Originally Posted by ASSAIL
Linked is a good short interview with Eric Grove, British defence analyst and naval specialist.
With regard to the "austere" Frigate, ie T31. He states that these type of ships made sense 20 years ago after the Cold War but now naval strategy is "back to the future" where fighting is more likely to be state on state and therefore all ships need to be highly competent.
He also stressed high build standards and high level damage control competence, something the Brits learned the hard way during the FI campaign.
He was disturbed by what he had just heard at DSEI where people "who should know better talked about doing away with naval construction standards.
I hope the professionals convince the politicians to take heed.
I was frankly surprised by the guy from Babcock who was 'promoting' Arrowhead. IMHO he didn't seem to do the design any favours by stating that, "it is not a front line combatant" however true that might be. It seems to fly in the face of what the First Sea Lord was demanding of these vessels.
Even the Stellar Systems guy stressed warfighting capability with the 'Spartan' design.
I still think 'Venator' with its many options came out best of the lot, from the short piece we heard from the interviews.
I was also surprised by the remark in regard to "state on state" wars. As it is generaly accepted that we would fight any future conflicts as part of a coalition of forces, each bringing its particular assets/expertise to make up the whole.
In truth it is only the USA, of all the western powers that has the capability to take on a peer to peer enemy single handedly. Something I don't think even they would want to do, without the back up and support of friendly forces.