Same old story, bought to do one job then forced by government procurement decisions to do another. They were designed and built to be patrol frigates supporting a force of six to eight high end general purpose guided missile frigates / destroyers but were forced to step up and fill the shoes of these high end general purpose vessels when successive government failed to order proper replacements.
The first plan was the ANZAC WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program) where it was inteneded to fit AEGIS and SPY-1F to the ANZACs, I am not sure how much was wasted on this before it was realised that it wouldn't fit and would stuff stability. ASMD is the second attempt and appears to be a much more suitable system the trouble is the platform is still over loaded hence the significant reduction in speed. When I look at an ANZAC I can't help but wonder how much better off we would be if they had been followed by a stretched FFG version, with a larger VLS and greater stability margins, to replace the DDGs and FFGs; imagine these larger, more capable ships fitted with ASMD instead of the ANZACs, they would give the AWDs a run for their money, capability wise, while being far more affordable and permitting the RAN to have maintained hull numbers.
Never been a fan of the ANZAC drive train and that combined gear box arrangement is plain odd. IMHO this would have needed quite a bit of change/rejigging/increase in capacity (even from a power generation view) to stretch the thing.
I think the need for growth margin in ship size is a lesson we need to learn as this was a problem with both the ANZAC and FFG7 where margins were minimal and increasing capability (aka ASMD and Seahawk) often resulted in significant structural work and time in the yard (and money).
Cannot give categoric data on stability margins but plating in the quarter deck would have provided a significant boost to buoyant volume and, hence, transverse stability. This, combined with permanent ballast and structure changes appear to have given the margin for the ASMD growth (and again makes the point about designing growth in at the onset).
Looking at stability, the problem is not always the static stability but the dynamic stability which captures such gems as free surface effect. As such where the vessel burns fuel the free surface effect in a fuel tank will increase (the more it can slosh the greater the free surface moment) as the CoG goes up with loss of weight lower in the ship. Empty tanks are less of an issue but even residues can contribute to the overall free surface moment and you still of the loss of CoG.
As a result you can end up with operational limitations. The vessel can be quite stable when full of fuel but can get 'tender' with fuel burn, particularly at the limits of range. As Samoa noted in a previous post not all the ships in the class are the same in this regard due to changes during production run and it appears earlier ships may have less margin.
The 'initial' plans we saw had the extra FC system, harpoon behind the bridge, 16 cells and 2 CIWS ............... the word aspirational comes to mind.
I think the KIWI's are progressing in a manner that suits their needs. CAMM has some advantages (that ESSM may pick up with Block II ...... if funded) and I expect the cost of the the upgrade will be a LOT less than the ASMD and will still be quite capable for self defence. From what I understand the ASMD upgrade on ANZAC is bloody impressive but in a limited budget is this what the RNZN needs.
Any idea on Skipper101's background.
