RAN DDG - And the winner is - Armada! - The Commonwealth Navies - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

RAN DDG - And the winner is - Armada!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
skipper101	AWD	#51	[-]
Posts: 1494 (11-Jul-2007 07:50:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have a naging concern I read somewhere this week, that South Korea is building there KDX III @ 1 bil USD which would work out at about 1.16 bil AUD if we ordered them from South Korea, Can someone tell me why this was never looked at? We are looking at paying more than twice as much for a ship with half the firepower. Just so it can be built in Australia. I know there are economic benefits but surly not enough to outweaigh the huge price difference. To say nothing of delivery schedule and capability.
Jim WH	Re: AWD	#52	[-]
Posts: 1001 (11-Jul-2007 09:59:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The KDX-III was never looked at because it was unsuitable for Australian needs. Specifically it has a crew of between 300 and 400, which is far more than the RAN can manage. And although the KDX-III has a bucket load of VLS cells, at least a quarter (IIRC) are for Korean missiles that we wouldn't be interested in (their Tomahawk clone and a Korean ASROC). And when you come down to it, KDX-III is less capable than the Gibbs & Cox EvAWD was, and DMO determined that the extra capability wasn't needed. As to cost, really don't underestimate the importance of an Australian build. First off, most of the money we spend on AWD will be spent in Australia, which has the duel benefits of employment and fostering Australian industry. Fostering the domestic industry is important for keeping a skilled work-force and infrastructure to support these ships through their lives. Without the AWD program there would be a gapping hole starting in the near future which would result in either abandoning our domestic shipbuilding industry (bad idea!) or keeping it on life support through massive subsidies and the tiny flow of escort refit/upgrade work that is going to be going on through the next decade. Another point is that KDX-III is as cheap as it because Korean yards now produce more tonnage than any other nation's yards. They have the workforce and the infrastructure in place to build ships quickly and cheaply, and that does keep their costs down.
PMN1	Generations of Container Ro-Ro	#53	[-]
Posts: 3310 ( 1-Feb-2008 21:43:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Conway's 'The Shipping Revolution, the Modern Merchant Ship (1992) The first generation of large Ro-Ro vessels were cellular containerships with a supplementary Ro-Ro capacity and were introduced on to the North Atlantic in the late 1960's. The early ships have now been scrapped and replaced by a new much larger class - the G3's - built in 1984. Atlantic Causeway and the original Atlantic Conveyor are mentioned as examples of first generation Ro-Ro. The so called second generation of deep sea Ro-Ro ships were an evolution of the design in terms of access, but they also involved a fundamental change of concept, dispensing with cellular holds in favour of multi-deck construction focussed originally on non-containerised cargoes, with only a two high stow of containers on the weather deck and with internal decks not very well suited to container stowage. Atlantic Companion and the replacement Atlantic Conveyor (both G3 types) are mentioned as examples of second generation Ro-Ro. The book notes none were very successful being largely overtaken by large cellular container ships. The third generation presumably appeared some time after 1992.
skipper101		#54	[-]
Posts: 1480 ( 2-Feb-2008 09:34:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	PMN1 what does this have to do with AWD?
PMN1		#55	[-]
Posts: 3311 ( 2-Feb-2008 18:49:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	skipper101 wrote: PMN1 what does this have to do with AWD? It goes back to Marks' replies on an alternative 'phib based on the Ro-Ro MV Tamesis.
NewGolconda		#56	[-]
Posts: 3498 (16-Jul-2008 07:27:24) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	FMS notification..... http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-74.pdf
StevoJH		#57	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 290 (16-Jul-2008 07:46:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Only sets for one ship? And one 8 Cells VLS?
skipper101		#58	[-]
Posts: 1494 (16-Jul-2008 09:16:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What are we spending the rest of the 7.2 billion we are spending on these ships?
MConrads		#59	[-]
Posts: 463 (16-Jul-2008 09:55:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, I am slightly confused here. Only sets for one ship? And one 8 Cells VLS? I think it mean one set of "Mk 41 Baseline VII Vertical Launch Systems " (with multiple modules). As for the one ship, there have been some FMS notifications before: "Washington, July 14, 2006 - ... The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of up to three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launch System Baseline VII ship sets (includes 24 modules), modification of up to three (3) MK 7 AEGIS Weapon Systems, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, launch system software development and maintenance and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1 billion." "WASHINGTON, May 5, 2008 - ... The Government of Australia requested a possible sale of the AEGIS Combat System and select combat system and communication components consisting of 3 AN/SPQ-9B Horizon Search Radars, 3 Cooperative Engagement Capability Systems, 3 Naval Fire Control Systems, 3 Multi-Functional Information Distribution Systems, AN/SLQ-25A Nixie Countermeasure Suite, MK160 Gun Computer System, AIMS MK XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) for the Air Warfare Destroyer platform, communication and information distribution systems, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $450 million." "WASHINGTON, July 11, 2008 - ... The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of the AEGIS Combat System and select combat system and communication components consisting of 1 MK 41 Vertical Launch System, 1 AN/SPQ-9B Horizon Search Radar, 1 Cooperative Engagement Capability System, 1 Naval Fire Control System, 1 Multi-Functional Information Distribution System, AN/SLQ-25A Nixie Countermeasure Suite, MK160 Gun Computer System with MK 20 Electro-Optical Sight, AIMS MK XII Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) for the Air Warfare Destroyer platform, communication and information distribution systems, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, personnel training and training equipment, support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $700 million." And just for price comparison: Spain - AEGIS Weapons System In the end the question remains, how many systems have been really ordered yet and at what price? Regards. Make sure to visit the Shipbucket Collection @ http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket and our new Shipbucket Forum @ http://z11.invisionfree.com/shipbucket/index.php?act=idx

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply