LPD- Navio Polivalente Logístico

  • 5669 Respostas
  • 1328025 Visualizações
*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7484
  • Recebeu: 962 vez(es)
  • +4582/-871
(sem assunto)
« Responder #165 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 04:25:38 pm »
Tem razão Luis Filipe Silva.

De facto a versão lançada de navios tem um alcance bastante menor que o da versão lançada de aeronaves. É no entanto um sistema com capacidade demonstrada de atingir mísseis anti-navio.

Basicamente isto quer dizer que quando atacados por aeronaves ou navios armados com mísseis Harpoon, as corvetas podem defender-se a uma distância considerável.
É muito mais fácil enganar uma pessoa, que explicar-lhe que foi enganada ...
 

*

Jorge Pereira

  • Administrador
  • *****
  • 2235
  • Recebeu: 89 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 122 vez(es)
  • +59/-46
    • http://forumdefesa.com
(sem assunto)
« Responder #166 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 05:00:26 pm »
Citação de: "papatango"

Se até a senhora do PSD se insurgiu contra os submarinos, já podemos até prever o grande líder Louçã de joelhos na assembleia da república a rasgar a roupa histérico.




Desconheço essa situação. Nunca vi ninguém do PSD ou do CDS-PP insurgir-se contra os submarinos.

Aquilo que MFL disse foi que do anterior governo PS transitou a intenção de comprar 3, e que durante o governo de que ela fez parte apenas se avançou com a decisão de comprar 2.

Em relação ao NAVPOL há a assinalar 2 questões:

1-   O desenho do mesmo é uma das contrapartidas dos submarinos.

2-   Consta na LPM.


Se poderá ser ou não construído em Portugal na “íntegra” não sei. Mas se assim não for, pelo menos que partes dele o sejam. Senão, estamos novamente a desperdiçar uma oportunidade de captar conhecimentos, gerar empregos, etc. E se não começarmos um dia por alguma coisa, dificilmente teremos capacidade para construções “integrais” de pelo menos alguns tipos de navios.
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
 

*

migbar2

  • Perito
  • **
  • 334
  • Enviou: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #167 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 10:09:05 pm »
Citação de: "papatango"
Mas se a marinha está preparada para afundar ameaças assimétricas (navios suicidas malucos) o mesmo não acontece em termos de qualquer conflito convencional.






Então o sistema Harpoon serve para...???
 

*

tyr

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 880
  • Recebeu: 2 vez(es)
  • +1/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #168 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 10:33:35 pm »
para afundar uma lancha rapida carregada de explosivos, o Harpoon é overkill (desperdicio de misseis carissimos que existem em quantidades muito limitadas, para destruir um alvo pequeno que pode ser destruido com algo muito menos potente).
é como se para matar um terrorista barricado numa barraca no meio das montanhas afegãs, usasses uma bomba atomica com sistema de ogivas multiplas MIRV (estou a exagerar na comparaçao, mas é para conseguires visualizar).
A morte só é terrivel para quem a teme!!
 

*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7484
  • Recebeu: 962 vez(es)
  • +4582/-871
(sem assunto)
« Responder #169 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 10:37:13 pm »
Migbar: O que queria dizer é que os navios portugueses dependem da protecção de outros contra ataques com mísseis.
É muito mais fácil enganar uma pessoa, que explicar-lhe que foi enganada ...
 

*

migbar2

  • Perito
  • **
  • 334
  • Enviou: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #170 em: Fevereiro 10, 2009, 11:46:10 pm »
Citação de: "papatango"
Migbar: O que queria dizer é que os navios portugueses dependem da protecção de outros contra ataques com mísseis.






