Military Review

For the Russian Navy is preparing a new test. How to replay "Flight III" in peak of strategy of domination of the US Navy?

53



It is well known that the three modifications of the US Arleigh Burke class destroyers of the USS are currently the most successful and large-scale types of surface ships in modern stories naval forces of the world. Even despite the fact that the DDG-51 USS “Arleigh Burke” lead ship of the “Flight I” version came off the slipways of the “Bath Iron Works” shipyard just 28 years ago (September 19, 1989), multi-billion dollar infusions into the program allowed for this period launch and adopt the American fleet 62 ships in the variants “Flight I” (DDG 51-71), “Flight II” (DDG 72-78), “Flight IIA” (DDG 79-113). And until the end of the series is still quite far. In particular, the Flight IIA series will be continued and completed only on the destroyer DDG-123, after which it is planned to work on an even newer version of the Arleigh Burkov - Flight III. Here we will encounter a completely new surface ship, only structurally similar to the previous "Flight".

The main event of recent months can be considered the resumption of construction of destroyers "Arleigh Burke Flight IIA". The decision to re-commission production facilities at two shipyards at once (“Bath Iron Works”, as well as “Ingalls Shipbuilding”) has rather deep roots related to the possible weakening of the combat potential of the US Navy against the background of mass production of Chinese multipurpose destroyers Type 052D, promising EM URO Type 055, Russian frigates of the 22350 / 22350М and deep modernization of the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser of the 1144.2M “Admiral Nakhimov”.

This is not surprising, since the subsidiary Aegis component in the form of 22 missile cruisers of Ticonderoga class URO is not eternal, and by the year 2026 half of the ships will be written off (11 units). In such a situation, in service with the US Navy had to 73 "Aegis" air defense off-vehicle main classes, which is not enough for certain superiority over antiship potential which is hundreds of supersonic ASM types 3M54E1 "Caliber-PL / NK" 3M55 "Onyx" 3M45 "Granit", 3M80 "Mosquito" (X-41) and X-35U "Uranus", located on all surface ships equipped with universal vertical PU 3С14 UKKS, СМ-225А (multi-purpose nuclear personnel will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, and they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different, they will be different and they will be different and they will be different and they will be different and they will be different and they will be different and they will be out of the same , CM-949A (TAKR "Admiral Kuznetsov"), CM-233 (heavy e atomic RKR pr. 255), CT-1144M (EM pr. 152, RK pr. 956 "Molniya-M" and BOD pr. 1241.1 "Deloi II"). Even more dimly, this number of Arleigh Burke and Ticonderog (with the flaws inherent in the Aegis CMS radar architecture) would have looked against the background of supersonic YJ-1155.1 anti-ship missiles, which have been mass-produced in Celestial for more than 18 - 2 years . Moreover, the series of subtle destroyers of the Zamvold URO are reduced to just 3 ships, while their individual anti-aircraft and anti-missile qualities remain at an extremely low level, requiring target designation from third-party radar or optical electronic equipment.

The “narrow-mindedness” of the TSCEI Zamvoltov combat information and control system on the AN / SPY-3 centimeter multifunctional X-band radar with 3 antenna arrays with a much smaller aperture than the AN / SPY-1A / D blades, compresses the air defense of the new staff destroyer- "iron" only to a highly effective fight against low-altitude air attack weapons, as well as high-altitude objects, but at a much shorter range than the "Arleigh Burke" and "Ticonderoga". For the full use of the entire range of weapons of universal built-in launchers Mk 57 (after “processing” the cells can be adapted to use SM-3 interceptors and SM-6 SAMs), the BIUS operators of these ships can rely solely on target designation from AWACSs and SPY radar ships. -1.

It is quite logical that for the continuation of serial production of deeply improved modifications of “Arley Burk” the Americans will “grab hold of their hands and feet.” For example, bringing to completion of a series of destroyers of the so-called “3-th stage” (“Flight IIA”) will compensate for the decommissioning of 11 Ticonderoga air defense cruisers from 109 operation and, as a result, preserve today's superiority over the Russian and Chinese fleets combined , in terms of anti-aircraft capabilities and the ability to carry out a massive missile strike with strategic sea-based RGM-62E “Tomahawk Block IV” sea-launched cruise missiles. The disadvantages of the Aegis system associated with one target channel of the tracking radar and the AN / SPG-3 illumination (4 RPN on the Arley Burk EM and 174 units - on the Ticonderox) are already partially compensated by the introduction of ultra-long-range anti-aircraft missiles RIM-120 ERAM. By equipping the missiles with modernized large-aperture variants of the ARGSN URVB AIM-7C-62, the firing process can be implemented to bypass the SPG-1, based only on the coordinates transmitted from the decimeter AN / SPY-16D (V) or airborne X-ray radar by radio channel on the radio channel through the radio channel by means of a radio channel AN / SPY-XNUMXD (V) or airborne radar means by radio channel Link-XNUMX.

The Arleigh Burke squadron destroyers upgrade program to the level of the 4 Stage (Flight III) is already a much more promising and ambitious action than the Flight IIA. It is designed to provide not only numerical, but also technological superiority over the ships of our and Chinese fleets. The main range of work on the 3 Flyte will be placed on Raytheon’s specialists, specializing in the design and manufacture of anti-aircraft missiles, launchers, air combat missiles, tactical and strategic missiles, as well as radar systems for various purposes and basing.

The main part of the destroyers "Arleigh Burke Flight III" will be a radically different configuration of radar equipment. Its heart will be the advanced dual-band multifunction radar AN / SPY-6 AMDR. The new brainchild from Raytheon will be presented with an upgraded 4-sided S-band antenna post AMDR-S (with a frequency of 4-6 GHz) based on the AN / SPY-1D radar (V), as well as a brand-new 3-side antenna station X-band AMDR-X (with a frequency of 8-12 GHz). Four canvases of active phased antenna arrays of the decimeter range of the AN / SPY-1D type form the old X-shaped radiation pattern, which allows to achieve an 360-degree view with a backup “peaks” overlap. This means that in case of failure of one of the canvases, its sector of the review will be partially compensated by the adjacent antenna arrays. The decimeter antenna post is intended for detection, tracking of objects, as well as for targeting missiles with active radar seeker.

The second AMDR-X antenna post is located on an additional superstructure (approximately 7-10 meters above the S-band). Its antenna arrays form the so-called “reverse” Y-shaped spatial scanning zone, in which the front hemisphere is processed with one antenna web located on the front edge of the additional superstructure, and the side and rear hemispheres are 2 with rear blades having 40-degree camber from the longitudinal axis the ship. This 3-side multipurpose radar is based on active phased array using gallium nitride (GaN), which will significantly increase the radiation power and improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Galitium nitride transceiver modules can operate at temperatures from 300 to 400 ° C (the melting point is about 2500 C °, while the arsenide-gallium modules have a critical operating temperature of about 180 ° С and the melting point is 1240 ° С. In contrast from single-channel AN / SPG-62 continuous radars, each AMDR-X antenna is multichannel and can realize simultaneous linking of hundreds of aerial targets and capture more than 10 targets. What follows from this?

For the first time in the history of the existence and modernization of ships with combat information and control "Aegis" on board, a full-fledged opportunity to simultaneously capture 22 or more air targets using medium-range interceptors RIM-162 ESSM equipped with semi-active radar GPS will be achieved. Recall that the state Aegis in existing versions can simultaneously fire 3 or 4 air targets depending on the number of single-channel AN / SPG-62 spotlights, while the 18 figure is the number of simultaneously corrected AN / SPY-1A / radar D (V) anti-aircraft guided missiles awaiting distribution to one of the “released” on-load tap-changers AN / SPG-62. AN / SPY-6 AMDR completely eliminates this problem, and this is another trouble for our anti-ship missiles. The fact is that in addition to high bandwidth and fire performance, AMDR is also added in 4 a larger arsenal of small-sized RIM-162 ESSM.


Schematic representation of the radar architecture MRLS AN / SPY-6 AMDR on board a class destroyer “Arleigh Burke Flight III”


These missiles have a diameter of 254 mm, so that the number of 4-x units can be placed in special unified containers Mk 25 installed in a certain number of cells of the universal TLU Mk 41. So, in 29 free transport-launching cells of the bow of the UHF Mk 41, the 116 interceptor missile ESSM + 61 missile RIM-174 ERAM can fit. Such an arsenal can only be surpassed by the anti-aircraft “equipment” of the heavy nuclear missile cruisers of the 1144.2 Peter the Great projects and the Admiral Nakhimov 1144.2M. The latter is in priority, because thanks to the introduction of the new Polyment-Redut complex with super-maneuverable anti-aircraft 9М96DM with a diameter of 240 mm ammunition in the field of old revolver PU B-204А can be increased exactly 4 times (from 94 to 376 missiles)! Recall that the ammunition of 5B55PM and 48H6X2 anti-aircraft missiles of the KZRK S-300F Fort and C-300FM Fort-M in TARK Ave 1144.2 is 48 and 46 units, respectively. At the same time, the situation with the 9М96DM interceptor missiles, which have no analogues among Russian-developed antimissile systems, is still not clearly defined. There is no information about regular successful trials of 9М96Е2 missiles from both the corvettes of 20380 Ave and the frigate 22350 Ave. Admiral Gorshkov, and from the C-400 "Triumph" air defense missile system, and the time is not worth the amount RIM-162 "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile" anti-aircraft missiles increase exponentially. What is the threat to the potential of our Navy could lurk in this rocket?

To ensure the interception of complex air attack weapons that carry out anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads around 18 - 20 units, RIM-162 ESSM are equipped with a gas-jet thrust vector deflection system, represented by 4 heat-resistant rotary planes in the rocket nozzle channel. This auxiliary control allows the rocket to maneuver with overload in 50 - 60 units. (but only at the moment of burning out the dual-mode solid-fuel charge). During this period, RIM-162 is quite capable of intercepting with anti-ship missiles such as Onyx and with 30%, such heavy anti-ship missiles like the V-40 Vulkan and P-80 Granit with the 1000-700%.

Many may include hurray-patriotism and begin to be interested in the sources from which this information is extracted. However, a technical-savvy person will be able to understand that both “Volcanoes” and “Granites”, in addition to powerful kinetic energy, also have a large mass, which does not allow maneuvering with overloads of more than 15 units. Consequently, to intercept an ESSM anti-missile it will be sufficient to go to an overload in 40 - 45 units. It is for this reason that today we are witnessing a transition from the aforementioned anti-ship missiles to more compact and “vertex” Onyxes, which can boast even an order of magnitude and a half with a smaller radar signature. Despite the fact that, technologically, our new frigates of the 22350 Ave., the modernized cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, as well as improved multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the 949 Ave. Antey (despite more ammunition of anti-aircraft and anti-ship weapons) noticeably ahead of the advanced American destroyers Arleigh Burke Flight III, the number of batches of our warships will be inferior 7 — 8 times. Against the backdrop of substantial delay with the fine-tuning SAM 9M96DM it only shows that the temporary key to the problem is to move the majority of Maple and diesel-electric submarines in the supersonic ASM 3M54E1 "Caliber-NK" and 3M55 "Onyx" with early intensification of works of "zirconium" in order to continue to stay on the crest of a wave.

Information sources:
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=18892
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsraytheons-an-spy-6v-radar-successfully-completes-second-ballistic-missile-test-5901178/
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. antivirus
    antivirus 20 December 2017 08: 41 New
    0
    if so anxious for treatment in hospitals
    all the best for children
    until you reach cp European density a \ roads-- sit you on old troughs.
    but there are still s \ pl teachers and plumbers
    and who disappeared ???
    grammatical you are our arithmetic
    1. 97110
      97110 20 December 2017 14: 02 New
      +4
      after which it is planned to work on an even more version of “Arleigh Burkov” - “Flight III”
      I confess, a little tower jammed. This is not even Sveta Kuritsina. What more then? Fortunately met
      Quote: antivirus
      and who disappeared ???
      . Let go a little. I felt better when I realized that everything written was written exclusively for
      Quote: antivirus
      grammatical you are our arithmetic

      Thank you very much.
    2. Anchonsha
      Anchonsha 23 December 2017 23: 38 New
      +3
      ==== "antivirus" ====
      Well, well, if the NATO troops will beat us dear to you, then you will actually not be there, there will be no one to treat, you see how the Bandera people are doing with the inhabitants of Donbass, they are simply killed to seize the territories. And the Germans and the Americans are especially fighting for us. It’s better to live as we are currently living with insufficiently good treatment in hospitals. Yes, as a last resort, leave for the West, there they will treat perfectly
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 24 December 2017 06: 48 New
        0
        I expressed the opinion of the majority, my shirt closer to the body.
        but in VO, and I, including the more patriotic hang out.
        convince Ernst and Mikhalkov (and weak Serebrennikov?) -Let they educate the generation.
        More than once in your life, "Stalingrad" is fun. And ALL YOUR LIFE POSIT ON ... see your words.
        and will these ... blows convince the people?
        and outside the number of arguments:
        Russia (the bearers of pride in St. Basil’s Church and the Smolensk Kremlin) is dying out (Tajiks and soon the Chinese will work in the meadows of the Don and Urals), it may not be too flabbergasted and transfer money to another state bank to move 50 million “remnants” there by 2060 ?
  2. xtur
    xtur 20 December 2017 08: 56 New
    +2
    no need to panic. If they on these destroyers just now solved the issue of a sufficient number of channels, then most likely their missiles were still equally useless.
    Therefore, the entire power of the destroyers of this entire series is the same PR, as in the case of "Zamvolty". 30 years of frenzied public relations, which even so many professionals believe, judging by press reports
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 20 December 2017 10: 06 New
      +2
      Maybe there are 2 times less of them, and UVP is not working, well, after all, no one saw them all together or a full missile salvo? Frantic PR! And nuclear weapons, I’m more than sure, are a myth - no one has tested a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, everyone is only PR. Maybe a couple of bombs remained, and that’s all. We are being deceived!
      1. xtur
        xtur 20 December 2017 13: 53 New
        +1
        > Yes, and YAO, I'm more than sure, a myth

        nuclear reactors on the planet like dogs uncut. And imagine, many of them even generate electricity. and constructively, the generation of electricity at a nuclear power plant is only a delayed nuclear explosion.
        In addition, in the army we shot tactical special shells.
        But the "patriots", over and over again, are dealing with simple rockets.
        So the degree of experimental verification of nuclear weapons and the air defense capabilities of American destroyers is, to put it mildly, very different
    2. sd68
      sd68 20 December 2017 10: 33 New
      +4
      The article is messed up.
      Arly Burke can and could fire at 18 targets simultaneously with ESSMs and SM-2, the only requirement is that in the final section (the last 2-3 seconds of the flight) at the same time there can be no more than 3-4 missiles (or 6-8 if they shoot 2 at target).
      For SM-2, by the way, this requirement is not necessary, in addition to semi-active radar seeker they also have a matrix IR seeker.
      Moreover, this requirement is not necessary for CM-6 with their active guidance
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 20 December 2017 10: 58 New
        +7
        Quote: sd68
        in the final section (last 2-3 seconds of flight) at the same time there can be no more than 3-4 missiles (or 6-8 if they shoot at 2 at the target).

        Not 3-4, but specifically 3, and the interval of missile approach to the final section is more than 3 seconds. When firing a single target with 2 missiles, this means that it will take more than 6 seconds to guarantee the destruction of one target. Plus, the reaction time to detection, taking to tracking (i.e. stable radio contact, the ability to measure the target’s motion parameters). And from the exit due to the radio horizon to the hit, RCC varies from 50 to 20 seconds, depending on the type of RCC. To put it mildly, the problem is very serious if supersonic missiles are attacked and there are more of them with 8 mixtures in a salvo. In practice, Burke is unlikely to have time to shoot more than three goals during the attack.
        Quote: sd68
        Moreover, this requirement is not necessary for CM-6 with their active guidance

        If the target maneuvers, then in order to withdraw the missile from the AGSN to the point of supposed transition to active homing, it is necessary to observe the target continuously and adjust the missile’s flight mission. If this is done by an external source of CPU, then nothing else. And if it is not there, and you can rely only on your own funds, then the difference between the "asset" and the "semi-asset" is erased. So only direct-flying anti-ship missiles can intercept so beautifully. To teach RCC to perform zigzags according to a random law is not difficult.
        1. sd68
          sd68 20 December 2017 15: 31 New
          0
          [quote = Alex_59] Not 3-4 but specifically 3 [/ quote]
          exactly, xnumx for tiki

          [quote = Alex_59] interval of approach of missiles to the final section for more than 3 seconds [/ quote]
          where did they get it? Do you know the minimum ECM range?

          [quote = Alex_59] [quote = sd68] on the final section (last 2-3 seconds of flight) at the same time there can be no more than 3-4 missiles (or 6-8 if they shoot 2 at the target). [/ quote]

          [quote = Alex_59] will take more than 6 seconds [/ quote]
          nonsense, they can be induced at the same time if the target is highlighted
          [quote = Alex_59] response time to detection, taking to tracking (ie stable radio contact, the ability to measure the parameters of the target’s movement). [/ quote]
          by itself
          [quote = Alex_59] exit due to the radio horizon before getting into the RCC varies from 50 to 20 seconds, depending on the type of RCC [/ quote]
          this is if the Hokai or F-35 do not hang on top and again, depending on which anti-ship missiles and what their launch range is. If it’s Granite, so at a height of 14 km they fly at least 200 km in the area of ​​Aegis shelling, enough time to shoot down.
          [quote = Alex_59] To put it mildly, the problem is very serious if supersonic missiles are attacked and there are more than 8 of them in a salvo. In practice, Burke is unlikely to have time to shoot more than three goals during the attack. [/ Quote]
          very serious, only in practice, the main means of combating low-flying anti-ship missiles are electronic warfare methods and traps, and Burke has a full arsenal of them.
          Everyone heard about the unfortunate Eilat sunk by the P-15, but many do not remember the outcome of the Doomsday War, when none of the 54 P-15s launched by the Arabs hit the target, despite the fact that the Israel’s electronic warfare was actually from the "crazy hands" circle "
          An attack by an anti-ship missile prepared for battle by a large warship with modern electronic warfare is not an easy task. For example, in the Falkland War, not one Exocet got into a battle ship made for battle. [quote = Alex_59] to withdraw missiles from the AGSN to the point of the proposed transition to active homing, you need to observe the target continuously and adjust the missile’s flight mission. If this is done by an external source of CPU, then nothing else. And if it is not, and you can only rely on your own funds TSU, then in fact the difference between the "asset" and the "semi-asset" is erased. [/ Quote]
          even as it is not erased, the backlight is not needed, and this is the most bottleneck in Berkov, there are only three plates, and the target channels for guiding the target are 18.
          [quote = Alex_59] To teach RCC to make zigzags according to a random law is not difficult [/ quote]
          yeah, at a height of 10 meters in the water, zigzags are the very thing in order to drown RCC on approach. In addition, the ECCM disposable overload is 63 units in my opinion, which more than covers any RCC. Again zigzags increase the time for shelling
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 20 December 2017 16: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: sd68
            exactly, xnumx for tiki

            It's about Burke. And 3 is if the attack is on board. And if from the bow angles - generally 1 (ONE!)
            Quote: sd68
            where did they get it?

            Because official performance characteristics are never achievable in practice. It says that in the final section, the backlight is carried out for 3 seconds. This is in ideal training conditions. In real life, from the beginning of work with missiles to its undermining, exactly more of these 3 seconds will pass. How many - no one knows, except for the American sailors themselves.

            Quote: sd68
            nonsense, they can be induced at the same time if the target is highlighted

            If they were all aimed at the same time, there would be no limitation on the number of illumination channels. And here it is consistently. Until the radar illumination is released from work with one missile defense system, it will not start working with the next missile defense system. One target is always fired with at least two missiles. the probability of hitting one missile defense system is usually less than 1 and in practice it is somewhere between 0,6-0,8. And for two missiles, it is already close to 1 and is about 0,95. Therefore, they always shoot with two. 2x3 sec = 6 sec. Minimum. One target. In ideal polygon conditions. But in reality there will always be t> 6 sec.
            Quote: sd68
            this is if Hokai or F-35 do not hang from above and again

            The problem with semi-active guidance is that these guys hanging in the air cannot illuminate the target, so all they can do is shout at the ship in the radio - we are attacked from such a course, wait for the targets to appear above the radio horizon. Yes, this will make life easier for shipbuilders, but all the same, they will have to measure the exact position, course, altitude and speed of the targets themselves using their radars. And then they themselves highlight.
            And in the case of active guidance, if Hokai has integration into the ship’s CMS, then he can automatically drop the coordinates of the targets (approximate, it’s no longer needed) that he measures with his own radar and based on this data stream the ship’s means calculate the corrections to the flight mission Missiles and send it through the radio channel to missiles. SAM goes to the lead point where turning on the AGSN itself is looking for a target. The task is to calculate the lead point. This point is stationary and known in advance if the target does not maneuver. If the target maneuvers, then the coordinates of the lead points dynamically change and they must be recalculated every second - i.e. see the target. At the same time, only those who are integrated in the BIOS can issue a TS. Just past a flying fighter, if it does not have an interface with the ship’s network, it will not help in any way in aiming missiles with the AGSN.
            Quote: sd68
            even as it is not erased, the backlight is not needed, and this is the most bottleneck in Berkov, there are only three plates, and the target channels for guiding the target are 18.

            You are confused in terms. Target channels at the 3 burks, and SAM missiles - 18.
            Quote: sd68
            Yeah, at an altitude of 10 meters on the water, zigzags are the very thing to drown the RCC on approach.

            Nevertheless, the RCC has long and successfully performed these zigzags. No problem.
          2. the most important
            the most important 20 December 2017 17: 09 New
            0
            [quote = sd68] To put it mildly, the problem is very serious if supersonic missiles are attacked and there are more than 8 of them in a salvo. In practice, Burke is unlikely to have time to shoot more than three goals during the attack. [/ Quote] [/ quote]
            And if you move away from the usual battle patterns ??? If you approach the problem from the other side? Burke has a lot of missiles, but they are not endless! And if you make the simplest Kyrgyz Republic with a small warhead of 30-50 kilograms (not fatal, but very sensitive) and send them in large numbers to the adversary? Let it spend ammunition. A flock of "mosquitoes" will force them to use up air defense missiles, and with a second echelon or under cover of "mosquitoes" to hit with more substantial missiles.
            1. sd68
              sd68 20 December 2017 22: 16 New
              0
              Quote: the most important
              Burke has a lot of missiles, but they are not endless! And if you make the simplest Kyrgyz Republic with a small warhead of 30-50 kilograms (not fatal, but very sensitive) and send them in large numbers to the adversary? Let it spend ammunition.

