A series of special defence stories from the Australian including:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo…5002142,00.html

It’s a long countdown to design
AIR WARFARE DESTROYER
Who will build our new air warfare destroyers is known, but not the version to be built, writes Daniel Cotterill
December 10, 2005
DESPITE having vanquished the Spanish Navy along with that of the French at Trafalgar 200 years ago, Lord Nelson was not one to underestimate the tenacity of the Spaniards. This is a point to bear in mind with the decision on who will design Australia’s fleet of three new air warfare destroyers yet to be finalised.

]
Ecstatic: ASC workers in Adelaide get news they have won the contest to build the Navy’s air warfare destroyers

Despite the announcement of US firm Gibbs & Cox as the preferred designers of the new AWDs, which are to be built by the Australian Submarine Corporation, Spanish firm Navantia is still well and truly in the hunt to supply a mildly Australianised version of its F100 destroyer, currently in service in the Spanish Navy.

To understand this apparent contradiction, it is necessary to consider both the guidelines that control the options for defence capabilities which are presented to the Government for approval, and the parlous state of the defence budget despite the many billions of dollars it contains.

When the Government is set to make a major defence capability acquisition decision it requires a set of options be put up for consideration. The first of these is an “off-the-shelf option” — defined as “a product that is available for purchase and will have been delivered to another military or government body or commercial enterprise in a similar form to that being purchased at the time of the approval being sought”.

The second option is characterised as an “Australianised off-the-shelf” and allows for “modifications to meet the particular requirements of the Australian and regional physical environments, and the ADF’s particular operational requirements”. The final option is one that fully meets the identified capability need, even if the cost of that option exceeds the defence capability plan’s (DCP) budgetary provision for that capability.

The current DCP lists a budget of up to $6 billion for the new AWDs, but some observers have been citing a cost of up to $8 billion if the full wishlist is to be fulfilled. So while Gibbs & Cox has been selected to design option three (the all-singing, all-dancing AWD evolved from the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class destroyers), there is no guarantee at this stage that the Government will choose, or be willing to afford, it.

According to the Defence Materiel Organisation’s AWD program manager, Warren King, a couple of key areas in the Spanish design will require some modification, such as fitting the very latest version of the Aegis combat system, but overall the Australianised F100 will involve “minimal change”.

Key areas of comparison between the competing designs will include the number of missiles that can be carried, the ships’ maximum range and speed, and the amount of space and weight allowed for future growth. The latter could prove pivotal given the vessels’ expected 30 to 35-year service lives.

Some have questioned how a valid comparison can be made between an existing in-service design such as the F100, and the Gibbs & Cox ship that is not even fully on paper yet. However, King is adamant that an accurate costing can be obtained for both designs and a legitimate evaluation made of their respective capabilities. “We will look at the capability that each offers and then create a figure of merit about capability, risk, cost and schedule,” he said.

The Government will also have to make a judgment about how well the various parties, such as the shipbuilder (ASC), combat system supplier (Lockheed Martin), combat system integrator (Raytheon) and whichever ship designer is ultimately selected, can work together in an alliance arrangement to produce a functional ship on time and within budget. No one wants to see another debacle along the lines of the Collins submarine program, where a breakdown in relations between the parties originally involved, and subsequent rigid adherence to poorly drafted specifications and contracts, led to some well-publicised problems.

Careful deliberation will also be needed to balance investment in the ADF’s overall force structure. This year’s defence budget is $17.5 billion, of which just over $3.3 billion will be spent on specialist military equipment. It is estimated that the latter amount will progressively increase to a little over $4.5 billion per annum by the 2008/09 financial year.

Defence has many competing and important equipment priorities, some of which, such as a heavy airlift capability, are not even listed yet in a defence capability plan that is already widely regarded as unaffordable within current budget projections.

The final choice of AWD design won’t be made until mid-2007, and it will ultimately come down to a value judgment. The Government is convinced of the need for AWDs, but the six, seven or eight billion dollar question is just how much AWD do we need?

ADELAIDE IN THE CENTRE

THE recent announcement that the new air warfare destroyer systems centre will be established in Adelaide is a major step forward for the project. The new AWD systems centre will manage the design schedule, budgets and work breakdown structures of the complex $6 billion shipbuilding project.
The AWDs are being designed and built by an alliance that includes the Commonwealth, the shipbuilder ASC, the systems integrator Raytheon and the ship designer Gibbs & Cox. Much is expected of the new systems centre, not only in terms of fulfilling its specified functions, but as a way of melding the employees of the various alliance partners together as a genuine team.
According to Commodore Andrew Cawley, director-general engineering for the AWD project, establishing a systems centre “is the current world’s best practice in terms of dealing with complex warships designs. It is very important when you are trying to get the optimum design that the whole team is thinking together and working together. Bring the people together in one place and you get optimum communication, optimum understanding, optimum decision making.”
The new centre is expected to create up to 200 high-end jobs in South Australia — systems engineers and project managers as well as managers of the supply chain and alliance team. The systems centre will commence operation early next year and as the project gathers momentum will have around 100 staff by mid-year.
Specific design projects will still be carried out away from the systems centre, with nodes expected in Sydney for combat system design and in Melbourne for ship design.
The AWD systems centre is expected to cost about $30 million. SA’s Government is assisting with more than $10 million.
Daniel Cotterill