I agree, numbers are important, and we do need some sort of economy ship, but it is the form this appears to be takingwhere the ships will not be that cheap and their capability is not going to be adequate for use in many roles currently filled by ships like the Type 23’s,Karel Doorman’s, F123’s etc., this reminds me of the mistakes made in the 30’s where anything was considered better than nothing and we ended up with garbage like the Fairey Battle with achieved nothing more than to kill a lot of fine, brave men when they were used in action. If we want vessels to act as patrol boats then build cheap OPV’s just for the role (the RN River class are good boats, good sea keeping and capable for deep ocean operations if required, but without all the expensive systems and weapons that are just not needed for Coastguard duties), if we need vessels to act as first line combatants then they need to be capable of fighting with a good chance of survival in the modern maritime battlefield, otherwise it is just wasting money to look good on paper in peace time. And if we need effective combatants then they will not be cheap. To me a better idea would be to build good size hulls, fitted for but not with all the expensive bits, so that in peace they’d be cheapish to build and operate, with the potential for upgrading if things look dangerous later, that strikes me as a better compromise in the cost/capability debate.
What really irritates me is the way politicians and senior officers (who have to be very politically aware) always dress these things up as a great innovation and advance rather than just being honest and admitting it’s about numbers and saving money I guess.

In fairness to the USA on tanker environmental safety their OPA90 act was probably the biggest single factor in tanker safety of recent times and resulted in double skin tankers and changes in liability that were genuine improvements in the industry, despite opposition from almost every quarter. For military tankers the risk of liability isn’t as much of a problem as for commercial crude carriers, they’re mainly carrying distillates which have a much lower pollution impact than heavy crude and residual fuels, and less of the stuff at that. The Wave vessels were built to comply with current commercial standards for tanker construction and to class rules, in that respect they are built to commercial standards, however the defensive aids, sensor and comms suites and certain military specific equipment seperates them from a straight commercial tanker. Also, unlike a commercial vessel requisitioned or chartered for military service, these vessels are built purely for military support and operating with the fleet, their role is inherently military. Althought the crews are certificated by the MCA (or equivalent) to STCW95 standards they also recieve training not given to any other merchant seamen and there are regulations covering their service in military zones. With regards helicopters, it’s true many ships could operate helicopters and many have landing spots, but how many have full hangar facilities and the equipment for supporting sustained military flying ops, including facilities for handling torpedo’s, ASM’s etc. and practice heli ops regularly as well as routinely carrying military personnel as attached air unit crew? Originally the RFA were essentially a civilian organisation operating standard cargo ships and tankers no different in any significant way to commercial vessels and had little or no military capability beyond the ability to carry guns like any other vessel, but developments in replenishment techniques, requirements for weapons handling, the need to give the vessels some defensive capability and changes in comms have seen them diverge more and more from commercial practice.
The role of the RFA/RN primary casualty reception vessels is interesting as the description is not purely one of semantics and they are not declared as hospital ships according to ICRC requirements to evade certain stipulations on utilisation, which again undermines the civilian claims of the Argus aside from her aviation support role.

Gun based anti-missile defences like Goalkeeper and Phalanx are still very effective and robust systems and the gun is certainly not dead.

Given the economic costs involved and Argentina’s defence needs (as opposed to aspirations) spending vast sums on another carrier would be insane, especially when there is still a lot of fall out to clear up after the economic melt down of a few years ago.

All depends what they’re used for, many of the more capable corvettes are basically utilised in an OPV role for which they’re way, way too expensive, and despite an impressive looking weapons and sensor suite on paper they are not equivalent to a cut price frigate, often their true capabilities are nothing like the brochure claims due to problems with stability, accomodation and space, it’s quite normal with some of these vessels that they can carry a useful ASuW or ASW or AA weapons fit but not all together in spite of listing a most impressive aresnal on paper. The Israeli Sa’ar design is a good example, when new they were held up as a wonderful design carrying a equal punch to much bigger frigates and destroyers in other navies at a fraction of the cost and size, yet their stability is marginal and in service they’ve not managed to match any of the big claims made for the design when new. There is almost no growth potential, stability tends to be marginal and the costs really aren’t that much less than a larger more capable frigate if fully specced up given that a massive part of the costs of a warship are the command and control systems, sensor suite and weapons, fit equivalent radar, c&c and fighting capability to a corvette as a frigate and you’re getting a platform with a lot less growth potential, much less capability due to lower endurance and habitability and probably poorer rough weather operational capability. If the vessels are intended for inshore/near coastal work then it is probably better to buy a much smaller FAC type if intended to guard against enemy combatants, or a good OPV is intended for Coastguard style duties. If intended for deep sea ops then the disadvantages mean a frigate makes a lot more sense, even financially.

An impressive boat and a big boost to the capabilities of the Dutch marines. Considering the UK and Dutch marines operate together so much in some ways you’d think a joint Anglo-Dutch LPD would have made a lot of sense, the Dutch vessels are very different to the British Albion and Bulwark, although the RFA Bay class (the UK still persists in the insane charade of claiming the RFA fleet are mercantile civilian vessels) are based on the Rotterdam platform. As for rolling, their windage is less than the ferries and Ro-Ro’s that run around the North Sea so it shouldn’t be a problem, these days the active and passive roll reduction systems are pretty effective.

Why not look at the Dutch Rotterdam LPD, with similar ships built for Spain and the UK they seem an effective and economical LPD design, with much of the equipment and construction using established and low risk commercial techniques and off the shelf machinery.