NOTÍCIAS

[Túlio]

Tulio,

É praticamente uma aeronave nova. Só a designaçao se mantem.

Nao é tao simples assim.

[[]]'s

Que eu saiba, mudaram propulsão e aviônicos, que mais?

Fuentes

[soultrain]

Sucessores do 'C-130' já voam há oito anos mas nem um desempenha missões operacionais

Joaquim Brito Camacho

O aparelho escolhido pelo ministro da Defesa português para equipar a Força Aérea como futuro avião militar de transporte estratégico - o C-130J da empresa norte-americana Lockheed Martin - padece de um rol de problemas sem solução à vista que impediram até agora a sua utilização pela Força Aérea dos Estados Unidos (United States Air Force - USAF) em missões operacionais.

Com efeito, um relatório do Gabinete do Inspector-Geral do Departamento de Defesa dos EUA (Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense - OIG DoD), de 23 de Julho de 2004, tece severas críticas ao programa, à Lockheed Martin e à própria USAF. A esta, nomeadamente, pelo modo como planeou e concretizou a aquisição dos aviões e como aceitou a sua entrega pela Lockheed, sem que um único dos 50 aparelhos até agora recebidos cumpra a maior parte das especificações operacionais contratadas [ver http//www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy04/04102sum.htm e depois clicar em Report No. D-2004-102 (PDF), para o relatório completo].
A Força Aérea e a Marinha norte-americanas, bem como outros utilizadores do C-130J, efectuaram testes e respectivos relatórios sobre deficiências, classificadas em duas categorias, 1 e 2. A Categoria 1 inclui as que podem provocar morte, ferimentos ou doenças graves, perdas importantes de equipamento ou sistemas, ou ainda limitar directamente a prontidão de combate ou operacional. A Categoria 2 engloba todas as deficiências não classificadas na Categoria 1. Até 31 de Dezembro de 2003, o programa C-130J tinha dado origem a 851 relatórios sobre deficiências - 168 pertenciam à Categoria 1 e 683 à Categoria 2.

Apesar de mais de 99% do valor dos 50 aviões até agora entregues à USAF, Corpo de Marines e Guarda Costeira já ter sido pago, nenhum deles cumpre a maioria dos requisitos operacionais do contrato. Segundo o OIG DoD, os C-130J já recebidos apenas podem ser usados em missões de treino, obrigando a Força Aérea a despesas extraordinárias para manutenção e utilização dos modelos antigos dos C-130 nas missões operacionais. A USAF rejeita as críticas e afirma que os problemas serão solucionados, mas o OIG DoD lembra que, oito anos depois de produzido o primeiro C-130J, nem um só dos 50 até agora entregues consegue desempenhar a maior parte das missões para que foi adquirido.

Para avaliar as deficiências do C-130J foi elaborado um programa em duas fases. A Fase 1, em Setembro de 2000, estudou a vertente «missão de transporte aéreo» (air land mission). A Fase 2, destinada a analisar a capacidade para largar material ou pára-quedistas (air drop mission), estava igualmente prevista para 2000, mas foi adiada para Novembro de 2005 devido ao elevadíssimo número de deficiências encontradas na Fase 1. Esta fase detectou capacidade de carga e raio de acção inadequados, imaturidade do software, falta de sistema de planeamento de missão automatizado, dificuldades em operações com tempo frio, fraca capacidade integrada de diagnóstico (taxas elevadas de falsos alarmes de detectores incorporados). E ainda deficiências nos sistemas defensivos, na gestão global de tráfego aéreo, nos sistemas de planeamento de missão, na interoperacionalidade com a frota de C-130 antigos ainda em serviço, e também no treino, nas instruções das publicações de apoio e no sistema de manutenção em terra.

Com chuva forte ou granizo, as hélices do C-130J sofrem forte corrosão e têm por vezes de ser substituídas. Os C-130J para reconhecimento meteorológico não conseguiram levar a cabo nenhuma das missões experimentais de reconhecimento de furacões, tempestades tropicais e tempestades de Inverno para que foram destacados e as hélices ficaram danificadas em todas elas.

Nos EUA, o C-130J está autorizado a desempenhar apenas missões básicas simples. Está-lhe vedada a largada de pára-quedistas, contentores ou equipamento pesado (as suas principais missões), a utilização em operações que obriguem ao uso de óculos de visão nocturna, busca e salvamento em situação de combate, voo em formação à vista, gestão global de tráfego aéreo ou quaisquer missões em ambiente hostil.

Algumas unidades às quais foram entregues C-130J estão inoperacionais ou usam os modelos antigos (principalmente C-130E) nas missões que lhes estão atribuídas. Segundo o OIG DoD, estão nesta situação o 815.º Esquadrão Aéreo e o 53.º Esquadrão de Reconhecimento Meteorológico (Reserva da Força Aérea); os 135.º, 143.º e 146.º Esquadrões de Transporte Aéreo e a 193.ª Esquadrilha de Operações Especiais (Guarda Nacional Aérea); nos Marines, os C-130J de reabastecimento aéreo são usados apenas para treino, ficando as missões a sério a cargo dos modelos antigos.

[Bolovo]

Tulio,

É praticamente uma aeronave nova. Só a designaçao se mantem.

Nao é tao simples assim.

[[]]'s

Que eu saiba, mudaram propulsão e aviônicos, que mais?

Fuentes

The C-130J is the newest version of the Hercules and the only model still produced. Externally similar to the classic Hercules, the J model is in fact a radically different aircraft. These differences include new Rolls-Royce Allison AE2100 turboprops with six-bladed composite scimitar propellers, digital avionics (including head-up displays for each pilot), reduced crew requirements (2 pilots—no navigator or flight engineer), increased reliability and up to 27% lower operating costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules

[soultrain]

Tulio,

É praticamente uma aeronave nova. Só a designaçao se mantem.

Nao é tao simples assim.

[[]]'s

Que eu saiba, mudaram propulsão e aviônicos, que mais?

Fuentes

Tulio,

Assim fica dificil, quer a papinha toda feita Pesquisa ai POWS



Toda a estrutura é diferente, as asas sao diferentes, os motores, avionicos, helices.... O que sobra em comum com o antigo C-130?

[[]]'s

[soultrain]

Nicaraguan Assembly Agrees To Destroy More SAM-7 Missiles

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MANAGUA, Nicaragua


Nicaragua’s National Assembly approved the destruction July 13 of 651 surface-to-air missiles that Washington wants deactivated so they do not fall into terrorist hands.
After a stormy session in which insults were exchanged, legislators voted to destroy the batch of shoulder-fired SAM-7 missiles acquired from the former Soviet Union during the 1980s.
Representatives of the main opposition, the leftist Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), walked out in an attempt to prevent a quorum.
After the vote July 13 the Sandinistas said the 46 deputies who voted for the missiles’ destruction, exactly half the assembly, were not enough for a valid vote.
But a member of the right-wing Liberal Alliance deputy said there were 47 deputies present, establishing a quorum, and so the vote was fair.
U.S. officials have sought to convince Nicaragua to eliminate its estimated 1,000 remaining SAM-7s, which Washington fears could be used by terrorists against international aircraft.
In 2005 Nicaragua destroyed 1,000 of the missile. It is still holding on to 400 of the missiles for its own national defense force.

[soultrain]

U.S. F-16 Sale to Pakistan Hits Snag in Congress

By JIM WOLF, REUTERS


U.S. lawmakers, fearful of any warplane-technology leakage to China, are demanding more safeguards for a $5 billion sale to Pakistan of F-16 fighter jets and related items, a key congressman said July 13.
"We have reason to be concerned that all security conditions be in place before we approve the sale," Rep. Tom Lantos, the top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said in a telephone interview with Reuters.
On June 28, the Bush administration formally notified Congress of plans to sell Pakistan up to 36 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Falcon fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in a deal worth up to $5 billion if all options are exercised.
Congress has the power to block such a sale by enacting a resolution of disapproval in both houses within 30 days of the notification date.
"We are dealing with a country that gave us A.Q. Kahn," said Lantos, referring to a Pakistani scientist who confessed in 2004 to peddling banned nuclear wares around the world for years despite international safeguards.
Pakistan says Kahn, who was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf and has been under house arrest, acted independently and without state knowledge.
Lantos, of California, said he and Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who chairs the House panel, were pressing the State Department to build new safeguards into the deal.
He said he favored the sale once "all of the security provisions are in place." Under standard practices, a buyer of U.S. arms typically must agree to "end use monitoring" designed to make sure the technology is not shared illicitly.
Lantos made clear he was concerned that China, which has close military ties to Pakistan, might get access to the Block 50/52 -- the most modern F-16 flown by the United States. "That is the most obvious and most logical concern," he said.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, has scheduled a classified briefing Tuesday on the sale with Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, according to Andy Fisher, a Lugar spokesman.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said "proliferation," illicit sharing of U.S. technology, had been taken into account before Congress was notified of the sale.
"This is the right proposal for Pakistan," he told a regular news briefing, adding the administration would continue to consult Congress closely on it.
Lantos spoke after what an aide said was a State Department request to postpone a committee hearing scheduled for Thursday on the proposed sale. "There is no reason to proceed with a public hearing when we have substantive security concerns with respect to the sale," Lantos said.
Hyde’s spokeswoman did not return a call seeking comment.
Lantos faulted the State Department for ignoring a traditional 20-day period for conferring with Congress on arms sales in addition to the 30 days during which a sale may be blocked. Congressional security concerns could have been eliminated during such "pre-notification" talks, he said.

[soultrain]

Israel Eyes Laser, Cannon for Downing Rockets

By DAN WILLIAMS, REUTERS, TEL AVIV, Israel


A super-heating laser beam and radar-activated heavy machinegun are among technologies Israel is considering for shooting down Palestinian rockets launched from the Gaza Strip, Israeli security sources said on July 9.
But they said Israel’s ground incursions against those firing the rockets, such as a weekend sweep in which some 50 Palestinians died, would continue as the other counter-measures are months, even years away from being produced or acquired.
"As long as we cannot reliably stop the rockets before they land, we will have no choice but to go in and prevent them from being launched in the first place," a security source said.
The homemade "Qassam" rockets fired by Hamas militants in Gaza, and similar weapons used by other groups, have caused relatively few casualties but considerable consternation in Israel. Their maximum range so far has been 12 kilometers (7 miles), enough to strike Ashkelon, a major city in the south.
Since the late 1990s, the Israeli government missile-defense unit Mafat and U.S. arms firm Northrop Grumman have been developing Nautilus, a system that focuses a giant laser on incoming rockets or artillery shells, blowing them up in mid-air.
Though planners said Nautilus had achieved near-perfect scores in field tests and could provide cover for a 10 square kilometer (4 square mile) area, the project was recently shelved. Experts speculated that the system was too cumbersome for civilian use.
But Israel’s Maariv newspaper said Defence Minister Amir Peretz, scrambling to stem Gazan rocket salvoes with ever greater ranges, last month met Northrop Grumman representatives to discuss acquiring a more mobile version of Nautilus.
A security source confirmed the report as "basically true."
Northrop Grumman had no immediate comment pending a news conference later this week at which the company said it would discuss plans for "a new (laser) system to defend against air-based threats such as rockets, missiles and mortars".
IMPRACTICAL
Rachel Naidek-Ashkenazi, spokeswoman for Israel’s Defence Ministry, said the original Nautilus was deemed "not practical" and that several alternative ideas were under consideration.
Another system that has drawn Israeli interest is Phalanx, a U.S.-made cannon that automatically locks on to rockets or mortar bombs and shreds them with explosive 20 mm bullets.
Originally designed to provide on-board protection for navy ships, Phalanx was adapted for land use and deployed among U.S. forces in Iraq last year.
Security sources said Israel had voiced interest in buying Phalanx, though its protective radius is limited and the prospect of heavy machineguns nestled in populated areas and firing into the air with little warning has raised eyebrows.
Raytheon, the firm that manufactures the Phalanx, declined comment. A U.S. arms industry source said there were no plans to sell Phalanx as it had only recently been deployed in Iraq.
Israeli security sources said they expected the export policy on Phalanx to change within months if its field trials were completed swiftly, while delivery of an upgraded version of Nautilus could take as long as two years.

[soultrain]

U.S. Army May Scale Back UAV Plans
Air Traffic Control, Supply Challenges Are Critical Issues
By GREG GRANT
June 26, 2006
The U.S. Army may cancel two of four unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) planned for its Future Combat Systems (FCS) in response to fears that the skies above tomorrow’s battlefield are getting too crowded with helicopters, drones and airborne munitions.
Their fate rests with the Army officials who are studying the service’s UAV needs, said Maj. Gen. Charles Cartwright, who manages the service’s $165 billion, top-priority FCS program.
This review also aims to determine whether giving four types of unmanned aircraft to each brigade will strain the troops’ ability to maintain them or needlessly weigh down the brigade with spare parts. FCS is intended to help create agile fighting forces with greatly reduced logistics needs.
The UAVs are key to the FCS concept, which will also equip each brigade with a squadron of armed reconnaissance helicopters. The program aims to increase battlefield sensors sixfold. But the concept was originally designed for battles in wide-open spaces, not the cities and mountain roads where U.S. troops have fought their largest battles in recent years.
Air and ground officers say the air above today’s battlefields is already too crowded, and adding more unmanned craft will increase the chances of deadly collisions.
The number of UAVs in use by the U.S. military has skyrocketed since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Hard experience has shown that the skies above a battlefield, particularly in Baghdad and other cities, can rapidly become congested with UAVs and the many attack and transport helicopters flying at similar altitudes.

Moreover, ground forces that want to fire artillery or rockets must clear a segment of airspace so they don’t shoot down friendly aircraft.
There has been at least one UAV-helicopter collision; in 2004, a hand-launched Raven drone collided with a Little Bird helicopter over Baghdad. No serious damage resulted, but the specter of might-have-been led the Army to tighten its airspace restrictions.
This has reduced UAV use. Last year, soldiers from the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad said they had all but abandoned the Raven because any unit wanting to fly it had to apply for clearance more than 24 hours in advance.
So the question is how to improve air traffic control in congested airspace. For starters, the Army is working to improve the clearance process, Army aviation procurement chief Paul Bogosian said in April.
Bogosian also said the Army is trying to develop a common ground station for controlling UAVs, which will help manage the radio signals that guide the aircraft. One Army officer in Iraq said competing radio signals mean that only three Shadow UAVs can fly over Baghdad at a time.
And conflicting signals have boosted an accident-and-loss rate among Army UAVs that is “way too high,” Bogosian said.
FCS Plans
Another way to ease the problem is to reduce the number of planned UAVs.
Current Army plans say each 3,200-soldier FCS brigade will carry four kinds of UAVs, one each for small units, companies, battalions and brigades. When married with ground sensors and robotic vehicles, the aerial sensors are intended to provide up-to-the-second information on the disposition of enemy forces.
The smallest one, the Class I Micro Air Vehicle, will be a 16-pound vertical-takeoff aircraft built by Honeywell. The largest will be Northrop Grumman’s helicopter-like Fire Scout, which can fly for 24 hours and will be operated by brigade-level units.
Three firms are bidding to build each of the middle-size Class II and Class III UAVs. The slightly larger Class II UAV can fly for two hours, and will be distributed to company-sized units. The Class III UAV, designed to fly up to six hours, will equip battalions.
Cartwright said both contests are on hold while the Army looks at its UAV plan. The review also will examine whether the FCS UAVs would needlessly overlap with the three others that the Army has in development or in service.
Besides the handheld Raven, built by AeroVironment, the service’s aviation command is buying the medium-sized Shadow UAV, built by AAI, and is pushing hard to field by 2009 the long-range armed Warrior, a modified version of the General Atomics’ Predator in widespread U.S. Air Force service.
The Army is creating a new UAV battalion within its aviation brigades, each to be equipped with 24 Warrior drones. Shadow and Warrior would remain in Army service for decades.
Boeing FCS program manager Dennis Muilenberg said the review hasn’t yet stopped any of the UAV research and development efforts.
“We’re continuing to execute our plan,” Muilenberg said.
Still, the questions about the scope of the FCS UAV effort come amid growing pressure in the Pentagon and Congress to scale back the giant program, although service leaders publicly support the current plan.
The Iraq experience has revealed limitations of UAVs. U.S. troops reported that the low-flying Shadow’s engine noise tipped off the insurgents, so they have come to rely much more on manned Air Force jets. F-16s equipped with targeting pods can provide surveillance over a wider area and much more quickly than slow-flying UAVs. •

[fcmts]

Reuters Video
Cockpit camera: Israeli air strike

Jul. 15 - The Israeli army presented cockpit footage of the air force striking what they said was a Hizbollah compound and boats in Beirut's seaport.
They said the attacks also included bridges and roads linking Beirut and Damascus.

http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyid=4e3319f0bb53ff5831e9fa99457176a53cdfe8cb

[FinkenHeinle]

Leo! Nosso problema é low level, aí não se encaixa o KC 135.

Isso excluiria o A-400M também da discussão, não?

De forma alguma!


O A-400M é uma aeronave que, em que pese ter maior capacidade que os Hercules, continua sendo da mesma classe!

É isso que eu estou falando, porque um KC-135 também está entre um KC-130 e um C-17, tal como o A-400M está. Então seu o Stratotanker não servia, o A-400M também não.

A-400M é um Turboelice, cujo propósito principal é servir de Cargueiro Geral, para ser operado mais ao nível tático. Sua caçacodade de KC também seria melhor utilizada para substituir os KC-130 do que um Jato.

O KC-137 é uma aeronave à reação, usado mais como cargueiro estratégico, e reabastecedor de aeronaves supersônicas!

[FinkenHeinle]

Para mim, o Gordo J é o canal, POWS!

Poucas modificações no treinamento/logística, aeronave conhecida e confiável, só iria ficar chato com o CASA, afinal, o Spartan simplificaria por demais a manutenção...

Mas tá tri, o Brasil tem sempre que andar na contramão mesmo...

Discordo!


O C-130J não passa de um Mirage 2000-5 Mk.II, um projeto antigo, levado ao extremo de desenvolvimento, cujo ciclo de aperfeiçoamento está esgotado!

O A-400M, pelo contrário, terá uma longa vida de melhorias, aperfeiçoamento e desenvolvimento...

[FinkenHeinle]

Sei lá, o velho e COMPROVADO Gordo passa a num prestar pra nada, basta trocar as turbinas e uns aviônicos...

Convenhamos, brabo de crer, né não, cupincha..?

Agora Fuentes não servem?!


PS: Os Gordos J da Grã-Bretanha foram groundeados por motivos técnicos que o Soultrain mencionou...

[Alitson]

DEFENCE-BOEING

IAF pilots to evaluate Boeing's F-18


M SHAKEEL AHMED, FARNBOROUGH (UK), JUL 17 (PTI)
Indian Air Force pilots are expected to test fly Boeing's F-18 fighter aircraft to evaluate the American war machine as the company is one of the main bidders in the race to sell 126 frontline jet planes to India.

Two test pilots from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Air Marshals A K Nagalia and Bhushan Gokhale, are here at the Farnborough Air Show to evaluate the planes, an HAL official said today.

India plans to buy 126 fighter planes to replace its ageing Russian-made MiG-21 warplanes and top aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed, which produces the F-16 warplanes, are in the fray to bag the major deal.

A Boeing spokesman said several meetings with Indian Air Force representatives have taken place and it is awaiting a response from the Indian side with regard to the F-18, a twin-engine multirole combat jet, which, the company claims, is one of most advanced warplanes in the world.

He said Boeing is also exploring the possibility of manufacturing aircraft components and assembling the jets in India.

In case the F-18 deal goes through, Boeing is ready to sell 18 aircraft and later allow production of the supersonic jet aircraft in India, the spokesman said.