              in fact, the main means of combating anti-ship missiles in real combat conditions today are electronic warfare equipment, an interference station, and passive and active firing traps. Against RCC are very effective. The main thing is that the ship does not miss the attack, as it was with Shefield in the Falklands.
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 27 December 2017 16: 10 New
                0
                Listen to you, because our Atlanteans have no one to fear in the sea-oksiyans. EW all these subsonic Harpoons, EW.
                And there is no need to shoot! You can safely shove into rapprochement with the AUG, only on particularly annoying Hokai, yes, who decided to uncontrollable piece of iron to drop the F-18th by shooting.
                Lepote!
      2. Fulcrumxnumx
        20 December 2017 12: 11 New
        +3
        Better learn the technical points. The number of targets simultaneously fired at this system is exactly the number of SPG-62 radar. On Tikonderoga their 4, on Arly Burke their 3, on Australian Hobbards 2, on Spanish F100 as well. 18 missiles are induced alternately, not simultaneously (when a new target channel SPG-62 is released after a successful interception; the maximum in 2 is 4 SAM)! Therefore, if supersonic anti-ship missiles are suitable in a large sectoral zone (at a height of 7 - 20 m) in the number of 15-20 and more units. ("line"), the free channels of "Aegis" is simply not enough. Read the "Aegis" multipurpose weapon system (Captain of the 2 rank B. Poyarkov,
        Candidate of Military Sciences;
        Captain 1 Rank Yu. Yurin) and think about it!

        As for the SM-2 BLOCK IVA with an auxiliary IR sensor for use against warm-contrast ballistic targets and SM-6 with ARGSN, here, of course, the disadvantage with single-channel AN / SPG-62 is eliminated! All 18 missiles can be clearly distributed against 18 targets using AN / SPY-1D and self-capture.
        1. sd68
          sd68 20 December 2017 15: 36 New
          0
          Aegis is capable of shelling 18 targets at the same time, the main thing is that no more than three or six missiles fly up to the target, if two per target
          Quote: Fulcrum29
          18 missiles are guided alternately and not simultaneously
    3. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 20 December 2017 11: 55 New
      +1
      These guidance channels were needed only for fairly old missiles SM-2 with radio command guidance, for modern ESSM and SM-6 they are not needed, so this vulnerability of the Americans is fictitious.
      1. Fulcrumxnumx
        20 December 2017 14: 32 New
        0
        Not for those with a radio command, AND FOR ALL, who have a semi-active radar homing head. In particular, RIM-162 ESSM Block I with PARGSN channel SPG-62 is necessary, and for the newer version of ESSM Block II with ARGSN is not needed. But the "2" block will begin to enter service with the US Navy no earlier than the end of 2018 - the beginning of 2019. Only SM-6 and SM-2 Block IVA are capable of acting autonomously against PKP, but the pleasure is not cheap, unlike ESSM.

        Americans will get rid of the problems with single-channel “searchlights” after targeting the RIM-162 ESSM Block II and installing AN / SPY-6 AMDR radars on the destroyers at the beginning of the 20's.
  3. Old26
    Old26 20 December 2017 10: 33 New
    +7
    Surprised by Damantsev's article. Without a lot of numbers and the case.
    Honestly, I envy the same shipbuilding programs of the Americans. That's where the scope and possibilities of modernization. Particularly impressive is the “Berkov” series against the backdrop of their failed destroyer “Zumvolt” (sorry, if you spelled the name incorrectly)

    Quote: xtur
    no need to panic. If they on these destroyers just now solved the issue of a sufficient number of channels, then most likely their missiles were still equally useless.
    Therefore, the entire power of the destroyers of this entire series is the same PR, as in the case of "Zamvolty". 30 years of frenzied public relations, which even so many professionals believe, judging by press reports

    In any country, the ship is not done from scratch by the very best. The modernization process is ongoing. Perhaps they have (or had) some kind of problems by channel, but they solve them. And we didn’t go our way with a drum kit, when in the presence of 64 missiles of the air defense complex it was possible to launch only 8 at a time (I’m not talking about channel either, this is not the main thing)

    Quote: CTABEP
    Yes, and nuclear weapons, I’m more than sure, a myth - no one tested a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, everyone just PR

    Here you are wrong. There were tests
    1. Monarchist
      Monarchist 20 December 2017 11: 29 New
      +3
      To the old, I agree with you: a) the Americans have a good shipbuilding program and there is something to envy. B) now it’s impossible without a continuous modernization process: even Super Croesus will go bankrupt if you build all the time: “from scratch”.
      And according to Damantsev’s article, I consulted the sofa: everyone has different sofas, and therefore it’s better to ask the guys who are in the “topic”
    2. xtur
      xtur 20 December 2017 14: 36 New
      0
      > In any country, the ship is not made from scratch the best. The modernization process is ongoing.

      I agree with this 100%, I just drew attention to the other side of this phenomenon, specifically in the case of "Berks"
      in fact, only 30 years after the launch of this type of destroyer, they, according to the technical specifications, on paper, began to look exactly those ships, for which they began to produce their series 30 years ago.

