Porta-Aviões
Moderador: Conselho de Moderação
- Luís Henrique
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 8391
- Registrado em: Sex Mai 07, 2004 12:25 pm
- Agradeceu: 1 vez
- Agradeceram: 184 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Na última Segurança e Defesa, tem uma matéria do Fontoura, dizendo que o custo da modernização do A-12 seria de U$ 400 mi.
Em comparação diz a mesma matéria que a modernização do navio aeródromo indiano custou + de U$ 2 bi.
É claro que vale a pena modernizar o A-12.
Em comparação diz a mesma matéria que a modernização do navio aeródromo indiano custou + de U$ 2 bi.
É claro que vale a pena modernizar o A-12.
Su-35BM - 4ª++ Geração.
Simplesmente um GRANDE caça.
Simplesmente um GRANDE caça.
- joao fernando
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 5208
- Registrado em: Ter Out 30, 2007 5:53 pm
- Localização: Santa Isabel - SP
- Agradeceram: 29 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Né? Mas o "expertos" acham que não. Então, tá!FCarvalho escreveu:Mas é o primeiro e mais importante passo para. Quem não tem, não opera... nunca.joao fernando escreveu:Amigos, ter não significa operar. Não esqueçam disso.
abs.
Obrigado Lulinha por melar o Gripen-NG
- J.Ricardo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7612
- Registrado em: Qui Jan 13, 2005 1:44 pm
- Agradeceu: 2562 vezes
- Agradeceram: 1036 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Mas a questão é que aqui, querer ter de faz de conta, e querem formar doutrina no estaleiro, assim não dá...
E não adianta reclamar só do governo, não vejo loby da marinha no congresso pra mudar as coisas...
E não adianta reclamar só do governo, não vejo loby da marinha no congresso pra mudar as coisas...
Não temais ímpias falanges,
Que apresentam face hostil,
Vossos peitos, vossos braços,
São muralhas do Brasil!
Que apresentam face hostil,
Vossos peitos, vossos braços,
São muralhas do Brasil!
- lapara
- Intermediário
- Mensagens: 147
- Registrado em: Qui Out 28, 2010 7:33 pm
- Agradeceu: 17 vezes
- Agradeceram: 22 vezes
- Contato:
Re: Porta-Aviões
volta, volta que o serviço não acabou!
http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/russi ... iria.ghtml
http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/russi ... iria.ghtml
-
- Júnior
- Mensagens: 87
- Registrado em: Qui Ago 27, 2015 5:54 pm
Re: Porta-Aviões
Eu não vejo é loby de todas as forças armadas para mudar as coisas.J.Ricardo escreveu:Mas a questão é que aqui, querer ter de faz de conta, e querem formar doutrina no estaleiro, assim não dá...
E não adianta reclamar só do governo, não vejo loby da marinha no congresso pra mudar as coisas...
É DEVER das forças armadas orientar os outros órgãos do estado a respeito das implicações GEOPOLÍTICAS de não se levar a defesa a sério e também das implicações geopolíticas das suas ações.
Uma força armada que não faz isso, não esta atenta aos reais interessas da segurança nacional.
Todos os poderes da republica usam a sua força institucional para puxar a sardinha para o seu lado:
- O poder judiciário usa seu poder para conseguir tudo que quer dos outros poderes.
O congresso nacional idem
O Presidência idem
Tudo isto consumindo centenas de bilhões na maioria das vezes sem dar nenhum retorno ao país!
Porque as forças armadas sendo uma instituição fundadora do Brasil como nação soberana não poderia fazer o mesmo? para conseguir recursos para projetos do interesse na nossa segurança nacional? para o Brasil ter uma defesa crível, tecnologia sensíveis e industria de defesa forte!
Se as forças armadas não fazem isso porque estamos num regime democrático, é porque estamos muito mal em termos de pensamento estratégico.
Os grupos de pressão e outros poderes estão cagando em andando para democracia quando o assunto dis respeito a suas regalias e privilégios.....porque eles não colocam a democracia acima do dinheiro!
Logo as forças armadas não deveriam colocar a democracia acima da segurança nacional!
Forças armadas que não se dão o respeito vira chacota nas mãos das elites:
Em qualquer país do mundo, as pessoas batem palmas para democracia, mas a unica coisa que elas respeitam é o poder!
As nossas lideranças politicas, empresariais e militares estão levando a segurança e o futuro do país na base da brincadeira.
100% de nossas comunicações militares dependem de satélites norte americanos, isso por si só deveria ser motivo de debate intenso entre as principais lideranças do país. Como pode um país de proporções continentais se colocar numa situação dessas?
Mas já sei, daqui a pouco vão aparecer pessoas defendendo esta situação e justificando de dependência dos EUA, afirmando que isto é normal!
OBSERVAÇÃO: Eu não estou defendendo que as forças armadas deem um golpe militar, mas que usem sua forças institucional para fazer as coisas acontecerem.
Politica não é a satisfação de um desejo, não é para atingir a perfeição, Não é para satisfazer os anseios morais. Se a pessoa se deixar levar por estes coisas será inevitavelmente manipulada.
- Túlio
- Site Admin
- Mensagens: 61513
- Registrado em: Sáb Jul 02, 2005 9:23 pm
- Localização: Tramandaí, RS, Brasil
- Agradeceu: 6321 vezes
- Agradeceram: 6673 vezes
- Contato:
Re: Porta-Aviões
Luís Henrique escreveu:Na última Segurança e Defesa, tem uma matéria do Fontoura, dizendo que o custo da modernização do A-12 seria de U$ 400 mi.
Em comparação diz a mesma matéria que a modernização do navio aeródromo indiano custou + de U$ 2 bi.
É claro que vale a pena modernizar o A-12.
Esqueças, cupincha: esse trambolho só sai do estaleiro pro ferro-velho. E temo que nem vá demorar, porque a briga por verbas (dentro da própria MB) tá cada vez mais feia. Vamos admitir: o sonho da Marinha de águas azuis acabou! Posso até citar o "starter": decisão a favor daquele monstrengo chamado CV-03, um Patrulha metido a Corveta. Águas marrons e olhe lá...
“Look at these people. Wandering around with absolutely no idea what's about to happen.”
P. Sullivan (Margin Call, 2011)
P. Sullivan (Margin Call, 2011)
- FCarvalho
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 37976
- Registrado em: Sex Mai 02, 2003 6:55 pm
- Localização: Manaus
- Agradeceu: 5740 vezes
- Agradeceram: 3273 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
"Em qualquer país do mundo, as pessoas batem palmas para democracia, mas a unica coisa que elas respeitam é o poder!" - Lord Deimos.
Esta frase é estupenda.
Quando é que vamos aprender?
abs.
Esta frase é estupenda.
Quando é que vamos aprender?
abs.
Carpe Diem
- J.Ricardo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7612
- Registrado em: Qui Jan 13, 2005 1:44 pm
- Agradeceu: 2562 vezes
- Agradeceram: 1036 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Por isso disse que não vejo loby das forças armadas, é um erro, e quando vão ao congresso fazem um esforço danado para parecer que esta tudo bem... o que será que querem esconder ou que imagem distorcida é essa que querem passar?
Não temais ímpias falanges,
Que apresentam face hostil,
Vossos peitos, vossos braços,
São muralhas do Brasil!
Que apresentam face hostil,
Vossos peitos, vossos braços,
São muralhas do Brasil!
- Bolovo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 28560
- Registrado em: Ter Jul 12, 2005 11:31 pm
- Agradeceu: 547 vezes
- Agradeceram: 442 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Commander of Russia's Group of Forces in Syria Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov and Chief of the General Staff of the Syrian armed forces Ali Abdullah Ayyoub visited the Russian warships Admiral Kuznetsov and Pyotr Velikiy that departed from Syria on Friday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XiZ0c3PJOM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XiZ0c3PJOM
"Eu detestaria estar no lugar de quem me venceu."
Darcy Ribeiro (1922 - 1997)
Darcy Ribeiro (1922 - 1997)
-
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 8789
- Registrado em: Qua Set 10, 2003 8:28 pm
- Agradeceu: 1 vez
- Agradeceram: 419 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Eu entendo porque fazem isso, aqui no Brasil existe um meio muito peculiar e amplamente empregado de resolver problemas que consiste em demitir quem disser que existem problemas, assim, se um ministro disser que existem problemas como resolver? Simples, demiti-lo e colocar no lugar alguém que diga que não há problemas, sem problemas não haverá cobranças para que o problema seja solucionado.J.Ricardo escreveu:Por isso disse que não vejo loby das forças armadas, é um erro, e quando vão ao congresso fazem um esforço danado para parecer que esta tudo bem... o que será que querem esconder ou que imagem distorcida é essa que querem passar?
E vale lembrar que esse método também é muito comum na iniciativa privada por aqui, é cultural.
"Quando um rico rouba, vira ministro" (Lula, 1988)
- P44
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 55293
- Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
- Localização: O raio que vos parta
- Agradeceu: 2759 vezes
- Agradeceram: 2438 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
Marechal-do-ar escreveu:Eu entendo porque fazem isso, aqui no Brasil existe um meio muito peculiar e amplamente empregado de resolver problemas que consiste em demitir quem disser que existem problemas, assim, se um ministro disser que existem problemas como resolver? Simples, demiti-lo e colocar no lugar alguém que diga que não há problemas, sem problemas não haverá cobranças para que o problema seja solucionado.J.Ricardo escreveu:Por isso disse que não vejo loby das forças armadas, é um erro, e quando vão ao congresso fazem um esforço danado para parecer que esta tudo bem... o que será que querem esconder ou que imagem distorcida é essa que querem passar?
E vale lembrar que esse método também é muito comum na iniciativa privada por aqui, é cultural.
Se fosse só no Brasil... ainda muito recentemente o nosso CEMA não foi reconduzido no cargo porque levantava muita polémica relativamente á escassez de meios da Marinha. No seu lugar colocaram então um "yes man"
Triste sina ter nascido português
- P44
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 55293
- Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
- Localização: O raio que vos parta
- Agradeceu: 2759 vezes
- Agradeceram: 2438 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
New Russian Navy video reflects on carrier’s Mediterranean ‘adventure’
The Russian Ministry of Defense has recently shared a new video of the Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, operating in the Mediterranean Sea.
The video, shared on YouTube, has no description but it is evident that it reflects on the carrier’s air wing operations off the coast of Syria in the Mediterranean Sea.
To remind, Admiral Kuznetsov set sail from its Northern Fleet base in October 2016. The carrier sailed through the English Channel en route to Syria under constant watch of NATO and regional navy ships.
Admiral Kuznetsov sailed with its carrier strike group composed of the battlecruiser Pyotr Veliky, destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov and anti-submarine ships. The group later met up with a nuclear submarine and Tu-160 long-range strategic bombers for anti-piracy and anti-terror drills before they reached their final destination.
During its time off the coast of Syria – which was the ship’s first-ever combat deployment – Admiral Kuznetsov lost two aircraft in flight operations.
Pilots survived in both accidents but analysts concluded that the incidents indicated a lack of training and experience.
In the first accident, a MiG 29 fighter jet crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on November 13 after the aircraft carrier’s arresting cable malfunctioned.
The aircraft was directed to resume its flight until the problem with the cable was fixed. The aircraft, however, ran out of fuel before the ship’s crew managed to repair the cable. Both engines on the aircraft shut down causing the aircraft to start rapidly decelerating and eventually forcing the pilot to eject.
