FFG Upgrade alternatives

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: FFG Upgrade alternatives
Volkodav 1/19/2008 4:38:27 AM

It is now history that the project is a waste of time and money but what would a reasonable, affordable low risk alternative have been? The delay in the decision to replace the DDG's combined with the rejection of the Kidd Class DDG's offered by the US and the obsolescence of the SM-1 Missile meant that our only choices were to upgrade the FFG’s, downgrade their capability (as the USN did in removing the Mk13 GMLS without replacement) or retire them without replacement. My line of thinking was for a limited upgrade of removing the Mk13 GMLS and replacing it with a low deck house similar to that on the RN’s Type 23 Frigates housing 2 8cell Mk41VLS with upto 64 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and fitting the Harpoons in canisters between the deck house and the bridge. The requirement for SM-2 would be dropped and changes to the combat system limited to integrating ESSM and its fire control channels. Money saved could then be used to expedite the AWD program.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Aussiegunner1 1/19/2008 5:02:28 AM

I've always thought that the OHP class frigate had a sh1t design philosophy WRT it's anti-air and anti-surface capabilities (as opposed to it's ASW capabilities with its two helecopters and towed array sonar, which are excellent). The Mk-13 is a crap system as it only loads up a single weapon at a time over about a 10 second cycle (give or take, I can't remember the exact figure), making the frigate more vulnerable than most to saturation attacks. Additionally the Standard Missile was really the wrong weapon for such a frigate. The USN has always had cruisers and destroyers for area air defence, so their frigates should have been fitted with a point defence weapons system like Sea Sparrow, in a similar manner to the way the Royal Navy arms its frigates. Also the fact that the type only has a 76mm gun in a spot that severely limit's its ark of fire is a problem. Finally, the inclusion of the Harpoon in the same magazine as the Standard's also make simultaneous engagement of air and sea targets impossible.

To my way of thinking the USN and us would have been better off with a two chopper design that was built along more conventional lines similar to a Type 23 or an ANZAC, i.e. five inch up front, sea sparrows in box launchers where the 76mm was, then VLS when these became available and 8 box launched harpoons on the sides. There is no reason why we couldn't have done this to the OHP's as a midlife update as you have suggested and I agree it would be a better idea than trying to integrate SM-2's into the design. ESSM has a range of 30km and if we were to fit one of the small, new of the shelf Phased Array Radarss that are available now it would provide a very good short range defence against saturation attacks. Not as good as a fully fledged AEGIS ship, but better than a two-channel wonder firing SM-2's which we are having trouble integrating anyway.

Quote Reply

tjkhan FFG Upgrade alternatives 1/19/2008 5:13:07 AM

It is now history that the project is a waste of time and money but what would a reasonable, affordable low risk alternative have been?

The delay in the decision to replace the DDG's combined with the rejection of the Kidd Class DDG's offered by the US and the obsolescence of the SM-1 Missile meant that our only choices were to upgrade the FFG?s, downgrade their capability (as the USN did in removing the Mk13 GMLS without replacement) or retire them without replacement.

My line of thinking was for a limited upgrade of removing the Mk13 GMLS and replacing it with a low deck house similar to that on the RN?s Type 23 Frigates housing 2 8cell Mk41VLS with upto 64 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and fitting the Harpoons in canisters between the deck house and the bridge. The requirement for SM-2 would be dropped and changes to the combat system limited to integrating ESSM and its fire control channels.

Money saved could then be used to expedite the AWD program.

Sorry, but I have to make a few points:

Firstly it is not proven that "the project is a waste of time and money'". I certainly accept all has not gone to plan but that does not prove your point.

Secondly, all upgrade projects have an element of risk, often the extent of that risk is only recognised after the project has commenced. 20/20 hindsight is just such a wonderful waste of time.

Thirdly, the acquisition of the Kidd DDG's themselves involved a considerable degree of risk and expense. Let's identify a few of those:

a) The ships were commissioned in 1981 and 1982. Those same ships were de-commissioned in in 1998 and 1999. By the time of decommjisioniong the ships were already about seventeen years old.

b) The ships were offered to us after they had been de-commisioned and only after they had been offerd to Greece. Prior to re-commisioning the ships required considerable upgrade, which in turn required the taking of risks.

c) The ships had a complement of about 363. This compares to the FFGs of 194 or there abouts.

Fourthly, even the "limited' upgrade yopu suggest (with the benefit of hinsight) involved the risk of systems integratiuon.....coupled with a lower beneficial outcome.

I wonder whether the outcome you suggest would satisfy a cost benefit analysis?

Trev

Quote Reply

Lawman 1/19/2008 7:34:53 AM

I agree that the design was pretty poorly thought through (especially the placing of the 3in gun, which appears to have been a complete afterthought). It might have been possible to rectify some of these flaws though, for the upgrade, by virtue of putting in a sixteen-cell VLS for Evolved SeaSparrow, and eight Harpoons between these and the bridge. I'm not sure much could have been done for the gun - moving it would have been a significant undertaking. However, even just a switch to carrying 32-64 (depending on whether it is eight or sixteen VLS cells) ESSMs, and possibly some RAM missiles, would have been a pretty good capability boost.

The alternative might have been to build a new 'batch' of evolved Anzacs, based on the same Meko hull, but with more VLS cells, and a better radar, perhaps SMART-L and APAR, like on the Dutch De Zeven Provinciens. This could potentially have given a semi-AWD capability, but years earlier. Okay, I'll go and shoot myself now, before everyone else does for suggesting this...

Quote Reply

Volkodav 1/19/2008 8:38:35 AM

Ok, it is very easy to say that something sucks or has failed but it is even easier to tow the political line and say that it smells of roses and there is no problem even when all evidence is to the contrary, just stick your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens before someone else fixes it.

There comes a point in every upgrade or conversion project when it in actual fact becomes more economical and sensible to cancel the entire thing. I think when you have spent 50% more than was budgeted to deliver only 2/3 the originally contracted number hulls four years late and still missing the major capabilities and functions that the upgrade was intended to deliver i.e. an integrated combat system and SM-2 and the ships are currently less capable and combat effective than they were before being upgraded it is quite obvious that someone should have pulled the plug long ago instead of degrading the capability of the entire class.

The simple fact of the matter is that the upgraded FFG's are less effective than their legacy configuration so retiring the two ships not to be upgraded and pushing the remaining three hulls through what was known to be a troubled program is irresponsible to say the least.

I have made a number of factual points

1) the DDG's were retired without replacement

2) the Australian government rejected the offer of the Kidd Class DDG's

3) the SM-1 was obsolescent and not supportable in the long term nore as capable as the RAN requires

4) the USN has removed SM-1 and it's launcher from the FFG-7 class hulls they have retained as ASW platforms

5) the choices we had at the time were to retire the ships, to replace the ships, to upgrade the ships or to downgrade the ships.

The government of the day chose the upgrade path.

The new combat system apparently has issues and SM-2 has not arrived yet, ESSM however apparently does work.

The FFG-7 is a capable ASW platform which is why the USN has retained them without SM-1 inspite of their almost total lack of air defence capability bar their 76mm gun and Vulcan Phalanx. A minimum upgraded FFG with ESSM and canister mounted Harpoon would be superior to the USN FFG-7's. Hence my thought on a minimum upgrade based on these two systems rather than ferking up the entire class with an upgrade that doesn't work.

In terms of project definition and overall management the FFG's upgrade is a joke and a risk mitigation and recovery program should have led to a down scaled but achievable upgrade baseline delivering superior capability to the legacy one and warships that would be in service ready to deploy where needed.

IMO if there had been a proper risk assessment completed prior to releasing the tender the RAN would now be commissioning stretched ANZACS with 32 to 48 VLS cells for SM-2 and upgraded fire control radars and other systems from the retired DDG's which would probably have cost us far less than $1.4 billion and would have allowed the AWD to replace early ANZAC's or FFG's if they had been retained for ASW and crewing permitting.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 1/19/2008 8:41:50 AM

Lawman you read my mind.

My last reply was started quite a while before I submitted it, sorry for doubling up.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 1/19/2008 9:09:04 AM

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Golden_Age/GAW_Perry_Frigate-small.gif">
[The illustration is from Kitsune, but it is a fair representation of what I discuss.]

You still have problems. The FFG-7s are ASW ships. Assuming you started off right? Let's assume you tear out the the Mk13 and replace it with a suitable VLS of US or EU origin. The preferred model is a Mark 41 8 or 16 cell [LONG] so that you can carry ESSM quadpacks or ship launched cruise missiles.

Forget about crying over the gun. Zumwalt forgot to figure it into his low end frigate requirement so you are sort of stuck with the amidships gunmount . Make it an Oto super-rapido fully automatic 76/70, grit your teeth, and live with it.

Replace Phalanx with SeaRAM. At least that gives you 360 degree coverage.

Install a reduced AESA Aegis able to handoff to either ESSM or evolved NASRAAM or maybe Sea Meteor if BAE ever gets his head out of its aspidistra.

Figure per unit cost at about $500M Aus-easy.

Maybe you should have looked at something Dutch?

Herald

Quote Reply

BLUIE006 1/19/2008 9:23:30 AM

Purchase 6 AWD - (tactom)

Retire FFG 2008/9

Upgrade ANZACs - 12 x VLS - tower -depth Sonar - AAW radar - Harpoon II -ER -Sea Ram (2008-2011)

Start work on ANZAC II - ( bigger and powerful with more automation than ANZAC 1 ) x 14 Fleet

6 x F 100 AWD/Multi Mission ( replaces DDG/FFG) 2009-2012

14 x ANZAC II ( replaces current fleet/FFG) 2012-2018

8 x Collin II (tactom) 2015-2025

4 x USV SSK (potentially linked to collins)

2x High Speed Cat ( Armed/transport)

2xLHD

1X LHA

1XRoRo

1xOiler

1xLSA

Etc

Look at aquiring LCS/ASW Corvette in small numbers - (4-6) - (2010)

Upgrade Patrol boat ASW cabilities and senors (2008-2009)

FFG crews begin training sent to first AWD's , recruit hard for future ones

by 2010 ,larger population years of increased recruiting effects, mining down turn, increased automation should make manning final AWD,LHD,additional ANZACs possible, patrol boat fleet reviewd crew sent to ASW corvettes .

