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: Chances of a second batch of AWD's
Volkodav    8/19/2008 8:02:19 AM
The F-100 was selected as the lower risk more affordable option and the Alliance is doing its best to discourage specification creap which should help deliver the project on time and within budget. The is ongoing talk of a fouth AWD being ordered which would take the build out to 2019, however I wonder if we would be better off taking the lessons learnt and the experience gained on the first three and tailor an improved F-100 specifically to our evolving needs. Aim to commission the first batch 2 AWD in 2020 to replace the last FFG with the next two to follow on in 2022 and 2024 to replace the first pair of ANZACS. A third batch based on the service experience of the batch 1 ships could then begin to enter service from 2027 or so to replace three more ANZACS.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
StevoJH       8/20/2008 12:46:34 AM
By 2027, the design of the F100 class will be over 30 years old, better to just build a new design from scratch.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       8/20/2008 2:49:11 AM
In that time frame, ANZAC replacements might also be competing with new submarines.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/20/2008 6:48:34 AM
The ANZACS exist because of Paul Dibbs Defence of Australia Doctrine with its concept of a three tiered surface combatant force.  The Adams class DDG's and OHP class FFG's formed the first tier, the 8 ANZAC's the second tier as patrol frigates and the Fremantles forming the third.
 
My personal belief is that a wealthy nation like Australia can and should be buying the best we can afford to send our sailors to sea in, therefore if considering that the ANZAC's have a similar sized crew to AWD's they should be replaced by evolved AWD's effectively merging the first and second tiers.
 
There is already talk of developing an OPV to replace the Customs Bay Class Patrol Boats, it only follows that a similar design will eventually supplement and then replace the ACPB's.
 
A possible future fleet could consist of three batches, each of three AWD's, each batch being an evolution and improvement over the last.  If there is money available a fourth batch could be built for a total of either nine or twelve AWD's.   The patrol role currently conducted by the ANZAC's , ACPB's and Bay's would be carried out by by a family of modular patrol vessels sharing many common features for the sake of economy but differing in propulsion, sensors and armament, covering OPV, Corvette and Frigate / Sloop roles.
 
If each batch of AWD's is evolved from the experience gained on the previous batches the design will keep pace with technology.  i.e. batch 2 would have a larger hull, all electric ship systems and a further improved combat system, batch 3 would likely use a completely new hull and evolved electric ship systems etc.  The ongoing build would introduce economies of scale and would ensure the RAN always has capable modern ships available without having to resort to expensive and risky mid life upgrades and change our current cycle of replacement which seems to always result in block obsolescense driven force reductions.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/20/2008 7:32:19 AM

could consist of three batches, each of three AWD's, each batch being an evolution and improvement over the last. 

thats a brave statement coming from someone "in the game".
 
no two ships of any class are identical, the theory of batch building dies as soon as No:2 gets built......
 
/pedant mode off
 
I do agree with the sentiment though!

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/20/2008 7:58:34 AM
Tell me about it....someone actually told me 4 and 5 are identical to 6.  The Fast track program should have been called the Configeration Randomisation program!
 
However you have a greater chance of maintaining class configuration within a batch of three hulls with planned upgrades for a future batch than building one homoginous class that is intened to remain state of the art for 30 to 40 years with stagered upgrades.
 
Reality has a way of ruining all good concept though.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/20/2008 5:59:50 PM

 
Reality has a way of ruining all good concept though.



yeah, it's a bitch... :)  btw, saw some nice 3m sized schematics of the pretend carriers yesterday.... i'd love to have them laminated on my wall at home - it would be a nice conversation piece. :)
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       8/20/2008 10:43:31 PM



 

Reality has a way of ruining all good concept though.








yeah, it's a bitch... :)  btw, saw some nice 3m sized schematics of
the pretend carriers yesterday.... i'd love to have them laminated on
my wall at home - it would be a nice conversation piece. :)

The LHD's? ;)
 
Ok, they arent carriers, but "theoretically" they can pretend to be for a while. Isnt the spanish ship supposed to operate as a carrier while PdA is in refit?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       8/21/2008 12:05:45 AM
...however I wonder if we would be better off taking the lessons learnt and the experience gained on the first three and tailor an improved F-100 specifically to our evolving needs.
 
Could you expand upon these specific Oz-centric evolving needs that we have that the F100 would not be as suitable for?
 
I tend to cringe at the thought of us time and time again Aussifying foreign sourced tech that tends to go A over T when the projects start to go askew and head off into budgetry avarice.
 
Would love to hear your (and any other marine/swabbie types) ideas on just what our needs are that differ from what the baseline F100 could deliver in capability.
 
Curious.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       8/21/2008 12:27:22 AM
Given the relative lack of MK41 VLS I would suggest a better close-in ASMDS - read RAM  (2 x 21 Round Box Launchers) - would be a good start. No all singing/all dancing, but an improvement none-the-less.
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/21/2008 5:40:21 AM
Top of my list would be to go all electric, that is get rid of the gearing and shafts and have the GT's and Diesels functioning solely as generators with propulsion from electric motors.  The Darings use it and the DDX (both of them) as well as the CVF will use it.
 
A stretch providing space and weight for an increase in the size of the VLS, possibly a 155mm inplace of the Mk45, definitely a second helo.  Maybe a phased array director to replace the legacy mechanical variety.
 
Facility to operate a variety of autominous unmanned vehicles, definitely to extend their sensor range but possibly to increase their strike range and / or to provide operational protection in port or close waters.
 
Reprofiling the superstructure for greater stealth.
 
Basically look to incorporate currently evolving technology once it has been proven and derisked by others.  Remember I am talking about putting this stuff on a ship to be commissioned in 2020 not 2014. 
 
What we are currently looking at doing is building 3 ships, all to be commissioned next decade, and then keeping them in service until the 2050's.  Believe me they will be obsolete, no matter how much we spend on upgrades, by the mid 2030's.  Far better to build a batch of 3 evolved ships every 6 to ten years retiring the old ships at 24 to 30 years of age without blowing money on extensive, expensive and often ineffective upgrades.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics