- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
Yep, we've had similar discussions re this on the aust defence boards. The odds would seem to have been pressured towards a Burke, even though we've rejected them last year
Aegis for Aussie SW vessels
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I doubt Australia will get the Arleigh Burke simply because America wishes us to. If we get it it will be because of a favourable price, the most important thing in any Australian Defence Acquisition. That's why the M1A1 and the Tiger was chosen. Best capability for the best price...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
There are a few people in procurement who are indicating that the process has been compromised on a few projects to date. They have indicated that there is no preference for the Burkes, that was made clear when they were offerred up as replacements for the "Perths". They have been directed to reconsider it when Navy don't want them.Aussie Digger said:
The F-100's are seen as the better platform, plus the Aust phased array system is acknowledged as more capable. The US is using a landbased version for long term "evaluation" in the CONUS. (another words it's operational in a critical land site)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
In an interview with the Australian Defence Magazine, Commodore Paul Greenfield (Director Maritime Development, RAN) states that Australia's future Air Warfare Destroyers will exceed 6000 tons and will be equipped with the latest variant of SM-2 SAM's, ESSM, Harpoon Missiles, MU-90 torpedo's, the lastest variant of the Mk 45, 5 inch guns including the "Extended Range Guided Munition" giving a 50 mile plus precision engagement capability for the RAN destoyers, and possibly in the future a Tomahawk Cruise Missile capability. The entire article can be found here:
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm . Cheers.
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm . Cheers.
Interesting. Clearly an Arleigh Burke version would fit that bill.Aussie Digger said:
The Spanish F-100 is listed as 5,800 tons fully loaded.
The basic German F124 is 5,600 tn standard and 5,960 tons full load.
The Dutch LCF displaces 6044/6050 tn fully loaded (5,400 tn standard).
All mount MK41 vlu's (i.e. Tomahawk capable) and have comparable armaments: SM2 plus ESSM in vlu, 8 Harpoon, ASW torpedo's, CIWS and a naval (3-5 inch) gun.
Only F 100 has SPY but since the Germans have already put forward an SPY equipped version of F124 Sachsen, I doubt it would be difficult to put SPY on LCF (after all both mount APAR so if one can change...)
So, realistically, Commodore Greenfield has revealed nothing!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I dont know if you read the whole article Tatra, but the Commodore did clearly stated the RAN's requirements for an AWD (IMHO). Here's the section I was referring to:
ADM: The nomenclature of the Air Warfare Destroyer is perhaps not entirely indicative of the type of ship it will be. Exactly what kind of ship is the RAN going to get here?
Greenfield: The answer to the question “Should the Air Warfare Destroyer really be described as a sea control combatant?â€, is yes. Wherever it goes it should be able to have a bubble around it where it controls the environment: the above water environment, the surface and undersea environments and also the ability to operate in the electro magnetic spectrum.
The prime role will be area air defence in support of a task force. I think another important role for it will be in the realm of command and control for a task force commander (not a deployable joint force commander like the amphibs will have). It will have other roles for surface warfare such as land attack. We would like to get an extended range guided munition-capable 127mm gun and that will give you pretty good accuracy over a 50 mile range. Who knows whether our government of the future might require it to have Tomahawk fired from vertical launch cells?
We have to be aware of future growth and ensure that the growth paths are not shut for our government; that we maintain the options.
And, of course, even without any extra addition to the combat system it could participate as a radar detection ship and pass information to a more capable US ship to fire the interceptor missiles against ballistic missiles.
ADM: Has a decision been made about whether to install a ballistic missile defence capability onto the ships?
Greenfield: No, it’s not a current operational requirement at the moment. Whether it becomes one in the future, well, the door is being maintained open.
ADM: What kind of work would be required to install and integrate the SM-3 missile into the Air Warfare Destroyers at some point in the future?
Greenfield: If you have the right kind of vertical launch cells, and our ships will have, you can fire them. They are a longer missile but they can still fit inside the cells. You need the control software in the computers and we won’t have that. And the other thing you need is the right type of long-range radars and missile guidance systems and we won’t really have that. But I understand that the Americans are working on a program to bring the missile defence agencies and Aegis together in about 2010 under the Aegis open architecture program. So at the flick of a switch, perhaps, you might be able to have one of our ships that does area air defence or ballistic missile defence, but not both together.
ADM: Why has the cost of Sea 4000 risen so significantly from a top estimate before the release of the latest DCP of A$3.5-$4.5 billion to A$4.5-$6 billion now?
Greenfield: The budget back then was put together from information obtained in the 2000 studies, when a group of Defence and industry people went to Europe and looked at three European air warfare ships - the Dutch LCF, the German F124 and the Spanish F-100 - and they brought back with them all this information that became the basis of the budget. But this current project [Sea 4000] has a capability requirement which is more than what’s being provided in any of those three ships. When you start to fill in those gaps in capability that’s when you need a bigger budget.
In addition, in 2000 those ships were yet to be completed and the prices weren’t mature and they were done in days of high enthusiasm, shall I say. It has nothing to do with SM-3. SM-3 does not figure in our budget at all and does not figure in our operational requirement.
There is a whole range of extra capabilities that we needed to add. For instance, the F-100 is fitted without ESSM, ERGM guns, co-operative engagement capability, even torpedo defence isn’t there, nor is a mine or obstacle avoidance sonar, Nulka is not there. So a lot of those self-defence elements were missing and we’ve had to add them in.
ADM: The nomenclature of the Air Warfare Destroyer is perhaps not entirely indicative of the type of ship it will be. Exactly what kind of ship is the RAN going to get here?
Greenfield: The answer to the question “Should the Air Warfare Destroyer really be described as a sea control combatant?â€, is yes. Wherever it goes it should be able to have a bubble around it where it controls the environment: the above water environment, the surface and undersea environments and also the ability to operate in the electro magnetic spectrum.
The prime role will be area air defence in support of a task force. I think another important role for it will be in the realm of command and control for a task force commander (not a deployable joint force commander like the amphibs will have). It will have other roles for surface warfare such as land attack. We would like to get an extended range guided munition-capable 127mm gun and that will give you pretty good accuracy over a 50 mile range. Who knows whether our government of the future might require it to have Tomahawk fired from vertical launch cells?
We have to be aware of future growth and ensure that the growth paths are not shut for our government; that we maintain the options.
And, of course, even without any extra addition to the combat system it could participate as a radar detection ship and pass information to a more capable US ship to fire the interceptor missiles against ballistic missiles.
ADM: Has a decision been made about whether to install a ballistic missile defence capability onto the ships?
Greenfield: No, it’s not a current operational requirement at the moment. Whether it becomes one in the future, well, the door is being maintained open.
ADM: What kind of work would be required to install and integrate the SM-3 missile into the Air Warfare Destroyers at some point in the future?
Greenfield: If you have the right kind of vertical launch cells, and our ships will have, you can fire them. They are a longer missile but they can still fit inside the cells. You need the control software in the computers and we won’t have that. And the other thing you need is the right type of long-range radars and missile guidance systems and we won’t really have that. But I understand that the Americans are working on a program to bring the missile defence agencies and Aegis together in about 2010 under the Aegis open architecture program. So at the flick of a switch, perhaps, you might be able to have one of our ships that does area air defence or ballistic missile defence, but not both together.
ADM: Why has the cost of Sea 4000 risen so significantly from a top estimate before the release of the latest DCP of A$3.5-$4.5 billion to A$4.5-$6 billion now?
Greenfield: The budget back then was put together from information obtained in the 2000 studies, when a group of Defence and industry people went to Europe and looked at three European air warfare ships - the Dutch LCF, the German F124 and the Spanish F-100 - and they brought back with them all this information that became the basis of the budget. But this current project [Sea 4000] has a capability requirement which is more than what’s being provided in any of those three ships. When you start to fill in those gaps in capability that’s when you need a bigger budget.
In addition, in 2000 those ships were yet to be completed and the prices weren’t mature and they were done in days of high enthusiasm, shall I say. It has nothing to do with SM-3. SM-3 does not figure in our budget at all and does not figure in our operational requirement.
There is a whole range of extra capabilities that we needed to add. For instance, the F-100 is fitted without ESSM, ERGM guns, co-operative engagement capability, even torpedo defence isn’t there, nor is a mine or obstacle avoidance sonar, Nulka is not there. So a lot of those self-defence elements were missing and we’ve had to add them in.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Here's another good article, also from Australian Defence Magazine:
AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking
Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.
Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide
The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.
All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy’s help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.
Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany’s Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.
While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design – it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.
“The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force,†Hill’s statement added. “This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.â€
Hill announced that Tenix and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be asked separately to assist Defence in the assessment of the designs and to advise the Government on the opportunities to maximise potential for Australian industry involvement in the project.
Not only will the AWDs be genuine multi-role sea control combatants, their evolutionary growth path will include at the very least a sub-set of the US Navy’s planned Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.
Therefore the choice of the Aegis air warfare system was inevitable, given the Aegis system will remain US Navy’s area air defence and BMD system of choice for the next two decades. The Aegis system will not be replaced or supplanted until the US Navy’s CG(X) air warfare cruiser comes into service after 2018.
But based on the US Navy’s own plans, the AWD’s configuration options are now a bit clearer. This year 12 existing DDG-51s will receive an upgrade to Aegis Baseline 6 configuration which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). New-build DDG-51 will receive this system as standard.
According to Lockheed Martin’s Maritime Systems and Sensors Division, which is prime contractor for the Aegis system, some 22 Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruisers and 40 DDG-51 destroyers will be upgraded over the next few years to Aegis Baseline 7 standard, employing the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, with enhanced littoral capability, and COTS computing hardware. The next upgrade after this will see the introduction of the Aegis Open Architecture which will be retrofitted to all Aegis ships to enable network-centric operations.
Furthermore three CG-47s and 15 DDFG-51s will be upgraded still further under a spiral development process with an iterative two-year cycle to incorporate, first Block 04 (for 2004) BMD functionality, growing by the end of this decade to Block 10. Based on the Aegis Baseline 7 hardware and Aegis Open Architecture, the Block 10 BMD functionality will be the product of the enhanced SPY-1D(V) radar, the Raytheon SM-3 missiles and the necessary radar and combat system software algorithms to handle anti-ballistic missile engagements.
According to the US Navy’s BMD office, the first elements of this capability are already in place and under test. In phase 1 of the BMD program the Block 04 system currently under test will provide the ability to detect and track an ICBM launch and transmit track data to the US Missile Defence Agency at Colorado Springs via satellite datalink. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom a Baseline 5-equipped DDG-51 is reported to have detected the launch of an Iraqi SCUD missile and handed off track data to a land-based Patriot missile battery which engaged the incoming SCUD.
Phase 2 will provide what sources term a preliminary engagement capability using the SM-3 missile. Phase 3, which is due to begin in early 2006, will see production SM-3 Block 1 missiles, along with the Block 06 radar and combat system software enhancements, fielded aboard a small number of CG-47s and DDG-51s. This will enable the engagement of short-range ballistic missiles.
In the last BMD trial conducted in December 2003 the BMD trials ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) engaged the incoming target using track data from a DDG-51, USS Russell, which detected the missile launch, tracked the target and data-linked the target information via satellite through Colorado Springs. The developmental SM-3 fired from USS Lake Erie was controlled entirely by the ship’s company, not by any contractors, and hit the missile in the descent phase, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the missile and C3 system as well as the shore-based infrastructure.
US Navy sources told ADM that Australia’s most flexible approach to fielding an Aegis system would be to acquire the Baseline 7 system with SM-2 Block III missiles. This will be in fleet wide US Navy service and, through addition of the SM-3 missile and some Block 10 (and beyond?) software enhancements, provides a simple growth path to an Australian BMD capability. The low-risk approach, according to Navy BMD officials, is to stick close to the US Navy and allow the US to lead R&D, development and integration.
At this stage its hard to say what opportunities exist for Australian industry to participate in a significant and meaningful way in the development of the RAN’s Aegis capability – or indeed the global Aegis capability. Senator Hill said on the record in a recent interview with ADM that Australia can and should aim for significant local involvement and Lockheed Martin has acknowledged these aspirations, pointing out that its Aegis export programs – in Japan, Spain, South Korea and Norway – have successfully met the local industry involvement requirements of its customers. However, the company has traditionally, and probably always will, conduct the final shore-based testing, installation, integration and system check-out itself, for all of its customers.
Predictions that Australia could acquire an air warfare system incorporating DD(X) technology ignored that fact that much of the DD(X) technology development thrust is towards littoral warfare. While this has obvious attractions, the RAN wants to avoid technical and schedule risks arising from integration difficulties caused by unique, Australia-only configuration choices. However, it would be rash to discount the possibility of significant DD(X) input into the US Navy’s, and therefore the Australian AWD’s, ASW, AsuW and broader littoral combat capabilities.
Raytheon is leading the systems development element of the DD(X) program, which will see six engineering development models delivered to the US Navy by late 2005 and demonstrated at sea – these cover the total ship computing environment, combat system, radar, undersea warfare capabilities, communications and the development of the new Mk57 Vertical Launch system.
As a potential prime systems integrator Raytheon Australia says it could and would lead the Total Ship Electronics Systems integration effort on the RAN’s AWDs, as well as its amphibious and afloat support ships, if the opportunity were available.
At this stage studies are under way on the AWD’s combat system design. As the RAN plans to buy only three AWDs at this time, achieving a decent level of commonality with the Anzac frigates (for example, in the areas of sonar) may have a significant effect on the cost of in-service support, configuration management (especially of certain types of software) and crew and operator training.
What about the platforms?
The RAN’s basic requirements are fairly clear – a platform big enough to handle the Aegis SPY-1D(V) radar, which is slightly heavier than the current SPY-1D; provision for enough weapons, and the appropriate mix of weapons, to allow the ships to operate in the area air defence role and, down the track, possibly in the BMD and even land attack roles. That means lots of launchers to carry a wide mix of weapons – the F100’s 48 Mk41 VLS cells are probably insufficient; the F124 has only 32 cells.
The RAN also wants at least the same range as the Anzacs – 6,000 nautical miles or more; and it needs a propulsion system which allows for economical cruising; and, of course, minimum manning.
Observers have long felt that IZAR was in a strong position to bid for the AWD contract. Its 6,000 tonne, multi-role F100 frigate carries the SPY-1D radar though it is slightly smaller than Navy is believed to want. IZAR is a member of the AFCON consortium, along with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and this team is well qualified to develop a slightly larger RAN-compliant variant of the F100 at a moderate level of risk. At Pacific 2004 IZAR unveiled plans to add a further two eight-cell Mk41 launchers aft, adjacent to the hangar roof, bringing the missile count up to 60; this may be closer to what Navy needs.
