Re-arming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

uk 75 said:
One thing that puzzles me about naval procurement at the moment is that all navies seem to have problems knowing what ships to
produce and then have difficulties introducing them into service. The USN has only just got its Zumwalt and the LCS programme seems
to lurch from crisis to crisis.
Most West European navies have been reduced to a mixture of high end air defence ships, usually about 4 and some corvette designs.
It was so much easier before 1989 when we had a clear enemy fleet in being!
Click to expand...
I mean a lack of data on what the next threat is and will actually look like will do that.

It’s been so long since anyone has been in a real blue water naval conflict it’s hard to say what weapons will actually be needed.

Navies the world over have been largely down grading deck gun size for smaller guns more well suited for AAW. However we’ve seen at least 6 different shore bombardment missions by 3 different countries since 2000, so clearly that mission wasn’t left in the 19th century and we can’t simply drop larger caliber deck guns from our fleets.

Are amphibious landings by sea relevant? Do we actually need landing craft and LCACs, or is air assault via helicopter good enough?

How many ASMs should a ship carry?

Etc.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
For their navy, they need to in vest in small combatants. Ships that top out around 5k tons at full load that would be no more than $1.4b per hull.
So the type31 is looking like a good option. They need like 12 of those.
However they need other smaller more affordable ships. Topping out at around 4k tons these should ideally be as cheap as humanly possible while still having real self defense capabilities and limited broader AAW capability, but they should either be primarily focused on ASW, or offensive surface combat.

Then, after that upgrade the batch 2 rivers. Replace the batch 1s with a new batch 3 that’s some where between a cyclone and an LCS in total capability. ASMs and 40mk4 and some some sort of CIWS like RAM/goalkeeper/phalanx/etc.
Click to expand...
I doubt we'll see new manned frigates.

The DIP should soft-cancel T32 finally, and then focus on getting unmanned ASW hulls into the North Atlantic at speed.

MRSS may have 'fighty' capability - VLS is being considered. The three MCMVs are also frigate-like in armament.
 
Reuben James said:
I doubt we'll see new manned frigates.

The DIP should soft-cancel T32 finally, and then focus on getting unmanned ASW hulls into the North Atlantic at speed.

MRSS may have 'fighty' capability - VLS is being considered. The three MCMVs are also frigate-like in armament.
Click to expand...
Given the 32's have never been a "program of record" with any work done, "soft cancelling" them seems more than it deserves. As to more frigates, the issue is of course the ticking clock for Babcock, with time running out for the remaining 31's and so far nothing to start building instead of them. MRSS is surely into next parliament at best at this stage before any steel gets cut.
 
Reuben James said:
I doubt we'll see new manned frigates.

The DIP should soft-cancel T32 finally, and then focus on getting unmanned ASW hulls into the North Atlantic at speed.

MRSS may have 'fighty' capability - VLS is being considered. The three MCMVs are also frigate-like in armament.
Click to expand...
I mean they’re already building new manned frigates…so there’s that.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
For their navy, they need to in vest in small combatants. Ships that top out around 5k tons at full load that would be no more than $1.4b per hull.
So the type31 is looking like a good option. They need like 12 of those.
However they need other smaller more affordable ships. Topping out at around 4k tons these should ideally be as cheap as humanly possible while still having real self defense capabilities and limited broader AAW capability, but they should either be primarily focused on ASW, or offensive surface combat.

Then, after that upgrade the batch 2 rivers. Replace the batch 1s with a new batch 3 that’s some where between a cyclone and an LCS in total capability. ASMs and 40mk4 and some some sort of CIWS like RAM/goalkeeper/phalanx/etc.
Click to expand...
A BILLION pounds on a 5kt frigate? Are you joking? An all singing, all dancing T31 with upgraded radar, towed sonar, hull sonar, mk41 and maybe even a mk45 wouldn't cost that much.
 
TorpedoJ said:
A BILLION pounds on a 5kt frigate? Are you joking? An all singing, all dancing T31 with upgraded radar, towed sonar, hull sonar, mk41 and maybe even a mk45 wouldn't cost that much.
Click to expand...
First I said a billion dollars. I don’t deal in funny money.

