Brazilian Naval Strength

[RobWilliams]

MBDA presenting the ANL/FASGW(H) at LAAD 2013

Google Translate

Even though the program was launched has not been confirmed by Paris, the European MBDA missile advantage of LAAD exhibition, which opened yesterday in Rio, to present its missile ANL (light anti-ship). Presentation on the stand Helibras, the machine sat between two EC725 of the Brazilian defense, one belonging to the navy and the other in the air force.

These are not, however these platforms that are directly referred to the sale of ANL in the country. Brazilian Navy, which operates a dozen helicopters Super Lynx anti-surface, anti-ship missile is currently using the Sea Skua, the same one that the British Royal Navy intends to replace with ANL. Integration of these devices would have meaning.

In the longer term, the local marine also intends to establish a new naval helicopter light (class EC145) to strengthen its capacity in terms of maritime surveillance and anti-surface. A program that has not yet been formally launched but could also lead to an integration of the ANL.

Franco-British side, the program is still awaiting a green light from Paris to start developing proper form of the missile, which has already been the subject of several projects to reduce risk. A situation that could be released in the coming days, according to some sources in Paris.

In terms of naval warfare, MBDA has also AM39 Exocet missile LAAD her, held by the Brazilian Navy to equip 16 EC725 version of "naval" whose development is currently being carried out by Helibras. These machines are equipped with the standard AM39 "scanned" Block 2 Mod 2, similar to the Rafale is carried off Naval Aviation.

The iffy English is from the translation, but it brings up some interesting possibilities of the Brazilians replacing their current Lynx with the Wildcat with the ANL/FASGW(H) in turn replacing Sea Skua

But the most promising part is that if Brazil came on board, the program wouldn't be sufficated by French inaction.

 

[Ananda]

It's important to remember that buying a limited number of naval Gripens will be the same situation as if they choose Rafale IIRC. The Rafale itself isn't carrier capable across the board, there are Air Force variants (B, C) and then there's a Navy variant (M), so that's not a problem. Not sure how it goes on the SH.

Yes, but Rafale M already operational, but not Navalised Grippen. I'm more concern on sensibility of overal costs. Chossing Grippen means Navalised Grippen for the Navy, and thus put overal development costs only for 20-30+ airframes. If the FX-2 outcome will also choose by the Navy, then 'economic wise' only SHornet and Rafale that still make sense.

Rafale M is not exist on large populations, but in my mind it's on different condition (again on cost/economic wise) compared to non existance (yet) navalised Grippen. French can reduce the prices (i,e, take higher costs M to cross subsidise with B/C deal), simply because the development cost already paid. That will not be for navalised Grippen.

That's why, I do tend see odd that Grippen still being considered for FX-2, unless SAAB will took some of navalised Grippen costs on their own (i,e, sell at lost for navalised versions), just to keep the program going.

 

[RobWilliams]

Perhaps you should be more concerned about the economics of the entire situation rather than one dimension; procurement. Economically, the Gripen is by far the cheapest to procure and operate. Brazilian companies are already included in the supply chain and Saab has done some serious investing in the defence industry in Brazil. It offers by far the most beneficial economic deal for Brazil.

Don't just think about procurement costs, it's more complex than that.

Considering the delays in the contest over and over again due to the performance of Brazil's economy, unless it picks up by a fair amount then the fact that the Gripen is severely cheaper than any of the competitors will be a big influence.

That being said, I believe it would be incredibly interesting to see if the Brazilian carrier becomes what PA2 should have been for the French.

Gunna chuck this in, but it's from Saab so grain of salt at the ready

Sea Gripen's Phase One Design Work Completed - Gripen

Tony Ogilvy, Saab’s Aeronautics UK General Manager and Head of the Sea Gripen Design Centre, told IHS Jane’s that after years of preliminary design and pre-feasibility work, plans for a carrier based version of the platform would be brought to fruition by a team of Swedish and UK engineers by the end of August.

