Question about the Hobart Class!

I’ll try to answer a pair of your questions.

2. What form of CIWS will be fitted to them? The Spanish ships are fitted for but not with the Merkoa CIWS. Also the G&C design had two CIWS’s one fore and one aft, will the Aussie F-100’s have the same as the Spanish or will they have the two they originally wanted?

No Meroka, I assure you.

The Meroka 2B variant proposed by E.N.Bazan (now Navantia) to be fitted in the F-100 class, was discarded by the Spanish Navy and its development halted years ago.

3.There are 2x 20mm canons either side of the bridge. Will these be replaced with two Remote controled Typhoon canons of the 25mm caliber?
4. Aft on the top of the hanger are a couple of spots for 50 cals, will these be replaced with the remote controled Mini Typhoons that are now fitted to the Sydney and Anzac class vessels in the RAN?

The light armament like many other things is a decision of the customer. If the RAN have the money and the ship is capable to support them, they can order the installation of any to the Australian shipyard selected to build the AWDs.

With the Aussie LHDs, we have a similar occurrence. The light armament will be selected by the RAN and probably installed by Tenix in Australia during the final works. Or if the RAN wants, by Navantia in Spain, before they sail to Tenix for completion.

Some more questions about our new Hobarts:

1. Will they be fitted with Bow Thrusters? The standard design doesn’t seem to have a bow thruster but I know the RAN require it fitted.

2. What form of CIWS will be fitted to them? The Spanish ships are fitted for but not with the Merkoa CIWS. Also the G&C design had two CIWS’s one fore and one aft, will the Aussie F-100’s have the same as the Spanish or will they have the two they originally wanted?

3. There are 2x 20mm canons either side of the bridge. Will these be replaced with two Remote controled Typhoon canons of the 25mm caliber?

4. Aft on the top of the hanger are a couple of spots for 50 cals, will these be replaced with the remote controled Mini Typhoons that are now fitted to the Sydney and Anzac class vessels in the RAN?

5. Will these vessels get the new Kiwi made Jetboats as their Rhib’s or will the older type be transfered over?

The CEAFAR phased array radar solution was selected for the Sea 1448 Phase2b upgrade and should be entering production in 2008, though no contract for that announced yet. The inclusion of the CEA systems on the AWD would go against the drive for existing/proven solutions and require re-design work on F-100. Plus contracts have already been signed for the US-supplied AEGIS componenents.

You sure the AWD is to be built in Spain? The LHDs yes, but ASC got the whole steelwork for the destroyers, though they are going to distribute a lot of the work out to local engineering and shipbuilding by the looks of it.

At this stage the hulls of the LHDs are to be built in Spain & they will be fitted out in Australia.

docrjay: Mate I hav heard that CEA is being touted as an upgrade on the Anzacs in the 2010-2015 time slot, while the process for the Hobarts might actually include these systems straight off the production run. Don’t forget mate, they are being built in Spain but fitted out here in Adelaide at ASC’s facility there.

The CEAFAR phased array radar solution was selected for the Sea 1448 Phase2b upgrade and should be entering production in 2008, though no contract for that announced yet. The inclusion of the CEA systems on the AWD would go against the drive for existing/proven solutions and require re-design work on F-100. Plus contracts have already been signed for the US-supplied AEGIS componenents.

You sure the AWD is to be built in Spain? The LHDs yes, but ASC got the whole steelwork for the destroyers, though they are going to distribute a lot of the work out to local engineering and shipbuilding by the looks of it.

Ja, I did’nt realize that the Hobarts were being built in Spain. I thought it was only the Canberra Class. Why are the destroyers being built there, do you know? I dont know why we are creating so much emplyment for the Spanish shipbuilding industry. It is not as though ours is overworked with orders.

The AWD are not being built in Spain, they will be built adjacent to the current ASC site at Osborne in SA.

Only the Canberra class will be partially completed in Spain by Navantia.

