Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[Tasman]

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

-Cheers

I understood that 2 helos were required and that this is one of the modifications that would have to be incorporated in the smaller Spanish F100. However, the Jan/Feb 2006 edition of Defence Today says that a single hangar will be fitted. The December 2006 edition of CONTACT, on the other hand, has an article on the G&C evolved design and this states that hangar space will be provided for 2 helos in this ship. Clarification is needed as to whether 2 helos would be required in an Australianised F100.

A plenary session conducted by DMO referred to:
• Hull Mounted Sonar
• Towed Array Sonar
• Mine and Obstacle Avoidance Sonar
• Torpedo Self Defence System

www.ausawd.com/docs/plenary_session.pdf

The ADF site says that:

The AWDs will also be able to conduct Undersea Warfare and will be equipped with modern sonar systems, decoys and surface-launched torpedoes.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/awd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm

Cheers

 

[Jezza]

I went down to fremantle sat and saw the Spanish F100 thats touring AUS.
Very nice ship. I always thought it looked top heavy in photos but in real
life in front of me it looked rather cool and mean.

I would rather have 4 F100s rather than 3 Arleigh Burke Class as 2 can be permantley based on each side of Australia.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/

Q: Wouldnt the euro design have betting seakeeping design, as it was designed for the north atlantic ocean.

as per In 1994, Spain entered an agreement with Germany and The Netherlands, which provides cooperation in development and in national construction of the frigates. In Spain, Izar is building the F100, in The Netherlands, Royal Schelde is building the LCF (De Zeven Provincien Class) and in Germany the ARGE 124 group (Blohm and Voss as the leading yard, Howaldtwerke-Deutsche Werft and Thyssen Nordseewerke) is building the F124 (Sachsen Class). The agreement covers cooperation on the ship platform and not on the systems.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I prosume the idea is to have small peacetime crews to cut manning costs and ease recruitment problems, automation allowing the ship to function in any of the roles it is likely to encounter. If the country goes to war, additional crew can be drafted and added to allow for damage control and loss of automation in combat conditions. Seems logical really. Having the ship manned for the worst wartime scenerio when it is more than likely it may serve out it's life never firing a weapon in anger seems superflous.

 

[Tasman]

Q: Wouldnt the euro design have betting seakeeping design, as it was designed for the north atlantic ocean.

Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge a ship designed for operations in the North Atlantic would not necessarily have better sea keeping qualities than one designed for the Pacific. The average length of swells in different oceans varies and, IIRC, US designed aircraft carriers generally demonstrated better sea keeping qualities in the Pacific than did British designs during WW2. On the other hand a number of American destroyers found themselves in difficulty in typhoon conditions because of overloading (too many added anti aircraft weapons together with additional radar and extra personnel).

Larger ships generally have better sea keeping qualities than smaller ones so this might favour the G&C design. With computer assisted design techniques I would imagine that neither design will have a problem in this area. Certainly, though, the Spanish ship will be the only one actually tested in operational configuration.

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Navy wants upgrade capacity for destroyers

An interesting article appeared in The Australian which suggests that the greater growth potential of the G&C design will heavily influence the decision between the two candidates:

THE future war-fighting capacity of Australia's next generation destroyers will be a critical selection issue Australia's Navy chief Vice Admiral, Russ Shalders said yesterday.
In an important pointer to navy's thinking on the $7 billion contract, Admiral Shalders said the ability to upgrade the destroyers would be crucial.
Admiral Shalders was speaking on the foredeck of the Spanish destroyer Alvaro de Bazan which arrived in Sydney yesterday.

The Spanish F100 class vessel is competing with a joint US-Australian designed ship for the air warfare destroyer contract.

Questioned about the capability of the Alvaro de Bazan the navy chief said the F100 class was "a very capable ship in 2006".

"From my perspective and my perspective is different, I am after capability, capability and capability.

"Schedule and cost are obviously in the mix but I am after capability."

Admiral Shalders told The Australian that the evolved design presented by US firm Gibbs & Cox was the more capable vessel.

"There is a certain growth margin in this ship, (the F100 class) there is a larger growth margin in the evolved design," he said.

Admiral Shalders stressed that the long term capability issue was the key question the Government would need to confront in the next few months.

But in the end the Government would have to make decisions about value for money.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21376588-31477,00.html

The challenge for Defence will be to get the right balance between capability, including upgrade capacity, and initial cost.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong but to the best of my knowledge a ship designed for operations in the North Atlantic would not necessarily have better sea keeping qualities than one designed for the Pacific. The average length of swells in different oceans varies and, IIRC, US designed aircraft carriers generally demonstrated better sea keeping qualities in the Pacific than did British designs during WW2. On the other hand a number of American destroyers found themselves in difficulty in typhoon conditions because of overloading (too many added anti aircraft weapons together with additional radar and extra personnel).

Larger ships generally have better sea keeping qualities than smaller ones so this might favour the G&C design. With computer assisted design techniques I would imagine that neither design will have a problem in this area. Certainly, though, the Spanish ship will be the only one actually tested in operational configuration.

Cheers

"Seakeeping" relates to a number of isuses but most important in this is the static and dynamic stabiltity of the vessel, hull form (including isused of down flooding and diminishing stability) and, to a lesser extent its size (including freeboard).

A well designed smaller vessel will have better seakeeing that a poorly designed large one.

With respect ot WW2 carriers the difference between the British and US carriers was the design philosphy where the British sacrificed space and comfort for armour. There sea keeping was pretty good but they were tighter and harder to operate. Mind you when the Kamakazi started their attacks the British carriers performed very well in that none were put out of action for very long in the event of a hit. The unarmoured US carriers were often very badly damaged by the same type of hit.

 

[Tasman]

"
A well designed smaller vessel will have better seakeeing that a poorly designed large one.

Agreed but I was presuming that both would be well designed when I said that the larger ship will tend to have better seakeeping qualities than the smaller one.

Cheers

 

[knightrider4]

F100

Looks like the Spanish F100 is likely to get up, if it does get chosen it will be a big comeback.
Defence backs Spanish warship for $7bn deal

• <LI class=byline>Patrick Walters, National security editor
• April 25, 2007

SPAIN'S F100 air warfare destroyer will become Australia's new front-line warship if the Howard Government accepts the Defence Department's firm recommendation on the $7billion contract.

In backing the Spanish warship, Defence chiefs have rejected the navy's bid for a larger alternative based on the US Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia.
The design contest has seen the F100 finish more than $1billion cheaper than the US option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships.
Cabinet's National Security Committee will also consider retaining an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.
The decision to go for the smaller Spanish destroyer over an evolved design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a defeat for the navy chief, Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders, who made no secret of his preference for the larger US warship.
Admiral Shalders said last month that although the F100 was a good ship, hewas after "capability, capability andcapability".
The 8000-tonne Gibbs and Cox design offered the navy decisive combat advantages, including 64, rather than 48, vertical launch cells, longer range and the ability to take two helicopters.
Admiral Shalders failed to convince his colleagues in the DCIC in a debate one senior defence source described as a "complete whitewash".
Defence sources said the tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favour of the Spanish on all the key criteria.
Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs.
It had long been regarded as simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer.
Defence sources said a key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder.
The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.
The $7billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mate, DCIC recommended obtaining Blackhawks too, IIRC. This is a recommendation, NOT the end of the story and it's certainly NOT binding on Government...

As to 4x AWD's being acquired, who exactly is going to operate them? RAN would need to retire 2x ANZAC FFH's to operate 1x additional AWD and it's simply NOT going to happen...

