Cougar wrote:
Well, I voted for the Burke. It is faster, more heavily armed and more heavily armored. It also has more horsepower than the Alvaro and better countermeasures.
However, the Alvaro has a longer range and is more equipped to deal with aerial operations. Another positive factor is the fact that it has 2 gas turbine engines and 2 diesel engines. If something were to happen to either set, the other set could still function.
I agree with your choosing of the Burke. That being said, I have some comments.
The Burke is considerably more armored and armed. It carries a higher compliment of all its weapons, both for offensive (tomahawk and harpoon) and defensive (standard missile and evolved sea sparrow). The only place it is outclassed by the spanish destroyer is fewer torpedos, with the burke packing 6 and the Bazan packing 12.
I also find it interesting that the Bazan, while designed to fit a CIWS module, has never done so. The Burke's all have 2 each. That being said, if you're to the point that you CIWS is engaging, you're in some deep shit.
Now, as to the range and aerial operations:
First off, the Burke's carry 2 helicopters. They have two pads, two hangars, and carry 2 crews. The Bazan, on the other hand, only carries one. I really don't see how the Bazan is better suited for SAR than the Burke is. The only possible advantave would be its shallower draft (15 ft vs. 30 ft), but if you're seriously considering getting that close to the coast, you'd use a launch.
And range is not really a consideration for purchasing a ship. Sure, it's nice to have a long unrefueled range, but in all reality, your gas tank will never get lower than half. The factor that will limit a modern navy's endurance is wear on the machinery. The RAN owns a fleet oiler and an UNREP ship. They can resupply to their heart's content.
Now, your final point is that having both gas and diesel engines is a good thing. I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I would argue that it's more of a negative than a positive. Having two sets of engines GREATLY complicates logistics.
If you have 4 gas turbine engines, you only need spare parts for one kind of engine. Let's say you need 6 of every spare part for your 4 engines. That means you need 3 for two engines, right? If you have both gas and diesel, you double the number of different parts you have to carry, greatly increasing the complexity of your logistics. Not to mention, your bunkerage (gas tanks) now have to be divided among different fuels. If you're gas engines give out due to failure, and all you have left is diesel, you'd better hope your diesel tanks are full and your gas tanks are empty.
Cougar wrote:
You have to understand that these two ships would have two different missions. One would would support aerial missions, recon, probably anti-sub and search and rescue while the other would be more of a search and destroy and anti aircraft leaning warship. The Aegis is nothing more than a defense mechanism if I remember correctly, kind of like the Phalanx, although it can be used offensivly. I think there was an incident with a Iranian airliner that had something to do with the Aegis system a long time ago, so I'm sure it can be used offensivly as well, but I'm sure both ships could be equipped with it and use it for different means.
The Aegis system is an immensely powerful surface to air radar, and the missiles that it guides to take down enemy threats. It can track multiple contacts at once (planes, UAV's, incoming and outgoing guided missiles, etc.), and engage them at once. It can also cross-link data with airborne surveillance radar (like the AWACS system).
In other words, if its in the air, AEGIS can kill it.
As far as defensive vs. offensive, AEGIS is a defensive weapons system. It creates a bubble around the ship. Nothing gets to fly inside that bubble unless the navy to whom the ship belongs says it's OK. For offensive ops, both ships carry 109's and harpoons, and in similar numbers. Both have anti-sub rockets.
