Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[RubiconNZ]

Just looking through some imagery of the new AWD, I do not know if this has been mentioned as it is a minor detail but if you look at the picture below you can see both a helicopter and Unmanned Helo on the deck

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/jun/20070620/20070620adf8054893_090_lo.jpg

Doesn't add anything but speculation, I was just intrigued by it. Perhaps it was their to show some space potential.

 

[AegisFC]

I suspect we may have to wait for some time find out just how the 'Australianised' version will be fitted out. The only thing that is a definite from the Minister's statement is that it will have the standard F100 fit of 48 Mk 41 VLS cells.

Cheers

A case can be made for either gun, you already have 5" 54's so having them on your AWD's would make a lot of sense from a supply, personnel and training standpoint, plus you could probably get some used but refurbished mounts dirt cheap from the USN (I believe that is how Spain got its 5's they were from the Amphibs that had their guns removed in the late 90's). However the 5" 64 offers a nice jump in capability and can fire extended range rounds, however you'd only have 3 (maybe 4) of them unless you upgrade your other Frigates as well.
I'm really looking forward to see how far this ship evolves from the original F-100.

Doesn't add anything but speculation, I was just intrigued by it. Perhaps it was their to show some space potential.

Isn't the F-100 built with the use of Firescout in mind? If so that may be why it is in that pic. That is an old model of the F-100, note the forward stack doesn't have the extension to fix the exhaust corrosion problem on the aft arrays that was added after the ships were built.

 

[Todjaeger]

A case can be made for either gun, you already have 5" 54's so having them on your AWD's would make a lot of sense from a supply, personnel and training standpoint, plus you could probably get some used but refurbished mounts dirt cheap from the USN (I believe that is how Spain got its 5's they were from the Amphibs that had their guns removed in the late 90's). However the 5" 64 offers a nice jump in capability and can fire extended range rounds, however you'd only have 3 (maybe 4) of them unless you upgrade your other Frigates as well. I'm really looking forward to see how far this ship evolves from the original F-100.

Hopefully the AWD will be fitted with the Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm/62-cal. IIRC there was some discussion that the currernt Mk 45 Mod 2 guns aboard the Anzac frigates would be replaced/upgraded to Mk 45 Mod 4 at some point, though I believe the feeling is that this wouldn't happen or at least start before the Hobart-class started to make it's appearance.

My feeling is that it would be far better to fit the AWD with the better gun now, since the Anzac replacement class should be using the better gun as well. That class of frigate should be entering service in something like 10-12 years after the first AWD is comissioned. Parts and ammunition compatibility with the Anzac would be nice, but not if means either the AWD munition is not going to be compatible with another ship class that it will serve beside longer, or force a reduce capability upon.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Just looking through some imagery of the new AWD, I do not know if this has been mentioned as it is a minor detail but if you look at the picture below you can see both a helicopter and Unmanned Helo on the deck

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/jun/20070620/20070620adf8054893_090_lo.jpg

Doesn't add anything but speculation, I was just intrigued by it. Perhaps it was their to show some space potential.

If Santi is lurking he may be able to provide more info. My understanding from comments on another forum is that the Firescout was evaluated by the Armada for the F100 class and that 2 or 3 may be carried. However, I believe that the helo would be disembarked when Firescouts are carried.

Using pure speculation I suspect that maybe, for a short term operation, a Firescout could be carried as well as a helo but it would need to be stowed on the flight deck. This would not be good for its longevity but as it is unmanned it may be acceptable in an emergency.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Is it my imagination or my eyes going crosseyed that i see a second chopper on the aft helicopter deck? Somewhat smaller would suggest a UAV Chopper?

Just looking through some imagery of the new AWD, I do not know if this has been mentioned as it is a minor detail but if you look at the picture below you can see both a helicopter and Unmanned Helo on the deck

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/jun/20070620/20070620adf8054893_090_lo.jpg

Doesn't add anything but speculation, I was just intrigued by it. Perhaps it was their to show some space potential.

