Hobart, the first of three air warfare destroyers, seen here sailing out of ASC shipyard at Osborne for the first time. Picture: Royal Australian Navy
Posted on 09/14/2016 4:37:47 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Delays with new air warfare destroyers, the navy's most complex and expensive warships, mean they will go to sea inferior to comparable US vessels.
A new study by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says that's because US warships are being equipped with the latest version of the Aegis combat system, which features greatly enhanced capabilities including ballistic missile defence.
ASPI analyst James Mugg said defence was aware of this shortcoming and had scheduled an upgrade for the three vessels between 2017 and 2028, at an an eye watering estimated price of $4-5 billion.
That's around half the cost of building the three ships in the first place.
Mr Mugg said it needn't be nearly that expensive - he calculates around $1.7 billion - and since the vessels are already late, upgrading now could save time and money in the long run.
He said neither Defence nor the government can change the fact that the AWDs will cost at least $9.1 billion and be two years late. The first, HMAS Hobart, will soon start sea trials.
"However, by investing a little more time and money, they can ensure that we get a cutting-edge capability sooner rather than later," he said.
The AWDs will be Australia's most advanced warship. Their Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system and SPY-1D allows them to detect, track and shoot down multiple enemy aircraft hundreds of kilometres away.
Aegis was first fielded in 1983 and has been progressively improved, with new production US warships and some existing US and Japanese vessels fitted with the latest version of Aegis, called Baseline 9.
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/09/14/00/08/aust-warships-to-be-inferior-to-us-vessels#t3QU4o9v6SkQoW1Z.99
(Excerpt) Read more at 9news.com.au ...
Hobart, the first of three air warfare destroyers, seen here sailing out of ASC shipyard at Osborne for the first time. Picture: Royal Australian Navy
By the time the last AWD is commissioned the first will need to go into refit to get upgraded to either Baseline 9.x or 10 (whatever is available).
All said and done, we should have bought Flight IIA Arleigh Burke's straight from the US production line. We could have bought twice as many ships, better ships, and benefit from a large and established engineering and logistic supply chain.
Lot of national pride goes along with defense acquisition.
Brits bought Apache helicopters from us and then there was a big kerfuffle because they didn’t buy local. They backed down and put British built engines and electronics into them. Things never worked right.
Yes, the Burke’s are pretty refined and have most of the kinks worked out.
The Aussies jumped on the F-111 before the first production prototype flew. The Aussies committed to the F-35 before the first production prototype flew. The Aussies were the first non-US operator of the EA-18G Growler. The Aussies were the first to fly the A330-MRTT with boom refueling capability. The Aussies rode through the painful teething pains of the advanced Boeing 737-based Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft.
The Aussies are not afraid of buying cutting edge technology, so when one of their new weapons systems are not cutting edge, they tend to take notice.
“Being an old Army guy I know literally nothing about Western navies (*any* navies for that matter) but it seems to me that countries like Australia can’t be expected to always have cutting edge technology in their Armed Forces.Australia,for one thing,is a small country whose economy is,unless I’m mistaken,currently having noteworthy difficulties. “
Small countries with small economies should concentrate on smaller vessels and drones and build lots more of them. It does not take a huge, multi-billion dollar ship to launch cruise missiles or super-fast anti-ship missiles. Sure they can’t carry as many but chances are they won’t fire many either. This isn’t world war two with dumb weapons where you have to fill the sky with flack. Smaller and more numerous means your capability is spread over a wider area and is harder to find and hit.
America builds huge ships because it can. But they are also huge targets. An enemy will not attack until they have an advantage. The Japanese, for example, had long range torpedoes that they used to huge effect, neutralizing a lot of ships that were, on other scales more effective. If the Chinese Mach 10 antiship missiles turn out to be effective, then we can say goodbye to the era of large ships. We won’t know until the next Pearl Harbor.
Also, if the wiki page is to be believed, the Hobart class is currently outfitted with the SM-2MR (medium range) SAM system. However, stepping up to the BMD mission means buying a bunch of SM-3s. (not cheap on their own) The SM-3 is noteworthy for the addition of the large MK72 booster. As I understand it, this requires upgrades and changes to the VLS cells to handle the extra amounts of rocket exhaust. More thrust, pushing more weight out of the cells means those plenums and chambers in there have to deal with (ie. vent) more extremely hot, corrosive, and abrasive trans-sonic gases... So there's some "body and fender work" - welding, ablative coating, etc. etc. work too.
If the cost of upgrading two AWDs really is going to be 4 or 5 billion, I'd say don't. Instead, keep the AWDs at baseline and buy a pair of Burke class DDGs. Apparently they are running about 1.8 billion a pop. They're a known quantity, no muss, no fuss. Basically just drive them off the showroom floor - or out of the shipyard as it were. Double the hulls, more than double the capability. Less cost - initially. Though you would take on additional cost in manning and operating costs.
If you want the latest system, develop your own. If you buy from the US you will always be one iteration behind. That makes you second best in the world, which is great unless you think the US is going to attack you, then it’s something to be worried about. I think Australia is safe.
I suspect a similar Pentagon operation would have been led by a two star backed up by a cast of thousands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.