      Therefore, when it turns out that before they reached the level they claimed it took them about 30 years, there is already natural skepticism in general to all statements about the functionality of these ships, given how many of these ships have praised the past 30 years, throwing aside any brakes and conventions.
      And since, for obvious reasons, in real or close to them conditions, that is, relatively speaking, “granites” versus “Berks,” no tests were carried out, access to the functionality of these ships remains a matter of faith
    3. sd68
      sd68 20 December 2017 15: 39 New
      0
      together, was not.
      separately charges, separately missiles
  4. tigoda
    tigoda 20 December 2017 11: 31 New
    +1
    Arleigh Burke class UROs are by far the most successful and large-scale

    The tiny amendment "FINANCIUS SUCCESS"!
    It is difficult to say that the BATTLE fire of 2 destroyers of 30 Tomahawks each was successful when only one of the destroyers hits the COUNTRY (not the target, but simply the country!).
    In 1943, Fau-2 100% fell into the attacked country. Regress, I would say, on the face.
    1. sd68
      sd68 20 December 2017 15: 41 New
      0
      for sure, and another Su-24 was so frightened by the American destroyer that from it half a command was written off ashore ...
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 27 December 2017 02: 27 New
        0
        2, the second insured nearby, not the floor of the team less.
  5. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 December 2017 11: 51 New
    0
    In this situation, the US Navy would have 73 “Aegis” -ships of the main-class air defense system left, which is not quite enough for confident superiority over the anti-ship potential represented by hundreds of supersonic anti-ship missiles of the 3M54E1 Caliber-PL / NK, 3M55 Onyx types, 3M45 "Granite", 3M80 "Mosquito" (X-41) and X-35U "Uranus",

    I’m embarrassed to ask - since when did the 3M54E1 and X-35U become supersonic? On the 3M54E1 they threw out a supersonic stage to increase the flight range. And the X-35U is our "harpoon".
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      20 December 2017 12: 21 New
      0
      X-35 "Uranus" at the end of the enumeration goes, the speed is not specified mrshevaya subsonic, but the "Caliber" 3М54Е1 technically provides for a supersonic level in the modification of 3М54Е. Indeed, the range then only 220 km)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 December 2017 14: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Fulcrum29
        but the "Caliber" 3M54E1 technically provides for a supersonic stage in the 3M54E modification .. True, the range then is only 220 km)

        The ambush is that the 3M54E1 model is precisely indicated in the article - and this is precisely the subsonic modification with an increased range. If 3M54E had been written, there would have been no questions.
        Although ... it would be - is it correct to record missiles with a subsonic marching section and supersonic exit to the last section of the trajectory in supersonic anti-ship missiles? Because air defense systems for USN ships are the last line of defense, and aviation plays the main role in air defense. And the lower the speed on the marching section, the less RCC will reach the affected area of ​​the air defense system.
        Yes, I'm a bore. smile
        1. Fulcrumxnumx
          20 December 2017 19: 28 New
          +1
          Yes, this is my little bug with "E1"). Your thought is interesting about “can 3M54E be attributed to supersonic RCC?”. Here, apparently, the classification is flexible: if a full-fledged AUG is supported by air-assisted targeting (E-2D, F-35B or F / A-18E / F), where targeting for SM-6 or RIM-162 Block II can come from their the board on the "Link-16", then - subsonic (after all, interception can occur at a distance of 150 and more kilometers), if a pair of "Harley Burke" and "Ticonderoga" act alone .. limiting 25 - 30-kilometer radio horizon - supersonic, because at the time of entry into the low-altitude detection radius AN / SPY-1, 3М54E accelerates to 3M ..
  6. tigoda
    tigoda 20 December 2017 12: 18 New
    +2
    The author of the article did not mention that the destroyers mainly perform the task of escorting and protecting the aircraft carrier. This is as if by itself implied. Of these 3 missiles, how much do you think the destroyer itself will cover? And how many of them will "work" only "in advertising" (only on paper)?
    TOTAL: FINANCIAL successful project of a large circulation. As the Americans say, "these are oranges not for food, but for sale."
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 20 December 2017 15: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: tigoda
      The author of the article did not mention that the destroyers mainly perform the task of escorting and protecting the aircraft carrier. This is as if by itself implied. Of these 3 missiles, how much do you think the destroyer itself will cover?

      EMs as part of the AUG air defense system are not covered by an aircraft carrier, but by the entire compound. Including oneself loved ones. In the same way that AB covers with its fighters including EM escorts.
      Moreover, most of the RCC will go to the fattest target.
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 22: 02 New
        0
        RCC will go to the nearest, it will be a destroyer of the air defense barrier
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Moreover, most of the RCC will go to the fattest target

        after finding the target, the missile defense system goes to extremely low altitudes and no longer sees other targets in principle, and the AUG does not go in tight formation, side to side, the distance between the escort and the core of the order is tens of kilometers, and if you take PrRLD, then there could be hundreds .
        it’s only now that the Americans are trying to compose LRASM, which at first will appreciate the whole horde, and then choose the target, I don’t know what really works
  7. Dmitriy75
    Dmitriy75 20 December 2017 13: 28 New
    +1
    In order to sink a destroyer, another destroyer is not needed at all for this.
  8. Natalia777
    Natalia777 20 December 2017 14: 16 New
    0
    I hope that the clever heads of Russia will come up with everything necessary to protect Russian ships and Russia from Western aggression. At a time when the West acts from a position of strength and destroys the weak, defense and security should come first. Russia has repeatedly experienced Western aggression from its own experience. Russia needs to have superiority over the United States and NATO in military force, not in order to attack, but in order for the aggressors not to be tempted to attack Russia.
  9. pavelpavel
    pavelpavel 20 December 2017 14: 33 New
    +1
    Today, interesting developments against these types of ships are training sabotage developments with the growth of application practice.
    1. sd68
      sd68 20 December 2017 15: 42 New
      0
      forget, just for these purposes, after the incident with Cole, the Bushmasters set
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Galleon
    Galleon 20 December 2017 17: 00 New
    +2
    Thanks for the competent and highly informational article! The idea of ​​the Americans is magnificent: an excellent naval and 2-band radar, computing power, the number of missiles, a large ship series - everything is impressive and makes a challenge. What can I say ... I hope that the matter will be turned so that all this power will remain unused. I agree with the conclusions of the author. Well, we will fight!
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      20 December 2017 21: 09 New
      0
      Thank you, let's hope that Polymer Redut will be brought to perfection very soon, like the 9М96Е2 missiles ..
  12. internal enemy
    internal enemy 20 December 2017 20: 07 New
    0
    They compared the elephant. Kuznetsov missile cruiser, funny, missile potential of the Russian Navy is far from the US Navy
    1. Fulcrumxnumx
      20 December 2017 21: 07 New
      +2
      It is necessary to look not only at the number of RCC and TFR in the guides, but at the uniqueness of their parameters, so far our “Onyxes”, “Calibers 3M54E”, and “Mosquitoes” noticeably surpass all skull LRASMs, “Harpoons” and “TASMs” flying from 850 speeds are 1000 km / h and unable to maneuver with stunning 20 units. on approaching the goal .. So it would not hurry with such conclusions. Moreover, the above means can "rush" our underwater component ..
  13. sd68
    sd68 20 December 2017 21: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    And 3 is if the attack is on board. And if from the bow angles - generally 1

