NOTICIAS

Assuntos em discussão: Marinha do Brasil e marinhas estrangeiras, forças de superfície e submarinas, aviação naval e tecnologia naval.

Moderador: Conselho de Moderação

Mensagem
Autor
Avatar do usuário
Sintra
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 3902
Registrado em: Sex Jun 02, 2006 3:20 pm
Localização: Emirado de Al-Guheirão que fica no Califado de AL-Sintra

#211 Mensagem por Sintra » Qua Mar 28, 2007 6:43 pm

É este bicho:

3M-54E (SS-N-27) ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILE



In 2005~06, the PLA Navy (PLAN) received six improved Project 636M (Kilo class) diesel-electric submarines which are fitted with the advanced ‘Club’ anti-ship weapon complex designed by Russian Novator Bureau. The system features the 3M-54E (NATO codename: SS-N-27 Sizzler) subsonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) with a maximum range of 220~300km. The ‘Club’ weapon system is available in two versions: the surface-ship-based Club-N and the submarine-based Club-S, both of which employs unified combat assets – two types of anti-ship cruise missiles and a type of ballistic anti-submarine missile.

The ‘Club’ weapon system includes a number of different variant missiles including the anti-ship variants 3M-54 and 3M-54E1, and the anti-submarine variant 91RE1. It is still not clear which variant the PLAN is operating on its Project 636M Kilo class submarines. The 3M-54E1 is a 300km-range subsonic anti-ship cruise variant similar to the U.S. Tomahawk. The 3M-54E variant with a shorter range is based on the subsonic stage of the 3M-54E1 but use a rocket-propelled second stage which is released 20~60km from the target. This second stage then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences. Both missiles in the ‘Club’ weapon complex use a common active radar guidance system and both fly a low-altitude sea-skimming mission profile. The missile is launched from the torpedo tubes of the submarine.

SPECIFICATIONS

3M-54E 3M-54TE 3M-54E1 3M-54TE1 91RE1 91RE2
Length (m) 8.220 8.916 6,200 8,916 8,000 6,500
Diameter (m) 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.645 0.533 0.533
Weight (kg) 2,300 1,951 1,780 1,505 2,050 1,300
Warhead (kg) 200 200 400 400 76 76
Range (km) 220 220 300 275 50 40
Max speed (Mach) 0.6~0.8; (terminal 3) 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8 0.6~0.8
Guidance Inertial + active radar Inertial
Flight profile Low altitude sea-skimming Ballistic


http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp




Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

#212 Mensagem por soultrain » Qua Mar 28, 2007 7:04 pm

Mach 3 :?:

Se for verdade é uma pu... arma!

[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Carlos Mathias

#213 Mensagem por Carlos Mathias » Qua Mar 28, 2007 7:59 pm

É amigo, e eu já li que todos tem cobertura stealth, blindagem das partes sensíveis (apenas impacto direto consegue derrubar) e o mais incrível, executa manobras aleatórias no final do ataque.




Avatar do usuário
chm0d
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 4236
Registrado em: Sáb Dez 10, 2005 12:27 am
Localização: São Paulo / SP
Contato:

#214 Mensagem por chm0d » Qua Mar 28, 2007 9:57 pm

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:




Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

#215 Mensagem por soultrain » Qui Mar 29, 2007 6:33 am

chm0d escreveu::roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Você não leu concerteza o meu primeiro post, a US NAVY está muito procupada, ao ponto de parar todos os programas enquanto esta ameaça não for estudada.


Citação:
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed. `

`This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

``We take the threat very seriously,'' Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of U.S. naval operations said today.

``Secretary of Defense England has asked us to come to him by April with our approach,'' Mullen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. There ``may not be a single answer. It would probably be a multifaceted.''

The Sizzler ``is very fast and it has maneuvering characteristics that are of concern,'' Mullen said. ``That has put us in a position to make sure we evaluate it as rapidly and specifically as we can.''

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressive Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

`Pressing Threat'

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Tony Capaccio at at acapaccio@bloomnberg.net

Last Updated: March 23, 2007 15:16 EDT




Qual é o bicho?

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/navy_cataloque.html

[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Avatar do usuário
P44
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 56084
Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
Localização: O raio que vos parta
Agradeceu: 2990 vezes
Agradeceram: 2688 vezes

#216 Mensagem por P44 » Qui Mar 29, 2007 7:06 am

`This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''


:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

:arrow:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html
The Yekaterinburg-based Novator Design Bureau has developed a new cruise missile system designated Klub (NATO: SS-N-27) and is sometimes referred to as the Club, Biryuza and Alpha/Alfa. The Klub ASCM (anti-sub/ship cruise missile) has been designed to destroy submarine and surface vessels of all known types and also engage static/slow-moving targets, whose co-ordinates are known in advance, even if these targets are protected by active defences and electronic countermeasures. There are presently, two 'known' modifications of the system; Klub-S (for submarines) and Klub-N (for surface vessels). The latter can be installed in vertical launch cells or in angled missile boxes, depending upon operational requirements. Both systems are based on common hardware, the only difference being the design of the missile launchers and the missile transport-launching containers. Both modifications come in the supersonic 3M-54E or the subsonic 3M-54E1 AShM (anti-ship missile) variant and the 3M-14E LACM (Land Attack Cruise Missile) variant. Klub-S can also be armed with the 91RE1 anti-submarine torpedo and Klub-N with the 91RE2 anti-submarine torpedo.

Imagem
These models show the four of the five missiles in the Klub ASCM family. From left to right, are the 91RE2, the 3M-54E, the 3M-54E1 and the 91RE1. Not pictured is the 3M-14E LACM.

ImagemImagem
(Left) The pointed nose of the supersonic rocket, which forms the payload of the deadly 3M-54E AShM, protrudes from the front of the complete missile. (Right) The subsonic 3M-54E1 AShM, with wings extended.


Imagem
3M-51 Specifications*

• Length: 8.5 meters
• Diameter: ?
• Wing Span: 3.1 meters
• Launch Weight: 2000 kg
• Range: 108n miles (200 km)
• Speed: Mach 2 (Terminal Stage Speed)
• Warhead: 200 kg (High Explosive)
• Guidance: Inertial + Active Radar Homing
• Flight Path: Low Flying

*Note: The following specifications have been acquired from various sources and are thus speculative.


.......

Informations-Doc about the Klub-missile family:
http://www.dtig.org/docs/Klub-Family.pdf


:arrow: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=49

Quote:
Originally Posted by tphuang
still really off mark, but keep trying.

so how i am off the mark. when russia is upgrading supersonic bombers and going towards hyper velocity missile. russia is intellectually the most advance nation on earth. they know to do things ahead of time and in cost effective way.

Quote:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070118/59299841.html
"We will be receiving two [strategic] aircraft every three years, and we are satisfied with that," Army General Vladimir Mikhailov said, adding that the upgraded fleet will include both new and modernized Tu-160 Blackjack, Tu-22 Blinder and Tu-95 Bear bombers



Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...ion=2007032605
"Inside Intel we have an expression," says Steve Chase, president of Intel Russia. "If you have something tough, give it to the Americans. If you have something difficult, give it to the Indians. If you have something impossible, give it to the Russians."




*Turn on the news and eat their lies*
Avatar do usuário
chm0d
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 4236
Registrado em: Sáb Dez 10, 2005 12:27 am
Localização: São Paulo / SP
Contato:

#217 Mensagem por chm0d » Qui Mar 29, 2007 10:02 am

soultrain escreveu:
chm0d escreveu::roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Você não leu concerteza o meu primeiro post, a US NAVY está muito procupada, ao ponto de parar todos os programas enquanto esta ameaça não for estudada.


Citação:
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Sizzler' Missile (Update1)

By Tony Capaccio

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed. `

`This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.

``We take the threat very seriously,'' Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of U.S. naval operations said today.

``Secretary of Defense England has asked us to come to him by April with our approach,'' Mullen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. There ``may not be a single answer. It would probably be a multifaceted.''

The Sizzler ``is very fast and it has maneuvering characteristics that are of concern,'' Mullen said. ``That has put us in a position to make sure we evaluate it as rapidly and specifically as we can.''

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressive Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.

`Pressing Threat'

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Tony Capaccio at at acapaccio@bloomnberg.net

Last Updated: March 23, 2007 15:16 EDT




Qual é o bicho?

http://www.roe.ru/cataloque/navy_cataloque.html

[[]]'s


Entendi sim, estou esperando os ANTI-Russos. :)




Avatar do usuário
soultrain
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 12154
Registrado em: Dom Jun 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Localização: Almada- Portugal

#218 Mensagem por soultrain » Qui Mar 29, 2007 10:16 am

:wink:

Acho piada a este paragrafo:

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.



[[]]'s





"O que se percebe hoje é que os idiotas perderam a modéstia. E nós temos de ter tolerância e compreensão também com os idiotas, que são exatamente aqueles que escrevem para o esquecimento" :!:


NJ
Avatar do usuário
Marino
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 15667
Registrado em: Dom Nov 26, 2006 4:04 pm
Agradeceu: 134 vezes
Agradeceram: 630 vezes

#219 Mensagem por Marino » Qui Abr 12, 2007 8:42 am

Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.




Avatar do usuário
Wolfgang
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 7809
Registrado em: Seg Nov 27, 2006 8:07 pm
Agradeceu: 5 vezes
Agradeceram: 45 vezes

#220 Mensagem por Wolfgang » Qui Abr 12, 2007 9:29 am

Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


Ótima notícia! [009]




thelmo rodrigues
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 2235
Registrado em: Sex Mai 05, 2006 9:15 pm
Localização: são luis - ma
Agradeceram: 3 vezes

#221 Mensagem por thelmo rodrigues » Qui Abr 12, 2007 9:34 am

Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


EXCELENTE! [009]




"O dia em que os EUA aportarem porta aviões, navios de guerra, jatos e helicópteros apache sobre o território brasileiro, aposto que muitos brasileiros vão sair correndo gritando: "me leva, junto! me leva, junto!"
Avatar do usuário
Wolfgang
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 7809
Registrado em: Seg Nov 27, 2006 8:07 pm
Agradeceu: 5 vezes
Agradeceram: 45 vezes

#222 Mensagem por Wolfgang » Qui Abr 12, 2007 10:04 am

Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


Marino, e desculpe a pergunta, mas é que sou leigo no assunto. Por acaso a prova de mar é feita com os armamentos?




Avatar do usuário
Marino
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 15667
Registrado em: Dom Nov 26, 2006 4:04 pm
Agradeceu: 134 vezes
Agradeceram: 630 vezes

#223 Mensagem por Marino » Qui Abr 12, 2007 10:14 am

Wolfgang escreveu:
Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


Marino, e desculpe a pergunta, mas é que sou leigo no assunto. Por acaso a prova de mar é feita com os armamentos?

A prova de mar é para testar, prioritariamente, o sistema de propulsão do navio. Os outros equipamentos, como o armamento, já deve estar instalado, mas para este tipo de equipamento as provas são outras.
Primeiro é feito um ciclo de alinhamento atracado, depois o ciclo de alinhamento no mar, e as provas de tiro e avaliação de tudo que foi feito.
Também são criados o que chamamos de EXOP - Exercícios Operativos, que servem para aferir constantemente o alinhamento do sistema de armas do navio e verificar seu funcionamento dentro dos padrões e requisitos para o ele que foi construído. O buraco é bem mais embaixo.
Este ciclo existe também para os sistemas eletrônicos de bordo, todos.
Abç
Marino




Avatar do usuário
Wolfgang
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 7809
Registrado em: Seg Nov 27, 2006 8:07 pm
Agradeceu: 5 vezes
Agradeceram: 45 vezes

#224 Mensagem por Wolfgang » Qui Abr 12, 2007 10:26 am

Marino escreveu:
Wolfgang escreveu:
Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


Marino, e desculpe a pergunta, mas é que sou leigo no assunto. Por acaso a prova de mar é feita com os armamentos?

A prova de mar é para testar, prioritariamente, o sistema de propulsão do navio. Os outros equipamentos, como o armamento, já deve estar instalado, mas para este tipo de equipamento as provas são outras.
Primeiro é feito um ciclo de alinhamento atracado, depois o ciclo de alinhamento no mar, e as provas de tiro e avaliação de tudo que foi feito.
Também são criados o que chamamos de EXOP - Exercícios Operativos, que servem para aferir constantemente o alinhamento do sistema de armas do navio e verificar seu funcionamento dentro dos padrões e requisitos para o ele que foi construído. O buraco é bem mais embaixo.
Este ciclo existe também para os sistemas eletrônicos de bordo, todos.
Abç
Marino


Obrigado. Então, com essa notícia, podemos dizer que a Barroso está em estágio final, não?




Avatar do usuário
Skyway
Sênior
Sênior
Mensagens: 11166
Registrado em: Seg Jun 19, 2006 1:40 pm
Agradeceu: 24 vezes
Agradeceram: 266 vezes

#225 Mensagem por Skyway » Qui Abr 12, 2007 10:31 am

Marino escreveu:Na Ordem do Dia comemorativa ao Dia do engenheiro Naval, o Diretor do AMRJ anunciou que a prova de mar da Barroso será em OUTUBRO de 2007.


É o tempo de remover as cracas do casco? :lol:


Sério, vai ser uma visão um tanto ESTRANHA ver aquele navio saindo dalí, navegando.....A única vez que ví a Barroso se mover foi no lançamento ao Mar.

Lembro de ver ela descendo a rampa, batendo na água, e fiquei muito tempo ainda alí, parado, olhando ela boiando e pensei, poxa, que legal, ví a construção toda desse navio e agora ele está pronto...

Que ilusão a minha......... :?




AD ASTRA PER ASPERA
Responder