You are not understanding about tonnage. Its not about Tonnage that makes a ship expensive. Its about Electronics and Propulsion. Especially when in a ASW asset, the majority of expenses goes for Radar, SAM, TAS, HMS, Torpedoes, Gold Plated ASW Helicopters, Raft Mountings. For any ship
1. First we choose the speed regime aka what kind of speeds it would be operated? Max speeds and such.
2. After that we choose what kind of propulsion systems are available to us whether LM2500 or MT30 or Zorya Gas Turbines. When we narrow down the propulsion,
3. Then we select a Tonnage based on that. In the curve of returns vs tonnage, there is a ideal tonnage at which we get maximum returns based on speed and propulsion.
My entire argument is based on that if the Next Generation Corvette has same CODAD propulsion as Kamorta Class then the following paragraph is not applicable. Otherwise if it had some 2xLM2500, then it would be incredibly wasteful to waste the power on a lower tonnage platform like some 4000 or 5000 tons afterall how much more speed does Navy need other than going above 30knots?. If speed is the issue then the Nilgiri Class has whooping 32knots in speed ideal for Wide Area ASW for some 6500tons.
If Navy's goal is a Oceangoing ASW ship, then they should go all out and build some 6500ton ship. Afterall compared to a 4500/5000 tonish ship, it uses atmost more steel and silencing measures with same propulsion of 2xLM2500, isn't it? A Larger tonnage means more range and endurance to venture beyond Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean into chokepoints like Malacca and Indonesian Archipelago where PLAN SSK lurk.
With such size they can include a Multi Mission Bay like Type 26 where it can launch LUUVs infront of Helicopter Bay. The cost factor doesn't make sense for me.