“Our job was to take the design to a point where we could say ‘yes, Saab can build a marine variant’, and we have achieved that “ he said.

The Gripen needed a number of changes to make it carrier compatible, according to Saab.These included strengthened landing gear, an arrestor hook, an attachment mechanism for the aircraft to the catapult launch shuttle, as well as making sure the aircraft is marinised to prevent salt water erosion.

 

[Spacearrow99]

Perhaps you should be more concerned about the economics of the entire situation rather than one dimension; procurement. Economically, the Gripen is by far the cheapest to procure and operate. Brazilian companies are already included in the supply chain and Saab has done some serious investing in the defence industry in Brazil. It offers by far the most beneficial economic deal for Brazil.

Don't just think about procurement costs, it's more complex than that.

Considering the delays in the contest over and over again due to the performance of Brazil's economy, unless it picks up by a fair amount then the fact that the Gripen is severely cheaper than any of the competitors will be a big influence.

That being said, I believe it would be incredibly interesting to see if the Brazilian carrier becomes what PA2 should have been for the French.

Gunna chuck this in, but it's from Saab so grain of salt at the ready

Sea Gripen's Phase One Design Work Completed - Gripen

The Brazilian carrier program will probably be a joint program with the MN. During mid 2020s most of the French navy's procurement programs will be complete meaning money for atleast one new carrier.

 

[RobWilliams]

I'll believe it when I see any sort of official talk remotely like it, i've not seen anything from the French about any possible collaboration, all i've seen is DCNS trying to be good sales people.

It'd be good to see it happen, but how can you say it'll "probably" happen? Any info you can link me too or is it a gut feeling?

Not to mention the fact that it's conventionally powered would be a drawback for the French.

But nevertheless, a PA2-Br would be incredibly interesting. Using DCNS' figure of 30 - 40 aircraft for the airgroup.

 

[Spacearrow99]

I'll believe it when I see any sort of official talk remotely like it, i've not seen anything from the French about any possible collaboration, all i've seen is DCNS trying to be good sales people.

It'd be good to see it happen, but how can you say it'll "probably" happen? Any info you can link me too or is it a gut feeling?

Not to mention the fact that it's conventionally powered would be a drawback for the French.

But nevertheless, a PA2-Br would be incredibly interesting. Using DCNS' figure of 30 - 40 aircraft for the airgroup.

The new French White Paper has not been released yet. Its a gut feeling but a nuclear carrier for MN, is going to cost much more then the CDG since France now has tougher nuclear regulations. A joint designed CATOBAR carrier would meet each navy's specifications perfectly. The PA2 (CVF) would have required a ton money to reconfigure it for CATOBAR operations. The MN hated the cost of reconfigured CVF designed. The French government hated the French workshare in the program. A joint project with the Brazilians would be the cheapest way to get to building two carriers at a time for the MN.

 

[RobWilliams]

I highly doubt the Brazilians would want a nuclear carrier, probably more than the French want a conventional carrier.

CVF-PA2 wouldn't have cost a ton of money to reconfigure, the reason why it was such a PITA in the UK was because construction had begun in STOVL configuration, meaning to lay down AAG + EMALS would require EXTENSIVE adaptation work below the flight deck in the compartments (and those flight deck sections which hadn't even been put in place yet, obviously) below to allow the gear to be put in place, if she was built for CATOBAR work from the outset (which she wasn't), it wouldn't have been the problem it was as the space requirements would already exist.

I'll believe the PA2 becoming a reality when I see something official. Until then, I won't go on a gut feeling.

But with regards to Brazil, it seems to suit what I believe their requirements are.

 

[StobieWan]

The new French White Paper has not been released yet. Its a gut feeling but a nuclear carrier for MN, is going to cost much more then the CDG since France now has tougher nuclear regulations. A joint designed CATOBAR carrier would meet each navy's specifications perfectly. The PA2 (CVF) would have required a ton money to reconfigure it for CATOBAR operations. The MN hated the cost of reconfigured CVF designed. The French government hated the French workshare in the program. A joint project with the Brazilians would be the cheapest way to get to building two carriers at a time for the MN.

