Aegis for Aussie SW vessels

[gf0012-aust]

27feb04

THE Australian navy and the United States Navy (USN) will cooperate on planning for Australia's new air warfare destroyer, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said chief of navy Vice Admiral Chris Ritchie signed a statement of principles with his US counterpart, chief of naval operations Admiral Vern Clark in Washington today.

He said this agreement was modelled on the successful 2001 Submarine Statement of Principles under which the Australian and US navies have cooperated on submarine development.

(fixing the Collins by giving it some Seawolf mods was always useful, must have worked as we tagged an Ohio)

That agreement allowed the use of US submarine technology to overcome shortcomings with the Collins submarine combat system.

(Rotten data bus probs - similar to the French probs with the CdG. Now capable (allegedly) of concurrently acquiring and assessing 48 times the target capability that was in the Oberons)

Senator Hill said the new agreement promoted cooperation between the Australian and US navies in all aspects of maritime surface warfare.

"This statement will serve as the framework within which the respective navies will communicate and transfer information, helping to ensure we can better work together through compatible technologies," he said.

"Our navy's access to the USN provides us with significant opportunities to ensure our fleet can take full advantage of new technology and concepts."

Under the 2000 Defence White Paper, Australia will acquire three advanced air warfare destroyers around 2013 at an estimated cost of up to $6 billion.

The navy is now undertaking studies to identify required capabilities which may include an ability to shoot down ballistic missiles.

The vessel will be an overseas design made in Australia. But the combat system will be a variant of the US Navy Aegis which can track large numbers of aircraft at extended range.

Senator Hill said the agreement would allow Australia to benefit from the US Navy's wealth of experience in use of the Aegis air warfare system.

He said the statement of principles will:

Provide the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) with US Navy support on technological development and doctrine.

Help make technology of the two navies compatible.

Encourage more joint training exercises.

(yeehar, more trips overseas)

Foster more cooperation in defence science, technology and industrial relationships to enhance the warfighting capabilities of each navy.

(looks like the US will get to play with the JORN, LADS and LIDAR systems)

Assist with the continuing development of the air warfare destroyer combat system design.

(apparently there goes the options of the Spanish F-100 class. Cox must be beaming again - unless automated Burkes are in the mix)

Facilitate Australian industry involvement in US Navy programs such as the Littoral Combat Ship and its associated mission modules.

(looks like Austal and INCAT are going to be happy)

"The statement will promote opportunities for Australian industry at a time when almost all of the RAN's surface fleet are being renewed as we pursue the strategic capabilities set out in the new Defence Capability Plan," he said.


Sounds good to me, but there goes another procurement process of open competitive bidding

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8806077%5E1702,00.html

 

[Aussie Digger]

True gf, but I'd rather have top-notch equipment in service as soon as possible. I find it ridiculous in situations like Air 87 project where one manufacturer appealed against the Department of Defence's decision to cut their helicopter (AH-1Z) from the process and subsequently force the whole situation to start again.... Rumours around at the time was that Boeing only appealed to make it's bid for Turkey seem more credible. This had the effect of delaying the project for over 12 months. I know defence acquisition is a serious business, but surely there are times that it is suitable for a defence team to simply state that the ADF requires a certain capability, platform X meets that capabilty so lets buy it. Global-Hawk and the Joint Strike Fighter appear to fit that criteria. I don't think you're gonna find many more complex platforms than those in ADF service any time soon...

 

[gf0012-aust]

True gf, but I'd rather have top-notch equipment in service as soon as possible. I find it ridiculous in situations like Air 87 project where one manufacturer appealed against the Department of Defence's decision to cut their helicopter (AH-1Z) from the process and subsequently force the whole situation to start again.... Rumours around at the time was that Boeing only appealed to make it's bid for Turkey seem more credible. This had the effect of delaying the project for over 12 months. I know defence acquisition is a serious business, but surely there are times that it is suitable for a defence team to simply state that the ADF requires a certain capability, platform X meets that capabilty so lets buy it. Global-Hawk and the Joint Strike Fighter appear to fit that criteria. I don't think you're gonna find many more complex platforms than those in ADF service any time soon...

