Aster Missiles and RN Type 23 Frigates

I heard something the other day, from an unameable source, that the RN were in the process of drawing down the Goalkeeper system in favour of Phalanx anyway. The thinking being that, pretty soon, we will have Aster and SeaWolf for any big supersonic bruisers that come our way and that Phalanx is quite sufficient for the Harpoon/AM39 threat for the immediate future.

Not surprising, considering Goalkeeper is probably more expensive. Maybe also with SeaRAM in the back of various minds?

Anyway, 2 Phalanx combined with VL Mica wouldn’t be a bad refit for a Type 23. Considering the 114mm Mk 8 mod 1 and the 2 MSI Defence Systems DS30 mk2 automatic 30mm guns already fitted.

Christmas cards heading to Oz this year then!. Let me have an address by roughly October and I’ll make sure of it :). Sincere thanks Tiddles and Unicorn – if either of you gentlemen see or hear anything else I, for one, would be obliged….?!.:cool:

Wan,

Phalanx might fit up there in place of the GWS26 directors, but, no chance on Goalkeeper unless they built up a deckhouse to mount it. The deck penetration requirement is significant for Goalkeeper.

There is meant to be a bit of margin in the design in topweight terms, I would think enough for the mountings themselves, but not much more. The boats were not really designed, initially, for major weapons upgrades as they expected the class lifespan to be only 16-18 years or so.

I heard something the other day, from an unameable source, that the RN were in the process of drawing down the Goalkeeper system in favour of Phalanx anyway. The thinking being that, pretty soon, we will have Aster and SeaWolf for any big supersonic bruisers that come our way and that Phalanx is quite sufficient for the Harpoon/AM39 threat for the immediate future.

Ripping out the GWS26 installation for Aster 15 probably wouldnt even be too much of a headache.

The simpler way to upgrade the AAW potential of the T23 is to complete the upgrade of the 996, rip out the GWS26 directors, and replace the Seawolf missile cannisters with ones containing VL MICA (same cannister/VLS used for both missiles). Doing so would still entail a major integration job getting the missile to work with the rest of the combat data system but would at least be a fairly simple job physically.

In reality though GWS26 Seawolf is still a pretty hot system and, served by twin directors, capable of guiding a pair of missiles at each target is one that manages a very high pK against even supersonic manoevering targets. I’d expect that the T23’s would carry it through to the end of their lives.

If RN completele abandoned Sea Wolf in T23 for VL Mica, would the removal of the GWS26 directors leave enough room to put in, say, a couple of Goalkeeper CIWS in the vacant spaces? Or isn’t there enough below deck space and weight reserve?

Jonesy;Any Aussies out there with any news of how Triton is performing down under go straight to the top of my christmas card list!!!.

You have but to ask

‘Triton’ makes first catch – Friday, 23rd February 2007
The latest addition to the Customs border protection fleet, the ACV Triton has made its first apprehensions of illegal foreign fishing vessels off north-western Australia, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison said today.

The Triton apprehended two illegal foreign fishing vessels overnight after they had been detected by Coastwatch surveillance aircraft approximately 73 nautical miles south-east of the Ashmore Islands.

Both fishing boats were located approximately 64 nautical miles inside the Australian fishing zone. They were assessed as quarantine risks and unsuitable for towing. The vessels were destroyed at sea.

Six people on the vessels have been detained and are being transported to Broome for processing.

Triton is a 98-metre trimaran that commenced operations with Customs earlier this month. It has the capability to stay at sea for extended periods and travel at speeds of up to 20 knots.

Senator Ellison said the Triton is a significant boost to Australia’s border protection capabilities and combating illegal fishing in northern Australian waters.

“It augments enforcement activities undertaken by Customs and navy patrol boats and other assets that the new Border Protection Command has available to it when tackling the problem of illegal foreign fishing.”

Senator Ellison said the Howard Government had allocated $17 million in the last Budget to provide for this year-long patrol deployment, as part of a $389 million funding increase over four years to support a new anti-illegal fishing strategy.

Media contact:
Matt Francis 0406 052 038

Unicorn

Triton

Jonesy asked what the situ was with Triton ,the best info I have got is that it arrived in January & went into service with the Australian Customs Service in Northern waters soon after. I am not sure wether Gardline is operating it under contract or the ACS themselves.

Bingo….and Scooter takes the prize!! 😎

Trimaran is exactly the kind of technology needed here. To be honest the answer is a little bit of what everyone here has said moulded together.

