Aussie news, nothing much.

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

Fair use

BOOST FOR NAVY’S WARFARE SAILORS

Wednesday, 14 December 2005 31/2005

Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence De-Anne Kelly announced today a major package to enhance the retention of skilled sailors of Navy’s Warfare Community.

Mrs Kelly said Navy was experiencing difficulties retaining Seaman officers and sailors of the Combat System Operators and Communication Information Systems Operators Categories and had been looking at innovative ways to encourage them to continue serving.

“A comprehensive package of short, medium and longer-term initiatives has been developed with the immediate focus on offering a financial incentive centred on completion bonuses of up to $10,000 per year,” Mrs Kelly said.

“Payments will be based on a sliding scale according to rank, competency and qualifications.

“The Navy’s medium to longer-term retention focus is on developing training and higher skilling opportunities to facilitate motivating and satisfying careers within Navy. Other initiatives affecting employment and conditions are being addressed through Navy’s Sea Change program.”

Defence has allocated $22 million over the next seven years for completion bonuses for sailors and officers of Navy’s Warfare Community.

The package builds on a similar initiative for Navy’s Marine and Weapons Electrical Engineers. This included a competency-based, tiered Retention Allowance of up to $15,000 per year as well as post-graduate education.

Mrs Kelly said early indications were that the retention initiatives for engineers had slowed the rate of separation of these skilled officers from Navy.

“The package for Warfare Community sailors and officers is further demonstration of the Government’s support for ADF personnel,” she said.
Mrs Kelly said this shortage was the result of a healthy Australian economy with its competitive workplace environment.

I don’t know about that Scoot but the USN, JMSDF and the RAN are all partners in the Son-of- Starwars program designed to provide an ABM shield over their territories, and as such the SM-3 is the weapon of choice for it.

Scoot: mate can I also remind you that our AWD’s are also on the list to get the SM-3’s with their ABM capabilities.

Yes, that is correct. The JMSDF will also backfit the same SM-3 capabilities to there Kongo Class. So, the USN, RAN, and JMSDF will all have Aegis Destroyers armed with the very capable SM-3. I wouldn’t be surprise…….If, South Korea add’s it later to there upcoming KXD-III’s. As a matter of fact most SM-2 ships will more than likely gain the capability in do time…… 😀

Well, if finally what is getting the RAN is a “modernised Burke”, even longer than a Flight IIA, we must admit that the competition hadn´t much sense. A Burke is obviously a vessel in a higher division than a F100 or F124. A Kongo, KDX-III or something like that would be in that case the logical competitors in the 9-10.000 t category and not 6.000 t vessels more or less stretched.
Of course, bad thing if a 9000 t Burke hasn´t a seakeeping at least slightly better than a 6.000 t F-100.

Regards.

I never said that there was a true competition, however there was the semblance of one conducted for the sake of appearances.

It was similar to the one recently conducted for new main battle tanks for the Australian Army, the Abrams was always going to win unless the opposition came in with a world beating deal. They didn’t and the Abrams duly won.

The same with the AWD. The F100 was always the second choice for a number of reasons, including the pig headed attiitude of the former builders of the F100, before they were restructured as Navantia.

Bazan told the Australian government that they were willing to help set it up so that the Australian’s could build the F100s in Australia, with the vast majority of work to be carried out in Australia. This was a major aspect of the AWD project.

Unfortunately for Bazan, they were tumbled telling a completely different story to a Spanish parlimentary committee, in which they said that the only work that they were going to do in Australia was fairly basic steelwork and assembly, the majority of the major design, building and integration work would be done in Spain, and that various “difficulties” could be found in Australia to justify this.

When questioned they stated that they were a Spanish company, in the business of employing Spaniards.

Bazan thought that their comments would be kept “in house” so to speak, but news leaked very quickly (as such things do) and the head of Bazan’s negotiating team was summonsed to Canberra. When questioned, he stated that it had never happened, it was all lies designed to damage Bazan’s image, etc etc, which did not help Bazan’s case.

Basically any chance Bazan had of winning the deal (which was very unlikely anyway, as they were very expensive for what you got by comparison with the Burkes) went out the window.

The F100 was the best alternative to the Arleigh Burkes, however it was always going to be an alternative compared to the Flight 3 Burkes which is what is being negotiated now.

Unicorn

The ESSM is surely a more advance weapons system “No Doubt” and appears to have a similar range. Yet, the SM-1 MR is still a viable system and has a much larger warhead. Regardless, it will have to soldier on a little while longer. At least until the advent of the SM-2 equipped AWD’s. :rolleyes:

Never said SM1MR was was no longer viable 😀

I can attest that the design that the RAN is working on with Gibbs and Cox and Bath Iron Works is a sister to the USN Arleigh Burkes. If you parked them alongside a USN DDG51 Flight 2, the only major differences would be the paint colour and the fact that the RAN ones will be slightly longer.

Well, if finally what is getting the RAN is a “modernised Burke”, even longer than a Flight IIA, we must admit that the competition hadn´t much sense. A Burke is obviously a vessel in a higher division than a F100 or F124. A Kongo, KDX-III or something like that would be in that case the logical competitors in the 9-10.000 t category and not 6.000 t vessels more or less stretched.
Of course, bad thing if a 9000 t Burke hasn´t a seakeeping at least slightly better than a 6.000 t F-100.

Regards.

Scoot: mate can I also remind you that our AWD’s are also on the list to get the SM-3’s with their ABM capabilities.

Supposedly ESSM is longer ranged than NSSM Sea Sparrow. Note that NSSM Seasparrow already had a range of 14.5km (8nm) … ESSM range at least 25km (14nm) and possibly up to 55 km (30nm).

“Range More than 30 nautical miles (approximately 55 km)”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-7-specs.htm

“Effective range is significantly bigger than that of the RIM-7P, making ESSM a short/medium-range surface-to-air missile.” “Range 50+ km (27+ nm)”
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html

“ESSM range 16 Nm at Mach 2+ (point defense)” = ~29km
http://www.tno.nl/defensie_en_veiligheid/militair_optreden/operational_analysis/joint_extended_air_defenc/ead_systems_and_threats/ead_systems/air_defence_command_friga/
(NB: Under the header ‘Defence, Security and Safety’ TNO acts as a strategic partner of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.)

The ESSM is surely a more advance weapons system “No Doubt” and appears to have a similar range. Yet, the SM-1 MR is still a viable system and has a much larger warhead. Regardless, it will have to soldier on a little while longer. At least until the advent of the SM-2 equipped AWD’s. :rolleyes:

Supposedly ESSM is longer ranged than NSSM Sea Sparrow. Note that NSSM Seasparrow already had a range of 14.5km (8nm) … ESSM range at least 25km (14nm) and possibly up to 55 km (30nm).

“Range More than 30 nautical miles (approximately 55 km)”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rim-7-specs.htm

“Effective range is significantly bigger than that of the RIM-7P, making ESSM a short/medium-range surface-to-air missile.” “Range 50+ km (27+ nm)”
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-162.html

“ESSM range 16 Nm at Mach 2+ (point defense)” = ~29km
http://www.tno.nl/defensie_en_veiligheid/militair_optreden/operational_analysis/joint_extended_air_defenc/ead_systems_and_threats/ead_systems/air_defence_command_friga/
(NB: Under the header ‘Defence, Security and Safety’ TNO acts as a strategic partner of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.)

go do some research on ESSM and SM-1. you’ll realise ESSM’s range is almost as much as SM-1’s. SM-1 is a much older missile that you need to illuminate all the way to the target, while ESSM has inertial and datalink so you only have to illuminate for terminal guidance, making for a much higher rate of fire.

and of course you can carry 4 ESSMs in one VLS cell, but only one 1 SM-1, if SM-1 is qualified for Mk41 at all.

ESSM>SM-1.

The SM-1 MR (RIN-66B) has a 25 nautical mile range vs 8 nautical miles for the much smaller ESSM. (RIM-7PTC) The Evolved Sea Sparrow is surely a more advance surface to air missile and much better for point defense. On the on hand the Standard SM-1 is a Area Weapon. More than likely both systems would be employed by a RAN Task Force and/or Group. Thereby giving overlapping coverage. (i.e. defense in depth) Fortunately, the AWD’s will correct this short coming. For now the ESSM and SM-1 MR will have to do…………….Really, both systems complement each other. The ESSM short range and the Standard (SM-1 MR) medium range! In the end this is just a short term solution until the AWD’s enter service. 😀

go do some research on ESSM and SM-1. you’ll realise ESSM’s range is almost as much as SM-1’s. SM-1 is a much older missile that you need to illuminate all the way to the target, while ESSM has inertial and datalink so you only have to illuminate for terminal guidance, making for a much higher rate of fire.

and of course you can carry 4 ESSMs in one VLS cell, but only one 1 SM-1, if SM-1 is qualified for Mk41 at all.

ESSM>SM-1.

I did hear aboput this just recently, very interesting and very sad, as to the other proposed changes, here are my thoughts:

Yes replace the Mk 13 with a 5″ the same as what is used on the Anzacs, take the 3″ off and place an octuple launcher for ESSM’s there. Move the ships boats from their positions on the sides and line the sides with Harpoon launchers as in the same style of the Meko 360’s (you could have 16 harpoons each side and not increase the weight much). Finally move the Mk 10 torp launchers into the free spaces below theflight deck, as in the La fayette class.

As for the F-100’s, I haven’t heard anything bad reguarding their weight concerns except in reports from G&C trying to discredit them in order for us to buy their products (sadly it worked). But if it was of some concern, why are we keeping the design on hold? Could we possibily be getting this design later one as a replacement for the FFG’s?

Interesting idea! Yet, wouldn’t the RAN want to keep the SM-1’s until the AWD become available? Surely, the Standard SM-1 is a better area SAM than the much shorter range ESSM. 😎

ISTR its ADF procurement practice to have a viable backup in case the favoured system fails. In the case of the AWD its the unmodified F100.

Wedgetail backup was C-130J/APS-145.

Not likely, ADI / Thales / what are we called this week? have so badly stuffed the FFG upgrade that the other ships may never be modified.

Basically the weight of the VLS system up forward and other mods made the ships bow heavy. Counterweights had to be fitted aft, which lowered the designs freeboard limits and used up the last of the designs growth alowance (and then some), and has resulted in the hull “hogging”.

That is the bow and stern are sagging down in the swells and causing stress fractures in the centre section of the ship, which became frighteningly apparent during the sea trials which took place after the mods.

The ship is back at Garden Island in Sydney while the architects try and work out where to try and fit strengthening braces along the hull, trying to counteract the hogging, and coincidentally making the ships even more overweight.

The crew has been told they are going nowhere till sometime in 2006…

Dear oh dear

I did hear aboput this just recently, very interesting and very sad, as to the other proposed changes, here are my thoughts:

Yes replace the Mk 13 with a 5″ the same as what is used on the Anzacs, take the 3″ off and place an octuple launcher for ESSM’s there. Move the ships boats from their positions on the sides and line the sides with Harpoon launchers as in the same style of the Meko 360’s (you could have 16 harpoons each side and not increase the weight much). Finally move the Mk 10 torp launchers into the free spaces below theflight deck, as in the La fayette class.

As for the F-100’s, I haven’t heard anything bad reguarding their weight concerns except in reports from G&C trying to discredit them in order for us to buy their products (sadly it worked). But if it was of some concern, why are we keeping the design on hold? Could we possibily be getting this design later one as a replacement for the FFG’s?

A couple of comments

The comment about the stability issues of the F100 class came from a member of the RAN project team (who had previously served as PWO on board a DDG, and this was qualified to comment) who had visited Spain and been a sea rider on board the first F100.

The information that was issued to the media was that the Gibbs and Cox design was a derivative of the Arleigh Burke class but that is not what is being considered.

