Fragatas F-100 de la Armada Española

[el_bendito]

maximo, a q local te refieres a popa debajo del cic ??? iws???
de todas formas decir q del buque se ve muy poco, maquinas nadita, cic idem, iws tpc nivel 03, 04, y 05 nada de nada con lo cual tpc veo yo q se 2enseñe" tanto

[maximo]

Si te lo dijera, tendria que matarte ;-)

[Florencio]

Si te lo dijera, tendria que matarte ;-)

[el_bendito]

pues tendre q descubrirlo por mi mismo
pero debajo del cic a popa esta el iws

[Shackleton]

Tampoco se suele poder visitar salas muy sensibles de la F-100, como la que hay bajo el CIC hacia popa debajo de las antenas.

yo lo se , yo lo se, yo lo se!!!!!!!

Alli es donde se guarda lo que hace la F-100, todo lo poderosa que es


se guarda..............



..........MI TESORO!!!!

[santi]

No se si es el hilo más adecuado pero....

The Australian

Defence backs Spanish warship for $7bn deal

Patrick Walters, National security editor
April 25, 2007

SPAIN'S F100 air warfare destroyer will become Australia's new front-line warship if the Howard Government accepts the Defence Department's firm recommendation on the $7billion contract.
In backing the Spanish warship, Defence chiefs have rejected the navy's bid for a larger alternative based on the US Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia.

The design contest has seen the F100 finish more than $1billion cheaper than the US option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships.

Cabinet's National Security Committee will also consider retaining an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.

The decision to go for the smaller Spanish destroyer over an evolved design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a defeat for the navy chief, Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders, who made no secret of his preference for the larger US warship.

Admiral Shalders said last month that although the F100 was a good ship, he was after "capability, capability andcapability".

The 8000-tonne Gibbs and Cox design offered the navy decisive combat advantages, including 64, rather than 48, vertical launch cells, longer range and the ability to take two helicopters.

Admiral Shalders failed to convince his colleagues in the DCIC in a debate one senior defence source described as a "complete whitewash".

Defence sources said the tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favour of the Spanish on all the key criteria.

Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs.

It had long been regarded as simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer.

Defence sources said a key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder.

The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.

The $7billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

Básicamente, el Departamamento de Defensa australiano recomienda al gobierno Howard la elección del diseño F-100 para el programa AWD en base a su menor riesgo, coste y disponibilidad más temprana. Hasta 1.000 millones de $ australianos (unos 650 millones de €) se pueden ahorrar eligiendo la F-100 en lugar del "Evolved Burke" y contar con ellas hasta dos años antes.

La recomendación NO ES VINCULANTE y el gobierno australiano tiene que hacer su elección en base a este y otros criterios, pero supone una esperanza importante para Navantia que hasta no hace tanto era vista como la comparsa en este concurso....

Saludos

[eco_tango]

Todo es bastente lógico. Obviamente la Armada Canguriana prefiere los Evolved, yo también lo haría, pero el dinero es finito. Incluso también hay que pensar que en el fondo el Evolved es mucho barco para las necesidades de Australia. De hecho, y si logran comprar al final cuatro F105 en vez de los tres Evolved habrán hecho un negocio excelente. Con cuatro barcos la disponibilidad de los buques aumenta enormente, salvo catástrofe siempre se tendrán dos, y la mayor parte del tiempo tres disponibles. Sin embargo, con tres buques, solo se puede garantizar el disponer de uno de ellos durante todo el tiempo, e incluso si las cosas vienenmuy mal dadas se puede llegar a no tener ninguno disponible. En fin... ya veremos, pero soy optimista...

Saludos

[Coronas]

La eterna cuestión

Destroyers Disappear
by James Dunnigan
April 25, 2007
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
Whatever happened to the destroyer? They seem to be disappearing. Part of the reason is cost, but there's also the political correctness angle. Warships called destroyers appeared a century ago and by the end of World War I they were ships of about 1,000 tons armed with a few guns, some torpedoes and anti-submarine weapons. By World War II, destroyers had grown to about 3,000 tons. There were also "Destroyer Escorts", which were half to two-thirds the size of destroyers. The larger types of surface warfare ships were cruisers, weighing in at between 6,000 and 12,000 tons, and battleships, which were 30-40,000 tons. Half a century later, all that's left for surface warfare are destroyers and frigates, plus the usual assortment of smaller coastal patrol boats that have always been around. For whatever reason, the modern frigates perform the same mission (and are about the same size) as the World War II destroyers. However, most Western navies don't even like to use the term, "destroyer" any more. Warships displacing 3-5,000 tons are increasingly called frigates. Sounds less warlike, or whatever.

Meanwhile, the modern destroyers have grown to the size of World War II cruisers. Actually, some of the larger destroyers are called cruisers, even though they are only 10-20 percent bigger than the largest destroyers. The latest ships in the U.S. Navy's Burke class destroyers weigh 9,200 tons, cost $1.5 billion each to build, have a crew of about 330 sailors, carry 96 (a combination of antiaircraft and cruise) missiles. There's only one 5 inch gun, but two helicopters. These modern destroyers could take on any World War II cruiser and win, mainly because the cruise missiles have a range of 1,500 kilometers. A Burke class ship could probably defeat a World War II battleship, although we'll never know for sure since one of those heavily armored ships never got hit by a modern cruise missile. In effect, the U.S. Navy has settled on just three major combat ship types; aircraft carriers, destroyers and nuclear submarines.

The original cruisers of a century ago displaced less than 10,000 tons, but by World War II, that had increased by 50 percent. Two decades ago, the U.S. Navy reclassified its Ticonderoga class destroyers, which eventually displaced 10,000 tons, as cruisers. Now the U.S. wants build a new class of destroyers, the DDG-1000, that displace 14,000 tons. These ships will be 600 feet long and 79 feet wide. A crew of 150 sailors will operate a variety of weapons, including two 155mm guns, two 40mm automatic cannon for close in defense, 80 Vertical Launch Tubes (containing either anti-ship, cruise or anti-aircraft missiles), six torpedo tubes, a helicopter and three helicopter UAVs.

The problems is that these new "destroyers" will be very large ships, and will cost over $2 billion each. At the same time, the new LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) is sort of replacing the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates. The Perrys are 4,100 ton ships that would cost about $200 million to build today. The big difference between the frigates and LCS is the greater use of automation in the LCS (reducing crew size to 75, versus 170 in the frigates) and larger engines (giving the LCS a speed of about 90 kilometers an hour, versus 50 for the frigates.) The LCS also has a large "cargo hold" designed to hold different "mission packages" of equipment and weapons. The Littoral Combat Ship is, simultaneously, revolutionary, and a throwback. The final LCS design is to displace about 3,000 tons, with a full load draft of under ten feet, permitting access to very shallow coastal waters, as well as rivers. This is where most naval operations have taken place in the past generation.

Max range is 2,700 kilometers. Built using commercial "smartship" technologies, which greatly reduce personnel requirements, the LCS is expected to require a crew of about 50 in basic configuration, but will have accommodations for about 75 personnel. The ship is designed for a variety of interchangeable modules, which will allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specialized missions. Crews will also be modularized, so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules.

All this is happening at a time when the U.S. Navy is increasingly unhappy with the performance of American ship builders. Costs are rising sharply, quality is down and the admirals can't get satisfactory answers from the manufacturers. For example, the new class of destroyers, the DDG-1000 class destroyers have also faced ballooning costs, up to as much as $3 billion per ship, as opposed to original planned costs of $800 million each. The current Arleigh Burke-class destroyers only cost $1 billion each. The LCS was planned (a few years ago) to cost $200 million each. That price has now doubled.

