Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Aussie Digger]

​

CANBERRA --- As long predicted by Forecast International, the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer will be selected as the winning design for Australia's AUD7 billion Air Warfare Destroyer. The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia. In doing so they emphatically rejected the case for a larger alternative based on the U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

The key considerations behind the decision were that the F100 build was more than AUD1billion less expensive than the U.S. option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships. The tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favor of the Spanish on all the key criteria.

Although supporters of the Gibbs and Cox-designed DDG-51 derivative promoted the greater weapons carrying capacity of their design, including 64 rather than 48 vertical launch tubes and two rather than one helicopters, the advantages of the F100 were so strong that a debate between supporters of the two designs was a complete wipeout according to one senior Australian defense source.

The financial benefits resulting from the selection of the F100 are so great that they will go a long way towards funding (some estimates are that they will almost completely accommodate) a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. The Australian Cabinet's National Security Committee will consider an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.

Common wisdom has often suggested that the Navantia bid was simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer. According to this interpretation, Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs. Forecast International has never agreed with this perception since the information we were receiving from Australia from the start of the project was consistently that the F100 was the preferred candidate and that the Gibbs and Cox design was a back-up in case the F100 class hit serious problems on its trials. This did not happen, the Alvaro de Bazan proved to be a great success and this eliminated the DDG-51 derivatives last hope of winning this contract.

It may well be that the appointment of Gibbs and Cox as preferred designer in 2005 was not a sign of preference for their design but the group's last chance to make its case.

A key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder. Australia's experiences with new and untried designs has been disappointing with the Collins Class submarines a stark example of everything that can go wrong. The F100 is not the final winner in this competition yet, but the chances of the National Security Committee's decision being overturned are not high.

The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.

The AUD7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defense project in the coming decade, after the AUD14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

-ends-

(Source: Forecast International; issued April 26, 2007)

Heres some news

Some news but's it's not factually correct. The National Security Committee is Governments decision making committee for defence matters, amongst "other" things. It is chaired by the PM and includes Defmin, Treasurer, Finance Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Attorney General and others.

The DCIC recommendation is HARDLY binding on Government.

The idea that a 4th AWD will be bought is also dubious in the extreme. The main reason being that it will be tied up in the docks or left in a slipway after it's built for however long it takes us to FIND someone to man it.

I'm all for a 4th AWD don't get me wrong, but I don't want one until RAN's recruiting and attrition problems are sorted. I'd rather that $1b went on warfighting improvements to the ANZAC's at present, than a 4th AWD to be perfectly honest...

An extra 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for a total of 64x ESSM, a 35mm millenium gun per vessel, an upgrade for the Mk 45 gun to Mod 4 standard, plus 127mm - ER munitions would make it them very sweet ships indeed and we''d have 8 of them...

 

[Jezza]

I thought the baby burkes where the flavour of the month.

So we will see what (LORD) Nelson wants to buy

 

[Aussie Digger]

I thought the baby burkes where the flavour of the month.

So we will see what (LORD) Nelson wants to buy

True. I doubt VERY much whether DCIC has really evaluated these decisions on their impacts on the community, ie: potential votes for politicans.

This is the second biggest Defence Contract going at the moment. Defence have made no secret that they'd prefer these (and the LHD's) built overseas as quickly as can be done and as capable as possible.

I'm sure the politicians will have a different appreciation of things though... $1b and an extra year in build time, would probably be worthwhile if it helped with a re-election...

 

[Tasman]

An extra 8 cell Mk 41 VLS for a total of 64x ESSM, a 35mm millenium gun per vessel, an upgrade for the Mk 45 gun to Mod 4 standard, plus 127mm - ER munitions would make it them very sweet ships indeed and we''d have 8 of them...

If the F100 is selected as our new air warfare frigate the addition of the extra 8 cell VLS for each of the Anzacs will be necessary to make up for the 64 cell deficit in the fleet that will result from choosing this design over the G&C!

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Curious. Does anyone know if the Navantia proposal for the AWD has 48 or 64 cells? Is it the exact same design as the F100 that is being offered?

 

[Tasman]

Curious. Does anyone know if the Navantia proposal for the AWD has 48 or 64 cells? Is it the exact same design as the F100 that is being offered?

That is the 64 cell question! :lol3

I had been under the impression that an Australianised F100 would have 64 cells as I thought this was a core requirement of the AWD program (with the G&C having potential for 80). Obviously a 50% increase in cells would have substantially increased its flexibility and would have justified the ship being described as a destroyer rather than a frigate (as it is presently described by the Spanish Navy).

