I think that the picture illustrated the entry corresponding to the NAAWS. I check it at home.

Regards

One bigger hangar would be a bit better than two, in order to save room.
LM-LCS has an hangar capable for two helos (or one helos plus UAV’s) in a smaller beam that F-100, so is possible to fit two helos in a F-100 if you need less room for other items (or people).

F-105 will be more automated than F-101 to 104, saving accommodations for at least 20 people. May be Hobart could go even a little more beyond…..
With the room for 20-30 people is possible to gain volume for another helo, of course with a redesign of the internal distribution…
I don’t know the degree of complexity of that kind of modification and may be that would invalidate the “off the shelf” reason in the F-100 election…

I don´t want press you 😀 but a Baleares pre and post TRITAN MLU would be great (you know, with and without Meroka, Harpoon cans, and so).

Regards and thanks for your enthusiastic work

What does the japanese caption on first image say?

Well, my japanese is even worse than my english…:D

Yes, the arrays seem smaller than those in SPY-1F 🙁 .
FCS-3 is a system in development since years ago. At least one prototype is onboard an experimental ship.

This is a primitive image of 19DD project:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/J_18DD.jpg

… an this an “evolved” design with enclosed mast, RAM, and AGS!:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/rgc/J_19DD.jpg

Regards

In the event of problem to the only engine, BPE is unable to operates cause the emergency diesel engine is able to boost only at 5 knots. Good to go home.

Well, not exactly.
BPE will has 1 TG x 20 MW and 2 Diesels x 8MW (36 MW total) in a full electric propulsion. In fact TG would be only used if speeds of more than 15 kn are required, so if the LM-2500 fails is serious but not catastrophic, taking account that it’s more an LHD/transport than a carrier. Even so, STOVL aircraft like Harrier and, supposedly F-35B, can operate reasonably good from a 200 m runaway with a 12 º ski-jump though speed don’t surpasses 20 knots.

Regards

If you ask me, the Spanish never gave up on this design, I have a funny feeling that they modified it and it is now what is on offer to the RAN.

BSAC-200/220 were never considered by Spanish Armada. The idea was to offer a cheap solution for countries with some tradition in CTOL operations (Argentina and Brasil) and others searching for it (China…).
Based strongly in PdA but enlarged and “CTOLized”, BSAC’s design had important limitations in areas like speed or fuel and weapons storage if you want to operate F-18, Hawkeyes and similar stuff.

BPE/SPS (the design proposed to the RAN) has little in common with BSAC or even PdA (apart from the ski-jump and the same elevator scheme). Is, in fact, an evolution of the LPD’s of Galicia class (stablemates of the Dutch’s Rotterdam). The original idea was an enlarged 18.000 t LPD with troughdeck.
Specifications from Spanish Armada were increasingly ambitious ending in a 27.000 t LHD capable of acting like eventual replacement of PdA when that vessel were in refit… but is essentially an LHD, very different from BSAC in concept.

Regards.

Yes, spanish hornets are regular F/A-18A/B (with some upgrades over the years).
I doubt that Bazan had any hope to build a CTOL for Spanish Armada, at least years ago. In the future, I don´t know.

Regards.

The most probably source of inspiration for the BSAC-200/220 is SCS/PdA.
Bazan (now Navantia) made a strong work of design from a handful of general blueprints (no more than 15-20) of the SCS to generate de hundreds of detailed drawings needed for a real ship, like PdA. Seems logical taking that experience for the BSAC in the same way that Chakri is a reduced and lightly modified PdA. Of course steam cats, angular deck and other items would need some aid from USA naval designers…

Regards