Military Review

Pentagon will write off half Ticonderoga cruisers

75
One of the foundations of the surface fleet The United States Navy is a Ticonderoga missile cruiser. The ships of this project, capable of carrying a large number of missile, artillery and mine-torpedo weapons, have been used since the beginning of the eighties and solve a wide range of combat missions. Nevertheless, some of these cruisers are already quite old, and therefore in the near future should complete their service. The decommissioning of warships can lead to certain losses in the context of the overall combat effectiveness of the fleet.


The head cruiser USS Ticonderoga (CG-47), after whose name the entire series was named, was laid in the 1980 year and transferred to the Navy at the start of the 1983. In the summer of 1994, the fleet received the last 27 ship of the project. An interesting feature of the Tikonderoga project was the processing of an armament complex. So, the first five cruisers had specialized launchers for missiles of various types. All subsequent ships, starting with USS Bunker Hill (CG-52), equipped with universal vertical launchers Mk 41.


The cruiser USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) - one of the first ships to be withdrawn from the Navy


In 2004-2005, the first five ships of the series, distinguished by less sophisticated means of storing and launching missiles, were withdrawn from the fleet's operational strengths. Others, equipped with universal launchers, continued service. However, in the foreseeable future, the fleet will have to abandon them. Service life of cruisers are approaching the maximum allowable values, which accordingly affects their prospects.

In 2020, the ships USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) and USS Mobile Bay (CG-53), accepted into the US Navy in 1985, will celebrate the 35 anniversary service. At the same time, the maximum lifespan of Ticonderoga type cruisers is determined exactly at the level of 35 years. Thus, the American fleet will have to write them off and then send it for cutting. In addition, the pace of ship deliveries in the eighties of the last century should lead to the gradual abandonment of some of the remaining ships.

The American edition of Defense News not so long ago was able to gain access to a number of documents stipulating the further development of the surface fleet of the United States Navy. According to these papers, the command intends to write off 2026 Ticonderoga missile cruisers up to 11 of the year. Other ships, however, will have to undergo repairs and upgrades, the results of which will be able to continue service for the next few decades.

According to Defense News, in 2020, the ships “USS Bunker Hill (CG-52) and USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)” will be sent to “needles”. In the next 2021, USS Antietam (CG-54) and USS Leyte Gulf (CG-55) will be withdrawn from the fleet. In 2022, the service of the cruisers USS San Jacinto (CG-56) and USS Lake Champlain (CG-57) will end. 2023 will pass without cuts, but next year the fleet will remain without the ships USS Philippine Sea (CG-58) and USS Princeton (CG-59). In 2025, USS Normandy (CG-60) and USS Monterey (CG-61) will complete the service. The proposed write-off program for the Ticonderog will end in 2026, along with the removal of the USS Chancellorville (CG-62) from combat.

As a result of this reduction in the composition of the naval forces will remain only 11 cruisers from 27 built. As required, they will undergo repairs and upgrades that will extend the service life beyond the 35 years established for the first ships of the series. According to current plans, the remaining ships, starting with the USS Cowpens (CG-63), will remain in service at least until the mid-thirties. Last ships can only be written off in the mid-forties or later.

For a number of reasons, current plans for the removal of part of cruisers from the fleet have led to disputes at different levels. Such plans, directly related to the state of technology, can have serious consequences in the field of national security. There are certain risks in the context of the quantity and quality of weapons. In addition, there may be problems of an economic nature. The obvious way out of this situation, which allows to get rid of possible problems, is to keep the existing cruisers in the ranks.

Jerry Hendricks, a former US Navy officer and now Center for a New American Security analyst, commented on the current situation and plans as follows. He considers the inclusion of the oldest Ticonderoga cruisers into the Service Life Extension Program repair and upgrading program to be the right scenario. At a minimum, this will be cheaper than building new ships with the required characteristics.


USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)


In addition, J. Hendricks noted certain difficulties associated with the ammunition of modern ships. Vertical launchers of Ticonderoga cruisers can simultaneously carry up to 122 missiles of various types. The only real replacement for such ships at the present time are destroyers of the Arleigh Bukre type, also equipped with Mk 41 installations. However, ammunition destroyers consists only of 96 missiles.

This means that when a destroyer is replaced by a destroyer, the fleet loses a quarter of the available missile cells. According to J. Hendrix, the naval forces really need these cells. "We need mass character - we need capacity."

The Defense News publication quotes Brian McGrath, a security specialist from the analytical organization The FerryBridge Group. He also believes that the decommissioning of old missile cruisers could hit the combat effectiveness of the surface forces of the US Navy. He agrees that including 11 ships in the Service Life Extension Program repair program is the best solution to the problems.

B. McGrath also touched on the topic of finance. He notes that current plans to reduce surface forces clearly speak of the economic problems of the fleet. To create a balanced program of modernization, maintenance, procurement, etc. serious amounts are needed. In this case, however, the command, figuratively speaking, now cuts not the skin and not fat, but the bones of the fleet. The reasons for this lie in the ambiguous policy of the authorities. The new owners of the White House talk about the need to build a fleet of 350 surface ships, but they do not allocate adequate funding. B. McGrath called such actions of the authorities sad and irresponsible, and also urged to stop them.

In accordance with the existing plans, all remaining 22 rocket cruisers of the Ticonderoga type will continue to serve until the 2020 year, after which the oldest representatives of this group will begin to be phased out. Before 2026, 11 ships that served their 35 years would be taken out of service. At the same time, other cruisers will be upgraded, on the basis of which they will be able to continue service until the mid-forties.

The main problem of the planned program of reducing cruisers is the reduction of the total ammunition of the surface fleet with corresponding consequences in the context of its combat effectiveness. Ticonderoga type ships are distinguished by the presence of several launchers with 122 cells for various types of missiles - 26 more than the destroyers Arleigh Burke. It is easy to calculate that during the decommissioning of 11 cruisers, the fleet as a whole will lose its 1342 starting cells. During the construction of X-NUMX, the new destroyers Arly Burk will be able to compensate for most of these losses, but the total ammunition load will be reduced by two and a half hundreds of conventional missiles.

Such losses can be compensated to some extent with the help of new multi-purpose nuclear submarines carrying cruise missiles of the Tomahawk family. However, the potential of such a “compensation” is not too great. Virginia-type submarines, under construction, regardless of the modification, carry only 12 cruise missiles. In addition, the submarines, for obvious reasons, can not carry anti-aircraft missiles of various types that are part of the ammunition surface ships. As a result, destroyers and submarines - with all their advantages - will not be able to fully replace write-off ships of the Ticonderoga type.

The universal Mk 41 launcher can be used to fire missiles of various types. Among others, the ammunition of such a system may include interceptor missiles used as part of an anti-missile defense. It is curious that the future reduction of missile cruisers will not have a negative impact on the development of the US strategic naval missile defense system.


USS Chancellorville (CG-62); his service will end in 2026


In the past, at the stage of developing the necessary projects, the command made a fundamental decision: despite a certain unification of the onboard systems of Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers, the main carriers of the Aegis BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) anti-missile system will be the last. However, several cruisers also received similar equipment. Five Ticondeur ships equipped with missile defense systems are not yet subject to a reduction program and will be able to continue service in the future.

At the design stage, the service life of the Ticonderoga missile cruisers was limited to 35 for years. The first ships of the series were decommissioned long before the development of the assigned resource, while the remaining ships were already approaching the indicated dates. In accordance with the new plans of the Pentagon, half of the existing cruisers will be upgraded and will continue to serve, and the rest will have to leave the fleet and continue to go for recycling.

The intention to abandon obsolete ships with expiring service does not seem unexpected or surprising. At the same time, however, such logical steps can have serious consequences for the combat capability of the surface fleet. How exactly it is proposed to solve them is not completely clear. Obviously, the lack of deployed missiles will have to be compensated by new ships.

Another interesting consequence of the current plans will be certain difficulties in the course of the desired development of the Navy. In accordance with the instructions of the authorities, in the foreseeable future, the surface grouping of the US Navy should have more than three and a half hundred warships. The implementation of such plans is associated with certain difficulties, and reducing the number of cash ships will further complicate the solution of the task.

It is obvious that the existing grouping of Ticonderoga-type missile cruisers has noticeable problems, and some of these ships may need to be replaced. An equivalent replacement for cruisers, however, is missing. Thus, several specific problems and challenges now face the US command, on the solution of which the further development of the naval forces depends. Several years remain before the launch of the withdrawal of cruisers from service. During this time, the Pentagon can find the best solutions to existing problems that can reduce the negative effects and lead to the desired results. However, negative scenarios cannot be ruled out yet. How events will develop - time will tell.


On the materials of the sites:
https://defensenews.com/
https://executivegov.com/
http://naval-technology.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://navy.mil/
https://news.usni.org/
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy, DVIDS / dvidshub.net
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. RUSLAN
    RUSLAN 11 October 2017 07: 10 New
    +6
    One thing, because they rewrote it for 10, and the article turned out! And the information for 2 paragraphs, and something with an interference fit.
    1. Orel
      Orel 11 October 2017 09: 00 New
      +1
      It is easy to calculate that when decommissioning 11 cruisers, the fleet as a whole will lose 1342 launch cells. During the construction of 11 new Arly Burke destroyers, most of these losses will be compensated, but the total ammunition will be reduced by two and a half hundreds of conventional missiles.


      Interesting enough. The destroyer is almost close to the firepower of the UVP to the cruiser. It may be more profitable to simply release more destroyers than to leave the cruiser. It is cheaper. Although they know better. Maybe they will launch a new cruiser program, although the destroyers and cruisers have already become so close that some kind of universal class of ships suggests itself that could combine tasks.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 11 October 2017 12: 24 New
        +1
        And the difference between the destroyers arly berk and the Ticondergs, which are cruisers, is actually small. Both for the purpose and for the functionality. Therefore, the mattresses are no longer built by the cruiser, but only destroyers are building.
      2. VohaAhov
        VohaAhov 24 March 2018 10: 27 New
        0
        All this is "mouse fuss." No reduction will occur, because together with 11 destroyers of the Arly Burke class, the fleet will include 3 Zumvolt destroyers with 240 launchers.
    2. corporal
      corporal 11 October 2017 15: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: RUSLAN
      And info on 2 paragraphs, and something with an interference

