ACCESS: Top Secret
- Jan 3, 2006
- Reaction score
PMN1 said:Given the problems the RN had had with previous destroyers how did it think it was going to get a 573ft x 59ft (according to Friedman) destroyer past the Treasury?
Perhaps they planned to deliberately underestimate the displacement and attribute the inevitable cost overruns to rampant inflation? The earliest published source demonstrated complete disbelief of the ambiguous 6,000 ton figure. Looking at the contemporary Spruance/Kidd class, it would seem that a full load displacement wouldn't have been less that 8,000 tons, and perhaps would have been much more?
It's interesting that on page 312 Friedman refers to a nuclear powered design study based on the large Type 43 variant that would have been 172m long and would have displaced around 10,000 tons!