AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking

Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.
The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN's Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.

All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy's help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.

The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.

Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany's Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.

While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design - it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.

"The concept designs will be developed to meet the specific capability requirements of the Australian Defence Force," Hill's statement added. "This process will occur in parallel with the design of the combat system for the new air warfare destroyers."

Hill announced that Tenix and the Australian Submarine Corporation will be asked separately to assist Defence in the assessment of the designs and to advise the Government on the opportunities to maximise potential for Australian industry involvement in the project.

Not only will the AWDs be genuine multi-role sea control combatants, their evolutionary growth path will include at the very least a sub-set of the US Navy's planned Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.

Therefore the choice of the Aegis air warfare system was inevitable, given the Aegis system will remain US Navy's area air defence and BMD system of choice for the next two decades. The Aegis system will not be replaced or supplanted until the US Navy's CG(X) air warfare cruiser comes into service after 2018.

But based on the US Navy's own plans, the AWD's configuration options are now a bit clearer. This year 12 existing DDG-51s will receive an upgrade to Aegis Baseline 6 configuration which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). New-build DDG-51 will receive this system as standard.

According to Lockheed Martin's Maritime Systems and Sensors Division, which is prime contractor for the Aegis system, some 22 Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Aegis cruisers and 40 DDG-51 destroyers will be upgraded over the next few years to Aegis Baseline 7 standard, employing the latest SPY-1D(V) radar, with enhanced littoral capability, and COTS computing hardware. The next upgrade after this will see the introduction of the Aegis Open Architecture which will be retrofitted to all Aegis ships to enable network-centric operations.

Furthermore three CG-47s and 15 DDFG-51s will be upgraded still further under a spiral development process with an iterative two-year cycle to incorporate, first Block 04 (for 2004) BMD functionality, growing by the end of this decade to Block 10. Based on the Aegis Baseline 7 hardware and Aegis Open Architecture, the Block 10 BMD functionality will be the product of the enhanced SPY-1D(V) radar, the Raytheon SM-3 missiles and the necessary radar and combat system software algorithms to handle anti-ballistic missile engagements.

According to the US Navy's BMD office, the first elements of this capability are already in place and under test. In phase 1 of the BMD program the Block 04 system currently under test will provide the ability to detect and track an ICBM launch and transmit track data to the US Missile Defence Agency at Colorado Springs via satellite datalink. Indeed, during Operation Iraqi Freedom a Baseline 5-equipped DDG-51 is reported to have detected the launch of an Iraqi SCUD missile and handed off track data to a land-based Patriot missile battery which engaged the incoming SCUD.

Phase 2 will provide what sources term a preliminary engagement capability using the SM-3 missile. Phase 3, which is due to begin in early 2006, will see production SM-3 Block 1 missiles, along with the Block 06 radar and combat system software enhancements, fielded aboard a small number of CG-47s and DDG-51s. This will enable the engagement of short-range ballistic missiles.

In the last BMD trial conducted in December 2003 the BMD trials ship, USS Lake Erie (CG-70) engaged the incoming target using track data from a DDG-51, USS Russell, which detected the missile launch, tracked the target and data-linked the target information via satellite through Colorado Springs. The developmental SM-3 fired from USS Lake Erie was controlled entirely by the ship's company, not by any contractors, and hit the missile in the descent phase, thus demonstrating the capabilities of the missile and C3 system as well as the shore-based infrastructure.

US Navy sources told ADM that Australia's most flexible approach to fielding an Aegis system would be to acquire the Baseline 7 system with SM-2 Block III missiles. This will be in fleet wide US Navy service and, through addition of the SM-3 missile and some Block 10 (and beyond?) software enhancements, provides a simple growth path to an Australian BMD capability. The low-risk approach, according to Navy BMD officials, is to stick close to the US Navy and allow the US to lead R&D, development and integration.

At this stage its hard to say what opportunities exist for Australian industry to participate in a significant and meaningful way in the development of the RAN's Aegis capability - or indeed the global Aegis capability. Senator Hill said on the record in a recent interview with ADM that Australia can and should aim for significant local involvement and Lockheed Martin has acknowledged these aspirations, pointing out that its Aegis export programs - in Japan, Spain, South Korea and Norway - have successfully met the local industry involvement requirements of its customers. However, the company has traditionally, and probably always will, conduct the final shore-based testing, installation, integration and system check-out itself, for all of its customers.

Predictions that Australia could acquire an air warfare system incorporating DD(X) technology ignored that fact that much of the DD(X) technology development thrust is towards littoral warfare. While this has obvious attractions, the RAN wants to avoid technical and schedule risks arising from integration difficulties caused by unique, Australia-only configuration choices. However, it would be rash to discount the possibility of significant DD(X) input into the US Navy's, and therefore the Australian AWD's, ASW, AsuW and broader littoral combat capabilities.

