Fórum Defesa Brasil

"actually" é o que se designa um "false friend",soa a uma coisa e na verdade significa outra... não significa "actualmente" mas sim, "na realidade" ou "na verdade"

Do que se depreende daquela parte do texto, acho que é "O alcance é na verdade uma preocupação da FA Norueguesa" [depreendo que com isto queiram dizer que o alcance do Gripen é demasiado pequeno...]

Já a mim parece zoação com o tamanho da Noruega (menos de 330.000 km²), que problema de alcance haveria com um País tão pequeno? É uma espécie de mini-Chile na Escandinávia...

as plantaformas petroliferas no mar do norte?

Talvez por causa do mar do Norte e da Noruega

P44 escreveu:as plantaformas petroliferas no mar do norte?

Ué, mas se dá para chegar lá até de heli, um Gripen C/D armado vai mais longe que um heli, creio...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRl5S5HSa-c

Túlio escreveu:Já a mim parece zoação com o tamanho da Noruega (menos de 330.000 km²), que problema de alcance haveria com um País tão pequeno? É uma espécie de mini-Chile na Escandinávia...

Tulio, conversei uma vez com o pessoal da força aerea de lá e a preocupação não é o continente em si, mas o mar teritorial.
Segundo ele me falou, se pegassemos a parte Nordeste das aguas norueguesas e rebatessemos para baixo, ia bater quase na Africa!!!
E vale lembrar que eles são (sempre foram) extremamente dependentes dos recursos navais; e ainda por cima tem um urso adormecido do lado deles...

sapao escreveu:

Túlio escreveu:Já a mim parece zoação com o tamanho da Noruega (menos de 330.000 km²), que problema de alcance haveria com um País tão pequeno? É uma espécie de mini-Chile na Escandinávia...

Tulio, conversei uma vez com o pessoal da força aerea de lá e a preocupação não é o continente em si, mas o mar teritorial.
Segundo ele me falou, se pegassemos a parte Nordeste das aguas norueguesas e rebatessemos para baixo, ia bater quase na Africa!!!
E vale lembrar que eles são (sempre foram) extremamente dependentes dos recursos navais; e ainda por cima tem um urso adormecido do lado deles...

ZEE Norueguesa

Holanda reduz encomenda do F-35 em 60%

Dutch Consensus Building on Acquisition of 30-36 F-35 Fighters


(Source: Defense-aerospace.com; published March 28, 2013)


(By Giovanni de Briganti)



PARIS and THE HAGUE --- A consensus is nearing among Dutch political parties to buy no more than 36 F-35A fighters – and perhaps as few as 30 – to replace the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s remaining fleet of 68 F-16 fighters.

This is a far smaller buy than the 85 that the Netherlands initially planned, and just over half of the reduced buy of about 55 that was agreed last year, before the latest elections voted in a different government coalition.

A political consensus to buy fewer F-35s would also mean that tentative plans to re-open a real and open competition for the F-16 replacement will be dropped. Boeing and Saab had been invited by Parliament’s defense committee to present their alternatives to the F-35 during hearings scheduled for April, but two other potential European bidders, Dassault Aviation and Eurofighter, had shown little interest in the Dutch order, as they doubted the Netherlands would drop out of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

However, reacting to reports of the consensus, Defense Minister Mrs. Hennis-Plasschaert said that “all options remain open”.

The de facto agreement between coalition parties on the lower figure was revealed by Robald Vuijk, the right-wing VVD party’s defense spokesman, MP and member of Parliament’s Defence Committee, in a March 27 interview with the daily newspaper De Telegraaf,

In the interview, Vuijk said that his party believes that only the F-35 suits Dutch requirements, and that a final decision is needed this year, as soon as possible. “We don’t want any further delays,” he said.

If formally confirmed by the two governing parties, the new consensus will mark a major shift in their previous positions regarding the F-16 replacement program, and a major step towards a final, binding decision by the government.

Among Dutch political parties, the VVD (which has 41 seats in Parliament) has always been the most enthusiastic backer of F-35 acquisition, and has consistently pushed in its favor with the backing of industry and the armed forces.

The left-wing PvdA Labour party (with 38 seats), on the other hand, has long opposed the project, as have several of the smaller parties: (PVV with 15 seats; PvdD with 2 seats; D66 with 12 seats; SP with 15 seats; GL with 4 seats, and 50plus with 2 seats).

Taken together, the F-35’s opponents now hold 88 seats and, when the VVD’s 41 seats are added, the compromise solution to buy 36 or fewer aircraft is backed by a solid majority of 129 seats, out of a total of 150 MPs. Sources say the consensus around a much lower number of aircraft became possible when Parliament found out that only 24 of the Dutch air force’s fleet of 68 F-16 fighters are available for operational duties, due to maintenance issues and the lack of spare parts.

The lower aircraft number also remains within the budgetary envelope approved by the coalition for the replacement of the F-16s, which amounts to € 4.5 billion but, when 21% Value-Added Tax is stripped out, the actual acquisition budget is only € 3.72 billion, which in the best of conditions will probably have to be stretched to buy 36 F-35s.

Finally, a 60% cut in the original Dutch order will inevitably increase acquisition costs for other countries, especially when added to similar, if smaller, cuts in orders already announced by Italy, Australia, Canada and Denmark.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -jets.html


----

e mesmo assim a aquisição poderá comprometer outros meios das FAs Holandesas

Running the JSF Fighter Jet Currently 'Too Expensive' Says Minister


(Source: DutchNews.nl; published March 28, 2013)



The cost of using the JSF fighter jet in the long term is a ‘major concern’ and will be ‘unaffordable’ for the US military, defence minister Jeanine Hennis quotes a US audit office and Pentagon report as saying.

‘The current figures show the annual cost of running the JSF will be 60% higher than current US fighter jets,’ Hennis said in a briefing to parliament.

The Netherlands has committed to buying two test planes and Hennis will take a final decision on replacing the Dutch armed forces' F-16s with the JSF at the end of this year.

Costs

The US authorities are looking into how to lower the cost, the minister said.

A report by the Clingendael foreign policy institute earlier this year said an armed forces which includes the controversial JSF jet fighter is the least attractive scenario for the future of the Dutch military.

Clingendael says the JSF will only be needed if the Netherlands wants to take part in the opening phase of military interventions. But the high cost of the JSF will lead to ‘serious limitations’ to the country’s maritime operations – such as the role the Netherlands currently plays in protecting commercial shipping against pirates.

The Netherlands would also have less capacity to take part in human rights and humanitarian missions, the institute says.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... h-mod.html

P44 escreveu:

sapao escreveu: Tulio, conversei uma vez com o pessoal da força aerea de lá e a preocupação não é o continente em si, mas o mar teritorial.
Segundo ele me falou, se pegassemos a parte Nordeste das aguas norueguesas e rebatessemos para baixo, ia bater quase na Africa!!!
E vale lembrar que eles são (sempre foram) extremamente dependentes dos recursos navais; e ainda por cima tem um urso adormecido do lado deles...

ZEE Norueguesa

Se é tão grande e importante assim então nem Rafale/Typhoon resolve, a coisa fica entre o Flanker e o F-15SE...

Trazendo a notícia de outro tópico para comentar aqui:

PLANO "B" da MARINHA dos EUA é COMPRAR MENOS F-35C e MAIS F-18 E/F

Segundo artigo de David Axe publicado no “Danger Room” em 25 de março, a Marinha dos Estados Unidos (USN) está cuidadosamente dando as costas ao complicado programa do F-35 e colocando, no lugar, um plano substituto para o caso do novo jato furtivo não se recuperar de seus problemas técnicos e orçamentários.
.
.
.

A USN tem sido a menos entusiastas das Forças Armadas americanas em relação ao F-35, que inclui versões para a Força Aérea e os Fuzileiros Navais. Como a Marinha tem a força de caças mais nova em relação às demais forças, sua urgência para aviões novos de fábrica é menor. Além disso, a USN estaria minimizando a furtividade ao radar em seus planos de guerrra e preferiria, ao invés, abrir caminho lutando por entre as defesas inimigas ou disparar armas a grandes distâncias. No ano passado, o “U.S. Naval Institute journal Proceedings” trouxe texto a esse respeito assinado pelo almirante Jonathan Greenert: “É tempo de considerar a mudança de nosso foco de plataformas baseadas unicamente na furtividade e também incluir conceitos de operações mais longe dos adversários utilizando armas ‘standoff’ e sistemas não tripulados – ou empregar sistemas de guerra eletrônica embarcados para confundir ou ‘jamear’ sensores inimigos ao invés de tentar se esconder deles”.
.
.
.

