Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 16:13 All these usv, uavs and unmanned submarines are going to cost money, as will the weapons systems that go into the ships. Ship numbers will reduce from where they are today to afford them.

every single one of these posts are increasing numbers of ships being built and every single report on the future equipment program shows that there is no money there to do it. The more high end ships you add the greater the cut else where there will need to be.
Too many variables to be certain this is fact.

For example:

What if Ukraine is gifted the entire T31 class in a military aid transaction? Depending on the valuation RN could receive the funds for the first four or five T32s. No need for hull numbers to drop.

What if the T83 ends being eight adapted T26s for £8bn rather than four or six clean sheet mega-cruisers for the same amount. Not implausible at all.

Bespoke, gold plated, vanity projects will absolutely result in reduced hull numbers but it doesn’t have to be that way.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:06 My view is we would end up with

6 Type 83
8 x type 26
6 x type 32
10 x New 105 x 17 meter MHPC

the French will end up with

2 x Horizon
8 x FREMM
5 x FDI
12 x Europe corvette or the like to replace there Floreal & D'Estienne d'Orves classes
We can also look at Italy which will have

2 x Horizon
10 x FREMM
7 x PPA
8 x Euro Corvette

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:19
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 16:13 All these usv, uavs and unmanned submarines are going to cost money, as will the weapons systems that go into the ships. Ship numbers will reduce from where they are today to afford them.

every single one of these posts are increasing numbers of ships being built and every single report on the future equipment program shows that there is no money there to do it. The more high end ships you add the greater the cut else where there will need to be.
Too many variables to be certain this is fact.

For example:

What if Ukraine is gifted the entire T31 class in a military aid transaction? Depending on the valuation RN could receive the funds for the first four or five T32s. No need for hull numbers to drop.

What if the T83 ends being eight adapted T26s for £8bn rather than four or six clean sheet mega-cruisers for the same amount. Not implausible at all.

Bespoke, gold plated, vanity projects will absolutely result in reduced hull numbers but it doesn’t have to be that way.
The definitive is in the budget won’t be getting bigger. Why I say this the tax burden won’t be getting any higher, they won’t be cutting health, welfare or education budget to pass it on to defence and defence isn’t even in the top 10 of voters interests and that’s with a war on europes continent.

There will be some big bills coming in 2030s particularly around submarines and tempest. There isn’t £8 for type 83 or mine hunters or the commandos let alone 8 billion. Stocks of weapons will need to increase that will not be cheap. A lot of helicopter replacements will be in that time frame too as will the mrtt tanker transport contract end point.

Even if that was sensible it would mean you need to design from scratch a new type 32 ship and build them for less that 1.5billion pounds I don’t believe that Is going to happen.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:36
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:06 My view is we would end up with

6 Type 83
8 x type 26
6 x type 32
10 x New 105 x 17 meter MHPC

the French will end up with

2 x Horizon
8 x FREMM
5 x FDI
12 x Europe corvette or the like to replace there Floreal & D'Estienne d'Orves classes
We can also look at Italy which will have

2 x Horizon
10 x FREMM
7 x PPA
8 x Euro Corvette
Italys entire fremm program ships has 16 vls for aster missile. The suggestion of us having 12 vls on type 31 for camm makes it apparently worthless as a frigate…. Just saying.

The ppa/euro corvette is something equivalent to what was originally the c3 requirement as it appears to be onboard with the Danish cube system for mcm/hydrographic ect ect. We will have something at the lower end provided we don’t invest anymore at the top.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

15 x T26 (inc 6 B3 AAW enhanced)
12 x T32 OSPS (Off-board System & Patrol Ships)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

While I am sure the Ukrainians would not say no to having the T31s transferred to them I would have serious concerns about vulnerability given the Kilo SSK threat in the Black Sea and the proximity of substantial Russian aviation assets.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:44
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:36
Tempest414 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 17:06 My view is we would end up with

6 Type 83
8 x type 26
6 x type 32
10 x New 105 x 17 meter MHPC

the French will end up with

2 x Horizon
8 x FREMM
5 x FDI
12 x Europe corvette or the like to replace there Floreal & D'Estienne d'Orves classes
We can also look at Italy which will have

2 x Horizon
10 x FREMM
7 x PPA
8 x Euro Corvette
Italys entire fremm program ships has 16 vls for aster missile. The suggestion of us having 12 vls on type 31 for camm makes it apparently worthless as a frigate…. Just saying.

