Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Wooki]

I've got the draft specs for the original AWD submission and the design comes in at 5875 metric tonnes.

6875 tons (metric) is equal to 7,578.39 tons (US short)

6K to 7.6K is a big difference, but I would hazard to say that they will go bigger if the budget allows it.

The ideal would be a 9000 ton platform to achieve all the mission requirements on the wish list. Who knows, with all the "out of the box" thinking going on, they might just get there.

cheers

W

 

[alexsa]

Is there any publicly available information on the probable configuration changes to the AB design for the AWD yet. Information such as the likely number of cells, Gun type (I seem to remember the 155mm advance gun was discussed), secondary armament and number of helos would certainly add to the discussion.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is there any publicly available information on the probable configuration changes to the AB design for the AWD yet. Information such as the likely number of cells, Gun type (I seem to remember the 155mm advance gun was discussed), secondary armament and number of helos would certainly add to the discussion.

There's no publicly available info. The stuff I have is still under embargo for public release - and does not necessarily reflect final weaps fitout.

In general, discussions revolve around Mk45 MGS, Mk41 VLS, Mk36, Mk32 TT/L with Mk46's, Mk31, Nixie, and at least 1 x LAMPs equiv.

I can't confirm the final weaps fitout though.

 

[cherry]

I'll be stunned if the FFG's are still around when the AWD's are around. Senator HILL has hinted that the RAN fleet will be comprised of 11 major surface combatants once the AWD's are in-service, (8 ANZAC's, 3 AWD's). However the RAN had a "maritime blue-print" on their website a while back which was essentially a publicly released long range planning document.

However it seems strange that the Australian Government is willing to spend $1 billion on upgrading the 4 FFG's, when they might only get another 6-7 years service from the vessels once the upgrade is complete. It doesn't exactly seem like money well spent if that is the plan...

This document outlined that 4 upgraded FFG's would remain in-service to around 2020 with the 8 ANZAC's and 3 AWD's, providing a surface combatant force of 15. The document then outlined that a new Frigate acquisition project would commence once the AWD's were completed to replace the entire ANZAC and FFG fleet with 10-12 new vessels of a common configuration from 2020 onwards.

A new submarine acquisition program would also commence from about 2020 to replace the Collins Class according to this plan.

I have seen on other forums that the rumour is that RAN are pushing for eventually 6 AWD. This, if true, raises the question that would the additional 3 AWD replace the 4 x FFG, or is it the case that RAN will only be operating 11 major surface combatants, and sell off a couple of ANZACS to make room for an additional 3 x AWD? So will we have 8 x ANZAC + 6 X AWD, or 6 x ANZAC + 6 x AWD? New Zealand might be interested in puchasing an additional ANZAC.

 

[Big-E]

New Zealand might be interested in puchasing an additional ANZAC.

You mean to tell me they have enough money to buy another ANZAC but don't have the funds to keep a sqd. of strike aircraft.

 

[scraw]

You mean to tell me they have enough money to buy another ANZAC but don't have the funds to keep a sqd. of strike aircraft.

To be honest given the Kiwis reading of their strategic situation another ANZAC would probably fit better with their forces.

If it were (as is likely) better armed than their existing ships of the class then all the better.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall New Zealand eliminated its air combat force to save over NZ$ 700 million over 10 years to operate the force of 30 aircraft, fighters plus trainers.

A brand new Anzac class frigate would have cost in 1998 NZ$ 470 million. A used Anzac class frigate in 2015 would cost much less, possibly half.

When you look at the New Zealand Long Term Development Plan, New Zealand in the last six years have spent NZ$ 2.77 billion. The only large expensive item left on the list will be the NZ$ 330 million Anzac class self-defence modernization.

Since the A-4 Skyhawks were reaching their end of life, and the previous government had leased 28 F-16 Falcons for NZ$ 125 million over 10 years, if this government couldn't afford the operational and lease cost of this deal, this government won't be able to afford or find a better deal.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I have seen on other forums that the rumour is that RAN are pushing for eventually 6 AWD. This, if true, raises the question that would the additional 3 AWD replace the 4 x FFG, or is it the case that RAN will only be operating 11 major surface combatants, and sell off a couple of ANZACS to make room for an additional 3 x AWD? So will we have 8 x ANZAC + 6 X AWD, or 6 x ANZAC + 6 x AWD? New Zealand might be interested in puchasing an additional ANZAC.

I was just discussing this yesterday with a friend. Can someone remind me when the last two FFGs will be retired? I know that they are reasonably new (early ’90s) and were considered by the RAN to be built to a better standard than the 4 US built FFGs.

Given the increased availability of modern ships I was thinking two more AWDs, that (depending on availability) may give a 2 ship availability.

Just a thought.

 

[Sea Toby]

Another nation that might be interested in used frigates, say 10 years from now could be Indonesia. It appears Indonesia is similar to some South American nations, it can afford brand new submarines, but can't afford brand new frigates.

