The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

You have had quite a long reponse on how the carriers would be similar or less cost than we ended up paying I think we just have to acknowledge that we don't agree.

Correct we don't agree, moreover I fail to see how you could be so enthusiastic over spreading procurement over a longer period when the MOD has rightly been criticsed for doing this on the basis of it increasing costs numerous times in the past. Was the Gray report wrong?

On BVT there is over capacity in the industry and without exports yards will have to close, merely merging will not keep them open it will just restrict competition.

So your solution is do nothing? Industry will continue on with shipyards closing, survival of the fittest and what we have left after VT eventually sold out to BAE would probably result in one supplier as we do have now. Sounds like rulling out any chance of exports being won at all in the future, all available capacity would be needed by the RN for replacement ships.

 

[1805]

Correct we don't agree, moreover I fail to see how you could be so enthusiastic over spreading procurement over a longer period when the MOD has rightly been criticsed for doing this on the basis of it increasing costs numerous times in the past. Was the Gray report wrong?



So your solution is do nothing? Industry will continue on with shipyards closing, survival of the fittest and what we have left after VT eventually sold out to BAE would probably result in one supplier as we do have now. Sounds like rulling out any chance of exports being won at all in the future, all available capacity would be needed by the RN for replacement ships.

The Gray Report as I understood it was about delays in programmes and the length of them. I am not talking about spreading the procurement contract over the 25 years, I am talking about recognising the relationship bettern the number of ships we plan to operate, their length of service and the time it take to build them.

As I have said before I would have built a 2500t ASW frigate that can patrol in peacetime this would have been ideal for VT as they ahve built similar commerically.

 

[kev 99]

The Gray Report as I understood it was about delays in programmes and the length of them. I am not talking about spreading the procurement contract over the 25 years, I am talking about recognising the relationship bettern the number of ships we plan to operate, their length of service and the time it take to build them.

How very vague.

The Gray report was based on MOD procurement practice on the whole with the inevitable conclusion that the MOD wasn't very good at it, it particularly cites stretching out of contracts as poor practice but this is only one example of the failings highlighted.

As I have said before I would have built a 2500t ASW frigate that can patrol in peacetime this would have been ideal for VT as they ahve built similar commerically.

Sounds like what you want to build a large number of Leanders. Unfortunately without the Cold War it doesn't seem like there is a role for them; moreover I don't see many Western navies building similar sized vessels instead opting for a greater number of larger more multirole ships.

 

[1805]

How very vague.

The Gray report was based on MOD procurement practice on the whole with the inevitable conclusion that the MOD wasn't very good at it, it particularly cites stretching out of contracts as poor practice but this is only one example of the failings highlighted.



Sounds like what you want to build a large number of Leanders. Unfortunately without the Cold War it doesn't seem like there is a role for them; moreover I don't see many Western navies building similar sized vessels instead opting for a greater number of larger more multirole ships.

What do you mean vague I can hardly cover a who report in a few lines.

There is no role for a 7,000 T26, there is need for a reasonable number of hulls. BTW the Leader was a GP frigate bring together the T61/T41/T12 roles.

Oh and are subs not the biggest threat a fleet faces, or do navies not have them now the Cold War is over?

 

[kev 99]

What do you mean vague I can hardly cover a who report in a few lines.

There is no role for a 7,000 T26, there is need for a reasonable number of hulls. BTW the Leader was a GP frigate bring together the T61/T41/T12 roles.

Oh and are subs not the biggest threat a fleet faces, or do navies not have them now the Cold War is over?

You haven't covered any specifics and have failed to state a convincing case for building smaller cheaper/comparable carriers, you can't argue against this becuase the price comes out at a comparable value but you are ordering in the most expensive way possible; single units, you are choosing to ignore this fact. You are choosing to ignore that you are operating more ships as well but fail to give specific details about how you are going to boost the operating budget, perhaps the magic you are going to work in the procurement budget will rub off onto the operating budget?

All available material for T26 says 6,000 tonnes, if there is no role for this size frigate then why are the Western navies (France, Germany et al) building similar sized ones? how come none of them are building a large fleet of small ASW frigates? How come many of them are decomissioning their cold war ASW Frigates for more multi role vessels with longer range?
By the way there are already reports circulating that the specifications of the Type 26 has been downgraded to save on costs, although there do not appear to be any details of how this is to be achieved I strongly suspect it will provide the RN with ships inferior to the FREMMs that France and Italy are getting and less useful than the German F125s.

What do you call a reasonable number? The RN needs 13, it's not going to get more than that.