      This is Ryabov Kirill, he has all the articles request stop
      Pours from empty to empty.
    3. Rash
      Rash 11 October 2017 20: 38 New
      0
      He receives a salary for the paragraphs. wink
  2. svp67
    svp67 11 October 2017 07: 26 New
    +2
    Pentagon will write off half Ticonderoga cruisers
    He writes that the main thing is that he will not “cry” about this, as he will promptly reimburse them with new destroyers, which are almost not inferior in their combat capabilities, but even surpass the cruiser “sent to the needles”.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 October 2017 08: 37 New
      +5
      In fact, it will still cry, because you can’t replace the destroyer of a cruiser, even here it’s elementary - a place for crew and equipment. So, for example, Americans believe that Arly does not fully meet the tasks of the air defense control ship and always tried to use ticonderogs for these purposes, although they are old
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 12 October 2017 00: 58 New
        0
        "So, for example, Americans believe that Arly does not fully meet the tasks of the air defense control ship" - New missiles and radars will be made and will immediately begin to respond.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2017 14: 51 New
          +2
          Missiles and radars are fine, but the point is not in them, but in communications, similar equipment of seemingly non-combat significance, workplaces for its operators, etc. Arly was designed as a cheap ticonderog, and it’s clear that this was sacrificed in the first place
    2. g1v2
      g1v2 11 October 2017 12: 32 New
      +4
      All will not be refunded. Tk except Tikonderoger after 2020, the eligible movers are being written off, plus they will probably be written off converted to zero in Ohio. They are still, despite the repair and refurbishment - the beginning of the 4s of release. Of course, Virginia and Arleigh Burke are being built, but at a slower pace than they will have to be written off. After all, they will write off the generation of ships built at the height of the Cold War in the 80s, when they built a lot and did not spare money for the fleet. Hence the kipesh raised by the Pentagon. Of course, if you compare with us and the Chinese separately, then it seems like nothing to worry about. But the mattresses see that we and the Chinese have passed the lower peak and are gradually growing, and they are declining. That is, the balance of power for them is deteriorating.
      Plus, their allies also do not see anything good. request
      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 11 October 2017 13: 13 New
        +5
        "after 2020, deer elks will begin to be written off, plus they will probably write off converted into zero Ohio 4." - You can ask what write-offs will be in the Russian Navy after 2020? in the melt.
        "Of course, Virginia and Arly Berke are being built, but at a slower pace than they have to write off." - whether it’s the Gorshkov case. The pace and scale.
        “But the mattresses see that we and the Chinese have passed the lower peak and are gradually growing, and they are decreasing. That is, the balance of power for them is deteriorating.” - The Chinese, yes, we are not. How is it getting worse. We will scare almost 70 scores of Berks with raptors and Karakurt? Or another 4 years of modernization by Admiral Nakhimov (God willing, will finish in 2021)?
        "Plus, their allies also have nothing good to do," especially the UK. Two aircraft carriers by 2020 just. And you know, a little more serious than Kuznetsov. Or Australia with Hobart - the destroyer after all.
        1. g1v2
          g1v2 11 October 2017 13: 49 New
          +5
          It's not clear yet . We can only say with confidence that the last Pike 671RTM (K) and Squid will be written off. The rest was going to modernize. As a result, how many will be modernized, and how much they will simply repair, only time will show. How much they write off, too. request
          We will not frighten sea power number one. And to defend against it is mainly MRK and a dap. For onyx, it is not very important - he was released from an expensive destroyer or a cheap MRK or a Warsaw. THIS IS CALLED ASYMMETRIC RESPONSE. request We will restore the protective function of the fleet - we will begin to restore the offensive. Moreover, the lead destroyer will be built for at least 9 years and in case of a military situation nothing will help us. The war will begin and end while it is on the stocks. Varshavyanki and MRK are being built in less than 2 years, in the event of a military threat, we’ll have time to lay and hand over and build right during the conflict. request
          Britain in the same years will be charged Trafalgar. Astyut change them one by one. On the condition of the British fleet, I advise you to read their own recent press. You will find many interesting things.
          Australia is a problem for China. Moreover, at least 3 frigates of the Adelaide type will be written off to 4 air defense destroyers under construction. hi
          1. Ryazan87
            Ryazan87 11 October 2017 15: 42 New
            +2
            1. "The rest was going to be modernized. How much will eventually be modernized, and how much time will be simply repaired will only time show." - as well as the timing of this modernization. But for now, something like this: https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/172917.html - "...." Wolf "arrived at the plant more than three years ago (three years, one month and 26 days), and that almost two years after being put into the workshop, equipment is still being dismantled from it. " What will be written off and what to modernize the USA is also unknown.
            2. "And to defend against it - mainly MrK and DEP." - I'm sorry, I do not believe in a mosquito fleet. No air defense, no anti-aircraft defense. This is, in fact, floating batteries (in missile performance), and not a full-fledged fleet. And their number for the “zerg rush” is still not enough (the Americans alone have missile cruisers more than our RTOs). Varshavyanka is not bad, but it's yesterday, you know better than mine. The question with Ladami-Kalina is open (to her, "what do you call a yacht").
            3. "Varshavyanki and MRK are built in less than 2 years" - at least 2 years. And then, about Karakurt, nothing is clear (the main one was laid in December 2015, the change is for 2018). "Vyshny Volochek", if Buyan take it, was laid down in August 2013 and is only now in trials (more than 3 years).
            4. "On the condition of the British fleet, I advise you to read their own recent press." - I do not argue, Royal Navy is far from a cake. However, we were able to implement such a shipbuilding project, which we now cannot even dream of. Just an indicator of potential.
            5. "Moreover, they will be charged with 3 air defense destroyers under construction ..." - again, I do not argue. The question is how many Soviet old people will be written off from us.
            1. g1v2
              g1v2 11 October 2017 16: 14 New
              +3
              I’m also looking at Shishkin. I do not quite agree, but he has something to read. I also read about the wolf. Therefore, I write that it is unclear how much they will upgrade, and how much will be easy to repair. Plus it is still strongly linked to napl. If it becomes possible to build diesel engines with anaerobic power plants, then the modernization projects of the apl will obviously be revised downward. There can be no exact data here - everything is constantly changing. And what was planned yesterday today is no longer relevant. request
              For air defense and plo there are 2038x corvettes. This is their part of the job. And MRK is a cheap platform for expensive missiles. All their purpose is to shoot their 8 missiles and tear their claws.
              DEPL I would not call a mosquito fleet. Submarines are in service with only a few countries. Plus, recent American exercises, where a Swedish duel was set against their apl, ended not in favor of the states. PM dap has an advantage in protecting its shores. That little, I agree. I would have ordered 6 more Warsaw women for Pacific Fleet and Black Sea Fleet. For BF is doubtful. The depths there are such that it would be more worth building small submarines. And then in the 20th century, the Baltic Sea became a cemetery for submarines. They’re constantly being found. And with the development of airplanes, it’s plain that ordinary submarines have nowhere to turn around in my opinion. request
              Krasnodar was built in a year and a half. Then it was tested for another six months. Coming out for a year and a half on a duel is quite real. To reduce the time of testing a mass project - even more so. The last Buyan-m were built much less than 3 years - then tested. There is where to get along. Karakurt is a new project. Plus, it was amended. The shell was not originally intended. To leave for 2 years from the second production ship is quite realistic. And by the way it was planned. request
              In my opinion, the potential is South Korea and China. And it’s not the construction of an aircraft carrier that testifies to the capabilities of which I am skeptical. And the construction of large ships - bulk carriers, rollers, container ships, gas carriers. Here, in my opinion, is our biggest problem. If gas carriers are still starting to be laid on Zvezda, then we buy bulk carriers, rollers and container ships abroad. And the problem is from the Soviet era. And it must be solved. This is a lot of money going to the development of another industry. If we begin to build such ships, then the capabilities of our military shipbuilding will also increase. request
              I'm not talking about that. that the Syrian express had to buy ships from the Turks. Here in my opinion it is necessary to throw strength. And one or two destroyers or aircraft carriers will not solve our problems. And even a dozen destroyers will not solve them. Moreover, even if we lay them now, we will receive in 9-10 years. hi
              1. Ryazan87
                Ryazan87 11 October 2017 17: 11 New
                +1
                Shishkin is an annoying optimist (like both qualities). I do not agree with everything, but I read :).
                "DEPL I would not call a mosquito fleet." - Of course, I mean Buyan with Karakurt.
                “If it becomes possible to build diesel engines with anaerobic power plants” - this is, so to speak, a nail-question (although there are questions besides torpedoes, for example).
                If they come to Karakurt in a period of 2 years, I will only be glad.
                As for civil shipbuilding - yes, a question. If only I could take the same fishing fleet.
                "... And more about it is not the construction of an aircraft carrier, which I am skeptical of. I’m building the big ships - bulk carriers, roller carriers, container ships, gas carriers." - "Elizabeth" - 70 thousand tons for memory and compared with a container ship - a bunch of technology. So the potential of the military shipbuilding among the British was preserved very much. That implied.
                R.S. - Yes, if it was harsh, I beg your pardon.
                1. g1v2
                  g1v2 11 October 2017 19: 57 New
                  +1
                  I'm not touchy. Moreover, it happens that I explode for two times.
                  The fishing fleet is slowly starting to update. A party of trawlers is being built at Yantar, at Pella plus at the Vyborg shipbuilding industry too. I would like more, but the question is twofold. Fishermen want to sell the catch for the cordon, maybe there is more expensive. Then there will be orders for trawlers. To us, the increase in fish prices in FIGs did not fall. PM are looking for a middle ground. To both myself and abroad. hi
        2. Protos
          Protos 13 October 2017 14: 31 New
          0
          We are not colonial powers like the United States and the brazen, we do not need such a number of floating launchers.
          And for other needs and frigates, corvettes yes MRK enough - it's more practical and cheaper lol
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 11 October 2017 12: 51 New
      0
      Quote: svp67
      since they will promptly reimburse them with new destroyers, which are almost not inferior in their combat capabilities

      Arly-Burke - a slop trough, they need not to change the flea, but to create a new project.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 12 October 2017 00: 54 New
        0
        As the strike platform, these destroyers will come down.
  3. NEXUS
    NEXUS 11 October 2017 07: 44 New
    +6
    And we, without the stream construction of ships of even the second rank, are writing off warships (the example of Sarych) ... and the arithmetic is very sad. Our fleet is aging, and we have no replacement for flagships, cruisers and destroyers.
    1. just exp
      just exp 11 October 2017 10: 16 New
      +2
      in, we would have theirs problems.
      1. shans2
        shans2 11 October 2017 13: 25 New
        +2
        no thanks, we do not need debts of over 20 trillion dollars and a complete country of blacks and Latinos.
        1. Sharansky
          Sharansky 16 October 2017 20: 31 New
          +1
          It is better to have debts of 20 trn. dollars and comparable GDP with blacks and Latinos and at the same time be a superpower than a commodity economy with a poor population.
  4. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 11 October 2017 08: 12 New
    0
    Let Poroshenko give one. But without rockets. Matches for children is not a toy
  5. Lex.
    Lex. 11 October 2017 08: 34 New
    +2
    And also Arly Burkov 66 and planned 75 can carry up to 56 tomahawks
  6. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 11 October 2017 09: 31 New
    0
    The use of the US Navy PU MK. 41 on the Ticonderoga Cruisers deprived them of long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles
    Standard ammunition: SAM SM-3 (80), ASROC PLUR (16), KR (26)
    Under the option of subsonic anti-ship missiles is processed again - subsonic CD Tomahawk
    Subsonic RCC Harpoons have their inclined PU
    1. just exp
      just exp 11 October 2017 10: 17 New
      0
      and what were their long-range and supersonic anti-ship missiles?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 11 October 2017 11: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          mattresses generally do not have supersonic anti-ship missiles
          I scribbled here, schematically, how can we destroy their ships 4 times before they approach their line of attack

          (trolls, please do not disturb)


          1. The maximum possible firing range. part 1. Of course, along high-altitude trajectories - no problem for a network-centric air defense warrant based on Aegis, which can scale. At least a hundred missiles along such a trajectory run along the order of 4-5 Ajis - not one will fly. It's like shooting a pistol from Saratov to Volgograd ... Empty.

          2. The maximum possible firing range. Part 2. Possible only in the presence of satellite target designation and satellite tracking and correction. What is the same as if missing in principle at the moment ..

          And yes, From a powerful missile system it turns out the same excellent RCC.
          For modern ships, that hit RCC, that hit missiles - one field of berries.
          Moreover, I put more on a powerful missile.
          100% exit of the ship from the battle, due to the destruction of all antennas, "eyes and ears."
          But the board pierced by RCC and damage to a pair of compartments is not a fact that the ship will cease to participate in the battle.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 11 October 2017 12: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              trolls, please do not disturb

              Why are you writing this? Trolls will not listen to you.
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. KKND
                  KKND 11 October 2017 21: 17 New
                  0
                  Do not pay attention to this troll. He doesn’t know how to troll.
            3. ZVO
              ZVO 12 October 2017 10: 00 New
              +1
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              I left a special clearance for comments
              your arguments were predictable, but just because of your lack of awareness
              Satellite data center for the Navy - there is (!), This is a separate topic for discussion.
              There is also a control center for over-the-horizon radars (see operating principles and performance characteristics of over-the-horizon radars)
              our layered ship air defense is not permeable (!)


              I will answer for you in response to your "thoughts divorced from reality":
              1. A satellite control center for transmitting target designation to missiles - does not currently exist in Russia.
              2. Carrying out the transfer of missiles to missiles on the marching and final sections from over-the-horizon radars - does not exist at the moment, not only in Russia but also in the world.
              do not invent ...

              No impervious air defense.
              A simultaneous and planned missile strike with different trajectories of approach to the target, different types of GOS, different tactics of conducting an attack will “take out” anyone.
              And even the super powerful Peter the Great.
              Joint and planned volley:
              1. dozens of Mald EW-UAVs - will overload the radar of any connection.
              2. Dozens of Harmas and ALARMs with different tactics of approach and strike from aircraft carriers. Some will rush at speeds of 2M directly, while others, at a height of 20 thousand, will go “as if by” and will “look safe” for analysis, only then from a height of 20 kilometers they will dive plumb down onto the target.
              3. the same missiles, the same harpoons. So dozens.
              and all
              They will reload air defense, destroy all radars and then finish off. At least poke a finger.
              Not a single shipboard individual air defense can handle it.
              Only network-centric and scalable air defense will cope with this when all data from all ships is processed in real time, when targets are automatically determined from a single control point, missiles are launched from different ships, and radar target illumination from one ship is used to direct missiles issued from completely different ships. When all this is scaled and computer-controlled - only then is there a chance to say about "serious air defense"

              And we do not have network-centric and scalable naval air defense.
              They tried to make Polyment-Redoubt into an analogue of Amer’s Aegis, but it has not yet been implemented, there are too many technical difficulties.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 12 October 2017 07: 18 New
            0
            ZVO

            how did these russophobes and trolls get (!)
            The “Lotosov” tandem (“Lotus-S” 14Ф145) is responsible for electronic intelligence and intercepts data, including negotiating the enemy over any, even closed, communication channels. (Xnumx%)
            The “Pionov” tandem (“Pion-NKS” 14Ф139) monitors the movements of military equipment on the ground, aircraft in the air, ships in the seas and oceans. (Xnumx%)
            https://topwar.ru/107061-sistema-kosmicheskoy-raz
            vedki-liana-rabotaet-v-opytno-dezhurnom-rezhime.h
            tml
            https://topwar.ru/106839-minoborony-pristupilo-k-
            ispytaniyam-sputnika-edinoy-kosmicheskoy-sistemy.
            html
            1. ZVO
              ZVO 12 October 2017 10: 16 New
              +2
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              ZVO

              how did these russophobes and trolls get (!)
              The “Lotosov” tandem (“Lotus-S” 14Ф145) is responsible for electronic intelligence and intercepts data, including negotiating the enemy over any, even closed, communication channels. (Xnumx%)
              The “Pionov” tandem (“Pion-NKS” 14Ф139) monitors the movements of military equipment on the ground, aircraft in the air, ships in the seas and oceans. (Xnumx%)


              Firstly, I am not a troll or Russophobe!
              I'm just getting ready to face the enemy seriously, knowing his strengths and weaknesses.
              You, an ordinary urya-cap-taker who does not possess either a situation or knowledge.
              I will repeat the Capper.
              Not capable of analysis, only complaints.
              The accusation of Russophobia is very serious.

              Secondly.
              Look at the satellite trajectories.
              By numbers they are easy to find on specialized resources.
              See what only 3 satellites are capable of.
              Look at their trajectories.
              And think that they will be able in case of BP ...
              And BP, as usual, does not occur where your satellite is now.
              There should be dozens of these satellites to cover the entire body of water.
              And there are only 3 of them, and they are different and not interchangeable.
              The same Lotuses is a RTR satellite.
              A peony - which "can really do something" - is generally one.
              And yes, all these satellites cannot give target designation to missiles.
              And even directly to the ships, too, can not.
              They can give target designation only on the CCP.

