Hi,
Very nice. I loves me some Type 23.
The issue with a simple hull plug for T23 is that they are right on the limits of the length/depth ratio, so increasing the size but maintaining the proportions as you have done is a better idea. That said, this does seem to increase L/D from about 12.75 to about 13.5 which is really over the recommended limit of 13. Still buildable, of course - just more expensive.
T23 as-is actually has (possibly by now "had" would be a better term
) a lot of displacement growth potential, due to the flared hull, but this would be at the cost of speed. I suspect that this larger vessel would not be much faster, as 4MW is not much at the top end of the speed range.
Offhand I think WR-21 (or some ICR GT) would have come along earlier anyway had the post-Cold War defence drawdown not occurred. It wouldn't fit in the main machinery spaces though (technically it doesn't even fit in the T45!
) and there would have to be an engine casing on No 2 deck, but with additional deck area available from a larger ship that might not be a problem.
Putting CIWS over the hangar is an issue here as the aft director would be radiating straight at it. This is a bad thing.
The CPFs have the aft director on a little pedestal, and I suspect they may have limitations on zero-elevation use in that direction.
Although ARTISAN can handle splash spotting for GFC, E/O systems are one of the most useful sensors there is, so adding a second one would be well received!
Regarding T23 refits IRL, I've not heard anything serious about adding CIWS when the 911s are removed for the CAMM refit (which should be starting quite soon, IIRC). Remember that in the later stages of design a lot of equipment got added to T23, eroding the design margins, so any weight saving high up would be likely siezed upon at this stage
An option I've been intersted in is that of converting T23s to proto-LCS by fitting them for UXVs. It'd be quite an involved refit though.
RP1