Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[SW1]

I would certainly like to see RN concentrate on type 26 and continued development of the platform, but it’s rolling it into what will be type 45 replacement is how numbers grow. Type 31 has never made much sense to me and why were trying to compete in that market is unclear. Type 26 could be offered to a number of nations and if there too expensive then why not offer second hand type 23s to those that can’t afford type 26. The RN should be putting all resources into type 26 even if that means surface fleet numbers reduce.

I don’t think the MHPC requirement will produce a ship it will produce a lot of unmanned systems that can be distributed thru the fleet with the possibly a few arrangements like the NATO SRS. River batch 2 is more than capable of covering the lower level martime security scene and could be developed more like has been done with Thailand.

Thought this very interesting take on what the future may hold

https://wavellroom.com/2018/10/20/how-t ... oyal-navy/

[Poiuytrewq]

So, as I understand it, your proposal is that we build more T26, but at just over half the cost. Is that some wavey-hand magic trick or something? I doubt you could knock the cost down to £450m even if you removed ALL the weapons systems, the sensors, comms. gear, BAE's profit margin and, probably, the engines.

No trick.Let me try and explain.

If the T26 programme is reduced by 2 hulls down to 6 that saves around £1.7bn. Added to this would be the T31 budget of £1.25bn. Combined around £3bn. That would mean the first 6 hulls would cost around £6.3bn.

BAE would then be asked to reschedule the T26 production line for 12 hulls. This would reduce the build time by a number of years. Even if this produced a total programme efficiency saving of less than 10% it would in effect add around £400m to £600m to the £3bn, that's around £3.6bn for the remaining 6 hulls. Approximately £600m each.

A couple of questions,

What would an unaltered T26 cost if produced to a T26 GP configuration?

What would a T26 lite cost with the VLS cells reduced, the TLAM capabilty removed, the Mk45 and auto magazine replaced by a 76mm and the misson bay removed or simplified?

If the answer is £600m then that's fine, carry on and build 6 of them. If not build 5 of them. If they are still too expensive then it's time to remove the £3bn from the T26 programme and get Babcock to build the 6 best Frigates they can for £3bn. And THAT is the reason why BAE will do it.

If not BAE would still get to build 6 Frigates for £6.3bn, nice work if you can get it.

You can arrange the numbers in many different ways but the crucial point is can BAE build 6x unaltered T26's and 6x basic Frigates built on the T26 hull for £9.25bn if the brakes are removed from the build schedule? I think the answer is yes. If not Babcock will happily take HMG's £3bn.

No tricks, it's very straightforward.

This is where you have got it wrong. No-one is looking at moving from a Tier 1 frigate to a T31

The UK is...

...a lot are looking at upgrading from OPV's to low end frigates. The T31 is clearly differentiated from an OPV, costing around 3 to 4 times as much. You are all saying that the T31 can't be the same as an FTI, because the FTI costs twice as much as the T31, so I am using exactly the same argument as you to demonstrate why the T31 CANNOT be considered a "stretched OPV". If you think that my argument is invalid, then so is yours.

My point is if we replace the T23's with an equivalent number of proper Frigates we don't need any Leanders. Babcock can build very capable patrol vessels for low threat security tasks for a lot less than £250m per hull.

If Cammell Laird want to build large numbers of Leanders for a worldwide export market that is crying for such a vessel it's fine by me but we shouldn't be replacing Tier1 Frigates with them just because the MOD can't manage a budget properly and HMG are unwilling to fund defence sufficiently.

if there is any platform less suitable than the BAE Corvette to base a new frigate design on, then it's the Venari. Fine for an MCM/ OPV/ Auxiliary, but frankly not worth wasting any more time on as a "frigate".

I agree.

I see the Venari series as Global Patrol Vessels, non combatants but configured with varying levels of armament for different threat levels. If RN want the next generation of MHPC vessels to perform Littoral ASW as a primary tasking then possibly this may have to change.

At 110m+ the Venari would enter Corvette/Frigate territory but in a combatant role it would only be suitable for export.

If HMG was to halt proper Frigate production at 8 hulls or less then at that stage I think it would be worth considering combining the MHPC programme with the T31 programme but all these vessels would then become Tier2 combatants backed up by a small number of dedicated mcmv's probably sourced from commercially derived hulls. This seems unlikely at this point.

Is my position clearer now?

[Ron5]

I think what Donald-san is saying, and if he is I agree, a Type 26 lite has to be a new design because the changes that are being suggested are too radical: shorter, narrower, new propulsion etc.

A new design would cost so much to develop that the result would be that the Type 26 lite program cost per ship wouldn't be much less than the production cost of the regular Type 26.

For example using my numbers:

Cost of a 5 ship class of Type 26 lite = 5 times 500m for production + 2 times 500m for research & design = 3.5 billion. Program cost per ship = 700m.

Cost of 5 additional Type 26 = 5 times 750m for production = 3.75 billion. R&D = 0m. Program cost per ship = 750m.

So why bother with the Type 26 lite?

[Poiuytrewq]

I see the T26 lite as a standard T26 with as many systems removed as is necessary to bring the cost down to a point where the budget can cope.

That is different to a Tier2 Escort built on the T26 hull or any other hull. That would extra funding from HMG to make it a reality. This option currently seems unlikely at this stage but the MDP isn't far away....

[Ron5]

Is my position clearer now?

Yes. You are saying replace the Type 26 with a cheaper ship and the RN can have more of them.

The Treasury has been arguing with the RN for decades over that precise issue and the RN has said no very clearly and very often. They need at least 8 Type 26's and they refuse to settle for less.

[Ron5]

I see the T26 lite as a standard T26 with as many systems removed as is necessary to bring the cost down to a point where the budget can cope.

That is different to a Tier2 Escort built on the T26 hull or any other hull. That would extra funding from HMG to make it a reality. This option currently seems unlikely at this stage but the MDP isn't far away....

They tried that and it failed.

[Poiuytrewq]

I see the T26 lite as a standard T26 with as many systems removed as is necessary to bring the cost down to a point where the budget can cope.

That is different to a Tier2 Escort built on the T26 hull or any other hull. That would extra funding from HMG to make it a reality. This option currently seems unlikely at this stage but the MDP isn't far away....

They tried that and it failed.

They tried what, it's two separate things?

[Poiuytrewq]

The Treasury has been arguing with the RN for decades over that precise issue and the RN has said no very clearly and very often. They need at least 8 Type 26's and they refuse to settle for less.

So plans can't change or adapt if threat levels worsen or strategic planning moves in a different direction?

Did RN not want 13 Type 26's only eight years ago.

Things in the North Atlantic have changed a bit even since then...

[Caribbean]

Caribbean wrote:
This is where you have got it wrong. No-one is looking at moving from a Tier 1 frigate to a T31
The UK is...

A GP T23 is not a Tier 1 frigate - it might be at the top end of tier 2, but it's limited ASW capabilities preclude it from being classified as Tier 1. The UK is looking at replacing a very capable Tier 2 with a less capable (but improvable) Tier 2.

BAE build 6x unaltered T26's and 6x basic Frigates built on the T26 hull for £9.25bn if the brakes are removed from the build schedule? I think the answer is yes.

So you advocate a further reduction in the one thing that we are already desperately short of, namely ASW capability, in order to add 6 non-ASW capable frigates, just so that you can then build a bunch more non-frigates, because you object to us building some lesser non-ASW capable frigates, followed by the same bunch of non-frigates.?

Does that summarise your position?

Removing brakes from the schedule means that in-year costs will rise. Which budget are you going to remove the cash from to cover that? The NHS, Pensions, Education? Maybe Benefits? (Just FYI, the current Government has been trying to do that for years - it may well lose them the next election and then you can go whistle for any increase in the Defence Budget) And don't say "Foreign Aid", because you have to overturn near unanimity in the House of Commons in order to do that.

Is my position clearer now?

Nope - you're still doing the wavey-handy magic trick bit. The current budget is said to be £8b for 8 ships. A large part of that is not the actual cost of the hull, yes, but you still have to carry those costs as part of the project. If efficiency improves by around 15% between the first and the fourth hulls, then the arithmetic suggests that the all in cost of the first ship will be around £1.1 - 1.2b, with the last ships costing around £950m each (all-in). Six hulls will cost just over £6b, with the final two full fat hulls costing just under £2b in total. Scrap those and add the £1.25b for the T31 and you have £3.25b. Sounds good - £500m a hull for 6 hulls - that's do-able, surely? All you have to do is save another £450m per ship, from a design that has already been maxed in build efficiency terms.

I'm sure that a considerable effort has gone into trying to figure out how to save that £450m off each ship and that they have come to the conclusion, that it just ain't possible - hence the T31 and the attempt to change how we do things in naval procurement.

[Poiuytrewq]

A GP T23 is not a Tier 1 frigate - it might be at the top end of tier 2, but it's limited ASW capabilities preclude it from being classified as Tier 1. The UK is looking at replacing a very capable Tier 2 with a less capable (but improvable) Tier 2.

Interesting opinion, I've never heard a Type 23 GP described in that way.

So you advocate a further reduction in the one thing that we are already desperately short of, namely ASW capability, in order to add 6 non-ASW capable frigates, just so that you can then build a bunch more non-frigates, because you object to us building some lesser non-ASW capable frigates, followed by the same bunch of non-frigates.?

What does all that mean? Are you joking? I can't tell....

Does that summarise your position?

No, when have I ever advocated removing any ASW capability. The reason I think we should be getting the maximum number of T26 hulls into the water is because of the ASW potential of the hull form.

Why does a T26 need all those VLS cells, a TLAM capability, a large mission bay, a Mk45 gun or a very expensive auto loading magazine to perform TAPS? It's not required.

By effectively simplifying hulls 7 and 8 down to an equipment level optimised for TAPS another 4 T26 hulls go into the water. Even if these 4 vessels were sparsely kitted out initially they could be upgraded over time.

Removing brakes from the schedule means that in-year costs will rise. Which budget are you going to remove the cash from to cover that? The NHS, Pensions, Education? Maybe Benefits? (Just FYI, the current Government has been trying to do that for years - it may well lose them the next election and then you can go whistle for any increase in the Defence Budget) And don't say "Foreign Aid", because you have to overturn near unanimity in the House of Commons in order to do that.

Are you serious ?

I am very well aware of the current governments status thank you but I don't think I'm even bother responding to that

Nope - you're still doing the wavey-handy magic trick bit.

I've never heard of that one before, could you explain what it is please?

[Lord Jim]

I think this may have been raised many moons ago, but could the T-31e be built as a ASW platform with limited quietening a towed array, minimum armament plus a Merlin capable hanger and flight deck? It would then be a task force assets, operating in the sprint and drift manner. When I say minimum armament I am meaning only a medium sized main gun and CIWS, no SAM and only small arms for close in defence. If numbers were reduced to four would the budget stretch to such vessels.

I do like the T-26 "Lite", idea but it would have to be based on the existing design. Under the MDP could the MoD take their favourite FFBNW approach to the whole class to stretch the Budget to say ten vessels, so for example six have two MK41 and four have one. Six have TASS whilst the remainder do not. Six have their full compliment of Sea Ceptor the remainder only have twelve as standard and so on. As suggested earlier, half of teh Planned T-31e budget would go towards this and the remainder to the MHPC programme. This may allow two or three high capability vessels available for escort of the Carrier Groups and one ot two for GP work. Additional kit could be purchased with financial left overs or known underspends over time.

Just think out of the box, please be gentle

[donald_of_tokyo]

If the T26 programme is reduced by 2 hulls down to 6 that saves around £1.7bn. Added to this would be the T31 budget of £1.25bn. Combined around £3bn. That would mean the first 6 hulls would cost around £6.3bn.

BAE would then be asked to reschedule the T26 production line for 12 hulls. This would reduce the build time by a number of years. Even if this produced a total programme efficiency saving of less than 10% it would in effect add around £400m to £600m to the £3bn, that's around £3.6bn for the remaining 6 hulls. Approximately £600m each.

Let's see.
1: You say £1.7bn saved from cutting 2 T26s. This means the unit cost you assume is £850m.
2: You say "6 hulls. Approximately £600m each" is to be added. £600m/£850m =0.7. In other words, "30% less". Typical cost difference of tier-1 to tier-2 frigate. But this is so huge that I cannot think be based on T26 hull.

I think all point come to your proposal for "£600m ship" using T26 hull can happen or not. Even only with 24 CAMM, 2x30mm, 2x CIWS and Artisan and CAPTAS4, and significantly reducing the CMS level, I cannot be sure "30% less" is doable. I think this is the whole point we disagree.

For example, JMSDF FFM frigate (3900t standard) costs 46b Yen (excluding initial), which is 64% of the cost of 2 Asahi-class DD (5100t standard) 71.5b Yen. If you compare the 2 ships's specification, we can see FFM cuts ESSM with FCS-3 and replaced with SeaRAM. Very reduced hull sonar, very reduced radar, with 25% reduced hull size.

What would a T26 lite cost with the VLS cells reduced, the TLAM capabilty removed, the Mk45 and auto magazine replaced by a 76mm and the misson bay removed or simplified?

If the answer is £600m then that's fine, carry on and build 6 of them.

Because your hull 7-8 unit cost is estimated to be £850m, my answer is NO, your proposed T26like cannot be £600m.

If they are still too expensive then it's time to remove the £3bn from the T26 programme and get Babcock to build the 6 best Frigates they can for £3bn. And THAT is the reason why BAE will do it.

£3bn will give us 3.5 full fat T26 if you think it is £850m each. As you did, adding £400m as efficiency saving will make it 4 hulls. This is equivalent to "2 more T26 and make it 10".

Then how about your proposal for, 6 "Babcock best Frigates"? If newly designed, it's unit cost is £375m; ,Venator 110 ?. If it is Arrowhead 140 based, many of the design cost is already paid (let's reserve 1 unit-cost equivalent for modification and initial) and unit cost will be £430m. Looks better. This could be a good discussion point, but as Carribbean-san says, we need it to be ASW capable, which makes it "tough" (I will not say "impossible" here). Very tough.

If not BAE would still get to build 6 Frigates for £6.3bn, nice work if you can get it.

Other problem is here. We need to "continue" BAE work till T45 replacement. With 2 less T26, how can we do it? We will be forced to build another 5 (or more) OPVs in 2030-35. This is bad, I think.

[Aethulwulf]

The idea that the MHC programme will provide the answer to the RN's lack if escorts is not credible.

The focus, and the money, of MHC is on the remote and autonomous systems.

Unlike T31, the MHC ships will be bought under international competition, if present policies are followed.

[Ron5]

I see the T26 lite as a standard T26 with as many systems removed as is necessary to bring the cost down to a point where the budget can cope.

That is different to a Tier2 Escort built on the T26 hull or any other hull. That would extra funding from HMG to make it a reality. This option currently seems unlikely at this stage but the MDP isn't far away....

They tried that and it failed.

They tried what, it's two separate things?

Sorry for not being clear.

They tried taking capability out of the Tye 26's down to a point they could afford 5 GP Type 26s within the budget. They failed.

My problem is that if you take out the Type 26 capabilities that have been mentioned in this thread, you end up with a Type 26 with the overall capability of a type 31. What's the point in that?

[Ron5]

The Treasury has been arguing with the RN for decades over that precise issue and the RN has said no very clearly and very often. They need at least 8 Type 26's and they refuse to settle for less.

So plans can't change or adapt if threat levels worsen or strategic planning moves in a different direction?

Did RN not want 13 Type 26's only eight years ago.

Things in the North Atlantic have changed a bit even since then...

Seems to me the changes make the full fat Type 26 ship more desirable, not less. Seems that Australian and Canada think that way too.

[Poiuytrewq]

The Treasury has been arguing with the RN for decades over that precise issue and the RN has said no very clearly and very often. They need at least 8 Type 26's and they refuse to settle for less.

So plans can't change or adapt if threat levels worsen or strategic planning moves in a different direction?

Did RN not want 13 Type 26's only eight years ago.

Things in the North Atlantic have changed a bit even since then...

Seems to me the changes make the full fat Type 26 ship more desirable, not less. Seems that Australian and Canada think that way too.

Maybe both RN and the Treasury need to recognise that the world is changing.

T26's, lite or otherwise can be upgraded if they are in the water. It would be nice to upgrade those last two T45's, hulls 7 and 8 but they don't exist. That's my point, get them in the water and upgrade them later if necessary.

[Poiuytrewq]

Thanks Donald.

1: You say £1.7bn saved from cutting 2 T26s. This means the unit cost you assume is £850m.

Roughly, yes.

2: You say "6 hulls. Approximately £600m each" is to be added. £600m/£850m =0.7. In other words, "30% less". Typical cost difference of tier-1 to tier-2 frigate. But this is so huge that I cannot think be based on T26 hull.

I gave the option of 5 or 6 hulls. To quote me correctly, I did say if 6 didn't work build 5. That's £720m a hull for 5x T26 lite's which is perfectly credible and optimised for ASW.

What would that look like?

6x T26's unaltered
5x T26 lite's. Artisan, 76mm, 24 CAMM, 8 Mk41 cells, 2x 30mm's, 2x Phalanx and 2150/2087.

As opposed to,

8x T26's unaltered
5x Leanders

Maybe the choice is as clear as that. Take your pick.

I think all point come to your proposal for "£600m ship" using T26 hull can happen or not. Even only with 24 CAMM, 2x30mm, 2x CIWS and Artisan and CAPTAS4, and significantly reducing the CMS level, I cannot be sure "30% less" is doable. I think this is the whole point we disagree.

The unknown factor is the figure that could be saved if BAE was told to hurry up and build them as efficiently as possible. This is difficult to estimate accurately but billions have been wasted in programmes with similar budgets due to indecision and artificially slow build schedules. This is the part of the budget I would like to see unlocked.

Because your hull 7-8 unit cost is estimated to be £850m, my answer is NO, your proposed T26like cannot be £600m.

How can you say that for sure without knowing how much can be saved by allowing the build programme to run at its most efficient speed?

Then how about your proposal for, 6 "Babcock best Frigates"? If newly designed, it's unit cost is £375m; ,Venator 110 ?. If it is Arrowhead 140 based, many of the design cost is already paid (let's reserve 1 unit-cost equivalent for modification and initial) and unit cost will be £430m. Looks better. This could be a good discussion point, but as Carribbean-san says, we need it to be ASW capable, which makes it "tough" (I will not say "impossible" here). Very tough.

The important thing here is the leverage this gives the MOD when trying to renegotiate the T26 contract with BAE. The last thing BAE wants is Babcock building proper credible Frigates for RN. Lots of options I agree but the important thing is that the threat is severe enough to push BAE to make the extended T26 programme work.

Other problem is here. We need to "continue" BAE work till T45 replacement. With 2 less T26, how can we do it? We will be forced to build another 5 (or more) OPVs in 2030-35. This is bad, I think.

One thing leads to another but that's a bridge that would need to be crossed if and when the time came. Depending on the time line lots of options here too.

[Aethulwulf]

T26's, lite or otherwise can be upgraded if they are in the water. It would be nice to upgrade those last two T45's, hulls 7 and 8 but they don't exist. That's my point, get them in the water and upgrade them later if necessary.

They tried taking capability out of the Type 26's down to a point they could afford 5 GP Type 26s within the budget. They failed.

The plan for the T31 is to get them in the water, and upgrade them later if necessary. Your plan for doing the same with the T26 lite appears to be ignoring the fact that this was in fact MOD's plan A, which failed because it cost to much.

We are now on plan B, which is not just about buying T31 ships, but is also trying to change process for ship procurement and ship building. The old process just kept delivering ships late and over budget. And hence the fleet shrinks and heaps more money has to be spent on maintenance and refits.

[Poiuytrewq]

Thank you

The plan for the T31 is to get them in the water, and upgrade them later if necessary. Your plan for doing the same with the T26 lite appears to be ignoring the fact that this was in fact MOD's plan A, which failed because it cost to much.

We are now on plan B, which is not just about buying T31 ships, but is also trying to change process for ship procurement and ship building. The old process just kept delivering ships late and over budget. And hence the fleet shrinks and heaps more money has to be spent on maintenance and refits.

I don't have a problem with any of the above and I have always supported the idea behind the T31 programme.

It's replacing T23's with something like Leander is the part I don't like. I could see the sense in something like Venator or Arrowhead 140 but Leander just seems like a dead end to me.

It has to be the right hull and I don't think Leander is it.

It seems like such a waste of time and money to put all that effort into developing the best ASW frigate hull in the world and then not make full use of it.

Just my opinion.

[donald_of_tokyo]

6x T26's unaltered
5x T26 lite's. Artisan, 76mm, 24 CAMM, 8 Mk41 cells, 2x 30mm's, 2x Phalanx and 2150/2087.

As opposed to,

8x T26's unaltered
5x Leanders

Maybe the choice is as clear as that. Take your pick.

The difference between you and me is mainly because of cost estimation.

My plan for 2 more T26 is;
-T26 unit cost = £750m
- 2 more needs £1.5bn, £250m more than T31 budget.
Even with efficiency saving, I am not sure this money can be earned. May need to cut armaments.