The danger is that we misdefine what we need as our low-end patrol capability and end up with an overblown OPV. This would echo the mistakes the USN made by running USCG WHEC’s as line warships in the Persian Gulf. Dont get me wrong the WHEC is a fine vessel, but, it is an OPV and not intended for fleet ops as they found to their distinct bemusement. We must have a vessel that can undertake MIOPS missions cheaply, but, must at the same time be able to slot in and bring operational capability to RN fleet warfighting operations.

The challenge is, therefore, to design a hull/propulsion fit that can tool along economically at 12knts on patrol for extended periods, yet, is equally capable of sustaining 25knts to keep up with a CVF group without draining the bunkers in 6hrs!. The answer luckily is one we know all about – trimaran with IEP (Integrated Electric Propulsion). We are even in the fortunate position of having the Aussies, de facto, run a proof-of-concept on this as they have leased the RV Triton, through a commercial organisation, for OPV duties off their coast and in the southern oceans. Any Aussies out there with any news of how Triton is performing down under go straight to the top of my christmas card list!!!.

Tiddles accurately noted the French Floreals as being the model of the kind of punch necessary for most of the MIOPS/constabulary corvette roles. That is precisely the kind of capability you would need to be looking at as a baseline. A circa 3500ton trimaran could easily accomodate a refurbished Mk8 4.5″ mount forward and a refurbished Phalanx 1B mounted aft atop the hangar, rounded off with a couple of the usual 20mil GAMBO’s and you have a vessel who’s armament costs very, very little in acquisition terms and requires no new support infrastructure. ASW and ASuW weapons would be the choppers’ department and a good size trimaran should allow for the embarkation of, at least, a pair of FLynxes or a Merlin and be able to operate them through a wide environmental envelope.

VL MICA and, possibly, replacement of Phalanx with a pair of Millenium guns, one on each beam, could be later measures to be looked at but care should be taken to avoid capability creep. These have to be cheap vessels first and foremost.

This point on affordability comes in to play on the sensors as well. Re-using the 996 radars from decommed 42’s would obviously have been a cheap-ish option, but, with 996 support being on a limited lifespan adding a number of extra ARTISAN-3D’s would seem sensible and the trimaran layout does lend itself to a nice tall mast mount. Where modularity really could work for this kind of vessel is in, what would be, its primary warfighting role – ASW. Sonar 2087 is, right now, one of the best ways of tagging a sneaky little SSK going. Palletising the array, as has been done on many surface vessels with differing TA’s, and building the vessels CDS with an ability to take the feed in from 2087 and take additional processor modules to the onboard computer for data handling means the austere, cheap, trimaran transforms into a very capable littoral ASW escort. IEP and Merlin capability enhance that further and the 4.5″ forward adds a secondary NGFS role.

With this as the so-called C3 concept, C2 can then be the 22B3-replacement Expeditionary Cruiser concept that our expanding taskings east of Suez seems to require and C1 can be rolled in with the T45 capability perhaps to ring-fence the 8 hulls planned.

Good idea about the secondhand 4.5 inch Guns. They must be plenty on the market………….of course a French 100mm or even Italian 76mm would work fine for the role. As anti-air I would go with Mica or ESSM’s. Of course you have to keep cost and complexity always in mind. Regardless, very doable…….I don’t know what’s holding back the major Navies of the World????

I am not necessarily talking about being much bigger. Like you said striking the right balance! Maybe a Tri-Hull Design would be better?

Bingo….and Scooter takes the prize!! 😎

Trimaran is exactly the kind of technology needed here. To be honest the answer is a little bit of what everyone here has said moulded together.

The danger is that we misdefine what we need as our low-end patrol capability and end up with an overblown OPV. This would echo the mistakes the USN made by running USCG WHEC’s as line warships in the Persian Gulf. Dont get me wrong the WHEC is a fine vessel, but, it is an OPV and not intended for fleet ops as they found to their distinct bemusement. We must have a vessel that can undertake MIOPS missions cheaply, but, must at the same time be able to slot in and bring operational capability to RN fleet warfighting operations.

