You're aware that on the DDG you have green positioning-lights on both port and starboard!?!
will fix
I think sales of AEGIS to an ally are unlikely, especially in that era. But never mind that.
after discussion with TimothyC we decided this would be the earliest possible year an export could have been done. and if it would have been done, the Dutch were one likely customer, except for the fact that they designed their own stuff. it might even have been that they licence build or bought the SPY-1 and connected it to their own SEWACO system.
I get that you want a gun, but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Shrinking the Mk 26 magazine is a BIG hit to ship capability, and for all that I'm not sure how much it helps here. You've freed up a ton of volume, sure, but it's not in the right place. You have to move around a ton of internals. So much so that shrinking the magazine might only be a small fraction of the total work you have to do. Honestly, I think it might be easier to go the Type 42 direction and stretch the ship a little bit. Then you could keep the full-sized magazine.
Regarding the above, you're not subject to Zumwalt's extremely picky limits, so a stretch could surely be worked in. Hell, you'd want to do it anyway to have any potential for future growth.
the problem is that resizing is out of the question. the Dutch will most likely classify this ship as an frigate politically, because the government is unlikely to pay for an destroyer. any enlarging will make it more unlikely they will pay. stupid, I know, but that is how the Dutch government works
that said, indeed, the capability goes down. but with 44 cells, this ship is just as capable in missiles as the recent LCF (which has 40 cells and space for another 8) before that the RNLN never had anything larger then an mk 13 on an frigate, with also 40 missiles. the only thing that might have been done is the fitting of some mk 141s.
it might indeed take a lot of reconstruction, but in reality that would be just what the Dutch would do
in fact, I think they would have rebuild the mast and bridge as well. easier to keep the original design? yes, that is true, but with this modification it would better fit the Dutch requirements.
I'd consider a shift to a Dutch sonar system. It would be better suited to the areas of patrol typical to their NATO duties, rather than the super deepwater capability emphasized by the USN.
good point. I will fix that, didn't even think of it, to be honest
You already have two directors. The third smaller director for gunfire use is unnecessary.
I added it for 2 reasons:
- back up, both in case of damage or if too many targets pop up for the 2 240's, seeing that the STIR is not as capable as the SPG-62.
- CIWS. the original design had 360 degrees cover of the phalanxes, this design has 200 of the GK and 200 of the gun (approximately) to have this gun working as CIWS an additional director was needed, while the STIR 180 is a bit big for only that role the above role justifies it.
Remember your helo is quite a bit smaller than SH-2. You definitely have the volume to shift to Goalkeeper. I might try to raise it a little bit. Remember you want the Goalkeeper as close to centerline as possible so as to not block the SPY-1 field of view.
the goalkeeper is in the centerline. can't get it better than that
the hangar is at one side, the reload room and the boats on the other. I am positive this will work, looking at the hangar arrangement of the perry and S frigate. I am not certain the SH-2 would still fit in there, but with lynxes it would fit for sure ( especially as we consider the same thing for the Dutch perry above, which has the same arrangement but with an double hangar)