I'd suggest the French might have found their experience with the type of reactor selected, using a low grade uranium fuel has led to a lot of down time for refuelling - and this was driven by what nuclear reactors were available at the time from their submarine program. I think going forward the French may select a conventionally powered design to save on construction costs (adding nuclear propulsion, according to a US study a bit back can generally be considered to add about $800 million to a ship of that size)

PA2 *was* a carrier already configured for CATOBAR ops - we flogged them the design as a start point, and they returned what I believe was a working final design fitted for French use, larger, more GT's wider sponsons, and already ready to accept CATOBAR kit - there was no conversion required or needed - just go out and build one.

Workshare ? There was no "workshare" - France was going to build her own carrier and we'd build ours. Workshare would have been a great idea if it were possible - I'd love to have had both countries arrive at a common, CATOBAR design, select a range of components and systems, and build a set of three carriers but that was never going to be politically possible.

I doubt very much that Brazil will want to fund a nuclear carrier and even a conventional CVF might be a bit of a big step up, but a 65Kt conventional carrier certainly is more of a betting proposition.

France's last drafts of their PA2 designs were about another 10K heavier, and about 5 knots faster than CVF - we'll see if that ever gets funded.

 

[Spacearrow99]

I highly doubt the Brazilians would want a nuclear carrier, probably more than the French want a conventional carrier.

CVF-PA2 wouldn't have cost a ton of money to reconfigure, the reason why it was such a PITA in the UK was because construction had begun in STOVL configuration, meaning to lay down AAG + EMALS would require EXTENSIVE adaptation work below the flight deck in the compartments (and those flight deck sections which hadn't even been put in place yet, obviously) below to allow the gear to be put in place, if she was built for CATOBAR work from the outset (which she wasn't), it wouldn't have been the problem it was as the space requirements would already exist.

I'll believe the PA2 becoming a reality when I see something official. Until then, I won't go on a gut feeling.

But with regards to Brazil, it seems to suit what I believe their requirements are.

The next French White Paper should be released in the coming months. It would cost much money to configure CVF to Marine Nationale requirements. MN decided to concentrate on procuring the rest of the surface fleet.

 

[RobWilliams]

You appear to have not read what I wrote, or what Stobie wrote. I'll quote what Stobie said.

PA2 *was* a carrier already configured for CATOBAR ops - we flogged them the design as a start point, and they returned what I believe was a working final design fitted for French use, larger, more GT's wider sponsons, and already ready to accept CATOBAR kit - there was no conversion required or needed - just go out and build one.

We weren't pushing a STOVL carrier onto you and wringing our hands with glee about how much you'll have to spend, Thales and DCNS used the original CVF design to produce a conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier -> PA2. Like Stobie said, the design produced by DCNS was supposed to take all that into consideration. The only problem with this design was the cost to change from conventional to nuclear that caused problems and ultimately the thing got postponed indefinitely.

You're just mashing this together with the SNAFU that happened in the UK for whatever reason to create something which is completely untrue, so that's enough about the "high cost to convert" line as it's nonexistant. DCNS put forward a design to go out and build for CATOBAR.

This won't be an issue with Brazil, as they will get the design offered by DCNS (if they want it).

To be honest, I don't know why - when we were talking about Brazil/French collaboration - you started bringing the CVF and IT'S problems into it when it's not pertinant.

The end result is the same, Brazil probably won't want a nuclear carrier (I'd be amazed if they did) so they'll stick with conventional propulsion. France will want nuclear and as such would have to pay for the all the development costs associated with doing that to the DCNS' design if they decided to work with Brazil. Brazil won't pay for it, where would it benefit it's own carrier program?

To be honest, It's all moot, speculating about Brazil working with France. After all, until the white paper comes out all there's absolutely no indication.

 

[swerve]

The PA2 (CVF) would have required a ton money to reconfigure it for CATOBAR operations. The MN hated the cost of reconfigured CVF designed. The French government hated the French workshare in the program. A joint project with the Brazilians would be the cheapest way to get to building two carriers at a time for the MN.

You clearly didn't follow the programme.

France & the UK were working together, & also separately, in parallel, to produce TWO designs: STOVL for the UK, cat & trap for France, with the shared elements being those which did not impact on the STOVL/CATOBAR requirements. There was no re-configuration cost for PA2. It was CATOBAR from the start.

There was no workshare problem. Each country would have built its own carriers. PA2 would have been completely built in France, CVF in the UK.

All this was published at the time.


Rob:
It wasn't just the cost of ripping out stuff that had already been built & re-doing it. There was also expensive re-design needed, because after the French withdrew, the detailed design work stopped taking account of the need to make the installation of catapults & arresting gear easy. Throw in the cost of delays while the re-design was done, & it all got rather silly - though I'm still skeptical of the astronomical figures quoted at the time.

 

[StobieWan]

You clearly didn't follow the programme.

France & the UK were working together, & also separately, in parallel, to produce TWO designs: STOVL for the UK, cat & trap for France, with the shared elements being those which did not impact on the STOVL/CATOBAR requirements. There was no re-configuration cost for PA2. It was CATOBAR from the start.

There was no workshare problem. Each country would have built its own carriers. PA2 would have been completely built in France, CVF in the UK.

All this was published at the time.


Rob:
It wasn't just the cost of ripping out stuff that had already been built & re-doing it. There was also expensive re-design needed, because after the French withdrew, the detailed design work stopped taking account of the need to make the installation of catapults & arresting gear easy. Throw in the cost of delays while the re-design was done, & it all got rather silly - though I'm still skeptical of the astronomical figures quoted at the time.

Odd thought, moderately off topic, could the French have built a PA2 sized ship ? I seem to recall the CdG was limited in length by the available ship yard ? There are some much larger French yards which have turned out cruise liners etc but is there a military yard that can do the job ?

I was just wondering if a work share was possible at all ? I know it was never discussed (probably for the fairly obvious reason that it'd killed Horizon already!)

 

[RobWilliams]

IIRC the idea of docks at Saint Nazaire was thrown around a fair bit, chances are they'd have to do the same as we did in the UK with CVF - do some adaptation to some existing docks to get it just right.

The idea of the dock is quite interesting, actually. I'm gunna start looking at Sao Paulo's previous refits and try get some info about where they were done, see if she was dry docked at any point.

The Sao Paulo's something like 10m shorter than DCNS' design, so it'll give us a good idea.

 

[Spacearrow99]

You clearly didn't follow the programme.

France & the UK were working together, & also separately, in parallel, to produce TWO designs: STOVL for the UK, cat & trap for France, with the shared elements being those which did not impact on the STOVL/CATOBAR requirements. There was no re-configuration cost for PA2. It was CATOBAR from the start.

There was no workshare problem. Each country would have built its own carriers. PA2 would have been completely built in France, CVF in the UK.

All this was published at the time.


Rob:
It wasn't just the cost of ripping out stuff that had already been built & re-doing it. There was also expensive re-design needed, because after the French withdrew, the detailed design work stopped taking account of the need to make the installation of catapults & arresting gear easy. Throw in the cost of delays while the re-design was done, & it all got rather silly - though I'm still skeptical of the astronomical figures quoted at the time.

The French wanted a shared workshare program. The British decided against the workshare idea. The CVF was not designed for French CATOBAR needs, so the cost of reconfiguring the CVF to French needs was excessive to the MN. I have seen transcripts from the French Senate about possible workshare deal withe the British on the PA2.

 

[RobWilliams]

So the French wanted UK help to build it's carrier? That's what you're saying.

We use our shipyards to build our carriers, you use yours to build yours, simple as that.

You're wrong about the costs, completely wrong. So how about you quit with that line because it's downright false.

@swerve - I too am sceptical at the quoted costs, but that's the hand we've been dealt. Looking at GRF's decks (from construction pictures) below the flight deck shows the extent of what would have to be done, so i'm not sure.

How about you actually read what other posters are saying, you're wrong about the program and how it was conducted and it's getting incredibly boring reading the same rubbish over and over again.

If you want to actually learn about the program then be prepared to have a shock, it's not the fault of the Brits that PA-2 didn't get built, so how about you stop pointing the finger at us when your version of events is a pile of crap

Not to mention it's the wrong thread entirely to do this

 

[Spacearrow99]

So the French wanted UK help to build it's carrier? That's what you're saying.

We use our shipyards to build our carriers, you use yours to build yours, simple as that.

You're wrong about the costs, completely wrong. So how about you quit with that line because it's downright false.

@swerve - I too am sceptical at the quoted costs, but that's the hand we've been dealt. Looking at GRF's decks (from construction pictures) below the flight deck shows the extent of what would have to be done, so i'm not sure.

How about you actually read what other posters are saying, you're wrong about the program and how it was conducted and it's getting incredibly boring reading the same rubbish over and over again.

If you want to actually learn about the program then be prepared to have a shock, it's not the fault of the Brits that PA-2 didn't get built, so how about you stop pointing the finger at us when your version of events is a pile of crap

Not to mention it's the wrong thread entirely to do this

The MN hated the British based CVF, and I agree with their decision. They chose to procure most of the replacements of their surface and sublmarine fleets.

 

[RobWilliams]

Perhaps you could exactly lay out the other reasons, apart from the conventional propulsion, that the MN found so bad they "hated" it, and don't give me any BS about conversion costs.

Bear in mind that whilst I do accept that it's a major issue if the French want nuclear, but don't pretend you didn't say that you could team up with Brazil to build one and it would be easier, because the nuclear propulsion option would still exist.

I notice you completely ignored my comment about you being completely OT for the last tranche of posts, haven't even tried to make it relevant to Brazil.

EDIT: You throw around what the MN *hated* quite a lot, and generally in nonsensical ways

TThe MN hated the cost of reconfigured CVF designed.

A lie

The French government hated the French workshare in the program

Confusing, considering your later comment

I have seen transcripts from the French Senate about possible workshare deal withe the British on the PA2.

Suggesting that the French "hated" having to build PA2 alone, otherwise they wouldn't be asking for UK help with PA2

A joint project with the Brazilians would be the cheapest way to get to building two carriers at a time for the MN.

In what way? They binned PA-2 for the same reasons that would result in a joint project with Brazil would be a SNAFU due to the different requirements and it's foolish to believe otherwise

Going with your earlier comment about workshare with the UK, how the hell would France build PA-2 with Brazilian help if they couldn't do it without British help?

 

[Preceptor]

Please confine discussion on acquisitions and joint programs to those which are relevant to the Brazilian Navy, since the thread topic is Brazilian Naval Strength.
-Preceptor

 

[StobieWan]

Indeed - back to Brazil - I'd like to *think* we were in with a shot at flogging them some type 26 - Thales Fr seem to have a solid toe hold with FREMM however.

It may come down to whoever has a better track record at integrating with domestic build teams. Brazil has some experience with license built OPV's and we have flogged 'em some stuff just recently. Any bets ?

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd like to think it's quite good, recently I linked an article where it talks about a team of Brazilian engineers being a part of BAE's design team, so they've had either input or just experience about the actual design of the ship and probably will have or have been involved in the modular nature of the ship, the construction and assembly of the blocks when building the ship.

That's my guess, anyway. Can't say I've heard much on French FREMM involvement, from an Italian perspective, a while ago the author of UKAFC was tweeting about publications that Italy has dropped (or will drop) trying to sell frigates to Brazil.

I'd like to think that they think they've got a good deal with the OPV's (as much as a steal as they were) and the following license agreement that they're keen to work with BAE more.

But in general, i've heard more positive noises about the Type 26 than FREMM even though FREMM exists right now.