Absolutely ... Life would be so much simpler now had we just bought the baby burkes.
Gibbs & Cox’s AWD Evolved Design Competitor Unveiled
It could carry two helicopters, 64 VLS, had a growth margin out to 8000 tons ... it sounds perfect for SEA 5000
RAN Future Frigate Updates, disscusion and News
- Thread starter Hazdog
- Start date
- Status
Gibbs & Cox’s AWD Evolved Design Competitor Unveiled
It could carry two helicopters, 64 VLS, had a growth margin out to 8000 tons ... it sounds perfect for SEA 5000
And a complete paper design with many unknowns including IP. The F105 base has issues but is more of a known quantity than the Baby Burke was still had considerable design work to be done.
If we were going to evolve a Burke design it should have been a tweak of the Batch II.
However ..... it is a moot point.
4th AWD would have made sense for fleet, training, production etc.
However, given how the replacement frigates are going to look its not a major issue anymore. The future frigates will be quite capable. Given the renewal that is going to be part of the redesign its probably better than building more AWD's.
There is no crew for extra ships. If Australia wants more capability it has to go looking for bigger and more capable units.
I think the F-105 base will win out. 70%+ commonality is hard to beat from a production and operation perspective. The other options are still in the running but that is the benchmark to beat.I don't see the other options being that compelling over that benchmark. If we had more time the AWD would have had two helos and some of the other features too.
Australia will have one of the finest fleets for a regional power afloat. Australia will have a submarine fleet of Barracuda's, twice the size of Frances. Australia will have more 7,000t+ frigates than the UK and Australia's will be much more capable (in any F105 or Type 45 or FREM).
But we have no time. If we were going to be building overseas it would have been in Spain. Which would be absolutely desperate for the work.
However, given how the replacement frigates are going to look its not a major issue anymore. The future frigates will be quite capable. Given the renewal that is going to be part of the redesign its probably better than building more AWD's.
There is no crew for extra ships. If Australia wants more capability it has to go looking for bigger and more capable units.
I think the F-105 base will win out. 70%+ commonality is hard to beat from a production and operation perspective. The other options are still in the running but that is the benchmark to beat.I don't see the other options being that compelling over that benchmark. If we had more time the AWD would have had two helos and some of the other features too.
Australia will have one of the finest fleets for a regional power afloat. Australia will have a submarine fleet of Barracuda's, twice the size of Frances. Australia will have more 7,000t+ frigates than the UK and Australia's will be much more capable (in any F105 or Type 45 or FREM).
But we have no time. If we were going to be building overseas it would have been in Spain. Which would be absolutely desperate for the work.
t68
Well-Known Member
Putting aside money and manning issues, saying that the shipyards could not handle the work is just bs. The Saudi’s looked into buying the DDG's for themselves
and we're given a price and availability estimate, just like for the Saudis it would then have been up to the Commonwealth if the projected timeline was acceptable.
After all the USN would have need OHP in a timley manner back when building kicked off in the late 70's they also had an interruption in build schedule to accomadate the RAN
Capt. Cate Mueller, spokesperson for the U.S. Navy’s acquisition office, confirmed that the “non-binding price and availability (P&A) rough order of magnitude estimate was delivered in May” (2011)to the Saudis.
t68
Well-Known Member
It's hindsight everyone knows its easier to look back at "Woulda, coulda, shoulda"
I bet if we had Dr Emmett Browns Deloran everything would be Rosie now!!
You apparently know more about the USN shipbuilding capability than Secretary Mabus.
I suggest you watch the interview with him posted on the USN thread and then reassess your position. BIW and HI are both at capacity and will be for some time into the future, they are the only 2 yards building ABs.
You can't switch on, add on or stop programmes of this magnitude without consequence.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
Hey Hairyman,
I agree with you on the basis that the "Flight 2" AWD's were built flowing on from the current AWD's, this would allow the contractors to have the work set up and ready for the future frigate in case of a delay. Allowing a fall back option for the future frigates, and if all went smoothly the future frigates could be built right behind the (at the time) almost finished "flight 2" AWD's. This would also give the LHD's a screen of 2 AWD's at a time with a backup of one at base on a work up. And with the manpower issue brought up, the navy actually does not lack manpower, (as per a naval officer) it lacks the operation ships to conduct operations. (I understand the overlay from a lack of submariners to "skimmers" that may have been confused). The "flight 2" AWD's would be common with the current AWD's but with an upgraded flight deck and dual hangers that would allow a VLS to be stationed in the middle of the hangers e.g on the Burke class. These ships would have to be widened (I understand that may be hard to envision) another improvement may be an extra CWIS and fire control radars due to the lack of a back up fire control radar. All the arguments that are listed are valid indeed but it boils down to the navy may still order one more AWD (or two if we are really really lucky) which would allow our LHD's to go into combat zones more easily. And before it is said there would be many issues in finding a way to produce the "flight 2" AWD and I understand that but we are talking about a capability that is well needed.
I agree with you on the basis that the "Flight 2" AWD's were built flowing on from the current AWD's, this would allow the contractors to have the work set up and ready for the future frigate in case of a delay. Allowing a fall back option for the future frigates, and if all went smoothly the future frigates could be built right behind the (at the time) almost finished "flight 2" AWD's. This would also give the LHD's a screen of 2 AWD's at a time with a backup of one at base on a work up. And with the manpower issue brought up, the navy actually does not lack manpower, (as per a naval officer) it lacks the operation ships to conduct operations. (I understand the overlay from a lack of submariners to "skimmers" that may have been confused). The "flight 2" AWD's would be common with the current AWD's but with an upgraded flight deck and dual hangers that would allow a VLS to be stationed in the middle of the hangers e.g on the Burke class. These ships would have to be widened (I understand that may be hard to envision) another improvement may be an extra CWIS and fire control radars due to the lack of a back up fire control radar. All the arguments that are listed are valid indeed but it boils down to the navy may still order one more AWD (or two if we are really really lucky) which would allow our LHD's to go into combat zones more easily. And before it is said there would be many issues in finding a way to produce the "flight 2" AWD and I understand that but we are talking about a capability that is well needed.
Look at the fleet of the 70s, a dozen escorts and a carrier, no amphibs to speak of other than an old carrier converted to a troop ship (not even an LPH) and only six subs. Since the 80s it has been about a dozen escorts, no carrier, a couple of amphibious roled logistics / command ships and six submarines. The numbers of guided missile ships increased as a proportion of the skimmer fleet but otherwise not much changed despite many plans by successive governments and some very attractive offers by other governments and industry.
Now the skimmer fleet is pretty much the same except the mix will be three destroyers and nine frigates, not the more usual 50/50 mix, there are three large, and for the first time truly capable, amphibs, the biggest change is the doubling of the submarine fleet. Instead of a third of the combat fleet subs are now half that is a massive structural and cultural change that will hopefully generate a critical mass of qualified sailors sufficient to maintain the capability.
While extra AWDs would have been nice we missed the boat primarily because of the GFC. The time to have ordered them was during the preceding several years when expected revenue was exceeded by almost half a trillion dollars, we had the money and the trained personnel. The issue then however was procurements were being made based on two main things, the 2000 Defence White Paper and the Global War on Terror, increasing numbers of surface combatants just didn't show on the radar.
In fact, but for Timor and its influence on the DWP, there may not have been an AWD at all with ESSM being seen by the political classes as perfectly good enough for the RANs needs considering all six FFGs were to be upgraded and life extended with SM-2. The RAN wanted three Flight IIA ABs to replace the DDGs as they retired, not an issue really as the crew sizes were comparable, but the decision was delayed until AEGIS was finally justified in the DWP and then it became about (sadly) pork barrelling. They could have been easily built by Tenix at Williamstown, work starting even before the final Anzacs were completed for delivery in the mid 2000s, when the DDGs could easily have been extended to. The issue was the RAN was not a priority, their engineering capability had been further gutted and the DDGs had to go before their replacements had been decided for manning reasons.
Realistically, though many sea minded people were saying the RAN needed timely replacements for the DDGs, the simple fact is the government of the day (and the electorate) was more concerned about finances (cost cutting). Though many sea minded people saw the need for the long promised increase in hull numbers it wasn't on the governments radar, a warship was a warship so the Navy could retire the DDGs as there were plenty of new ships being built in Williamstown. It was good because these new ships had much smaller crews and with ANZAC WIP plus six FFGUP's would be more capable than the retiring DDGs (a bit like F/A-18 HUG, new tankers and JSOW replacing the F-111, looked good on paper but didn't pan out).
So basically prior to the GFC there was no perceived need for additional, or more capable AWDs, and following it there wasn't the money.
Now the skimmer fleet is pretty much the same except the mix will be three destroyers and nine frigates, not the more usual 50/50 mix, there are three large, and for the first time truly capable, amphibs, the biggest change is the doubling of the submarine fleet. Instead of a third of the combat fleet subs are now half that is a massive structural and cultural change that will hopefully generate a critical mass of qualified sailors sufficient to maintain the capability.
While extra AWDs would have been nice we missed the boat primarily because of the GFC. The time to have ordered them was during the preceding several years when expected revenue was exceeded by almost half a trillion dollars, we had the money and the trained personnel. The issue then however was procurements were being made based on two main things, the 2000 Defence White Paper and the Global War on Terror, increasing numbers of surface combatants just didn't show on the radar.
In fact, but for Timor and its influence on the DWP, there may not have been an AWD at all with ESSM being seen by the political classes as perfectly good enough for the RANs needs considering all six FFGs were to be upgraded and life extended with SM-2. The RAN wanted three Flight IIA ABs to replace the DDGs as they retired, not an issue really as the crew sizes were comparable, but the decision was delayed until AEGIS was finally justified in the DWP and then it became about (sadly) pork barrelling. They could have been easily built by Tenix at Williamstown, work starting even before the final Anzacs were completed for delivery in the mid 2000s, when the DDGs could easily have been extended to. The issue was the RAN was not a priority, their engineering capability had been further gutted and the DDGs had to go before their replacements had been decided for manning reasons.
Realistically, though many sea minded people were saying the RAN needed timely replacements for the DDGs, the simple fact is the government of the day (and the electorate) was more concerned about finances (cost cutting). Though many sea minded people saw the need for the long promised increase in hull numbers it wasn't on the governments radar, a warship was a warship so the Navy could retire the DDGs as there were plenty of new ships being built in Williamstown. It was good because these new ships had much smaller crews and with ANZAC WIP plus six FFGUP's would be more capable than the retiring DDGs (a bit like F/A-18 HUG, new tankers and JSOW replacing the F-111, looked good on paper but didn't pan out).
So basically prior to the GFC there was no perceived need for additional, or more capable AWDs, and following it there wasn't the money.
t68
Well-Known Member
Nope just comparing timelines for which the AWD project kicked off with Sea 1400 witch was redesignated Sea 4000 in the mid 2000's, it was only around 2005 the Commonwealth decided on having a compation between both designs, in hindsight if the Commonwealth had selected the DDG-51's I estimate we would have approached the US around 2005 if not earlier for a price and availability estimate, at which time it the DDG program was originally slated to start running down in anticipation of the Zumwalts. And it was only around 2008 that the US started a rethink on production on the DDG -51 program after the Zumwalts was limited to a couple is ships, which then began in earnest around 2009 at which time Secretary Mabus was appointed, so in hindsight the Commonwealth would have signed contracts around 2005/6 a few years before the DDG restart program, and before Secratary Mabus time.
I'm lead to believe that the USN planed restart the DDG 51-line from about 2010 which is comparable to when the Hobarts were supposed to hit the water.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
All this talk of what has/could/would/should have happened is great but it is not the point of the argument that we could be having. Now let's talk about how the navy could adopt the lacking capabilities with the future procurement of the Anzac class replacement.
If anyone has the answers to my question's please respond.
Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?
Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Finally which would be the best fit for the role?
If anyone has the answers to my question's please respond.
Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?
Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Finally which would be the best fit for the role?
The FREMM will have an air defence variant (FREDA) with the French navy. I don't know the details but it might simply be adapting the systems from the Horizon class.All this talk of what has/could/would/should have happened is great but it is not the point of the argument that we could be having. Now let's talk about how the navy could adopt the lacking capabilities with the future procurement of the Anzac class replacement.
If anyone has the answers to my question's please respond.
Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?
Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Finally which would be the best fit for the role?
My understanding is that CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT doesn't have the range to take full advantage of the capabilities offered by the SM2 family of missiles ... but it will be able to track and attack multiple targets with ESSM.
Impressive ... but not a replacement for the capability offered by the AWD. The main role of the new frigate will be ASW which means that this level of air defence will be more than adequate.
the road runner
Active Member
Most Destroyers in the Worlds Premier Navy's are pushing the 10,000 ton and over mark.Look at Japans Atagos, Republic of Koreas Sejong The Great Class and the Americans with their Burke's.
I recall a few members stating the Hobarts bridge and control rooms are pretty tight and more room is desired for all that planning of missions and related equipment and sailors needed to operate as a true AWD.
We skimped out on the Hobarts but they are a great ship for sure
My pick would have been a Flight IIA Burke for a true AWD.
Australia should just evolve the Hobarts for our future needs
Only a dedicated AWD would replace another AWD ,you would not want an ASW FREMM frigate acting as a AWD.
