Australian LHD project

Hello,

On the AWD front, you might want to look at the Australian announcement at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5048 and the images at http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Aug/20050816.cfm . It is interesting that the F-100 design remains as the backup option.

Take care.

JGR

Hello,

There is considerable information available on the Mistral design mentioned in the Australian anouncement at http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=5039 . Two French links worth a visit are at http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/ and http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/decouverte/materiels/batiments_de_combat/bpc_type_mistral/mistral/ . There are two short English language summaries at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/mistral.htm and http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00192001 .

Take care.

JGR

I’m sorry Scoot, I can’t see the win in us buying the Aussie Burkes. Maybe if I and a few friends sabotage the work we’ll get the F-100’s 🙂

Seriously though, the RAN wanted the F-100’s but as always the government went for the American designs. As for the LHD’s, that’s going to be interesting what happens now.

Ok, Ja I respect your views being a former Navy man and all. So, in which way is the F-100 a better design or choice if you like over the modified Burke? Both will use the same American SPY Radar (i.e. Aegis System) and mostly American Weapons Systems. So, really of only major difference. Would be the hull design? In either case both will be constructed in Australia. 😀

That is not Mistral or Tonnerre, Ja. It is Principe de Asturias.

Yeah. Is curious, because Spanish Army has CH-47D and BPE is designed like the first vessel in the Armada to admit in a regular basis Army hardware.
I suppose that is a compromise. 27.000 t seems a lot but one of the requirements is to replace, when needed (refit, repair), the PdA like carrier vessel, althought maintaining the capability two swing quickly to LHD missions. At least some Chinooks can be carried in the flight deck.

Regards

Wow Santi, you can really see the size difference to great effect in that pic… Now you can see why we want the Spainish one and why the French one can handle the Chinooks (the lift lowers deeper).

Sorry, this is the correct link:

BPE & PdA

The most complete information actually on the web about BPE/SPS is that of the Spanish Armada site, posted by JGR.

Here and artist view of BPE sailing alongside Príncipe de Asturias light carrier:

http://www.revistanaval.com/txemaprada/imagenes/wallpapers/LHD1-R1.jpg

Briggs: mate I can’t get into that site

I found some pics and info here http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Aug/20050811a.cfm

http://www.navantia.es/cgi-bin/run.dll/extranet/jsp/categoria.do

has more on the Navantia project

Thanks for that mate, interesting stuff.

Hello,

There is a very complete discusion of the Spainish LHD at http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=05202 . It is in Spainish but most of it is very easy to understand, if you know ships.

Take care.

JGR

I’m sorry Scoot, I can’t see the win in us buying the Aussie Burkes. Maybe if I and a few friends sabotage the work we’ll get the F-100’s 🙂

Seriously though, the RAN wanted the F-100’s but as always the government went for the American designs. As for the LHD’s, that’s going to be interesting what happens now.

In the real world (i.e. Political) the American Design Aegis Destroyer makes sense. Further, Australias “major” Military partners (i.e. US, Japan, and S. Korea) are equippment the same basic design. So, really its a no brainer here………………..That said, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Spainish LHA selected by Australia either! In my opinion surely a Win-Win for all parties……………:D

Scoot: mate I just found out that the AWD has gone to Gibbs and Cox 🙁

WOW…..from the talk I heard it was going to be Spainish Design. Yet, the AWD will be sharing the same basic arament with the Burke, Kongo, KXD-3’s. So, I guess nobody should be surprised…………..Regardless, both designs are excellant ships. Good for the RAN! 😀

Scoot: mate I just found out that the AWD has gone to Gibbs and Cox 🙁

Why am I not surprised?

Just a thought: wouldn’t it have been smart if Australia had teamed up with South Korea or Japan for this requirement (AWD <> KDX3, Kongo 2)

Scoot: mate I just found out that the AWD has gone to Gibbs and Cox 🙁

Not Italian aircraft carriers.

Dang, who stole the aft deck??? The Spanish designs all seem to cut short the fantail, which seems a little odd, you could probably squeeze in another couple of helicopters if the lift was either right aft, or at the side.

A nice design otherwise though!

This type of design seems common on Spainish and Italian Aircraft Carriers? Personally, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want a full length flight deck. Every square meter is needed for parking and flight operations…….. :rolleyes: That said, I like the Spainish Design and I would n’t be surprised that both (i.e. AWD & LHA) are pick by the RAN. 😀

How much higher would the ceiling need to be and couldn’t that be fixed?

Another two meters apparently.

Yep, seems like a somewhat strange limitation for a ship in this size class.

Well I’m sure thatSpain and Australia would work something out should the need prove sufficent enough to warrent CH-47’s being deployed aboard. Like I said, the MRH-90’s should be quite sufficeint in their duties.