Not_a _Boffin - I bow to your superior knowledge, thought processes and ability to express them.
I think loss of skills was the point I was trying to make. Also I meant that industry should be certain the RN will purchase a ship every n years with a rolling equipment programme in parallel,
As Sir John Parker said:
3.The MOD Sponsor should establish a transparent Master Plan for naval shipbuilding that lays out Defence’s procurement plans for each series of naval ships over the next 30 years. This should be backed by “set and assured” capital budgets for each new series of ships. The Master Plan should be reviewed at each SDSR.
4.The MOD Sponsor should empower an RN-led Client Project Contracting Board to finalise design, cost and time for each class of ship procurement compatible with the Master Plan.
I referred to the Type 12 (one could even go back to the 41/61s) as I saw them as a paradigm for a basic design being modified as role, needs and technology chage. I assume the differences the Whitby, Rothesay and 3 Leander Classes were such that they required substantial design input.. We don't want to end up down the T21 route with no Board Margin for developments. Does a new class entail a new hull design or can it just mean a new weapon and/or sensor fit? The T23s are an exception to having differently hulled batches like T22 and T42 but have an ASW /GP role split. Also we have to include the upgrades to the ships major weapon systems including FW, RW piloted and pilotless aircraft going forward.
Wasn't FFG(X) a five existing design competition with the intention of tailoring to USN needs . Basing on an existing design seems to be the fashion with the USN developing the FREMM and the T31 based on the Iver Huitfeldts which were in turn based on the Abasalon hull. The Arleigh Burke Class in it's various variants will have had a building programme of well over 30 years are they really the same class? The Bay Class LSLs were based on the Dutch Enforcer design. The RAN and RCN are adapting the T26 - if we admit we aren't able to develop aircraft on our own why do we think we can with ships.
(Apologies for the low aviation content in this post)
Agreed the Zumwalts were an ummitigated disaster, IMHO it would have made more sense to test the technologies in existing hull designs before committing. Let's be honest they don't only look like a Monitor that's effectively what they were originally designed for, a role that maybe better suited to air to ground.
We mustn't forget a navy is buying weapons systems which will naturally evolve over the life of the progamme and each individual hull will need the capacity to evolve too.
You have to understand that in order to maintain the relevance of the combat system, you have to have a combat system that can evolve with the threat. If you integrate the ship so tightly that you have to take the ship apart in order to integrate the combat system -- then that adds significant cost to maintaining the relevance of the ship.
VAdm Tom Rowden USN discussing the Future Surface Combatant in 2014
Annuality has long been the curse of government with its use it or lose it philosophy. However, SSN20 wasn't the only casualty of the mythical peace dividend which is I believe the root of MoDs problems. Even so when the NATO
average spending target was set at 2% of GDP the UK's level was 2.7% I assume the allies agreed to the target believing the UK would maintain its level to balance out theirs - the US is actually spending more than in 2002 in GDP tems - some how this has mysteriously been transformed into a minimum spend aspiration by a sucession of snake oil salesmen leading to the shortfall, all the while being committed to intensive operations. Furthermore the target is only met by some creative changes in how it's accounted for, SIPRI's baselined methodology makes Germany's budget larger than the UK's.