Interesting pics of Mistral Design

I wouldn’t be surprised to see many nations ordering more than one JSF type. (i.e. F-35B’s and F-35A’s/F-35C’s) Yet, most won’t order both at the same time. With one type being purchased followed by another type some years later……….Remember most fighters are produced over decades and usually in batches. :rolleyes:

With a F-35B planned the BPE would indeed appear a more logical solution though Mistral may be equally attractive as long as the price is right and it fits the bill requirement wise. As of mid-2005 both designs affered to the RAN did not have a ski jump btw…

That said, I remain somewhat sceptical about the F-35B… With so many expensive procurement projects ongoing and coming up over the next couple years will there be the (extra) resources to get a mixed JSF fleet (of what, 55-75 aircraft?)? Although more can be fitted for transport purposes actual operation and support of aircraft is probably limited to around 12 even on the BPE design (compared to LHA(R)s planned 23).

Scoot: Mate the final nod hasn’t been given yet to an AWD design, only G&C have been selected to design the ship based on what they already have. I have heard that the design that they are looking at has a similar featur to the AB class destroyer but that the AGEIS radar is above the bridge and not below it like on the afore mentioned ship (something about stabilityat sea in a smaller design I heard).

As for what happened in Iraq, before,during and after the war it has no bearing on our decisions today for arms procurment. We’re not like certain other countries in that aspect.

Pred: It is starting to come out mate that one of the core ops on these new ships will be STOVL aircraft support. The Howard government has tried hiding it but there are more and more leaks springing the truth now and the admitance that we are to get some B models, where else do you think that are going to go?

The Spanish ship already have facilities built into it for STOVL ops so like I said before this is providing the lesser risk in design. The French one is only capable of VERT ops so it’s basically in a different class here.

Yes, the winning on the AWD won’t be awarded until something like mid-2007. Yet, it looks like the Gibbs & Cox Design is way out front. That said, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings! As for Politics……….I respectfully disagree. Please, don’t take me wrong. I am sure Australia wouldn’ts rule out the French Design on purely Political Reason. Just that politics does enter into the process……………(i.e. for better or worse)

Scoot: Mate the final nod hasn’t been given yet to an AWD design, only G&C have been selected to design the ship based on what they already have. I have heard that the design that they are looking at has a similar featur to the AB class destroyer but that the AGEIS radar is above the bridge and not below it like on the afore mentioned ship (something about stabilityat sea in a smaller design I heard).

As for what happened in Iraq, before,during and after the war it has no bearing on our decisions today for arms procurment. We’re not like certain other countries in that aspect.

Pred: It is starting to come out mate that one of the core ops on these new ships will be STOVL aircraft support. The Howard government has tried hiding it but there are more and more leaks springing the truth now and the admitance that we are to get some B models, where else do you think that are going to go?

The Spanish ship already have facilities built into it for STOVL ops so like I said before this is providing the lesser risk in design. The French one is only capable of VERT ops so it’s basically in a different class here.

From what I recall the main requirement for these ships will be to deploy, support and bring back 900 troops each. To do this there will be up to four landing craft (also being bought new I believe) and landing spots for six medium (or four heavy) helicopters which is supposed to give the desired single-lift capability for a reinforced company (~200 soldiers). Although ability to operate JSF in future is probably a requirement it should not be the overriding one since they are likely to be a platform of convenience for STOVL ops.

In terms of designs both as they stand now should fill requirements and possibly there is a balance of drawbacks and risk seeing as BPE is new and untested while Mistral(BPC) exists and is near service but was then subject to substantial redesign to get troop berth numbers up for RAN. I recall a comment from Navantia saying that their design was less advanced/sophisticated than DCNs approach but thus cheaper (never mind larger in the first place). To what extent this extends into areas of survivability and commercial rather than naval standards I do not know, however the thought of having to carry extra fuel and armaments for JSF safely with these designs makes me wonder.

Given that the BPE(mod) and the SPS are shortlisted, wouldn’t you agree that the SPS is the better option since we could walk away with the ship already suited for our use (especially since we are looking at putting the F-35B’s on them).

The BPE would require mods that would basically make it a new ship and there fore a riskier proposal and risk assesment is one of the ADF’s key factors.

I don’t think the small modifications to the French Design would rule it out at this point. Yet, the Spanish Design offers alittle less risk. Which, is always a plus. Further, you must not forget the political side either! During the conflict in Iraq. Spain supported Australia while France stood on the sidelines? 😮 Also, a contract for LHA’s to Spain. Would make up for the loss of the AWD Design to the Americans. (i.e. likely) :rolleyes:

Given that the BPE(mod) and the SPS are shortlisted, wouldn’t you agree that the SPS is the better option since we could walk away with the ship already suited for our use (especially since we are looking at putting the F-35B’s on them).

The BPE would require mods that would basically make it a new ship and there fore a riskier proposal and risk assesment is one of the ADF’s key factors.

I too have wondered about the short bow on the French ships mate, I can only sugest that they have planes themselves for it (possibly a missile encrusted bow or something).

As for the Aussie version of this it would be interesting to see but look at the flanks of the bow, see the gun positions, they could be a hazard to flight ops should we finally put F-35B’s on them.

IIRC the short bow is related to the use of a particular dock in France. The proposal for Australia need not be similarly truncated. It’s based on Mistral/Tonnerre, not identical to them: they aren’t designed (unlike the BPE) for STOVL planes, & would need some modifications, such as deck strengthening. I presume the proposal includes any mods for the F-35, if that’s part of the Australian requirement, since otherwise it wouldn’t have got to the shortlist of two.

I too have wondered about the short bow on the French ships mate, I can only sugest that they have planes themselves for it (possibly a missile encrusted bow or something).

As for the Aussie version of this it would be interesting to see but look at the flanks of the bow, see the gun positions, they could be a hazard to flight ops should we finally put F-35B’s on them.

Personally, I like the Spanish Proposal better. Seems to be a much more flexible design and well suited to operate F-35 JSF’s. Of course Spain has alot of experience with STOVL aircraft. (i.e. Harriers) 😀

I too have wondered about the short bow on the French ships mate, I can only sugest that they have planes themselves for it (possibly a missile encrusted bow or something).

As for the Aussie version of this it would be interesting to see but look at the flanks of the bow, see the gun positions, they could be a hazard to flight ops should we finally put F-35B’s on them.

Why is the bow cut off so short? Also, if the French Design is chosen as the basis for the RAN LHA. Would they extent the bow and equip it with a Ski-Jump? :rolleyes:

I know these are conseptual designs and that the end result is far different to what is pictured above, what I would like to talk about id the design plausability that was in those pics. Could the lift on the aft corner be useful?

I don’t think I like where the second lift is, IMHO it would interfere with deck movments both above and below.

Are these conceptual designs planned for the French Navy?

First one launched 6 Oct 2004, accepted by the navy last month, & now working up. Second one (Tonnerre )undergoing sea trials.

http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/histoire.htm

And from the official French navy site –

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/

Two articles on her: Mistral’s their current featured ship.

Look like decent ships.

Are these conceptual designs planned for the French Navy?

Looks like a scaled down USN LHA/LHD……………..(except the lifts) :rolleyes: