Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[alexsa]

Hello, this is my first post, there are some very interesting fourms here but anyway thought i might put my 2cents worth about the AWD's -
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer way to much shaprel dmg to the upperdecks cosidering the RAN insists on manning 50cal and lookouts on the GDP unprotected by any superstucture.
well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon

Care should be taken not to confuse a unique hull shape with the entire ship being a one off design. The prospulsion and combat systems to be employed on G&C Design are in widespread use and as such the support system already exists for many of the items.

These is a risk in a 'new' hull design while the paet AB has been well tested over many years whilethe F-100 is a recent desing that is only really coming inot oerational service so it has not had the time to be tested with age either. However, in saying this modern desing technology is a quatum jump over previous systems and you should be pretty confident thye will get it fairly right (there are alway glitches).

 

[icelord]

Hello, this is my first post, there are some very interesting fourms here but anyway thought i might put my 2cents worth about the AWD's -
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer way to much shaprel dmg to the upperdecks cosidering the RAN insists on manning 50cal and lookouts on the GDP unprotected by any superstucture.
well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon

I believe that is why they have set up a joint AWD centre in Adelaide, to work out any possible problems with either design, and to get the respective companies, Raytheon, thales, tenix etc, all on the same page so as the design matches the order.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hello, this is my first post, there are some very interesting fourms here but anyway thought i might put my 2cents worth about the AWD's -
the baby Burke is my prefered ship however the problem is - can aust afford to run a unique ship design having to once again iron out all the isseus inherent in said design (remembering the collins superseasprite and to a lesser extent ANZAC's) support for this ship (even if it is a derivitive of the AB) will have to be started from scratch mostly because the ship will have been extencivly australianised, according to the roumour mill. This and cost seem to be the biggest facters going against the baby Burke. if the building of these ships are late or comlicated to much, puplic oppinoin will only see this as yet another defence cost blow out hurting the chances of other major aquisition further down the line.
the F-100 on the other hand is seen as a proven design already in the water with most of the bugs already fixed, even if it is less capiable and just quietly, no offence intended one of the ugliest AWD around
however this ship will be modified at least to carry 2 hangers and more weapons so once again aust will mess around with the origional design probiably ending up with another FFG-up debarcle so the final desision will be verry interesting.
as for point defence id say RAM or something like that CWIS is outdated and a bouson killer way to much shaprel dmg to the upperdecks cosidering the RAN insists on manning 50cal and lookouts on the GDP unprotected by any superstucture.
well thats enough and i should learn to spell at some stage soon

This together with an added BMD capability is possibly why $1.5b is to be added to the AWD program budget later on this year...

 

[Tasman]

This together with an added BMD capability is possibly why $1.5b is to be added to the AWD program budget later on this year...

The following link contains interesting info about the SM-3 which would be the obvious BMD candidate:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

On another thread Military Aviation, Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s? some of us were drifting into a discussion about the value in deploying the AWDs in the BMD role, before AD correctly steered us back here where the discussion belongs.

The point was made that it would be a mistake to tie up our small number of AWDs in this role as they will be in heavy demand in their primary role. I agree with this but at the same time I think it would be prudent to include this capability considering recent developments with North Korean BM and nuclear weapons. IMO, it would be far better to build in the capability to operate the SM-3 from the start rather than seeking to retrofit it later after an emergency has arisen. It also provides a strong argument for at least one additional AWD that could be stationed in northern waters and given BMD as a primary role.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

The following link contains interesting info about the SM-3 which would be the obvious BMD candidate:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

On another thread Military Aviation, Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s? some of us were drifting into a discussion about the value in deploying the AWDs in the BMD role, before AD correctly steered us back here where the discussion belongs.

The point was made that it would be a mistake to tie up our small number of AWDs in this role as they will be in heavy demand in their primary role. I agree with this but at the same time I think it would be prudent to include this capability considering recent developments with North Korean BM and nuclear weapons. IMO, it would be far better to build in the capability to operate the SM-3 from the start rather than seeking to retrofit it later after an emergency has arisen. It also provides a strong argument for at least one additional AWD that could be stationed in northern waters and given BMD as a primary role.

Cheers

Abraham Gubler of the Australian Defence Business Reporter, suggests there is a strong chance if the AWD build program goes well that up to 3x additional AWD (-) (sic) vessels will be built, utilising the "Baby Burke" hull (if chosen) but with a non - Aegis radar/fire control system (possibly CEA-FAR/Saab FCS). These would obviously initially replace the FFG's, though they might replace some of the "early" ANZAC's too.

A follow on "future frigate" program would then replace the remaining ANZAC's (though A. GUBLER calls them "LCS 2's"), keeping RAN at around 12 major surface combatants, but with FAR greater capability...


