You didn't reply to my comment above about the flow on effects of making changes, especially in small hulls like the FDI.
Sure I'll summarize my thinking on a hypothetical AAW-optimized « FDI Evo ».
First, refer back to past AAW proposals by Naval Group... back in ~2005 (or thereabouts) there was an early FREMM AAW export proposal for Greece. Later in ~2008 there was a proposed AAW variant of the FM400, which was the FDI's immediate predecessor in the ~4,000t+ displacement class. Both proposed AAW variants shared 2 common characteristics - at least 32x VLS forward and the addition of a long range L-band search radar on top of the hangar. Later, Naval Group looked at ways to add more VLS in the midships superstructure, leading to the FREMM HN proposal with 24x shorter VLS (for Mica VL) along the hangar side. Ultimately this led to the idea of a hull plug on the FDI/Belharra which could be used to increase VLS capacity (somewhat similar to the Ivar Huitfeldt/T31 VLS location).
So let's summarize the key elements of increased AAW capability according to Naval Group:
1) 3D rotating L-band radar (Smart L)
2) 32 VLS forward
3) Additional short VLS in the superstructure
Now FDI already has #2 (32x VLS for Aster 30 forward) and provisions for #3 (midships VLS) with the 9m hull plug option. This hull plug would allow for lightweight VLS in the 2 superstructure decks (likely 24-48x CAMM-ER or equivalent). With additional volume underneath for extra accommodation on the main deck, and if needed an extra generator room at the waterline for a pair of generators to increase electrical power. And finally additional fuel tanks in the hull bottom. Nothing particularly risky or challenging about any of that, and minimal impact on other hull sections.
The bigger change is #1 - the 3D rotating radar. But like I said, mounting a Smart L on the hangar was proposed for the original FREMM AAW and FM400 AAW. It's also been done on the Dutch LCF, Danish Ivar Huidfelt and German F124s. All with NH90 capable hangars below the Smart L. So one design as small as 4,000t+ and most of the others in the 5,500-6,000t range. That's about the same size as the proposed stretched FDI... so no obvious dealbreaker. At most you lose some internal volume, e.g. the UAV side hangar, which is OK.
If you put all this together you get the following:
- A ~5,500t AAW frigate
- Up to 109 missiles (32x Aster 30, 48x CAMM-ER, 21x RAM, 8x NSM)
- A comprehensive sensor fit with L-band long range search (Smart-L/MM AESA rotating), S-band multifunction radar (Seafire AESA fixed plate), and X-band self-defense/tracking radar (Sea Giraffe 1x)
Now I'm not saying this is the same AAW or BMD capability as a 10,000t DDX or DDG-51 Flight III. But it's a lot better than a Type 45 or Horizon MLU. And you're probably at only half the price of most of those super DDGs, considering the base price of an FDI is <€800M (~€1B with missiles), even adding the cost of the hull plug, Smart L radar, and CAMM-ER missiles.
I'd rather take 2 such AAW FDIs than a single super DDG.
...You're joking, right? Right? RIGHT?
We're talking about warships that can cost multiple billions, take a decade to design and build, and yet somehow you think that missiles have not been budgetted?
No I'm not joking. I'm making the point that with AEGIS, ESSM, SM-6 etc being so expensive there's a huge opportunity cost even if you have correctly budgeted the billions needed for 10,000t destroyers + US combat systems + US missiles. It might just be better for most European navies to buy cheaper AAW platforms and fill them with a cheaper mix of missiles such as Aster 30+CAMM-MR.