Entendi  :D . Mas essa questão continua a ser uma dor de cabeça para grande parte das armadas do mundo e por mais que se melhorem os sistemas de defesa, o missil de ataque continua com a vantagem, ou seja, quem ataca primeiro prevalece sobre quem defende.
Um navio de guerra generalista, que é o que Marrocos terá, poderá eventualmente defender-se de um missil, dois ou três em simultaneo já será demais.
A melhor defesa anti-missil é manter-mos os nossos navios fora do alcance dos misseis adversários e aí a vantagem do Harpoon sobre o Exocet é evidente. Deve-mos dar cada vez mais importancia ao disparo de misseis auxiliado pela orientação de vectores aéreos, vêr primeiro e disparar primeiro é a unica forma de defesa realmente segura, o resto é muito imponderável e resulta sempre muito bem no papel e nos testes controlados pelos fabricantes.
Se a ameaça vem de vectores aéreos então a coisa é muito mais complicada! A verdade é que capacidade de defesa superfície-ar, foi até aqui e continuará a ser no futuro previsivel, o elo mais fraco da defesa militar. A melhor defesa da armada Norte Americana são os seus porta-aviões, por muitas defesas que os seus navios tenham, preferem defender-se e atacar com os aviões e manter os navios em distancia segura e isso já diz tudo!
 

*

teXou

  • Perito
  • **
  • 431
  • +0/-3
(sem assunto)
« Responder #171 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 02:59:48 am »
Citação de: "Jorge Pereira"
... Senão, estamos novamente a desperdiçar uma oportunidade de captar conhecimentos, gerar empregos, etc. E se não começarmos um dia por alguma coisa, dificilmente teremos capacidade para construções “integrais” de pelo menos alguns tipos de navios.

Muito boa análise !  :roll:
"Obviamente, demito-o".

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

http://maismemoria.org
 

*

papatango

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7484
  • Recebeu: 962 vez(es)
  • +4582/-871
(sem assunto)
« Responder #172 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 05:43:09 pm »
Citar
Mas essa questão continua a ser uma dor de cabeça para grande parte das armadas do mundo e por mais que se melhorem os sistemas de defesa, o missil de ataque continua com a vantagem, ou seja, quem ataca primeiro prevalece sobre quem defende.
A questão é:
Nós não temos capacidade para defender de forma eficaz os navios.

A marinha dos Estados Unidos tem uma defesa constituida por quatro camadas.

A primeira são as aeronaves
A segunda são os mísseis de médio alcance / SM-2
A terceira são os mísseis de curto alcance  / ESSM
A quarta são os mísseis / canhões de muito curto alcance RAM/Phalanx.

Nós apenas temos a quarta camada.

-> Não temos nem vamos ter porta-aviões.
-> Não temos navios dedicados à defesa aérea com SM-2
-> As nossas fragatas actuais têm Sea-Sparrow e não ESSM.

É por isso que afirmei que a marinha está numa situação de debilidade.
Exceptuando a Bélgica, todas as marinhas com alguma capacidade já entraram em projectos mais modernos de construção ou modernização:

Noruega
Dinamarca
Reino Unido
Alemanha
Holanda
França
Espanha
Itália
Grécia
Turquia

Do outro lado estão:

Portugal
Bélgica
Irlanda
É muito mais fácil enganar uma pessoa, que explicar-lhe que foi enganada ...
 

*

migbar2

  • Perito
  • **
  • 334
  • Enviou: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #173 em: Fevereiro 11, 2009, 07:34:23 pm »
Citação de: "papatango"
Citar
Mas essa questão continua a ser uma dor de cabeça para grande parte das armadas do mundo e por mais que se melhorem os sistemas de defesa, o missil de ataque continua com a vantagem, ou seja, quem ataca primeiro prevalece sobre quem defende.
A questão é:
Nós não temos capacidade para defender de forma eficaz os navios.

A marinha dos Estados Unidos tem uma defesa constituida por quatro camadas.

A primeira são as aeronaves
A segunda são os mísseis de médio alcance / SM-2
A terceira são os mísseis de curto alcance  / ESSM
A quarta são os mísseis / canhões de muito curto alcance RAM/Phalanx.

Nós apenas temos a quarta camada.

-> Não temos nem vamos ter porta-aviões.
-> Não temos navios dedicados à defesa aérea com SM-2
-> As nossas fragatas actuais têm Sea-Sparrow e não ESSM.

É por isso que afirmei que a marinha está numa situação de debilidade.
Exceptuando a Bélgica, todas as marinhas com alguma capacidade já entraram em projectos mais modernos de construção ou modernização:

Noruega
Dinamarca
Reino Unido
Alemanha
Holanda
França
Espanha
Itália
Grécia
Turquia

Do outro lado estão:

Portugal
Bélgica
Irlanda








Caro colega, só uma questão, o sistema ESSM não era um dos componentes na calha para a modernização dos nossos meios?
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18215
  • Recebeu: 5505 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5874 vez(es)
  • +7132/-9518
(sem assunto)
« Responder #174 em: Fevereiro 12, 2009, 12:22:15 pm »
Citação de: "luis filipe silva"
Papatango escreveu:
Citar
Portanto, Marrocos terá um navio (FREMM) que em principio terá maior capacidade antiaérea (mais que qualquer navio da marinha de Portugal) embora não seja um navio dedicado a essa função, e terá pelo menos três modernos navios (SIGMA) com boa/muito boa capacidade anti-submarina, um dos quais com mísseis anti-aéreos MICA (alcance de até 60km).
Creio que o MICA naval só tem cerca de 15 Km. de alcance. O MICA lançado de avião é que tem 60 Km. de alcance.

Citar
Operation

The pre-launch target designation is downloaded into the missile. The target designation data can be supplied by a radar or optronic surveillance system.

The missile is launched vertically using thrust vector control. The flight is controlled by the programmable strap down inertial mid course guidance system and then by the terminal homing seeker.

The missile's butalite solid propellant booster and sustainer motor gives a maximum speed of greater than Mach 3. The maximum target range is 10,000m and 9,000m altitude. The launch rate between firings is two seconds.


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
"[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
 

*

Sintra

  • Perito
  • **
  • 487
  • Recebeu: 32 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 6 vez(es)
  • +13/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #175 em: Fevereiro 12, 2009, 10:12:58 pm »
Citação de: "migbar2"
A melhor defesa anti-missil é manter-mos os nossos navios fora do alcance dos misseis adversários e aí a vantagem do Harpoon sobre o Exocet é evidente.


 Qual vantagem?!
 

*

antoninho

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 679
  • Recebeu: 109 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 7 vez(es)
  • +11/-10
(sem assunto)
« Responder #176 em: Fevereiro 12, 2009, 11:25:09 pm »
A propósito no outro dia tropecei nisto será que isto está correcto???

Damage Scaling
We need to start coming to a consensus on what we're going to do in this area, since the project is "in trust" of several people instead of being the one-person show that is has been for most of its life. I don't want to go forward unless we have some level of agreement...

Here's what I have so far:

For Missiles:
Damage = [Profile factor]*{[Warhead factor]*(1.528[Warhead Weight]-.013[Warhead Weight]^1.52)+1.02297x10^-7*(.5*[Missile Mass][Missile Speed]^2)}

What that means in English is that the damage of the missile is divided into two principal components, "warhead" and "kinetic energy." It is scaled so that the total damage inflicted by both components reflects objectively the performance of weapons that we have data for (e.g. Exocet v. Stark, SM-1/2 vs. Combatantte, etc.), and subjectively my expectations of how effective they would be (e.g., Kitchen v. Nimitz). Because this scaling is based upon ALL damage done by the missile, other factors other than warhead and KE (such as onboard fuel, fires, and some flooding[flooding will be discussed again later) are absorbed into these categories.

"Warhead" is designed to have a small degree of diminishing marginal returns. This helps bring the high end missiles down a little bit and makes it so multiple hits with a smaller weapon will be slightly better than a single hit with a large weapon. Without this feature, the armor values of ships would get out of control pretty quickly.

The warhead component also has a "Warhead Factor," which is intended to act as a subjective "nerf" for less effective warhead types. For example, the SM-1/2 is given a factor of .5 because it is an antiaircraft weapon with a fragmentary warhead. Similarly, the Styx missile is nerfed at .75 because instead of penetrating the target and exploding inside like most missiles, it fires a shaped charge upon contact with the outside of the target.

The KE component is a straight up KE equation with no scaling, multiplied by a factor designed to make KE account for approximately 1/3 of the damage caused by the largest, fastest missiles. KE is generally not a major damage component for small, subsonic missiles. It does account for a significant amount of the damage done by the SM-1/2, however, because the warhead is nerfed.

The entire amount of damage is also modified by a "profile factor." The profile factor discounts damage done by all weapons not designed to hit near the waterline by 25%. This helps account for the effect of flooding.

The results of this scaling for notable weapons:
Hellfire (15kg warhead): 23
Sea Skua: (28kg): 41*
SM-2 (62kg): 56*
Mav-F (135kg): 139
Penguin (120kg): 168
Exocet (165kg): 225
SS-N-27 (200kg): 290
Harpoon (227kg): 299
Styx (500kg): 345**
BrahMos (300kg): 515
TASM (454kg):556***
Sunburn (320kg): 562***
Kitchen (1000kg): 1066

*Note the effect of the warhead nerf here. The SM-2 has double the warhead of the tiny Sea Skua, but barely outdoes it in damage.
**The Styx suffers from both the warhead nerf and the flight profile nerf, bringing its damage scaling in line with its recorded performance in combat.
***Note the effect of KE here. Despite having a much larger warhead, the TASM does less damage than the Sunburn.

I'm interested in reasoned suggestions for tweaks, but overall I think this works very well and is consistent with the real-life data points that are available.

+++NOTE: gun damage values might also need adjustment; we can either plug them into the equation too or just fudge it based on the smaller weapons like the Hellfire.+++


--------------------------------------------------------
Torpedo Damage

I'm less happy with this. Torpedo damage is complicated because torpedoes get used against both subs and ships, and torpedo damage that would barely scratch the paint on a ship might sink a sub (LWTs). But putting sub Armor low doesn't work for all of them... particularly for very large or double-hulled subs. There's also the problem of the Typhoon being able to take an ADCAP, which means its Armor must be very high...and thus LWTs must also be high enough so that it doesn't take an insane amount of them to bring a Typhoon down.

The best thing we can do, IMO, is to import the UTK detonation feature Luftwolf devised for LWAMI 4 and apply it to appropriate torpedoes. This would allow us to keep the raw damage levels for torpedoes relatively low, which in turn would keep sub armor values reasonable.

But as long as LW if incommunicado, the best thing I can think of is to add a modifier to UTK-capable ASuW torpedoes similar to the profile factor on the missiles. This will help except for the cases of heavyweight multipurpose torpedoes, which will also have the same UTK bonus against submarines. That means the Typhoon is going to have very, very high armor and in turn might force us to raise the damage of LWTs, which in turn forces an increase to the Armor of other subs. So, LW, if you're out there, we could really use you right now before we end up breaking something.

Here's what I've got so far:
Torpedo Damage = 1.564*[Warhead Mass]*[Homing modifier]

Where the homing modifier is effectively the UTK bonus for heavyweight torpedoes, and also a "smart targeting" modifier for advanced LWTs that supposedly can go after the shaft seals. (We could also just call it a fudge factor and apply it to any LWT that cannot target surface ships to help with the scaling problem--they'll do "too much" damage but only to subs that have "too much" armor). The modifier as-is is 1.2 for UTK (which includes influence mines, BTW) and 1.25 to 1.5 for the Mk54 and Mk50 respectively. (Mk50 also has a shaped charge, so it's also a warhead bonus).

Also note that the coefficient is larger here than for missiles, so it already accounts for added flooding over the low flight profile missiles.

Results using this formula:

65-76 (557kg): 871
ADCAP (293kg, UTK): 550
Tigerfish (340kg): 532
53-56K (300kg): 469
UGST (200kg, UTK): 375
USET-80 (200kg, UTK): 375 (Note: info sketchy, warhead may be 300kg)
TEST-71 (205kg): 321

Mobile Mine (450kg, UTK): 845
1000lb mine (283kg, UTK): 531
SLMM (234kg, UTK): 439
Moored Influence (200kg, UTK): 375
Moored Contact (200kg): 313

Mk46 (45kg): 70
Mk54 (45kg, adv homing): 88
UGMT-1 (60kg): 94
Mk50 (45kg, adv. homing & warhead): 106
APR-3 (76kg): 119

I might be willing to simply assume that the reason Russian LWTs have larger warheads is because the warheads are less advanced than their western counterparts. I expect LWT values to be the product of a lot of fudging unless we get the UTK mod imported.
-------------------------------------------------
Ship Armor

This was highly subjective. In essence, I came up with this by listing the ships and ranking them by tonnage. I highlighted the ships which had been damaged in combat (data points). Using the OHP at 500 as a starting points, I filled in the rest based on the data point available, also considering the type of ship (ocean going vs. coastal, military vs. civilian).

I have absolutely no objection to adding modifiers into what is already done here. TLAM has suggested such values may include construction (e.g. Kevlar armor vs. aluminum) and DC competence. But, I do have two strong suggestions in this area: first, keep these factors relatively low to keep the armor values from skyrocketing and creating invincible "super ships," and 2nd, let's keep nationalism to a minimum. I tried to keep this based on tonnage because that's at least an objective measure... let's not get too subjective.

Here is where I'm at right now:

The little guys
Boghammar (6.4t): 20
Houko (80t): 40
Osa (215t): 100
Combatante (275t): 120
Huan MHC (720t): 160
Osprey MHO (873t): 200
Alvand (1100t): 350
Grisha (1100t): 350

Reminder:
Hellfire: 23
Sea Skua: 41
SM-2: 56
Mav-F: 139
Penguin: 168
Harpoon: 299

The ships in this area tend to under-survive according to the data points, however it needs to be recognized that those ships were essentially killed well before they sunk. They were continued to be beaten on when they were slowly sinking hulks, until such time as they decided to go down fast.

Medium Warships
Jiangwei (2300t): 400
Krivak (3900t): 500
Type 42 (4100t): 400*
Perry (4100t): 500
Alligator LST (4700t): 400
Kashin (5000t): 600
Sovremennyy (7900t): 800
Burke (8300t): 800
Tico (10000t): 950

*The Type 42 is conspicuously nerfed because of its demonstrated poor damage capacity. It is not nerfed all the way down to a single Exocet kill, however, because in all probability that result was partially due to good/back luck (i.e., fire main hit).

Reminder:
Exocet: 225
Harpoon: 299
Styx: 345
Sunburn: 562
Kitchen: 1066

65-76: 871
ADCAP: 550
Tigerfish: 532
53-56K: 469
UGST: 375
USET-80: 375


The smaller ships in this class can expect to be crippled by most ASCMs, and killed by multiple hits or by a large ASCM. The larger ships can expect a to survive a few small, slow ASCMs but will not fare well against the big boys. 1-2 torpedoes is typically enough to bring down ships of these classes.

Capital Ships
Slava (12500t): 1000
Ivan Rogov (14000t): 1000
Harpers Ferry LSD: (16000t): 1000
Invincible (22400t): 1500
Kirov (26000t): 1500
De Gaulle (38000t): 1700
Wasp (41000t): 1700
Kuznetsov (68000t): 2000
Nimitz (97000t): 2300

Reminder:
Harpoon: 299
TASM: 556
Sunburn: 562
Kitchen: 1066

65-76: 871
ADCAP: 550
53-56K: 469
UGST: 375
USET-80: 375

Ships in these classes are only killed quickly by torpedoes and larger missiles. But, they are still kept low enough that kills with the smaller missiles are still reasonably possible.

Other Surface
Small civilian craft and landing craft range from 20-40, while merchants and auxiliaries range from 200-600.

Subs
I haven't messed with them specifically yet.

Suggested working values:
Standard SSK: 50
Survivable SSK: 75
SSN: 100
Large SSN: 125
SSBN: 150

Reminder:
Mk46: 70
Mk54: 88
Mk50: 106
UGMT-1: 94

Mav-F: 139
Penguin: 168

Adjustments can be made if necessary to continue Luftwolf's policy of assuring that every playable submarine can be killed by a single hit from any playable platform's ASW weapons. For the record though, I have no problem with, e.g., the double-hulled Akula being able to survive a single LWT hit provided that hit does enough system damage to achieve a mission kill.

(I've played around with the idea of doing this for MANPADs vs. aircraft too, but for some reason even if I set the missile damage below the aircraft's armor value, it still gets shot down with a single hit. Maybe I don't know how to edit the DB after all... or maybe DW's just being weird.)

http://www.commanders-academy.net/project.php?issueid=2
 

*

migbar2

  • Perito
  • **
  • 334
  • Enviou: 1 vez(es)
  • +0/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #177 em: Fevereiro 12, 2009, 11:28:19 pm »
Citação de: "Sintra"
Citação de: "migbar2"
A melhor defesa anti-missil é manter-mos os nossos navios fora do alcance dos misseis adversários e aí a vantagem do Harpoon sobre o Exocet é evidente.

 Qual vantagem?!





Caro Sintra, para um vaso de guerra que pretenda manter-se numa posição defensiva, a distancia é a melhor arma. A área de cobertura do Harpoon é superior á do Exocet anunciado para equipar os ditos vasos de guerra Marroquinos. A tendencia é aumentar a distancia coberta por estes meios, claro que devido á curvatura da terra, depois dos 40 ou 50 km, só com a ajuda de meios aéreos para localizar o alvo é que se poderá tirar rendimento desses misseis, mas isso nos dias de hoje já é obvio.
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 18215
  • Recebeu: 5505 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 5874 vez(es)
  • +7132/-9518
(sem assunto)
« Responder #178 em: Março 09, 2009, 10:39:24 am »
do mp.net


Italian navy new class of LHDs

Interesting part from the document "The renewal of the Italian Navy Fleet in the 2010-2020 time-frame" by Admiral Tortora, head of the italian navy new constructions department.

The need for new, more performing LHDs is strongly perceived as one of the higher priorities of the
Navy. As far as the operational scenarios are concerned, missions and tasks will be carried out
mostly in the proximity of coastal waters and/or in narrow and shallow basins.
Threat is considered mostly asymmetrical, deriving from small terrorist groups, equipped with
medium-low technology off-the-shelf weapons. Recent events call for the necessity to keep a clear
tri-dimensional maritime and coastal picture against a wide spectrum of threats available to the
counterpart (i.e. fast boats, explosive pontoons and fishing boats, conventional or improvised naval
mines, radio controlled explosive aircraft and vessels, rockets, light artillery, etc.).
Less likely, but still possible, threats might be performed by air and naval conventional assets, such
as aircraft, frigates and destroyers or submarines.

- Operational Capabilities

The perspective tonnage of the ship is 16.000-17.000, large enough to accommodate 600 marines,
plus about 120 crew members and about 130 add-ons for the flight and medical components. On
the whole, the accommodation capacity required is 850 berths, with different accommodation
standards.
It is considered that a low cost active defence systems should be sufficient to provide a limited selfdefence
capability to counter fast boats and UAV.
It is also required to include passive and active measures in order to ensure the survivability of the
ship in case of a mine or torpedo explosion, as well as to adopt torpedo detection or deception
systems on board.
In principle the ship will be designed and built in accordance with merchant ships regulations and
standards, pursuing high reliability and easy maintainability.
Although the type of propulsion is not yet defined, it is deemed necessary to be able to maintain a
continuous speed of at least 20-22 knots with sea state 3, even though a NATO requirement for this
type of unit foresees a speed in excess of 24 knots. The ship shall have an endurance up to 7000
nautical mile at 16 knots.

- Macro-function “Amphibious Warfare”

The ship shall be able to transport, launch, support and withdraw a Landing Force and the related
assets. Therefore, she shall have:
⇒ capability to transport, land and re-embark a CLF Brigade Command Post;
⇒ accommodation for the landing forces for up to 5 combat days;
⇒ capability to launch – through 5 spots3 – up to 8 helicopters, 6 capable of carrying out a
company’s assault operations and 2 capable of close air support;
⇒ capability to recover in hangar up to 5 helicopters;
⇒ capability to launch and recover amphibious personnel and assets (for a total of 1.200
linear meters, equivalent to about 180 vehicles including tanks and armored vehicles)
using also the ship’s dock and the 50% of the flight deck4;
⇒ a ship’s dock made of suitable structure to carry 4 LCM (Landing Craft, Mechanized)
and to allow vehicle loading and unloading activities of 2 LCM inside the dock
simultaneously (the possibility to make the ship interoperable with Landing Craft Air
Cushion and/or Partial Air Cushion has to be evaluated);
⇒ a rail trolley system over the dock deck capable to move at least 30 tons of materials;
⇒ adequate flexibility for shipload reshaping (vehicles and materials) also at sea, thanks
to rail trolley/moving palette system/supply elevators, foreseeing possible use of the
hangar if necessary.

- Macro-function “Command Control Communications” (C3)

The ship will be fitted with a C3 integrated system, including wide-band satellite systems and local
area networks for information delivery inside the ship. The possibility to board and operate a
Composite Warfare Command tasked as CATF/CLF has to be defined.
However, the ship will be provided with adequate C4I capabilities in order to be able to maintain a
local air/maritime picture for the co-ordination of the naval and land assets in the operational
scenario.

- Macro-function “Defence”

The ship shall be provided with self-defence capability (artillery and machine-guns systems) against
asymmetrical threats coming from all the directions and filtered in through the security framework
provided by the escort combat ships.
Besides, the ship shall have the capability to operate under CBRN threat and, in case of this
occurrence, to provide collective defence to personnel and on-board equipments/systems, in order
to permit:
⇒ the recovery and reclaiming of personnel and vehicles;
⇒ the manoeuvre of the ship, in safeness, outside the contaminated area.

- Macro-function “Medical Support”

The active role that this ship must be able to play in disaster relief situations is a design constraint
of high relevance. As far as the possible missions are concerned, the medical arrangements should
be able to ensure at least a “ROLE 2 PLUS”5 for managing the following events:
⇒ surgical reception and treatment of casualties evacuated from the combat areas;
⇒ management of a massive medical emergency (crash on the flight deck, reception of
personnel evacuated by another attacked or burnt down ship);
⇒ surgery management of the embarked personnel;
⇒ radiological and laboratory diagnostics,
⇒ routine or emergency medical assistance;
⇒ dental treatment.
At least 50 beds for in-patients and an adequate number of beds for intensive/semi-intensive care
patients (with at least 15 days autonomy) shall be provided, as well a modern hospital area
equipped with a triage reception to select casualties from the battle field and the ships. Telemedicine
equipments will be available to increase the treatment capabilities.
In order to arrange the above mentioned medical structures, an area of approximately 700 square
meters is required. In case of disaster relief event, the ship’s medical capabilities shall be increased
through a system of modular medical shelters.
In order to meet the requirement specifically related to disaster relief activities, the ship will be
equipped with:
⇒ a fresh water desalinization system capable of supplying up to 150 tons per day through
pumping pipelines;
⇒ emergency power system to supply shore buildings accommodating up to 1000 people.


Landing Helicopter Dock:

Length Over All 165,0 m
Length Between Perpendicular 147,0 m
Beam max 31,0 m
Full Load Displacement abt. 16.000 t
Corresponding Draft abt. 6,3 m
Flight deck height abt. 24,5 m
Main Garage Deck height 8,5 m
Speed: 22 n
Range: 7.000 nm at cruise speed
Accommodation: up to 900 (150 crew+700 troops)
Command & Control: up to 300 m2 available
Flight deck: 5 spots for EH 101 or 7 smaller helos
Helo hangar: parking area for 5 EH 101
Vehicle deck: up to 1.200 metric lanes
Hospital area: 700 m2 + 1.000 m2 convertible area.
Floodable dock: 50 x 15 m
Vehicle ramps 1 stern 1 side (60 t)



o documento pode ser obtido aqui na totalidade

The renewal of the Italian Navy Fleet in the 2010-2020 time-frame

http://www.fisa.cl/marketing/EXPONAVAL_ ... 0-2020.pdf
"[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
 

*

Sintra

  • Perito
  • **
  • 487
  • Recebeu: 32 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 6 vez(es)
  • +13/-0
(sem assunto)
« Responder #179 em: Março 10, 2009, 02:28:15 pm »
Citação de: "migbar2"
Citação de: "Sintra"
Citação de: "migbar2"
A melhor defesa anti-missil é manter-mos os nossos navios fora do alcance dos misseis adversários e aí a vantagem do Harpoon sobre o Exocet é evidente.

 Qual vantagem?!




Caro Sintra, para um vaso de guerra que pretenda manter-se numa posição defensiva, a distancia é a melhor arma. A área de cobertura do Harpoon é superior á do Exocet anunciado para equipar os ditos vasos de guerra Marroquinos. A tendencia é aumentar a distancia coberta por estes meios, claro que devido á curvatura da terra, depois dos 40 ou 50 km, só com a ajuda de meios aéreos para localizar o alvo é que se poderá tirar rendimento desses misseis, mas isso nos dias de hoje já é obvio.


 Mas Marrocos já declarou qual a versão do Exocet que vai adquirir?!
 Vou ficar muito surpreso se não for o MM40 Block 3...