Azerbajian is at current date more NATO then REDFOR. Especially with it’s industry transistioning towards NATO equipment and NATO materials.
E.g. they stopped producing Russian military materials, e.g. explosives and metals and are revamping their industries towards the production of NATO materials and metals.
Azerbajian could be a very nice sub-TT for a Turkish TT - with Turkmenistan.
Most ships have RCS recutions, but you can’t compare the reductions on Horizon/T45/FREMM/Type 26 to those of for example even the Formidable class (to a degree the La Fayette) and especially Zumwalt class or LM Sea Shadow.
It’s kinda like 4.5th gens vs 5th gens in terms of RCS reductions vs true stealth.
I think as a fleet ship he might’ve done. It has its own specialised role and could’ve replaced the AB’s in AD duties for that. It’s a bit more expensive yes but better in some ways. Imagine TIE Defender being Zumwalt and Advanced TIE/TIE Interceptor being the standard Arleigh Burke.
As opposed to the Trump class which is literally a super star destroyer and the thing Thrawn hates the most.
(Yes I will talk technology in Star Wars terms, no I am not ashamed of it).
Afaik even the stealthiest ships aren’t really stealth. Having the signature of a fishing boat for that size is what matters in that context, but a radar will still see it even at range, unlike aircrafts. The risk of misidentifying it is higher though
Yup that was my initial point X)
Big ships make big targets, big targets make symbols
Better to have multiple hulls for the same amount of raw material / crew, unless the ship’s role really requires that size (aircraft carrier, SSBN).
Even for big surface to surface missiles today, you don’t really need to go heavier than a cruiser
Anyway, now i’ll go back to coping about submarines