Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[tomuk]

Concerning the T31 weapons fit - are they not getting the NSM from the T23 when they retire ? so instead of getting possible 8,16 or 32 mk 41 would it be better ( cheaper ) to fit ExLS for just CAMM, as they will be our tier 2 ships & save the high end FCASW stock for the T26 & tier1 ships ?

I don't think that has been stated anywhere official that the T31 will get NSM, although it's a common assumption here.

Could they not be transferred to the Type 26 instead?

It hasn't been stated anywhere what platforms they will go on, T23 or T45. Frankly you are stupid to assume that they won't be fitted on T31, as it is on a case by case basis of need.

The MoD says the weapon will be fitted to a total of 11 Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers.

So there will be 11 sets spread across 15 ships (10 T23 and 6 T45). One assumes like the Harpoon sets they will be moved about on to the currently active vessels.
As T23s are withdrawn and replaced by T31 and T26 can see no reason why either class won't have NSM transferred to them pending arrival of FCASW.

[Poiuytrewq]

…if installed, the Mk 41 would undoubtedly be exclusively reserved for FC/ASW. It would be financially retarded of the Navy to spend extra money to provide exactly the same CAMM launch capability. Millions of pounds to do exactly the same thing as the currently contracted mushrooms.

There is an alternative worth considering.

If the FCASW program produces two variants (FC and ASW) and the French are adamant that the ASW variant must be canister launched then a host of new opportunities appear.

This would allow RN to retain the Mk41 Strike cells for the FC variant to replace TLAM and ASW to replace NSM and the Mk41 Tactical cells for CAMM/ER/MR. Thereby potentially turning the humble T31 into a real handful if the funding eventually materialised.

For example, the T31 could embark 16x ASuW missiles in canisters plus 16x TLAM equivalent FC missiles in the Mk41 Strike cells. The remaining 16x Mk41 Tactical cells could hold 32x quad packed CAMM plus 24x triple packed CAMM ER or 16x double packed CAMM MR. The potential is clear but will the funding appear to realise the potential? IMO it all depends on global events over the next decade.

The T32 is also interesting. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the T32 is designed to support RM and the MRSS among other tasks. The BAE and Babcock concepts both have Mk41 cells but the BAE ASF has 8x Mk41 cells plus 24x CAMM in mushrooms and the A140 MNP has 16x Mk41 cells. Both vessels have large amidship deck space for at least 32x ASuW canisters if required. Perfect for supporting the FCF in the Littoral.

IMG_1468.jpeg

IMG_1469.jpeg

So even if the number of Mk41 Strike cells installed are relatively low RN could still procure two highly potent Frigates in the T31/T32 if the funding materialises to fully optimise and if the ASW side of the FCASW program is produced in canisters.

Fully optimised T31:
• 1x 57mm and 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x CAMM MR (double pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x FC (TLAM equivalent in 16x Mk41 Strike)
• 16x ASW (NSM equivalent in canisters)

Fully optimised T32 (A140 MNP):
• 1x 127mm and 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x CAMM MR (double pkd in 8x Mk41cells)
• 32x ASW (NSM equivalent in canisters)

Not suggesting this is likely but if FCASW produces a canister option then Mk41 Strike cells are not the only game in town.

[tomuk]

If exports and sales are a goal of FCASW then just like Aster would be better of having a Mk41 option, FCASW would be more saleable with a box launch option as well as Mk41 (and Slyver).

[SW1]

Interesting option maybe.

[Repulse]

On thing that keeps goes through my mind is that the T45 was always supposed to get a MK41 VLS but ultimately it was dropped due to cost cutting (a likely reoccurrence for other platforms) - if it had it fitted, chances are HMS Diamond would have fired a few Tomahawks as the UKs contribution and the RAF could have stayed in Cyprus.

[new guy]

On thing that keeps goes through my mind is that the T45 was always supposed to get a MK41 VLS but ultimately it was dropped due to cost cutting (a likely reoccurrence for other platforms) - if it had it fitted, chances are HMS Diamond would have fired a few Tomahawks as the UKs contribution and the RAF could have stayed in Cyprus.

The RAF would still be deployed.

[Tempest414]

On thing that keeps goes through my mind is that the T45 was always supposed to get a MK41 VLS but ultimately it was dropped due to cost cutting (a likely reoccurrence for other platforms) - if it had it fitted, chances are HMS Diamond would have fired a few Tomahawks as the UKs contribution and the RAF could have stayed in Cyprus.

For me this is it we should be fitting the Mk-41's to Type 45 this could give them a loadout of 48 Aster and 64 CAMM plus 8 x NSM

[wargame_insomniac]

On thing that keeps goes through my mind is that the T45 was always supposed to get a MK41 VLS but ultimately it was dropped due to cost cutting (a likely reoccurrence for other platforms) - if it had it fitted, chances are HMS Diamond would have fired a few Tomahawks as the UKs contribution and the RAF could have stayed in Cyprus.

For me this is it we should be fitting the Mk-41's to Type 45 this could give them a loadout of 48 Aster and 64 CAMM plus 8 x NSM

Perhaps, but this kind of action is likely to become more frequent and with a limited number of SSNs having a ship that can actively contribute to offensive action provides options - putting these cells on the T45 should be a higher priority than on the T31. The T45 is already valued asset by our allies this would allow it to become more so.

[Tempest414]

…if installed, the Mk 41 would undoubtedly be exclusively reserved for FC/ASW. It would be financially retarded of the Navy to spend extra money to provide exactly the same CAMM launch capability. Millions of pounds to do exactly the same thing as the currently contracted mushrooms.

There is an alternative worth considering.

If the FCASW program produces two variants (FC and ASW) and the French are adamant that the ASW variant must be canister launched then a host of new opportunities appear.

This would allow RN to retain the Mk41 Strike cells for the FC variant to replace TLAM and ASW to replace NSM and the Mk41 Tactical cells for CAMM/ER/MR. Thereby potentially turning the humble T31 into a real handful if the funding eventually materialised.

For example, the T31 could embark 16x ASuW missiles in canisters plus 16x TLAM equivalent FC missiles in the Mk41 Strike cells. The remaining 16x Mk41 Tactical cells could hold 32x quad packed CAMM plus 24x triple packed CAMM ER or 16x double packed CAMM MR. The potential is clear but will the funding appear to realise the potential? IMO it all depends on global events over the next decade.

The T32 is also interesting. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the T32 is designed to support RM and the MRSS among other tasks. The BAE and Babcock concepts both have Mk41 cells but the BAE ASF has 8x Mk41 cells plus 24x CAMM in mushrooms and the A140 MNP has 16x Mk41 cells. Both vessels have large amidship deck space for at least 32x ASuW canisters if required. Perfect for supporting the FCF in the Littoral.
IMG_1468.jpegIMG_1469.jpeg

So even if the number of Mk41 Strike cells installed are relatively low RN could still procure two highly potent Frigates in the T31/T32 if the funding materialises to fully optimise and if the ASW side of the FCASW program is produced in canisters.

Fully optimised T31:
• 1x 57mm and 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x CAMM MR (double pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x FC (TLAM equivalent in 16x Mk41 Strike)
• 16x ASW (NSM equivalent in canisters)

Fully optimised T32 (A140 MNP):
• 1x 127mm and 2x 40mm
• 32x CAMM (quad pkd in 8x Mk41 cells)
• 16x CAMM MR (double pkd in 8x Mk41cells)
• 32x ASW (NSM equivalent in canisters)

Not suggesting this is likely but if FCASW produces a canister option then Mk41 Strike cells are not the only game in town.

For me even through I have said what Type 31 could do with MK-41's fitted right now a good fit would be 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm and a mix of 40 CAMM / CAMM-ER plus 16 NSM

We have seen NZ has fitted 20 it the space of 16 MK-41 so 40 in space of 32 should be strait forward

When it comes to Type 32 if it is going to be used in the littoral to support the RM then we need to be looking at a cheaper way of deep fires that can be reloaded at sea something like GSDB so maybe a A140 MNP with

1 x 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 40 CAMM / CAMM-ER , 8 x NSM & 2 x Naval MLRS

[Poiuytrewq]

….putting these cells on the T45 should be a higher priority than on the T31. The T45 is already valued asset by our allies this would allow it to become more so.

IMO this shows the CSG centric plan up for what it is - completely unrealistic. Having the CVFs fully crewed with only 2x AAW DD and 2x ASW FF available is not a good use of finite resources.

Recent events have shown that relying on Allies to provide escorts for a U.K. CSG conducting peace time exercises is straightforward. Finding allies to provide escorts for non NATO choke point taskings or offensive CSGs operations when kinetic exchanges are likely will be much more difficult. Current planning on escort numbers must adjust to this reality.

Serious consideration needs to be given to what configuration and capabilities any additional escorts or OPVs are now given.

Is a modest batch of cheap but capable choke point escorts now essential to take the pressure from the rest of the fleet and allow the CSG to operate with RN DD/FF if required whilst simultaneously providing 3 or 4 escorts to an international coalition to keep the SLOCs open?

[Jensy]

1: CAMM/ER/MR.
I personally do not think CAMM-MR is important for RN. Might be good for Army, but too much overlap with Aster 30, I think.

Rather I think
- more CAMM cells
- adding CAMM-ER
is popping up as a good reaction.

CAMM official range is 25 km = capable to shoot down highly maneuverable ASM out to 25 km. Will be able to handle slow drones out to 30-35 km, I guess? Compact, commonality with ASRAAM blk2 (mass produced), cold launch, all make it a good "mass production AAW missile".

CAMM-ER official range is 45 km, and will be able to handle slow drones out to 60-70 km (depends on data-link range, I guess). It lacks commonality with ASRAAM, but other "good points" remain. Only if finally CAMM-ER is mass produced.

To handle current crisis, I think frigates with 48-96 CAMM+CAMM-ER will be very nice. Aster 30 is very high-end and expensive.

CAMM-MR is very long range, looks like. But, as there are many overlaps (Aster 30, SM-2, SM-6, Patriot MSE etc), I do not expect it to be mass produced. If not, it will be expensive and overlap with Aster 30 (in RN) will not pay. Mass production will make the ammo cheap. "Ammo, ammo, ammo" is the very important "Lessons Learned" in virtually EVERY WAR in the past.


2: "Perhaps a mix of 16 MK.41 cells and 12 ExLS cells would well suited rather than the full 32? Though I'd be curious what the cost difference was for two VLS variants, compared to a single system."

Umm, not a single system. "A mix of 16 MK.41 cells and 12 ExLS cells" has two systems, Mk.41 and ExLS-stand-alone. "Full 32 Mk.41" also needs ExLS for CAMM, inserted in the Mk.41. So it is also two systems. "ExLS-stand-alone", and "ExLS-in-Mk41", which is cheaper, is the question to ask.

Thanks for your detailed reply Donald.

In reverse order:

2) You're absolutely correct. The ExLS insert is in effect an additional system, with the effort that goes with adopting one.

1) As for CAMM-MR, I see things a little differently.

From what little information that's out there, we know that it's a joint UK/PL programme to address a Polish requirement for a longer ranged missile for their Type 31 derivatives, and perhaps other platforms/environments. A concept image has shown it dual packed in Mk.41.

My stating point would be asking why Poland is seeking an alternative to the market leader in SM-2, alongside other competing products ( which include Aster). Are they looking for: better value / better performance or something else (sovereignty, industrial benefits)?

Following on from Ron's above post, I'd make a guess it's a combination of value, through reuse of CAMM family components, a desire to get greater ownership of their weapons systems and the USP of a medium range SAM that can be dual packed in MK.41.

I would strongly argue that all of these would apply to the UK too. We get nearly zero industrial benefit from Aster/Sylver and the former is not cheap. I suspect the BMD variant will be considerably more expensive and it's not compatible with any of our current or in construction warships.

Strikes me as a golden opportunity to capitalise on our export success with CAMM with a product that has huge potential with the existing MK.41 user base. Plus opens the possibility for giving every single RN escort a formidable defence against aerial threats. Even if it means putting quantity marginally above quality (not something that the MoD is familiar with in recent times).

Mass production is very hard to achieve if you don't start building and marketing the thing in the first place'

As to the wider discussion here, worth taking another look at this TD piece from ten years ago:
https://thinkdefence.wordpress.com/2013 ... launchers/

[new guy]

….putting these cells on the T45 should be a higher priority than on the T31. The T45 is already valued asset by our allies this would allow it to become more so.

IMO this shows the CSG centric plan up for what it is - completely unrealistic. Having the CVFs fully crewed with only 2x AAW DD and 2x ASW FF available is not a good use of finite resources.

Recent events have shown that relying on Allies to provide escorts for a U.K. CSG conducting peace time exercises is straightforward. Finding allies to provide escorts for non NATO choke point taskings or offensive CSGs operations when kinetic exchanges are likely will be much more difficult. Current planning on escort numbers must adjust to this reality.

Serious consideration needs to be given to what configuration and capabilities any additional escorts or OPVs are now given.

Is a modest batch of cheap but capable choke point escorts now essential to take the pressure from the rest of the fleet and allow the CSG to operate with RN DD/FF if required whilst simultaneously providing 3 or 4 escorts to an international coalition to keep the SLOCs open?

It shows absolutely the opposite. We do not need a fleet on pointless light frigates - “cheap but capable choke point escort” are just fantasy and it’s going to sink the RN.

What’s worse is to go down the madness of forward basing them, requiring double crew, which means other more valuable ships will sit in port or worse.

Money should be focused on real tier one warships that cannot only surge to conflict zones but also escort the the two CSGs.

We should have not gone down the T31 route and instead bought two more T26s. We should funded Blair’s wars properly rather than stunting the T45 fleet at six and saying with CEPP everything will be ok and then ditch it for financial reasons.

A fleet of 18 tier one AAW / ASW platforms (ultimately under a single class) what is needed combined with a low end MHPC class. This what really needs to be considered - I’d go for a compromise of the T31 taking up the FADS CSG role in the interim, but ultimately we need fighting ships that are better than what our foes have - the rest is just trying to make wall charts nice.

[new guy]

….putting these cells on the T45 should be a higher priority than on the T31. The T45 is already valued asset by our allies this would allow it to become more so.

IMO this shows the CSG centric plan up for what it is - completely unrealistic. Having the CVFs fully crewed with only 2x AAW DD and 2x ASW FF available is not a good use of finite resources.

Recent events have shown that relying on Allies to provide escorts for a U.K. CSG conducting peace time exercises is straightforward. Finding allies to provide escorts for non NATO choke point taskings or offensive CSGs operations when kinetic exchanges are likely will be much more difficult. Current planning on escort numbers must adjust to this reality.

Serious consideration needs to be given to what configuration and capabilities any additional escorts or OPVs are now given.

Is a modest batch of cheap but capable choke point escorts now essential to take the pressure from the rest of the fleet and allow the CSG to operate with RN DD/FF if required whilst simultaneously providing 3 or 4 escorts to an international coalition to keep the SLOCs open?

It shows absolutely the opposite. We do not need a fleet on pointless light frigates - “cheap but capable choke point escort” are just fantasy and it’s going to sink the RN.

What’s worse is to go down the madness of forward basing them, requiring double crew, which means other more valuable ships will sit in port or worse.

Money should be focused on real tier one warships that cannot only surge to conflict zones but also escort the the two CSGs.

We should have not gone down the T31 route and instead bought two more T26s. We should funded Blair’s wars properly rather than stunting the T45 fleet at six and saying with CEPP everything will be ok and then ditch it for financial reasons.

A fleet of 18 tier one AAW / ASW platforms (ultimately under a single class) what is needed combined with a low end MHPC class. This what really needs to be considered - I’d go for a compromise of the T31 taking up the FADS CSG role in the interim, but ultimately we need fighting ships that are better than what our foes have - the rest is just trying to make wall charts nice.

I agree but the Navy and politicians seem unable or unwilling to give up operations beyond CSG hence the requirement for low level warships. I hesitate to call them escorts.

By the way, a singe RN AAW/ASW class is unachievable and not particularly desirable.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1) As for CAMM-MR, I see things a little differently.

Thanks, understandable thought, although I am not optimistic here.
We know SM-6, a very expensive missile, has large commonality with SM-2 and AMRAAM. If CAMM-MR is a family of CAMM, SM-6 is also a family of SM-2 (and AMRAAM).

But, I agree still there is a hope for CAMM-MR to be "nice".

Anyway, my point is to pursue CAMM and CAMM-ER, when considering to handle the Red Sea issue. As we all know, similar situation will happen in future.

My whole point is on "ammo ammo ammo". CAMM is best suited to this situation. Commonality with IR-Air-to-Air-missile (ASRAAM) is a huge merit. And, CAMM is very successful in export. It has a good potential to be a good rival against ESSM. Making a long-range version of CAMM might be, I'm afraid, making it expensive, as we see with SM-2 to SM-6 cost increase. As there already are Aster-30, investing huge on CAMM and CAMM-ER makes sense to me.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(missile_family). CAMM export sales is "great", and mass production is guaranteed. I like it. With further promotion, it more than a few thousands of CAMM could be manufactured. Mass production, it is. Very rare in UK missile inventory.

[Repulse]

I agree but the Navy and politicians seem unable or unwilling to give up operations beyond CSG hence the requirement for low level warships. I hesitate to call them escorts.

By the way, a singe RN AAW/ASW class is unachievable and not particularly desirable.

I agree on the first part, though suspect events and economics will force a clarification on that point.

On your point around a single AAW/ASW class I do understand the complexities / cost implied implications, but given the direction of FADS I think this actually becomes increasingly possible and desirable.

[Poiuytrewq]

With this said I still think we need 3 more Type 31

Or 3x more T31 in a Iver Huitfeldt AAW configuration with perhaps NS200 or Artisan plus S1850M to replace the T45’s as choke point goalkeepers. Much faster than waiting on T83 to arrive.

This would allow the T45s to concentrate on the CSG as planned.

If the SLOCs are now to be routinely targeted on an ongoing basis there may be a rational argument to upgrade all of the T31s to a IH AAW configuration or at least the final 3x hulls.

IMO the bubble has finally burst on the cosy peace time fallacy that a handful of escorts is fine and international coalitions will fill in the gaps when required. It’s clear to everyone now that RN is too small.

Taking into consideration recent events current planning looks massively deficient in dedicated AAW escorts.

• 6x AAW Destroyers
• 8x ASW Frigates
• 5x Patrol or GP Frigates
• 5x Multi Role Frigates (optimised to support the FCF)
• 8x OPV

IMO there is strong argument now to ditch the T32 and fully upgrade the T31 if funding was to tick up to 2.5% (as planned) to sort this out. With the potential for 32x Mk41 cells the T31 has a straightforward path to upgrade as a UOR. Any extra funding for the T32 and RB1 replacements could be diverted to the T26 program to accelerate the builds and produce another 4x hulls within the existing program timescale. This could be as much as £2.5bn to £3bn between 2026 and 2032.

Funding and the rapidly deteriorating headcount are issues that need to be resolved but the end result would be much more rational and sustainable.

• 6x T45
• 6x T31 AAW
• 12x T26
• 5x OPV

The FCF support requirement could be fully added to the MRSS program. Much reduced risk.

Unfortunately the world is changing and current MoD planning and UK defence funding simply haven’t realigned yet to confront the new reality.

Just my opinion.

[Ron5]

I agree but the Navy and politicians seem unable or unwilling to give up operations beyond CSG hence the requirement for low level warships. I hesitate to call them escorts.

By the way, a singe RN AAW/ASW class is unachievable and not particularly desirable.

I agree on the first part, though suspect events and economics will force a clarification on that point.

On your point around a single AAW/ASW class I do understand the complexities / cost implied implications, but given the direction of FADS I think this actually becomes increasingly possible and desirable.

We will politely agree to disagree

[Ron5]

With this said I still think we need 3 more Type 31

Or 3x more T31 in a Iver Huitfeldt AAW configuration with perhaps NS200 or Artisan plus S1850M to replace the T45’s as choke point goalkeepers. Much faster than waiting on T83 to arrive.

This would allow the T45s to concentrate on the CSG as planned.

If the SLOCs are now to be routinely targeted on an ongoing basis there may be a rational argument to upgrade all of the T31s to a IH AAW configuration or at least the final 3x hulls.

IMO the bubble has finally burst on the cosy peace time fallacy that a handful of escorts is fine and international coalitions will fill in the gaps when required. It’s clear to everyone now that RN is too small.

Taking into consideration recent events current planning looks massively deficient in dedicated AAW escorts.

• 6x AAW Destroyers
• 8x ASW Frigates
• 5x Patrol or GP Frigates
• 5x Multi Role Frigates (optimised to support the FCF)
• 8x OPV

IMO there is strong argument now to ditch the T32 and fully upgrade the T31 if funding was to tick up to 2.5% (as planned) to sort this out. With the potential for 32x Mk41 cells the T31 has a straightforward path to upgrade as a UOR. Any extra funding for the T32 and RB1 replacements could be diverted to the T26 program to accelerate the builds and produce another 4x hulls within the existing program timescale. This could be as much as £2.5bn to £3bn between 2026 and 2032.

