Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Rich]

I wouldn't call the Burke a "death star". Instead its more like a rabid greyhound. The thing that would bother me is that the Admirals aren't being listened to, or, at least their opinions are to far down on the list.

The F-100 is a fine ship. But is it the right ship?

Recruiting and retaining sailors is a separate issue and when that is the deciding factor on what , or what not, AWD to buy then you have serious problems. A population of 21 million, industrious and educated, should be more then enough to man 3 AWDs. I mean by that rational we would need twice our population to man our DDs.

The RAN is playing in a different ballpark then the Armada. Its a region of vast distances, vital strategic importance, growing economic importance, and growing threats of blue water navies. It is no Mediterranean sea I can tell you that much.

Don't get me wrong. The decisions being made now are going to insure generations of Aussies remain safe and free. The RAN would be a bad enemy to have in those waters and would continue to be even with the F-100. I'm just not sure its the best choice for you.

 

[Waylander]

I think the "Death Star" nickname was meant for the new Korean AB derivates which are really packed with weapons.

 

[Markus40]

Dr Nelson The Minister of Defence, has already advised that there will need to be an additional 3000 personel that will need to come aboard into the RAN to crew the new warships, including the BPEs. Thats a fairly significant increase in numbers, but the ADFs are taking seriously the recruitment issue and i would believe that by the time the Destroyers are built that significant numbers of personel will have been recruited for the Navy.

The other thing to say is the F100 the right ship, is really a hyperthetical argument with very little basis for support. No Navy can ever say for sure if the warships they are buying are right or wrong. I remember the RNZN buying the Charles Upham, a fleet transporter for the Army to deliver their supplies and weapons. However once they started using it they found it pitched and rolled so much they had to sell it. It was more a liability than an asset.

The ADFs have spent an aweful amount of time investigating and digging into the strengths and weaknesses of both designs, and it seems perfectly clear to me that either one would would have done the trick. The F100 is extremely capable system and it already uses the same tracking systems and weapons as the AB. The F100 systems have been tested and exercised alongside the AB design and it is clear from reading the specs that this system is very much up with the play. The F100 is "evolutionary" in its design so its able to integrate further systems and hardware down the line when further smart weapons become available like the SM-3 Missile.

The Admiral in question who backed the AB design actually in the last minute made a 180 degree turn and backed the F100 design. This goes on record prior to the announcment made on the Spanish Design. Its obvious that there is alot of sentiment around for the AB as it might have had a few extras, but in reality the F100 systems are a straight copy off the AB and there isnt any advantage based on this analogy to buy the more expensive AB. The Australian Government also would have had to wait for the evolved AB to come off the drawing board and onto metal. It was and still is a paper ship.

What i do think is that its in the RAN interests to build a fourth Destroyer at some point. 3 is really a little on the thin side.

I also think the Australian Government has the F35B on its mind down track once the BPEs are built. Its probably something that wont be discussed till later, but i do think the Air Combat element is an essential part of the BPE.

I wouldn't call the Burke a "death star". Instead its more like a rabid greyhound. The thing that would bother me is that the Admirals aren't being listened to, or, at least their opinions are to far down on the list.

The F-100 is a fine ship. But is it the right ship?

Recruiting and retaining sailors is a separate issue and when that is the deciding factor on what , or what not, AWD to buy then you have serious problems. A population of 21 million, industrious and educated, should be more then enough to man 3 AWDs. I mean by that rational we would need twice our population to man our DDs.

The RAN is playing in a different ballpark then the Armada. Its a region of vast distances, vital strategic importance, growing economic importance, and growing threats of blue water navies. It is no Mediterranean sea I can tell you that much.

Don't get me wrong. The decisions being made now are going to insure generations of Aussies remain safe and free. The RAN would be a bad enemy to have in those waters and would continue to be even with the F-100. I'm just not sure its the best choice for you.

 

[alexsa]

I am going to refrain from judging the F100 until the fine print is out on what exactly "Australianised" means.

I still have it in the back of my mind that we have already put an order in for enough Mk41 system to put 64 cells on three ships.

 

[RubiconNZ]

I still have it in the back of my mind that we have already put an order in for enough Mk41 system to put 64 cells on three ships.

Or 48 Cells in 4 ships

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I am going to refrain from judging the F100 until the fine print is out on what exactly "Australianised" means.

I still have it in the back of my mind that we have already put an order in for enough Mk41 system to put 64 cells on three ships.

Hmmmmm, thats a good point. Theres no way we would order too many VLS that early unless we were sure that no matter which design we pick it would be enough. That would be pretty bloody stupid. Unless we bought enough for 4 F100's??????

 

[Markus40]

Sorry to dissapoint you but Dr Nelson having watched his speech in parliament 2 days ago said that the F100 will be built with a 48 cell launcher.

I am going to refrain from judging the F100 until the fine print is out on what exactly "Australianised" means.

I still have it in the back of my mind that we have already put an order in for enough Mk41 system to put 64 cells on three ships.

 

[Markus40]

Maybe we all should stand clear if Alexsa has the 64 missile launcher in the back of his mind.!!!!!! nfloorl:

Or 48 Cells in 4 ships

 

[RubiconNZ]

Well if Alexsa's recollection is correct then four it is.

 

[Markus40]

He wont be left with any "recollection" once all of his 64 missile cells have been fired.!!!!nfloorl:

Well if Alexsa's recollection is correct then four it is.