The ppa/euro corvette is something equivalent to what was originally the c3 requirement as it appears to be onboard with the Danish cube system for mcm/hydrographic ect ect. We will have something at the lower end provided we don’t invest anymore at the top.
MBDA have said on there site that CAMM can be quad packed in A50 cells so if Italy wanted to pay it could have 64 CAMM or 10 Aster 30 and 24 CAMM

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 18:23 15 x T26 (inc 6 B3 AAW enhanced)
12 x T32 OSPS (Off-board System & Patrol Ships)
If you were willing to accept your type 32 was a lot like HMS protector and were prepared to give up future commando and its associated shipping you could probably do that.


Tbh rather than a simple collection of equipment purchases with not much regard for one and other I would be interested to see a set of defence planning assumptions of what we expect to do eg defend the uk, conduct a high intensity medium scale conflict, conduct 3 small scale oversea endurance operations ect and then see what sort of equipment we need to ensure we can undertake that task. It’s not a perfect construct as you can manipulate what is needed for each task but it may give some direction to set a a top 5 priority investment.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 18:46 If you were willing to accept your type 32 was a lot like HMS protector and were prepared to give up future commando and its associated shipping you could probably do that.
The T32 for me is probably an extended version of the original Venator 80 - cheap, flexible and effectively the white transit van of the seas.

To you point on the FCF in terms of new LPDs maybe, but I think the LPD/LSD fleet if ring fenced and used/rotated wisely for a single LRG can last into the late 2030’s, over that period lots of things can happen. My personal view is that a combination of RMs deployed on warships (T26s & T31s) and RFAs (deployed OTH by sea and air) is probably the future anyway.
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 18:46
Tbh rather than a simple collection of equipment purchases with not much regard for one and other I would be interested to see a set of defence planning assumptions of what we expect to do eg defend the uk, conduct a high intensity medium scale conflict, conduct 3 small scale oversea endurance operations ect and then see what sort of equipment we need to ensure we can undertake that task. It’s not a perfect construct as you can manipulate what is needed for each task but it may give some direction to set a a top 5 priority investment.
1. UK EEZ defence, especially against manned and unmanned underwater systems
2. Sea control of the North Sea and North Atlantic, and CASD
3. Patrol and forward presence in and around UK BOTs and training/surveillance globally in African, Mediterranean and Indo Pacific regions.
4. Ability to project power globally via a flexible CSG (inc LRG elements)
5: Ability to project global power via SSNs
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The reason I feel that T32 are looking increasingly unlikely are twofold: crew and Budget.

Crew:
We are currently down to 18 escorts. 6*T45, 8*T23 ASW, 4*T23 GP. When Montrose is decommissioned shortlyonce she gets back from Bahrain, that will reduce it to just 17 escorts. But allowing for ships undergoing maintenance, PIP and LIFEX, we are now down to effectively around 12-13 escorts that we can crew. Because the T26 and T31 will need less crew than T23, we should b able to stretch to just about crewing 6*T45 + 8*T26 + 5*T31. But that will lave no crew available for any T32.

Budget:
The recent National Audit Opinion report on The Equipment Plan 2021-2031 has noted that expected to spend record amounts on equipment in that period, up £48bn or 25% over last year's Equipment Plan. It has done so utilising ll available contingencies and assuming that further cost efficiencies are achieved, despite the current high level of cost inflation. The NAO report notes that it "currently estimates that the Plan’s budget will exceed costs by £4.3 billion to 2031".

So with that level of Budget shortfall, anything that is currently unfunded is most unlikely to happen. T32 were a hot air promise by fomer PM before last, Boris Johnson. As far as we know, currently the design costs for T32 are unfunded, let alone the construction and fitting out costs.

So the T32 are only likely to happen if we sell other RN ships. Various people have suggested selling River B2's, th T26 Batch 1's or T32's. I fear that some of the expected sales values were touch optmistic. e.g. selling the fixed contract low price 5*T31's to be able to afford more amibitious nigher cost %*T32's in unlikely, not without offereing a huge discount. I mean so far (ignoring Ukraine and the high degree of what will yet happen in war vs Russia), only Poland and Indonesia were willing to buy T31's, and that was on the premise that their domsetic industry would benefit by building them. How much would they pay for UK built 2nd-hand T31's??

That is why I have suggested keeping costs down by not ordering the 5*T32, using our limited funds in making the most of our existing hulls, and for when future ships need to be ordered in early-mid 2030's, to keep both Govan and Rosyth busy by ordering stretched Batch 3 versions of existing designs: for Govan stretched versions of T26 to hopefully benefit from their familiarity of building the previous 8 ships, and for Rosyth initially stretched version of River to act as Global Patrol Sloop's and free up the T31's from being upgraded with armanent, sensors including Radar and Sonar, to be proper frigates, in line with Danish Ivar Huidfeldt class Frigates.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:13Venator 80
What is a Venator 80?

Do you mean 90 or a Venari 85?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:41
Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:13Venator 80
What is a Venator 80?

Do you mean 90 or a Venari 85?
Typo, it should have been 90 (though extended to over 100m)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The design of the T32 is undecided, it could easily be a low cost / small crew platform.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:44 The design of the T32 is undecided, it could easily be a low cost / small crew platform.
True but then what would escort the LRGs?

If the answer is the T31s then where would the ASW cover come from?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:47
Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:44 The design of the T32 is undecided, it could easily be a low cost / small crew platform.
True but then what would escort the LRGs?

If the answer is the T31s then where would the ASW cover come from?
There should only be one LRG, the south one at best is an RFA conversion operating solo in low threat environments.

The LRG could be escorted by T26s, but in reality anything significant it would be by a CSG. T32s would be part of the groups, but they wouldn’t be HVU escorts themselves.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 20:13
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 18:46 If you were willing to accept your type 32 was a lot like HMS protector and were prepared to give up future commando and its associated shipping you could probably do that.
The T32 for me is probably an extended version of the original Venator 80 - cheap, flexible and effectively the white transit van of the seas.

To you point on the FCF in terms of new LPDs maybe, but I think the LPD/LSD fleet if ring fenced and used/rotated wisely for a single LRG can last into the late 2030’s, over that period lots of things can happen. My personal view is that a combination of RMs deployed on warships (T26s & T31s) and RFAs (deployed OTH by sea and air) is probably the future anyway.
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 18:46
Tbh rather than a simple collection of equipment purchases with not much regard for one and other I would be interested to see a set of defence planning assumptions of what we expect to do eg defend the uk, conduct a high intensity medium scale conflict, conduct 3 small scale oversea endurance operations ect and then see what sort of equipment we need to ensure we can undertake that task. It’s not a perfect construct as you can manipulate what is needed for each task but it may give some direction to set a a top 5 priority investment.
1. UK EEZ defence, especially against manned and unmanned underwater systems
2. Sea control of the North Sea and North Atlantic, and CASD
3. Patrol and forward presence in and around UK BOTs and training/surveillance globally in African, Mediterranean and Indo Pacific regions.
4. Ability to project power globally via a flexible CSG (inc LRG elements)
5: Ability to project global power via SSNs
1. 4 MCM/capable motherships
2. Ssbn, p8, a frigates an ssn and NATO partners.
3. Patrol vessel, uav in the Caribbean and similar in the Falklands.
Satellite, sigint surveillance, RN FOST training teams, RM training teams working with locals in African the med and Asia,
4 a carrier and 4 escorts a tanker and a stores ship and an ssn
5 an ssn one location?

So a force of what 4ssbn, 8 ssn, 2 carriers 10 frigates and 6 mcm mother ships a couple of stores ships and tankers?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:01 There should only be one LRG, the south one at best is an RFA conversion operating solo in low threat environments.
IMO that defeats the point of the LRG in the first place.

What’s to be gained by having a single high readiness force of elite commandos specialising in short endurance littoral strike…..that can only operate in low threat areas.

Probably best to save the money and not bother.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:03 So a force of what 4ssbn, 8 ssn, 2 carriers 10 frigates and 6 mcm mother ships a couple of stores ships and tankers?
Zero amphibious capabilities so no need for the Royal Marines?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:03 1. 4 MCM/capable motherships
2. Ssbn, p8, a frigates an ssn and NATO partners.
3. Patrol vessel, uav in the Caribbean and similar in the Falklands.
Satellite, sigint surveillance, RN FOST training teams, RM training teams working with locals in African the med and Asia,
4 a carrier and 4 escorts a tanker and a stores ship and an ssn
5 an ssn one location?

So a force of what 4ssbn, 8 ssn, 2 carriers 10 frigates and 6 mcm mother ships a couple of stores ships and tankers?
For #3: Would say FIPS, WIPS, GibPS plus 2-3 IndoPacific would require a pool of 8 ships
For #4: 2 CSGs plus the LRG(N) would require a T26 pool of about 10 frigate minimum (possibly 12).
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:11
Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:01 There should only be one LRG, the south one at best is an RFA conversion operating solo in low threat environments.
IMO that defeats the point of the LRG in the first place.

What’s to be gained by having a single high readiness force of elite commandos specialising in short endurance littoral strike…..that can only operate in low threat areas.

Probably best to save the money and not bother.
An RFA operating EoS with a company of Commandos is hardly new - RFA Victoria was a frequent visitor around Somalia. Limited yes, but not useless.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:26 An RFA operating EoS with a company of Commandos is hardly new - RFA Victoria was a frequent visitor around Somalia. Limited yes, but not useless.
A company of Royal Marines EoS on an unescorted solid stores ship is not an LRG.

What is the strategic value of such a force whereby the same result could not be achieved by a much cheaper airborne rapid reaction force at short notice?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:18
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:03 So a force of what 4ssbn, 8 ssn, 2 carriers 10 frigates and 6 mcm mother ships a couple of stores ships and tankers?
Zero amphibious capabilities so no need for the Royal Marines?
I don’t see any need against the 5 asks repulse put fwd which were very naval in orientation

I would have been more interested seeing a small scale intervention force based on a joint approach in maybe in two areas simultaneously and perhaps a medium intervention capability for 3 months. Capable of say high end crisis response, emergency evacuation or humanitarian response with a pull of assets.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussionust

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:23
SW1 wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:03 1. 4 MCM/capable motherships
2. Ssbn, p8, a frigates an ssn and NATO partners.
3. Patrol vessel, uav in the Caribbean and similar in the Falklands.
Satellite, sigint surveillance, RN FOST training teams, RM training teams working with locals in African the med and Asia,
4 a carrier and 4 escorts a tanker and a stores ship and an ssn
5 an ssn one location?

So a force of what 4ssbn, 8 ssn, 2 carriers 10 frigates and 6 mcm mother ships a couple of stores ships and tankers?
For #3: Would say FIPS, WIPS, GibPS plus 2-3 IndoPacific would require a pool of 8 ships
For #4: 2 CSGs plus the LRG(N) would require a T26 pool of about 10 frigate minimum (possibly 12).
Why we have not need to protect gib beyond the fast response craft and perhaps helicopters from the airfield. There is no U.K. sovereign territories in the pacific that needs protection. We pay New Zealand to provide assistance to Pitcairn.

You don’t need that many to support a single carrier deployment

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:35
Repulse wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 21:26 An RFA operating EoS with a company of Commandos is hardly new - RFA Victoria was a frequent visitor around Somalia. Limited yes, but not useless.
A company of Royal Marines EoS on an unescorted solid stores ship is not an LRG.

What is the strategic value of such a force whereby the same result could not be achieved by a much cheaper airborne rapid reaction force at short notice?
Correct, it’s not an LRG, as I said there would only be one. Also, I never said it would be to the exclusion of other options; however a maritime based capability has been used in the past and v.likely needed again.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 04 Dec 2022, 13:17 On plan-B.

Plan-A: find a resource to design T83 on time This will deeply depend on what kind of AAW system it will adopt. Remain on Aster world, or go for AEGIS world. Note that, AAW system development costs even more than the ship design cost. If RN accept going with AEGIS, or just "import" France/Italian system, RN only needs ship design. If new UK-included AAW system is needed, UK need to pay for it. And, we know both has no money allocated now (until 2033).

Also, pushing strong for "T83 and new AAW system" may mean T32 banned.

Plan-B: It is highly likely that we shall see delay of T83. If design work starts around 2033, the first hull will be delivered about 8 year later on 2041, I guess. Even in the case of T45, which had Horizon program as a starter, it tool 8 years to delivery and 10 years to be "in service". So, Clyde needs some ships to deliver from 2035-2041, 5-6 years long.

If we try to fill this gap with "more T26", it will be 3 hulls with "2 years drumbeat" (which is 33% longer than the "1.5 years drumbeat of the 8 hulls). Slow build means higher cost, sadly. So, ideas like
Plan-B-option-1: selling 3 T26 B1s to get 3 more batch 3 T26
Plan-B-option-2: selling all 5 T31s to get 3 more batch 3 T26
come in. I think both is "not a bad idea". In view of export, selling all 5 T31 is more easy, I guess.

Plan-B-option-3: Something like River B2 OPVs? As I understand, MOD ordered 5 OPVs to save 3 years. So, to save 5-6 years, we need an amount of order equivalent to 8-10 River B2 OPVs. On 2036, 3 River B1 are 33 years old and would have been gone ("replaced" by T31), and 5 River B2s are 16-18 years old. Selling the later may work, as originally planned for River B1 in 2016, but RN do NOT need 8-10 OPVs.


So, I think a mix of Plan-B-option-1, 2 and 3 shall be sensible. Rosyth? Forget it as an escort builder. Fight with Belfast and Cammel Laird for 4 Point-replacements, 4 MHC-LSV, 1 MROSS (2nd hull), to survive for the day when LPD/LSD replacements will come.

Note that in either case, I forget about T32. With tight budget (as well as man-power), RN do NOT need it. Not saying T32 itself is bad. Just saying, introducing T32 shall force big cuts elsewhere, and I cannot find any.
Much can happen between now and 2035. Much depends on the elephant in The room, which is Successor. Reasonable assumptions about current programs will lead to some financial space in 2032-34. Design doesn’t cost much if you’re importing the missile. I think 83 will start on time and if there’s a delay then maybe a 9th 26 or 3 OPVs come into the picture.

Hopefully by then the whole Indyref thing has died down

Post Reply