Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus
- Thread starter abramsteve
- Start date
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Aussie Digger, I am just as confused as you are! I don't know what the hell they are doing with this and what the announcement actually announces?
I will try to do a little research, I have a feeling that it is a Kinnard requirement that a "fall-back" design is selected if costs for the chosen designer or risks are too high. This "fall-back" design has to be an "off-the-shelf" design, and the Spanish F-100 has been chosen for this option if required. Perhaps now we may see some pics of the Gibbs & Cox design?
Aussie Digger, I am just as confused as you are! I don't know what the hell they are doing with this and what the announcement actually announces?
I will try to do a little research, I have a feeling that it is a Kinnard requirement that a "fall-back" design is selected if costs for the chosen designer or risks are too high. This "fall-back" design has to be an "off-the-shelf" design, and the Spanish F-100 has been chosen for this option if required. Perhaps now we may see some pics of the Gibbs & Cox design?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Now this modified Gibbs and Cox design and a modified F-100 design are being considered further. It just doesn't make any sense to me that Gibbs and Cox are announced as the preferred design, but still has to be considered again anyway. Perhaps the Gibbs and Cox design is the one the RAN wants and the F-100, is a back-up should the "International Frigate" not match up to the required standard, or prove too challenging?
Perhaps AMPT10E can clear this up if he visits?
On a positive note, I'm pretty happy that Gibbs and Cox have been chosen, I considered (in my non professional opinion) that this one was the one for the ADF...
Hopefully the details of the weapons/sensor fitout will be announced soon...
As I understand it the ADF is required by Kinnaird to consider an "un-Australianised" off the shelf design. The one considered by the ADF was a standard "F-100" design. This was one of the 4 designs being considered, the other 3 being modified versions of the Gibbs and COx design, the Blohm and Voss design and the F-100.cherry said:Aussie Digger, I am just as confused as you are! I don't know what the hell they are doing with this and what the announcement actually announces?
Now this modified Gibbs and Cox design and a modified F-100 design are being considered further. It just doesn't make any sense to me that Gibbs and Cox are announced as the preferred design, but still has to be considered again anyway. Perhaps the Gibbs and Cox design is the one the RAN wants and the F-100, is a back-up should the "International Frigate" not match up to the required standard, or prove too challenging?
Perhaps AMPT10E can clear this up if he visits?
On a positive note, I'm pretty happy that Gibbs and Cox have been chosen, I considered (in my non professional opinion) that this one was the one for the ADF...
Hopefully the details of the weapons/sensor fitout will be announced soon...
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
As for weapons, expect to see something like ESSM/SM-2/SM-3/SM-6/TacTom/Harpoon II (or III) and maybe RAM.
Correct. There are still some issues with the Gibbs & Cox (crew size and cost) that will need to be looked at further, but unless things go badly we will end up with 3 Baby Burke's.Aussie Digger said:
As for weapons, expect to see something like ESSM/SM-2/SM-3/SM-6/TacTom/Harpoon II (or III) and maybe RAM.
knightrider4
Active Member
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
I think it would be a big mistake to not equip these vessels with Tactical Tomahawk and down the track surely the RAN will be looking at the 155mm guns for land attack as I understand it the first steel for these has been cut in the US for the DDX class.
I think it would be a big mistake to not equip these vessels with Tactical Tomahawk and down the track surely the RAN will be looking at the 155mm guns for land attack as I understand it the first steel for these has been cut in the US for the DDX class.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
I doubt that we will see DD(X) in RAN service (it is quite possible that there won't be all that many in USN service either). The biggerst problem of DD(X) for the RAN is cost.
TacTom will be a political decision but the ADF are all for it. As of the gun, they will commission with the latest 5 inch gun in order to fire ERGM. Depending on how the rail gun project pans out, if it fits (both size and power requirements) then we'll seriously be looking at that.knightrider4 said:
I doubt that we will see DD(X) in RAN service (it is quite possible that there won't be all that many in USN service either). The biggerst problem of DD(X) for the RAN is cost.
Jezza
Member
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Preferred Designer Chosen for AWD Contract
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002996.php
Australia DoD
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif
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.
Senator Hill said Gibbs & Cox, a United States based company, was chosen through a competitive tender evaluation process that also included German company Blohm + Voss and Spanish company Navantia.
(Editor’s Note: the selected Gibbs & Cox proposal is based on the US Navy’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer.)c
"The selection of Gibbs and Cox as platform designer now completes the team whose responsibility it is to deliver the project," Senator Hill said.
"The Government made the decision after accepting the recommendation of the Source Selection Board on the basis that Gibbs & Cox offered a superior bid in terms of value for money.
"All three companies presented competitive bids and showed themselves to be very competent naval ship designers. Bids were evaluated against a wide range of criteria.
"The Gibbs & Cox evolved design will now compete with an Australianised version of Spain’s existing F100 ship design, and will be further considered by the Government as part of the next phase of the project.
"The construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers will be one of the most significant shipbuilding projects undertaken in Australia to date, and will provide enormous opportunities for Australian industry," Senator Hill said.
The Government has provided $455 million towards the current phase of the project which includes further design work, workforce skilling, initial infrastructure investment and facilities construction.
Senator Hill said the Defence program office would now advise on a location to establish a state of the art AWD System Centre which will house up to 200 personnel working on the development and through life support of the vessels.
The conduct of the evaluation and selection of Gibbs & Cox was reviewed by AWD Program Probity Advisers KPMG and also independently by Sir Laurence Street, both of whom have confirmed that the process was fair and equitable.
"The AWDs represent a quantum leap in the air warfare capabilities of the Navy," Senator Hill said.
"The vessels, which are to be introduced into service from 2013, will be equipped with the world-class AEGIS Combat System capable of detecting hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres."
They will provide significantly increased protection from air attack for troops being transported and deployed on ADF Operations overseas and can provide long-range air warfare defence for a Naval task group.
The AWDs will also have an anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability, as well as the ability to embark a helicopter at sea. The ship will also be interoperable with the United States and other Coalition partners
Preferred Designer Chosen for AWD Contract
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_002996.php
Australia DoD
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif
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.
Senator Hill said Gibbs & Cox, a United States based company, was chosen through a competitive tender evaluation process that also included German company Blohm + Voss and Spanish company Navantia.
(Editor’s Note: the selected Gibbs & Cox proposal is based on the US Navy’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer.)c
"The selection of Gibbs and Cox as platform designer now completes the team whose responsibility it is to deliver the project," Senator Hill said.
"The Government made the decision after accepting the recommendation of the Source Selection Board on the basis that Gibbs & Cox offered a superior bid in terms of value for money.
"All three companies presented competitive bids and showed themselves to be very competent naval ship designers. Bids were evaluated against a wide range of criteria.
"The Gibbs & Cox evolved design will now compete with an Australianised version of Spain’s existing F100 ship design, and will be further considered by the Government as part of the next phase of the project.
"The construction of the Air Warfare Destroyers will be one of the most significant shipbuilding projects undertaken in Australia to date, and will provide enormous opportunities for Australian industry," Senator Hill said.
The Government has provided $455 million towards the current phase of the project which includes further design work, workforce skilling, initial infrastructure investment and facilities construction.
Senator Hill said the Defence program office would now advise on a location to establish a state of the art AWD System Centre which will house up to 200 personnel working on the development and through life support of the vessels.
The conduct of the evaluation and selection of Gibbs & Cox was reviewed by AWD Program Probity Advisers KPMG and also independently by Sir Laurence Street, both of whom have confirmed that the process was fair and equitable.
"The AWDs represent a quantum leap in the air warfare capabilities of the Navy," Senator Hill said.
"The vessels, which are to be introduced into service from 2013, will be equipped with the world-class AEGIS Combat System capable of detecting hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges in excess of 150 kilometres."
They will provide significantly increased protection from air attack for troops being transported and deployed on ADF Operations overseas and can provide long-range air warfare defence for a Naval task group.
The AWDs will also have an anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare capability, as well as the ability to embark a helicopter at sea. The ship will also be interoperable with the United States and other Coalition partners
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Defence looks to the Americans for destroyer designs
Patrick Walters, National security editor
August 17, 2005
AN upgraded version of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be the Australian Navy's new front-line warship after the selection yesterday of American firm Gibbs and Cox as the preferred designer for the $6billion project.
Defence Minister Robert Hill said Gibbs and Cox, lead designer of the 9000-tonne Arleigh Burke-class, had been preferred over German company Blohm and Voss, and the Spanish designer Navantia.
The choice of an American ship designer is the latest chapter in the deepening strategic partnership of the Royal Australian Navy with its US counterpart and American systems suppliers and industry partners.
Gibbs and Cox had offered a superior bid in terms of value for money, Senator Hill said.
The firm is offering a modified version of the existing Arleigh Burke-class, incorporating new technology allowing a much smaller crew of 220-230 compared with the 350 serving in the US Navy's destroyers.
Spanish designer Navantia's Australianised version of its F100 design will remain in back-up in case the Defence Department runs into problems with its choice of Gibbs and Cox. The three air-warfare destroyers will be built by the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide and are due to enter service from 2013.
Defence looks to the Americans for destroyer designs
Patrick Walters, National security editor
August 17, 2005
AN upgraded version of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be the Australian Navy's new front-line warship after the selection yesterday of American firm Gibbs and Cox as the preferred designer for the $6billion project.
Defence Minister Robert Hill said Gibbs and Cox, lead designer of the 9000-tonne Arleigh Burke-class, had been preferred over German company Blohm and Voss, and the Spanish designer Navantia.
The choice of an American ship designer is the latest chapter in the deepening strategic partnership of the Royal Australian Navy with its US counterpart and American systems suppliers and industry partners.
Gibbs and Cox had offered a superior bid in terms of value for money, Senator Hill said.
The firm is offering a modified version of the existing Arleigh Burke-class, incorporating new technology allowing a much smaller crew of 220-230 compared with the 350 serving in the US Navy's destroyers.
Spanish designer Navantia's Australianised version of its F100 design will remain in back-up in case the Defence Department runs into problems with its choice of Gibbs and Cox. The three air-warfare destroyers will be built by the Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide and are due to enter service from 2013.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
I think the AB is a great choice and hope to see it eventuate. If it does end up being fitted out with SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and TACTOM in the VLS, will 64 cells be enough (assuming that is what is fitted as the minimum cell number as stated in the following powerpoint document) to maintain a credible amount of each weapon type, or would something like 90 cells that the current AB ships have be needed?
I think the AB is a great choice and hope to see it eventuate. If it does end up being fitted out with SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and TACTOM in the VLS, will 64 cells be enough (assuming that is what is fitted as the minimum cell number as stated in the following powerpoint document) to maintain a credible amount of each weapon type, or would something like 90 cells that the current AB ships have be needed?
Cootamundra
New Member
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
According to the SMH this morning Sydney seems to be firming up as being the HQ for the AWD project team
===>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-tipped-as-destroyer-hq/2005/08/16/1123958064922.html
One would imagine there be lots of flying in between Adelaide and Sydney ;-0
Coota
According to the SMH this morning Sydney seems to be firming up as being the HQ for the AWD project team
===>http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-tipped-as-destroyer-hq/2005/08/16/1123958064922.html
One would imagine there be lots of flying in between Adelaide and Sydney ;-0
Coota
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Does anybody know when the final decision about which of the two platforms will be chosen? I am assuming it is in 2007? From what I can gather, the Arleigh Burke is basically "tentatively booked" or "pencilled in." You would have too think that with the large number of AB's produced already that there will be little risk involved in building these platforms.
Does anybody know when the final decision about which of the two platforms will be chosen? I am assuming it is in 2007? From what I can gather, the Arleigh Burke is basically "tentatively booked" or "pencilled in." You would have too think that with the large number of AB's produced already that there will be little risk involved in building these platforms.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
on that basis, the best fit for requirements caveat kicks in. generally, what you say in the broadest of terms would hold true.
where countries stuff up is when they deviate from the requirements based decision and pick platforms based on normal commercial best practice definitions (such as market presence and volume of product in play). They aren't always absolutes.
that holds true if your principle requirement is stability of purchase based on volume production - but the usual spoiler in all procurement is based around the requirements definition.cherry said:
on that basis, the best fit for requirements caveat kicks in. generally, what you say in the broadest of terms would hold true.
where countries stuff up is when they deviate from the requirements based decision and pick platforms based on normal commercial best practice definitions (such as market presence and volume of product in play). They aren't always absolutes.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Bit disappointed that the F-124 is out of the race. I assume the decision for AEGIS played a significant role in this.
The spanish design is one of the ugliest on this planet in my opinion. I hope they don't fall back to that option.
I wonder how the Baby Burke is different from the normal one aside from crew requirements.
btw.. hi everyone!
Bit disappointed that the F-124 is out of the race. I assume the decision for AEGIS played a significant role in this.
The spanish design is one of the ugliest on this planet in my opinion. I hope they don't fall back to that option.
I wonder how the Baby Burke is different from the normal one aside from crew requirements.
btw.. hi everyone!
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
I'm hoping to have a PDF available by the end of the week on the specs that I received at the 2002 PACNAV Conf. It's not something that can be posted publicly though, so I can only send copies once I get it back.
welcome to the board.Nautilus said:Bit disappointed that the F-124 is out of the race. I assume the decision for AEGIS played a significant role in this.
The spanish design is one of the ugliest on this planet in my opinion. I hope they don't fall back to that option.
I wonder how the Baby Burke is different from the normal one aside from crew requirements.
btw.. hi everyone!
I'm hoping to have a PDF available by the end of the week on the specs that I received at the 2002 PACNAV Conf. It's not something that can be posted publicly though, so I can only send copies once I get it back.
Last edited:
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
I'd definately be interested in that!
Not quite sure how seriously SM6 is being considered for the AWD. Defence enthusiasts getting carried away? From the current condition of having no dedicated AAW platform in the ADF to the AWD equipped with SM2 and SM3 is quite a leap already. SM6 seems almost overkill plus it would cut down on the number of other missiles in a given VLS configuration.
I'd definately be interested in that!
Not quite sure how seriously SM6 is being considered for the AWD. Defence enthusiasts getting carried away? From the current condition of having no dedicated AAW platform in the ADF to the AWD equipped with SM2 and SM3 is quite a leap already. SM6 seems almost overkill plus it would cut down on the number of other missiles in a given VLS configuration.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
So no pics, drawings or quotes from me are possible.
Unfortunately it looks like I can't post it. I was under the impression that it was a declass document, but its still tagged as privileged and commercial in confidence.Nautilus said:I'd definately be interested in that!
So no pics, drawings or quotes from me are possible.
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
Seriously. Dead seriously. CN said so seriously. Army wants us to get it seriously. Every AWD related document that passes my desk or email inbox says SM6 seriously.
How serious is SM6 being considered for the AWD?Nautilus said:I'd definately be interested in that!
Not quite sure how seriously SM6 is being considered for the AWD. Defence enthusiasts getting carried away? From the current condition of having no dedicated AAW platform in the ADF to the AWD equipped with SM2 and SM3 is quite a leap already. SM6 seems almost overkill plus it would cut down on the number of other missiles in a given VLS configuration.
Seriously. Dead seriously. CN said so seriously. Army wants us to get it seriously. Every AWD related document that passes my desk or email inbox says SM6 seriously.
Jezza
Member
Re: Class of Aus AWD's
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/7700ton.htm
The smaller Japanese type ARLEIGH BURKE guided missile AEGIS destroyers
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm
DDG-51 ARLEIGH BURKE-class
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/7700ton.htm
The smaller Japanese type ARLEIGH BURKE guided missile AEGIS destroyers
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ddg-51.htm
DDG-51 ARLEIGH BURKE-class