Wouldn't that leave us with an unbalanced force of air defence vs anti-submarine vessels?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The AWDs have a comprehensive ASW system including a VDS and when it enters service it will be the most capable ASW escort the RAN has ever had. Just because it has a primary air defence role doesn't mean it can't do ASW very well too, same applied to the Perth Class DDGs.
That doesn't mean that the new frigates won't be even better at ASW, just that the AWDs will be no slouches. What it will mean is, assuming an AWD is a prerequisite for an effective surface action group, that the RAN will be able to deploy more independent groups than they would. Instead of occasionally two and rarely three groups with an AWD and one or two frigates the RAN would potentially have four or even five groups of a paired AWD and replacement frigate forming the core of a group.
This a recent iteration on the F-110 (143,8 m, 5850 t):
[ame="http://s5.photobucket.com/user/rgc/media/F110_AltaResolucion_zpsawghumrl.jpg.html"]F110_AltaResolucion_zpsawghumrl.jpg Photo by rgc | Photobucket[/ame]
... and this Navantia Sea5000 proposal (147,2 m, 7200 t):
[ame="http://s5.photobucket.com/user/rgc/media/NAVANTIA_SEA5000_3_zpsj50oiqwr.jpg.html"]NAVANTIA_SEA5000_3_zpsj50oiqwr.jpg Photo by rgc | Photobucket[/ame]
Regards
The problem is the version of AEGIS we are fitting in the AWD will soon be an orphan as US baseline upgrades progress. From my understanding they will not be supporting this version into the future and the upgrade is a major hardware change. Even if we go for 3 more AWD's then we would need to consider a differnet baseline.
The other issue is power. Not all AEGIS is the same and the version fitted in the AWD is more advance ....... And more power hungry ....... Than that fitted to the Spanish F100 series. If we were to upgrade to a newer baseline and the power requirments increase then the ships generation capacity could be on the blood.
There is also the fact that the claims for the capability of the CEA system to be fitted suggest it will be very capable. If that is true then it would make sense to progress with the adoption of this system ....... Particularly if we get CEC.
Again just postulating
A second batch would logically be baselined with new and/or enhanced systems, just as the Hobarts evolved from the F-104 baseline. For example the Hobarts have Aegis Baseline 7.1 and SPY-1D(v), even though this was a tight fit, because of its greater capability and open architecture. They also have an Australian Combat System that integrates Aegis (which will follow the USN development program) with the Australian specific additions, including the enhanced ASW suite. This enables the Hobarts to be upgraded independently from the USN.
Power generation and space have been issues on the Hobarts and came up often during the program with many solutions being rejected because it would take the ships too far from the selected design baseline. For example fitting more powerful generators (GTs were even suggested) as the baseline units are pretty old tech, this was rejected and the F-104 baseline DGs were ordered. A new batch could easily adopt much more powerful generators, or even a hybrid electric system.
In fact, a second batch could easily be far superior to the Hobarts as Navantia offered to change anything Australia wanted changed it was government that rejected this because they believed it would drive up cost and cause delay. Ironically many cost and schedule issues were actually caused by trying to build to out dated data using an atrified supply chain and borderline obsolescent equipment, updating the design would likely have had less detrimental impact than trying to build to the older spec.
Navantia offered a second helicopter, 64 VLS cells, more powerful generators and greater displacement plus other improvements to match the capability offered by the Baby Burke, but these were rejected as it was meant to be the"existing" option, not the"evolved". These features could easily be added to an evolved batch 2, as could a later Aegis baseline, possibly CEAFAR instead of SPY and a multitude of other updates, many of which could be flagged for fitment to the Hobarts as they come due for major maintenance availabilities.
The added advantage of a second batch, apart from increased capability and an upgrade path for the first batch, is the additional ships would mean it is easier to schedule upgrades for the first batch as they will no longer be the only air warfare ships in the fleet. If we are smart we could actually design and equip them in such a way that they have sufficient commonality with the Hobarts to de-risk their design and construction, provide a proven upgrade path for the Hobarts and also contain sufficient new technology to de-risk the design and construction of the following new combatants that will replace the remaining ANZACs.
