Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Markus40]

Totally agree. My vote is with this design 100%. Not sure whether the Australian government is going to build 2 of them because they look sexy but i do understand where you are coming from.

I do think where it stands out from the Navantia is that it has future potential in developing the carriers into operating carrier bourne jets like the F35B. I think this is where the BPE leads. If there is a similarity for cost then the BPE wins. I would agree with Tasman that now wouldnt be a good time to decide on aircraft for the type due to an election that could go 50/50 and so this must be taken into account. My question is in labours Defence policy are they also intent on building the LHDs?

My belief is this that if the BPE has won the bid and the RAN decide on carrier F35bs it would be most likely that there will be a contingent of pilots who are trained in Maritime missions from the RAAF who fly the F35s to be deployed on the carrier(s) at a moments notice for exercises or military deployments. This contingent is employed by the RAN primarily with the F35b, and are able to interoperate with the RAAF.

The BPE has several advantages even totally ignoring the F-35 skijump.

-It can carry more
-It can deck a chook with its blades removed
-It has better accomodation and room for more troops

The offical Navantia Canberra class bid website list a whole load more.

I think it looks sexier..

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg.jpg

As its been pointed out, AEW would be a smart buy regardless (even with no LHD). The BPE is the more capable ship for Australia regardless of STOVL. So to operate F-35B's off it, we would just have to upgrade our F-35 order for ~12 units F-35B for ~$10 million a peice extra. With very little additional logistics and ongoing costs over a F-35A.

$120 million dollars to have stealth fixed wing airsupport for our navy at sea and land forces overseas. As well as able to be stationed at rough and ready airfields? Not to mention Australia would be one of the very few countries with TWO carriers. Thats ~$6 for every Australian, money well spent. You could get elected on that slogan.

Not to mention the pubicity win for the ADF, attracting people to work on its new carriers in army, navy and airforce. It would encorage them all to work more cohesively together. It would also maximise the effectiveness of the AWD's freeing some cells for SM-3 etc instead of land or shipping stike weapons and allowing them to be more flexable in the selection.

It would also make Australia the logical base for F-35 service contracts regionally. Bringing in money, creating jobs, building skill base.

Australia would step out to become a true blue water force, as well as a regional security power, more able to operate independant of US forces and US policy. Australia would find new political friends, with 2nd tier players looking for a strong friend.

It would be un-Australian to not get the BPE and the F-35B's to stick onto it.

 

[Markus40]

That is a facinating and informative piece of information.

You mentioned for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance that Aegis can handle 18 Missiles and share the illuminators during the terminal phase. Are you refering to outbound missiles or inbound.

Also do you have any specific information on the basics of how Aegis works.? I would be really interested in that. Website is fine.

The only major part you forgot was the Aegis Display System (ADS) which is the large screen displays, consoles, computers and peripherals for the CO and TAO on DDG's and Warfare Coordinators and staff on CG's.



It is true that the transmitter has a couple single points of failure but the rest of the system is very redundant.
Also the newer versions of the SPY family (I would imagine the RAN would be buying the newest variants) are significantly upgraded and feature a large amount of COTS and modernized equipment that is more reliable and takes up less space than older models.
I used to have a link to an article about one of the newer versions of SPY-1D (I think SPY-1D(V6)) that can radiate out of 2 opposite array faces, I'll keep looking for that article.



That is for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance, Aegis can handle 18 missiles at one time and time share the illuminators during the terminal phase.
Also their is an option called command all the way where 3 missiles can be guided without using the illuminators, but it is less accurate.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Knowing the most likely bidder will be the Aegis, is there any further news on who the successful bidder is for the AAW? The Spanish or the US? Also is the total component elements of Aegis going to be installed or will there be other systems IE Radar, Weapons that will be incorporated on the AAW other than AEGIS? This along with the LPD updates would be great. Have anything more about that?

The spanish F-100 preposal is ahead from what the rumors say. Simply because they can offer us four for the price. 4 x AWD's means that 2 can be avalible most of the time. With three you can only really have 1 avalible all the time, if you try surging two, you have a period of none.

The F-100 I belive have one less illuminator compared to the G&C.

Manning issues still would need to be resolved, but leasing/selling NZ a ANZAC might be viable backup plan to free up crews.

Australia really needs 4 destroyers, so it can form a self sufficent strike group.