The LCS is, what the original destroyer was. A small, inexpensive vessel that could do a lot of dangerous jobs the more expensive ships could now avoid. But unless the navy gets its shipbuilding costs, and quality, under control, it won't be able to afford a new class of destroyers. Unless, of course, it has an attack of common sense, and calls the LCS destroyers, and the DDG-1000 ships cruisers.

Fuente: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 260353.asp

Que son Destructores, amigo Sancho y no Fragatas.
Saludos

[santi]

No creo que los problemas de la Navy que se comentan en el artículo se vayan a solucionar por que a los LCS se les llame destructores y a los DDX cruceros.
Las disquisiciones nominalistas dan mucho de si pero me temo que no sirven para ahorrar dinero....

Saludos

[ASCUA]

La verdad es que las preocupaciones sobre como le vamos a poner al niño, si fragato o destructora, resultan chocantes ...

A la Navy los Zumwalt salen por tres Burkes cada uno, los LCS de LM al doble de lo previsto, de momento ya los han parado, ... y encima el USS Freedom casi se les chamusca enterito; y los LCS de GD tampoco es que esten exentos de problemas con el sobrecoste...
A lo mejor algunos pensaran que la discusión sobre "si galgos o si podencos" será muy poco productiva, per es bastante menos estresante que discutir sobre los DD-1000 o los LCS...

[santi]

Ciertamente, los problemas de todo tipo (no sólo monetarios) que está teniendo la Navy con algunos de sus programas estrella no pueden por menos que llevar a la reflexión. Cada vez parece más plausible que los DDG-1000 y LCS se queden en series cortas de buques poco más que experimentales.... algo por otro lado bastante común en la US Navy. No hay que olvidar otros ilustres "treinta y únicos" gringos, como el Long Beach o diferentes series de escoltas llamadas a producirse por decenas pero que quedaron en unas pocas unidades al no convencer el "conceto" o verse superadas por otros diseños o por cambiantes requerimientos.

El caso es que la cadena de hacer Burkes parece funcionar a la perfección y,a las malas , seguro que se podrán sacar buenas enseñanzas de estos diseños para aplicarlos a otros más convencionales. Al final el know-how de todo esto lo tienen ellos y los demás pasamos por caja a comprarles AEGIS, tomajaques y en el futuro a saber que .
En definitiva, el contribuyente USA paga por supuestos fiascos pero al final terminan haciendo caja con toda o parte de la cacharrería desarrollada que termina por ser de uso habitual.

Saludos

[Millán-Astray]

A todo esto, empieza a preocuparme que a apenas dos semanitas de las elecciones municipales gallegas el Consejo de Ministros no ha aprobado ni la sexta F-100, ni la segunda fase del programa BAM, esperemos que no sean ciertos los rumores de falta de fondos

Nose si alguien sabe algo ...

[maximo]

Yo se algo.

Es mas rentable en las elecciones generales que unas simples elecciones a alcalde.

[Gimenez]

Es que mas bien habra que esperarse a las generales. Calma que aunque falte presupuesto para aprovarlo este año ya se pondran las pilas cuando les toque hacer mitines y demas... seguro que vemos a Zapatero haciendo muchas visitas a cuarteles y haciendo desfiles con las últimas adquisiciones (aunque sean por leasing, que es lo que nos salva)

Por esta época ya se habrá aprobado la F-106, 2ª fase de BAM, los HIMRAS... y estos ultimos saldran el el ultimo desfile del 12-Oct... si no al tiempo.

[ASCUA]

Pues si hay qe esperar a las generales, mas vale que las adelanten para el verano... o nos vayamos despidiendo de la sexta.

Navantia presupuestó la 105 en 750 millones incluyendo la posibilidad de que la sexta se pidiera antes del verano, mas o menos, de este año...

O se adelantan las elecciones, o nos quedamos sin barco, o hará que pagar mas por el...

Ahra que lo pienso, casi que me inclino por la última posibilidad... ¿a quien coñ* le importan unos milloncejos de mas por un barco, si ese dinero sale de defensa? No vamos a perder la oportunidad de dar el notición en las generales ¿no? Pais...