This is a discussion on Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; G'day
Could someone tell me what class is being most seriously looked at for Australia's new Air Warfare Destroyers. Being ...
Could someone tell me what class is being most seriously looked at for Australia's new Air Warfare Destroyers. Being from Adelaide its of obivious interest to me!
I keep seeing what looks like the Spanish F100 class on the news and in the paper, but I didnt think the choice had been made. I thought that the Arleigh Burke class was also in the running, which would be my personal choice, however I dont know which would be a better choice for the country.
Good question for sure I think we can rule out the German F124 as it doesn't carry enough missles it has only a 32 cell VLS and from what I understand the RAN wants between 60 and 80 cell VLS. The Spanish F100 in it's present form I believe has limited VLS capacity as well as being limited to the AN/SPY-IF which is a smaller version of the AN/SPY-1D(V5) and so therefore doesn't offer TBMD which I think the RAN is looking at however an evolved version of the F100 is on the cards. My money is on the Gibbs & Cox offering of a 'baby Burke' and the fact that ASC has bought on board Bath Iron Works for their expertise as they have launched 30 odd AB's.
Spanish F100, like German F123/124, has 4x 8-cell Mk 41. Dutch LCF and UK Type 45 would accommodate 6x 8-cell VLUs. Dutch LCF currently has 5 Mk41, with space and weight reserved for 1 more. With the exception of Type 45, which is more closely related to Horizon, the european ships evolved out of similar requirements and cooperative efforts.
________________
Trans corpus mortuum (and I mean that!)
I believe the RAN is looking for a minimum of 8x 8-cell Mk 41 VLS on it's AWD's (for SM-2/3, ESSM and possibly Tac Tomahawk Block IV), plus 2x 4 round Harpoon launchers for HarpII or Harp21, 1x Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, 2x triple torp launchers (for MU-90) and 2x CIWS (of probably the same sort as those to equip the ANZAC class when they're announced). The AWD's will also carry 2x medium sized helo's and possibly a UAV squadron.
It is for these "basic" requirements that evolved versions of the all the announced contenders is to be the likely winner in the end. The standard versions are being considered only because of Kinnaird...
Spanish F100, like German F123/124, has 4x 8-cell Mk 41. Dutch LCF and UK Type 45 would accommodate 6x 8-cell VLUs. Dutch LCF currently has 5 Mk41, with space and weight reserved for 1 more. With the exception of Type 45, which is more closely related to Horizon, the european ships evolved out of similar requirements and cooperative efforts.
The internet concensus & my recollection for f-100 is 48cells.(Therefore it must be something else )
Wouldn't we want to arm the new AWD's to the teeth? No ANZAC shoestring approach on these ships. I reckon we should go for the 8x8 up the bow and another 2x8 or 4x8 amidships (similar to the AB's)...from what I've heard the baby burke seems to be the preference of the RAN.
Another Question
Is there serious talk of us aquiring Tomahawks? And if we were, what class would provide the best platform for their deployment? I would have thought the Baby Burke...
Both Labour and Liberal goverments at various stages have talked about Tomahawk cruise missles especially labour regarding fitting them to the Collins class, however I doubt that the Collins would carry enough of them to be a worthwile proposition but I could well be wrong.Putting them on the AWD would be more plausible as you could carry far more of them as I understand it the latest Tactical Tomahawk is quite cheap compared to earlier versions and would be a great replacement for the F-111's in the long range precision strike role although a lot of their effectiveness comes from having an exellent ISR capability in other words I think you need first rate targetting data.
There's a document that I've seen on the DMO (an industry briefing type thing) website that outlines the RAN's "firm requirements" and "desirable" capabilities for the AWD's with respect to weapons and systems.
Capabilities listed as "firm requirements include: 1x Mk 45 Mod 4 5 inch gun with long range precision guided land attack munitions, (probably extended range guided munition) ESSM, SM-2 Block III, Harpoon II or Harpoon 21.
- MU-90 torpedos, 2x close in weapons systems (of the same type as that to be fitted to the ANZAC class frigates), an "asymetric threat engagement" capability (probably 25mm Typhoon guns, which may be integrated with the VSRAD capability) plus 2x medium helo's armed with torpedo's and ASM's (probably still Penguin ASM's). Firm requirements also include a minimum of 64 Mk 41 VLS cells, ie: 8x 8 VLS cells.
Additional capabilities under consideration include: Tactical Tomahawk Block IV, SM-3/SM-6 SAM's.
This powerpoint document is on the DMO's website at http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm and is about half way down the page, it's a 23.21mb file though so your can take my word for it or download it as you see fit. Makes interesting reading though...
I think Australia's requirement was that the combat system be of American origin the idea being that the core components of the system are tried and tested in the case of the Aegis/SPY-1 which has fired thousands of rounds over the years and any problems with the system are well known. Other systems such as APAR and Sampson/PAAMS as well as the aster family of missles are largely an unknown quantity and carry some significant risk which the goverment doesnt wish to carry. In other words Aegis/SPY-1 are widely deployed by some outstanding navies, is well proven and well supported most notably by the USN.
I'm not too knowledgable of the ships that have been shortlisted, i've only been reading about them for the last few weeks, but from what i have read the way i see it is:
The American Arleigh Burke destroyer's downfall would be that it has no helicopter hangar, and might be considered a bit too 'offensive' politically, from what i have read they have that kind of reputation, and the fact that its the oldest ship of the 3 can't do it any favours..
The German one holds less missiles, and has less range than the other 2 by about 500 miles, but does have 2 helicopter hangars that can hold the NH90 (although i suppose our navy would still be mainly operating seakings and seasprites, as the NH90s are army?).
The Spanish design has around the same range as the American one, holds more missiles in the deck than the German one and the layout is similar to the current upgrade being done on our guided missile frigates, holds 1 helicopter.. Also, from what i have read we are also possibly getting the LHD designs from the same Spanish company, or at least from Spain, so that might play a part in deciding their AWD.
So in my opinion, the Spanish one is probably the best overall, although i do like the way the German one looks, i think the range would be the biggest issue in that one
Although like i said this is just from what i have read in the last few weeks, so don't hold me to anything, i could be wrong
Pepsi, the RAN is actually considering "evolved" versions of each of the 3 competing designs as none of the contenders match the RAN's requirements exactly. The standard Spanish F-100 is also being considered, but only because new Defence Acquisitions guidelines "require" the ADF to consider off the shelf designs.
I don't think anyone realistically expects the RAN and Government to choose the "standard" F-100 though... And I'd expect the "evolved" versions' design has addressed the issues you've raised.
It would be a damm shame if we didn't go for the Arleigh Burke because of how it viewed. Its use as an effective offensive weapon should make it more attractive to the RAN, who needs a ship with the ability to project power.
)
