This is a particularly pertinent comment considering that the RAN has talked about the benefits of being able to operate helos and UAVs from the new AWDs!
Cheers
Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus
- Thread starter abramsteve
- Start date
This is a particularly pertinent comment considering that the RAN has talked about the benefits of being able to operate helos and UAVs from the new AWDs!
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I wouldn't worry to much over what "Forecast International" have to say on the issue. In their latest "prediction" they've just decided that the Stryker MGS (amongst others) is going to dominate the Worlds ARTILLERY market, for crying out loud!!!
I think Australia was concidering SM-3...
We are part of the network, there were noises made about this earlier..
The problem here is the spanish don't offer a clear advantage. You get 4 ships, but over all higher manning costs and personel requirements. You get approximately the same number of cells, illuminators etc. Ofset by 4 ship flexability.
We are part of the network, there were noises made about this earlier..
The problem here is the spanish don't offer a clear advantage. You get 4 ships, but over all higher manning costs and personel requirements. You get approximately the same number of cells, illuminators etc. Ofset by 4 ship flexability.
I have a question regarding the G&C design. Is it going to have 1 64 cell VLS launcher or 2 32 cell launchers? Having 2 32 cell launchers gives you more redundancy and reduces the chance of having something take all your missiles out in one hit. However it would be slightly more expensive and I don't know if the design has room for it.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I'll see if I can locate some of the images of the G&C proposed design. I can't remember whether it shows VLS cells in one location or two either...
Question though. How likely is a hit that will mission-kill a 32 cell VLS without causing enough damage to mission-kill the vessel or worse? I would think the most likely areas of impact for an AShM would be in the superstructure, damaging or disabling the sensors and comms. Wouldn't a mission-killing hit to the VLS be lower down in the hull, and likely to set off or ignite the missles in the VLS as well?
Just wondering.
-Cheers
PS here's the link showing a sideshot of the G&C design, there appears to be room for two sets of VLS...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_AWD_Gibbs+Cox_Design_Graphic_lg.jpg
Last edited:
The Mk41 is built in 8 cell groups. The G&C design follows the AB practice of having these grouped in two locations with a group aft of the main gun fwd and the second group between the hangers aft. Currently the desigh has 64 cells but has growth potential. If someone can confirm, I think there is scope for another two sets 8 cell groups (giving a total of 80 cells).
The F100 design as employed on F101 to F104 has all the cells grouped forward in one location. I don't know what changes are envisaged for the ship to be offere to Australia assuming the baseline is 64 cells.
No problem wiht you math but the F100 design (as it is now) does not seem to have the growth potential of the evolved AB. the difference it actual and potential cells fitted is 64 to 80 versus 48. Three ships with 80 cells gives you 240 at sea as opposed 192 cells with four ships.
then there is the crew issues, as has been noted before, this is the real kicker as an extra 220 plus crew (noting the G&C design has a cres of about 185 I believe) for less capabiliyt at sea would be quite an impos upon te RAN.
The F100 is a very nice ship but I think the G&C design is better suited to the RAN long term needs.
If a 4th unit was to be purchased I wouel prefer a forth G&C ont he basis of its lower crew, greater current potential and growth potential.
The F100 design as employed on F101 to F104 has all the cells grouped forward in one location. I don't know what changes are envisaged for the ship to be offere to Australia assuming the baseline is 64 cells.
No problem wiht you math but the F100 design (as it is now) does not seem to have the growth potential of the evolved AB. the difference it actual and potential cells fitted is 64 to 80 versus 48. Three ships with 80 cells gives you 240 at sea as opposed 192 cells with four ships.
then there is the crew issues, as has been noted before, this is the real kicker as an extra 220 plus crew (noting the G&C design has a cres of about 185 I believe) for less capabiliyt at sea would be quite an impos upon te RAN.
The F100 is a very nice ship but I think the G&C design is better suited to the RAN long term needs.
If a 4th unit was to be purchased I wouel prefer a forth G&C ont he basis of its lower crew, greater current potential and growth potential.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Just to throw a monkeywrench into the works...
Has there been any thought of having the AWD carry Mk 48 Mod 1 VLS for the ESSM, in addition to the Mk 41 VLS? To my understanding, the Mk 48 Mod 1 can be mounted externally on the bulkheads that make up the hangar walls. Granted, I don't believe the Mk 48 can take a Quadpack ESSM, but additional VLS cells might come in handy. Alternatively, isn't there another small VLS in the works, Mk 54 or something similar? I believe that is being setup to carry twin/duo-pack ESSM.
IMV I prefer the G&C design given the greater capabilities and room for potential future expansion. However, if the F-100 design adds something like the Mk 48 and/or Mk 52 (or whatever is Mk # is) that can narrow the difference in capabilities between the offerings. By the same token though, if the G&C were to add it on (or have room for future addition) that would maintain the capabilities margin.
-Cheers
Has there been any thought of having the AWD carry Mk 48 Mod 1 VLS for the ESSM, in addition to the Mk 41 VLS? To my understanding, the Mk 48 Mod 1 can be mounted externally on the bulkheads that make up the hangar walls. Granted, I don't believe the Mk 48 can take a Quadpack ESSM, but additional VLS cells might come in handy. Alternatively, isn't there another small VLS in the works, Mk 54 or something similar? I believe that is being setup to carry twin/duo-pack ESSM.
IMV I prefer the G&C design given the greater capabilities and room for potential future expansion. However, if the F-100 design adds something like the Mk 48 and/or Mk 52 (or whatever is Mk # is) that can narrow the difference in capabilities between the offerings. By the same token though, if the G&C were to add it on (or have room for future addition) that would maintain the capabilities margin.
-Cheers
There has certainly been considerable talk of growth to 80 cells, especially if SM-3 is acquired. However, whether this would comprise an extra 16 cells forward or 8 forward and 8 in the aft position is unclear.
This link from the DT Picture Section shows the layout of the VLS cells:
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/16139
I agree with the comment by AegisFC re the preferability of having the VLS cells split in two locations to provide redundancy in case of a hit in battle. This is another concern I have with the F100 which has all 48 cells in the forward position.
This may be a practical way to add additional VLS cells to the F100. The Mk 48 can accommodate the RIM-162B varient of the ESSM but only one can be fitted in each cell.
The Mk 56 lightweight system has been developed by Raytheon. It can incorporate a duel pack with two missiles per tube. Whilst this would still not be as good as the Mk41 , it would double the number of ESSMs that the Mk 48 VLS could carry.
http://www.storkaerospace.com/fokker/page.html?id=5810
Cheers
Last edited:
Cheers,
link this : i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/SDDG-71IZAR_Lepanto1TLW.gif
Of course, is not real, it´s only a concept.
About the helicopter, on a F-100 there´s space for a NH-90 but nothing ( absolutely nothing ) more. That´s one of the bigggest handicaps of this ships.
link this : i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/SDDG-71IZAR_Lepanto1TLW.gif
Of course, is not real, it´s only a concept.
About the helicopter, on a F-100 there´s space for a NH-90 but nothing ( absolutely nothing ) more. That´s one of the bigggest handicaps of this ships.
Thanks Spanish. That's a really interesting concept because it shows Mk41 VLS cells mounted above the hangar (similar to the Anzac class). Well, we can see that the F100 can be stretched using photobucket.
If this can actually be done that would overcome my biggest objection to this class. The single helo is a disadvantage but not so great as the loss of 16 VLS cells. The concept also incorporates a second medium gun. This could be dispensed with with in an RAN 'Evolved F100' and a 2x4 Nulka launcher (as in the Anzacs) could be fitted in this spot instead. It would be nice to think that the Navantia proposal is for an upgraded vessel incorporating the extra VLS cells. Cheers
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Thanks Tas for the correct VLS, Mk 56. I couldn't remember which one it was. Does anyone know if there is a Mk 56 VLS version that can be mounted on exterior bulkheads like the Mk 48 Mod 1? Depending on the risks such a modification or installation would entail, it might be worthwhile to add as a current system, or perhaps reserve space & weight (or perhaps wait
) like on the Anzacs and have the option of adding later, not unlike being able to add additional Mk 41 VLS cells on the Anzac FFH and G&C proposals.
Also, any idea of the space and weight required for such a system to replace an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS with Quadpack ESSM?
-Cheers
) like on the Anzacs and have the option of adding later, not unlike being able to add additional Mk 41 VLS cells on the Anzac FFH and G&C proposals.Also, any idea of the space and weight required for such a system to replace an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS with Quadpack ESSM?
-Cheers
Thanks Spanish. That's a really interesting concept because it shows Mk41 VLS cells mounted above the hangar (similar to the Anzac class). Well, we can see that the F100 can be stretched using photobucket.
Cheers
The second gun can DEFINITELY be dropped, I think. I can't really think of a situation where two guns can do a job that a single gun can't. The gun would really only be used for shore bombardment and sinking vessels that don't justify a missile. It's faintly possible a DDG might be called upon to provide simultaneous fire support on two targets, but it really seems a long shot (pardon the pun).
Nulkas would definitely be a better choice - or even VSHORAD missile launchers, CIWS or RCWS.
True, but I was thinking more in terms of equipment breaking (on the Burkes if the computer of one of the VLS launchers breaks the other can assume control of both of them in a casualty configuration) or if the launcher techs have to go into the launcher to do any work the launch has to be brought down for saftey reasons and if you are in, say the Persian Gulf you don't want your only missile launcher to be down if you can help it.
Not necessarily, if any damage takes place in or around the launcher the deluge sprinkler system activates and keeps the missiles cool, also you can flood individual cells in case of a missfire or damage.
That is the picture I keep seeing, and to me it doesn't look like their is enough room up foward for a 32 cell VLS, it just looks like it has a lower deck up foward than the Burke. However the link Tasman provided shows 2 32 cell launchers so I guess I'm wrong.
Sorry have to disagree. With PGM the guns can be very capable. Given it is likely the RAN wouel ahve to fight in litorial waters two is better than one if they can be fitted.
Maybe spanish could answer, but how would Spains R&D go for upgrades and life extension programs for the F100. Now i don't want to compare it to the US as there would be a massive difference in sheer investment and ability, but if we take the F100 would Australia have to dedicate to its future use expansions alone or could a collabaration help both countries ships?
Does the 220 on the F100 count Helicopter crew?
Does the 220 on the F100 count Helicopter crew?
3 F100 vs. 3 G&C i prefer 3 G&C AWD, but 4 F100 vs. 3G&C,
of course 4F100. Australia is very big for only 3 AWD...
Crew? From one OHP. The F100 is much more capable.
Also the required crew for F101-F104 is less than 200. ( i think that the F105, and F106 if built, are more automatized, but i'm not sure)
In AAW, one F100 = a lot of non Aegis ships
http:// miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=771168&temaid=3295901&pag=2
in this page some photos of the F100 integrated in am american task force and some info.
Regards.
of course 4F100. Australia is very big for only 3 AWD...
Crew? From one OHP. The F100 is much more capable.
Also the required crew for F101-F104 is less than 200. ( i think that the F105, and F106 if built, are more automatized, but i'm not sure)
In AAW, one F100 = a lot of non Aegis ships
http:// miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=771168&temaid=3295901&pag=2
in this page some photos of the F100 integrated in am american task force and some info.
Regards.
3 F100 vs. 3 G&C i prefer 3 G&C AWD, but 4 F100 vs. 3G&C,
of course 4F100. Australia is very big for only 3 AWD...
Crew? From one OHP. The F100 is much more capable.
Also the required crew for F101-F104 is less than 200. ( i think that the F105, and F106 if built, are more automatized, but i'm not sure)
In AAW, one F100 = a lot of non Aegis ships
http:// miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=771168&temaid=3295901&pag=2
in this page some photos of the F100 integrated in am american task force and some info.
Regards.
The F100 in its current configuration is much less capable that the evolved AB. The concept F100 derivative shown on this thread is a different issue but as the F100 is the MOTS offer I don't think that is an option.
If 4 units were to be purchased under these circumstances the G&C design is the better as it offers great installed capability and growth on a smaller or same size crew (depending on whether the F100 can be run on 185 as per the baseline).
3 F100 vs. 3 G&C i prefer 3 G&C AWD, but 4 F100 vs. 3G&C,
of course 4F100. Australia is very big for only 3 AWD...
Crew? From one OHP. The F100 is much more capable.
Also the required crew for F101-F104 is less than 200. ( i think that the F105, and F106 if built, are more automatized, but i'm not sure)
In AAW, one F100 = a lot of non Aegis ships
http:// miarroba.com/foros/ver.php?foroid=771168&temaid=3295901&pag=2
in this page some photos of the F100 integrated in am american task force and some info.
Regards.
I had originally hoped that the RAN would operate the AWDs alongside 8 FFHs and at least the two newest FFGs, but personnel problems are now so accute that it is difficult to see any FFGs remaining in service after the AWDs enter service. This will be a pity and also a waste of money as $1bn will have been spent upgrading them for what looks like being only a few more years of active service! At present that RAN is struggling to crew 8 Anzacs and 3 FFGs (the fourth is undergoing upgrade). So the total number of major surface combatants is unlikely to exheed 11 unless the manpower problem can be overcome. It sounds like there may be additional measures in tonight's federal budget to address this issue so let's hope it can be fixed. Failing that a 4th F100 would have to replace an Anzac.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Here's an "off the wall" idea... If the F-100 is selected, and 4 are ultimately built, causing the RAN to be shorthanded so that an Anzac is tied up dockside... See if NZ would be interested in another Anzac frigate. Given a choice between and AWD or an Anzac FFH, I'd rather the RAN have the AWD. Not to mention that a third Anzac for the RNZN would ease some potential maintenance and deployment issues they might run into.
-Cheers
That could be a win/win for both countries as NZ would get a fully upgraded Anzac (including ESSM and Harpoon) for a bargain price and I agree that an F100 would be a far more potent ship than an Anzac for the RAN. However, I am still hoping that the G&C Evolved design will be chosen.
I've also had a thought that not all will be lost from the FFG upgrades. When they decommission the RAN will have 4x8 additional Mk41 VLS cells that could go aboard 4 of the Anzacs, giving them each 16 cells instead of 8. Their Harpoon Block II and SM-2 missiles and Phalanx CIWS could also go into the fleet pool (although the latter would need to be upgraded to be effective in future years).
Cheers