Closer ties with france could see Mistrals for Australia.

Cost of F100

Hi Danrh Read your post and – The overall cost of the 3 AWD project has been said to cost up to $7Bill. & probably going up, this is about $2.33bill each ,a lot of money. I have been unable to workout if the $500Mill saving quoted on the F100 is for the whole 3 ship project or $500Mill each. I suspect it is on the whole 3 ship project & if so I think the G&C design is much more capable at an added cost of $166Mill each. Still it is a lot of money.The F100 seems reasonably OK to me but I am not really convinced of the need for these ships, We are going to get them anyhow, if the G&C design is $500Mill better I say go for it if not get the F100, it will still be a big step forward for the RAN

Spanish destroyer impresses Minchin

Spanish destroyer impresses Minchin

* Jeremy Roberts
* March 08, 2007

A VISITING Spanish frigate competing to be Australia’s next air warfare destroyer was yesterday dubbed “a great ship” by a key federal minister who will help make the $7 billion decision in July.
Finance Minister Nick Minchin made the comment as he toured the Alvaro De Bazan, a 147m, 6000-tonne Spanish frigate which docked in Adelaide’s outer harbour yesterday.

The Government will choose between the Spanish F100 design, of which Alvaro De Bazan is an example, and an as-yet-unbuilt warship being designed by US company Gibbs and Cox.

The “evolved design” will be a larger ship, based on the US navy’s Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, which is 155m long and weighs more than 9000 tonnes.

As an untested warship, the evolved design is thought to carry higher risks of budget and equipment problems.

Yesterday, Senator Minchin said he appreciated the opportunity to board the ship. “It is a great opportunity to see one of the two possible designs in the flesh,” he said.

“As one of the decision-makers, I’m personally pleased to see this vessel in real life.”

Since the Alvaro De Bazan was commissioned in 2002, Spain’s navy has added another three F100 frigates to its fleet.

Built by Spanish shipbuilders Navantia, the F100 has long been regarded as a stalking horse for the Gibbs & Cox option.

But with $7 billion at stake, an Australianised F100 is now thought to be an even-money bet to win the contract.

The winning design will then be built by Adelaide-based ASC Shipbuilding for delivery of the first of three air warfare destroyers to the Australian navy between 2013 and 2015.

The final cost estimate of the F100 design option is reportedly $500 million cheaper than the Gibbs & Cox design.

Senator Minchin said “value for money will be a primary consideration in that choice” along with capability.

The Alvaro De Bazan and its crew of 200 men and women, including 20 heavily armed marines, will stay in Adelaide until Saturday. The ship will visit Sydney from next Monday for a week and will arrive back in Spain on May 19.

Daniel

In reality, the improvement in capability over current ships (or the long-gone Perth class DDGs) of even the Spanish design is massive… and the RAN would do well with either one.

The main thing for me would be this… is the “3 AWD” plan carved in stone?

If yes, then buy the Gibbs & Cox, as the RAN will have a better overall capability.

If, however, the lower cost of the Spanish ships leads to a decision to buy a 4th AWD (yes, the total cost will be higher then 3 G&C ships), then by all means buy Spanish… as 4 modified F100s would have more capability than 3 Burke-lites, and about the same total crew IIRC.

4 modified F100s would be better because u could permanately deploy
2 on east coast and 2 on west coast.

My contact in the RAN suggests that this is a spoiler planted by someone with a vested interest in boosting the F100 design.

The fact that the journo is aware of the visit of Alvaro de Bazan to Perth (the far end of the universe for most Canberra-based journo’s, of which Walters is one) suggests he has been spoon fed.

The critical statement is “The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy’s preferred choice”

At this time it seems that the F100 still remains the alternative, despite those with a vested interest in talking it up.

Unicorn

i was going to have a look at it tomorrow but might not have the time

My contact in the RAN suggests that this is a spoiler planted by someone with a vested interest in boosting the F100 design.

The fact that the journo is aware of the visit of Alvaro de Bazan to Perth (the far end of the universe for most Canberra-based journo’s, of which Walters is one) suggests he has been spoon fed.

The critical statement is “The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy’s preferred choice”

At this time it seems that the F100 still remains the alternative, despite those with a vested interest in talking it up.

Unicorn

In reality, the improvement in capability over current ships (or the long-gone Perth class DDGs) of even the Spanish design is massive… and the RAN would do well with either one.

The main thing for me would be this… is the “3 AWD” plan carved in stone?

If yes, then buy the Gibbs & Cox, as the RAN will have a better overall capability.

If, however, the lower cost of the Spanish ships leads to a decision to buy a 4th AWD (yes, the total cost will be higher then 3 G&C ships), then by all means buy Spanish… as 4 modified F100s would have more capability than 3 Burke-lites, and about the same total crew IIRC.

Spain in the Lead for AWD

Now one just has to wonder if this is a ploy to drag down the price of the Gibbs & Cox ship or its serious.

Spain leads for $7bn navy contract

* Patrick Walters, National security editor
* March 01, 2007

SPAIN is poised to win the contest to design the navy’s new air warfare destroyers, destined to be the biggest and most advanced warships in its fleet.
As the race to win the contract to design the three vessels enters its final weeks, state-owned Spanish naval builder Navantia is heading its US rival on price and delivery time.

The $7 billion program will be Australia’s second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14 billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

Long regarded as simply a stalking horse for a new warship designed by US firm Gibbs and Cox based on the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Spain’s modified F100 warship is now an even-money bet to win the contract.

The Spanish ship is much cheaper and would be delivered about two years earlier than the US design submitted by Gibbs and Cox.

Gibbs and Cox has been the Howard Government’s preferred designer for the air warfare destroyers, but the firm’s bigger and more capable warship exists only in its preliminary design phase.

And final target cost estimates due to be handed to the Defence Department tomorrow are expected to put the Spanish F100 warship ahead on price by more than $500 million, according to government and industry sources.

The Government has committed $450 million to the project’s start-up, with the cabinet due to take the final decision on the winning design in July.

In August 2005, the Government announced that the Gibbs and Cox “evolved design” would compete with an “Australianised” version of the F100 for the right to be chosen as the navy’s new frontline warship.

The new ships will be equipped with the US-made Aegis combat system, giving them the ability to track hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges beyond 150km.

Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC has already been chosen to construct the vessels, while Raytheon will be the systems integrator, as part of a novel alliance with partners ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

Spain’s belated recognition that its F100 could be selected has resulted in a last-minute lobbying push by the Spanish Government.

The Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer Alvaro de Bazan arrives in Perth today at the start of a three-week visit designed to highlights the ship’s advanced capabilities. Spain is also sending its naval chief and senior government officials to Australia this month in an effort to clinch the AWD contract.

The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy’s preferred choice.

Gibbs and Cox believes the heavily modified Arleigh Burke offers better all-round combat capability and better growth options for future technology upgrades than the F100.

But with four F100s already in service with the Spanish navy, Navantia argues that its destroyer offers a low-risk and highly capable solution for the Royal Australian Navy.

The first of the navy’s new frontline destroyers is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, but the US design is not likely to be in service before 2015.

…

Looking at the RN in more detail I can see some key ideas the RAN are picking up from the RN.
….

Despite what I said earlier, I don’t really believe the RAN is slavishly imitating the RN, but it looks to me as if they’ve studied what the RN has done in the amphibious sphere & picked from it what seems appropriate to the different resources & circumstances of Australia, adapting as necessary.

Doing a bit of reading on ships like the RFA Argus has been interesting. As well as harriers operating from Container ships during the Fauklands.

Container/Roro’s will always have limited capability to conduct Helicopter operations. However the can free up “aircraft carriers” to focus on strike missions or fixed wing operations. Taking on a few helicopters, hospital, supplies, munitions, vechials, troops, etc. A 40,000 ton container/roro might actually be long enough for a F-35b to take off and land. However not having a side based island would make this potentially dangerous.

The british also seem to use the chinook for naval operations and remove rotors and are developing folding rotors. The heavy lift capability, troop capability and the fact its already in use highlights the need for the Canberra’s to effectively operate (hanger and lift) a chinook.

An interesting image is here http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=carriersoriginal01lj0.gif

The BPE design when compared, compares favourably. Atleast from a casual observation of deck layout and ship size.

The BPE with 6 spots still exceeds japans total helicopter carrier capability (12 verse 8). Why we would give up fixed wing capability for more is beyond me. Given we will struggle with existing helicopters to utilise all six, and I doubt 7 can be used with the BPE as it was not origionally designed for that many. A Wasp can spot 9 large helicopters, but it also has 6 5.4 ton lifts to service these.

Very interesting..

I have found little about these roro the RN uses. I suppose commerically operated Roro’s aren’t sexier enought to get pics and webpages dedicated to them.

From what I’ve heard the Roro is a single purchase. Most likely to be used only by the RAN. But this project is still far up in the air, so they may still decide to follow the RN moves. It would explain why a 40,000 ton ship maybe forced on them, to maintain commerical viability.

Looking at the RN in more detail I can see some key ideas the RAN are picking up from the RN.

The canberra class fits somewhere between the invincible class carriers and LPD’s. I can now see why both the Mistral and BPE are in the running, the Mistal more of a LPD while the BPE is more of an invincible. Interesting to read how often Chinooks are operated from these sorts of craft in various missions.

Not a bad compromise. Once aquisitions are completed, RAN will have simular capabilities just limited in number. UK will have twice the number of AWD’s (australia’s may be arugably slightly more capable tho if fitted with Sm3).

I would like the RAN to follow a little closer to the RN:
-2 x BPE Canberra classes fitted with jumps for fixed wing ops. Able to operate as carriers in international operations. Able to operate as a amphib or heli dock independantly.(verse ~2 carriers BPE, would be half of a CVF)
-3 x 40,000ton RoRo to operate for the RAN. On contract, able to keep one avalible at any time. (verse 6 RN roro)
-3 x AWD’s (verse 8x RN AWDs) Australia proberly should have 4, with all these new surface assets
-6 x collins.. (verse 8x RN SSN’s) Depends how you weight SSK’s verse SSN’s. Australia should really have 8 x collins..

Interesting. Where could I find any data about those specific ships, please ? 🙂

Googling the names, or “Point class” + Ro-Ro will turn up all you’re likely to want to know. Andrew Weir Shipping operates them. Names are Hartland Point, Hurst Point, Anvil Point, Beachy Head, Longstone, & Eddystone.

AFAIK, they’re civilian crewed in normal circumstances. Dunno about during a war. 18 crew normally, but have slots for 4 more. GRT about 23000 tonnes.

I think building these ships is one of the most sensible things the MoD has ever done. For a relatively modest outlay, we get ships available all the time, ideally suited to the Navys needs. As civilian charter ships they aren’t profitable, but the income reduces the cost to the MoD.

We used to charter civilian ro-ros as & when needed, but it was decided several years ago that was becoming impractical, so we had 6 built to RN spec. They’re operated by a civilian firm, which charters them out when the RN doesn’t want them, keeping two permanently available.

Who crews them? I assume they use RFA crews in RN service?

we had 6 built to RN spec. They’re operated by a civilian firm, which charters them out when the RN doesn’t want them, keeping two permanently available.

Interesting. Where could I find any data about those specific ships, please ? 🙂
________
MARIJUANA TRICHOMES

…
certainly its not a bad line of thought. Deploy SAS from either fast ships or subs or both. Then follow up with a BPE style LHD which can provide tigers, chinooks, possibly even fighter aircraft. Deploy bare essential equipment, bushmasters etc. Then when the ports are secure, the air and water are secure and the push forward is ready to happen, follow that up with a Roro carrying tanks, supplies, additional troops etc.