              So study and study.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. NordOst16
                NordOst16 17 October 2017 10: 22 New
                0
                Don't get too nervous. It’s hard for people to read that which is not consistent with their pink dreams (there is one friend who believes that in case of war all American mbbr and brpl will be shot down, enemy tanks will shoot from machine guns, and armata will open a portal with a shot into another dimension from where the heroes come and finish off flock of enemies))).
                It was interesting to read you, thanks for the information.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 12 October 2017 00: 53 New
          +1
          They have AWACS aircraft as part of carrier-based aircraft - they will direct and give target designation for the AUG and their missiles.
      2. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 24 October 2017 02: 09 New
        0
        mattresses generally do not have supersonic anti-ship missiles

        I scribbled here, schematically, how can we destroy their ships 4 times before they approach their line of attack
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 11 October 2017 12: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      Under the option of subsonic anti-ship missiles is processed again - subsonic CD Tomahawk

      They are being finalized for the fifth time, it is clear that they will fail again. In the meantime, American ships have nothing to shoot at the enemy.
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      Subsonic RCC Harpoons have their inclined PU

      Papuans drive, modern air defense they are easily knocked down.
  7. Berkut24
    Berkut24 11 October 2017 10: 59 New
    0
    Somehow I never liked these floating belfries.
  8. viktorch
    viktorch 11 October 2017 11: 34 New
    0
    we would have their problems, 35 years old hah
  9. ZVO
    ZVO 11 October 2017 12: 13 New
    +3
    In my opinion, this is a ship of the era.
    The era of the end of the Cold War.
    A lot of revolutionary approach.
    1. This universal UVP.
    2. A floating missile arsenal.
    3. The first truly full-size, scalable, network-centric BIOS.
    4. The first modular-block technological process for such a displacement of warships, which allowed them to be built in dozens at different shipyards ..
    And of course they did a lot of shoals on it ...
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 October 2017 12: 58 New
      0
      Quote: ZVO
      1. This universal UVP.

      They cannot push normal RCC into this "universal" UVP; the MK41 is the main mistake of the American naval construction.
      Quote: ZVO
      4. The first modular-block technological process for such a displacement of warships, which allowed them to be built in dozens at different shipyards ..

      In the red - it is impossible to change the design and, as a result, the continued construction of a catastrophically outdated ship.
      1. CTABEP
        CTABEP 11 October 2017 13: 54 New
        +2
        The United States has more "catastrophically obsolete" Berks than in all other fleets of the world ships of similar functionality. “Peter the Great”, of course, in terms of striking power will plug both Burke 2, 3, and 4 into his belt, but he is one (two MB will be when they bring Nakhimov to mind ”) - and the United States has 65 of them, and they are being built quickly Yes, and compared to what are they out of date? Oh yes, there is no supersonic anti-ship missiles - but do they need it when, firstly, there is aviation, and secondly, LRASM I think they will bring to mind in the next 5 years?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 11 October 2017 14: 09 New
          0
          Quote: CTABEP
          "Peter the Great" of course, in terms of striking power, will plug 2, and 3, and 4 Burke into his belt, but he is alone

          One Peter against TEN arliberk.
          One Peter the Great, two “Glories”, “Gorshkov”, three “admirals”, “Severodvinsk” and all - the American destroyers ended, but they didn’t even reach the firing range.
          Cross out “Severodvinsk”, put five “Buyans” instead.
          Quote: CTABEP
          Oh yes, there is no supersonic anti-ship missiles - but do they need it when, firstly, there is aviation

          Are you kidding? Or maybe they don’t need rockets at all? Will they fire Chinese firecrackers? Just as needed!
          Quote: CTABEP
          there is aviation

          There is a whole range of fight against aviation, but yes - this is the only chance for Americans.
          Quote: CTABEP
          and secondly - I think LRASM will be brought to mind in the next 5 years?

          They will not be brought up, they have a choice of either long-range but slow-moving, or supersonic, but with a short range, everything depends on the dimensions of the MK41.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 11 October 2017 15: 29 New
            +2
            Quote: Setrac

            They will not be brought up, they have a choice of either long-range but slow-moving, or supersonic, but with a short range, everything depends on the dimensions of the MK41.


            If we take the Onyx indicators, I do not think that the size of the UVP will worsen the characteristics by more than 15-20%. This is now, if you repeat Onyx in the size of the Mk-14 container.
            Well, there will be not 300, but 250 km of range ...

            But if you are an engineer, and see the history and trends of the last 40 years, then:
            Reduce the weight of the warhead to a sufficient 160-180kg.
            Reduce the weight of the seeker to a modern 30kg
            Reduce the diameter to 533 mm, and bring the length together in the accelerator to 6,7 m - and you will get rockets that are supersonic with the latest multi-mode GOS, and with no flight inferior to Onyx / Bramos, etc. on a modern technological base.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 11 October 2017 21: 44 New
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              This is now, if you repeat Onyx in the size of the Mk-14 container.
              Well, there will be not 300, but 250 km of range ...
              But if you are an engineer, and see the history and trends of the last 40 years, then:
              Reduce the weight of the warhead to a sufficient 160-180kg.
              Reduce the weight of the seeker to a modern 30kg

              I may not be a rocket launcher, but I’m quite a techie, the drop in characteristics will be more significant, moreover, when they pile it, we already have zircons.
              1. ZVO
                ZVO 12 October 2017 10: 28 New
                0
                Quote: Setrac

                I may not be a rocket launcher, but I’m quite a techie, the drop in characteristics will be more significant, moreover, when they pile it, we already have zircons.


                And you see how the size of the missiles decreases when the payload is reduced, for example, from 400kg to 200kg ... And that’s how it turns out. A radar weighs 90 kg + 300 kg warheads. But in modern conditions they should decrease. up to 160 kg per warhead and 30 kg per radar.
                Just very much reduced in size.

                Zircons are just modernized Onyxes.
                Do not flatter yourself.
                If you read the contracts for its indirect questions, there the USK, about the manufacturer, about the cost of R&D - everything will fall into place.
                Without even waiting for the rocket itself.
                We are very fond of turning another ordinary modernization into a new, "having no analogues in the world" ...
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 14 October 2017 12: 37 New
            +1
            Quote: Setrac
            "Gorshkov", three "admirals"

            Is it Ushakov, Lazarev, Nakhimov? Do you know where these ships are and what is wrong with them?
            Quote: Setrac
            One Peter the Great, two "Glories", ... "Severodvinsk"

            Did someone tell you that in the scheme with AWACS and SM-6 P-700-800-1000 they no longer steer?
            Quote: Setrac
            everything rests on the dimensions of the MK41.

            Everything rests on the fact that the Fleet cannot explain to Congress what the hell the RCC is for them. But sooner or later they will drag up Tomahawk to moving targets, and the point is in the hat.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 14 October 2017 16: 20 New
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Did someone tell you that in the scheme with AWACS and SM-6 P-700-800-1000 they no longer steer?

              These are the wet dreams of Americans, not related to reality.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Is it Ushakov, Lazarev, Nakhimov? Do you know where these ships are and what is wrong with them?

              Well, I had in mind Grigorovich, Essen and Makarov.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              But sooner or later they will drag up Tomahawk to moving targets, and the point is in the hat.

              Money for this business was allocated several times. Your two-faced position is interesting, which means a heavy supersonic, armored long-range missile from your point of view is completely sucks, and a primitive subsonic missile (the slowest cruise missile in the world) is a wunderwafer and is it worth it to start producing and it's in the hat?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 14 October 2017 17: 03 New
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                not related to reality.

                While there is a one-time case for (for example GQM-163A) and not a single case against.
                Quote: Setrac
                from your point of view it sucks

                No. This is a weapon that 30 years have learned to shoot down.
                And they learned.
                Quote: Setrac
                and the primitive subsonic missile (the slowest cruise missile in the world) is a wunderwafer and is it worth starting to produce it and it's in the hat?

                Do not produce, but replace a warhead with thousands of existing models.
                And yes, a rush of 50-100 missiles - there is nothing to stop except EW. And I wouldn’t bet on superiority in EW against Americans, tea is not Georgia.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 14 October 2017 18: 38 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  While there is a one-time case for (for example GQM-163A) and not a single case against.

                  A one-time case - history has shown that, ceteris paribus, the efficiency of American air defense against Soviet missiles does not exceed 30 (thirty) percent.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  No. This is a weapon that 30 years have learned to shoot down.

                  But they never learned.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And yes, a rush of 50-100 missiles - there is nothing to stop except EW.

                  I won’t argue about the quality of the axes, their RCC version is not in service, the argument is pointless, I don’t think that from 2019 onwards we will have to put into operation one ash each year, how the production of turbines will be adjusted - the frigates will rivet, from 2018 years, "karakurt" will begin to work, "buoys" continue to come, I do not consider all this beauty because it is not there yet.
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And I wouldn’t bet on superiority in EW against Americans, tea is not Georgia.

                  The Georgian army was armed and trained by the Americans, why is it not the American army? That is exactly what the Americans will fight - to drape at the first threat, and this will continue until the United States itself is under threat.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 14 October 2017 19: 21 New
                    0
                    Quote: Setrac
                    One-time case - history has shown that, ceteris paribus, the efficiency of American air defense against Soviet missiles does not exceed 30 (thirty) percent

                    No idea what “efficiency” can mean in this context. Breakthrough of 2/3 missiles to the order?
                    Quote: Setrac
                    But they never learned.

                    Due to the lack of full-scale tests, it is impossible to refute your hypothesis. The question is whether it can be used in operational planning. In my opinion - absolutely impossible.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Is she not the American army?

                    That is not American.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    and the Americans will fight - to drape at the first threat

                    This is a religious question. I do not remember, to be honest, not a single case where the Americans "draped". Bay of pigs, m.
                    And the hypothesis of low morale of Americans was forced, as far as I remember. Japanese. Then, it seems, the Iraqis.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 14 October 2017 20: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      No idea what “efficiency” can mean in this context. Breakthrough of 2/3 missiles to the order?

                      Something like this, it’s almost impossible to achieve XNUMX% interception, we will hit them with more advanced missiles, they will give us a numerical advantage, but “we” shoot first - our missiles fly further.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      And the hypothesis of low morale of Americans was forced, as far as I remember. Japanese.

                      However, those Americans who fought in World War II and those who are going to serve now make a big difference. Of course, not everyone will run, but all sorts of Latinos and Azites will run, and there will be white and blacks to puff out for themselves and "that guy."
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 14 October 2017 21: 13 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Something like this, one hundred percent interception is almost impossible to achieve

                        From "100% impossible to reach" to "Efficiency 30%" a rather big distance.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        we "shoot first - our rockets fly further.

                        Without target designation.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        and those who go to serve now are a big difference

                        Yes. The current is not prepared for 11 months. And they, on average, are much stronger "at the entrance" than conscripts of the 42nd year.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Of course, not everyone will run, but all sorts of Latinos and Azites will run

                        I don’t remember running. Politicians gave the back - it was the case.

                        I will tell you more. Even euronics, most likely, can restore the Wehrmacht in a matter of years, if it is tightened.
      2. ZVO
        ZVO 11 October 2017 14: 59 New
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Quote: ZVO
        1. This universal UVP.

        They cannot push normal RCC into this "universal" UVP; the MK41 is the main mistake of the American naval construction.


