I got the distinct impression that they decided early on that the risk of being bombed was greater than the risk of capsizing!
*************
That’s a fascinating way to look at it. Certainly wise to assess risk on a relative basis on some cases.
Very good point.
IIRC, it DID come back in a few cases to bite them in Typhoon Cobra, but...that is a bit like coming down hard on the Japanese because they experienced a 9.0 earthquate that took out their nuclear plants.
Having a destroyer capsize in a typhoon doesn’t seem much like a stretch to me, even a well designed one!
Except those guns on the front are similar in functionality to the 5” deck guns on US Destroyers. They are to shell surface targets and don’t support AA. On the back, if I recall correctly there is a missile launcher that can support AA misses. Then there is the Harpoon launchers forward for the rear deck. The usage of these ships is anti-insurgency and anti ship missions. They pretty much stick to the Gulf of Thailand with some excursions to other countries.
Source of my date: personal experience with the RTN on this and other ships out of Sattahip Naval Base.