Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I like Omega-class a lot.
I agree, it looks very very good, but I would like some more details about the propulsion and the stern mission space configuration.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:It is actually based on De Zeven Provincien-class frigate.
I noticed that straight away. The hull dimensions aren't just close, they are identical. It should help keep R&D costs low. If you ignore the cosmetics, I see a lot of similarities between the Omega and some of the earlier T26 concepts.

What is the known ASW performance of the De Zeven Provincien Class?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:As I think Dutch ship building cost is in many case estimated cheaper than that of UK, "what is included" may differ. So, direct comparison is not healthy.
Maybe so but if the Dutch can pitch this around £550m it could do very well. Time will tell.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Bad thing is, people will tend to compare Omega-class and FTI to T31e
Any T31 comparison is silly but the Omega looks to compare very well with the FTI. If the prices are broadly similar between Omega/FTI it might not be good news for the French.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

abc123 wrote:
NickC wrote:back to my mantra the T26 is too costly and class should be terminated after the first three ships.
Ok, so if T26 at 700-800 mil. is too expensive and T31 at 250 mil. is too cheap (not capable enough), what could we get for say 500 mil. pounds? What capabilities?
We revert to the original plan which was for a modern version of the T23 with the newer tech to give ~ one third reduction in crew, which at the time was estimated at ~ £250M/£350M.

At the moment left with the planned 8 very expensive T26s multi-mission frigates with no budget to fund any missiles to install in VLS cells or any USV/UUV which now and in future look blue sky in the large mission bay with the result T26 has less firepower than the T23 which with its deck launchers can fire Harpoons, could be updated to NSM or LRASM if funding were available, and 5 T31's which are OPVs as all the budget has been spent on T26. The result is the numbers so low that RN will be lucky have four operational T26s and may be three T45s at any one time, so to keep fleet in being none will risked in war scenario as the loss would be total disaster.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

NickC wrote:
abc123 wrote:
NickC wrote:back to my mantra the T26 is too costly and class should be terminated after the first three ships.
Ok, so if T26 at 700-800 mil. is too expensive and T31 at 250 mil. is too cheap (not capable enough), what could we get for say 500 mil. pounds? What capabilities?
We revert to the original plan which was for a modern version of the T23 with the newer tech to give ~ one third reduction in crew, which at the time was estimated at ~ £250M/£350M..
There is no way that we'd be able to design and build a 5,000t odd super quiet ASW Veseel with everything it requires for £350m, that figure was totally pie in the sky by bea. What will fill the gap in the mean time as these other frigates will coming online much later than the T26 as we'd be starting from scratch with the design and the whole process and the T23s won't be able to hang on any long than is already planed.

What about the massive pollitical fall out and embarrassment of spending all that time and money design a world class frigate just to cancel it while other nations are taking and building large numbers.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:What is the known ASW performance of the De Zeven Provincien Class?
Hull mounted sonar it main role being AAW

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

NickC wrote:with no budget to fund any missiles to install in VLS cells or any USV/UUV which now and in future look blue sky in the large mission bay
Any proof to back that up?
NickC wrote:with the result T26 has less firepower than the T23 which with its deck launchers can fire Harpoons, could be updated to NSM or LRASM if funding were available
The ship isn't even built yet - there are literally years before we need to make any decisions about the systems that it will carry
NickC wrote: 5 T31's which are OPVs
No - they aren't - I'm beginning to suspect that you don't even know what an OPV is.
NickC wrote:RN will be lucky have four operational T26s and may be three T45s at any one time
And yet the current fleet of ageing T23's can manage 80% availability (which translates to 6 or 7 T26 and 4 or 5 T45, plus 3 or 4 T31) - even if we don't currently have the crews to man all of them.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: if the Dutch can pitch this around £550m it could do very well. Time will tell.
Save on the hull design, add the (rich) defence inflation and the "De Zeven Provincien (Netherlands)-$532 million" that newwars has picked up as the predecessor's cost easily becomes abt £550 million
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

A quick comparison between Damen's Omega and their possible M Class replacement concepts for anyone who hasn't seen them.

