Royal Navy

  • 449 Respostas
  • 110845 Visualizações
*

nelson38899

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4095
  • Recebeu: 239 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 242 vez(es)
  • +19/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #45 em: Janeiro 30, 2009, 09:34:30 am »
"Que todo o mundo seja «Portugal», isto é, que no mundo toda a gente se comporte como têm comportado os portugueses na história"
Agostinho da Silva
 

*

Lancero

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4115
  • Recebeu: 19 vez(es)
  • +23/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #46 em: Janeiro 30, 2009, 04:03:31 pm »
Enquanto isso, um dos heróis das Malvinas vai ser vendido aos bocados no e-bay

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -eBay.html
"Portugal civilizou a Ásia, a África e a América. Falta civilizar a Europa"

Respeito
 

*

Menacho

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2818
  • Recebeu: 301 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 60 vez(es)
  • +6/-50
(sem assunto)
« Responder #47 em: Janeiro 30, 2009, 04:49:35 pm »
 

*

Vicente de Lisboa

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 776
  • Recebeu: 13 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2 vez(es)
  • +2/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #48 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 03:55:24 pm »
Hepa parem lá de postar essa coisa feia. Isso dá a volta ao estomago.  :?
 

*

Jorge Pereira

  • Administrador
  • *****
  • 2195
  • Recebeu: 56 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 116 vez(es)
  • +10/-0
    • http://forumdefesa.com
(sem assunto)
« Responder #49 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 03:59:50 pm »
Citação de: "Vicente de Lisboa"
Hepa parem lá de postar essa coisa feia. Isso dá a volta ao estomago.  c34x  :wink:
Um dos primeiros erros do mundo moderno é presumir, profunda e tacitamente, que as coisas passadas se tornaram impossíveis.

Gilbert Chesterton, in 'O Que Há de Errado com o Mundo'






Cumprimentos
 

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 8360
  • Recebeu: 710 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1088 vez(es)
  • +44/-10
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
(sem assunto)
« Responder #50 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 04:00:54 pm »
Só pedia duas dessas "coisas feias".
Um "jeitinho" tendo em conta a nossa ancestral aliança militar  c34x
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=HSMW

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 8360
  • Recebeu: 710 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1088 vez(es)
  • +44/-10
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
(sem assunto)
« Responder #51 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 04:21:35 pm »
Parece que no numero de fragatas estamos de acordo   :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=HSMW

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

Vicente de Lisboa

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 776
  • Recebeu: 13 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 2 vez(es)
  • +2/-1
(sem assunto)
« Responder #52 em: Fevereiro 12, 2009, 02:03:51 am »
Oh meus senhores. Essas coisas feias nas cores da Marinha Portuguesa... eu acho que a fealdade era tanta que o proprio Neptuno se recusava a aceita-las no mar.
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7412
  • Recebeu: 241 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 375 vez(es)
  • +32/-130
(sem assunto)
« Responder #53 em: Março 21, 2009, 11:41:56 am »
The United Kingdom's Future Nuclear Deterrent Capability
   
   
(Source: House of Commons Public Accounts Committee; issued March 19, 2009)
 
 
   
   Edward Leigh MP, Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, today said: "The Ministry of Defence's ability to maintain continuous at sea nuclear deterrence from 2024, when two of the current Vanguard class submarines will have gone out of service, is open to doubt.

"The Department's timetable for completing the design and build process for the replacement submarines is extremely tight. It has 17 years to do it, even though the Department itself accepts that such a process usually cannot be completed in under 18. The MOD's track record in delivering major defence projects on time is not exemplary.

"The MOD must make absolutely fundamental decisions about the design of the new submarines by September of this year. These include the main design features; whether to develop a new type of nuclear reactor requiring substantial research and development; and, crucially, the design and size of the missile compartment.

"The problem is that a decision on the size of the missile compartment in the new submarines will have to be taken in advance of the development by the United States of a missile to succeed the current Trident D5. In other words, our programme to have a renewed nuclear deterrent will depend on yet to be taken decisions by the US on the dimensions of the successor missile. The MOD is taking steps to reduce the risk of a new missile not fitting in our submarines, but there is no guarantee it will."

