Why, technically the AWD, with systems modification, can do this with the sensors and cells it has (I believe it will be a bit cramped).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Article stating the cost to upgrade would be billions.
I guess I was questioning "if" it would work out cheaper to just build a new platform with such an additional cost to upgrade ?
What exactly would be required to upgrade the AWD ?
I believe Spain participated in an interception.
Japan’s Fleet BMD: Upgrades & UORs
"While Spain has not deployed SM-3 missiles, it has sent its F100 AEGIS frigates to participate in American ballistic missile defense exercises as tracking ships. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ, and is expected to be complete by September 2012. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contracts, and acts as Japan & Spain’s FMS agent (N00024-10-C-5124)."
There are some costs attached, if you want to be like Japan and fire the missile, or like spain and just assist in the launch.
Also it was never spelled out if we were talking SM-3 or/and some sort of navalised PAC-3 system. There were some great posts about this circa 2011 by Abe G and co. If its pac-3 we might be able to have it on the frigates too.
Billions? Where do you get this figure. The Mk41 cells on the AWD are strike length and this is the same as used on the AB and CG's. The SM3 Block II still fits in strike length cells.
The Aegis system fitted to the to the AWD is capable of being upgraded to undertake this function.
So I am very curious about the 'billions figure'
Joe Black
Active Member
Poor journalism at best I think. I would think the AWD will be BMD ready with some software updates plus the SM3 that's all.
Joe Black
Active Member
Looks like the UK is building 3 Ocean class OPV at the BAE Glasglow shipyard as a stop gap before they start building the Type 26. Perhaps this is also a potential Armidale PB replacement and can be done at local shipyard (BAE Australia and/or Thales Australia).
Both the Ocean class and Damen 2400 OPV look great as replacement for the PBs.
Reference: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-opvs-bridge-over-the-river-class-026341/
Both the Ocean class and Damen 2400 OPV look great as replacement for the PBs.
Reference: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-opvs-bridge-over-the-river-class-026341/
It was built on the cheap and it paid the price for that. No dual offset firemain, not enough pumps on the fire main and not enough portable pumps.
BMD 3.6 and 4.0 is not available on the computer baseline the RAN is getting. Go look at the list of Burkes and Tico's with BMD. All of them are older non-COTS ships.
The upcoming COTS BMD version is BMD 5.0 but for that the AWD's would need a whole new computer suite and possibly consoles (Baseline 9), modifications to SPY-1D(V) such as the new multi-mission signal processor.
Not cheap but certainly not "billions" of dollars.
Nope. The version of Aegis on the AWD's is not compatible with any current or planned versions of Aegis BMD.
justsomeaussie
Member
The commercial side for Austal is that they are pitching for a 22 vessel build cycle to keep Henderson alive. That means customs + Armidale replacment. However if recent reports are anything to go off SEA1179 is going to be steel ruling out Austal.
Politically however with Johnston being from Perth and the VP of Austal the former DCN it will be very interesting to see what happens as no doubt Austal will have to shut Henderson if it can't get additional work after the last Cape rolls out.
Politically however with Johnston being from Perth and the VP of Austal the former DCN it will be very interesting to see what happens as no doubt Austal will have to shut Henderson if it can't get additional work after the last Cape rolls out.
Considering what just happened to Bundaberg I believe aluminium has had its day with the RAN. Add to this the structural and corrosion issues experienced with the ACPBs, compared to the proceeding Attack and Fremantle classes, awarding any further PB work to Austal would be pork barreling in the extreme.
justsomeaussie
Member
I agree that al likely has had it's day. What are thoughts on not having a ship builder on the west coast?
Would these sort of upgrades be normally considered for a mid life refit etc or do Aegis systems tend to stay much the same for the life of the ship. Can the AWD feed data for a BMD launch to a capable ship?
Why not an updated F-100 based AWD? While I have questioned the reasoning behind an F-100 based GP frigate a follow on AWD incorporating an updated AEGIS system would be lower risk and deliver much higher capability. These could be the replacement for the remaining FFGs with the ANZAC replacement to follow later.
You could follow this on with a second tranche of F100 hull based frigates to replace the ANZAC class. By that time the RAN should have an idea of upgrades it might want from the first tranche. A GP frigate based on the F100 hull may interest the kiwis. Someone recently suggested an Absalon style GP frigate design for this hull. That would be quite an interesting concept.
Last edited:
Joe Black
Active Member
An alternative is to look at Navatia F110 Frigate as a possible replacement for the ANZAC. Given Spain will be building that to replace their FFGs, surely their needs might be quite similar to RAN's needs.
Spain’s revolutionary new frigate, the F-110
See the various proposed design:
http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/54/74/56/201311/ob_4adf22_f-110-frigate-photo-navantia.jpg
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13,576
The 'Cape Class' are not a major investment for Austal, considering the Henderson yard builds mainly Commercial ferries and the Capes were a side project, as would be a PB(god i hope not). Defmin did hint at LCS from Austal, i am somewhat supportive of the idea, in that we need something a little bigger in the north for operations to avoid having to utilize Frigates like we have to at the moment.
LCS does ruffle some feathers on here, but its more the size and capability it would bring and with OCV being dropped in favour for OPV it would be a middle ground capability between OPV and Anzac II that could be based in Darwin for short notice operations in the north.
Fitted for and with which is the more capable platform. In the UK, most opinion favours the T45. Would interesting to hear the views of informed bystanders.
justsomeaussie
Member
I hope you've been Henderson in the past 12 months because Henderson has pretty much been relegated to only paramilitary/Defence builds with the Phillipines yard taking over any commercial. With SEA1179 pushing any concept of SEA1180 OCV further over the horizon I can't see where an LCS build would slot in.
As you know I am not a fan as the deadweight compated to something like the 2400 is not in the same ball park and they are fragile things.
The 80m MRV is going to cost a hell of a lot more than the Damen 90 m mild steel mono hull even if it was built here and the latter will last longer, has reasonable speed (24 knots ....... but sustainable) and greater range at a higher transit speed all due to a greater real deadweight.
Austal have done some remarkable work on HSC and their ferries were cutting edge, however they have a yard in the Philippines which is now doing this work. The only real work left here is the the military stuff.
Cost for capability I would rather see BAE (and others) given a run at an OPV and 4 F105 based ANZAC II pending decisions on the furture submarines as this may allow naval building to continue with out the cost of establishing capability.
On a side issue if we are going down the BMD then spending the cash on the system upgrade (and added cramptness) of the AWD is the easiest and most cost effective option noting it may be possible to do the last hull could be done in build if a decision is made. If we want to preserve shipbuilding they need to be able to get into a project with a very short lead time and a whole new class or an F105 with massive modification would militate against this,
I will get off my soap box now
Sorry we must have been typing at the same time but just had to say ...... agree 100%
- Status