Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

How about a 3700t ship
-----
* 117 meters long
* 14.6 meters beam
Artsian radar
* CAPTAS-4CI (not CAPTAS-4) TAS
* a single NH90 capable hangar (if in CVTF, Merlin will come from CVs).
2x Boat houses ( No Mission Bay)
* 1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 12 CAMM - 8 VL-ASROC
* CODOE propulsion (electric mode up to 15knots)
------
As you see, this is a slightly modified Leander, actually more like the original Cutlass.

We will all have our ideas on what could work . For me I would go for a 130 meter long by 19 meter beam design for a few reasons first better sea keeping and more space for long crew deployments . next it allows growth if needed also for me the idea that a ASW carrier group escort carrying 2 Merlin's means the carrier its self can carry 4 more aircraft this could be 4 more ASW helicopters or a extra crowsnest and 3 more F-35 or 2 Chinooks.

However my main point is that instead of building 5 GP ships we should be building 5 Carrier group ASW escorts to free up the 8 Type 26s to work as a true globally deployable force. For me this could mean that Australia , Canada and the UK could have a 3 ship Type 26 squadron in the Asian-Pacific full time which could joining a UK carrier group or a Australian Canberra class amphib group when in the region

also as for any new ASW escort for the carrier group it might be a good option for RNZN

[ArmChairCivvy]

Unclear whether the new-ish NDP was involved at concept phase... it was set up to help delineate the "possible" area within which cost and capability could realistically meet (= a concept). More specifically
"The NDP multi-company construct is necessary to draw innovation from a wide base into future concept designs. It has been recognized that extra skills beyond those available within the MOD are required for the successful integration of concept studies. The multi-industry participation capitalises on the wealth of naval capabilities available within the UK defence industry, while being part of the MOD allows NDP to take full advantage of the breadth of MOD capabilities and expertise. The NDP construct also improves value for money and efficiency by having an operating model that allows rapid creation of projects or tasking of design teams under the NDP framework.

What programmes will the NDP Team cover?

The NDP Team's remit covers naval surface vessels, including all their platform systems and future combat systems architecture. The team also has a role in more complex Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels. Submarines are covered by a separate team, NDP Submarines.

The MOD gains high quality, innovative and integrated concept design work at good value for money that supports the development of world leading naval vessels.

The NDP Team's industry element is made up of core member companies which have been selected for their breadth and depth in warship and combat systems concept design skills. The core members are: Babcock, BAE Systems, BMT Group, Finmeccanica, MBDA Missile Systems, QinetiQ and Thales. In addition, a large number of non-core companies are associated with NDP, and have been selected for their specialist skills, products or technologies."

[inch]

as a side note a qe class and Australian Canberra in a single carrier group going to be a potent force with a few t26 of both types and a t45 and Hobart and hopefully a astute and shortfin barracuda somewhere about going to be match for most im quessing ,should be able to sail anywhere really .looking forward to seeing that folks (yes sorry wrong thread )

[donald_of_tokyo]

Tempest414-san

Thanks. My sole point is, how to realize it. I think we have no luxury to invest for "larger growth margin in case of more investment in future", simply because
- it is too optimistic, and in this case such "luxury" will become a complete waste of money (a large ship never be up-armed, wasting fuel, maintenance, crew load, increasing noise and radar cross section = many drawbacks).
- if the "good news" comes in 10 years future, no problem we already have bunches of lists to buy (*1).

To say the truth, I was also "dreaming" on T31e. In those days, I though the cost could be as high as 2.5B GBP or so = twice the current T31e program cost. Yes! Even with 2-unit cost equivalent design+initial cost, we can have a frigate with a unit cost 360M GBP. Even Venator 110 can come. For Arrowhead 140, in which I guess design+initial will be only 1 unit-cost equivalent, 420M GBP! Great ! FTI-level of equipment can be realized.

All these optimism dried out in me when I show 1.25B GBP program cost, and then I became a "lover" for Leander. Think small, keep it affordable, and avoid hollow ships with large space called "growth margin", which will never be filled and just wasting fuel.

But note, all this is only in case T31e program continues. My favorite is of course 1 more T26 and 3 Floreal-like.

*1: For example, if 1B GBP is added in future for ASW,
- just buy 5 P8A (150M x5 = 750M), and add CAPTAS4CI to the 5 Leanders (50M x5 = 250M GBP).
- Or add 2 more Leander with CAPTAS4CI (600M GBP), and add CAPTAS4CI to the 5 existing Leanders (50M x5 = 250M GBP), with 150M GBP for something else.
As you can see, I have no shortage of "wish lists" to buy, even if the T31e turned out to be 5 Leanders. This is why I am supporting Leander, which with the smallest investment in hull, can armed the best.

