harryRIEDLWhat difference; if any, to manning levels would a cvf having nuclear propulsion (other feature remaining the same)?
an increase of significant expensive nuke trained engineers and more crew for steam turbines
harryRIEDLI already asked a Brazilian guy for an official link of that list, if and when I get it I will post it here.
ps- Don’t forget the findings of vast oil fields on the brazilian coast, plus the reactivation of the 4th fleet, among other things…
also the construciton of a new naval base in the North (Maranhão) seems almost certain…
meanwhile here is a link form the OFFICIAL SITE OF THE BRAZILIAN NAVY
http://www.mar.mil.br/peamb.html(It does not go into much detail as the “wish list” (as you put it) but it shares some light on the subject
thanks alot for the info. Im not denying modernization but 97 BILLION on defense and only navy related seems like a much too large figure to plausible when you look at how much Brazil has been spending in recent years (i.e second hand equipment). The official site is far more modest and sounds more like a Def review. It dose talk about modernization true but doesn’t specify anything.
it Mentions 7.5b Reals im not sure if thats the budget cumulatively(as it mentions a for one year) or for the whole program
harryRIEDLsounds very much like a wish list. I would have expected contracts more than just ‘we want this fleet’. Sounds a little fanboyish no gov info just the name of a government program. I would have expected quote from a Def, Min to be talking about this and i don’t see it on either of the links and their would be much more info on all the various forgine desgines.
The link at the bottom is far more modest a replacement of the Vosper Frigates with a Hobart class as a possibility. My cynicism means i can’t take it seriously as their has been no evidence of Brazil spending such a huge amount on defense. If the Junta was in charge I might have believed it but a left wing ex trade unionist not so much.
I have a feeling the link isn’t genuine
harryRIEDLno reason why a freshly designed ski-jump carrier can’t take the rafale.
but I do agree, an LPD makes much better sense for them than a carrier. frankly, south america’s military situation doesn’t warrant a carrier.
but the article also says :
If the replacement is in 2025 it will be 62 years old:eek: even if they don’t use it all that often they will be competing with India for oldest Carrier in Commission.
That seems a bit of a political reply as 2025 so far in the future. Its more of a statement of intent. Especially as the plan has the Brazilians running San Paulo longer than Minas Gerais
harryRIEDLFlubba, take a look at this – Brazilian naval plans.
OPVs, AOR, frigates, “LPH” (but sounds like LHD from the description – Mistral-class is mentioned) . . . The OPV & AOR programmes are to start next year, & seem to be pretty well defined.
Lots of Ifs and Buts in the article. Im Curious were the biggest Mil dry dock in Brazil can’t find any info about that.
Dose seem quite clear but the article is aware that its in compotion with Army and Air force so the plans could go into deep freeze like the SSN program.
Mistrals seem to be popular everybody seems to be describing them as their prefect vessels. I still want somebody to build the TKMS MRD/MESHED(i think thats right) I just like its utilitarian design and its focus on versatility.
One last question whats the fleet for, Its got a carrier and lots of frigates and corvettes for what? Its not like the Europeans who have NATO and other commitments its not like Asia where theirs lots of tensions im just curious
harryRIEDLWell this thread went off topic really fast. Brazil’s best bet would mainly depend on the outcome of the current fighter competition if the Rafale is chosen I would say adding the Naval version to a larger fleet would be a wise move. The CVF might be an option if France decides to build PA2 they could build an additional unit for and with cooperation of Brazil however the UK might block the sale or access to the design. There are no real alternatives for a CATOBAR carrier as the CdG derivative would need re-design work and would still not be ideal due to its compact size. The option of a new design would be very costly and possibly hard to justify within brazil especially when something could be bought cheaper or the money simply spent on other things.
