Engaging Strategy wrote:Albions were indeed built to the military standards of the early '90s. That's why they're manpower intensive, about twice the crew of a Mistral. I believe they're more expensive as well, although it's hard to find accurate cost conversions for these things.
A good discussion here.
For the Mistrals, the cost is available at least in two different ways:
- one xtra was built as support for employment in ship yards (from a different budget)
- the price for the Russian deal (for two) has been published; the demands in the Hague court are not representative as there were parts to be built in St. Pete
In the 90's, the concept for a landing was still a la San Carlos (under fire, possibly from the shore as well). The ships that then followed, after the Fearless class replacements had been built, all reflect the rise of the importance attached to vertical insertation:
"HMS Ocean, which like the Bays and Mistral's, is built to a cheaper specification. "
- Ocean and the Mistrals, OTH, for which reason the French built high-speed ship to shore connectors to utilise the dock
- the Bays were planned to be moving in only when the beachhead had been made secure
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)