[Tempest414]

T45 was expensive than Horizon, T26 is expensive than FREMM. But, do UK has money to build "2nd-tier" escort which shall be expensive than FTI? I think NO. Cost is the sole point, I am not hoping for such a frigate to come.

Firstly the UK dose have the money but Hammond will not spend it however if we were to go for a carrier group optimized ASW escort at a program cost of 2.25 billion or 450 million per ship we could fund this two ways firstly a simple uplift of 1 billion added to the standing 1.25 budget or second add 250 million to the 1.25 standing budget and cut a type 26 and move the 750 million across. option 1 would give us 19 proper escorts and option 2 would give us 18 proper escorts this would still give us 7 type 26s free to be deployed as seen fit

[donald_of_tokyo]

Firstly the UK dose have the money but Hammond will not spend it however if we were to go for a carrier group optimized ASW escort at a program cost of 2.25 billion or 450 million per ship we could fund this two ways firstly a simple uplift of 1 billion added to the standing 1.25 budget or second add 250 million to the 1.25 standing budget and cut a type 26 and move the 750 million across. option 1 would give us 19 proper escorts and option 2 would give us 18 proper escorts this would still give us 7 type 26s free to be deployed as seen fit

Agree this is understandable.

Two points:
1: FTI is 3.3B GBP program for 5 hulls. So, the 2.25B GBP program for 5 ships means 2/3 unit cost ship = 1-level lower ship than FTI. But with 320M GBP unit cost, it will be a very nice ship. For example, Ron5-san's Super Leander (TM) can happen.

2: In this case, some of the hull (or at least significant portion of their blocks) MUST be built in Clyde, to keep the work force active until T45 replacement. Or, we will be FORCED again to order another "un-needed" OPVs. So, even if it is Arrowhead 140, making the CMS BAE-based and giving them some "work share" will be critically important.

If this two points are addressed, this line of thinking is I think a good discussion.

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks

On the My point of "investment", who are paying for the it? Concept can be done by industry-level (see BMT), but detailed design needs HMGs investment. From where the cost comes?

With up to 24x Type26 exports in the bag I am suggesting it is now time for HMG to invest in a credible Tier2 design that will export. This will cost money so the windfall from the T26 exports should be reinvested in a simplified T26 design (Tier2) to bring it down to the £500m price point (still with Captas4) and also a Tier1 AAW frigate again based on the T26 hull. Build on the success, don't stop now.

T45 was expensive than Horizon, T26 is expensive than FREMM.

They were only more expensive because we didn't build enough of them. If the UK had of built 8x to 10x Type45's and 12x to 15x Type26's like we should have done, the prices would have been comparable.

Floreal-like ship. Yes, I like it. Actually it should have been there in place of 5 River B2.

It should, still time to put it right now. I am fully on board with building 4 or 5 basic 102m-105m Leander's @£150m per hull. For £750m with a core crew allocation of around 350 it would be a smart move. Everything apart from Artisan, medium calibre gun and 2x30mm's should be FFBNW. They could even be built under licence at Appledore solving that problem and construction could begin almost immediately. This would leave Cammell Laird and BAE to work on the T26's and the derivatives.

...made 5 River B2 OPVs to come not 3 Khareef-based Floreal-like surveillance frigate. It was a political dance, lack of decision, lack of vision, lack of responsibility, inclined for optimistic thin hope = completely a waste of money.

No argument there

Note, River B2 itself is nothing bad as EEZ patrol ship. What was bad was RN/MOD/HMG.

Agreed, too expensive and over specced for EEZ patrol but they will do the job.

I'm not saying more modification. I mean, the current Leander design is still in concept phase. Cost tells so. It's detailed design is yet to be done. Why not use the well-experienced team to do that, by shifting the program by 2-3 years. It will reduce the trouble in later phase, further train the team to make up a center of excellenc

If everyone takes a deep breath and the time pressure is relived by a modest number of basic Leanders or adapted RB2's then we can move forward with a much better focus on what the UK should be building as the backbone of its frigate fleet going forward.

I also think shortening T26 is the baddest idea

Im not suggesting that. T26 derived does not mean shorter. Simplification does not necessarily mean smaller or lighter just a more basic version that is cheaper to procure.

