ARMADA AUSTRALIANA

  • 123 Respostas
  • 44991 Visualizações
*

luis filipe silva

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 2051
  • Recebeu: 4 vez(es)
  • +1/-0
ARMADA AUSTRALIANA
« em: Agosto 14, 2006, 09:49:56 pm »
Dois projectos concorrentes para o novo destroyer australiano.

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/downloa ... 060803.cfm

Obrigado Luso.
« Última modificação: Agosto 15, 2006, 01:21:59 am por luis filipe silva »
-----------------------------
saudações:
Luis Filipe Silva
 

*

Luso

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7476
  • Recebeu: 339 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 115 vez(es)
  • +71/-171
(sem assunto)
« Responder #1 em: Agosto 14, 2006, 10:01:36 pm »
Enganou-se na ligação, Luis...
Ai de ti Lusitânia, que dominarás em todas as nações...
 

*

Rui Elias

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1697
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #2 em: Março 06, 2007, 11:23:09 am »
Espanhola NAVANTIA ganha vantagem sobre a Gibbs & Cox, para a construção das fragatas de defesa aérea australianas?


 
Citar
Spain leads for $7bn navy contract

* Patrick Walters, National security editor
* March 01, 2007

SPAIN is poised to win the contest to design the navy's new air warfare destroyers, destined to be the biggest and most advanced warships in its fleet.
As the race to win the contract to design the three vessels enters its final weeks, state-owned Spanish naval builder Navantia is heading its US rival on price and delivery time.

The $7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14 billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

Long regarded as simply a stalking horse for a new warship designed by US firm Gibbs and Cox based on the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Spain's modified F100 warship is now an even-money bet to win the contract.

The Spanish ship is much cheaper and would be delivered about two years earlier than the US design submitted by Gibbs and Cox.

Gibbs and Cox has been the Howard Government's preferred designer for the air warfare destroyers, but the firm's bigger and more capable warship exists only in its preliminary design phase.

And final target cost estimates due to be handed to the Defence Department tomorrow are expected to put the Spanish F100 warship ahead on price by more than $500 million, according to government and industry sources.

The Government has committed $450 million to the project's start-up, with the cabinet due to take the final decision on the winning design in July.

In August 2005, the Government announced that the Gibbs and Cox "evolved design" would compete with an "Australianised" version of the F100 for the right to be chosen as the navy's new frontline warship.

The new ships will be equipped with the US-made Aegis combat system, giving them the ability to track hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges beyond 150km.

Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC has already been chosen to construct the vessels, while Raytheon will be the systems integrator, as part of a novel alliance with partners ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

Spain's belated recognition that its F100 could be selected has resulted in a last-minute lobbying push by the Spanish Government.

The Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer Alvaro de Bazan arrives in Perth today at the start of a three-week visit designed to highlights the ship's advanced capabilities. Spain is also sending its naval chief and senior government officials to Australia this month in an effort to clinch the AWD contract.

The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy's preferred choice.

Gibbs and Cox believes the heavily modified Arleigh Burke offers better all-round combat capability and better growth options for future technology upgrades than the F100.

But with four F100s already in service with the Spanish navy, Navantia argues that its destroyer offers a low-risk and highly capable solution for the Royal Australian Navy.

The first of the navy's new frontline destroyers is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, but the US design is not likely to be in service before 2015.
 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 02,00.html
 

*

old

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 913
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #3 em: Março 06, 2007, 12:31:23 pm »
Las F100 no tienen muchas posibilidades de hacerse con el contrato. Esta visita es un ultimo intento aprovechando la vuelta al mundo de una de ellas.

La Marina de Australia prefiere los Burke.
 

*

Rui Elias

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1697
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #4 em: Março 06, 2007, 03:40:33 pm »
Old:

Muito sinceramente eu também acho que a escolha irá recair sobre as AB, mas talvez até por uma questão política, já que a Austrália está muito próxima dos EUA.

Mas numa relação custo-benefício, e tendo em conta o lugar geo-estratégico em que se encontra a Austrália, acho que ficariam bem servidos com umas derivadas das F-100, e sairia muito mais barato.

Só se eles estão assustados com a qualidade das tintas  :mrgreen:

Pode ser que em compensação escolham o LHD da NAVANTIA.
 

*

MAC

  • 38
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #5 em: Março 06, 2007, 07:03:12 pm »
Citação de: "Rui Elias"
Pode ser que em compensação escolham o LHD da NAVANTIA.


No creo que si eligen el BPE sea por compensación,sera por que lo consideraran mejor buque que el BPC francés,estamos hablando de mucho dinero y un buque que tiene que servir 25 años por lo menos,demasiado como para elegirlo a la ligera.

De todas formas,creo que BPE ganará.
 

*

garrulo

  • Perito
  • **
  • 545
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #6 em: Março 06, 2007, 07:16:40 pm »
La oferta que estos dias esta haciendo Navantia en australia ,tiene como base la F105 con una capacidad de combustible incrementada en 100 Toneladas para cumplir con los requerimientos de la Armada Australiana.
Por el precio de tres buques , pueden tener cuatro y parece que lo estan pensando.
España tiene el 107% de la renta de la UE, Portugal el 75%, entramos al mismo tiempo. No seremos tan tontos.
 

