Forum Base Militar Web Magazine

Bem-vindo: Sex Jul 21, 2017 10:23 pm

Todos os horários são




Criar novo tópico Responder  [ Array ] 
Autor Mensagem
 Título: US Navy - navios em atividade
MensagemEnviado: Qui Mar 11, 2010 3:13 am 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Sex Jul 24, 2009 2:12 pm
Mensagens: 2410
Localização: Brasília
Eu não tinha idéia do tamanho da marinha gringa.

http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn.htm

57 DDGs :shock: :shock: :shock:

Seria legal se alguém tivesse a ordem de batalha da marinha soviética antes da queda do muro.

_________________
"As leis que proibem o porte de armas... desarmam somente aqueles que não estão nem dispostos nem determinados a cometer crimes." - Cesare Beccaria


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Sáb Nov 19, 2011 12:11 pm 
Offline
Moderador
Moderador
Avatar do usuário
 Visitar website do usuário  Perfil

Registrado em: Dom Dez 31, 2006 12:17 pm
Mensagens: 4813
Localização: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Jane's indica que novos AB Flight III podem acabar custando entre 3 e 4 BILHÕES DE DÓLARES CADA! 8P Alguém aqui ainda tem esperança da indústria naval americana conseguir exportar qualquer navio novo para clientes no exterior? Eu, não!

[]s Hammer

_________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Sáb Nov 19, 2011 12:20 pm 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Ter Abr 29, 2008 8:14 pm
Mensagens: 3387
Localização: Rio
Nem eu...

Não entendo muito do assunto, mas acho que em tempos de pindaíba, o governo americano deveria incentivar a construção de navios mais compatíveis com o que o mundo inteiro usa (OPVs de 1.500t, Fragatas de 3.000t, Destróiers de 6.000t, Anfíbios de 20.000t, etc...). Porque ficar dependente do padrão USN é complicado... todo navio é simplesmente grande demais e caro demais.

Mesmo para a USN, qual é o sentido de uma escolta que custa US$3 bi?!?!?! Um AB é 2 vezes mais eficiente que um T45, por exemplo? Não seria mais fácil dividir essa capacidade em 2 unidades menores? Ganha-se em flexibilidade...

_________________
S T E E N

-- http://www.peremptorio.com.br --


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Sáb Nov 19, 2011 12:52 pm 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Sex Jan 01, 2010 9:52 pm
Mensagens: 9189
Steen escreveu:
Nem eu...

Não entendo muito do assunto, mas acho que em tempos de pindaíba, o governo americano deveria incentivar a construção de navios mais compatíveis com o que o mundo inteiro usa (OPVs de 1.500t, Fragatas de 3.000t, Destróiers de 6.000t, Anfíbios de 20.000t, etc...). Porque ficar dependente do padrão USN é complicado... todo navio é simplesmente grande demais e caro demais.

Mesmo para a USN, qual é o sentido de uma escolta que custa US$3 bi?!?!?! Um AB é 2 vezes mais eficiente que um T45, por exemplo? Não seria mais fácil dividir essa capacidade em 2 unidades menores? Ganha-se em flexibilidade...

Mesmo que os modelos fossem mais simples, a mão de obra é muito cara e seus navios não teriam preço para competir no mercado.


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Sáb Nov 19, 2011 4:56 pm 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Ter Abr 29, 2008 8:14 pm
Mensagens: 3387
Localização: Rio
Mais cara que a mão de obra européia? Sei não... Além do mais, poderiam fazer como fazem os europeus muitas vezes: vender o projeto e prestar consultoria na construção.

_________________
S T E E N

-- http://www.peremptorio.com.br --


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Sáb Nov 19, 2011 11:55 pm 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Qua Dez 05, 2007 2:02 pm
Mensagens: 9157
Eles poderia fazer como o Japão faz a TRDI projeta os navios e vários sistemas, e entrega o projeto para os estaleiros e industria produzirem, no Eua parece que eles entregam os requisitos e deixam a industria sugar o máximo possível de verbas do governo.
Ta certo que este estilo estimula o desenvolvimento tecnológico mas nem sempre se mostra ter um custo beneficio aceitável.

Imagem
Imagem

Pelo jeito somente o novo Spy-3 deve custar mais de 1Bi... os upgrades que o Eua e Japão estão desenvolvendo o sistema antimíssil no Spy1-D deve alcançar 1000km talvez não estejam satisfeitos com o alcance e querem desenvolver uma coisa mais superior ainda...

_________________
Abraços.

Imagem


Não alimente os trolls------------Don't feed the trolls---------------インタネット荒らしを無視しろ


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Dom Nov 20, 2011 12:05 am 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Qua Dez 05, 2007 2:02 pm
Mensagens: 9157
Citação:
Navy Radar Efforts Solidify BMD Commitment

Jun 13, 2011
By Michael Fabey
Washington
Imagem

“Aegis is a very large, integrated and complex system,” says Bill Bray, director of Integrated Combat Systems for the Navy’s Program Executive Office, Integrated Warfare Systems.

When Aegis baselines were developed in the 1970s, “combat systems were developed for a platform they were landing on and every platform ended up with its own combat system,” Bray says.

Cruisers and destroyers have their own Aegis systems—and certain groups of each ship would get their own baselines, depending on when they were delivered or available for an upgrade. They all have the basic Aegis core, but with different baseline capabilities, integrated systems and system architectures.

This means that when there is a problem, all the baselines have to be addressed; it is not possible to fix just the core software package and redeliver it.

Aegis development cost estimates range from $30 billion to $80 billion, including ship integration, according to some analysts. Even Lockheed Martin says it is not sure, but the latest Aegis system industry standard cost is about $1 billion per ship.
Contractors vying for the U.S. Navy’s proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) say they can deliver the system for much less than the government’s cost estimate because of their extensive experience building similar radar programs in recent years.

Such arguments are becoming increasingly important as Washington scrambles to find bill-payers while eyeing expensive defense programs.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates the AMDR would cost $15.7 billion—close to the Navy’s entire annual shipbuilding budget. The service says the estimate is based on data provided by AMDR program officials, but contractors say the GAO calculations rely mostly on historical data on building sophisticated radar systems largely from scratch. That fails to account for technology and production advancements made by other military projects that can be leveraged to develop and deliver AMDR, contractors say.

“Lockheed Martin’s development costs for the AMDR—based on what we understand from the data—is significantly less than the development costs cited by the GAO,” says Brad Hicks, Lockheed’s vice president of naval radar programs.

That Navy AMDR officials did not even flinch at such an estimate indicates their commitment to the program and acceptance of its high cost, as well as the rising importance of ballistic missile defense (BMD) as a Navy mission priority.

AMDR combines an S-band radar for BMD and air defense and an X-band radar for horizon search, with a controller to integrate simultaneous operation of the two. The Navy also is revamping its Aegis radar system to perform BMD missions—while opening up the network to more contractor competition.

The enhanced Aegis system is on its first deployment as part of the U.S.’s European Phased Adaptive Approach for BMD, aboard the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey CG-61 in the Mediterranean.

The Monterey’s commanding officer, Capt. Jim Kilby, says the enhanced BMD upgrades will lead ship and fleet commanders to rethink how they deploy the upgraded ships. “It’s like how the Tomahawk [missile] was when it first rolled out into the fleet,” he says.

The Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plan to nearly double the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships to 41 by the end of 2016. Some Pentagon and Navy officials have started to talk openly about possibly changing the U.S. nuclear posture, cutting back from the traditional nuclear triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and ballistic-missile submarines to a dyad focused on the Navy and MDA efforts.

But developing the BMD focus takes time and money, as the Aegis system has shown. The February 2008 shoot-down of a defunct U.S. space satellite by the USS Lake Erie CG-70 proved the system’s capability, and an MDA test in April demonstrated its “launch-on-remote” system against an intermediate-range warhead separating from its booster missile. But it took nearly three decades for the Navy and industry to bring Aegis-like capability to the fleet.

Some critics say an “Aegis Mafia” has started to grow in the Navy, steering the service along any course that benefits the radar system and away from anything that does not. “I don’t buy that ‘Mafia’ reference,” Hicks says. “Yes, we’re the incumbent, but we recognize the importance of the competition and welcome it.”

However, Navsea says it wants to end the “30-year monopolies” of Aegis and some other programs and develop systems that are designed more openly to increase the Navy’s acquisition options.

The Aegis Advanced Capability Build (ACB) upgrades are meant to do just that, starting with ACB 08 in 2008 and continuing next year with ACB 12.

The Navy expects to release a request for proposals by the end of this month for ACB 16, which should open Aegis to a full-fledged competition and move the Navy closer to AMDR development.

Lockheed touts its “Aegis culture” in attempting to capture AMDR work, citing its work on the transmit-receive module packages and digital beam-forming, a key AMDR technology.

The company says it demonstrated AMDR-like beam-forming with the Advanced Radar Technology Integrated System Testbed (Artist), which combines advanced, multifunction S-band active phased-array radars.

Leveraging its work and experience with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for aircraft, Northrop Grumman cites its own digital beam-forming project, the U.S. Marine Corps G/ATOR, which features a panel of AESA radars with distributed receiver and exciter modules for anti-air-warfare modes.

“We don’t see another way around this [AMDR] except with an AESA,” says Arun Palusamy, Northrop Grumman’s director of integrated air and missile defense and naval strategy.

Northrop Grumman also points to its participation in the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program, which initially was planned to mate X‑ and S- band radars in an AMDR-like suite, such as the one being developed for the CVN-78 Ford-class aircraft carrier.

Raytheon, the prime contractor for the DDG-1000 radar system, collaborated with Northrop on the Cobra Judy Replacement program that marries shipboard S- and X-band phased arrays to collect BMD data. Raytheon provides the Cobra Judy Replacement S-band system’s back-end signal processing.

“AMDR is similar to the work to Zumwalt, CVN-78 and Cobra Judy,” says Denis Donohue, Raytheon’s director of above-water sensors.

AMDR will be a magnitude better than anything the Navy has fielded or planned, says Capt. Doug Small, Navsea’s AMDR program official.

Already BMD is causing Navy officers to reexamine their missions. “We’re no longer defending just a ship,” Kilby says. “We’re defending cities. We’re defending whole populations.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/06/13/AW_06_13_2011_p46-332053.xml&headline=U.S&next=0


A industria bélica deles vai levar o estado a falência, pode ser uma forma de tentar reativar o Zumwalt que tem preço estimado em 3Bi e o novo AB Flt III ficaria em 3.5Bi...

_________________
Abraços.

Imagem


Não alimente os trolls------------Don't feed the trolls---------------インタネット荒らしを無視しろ


Voltar ao topo
 
 Título: Re: Destróieres Arleigh Burke Flt III
MensagemEnviado: Dom Nov 20, 2011 12:15 am 
Offline
Sênior
Sênior
Avatar do usuário
 Perfil

Registrado em: Qua Dez 05, 2007 2:02 pm
Mensagens: 9157
Citação:
Navy Drops Advanced Radar From Aegis Upgrade

Oct 13, 2011
Imagem
By Michael Fabey

U.S. budget woes have claimed another victim — the required integration of the U.S. Navy’s proposed Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) with its next planned Aegis combat system upgrade.

The Navy is removing the engineering requirements to include its proposed AMDR as a “price competition line item” in the request for proposals (RFP) for the next round of Aegis capability upgrades, known as Advanced Capabilities Build (ACB) 16.

Instead, the AMDR integration engineering “load” requirement will become a “sample problem,” the Navy says. A sample problem, according to those familiar with the proposal, will carry much less weight in the final award decision than a competition line item requirement.

The move is being made, the Navy says, “to account for a reduction in the capabilities/requirements in ACB 16 to align with the latest set of Navy requirements.”

Those familiar with the program say the Navy needed to make the change to better align ACB 16 with budgets. The service had to reduce the scope of the program to be able to afford it.

Navy officials say they have no further comment on the changes at this time. The service anticipates releasing the new RFP amendment Oct. 21.

Lockheed Martin, which is the legacy Aegis prime contractor and is competing for ACB 16, had no comment. A spokesperson from Raytheon, another competitor, says, “We are aware of pending changes to the Aegis RFP and remain committed to delivering a competitive proposal.”

ACB 16 is the planned set of improvements for the vaunted ship shield that would allow it to incorporate advanced technology. The Navy had earlier decided to skip the planned ACB 12 upgrades to address budgetary concerns and to obtain better equipment and software.

One of the core requirements for ACB 16 was supposed to be the inclusion of the AMDR, the Navy’s proposed futuristic radar system that is meant to seamlessly combine ship defense technology with ballistic missile defense (BMD).

AMDR will cost an estimated $15.7 billion to develop and procure, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The Navy says it needs the program to defend its ships against the latest maritime threats while performing BMD, which has become a major mission for the service.

Indeed, U.S. Navy BMD is the cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s Phased Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe, and the U.S. is taking significant steps to bolster its Aegis-equipped fleet to meet those mission needs.

The Navy is restarting the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer production line to deploy additional Aegis-equipped vessels more quickly and affordably.

Photo: DoD

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/10/13/02.xml&headline=Navy%20Drops%20Advanced%20Radar%20From%20Aegis%20Upgrade


Rejeitado.

_________________
Abraços.

Imagem


Não alimente os trolls------------Don't feed the trolls---------------インタネット荒らしを無視しろ


Voltar ao topo
 
Exibir mensagens anteriores:  Ordenar por  
Criar novo tópico Responder  [ Array ] 

Todos os horários são


Quem está online


Enviar mensagens: Proibido
Responder mensagens: Proibido
Editar mensagens: Proibido
Excluir mensagens: Proibido
Enviar anexos: Proibido

Ir para:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits  
Traduzido por: Suporte phpBB Brasil