Of course, BSAC-200/220 was based in PdA, but enlarged and with a “CTOL flightdeck”. PdA is 189 x 24,6 m at waterline, then 220 x 29 m for the BSAC-220 is a direct redimension following the same design.
Two shafts seemed the most possible option, but PdA has worked reasonably good with only one (cheaper solution and more internal room).
Steam turbine propulsion was also considered for BSAC projects (steam generation for cats isn’t easy with other propulsion options).

Regards

I understand this is what is fitted to the F100 and Nansen classes. It is probably too large for anything much under about 4000 tonnes due to the demands on both space and below deck “height” (a hull has to be a certain minimum depth to accomodate the Tactical launcher’s length).

.

The 48 cell MK-41 in F-100 are “Strike Length” (in fact TLAM are recently aproved for a possible sell to Spain, destined to F-100 and future S-80 subs).
I’m not completely sure but the single 8 round Mk-41 in Nansen is possibly “Strike Lengnth” too.
For instances, I think that the 32 cell Mk-41 in the future PF for Denmark will also be “Strike” ones.
I have some doubts on Mk-41 at LCF and F124.

Regards.

Well, at the moment 16DDH is (“will be”) an helo-carrier (officially helo-carrier destroyer :rolleyes: ), then the bow phalanx don´t be a problem.
In previuos designs it was in front of the bridge, in the place now occuped by a satcom dome.
If any moment in the future Japan wants to use F-35B from 16DDH may be an ski-jump woul-be useful.
Something like that:

May be this “chorus line” would be interesting…
(note that 16DDH is 13500 t std but 18.000 t full)

Regards

Well, the image is extracted from that Armada’s pdf doc 😮

The MRD-10000 and MRV-7500 were proposed for the NAVPOL project but seems that Portuguese Navy preffers the Enforcer concept.

Here a nuclear through-deck AEGIS cruiser considered by the USNavy (extracted from Friedman’s superb “US Cruisers”)

Regards

Yes, Floreal are ships very close to the BAM concept, at least in the patrol version.
The idea with BAM is to use the same platform for a different roles with minor modifications, something similar to the Stanflex concept. The difference is that Stanflex can swing from one role to the other changing the “Stanflex modules”, but BAM will born like a patrol ship, or like an AGI, or like a diver support ship, etc. and probably this will be his main role along his life.
If the concept is succesful in 10-15 years a lot of Spanish navy ships will be BAMs, not included frigates, subs and the big ones (AOR, anphibs), of course.

Regards

European:

Did we meet in other place (forum) before?

Sure. :rolleyes:

Regards

BPE will use some civil building norms, she have nothing similar to PAAMS and 1 TG + 2 diesel vs 4 TG´s in Cavour. Official fund for the vessel is 360 million Euro, but development of some equipment isn’t included (a new 3D radar, combat system, etc.). 500-600 million Euro will be more reasonably figure.
She is not a carrier but an LHD. 21 knots are enough. She will take the place of Principe only when this will out of service in maintenance or upgrade works.

The S-80 has evolved from the basic lines of the Scorpene and, at this moment, it´s a very different vessel. It´s not included, at least from a marketing point of view, in the Scorpene family and it´s not building 50-50 by DCN-Navantia, like Scorpene, only by Navantia.
It will be a 2.500 t sub, with a larger diameter hull and double deck (Scorpene is single deck). Its AIP system isn´t the MESMA. It uses fuel-cells. The difference with other fuel-cell plants (Type-212/214) is that the LOX will be “produced” at the sub itself using reformed methanol.
The combat system is from Lokheed-Martin and now that US Congress has validated the sell to Spain of TLAM it´s possible that this one will used in S-80 (the other weapons up to 20, will be the german Seehake torpedoes and the Sub-Harpoon).
The first one is planed for 2010-2011, following the 3 other one every year.