BPE news and information

[StingrayOZ]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.

 

[Tasman]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.

I agree with you that this design would provide a tremendous capability for the ADF. It offers huge growth potential, allowing for a comparatively easy return of fixed wing airpower to the RAN if ever a future government should ever decide to take up this option.

I used the following link and found a tremendous amount of info:

http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=050202

I recommend visiting the link. Non Spanish readers can use the Google free translation service to get a full appreciation of what these ships offer.

As an amphibious ship they can embark 16 - 18 helos, 4 LCMs or 1 LCAC plus 4-6 RHIBs, 150 vehicles and 1000 troops. If the RAAF acquires some they could also embark a detachment of F-35Bs in place of some helos or in place of some of the vehicles which would normally be stored in the forward hanger.

As a light carrier they could embark, if the RAAF acquires them, a full squadron of F-35Bs, a detachment of Tiger helos and a detachment of Seahawk helos for ASW work.

They could also be used to cross deck USMC or RN F-35Bs.

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

Good link Tas. That is a very exciting prospect for the RAN. Having 2 of these would really give us some flexibility,and with a Tobruck replacement,some significant projection capability.I think it would be a shame to settle for the Mistral, although that desighn may some advantages that im not aware of....

 

[santi]

Tenix has open a web site with very good information on the Tenix/Navantia proposal for JP-2048.

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/

 

[Tasman]

Tenix has open a web site with very good information on the Tenix/Navantia proposal for JP-2048.

http://www.lhd.tenix.com/

Thanks for the link Santi.

I note that Tenix/Navantia is pushing the merits of the ski jump for UAV operations. As Australia has no plans at this stage to buy the VSTOL version of the F-35 it is probably a good idea to emphasise advantages that such a design offers. If the BPE is selected the RAN will be able to operate its own UAVs from these ships and also cross deck USMC or RN F-35Bs or Harriers. Importantly it would preserve the option of operating its own (RAN and/or RAAF) F-35Bs if decided later.

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) Or Juan Carlos

This the new spanish LHD/Part time carrier. Australia is concidering it for its canberra class.

I really like this ship and have been doing some mining on it.

Interesting spanish thread http://www.portierramaryaire.com/foro/viewtopic.php?t=238&start=0&sid=0b4da6503acb024e41e21f3aa401555e

Interesting points:
* Spain may look at buying two of them, given it would most likely be a far superior aircraft carrier than the R11 PdA. In that it can operate more aircraft (maxium of 30 fixed wing), operate the F-35 (PdA can't due to deck and lift concerns).

*Interesting comparisons between Spanish and Australian ships. Frigates and destroyers and comparing spanish ships to French and Italian ships.

*Explains how a V-22 can operate off a BPE from the stern.

The possibilities the BPE offers the ADF are huge.

Amazing... it's the first time I read the Principe de Asturias is incompatible with F35s !! This would be a big issue indeed... can it be fixed with a sort of MLU ? Our Garibaldi is compatible AFAIK even if the total number embarked would be reduced to 6-8

cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well the PdA is extremely limited as a whole, and extremely limited as a carrier (with command as well). I belive it has some sea worthy issues too. It also apparently has issues with F-35 weight (they way a lot more than Harriers) and lift size.

The BPE is 300 million euro and much larger, and more capable. Able to act as a amphibious, carrier, command, etc. Given the costs of operating the PdA and its limitations, I can certainly see them retiring it. The production line will be busy most likely with two BPE's for Australia. They might squeeze one in before Aus order, or after it. Theres definately many on the forum promoting the idea of additional BPE's are retiring the PdA.

Which also lends support that the BPE has more than "limited" carrier capabilities. Spain may use it as its full time carrier. As a full time carrier key changes would be removal of the amphibious dock to improve top speed (changing the hull shape) and make space for another engine to improve top speed and electrical capacity.

 

[Tasman]

Well the PdA is extremely limited as a whole, and extremely limited as a carrier (with command as well). I belive it has some sea worthy issues too. It also apparently has issues with F-35 weight (they way a lot more than Harriers) and lift size.

The BPE is 300 million euro and much larger, and more capable. Able to act as a amphibious, carrier, command, etc. Given the costs of operating the PdA and its limitations, I can certainly see them retiring it. The production line will be busy most likely with two BPE's for Australia. They might squeeze one in before Aus order, or after it. Theres definately many on the forum promoting the idea of additional BPE's are retiring the PdA.

