Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Todjaeger]

Correction on idea for additional VLS

Okay, I've found out that the previous idea I'd had about possible additions for VLS was wrong. While the Mk 48 Mod 1 can be mounted alongside a hangar, I was thinking of the PVLS system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/pvls.htm

Though more info is needed to know missile size/capacity and weight. But I have to say, having it arranged so that any detonations vent away from the superstructure seems a good idea to me.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Okay, I've found out that the previous idea I'd had about possible additions for VLS was wrong. While the Mk 48 Mod 1 can be mounted alongside a hangar, I was thinking of the PVLS system.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/pvls.htm

Though more info is needed to know missile size/capacity and weight. But I have to say, having it arranged so that any detonations vent away from the superstructure seems a good idea to me.

-Cheers

As this system was projected for the DD1000 I expect that it should be able to handle a wide range of missiles. The ESSM, Tomahawk and Advanced Land Attack Missile are all listed in the DD1000 specs.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-specs.htm

Cheers

 

[icelord]

Its interesting that the Spaniard is now favourite for the project, seeing how they were originally selected due to the (kinnard?) Review demanding 2 options be put before Govt.
old defence comments are a laugh as they put the F100 as just to "make up numbers"
Just hope someone is smart enough to get 4 instead of 3 either way

 

[Tasman]

Its interesting that the Spaniard is now favourite for the project, seeing how they were originally selected due to the (kinnard?) Review demanding 2 options be put before Govt.
old defence comments are a laugh as they put the F100 as just to "make up numbers"
Just hope someone is smart enough to get 4 instead of 3 either way

This has certainly turned around but the recommendations seem to be based on cost, risk and delivery time which would obviously favour the smaller, less capable ship that is already in service. In fact I think that recommendations along these lines could have been made as soon as a frigate rather than a destroyer was selected as the 'Kinnard existing solution'. It seems a big ask for a destroyer sized design to have to compete against a frigate sized design unless the extra capability provided by the larger ship is carefully weighed up against the lower cost of the smaller vessel. The final decision still has to be made by cabinet and I believe the navy will undoubtably push for the Evolved G&C design, unless they believe that it is too risky, as it wants maximum capability along with space and weight for future growth.

One of the problems those of us who are not in the navy or involved in the bidding or selection process have when looking at this issue is that we don't know what the baseline requirements are, other than the fact that the ship must be fitted with AEGIS, a 127mm gun, SM-2, ESSM and Harpoon. Presumably the 48 VLS cells and single helo hangar of the F-100 meet the baseline requirements.

There has been quite a bit of discussion re this issue in the Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates thread.

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21908210-31477,00.html

"
Ship splits navy and Defence

• Patrick Walters, National security editor
• June 15, 2007

A SERIOUS rift has developed between the navy and the Defence Department over who should win a multi-billion-dollar contract to build air-warfare destroyers.

Navy chief Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders favours the 8000-tonne warship designed by American company Gibbs and Cox, arguing it offers better firepower and all-round performance than the F100 frigate from Spain's Navantia.
The issue will come to a head next week when John Howard determines who wins the right to design the $7billion destroyers.
Admiral Shalders has taken the unusual step of briefing senior ministers and advisers on the merits of the US design.
Admiral Shalders's quiet campaign has been undertaken with the agreement of the Prime Minister and Defence Minister Brendan Nelson.
The Gibbs and Cox design carries 64 vertical-launch missile cells and two helicopters, compared with 48 cells and a single helicopter for the F100.
The navy argues it is more adaptable than the F100 because its larger size allows greater flexibility for new capabilities such as missile defence involving fitting the SM3 missile.
Admiral Shalders has publicly described the F100 as very capable, but stressed the benefits of the larger design.
"I am after capability, capability and capability," he told The Australian in March.
Balanced against the navy chief's view is an exhaustive Defence Department evaluation, which has backed the Navantia F100 on cost, project risk and schedule grounds. The Spanish ship is close to $1billion cheaper and would be delivered about three years earlier than the Gibbs and Cox ship.
Cabinet's national security committee will meet next week to sign off on almost $10billion worth of naval shipbuilding projects, including the three destroyers and two amphibious ships.
The air-warfare destroyers will be built by government-owned ASC in Adelaide and are due to enter service from 2013.
The project remains the most contentious of the two naval submissions under consideration, with the destroyers to be built under a novel alliance contract between ASC, the systems integrator Raytheon, and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
A new study from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has pointed to the capability and the Australian industry benefits of the Gibbs and Cox design. "If the Government endorses the rumoured Navantia choice, it will be opting for the ... lower project risk profile that comes with an established design," defence expert Andrew Davies concludes.
"The trade-off will be a capability that is lower now and that, perhaps more importantly, has less growth room in the future."



Another grain of salt story I wonder?
I can't wait for them to make a decision one way or the other.

That way all us armchair warriors can get on talking about how they made the wrong decision



rb

 

[knightrider4]

Awd

Well for what its worth there was an article in todays Adelaide Advertizer claiming that the Gibbs & Cox bid would take the prize. The headline claimed 'US TO BEAT SPAIN FOR $6 BILLION WARSHIP CONTRACT'. How would they know???

 

[rossfrb_1]

Well for what its worth there was an article in todays Adelaide Advertizer claiming that the Gibbs & Cox bid would take the prize. The headline claimed 'US TO BEAT SPAIN FOR $6 BILLION WARSHIP CONTRACT'. How would they know???

Good question. It wasn't that long ago that the Oz was suggesting that the Spanish design might get the nod.
I don't know how much wheeling and dealing goes on in these sort of deals, but I have wondered whether the suggestion that the F-100 had become the preferred option was ever just a ruse to get G&C to drop the price just a little. Previously I had been a little uncomfortable with the presumption that the G&C design was a lay down mazare (sp?) as I assumed that the ADF wouldn't get the best value for $ from G&C if that was the case.

Then there's suggestion that Navantia might include some incentive for the ADF to go for both Spanish designs for the AWD & LHD.....

I've got no idea

rb

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Personally, I'd flog them both and go for the Korean KDX3. Brilliant design, and with 128 vls.

 

[contedicavour]

Personally, I'd flog them both and go for the Korean KDX3. Brilliant design, and with 128 vls.

I remain sceptical about the usefulness of so many VLS, especially when the whole Navy is unlikely to have enough SM2s or quadruple ESSMs to fill all the VLS in the 3 or 4 DDGs Australia will soon build
Unless you're planning to buy Asroc and TLAM as well but this is hardly being planned as we speak is it ?

cheers

 

[AegisFC]

Personally, I'd flog them both and go for the Korean KDX3. Brilliant design, and with 128 vls.

I'm pretty sure that quite a few of those VLS cells are dedicated for that cruise missile South Korea developed (I forget the name off the top of my head), I've read it doesn't fit in the regular MK-48 launcher so they had to install their own launcher for it.

I remain sceptical about the usefulness of so many VLS, especially when the whole Navy is unlikely to have enough SM2s or quadruple ESSMs to fill all the VLS in the 3 or 4 DDGs Australia will soon build
Unless you're planning to buy Asroc and TLAM as well but this is hardly being planned as we speak is it ?

I agree, however their is no reason for Australia not to buy some VLA's, they are not that expensive and provide a longer ranged ASW capibility compared to the ship board tubes.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Apparently the KDX3 will carry 16 AShM in box launchers, 32 TLAM, 16 asroc, 80 SM-2s, RAM, goalkeeper, torps, 5/62, 2 helos, AEGIS, etc. One powerful warship. The name of the class is Sejong the Great class if called after the first ship, or Kwanggaeto-III class in Korean media. I bet they are built cheaper than the Aussie ships will be as well.

 

[ELP]

Seen from Italy the RAN's manning issues seem very strange. We have problems budgeting ships but don't have any trouble finding new recruits (latest recruitment drives provided 2.5 more applications than needed), especially from the poorer regions of Southern Italy where unemployment is above 10% vs 6.5% nationally.
My proposal is obviously too simplistic, but why isn't part of the funding for new constructions programme simply diverted to increase salaries and benefits in order to compete with the private sector ?

cheers

In the news... RAN to get extra warship manpower from Italy.

 

[Tasman]

Another grain of salt story I wonder?
I can't wait for them to make a decision one way or the other.

That way all us armchair warriors can get on talking about how they made the wrong decision


rb

I think Walters is probably totally correct re this story as it seems to be no secret that the Chief of Navy is very unhappy about the recommendation from Defence for the F100 as it totally ignores the capability being sought by navy and pushing instead for the vessel with less capability and far less growth potential.

Also I think Defence just stated the obvious. Most of us armchair critics could have stated with a lot of confidence two years ago that the F100 would beat the G&C on "cost, project risk and schedule grounds!" Of course it would. It is an existing, smaller and less capable vessel!

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21922625-31477,00.html

"
New ships have missile option

• Patrick Walters, National security editor
• June 18, 2007

THE navy's new air warfare destroyers could become the first Australian military platforms to be equipped with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Howard Government has already said that the vessels, expected to enter service from 2013, could eventually be fitted with the SM-3 missiles as part of a maritime ballistic missile defence screen.
Both the US and Spanish designs to be considered by Cabinet's national security committee this week will have the ability to be fitted with the Tomahawk missile, which has a range of at least 1000km.
While there are no current plans to acquire the Tomahawk missile, the Government is expected to consider whether they should be fitted to either surface ships or submarines.
"It's an option that future governments will seriously look at to augment our future strike capability," defence expert Andrew Davies, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Australian.
The three planned $7 billion warfare destroyers to be built by Collins-class submarine builder ASC in Adelaide are destined to become Australia's frontline warships though to the mid-21st century. They are designed to defend a naval taskforce at sea or coastal areas from aerial threats, including sea-skimming missiles.
Spain's naval shipbuilder, Navantia, which is tendering its 6000-tonne F100 ship in the $7billion air warfare destroyer contest, stresses that its ship can be fitted with both the SM-3 and Tomahawk missiles.
The F100 is competing against a larger 8000-tonne design, based on the US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, offered by US firm Gibbs and Cox. But Navantia has also offered to increase the size of its existing 6000-tonne ship by at least 1000tonnes to accommodate the navy's preference for a larger, more flexible ship.
After discussions with Defence, Navantia has also given the Government the option of supplying a fourth warship at a fixed price.
The F100, in service with the Spanish navy, is a cheaper ship than the larger competing US design, with a price advantage of about $1 billion for the three ships required by the navy."



I was under the impression that only the baseline F-100 design would be considered from Navantia. Given that there have been improvements in the design it would seem silly to ignore them, but I was under the impression that the only acceptable F-100 proposoal was rather rigidly set. This being for risk mitigation reasons I guess.

However given that the G&C design is still only on paper it makes sense that RAN could consider an evolved F-100 (+1000 tonnes?). With all the inherent risk that that involves!
Now that would be an irony, the F-100 is chosen based on risk mitigation, then the evolved version is selected, and then it turns out to be a lemon!
(Not suggesting that it is, just considering one scenario)



rb

 

[ELP]

Thanks rossfrb_1

That is great news about the Tomahawk. I hope that ends up on the ships. It works.

 

[Tasman]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21922625-31477,00.html

"
New ships have missile option


I was under the impression that only the baseline F-100 design would be considered from Navantia. Given that there have been improvements in the design it would seem silly to ignore them, but I was under the impression that the only acceptable F-100 proposoal was rather rigidly set. This being for risk mitigation reasons I guess.

However given that the G&C design is still only on paper it makes sense that RAN could consider an evolved F-100 (+1000 tonnes?). With all the inherent risk that that involves!
Now that would be an irony, the F-100 is chosen based on risk mitigation, then the evolved version is selected, and then it turns out to be a lemon!
(Not suggesting that it is, just considering one scenario)


rb

That is a very interesting article rb.

I was also under the impression that only the baseline F100 would be considered for just the reasons you mention. However, if it is true that Navantia are prepared to offer a stretched design with greater capability and if the navy considers that an evolved version of the F100 is not too risky, it may win support from both Navy and Defence.

There is an important question to ask here though. Has an evolved version of the F100 been looked at by Navy and Defence or is this a new development? If it has not been thoroughly studied I can see a major delay with the selection decision. There is no way that what is effectively a third design could be placed in front of cabinet without it being evaluated thoroughly against both the baseline F100 and the Evolved G@C.

I wonder if Patrick Walters' article is wishful thinking on his part or a last ditch 'catch up' effort by Navantia after the reaction from the Chief of Navy to the recommendation from Defence.

Whatever happens I suspect that the RAN is probably wishing that it had included the baseline Flight IIA Arleigh Burke as its "existing design", rather than a ship that it evidently believes doesn't meet its capability requirements.

Re Tomahawk, I have always thought that the RAN should be equipped with this missile. I think it should be fitted to the submarines as well as the new destroyers.

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

For anyone who hasn't already.
http://www.adbr.com.au/download/2645.pdf
some relevant topics covered
Start page 9 and also p13.

rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

quite a lengthy article (for a newspaper)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21927754-31477,00.html

the bit that piqued me

"
Gibbs and Cox argue that it will invest more in Australian industry than its Spanish rival, offering additional design work and joint ownership of intellectual property in the new, larger ship. Navantia counters that its risk-free solution not only meets the RAN's capability requirements but offers the chance of buying four F100s for the price of three US designs. Navantia also says it can easily enlarge the ship to cater for an extra helicopter and additional firepower. It further touts the logistics and through-life support benefits of choosing the F100 and its 27,000-tonne amphibious ship."




OK, so there are hints that the F-100 design can be modified, but can any such modified design be 'allowed' to be considered by the RAN?



rb

 

[recce.k1]

quite a lengthy article (for a newspaper)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21927754-31477,00.html

the bit that piqued me

"
Gibbs and Cox argue that it will invest more in Australian industry than its Spanish rival, offering additional design work and joint ownership of intellectual property in the new, larger ship. Navantia counters that its risk-free solution not only meets the RAN's capability requirements but offers the chance of buying four F100s for the price of three US designs. Navantia also says it can easily enlarge the ship to cater for an extra helicopter and additional firepower. It further touts the logistics and through-life support benefits of choosing the F100 and its 27,000-tonne amphibious ship."




OK, so there are hints that the F-100 design can be modified, but can any such modified design be 'allowed' to be considered by the RAN?



rb

Investing in (and maintaining) Australia's ship building industry (and if offering additional design work etc does come into fruition), then G&C will be more politically acceptable, surely ...

 

[icelord]

Well for what its worth there was an article in todays Adelaide Advertizer claiming that the Gibbs & Cox bid would take the prize. The headline claimed 'US TO BEAT SPAIN FOR $6 BILLION WARSHIP CONTRACT'. How would they know???

Heres how they do, its a secret so don't go telling everyone.
You go to your wallet, pull out a 20c piece, not a 10, or 50 or even dollar, then you decide whether the queen wants a the yanks or spainiards to win, both have been to war with UK so it will be a tough choice, then you flip it in the air, what ever side it lands on is the selected Ship.
Or alternativly you like the Advertizer could wait a week to find out the Govt. did the same thing!