royal navy de rafale?

[eu sou eu]

28 Fevereiro 2006
This is Money 26 Fevereiro 2006

Acordo de Defesa Anglo-Americano Ameaçado

150 Rafales para a Royal Navy?
( texto original inglês Link)

Tom McGhie e Jack Gee,
Mail on Sunday



A Grã-Bretanha está considerando a aquisição de até 150 caças franceses Rafale Marine, para o seu porta-aviões de segunda geração, que tem entrada em serviço com a Royal Navy, em 2013.

Caso o governo avance com esse acordo de £5 bilhões, significaria o cancelamento dos contratos existentes com os EUA para operar em porta-aviões, e significaria uma grande crise na relações entre os dois países.

A inesperada oferta para a aquisição do caça Rafale Marine, aconteceu em 24 de janeiro, quando o Secretário da Defesa John Reid, emncontrou sua colega, Michele Alliot-Marie, para negociações em Londres.

Ele aconteceu após as bem conhecidas dificuldades entre os ingleses e americanos sobre o projeto Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), sobre as questões de compartilhamento d etecnologia.

É compreendido que Reid teria afirmadoque ele consideraria uma oferta francesa. Até concordaria, que dar à proposta francesa uma consideração séria, seria um grande alerta aos maericanos, cujas relações com a França na área de defesa estão muito estremecidas.

A oferta francesa segue à continuada resistência dos americanos em permitir a transferência de tecnologia avançada do JSF - caça que está sendo contruído, nos Estados Unidos, pela Lockheed Martin com a cooperação da Grã Bretanha.

O Ministério da Defesa já pagou aos americanos £2 bilhões d elibras pelo desenvolvimento. A BAE Systems,empresa inglesa líder de tecnologia e contratista principal pelos ingleses, que é um parceiro estratégico do projeto, esperava faturar £14 bilhões de libras pelo desenvolvimentos e contratos de produção.

O MoD declinou de dar detalhes da oferta francesa, mas fontes de defesa em Paris confirmaram que uma longa reunião se seguiu à oferta.

A recusa americana de compartilhar tecnologia (share technology), significa que se um JSF necessitar de reparos, esses deveriam ser realizados nos Estados Unidos.

Issi significaria que as froças britânicas não teriam acesso aos códigos para armar seus aviões, se eles participassem de missões não aprovadas pelo Pentágono.

Há uma crescente preocupação quanto a resistência americana na transferência de tecnologia. A Inglaterra está tornando claro que sem ter sua própria soberania sobre o JSF, consideraria o cancelamento do programa.

A relutância de Washington de transferir tecnologia ao seu aliado mais próximo, é baseado que a Grã Bretanha poderia repassar segredos militares e comerciais a outras empresas.

Frente a recusa de transferência d etecnologia, Lord Grayson, Ministro da de Aquisição de Defesa, afirmou: 'Têm de haver um Pano B. Nós necessitamos estar seguros que temos uma opção.'

O MoD ainda espera que os americanos mudem seu pensamento. Entretanto,ela está procurando opções. Dada a consideração da oferta francesa, poderia reforçar a posição inglesa frente às negociações com Washington.

O porta-aviões de 60.000 toneladas planejado pela Royal Navy, é projetad para ter poderosas catapultas no convves de vôo ( Convôo). Isso significa que eles não estarã restritos a versão vertical take-off version ( V-STOL), do JSF. Eles poderiam lançar o convencional JSF, assim como Typhoon Eurofighters modificados.

O Rafale Marine já está em serviço e designado para serviço com o segundo porta-aviões francês, que será similar ao que está sendo contruído para a Royal Navy.

A decisão de Paris de adquirir o projeto do porta-aviões inglês para o seu segundo porta-aviões, torna a proposta francesa mais palatável.

O custo do caça francês seria de aproximadamente£ 35 milhões de libras esterlinas cada, seria mais barato, mas provavelmente não popular com as forças.

Gerald Howarth, porta-voz de defesa do partido Conservador, afirmou: 'Isso mostra o perigo da recusa americana em nós dar a tecnologia. eles nos jogariam nos braços dos franceses.

[faterra]

E eu que pensava que no Olimpo não haveria este tipo de divergência!

[Alcantara]

Pra mim isso não passa de jogo de cena. Os inglêses estão usando os franceses para poder ter os códigos dos norte-americanos. Duvido muito que deixem de comprar o F-35...

