Yes, I am one of those who can see the sometimes obvious things without having to know the exact weight, deck penetration, captain's cabin, number of toilet seats.... There are many more much smaller OPV out there with much bigger top weight. No man, a few more missles and a slightly larger launcher won't do too much to the ship's stability. Sorry for being so simple minded. But sometimes things in the engineering world is just not as complicated and precise as people tend to think.
Then you wouldn't have any trouble naming them, then, and quoting the actual operational load out and trials results? Oh, while you are at it, you can tell us more about the 056's top weight. I mean, you know the smaller ships have bigger top weights, so you must know the 056's, right? Go on. I am sure we'd all be very much edified by your precise dissection of the visible equipment on same.
HINT: The Sa'ar V is a joke. A bad joke.
And no, I am afraid ship building - especially warships, which has a rather more complicated set of constraints than civilian ships many times it size (just for example, few civilian ships has large weights moving on its decks... and those which do usually don't tend to have large recoil forces. This is entirely without going into hullform) is one of those things that are actually more complicated than people thing. The amount of bunkerage in a ship and the weight distribution, for instance, is I promise you something the average person won't even consider.
Forgive me for not being clear, I did not propose a solution. My entire post was to point out that it must be some kind of space issue or other concerns that lead to the installation of the 8 missile launcher. Otherwise, they could simply place a standard launcher on the ship instead of developing new ones.
Then we are not disagreeing. It is probably some sort of trade off.
Numbers, numbers, bummers, nobody has any real numbers for on the ship for the time being. What make you think a one-off design investment would be cheaper? Perhaps when the time comes, they will need a 22 missile launcher. That's why the navy always upgrade their ships every few years. Again I am not saying that the 8 missile launcher is bad for the ship. But, I am just not sure the reason they did it is to save the cost of having to fit 22 missiles in the launcher.
I don't have to prove anything. You make a postulate that it is more expensive (the point of your post). I disagree. Burden of proof is on you. For what it's worth, however, I'll explain why I suspect that is the case:
1) It is a one time investment that can be amortized over the entire production lifetime
2) It appears to share a lot of of commonality with its larger counterpart - most notably the missiles
3) We have seen the innards of the
- it appears to scale quite well.
4) Last but not least... the design already existed.
Anyway, you already answered your own question. If operational requirements change (remember, we haven't even seen the formal induction of the class), they can probably deal with it in the next batch or during mid-life upgrade.
