Yes, but these ships were designed as Logs(Aux) until that ran into the problem that there was no such NATO classification, so they are now called 'something' elseETH wrote:Any ideas what this could entail?
My guess is expanded aviation and C2 facilities at a minimum.
... what I am aiming at is habitability, over a long period of bob'bing up and down close to someone's coastline.
the referenced paper was targeting the conversion for the EoS, while the other one would be an Albion (we already have it) for WoS
- so for that one the only change would be if we were to send it to the G of Guinea, to chase pirates there (the drug smugglers of the Caribbean are already being chased by using other, cheaper assets).
Why do I mention 'habitability'?
- bcz the 'reaction group' has been indicated to be abt 200-strong
- when you take away the helicopter component and the boats/ LCVP handling, that makes for c. 150 pairs of boots
But all 200 hundred will be not just taking up space, but also loading ship's "services"... that were not designed in
BTW: Congrats on the choice of your profile picture. Whether you meant it (or not?) it nicely sends the message that
"capability hols can be taken; BUT they may cost you"... or would a better 'technical' term be: come back and bite you in the bum