Power generation and space have been issues on the Hobarts and came up often during the program with many solutions being rejected because it would take the ships too far from the selected design baseline. For example fitting more powerful generators (GTs were even suggested) as the baseline units are pretty old tech, this was rejected and the F-104 baseline DGs were ordered. A new batch could easily adopt much more powerful generators, or even a hybrid electric system.
In fact, a second batch could easily be far superior to the Hobarts as Navantia offered to change anything Australia wanted changed it was government that rejected this because they believed it would drive up cost and cause delay. Ironically many cost and schedule issues were actually caused by trying to build to out dated data using an atrified supply chain and borderline obsolescent equipment, updating the design would likely have had less detrimental impact than trying to build to the older spec.
Navantia offered a second helicopter, 64 VLS cells, more powerful generators and greater displacement plus other improvements to match the capability offered by the Baby Burke, but these were rejected as it was meant to be the"existing" option, not the"evolved". These features could easily be added to an evolved batch 2, as could a later Aegis baseline, possibly CEAFAR instead of SPY and a multitude of other updates, many of which could be flagged for fitment to the Hobarts as they come due for major maintenance availabilities.
The added advantage of a second batch, apart from increased capability and an upgrade path for the first batch, is the additional ships would mean it is easier to schedule upgrades for the first batch as they will no longer be the only air warfare ships in the fleet. If we are smart we could actually design and equip them in such a way that they have sufficient commonality with the Hobarts to de-risk their design and construction, provide a proven upgrade path for the Hobarts and also contain sufficient new technology to de-risk the design and construction of the following new combatants that will replace the remaining ANZACs.
Great pictures, thanks! It seems as if the hull dimensions would then be exactly the same as the AWD's. They have been able to reconfigure for two helicopters and the other modifications without altering the original hull.
It would seem an Sea5000 that evolved the F-105 could have improvements spun back to the AWD in some areas. Saving on engineering costs for the AWD and logistics. I would imagine this would be ongoing and not just a once off.
If we did choose an evolved F-105 for sea5000, does that mean we could in theory build another (or more) AWD during the build for the replacement frigate? Perhaps with the first frigate replacement launched, then another evolved AWD to act as lead for upgrades to the rest of the AWD fleet?
The 'evolved' design for the follow on frigate includes the double hanger and a growth margin up to 7500 tonnes (depending on the source for the second figure). Not sure if there is space and weight for 64 cells but I was aware that there was proposed growth for this.
New DG's with the same foot print and higher power output are not such a big issue a big issue from a design point of view as the weight variations would be quite low and trunkings/piping/cable runs would not required significant modification.
You would hope the future frigate will not be tied to the same equipment fit as the AWD where there are better options that provide for great growth in power demand. In some cases it is simply not worth maintaining commonality where it means using dated and less capable equipment (hence my view the batch builds are best as it allows for iterative upgrade between batches). In may cases with DGs if you use a new model of the same make there is still some commonalty.
Looking the cargo vessels as an example ... even in the same class of vessel operators will fit different main engines and gensets where this offer a fuel burn and/or power advantage.
I'm not sure if the current DGs are even still available as the propulsion diesels are actually no longer MARPOL compliant and as such, even if available, would have to be covered by a waiver to be used. The GTs were either near the last, if not the last analog versions produced and are definitely no longer available.
Personally I think it was a shame that the government was so determined to build to print on the Hobarts as it tied the RAN to already on its way out equipment and systems for another three decades. A little bit more flexibility could have helped things run much smoother over all of, while tying the project to building to the provided data, built in obsolescence and often saw experienced and capable people having to step back in how they did things as the contract baselined everything at 1997.
Personally I think it was a shame that the government was so determined to build to print on the Hobarts as it tied the RAN to already on its way out equipment and systems for another three decades. A little bit more flexibility could have helped things run much smoother over all of, while tying the project to building to the provided data, built in obsolescence and often saw experienced and capable people having to step back in how they did things as the contract baselined everything at 1997.
