Will tally latest rounds of votes tomorrow

Steve, again I’m not sure how I’ll tag your response when I count the vote. Please clarify which option you’re voting for.

Re your comments re SM-3, agree completely. SM-3 has already been voted for the ABM role, and that’s the sole purpose of carrying it. SAM fit has yet to be decided as per that voting thread. Having both a “Standard” lineage weapon and Aster on the same ship is not as far fetched as we might like to believe. SM-3 is already taged for Dutch Frigates that use Thales radars for example. So it’s not Sylver or nothing.

And as for VLS that hasn’t been decided, and in my opinion at least isn’t all that important. Whether it goes with Sylver, BAE Mk41 or a “new” type … all are feasible. And mixing different versions of VLS isn’t unheard of either – KD-X-II, Kirov etc etc. from a logistics and maintenance support perspective it is preferable to have a single type, but that’s hardly the end of the world.

Good points but you are seeing problems more than solutions 😉

The foredeck VLS is much like that on the upgraded OHPs in Australian Service. And it would be hardened with outer protective doors which would also protect against gun blast and increase stealth. This feature also appears in the US Mk57 VLS intended for the DDG-1000s, where again the VLS is on the edge of a 155mm gun blast and on the forward deck.
The foredeck in most designs is under-utilised partly because of the problems you listed, but also due to its difficult shaping and anchor complex. Mounting “short” VLS in a semi-above-deck mount with completely internal capstan (for stealth also) overcomes this.

The CIWS is a more difficult one. Mounting them amidships as per Type-42 & Type-45 seriously limits their fields of fire and makes it difficult to get more than one to bear on a target at once. Skyshield typically comes with two mounts per FCR although obviously multiple mounts and FCR could be networked (or FC fed from main sensor package). Because the 155mm is not going to have an air-defence role aside from chaff and flares(?), we really need a CIWS on the front end of the ship. One or two above the bridge maybe? Mind you that might be a bit scary if you are peering out of a bridge window and one goes off, and you get a spent 35mm casing down your shirt!

Steve, please clarify what you are voting for (options A > H).

Re option g, to have two sub-classes, this is a sketch of how I imagine it. I’m sure certain details will be different from what others might prefer, but the general concept is somewhat like this:

BTW, “Mk53” VLS is just a reference to an improved Mk41 VLS that would be commissioned from BAE Systems. Just lighter really. Peripheral mounting of VLS also interests me but difficult in a conventional outward-canted hull shape.

My votes:

d) because I never voted for such a small hull displacement anyway. In fact I voted for 12,000 ton cruisers 😉

c) because I’m really after a better Type-45 but designed differently too.

g) Interesting idea. I imagine a modular ship where the search radar, hanger and flight-deck are interchangeable in refit. The ASW version would have a huge hanger for 2 EH-101s and big flight deck with modest AS radar, the AAD version would have smaller flight deck, single medium helicopter (NH-90?) and massive VLS and top-end AS radar.

One class that makes this all look easy is the Korean KDX-II destroyer.

Only 5500 tons full load (vs our 7000 tons) but:

VLS: 64
Mk 41 32 cell: SM-2 Block IIIA

K-VLS 32 cell:
K-ASROC (Korean ASROC)
Hyunmoo III (Korean Tomahawk)

Also
21* RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile(RAM)
1 x Goalkeeper 30mm CIWS

8* Hae Sung (Korean Harpoon)

1 x 127mm main gun

Obviously a larger helicopter would help but the SUBROC and SSM fits are over-and-above or requirements. And the radars could be improved upon but we know you do’t need to gop all the way to full AEGIS to do ABM (ask the Dutch!)

Re whether it is feasible to fit a full ASW capability into a 7000t warship and still have space for ABM/AAD and LACM capabilities. Here’s a simple comparison with a “good” ASW platform:

Also looking a space usage, distributed VLS is a possible solution, particularly if “short” missiles are included. An excellent example of this is the new ESSM VLS on the Australian OHPs:

The below sketch has a few interesting ideas, such as distributed VLS and an asymmetrical stern area with a helipad the same size as the Type-23’s.

The CIWS at the very front is a great idea IMO as it maximises field of fire. Really if you have a 155mm main gun it doesn’t need to be at the front IMO. Rear-access boat launching is a bit of a trend and frees up the super-structure. In the Type-45 this area is largely dedicated to “additional” crew area. Size of a usable Stern ramp: