On the subject of 'potential spare' capacity at the Osborne yard, it's worth revisiting what was said at the time of the Hunter class announcement in late June 2018:
I think an East Coast base is an absolutely requirement to getting more than 6 subs operational. This would go a long way to addressing crewing, retention, expansion, career progression, technical capability and profile of the submarines. It doesn't take anything away from WA. WA would logically transition to Attack classes as the Collins are replaced. This actually makes managing the mixed fleet a bit simpler and is likely to stop some of the infighting.
I wish I could find the images, but the RN Type 26s have 3x8 cell = 24 Mk 41 VLS arranged athwart ship with Sea Ceptor cells forward in the superstructure forward of the bridge. I think the Canadian version also has 3x8 athwart. Because the RAN has not selected Sea Ceptor the Mk 41 VLS has been turned through 90 degrees to allow 4x8 cells to extend into the space occupied by the shallow Sea Ceptor. Of course the much greater depth of the Mk41 cells means something has to be re-arranged below decks on the RAN design.
If the RAN website is to be believed, it will be 32 cells (go to 0:38 in the video in the following link): Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy
The GoC is still negotiating the final configuration with BAE/Irving, but the models seem to indicate 32 Mk 41 cells as well, but also 6 ExLS launchers between the SAT domes found aft of the funnel. It was announced at CANSEC 2019 that these cells will contain SeaCeptor for the close-in area defence role. It's not entirely clear at this point if the first 3 ships will have more Mk41s, given they are supposed to replace our now retired destroyer class.
It is puzzling to me that the Canadians are planning on using both CeaCeptor and ESSM while at the same time dispensing of conventional CIWS. The layout of the 32 VLS is also curious.
Originally, this was planned to be a batch build, with the first batch of 3 (possibly 4) ships being optimized for area air defence. These ships were to replace the since retired Iroquois class destroyers, which performed that role for Canada. It was thought those first ships would have 40+ Mk 41 cells. The remaining builds would be for a GP frigate. Other differences were the radar systems, which on the first ships were thought to be AMDR, with EASR on the remaining 12 ships. However, in the last year or so it would seem that the RCN has moved to build a single common configuration for all 15 ships with a powerful S-band LM radar (based on LRDR). If true, this means any ship could assume the area air defence role simply by having the appropriate missile load-out. In other words, for that role, the 32 cells would all be filled with SMx, and the close-in defence would be handled by the 24 Sea Ceptors in the 6 ExLS cells. For a ship in the "GP" role, there would still be a mix of SMx (presumably SM2) in some of the Mk41 cells (it has been speculated 16), with ESSM quad-packed in the remaining Mk41 cells, plus Sea Ceptor. However, this is pretty much speculation at this point, as the RCN is still in the Requirements definition phase of the project, so the final configuration could again be different from what is seen in the model in the video. It should be noted that over the past 3 years the T26 models for CSC have been quite different, with some having 24 Mk 41 cells, some 32, some with Sea RAM (but no ExLS), and some with Phalanx (also with no ExLS). There are pictures of all these variants on the Canadian thread, if anyone is interested.
I'd say yes, the first thing that comes to mind is.... Dollars, lots and lots of dollars.
The ELLIDA MRSS looks an interesting concept and well worth looking at. I quite like the concept myself and will be interesting to see how it progresses. If it was able to undertake basic refuelling at sea as well, it could be quite a desirable capability. Xaviers' interview with the BMT rep about it starts at 8:06 minutes.
and be back aboard in time for tea, biscuits, gin, and medals.