 

[108]

I must be dumb, I can't see why 48 cells is not enough. With 4 ESSMs in Quadpack in each cell 24 cells gives 96 missiles and still leaves room for 24 Standard birds. How many Standard missiles are really needed. The only targets being engaged with Standard will be really dumb aircraft, Aegis notwithstanding. The real threat is on the deck at Mach X and I don't care how far the Standard can fly it will not help if the threat is not detected until it flies over the horizon.
108

 

[AMTP10E]

Well if Alexsa's recollection is correct then four it is.

We're not getting four. The only hope (however remote) of us getting four is for the Libs to win the next 2 or 3 elections (Labor isn't going to fork out the money needed for the fourth). Even then, I'd say the chances of a fourth AWD are very, very slim.

 

[Markus40]

You are absolutely right. I cant see why this simple understanding cant be understood. There is truck loads of room for VLS Harpoon, ESSMs, and SM2s and eventually 3s. I have always stated that there is never going to be a time when a hot zone requires a total expenditure of all the missile resources. Its ludicrous to think otherwise.

I must be dumb, I can't see why 48 cells is not enough. With 4 ESSMs in Quadpack in each cell 24 cells gives 96 missiles and still leaves room for 24 Standard birds. How many Standard missiles are really needed. The only targets being engaged with Standard will be really dumb aircraft, Aegis notwithstanding. The real threat is on the deck at Mach X and I don't care how far the Standard can fly it will not help if the threat is not detected until it flies over the horizon.
108

 

[alexsa]

He wont be left with any "recollection" once all of his 64 missile cells have been fired.!!!!nfloorl:

..... stop me laughing.

The request put before congress was for sufficient launchers for 64 cells on 3 ships and 3 AEGIS systems. That does not mean we will necessarily purchase them but given the discussion on australianisation I was hoping we may get the 'larger' version of the F100 being mooted. The approach for the large number of Mk41 systems could also have been in anticpation tha the G&C would get selected. It certainly appeared to be a foregone conclusion for a while.

If DefMin Nelson has decreed that 48 is all the F100 will have it looks like MOTS F100 is what we will get. That is consistent with the selection process as it has been touted.

Perhaps we may get VLS on the BPE as it is supposed to have space for the installaion. Again this is speculation but until a 4th AEGIS system is requested a 4th AWD (AW Frigate) is not an option either. We will have to wait and see.

 

[diggumsbang]

48 cells is decent. no doubt about it... but is it risky having them all at the bow?? if a missile takes out a considerable chunk from the bow... wouldnt it render the Mk41 cells useless...
thats why i though the AB spread the load amidship and stern?? obviously there are more cells in the AB

why not have the new AWD configured with
- 24 x SM-3
- 12 x TLAM's
- 38 x ESSM quadpacked

 

[Markus40]

This actually isnt quite accurate. Dr Nelson has already suggested having listened and watched his speech in parliament that there could be a fourth Destroyer depending on costs and overruns based on the construction timetable.

As for Labor, well they dont really have any policies and the only party with any voting legitimacy is the Liberals. So i wouldnt be shedding any tears of concern over them.

We're not getting four. The only hope (however remote) of us getting four is for the Libs to win the next 2 or 3 elections (Labor isn't going to fork out the money needed for the fourth). Even then, I'd say the chances of a fourth AWD are very, very slim.

 

[alexsa]

You are absolutely right. I cant see why this simple understanding cant be understood. There is truck loads of room for VLS Harpoon, ESSMs, and SM2s and eventually 3s. I have always stated that there is never going to be a time when a hot zone requires a total expenditure of all the missile resources. Its ludicrous to think otherwise.

For a stand alone engagement this is correct but it ignores the ability of other assets to provide firing data (i.e Wegdetail) and the developement of new systems such as SM-6. in such circumstances the defending vessel can fire over the horizon wihtout the shipbaord systems ahving to track the target(s). This allows as staged engagement from SM-6 to SM-2 and finally if they are still coming ESSM and then ASMD.

Given we need to ensure th ships we buy can grow to incorporate newer systems additional cells are alwasy useful. This being siad the F100 is a very capable ship.

 

[diggumsbang]

haha
i feel rude
sorry all...
im a new member... used to love everything military back in school... bit of a phase, lost interest but back in the game... with all these new developments.
hope you guys/girls dont mind me having a say everynow then
cheers
anthony

 

[alexsa]

This actually isnt quite accurate. Dr Nelson has already suggested having listened and watched his speech in parliament that there could be a fourth Destroyer depending on costs and overruns based on the construction timetable.

As for Labor, well they dont really have any policies and the only party with any voting legitimacy is the Liberals. So i wouldnt be shedding any tears of concern over them.

It quite accurate in respect of the gear currently ordered and three AEGIS systesm have been ordered. I would love to see a forth ship but at present it is just speculation.

 

[Markus40]

Mate, if the F100 is hit on the bow it really makes no sense having the launchers aft does it??! I mean no one is going to be shooting missiles aft when the ship is going down. This doesnt make any sense.

48 cells is decent. no doubt about it... but is it risky having them all at the bow?? if a missile takes out a considerable chunk from the bow... wouldnt it render the Mk41 cells useless...
thats why i though the AB spread the load amidship and stern?? obviously there are more cells in the AB

why not have the new AWD configured with
- 24 x SM-3
- 12 x TLAM's
- 38 x ESSM quadpacked