Correcto,EE.UU no puede invadir China,seria un suicidio,pero puede imponerse en cualquier zona del mundo en cambio china no,por eso digo que para que sea la primera potencia en toda regla debera de adelantar a EE.UU militarmente.
Durante la guerra fria la URSS y EE.UU se disputaron el mundo,EE.UU era mas fuerte economicamente pero militarmente la balanza estaba equilibrada y por eso no se puede hablar de EE.UU como la unica superpotencia hasta la desmembracion de la URSS.
Saludos
Armada de los Estados Unidos
-
Francisco Fdez
- Subteniente
- Mensajes: 895
- Registrado: 29 Jun 2008, 18:20
- Ubicación: Granada
-
RGSS
- Teniente Primero
- Mensajes: 1161
- Registrado: 14 Ene 2009, 21:13
- Ubicación: München
DDG 1000 Could Get New Missile-Defense Radar
The Pentagon's decisions to eliminate half of a new radar system for the U.S. Navy's DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers - and delay the first of the ships by a year - are not, as many surmised, a result of cost growth or poor program performance. Instead, they are an effort to get a new, even more advanced and capable radar into the new ships.
The new radar is the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a system currently in the early stages of development. The Navy plans to fit the radar, which will be designed from the start to handle ballistic missile defense, into new Flight III versions of its venerable DDG 51-class destroyer. The first Flight III ship is to be ordered in 2016.
Now, the service seems to be holding a place for the AMDR in its advanced DDG 1000 ships which, ironically, were cut back because the service said the design had too little missile defense capability.
The decision to remove the SPY-4 Volume Search Radar (VSR) from the DDG 1000's dual-band radar (DBR) was announced June 2 by Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter at a news conference to discuss Nunn-McCurdy cost breaches. Carter also announced the ship's service introduction would be delayed from 2015 to 2016.
The DDG 1000 was one of six programs experiencing substantial cost growth or change and, like all six, required the Pentagon to reassert that the program "is essential to the national security."
In the case of the DDG 1000, the Nunn-McCurdy breach was due to the Navy's mid-2008 decision to cut the number of ships in the class from seven to three. Since development and test costs remain the same no matter how many ships are built, the average per-ship cost rose.
Navy leaders said their decision to cut DDG 1000 production and re-start the DDG 51 production line was because priorities had changed. More ballistic missile defense (BMD) was needed, and the Navy chose to continue development of the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system, carried by the DDG 51s, for sea-based BMD.
The move to put the AMDR on the DDG 1000 would make those ships BMD-capable as well.
"Given that the Navy is engaged in the AMDR competition for the future S-band radar, why spend the money on a three- or four-of-a-kind approach to create these one-offs, when in fact in about the same schedule - with the one-year slip - you can have a fairly good match to whatever comes out of the AMDR program?" an industry source said.
Navy officials were unable late Wednesday to provide details on the DDG 1000 changes.
"We are currently assessing how yesterday's decisions apply to our programs," said Cmdr. Danny Hernandez, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.
Testing and development of the DBR will continue, however, according to letters sent by Carter to Congressional leaders to explain each program. Copies of the letters were obtained by Defense News. The letters did not explain the rationale in deleting the VSR from the baseline design of DDG 1000, nor for delaying the ship's service introduction.
The announcements caught a number of Navy and industry officials by surprise. Only last summer, the DDG 1000 program manager expressed satisfaction in the development of the DBR.
"As for the volume search radar, operationally I'm not aware of any [issues] with the EDM," or engineering development model, Capt. Jim Syring said last August. "With the full production system started now at Lockheed, I'm not aware of any VSR issues. It's S-Band, it's well known. Lockheed does a good job with S-band.
"There have been no issues with X-band," Syring said. "We took that EDM to sea and tracked some very classified cruise missiles in terms of difficulty."
Prime contractor for the DBR is Raytheon, which is responsible for the SPY-3 X-band multifunction radar and the controllers that marry the system with Lockheed Martin's SPY-4 S-band volume search radar. The DBR, the industry source said, is still scheduled to be installed on the new aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), already under construction by Northrop Grumman, and on the as-yet-unnamed CVN 79. No decision has been made on the radar for carriers beyond CVN 79.
