Inglaterra e França vão dividir Porta Aviões

[cabeça de martelo]

Quase a 2º opção, mas o correto seria:

Para que o bom soldado da Wehrmacht marche à sombra

Saudações

E para se abrigar das bombas da RAF ou da USAAF...

[P44]

ainda vou ver a RN a alugar RAFALES EM LEASING

Jump jets to fall victim to spending cuts
New jump jets for the next generation of Royal Navy aircraft carriers will be cancelled to save money.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 9:00AM BST 30 Aug 2010

In a move that could put hundreds of British manufacturing jobs at risk, defence chiefs are ready to abandon plans to buy a vertical-landing fighter jet for the Royal Navy.

Instead, a cheaper conventional-landing warplane will replace the Navy’s Harriers when they retire.

The Navy is buying two new aircraft carriers at a cost of more than £5 billion. Army and RAF chiefs have questioned that plan and suggested that one carrier should be scrapped or shared with the French navy.

Attempting to defend the carriers, Royal Navy chiefs are seeking cuts elsewhere in their planned spending.

Aircraft carriers now in service carry Harrier jets, which are can take off from a short runway and land vertically by directing the blast of their engines downwards.

The next generation of carriers are expected to carry US-made Joint Strike Fighters.

Originally, the Navy was planning to buy a specially-adapted short take-off vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the JSF, which would take off and land on the carriers much as Harriers do now.

However, developing and building the special STOVL version of the JSF would cost more than buying the conventional version, and insiders say that cost cannot be justified.

The military value of vertical landing has also been questioned by senior officers, who say conventional fighters are more useful because they can fly further and faster and carry more weapons.

Using conventional jets would also make it easier to conduct joint operations with allies including the US and France, whose carriers

As a result of those calculations, the STOVL aircraft is set to be scrapped in favour of the cheaper conventional JSF, which would be launched from the new carriers using catapults.

In recent weeks, the MoD has quietly commissioned design work on catapults to launch jets from the new carriers, due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Because construction work on the ships is still at an early stage, adapting their designs to accommodate conventional aircraft is said to be relatively easy.

In addition, a team of 12 Royal Navy pilots has been sent to the US to train with conventional take-off aircraft on carriers.

Much of the specialised engine system for the STOVL jet is being made by Rolls Royce in Bristol, and the switch would jeopardise hundreds of jobs there.

The decision to abandon the STOVL jet could be rubber-stamped at a meeting of the National Security Council next week, although ministers are aware that the move could be controversial.

Giving up on the STOVL aircraft could lead to accusations of waste, since the Ministry of Defence has already spent more than £500 million on the programme.

But insiders say the overall saving of buying standard fighters instead will more than justify writing off that spending.

Pulling out of the STOVL project could also strain British relations with the US. The STOVL jet is being jointly developed with the US Marine Corps, and without British involvement, US costs are likely to increase.

Government sources said ministers will blame the previous administration for the need to change plans on the carriers and their aircraft.

A source said: “Labour chose the wrong type of aircraft and the wrong configuration of carrier, and they wasted a lot of money doing it. What’s going on now is about trying to fix that mess.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the Autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -cuts.html

[talharim]

Se isto um dia acontecer pego minhas coisas vou para Tehran montar um prostibulo com quenga paraguaia.

[P44]

ora deixa cá ver os horários dos vôos da British Airways para Teerão...

[cabeça de martelo]

Não te esqueças da vaselina...

Muito provavelmente eles vão adquirir os FA-18 Super-qualquer coisa.

[P44]

Não te esqueças da vaselina...

Muito provavelmente eles vão adquirir os FA-18 Super-qualquer coisa.

já disse que a França aluga uns Rafale, preço de amigo

[cabeça de martelo]

[P44]

como é bom ver o 52º Estado dos EUA caminhando a passos largos para a decadência

[tflash]

Tivessem eles evoluido o harrier já nada disto teria acontecido. Foram-se pôr com as megalomanias norte-americanas e agora chapéu.

Outra coisa preocupante, é que estão a ganhar as manias de umas forças armadas mais a sul. Com o exército a dizer que a marinha não precisa de porta-aviões. O que é que eles percebem disso? Estão a voltar aos tempos pré-Falkland.

[Gerson Victorio]

O "C" também está na parada....

"...
As a result of those calculations, the STOVL aircraft is set to be scrapped in favour of the cheaper conventional JSF, which would be launched from the new carriers using catapults.

..."

Gerson

[LeandroGCard]

Devo confessar que eu estava queimando a mufla tentando entender porquê a RN estava querendo colocar aviões de decolagem vertical em porta-aviões com mais de 60.000 ton, se uma versão do mesmo avião com decolagem convencional mais barata, fácil de manter e com melhor desempenho estava disponível (sem mencionar outros aviões ainda mais baratos). Se a idéia fosse economizar nos navios fazendo micro-PA’s, como a classe Invincible, até dava para entender, mas em navios do porte do Queen Elizabeth?

Leandro G. Card

[P44]

da JANES....

"RN sends cadre of pilots to train on US carriers

Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent
Kiev

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor
London

Additional reporting by

Peter Felstead Editor
London
Key Points

*

A larger than usual number of UK pilots are taking part in carrier training in the US
*

The move may indicate that the UK favours a commitment to conventional aircraft launched by catapult rather than a STOVL platform

An uprecedented number of UK Royal Navy (RN) Harrier pilots have begun training for catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) carrier operations in the United States, information obtained by Jane's has revealed.

The news further fuels rumours that the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) may be re-assessing its previous commitment to fulfilling the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), instead opting for a conventional aircraft launched by catapult.

The latter could be the F-35C carrier variant of the JSF, which has a greater range and payload capability than the JSF STOVL variant and also costs slightly less per unit, or even the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on which the UK pilots are likely to be certified. The RN's two future Queen Elizabeth-class carriers that would operate the JCA are designed for, but not yet intended to be fitted with CATOBAR equipment.

The programme for this exchange of aviators is much larger than normal and was apparently initiated in April when a senior US Navy (USN) officer announced training and squadron integration for 12 UK pilots. This officer then briefed the US Commander Naval Air Forces (CNAF) in mid-April.

Sources who spoke to Jane's on condition of anonymity state that the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) is "driving the requirement and the CNAF is implementing [it]". Given the high level of support, the training and timing for the programme will be high priority for the local F/A-18 fleet replacement training squadrons (FRSs).

USN sources anticipate that this training programme will be scheduled so that the RN will have 12 fully qualified carrier pilots by 2012. They did not mention whether or not any of these 12 would be trained for the rear-cockpit weapon systems officer (WSO) position in two-seat carrier aircraft or as landing signals officers (LSOs).

According to the programme plan, eight of the 12 pilots will complete a full syllabus on the Boeing/BAE Systems T-45 jet trainer (a carrier-capable version of the BAE Systems Hawk Mk 60) and a full CAT I syllabus on the F/A-18 Hornet. The CAT I syllabus has recently been designated as the pilot certification training for the F/A-18. Three pilots will complete a partial T-45 syllabus and a full CAT II F/A-18 syllabus, which is the training for qualified pilot transition to the F/A-18. The training regime for the 12th and last pilot has not been specified, but it is anticipated that he will conduct some T-45 Goshawk training and a full CAT I or II syllabus that includes day/night landing carrier qualification. Eleven of the UK pilots will join USN fleet squadrons and will be flying both C/D legacy Hornet and E/F Super Hornet models of the F/A-18. The 12th pilot will remain at one of the FRS locations as an exchange pilot.

The RN pilots will also fly US Marine Corps (USMC) McDonnell Douglas/BAE Systems AV-8B Harrier IIs.

It is the much larger number of pilots included (typical exchange programmes with the USN involve only two or three pilots) along with the additional training involved that suggest this pilot training programme is not part of a standard exchange tour.

"It's typical to take the RAF [Royal Air Force]/RN guy to the carrier for some 'good deal' [carrier] traps," said the USN source, "but they go in daytime only and are scheduled on a 'not to interfere with [regular USN] student traps' basis. In other words they do not have a quota. All 12 of the RN pilots addressed by this training will have a quota."

Asked about the reasoning behind the programme, one source told Jane's that it is designed to "give additional STOVL and cat-and-trap experience and provide invaluable 'big deck' familiarisation prior to introduction of Queen Elizabeth . It will also further strengthen the bonds between the USN, USMC and RN".

In conjunction with Jane's reports in July that the UK MoD is continuing to contract Converteam UK for the design, development and demonstration of an electro-magnetic catapult system, news of a cadre of UK pilots being carrier trained would seem to confirm the ministry is reassessing its carrier options. The contractual decision on what variant of F-35 to buy does not have to be made until early in 2011, although RN sources indicated to Jane's in July that the B/C decision would be made as part of the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review process, so a decision could come this year even if no contract is signed.

Meanwhile, unsubstantiated reports have emerged that the RN might even be offered an ex-USN carrier as the size of the USN carrier force is reduced from 12 down to 10 ships. This would provide the RN with a conventional 'cat-and-trap' aircraft carrier in advance of the UK's two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers entering service. Although the RN does have experience of operating nuclear-powered submarines, its aircraft carriers have always been conventionally driven. While all USN carriers in service are nuclear powered carrier, the last conventionally powered carrier in USN service, USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), was decommissioned on 12 May 2009 and is currently maintained as a Ready Reserve Fleet asset."

(descoberto no keypublishing...)

[Gerson Victorio]

Devo confessar que eu estava queimando a mufla tentando entender porquê a RN estava querendo colocar aviões de decolagem vertical em porta-aviões com mais de 60.000 ton, se uma versão do mesmo avião com decolagem convencional mais barata, fácil de manter e com melhor desempenho estava disponível (sem mencionar outros aviões ainda mais baratos). Se a idéia fosse economizar nos navios fazendo micro-PA’s, como a classe Invincible, até dava para entender, mas em navios do porte do Queen Elizabeth?

Leandro G. Card

Leandro,

vou dar meu pitaco de leigo..

Eu creio que a experiência nas Falklands/Malvinas deixou seu legado na RN, veja que no conflito teve de tudo, Guerra: naval, aérea, anfíbia, anti-submarina, etc...e a flexibilidade apresentada pelo Harrier foi muito positiva, a vantagem dele poder operar desdobrado no continente sem o auxílio de pista foi fundamental para o suporte aéreo tão necessário nas operações.

Diferentemente da USNavy que tem todos os meios(alguns dedicados) para os cenários da guerra naval, a RN, assim como as Marinhas de porte médio, precisa ser "flexível" no emprego de seus meios, ter uma atuação mas "expedicionária", pois hoje são poucas as marinhas em condições de se opor em igualdade de condições com marinhas do porte da RN, não necessitando de meios como um PA CATOBAR, muito mais "capaz"(estou relativizando ok?) em termos de "entrega".

Durante a guerra Fria seu foco era, então, atuar como primeira linha de defesa contra os países do Pacto de Varsóvia, hoje sem este cenário, seu foco é, a meu ver, atuar em cenários de pequena/média escala, o F-35B, cumprindo oque se promete, poderia ser um avião tão ou mais flexível que o Harrier foi antes, tornando-se assim um multiplicador de força.

Abraços

Gerson

[P44]

pergunto eu a partir do artigo da Janes, se a RN terá a capacidade ($$$$$) de operar um PA ex-USN?

Dúvido muito, a menos que parem toda a restante frota...

e além disso não estou a ver o governo inglês a ir na cantiga (leia-se eleições+crise+recessão+bancarrota)

[PRick]

Devo confessar que eu estava queimando a mufla tentando entender porquê a RN estava querendo colocar aviões de decolagem vertical em porta-aviões com mais de 60.000 ton, se uma versão do mesmo avião com decolagem convencional mais barata, fácil de manter e com melhor desempenho estava disponível (sem mencionar outros aviões ainda mais baratos). Se a idéia fosse economizar nos navios fazendo micro-PA’s, como a classe Invincible, até dava para entender, mas em navios do porte do Queen Elizabeth?

Leandro G. Card

O problema é que os ingleses colocaram suas fichas e recursos no desenvolvimento da versão B, do F-35, a versão C é um pedido da US Navy, e um desenvolvimento dos EUA. E agora? Investir numa versão e comprar outra? É muito interessante ver como o pessoal de UK anda batendo a cabeça no desenvolvimento de longo prazo, estratégico. Estava na cara que a tonelagem do NAe não seria a atual, ele seria menor. Enfim, estamos assistindo uma trapalhada das grandes!

[]´s