DD(X) v F100

With today’s governments always looking at costs down the road, smaller crews means smaller labor costs. Unfortunately, the F100s appear to be replacing the last four remaining FFGs, whether or not the fourth is ordered. Australia loses two to three ships, but hey they gained two with the Anzacs. As far as the three Perths, the RAN added two ex-Newports which will be replaced by the new Canberra LHDs. At most Australia loses two ships, and end up with two very large LHDs worthy of four ex-Newports. The third amphibious ship will replace the Tobruk. In the long run overall, ship numbers and crew members even out, possibly a very small reduction in crew members.

Add a score of F-35Bs with the upcoming Lightning II orders, and the fleet could be transformed with a possible addition of carrier based aviation. Something Australia has been missing since the end of its former carriers, the Melbourne and Sydney. But that may not be affordable, some may call me a dreamer.

In all seriousness, I suspect both Horizon and Type 45 would be a better basic platform for the RAN, the problem being as you point out that PAAMS, good as it is rated, isn’t exactly common with any other navy within half a planets distance of Australia. Does make me wonder if the UK, France or Italy could integrate Aegis onto the hull though…although then the Gibbs & Cox design would be lower cost/risk in almost all certainty making a hybrid T45/Horizon-Aegis pointless.

RAN would never have considered a French design, would they? Well, all those European systems wouldn’t be very compatible with the stuff on other vessels in the USN dominated WestPac theatre.
Anyway, here’s a good article about the Horizon class:
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107154

Range is just one of many critical aspects of warship design not immediately obvious to many, the others include stability reserve, structural strength, damage control capabilities, levels of redundancy, room for growth and critical failure modes, even the sea and air temperatures designed for. All of these are absolutely critical and will be specific to the customer. The Norwegian Navy probably isn’t worried about the affects of high air temperatures on it’s GT’s and needing high capacity sea water coolers, the UAE Navy probably isn’t worried about de-icing equipment on coolers and air handling units and adequate stability and structural strength to operate in the Barents Sea in Winter. All of which is why a ship perfectly good for one Navy may be a waste of time for another despite it’s sensors and weapons looking perfect. In the RAN case, good stability & structural strength and good endurance would seem vital, and good sea keeping, which the F100 has something of a reputation problem with regard to.

We already do build ships look at Austral (LCS-2) & Incat(HSV-1) for a start.

AUSTAL USA is building the vessel under contract from the designers and major contractor. Under US laws its doubtful any experienced gained is transerrable back the Australaian parent company. HSV is a glorified ferry. The leap from the these programs to something like an indigenous AWD is huge.

As for the sea sprites they were 30 year old machines to begin with. which would be like putting new F22 avionics in the F111.

No mate the favoured argument is trying to cram the systems of a current Commodore into an old FJ. Thats the analogy the pollies like to use and its total BS. The problems with the SEasprites did not arise from the old airframe or from problems fitting the combat system into the aircraft. The system simply couldn’t do what it was supposed to. Our rebuilt airframes could have taken the NZ systems and been flying succesfully since 2003 just like thiers.

As for buying 95% just look at the ARH-tiger it’s behind schedule.

Yes they are somewhat. Still the aircraft feature a new uprated engine (not working out as planned) and new weapons clearances (Hellfire etc). The biggest delay though appears to have been delays in training aircrew that have arisen out delays in the programs of the French and Germans. ANAO Report

I still think these (F-100 & super hornets) programs were quickly pasted by the howard goverment so they could say that any new goverment which canned one or both was waisting tax payers money. If how ever they had stay in power they could say that they are moving quickly with these programs.

The penalty costs to kill the Super Hornet deal are $400m, against a $6b program. If the new Government needed to counteract charges of wasting taxpayer money I think they could come up with an argument, something like saving $5.6b perhaps. If the SH deal is such a bad deal why has it been confirmed and now looks like beng expanded to include extra G models and posibbly even a second batch of 24.

Whats the range of the DD(x), does any one know?

