Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

Whiskyjack said:

I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that a DDG would have 2 RAM or 2 Phalanx, not one of each.

Click to expand...

The South Koreans have gone down the path of arming their KDX II & eventually the KDX III with RAM aswell as Goalkeeper. The problem with RAM & Goalkeeper compared to Phalanx/SeaRAM is the requirment for a major through-deck penetration with associated compartment below. The SeaRAM, Phalanx on the otherhand, in theory are a bolt inplace structure with minimal penetrations except for power & control.
Cheers

Aussie Digger said:

The LHD's WILL have a defensive weapons suite. I can't really imagine them being equipped with ESSM. Mistral or RAM plus "Typhoon" 25mm guns and 0.50cal HMG's will probably be about it I'd guess.

Click to expand...

Shame - it seems to me that a VLS cell with ESSM would be a great idea especially as the new LHDs will be our capital ships. ESSM, RAM or Phalanx and Typhoon would be the go I reckon.

Aussie Digger said:

I'd imagine the LHD's will have the same close in weapon system as ANZAC's and AWD's, which seems certain to be missile based, as RAN doesn't seem overly keen on Phalanx. Each ANZAC frigate can mount Phalanx with little difficulty, yet despite numerous deployments to the Gulf and available weapons within RAN, have yet to do so.

Click to expand...

I wonder why, Phalanx has always seemed like the business to me (not that I'm anything more than an enthusiust). RAM would be great but costs a lot more if I recall.

Whiskyjack said:

I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that a DDG would have 2 RAM or 2 Phalanx, not one of each.

Click to expand...

It depends on whether you're looking at solo engagement or whether you're part of a handoff element. In the case of the latter it means that other assets are in co-operative engagement so your own systems are freed up.

personally I agree with the mixed weapons mount option as each has discrete functions and provides discrete flexibility. the added advantage of Phalanx is depressed mode at uninvited waterborne guests that SeaRAM can't be used against.

the fact they're common mounts and non intrusive gives a fair bit of flexibility in who gets what etc....

It depends on what the vessel needs to be rearmed with. For example, the Mark 21 canister used with SM-2 Standard missles, and the Mark 14 canister used with Tomahawks, both used with Mk 41 VLS, are too heavy to be transferred at sea using existing US at-sea replenishment cranes. I suppose that Australia could commision or modify replenishement vessels with stronger cranes, but I don't imagine that would happen anytime soon. For further info, check out this link. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

-Todjaeger

Cootamundra said:

Shame - it seems to me that a VLS cell with ESSM would be a great idea especially as the new LHDs will be our capital ships. ESSM, RAM or Phalanx and Typhoon would be the go I reckon.



I wonder why, Phalanx has always seemed like the business to me (not that I'm anything more than an enthusiust). RAM would be great but costs a lot more if I recall.

Click to expand...

I agree capital ships must be better protected. Both the Italian Garibaldi and Cavour, not to mention the French De Gaulle, all have Aster missiles (the Garibaldi still has Aspide for the moment... still, 13km range)

cheers

Well, the Mistral and Tonerre were fitted by the Marine Nationale with two Simbad post (Mistral missile dual launchers). The BPE/SPS was designed to be fitted with Mk-48 VLS system for ESSM and/or 2 positions for RAM/Phalanx as CIWS (RAM or Meroka in spanish case) situated in the flight deck level at bow and stern of the island*.

*As was affirmed in article of a spanish defense magazine (Fuerza Naval N.41 December 2005).

Gladius said:

Well, the Mistral and Tonerre were fitted by the Marine Nationale with two Simbad post (Mistral missile dual launchers). The BPE/SPS was designed to be fitted with Mk-48 VLS system for ESSM and/or 2 positions for RAM/Phalanx as CIWS (RAM or Meroka in spanish case) situated in the flight deck level at bow and stern of the island*.

*As was affirmed in article of a spanish defense magazine (Fuerza Naval N.41 December 2005).

Click to expand...

The only thing that this defined in the defensive systems of the BPE is that alone this foreseen to have a reservation of weight and space in the ship, but there is not any defensive system confirmed for equip the ship.The possibility of placing ESSM it is quite unlikely, since in any drawing or image appears the necessary radars of illumination necessary for the guidance of the ESSM, if there is budget assigned at the most a pair of RAMs .

And?

I didn't said that the L-61 will have any ESSM, RAM or Meroka, read again... Our F-100 are at this momment without any CIWS systems (but were designed to be fitted with one RAM/Meroka), we will see what happen with the LHD. I said that the BPE/SPS was designed to be fitted with ESSM and/or RAM/Phalanx, not more, not less. Oh and I mentioned the possible positions for the two RAMs as were commented in the article of FN.

Edited: In the other hand, at this moment the only info of the radars to be instaled in the BPE/SPS is about the new Lanza N of Indra I think, nothing about the rest.

Gladius said:

And?

I didn't said that the L-61 will have any ESSM, RAM or Meroka, read again... Our F-100 are at this momment without any CIWS systems (but were designed to be fitted with one RAM/Meroka), we will see what happen with the LHD. I said that the BPE/SPS was designed to be fitted with ESSM and/or RAM/Phalanx, not more, not less. Oh and I mentioned the possible positions for the two RAMs as were commented in the article of FN.

Edited: In the other hand, at this moment the only info of the radars to be instaled in the BPE/SPS is about the new Lanza N of Indra I think, nothing about the rest.

Click to expand...

I have the drawing of the BPE under my eyes, where could the ESSM be fitted ? Aft of the superstructure ? Because in front of it there is an elevator for the hangar. At the extreme end of the ship where there is no flight deck ? That would be problematic since it risks interfering with the aft elevator. The space at the extreme front of the ship next to the sky jump also seems limited for missiles and risks interfering with flight operations.

Another question for you : has Spain prepared for Harrier Plus replacements ? Does it plan to buy off the shelf F-35 ?

cheers

Mod edit: getting a bit off track guys... Cheers. AD.

from theOz
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20012795-31477,00.html

"Budget sinks top-end technology hopes
Jeremy Roberts
August 04, 2006
THE navy's new air warfare destroyers will not be equipped with the latest technology being planned for the US Navy.

Despite an assurance from Navy Chief Vice Admiral Russ Shalders that the ships would be "right at the leading edge of naval capability", one of two companies bidding for the contract to design them said the $6 billion budget for the three ships did not allow for top-of-the-line technology.

Gibbs and Cox chairman Kevin Moak said yesterday the cost pressures meant Australia's AWDs, to be built by Adelaide-based firm ASC, would not have the same capabilities as the next generation of surface combat ships being built for the US.

"We are not trying to do the most innovative design solutions because if we were, we would not be able to achieve the constraints of cost," he said. "In terms of brand-new innovation, there is very little because we are trying to minimise the risk as we go through the design process."

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson yesterday unveiled the first pictures of Gibbs and Cox's design for the AWD at the opening of the centre that will de-velop the two designs to be considered. By July, the federal Government will decide whether to adopt the Gibbs and Cox design -- a heavily modified and smaller version of the US Arleigh Burke Class guided missile destroyer -- or the Spanish-designed Navantia F-100 frigate used by the Spanish navy.

Regardless of which design is chosen, the Defence Materiel Organisation is under pressure to deliver the three ships on time and under budget after a string of cost blowouts and delays to other projects.

These include the Collins-class submarines in the late 1990s and the halt in May of flight tests of the $1billion Seasprite helicopters.

Despite the budget constraints, Mr Moak said the Gibbs and Cox design would include a higher radar mast, giving it longer range, and a larger number of missile launchers than its US equivalent destroyers."

So what exactly does this mean I wonder? Is it G&C trying to milk more $?
Regarding the number of missiles - Arleigh Burkes have two mk41 vls, (something the ANZACs have space for, one fitted, room for another)
How many are the AWD proposed?

rb

Tracking

In my view, what this means is the journalist involved was out of his depth reporting on the story.

The AWD's don't include "the latest technology" because they are not DDX's.

They will do the job they are designed for, for the allocated money. A writer getting into areas he simply does not understand and with a news editor who also does not understand the issue.

The Aussie AWD programme was clearly meant to be an off-the-shelf and low risk programme, though it still has a whopping B1.5US$ price tag apiece... More expensive than the programme cost of the Type 45, that was developed bottom up, including radars, CMS etc..

So some Aussie stuff is apparently going to be developed.

Both the Spanish F-100 and Norwegian Nansen and Japanese Kongos have huge, bulky superstructures in order to push the AN/SPY-1D(v) and AN/SPY-1F a bit higher up. It will be interesting to see some images of the proposals.

"In terms of brand-new innovation, there is very little because we are trying to minimise the risk as we go through the design process."

Click to expand...

This strikes me as a good thing, maybe hell will freeze over and it'll come in somewhere near budget.

Grand Danois-



More here

Tony Ryan said:

In my view, what this means is the journalist involved was out of his depth reporting on the story.

The AWD's don't include "the latest technology" because they are not DDX's.

They will do the job they are designed for, for the allocated money. A writer getting into areas he simply does not understand and with a news editor who also does not understand the issue.

Click to expand...

succinctly and accurately stated...

scraw said:

This strikes me as a good thing, maybe hell will freeze over and it'll come in somewhere near budget.

Grand Danois-

http://picsorban.com/upload/bow stbd_lo.jpg

More here

Click to expand...

Looking at those pictures, I have to say Im in favor of the evolved Gibbs & Coxs design. Thats purley based on aesthetics [FONT=&quot]though! [/FONT]

Hi GF

Some interesting features on the evolved AB images. Are those very soviet looking multi barrelled cannon mounts something new?

It looks like a 25mm typhoon mount has made it with one eather beam but I done see any short range ASMD system. In noting this I realise this are just drawings and reality may be diferent.

Certainly a lot more attractive than the F100. I don't mean to offend anybody but they are not the most attractive vessel.

scraw said:

Grand Danois-

More here

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

Both proposals are less futuristic than the initial artists impression drawings.

I like the Gibbs & Cox proposal best for the same aesthetic reasons, as given by others already.

The gun looks to me as it has to rely on the sensors of the CMS rather than being independent like the Phalanx. That could suggest a Millenium variant. (?)

[Edit: Alright, I have noticed they are multibarrelled, so they're not a Millenium derivative.]

That array on top of the mast, is that a rotating radar for horizon search? That would be a clever way of supplementing the AN/SPY-1D...

Odd question but what's the window at the back for?

The little window between the helicopter hangar doors is for the helicopter operations. Those windows appear to be the back side of the bridge. I suspect the others beside the funnel are intake and exhaust air vents for the gas turbines. Gibbs & Cox have been designing wonderful ships with good lines for the US Navy, their only bad one being the OH Perrys, in my opinion. A bit too boxy for me, but they did have lots of interior room for growth.

Whats the dimensions and displacement of the Gibbs & Cox design?

Looking at the rear view, between the Harpoon launchers and the radar panels and off tothe left and right are box like structures, does any one known what they might be nulka?