BIW is also the lead yard for the DDG-51 construction program. It’s unclear what changes to the basic DDG-51 design would be required to make it more acceptable to the RAN. A smaller crew is essential; so also is a propulsion package which allows for economical cruising using diesel engines rather than the DDG-51s four turbines alone. Otherwise, the basic hull and air warfare system needn’t be so very different from the current design. In any case, Lockheed Martin would have to be involved in the design, construction and air warfare system integration. If BIW’s parent company General Dynamics ends up with a stake in the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC – see p.xx) it wouldn’t be too fanciful to suggest that two of the three AFCON members might also have a role to play in delivering a DDG-51derivative to the RAN.
Blohm + Voss has a very strong track record in Australia, based on the successful adaptation of its MEKO 200 design for the Anzac frigate project and the subsequent very successful local build program. The F124 is innovative - stealthy, economical and fast, but smaller than the RAN is believed to favour; both it and the F100 will probably need stretching to provide the sensor, weapon and equipment space and weight margins required for an area air defence and BMD platform over the next 40 years.
When originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the F124 was designed in two versions – one with the Aegis system as a fall-back in case the European APAR-based system wasn’t successful. In the event the APAR-equipped version went ahead successfully; however, ADM understands that a fair bit of system-level design was undertaken for an Aegis-equipped F124. How far the detail design progressed isn’t clear and as a result it’s hard to say what the integration risks associated with putting an Aegis system into a derivative of the F124 might be.
That integration risk – real or perceived – must be balanced against the comfort zone Blohm + Voss has established in this country and the close relationship it has built up with two Australian companies who are likely to be significant supporting players in the AWD program. Saab Systems and CEA Technologies are intimate partners of Blohm + Voss in the MEKO D program and they are likely to be key equipment providers – combat system elements and radar – on the AWD.
The next 12 months will be crucial – the first six months will see the contenders develop their designs; a three-month evaluation period will follow, and then an approval period, leading to a source selection around mid-2005. The design contenders must address risk, cost and through-life capability and supportability issues, especially those relating to the Aegis air warfare system. They must also put together a credible and detailed proposal for building these ships in Australia and for fitting them out and integrating their complex combat systems.
Any plans to build these ships in Australia, and any hopes the government has that this program will help contribute to a long-awaited rationalisation of Australia’s naval industry, depend very much on the outcome of the ASC privatisation process. With the AWD design contest now under way, there isn’t much time left for the Commonwealth and Kockums to resolve the various issues delaying privatisation.
Maritime Development boss explains AWD rationale
Ian Bostock | Sydney
“The acquisition strategy for the Air Warfare Destroyers has changed over time, the reason being the hiatus that the naval shipbuilding and repair sector plan has put us into; we’ve been waiting for an industrial strategic partner, which has not been forthcoming,†CDRE Paul Greenfield, Director General Maritime Development, told ADM in early March (see ‘From the Source’, P.xx – Ed).
“I needed to get moving on this project and I suggested to the Minister that we take a strategic look at what air warfare systems were available around the world. There were three different types: the Aegis system, which is well known and understood and been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s; the British/French PAMS with the Samson radar and Aster missiles that will arm the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers but is quite a few years away from maturity; and the Dutch/German APAR system. To give you an example of the three different levels of maturity between these systems, the latter has only fired three missiles as of late last year – one SM-2 and two ESSMs. So basically, that system has fired just three missiles as opposed to 3000 or so that the US has fired,†said Cdre Greenfield. “Aegis certainly dominates the world market, whereas the other area air warfare systems represent perhaps 10% of the market.â€
“The argument I put forward was that we ought to follow a fundamental principle of warship design – choose the payload first, then design the ship around the payload. That would prevent us from having to conduct worldwide tenders that could give us an unmanageable number of variations of a theme. The Minister agreed that we ought to do that and called it the ‘block approach’. That’s why we’ve been working on the combat system for the Air Warfare Destroyer for a while now.
“The RAN-US Navy Air Warfare Working Group had been set up in June 2002 to help us understand what interoperability meant between the two navies, particularly for this project.†Cdre Greenfield said the collaborative arrangement enabled the RAN to understand how the USN was evolving its DD(X) and CG(X) concept pathways. Based on that and other considerations the recommendation was made to government that the US Aegis system was the way ahead for the AWD combat system.
To complement this, adds Cdre Greenfield, the US is Australia’s principal ally and the two navies already exercise together and have a good understanding with each other at all levels.
“Of course, the US also has four international Aegis programs underway now, which gives them a pretty good understanding of international requirements and how to deal with those. They will have something like 100 Aegis-equipped platforms in service around the world and Aegis will remain the US Navy’s core air warfare capability for the next 30 years.
“Unlike the US Navy, however, we do not have another core force to fall back on. The Air Warfare Destroyers and the ANZACs will be our core force, and we can’t afford to have leading-edge technology that is yet to mature. We need systems that really work.â€
A key consideration for the RAN has been the transparency available in costing the introduction of Aegis into the fleet. “The acquisition and life-cycle costs associated with Aegis are very well known and understood, down to the point where the Americans can provide costs to the last dollar,†remarked Cdre Greenfield. “That’s something you don’t get from new technologies. At least we will be able to say with confidence to the government how much it will all cost.â€
In light of the release of the Invitation to Contract and subsequent Request for Proposals to Izar, Blohm + Voss and Gibbs & Cox, the RAN and DMO, according to Cdre Greenfield, asked themselves key questions about which shipbuilders should be invited to participate in the AWD concept design and evaluation process. “Firstly, are there any other ships around which have Aegis integrated into them so that te ship designers know the issues you have to solve beforehand and the effect it will have on the ship’s overall design. Things like stability, size, weight, power, cooling etc.
“But you also might be looking at shipyards or ship designers with a proven track record of innovation or the ability to deal with such issues.â€
AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking
Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.
Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide
The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.
All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy’s help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.
Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany’s Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.
While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design – it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.
“The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force,†Hill’s statement added. “This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.â€
Hill announced that Tenix and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be asked separately to assist Defence in the assessment of the designs and to advise the Government on the opportunities to maximise potential for Australian industry involvement in the project.
Not only will the AWDs be genuine multi-role sea control combatants, their evolutionary growth path will include at the very least a sub-set of the US Navy’s planned Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.
Therefore the choice of the Aegis air warfare system was inevitable, given the Aegis system will remain US Navy’s area air defence and BMD system of choice for the next two decades. The Aegis system will not be replaced or supplanted until the US Navy’s CG(X) air warfare cruiser comes into service after 2018.
But based on the US Navy’s own plans, the AWD’s configuration options are now a bit clearer. This year 12 existing DDG-51s will receive an upgrade to Aegis Baseline 6 configuration which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). New-build DDG-51 will receive this system as standard.
According to Lockheed Martin’s Maritime Systems and Sensors Division, which is prime contractor for the Aegis system, some 22 Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruisers and 40 DDG-51 destroyers will be upgraded over the next few years to Aegis Baseline 7 standard, employing the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, with enhanced littoral capability, and COTS computing hardware. The next upgrade after this will see the introduction of the Aegis Open Architecture which will be retrofitted to all Aegis ships to enable network-centric operations.
Furthermore three CG-47s and 15 DDFG-51s will be upgraded still further under a spiral development process with an iterative two-year cycle to incorporate, first Block 04 (for 2004) BMD functionality, growing by the end of this decade to Block 10. Based on the Aegis Baseline 7 hardware and Aegis Open Architecture, the Block 10 BMD functionality will be the product of the enhanced SPY-1D(V) radar, the Raytheon SM-3 missiles and the necessary radar and combat system software algorithms to handle anti-ballistic missile engagements.
