Despite the continued effort on the part of some to reduce that argument to absurdities Humphrey I still stand by my point.
If you want a 50 MW power plant then spec a 50 MW power plant and build a hull around it to keep it (and its associated sensors and other kit) afloat then figure out how few people you need to operate it.
And I will continue to argue against the practice of pricing ships on a per tonne basis as the PBO did and the US does.
From the testimony supplied via the AOPS thread
Warships - 40% ship 60% weapons
Ships - 50% labour 50% materials
Assume, as I did on the other thread, a $1,000,000,000 CAD expenditure.
$600,000,000 for the weapons and sensors
$400,000,000 for the ship.
Now assume that I maintain the weapons and sensors suite - holding that budget fixed but I opt to increase the size of the ship by 50% from, for example 4000 to 6000 tonnes.
That $400,000,000 is $200,000,000 in labour and $200,000,000 in material.
Now a 6000 tonne hull will have more material but it won't have 50% more material. Its engines will be 50% more powerful but they won't be 50% larger or cost 50% more. The labour to build the larger vessel will be more but it won't be 50% more. The engineering MAY be greater but it won't be 50% greater.
Regardless, let us assume that a 6000 tonne hull will cost 50% more than a 4000 tonne hull.
Your $400,000,000 Ship becomes a $600,000,000 ship.
To that you add the same $600,000,000 weapons suite.
Your total project now costs you $1,200,000,000 instead of $1,000,000,000 and you end up with a more flexible ship with longer legs (and possibly/probably better speed and seakeeping).
And I seriously doubt that the escalator would be near that 20% shown above and more likely be closer to 10%.
At that point you are now debating 10x 4000 tonne hulls at 1 BCAD or 8 to 9x 6000 tonne hulls at 1.1 to 1.2 BCAD.
Meanwhile you have the crewing requirement.
Let's stipulate a current crew of 225 all in including air dets.
Let's also leave out the discussion of moving all the way down to the Maersk or even LCS levels of crewing and move up the scale. The Danes and the Dutch manage with 100 or so.
Is it unreasonable to suggest that technology has progressed enough since 1980 to permit a crew of 225 to be reduced? Even a reduction from 225 to 175, or even 150 would free up enough budget to make up the shortfall in the project above so that we could afford to buy all 10 hulls at the higher displacement.
I intentionally push limits so people will tell me why not. Once that is defined then it is easier to discover that which might be.