Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Markus40]

I wouldnt be shedding too many tears about the Labor Partys comments. I have found the Labour Union clan to be very ill informed and much of the time they shoot themselves in the head, when pressured on political matters.

I really dont think an evolved version of the F100 is too big an issue based on the concept and design of the new F100 for the RAN. The current design is "evolutionary" in itself and is upgradable and designed to incorporate many features for future technology to be added onto the design.

The figure of $A8bn for the AWDs is much higher than expected, especially given the comments that the F100 is the cheaper ship. There is nothing in the Minister's press release that indicates that an evolved F100 is being considered.

I was disappointed that the Opposition Defence Spokesman was critical of the high cost of the LHD and AWD on ABC TV News tonight. I wonder what his suggestions for cheaper alternatives are? Surely the Labor Party are not going to suddenly oppose these projects!

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

I would have to temper that idea with a bit of Salt and Pepper if this came from GF. I am more of the opinion that any UAVs or such like would more than likely be used on the BPE as you say. I personally cant see why the Helo Landing pad at the rear wouldnt be a good place to either launch and retrieve a small UAV and run its base from that in conjunction to the Helo if it had too.

The other thing is this, why would we need a UAV when there is a Helo? The one Helo is all thats required to do the job of a UAV, and a chopper has the capacity to dual role its operations to cover both ASW and AEW. So i think the UAV argument is a bit weak on the F100. For the BPE ? Yes. Cheers.

As gf said the lack of space for UUV/USV/UAV's, etc, may well be a problem in the future. It also means that the ship won't be able to carry helos for both ASW and AEW or picket duties. However, the ability of the BPE to carry some helos for these duties as well as the helos needed for army support will help overcome this problem.



I agree 100% even if it means placing an Anzac in reserve.



Even without the F-35B the LHDs will be very capable in supporting embarked troops using MRH-90s and Tiger armed helos. Personally, though, I hope that a squadron of F-35Bs will be acquired.



Excellent point. The excitement created by major new equipment orders ought to be used to advantage for recruitment purposes. Hopefully the promise of improved living conditions for personnel in the new ships compared with those they will replace will also help with retention, which is perhaps a bigger issue than recruitment.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

CATOBAR.. Tehehe.. Yeh, how much did CDG cost to build? Its just about to go into be refuelled isn't it? Even if we had it we couldn't afford to run, refit, etc.

The BPE is an extremely capable ship. As a full carrier operating ~20 F-35B's it would pack CDG punch, and the type of punch that is more useful for Australia. Strike, recon, antishipping, rather than air superiority. But more usefully, it is far more multiroled. We can also easily cross deck with UK and US forces.

I heard the ABC refer to it as a "aircraft carrier" on the news tonight.

UAV, helos, fixed wing aircraft can be based off it. It would be safer, easier etc to fly them off the BPE. BPE would support more capable UAV's.

So the lack of flight capabilities are somewhat made up by the BPE's exceptional capabilities.

The several billion more might also have something to do with it.

These are some mighty fine ships. Will the Canberras be based one on the east and one on the west? May help recruitment issues.

 

[Tasman]

I wouldnt be shedding too many tears about the Labor Partys comments. I have found the Labour Union clan to be very ill informed and much of the time they shoot themselves in the head, when pressured on political matters.

I really dont think an evolved version of the F100 is too big an issue based on the concept and design of the new F100 for the RAN. The current design is "evolutionary" in itself and is upgradable and designed to incorporate many features for future technology to be added onto the design.

The Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon seems to be out of kilter with state Labor Party leaders. Support for the decisions has been given by the SA Premier and by the Victorian Industry Minister, both Labor Party:

South Australian Premier Mike Rann has welcomed the employment opportunities.

"We believe that the Spanish design offers enormous opportunities for a fourth ship rather than just three ships," Mr Rann said.

"We'll be certainly very strongly supporting the Federal Government making the decision for a fourth ship to be built, which of course will bring even more benefits to SA."

Victorian Industry Minister Theo Theophanous says the deal will provide a significant boost to the state's ship building industry.

"We've been working on this for a long time and we're very pleased that the Government has made the right decision for the right ship for the Navy," he said.

"It's a very large ship, it's a winning design. It will be the biggest Navy ship ever built in Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1956405.htm?section=justin

Obviously they are looking at the benefits for their states but I can't see how Federal Labor could pull the rug on either project with any sort of credibility and I am confident that they won't. It does make me worry though about Joel Fitzgibbon as, IMHO, he seems to have a habit of attacking every defence purchase made, without offering a credible alternative. Only a few weeks ago he said Labor was fully behind both projects yet he was critical when interviewed tonight that they are too costly! Where does he and his Party really stand on these issues?

Cheers

 

[W800i]

Can someone inform this malcontent as to what "lancing" the Anzacs means. It doesnt seem to be a positive. I think I can recall an Anzac coming back from a foray into the Southern Ocean some years ago with some hull cracking? Is this somehow related. People whom sail into oceans with waves bigger than the ships their on are either brave or strange. Im not sure which?

My two cents worth re todays announcement.
Mini carrier- Thank god the Spanish received the contract, that frog design quite frankly looked like s#@#.
AWD- I hope that the 1000 tonne heavier F100 is the one selected. One chopper, one less fire control channel and of course less space and range seems a strange choice. As one Brit admiral said, "space is free and steel is cheap" or words to that effect. I think the design should have alot of extra space and weight allowed because quite frankly we really have no idea as to what new capabilities and weapons these ships may actually be launched with let alone retrofitted with over their lives.
A big cheer for a rigorous selection process, I hope. Hopefully in the days to come we may hear from some insiders as to how rigorous the decision has been?

All in all a good day for the RAN. Hopefully these ships can be brought to the fleet on time and budget. I have to say that the RAN wont have trouble manning these ships once youngsters see a shiny new flat top with lots of exciting things happening on them. As one poster said, maybe F-35B's?.
Chow

 

[contedicavour]

A couple of remarks on what I've been reading in the posts above.

(i) the LHD : I've read that the BPE design would offer the possibility to operate 20 F35B and "the same punch as the CDG carrier"... To be clear this is impossible. First of all the CDG operates up to 40 Rafales and SEs. Next, one thing is being able to host temporarily 20 F35s, another thing is being built to operate to the fullest extent an air wing. The Spanish BPE is an excellent LHD with secondary air operations role, not at all an aircraft carrier.

(ii) why all this interest in having a supersized evolution of F100 ? If it's in order to have extra VLS for ESSM/SM2 to compete with Kongo or KDX-III then I disagree. Once you have 48+ VLS it's enough to be a credible AAW destroyer, especially with the 4 ESSMs fitting in 1 VLS cell. If it is to add extra helicopters and hangars for them, I disagree as well. The new ships are supposed to be AAW destroyers, not multirole vessels with several ASW helos aboard.

cheers

 

[tito]

how much it is that it cost each frigate?

 

[Tasman]

A couple of remarks on what I've been reading in the posts above.

(i) the LHD : I've read that the BPE design would offer the possibility to operate 20 F35B and "the same punch as the CDG carrier"... To be clear this is impossible. First of all the CDG operates up to 40 Rafales and SEs. Next, one thing is being able to host temporarily 20 F35s, another thing is being built to operate to the fullest extent an air wing. The Spanish BPE is an excellent LHD with secondary air operations role, not at all an aircraft carrier.

IMO, you are completely correct.

The new Canberra class LHDs will never have the punch of a medium sized, purpose built carrier, like CDG. They are also unlikely to ever operate an airgroup of 20 F-35Bs in RAN service. At best the RAN may be able to convince government to purchase 20-24 F-35Bs as part of Australia's JSF order. If this happens the RAN would be most likely to operate half a dozen from the LHDs to provide fixed wing support for embarked forces. Of course the ships would also be able to be used as sea control vessels but that is not why they are being ordered. The Canberra class will be excellent multi purpose ships for the ADF, with or without F-35Bs.

(ii) why all this interest in having a supersized evolution of F100 ? If it's in order to have extra VLS for ESSM/SM2 to compete with Kongo or KDX-III then I disagree. Once you have 48+ VLS it's enough to be a credible AAW destroyer, especially with the 4 ESSMs fitting in 1 VLS cell. If it is to add extra helicopters and hangars for them, I disagree as well. The new ships are supposed to be AAW destroyers, not multirole vessels with several ASW helos aboard.

cheers

I would always have preferred the RAN to have ordered Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes but the complement of 370 (v 180-220 for the Evolved "Baby Burke" and F100) was regarded as too high for the RAN.

Personally, as others have also said, I think the F100 is a mistake that will be regretted 20 years from now when its lack of room for growth will show up. At the moment the AEGIS fire control mated to 48 VLS cells is probably sufficient for Australia's needs. But if it is decided to add SM-3 and/or Tomahawk in the future, the extra 16 cells in the G@C Evolved Baby Burke (with room for 16 more) will be sorely missed.

As I said in an earlier post, having room for only one helicopter is actually a retrograde step from the FFGs they will replace. Fortunately, the fact that the RAN will get the new Canberra class LHDs means that it will be able to operate naval helos from these platforms if necessary so this will help overcome the lack of a second helo if an F100s is operating with one of these ships. For independent operations, however, a second helo is a valuable asset in the wide reaches of the Pacific. The RAN will only have 8 other surface combatants and they also carry only one helo each.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

To be clear this is impossible. First of all the CDG operates up to 40 Rafales and SEs.

A BPE with 24 F-35B's supported by JORN, land based Wedgetail will pack a simular punch to the CDG. The F-35B is a superior aircraft mainly because it can carry its weapons internally and is stealthy. The Rafales are going to draw more fire more of the time, so you are going to need more of them. The CDG will be superior yes, but I would be putting them in the same class. Acting outside of Australian land assets the CDG is far superior.

With land based assets like australia has, to cover AEW, the BPE will be suprisingly capable. Atleast as capable as UK's current carriers, which have been shown to be more than a basic seacontrol amphibous ship.

The BPE has a nice layout for its lifts, while deck edge lifts (like the cavour) would have been a nice touch and improved sortie rates, they would reduce the sea keeping capability too much, to be at risk of sinking in the pacific with 17+m waves. The BPE can carry 30 aircraft. It can proberly operate 18-20 extremely effectively. The BPE actually has some munitions lifts etc, something say a amphib like the Mistral wasn't really designed with in mind.

Spain is talking down its capabilities because it already has one carrier, so another is likely to be shot down atleast until its current carrier is due for replacement (around when F-35 come on line). And Australia, buying two, also wants to keep its carrier capabilities on the low.

With the lift at the side, and the other right at the back it leaves most of the deck open and free for operations including landing aircraft. It has a large hanger, almost as large as a CVF. It also has spare deck space to place aircraft out of the way of operations. It has accomodation to crew aircraft activities. Spaces for storage.

It can act as a carrier far better than say the much larger Wasp LHD. It can hanger more fixed wing aircraft, its aircraft can carry more, useable deck space is simular, wasp hampered by its small hanger area.

 

[Tasman]

Broad political support now apparent for AWD and LHD decisions

The following has been reported in The Age Newspaper relating to the Labor Party position on the purchase of the new ships:

Opposition defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the Opposition supported the purchase of the new ships but was concerned that the price had already risen sharply, which he said was "consistent with the Government's form in defence procurement projects in recent years".

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/huge-warship-deal-lauded/2007/06/20/1182019201491.html

So it seems that Labor will criticise the government as much as possible, which is reasonable for an opposition party, but will support the procurement of the new ships.

The selection process for this contract has been very thorough and I am now confident that the Canberra class LHDs and the Hobart class AWDs will proceed with broad support from both the major political parties.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Yes i fully understand this issue you have just mentioned and there are two issues at hand here. Firstly the Opposition spokeman for Defence has a serious case of Depression. Depression means they cant objectively give logical and straight and informed policies of their own but are ready to shoot anything down that they cant think straight on. If the Labor party have him as their spokeman then i too wonder about their over all mental state.

I have listened and watched the opposition baracking at Howard and Costello and "Joe" and quite frankly i do not know for the life of me where they get their dumb reasoning from. The Liberals are miles ahead for intelligence , humour, straight minded debating and general policy debating skills. The Labor few at the front bench are really a group of patsies, that cant sort out their BS.

Secondly , quite frankly Labor are rooting for a subject urgently to try and railroad in any case. Its their job too. Defence in the last few days have been their subject to pick on. But as usual they dont have any substance, and have no legitimate policies to be quite honest to offer. This is not just in Defence but in other areas. They have kept realitively quiet on many issues because they are afraid what the public might do to their ratings. At least the Liberals have enough guts and forsite to lay the cards on the table. Cheers.

The Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon seems to be out of kilter with state Labor Party leaders. Support for the decisions has been given by the SA Premier and by the Victorian Industry Minister, both Labor Party:



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/20/1956405.htm?section=justin

Obviously they are looking at the benefits for their states but I can't see how Federal Labor could pull the rug on either project with any sort of credibility and I am confident that they won't. It does make me worry though about Joel Fitzgibbon as, IMHO, he seems to have a habit of attacking every defence purchase made, without offering a credible alternative. Only a few weeks ago he said Labor was fully behind both projects yet he was critical when interviewed tonight that they are too costly! Where does he and his Party really stand on these issues?

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Good to see some common sense coming through here GM.

You are absolutely right there is no need to have extra cells for the AWD. 48 is enough as it is, and any more in my opinion is over kill and would never need the requirement for more as this would be a waste of money and space and operational status. A F100 would never need anymore than 48 cells. 48 cells has the capacity to engage a very heated battle environment and more. 48 cells will have future capacity for the SM-3 Missile which i heard Dr Nelson yesterday stating would be an option on a future upgrade.

The BPE is not designed to carry 20 or more F35bs. It has the capacity to load 12 at the most but no more.

The BPE is an Amphibious Assault Ship. In general terms they are "Aircraft Carriers", as they can carry Aircraft and Helicopters. To the public they are Carriers but to the ADFs they are Amphibious Assault Ships.

A couple of remarks on what I've been reading in the posts above.

(i) the LHD : I've read that the BPE design would offer the possibility to operate 20 F35B and "the same punch as the CDG carrier"... To be clear this is impossible. First of all the CDG operates up to 40 Rafales and SEs. Next, one thing is being able to host temporarily 20 F35s, another thing is being built to operate to the fullest extent an air wing. The Spanish BPE is an excellent LHD with secondary air operations role, not at all an aircraft carrier.

(ii) why all this interest in having a supersized evolution of F100 ? If it's in order to have extra VLS for ESSM/SM2 to compete with Kongo or KDX-III then I disagree. Once you have 48+ VLS it's enough to be a credible AAW destroyer, especially with the 4 ESSMs fitting in 1 VLS cell. If it is to add extra helicopters and hangars for them, I disagree as well. The new ships are supposed to be AAW destroyers, not multirole vessels with several ASW helos aboard.

cheers

 

[Markus40]

I wouldnt get to hung up on the verbal diarrehia coming from the left. What is said one day in politics is said the opposite the next. People in fact forget over a short period of time and this is already a non event with the Labor party.

The following has been reported in The Age Newspaper relating to the Labor Party position on the purchase of the new ships:



http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/huge-warship-deal-lauded/2007/06/20/1182019201491.html

So it seems that Labor will criticise the government as much as possible, which is reasonable for an opposition party, but will support the procurement of the new ships.

The selection process for this contract has been very thorough and I am now confident that the Canberra class LHDs and the Hobart class AWDs will proceed with broad support from both the major political parties.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

...

The BPE is not designed to carry 20 or more F35bs. It has the capacity to load 12 at the most but no more. ....

12 sounds about right. The pictures on the Armada website show 20 AV-8B in the hangar, as long as only AV-8B is in there. F-35B is bigger, so the number would be less. And you'd want to carry at least a couple of AEW helicopters, or V-22 AEW (if such a thing is ever built). After all, there isn't much point, IMO, to an "aircraft carrier" which relies on land-based AEW. Rather limits its value for power projection. There isn't much deck parking, & using it fully would do bad things to optempo, so maximum hangar capacity is probably the realistic full load for sustained ops.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAerea.asp?SecAct=050207

 

[Markus40]

LC, i realise that there was some sentiment among others for the AB design, but in fact there was a huge amount of support among the ADFs and RAN even a Admiral changed his mind at the last minute and said that the F100 was the best choice for the RAN. I really dont think he would have come out and said that unless he knew that the F100 had the 360 ability to cover all the elements that the AB could. I think there are strengths and weaknesses in both options to be frank and the RAN got the best of all worlds.

If the government choses a fourth Destroyer later then this argument will be put to bed.

Having studied the F100 a little and read endless hours on the design, i am convinced that the F100 design is "evolutionary". That means that future upgrades and hardware integration is part of its design. The 48 cell launcher is way more than what would be needed in a hot zone or an enemy saturation area. The SM-3 upgrade is a simple addition to the cells already there and you dont need a full complement of SM-3s in a 48 cell launcher.

Next, having 2 Helicopters is good insurance, but unnecessary. This is another added expense and more recruiting for pilots than would be necessary. If you read my last posts you would see that one helo with all the gears is all it needs for 360 survellience if neccessary although unlikely due to the operational survellience of the Destroyer.

The AWD role is Anti Air threats and Carrier escort. Therefore the one Helo is enough to carry out the tasks thats needed when you have many on the Navantia. Cheers.

IMO, you are completely correct.

The new Canberra class LHDs will never have the punch of a medium sized, purpose built carrier, like CDG. They are also unlikely to ever operate an airgroup of 20 F-35Bs in RAN service. At best the RAN may be able to convince government to purchase 20-24 F-35Bs as part of Australia's JSF order. If this happens the RAN would be most likely to operate half a dozen from the LHDs to provide fixed wing support for embarked forces. Of course the ships would also be able to be used as sea control vessels but that is not why they are being ordered. The Canberra class will be excellent multi purpose ships for the ADF, with or without F-35Bs.



I would always have preferred the RAN to have ordered Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes but the complement of 370 (v 180-220 for the Evolved "Baby Burke" and F100) was regarded as too high for the RAN.

Personally, as others have also said, I think the F100 is a mistake that will be regretted 20 years from now when its lack of room for growth will show up. At the moment the AEGIS fire control mated to 48 VLS cells is probably sufficient for Australia's needs. But if it is decided to add SM-3 and/or Tomahawk in the future, the extra 16 cells in the G@C Evolved Baby Burke (with room for 16 more) will be sorely missed.

As I said in an earlier post, having room for only one helicopter is actually a retrograde step from the FFGs they will replace. Fortunately, the fact that the RAN will get the new Canberra class LHDs means that it will be able to operate naval helos from these platforms if necessary so this will help overcome the lack of a second helo if an F100s is operating with one of these ships. For independent operations, however, a second helo is a valuable asset in the wide reaches of the Pacific. The RAN will only have 8 other surface combatants and they also carry only one helo each.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

I found a very good description pictorial of the F100. I thought i would share it.

 

[Tasman]

12 sounds about right. The pictures on the Armada website show 20 AV-8B in the hangar, as long as only AV-8B is in there. F-35B is bigger, so the number would be less. And you'd want to carry at least a couple of AEW helicopters, or V-22 AEW (if such a thing is ever built). After all, there isn't much point, IMO, to an "aircraft carrier" which relies on land-based AEW. Rather limits its value for power projection. There isn't much deck parking, & using it fully would do bad things to optempo, so maximum hangar capacity is probably the realistic full load for sustained ops.

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/CapAerea.asp?SecAct=050207

If the ADF acquires a squadron of F-35Bs I think the following airgroups would be realistic:

1. Operating as a pair in an amphibious operation I can envisage one ship operating 12x MRH-90s and 4x Tiger ARHs with the other operating 6x F-35Bs, 6x MRH-90s and 4x S-70B Seahawks. Maybe a couple of CH-47Ds would also be attached.

2. Operating in a sea control role one ship might operate 8-12x F-35Bs, 4x S-70B Seahawks and 2-3x AEW version of MRH-90.

As well as hangar and deck space the airgroup that can be effectively operated will be limited in size by aviation maintenance facilities, aviation fuel capacity and weapon storage capacity.

The old Melbourne, designed as a dedicated carrier, generally carried an airgroup of less than 20. Typically it carried 6-8x Skyhawks, 4-6x Trackers, 4x Sea Kings and 2x Wessex, so I think it is unrealistic to talk about airgroups of 24 F-35Bs, even if the ADF had that many available to deploy, which is unlikely even in a best case scenario (based on past experience it would need a total of at least 48 aircraft in its inventory to be able to operate 24 at sea other, perhaps, than for a specific mission of limited duration).

Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Personally, as others have also said, I think the F100 is a mistake that will be regretted 20 years from now when its lack of room for growth will show up. At the moment the AEGIS fire control mated to 48 VLS cells is probably sufficient for Australia's needs. But if it is decided to add SM-3 and/or Tomahawk in the future, the extra 16 cells in the G@C Evolved Baby Burke (with room for 16 more) will be sorely missed.

Firstly, congratulations on having a forward thinking Govt supporting the purchase of LHD's and AWD's for Australia's strategic protection and force projection etc.

Secondly, re F100 choice, call me cynical if you must. But aren't "guns and butter" related? The Spanish (no offence) may have offered better "trade" options to Australia than what the US (C&G) could offer in the end (again no offence to our US cousins). Then we have the Iraq wheat deal fiasco, maybe what Howard has really done is fired a shot across the bow of our US friends to not take Australia for granted. A very quick google search brings up a couple of items on the ever expanding importance of trade with AU and Spain, gateway to the EU (for greater trade and access etc, even greater than the UK according to another page I viewed?). http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=australia+spain+trade&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 and http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/2002/020131_fa_madrid_tande.html Now compare the importance of Spain with other EU countries. Maybe you will see more up to date trade information in the Australian business papers to work out if this is one of the reasons why the F100 was choosen. How the world is changing eh?

 

[recce.k1]

Sorry everyone and mods, please delete my first two incomplete postings sent by accident (not used to using a Mac at the mo)! My first link was wrong, should have been http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2003/mvt022_03.html

 

[Markus40]

I dug out an interesting article on the F100:


The F-100 has a proven technical lineage beginning in 1999 with the creation of the Advanced Frigate Consortium (AFCON) - linking Bazan/Izar (now Navantia) with Gibbs & Cox, Lockheed Martin and Bath Iron Works (BIW) - which cleverly leveraged US surface combatant technology through a back door into the European market.

In short, the subsequent F-100 design and build program has brought to the global market a mid-sized frigate/destroyer combination that draws on the best in warship design experience - in both platform and systems - from several world leaders, whilst delivering significant IP to the Spanish government which it is now feeding into other export opportunities, including Australia’s project Sea 4000.

One example of this IP is the ship’s unique ‘radar-above-the-bridge’
tower structure, which works to increase the horizon of the ‘Aegis’
AN/SPY-1D radar over and above that of its much larger US Navy
DDG-51 cousins. As outlined in the Table below, the F-100 design delivers
much of what the RAN has publicly acknowledged it is seeking in
terms of naval warfighting capabilities, including: a Mk41 VLS matched
to ‘Standard’ SM-2 Block IIIA and ESSM missiles; a potential growth
path to ‘Tomahawk’ surface-to-surface missiles; canister-launched ‘Harpoon’
anti-ship missiles; Mk45 Mod 2 (or latterly upgraded ERGM)
gun; a helicopter storage/operations capability; a close-in weapons system
(CIWS); and active/passive sonar.

All this has been successfully packaged into the F100 design, which have subsequently had their sensor systems and weapons
tested (and test fired) in association with other US Navy ‘Arleigh
Burke’-class ships, and for which construction dynamics and build costs
have been pretty well defined within the Spanish context.

Prospectively on offer to Australia through a closer connection with
Navantia under project Sea 4000, therefore, is an established warship
design with an excellent technical pedigree, the opportunity to build and
develop a valuable relationship with a sister-Navy operating the same
class of warship (and perhaps other warships aka Joint Project 2048),
and a funded platform capability development program (as illustrated by
the Spanish government’s support for further F-100 construction).