I would even ask why Brazil needs a replacement carrier I know they have one now but many nations have had one in the past and going for more useful vessels such as amphibious ships would be an idea and better use of funds. Chile is again looking into acquiring such a ship and doing the same would be a better idea than going for an expensive display carrier. The option that looks suitable is the Mistral class which is made in France who Brazil seem to be doing lots of business with, who knows next could be some FREMM frigates to go with those subs and possible carrier or LPH.
Just my thoughts:D
According to HK the designs were quite far advanced for the follow on CdG designs I.E Romeo and Juliet drafts. I still have difficulity imagining that Brazil would build such a large New build carrier San Paulo is only 24,000 tons light and 32,000 loaded. With the rest of the fleet quite limited(i.e old ships not all the T-22 manned lots need to be upgraded and replaced) I couldn’t see the navy wanting build a huge carrier, especially as the Brazilians have frankly crap logistics for carrier operations two small tankers with Almirante Gastão Motta at 10,300 Tons being larger than marajo, and one smaller tanker which makes fleet support marginal at most already considering the quite large fleet of ships which they to have support already. If they were serious about carriers we see lots of quite large orders for AOR, Tankers general logistic vessels long before any 50,000 ton plus CATOBAR carrier.
One last problem I see is political as Brazil is trying to build a huge force its selling itself as an honest broker and a diplomatic soft power (i.e permanent member of UN security council). I can see it being a hard sell.
I can see an LPH being very useful Parts of Brazil’s amphib fleet is quite new such as the Round Tables bought from Britain but the potiantial for the older vessels to replaced by LHD,LPH,LSD,LPD seem a good idea I like the Idea of MRD-150 for Brazil as deals with logistic as well being able to act as replenishment vessel
Any idea if any of Mil Ports in Brazil have space something for something CdG size.
harryRIEDLI think the Chinook buy number is overstated.
Where are the maintainers coming from? This applies to any increase in numbers.
might not be so significant if BAE/VT or whoever deals with the major maintenance. As is done partly by contractors. So the boost in numbers shouldn’t be too disruptive
harryRIEDLpaying them off early wouldn’t be looked at too fondly by those that print tomorrows chip wrappers.
the need for the perpetual production of vessels is something that has been forgotten (although originally T42 replacements were due as soon as T23 finished falling off the slips.) and applies to submarines too (Decade between Vengeance and Astute, 16 years between Triumph and Astute.)
Talk of building more T23s isn’t helping me rid myself of the fixation with a new GP T23 mk.2 with WR-21s, leccy motors, Artisan, CAMM, A modern looking superstructure with a bridge dominated by HUGE windows(everyone knows the better it looks the better it performs, hence Nimrod mk.3), Merlin and Camcopters totting LMM…
Just thinking how small douse the platform have to be to operate camcopters could you operate them off the mine hunters, (thinking very small anti mine craft or to use the mine hunters as patrolers)
harryRIEDLIndeed. If people would stop thinking about CVF as a scaled-down US-style CVN & instead start thinking of it as a USS America (LHA-6) on steroids, they should have a better understanding.
Read what the USN says about it.
http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=27386
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=38154
I think the problems is how the CVF’s look as they look like scale down CVN’s rather than a massive axel decks so people think Nimitz rather than America (new not old)
harryRIEDLStan i almost choked on my Pizza and laid an egg when i read the thread title thankfully it aint that bad. If they did cancel one of the carriers my MSP and MP would be hearing from me. Hopefully the powers at be are convinced the RN has taken it’s share of the pain and leaves them alone, though with the level of seablindness in the UK as a whole this looks unlikely.
One Question that is raised in my mind is should defence really be cut, most of the big ticket things are needed for one reason or another. Although i concede they are very poorly defined and managed by the MoD, Industry and meddled with by politicians wanting to safeguard votes and thinking they know best. I think the defence establishment needs better management and less political interference rather than cutting it’s tiny budget in a time when we are at war.
In regards to the F-35 comments, i would prefer that all of them were under FAA control and the RAF used a single fast jet type. I see very little problem with the Typhoon being the only RAF fast jet as it can carry and deploy almost all the GR4 weapons therefore do it’s mission. In reality UCAV’s should come into play in a few years time even if they are off the shelf buys from the USA and these should be able to do the bulk of strike work. So nope no quibbles from me about having an all Typhoon RAF fast jet force.
In my opinion Defense should be ring fenced from cuts (well maybe somethings could be trimmed) but on the whole it should be ring fenced. The problem with political interference is a problem but the shiny kit bought for the service is always used for political aims so meddling is a sad necessity especially with this centralizing urges from New Labour.
harryRIEDLMore T45’s are needed and thats a fact most people agree with. The RN will never want to put a C1 somewhere where it should not be without a DDG but the politicians pull the strings and could overrule the RN mind you it would be daft but it happens in other services. The problem is even with a destroyer near by say with an Amphib it only has a bubble about 60nm wide. So if the T45 is busy it cant break off to go help a C1 that needs help if it does then the amphib is in danger. Also even although the Radar system on a T45 is ‘the worlds best’ then it still cant see over the horizon that far.
I know im being unrealistic in ways but hey thats just me thinking about scenarios.
some of the more hopeful members of warship1 say that T-45 7&8 could be ordered in between the gaps of C1/C2 program. Just reamber how far apart some of the orders were for other classes of ship
harryRIEDL[QUOTE=Flubba;1460283]Yeah things have not been moving much recently after the election i would expect things to be more active. Richard Beedall for defence minister anyone? He’d get my vote no problem. (
harryRIEDLThe Belfast had four Tynes, & had 50% more take-off weight than a contemporary C-130. A Transall carries 80% of the cargo of a C-130 (admittedly, over a shorter range) on just two Tynes. Why not just buy more Belfasts, if a more powerful, heavier-lift transport was wanted?
Well its only something that i came across just browsing and was suprised but here it is
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey)
I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 49 and 57 together.
No orders or formal contracts have yet been placed for the supply of C130 and F4 aircraft for the Royal Air Force. As I said in a Written Answer on 11th February, arrangements have been made with the Government of the United States which will enable us to make a small initial order of both types of aircraft with options to buy more when the Government have decided the number of aircraft required in the light of the present defence review.
This arrangement became effective on the afternoon of 9th February, 1965, after signature by the United States Secretary for Defence—following my own signature on 8th February.
Detailed discussions are now in hand with the United States Government about the initial aircraft orders. They will cover such matters as the procurement of British equipment, including the Spey engine for the F4 and the possible installation of the Tyne engine in the C130. The final cost of these aircraft will depend on the arrangements made for the incorporation of British equipment.
harryRIEDLAn interesting thing i just read is that HMS Vanguard is being fitted with the new Core H for it’s PWR2 reactor. The rest of the SSBN’s will be fitted with this core as they go through refueling refit. This is the same reactor core that is being fitted to the Astute class to allow them no need to be refuelled during their life time. This technically will allow the Vanguards to run for another 25 years before requiring refuelling. If this is the case what is the main reason the Vanguard’s can’t be keep on for longer?
I would think the hull was pretty strong and could keep going until the american’s have the new missile ready and are replacing the Ohio’s. Look at HMS Sceptre see was launched in 1979 and will keep going until 2010 at least.
What are the main issues that are preventing the RN from SLEPing for 10 years?
none other than cost as far as i can see
harryRIEDLWe’ve already paid about 25% of the bill, for development & setting up production. Do the penalty clauses mean we get it all back if we cancel?
Clobbers the British firms building large parts of it, as well, if we cancel & buy American. Neither C-17 nor C-130J have significant UK content, unlike A400M.
engines in the C-130 are British owned these days (Allison part of RR) agreeded neither are UK built.
On another note a little of OT according to an old Hansard the UK gov planed to re-engine the C-130K’s with the RR Tyne apart from a few mentions in Hansard I have no specifics of what the changes would have done as the Tyne is a more powerful engine I assume the C-130 would have to be altered to deal with the power
Sign In
