Hobart class destroyer

The "Hobart" class of destroyers, known during their planning phase as the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer or SEA 4000, is a class of three ships scheduled to begin entering service with the Royal Australian Navy in 2013.

On June 20, 2007, the Australian Government approved the Spanish "Álvaro de Bazán" class design, also known as the F100. The 6,250-tonne vessels will be built by the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) Shipbuilding, at Osborne, South Australia. The Air Warfare Destroyers will feature the Aegis radar and fire control system, and integration of Aegis will be undertaken by [http://www.raytheon.com.au Raytheon Australia] and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

The DMO, ASC and Raytheon Australia are collectively known as the AWD Alliance. The use of this strategy is widely recognised as an international benchmark for major Defence acquisitions. The philosophy behind the Alliance strategy is to integrate Defence and Industry to ensure best for project outcomes based upon a pain share-gain share contracting strategy.

The Australian Air Warfare Destroyer program

The 2000 Defence White Paper stated that the navy would replace the "Adelaide" class frigates with three air warfare destroyers, under the "Sea 4000" project, from 2013. These ships will replace the Navy's and perform the same area air defence role as the withdrawn "Perth" class destroyers; the Chief of the Navy described their key capability as providing "a protective ‘bubble’ over whatever area they’re working in" [http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4810/topstories/story03.htm] , in which any hostile aircraft or missiles will be detected and shot down by the ship's combat systems. The consortium responsible describes the ships as capable of engaging enemy aircraft "at a range of over 150 kilometres" [http://www.ausawd.com/overview.html] . The ships will be supplemented by the remaining "ANZAC" class frigates.

In August 2005, the Australian Government [http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5048 announced] that Gibbs & Cox was the 'preferred designer' of the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD), with this design being a variant of Gibbs & Cox's "Arleigh Burke" class. The Spanish F100 design was retained in the competition as the official alternative to the Burke design.

The Australian Minister for Defence announced on 20 January 2006 that the Air Warfare Destroyers will be named "Hobart", "Brisbane" and "Sydney". It was proposed in the October-December issue of the Navy League of Australia's magazine 'The Navy' that a fourth AWD named "Melbourne" be purchased to improve the RAN's capabilities and keep Australian dockyards and naval engineers employed. [Citation
last = Thornbill
first = Roger
author-link =
last2 =
first2 =
author2-link =
title = The Case for the Fourth Air Warfare Destroyer
journal = The Navy
volume = 68
issue = 4
pages = 9-14
date = October-December 2006
year =
url =
doi =
id = ]

In May 2006, the AWD program went to a competitive selection process. The two competing designs were the Spanish Navantia F100 design (as the Off The Shelf Design) designated as the "existing design" and the "evolved design" which is a variant of Gibbs & Cox's "Arleigh Burke" class destroyer. Media reports in March 2007 indicated that the F100 bid was "ahead on price, risk and scheduled delivery when compared with the evolved design offered by Gibbs & Cox" [cite news
last = Walters
first = Patrick
coauthors =
title = ADF sizes up august armada
work = The Australian
pages =
language =
publisher =
date = 2007-03-10
url = http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21353578-31477,00.html
accessdate = 2007-03-14 ] though the head of the RAN, Vice Admiral Russ Shalders, stated that he believed that the modified "Arleigh Burke" design would provide the RAN with greater capability in the long-run. [cite news
last = Walters
first = Patrick
coauthors =
title = Navy wants upgrade capacity for destroyers
work = The Australian
pages =
language =
publisher =
date = 2007-03-13
url = http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21376588-31477,00.html
accessdate = 2007-03-14 ] Further reports in April stated that the tender assessment conducted by the Department of Defence had concluded that the F100 proposal was superior to the Gibbs & Cox proposal "on all the key criteria", with the Spanish design being significantly cheaper and lower-risk than the American design. The Australian Cabinet's National Security Committee announced their final decision on the design and the number of ships to be ordered on 20 June 2007, selecting the F100 design. [cite news
last = Walters
first = Patrick
coauthors =
title = Defence backs Spanish warship for $7bn deal
work = The Australian
pages =
language =
publisher =
date = 2007-04-25
url = http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21617193-31477,00.html
accessdate = 2007-05-01 ]

"Hobart" is scheduled to be delivered in October 2013 with the second ship to be delivered in 2015 and the third in 2017.

The project cost is estimated at "at least" $8 billion, according to press reports, though it is not clear what items are included in the figure.

Comparative statistics

An article in the February 2007 edition of Australian Defence Magazine provided the following statistics on the two competing designs. [Citation
last =Shackleton
first =David
author-link =David John Shackleton
last2 =
first2 =
author2-link =
title =Choices and consequences - choosing the AWD design
journal = Australian Defence Magazine
volume =
issue =
pages = 20-24
date = February 2007
year =
url =
doi =
id = ]

Indicative specifications

hip

Based on details of similar vessels, it can be estimated that the AWD will displace approximately 5,800 tons, with a crew complement of approximately 200.

The ships' armament will most likely be similar to current Aegis vessels in service and under construction. There will be a Vertical Launch System (probably US Mark 41), with 48 cells, which will be capable of firing SM-2 surface-to-air missiles, Evolved Sea Sparrow point defence missiles and Tomahawk surface-to-surface missiles (though it is unlikely that they will be fitted with the capability to support Tomahawk). The Mark 41 VLS is currently fitted to the "Anzac" class and is being installed in the "Adelaide" class. In addition, it is likely that the ships will be fitted with the Harpoon anti-ship missile using its standard box launcher. As with all modern warships, a medium calibre gun (probably 5 inch) will be fitted; there is no confirmation yet as to any additional gun armament, in the form of either a CIWS or other anti-aircraft armament. However, given that most ships of similar type have at least one CIWS emplacement fitted, it can be presumed that these ships will also. The ships will also be 'future proofed', in that they will have space available for new weapons developments that may come about in the future. There will be a flight deck and hangar capable of operating both helicopters and UAVs, while there will also be sufficient space for detachments of combat troops and special forces. In November 2006 the Australian Government commissioned research on whether the AWDs should be equipped with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. [cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Ballistic missile system 'moving closer' |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Ballistic-missile-system-moving-closer/2006/11/22/1163871451687.html |work= |publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=2006-11-22 |accessdate=2008-04-30 ]

ensors and combat systems

Although described as an air warfare destroyer, with air defence as its primary role, the Aegis combat system is a multi-role system capable of engaging air, surface and undersea targets. As a consequence, the AWD is much more of a multi-role vessel than its "Perth" class predecessor. In addition to Aegis, it will have underwater sensors, which may include mine and obstacle avoidance sonar. Because of the capabilities provided, AWD will have the ability to serve as a Task Group flagship.

ee also

Other AEGIS type ships

*"Ticonderoga" class

DDG-51 Derivatives

*"Arleigh Burke" class
*"Atago" class
*"Kongo" class
*KDX-III

F-100 Derivatives

*"Álvaro de Bazán" class
*"Fridtjof Nansen" class

Other similar ships

*Type 45
*Horizon type
*"De Zeven Provinciën" class
*Sachsen class
* F125 class

Notes

External links

* [http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm Defence Material Organisation - SEA 4000 Air Warfare Destroyer]
* [http://www.raytheon.com.au]
* [http://www.ausawd.com/index.html Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance]
* [http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5368 Announcement of the ships’ names]
* [http://www.gibbscox.com/awd/images/AWD_Release_08-03-06.htm Release of Gibbs&Cox Evolved design]
* [http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6781 Announcement of the selection of the F100 design]
* Mark Uhlmann [http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/5011/topstories/story1.htm ‘A great day for Navy’] in "Navy News". Volume 50, No. 11, June 28, 2007.
* Andrew Davies (2007). [http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=130&pubtype=9 "The Air Warfare Destroyer project - Decision time"] . Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Canberra.
* Hugh White (2005) [http://www.lowyinstitute.org/PublicationGet.asp?i=269 "Buying Air Warfare Destroyers: A Strategic Decision"] . Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney.
* Leo Lazauskas (2007) [http://www.cyberiad.net/library/pdf/nibberluna0.pdf "The hydrodynamic resistance, wave wakes and bottom pressure signatures of a 5900t displacement air warfare destroyer"] . Dept. Applied Mathematics Report, The University of Adelaide, July 2007.