Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Tasman]

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.

Thanks again Trescu (also AegisFC). It looks as though the Spanish navy has come up with a solution that works.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the competition for the RAN order. Either ship will certainly provide a quantum leap in capability.

Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

I replied you before.

Yeah I know, when I clicked reply you did not have a respond yet, and thanks to my current slooowwww internet and by time I was finished typing you beat me by a couple minutes. :

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

It is a nice simple fix, too bad they didn't think of it during the ships design, but stuff like that probably can't be planned for.

 

[santi]

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".

Well, F-100 design has SPY-1D, even D(V) in the design presented to the RAN and the new F-105 & 106 for the Spanish Armada, she bears also the Mk-41 Strike Length, so I don’t see a “physical” problem to include SM-3 with the corresponding upgrade.
It seems that Armada is more interested in TLAM than in ABMD at the moment, but if RAN wants SM-3 seems more a matter of the AEGIS builder than ship builder (Navantia or G&C).

 

[rossfrb_1]

OK, thought I'd toss this in to keep an interesting thread going. Not sure where the Australian got its info from...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21304930-31477,00.html
"
Spain leads for $7bn navy contract

• Patrick Walters, National security editor
• March 01, 2007

SPAIN is poised to win the contest to design the navy's new air warfare destroyers, destined to be the biggest and most advanced warships in its fleet.

As the race to win the contract to design the three vessels enters its final weeks, state-owned Spanish naval builder Navantia is heading its US rival on price and delivery time. The $7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14 billion joint strike fighter for the air force.
Long regarded as simply a stalking horse for a new warship designed by US firm Gibbs and Cox based on the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Spain's modified F100 warship is now an even-money bet to win the contract.
The Spanish ship is much cheaper and would be delivered about two years earlier than the US design submitted by Gibbs and Cox.
Gibbs and Cox has been the Howard Government's preferred designer for the air warfare destroyers, but the firm's bigger and more capable warship exists only in its preliminary design phase.
And final target cost estimates due to be handed to the Defence Department tomorrow are expected to put the Spanish F100 warship ahead on price by more than $500 million, according to government and industry sources.
The Government has committed $450 million to the project's start-up, with the cabinet due to take the final decision on the winning design in July.
In August 2005, the Government announced that the Gibbs and Cox "evolved design" would compete with an "Australianised" version of the F100 for the right to be chosen as the navy's new frontline warship.
The new ships will be equipped with the US-made Aegis combat system, giving them the ability to track hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges beyond 150km.
Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC has already been chosen to construct the vessels, while Raytheon will be the systems integrator, as part of a novel alliance with partners ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
Spain's belated recognition that its F100 could be selected has resulted in a last-minute lobbying push by the Spanish Government.
The Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer Alvaro de Bazan arrives in Perth today at the start of a three-week visit designed to highlights the ship's advanced capabilities. Spain is also sending its naval chief and senior government officials to Australia this month in an effort to clinch the AWD contract.
The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy's preferred choice.
Gibbs and Cox believes the heavily modified Arleigh Burke offers better all-round combat capability and better growth options for future technology upgrades than the F100.
But with four F100s already in service with the Spanish navy, Navantia argues that its destroyer offers a low-risk and highly capable solution for the Royal Australian Navy.
The first of the navy's new frontline destroyers is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, but the US design is not likely to be in service before 2015."



Wasn't the baseline F100 supposed to be the option that was on offer for the AWD project? What's this Australianised version?




rb

 

[Tasman]

OK, thought I'd toss this in to keep an interesting thread going. Not sure where the Australian got its info from...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21304930-31477,00.html
"
Spain leads for $7bn navy contract

• Patrick Walters, National security editor
• March 01, 2007

SPAIN is poised to win the contest to design the navy's new air warfare destroyers, destined to be the biggest and most advanced warships in its fleet.