2 x AWD's
2 x Frigates
2 x SSK's
1 x LHD

US and UK forces could assist in fleshing it out with destroyers and SSN's. US is really the only country that is going to have spare modern destroyers that can interface with Australian forces. UK may only end up with 4 Type 45's at this stage... Japan has some nice ones, but politically they are impossible for Australia to rely on. However in the future that may change and Australia, Japan and the US would be a very powerful combined force regionally.

 

[StingrayOZ]

My question is in labours Defence policy are they also intent on building the LHDs?

Yes, atleast thats what Ive heard. I think all sides accept Australia needs some sort of amphibious capability. Leasing ferries from Tasmania everytime Australia needs to perform a peace mission is unacceptable. And if you have the cash and are short on man power you end up at the Mistral/BPE decision pretty quick.

But hopefully the LHD will be signed off before the election. And if it is, F-35 was never really in doubt, it would just be a matter of F-35B's in the order.

The LHD would have pilots from all three services, Army (NHN-90, tiger and chinooks), Navy (seasprites) and airforce (F-35B). Army and Navy have been working together since the bronze age, so its about time the Airforce joins the party.

 

[Markus40]

Does that mean the Australian Government will be buying 4 or will take the three and save money on the fouth? I agree with you its a far better option to sell us the ANZAC and the RAN have the 4th AWD.

I found a really good pic of the F100 on this web page:

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/Mar/20070314/20070313ran8098978_045_drn.jpg

Its interesting to note also that it appears the Spanish call the F100 a frigate when the F100 design for Australia is recognised as a destroyer variant. Any thoughts on that?

The spanish F-100 preposal is ahead from what the rumors say. Simply because they can offer us four for the price. 4 x AWD's means that 2 can be avalible most of the time. With three you can only really have 1 avalible all the time, if you try surging two, you have a period of none.

The F-100 I belive have one less illuminator compared to the G&C.

Manning issues still would need to be resolved, but leasing/selling NZ a ANZAC might be viable backup plan to free up crews.

Australia really needs 4 destroyers, so it can form a self sufficent strike group.

2 x AWD's
2 x Frigates
2 x SSK's
1 x LHD

US and UK forces could assist in fleshing it out with destroyers and SSN's. US is really the only country that is going to have spare modern destroyers that can interface with Australian forces. UK may only end up with 4 Type 45's at this stage... Japan has some nice ones, but politically they are impossible for Australia to rely on. However in the future that may change and Australia, Japan and the US would be a very powerful combined force regionally.

 

[tphuang]

The only major part you forgot was the Aegis Display System (ADS) which is the large screen displays, consoles, computers and peripherals for the CO and TAO on DDG's and Warfare Coordinators and staff on CG's.



It is true that the transmitter has a couple single points of failure but the rest of the system is very redundant.
Also the newer versions of the SPY family (I would imagine the RAN would be buying the newest variants) are significantly upgraded and feature a large amount of COTS and modernized equipment that is more reliable and takes up less space than older models.
I used to have a link to an article about one of the newer versions of SPY-1D (I think SPY-1D(V6)) that can radiate out of 2 opposite array faces, I'll keep looking for that article.



That is for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance, Aegis can handle 18 missiles at one time and time share the illuminators during the terminal phase.
Also their is an option called command all the way where 3 missiles can be guided without using the illuminators, but it is less accurate.

Spy-1D can only handle 18 missiles at one time? Interesting. Sampson was said to be able to handle "several 10s" missiles at one time.

Just a question, when you say time share the illuminators, do that mean each illuminator can effectively illuminate multiple targets?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia is concidering a 4th, but definately 3. The government seems to be weighing up the 4th AWD, only the F-100 would be cheap enough to get 4. If they choose G&C they would get three, They would only choose the F-100 if we could get four of them as they have a smaller missile load, less equipment etc.

Frigates and Destroyers are much the same these days. UK doesn't have carriers, it has through deck cruisers. Classes of ships vary on what will fly through budgets. They are all big enough to be classed as destroyers. And much more capability than the ANZACs.

 

[Tasman]

Regardless of whether the G&C or the F100 wins the selection competition I would not expect more than three to be included in the initial order. At best, if the cheaper ship is chosen, the navy might try to convince government to take out an option on a fourth, dependent on the successful construction of the first ships on time and on budget. AEGIS has only been ordered for three ships so an option on a fourth system would need to be arranged alongside any option for a fourth destroyer.

If government changes at the election (as suggested by the opinion polls) I am reasonably confident that a new government would honour the contracts for two LHDs and 3 AWDs expected to be announced in July. The present situation is different to that of previous elections when the Opposition had announced categorically that it would not support particular programs. In 1982 for example, the purchase of a carrier to replace Melbourne was opposed by Labor during the election campaign so it was no surprise when PM Hawke announced the cancellation of the project almost immediately after he took up office. This time there has been no real opposition of a political nature to either of these programs and state governments (all Labor) are jockeying to get as much of the work as possible in their own backyards. I think it is also accepted that the selection process for these ships has been a rigorous one and the needs for both types of vessel have been well documented. However, I have been disappointed before so nothing really surprises any more. :shudder

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think both sides can see that these ships will see service very shortly.

The boom time will end. Oil prices will rise, exclusive economic zones will be tested, economies will faulter, some countries will start to splinter.

Australia has had a huge increase in defence spending, labour hasn't tried spearing any of the projects in any concerted way. Even the bad ones. The media attacks have been pretty poor on the LHD and I've heard very little on the AWD against it.

I am 100% certain that we will get 2x LHD's and atleast 3 x AWD's. I am 85% certain the BPE will get the go ahead. Its just too good to refuse. These aren't based on special inside knowledge, just from what I've heard from people and rumors.

For the AWD's its too close to call from outside. It was USA all the way until recently the F-100 was announced as the favoured recommendation. The navy favours the G&C preposal for obvious reasons. On the forums we would all love to see four of either. Government might need to tighten the belt and get 3 x F-100 instead.

 

[AegisFC]

That is a facinating and informative piece of information.

Thanks!

You mentioned for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance that Aegis can handle 18 Missiles and share the illuminators during the terminal phase. Are you refering to outbound missiles or inbound.

I meant the Command and Decision system and SPY can provide initial and mid-term guidance for 18 missiles at once. The SPG-62's can only illuminate one target at a time (a tech once told me that if the targets are fairly close together you can illuminate both of them using one SPG-62 but I don't think that would happen to often) but since you only need a few seconds for terminal guidance the illuminators can be rapidly cycled between targets.

Also do you have any specific information on the basics of how Aegis works.? I would be really interested in that. Website is fine.

I'll do a search and see if I can find anything other than the same old information you see on Global Security and FAS.
What I post is not classified and is what we tell sailors without security clearances (cooks, PN's, ect) when they are going after their ESWS (Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist) qualification.

 

[Markus40]

Did you not say that the Auzzie Government is considering a 4th F100? What we would like to see and what is actually happening are two different things.

From looking at both the Arleigh Burke and F100 designs i think that from a capabilty point of view and it would seem to me in no doubt that the RAN will have very capable warships to add to its fleet. Either choice will fit well within the fleet structure. My personal choice and i emphasis personal choice would go to the F100 as there may be the opportunity to add another F100 to the 3 already chosen. Thus further enhancing the fleets potential.

I agree fully that 4 would make a better choice as you naturally will have one of them tied at some point for repairs or for extensive work in dry dock or on overseas deployment maybe and that leaves 2. 2 in my opinion is very light when considering the fleets replacement of the Adelaide Class Frigates over time. Cheers.

I think both sides can see that these ships will see service very shortly.

The boom time will end. Oil prices will rise, exclusive economic zones will be tested, economies will faulter, some countries will start to splinter.

Australia has had a huge increase in defence spending, labour hasn't tried spearing any of the projects in any concerted way. Even the bad ones. The media attacks have been pretty poor on the LHD and I've heard very little on the AWD against it.

I am 100% certain that we will get 2x LHD's and atleast 3 x AWD's. I am 85% certain the BPE will get the go ahead. Its just too good to refuse. These aren't based on special inside knowledge, just from what I've heard from people and rumors.

For the AWD's its too close to call from outside. It was USA all the way until recently the F-100 was announced as the favoured recommendation. The navy favours the G&C preposal for obvious reasons. On the forums we would all love to see four of either. Government might need to tighten the belt and get 3 x F-100 instead.

 

[Markus40]

Cheers. Are there any Faqs with diagrams and illustrations on the web that actually gives us a greater understanding of the Aegis system. Aegis is a relatively new system for Australia and having some knowledge on its capabilities would be helpful.

Thanks!



I meant the Command and Decision system and SPY can provide initial and mid-term guidance for 18 missiles at once. The SPG-62's can only illuminate one target at a time (a tech once told me that if the targets are fairly close together you can illuminate both of them using one SPG-62 but I don't think that would happen to often) but since you only need a few seconds for terminal guidance the illuminators can be rapidly cycled between targets.



I'll do a search and see if I can find anything other than the same old information you see on Global Security and FAS.
What I post is not classified and is what we tell sailors without security clearances (cooks, PN's, ect) when they are going after their ESWS (Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist) qualification.

 

[VGNTMH]

Aegis

Thanks for the comments! It is so refreshing and interesting to talk with people who know about Naval radars!

A few additional comments:

1 Integrating CEAMOUNT with AEGIS?

What was of particular interest was the visit of a Aegis Destroyer to Sydney recently. Obviously the RAN is very interested in its ability to incorporate its systems in its own AAW later to come. Was that a result of the down payment? Not sure.

Perhaps a good idea here would be for the RAN, when the AWD and AEGIS are successfully completed/integrated/operational, to replace the AN/SPG-62 illuminators with the “integrated mast” version of the CEA Technologies’ CEAMOUNT X band active phased array radar. This would provide many, many channels of fire all around the ship and would solve two problems with the AN/SPG-62 illuminators: their limited number and the possibility of mechanical failure.

And possibly this might sell to the other users of AEGIS (USN, JMSDF, ROK Navy, Spanish Armada, and Norway).

2 AEGIS for the RAN

Regardless of merit the RAN will have AEGIS in its new ships as, IIRC, it has already made a hefty down payment on three systems.

Yes, I knew about the order of and payment for AEGIS for the RAN. And I am very happy with AEGIS for the RAN. It is so much better than the current situation!

3 Terminal Illumination

That is for the last couple of seconds for terminal guidance, Aegis can handle 18 missiles at one time and time share the illuminators during the terminal phase.

Yes, true. I knew that SM-2 and ESSM operated with INS/command guidance for most of their flight and only needed the AN/SPG-62 terminal illumination for the last part of their mission.

Also their is an option called command all the way where 3 missiles can be guided without using the illuminators, but it is less accurate.

Very interesting. I didn’t know this. I guess this might be useful against stealthy anti ship missiles or JSOW type glide bombs which don’t have much of a radar cross section and which might not be picked up by ESSMs operating with SAR guidance?

Another addition which might be useful is adding a IIR seeker to ESSM? This would allow ESSM to home autonomously on the larger IR signature anti ship missiles and would help deal with saturation attack.

4 Justification of Opinion on APAR
When I said this:

Personally I like the Dutch/Thales APAR based solution. It is optimized for the tasks Western warships will face.

The justification for the optimized point is as follows:
• Western warships will probably mainly operate in a littoral environment in the future.
• The major threat will probably come from saturation anti ship missile attack.
• APAR, being X band and active phased array, is very suitable for littoral operation.
• Massed batteries of ESSM with APAR terminal illumination are very suitable for dealing with saturation anti ship missile attack.

A mute point for the RAN, but anyhow!

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think looking over the designs and comparing it to some of the above info, the F-100 really has to be used as a two ship destroyer network. Spain certainly doesn't use them singularly and has built quiet a few of them (five). Norway is getting five as well. A clear pattern is emerging.

I have heard that is has fewer sensors and more single points of failure than the G&C design. It only has a clear advantage when paired with another ship. Two ships out perform a single G&C, but a single G&C will outperform a F-100.

It would almost be criminal to choose the F-100 and only build three over building three G&C.

You only select the F-100 if you want to build four. If you want to build three and maybe, if everything works out well possibly a fourth then select the G&C.

Key advantage is twice as many illuminators, twice the hanger capability, greater missile load, larger 155mm gun, upgradability, stronger hull.

 

[Tasman]

I think looking over the designs and comparing it to some of the above info, the F-100 really has to be used as a two ship destroyer network. Spain certainly doesn't use them singularly and has built quiet a few of them (five). Norway is getting five as well. A clear pattern is emerging.

I have heard that is has fewer sensors and more single points of failure than the G&C design. It only has a clear advantage when paired with another ship. Two ships out perform a single G&C, but a single G&C will outperform a F-100.

It would almost be criminal to choose the F-100 and only build three over building three G&C.

You only select the F-100 if you want to build four. If you want to build three and maybe, if everything works out well possibly a fourth then select the G&C.

Key advantage is twice as many illuminators, twice the hanger capability, greater missile load, larger 155mm gun, upgradability, stronger hull.

Potentially the G&C appears to be clearly the more capable vessel in its baseline form. It also has considerably more growth potential (up to 80 VLS cells for starters). Unless it is decided that the design constitutes too big a risk of failure or cost blowout, or unless it is too expensive for the available budget to fund, I believe it would be a great pity if it is not selected ahead of the F100. I believe that selection of the inferior ship would be a matter of deep regret for both the navy and the ADF as a whole in future years.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Hi Tasman, your point is taken, but i am wondering why you believe that the "selection of the inferior ship (The F100) would be a matter of deep regret"?

Its worth noting that both the AB and the F100 designs are at the front line of maritime military technology, and the RAN can facilitate its own in house bridging gap by adding bridging technology such as upgrading the SPY systems that the F100 is built on should that be required. Same with weapons systems as well. Im sure Tennix has the experience with that. Just my thoughts anyhow.

Potentially the G&C appears to be clearly the more capable vessel in its baseline form. It also has considerably more growth potential (up to 80 VLS cells for starters). Unless it is decided that the design constitutes too big a risk of failure or cost blowout, or unless it is too expensive for the available budget to fund, I believe it would be a great pity if it is not selected ahead of the F100. I believe that selection of the inferior ship would be a matter of deep regret for both the navy and the ADF as a whole in future years.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

But upgrading can be just as risky and more expensive and building it right in the first place..

There is a battle between two ideologies.

Three ship AWD fleet. Results in one AWD being avalible at any one time. Australia would really require US (possibly UK or more unlikely Japan, Korea or Norway) assistance for any mission it wanted to perform. With a single ship, a small kitchen fire, a broken prop, a single hit, a faulty component can leave the entire fleet (Anzacs, LHD, supply, etc) stranded sitting around the AWD. You want more than one. But if you can only have three, then you get the awesome bad arse one.

Four ship AWD fleet. Results in two AWD's being avalible most of the time. Australia is able to act fairly independantly, additional destroyers would be welcome and would be required on a longer mission. But this could easily be scheduled after the inital action. With two ships you have redundancy. If one if inoperable, then the other can atleast get otherships out of harms way.

The F-100 is really designed for a five ship fleet. Four at the minium (spain initally had four, now is building the fifth. Norway is just ordering five to begin with).

Four requires additional crew, but you get so much more capability. You get more cells at sea, redundancy, the ability of independant action, more illuminators (less saturation), ability to spread units out to cover more area.

Three F-100 is effectively useless. By itself, it does have issues. Easily saturated with less illuminators, less helicopters capability, less cells, less expandability, more single points of failure, less redundancy.

RAN needs to decide. You can't just look and say hmm, how about three of the F-100's. They are a different price, different capabilities, different type of ship. You either say 3 G&C or 4 F-100's. But I don't think the RAN or the government really understands that.

ideally Australia would get 4 F-100's. Then you can make a strike group with 2 F-100's, 1 LHD, 2 Frigates and 2 SSK's. With such forces, it really starts to make sense to get some F-35B's and add airpower. Then we are truely independant and bring significant strength to any international commitment and can atleast initate any international mission on our own if we had to.

Anything less and Australia isn't really an independant blue water navy capable of independantly acting and protecting Australias interests. It would be shameful to get all the things we are getting but fall down in the last stage with our surface escorts. Reliant on a US approval and wait for them to send destroyer or two to perform any of our missions.

Atleast thats how I see it..

 

[Tasman]

Hi Tasman, your point is taken, but i am wondering why you believe that the "selection of the inferior ship (The F100) would be a matter of deep regret"?

Its worth noting that both the AB and the F100 designs are at the front line of maritime military technology, and the RAN can facilitate its own in house bridging gap by adding bridging technology such as upgrading the SPY systems that the F100 is built on should that be required. Same with weapons systems as well. Im sure Tennix has the experience with that. Just my thoughts anyhow.

Hi Markus. The 48 VLS cells in the F100 may be plenty for the first decade of its service but in ten to fifteen years time the RAN could find itself in a position where it wants extra VLS cells in order to accommodate missiles like the SM-3 or even land attack cruise missiles. The F100 appears unlikely to be able to be upgraded in this way so the number of SM-2s, SM-6s and ESSMs carried would have to be reduced. The deep regret would come if the ADF discovers that it is unable to use the new ships to cover future needs that may arise, such as ballistic missile defence.

If, as StingrayOZ has said, the payoff for selecting the F100 is four rather than three ships (with an Anzac paying off if necessary to provide the crew) I would look more favourably on such a selection. Except in helo numbers they would go close to offering the same capability in baseline form but would still come up short on total VLS capacity (4x48=182) compared with an upgraded G&C (3x80=240). An area we are still uncertain of is exactly what upgrades, if any, are included in the Australian F100 proposal. No doubt the navy will have been looking very closely at what additional capabilities will be able to be worked into the F100 design.

Basically I am thinking along similar lines to StingrayOZ. That is we should get 3 G&Cs or 4 F100s.

Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

But upgrading can be just as risky and more expensive and building it right in the first place..

There is a battle between two ideologies.

Three ship AWD fleet. Results in one AWD being avalible at any one time. Australia would really require US (possibly UK or more unlikely Japan, Korea or Norway) assistance for any mission it wanted to perform. With a single ship, a small kitchen fire, a broken prop, a single hit, a faulty component can leave the entire fleet (Anzacs, LHD, supply, etc) stranded sitting around the AWD. You want more than one. But if you can only have three, then you get the awesome bad arse one.

Four ship AWD fleet. Results in two AWD's being avalible most of the time. Australia is able to act fairly independantly, additional destroyers would be welcome and would be required on a longer mission. But this could easily be scheduled after the inital action. With two ships you have redundancy. If one if inoperable, then the other can atleast get otherships out of harms way.

The F-100 is really designed for a five ship fleet. Four at the minium (spain initally had four, now is building the fifth. Norway is just ordering five to begin with).

Four requires additional crew, but you get so much more capability. You get more cells at sea, redundancy, the ability of independant action, more illuminators (less saturation), ability to spread units out to cover more area.

Three F-100 is effectively useless. By itself, it does have issues. Easily saturated with less illuminators, less helicopters capability, less cells, less expandability, more single points of failure, less redundancy.

RAN needs to decide. You can't just look and say hmm, how about three of the F-100's. They are a different price, different capabilities, different type of ship. You either say 3 G&C or 4 F-100's. But I don't think the RAN or the government really understands that.

ideally Australia would get 4 F-100's. Then you can make a strike group with 2 F-100's, 1 LHD, 2 Frigates and 2 SSK's. With such forces, it really starts to make sense to get some F-35B's and add airpower. Then we are truely independant and bring significant strength to any international commitment and can atleast initate any international mission on our own if we had to.

Anything less and Australia isn't really an independant blue water navy capable of independantly acting and protecting Australias interests. It would be shameful to get all the things we are getting but fall down in the last stage with our surface escorts. Reliant on a US approval and wait for them to send destroyer or two to perform any of our missions.

Atleast thats how I see it..

as much as i like the F100 i feel it is the worst moden AAW vessel in the west as it seems to be the lest equiptment of the moden westen europe. it dosn't seem to have any ablity to expand with new kit like a moden type 42 destroyer which was know for its diffculty to upgrade as it was fitted with the best kit crammed into every place possible and the f100 seems to cramming AEGIS into a hull which should be larger a 6,000-6,500 ton hull seems to be much better suited to AEGIS and would give space for more expansion.

of corse a hull in the water is better than one with space

 

[StingrayOZ]

The F-100 weakness is its size. Spain origionally wanted a even smaller ship (~4,500). It sort of grown to fit all the stuff they want in it. How much growth potential it has, I don't know.

Certainly trying to stuff it with land attack, and a whole lotta other stuff is going to be problematic. The solution is to put fixed wing aircraft on the LHD to relax the need to make the AWD so multiroled.

If I thought we could really get away with four G&C then definately get that. As I said, the F-100 is used by other (small) navies as a 5 destroyer fleet. Really the RAN should be looking at 4 x G&C or 5 x F-100. But there doesn't appear to be that much money at this stage to sign off on either of those projects.