OMEGA
image.jpg
Concept for the M Class replacement.
Similar but far from identical to Omega
image.jpg
Future Frigate and MCM Replacement
image.jpg
MCM Replacements
image.jpg
image.jpg
Damen appear to be right at the forefront with both their Frigate and MCM designs. Like Omega, it will be interesting to see what price these Frigate and MCM concepts are pitched at.

Is this something the UK should be getting involved with?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

If the T-26 were cancelled I doubt we would have to start from scratch as the MoD has multiple decades worth of designs from their FSC projects to go back to. :D

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:people will tend to compare Omega-class and FTI to T31e, even though T31e is clearly "one-rank or even two-ranks lower" assets compared to the former two.
Might be clear to you but not everyone else. Certainly not me. In my opinion you are putting too much weight into ships cost as a way of assessing capability.
Yes, I am putting weight on ships cost, as well as other issues.
1: T31e cost is very cheap.
2: T31e is planned to be build in shipyards other than BAE, which lacks escort build experience for long. Because it is engineering, experience itself is the primary indication of readiness. This is "common sense" in engineering = very solid. Compared to Damen, there is zero possibility Babcock, Carmell Laird, H&W and others can build the same ship with cheaper price. Only at best, with the same price.
3: Technology can solve this issue to some extent. But looking at T26, UK do have a good technology but it is not cheap.

Overall, T31 with typical unit-cost 200-200M GBP can never beat the 400-500M GBP FTI or Omega-class in its capability, for sure. And there is nothing to be ashamed here. If you think Leander is better than FTI or Omega-class, where is the rationale? I find nothing, sorry to say, other than one thing = less fuel and less maintenance, which is (actually) very important for the role T31e is required to cover.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:A quick comparison between Damen's Omega and their possible M Class replacement concepts for anyone who hasn't seen them.

OMEGA

Concept for the M Class replacement.
Similar but far from identical to Omega
Looking around, I could not find the images, can you tell us where? I see some in some blog forums, posted months ago. As Xav-san reported that Damen guy YESTERDAY said that Omega-class will be M-class replacement candidate, I guess it is the newest image.

# Might be similar to Arrowhead 120 (new small design) to Arrowhead 140 (re-used large design)?

But note that this model is for Indonesian navy and Omega-class will be tailored to each requirement, so the armament, or even the outlook may differ. Also I see some comment that Dutch navies' ship are designed by navy, and built by Damen, so maybe Damen is just proposing options to their navy and final design is yet to be fixed.
Is this something the UK should be getting involved with?
Surely a good candidate, but not the only one.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

NickC wrote: with no budget to fund any missiles to install in VLS cells or any USV/UUV which now and in future look blue sky in the large mission bay

Caribbean wrote: Any proof to back that up?

No mention of any funding for the above kit in MoD 10 year The Defence Equipment Plan 2018, am i mistaken? The NAO stating that kit as listed is unaffordable and further £Bs cuts must be made.

NickC wrote: with the result T26 has less firepower than the T23 which with its deck launchers can fire Harpoons, could be updated to NSM or LRASM if funding were available

Caribbean wrote: The ship isn't even built yet - there are literally years before we need to make any decisions about the systems that it will carry.

Agree, but the T26 is so costly its soaking up so much of the budget and so relying on hope and faith that future funding will materialise.

NickC wrote: 5 T31's which are OPVs
Caribbean wrote: No - they aren't - I'm beginning to suspect that you don't even know what an OPV is.

The official MoD mission statement of the T31e, included as part of the notice to issue contract for five ships for £1,250M

Primary roles in order as listed.
1) Counter drugs and counter piracy
2) Port visits
3) Official entertainment
4) "Demonstrations" of military capabilities
5) Training
6) Natural disasters, supply emergency relief stores (Two 20 feet ISO containers) 

"The T31e will be a General Purpose Frigate, providing an enduring and continuous worldwide maritime security presence in several forward operating areas and releasing other, more complex warships to their primary roles.
The T31e will carry out various maritime interdiction tasks, such as counter drugs and counter piracy. It will also carry out defence engagement activities, such as port visits and official entertainment, demonstrations of military capability and participation in allied training exercises. It must be ready to respond to emergent events, such as natural disasters or evacuation of non-combatants and will routinely carry specialist emergency relief stores in certain operating areas."

I might be wrong but i interpret that as an OPV, not to say it could not change if more funding available but that looking very unlikely though one never knows if RN rob Peter to pay Paul.

NickC wrote:RN will be lucky have four operational T26s and may be three T45s at any one time
Caribbean wrote: And yet the current fleet of ageing T23's can manage 80% availability (which translates to 6 or 7 T26 and 4 or 5 T45, plus 3 or 4 T31) - even if we don't currently have the crews to man all of them.

That's good news, it looks optimistic, but would will try to find actual deployments figures, have you a source?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:NickC wrote: with no budget to fund any missiles to install in VLS cells or any USV/UUV which now and in future look blue sky in the large mission bay

Caribbean wrote: Any proof to back that up?

No mention of any funding for the above kit in MoD 10 year The Defence Equipment Plan 2018, am i mistaken?
Good discussion, but platforms and weapons are separately budgeted for. Like the big number for "Complex Weapons". Or, that Challenger tanks do not have the thousands of rounds (same for the artillery, just bigger numbers) that they are expected to expend in their budgets.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:No mention of any funding for the above kit in MoD 10 year The Defence Equipment Plan 2018, am i mistaken?
there is a 13.5 billion budget for missiles in the 2016-2026 budget

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

NickC wrote:No mention of any funding for the above kit in MoD 10 year The Defence Equipment Plan 2018, am i mistaken? The NAO stating that kit as listed is unaffordable and further £Bs cuts must be made.
As @ACC and @Tempest say - that comes out of a different budget, which seems to be well-funded and producing results. As do the future offboard systems.
NickC wrote:No mention of any funding for the above kit in MoD 10 year The Defence Equipment Plan 2018, am i mistaken? The NAO stating that kit as listed is unaffordable and further £Bs cuts must be made.
So - do you think that we will build a piece of kit (the T26s) at great expense and then not equip it, or do you think it is more likely that another line of kit will simply be eliminated in its entirety, thus making better use of resources?
NickC wrote:I might be wrong but i interpret that as an OPV
There is a difference between what a ship is capable of and the role that it undertakes. Do you think that, because the GP T23's and the T45's have been doing precisely those sort of roles, that they have suddenly become OPV's? Were the T21's OPV's (because that's the role that they routinely filled as well)? Of course they weren't. The T31 is clearly going to be far better built than an OPV (even the overspecced River B2), with higher standards of protection, buoyancy, damage control, armament etc than an OPV. A River B2 is an OPV and it will never be able to undertake any form of genuine combat role (though it may have wartime roles). The T31 may take on a similar everyday role, but will be able to "step up" to combat roles, should it be needed.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Out of interest does the "Complex Weapons" budget cover all such items including off the shelf buys of foreign systems or is it aimed only at the development of new systems for the UK military. The difference may be small but it could have an impact going forward.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Looking around, I could not find the images, can you tell us where? I see some in some blog forums, posted months ago. As Xav-san reported that Damen guy YESTERDAY said that Omega-class will be M-class replacement candidate, I guess it is the newest image.
Details are very few and far between. Makes sense that Omega is now the baseline design. Reusing the hull is a wise move and should minimise R&D costs.

It's clear from the comparison between the original images and the Omega images that the two concepts share different hull forms. Could some cost cutting be involved already?