The challenge is, therefore, to design a hull/propulsion fit that can tool along economically at 12knts on patrol for extended periods, yet, is equally capable of sustaining 25knts to keep up with a CVF group without draining the bunkers in 6hrs!. The answer luckily is one we know all about – trimaran with IEP (Integrated Electric Propulsion). We are even in the fortunate position of having the Aussies, de facto, run a proof-of-concept on this as they have leased the RV Triton, through a commercial organisation, for OPV duties off their coast and in the southern oceans. Any Aussies out there with any news of how Triton is performing down under go straight to the top of my christmas card list!!!.

Tiddles accurately noted the French Floreals as being the model of the kind of punch necessary for most of the MIOPS/constabulary corvette roles. That is precisely the kind of capability you would need to be looking at as a baseline. A circa 3500ton trimaran could easily accomodate a refurbished Mk8 4.5″ mount forward and a refurbished Phalanx 1B mounted aft atop the hangar, rounded off with a couple of the usual 20mil GAMBO’s and you have a vessel who’s armament costs very, very little in acquisition terms and requires no new support infrastructure. ASW and ASuW weapons would be the choppers’ department and a good size trimaran should allow for the embarkation of, at least, a pair of FLynxes or a Merlin and be able to operate them through a wide environmental envelope.

VL MICA and, possibly, replacement of Phalanx with a pair of Millenium guns, one on each beam, could be later measures to be looked at but care should be taken to avoid capability creep. These have to be cheap vessels first and foremost.

This point on affordability comes in to play on the sensors as well. Re-using the 996 radars from decommed 42’s would obviously have been a cheap-ish option, but, with 996 support being on a limited lifespan adding a number of extra ARTISAN-3D’s would seem sensible and the trimaran layout does lend itself to a nice tall mast mount. Where modularity really could work for this kind of vessel is in, what would be, its primary warfighting role – ASW. Sonar 2087 is, right now, one of the best ways of tagging a sneaky little SSK going. Palletising the array, as has been done on many surface vessels with differing TA’s, and building the vessels CDS with an ability to take the feed in from 2087 and take additional processor modules to the onboard computer for data handling means the austere, cheap, trimaran transforms into a very capable littoral ASW escort. IEP and Merlin capability enhance that further and the 4.5″ forward adds a secondary NGFS role.

With this as the so-called C3 concept, C2 can then be the 22B3-replacement Expeditionary Cruiser concept that our expanding taskings east of Suez seems to require and C1 can be rolled in with the T45 capability perhaps to ring-fence the 8 hulls planned.

Steel is cheap, but the engines to drive a bigger ship cost more, fuel costs money, & the bigger the ship, the more maintenance is needed. Got to strike the right balance, & the point of this ship is affordability, so we can buy sufficient numbers. My gut feeling is that going bigger than the Thetis-class would be overkill. Stealthy? As far as it doesn’t compromise the other factors, such as price, operating cost & seakeeping. Remember, this is not a front-line warfighting ship.

I am not necessarily talking about being much bigger. Like you said striking the right balance! Maybe a Tri-Hull Design would be better?

The Danish Thetis or the French Floreals are both good examples. Yet, I think the UK could do better. While you want to keep the crew size and the overall ship inexpensive. Steel is cheap so I would make the ship physically bigger for better seakeeping and of course much more Stealthy in Shape!

Steel is cheap, but the engines to drive a bigger ship cost more, fuel costs money, & the bigger the ship, the more maintenance is needed. Got to strike the right balance, & the point of this ship is affordability, so we can buy sufficient numbers. My gut feeling is that going bigger than the Thetis-class would be overkill. Stealthy? As far as it doesn’t compromise the other factors, such as price, operating cost & seakeeping. Remember, this is not a front-line warfighting ship.

The Danish Thetis or the French Floreals are both good examples. Yet, I think the UK could do better. While you want to keep the crew size and the overall ship inexpensive. Steel is cheap so I would make the ship physically bigger for better seakeeping and of course much more Stealthy in Shape!

Problem is if it is on the wrong side of the globe when it needs to 2be fitted with…..

Then you should have a C2 there, instead of a C3. Or fly the kit out. For the sort of up-arming this ship should take that could be done, & fitting should be a few hours alongside work. The Danes manage that with Stanflex. We’d bloody better be able to do the same!