Second yes. Inflation is a bitch.
For example the type 23 was 137m pounds, after inflation today that would be over 400m

Newer tech also costs more.
If the type 31 comes in well below that mark great, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
First I said a billion dollars. I don’t deal in funny money.

Second yes. Inflation is a bitch.
For example the type 23 was 137m pounds, after inflation today that would be over 400m

Newer tech also costs more.
If the type 31 comes in well below that mark great, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for it.
Click to expand...
No you didn't, you said $1.4B. That's £1B.
We are getting 5 lightly armed frigates for £2B in 2017 money, with an equipment fit that is currently slightly greater than the US FF(X) and built to full warship damage control standards. The Bank of England inflation calculator tells me that is £2.7B in March 2026 money, or £540M per ship ignoring entirely the programme costs. How much equipment do you think would make up the difference to be spending an extra £460M per ship?
 
Reuben James said:
The DIP should soft-cancel T32 finally
Click to expand...
"In July 2022 Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher." (National Audit Office https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/NAO-Report-The-equipment-plan-2022-to-2032.pdf)

"The Navy has included the full predicted costs of new entries into the shipbuilding pipeline – including Multi‑Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, and Future Air Dominance System – which are forecast to cost £5.9 billion more than the currently allocated budget" (National Audit Office https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/)

I don't think anyone's mentioned it since.

It's dead, Jim.
 
DWG said:
"In July 2022 Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher." (National Audit Office https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/NAO-Report-The-equipment-plan-2022-to-2032.pdf)

"The Navy has included the full predicted costs of new entries into the shipbuilding pipeline – including Multi‑Role Ocean Surveillance ships, Type 32 frigates, Multi-Role Support Ships, Type 83 destroyers, and Future Air Dominance System – which are forecast to cost £5.9 billion more than the currently allocated budget" (National Audit Office https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/)

I don't think anyone's mentioned it since.

It's dead, Jim.
Click to expand...
The MCM motherships are likely to be more heavily armed than the MCMVs were and MRSS is going to focus a lot on unmanned systems, that doesn't leave much room down the middle for a dedicated unmanned vessel combatant never mind that under the current plans every vessel will be behaving much as T32 was supposed to do.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Then, after that upgrade the batch 2 rivers. Replace the batch 1s with a new batch 3 that’s some where between a cyclone and an LCS in total capability. ASMs and 40mk4 and some some sort of CIWS like RAM/goalkeeper/phalanx/etc.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand the role of the Rivers, they're an OPV capable of forward presence roles, they're not intended to be a first line combatant warship, which would be wasted on fisheries protection. They literally replaced converted trawlers.
 
DWG said:
You clearly don't understand the role of the Rivers, they're an OPV capable of forward presence roles, they're not intended to be a first line combatant warship, which would be wasted on fisheries protection. They literally replaced converted trawlers.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of their role.
However the UK can’t afford useless ships right now like it used to in the 80s and 90s.

Besides many modern OPVs are pulling double duty as FAC-Ms with basic self defense capabilities with 30-40mm guns instead of topping out at 30mm.

Not to mention that’s such an annoying cop out. OPVs as they traditionally are, are already more than what is necessary for fisheries enforcement, and drug interdiction missions, might as well toss some ASMs on them them and make them useful in the high end conflict.
 
DWG said:
"
2.14 The MoD intends to use bespoke UK developed air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons on the F-35.9 These are the Spear 3 air-to-surface missile and the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile.10 Spear 3 is a new missile currently being developed by a separate major programme independent of the F-35 programme, while Meteor is already in service awaiting integration onto the F-35. The UK is dependent on the Joint Program Office (JPO) providing laboratories and aircraft to test missile integration, but the integration of new weapons is delayed as part of the wider Block 4 upgrade delays.
2.15 The MoD is far behind its planned delivery dates for integrating Spear 3 and Meteor onto the F-35. The MoD originally set its need by date for both missiles as December 2024. However, it now expects to have them in full service no earlier than the early 2030s, although the MoD is attempting to bring forward delivery of a limited Spear 3 capability. Spear 3 has been delayed by poor supplier performance partly resulting from a lack of suitably qualified and experienced people. The commercial arrangements between the MoD and the supplier also fail to prioritise delivery. The Spear 3 programme is also waiting on delivery of a key component from the US. Meteor has been delayed by the lack of opportunities provided by the JPO for integration
"
Translated: "We told MBDA we wanted it by 2024, but the F-35 JPO screwed the pooch over TR3/4 and we won't be able to integrate it until they work out how to find their ass with both hands and a flashlight. So in the meantime we're going to blame MBDA for not keeping engineers sitting idle on a project that was only funded to last until 2024."