2 more lightly armed T26 vs 5 Leander. I prefer the former, but I also think the latter has its own rationale.

How can you say that for sure without knowing how much can be saved by allowing the build programme to run at its most efficient speed?

Not much I know. But basing the program on optimistic cost estimation is what I do not like. History tells us many bad such examples in this two decades. If more money happen to come out, no problem, RN has a lot of FFBNW to spend all around the fleet.

The important thing here is the leverage this gives the MOD when trying to renegotiate the T26 contract with BAE. The last thing BAE wants is Babcock building proper credible Frigates for RN. Lots of options I agree but the important thing is that the threat is severe enough to push BAE to make the extended T26 programme work.

May help, but I bet BAE knows much better than HMG what Babcock can and cannot do. If you do not know the rule of the game, you can hardly win/gain. And if RN knows the rule, it can fight with BAE without Babcock. This is important. Making an OPV shipyard capable of building a high end escort will cost HUGE. No other European nation does it.

[Poiuytrewq]

Unlike T31, the MHC ships will be bought under international competition, if present policies are followed.

Do you mean an international design built in Britain or a British design built abroad like the Tides?

Are the MHC vessels not due to be classed as Warships?

Making an OPV shipyard capable of building a high end escort will cost HUGE. No other European nation does it.

Agreed, I wonder how the threat of Scottish Independence will influence this area of planning going forward?

Is building up a large yard such as Cammell Laird now a wise insurance policy to mitigate this threat?

[Repulse]

Assuming that the Australian and Canadian orders go ahead as planned, we now have a “Commonwealth Arleigh Burke“ design that can ultimately evolve to replace the T45s.

This is a game changer and the difference from when the choice was made to go with just ASW T26s and the T31e. If the U.K. can share R&D costs and order systems in bulk (work spread over the 3 countries), IMO some of the BAE risk is mitigated.

Given the current political turmoil, asking for another couple of billion over the next 15years to get say 12 T26s in return for playing ball on Brexit should be well with the Defence Ministers gift, and not a decision any Labour government would overturn.

[Repulse]

Agreed, I wonder how the threat of Scottish Independence will influence this area of planning going forward?

Is building up a large yard such as Cammell Laird now a wise insurance policy to mitigate this threat?

Stick with Glasgow for now and get CL to build some of the T26 modules. If the Scots go, and to the independence bill the cost of moving it later...

[Aethulwulf]

Unlike T31, the MHC ships will be bought under international competition, if present policies are followed.

Do you mean an international design built in Britain or a British design built abroad like the Tides?

Are the MHC vessels not due to be classed as Warships?

According to the UK Government national shipbuilding strategy, only Frigates, Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers will be required to be UK built.

Everything else, MHC included, will be subject to international competition and so could be designed and built abroad.

EU law is that only warships can be protected from international competition. But UK policy is more open, and only protects Frigates, Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers .

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't have a problem with any of the above and I have always supported the idea behind the T31 programme.

It's replacing T23's with something like Leander is the part I don't like. I could see the sense in something like Venator or Arrowhead 140 but Leander just seems like a dead end to me.

It has to be the right hull and I don't think Leander is it.

It seems like such a waste of time and money to put all that effort into developing the best ASW frigate hull in the world and then not make full use of it.

Just my opinion.

I think Leander is the best option if built to 250M GBP average cost (which I think is 210M GBP unit cost, adding 1 unit-cost for re-design+initial). Let me explain.

I think every design has a "good cost/capability value range”. For me,
- Leander is best at 220-330M GBP unit cost. Thus, if T31e program cost is 1.3Bn--2Bn (= 220M or 330M x (5+1)), Leander is the best.
- I think Arrowhead is best at 350-450M GBP unit cost. Suited for 2.1Bn-2.7Bn total cost. (If we want a new design 350-450M GBP unit cost ship, it will need 2.5Bn-3.2Bn)
Then this is why I think Leander is the best option for "T31e program judging from the current budget". The following graphics represents my point of view.

スクリーンショット 2018-10-21 18.35.24.png

If we sacrifice 1 T26 to add £750m, we can use £2bn for T31 and 5 Arrowhead 140 class vessel will come. To keep Clyde rolling, significant fraction, say 38% or so, of building work must go to Clyde. CMS to BAE and some blocks in Clyde?