Military Review

Ocean predator

92
The destroyer (abbreviated destroyer) is a multipurpose combat high-speed maneuverable ship to fight submarines, aircraft (including missiles) and enemy ships, guard and defend ships or convoys at sea crossing. It is also used for reconnaissance and patrol services, artillery support during the landing of troops and for setting minefields.


Ocean predator


The Russian name "destroyer" comes from the fact that in Russia the torpedoes were called "self-propelled mines." The designation "squadron" indicates the ability to act as part of a squadron in the ocean and sea zone. Initially, ships of this class were called "destroyers (destroyers)": it was believed that in battle they should intercept and destroy enemy destroyers. But, as it turned out as a result of the Russian-Japanese war, "not a single destroyer intercepted or destroyed a single destroyer" (quotation). [Source?] English equivalent of the term - destroer (English destroyer - fighter). In contrast, the destroyers remained a class of light ships that do not have powerful artillery weapons, with low seaworthiness and autonomy.

Before the First World War, the main purpose of the destroyers was a torpedo attack of the main forces fleet enemy, especially large ships. During and after the war, they become multi-purpose warships capable of performing a wide range of tasks. The main ones were the air defense and anti-submarine defense of their forces. Their displacement and their importance have grown, especially since battleships disappeared from almost all fleets in the world (in the 50s and 60s of the XNUMXth century). The largest of the modern destroyers are equal in displacement to light cruisers of the Second World War era, but significantly surpass them in terms of firepower.

The destroyers of the 956 “Sarych” project are a series of seventeen Soviet / Russian destroyers built from 1976 to 1992 a year. Ships of this project are among the most powerful in their class. The first ship of this project, launched in the 1978 year, bore the name "Modern".



The main purpose of these ships is the destruction of surface targets. For this purpose, the 8 PKR P-270 Mosquito (in two quad PUs installed onboard) are intended. To combat submarines, two twin-tube 533-mm torpedo tubes, as well as two jet-mounted bomblets RBU-1000. Helipad takes one Ka-27 helicopter.

For air defense there is an air defense system "Shtil", as well as X-NUMX artillery guns AK-4.



The main combat rival in the waters of the oceans for the 956 destroyers of the project are the destroyers of the type “Arly Burke” designed in 1980 — 1985. However, in their fighting qualities, these two types of destroyers are incomparable: the destroyers of the 956 project are significantly inferior to the American ships of the Arly Burke type in a number of indicators. By the time the first destroyer of the Arly Burk type was added to the US Navy, the 956 squadron destroyers were morally and technically obsolete (their development began in 1971 year, after 5 years after the start of the development of destroyers of the Spryens type, and the first ship entered USSR Navy in 1981 year), with no constructive protection, no multifunctional CICS, 1 radar detection for airborne targets, weak hydroacoustic station for finding submarines, boiler turbine power plant and relatively weak air defense. Sarych-type destroyers also have 2 deficiencies characteristic of the first series of Arly Burk destroyers: the absence of a helicopter hangar and an insufficient cruise range at operational speed; on 4400 nodes for Soviet destroyers of the 20 project. The only advantage of the ship in comparison with destroyers of the type "Arly Burke" is more powerful than the American destroyers, anti-ship and artillery weapons.
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Russian
    Russian 22 July 2013 07: 34 New
    16
    Even the huge Soviet groundwork is not endless, it’s time to update many projects already, with the main battle tank and aviation there is progress, with frigates and corvettes too, it is necessary to approach large warships.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 22 July 2013 08: 33 New
      +8
      Quote: р_у_с_с_к_и_й
      it is necessary to approach large warships.

      Yes, we should, we look forward to it with great impatience! But so far only projects on destroyers ???

      The only advantage of the ship in comparison with destroyers such as Arly Burke is more powerful anti-ship and artillery weapons than American destroyers.
      A joke about "MOSKITS" comes to my mind.
      Mosquitol-Because they don’t bite!
      All the same, a serious argument!
      1. Commodus
        Commodus 22 July 2013 13: 00 New
        +4
        Oh wei, the beginning of the copy-paste article from the wiki, well, at least read the EPT!
  2. indiggo
    indiggo 22 July 2013 07: 56 New
    +2
    Well, it’s like they are working on new destroyers, in 2016 they should first lay!
    1. AVV
      AVV 22 July 2013 09: 14 New
      +1
      And they were needed yesterday !!!
    2. little man
      little man 25 July 2013 03: 55 New
      0
      Come on, even if you take 22350 as a destroyer, then ... Mlyn, what can I say ?.
  3. Orty
    Orty 22 July 2013 09: 04 New
    +7
    Yes, 956 is very outdated and he needs a replacement, but I want to note that the corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385 and frigates of projects 22350 and 11356, which are actively being built and put into service, significantly exceed the Sarych type in all respects, well, maybe except for the range. They have more powerful and modern weapons, better radar, stronger air defense i.e. from the point of view of combat capabilities, Sarych now refers to destroyers only due to displacement. Of course, the ships that I have listed will not replace a full-fledged destroyer, a modern destroyer should provide a powerful air defense system, and these ships have too little displacement to do this, but they will succeed in building up the shock capabilities of our fleet quite quickly. Let's hope that the modernization of the Eagles and the construction of new destroyers will close this problem until 2020.
    1. indiggo
      indiggo 22 July 2013 09: 46 New
      +2
      I agree with everything. but there are questions about Orlanov, the amount of which will be equal to 2 (most likely) and an incomprehensible modernization. will it turn out that the new destroyers
      will be more serious than new eagles?
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. little man
      little man 25 July 2013 03: 59 New
      0
      Let's hope that the modernization of the Eagles and the construction of new destroyers will close this problem until 2020.
      without words drinks
  4. Deniska
    Deniska 22 July 2013 09: 29 New
    +5
    Quote: Arberes
    Moskitol, therefore, do not bite!



    +5
  5. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 22 July 2013 09: 32 New
    +4
    If Russia wants to be a naval power, then it simply needs to build such a class of ships as a destroyer. And we must start from the American "Arleigh Burke", but with our weapons.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 22 July 2013 10: 05 New
      +1
      Quote: VohaAhov
      If Russia wants to be a naval power, then it simply needs to build such a class of ships as a destroyer. And we must start from the American "Arleigh Burke", but with our weapons.

      I agree - we need to start from Burke (although I am not a supporter of the US Navy, but Burke is still a very successful ship), but we need to preserve the ideology of the destroyer as a fighter of the enemy fleet in the first place, this will be an asymmetric response of the United States to their Aegis (they created the most universal destroyer - we will create a destroyer superior to Arlie - Burke in terms of firepower, this will allow them to restrain their fleet), and we need to be equal to Zumovlt - our destroyers will have to compete with it in the future, so the task is extremely difficult ...
      PS I really hope for 21956, do not disappoint the northerners and good luck to you! the concept seems to be not bad.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 22 July 2013 11: 23 New
        +3
        Aviation and submarines cope with the fight against surface ships so well, our modern ships have the UKKS Caliber (the difference is only in their number), which allow us to take good anti-ship missiles, so our ships have a priori good anti-ship capabilities, but no more. , battleships in the past, aviation and submarines of a stronger side will take out the ships of the weak side before the surface ships of the strong side come to the salvo distance, therefore the ships will not have to compete with the buzzer, especially since the amers will limit themselves to building only 3 ships.
        1. 11 black
          11 black 22 July 2013 12: 17 New
          +1
          Quote: patsantre
          UKSK Caliber (the difference is only in their quantity)

          here I am just about this - about their number !!! 1 UKSKs are 8 missiles, and after all, UKSK is charged not only with anti-ship missiles, but also with Rocket and Torpedoes and Cruise missiles for ground targets, total of 8 locations for the missiles are 2-3, and you will agree that you won’t get much
          Quote: patsantre
          IMHO, ship battles in the past, aviation and submarines of the stronger side will make ships of the weak side,

          here you are mistaken, although also IMHO, but look at the composition of the air defense of the cruiser "Orlan", or the alleged composition of the air defense 21956 (picture above)
          on Orlan there are 94 missiles of the Rif complex (range 150 km) and 128 self-defense missiles "Dagger"; by sinking a cruiser, aviation will suffer much greater economic losses.
          As for the submarines, I partially agree, because if you include an aircraft carrier in the Order, not a single submarine will be suitable for the range of a torpedo shot, but it will cope with missile defense. So the time of sea battles has not yet passed, although of course IMHO ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 12: 29 New
            +9
            Quote: 11 black
            on Orlan there are 94 Rif missiles (range 150 km) and 128 Kinzhal self-defense missiles, it will "Drop from the sky" a couple of three squadrons before the aviation sinks it

            it is done like this. Hokai comes out with a couple of hawks and hangs kilometers in 300 from the ship. There Orlan sees him, but he cannot plant him from the sky - there is nothing.
            At this time, several groups of airplanes are flying on a low-level flight to Orlan. Orlan does not see them, because they are beyond the radio horizon.
            The first to enter the business is a demonstration group - it climbs out from under the radio horizon and shows itself in all its glory, at the same time attacking Orlan with anti-ship missiles and anti-radar missiles. Orlan turns on the radar (and what remains for him) and enters the battle.
            Here the suppression group (which the cruiser's radars, again, do not see, because the group's planes are beyond the radio horizon) cut in all the electronic warfare units to suppress Orlan's radar 9, thus covering the demonstration group) and fire anti-radar missiles at the cruiser's designated stations. And at the same time assault groups (also from under the radio horizon) release their "harpoons"
            Orlan has no choice but to switch its air defense to the missiles reaching him - and there will be several dozen of them from 20 attack aircraft, and in conditions of strong interference, it simply will not be possible to reflect. The eagle will be damaged and finished off with controlled bombs, the price is, at best, a pair of aircraft from a demonstration squad.
            This is if the squadrons are generally generous with the demonstration, rather than getting closer to the cruiser at 50-60 km and don’t get down because of the radio horizon (about 30 km) with a shower of missiles at the current coordinates of the cruiser.
            so one can not even dream of any "shot down squadrons".
            1. Papakiko
              Papakiko 22 July 2013 14: 59 New
              +6
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Orlan has no choice but to switch his air defense to the missiles coming towards him - and several dozen of them will go from 20 attack aircraft, and in conditions of strong interference it simply will not work to repel everything. The eagle will be damaged and finished off with guided bombs, the price is at best a couple of aircraft from the demonstration squadron, this is if the squadrons are generous in general for a demonstration, and not get close to the cruiser by 50-60 km and do not fall because of the radio horizon (about 30 km) with a shower of missiles by the current coordinates of the cruiser. so you can not even dream of any "shot down squadrons".