I don't have any difficulty in short circuiting an inefficient procurement process, the issue is still one of due diligence.

eg,
we will end up with blackhawks - the NH-90 is better
we will end up with abrams - the Swiss Leo2 mod is a better solution for our orbat
we will end up with JSF - and arguably, we should have a Hi-Lo split of JSF and eg Rafales
we will end up with Aegis and most likely a US platform as it needs to be integrated at construction - not retro fitted.

Some of the processes triggering these decisions have been somewhat cloudy, if not freight trained against some very good, sound operational advice.

We deserve the best kit - but we also know that not all of it is US sourced.
(no disrespect to gremlin29)

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is it decided that we will continue with Blackhawks or is that just an example of your point? NH-90's WOULD be much better.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is it decided that we will continue with Blackhawks or is that just an example of your point? NH-90's WOULD be much better.

it's an example, but the money is on the blackhawks again.

damn shame, personally I would have gone for the EH 101's

but, the 90 is still a better unit - by a golden mile.

 

[mutter nutter]

If it's in a 2013 timeframe why not go ahead a generation and get a ship equipped with the UK's sampson

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it's in a 2013 timeframe why not go ahead a generation and get a ship equipped with the UK's sampson

It's not on the assessment list for various reasons. The F-100's are the better vessel for our ORBAT.

The AB's are the most capable - but are physically too large over a number of definitions and issues for our ORBAT..

A more automated AB platform would have a better chance, but I doubt it.

We have been offered Arleighs and Ticos in the past and knocked them back

 

[tatra]

Aussies: Go Dutch! Buy LCF!

 

[Red aRRow]

Huh?? what's the LCF tatra?? Is it better than the Aegis system?? :?

 

[Panzer]

Linkhttp://de_vos.tripod.com/LCF/information.htm
This page consists of info about LCF and NLF.I am posting some paragraphs.

'LCF' (Luchtverdedigings en Commando Fregat), and ‘NLF’ (Nieuw Luchtverdedigings Fregat)

The Dutch LCFs are being build as a replacement for the elderly Tromp-class guided missile frigates of the Royal Netherlands Navy, and (in the guise of NLF) as replacements for the last four ‘Standard’ frigates. The NLF is equal in capabilities and appearance to the LCF, exept for the lack of dedicated Command facilities.

These ships are being build as part of a tri-partite building program between the Spanish Armada, the German Marine, and the Dutch Royal Navy. Instead of the failed Horizon program which involved Italy, France, and Great Brittain, this program concentrates upon the Ship Platform and systems, rather than on combat systems and weaponry. The other ships being developed in this program are the Spanish F-100, with SPY-1 and Aegis combat system, and the German F124, wich also has the APAR and SEWACO combat system.

The name of "Frigate" for these ships is actually a misnomer: With a displacement of over 6,000 tons they are destroyers in all but name. When the first of the class enters service, it will arguably be the most advanced ship in this size in the world. The Royal Netherlands Navy has apparently sacrificed upgrades to some of its existing warships in order to provide some of the needed funds for this class of four ships.

In keeping with the general trend, the ships have extensive Stealth features designed into them. Their large slightly angled slab sides give them a bit of the look of the French Lafayette frigates, although the LCF design is considerably bigger and capable. Survivability has been a great concern in designing the ships, and they are subdivided into seven main compartments. When hit in one of these compartments ventilation, firecontrol systems, and power will still be available in the other compartments. In order to achieve this all neccesary systems have full-sized backups.

At first it appeared that the main engines for the ships would be the new Rolls Royce WR-21, which will also be deployed on the Royal Navy`s Type 45 Destroyers. Unfortunately the WR-21 was not available in time (apparently it won`t be available until 2007), so for now the main engines will be Rolls-Royce SM-1C 'Spey' gas turbines, which are a good design which unfortunately is getting on in years. However, when the ships were designed the engine room was designed with the WR-21 in mind, and there is room for these turbines. It is not unlikely that the ships will recieve the WR-21 later on in their operational lives, a move which would substantially increase fuel efficiency and raise engine power.
Secondary engines have always been two Wartsila diesel engines, and the engines drive two adjustable counterrotating propellors.

For sensors the design features the APAR system, which has been build and designed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. This is a high powered Active Phased Array Radar, which is smaller, yet considerably more powerful, than the American SPY-1 phased array radar. It can track up to 250 targets at one time, and at the same time can function as a illumination radar for up to 16 targets (with 32 missiles in the air), removing the need for seperate illumination radars. Because of its relatively small design it was possible to locate the four APAR panels in a single structure high above sea level. In a move which cause some last-minute delays the Dutch decided to have the APAR mount redesigned, so that in the future the guidance equipment for Standard TBMD missiles can be fitted. The long range search radar is the SMART-L phased array 3D radar. This radar is not stabilized, but the emission-angle of the radar is adapted to the curent sea state and angle. It has a range of up to 400 km, and can track up to 1000 targets. Mounted above the APAR, at the very top of the ship is a Sirius long range dual band infra red seeker, with a maximum range of roughly 30 km. Mounted on the hull is a Atlas Electronik active sonar.

The first LCF, the 'De Zeven Provincien' was launched on saturday the 8th of April 2000, and is expected to be fully operational at the beginning of 2002. The keel for the 'Tromp' was laid on 3 september 1999, and this ship should be active in late 2003. The NLFs 'Tromp' and 'Evertsen' should be in active service in 2004 and 2005 respectively.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Australian Defence department will look long and hard at a number of designs for these ships, but don't be surprised if we chose an American design...

 

[Red aRRow]

Thanks Panzer. The LCF comes with the NH-90 so that would have satisfied gf atleast. :lol

 

[tatra]

Huh?? what's the LCF tatra?? Is it better than the Aegis system?? :?

Info on LCF already provided above but posted an image in images forum http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10596#10596
For further imagery see also www.zevenprovincien.nl

Dutch LCF specs: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/specs.html
German F124 specs:http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f124/specs.html
Spanish F100 specs: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/specs.html
UK's Type 45 specs: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/specs.html

 

[Awang se]

Why don't just order an arleigh burke.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The US offerred to give us 3 Burkes a year ago. (initially offered us 4 Ticonderogas).

We knocked them back as they don't suit our ORBAT, and the manning levels are too high for the capability needed.

The F-100's appear to be the preferred option, but if you look at the way the government is bypassing normal procurement processes to secure US equipment, then the future of the F-100 as a preferred candidate looks slim as well.

eg:

Leo2's preferred but likely to be M1A2D Abrams
NH-90's preferred but likely to be Blackhawks
F-100 preferred but who knows with the boat sharing and boat building agreements (same type of agreement as what we have with the USN on submarine technology) eg we provider Perisher training to US Nuke Acoustic Warfare Officers now. They provided build tech solutions for the Collins.
A-400 airbus preferred for air refueling tanker - but Boeing not discounted
3 x Spanish Aircraft Carriers/LHA preferred - new surface vessel agreement could see Aust with US LHA's instead. (which will be interesting to see if we consider F-35B's to sue on the LHA's)

still, as long as we get the right kit....

 

[Awang se]

Is it possible that US probabbly seeking Australia as an ally and staging area for their forces in this part of the world? The procurement of US made equipment meant that the Australian and US probably work together and the same equipment mean less logistical problem, isn't?

 

[Aussie Digger]

It does Awang, but I doubt you'll see any permanent US military base in Australia any time soon. You may see a "joint" training area but no permanent bases. We don't want one you see...

 

[Aussie Digger]

This is Minister for Defence's website:
Three international ship designers have been selected to develop concept ship designs based on existing ship classes to enable the selection of Australia’s new air warfare destroyers, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

This activity will lead to the selection of a preferred designer in mid 2005.

Spanish ship builder IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Alvaro De Bazan Class Frigate (F100) which is currently in service with the Spanish Navy. Izar was selected because it has already designed an operational ship that has successfully integrated the United States’ Aegis air warfare system.

Blohm + Voss of Germany will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which is currently in service with the German Navy. Blohm + Voss was selected because of its knowledge of and experience with Australian industry flowing from its design of the very successful Anzac class frigates. Whilst the F124 utilises a European air warfare system, the concept design also offered a version of the Aegis system.