Mr Leigh was speaking as the Committee published its 11th Report of this Session which, on the basis of evidence from the Ministry of Defence (the Department), examined making important decisions, managing dependence on the United States and managing the programme effectively.

The United Kingdom first deployed a submarine-launched nuclear deterrent in 1968. Since then, successive governments have been committed to a policy of continuous at sea deterrence, meaning that at least one nuclear-armed submarine is on patrol at any one time. In its 2006 White Paper, the Government announced its intention to maintain the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent capability and set out its plans to build a new class of submarines to replace the current Vanguard fleet and to participate in the United States' Trident D5 ballistic missile life extension programme.

The Department's ability to sustain its nuclear deterrent capability in the future is dependent on collaboration with the United States. The new class of submarine is likely to remain in service beyond the extended life of the existing Trident D5 missile, which will be renewed in 2042, and must therefore be compatible with any successor missile developed by the United States. The Department has received a series of assurances from the United States that any new missile will be compatible with the United Kingdom's new submarine class. Nevertheless, the concern remains that the Department has no direct control over the development of the new missile.

The future deterrent programme is still at the concept phase. The Department has yet to make many decisions about the principal parameters of the submarine design, the type of nuclear reactor, and the design and size of the missile compartment. The Department expects to make these decisions by September 2009. To respond to an already challenging timeline, the Department plans to overlap the submarine's design and construction phases.

The Strategic Deterrent Programme Board is chaired by the Senior Responsible Owner, who is responsible for coordinating the delivery of the future deterrent. In order to succeed, the Senior Responsible Owner must maintain strong relationships across other departments to ensure that he delivers the capability that the government as a whole requires. He must draw on performance management information that is still evolving and operate in the context of a challenging commercial environment, characterised by monopoly suppliers.


Click here for the full report (35 pages in PDF format) on the UK Parliament website.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 50/250.pdf

(ends)

   
   
   Warnings of Future Trident Issues
   
   
(Source UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 19, 2009)
 
 
   
   Some media outlets have reported that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has said that Britain's ability to maintain its Trident nuclear deterrent is 'open to doubt' with an 'extremely tight' timetable to design, build and replace the missile-carrying submarines.

It has also been reported that the American-built missiles that will arm the British submarines may be the wrong size.

Quentin Davies, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said: "Our ability to maintain the Trident nuclear deterrent is not in doubt. Although I recognise that the timelines are challenging, I remain very confident that we will deliver a new submarine on time and maintain our continuous at-sea deterrence.

"The Committee has misunderstood the situation regarding missiles and missile compartments (Emphasis added--Ed.) in the new US and British submarines. These are certain to be compatible because the missile compartments in both boats will share the same basic design. A significant amount of work has already been completed on both of the potential propulsion options and a decision is currently on course for September 09.

“I will publish a full response to the PAC report following more detailed consideration of its findings."

-ends-
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

HaDeS

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #54 em: Março 17, 2010, 02:11:41 am »
Royal Navy: depois de seis anos, um novo ‘Triunfo’
Citar
A Marinha Real  (Royal Navy) informou que o submarino nuclear de ataque HMS Triumph voltou ao mar para provas, (que deverão durar três meses) após um período de manutenção e reabastecimento que durou seis anos, realizado em parceria com a Babcock.

Segundo a Marinha Real, entre as melhorias implementadas incluem-se a instalação do mais recente sistema de sonar e de um novo sistema de comando e controle, além da modernização no sistema de mísseis de cruzeiro Tomahawk. Uma nova rede de computador em figra óptica foi instalada, assim como um sistema melhorado de comunicações via satélite. Instalou-se também uma bomba adicional para esvaziamento mais rápido dos tanques de lastro, assim como realizou-se diversas outras melhorias nas capacidades de segurança e combate a incêndios.

