Tempest414 wrote:By his way of thinking the Bays can be core crewed by say 40 as all the same applies and the well dock is just a few hydraulic's and pumps that need maintaining
I do not think so. One of the cargo ship's "figure of merit" is low crew number. So, the ship systems are focussed on less man-power from the beginning. On the other hand, Bay class is an LSD, the Enforcer design, which is basically designed to have a crew of 100-150. In other words, basic hull design differs from Bay class LSD.
Also when the FAA / JHC embark they do so with aircrew and Maintenance staff not flight deck teams a fire fighters. a flight deck is not just another deck as another deck dose not need refuelling points fuel stores davits are the same they will have fuelling points all of this will need extra crew due to the fact of damage control
and as for just adding some catering staff a type 23 /45 has galley team of 10 to 14 so as these ships will have from between 120 to 300 people embarked at any time the same will apply
Why not those "firefighting crew" also comes from "other than the ship core crew"? Maintenance of those "firefighting tools" will be needed by the core crew, but the firefighting and catering are "part time jobs", only needed when additional capabilities are carried on the ship.
Independently, FLSS do not need to be ~100 crew ship (better damage control and better maintenance = can handle more man-power intensive tools). UK has 3 Bay class, so buying one or two cheap PSV-based HADR ships to relieve the Bay at APT-N will be the answer in that case. "Transformation cost" does not include any maintenance cost nor operation cost (including crew).
This is partly the reason I guess
2 FLSS are (at least partly) the "yet non-existing" replacement for RFA Argus. In this case, the operation cost and crew (or crew-cost) will be succeeded and affordable.
If the 2 FLSS need larger crew, it will immediately kill a Bay or a Wave. A simple math.