        They do not need "normal RCC." They are replacing it now with the SAM Standard.
        In addition, "normal RCC" in development from that moment. how did the growth trend of the Chinese fleet appear. And it will be just under the MK41.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 11 October 2017 15: 11 New
          0
          Quote: ZVO
          They do not need "normal RCC." They are replacing it now with the SAM Standard.

          SAM SAM standard does not replace the RCC from the word "completely." These are the wet dreams of Americans.
          Quote: ZVO
          In addition, "normal RCC" in development from that moment. how did the growth trend of the Chinese fleet appear.

          It has been in development for several decades.
          1. ZVO
            ZVO 11 October 2017 19: 10 New
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Quote: ZVO
            They do not need "normal RCC." They are replacing it now with the SAM Standard.

            SAM SAM standard does not replace the RCC from the word "completely." These are the wet dreams of Americans.


            Do you even know the history of the fleet and naval weapons somehow?
            Words: Buckley, Moavenite, Joshan - say anything?
            Photo 1.


            Photo 2.

            Photo 3


            No matter how wet dreams are ..
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 11 October 2017 20: 46 New
              0
              Quote: ZVO
              No matter how wet dreams are ..

              And what should this prove to me ???
              1. KKND
                KKND 11 October 2017 21: 13 New
                +4
                Quote: Setrac
                And what should this prove to me ???

                This should show you that besides URA, you need to own a topic.
                P.S. Americans do not make anti-ship missiles because they plan to sink everything from an aircraft carrier, their engineers are no more stupid than ours.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 11 October 2017 21: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: KKND
                  This should show you that besides URA, you need to own a topic.
                  P.S. Americans do not make anti-ship missiles because they plan to sink everything from an aircraft carrier, their engineers are no more stupid than ours.

                  They are planning wrong.
                  If hypothetical hippos fight in a vacuum, they’ll sink it from aircraft carriers, but in reality, such a battle can only occur on our shores and nothing of deck aviation shines.
                  In addition, the power of aircraft carrier groups is greatly exaggerated.
                  1. KKND
                    KKND 11 October 2017 21: 58 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Setrac
                    They are planning wrong.

                    Maybe. But here, as it were, they have more experience than the USSR in WWII, for example.
                    In any case, only a real conflict will confirm the conclusions.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    in reality, such a battle can only occur on our shores and nothing of deck aviation shines

                    This is due to the fact that we can only fight 2,5 ships in the Ocean and they can block their sea trade, we have practically nothing.
                    On the coast we are really strong.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    In addition, the power of aircraft carrier groups is greatly exaggerated.

                    Here I agree with you, but you should not underestimate it.
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 12 October 2017 00: 46 New
                      +2
                      "Off the coast we are really strong." What is this? The entire coastline is littered with missiles and tactical bombs, including nuclear ones - they are on every aircraft carrier. Those ships that find themselves in the open ocean will be one hundred percent dead of heroic death - there will be no where to return.
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 14 October 2017 12: 40 New
                      0
                      Quote: KKND
                      Their sea trade is virtually nothing for us to block.

                      You are talking about Chinese maritime trade, if not mistaken.
  10. San Sanych
    San Sanych 11 October 2017 14: 37 New
    +2
    Americans in general could freeze the construction of large surface warships for twenty years, they have them and so, like dogs uncut laughing it would be better to build cruise liners instead laughing
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 October 2017 20: 23 New
      +1
      Trump wants to keep 100 ships of the 1st rank constantly in service.
    2. Sharansky
      Sharansky 16 October 2017 20: 41 New
      0
      Quote: San Sanych
      it would be better to build cruise liners instead

      They are already world leaders in the number of cruise liners and market share. wink
      Maybe this also contributes to the financing of their Navy.
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion 11 October 2017 15: 25 New
    0
    As far as I know, “Arly Burke” appeared exclusively because the “Ticonderoger” had critical strength problems and had to reduce ammunition on a new project.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 11 October 2017 19: 52 New
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      As far as I know, “Arly Burke” appeared exclusively because the “Ticonderoger” had critical strength problems and had to reduce ammunition on a new project.


      No.
      They have different little tasks.
      Tika is the leader ship of the air defense warrant system. Manager. Manager. Commander, etc.
      Burke is a warhorse. Managed, scalable. Puzzle in one word.
  12. andrewkor
    andrewkor 11 October 2017 18: 41 New
    0
    Glorious American engineers and shipbuilders will cope with any task!
  13. arkadiyssk
    arkadiyssk 11 October 2017 21: 10 New
    0
    Quote: just EXPL
    and what were their long-range and supersonic anti-ship missiles?

    They still have it - SM-6 is called. they can work on surface targets if necessary.
  14. Vadim237
    Vadim237 12 October 2017 00: 38 New
    0
    They will write off 11 with 122 launch cells, and they will adopt another 20 Arly Burkov with 96 cells and five missile arsenals based on the San Antonio landing ships with 500 universal launch cells - an increase in strike capabilities in three - more than they can write off.
  15. Nemesis
    Nemesis 12 October 2017 02: 32 New
    +6
    The US fleet has dozens of new missile destroyers such as Arly Burke, so the cancellation of the Tikanderog for the United States is not a big loss ... Russia needs to think how it will replace the 1982 Moscow cruiser and other Soviet antiques that don’t get better over the years, and not about US cruisers that already have a replacement ...
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 October 2017 10: 47 New
    0
    yeah ..... with such a total number of naval forces, they are afraid of lowering their strike power ....
  17. Gransasso
    Gransasso 14 October 2017 22: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Cherry Nine

    I will tell you more. Even euronics




    And they seemed like a smart person ...
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 20 October 2017 03: 36 New
      0
      Quote: Gransasso
      I will tell you more. Even euronics

      Let's just say a long explanation of the context.