UK - Porta aviões

  • 3 Respostas
  • 3129 Visualizações
*

Mar Verde

  • Membro
  • *
  • 228
  • +0/-0
UK - Porta aviões
« em: Maio 03, 2007, 10:15:03 am »
Citar
The Navy’s £100bn flight of fancy
Are two new aircraft carriers being built for all the wrong reasons, asks ROBERT FOX


Just when the Army is complaining about the critical need for new Land Rovers in Afghanistan, a row is developing behind the scenes over plans to spend a fortune on two aircraft carriers for the Navy.

The expense is so high - possibly £100bn in all - that it dwarfs the controversy over the Trident replacement programme. And, just as with Trident, senior defence experts are asking whether the carriers are even necessary.

For once the Government cannot blame the media for the controversy, because the project has been almost entirely concealed from public gaze.

The row dates back to the Strategic Defence Review of 1998, when the Government declared its intention of acquiring two full-size aircraft carriers for the fleet.

Nine years down the line, it was planned to place contracts to build the two 60,000 tonne ships, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales, with a new streamlined consortium headed by BAe and Thales UK. The initial build would cost £3.6bn, though the second vessel would cost about 12 per cent more because it wouldn't be ready until 2020.

But that's just the bill for the two hulls. On top come the combat systems, radar, communications and weapons equipment that haven't even been designed yet. Finally there are the aircraft - the American F-35 Joint Strike Fighter made by Lockheed Martin, likely to cost $48m (£24m) each. The entire cost of building and equipping the two carriers could be as much as £100bn.

But are they worth it? And are the carriers what the armed forces need in a new era of warfare?

The debate strikes to the heart of British foreign policy and strategy, and the tangled web of British defence/industrial policy, an obstacle no government has been able to tackle since 1945.

The Navy says it needs the carriers to remain a credible force in the era of so-called 'expeditionary' warfare. The big contractors like BAe say they need the carrier order to remain in the naval shipbuilding business - though the irony is that if the order goes ahead, a large force of skilled deep welders will probably have to be imported from Poland.

BAe apparently used the same argument to push the government into announcing that they would replace the present Trident ballistic missile force with new submarines, weapons and bases - at a cost of around £25bn according to the government, but at least £76bn over 30 years according to Greenpeace.

Experts now fear that the carrier project will be even more expensive than the Trident replacement, and are concerned that taxpayers are not being let in on the true dimensions of the deal. Some in the Navy wonder whether it can even man and maintain such large ships, which will require sea and air crew of more than 3,000 each.

Gordon Brown says the Navy can have the carriers provided the cost comes out of the budget he has set the MoD for the next three years, which would mean the Army would have to delay yet again plans to replace its ageing vehicles now on their last legs in Afghanistan. Both Brown and Defence Secretary Des Browne broadly support the carrier plan, as it would bring work to the Clyde and the Forth, close to their constituencies.

Among the critics are Sir Michael Quinlan, former senior civil servant at the MoD, and the Falklands Task Force commander Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward who says the planned carriers are far too big, and to make them work you need three and not two.

The truth is, they are hardly appropriate for the era of Osama bin Laden and Darfur. By the time the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can fly off a carrier, most aerial surveillance will be from pilotless planes, missiles and space satellites. If the carriers are built, it will be to satisfy the desires and needs of industry and constituency politics.



FIRST POSTED MAY 3, 2007

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php ... subID=1361
 

*

emarques

  • Especialista
  • ****
  • 1178
  • +1/-0
Re: UK - Porta aviões
« Responder #1 em: Maio 06, 2007, 04:09:50 pm »
Citação de: "Mar Verde"
Citar
The truth is, they are hardly appropriate for the era of Osama bin Laden and Darfur. By the time the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can fly off a carrier, most aerial surveillance will be from pilotless planes, missiles and space satellites. If the carriers are built, it will be to satisfy the desires and needs of industry and constituency politics.

E?! Os F-35 não é suposto estarem lá para rebentar com o que a vigilância aérea encontrar? O que é que importa de os "vigilantes" são tripulados ou não?
Ai que eco que há aqui!
Que eco é?
É o eco que há cá.
Há cá eco, é?!
Há cá eco, há.
 

*

SANTACRUZ

  • 61
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #2 em: Maio 06, 2007, 07:49:12 pm »
nao sei onde que li mais acho que foi num journal ingles que eles 'os ingleses' estao a investigar a posibilidade de um CUAV  'Combat Unmanned Air Veichle'

por isso talvez o JSF estiaja 'inútil' mais os CUAV vao sempre precisar pista para descolar.

especialmente se estao operando no exterior invadir algum pobre país.
IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
 

*

Sintra

  • Perito
  • **
  • 470
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #3 em: Maio 06, 2007, 11:59:39 pm »
Citação de: "SANTACRUZ"
nao sei onde que li mais acho que foi num journal ingles que eles 'os ingleses' estao a investigar a posibilidade de um CUAV  'Combat Unmanned Air Veichle'

por isso talvez o JSF estiaja 'inútil' mais os CUAV vao sempre precisar pista para descolar.

especialmente se estao operando no exterior invadir algum pobre país.


 Coisas diferentes.
 O planeamento da RAF prevê nas próximas duas décadas a existência de 7 esquadrões operacionais de "Tiffies", 4 esquadrões de F35B que irão substituir a "Joint Force Harrier" (dois dos esquadrões serão RN e serão o 800 e 801), mais dois esquadrões de F35B que serão a parte "manned" do substituto da frota de Tornados GR4, mais uma força de UCAV´s (UCAV-Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle).
 A BAE trabalha num protótipo de demonstração de 8 toneladas chamado "TARANIS" (grande nome) que por sua vez se baseia noutro protótipo mais pequeno que voou em 2003 chamado "Raven".
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frheft/ ... R0702f.htm
http://147.29.80.132/newsroom/2006/dec/071206news1.htm

 Quanto ao texto, está tão coberto de erros, tem tantos nºs errados (todos, aliás) que não tem qualquer credibilidade, se o homem queria escrever um texto bombástico mais valia ter feito os trabalhos de casa... O que não é dificil, pois o site do Richard Beedall tem tudo o que uma pessoa precisa de saber sobre o CVF.
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/

 Abraços  :wink:
 

 

O Novo Porta-Helicópteros Francês, "Mistral"

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 3
Visualizações: 2318
Última mensagem Setembro 16, 2004, 04:24:05 pm
por emarques
Novo Destroyer/Porta-helicópteros Japonês

Iniciado por P44

Respostas: 5
Visualizações: 2922
Última mensagem Outubro 22, 2004, 09:30:14 am
por P44
"Um tiro no porta-aviões"

Iniciado por emarques

Respostas: 17
Visualizações: 5976
Última mensagem Novembro 01, 2008, 04:04:37 am
por Nuno
Explosão no Porta-Aviões "São Paulo"

Iniciado por Paisano

Respostas: 11
Visualizações: 3390
Última mensagem Junho 27, 2005, 08:36:01 pm
por JLRC
O projecto anglo-fancês para a construção de um porta-aviões

Iniciado por Rui Elias

Respostas: 8
Visualizações: 3419
Última mensagem Junho 09, 2004, 06:59:05 pm
por Spectral