Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
OK, so there are hints that the F-100 design can be modified, but can any such modified design be 'allowed' to be considered by the RAN? :confused:


rb
Exactly - it does seem to be outside the 'rules'. However, I hope that the F100 is enlarged as Navantia claim it can do "easily", if it wins the order. I would be prepared to turn a blind eye to the rules if it provides greater capability!

It looks like the decision will go down to the wire. I think it is impossible to pick the winner at this stage.

My preference:

1. Gibbs and Cox Evolved design
2. 'Stretched' F100
3. F100 (baseline)

Cheers
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Exactly - it does seem to be outside the 'rules'. However, I hope that the F100 is enlarged as Navantia claim it can do "easily", if it wins the order. I would be prepared to turn a blind eye to the rules if it provides greater capability!
Do we really know what the "rules" are for the AWD other than it have Aegis, a gun and is made of steel?

I doubt anyone knows at this point, but will the G&C Baby Burke have the Collective Pressurization System (CPS) that the USN Burkes have, or will they leave that off to save some money?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Do we really know what the "rules" are for the AWD other than it have Aegis, a gun and is made of steel?

I doubt anyone knows at this point, but will the G&C Baby Burke have the Collective Pressurization System (CPS) that the USN Burkes have, or will they leave that off to save some money?
The 'Rules' Tas and others were referring to have to do with new contracting procedures put into place for the ADF/DMO. Basically what is supposed to happen whenever a new vehicle/vessel/aircraft etc is to considered for service, an existing stock design as well as whatever custom/Australianized design must be considered. This I think has to do with some of the fallout from the Seasprite debacle as well as delays in the Wedgetail and other project issues. For the whole point of looking at an existing design in service was to attempt to reduce risk of project delays, overruns of outright failure.

As such, the AWD project had the G&C 'Baby Burke' designed and then needs to examine that against an already existing design with Aegis, of which there were only IIRC 4 different classes in service at the time, Ticondergoa, Arleigh Burke, Kongo (sp?) and F-100. The first three I mentioned are apparently larger than the RAN was looking for.

As I see it, the main selling points for the F-100 are the lower cost to purchase three vessels as well as systems integrations etc will be known quantities. By modifying the design by 1,000 tons, I expect that there wouldn't be such a great savings between the modified F-100 and the 'Baby Burke' not to mention the fact that the design would be untested and therefore could have risk issues. On the other hand, it could inspire the RAN to re-open design candidates for existing designs like Japan's Kongo...

-Cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
The 'Rules' Tas and others were referring to have to do with new contracting procedures put into place for the ADF/DMO. Basically what is supposed to happen whenever a new vehicle/vessel/aircraft etc is to considered for service, an existing stock design as well as whatever custom/Australianized design must be considered. This I think has to do with some of the fallout from the Seasprite debacle as well as delays in the Wedgetail and other project issues. For the whole point of looking at an existing design in service was to attempt to reduce risk of project delays, overruns of outright failure.

-Cheers
Correct interpretation of what I was talking about Tod! ;)

As Swerve has said, the report in news.com.au suggests that Federal Cabinet has made the decision in favour of the F100 (and the Spanish BPE for the LHD contract) and will announce it today. If correct, the only question remaining is whether the new destroyer (or is it a frigate?) will be the baseline F100 or an evolved version.

Cheers
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
@Todjaeger (Just out of personal interest. Why have you choosen this nickname?)

Kongo is right. The new Korean destroyer also uses AEGIS as long as I know.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Congratulations Navantia

So the F100 it is and, as rb said, no word re a fourth ship. Also nothing to suggest it will be anything other than the baseline design apart from an Australianised combat system.

The Chief of Navy publicly supported the decision but as he had tried hard to persuade cabinet to select the G&C design I imagine he will privately be very disappointed. He would be happy though with the selection of the Navantia BPE for the amphibious force.

The F100 and BPE will provide the RAN with a huge increase in capability so now we need to 'fix' the recruiting and retention issue.

It will be interesting to see what eventuates re media reports of an option for a fourth F100 or if the Minister will keep this possibility away from the public domain.

Here is a copy of the Minister's press release:

AUSTRALIA’S NEXT GENERATION AIR WARFARE DESTROYER


Australia’s maritime air warfare capability has reached a significant milestone today with the Government’s selection of the Navantia designed F100 as the next generation Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).


At a cost of nearly $8 billion, and subject to successful contract negotiations, Navantia will work with the AWD Alliance (Defence Materiel Organisation, ASC and Raytheon Australia) to deliver three AWDs to the Royal Australian Navy.


The first of these Air Warfare Destroyers will be delivered in late 2014, followed by the second and third ships in early-2016 and mid-2017 respectively.


The Australianised F100 AWD Design is capable across the full spectrum of joint maritime operations, from area air defence and escort duties, right through to peacetime national tasking and diplomatic missions. The Royal Australian Navy will undergo a quantum leap in its air warfare capability when the F100 enters service.


Since entering service with the Spanish Navy, F100s, among their many other tasks, have worked alongside the United States Navy (USN) as the first foreign Aegis equipped ship to be fully integrated into a USN Carrier Strike Group and has successfully been deployed as the flagship of NATO’s Maritime Group Standing Reaction Force.


While the selection of the platform is a significant milestone for the AWD Programme, the work undertaken to date has demonstrated the value of the selection of the Aegis Combat System in 2004 as the central element of the AWD’s war-fighting capabilities.


This decision ensured the Navy is armed with the world’s most capable air warfare system, is interoperable with key coalition partners and can access the updates and technical support offered by the US and other in-service navies.


More than 300 highly-skilled AWD Alliance staff have been working on the development of two designs for Government consideration since 2005.

The selection of the F100 follows two years of detailed research and simulation to determine the best ship to meet the needs of the Australian Defence Force through to the middle of this century.


The F100 has been developed with modern accommodation requirements in mind and has a crew of around 200. It also provides the Navy with a growth path to accommodate tomorrow’s naval warfare technologies.


In selecting the F100, the Government has ensured the Navy will take delivery of an Aegis equipped AWD before any potential maritime air warfare capability gap eventuates.


The F100 is an existing design that is in service with the Spanish Navy. This substantially reduces the cost and schedule risks traditionally associated with a project of this size and complexity.


The Government would like to thank ASC and Raytheon Australia for their achievements as members of the AWD Alliance. ASC and Raytheon Australia have worked closely with the DMO to deliver the two costed capability options to government and will continue to play a critical role in delivering the capability to the Navy. Raytheon Australia has been confirmed as the mission systems integrator for the Air Warfare Destroyer. Raytheon Australia will be contracted to complete the design, development and procurement of the Australianised Combat System.


The Government would also like to thank both Navantia and Gibbs & Cox (designer of the Evolved Option) for their efforts in developing two very capable designs for consideration. Gibbs & Cox and the members of the Alliance’s Evolved design team should take great pride in what they have achieved over the past two years.


In 2003, the Government developed, endorsed and implemented the recommendations of the Kinnaird Defence Procurement Review. The AWD Programme has demonstrated the value of these reforms by delivering to Government robust capability, cost, schedule and risk data for government consideration at Second Pass.


The AWD Alliance has been assisted by a number of Australian and international organisations including the RAN, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, BMT Australia (formerly British Maritime Technology) and First Marine International.


The project will shortly move into the Build Phase which will give Australian Industry the opportunity to become involved in the most complex Defence acquisition ever undertaken in Australia. Work conducted by the AWD Alliance was able to determine little difference in the level of Australian Industry involvement between the two options.


The Government’s decision to build the AWDs in Australia will ensure significant levels of Australian Industry involvement in both construction and through life support.


Australian Industry will deliver products and services for around 55 per cent of the $6.6 billion AWD Programme over the next 15 years which will be followed by high value through life support contracts into the middle of the century.



While Adelaide based ASC will conduct the final assembly of the AWDs, around 70 per cent of the ship modules will be built at other shipbuilding sites around Australia, potentially including sites in Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.


The AWD Programme will eventually employ around 3,000 Australians in a variety of engineering and related fields working for a range of companies and suppliers throughout Australia.


The Government recognises the important work of the AWD Programme’s Probity Advisors, Sir Laurence Street and the Australian Government Solicitor, in ensuring the AWD Programme is conducted in a fair and equitable manner.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6781

Cheers
 

Rich

Member
You guys dont think the F-100 is a mistake?

Australia is not Spain. The RAN has tremendous responsibilities in what is becoming the most vital region in the world. If there is a navy to copy then its Japan and you dont see them buying, or building, F-100s. Not that the F-100 is a bad ship, cause I certainly admire it.

I'd rather have the proven design. Personally.

I can just imagine a 3 Burke RAN with those 2 LHDs, and F-35s/TLAMs/S-3s and ABM software. I'm licking my chops and I aint even Australian.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
You guys dont think the F-100 is a mistake?

Australia is not Spain. The RAN has tremendous responsibilities in what is becoming the most vital region in the world. If there is a navy to copy then its Japan and you dont see them buying, or building, F-100s. Not that the F-100 is a bad ship, cause I certainly admire it.

I'd rather have the proven design. Personally.

I can just imagine a 3 Burke RAN with those 2 LHDs, and F-35s/TLAMs/S-3s and ABM software. I'm licking my chops and I aint even Australian.
Problem is, the G&C ship isn't a proven design. It's different enough from the Arleigh Burke to raise the spectres of Collins & SH-2. A bit smaller, for a start (hence the "Baby Burke" nickname).
 

Rich

Member
Problem is, the G&C ship isn't a proven design. It's different enough from the Arleigh Burke to raise the spectres of Collins & SH-2. A bit smaller, for a start (hence the "Baby Burke" nickname).
Oh I was talking about buying the Burke period. Not no "baby Burke". And while your at it arm the thing to the teeth with all the systems the USN deploys, and then some.

We have, or will have shortly, about 60 of the things. When your navy only has 3 AWDs their individual capabilities becomes more important.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Oh I was talking about buying the Burke period. Not no "baby Burke". And while your at it arm the thing to the teeth with all the systems the USN deploys, and then some.

We have, or will have shortly, about 60 of the things. When your navy only has 3 AWDs their individual capabilities becomes more important.
they you open that can of worms of crewing issues and the need that the RAN has for havening the most crew efficient ships possible and that the Burke are too manpower heavy to have 3
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Oh I was talking about buying the Burke period. Not no "baby Burke". And while your at it arm the thing to the teeth with all the systems the USN deploys, and then some.

We have, or will have shortly, about 60 of the things. When your navy only has 3 AWDs their individual capabilities becomes more important.
Personally, I would always have preferred the RAN to have ordered Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes but the complement of 370 (v 180-220 for the Evolved "Baby Burke" and F100) was regarded as too high for the RAN. It is interesting, though, that the Japanese Kongo class Burke derivative has had its crew reduced to 300 so crew reductions are definitely possible with the baseline AB.

Personally, I think the F100 is a mistake that will be regretted 20 years from now when its lack of room for growth will show up. At the moment the AEGIS fire control mated to 48 VLS cells is probably sufficient for Australia's needs. But if it is decided to add SM-3 and/or Tomahawk in the future, the extra 16 cells in the G@C Evolved Baby Burke (with room for 16 more) will be sorely missed. Having room for only one helicopter is actually a retrograde step from the FFGs they will replace. Fortunately, the fact that the RAN will get the larger of the LHD contenders means that it will be able to operate naval helos from these ships (in addition to army helos) so this will help overcome the lack of a second helo on the F100s if they are operating with a Canberra class LHD.

Having said that I think that the F100 is a fine ship that is streets ahead of what we have now. I am just disappointed that we have not chosen the best ship available. However, my disappointment is eased by the selection of the Spanish design for the LHD.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Australia isn't spain, nor is it japan.

Japan has 130,000,000 people, verse 21,000,000 of Australia. Japan has a massive economy. It has over 30 active destroyers.

Spain is a closer match population and economy wise for Australia.

Australia CAN afford 4 or 5 F-100's. Pushing for 4 or 5 Burkes or miniburkes is really pushing it. Burkes would only truely shine going into large scale conflicts, against russian cruisers and swam attacks where superior illuminators and missile loads come into play. And if your going down that road you need a South Korean Death star ship, with 128 missiles and two goal keepers etc.

The F-100 has limitations yes, but the evolved F-100 is not that far behind the mini-burke. Even if we are just talking about using the larger F-100 evolved hull allowing more upgrades later.

Given that the LHD BPE has been selected, land attack capability of the AWD can be reduced. That task can instead go to long range gliding munitions on a F-35B's from the LHD.

As far as compromises go the F-100 isn't too bad. It exists now, it works, its capable, the few weaknesses (cells for land attack and helo) can be addressed by the very capable LHD.

With the F-100 I can see if they do turn out to be a really good buy (Im not sure yet) we can get one or two more. 5 F-100's are far more capable than even 3 deathstars...
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
Given that the LHD BPE has been selected, land attack capability of the AWD can be reduced. That task can instead go to long range gliding munitions on a F-35B's from the LHD.
....
Reality check time:

1) First, you have to buy F-35B. It may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, it might be best not to talk as if it is an accomplished fact.

2) What are you going to use for amphibs, if your LHDs are functioning as carriers? You talk of them as if they are aircraft carriers first and last (& you exaggerate their capabilities), but they are not. They are amphibious ships (good ones, IMO) with a secondary (not primary!) aviation role, & Australia is buying them as amphibs, with the possibility (not certainty!) of using their aviation capacity at some future date.
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think the RAN choose the best ship for the RAN, and I think in future years it will go down as one of the best investments in this era for any western nation in relation to every other western warship being purchased during its era.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Reality check time:

1) First, you have to buy F-35B. It may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, it might be best not to talk as if it is an accomplished fact.

2) What are you going to use for amphibs, if your LHDs are functioning as carriers? You talk of them as if they are aircraft carriers first and last (& you exaggerate their capabilities), but they are not. They are amphibious ships (good ones, IMO) with a secondary (not primary!) aviation role, & Australia is buying them as amphibs, with the possibility (not certainty!) of using their aviation capacity at some future date.
Good points swerve.

Where the LHDs will be able to help out accompanying F100s is in their ability to provide a platform for naval helos (Seasprites, Seahawks, MRH-90s) and any future UAVs. The debate re whether or not they will carry F-35Bs in the future has not even begun. As I have suggested before, IMHO, any push for the F-35B by the navy is unlikely until the "Canberra" class contracts are 'signed, sealed and delivered!'

Cheers
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Reality check time:

1) First, you have to buy F-35B. It may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. In the meantime, it might be best not to talk as if it is an accomplished fact.
Fiar enough, but is it ok if we discuss the possibility???? Pretty please???

2) What are you going to use for amphibs, if your LHDs are functioning as carriers? You talk of them as if they are aircraft carriers first and last (& you exaggerate their capabilities), but they are not. They are amphibious ships (good ones, IMO) with a secondary (not primary!) aviation role, & Australia is buying them as amphibs, with the possibility (not certainty!) of using their aviation capacity at some future date.
Even acting as Amphibs they still have a decent naval aviation capability between them. In a large scale deployment there's no reason why 4-6 F35b's cant be carried per deck without compromising amhibious operations, and that's a full squadron. Leave a MHR 90 or two out for an AEW version and your in buisiness. Allthough you wouldn't be able to have the sortie rates and fuel/ammo storage of a real CDG/CVF type carrier, you would have a nice little air pakage going off with the combined armes brigade you were sending into harms way. Not a bad idea IMO. Even in a secondary aviation role they will still be very very usefull for strike, CAS, BID, air superiority, and fleet air defence, a capability not seen in the RAN since the Mebourne was decomissioned and you pommies cheated us on the invincible :D. Definatly something to get exited about.

As far as the F35b's they make sence for more reasons than just the LHD's, they allow tremendous basing flexability in forward areas, and allow for fixed wing deployments to theaters like a pacific island for instance were no 1km+ runways are available. They do lack in range and payload when being used in a classic "defence of the sea-air gap" type of scenario but we would have 3 squadrons of A's (or possibly longer ranged C's????:unknown) to handle that and in any case the b's would be more capable in terms of range/payload/avionics/general maritime strike capability than the current F/A 18 fleet anyway. As long as we dont get a Labour government who decides to think in purely money saving terms for defence its not at all unlikely. If it was my choice the only reason i wouldn't was if a squadron sized purchase of F22's became available, and then i'd still consider replacing a squadron of A/C's for b's.

But as tassie quite wiseley stated with or without F35b's the Canberra class LHD means a huge advance in power projection for the ADF. Being able to deploy a combined arms battalion group with 12+ trasport/lift ~6 tiger ARH helos and 14 M1 MBT's per hull is a decent capability in anyones terms and a massive one in regional terms.

As far as the F100's go i have to say i am dissapointed. 48 cells, 1 helo, 1 less fire controll channel and no CIWS. bad idea. If they do incorporate 8/16 shallow cells for ESSM this will alleviate the problem to some extent. But with the Adelaides set to be decomed the Hobarts will be the only SM2 capable warships in the RAN, unless a further 8 cell VLS is fitted to the ANZAC's (which is only 8 missiles). Then you add 4+ SM3's a few TLAM's and Harpoons and the F100's have fewer SM2's than than the adelaides did. Not good if your dealing with a concerted maritime strike package of notable size. And the single Helo is bad too. The AWD is a multi purpose ship and will need a decent ASW capability. Even with a towed array 2 helo's would be very handy. Then you could operate an AEW version datalinked to AEGIS and a MHR 90 with a dipping sonar chasing submarines. But now you can only have one or the other. And then theres the lack of room for growth which is a big problem, one that will be regretted in 20+years IMO. Having said that however it will be a great boost for the RAN and if the money saved on the F100 design allows for a 4th AWD then i'll have to say they made the right choice. 4 F100's are betterthan 3 baby burkes.
 
Last edited:

riksavage

Banned Member
A tremendous leap in capability for the RAN, which is excellent news all round.

I would be interested to know the ships planned endurance. Inevitably any amphibious operation will be restricted by fuel, food and weapons carried. Are the new LHP’s designed to be able sustain themselves at sea for extended periods or are the RAN planning to upgrade their RAS capabilities to support extended amphibious operations or would they simply lease civi ships?
 

riksavage

Banned Member
Note attached photo of ship comparisons uploaded form Google, clealry shows the profile of the different western designs now on the market including bottom F100 and top AB's. Cleary shows the difference in size between the different hulls.
 
Top