 

[Tasman]

Defence backs Spanish warship for $7bn deal

If Cabinet accepts Defence's recommendation it would be a major disappointment for the navy. As mentioned in the article, navy officers from the Chief of Navy down have been strongly pushing for the G&C design. A third less VLS cells and a reduction to one helo would greatly reduce the flexibility of these ships. As they will replace FFGs the single helo will actually provide a loss of capability over what the FFGs currently offer. Total missile capacity will be only marginally better than the FFGs. As modified the FFGs carry 40 missiles launched from the single arm launcher (Standard SM-2 and Harpoon 2) and have 8 VLS cells for 32 ESSMs. If the F100s carry 32 ESSMs, they would have room for 40 SM-2s plus 8 Harpoon 2s fired from deck mounted canisters, an increase of just 8 missiles. Of course there is no denying that the AEGIS system will greatly enhance the capability of both these and accompanying Anzacs. A fourth F100 would be a 'sweetener' if the RAN can recruit enough personnel to man her. One of the great attractions of the G&C design to the navy is its growth potential. I hope I am wrong but there doesn't seem to be the same growth potential offered by the F100. Recruiting is now a huge issue for the RAN and it must be improved if the RAN is going to maintain a reasonable surface combat force, not to mention its submarine and amphibious force.

I imagine the RAN top brass will be lobbying hard over the coming weeks in an effort to convince cabinet to overturn Defence's recommendation.


Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

4x AWD's is what the navy really needs. It might have to sell its soul to get them. Maybe it will require a Anzac or two to see less sea time (possibly even shared with NZ or coast guard?)

If there are going to be three, or serious doubt at four, then yes, G&C would be the bare minium. If your going to have three, they better be dam capable.

I think the F-100 have higher crewing requirements as well. Combined with two LHD's comming online at simular time frames, shortage of current crews we are talking 500 + new crew members as well as retaining nearly all existing crews. Seemingly a HUGE task for anyone.

If the RAN thinks it can't make a 4th crew, then the lobbying is going to be powerful with the government. Three ships, you would want G&C and then upgrade the bejesus out of it. Upgrade of missile, gun, sensors, etc. Lower on going costs, more capability.

I don't think there is any destroyer out there that offers the upgradability of the Burkes.

 

[alexsa]

4x AWD's is what the navy really needs. It might have to sell its soul to get them. Maybe it will require a Anzac or two to see less sea time (possibly even shared with NZ or coast guard?)

If there are going to be three, or serious doubt at four, then yes, G&C would be the bare minium. If your going to have three, they better be dam capable.

I think the F-100 have higher crewing requirements as well. Combined with two LHD's comming online at simular time frames, shortage of current crews we are talking 500 + new crew members as well as retaining nearly all existing crews. Seemingly a HUGE task for anyone.

If the RAN thinks it can't make a 4th crew, then the lobbying is going to be powerful with the government. Three ships, you would want G&C and then upgrade the bejesus out of it. Upgrade of missile, gun, sensors, etc. Lower on going costs, more capability.

I don't think there is any destroyer out there that offers the upgradability of the Burkes.

The LHD and AWD will replace exsiting ships so the 500+ 'new' crew is a bit of a streatch as berths will transfer accross noting that Manoora or Kanibla have a crew of 185 (as oppoosed to about 250 on the LHD) and the FFG's ahve a crew of 210 (with air crew) which is more that the AWD. However, as far as I can tell the RAN is struggleing for numbers with those at the moment.

Out of curiosity why would you had an ANZAC over to a 'coast guard'. For one we do not have a coast guard (unless you count volunteer rescue) nor is customs capable of operating this type of ship nor would it be any cheaper. It should be noted that Custom have to chater ships and put their own boarding crews on board.

Finally, as has been porinted out to me, the G&C evolved design is not actually an AB. It has evolved from it but is a different beast.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The LHD and AWD will replace exsiting ships so the 500+ 'new' crew is a bit of a streatch as berths will transfer accross noting that Manoora or Kanibla have a crew of 185 (as oppoosed to about 250 on the LHD) and the FFG's ahve a crew of 210 (with air crew) which is more that the AWD. However, as far as I can tell the RAN is struggleing for numbers with those at the moment.

Out of curiosity why would you had an ANZAC over to a 'coast guard'. For one we do not have a coast guard (unless you count volunteer rescue) nor is customs capable of operating this type of ship nor would it be any cheaper. It should be noted that Custom have to chater ships and put their own boarding crews on board.

Finally, as has been porinted out to me, the G&C evolved design is not actually an AB. It has evolved from it but is a different beast.

As shown here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21617075-5001561,00.html

Defence recruiting/attrition rate is NOT declining but rather gaining pace...

There is NO spare capacity within RAN to man additional vessels. The idea that we could man a 4th AWD is simply nonsense.

RAN is VERY close to tying up major surface combatants at the dock and consolidating on a few vessels. It IS that bad.

Of the 2, my personal preferrence is the G&C design. To explain this decision, it seems to me that ADF is rather keen on "risk reducing" solutions at present, given so MANY years of politcally directed "upgrades" that benefit ONLY Australian industry, not the taxpayer or ADF operational capability...

This seems to me to have left them without much faith in such ideas and "fully formed" and "leading edge" (but no further) will come to be features of Australian Defence Acquisitions...

 

[Tasman]

Frigates not destroyers!

As shown here:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21617075-5001561,00.html

Defence recruiting/attrition rate is NOT declining but rather gaining pace...

There is NO spare capacity within RAN to man additional vessels. The idea that we could man a 4th AWD is simply nonsense.

RAN is VERY close to tying up major surface combatants at the dock and consolidating on a few vessels. It IS that bad.

Of the 2, my personal preferrence is the G&C design. To explain this decision, it seems to me that ADF is rather keen on "risk reducing" solutions at present, given so MANY years of politcally directed "upgrades" that benefit ONLY Australian industry, not the taxpayer or ADF operational capability...

This seems to me to have left them without much faith in such ideas and "fully formed" and "leading edge" (but no further) will come to be features of Australian Defence Acquisitions...

I agree that Defence and its political masters have become very risk conscious. I suspect that they have become shell shocked as a result of debacles like the Seasprite.

I guess we will have to wait and see what upgrades are included in an Australianised F100 if it is selected as is evidently now expected. I was under the impression, for example, that the RAN wanted 64 VLS cells as a minimum but it is difficult to see where the extra cells could be fitted in this design. If the F100s come 'off the shelf' with their present weapons fit I think it would be appropriate to drop the term destroyer and call them AWFs (air warfare frigates)!

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

Defence recruiting/attrition rate is NOT declining but rather gaining pace...

RAN is VERY close to tying up major surface combatants at the dock and consolidating on a few vessels. It IS that bad.

...

Slightly off topic but the RAN need to make headway on this isuse or the effectiveness of the AWD (and other units) will be a moot point on the basis of lack of trained personnel.

A mate of mine who works at the ASC suggests that things are also very bad with the submarines as well at the moment despite the pay scales.

After seeing the recent Army commercial I am a bit surprzied the RAN are not advertising in a similar matter. The only thinkg I have ssen in Canberra is the navy sponsoring the Brumbies ... I have seen no TV or radio adds. I see adds for the army and army reserve constantly.

Even dealing with recruitment when I tried to put my hand up for the reserves recently turned out to be an exercise in frustration and a lack of follow up (mind you I am an 'old codger' so they would be less keen I guess).

I could be wrong but it appears that they need to lift their game in lifting the public profile.

 

[Tasman]

Slightly off topic but the RAN need to make headway on this isuse or the effectiveness of the AWD (and other units) will be a moot point on the basis of lack of trained personnel.

A mate of mine who works at the ASC suggests that things are also very bad with the submarines as well at the moment despite the pay scales.

After seeing the recent Army commercial I am a bit surprzied the RAN are not advertising in a similar matter. The only thinkg I have ssen in Canberra is the navy sponsoring the Brumbies ... I have seen no TV or radio adds. I see adds for the army and army reserve constantly.

Even dealing with recruitment when I tried to put my hand up for the reserves recently turned out to be an exercise in frustration and a lack of follow up (mind you I am an 'old codger' so they would be less keen I guess).

I could be wrong but it appears that they need to lift their game in lifting the public profile.