              Strongly true!
              Therefore, AUGs are needed for a balanced composition of the high seas fleet, and not coastal patrol vessels.
              Otherwise, it is a waste of fabulous money.
              You can, of course, without AUG, but then you need to cover from space with more than one "legend". hi
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 16: 45 New
                +2
                Greetings, dear!
                drinks
              2. KuzmichDP
                KuzmichDP 22 July 2013 21: 23 New
                0
                Greetings, dear! And, where are the comments about the American ships, where to sail ....
            2. Orty
              Orty 22 July 2013 15: 07 New
              +5
              They described everything correctly! Did you not play Naval War Arctic Circle? For those who love the nautical theme the most travel game. Here, in order for the scenario described by you to remain the scenario, we need aircraft carriers. For the air group will destroy Hokai from the sky, and even it will strike at the enemy’s compound.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 16: 44 New
                +5
                Quote: Orty
                Did you not play Naval War Arctic Circle?

                Not ... I just read a little about the tactics of the US carrier-based aviation :)) And I'll see the game, if you recommend it :)
                Quote: Orty
                For the air group will blow Hokai out of the sky, and even it will strike at the enemy’s compound.

                As the English admiral, who is usually called the second after Nelson - Andrew Brown Cunningham, said: "The correct way to fight the air is in the air" :)))
            3. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 22 July 2013 16: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              it is done like this. Hokai comes out with a couple of hawks and hangs kilometers in 300 from the ship. There Orlan sees him, but he cannot plant him from the sky - there is nothing.
              At this time, several groups of airplanes are flying on a low-level flight to Orlan. Orlan does not see them, because they are beyond the radio horizon.

              Andrey, give another joke.
              This one already got it.

              I'm wondering, a purely theoretical situation in the spirit of Tom Clancy. A nuclear war with the United States, it is required to deliver a convoy of 4-5 container ships and / or BDK with reinforcements from Sakhalin to Kamchatka (or the Aleutian Islands - it does not matter). No airfields nearby - the Yankees burned them.

              Pure Convoy: container ships, BDK and escort:
              - 2 large anti-submarine ships 1134B
              - 2 TFR Petrel
              - 2 "singing frigates" 61 projects
              Nord course, 15 knots

              underwater cover:
              Submarine 671RT and PLARK 670 project

              Weakly intercept such a convoy forces typical American AUG?

              (CVN-65 Enterprise with full air wing, nuclear-powered cruiser California, 2-3 Belknapa, 3-4 Knox, multipurpose nuclear submarine Stagen)

              Year in the yard - let's say, 1975
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 16: 54 New
                +5
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Andrey, give another joke.
                This one already got it.

                As always - essentially no objection was made :)
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Weakly intercept such a convoy forces typical American AUG?

                In general, I do not see any problems.
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 22 July 2013 17: 03 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In general, I do not see any problems.

                  But I see

                  The Yankees have nothing but free-falling bombs, NURS and useless PRR in such a situation
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre 22 July 2013 17: 42 New
                    +2
                    And why did you return 30 years to the past, and do not consider the current situation?)
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 22 July 2013 17: 55 New
                      +2
                      Quote: patsantre
                      And why did you return 30 years to the past, and do not consider the current situation?)

                      It is possible and modern

                      4 destroyers like Daring against the US Navy carrier-based wing.
                      You dare to sit behind the helm of the F / A-18E?))
                      1. patsantre
                        patsantre 22 July 2013 19: 51 New
                        0
                        Aster-30 missiles have a range of 120-150 km if I'm not mistaken. A harpoon has 270 km. What's the catch?))
                      2. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 July 2013 20: 01 New
                        +1
                        Quote: patsantre
                        Aster-30 missiles have a range of 120-150 km if I'm not mistaken. A harpoon has 270 km. What's the catch?))

                        Sailors make coffee, knock down harpoons and drive the convoy on

                        The Aster 30 even knocks down the GQM-163 Coyote (speed 2,5M; flight altitude 5 meters). Shooting down the "Harpoon" (speed 0,8M, cruising altitude over 100 meters) will not be difficult
                      3. patsantre
                        patsantre 22 July 2013 21: 15 New
                        0
                        And if a hundred harpoons fly out at once? Will they also knock everything down? They will not be able to defend themselves indefinitely.
                        Or another option. Even if the British have such an impenetrable missile defense. And what about us? Let there be Peter the Great and 3 destroyers of 956 project. What can they do?
                        It’s possible, by the way, if it’s not difficult, a link with a detailed description of the Aster-30, the first time I hear about its so impressive features.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 22 July 2013 22: 01 New
                        0
                        Quote: patsantre
                        And if the harpoons fly out a hundred at a time?

                        And where will the AUG get a hundred percussion machines?
                        There are only 40 "Hornets" on the nimutz, of which, as usual, a couple of pieces are always incapable of combat

                        40 cars .. but can they take off at the same time (and then have to land them at the same time)?
                        Of course not - neither the size of the deck, nor the elevators, nor the catapults will be enough. As a result, the AUG will be able to create from the strength of 1-2 combat air patrols (Hawkai with a pair of Hornets), an attack group of 15-20 cars and an electronic warfare group (a pair of Growlers) All.
                        Quote: patsantre
                        Let there be Peter the Great and 3 destroyers of 956 project.

                        Probably need to stop thinking in categories
                        Super-duper "Nimitz" with a full wing of Super-Hornets and Growlers against 4 Soviet ships 30 years ago

                        The facts indicate that the AUG is not the ruler of the oceans - with a serious approach ("Daring" or "Horizon"), surface ships can harshly besiege carrier-based aircraft
                        Quote: patsantre
                        It’s possible, by the way, if it’s not difficult, a link with a detailed description of the Aster-30, the first time I hear about its so impressive features.

                        http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/814/

                        http://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/articles/interception-d-une-cible-superson
                        ique-evoluant-au-ras-de-l-eau.

                        Here: count the number of airplanes and honestly answer the question: how long does it take to lift at least half of them into the air?
                      5. patsantre
                        patsantre 22 July 2013 22: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And where will the AUG get a hundred percussion machines?
                        There are only 40 "Hornets" on the nimutz, of which, as usual, a couple of pieces are always incapable of combat


                        One hornet can take 4 missiles at once, and maybe even 6 if you want. I’m not saying that immediately in a second all these missiles can be fired. 20 planes are already a volley of 80 missiles. Somehow, I doubt that the deringos and not choke. Especially, taking into account interference.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The facts indicate that the AUG is not the ruler of the oceans - with a serious approach ("Daring" or "Horizon"), surface ships can harshly besiege carrier-based aircraft

                        How, I wonder, if it is hiding behind a radio horizon? Or is it even located outside the zone of impact of an air defense system? It was then that deringam would have come in handy for its aircraft carrier.
                        I am not saying that you can lift all planes at once. For 4 destroyers and a half there will be a lot.
                      6. patsantre
                        patsantre 23 July 2013 00: 14 New
                        +1
                        In the end, the destroyers can’t get to the Hornets, the Hornets can fly stupidly in turns to deplete their ammunition (talking about dering) and then even take on board the boarding.
                        In the end, the conclusion from our dispute follows precisely that the aircraft carrier’s aviation is very effective against enemy ships, but the Amers now simply do not have normal RCC.
                        Although the harpoon, with its small mass, has decent performance characteristics, and it can be hung up to 4, or even 6 harpoons on a plane, it’s more powerful and harder to intercept than the only Onyx on our fighter. there is.
                      7. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 23 July 2013 02: 09 New
                        0
                        Quote: patsantre
                        hornets can stupidly fly by turns draining their ammunition

                        Max. Nimitz performance in real conditions - 100 sorties per day
                        while they will "deplete" the Daring packs, a couple of days will pass - the convoy will pass the open sea area and enter the zone of action of coastal aviation. Air defense mission completed.
                        Quote: patsantre
                        In the end, the conclusion follows from our dispute that the aircraft carrier’s aviation is very effective against enemy ships

                        circled the convoy for two days, until he entered the zone of operations of his tactical air force)))
                        Quote: patsantre
                        but amers now simply do not have normal RCC.

                        And will not be. Hornet simply will not pick up super-sound anti-ship missiles - there are at least 2-3 tons in it
                      8. patsantre
                        patsantre 23 July 2013 12: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Max. Nimitz performance in real conditions - 100 sorties per day


                        But I heard about the big numbers.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        And will not be. Hornet simply will not pick up super-sound anti-ship missiles - there are at least 2-3 tons in it


                        And no. Better than 4 subsonic than 1 supersonic.
                      9. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 23 July 2013 12: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: patsantre
                        But I heard about the big numbers.

                        EMNIP at the exercises-97 Nimitz set a record - 198 sorties per day (excluding turntables)

                        Aircraft flew without combat load, PTB, etc., suspended kits, and half of the cars after takeoff simply described the circle around the top mast and immediately went to land. The usual window dressing for superiors, not related to real combat work
                2. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 23 July 2013 02: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: patsantre
                  One hornet can take 4 missiles at once, and maybe even 6 if you want.

                  Yeah dream
                  When flying from the deck, severe restrictions + required fuel supply. More than two at a time will not drag
                  and do the gunsmiths lie so quickly can test and prepare dozens of missiles
                  Quote: patsantre
                  already a salvo of 80 missiles. Something I doubt that the derings will do this and will not choke

                  Daring Radars
                  SAMPSON - capable of tracking up to 250 targets
                  S1850M (early warning) - 1000 targets

                  The rate of fire UVP SYLVER - 8 zur in 10 sec.
                  Active GOS missile, no backlight radars needed
                  Quote: patsantre
                  How, I wonder if she is hiding behind a radio horizon?

                  Let him hide further

                  Convoy goes the same course
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 08: 42 New
                  +3
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  There are only 40 "Hornets" on the nimutz, of which, as usual, a couple of pieces are always incapable of combat

                  wassat Oleg, you are ... well, guys don’t have to hang noodles on their ears, huh? What 40 machines? :) 48 Hornets + 5-6 growers.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  When flying from the deck, severe restrictions + required fuel supply. More than two at a time will not drag

                  And then Ostap suffered ... Hornet, having a full combat load in 7 with more than tons, is more than able to drag harpoons (with a total weight of as many as 4 tons) of underwing pylons 3-600 and maybe further - and calmly return after them start up.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  and do the gunsmiths lie so quickly can test and prepare dozens of missiles

                  Still big hat wassat RCCs undergo scheduled maintenance on time, no special pre-launch testing of harpoons is required.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Sailors make coffee, knock down harpoons and drive the convoy on

                  Aha :))))
                  1 version Sailors in deep anguish suddenly discover that a lot of jammers suddenly fell upon a single Daring radar and that instead of 250 targets, the radar screen shows a white muddy spot ... and then death will come, because without the main radar can.
                  Option 2 The sailors see that in addition to a dozen or more "Harpoons", a dozen or two supersonic PRR HARM, or something newer, are torn to their one and only radar. And the sailors will have a wide choice - either turn off the radar and lose all previously launched missiles (because the correction on the cruise line will be closed) and at the same time catch the "harpoons" with the boards, or say goodbye to their one and only radar - and catch the "harpoons" with the boards
                  Option 3
                  The sailors of Daring are surprised to find fifty RCC going to the ship. Convulsive fire on them allowed to bring down most of the RCC, but when approaching the surviving devices it suddenly turned out to be not RCC at all, but false MALD targets, weighing only 45 kg (and worth about 30 thousand dollars) each, but simulating a radar and IR signature RCC in flight. Dering’s ammunition is wasted and he is being finished off by several real RCCs.
                  And finally, the most realistic version of 4: Variant 1 + Variant 2 + Variant 3
                4. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 23 July 2013 12: 39 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  48 Hornets + 5-6 growlers.

                  Typical crap from booklet booklets. In theory, if you dam up all decks with technology so that they cannot fly up or sit down

                  I heard about the average order: 3 squadrons of fighters ~ 35 ... 40 cars - this goes well with what can be seen on any photo of an aircraft carrier
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Daring's only radar suddenly piled up a lot of jammers

                  Right a lot)))
                  By the way, what about missiles pointing at a source of interference?
                  Such developments were carried out - EMNIP such a scheme was implemented in the S-200
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The sailors see that in addition to a dozen or more "Harpoons", a dozen or two supersonic PRR HARM rushes to their one and only radar

                  1. on a moving target? however, a harm is not a shrak, maybe it will.
                  although the number of HARMs issued in Yugoslavia - 743 + 6 ALARM suggests otherwise
                  2. Harm also stray. This is a hefty bastard 4 meters long, besides, flying at high altitude

                  diagram of the hangar "Nimitz", count the cars - even if some of the equipment is piled up on the flight deck ... no fantasies about 60..70..80 planes work
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 13: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Typical crap from booklet booklets

                  Yeah, now Oleg started fantasizing the performance characteristics of American aircraft carriers :)))) The composition of the Nimitse air groups is more than known - it's SIXTY airplanes + support. those. For a long time, the Germans traveled with 20 Intruders, 20 Hornets and 20 Tomcat, not counting AWACS, EW, Viking anti-submarine squadrons and helicopters. Then the number was reduced to 48 - 24 Intruder and 24 tomcat. NOW - 48 SuperHornets.
                  You can land less on an aircraft carrier. But this suggests that someone has problems with money or with airplanes, and not about the capacity of aircraft carriers.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  a diagram of the Nimitz hangar, count the cars - even if some of the equipment is piled up on the flight deck.

                  Yeah, only Nimitz’s hangar is designed to be HALF an air group in it :)
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  By the way, what about missiles pointing at a source of interference?

                  Good question - we will discuss it when C-200 is put on Daring. laughing
                  I can say in advance that with a massive jamming, their source is not detected.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  1. on a moving target? however, a harm is not a shrak, maybe it will.

                  Nothing that the use of PRR when attacking ships was considered mandatory in the US Navy in the last century?
                6. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 23 July 2013 19: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Nothing that the use of PRR when attacking ships was considered mandatory in the US Navy in the last century?

                  http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/11/10.pdf
                  it remained unclear whether at that moment the "Warden" was on the move and how the "Shrikes" were released (distance, height)

                  countermeasures - soak media
                  if he managed to drop the "load", what prevents him from turning off the radar or playing doggy with the Shrikes?
                  How about traps being shot?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Good question - we will discuss it when C-200 is put on Daring.

                  In our case, Daring is just a concept. A modest European ship demonstrates the capabilities of modern air defense systems that can be improved
                  - larger ammunition (64-80 missiles)
                  - enter in the BK long-range missiles, like the S-400
                  - ammunition aimed at a source of radio interference - IMHO would be a very useful development, which will be appreciated around the world
                  - means of self-defense: 2-4 "Broadsword"

                  what the hell is not joking - suddenly such a ship will appear tomorrow somewhere in China?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  with massive jamming

                  2-3 Growler is very mashed
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Yeah, only Nimitz’s hangar is designed to be HALF an air group in it :)

                  On the hangar diagram, they stand perfectly, right up to the end (how to move and maintain them - xs) - only 34 fighters and a pair of AWACS climbed

                  where else to take a place under the remaining Hornets, 4 growlers and 2 AWACS ...

                  if so, as in the picture, all the elevators and bow catapults are jammed there. how to move planes, how to service them, to refuel, how to take off request ... window dressing and only.
                  so leave the tales about the 48 hornets to yourself - it will endure paper, but real photos do not confirm this
                7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 20: 57 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  so leave the tales about the 48 hornets to yourself - it will endure paper, but real photos do not confirm this

                  Yeah :)) Oleg Kaptsov came - and exposed everyone :)))) All sources were mistaken - but Oleg Kaptsov got to the truth with the help of a child's drawing and a couple of photos :))))
                  Oleg, all this bothered me very much - the layout of the hangar depicts the placement of 34 fighters 2 AWACS and 8 helicopters. 14 Khornetov, 2 AWACS and 6 Growlers, a pair of transporters and a pair of helicopters, and all - 26 aircraft, are not enough for the regular size of the air group. In the photo we see 36 hornets and 2 or even three AWACS - i.e. 38-39 LA. Those. in the photo - at least 12-13 aircraft from the hangar :)))
                  So, Oleg, you are again in flight.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  countermeasures - soak media

                  Does not channel, because PRR - "fire-forget" And what are you going to shoot down the carrier? Your favorite slingshot? He is outside the air defense zone.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  if he managed to drop the "load", what prevents him from turning off the radar or playing doggy with the Shrikes?

                  nothing bothers. Only as a result of such games, forget about the automatic radio command guidance missiles
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  How about traps being shot?

                  mini radar stations? wassat
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  In our case, Daring is just a concept. Modest European ship demonstrates

                  Oleg, demonstrate the girls on the podium. Ships are created for warfare.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  what the hell is not joking - suddenly such a ship will appear tomorrow somewhere in China?

                  Can. Just what will it have to do with Daring?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  2-3 Growler is very mashed

                  Its predecessor "Prowler" could deafen 5 (according to some sources - even 8 radar stations) So yes, 2-3 Growlers is VERY massive
                8. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 23 July 2013 23: 24 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  the layout of the hangar depicts the deployment of 34 fighters 2 AWACS and 8 helicopters. To the regular strength of the air group, there are not enough 14 Hornets, 2 AWACS and 6 Growlers, a pair of transporters and a pair of helicopters, and a total of 26 aircraft

                  The hangar diagram is pure fantasy - airplanes cannot stand like that in practice, otherwise it will be impossible to move and maintain them

                  In the photo of the flight deck, aircraft cluttered both bow catapults and all three elevators on the starboard side. Even to remove 10 cars from there is nothing much to change. AIRCRAFT TOO CLOSE
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Does not channel, because PRR - "fire-forget" And what are you going to shoot down the carrier?

                  But will he have time to shoot first?
                  Shrike starts from 10-20 km. Storm hits on 30
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  mini radar stations?

                  strong source of radio emission
                  The Yankees still in WWII did five-inch shells with radar
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Can. Just what will it have to do with Daring?

                  For us, Daring is a concept, a standard. PAAMS has proven the technical ability to intercept low-flying supersonic targets. You can move on: long-range anti-jamming missiles, "Broadsword" self-defense systems, etc.
                  Daring is not the limit of a modern air defense ship
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Ships are created for warfare.

                  Not always. For example, the Thai aircraft carrier is a royal yacht. And basketball games are held on the decks of the Nimitz

                  Commentary on the photo: Enterprise in the Mediterranean. Landing strip freed for possible reception of aircraft. There are no combat vehicles in readiness on the deck. Aircraft AWACS is ready for 30 minutes or more. From the moment the alarm is announced, it will take at least 45 minutes to take off the first pair of fighters. But at the same time, it will take a little more than an hour to take off a full squadron. Cars are clearly visible at the SIXPACK position.
                  http://eurasian-defence.ru/node/3602
                9. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 23 July 2013 23: 38 New
                  0
                  A couple more notes:

                  A Nimitz class aircraft carrier without interference for all types of flight operations using all launches can simultaneously hold up to 2 links (8 aircraft) on deck, one of which can be in 5-minute readiness, and the rest are in readiness from 15 to 45 minutes.

                  Use of the area of ​​elevators and blocking of a runway
                  allows you to increase the number of machines in readiness up to 20, while ensuring a 5-minute readiness of the pair. This figure is the maximum during the operation of an aircraft carrier to lift aircraft with maximum intensity. This is the maximum number of cars in one startup cycle.
                10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 July 2013 11: 29 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  On the scheme of the hangar pure fantasy

                  In the children's drawing of the hangar, you wanted to say. In general, airplanes are approximately like that in the hangar. Just put up with it :)))
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  In the photo of the flight deck, aircraft cluttered both bow catapults and all three elevators on the starboard side. Even to remove 10 cars from there is nothing much to change.

                  Even in photographed quantities, planes can be easily sorted around the deck so that all 4 catapults are free. Generally speaking, even a four-year-old would have dealt with this.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  But will he have time to shoot first?
                  Shrike starts from 10-20 km. Storm hits on 30

                  where did you get the storm storm on 1134 and on the singing frigate?
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  strong source of radio emission
                  The Yankees still in WWII did five-inch shells with radar

                  Just write the abbreviation-naming of the station or traps and that's it :)))
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  For us, Daring is a concept, a standard. PAAMS has proven the technical ability to intercept low-flying super-sonic targets.

                  Oleg, well, for you, maybe the standard, but we knew how to intercept such goals for quite some time :)))
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  You can move on: long-range missiles with guidance on interference,

                  The so-called active-passive GOS are created (or have already been created) for our missiles of the RVV family and, possibly, someone else
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  self-defense systems "Broadsword"

                  ZRAKs are likely to be abandoned - the concept let us down.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Not always.

                  well, maybe "daring" and a royal yacht, I admit it.
                  Using the elevator area and blocking the runway allows you to increase the number of cars in standby up to 20-tee, while ensuring 5-minute readiness of the pair. This figure is the maximum during the operation of an aircraft carrier to lift aircraft with maximum intensity. This is the maximum number of cars in one startup cycle.

                  Oh, it’s necessary :))) Oleg found out about the existence of spotting :)))
                  Yes, Oleg, even in WWII, aircraft from aircraft carriers did not start simultaneously, but in groups, as soon as they were ready, while the start of the group took about 20-25 minutes, not counting the time to prepare the group for departure. And how did they just fight, Oleg, eh? Come on, make another "discovery" - there were no aircraft carriers in the Pacific Ocean, and the whole war in the air was fought by a pair of three planes, because neither Kido Butai nor OS58 had the physical ability to lift more :))) At the same time, Oleg, lay out photos of the rise of air groups (where they are lined up like sardines in a barrel, wing to wing) and prove that the photos were staged and that the planes could not take off like that :))) The Shnobel Prize is guaranteed :))))
                11. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 24 July 2013 12: 50 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  In general, airplanes are approximately like that in the hangar.

                  Those. ideally 34 cars and 2 AWACS aircraft

                  The type of upcoming operation determines the configuration of the air group that will directly carry it out. When setting a combat mission for an aircraft carrier, the composition of the vehicles that it takes on board is determined in advance. So, when performing the tasks of covering the fleet in the open sea, the wing base will be fighters, and electronic warfare vehicles can be left on shore. When acting against the coast, the balance will be shifted towards the strike machines, and with the support of landing operations, more helicopters will be accepted on board. All other compounds that are assigned to the aircraft carrier remain at the bases, or can be transferred to the bridgehead in other ways in order to create a gain after the aircraft carrier occupies a position. This explains the large formal strength of the air group assigned to the aircraft carrier. For example, the CVW-11 wing of the Nimitz aircraft carrier formally includes 3 squadrons of attack aircraft, a fighter squadron, an electronic warfare squadron, AWACS, 2 helicopter squadrons and a transport aviation department, which formally amounts to 90 aircraft [1]. In reality, the load of an aircraft carrier is determined by the combat mission, and rarely exceeds 45 aircraft, and when operating on the high seas it is limited by the capacity of the hangar deck.


                  about 60 aircraft on board did you drive
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  where did you get the storm storm on 1134 and on the singing frigate?

                  Good morning!
                  How would the conversation initially go about 1134B
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The so-called active-passive GOS are created (or have already been created) for our missiles of the RVV family and, possibly, someone else

                  Growler will have a hard day
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  ZRAKs are likely to be abandoned - the concept let us down.

                  most importantly a couple of machines with wholesale. and radio guidance
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Using the elevator area and blocking the runway allows you to increase the number of cars in standby up to 20, while ensuring a 5-minute readiness of the pair

                  20 airplanes, including electronic warfare, fighter jets and AWACS with an interval of TWO HOURS - and here you were treating about massive strikes

                  Despite the fact that it is impossible to clutter the landing deck - after all, there is probably a Viking in the air and a pair of combat air patrols that will soon return to the ship
                12. Kars
                  Kars 24 July 2013 13: 02 New
                  +1
                  I read it with pleasure. I will have to try to write a story no matter what. We are worse than Klensi
                13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 July 2013 07: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  about 60 aircraft on board did you drive

                  ??? For the gifted - I quote
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  The hangar diagram depicts the deployment of 34 2 AWACS and 8 helicopters. 14 Khornetov, 2 AWACS and 6 Growlers, a pair of transporters and a pair of helicopters, and all - 26 aircraft, are not enough for the regular size of the air group. In the photo we see 36 hornets and 2 or even three AWACS - i.e. 38-39 LA. Those. in the photo - at least 12-13 aircraft from the hangar :)))

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  20 airplanes, including electronic warfare, fighter jets and AWACS with an interval of TWO HOURS - and here you were treating about massive strikes

                  Why not SIXTEEN HOURS? :))) sounds cooler, and the connection with reality is the same.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  While it is impossible to clutter the landing deck

                  Oleg, the world of your fantasies is depressingly monotonous. Of course, it is possible to clutter up the landing deck, because it is cluttered for the duration of the takeoff and landing operations, which does not require so much time.
                  Nimitz really needs a couple of hours to lift the entire wing - but the actual take-off operations will take as much as half as much.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 21: 36 New
    +4
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    But I see

    Happy for you.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The Yankees have nothing but free-falling bombs, NURS and useless PRR in such a situation

    Oleg, did you decide to troll me again, or do you really not know? If you don’t know, then here’s a small educational program
    The air defense capabilities of the compound you indicated are 4 "Volna" air defense systems with a range of 15 km on "singing frigates" and 4 "Volna-M" air defense systems with a range of 22 km. http://worldweapon.ru/flot/volna.php there are no more anti-jamming missiles yet.
    As of 1975, the United States had a bullpup guided missile (11-16 km range http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-12.html) and Maverick - up to 28 km range http: / /www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html. At the same time, both missiles had very weighty warheads (113-136 kg), but for example the AGM-12C bullpup flying at 16 km had as much as 454 kg high-explosive warhead) while, if the bullpup needed external guidance (controlled by a joystick from the cockpit ) then Maverick worked on the principle of "fire-forget"
    And also, of course, there is Shrike radar, which can generally be launched from a distance of 52 km. You, Oleg, are completely in vain writing it into useless - the PRR is purely purple where the radar is located - on land or at sea, it will work equally efficiently for both.
    Well, now, Oleg, imagine an oil painting - the aircraft wing of the Enterprise is deployed to attack. Assault aircraft reach the line of attack - about 30 km to the order. At this moment, the radar suppression aircraft fire a salvo of Shrike missiles - they are perfectly guided by any radiating radar, and one attack aircraft calmly drags up to 4 missiles and more - only 4 aircraft will provide 4 missiles for each ship - it will not seem a little. At this time, the electronic warfare blocks of the Prowler planes are cut in - one plane carries up to 5 blocks, i.e. capable of suppressing 5 enemy radars.
    Of course, all this does not guarantee the safety of American aircraft. But in the conditions of such atrocious opposition it will be good to hit if one of the 5-7 missiles (real - and even less)
    So, even if the Volna-M fires at the plane when it is at a distance of 20 km (and it will be a miracle, since the electronic warfare will greatly knock down the capture range), 4 air defense systems will work out at 4 targets with 8 missiles. Shoot down one plane, surprisingly if two. And the next volley can be made only after 50 seconds, i.e. when an attack aircraft flying at 900 km / h will overcome 12,5 km and will be 7,5 km from the ships. By this time, "bullpup" fired from a distance of 16-11 km and going to the target at 1,8M will already hit the ships.
    The situation with the "singing frigates" is even worse - by the time the American planes reach their firing range, their bullpup will have already been fired, and even the destruction of the plane does not guarantee that the bullpup will miss its target. In any case, all 8 Soviet air defense systems will have time to fire only ONE salvo before enemy missiles reach the ships. In total, 8 air defense systems will fire 8 aircraft with 16 missiles - taking into account that the target is hit by one of 5-7 missiles, no more than 2-3 aircraft will be shot down.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 21: 38 New
      +2
      If you attack each Soviet ship with 7 air defense systems (one shoots with multiple PRRs, 3 shoots one bullpup each, three more shoot XUNMX mavericks), then you need 3 planes, while they will launch 28 Shrikes 16 bulldaps and XNUMN mey and all - 12 missiles. Since the ships also have EW and other self-defense capabilities, suppose that only one of the 36-4 missiles will reach the target - but this gives 64-5 missiles or 7-9 missiles to each ship
      Thus, it can be stated that one or two ships, having received 454 kg of explosive bullpup, will go to the bottom, and the remaining 2 or three will be decently damaged - and this is at the cost of 2-3 aircraft! Let’s say, one or two more can be brought down at the exit. Useless then? Repeated raid - and all BOD with air defense systems will be destroyed.
      But in reality - everything is much worse, since a couple of “Prowlers” will be able to score with the Scimitars so that half of the ZRU will not be able to shoot at all.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 22 July 2013 22: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The air defense capabilities of the compound you specified are 4 Volna air defense systems with a range of 15 km on "singing frigates" and 4 Volna-M air defense systems

      4 M-11 "Storm"
      4 M-1 "Wave"
      8-10 Wasp-M

      + anti-aircraft artillery
      + MANPADS
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      "Maverick" - up to 28 km range http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html.

      This is the fuel range
      Real range (guidance system sensitivity) - 6 ... 9 km
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      give a salvo by Shrike missiles - perfectly guided by any radar station

      Especially on moving
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      but for example AGM-12C bullpup flying 16 km

      Pilots will have to climb a few hundred meters and become an ideal miguel for air defense systems

      Andrey, recount again
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 22: 50 New
        +1
        I will explain a little more detailed
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        8-10 Wasp-M

        Firstly, only half will be able to fire (they are on-board.) Secondly, this is how I included them in missile defense. Otherwise, what a lucky chance only one of the 5-7 American missiles will reach?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        + anti-aircraft artillery

        Given the fact that the aircraft will go out of the attack at a distance of 6-7 km, the effectiveness of FOR is difficult to underestimate :)))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Real range (guidance system sensitivity) - 6 ... 9 km

        The first models, the next ones - 11-12, just for 1975 year :)))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Especially on moving

        Yes, even by moving
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Pilots will have to climb a few hundred meters and become an ideal miguel for air defense systems

        So what? After the first missiles are fired, the pilots of the stormtroopers can calmly point the bullpups - the second batch still does not have time.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Andrey, recount again

        Oleg, all this is taken into account in the calculations. The artillery and missile launchers of the Wasp will work out on missiles. And if they do not, the American will not count 2-3 aircraft, and not one of the 5-7 but one of the 3 missiles will fall into the ships.
      3. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 July 2013 01: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Firstly - "Wasp-M" will be able to fire only half (they are on board.)

        At 1135, one SAM in the stern, one in the bow.
        no matter which side you fly up to - Amer Pelots will face a flurry of fire
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Otherwise, what a happy chance only one of the 5-7 American missiles will reach?

        Leave your dreams of rockets, there’s still a big question - can carrier planes fly
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Given the fact that the aircraft will go out of the attack at a distance of 6-7 km, the effectiveness of FOR is difficult to underestimate :)))

        Will have to come much closer. Why - see below

        Amer pilots are waiting for 12 twin AK-726 automatic missiles with ZS-62 shells and an AR-67 type fuse. Caliber 76 mm. Guidance according to the radar. Firing Range 11 km.
        + 8 AK-630 on the Golden Eagles
        + several AK-725 on the BDK
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The first models, the next ones - 11-12, just for 1975 year :)))

        Yeah dream
        Rocket AGM-65D. In addition, ceteris paribus, its GOS can capture the target at a distance of 9-12 km. that is, almost twice as large as the television heads of the UR AGM-65A and AGM-65B, and in winter the possibility of its use is reduced only by 10-12%, and not by 70%.

        Development of the AGM-65D began in 1977, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in October 1983, with IOC (Initial Operational Capability) achieved in February 1986.
        So, Andrei, the amers in 1975 will have to fly at point blank range and a couple of minutes to pretend to be a target for shooting Soviet air defense systems and artillery of all types
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, even by moving

        During the raids, the British failed to destroy the Argentinean AN / TRS-43F radar. Only one Shrike rocket exploded 70 from the radar
        And here you are healing about shooting at a moving maneuvering target at 15-20 knots

        2. Remember how the Shriki were launched. Range, trajectory. US Navy launches kamikaze pilot course
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        So what? After the first missiles are fired, the pilots of the stormtroopers can calmly point the bullpups - the second batch still does not have time.

        AGM-12. Launch range - 11..16 km. Guidance system - radio command
        The US Navy is increasing enrollment in kamikaze pilot courses. The perfect target. They do not have time to lie down on a combat course, as they are brought down
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 08: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The US Navy is increasing enrollment in kamikaze pilot courses. The perfect target. They do not have time to lie down on a combat course, as they are brought down

        Yeah, yeah :))) Oleg, what is this "Om mani padme hum"? :))) Mantras and artistic exaggerations have gone again? :))
        Volna has a 50 second cooldown. This way she can do ONE volley before the bullpup approaches. Because even if the missiles go when 20 km are left to the group of attack aircraft, then by the second salvo the planes following 900 km / h will long ago reach the bullpup launch distance (even if 15 km), spending 20 seconds to release the bullpup and the rocket, moving at an average speed of 1,8M (we take 1800 km for simplicity), will fly the remaining 15 km in 30 seconds, i.e. the bullpup will reach the ship when the missile launcher is finished reloading.
        But actually all this is fantastic. From the moment the Americans began to use jamming airplanes in Vietnam and equipped their attack planes with jamming stations and radiation warning sensors, Vietnam’s C-75 AT ALL could not withstand American air raids - they were simply jammed, and even the possibility of aiming at a source of interference by the three-point method did not help - the interference was too strong, it was impossible to determine its center - they looked either like a strip or like a full screen illumination. The only way to use an air defense system was an ambush, when the air defense system batteries were deployed in an unobvious direction and attacked enemy aircraft suddenly, when they did not expect anything like that. And then the battery had to urgently leave - otherwise they would cover it. So Oleg, even according to official Soviet data (and they were always a little embellished):
        Despite the recognition of the Americans themselves that at that time in Vietnam they had to deal with the most effective air defense system in history, the results of the air defense system at the final stage of the war, the warring parties also evaluated differently. According to our experts, during 1972, as a result of 1155 combat firing, the launch of the 2059 missiles resulted in the downing of an American aircraft. In turn, the Yankees somehow saw 421 missile launch, but recognized the death of only 4224 of their aircraft. Http://pvo.guns.ru/s49/s75.htm

        Obviously, the truth is somewhere in between. Even officialdom gives 4,9 missiles to an airplane, but the real expense for hitting one target is, perhaps, at least 10 missiles. And this result, Oleg, is achieved Ambush action! In the case of a targeted strike on the ships, there will be no ambush, and there will be a very powerful suppression of the interference of the radar of Soviet ships.
        And all this, Oleg, will make sense only if the Americans go at altitude, and not on low level flight, because at low level they will not touch them at all - the Volna could not fire at targets below 150-200 m, "Wave-M" - 100 m.
      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 08: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Amer pilots are waiting for 12 paired automatic AK-726 with shells ZS-62 with a radio-controlled fuse type AP-67.

        I don’t even want to laugh at this. The effectiveness of the 76-mm caliber for aircraft at a distance of 7-10 km is something with something :)) Oleg, well, read something about the effectiveness of the barrel artillery itself.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Development of the AGM-65D began in 1977, and the first missiles were delivered to the USAF in October 1983, with IOC (Initial Operational Capability) achieved in February 1986.
        So, Andrei, the amers in 1975 will have to fly at point blank range and a couple of minutes to pretend to be a target for shooting Soviet air defense systems and artillery of all types

        In your sweet dreams, Oleg. I really made a mistake - 11-12 km There were no Mavericks as of 1975. That's just all this does not make any sense - because the distance 4-6 km for the first Mavericks is indicated for SMALL purposes. http://commi.narod.ru/txt/shirad/338.htm
        Although the maximum launch range of Maverick missiles is 20 km, on average, depending on the transparency of the air and lighting conditions, the practical range of confident capture of a small target by a television homing head ranges from 4 to 6 km when striking from low altitudes.

        And our BODs are never, well, a small-sized target. So the GOS "Maverick" will take it for 12 and 15 km, and even for all 20 :)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        During the raids, the British failed to destroy the Argentinean AN / TRS-43F radar. Only one Shrike rocket exploded 70 from the radar

        And then a direct manipulation of facts began. Yes, in the Falklands, the British used the shrike two times - both times on the Argentine radar stations you indicated, and both times, which is typical, did not hit. But how many missiles were fired? for what reason there were no hits? Maybe the clever Argentine locator simply knocked out their radar station, fixing the missile launch? Maybe two radars began to turn on and off alternately, playing with the shrikes in the "doggie" and they shied from one radar to another? All of these methods worked well for knocking down a not-too-smart missile.
        But Oleg, for some reason, you ignore the fact that while the radars are playing with shrikes, there can be no talk of any normal aiming of missiles. The meaning of the Shrikes is not to crush the radar, but to prevent them from working effectively while the attack is on the air defense positions. And Shrike is quite capable of coping with this task.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2. Remember how the Shriki started

        Range - up to 52 km, launch along a ballistic trajectory, when approaching the target, the GOS is turned on. Despite the fact that the Shrike’s speed reaches 1 km / s (this is Sparrow’s remake, if anything), then the flight time from 40 km is 40 seconds, during this time a ship going to 20 nodes will depart to 400 m. In other words, Oleg, enough a little lead and the PRR will have a good chance to capture the radar of the ship.
      6. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 July 2013 13: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Efficiency 76 mm caliber for aircraft at a distance

        point blank
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        km for the first Mavericks is indicated for SMALL purposes.

        How about winter conditions, excitement, wind, fog, rain squalls, thickening dusk, jamming systems, smoke curtains? ....
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And Shrike is quite capable of coping with this task.

        It’s in vain that the Shriki appeared with phosphorus filling — five heels of rockets that exploded near the air defense system will tell the attack aircraft where to throw bombs.
        That's such an honor.
        And on a moving target - miss 100%
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Vietnam S-75 AT ALL could not resist the attacks of American aircraft

        This is just C-75
        How about the M-11 "Storm"

        joke:
        gateway to paradise. new arrivals
        - who are they?
        - US Air Force pilots shot down in Vietnam
        - gone out of here, impostors, according to the US Air Force, there were no losses

        чисто по приколу: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8_%D1%81%D0%B0%D

        0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%92%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%82%D

        0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Range - up to 52 km, ballistic trajectory launch,

        Plain advertising booklet.

        The shark has too narrow a "view" sector. The Shrike should have been launched with a minimum deviation - the real launch range is 10-20 km ... although, in our case, a moving target - from 52 km will get guaranteed)))

        The only, most reliable and acceptable option for the Yankees is a low-altitude breakthrough and Mk.82 bomb attack
      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 13: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        point blank

        See only that the tent does not fall
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How about winter conditions, excitement, wind, fog, rain squalls, thickening dusk, jamming systems, smoke curtains? ....

        Which exist solely for US aircraft, while Soviet ships sail along a smooth surface of water, in the sky - not a cloud, and only a light breeze caresses the three-day stubble of an old man who has decided to grow a beard?
        Oleg, these are factors that will affect the performance of ALL missiles, not just American ones.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It’s in vain that the Shriki appeared with phosphorus filling — five heels of rockets that exploded near the air defense system will tell the attack aircraft where to throw bombs.

        Oleg, well, would you at least read something about PRR before writing? Shrike miss on radar in two cases
        1) If it was initially launched into the wrong steppe, so the GOS will not capture any radar due to the absence of this radar itself. And what is phosphorus highlighting here?
        2) When Shrike nevertheless captured the radar but the radar was turned off :))) Then Shrike will fall somewhere nearby and phosphorus will show an approximate location.
        And we have the whole task - not to kill the radar, but to make the crew turn it off :))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And on a moving target - miss 100%

        Oleg said! Oleg Velik
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This is just C-75

        And this is just "Wave"
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How about the M-11 "Storm"

        much more serious thing
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The only, most reliable and acceptable option for OLEG KAPTSOV - low-altitude breakthrough and bombing by Mk.82
      8. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 23 July 2013 19: 31 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Which exist exclusively for US aircraft

        Of course, BODs do not use television guidance systems - they do not care about fog, smoke and poor visibility
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Shrike miss on radar in two cases

        as well as errors in the operation of the GOS and the insufficient speed of microcircuits and drives
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 22 July 2013 21: 38 New
    +1
    Let me get it in. Yes, in 1975. it would be problematic, and then the number of planes conducting the attack would decide everything. 8 M-11 Storm + 8 M-1 Wave + 16 Wasp + artillery. At the CVN-65 Enterprise in 1975 Of the attack aircraft, there are only two A-7E squadrons of 12 aircraft each, one A-6A squadron is also 12 aircraft. Armed with free-falling bombs and NURSs. To help them, 4 RA-5C reconnaissance aircraft, from 4 to 6 E-2B AWACS aircraft, as well as 6 EA-3B and EA-6B EW aircraft. and 4 tankers KA-6D. At the same time, no more than two squadrons could attack, i.e. 24 attack aircraft under cover of 2 EW aircraft. Using the suppression of the radar and low altitudes, the attackers would have a good chance of breaking through to the convoy and delivering a bomb attack. And the attack aircraft from the Enterprise knew how to bomb, in 1978, by mistake, one Corsair dropped three 500 pound bombs into the USS Cree (ATF-84) tug (full displacement of 1700 tons, length 63 m., Width 12 m.) And all three bombs fell into him. If in one attack both Golden Eagles can be put out of action, then the fate of the convoy will be sad. Undoubtedly, the losses of the attacking side will be at least 30-40%.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 23 July 2013 01: 19 New
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      only two A-7E squadrons of 12 vehicles each, one A-6A squadron is also 12 vehicles.

      less much less
      Quote: Nayhas
      Using the suppression of the radar and low altitudes, attackers would have a good chance of breaking through to the convoy and delivering a bomb attack

      Through Wasps and AK-630?))
      + MANPADS
      + 76 mm AK-726 assault rifles
      Quote: Nayhas
      And the attack aircraft from the Enterprise knew how to bomb, in 1978 by mistake one Corsair dropped three 500 pound bombs into the tug of USS Cree

      First, let it fly
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 23 July 2013 11: 06 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        less much less

        From 17.09.1974/20.05.1975/65 on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX The CVN-XNUMX Enterprise participated in Frequent Wind operations in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Moreover, based on it:
        VF-1 "Wolfpack" -12 F-14A
        VF-2 "Bounty Hunters" -12 F-14A
        VA-27 "Royal Maces" -12 A-7E
        VA-97 "Warhawks" -12 A-7E
        VA-196 "Main Battery" -12 A-6A and 4 KA-6D
        VAQ-137 "Rooks" -4-6 EA-6B
        HS-2 "Golden Falcons" -? SH-3D
        VAW-113 "Black Eagles" -4-6 E-2B
        RVAH-12 "Speartips" - 4 RA-5C
        VQ-1 Det 65 "World Watchers" -? EA-3B
        For this military service the photo album "USS Enterprise (CVAN 65) WestPac Cruise Book 1974-75"
        http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cvn65-74/index.html
        Also, please note that all attack aircraft pilots had a wealth of experience in the Vietnam War.
        There are many questions about the effectiveness of naval air defense systems. For example, the American Prolers effectively suppressed domestic-made radars in Vietnam, in addition, in 1974. they underwent modernization having received new suppression stations. Neither confirmed their effectiveness in 1991. against the Iraqi radars produced by the USSR, the same Osa and Dvina were successfully suppressed, therefore there is every reason to believe that at least Osa and Volna will be suppressed, while Storm, having the ability to television, could snarl, but could not repel a simultaneous attack from different directions. The capabilities of the AK-726 and AK-630 in the conditions of application of interference were limited by crew training, I hope it was high. Therefore, I indicated the approximate loss of the attacking side in 40%.
  • 11 black
    11 black 22 July 2013 18: 34 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: 11 black
    on Orlan there are 94 Rif missiles (range 150 km) and 128 Kinzhal self-defense missiles, it will "Drop from the sky" a couple of three squadrons before the aviation sinks it

    it is done like this. Hokai comes out with a couple of hawks and hangs kilometers in 300 from the ship. There Orlan sees him, but he cannot plant him from the sky - there is nothing.
    At this time, several groups of airplanes are flying on a low-level flight to Orlan. Orlan does not see them, because they are beyond the radio horizon.
    The first to enter the business is a demonstration group - it climbs out from under the radio horizon and shows itself in all its glory, at the same time attacking Orlan with anti-ship missiles and anti-radar missiles. Orlan turns on the radar (and what remains for him) and enters the battle.
    Here the suppression group (which the cruiser's radars, again, do not see, because the group's planes are beyond the radio horizon) cut in all the electronic warfare units to suppress Orlan's radar 9, thus covering the demonstration group) and fire anti-radar missiles at the cruiser's designated stations. And at the same time assault groups (also from under the radio horizon) release their "harpoons"
    Orlan has no choice but to switch its air defense to the missiles reaching him - and there will be several dozen of them from 20 attack aircraft, and in conditions of strong interference, it simply will not be possible to reflect. The eagle will be damaged and finished off with controlled bombs, the price is, at best, a pair of aircraft from a demonstration squad.
    This is if the squadrons are generally generous with the demonstration, rather than getting closer to the cruiser at 50-60 km and don’t get down because of the radio horizon (about 30 km) with a shower of missiles at the current coordinates of the cruiser.
    so one can not even dream of any "shot down squadrons".

    You are inattentive !!! But think right, I said that the order must include an aircraft carrier !!! If you know the characteristics of the KS-172 air-to-air missile being developed now, which is just for "Sitting" Hokayev and is intended (launch range 400 km), Hokai, if the cruiser turns on electronic warfare at full, will not be able to work from a distance of more than 250-300 km , which means that a priori it falls into the KS-172 affected area (in addition, infa slipped through that a ground / ship version of this rocket was being developed, it seems like there will be 1 of the missiles for the 500), and with the advent of such an option, the need for an aircraft carrier will disappear, the ship he himself will be able to destroy the AWACS aircraft, well, then - turning on the radar by the attackers, their instant detection and ... well, you know, so the aviation strategy given by you will soon cease to be relevant
    PS really looking forward to KS-172 ... good luck to the developers !!!
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 22 July 2013 23: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: 11 black
      KS-172, which is just for "Sitting" Hokayev and is intended (launch range 400 km), Hokai, if the cruiser turns on the electronic warfare means to the full, will not be able to work from a distance of more than 250-300 km,


      Firstly, this missile is still not corny, and it’s not a fact that it will confirm its characteristics. Secondly, Hokai, sensing something is amiss, can hide behind a radio horizon, and not the fact that the rocket will find him there. Well and thirdly, the enemy also does not sleep, he also has EW aircraft, in EW conditions the hokai itself may not be visible, and the rocket may not fly.
      In other words, 400 km is just the theoretical range of an as yet non-existent missile ...
      1. 11 black
        11 black 23 July 2013 21: 32 New
        0
        Quote: patsantre
        Firstly, this missile is still not corny, and it is not a fact that it will confirm its characteristics.

        Yes, but it has already flown and is in the final stages of development, so a combat version should appear soon, especially since India is financing the project ...
        Quote: patsantre
        , Hokai, sensing something was amiss, could hide behind a radio horizon, and not the fact that the rocket would find him there.

        Yes, you don’t need to look for him - when he hides, he will abandon the attacking group, leave it without targeting, she will be forced to turn on her radars and find herself, or stop the attack - in both cases the attack is frustrated! hi
      2. igor.borov775
        igor.borov775 22 August 2013 21: 34 New
        +1
        No need to strain, what’s written bullshit, It’s useless to argue that the USSR had a simple method and it seems very effective who does not know naval life can write everything, But it was simple before the stunned it was always a grouping of a potential enemy as a grouping of our ships was nearby and boats, the Yankees called it THE GISTRON AT THE WHISK, And there is no need to consider something as they compete higher in comments, The blow was delivered almost point-blank,
    2. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 22 August 2013 21: 15 New
      0
      Hi Somehow, there was an interesting broadcast on VESTY and there was a conversation about EAGLES, About modernization, There the problem is another, the scientists were given the task of creating a completely new set of weapons, And the task will be said to be very difficult so far there are only blueprints, Everything that is being released now and in the near future there won’t be on board, This is one of the most important problems, Everyone is waiting for all these surveys to finish, As soon as everything has been worked out, modernization will begin, Shipbuilders are waiting for this news, While these ships were being built menacingly nothing existed, Add to that those who built found the golden rule of the ship and it seems for the first time, so we will wait for what our great scientists will give, This is the challenge facing our scientists,
  • patsantre
    patsantre 22 July 2013 14: 07 New
    +1
    Everything has already been painted for me, there’s nothing to add. The surface ship itself is the most vulnerable element of the fleet, and therefore the fight against the enemy’s fleet is not its prerogative. Of course, there must be a large number of anti-ship missiles on it, with a decent amount and good features, but the rate should be done on air defense formations (this is when interacting with an aircraft carrier) and ground strikes.
    And you are not very accurate in judging the number of missiles in the UKKS. Here, of course, the professionals know best, but I think that 8-16 anti-ship missiles and 8-12 anti-ship missiles will be enough for any destroyer, and the rest can be missed for missiles to work on the ground.
  • Bronis
    Bronis 22 July 2013 13: 39 New
    +1
    21956 will not go into series. Another project is being developed.
  • sop.ov
    sop.ov 22 July 2013 09: 56 New
    0
    For air defense there is an air defense system "Shtil", as well as X-NUMX artillery guns AK-4.
    And not the Hurricane air defense system? Are the AK-130 not suitable for air defense? Otherwise, I agree with the aftar.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 10: 18 New
    +8
    Generally speaking, even compared to the first Berks, the 956 project was not quite as bad as it is now considered to be.
    lacking structural protection

    Here Chesslov did not understand. What constructive protection does Arly Burke have that is not on the 956 project?
    missing multifunctional BIOS

    This, alas, is so.
    1 radar detection for airborne targets

    And I, too, cannot understand this. Arlie is equipped with SPY-1 - and that's actually all. We - "Fregat" - a very, very worthy radar.
    weak capabilities of a sonar station to search for submarines

    This is certainly true.
    boiler turbine power plant

    The question is not so much in the boiler turbine as in the unreliability :)) But with the EI of our destroyers there are really problems, the Arly chassis is better.
    and relatively weak air defense

    In principle, no one argues that the American Aegis is more advanced in comparison with a pair of "Hurricanes" of our project 956. But still it should be borne in mind that
    1) Perhaps the only advantage of the American Stadrat-2 missiles is the long-range missiles. but the first modifications of Standard-2 did not realize firing at low-flying targets
    2) 956 project destroyers were equipped with six backlight radars against three on Arly Burke.
    Thus, if the air defense capabilities of Arleigh Burke are perhaps higher, then the missile defense capabilities (repelling attacks of anti-ship missiles) are higher for the destroyer 956. In fact, it all comes down to the following - the destroyer of Project 956 in theory could repel the attack of eight "Harpoons" by Arlie Burke. Arlie Burke, even in theory, could not repel the attack of eight Project 956 Mosquitoes.
    American destroyers have an undeniable advantage: 4400 miles on 20 nodes versus 3940 miles on 18 nodes for Soviet destroyers of the 956 project

    There is an advantage, of course, but is it so great?
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 22 July 2013 18: 09 New
      0
      The author of this wiki copy-paste this article. I won’t be surprised if everything was copied from there.
  • indiggo
    indiggo 22 July 2013 10: 21 New
    0
    yes what are you talking about. this is an old project, I certainly will not argue, but it is unlikely that this project will be the main one, as far as I know, priority will still be given to YaU ...
  • user
    user 22 July 2013 10: 32 New
    +4
    I have one question why Russia is trying to build ships of reduced displacement, and then trying to put the weapons of a ship of a higher class. Isn't that a flawed practice. Those. the ship initially had a bunch of bottlenecks. Take the United States too, it can be treated differently, but the US Navy is by far the most powerful, so there is nothing like that. And we’re sorry, we need to strengthen some of the tasks of the existing ship (the fight against submarines, or air defense, etc.). This, in principle, is impossible, does not allow displacement
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 22 July 2013 11: 32 New
      0
      Quote: user
      I have one question why Russia is trying to build ships of reduced displacement, and then trying to put the weapons of a ship of a higher class. Isn't that a flawed practice.

      The practice is flawed, but we must remember that the greater the displacement, the higher the cost.
      Quote: user
      And we’re sorry, we need to strengthen some of the tasks of the existing ship (the fight against submarines, or air defense, etc.). This, in principle, is impossible, does not allow displacement

      Soviet destroyers were oriented towards destroying the enemy’s NK having secondary and anti-aircraft defense functions. The United States also had problems with the universality of EM until it began to equip them with universal UVP.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 12: 05 New
      +7
      The USSR believed that it was necessary to have an 2 ship of moderate displacement - a BOD and a destroyer. The Americans tried to combine everything in one ... And not so that it turned out really well. What is Arly anti-submarine? ASROK, who was recently taught to fly at 18 km, and before that he flew at 10 km? 324 mm torpedoes? And good CEO. Well, imagine, GUS Arli spotted our submarine kilometers so in 40-45 .. so what? Get a full-time iconostasis and pray to Neptune so that the Russian acoustics is deaf? Because if an American EM was detected on a submarine, now the RCC will start and ... and that’s it. Without long-range means of destruction, Arly came out in accordance with the proverb: he sees an eye and a tooth goes numb.
      Our BODs with "sockets" about 55 km of range did not have such problems :))) The air defense of two arli is certainly better than a pair of BOD + EM, but if they suddenly have to converge at the distance of a missile salvo and hit 16 Harpoons against 8 Mosquitoes - my preferences for the USSR, since The air defense of our ships was good at intercepting subsonic targets, but the Americans could not intercept supersonic low-flying mosquitoes even then, and even now it is very doubtful that they can.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 22 July 2013 16: 19 New
        +2
        First, you must understand that their destroyers are designed to interact with aircraft carriers. Therefore, they do not need powerful anti-ship missiles. For the same reason, there may be no need for awesome PLURs - their tasks are performed by PLO helicopters, including those based on the berks themselves.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 22 July 2013 16: 43 New
          +6
          Quote: patsantre
          First, you must understand that their destroyers are designed to interact with aircraft carriers.

          In! Golden words :))) Therefore, it was possible to dispense with a universal standardized ship, a pair of which, in general, loses to two specialized ones, but perfectly performs its functions as part of an aircraft carrier connection :)
    3. igor.borov775
      igor.borov775 22 August 2013 21: 38 New
      0
      We poorly know the Yankees. The destroyer and the cruiser have the same weapons. Look very carefully.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 22 July 2013 11: 43 New
    0
    A ship is a ship with weapons, which prevents the modernization of weapons, because there are many new developments, and there is no need to build new hulls, these 30 years go by.
    1. IRBIS
      IRBIS 22 July 2013 12: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: Tuzik
      A ship is a ship with weapons, which prevents the modernization of weapons, because there are many new developments, and there is no need to build new hulls, these 30 years go by.

      The design of the ship is carried out in an integrated manner, for specific tasks and weapons. Upgrades are possible, but very limited. Its costs are such that sometimes it is cheaper to build a new one. And to "shove" a new car into an old building is fantastic.
  • Mikola
    Mikola 22 July 2013 12: 04 New
    +1
    Hmm, and who is the author of this work? Judging by the pathos name, it’s not Kaptsov by chance smile And this work seems incomplete. And he compares projects that were built for different purposes. Berkeley is primarily for the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense of aircraft carriers, and therefore the difference in armament. And the Americans consider submarines, aircraft carriers and new destroyers of the Sumboldt type to be "predators" at sea. Therefore, the name Ocean Predator is not appropriate ...
    1. GP
      GP 22 July 2013 12: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Mikola
      And the Americans consider submarines, aircraft carriers and new destroyers of the Sumboldt type to be "predators" at sea. Therefore, the name Ocean Predator is not appropriate ...


      But the amers do not think that it’s good for the head to beat against the wall?


      For the old man, the destroyer should be changed, which is reasonable and appropriate in electronics and weapons, so that he served two or three dozen years until complete wear and tear.
      The army, aviation, and only then the fleet, and only in that order. Amers, for example, is exactly the opposite.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 22 July 2013 12: 06 New
    +6
    I look at the photo. All the same, in Soviet times, apart from power, designers also took care of beauty. Rapid ships with beautiful contours of the fast-moving ship turned out. And you look at Amer’s, trough troughs, only aircraft carriers out of order are beaten out and the battleships are old. (I'm talking about the design)
    1. Mikola
      Mikola 22 July 2013 12: 26 New
      +1
      stealth technology cripples their design. How do you rate project 11356?
  • rudolff
    rudolff 22 July 2013 12: 51 New
    +2
    First of all, a modern combat ship is eyes (radar, AWACS, optocoupler systems), ears (GAK / GAS) and brains (BIUS). Without all this, any weapons, just a pile of "capricious" ballast. What most often comes to mind when discussing the same Burke or any other American warship? Aegis! What was the stumbling block in the signing of the Mistral contract? Zenith! Well, etc.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 22 July 2013 12: 58 New
    0
    a new generation skid destroyer, the development of which is currently being carried out in the interests of the Russian Navy, will have to replace three classes of ships at once: in fact, destroyers, large anti-submarine ships (BOD) and, possibly, project 1164 missile cruisers, a source in the defense industry told Izvestia complex. - It will be a universal ship that can replace all three projects. Due to modern weapons, it will surpass today's anti-submarine capabilities of the BOD, and today’s destroyers and missile cruisers, except Peter the Great and its classmates, in strike and anti-aircraft capabilities, the newspaper’s source said. - The main weapon of the new ship should be universal naval firing systems, which can be loaded with a variety of missiles, anti-submarine missiles and new generation air defense systems. Now we are working on several options for the project, the choice of power plant. Depending on the needs of the fleet and budgetary constraints, the new destroyer may receive a nuclear or gas turbine unit, the Izvestia source added. The Russian Navy should receive 14-16 latest destroyers, which will form the basis of the combat power of the surface fleet, the military believes.

    The displacement of a promising destroyer, depending on the chosen weaponry and power plant, will be from 9-10 to 12-14 thousand tons. Ammunition for anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine missile torpedoes, cruise missiles for firing at ground targets and medium and long-range anti-aircraft missiles make from 80-90 to 120-130 units. Artillery weapons will consist of two to four 152 mm caliber guns in twin artillery mounts. In addition, the ship will have anti-aircraft missile and artillery melee systems and an air group of two to three helicopters.


    such ships need sooo much. By the way, the mechanic is partly on the course of this issue and can shed light on the current state of this project, which is so important for our Navy. Nevertheless, it is necessary to unify the many projects that are now part of the fleet.
    At the expense of the destroyer: I think the work will not be easy. Frigates 20380 are not just going, but here things will be with a much larger ship. While we will release serial - this is 3-4 years minimum. By the way, if you look at how Earl Burke was released into the series, you can be very surprised at their speed: 3-4 destroyer ships per year !!! It is an enviable pace. We would at least get 2 pieces a year and it would be just super.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 22 July 2013 17: 50 New
      0
      Quote: silver_roman
      20380 frigates

      20380 is a corvette, 22350 frigate.

      To read this description, they’re going to do some kind of direct cruiser. 100 UVP and 1 artillery mount 152 mm are already excellent, but 130 UVP and 4 AUs are already some kind of monster. Universalization is good of course, but to combine a destroyer and an artillery support ship in one ship (which generally fucked extinct since the time of the battleships) in my opinion is nonsense.

      Quote: silver_roman
      We would at least get 2 pieces a year and it would be just super.


      Yes, 1 per year and that’s good! Provided that other ships, incl. AB will arrive stably, and the first destroyer will be completed in 2020, which of course is unlikely.
  • rudolff
    rudolff 22 July 2013 13: 26 New
    +3
    Given that the project requires (as recently stated) another two to three years, and the laying of the first hull is planned in five years, then taking into account the pace of construction and testing, the lead ship will see the fleet only in the next decade. Well, if in the first half.
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 22 July 2013 14: 26 New
    +6
    The fleet has recently shown its vulnerability and worthlessness against a real adversary - that means innovations based on the experience of their ancestors are needed - 10 ... 000 rooks with wheels captured Tsargrad, the rook surpasses any destroyer in the navigation range, it is built everywhere, especially in furniture factories and leading frame for production is now free ...
    The boat is poorly visible on the radar, sonar ... and they simply don’t have enough torpedoes from the enemy - that’s where the breakthrough technologies are, all Skolkovo’s money is here!
    1. Orty
      Orty 22 July 2013 15: 04 New
      0
      Thank you, I had a good laugh !!! laughing
    2. ed65b
      ed65b 22 July 2013 15: 05 New
      +3
      You can offer kayaks for the Sevflot and canoes for the Black Sea Fleet.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 22 July 2013 15: 27 New
        +1
        So, on the first question there were no objections ... (C) (jokes about Stalin)
        I am also glad that the site is humorous and not worried about problems.
  • MAG
    MAG 22 July 2013 16: 29 New
    +7
    5 years ago I bought a model of the Modern one glues and Suddenly I saw that instead of 2 towers of the main caliber in a set of 3. Work stopped and began to look in the net, maybe there were 3 towers))) but no went to the modelers on the site and they said that the Star is getting along drives. And the ship is handsome!)
  • Andrii
    Andrii 22 July 2013 23: 05 New
    0
    Handsome man! Are there any new projects?
  • Cpa
    Cpa 22 July 2013 23: 09 New
    0
    quote = 11black] and with the advent of such an option, the need for an aircraft carrier will disappear, the ship itself will be able to destroy the AWACS aircraft, well, then - the inclusion of the radar by attackers, their instant detection and ... [/ quote]

    I think that they tortured Dolmatov! He worked at the missile research institute. With good missiles, their AUG is not scary to us! [
  • alex86
    alex86 23 July 2013 20: 24 New
    +2
    The article, of course, "about nothing", but a couple of "hot Finnish guys" excited once again to the extreme wink With deepest respect, since I couldn’t finish everything - and they were able to finish everything good Once again - the deepest respect for passion and depth of conviction.
    And a couple of aircraft carriers for trial (well, to criticize on their own material, and more, well, let them be), so as not to "train on cats", I would build ...
    1. little man
      little man 25 July 2013 04: 27 New
      0
      always with pleasure read the debate of Oleg and Andrey smile
      1. alex86
        alex86 27 July 2013 17: 14 New
        0
        Similarly, a colleague ...
  • Roman Polanski
    Roman Polanski 15 August 2013 13: 04 New
    0
    It was very interesting))
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 19 September 2013 17: 39 New
    0
    I put the article a plus, although the topic is poorly disclosed. If I am not mistaken, the ideology of the 956th project was based on the desire to create a fairly powerful art. ship to support the landing. But a specialized ship was hacked and began to increase its versatility and saturation with weapons. They did not deliver gas turbines - they decided to support the production of gas turbines in the Baltic ... etc. etc. The result was a completely different ship.