As the race to win the contract to design the three vessels enters its final weeks, state-owned Spanish naval builder Navantia is heading its US rival on price and delivery time. The $7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14 billion joint strike fighter for the air force.
Long regarded as simply a stalking horse for a new warship designed by US firm Gibbs and Cox based on the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Spain's modified F100 warship is now an even-money bet to win the contract.
The Spanish ship is much cheaper and would be delivered about two years earlier than the US design submitted by Gibbs and Cox.
Gibbs and Cox has been the Howard Government's preferred designer for the air warfare destroyers, but the firm's bigger and more capable warship exists only in its preliminary design phase.
And final target cost estimates due to be handed to the Defence Department tomorrow are expected to put the Spanish F100 warship ahead on price by more than $500 million, according to government and industry sources.
The Government has committed $450 million to the project's start-up, with the cabinet due to take the final decision on the winning design in July.
In August 2005, the Government announced that the Gibbs and Cox "evolved design" would compete with an "Australianised" version of the F100 for the right to be chosen as the navy's new frontline warship.
The new ships will be equipped with the US-made Aegis combat system, giving them the ability to track hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges beyond 150km.
Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC has already been chosen to construct the vessels, while Raytheon will be the systems integrator, as part of a novel alliance with partners ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
Spain's belated recognition that its F100 could be selected has resulted in a last-minute lobbying push by the Spanish Government.
The Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer Alvaro de Bazan arrives in Perth today at the start of a three-week visit designed to highlights the ship's advanced capabilities. Spain is also sending its naval chief and senior government officials to Australia this month in an effort to clinch the AWD contract.
The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy's preferred choice.
Gibbs and Cox believes the heavily modified Arleigh Burke offers better all-round combat capability and better growth options for future technology upgrades than the F100.
But with four F100s already in service with the Spanish navy, Navantia argues that its destroyer offers a low-risk and highly capable solution for the Royal Australian Navy.
The first of the navy's new frontline destroyers is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, but the US design is not likely to be in service before 2015."



Wasn't the baseline F100 supposed to be the option that was on offer for the AWD project? What's this Australianised version?




rb

This is an interesting article rossfrb.

I don't know that there is much in it though that is new except for the inference by the writer that the choice will be based purely on price and delivery time. We have known about the visit of Alvaro de Bazan for some time (see post 232 from Trescu). The F100 design was always going to be cheaper and most likely it was always going to be available earlier. If the $500m applies to the price of all three ships I am surprised the difference isn't greater. One thing in its favour is that it could make it easier for the RAN to get a fourth ship.

The baseline design always had to be Australianised because it doesn't meet RAN specifications in its existing form. For example the RAN needs additional VLS cells.

Future growth potential will be an important aspect in making the final choice. This will most likely be the RAN's most important surface combatant for the next three decades! The F100 baseline already needs more VLS cells and if an SM-3 capability is to be provided then even more cells will be desirable.

I imagine that the RAN will push hard for the evolved G&C destroyer unless insurmountable problems arise with the design.

Cheers

 

[Gladius]

This is an interesting article rossfrb.

I don't know that there is much in it though that is new except for the inference by the writer that the choice will be based purely on price and delivery time. We have known about the visit of Alvaro de Bazan for some time (see post 232 from Trescu). The F100 design was always going to be cheaper and most likely it was always going to be available earlier. If the $500m applies to the price of all three ships I am surprised the difference isn't greater. One thing in its favour is that it could make it easier for the RAN to get a fourth ship.

The baseline design always had to be Australianised because it doesn't meet RAN specifications in its existing form. For example the RAN needs additional VLS cells.

Future growth potential will be an important aspect in making the final choice. This will most likely be the RAN's most important surface combatant for the next three decades! The F100 baseline already needs more VLS cells and if an SM-3 capability is to be provided then even more cells will be desirable.

I imagine that the RAN will push hard for the evolved G&C destroyer unless insurmountable problems arise with the design.

Cheers

With all respects for Trescu, I anounced the F-101 Álvaro de Bazán visit to Australia some messages before him (post 200 of this threat).

On more serious matters, the article quoted by rossfrb_1 show a clear favoritism by the F-100 option, but IMHO the final result will depend a lot of the realism and risk analysis of the proposal made by Gibbs & Cox., provided that not surpass the budget limits of the program. IMHO the favorite is the design of Gibbs & Cox, if there are not weaknesses in the cost previsions in relation to the final design and the Australian Navy considers that the risks involved are reasonable. But the problems with previous too ambitious projects with poor results (Super Seasprite, LCMs, etc...) can weight the decision.

Another question would be if the cost expectations between both designs would be so huge to justify the chose of the australianized F-100 by budgetary savings reasons, but while we do not know the real figures, this aspect will be pure speculation by us.

The voyage of the F-101 to Australia is included inside the cruiser around the world, named in honor of spanish explorer Luis Váez de Torres. The voyage of 26.500 miles with visits to ports of eleven countries, have a clear secondary commercial intention to impulse the Navantias options to gain some contracts.
Also an extensive combined exercises program is being carried out with foreign Navies through the sailing route, like was done with British, French, Italian and Greek ships on the Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Aussie Digger]

OK, thought I'd toss this in to keep an interesting thread going. Not sure where the Australian got its info from...http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21304930-31477,00.html
rb

Navantia I hear...

Seriously though, final bids were apparently only submitted yesterday. 24hrs is a very SHORT time in defence acquisition, particularly in Australia...

