Yes, and that cost would be the price for a younger hull of twice the displacement, with at least 7 more years of life in it than Durance, with 5950 tons more stores space, with hangar- and maintenance space for 3 Sea King /EH101 sized helicopters (rather than dito for 1 light helicopter), a flight deck with 2 (rather than 1) landing spots for these large choppers and ability to work with 5 such heli’s, and -finally- a better armament/self defence capability.

If the objection to Ft George is that it is single hull i.e. the need/cost of modification with double hull, then it is treated differently than Durance (which is also single hull but slated to get a double hull anyway > that is no extra money to spend for RAN: you either mod one or the other ship). Hence, the only consideration would be the acquisition cost of Ft. George, obviously.

The RAN doesnt have the helicopters to utilise all that extra space on fort george, and doesnt have the ships to require the additional stores capacity.

My starter
Type 42 Batch 3
Fitted with Phalanx in B position as intended
Fitted with 2x lightweight 4 round seawolf (and associated 911 radar) as intended
Fitted with MM38 on hangar roof a la Argentinian vessels

Why?
The T42s served as our workhorses for 30 years but (despte my earlier posts about gws30) never really had a warfighting SSM capability and the losses in Falklands showed the need for a proper point defence (especially against missiles)

If possible I’d have liked the missing hull length to have been put into Batch 1s and 2s as some kind of retrofitted plug

Phalanx at B position was trialed on one of the T42 B3’s, HMS Edinburgh and it was found to be unsatisfactory.

Edinburgh can readily be distinguished by her distinctively different forecastle. When it was decided to fit the Phalanx CIWS to this class of warships, it was intended that the Edinburgh should carry a single CIWS unit, mounted forward between her 4.5″ gun and the Sea Dart launcher. To this end, her breakwaters were enlarged and she was fitted with a raised bulwark, very like those carried on the Type 22 frigates.

This location proved to be an unsuitably wet one for the Phalanx system despite the modifications to this warship, and the Edinburgh was later fitted with a pair of wing-mounted CIWS as carried by the other ships of the class, but she retains her distinctive bulwark and enlarged breakwaters.

Also, do the T42’s have the weight margin to have both Exocet and Sea Wolf while not turning turtle.? Plus the space for the optical trackers and computers.

The B1 and B2’s also had a narrower beam (14.3 versus 14.9) so they might not have the stability to have their length increased.

If the decision to sell it is made (if it has, it hasn’t been announced yet) the Bay (Largs Bay) is available immediately.

I recommend a time-charter with RFA crew. 😉

Fairly sure the SDR/White Paper said 2012 decom.

Well, I was thinking Brazil is going to have to come up with a solution to the ex-Foch. As its very expensive to operate and of very limited capability with such a small number of Skyhawks.

As for Australia the Ark Royal doesn’t have a dock. Yet, she could be used as a LHA. Something like the HMS Ocean I suppose……….That said, why not her current role as a Light STOVL Carrier?

If we grabbed her it would only be as an LPH to cover the time between now and when the two LHD’s enter service.

The two LPA’s we have are currently undergoing emergency work to get them operational again after one of them broke down on the way out of sydney harbour, almost hit the cliffs apparrently.

So what happened to the 10 year Harrier maintenance contract signed with BAe last year or early this year? :confused:

Or did the UK Government find an out?

Three Invincible class, including one (Invincible) in reserve – & pretty certain never to be returned to service.

I think I saw on one of the other boards that she was stricken from the reserve list last month.

I’m not sure Blackhawks are a good idea.

If Blackhawks were the be-all and end-all, wouldn’t the Australian Army be upgrading their 35 or so to the latest standard and buying a couple of replacements for losses over time?

Instead they are going for a marinised varient of the TTH version of the NH-90 (MRH-90).