Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"Not sure what any of that had to do with Longbow, but hey-ho....."
well yo u kindly pointed out that Longbow was an unpowered barge for those who didn't know.
My point was that whenever the RN tries to go "low cost" it never turns out that way.
Your River class example is also a little awry - and the cost increase there attributable to a number of things unrelated to UK "procurement".
First off, you have to understand that the Amazonas class sold to Brazil originated as Coastguard vessels for Trinidad and Tobago. For a variety of reasons, they pulled out of the contract, leaving BVT (as was) with three ships on their hands they wanted to get rid of. Hence they were sold at a bit of a knockdown price.
Second off - the RCB2 built for the RN were done so as part of the infamous ToBA, which was supposed to guarantee BVT (by now BAE) a workstream in return for closing some of their capacity. The need to have something to build came as a bit of a short-notice event, when it became clear that the T26 design and associated build cost was causing a huge game of chicken between BAE and HMG, which was likely to result in the steel trades on the Clyde being paid to stand around looking idle (normal jogging). That meant they needed something that did not need lots of design doing, so they hit upon the wizard wheeze of going for the Amazonas and badging it as RCB2.
Trouble was, the T&T coastguard and the Brazilian navy don't operate to the same safety standards as the RN, at which point the DMR and the Naval Authority hove into view demanding changes to the design to ensure compliance with stability standards, fire safety, explosive safety, escape and evacuation etc. Which required design changes. All of which cost time and money and incurred cost while the steel trades waited.
That's why there was the cost differential - less to do with UK "procurement" per se, than what at the time was the industrial strategy and the regulatory environment.