|
The ''Hobart'' class is a ship class of three air warfare destroyers (AWDs) being built for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Planning for ships to replace the ''Adelaide''-class frigates and restore the capability last exhibited by the ''Perth''-class destroyers began by 2000, initially under acquisition project SEA 1400, which was redesignated SEA 4000. Although the designation "Air Warfare Destroyer" is used to describe ships dedicated to the defence of a naval force (plus assets ashore) from aircraft and missile attack, the planned Australian destroyers are expected to also operate in anti-surface, anti-submarine, and naval gunfire support roles. Planning for the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer (as the class was known until 2006) continued through the mid-2000s, with the selection of the Aegis combat system as the intended combat system and ASC as the primary shipbuilder in 2005. In late 2005, the AWD Alliance was formed as a consortium of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), ASC, and Raytheon. Between 2005 and 2007, Gibbs & Cox's Evolved ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer concept and Navantia's ''Álvaro de Bazán''-class frigate competed for selection as the AWD design. Although the ''Arleigh Burke'' design was larger and more capable, the ''Álvaro de Bazán'' design was selected in June 2007 as it was an existing design, and would be cheaper, quicker, and less risky to build. Three ships were ordered in October 2007, and will be assembled at ASC's facility in Osborne, South Australia, from 31 pre-fabricated modules (or 'blocks'). An option to build a fourth destroyer was included in the original contract, but has not been exercised. ASC, NQEA Australia, and the Forgacs Group were selected in May 2009 to build the blocks, but within two months, NQEA was replaced by BAE Systems Australia. Construction errors and growing delays led the AWD Alliance to redistribute the construction workload in 2011, with some modules to be built by Navantia. Increasing slippage has pushed the original planned 2014-2016 commissioning dates out by at least three years, with lead ship to be completed by June 2017, in September 2018, and by March 2020. The AWD Alliance, Navantia, and the involved shipyards have been criticised for underestimating risks, costs, and timeframes; faulty drawings and bad building practices leading to repeated manufacturing errors; and blame-passing. The alliance concept has been panned for having no clear management structure or entity in charge, and having the DMO simultaneously acting as supplier, build partner, and customer for the ships. ==Planning== The 1992 Force Structure Review contained plans to replace the three ''Perth''-class guided-missile destroyers and four of the six ''Adelaide''-class guided-missile frigates with air defence vessels.〔Gulber, ''Growth in Strength'', p. 4〕 The initial proposal – to build an additional six ''Anzac''-class frigates configured for wide-area anti-aircraft warfare – did not go ahead as the ''Anzac'' design was too small to effectively host all the required equipment and weapons.〔 Instead, the RAN began to upgrade the ''Adelaide''s in 1999 to fill the anti-aircraft capability that would be lost when the ''Perth''s left service between 1999 and 2001.〔Gulber, ''Growth in Strength'', p. 5〕〔Pengelley, ''Aussie rules''〕 The frigate upgrade was only intended as a stop-gap (only four ships were upgraded, and all four were due to decommission during the mid-2010s), and by 2000, the Australian Defence Force had begun a project to replace the three ''Perth''-class destroyers.〔〔 The acquisition of the dedicated air warfare destroyers was initially identified as Project SEA 1400, then redesignated Project SEA 4000.〔 The main role of the air warfare destroyer is air defence of a naval task group, in addition to assets ashore and operating in the littoral.〔 Although specifically designed for air warfare, the AWDs also had to be capable of facing other threats, and were to be fitted with ship-to-ship missiles, a gun for naval gunfire support of soldiers ashore, and anti-submarine capability through sonar systems and abovewater-launched torpedoes.〔 The ships had to be able to operate a helicopter for both surveillance and combat duties.〔 In 2004, the Department of Defence identified that the future air warfare destroyer class would be built around the United States Navy's Aegis Combat System.〔 The use of Aegis was formally approved in April 2005, and Raytheon Australia was brought into the AWD project with the responsibility of integrating the Aegis system into the selected design, along with modifications to accommodate RAN-preferred electronic warfare equipment, underwater sensors, and weapons.〔〔 In May 2005, the ASC shipyard at Osborne, South Australia, was identified as the primary shipbuilder for the project.〔 In late 2005, the AWD Alliance was formed to organise and implement the project.〔 The Alliance is a consortium including the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), ASC's project-dedicated subsidiary, and Raytheon.〔 After receiving tenders from Blohm + Voss, Navantia, and Gibbs & Cox, among others, the Australian government identified Gibbs & Cox's Evolved Flight II ''Arleigh Burke''-class destroyer as the preferred design in August 2005.〔Brown, ''Spanish designs are Australia's choice for warship programmes''〕〔Department of Defence, ''Preferred designer chosen for AWD contract''〕 The ''Álvaro de Bazán''-class frigate, designed by Navantia, was identified as the official alternative, and both designs began further testing and modification as part of a two-year selection process.〔〔 The two ship designs were equivalent in many areas, including length, speed and weapons outfit, although the ''Arleigh Burke'' class was larger with a displacement 2,200 tons greater than the Spanish frigate, and had superior capabilities in regards to range ( greater), helicopter operations (two embarked helicopters instead of one), primary armament (a 64-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System compared to a 48-cell launcher), and close-defence (with a second close-in weapons system).〔Shackleton, ''Choices and consequences''〕 The Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Shalders, believed the American design would provide the RAN with a greater long-term capability, as there was greater scope for upgrades and modifications later in the ships' careers.〔Walters, ''Navy wants upgrade capacity for destroyers''〕 Despite the American destroyer being the preferred option, the conclusion of the selection process in late June 2007 saw Navantia's ''Álvaro de Bazán'' design selected: the Spanish ships were considered a less-risky design as, unlike the Evolved ''Arleigh Burke''s (which at this point only existed as an on-paper design), vessels of the Spanish design had been built and were operational.〔 The ''Álvaro de Bazán'' derivatives were predicted to be in service four years earlier than the American-designed ships, and would cost A$1 billion less to build, with further financial and technical benefits in ordering the AWDs and the ''Canberra''-class landing helicopter dock ships from the same supplier.〔 The contract for the ships was signed on 4 October 2007.〔 The A$8 billion, three-ship deal included the option to order a fourth ship at a later date.〔Kerr, ''Australia seeks to extend AWD options''〕 This option was due to expire in October 2008.〔 The Australian government sought to extend the offer into early 2009, so as to review the recommendations of the ''Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030'' white paper due for completion at the end of 2008, and to enquire about acquiring a fourth Aegis system from the USN, before ordering or cancelling the fourth destroyer.〔 The Navy League of Australia has consistently supported the acquisition of a fourth AWD.〔Thornhill, ''Force 2030'', pp. 10–1〕 According to the Navy League, building a fourth destroyer would be relatively cheap (money for design and other 'start-up' costs would have already be spent) and improve RAN capabilities (by offering increased flexibility and redundancy, particularly in the event of a Falklands War-like armed conflict).〔〔 Along with the Navy League, the Australian defence industry has supported a fourth destroyer, to keep workers employed for longer while reducing the gap to the next major defence construction projects (the ''Collins''-class replacement and the ''Anzac''-class replacement).〔〔〔Kerin, ''Fourth destroyer still an option: Smith''〕 The Australian Minister for Defence announced on 20 January 2006 that the Air Warfare Destroyers will be named , , and .〔Department of Defence, ''Next generation of naval ships to reflect a rich history of service''〕〔Andrew, ''AWD, Hobart, MFU or DDGH – What's in a name?''〕 The Navy League of Australia suggested several possible names for a possible fourth destroyer; one was to name the ship ''Melbourne''; another involved taking the ''Adelaide'' name from the second ''Canberra''-class landing helicopter dock ship, and renaming the larger vessel ''Australia''.〔Thornhill, ''The Case for the Fourth Air Warfare Destroyer'' pp. 9-10〕〔''Time to bring back the Pride'', in ''The Navy'', p. 2〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hobart-class destroyer」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|