The major changes are incorporating a lot of the USN’s “Smart Ship” program into the design to reduce crew numbers, a perpetual RAN issue.

One thing that counted against the F100 design was that it has proved to be unstable in heavy weather, particularly with beam seas (too much weight up high, unavoidable really with the limitations of combining a 6000 tonne hull and the Aegis system)

hummm, I think that F-100 hasn’t any serious problem concerning stability. They are based in north Atlantic (where sea is not exactly calm), exercise in south Atlantic were conducted time ago (UNITAS) and one is actually operating with an US Navy task force all around.
Armada has abandoned/delayed her plans for a new class of frigates and prefers instead a couple more F-100, basically similar to the first 4 vessels. It not seems a logical movement if the design has “stability problems”, in fact Spanish Navy is very sensitive to anything concerning seakeeping.
Of course 6.000 t are 6.000 t, but that is imposing limitations more in free room for additional hardware than in seakeeping.
In any case, the design offered for Navantia to RAN was an “stretched F-100” (7.000 t), not the “regular F-100”, and Gibbs didn’t offer a Burke but a “lite Burke”.
Concerning to the crew, the US Navy certainly has conducted programs to reduce it but at the moment a Burke needs 330 people and F-100 some 200… (and some 180 in F-105).
Of course, I can admit that the Gibbs design would be better suited to the RAN needs, but not in base of “stability problems”.

A nice trio:

Regards

Well, in fact little is known on the designs presented to the AWD project. What we know are the former products of the respective competitors (F-100, F-124, Burke) and the AWD proposal will be a derivative of them.
F-100 and Burke are very different ships and probably AWD will be medium way between both.
If you have people and money, of course, Burke is better choice than F-100 to perform the AAW missions, at least in one per one basis.
Spanish Navy haven’t enough money and people to operate 4 Burkes, but seems very pleased with her F-100 (a 5th vessel has been aproved and, may be, a 6th in the near term). The question is what will be better for RAN, an enlarged F-100 or a shrinked Burke?. Australian government has opted for the last one.
The strong point, I think, of the spanish option (and, may be, of the german one) was that Navantia is well skilled playing with limited budget. In any case “value for money” is the main reason argued in favour of american design and Gibbs & Cox is, no doubt, one of the better naval designer in the world.

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

Sorry, this is the correct link:

BPE & PdA

The SPY-1K was developed for vessels in the 3.000 t range or even less. Of course his performance are far from the SPY-1D, but in the same degree, I suppose, that the Herakles compared with de Arabel/S1850 combination.
At this moment, the only aplication that I know for the SPY-1K is the spanish-american AFCON Corvette design (2.600 t), that was considered some time ago by the Armada and offered to Israel.

“Maritime Action Ship” (BAM in Spanish) will be an OPV of aproximately 2.500 t, 22-23 n, NH-90/SH-60 capable, 1 76 mm gun an a couple of MG. Wont be a “Combat ship”.
The project is building up to 12 for patrol duties, in order to replace diferent kinds of smaller patrol boats in spanish service, and 4 more miscellaneous (1 dive support vessel, 1 signal collection and 2 oceanographics) in a modular basis.
The substitutes of the 5 Baleares are the 4 (now 5 and probably 6) F-100.

Regards