Gibbs & Cox of the United States will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG-51), which is currently in service with the United States Navy. Gibbs & Cox have been selected as it was the lead ship detail design agent for the DDG 51 class and has vast experience with integrating various evolutions of the AEGIS air warfare system into the DDG-51 design.

The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force. This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.

Consistent with the Government’s announcement last year that a United States designed air warfare system – most probably a variant of the Aegis system – will form the basis of the combat system for the new ships, the Government has requested the United States Navy assist on issues related to the integration of Aegis into the design concepts. This would be under the recently signed Statement of Principles between the Royal Australian Navy and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.

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. The Australian shipbuilders have been engaged as advisers because of their experience in building large warships.

The first of Australia’s three new air warfare destroyers will be delivered in 2013. The new ships will be constructed at a cost of $4.5 billion – $6 billion.

These large ships will be capable of detecting and shooting down aircraft at extended ranges and protecting deployed forces from air and missile attack. This will ensure Australia’s amphibious and support ships can operate with 24-hour air defence, as well as supporting land forces in coastal areas and aircraft such as the Airborne Early Warning and Control, AP3-C Orions and C130 Hercules aircraft.

The air warfare destroyers will also have an anti-submarine and anti-shipping capability. There is also the potential for the ships’ sensors to be used to detect ballistic missiles in flight.


Speculation has it that John Howard personally demanded that the US based ship be included in this. Neither the Department of Defence or the Defence Minister wanted it...

 

[Awang se]

It does Awang, but I doubt you'll see any permanent US military base in Australia any time soon. You may see a "joint" training area but no permanent bases. We don't want one you see...

That's good to know

 

[Winter]

This is Minister for Defence's website:
Three international ship designers have been selected to develop concept ship designs based on existing ship classes to enable the selection of Australia’s new air warfare destroyers, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

This activity will lead to the selection of a preferred designer in mid 2005.

Spanish ship builder IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Alvaro De Bazan Class Frigate (F100) which is currently in service with the Spanish Navy. Izar was selected because it has already designed an operational ship that has successfully integrated the United States’ Aegis air warfare system.

Blohm + Voss of Germany will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which is currently in service with the German Navy. Blohm + Voss was selected because of its knowledge of and experience with Australian industry flowing from its design of the very successful Anzac class frigates. Whilst the F124 utilises a European air warfare system, the concept design also offered a version of the Aegis system.

Gibbs & Cox of the United States will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG-51), which is currently in service with the United States Navy. Gibbs & Cox have been selected as it was the lead ship detail design agent for the DDG 51 class and has vast experience with integrating various evolutions of the AEGIS air warfare system into the DDG-51 design.

The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force. This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers.

Consistent with the Government’s announcement last year that a United States designed air warfare system – most probably a variant of the Aegis system – will form the basis of the combat system for the new ships, the Government has requested the United States Navy assist on issues related to the integration of Aegis into the design concepts. This would be under the recently signed Statement of Principles between the Royal Australian Navy and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.

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. The Australian shipbuilders have been engaged as advisers because of their experience in building large warships.

The first of Australia’s three new air warfare destroyers will be delivered in 2013. The new ships will be constructed at a cost of $4.5 billion – $6 billion.

These large ships will be capable of detecting and shooting down aircraft at extended ranges and protecting deployed forces from air and missile attack. This will ensure Australia’s amphibious and support ships can operate with 24-hour air defence, as well as supporting land forces in coastal areas and aircraft such as the Airborne Early Warning and Control, AP3-C Orions and C130 Hercules aircraft.

The air warfare destroyers will also have an anti-submarine and anti-shipping capability. There is also the potential for the ships’ sensors to be used to detect ballistic missiles in flight.


Speculation has it that John Howard personally demanded that the US based ship be included in this. Neither the Department of Defence or the Defence Minister wanted it...

Well, regardless of politcal pressure I suppose the Arleigh Burke derivative has a shot...Though at this stage, with no information and years away, I would bet on the modified German Sachsen being chosen...Just as a straight guess. What with the ANZACs and such. Rings a bell like the tank selection? Current political/diplomatic weather leaning on American? Leopard 1 to Leopard 2? ANZAC to Sachsen? Oh, forget it... :roll