The only MARPOL issue wouel be annex Vi and units constructed after 2000 should be complaint (at least to the relevant tier). What you say simple supports my point in that systems need to be updated iteratively in batches. Even versions of the same DG and GT will have common elements and ..... Better still ..... If they have the same foot print may allow for upgrades. However if you have to cut access into the hull for DG's that is not cheap.
Blas de Lezo
Member
Most of us have a tendency to over credit what "Could have been" against what "it is".
Every project comes with it´s own hiccups and hurdles and there are risks involved with all of them.
The F-100s have been in service since 2002 and since that time they have been a workhorse in the Armada and probably the most sought after asset in the Spanish armoury ( by Nato). One or two of them are in permanent service with Nato and have been the backbone of many Nato formations for years. They have an extremely high level of availability and at times the five of them have been available.
Everything is, of course, arguable but you would be press to find in the whole of Europe and for the last 13 years a more formidable group of AW assets.
Ever since they enter service they have been operating at full capability, all systems go and with a bit of luck you would get the same or better from your Hobarts.
Blas de Lezo
Member
I am a fan of the T45, I think they are excellent ships but their teething problems and full capabilities are still a few years away from being realised ( just my opinion).
Navy forced to buy new engines for its problem-hit Type 45 destroyers - Portsmouth News
For some reason the system does not allow me to correctly place the link, my apologies.
Navy forced to buy new engines for its problem-hit Type 45 destroyers - Portsmouth News
For some reason the system does not allow me to correctly place the link, my apologies.
Had Australia planned for the timely replacement of the DDGs as they retired in the late 90s, early 2000s, rather than investing (wasting) so much on the FFGupgrade instead, the F-100, De Zeven Provincen, or F-124 would have been ideal. Because we stuffed around for a decade before placing an order newer better options became available.
Actually if you look at the cost of F-105, verses the entire project cost of the first four ships it came in at almost twice the average cost of the earlier hulls. This is interesting as it was built at the same yard as the first four, the same work force, and hot on the heals of five similar ships built for Norway. I know you need to factor in inflation but the project did suffer extensive cost over runs and delays when compared to the first four. This was under the management team being brought in to fix AWD, using the design data that was supposed fine.
Actually if you look at the cost of F-105, verses the entire project cost of the first four ships it came in at almost twice the average cost of the earlier hulls. This is interesting as it was built at the same yard as the first four, the same work force, and hot on the heals of five similar ships built for Norway. I know you need to factor in inflation but the project did suffer extensive cost over runs and delays when compared to the first four. This was under the management team being brought in to fix AWD, using the design data that was supposed fine.
Joe Black
Active Member
German visit to press case for submarines contract
German visit to press case for submarines contract
The Australian
January 29, 2016 12:00AM
Andrew White
Associate Editor
The senior leadership of the German company bidding for the $50 billion contract to build Australia’s next generation of sub*marines will visit Canberra for talks with the government next week amid renewed claims a rival Japanese bid is preferred.
Heinrich Hiesinger, the chief executive of German industrial giant ThyssenKrupp, and Hans Atzpodien, who chairs its marine systems division, are expected to press their case for the contract, the biggest for an Australian project and one of the largest in the world recently, at meetings with ministers and defence officials.
ThyssenKrupp has declined to comment on reports in The Australian this week that the US would withhold its top military defence systems from sub*marines built by the Germans because of concerns the NATO ally could not protect them from Chinese espionage.
The Australian also reported US military officials were quietly urging Australia to favour the Japanese proposal to reinforce efforts to “contain’’ China’s territorial ambitions.
It followed an article in a trade journal by former prime minister Tony Abbott’s nat*ional security adviser Andrew Shearer that claimed US officials were in no doubt about the *“superior capability’’ of the Soryu-class subs Japan wants to build for the navy.
Mr Abbott was considered to have all but guaranteed the contract to the Japanese before a backlash over jobs and local manufacturing led to a competitive evaluation process for bids from Japan, Germany and France. Subs from all three bidders would need extensive modifications to meet specifi*cations and would have to carry US combat and communications systems.
US and Australian government and defence officials are believed to have reassured bidders they are neutral on who should be awarded the contract.