According to the US Navy’s BMD office, the first elements of this capability are already in place and under test. In phase 1 of the BMD program the Block 04 system currently under test will provide the ability to detect and track an ICBM launch and transmit track data to the US Missile Defence Agency at Colorado Springs via satellite datalink. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom a Baseline 5-equipped DDG-51 is reported to have detected the launch of an Iraqi SCUD missile and handed off track data to a land-based Patriot missile battery which engaged the incoming SCUD.
Phase 2 will provide what sources term a preliminary engagement capability using the SM-3 missile. Phase 3, which is due to begin in early 2006, will see production SM-3 Block 1 missiles, along with the Block 06 radar and combat system software enhancements, fielded aboard a small number of CG-47s and DDG-51s. This will enable the engagement of short-range ballistic missiles.
In the last BMD trial conducted in December 2003 the BMD trials ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) engaged the incoming target using track data from a DDG-51, USS Russell, which detected the missile launch, tracked the target and data-linked the target information via satellite through Colorado Springs. The developmental SM-3 fired from USS Lake Erie was controlled entirely by the ship’s company, not by any contractors, and hit the missile in the descent phase, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the missile and C3 system as well as the shore-based infrastructure.
US Navy sources told ADM that Australia’s most flexible approach to fielding an Aegis system would be to acquire the Baseline 7 system with SM-2 Block III missiles. This will be in fleet wide US Navy service and, through addition of the SM-3 missile and some Block 10 (and beyond?) software enhancements, provides a simple growth path to an Australian BMD capability. The low-risk approach, according to Navy BMD officials, is to stick close to the US Navy and allow the US to lead R&D, development and integration.
At this stage its hard to say what opportunities exist for Australian industry to participate in a significant and meaningful way in the development of the RAN’s Aegis capability – or indeed the global Aegis capability. Senator Hill said on the record in a recent interview with ADM that Australia can and should aim for significant local involvement and Lockheed Martin has acknowledged these aspirations, pointing out that its Aegis export programs – in Japan, Spain, South Korea and Norway – have successfully met the local industry involvement requirements of its customers. However, the company has traditionally, and probably always will, conduct the final shore-based testing, installation, integration and system check-out itself, for all of its customers.
Predictions that Australia could acquire an air warfare system incorporating DD(X) technology ignored that fact that much of the DD(X) technology development thrust is towards littoral warfare. While this has obvious attractions, the RAN wants to avoid technical and schedule risks arising from integration difficulties caused by unique, Australia-only configuration choices. However, it would be rash to discount the possibility of significant DD(X) input into the US Navy’s, and therefore the Australian AWD’s, ASW, AsuW and broader littoral combat capabilities.
Raytheon is leading the systems development element of the DD(X) program, which will see six engineering development models delivered to the US Navy by late 2005 and demonstrated at sea – these cover the total ship computing environment, combat system, radar, undersea warfare capabilities, communications and the development of the new Mk57 Vertical Launch system.
As a potential prime systems integrator Raytheon Australia says it could and would lead the Total Ship Electronics Systems integration effort on the RAN’s AWDs, as well as its amphibious and afloat support ships, if the opportunity were available.
At this stage studies are under way on the AWD’s combat system design. As the RAN plans to buy only three AWDs at this time, achieving a decent level of commonality with the Anzac frigates (for example, in the areas of sonar) may have a significant effect on the cost of in-service support, configuration management (especially of certain types of software) and crew and operator training.
What about the platforms?
The RAN’s basic requirements are fairly clear – a platform big enough to handle the Aegis SPY-1D(V) radar, which is slightly heavier than the current SPY-1D; provision for enough weapons, and the appropriate mix of weapons, to allow the ships to operate in the area air defence role and, down the track, possibly in the BMD and even land attack roles. That means lots of launchers to carry a wide mix of weapons – the F100’s 48 Mk41 VLS cells are probably insufficient; the F124 has only 32 cells.
The RAN also wants at least the same range as the Anzacs – 6,000 nautical miles or more; and it needs a propulsion system which allows for economical cruising; and, of course, minimum manning.
Observers have long felt that IZAR was in a strong position to bid for the AWD contract. Its 6,000 tonne, multi-role F100 frigate carries the SPY-1D radar though it is slightly smaller than Navy is believed to want. IZAR is a member of the AFCON consortium, along with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and this team is well qualified to develop a slightly larger RAN-compliant variant of the F100 at a moderate level of risk. At Pacific 2004 IZAR unveiled plans to add a further two eight-cell Mk41 launchers aft, adjacent to the hangar roof, bringing the missile count up to 60; this may be closer to what Navy needs.
BIW is also the lead yard for the DDG-51 construction program. It’s unclear what changes to the basic DDG-51 design would be required to make it more acceptable to the RAN. A smaller crew is essential; so also is a propulsion package which allows for economical cruising using diesel engines rather than the DDG-51s four turbines alone. Otherwise, the basic hull and air warfare system needn’t be so very different from the current design. In any case, Lockheed Martin would have to be involved in the design, construction and air warfare system integration. If BIW’s parent company General Dynamics ends up with a stake in the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC – see p.xx) it wouldn’t be too fanciful to suggest that two of the three AFCON members might also have a role to play in delivering a DDG-51derivative to the RAN.
Blohm + Voss has a very strong track record in Australia, based on the successful adaptation of its MEKO 200 design for the Anzac frigate project and the subsequent very successful local build program. The F124 is innovative - stealthy, economical and fast, but smaller than the RAN is believed to favour; both it and the F100 will probably need stretching to provide the sensor, weapon and equipment space and weight margins required for an area air defence and BMD platform over the next 40 years.
When originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the F124 was designed in two versions – one with the Aegis system as a fall-back in case the European APAR-based system wasn’t successful. In the event the APAR-equipped version went ahead successfully; however, ADM understands that a fair bit of system-level design was undertaken for an Aegis-equipped F124. How far the detail design progressed isn’t clear and as a result it’s hard to say what the integration risks associated with putting an Aegis system into a derivative of the F124 might be.
That integration risk – real or perceived – must be balanced against the comfort zone Blohm + Voss has established in this country and the close relationship it has built up with two Australian companies who are likely to be significant supporting players in the AWD program. Saab Systems and CEA Technologies are intimate partners of Blohm + Voss in the MEKO D program and they are likely to be key equipment providers – combat system elements and radar – on the AWD.
The next 12 months will be crucial – the first six months will see the contenders develop their designs; a three-month evaluation period will follow, and then an approval period, leading to a source selection around mid-2005. The design contenders must address risk, cost and through-life capability and supportability issues, especially those relating to the Aegis air warfare system. They must also put together a credible and detailed proposal for building these ships in Australia and for fitting them out and integrating their complex combat systems.
Any plans to build these ships in Australia, and any hopes the government has that this program will help contribute to a long-awaited rationalisation of Australia’s naval industry, depend very much on the outcome of the ASC privatisation process. With the AWD design contest now under way, there isn’t much time left for the Commonwealth and Kockums to resolve the various issues delaying privatisation.
Maritime Development boss explains AWD rationale
Ian Bostock | Sydney
“The acquisition strategy for the Air Warfare Destroyers has changed over time, the reason being the hiatus that the naval shipbuilding and repair sector plan has put us into; we’ve been waiting for an industrial strategic partner, which has not been forthcoming,†CDRE Paul Greenfield, Director General Maritime Development, told ADM in early March (see ‘From the Source’, P.xx – Ed).
“I needed to get moving on this project and I suggested to the Minister that we take a strategic look at what air warfare systems were available around the world. There were three different types: the Aegis system, which is well known and understood and been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s; the British/French PAMS with the Samson radar and Aster missiles that will arm the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers but is quite a few years away from maturity; and the Dutch/German APAR system. To give you an example of the three different levels of maturity between these systems, the latter has only fired three missiles as of late last year – one SM-2 and two ESSMs. So basically, that system has fired just three missiles as opposed to 3000 or so that the US has fired,†said Cdre Greenfield. “Aegis certainly dominates the world market, whereas the other area air warfare systems represent perhaps 10% of the market.â€
“The argument I put forward was that we ought to follow a fundamental principle of warship design – choose the payload first, then design the ship around the payload. That would prevent us from having to conduct worldwide tenders that could give us an unmanageable number of variations of a theme. The Minister agreed that we ought to do that and called it the ‘block approach’. That’s why we’ve been working on the combat system for the Air Warfare Destroyer for a while now.
“The RAN-US Navy Air Warfare Working Group had been set up in June 2002 to help us understand what interoperability meant between the two navies, particularly for this project.†Cdre Greenfield said the collaborative arrangement enabled the RAN to understand how the USN was evolving its DD(X) and CG(X) concept pathways. Based on that and other considerations the recommendation was made to government that the US Aegis system was the way ahead for the AWD combat system.
To complement this, adds Cdre Greenfield, the US is Australia’s principal ally and the two navies already exercise together and have a good understanding with each other at all levels.
“Of course, the US also has four international Aegis programs underway now, which gives them a pretty good understanding of international requirements and how to deal with those. They will have something like 100 Aegis-equipped platforms in service around the world and Aegis will remain the US Navy’s core air warfare capability for the next 30 years.
“Unlike the US Navy, however, we do not have another core force to fall back on. The Air Warfare Destroyers and the ANZACs will be our core force, and we can’t afford to have leading-edge technology that is yet to mature. We need systems that really work.â€
A key consideration for the RAN has been the transparency available in costing the introduction of Aegis into the fleet. “The acquisition and life-cycle costs associated with Aegis are very well known and understood, down to the point where the Americans can provide costs to the last dollar,†remarked Cdre Greenfield. “That’s something you don’t get from new technologies. At least we will be able to say with confidence to the government how much it will all cost.â€
In light of the release of the Invitation to Contract and subsequent Request for Proposals to Izar, Blohm + Voss and Gibbs & Cox, the RAN and DMO, according to Cdre Greenfield, asked themselves key questions about which shipbuilders should be invited to participate in the AWD concept design and evaluation process. “Firstly, are there any other ships around which have Aegis integrated into them so that te ship designers know the issues you have to solve beforehand and the effect it will have on the ship’s overall design. Things like stability, size, weight, power, cooling etc.
“But you also might be looking at shipyards or ship designers with a proven track record of innovation or the ability to deal with such issues.â€
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yep, it seems the RAN wants an Arleigh Burke type capability, with a reduced manning requirement.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yep we can afford it alright. The question will be how many we get. The politicians are talking about 3, the Navy would like at least 4, due to the fact that out FFG's are to be phased out, shortly after this ship is introduced. With the ANZAC frigates, 4 AWD's would give us a major surface combatant force of 12 ships. 3 would only give us 11, which is what we possess now, but we'll shortly be moving up to 12 (8 ANZAC's, 4 FFG's) when the final ANZAC class frigates are handed over to navy. In my view, the FFG's should be retained, 4 AWD's acquired and the 8 ANZAC frigates be brought up to a high level of capability. I don't think this will happen though. People might think we were warmongers should we possess a massive "16" warships. They forget though that we've got 2 very large oceans to patrol though and in times of war we have numerous shipping lanes to protect...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
Update on "local thinking"
AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking
Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.
Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide
The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.
All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy’s help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.
Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany’s Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.
While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design – it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.
“The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force,†Hill’s statement added. “This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.â€
Hill announced that Tenix and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be asked separately to assist Defence in the assessment of the designs and to advise the Government on the opportunities to maximise potential for Australian industry involvement in the project.
Not only will the AWDs be genuine multi-role sea control combatants, their evolutionary growth path will include at the very least a sub-set of the US Navy’s planned Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.
Therefore the choice of the Aegis air warfare system was inevitable, given the Aegis system will remain US Navy’s area air defence and BMD system of choice for the next two decades. The Aegis system will not be replaced or supplanted until the US Navy’s CG(X) air warfare cruiser comes into service after 2018.
But based on the US Navy’s own plans, the AWD’s configuration options are now a bit clearer. This year 12 existing DDG-51s will receive an upgrade to Aegis Baseline 6 configuration which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). New-build DDG-51 will receive this system as standard.
According to Lockheed Martin’s Maritime Systems and Sensors Division, which is prime contractor for the Aegis system, some 22 Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruisers and 40 DDG-51 destroyers will be upgraded over the next few years to Aegis Baseline 7 standard, employing the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, with enhanced littoral capability, and COTS computing hardware. The next upgrade after this will see the introduction of the Aegis Open Architecture which will be retrofitted to all Aegis ships to enable network-centric operations.
Furthermore three CG-47s and 15 DDFG-51s will be upgraded still further under a spiral development process with an iterative two-year cycle to incorporate, first Block 04 (for 2004) BMD functionality, growing by the end of this decade to Block 10. Based on the Aegis Baseline 7 hardware and Aegis Open Architecture, the Block 10 BMD functionality will be the product of the enhanced SPY-1D(V) radar, the Raytheon SM-3 missiles and the necessary radar and combat system software algorithms to handle anti-ballistic missile engagements.
According to the US Navy’s BMD office, the first elements of this capability are already in place and under test. In phase 1 of the BMD program the Block 04 system currently under test will provide the ability to detect and track an ICBM launch and transmit track data to the US Missile Defence Agency at Colorado Springs via satellite datalink. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom a Baseline 5-equipped DDG-51 is reported to have detected the launch of an Iraqi SCUD missile and handed off track data to a land-based Patriot missile battery which engaged the incoming SCUD.
Phase 2 will provide what sources term a preliminary engagement capability using the SM-3 missile. Phase 3, which is due to begin in early 2006, will see production SM-3 Block 1 missiles, along with the Block 06 radar and combat system software enhancements, fielded aboard a small number of CG-47s and DDG-51s. This will enable the engagement of short-range ballistic missiles.
In the last BMD trial conducted in December 2003 the BMD trials ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) engaged the incoming target using track data from a DDG-51, USS Russell, which detected the missile launch, tracked the target and data-linked the target information via satellite through Colorado Springs. The developmental SM-3 fired from USS Lake Erie was controlled entirely by the ship’s company, not by any contractors, and hit the missile in the descent phase, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the missile and C3 system as well as the shore-based infrastructure.
US Navy sources told ADM that Australia’s most flexible approach to fielding an Aegis system would be to acquire the Baseline 7 system with SM-2 Block III missiles. This will be in fleet wide US Navy service and, through addition of the SM-3 missile and some Block 10 (and beyond?) software enhancements, provides a simple growth path to an Australian BMD capability. The low-risk approach, according to Navy BMD officials, is to stick close to the US Navy and allow the US to lead R&D, development and integration.