Unicorn

Duplication. Sorry.

Ja, I did’nt realize that the Hobarts were being built in Spain. I thought it was only the Canberra Class. Why are the destroyers being built there, do you know? I dont know why we are creating so much emplyment for the Spanish shipbuilding industry. It is not as though ours is overworked with orders.

docrjay: Mate I hav heard that CEA is being touted as an upgrade on the Anzacs in the 2010-2015 time slot, while the process for the Hobarts might actually include these systems straight off the production run. Don’t forget mate, they are being built in Spain but fitted out here in Adelaide at ASC’s facility there.

The case is still being negotiated as we speak but I can actually see this happening giving the fleet a common system and with the next class Frigate taking over the Sydney class they will have the latest versions of the CEA products.

The export market is looking good as well with interest coming in from across the globe- Chilie are looking at the system, as is Argentina and a few other clients

Thanks radar:

I just saw this article in google. Anyways based on what you said, the CEA-Mount can atleast handle 4-8 missiles in 180 degree threat axis using 2 directors in ICWI mode.

This is a vast improvement given that the Hobarts can handle less than that if they get the SPG’s.

CEA should hurry up developing this illuminator, the US can even use it to improve the the Burkes while waiting for the SPY-3.

Your thoughts?

Well the USN will ultimately have about 80 Aegis ships and they will be in service for decades yet so there is certainly a large possibility that upgrades will be pursued and new illuminators would be a good start.

Thanks radar:

I just saw this article in google. Anyways based on what you said, the CEA-Mount can atleast handle 4-8 missiles in 180 degree threat axis using 2 directors in ICWI mode.

This is a vast improvement given that the Hobarts can handle less than that if they get the SPG’s.

CEA should hurry up developing this illuminator, the US can even use it to improve the the Burkes while waiting for the SPY-3.

Your thoughts?

CEA-MOUNT illuminator

The X-Band CEA-MOUNT is an active phased array missile illuminator based on the technology concepts of the CEA-FAR radar applied to a transmit-only array. It has been designed as a slaved illuminator to meet the guidance needs of the semi-active homing ESSM and SM-2 family of missiles. It is able to engage multiple simultaneous targets and provide uplink with flexible beam management over a broad azimuth and elevation sector from each face.

The CEA-MOUNT system proposed for the Anzac class is a medium range version matched to the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). Key operational advantages are that the Illuminator face provides multiple missile channels of fire and far higher availability and redundancy than current missile fire control systems.

However CEA-MOUNT is also fully SM-2 capable, supporting home all the way and mid-course guidance modes with terminal guidance, using Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI). In the ICWI mode, the number of missiles that can be in terminal illumination simultaneously is significantly greater than shared function faces where time has to be allocated for fire control radar tracking and possibly search processing.

To provide optimal use against high crossing rate targets CEA-MOUNT was designed specifically to support beam re-positioning during terminal illumination. The CEA MOUNT missile illuminator has a number of unique features that set it apart from traditional missile illuminators. These include: Continuous Wave Illumination (CWI) of a target while the beam is being electronically steered, and illumination of a target within a typical 90 degree cone around the mechanical axis of the array. At shorter ranges, multiple beam operation of CEA-MOUNT can increase the number of missiles in terminal illumination limited only by the firing rate restrictions of VL systems.

Anecdotal comments are that the US has been more than happy with the performance of the land based version. There was a fair amount of interest at Pac 2004

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/4-feat1.htm

the spg can not handle icwi, it’s only able to provide cwi, so a illuminator is needed all the time during the terminal phase for a single target.
with cea-mount it should be possible to provide icwi for multiple targets at once if they are all in the field of view of the mount (~90°?).

Thanks Ja and Pred.

Hope you can comment on the “theoretical advantage” of the CEA-Mount. To me it looks like an APAR sans 2 other sides. Will they be rotating?