    if from the nasal, then the conditions for electronic warfare are close to ideal
    Quote: Alex_59
    official performance characteristics are never achievable in practice. It says that in the final section the illumination takes 3 seconds.

    there is no such official data as there is no official working time for Aegis either. 2 seconds are taken from indirect data - the minimum firing range of the ESSM SAM, taking into account the launch from a vertical installation
    Quote: Alex_59
    If they were induced all at once, there would be no limit on the number of backlight channels. And here it is precisely in sequence. Until the backlight radar is freed from working with one missile, it will not start working with the next missile.

    Radars of illumination in general do not work with missiles, they only illuminate the target, and several missiles can be aimed at it simultaneously.
    The correction of the missile trajectory is carried out by the SPY-1 radar, and not the target illumination plate.
    Aegis is capable of simultaneously firing at 18 targets, the only limitation is that in the terminal stage, that is, at the time of the transition to homing, there should be no more than 3-6 missiles in terms of the number of illuminated targets.
    Quote: Alex_59
    all they can do is shout at the ship in the radio - we are attacked from such a course, wait for the targets to appear above the radio horizon

    No, Link-16 allows you to transmit information with the coordinates of the target and start firing ahead of schedule, until the target’s real exit due to the horizontal horizon. And if we are talking about SM-6 or SM-2 missiles, then completely conduct firing outside the radio horizon.
    By the way, this, besides Hokai, can be done by the F-35 - there were reports of such firing.
    in any case, preliminary information is important in preparing the repulsion of the attack.
    Quote: Alex_59
    You are confused in terms. Target channels at the 3 burks, and SAM missiles - 18.

    no, you are confused. Burke's 3 backlight channels, and 18's guidance channels.
    that is not the same thing.
    SAM ESM and SM series combined guidance (inertial with radio correction on the marching section and semi-active (for SM-6 and ECM block 2 active) on the terminal).
    Aigis does not require pre-illumination of a target to launch missiles.

    Quote: Alex_59
    RCC has long and successfully performed these zigzags. No problem.

    in fact, for the ESSM, these zigzags are irrelevant, it has an available overload an order of magnitude higher than that of the RCC.
    and at an altitude of 10 meters sharp turns with a large overload do not, is fraught.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 20 December 2017 23: 06 New
      0
      Quote: sd68
      Aegis is capable of simultaneously firing at xnumx targets,

      Not. Aegis is capable of simultaneously controlling the flight of the 18 SAM.
      Quote: sd68
      no, you are confused. Burke's 3 backlight channels, and 18's guidance channels.

      There is no such thing as a guidance channel. There are concepts of "missile control channel." Or just a missile defense channel. And yet yes, Aegis 18 has such “control channels for missiles”. And the backlight channels (i.e., precise guidance on the final section) are three.
      Similarly, in C-300P, one on-load tap-changer has 12 SAM channels and 6 target channels.
      Quote: sd68
      Link-16 allows you to transmit information with the coordinates of the target and start firing ahead of time, until the real exit of the target due to the horizontal horizon.

      It allows, but until the "plate" lights up, no one gets anywhere. And the plate should clearly see the target. And for this, the plate should have information - where to turn in azimuth and elevation, and the target should be in the zone of reliable exposure. The launch moment should be perfectly calculated so that a couple of seconds before the meeting with the aim of the missiles, it was exactly at the point where the plate already sees everything and shines. If later - SAM will go into milk. In theory, of course, all this is possible.
      Quote: sd68
      in fact, for the ESSM, these zigzags are irrelevant, it has an available overload an order of magnitude higher than that of the RCC.

      But this is not the point. But to rock the missiles. What is guidance? This is a correction of the lead point calculation error. While RCC flies straight everything is fine. But when it maneuvers. It starts not overloading computing power. RCC will reject the course by 10 degrees, and SAM, after all, it is necessary to deviate not by 10, but by degrees 20-30. Because she needs to get to the lead point, which is always in front of the goal. If the RCC rotates according to a random law, this creates significant difficulties for guidance. Not just one missile launcher, but also how confidently they will conduct anti-ship missiles, how quickly teams will come to compensate for guidance errors. You look and swing the missile launcher so that at the time of the transition to active homing, it will be in not optimal conditions and will not see the RCC. For missiles, after all, fractions of a second to the active section, taking into account the EPR of RCC, they ideally can see each other from kilometers 3-4. And if the missiles at this moment shines in the wrong place? In general, it is useful to maneuver in any case - perhaps the enemy will be mistaken. And if the EPR is still lower, but the interference is applied ...))))))
      AGSN is cool. But not a panacea.
  14. poquello
    poquello 20 December 2017 21: 57 New
    0
    a technical savvy person will be able to understand that both Volcanoes and Granites, in addition to powerful kinetic energy, also have a large mass that does not allow maneuvering with overloads of more than 15 units. Consequently, to intercept the ESSM anti-missile it will be enough to go to an overload of 40 - 45 units. It is for this reason that today we are witnessing a transition from the above RCCs to more compact and “nimble” Onyxes, which can also boast an order of magnitude and a half smaller radar signature.

    even I nifiga not savvy, trying to understand and all "Petka and crayfish" come out
  15. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 20 December 2017 22: 41 New
    0
    I correctly understood from this article that we are a scribe big and full?
    1. kirgiz58
      kirgiz58 22 December 2017 20: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Captain Nemo
      I correctly understood from this article that we are a scribe big and full?

      If you are French, then YES! smile And if a Russian person, then one x ... we will break the jugular vein with their teeth, and not a single Ajis will save them drinks
  16. looker-on
    looker-on 21 December 2017 00: 08 New
    0
    Many may include cheer patriotism and become interested in the sources from which this information is extracted.


    The author, with all due respect, you are a cheer patriot. You better discover the source of these probabilities:

    During this period, RIM-162 is quite capable of intercepting anti-ship missiles such as Onyx with a 30-40% probability and heavy anti-ship missiles such as the P-80 Vulkan and P-1000 Granit with the 700% probability.
  17. sd68
    sd68 21 December 2017 01: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Alex_59
    Not. Aegis is capable of simultaneously controlling the flight of the 18 SAM.

    in different sources they write differently on Wikipedia, for example, they write about Spy-1. "Centralization of all these functions in one system made it possible to reduce the number of radars, reduce mutual interference, increase the number of escorted and fired targets (250 and 20, respectively).". not important in this case.
    Quote: Alex_59
    Similarly, in C-300P, one on-load tap-changer has 12 SAM channels and 6 target channels.

    S-300P has a completely different principle of guidance- escort through a rocket, those are telecontrols of the second kind, where backlighting is needed even before the launch, otherwise you cannot shoot.
    Aegis does not need this.
    but I will not dispute the terminology, the main thing is how we understand this in essence.
    Quote: Alex_59
    It allows, but until the "plate" lights up, no one gets anywhere. And the plate should clearly see the target. And for this, the plate should have information - where to turn in azimuth and elevation, and the target should be in the zone of reliable exposure. The launch moment should be perfectly calculated so that a couple of seconds before the meeting with the aim of the missiles, it was exactly at the point where the plate already sees everything and shines. If later - SAM will go into milk. In theory, of course, all this is possible.

    that’s how Aegis calculates the launch moment. not such an overly complex calculation, to be honest.
    Quote: Alex_59
    But this is not the point. But to rock the missiles. What is guidance? This is a correction of the lead point calculation error.

    this is all of little relevance for the case with ECM - it has an available overload of 50 units, and a controlled thrust vector.
    RCC itself in the near zone is not very able to maneuver - failure to capture the target can occur, especially when using electronic warfare, the ability to overload it is incomparably lower than that of ECM, it simply reacts much faster than RCC maneuvers (there are specialists in management the concept of "method of frozen coefficients") and the flight time of the RCC increases, so the method is very dubious.
    and so it is clear that getting that anti-ship missiles into the ship, that missiles in the target is a matter of probability.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 21 December 2017 07: 53 New
      0
      Quote: sd68
      not important in this case.

      I'm just a bore))))
      Quote: sd68
      not such an overly complex calculation, to be honest.

      How to say. For a non-maneuvering target, not overly complex, yes.
      Quote: sd68
      RCC itself in the near zone is not very able to maneuver - failure to capture the target can occur

      C'mon, this is a matter of programming, not physics. In the flying seconds, the position of the target (ship) will not change significantly. Once I remembered the coordinates, course and speed, then you can lose the target from the field of view for some time. The main thing is to know where to trust and how much to trust in order to drive the target into the cross again. To do this, you need to give RCC an effective ANN or GPS and a normal smart computer. And EW is such a thing ... Twofold. Sometimes it is even easier to induce active interference, and with a passive you can “make noise” so that the defenders themselves will not see where these anti-ship missiles and where to shoot.
      1. sd68
        sd68 25 December 2017 17: 24 New
        0
        Americans have long been using Nulki, a trap with active interference.
        In addition to leading dipole traps, firing floating corner reflectors simulating the ship’s ESR began to be used.
  18. sd68
    sd68 21 December 2017 01: 29 New
    0
    Quote: poquello
    even I nifiga not savvy, trying to understand and all "Petka and crayfish" come out

    The ECM has a controlled thrust vector and a disproportionately large available overload than the anti-ship missiles, which allows it to respond very quickly to anti-ship missiles.
    The maneuverability ratio of the RCC and the ECM is like that of a modern passenger airliner and a fighter, and even more, what would you understand.
    Rocket maneuvers are also limited by the low altitude.
    1. Dalailama
      Dalailama 26 December 2017 20: 36 New
      0
      How fast enough? The maneuverability of a passenger liner imposes a limitation on passenger comfort. Small height imposes even greater restrictions on missile defense maneuvers based on a conventional air-to-air missile.
  19. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 23 December 2017 23: 32 New
    +1
    Problems are problems and they need to be addressed. Only without a good economy it will be hard for us to solve them. After all, you need to switch to super-maneuverable and high-speed missiles, which will require significant costs.
  20. shinobi
    shinobi 24 December 2017 10: 56 New
    0
    What touches is the belief of the West that we will fight exclusively on their terms and manuals. Schaz. About superiority as in that joke about the elusive Joe.
  21. Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 25 December 2017 17: 15 New
    0
    Even for the trickiest ... opu, we have a screw with the appropriate thread, we just decided to crush the number of those very ... op.
  22. internal enemy
    internal enemy 15 January 2018 19: 40 New
    0
    Yes, a strong comparison, the only question is that the Americans do not care for these comparisons, they still can not catch up with anyone.