Fórum Defesa Brasil

Depois do Carnaval: Rafale!

Ilya Ehrenburg escreveu:Depois do Carnaval: Rafale!

Seria melhor "Durante" o Carnaval...

LAAD 2011

Penguin escreveu:

Túlio escreveu:Eu larguei de mão, debater com o USAntiago é mais ou menos o mesmo que discutir com o PRICK, sempre vão tirar um coelho da cartola para provar o impossível, insistir (na verdade, ressuscitar) em teses furrecas que há muito já foram ao limbo. Para mim, como disse, é apenas BIRRA, tipo o BOLOVO e seu 5,56, não adianta tentar ser razoável. Assim, no aguardo de novos debates, preferencialmente SÉRIOS!

Qual tese? Que o Super Hornet (1995) é de 4a geração ou de 3a geração?
Que o Rafale C (1991) e o Gripen A (1992) são de 4a geração?
Os fabricantes agora usam 4+ ou 4++, 4,75, etc.
Sim, essa história de classificação tem muito de marketing.
As gerações tecnológicas estão normalmente atreladas à época em que foram desenvolvidos os caças e às tecnologias e capacidades incorporadas.

Com relação ao Gripen, acho que a falta de anúncio da aquisição do Gripen pela Suécia é o ponto que mais fragiliza esse projeto. A ver.

[]s

Para o general chileno Mcnamara o Rafale é de 4ª geração, mas o F-16 B50 não é!!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9907&p=5112973#p5112973

Sds.

September 2008
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... issbf.aspx

Fighter Generations

By Adam J. Hebert
Executive Editor

In 2004 mock combat exercises, Indian Air Force pilots flying Russian-made Su-30s unexpectedly waxed USAF pilots flying front-line F-15Cs. This rumble on the subcontinent was a matchup of two "fourth generation" warplanes. The outcome jolted the Americans; it revealed they no longer had technological superiority.

One year later, USAF’s "fifth generation" F-22 Raptor—an agile, stealthy, radically new aircraft—entered operational service. We mean no disrespect by saying that, should the Indians today send their Su-30s against it, their excellent fighter pilots wouldn’t stand a chance.


The F-22 and F-80 represent Gen 5 and Gen 1. (Illustration by Lockheed Martin and Zaur Eylanbekov)

Air dominance is like a cut flower—it can fade quickly. The Cope India exercises taught many lessons—about the importance of good training and tactics, about the need to avoid underestimating your adversary. Here’s another: If you are fighting outnumbered, you’d better have the superior aircraft.

Because of the enormous stakes, it is important to understand the practical significance of the difference in fighter generations.

The exact list of capabilities and aircraft belonging to each generation is debatable; the classification refers only to jet-powered fighters. Use of the generations helps to demarcate technological advances and capabilities that emerge worldwide at around the same time.

Gen 1. This category comprised the earliest jet fighters. Classic cases were Germany’s Me 262 and Britain’s Meteor, both of which entered service in 1944 toward the end of World War II, and the US F-80, which came along the next year. The hallmark of the Gen 1 fighter was its revolutionary advance in speed over its piston-engine predecessors.

Gen 2. Second generation fighters starred in the Korean War. Most notable were the USAF F-86 and the Soviet MiG-15. According to Walter J. Boyne, writing in Lockheed Martin’s Code One magazine, this generation "sought to maximize fighter performance by tailoring the airframe to the potential of the jet engine." Example: the use of highly swept wings.

Gen 3. State of the art in the late 1950s and early 1960s, fighters of the third generation included USAF’s "Century Series" fighters—F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106—and the Soviet MiG-17 and MiG-21. They featured advanced missiles, supersonic speed, and more-sophisticated engines. The F-4 Phantom was a late Gen 3 fighter, and perhaps iconic of the group.

Gen 4. These fighters debuted in the mid-1970s and are still tops in most of the world. This group includes USAF’s F-15 and F-16 and Russia’s Su-27 and MiG-29 (and offshoots). Weapons, engines, and avionics put earlier aircraft to shame. Thirty years of improvements have pushed some fighters into a group known as "Generation 4.5." These include the latest F-15s and F-16s for overseas customers, and the MiG-35, Su-30, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Gen 5. The class is defined by all-aspect stealth, internal carriage of precision weapons, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, and "plug and play" electronics. There is only one member—the F-22. The F-35 Lightning II will join the club when it goes operational in a few years. No Russian Gen 5 fighter is at hand, it is thought.

What about a Gen 6? This class is on the drawing board, but won’t be available for decades. It could feature hypersonic speed, dual-mode engines, and adaptive shapes.

Some still issue calls for the Pentagon to continue buying legacy Gen 4 aircraft. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) has called the F-15 Eagle a "very viable alternative to the F-22." The F-15 is assembled by Boeing in Bond’s home state.

Just last year, the Congressional Budget Office presented several "budget options" for Congress. One was to cancel the F-35 and buy more F-16s and F/A-18s instead. CBO wrote that "new F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft—with upgraded radar systems, precision weapons, and digital communications—will be sufficiently advanced to meet the threats the nation is likely to face in the foreseeable future."