I agree with you alexsa. I wonder if the navy is so focused at present on ensuring that it gets its two big ticket items (AWDs and LHDs) that it has taken its eye off the ball re the recruiting issue.

Cheers

 

[rossfrb_1]

Mate, DCIC recommended obtaining Blackhawks too, IIRC. This is a recommendation, NOT the end of the story and it's certainly NOT binding on Government...

As to 4x AWD's being acquired, who exactly is going to operate them? RAN would need to retire 2x ANZAC FFH's to operate 1x additional AWD and it's simply NOT going to happen...

A fourth AWD, if built, would only become operational post 2017 (scheduled launch/inservice (?) date for the 3rd AWD).
At which time the RAN will be wanting to retire their FFGs anyway. So I don't see a problem there. Unless the crew numbers from the FFGs have already been allocated to the AWDs (?). I'm unsure of the timeline envisaged for the introduction of the AWDs and retirement of the FFGs.
Current ADF staff shortfalls/attrition, have in part been attributed to the tight labour market. Tradeys et al can earn a very respectable income in the west because of the mining boom. Whilst not wanting it to collapse. I do wonder whether that can continue for another decade.
The government does appear to be taking some serious steps to address the staffing problems for the services - ie more proactive recruiting campaigns, loosening of entry requirements (allowing previous 'drug users'..), higher pay levels and incentives for staying on.


It was you that made the point
with reference to http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4010&page=15

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

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


Magoo stated that the F-100 had a smaller crew requirement, so as far as that goes, the F-100 could seem to be more attractive in terms of a follow on non aegis future frigate.
A non aegis G&C would be a rather large 'frigate'.
I can see the F-100 being an attractive package to the RAN if they are thinking in terms of the AWD and future frigate program. The timeline seems to suit as well.

As you also noted the SM3 capability seems important to defmin Nelson.
That might be the clincher!

rb

 

[Todjaeger]

Upgrade paths available to an F-100 AWD:?2

Something I'm unclear on it what upgrade or perhaps expansion paths are available if the F-100 is chosen? From my understanding, if the G&C "Baby Burke" is chosen, it will come with a 64-cell VLS, but there might be room for the installation of additional cells in the future. The F-100 instead comes with a 48-cell VLS, would there be room for more? Similarly, if the BAE 5"/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 isn't part of initial design and install, would the F-100 be able to be upgraded to it?

My concern is that, while the F-100 might be a lower cost/risk option, how well does in improve the RAN as an AWD? Excepting for the SPY-1D/Aegis CDS and a 127mm vs. 76mm main gun, it seems to replace the Adelaide instead of improving upon them.

As for the growing crewing issue... I have something kicking around in my head. Once I can come up with something a little more specific, I'll post it in the other thread. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6079

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

A fourth AWD, if built, would only become operational post 2017 (scheduled launch/inservice (?) date for the 3rd AWD).
At which time the RAN will be wanting to retire their FFGs anyway. So I don't see a problem there. Unless the crew numbers from the FFGs have already been allocated to the AWDs (?). I'm unsure of the timeline envisaged for the introduction of the AWDs and retirement of the FFGs.
Current ADF staff shortfalls/attrition, have in part been attributed to the tight labour market. Tradeys et al can earn a very respectable income in the west because of the mining boom. Whilst not wanting it to collapse. I do wonder whether that can continue for another decade.
The government does appear to be taking some serious steps to address the staffing problems for the services - ie more proactive recruiting campaigns, loosening of entry requirements (allowing previous 'drug users'..), higher pay levels and incentives for staying on.


It was you that made the point
with reference to http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4010&page=15

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

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


Magoo stated that the F-100 had a smaller crew requirement, so as far as that goes, the F-100 could seem to be more attractive in terms of a follow on non aegis future frigate.
A non aegis G&C would be a rather large 'frigate'.
I can see the F-100 being an attractive package to the RAN if they are thinking in terms of the AWD and future frigate program. The timeline seems to suit as well.

As you also noted the SM3 capability seems important to defmin Nelson.
That might be the clincher!

rb

Unless the personnel problem is addressed the possibility of additional ships, other than replacements for the early Anzacs, is unfortunately likely to be remote. The name of one of the upgraded FFGs (Sydney) has been allocated to one of the AWDs so it is evident that the RAN plans to replace at least the oldest FFGs with the new class. At best I hope that manpower improvements will enable the 2 newest FFGs, the Australian built Melbourne and Newcastle, to remain in service after the ADWs join the fleet.

The complement for the F100, given in Janes Fighting Ships, 2004/05 and the Naval Technology website is 250. This is actually higher than that of the G&C design (approx 180 core crew plus 40 for aviation detachment, trainees, etc) so there is actually a disadvantage in the F100 design so far as personnel savings are concerned as it carries a larger crew for less capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Air_Warfare_Destroyer

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/specs.html

Something I'm unclear on it what upgrade or perhaps expansion paths are available if the F-100 is chosen? From my understanding, if the G&C "Baby Burke" is chosen, it will come with a 64-cell VLS, but there might be room for the installation of additional cells in the future. The F-100 instead comes with a 48-cell VLS, would there be room for more? Similarly, if the BAE 5"/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 isn't part of initial design and install, would the F-100 be able to be upgraded to it?

My concern is that, while the F-100 might be a lower cost/risk option, how well does in improve the RAN as an AWD? Excepting for the SPY-1D/Aegis CDS and a 127mm vs. 76mm main gun, it seems to replace the Adelaide instead of improving upon them.

As for the growing crewing issue... I have something kicking around in my head. Once I can come up with something a little more specific, I'll post it in the other thread. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6079

As I mentioned earlier I think we will have to wait and see what upgrades, if any, will be incorporated in an Australianised F-100. I do think that the RAN will be very unhappy unless an extra 16 VLS cells can be incorporated and it is hard to see where these could be fitted without streching the design. A further 16 cells for SM-3 (making a total of 80) seems out of the question if the F100 is chosen. Without the extra VLS cells the F100 will remain a frigate, IMO, not a destroyer.


Cheers

 

[Jezza]

Australia Closer to Picking F-100 for AWD

​

CANBERRA --- As long predicted by Forecast International, the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer will be selected as the winning design for Australia's AUD7 billion Air Warfare Destroyer. The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia. In doing so they emphatically rejected the case for a larger alternative based on the U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer.

The key considerations behind the decision were that the F100 build was more than AUD1billion less expensive than the U.S. option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships. The tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favor of the Spanish on all the key criteria.

Although supporters of the Gibbs and Cox-designed DDG-51 derivative promoted the greater weapons carrying capacity of their design, including 64 rather than 48 vertical launch tubes and two rather than one helicopters, the advantages of the F100 were so strong that a debate between supporters of the two designs was a complete wipeout according to one senior Australian defense source.

The financial benefits resulting from the selection of the F100 are so great that they will go a long way towards funding (some estimates are that they will almost completely accommodate) a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. The Australian Cabinet's National Security Committee will consider an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.

Common wisdom has often suggested that the Navantia bid was simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer. According to this interpretation, Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs. Forecast International has never agreed with this perception since the information we were receiving from Australia from the start of the project was consistently that the F100 was the preferred candidate and that the Gibbs and Cox design was a back-up in case the F100 class hit serious problems on its trials. This did not happen, the Alvaro de Bazan proved to be a great success and this eliminated the DDG-51 derivatives last hope of winning this contract.

It may well be that the appointment of Gibbs and Cox as preferred designer in 2005 was not a sign of preference for their design but the group's last chance to make its case.

A key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder. Australia's experiences with new and untried designs has been disappointing with the Collins Class submarines a stark example of everything that can go wrong. The F100 is not the final winner in this competition yet, but the chances of the National Security Committee's decision being overturned are not high.

The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.

The AUD7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defense project in the coming decade, after the AUD14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

-ends-

(Source: Forecast International; issued April 26, 2007)

Heres some news