The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Australia picks Gibbs & Cox for AWD design role
AMTP10E    8/24/2005 5:56:32 AM
JANE'S NAVY INTERNATIONAL - SEPTEMBER 01, 2005

Australia picks Gibbs & Cox for AWD design role

Ian Bostock

US naval architecture and systems engineering group Gibbs & Cox has been selected by the Australian Department of Defence as the preferred platform system designer for Project SEA 4000 - the AUD6 billion (USD4.6 billion) programme to acquire three new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs) for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

Announcing the decision on 16 August, Defence Minister Senator Robert Hill said that Gibbs & Cox had been selected by the government ahead of Spain's Navantia and German shipyard Blohm + Voss following evaluation of competitive bids.

"The government made the decision after accepting the recommendation of the Source Selection Board on the basis that Gibbs & Cox offered a superior bid in terms of value for money," added Hill, who said that the conduct of the evaluation and final selection decision had been reviewed by AWD Program Probity Advisers KPMG and also independently by Sir Laurence Street, a former chief justice of New South Wales. Both confirmed that the process was judged fair and equitable.

Gibbs & Cox will now join alliance partners ASC Shipbuilder Pty Ltd (who will assemble the vessels at Osborne, South Australia) and Raytheon Australia (selected earlier this year as Combat System - System Engineer) who will work together over the next phase of the project. However, Hill noted that the Australian government will continue parallel studies of an 'Australianised' version of Navantia's baseline F 100 ship design as a competitive comparator before final project approval in 2007. This measure is required under recently introduced procurement guidelines aimed to ensure that capability and cost goals are met.

Due to enter RAN service from 2013, the AWDs are intended to afford an area air-warfare capability that will be able to provide air defence for other Australian Defence Force assets, including forces ashore and friendly aircraft, against hostile aircraft and missiles over a wide area. The ships will be equipped with the US Navy's (USN's) Aegis Weapon System (incorporating the SPY-1D phased array radar) and the Standard Missile SM-2 Block III missile system.

The Gibbs & Cox design, prepared in conjunction with an industry team including Anteon Corporation; Angle Inc, Basic Commerce & Industries, ICI, Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems Romulus, and Technomics, is a scaled derivative of the US Navy's DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer, for which Gibbs & Cox is lead ship-design agent.

The AWD design is expected to displace 7,000-8,000 tonnes at full load, and is likely to adopt a combined diesel and gas turbine machinery configuration in place of the combined gas turbine and gas-turbine installation aboard the USN's DDG-51 ships. This combination will be more economical to operate as well as improving range and endurance.

In addition, the AWD requires a complement of around 250, significantly less than the 350 that the USN requires to man a DDG-51. This will be achieved by higher levels of onboard automation.

The Australian government has provided AUD455 million towards the current phase of the project, which includes further design work, workforce skilling, initial infrastructure investment and facilities construction.

The project office is due to advise the government soon on a location to establish the AWD System Centre, which will employ around 200 personnel working on the local development and support of the AWDs throughout their service lives.

*-*-*-*-*

In addition, the AWD requires a complement of around 250, significantly less than the 350 that the USN requires to man a DDG-51.

As I said previously, the crew figure is still above what the Navy wants (150 crew plus 30 aircrew) but there is serious work going on to bring the number down by another 100 if we can.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Aussie Matt    RE:Australia picks Gibbs & Cox for AWD design role   8/24/2005 6:01:45 AM
How can the crew be reduced by 100? I understand it through "automation" but in lay terms what are they going to go?
 
Quote    Reply

southern cross    RE:Australia picks Gibbs & Cox for AWD design role   8/24/2005 6:09:03 AM
>>>(150 crew plus 30 aircrew)<<< Is thirty the same amount to fly and maintain the helos off the FFGs? And is this for 1 or 2 helos on board? Finally will they fly Seahawks or will we have a new aircraft (NH-90) by then? Can't wait for the specifics to be released on this baby.
 