*

ferrol

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 717
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #7 em: Março 09, 2007, 09:39:57 am »
Citação de: "garrulo"
Por el precio de tres buques , pueden tener cuatro y parece que lo estan pensando.
¿Por el precio de 3 buques o de 3 Burkes? :?:

Tampoco creo que sea muy determinante el precio. Quiero decir, que al fin y al cabo si están los dos modelos como finalistas, es porque se pueden pagar los 2. Es como cuando compras un coche. Tienes tu presupuesto y compras el mejor que llegue a ese presupuesto. Así que más que mirar el precio, una vez ya sabes los modelos que puedes pagar (Burke o F-100), ya te fijas en otras cosas...

¿No?
Tu régere Imperio fluctus, Hispane memento
"Acuérdate España que tú registe el Imperio de los mares”
 

*

garrulo

  • Perito
  • **
  • 545
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #8 em: Março 09, 2007, 09:48:08 am »
Creo que no, amigo Ferrol.Por una pérdida relativa de capacidades, pueden tener una unidad mas operando. y ellos tienen un mar inmenso que controlar.
España tiene el 107% de la renta de la UE, Portugal el 75%, entramos al mismo tiempo. No seremos tan tontos.
 

*

ferrol

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 717
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #9 em: Abril 26, 2007, 01:10:05 pm »
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21617193-31477,00.html?from=public_rss
Citar
Defence backs Spanish warship for $7bn deal
Patrick Walters, National security editor
April 25, 2007

SPAIN'S F100 air warfare destroyer will become Australia's new front-line warship if the Howard Government accepts the Defence Department's firm recommendation on the $7billion contract.
In backing the Spanish warship, Defence chiefs have rejected the navy's bid for a larger alternative based on the US Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia.

The design contest has seen the F100 finish more than $1billion cheaper than the US option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships.

Cabinet's National Security Committee will also consider retaining an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.

The decision to go for the smaller Spanish destroyer over an evolved design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a defeat for the navy chief, Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders, who made no secret of his preference for the larger US warship.

Admiral Shalders said last month that although the F100 was a good ship, hewas after "capability, capability andcapability".

The 8000-tonne Gibbs and Cox design offered the navy decisive combat advantages, including 64, rather than 48, vertical launch cells, longer range and the ability to take two helicopters.

Admiral Shalders failed to convince his colleagues in the DCIC in a debate one senior defence source described as a "complete whitewash".

Defence sources said the tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favour of the Spanish on all the key criteria.

Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs.

It had long been regarded as simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer.

Defence sources said a key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder.

The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.

The $7billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.

Un paso máis, xa estamos máis preto...os militares prefiren o proxecto español para o séu AWD, e co aforro pensan que aínda poden facer unha cuarta F-100 .¿que escolla farán agora os políticos?
Tu régere Imperio fluctus, Hispane memento
"Acuérdate España que tú registe el Imperio de los mares”
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 14535
  • Recebeu: 817 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 802 vez(es)
  • +89/-90
(sem assunto)
« Responder #10 em: Abril 26, 2007, 02:12:03 pm »
Isso seria um encaixe financeiro bestial para os estaleiros Espanhóis. Matavam dois coelhos com uma cajadada, ou seja, garantiam um contracto muito lucrativo e ganhavam ainda mais destaque e visibilidade no mercado internacional.
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

old

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 913
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #11 em: Abril 26, 2007, 04:17:39 pm »
Citação de: "Cabeça de Martelo"
Isso seria um encaixe financeiro bestial para os estaleiros Espanhóis. Matavam dois coelhos com uma cajadada, ou seja, garantiam um contracto muito lucrativo e ganhavam ainda mais destaque e visibilidade no mercado internacional.


Eso no va a suceder.

USA no va a vender su Aegis a España para que esta luego le fabrique los barcos a Australia, de ningun modo.

El caso de Noruega fue diferente porque no entraba Gibbs and Cox compitiendo con Navantia.

En este caso ganaran los politicos, aunque a los almirantes no les guste. :wink:
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7411
  • Recebeu: 241 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 374 vez(es)
  • +32/-127
(sem assunto)
« Responder #12 em: Abril 27, 2007, 01:46:28 pm »
Australia Closer to Picking F-100 for AWD
 
 
(Source: Forecast International; issued April 26, 2007)

 
   
 
 
The Spanish Navy’s F101 Alvaro de Bazan air-defense frigate, seen here during a visit to Australia, is favored to win the RAN’s competition for three air-defense ships. (Navantia photo)

CANBERRA --- As long predicted by Forecast International, the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer will be selected as the winning design for Australia's AUD7 billion Air Warfare Destroyer. The Defence Capability and Investment Committee - the Defence Department's top policy advisory committee - met last week and endorsed the F100 design offered by Spanish government shipbuilder Navantia. In doing so they emphatically rejected the case for a larger alternative based on the U.S. Arleigh Burke class destroyer.  
 