O custo dos trabalhos foi de aproximadamente 300 milhões de libras (por volta de 800 milhões de reais), envolvendo 1.000 pessoas e totalizando 2,75 milhões de horas-homem.  Segundo o informe, trata-se do último período de manutenção e reabastecimento realizado por um submarino da classe Trafalgar, da qual o Triunph é o último dos sete construídos (comissionamento em outubro de 1991).

Características da classe Trafalgar:

    * Deslocamento submerso: 5.200 toneladas
    * Comprimento: 85,4 m
    * Boca: 9,8 m
    * Tripulação: 130
    * Armamento: 5 tubos capazes de disparar torpedos Spearfish e mísseis Tomahawk.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/
 

*

sergio21699

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 933
  • Recebeu: 1 vez(es)
  • +1/-0
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #55 em: Março 18, 2010, 07:45:35 pm »
Citar
Submarino nas Malvinas «Just in case»
Britânicos não correm riscos idênticos aos de 1982
18.03.2010


As autoridades militares britânicas confirmaram o envio para as águas das ilhas Malvinas de um dos seus submarinos de ataque da classe Swiftsure.

Trata-se do submarino Sceptre, é um dos últimos dois navios da classe Swiftsure que ainda está ao serviço. Os navios da classe Swiftsure substituíram os submarinos da classe Churchill, um dos quais, o HMS Conqueror, afundou o cruzador ligeiro General Belgrano em 1982.
Ainda que tenha sido dado relevo ao envio de um submarino nuclear, a Grã Bretanha não possui submarino que não sejam movidos a energia nuclear.
O submarino enviado tem um reactor nuclear como motor mas não está armado com mísseis nucleares.

O submarino britânico, encontra-se na região na companhia de outros dois navios da Royal Navy, o navio logístico de reabastecimento HMS Scott e o contra-torpedeiro HMS York. Além disso, as ilhas contam com a protecção de aeronaves de combate Typhoon-II.

A Argentina reafirmou recentemente a sua intenção de continuar a exigir a devolução das ilhas Malvinas, a que os britânicos chamam de Falkland, e criticou duramente o envio de uma plataforma de prospecção de petróleo para tentar verificar a viabilidade económica da exploração daquela matéria prima.

Evitar os erros de 1982

Embora não haja nenhum indicio de que a Argentina possa de alguma forma pensar em efectuar alguma operação de retaliação contra a plataforma de prospecção de petróleo que se encontra na região, ou contra as ilhas, os receios britânicos têm razões históricas.

Em 1981, perante o reacender dos protestos argentinos relativamente às ilhas Malvinas, a Grã Bretanha praticamente não reagiu nem emitiu qualquer protesto ou aviso aos argentinos.

Segundo várias publicações e estudos feitos após o conflito, os generais argentinos terão considerado que a Grã Bretanha não estava interessada nas ilhas e que não reagiria a uma operação de invasão.

Ao colocar forças militares na região, aparentemente a Grã Bretanha está apenas a frisar junto das autoridades argentinas que devem evitar a confusão que terá levado os generais argentinos a invadir as ilhas em 1982.

Ainda que as suas forças armadas tenham capacidade para enviar uma força militar para as ilhas Malvinas, em termos gerais a capacidade militar dos argentinos é apenas uma sombra do que era em 1982.

http://www.areamilitar.net/noticias/noticias.aspx?NrNot=903
-Meu General, estamos cercados...
-Óptimo! Isso quer dizer que podemos atacar em qualquer direcção!
 

*

teXou

  • 436
  • +0/-0
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #56 em: Agosto 30, 2010, 06:54:55 pm »
Citar
HMS Astute commissioned into navy
Friday, August 27, 2010

The UK's most powerful attack submarine, HMS Astute, has been commissioned into the Royal Navy.
In a ceremony overseen by the boat's patron, the Duchess of Cornwall, Astute officially became 'Her Majesty's Ship'.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said: "The Astute Class is truly next generation - a highly versatile platform, she is capable of contributing across a broad spectrum of maritime operations around the globe, and will play an important role in delivering the fighting power of the Royal Navy for decades to come. A highly complex feat of naval engineering, she is at the very cutting edge of technology, with a suite of sensors and weapons required to pack a powerful punch.

"Today is an important milestone along the road to full operational capability which will follow after a further series of demanding seagoing trials testing the full range of the submarine's capabilities."

Rear Admiral Simon Lister, Director of Submarines, who oversees the build programme of the class for the MoD, said: "To my mind Astute is a 7,000 tonne Swiss watch. There is an extraordinary amount of expertise that goes into putting one of these submarines together. There are stages when it's like blacksmithing and there are stages when it's like brain surgery.

"So to see Astute commissioned is momentous not only for the Royal Navy, who have been eagerly anticipating this quantum leap forward in capability, but for the thousands of people around the country who have been involved in the most challenging of engineering projects."

HMS Astute is fifty per cent bigger than any attack submarine in the Royal Navy's current fleet but is also quieter than any of her predecessors. Astute will never need to be refuelled and can theoretically circumnavigate the world submerged, creating the crew's oxygen and drinking water from seawater.

The submarine has the capacity to carry a mix of up to 38 Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes and Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise missiles – and can target submarines, surface ships and land targets. The boat's sonar system has a range of 3,000 nautical miles.

Astute is the first Royal Navy submarine not to have a traditional periscope, instead using electro-optics to capture a 360-degree image of the surface for subsequent analysis by the commanding officer.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=13978
"Obviamente, demito-o".

H. Delgado 10/05/1958
-------------------------------------------------------
" Não Apaguem a Memória! "

http://maismemoria.org
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7412
  • Recebeu: 241 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 375 vez(es)
  • +32/-130
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #57 em: Agosto 31, 2010, 07:13:26 pm »
Citar
LONDON | Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:49am BST

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and France are getting ready to unveil plans to share aircraft carriers amid pressure on the British military to cut costs, the Times reported on Tuesday.

Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicholas Sarkozy were expected to announce the proposal at a November summit, the Times said, quoting an unidentified British naval source for its information.

No immediate comment was available from British officials on the report.

Earlier this month, a Defence Ministry source told Reuters that Britain might cancel one or both of its planned new aircraft carriers to cut costs, though there were no plans to scale back the country's nuclear deterrent.

The proposal involving France would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers under construction, the Times said.

The newspaper said the proposal would ensure that one of three ships -- one French and two British -- would always patrol the seas.

"Using each other's carriers would require decisions to be made at the strategic level so that national aims on any given operation would be the same," the naval source was quoted as saying.

The Defence Ministry is conducting a sweeping review of Britain's future military needs and ways to provide capability more cheaply.

(Reporting by Karolina Tagaris; editing by Ralph Gowling)
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

teXou

  • 436
  • +0/-0
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #58 em: Setembro 01, 2010, 01:07:10 pm »
Citar
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
"Obviamente, demito-o".

H. Delgado 10/05/1958
-------------------------------------------------------
" Não Apaguem a Memória! "

http://maismemoria.org
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7412
  • Recebeu: 241 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 375 vez(es)
  • +32/-130
Re: Royal Navy
« Responder #59 em: Setembro 02, 2010, 11:03:12 am »
a França aluga uns Rafales em Leasing  c34x
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

 

FFG-14 no Naval Vessel Registration (NVR-US Navy)

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1316
Última mensagem Setembro 09, 2004, 01:56:12 pm
por P44
Marinha Grega (Hellenic Navy)

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 24
Visualizações: 11675
Última mensagem Abril 20, 2018, 10:10:48 am
por P44
US Navy Reserve Fleet

Iniciado por Lynx

Respostas: 12
Visualizações: 5395
Última mensagem Setembro 05, 2008, 08:20:09 am
por P44
Brown-water navy

Iniciado por mafets

Respostas: 69
Visualizações: 16524
Última mensagem Fevereiro 27, 2019, 03:57:38 pm
por mafets
Destroyer DD(X) da US Navy

Iniciado por JLRC

Respostas: 3
Visualizações: 1697
Última mensagem Agosto 03, 2005, 01:54:56 pm
por JLRC