Keeping a design team active for the better part of a decade extra due to someone else's screwup is a distinctly non-zero cost.
Click to expand...
So you present a bill to the JPO and/or LockMart over the delays to continue paying that design team to do something. (Give a bill to both, then quietly inform JPO that you expect them to pass that bill on to LockMart for screwing the pooch)

Have the Spear III team work on other things in that design space. New sensors, Spear EW, maybe a bigger weapon with the same sensors on it.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I’m aware of their role.
However the UK can’t afford useless ships right now like it used to in the 80s and 90s.

Besides many modern OPVs are pulling double duty as FAC-Ms with basic self defense capabilities with 30-40mm guns instead of topping out at 30mm.

Not to mention that’s such an annoying cop out. OPVs as they traditionally are, are already more than what is necessary for fisheries enforcement, and drug interdiction missions, might as well toss some ASMs on them them and make them useful in the high end conflict.
Click to expand...
The River B2s fulfil a similar role to the UK that the NSC cutters do to the US. That they're organised differently isn't important but that's the sort of job they were designed for and end up doing most of their time. Scaring away Chinese fishing fleets from the Falklands, for example, is a necessary and important job. They are bigger than most OPVs with similar equipment because they still have to deploy around the world in a way most navies have no requirement for.
 
TorpedoJ said:
The River B2s fulfil a similar role to the UK that the NSC cutters do to the US. That they're organised differently isn't important but that's the sort of job they were designed for and end up doing most of their time. Scaring away Chinese fishing fleets from the Falklands, for example, is a necessary and important job. They are bigger than most OPVs with similar equipment because they still have to deploy around the world in a way most navies have no requirement for.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think many (particularly US-based) commentators look at the Rivers and get confused by the fact that they aren't white with a red stripe.

The US is actually quite unusual in that its Navy doesn't carry out the kind of maritime constabulary work that most of the rest of the world sees as a naval mission. Which is why the US Coast Guard also has lightly-armed, long-legged frigate-sized ships.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
OPVs as they traditionally are, are already more than what is necessary for fisheries enforcement, and drug interdiction missions, might as well toss some ASMs on them them and make them useful in the high end conflict.
Click to expand...
Giving them antiship missiles isn't going to do much to help them in a high-end conflict.

They lack an proper radar suite. They lack a proper sonar suite. They lack anything in the way of an integrated SAM system (unless we count some RM with Martlets). They lack a proper CMS (CMS-1 is pretty bare bones). They lack the required communications systems. They lack the space and weight margins to install most of these missing things as well.

They'd be annihilated by any vaguely competent surface ship and would be utterly, utterly helpless against any sub-surface threat. Look at the Iranian ship Dena, which was far better armed than even an upgraded OPV, and tell me how the B2s could ever function in a high-end conflict. It'd be a waste of money and a waste of sailors.
 
Reuben James said:
Giving them antiship missiles isn't going to do much to help them in a high-end conflict.

They lack an proper radar suite. They lack a proper sonar suite. They lack anything in the way of an integrated SAM system (unless we count some RM with Martlets). They lack a proper CMS (CMS-1 is pretty bare bones). They lack the required communications systems. They lack the space and weight margins to install most of these missing things as well.

They'd be annihilated by any vaguely competent surface ship and would be utterly, utterly helpless against any sub-surface threat. Look at the Iranian ship Dena, which was far better armed than even an upgraded OPV, and tell me how the B2s could ever function in a high-end conflict. It'd be a waste of money and a waste of sailors.
Click to expand...
Data link systems exist now
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I’m aware of their role.
However the UK can’t afford useless ships right now like it used to in the 80s and 90s.

Besides many modern OPVs are pulling double duty as FAC-Ms with basic self defense capabilities with 30-40mm guns instead of topping out at 30mm.

Not to mention that’s such an annoying cop out. OPVs as they traditionally are, are already more than what is necessary for fisheries enforcement, and drug interdiction missions, might as well toss some ASMs on them them and make them useful in the high end conflict.
Click to expand...
Unless your idea of "useful" is "target to force an enemy to expend a munition on", I'm not really sure what you expect any OPV to do in a war situation?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
I’m aware of their role.
However the UK can’t afford useless ships right now like it used to in the 80s and 90s.
Click to expand...
They aren't useless. Do you imagine that they're somehow just sitting there? The Overseas Patrol Squadron, active since 1379, has Batch 2 Rivers as guardships at the Falklands, in the Caribbean and Gibraltar, while the Batch 1s cover the Fisheries Protection role. Those roles don't go away if we task the Rivers with another role.


johnpjones1775 said:
OPVs as they traditionally are, are already more than what is necessary for fisheries enforcement, and drug interdiction missions,
Click to expand...
Remember, our OPVs have to do duty all the way from the GIUK Gap to the depths of the Southern Ocean (cf the South Sandwich Islands), and have to be adaptable to disaster relief and other para-civil roles. That takes space - the last Ice Patrol Ship came in at 6000t, and the Castles are covering that role.
 
DWG said:
They aren't useless. Do you imagine that they're somehow just sitting there? The Overseas Patrol Squadron, active since 1379, has Batch 2 Rivers as guardships at the Falklands, in the Caribbean and Gibraltar, while the Batch 1s cover the Fisheries Protection role. Those roles don't go away if we task the Rivers with another role.



Remember, our OPVs have to do duty all the way from the GIUK Gap to the depths of the Southern Ocean (cf the South Sandwich Islands), and have to be adaptable to disaster relief and other para-civil roles. That takes space - the last Ice Patrol Ship came in at 6000t, and the Castles are covering that role.
Click to expand...
Cool, and you don’t need a 20 or 30mm gun to do those jobs.

And batch 2s aren’t protecting the falklands. They’re getting sunk immediately with no way of defending themselves if Argentina chooses to invade or attack again.

In the event of a war would you rather have OPVs capable of joining flotillas/squadrons as FAC-Ms and letting the fisheries protection mission fall by the wayside or would you rather make sure no one steals your fish, and sacrifice offensive options?
 
sparky42 said:
Unless your idea of "useful" is "target to force an enemy to expend a munition on", I'm not really sure what you expect any OPV to do in a war situation?
Click to expand...
Same thing a FAC would do. The only difference between the two generally being range, and offensive firepower
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Cool, and you don’t need a 20 or 30mm gun to do those jobs.

And batch 2s aren’t protecting the falklands. They’re getting sunk immediately with no way of defending themselves if Argentina chooses to invade or attack again.

In the event of a war would you rather have OPVs capable of joining flotillas/squadrons as FAC-Ms and letting the fisheries protection mission fall by the wayside or would you rather make sure no one steals your fish, and sacrifice offensive options?
Click to expand...
A 20mm or 30mm is exactly what is needed for those jobs. Large enough to outgun anything that could feasibly be used by a pirate or smuggler, small enough that it is easy to maintain and inexpensive.

The B2 in the Falklands is a political commitment. Keeping it there allows the UK to prevent Argentinian encroachment simply by virtue of signalling British interest in the region.

You don't get any 'offensive options' from an OPV. They'd be sitting ducks.

This idea of uparming them doesn't make them any better at an offensive role, and makes them much worse in their current role. It's a waste of time and money.

