GD
I am not saying that a 6k tons frigate isn't more cabable than a 300t fast boat. I am saying that in specific scenarios the small boat makes a lot more sense and can better utilize special condition favorable to it's purpose.
While you are right that the increased height of the larger unit, gives it a longer horizon, it also works for the smaller unit: When there is a line of sight there is a line of sight. Though the small vessel is in the electromagnetic clutter near the surface of the sea, the tower of the large ship is not. There are too many parameters that affects detection, to make a straight forward conclusion. Though it remains that the smaller unit can better utilize the special operational enviroment of littorial combat, than a larger unit.
Anyway it's not interesting f.ex. since the defender does not have to search for the large unit in the given scenario (It will have to establish a fireing solution, though it will/could be cued by other observation means).
My point is that the smaller unit will bring a significant threath, which until found and destroyed will effectivly perform as a "keep out" sign for the invader's high value assets and it is cheap, can be in large quantities and will be hard(er) to localize and destroy for an invader (given a balanced over all defense, specifically an effective (land based) air defense).
I just don't see where a large unit fit into a balanced territorial defense of the isles of Denmark; you would have 3 high value assets floating around waiting to be hammered, while the rest of the defense will - that is if we want to be succesfull - survive by being dispersed and difficult to detect, relying on modern forms of communication and control to deliver a cohesive effort - exactly when it matters.
I agree that most defense should be land based though navial assets provides an offensive cabability, in the given scenario (protecting the isles from a landing).
In any case, we are discussing a scenario that is so unrealistic that we have to dream up war with germany, sweden or the US. I am 100% in favour of the new frigates and the new security policy, since I believe the need for an effective and credible territorial defense is zero.
Wrt to a flyvefisken succesor:
I am all for it, though along side it's traditional missions, it should be designed with a view for (constant) deployment to f.ex the mediterrainen, where it could operate from friendly bases there. Having a combat unit only suitable for operating in danish homewaters is a combat unit that will never ever be used as a combat unit. The missions that the navy has to take care off in danish waters can be more effectively (that'll be crew-money wise) taken care of by units with only a very limited combat value.
Wrt it's size it's big enough to carry enough weapons and good enough sensor suites, though maybe the crew accommodation will suffer from it's small size?
I am not saying that a 6k tons frigate isn't more cabable than a 300t fast boat. I am saying that in specific scenarios the small boat makes a lot more sense and can better utilize special condition favorable to it's purpose.
While you are right that the increased height of the larger unit, gives it a longer horizon, it also works for the smaller unit: When there is a line of sight there is a line of sight. Though the small vessel is in the electromagnetic clutter near the surface of the sea, the tower of the large ship is not. There are too many parameters that affects detection, to make a straight forward conclusion. Though it remains that the smaller unit can better utilize the special operational enviroment of littorial combat, than a larger unit.
Anyway it's not interesting f.ex. since the defender does not have to search for the large unit in the given scenario (It will have to establish a fireing solution, though it will/could be cued by other observation means).
My point is that the smaller unit will bring a significant threath, which until found and destroyed will effectivly perform as a "keep out" sign for the invader's high value assets and it is cheap, can be in large quantities and will be hard(er) to localize and destroy for an invader (given a balanced over all defense, specifically an effective (land based) air defense).
I just don't see where a large unit fit into a balanced territorial defense of the isles of Denmark; you would have 3 high value assets floating around waiting to be hammered, while the rest of the defense will - that is if we want to be succesfull - survive by being dispersed and difficult to detect, relying on modern forms of communication and control to deliver a cohesive effort - exactly when it matters.
I agree that most defense should be land based though navial assets provides an offensive cabability, in the given scenario (protecting the isles from a landing).
In any case, we are discussing a scenario that is so unrealistic that we have to dream up war with germany, sweden or the US. I am 100% in favour of the new frigates and the new security policy, since I believe the need for an effective and credible territorial defense is zero.
Wrt to a flyvefisken succesor:
I am all for it, though along side it's traditional missions, it should be designed with a view for (constant) deployment to f.ex the mediterrainen, where it could operate from friendly bases there. Having a combat unit only suitable for operating in danish homewaters is a combat unit that will never ever be used as a combat unit. The missions that the navy has to take care off in danish waters can be more effectively (that'll be crew-money wise) taken care of by units with only a very limited combat value.
Wrt it's size it's big enough to carry enough weapons and good enough sensor suites, though maybe the crew accommodation will suffer from it's small size?