The reason for this plan is that RAN is particular keen on the CEC capability which only AEGIS (at present) truly allows for.

If this plan WERE to the case, then it points to an opportunity to include the SM-3 weapon system on the initial AWD's whilst maintaining an ability to STILL provide high level anti-air warfare capability elsewhere (though probably without CEC, or at least a "downgraded" version of it).

The hints Dr Nelson dropped during AUSMIN in December 06, virtually guarantee that SM-3 capability will be included on the AWD's, possibly with additional VLS for them to be mounted in. (The G&C design allows for a maximum of 80 cells, IIRC).

The announcement of the inclusion of the SM-3 capability, would virtually rule out the F-100, IMHO...

 

[rickshaw]

The problem with all ABM systems is that they need to engage the ballistic missiles in the boost phase. Once the missile leaves the boost phase, it can (and will if possible) deploy MIRVs and/or decoys. In addition, attempting to intercept an incoming re-entry vehicle is extra-ordinarily difficult, as even the SCUDs during the first Gulf War proved for the Patriot system.

At the moment, the DPRK lacks missiles which can strike much more than perhaps Darwin. Even then, one has to start asking whether they would waste a missile on Darwin. If the situation was so bad that ICBMs were flying, one would suspect they'd be more than likely using them on far more valuable targets.

Which is why I suspect that this decision would be much more about either defending/helping to defend say, a naval task force against a possible ballistic threat or alternatively, fixed installations which are much more likely targets than mainland Australian cities, such as in Japan or Taiwan.

However, as has been noted, this is digressing into areas which are more appropriate to the other forums/threads elsewhere.

 

[Grand Danois]

The RAN AWD as it is currently presented has the potential to perform mid-course intercepts with SM-3 and terminal phase intercepts with SM-2 IVA.

LRS&T would benefit 'homeland BM defence'.

 

[rickshaw]

The RAN AWD as it is currently presented has the potential to perform mid-course intercepts with SM-3 and terminal phase intercepts with SM-2 IVA.

LRS&T would benefit 'homeland BM defence'.

Has this capability been demonstrated yet?

[correction - it has demonstrated this capability, as I've just found out doing a websearch]

And was it demonstrated against decoys and MIRVs?

[corection - no. It has demonstrated however that it can differentiate it seems between a missile booster and a re-entry vehicle a'la SCUD]

 

[Grand Danois]

Has this capability been demonstrated yet?

And was it demonstrated against decoys and MIRVs?

Was commenting on the boost phase intercept only.

SM-3 shoots down targets regularly. The SM-2 block IVA might be an issue, thinking of it, the SM-6 ERAM path was chosen instead.

No details on MIRVs and decoys. However, the types they are intended to intercept generally don't carry decoys and are not MIRVed. They don't have the payload for that.

MIRVs are planned to be countered by GBIs with multiple kill vehicles.

 

[alexsa]

According to global security the SM3 Block 1A has been tested aginst a separating target to confirm it ability to distinguish the war head from other targets.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

The missile isalso intended for further growth out to 2012 which should see its capabilites increase.

 

[Tasman]

Abraham Gubler of the Australian Defence Business Reporter, suggests there is a strong chance if the AWD build program goes well that up to 3x additional AWD (-) (sic) vessels will be built, utilising the "Baby Burke" hull (if chosen) but with a non - Aegis radar/fire control system (possibly CEA-FAR/Saab FCS). These would obviously initially replace the FFG's, though they might replace some of the "early" ANZAC's too.

A follow on "future frigate" program would then replace the remaining ANZAC's (though A. GUBLER calls them "LCS 2's"), keeping RAN at around 12 major surface combatants, but with FAR greater capability...


The reason for this plan is that RAN is particular keen on the CEC capability which only AEGIS (at present) truly allows for.

If this plan WERE to the case, then it points to an opportunity to include the SM-3 weapon system on the initial AWD's whilst maintaining an ability to STILL provide high level anti-air warfare capability elsewhere (though probably without CEC, or at least a "downgraded" version of it).

This would be a good outcome for the RAN so let's hope it happens. This would provide a force of 3 AWDs with Aegis, 3 follow on AWDs, without Aegis but still with excellent capability, and 6 upgraded Anzacs (assuming that maybe 2 had been replaced). On the basis that 3 ships in service will provide 2 operational units, this would enable the navy to form 2 task forces each built around a core force of 1 Aegis AWD, 1 non Aegis AWD and 2 FFHs. The quality of this force would be way ahead of what we have today.

The hints Dr Nelson dropped during AUSMIN in December 06, virtually guarantee that SM-3 capability will be included on the AWD's, possibly with additional VLS for them to be mounted in. (The G&C design allows for a maximum of 80 cells, IIRC).

.

This would be a sensible decision and, it does seem, the government is presently acting far more decisively as regards defence acquisitions, than we have seen for decades (e.g. the C17 purchase).

The announcement of the inclusion of the SM-3 capability, would virtually rule out the F-100, IMHO.

The more I look at the options the more I hope that the evolved G&C design is successfully developed and chosen by the RAN.

Cheers

 

[Trescu]

Hi to all.

This is my first post in this forum. I'm spanish and i have to say the Spanish Navy (Armada) is very happy with the f100. They are working hard for made a new second series of f100 with a few updates (f105 & f106).The Spy 1D(V) and the upgraded baseline 7 AEGIS Combat System are two of the most significant upgrades. (The first series f101-f104 have Spy 1D and a hybrid baseline between 6 and 7).

Here a great spots of f101
http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=2017&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24

And one video of training exercise with a f101 & DDG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwx0U3P-Lnc

Best Regards.

 

[Tasman]

Hi to all.

This is my first post in this forum. I'm spanish and i have to say the Spanish Navy (Armada) is very happy with the f100. They are working hard for made a new second series of f100 with a few updates (f105 & f106).The Spy 1D(V) and the upgraded baseline 7 AEGIS Combat System are two of the most significant upgrades. (The first series f101-f104 have Spy 1D and a hybrid baseline between 6 and 7).

Here a great spots of f101
http://www.fotosdebarcos.com/viewtopic.php?t=2017&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24

And one video of training exercise with a f101 & DDG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwx0U3P-Lnc

Best Regards.

Thanks for the links to the great photos and the video Trescu. So far I've seen a lot more info in Australian magazines and websites on the G&C design than on the F100 so its good to get positive feedback about the Spanish ship. These are the best photos of the F100 that I've seen.

Cheers

 

[santi]

Well, in more or less a month you would see the real ship. The photos on the link are the leaving of F-101 on the way to Australia…

Regards

 

[Tasman]

Well, in more or less a month you would see the real ship. The photos on the link are the leaving of F-101 on the way to Australia…

Regards

I'd love to see it in Hobart!

A benefit of the F100 design to Australia appears to be a lower price than the G&C which would make the purchase of a fourth ship easier. What is unclear at present is how involved the necessary modifications would be to meet RAN specifications re the number of VLS cells, etc. Perhaps the visit by F101 will assist in sorting out some of these issues.

Also, is anyone able to comment as to whether the SM-3 could be integrated into the F100? AD has commented that he thinks a decision to acquire this missile "would virtually rule out the F-100".

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

I do like the look of the F-100, however the design has a flaw that just bugs me compared to other designs.
The aft SPY arrays are too close to the foward exhaust stack and that means that the arrays will have to be cleaned and resurfaced more often due to corrosive exhaust gases and that adds to the operating cost of the ship that can be avoided with a better design.

You can see from these pics I took a couple years ago.

 

[Tasman]

I do like the look of the F-100, however the design has a flaw that just bugs me compared to other designs.
The aft SPY arrays are too close to the foward exhaust stack and that means that the arrays will have to be cleaned and resurfaced more often due to corrosive exhaust gases and that adds to the operating cost of the ship that can be avoided with a better design.

You can see from these pics I took a couple years ago.

Is it an insurmountable problem? Can it be fixed by re-positioning the arrays or is there insufficient space? It seems to me from looking at the photos that this might be the case.

Cheers

 

[Trescu]

...
The aft SPY arrays are too close to the foward exhaust stack and that means that the arrays will have to be cleaned and resurfaced more often due to corrosive exhaust gases and that adds to the operating cost of the ship that can be avoided with a better design. ..

This was a problem for the Spanish Navy, but they together with Navantia designed a new forward exhaust stack and solved the problem without decreasing the capacities of Aegis or influencing the shadow of the ship.

You can see the new exhaust design in this pic:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/3158/enero2007fragatapruebasuc1.jpg

In this moment, this new exhaust is installed in all f100.

Best regards.

 

[AegisFC]

Is it an insurmountable problem? Can it be fixed by re-positioning the arrays or is there insufficient space? It seems to me from looking at the photos that this might be the case.

Cheers

It would probably be cheaper and easier to re-route the exhaust further back aft. Repositioning the arrays would be expensive because from what I understand the SPY equipment matches that of the Burke as much as possible so the wave guides would not have to be redesigned. It was a case of it being cheaper to adapt the ship to the equipment rather than the equipment to the ship.

 

[Trescu]

I replied you before.

Here you've got one pic with the old design in f104...
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5501/difasmikfar0856fd.jpg

...and another with the new design:
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/9131/12sn3.jpg

Best regards.

P.D. all the pics are in a great web of spanish shipspotting www.fotosdebarcos.com