That is, in a word, bogus. Later generation aircraft are far superior to previous generation fighters. The early returns from F-22 visits at Red Flag and Northern Edge exercises bear this out. The Raptors easily cleared the skies of Gen 4 fighters. Congress has gone so far as to ban foreign F-22 sales, even to longtime allies.

Allies will be able to buy the F-35. Until the F-35 taxis out onto some foreign runway, though, the US has a unique advantage—no other nation has a fifth generation aircraft.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the F-15 was the world’s dominant fighter, with unprecedented success in aerial combat. The years of advantage for Gen 4 fighters have passed, however. The Gen 4.5 machines are making it difficult for them.

The Air Force desperately needs to replace its oldest F-15s and F-16s with something better than what the opposition can buy. For the next few years, the F-22 is the only option.

Agora em estéreo e com équio (lá e cá).

Segura que a cria é tua, Túlio véio!

Penguin escreveu:September 2008
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Magazi ... issbf.aspx

Fighter Generations

By Adam J. Hebert
Executive Editor

In 2004 mock combat exercises, Indian Air Force pilots flying Russian-made Su-30s unexpectedly waxed USAF pilots flying front-line F-15Cs. This rumble on the subcontinent was a matchup of two "fourth generation" warplanes. The outcome jolted the Americans; it revealed they no longer had technological superiority.

One year later, USAF’s "fifth generation" F-22 Raptor—an agile, stealthy, radically new aircraft—entered operational service. We mean no disrespect by saying that, should the Indians today send their Su-30s against it, their excellent fighter pilots wouldn’t stand a chance.


The F-22 and F-80 represent Gen 5 and Gen 1. (Illustration by Lockheed Martin and Zaur Eylanbekov)

Air dominance is like a cut flower—it can fade quickly. The Cope India exercises taught many lessons—about the importance of good training and tactics, about the need to avoid underestimating your adversary. Here’s another: If you are fighting outnumbered, you’d better have the superior aircraft.

Because of the enormous stakes, it is important to understand the practical significance of the difference in fighter generations.

The exact list of capabilities and aircraft belonging to each generation is debatable; the classification refers only to jet-powered fighters. Use of the generations helps to demarcate technological advances and capabilities that emerge worldwide at around the same time.

Gen 1. This category comprised the earliest jet fighters. Classic cases were Germany’s Me 262 and Britain’s Meteor, both of which entered service in 1944 toward the end of World War II, and the US F-80, which came along the next year. The hallmark of the Gen 1 fighter was its revolutionary advance in speed over its piston-engine predecessors.

Gen 2. Second generation fighters starred in the Korean War. Most notable were the USAF F-86 and the Soviet MiG-15. According to Walter J. Boyne, writing in Lockheed Martin’s Code One magazine, this generation "sought to maximize fighter performance by tailoring the airframe to the potential of the jet engine." Example: the use of highly swept wings.

Gen 3. State of the art in the late 1950s and early 1960s, fighters of the third generation included USAF’s "Century Series" fighters—F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106—and the Soviet MiG-17 and MiG-21. They featured advanced missiles, supersonic speed, and more-sophisticated engines. The F-4 Phantom was a late Gen 3 fighter, and perhaps iconic of the group.

Gen 4. These fighters debuted in the mid-1970s and are still tops in most of the world. This group includes USAF’s F-15 and F-16 and Russia’s Su-27 and MiG-29 (and offshoots). Weapons, engines, and avionics put earlier aircraft to shame. Thirty years of improvements have pushed some fighters into a group known as "Generation 4.5." These include the latest F-15s and F-16s for overseas customers, and the MiG-35, Su-30, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Gen 5. The class is defined by all-aspect stealth, internal carriage of precision weapons, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, and "plug and play" electronics. There is only one member—the F-22. The F-35 Lightning II will join the club when it goes operational in a few years. No Russian Gen 5 fighter is at hand, it is thought.

What about a Gen 6? This class is on the drawing board, but won’t be available for decades. It could feature hypersonic speed, dual-mode engines, and adaptive shapes.

Some still issue calls for the Pentagon to continue buying legacy Gen 4 aircraft. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) has called the F-15 Eagle a "very viable alternative to the F-22." The F-15 is assembled by Boeing in Bond’s home state.

Just last year, the Congressional Budget Office presented several "budget options" for Congress. One was to cancel the F-35 and buy more F-16s and F/A-18s instead. CBO wrote that "new F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft—with upgraded radar systems, precision weapons, and digital communications—will be sufficiently advanced to meet the threats the nation is likely to face in the foreseeable future."

That is, in a word, bogus. Later generation aircraft are far superior to previous generation fighters. The early returns from F-22 visits at Red Flag and Northern Edge exercises bear this out. The Raptors easily cleared the skies of Gen 4 fighters. Congress has gone so far as to ban foreign F-22 sales, even to longtime allies.