Same deal with withdrawals or retreats. Australia will be able to move huge numbers of troops or equipment or civilians around hot spots very quickly.

Certainly seems to make a great deal more sense than buying a Wasp class USN ship, finding the thousands to crew it and the billions to buy it. We will get a total displacement of two wasps, a great deal more flexability and capability. Actually im suprised other nations don’t already do something simular.

That’s only because you haven’t paid enough attention to the UKs amphibious fleet. As far as I can see, the RAN is imitating the RN, on a smaller scale, & substituting two LHDs for our larger number of more specialised ships.

As well as the Harrier-carriers, which can also function as LPHs, we have an LPH, 2 LPDs, & 4 LSDs with helicopter decks (Bay-class), which can be used in whatever combination is available or appropriate to make landings, & 6 20000 ton ro-ros (Point-class) to follow up once a port is secured. It’s been published RN doctrine for years, & we have the ships built & operational to implement it.

We used to charter civilian ro-ros as & when needed, but it was decided several years ago that was becoming impractical, so we had 6 built to RN spec. They’re operated by a civilian firm, which charters them out when the RN doesn’t want them, keeping two permanently available.

Any word on the militarised Ro/Ro?

I last heard it was 40,000 tons +. With common commercial levels of automation etc with a crew of less than 20.

If it was one of the roros with the ability to have containers on deck it could also offer a little of the capability of a helicopter carrier or UCAV’s carrier.

I belive the RAAF were looking at buying some more chinooks or some other heavy lift choopers.

certainly its not a bad line of thought. Deploy SAS from either fast ships or subs or both. Then follow up with a BPE style LHD which can provide tigers, chinooks, possibly even fighter aircraft. Deploy bare essential equipment, bushmasters etc. Then when the ports are secure, the air and water are secure and the push forward is ready to happen, follow that up with a Roro carrying tanks, supplies, additional troops etc.

Same deal with withdrawals or retreats. Australia will be able to move huge numbers of troops or equipment or civilians around hot spots very quickly.

Certainly seems to make a great deal more sense than buying a Wasp class USN ship, finding the thousands to crew it and the billions to buy it. We will get a total displacement of two wasps, a great deal more flexability and capability. Actually im suprised other nations don’t already do something simular.

The reason is that Tobruk is scheduled to pay off first.

The RAN plan is for two LPDs followed bya militarised RO/RO to lift more vehicles for the follow on forces.

Unicorn

read this link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_large_amphibious_ship

These ships will have air support, amphibious assault, transport and command centre roles, and are planned to replace in turn HMAS Tobruk and one of the RAN’s two current Kanimbla class vessels.
Strange there not replacing both Kanimba class ships,
or maybe 3 ships to be ordered down the track??

Heavy Helos

Boeing has proposed a marinised, blade folding CH-47, however they have not as yet found a customer willing to pay the development costs.

After the RAF Chinook issues, many air forces are understandably gun shy.

Unicorn

I agree. Regardless of which ship is chosen it will probably a long time, if ever ,the RAN would have a need to operate the Chinook. If a heavy lift helo was required to lift heavy equipment they would be better off getting a few proper machines like the Super Stallion if they are still made.These helos were ideal for lifting heavy equipment from the Tubruk inland over the high ground on East timor. We only have 6 Chinooks as it is and they are operated by the Army its hard to see them being struck down at sea for any reason & they are not suitable for it. Probably no need for Super Stallions either but they would be a better bet if a heavy lift helo was needed by the RAN in the future.

Boeing has proposed a marinised, blade folding CH-47, however they have not as yet found a customer willing to pay the development costs.

After the RAF Chinook issues, many air forces are understandably gun shy.

Unicorn

I belive the Chinook can be fitted with folding rotors and this may make sense for future Chinook purchases to have this capability if its compatable with the BPE.

No current Chinook is suitable for sustained maritime operations. The blade folding issue is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

It would be more realistic to consider the issue of BPE/Mistral compatibility with the upcoming Sikorsky CH-53K or the comparably sized Eurocopter HTH concept.