Exactly my thinking. An OPV as in O for Oceanic, rather than just Offshore. Something up to the size of the Floreals. Helicopter, a main gun big enough to blow any pirate out of the water (57mm?), couple of secondary guns in the HMG to 25mm range, long range, excellent seakeeping, helicopter (with hangar!). Fitted for but not with some heavier weaponry, e.g. VL Mica in a Stanflex-type quick fit mounting. Doesn’t need super speed, so nice economical diesels. Maybe capable of carrying a decent boat (CB90?), rather than just RIBs. Small standard crew, with accomodation for more (some marines, operators for extra weapons if fitted, etc). A go-anywhere ship, but not do-anything. Capable of covering all the smuggler/pirate/etc patrols at much lower cost than a full-spec warship.

Oh dear. You got me started again. Well, let’s hope the S2C2 (Sustained Surface Combatant Capability) programme comes good. With a lot of luck, C3 will end up something like what I propose.

A little background reading –

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/s2c2.htm

Problem is if it is on the wrong side of the globe when it needs to 2be fitted with…..

Agreed………….and by the way I was thinking the same thing in regards to a smaller more austere ship. Something very seaworthy yet not to expensive or complex?:D

Exactly my thinking. An OPV as in O for Oceanic, rather than just Offshore. Something up to the size of the Floreals. Helicopter, a main gun big enough to blow any pirate out of the water (57mm?), couple of secondary guns in the HMG to 25mm range, long range, excellent seakeeping, helicopter (with hangar!). Fitted for but not with some heavier weaponry, e.g. VL Mica in a Stanflex-type quick fit mounting. Doesn’t need super speed, so nice economical diesels. Maybe capable of carrying a decent boat (CB90?), rather than just RIBs. Small standard crew, with accomodation for more (some marines, operators for extra weapons if fitted, etc). A go-anywhere ship, but not do-anything. Capable of covering all the smuggler/pirate/etc patrols at much lower cost than a full-spec warship.

Oh dear. You got me started again. Well, let’s hope the S2C2 (Sustained Surface Combatant Capability) programme comes good. With a lot of luck, C3 will end up something like what I propose.

A little background reading –

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/s2c2.htm

Hi Jonesy
Were you thinking of somthing like the French “Floreal” class frigate when you mentioned a second class vessel solution. The French Navy use them quite a bit in the South Pacific where they do the job perfectly well & probably a lot cheaper than a Cassard or LaFayette class.
At about 2900 tons full load they are too big to be classed as an OPV but with similar crewing ,about 80 including the Air Group. With 100mm gun,2-Excocet & 2-20mm, it has enough punch for most “constabulary “situations

Numbers do matter thats for sure Scot, but, capabilities matter even more. I am aware of the argument that says even if a vessel is three times more capable than its predecessor one vessel cant be in the same place as three. My opinion on that is that if one of your three vessels is caught in a situation where it doesnt have the capabilities it needs then its a slim comfort to the crew to know that, at least, there are two other ships steaming around happily.

We have two principle guidelines dictating the structure of the RN at present. One is our taskings and treaty commitments and one is the capability set that the last Strategic Defence Review has set out. This distills down to the need to mount successful expeditionary warfare with Carrier Strike and Amphibious Assault plus the need to cover our NATO commitments and national taskings. Currently we are not able to achieve this. We are gapping some national taskings and holding off on major systems repairs of some units deployed on low-threat stations. This isnt through a lack of ships – its due to a lack of money in the budget to keep the ships we have out and fully functional. That is the reality of the RN today. We could have more ships in the fleet, it wouldnt matter, because in today’s climate they’d be alongside at extended readiness doing nothing.

Oddly enough, now that the rules have changed, and we dont have to maintain a fleet of escorts capable of playing a major role in Transatlantic ASW convoy ops we look around and see that the French Navy have a model that fits the need for constabulary-level duties and expeditionary warfighting perfectly. For years the French Navy has always been looked down upon because of their fleets reliance on ‘2nd rate’ ‘cheap’ escorts to bolster fleet numbers while they retained a relatively small cadre of real blue-water combattants worthy of the name.

Now, in todays environment, we see that they had something all along. Several of the RN’s taskings do not call for a $30 million a year to operate Type 23 to accomplish. A simpler, cheaper, ‘2nd rate’ vessel with a more modest sensor and weapons fit, but with expanded aviation capability, could be utilised in place of the full-up warfighter. With modular capability for towed sonars, additional weaponry and air-ordnance stowage for the aviation group such a vessel could also re-role as a warfighter in more belligerent times.

You may disagree, and what you have cited about the RN’s own stated minimum hull numbers is perfectly accurate – both the outgoing AND incoming 1SL were quite clear on that score, but more than simple numbers we need to match our assets with our taskings a lot better than we do now.

Agreed………….and by the way I was thinking the same thing in regards to a smaller more austere ship. Something very seaworthy yet not to expensive or complex?:D

Still as for enough Destroyers and Frigates to go around? I guess we will have to disagree. Seems like the Royal Navy has already cut to the bone as it will have fewer ships (even more capable ones) in the near future and the Service already says they can meet current demands……………

Numbers do matter thats for sure Scot, but, capabilities matter even more. I am aware of the argument that says even if a vessel is three times more capable than its predecessor one vessel cant be in the same place as three. My opinion on that is that if one of your three vessels is caught in a situation where it doesnt have the capabilities it needs then its a slim comfort to the crew to know that, at least, there are two other ships steaming around happily.

We have two principle guidelines dictating the structure of the RN at present. One is our taskings and treaty commitments and one is the capability set that the last Strategic Defence Review has set out. This distills down to the need to mount successful expeditionary warfare with Carrier Strike and Amphibious Assault plus the need to cover our NATO commitments and national taskings. Currently we are not able to achieve this. We are gapping some national taskings and holding off on major systems repairs of some units deployed on low-threat stations. This isnt through a lack of ships – its due to a lack of money in the budget to keep the ships we have out and fully functional. That is the reality of the RN today. We could have more ships in the fleet, it wouldnt matter, because in today’s climate they’d be alongside at extended readiness doing nothing.

Oddly enough, now that the rules have changed, and we dont have to maintain a fleet of escorts capable of playing a major role in Transatlantic ASW convoy ops we look around and see that the French Navy have a model that fits the need for constabulary-level duties and expeditionary warfighting perfectly. For years the French Navy has always been looked down upon because of their fleets reliance on ‘2nd rate’ ‘cheap’ escorts to bolster fleet numbers while they retained a relatively small cadre of real blue-water combattants worthy of the name.

Now, in todays environment, we see that they had something all along. Several of the RN’s taskings do not call for a $30 million a year to operate Type 23 to accomplish. A simpler, cheaper, ‘2nd rate’ vessel with a more modest sensor and weapons fit, but with expanded aviation capability, could be utilised in place of the full-up warfighter. With modular capability for towed sonars, additional weaponry and air-ordnance stowage for the aviation group such a vessel could also re-role as a warfighter in more belligerent times.

You may disagree, and what you have cited about the RN’s own stated minimum hull numbers is perfectly accurate – both the outgoing AND incoming 1SL were quite clear on that score, but more than simple numbers we need to match our assets with our taskings a lot better than we do now.

Weighing up the situation

Do any members have info regarding the weight of alternate systems,including Fire control, as compared to Sea Wolf. If they are heavier ,is there topweight margins available to accomodate it. The Type 23 is a well equiped anti submarine Frigate, why spend money on a rather dubious upgrade to Aster ,its not going to make the Typs 23 into a powerful air warfare beast & may even diminish its anti sub capabilities. I know that subs are not a big threat at the moment but more smaller countries are moving that way, on the other hand where is the air threat to the RN at the moment & into the near future [The life of the ship].

Scot,

Oh how I wish we could use the plural form for Carrier Battle Group(s) and Amphibious Ready Group(s) for the RN in the future!. Truth is it will be Carrier Battle Group and Amphibious Ready Group in the singular.

There will, save for times of major national conflict, only be one duty CVF at sea requiring consort and the ARG will likely consist of the LPH plus an Albion plus a couple of Bay’s as necessary…a package quite realistically screened by a T45 or two. A pair of T45’s for the CVF, one for the ARG (which will be covered by the CVBG if a significant threat exists anyway) and one on advertising duties in the Gulf trying to flog the capability to the Saudi’s still leaves a pair for refit/training of the six we have on order now. If we can get the hulls 7 and 8 that are still promised then we have that much more capability to impress the Saudi’s with and may see them assigned out for NATO taskings etc.

Eight T45’s really doesnt present too much of a problem that we’d be reliant on the T23’s much for their anti-air capability. Six T45’s is still viable but it is REALLY cut-to-the-bones-time and would be, another, criminal betrayal of the RN by UK Govt.

The public in the UK have an ‘England Expects’ mentality whereby they dont have to be concerned about the forces because ‘the lads will get the job done anyway….they always have in the past’. Its unfortunate that its UK service personnel who, again, will pay the price of this ignorance by the public at large…thats another issue though.