 

[Gladius]

If Santi is lurking he may be able to provide more info. My understanding from comments on another forum is that the Firescout was evaluated by the Armada for the F100 class and that 2 or 3 may be carried. However, I believe that the helo would be disembarked when Firescouts are carried.

Using pure speculation I suspect that maybe, for a short term operation, a Firescout could be carried as well as a helo but it would need to be stowed on the flight deck. This would not be good for its longevity but as it is unmanned it may be acceptable in an emergency.

Cheers

I'm not santi but while we are awaiting for him, I'll try to answer some questions.

The Fire Scout was evaluated by the Spanish Navy in 2002 after Northrop Grumman sign on July of a technical assistance agreement with Izar (now Navantia) to integrate and promote the Fire Scout on the F-100 and F-310 classes.

The issue was the status of the project, some years would be needed to polish the design and demonstrate the real capacities of the RQ-8. Meanwhile the spanish government was pressing to to develop a "national" UAV, the initial results of the SIVA were less than... wondrous.
However, the UAV capability remained on the F-100 class and is an official request of the new BAM ships.

The space issue is also unclear. The exact dimensions for the Aussie F-100 remain to be seen. So, if we take the original hangar dimensions for the F-101, (15 m x 5,8 m x 5,6 m) the helo must be disembarked to store the UAVs. But IIRC the hangar was expanded or somewhat altered by Navantia after the construction of the F-101 but I not have the changed layout.
But like I said before, without a clear report of Navantia about the changes made to the F-100 for Australia, all of our assumptions may be wrong.

On the other hand, would be logical with the Navantia-Northrop Grumman agreement, that any F-100 (Koala version) would be prepared to operate and support the MQ-8B Fire Scout or the still undisclosed design desired by the Spanish Navy without problems.

The UAV question for the Spanish Armed forces is problematic and the favorite design of each service for the moment remains under wraps. The last year (June, 26) the Chief Admiral of the Spanish Navy (Zaragoza Soto) confessed that the Navy have a preferred design but with the imposition for a common UAV/UCAV for the three services (with naval capability required) forced to the Navy to wait to the Air Force & Army decision. And added to this the Zapatero's Government ordered four UAVs (Searcher Mk II) as interim solution, while all remain awaiting for the final decision of the EMaCon (Estado Mayor Conjunto) about the final model selected to be the UAV/UCAV for the Spanish Armed Forces.

Sorry for the novel... But I thought that would be illustrative.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the novel

Seriously though, it was quite informative, but as mentioned we'll need to wait and see just what the size and fitout of the Australianized F-100 looks like to get any real answers. One thing I do wonder about, is whether a heli UCAV could be developed that could take the place of a manned ASW heli like the S-70-B Seahawk? If that is a possibility (assuming maintenance per flight hour is reasonable) then perhaps carrying UAVs in place of a helicopter isn't such a bad thing. Not sure how effective a UAV could be in the Rescue role for a SAR aircraft though...

-Cheers

I'm not santi but while we are awaiting for him, I'll try to answer some questions.

The Fire Scout was evaluated by the Spanish Navy in 2002 after Northrop Grumman sign on July of a technical assistance agreement with Izar (now Navantia) to integrate and promote the Fire Scout on the F-100 and F-310 classes.

The issue was the status of the project, some years would be needed to polish the design and demonstrate the real capacities of the RQ-8. Meanwhile the spanish government was pressing to to develop a "national" UAV, the initial results of the SIVA were less than... wondrous.
However, the UAV capability remained on the F-100 class and is an official request of the new BAM ships.

The space issue is also unclear. The exact dimensions for the Aussie F-100 remain to be seen. So, if we take the original hangar dimensions for the F-101, (15 m x 5,8 m x 5,6 m) the helo must be disembarked to store the UAVs. But IIRC the hangar was expanded or somewhat altered by Navantia after the construction of the F-101 but I not have the changed layout.
But like I said before, without a clear report of Navantia about the changes made to the F-100 for Australia, all of our assumptions may be wrong.

On the other hand, would be logical with the Navantia-Northrop Grumman agreement, that any F-100 (Koala version) would be prepared to operate and support the MQ-8B Fire Scout or the still undisclosed design desired by the Spanish Navy without problems.

The UAV question for the Spanish Armed forces is problematic and the favorite design of each service for the moment remains under wraps. The last year (June, 26) the Chief Admiral of the Spanish Navy (Zaragoza Soto) confessed that the Navy have a preferred design but with the imposition for a common UAV/UCAV for the three services (with naval capability required) forced to the Navy to wait to the Air Force & Army decision. And added to this the Zapatero's Government ordered four UAVs (Searcher Mk II) as interim solution, while all remain awaiting for the final decision of the EMaCon (Estado Mayor Conjunto) about the final model selected to be the UAV/UCAV for the Spanish Armed Forces.

Sorry for the novel... But I thought that would be illustrative.

 

[Tasman]

I'm not santi but while we are awaiting for him, I'll try to answer some questions.

The Fire Scout was evaluated by the Spanish Navy in 2002 after Northrop Grumman sign on July of a technical assistance agreement with Izar (now Navantia) to integrate and promote the Fire Scout on the F-100 and F-310 classes.

The issue was the status of the project, some years would be needed to polish the design and demonstrate the real capacities of the RQ-8. Meanwhile the spanish government was pressing to to develop a "national" UAV, the initial results of the SIVA were less than... wondrous.
However, the UAV capability remained on the F-100 class and is an official request of the new BAM ships.

The space issue is also unclear. The exact dimensions for the Aussie F-100 remain to be seen. So, if we take the original hangar dimensions for the F-101, (15 m x 5,8 m x 5,6 m) the helo must be disembarked to store the UAVs. But IIRC the hangar was expanded or somewhat altered by Navantia after the construction of the F-101 but I not have the changed layout.
But like I said before, without a clear report of Navantia about the changes made to the F-100 for Australia, all of our assumptions may be wrong.

On the other hand, would be logical with the Navantia-Northrop Grumman agreement, that any F-100 (Koala version) would be prepared to operate and support the MQ-8B Fire Scout or the still undisclosed design desired by the Spanish Navy without problems.

The UAV question for the Spanish Armed forces is problematic and the favorite design of each service for the moment remains under wraps. The last year (June, 26) the Chief Admiral of the Spanish Navy (Zaragoza Soto) confessed that the Navy have a preferred design but with the imposition for a common UAV/UCAV for the three services (with naval capability required) forced to the Navy to wait to the Air Force & Army decision. And added to this the Zapatero's Government ordered four UAVs (Searcher Mk II) as interim solution, while all remain awaiting for the final decision of the EMaCon (Estado Mayor Conjunto) about the final model selected to be the UAV/UCAV for the Spanish Armed Forces.

Sorry for the novel... But I thought that would be illustrative.

Thanks Gladius. Excellent information! As Todjaeger said it was very informative.

Is it my imagination or my eyes going crosseyed that i see a second chopper on the aft helicopter deck? Somewhat smaller would suggest a UAV Chopper?

It is a model of the Fire Scout UAV.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

If Santi is lurking he may be able to provide more info. My understanding from comments on another forum is that the Firescout was evaluated by the Armada for the F100 class and that 2 or 3 may be carried. However, I believe that the helo would be disembarked when Firescouts are carried.

Using pure speculation I suspect that maybe, for a short term operation, a Firescout could be carried as well as a helo but it would need to be stowed on the flight deck. This would not be good for its longevity but as it is unmanned it may be acceptable in an emergency.

Cheers

Could probably carry smaller VTOL UAVs (e.g. Saab Skeldar, or Schiebel S100) alongside a manned helicopter. Given the disparity in size, I'm sure that more than one Fire Scout could be carried in place of a manned helicopter.

 

[Galrahn]

I have read in many places that 3 fire scouts can be stored in hangers designed for the width of a single H-60, which would imply if the length of the hanger could support the helicopter and the fire scouts, the existing width of the F-100 hanger design could support 3 fire scouts + 1 helicopter.

 

[santi]

This is the linedrawing of an F-100's hangar. I think that to fit anything more that a medium helo would be difficoult . The hangar was enlarged 1 m in long, more or less, in order to fit the SeaHawk Block-1A with the chin mounted optronic ball more confortably, but that not supposes a great change.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/F-100_3d.jpg

A more significant increase is size needs, IMHO, a vast redesign of aft structure, may be possible taking account that future F-100s will be more automated....

 

[Tasman]

This is the linedrawing of an F-100's hangar. I think that to fit anything more that a medium helo would be difficoult . The hangar was enlarged 1 m in long, more or less, in order to fit the SeaHawk Block-1A with the chin mounted optronic ball more confortably, but that not supposes a great change.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/F-100_3d.jpg

A more significant increase is size needs, IMHO, a vast redesign of aft structure, may be possible taking account that future F-100s will be more automated....

There certainly doesn't seem to be any spare hangar space around a Seahawk. What concerns me is the width of the hangar. Available data that I have seen indicates that the MRH-90 helo has a much greater overall width than the Seahawk. If this is true the RAN will be hard pressed to get an MRH-90 into the hangar without a major redesign.

I found it difficult to find specifications of the overall width of the two helos (as folded for hangar storage) but info I did find shows the MRH-90 as having a width overall of 4.52m and the SH-60 Seahawk 2.36m. Length doesn't seem to be a problem.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/sh-60.htm
http://www.air-attack.com/page/67

Can any of our aviation experts provide the dimensions of the two helos when hangared?

Cheers

 

[swerve]

There certainly doesn't seem to be any spare hangar space around a Seahawk. What concerns me is the width of the hangar. Available data that I have seen indicates that the MRH-90 helo has a much greater overall width than the Seahawk. If this is true the RAN will be hard pressed to get an MRH-90 into the hangar without a major redesign.

I found it difficult to find specifications of the overall width of the two helos (as folded for hangar storage) but info I did find shows the MRH-90 as having a width overall of 4.52m and the SH-60 Seahawk 2.36m. Length doesn't seem to be a problem.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/sh-60.htm
http://www.air-attack.com/page/67

Can any of our aviation experts provide the dimensions of the two helos when hangared?

Cheers

The SH-60 width there is clearly wrong. Probably a typo. Just look at a photo of a man standing beside an SH-60! See this Sikorsky brochure.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,9604,1839,00.pdf
It's for the S-70A, but I can't believe that the overall width of the SH-60 (rotors folded) is 2 metres less than the fuselage width of the S-70A, & 60cm less than the width of the folded rotors.

I'd say the widths of the SH-60 & NH-90 are pretty similar.

 

[Tasman]

The SH-60 width there is clearly wrong. Probably a typo. Just look at a photo of a man standing beside an SH-60! See this Sikorsky brochure.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,9604,1839,00.pdf
It's for the S-70A, but I can't believe that the overall width of the SH-60 (rotors folded) is 2 metres less than the fuselage width of the S-70A, & 60cm less than the width of the folded rotors.

I'd say the widths of the SH-60 & NH-90 are pretty similar.

Thanks Swerve. I agree that the width for the Seahawk looked wrong. Thanks for directions to the Sikorsky site. The dimensions given for the Seahawk's width are 3.26m folded and 4.37m overall.

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,169,00.pdf

Figures given by Eurocopter for the NH-90 NFH are 3.80m folded and 4.52m overall.

http://www.actus-multimedia.com/nhi...EN&PHPSESSID=78f6bab1eaa752ae9e496266a6b67a31

So the NH-90 is still wider but only by 0.54m. The NH-90 is also slightly longer and slightly higher in folded configuration but hopefully it is not an excessive increase so far as the hangar is concerned. The RAN would surely have made certain their newest helicopter would fit the F100 hangar, as it is seems highly possible that it may eventually take over from the Seahawk as well as the Sea King in the FAA.

Cheers

 

[tmac]

Gentlemen, in regard to the perplexing question we'd all like answered, namely how big will Australia's version of the F100 be and what increased capabilities, if any, will it have over the original design in service with the Spanish Navy, there is some very interesting and hopeful information quoted in the July/August edition of 'Defence Today'.

"The final design submitted to the DMO is a 6000 tonne ship capable of displacing up to 7000 tonnes, which is 1200 tonnes more than the Spanish design, permitting a margin for growth and future proofing." The article also states the Australian version will have larger engines and larger fuel tanks.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Gentlemen, in regard to the perplexing question we'd all like answered, namely how big will Australia's version of the F100 be and what increased capabilities, if any, will it have over the original design in service with the Spanish Navy, there is some very interesting and hopeful information quoted in the July/August edition of 'Defence Today'.

"The final design submitted to the DMO is a 6000 tonne ship capable of displacing up to 7000 tonnes, which is 1200 tonnes more than the Spanish design, permitting a margin for growth and future proofing." The article also states the Australian version will have larger engines and larger fuel tanks.

Cheers

DT is not exactly known as the most accurate or up to date of the Australian defence magazine scene.

They employ Carlo Kopp as their "primary" analyst afterall...

No doubt they'll have "Grisha" writing on how pathetic the RAAF is next...

 

[Tasman]

DT is not exactly known as the most accurate or up to date of the Australian defence magazine scene.

They employ Carlo Kopp as their "primary" analyst afterall...

No doubt they'll have "Grisha" writing on how pathetic the RAAF is next...

However, it would be very interesting to find out the source for the info tmac provided. If true it will be a long way from an 'off the shelf' design. I might have to lurk in the local newsagent, read the article and look for the credits!

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well It what I expected.

Spain has been drawing up plans of a bigger F-100 for a while now (for other navies worldwide to buy into). I suspect the Australian requirements are met with that design.

Improved helo facilities is one of those areas they were looking at improving. Increasing range was another. Missile load was not expected to be increased.
New engines I haven't heard. Perhaps more electrical power generation too?

In the end I think it will be very suitable. With four of them Australia will be well equiped. They will only be fractionally smaller than the G&C design, and mainly at the cost of missile loadout. Given that they will travel in pairs, and have superior missiles and same number as daring class I don't see it as a huge problem. If we were to operate in the Korean area alone it would be.

They won't have the firepower of a burke, tico, Kongo or korean deathstar, but they will have better helo facilities, radar, and improved endurance, which for our force and region is more important.

 

[phreeky]

They employ Carlo Kopp as their "primary" analyst afterall...

Please oh please stop mentioning his name, your obsession at pointing out his lack of credibility and involvement in some publication really gets to me, and it doesn't do a lot for the credibility of your owns posts.

 

[battlensign]

Well It what I expected.

Spain has been drawing up plans of a bigger F-100 for a while now (for other navies worldwide to buy into). I suspect the Australian requirements are met with that design.

Improved helo facilities is one of those areas they were looking at improving. Increasing range was another. Missile load was not expected to be increased.
New engines I haven't heard. Perhaps more electrical power generation too?

In the end I think it will be very suitable. With four of them Australia will be well equiped. They will only be fractionally smaller than the G&C design, and mainly at the cost of missile loadout. Given that they will travel in pairs, and have superior missiles and same number as daring class I don't see it as a huge problem. If we were to operate in the Korean area alone it would be.

They won't have the firepower of a burke, tico, Kongo or korean deathstar, but they will have better helo facilities, radar, and improved endurance, which for our force and region is more important.

I am not sure I agree with your assessment here Stingray. I do agree that they will be fine ships (would love to see 6 of them), but:

1) The "Better Helo Facility" claim seems questionable given the Burke had an inherent 2 Helo capacity.

2) The AN/SPY-1D(V) was to be/has been fitted to both designs, so the "Better Radar" claim is......?