I took some photos of the damage control charts onboard Alvaro de Bazan but not quite the same as a flat scanned image. The most important thing about the F100 deck plan is the big room in the middle of the main deck. That’s the wardroom and it’s the best wardroom on any ship smaller than a super carrier I’ve been on. Much better than the shoe box under the port forward SPY-1 antenna on the Arleigh Burke class.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Thankyou for the link it confirms what I’ve been saying. Bazan didn’t design the F100 they received a technology pack from the US Navy with the DDG-51 design technology that they with the help and guidance of Gibbs & Cox (who designed the DDG-51 in the first place) modified into the F100.
The reason I’ve been saying this is based on a conversation with a senior G&C designer who commented about how their contract to design the RAN’s Evovled AWD as part of a team with local staff (from ASC ) was very similar to their previous contract designing their competition the F100 in Spain. The irony of it. The Baby-Burke vs the Mini-Burke and 1990s DDG-51 derivative vs 2000s DDG-51 derivative.
Of course the F100 won because it had been designed for a smaller requirement – CBG AAW escort – and the Evolved AWD to a larger requirement. Just no one bothered to remind the final Government decision makers of the importance for the RAN of more than just the AAW mission. Really shouldn’t have called the project “Air Warfare” destroyer…
The F100 was not independently designed by Bazan. It is still a great achievement and the most capable and cost efficient AAW warship in the world. The JCI LHD was independently designed by Navantia but that is based on years of cruise ship design experience back before the Izar commercial arm collapsed.
According to the BIW guys theres also carryover characteristics in the F-100 that can be traced back through the FFG-7, DE-1052 and earlier.
Very interesting listening to the gurus when they frame this design in reference to projects they have worked on else where. It’s not a bad design its just that looking at the schedule we could and should have done better to future proof ourselves.
As an aside, had a chat with some ABS guys who did some work on LCS (both) and DDG1000 as well as the issues with USS San Antonio…. AWD, including BAE, are running like clock work in comparison.
Sorry that link doesn´t confirm anything for me.
In all these years the only refence i had from Navantia wrt Gib and Cox during the F100 design was that Navantia asked how they were mounting the Spy in the Burke´s. And anyway Navantia went for other method, which is indigeneous to Navantia and will do Hobarts.
All the design of piping, blocks, lots of different systems to the Burke´s and they don´t have nothing to do with G & C, you can believe what anyone interested in a contest or so can say.
What has to do a ship with 9000 t. and 4 gas turbines with other 5800 t. or 6000 t. with 2 gas turbines and a diesel engine, or the Norwegian frigates with 2 diesel engines and 1 gas turbine. But the whole layout of the ship is different, so the whole piping is different.
Now i don´t know if any assistance apart from the mounting of Spy, has been asked to G & C, but nothing like "Navantia received a technology pack". Navantia has done lots of studies on survability, stealth systems (various) and configurations, an indigenous Integrated System for Control of Platform which all nothing have to do with G & C. Sorry but F100 is pure blood Navantia (apart minor assitances).
LOL. That ‘above bridge’ SPY-1 arrangement was designed in the 1960s! It was the original AEGIS single RF source antenna arrangement. It has also appeared on multiple unbuilt designs until the F100 finally saw it realised.
None of that is true. Of course detail design (piping, etc) is different but is to be expected. Depending on the design option Gibbs & Cox often don’t do this as it is constructor yard responsibility. But the layout and arrangement of the F100 is totally descendant from the DDG-51 of course tweaked for single VLS, new propulsion, etc.
This is really pointless as a nationalistic contest. There is fact and everything else is pointless.
Blas de Lezo
Member
Ok, it is quite clear that we are not going to agree on this specific issue but frankly, it is not required.
The f100 project had from its genesis a government (spanish) mandate for the so called (nacionalización) of the project. I do not doubt that a G&C designer could have made condescending even patronizing," sales pitch" remarks about a competitor design but come on....
The project was in this case an extremely opened one due to the amount of input required from many different fields of the Spanish industry, some Gov companies, some private + the culmination of indigenous investigation projects.
We seem to be reading different things from the same documents, it happens. I though that if the info came from America it would make easier to put the point across, never mind.
The concept of the NFR 90 may have laid heavily with G&C but that is as far as it goes and this input applies to the f100 as it does to the T45. The F100's hull design comes from the Bazan 82 familly hull studies done at El Pardo by Bazan, radar cross sections and signatures at UPC in Barcelona etc and etc.
The Trination agreement design carries not by chance some of those characteristics ( I still remember the F100 without Aegis ).
The Nanssen class designs come from the evolution and adaptation of the Navantia ( call it what you may Bazán , IZAR it's the same) design work and concepts, This work was fully embraced by Lockheed as an expansion of their export opportunities that led to their cooperation in many other projects (see S80, LCS )
G&C and Navantía carry an excellent relationship , but it its now one of cooperation not mentorship.
Navantia's (Bazán) 82 family even sparked a project, I think it was with BAE for a super fast ferry containership for transatlantic service, with R&R turbines
All of this was possible in between other things, because of the amount on resources material and human present mainly at Ferrol but also at La Carraña (Cadiz) .To give you an example, during the 70`s and beginning of the 80's, Astano and other yards where producing supertankers like sausages ( a matter of speech) 200000 to 400000 Tm. Ferrol still has the world record for a launched ship 323000 tm.
The document posted by Jaimito is not a bad one, I wish you could translate it.
To wrap it up, many people would have preferred the G&C design for Australia, fair enough, but you will not get G&C's design work trough the f100.
As you say anything else is pointless. Enough of this for me
Best regards.
Not in the slightest rather perhaps some explanation is needed as to the terms and background being used. Most people expressing ideas in this discussion seem to be informed by things they’ve read about it and the derivative terminology becomes dominant rather than what actually happened.
Now take the F100 and the Evolved AWD. Many would say that the F100 was designed by Navantia and the Evolved AWD by Gibbs & Cox. Neither is true. Both were designed in the same process.
The Evolved AWD was actually designed in the main by Australian staff working for ASC Shipbuilder, Raytheon Australia, Gibbs & Cox Australia and AMT. Gibbs & Cox provided the primary technology package – the design of the DDG-51 – and high level guiding expertise. But all the detail work of modifying the DDG-51 design to the requirement and the new technology was done by the mostly Australians working in a swish ex merchant bank in Adelaide, SA.
The same thing happened when Bazan was contracted to develop the F100 for the Spanish Armada. They took Gibbs & Cox’s guidance and existing DDG-51 technology and modified it to meet the Spanish requirement. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. I’m not trying to demean the Spanish effort but it is completely wrong to say it is an all indigenous design. It is a diminutive DDG-51 and shares all of the DDG-51’s structural elements and hull form (shrunk 10%).
Navantia has put the Spy very high, more than other ships with more tonnage and so able to sustain a heavier structure. Also the system for alignment of Spy is very important to have a long horizon. I mean one thing is plan to put them high as much, other to do it and aligne it well (indigenous). You can see the result is excellent from fire trials with Us Navy destroyers (in youtube). The fastest Spy ship out there is the F100 due to its high altitude and very good alignment and is a smaller ship and that is Navantia´s merit not Gibb and Cox.
Why then we have the command rooms (flagstaff) or wardrooms bigger in the F100 than in a ship 3000-4000 t. bigger?
I pasted the previous link above with much info on the work done on F100 by Navantia. Those are facts.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Who cares? F100 is a good ship, the design is being provided to Australia to build our own and the quality of the design is recognised by the fact that Australia has decided to purchase this vessel when plenty of other options were available.
Who cares who designed every last widget? Navantia should be proud of their ship. They didn't design every single aspect of it, AEGIS shows that. Let it go.
Tell me how much the Bushmaster IMV was designed by an Irish design house (Timmoney) and see how upset I get...
I could care less who designed the bloody thing, so long as it's built on time, on budget and does it's JOB.
This is degenerating into a p*ssing contest guys. Give it a rest...
Before this deteriorates any further about who designed what - the Spanish themselves advised Aust the strong involvement with G&C in the design of the F100's, so lets not get too carried away about promoting it as an indigenous solution - its not.
As AD has stated, it is fundamentally irrelevant now that the decision is made and torches are doing their job.
lets move on with the debate - it is getting somewhat tiresome and is not adding any value to the thread in absolute terms.
As AD has stated, it is fundamentally irrelevant now that the decision is made and torches are doing their job.
lets move on with the debate - it is getting somewhat tiresome and is not adding any value to the thread in absolute terms.
Last edited:
In that web maybe you can contact and ask for a better file.
F100 mast is big, but it doesn´t mean is easy to hunt. There is record of an exercise done by the Spanish air force with 18 F18 trying to hunt the F100 in the Cadiz gulf, in littoral context, and all F18 were shot down by the F100, and they knew who were trying to hunt.
But there other things like the powerful ship´s electronics jamming the F18 radars, the antiradar ship´s cover and low radar sections (despite having a big mast), ... hypothesis.
I hope Raaf can "see" it by themselves.
Is there any update on the status of the Manoora and Kanimbla? Given their issues, Is a rapid procurement Bay class purchase from RN cuts a realistic possibility?
Any news on the likely options that will be considered for the LCH replacement?
What is the status on the Maritime Helicopter (ie NFH vs MH-60R)
Any news on the likely options that will be considered for the LCH replacement?
What is the status on the Maritime Helicopter (ie NFH vs MH-60R)
Abraham Gubler previously said, "Really shouldn’t have called the project “Air Warfare” destroyer…"
I believe it was called that because it was to be armed with the anti-ballistic missile missile, S-3, which hardly gets a mention nowadays. Definitely was not called AWD because it was to have 48 cells, a very small number for the size of the ship nowadays.
I believe it was called that because it was to be armed with the anti-ballistic missile missile, S-3, which hardly gets a mention nowadays. Definitely was not called AWD because it was to have 48 cells, a very small number for the size of the ship nowadays.
If you mean Rapid as in the next 6 months, then no.
The UK MoD has published its business plan, and has laid out the decommissioning process for those ships culled under SDSR. They expect it to take until March 2012 to remove one Bay from service.
Now if you wanted Ark Royal she would be available by April next year..................
BMD and the SM-3 has never actually been a formal growth option included in the SEA 4000 scoping. Land attack was but not BMD. The Howard government did sign Australia up to some BMD investigations but it was cut from mention in the public 2008 White Paper.
The 48 VLS cells on the F100 provide an excellent magazine of anti air weapons: 64 ESSM and 32 SM-2/SM-6. Larger missile magazines are for ships with large land attack magazines and/or predating quad packed ESSM.
It is called AWD because the baseline requirement was to provide the RAN with a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) anti air warfare (AAW) capability. The AWD’s genesis after the whimper of the MEKO 200 AAW version was the CEC government to government MoU between the RAN and the USN.
Of course despite this being the core role being a small Navy the RAN would require its AWDs to do more than just shoot down ships. Hence the RAN’s capability requirement for a force level ASW system (in the AF100), growth capability for land attack weapons (not in the AF100) and growth capability for an embarked naval UAV and/or task force MCM capability (ie UUVs, not in the AF100).
What and if there was as if we wouldn’t be talking about it?
The two offers for the FNACS are being prepared for Government second pass consideration when the preferred tendered will be chosen. When that happens it will be publically announced. I would expect by or before the Avalon 2011 air show. Certainly the USN offer for the MH-60R/Mk 54 LWT has been provided as per the DSCA congressionally notifications.
JP 2048/5 is still two years from first pass when the Government will select the required type of capability. The rough guideline approved by the Government is for an ocean going landing craft capable of supporting independent amphibious operations. This means stable enough for heavy seas (ocean going), able to load directly to shore (landing craft) and able to carry half a reinforced company level combat team (supporting independent amphibious operations).
So roughly this would imply a ~1,000 tonne class ship. As in the Hypethetical Carrier thread where this came up I suggested the best solution is what the Army wanted before they were forced to buy the LCH – the LSM Mk II. Other considerations could include several international ships similar to the LSM Mk II, an amphibious landing version of one of the Australian aluminium high speed catamarans, or one of the new transformable craft like the French L-Cat or US T-Craft.
What interoperability do you think these type of units could/should have with the LHD's/Sealift Ship ? I know it is stated the LHD's can operate 1 LCAC, although not sure how ? Im not sure of the dimensions between the central fender in the well deck but a LCAC I doubt would fit, so it is probably intended to be used without the dock flooded ?
The LCM-1E that we are getting will obviously fit, which has a beam of 6.4 mtrs, but with how much room ? Could something along the lines of the French L-CAT with a stated beam of
12.8 mtrs fit when flooded giving us additional capacity and flexability ? Or is this outside of the scope of what they are after ?
The LCM-1E that we are getting will obviously fit, which has a beam of 6.4 mtrs, but with how much room ? Could something along the lines of the French L-CAT with a stated beam of
12.8 mtrs fit when flooded giving us additional capacity and flexability ? Or is this outside of the scope of what they are after ?
To allow a LCAC to fit unfortunately the central fender only runs half the length of the dock. Therefore only the two FWD LCM1E's are protected from banging into each other properly, The two aft ones will have to fend for themself's (Yes pun intended
).I think this is a BIG mistake, as it will be a very rare occurrence to cross deck a Yank LCAC and I would of though it was more important to properly protect the LHD own landing craft (If the FWD LCM1E's need a central fender, why don't the AFT ones??????). Keep in mind that the LHD's are meant to be able to dock un / dock landing craft in up to sea state 4 (I have seen photos of the swell in a Albion class dock in that sea state, it is pritty massive and that is with a central fender that runs the length of the dock)
The central fender is at the front half because of the slope in the well dock deck creates a beach effect promoting swell. The deeper rear end is supposedly less of a worry.To allow a LCAC to fit unfortunately the central fender only runs half the length of the dock. Therefore only the two FWD LCM1E's are protected from banging into each other properly, The two aft ones will have to fend for themself's (Yes pun intended
The only time there will be four LCMs in the well dock is at flood down and pump out. So they will be securing to the dock walls and the ramp can be closed. During normal operations only two LCMs will enter the dock so they can back out again.
There is little need for the LCH replacement to dock inside the well dock of the LHD or sealift ship. When it does support the amphibious task group its role will not be a ship to shore connector like any LCM asset.
Last edited:
- Status