CEA website says they can handle more ICW missile illuminations than the SPG’s.

docrjay: Todate, only the CEAFAR radar has been tested on HMAS Arunta (FFH- 151). The system is being further evaluated and refined but so far no government contract has been issued for systems to be placed on any ship of any sort.

I can not find any comparsion data on the web at this point in time, but will direct your attention to the CEA website.

Now that the Hobart class are having the CEA-Mount as missile directors instead of the SPG-62’s. How will it improve against missile saturation attacks. Will it be at par at least with the APAR ships and Sampson ships or even the Burkes in handling multiple inbounds?

Short answer, it won’t. Mk 99 illuminators will be on the AWD, and money is already changing hands under March 07 contract which covers SPY-1 transmitters and Mk 99s for Spain and Australia.

Raytheon Company, Integrated Defense Systems, Sudbury Mass., is being awarded a $184,918,996 firm-fixed-price definitization modification for production of four Aegis Weapon Systems (AWS) Transmitter Groups. AWS is the primary anti-air warfare defensive weapons system onboard surface ship combatants. […] This modification supports the Governments of Australia (75 percent) and Spain (25 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales program.

I saw it in the drawing above, so I figured it will be integrated. The CEA radars have been used on a frigate testbed before right? Anzacs?

Anyways, I am just curious on the theoretical advantage of the CEA missile directors compared to the SPG’s. Suppose the Hobarts are getting 2 will this significantly improve fire channel availability for the ships compared to the F-100 in a saturation attack? I made a thread here before asking for more information on the CEA-Mount performance but no one answered.

I guess it is you who’s gonna answer for me then.:D
Thanks mate.;)

Now that the Hobart class are having the CEA-Mount as missile directors instead of the SPG-62’s. How will it improve against missile saturation attacks. Will it be at par at least with the APAR ships and Sampson ships or even the Burkes in handling multiple inbounds?

Who mentioned this mate? I have seen nothing on this- not saying that it won’t happen, but from what I saw at Avalon back in March, CEA were not in a postition to even approach the government about adding their systems to the Hobarts.

Fire Channels

Now that the Hobart class are having the CEA-Mount as missile directors instead of the SPG-62’s. How will it improve against missile saturation attacks. Will it be at par at least with the APAR ships and Sampson ships or even the Burkes in handling multiple inbounds?

Lets hope the Rudd government can win the election and change things for the better.

Surely you are joking?

Hugh White is telling people that he will be returning to head the Defence Department in a Rudd Government, with White back, can Ball and Dibb be far behind?

Back to the Sefence of Australia days, I am getting really bad Deja Vu.

It took more than a decade to reverse the damage they did last time, as anyone who was in East Timor can attest that it could have fallen over badly, thanks to the DoA structure gutting the military’s capability to project power, even somewhere as close as Timer Leste.

Sorry, but I see no benefits for Australia in the defence area in a Rudd government.

Unicorn

Actually guys, should there be a fourth Hobart (HMAS Melbourne being touted as its name), just about all the FFG’s should be paid off, the last in service (HMAS Newcastle FFG-06) should be on her last legs.

The government and the navy have committed to a three level force with Destroyers and two typs of Frigates, thus what will replace the Sydney class Frigates currently in service will be a new type of multi-purpose Frigate. New systems are to be included is is the incorperation of U/UCAV’s and U/UCUV’s (robotic subs). Electronics and automation will play a high part in the new navies design philosiphies, thus reducing the actual human resources needed which the military are finding harder and harder to recruit these days.

Sure we have recruiting incentives for the forces, but under the current administration, no one wants to join up and go to a place that isn’t safe. Lets hope the Rudd government can win the election and change things for the better.

Yep, by the time the 4th destroyer would enter service, HMAS Anzac would be close to paying off.

And by that time the design would be 20+ years old. Time for something new for the ANZAC replacement surely but good for keeping shipyard busy in the meantime.