As you said, I disagree
If you are proposing to sacrifice significantly on AAW capability to add the land attack capability, it may work.
My
serious concern is as follows.
Let's assume RN proposes a £10B GBP program for 4 T83 cruisers.
- £2B GBP for developing new AAW system
- £2B GBP for ship design and its initial "build inefficiency"
- 4 times £1.5B = £6B for 4 hulls
If the AAW system development
cost rises by x1.33 (4/3), and hull unit-cost by x1.33 (4/3), what will be the end result hull number?
It is
NOT 3 hulls, it is ONLY 2 hulls, RN will have.
- £2.7B GBP for developing new AAW system
- £2.7B GBP for ship design and its initial "build inefficiency"
- 2 times £2B GBP for the
2 hulls.
(EDIT: £0.6B remaining)
Eight hulls for T83 has a good rationale. It was 8 T45 that the RN finally proposed when budgeting T45. It is just because of PAAMS development cost increase, and slight hull cost increase, which resulted in 6 T45s.
"This time, we will not make cost over run for new AAW system development, and will keep the hull technology more conservative (not like T45) so that its unit cost will be controlled". Then, the default AAW hull number RN needs is 8 hulls (because T45 program was originally required to provide 5 "ready" hulls). I think this rationale still remains.
Then, if something happens, we may be able to secure 6 T83, I think.
Note I am not pessimistic by all means here, just realistic.