New Air Warfare Destroyers for Australia

[bookworm_020]

The Australian Government has selected the Spanish F100 Destroyer over a rival Amercian design. The Spanish have also landed the contract for the two landing ships as well! Australia now becomes the spanish amarda!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...019156106.html

Some of the reasoning behind the decision

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-31477,00.html

The two designs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvaro_..._class_frigate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh...lass_destroyer

A site on the the Hobart class destroyers

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/awd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm

Wikipedia's site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...fare_Destroyer

[Reaves]

3 of those will help keep New Zealand in their place.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Reaves

3 of those will help keep New Zealand in their place.

The kiwis have nothing to fear. This is directed at China.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The kiwis have nothing to fear. This is directed at China.

I think Indonesia and some other countries in South east asia are more on the mind in defence circles in Australia than China. The only thing that may worry them about china is there effort to obtain highly classified information by espionage, like the Aegis Radar and weapon systems.

[Reaves]

They'll be used for boarder security, mainly stopping illegal fishing in our waters and obviously illegal immigrants.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bookworm_020

I think Indonesia and some other countries in South east asia are more on the mind in defence circles in Australia than China. The only thing that may worry them about china is there effort to obtain highly classified information by espionage, like the Aegis Radar and weapon systems.

Perhaps they have something to do with it. But not that much really. Regardless of what they say to your public or say in Australian defense circles, Aegis ships are for nations like China. The little countries like Indonesia are a pittance to deal with. One would not need Aegis ships with their multi-mission configurations and huge sensor packages and missile batteries to deal with these minor nations. Don't for one second misunderstand, these vessels, like the King Sejon DDG for South Korea are part of a larger, unspoken naval containment strategy against China. The USA doesn't admit to it either, but it's painfully obvious why the U.S. has shifted such huge amounts of naval assets to the Pacific. And why U.S. allies in the Pacific are getting these nice goodies from the USA. (ie F-35, Aegis ships, SM-3, etc.)

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The USA doesn't admit to it either, but it's painfully obvious why the U.S. has shifted such huge amounts of naval assets to the Pacific. And why U.S. allies in the Pacific are getting these nice goodies from the USA. (ie F-35, Aegis ships, SM-3, etc.)

In October 2002 Australia committed to provide $150 million for development of the F-35.

America probably could have developed it on your own but it's called a joint strike fighter because several countries are involved in development of it. Including Canada IIRC. It will be our answer to the Eurofighter. I'm certain we have added more funding than the original amount quoted above. These things always blow out of budget.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

. The little countries like Indonesia are a pittance to deal with.

Australia:
population 20.5 million

Indonesia:
population 191 million

[Steel_Tomb]

Idiots, why do governments do that? "its the cheapest so we will get that one"? They may be able to get 4 of those DD's for 3 US ones but the US one is vastly superior, and has room to be upgraded in the future whereas the spanish one doesn't. Its just like the British MoD, they only look at the short term, not long term upgradablility etc. What a waste! They will probably want to upgrade those ones in about 20 years, whereas they could have kept the US ships and stuck new equipment in them.

[MGR1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Idiots, why do governments do that? "its the cheapest so we will get that one"? They may be able to get 4 of those DD's for 3 US ones but the US one is vastly superior, and has room to be upgraded in the future whereas the spanish one doesn't. Its just like the British MoD, they only look at the short term, not long term upgradablility etc. What a waste! They will probably want to upgrade those ones in about 20 years, whereas they could have kept the US ships and stuck new equipment in them.

Governments have the attention span of a goldfish. As a general rule of thumb!

Mike.

[baggygreen]

Well.. actually, Navantia offered to "australianise" the design. compromising with a longer, 7000t ship, with the extra space being good for oh, maybe another chopper, larger engines, more tomahawks, perhaps?

I think the main issue that decided the Navantia design over the US design was the JSF debacle - investing and putting your hopes in an as-yet unbuilt design has meant that the RAAF will not be at optimum strength at the time it had been anticipated. We will be making do with very old F111s and a mix of F/A-18 hornets and Superhornets. The govt will be looking for something that they know they can deliver.

[bookworm_020]

The Spanish recently took one of their ships which will be a prototype for the Oz ones on a tour of Oz.The cruise was sponsored by the ship manufacturer.I think that the best option won though.

The US Builders also had an Arliegh Burke Destroyer pay a vist, so they could show off what they offered.

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Idiots, why do governments do that? "its the cheapest so we will get that one"? They may be able to get 4 of those DD's for 3 US ones but the US one is vastly superior, and has room to be upgraded in the future whereas the spanish one doesn't. Its just like the British MoD, they only look at the short term, not long term upgradablility etc. What a waste! They will probably want to upgrade those ones in about 20 years, whereas they could have kept the US ships and stuck new equipment in them.

The US option was based on the Arliegh Burke Destroyer, but would take an extra three years to build and cost more. The Spanish option could be built quiker cheaper and be scaled up, so there would be less of a difference between the two bidders. The fact that a fourth spip could possibly be purchaed, at the same total price as the three american designed ships, may have tipped the scales.:hmm:

I think the main issue that decided the Navantia design over the US design was the JSF debacle - investing and putting your hopes in an as-yet unbuilt design has meant that the RAAF will not be at optimum strength at the time it had been anticipated. We will be making do with very old F111s and a mix of F/A-18 hornets and Superhornets. The govt will be looking for something that they know they can deliver.

The F-111's were also delayed into service for almost a decade (Australia flew some F-4 Phatom's on loan untill they were delivered). They will be replaced by the F-18 E/F Super Hornets. The older hornets will continue service till there replaced by the JSF. The Government has been burnt in the past by buying untested designs, Seasprite Heilcopter is an example (the Helicopter flew fine, just the electronics that went into them didn't live up to expectations!), and I think haveing a prove design, even if modified, will work well. It worked for the Anzac class Frigate.

[mog]

Good decision I reckon. Considering our limited budget, the Arleigh Burkes would have been too expensive, with too many unforseen costs.

Plus these probably have a siesta deck.

[baggygreen]

mmmmmmmmmmm

siesta....

go the govt! lol