Funding and the rapidly deteriorating headcount are issues that need to be resolved but the end result would be much more rational and sustainable.

• 6x T45
• 6x T31 AAW
• 12x T26
• 5x OPV

The FCF support requirement could be fully added to the MRSS program. Much reduced risk.

Unfortunately the world is changing and current MoD planning and UK defence funding simply haven’t realigned yet to confront the new reality.

Just my opinion.

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

[Poiuytrewq]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

[Ron5]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

Not sure what you read into FADS seeing that it has not been fully defined or published but this pretty picture makes the T83 look very much like a T45 in capability with the addition of CEC.

[tomuk]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

FADS is a load of nonsense, hence the name, it is just recycling old and new buzzwords while the reality is the RN hasn't the cash to do any serious development.

[SW1]

Would this not lead to the T83 being cancelled and the RN unable to handle future threat levels that ship will be designed to combat?

If FADS becomes a reality what would a T83 actually look like?

It may not be what everyone is expecting.

FADS is a load of nonsense, hence the name, it is just recycling old and new buzzwords while the reality is the RN hasn't the cash to do any serious development.

Must of learned that from the army.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Moved from River B2 OPV thread...

...As has been announced the first CIP has already been signed.

And, there is no FMS talk of Mk41 order for T31 yet. Also the CIP cost was very cheap. I think the CIP on order does NOT include Mk.41. It is for future. ...

Actually, I think it should not include Mk.41 now. At least the first 3 hulls must come with simple armaments, to be accepted into service as soon as possible. For example, only "adding 24 CAMM mushroom" (in addition to some ECM and communication suites).

SeaCeptor systems integration to TACTICOS has been awarded to MBDA years ago. I think (hope) most of the work is done and tested. If so, we only need to locate 24 mushrooms and 2 Launch Management Boxes (many example exists worldwide), connected to the CMS (TACTICOS). Other than "verifying the SeaCeptor software on TACTICOS with actual launch", there is almost nothing new to do. Simple.

If it is Mk.41, RN first need to buy ExLS (first), integrate it into Mk.41 VLS (first), wiring LMS boxes within them is also another "new" (first). Of course, RN need to buy new Mk41. How long it will take from order to deliver? After every hardware is there, RN need to be the launch customer of "CAMM in ExLS in Mk.41".

RN is in hurry, needs T31 as soon as possible, say, by 2027, into service.

[shark bait]

Totally! Every year without new frigates hurts the Navy. If Mk41 slow down the T31 introduction it should be added later.

[Poiuytrewq]

So yes a new class would need to be designed which would need to be 105 by 16 meters with a top speed between 22 and 25 knots given we would be building 12 of them I think we could get them for 120 million each = 1.5 billion if we take the Type 32 budget at 2.5 we could build 3 more type 31+ for say 1.1 billion and 12 new MHPC for 1.5 billion giving a overall budget of 2.6 billion and surcurring Rosyth dock yard into the 2040's

Its a solid plan but other options exist which are also just as plausible.

For example, RN could decide to be really sensible and reduce the 24 escort target to 22 to ease pressure on the headcount. This could result in a requirement for 12x AAW escorts and 10x ASW escorts. Thereby enabling 4x AAW escorts and 3x ASW escorts to be available at any one time. This would give the ability to have 1x AAW + 1x ASW permanently available for the CSG, 1x ASW escort permanently available to protect the CASD and 3x AAW escorts and 1x ASW escort routinely available for other taskings.

Achieving it is even more straightforward than current planning. The T31 reverts back to Iver Huitfeldt base design and 6x are built for around £450 unit or £2.7bn. The 12x AAW escort requirement would be met within five years.

The T32 program would be dissolved and the remaining funding used to build an extra 2x T26 at £900m unit or £1.8bn combined within an accelerated build schedule at Govan to make full use of that new build hall.

This would require no extra funding injection over the predicted £2.5bn T32 program cost.

The 22x escorts and 5x RB2s would satisfy the patrol element of MHPC and any available funding for RB1 replacements, the 3x LSVs and the 2nd MROSS would be untouched. This could be added into the MRSS program to produce 10 to 12 hulls.

IMO it produces a better outcome, with less risk and within the currently envisaged budgetary envelope.