Which also lends support that the BPE has more than "limited" carrier capabilities. Spain may use it as its full time carrier. As a full time carrier key changes would be removal of the amphibious dock to improve top speed (changing the hull shape) and make space for another engine to improve top speed and electrical capacity.

A version of the BPE optimised for carrier operations along the lines you suggest would certainly seem to provide a very capable ship for its size. Re the production line being busy it is possible that the Australian LHDs will be built in Australia, so this could free the Spanish production line.

BTW, do you have any info re speed and range with the additional power?

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area).26-30kts would be ideal, being able to keep up with US CSG's and faster deployment to the region etc. Additional speed would assist take off performance of aircraft.

I would love to see the canberra's built in Australia, but I'm not sure we have the avalible docks and yard to produce a 27,000 ton 230m ship. Although I think the budget allocated would be able to cover the additional cost of building in OZ. We will have to see how that plays out.

As we will have to watch about the ski jump. UAV's and the ability to cross deck UK/US Harrier and F-35B's would be great selling points. Atleast is more useful than a 7th spot, given our fairly limited helicopter capability the 7th spot I would seriously doubt get much use, plus very few small LHD's have 7th spots (I can't think of any) and it is outside its origional design.

 

[alexsa]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area).26-30kts would be ideal, being able to keep up with US CSG's and faster deployment to the region etc. Additional speed would assist take off performance of aircraft.

I would love to see the canberra's built in Australia, but I'm not sure we have the avalible docks and yard to produce a 27,000 ton 230m ship. Although I think the budget allocated would be able to cover the additional cost of building in OZ. We will have to see how that plays out.

As we will have to watch about the ski jump. UAV's and the ability to cross deck UK/US Harrier and F-35B's would be great selling points. Atleast is more useful than a 7th spot, given our fairly limited helicopter capability the 7th spot I would seriously doubt get much use, plus very few small LHD's have 7th spots (I can't think of any) and it is outside its origional design.

The hull size is not an issue and these could be built in a dry dock. the problem is using thie method ties up the dock.

The building way on cockatoo is decommissioned (and may be a tad small). Williamstown is way too small and the other commecial way we used to build on are decommisioned (one acutally had a D9 cut it up so it could not be reused which was an act of real studipity).

A new facility has been considered in SA whihc does not present a real technological challenge but the fact is:

1. Two ships are already under constrcution in Spain and they have learn the lessons from hull 1.

2. We have refit facilties (dry dock) of the size required already so so uless we plan to build a lot of ships in this size range then a building way will be left idle for a lot of the time (wasted asset).

3. There are real economies of scale with using the spanish facility and existing infrastructure and skills.

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

The best opitonin my mind is to build the hul in Spain with navigation and propulsion systems and then sent it homw to fit it out with weapons and C3I etc. This would be very cost effective compared to trying to build a one of shipyard in Australia.

 

[Tasman]

The hull size is not an issue and these could be built in a dry dock. the problem is using thie method ties up the dock.

The building way on cockatoo is decommissioned (and may be a tad small). Williamstown is way too small and the other commecial way we used to build on are decommisioned (one acutally had a D9 cut it up so it could not be reused which was an act of real studipity).

A new facility has been considered in SA whihc does not present a real technological challenge but the fact is:

1. Two ships are already under constrcution in Spain and they have learn the lessons from hull 1.

2. We have refit facilties (dry dock) of the size required already so so uless we plan to build a lot of ships in this size range then a building way will be left idle for a lot of the time (wasted asset).

3. There are real economies of scale with using the spanish facility and existing infrastructure and skills.

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

The best opitonin my mind is to build the hul in Spain with navigation and propulsion systems and then sent it homw to fit it out with weapons and C3I etc. This would be very cost effective compared to trying to build a one of shipyard in Australia.

Thanks for that info alexsa.

Much as I would like to see the LHDs built in Australia I have to agree that what you say makes sense.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Believe me from a ship building perspective getting decent welders and fitters is a serious challenge world wide at present. Wiht the AWD constrution undrway we wouel be pressed to conduct both projects at once.

I've been on a few projects where a shortage of specialist welders, fitters and turners had the capacity to kill the projects.

Collins, Bushmaster and even the current AWD are all examples of problem projects where this has occurred.

In the case of a Kuwaiti armoured car project I worked on, we had to train up specialist ballistics welders from another trade.

within 2 years of the finish of Collins, most of the spec welders had picked up jobs in deep sea rigs, mining and heavy plant.

a decent welder, esp stainless steel, overhead, pressure vessel, underwater and TiG are like hens teeth to find. a good workman can almost name their own price.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Ideally there would be a steady stream of defence projects to keep top notch welders (or atleast a group of experienced welders) working for the same company or avalible for future work.

A defence industry isn't something you can just turn on and off. Spain seems to be focusing on building are nice little industry. For a ship like the LHD's where we will only order 2 every ~25 + years, let spain build the hulls and we do the fitout.

 

[old faithful]

I've been on a few projects where a shortage of specialist welders, fitters and turners had the capacity to kill the projects.

Collins, Bushmaster and even the current AWD are all examples of problem projects where this has occurred.

In the case of a Kuwaiti armoured car project I worked on, we had to train up specialist ballistics welders from another trade.

within 2 years of the finish of Collins, most of the spec welders had picked up jobs in deep sea rigs, mining and heavy plant.

a decent welder, esp stainless steel, overhead, pressure vessel, underwater and TiG are like hens teeth to find. a good workman can almost name their own price.

I am going to Karratha tomorrow. Im filling in there because,our whole Directional drilling department has quit. One of the guys quit to drive forklifts with an oil co.woo....better not name them....150K A YEAR. For a forkie! So you can imagine the $$$ good tradeys make there. Our staff house is a 3 bed room wreck. My company pays $1500 per WEEK rent. There is some serious money in the pilbera at the moment. One of my best mates is RSM of the pilbera Regt,and he has A-Res diggs that ern 3 times what he does.

 

[swerve]

No I don't have the performance figures as none have been provided, how serious this preposal is remains to be seen. However such a upgrade would want to target Cavour type speed but still maintaining large range (as spain operates over a much larger area). ....

I think that what you're describing is, in effect, a new ship. New stern & additional engines (& think of the implications for those external pods) means considerable rearrangement of internal spaces. Higher speed & same range means more fuel - more rearrangement - and considerably reduced carrying capacity, which you say is one of the things you most like about her (& I agree, it's one of her strengths). I think that even with a redesigned stern, to match Cavour for speed would mean a lot more power: current max speed of 21 knots is only achievable at less than full load (the official Armada website says 24660 tons). Max speed at full load is 19.5 knots.

I suspect the ship you'd end up with would not be the ship you now like, & I fear that the whole project may not be sensible. I'm no expert on ship design, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the decisions made when designing Juan Carlos are linked to the choice of top speed, & are not well-suited to a significantly faster ship.

BTW, you have to be careful comparing costs. It looks to me as if Navantia has done an excellent job at keeping costs down, but I think when comparing the cost of Juan Carlos with, e.g., Cavour, there's a certain amount of apples & oranges. AFAIK, the price of Juan Carlos is for a bare ship, with "mission modules" bought under separate contracts. It certainly doesn't include any missile armament.

 

[Tasman]

I think that what you're describing is, in effect, a new ship. New stern & additional engines (& think of the implications for those external pods) means considerable rearrangement of internal spaces. Higher speed & same range means more fuel - more rearrangement - and considerably reduced carrying capacity, which you say is one of the things you most like about her (& I agree, it's one of her strengths). I think that even with a redesigned stern, to match Cavour for speed would mean a lot more power: current max speed of 21 knots is only achievable at less than full load (the official Armada website says 24660 tons). Max speed at full load is 19.5 knots.

I suspect the ship you'd end up with would not be the ship you now like, & I fear that the whole project may not be sensible. I'm no expert on ship design, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of the decisions made when designing Juan Carlos are linked to the choice of top speed, & are not well-suited to a significantly faster ship.

BTW, you have to be careful comparing costs. It looks to me as if Navantia has done an excellent job at keeping costs down, but I think when comparing the cost of Juan Carlos with, e.g., Cavour, there's a certain amount of apples & oranges. AFAIK, the price of Juan Carlos is for a bare ship, with "mission modules" bought under separate contracts. It certainly doesn't include any missile armament.

Good points swerve. I suspect designers would prefer to start with a clean sheet of paper if they were designing a 'pure carrier'. It may be possible though to incorporate some common features, such as flight deck configuration and aircraft handling arrangements, which may appeal to pilots who would probably deploy to both ships or cross deck from one to the other at different times.

21 knots at 24,660 tons is the figure for the BPE set up in carrier configuration (i.e. no amphibious loadout but extra aircraft and helos). 19.5 knots at 27,079 tons is the expected max load in an amphibious configuration.

You are also correct that costs have been kept down by keeping the BPE to a basic design. This, and its small complement are two of the features that have appealed to Australia.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

Good points swerve. ....

You are also correct that costs have been kept down by keeping the BPE to a basic design. This, and its small complement are two of the features that have appealed to Australia.

Cheers

Nice of you to say so.

I may have give the impression in some of my posts that I don't much like the BPE. If so, I'd like to correct that. As I said, I'm no expert, but to me it looks like an excellent design. The diesel powered podded electric propulsors look very clever to me, the amount of usable space compared to tonnage is impressive, the cost is very good, & I like the flexibility & small crew (the propulsion system helps there). I don't think the RAN will have any regrets at all if the design is chosen. I just don't think it's the ideal ship if you want a dedicated carrier.

 

[alexsa]

Nice of you to say so.

I may have give the impression in some of my posts that I don't much like the BPE. If so, I'd like to correct that. As I said, I'm no expert, but to me it looks like an excellent design. The diesel powered podded electric propulsors look very clever to me, the amount of usable space compared to tonnage is impressive, the cost is very good, & I like the flexibility & small crew (the propulsion system helps there). I don't think the RAN will have any regrets at all if the design is chosen. I just don't think it's the ideal ship if you want a dedicated carrier.

But is not being sought as a dedicate carrier. The podded propulsion can give more speed if you fit units with a greater output and have the generation capacity. The latter is the issue.

Using gas turbine imposes a range of stuctural and sapce issue due to feed air and exhaust. If you use the more efficnet combine cycle systesm te demands are greater but the long term benifits increase if you focus on mas speed.

21 knots max sustainable is not bad and most escorts will be hard pressed to sustain this on an ongoing basis. The BPE is based on a commercial system and shoudl sustain about 19 to 19.5 knots which is pretty good.

The cost of the extra 4 knots imay not be worth it for an amphibios asset. This being said if the block coefficient and underwater dynamics of the hull is such that you are not on the curve of critically dimishing return on power to speed then ther is no great impediment to trying to ekk a few more knots out of the system as the deisel generator footprint (space) should be similar.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It may well be forum speculation. Certainly the types of modifications are very major. IMHO I think the BPE is more useful as it is. If you need more carrier coverage then build another and have three. As I've stated, I don't think it would be a half bad primary light carrier, it major weaknesses are slow speed, possible lack of a jump in OZ spec, deck edge lifts would be better for flight operations but would have issues regarding seaworthyness.

Lots of large flexable hanger space, protected lifts in (fairly)good spots, decent deck space, big enough size. Really even if Australia does put F-35B's on it the BPE design will most likely never be taxed with the number of aircraft we will have.

But it was interesting to read the arguments about a dedicated spanish carrier. I always thought the spanish might build a specialised carrier, perhaps as large as 40,000 tons, possibly for other interested countries. Maybe even with CATOBAR. But that does not appear to be the case.

While the inital cost is low, and for a bare ship, the 2 billion $ for the canberras is quiet a great deal on top of that.

 

[swerve]

But is not being sought as a dedicate carrier. ....

I know. If you read back a bit, you'll see this began with speculation from Stingrayoz that the BPE might make a suitable basis for a dedicated carrier. This is a little bit of discussion around that speculation - which, IMO, is a perfectly reasonable thing to speculate about, & this is a BPE thread, not an Australian LHD thread, so exactly the right place for it.

BTW, what you say about the hull & the potential for increased speed - that's one of the things I have no idea about, but would be interested in the answer to. Would it be possible for someone who knows about hull design to make a half-decent guess from the published pictures? Also, I've wondered about the props. Would they be suitable for greater speed?