I could be wrong...but that' the way i see it.
I see that the Italian ASW version of the FREMM will be coming down under and hanging out with the RAN
Italian FREMM sails for Asia-Pacific deployment | IHS Jane's 360
Cheers
I recall a few members stating the Hobarts bridge and control rooms are pretty tight and more room is desired for all that planning of missions and related equipment and sailors needed to operate as a true AWD.
We skimped out on the Hobarts but they are a great ship for sure
My pick would have been a Flight IIA Burke for a true AWD.
Australia should just evolve the Hobarts for our future needs
Only a dedicated AWD would replace another AWD ,you would not want an ASW FREMM frigate acting as a AWD.
I could be wrong...but that' the way i see it.
I see that the Italian ASW version of the FREMM will be coming down under and hanging out with the RAN
Italian FREMM sails for Asia-Pacific deployment | IHS Jane's 360
Cheers
My understanding is that CEAFAR is developing the capability to support SM-2 and SM-6 and it is more of a scaleability issue than any particular issue with the product's technical specs.
It is currently only in-service supporting ESSM equipped ships. When it is proposed to support SM-2/6 equipped vessels, I imagine it will be appropriately capable of doing so.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
I understand that you would not like the navy to be using an ASuW ship for AW purposes but in case of an attack that rendered the AWD in the 'task group' unusable, would they be able to use any of the proposed Future Frigates for this backup role?
Hauritz how much 'room' does the FREMM proposed have for future upgrades i.e. tonnage?
The idea that something can only be replaced one for one will hopefully be brought for with the new Future Frigates i.e. not leaving any capabilities behind.
With the upgrade of the Anzacs can they also provide cover for the LHD's?
(Before someone gives me websites links or anything to take a look at, I have spent multiple hours looking for information that would inform me of any other capabilities that our navy would have/has)
Hauritz how much 'room' does the FREMM proposed have for future upgrades i.e. tonnage?
The idea that something can only be replaced one for one will hopefully be brought for with the new Future Frigates i.e. not leaving any capabilities behind.
With the upgrade of the Anzacs can they also provide cover for the LHD's?
(Before someone gives me websites links or anything to take a look at, I have spent multiple hours looking for information that would inform me of any other capabilities that our navy would have/has
)
Last edited:
Certainly part of the the development is the inclusion of a volume search radar in the CEA suite. This is programmed to be fitted to the ANZAC to replace the 49, so it should be mature for the future frigate.
CEA have always stressed the system is scalable and the intention in numerous iterations of the white paper is for the future frigate to be SM6 capable.
The other option is a CEC capability would allow the future frigate to carry SM2 amd SM6 that may be employed by the AWD.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The question of which one of the three Future Frigate contenders could act as a 'substitute or back up' for the AWD's, and which one would be the 'best fit' to fill that role, is pretty much a moot point.Could an evolved Hobart class (the proposed design) fill an Air warfare destroyers role to the same capability?
Could the Global Combat Ship for fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Could the proposed FREMM frigate fill the role of an Air Warfare Destroyer?
Finally which would be the best fit for the role?
As it appears, regardless which one of the three contenders chosen, they will likely have the same CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT systems, and possibly the same overall sensor package, regardless of which hull design chosen.
A better question would probably be to ask what will that sensor package deliver for the selected ship design?
As it appears at the moment CEAFAR (on the Anzac class) works fine with the shorter range ESSM weapon, but as ADMk2 mentioned, CEAFAR is 'scaleable', CEA on their website refer to it as being "scalable in size and power to meet a broad range of applications, suitable from 'Corvettes to Cruisers' ".
And as ADMk2 also said, it appears that CEAFAR is developing the capability to support SM-2 and SM-6.
So that really is the answer to the question, what level of capability will CEAFAR and the other sensors provide to the Future Frigates?
If it is no more capable that installed in the Anzac class, then ESSM is probably where it's at, but if it includes that SM-2/-6 capability, then they will have a capability 'closer' to the AWD's.
So that is one half of the question, the other half is how does the Government intend to 'equip' the ships when it comes to weapons load and mix? That I wouldn't have a clue.
Bottom line will be, 'if' the sensors are there to support (and get the best out of), either SM-2/-6, then yes a more longer range AAW capability is certainly possible for the Future Frigates.
And again, if not, the Future Frigates AAW capability will probably not be much better than the ESSM equipped Anzacs.
