|
Back to the original question:
one must keep in mind how fast things were changing before they crucify a particular type of design, at least in the early years after WW II. Also, how much money is available to be spent. With the latter in mind, which is better to have, some Type 42's .............. or no ship at all?
It would be nice to have all the kinds of warships one wanted, but that is simply not the case. For example, it could have been nice to have a Tullibee class and a Permit or Sturgeon class (not quite sure where Tullibee ranks with them) but given the choice that one can have real quiet submarines or really HP powerful submarines but not both submarines, one has to make a choice.
Now, Type 42's do rather point out why one can't just take off so much feet from the hull to save money........but that is rather apparent to us but not necessarily to others. I remember during the Carter administration a letter to the editor by a not so well doing citizen who was saying taking so many feet of a Trident under construction to help out the citizenry of the country. When the country isn't doing well money wise, people can see things that way ........ or when other military services are trying to get the most out of the budget as they can.
Generally, countries don't build ships they will know will be bad ........ just at times, it can work out that way in operation.
_________________________________________
(Gerald and Betty are having dinner of pet food. Gerald comments, "Enough about my (presidental) trip abroad; how are things here at home?", (w,stte), Ford Administration editoral cartoon)
|