Military Review

Unfinished, but extremely dangerous: Zumwalt is being prepared for a new concept of ocean confrontation

88



The second "multi-purpose" promising destroyer DDG-1001 USS "Michael Monsoor" class "Zumwalt" worth more than 3,5 billion came off the stocks of the shipyard "Bath Iron Warks", located on the river. Kennebeck (Maine) 6 December 2017 of the year. On the central American TV channels and other media, this event was covered with the already familiar pathos and stateliness characteristic of Western Internet publications. In the same turn, almost no one bothered to inform the latter, the most significant news regarding a radical change in the concept of using new stealth crabs, which was announced by the US Navy Rear Admiral Ron Boxale and representatives of the US Naval Institute on his website a few days before the launch of the 2 Zamvolta.

According to Ron Boxale, the US Navy command is increasingly leaning toward building exclusively anti-ship capabilities at the Zamvolts, allowing them to carry out massive missile attacks against ship and aircraft carrier strike groups of the enemy. At the same time, the multipurpose designation of destroyers of this class is mentioned less and less. Initially, the DD21 and then DD (X) projects provided for the development of a rather heavy multi-purpose surface combat ship with a displacement of more than 10 thousand tons, which should approximately correspond to the dimensions of the destroyers “Arleigh Burke” and missile cruisers “Ticonderoga”, but significantly ahead of the latter in the range of weapons used, the flexibility to use against coastal and remote continental targets of the enemy, as well as against surface and air targets. For this, specialists from Raytheon, a company involved in the design of an arms control system and radar architecture of a stealth destroyer (MR / AN / SPY-3), developed a promising 711-mm quadruple universal launcher Mk 57 PVLS, which, using transport and launch glasses of various calibers, you can unify all existing tactical, strategic, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft guided missiles, armed with the American fleet. Along the sides of the destroyer 20 similar quadruple UVPUs were installed, therefore, the number of TPK with units weapons reaches 80 units

One of the main intentions of the developers was the empowerment of a missile destroyer with a displacement of 14564 tons (1,5 times more than the Ricc of the Ticonderoga class) with the possibility of high-precision artillery support for landing operations of the USMC coastal zones of the enemy states. For this, the ships were equipped with two 155-mm AGS (Advanced Gun System) artillery mounts with 12 firing rate / min and a range of not more than 35 km using standard high-explosive fragmentation shells (considering that 127-mm AU Mk 45 s barrel length 54 caliber has a range of 23,2 km). The total 2-x ammunition of guns, including a container with an automated supply of shots, is 920 shells, 600 of which (300 for each gun AGS) are located directly in the loader. Meanwhile, the use of standard artillery ammunition does not correspond at all to the modern operational and tactical conditions for conducting artillery support for landing operations in the littoral zone. The ship and its crew will be in great danger. The fact is that in this case, for confident destruction of the coastal infrastructure of the enemy, destroyers of the Zamvol class must approach the enemy’s territory at a distance of 30 km. This means only one thing: the destroyer will be in the zone of destruction not only of anti-ship and multi-purpose missile systems of the enemy, but also of conventional self-propelled and towed artillery installations firing with large-caliber long-range active missiles with a range of 40 and more than km. For this reason, even in 2006, it was decided to abandon the use of standard artillery shells with a short range.

The way out was found in the development by BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin 155-mm of the advanced LRLAP (Long Range Land Projectile) advanced active-projectile designed to destroy ground targets at distances up to 137 km (74 nautical miles ) with a circular deviation of about 25 m. A shell with a length of 2240 mm and a mass of 102 kg is equipped with: a powerful solid-fuel charge with a long period of operation, which allows you to accelerate to a speed of more than 1000 m / s (the initial speed after leaving the bore of an AGS gun is only XN UMX m / s), small-sized nose aerodynamic rudders, 825 drop-down tail stabilizers, GPS / radio command guidance module, as well as an 8-kilogram PBXN-25 explosive mass of about 9 kg. Starting in the middle of 11,2, the first 2005 products (manufactured in 15-2004) passed a series of fire tests that demonstrated the unique flight reliability of the INS and aerodynamic plane control actuators. It also became known that LRLAP moving along a “quasi-ballistic” trajectory overcomes the 2005-kilometer stretch in 110 s. This is due to significant ballistic braking on the descending branch of the trajectory.

Initially it was assumed that each prospective guided missile would cost American taxpayers approximately 35 thousand dollars, but later the products were self-inflating due to the repeated reduction of a series of unobtrusive destroyers to 3 units. As a result, the cost of one LRAP has reached almost 0,8 million dollars, which is just 1,5 times cheaper than the AIM-120D super-long-range missile (1,2 million dollars). Such costs were unacceptable even for the largest printing press country, which was reflected in the short publication of the Defense News publication, which, with reference to the command of the US Navy, reported that the LRLAP program was abandoned. Considering that the AGS gun caliber is 155 mm, information has emerged about the possible adaptation of guided active-reactive guided projectiles of the related M982 “Excalibur” family, but to date the fate of the M982 integration program in the Mk 45 artillery unit 4 has not been determined. As a result, the US Navy receives 2 advanced fully "digital" and automated destroyers that are not able to solve one of the most important tasks - artillery support units of the USCM. In this case, the issue of two unused 155-mm artillery installations will have to be resolved immediately (either by adapting Excalibur or by returning to the idea of ​​"supporting" conventional ballistic shells).

Now consider the situation with the anti-aircraft and anti-missile potentials of the Zumwalt class destroyers. Here the situation is much better than with an indefinite "artillery asset." In particular, the universal vertical launchers (UVPU) Mk 57 PVLS ("Peripheral Vertical Launching System") have a number of significant advantages over the standard UVPU Mk 41. First of all, it is the considerably larger capacity of 28-inch (711-mm) square transport cross-launch containers in comparison with 22-inch (558-mm) TPK types Mk 13, 14 (mod 0 / 1), 15 launcher Mk 41. Due to this, each cell of the Mk 57 can accept both standard “equipment” in the form of 4-s defensive interceptors RIM-162 ESSM, as well as more interesting configurations (with appropriate adaptation): one ultra-long-range RIM-174 ERAM, anti-missile RIM- 161A / B with a kinetic interceptor Mk 142, or up to 9 advanced short-range anti-aircraft missiles RIM-116B, by analogy with the ESSM complex, but in larger quantities. The standard transport and launching cup Mk 57 has a high modernization potential due to the length of 8 meters: thanks to this, it is possible to unify promising missiles and anti-ballistic missiles that are only in the development stage

Despite the fact that the current concept for the use of Zamvolt class destroyers does not provide for the implementation of regional missile defense tasks and official sources do not report the use of Standards-2/3/6 from Mk 57 launchers, the latter can easily be unified with a flexible programmable TSCEI-type CIU interface based on the high-performance PPC-7A, PPC7-D and PMCD3 terminals, which synchronize all control systems for various weapons and radar in a single combat mpleks. For network-centric interaction with other ships of the class, the tactical information exchange bus CEC (“Consumer Electronics Control”) is used, which is represented by an encrypted decimeter radio channel for exchanging tactical information with a pseudo-random tuning of the frequency hopping frequency according to the type of “Link -16” radio channel. The terminal of the latter is also present on destroyers of the Zamvolt class for integration into the advanced network-centric concept of the US Navy Kill Web, which over the past few years has been carefully developed on all Aegis ships, submarines, anti-submarine aviation, as well as carrier-based aviation during separate exercises of the American Navy, as well as joint exercises with the Japanese Navy and / or the Royal Australian Navy, which are armed with Aegis destroyers of classes such as Congo, Atago and Hobart (type "AWD").

It is for Link-16 and / or other auxiliary radio channels of the CEC Zamvolta bus that will be able to receive target designation from numerous third-party sources of radar detection and tracking and optical-electronic reconnaissance equipment. These include destroyers URO of class “Arleigh Burke” and RKR URO of class “Ticonderoga”, equipped with multifunctional radar with PFAR type AN / SPY-1A / D. Operating in the decimeter S-band and having an average power of 58 kW, these radars are capable of detecting high-speed ballistic and aerodynamic high-altitude targets at much greater distances than the AN / SPY-3 radar system installed on the Zumwalt. The RLC data is represented by an 3-extraneous active phased array antenna with a Y-shaped spatial orientation of AFAR sheets. The advantage of AN / SPY-3 is the possibility of aiming at aerial targets of many anti-aircraft missiles with semi-active RGSN type RIM-162 ESSM, which is achieved due to the centimeter X-band work (in the frequency range 8 - 12 GHz). The second advantage of the X-range can be considered the absence of unwanted reflections from the water surface when working on low-altitude anti-ship missiles and other means of air attack (S-band radars of the AN / SPY-1 family are familiar with this problem). The main disadvantage of the centimeter range AN / SPY-3 is a high attenuation coefficient in the atmosphere, which together with a smaller area of ​​antenna arrays leads to a decrease in the detection range of remote aerospace objects.


The prototype of the radar / radio architecture of the rear face of the Zumwalt class EM superstructure. At this (early) demonstrator, you can see the presence of a constructive “window” for the S-band VSR SPS, which would allow the Zamvolts to work independently for long-range ballistic targets, by analogy with the promising AMDR radar, but the project did not move on. , on serial ships on the site of the "long-range" MRLS are rectangular segments laid down by a radio-absorbing envelope


Consequently, in terms of air defense and missile defense, destroyers of the Zamvolt class can boast only a high self-defense potential against the massed anti-ship attacks of the enemy. As for the possibilities of implementing regional missile defense, prospective destroyers can only act as floating arsenals with 80 UVKU Mk 57 cells for SM-3 / 6 interceptor missiles, which will be directed by Arley Burke, Ticonderoga, AWACS aircraft as well as ground-based radar detectors. From this conclusion: to participate in the construction of powerful sea or ocean aerospace boundaries A2 / AD destroyers of the type "Zamvolt" must either be kept in the composition of the order KUG / AUG, or move away from it at a distance of no more than 150 km, because alone from Destroyers destroyers will be negligible.

A similar picture can be observed when familiarizing oneself with Japanese multi-purpose destroyers of Akizuki class URO and helicopters of the class "Hyuuga". The ships are equipped with centimeter dual-band MRLS type FCS-3A with four-sided antenna posts. Each side has a C-band radar detector (larger canvas) and X-band radar illumination and guidance (smaller sheet). The latter provides a steady multi-channel illumination of air targets for missiles of the RIM-162B type, software and hardware not adapted for use in versions of the Aegis system. These ships are also not designed to act in upper-line missile defense systems, but they can be used as floating ammunition due to the presence of UVKUs of the Mk 41 type (but only after installing the Mk 21 transport and launch containers for use of the RIM-174 ERM and RIM-161A / B).

Notable is the fact that when performing anti-ship operations on the ocean / sea theater, which rear admiral Ron Boksale recently focused on, Zamvolt class destroyers have the opportunity to approach the enemy's AUG / KUG in 3 times closer than the usual destroyer Air Defense-PRO "Arleigh Burke." All this is possible due to 40 times smaller effective scattering surface (EPR), which is achieved by angular shapes of the sides and superstructure, reverse blockage of the sides and stem, as well as the use of radio absorbing coatings with a physical dimension of about 1 inch. For example, if the Novella-P-38 search and sighting system detects an Arly Burk target at a distance of 270 - 300 km, then Zumwalt will be detected from a distance of 90 - 120 km. And this is already enough to leave a minimum of time for our or Chinese naval strike groups to repel a massive anti-ship attack. So, for example, promising low-profile AGM-158C LRASM anti-ship missiles, as well as Tomahawks in the RGM-109B TASM modification are able to cover this distance in just 9 - 10 minutes, and such missiles can be around 50, considering that some of the cells are MN 57 is busy with the RIM-162 “Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles” SAM. Even more troubles can be delivered to our fleet by the high-speed anti-ship versions of the “Standards”, which can also be used from the UHFU Mk 57.

At the beginning of 2016, the then head of the US defense department, Ashton Carter, made an important statement about the ongoing program to develop a promising 4-fly-by anti-ship missile based on ultra-long-range anti-aircraft missiles RIM-174 ERAM (SM-6). As you know, even 7 April 1973, the US Navy conducted successful field tests of the anti-ship modification of the RIM-66F SAM missile system with an active first-generation radar homing head. Unlike the previous modification of RIM-66D SSM-ARM ("Surface-to-Surface Missile / Anti-Radiation Missile"), designed to destroy radio-emitting targets and equipped with a passive RGSN, the new product could hit all types of radio-contrast surface objects. Possessing a full-fledged quasi-ballistic trajectory with a top point in the 22 km region, the RIM-66F rocket could overcome 50 - 60 km with flying speed near 1 - 1,2М, while the ESR in 0,15 m2 did not allow its existing entities to effectively exist. But incarnated "in the serial gland" of this rocket, unlike PRLR RIM-66D, was not destined: the command of the US Navy preferred the developed subsonic anti-ship missile RGM-84A, which was adopted in 1977 year. The RIM-66F project was closed in 1975.

After 41 a year, based on the experience of converting the first Standard to a short-range ballistic missile, the project was restored, but on the basis of SM-6. The increase in the operational and tactical capabilities of this rocket is simply enormous. In particular, due to the use of the Mk 72 solid propellant starting and accelerating stage (mass of solid fuel charge 468 kg) with 6 operating time with 265 s specific impulse, the SM-6 pro-hawk will rise to the upper stratosphere (up to 45 km altitude), after which , gaining speed 4M, will move with a slight ballistic deceleration and decrease. In this case, the descending branch of the trajectory may stretch for a couple of hundred kilometers. As a result, together with the launch site, the range of such a high-speed anti-ship missile can reach 250 - 300 km. The target dive speed at the target can range from 1,5 to - 2,5M (depending on a preselected dive angle). The above angle can reach 85 - 90 degrees, which is why not all existing shipborne radars can detect ballistic anti-ship missiles, since the elevation zones of the scanning beam of most of them do not exceed 75 - 80 degrees.

Approximately such a list of disadvantages and advantages has a class of low-profile destroyers "Zumwalt" in the existing version. Despite the narrow specialization of the AN / SPY-3 shipborne radar complex, as well as the lack of readiness of the AGS artillery guns to carry out the tasks, at first glance the defective modern staff monitor is an extremely dangerous enemy for the ships of the Russian Navy, as well as the Chinese Navy, which achieved through the use of stealth elements of the hull and superstructure, reducing the EOP to the performance of the "aluminum boat" with the simultaneous use of the latest types of anti-ship weapons including supersonic. Successful detection, support, and destruction of this class of low-profile destroyers can be accomplished only by combining the actions of all fleet components, where radio patrol aircraft and sonar systems of multi-purpose atomic submarines will play a decisive role.

Information sources:
http://nevskii-bastion.ru/ddg-1000-zumwalt-2014/
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20070725005359/en/GE-Fanuc-Embedded-Systems-Selected-Raytheon-Zumwalt
http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1069491
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/sm-6/sm-6.shtml
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=325&ct=2;
Author:
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Login_Off
    Login_Off 11 December 2017 06: 46 New
    +6
    And it's all for 3,5 billion bucks wassat
    What for! Burn on (c)
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 11 December 2017 07: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: Login_Off
      And it's all for 3,5 billion bucks

      Zamvolt was to become the ship of the future. But something that the Americans failed to implement, something that has lost relevance, the cost has grown. And as the horses-brothers say "mayo sho mayo"
    2. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 12 December 2017 15: 18 New
      +1
      They say it’s already broken.
    3. Trotil42
      Trotil42 12 December 2017 16: 26 New
      +4
      Well, this is normal ..... we’ve probably built the Zenith Arena for such bucks ... and that’s not until the end .. I’m sure it will fall apart faster .. so we’re cooler ...
      1. Dimmedroll
        Dimmedroll 31 July 2018 21: 43 New
        0
        no much smaller;)
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 11 December 2017 09: 04 New
    +6
    “To a big ship, a big torpedo”: Russian, folk wisdom!
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 13: 17 New
      +1
      And you can drop a rocket. Or Fab -500 (about Fab is a joke, but you can drop it.)))
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 11 December 2017 15: 42 New
        +1
        our answer is not long in coming
        frigate project 22350M from the 8 naval saloon 2017
        with increased displacement up to 6500 tons
        with reinforced and enlarged weapons, with destroyer functionality
        60 anti-ship missiles, PLUR, SLCM
        2 ZRPK Pantsir-M maybe 4 will be (36 km)
        32 ZUR 250 km (bow), 64 ZUR 135 km (stern)
        2 helicopter, possibly still Package-NK will be
        Radar with AFAR or ROFAR
        1. ZVO
          ZVO 11 December 2017 16: 15 New
          12
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          our answer is not long in coming


          Will make ...
          Until 2025, the construction of new "Super Pots" will not begin.
          Basically.
          Until 2025 there is a plan for the construction of the usual "Pots".
          And from 2025 - the already existing "Pots" will begin to step up at the shipyard for a full-scale modernization.
          So there are no places in shipyards and a budget for the construction.
          A full-fledged project "Super" - does not exist.
          An arms plan does not exist.
          Propulsion plan - does not exist.

          And you already thrust 156 missiles there ...
          Yes, even 60% more than Burke’s arsenal ... Which is 10 kiloton ...
          Cool, really ...
          Some forum users - well, really with an alternative universe ...
          1. parma
            parma 12 December 2017 08: 31 New
            0
            Why, maybe in modeling and does not make you wait .... UDC, we "already" configured so much that we decided, we do not need them ....
          2. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 12 December 2017 12: 36 New
            0
            all forums have a "stink" - that we don’t have a "living" project of the destroyer - a ship in the far sea zone
            You were presented with a project based on the already proven 22350
            even created a unified PU on 4 TPK
            - marine version of the Shell-M
            - run in Syria Ka-31
    2. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 12 December 2017 15: 19 New
      0
      ... marine wisdom)))
  3. DimanC
    DimanC 11 December 2017 09: 14 New
    0
    Fight with the Chinese on the chips purchased from the Chinese. Nude nude
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 11 December 2017 09: 37 New
      0
      Quote: DimanC
      Fight with the Chinese on the chips purchased from the Chinese. Nude nude


      On such ships, microchips are put proven.
      To backdoors, etc.
      After the hype 10 years ago with radio stations, etc. - input control has become 100% ...
  4. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 11 December 2017 09: 20 New
    +4
    Good morning, gentlemen, comrades, allow me to state my subjective opinion. We all remember how the Dreadnought was built by the British fleet at the beginning of the 20th century - a ship that revolutionized the construction of large, well-defended and armed artillery ships. Most countries with fleets launched a race to build just such ships to maintain parity. BUT then there were no missiles, there was no developed submarine fleet, and even then everyone pointed to the excessive cost of the projects. "Zumvolt" as a ship for working out technologies is fine, but is it worth building them in such a small series - I think not, the artillery is not finished, disguising like an "aluminum boat" is wonderful, but if the ship cannot work normally alone, then no one will give him a way out of the “arliberka” over a distance of 90 km. And in the event of war, intelligence will begin to work much more intensively and all dangerous objects will be monitored by all available means and methods. Hence, such an expensive ship will work as part of strike groups - where its "exclusivity" will decrease very much - then isn’t it easier to build extra destroyers or cruisers of a not so futuristic look?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 December 2017 11: 21 New
      +8
      "it's fine, but is it worth building them in such a small series -" ////

      So it was made a small series to test the concept. Futuristic ship
      and very expensive. With the release of a large series, you can go broke. And three things - that’s it.
      They will check on which weapon is optimal for him. How to apply it effectively.

      "Isn’t it easier to build extra destroyers or cruisers of a not so futuristic look?

      It does not interfere.
      They bake burki like pies. There will be about 80 pieces. They did 66, it seems.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 12: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: voyaka uh
        So it was made a small series to test the concept

        Nope. It was made a small series, because just closing a failed project after so many funds were injected into it would be a completely wrong tactic that taxpayers would not understand :)))
        Quote: voyaka uh
        They will check on which weapon is optimal for him.

        This can be done without building a ship.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        How to apply it effectively.

        In-in. The fleet, which was given three such “gifts”, is racking its brains - how? :)))) There is a ship, you need to do something with it, but what? :)))) So they come up with concepts out of the blue
        For Americans, the LRASM flies 900+ kilometers and is expected to be in service in 2018 (unlike the F-35, this one will get on schedule). Why the hell should they sneak somewhere on the destroyer? I still strongly assure you that RCC with its about 1000 km per hour above water and about 0,08-0,1 sq.m. The EPR “sneaks up” much more efficiently than this brainchild of a gloomy American genius
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 December 2017 12: 48 New
          +4
          I can not agree with you. Experimental futuristic ship
          it’s impossible to “draw on paper” and think over everything on paper.
          The whole history of the navy is this: they did something new in iron (wood)
          and put into battle. Sometimes there were breakouts, sometimes failures.
          Today the main thing: to make the case as “flexible" as possible
          installation and replacement of weapons. Turn a large ship into a universal
          platform for weapons. In this sense, Zumvolt is made correctly.
          It has fast speed, very low ESR, a huge supply of electric energy, the most modern
          electronics. And weapons will change more than once during their service.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 13: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: voyaka uh
            I can not agree with you.

            Do not agree, the facts cannot be changed - the Americans planned the construction of at least 30 Zavolvt, which completely excludes the idea of ​​a demonstrator.
            Quote: voyaka uh
            The whole history of the navy is this: they did something new in iron (wood)
            and put into battle.

            Armored cruisers? No. Squadron battleships? No. Dreadnoughts? No. Line cruisers? No. Aircraft carriers? No. And you can continue for a very long time.
            1. Conductor
              Conductor 11 December 2017 13: 23 New
              +1
              Dear Andrei, but the Carriers still fired, Yes the armored cruisers in Tsushima (Kataoka squad like) were not boys for beating either, Yes The battlecruisers in the Falklands also said their word to Yutland, of course, but they did their job. And so you can come to the conclusion that the submarine, RTOs, too, are a bit of a dead end.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 14: 19 New
                +1
                Yes, it’s clear that they shot, but I gave an example of not unsuccessful ships, which were not run in battle immediately after creation.
            2. Conductor
              Conductor 11 December 2017 13: 26 New
              0
              Here Popovki is definitely a dead end branch.
              1. Antares
                Antares 12 December 2017 23: 38 New
                0
                Quote: Conductor
                Here Popovki is definitely a dead end branch.

                A ram in armadillos and cruisers in the form of the main weapon. Truth is more effective Popovok. But deadlock
            3. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 11 December 2017 13: 38 New
              +6
              "Do not agree, the facts do not change" ///

              The most stubborn facts that two super-modern strike rocket stealth cruisers
              the States already go to sea, and a third is under construction.
              It’s too early to guess about their combat effectiveness, but, for sure, the Americans will give them
              to train - to fire the KR and from the guns - as soon as possible.
              Dear as a Ferrari? - the rich have their own quirks ... laughing
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 14: 03 New
                +3
                Nope :) The words super modern and so on are fine, but the ships are built to solve certain problems. The substitute does not meet the tasks for which it was built, the Americans themselves admit it, respectively, this is a failure. And there’s nothing to argue about.
                Now the Americans are trying to find tasks that these ships could solve. In general, maybe a good stand for hats will come out of an assault rifle, but this does not indicate the success of its development
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 11 December 2017 14: 50 New
                  +4
                  "but the ships are built to solve certain problems" ////

                  The service life of ships often exceeds the term of tasks. Tasks become obsolete.
                  And the ship is good, which can be easily reoriented to other
                  tasks. And the fate of highly specialized ships is to go to salvage.
                  The hull of the ship is just a platform for weapons. So the body of the aircraft carrier
                  just an airfield for airplanes. Which ones? But God knows what they will be in 20 years ... But both Nimitz and Ford (after minimal alterations) can always lift them into the air.
                  Back to Zumvolt. What weapons will be at sea in 30 years, no one knows.
                  But it can be installed on Zumvolty. The hull is ready for this.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 15: 19 New
                    +2
                    Well, that’s right - since Zamvolt today can’t solve any problems better than the ships of the current fleet, let's hope that someday, after 30 years, such problems will appear :))) And as for the weapons, I dare to remind you that the zamvolt was oriented on railguns (it’s made taking into account possible equipment with them) Alas, but the railgun turned out to be even more disastrous than Zamvolt :)
                    1. Town Hall
                      Town Hall 11 December 2017 15: 25 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Well, that’s right - since today Zamvolt cannot solve any problems better than the ships of the current fleet, let's hope




                      Since today the SU-57 can not solve any problems better than the aircraft of the current air fleet then .....
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 16: 01 New
                        +3
                        Since you are not aware that the Su-57 has not yet been adopted, I definitely do not see what to discuss with you :)
                        And yes, and who told you that the Su-57 cannot solve its tasks better than the existing VKS machines? Bondarev reported to you, or maybe the Martians from Alpha Centauri suggested? :)
                  2. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 11 December 2017 19: 14 New
                    +1
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    The service life of ships often exceeds the term of tasks. Tasks become obsolete.

                    The Americans urgently need a new warship with a new, larger cell instead of the MK41 in order to put a normal anti-ship missile system there, and LRASM is a gesture of despair, it can never be compared in its effectiveness with supersonic anti-ship missiles.
                    When I first read about the Zumvolts for the first time, they were only in the project then, I thought, “Well, Khan, missile superiority of the Russian fleet,” but no, the Americans managed to fail the project they needed so much.
                    1. ZVO
                      ZVO 11 December 2017 20: 30 New
                      0
                      Quote: KaPToC
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      The service life of ships often exceeds the term of tasks. Tasks become obsolete.

                      The Americans urgently need a new warship with a new, larger cell instead of the MK41 in order to put a normal anti-ship missile system there, and LRASM is a gesture of despair, it can never be compared in its effectiveness with supersonic anti-ship missiles.


                      Attention. question.
                      At what speed does Onyx fly along the only trajectory that is really dangerous for a modern ship at low altitude (up to 15 meters)?
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 11 December 2017 20: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: ZVO
                        At what speed does Onyx fly along the only trajectory that is really dangerous for a modern ship at low altitude (up to 15 meters)?

                        Maybe this is a secret for you, but all the trajectories are really dangerous, some more, some less.
                2. Sevastiec
                  Sevastiec 12 December 2017 20: 03 New
                  0
                  But I don’t understand what is fundamentally new in them, apart from the shape of the iron?
  5. ZVO
    ZVO 11 December 2017 09: 22 New
    +4
    It seems that under the nickname "Eugene Damantsev" they write their articles, several completely different, mutually unrelated people.
    That, absolutely stupid hat-making, based on nothing.
    That, more or less relevant, believable and detached from emotions.
    1. lwxx
      lwxx 11 December 2017 11: 55 New
      +1
      It all depends on the completeness of the poured glass. laughing
  6. novel66
    novel66 11 December 2017 11: 04 New
    +3
    here, the other day, the news was - in America, the game of snowballs was canceled, attention! due to snowfall! Well, and who says what they think with their heads?
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 11 December 2017 13: 28 New
      0
      Icicles can be thrown. And the icicles have war lasers. And there is an apologist for their application.)))
  7. Curious
    Curious 11 December 2017 11: 07 New
    +2
    Sorry for the off topic, but the phrase "... this event was covered with the usual pathos and majesty characteristic of Western online publications."
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 11 December 2017 12: 48 New
      10
      The funny thing is that we with the same pathos and grandeur of the corvettes lower)))
  8. Ingvar0401
    Ingvar0401 11 December 2017 11: 23 New
    +1
    I would like to see this monster with my own eyes. Better yet, visit
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 11 December 2017 11: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Ingvar0401
      I would like to see this monster with my own eyes. Better yet, visit

      wait for a battering ram))) nobody seems to fit into zumwalt yet, but you can hope lol
    2. Mcsim78
      Mcsim78 11 December 2017 16: 04 New
      0
      Here's a nice video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCaH2nfh1VA
  9. Dead duck
    Dead duck 11 December 2017 11: 59 New
    +6
    Under a universal carrier rockets could trough cheaper to build.
    Quote: Ingvar0401
    I would like to see this monster with my own eyes

    through the optical guidance channel on the rocket? laughing
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 11 December 2017 14: 23 New
      +1
      It is possible in the periscope :-)
      But in general - my opinion, the most valuable thing in this device is the possible diving from the stratosphere of anti-ship missiles based on SM-6. An analogue of our X-32. And it will be very difficult to deal with them with current air defense systems.
      Need an "asymmetric" answer. For example, the further development of electronic warfare. So, to completely close the location of our order in the RL range!
      Or creating a cold plasma umbrella over a ship ...
  10. rosomaha
    rosomaha 11 December 2017 13: 19 New
    +1
    dry cargo ship on board ...
  11. iouris
    iouris 11 December 2017 13: 53 New
    0
    The technological excellence factor is very important for the USA. Most likely, the series of ships is designed to develop fundamentally new promising technologies for warfare at sea. Perhaps there is no worthy opponent for him yet. We will see what competitors can and will be able to answer.
  12. Livonetc
    Livonetc 11 December 2017 14: 09 New
    +1
    I looked at the photo of the add-on ...
    Not understood...
    And where is the gravitsap inserted?
  13. varyag
    varyag 11 December 2017 15: 17 New
    +4
    Someone can explain to me popularly: WHY we do not have a universal cell ??? (including anti-aircraft missiles). Maybe they do not fit into our concept? Maybe there is not enough finance? Or do we have "enough finance, not enough brains"?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 16: 05 New
      +1
      Because UVP is most likely a pretty dead end path. Well, the USA did the UVP, so then how many years they couldn’t stick something worthwhile anti-ship there. In general, what is the point of doing UVP on missiles weighing 3 tons and 300 kg?
      1. varyag
        varyag 11 December 2017 17: 23 New
        +2
        It is unlikely to be a dead end if everyone else follows us. Yes, and we follow as far as we can, as I understand it.
        As for 3000kg and 300kg - this is how several TPKs for smaller missiles are placed inside one cell.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 17: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: varyag
          Hardly dead end if everyone else follows us

          And who is “everything”? :)))) All the United States? :))) The British, French, Italians - no one. The Japanese and South Koreans just bought what they have in the USA
          Quote: varyag
          As for 3000kg and 300kg - this is how several TPKs for smaller missiles are placed inside one cell.

          They put it, only there is no sense in this. It is much simpler and more correct to make a separate air-craft for anti-ship and cruise missiles and PLUR and a separate one for anti-aircraft.
          1. varyag
            varyag 11 December 2017 18: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            And who is “everything”? :)))) All the United States? :))) The British, French, Italians - no one. The Japanese and South Koreans just bought what they have in the USA

            China.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            They put it, only there is no sense in this. It is much simpler and more correct to make a separate air-craft for anti-ship and cruise missiles and PLUR and a separate one for anti-aircraft.

            Why is it "more correct"?
            1. Town Hall
              Town Hall 11 December 2017 19: 13 New
              +1
              Sylver (from the French système de lancement vertical - vertical launch system) - ship installation of vertical missile launch, developed by the French company DCNS. Installations are available in four sizes, depending on the maximum length of the rocket launched. Models A-35 and A-43 are designed for self-defense missiles, A-50 - for medium-range missiles PAAMS, A-70 - for SCALP cruise missiles. The index model corresponds to the length of the rocket in decim

              The units consist of modules of 8 cells each, except for the A-35, whose modules are designed for 4 cells. A module of 8 cells occupies an area of ​​6 m² on the deck. The internal dimensions of the cell are 60 × 56 cm, each cell has its own gas outlet channel. In each UVP cell there is a container with one missile, or with four Krotal-NG missiles (VT1).

              Initially, the UVP was designed for the vertical launch of Aster rockets. Together with this missile, it is the main component of the PAAMS air defense system. The launch time of eight missiles is 10 seconds.

              The French Navy has begun research to refine the SCALP EG rocket to launch from Sylver. This missile will give the French Navy the ability to strike at coastal targets, comparable to the American Tomahawk missile. Great Britain became interested in the prospect of equipping the fleet with SCALP missiles, planning to equip type 45 destroyers with these missiles, although the A-50 models installed on these ships are not designed for missiles of this size.

              Deck stove, cell hatches and gas vent hatch - armored and airtight. MTBF - more than 12 hours, unit reload time for 000 cells - 8 minutes.



              Ship installations

              France Aircraft Carrier Charles de Gaulle

              Italy Aircraft Carrier Cavour

              Singapore Formidable Frigates

              France Aquitaine Frigates (FREMM)

              Italy Carlo Bergamini Frigates (FREMM)

              France Forbin type destroyers (Horizon)

              Italy Destroyers of the type Andrea Doria (Horizon)

              France Lafayette type frigates

              UK type 45 destroyers
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 19: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Town Hall
                Available in four sizes

                Is it now called UVP? :)))
          2. ZVO
            ZVO 11 December 2017 20: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            It is much simpler and more correct to make a separate air-craft for anti-ship and cruise missiles and PLUR and a separate one for anti-aircraft.


            I do not agree.
            The system of a multifunctional arsenal ship is lost.
            The opportunity is lost by changing the ammunition load to use the same ship as a "purely strike", or "purely anti-ship" or "purely" anti-submarine "or" pure anti-aircraft "...
            But this is precisely where the concept of Tick, Berkov, etc. is.
            For a specific task - we put a specific ammunition and forward-alga.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 11 December 2017 19: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Because UVP is most likely a pretty dead end path.

        The path is not a dead end, but you need to have two, but on a large ship there are three types of UVP of different sizes.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 11 December 2017 19: 19 New
      0
      Quote: varyag
      WHY we do not have a universal cell ???

      We have a ZS-14 launcher
      1. varyag
        varyag 11 December 2017 21: 22 New
        0
        For missiles separate installation. So there is no universal cell.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 11 December 2017 21: 36 New
          0
          Quote: varyag
          For missiles separate installation. So there is no universal cell.

          I note that for the MK41 there are no anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine missiles - it is even less universal. Perhaps new missiles will be designed under the launcher ZS-14
          1. varyag
            varyag 11 December 2017 21: 59 New
            0
            RUM-139 VL-Asroc
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/RUM-139_VL-Asroc
            Start from Mk 41. RCC - was anti-submarine Tomahawk. Soon it will be more modern.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 11 December 2017 22: 02 New
              0
              Quote: varyag
              Start from Mk 41. RCC - was anti-submarine Tomahawk. Soon it will be more modern.

              And RCC?
              1. varyag
                varyag 12 December 2017 10: 53 New
                0
                Sorry, meant anti-ship Tomahawk.
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 12 December 2017 17: 20 New
                  0
                  Quote: varyag
                  Sorry, I meant the anti-ship Tomahawk.

                  I did not specify, what if he is an anti-submarine tomahawk, but there is definitely no anti-ship armament.
  14. Town Hall
    Town Hall 11 December 2017 16: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    And yes, and who told you that the Su-57 cannot solve its tasks better than the existing VKS machines? Bondarev reported to you, or maybe the Martians from Alpha Centauri suggested? :)




    Not ... they were informed from the Pentagon ... by the same courier that you reported about Zumvolt ... so as not to go twice
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2017 16: 34 New
      +2
      Quote: Town Hall
      from the Pentagon they informed ... by the same courier that you reported about Zumvolt ... so as not to go twice

      Do you understand why they just wrote nonsense, or explain? The Americans themselves admitted that Zamvolt is not suitable for the tasks for which it was created. Russian Defense Ministry recognized that the Su-57 is not suitable for its tasks? :)))
  15. gromoboj
    gromoboj 11 December 2017 17: 50 New
    0
    The projectile with a length of 2240 mm and a mass of 102 kg is equipped with: a powerful solid propellant charge with a long period of operation, which allows it to accelerate to a speed of more than 1000 m / s (the initial speed after leaving the barrel of the AGS gun is only 825 m / s

    This is not a shell, this is a rocket.
    But I just can’t understand why the article refers to the AIM-120D AMRAAM air-to-air missile
    Comparing with the RGM / UGM-109 tomahawk would be more correct.
    In general, about this floating iron for a long time everything was clear http://gosh100.livejournal.com/182532.html
    There it is written about the cabin made of wood, and about the "wonderful" seaworthiness. And about the stealth.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 December 2017 19: 26 New
      +5
      "There it is written about the felling made of wood, and about the" wonderful "seaworthiness. And about the stealth." ////

      As always. First, in Russia, some advanced American project is running in together.
      Both experts and forums are all choked with a happy laugh.
      And then - oops! - with a delay of 5-10 years, they begin to feverishly create the same thing.
      The last great example: a rocket with a returning 1st stage.
      1. gromoboj
        gromoboj 11 December 2017 20: 28 New
        0
        Maybe someone is laughing.
        I wonder how they plan to use it. Maybe they’ll just try some things, because the boat is very non-standard and non-serial.
        No armor.
        Air defense is weak.
        Artillery - so for the species.
        Invisibility seems to be there, but at the same time, the ship must maintain radio silence.
        Seaworthiness is also not very.
        But long-range missiles like a fool wrappers.
        The conclusion suggests itself that this is a ship for delivering unexpected massive missile strikes, or they really work out different ideas. Initially, instead of 2x155mm guns, they wanted to put a railgun with a laser there. For this, the power plant is like that.
  16. gromoboj
    gromoboj 11 December 2017 17: 54 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    I can not agree with you. Experimental futuristic ship
    it’s impossible to “draw on paper” and think over everything on paper.
    The whole history of the navy is this: they did something new in iron (wood)
    and put into battle. Sometimes there were breakouts, sometimes failures ..

    In this case, "this is a fiasco."
  17. Wolka
    Wolka 11 December 2017 19: 08 New
    0
    it seems like a lot of things, but all one thing, an iron with an iron, floats no better than an ax
  18. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 11 December 2017 19: 37 New
    +1
    So the main advantage of Zumwalt is its pyramid with antennas and a casing with reverse angles and special material.
    Our shipyards are already building such hulls, although to a lesser extent from carbon fiber for trawling and guarding, this is not a destroyer, but a guard. The main thing in the body of absorbing material, in fact - absorption, if it is significant, then the angle does not play a role. We can try to conclude that the Amer’s material, nevertheless, is not as absorbing as we would like, and no one has canceled the roll on the sea-oksiyans, so the EPR will be sufficient.
    Antennas cannot work passively all the time, so by calculating the range and power of the antennas of these ships, you can always find where they are. Also, any ship leaves its own sonar trail, as well as optical observation, so there are enough ways to detect it.
    Our strategy for small ships, but with weapons not inferior to cruising, except in quantity, to me personally seems more attractive. Small EPR, even with a steel case, the range of the "calibers" and their accuracy will not leave a chance for Zumwalt (y).
    But you cannot engage in cap-making, you need to hone your skills, as Admiral F.F. Ushakov.
    1. gromoboj
      gromoboj 11 December 2017 20: 02 New
      0
      Zamvolt itself is not pure stealth. Its EPR is comparable to a small vessel, so it is still visible.
      But how to use it in radio silence mode is still unclear. And Turn on the equipment here of all invisibility and the end.
      With the stealth for ships, they played a little. Although how and why they want to use it is not yet clear. From TU22 is also a so-so fighter.
      As an option - to approach quietly without causing suspicion to shoot the entire ammunition and, if possible, rush off.
  19. Operator
    Operator 11 December 2017 20: 21 New
    +1
    “All this is possible thanks to the 40 times smaller effective scattering surface (EPR), which is achieved by the angular shapes of the sides and superstructure, reverse obstruction of the sides and the stem, as well as the use of radar absorbing coatings with a physical dimension of about 1 inch. For example, if the search and targeting complex “Novella-P-38” detects a target of the “Arly Burke” type at a distance of 270 - 300 km, then “Zumwalt” will be detected from a distance of 90 - 120 km, ”- Evgeny Damantsev.

    The distance in 270-300 km is limited not by EPR (Arleigh Burke ~ 10000 sq.m, Zumwalt ~ 250 sq.m), but by the radio horizon of the turboprop IL-38 (flight altitude 8000 meters). The IL-38 airborne radar at a distance of 300 km discovers F / A-18 with an EPR of 10 sq.m.

    In other words: on horseradish goat button accordion (that is, stealth technology), which does not change anything in the range of radar detection "Zumvolta"?
    1. Anyone
      Anyone 14 December 2017 02: 01 New
      0
      The on-board radar IL-38 at a distance of 300 km discovers F / A-18 with an EPR of 10 sq.m.

      And will he also detect a target on the surface of the water with the same EPR as the F / A-18 at a distance of 300 km? Or will it not?
      1. Operator
        Operator 14 December 2017 04: 08 New
        0
        The range of radar detection of air and surface targets is the same, with the exception of small boats and submarines, periscopes and snorkels of submarines that are shielded by waves at a great distance (when the height of the waves exceeds the height of the target).
        1. Anyone
          Anyone 14 December 2017 10: 56 New
          +1
          I asked the question because the chances of the IL-38 to detect an air target with such an EPR at a distance of 300 km are, to put it mildly, low.
  20. ZVO
    ZVO 11 December 2017 21: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: KaPToC
    Quote: ZVO
    At what speed does Onyx fly along the only trajectory that is really dangerous for a modern ship at low altitude (up to 15 meters)?

    Maybe this is a secret for you, but all the trajectories are really dangerous, some more, some less.


    Those. Do you sign your troll essence? knowing nothing. without understanding anything?

    I will write - but not for you. for you are foolish and ridiculous.
    Onyx flight speed on a low altitude trajectory does not exceed 1,3-1,4M, and the flight range in real conditions is about 100 kilometers,
    Total.

    All his "supersonic in the form of 2-2,5-3M - only at altitudes above 15km.
    And there he is - the easiest target for anyone. more or less modern (released less than 20 years ago) air defense.
    so learn the materiel ...
    And stop stupid.
  21. Graz
    Graz 11 December 2017 21: 33 New
    0
    I don’t believe in all the laudatory reviews of Americans, about my technologies Aggis and others, it all smacks of SDI trickery, nothing real is there, all this is confirmed by the failures of the Saudi patriots which 5 missiles could not bring down the old Soviet missile, and the design flaws F22, 35 which, with enviable intervals, are sent for repair for a long time, and by the blind areas of the destroyers as a result of which they constantly encounter civilian courts

    there is nothing there is one bravado, we need to push everywhere
  22. robo spirit
    robo spirit 11 December 2017 22: 21 New
    0
    So, after reading the thought-idea was born, almost true-truth: if you need a missile carrier, then what should he do off the coast of the enemy, so dear and pathos? Is that psychologically push. Well, how is the massive attack of Allah Akbar on motorboats? How to fight back? Vertical launch missiles? 155 mm cannons? Something from the monetary economy of the modern world ... well, somehow it is not justified, although it is possible in theory.
    The concept was born precisely that of the ship "coastal strip". Take the same "Karakurt". He’s good, I don’t argue, and is ready for completely autonomous actions outside the squadron or strike group. But to specialize it in coastal activities ... My suggestion: to hell with everything that concerns the guidance of missiles further 150-200 km. A small ship, in fact: a gunboat. Six-eight "Daggers" or "Carapace SM", three towers GK - AK-130, or something no less rapid-fire in the same caliber. A floating battery covered by its own air defense. Given the automation - not even a battery, but almost an artillery regiment. I suspect that if you throw off the extra “global” electronics, it will turn out to cram all this into 1000 tons of displacement. Well, 1500, given that one AK-130 unit with a filled cellar is more than 120 tons. And such a boat, cheap, due to the use of already traditional, proven technologies, the absence of missile stray, will become a strong argument in the local presence, when creating the bridgeheads for landing amphibious assault. Of course, he has almost nothing to do in the ocean. Is that a dashing breakthrough from the composition of the warrant of the strike group towards "Zamvoltu", with the implementation of anti-submarine and other maneuvers, and from a distance of 20-25 km, the opening of really heavy artillery fire. Not a single modern ship, preserved as a museum, lasts longer than a minute, I believe that the AK-130 will not last against the fire of two barrels of one installation. Will begin to sink and squish in the hold. And in order to ensure the missile defense of the ship with such a breakthrough ... well, eight of the "Shells" should be enough. In extreme cases, he will be a kamikaze to divert a missile strike.
    In a word, IMHO, something in this idea is tasty ...
    1. Mika_blin
      Mika_blin 12 December 2017 05: 05 New
      0
      It is possible to “push” the AK-130 onto a vessel smaller in terms of displacement, only fire can lead further 10 cables from 1500 (for something specific) will not work. Especially at a high pace. Even in calm water, and personally, I have never seen such a thing in the sea.
      The idea itself may be viable as a specialized landing support ship. But certainly a ship with three such towers will be released in no less than 6000. And, most likely, more.
      1. robo spirit
        robo spirit 12 December 2017 18: 48 New
        0
        Excuse me, but here I have doubts, because in the 80s, I remember, there was an idea to install on ships from 1500 Vm 406 mm guns with howitzer ballistics and understating trunnions below deck level. That is, to equip the trivial mega-killer with the trivial TFR, at that time. So 6000 for three AK-130s seems excessive to me.
        Regarding firing further 10 kbt - are you serious? For a 130-mm gun, and, moreover, a marine one, this is less than the direct-fire range! It will turn out, and how! The fact that the AK-130 is brought in according to the specifications of the outdated MSA - so it is transplanted from lamps to a modern "hard", and voila! Shooting in Macedonian, from two barrels, with adjustment of aiming between shots.
        An immodest question is possible? You say so confidently that with 1500 will not work. Are you a shipbuilder? Do you know the theory? Where what disturbances can interfere with the tip? Or the recoil housing will not stand? Or what? Why, with 1500 displacements, it’s impossible to throw, roughly speaking, 25x6 = 150 kg of ammunition with an initial speed ... well, there’s a little less, but we’ll record 900 m / s. From the point of view of physics, can you explain why exactly 6000, and not 1500? Before answering, remember the Erebus and Terror monitors, river boats carrying armor and battleship towers of the Civil Code.
      2. robo spirit
        robo spirit 12 December 2017 23: 35 New
        0
        Yes, by the way, we won’t even take the Erebus. EMNIP, much more under the description, up to the caliber and the number of barrels, the domestic “armored plate” of the “Hasan” type is suitable - there are also 6 barrels of 130 mm, plus something else from artillery. Plus some armor. Everything fits in 1900 tons. Here is a much more correct comparison.
        And regarding my questions whether you are a shipbuilder, don’t think that I’m trying to get to the bottom and put the doorway in clean water. It’s just interesting for me to listen to the opinion of a specialist, because from childhood I was incredibly interested in the marine theme, although I eventually went along the weapons and rifle section
        1. Mika_blin
          Mika_blin 13 December 2017 12: 25 New
          +2
          For a 130-mm gun, and, moreover, a marine one, this is less than the direct-fire range!

          Yes. The ballistics of the gun allows you to shoot far. But with a sustainable platform. Either a large scandal, roughly speaking, or the most powerful dampers of pitching (which also require a large scum to accommodate).
          domestic "armored landing plate" type "Hassan"
          - this river monitor. It was intended for firing mainly direct fire, on river water, on which there is no pitching, or from a joke on horizontal targets. At sea, the shooting conditions are completely different. Not to mention the fact that the intensity of firing from the “Khasans” was incomparable with that provided by the three AK-130 towers, that the operation of the three AK-130s required much more power on-board network, a large number of auxiliary units and mechanisms that in the type of "Hassan" they will not fit in with all the attractiveness of their presence there.
          Quote: robo-spirit
          Are you a shipbuilder? Do you know the theory?

          I did not ship, although I worked in Zelenodolsk at the shipbuilding and in Leningrad, at the Admiralty Shipyards, but in the modest posts of a machine-milling machine operator. However, I am interested in theory, I read a lot. The idea of ​​putting a large cannon in a small brisk little dish attracted me at the time, and then I found out (just from the professionals) why this is a very difficult and unpromising business. For effective firing from a ship of powerful guns, an appropriate margin of stability and strength of the platform is required. Otherwise, the shells unpredictably fly anywhere.
          Quote: robo-spirit
          Do not think that I’m trying to get to the bottom and bring the world’s door into clean water

          A normal question on the forum, where issues of a special topic are discussed. I am also interested to know what qualifications some participants have. And, of course, all that was said is my personal opinion, based, naturally, on some considerations, but not in practice: I never tried to build a small artillery ship with such weapons :)
  23. pin_code
    pin_code 12 December 2017 07: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Shaikin Vladimir
    So the main advantage of Zumwalt is its pyramid with antennas and a housing with reverse angles and special material

    it seems that his main weapon is a ram ... it strongly resembles warships of the late 19th, early 20th century ...
  24. Usher
    Usher 12 December 2017 15: 10 New
    0
    At the expense of anti-ship missiles, that they just drew on to such a tactic of use, only as I understand it, they have a solid fuel rocket and climb higher, which is an advantage.
  25. Sanichsan
    Sanichsan 12 December 2017 17: 37 New
    0
    For example, if the Novella-P-38 search and sighting system detects an Arly Burk type target at a distance of 270 - 300 km, then the Zumwalt will be detected from a distance of 90 - 120 km.

    Sorry, but this is possible only if the iron floats with the radar turned off and the iron itself sees a Russian ship from a distance of about 8 km. so to speak in the line of sight, that is, through binoculars.
    if the radar is on, then all this stealth is useless from the word at all.
  26. Reader 2013
    Reader 2013 12 December 2017 21: 54 New
    0
    Many thanks to everyone, how nice it is to read interesting comments, and not the nonsense of the wretched fools who have occupied the site lately
  27. sapporo1959
    sapporo1959 16 December 2017 23: 00 New
    0
    I’ve read a new misfortune for Russia, getting up from her knees. A miracle of the sea has not been seen for three and a half billion.