Military Review

Special troika

24



The US Navy over the past decades has repeatedly changed priorities. Battle ship procurement plans were seriously adjusted in 2008.

Prior to that, the command of the US Navy focused on coastal operations against land and sea forces of countries such as Iran and North Korea. Now, in connection with the new stage of the struggle for world domination, the United States pays more attention to the possibilities to act in the ocean zone against the fleets of its closest competitors - China and Russia.

By the end of 2017, the command of the U.S. Navy specified plans to increase the number of naval personnel in 30 years. Previously, it was planned to bring it to 308 combat and auxiliary units, including 88 cruisers and destroyers. Currently, the total planned composition fleet increased to 355 units, and cruisers and destroyers should be 104 (for more details - “Pitfalls of a new generation”). To reach this indicator, it is necessary to put into operation 23 new ships of the ocean zone, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculated.

In search of the ideal

In addition to accelerating the pace of construction, Navy officials are exploring options for extending the service life of some surface ships, in particular, the Orly Burk DDG-51 destroyers. Thus you can delay the acquisition of new ones.

The project to create a new generation of destroyers DDG-1000 initiated in the early 90-s. The multipurpose ship for fire support and operations in coastal waters protected by the enemy was to replace in a more advanced technological form the Iowa type battleships that had been withdrawn from the fleet. In addition, the DDG-1000 was intended to perform the functions of a new generation of CG (X) type cruisers, whose creation program was canceled.

Officially, the new program started on November 1 2001 of the year. The Navy announced the abandonment of plans to develop the destroyer DD-21 in favor of creating a promising warship (Future Surface Combatant Program). When the DD-21 program was announced, the acquisition of 32 units was assumed. According to the project of a prospective warship, it was planned to develop and adopt three new classes, including the destroyers DD (X) for delivering high-precision long-range strikes and fire support to the marines, the CG (X) cruisers to perform air defense and anti-missile defense missions, LCS corvettes (Littoral Combat Ship) to counter submarines, attack boats, from which an “attacking swarm” can form, and sea mines in coastal waters. 7 April 2006, the Navy announced the renaming of the program DD (X) to DDG-1000. In the process of transforming previous plans, the number of ships consistently decreased: first, to 16 – 24, then to 7, and finally to 3. Currently, three ships are at the stage of construction and testing.

Destroyers from the future

The head destroyer Zamvolt (DDG-1000), launched in October on the 2013 and transferred to the 15 fleet in October on the 2016, is undergoing a test of combat systems. Adoption is scheduled for May 2018 year.

21 November 2016-th in the transition from the east coast of the United States to its home base in San Diego (California) from a destroyer, who was in the Panama Canal, had "engineering and technical problems." According to the American media, the power plant has actually failed due to the heat exchangers.

The second destroyer Michael Monsour (Michael Monsoor, DDG-1001) left the Bat Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maryland, in early December and began factory testing. According to the plans, it will be delivered to the fleet in May 2020. Lyndon B. Johnson, DDG-1002, the third in the series, is supposed to be adopted by the 2021 in December.

The total purchase cost of the first two ships is estimated at 9,149 billion dollars. The third destroyer according to the budget of the 2018 fiscal year is worth 3,733 billion dollars.

The estimated value of all three DDG-1000 URO series destroyers, as noted in the recent annual report of the US Navy, will be 12,9 billion dollars. During the time elapsed since the decision to purchase the third ship of the series, the purchase has risen in price by 3,904 billion or by 43,5 percent. To a certain extent, the increase in the cost of the DDG-1000 program was associated with a reduction in the number of destroyers ordered by the fleet from seven to three.

The design of the DDG-1000 used many new technologies, including in the field of hydrodynamics, providing "wave-cutting", as well as the architecture of the hull, reducing the probability of detection. In the construction of the superstructure used a large number of composite materials. The ship is equipped with a propulsion system, a powerful computing system, automation equipment, dual-mode radar, a vertical launcher of the new type, two 155-mm advanced ship guns AGS (Advanced Gun System) and two 57-mm small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery complexes (MZAK). For AGS, new 155-mm projectiles with rocket accelerator LRLAP (Long Range Land Attack Projectile), whose firing range exceeds 110 kilometers, were to be used. Total ammunition - 600 units, on 300 shells per cannon. However, in November 2016, the Navy decided to stop buying LRLAP projectiles because of too high a cost — roughly 800 thousands of dollars each. Instead, they chose Excalibur guided artillery shells, which are twice as short in range and cost around 250 thousand dollars apiece.

The full displacement of the DDG-1000 is 15 612 tons, which is almost 64 percent more than modern cruisers and destroyers URO (9500 tons), length - 182,8 meters. Full speed is 30 knots, cruising range is 10 thousands of miles. The ship is equipped with universal vertical launchers (UVPU) Mk-57 with 80 cells for cruise, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft missiles. MH-60 helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles can be based on the ship.

DDG-1000 has a reduced crew in the number of 175 sailors, 147 of whom serve directly the destroyer, and 28 are part of the ship's air group. For comparison: on modern cruisers and its "classmates" in the US Navy, the crew numbers almost 300 people.

The reduction in numbers is associated with the introduction of new technologies and automation of onboard systems, as well as the use of electric propulsion. It should also help reduce operating costs.

Judging by the implementation of the program DDG-1000, three new destroyers are unlikely to play a significant role in strengthening the American fleet. Most likely they will become experimental ships for the development of new naval technologies, of which they have been introduced into these ships beyond all measure. But it is hardly worth ironic about this. Suffice it to recall the domestic projects 677 and 22350. About 677 of new systems and technologies were integrated into the main St. Petersburg submarine of the 200 project, which quite naturally led to problems during their development. The desire to maximize the implementation of the latest achievements in the design of the main frigate of the 22350 “Admiral Gorshkov” project gave a similar result.

We would be cheaper

The US Navy, reflecting on the prospects for the development of combat surface ships, made a choice in favor of proven projects. In July, the fleet command announced 2008 that it intended to abandon the purchase of the DDG-1000 and resume the order of the destroyers of the type DDG-51, whose mass production was well-established.

Explaining the change of priorities, the Navy said that they had revised operational requirements that would dominate the future, and destroyers are now needed to fulfill three priorities: waging an anti-submarine war in the open ocean, countering anti-ship missiles and ballistic missiles. Although DDG-1000 could cope with the first two and be modified to perform the third, the Navy command found the project DDG-51 more suitable, and most importantly - cheap.

Congressmen approved the idea.

All cruisers, destroyers and frigates, purchased by the fleet with the 1985 of the fiscal year, were built at the Bat Iron Works of the General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works - GD / BIW corporations and Ingalls Shipbuilding of Huntington Ingalls Industries (Huntington Ingalls Industries' Ingalls Shipbuilding - HII / Ingalls). In recent years, almost all the production facilities of GD / BIW and a significant part of HII / Ingalls, where orders for airborne forces and the coast guard are also carried out, have been occupied under the laid-down surface combat ships.

The main manufacturers of shipborne radar systems in the United States, as well as integrators of onboard systems are Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The first is the lead contractor of combat systems for destroyers of the DDG-51 type with the Aegis BIUS, while the second is responsible for the DDG-1000, whose base core is considered to be Total Ship Computing Environment Infrastructure. At the same time, Lockheed performs part of the work on the DDG-1000, and Raytheon - on the DDG-51. Lockheed, Raytheon and Northrop competed for the right to be the manufacturer of the AMG (Air and Missile Defense Radar) ship radar for the DDG-51 Flight III series. In 2013, the Navy announced the winner of the tender for this radar company "Reyteon".

Hundreds of smaller companies are working with the aforementioned leading manufacturers of surface war ships - suppliers of materials and components that are part of industrial cooperation. The financial situation in US suppliers to the shipbuilding industry has been a matter of concern in recent years, especially since some of them are the only suppliers of surface warship programs.

Divination without a card

Another problem for the congress in the 2018 fiscal year, as before, is the lack of a naval roadmap to achieve the three priorities for cruisers and destroyers. First, to support the recovery of ships. Secondly, for the introduction into the fleet of a large number of ships with integrated electric propulsion systems or other innovations that could provide an adequate supply of on-board weapon systems. Thirdly, for the introduction of technologies that significantly reduce the number of crew and operating costs.

On the eve of the 2008, when it was planned to order the destroyers DDG-1000, and then the CG (X) type cruisers, built on the basis of the design of the DDG-1000 hull, the Navy presented a road map with a justification for all three positions. However, the end of the DDG-1000 and CG (X) programs in favor of continuing to purchase DDG-51 destroyers left the Navy without a solid development program, since the Flight III DDG-51 series will not be equipped with an integrated propulsion system, and also do not imply any modifications. reducing crew or operating costs.

Experts believe that one of the solutions to the problem would be a further change in the design of the DDG-51. Another suggestion would be to initiate a program to develop a new class of cruisers or destroyers. But this is a matter of the future.
Author:
Originator:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/40494
24 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik
    parusnik 24 December 2017 15: 09 New
    +7
    The total purchase price of the first two ships is estimated at 9,149 billion dollars. The third destroyer according to the budget of the fiscal year 2018 is worth $ 3,733 billion
    .
    ... Properly sawing money ....
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 24 December 2017 15: 18 New
      +8
      Sawing is when the money is allocated, and the output is zero, wasted and divided (sawn).
      In this case, three modern missile cruisers with 80 X 3 = 240 missiles
      US Navy will receive.
      Lockheed received superprofits, but issued a product for the fleet.
      How do sailors use these three cruisers? - another question.
      1. Titsen
        Titsen 24 December 2017 20: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        How do sailors use these three cruisers? - another question.


        I agree.

        But they don’t use it.

        Thus, there is SUPER profit, there is a SHIP, but he can’t only fight ...

        And how, Partner voyaka uh, did not CUT?

        But you are right - it wasn’t cut by Russian standards, this is a BIG CUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 24 December 2017 23: 46 New
          +2
          "But they don’t use it," ////

          But there are no military operations either. When they begin, then they will use it.
          Has Peter the Great ever been used in hostilities? You can also call it a "grand cut."
          Explain why Zumvolt can not fight? He can launch 80 cruise missiles.
          He has a powerful radar with its own low radio stealth.
          In fact, only the price was too much. But the company earned, paid salaries and bonuses to thousands of workers, technicians, engineers. There were no bribes and kickbacks to officials. Why do you call it a cut?
          1. Okolotochny
            Okolotochny 25 December 2017 12: 56 New
            +6
            Warrior, I’ll reveal one secret. Many western firms invite Russian managers to training seminars. Usually they are held in far abroad countries, in countries that are not cheap from a tourist point of view, including yours. Payment for air and accommodation is entirely on the organizer. Such "tours" are usually lasting 5-7 days. So, this is one of the forms of rollback and sawing. When managers are practically sponsored by lakshari vacations, and they buy goods and services from these companies. You have a primitive concept of cut. Cut - this is not only when loot is put in your pocket. By the way, such sophisticated forms are WESTERN, that is, your product. That bodies could not cling. When, for something (the effectiveness of which is in question) they dumped a ton of money and didn’t cut it? Here is Skolkovo, the notorious lectures of Ilyusha Ponomaryov worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is also not cut?
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 25 December 2017 15: 39 New
              +3
              What you have listed: marketing and advertising products.
              At times, a lot more money is allocated for advertising than for
              production. Make Sneakers in Indonesia - Cost
              a couple of dollars. But to sell them in Europe for 50, you need
              invest another 10 dollars a couple on advertising. Otherwise, no one will buy.
              Lectures are also included in advertising.
              1. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 26 December 2017 12: 40 New
                +7
                What you have listed: marketing and advertising products.

