Spain updates AEGIS destroyers

[Pedro C]

Hi everyone,

in view of the interest that some of you showed in other threads about the new AAW capabilities of AEGIS, I´ll briefly outline the Armada's update of the first batch of AEGIS destroyers in service.

Despite being pretty new ships, ESP Armada wants these ships to be always cutting edge technology. Thus, an update has been put together and the ships updated over a two-year period.

3 out of 4 ships have been updated to Baseline S2. The update comprises a number of improvements in the ship's ability to engage. Among others, the new software allows Alvaro de Bazan class to fully use ESSM, all SM-2 III blocks and Tomahawk.

Moreover, SPY got some extra capabilities that I cannot go into, but that makes it more efficient.

AEGIS BMD is classified and, as a consequence, not releaseble in this forum.

The bunch of native sensors improve their interoperability and integration with the whole system.

Overall, an unbelievable new combat system for these nice ships

Regards

 

[1805]

hehehe, very good point well made on the T45 thread. I agree great ships and cost effective and in service. The RN with a greater budget could have had 12 and maybe those Australian orders off you, but to the winners goes the spoils

 

[StevoJH]

hehehe, very good point well made on the T45 thread. I agree great ships and cost effective and in service. The RN with a greater budget could have had 12 and maybe those Australian orders off you, but to the winners goes the spoils

1) We didn't order F-100's off Naventia, we purchased the design from then (like the french buying the CVF design from the RN) to be built in our own shipyards.

2) An F-100 is similar in costs to the T-45,however you arent paying development costs for the AAW system. However the trade-off of purchasing the Aegis system, as stated by system addict in the RN thread, is an increased reliance upon the USN for the support of your fleet, never a good thing.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Interesting development. I still think we are nuts for not getting BMD atleast all fitted up in the AWD. I think we are also nuts for not getting 4.

While the AWD will be reliant on US for support, the ANZAC II will be a whole lot less reliant. The whole point of the AWD is to intergrate into the USN and allied fleets. The american system is best for doing that and can do a whole lot more than competiting systems (BMD for one). In that way the US can send one or two ships (destroyer or cruiser) to a taskforce and we and tightly intergrate with those assets to a level another US ship would be able to providing complete coverage.

However, with 3 ships we can't operate and sustain taskforce ourselves. With 4 ships we can certainly look at that possibility. While we are still dependant on the US for parts etc, we can atleast perform missions by our self with our own allies in support. (and I wouldn't be suprised if Spain doesn't take any chance to intergrate with the new F-100 RAN ships in the future, Japan, Korea would also be obvious choices for supporting ships). There are many possible conflicts where the US may not want to send billion dollar ships and personel but will gladly still sell us parts and systems. (in fact I would find it very hard to believe the US wouldn't support Australia with parts unless we were directly attacking US interests).

The "7,000t frigates" mentioned in the whitepaper are our ships. While able to hook into our AWD, they are a seperate line. With radar local and systems from other nations with a whole lot more Aussie input, fabrication and control they provide us with the independance everyone wants.

BMD is something the Aus gov was talking a great deal about, but has died off. I think we should have the systems in place. Even if not the missiles. Having the system in place means we can assist any BMD ship in its defence (perhaps of an aussie vessel or territory) by providing targeting data. If we need the missiles then we order them, and have the systems in place. BMD coveres a whole lot more than missiles too. For a complete BMD we need SM-3.

 

[1805]

1) We didn't order F-100's off Naventia, we purchased the design from then (like the french buying the CVF design from the RN) to be built in our own shipyards.

2) An F-100 is similar in costs to the T-45,however you arent paying development costs for the AAW system. However the trade-off of purchasing the Aegis system, as stated by system addict in the RN thread, is an increased reliance upon the USN for the support of your fleet, never a good thing.

I meant the design of the Australian ships, I was merely joking with Pedro who had made a very good point and his views had been a breath of fresh air in the T45 room.

You can't separate the cost of the ships and the system they have to be looked together, and this is always a balance. The fact is Spain has had access to advance AAW capability since 2003 and the Uk may have this in 2012 at far greater cost.

I just don't see what issue you have with some dependance on the US. Post 1945 UK/European defence has been to varying degrees dependant on the US for resource/manpower, finance and technology. In fact people use to say the purpose of the BOAR in the 1960 was to "Keep the Russian's out, keep the Americans in and keep the Germans down" Japan, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austrailia to name but a few are ok using a US system, The PAAMS systems uses a French missle so not a completely independent system. I would have liked to see the UK deploy a British system in the mid 90s based on the continous development of Sea Dart intergrated when it came along Sampson.

 

[gf0012-aust]

However the trade-off of purchasing the Aegis system, as stated by system addict in the RN thread, is an increased reliance upon the USN for the support of your fleet, never a good thing.

The issue of Aegis needs to be considered across the broad spectrum of what other capability we get access to with the americans.

That is immeasurable as there is a whole raft of other gear which we have privilege into and which is critical for other capability issues.

it's not just a specific naval combat system issue for us. it impacts upon a whole of force capability issue.

quite frankly the brits cannot even hope to compete with the US when this is factored in. eg WGS as one hint of what else can be involved.

 

[StevoJH]

gf,

I never said we are in the same situation as the UK. Unlike them we don't have domestic and semi-domestic options that we could use as an alternative to Aegis, with Aster/PAAMS, they did.

The correct decision for one country is not necessarily the correct decision for another. The Aster 15/30 looks weird in my opinion anyway, with the incredibly small "dart" attached to those massive booster rockets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf,

I never said we are in the same situation as the UK. Unlike them we don't have domestic and semi-domestic options that we could use as an alternative to Aegis, with Aster/PAAMS, they did.

I do like PAAMS, but as you indicate below, one countries correct decision is "not transferable". The thing that a lot of people don't always factor in is that a capability assessment also looks at whole of force integration and development issues. Systems are never assessed in isolation

The correct decision for one country is not necessarily the correct decision for another. The Aster 15/30 looks weird in my opinion anyway, with the incredibly small "dart" attached to those massive booster rockets.

if you think Aster 15/30 looks weird, wait till multi stage hypersonics roll out...

 

[Bonza]

if you think Aster 15/30 looks weird, wait till multi stage hypersonics roll out...

Damn you for saying things like this GF...

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I meant the design of the Australian ships, I was merely joking with Pedro who had made a very good point and his views had been a breath of fresh air in the T45 room.

He tried to claim that 14 ships were coming out of Spain. :

The fact is Spain has had access to advance AAW capability since 2003 and the Uk may have this in 2012 at far greater cost.

The time lag has nothing to do with the system, it's because too long was spent deciding what we wanted and then trying to have a collaborative European programme. Spain decided to buy off-the-shelf, which is cheaper but means the loss of/failure to boost technological development.

people use to say the purpose of the BOAR in the 1960 was to "Keep the Russian's out, keep the Americans in and keep the Germans down"

One person said it about NATO, so what? And what's BOAR?

Japan, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austrailia to name but a few are ok using a US system

Because they have no choice. It's easy to do something when it's the only option available.

The PAAMS systems uses a French missle so not a completely independent system

But it's not American. The point is this, do you want to forever rely on just one country for your defence needs? If you can foresee the future so know you can always rely on it or are willing to roll the dice, fine. But for those of us who aren't soothsayers or don't like to maximise the risk just to save money, diversifying your defence consumption from alternative suppliers and domestic design/build is sensible.

What if Europe lifted the arms embargo on China (unlikely at the moment, I know - but just imagine), and the US retaliated by breaking off support for AEGIS? Or there was some other disagreement that caused the US to get angry?

The problem with the Type 45 is in my view mostly down to government, for constantly changing the requirements, not giving enough money to the defence budget as a whole and generally having a procurement shambles. If AEGIS had been chosen I bet we still would have ended up with 6 ships because the budget allocated would have been less, there still would have been cost overruns and the Treasury still would not have given extra money to cover those losses.

 

[StevoJH]

GF,

Nice taster, too bad you probably can't give any more info then that... nfloorl:

He tried to claim that 14 ships were coming out of Spain. :

He confused purchasing the design with purchasing the ship. The purchase agreement with the Canberra class muddled him up even more I think.

The time lag has nothing to do with the system, it's because too long was spent deciding what we wanted and then trying to have a collaborative European programme. Spain decided to buy off-the-shelf, which is cheaper but means the loss of/failure to boost technological development.

Timelag has everything to do with it. Aegis in 10 years time will be a very different system to Aegis now. Even if the hardware itself remains the same (i doubt the computers will be), the software will have gone through numerous rewrites and upgrades in that time. In addition to that we might require a longer range from ours then they did in theirs, or require additional space/weight for future upgrades.