Allies will be able to buy the F-35. Until the F-35 taxis out onto some foreign runway, though, the US has a unique advantage—no other nation has a fifth generation aircraft.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the F-15 was the world’s dominant fighter, with unprecedented success in aerial combat. The years of advantage for Gen 4 fighters have passed, however. The Gen 4.5 machines are making it difficult for them.

The Air Force desperately needs to replace its oldest F-15s and F-16s with something better than what the opposition can buy. For the next few years, the F-22 is the only option.

Estou cada vez mais convencido que o maiores concorrentes dos cacas dos USA são os caças franceses.

orestespf escreveu:Agora em estéreo e com équio (lá e cá).

Segura que a cria é tua, Túlio véio!

Para mim os maiores concorrentes dos americanos são os Russos, afinal os franceses não recebem um pedido de exportação de caças novos a 10 anos.

Abs

Zavva, é sério?

Zavva escreveu:Para mim os maiores concorrentes dos americanos são os Russos, afinal os franceses não recebem um pedido de exportação de caças novos a 10 anos.

Abs

São os dois maiores fabricantes e desenvolvedores,mas isso não os fazem "principais" concorrentes em todos os mercados,eles atuam em seus nichos de influência geopolitica e ideológica.

Esqueça a india,onde é politica de governos ter vários fornecedores de origens diferentes.

Agora olhe para os mercados tradicionais de russos e americanos,veja que que quem compra made USA,não vai comprar made in RU,e o inverso também vale,são clientes cativos.

A França independente, é franca atiradora mais no mercado dominado pelos produtos americanos do que no dos mercados dominados pelos russos que tem clientes cativos para os seus produtos, inclusive por serem mais acessíveis, que dos outros dois.


A França incomoda portanto mais os americanos em seus nichos do que russos,inclusive pela sua posição "política" ocidental e sua tecnologia também ocidental. O sucesso do Mirage é um dos exemplos,tirou vendas diretamente de produtos norte-americanos,a short list brasileira é uma das provas de que áreas de influência tradicionais recebem pressão para que se barre produtos russos,do outro lado vale o mesmo contra os americanos,e se tolera a intromissão francesa como um mal menor,eliminar a "intromissão" francesa fazendo do Rafale um fracasso absoluto,e fazendo a França a partir daí, a desenvolver um possível projeto futuro com seus pares tradicionais europeus,abandonando sua tradicional opção em ser "alternativa" independente a russos e americanos,seria sem dúvida uma vitória para os fabricantes de produtos made usa.

Interessante seria ver uma parceria russo/francesa que caldo daria em uma aeronave desenvolvida de forma conjunta,na minha opinião é muito importante a sobrevivência do produto Rafale,e não pensem que é por um prazer comunaz de ver a França espicaçando os yankes ou porque eu morro de amores pelo Rafale,é só pelo fato de continuar existindo essa opção única.

O Produto não vendeu até agora porque,encara o peso da influência gigante norte-americana nos nichos de mercado deles,em que disputou até agora,não por que seja ruim,é uma luta inglória essa,mas faz parte do jogo político.

Desculpe-me por ter me alongado.

SDS.

eliminar a "intromissão" francesa fazendo do Rafale um fracasso absoluto,e fazendo a França a partir daí, a desenvolver um possível projeto futuro com seus pares tradicionais europeus,abandonando sua tradicional opção em ser "alternativa" independente a russos e americanos,seria sem dúvida uma vitória para os fabricantes de produtos made usa.

Perfeito Bender, e não somente os USA ganhariam com isso, mas a Rússia também, seria uma vitória dos USA e Rússia, e assim so ficariam estes dois com o poder das armas... não tem a China também que esta chegando, mas não será como a França, será mais como os USA e Rússia mesmo, mais um patrão!!

Francoorp escreveu:

eliminar a "intromissão" francesa fazendo do Rafale um fracasso absoluto,e fazendo a França a partir daí, a desenvolver um possível projeto futuro com seus pares tradicionais europeus,abandonando sua tradicional opção em ser "alternativa" independente a russos e americanos,seria sem dúvida uma vitória para os fabricantes de produtos made usa.

Perfeito Bender, e não somente os USA ganhariam com isso, mas a Rússia também, seria uma vitória dos USA e Rússia, e assim so ficariam estes dois com o poder das armas... não tem a China também que esta chegando, mas não será como a França, será mais como os USA e Rússia mesmo, mais um patrão!!

Concordo Franco,para russos(e chineses no futuro), menos um também é um gol, mas na minha opinião referente ao pensamento anterior,é claro que o elefante frances gosta de frequentar mais as salas cheias de cristais e enfeites dos norte americanos.


Grande abraço!

Lembremo-nos que onde o Rafale perdeu, outros, como o Gripen, também perderam.

Penguin escreveu:

orestespf escreveu:Agora em estéreo e com équio (lá e cá).

Segura que a cria é tua, Túlio véio!

Santiago, acho que você me ameaçou, mas já me desculpo se passei dos limites contigo!

Seguiu MP...