For me, T31e shall be 1-level lower than FTI design, with smaller unit-cost and smaller design load. With unit-cost ranging from 250-350M GBP.

Only because it is badly underfunded, we should not be looking to build frigates that are inferior to the FTI. Building basic Leanders for maritime security is different to building frigates suitable for service with RN.

I don't mind Leander, I just don't like it as a Frigate and I certainly wouldn't be happy if we ever ended up building a £350m Leander.

[Tempest414]

2: In this case, some of the hull (or at least significant portion of their blocks) MUST be built in Clyde, to keep the work force active until T45 replacement. Or, we will be FORCED again to order another "un-needed" OPVs. So, even if it is Arrowhead 140, making the CMS BAE-based and giving them some "work share" will be critically important.

as another option if 1 type 26 was to be cut they could build 2 or 3 MHCP ships as a stop gap

[donald_of_tokyo]

With up to 24x Type26 exports in the bag I am suggesting it is now time for HMG to invest in a credible Tier2 design that will export. This will cost money so the windfall from the T26 exports should be reinvested in a simplified T26 design (Tier2) to bring it down to the £500m price point (still with Captas4) and also a Tier1 AAW frigate again based on the T26 hull. Build on the success, don't stop now.

And who pays for it? BAES private venture? No.

If everyone takes a deep breath and the time pressure is relived by a modest number of basic Leanders or adapted RB2's then we can move forward with a much better focus on what the UK should be building as the backbone of its frigate fleet going forward.

Agreed. T31e's baddest thing is, it is on too much in hurry.

Only because it is badly underfunded, we should not be looking to build frigates that are inferior to the FTI. Building basic Leanders for maritime security is different to building frigates suitable for service with RN.
I don't mind Leander, I just don't like it as a Frigate and I certainly wouldn't be happy if we ever ended up building a £350m Leander.

France is investing a lot for FTI. A lot. On the other hand, UK is investing a lot on 2 large carrier. France has only 1.

If UK can invest as much as France did with FTI (3.3B GBP), simply we can buy 5 more T26 (~3.5B GBP including efficiency) (or 4 more T26 for sure). Do we really want to do that? Because of this point of view, I think any 2nd-tier escort for UK must be inferior to FTI, not superior. I do not want to throw away the "13 T26 fleet" in favor of having "better than FTI 2nd-tier escort".

May be, this point shall be the most important point in this discussion?

"5 (or 4) more T26" vs "5 FTI-like light frigates, with more export potential", which do you like?

[donald_of_tokyo]

as another option if 1 type 26 was to be cut they could build 2 or 3 MHCP ships as a stop gap

Depend on what the MHPC looks like. 1 T26 needs at least 1.5 years. In current TOBA, it is only 345M GBP. On paper, may be "2 or 3 MHCP ships" is good enough, but it is more complex. What we see in River B2 is, building five ~80M GBP unit-cost vessels (personal opinion) = ~400M GBP in total, for a 630M GBP cost. If the 2 MHPC cost 300M GBP, HMG may be paying ~450M GBP for it?

Not sure...

[Poiuytrewq]

move the 750 million across.

It would be more like £860m a hull or £1.72bn if you drop back to six T26's.

Even if 5x £150m patrol vessels (Leander, Venari etc) have to be built to satisfy the T31 requirement that's another £500m for the pot.

So if dropping to 6x Type 26's frees up £1.72bn and combined with the £500m from the T31 pot that's £2.22bn.

Six basic ASW escort Frigates would cost,

• @£400m each would cost £2.4bn
  @£450m each would cost £2.7bn
  @£500m each would cost £3bn

This makes the shortfall for HMG to find between £180m and £780m. At the lower end almost De minimis and at the top end about the price of an extra T26.

That would give an escort/patrol fleet of,

• 6x T45's
  6x T26's
  6x T31 ASW
  5x Global Patrol Vessels (basic Leander/Venari)
  5x RB2's

It's pretty well balanced but 12 T26's would be better

To truly solve the 'North Atlantic Problem' it will clearly cost more money and another 7 MPA's alone will not be enough. It simply comes down to how much HMG is willing to spend. If the answer is £1bn or more on ASW escorts then the best solution is to build more T26's, if not then RN will need to get creative or shrink.

[Simon82]

Would we be perhaps best admitting that the Type 31e as it stands will be an ineffective waste of money (too large and expensive for patrol and training, unsuitable for disaster relief and all but useless in warfare), reallocating their budget to something the armed forces actually need and accepting that going forward there will be an escort fleet of only 14 ships?

A bit of a Devil’s advocate view and certainly not my preferred endpoint, but I’m starting to wonder if the budget might not be better off going towards such things as the P-8 fleet, Merlins and new munitions for the Type 26s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

6x T45's
6x T26's
6x T31 ASW
5x Global Patrol Vessels (basic Leander/Venari)
5x RB2's


It's pretty well balanced but 12 T26's would be better

To truly solve the 'North Atlantic Problem' it will clearly cost more money and another 7 MPA's alone will not be enough.

Global patrol/ presence is a different task. So while the last line item above is cast in stone, the 2nd last (the quantity) can still be massaged, to get enough 'units' required for such taskings, and move the residual to higher priority ASW.

While I was sweeping the front yard clean of leaves, somebody else swept my beautiful post re: the ASW-task mix 'clean' so will not repeat what I said about SSNs and P-8s in the context.
-early risers perhaps got to 'enjoy' it

[Poiuytrewq]

And who pays for it? BAES private venture? No.

HMG, it would be a straightforward investment in the future. How much is going to come back to the exchequer from the T26 export success? It won't be billions, but whatever it is, it should be ploughed straight back into the next naval export success not used to plug gaps that have been created through underfunding programmes.

France is investing a lot for FTI. A lot.

Why?
It's because they know it will export well. The UK should do the same and with T26 design heritage it should export well.

The procurement models that France and Italy have adopted are providing well for their own fleets as well as the export market.

I think any 2nd-tier escort for UK must be inferior to FTI, not superior.

A UK Tier2 Frigate based on a T26 hull, with hybrid propulsion should always be superior to the FTI, perhaps even FREMM. Many countries who cannot afford T26's would look very favourably on a simplified T26 variant at 70% to 75% of the cost of the full version.

I do not want to throw away the "13 T26 fleet" in favor of having "better than FTI 2nd-tier escort".

Neither do I, but a 13 T26 fleet isn't on the horizon at present.

"5 (or 4) more T26" vs "5 FTI-like light frigates, with more export potential", which do you like?

Current planning has us heading for 8x T26's and 5x stretched OPV's. I think 6x T26's and 6x UK FTI equivalents would make a better option but it's just my opinion. Everyone has their own preferred option.

Would we be perhaps best admitting that the Type 31e as it stands will be an ineffective waste of money (too large and expensive for patrol and training, unsuitable for disaster relief and all but useless in warfare

I see the T31 as a dangerous compromise. Nothing wrong with the idea of the T31, it's simply underfunded and could result in five liabilities in a conflict scenario unless plans change or the funding increases.

Global patrol/ presence is a different task. So while the last line item above is cast in stone, the 2nd last (the quantity) can still be massaged, to get enough 'units' required for such taskings, and move the residual to higher priority ASW.

Its a balance, trying to reach the optimum ratio between high and low is difficult. I would start with 12 ASW Frigates and the T45's and then add the rest with whatever money is left over.

[ArmChairCivvy]

would start with 12 ASW Frigates and the T45's and then add the rest with whatever money is left over.

Agreed, that would be the priority (money) order. Build order for hulls could be dfiferent: build the simple patrol versions first, hone the concept...
- 12 is an interesting number
- we have between 8 and 11 sets/tails (not confirmed, or at least I have not seen, if the top up orders were for complete sets or partial upgrades... or whatever. The line is open though as other navies keep ordering.)

[Ron5]

The stand alone ExLS is no more intrusive that the "Mushroom" launcher as it does need a hot gas management system to operate the current load outs available, using a cold launch system for Sea Ceptor (obviously), RAM Block 2 and interesting NLOS. The added benefit is that the Sea Ceptor four round canisters can easily be fitted into both the stand alone launcher and the Mk41 (of any type)
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... -Sheet.pdf

Are you sure those missiles (RAM, NLOS, Nulka) are not hot launched? I don't know but I'd be surprised if they were not. RAM is definitely not in its SeaRam form.

[Ron5]

3: FTI is NOT good as ASW. It is CODAD ship, and it was specifically designed follwoing the concept of "(if the cost is the same) non-quiet hull with big sonar is better than quiet-hull with small sonar" trade-off French Navy did. "Leander if added with CAPTAS4CI" will be better, because it has electric drive mode up to 15 knots, thanks to its smaller size.

Many assumptions in those couple of sentences.