If you want a FAC-M, build a shit load of smaller, unmanned platforms. Much cheaper, and much easier to lose if it comes to that, rather than having 50 sailors and Royal Marines die because someone thought they could sail their OPV up against an actual warship.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Cool, and you don’t need a 20 or 30mm gun to do those jobs.
Click to expand...
You actually more or less do. Anything smaller won't reliably stop a large fishing vessel - which can easily be 60m or 70m long - that's refusing to heave to.
johnpjones1775 said:
In the event of a war would you rather have OPVs capable of joining flotillas/squadrons as FAC-Ms and letting the fisheries protection mission fall by the wayside or would you rather make sure no one steals your fish, and sacrifice offensive options?
Click to expand...
'Fisheries Protection' is an increasingly inaccurate mission for maritime constabulary work Go and read Corbett. The purpose of a navy isn't sinking other people's navies, as much as Mahan thought it was. It's influencing the actions of nations.

Then think about the concept of economic warfare and how globalisation affects it. Think about what might change in the maritime constabulary requirement between peacetime and wartime. Then consider what the war role of an OPV might be and whether it needs heavy weapons.

Just because they're painted grey doesn't mean they need to be stuffed full of things that go 'whoosh' and 'bang' to be useful.
 
Reuben James said:
The B2 in the Falklands is a political commitment. Keeping it there allows the UK to prevent Argentinian encroachment simply by virtue of signalling British interest in the region.
Click to expand...
There's also a very substantial amount of fisheries activity in waters under UK jurisdiction in the South Atlantic, some of it quite a long way offshore and in pretty horrible seas. The role really does require quite a big ship.
Reuben James said:
If you want a FAC-M, build a shit load of smaller, unmanned platforms. Much cheaper, and much easier to lose if it comes to that, rather than having 50 sailors and Royal Marines die because someone thought they could sail their OPV up against an actual warship.
Click to expand...
The best FAC-M for the last fifty years has been capable of at least 600 knots, with a crew of just one or two people.
 
Reuben James said:
A 20mm or 30mm is exactly what is needed for those jobs. Large enough to outgun anything that could feasibly be used by a pirate or smuggler, small enough that it is easy to maintain and inexpensive.

The B2 in the Falklands is a political commitment. Keeping it there allows the UK to prevent Argentinian encroachment simply by virtue of signalling British interest in the region.

You don't get any 'offensive options' from an OPV. They'd be sitting ducks.

This idea of uparming them doesn't make them any better at an offensive role, and makes them much worse in their current role. It's a waste of time and money.

If you want a FAC-M, build a shit load of smaller, unmanned platforms. Much cheaper, and much easier to lose if it comes to that, rather than having 50 sailors and Royal Marines die because someone thought they could sail their OPV up against an actual warship.
Click to expand...
A .50 can out gun any thing a pirate or smuggler can reasonably be expected to have.

This stupid ass shit is why the west will lose. Dumbasses acting like service members arent disposable.

If the ‘actual’ warship is shooting the OPV they’re not shooting a larger more capable ship with more people onboard.

But yeah, the RN has just so many ships and hulls available you don’t need every single last hull you can find to do war time missions in the event of a war.
 
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
You actually more or less do. Anything smaller won't reliably stop a large fishing vessel - which can easily be 60m or 70m long - that's refusing to heave to.

'Fisheries Protection' is an increasingly inaccurate mission for maritime constabulary work Go and read Corbett. The purpose of a navy isn't sinking other people's navies, as much as Mahan thought it was. It's influencing the actions of nations.

Then think about the concept of economic warfare and how globalisation affects it. Think about what might change in the maritime constabulary requirement between peacetime and wartime. Then consider what the war role of an OPV might be and whether it needs heavy weapons.

Just because they're painted grey doesn't mean they need to be stuffed full of things that go 'whoosh' and 'bang' to be useful.
Click to expand...
Mahan and Corbett were both right. Both are needed.

If you have a large and capable fleet, not everything needs to go whoosh and bang.

Does the royal navy currently have a large and capable fleet?

The royal navy can’t fight based on Mahan’s theories or Corbett’s theories.
By arming the batch 2 rivers and a hypothetical batch 3 river class with ASMs however you would be bringing your fleet more in line with Corbett’s theories.
 
That is one thing that will have to change for the Royal Navy increasing it's size over time, the RN has sadly been neglected for far too long in my view.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
A .50 can out gun any thing a pirate or smuggler can reasonably be expected to have.