 

[Tasman]

With all respects for Trescu, I anounced the F-101 Álvaro de Bazán visit to Australia some messages before him (post 200 of this threat).

On more serious matters, the article quoted by rossfrb_1 show a clear favoritism by the F-100 option, but IMHO the final result will depend a lot of the realism and risk analysis of the proposal made by Gibbs & Cox., provided that not surpass the budget limits of the program. IMHO the favorite is the design of Gibbs & Cox, if there are not weaknesses in the cost previsions in relation to the final design and the Australian Navy considers that the risks involved are reasonable. But the problems with previous too ambitious projects with poor results (Super Seasprite, LCMs, etc...) can weight the decision.

Another question would be if the cost expectations between both designs would be so huge to justify the chose of the australianized F-100 by budgetary savings reasons, but while we do not know the real figures, this aspect will be pure speculation by us.

The voyage of the F-101 to Australia is included inside the cruiser around the world, named in honor of spanish explorer Luis Váez de Torres. The voyage of 26.500 miles with visits to ports of eleven countries, have a clear secondary commercial intention to impulse the Navantias options to gain some contracts.
Also an extensive combined exercises program is being carried out with foreign Navies through the sailing route, like was done with British, French, Italian and Greek ships on the Mediterranean Sea.

Hi Gladius,

Yes (again with due respects to Trescu), I should have acknowledged your ealier post about the visit, which I am looking forward to, even though it's going to cost me a trip to the mainland to see it! It certainly looks like a marvellous voyage for Álvaro de Bazán's crew.

I think you are spot on with your assessment of the way in which the final outcome will be determined. Whatever the result the RAN will enjoy a huge capability boost.

Cheers

 

[Turk]

I think Oliver hazard perry class frigates is good for ANZACs

 

[harryriedl]

I think Oliver hazard perry class frigates is good for ANZACs

their are so many reasons whey this isn't a good idea but the most import reason is that its no better than the adliade class which the AWD replaces

 

[Tasman]

their are so many reasons whey this isn't a good idea but the most import reason is that its no better than the adliade class which the AWD replaces

Hmm... I'm not sure that this is what Turk meant.

The Adelaide class FFGs are OH Perry class ships which are currently being upgraded with ESSM, SM-2 and other enhancements!

Cheers

 

[Turk]

Hmm... I'm not sure that this is what Turk meant.

The Adelaide class FFGs are OH Perry class ships which are currently being upgraded with ESSM, SM-2 and other enhancements!

Cheers

Yes you are right during I was writing this message I didn't remember Australian oliver hazzard perry class frigates called Adelaide.

I am telling that Adelaide class frigates has got ESSM and this system is good for Australian navy and ANZACs can use this system for years and years(they are able to use this system to 2020 I am just explaining) This reason I think that Adelaide class are useful for Australian navy.


And I have a question Are the Adelaide class frigates can use SM-2

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes you are right during I was writing this message I didn't remember Australian oliver hazzard perry class frigates called Adelaide.

I am telling that Adelaide class frigates has got ESSM and this system is good for Australian navy and ANZACs can use this system for years and years(they are able to use this system to 2020 I am just explaining) This reason I think that Adelaide class are useful for Australian navy.


And I have a question Are the Adelaide class frigates can use SM-2

Yes they can. As part of the FFG upgrade project the Mk 13 single rail launcher has been upgraded so that the SM-2 Block IIIA missile can be fired from it.

Australia has placed an order for this missile system and the system should be delivered to Australia by around 2009. The remaining 4 Adelaide Class frigates will then be progressively equipped with SM-2.

The reason I think it's not being done earlier is to give RAN / ADI the chance to complete the extensive range of work already being conducted. I mean they're only installing: ESSM, Harpoon II, MU-90 Torpedo, "mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns, upgraded radar, upgraded fire control, new EW kit, new IRST systems, entirely new "open architecture" combat systems, new sonar, new mine avoidance systems, torpedo warning systems and habitability improvements (improved air conditioning, accomodation, common rooms etc).

Not much work there...

 

[Turk]

I know that Olliver hazard perry class frigates capable of carryiing 40 missilles for example 36 SM-1 and 4 Harpoon like that.

Do you know how many SM-2 carrying in Adelaide class ?
And if they are using 4 ships are the SM-1s removed from this 4 ship ?

I think it is serious capable but Mk 13 launchers contains some serious disadvantages.like if any missile hits mk 13 launcher this launcher going to be useless.

cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know that Olliver hazard perry class frigates capable of carryiing 40 missilles for example 36 SM-1 and 4 Harpoon like that.

Do you know how many SM-2 carrying in Adelaide class ?
And if they are using 4 ships are the SM-1s removed from this 4 ship ?

I think it is serious capable but Mk 13 launchers contains some serious disadvantages.like if any missile hits mk 13 launcher this launcher going to be useless.

cheers

Each RAN FFG carries 8x Harpoon II missiles and 32x SM-1MR missiles. This will change to SM-2 in due course.

You are of course right about the weakness in the design of the Mk 13 launcher, being the sole launcher for SM-2 aboard the ships.

The FFG's will have a separate Mk 41 VLS launcher for the ESSM after the upgrade program is complete. HMAS Sydney for instance already has Mk 41.

This along with the limitations of the radar, fire control directors, combat system and the age of the hull, is one of the reason RAN is so keen to move onto the more capable AWD platforms. The FFG should serve us well in the meantime though as they will be formidable by frigate standards worldwide.

It's capabilities will include: SM-2, ESSM, Phalanx, Harpoon II, 76mm Oto-Melara guns, MU-90 torpedo, "mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns, Nulka active decoy, and in coming years, (most likely) the Penguin anti-ship missile, operated from the S-70B2 Seahawks carried aboard...

 

[RA1911]

Each RAN FFG carries 8x Harpoon II missiles and 32x SM-1MR missiles. This will change to SM-2 in due course.

You are of course right about the weakness in the design of the Mk 13 launcher, being the sole launcher for SM-2 aboard the ships.

The FFG's will have a separate Mk 41 VLS launcher for the ESSM after the upgrade program is complete. HMAS Sydney for instance already has Mk 41.

This along with the limitations of the radar, fire control directors, combat system and the age of the hull, is one of the reason RAN is so keen to move onto the more capable AWD platforms. The FFG should serve us well in the meantime though as they will be formidable by frigate standards worldwide.

It's capabilities will include: SM-2, ESSM, Phalanx, Harpoon II, 76mm Oto-Melara guns, MU-90 torpedo, "mini-typhoon" 12.7mm guns, Nulka active decoy, and in coming years, (most likely) the Penguin anti-ship missile, operated from the S-70B2 Seahawks carried aboard...

Are there any plans on getting the NSM for your FFGs? The integration of NSM to the JSF is being co-funded by Norway and Australia, so it might make sense?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Are there any plans on getting the NSM for your FFGs? The integration of NSM to the JSF is being co-funded by Norway and Australia, so it might make sense?

I very much doubt it. I am aware that RAAF is interested in JSM (as it's being marked internationally) however I think it's too far out to consider adding it to FFG's.

IF a VL variant were to be developed RAN might be interested in it for ANZAC's and maybe AWD's down the track, but we've only just got Harpoon II into service and there are more things to "get right" on the FFG's than switching to a new anti-ship missile, IMHO...

 

[Tasman]

IF a VL variant were to be developed RAN might be interested in it for ANZAC's and maybe AWD's down the track, but we've only just got Harpoon II into service and there are more things to "get right" on the FFG's than switching to a new anti-ship missile, IMHO...

The RAN certainly needs to consolidate on current projects.

Apart from delays in the FFG upgrade, there is much to be done with the Anzacs. For example, the Harpoon fit to the Anzacs seems to be going at a snails pace (AFAIK only Anzac and Warramunga have been fitted so far). It will need to speed up if all 8 are to be fitted as scheduled by the end of next year. There also seems to be a shortage of mini typhoon mountings. Ballarat which was fitted with mini typhoon when it recently deployed to the Gulf didn't appear to be carrying them when she came into Hobart the other day. All I could see was the normal manual mounting. So it seems that these weapons are being 'pooled' for ships on deployment at the present time. Obviously the helo project is another that needs to be sorted out, including a decision on equipping the Seahawks to carry the Penguin missiles originally purchased for the Seasprites.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just wondering what the ASW capabilities will be on the AWD's?? They will be replacing the Adelaides so they need to have a decent sonar suite. Towed array and hull mounted? how many ASW helo's? Or will they leave most of the ASW stuff to the ANZAC's and only provide AW?

 

[Todjaeger]

Just wondering what the ASW capabilities will be on the AWD's?? They will be replacing the Adelaides so they need to have a decent sonar suite. Towed array and hull mounted? how many ASW helo's? Or will they leave most of the ASW stuff to the ANZAC's and only provide AW?

From what I recall, the AWD is expected to have provisions for 2 helicopters, initially to be Seahawk I think. Not sure if the NH-90 naval versions will be fielded by the RAN by then. As for how many helicopters will be ASW tasked, as opposed to anti-shipping, I suppose that could depend on anticipated threats then. I believe that the primary focus is to be Area Air Defence, but will have a secondary role of ASW so that the AWD doesn't need an ASW escort in potentially hostile areas.

-Cheers