Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus
- Thread starter abramsteve
- Start date
Well depends on the threat. If they were just patrolling, fine, singles are fine.
If your escorting two 27,000 LHD's with 3,000 troops and equipment, a commerical 40,000t Roro, a command ship, a 40,000t supply ship, one or two frigates into a high threat enviroment including subs, ships, fighters, sea mines, ahead of a contested landing etc. Your taking 10 or 15 billion bucks of equipment and most of the fighting ADF personel.
You are going to need more than one. Two at the minium. One means you have half a dozen single points of failure for your entire fleet. a Rudder jams, a engine dies, a illuminator fails, the AWD is dammaged by CWIS fire, waves, aircraft, fire, birds, whales, flying fish. You can only shoot 48 targets. Even less if you concider the break down of airborne, waterbourne or landstrike targets. Alloy for decoys, misses etc and its not enough even against a semi organised group of priates/rebels on fishing boats.
Why would you go one at a time? Are you going to have four seperate taskforces to goto four seperate areas? Too thin, if we commit it will be to a single point.
East can releave west and vice versa. Makes sense to me. I agree, 2 each west and east. I agree they can go it alone patrolling or exercising.
But something like timor? You would want two protecting. Maybe even add a US asset as well. Timor was big enough that the US sent a Tico instead of a Burke and even that was backed up by a type 42 destroyer and other smaller assets. A bits and peices group. Not much worked together well. The Tico was the power, everyone else ran around screening for it.
If it is medium level we can do it alone. If its Korea, then Australia will join Japan, Korean and US ships. Something like 5+ destroyers plus 1 or 2 cruisers per group.
If your escorting two 27,000 LHD's with 3,000 troops and equipment, a commerical 40,000t Roro, a command ship, a 40,000t supply ship, one or two frigates into a high threat enviroment including subs, ships, fighters, sea mines, ahead of a contested landing etc. Your taking 10 or 15 billion bucks of equipment and most of the fighting ADF personel.
You are going to need more than one. Two at the minium. One means you have half a dozen single points of failure for your entire fleet. a Rudder jams, a engine dies, a illuminator fails, the AWD is dammaged by CWIS fire, waves, aircraft, fire, birds, whales, flying fish. You can only shoot 48 targets. Even less if you concider the break down of airborne, waterbourne or landstrike targets. Alloy for decoys, misses etc and its not enough even against a semi organised group of priates/rebels on fishing boats.
Why would you go one at a time? Are you going to have four seperate taskforces to goto four seperate areas? Too thin, if we commit it will be to a single point.
East can releave west and vice versa. Makes sense to me. I agree, 2 each west and east. I agree they can go it alone patrolling or exercising.
But something like timor? You would want two protecting. Maybe even add a US asset as well. Timor was big enough that the US sent a Tico instead of a Burke and even that was backed up by a type 42 destroyer and other smaller assets. A bits and peices group. Not much worked together well. The Tico was the power, everyone else ran around screening for it.
If it is medium level we can do it alone. If its Korea, then Australia will join Japan, Korean and US ships. Something like 5+ destroyers plus 1 or 2 cruisers per group.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That's your opinion only mate. If you're entitled to yours why aren't I entitled to mine?
I'm not seeing anything to make me change it. If you don't like my point of view, argue the points or ignore it.
That's the entire POINT of this website. If it annoys you too much and you simply can't get past it, as they say, "tough".
Last edited by a moderator:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
48x cells does not equate to 48x targets.
For starters ESSM is "quad packed" into the cells, meaning that 4x missiles are loaded into each cell. Theoretically you could load an AWD out with ONLY ESSM and this would give you 192 warshots per AWD. Now of course the AWD is designed to provide area air defence, so it's going to carry predominantly SM-2 loads.
I suspect that the AWD will carry at least 32x SM-2 (matching the load of the FFG, except it can fire them much more quickly) and most likely 40x SM-2's on most occasions. This will leave either 16x cells or 8x cells depending on various configurations meaning the AWD's will carry at least 32x ESSM and possibly 64x ESSM on most occasions.
You therefore have warshots of at least 72x SAM's and possible 96x SAM's on most occasions.
In addition the AWD's will most likely carry a close in weapon system. This increases the number of "warshots".
The Mk 45 127mm gun possesses an anti-air capacity as well, giving even more warshots....
The AWD is an area air warfare vessel remember? The laws of physics might dictate that it can only independantly target sea level targets at 40k's or so, but this is where "networking" comes into play....
Another term that should be illuminating in this matter is "Co-operative Engagement Capability"...
Do you perhaps mean, "something like Timor, but with an air threat?" Cause there sure as hell wasn't one over East Timor.
And the CEC will work even more effectively...
My bad, should have added, ~excluding Task forces~
What i was reffering to was patrols, where an increase in threat is made, an Anzac would most likely accompany directly. that way your not leaving all your regional eggs in a basket, The role of the Anzacs will shift to patrol, escort and assitance of the Hobarts. Where as Hobarts will take the role of Force projection and protection, something the Anzacs currently do. Its updating the current tasks of Anzac with more capable ships. For two Hobarts to be operating together would require a large threat, one is envisioned to control a very strong combat capability, with Anzac or Collins operating in the AOR would be sufficent of several Scenarios.
~add another Hobart to the RAN! 5 works better then 4
HMAS Darwin or Newcastle as the 5th?
What i was reffering to was patrols, where an increase in threat is made, an Anzac would most likely accompany directly. that way your not leaving all your regional eggs in a basket, The role of the Anzacs will shift to patrol, escort and assitance of the Hobarts. Where as Hobarts will take the role of Force projection and protection, something the Anzacs currently do. Its updating the current tasks of Anzac with more capable ships. For two Hobarts to be operating together would require a large threat, one is envisioned to control a very strong combat capability, with Anzac or Collins operating in the AOR would be sufficent of several Scenarios.
I also should add, i don't see the ADF relying to much on its own Navy for a full task force, like Timor where the ADF was the Central nation, but more as a Coalition Task Force. If we were to be the sole fleet, we should look at bigger expansion of the navy in general~i support~ for your envisioned Task force of 2 LHDs, Ro-ro(argumantive i know) command(the AWD?,LHD??) supply and 2 frigates(anzac?)
~add another Hobart to the RAN! 5 works better then 4
HMAS Darwin or Newcastle as the 5th?
Which burke? The earlier ones could operate one only. Same as early japanese destroyers. Later ones look like getting two.
The F-100 has a higher location for it. Thus superior range. Not much but I belive it did have a impact on the F-100 over the burke design.
I think the Hobarts will reflect these later destroyer builds, having more extensive helo facilities, greater endurance, higher positioning of the radar and a completely modern fitout. I honestly think we will get 4, which we can live with. 5 would be nice, 6 and we would start to rival the RN..
Yes, sorry. They can indeed be quad packed for small defense missiles. Still not a whole lot of flexability and capability per individual ship. Given some will be lost to counter measures and decoys.
This was just part of my argument why sending a lone AWD into a high threat enviroment wouldn't be such a good idea. If we were going to do that we would have been better off with the burke design and just three ships.
Well, no direct air threat. There is always the possibility of something going pear shaped and having to deal with what you've got in the region. Its entirely conciveable that a air threat situation could occur. Or require land strike or extensive anti shipping capability.
I can see where your comming from, I think we just have different view points.
I see the AWD's taking over the FFG role, but adding a lot more projection and protection capabilities. Anzacs for the day to day, making up the numbers and the AWD for the hot and heavy stuff.
Obviously tasking two AWD together would put out a very strong message. The fact they can intergrate into one big network force with other assets from Japan, Korea or the US into a single system means Australia can operate in any enviroment (inc a korean/tiwain war situation). Two AWD can be sustained from Australia's own resources if required.
It would be great if we could have a coalition taskforce when ever we wanted. But this won't always be the case. I think Australia should always have in the back of their mind independant operation. The US is going to be flat playing with half a dozen major powers in asia. They have alliances which may be more important than Australia's overseas interests. The US was slow to support Australia in Timor. Not by a great margin, but delayed things. There hands are tied even if they really wanted to help us by what ever is currently being fought and by domestic political issues.
The fact we can form our own independant group is going to make it easier for other minor countries to join our coalition because all the key ingredients are already there, they can just add the icing. If NZ, Singapore, UK, Veitnam, or a excolonial power want to send a frigate or logistics assistance that great, but Australia will provide the backbone of the operation. We can support the operation entirely ourselves. Barely, maybe, but certainly long enough until the US can send something to really turn the tide.
Which is why we got the F-100. So we can do it ourselves. 3 burkes, even if they were Korean style cruisers with 128+ missiles and 10,000t, would not have allowed us to Task force ourselves. Not enough hulls, too reliant on a single vessel, limited by a single set of sensors at a single point, easy to counter a single vessel.
Would be nice wouldn't it? Most other navies are heading down the 5 or more route. 4 is the absolute minium to do what we want to be able to. 5 would allow more flexability, sustainability, real missile shield capability, viable land strike platform, open up the possibility of Australia supporting two seperate naval operations at the same time (barely and with support). A single hit on a AWD, a bit of damage, and well with only 4 ships that leaves no spare.
But where does the wish list end? Ideally Australia would have 5 AWD's, 3 LHD's, 8 Frigates, 8 Subs, a dozen F-35B's, TacTom, SM-3/6, two RoRo's and 3 High speed cats as well as a strong patrol force. That would be massive. Australia would have one of the most capable blue water navies with one of the strongest amphibious capabilities going. The kind of capability that could stabilise failing nations, enforce peace throughout a entire region and draw other nations in helping us do that.
But 4 is what we need. 3 AWD won't cut it. We need 4. Given the 4th isn't signed off yet, thats a worry.
battlensign
New Member
Hell if you are going to do it, do it properly!
4 LHDs, 8 AWDs, 8 ANZAC IIs, 10 Collins, 2 Dozen F-35Bs, TacTom, SM-3/6, 4 RoRos...........
Getting back to reality remember that the fourth AWD has not been ordered or announced by government and talk about a third LHD is something that is happening in forums like this one but there has been no comment from Defence about a third ship.Hell if you are going to do it, do it properly!
4 LHDs, 8 AWDs, 8 ANZAC IIs, 10 Collins, 2 Dozen F-35Bs, TacTom, SM-3/6, 4 RoRos...........
Tas
I think Australia could order a CVF and the next day on the forum some one will say we should get two more!
The 4th AWD I think is going to happen. The pollies have mentioned it a few times like its a done deal esp from South australia. There are good, cold hard irrefutable reasons to get 4 AWD's. Save lives, save money, save industry, and massive increase in capability. With out it we are completely dependant on the US to use our LHD anywhere remotely hot. With it we can DIY.
The 3rd LHD and the 5th AWD, are nice, definately lift capability are not in the same class. If we end up with only 3 AWD the RAN will have gained *NOTHING* losing the FFG's for the AWD's. As we still can operate independantly in hot situations.
I wouldn't expect any movement on the 5th AWD or 3 LHD until the BPE is in spanish hands and completely tested and until the varient of the F-100 we are going to get is at sea trials. The problem is the AEGIS system would need to be ordered soonish for the 4th to be built. Otherwise it won't be ready.
The 4th AWD I think is going to happen. The pollies have mentioned it a few times like its a done deal esp from South australia. There are good, cold hard irrefutable reasons to get 4 AWD's. Save lives, save money, save industry, and massive increase in capability. With out it we are completely dependant on the US to use our LHD anywhere remotely hot. With it we can DIY.
The 3rd LHD and the 5th AWD, are nice, definately lift capability are not in the same class. If we end up with only 3 AWD the RAN will have gained *NOTHING* losing the FFG's for the AWD's. As we still can operate independantly in hot situations.
I wouldn't expect any movement on the 5th AWD or 3 LHD until the BPE is in spanish hands and completely tested and until the varient of the F-100 we are going to get is at sea trials. The problem is the AEGIS system would need to be ordered soonish for the 4th to be built. Otherwise it won't be ready.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not believe there is an urgent need to place the order for the SPY-1D array for the 4th AWD, if it gets ordered. Since there was a minimum requirement for 3 AWD I believe Australia was offered a "discount" if it placed the order for the three radars altogether instead of placing piecemeal orders.
Given that the expected in-service for the third AWD is mid-2017 given here, I do not think a delay would be much of an issue, since AWD #4 would likely not be expected before 2019. Particularly if only one slipway is used, AWD #4's hull might not even take form until 2016 or later. Also, I could be mistaken but I believe sensors like the radar arrays are amongst the later items installed on vessels. This might even take the radar installation date after AWD #3 has entered service.
Incidentally, a 5th and 6th AWD I think might very well end up being ordered as well, which I would sort of like, being a 1:1 replacement for the Adelaide FFG. Such a plan I do not think too unreasonable, since AWD #'s 5 & 6 would likely have in-service dates of ~mid-2020 and early-2022 respectively. Right around when HMAS Anzac and HMAS Arunta reach 24 years in commission. IIRC the Anzac class is expected to begin being replaced in the 2020-2025 timeframe with a follow-on design. Depending on how the Anzac follow-on frigate project goes (it should be starting soon, if is hasn't already commenced) the last two AWD could replace two Anzacs and then there could be six follow-on frigates.
-Cheers
I agree completely with everything you have outlined in this post. It would seem to be a sensible approach.
Tas
You're entitled to it, and I don't disagree with your points either. But it's often not relevant to the discussion but you often bring it up.
But yes, "tough" to me I suppose...
*continues reading relevant info*
battlensign
New Member
Of course we would need two more!
Once you have one, you cannot guarentee operational availability......so you need two!
Once you have two, you might as well get three because for the cost of one more you can have a surge capacity for two (three if there was some real stuff going down)!
:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It was an example used to support my contention in regards to the accuracy and quality of the reporting in that particular magazine. Whilst not directly relevant to the AWD's (though CK has written on the subject previously, calling for them to be cancelled and the money spent on, you guessed it...
)Something that is not done enough around here in my opinion, supporting contentions with examples or evidence (that's not directed at you personally though)...
If you think I'm obsessed with APA check out this blokes' site:
http://geocities.com/element1loop
And now back to the AWD's...
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So you think Defence Today's a bad magazine becaus CK is an anylist? Is that the only reason AD or do you have something specific? Paul Jonston is the major analyst, as is John Armstrong and their content is allways well informed and ballanced i've found pluss its an interesting read. Carlo's latest article about regional air threats was pretty unballanced, as you'd expect on that subject, he drew a conclusion that the RAAF and ADF was on a path of sacrificing its air combat edge with no evidence as to why exactly. But his ongoing NCW 101 series is quite informative and detailed. He also did a couple of articles on the iranian threat and islamo fashism which were ballanced, informed and logical. Basically if he's not discussing air power his work is ballanced and informative. I know you dont like him personally but i woudlnt write off all of his work because of F111S or F22 lobbying and byased articles. Have a read of this stuff it's actually pretty good work.It was an example used to support my contention in regards to the accuracy and quality of the reporting in that particular magazine. Whilst not directly relevant to the AWD's (though CK has written on the subject previously, calling for them to be cancelled and the money spent on, you guessed it...
Something that is not done enough around here in my opinion, supporting contentions with examples or evidence (that's not directed at you personally though)...
If you think I'm obsessed with APA check out this blokes' site:
http://geocities.com/element1loop
And now back to the AWD's...
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sov-ASuW.html
Pluss there is the contribution of individuals like Colnel David Eshel IDF (retired) and Brigadier Brian Cooper ADF (retired) who contribute significant bodies of work. Would you argue that individuals of that calibur are out of date or byassed? I like DT its one of my monthly (2 months) buys along with the navy leage magazine, air forces monthly and ADM online. its news section is right up to date AFAIK, allthough its a couple of months behind due to the fact that it is released in 2 month intervals. Its also a much more interesting read than say air forces monthly becaus it gives you a large body of analysis rather than just news, much like the Navy Leage Mag. So apart from judas working there i'm not to sure why you think its "out of date" or tainted goods exactly. You did state that IYO people outline a contention without evidence, so (pardom me for asking) but whats yours?
Non-Subscriber Extract
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni071011_1_n.shtml
"Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 'buckling' under stress, admits USN
By Tara Copp
11 October 2007
Serious structural defects have been identified throughout the United States Navy's fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Jane's can reveal......"
Now that is interesting. I wonder whether the proposed Aussie baby bourkes had had their design remedied when the decision was made for the RAN?
Did defmin Nelson know something?
Hopefully there won't be similar structural fatigue issues with the F-100. They probably haven't they clocked up enough hours for anyone to know for sure?
rb
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni071011_1_n.shtml
"Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 'buckling' under stress, admits USN
By Tara Copp
11 October 2007
Serious structural defects have been identified throughout the United States Navy's fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Jane's can reveal......"
Now that is interesting. I wonder whether the proposed Aussie baby bourkes had had their design remedied when the decision was made for the RAN?
Did defmin Nelson know something?
Hopefully there won't be similar structural fatigue issues with the F-100. They probably haven't they clocked up enough hours for anyone to know for sure?
rb
Blas de Lezo
Member
Hello everybody, I think the wording of Jane´s report suggest somehow different, It does not seem to be a “stress fatigue” but a design fault, they are not replacing fatigued materials but reinforcing existing ones, suggesting a miscalculation of stress loads.
I wonder if their growth potential is going to be compromised by these miscalculations.
I am also surprised to see that the problems are at the bow, rough seas slam at bows, that´s what they do……….mmmm.. weird!!
Regards.
I wonder if their growth potential is going to be compromised by these miscalculations.
I am also surprised to see that the problems are at the bow, rough seas slam at bows, that´s what they do……….mmmm.. weird!!
Regards.
Those structural problems only seem to occur when the ship "lands" a certain way in rough seas. I've been on a couple of different Burkes in rough seas and never seen that happen, and I've only heard of it happening to 1 Burke a couple years ago (forgot the name of the ship, sorry).
If this really was a problem the USN would be doing structural reinforcement during the ships yard periods, but they are not they seem to only be doing those repairs after the structure buckles.
If this really was a problem the USN would be doing structural reinforcement during the ships yard periods, but they are not they seem to only be doing those repairs after the structure buckles.