The second incident took place on December 3 when a Su-33 Flanker landed in the sea after skidding off the flight deck. The arresting cable snapped in the second incident.
https://navaltoday.com/2017/01/05/new-r ... adventure/
The Russian Ministry of Defense has recently shared a new video of the Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, operating in the Mediterranean Sea.
The video, shared on YouTube, has no description but it is evident that it reflects on the carrier’s air wing operations off the coast of Syria in the Mediterranean Sea.
To remind, Admiral Kuznetsov set sail from its Northern Fleet base in October 2016. The carrier sailed through the English Channel en route to Syria under constant watch of NATO and regional navy ships.
Admiral Kuznetsov sailed with its carrier strike group composed of the battlecruiser Pyotr Veliky, destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov and anti-submarine ships. The group later met up with a nuclear submarine and Tu-160 long-range strategic bombers for anti-piracy and anti-terror drills before they reached their final destination.
During its time off the coast of Syria – which was the ship’s first-ever combat deployment – Admiral Kuznetsov lost two aircraft in flight operations.
Pilots survived in both accidents but analysts concluded that the incidents indicated a lack of training and experience.
In the first accident, a MiG 29 fighter jet crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on November 13 after the aircraft carrier’s arresting cable malfunctioned.
The aircraft was directed to resume its flight until the problem with the cable was fixed. The aircraft, however, ran out of fuel before the ship’s crew managed to repair the cable. Both engines on the aircraft shut down causing the aircraft to start rapidly decelerating and eventually forcing the pilot to eject.
The second incident took place on December 3 when a Su-33 Flanker landed in the sea after skidding off the flight deck. The arresting cable snapped in the second incident.
https://navaltoday.com/2017/01/05/new-r ... adventure/
Triste sina ter nascido português
- P44
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 55293
- Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
- Localização: O raio que vos parta
- Agradeceu: 2759 vezes
- Agradeceram: 2438 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
It’s Official: Indian Navy Wants 57 Carrier-borne Fighters
Shiv Aroor Jan 25 2017 6 21 pm
It’s been in the air for two years now. And now it’s formal. The Indian Navy wants new fighter jets for its aircraft carriers. Today, the navy’s planning wing has published a request for information to support the purchase of 57 Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF) for its aircraft carriers.
Only weeks ago, Navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba had rung the death knell on India’s indigenous LCA Navy, putting all doubts to rest about whether the platform would ever see carrier service. With today’s RFI, the Indian Navy has taken a tangible step that solidifies what has only been largely in the realm of speculation thus far, in addition to dispelling the MiG-29K’s chance of being a mainstay multirole fighter element for the navy stepping into the future.
On paper, the navy says, “The MRCBF are intended as day and night capable, all weather multi-role deck based combat aircraft which can be used for Air Defence (AD), Air to Surface Operations, Buddy Refuelling, Reconnaissance, EW missions etc from IN aircraft carriers.” In one of its most comprehensive RFIs for a fighter to date, the navy spreads a battery of questions on configuration over 55 pages with sub-sections, making it generally clear that it is looking for a new generation fighter with a significant electronic warfare capability, endurance and payload (something it hits several walls on with the MiG-29K fleet). Fifty-seven is a solid number of planes, so it isn’t a surprise that the MoD is ‘desirous’ of license production of the aircraft under a technology transfer arrangement.
To answer the first question that pops up, no, the navy hasn’t provided any indications of the kind of fighter it wants, and thus provides no hints about the launch configuration it is moving towards on carriers beyond the new Vikrant-class. While the first Vikrant, being completed at the Cochin Shipyard, will sport a conventional ski jump based STOBAR layout, the navy is yet to decide on whether the follow on ships will sport a CATOBAR (steam or EMALS is way out from this decision) configuration. The Indian Navy’s RFI specifically asks vendors to specify if the platforms they field are capable of either CATOBAR or STOBAR launch with arrested recoveries.
Livefist spoke to Admiral (Retd) Arun Prakash, former Navy chief, veteran fighter pilot and part of the original crew that ferried British Sea Harriers to India decades ago. He said, “Presumably, the Navy HQ are in the midst of (belatedly) freezing the configuration of IAC-2, which is entirely dependent on the type(s) of aircraft that will operate from it. One of the overriding compulsions for the IN is to have on-board Airborne Early Warning (AEW) for its carrier force. The Ka-31 is just not good enough and they must be looking for the E-2C – which can operate only from a CATOBAR ship. On the other hand, if IAC-2 is to operate the Tejas and MiG-29K, it will have to have a ski-jump and no catapult (hence no AEW). If the IAF Tejas has not got its FOC yet, the naval Tejas may take another 6-7 years. A BIG IF here is the availability of a powerful enough engine for this overweight aircraft. Also, the hook and undercarriage may need re-design. With all these uncertainties, one can’t blame the IN for jettisoning the Tejas – one hopes for the time being.”
Asked what he would do if he was still in service — if the navy should go the CATOBAR way or stay with STOBAR –, the Admiral chose the former, but stipulated that propulsion would still need to be sorted out, when conflated with other (AEW) requirements.
The field of play isn’t very big, but let’s be generous and look at technically what it’s like at this time:
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: CATOBAR The Super Hornet has a major Make-in-India bid going that looks to feed a prospective Indian Air Force requirement. As part of Washington’s wider technological CATOBAR push in India, Boeing’s offering gains.
Dassault Rafale-M: CATOBAR The Rafale has type advantage. To be in service with at least two Indian Air Force squadrons, and the possibility of more at a later stage, the Rafale gets to push the commonality key. Cost, though, would be a pushback.
Lockheed-Martin F-35C CATOBAR Lockheed has pushed the F-35B and C to the Indian Navy since at least 2010. It’s a single engine jet (something the US Navy was goaded into agreeing to during the JSF programme), but everything else it offers could enthuse the Indian Navy. Cost, on the other hand, could be a major pushback.
Lockheed-Martin F-35B STOVL The only new jet that does the Harrier trick, it would offer enormous flexibility to small deck operations of the kind the Indian Navy may be interested in in the future, but may not account for much in the more conventional launch focus the navy appears to be choosing from for the follow-on Vikrant class ships.
Saab Gripen Maritime STOBAR/CATOBAR PROPOSED Saab says the Gripen Maritime (known by its far niftier previous name ‘Sea Gripen’) is ready on paper and has been simmed in both CATOBAR and STOBAR configurations. Design work was completed in 2012, with Saab only really waiting for a fund tap from an interested customer to take the development forward. A single engine configuration works against it — the Indian Navy will be hard pressed to explain junking plans with the LCA Navy (and perhaps the up-engined Mk.2) for another albeit more capable single engine fighter.
Mikoyan MiG-29K STOBAR The MiG-29K, it clear by now, has little chance of adding numbers in Indian inventory. A worthy fighter on a trusted platform, but it has run into several problems — not least that it doesn’t quite deliver what the Indian Navy needs from deck-based squadron, notably endurance. Other problems with the jet are well-documented, but the very fact that the Indian Navy has invested time, energy and a ton of funds on looking for new fighters means the MiG-29K is pretty much toast.
LCA Tejas Navy Mk.2 STOBAR The LCA Navy Mk.2 remains a quandary, a variable. While the Indian Navy has specifically dumped the LCA Navy Mk.1 (powered by a F404 turbofan), it has said nothing specific about the up-engined LCA Navy Mk.2, to be powered by an F414. While development work is continuing, the Mk.2 won’t survive without the Indian Navy’s specific backing, unless it gets a government bailout to continue.
