You are most welcome, guys! 🙂

And I’m always happy to help… I had heard of those ships in 1994, in a, now long dead, magazine named “D?fence Magazine”. It was oriented toward the “technological” side of defence and featured some projects like this one. I must say, I had been terribly disappointed the day I learned the BIP project had been dropped… By the way, since you had both heard about the BIP, when/where had it happened ?

@santi: I think it can indeed be said, that the NIMIS is a half way between Foudre and Mistral; it is in essence a Foudre-sized vessel with similar configuration, but with not much capacity and was somewhat vulnerable. It added very few to the Foudre and presented few interest by comparision.
In fact (but that’s only my opinion), I think that the NIMIS should actually have been three or four times heavier (39,000 or 52,000 tonnes) than the planned 13,000 tonnes, in order to have a good long range logistic/support vessel, for an expected reasonable price…

@MConrads: You are right when saying, that the BIP is a direct predecessor to Mistral, since studies for the mistral (then known as the BPC, note the closeness of the acronym) began in 1997, around the same time the BIP was forgotten.
It seems that the mistral is “simplified” BIP, concentrating on strictly amphibious missions. It is interesting to note, that the Mistral makes a wide use of civilian technologies (just like the NIMIS), and I think it can be said the Mistral is in fact a fair compromise between the BIP and the NIMIS.

For this reason, the ski-jump and the capability to operate S/VTOL aircraft was suppressed.
Let’s say, IMHO, that I find sad that the French Navy abandonned an opportunity to have a vessel abble to operate with other navies using S/VTOL aircafts: by this time, the UK, the US, the Italian and Spanish navies used Harriers aircrafts and this would, indeed, have improved the join capacities between those NATO navies (a French BIP operating USMC’s Harriers ? Why not ?).
However, this is explainable since this would have required a specifically designed warship that was seen as too costly for the french navy, since the FN had no S/VTOL aircrafts, no intention to buy them and no intention to pay more, simply to allow “foreigners” to have use of their ships.
Another reason, was that in 1994, both the CdG and the Rafale’s program where under high criticism and threatened of cancellation (the “dividends of peace”, remember ?). The French Navy feard that it could be “trapped” with the BIP being considered an “aircrat carrier” and could loose many of its combat capabilities…
One last word: the BIP is an almost twin of the Spanish BPE (or is that the contrary ?). Had the BIP indeed been built, maybe Australia would have bought it…
________
Angelina Jolie Pics

*BUMP*

Another “never were ship” was the B?timent d’intervention polyvalent or BIP, in english “Multipurpose intervention ship”. It was presented by the then DCN (today DCNS) at the Euronaval show in 1994 fior the export market…

Basically it was a “scaled down” version of the US Tarawa-class LHD, because as compared to the 40,000 tonnes Tarawa, the BIP had a smaller displacement of 19,000 tonnes.
Apart from that it was a similar concept of warship, capable of operating S/VTOL aircratfs and helicopters.

It also possessed a well deck for launching smaller landing craft, up to 2 Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft or 4 Landing Craft Utility (LCUs) a would have carried a ready batalion-sized amphibious force, and provided all the necessary logistic…

Main characteristics:
Lenght: 198 m
Beam: 50 m
Draft: 6,50 m
Air draft: 22,60 m
Displacement (full): 19,000 tonnes
Consumables: 45 days
Crew: 450+15 passengers
Troops: 500 soldiers
Engine: CODOG 2x14700Kw + 2×3,8Kw diesel, 2 shafts
Speed: 22,5 knots
Range: 10,000 min at 15 knots
Air operations up to Force 6 sea.
________
Baha’i faith dicussion

No, that wouldn’t make sense at all. The USAF wants to refuel F-16 with the KC-X, not B-52s.

You’re right, of course, and I wasn’t much serious (duh!) about it.

But I note that the USAF has more than “merely” F-16s ou F-15s (or F-22s, or F-35s) to refuel. They will also have C-17 and B-2s to refuel, isn’t the KC-X a bit “too short” to refuel them ?
And, by the way, the Euro will have their A-400M which has itself a big fuel capacity, and therefore will need a big refueler to feed it. Will the A-330 be enough for that ?

I got this from one of these discussion boards a while back :
-SNIP-
Just when was this ship design first proposed, and when was it offered?

THanks a lot, Bager, that’s what I was looking for! 🙂

I see that the BSAC would have recieved some 75m catapults, the same than the CdG, I guess. Interestingly It would have made him an almost custom-made wessel for the Rafale…

In fact, I think this kind of vessel is likely to re-launch the neverending debate of “a few Big CV vs. more but smaller CV”, because it could carry the same plane-per-ton ratio than bigger designs, and thos planes would have had similar (the same ?) performances than those of big CVs…

Plus, in my eyes the BSAC’s design actually ROCKS! 😀
________
Vaporizer Reviews

My source is an old issue of Air & Cosmos stating that Spectra was the first sytem to generate a significant number of MMIC in Europe.

Out of curiosity, do you remember the Issue Number ?

This pod contains camera to film the self-destruction of the OSPEI shells during the Rafale gun shooting tests.;)

Thanks.:)

I must say, I am somewhat surprised by the number of Mirage 4000’s fans, out there…

Okay, I like the design and I’m a somewhat chauvinistic French, but apart from being basically a twin-engined Mirage 2000, what’s so great about the “4000” ?? :confused:

That said, if any British are around there do they think that the mirage 4000 would have been a good choice for the RAF in replacing it’s F-4 Phantoms, in lieu of the Tornado ADV ?

To go back to the topic, I can’t help considering the TSR-2 as the best nuclear strike aircraft ever designed, and I’d have gladly seen the French Air Force dropping the Mirage IV in favor of the TSR-2… 😎
________
ASSIST

That’s really surprising.:eek:

I knew the Damoclès was a good design, but not to the point of having its licence sold to the Russian who themselves are usually (very) good weapon designers…

But to be honest, although I’m glad to see the Damoclès’performances appreciated, I’m not sure I really like the new, considering some recent trend Russia’s politic (the retriewal from the FCE treaty, to name it)…