The AWD's have OpenAegis, which is COTS based? No plans for a BMD release so the customer would have to fund that? Are there any other similar fleets in the world (SK or Japan) which might want to collaborate?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The AWD's have OpenAegis, which is COTS based? No plans for a BMD release so the customer would have to fund that? Are there any other similar fleets in the world (SK or Japan) which might want to collaborate?
justsomeaussie
Member
Has the word Commercial-Off-the-self now lost so much meaning that it's being applied to military software/systems? Unless there are commercial entities needing ballistic missile defence it's just another buzzword that DMO uses to pretend its managing risk.
It'll be a few quid but not as expensive as introducing a different ship with different GT's, silos, radar etc into the mix.
SM3 is now fairly easy to integrate into non-AEGIS ships - a volume search radar to acquire the target, datalink to guide the missile and silos to launch it from plus some way of tying that into the CMS so Type 45 could carry SM3, but is already more or less fit for the ABM capable Aster.
Type 45 was looked at for Oz but rejected as too risky (GT's, radar, IFEP, the list of stuff that was either unproven or known to be tricky to get working was lengthy.
That and the fact that Type 45 was structured around a different missile set than that in use by the existing Oz ships were deal killers.
I believe the version Australia bought is the Open Architecture version and isn't therefore tied to any custom hardware. Ergo, COTS...
You can go out and buy some hardware, then run the AEGIS stuff on that, and you're on.
Here's a thesis on the subject:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a551966.pdf
justsomeaussie
Member
Wouldn't you at least call this MOTS then? It's still not a commercial item.
Edit: ah ha. So COTS hardware and MOTS software. I don't think there is much MOTS computer servers left anymore.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/SAS2013/2. AEGIS.pdf
The second page is a good overview of the hardware differences between the various Aegis baselines.
The hardware and software version of Aegis the RAN bought is a modified version of Baseline 8 fitted to the modernized early build Tico's. The main modification for the RAN is for SPY-1D(V). Overall it is a fantastic baseline and a great improvement over Baseline 7.
The Koreans and a few of the Japanese ships use baseline 7. It uses SBC's instead of blade centers and isn't anywhere near as open.
While the core AAW software is nearly the same between 8 and 9 the hardware is almost completely different. Baseline 9 no longer uses the Q-70 generation of consoles for example.
Fast-track frigates to save jobs
As per the Australian's subject - something now publicly announced.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I thought the valley of death had pretty much started to set in. To make any meaningful contribution to stopping that, orders for new frigate bits would have to go out sharpish I would imagine.
rb
As per the Australian's subject - something now publicly announced.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
I thought the valley of death had pretty much started to set in. To make any meaningful contribution to stopping that, orders for new frigate bits would have to go out sharpish I would imagine.
rb
t68
Well-Known Member
Would have thought it would make more sence to build steel hulled OPV using the Damien 2400 design fitted for but not with the bits to upgun them if need be, leave the Anzac replacement to mature more and get it right from the beginning.
Not knowing much about patrol boat requirements I do note that the ACPB is rated at a max speed of 25 knots, the Damen 2400 is 23 knots (2600 is 24 knots). I presume patrol boats generally do that - patrol at an economical speed - with maximum speed reserved for when required. What value an extra couple of knots speed in reserve?
Offshore Patrol Vessel - Ranges - Damen
For the same crewing - 60 - you get an extra 200t and one knot increase in speed and 1000nm extended range with the 2600 - for how much more money?
cheers
rb
Just building a fourth Hobart class would be less risky. That would give them more time to fully develop a flight 2 design.
The UKs answer to its own valley of death problem was to order three OPVs ... another option worth thinking about for Australia.
IHS have announced that Canberra has commenced trials
Problem with that is lead time required for ordering equipment and systems required for an AWD, Aegis and Spy being major issues, to the point where as I understand it, we have missed the boat on that
t68
Well-Known Member
To go to all that trouble it would not be cost effective unless we order multiple platforms, or batch 2 could we do with another three or is three enough?
I think that the proposal to continue making hull blocks based on the AWD for the future frigate is probably the most cost effective thing to do ATM to preserve ship building at these yards.
They are already getting good at it, there is not the difficulty of setting up a new production line for a yet to be decided platform and the problems that come with it, the workforce is in place and there are efficiencies starting to come into play in the current process.
The Radar suite is to be the CEA Technologies sourced item in conjunction with the systems from SAAB. Some hurry up will be needed in getting this frigate programme underway, but that should be addressed in the forthcoming white paper.
MB
They are already getting good at it, there is not the difficulty of setting up a new production line for a yet to be decided platform and the problems that come with it, the workforce is in place and there are efficiencies starting to come into play in the current process.
The Radar suite is to be the CEA Technologies sourced item in conjunction with the systems from SAAB. Some hurry up will be needed in getting this frigate programme underway, but that should be addressed in the forthcoming white paper.
MB
Bringing forward the new frigate program...Is there any chance the existing Anzac class could reduce capability and more importantly man power and be used in a patrol role?.. potentially putting back new class of OPV or OCV..
This is as the hulls start to be replaced with the new frigate, i'd assume there is still plenty of life in these...or would this be too costly ?
This is as the hulls start to be replaced with the new frigate, i'd assume there is still plenty of life in these...or would this be too costly ?
TheRealist
Member
This would definitely be the most logical and easy to carry out option. At 6000-7000t, for a frigate, that leaves plenty of room for future growth. The main thing that we'd be missing out on would be the stealth advances of a future design. I guess that would have to be relegated to the eventual AWD replacement.
I would have rather seen us commence the new submarine build after the AWD's are finished. As we intend to increase the number in our submarine fleet, we could build 3 or 4 before the first Collins was decommissioned. Rudd wanted to double the fleet. I dont know what Abbott wants to do as far as a number is concerned, but I dont expect it to be twelve. Purely for political reasons it will be a different figure, probably ten.
It will be interesting to see what the whitepaper says on this. I have never heard of any country ordering the construction of hull blocks with no final design in place. It sounds like an odd, and potentially risky way of doing things.
Re-tasking the Anzacs as patrol frigates does make sense however. That was their original purpose. I wonder if they will scale back the upgrades on the remaining Anzacs in favour of bringing a number of new frigates into service earlier than planned.
Re-tasking the Anzacs as patrol frigates does make sense however. That was their original purpose. I wonder if they will scale back the upgrades on the remaining Anzacs in favour of bringing a number of new frigates into service earlier than planned.
I would think top speed much less important when ship has an embarked helicopter.
- Status