This stupid ass shit is why the west will lose. Dumbasses acting like service members are disposable.

If the ‘actual’ warship is shooting the OPV they’re not shooting a larger more capable ship with more people onboard.

But yeah, the RN has just so many ships and hulls available you don’t need every single last hull you can find to do war time missions in the event of a war.
Click to expand...
A .50 does exactly look intimidating, though, does it. It also doesn't give you much in terms of range.

I'm not engaging with this absurd notion of using an OPV as some sort of sacrificial missile sponge, given the amount of unmanned surface vessels that are expected to be operational (or are already operational). Sailors are valuable.
 
Reuben James said:
A .50 does exactly look intimidating, though, does it. It also doesn't give you much in terms of range.

I'm not engaging with this absurd notion of using an OPV as some sort of sacrificial missile sponge, given the amount of unmanned surface vessels that are expected to be operational (or are already operational). Sailors are valuable.
Click to expand...
The absurd notion that people die in war, yes how absurd of me to acknowledge that.

How much range do you think you need to deal with dudes armed with rifles at best?

And let’s ignore their roles outside of guardian ships for the Falklands.
Do you truly believe a batch 2 river is any sort of actual deterrent? A single attack helicopter to could sink it long before it could shoot the helicopter down.

I’m not suggesting they have the capability to shut down an entire Argentinian invasion on their own (though with the state of their military it wouldn’t take much for a single ship to do that)
I’m simply advocating for a new batch that could at least realistically shoot down a single attack helicopter before being mission killed or sunk
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
The absurd notion that people die in war, yes how absurd of me to acknowledge that.

How much range do you think you need to deal with dudes armed with rifles at best?
Click to expand...
Yeah, go ahead, misrepresent what was said. There's a big difference between acknowledging that people will die in a war, and purposefully sending your sailors on missions in which you know they are essentially defenceless. Suicide missions aren't a 'fact of war', nor should they become one.

Again, it's there to look intimidating, and to give you a range advantage. Most people want to give their sailors as much as a buffer as realistically feasible. More range also makes your weapon more responsive.
 
Reuben James said:
Yeah, go ahead, misrepresent what was said. There's a big difference between acknowledging that people will die in a war, and purposefully sending your sailors on missions in which you know they are essentially defenceless. Suicide missions aren't a 'fact of war', nor should they become one.

Again, it's there to look intimidating, and to give you a range advantage. Most people want to give their sailors as much as a buffer as realistically feasible. More range also makes your weapon more responsive.
Click to expand...
And I never suggested any suicide missions.
 
Reuben James said:
Oh, of course. Nobody said your unmanned FAC-M has to be ground-based.
Click to expand...
Wildcat would be the premier option for that at the moment, I suppose.

I think we can all agree that given the increased Argentine posturing over the Falklands and the likelihood that China will become dominant in the Pacific the far-flung patrol roles will increasingly become beyond the abilities of a pure OPV. So the T31 will become important as the main forwards-based arm of the RN and our means of influencing diplomacy. The main question is how quick that transition needs to be and how much influence we want to have in those theatres.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
And I never suggested any suicide missions.
Click to expand...
You want an OPV to get into a shooting match in a war, that's pretty much what the end result will be. You want a warship less than a Frigate, fine go build a purpose designed Corvette, don't try Kluding an OPV into something they aren't designed for.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Wildcat would be the premier option for that at the moment, I suppose.

I think we can all agree that given the increased Argentine posturing over the Falklands and the likelihood that China will become dominant in the Pacific the far-flung patrol roles will increasingly become beyond the abilities of a pure OPV. So the T31 will become important as the main forwards-based arm of the RN and our means of influencing diplomacy. The main question is how quick that transition needs to be and how much influence we want to have in those theatres.
Click to expand...
I mean wasn't that the intended plan back when the 31's were ordered, with the B2's coming home and the B1's going out of service? Of course the collapse of the 23's means the demand is likely to be more than the current planned hull numbers for the combination of "Flag showing" and major military needs, but that comes back to what is the next order for the surface fleet.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom