Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
User avatar
Bill
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:48 am
Location: French, but in China, or sometimes Siberia

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Bill » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:17 pm

EW in 1982 ??? :lol:

in 1995, 13 years lather, I see a task germano-belgium force go in caribean see for test a EW system against exocet !

It was the belgium Wielingen fit with exocet, and the german new brand Lubeck destroyer, suppose to intercep the exocet during a trial with US guys in Puorto rico
:dance:

anyway, if the stuff doesn't BOOMM but burn everything on the hull ..... does actually the Harpoon explode all the times ??? :lol:

if yes, why the hell need to launch 4 of them against a poor Iranian patrol ship like it was made :lol: :lol:
- Well sir, please agree with me that you other, French, you fight for monnay, whenn us, british, fight for the honnor !
- Of course sir, but you know, everybody fight for what he's leack !
Robert Surcouf, French Corsair, 1773-1827


Robert Surcouf,

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by lwd » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:43 pm

Bill wrote:EW in 1982 ??? :lol:
??? Not sure what you are laughing about. How many of the British ships that used their EW and Chaff were hit in the Falklands?
in 1995, 13 years lather, I see a task germano-belgium force go in caribean see for test a EW system against exocet !
Any details on what was tested and why and what the results were?
anyway, if the stuff doesn't BOOMM but burn everything on the hull ..... does actually the Harpoon explode all the times ??? :lol:
If it doesn't explode and then it is very dependent on where it hits for it's effect. No missile is going to have a 100% success rate as far as warhead detonations go if it is used very often. However 50% is pretty poor.
if yes, why the hell need to launch 4 of them against a poor Iranian patrol ship like it was made :lol: :lol:
Because they wanted to make sure they got it. A patrol boat is going to have problems if it's hit at all by a harpoon but a small target that's evading is not the easiest thing to hit.

USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by USS ALASKA » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:50 pm

Gents, I just finished reading “Electronic Warfare: From the Battle of Tsushima to the Falklands and Lebanon Conflicts” by Mario De Arcangelis. http://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Warfar ... =1-1-spell (It can be had CHEAP if anyone is interested in that sort of thing) My edition is copyrighted in 1985. While I enjoyed the info on the early EW efforts, I am unsure how good the facts are on the Falklands war being that it was written so soon afterwards. The author states that…

1. “...the British considered that the Argentinians were not as yet trained to launch Exocet missiles from Super Etendards.”
2. “…Sheffield’s ESM did not pick up the radar emissions of the missile…”
3. “In the specific case of Sheffield, the UAA-1 Abbey Hill ESM did not perform either of it’s functions. No warning was given by the equipment, perhaps due to electromagnetic interference or perhaps because the radar parameters of the Exocet missile had not been stored in the ‘warner’, not having been programmed as a top priority threat.”
4. “…the Sheffield was PROBABLY (emphasis USS ALASKA) also equipped with active ECM devices: a Bexley 669 deception jammer for self-protection against missiles and a 667/668 noise jammer for jamming the search radars of hostile ships or aircraft…these devices were not turned on for the reasons given above (the use of the Sat Comm requiring all transmitting devices to be turned off – USS ALASKA)

Are the above statements correct? Did Sheffield have the ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) listed in #4? From reading the above and other sources on the battle, the Sheffield seems to have been caught at the ‘wrong place/wrong time’. If all her transmitters were shut down to facilitate the Sat Comm, she would have no active on-board warning of the attack. If the UAA-1 was on and working properly AND the Super Etendard/Exocet systems were in her threat library, the Super Etendard/Exocet emissions MAY have been lost/washed out due to a couple of reasons. The massive amount of RF being put out by the ships around Sheffield and the Sat Comm transmissions she was making interfering with the UAA-1. Even if the freq range wasn’t overlapping between the Super Etendard/Exocet and the Sat Comm, transmission made right in the vicinity of the UAA-1’s receive antennas, (from looking at pics of the Sheffield, the UAA-1 is mounted aft and a little above the Scot Skynet Sat Comm [is that correct?] could drive up the ‘noise floor’. Without a really good (and expensive) system of discrete filters, the receiver’s AGC (Automatic Gain Control) could have been driven to the point of having the Super Etendard/Exocet lost amid the other RF noise. If something like this happened, Sheffield could have had the world’s best ECM and Decoy equipments but with no warning, no reaction.
Bill wrote:EW in 1982 ??? :lol:
??? Not sure either...
Bill wrote:in 1995, 13 years lather, I see a task germano-belgium force go in caribean see for test a EW system against exocet !
Sure – why not? The Exocet has some serious ECCM (Electronic Counter-Counter Measures) like freq hopping to Home on Jam (HoJ). As systems evolve and updates incorporated, tests are needed to ensure the current tactics are still applicable and if not, how to defeat the updated system. Also, as new ECM becomes available, it must be tested against the threats it was designed to defeat to validate the system architecture. We still test against SA-2 / 3s as they are upgraded and mixed and matched with other support equipment even though those systems are 50 years old.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Bgile » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:03 pm

What I find amazing is the fact that use of satcoms required shutting down the ship's radars. There is a serious problem with using a system like that on a ship that could be under attack at any time, and there is also a serious problem with having a system with that kind of operational requirement on a warship at all.

Stark was also caught unprepared. The only thing that could be said in her defense is they weren't at war. IMO it was still inexcusable.

USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by USS ALASKA » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:08 pm

One of the most difficult aspects in weapons system design is to get the electronic gear to play nice with each other. To use the Sheffield as a case in point, was the UAA-1 interfered with by the Sat Comm, radar, normal LOS comms, or by the ECM systems? Did the ECM or radar interfere with the Sat Comm or other comm or ESM receivers? Were they located too close to each other? (the lack of space and optimum locations for such equipment kinda dictates where such things must go). To this day we still have these issues. For a system to be truly integrated all systems must be able to operate at the same time but independent of each other (I know – this statement contradicts itself.). The transmitting equipments must operate on discrete enough freqs that they don’t interfere with the receivers, the receivers must have filters good enough to block unwanted, out-of-band freqs and be sensitive enough to locate low power signals while in close proximity to equipments putting out mongo amounts of power like the radar and ECM gear. When targeted freqs do overlap, the system software must be able to discriminate between the different wave-forms on the same freq to pick the one it wants for whatever is trying to receive it. So equipment location, equipment architecture, and software abilities all must work together. Question about having to test this with even the smallest change made to any of these things? Back in the 60s / 70s, Sheffield’s time frame, a lot of these systems were ‘bolt-on-after-the fact’ with limited (to our current day standards) computing power. There wasn’t the ‘systems integrator’ contractors building the overall weapons systems like we have today. And it is still a huge challenge. The computing ability itself is very expensive, takes up space and generates a lot of heat. In those days, a ‘pocket calculator’ that added / subtracted/ multiplied / divided weighed 4 lbs and couldn’t fit into any pocket I owned. We have come a long way since then but have also gotten much more complicated. To give a silly example, if you are in a dark room with a flashlight – turn on the flashlight so that you may see – but the only flashlight you have also has a bulb in the back that shines directly into your eyes whenever you turn it on. The room is filled with light but you are now blind. The only way it is of use is to cover the back bulb. On Sheffield, they had to come up with tactics to employ their systems that compensated for their weakness, even if it meant shutting things off. Unfortunately, this is never the most desired option but was the only one available. And they were caught out by it.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Bgile » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:52 pm

USS ALASKA wrote:On Sheffield, they had to come up with tactics to employ their systems that compensated for their weakness, even if it meant shutting things off. Unfortunately, this is never the most desired option but was the only one available. And they were caught out by it.
You have the option of not using satcom instead of not using all the other systems. In hindsight I believe they would have chosen the former.

One advantage of serving on a submarine is our ESM and Sonar systems were in relatively pure environments since we never transmitted with anything. It's amazing what a good view of a tactical situation you can get with passive means.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by marcelo_malara » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:04 pm

How many of the British ships that used their EW and Chaff were hit in the Falklands?
Two ships were targeted with four missiles and both were sunk. A third ship was targeted with one missile and what happened to the missile is not clear. There were no ships saved by EW and chaff simply because there were no more missiles!!! There was another case, the Glamorgan I think, that was damaged by a shore launched Exocet, a sea-borne version mounted on a truck and launched from the shore. I have to say that both measures were unsuccesful.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by lwd » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:14 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
How many of the British ships that used their EW and Chaff were hit in the Falklands?
Two ships were targeted with four missiles and both were sunk. A third ship was targeted with one missile and what happened to the missile is not clear. There were no ships saved by EW and chaff simply because there were no more missiles!!! There was another case, the Glamorgan I think, that was damaged by a shore launched Exocet, a sea-borne version mounted on a truck and launched from the shore. I have to say that both measures were unsuccesful.
That's one interpretation but let's look a bit closer.
According to;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_ ... _Sheffield
In the Sheffield attack
The first missile missed HMS Yarmouth, due to the deployment of chaff in response to the warning,
So Sheffield hit but no counter measures. Yarmouth missed probably due to counter measures.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/bat ... -conveyor/
Also states:
One missile was directed at one of the frigates which deployed distracting metal strips (Chaff). The Chaff did its job and the missile flew on having lost its original target. It then acquired Atlantic Conveyor
And again Atlantic Conveyor had no chaff or EW.

User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by marcelo_malara » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:58 pm

Ok, didn´t knew it, thanks.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by lwd » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:32 pm

Note that there are still a lot of conflicting acounts of what happened in the Falklands so while the above is consistent with what I remember hearing when it happened there's still a chance it is not correct.

User avatar
Nelson Ott
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: São Paulo, BRAZIL

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Nelson Ott » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:08 pm

Ok gentlemen, enough of the Malvinas/Falklands conflict which is not the subject of this topic and can be trated on a separate one. :wink: I would only like to add a comment about the Exocet case: it was a true merit to the Argentine technicians' skills and tenacity that they even worked after all. It had nothing to do with the inherent reliability or unreliability of the missiles. France stopped all support after a few units were deployed and the Argentine technicians had to make their software "talk" with the aircraft software and the systems work in a rush and under very tough conditions.

Back to this topic, I'd like to add some comments:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Sadly it seems that populist socialist Ignacio Lula da Silva, Brazil´s President, is keen to put his country and Latin America in trouble with an armamentist race. (...) We know that Russia needs money, time and strategic allies. But France, as always, is playing the irresponsible seller here. Instead of helping Brazil to protect the jungles of Amazon, the lungs of the planet, it´s going to help Brazilians to get four subs, one which will be nuclear.
Dear Karl, I should add that Lula, unfortunately still our President (at least until next year :lol: ), is facing a strong internal opposition regarding this megabucks (or mega-Euros) purchase. Of course this country has a lot of different and serious problems to deal with, and not only France but all European countries should provide help to preserve the Amazon rainforest after all the devastation the European countries performed in their homeland and on their colonies abroad along the centuries. But at the same time we must be alert to defend our offshore oil. No one here wants to see South America becoming a new Middle East in that respect. And as Marcelo very properly pointed out, we shall not stay here sitting and waiting for an enemy to show up. Especially with populist rulers all around.

But the main point of discussion here is: this government is connecting too fast with France. Although this country has been a customer of French military gear for many years, the situation now is completely different and should be better examined. I particularly don't see the Rafale as a proven contender against the F/A-18, its main opponent in this bid. (By the way, the French Mirages DID have a long record of reliability here).

Regards,

Nelson

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:52 pm

Nelson,

Here in Costa Rica, and Central America, we are experiencing a lot of concern because of Lula´s involvement in Hondura´s Zelaya return. It seems like Brazil, in Lula´s terms at least, is "helping out" his pal, Hugo Chavez, in having their puppet back home. Which is plain stupid, anyway, because in November there are going to be presidential elections in Honduras and none of the candidates, even the leftist ones that support Zelaya´s claims, agree to put elections in peril to please Zelaya himself. I can see no other explanation of Brazil getting involved in this mess.

Best regards,

Karl

P.D. Don´t buy French, bad investement. Go a little more expensive and buy German or go as far as Russia.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

ostriker
Member
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Nîmes, Southern France

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by ostriker » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:12 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
P.D. Don´t buy French, bad investement. Go a little more expensive and buy German or go as far as Russia.
Absolutely!

Ask the greeks for that, they have no regrets for buying german type 214 submarines insted of Scorpène. German stuff is never out of order, as the US ones, its perfect!

User avatar
Nelson Ott
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:25 pm
Location: São Paulo, BRAZIL

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Nelson Ott » Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:50 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Here in Costa Rica, and Central America, we are experiencing a lot of concern because of Lula´s involvement in Hondura´s Zelaya return.
Dear Karl, you can be sure that even here only a few people is supporting this involvement (just a handful of Lula's party pals). I hope our people will give the answer to them on next year elections. :wink:

Regards,

Nelson

User avatar
Bill
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:48 am
Location: French, but in China, or sometimes Siberia

Re: Brazil buys 50 helicopters, 5 submarines from France

Post by Bill » Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:51 pm

ostriker wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:
P.D. Don´t buy French, bad investement. Go a little more expensive and buy German or go as far as Russia.
Absolutely!

Ask the greeks for that, they have no regrets for buying german type 214 submarines insted of Scorpène. German stuff is never out of order, as the US ones, its perfect!
and certainly that the germans made wonderfull fighter !

or, absolutly, the Indians is totaly stupid to buy scorpene, as well the malaysian or Peru, everybody know it

Is far better to make the same choice of these dumb British ( :oops: oop's is a repetition here) and try to buil the HMS Kusznetzov (seams cancel now :lol: :lol: ) fit with never know whenn F35 made in never know where but not in UK or any other countries than US !!!

Anyway, whatewer you said, the choice is, whenn you want keep little bit your independance with US, your choice is to buy Russian shit or, acording the need and the case, French, German, spanish or italian stuff
And I beleave the a thing think with brain and reasonable standard as millimeter and not with the feet is better anyway.
- Well sir, please agree with me that you other, French, you fight for monnay, whenn us, british, fight for the honnor !
- Of course sir, but you know, everybody fight for what he's leack !
Robert Surcouf, French Corsair, 1773-1827


Robert Surcouf,

Post Reply