Ron5 wrote:There is zero chance the Type 31's are delivered at 250m each.
Trivial pursuit: what was the last RN warship class to be delivered at original budget?
Doesn't mean the Type 31's are bad ships or should be cancelled but let's be real here.
1: In many cases, the "cost rise" problem happens right before the order.
2: Cost rise AFTER contract sometimes happen, and sometimes not, to my memory. (Here, if the cost rise is within 10% or so, I do not think it is a "rise", just eating the margin.)
T23 build is, to my memory, also within the budget in many cases. (Here, this "budget" is NOT the "foreseen program budget" listed in 1980s, but comparing between contract and delivery.)
Bad example is the Bay class, especially the SwanHunter's case.
So, my big interest now is on, two standpoints.
1: before contract: with what cost and what specification Babcock will contract with MOD to build the 5 T31.
After the contract was formed, then there is a good possibility it will be done within the cost, if the contractor was well trained
2: after contract: Can Babcock be considered as "well trained"? Not clear at all. Babcock has never built an escort warship
, but only OPV and survey ships. SwanHunter was an escort builder, but also had an experience of a Fort and 2 Rovers before the 2 Bays, but the issue happened. Also, Arrowhead 140 design itself is new to Babcock. If there are many "hidden knowledge" which is "common sense" for Denmark, but "quite fresh" for Babcock, it will cause a disaster.
Overall, I have no idea. Blaming for risk is justified and counter-arguing for support is also justified. Both claim has no strong standpoint. So, preparing for cost rise is right thing to do. If no cost rise took place, the money can go elsewhere (such as more SSM). No problem, RN will lose nothing in this case. If being optimistic and failed, then RN will be forced to cut something else, as usual.