Leanders were built because of a very specific threat; the red banner sub fleet, the Cold War doesn't exist any longer therefore the UK MOD does not need a huge fleet of single role ASW ships to protect the GIUK, it needs ships with global reach, you're not going to get that with a fleet of 2,500 tonne frigates, this has been explained to you already you keep choosing to ignore it though.

BTW if you want to keep rewriting history in your efforts to fix the MOD budget you need to go back further in time; to the early to mid 90s when the most wasteful of the current MOD equipment programmes started. You will also need to bust heads in the army and RAF as well as the RN.

 

[1805]

You haven't covered any specifics and have failed to state a convincing case for building smaller cheaper/comparable carriers, you can't argue against this becuase the price comes out at a comparable value but you are ordering in the most expensive way possible; single units, you are choosing to ignore this fact. You are choosing to ignore that you are operating more ships as well but fail to give specific details about how you are going to boost the operating budget, perhaps the magic you are going to work in the procurement budget will rub off onto the operating budget?

.

Its not the most expensive way to procure ships, the most expensive way is to order then delay which is what we have ended doing.

 

[kev 99]

Its not the most expensive way to procure ships, the most expensive way is to order then delay which is what we have ended doing.

A meaningful answer for once, well I would suggest that delaying an order once placed is symptomatic of not having the budget to place the order in the first place. What should of happened is that the carrier order should probably have been delayed and the funds allocated to other programmes in the mean time, but then of course we need to find something for the shipyards to do which doesn't cost any money. Maybe we could just leave the UK shipbuilding industry alone as you suggested earlier? after all, a gap in sub building worked so well for Barrow.

 

[1805]

A meaningful answer for once, well I would suggest that delaying an order once placed is symptomatic of not having the budget to place the order in the first place. What should of happened is that the carrier order should probably have been delayed and the funds allocated to other programmes in the mean time, but then of course we need to find something for the shipyards to do which doesn't cost any money. Maybe we could just leave the UK shipbuilding industry alone as you suggested earlier? after all, a gap in sub building worked so well for Barrow.

Thats the complete opposite to what I have been saying, ie ships should be built in an industrial cycle so that ship yards don't have building gap and that we should avoid building 100% new designs and constant contruction and up grades in batchs. These are feel are lessons from the past not just ideal suggestions of what night have been.

But I agree they should not have ordered the carriers if they didn't have the budget....what they could have done is order 4 destroyers instead of 6, built a few less assault ships, and maybe ordered one carrier and then the next one when the first one had been built.....oh wasn't that what I suggested originally.

 

[1805]

You are choosing to ignore that you are operating more ships as well but fail to give specific details about how you are going to boost the operating budget, perhaps the magic you are going to work in the procurement budget will rub off onto the operating budget?

I did miss this gem. The point about the carriers and assault ships were passing remarks, to the main argument that we could have been more efficient and achieved a more balanced fleet, agreed some of this is with hindsight, (although quite a few can't see it even with this) we should take any learn and apply to the future.

However regarding your specific point, we would have operated same number of ships (always planned to operate 2 CVF + Ocean (assumed originally to be replaced).

I am surpised you view this as "magic" before you claimed it was common knowledge that the MOD was hopeless at procurement, but if you call it magic yes the same would appy to operating cost.

The 3 carriers would have had a similar airgroup btw, and as the GFC hit it would have been easy to not proceed with the 3 ship for delay it until after the T26 were complete c 2030.

 

[kev 99]

Thats the complete opposite to what I have been saying, ie ships should be built in an industrial cycle so that ship yards don't have building gap and that we should avoid building 100% new designs and constant contruction and up grades in batchs. These are feel are lessons from the past not just ideal suggestions of what night have been.

But I agree they should not have ordered the carriers if they didn't have the budget....what they could have done is order 4 destroyers instead of 6, built a few less assault ships, and maybe ordered one carrier and then the next one when the first one had been built.....oh wasn't that what I suggested originally.

You're trying to change history again, changing an inconvenient fact(s) in the past to prove a point. Basically what you're sugggesting as a solution to a problem isn't a solution because it requires a time machine.

If we don't build 100% new designs then basically the RN can't innovate at all and certainly can't build any aircraft carriers, they'd have to be evolutions of the Inviincible class which are too small and very restrictive.

I did miss this gem. The point about the carriers and assault ships were passing remarks, to the main argument that we could have been more efficient and achieved a more balanced fleet, agreed some of this is with hindsight, (although quite a few can't see it even with this) we should take any learn and apply to the future.

I'm not quite sure how you missed it, I asked the question enough times.

Everything you have said is with hindsight, it's what you do, criticise a decision taken years ago, without acknowledging the thought process that led to the decision and just try to rewrite history and come up with something more pleasing to you. It's not very helpful in any debate when someone says decision X is wrong and when challenged on what they would do different comes back with decision Y and Z should be done differently when they taken 10 or 20 years ago.

Of course decisions at the MOD could of been handled more efficiently, fact is though they were following the only plan they had; the 1997 SDR and the 2003 addendum, which as we all know the Government never adequately funded, and was basically out of date in the early 2000s.

It's rather easy to criticise the MOD, fact is though that the current budgetry pressure has its origins on decisions taken by the Major Government; many of the current most wasteful and overbudget programmes (Nimrod, Astute, Chinnok HC3) owe their problems to decisions then taken to save money which often backfired in rather spectacular fashion. This was followed by a labour Government which ignored them and mismanaged the MOD by appointing a series of inept Ministers and gave every encouragment to the MOD to keep on placing orders, and now we are where we are. The MOD is a Government department when it's run poorly it's the Government that should shoulder the blame.

However regarding your specific point, we would have operated same number of ships (always planned to operate 2 CVF + Ocean (assumed originally to be replaced).

But before you said that Ocean, Albion and Bulwark would be replaced with LHDs, now you are saying that Ocean would be replaced with a carrier? You are contradicting yourself. Then of course if you do you replacing Ocean with a rather lean crew of 280 with one that requires 600+, so you still need to find room in the operating budget to pay another 3-400 people and run a more expensive ship.

 

[StobieWan]

A follow on to the T42, addressing the issues with the design would have be a fraction of the cost and provided the basis for the T45.

Anyway to avoid being accused of dwelling on the past, the lesson for me is:

Avoid near 100% new designs, the best way to do this is build over the industrial cycle. Focus certain projects on specific yards.

What would the use of building a follow on to the 42? The missile and radar system were redundant, and the manning costs would have been much higher - the 45's have a far lower cost of ownership due to automation and their engineering arrangements among other innovations.

Again, the major issue with the 45 build timing was that we spent time and money getting involved in Horizon - it's nothing to do with the 45 being a new design per se.

If you want to rewrite history using 100% perfect hindsight, and needed a more rapid follow on to the type 42, then the easiest way to deliver this would have been to start an independent design immediately, in 1990 or thereabouts, saving five years of delay and about 200 million in design work. That would have delivered us a working AWD sooner, with a slightly more relaxed build cycle and we'd probably have ended up building a few more as at that time the requirement for a number of AWD's seemed more pressing.

There's nothing wrong with new designs, and avoiding them is a false economy - we needed something bigger and more capable than the Type 42, which had already had it's hull extended and displacement increased in the third batch.

The summary of Horizon is worth reading here:

Navy Matters | Type 45 Section

Ian

 

[1805]

You're trying to change history again, changing an inconvenient fact(s) in the past to prove a point. Basically what you're sugggesting as a solution to a problem isn't a solution because it requires a time machine.

If we don't build 100% new designs then basically the RN can't innovate at all and certainly can't build any aircraft carriers, they'd have to be evolutions of the Inviincible class which are too small and very restrictive.



I'm not quite sure how you missed it, I asked the question enough times.

Everything you have said is with hindsight, it's what you do, criticise a decision taken years ago, without acknowledging the thought process that led to the decision and just try to rewrite history and come up with something more pleasing to you. It's not very helpful in any debate when someone says decision X is wrong and when challenged on what they would do different comes back with decision Y and Z should be done differently when they taken 10 or 20 years ago.

Of course decisions at the MOD could of been handled more efficiently, fact is though they were following the only plan they had; the 1997 SDR and the 2003 addendum, which as we all know the Government never adequately funded, and was basically out of date in the early 2000s.

It's rather easy to criticise the MOD, fact is though that the current budgetry pressure has its origins on decisions taken by the Major Government; many of the current most wasteful and overbudget programmes (Nimrod, Astute, Chinnok HC3) owe their problems to decisions then taken to save money which often backfired in rather spectacular fashion. This was followed by a labour Government which ignored them and mismanaged the MOD by appointing a series of inept Ministers and gave every encouragment to the MOD to keep on placing orders, and now we are where we are. The MOD is a Government department when it's run poorly it's the Government that should shoulder the blame.



But before you said that Ocean, Albion and Bulwark would be replaced with LHDs, now you are saying that Ocean would be replaced with a carrier? You are contradicting yourself. Then of course if you do you replacing Ocean with a rather lean crew of 280 with one that requires 600+, so you still need to find room in the operating budget to pay another 3-400 people and run a more expensive ship.

I said most of this is with hindsight but the learning is there for the present. I was not critising this MOD/RN over any other in the past 40 years the rot has been there for many years.

The point about avoiding 100% new designs does not peclude innovation, it just says phase it in batches. Would you say a new BMW design is not innovative just because it carrys the engine/running gear from the last model.

The CVF, T45, Astute all had to be virtually new designs because such gaps existed. This not does matter we are where we are, but going foward we should try and adopt this approach.

The CVF/Invincible examble is obviously a very difficult one. I would argue CVF is effectively a replacement to CVA01 (which originally had a staggered build plan over 60, 70, 80s with 3 ships I understood, replacing the Vic, Ark & Eagle. But the continuious cycle construction approach would help even here, and this is exactly what the USN does with their carriers and for that matter the Burkes.

An example where I have said we could move this concept forward now is not building a massive T26 which will not give the numbers: for patrol, or a sustained run. If we could build a modest 2-3 batch 2 T45 with prehaps no more than c25-30% innovation and make up the numbers with a ship with the same ASW capability as T26 (ie broadly T23s) but can do all the patrol work which in peace time is vital.

Then post 2028 we could build a further batch 3 T45 of prehaps 3-4 ships. this way we could maintain a multi role cruiser/destroyer force of c10-12 ships with broadly similar capability. and c 15-12 patrol frigates (with say 8 fitted with top tier ASW capability)

 

[1805]

What would the use of building a follow on to the 42? The missile and radar system were redundant, and the manning costs would have been much higher - the 45's have a far lower cost of ownership due to automation and their engineering arrangements among other innovations.

Again, the major issue with the 45 build timing was that we spent time and money getting involved in Horizon - it's nothing to do with the 45 being a new design per se.

If you want to rewrite history using 100% perfect hindsight, and needed a more rapid follow on to the type 42, then the easiest way to deliver this would have been to start an independent design immediately, in 1990 or thereabouts, saving five years of delay and about 200 million in design work. That would have delivered us a working AWD sooner, with a slightly more relaxed build cycle and we'd probably have ended up building a few more as at that time the requirement for a number of AWD's seemed more pressing.

There's nothing wrong with new designs, and avoiding them is a false economy - we needed something bigger and more capable than the Type 42, which had already had it's hull extended and displacement increased in the third batch.

The summary of Horizon is worth reading here:

Navy Matters | Type 45 Section

Ian

I would love to debate the development of destroyers post T42 but I'm really trying to talk about concept to procure better in the future, using lessons from the past (whether they could have been seen with hindsight or not).

One thing I would say was the cancellation of the T43/T44 designs (they where both very poor design concepts) a result of the mad decision to cancel Sea Dart 2 really left the RN little option but Horizon as the success of a destroyer is all in its SAM/weapons system and they had nothing going forward (that said it turn out they had nothing going forward for 20 years!)



I

 

[kev 99]

You can't realistically say we should avoid 100% new designs but preclude innovation from this, it isnt realistic, many of the innovations of the T45 such as Sampson would not fit on a T42 hull, it required a larger beamier hull, ditto for the VLS, S1850 and Merlin, a new hull was required to even make the ship work. Sooner or later technology moves forward in such a way that continious redevelopment becomes a law of diminishing returns and you have to make a broad leap.

Astute was originally supposed to be an all new design but this was rejected because there wasn't the budget available, it then turned into an evolution of the Trafalgar, a batch 2 which was rejected as unaffordable which was then turned into an all new design again.

CVF being effectively a replacement for the CVA1 is arguable. You can't realistically use a continious cycle approach though because CVA1 programme was terminated more than 40 years ago and it's not realistic to use this approach when you're only going to build 2 ships that will be in service for between 30 and 50 years, what works for the USN carrier fleet will never work for the RN in this respect.

No argument about building a further batch of T45s, I've previously stated we could easily build 3 Type 46 destroyers, built to the same spec as T45 but with Sylver A70 cells, this would provide the RN with an easier path to integrating the Aster block 2 BMD proposals that are on the table. It would also give the RN the option of purchasing Naval Scalp or forking out for the integration of Tomahawk with Sylver. This would certainly present a low risk option for providing a capability that it currently does not have, it would also create a more balanced escort fleet of 9 Destroyers and 10 Frigates. Of course we could easily do this if we had the budget, which we don't.

Type 26 almost certainly will not be the monster you are expecting it to be, I'm not expecting anything other than a like for like T23 replacement, this is a shame as it will not give the RN what they need.

Your numbers are still ignoring the 19 strong escort force we will have in the future, the RN will not have the budget to operate more escorts and if it did magically acquire more funds it should probably spend the money on more aircraft anyway.

 

[1805]

You can't realistically say we should avoid 100% new designs but preclude innovation from this, it isnt realistic, many of the innovations of the T45 such as Sampson would not fit on a T42 hull, it required a larger beamier hull, ditto for the VLS, S1850 and Merlin, a new hull was required to even make the ship work. Sooner or later technology moves forward in such a way that continious redevelopment becomes a law of diminishing returns and you have to make a broad leap.

Astute was originally supposed to be an all new design but this was rejected because there wasn't the budget available, it then turned into an evolution of the Trafalgar, a batch 2 which was rejected as unaffordable which was then turned into an all new design again.

CVF being effectively a replacement for the CVA1 is arguable. You can't realistically use a continious cycle approach though because CVA1 programme was terminated more than 40 years ago and it's not realistic to use this approach when you're only going to build 2 ships that will be in service for between 30 and 50 years, what works for the USN carrier fleet will never work for the RN in this respect.

No argument about building a further batch of T45s, I've previously stated we could easily build 3 Type 46 destroyers, built to the same spec as T45 but with Sylver A70 cells, this would provide the RN with an easier path to integrating the Aster block 2 BMD proposals that are on the table. It would also give the RN the option of purchasing Naval Scalp or forking out for the integration of Tomahawk with Sylver. This would certainly present a low risk option for providing a capability that it currently does not have, it would also create a more balanced escort fleet of 9 Destroyers and 10 Frigates. Of course we easily do this if we had the budget, which we don't.

Type 26 almost certainly will not be the monster you are expecting it to be, I'm not expecting anything other than a like for like T23 replacement, this is a shame as it will not give the RN what they need.

Your numbers are still ignoring the 19 strong escort force we will have in the future, the Rn will not have the budget to operate that many escorts and if it did magically acquire more funds it should probably spend the money on more aircraft anyway.

I meant the RN should avoid 100% new designs this will not always be possible and because of events many years ago, with Astute/CVF/T45 there was realistically no alternative.

I think even with carriers we could have spread contruction, there would still be a gap if they take broadly 8-10 years to build say 3 and they last for say 40, you would have gaps, the construction side could be filled by the assault ships but design of carriers evolves anyway and electronics are influenced by other ships (AWD etc) sadly the RN has not had the chance to ever build/operate a purpose built modern design.

Regarding the escort fleet a 19 x 6000 fleet is probably unstainable and will slide over the next 20 years to maybe 12-16, particularly if both CVF were axed (unlikely I pray). I agree the T26 will most likely be cut down, although nothing firm on this yet, and its is driven by the treasury rather a reforming zeal in the RN.

 

[Hambo]

Im not really sure adding Land attack missiles in the class of Tomahawk/Scalp to RN surface vessels is really worth the cost in a climate where money will be tight.

If the RN wants deep strike it should be pushing the case for the maximum number of F35. If you look at the UK defence needs as a whole it may be that the RAF with son of Taranis offers a better solution, dependent on what son of Taranis becomes, if it is a modest 1500 mile range 2 PGM machine then yes the RN could argue we need a longer range hitting power, but if if morphs into some beast capable of flying 4000 miles and then lobbing a salvo of precision weapons, it could be argued that Taranis could reach the parts 8-10 TLAM equipped frigates cant, faster and at will.

We dont know what the cost of adding land attack missiles to 8-10 ships will be, probably one million a pop for the missiles, the french are getting 250 scalp so thats a fair guess, add the extra size to the ship, the VLS cells, the usual cost over runs and you might not get much change from a billion. Who knows

What else might a billion buy? Well Hawkeye for QE/POW networked into T45 would add possibly more to the overall power of the fleet?? A extra NAS of F35C? An extra Astute?

Adding land attack to ships seems like a nice to have thing to me but you might even tip the balance in the minds of the politicians into not bothering with aircraft on carriers, afterall if one frigate can bring havoc to the enemy, why do you need expensive sea based squadrons of fast jets? Just a thought.

 

[kev 99]

In the purely hypothetical example (no chance of ever happening!) I proposed above it would only of been for the 3 extra destroyers that I had in mind, there would have been no need to increase the size of the ship since Aylver A70 would be installed instead of the A50 cells of the type 45 destroyer, not sure what the cost of naval Scalp is, it is more than Tomahawk which costs about half a million dollars.

Technically it should be possible to swap out 1 or more of the A50 cells for an A70 to upgrade all of the T45s as well.

I'm certainly not proposing we go for a 250 buy like France, to be honest I will be rather surprised if they buy all of them, currently only 100 are contracted for.

Although you're right that budgets are tight and we almost certainly will not have the budget available to add LACM to surface ships anytime soon.

Since we're probably going to get something a little more bargain basement than originally intended for the T26 it probably makes more sense to go with some of the later blocks of Harpoon or another anti ship missile with a land attack capability like NSM. This would give them a capability that the T23 doesn't have right now and at a relatively low cost.

Although I do like the idea of a naval version of Fireshadow, it sounds like a very useful weapon and would give us something that no other navy possess. Plus it is supposed to be cheap (ha ha).

 

[StobieWan]

There's little harm in specifying the right silos for the Type-26 - pick the right ones and you have a versatile ship, which can perform many tasks. If they got strike length cells then you can just buy *enough* strike missiles to work the task at hand. Pick the wrong silos (and I maintain we did that with the T45) then you cream cracker the versatility of the entire design from the start.

The 26 doesn't have to be expensive - if it's a modular design, then there's no reason to think that a low cost base spec version with engines, radar, a gun and space for CIWS couldn't be relatively cheap. Layering on TAS, FLAADS, and perhaps a land attack facility could be done in port and at will. In short, buying a round 14 at base configuration then building up the stockpile of parts from there should be feasible.

I'm told that the Type 26 is intended to be precisely this. We'll see I guess.

Ian

 

[RubiconNZ]

There's little harm in specifying the right silos for the Type-26 - pick the right ones and you have a versatile ship, which can perform many tasks. If they got strike length cells then you can just buy *enough* strike missiles to work the task at hand. Pick the wrong silos (and I maintain we did that with the T45) then you cream cracker the versatility of the entire design from the start.

The 26 doesn't have to be expensive - if it's a modular design, then there's no reason to think that a low cost base spec version with engines, radar, a gun and space for CIWS couldn't be relatively cheap. Layering on TAS, FLAADS, and perhaps a land attack facility could be done in port and at will. In short, buying a round 14 at base configuration then building up the stockpile of parts from there should be feasible.

I'm told that the Type 26 is intended to be precisely this. We'll see I guess.

Ian

I'm dubious about the modular design, fitted for but not with, as the ANZACs for the RAN & RNZN
were meant to be this as Meko 200's.
Now the RAN frigates run with half the cells as planned for, granted the half they do are quad packed, no CIWS and ASM that had to be moved due to continuing top weight issues. IMO opinion a risky gamble, not that I'm against modular design. (LCS not included)

It will be interesting watching the T-26's develop as its slated high end fit out to an extent mirror's the RAN's FFH replacement and the low end will undoubtedly come closer to then RNZN's.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm dubious about the modular design, fitted for but not with, as the ANZACs for the RAN & RNZN
were meant to be this as Meko 200's.
Now the RAN frigates run with half the cells as planned for, granted the half they do are quad packed, no CIWS and ASM that had to be moved due to continuing top weight issues. IMO opinion a risky gamble, not that I'm against modular design. (LCS not included)

It will be interesting watching the T-26's develop as its slated high end fit out to an extent mirror's the RAN's FFH replacement and the low end will undoubtedly come closer to then RNZN's.

I'd sooner get 14 fully equipped Type-26 right now. The fitted for but not with thing is something that haunts the RN - recall the first batch of Type 42s went to sea with some other radar system entirely fitted to a temporary mast, Type 23 went into service with several critical systems missing - the RN method appears to be to get the hull then add the bits - and I guess it's a lot easier to ask for more money to fit the hull out rather than ask for another hull. We'll see - at the moment we don't need so many ASW hulls but we do need hull numbers - if Type 26 is arranged so that vital kit can be traded in and out rapidly, then we can find a sensible anti piracy vessel very rapidly - if when it gets there the pirates have subs, we can fly out the modules and crew to a nearby port with at least limited cargo handling capability.

We're already seeing some hints of this with the tendency to settle on phalanx as a CIWS system as it can be swapped out rapidly. Scale that to other critical systems and you can see what that can do in terms of hull numbers vs capability.

Ian