Spain updates AEGIS destroyers

[Pedro C]

See kev's post - you did.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Easy Musashi, easy.

I still hold the 14 ships bit. Read my post. The Aussies paid for the design to build THREE ships. If they want to build the fourth we get extra money (royalties). Read the contract and come back to me. The point of the discussion with 1805 was that AEGIS has proved a huge financial succes for Navantia. Ah! and by the way, parts of the ship are being built in Spain and shipped to Australia. So yes, mate, 14 ships and growing.

Yeah, the yanks hold the key. Fair enough. Options?? None...so what?

There was another sensible option at the time (1994). Risky, though, but still sensible: APAR + Smart L + SM2. Nice ship. Much closer to be fully operational than the T45. I wouldn't put the german technology and "aeroflot" in the same sack.

Yes, I'm saying that PAAMS is not comparable to AEGIS. For one only reason: I doesn't work so far. I will, but not yet. And NEVER EVER believe what the developers say until you see the actual "thing" doing it.

And now listen to me mate. I HAVE SEEN SM2 DOING WHAT USN SAYS IT DOES. Can you tell the same of ASTER? No. Then YOU be my guest :lol2

 

[Pedro C]

GF,

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



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



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.



British Army of the Rhine.



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

More info? Try. I may be able to answer. And definitely I will, with regard to the non-combat system side of life, such as SICP, an astonishing whole-ship computer controlled system

 

[Pedro C]

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.

T45 : 6.26 billion pound (6 ships) --> 1043 billion pound per ship
F100 batch 1: 1.68 billion euro (4 ships) --> 420 billion euro per ship

Same cost?

 

[StevoJH]

T45 : 6.26 billion pound (6 ships) --> 1043 billion pound per ship
F100 batch 1: 1.68 billion euro (4 ships) --> 420 billion euro per ship

Same cost?

Roughly the same cost once you take out the cost of PAAMS development.

 

[1805]

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.

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this, your line is for me personnally too defeatist. If you keep to the budget or build in realistic headroom for projects the politicians will leave you alone (well maybe not in a recession). What you can't do is overrun and winge when the politicians come in with a chainsaw and cut the wrong things. They have given the RN significant increase in capability in a number of areas (CV if built and Assault ships).

 

[1805]

Roughly the same cost once you take out the cost of PAAMS development.

Yes but the point is you can't take out the cost of PAAMS (i would have been happy with the German/Dutch model our Radar and US weopons system/missiles) Thats like saying the BMW would the same price as a Ford if it wasn't the different cost of the engines

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think we are getting a little obessive about the T45. Honestly it was always going to end up like it has IMHO. I don't think there would have been significantly different numbers (maybe 6 verse 8).

While the $'s are more, they are also spent locally employing people, aquiring technologies, etc which then are retained in the economy. While it may not make up for the 600 million pounds a ship difference, but it does go a long way, and at the end of the day it ties UK in closer with France, supports local industry which is on a knife edge as it is (on many levels) and you learn things the hard way that the US will never tell you directly. All the upgrade and development cost will also be spent locally.

In some ways the T45 will be ahead of any AEGIS ship, in some ways it will be defiencent. The Uk and France will have emphasised different areas to the US, and thats a good thing. You can't put a $ figure on that.

For other navies like Spain, Australia, Dutch etc AEGIS is a much better option. Certainly makes it more exportable. However, Australia thinks it could come up with a 2nd tier system pretty much independantly (well with independant assistance from the US). Best of both worlds in a fleet, independance, new technologies, locally developed yet you still have that USN level of proven capability.

 

[kev 99]

I think we just have to agree to disagree on this, your line is for me personnally too defeatist. If you keep to the budget or build in realistic headroom for projects the politicians will leave you alone (well maybe not in a recession). What you can't do is overrun and winge when the politicians come in with a chainsaw and cut the wrong things. They have given the RN significant increase in capability in a number of areas (CV if built and Assault ships).

Sorry but that is utterly wrong and completely ignores what actually happened, in 2004 the politicians cut heavy equipment across ALL services (SSNs, Escorts, Tanks, artillery, SAMs, Fast Jets, Helicopters and corresponding manpower) during a PEAK PERIOD for the economy.

The T45 requirement was reduced to 8 ships under the 'Delivering Security in a Changing World' mini review but only 6 were ordered, and nobody ever expected the options on those last 2 to be taken up. If you cut a requirement before ordering you cannot claim its down to cost overruns because ships 9 to 12 were not required anyway.

 

[1805]

I think we are getting a little obessive about the T45. Honestly it was always going to end up like it has IMHO. I don't think there would have been significantly different numbers (maybe 6 verse 8).

While the $'s are more, they are also spent locally employing people, aquiring technologies, etc which then are retained in the economy. While it may not make up for the 600 million pounds a ship difference, but it does go a long way, and at the end of the day it ties UK in closer with France, supports local industry which is on a knife edge as it is (on many levels) and you learn things the hard way that the US will never tell you directly. All the upgrade and development cost will also be spent locally.

In some ways the T45 will be ahead of any AEGIS ship, in some ways it will be defiencent. The Uk and France will have emphasised different areas to the US, and thats a good thing. You can't put a $ figure on that.

For other navies like Spain, Australia, Dutch etc AEGIS is a much better option. Certainly makes it more exportable. However, Australia thinks it could come up with a 2nd tier system pretty much independantly (well with independant assistance from the US). Best of both worlds in a fleet, independance, new technologies, locally developed yet you still have that USN level of proven capability.

We are majoring on the T45 but this is a good example of the systematic of failures in UK defence procurement. You talk as though: Spain, Australia and the Netherlands are 2nd tier and didn't have the PAAMS option, they could have brought it, wisely they chose not to. The will now orperate 6, 3(maybe 4) and 4 AAD respectively, France & Italy will probably only get 2. In the period prior to introduction of this generation of AAD only the UK in the West deployed a meaningful alternative system to US/Standard ,so I don't know where this desire to be independent of the US comes from. They have there faults don't we all, they do sometimes act out of self interest, but then ours are fairly aligned and unlike make they often act selflessly. I am proud our forces stand alongside them.

 

[1805]

Sorry but that is utterly wrong and completely ignores what actually happened, in 2004 the politicians cut heavy equipment across ALL services (SSNs, Escorts, Tanks, artillery, SAMs, Fast Jets, Helicopters and corresponding manpower) during a PEAK PERIOD for the economy.

The T45 requirement was reduced to 8 ships under the 'Delivering Security in a Changing World' mini review but only 6 were ordered, and nobody ever expected the options on those last 2 to be taken up. If you cut a requirement before ordering you cannot claim its down to cost overruns because ships 9 to 12 were not required anyway.

.

The military shares the blame here, its easy to say what you want/are going to do, but few are prepared to accept the financial reality and say what they are prepared to go without or have later. I don't mean having a swipe at the RAF or Army on their kit. . If the military don't do this then politicians come in and hack about almost a random. The RN could have built 4 Destroyers in 90s developments of the T42 and then a further 4 mid 2000 and we could be looking at another 4 in the next decade (12 is sustainable). 25-30 year breaks in construction don't help continuous development. This constant "Oliver Twist" "can we have some more" is a broken record.

 

[kev 99]

.

The military shares the blame here, its easy to say what you want/are going to do, but few are prepared to accept the financial reality and say what they are prepared to go without or have later. I don't mean having a swipe at the RAF or Army on their kit. . If the military don't do this then politicians come in and hack about almost a random. The RN could have built 4 Destroyers in 90s developments of the T42 and then be working on another 4 mid 2000 and we could be looking at 4 in the next decade. 25-30 year breaks in construction don't help continuous development. This constant "Oliver Twist" "can we have some more" is a broken record.

This was not the politicians "hacking about" at random this was a complete downgrading of the UK's ability to fight a major conventional war because the UK Government decided that it wasn't going to fight in any, the cuts in 2004 were very specific and very focused, they coincided with investments in other areas, notably intelligence services and special forces.

The RN certainly could of built evolved T42s in the 90s, there certainly were designs for them, all dismissed as too expensive but if built and 4 more added in the mid 200os the RN would now be saddled with an obsolete system based around a missile designed in the late 60s and comparable to the US Terrier, new ships for the next decade would have been canceled in the 2004 cuts. So going forward the RN would have a AAW system that was obsolete based around an upgraded 50 year old missile design and no budget to upgrade because it was spent already on your evolved T42 design. I'm all for investing in upgrading systems but the RN decided to bin Sea Dart for a reason, and let's be honest; the T42s were always a compromised ship built to a budget, by all accounts the RN won't be sorry to see the back of them.

The only country I can realistically see doing the kind of continuous development you describe is the US, because they are the only country that has the budget to do it.

 

[1805]

Sea Dart was a very good missile, originally saddled to a poor radar, the radar it should have been matched with was 3D radar on the Tromps. The Batch 1 & 2 did have a surprisingly poor hull and the stretch Batch 3 had issues. but the missle was ahead of its time. A ramjet gave range and speed disproprtionate to it's size comparable to SM 1. The mad decision to cancel Mark 2 in the late 80 condemned us to mess we are now in. Its development was underfund. The cut budget is correct but for me the right decision. Would you rather thave taken 8 T42 to the Falkands rather than 4 T82. The mistake was not maximising, should have put this on the Counties not Excot and I would never have developed Sea Wolf focused completely on Sea Dart (as the US instaling SM MR on the Perrys). The RN needs to focus on core technologies and maximise internal/export value. Ramjet is being planned for longer range missiles and was the right way to go. Simply a solution is, missles, radar, weapons system and launcher. I think these could have been developed over time, cost less and had export potential.

The T42 went to war when they were still underdeveloped, if the T45 face a similar conflict in 2012 they would struggle and probably be branded a failure, when they will be great ships (I think you miss the point Pedro and I am raising we don't dislike the T45 but they don't represent the best solution)

 

[kev 99]

Sea Dart was a system roughly comparable to Terrier, it was introduced at a roughly similar timee that the USN was introducing the superior Standard Missile, it also wasn't designed to engage Sea Skimmers at a time when they were becoming commonplace. I don't see anything particularly ground breaking in any of that. I also don't see anything particularly surprising about how poor the T42s were, they were designed to a budget, unwisely shortened in length on a warship that really needed to be stable, poor sea keeping on the Batch 1 and 2s and cramped crew conditions are hardly surprising at all.

Re: Sea Dart 2 done is done, there's no point moaning about it. Sooner or later the RN would of needed to introduce a system with a new architecture including new radars and much more computing power, this is what the Americans did when they came up with Aegis, spent a whole load of money on it on a combat systems married to an existing missile, this is what we did with PAAMs, no difference.

Counties with Sea Dart - no idea how difficult that would of been, I'm pretty confident that the conversions would of been hugely expensive though, remember this is during the 70s where money was very tight.

Counties had Exocet installed because the decision had been made to phase fixed wing aircraft out of the RN and it was refocusing on defending the UK - Iceland gap; the escort force needed a long range weapon to keep Soviet ships at a distance in lieu of aircraft.

 

[1805]

Sea Dart was a system roughly comparable to Terrier, it was introduced at a roughly similar timee that the USN was introducing the superior Standard Missile, it also wasn't designed to engage Sea Skimmers at a time when they were becoming commonplace. I don't see anything particularly ground breaking in any of that. I also don't see anything particularly surprising about how poor the T42s were, they were designed to a budget, unwisely shortened in length on a warship that really needed to be stable, poor sea keeping on the Batch 1 and 2s and cramped crew conditions are hardly surprising at all.

Re: Sea Dart 2 done is done, there's no point moaning about it. Sooner or later the RN would of needed to introduce a system with a new architecture including new radars and much more computing power, this is what the Americans did when they came up with Aegis, spent a whole load of money on it on a combat systems married to an existing missile, this is what we did with PAAMs, no difference.

Counties with Sea Dart - no idea how difficult that would of been, I'm pretty confident that the conversions would of been hugely expensive though, remember this is during the 70s where money was very tight.

Counties had Exocet installed because the decision had been made to phase fixed wing aircraft out of the RN and it was refocusing on defending the UK - Iceland gap; the escort force needed a long range weapon to keep Soviet ships at a distance in lieu of aircraft.

You are comparing the Mod 0 performance and ignoring the developments introduced in the 90s MOD 2 & 3 (come on tell us about the Value technology). Which extended the range to 80nm and had anti sea skimming capability. Yes not Aegis. The dedate not about Sea Dart as such is around the concept of continuously developing over just dumping the who concept and starting from scratch. Standard/Aegisis an example of the former. I notice you ducked the issue of the T82 v T42 numbers/capability.

 

[1805]

oh and the low cost was no excuse for a badly designed hull form.

 

[kev 99]

oh and the low cost was no excuse for a badly designed hull form.

Yes it was, a decision was made to reduce the length of the hull to save money on steel, the result was a hull form with poor sea keeping. The Batch 3s had a lengthened hull form more in keeping with the orginal.

MOD 90s development of Sea Dart is not relevant to the argument, you made the point that Sea Dart was before its time, I simply stated that it wasn't, talking about capabilities introduced 20 years after its in service data doesn't change that. By the Way I never stated that Sea Dart wasn't any good, by all accounts HMS Exeter the only ship in the Falklands with the new radar performed above expectations and its certainly the case that its capabilities were further increased but I certainly don't see that there is much in the way of growth margins and I doubt the MOD do either.

I didn't duck the T82 verses T42 debate, I ignored it because it is not relevant. T82s were meant to be carrier escorts, we didn't need as many of them because we would of had AEW aircraft and a fighter screen. Get rid of the carriers and the T82s became pointless, this is why they were cut. If we get rid of the T82s we do need something else which has to be cheaper and built in higher numbers because there are no carriers and therefore no AEW aircraft and fighters to protect the fleet.

 

[Pedro C]

Yes but the point is you can't take out the cost of PAAMS (i would have been happy with the German/Dutch model our Radar and US weopons system/missiles) Thats like saying the BMW would the same price as a Ford if it wasn't the different cost of the engines

Absolutely. I totally agree.

On the other hand, given the diferences between them, it is hard to believe that PAAMS development takes 60% of the whole programme budget (that's roughly the difference in price T45-F100).

Stevo tends to think that by repeating something a number of times, that becomes true....

Let's face it. T45 is expensive (as F124, Horizon and the rest of it)

 

[1805]

I am just saying there was a British option to build capable ships in the 90s. They may not have been as good at Aegis but if we decided not to go british we could have had Aegis in 15 years ago. The Japanese got the system then and the UK has a relationship as close.

I don't think French defence procurement is without fault but there is clear direction and gradually they have become strong in most key technologies (as we have fallen away),. We need to adopt a similar approach. A key driving principle is the French will nationally source even if the product is not as good, they see key stratgic value in this. I say we need to adopt the same approach. The Sea Dart would have been adequate, it's lack of a big booster would have enabled it to be installed on most UK ships. I think the use of a Ramjet was ahead of its time and offers better option for long range perfromance. (BrahMos MBDA Meteor..)

Sea Dart would never have been used as the starting point of a JV development with France as this would not be French. So PAAMS is a french missile and they wouldn't use our Radar so I don't see what we did get. The French even insisted on their own VLS. All we have done is once again subsidise the French. They do this so well look at Ariane, the European space programme is the French SLBM M51!!!

They have a look at Euro JV projects if they can't dominate they duck out and focus on a national project. Eurofighter/Rafale. We only left Horizon when we realised how obvious this was becoming.

 

[Pedro C]

I am just saying there was a British option to build capable ships in the 90s. They may not have been as good at Aegis but if we decided not to go british we could have had Aegis in 15 years ago. The Japanese got the system then and the UK has a relationship as close.

I don't think French defence procurement is without fault but there is clear direction and gradually they have become strong in most key technologies (as we have fallen away),. We need to adopt a similar approach. A key driving principle is the French will nationally source even if the product is not as good, they see key stratgic value in this. I say we need to adopt the same approach. The Sea Dart would have been adequate, it's lack of a big booster would have enabled it to be installed on most UK ships. I think the use of a Ramjet was ahead of its time and offers better option for long range perfromance. (BrahMos MBDA Meteor..)

Sea Dart would never have been used as the starting point of a JV development with France as this would not be French. So PAAMS is a french missile and they wouldn't use our Radar so I don't see what we did get. The French even insisted on their own VLS. All we have done is once again subsidise the French. They do this so well look at Ariane, the European space programme is the French SLBM M51!!!

They have a look at Euro JV projects if they can't dominate they duck out and focus on a national project. Eurofighter/Rafale. We only left Horizon when we realised how obvious this was becoming.

Switching sides... french mastered at that

Anyway, my answer was really directed to Stevo.... the "maths" magician

 

[1805]

While I am on a French rant, I see these heated debates on F22 v Typhoon, when we know the F22 is the best, but I look at the Rafale land on a carrier and you know who has done the most with the least. There will be no replacement for the Typhoon/Tornado the field will be left to the French, US and Russia\India JVs. Pedro sorry for hi jacking you tread!