The key considerations behind the decision were that the F100 build was more than AUD1billion less expensive than the U.S. option and more than two years ahead on the delivery schedule for three warships. The tender evaluation of the two bids submitted by Navantia and Gibbs and Cox had found conclusively in favor of the Spanish on all the key criteria.  
 
Although supporters of the Gibbs and Cox-designed DDG-51 derivative promoted the greater weapons carrying capacity of their design, including 64 rather than 48 vertical launch tubes and two rather than one helicopters, the advantages of the F100 were so strong that a debate between supporters of the two designs was a complete wipeout according to one senior Australian defense source.  
 
The financial benefits resulting from the selection of the F100 are so great that they will go a long way towards funding (some estimates are that they will almost completely accommodate) a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer. The Australian Cabinet's National Security Committee will consider an option to buy a fourth F100 destroyer when it makes a final decision on a go-ahead for the project in June.  
 
Common wisdom has often suggested that the Navantia bid was simply a stalking horse for Gibbs and Cox, which the Government selected in 2005 as its preferred designer. According to this interpretation, Navantia has come from behind six months ago to win the backing of Defence chiefs. Forecast International has never agreed with this perception since the information we were receiving from Australia from the start of the project was consistently that the F100 was the preferred candidate and that the Gibbs and Cox design was a back-up in case the F100 class hit serious problems on its trials. This did not happen, the Alvaro de Bazan proved to be a great success and this eliminated the DDG-51 derivatives last hope of winning this contract.  
 
It may well be that the appointment of Gibbs and Cox as preferred designer in 2005 was not a sign of preference for their design but the group's last chance to make its case.  
 
A key handicap for Gibbs and Cox was that its proposed warship existed only in its preliminary design phase, increasing the technical risk for a local builder. Australia's experiences with new and untried designs has been disappointing with the Collins Class submarines a stark example of everything that can go wrong. The F100 is not the final winner in this competition yet, but the chances of the National Security Committee's decision being overturned are not high.  
 
The air warfare destroyers are due to enter service from 2013, and will be the biggest and most advanced warships in the RAN.  
 
The AUD7 billion program will be Australia's second-biggest defense project in the coming decade, after the AUD14billion joint strike fighter for the air force.  
 
-ends-  
 
source
"[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
 

*

old

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 913
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #13 em: Abril 27, 2007, 06:07:44 pm »
Es lo mas logico. Un barco de 8.000 Tn es muy muy potente, si. Pero solo tienen dinero para fabricar 3 y eso quiere decir que permanentemente tendran como mucho 2 disponibles todo el tiempo y solo 1 en caso de algun imprevisto y eso con las aguas que tiene Australia es muy poco.

Un barco de 6.250 Tn (algo mas la version Australiana) no es tan potente pero a cambio pueden permitirse 4 y disponer siempre de 3 o 2 permanentemente y es mucha diferencia.

Este informe no es vinculante asi que probablemente gane la version de Gibb& Cox por presiones politicas
 

*

SSK

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 1523
  • Recebeu: 13 vez(es)
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #14 em: Maio 24, 2007, 06:37:23 pm »
não somos só nós :?  
Citar
Australian submarine force ‘is in crisis’
Australia’s submarine force is reported to be in crisis through a lack of trained
submariners.
It is claimed that the number of submariners is only 60 per cent of the 270 establishment for
the sixboat force which has forced the Royal Australian Navy to cut the days at sea. An
improved pay and conditions package is being offered in an attempt to boost numbers
especially among electronic and sonar specialists, mechanical and electrical technicians.
Australian press reports suggest there is also a problem with the boats’ periscopes. It is
claimed they require more maintenance than originally envisaged.
However, it is hoped a new type of seawater hose will overcome a problem encountered
four years ago. A failed hose almost sank the submerged HMAS Dechaineux in 2003 and
led to diving depth restrictions which may be eased if the new hose proves successful.
"Ele é invisível, livre de movimentos, de construção simples e barato. poderoso elemento de defesa, perigosíssimo para o adversário e seguro para quem dele se servir"
1º Ten Fontes Pereira de Melo
 

 

NPO "Piloto Pardo" da Armada Chilena

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 50
Visualizações: 18305
Última mensagem Maio 19, 2009, 02:46:09 pm
por luis filipe silva
Armada, Alemanha, França,Inglaterra, TOPS Pesquisa

Iniciado por Heer.Skuda

Respostas: 46
Visualizações: 15941
Última mensagem Julho 04, 2007, 09:29:20 pm
por P44
Kortenaer da Armada dos Emirados Arabes Unidos

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1394
Última mensagem Junho 03, 2004, 09:48:37 am
por P44
As declarações do Chefe de Estado Maior da Armada

Iniciado por Rui Elias

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1039
Última mensagem Junho 07, 2004, 12:26:11 pm
por Rui Elias
Armada Russa - Typhoon Upgraded sea trials

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 1
Visualizações: 1529
Última mensagem Junho 24, 2004, 04:56:56 pm
por JLRC