In the future, the Indian Navy will be looking towards the concept AMCA as a deck-based fighter too. The deck launch regime the Indian Navy chooses on its follow-on Vikrant-class ships will guide how that development works out. The AMCA, currently no more than a paper concept and a handful of wind-tunnel models, is a touchstone for how foreign companies are calibrating their offers to make their fighter jets in India.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01/ ... hters.html
Shiv Aroor Jan 25 2017 6 21 pm
It’s been in the air for two years now. And now it’s formal. The Indian Navy wants new fighter jets for its aircraft carriers. Today, the navy’s planning wing has published a request for information to support the purchase of 57 Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters (MRCBF) for its aircraft carriers.
Only weeks ago, Navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba had rung the death knell on India’s indigenous LCA Navy, putting all doubts to rest about whether the platform would ever see carrier service. With today’s RFI, the Indian Navy has taken a tangible step that solidifies what has only been largely in the realm of speculation thus far, in addition to dispelling the MiG-29K’s chance of being a mainstay multirole fighter element for the navy stepping into the future.
On paper, the navy says, “The MRCBF are intended as day and night capable, all weather multi-role deck based combat aircraft which can be used for Air Defence (AD), Air to Surface Operations, Buddy Refuelling, Reconnaissance, EW missions etc from IN aircraft carriers.” In one of its most comprehensive RFIs for a fighter to date, the navy spreads a battery of questions on configuration over 55 pages with sub-sections, making it generally clear that it is looking for a new generation fighter with a significant electronic warfare capability, endurance and payload (something it hits several walls on with the MiG-29K fleet). Fifty-seven is a solid number of planes, so it isn’t a surprise that the MoD is ‘desirous’ of license production of the aircraft under a technology transfer arrangement.
To answer the first question that pops up, no, the navy hasn’t provided any indications of the kind of fighter it wants, and thus provides no hints about the launch configuration it is moving towards on carriers beyond the new Vikrant-class. While the first Vikrant, being completed at the Cochin Shipyard, will sport a conventional ski jump based STOBAR layout, the navy is yet to decide on whether the follow on ships will sport a CATOBAR (steam or EMALS is way out from this decision) configuration. The Indian Navy’s RFI specifically asks vendors to specify if the platforms they field are capable of either CATOBAR or STOBAR launch with arrested recoveries.
Livefist spoke to Admiral (Retd) Arun Prakash, former Navy chief, veteran fighter pilot and part of the original crew that ferried British Sea Harriers to India decades ago. He said, “Presumably, the Navy HQ are in the midst of (belatedly) freezing the configuration of IAC-2, which is entirely dependent on the type(s) of aircraft that will operate from it. One of the overriding compulsions for the IN is to have on-board Airborne Early Warning (AEW) for its carrier force. The Ka-31 is just not good enough and they must be looking for the E-2C – which can operate only from a CATOBAR ship. On the other hand, if IAC-2 is to operate the Tejas and MiG-29K, it will have to have a ski-jump and no catapult (hence no AEW). If the IAF Tejas has not got its FOC yet, the naval Tejas may take another 6-7 years. A BIG IF here is the availability of a powerful enough engine for this overweight aircraft. Also, the hook and undercarriage may need re-design. With all these uncertainties, one can’t blame the IN for jettisoning the Tejas – one hopes for the time being.”
Asked what he would do if he was still in service — if the navy should go the CATOBAR way or stay with STOBAR –, the Admiral chose the former, but stipulated that propulsion would still need to be sorted out, when conflated with other (AEW) requirements.
The field of play isn’t very big, but let’s be generous and look at technically what it’s like at this time:
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: CATOBAR The Super Hornet has a major Make-in-India bid going that looks to feed a prospective Indian Air Force requirement. As part of Washington’s wider technological CATOBAR push in India, Boeing’s offering gains.
Dassault Rafale-M: CATOBAR The Rafale has type advantage. To be in service with at least two Indian Air Force squadrons, and the possibility of more at a later stage, the Rafale gets to push the commonality key. Cost, though, would be a pushback.
Lockheed-Martin F-35C CATOBAR Lockheed has pushed the F-35B and C to the Indian Navy since at least 2010. It’s a single engine jet (something the US Navy was goaded into agreeing to during the JSF programme), but everything else it offers could enthuse the Indian Navy. Cost, on the other hand, could be a major pushback.
Lockheed-Martin F-35B STOVL The only new jet that does the Harrier trick, it would offer enormous flexibility to small deck operations of the kind the Indian Navy may be interested in in the future, but may not account for much in the more conventional launch focus the navy appears to be choosing from for the follow-on Vikrant class ships.
Saab Gripen Maritime STOBAR/CATOBAR PROPOSED Saab says the Gripen Maritime (known by its far niftier previous name ‘Sea Gripen’) is ready on paper and has been simmed in both CATOBAR and STOBAR configurations. Design work was completed in 2012, with Saab only really waiting for a fund tap from an interested customer to take the development forward. A single engine configuration works against it — the Indian Navy will be hard pressed to explain junking plans with the LCA Navy (and perhaps the up-engined Mk.2) for another albeit more capable single engine fighter.
Mikoyan MiG-29K STOBAR The MiG-29K, it clear by now, has little chance of adding numbers in Indian inventory. A worthy fighter on a trusted platform, but it has run into several problems — not least that it doesn’t quite deliver what the Indian Navy needs from deck-based squadron, notably endurance. Other problems with the jet are well-documented, but the very fact that the Indian Navy has invested time, energy and a ton of funds on looking for new fighters means the MiG-29K is pretty much toast.
LCA Tejas Navy Mk.2 STOBAR The LCA Navy Mk.2 remains a quandary, a variable. While the Indian Navy has specifically dumped the LCA Navy Mk.1 (powered by a F404 turbofan), it has said nothing specific about the up-engined LCA Navy Mk.2, to be powered by an F414. While development work is continuing, the Mk.2 won’t survive without the Indian Navy’s specific backing, unless it gets a government bailout to continue.
In the future, the Indian Navy will be looking towards the concept AMCA as a deck-based fighter too. The deck launch regime the Indian Navy chooses on its follow-on Vikrant-class ships will guide how that development works out. The AMCA, currently no more than a paper concept and a handful of wind-tunnel models, is a touchstone for how foreign companies are calibrating their offers to make their fighter jets in India.
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/01/ ... hters.html
Triste sina ter nascido português
- FCarvalho
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 37976
- Registrado em: Sex Mai 02, 2003 6:55 pm
- Localização: Manaus
- Agradeceu: 5740 vezes
- Agradeceram: 3273 vezes
Re: Porta-Aviões
É uma notícia relevante para a SAAB. Se o Gripen E vingar na força aérea da India, contando com uma linha de produção por lá mesmo, seria até natural a adoção da sua versão naval.
Para a MB seria uma verdadeira mão na roda, posto que estes 57 poderiam se juntar aos 48 que se deseja por aqui, já que uma eventual compra conjunta seria algo a se pensar, posto que a escala de produção continua sendo um fator importante na hora de negociar preços e condições de pagamento.
abs.
Para a MB seria uma verdadeira mão na roda, posto que estes 57 poderiam se juntar aos 48 que se deseja por aqui, já que uma eventual compra conjunta seria algo a se pensar, posto que a escala de produção continua sendo um fator importante na hora de negociar preços e condições de pagamento.
abs.
Carpe Diem
- capsantanna
- Intermediário
- Mensagens: 265
- Registrado em: Sáb Jul 21, 2007 2:16 am
- Localização: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
- Agradeceu: 13 vezes
- Agradeceram: 1 vez
Re: Porta-Aviões
Duvido muito que se comprasse 24 caças para a Marinha. 48 nem pensar! E novos... nunca mesmo.