With 61-64 strike length cells forward you could still have VLA and TLAM leaving the 64 tactical length cells aft full of ESSM and SM-2, a very formidable load out.
But the ship could not support that kind of weight. The 61 cell strike length VLS consumed all the missile launcher weight margin available to the ship. The same weight could be used for 96 (actually 104) tactical length VLS. With the huge benefit of being split 48 forward and 48 aft meaning no need for all the ballasting that the Spruance class had to carry when converted into strike destroyers. Also since the launchers fit into deck height of the replaced Mk 26 there is no need to do a major repackage of the ship like in fitting the strike length VLS forward. Further if you were to fit TLAM into the Kidd class you would need to add the Tomahawk targeting capability. In Spruance class this went into the space used for the horizontal rack ASROC magazine. This space was not available on Kidd class as their ASROCs were carried vertically in the Mk 26 magazine and the room was needed for the enhanced AAW systems.
If we brought the Kidds then it probably would have terminated the AWD program before conception (Sarah Conner style). So the Kidd class would probably have to serve into the 2020s. What we needed was a DDG/FFG replacement program launched so as to provide lead ship in commission in 2008. Which is the timing to begin replacing the FFGs at the end of their life and to dovetail into the end of the Anzac program.
For the early Tico's (and I suppose the Spru-cans since none of them got any sort of VLS aft) there were machinery spaces in the way of a strike length VLS and to the USN at the time anything short of strike length wasn't worth it.
The Spruances were at a point where it was either SLEP or scrap.
The Ticos and the Kidds each had different hull structural tolerances than the Spruance class to carry extra weight. Kidds more so (consumed by their NTU systems, Mk 26 GMLS and required masts) and the Ticos more so than more so (AEGIS).
Trying to compile a list of RAN subs that have deployed to Malaysian and Singapore waters over the years. Here's what I've got so far -
I dont know if I should feel ashamed or happy...
Why do you want to take the work away from Australian yards it would have to be very cheap for the government to even consider this. If we order a Spanish oiler all that will achieve for them is the royalties for the design, building would and should take precedence here. Before HMAS Sirius was thought up we were supposed to get a purpose built ship most likely the Berlin class in (2009 to replace HMAS Westralia and HMAS Success 2015) it’s not like we don’t have the capacity to build one, if the Spanish would like us to place an order for them to build it’s the 3rd LHD or even a SCS variant using the LHD hull but spending that sort of money is not on the governments priority list RAN’s might be, but not Gillard and Co.
I'm no expert on project management but your proposal would surely create efficiency problems with the facility/personnel/management team etc.
Williamstown is does not have a building way big enough for 7000 tonne ships. Same deal in Newcastle really and the facilities they have do get tied up in maintenance work.
If it came off it would be great as it would allow domestic build of large support ships. Just not sure if Navantia would be keen on building outside Spain as the optics would be bad. Still building somewhere is better than go broke.
As per the front page of the Australian this morning, stand by for the announcement on the fourth AWD in the next couple of weeks (along with more Super Hornets and an order for the Hawkei armoured 4WD)