1. Not sure what size has to do with Leanders electric propulsion. Far larger ships are diesel electric.

2. Electric propulsion does not confer silence in itself. Diesel generators are still running and in Leander, the electric motors drive the shafts through large gearboxes. Both, if not silenced, will produce plenty of noise.

3. We had the discussion many times before. I don't believe the size or type of sonar can overcome a noisy ship. It's about signal to noise ratio.

4. Did the French really make that trade off or are we just speculating?

How about a 3700t ship
-----
* 117 meters long
* 14.6 meters beam
Artsian radar
* CAPTAS-4CI (not CAPTAS-4) TAS
* a single NH90 capable hangar (if in CVTF, Merlin will come from CVs).
2x Boat houses ( No Mission Bay)
* 1 x 57mm - 2 x 30mm - 1 x Phalanx - 12 CAMM - 8 VL-ASROC
* CODOE propulsion (electric mode up to 15knots)
------
As you see, this is a slightly modified Leander, actually more like the original Cutlass.

That's not a modified Leander. That is a Leander. The basic design allows for a Mk 41 VLS, HMS & sonar tails, and comes standard with a Seahawk/NH90 hangar.

[dmereifield]

^^^ Sadly not the £250 million version we will be getting

[Ron5]

I find Leander's misson spaces baffling, almost tying to copy the T26 but without the beam dimensions to make it work. I agree Leander doesn't need it but I don't think it needs to be 117m/120m either. BAE tell us Leander comes in 4 different sizes, 99m/102m/117m/120m. I actually think the Leander makes more sense at around 102m-105m than it does at 117m. All of the space for 12/24 CAMM, 8x ASM, 8x Mk41 cells, 2x 30mm's and Phalanx is retained and space is also available for 3 RHIB's or 2 RHIB's and an ISO.

If T31 has to happen, why not build 4 or 5 102m-105m Leander's with simple 25knt CODAD propulsion with everything FFBNW apart from the medium calibre gun and 2x 30mm's and Artisan? They should cost little more than £150m each. The £500m/£650m saved could be used to development a credible UK Tier2 Frigate or fed into the T26 programme to try and squeeze out another hull.

1. The Type 31 spec called for a 120m/4k ton ship because that is considered to be the smallest ship that can operate globally. Length is critical to sea keeping and 120m allows for frigate type operation for a large portion of the time. Smaller does not.

2. The extra length allows for large boat bays to accommodate the 11m ribbies that the RN would like to use for constabulary work plus allows for a mission bay which would be most useful for Type 31 tasks. Which do not include CVF escort but does include singleton tasks in peace & semi-war condition: HADR, evacuation, constabulary etc.

3. Chopping the Leander stretch would not save 50m out of 200m. That's steelwork - cheap. The biggest cuts would be to seakeeping, ship flexibility, future growth, EMF, & range/endurance

If the MOD BAE to go away and redesign Leander the programme will bog down and costs will spiral as they always do. I would suggest a simplification of the T26 design would be much better value for money in an effort to make a Tier1 design cheaper rather than an OPV derived design more expensive.

So redesigning the Tye 26 wouldn't bog down that program and cause a spiraling of its costs?

[Ron5]

^^^ Sadly not the £250 million version we will be getting

It sure would be nice to know what is being proposed for the CL bid in terms of fit out.

I wonder if there's conditional items i.e. if we keep the costs under control then you get a Mk 41 or a HMS. But if we hit overruns, they'll be the first to go.

Idle speculation at this point.

[Ron5]

'm not saying more modification. I mean, the current Leander design is still in concept phase. Cost tells so. It's detailed design is yet to be done. Why not use the well-experienced team to do that, by shifting the program by 2-3 years. It will reduce the trouble in later phase, further train the team to make up a center of excellence.

The advantage of Leander being a stretch of an existing design is that a lot of the detailed design has in fact been done.

That's why the low Type 31 program budget practically can only be met with a modified existing design and why Venator and other clean sheet designs, went to the trash bin very early in the process.

[Ron5]

[oops my mistake]

[serge750]

The way I see it is if we want a well armed & globally useful T31 for the £1.25 budget, the number has to be cut to maybe 3, or if the politicians want to keep the numbers up, then a lower capability than the outgoing T23gp has to be accepted,


option A

3 x global capable well armed T31 hull sonar,gun, CAMM, mk41, ciws etc


option b

5 x batch 3 rivers with hanger, a medium gun, Avenger class? licence built to a english yard?

For the short term, then maybe replace with more T26 after the 8th one is built in 2035 ? - maybe a T26 with fewer mk 41 & a larger hanger instead of a mission bay & use this version for carrier escourt duties, to keep the original designed T26 as the global combat ship...

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks Ron,

1. The Type 31 spec called for a 120m/4k ton ship because that is considered to be the smallest ship that can operate globally. Length is critical to sea keeping and 120m allows for frigate type operation for a large portion of the time. Smaller does not.

Can't argue with that as its fact

However what I am proposing is replacing 117m Leander's with a UK Tier2 Frigate based on the T26 hull at around 150m. I don't think sea keeping would be much of an issue.

The basic Leander that I proposed at between 102m and 105m would be an interim measure to give the T31 programme breathing space to come up with a credible design. The interesting part of the design is that none of the possible armament options are removed by deleting the central 15m block. Although not ideally suited to blue water globe trotting the 102m Leander's could prove useful in areas such as the Gulf, Caribbean, Mediterranean and the Falklands.

2. The extra length allows for large boat bays to accommodate the 11m ribbies that the RN would like to use for constabulary work plus allows for a mission bay which would be most useful for Type 31 tasks. Which do not include CVF escort but does include singleton tasks in peace & semi-war condition: HADR, evacuation, constabulary etc.

The Leander image that I posted earlier has space for 3x 11m RHIBs. If a large misson bay is required I don't think any of the Leanders add much. A Venari based design would be streets ahead of Leander in that regard.

3. Chopping the Leander stretch would not save 50m out of 200m. That's steelwork - cheap.

How can a 102m/105m basic patrol vessel with a simple CODAD propulsion, a 57mm/76mm gun and Artisan cost much more than £150m? The three 99m Khareefs with 76mm, 2x 30mm's, 12x Mica SAM's and 8x Exocet ASM's only cost £400m all in.

The biggest cuts would be to seakeeping, ship flexibility, future growth, EMF, & range/endurance

Depends what you want them to do and where you want them to go. The EMF shouldn't be changed much as the accommodation in under flight deck, the range and endurance would be reduced but if they are forward based does it matter? The 99m Khareef has range/endurance of 4500nm/21days so it should be possible to improve on that with a 3m to 6m stretch.

As far as future growth is concerned the shorter more basic Leanders could still be upgraded anytime to full spec, 76mm, 12/24 CAMM, 8x Mk41 and 8x Harpoon or equivalent if a serious conflict necessitated it.

One thing you haven't mentioned is the reduction in crew numbers. I think this could be significant. What crew allocation would a basic 102m Leander require? I would estimate a core of around 70 plus 20 for the aviation personnel. That's 150 saved over the 5 vessels, enough to crew another Type 26. Worth considering.

So redesigning the Type 26 wouldn't bog down that program and cause a spiraling of its costs?

I am not proposing to redesign the Type26, the design is frozen, it's in build, let it carry on. What I am proposing is to consider the option of halting the T26 programme and 6 hulls, building 5x basic ~102m Leanders for £750m and building another 6x ASW frigates ideally based on a simplified T26 with the money saved from the T26/T31 programmes. As I suggested previously it would require between £180m and £780m of additional funding to make it work but in the end it would produce the following,

• 6x T45's
  6x T26's
  6x T31 ASW
  5x 102m-105m Leanders
  5x RB2's

If one of the RB2's was forward based in the Falklands that would make a total fleet of 24 escort/patrol vessels excluding the 4x RB2's retained for EEZ patrol.

I think it's work considering, just my opinion.

[donald_of_tokyo]

And who pays for it? BAES private venture? No.

HMG, it would be a straightforward investment in the future.

Why not use this additional money to buy more T26?

A UK Tier2 Frigate based on a T26 hull, with hybrid propulsion should always be superior to the FTI, perhaps even FREMM. Many countries who cannot afford T26's would look very favourably on a simplified T26 variant at 70% to 75% of the cost of the full version.

I am missed here. If it is ASW frigate, using T26 hull, how can it be 70-75% cost? For example, JMSDF 30 FFM is 2/3 of Asahi class DD. We are losing a lot to make it cheap. Because I think your 2nd ASW frigate very expensive, my only option is 12 or 13 T26 because I think it will be cheaper than introducing another frigate. France spent a money the same to 5 FREMM to get 5 FTI. They put export HIGHER than their own Navies capability. That is what I am saying.

. I think 6x T26's and 6x UK FTI equivalents would make a better option ...

With that cost we can easily buy 12 T26. This is what I mean.