JonesyJonesy, it seems to me you are reading in indian words something is not actually there. India thrust to Indian Ocean is performed mostly on the paradigm of engagement and collaboration.
Perhaps so Verbatim, but, the comments about two fleets and exercising of control over the IO are fairly well covered in the media….Vishnu’s article reproduced in his post 555 from the IN’s spoksman states:
“our visionary leaders saw the centrality of a powerful Navy and set us on the right course by envisaging an Indian Navy centred on aircraft carriers for sea control in our expansive areas of maritime interest” and “An aircraft carrier carrying potent long range multi-role fighters is a platform inherently designed for power projection.”
I can be forgiven for taking that at face value yes?,
Confrontation is a matter restricted mostly to Pakistan and just in a limited way to China.Plainly speaking there is no real need, in most scenarios, for such kind of naval power projection as envisaged in your posts.
Leaving aside the crude attempt at muck-raking I think you have a fundamental misappreciation of the real power of a fully comprehensive aircraft carrier in a sub-warfighting role. In the patrol, surveillance and conventional deterrence roles the weaker carrier is far more likely to create belligerence than the stronger one. This is down to simple virtual attrition. If the opfor knows its got a good chance of getting caught with hand in the proverbial cookie jar…and be unable to do much to prevent being caught in the first place its far less likely to attempt something naughty in the first place. The CATOBAR carrier is the better stabilising platform over the weaker STOBAR one as the latter ship might encourage the opponent to exploit an opportunity.
Just for the records, italian carrier Cavour was paid 1,3 billion Euros just for the ship alone, with all the electronics cost is estimated at almost 2 billion euros, i.e. far more usually stated. That price for a ship with the very same constraints you are referring to, just smaller and with no suitable aircraft bar the JSF.
Hmmm I’ve got 1.1bn for the ship and just short of 1.5bn Euro as delivered from It MoD figures. You sure you’ve not got US dollar figures there?. Not that it matters of course, as I said, I wasnt suggesting Cavour for the IN. In fact we’ve seen rough proof that a Euro design could be adapted for IN requirements with IAC-1’s Fincantieri family resemblance. NDTV pitched costs for IAC at 14000-18000 crore which is about 2.2bn US lo-end isnt it. Hard to see where the idea is coming from that the proper carrier was so far beyond India’s reach.
The only suitable alternative, would have been a Charles de Gaulle derivative, but I believe it would have dictated much more politic, diplomatic and financial hurdles.
Not exactly DCN had its Romeo and Juliette designs doing the rounds in 2003/4 as it was trying to rouse support for them as PA2 contenders…an Indian order even if only for the licensed design, consultancy and a few bits of module construction would have been music to French ears back then…who knows what concessions you might have gotten from them….I’d imagine a great willingness in the MN to help with training at least!. I’ve seen French media reports that put the costs for PA2 with a DCN design at 2.5bn Euro built in French yards to MN spec. You would have had the same length of time to get the CATOBAR hull, Italian or French derived, over the political and technical hurdles that you’ve actually taken to get Vikramaditya over its political and technical hurdles…and theyve likely been more challenging than a new build!. Most importantly you would have been left at the end of the process with the right design…not that unfortunate situation you are in now where youve spent best part of 5bn but have to start again from scratch.
Jonesyhow dose Ka-31 stack up against Sea-King ASaC7 as a package
Thales Cerberus suite is meant to be extremely good. Going by BR stats the E-801M on the Kamov is good for holding 40 simultaneous tracks…I know that Cerberus can do several multiples of that. In reality though, apart from finding alternate uses like the overland ISTAR ASaC7 has been pressed into, I’d imagine any differences would be pretty much academic in the aircrafts primary tasking.
JonesyThe qualitative gain in the aircraft Vikram carries compared to Viraat will add up. The IN may not be able to strike a heavily defended airspace with Vikram, but it can do better CAP for a naval fleet than Viraat, carry more aircraft, strike lighter defended targets at greater range or even more distant, lighter defended naval targets, which Viraat can’t do (or does worse).
Frankly, given the IN’s current and forthcoming escort quantity and quality, the fact that their upcoming aircraft carriers are only small-medium weight and lacking fixed wing AEWC is not much of a sin. That is to say, their escort fleet isn’t that impressive in the first place so a less than world class aircraft carrier is forgivable.
If the USN had decided to buy 40k ton STOBAR carriers exclusively we’d all be scratching our heads. For the IN, whose most capable DDG in service is still the 1997 commissioned Delhi class, such a procurement is not scandal or a shame.
Blitzo please forgive this but I think you make my point so much better than I do here. You describe a second-rate capability….which is perfectly in keeping with a second-rate escort force and is ‘no shame’. My view actually differs a bit (not least as I think that the Delhi’s and 1135 mod variants are pretty solid all-round hulls!) in that I think the IN had it within their power to step up to the first rank of naval powers but, if you forgive the pun, they ‘missed the boat’. Rather than being ‘no shame’ Vikramaditya represents opportunity lost…or at least delayed…which is lamentable.
JonesyVishnu,
To cover your first point last, as you are quite right it is actually the pertinent point, India does just the same with Viramaditya as it did with Viraat. Vikramaditya is not going to cause any real shift in power in the IO. It cant do much more than limited sea control and modest sortie-rate (punitive) strike ashore….as well as the usual peacetime taskings. It does those taskings better than Viraat ever did…no argument there…but there is no need to be concerned about new capabilities as, largely, they arent there and I’d expect professional analysts and advisors to be entirely aware of that. There is no contention that the group you outline wont be a significant threat to anyone likely to oppose it int the IO…but to that combined Sino-Pakistani force the same group with Viraat at its centrepiece would still be a similarly significant threat.
The issue goes wider than that though….to the fundamental core reason that the IN want aircraft carriers. That is to establish dominance over the IO. I believe the saying there is the ‘two coast strategy’ you want to be able to control (or at least exert influence) from the PG approaches out of the Mandeb Strait one side and out towards Malacca the other way. As regional superpower that is an entirely appropriate naval stance. It is also a lot of sea to cover…especially when your control platforms sensor footprint is the extent of what can be delivered by a Ka-31 or two!.
I appreciate that you have land-based assets and some very well chosen strategic basing options. I’ll show a bias here and say those are irrelevent to the discussion I’m afraid. They are not, of course, and they will form a vital component of the C3/ISTAR picture available to the carrier group flag, but, they are inorganic elements and therefore deniable. With the best will in the world no naval commander will depend, absolutely, on resources under someone elses chain of command for key elements of his combat power. If the opposing force can track the land-based air it can even be a telltale to the enemy of where his carrier force is and undermine a fleet deception plan…doing as much harm as good.
The equation is therefore not as simple as ‘the fleet can work with Su-30, P-8, AWACS’. USN E-2 crews, for example, were well drilled in deception ops, as components of the fleet, and were trained in low alt runout after take-off – popping up above the radar horizon to opposition forces at an offset position or at a sequence of positions giving the impression of a false rate of advance and group bearing. That kind of synchronicity between AF and Navy units is rare everywhere from what 20yrs of observation has taught me!.
Bottom line Vishnu I look at the IN as a service that should be further along its chosen path than it is, that has made some unfathomable procurement decisions and when I see articles lauding those decisions it baffles me completely. Your crews should be working up E-2’s and Rafales now…you’ve spent enough to deploy that and you have had the time. You should have a modern, efficient, CATOBAR carrier of your own commissioning now with a second in build, to the same design, supported by a single track logistics and training plan. Ships that will deliver the Sea Control you want and be future-proof for the next three decades.
Instead you get STOBAR, MiG-29 and Ka-31 and you have to go back to the drawing board for the real capability and you will have STOBAR as a millstone around your necks for the next 30yrs as you try and justify the Gorshkov spend. I’m afraid I just cant see how you can be happy with that?.
JonesyHmmm I wouldn’t say the Vikramaditya will be little better in capability then Viraat but to be honest we are splitting hairs here, the ship is hardly a stellar example of wise procurement. I would also say that it meets the core need for an INS Viraat replacement so I don’t think saying: is entirely fair Jonesy. They have sunk the money now so they had better make best use of it, I think it will be interesting how the INS Vikramaditya and her airgroup will operate with the new P8I Poseidon.
What, in purely strategic terms, is Vikramditya capable of that Viraat wasnt Fed?. Its fighters are longer legged and can carry more granted….but can they penetrate defended airspace any better than the upgrade SHARs?. No – theres no support radar coverage overwatching. Sea Control….granted the Fulcrums can stage farther, but, the only sensor platform for surveillance will be the fighters own radar…and there wont be enough fighters in the airgroup to have half a dozen out on SURCAP, while maintaining local CAP pairs and with cabs spotted for ASuW strike and buddy tanking!.
Vikramaditya is a more powerful ship than Viraat. MiG-29K is a more powerful fighter than SHAR. Without the whole package of support types though both facts are largely irrelevant as the same limitations that restricted Viraat will restrict Vikramaditya.
JonesyVishnu,
Glad we have a mutual understanding!
I am certain you are right in that the officers and men of Vikramaditya are excited to get to grips with their new ship and tremendously proud of her. Furthermore, as you mentioned earlier in the thread, I have no doubts whatsoever that the premier service in the world at keeping obsolescent technology vessels at the top of their fighting potential is the Indian Navy. My point is rather that, in 2014, it has no need to!.
Compared to Viraat Vikramditya may well offer more capability in the same roles as the older ship, but, it is an inescapable fact that it does not introduce the support types essential for comprehensive sea control as is the stated IN requirement. This is why the view for IAC-2 is towards a hull suited for the requirement.
Telling Russia to go jump would have been against our interests. Neither would negotiations to get back money from Russia necessarily have worked. Arbitration proceedings on this could have been endless and could, very well, have cast a shadow on the overall equation. Whats more, Russia has never thought twice of reminding India that it transfers technology to us which it transfers to no other country. Akula-2, PAKFA, Brahmos are a few examples. Also, please note that what they have FINALLY sold us in the Vikramaditya is very much what the Navy wants. They have NOT accepted an inferior product and reports suggest that there was more than an element of tension throughout the trials and acceptance process because the Indian Navy was absolutely clear that they would NOT accept the ship short of what they had contracted.
Again though Vishnu the question remains…why do you think the Russians were willing to transfer the technology to you that they have?. Had you pulled out of the carrier deal they would still have wanted Indian investment and to sell hardware to you. Its for damned sure they want you as a partner more than they want your investment going to a competitor!.
Aditya,
Reality is that this is the best option available to the Indian Navy at the time. And it is commissioned into the force ‘here & now’. The only other speculated option, the Foch/Clemenceau did not have any compatible fighter aircraft.
Again though Aditya the point remains that there was no immediate urgency for the Gorshkov to come across. Certainly not by 2004 when the deal was finally signed. At that point the Italian Cavour was three years in build and DCN had just shown their Juliette design at the Euronaval show. Either one of those designs offered the basis for a medium CATOBAR carrier that would achieve the strategic goals of the IN as a longer term project. The comment may be ‘they would be too expensive’ but thats a nonsense…look at how much youve spent to get a carrier capability that does not match your strategic goals!.
Wan,
Assuming there will be a next carrier…
Point well made. I did read something, a couple of years back to the effect that the Yak-44 was being resurrected…or at least looked at good and hard…as a precursor to a re-engagement with carrier building in Russia. I always thought that this programme would be a good litmus test of where the Russian Navy was at with the whole thing. I’ve heard nothing new regarding that aircraft design for at least a year and a half…you picked up anything more recent?.
It, that follow on, is in basic – yet essential – features similar (e.g. size, airwing size, stobar)
Agreed, but, that owes little to the actual design of the Russian ship…propulsion, crewing, major subsystems etc all very different. Nothing of the Kiev class heritage has pulled though.
Yup. But that don’t make Vcky useless as such.
Absolutely not. I’ve never intended to give the impression that the ship is useless. My point is that its simply little more use than the Viraat in strategic terms.
JSR,
$1.5b Italian carrier is not the export price with IN requirements and thousands of Indian crew trained on it.
The $1.5bn Italian carrier that is specced out to MMI requirements which, from what I can tell, far exceed what Vikramaditya is outfitted with!. Not seeing a radar-missile fit on Vikramaditya that compares to the EMPAR/Aster SAAM/IT suite on Cavour as just a single example!. In fact I dont see a radar the equal of EMPAR in the entire Indian Navy!. Perhaps not too quick to judge there eh JSR?. The point was not that the IN should have bought a Cavour class instead of Vikramditya anyway though. Rather it was that there were carrier designs around, at the time that India signed up to Gorshkov, that offered the foundation of a proper class of carriers and not the hotchpotch of differing designs that you will end up with now. Cavour being one example of those and an example that, in actuality, did not come with the astronomical costs that posters here appear to assume.
where you get this information Vik does not meet IN needs?. higher amount to run? you have any data/
Vik doesnt meet IN needs. Effective Sea Control requires wide area surface surveillance. Vikramditya cannot provide that beyond what its Ka-31’s can deliver…the same coverage that Viraat delivered. Viraat was not an effective Sea Control platform…do you see where this is heading?. Higher cost to run…yes I have ‘data’ its called the machinery fit of the vessel. I’d encourage you to see if you can find an efficient and ‘cheap to run’ 8 boiler steam plant on any ship in any commercial or naval service on the planet. I know the UK never built one.
JonesyVishnu,
I’m afraid I’ve had this discussion before and it always goes the same way. We start with commentry, usually from an Indian source, of how wonderful and game-changing Vikramaditya is and will be…then the point is made how far she falls short of what the IN actually need and how much (compared to a modern ship) it’ll cost to run…and then we get to the ‘justification’ of how while she is ‘less than ideal’ it was actually imperitive to preserve the relationship with Russia.
Two points always come into my mind when I read posts like yours…and I mean no disrespect here as you have posted in a perfectly civilised, open and friendly manner:
1) Do you honestly think that Russia would have refused to try and sell you military hardware if you pulled out of the carrier and asked for your money back….after it became obvious what they were trying to sell you was far less than they advertised originally?.
2) Theyve just screwed you over on a deal and have done nothing to dispell the fear that they would cut you out of joint technology development deals, key to Indian defence interests, if you dont just stump up the price for the ship. Is this a good bilateral relationship or one that could stand a little adjustment back in your favour?.
JonesySnake,
The IN’s requirement of its carrier fleet, principally, is sea control with a secondary mission of shore strike. Any way you cut it that means CATOBAR and an airborne radar platform. This is as opposed to the PLAN example who’s requirement is sea denial and anti-access principally to USN carrier groups.
STOBAR does not allow for the deployment of these support types in the carrier airwing as yet. Neither does STOVL of course…that limits the QE as a carrier, but, it limits it in a role that the ship isnt anticipated to be used in…QE isnt a Fleet carrier but then she’s never been intended to be one.
Am I saying the MiG is no better than SHAR….no….I’m saying that its irrelevent if the MiG is better than SHAR as that doesnt alter what the carrier is capable of achieving without those all-important (for the sea control mission) support types.
What stops the MiG-29K using a catapult?. The fact that the airframe is not stressed for catapult shots to the best of my knowledge…a STOBAR fighter needs to be light to be able to do the unassisted takeoff with the maximum fuel/ordnance load possible. Catapult strengthening will eat into that weight margin. You dont, really, want a heavy STOBAR fighter.
JonesyThere is that one French carrier and the upcoming two British carriers. These two countries have until this point larger budgets than India. India can only afford this carrier and its carrier wing. MIG-29K system export price is $40m.
The ‘couldnt afford better’ argument doesnt work JSR. Neither does the ‘Russian fringe benefits’ argument…weren’t you meant to get Tu-22’s as part of this deal!?.
India was able to go from a spend of $800mn to 2.3bn on the Russian ship…was that money found down the back of a sofa between 2004 and 2009 perhaps?. The Indian media claim that the STOBAR IAC-1 will come in at about the same price…presumably that being a spend programmed in for a while before steel-bashing started?. Thats a total $4bn+ spend, which wil become significantly higher with the extra wholelife costs of supporting disparate types of capital ship, and there STILL isnt one definitive Indian carrier design that will be taken forward. So, on top of the $4bn, you now spend again designing the definitive Indian carrier. The words ‘false economy’ do come to mind.
Gorshkov was big news in the early 2000’s as it was to be a ‘cheap, quick and dirty’ method to put in place a superior replacement for Viraat/SHAR. That myth, for those who believed, was disabused in ’04 by the “shock” announcement that the ship was in a poorer materiel condition than “was first thought” so an interim solution became a ship that now has to have a 30yr service lifespan!. What you have then is an expensive ship, that will cost a disproportionate amount to run by virtue of its machinery, that wont allow the use of the CATOBAR airgroup that the IN was always heading towards…there is no way that a case could be made that this is the ‘cheap’ option!.
Viki Carrier is remodeled with paltry sum of $2.4b spread over 9 years. You start that long project in Western Ship yard with such slow drip of money. The price will be closer to $20b.
…unless you are Italian of course. They were able, even with funding challenges and political delays, to deliver a 30,000ton full load aircraft carrier for less than $1.5bn. A simpler STOVL design of course, but, with the added design complexity of it needing to be adaptable for amphib operations.
Your simply suggesting India buys one super expensive carrier with no money left for fighters/ SSNs/AAW ships. that will make the whole navy white elephant.
No I’m suggesting that the IN never had an urgent need for the Gorshkov and, by 2004, several very much cheaper CVS options existed that could have allowed the IN to run on with SHAR at least as long as it will now. That they had, and could have taken, the time to assemble the funds to design and build the carrier that met India’s strategic requirements…which Gorshkov and STOBAR were never going to…and build a number of hulls to that single class design. The IN had been talking to DCN in France since the days of the ADS concept back in the early 1990’s so its a nonsense to suggest that they didnt know what they needed out of a carrier, what it would take to deliver it and had no assistance with the effort. Buying into a ship that doesnt meet your strategic goals, that doesnt offer design evolution potential and is going to cost a significantly higher amount to run than a contempory-tech vessel makes no sense…it is every definition of the elephant though.
JonesyJonesy, I can sympathise with that sentiment. Stil, if she’s a white elephant, then so are Liaoning and Kuznetsov. In fact, with all three, we are expecting 1st gen follow-ons along very similar lines, and only subsequently perhaps a move to a more ‘conventional’ carrier design.
We live in interesting times.
Its a thought provoking point Wan.
I’m not sure there isnt a difference between the three in doctrinal outlook that does vary their pachyderm status though. The Kuznetsov is a product of its heritage and good old Admiral Sergei’s forward defence doctrine. Russia’s next carrier may look something like Kuznetsov but it will be at least a hybrid in the Ul’Yanovsk mould and the STOBAR characteristics will be solely there by legacy of the extant airwing.
Liaoning may turn out to be the model for the remainder of PLAN carrier production…this in recognition of the fact that the Gorshkov cold war doctrine actually could suit Chinese strategy and capabilities very neatly. The carrier is essentially a platform for a modest number of heavy fighters. Without cueing and forward-deployable radar coverage, for the airwing, from embarked organic AEW it makes little to no sense as a strike platform either ashore or for well protected naval targets….it, obviously, lacks the P-700 battery for the latter mission as well.
What it will do is provide well surveilled airspace at several hundred kilometers radially from the ship and be able to dispatch long-endurance, high performance sensor platforms that happen to be well armed enough to be able to handle any USN CAP they bump into. As a platform to provide surviveable ISTAR to cue ASBM/submarine attacks then the Liaoning/Gorshkov type carrier with a modest Flanker airgroup is a perfect fit and the absence of meaningful strike capability allows for a, credible, claim to be the innocent man if accused of harbouring imperial ambitions.
Compared to these Vikramaditya is different in that it has, assuredly, no place in the future of Indian carrier or naval development. Its follow-on design has happened already, as you note, but it has no commonality with a Mod Kiev-class in any realistic sense beyond the most basic features. The next generation of through-decks on Indian drawing boards after that, allegedly, could even have an entirely different flight operations scheme and, possibly, an entirely different propulsion fit again!. The route chosen by the IN could well see three carriers in service with completely divorced and incompatible logistics/crewing requirements and potentially even two incompatible fastjet airgroups. Thats where I’m coming from with the allusion to the elephant! 🙂
JonesyJonesy … I recall you being skeptical that the Vikramaditya/Gorshkov would ever join the Indian Navy in the years past. Anyway, it finally has.
I’m not sure I was skeptical it would ever join the Indian Navy exactly. I was hopeful that good military sense would prevail over nationalistic politics, but, the proof is manifest that it didnt.
I still do not believe, for one second, that the private opinions of the Indian admiralty reflect the statement released thats quoted there and I never will. Vikramaditya has held back the cause of IN naval aviation at least a decade locking them in to STOBAR, and the same basic limitations they had with STOVL, just with a flashier fighter than SHAR. They, the IN brass, are well aware of this…as that ‘white elephant’ article demonstrated back in the day. The one thing thats undeniable though is that this ship certainly looks impressive…as any white elephant would! :rolleyes::cool:
JonesyIf I may be permitted to ask the bonehead question whats the actual requirement here?.
In hi end terms, looking at the recent airspace violation incident, it looks like this happened fairly close by a Colombian island with a nice long hard strip airport. In air defence terms then the overriding necessity would appear to be for a fast, BVR-capable, interceptor, in good numbers so as to be able to deploy the capability…and with, as they note, AEW as the multiplier.
If they already have logistics/training infrastructure to support Kfir and have an offer of plentiful and cheap further machines, zero-houred and upgraded to very high avionics specs, why would this not be an ideal solution?. Add in the G550AEW offering and negotiate for the package….say 4 GAEW plus 30 blk60’s and the existing Kfirs upgraded to near blk60 level and you’d have to be looking at 3 frontline squadrons plus an ‘island det’ of BVR interceptors for, what, a couple of US$billion, including weapons and bits, good til the 2030’s at least.
Would a blk60 defeat a Venezuelan Flanker in single combat in neutral conditions…maybe not…but in Colombian airspace, with numbers and AEW support, and with the Flanker outside of its own radar coverage those tables turn pretty quick. Just seems strange to ignore such a potentially efficient solution.
Same sort of thing with the A-37 replacement. Are Ecuadors modest collection of Leopard-1’s going to roll towards the Colombian border any time soon?. If not is an AMX really the answer to what the Colombians actually need out of this aircraft type?. Again if the already operate A-29’s, and have the support in place for them, it seems bizarre to contemplate an extra type when the A-29, in larger numbers, can do the anticipated job quite adequately.
Jonesyearmuffs … epic!:highly_amused:
Highly impressed to be honest! :applause:
I’ve done the Channel and Biscay at this time of year and can tell you that, if you are working topside, happiness is warm ears!. I did have this fur-lined trapper cap once upon a time that swiftly went from an object of ridicule in the ships company to one of the most coveted possessions I’ve ever owned. Its demise was under highly dubious circumstances not made any the less suspicious by the smug attitude of my shipmates to my newly cold ears!.
JonesyNo, I haven’t missed your key point and there is, to my mind, uncertainty as to the political process here, with the Scottish referendum looming large. The yards could be kept open by building modern trawlers equipped with UAVs instead of small warships and they would be cheaper to the taxpayer. The trawlers would be every bit as seaworthy as patrol sloops.
I suspect that the decision has more to do with changing perceptions within the RN as to the value of these vessels as political interference.
Regards
The intent of this spend is to keep metal being bashed in the yards…which the government guaranteed…no more no less. Redesigning a commercial hull (a rig support or survey hull would offer far more than a trawler) to be able to safely control and deploy UAV’s is money going to design teams and not welders. The 90m OPV is designed and has been built in the yards that will build the three new vessels it is really that simple. Three more just the same….rinse and repeat.
This is why they wont have a hangar, or be stretched to 100m or mount a 40mm BAE Mk4….despite all of these things being exactly the changes to the design we need to just get that bit of game-changing extra capability. The point of the exercise is not to get the best for the RN…its to tick a box for govt. That it keeps work in Scotland at an expedient time is a bonus and the RN has perceptions of running a minor war fleet that are very well established and will not change or be changed by a few 90m OPVs. MHPC will be the game changer and, so far, that could well see an outcome a little different to that most anticipate.
JonesyI am sure that the lack of foresight that has lead to the need to build these ships will continue. However this is a very good opportunity. by spending a bit more now could and should save the Tax payer more in the long run if the UK build something close to what is pictured above it should allow this new class to take over anti-piracy duties off Africa which in tune would allow at least one of the type 45’s to carry out there primary duty of carrier escort also the new class should be able to conduct the anti-piracy operations cheaper and in the time frame that is laid out (2017-20) the last of the new class could be sent south to relieve HMS Clyde to come home for refit and redeployment.
As for the 3 Rivers I feel at only £15million per year to run the 3 ships they should be left to do their work until replaced somewhere around 2030.
‘Spending a bit more now to save later’ is an absolute anathema for politicians who’s responsibility extends as little as 4-5yrs….if you look at CVF you see the clearest example of the diametric opposite ‘wisdom’. Spending little now and more later is very politically expedient and moreso if the other team are in office having to cope with your little spending timebomb.
These three vessels may be an opportunity, in a sense, as they are ‘nearly’ a good fit to mould MHPC around and will be available to the mob in time to help shape this very important transformational capability. As Frosty notes earlier that 16 ton crane and the ability to ship half a dozen 20ft containers could be very valuable qualities in that development effort.
As a guideline to represent ‘minimum’ capability then these three 90m hulls could well point the way, empirically, to the 100m hulls you’ve pictured to provide the full multirole MHPC capability. Something that could only be considered a good thing!.
Sign In