Agora, a escolha do Rafale por um país poderoso como a Inglaterra poderia alavancar as vendas do caça francês. Seria uma propaganda e tanto. Mas tenho lá as minhas reticências quanto a isso... não creio que os inglêses dariam essa "forcinha" os gauleses. Se isso acontecer, ótimo, melhor para o Brasil. E, claro, melhor ainda para a França.


Abraços!!!

[CFB]

Vamos ver se os britanicos comprarem mesmo os Rafale, vai ser um baita prejuizo por americanos, acho q com esta pressao td pro parte do UK eles vao liberam as tecnologias do F-35

[JLRC]

Britain, the STOVL Premium and the US “Tax”


(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published March 7, 2006)


by Giovanni de Briganti


PARIS --- How much of a premium is Britain prepared to pay to give its future combat aircraft a short take-off/vertical landing (VSTOL) capability it may not really need?

This, as much as the recent controversies about access to closely-guarded US technology or alternate engine programs, is what should ultimately decide whether Britain commits to the Joint Strike Fighter by year-end, or pulls out.

The British perfected the Harrier “jump-jet,” the world’s first operational VTOL fighter, from which they then derived the Sea Harrier (and the AV-8 for the US Marine Corps). In the 1960s, when it was designed, the operational rationale behind the Harrier was to allow the Royal Air Force to disperse its German-based units away from vulnerable air bases and runways, and thus to survive Soviet air strikes.

The same technology later allowed the Royal Navy to build small, and comparatively inexpensive, Invincible-class aircraft carriers, thanks to which Britain was able to defeat Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War. The Sea Harrier also allowed other countries, such as Italy and Spain, to deploy sea-based jet fighters from even smaller aircraft carriers, acquiring a capability that would have otherwise been inaccessible to them.

However, the case for STOVL is much less persuasive in today’s strategic environment. Dispersing air force units away from heavily protected air bases is no longer necessary absent the credible threat of massive air attacks. On the contrary, it would be more dangerous to disperse air and ground crews as this would expose them to direct attack from the irregular forces and terrorists they are likely encounter during future operations.

The argument in favour of STOVL capability for the Royal Navy also has faded, if not disappeared altogether: while it was crucial to fit jet fighters to small carriers displacing 20,000 tonnes, it is far less necessary for the RN’s future carriers, which will displace around 60,000 tonnes.

Consequently, there is no longer an absolute British need for a STOVL capability, even though it is one of the main reasons Britain opted for the Joint Strike Fighter in the first place. It is to acquire this capability that it would pay over $100 million for each JSF it buys, compared to about $60 million for the Dassault Rafale and about $80 million for the F-18E Super Hornet, the only two other Western carrier fighters in production.

Thus, the “STOVL Premium” is about $40 million per aircraft, which adds up to as much as $6 billion for Britain’s planned buy of 150 JSFs. In addition, Britain is expected to contribute another $2 billion in development costs, bringing this premium to $8 billion.

Another option is to develop a carrier-based version of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Mike Turner, CEO of BAE Systems, recently said this option remains on the table. Its cost remains to be determined, however, and it is questionable whether a naval Eurofighter could be ready by 2012-2103, when the new carriers are due to enter service. Even if development of a naval Typhoon were to cost $1 billion, the JSF’s “STOVL Premium” would still amount to a hefty $7 billion.

Buying the F-18E makes little sense, as it is the latest upgrade of a design dating back to the 1970s and thus offers limited growth potential. Furthermore, its performance has been often questioned, notably by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Buying the Rafale, on the other hand, would lower the acquisition and life-cycle costs of the future British carrier force because they would be shared with France across the board, and not simply on part of the ship design as is now the case. And with their main naval ports and air bases so close together, support would be far simpler than with JSF.

And, given the status of the Rafale program, Britain should be able to obtain very significant price concessions and offsets for a 150-aircraft buy. Best of all, from a British point of view Rafale is at an ideal phase for such a deal: naval Rafales have been operational long enough to iron out its kinks, yet production is not so far advanced as to make integration of a new partner impossible.

BAE Systems’ involvement and work-load would be assured by both Typhoon and Rafale options, while Rolls-Royce would no doubt obtain far more production and maintenance work than from the JSF, now that the alternate engine it was to develop has been cancelled.

The JSF has been described as an economically inefficient way for participating governments to transfer public funds to their own industries, via the US and Lockheed Martin, both of which take a slice of that money as it passes through their hands.

Apart from obvious operational and industrial advantages, buying either Typhoon or Rafale instead of JSF would at least do away with this US “tax,” as well as with the operationally useless STOVL price premium.

-ends-

[JLRC]

UK-French Future Aircraft Carrier Agreement


(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 6, 2006)


A landmark agreement between the UK and French Governments on cooperation on aircraft carriers was signed in Innsbruck today by UK Defence Secretary John Reid, and French Defence Minister Madame Michele Alliot-Marie.

The Carrier project will provide the UK Armed forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK.

Under the terms of the MOU, UK and France will co-operate on the demonstration phase work to produce a Common Baseline Design that will meet requirements for CVF and French requirements for its carrier, PA2. It is also intended to identify shared procurement opportunities. Ministers agreed in January the level of fee that France would pay together with their share of the demonstration phase costs. A French team has already been accommodated alongside their UK colleagues.

Speaking from Innsbruck, Mr Reid said:

"Co-operation between our two countries on our future aircraft carriers is of key importance, and the signing of this agreement today is a major step that launches our cooperation on future aircraft carriers for the next 12 months.

"In the current security environment, we must ensure that our forces have the right tools to do the jobs which we ask of them. France and the UK are working in partnership across a range of systems, which will bring benefits not only to the Armed Forces of both countries, but also to our industrial bases, economies and, therefore, to our populations."


BACKGROUND NOTES:

1. John Reid is attending informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers in Innsbruck, Austria, on Monday 6 and Tuesday 7 March 2006. The signing of the MoU builds upon the agreement that was reached during the last Anglo / French bilateral in London on January 24th 2006.

2. Topics for discussion include Civil-military coordination (Emergency Support, Crisis Management); EU Operations in the Western Balkans and in Africa; and Military Capabilities of the EU (Headline Goal 2010, Battle Groups. A meeting of the European Defence Agency scheduled on Tuesday 7 March.

3. Austria took on Presidency of the EU in January 2006. The United Kingdom held the Presidency of the EU from July to December 2005.

4. John Reid announced in London on 24 January the agreement between UK and France on Aircraft Carrier co-operation. Today marks the formalisation of that agreement by the signing of the associated Memorandum of Understanding that finalises the management arrangements.

5. France has agreed to pay an initial fee of £100M in three stages, in recognition of the investment already made by the UK in the design of the ships. The phasing is £30m now and £25m in July. The final £45M will be conditional on a final French decision to commit to manufacturing the carriers. France will also contribute one third of the demonstration phase costs of the common baseline design.

-ends-

[VICTOR]

STOVL Premium

Consequently, there is no longer an absolute British need for a STOVL capability, even though it is one of the main reasons Britain opted for the Joint Strike Fighter in the first place. It is to acquire this capability that it would pay over $100 million for each JSF it buys, compared to about $60 million for the Dassault Rafale and about $80 million for the F-18E Super Hornet, the only two other Western carrier fighters in production.

Thus, the “STOVL Premium” is about $40 million per aircraft

Excelente artigo, hein? Toca num assunto importante, que é a necessidade de STOVL, e coloca um enfoque histórico que me parece pertinente

[Rui Elias Maltez]

Eu estou com o Alcântara:

Apesar do projecto dos Porta Aviões ser semelhante para Inglaterra e França, estas declaraçõies podem não passar de uma forma de pressionar os americanos para que eles flexibilizem mais as tranferências de tecnologia.

Nem faria sentido que sendo o JSF um projecto com comparticipação britânica, ficasse agora a Ingalatarra privada da totalidade das tecnologias e dependente dos EUA para actuar em missões que a Inglaterra ache soberana.

A menos que os EUA estejam com essas reservas pensando que um futuro pilar europeu de Aliança retiraria muita da importância e dependência que a actual NATO tem relativamente ao EUA, nomeadamente se se concretizar ma grande "força de reacção rápida" da UE.

É tudo um jogo de pressões de parte a parte.

Só o futuro nos mostrará o desfecho, mas no final, eu pessoalmente acredito que os britânicos acabarão por fechar o negócio com os JSF.