I would like to see the UK take the same approach and design and build a less complicated ASW Frigate on the T26 hull. It is also interesting how many mission spaces have been included on Omega regardless of the lack of appetite for such capabilities in the export market. The double hanger also fits in with a growing trend and although RN doesn't seem keen to adopt the twin hanger concept, it does appear popular for export.
# Might be similar to Arrowhead 120 (new small design) to Arrowhead 140 (re-used large design)?
Could be, smaller and lighter isn't always cheaper :D
Surely a good candidate, but not the only one.
A 140m ASW Frigate with Captas 4 for around £500m is very tempting. Reusing the hull form has ensured that the design should be realativly low risk and low cost. Very attractive for export.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

This will probably upset some people and I know it has been the RN's historical roll since the end of WWII, but shouldn't the RN look towards seriously increasing its ability to engage other naval surface platforms rather than trying build another ASW platform? Why not tailor the T-31e into a "Missile" boat, abandon any pretence of it having a ASW capability but install twelve to sixteen AShMs, and without going overboard, reduce its radar cross section as much as possible. This would be the platforms war role, operating with other vessels and giving any task group a serious boot to this capability. Of course when not in this role it can just sail around with fewer or even none of the AShMs installed. As the AShMs would come from RN stock only the adaption of the CMS would be included in the cost of the platform so the real need is to ensure there is space for the loadout and that the design has a low a RCS as is affordable. Specialising the T-31e in this way os surely more affordable than trying to turn it into a ASW escort through the back door.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by PAUL MARSAY »

Definitely agree with this , Asuw will also grow in the future and it's something we no longer possess

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:Why not tailor the T-31e into a "Missile" boat, abandon any pretence of it having a ASW capability but install twelve to sixteen AShMs
PAUL MARSAY wrote:Definitely agree with this , Asuw will also grow in the future and it's something we no longer possess
Its sounds like you are proposing a stealth Corvette?

Personally I can't see RN firing ship launched ASM's in cluttered Littoral environments anytime soon. Is that not what the Wildcats are for?

Would a larger multipurpose vessel that is able to embark a number of Wildcats and/or Apaches be a better option in a contested Littoral environment?

The multipurpose option would also be able to do many other things outside of a conflict scenario where as the stealth Corvette is pretty one dimensional albeit highly effective in its primary role.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote:We revert to the original plan which was for a modern version of the T23 with the newer tech to give ~ one third reduction in crew, which at the time was estimated at ~ £250M/£350M.
Utter bollox. Original T26 UPC budget was 2/3 T45 i.e. 475m.
NickC wrote:At the moment left with the planned 8 very expensive T26s multi-mission frigates with no budget to fund any missiles to install in VLS cells or any USV/UUV which now and in future look blue sky in the large mission bay with the result T26 has less firepower than the T23
Utter bollox. Budget is available for T26 missile loadouts.
NickC wrote:5 T31's which are OPVs as all the budget has been spent on T26
Utter bollox. T31 are not OPV's.

You are a troll.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:people will tend to compare Omega-class and FTI to T31e, even though T31e is clearly "one-rank or even two-ranks lower" assets compared to the former two.
Might be clear to you but not everyone else. Certainly not me. In my opinion you are putting too much weight into ships cost as a way of assessing capability.
Yes, I am putting weight on ships cost, as well as other issues.
1: T31e cost is very cheap.
2: T31e is planned to be build in shipyards other than BAE, which lacks escort build experience for long. Because it is engineering, experience itself is the primary indication of readiness. This is "common sense" in engineering = very solid. Compared to Damen, there is zero possibility Babcock, Carmell Laird, H&W and others can build the same ship with cheaper price. Only at best, with the same price.
3: Technology can solve this issue to some extent. But looking at T26, UK do have a good technology but it is not cheap.

Overall, T31 with typical unit-cost 200-200M GBP can never beat the 400-500M GBP FTI or Omega-class in its capability, for sure. And there is nothing to be ashamed here. If you think Leander is better than FTI or Omega-class, where is the rationale? I find nothing, sorry to say, other than one thing = less fuel and less maintenance, which is (actually) very important for the role T31e is required to cover.
Salesmen must love you. More expensive = better.

Leander is a modified existing ship design that will be built at a commercial oriented yard using commercially oriented processes. Of course it will be substantially cheaper.

Before comparing an unbuilt Leander to an unbuilt FTI, the actual spec of each ship needs to be established.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: will be built at a commercial oriented yard using commercially oriented processes
At least some of "the meds" that the Sir Parker report prescribed will be taken, then?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Wildcat will be very effective against targets that cannot truly fight back, but many nations are now using patrols vessels far larger than the FAC of the 70s and 80 and that are fitted with both air defence and CIWS that are credible at the very least. The newer generation of AShM are not indiscriminate fire and forget weapons, many have man in the loop capabilities. In a full on conflict if you see a contact that is not confirmed as friendly and might be a hostile preparing to fire, do you get on the radio and ask his (or Her) intentions? Your ESSM will have detected emissions for said target and you will have a fair idea what it is. Therefore you fire and hope to hit the target before it hits you. The ROE of the type we have had to follow in Iraq and in Afghanistan are not going to apply in a major war. We won't fire totally blind, but is a contact is unknown it is going to be engaged whether in the middle of the Atlantic or the Gulf. If however Politicians force a set of ROE onto the Armed Forces that do not allow the above, then they should be personally held responsible for the possible resultant deaths of the service men and women who dies because they were not allow to act in a manner appropriate to modern naval warfare. If politicians are not will to accept that war is hell then they should not take our Country into one in the first place or simply run up the white flag if we or our allies are attacked. War cannot be sanitised, civilians will die, it will be a humanitarian disaster and it will cost this country in both lives and equipment. IF you are not allowed to fire a AShM at a contact in a littoral environment then you might as well dock the entire Navy as they will be sitting ducks for any opponent who has anything resembling a rational set of ROEs.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yes, I am putting weight on ships cost, as well as other issues.
1: T31e cost is very cheap.
2: T31e is planned to be build in shipyards other than BAE, which lacks escort build experience for long. Because it is engineering, experience itself is the primary indication of readiness. This is "common sense" in engineering = very solid. Compared to Damen, there is zero possibility Babcock, Carmell Laird, H&W and others can build the same ship with cheaper price. Only at best, with the same price.
3: Technology can solve this issue to some extent. But looking at T26, UK do have a good technology but it is not cheap.

Overall, T31 with typical unit-cost 200-200M GBP can never beat the 400-500M GBP FTI or Omega-class in its capability, for sure. And there is nothing to be ashamed here. If you think Leander is better than FTI or Omega-class, where is the rationale? I find nothing, sorry to say, other than one thing = less fuel and less maintenance, which is (actually) very important for the role T31e is required to cover.
Salesmen must love you. More expensive = better.
Leander is a modified existing ship design that will be built at a commercial oriented yard using commercially oriented processes. Of course it will be substantially cheaper.
Before comparing an unbuilt Leander to an unbuilt FTI, the actual spec of each ship needs to be established.
I think I am more "enemy" of bad salesmen. If a salesman says, "better performance with a half the price", I will ask for "what performance" (specification) and "why so cheap" (and also what support level).

- "Built at a commercial oriented yard using commercially oriented processes" is nothing new (*1). Damen is much better in that field than any British ship yards, and Naval-group's warship is in very good competition to Daman's. Clearly, being "commercial" cannot answer why "a half the cost".

- On specification, we had a lot of discussions already, and 200M GBP unit price Leander will never beet 470M GBP unit price FTI in all respects (other than the size of mission bay?). Note, I am not talking about the "super Leander" (your proposal) which will be 350-400M GBP unit cost. Done.

*1: It would be new in UK, I agree. But it is very common world-wide, especially Damen.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Pongoglo »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:people will tend to compare Omega-class and FTI to T31e, even though T31e is clearly "one-rank or even two-ranks lower" assets compared to the former two.
Might be clear to you but not everyone else. Certainly not me. In my opinion you are putting too much weight into ships cost as a way of assessing capability.
Here here to that - Bravo Zulu in fact ! Ron has just hit the nail on the head. Far too much of the debate on here seems to be based around a few contributers who insist on defining a ships designation and capability based purely on its cost. If we were to follow that logic to its extreme then the Chinese 'Super Destroyers' that they are currently churning out by the dozen would in their eyes be defined as OPV's - this based simply on the fact that in real terms they probably cost about half the price of Donald's beloved FTI !

Post Reply