News reports, like the Forecast International report quoted by Jezza in Post 280, however, suggest that the F100 design will be recommended "despite the greater weapons carrying capacity" of G&C design, "including 64 rather than 48 vertical launch tubes and two rather than one helicopters." The impression I now have is that the F100 will be recommended 'off the shelf' with few modifications other, obviously, than systems, sensors and equipment compatible with other modern RAN units. I hope I am wrong and that a way can be found for the extra 16 cells which would still just bring the F100's weapon capacity up to the baseline G&C design.

The other concern is the loss of the second helo, as this will actually be a reduction when compared with the capacity of the FFGs which they are replacing. If 3 F100s replace 4 FFGs they will carry 3 helos compared with 8 that can be embarked in the FFGs. This is a significant loss and would probably cause the RAN to be have to embark a couple of Seahawks on each of the LHDs, at the expense of trooplift or armed recce helos.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

That is the 64 cell question! :lol3

Hehe. :

If 64 cells are part of the baseline req, then I would expect that the F100 version would have that. Having only 48 cells works well for "Euro" frigates, but with Australias maritime geography in mind, the Aussie ships will have to have more built-in flexibility per individual unit.

That the Navantia version only carrying 1 helo seems to be a great loss. Not only in the ASW aspect, but also as highlighted recently in the Gulf, it is a scarce resource whatever the mission is. This could be alleviated be supporting units, whereas it seems strike length VLS cells will be an AWD special.

 

[Tasman]

Hehe. :

If 64 cells are part of the baseline req, then I would expect that the F100 version would have that. Having only 48 cells works well for "Euro" frigates, but with Australias maritime geography in mind, the Aussie ships will have to have more built-in flexibility per individual unit.

That the Navantia version only carrying 1 helo seems to be a great loss. Not only in the ASW aspect, but also as highlighted recently in the Gulf, it is a scarce resource whatever the mission is. This could be alleviated be supporting units, whereas it seems strike length VLS cells will be an AWD special.

I agree completely with what you have said. We will have to wait and see re the number of VLS cells. Certainly the navy will be unhappy with the reduced capability 48 cells will offer if this is the outcome.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hehe. :

If 64 cells are part of the baseline req, then I would expect that the F100 version would have that. Having only 48 cells works well for "Euro" frigates, but with Australias maritime geography in mind, the Aussie ships will have to have more built-in flexibility per individual unit.

That the Navantia version only carrying 1 helo seems to be a great loss. Not only in the ASW aspect, but also as highlighted recently in the Gulf, it is a scarce resource whatever the mission is. This could be alleviated be supporting units, whereas it seems strike length VLS cells will be an AWD special.

There were rumours floating around that Navantia submitted a proposal for an "evolved" F-100 that met the 64x VLS cell and 2x Helo hangar requirements.

How that would be less risky and cheaper I don't know, but could well explain the decision if that IS the case...

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I think the F-100 variant is a good choice for Australia. It's cheaper than the Burkes and still has a lot of firepower - 32 SM-2 IIIAs and 64 ESSMs gives a real punch.

The bigger ships aren't required, as Australia doesn't have a carrier group to protect. Even if it did, the F-100 could still do a good job in looking after them.

 

[AegisFC]

I like the F-100 design, it is great for a Frigate, but not for a DDG. I guess the thing that bugs me most about it is that it only has 2 SPG-62 illuminators and it doesn't look like their is enough room to install another one. Having only 2 illuminators for terminal guidance limits you on how many targets you can handle and it provides less redundancy when one of them breaks.

 

[alexsa]

Out of curiosity does any body have a link to the actual base line specs for the AWD.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I like the F-100 design, it is great for a Frigate, but not for a DDG.

Does Australia need a full DDG class? Although there is the possibility of the RAN building the "Canberra-class" amphibious ships, they wouldn't be real aircraft carriers from what I can see. So would they need full destroyers to look after them? I can't see a situation in which the RAN would face a foe by itself, where it required something like the Burkes and the F-100 wouldn't do.

If anything if the Auzzies splashed out on expensive destroyers, they might not have the money to build the Canberras - there are already cost pressures on that project.

 

[Todjaeger]

Does Australia need a full DDG class? Although there is the possibility of the RAN building the "Canberra-class" amphibious ships, they wouldn't be real aircraft carriers from what I can see. So would they need full destroyers to look after them? I can't see a situation in which the RAN would face a foe by itself, where it required something like the Burkes and the F-100 wouldn't do.

If anything if the Auzzies splashed out on expensive destroyers, they might not have the money to build the Canberras - there are already cost pressures on that project.

I could be mistaken, but at present cost pressures don't appear to be the major concern. AFAIK the greatest area of concern is actually being able to maintain sufficient trained personnel to crew the various RAN vessels.

As for the goal of a DDG, I believe that stems from the desire to have as much flexibility available in the platform. In the near term, the F-100 can fit the desired capabilities (aside from possible missle capacity), but in the future if something new becomes available (like the 155mm AGS perhaps) there might not be enough space in an F-100 sized vessel for the addition. Also with regards to missle capacity, in the unlikely event of a conflict in Australia's area of interest, having more missles available aboard ship could become important. AFAIK the Mk-41 VLS cannisters for the SM-series missles are too heavy to allow RAS, they can only be reloaded while the ship is in port. Given far-flung areas of the Pacific, with port potentially being far away, it would be better to have additional missles already aboard for obvious reasons.

-Cheers

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I could be mistaken, but at present cost pressures don't appear to be the major concern. AFAIK the greatest area of concern is actually being able to maintain sufficient trained personnel to crew the various RAN vessels.

But, from what I've read, the F-100 will be cheaper. Given the Canberra-class's costs are set to rise, it might be the safer bet to make economies now so that money can be spent elsewhere.

In the near term, the F-100 can fit the desired capabilities (aside from possible missle capacity), but in the future if something new becomes available (like the 155mm AGS perhaps) there might not be enough space in an F-100 sized vessel for the addition.

Would the RAN need the 155mm AGS? It's nice to have the system, but unless it's really required there's little point in spending more now in the hope you might get it later.

Also with regards to missle capacity, in the unlikely event of a conflict in Australia's area of interest, having more missles available aboard ship could become important.

In what circumstances would the RAN be operating alone against an enemy that had enough fighters/anti-ship missiles to get through 32 SM-2 IIIAs and 64 ESSMs? In any case I thought the American VLS could be re-loaded at sea.

Also, to be fair, it isn't just about being kitted out with missiles - it depends how sophisticated the sensors and fire-control systems are.

 

[AegisFC]

AFAIK the Mk-41 VLS cannisters for the SM-series missles are too heavy to allow RAS, they can only be reloaded while the ship is in port. Given far-flung areas of the Pacific, with port potentially being far away, it would be better to have additional missles already aboard for obvious reasons.

-Cheers

They CAN be reloaded during a RAS but it was apparently a PITA and the USN never really bothered perfecting it.

 

[Spanish]

Well, after reading some of your posts, i give you an spanish opinion :
maybe not 64 cells and not two helicopters, but maybe four ships in instead of three. Less money for ship, but four ships ( that´s why Navantia wins Norwegian contract: five ships, Blohm & Voss offers the same price but only three ships ).
So, four ships are: 48x4 = 192 cells ( same as 64x3 cells )
4 helicopters
8 SPG-62 illuminators ( against 9 )
And, of course, you could have three ships on service and one under repair/maintenance.

But this is only my opinion ( and rumors ). Well, let´s see what happens.

 

[Tasman]

Well, after reading some of your posts, i give you an spanish opinion :
maybe not 64 cells and not two helicopters, but maybe four ships in instead of three. Less money for ship, but four ships ( that´s why Navantia wins Norwegian contract: five ships, Blohm & Voss offers the same price but only three ships ).
So, four ships are: 48x4 = 192 cells ( same as 64x3 cells )
4 helicopters
8 SPG-62 illuminators ( against 9 )
And, of course, you could have three ships on service and one under repair/maintenance.

But this is only my opinion ( and rumors ). Well, let´s see what happens.

Hi Spanish.

What you say makes good sense if the RAN can solve its personnel problems. Hopefully it can and a fourth ship would then provide greater deployment flexibility. The loss of the extra helo and the inability to add additional cells, if the government decides in the future to incorporate SM-3 for anti ballistic missile defence, would be downsides. We also don't really know if the Navantia proposal is for a stretched and upgraded destroyer or a standard F100 frigate. At the moment we are really speculating.

Cheers

 

[icelord]

While a 4th AWD is desired, the ADF and Govt. would rather play the wait and see approach to how much the proposed version costs, and what its blow out will be. they could take the 4th on principle, and cancel it if there is a major cost blow out. Nelson is not keen on purchasing major projects and having them blow up in his face when he gets to leader of the party. Thats why hes also ready to can Seasprite, to avoid a poor performance. bout time really that someone was self centered enough to do such a thing, he realises if the portfolio screws up, so does he.

The problem of a single Helo and 48 Cells may have made Navantia plan an expanded version to offer RAN, which brings in its own problems if they get it wrong.

 

[abramsteve]

If I was to be naive, then I would imagine that only a modified F100 would be considered. In its current form its an upgunned Adelaide with a better radar. Whats the deal with only one Helo?

However Ive been naive before...