Spainish Design wins AWD and Amphibious Ship Contract!

No, you are fine Mconrads. What I meant was that I am dissappointed that the Gibbs & Cox design was not chosen, I believe that the F100 was a poor choice.

I meant that it is a shame you are not going to be doing updated images of the G&C AWD design as it nears service with the RAN.

Unicorn

I would have to agree. As the Gibbs & Cox Design was more capable and had more room to grow. Yet, from the Goverments point of view and the problems with both the Collins Submarines and Seaprise ASW Helocopters. I guess no one should be surprised………….of course that doesn’t change my opinion.:(

No, you are fine Mconrads. What I meant was that I am dissappointed that the Gibbs & Cox design was not chosen, I believe that the F100 was a poor choice.

I meant that it is a shame you are not going to be doing updated images of the G&C AWD design as it nears service with the RAN.

Unicorn

The LHD looks a very interesting design and probably just right for Australia. Its packaging must be very novel to squeeze so must into a vessel that size. Its no greyhound though with a 19 knot normal top speed and a 15 knot cruise according to the project website despite being 230m long. There has been a lot of critism within the UK RN re a similar max speed for the LPH HMS Ocean. Presumably the Aussies have factored this into their decision, but seeing where Australia is geographically and the length of its own coastline they must have been tempted to go for something a little faster so that it takes less time to deploy ?

The Spanish BPE is a very capable design. Yet, I am concern which ELP and a few others have touched on. Is Australia needs to plan and equip th BPE to operate F-35B’s from the get go! That means to design in and equip the BPE’s to operate Lightnings from day one. I am of course talking about in Australian Service. As it is already planned for in Spanish Service. Further, for exampe how many would be required and would they be operated by RAAF and/or RAN personal? Also, what would be the mixed between CTOL F-35A’s and STOVL F-35B’s be? So, you see the planning needs to start NOW. Yet, most Goverments wait and it just costs more and happens later! Which, is such a waste of time and resources………….:(

Hi,

Impressive…….GREAT JOB! Hopefully, the RAN will get at least 4…….:diablo:

Thanks Scooter, though I have to admit that most of the credit should go to MihoshiK who drew the F100 in the first place. I just modified it.

Nice drawing Mconrads, although I wish it was the AWD you were drawing. 🙁

Sorry, Unicorn I think I didn´t get you right (must be my lack of English language skills). I didn´t draw the AWD??? Or did you mean the Gibbs & Cox version:

Regards.

Higher speed costs a fortune, the USN is discovering that with the LM2500 powered LPD….

Unicorn

Yes, & does terrible things to range, which matters to Australia. The BPE has a low top speed, but it can cruise at the same speed as a destroyer or frigate in economical cruise mode.

Higher speed costs a fortune, the USN is discovering that with the LM2500 powered LPD.

Nice drawing Mconrads, although I wish it was the AWD you were drawing. 🙁

Unicorn

The LHD looks a very interesting design and probably just right for Australia. Its packaging must be very novel to squeeze so must into a vessel that size. Its no greyhound though with a 19 knot normal top speed and a 15 knot cruise according to the project website despite being 230m long. There has been a lot of critism within the UK RN re a similar max speed for the LPH HMS Ocean. Presumably the Aussies have factored this into their decision, but seeing where Australia is geographically and the length of its own coastline they must have been tempted to go for something a little faster so that it takes less time to deploy ?

F-100 uses SPY-1D but IIRC it may incorporate some of the lightenend components of the SPY-1F. The -1F is on the Norweigen Nansen’s which are also built by Navantia

That would explain alot………….as many compare the Nansen with the F-100 as both are Aegis Equipped and built by Navantia. Maybe leading some to the wrong conclusion……….Thanks for the info.:o

While many say the F-100’s are the equal of typical Aegis Destroyers like the Burke and Kongo Classes except for fewer missiles. Doesn’t the F-100 use the SPY-1F in place of the larger and supposedly more capable SPY-1D. Further, while the current releases from Australia claim the SPY-1F can be upgraded to fire SM-3’s. I have read several sources that state otherwise????:confused: :confused: :confused:

F-100 uses SPY-1D but IIRC it may incorporate some of the lightenend components of the SPY-1F. The -1F is on the Norweigen Nansen’s which are also built by Navantia

A Burke (Flight II) and a F-100.

While many say the F-100’s are the equal of typical Aegis Destroyers like the Burke and Kongo Classes except for fewer missiles. Doesn’t the F-100 use the SPY-1F in place of the larger and supposedly more capable SPY-1D. Further, while the current releases from Australia claim the SPY-1F can be upgraded to fire SM-3’s. I have read several sources that state otherwise????:confused: :confused: :confused:

A Burke (Flight II) and a F-100.

Hi,

Sorry for the main gun. My mistake. Didn´t know where to put the Typhoons though. I´ll change it. Done (see edit above).

Regards.

Impressive…….GREAT JOB! Hopefully, the RAN will get at least 4…….:diablo:

Hi,

Is CEA-MOUNT feasible for final illumination of SM-2 at long ranges?
I would add a couple of 25mm Typhoons mounts and, of course, Mk-45 mod.4
Yah! A second NH-90 would be parked directly at the helipad… 🙁

It seems that F-105 (and, I suppose, AWD’s) will include some design refinements taken from the Nansens

Regards

Sorry for the main gun. My mistake. Didn´t know where to put the Typhoons though. I´ll change it. Done (see edit above).

Regards.

My reading if it is what killed Horizon was the French insistence on Project leadership and a workshare far in excess of what the 2 possibly 4 ships it said it would build would justify.

Considering at the time the UK was looking for 12, France expecting at least an equal share of the project was taking the **** to say the least – they did however lumber the Type 45 with Aster and Sylver when the RN would have prefered Standard and Mk41.

That pretty much covers it, basically the french wanted 50% work share when France and Italy combined were at best procuring half the number of ships the RN was. I was under the impression that at the time the RN preferred PAAMs over Aegis/Mk-41. In hindsight the latter might have been preferable considering tactom and SM-3.

What Killed off HORIZON in the AWD competition was Britains withdrawl from the program to persure the Type 45’s instead

My reading if it is what killed Horizon was the French insistence on Project leadership and a workshare far in excess of what the 2 possibly 4 ships it said it would build would justify.

Considering at the time the UK was looking for 12, France expecting at least an equal share of the project was taking the **** to say the least – they did however lumber the Type 45 with Aster and Sylver when the RN would have prefered Standard and Mk41.

An interesting alternative noted here

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm11.showMessage?topicID=877.topic&index=23

and here

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm11.showMessage?topicID=877.topic&index=28

As a side note, does anyone know what the difference between a 3rd Generation Ro-Ro and a 4th Generation Ro-Ro (as the Tamaris is) is?

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/tamesis/

The 5 inch gun would have a stealthy turret…….otherwise looks great!:D

Is CEA-MOUNT feasible for final illumination of SM-2 at long ranges?
I would add a couple of 25mm Typhoons mounts and, of course, Mk-45 mod.4
Yah! A second NH-90 would be parked directly at the helipad… 🙁

It seems that F-105 (and, I suppose, AWD’s) will include some design refinements taken from the Nansens

Regards

Hi,

since there are no official drawings available yet I thought I´d spice the discussion with one of our own drawings:

Note the Cea-MOUNT illuminators. Don´t know where they´ll park the second helicopter though.

Regards.

There is a premium in costs for building it in Australia, mostly because the capability has to created pretty much from scratch (again) and the skilled trademen necessary for the job are also in high demand from the resource industry, which is experiencing a boom, thanks to demand for natural resources.

Unicorn

Yes this is a great worry my friend!

It amazes me to no end that we as individual states compete against one another continuously for naval ship-building contracts at the cost of national interest and our defense.
For just as with our meager aerospace industry, we build a industry capability and train specialized skills to build an individual ship, aircraft or vehicle, and just as this given project is winding up, the next project in line, that would otherwise carry-over this skill-base created, is put up for tender for all states to bid.
I think it is long past the joke that in Australia’s defense interest, that we designate and specialize one ship-building facility, one aerospace facility etc etc…….
This way money on infrastructure, training and continuing skills will be kept for repairs, upgrades and new projects.

But what would an Assault Pioneer know?