As well as weighing the German bid, the federal government has moved to improve ties with Germany, with Finance Minister Matthias Cormann co-chairing a study last year on the trade and cultural links between the world’s fourth and 12 biggest economies.
Dr Hiesinger is expected to attend a reception at the German embassy next week with politicians, bureaucrats, industry, *academic and finance representatives ahead of formal meetings.
ThyssenKrupp, which built the Anzac frigates at Williamstown in the 1990s, has offered to build most of the subs in Australia and Dr Atzpodien has said 12 of the boats could be built for $20bn. Servicing the subs is expected to add $500 million a year to the value of the contract.
German visit to press case for submarines contract | The Australian
---
Looks like the German hasn't quite given up the fight yet
German visit to press case for submarines contract
The Australian
January 29, 2016 12:00AM
Andrew White
Associate Editor
The senior leadership of the German company bidding for the $50 billion contract to build Australia’s next generation of sub*marines will visit Canberra for talks with the government next week amid renewed claims a rival Japanese bid is preferred.
Heinrich Hiesinger, the chief executive of German industrial giant ThyssenKrupp, and Hans Atzpodien, who chairs its marine systems division, are expected to press their case for the contract, the biggest for an Australian project and one of the largest in the world recently, at meetings with ministers and defence officials.
ThyssenKrupp has declined to comment on reports in The Australian this week that the US would withhold its top military defence systems from sub*marines built by the Germans because of concerns the NATO ally could not protect them from Chinese espionage.
The Australian also reported US military officials were quietly urging Australia to favour the Japanese proposal to reinforce efforts to “contain’’ China’s territorial ambitions.
It followed an article in a trade journal by former prime minister Tony Abbott’s nat*ional security adviser Andrew Shearer that claimed US officials were in no doubt about the *“superior capability’’ of the Soryu-class subs Japan wants to build for the navy.
Mr Abbott was considered to have all but guaranteed the contract to the Japanese before a backlash over jobs and local manufacturing led to a competitive evaluation process for bids from Japan, Germany and France. Subs from all three bidders would need extensive modifications to meet specifi*cations and would have to carry US combat and communications systems.
US and Australian government and defence officials are believed to have reassured bidders they are neutral on who should be awarded the contract.
As well as weighing the German bid, the federal government has moved to improve ties with Germany, with Finance Minister Matthias Cormann co-chairing a study last year on the trade and cultural links between the world’s fourth and 12 biggest economies.
Dr Hiesinger is expected to attend a reception at the German embassy next week with politicians, bureaucrats, industry, *academic and finance representatives ahead of formal meetings.
ThyssenKrupp, which built the Anzac frigates at Williamstown in the 1990s, has offered to build most of the subs in Australia and Dr Atzpodien has said 12 of the boats could be built for $20bn. Servicing the subs is expected to add $500 million a year to the value of the contract.
German visit to press case for submarines contract | The Australian
---
Looks like the German hasn't quite given up the fight yet
Built by Tenix, Designed by and largely managed by TKMS.
The T45 will still be sorting deficiencies in power and undergo retrofit weapons capabilities for many years. Yes they came into service at a price but they were far from what the RN wanted as a finished product and will continue to cost for years to come.
Methinks Volk, you paint too much gloss on that project and as Blas says if you measure reliability the F100 has been performing.
What the RAN wanted was a Baby Bourke and if that happened we would not be having this discussion.
But, having got to where we are at Techport it seems stupidity if we did not cash in on the pain we've had and not build a Flt II AWD of a further 3 or so hulls (non Aegis) while the other proposals mature.
I would hope any extra AWD's or AWDll would have more than 48 VLS cells. I suggest that the RAN replace the Harpoon with the Norwegian missile in which we have a financial interest. They will be VLS launched,, not the canisters used for the Harpoon, removal of those canisters will create a lot of space. However we would need 8 - 10 extra VLS to cater for them.
I seem to remember the ANZAC build ran into trunle early on, and the German's sent over a number of extra people who stayed and ?got it back on track.
I stand to be corrected in this memory, but I do remember something of the sort.
The blocks are either built or in an advanced state of construction .... Particularly hull blocks. I doubt it is a goer at this stage for the AWD.
- Status