Ao mesmo tempo, Greenert deixa escapar que a Marinha poderia adquirir menos jatos F-35C do que os 260 encomendados no momento. “A questão aponta para quantos comprar, e como eles se integram na ala aérea”, acrescentando que o cancelamento da nova aeronave é pouco provável devido a razões políticas: “Se não comprarmos nenhum F-35C isso seria muito prejudicial ao programa como um todo.”
.
.
.

A troca de exemplares de F-35C por Super Hornets poderia resultar numa economia de bilhões de dólares para a Marinha e o Pentágono, e vale lembrar que a USN já pensa num novo projeto de caça para vir após o F-35 e o Super Hornet.

Com melhorias, o Super Hornet poderia igualar as capacidades do F-35, embora com diferentes táticas, embora essa questão esteja aberta ao debate. A USN já trabalha para fazer do F/A-18E/F um vetor para mísseis de longo alcance com algumas qualidades furtivas opcionais, em oposição ao totalmente furtivo F-35, projetado para passar despercebido pelas defesas inimigas a curta distância e lançar bombas guiadas antes de se evadir.

Cada vez mais parece se configurar a hipótese de que o F-35 pode se tornar não o caça multifuncional para todo serviço que era imaginado no início, mas sim um aparelho especializado a ser utilizado apenas em situações muito específicas. Com a consequente redução drástica do número de unidades a serem adquiridas, juntamente com um aumento substancial do custo unitário de aquisição e do custo operacional. Uma história parecida com a do F-111.

E outros projetos de caças seriam modernizados ou desenvolvidos desde a raiz para atender as funções previstas para o F-35 e que ele não será mais chamado a cumprir.


Leandro G. Card

Em suma, F-16V?

Em teoria quem compra o F-35 compra porque dentre outros motivos ele pode ser utilizado ou como uma aeronave 'normal' de combate ou como 'bala de prata'.

E função dos aumentos do seu custo várias forças aéreas que estão indo para 100% F-35 podem vir a mudar essa idéia no futuro já que ele está se provando caro até para uma 'bala de prata'.

Resta aí a pergunta... sobra mais lugar para SHornet, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, da vida ou sobra mais lugar para o T-50 Coreano, M-346 ou mesmo sobra um espaço para algo como o S Tucano?

Depende do tipo de problemas que os compradores 'planejam' (chutam) entrar nos próximos 30 / 40 anos.

[]s
CB_Lima

E também para uma nova aeronave furtiva construída em outras bases e mais em conta que faça o mesmo serviço.

olha a pechincha


The Pentagon has offered to sell S. Korea 60 F-35A fighters at a unit price of $180m, much less than the prices it has offered to Japan ($238m) and to Israel ($202m). (LM photo)

Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft


(Source: Defense Security Cooperation Agency; issued April 3, 2013)

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares.

Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence / Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics.

Also included [are]: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale of F-35s will provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The ROK’s Air Force F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35s are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this aircraft system and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, Texas; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, Connecticut. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Korea to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: The above notification prices the F-35As for Korea at $180 million each, excluding weapons. The sale would also require fully 15 years of local support by US government and contractor reps, the cost of which is not included in the notification price tag.
It is also worth noting that the F-35 is being offered at widely differing prices to US Allies.
While Korea would pay $180 million per aircraft, Japan has been told it would have to pay about $10 billion for 42 similar F-35As (4 + 38 on option), which works out to $238 million per aircraft.
Israel, on the other hand, has been offered 75 F-35s (an initial buy of 25, with an option for 50 additional F-35As or 50 F-35Bs) for $15.2 billion, or $202.6 million per aircraft. But this price was fixed in 2008, and will be higher once it has been updated to current dollars.
One wonders what future buyers will think of such widely varying price tags for the same aircraft, and how the Pentagon will justify them).

(ends)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -each.html