Quote Reply

VGNTMH 1/19/2008 1:04:29 PM

How capable is the ANZAC's CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/Saab air defence system?

It would seem to me that the combination of:
* The fixed CEAFAR S band active phased array search radars
* The two trainable CEAMOUNT X band active phased array illuminators
* 30km ranged VL ESSM

Is a very capable air defence system with anti-ASM capability.

And that this air defence system is more capable than anything the DDGs and FFGs were capable of. So has the RAN really lost so much, from an air defence point of view, going from three DDGs and six FFGs to eight ANZACs and some FFGs?

Though it is true that not many of the ANZACs have CEAFAR yet.

And why cannot some of the FFGs, say Melbourne and Newcastle, be fitted with the same CEAFAR /CEAMOUNT/Saab combat system/ESSM fitout that the ANZACs have? Just with more VL cells. True there would be no area air defense capability, but the ESSM has at least the same range as the SM-1. And perhaps SM-2 could be added to the CEA and Saab based combat system on the two FFGs?

After all, 10 active phased array and ESSM frigates is not to be sneezed at.

Quote Reply

Milne Bay 1/19/2008 5:58:38 PM

How capable is the ANZAC's CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/Saab air defence system?

It would seem to me that the combination of:
* The fixed CEAFAR S band active phased array search radars
* The two trainable CEAMOUNT X band active phased array illuminators
* 30km ranged VL ESSM

Is a very capable air defence system with anti-ASM capability.

Though it is true that not many of the ANZACs have CEAFAR yet.

After all, 10 active phased array and ESSM frigates is not to be sneezed at.

None of the ANZAC's have CEAFAR yet. Trials were carried out on HMAS Arunta, but these are over and the panels have been removed.
There is a firm committment (hopefully still under the new Labour Gov't) to fit CEAFAR to all Anzac's, but this is yet to happen.
In my opinion, The best and most proven option, would have been to carry out no upgrades of the FFG's but simply let them see out their service life. Keep the line open on the ANZAC programme with two more builds, taking our total to 10. Increase the AWD build to 5 ships. As the additional FFH's come online the Adelaide's retire and we are left with AWD's and Anxacs. The ANZAC's receive their CEAFAR fitout one at a time starting with HMAS Anzac next time she is in for re-fit, or when CEAFAR is ready. If CEAFAR isn't ready at that time, then to be fitted to the first FFH to come in for refit after it is operational.
Yes there would be a small window of air defence loss as the SM1's disappear, and there will be no SM2 until the AWD's are built - but isn't that what we are now facing anyway?
Regards
MB

Quote Reply

Aussiegunner1 Trev 1/19/2008 8:03:44 PM

Sorry, but I have to make a few points:

Firstly it is not proven that "the project is a waste of time and money'". I certainly accept all has not gone to plan but that does not prove your point.

Secondly, all upgrade projects have an element of risk, often the extent of that risk is only recognised after the project has commenced. 20/20 hindsight is just such a wonderful waste of time.

Thirdly, the acquisition of the Kidd DDG's themselves involved a considerable degree of risk and expense. Let's identify a few of those:

a) The ships were commissioned in 1981 and 1982. Those same ships were de-commissioned in in 1998 and 1999. By the time of decommjisioniong the ships were already about seventeen years old.

c) The ships had a complement of about 363. This compares to the FFGs of 194 or there abouts.

Fourthly, even the "limited' upgrade yopu suggest (with the benefit of hinsight) involved the risk of systems integratiuon.....coupled with a lower beneficial outcome.

I wonder whether the outcome you suggest would satisfy a cost benefit analysis?

Trev

Sorry, but I have to tend toward's Volkodavs side of the argument on this one. The fact of the matter is that the FFG's are and always were too small to make a modern area-air-defence platform. With only two fire-control channels they were never going to give us a decent area air-defence capability and the government was pulling itself to think that they could be upgraded to do so. What's more, trying to fit them out with SM-2's is far more involved than any upgrades that we would have had to make to the Kidds, with their big hulls and existing SM-2 capable infrastructure. I would actually have preferred Tico's though, as they were far more capable than the Kidd's. The sad fact is that when you try to cram capabilities that should fit in an 8000 tonne hull into a 4000 tonne one, it doesn't work. Ask the RN with their Sheffields.

With that in mind, if the government wasn't going to purchase a real air defence ship I'd rather they didn't purchase any at all. We do however need that capability and at the end of the day though, what it comes down to is that for us spending 1.9% of GDP on defence is inadequate. I don't It is going to get worse before it get's better under Labor.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 NEXT