Given the ups and downs of that program over the last decade I doubt anyone (even those in the “inside”) know what the DD(X) will turn out like. Not exactly the sort of safe bet the RAN would like.

Dan

We already do build ships look at Austral (LCS-2) & Incat(HSV-1) for a start.
…………….
Whats the range of theDD(x), does any one know?

Yes, but I meant design of a naval ship.
The LCS-2 has been designed by General Dynamics and the HSV’s are ferries and mainly are test-platforms. So they had some machine-guns fitted, but lack things such as missiles and NBC-protection.

The only range I have ever seen (posted in some forums and on the german wiki-page on the ship) is 6000nm.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how difficult would that be (for a country like Australia)? I have no idea how feasible it is

Pretty bloody unfeasible. Most of our problems seem to have come from insisting on a 100% solution for Australian requirements. Take the Seasprites as an example. Both the Kiwi’s and we chose the SH-2 as the basis for our new helo’s. The Kiwi’s had a simpler requirement from a combat system POV. Ours was supposed to be virtually an all singing all dancing wunderweapon. The Kiwis have had their birds flying and operating reliably now for years doing almost everything we wanted from our birds. And after 10 years and $1.3 billion striving for the 100% solution what do we have? Nothing. Designing and building our own from scratch is the ultimate in 100% solution folly. The reason for buying F-100’s and Super Hornets etc is that we seem to be finally understanding that settling for the much cheaper 95% solution that we can have now is much better financially and operationally than pissing all that time and money chaseing that final 5% that will probably be rarely ever used anyway.
.

We already do build ships look at Austral (LCS-2) & Incat(HSV-1) for a start.

As for the sea sprites they were 30 year old machines to begin with. which would be like putting new F22 avionics in the F111.

As for buying 95% just look at the ARH-tiger it’s behind schedule.

I still think these (F-100 & super hornets) programs were quickly pasted by the howard goverment so they could say that any new goverment which canned one or both was waisting tax payers money. If how ever they had stay in power they could say that they are moving quickly with these programs.

Whats the range of theDD(x), does any one know?

@ Range: 4500nm@20kts is USN standard. Why? I have no idea! It’s short. But No1 they really have massive UNREP ressources, and No2 I still think it’s short. Only the Spruances were longer. And when looking at WW2 one can see a trend that towards the end destroyers got heavier (2000 > 3500ts) and longer ranged (5000 > 6000nm). Tells something?

Displacement and range are not really interconnected. The FREMMS and Horizons are around the same weight and have 1-2000nm more range than the F-100.

Currently EU-land surface combatants have longer range than U.S. counterparts.

@ Seasprite: Weren’t they retained because of footprint issues?

And the RN, one of the European navies with global responsibilities designed their Type 45 with a 7000nm endurance at 18kts, 2000nm above the RAN vessels despite the RAN having a vast area of operations. The French have tended to go for long range where they can too, these are the only two European navies with genuine global responsibilities, other Euro navies go for shorter legged vessels for the european theatre of ops, and even the North Atlantic is nothing like the area of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

GIven this, then how can one speak of “european endurance” ? Just doesn’t make sense.

Maybe Europeans just build smaller vessels e.g.
Heemskerck/Kortenaer/Bremen (L-, S-, F122 frigates) classes 3630 full load 4700nm at 16 kt
Tromp class 4308tn full load 5000 nm at 18 kt
Doorman class (M-frigates) 3320 full load 5000 nm at 18 kt
But do these have rather short ranges relative to displacement?
Type 45 Displacement 7,350t (full load) > i.e. more than TWICE the displacement of an S-. L- or M-frigate, yet “just” 1.4-1.5 times more range (2000-2300 nm) more range.

You know what European ships really have got range?
The french Floreal Avisos (2950 tonnes full load)
10000 nautical miles (19,000 km) at 15 knots (28 km/h),
13000 nautical miles (24,000 km) at 12 knots (22 km/h)
The Danish Thetis class (Stanflex 3000 ) 8.300 nautical miles at 20-21.5 knots MAX speed (3,500t)
Descubierta class Range: 4000 nmi at 18 knots (1482 tons full load)
i.e. all diesel, lightly armed relatively small patrol ships

By comparison
Arleigh Burke class (8,315 tons full load Flight I – 9,200 tons full load Flight IIA)
4,400 nautical miles (8,100 km) at 20 knots (37 km/h)
Spruance class (8,040-9100 long tons full load) 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) at 20 knots (37 km/h)
Kidd class (8,168 metric tons full load Full Displacement: 9783 tons)

What exactly is “european endurance” ? It is not like the (North) Atlantic is exactly a puddle. Besides, many European nations have defence responsibilities on the other side of the globe due to former colonies etc. I’m not sure I get the point here so please enlighten me.

And the RN, one of the European navies with global responsibilities designed their Type 45 with a 7000nm endurance at 18kts, 2000nm above the RAN vessels despite the RAN having a vast area of operations. The French have tended to go for long range where they can too, these are the only two European navies with genuine global responsibilities, other Euro navies go for shorter legged vessels for the european theatre of ops, and even the North Atlantic is nothing like the area of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

How true. this deal was done just a month before an election. just like the super hornet deal,also the seasprites which should have been canned years ago when the OPV program came to nothing.

Now with a new goverment in power the old goverment can now say that the new goverment is waistiny taxpayers money.

Though they did get the LHD part right.we should start design our own designs

What exactly is “european endurance” ? It is not like the (North) Atlantic is exactly a puddle. Besides, many European nations have defence responsibilities on the other side of the globe due to former colonies etc. I’m not sure I get the point here so please enlighten me.

Depends on how you define Australia designing it’s own ships. If you mean start from scratch and design everything then clearly it’d be a high cost/high risk option (although possibly it’d pay off longer term in industrial terms). If however you mean Australia using off the shelf products from the international parts bin and doing the basic platform design in the same way Denmark is doing, or even Spain has done with the F100 (although even there the basic platform grew out of a tri-nation program) then an Australian destroyer would be very feasible. Australia wanted Aegis for interoperability with the USN, they could have incorporated SPY/Aegis/Mk.41 VLS (the highest risk/cost part of the design) with a propulsion system from GE or RR and auxilliary systems from established suppliers and done it very competently IMO. Denmark have done it with Absalon on a simpler type vessel and produced a unique vessel specific to their own requirements and are now making their own air warfare destroyers, Spain did the F100 by using the international parts bin, I’m sure Australia could also do it. The driver for buying F100 was cost and Aegis, the RAN wanted Aegis and the F100 was cheaper than the alternative, but IMO if the G&C design was too expensive I think Australia made a mistake in allowing the combat system dictate vessel choice when the alternative air warfare systems are every bit as good and would have opened up a wider selection of basic platforms, some of which may have been better suited to the RAN.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how difficult would that be (for a country like Australia)? I have no idea how feasible it is.

Pretty bloody unfeasible. Most of our problems seem to have come from insisting on a 100% solution for Australian requirements. Take the Seasprites as an example. Both the Kiwi’s and we chose the SH-2 as the basis for our new helo’s. The Kiwi’s had a simpler requirement from a combat system POV. Ours was supposed to be virtually an all singing all dancing wunderweapon. The Kiwis have had their birds flying and operating reliably now for years doing almost everything we wanted from our birds. And after 10 years and $1.3 billion striving for the 100% solution what do we have? Nothing. Designing and building our own from scratch is the ultimate in 100% solution folly. The reason for buying F-100’s and Super Hornets etc is that we seem to be finally understanding that settling for the much cheaper 95% solution that we can have now is much better financially and operationally than pissing all that time and money chaseing that final 5% that will probably be rarely ever used anyway.

Dan

…….we should start design our own designs

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how difficult would that be (for a country like Australia)? I have no idea how feasible it is.

