Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus
- Thread starter abramsteve
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was my understanding that the Gibbs and Cox is more expensive, due to it's larger design and capacity (steel may be cheap, but more OBVIOUSLY costs more) for greater weapons, sensor capabilities etc.
RAN, AFAIK sees F-101 as the "bare minimum" in capability it needs from an AWD and unless the Gibbs and Cox design fails miserably or there is an absolute "sweetheart" of a deal from Navantia (for a combined F-101/SPS buy) then I think it's an "outsider" at best...
This is also my understanding. IMO the Gibbs and Cox design seems to directly address the RAN's requirements, but, as has been mentioned in earlier posts, major Australian acquisition programs are now required to include an 'off the shelf' design (albeit with some modifications - in this case additional VLS cells) as an insurance policy against failure of the less developed but potentially superior option.
The one advantage of the Spanish vessel, as I see it, is that the purchase of 4 ships would be easier to fund. Don't get me wrong, I think that F101 or a developed version, would still greatly enhance the RAN's surface combat force, but the evolved version of the 'Baby Burke' would do it better.
It will be interesting to see how they make a cut-down Burke work. The USN hasn't been apparently all that happy with the size of the command centre in the Burkes finding it supposedly "cramped" and the G&C version will be even smaller.
Why would it be smaller? The AWD design is physically not that much smaller that the AB (the superstructure is acutally taller according to the drawings) and has a much smaller crew. It is entirely possilbe it will be the same size, at least, given the interal have been rearrange to a degree.
Unless there's been a change in the design, but I spoke to an ME from G&C at PACNAV 2002 and he indicated that the citadel internals were almost identical. (Common combat room philosophy)
If AMPT10 is lurking he might be able to indicate what crewing differences there might be in the control room/citadel.
we tend to have smaller crews. so maybe the combat room won't suffer from the same congestion probs anyway. I've been on USS Russell and it seemed pretty spacious to me (compared to an OHP/CFAdams and River Class it was like being on the Titanic!)
Thanks for that, didn't see it being smaller.
The CIC in the Burkes is not that small, granted it gets tight when you have a staff aboard but the ships were not designed for that, that is what a Tico is for after all.
Besides, I don't know if Australia will get Tomahawk or not, but if not the space those consoles took up will free up enough room for any embarked staff to have their own large screen display or 2 and their own ADS consoles.
RickUSN provided an interesting link to the 1989 proposal of the Flight III AB, I'm not sure if this is what would be wanted in the ANW but it is an interesting read.
http://members.cox.net/psjn/DDG51 Flt III.pdf
Is there any reason to believe that Navantia isn't offering something larger than the F-100? I understand the F-100 base design appears to fall short of what is wanted for the ANW ship, but the F-101 is coming out of drydock prior to making this trip, and I have a hard time believing the F-101 won't impress particularly given that Navantia surely had time to re-evaluate what is possible with the design of the ship while it was in the yard, and come up with new proposals to sweeten the deal for the ANW ship.
With Navantia also a contender for the LHD project, they may have more to offer than what is visable from the outside looking in.
http://members.cox.net/psjn/DDG51 Flt III.pdf
Is there any reason to believe that Navantia isn't offering something larger than the F-100? I understand the F-100 base design appears to fall short of what is wanted for the ANW ship, but the F-101 is coming out of drydock prior to making this trip, and I have a hard time believing the F-101 won't impress particularly given that Navantia surely had time to re-evaluate what is possible with the design of the ship while it was in the yard, and come up with new proposals to sweeten the deal for the ANW ship.
With Navantia also a contender for the LHD project, they may have more to offer than what is visable from the outside looking in.
I think you make some good points here Galrahn.
There seems to be some conjecture about whether the LHDs will be built in Australia. The DOD has stated that whilst local construction is the preferred option cost would taken into consideration. In other words too big a cost difference could see construction go overseas. It does seem possible that Navantia might be in a position to offer some sort of deal on an AWD/LHD 'package' that might assist local construction of the LHDs.
From my reading of what others have said there appears to be no question that the RAN would be looking at a heavily modified F100 type. However, such modifications would need to be comparatively low risk (increase in number of VLS cells, etc) compared to the G & C Evolved design - the whole point of including the F100 was to provide an 'off the shelf' low risk option.
Cheers
The F100 is the COTS solution, whereas the 'Arleigh Burke Lite' is the developed option government will take to 2nd pass.
The F100 is much cheaper and less risky, as it is a smaller vessel, has a lower manning requirement, and is already in service. ABL is an ship which a substantial development and reworking of G&C's Flight II Arleigh Burke.
Cheers
Magoo
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Radar on F-100 frigate
Which radar is used about the Spanish F-100 frigates? I have one source which lists the SPY-1D, and a different source says it is the SPY-1F. Confusing the issue is the new Norweigan frigate which is based off the F-100 is listed with the SPY-1F by the same source showing the F-100 with SPY-1D.
If the F-100 design is equipped with the SPY-1F, would that impact the radar used for the AWD? From what I understand, the SPY-1D is a larger & more powerful array. Also, from what I remember, the RAN has already committed to ordering three Aegis systems to be fitted into whichever design is selected. Does anyone know if the system preselection will determine which design is ultimately chosen?
-Cheers
Which radar is used about the Spanish F-100 frigates? I have one source which lists the SPY-1D, and a different source says it is the SPY-1F. Confusing the issue is the new Norweigan frigate which is based off the F-100 is listed with the SPY-1F by the same source showing the F-100 with SPY-1D.
If the F-100 design is equipped with the SPY-1F, would that impact the radar used for the AWD? From what I understand, the SPY-1D is a larger & more powerful array. Also, from what I remember, the RAN has already committed to ordering three Aegis systems to be fitted into whichever design is selected. Does anyone know if the system preselection will determine which design is ultimately chosen?
-Cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The Spanish uses AN/SPY-1D, Not AN/SPY-1F. The only user of the 'F' are the Nansen.
AFAIK all proposed designs intend to use the 'D'.
AFAIK all proposed designs intend to use the 'D'.
My understanding is that Australia has definitely ordered three Aegis systems (Department of Defence Website). The Spanish ships also have Aegis so as far as I can see any system fitted to the Spanish ships could also be fitted to the RAN vessels, if desired.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/
Cheers
The AWD will be fitted with SPY-1D regardless of whcih design is chosen and the the purchase of these systems is already in train. Both the F-100, as built, and the proposed G&C AWD fitted wiht SPY-1D.
contedicavour
New Member
What is the difference between the SPY-1D and the AEGIS installed on the latest Burke Flight IIA DDGs ?
cheers
Updated Computer Suite, updated ORTS (Operational Readiness and Testing System), the SPY signal processor has been updated and the TIP subprocessor is integrated into the signal processor, all the legacy computer peripheral equipment is replaced with much more modern equipment (aka no more tape drives or 80 MB hard disks).
The radar itself has several changes to make it more effective in a litorial enviroment but I don't know what those changes are right now.
The radar itself has several changes to make it more effective in a litorial enviroment but I don't know what those changes are right now.
contedicavour
New Member
Thanks for the information. How would that help improve range/chances of hit/number of missiles that can be launched for embarked ESSM/SM2-III ?
I see more efficiency and less maintenance plus the littoral warfare improvement, but that's it.
cheers
Hello, this is my first post, there are some very interesting fourms here but anyway thought i might put my 2cents worth about the AWD's -
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer way to much shaprel dmg to the upperdecks cosidering the RAN insists on manning 50cal and lookouts on the GDP unprotected by any superstucture.
well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer
way to much shaprel dmg to the upperdecks cosidering the RAN insists on manning 50cal and lookouts on the GDP unprotected by any superstucture. well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon
Hello, this is my first post, there are some very interesting fourms here but anyway thought i might put my 2cents worth about the AWD's -
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer
well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon
Interesting post AustJack. Whilst I hope that the concerns you have raised don't eventuate, there can be no guarantees. :shudder For that reason I always favoured the RAN acquiring 'off the shelf' Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class DDGs. The problem with this is that the manning level is much higher than desired by Australia.
As you mentioned the F100 is the 'insurance' option in the event that the G&C design is seen to be too risky. I'm no expert but my understanding from what others have said is that the modifications proposed for the F100 are comparatively low risk.
Incidentally I quite like the look of the F100!
Cheers