At this stage its hard to say what opportunities exist for Australian industry to participate in a significant and meaningful way in the development of the RAN’s Aegis capability – or indeed the global Aegis capability. Senator Hill said on the record in a recent interview with ADM that Australia can and should aim for significant local involvement and Lockheed Martin has acknowledged these aspirations, pointing out that its Aegis export programs – in Japan, Spain, South Korea and Norway – have successfully met the local industry involvement requirements of its customers. However, the company has traditionally, and probably always will, conduct the final shore-based testing, installation, integration and system check-out itself, for all of its customers.
Predictions that Australia could acquire an air warfare system incorporating DD(X) technology ignored that fact that much of the DD(X) technology development thrust is towards littoral warfare. While this has obvious attractions, the RAN wants to avoid technical and schedule risks arising from integration difficulties caused by unique, Australia-only configuration choices. However, it would be rash to discount the possibility of significant DD(X) input into the US Navy’s, and therefore the Australian AWD’s, ASW, AsuW and broader littoral combat capabilities.
Raytheon is leading the systems development element of the DD(X) program, which will see six engineering development models delivered to the US Navy by late 2005 and demonstrated at sea – these cover the total ship computing environment, combat system, radar, undersea warfare capabilities, communications and the development of the new Mk57 Vertical Launch system.
As a potential prime systems integrator Raytheon Australia says it could and would lead the Total Ship Electronics Systems integration effort on the RAN’s AWDs, as well as its amphibious and afloat support ships, if the opportunity were available.
At this stage studies are under way on the AWD’s combat system design. As the RAN plans to buy only three AWDs at this time, achieving a decent level of commonality with the Anzac frigates (for example, in the areas of sonar) may have a significant effect on the cost of in-service support, configuration management (especially of certain types of software) and crew and operator training.
What about the platforms?
The RAN’s basic requirements are fairly clear – a platform big enough to handle the Aegis SPY-1D(V) radar, which is slightly heavier than the current SPY-1D; provision for enough weapons, and the appropriate mix of weapons, to allow the ships to operate in the area air defence role and, down the track, possibly in the BMD and even land attack roles. That means lots of launchers to carry a wide mix of weapons – the F100’s 48 Mk41 VLS cells are probably insufficient; the F124 has only 32 cells.
The RAN also wants at least the same range as the Anzacs – 6,000 nautical miles or more; and it needs a propulsion system which allows for economical cruising; and, of course, minimum manning.
Observers have long felt that IZAR was in a strong position to bid for the AWD contract. Its 6,000 tonne, multi-role F100 frigate carries the SPY-1D radar though it is slightly smaller than Navy is believed to want. IZAR is a member of the AFCON consortium, along with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and this team is well qualified to develop a slightly larger RAN-compliant variant of the F100 at a moderate level of risk. At Pacific 2004 IZAR unveiled plans to add a further two eight-cell Mk41 launchers aft, adjacent to the hangar roof, bringing the missile count up to 60; this may be closer to what Navy needs.
BIW is also the lead yard for the DDG-51 construction program. It’s unclear what changes to the basic DDG-51 design would be required to make it more acceptable to the RAN. A smaller crew is essential; so also is a propulsion package which allows for economical cruising using diesel engines rather than the DDG-51s four turbines alone. Otherwise, the basic hull and air warfare system needn’t be so very different from the current design. In any case, Lockheed Martin would have to be involved in the design, construction and air warfare system integration. If BIW’s parent company General Dynamics ends up with a stake in the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC – see p.xx) it wouldn’t be too fanciful to suggest that two of the three AFCON members might also have a role to play in delivering a DDG-51derivative to the RAN.
Blohm + Voss has a very strong track record in Australia, based on the successful adaptation of its MEKO 200 design for the Anzac frigate project and the subsequent very successful local build program. The F124 is innovative - stealthy, economical and fast, but smaller than the RAN is believed to favour; both it and the F100 will probably need stretching to provide the sensor, weapon and equipment space and weight margins required for an area air defence and BMD platform over the next 40 years.
When originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the F124 was designed in two versions – one with the Aegis system as a fall-back in case the European APAR-based system wasn’t successful. In the event the APAR-equipped version went ahead successfully; however, ADM understands that a fair bit of system-level design was undertaken for an Aegis-equipped F124. How far the detail design progressed isn’t clear and as a result it’s hard to say what the integration risks associated with putting an Aegis system into a derivative of the F124 might be.
That integration risk – real or perceived – must be balanced against the comfort zone Blohm + Voss has established in this country and the close relationship it has built up with two Australian companies who are likely to be significant supporting players in the AWD program. Saab Systems and CEA Technologies are intimate partners of Blohm + Voss in the MEKO D program and they are likely to be key equipment providers – combat system elements and radar – on the AWD.
The next 12 months will be crucial – the first six months will see the contenders develop their designs; a three-month evaluation period will follow, and then an approval period, leading to a source selection around mid-2005. The design contenders must address risk, cost and through-life capability and supportability issues, especially those relating to the Aegis air warfare system. They must also put together a credible and detailed proposal for building these ships in Australia and for fitting them out and integrating their complex combat systems.
Any plans to build these ships in Australia, and any hopes the government has that this program will help contribute to a long-awaited rationalisation of Australia’s naval industry, depend very much on the outcome of the ASC privatisation process. With the AWD design contest now under way, there isn’t much time left for the Commonwealth and Kockums to resolve the various issues delaying privatisation.
Maritime Development boss explains AWD rationale
Ian Bostock | Sydney
“The acquisition strategy for the Air Warfare Destroyers has changed over time, the reason being the hiatus that the naval shipbuilding and repair sector plan has put us into; we’ve been waiting for an industrial strategic partner, which has not been forthcoming,†CDRE Paul Greenfield, Director General Maritime Development, told ADM in early March (see ‘From the Source’, P.xx – Ed).
“I needed to get moving on this project and I suggested to the Minister that we take a strategic look at what air warfare systems were available around the world. There were three different types: the Aegis system, which is well known and understood and been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s; the British/French PAMS with the Samson radar and Aster missiles that will arm the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers but is quite a few years away from maturity; and the Dutch/German APAR system. To give you an example of the three different levels of maturity between these systems, the latter has only fired three missiles as of late last year – one SM-2 and two ESSMs. So basically, that system has fired just three missiles as opposed to 3000 or so that the US has fired,†said Cdre Greenfield. “Aegis certainly dominates the world market, whereas the other area air warfare systems represent perhaps 10% of the market.â€
“The argument I put forward was that we ought to follow a fundamental principle of warship design – choose the payload first, then design the ship around the payload. That would prevent us from having to conduct worldwide tenders that could give us an unmanageable number of variations of a theme. The Minister agreed that we ought to do that and called it the ‘block approach’. That’s why we’ve been working on the combat system for the Air Warfare Destroyer for a while now.
“The RAN-US Navy Air Warfare Working Group had been set up in June 2002 to help us understand what interoperability meant between the two navies, particularly for this project.†Cdre Greenfield said the collaborative arrangement enabled the RAN to understand how the USN was evolving its DD(X) and CG(X) concept pathways. Based on that and other considerations the recommendation was made to government that the US Aegis system was the way ahead for the AWD combat system.
To complement this, adds Cdre Greenfield, the US is Australia’s principal ally and the two navies already exercise together and have a good understanding with each other at all levels.
“Of course, the US also has four international Aegis programs underway now, which gives them a pretty good understanding of international requirements and how to deal with those. They will have something like 100 Aegis-equipped platforms in service around the world and Aegis will remain the US Navy’s core air warfare capability for the next 30 years.
