donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, difference between Mk.VI and CB90 looks very small compared to difference between Mk.VI and Archer. Sorry, I cannot follow your point... Why you are saying Scimitar CRV(T) = a warfighter can replace Toyota Prius = a training car ?
[EDIT] You need well trained marine engineers, may be several of them, to operate Mk.VI, while you may need only 1 or 2 for Archer. The training level required for the engineer differs a lot, as well. There is a reason why Archer is simple. Mk.VI will never be able to cover Archer tasks. On the other hand, enlarged/enhanced CB90 will be able to cover many, if not all, of the Mk.VI tasks.
The CB90 and Mk6 are very different vessels but mainly in the roles they are designed to do.
You’re enlarged CB90 would either have to keep the same shallow hull design to allow it to come very close to shore ( meaning poor sea keeping in open water ) or keep the deeper hull design of the Mk6 to allow better sea keeping ( meaning can’t come as close to shore as required ) it’s either this or a half way house that means you get neither benefit.
Yes a Mk6 would need more engineers than an archer but not by a great deal, the Mk6 has a crew of 10 for combat operations so for basic training purposes that can be reduced. They won’t need the weapons crew or crew for link 16 or CMS as these won’t be use during training. Yes I do agree a larger engineering crew would be needed compared to archer but IMO this is worth it to have a fleet of vessel that would have a combat use if ever needed unlike the archers.