Skip to comments.LAAD 2013: DCNS reveals Brazilian carrier design
Posted on 04/09/2013 1:54:01 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
LAAD 2013: DCNS reveals Brazilian carrier design
DCNS is offering an adapted version of its PA2 design for a future Brazilian aircraft carrier.
A model of a 60,000t displacement 285m-long PA2 carrier is being shown by the company at the LAAD exhibition in Rio de Janeiro.
Eric Perrot, DCNS surface ships project director, told Shephard that the Brazilian Navy had plans to acquire one or two new aircraft carriers to replace their existing carrier, NAe Sao Paulo, after 2025.
The Brazilian Navy released a request for proposals (RfP) in 2012 for specifications for aircraft carriers and Perrot said that DCNS along with several other companies had responded with the PA2 design. He said that because in the past Brazil had purchased second-hand carriers, a specifications outline had not been required until now.
Perrot noted that following the collapse of the BAE Systems-DCNS collaboration on aircraft carrier design, the French company had continued the design work and produced the PA2 design with conventional propulsion and a catapult assisted launch and recovery system.
From the French side, we see the future is with the catapult system and the Brazilian Navy has a history of using catapult-launched aircraft, Perrot said.
The Brazilian Navy operates the F-4 Skyhawk carrier-based aircraft, which are being upgraded by Embraer, but long-term the aircraft will be replaced. However, it is not expected to select a replacement until the Brazilian Air Force has chosen its next generation fighter under the FX-2 project. The three choices for FX-2 are the F-18, Rafale, and the Gripen.
Because two of those three have carrier variants available it makes sense for the navy to wait until the air force has chosen its FX-2 aircraft and then base its own decision on this, Perrot said.
The Clemenceau-class aircraft carrier Sao Paulo was originally in French Navy service as the Foch and entered Brazilian service in 2000. The 32,800t ship completed an upgrade programme in 2011 and although it is not expected to be replaced until well into the next decade, initial work will have to begin now.
Perrot believes that similar to its submarine and surface ship programmes, the Brazilian Navy will want to build its new ships domestically, with support from experienced international companies to develop an industrial base to carry out this work.
The decision to proceed with the RfP is awaiting governmental approval.
Angled flight deck?
For landing in a crosswind...:)
I’m guessing that there will be no carriers by 2025. Probably, there will be no large manned surface military ships. Missiles are too cheap and numerous. Ships are too high an investment and a bad tradeoff against missiles and unmanned drones.
How else would they land, without an angle?
Hmmmm. And just where does Brazil think it needs to project power? CVs are not defensive weapons.
Sounds like an interesting plane...:)
Runway seems short but maybe its the picture.
Why does Brazil need a carrier? Against whom are they projecting their power?
Will it carry submarine jet fighters too?
Give Obama a little more time and maybe he can give them a surplus US one.
A million dollar tank can be knocked out with a a tow missile, so I guess there will be no more tanks in the future. LOL
“A million dollar tank can be knocked out with a a tow missile, so I guess there will be no more tanks in the future. LOL”
I think the tanks are closer to 50 million. Israel built 1500 Murkavas. I read they’re taking them out of service and replacing them with what appears to be an RPV. (It will take years to do this.) When I worked at General Dynamics on the Abrams, the smallest assembly we sold was a box about the size of 4 packs of cigarettes. It had a few relays in it and cost $45,000.
As for planes, I think due to costs and political exposure if you lose a pilot that we’ll be moving to drones.
From Google Answers. “The M1 Abrams Tank costs around $44.8 million. But modifications for the M1 Abrams tank can make it cost much more.”
That sounds about right. My point with the aircraft carriers is that asymmetrically cheap weapons will keep them out of the very areas they need to be. Mines, torpedo’s, cruise missiles and hyper-speed missiles might not sink it, but they will damage it and send it back to port; making it useless.
Brazil has been operating carriers since 1960. This hardly a radical change.
Brazil has been operating carriers for decades. The new carrier they are looking at will be the third carrier Brazil will have had. Also, Brazil is one of the very few countries (the other two are the US and France) that operate CATOBAR carriers, which use steam catapults and are complicated. Other countries with carriers (Russia, China, India, Italy, Britain, Spain and Thailand) do not operate CATOBAR carriers at present.
As for why they would need a carrier - Brazil is the strongest economy and military in the region, and they happen to also have some of the largest gas reserves, a lot of it offshore. They have always maintained a strong military due to the need to protect their reserves, as well as have deterrence capability in a region that has the likes of Venezuela and Argentina. As a sovereign country, they thought it best to have their own capabilities rather than rely on Uncle Sam's teat, and anyways, Brazil can easily afford such purchases (and, in this case too, without having to rely on aid).
I believe they are working with the French on advanced nuclear powered submarines as well.
Considering many FReepers constantly complain that many countries rely too much on the US for their defense, I think the rise of more and more countries able to maintain their own self-defense should be something to be encouraged. One cannot have it both ways.
They also have a very large coastline. Additionally the terrain and infrastructure of South America is such that with naval power they can project force many places that are hard for their land forces to reach. To get at many of their neighbors they would have to cross high mountains, jungle, etc. Whereas naval power can project force all over. Argentina use to have carriers but doesn’t any more.
Didn’t know that. Cool.
Makes sense to me. Also didn’t know they’d been operating carriers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.