“Unlike the US Navy, however, we do not have another core force to fall back on. The Air Warfare Destroyers and the ANZACs will be our core force, and we can’t afford to have leading-edge technology that is yet to mature. We need systems that really work.â€
A key consideration for the RAN has been the transparency available in costing the introduction of Aegis into the fleet. “The acquisition and life-cycle costs associated with Aegis are very well known and understood, down to the point where the Americans can provide costs to the last dollar,†remarked Cdre Greenfield. “That’s something you don’t get from new technologies. At least we will be able to say with confidence to the government how much it will all cost.â€
In light of the release of the Invitation to Contract and subsequent Request for Proposals to Izar, Blohm + Voss and Gibbs & Cox, the RAN and DMO, according to Cdre Greenfield, asked themselves key questions about which shipbuilders should be invited to participate in the AWD concept design and evaluation process. “Firstly, are there any other ships around which have Aegis integrated into them so that the ship designers know the issues you have to solve beforehand and theeffect it will have on the ship’s overall design. Things like stability, size, weight, power, cooling etc.
“But you also might be looking at shipyards or ship designers with a proven track record of innovation or the ability to deal with such issues.â€
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/4-feat2.htm
AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking
Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.
Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide
The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.
All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy’s help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.
The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.
Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany’s Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.
While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design – it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.
“The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force,†Hill’s statement added. “This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.â€
Hill announced that Tenix and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be asked separately to assist Defence in the assessment of the designs and to advise the Government on the opportunities to maximise potential for Australian industry involvement in the project.
Not only will the AWDs be genuine multi-role sea control combatants, their evolutionary growth path will include at the very least a sub-set of the US Navy’s planned Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.
Therefore the choice of the Aegis air warfare system was inevitable, given the Aegis system will remain US Navy’s area air defence and BMD system of choice for the next two decades. The Aegis system will not be replaced or supplanted until the US Navy’s CG(X) air warfare cruiser comes into service after 2018.
But based on the US Navy’s own plans, the AWD’s configuration options are now a bit clearer. This year 12 existing DDG-51s will receive an upgrade to Aegis Baseline 6 configuration which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). New-build DDG-51 will receive this system as standard.
According to Lockheed Martin’s Maritime Systems and Sensors Division, which is prime contractor for the Aegis system, some 22 Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruisers and 40 DDG-51 destroyers will be upgraded over the next few years to Aegis Baseline 7 standard, employing the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, with enhanced littoral capability, and COTS computing hardware. The next upgrade after this will see the introduction of the Aegis Open Architecture which will be retrofitted to all Aegis ships to enable network-centric operations.
Furthermore three CG-47s and 15 DDFG-51s will be upgraded still further under a spiral development process with an iterative two-year cycle to incorporate, first Block 04 (for 2004) BMD functionality, growing by the end of this decade to Block 10. Based on the Aegis Baseline 7 hardware and Aegis Open Architecture, the Block 10 BMD functionality will be the product of the enhanced SPY-1D(V) radar, the Raytheon SM-3 missiles and the necessary radar and combat system software algorithms to handle anti-ballistic missile engagements.
According to the US Navy’s BMD office, the first elements of this capability are already in place and under test. In phase 1 of the BMD program the Block 04 system currently under test will provide the ability to detect and track an ICBM launch and transmit track data to the US Missile Defence Agency at Colorado Springs via satellite datalink. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom a Baseline 5-equipped DDG-51 is reported to have detected the launch of an Iraqi SCUD missile and handed off track data to a land-based Patriot missile battery which engaged the incoming SCUD.
Phase 2 will provide what sources term a preliminary engagement capability using the SM-3 missile. Phase 3, which is due to begin in early 2006, will see production SM-3 Block 1 missiles, along with the Block 06 radar and combat system software enhancements, fielded aboard a small number of CG-47s and DDG-51s. This will enable the engagement of short-range ballistic missiles.
In the last BMD trial conducted in December 2003 the BMD trials ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) engaged the incoming target using track data from a DDG-51, USS Russell, which detected the missile launch, tracked the target and data-linked the target information via satellite through Colorado Springs. The developmental SM-3 fired from USS Lake Erie was controlled entirely by the ship’s company, not by any contractors, and hit the missile in the descent phase, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the missile and C3 system as well as the shore-based infrastructure.
US Navy sources told ADM that Australia’s most flexible approach to fielding an Aegis system would be to acquire the Baseline 7 system with SM-2 Block III missiles. This will be in fleet wide US Navy service and, through addition of the SM-3 missile and some Block 10 (and beyond?) software enhancements, provides a simple growth path to an Australian BMD capability. The low-risk approach, according to Navy BMD officials, is to stick close to the US Navy and allow the US to lead R&D, development and integration.
At this stage its hard to say what opportunities exist for Australian industry to participate in a significant and meaningful way in the development of the RAN’s Aegis capability – or indeed the global Aegis capability. Senator Hill said on the record in a recent interview with ADM that Australia can and should aim for significant local involvement and Lockheed Martin has acknowledged these aspirations, pointing out that its Aegis export programs – in Japan, Spain, South Korea and Norway – have successfully met the local industry involvement requirements of its customers. However, the company has traditionally, and probably always will, conduct the final shore-based testing, installation, integration and system check-out itself, for all of its customers.
Predictions that Australia could acquire an air warfare system incorporating DD(X) technology ignored that fact that much of the DD(X) technology development thrust is towards littoral warfare. While this has obvious attractions, the RAN wants to avoid technical and schedule risks arising from integration difficulties caused by unique, Australia-only configuration choices. However, it would be rash to discount the possibility of significant DD(X) input into the US Navy’s, and therefore the Australian AWD’s, ASW, AsuW and broader littoral combat capabilities.
Raytheon is leading the systems development element of the DD(X) program, which will see six engineering development models delivered to the US Navy by late 2005 and demonstrated at sea – these cover the total ship computing environment, combat system, radar, undersea warfare capabilities, communications and the development of the new Mk57 Vertical Launch system.
As a potential prime systems integrator Raytheon Australia says it could and would lead the Total Ship Electronics Systems integration effort on the RAN’s AWDs, as well as its amphibious and afloat support ships, if the opportunity were available.
At this stage studies are under way on the AWD’s combat system design. As the RAN plans to buy only three AWDs at this time, achieving a decent level of commonality with the Anzac frigates (for example, in the areas of sonar) may have a significant effect on the cost of in-service support, configuration management (especially of certain types of software) and crew and operator training.
What about the platforms?
The RAN’s basic requirements are fairly clear – a platform big enough to handle the Aegis SPY-1D(V) radar, which is slightly heavier than the current SPY-1D; provision for enough weapons, and the appropriate mix of weapons, to allow the ships to operate in the area air defence role and, down the track, possibly in the BMD and even land attack roles. That means lots of launchers to carry a wide mix of weapons – the F100’s 48 Mk41 VLS cells are probably insufficient; the F124 has only 32 cells.
The RAN also wants at least the same range as the Anzacs – 6,000 nautical miles or more; and it needs a propulsion system which allows for economical cruising; and, of course, minimum manning.
Observers have long felt that IZAR was in a strong position to bid for the AWD contract. Its 6,000 tonne, multi-role F100 frigate carries the SPY-1D radar though it is slightly smaller than Navy is believed to want. IZAR is a member of the AFCON consortium, along with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and this team is well qualified to develop a slightly larger RAN-compliant variant of the F100 at a moderate level of risk. At Pacific 2004 IZAR unveiled plans to add a further two eight-cell Mk41 launchers aft, adjacent to the hangar roof, bringing the missile count up to 60; this may be closer to what Navy needs.
