Having the larger AB version Destroyer to the fleet, with larger capacity for weapons load isnt in my opinion a perogative for chosing the system above the F100 which has many of the design aspects of the AB. Its common wisdom to get the biggest bang for your buck without compromising the operational effectiveness of the Destroyer and i believe this is where the Australian government is going.
The F100 design and systems is fully interoperable with the US and European navies. You might be surprised to know that several successful Spanish-US Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials have taken place, including one involving the F-100 Almirante Juan de Borbon and the USS Pinkney, the Arleigh Burke destroyer that visited Sydney early last year in support of the G&B AWD bid.
I have cut and pasted a clip that puts light on the F100 design as the best option, and i do see the reason and common sense in the direction its going right now.
Project Sea 6000 had a capped in Defence Capability Plan at $6 billion, but likely costs are now believed to be above $7 billion, with the F100 reportedly more than $500 million[DE2] cheaper than its US competitor.
While the evolved Arleigh Burke is bigger (8,250 tons v 5,900), has a longer range (5,500 nautical miles at 18 knots v 4,500 nm at the same speed), deploys more missile launch cells (64 v 48), and carries two helicopters rather than one, at this time it remains a paper ship. Gibbs and Cox declined to confirm or deny reports that its first vessel would be delivered two years later than its Spanish competitor, although a company source intriguingly said any delivery schedule would be based on what design was selected, rather than the 2013, 2014 and 2015 dates set out in the Defence Capability Plan.
By comparison, the first of the five F-100 Alvaro de Bazan class frigates ordered by the Spanish Navy entered service in September 2002 and the fourth was commissioned in March 2006. The fifth ship, an F-100 Flight 2 incorporating lessons learnt from Flight 1 operation, was ordered in July 2006 and will be delivered early in 2012. Advanced discussions are now underway between Navantia and the Spanish government for a second F-100 Flight 2, provisionally designated F-106.
Ironically, Gibbs and Cox supported Izar (which in 2005 was restructured to form the state-owned Navantia) in the design of the F-310 Nansen class Norwegian anti-submarine frigate program. All five of the Aegis-equipped F-310s, about 15 per cent smaller than the F-100, are being built by Navantia at its Ferrol facility and are seen by the Spanish shipyard as a vital reference program for the Australian AWD competition.
The F-100 was the first European ship equipped with the Aegis weapon system and Navantia executives say the class has been proved to be fully interoperable with the US Navy and NATO.
Several successful Spanish-US Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials have taken place, including one involving the F-100 Almirante Juan de Borbon and the USS Pinkney, the Arleigh Burke destroyer that visited Sydney early last year in support of the Gibbs and Cox AWD bid.
The F-100 has also participated in a number of missile firing tests and naval surface fire support trials on USN ranges, and in 2005 was the first Aegis-equipped foreign ship to achieve full integration and be deployed with a US carrier battle group.
Navantia says only minor changes to the well-proven F-100 design have been requested by the DMO Project Office, ensuring defined and controlled cost. The original design includes a margin of 10 per cent for future growth.
Under the terms of the AWD competition, Navantia can not include in its design the improvements being made to the Flight 2 ship, which include a retractable bow thruster, and an increase to 6000 kW in the power of its two diesel engines. However, since these upgrades have already been designed and costed, they could easily be incorporated post-selection.
All technical documentation has been completed and is available in English, and with four ships now at sea, a comprehensive integrated logistics system has been developed and is in place.
Navantia's experience as designer, builder and integrator of naval vessels ranging from fast patrol craft to the F-100, LHDs, aircraft carriers and submarines ensures, the shipyard says, a very specific and detailed transfer of technology to ASC for F-100 construction.
With the three Australian AWDs scheduled for completion in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the build program aligns well with completion of the fifth Spanish F-100 and would allow one-to-one training on the job in Spain for ASC staff with critical installation responsibilities. Any Navantia staff required in Australia would have had very recent experience with the corresponding Spanish program.
Navantia regards its experience in modular, integrated construction as a major factor in cost-efficiency and risk abatement. The ship is developed as a series of intermediate products, design and construction are oriented towards zones and stages, and most activities are shifted from the slipway and afloat to workshops.
With traditional techniques, 39 per cent of the ship would be completed at launch. Using modular construction, some 78 per cent of the ship is completed at launch including 97 per cent of ducting outfitting, 93 per cent of piping, and 92 per cent of the engine rooms.
Navantia points out its skills in progressing a complex, multi-country project are on show in the Nansen class program. While Navantia is the main contractor, the ships' contract is with the Royal Norwegian Navy, quality assurance is being overseen by the Spanish Navy, an industrial cooperation agreement is handled by the Norwegian Department of Defence, the Norwegian shipbuilders BMV/Kleven Floro are constructing forward modules, Kongsberg is supplying long-range Naval Strike Missiles as part of the Integrated Weapons System (IWS), while the US Navy deals with IWS software and Lockheed Martin is the IWS integrator.
An additional strength is the experience of FABA, Navantia's in-house combat system division, in the vital area of integrating AEGIS with other F-100 systems and equipment.
FABA also produces the DORNA radar/electro-optic fire control system for the F-100's 5-inch Mk 45 Mod 2 gun. The same system has been selected by Lockheed Martin to equip its variant of the US Littoral Combat Ship.
A further benefit for the F-100 is FABA's integrated platform control system, thought to be a world leader. This links propulsion and auxiliary propulsion, electrical plant, damage control and ballast control via an optic fibre closed ring to a central operations room with 17 operator consoles, and includes interfaces to the navigation and symptom maintenance systems.
While the F-100 is smaller than its competitor, the reverse is the case in the LHD competition pitting Navantia's 27,000 ton BPE against the 21,600 ton Mistral. If selected, the BPE would be the RAN's largest-ever ship, with an overall length of nearly 231 metres, a 32 metre beam, and weighing about a third more than the aircraft carrier Melbourne.