Raytheon, along with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, is one of three competitors for the AMDR program. All three companies submitted proposals in April, and the Navy is considering its next step - a decision to downselect to one or two competitors or move ahead with all three. An announcement could come as early as September, according to the industry source.
The Pentagon's decisions to eliminate half of a new radar system for the U.S. Navy's DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers - and delay the first of the ships by a year - are not, as many surmised, a result of cost growth or poor program performance. Instead, they are an effort to get a new, even more advanced and capable radar into the new ships.
The new radar is the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a system currently in the early stages of development. The Navy plans to fit the radar, which will be designed from the start to handle ballistic missile defense, into new Flight III versions of its venerable DDG 51-class destroyer. The first Flight III ship is to be ordered in 2016.
Now, the service seems to be holding a place for the AMDR in its advanced DDG 1000 ships which, ironically, were cut back because the service said the design had too little missile defense capability.
The decision to remove the SPY-4 Volume Search Radar (VSR) from the DDG 1000's dual-band radar (DBR) was announced June 2 by Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter at a news conference to discuss Nunn-McCurdy cost breaches. Carter also announced the ship's service introduction would be delayed from 2015 to 2016.
The DDG 1000 was one of six programs experiencing substantial cost growth or change and, like all six, required the Pentagon to reassert that the program "is essential to the national security."
In the case of the DDG 1000, the Nunn-McCurdy breach was due to the Navy's mid-2008 decision to cut the number of ships in the class from seven to three. Since development and test costs remain the same no matter how many ships are built, the average per-ship cost rose.
Navy leaders said their decision to cut DDG 1000 production and re-start the DDG 51 production line was because priorities had changed. More ballistic missile defense (BMD) was needed, and the Navy chose to continue development of the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system, carried by the DDG 51s, for sea-based BMD.
The move to put the AMDR on the DDG 1000 would make those ships BMD-capable as well.
"Given that the Navy is engaged in the AMDR competition for the future S-band radar, why spend the money on a three- or four-of-a-kind approach to create these one-offs, when in fact in about the same schedule - with the one-year slip - you can have a fairly good match to whatever comes out of the AMDR program?" an industry source said.
Navy officials were unable late Wednesday to provide details on the DDG 1000 changes.
"We are currently assessing how yesterday's decisions apply to our programs," said Cmdr. Danny Hernandez, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon.
Testing and development of the DBR will continue, however, according to letters sent by Carter to Congressional leaders to explain each program. Copies of the letters were obtained by Defense News. The letters did not explain the rationale in deleting the VSR from the baseline design of DDG 1000, nor for delaying the ship's service introduction.
The announcements caught a number of Navy and industry officials by surprise. Only last summer, the DDG 1000 program manager expressed satisfaction in the development of the DBR.
"As for the volume search radar, operationally I'm not aware of any [issues] with the EDM," or engineering development model, Capt. Jim Syring said last August. "With the full production system started now at Lockheed, I'm not aware of any VSR issues. It's S-Band, it's well known. Lockheed does a good job with S-band.
"There have been no issues with X-band," Syring said. "We took that EDM to sea and tracked some very classified cruise missiles in terms of difficulty."
Prime contractor for the DBR is Raytheon, which is responsible for the SPY-3 X-band multifunction radar and the controllers that marry the system with Lockheed Martin's SPY-4 S-band volume search radar. The DBR, the industry source said, is still scheduled to be installed on the new aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), already under construction by Northrop Grumman, and on the as-yet-unnamed CVN 79. No decision has been made on the radar for carriers beyond CVN 79.
Raytheon, along with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, is one of three competitors for the AMDR program. All three companies submitted proposals in April, and the Navy is considering its next step - a decision to downselect to one or two competitors or move ahead with all three. An announcement could come as early as September, according to the industry source.
"That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important lesson history has to tell."
Aldous Huxley 1894-1963
Aldous Huxley 1894-1963
-
Experten
- Teniente Coronel
- Mensajes: 2494
- Registrado: 18 Abr 2010, 00:12
-
Jhom
- Cabo Primero
- Mensajes: 173
- Registrado: 09 Sep 2008, 13:49
Aqui una pequeña muestra de lo que es la espina dorsal de la US Navy, su increible numero de destructores y cruderos AEGIS.
Base Naval de Yokosuka, Japon:
USS Cowpens (CG-63) , USS McCampbell (DDG-85) y USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) , ademas podemos apreciar realmente que el Tico no es mas grande que un Burke sino que solo es mas largo, siendo ademas mas estrecho.
Tambien se aprecia la diferencia entre el "Flight I" (Curtis Wilbur) y el tope de gama "Flight IIA 5"/62 no 20 mm CIWS variant" (el McCampbel).
Saludos, GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!
Base Naval de Yokosuka, Japon:
USS Cowpens (CG-63) , USS McCampbell (DDG-85) y USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54) , ademas podemos apreciar realmente que el Tico no es mas grande que un Burke sino que solo es mas largo, siendo ademas mas estrecho.
Tambien se aprecia la diferencia entre el "Flight I" (Curtis Wilbur) y el tope de gama "Flight IIA 5"/62 no 20 mm CIWS variant" (el McCampbel).
Saludos, GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY!
"Pobres desgraciados, otra vez nos tienen rodeados"
-
sergiopl
- General de Brigada
- Mensajes: 5231
- Registrado: 28 Sep 2009, 11:10
- Ubicación: España
Los Burke tienen un desplazamiento de 9.200 toneladas (el Flight IIA, el I unas mil menos) y los Ticos 9.750, efectivamente hay poca diferencia (aunque en potencia de fuego si la hay: 2 cañones de cinco pulgadas contra 1 y 122 celdas de VLS contra 90-96, de hecho creo que los Ticos iban a subir hasta 128).
Pero hay que tener en cuenta que parece ser que los Ticos son buques muy recargados... han aprovechado la capacidad del casco (que es mas o menos el mismo que el de los retirados destructores clase Spruance) hasta el límite (recuerdo haber leido algo sobre ciertos problemas de estabilidad).
En cuanto a las diferencias entre el Flight I de la clase Burke y el Flight IIA habría que añadir que los mas modernos tienen hangares para dos helicópteros (siempre me sorprendió que los primeros no los llevaran, aunque supongo que diseñados para operar con los CVBG no se consideró necesario, sus antecesores de las clases Charles F. Adams y Farragut, e incluso algunos cruceros como los clase Leahy, no llevaban helos tampoco).
Pero hay que tener en cuenta que parece ser que los Ticos son buques muy recargados... han aprovechado la capacidad del casco (que es mas o menos el mismo que el de los retirados destructores clase Spruance) hasta el límite (recuerdo haber leido algo sobre ciertos problemas de estabilidad).
En cuanto a las diferencias entre el Flight I de la clase Burke y el Flight IIA habría que añadir que los mas modernos tienen hangares para dos helicópteros (siempre me sorprendió que los primeros no los llevaran, aunque supongo que diseñados para operar con los CVBG no se consideró necesario, sus antecesores de las clases Charles F. Adams y Farragut, e incluso algunos cruceros como los clase Leahy, no llevaban helos tampoco).
-
Jhom
- Cabo Primero
- Mensajes: 173
- Registrado: 09 Sep 2008, 13:49
sergiopl escribió:Los Burke tienen un desplazamiento de 9.200 toneladas (el Flight IIA, el I unas mil menos) y los Ticos 9.750, efectivamente hay poca diferencia (aunque en potencia de fuego si la hay: 2 cañones de cinco pulgadas contra 1 y 122 celdas de VLS contra 90-96, de hecho creo que los Ticos iban a subir hasta 128).
Pero hay que tener en cuenta que parece ser que los Ticos son buques muy recargados... han aprovechado la capacidad del casco (que es mas o menos el mismo que el de los retirados destructores clase Spruance) hasta el límite (recuerdo haber leido algo sobre ciertos problemas de estabilidad).
En cuanto a las diferencias entre el Flight I de la clase Burke y el Flight IIA habría que añadir que los mas modernos tienen hangares para dos helicópteros (siempre me sorprendió que los primeros no los llevaran, aunque supongo que diseñados para operar con los CVBG no se consideró necesario, sus antecesores de las clases Charles F. Adams y Farragut, e incluso algunos cruceros como los clase Leahy, no llevaban helos tampoco).
Tienes razon el casco de los Tico es muy parecido al de los Spruance, en cuanto a la diferencia de los dos Burkes me referia sobre todo a la longitud, el mas nuevo es un poco mas grande y largo, precisamente por razones de estabilidad y habitabilidad de tripulacion y equipo.
Y como bien apuntas, del Tico siempre se han quejado de que es demasiado largo y alto, y con mar gruesa se bambolea un poco demasiado.
Saludos!
"Pobres desgraciados, otra vez nos tienen rodeados"
-
ferreret
- Sargento Primero
- Mensajes: 434
- Registrado: 16 May 2008, 20:20
- Ubicación: Mallorca
-
shaderyt
- Sargento
- Mensajes: 213
- Registrado: 16 Sep 2008, 21:15
- Ubicación: Canarias
-
ferreret
- Sargento Primero
- Mensajes: 434
- Registrado: 16 May 2008, 20:20
- Ubicación: Mallorca
Jhom escribió:Y todo estos bichos multicasco que tal iran con mar picada?
Mi experiencia con los que hacen el trayecto Ibiza-Mallorca es que con mal calmada son rápidos y cómodos, pero con mar media el barco va dando saltos y se marea más de la mitad de los pasajeros (y estoy hablando de un mar cerrado y tranquilo... no me imagino los saltos que pueden dar los usados en Canarias).
-
Jhom
- Cabo Primero
- Mensajes: 173
- Registrado: 09 Sep 2008, 13:49
ferreret escribió:Jhom escribió:Y todo estos bichos multicasco que tal iran con mar picada?
Mi experiencia con los que hacen el trayecto Ibiza-Mallorca es que con mal calmada son rápidos y cómodos, pero con mar media el barco va dando saltos y se marea más de la mitad de los pasajeros (y estoy hablando de un mar cerrado y tranquilo... no me imagino los saltos que pueden dar los usados en Canarias).
No se porque me lo imaginaba justo como tu lo has contado
"Pobres desgraciados, otra vez nos tienen rodeados"
-
RGSS
- Teniente Primero
- Mensajes: 1161
- Registrado: 14 Ene 2009, 21:13
- Ubicación: München
-
sergiopl
- General de Brigada
- Mensajes: 5231
- Registrado: 28 Sep 2009, 11:10
- Ubicación: España
Muy interesante RGSS, yo había leido una vez que para rellenar las 122 celdas de un Tico hacía falta mas de un día (si el estado del mar lo permitía). Pues por lo visto era cierto: 4 misiles por hora (30 horas y media 
). Y los nuevos destructores ni siquiera tienen la grua para la recarga (entiendo que sin ella es bastante mas difícil la recarga, si es que es posible... igual que en nuestras F-100, ¿no? 
).
De todos modos, ese problema sólo surgiría en un escenario no de alta, sino de altíiiiisima amenaza (ataques con mas de 100 misiles, lo de ataques no va en plural por error
).
Y este link que viene en el artículo: http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications ... le__A_.pdf
¡Me viene que ni pintado para una chifladura de las mias!
). Y los nuevos destructores ni siquiera tienen la grua para la recarga (entiendo que sin ella es bastante mas difícil la recarga, si es que es posible... igual que en nuestras F-100, ¿no? ).
De todos modos, ese problema sólo surgiría en un escenario no de alta, sino de altíiiiisima amenaza (ataques con mas de 100 misiles, lo de ataques no va en plural por error
).
Y este link que viene en el artículo: http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications ... le__A_.pdf
¡Me viene que ni pintado para una chifladura de las mias!
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: ClaudeBot [Bot] y 0 invitados