                That’s all right. Those who were taken for the ass for such things were claimed. One BUT - for some reason, after such "seminars", goods and services were purchased from event organizers regardless of prices, violations of procurement regulations for goods and services, under the pretext of "unprecedented quality." When this "quality" was transferred to money and compared with others, it turned out that the company LOSED at overpriced purchase prices.
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 26 December 2017 12: 48 New
                  +2
                  What to do: competition, marketing, advertising.
                  Due to competition, quality has to be kept high enough -
                  otherwise they won’t buy (no seminars will help).
                  Capitalism is a complex and flexible system. Because it survives
                  Socialism was simple and square: "you buy from" A "at" X "rubles and sell" B "at" U "rubles, as the ministry ordered in shaggy 197 ...".
                  Therefore, he covered himself with a copper basin.
                  1. Okolotochny
                    Okolotochny 27 December 2017 21: 44 New
                    +6
                    Yes, there is no word for competition, for healthy, clear and understandable. But when competition is replaced by a resource, monetary, administrative (imperious), then this is not competition, but lobbying of interests.
      2. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 26 December 2017 06: 18 New
        0
        Have you seen Lockheed’s closed financial report ??? Or, again, from the category of -the acquaintance has a friend who heard that ....
  2. San Sanych
    San Sanych 24 December 2017 16: 27 New
    +2
    It’s unlikely that these super-duper gems irons have a future
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 24 December 2017 16: 59 New
      +5
      At one time, this was prophesied to submarines and all-metal ships.
      1. Cat
        Cat 24 December 2017 18: 31 New
        +1
        I understand that in a friendly way I can only wish them a torpedo on board or a mine right on the course.
        But there is also a little malevolence - when destroyers of this class will descend from our stocks!
      2. San Sanych
        San Sanych 25 December 2017 10: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Conductor
        At one time, this was prophesied to submarines and all-metal ships.

        Better remember the fate of the super-sophisticated flying “invisible” F-117 irons, which have been lying around in the trash for almost 10 years, sawn into scrap metal), but Lockheed didn’t drank lightly on the supply of these goblins-wobbles, bravo!
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 25 December 2017 23: 13 New
          +3
          One of the most effective combat aircraft of recent times. 150,000 hours in the air, about 1,400 sorties, just one combat loss. In Iraq in 1991, they destroyed without loss about 40% of their strategic goals.
          1. San Sanych
            San Sanych 26 December 2017 02: 21 New
            +1
            if he really was an effective combat aircraft, he would not have been sent to the scrap, the F-15 and F-16 are still in service
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 26 December 2017 11: 21 New
              +1
              He was replaced by the F-22.
              1. San Sanych
                San Sanych 26 December 2017 13: 18 New
                0
                F-22s are better than F-117s, but also not ice, they were built only 197 units and completed production in 2011, and F-15s and F-16s are now being manufactured and upgraded, because not bad aircraft compared to these "invisible", whose merits are very doubtful, and even very expensive.
              2. Okolotochny
                Okolotochny 27 December 2017 21: 47 New
                +5
                F-117 replaced the F-22? And in terms of functionality, are they equivalent?
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 24 December 2017 18: 58 New
    +4
    I wonder how the article about modern weapons got into the history section? what
    Al hint about the fact that these creations of American engineer thought are essentially historical ships ?? what For me, Duc doesn’t seem somehow no If only in terms of price per copy without confirmed characteristics laughing
    Well, if the author looked to the future, well, it's not a story, but a fantasy wassat And she’s in another department, “Opinion” for example repeat
  4. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 24 December 2017 21: 58 New
    +4
    Quote: Kotischa
    I understand that in a friendly way I can only wish them a torpedo on board or a mine right on the course.
    But there is also a little malevolence - when destroyers of this class will descend from our stocks!