The F100 was designed for European endurance and operational areas which tend to be much shorter legged than the Pacific area, it would be far better for the RAN to have greater endurance and greater growth potential but unfortunately that’d entail big changes to the basic platform design with serious implications on cost, which would then beg the question of why they’d bought this instead of the Gibbs & Cox design which it seems the RAN really wanted. I think in time this selection process will be considered a mistake (it’s obvious many in the RAN thought that from day one) but who am I to judge

How true. this deal was done just a month before an election. just like the super hornet deal,also the seasprites which should have been canned years ago when the OPV program came to nothing.

Now with a new goverment in power the old goverment can now say that the new goverment is waistiny taxpayers money.

Though they did get the LHD part right.we should start design our own designs

The F100 was designed for European endurance and operational areas which tend to be much shorter legged than the Pacific area, it would be far better for the RAN to have greater endurance and greater growth potential but unfortunately that’d entail big changes to the basic platform design with serious implications on cost, which would then beg the question of why they’d bought this instead of the Gibbs & Cox design which it seems the RAN really wanted. I think in time this selection process will be considered a mistake (it’s obvious many in the RAN thought that from day one) but who am I to judge:)

Cost. People tend to overlook the impact of consumables, bunker capacity, water etc. on displacement and cost, it’s one of the great unseen yet hugely important aspects of design that may lack the glamour of the latest radar and missiles but is critical to vessel operations. Same as stability and sea keeping. And a good indication of why just looking at spec sheets of weapons and sensor systems is far from giving a good assessment of a vessels capabilities.

Agreed. Partially. Range has a binary character – either you get where you have to, or you don’t. And if you don’t then all your nice onboard toys aren’t worth a hoot. And I do not see it as unreasonable to demand that a RAN large surface combatant can get from northern Australia to the South China Sea north of the Tropic of Cancer and back without oiler support or refilling at the Philippines, and still have a little reserve for sprints or a non-direct approach to the potential ops area, or get to Hawaii from other harbors than Sydney without refill even when avoiding rough weather on the way, or reach the Arabian Gulf and the Cape without going via Diego Garcia.

Cost. People tend to overlook the impact of consumables, bunker capacity, water etc. on displacement and cost, it’s one of the great unseen yet hugely important aspects of design that may lack the glamour of the latest radar and missiles but is critical to vessel operations. Same as stability and sea keeping. And a good indication of why just looking at spec sheets of weapons and sensor systems is far from giving a good assessment of a vessels capabilities.

For comparison:
Perry class > Range: 4,500 nmi (8,300 km) at 20 knots 40 km/hr
ANZAC class > Range: 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) at 18 knots 33 km/hr

Let’s not forget about UNREP here, shall we.

For comparison:
W Class (RN/WW2): 4500nm@20kts (displ one third of the F-100)
Fletcher Class (USN/WW2): 5500nm@15kts (displ one third of the F-100)
Sovremenny Class: 14000nm@14kts (displ 1000 tons more)
FREMM Class: 6000nm@18kts (displ 500 tons less)
Horizon Class: 7000nm@18kts (displ 500 tons more)

I think 6000nm@18/20kts should be mandatory for large blue water vessels in the Pacific. With 4500nm+ you migt have a hard time reaching Hawaii from some Australian ports, plus there are no reserves for sprints. This not only directed at the F-100, also at the Burkes. 6000nm is needed to go to China and back from, say, Darwin without oiler support.

UNREP is nice to have, but should not be counted on from the very design of the vessel on. A 6000ts+ ship should have enough volume in the bottom for a little more range I guess.

Do you really think that the general public understands the mean of the word “Littoral?” This term is not in general usage, and while it’s a clear as can be in military circles, hardly any civilian will understand it.

Why not use a designation such as “Corvette,” which at least would indicate the relative speed of the LCS to the American taxpayers, or “Gunboat,” which at least would be descriptive, despite the non-politically correct connotation.

The ugly truth is that unfamiliar words tend to anger laymen. If a designation forces taxpayers and even lawmakers to reach for a dictionary, it is high time to find a simpler designation.

That’s about the least inciteful argument I have seen so far.