Thanks Gabriele-san. Balance between standards and cost is exacly what is the issue here. I totally share your lists pointed out here. Standard is the point of dicussion, I agree.Gabriele wrote:Also again, the RN desperately needs to reassess what it really needs in terms of survivability when hit, and what can realistically be achieved in this area. They are paying a whole lot of money to protect the crew, and that is very noble, but any kind of damage that would sink a lower standard ship will mean, at the very least, a mission kill on the higher standard vessel. You have to decide, very urgently, how many more hulls you are willing to lose in order to pursue a survivability that might save lives but that will ultimately still cost the war as you will run out of ships very, very quickly. Also, passive survivability standards so far have effectively come at the expense of investment in decoys, active protection, sensors and weaponry. All of these are being cut back more and more, making it more likely that the ship will be hit in the first place. Obsession with these mythical standards will end up meaning little. It already does on Type 45, which is horribly vulnerable to loss of power from battle damage (or simple failure) despite all the capital expended into separate machinery spaces and bla-bla-bla.
I also remain supremely unconvinced about these mythological RN "special" standards that supposedly go above and beyond what happens in other navies.
I am not still convinced here. You say, RN can build "armed Bay" with low standard and cheap. Then, why cannot T31 in low standard? We all know Khareef was built for 400M GBP for 3 hull, including the design cost. It is doable. What is diffucult is to make RN built a war-fighting vessel in low standard. It does not matter if it is "an armed Bay" or "a light frigate".Most likely no, it isn't any cheapter, actually. Algeria paid its LHD-frigate an amount of money directly comparable to the target price for Type 31. And it included ammunition and training, both things that Type 31 doesn't really include as the first comes through other budget lines and the second through yet another.
Finally, we know what usually happens with target prices. Type 26 itself started out at 350 million, remember...?
Big difference with a large vehicle deck and not. If not, you can have a firewall, many of them, but with vehicle deck, no fire wall there is. I cannot agree a light-frigate/patrol-frigate built to the same standard as Bay is similarly vulnerable. It is surely much more tolerable to attack even built to the same standard. Sorry I cannot understand your point, it is crystal clear for me.- Vulnerability. So, what? You are willing to load invaluable resources on the amphibs, with exactly the same level of survivability. Also, we have already been told that Type 31 will cut back in this area to achieve savings, so how much better will it actually be?
But, yes, anyway we need to send Bays on theater. And Bays and your proposal ship has the same vulnerability, you said. This is true, I agree. But the big difference is that Bay is there to load something. After they get empty, they will go away. For example to some safer bay (say, South Geogia). If needed, they will come back with reload. If the light-frigate and Bays are merged ("chimera"), you are always vulnerable to attack, and you lose your "light frigate" when the ship goes back for reload.
I understand your merit list, but in real war, there is a clear demerit. It is just a matter of which to choose, I guess.