    In 2017, the U.S. Navy received 8 warships, including an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, a destroyer of the Zumvolt type, a couple of frigates, solid ships of the coastal sea zone, something like a BDK, a minesweeper, etc. This is ten times (!) times as much as what our fleet received. We can be proud of our “typhoons”, “whirlwinds”, “karakurts” and diesel submarines, “ivangrens”, etc., as a positive trend, but if we put all of our ships and American ships received by the fleets in 2017, then our squadron he can only run across the seas from the American, or go into battle with a song about the "Varyag" - and with the same confidence in a deliberate defeat in the battle. But the weak hope for life still remains ... The hope of the Navy in the event of war is only on the videoconferencing, on naval aviation of the fleets, and this is what it needs to be put in order and deployed 100%.
  5. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 December 2017 19: 58 New
    0
    Yes, it’s not a cut here. There will be no newest destroyers. Here it is. They will bring-bring, but never will. The fact is that the limit has been exceeded, indestructibly set by the theory of reliability. As everyone knows (well, except for the admirals of the Navy), the reliability of the system is equal to the reliability of its least reliable part. Well, maybe not everyone knows, here I’m probably enough ...
    In general, you have a chain. From the most reliable steel. Well, almost all of it was steel, but one link was slapped from aluminum. If you hang a load on such a circuit, what will be the reliability of the whole chain? Spit that ALMOST ALL steel chain. Its reliability is not higher than that of the aluminum link. Interesting, and it seems to be even just quite, right? We go further. Here is a system consisting of a hundred parts. The reliability of each part is 99%. What is the reliability of the entire system? But nothing. It is equal to zero ...
    For seafarers, as customers of the largest and most complex systems on the planet, engineers have developed many ways to circumvent the limits set by the theory of reliability. Basically, these methods come down to splitting systems into smaller systems, systems, systems, and tiny systems). Well, so that the probability of failure of the next device does not exceed at least 50%.
    But progress, tree stick! The only area of ​​science that has been progressing in recent 70 years is computer science with all its familiarities. That is, what can we do if we want to “look to the future”? Yes, and with a creative look, creativity is now approved instead of mind and talent. We shove more computers into our super-breakthrough tub and give control to everything and the whole "computer system". Arrived, damn it!
    The system becomes unified again ... and how many details, unified and monstrously huge, are in it? What is the reliability of these parts? What will be their GENERAL reliability? The negative values ​​that we get pierce the bottom of the little ships, and the bottom of the Mariana Trench, and generally the bottom. Bottom. Sailed. Reason, why did you leave us ?!
    1. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov 24 January 2018 11: 55 New
      +1
      Having a shortage of shipbuilding capacities and competencies, a lack of trained crews and equipped naval bases, the Russian Federation is developing priority VKS, where electronics and speed are an order of magnitude greater than in the Navy. And it is right. The result is a qualitative superiority of our aviation, including naval aviation, which stuns the American Navy with all its AUGs and Ijis. We have correctly identified the priorities in the military-industrial complex, which we have already been working in for THREE shifts of THREE years, for 100% of available capacity - and is quickly restoring the collapsed people of the Gorbachev and Yeltsin in the 90s, under pressure or on the instigation of our enemies.
  6. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 24 January 2018 11: 57 New
    0
    Having a shortage of shipbuilding capacities and competencies, a lack of trained crews and equipped naval bases, the Russian Federation is developing priority VKS, where electronics and speed are an order of magnitude greater than in the Navy. And it is right. The result is a qualitative superiority of our aviation, including naval aviation, which stuns the American Navy with all its AUGs and Ijis. We have correctly identified the priorities in the military-industrial complex, which we have already been working in for THREE shifts of THREE years, for 100% of available capacity - and is quickly restoring the collapsed people of the Gorbachev and Yeltsin in the 90s, under pressure or on the instigation of our enemies.