Under Phase 4A/B of JP2048, both LHDs are scheduled for in-service delivery between 2012-2014, replacing the heavy landing ship HMAS Tobruk and one of the RAN's two amphibious transports (LPA). Estimated expenditure ranges from $1.5 to $$2 billion, with the higher figure the more likely.
The first BPE, on order for the Spanish Navy, will be launched in December and commissioned in December 2008. It will provide a total of 1,158 lane metres on upper (light load) and lower (heavy load) garage decks in addition to the large troop assembly areas on each deck, and the upper deck hangar. The 69.3 metre floodable stern dock can handle four LCM-1E medium landing craft and four Supercat, or one LCAC (landing craft air cushioned) and 2 LCM-1E, all operating in conditions up to and including Sea State 4.
Maximum sustained speed at full load is 19 knots, with a range of 9,000 nautical miles at 15 knots. Propulsion is provided by a single 20MW GE LM-2500 gas turbine and two 7.7 MW diesel engines driving two external electric propulsion pods
The BPE in Spanish service is intended for four separate but not simultaneous missions: Amphibious operations carrying an embarked force of 1,200 and logistic support for up to 35 days; transporting troops, Leopard main battle tanks and helicopters up to Chinook size; providing an alternative platform to the Spanish aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias for up to 30 helicopters and vertical/short takeoff and landing aircraft; and disaster relief.
In Australian service each ship will be required to transport and deploy up to 1,000 troops, have six helicopter landing spots for medium and armed reconnaissance helicopters, and hangar space for 12. Each ship must also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles, including the Abrams M1A1 main battle tank, and embark four medium landing craft, each one capable of carrying an Abrams.
Studies undertaken by Navantia at the request of the RAN have confirmed that its LCM -1E can transport a 67.5 ton Abrams after some modifications, including placing the engine exhausts higher in the hull to allow for the extra weight, and adjusting the centre of gravity. Normal range of 190 nautical miles at a cruising speed of 18 knots would be reduced to 160 nm at a top speed of 12 knots.
The studies followed Navantia's response in July last year to a Request for Information from the DMO for JP 2048 Phase 3, which is intended to provide a new breed of amphibious watercraft to integrate with the LHDs. Twelve LCM-1Es have been ordered by the Spanish Navy for deployment on its two Navantia-built Galicia-class LPDs (Landing Platform Dock) and the BPE currently under construction, and five have been delivered.
A joint Australian army and navy team recently inspected the LCM-1E during exercises at the Spanish Navy's Rota base with a Galicia class LPD.
Navantia has been performing various LHD design studies under DMO contracts since October 2004, resulting in a specification for an Australianised BPE that envisages only minor changes to the existing vessel. These include increasing the number of embarked personnel in each cabin and moving from ensuite to shared amenities, although facilities for the 243-strong crew would largely be unchanged.
The BPE's design criteria and survivability are based on a combination of military and commercial standards and specifications. Structure, equipment and materials are to Lloyds Register commercial standards, and the ship meets US Navy stability/buoyancy criteria of 100 kt wind and 15 per cent length ship flooded.
Damage control is structured according to USN and Spanish Navy standards and includes six vertical fire zones, mutually protected by fireproof doors and material on bulkheads, and six vertical ventilation zones with separate ventilation, airconditioning and NBC filtering capability.
The ship also features the same advanced FABA integrated platform control system as the F100.
Command and control fitout includes 3D surveillance radar with IFF, aircraft approach, surface search and helicopter control radars, an Ethernet/LAN C2 network, numerous multifunction consoles, and data links 11, 16 and 22.
According to Navantia executives, should Australia opt for the BPE the port side aircraft ski jump would be retained, allowing cross-decking with allies operating aircraft such as the Harrier or the STOVL F-35. Removing the ski jump would cost more than retaining it, and replacing it at a later stage would not be feasible.
Speaking in 2005, then Defence Minister Robert Hill emphasised the government's preference for the ships to be built in Australia, but made it clear this would have to be done at a competitive price.
Given concerns about the availability of skilled staff due to the overlapping demands of the AWD program, one of several options advanced by Tenix is believed to involve building the hull in Spain and the superstructure in Australia. This would harness the proven capability of both shipyards in naval programs while providing a probable cost advantage.
A Tenix spokesman confirmed to ADM that the construction workload "would be balanced between Australia and Spain" to minimise schedule risk and ensure that Australian companies played a significant role in the ships' construction, maintenance and support.
Cheers Mate.
Hi Markus. The 48 VLS cells in the F100 may be plenty for the first decade of its service but in ten to fifteen years time the RAN could find itself in a position where it wants extra VLS cells in order to accommodate missiles like the SM-3 or even land attack cruise missiles. The F100 appears unlikely to be able to be upgraded in this way so the number of SM-2s, SM-6s and ESSMs carried would have to be reduced. The deep regret would come if the ADF discovers that it is unable to use the new ships to cover future needs that may arise, such as ballistic missile defence.
If, as StingrayOZ has said, the payoff for selecting the F100 is four rather than three ships (with an Anzac paying off if necessary to provide the crew) I would look more favourably on such a selection. Except in helo numbers they would go close to offering the same capability in baseline form but would still come up short on total VLS capacity (4x48=182) compared with an upgraded G&C (3x80=240). An area we are still uncertain of is exactly what upgrades, if any, are included in the Australian F100 proposal. No doubt the navy will have been looking very closely at what additional capabilities will be able to be worked into the F100 design.
Basically I am thinking along similar lines to StingrayOZ. That is we should get 3 G&Cs or 4 F100s.
Cheers
