Moderadores: Glauber Prestes, Conselho de Moderação
Saquei!Marechal-do-ar escreveu:Carlos, quando eu falo "PAs menores" não penso em algo como o WASP, mas em embarcações com menos de 20 mil tons.
Olá camarada e amigo, não é a solução ideal, o ideal é 100% o PEAMB da MB, mas seria uma opção para um país em que a defesa não é levada como prioridade........................................o que me o que me relembra a história que todos nós conhecemos e retratado no episódio de GUERRAS MUNDIAIS no HISTORY CHANNEL EP3 ou ep4, não me lembro ao certo quando ROOSEVELT queria cortar gastos militares em até 50% com o plano NEW DIAL por causa da crise econômica e DOUGLAS MCARTHUR "bateu de frente" e logo após entraram na guerra e o mesmo acontecendo na Inglaterra quando CHURCHIL foi reconduzido a ser LORDE DO ALMIRANTADO:Marechal-do-ar escreveu:ABULDOG74, a ideia de modularidade, flexibilidade e reconfigurar de acordo com a missão, é bonita na teoria, mas funciona na prática?
Pergunto isso porque, os soldados são reconfiguráveis? Digo, em uma missão de desembarque esse navio levaria APCs anfíbios, em uma missão antissubmarino ele levaria helicópteros, mas os fuzileiros da primeira missão conseguiriam fazer o trabalho da segunda missão, nem que seja a manutenção embarcada dos meios? Se a resposta for não mas que embarcariam apenas os soldados especializados naquele tipo de missão então eu acho que a ideia toda está errada porque ela parte de uma premissa errada, nesse caso a ideia da flexibilidade parte da premissa que o navio é a parte mais cara da força, mas não é, os aviões, helicópteros, APCs, tanques e outros equipamentos transportados vão custar bem mais que o navio em si, o combustível e munição vai custar ainda mais e por fim e mais importante, os soldados e seu treinamento vão deixar todos os outros custos no chinelo, no fim, a economia feita em um navio pode não ser tão grande e limitar outras coisas mais importantes.
Como eu disse antes, gosto da ideia de um PA pequeno, mas não tenho experiência nisso, sou a favor do meio que usar os recursos da forma mais eficiente (mais eficiente significa mais poder militar por menos custo, e não falo só dos recursos para aquisição do PA em si - uns US$ 6 bi para operar por 30 anos? Merreca...), se essa forma for um navio de 50 mil tons dedicado a aviação de asa fixa embarcada, que seja.
Algumas considerações:saullo escreveu:Vamos fazer umas comparações bem rasteiras:
PA convencional de 50.000 ton. deve custar uns 5 bilhões de dólares.
40 caças convencionais para ele devem custar 150 milhões de dólares cada, total de 6 bilhões de dólares.
TOTAL : 11 bilhões de dólares.
PA/NPM tipo Juan Carlos I deve custar cerca de 1,2 bilhão de dólares.
20 caças F-35B a 200 milhões de dólares cada saem por 4 bilhões de dólares.
TOTAL: 5,2 bilhões de dolares.
Creio que os custos de manutenção de um PA convencional serão maiores que um NPM, já os custos de manutenção de um caça embarcado convencional são menores que o de um F-35B.
Para o Brasil, acho um PA/NPM seria muito mais útilizado que um PA convencional.
Claro que seriam precisos ao menos 2 unidades, e uns 2 ou 3 NDD tipo Galícia para termos uma força compacta e flexível.
Marinha pobre não pode ter o luxo de ter PA dedicado com catapulta.
Abraços
[]sMarine Corps Aircraft Maintainers Keep Lightning II In Sky During OT-1
(Source: US Marine Corps; issued Jun 3, 2015)
A power module for the F-35B is moved out of an MV-22B Osprey and onto the USS Wasp, at sea May 22 during an evolution part of Operational Testing 1. OT-1 is intended to evaluate the F-35B’s suitability and effectiveness, as well as assessing the integration of the aircraft into the ship’s flight operations.
USS WASP, At sea --- Vertical landings, low observability, X-ray vision helmets and laser tracking systems are just a few pieces of space-age technology incorporated in the Marine Corps’ F-35B Lightning II.
The tactical power of this 21st Century jet is another example of how Marine Corps aviation is evolving. But it takes more than one Marine in the cockpit to keep this plane in the air.
“Behind all of that flight time, there are many hours of maintenance,” said Maj. Adam Perlin, an F-35B pilot from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, Marine Aircraft Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing. “Without the Marines working on the aircraft, I’m not going to go anywhere.”
On May 18, 2015, Marines from Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22, Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, and Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, began working together aboard USS Wasp to support the first phase of Operational Testing (OT-1) of the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
The three teams of enlisted Marines are the real drive behind the operation: the avionics technicians, powerline mechanics and the airframe mechanics.
“In avionics we work with all the communications, navigation, electrical and weapons systems on the aircraft,” said Capt. John Johnson, the officer in charge of the Avionics and Airframe Divisions aboard USS Wasp for OT-1. “The airframes Marines do metalwork and hydraulics; and on this platform, they’re in charge of the low observables, or the stealth properties of the aircraft.”
“Anything involving the fuel and oil system is our responsibility as powerline,” said Sgt. Benjamin Mcintire, a powerline mechanic with VMX-22. “Engines, fuel systems, oil systems, tires and things like that.”
In simpler terms, avionics covers the computers and software of the plane; airframes deals with the outside, or structural side, of the plane; and powerline Marines take care of the aircraft’s mechanical guts.
“We go through pre-flight and post-flight checks of pretty much all the systems, but particularly we have to check the power system before flight.” said Cpl. Jared VanSpeybroeck, an avionics technician with VMFAT-501. “Does he have power; back-up power; batteries; are the systems synced? All of these things can make or break your flight plan.”
Similar to the avionics team’s electronics checks, the powerline team conducts safe-for-flight inspections and after-flight assessments on the structural and mechanical integrity of the plane.
“We make sure each aircraft is safe,” said Mcintire. “It’s a lot of responsibility, performing the in-depth, pre-flight and post-flight inspections, knowing that the life of another Marine is in your hands.”
VanSpeybroeck stated that sometimes the nature of his job as an avionics technician can be very challenging, since the cause of an electronics malfunction can be hard to pinpoint.
“We’re troubleshooters,” said VanSpeybroeck. “The aircraft is a flying computer, so we have to take care of the computer.”
VanSpeybroeck also emphasized that the F-35B requires a joint effort by all maintenance shops in order to run properly.
“If any shop weren’t here, or lacked in capability, then the plane wouldn’t fly,” said VanSpeybroeck. “The F-35 is a finely-tuned machine that requires a broad spectrum of maintenance in order to perform.”
Mcintire recalled a malfunction in one of the F-35’s during OT-1, where the pilot returned from flight with a fuel transfer complaint. After troubleshooting, they discovered one of the fuel boost pumps needed to be replaced. The team had planned for many different maintenance contingencies, and had a spare already packed aboard.
“Airframes removed the panel to access the fuel pump,” said Mcintire. “After our maintenance and testing of the boost pump, the plane returned to service and flew through all of its allotted slots.”
Johnson stated his teams contribute to overall efforts to ensure the aircraft is safe. They confirm the integrity of the aircraft, and that the navigations and the communications systems are all in good order so the pilot can make it back to the ship safely.
“They came together from three different squadrons [based in North Carolina, South Carolina and Arizona), and seamlessly transitioned into one solid unit,” said Johnson. “I addressed them yesterday and told them this is the group I would want to deploy on a Marine Expeditionary Unit with right now.”
(ends)
Marine Ospreys Support Lightning Out At Sea
(Source: US Marine Corps; issued Jun 3, 2015)
USS WASP, At sea -- As Marines and sailors have been working together to conduct an assessment of F-35B Lightning II integration into amphibious operations over the past two weeks, they are learning to overcome the challenges inherent in maintaining and resupplying one of the world’s most advanced pieces of military technology while out at sea.
One key component of the F-35B Operational Trials, or OT-1, included assessing the maintenance and logistical measures necessary to keep the F-35B flying aboard a U.S. Navy amphibious vessel in standard sea conditions.
The F-35B engine power module found itself at center stage of the OT-1 supply and logistics capability assessment about sixty miles off the East Coast of the United States May 21.
The power module is the largest and most important part of the F-35B’s engine. Weighing about 4,500 pounds, safely transporting this intricate piece of technology from a storage facility on a military base in the States, across ocean waters, and onto the deck of a pitching ship is no easy task. And it had never been done before.
“The power module is the core of the F-35B engine,” said Michael Chotkowski, who is in charge of F-35B deployment integration with Pratt & Whitney. “The engine is broken down into five different modules: fan, augmenter, nozzle, gearbox and the power, which is the number one module.”
Up until a few months ago, there was no way to transport replacement power modules to a ship, or damaged power modules from the ship to a repair facility. That was, until a system was put in place using an MV-22B Osprey, a shipping stand constructed with internal suspension, known as a “buck,” and an overhead bridge crane aboard the ship to insert the power module into the plane.
“Pratt & Whitney had to design and build a shipping buck that could constrain and protect the power module when it is in the back of an MV-22B,” said Jeff Ward, who is in charge of F-35B deployment integration with Headquarters Marine Corps. “The buck, which is the critical piece here, did not exist six months ago. It was created to hold and protect the power module while it is being transported.”
The buck was designed as a portable casing to roll the power module onto and off the Osprey. It also serves to protect the power module in the back of an MV-22B Osprey as it flies across the open sea, where it is subjected to the standard movement and vibrations that are inherent in amphibious flight operations due to high winds and rough water.
“The buck has four solid steel posts and two tools on the front and on the back mount of the engine cases. This provides structural integrity,” said Chotkowski. “It also has vibratory isolators built into it that are tuned to dampen out the frequencies that come from the MV-22B, and could do damage to the bearings in the power module.”
Part one of the operation consisted of loading the power module onto a buck at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. Next, an MV-22B Osprey from New River, North Carolina flew into PAX River to pick up the module and buck. Then the Osprey flew more than 60 miles out to the ship, touching down on the deck of USS Wasp, as it rolled with the waves. The team then wheeled the buck out of the Osprey and onto the deck of the ship, with just several inches of clearance on either side.
“The process of unloading the module from the MV-22B is very difficult, because even though the module outside of its container is smaller, it is still very large for the MV-22B,” said David Myersm who is a part of the cargo and special operations team with U.S. Naval Air Systems Command. “It took 16 straps to tie it down in the aircraft. Cargo in the MV-22B needs to be restrained in a specific manor, and it takes a lot of straps to hold down 9,000 pounds.”
The next stage dealt with lowering the power module down to the ship’s maintenance bay, and proving the ability to safely transfer the module from the shipping buck into an existing container. This was accomplished by personnel from Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22.
“We had to show that we could use the Navy’s overhead bridge crane [built into the ceiling of the hangar bay] to transfer the power module from the shipping buck to an existing container, where it can be stored for long term if necessary,” said Chotkowski.
The demonstration proved to be successful, allowing for data to be drawn and lessons to be learned for future F-35B deployments aboard amphibious vessels.
“From this evolution, we know that we can now put a power module into an MV-22B and bring it out to an amphibious vessel,” said Ward. “We can now resupply the Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force in any environment by using the MV-22B. This is an important milestone for the program.”
-ends-
O peso das aeronaves conta muito também.Marechal-do-ar escreveu:Um CATOBAR pode ser pequeno, na segunda guerra haviam CATOBARs bem pequeno, o fato de quase não existirem CATOBARs pequeno hoje acredito que não se deve ao tamanho da pista, mas devido a área necessária para uma operação eficiente.
Sim, Marechal. A USNAVY teve projeto nos anos 60 de NAes de controle de area, menores e CATOBAR, mas foi completamente abandonado em nome dos supercarriers.Marechal-do-ar escreveu:Um CATOBAR pode ser pequeno, na segunda guerra haviam CATOBARs bem pequeno, o fato de quase não existirem CATOBARs pequeno hoje acredito que não se deve ao tamanho da pista, mas devido a área necessária para uma operação eficiente.