Raytheon is leading the systems development element of the DD(X) program, which will see six engineering development models delivered to the US Navy by late 2005 and demonstrated at sea - these cover the total ship computing environment, combat system, radar, undersea warfare capabilities, communications and the development of the new Mk57 Vertical Launch system.

As a potential prime systems integrator Raytheon Australia says it could and would lead the Total Ship Electronics Systems integration effort on the RAN's AWDs, as well as its amphibious and afloat support ships, if the opportunity were available.

At this stage studies are under way on the AWD's combat system design. As the RAN plans to buy only three AWDs at this time, achieving a decent level of commonality with the Anzac frigates (for example, in the areas of sonar) may have a significant effect on the cost of in-service support, configuration management (especially of certain types of software) and crew and operator training.

What about the platforms?

The RAN's basic requirements are fairly clear - a platform big enough to handle the Aegis SPY-1D(V) radar, which is slightly heavier than the current SPY-1D; provision for enough weapons, and the appropriate mix of weapons, to allow the ships to operate in the area air defence role and, down the track, possibly in the BMD and even land attack roles. That means lots of launchers to carry a wide mix of weapons - the F100's 48 Mk41 VLS cells are probably insufficient; the F124 has only 32 cells.

The RAN also wants at least the same range as the Anzacs - 6,000 nautical miles or more; and it needs a propulsion system which allows for economical cruising; and, of course, minimum manning.

Observers have long felt that IZAR was in a strong position to bid for the AWD contract. Its 6,000 tonne, multi-role F100 frigate carries the SPY-1D radar though it is slightly smaller than Navy is believed to want. IZAR is a member of the AFCON consortium, along with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) and this team is well qualified to develop a slightly larger RAN-compliant variant of the F100 at a moderate level of risk. At Pacific 2004 IZAR unveiled plans to add a further two eight-cell Mk41 launchers aft, adjacent to the hangar roof, bringing the missile count up to 60; this may be closer to what Navy needs.

BIW is also the lead yard for the DDG-51 construction program. It's unclear what changes to the basic DDG-51 design would be required to make it more acceptable to the RAN. A smaller crew is essential; so also is a propulsion package which allows for economical cruising using diesel engines rather than the DDG-51's four turbines alone. Otherwise, the basic hull and air warfare system needn't be so very different from the current design. In any case, Lockheed Martin would have to be involved in the design, construction and air warfare system integration. If BIW's parent company General Dynamics ends up with a stake in the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) it wouldn't be too fanciful to suggest that two of the three AFCON members might also have a role to play in delivering a DDG-51derivative to the RAN.

Blohm + Voss has a very strong track record in Australia, based on the successful adaptation of its MEKO 200 design for the Anzac frigate project and the subsequent very successful local build program. The F124 is innovative - stealthy, economical and fast, but smaller than the RAN is believed to favour; both it and the F100 will probably need stretching to provide the sensor, weapon and equipment space and weight margins required for an area air defence and BMD platform over the next 40 years.

When originally conceived in the mid-1990s, the F124 was designed in two versions - one with the Aegis system as a fall-back in case the European APAR-based system wasn't successful. In the event the APAR-equipped version went ahead successfully; however, ADM understands that a fair bit of system-level design was undertaken for an Aegis-equipped F124. How far the detail design progressed isn't clear and as a result it's hard to say what the integration risks associated with putting an Aegis system into a derivative of the F124 might be.

That integration risk - real or perceived - must be balanced against the comfort zone Blohm + Voss has established in this country and the close relationship it has built up with two Australian companies who are likely to be significant supporting players in the AWD program. Saab Systems and CEA Technologies are intimate partners of Blohm + Voss in the MEKO D program and they are likely to be key equipment providers - combat system elements and radar - on the AWD.

The next 12 months will be crucial - the first six months will see the contenders develop their designs; a three-month evaluation period will follow, and then an approval period, leading to a source selection around mid-2005. The design contenders must address risk, cost and through-life capability and supportability issues, especially those relating to the Aegis air warfare system. They must also put together a credible and detailed proposal for building these ships in Australia and for fitting them out and integrating their complex combat systems.

Any plans to build these ships in Australia, and any hopes the government has that this program will help contribute to a long-awaited rationalisation of Australia's naval industry, depend very much on the outcome of the ASC privatisation process. With the AWD design contest now under way, there isn't much time left for the Commonwealth and Kockums to resolve the various issues delaying privatisation.

By Gregor Ferguson, Adelaide