World Affairs Board - View Single Post

rickusn · 02-03-2007, 19:46 PM

Here are my initial thoughts. They may or may not hold water.:

Its a start. Im not sure C1/C2 should be separate. Of course the article states this is under debate to some extent:

"One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two."

IMHO they should be one class.

Just as the split in capabiliities of the FREMM class for Italy and France concerns me.

I dont see any real savings potential and conversely a real possibility of increased costs.

And concerns about flexibility and manpower/training/maintenance issues.

But politically it may be the only route to procure sufficient ships. But I see it as really adversely affecting efficiency and effectivness of the navies in operating/tactical matters.

As for C3: It could prove to be the most effective replacement program of the three.

02-03-2007, 19:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
rickusn *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-09-03 Posts: 1,317	Here are my initial thoughts. They may or may not hold water.: Its a start. Im not sure C1/C2 should be separate. Of course the article states this is under debate to some extent: "One continuing debate is whether C1 and C2 should be based on the same generic hull but with differences across their respective equipment fits to reflect the capability split between the two." IMHO they should be one class. Just as the split in capabiliities of the FREMM class for Italy and France concerns me. I dont see any real savings potential and conversely a real possibility of increased costs. And concerns about flexibility and manpower/training/maintenance issues. But politically it may be the only route to procure sufficient ships. But I see it as really adversely affecting efficiency and effectivness of the navies in operating/tactical matters. As for C3: It could prove to be the most effective replacement program of the three.