Well, what can you say “people that don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it!” Really, the same the world over?:(

Still as for enough Destroyers and Frigates to go around? I guess we will have to disagree. Seems like the Royal Navy has already cut to the bone as it will have fewer ships (even more capable ones) in the near future and the Service already says they can meet current demands……………:eek:

Scot,

Well, with so few T-45’s available the RN is going to count more and more on the T-23’s. Still for me the number are just to low! Just not enough hulls to escort all of the Carrier Battle Groups, Amphibious Battle Groups, and possibly even Convoys during a time of crisis….

Oh how I wish we could use the plural form for Carrier Battle Group(s) and Amphibious Ready Group(s) for the RN in the future!. Truth is it will be Carrier Battle Group and Amphibious Ready Group in the singular.

There will, save for times of major national conflict, only be one duty CVF at sea requiring consort and the ARG will likely consist of the LPH plus an Albion plus a couple of Bay’s as necessary…a package quite realistically screened by a T45 or two. A pair of T45’s for the CVF, one for the ARG (which will be covered by the CVBG if a significant threat exists anyway) and one on advertising duties in the Gulf trying to flog the capability to the Saudi’s still leaves a pair for refit/training of the six we have on order now. If we can get the hulls 7 and 8 that are still promised then we have that much more capability to impress the Saudi’s with and may see them assigned out for NATO taskings etc.

Eight T45’s really doesnt present too much of a problem that we’d be reliant on the T23’s much for their anti-air capability. Six T45’s is still viable but it is REALLY cut-to-the-bones-time and would be, another, criminal betrayal of the RN by UK Govt.

Hopefully, the public will wake up……….

The public in the UK have an ‘England Expects’ mentality whereby they dont have to be concerned about the forces because ‘the lads will get the job done anyway….they always have in the past’. Its unfortunate that its UK service personnel who, again, will pay the price of this ignorance by the public at large…thats another issue though.

Thing is about the T23’s that they were never intended for a ‘full’ 25-odd year service life as is pretty much the norm for escorts these days. Originally they were designed to last about 16-18 years, by which time they would then be replaced by something appropriate to the strategic scenario at that time. At least that was the way the thinking was going.

Whats actually happened is that, thanks to the Soviet Union self-destructing, the toll of years spent dragging towed arrays around the North Atlantic hasnt happened and the 23’s are in a lot better physical condition than they were expected to be. They are now viable candidates for a SLEP and this is being looked at closely as a way to buy time to push the rebadged, but still active, Versatile Surface Combattant (formerly FSC) project back to avoid the worst of the funding crunch which has the Treasury paying for Astute, T45 and CVF simultaneously.

The upgrade I mentioned to the 996 radar, seemingly to be replaced with the derivative BAE ARTISAN-3D set, would seem to be the initial component in the pressing of extra lifespan out of the 23’s than was originally intended. That this is a fairly basic 3D TI/Surveillance set analagous to a TRS-3D rather than a true MFR is a good indicator of the potential for ever seeing Sylver VLS cells and Aster aboard a 23!.

Realistically the only issue with the current Seawolf system is the fire channel limitation. Basically GWS26 can be firing on two targets, with a pair of missiles each for high pK, simultaneously with a fast cycle time between targets. As Tiddles stated thats fine for pop-up sub-launched missiles or for a modest air-attack scenario when you figure in soft-kill and other tricks available to the T23. For a Primary-ASW/GP FFG thats not bad going. As stated if a threat appeared on the horizon that absolutely necessitated that the T23 fleet must be able to handle heavier saturation fires then the VL MICA upgrade would be the likely scenario.

Right on the money Swerve. There’s a raised deckouse already, obviously, for the GWS26 installation, so, while I’d be confident that A43 cells would fit, for the longer A50’s, I’d have to go off and do some reading!. Then as you state, really, you’d need a SAMPSON fit at least especially seeings as there’d be no room for a VSR on the hull. The simple reality is that rather than try and get Aster30 on T23 it’d make more sense to save the money and build another couple of T45’s!.

Well, with so few T-45’s available the RN is going to count more and more on the T-23’s. Still for me the number are just to low! Just not enough hulls to escort all of the Carrier Battle Groups, Amphibious Battle Groups, and possibly even Convoys during a time of crisis. Hopefully, the public will wake up………….:(