One person said it about NATO, so what? And what's BOAR?

British Army of the Rhine.

Because they have no choice. It's easy to do something when it's the only option available.

Choice is available, however it has to be balanced against capability and access to other programs, as stated by gf above.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Timelag has everything to do with it. Aegis in 10 years time will be a very different system to Aegis now.

I was talking about the timelag for ships entering service.

Choice is available, however it has to be balanced against capability and access to other programs, as stated by gf above.

I was talking about the choice between getting AEGIS and making their own system. When you have to import technology AEGIS wins hands down because it's cheaper, more widely used so easier to operate with other navies, been in service longer so more "proven", etc.

 

[Pedro C]

hehehe, very good point well made on the T45 thread. I agree great ships and cost effective and in service. The RN with a greater budget could have had 12 and maybe those Australian orders off you, but to the winners goes the spoils

You got me. What can I say...

Yes, I agree with you. If you had walked the AEGIS path you would have built some 12-15 ships for the money of your 6 T45 and, of course, Aussies and some other cousins of yours would have knocked on your door. I reckon that with the RN-UK influence VT could have get some 20+ ships...

 

[kev 99]

The problem with the Type 45 is in my view mostly down to government, for constantly changing the requirements, not giving enough money to the defence budget as a whole and generally having a procurement shambles. If AEGIS had been chosen I bet we still would have ended up with 6 ships because the budget allocated would have been less, there still would have been cost overruns and the Treasury still would not have given extra money to cover those losses.

I've already said the same and more in the T45 thread, it's pretty unlikely we'd of ever got more than the 6 destroyers in the end.

 

[Pedro C]

He tried to claim that 14 ships were coming out of Spain. :



The time lag has nothing to do with the system, it's because too long was spent deciding what we wanted and then trying to have a collaborative European programme. Spain decided to buy off-the-shelf, which is cheaper but means the loss of/failure to boost technological development.



One person said it about NATO, so what? And what's BOAR?



Because they have no choice. It's easy to do something when it's the only option available.



But it's not American. The point is this, do you want to forever rely on just one country for your defence needs? If you can foresee the future so know you can always rely on it or are willing to roll the dice, fine. But for those of us who aren't soothsayers or don't like to maximise the risk just to save money, diversifying your defence consumption from alternative suppliers and domestic design/build is sensible.

What if Europe lifted the arms embargo on China (unlikely at the moment, I know - but just imagine), and the US retaliated by breaking off support for AEGIS? Or there was some other disagreement that caused the US to get angry?

The problem with the Type 45 is in my view mostly down to government, for constantly changing the requirements, not giving enough money to the defence budget as a whole and generally having a procurement shambles. If AEGIS had been chosen I bet we still would have ended up with 6 ships because the budget allocated would have been less, there still would have been cost overruns and the Treasury still would not have given extra money to cover those losses.

I can't see anywhere in my post "14 ships". But know that you mention it, yes, Navantia got money for 5+1 ESP Armada, 5 NOR and 3 RAN. That makes 14. Design or construction. Whatever. Moreover, Navatia has a couple of bussiness oportunities ahead that could take the number of ships built well above 14.

Buy off-the-shelf is clever if you need something good and you need it know. However, the name of the Baseline (S2) and the lack of correlation with the USN Baselines should make you think that the system on the Alvaro de Bazan could be "not-so-off-the-shelf", if I can put it like that. A significant percentage of the SW and systems are spanish. In fact, all the new ships under construction in Spain got SW AEGIS-like, made with the experience gained in the F100 series (ironicly enough, you new LPH among them). So you may need to re-think the "technological boost" bit.

AEGIS was't the only option available. You might be susprised to lean that Spain was in the Tri-nation programme that led to the german-dutch APAR-Smart system. However, I was so risky that we moved to AEGIS (we forced the yanks to make it releaseable, in fact). The german-dutch system is not yet fully operational (2010!!!!!). That may draw you to the conclusion that building an AEGIS-like system is not so easy... So. please, don´t be naive. There is NO other working system nowadays. Germans and Dutch may have it soon, but it is still a "lab-like" combat system... UK, maybe in 7-10 years. Italy and France even later.

Regarding the dependance of the US, can any of think of another country (only after Iran, N.Korea and Venezuela) with more diplomatic conflicts with the US in the last 6 years than Spain? I doubt it. However, we had NO problems whatsoever with supplies, updates, and so on. Bussiness is bussiness.

 

[kev 99]

I can't see anywhere in my post "14 ships". But know that you mention it, yes, Navantia got money for 5+1 ESP Armada, 5 NOR and 3 RAN. That makes 14. Design or construction. Whatever. Moreover, Navatia has a couple of bussiness oportunities ahead that could take the number of ships built well above 14.

At the risk of getting involved in an argument that is nothing to do with me:

Fourteen!!! ships are going out from Navantia's shipyard at Ferrol. Up to now. Versus... 6.... if you are lucky at the Clyde. No,mate, you should have chosen other rationale. AEGIS has been a huge financial success for Navantia.

 

[1805]

I can't see anywhere in my post "14 ships". But know that you mention it, yes, Navantia got money for 5+1 ESP Armada, 5 NOR and 3 RAN. That makes 14. Design or construction. Whatever. Moreover, Navatia has a couple of bussiness oportunities ahead that could take the number of ships built well above 14.

Buy off-the-shelf is clever if you need something good and you need it know. However, the name of the Baseline (S2) and the lack of correlation with the USN Baselines should make you think that the system on the Alvaro de Bazan could be "not-so-off-the-shelf", if I can put it like that. A significant percentage of the SW and systems are spanish. In fact, all the new ships under construction in Spain got SW AEGIS-like, made with the experience gained in the F100 series (ironicly enough, you new LPH among them). So you may need to re-think the "technological boost" bit.

AEGIS was't the only option available. You might be susprised to lean that Spain was in the Tri-nation programme that led to the german-dutch APAR-Smart system. However, I was so risky that we moved to AEGIS (we forced the yanks to make it releaseable, in fact). The german-dutch system is not yet fully operational (2010!!!!!). That may draw you to the conclusion that building an AEGIS-like system is not so easy... So. please, don´t be naive. There is NO other working system nowadays. Germans and Dutch may have it soon, but it is still a "lab-like" combat system... UK, maybe in 7-10 years. Italy and France even later.

Regarding the dependance of the US, can any of think of another country (only after Iran, N.Korea and Venezuela) with more diplomatic conflicts with the US in the last 6 years than Spain? I doubt it. However, we had NO problems whatsoever with supplies, updates, and so on. Bussiness is bussiness.

Well maybe Chirac France....they were even talking about banning french fries (that is a joke and sorry for the typo on BAOR not BOAR)

 

[1805]

I've already said the same and more in the T45 thread, it's pretty unlikely we'd of ever got more than the 6 destroyers in the end.

I do think there would have been an option for more than 6 if they had come in on budget. If the ships offered more flexiblity I would say keep building instead of FSC. I we should have done this in the 80/90s I don't see the value in splitting the ASW & AAW requirement.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I can't see anywhere in my post "14 ships".

See kev's post - you did.

However, the name of the Baseline (S2) and the lack of correlation with the USN Baselines should make you think that the system on the Alvaro de Bazan could be "not-so-off-the-shelf", if I can put it like that.

Whatever input Spain had into the technology does not detract from the fact that the Americans hold the keys to the most important parts of the ship's technology.

AEGIS was't the only option available.

It was the only sensible option at the time. Saying there was a choice was like saying you didn't have to fly Virgin Atlantic, you could also fly Aeroflot or Air Koryo.

That may draw you to the conclusion that building an AEGIS-like system is not so easy... UK, maybe in 7-10 years.

What, are you saying that PAAMS is not comparable to AEGIS or it will take 7-10 years to work? EIther way that's rubbish.

Regarding the dependance of the US, can any of think of another country (only after Iran, N.Korea and Venezuela) with more diplomatic conflicts with the US in the last 6 years than Spain? I doubt it. However, we had NO problems whatsoever with supplies, updates, and so on.

Err, yeah, number of disagreements means nothing. Spain has not done anything that would potentially lead to a cut off of military assistance so far. There's plenty of scope for relations to deteriorate in the future, but hey if you want to roll the dice every decade or so be my guest.

 

[kev 99]

I do think there would have been an option for more than 6 if they had come in on budget. If the ships offered more flexiblity I would say keep building instead of FSC. I we should have done this in the 80/90s I don't see the value in splitting the ASW & AAW requirement.

For reasons that I have already outlined to you I can't see that it would ever have happened, the government is just not interested.