Lockheed Martin is also carrying out negotiations with the Indian Government to sell F-16 combat aircraft to replace the MiG-21 over the next 15 years. The American company has also held preliminary discusssions with some private Indian firms.

These negotiations come close on the heels of an Indo-US military cooperation agreement reached last year to boost arms sales, joint production of weapons and cooperation in missile defence. The two countries have also conducted joint army, air and naval exercises in the recent past.

Lockheed officials said the company was examining propects of outsourcing the manufacture of components of F-16 jet planes and C-130 transport aircraft to India. The company is also interested in selling P-8 multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft to the Indian Navy.

The Farnborough show, one of the biggest airshows in the world, is displaying 160 types of airplanes including Airbus A-380, the biggest, long-range passenger airliner ever produced.

HAL on its part is displaying it 'Dhruv' multi-role helicopters and IJP-36 trainer planes.

UB Group Chairman Vijay Mallya will be attending the air show and his Kingfisher Airlines is expected to place orders for buying engines for its long-haul A-330 planes that are likely to be inducted at the end of next year.

Mumbai-based low-cost carrier GoAir is also expected to make some announcements at the show on aircraft and engine deals.

[Plinio Jr]

Farnborough: Eurofighter casts doubt on quoted Typhoon price
By Jon Lake in Farnborough

Eurofighter GmbH has filed a freedom of information request to obtain `clarification' of the Typhoon unit production cost published in the 2005 UK National Audit Office (NAO) Major Projects Report.

Programme director Brian Phillipson describes the £64.8 million ($120 million) price quoted by the NAO – and subsequently widely quoted in the press – as being "much higher" than unit cost that he would recognise.

"The numbers in the NAO reports changed between 2004 and 2005 from £49.1 million to £64.8 million. Eurofighter does not understand why. The increase in cost bears no relation to any change from us," says Phillipson.

"We have sought an official explanation, but understand that other charges, over and above anything that we have been paid, have been included.

"This leads me to question whether the NAO price is really a Unit Production Cost."

Typically in Germany, he says, recovery of production investment and two years of support and operating costs have been included in what effectively becomes a unit system cost. "My suspicion is that the UK MoD has moved towards a system cost while still calling it a Unit Production Cost," he says.

"This £64.8 million figure is much higher than any unit cost, flyaway cost or purchase price that I would recognise. It's something quite different.

"The brief note in the NAO report fell short of providing any real explanation of the increase, which is why we formally requested clarification of the changes made to create the new figure in the NAO report. We initially made an informal enquiry, but after discussion agreed that it would be best to file a formal enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act."

An answer is expected in August. Meanwhile, Phillipson suggests is would be "extremely unfortunate" if changes in the reporting of accounting procedures were allowed to give the impression of cost growth.

"This is important not only for the export market, but also looking ahead to Tranche 3. I remain entirely confident that Eurofighter Typhoon represents excellent, unparalleled value for money for our nations' air forces and taxpayers."

"Whatever the perceived price - and there are so many variables that may or may not be included in any `headline figure' - we believe Eurofighter Typhoon provides the best possible value, and the most cost-effective solution, when pitched against any competition in the export market. The aircraft's availability is contractually guaranteed, as are the very low costs of ownership, and these make Typhoon unbeatable in cost terms."

It is understood that the NAO figures include Nato Eurofighter Management Agency (NEFMA) running costs and Qinetiq charges – legitimate parts of a total programme cost, but not of a unit production cost.

The UK's 55 Tranche 1 aircraft are known to have cost £2.5 billion, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 million, while the Tranche 2 global contract was £9.56 billion for all partners, which gave a unit production cost of about £40 million. It has been reported that Austria paid a unit flyaway price of €62 million ($78 million) for its 18 aircraft.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/20 ... hter+casts

[chm0d]

Caça RAAF F-111 faz pouso de emergência na cidade de Amberley, na Austrália. O avião enfrentou problemas no trem de aterrisagem, e voou por três horas até ficar sem combustível. Piloto e copiloto saíram ilesos