Madam, – While the decision to proceed with the UK Type 31 Frigate programme is to be welcomed, the way in which the Ministry of Defence is understating the cost of the selected Type 31 Frigate design needs to be challenged.
At approaching twice the displacement of the other unsuccessful (rival) Type 31 proposals, and with a length and armament approaching that of a Type 26 Frigate, the selected Type 31 Frigate design is a distortion and corruption of the smaller, affordable warship that Type 31 was meant to be.
There is no way that this over-size Type 31 frigate design, with this level of capability, can be built and delivered from UK yards for anything close to the official budget of £250 million average per hull which is just one fifth of the cost of a Type 26 Frigate.
It is thoroughly disingenuous of the Royal Navy to claim that it can.
Instead, in all likelihood, the final bill for these ships will treble to around £750m per hull; something that will dash any hope of re-growing the size of the fleet.
It is at best naïve, and at worst dishonest, to claim that a bigger ship needn’t cost more; the cost escalation that goes with increased ship size has been amply demonstrated on recent UK naval programmes.
Comparing the Type 31 design proposal against the £150m cost per hull of the simple, effectively unarmed, Batch 2 “River” class Patrol Ships currently being delivered, it is implausible that, for just £100m more per hull, a fully armed front-line ship of three times the displacement will be delivered.
This is particularly the case once the decision to split build between geographically separate yards is factored in.
The Type 31 programme was meant to be about the Royal Navy turning over a new leaf, doing things more affordably and within budget, curtailing its penchant for unaffordable ships.
Instead, before the ink is even dry on the contract, it has reverted to form, understating cost to gain programme approval, with the apparent intent of squirrelling away the cost growth until much later in the programme and everyone will react with feigned surprise when the true cost emerges.
Dr Mark Campbell-Roddis.
1 Pont Crescent,
Dunblane.
Pretending to care is odious
Madam, – I read with amusement that Kirstene Hair MP was wanting more spending by local authorities (‘Plea over police being used in social care role’, Courier, September 19).
If she was in favour of supporting people with mental health problems why on earth did she join a party with an unrivalled record of taking money from public services and spending it on tax cuts for the stinking rich bankers who fund the Conservative Party?
I noted that she, like all the other Scottish Tory MPs, voted for Boris’ no deal Brexit.
After that there will be more cuts in public services, more unemployment, and even more foodbanks.
Pretending to give a damn about the wellbeing of people with health issues while voting for the policies that cause them is odious.
Karen Heath.
Cortachy,
Kirriemuir.
Orwellian from the Lib Dems
Madam, – So, if the Liberals win the next election outright, they are going to ditch the result of the 2016 Referendum on membership of the European Union – the largest democratic exercise in recent years.
This is shameful, a democratic outrage and another nail in the coffin of UK democracy.
The fact their party label carries the word “democrats” is positively Orwellian!
I wonder how they would feel if, on winning the next election, this result was sidelined – for this is what they propose.
The Lib Dems are as dogmatic as some hardline Brexiteers.
William Ballantine.
47 The Quarryknowes,
Dean Road,
Bo’ness.
Is prorogation really an issue?
Madam, – The highest court in the land is exercising itself to decide whether the prorogation of Parliament is legal or otherwise.
Many people are annoyed and upset that the chamber will be unoccupied for five weeks, meaning that no progress can be made with discussion, perhaps even decision, on the matter.
Considering that more than three years have been spent to arrive at the present situation, with no idea how to deal with the problem, does it really matter that the place is closed for five weeks?
A A Bullions.
6 Glencairn Crescent,
Leven, Fife.
Farmers are part of the solution
Madam, – No sector of industry is more acutely aware of its responsibilities in tackling climate change than Scottish agriculture.
And no sector has a better story to tell.
I believe readers will see through the false claims from Sascha Camilli of London in her letter (Ways to ‘save the planet’?, Courier, September 20) and continue to get behind the climate-friendly farming found in Scotland.
Agriculture contributes only 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and only five percent of that is attributed to livestock farming – something we are working hard to reduce. Here in Scotland, where we have water in abundance and beautiful, managed landscapes rich in grass and heather, we have fantastic four-legged animals turning that forage into fresh, local, tasty beef, lamb and milk.
Scotland’s fantastic meat and dairy, produced in a very sustainable manner, continues to be the cornerstone of a recommended healthy, balanced diet ably supported by some of the finest cereals, potatoes, vegetables and soft fruit found anywhere in the world.
Farmers are the solution to our climate change challenge, and we thank the Scottish public for their continued support for our produce.
Roddy Kennedy.
Borlick, Killiechassie,
Aberfeldy.
Vegetarianism’s not the answer
Madam, – Sascha Camilli’s special interest to end livestock farming is a fair point of view, albeit a small minority opinion.
However if the UK, at least, were to stop producing meat it could not help offset climate change, since our negligible CO2 output, at 0.3 of 1% of the planet’s total man-made greenhouse gases, Scotland a 10th of that, could not influence the climate.
Anyway, there is no evidence for any efficacy of decarbonisation.
Therefore, her pleas for universal vegetarianism to save the planet are very misleading.
In truth, every little bit of decarbonisation doesn’t help.
Calls for the end of internal combustion engines, for severe curtailment of travel and for replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources, on the basis of unproven theories, are as specious as they are economically disastrous.
The great bulk of the world’s greenhouse gases, well over half, are put out by China, the USA, India, Russia and others who, without CO2 curtailment, will continue to enjoy much lower costs for home and factory.
Our whole climate change policy must be re-thought if we are to maintain our way of life and prosper.
Dr Charles Wardrop,
111, Viewlands Rd West,
Perth.
