TÓPICO OFICIAL DO FX-2: GRIPEN NG

[henriquejr]

Sem falar que a Embraer precisa tanto da FAB quanto uma planta precisa dos raios solares para produzir clorofila e sobreviver!

O setor de defesa da Embraer só existe, e se mantém, por causa da FAB.

[Viktor Reznov]

Essa notícia é de 2012.

[alcmartin]

Ola, Cross, bom dia.

A noticia principal, o editorial do defesanet, e' dessa semana. O que ele citou, um provavel contrato sigiloso entre a EMBRAER e a Boeing, e' que e' de 2012. Ai garimpamos para ver se saiu na epoca algo do genero e havia, que pudesse respaldar a especulacao.
Resta saber ate' que ponto isso e' verdade. Importante tambem e' saber qual seriam os problemas em relacao aos programas do A1M. Facil imaginar e' barrigada nos pagamentos...

Notem que o During citou uma reuniao com o MD no dia 11 desse mes, ou seja, o problema esta' acontecendo e ai se cita a provavel criacao de uma nova industria. Comecar do zero e ir direto a producao de um caca supersonico moderno...
Ou a EMBRAER teria que ser convencida(pressao) ou preco maior, lucros?

E' para se acompanhar...

sds!

[FCarvalho]

Tem coelho nesse mato aí. Mas nem vou me preocupar com isso agora. Com ou sem a Embraer, o Gripens E/F para a FAB e MB vão sair.

Se ela vai optar por perder este bonde, creio que não poucas pessoas, dentro e fora dela, terão de dar muitas explicações aos acionistas, majoritários ou não.

Mas, se estas não vierem em boa e oportuna hora, depois que "Inês é morta", duvido que elas se tornem críveis, ou mesmo aceitáveis.

Depois não vai adiantar chorrar o leite derramado. Até o presente momento, os executivos daquela empresa tem demonstrado que não tem tendência nenhuma para esse tipo de coisa. Esperemos que não mesmo.

abs.

[ABULDOG74]

Olá camaradas, "deixa eu jogar um pouco de lenha na fogueira", contrariando a END ; será que poderia ser escolhido o SUPER HORNET como novo caça da MB para apaziguar essas situações contratuais da EMBRAER com a BOING?
Aí teríamos o GRIPEN na FAB e SUPER HORNET na MB e ambos com fabricação no Brasil(lembrem-se que na END são 02 PA`S de 50.000ton , com isso a ala aérea é enorme).

ADSUMUS

[Boss]

O Defesanet pra mim tem credibilidade tendendo ao "menos infinito". Já li tanta bosta saindo dali que nem sei se vale a pena dar bola para mais essa.

Mas enfim, acho estranho que aí se trata a Embraer como uma empresa totalmente autônoma, pode ter "escolhas próprias", pode enfiar o A-29 e o KC-390 onde e em qual "parceria" ela quiser, e pode ignorar o maior programa do setor conduzido pelo governo.

Não é bem assim. O poder da golden share e mesmo do governo sobre outras coisas, não é simbólico.

[FIGHTERCOM]

Bem, duas coisas a serem vistas nesta questão. Uma, a Embraer é privada, mas tem golden shares do GF, logo...
e dois, seria um tiro no próprio pé se ela não participar deste processo do FX com os Gripens postando em um suposto contrato secreto com a Boeing. Qual a lógica de se apostar no duvidoso quando se tem algo praticamente certo na mãos?

abs.

FCarvalho,

A não ser que a Embraer e a Boeing estejam vislumbrando o desenvolvimento conjunto de um caça de quinta-geração (baixo custo?) com vistas ao pós-FX2. O comportamento da Boeing após a definição do FX-2 é um indicativo que a mesma pretende ter uma parceria de longo prazo com o Brasil.


Abraços,

Wesley

[FCarvalho]

Sim, esta pode ser uma possibilidade Wesley, além é claro, das potenciais vantagens mercadológicas que a Embraer teria nesta parceria estratégica com a Boeing em relação aos outros produtos de sua carteira militar.

Mas na minha opinião vai ser muito difícil convencer o GF sobre isso, de ficar de fora do FX por causa da Boeing, se for este realmente o caso, ainda mais se pensando em caça de 5a G, do qual, por aqui, da forma como as coisas estão sendo vistas hoje, indubitavelmente, qualquer ingerência americana no projeto seria tremendamente mal vista, ainda que com um dedo da Embraer na questão. A não ser que a orientação política dê uma guinada ao inverso. E isso eu não creio que venha a acontecer tão cedo. Não pelo menos antes do término da primeira metade da próxima década.

Ademais, como um caça de 5a G por aqui é assunto para lá de 2030, essa parceria pode e deve ser vista como algo no longuíssimo prazo, já que o Gripen E/F, tanto terrestre, como a versão naval, farão a frente de linha nacional pelo menos até o fim da década de 2040, antes que que aquele projeto de caça comece a dar o ar da sua graça por aqui.

E neste sentido, ainda assim seria algo muito estranho para a maior empresa aeronáutica do país fazer concorrência a um hipotético projeto nacional derivado do Gripen E/F num caça de 5a G, a partir de um projeto próprio, mas em concordância com uma empresa estrangeira, que jamais precisaria da Embraer para fazer o mesmo, e tudo isso depois de dar as costas para o projeto nacional. Seria como dar as costas para o país. Que governo, sociedade, força aérea ou políticos engoliriam isso como algo perfeitamente normal em um país como o nosso?

Continuo lá com minhas dúvidas. Ainda acho que tem coelho(s) nesta história.

abs.

[ABULDOG74]

Olá camaradas, mas temos que lembrar também que a Boeing tem outros projetos de defesa que interessariam ao Brasil sua fabricação aqui:

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/bds/a_to_z.page

ADSUMUS

[Diupa]

Ao menos vai valer como propaganda pra quando o Brasil sair pra vender Gripen pelo mundo afora.

The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America

The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again.

In 2005, Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35, the stealthy new jet they were building for the Pentagon, as a “fifth-generation” fighter. Ironically, it was a term that they had borrowed from Russia to describe a different stealthy fighter, the F-22. But the term caught on. Some of Lockheed’s rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable—whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft. The Swedish plane has got a mouthful of a name: the JAS 39E Gripen. But it could well be the future of air combat.

The concept behind the “fifth generation” of fighters is almost 30 years old. It dates to the final turning point in the Cold War, when the Reagan administration accelerated the arms race, believing (correctly) that the Soviet economic engine would throw a rod first. The F-22 was designed for a challenging but simple war: if you were in a NATO fighter and the nose was pointed east, pretty much everyone headed your way was trying to kill you.

Defense technology led aerospace in those days, and aerospace drove many other technologies. Today’s gaming, simulation and movies are descended from 1980s military simulators.

The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, where targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that means having better sense of the conflict zone is key.

Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world’s militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and getting fewer. There are no blank checks for overruns.

Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today’s perspective. (My 1985 computer boasted 310 kB of storage and communicated at a screaming 300 bits per second.) Software is no longer what makes machines work; an iPhone is hardware that is valued because of the apps that it supports. This technology is characterized by development and deployment cycles measured in months. In aerospace, the lead in materials and manufacturing has gone to the commercial side.

The conundrum facing fighter planners is that, however smart your engineering, these aircraft are expensive to design and build, and have a cradle-to-grave product life that is far beyond either the political or technological horizon.

The reason that the JAS 39E may earn “sixth generation” tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: the new hardware runs the latest Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly-biennial release in the series that started with the earlier, A and B models of the aircraft.

Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. The Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. And by porting most of the software to the new version, the idea is that all of the C and D models’ weapons and capabilities, and then some, are ready to go on the E.

The Swedes have invested in state-of-the-art sensors, including what may be the first in-service electronic warfare system using gallium nitride technology. It’s significant that a lot of space is devoted to the system used to pick out friendly from hostile aircraft; a good IFF (“identification friend-or-foe”) system is most important in a confused situation where civilian, friendly, neutral, questionable and hostile actors are sharing the same airspace.

Sweden’s ability to develop its own state-of-the-art fighters has long depended on blending home-grown and imported technology. Harvesting technology rather than inventing it becomes more important as commercial technology takes a leading role and becomes more global. The JAS 39E engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain and the infra-red search and track system is from Italy. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil.

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others.

It’s an ambitious goal, and it is the first time that Sweden has undertaken such a project in the international spotlight. But if it is successful it will teach lessons that nobody can afford not to learn.

This column also appears in the March 24 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html

[cassiosemasas]

Ao menos vai valer como propaganda pra quando o Brasil sair pra vender Gripen pelo mundo afora.

The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America

The U.S. military likes to think it makes the world’s most sophisticated combat aircraft. Think again.

In 2005, Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35, the stealthy new jet they were building for the Pentagon, as a “fifth-generation” fighter. Ironically, it was a term that they had borrowed from Russia to describe a different stealthy fighter, the F-22. But the term caught on. Some of Lockheed’s rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable—whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft. The Swedish plane has got a mouthful of a name: the JAS 39E Gripen. But it could well be the future of air combat.

The concept behind the “fifth generation” of fighters is almost 30 years old. It dates to the final turning point in the Cold War, when the Reagan administration accelerated the arms race, believing (correctly) that the Soviet economic engine would throw a rod first. The F-22 was designed for a challenging but simple war: if you were in a NATO fighter and the nose was pointed east, pretty much everyone headed your way was trying to kill you.

Defense technology led aerospace in those days, and aerospace drove many other technologies. Today’s gaming, simulation and movies are descended from 1980s military simulators.

The world has changed a bit. Operation Allied Force in 1999 presaged the air campaigns of the 2000s, where targets were soft but hard to find, and harder yet to pick out of the civilian environment. We can say little for certain about the nature of future conflict, except that it is likely to be led by, and revolve around, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). For the individual pilot, sailor or soldier, that means having better sense of the conflict zone is key.

Demographics and economics are squeezing the size of the world’s militaries—nations with more than 100 combat aircraft are few and getting fewer. There are no blank checks for overruns.

Much of the technology of 1995, let alone 1985, has a Flintstones look from today’s perspective. (My 1985 computer boasted 310 kB of storage and communicated at a screaming 300 bits per second.) Software is no longer what makes machines work; an iPhone is hardware that is valued because of the apps that it supports. This technology is characterized by development and deployment cycles measured in months. In aerospace, the lead in materials and manufacturing has gone to the commercial side.

The conundrum facing fighter planners is that, however smart your engineering, these aircraft are expensive to design and build, and have a cradle-to-grave product life that is far beyond either the political or technological horizon.

The reason that the JAS 39E may earn “sixth generation” tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: the new hardware runs the latest Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly-biennial release in the series that started with the earlier, A and B models of the aircraft.

Long life requires adaptability, both across missions and through-life. The Gripen was designed as a small aircraft with a relatively large payload. And by porting most of the software to the new version, the idea is that all of the C and D models’ weapons and capabilities, and then some, are ready to go on the E.

The Swedes have invested in state-of-the-art sensors, including what may be the first in-service electronic warfare system using gallium nitride technology. It’s significant that a lot of space is devoted to the system used to pick out friendly from hostile aircraft; a good IFF (“identification friend-or-foe”) system is most important in a confused situation where civilian, friendly, neutral, questionable and hostile actors are sharing the same airspace.

Sweden’s ability to develop its own state-of-the-art fighters has long depended on blending home-grown and imported technology. Harvesting technology rather than inventing it becomes more important as commercial technology takes a leading role and becomes more global. The JAS 39E engine is from the U.S., the radar from Britain and the infra-red search and track system is from Italy. Much of the airframe may be built in Brazil.

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a “sixth generation” tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world’s fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. The requirements were deliberately constrained because the JAS 39E is intended to cost less to develop, build and operate than the JAS 39C, despite doing almost everything better. As one engineer says: “The Swedish air force could not afford to do this the traditional way”—and neither can many others.

It’s an ambitious goal, and it is the first time that Sweden has undertaken such a project in the international spotlight. But if it is successful it will teach lessons that nobody can afford not to learn.

This column also appears in the March 24 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erica.html

ok, então Gripen esta mais adaptável, porém tenho minhas duvidas, e ainda acho que em um cenário de gente grande os americanos fazem a diferença sim, tem muita coisa que eles já desenvolveram e que ninguém sabe, mas quando o bicho pegar ai sim veremos...e muita gente vai ser pega de surpresa!

[Carlos Lima]

Quanto marketing.

Agora são superiores até ao F-35

Putz... dá-lhe desinformação

[]s
CB_Lima

[FCarvalho]

Carlos, se apoquente não. Se eles forem melhores que os Tucano, T-37 e Pucará que povoam nossos vizinhos, já podemos nos sentir mais seguros.

O resto é luxo.

abs.

[Carlos Lima]

Carlos, se apoquente não. Se eles forem melhores que os Tucano, T-37 e Pucará que povoam nossos vizinhos, já podemos nos sentir mais seguros.

O resto é luxo.

abs.

Bom... pensando assim deveríamos ter comprado um bando de Fouga Magister ou AT-33 que tem sobrando de "WarBird" e estavamos com o problema resolvido.

Ou quem sabe o K-8.

[]s
CB_Lima

[FCarvalho]

cara, num dá idéia...

abs.