Chinese CM, for comparison purposes.

This is the Spanish design the Australians are considering, I think the pic shows the ship Spain is buying.

You’re right! If you look very closely you see the yellow and red of the spanish flag at the stern.

Could their type 22 follow a similar upgrade path as the type 22s of the romanian navy?

If you mean sticking in a bunch of MICA VL and removing the radar directors, I doubt it because thise would mean loosing commonality with the Type 23s, unless you also fitted those with MICA VL and removed their radar trackers too. MICA VL has the same launch canister as Sea Wolf VL.

Adding a 76mm Oto Melara Compact Naval Gun would be a possibility: commonality with the ex-Dutch ships, of which 2 are fitted for but not with a similar 76mm gun. But for the Type 22, it would mean loosing MM38 forward. However, these could be replaced some Harpoons placed elsewhere on board. All other ships use Harpoon as well.

So, I’ld say cheapest is to fix up Type 22 with 76mm gun plus Harpoon and fix up the ex-Dutch L frigates with 76mm gun. Then, sometime in future, MICA VL could replace SeaWolf in all new ex-RN ships, but this may not be necessary. The Dutch L class ships have 24 Sea Sparrow, the M class has 16 VL Sea Sparrow. The L class also has 40 Standard SM-1MR. Doubt these will see much change.

There are Barak VL onboard the old RN County class ships in Chilean service. Once these ships retired, the Baraks may show up on other ships e.g. those that not now have VL missiles.

Well neither is the Standard Phalanx that they have mounted on top of the hanger currently 😉

Besides the Sea Zen’s have a much superior field of fire.

If mounted in the same spot, yes. But not if mounted in front of the bridge.

Look at the aft of that ship, man thos Sea Zens are good, makes me wonder why our Anzacs never got them 🙁 They were originally supposed to, one forward where we now have the Harpoon cannisters.

Major close-in fire power from those quad 25mm KBB mounts with hemispherical coverage. But, from the view point of coverage, just 1 forward would clearly not have been enough for the ANZACs.

Info on the Admiralty V & W class (as distinct from later – 1942 onward – V and W classes)

Destroyer of the Admiralty V & W class

Valentine, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 27 September 1939.
Valorous, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed in June 1939.
Vanity, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 12 August 1940.
Vega, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 23 April 1940.
Verdun, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 11 July 1940.
Viceroy, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 10 January 1941.
Vimiera, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 8 January 1940.
Vivien, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 25 October 1939.

Westminster, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 8 January 1940.
Whitley, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed in October 1938.
Winchester, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 9 April 1940.
Wolfhound, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 8 January 1940.
Wolsey, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed in December 1939.
Woolston, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed on 9 October 1939.
Wryneck, Reconstruction to Fast Escort completed in April 1940.

The Image in question shows a completed fast escort conversion. Dunkirk was in May and June 1940. If an Admiralty V/W class ship then it cannot be Vanity, Verdun, or Viceroy. It could possibly but less likely be Vega, Winchester, Wryneck (still working up?). Most likely candidates from this class are: Valentine, Valorous, Vimiera, Vivien, Westminster, Whitley, Wolfhound, Wolsey, and Woolston.

Do the Knox ships have an aluminium superstructure by any chance? Or is the damage to the bridge purely blast damage? Look at that ASROC launcher, torn right off of its base!

Its when you see and read about vessels like this that you realise just how backwards ships like the Talwar class realy are.

Well duh. Nobody in their right mind would describe the Talwar class as top of the line. But India’s P17s are a different proposition.