NickC wrote:I seem to remember Babcock included a clause in T31 contract that excluded any mods or changes by the RN to the agreed specification and presume Babcock would have deleted any electrical, pneumatic and water supply lines etc for the Mk41s as in the parent Iver Huitfeldt design to save costs to meet the very tight £250 million price.
Babcock didn't include the clause it was mutually agreed because it's mutually beneficial.
NickC wrote:Following the 1stSL's comments maybe he envisages that as soon as the first T31 constabulary ship (Babcock description of its capabilities) is delivered it will be straight back in the shipyard to be cut up and modified to fit the Mk41 VLS cells all at horrendous cost compared to the cost if it the Mk41s been included in the original RN specification. V Adm Gardner in his recent interview re T31 said much the same as they would insert 'capabilities' through life, though did admit at a cost premium. This seems totally contrary to the National Shipbuilding Strategy which was based on a continuous drumbeat of orders, first with a Mark 1 and then sold on early to be replaced with a Mark 2 with additional capabilities and so on.
If Mk41 is plug and play and T31 is fitted to receive, why is there an need to cut up at horrendous cost? Capability insertions are a normal part of business at HMNBs. As for Admiral Gardner's interview and whether to mid-life update or dispose of the T31, he addresses exactly this issue if you listen to whole interview.
NickC wrote:The constabulary T31 the result of the Treasury imposed cost cap of £250 million per ship following the MoD/RN total mismanagement of the T26 programme whose costs rocketed way over budget, SD67 noted as £4.7 billion for the first three T26s (initial design, demonstration and build phase costs).
The Treasury didn't cap the cost, the MoD did.