Crew of 193....call it $1m/yr right there just to staff it (at $5k/head).
Weaponry:
-1 100mm cannon
-8 21" torpedo tubes
-1 anti-submarine helicopter
-2 point-defense CIWS
Now compare that to a small missile boat....maybe a Saar V
Crew of 74 (and 1/3 the tonnage)
Weaponry:
-8 Harpoon missiles in deck tubes
-32 cell VLS launcher for anti-aircraft missiles
-1 multi-purpose helicopter
-3 point-defense CIWS
It was a 'prestige hull'.....biggest hull they could afford to crew....but decades obsolete, and with no military value.
That used to be a lot more common in the 60s-80s, when the US was giving away WWII cruisers. "A lot of ship".....on paper. But with HUGE staffing demands, lots of maintenance required......and COMPLETELY outgunned/outranged by modern missile-equipped ships and aircraft.
Like most 'prestige hull' operators ..... all they got out of it was a money sink.
With the exception (when they scuttled it) of denying some Russian ship dock space.
This case was particularly egregious.
Crew of 193....call it $1m/yr right there just to staff it (at $5k/head). Weaponry: -1 100mm cannon -8 21" torpedo tubes -1 anti-submarine helicopter -2 point-defense CIWS
Now compare that to a small missile boat....maybe a Saar V Crew of 74 (and 1/3 the tonnage) Weaponry: -8 Harpoon missiles in deck tubes -32 cell VLS launcher for anti-aircraft missiles -1 multi-purpose helicopter -3 point-defense CIWS
It was a 'prestige hull'.....biggest hull they could afford to crew....but decades obsolete, and with no military value.
That used to be a lot more common in the 60s-80s, when the US was giving away WWII cruisers. "A lot of ship".....on paper. But with HUGE staffing demands, lots of maintenance required......and COMPLETELY outgunned/outranged by modern missile-equipped ships and aircraft.
Like most 'prestige hull' operators ..... all they got out of it was a money sink. With the exception (when they scuttled it) of denying some Russian ship dock space.
Complete waste.