Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[gf0012-aust]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Me thinks that at most 48 cells will be the #. Otherwise the ship will have to be double-ended with vls cells. Making for a ship the size of a Burke.

Would this not be too expensive?

then principle expense is in crewing and follow on costs. if more capability can be added without a commensurate crewing cost, then I imagine that (all things being equal), cost to capability would favour it.

 

[alexsa]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Me thinks that at most 48 cells will be the #. Otherwise the ship will have to be double-ended with vls cells. Making for a ship the size of a Burke.

Would this not be too expensive?

I understand the desire for the project design is 64 cells (more if possible). As a result both the F124 and F100 designs have to be modified. the F124 design also needs to be modified to take the SPY-1 as well.

This being said the proposed AB based design will also be modified from the original.

 

[cherry]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

If you take a look at the power point presentation that Aussie Digger discovered, you will find that RAN are pushing for absolute minimum of 64 VLS simply because there will only be a build of 3 ships. I personally don't see any point in spending $2 billion per ship to only have 48 VLS to launch missiles. Skimping on weapons will make this project pointless! We already have too many poorly armed frigates in service.

This powerpoint document is on the DMO's website at http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm and is about half way down the page, it's a 23.21mb file though so your can take my word for it or download it as you see fit. Makes interesting reading though...

 

[cherry]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Can anyone inform me as to whether frigates and destroyers are able to be re-armed with missiles "at sea" via replenishment ships after firing them off, or do they have too dock to do this?

 

[knightrider4]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Mate at $6 billion Australian for three ships it's already expensive. I think the last ship we had that was capable of that was the old HMAS Stalwart.

 

[abramsteve]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

The modifications being done to the new PERTH, will they add anything to their air defence capbabilities?

Isn't the SUCCESS a replenisment ship which would be capable of rearming at sea? Or are the new weapons too large/awkward for her?

 

[AMTP10E]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

I understand the desire for the project design is 64 cells (more if possible). As a result both the F124 and F100 designs have to be modified. the F124 design also needs to be modified to take the SPY-1 as well.

This being said the proposed AB based design will also be modified from the original.

Minimum of 64 VSL cells and up to 96 VLS cells if possible.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

I don't think missiles/torps can be re-loaded at sea. Gun ammunition maybe, which is why the RAN is pushing for greater missile loadouts to begin with. Not sure what you're referring to there Abramsteve. HMAS Perth was a DDG Destroyer and has been payed off.


If you're referring to the FFG upgrade, the ships are being equipped with SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, ESSM and Harpoon 2. In addition their radars and fire control systems are being upgraded as well. Their air defence capabilities will be the best Australia has ever had in a surface platform. Provided the RAN ever actually gets some upgraded FFG's in service of course...

 

[AMTP10E]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

I don't think missiles/torps can be re-loaded at sea. Gun ammunition maybe, which is why the RAN is pushing for greater missile loadouts to begin with. Not sure what you're referring to there Abramsteve. HMAS Perth was a DDG Destroyer and has been payed off.


If you're referring to the FFG upgrade, the ships are being equipped with SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, ESSM and Harpoon 2. In addition their radars and fire control systems are being upgraded as well. Their air defence capabilities will be the best Australia has ever had in a surface platform. Provided the RAN ever actually gets some upgraded FFG's in service of course...

PERTH is the last of the ANZAC's to be commissioned.

The defence of Australia is too important to be left to muppets like ADI/Tenix/Forgacs.

 

[abramsteve]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Yeah I was talking about the new ANZAC class PERTH, sorry I wasnt more specific( I still think of the Perth as in the ADAMS class).

I saw a picture of what shes supposed to look like once completed and it looked like she had a new block type mast (sorry dont know the specific term) and other external differences from the standard ANZAC.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

PERTH is the last of the ANZAC's to be commissioned.

The defence of Australia is too important to be left to muppets like ADI/Tenix/Forgacs.

There you go, you DO learn something new every day. I thought they were saving the name for the AWD's...

I think the only "new" weapons to be fitted to Perth will be ESSM and Harpoon II from inception. Otherwise it will probably be equipped exactly the same as every other ANZAC.

What's wrong with ADI/Tenix? Just because they've stuffed up the Bushmaster and the M113 upgrade amongst MANY others, doesn't mean they're not competent...

 

[AMTP10E]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

There you go, you DO learn something new every day. I thought they were saving the name for the AWD's...

I think the only "new" weapons to be fitted to Perth will be ESSM and Harpoon II from inception. Otherwise it will probably be equipped exactly the same as every other ANZAC.

What's wrong with ADI/Tenix? Just because they've stuffed up the Bushmaster and the M113 upgrade amongst MANY others, doesn't mean they're not competent...

ADI also screwed up the FFG upgrade big time (SYDNEY may eventually return to naval service, but don't hold your breath in the meantime). Tenix also screwed up the Kiwi's plans as well.

As for PERTH, she might be getting a new mast mounted phased array radar. Not 100% sure on that though.

 

[abramsteve]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

oh ok thanks. Wasnt sure of the name or what it was but it looked intresting.

I havent been able to find out any solid information on the new PERTH, so maybe it was a bit of speculation involved in the picture. But hopefully...

Thanks AD for that info on the FFG upgrade and that bit on the SUCCESS, it never occured to me that they might find it a bit difficult to re-arm missiles on to a ship whilst at sea. Is there a class which can or is it more to do with the type of ship which is being rearmed?

 

[cherry]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

I don't know if anyone has seen this speech made by Senator Hill at the opening of the Defence & Industry conference on June 21, but here is two parts of the speech that seemed interesting to me.

Whilst I have previously said that I do not believe another Defence White Paper is required at this time, you may be aware that I have directed the Department to undertake a strategic update. In accordance with the Howard Government’s basic tenet that capability decisions must flow from strategic guidance - rather than vice versa - I would anticipate that this strategic update will be followed shortly afterwards by the release of an updated Public DCP. This new document will take account of the projects and phases that have been approved within the last 18 months, and provide updated information on forthcoming projects. We see this as part of our duty to provide Industry with visibility of the future. I hope to have both of these documents released before the end of this year.

This confirms that a new DCP will be out to the public within the next few months. I wonder how many and what sorts of changes there will be?

We provide various capabilities to cover each of these elements, including submarines, warships, troops and fighter aircraft. For today’s purposes I would like to focus upon control of the Air. This directly enables freedom of operation on the sea without being threatened or attacked by an opponent’s air power. It is a prerequisite for successful military operations, both in attack and defence, in the presence of a hostile air threat.

To exercise control of the air over the Maritime and Littoral environments the Government is investing in a system of complementary capabilities. These include the new Air Warfare Destroyer, the Joint Strike Fighter, new Air-to-Air Refuelling aircraft, Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, Over the Horizon Radar, and new generation Army Ground Based Air Defence systems. It is critical that these capabilities work as a system, as no single capability will see its potential maximised working alone.

I would like to know what "new generation Army Ground Based Air Defence systems" he is talking about. As far as I know, all we have is some outdated Rapier systems, and very short range RBS-70 missile systems, all in to few numbers.

 

[cherry]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Sorry, I forgot to say that this speech was Senator Hill justifying the purchase of AWDs for Australia, and that is why I put it in this thread.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

The SAM's referred to by Senator Hill are obviously the new RBS-70's that have been ordered along with the new Bolide missile system for the RBS-70's and the Raytheon alert/cueing systems ordered. These will replace the Rapier's currently in-service.

These are the only new GBAD systems we're likely to operate in the near future and only 2x Batteries worth at that...

 

[cherry]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Let's hope that we aren't involved in any sort of conflict where decent levels of air defence are needed. If we are though, we are going to need a whole lot of rubber bands to make those extra big sling shots to defend against enemy missiles and aircraft.

 

[Supe]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

If you have decent or know of URL to decent pics of the 'baby Burkes', please link them here.

 

[pepsi]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

Good news for everyone that wanted to see the Government choose the Gibbs & Cox design :

The Federal Government has chosen Gibbs & Cox as the preferred designer for Navy’s Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) - one of Australia’s largest and most complex Defence projects worth up to $6 billion.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said Gibbs & Cox now joins a team made up of ASC Shipbuilder Pty Ltd, who has been selected to build the AWDs, and Raytheon Australia, selected as the Combat System-System Engineer.

Press release : http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5048

Some images :
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Aug/20050816.cfm

I might as well add some discussion here to, lol, i liked the German design, as far as looks went i think it looked the best, but from the specs i could tell it wouldn't be the best choice, it had less range, and i'm pretty sure range would be a big thing for the RAN

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: Class of Aus AWD's

So the Gibbs and Cox design has become preferred AWD design on the basis of value for money, but now has to compete against the evolved F-100 design. WTF? What was it competing against before? And if this is true, why bother to announce Gibbs and Cox as the preferred designer if it may in fact lose against the evolved F-100?

This must be a Kinnaird requirement. Otherwise what's the point of announcing a preferred designer that then has to go on and compete against a design it's already beaten?