Quote    Reply

AMTP10E    RE:Australia picks Gibbs & Cox for AWD design role   8/24/2005 6:29:08 AM
Is thirty the same amount to fly and maintain the helos off the FFGs? And is this for 1 or 2 helos on board? Finally will they fly Seahawks or will we have a new aircraft (NH-90) by then? The 30 is for two helos (which is roughly what the FFG's have if they have 2 helos embarked). I think that we will still be flying the Seahawks for a few years after the first AWD come into service (IIRC the Seahawk paying off date is around 2018-2020).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    crewing   8/24/2005 6:38:26 AM
I have no idea where they are going to pull numbers down on these vessels, but I'm going to provide a partial answer found on other vessels. once you go to commercial engine maint and support you can reduce the engine crew dramatically. I has some involvement in assessing engines for small corvettes for another navy. using spanish commercial engines we estimated that we could reduce crewing demands for that area by 80-90%. the issue is always once of trade off in onboard maintenance, damage/fire control issues and crew rotations within a specialised discipline onboard. the longer the journey undertaken, the greater the opportunity for risk/reward to get out of whack in the event of system failure. these engines were designed to be worked on with access to probably 70% of moving components - and they were specifically modified from commercial fishing fleet requirements where persistence and longevity were the prime tick boxes. that of course ignore large warship variables which require higher and longer surge rates. But, modifying long range commercial engines which are built for longevity and optimum running speeds for ROI means that they can be considered as valid input for designing larger vessels. the advantage of these spanish engines were that that were fundamentally 1/2 the price of an equivalent US model and to all intents and purposes were one and the same engine. The US entity had entered into a short term development contract and had rebadged theirs as local models. None of the customers were any wiser. The poor american customers were paying double though. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Matt    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 6:47:19 AM
GF Thanks for that. Excuse my ignorance but what is the differance between a "comercial" and "military" engine? Isn't an engine an engine? PS I need your email.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 6:50:31 AM
commercial are designed for smaller maint crews. typically they're also more utalitarian in the sense that they have more accessible inspection and maint plates etc... plus, they also have greater automation. the only thing that there is less of is redundancy, and thats not necessarily as high a cost burden to achieve than say 10-15 years ago. the japanese (and sth koreans to a lesser extent) have done a lot in this area.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    matt   8/24/2005 6:52:26 AM
check your T5C box
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Matt    RE:matt   8/24/2005 6:54:47 AM
OK. I'll get back to you in about 5.
 
Quote    Reply

AMTP10E    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 6:57:00 AM
My gut feeling is that they may get the crew down to 200-220. I know of a couple of areas that they can reduce the number of Dibbies required for ship husbandry. The number of Stokers, Greenies, and Pussers can also be trimmed down some through better information technology (which is something that Defence is ferging whoeful at), and a closer look at what the civilian world has to offer. With the SeaChange program, ships will be manned to 130% and flexable crewing brought in so that the number of crew will depend on current tasking and op tempo. The AWD availability target is around the same at the Armidales (300 days per year) and 3 years or more between major refits.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Matt    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 7:04:27 AM
"Stokers, Greenies, and Pussers" Stokers- Engine Room mechs Greenies- ?????????? Pussers- ????????????? (Being an ex-pongo I thought everyone in the navy was a pusser) ;)
 
Quote    Reply

AMTP10E    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 7:25:25 AM
Greenies - Electronic techo sailors. Dates back to when all non executive branch officers (ie all non Seaman/Warfare officers), had a colour band in their rank slides/cuffs to denote their branch (doctors, nurses, and dentists still have their colour bands). WEEO's (Weapons Electrical Engineering Officers) had a green band and ET's come under the WEEO. Pussers - Supply sailors (cooks, writers, stewards, etc...). Everyone in the Navy (the Puss) is a small 'p' pusser. The traditional name for the Supply Officer is The Pusser, and everyone in his department is a big 'P' Pusser. The Supply department is also known as the White Mafia (Supply Officers used to have a white band on their rank). Other categories: Dibbies: Bosuns Mates. Birdies: Aviation department. Bubblies: Clearance Divers. Scab Lifters: Medics. Sin Bosuns: Chaplins. Fang Bosuns: Dentists. Clubs/Muscule Bosuns: Physical Training Instructors.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Matt    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 7:35:50 AM
What is a bosun? Army medics are scab lifters aswell. or shirt lifters.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Matt    AMPT: Military slang   8/24/2005 7:37:31 AM
I love it. Is that Aussie Navy? or is it a left over from the Pommie navy.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:crewing   8/24/2005 7:39:09 AM
"shirt lifters" hmmm. where I come from, a shirt lifter is a pillow biter...
 
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:crewing AM   8/24/2005 7:44:23 AM
Busun == Deck Ape == Boatswains Mate Sort of an all around job on a ship. Handling lines, small boats, painting the ship, standing deck/bridge watches. The least technical jobs on a ship, but probably the best sailors. Wonder if Pusser comes from the term Purser. Both are supply officers.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy