Royal Navy

[hades767676]

Marinha inglesa colecionando vexames, como as coisas mudam. Mas, isso nos faz pensar como estará o resto das marinhas da Europa Ocidental.

[LeandroGCard]

Marinha inglesa colecionando vexames, como as coisas mudam. Mas, isso nos faz pensar como estará o resto das marinhas da Europa Ocidental.

Os ingleses adotaram um caminho que praticamente relegou sua indústria em geral e a naval em particular à ficar para trás com relação às suas congêneres de outros países. Tanto que nas últimas décadas a Inglaterra, que já foi A GRANDE exportadora de navios militares para outros países do mundo, não conseguiu emplacar praticamente nada além de navios usados da sua própria marinha e patrulheiros com baixa tecnologia agregada.

E agora vai ser muito difícil recuperar sua posição com relação a outros países europeus como a França e a Alemanha.


Leandro G. Card

[P44]

British warships are ‘so noisy’ Russian submarines can hear them 100 miles away

The Independent
Harriet Agerholm
The Independent5 February 2017

Poor equipment and botched procurement deals could hinder Britain’s ability to defend itself in the face of a serious military attack, an investigation has found.

Among the flaws found in the nation’s defences were warships that reportedly make so much noise Russian submarines can hear them from a distance of up to 100 miles.

Technical faults have also meant the army’s 54 £1.2bn Watchdog reconnaissance drones – which were announced at the height of the Iraq war in 2005 – have barely entered into service.

Britain’s Type 45 destroyers – which have been plagued by engine problems – are “as noisy as hell”, a former director of operational capability for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Rear Admiral Chris Parry told The Sunday Times.

“We used to put little wooden wedges between the hatchclips and the hatches in my destroyer to stop them rattling so we could keep the noise down,” said Adm Parry.

“We have forgotten all about it – it’s crazy. Noise suppression has been probably the biggest dirty secret since the end of the Cold War that people have been cheerfully ignoring.”

Official figures revealed in September the battleships had spent more time berthed in UK military ports than on active duty, sparking concerns that the Government would rather save money than secure the seas – a charge the MoD rejected.

The warships, which cost £1bn each, have tended to break down in warm seas.

When they were first commissioned into the fleet in 2009, they were hailed as the most revolutionary battleships in the world. A key factor in their procurement was that they would not need a refit for at least 25 years.

But each ship must now be fitted with with new diesel generators. The work will involve cutting holes in the sides of the ships, will require bespoke parts, is estimated to cost £1bn, and is predicted to take nine years.

The MoD said that because the Type 45 was an air defence battleship, stealth was not a “premium requirement”.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/british-warsh ... 03607.html

[P44]

Costs for UK's Astute-class submarines are "soaring" while next boat, AUDACIOUS, falls another 10 months behind



https://t.co/2LOy1hdDVO

[P44]

After a brief absence from the world of fixed-wing naval aviation the Royal Navy’s brand new flattop HMS Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship, Prince of Wales, will soon sail the seas, their decks full of new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

The first new Royal Navy aircraft carrier in thirty years is nearing sea trials. After a brief absence from the world of fixed-wing naval aviation the Royal Navy’s brand new flattop HMS Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship, Prince of Wales, will soon sail the seas, their decks full of new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The result will be the most powerful “Senior Service” in generations.
The Royal Navy was one of the first naval warfare forces to explore the nascent world of naval aviation. HMS Argus [3], commissioned in September 1918, was arguably the first aircraft carrier with a full-length flight deck. The UK was one of the major aircraft carrier powers throughout World War II, and continued to operate carriers in the postwar period.
By 1982, the Royal Navy had committed to building three Invincible-class carriers. Somewhat scaled back from earlier ships, and dwarfed by the U.S. Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers, the Invincible class was more suited to antisubmarine warfare duties against the Soviet Navy, keeping the sea lines of communication between North America and Europe clear in the event of World War III. The Invincibles could sail with a complement of up to twenty-two aircraft, typically a mixture of Sea Harrier fighters and Sea King helicopters.
This story was originally published by The National Interest
The 1982 Falklands War demonstrated the shortcomings of relying upon such small carriers. HMS Invincible, along with the older HMS Hermes, struggled to provide early warning and combat air patrol over the UK task force sent to reclaim the islands, and were unable to prevent Argentine air power from sinking six friendly warships and supply ships and damaging another nine.
In 2007, despite the general downturn in the size and scope of the navy, plans were announced in 2007 to construct two brand-new aircraft carriers. Each would be stocked with brand-new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and helicopters, and would be up more than three times larger than their predecessors by displacement. The carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, would be the largest warships ever built by the UK, bigger even than the World War II battleship HMS Vanguard.
Unfortunately, in order to free up funding for the new carriers the older ships had to be retired, and decommissioning of the Invincible class carriers and their Sea Harrier jets during the 2010s was a huge blow to the Fleet Air Arm. The three warships were broken up for scrap, and the remaining Harrier jets, which by now included RAF Harriers, were purchased by the U.S. Marines to provide spare parts for their own fleet of AV-8B Harriers.
The first carrier, Queen Elizabeth, was laid down in 2009. Once complete, it will be 920 feet long and displace seventy thousand tons fully loaded. Conventionally powered, it will have a top speed of twenty-five knots and a range of ten thousand miles. It is expected to have a lifespan of fifty years. Although it will never sail into danger without escorts, the carrier will carry two Phalanx CIWS and four thirty-millimeter cannons for close-in protection from aircraft, missiles, drones and small boats.
The aircraft launching and recovery system of the new carriers was an early source of controversy. The ships were originally designed to support short-takeoff and vertical-landing operations, and were set to use the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Designed for the U.S. Marine Corps to take off from Wasp- and America-class amphibious assault ships, the -B variant is capable of short rolling takeoffs and vertical landings via a lifting fan and thrust vectoring nozzle system
[4] developed by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with Rolls-Royce.
By 2010, the UK government had changed its mind and looking into setting the carriers up with traditional catapults and arresting wires, which would in turn prompt it to purchase the U.S. Navy’s F-35C carrier variant. Unfortunately the cost of installing so-called “cats and traps” ultimately proved prohibitive, and the UK went back to a short takeoff and landing scheme.
The air wing on each Queen Elizabeth carrier will consist of twelve F-35B fighters, including 809 Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm. Up to twenty-four F-35Bs will embark in emergencies. U.S. Marine Corps F-35s will fly from Queen Elizabeth [5] on its first operational tour. Airborne surveillance and control is provided in the form of ten Crowsnest surveillance systems. Carried by the Fleet Air Arm’s AW101 Merlin helicopters, Crowsnest allows 360-degree radar scanning using the proven Searchwater sea surveillance radar system.
Aside from air superiority and strike missions, the Queen Elizabeth class is also designed with some amphibious capability. Following UK experiences in the Falklands and the recent intervention in Libya, the carriers will be capable of carrying up to 250 Royal Marines or members of 16 Air Assault Brigade, WAH-64 Apache attack helicopters, AW159 Wildcat utility helicopters and Chinook heavy-transport helicopters. This amphibious capability is even more important in light of the retirement of HMS Ocean, which is being prematurely decommissioned after less than twenty years’ service.
Queen Elizabeth is on track to be delivered in May 2017, with flight trials of Merlin helicopters starting in February next month. Prince of Wales will be inducted into the Royal Navy in 2020. It’s unlikely that both will often serve at the same time—rather, having two carriers insures that at least one should be available at all times. Once both are operational, the United Kingdom will be back in the naval aviation game for the next half century to come.

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/s ... vy-is-back

[P44]

RFA Gold Rover, irmao do Bérrio, entra em Portsmouth após a sua última viagem:

[pmicchi]

interessante

[P44]

[FCarvalho]

Era uma vez, há muito, muito tempo atrás, uma uma marinha chamada royal navy...

abs.

[P44]

[Túlio]

Quantos aos NAes, tem dois BEM grandões vindo por aí. Aqui na AS o que NÃO se faz é subestimar os bifes, não depois da sarabanda de laço que deram nos coitados dos argies...

[pmicchi]

Se não fosse pelo crescimento da Marinha Chinesa e a alguma reação na Russia, teríamos ainda menos navios em operação. Seria uma corrida armamentista ao inverso.

[Túlio]

Outra curiosidade é não terem incluído CRUZADORES (ou misturaram com os destróieres?). Não levo muita fé em listinha de jornal...

[mmatuso]

Diferença americana é brutal, mesmo se não adicionarem nada continuarão em vantagem por pelo menos umas 2 décadas já que ninguém fez sequer 1 super PA até hoje.

Destroyers americanos são os Aegis, é coisa pra cacete esse número.

[Túlio]

Diferença americana é brutal, mesmo se não adicionarem nada continuarão em vantagem por pelo menos umas 2 décadas já que ninguém fez sequer 1 super PA até hoje.

Sei não, essa diferença começa a ser contestada: Chineses e Russos desenvolvem mísseis específicos para destruir NAes, ainda mais os enormes CVNs. O Chinês é um IRBM com ogiva MARV convencional (na verdade, maciça), que ataca pelo alto (a "apenas" mach 10 por enquanto, e não há SAM conhecido que intercepte um troço desses) e desencadeia um montante brutal de energia cinética contra o alvo, mais ou menos como ser atingido por um meteoro. E isso sendo lançado de terra (VTR) e com mais que o dobro ou mesmo o triplo do alcance das aeronaves do CVN. Se este quiser lançar um ataque, terá que entrar fundo na killzone e isso não se faz com um navio que, incluindo sua Ala Aérea, sai por até uns USD 20 bi. Assim, como arma ofensiva, o NAe começa a ser contestado pelos mísseis, do mesmo modo que o Encouraçado o foi pelos NAes. A História não para...

Por outro lado, as outras grandes potências (como as citadas) também ficam sem ter como atacar os EUA, pois suas Marinhas teriam de encarar os CVNs e suas Escoltas (incluindo aí um enorme "cardume" de SSNs do tipo "hunter/killer") no meio do oceano, onde não tem míssil lançado de terra que pegue. Pior, mesmo que passassem, teriam pela frente a USAF.

Empate técnico.