However, I don't see Australia selling more than 2 Anzacs. On the other hand, the 2 newest OHPerrys could be sold to Indonesia, but not before the AWDs arrive. Frankly, I think Indonesia would be interested in acquiring all 6 of Australia's OHPerrys. Their former Dutch Leanders are ageing considerably, they are 15-20 years older than the FFGs.

If Australia sold its FFGs to Indonesia, they should be able to purchase another AWD from that sale, or two more modernized Anzac frigates.

 

[Big-E]

Don't Aussie ANZACs have ESSM, why would they sell them after upgrading with such a capable missile?

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the only nation Australia would sell an Anzac to would be New Zealand, Australia counts New Zealand assets almost as if they were their own.

However, I would sell the 6 FFGs to Indonesia, 2 could be sold now, with the other 4 after the arrival of the AWDs. The selling price of the FFGs could result in the addition of another AWD.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I think the only nation Australia would sell an Anzac to would be New Zealand, Australia counts New Zealand assets almost as if they were their own.

However, I would sell the 6 FFGs to Indonesia, 2 could be sold now, with the other 4 after the arrival of the AWDs. The selling price of the FFGs could result in the addition of another AWD.

Don't forget the Philippines for sales.

Four FFGs are being upgraded and 2 are being retired early. My original understanding is that a 4 upgraded FFGs will be phased out when the 3 AWDs come on line.

Is this still the case?

 

[Whiskyjack]

Don't Aussie ANZACs have ESSM, why would they sell them after upgrading with such a capable missile?

Same reason the RN would sell some near new Type 23s, change of plans, to fund more capable units!

Although the number of countries that would be cleared to purchase an upgraded ANZAC would be slim I would think.

As far as the RNZN is concerned, if they pick up a ANZAC around 2016-2018, they still have the same issue they had with the Leanders, block obsolescence around 2030.

 

[Sea Toby]

I have posted before if New Zealand wished to increase their frigate force, it would be best if they bought two ships of a newer class at the mid-life point of the Anzacs, thereby avoiding block obsolescence. Since it doesn't appear they will, they are facing block obsolescence with the two Anzacs they have in 2030 anyway.

However, there is a good chance in the future one of their governments is gonna miss having a third frigate. While two gives a government the option to deploy one at any given time, three provides sustainment. Obviously, the cheapest route to three is to purchase a used Australian Anzac. There is also the possibility one may sink whereby acquiring a used Australian Anzac would be the best short time solution. One never knows what the future will be.

The Philippines can barely afford patrol boats, it doesn't appear they are interested in frigates. I wouldn't be surprised if they bought a few OPVs the size of New Zealand's though, new or used.

 

[cherry]

If it did get to the point where RAN did have 3 x AWD, 8 x ANZAC and 4 x FFG in service, would we have enough personnel to crew these platforms? Even if eventually we ended up with 6 x AWD and 8 x ANZAC, would personnel numbers within RAN suffice?

New Zealands military capabilities will never be anymore than a pittance while Helen Clarke leads their country. That'll teach them for putting a woman in the top job.: :rotfl

 

[Big-E]

That'll teach them for putting a woman in the top job.: :rotfl

Look at what Margaret Thatcher did for the UK, being a woman has nothing to do with it.

 

[abramsteve]

I know its been talked about alot, but I dont see manning that number of ships to a hassle. There are alot of young people out there now who are seriously looking at joining the armed forces, alot more than say 10 years ago. The job has improved its image alot in the past few years with the regular and well publised deployments aswell as better public understanding of the new role the Armed forces play.

Just off topic for a bit Whilst I love aircraft, I think the navy should be Australias principle arm. What are peoples thoughts on that?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know its been talked about alot, but I dont see manning that number of ships to a hassle. There are alot of young people out there now who are seriously looking at joining the armed forces, alot more than say 10 years ago. The job has improved its image alot in the past few years with the regular and well publised deployments aswell as better public understanding of the new role the Armed forces play.

Just off topic for a bit Whilst I love aircraft, I think the navy should be Australias principle arm. What are peoples thoughts on that?

Not sure what you mean by "principal" arm. She is the senior service already, is that what you mean?

If you mean that we should devote significantly more resources to her at the expense of Army and airforce, I can't agree with you there. Army should be the principal service if actual usage is the main indicator of such.

Army operational activity has far exceeded RAAF or RAN activities and probably always will. OTOH if you are talking DOA situations, RAAF could justifiably be the principal service. Afterall RAAF maritime strike capacity is going to be the best mainland defence capability we have.

RAN will surely play it's part but RAAF will be the main player...

 

[Sea Toby]

My Aunt Clara, an Australian war bride of WWII, has told me several times the RAAF's F-111s ability to deliver a package to the President of Indonesia's front porch is the strategic defense of Australia.

 

[Big-E]

My Aunt Clara, an Australian war bride of WWII, has told me several times the RAAF's F-111s ability to deliver a package to the President of Indonesia's front porch is the strategic defense of Australia.

Are your uncles Goon and Kopp?:lol3