This story seems to derail the concepts of F-100 based Anzac replacements. It would also derail the idea of Type 26 based replacement (or any replacement being larger than the Anzacs at around 4000t). I would like to see more evidence before fully committing to this being fact. (IE like what is in the whitepaper).Agree with this. A 96 cell ship would probably be over the 9,000 tonne range; perhaps they mixed up the number of missiles carried vs launchers. Theoretically a 48 cell mk 41 could hold 16 cells quad pack ESSM = 64 missiles. Remaining 32 cells with SM-2/SM-6 and/or TLAM/LRASM = 32 missiles for a total of 96 missiles. I think they navy probably asked for ships that were just as big as the constructed AWD's and the govt. said find something more economical.
I assume a F-100 base build but with fewer VLS would be the most obvious solution. Also not quad packing ESSM. Because actual cost isn't important its the magical number of "missiles" where essm is counted in the same breath as Tlam.