford. I'd suggest that curbing the T26 order at 6, then adding the ca. £1.3bn saved to the £1.25bn T31 programme budget, you could buy 8 "super" T31. An escort fleet of 12 Tier 1 escorts (6 T45 and 6 T26) along with 8 Tier 2 "super" T31 would be a genuine uplift (if they could all be manned).

[Repulse]

If we are looking for a cheaper T26, why don’t we start looking there, rather than trying to dream up new classes that have birthed same capability, but magically are 50% the cost. The price difference cannot be purely down to the supplier BAE somehow ripping off the tax payer. It is already an export success and a cheaper version can only make it more so. I think this is the point Lord Jim is making.

I think there are various options where the design could be adapted or where the T31e budget could be spent for a greater good. For example, how much in the longer term would investing in a Frigate Factory save?

Also, we could focus on a sub class of 4 T26 Flight IIs to supplement say 7 “full fat” T26s - which are either focused as Carrier Escorts (e.g. reduction in Aviation Support / Mission Bay facilities) or U.K./North Atlantic Escorts (e.g. reduction in range). Design and fixed development costs should stay fairly static, so taking £750mn as a “full fat” unit price, then the challenge would be to get it down to a unit price of £500mn. Sounds much more doable than a brand new class.

Lastly, building the T26 in blocks and giving some of the work to the likes of Appledore would allow for broader risk adversion.

[Tempest414]

Lastly, building the T26 in blocks and giving some of the work to the likes of Appledore would allow for broader risk adversion.

This is something that has been going through my mind could we speed up type 26 build by having blocks built at Cammell Laird

Could we if we speed up the type 26 program and take 600 million from the 1.25 budget build 9 type 26 and with the remaining 650 million build 4 Venari 100m for 162 million each with

Scanter 4100 radar
BAE-CMS
1 x 57 mm
2 x 30mm
Hangar for Wildcat
Phalanx mount on the hangar roof ( phalanx it self would come from RN pool if needed this could also allow a possible UOR of SeaRam if needed)

Off board systems like unmanned MCM and Littoral ASW could also come later

[Tempest414]

It does, it has 16x Sylver A50 silos, which can carry Aster-30,

FTI with 16 cell Sylver A50 if the French or any other customer wished to fit CAMM as MBDA has said it can quad pack them in A50 VLS could give FTI 32 CAMM plus 8 other weapons or 64 CAMM for local AAW

[RetroSicotte]

I was not aware of this, how much will it add to the FTI to have Aster 30's instead of ASter 15's?

Donald thankfully already mentioned most of what I would, so I don't see a need to repeat him and bloat the thread, see his own post for the majority of response.

But on the one left quoted above, it is a significant addition. Aster-15 maxes out to around 30km in vaguye range capability. Aster-30 has four times the range.

[Pongoglo]

Personally I think this debate , although very interesting is slightly missing the crucial point.

Why are we comparing France's last generation Tier2 Frigate (La Fayette) and its Surveillance/Patrol Frigate (Floreal) to the UK's last generation Tier1 Frigate?

Is it not more important to focus on the comparisons going forward?

The French are not building any more Floreals or La Fayettes they are replacing them with FTI's, a much more advanced and capable class of Frigate.

The FTI although an usual design in many ways is vastly superior to what Leander is or ever will be. In my opinion the French have recognised the rapid pace of new emerging threats and have concluded that La Fayette type escort vessels are not going to be able to counter these emerging threats going forward hence the upgraded FTI with 8x Exocet, 16x Aster 15/30 and Captas 4 Compact.

Has the UK made a different threat assessment or are we just burying our head in the sand hoping everything will be OK whilst other Tier1 navies proceed in a very different direction?

What other Tier1 navy is introducing a Leander/Floreal/La Fayette type vessel at the expense of their Tier1 Frigates?

I think the UK needs a British FTI equivalent.

No we dont ! That's one pig ugly ship , and only rivaled by that new Italian thingy that looks even worse. Looks like one of those late 19th Century pre-Dreadnaughts that still had a ram. I should know I inherited a little tin clockwork one from my great, great Nan.

Actually as far as looks go I dont think the RN version of Leander looks too bad, and should be pretty capable too if it comes with all the good stuff depicted on the latest CGI. 4.5 inch gun, Harpoon, Phalanx and CAMM. My only reservation pretty much is the number of CAMM and this could be readily fixed by adding one or two 'Mushroom tubs' behind the Harpoon launchers and in the space currently reserved for the Mk 41?

T31 RN Best.jpg

[Poiuytrewq]

Could we if we speed up the type 26 program and take 600 million from the 1.25 budget build 9 type 26....

Sounds plausible but if a collaboration with Cammell Laird would now bring further savings and efficiencies I would look to investigate what the 5 cancelled T26 GP's would now cost if the plans went full and circle back to square one.

With the export success in Australia and maybe more good news to come from Canada might BAE now consider being a little more amenable if it kills off the T31 programme in its current form?

[SW1]

It does, it has 16x Sylver A50 silos, which can carry Aster-30,

FTI with 16 cell Sylver A50 if the French or any other customer wished to fit CAMM as MBDA has said it can quad pack them in A50 VLS could give FTI 32 CAMM plus 8 other weapons or 64 CAMM for local AAW

FTI also has the option for 16 cell sylver A70 to be fitted along with the 16 A50 for any export customers wishing to buy it.


Repulse

So why not bang heads together and have your assembly yard as Rosyth for all warships. Build the blocks wherever you want.

Wonder how many of the designs he would approve off

[ArmChairCivvy]

This is something that has been going through my mind could we speed up type 26 build by having blocks built at Cammell Laird

I think BAES has already made up their mind: Build whatever (blocks or the whole thing) @CL, but hi-end (the real meaning of 'complex warships') will strictly stay with us.
- compare what the first order (for 3) brought in vs. the whole budget (for 5) T31s... easy to understand where they are coming from

[Poiuytrewq]

I think the UK needs a British FTI equivalent.

No we dont ! That's one pig ugly ship , and only rivaled by that new Italian thingy that looks even worse.

The cosmetics aren't important, I don't like the look of the FTI or PPA Frigates either but it's the capability that's impressive albeit for twice the price of Leander.

The FTI is a lot of performance packed into a realitivly small hull and is 'quirky' like most French designs whereas the Italians have taken innovation towards the extreme end of the scale and come up with something pretty radical but undoubtedly practical and effective (if not attractive to look at).

At 143m X 16.5m the PPA sits between a T23 and T26 in size. This isn't a lightweight Patrol Frigate.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... l-vessels/

image.jpg

The design of the stern mission space is particularly interesting with a stern ramp AND towed array along with space for 5 ISO containers. The inclusion of heavyweight torpedoes is also an interesting choice.

The amidships design is unusual and won't help its radar reduction credentials but this space can embark another 8 ISO's making 13 in total. This amidships space can also be reconfigured to embark two large RHIBs, LCVPs or CB90's. It's a very practical use of space aided by the inclusion of a 20t crane.

The hanger is a pretty conventional design thats big enough to embark 2x Wildcats or a single Merlin.

image.jpg

One of the most interesting parts of the PPA programme is the fact that of the seven hulls that the Italians intend to procure, they will be built to 3 different specifications. Light, Light Plus and Full. The image below shows what systems are included and deleted on each variant.

Could this approach work on the T31 programme? If so the choice of which basic hull form with which to proceed will be crucial to a successful outcome.

image.jpg

In the FULL configuration, the PPA looks to have formidable ASW potential, it will be interesting to see how it compares to the Type 26 when it's in the water.

I think the UK could learn a lot from the PPA programme in particular and it is interesting that the T31, FTI and PPA programmes are running concurrently but the most obvious difference between the 3 programmes is that the French and Italian governments are funding their Frigate programmes properly from the outset.

I suspect this will have a discernible effect on the outcome.

[serge750]

I do like the idea of building blocks in other yards for the T26 to decrease the production build rate & possibly increase numbers, would this be possible or would it just muck around with the build plans of the second batch of T26?

If the RN does have a shortage of crews in the short term, perhaps it is a good idea & cancel T31.

For me it is either that or building only 3 or 4 Leanders instead of 5 with an increased capability, ( maybe the extended design talked about on here , including 8 x mk 41 VLS) then maybe in the late 2020's see if it is plausible building a second batch if the requirement/funds are there.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Re: the above, boat launching only coming on (in red) with the full version?
- is it that TAS takes its place, and in the "lower" versions it is done from a working deck aft?

Anyway, we have the light in R2, would be nice to see the specs/ fitting out of Leander, in two lengths and to correspond to the other two versions
- the only way to get a full line up; does not mean to imply that I would be favouring Leander in our T31 competition

[Lord Jim]

I am quietly hoping that the MDP will revisit the T-26 programme and T-31e programme and cancel the latter whilst speeding up and increasing the former as has been mentioned here. It has proven to be a platform with export potential, removing one of the reasons for the T-31e in the first place, and if production were spread over various yards from say the seventh platform onwards if would fulfil another key reason for the T-31e. We need continuity in our warship building strategy, not the current stop and start approach we have had for the past decades. If we used the T-26 platform as the basis for the RNs future fleet, keeping production going into the 2040s even it can only benefit all concerned. The size of the Platform provides scope for future variants to be configured for various role such as dedicated AAW platform to replace the T-45 for example. It would also allow the platform to evolve as batched are designed and built, further reducing costs both in construct and service. This in turn would drive the modernisation of earlier vessels as so on. As a result the RN would have a coherent fleet of high end escorts, BAe and its partners would probably receive further export orders and the UK will have a stable and cost effective warship building capability. Everyone wins.

[Tempest414]

and for this to work we need a year on year budget for the 25 to 30 years

[donald_of_tokyo]

There are two points, forcing the T31e program as it is now.
1: Small amount of money, less than half of that of FTI.
2: Lack of time. T26 is already on going.

What makes it complicated is item-2. We can propose to cut 2 T26, add their 1.5B GBP to make T31 into a program for "5 tier-2 escorts". But, BEAS Clyde loses ~3 years of work, which means 0.7B GBP (£230 million/year) in total to keep the ship yard busy until T45 replacement. In other words, 2 out of 5 "tier-2 escorts" must be built in Clyde. Any such proposal shall take it into account. May be we need to order 3 T26, 2 "T31+", and 3 T26, from BAES. Not sure if this mixed build is efficient enough.


If the cost is fixed, from item-1, HMG set the requirements to T31 fairly low compared to FTI. No problem, T31 is a ship with a unit cost "a half" of an FTI. Clearly, FTI and Leander is not in the same league, similar to saying Type-45 and FTI is not in the same league.


And, there is another point:
3: MDP comes fairly soon, but also SDSR2020 comes very soon.

If these review gives more money, no problem, so let's forget about it. If they give further cuts, which is likely by nearly 50% probability, we need to prepare for it. If cut is there in MDP, I propose to cut T31e program, to save T26. But, what if T31e survives MDP but SDSR2020 forces us for further cut?

To handle this possibility, I propose to order T31 with batch-1 with 3 hulls (~800M GBP) and leave the other 2 hull's contract until SDSR2020.
- if the cut in SDSR2020 is ~500M GBP in purchase cost, just cut the 2-more T31e.
- if the cut in SDSR2020 is ~800M GBP in purchase cost, cut 2 T26 (to save 1.5B GBP) and order "3 more" T31e to Clyde with 700M GBP to save keep the ship yard running for 3 years.
- if the cut is more, we need to find another place for cut. LPD-replacement, PoW active-or-extended readiness, or else.