BIW is also the lead yard for the DDG-51 construction program. It’s unclear what changes to the basic DDG-51 design would be required to make it more acceptable to the RAN. A smaller crew is essential; so also is a propulsion package which allows for economical cruising using diesel engines rather than the DDG-51s four turbines alone. Otherwise, the basic hull and air warfare system needn’t be so very different from the current design. In any case, Lockheed Martin would have to be involved in the design, construction and air warfare system integration. If BIW’s parent company General Dynamics ends up with a stake in the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC – see p.xx) it wouldn’t be too fanciful to suggest that two of the three AFCON members might also have a role to play in delivering a DDG-51derivative to the RAN.
Blohm + Voss has a very strong track record in Australia, based on the successful adaptation of its MEKO 200 design for the Anzac frigate project and the subsequent very successful local build program. The F124 is innovative - stealthy, economical and fast, but smaller than the RAN is believed to favour; both it and the F100 will probably need stretching to provide the sensor, weapon and equipment space and weight margins required for an area air defence and BMD platform over the next 40 years.
When originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the F124 was designed in two versions – one with the Aegis system as a fall-back in case the European APAR-based system wasn’t successful. In the event the APAR-equipped version went ahead successfully; however, ADM understands that a fair bit of system-level design was undertaken for an Aegis-equipped F124. How far the detail design progressed isn’t clear and as a result it’s hard to say what the integration risks associated with putting an Aegis system into a derivative of the F124 might be.
That integration risk – real or perceived – must be balanced against the comfort zone Blohm + Voss has established in this country and the close relationship it has built up with two Australian companies who are likely to be significant supporting players in the AWD program. Saab Systems and CEA Technologies are intimate partners of Blohm + Voss in the MEKO D program and they are likely to be key equipment providers – combat system elements and radar – on the AWD.
The next 12 months will be crucial – the first six months will see the contenders develop their designs; a three-month evaluation period will follow, and then an approval period, leading to a source selection around mid-2005. The design contenders must address risk, cost and through-life capability and supportability issues, especially those relating to the Aegis air warfare system. They must also put together a credible and detailed proposal for building these ships in Australia and for fitting them out and integrating their complex combat systems.
Any plans to build these ships in Australia, and any hopes the government has that this program will help contribute to a long-awaited rationalisation of Australia’s naval industry, depend very much on the outcome of the ASC privatisation process. With the AWD design contest now under way, there isn’t much time left for the Commonwealth and Kockums to resolve the various issues delaying privatisation.
Maritime Development boss explains AWD rationale
Ian Bostock | Sydney
“The acquisition strategy for the Air Warfare Destroyers has changed over time, the reason being the hiatus that the naval shipbuilding and repair sector plan has put us into; we’ve been waiting for an industrial strategic partner, which has not been forthcoming,†CDRE Paul Greenfield, Director General Maritime Development, told ADM in early March (see ‘From the Source’, P.xx – Ed).
“I needed to get moving on this project and I suggested to the Minister that we take a strategic look at what air warfare systems were available around the world. There were three different types: the Aegis system, which is well known and understood and been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s; the British/French PAMS with the Samson radar and Aster missiles that will arm the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers but is quite a few years away from maturity; and the Dutch/German APAR system. To give you an example of the three different levels of maturity between these systems, the latter has only fired three missiles as of late last year – one SM-2 and two ESSMs. So basically, that system has fired just three missiles as opposed to 3000 or so that the US has fired,†said Cdre Greenfield. “Aegis certainly dominates the world market, whereas the other area air warfare systems represent perhaps 10% of the market.â€
“The argument I put forward was that we ought to follow a fundamental principle of warship design – choose the payload first, then design the ship around the payload. That would prevent us from having to conduct worldwide tenders that could give us an unmanageable number of variations of a theme. The Minister agreed that we ought to do that and called it the ‘block approach’. That’s why we’ve been working on the combat system for the Air Warfare Destroyer for a while now.
“The RAN-US Navy Air Warfare Working Group had been set up in June 2002 to help us understand what interoperability meant between the two navies, particularly for this project.†Cdre Greenfield said the collaborative arrangement enabled the RAN to understand how the USN was evolving its DD(X) and CG(X) concept pathways. Based on that and other considerations the recommendation was made to government that the US Aegis system was the way ahead for the AWD combat system.
To complement this, adds Cdre Greenfield, the US is Australia’s principal ally and the two navies already exercise together and have a good understanding with each other at all levels.
“Of course, the US also has four international Aegis programs underway now, which gives them a pretty good understanding of international requirements and how to deal with those. They will have something like 100 Aegis-equipped platforms in service around the world and Aegis will remain the US Navy’s core air warfare capability for the next 30 years.
“Unlike the US Navy, however, we do not have another core force to fall back on. The Air Warfare Destroyers and the ANZACs will be our core force, and we can’t afford to have leading-edge technology that is yet to mature. We need systems that really work.â€
A key consideration for the RAN has been the transparency available in costing the introduction of Aegis into the fleet. “The acquisition and life-cycle costs associated with Aegis are very well known and understood, down to the point where the Americans can provide costs to the last dollar,†remarked Cdre Greenfield. “That’s something you don’t get from new technologies. At least we will be able to say with confidence to the government how much it will all cost.â€
In light of the release of the Invitation to Contract and subsequent Request for Proposals to Izar, Blohm + Voss and Gibbs & Cox, the RAN and DMO, according to Cdre Greenfield, asked themselves key questions about which shipbuilders should be invited to participate in the AWD concept design and evaluation process. “Firstly, are there any other ships around which have Aegis integrated into them so that the ship designers know the issues you have to solve beforehand and theeffect it will have on the ship’s overall design. Things like stability, size, weight, power, cooling etc.
“But you also might be looking at shipyards or ship designers with a proven track record of innovation or the ability to deal with such issues.â€
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/4-feat2.htm
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
As an analogy, each phase panel is like a small radar seeker - a bit like the eyes of a bee, a bee has thousands of eyes which give it a global picture, phased arrays work in a similar fashionAwang se said:
In addition, SPY1-3 are able to create a virtual network between themselves and other assets that are link 16 compatible,- so it becomes an incredibly wide ranging system
Thats why a US Strike force is incredibly powerful in its radar coverage - it literally can see further than any other OPFOR asset can.
In Australias case, it also means that we in theory could be netforced into an allied system and see literally thousands of k's ahead of the vessel. (in an ideal world)
I've tried to make it as simple as an analogy as poss so that everyone understands it - so apols if its too simplistic a response.
I was always under the impression that the Engagement was not the Radars responsibility all it does is detect objects i would spose its another unit that counter the incomeing hostile target so the other counter unit should completely be different and could possibly be upgraded as the Phased aray tech radars have great potential!! its simply the matter of Upgraded Software on the onbord systems. ie clever algorithms which can do more with less resource being utilized.tatra said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #39
That's true, it's job is to feed data to the FCS. The FCS doesn't need to "see" anything - all it does is tell the threat responder what to do and where to go.
VLS missiles are all aspect, "off bore sight" etc... so they just need to know what address to visit.
When you add in the radar capability of a strike group that is NETFORCED it's even more impressive. They can literally prioritise over 1000 concurrent targets and commit a response on a graduated response.