Gabriele wrote:I hope one day someone will explain why to operate closer inshore you have to be less equipped, not more. You are basically going up threat, exposing yourself to even more potential dangers, but going in with less instruments to return fire effectively.
How is that not a contradiction?
I find certain affirmations simply laughable when not entirely dishonest. A Type 31 with the same (or less) sensors of a Type 23 and less weapons than a 23 and possibly less aviation capability than a Type 23 is "ideal for the future maritime operating environment"? How? For fuck's sake, how is that possible?
I like to see "2 T26" than "5 T31", and not a strong fan of T31e. But, I can understand the rationale.
"Near ashore" is doable only if the threat is low. And if the threat is low, T31e can do it. If the threat is high, neither T45 nor T26 can do it.
Compared to "+2 T26 fleet", "+5 T31e" can at least add one standing commitment. So the issue is, "to be or not to be". In other words, if the threat is low, a T31e can be there. If the threat is high, T31e cannot go. If with "+2 T26" fleet, there will be nothing regardless of the threat level.
The reason I prefer "2 T26" than "5 T31" is not because there is not job for T31e. But because I think, growing 2nd escort ship yard is a stupid idea (inefficient = waste of money) and I'm afraid man-power shortage will not allow "19 escort" fleet.
Lord Jim wrote: The discussion here is basically going round and round, repeating the same arguments. I think we need to take a break until some actual news emerges regarding the T-31e. Carry on regarding the next generation that follows the T-26 or T-45 by all means but the T-31e discussion is getting kind of boring.
Agreed. Sorry for that, as I am one of the players here...
What we need to discuss here now is, however, "have your say" to MDP and SDSR2020. My "say" is, do not contract T31e before SDSR 2020.
, to and secure "8 T26" first.