As it stands at the moment, the RAN will have two distinct types of large surface combatants, both with a different primary focus, the AWD's with a primary AAW capability (but also an ASuW and ASW capability), the Future Frigates, a primary ASW capability (but also an ASuW capability and an AAW capability of sorts, what that is who knows??).
The CEAFAR looks to be very promising.
It looks to be mounted much higher than the main Radar on the the AWD's.
http://www.infodefensa.com/archivo/images/151014_fragata-Australia_Navantia.jpg
It will overcome the F-105 weakness of only two directors with significant blind spots, with greater redundancy and able to target more missiles more effectively.
I would imagine the Future frigate will carry a load of SM-2, ESSM, LRAM. With 48 VLS we should fill them with something.
I would imagine the AWD will stick to SM-2, SM-6, ESSM with perhaps SM-3 in its future.
It looks to be mounted much higher than the main Radar on the the AWD's.
http://www.infodefensa.com/archivo/images/151014_fragata-Australia_Navantia.jpg
It will overcome the F-105 weakness of only two directors with significant blind spots, with greater redundancy and able to target more missiles more effectively.
I would imagine the Future frigate will carry a load of SM-2, ESSM, LRAM. With 48 VLS we should fill them with something.
I would imagine the AWD will stick to SM-2, SM-6, ESSM with perhaps SM-3 in its future.
When I recently touted an extra two destroyers, I was, and still am, mainly concerned with our surface ships number. We now have three amphibious ships, we are planning to have twelve submarines, but only 12 skimmers (11 until recently).
I am not knocking the need for twelve submarines, but is there any other navy that has as many submarines as surface fighting ships? And we shoud be increasing our fleet size, not reducing it.
Who knows, if Trump continues once president as he has inicated to date, he may also expects us to do more in our own defence.:flaming
I am not knocking the need for twelve submarines, but is there any other navy that has as many submarines as surface fighting ships? And we shoud be increasing our fleet size, not reducing it.
Who knows, if Trump continues once president as he has inicated to date, he may also expects us to do more in our own defence.:flaming
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
I apologise for my far fetched post earlier.
But I believe as Hairyman is 'worried' about the number of surface combatants, a very real and founded thought. but i believe that the future OPV's will help in easing his thoughts, because these OPV's will have a displacement of 2000+ tonnes which is over half the displacement of the Anzac's. The OPV's would be extremely useful in border operations and could act in many other ways which could be very useful and free up the 12 major surface combatants for more important operations.
But I believe as Hairyman is 'worried' about the number of surface combatants, a very real and founded thought. but i believe that the future OPV's will help in easing his thoughts, because these OPV's will have a displacement of 2000+ tonnes which is over half the displacement of the Anzac's. The OPV's would be extremely useful in border operations and could act in many other ways which could be very useful and free up the 12 major surface combatants for more important operations.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
If Trump does have expectations of 'more' out of various nations regarding their level of defence spending, a lot of other nations will probably be in the spotlight long before Australia, we are getting very close to 2% of GDP, others are still a lot closer to 1%.
All things considered, we are pretty fortunate as a nation to be getting closer to that 2% mark, while as I said so many other are not.
Anyway......
It almost sounds like you are saying that having a submarine fleet as large as the major surface combatant fleet is 'bad' thing, how? I don't get that? (It's not so much that the surface fleet is reducing significantly, it is the submarine fleet that is being significantly increased in size and capability).
Eventually having twelve 'large' capable submarines in our fleet is going to put a lot more pressure on 'the other guy' to spend valuable resources in an effort to counter such a large capable submarine fleet, works to our advantage in my opinion, regardless of the size of our surface fleet.
Getting back to the RAN's Destroyer/Frigate fleet, we are going to move from a fleet of (currently 11), 3 x 4100t and 8 x 3600t ships to an eventual (as currently planned) fleet of 12 x 6-7000t ships, with what appears to be greater capabilities than the ships being replaced.
As for the overall numbers of our major surface combatant fleet (if you compare our plans against so many other Western nations), our fleet is pretty well 'maintaining' the same numbers, most of those other Western nations have significantly reduced the number of those type of hulls in commission, the UK is a good example, and there are others too.
Again, not saying that 'more' isn't good, but how exactly is the Government going to pay for the type of increase you are suggesting? How is it going to produce those two extra hulls? I'd like to know how you propose it happens.
For the sake of the discussion, lets say that May next year (Budget time), the Government announces that the Future Frigate fleet will increase from 9 ships to 11 ships.
Let me know how you think that can be achieved? (Budget, timeframe, build location, build schedule, etc).
Cheers,
- Status