I can attest that the design that the RAN is working on with Gibbs and Cox and Bath Iron Works is a sister to the USN Arleigh Burkes. If you parked them alongside a USN DDG51 Flight 2, the only major differences would be the paint colour and the fact that the RAN ones will be slightly longer.

The RAN is looking at the long term with these ships, which includes an ABM capability, identical to the one being fitted to the USNs Burke’s.

Unicorn

Unicorn

hummm, I think that F-100 hasn’t any serious problem concerning stability. They are based in north Atlantic (where sea is not exactly calm), exercise in south Atlantic were conducted time ago (UNITAS) and one is actually operating with an US Navy task force all around.
Armada has abandoned/delayed her plans for a new class of frigates and prefers instead a couple more F-100, basically similar to the first 4 vessels. It not seems a logical movement if the design has “stability problems”, in fact Spanish Navy is very sensitive to anything concerning seakeeping.
Of course 6.000 t are 6.000 t, but that is imposing limitations more in free room for additional hardware than in seakeeping.
In any case, the design offered for Navantia to RAN was an “stretched F-100” (7.000 t), not the “regular F-100”, and Gibbs didn’t offer a Burke but a “lite Burke”.
Concerning to the crew, the US Navy certainly has conducted programs to reduce it but at the moment a Burke needs 330 people and F-100 some 200… (and some 180 in F-105).
Of course, I can admit that the Gibbs design would be better suited to the RAN needs, but not in base of “stability problems”.

A nice trio:

Regards

Impressive Ships 😀 Yet, I would have to agree that the Gibbs & Cox design is better suited to the RAN requirements. (i.e. as I understand them) :rolleyes: I also agree that Spanish Design has no stability problems. As least not to a degree that would have taken them out of the running for the AWD contract. 😮

The major changes are incorporating a lot of the USN’s “Smart Ship” program into the design to reduce crew numbers, a perpetual RAN issue.

One thing that counted against the F100 design was that it has proved to be unstable in heavy weather, particularly with beam seas (too much weight up high, unavoidable really with the limitations of combining a 6000 tonne hull and the Aegis system)

hummm, I think that F-100 hasn’t any serious problem concerning stability. They are based in north Atlantic (where sea is not exactly calm), exercise in south Atlantic were conducted time ago (UNITAS) and one is actually operating with an US Navy task force all around.
Armada has abandoned/delayed her plans for a new class of frigates and prefers instead a couple more F-100, basically similar to the first 4 vessels. It not seems a logical movement if the design has “stability problems”, in fact Spanish Navy is very sensitive to anything concerning seakeeping.
Of course 6.000 t are 6.000 t, but that is imposing limitations more in free room for additional hardware than in seakeeping.
In any case, the design offered for Navantia to RAN was an “stretched F-100” (7.000 t), not the “regular F-100”, and Gibbs didn’t offer a Burke but a “lite Burke”.
Concerning to the crew, the US Navy certainly has conducted programs to reduce it but at the moment a Burke needs 330 people and F-100 some 200… (and some 180 in F-105).
Of course, I can admit that the Gibbs design would be better suited to the RAN needs, but not in base of “stability problems”.

A nice trio:

Regards

Just a gun forward and a twin Mk41 tactical with 64 ESSM would already have been nice

That was one of the original proposals, except the 76 was to be replaced with a 127mm forward in the spot that the Mk 13 GMLS currently occupies on the bow, with a 36 cell strike length VLS system to replace the 76 mm on top of the superstructure.

The intention was to field 24 – 28 SM1 and quad pack VL Sea Sparrow in the other cells.

Result would have been no loss of capability from the current FFG configuration, upgrade the 76mm gun to something with more range and a less circumscribed arc of fire, and replace the aging Mk 13 with all its moving parts, with the VLS cell.

Somewhere along the line some faceless bureaucrat (who would never have to go to sea in them) said it would cost too much and a minimum change mod was agreed, which has turned oiut to be not so minimum cost and has led to all sorts of problems.

Unicorn