Australia choses winner of naval contracts

[capt_starlight]

From Australian Broadcasting Corporation : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1956405.htm

 

Navy unveils $11b warship contract

 

 

 

Five new Royal Australian Navy warships will be built by defence contractors in Adelaide and Melbourne in partnership with the Spanish company Navantia.

 

Three F100 Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) and two amphibious landing ships will be built in an $11 billion contract which is expected to create around 2,000 new jobs through the firms ASC and Tenix.

 

"The Royal Australian Navy will undergo a quantum leap in its air warfare capability when the F100 enters service," the Defence Department said in a statement.

 

The first F100 will be delivered in 2014, with the second and third ships arriving in 2016 and 2017.

 

"They are very significant decisions for the future combat capability of the Royal Australian Navy," said Prime Minister John Howard.

 

"They represent a very long term investment in the future defence capability of this country."

 

Mr Howard says the ships will serve the country for decades.

 

"This decision will enhance our capability for years into the future, particularly - but not only - in our part of the world".

 

The F100 can be used for joint maritime operations from area air defence and escort duties through to peacetime diplomatic missions.

 

Capable of landing more than 1,000 personnel, the transporters will also be used in response to natural disasters.

 

South Australian Premier Mike Rann has welcomed the employment opportunities.

 

"We believe that the Spanish design offers enormous opportunities for a fourth ship rather than just three ships," Mr Rann said.

 

"We'll be certainly very strongly supporting the Federal Government making the decision for a fourth ship to be built, which of course will bring even more benefits to SA."

 

Victorian Industry Minister Theo Theophanous says the deal will provide a significant boost to the state's ship building industry.

 

"We've been working on this for a long time and we're very pleased that the Government has made the right decision for the right ship for the Navy," he said.

 

"It's a very large ship, it's a winning design. It will be the biggest Navy ship ever built in Australia."

 

The Navy failed to convince the Government to support a rival American bid for the destroyers.

 

Arleigh Burke's design was favoured by the Navy, but was beaten by Navantia.

 

The executive director of the Australia Defence Association, Neil James, says the US destroyer is superior but the Government's decision is understandable.

 

"There's no doubt that on paper the American ship was a better ship," he said.

 

"The problem is, of course, it's on paper whereas the Spanish one you can see and you can touch and you can stand on the deck.

 

"Also, to an extent, it's cheaper and you may be able to get a fourth destroyer for pretty much the same money."

 

Word has it that Navy was lobbying Ministers to go with the Modified Arleigh Burke until the last minute but it looks like they lost out to a combination of "bean counters" and realists. As Neil James said - the F100 is real, whereas the Arleigh Burke is something that will not be available for some years after the F100.

[Brasidas]

<snip>

Word has it that Navy was lobbying Ministers to go with the Modified Arleigh Burke until the last minute but it looks like they lost out to a combination of "bean counters" and realists. As Neil James said - the F100 is real, whereas the Arleigh Burke is something that will not be available for some years after the F100.

 

I'm having a hard time believing no one is Australia is convinced the Arleigh Burke class is real.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Josh]

I think I would have gone with the F-100 solely on cost anyway.

[swerve]

It wasn't the Arleigh Burke that's in service with the USN, but a derivative thereof.

 

And Australia has had very bad experiences with special Australian versions. Collins has come good in the end, but late & expensive, & the SH-2s are still a disaster area. considering their recent defence procurement history, I'm astonished that they even thought about it, instead of rejecting the Baby Burke out of hand.

[Brasidas]

It wasn't the Arleigh Burke that's in service with the USN, but a derivative thereof.

 

Well that's different. It's not an Arleigh Burke then. Damn media screws up another story.

[RETAC21]

Still a win-win for US contractors as the combat systems are all US made.

 

Much happiness in this side of the pond too.

[rmgill]

Don't we already have an example of the Arliegh Burkes in the JMSDF's Kongos? Haven't those been working pretty well?

[Josh]

Don't we already have an example of the Arliegh Burkes in the JMSDF's Kongos? Haven't those been working pretty well?

 

ROK also uses the design. But as stated, considering the issues Australia has had along with the increased cost/delay of a new design, I'd buy off the shelf. Anything with an up to date Aegus system is going to be broadly equivalent anyway.

 

EDIT: Is there any advantage to the Burke? I assume for hte higher price there must be some higher capability but I've not compared the proposed Ozzy Burke to F100; I assume the Burke is larger with more 'stuff'.

Edited June 20, 2007 by jua

[Jeff]

ROK also uses the design. But as stated, considering the issues Australia has had along with the increased cost/delay of a new design, I'd buy off the shelf. Anything with an up to date Aegus system is going to be broadly equivalent anyway.

 

EDIT: Is there any advantage to the Burke? I assume for hte higher price there must be some higher capability but I've not compared the proposed Ozzy Burke to F100; I assume the Burke is larger with more 'stuff'.

IIRC, the Burke was bigger, carried a second helo, more missiles and was thought to be more upgradable in the future.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

IIRC, the Burke was bigger, carried a second helo, more missiles and was thought to be more upgradable in the future.

 

Tge Gibbs&Cox design was smaller than the standard Burke design, while Kongos are bigger. This was a completely new and thus untried design with all the risks involved, while there are four operational F-100s plus one more just ordered. Also, the F-310 class for Norway shares F-200 ancestry, being 85% of the original size.

 

Navantia submited several designs up to 7000tm, any idea on which one was selected? Just the upgraded F-100 (the fith and probable sixth Spanish boats are to be built o upgraded standards using the experience with the first batch to add some changes and upgrades, plus upgraded to the electronic suite following recent AEGIS upgrades)

 

On upgradeability, given the usually long service lifes of Spanish ships, the designs usually have good upgrade margins. For example, the FFG-7 built in Spain double the displacement reserved for upgrades of the US ships.

Edited June 20, 2007 by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo

[Josh]

IIRC, the Burke was bigger, carried a second helo, more missiles and was thought to be more upgradable in the future.

 

The extra helo would be the only real plus IMO.

 

Just flipping through Wiki it says F100 has 48 strike cells, which mean it could at least physically carry BGM-109 (unless this is a wikierror). 48 seems like an adequate amount of SAM cells; that's all the Type 45/Horizon use and I take it ESSM will be used as the short range SAM giving F100 a lot more missiles for close in defense (or else the same number of close in weapons and a significanly larger number of medium range weapons).

 

Outside of that, standard USian type fit out; CIWS, ASW torps, 5" gun, BGM-84 (deleted on USN ships now). Does Oz use VL ASROC? The USN had them in sparing numbers and the only other user I know of is JMSDF.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

The extra helo would be the only real plus IMO.

 

Navantia offered two helo designs, so MAYBE the Australian boats may have twin helos.

 

Just flipping through Wiki it says F100 has 48 strike cells, which mean it could at least physically carry BGM-109 (unless this is a wikierror). 48 seems like an adequate amount of SAM cells; that's all the Type 45/Horizon use and I take it ESSM will be used as the short range SAM giving F100 a lot more missiles for close in defense (or else the same number of close in weapons and a significanly larger number of medium range weapons).

 

Spain is in the process of buying Tomahawk, so yes, these are Strike length launchers Also, the soteare of the first boats is being upgraded to take the quadpack ESSM option, Spain having ordered her missiles some time ago. I guess Australia may join the ESSM boat also as a replacement for their current RIM-7P missiles aboard ANZACs.

[Guest pfcem]

gibbs-coxs-awd-evolved-design

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/0...eiled/index.php

 

australias-canberra-class-lhds

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/0...-lhds/index.php

Edited June 20, 2007 by pfcem

[wallaby bob]

Navantia offered two helo designs, so MAYBE the Australian boats may have twin helos.

Spain is in the process of buying Tomahawk, so yes, these are Strike length launchers Also, the soteare of the first boats is being upgraded to take the quadpack ESSM option, Spain having ordered her missiles some time ago. I guess Australia may join the ESSM boat also as a replacement for their current RIM-7P missiles aboard ANZACs.

GORKA. Thanks. As an Australian taxpayer let me say I'm relieved that Australia has decided to buy an in-service design and NOT something off the drawing board. We've been bitten a number of times by being a buyer of unproven, no make that unbuilt, technology from the drawing boards of multifarious providers.

Had to look up ESSM on Google. The first two entries available there looked more interesting than Enhanced Sea Sparrow but I guess you can't allow the sailors too much diversion from the time-critical job at hand when air defence is involved. WB

[JOE BRENNAN]

I guess Australia may join the ESSM boat also as a replacement for their current RIM-7P missiles aboard ANZACs.

Minor note on that, HMAS Warramunga, third ANZAC, was the first non US ship to fire ESSM in 2003. The other 5 have it, and it's supposed to be retrofitted to the first two. Aussie CEA fire control radars are to upgrade fire control capability to "at least" 2 channels (just one target at a time as the first ships were originally built).

 

The G&C AWD design was designated 'evolved' and F-100 'existing' so explicity choice between existing and not. Existing sounds good given recent RAN procurement difficulties. Still they are to be built in Australia by ASC, whose only previous major building experience is the Collins class subs. Jobs, jobs jobs and all that good stuff, but it's not as 'existing' as if built by the original yard; seems there's room for problems there.

 

Also not a main point but reference by others to the Kongo's and King Sejong's as 'Burke derivatives' is somewhat figurative I think, built around the same main weapons system and propulsion with generally similar requirements so the design output is naturally similar. Maybe they even bought some small outline design package, but the details are clearly their own just to look at the ships. Eons ago I worked for another naval arch firm which did some rough stuff for the Koreans but even then they wanted to do most themselves. Now the yards in Korea, not to mention Japan, have a lot of continous experience even with warship construction; for merchant ships they sell complete design packages (and component kits) to US yards, as the Japanese were doing even 20+ years ago. After their initial rounds of sub construction from foreign packages in Korea I don't you'll see more warships from either of those countries that are literally foreign designs, and it might be a debateable label for their Aegis ships.

 

Joe

Edited June 21, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[rmgill]

Seems to me, more Burkes or Kongo's would allow for common spare parts with sources that are "in theatre" rather than across the Panama Canal (or Suez for that matter). Worse comes to worse, borrowing parts from a US taskforce or a Japanese Taskforce would be quick.

[FITZ]

Don't we already have an example of the Arliegh Burkes in the JMSDF's Kongos? Haven't those been working pretty well?

 

Superficial resemblence aside, the Kongo's share almost nothing in terms of design with the Arliegh Burke's other than the standard Aegis deckhouse. It is this deckhouse which tends to make all Aegis ships look like Burke's when they really have little or nothing in common. The Kongo's are in fact built largely to commercial standards, quite unlike the Burke's.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Seems to me, more Burkes or Kongo's would allow for common spare parts with sources that are "in theatre" rather than across the Panama Canal (or Suez for that matter). Worse comes to worse, borrowing parts from a US taskforce or a Japanese Taskforce would be quick.

 

Most of the equipment would be US made and stanrdarized (Spanish AEGIS systems were bought from the same batches allocated for BURKESs to save money, with some changes to suit local needs, plus software changes) while the hulls will be made in Australia. Few spares would be needed from Spain if any.....

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Minor note on that, HMAS Warramunga, third ANZAC, was the first non US ship to fire ESSM in 2003. The other 5 have it, and it's supposed to be retrofitted to the first two. .

 

You are completely right! I even have a picture of the event in the HD!

 

The G&C AWD design was designated 'evolved' and F-100 'existing' so explicity choice between existing and not. Existing sounds good given recent RAN procurement difficulties. Still they are to be built in Australia by ASC, whose only previous major building experience is the Collins class subs. Jobs, jobs jobs and all that good stuff, but it's not as 'existing' as if built by the original yard; seems there's room for problems there.

 

At least F-100 is already working, so I hope any manpower problems would be quickly solved. Is nothing similar as building a paper model like the COLLINS or the Evolved BURKE

[Chris Werb]

The Kongo's are in fact built largely to commercial standards, quite unlike the Burke's.

 

 

Why did they do this Mark? Is this a new departure or has Japan done this with previous warship classes?

[FITZ]

Why did they do this Mark? Is this a new departure or has Japan done this with previous warship classes?

 

 

To save money, why else? I don't know if Japan has done this with previous classes and I don't know if htey have done the same thing with the new DDH's either.

[Ken Estes]

Why did they do this Mark? Is this a new departure or has Japan done this with previous warship classes?

 

 

Ahem, the IJN??

[JOE BRENNAN]

1. Superficial resemblence aside, the Kongo's share almost nothing in terms of design with the Arliegh Burke's other than the standard Aegis deckhouse.

 

2. The Kongo's are in fact built largely to commercial standards, quite unlike the Burke's.

1. True (as I said more longwindedly ); same with King Sejong's AFAICT.

2. I've seen this on web, (though Japanese webpage saying it's not so) but it's a broad term and I can't find specifics. Since the Japanese don't export weapons, they've no mixed motivations about revealing details (marketing v security) as US, Europe, Russia etc sometimes do so less finds it way into the public domain, in English especially. Does it mean in this case standard plate and stiffener sizes of merchant ships (makes ship a little heavier because they tend to be more oversized v what you need to assume), standard merchant HT steel (not HY mil std, the USN is doing that now too), again a little heavier; lack of strict shock and fire resistance standards (which would be very important of course), more COTS components (that equal or don't military ones), or what combination? The USN is often evaluating if particular 'military standards' always have value outside of 'well, that's the way we do it'.

 

I happened to work as an owner's representative at Mitsubishi, Nagasaki for awhile back in the mid 80's; they built the first three Kongo's later. When I was there Hatakaze (DDG 171, lead ship of that class) was fitting out and her sister Shimakaze on the ways. The merchant and naval depts were quite separate at the time, and security tight; I can't say I found out much about Hatakaze besides what I could see from dockside. A co-worker worked on the Musashi during WWII though, they have a great model collection of all warships they've built, and historic drydocks and slipways were still in use in the 'main' yard at Nagasaki (there's a bigger postwar yard across the bay), so it was educational about J warships, but not new ones so much.

 

Joe

Edited June 21, 2007 by JOE BRENNAN

[Catalan]

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/0.../index.php#more

 

Australia's Canberra Class LHDs

 

In May of 2006, "Australia Issues Official Tender for A$ 2.0B Large Amphibious Ships Program" covered Australia's decision to expand its naval expeditionary capabilities, and replace HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla with substantially larger and more capable modern designs featuring strong air support. Navantia and Tenix offered a 27,000t LHD design that resembled the Strategic Projection Ship (Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica) under construction for the Spanish Navy. The DCNS-Thales Australia team, meanwhile, proposed a variation of the 21,300t Mistral Class that is serving successfully with the French Navy.

 

Since that article, there have been a pair of key developments. One is that the stated cost of the 2-ship Canberra Class program went from A$ 2 billion to A$ 3 billion (about $2.5 billion). The other is that a winner has been declared....

 

The Winner: The Navantia-Tenix LHD

The Tenix-Navantia team proposed a variation of their 27,000 tonne LHD design, which is similar to the Strategic Projection Ship (Buque de Proyeccion Estrategica) under development for the Spanish Navy. Tenix managed the RAN's ANZAC Class frigate program, and their Canberra Class LHDs will share the same Saab 9LV combat system. Navantia, meanwhile, has just been declared the winner for Austraia's $8 billion Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyer (Frigate?) program.

 

Australia's Kinnaird report, undertaken after the Collins Class submarine program's massive time and dollar overruns, emphasized the need to do more up-front work in order to improve cost and delivery estimates on defense projects. As a result approximately A$ 23 million was spent over 3 years on Canberra Class design studies.

 

The outcome was a mixed blessing: the Government was told at 1st Pass Approval that the Project was likely to cost of the order of A$ 600 - $900 million more than the allocated budget. Hence the A$ 3 billion reference, instead of the original budget figure of $2 billion. A 50% cost increase is never palatable news, and without access to the formal bids it's difficult to know if there was a significant difference between them on this score when "Australianization" and local industrial benefits requirements are included. What can be said is that knowing about the price hike before a contract is awarded, and planning accordingly, certainly beats the intense project gyrations and political fallout that would follow if the government had discovered the issues after construction was underway.

 

Each Canberra Class LHD ship will have the ability to transport up to 1,000 personnel, with 6 helicopter landing spots and a mix of troop lift (S-70 Blackhawk or NH90 TTH), naval (NH90 NFH) and armed reconnaissance (Eurocopter Tiger ARH) helicopters carried inside. The "ski jump" deck is also suitable for launching fixed-wing UAVs, and may also prove suitable for vertical or short takeoff fighters should a future government decide that this is necessary. By comparison, the Kanimbla Class carries 450 personnel and can accommodate only 4 helicopters.

 

The new Canberra Class will also be able to transport up to 150 vehicles, including the new M1A1 Abrams tank and other elements of the "Hardened and Networked Army" such as the Bushmaster IMV and the forthcoming vehicles of Project Overlander.

 

Like the ships they will replace, each ship will be equipped with medical facilities; their size, however, will allow these facilities to include 2 operating theaters and a hospital ward.

 

Construction and Program

The ships' hull from keel to flight deck will be built in Navantia's modern naval shipyard in Ferrol, Spain. DID's Spanish correspondent informs us via anonymous sources that Spain's BPE (LHD) project has experienced some schedule issues. The were rumored to stem from not having enough cranes in the shipyard to build Norway's Frijtof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates, Sapin's new F-105 Alvaro de Bazan Class AEGIS frigate, and Spain's BPE all at the same time. Word is that the delay is now solved, but it will be interesting to see whether adding 5 Australian ships to the backlog will create future issues.

 

Once the ships' hulls are built, they will be brought to Tenix's Williamstown shipyard in Melbourne by heavy lift ship, where the locally built superstructure (the part that rises above the flight deck) will be joined to the hull. This effort has an estimated value of up to A$ 500 million.

 

The majority of combat system design and integration work will take place in Adelaide, at a cost of up to A$ 100 million. There will also be further work contracted to other states, and total Australian content is expected to be about 23%, or A$ 700 million.

 

Australian industry will also be providing full in-service support for the life of the ships, creating a steady and reliable source of demand on industry that, over ship lifetimes of 30 years or more, usually amounts to several times the value of the construction program.