In Japan, launched a destroyer with air defense system, missile defense Aegis

81
The Japanese naval self-defense forces will soon be replenished with another destroyer with the Aegis air defense missile defense system. 30 July at the shipyard of the company Japan Marine United in Yokohama held a solemn ceremony of launching the first destroyer of the project 27DDG, reports "Warspot" with reference to the portal defensenews.com. The ship should enhance Japan’s ability to protect its territorial waters primarily from the DPRK and demonstrate naval power in East Asia and beyond.

In Japan, launched a destroyer with air defense system, missile defense Aegis




The new ship is the first of two Project 27DDG destroyers ordered by the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. These ships will specialize in air defense and will complement the project 25DD anti-submarine destroyers. New Maya destroyer will become the seventh ship of the Japanese fleetequipped with Aegis air defense system.

The 27DDG project is an upgraded version of the Atago project, in which, during the period from 2004 to 2008, two destroyers were built (Atago and Ashigara). From their predecessor, ships of the Maya type will differ in their increased hull and displacement, which will allow them to place reinforced weapons. The destroyer is equipped with an improved combined shipboard power plant CODLAG, which provides power to power-consuming radars and other ship systems.

The length of the Maya destroyer is 170 m, the displacement is 8200 m. The ship is equipped with the Aegis Baseline J7 combat system and, according to some sources, the Northrop Grumman AN / SPQ-9B radar, and according to other, the Lockheed Martin AN / SPY-1D radar. The list of weapons appear missiles SM-3 Block IIA and SM-6. Putting the destroyer into operation is scheduled for 2020 year.
  • defensenews.com
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

81 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    1 August 2018 11: 37
    hi ..Called Maya, the first of two 27ddg-class destroyers commissioned by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces, was launched in a ceremony attended by Minister of Defense, Itsunori Onodera, at the Japan Marine United shipyard at Isogo Ward in Yokohama.
    1. +5
      1 August 2018 11: 49
      not so special
      1. +5
        1 August 2018 11: 52
        Quote: novel xnumx
        not so special

        ...-- The usual thing.
        1. +3
          1 August 2018 12: 00
          nothing to see
          1. +8
            1 August 2018 12: 06
            Quote: novel xnumx
            nothing to see

            laughing ... Well, then look at the "cartoon" ... wink
            1. +1
              1 August 2018 12: 14
              Normal decisions, build a defense system around the islands, integrate everything into a single system / network. Normally conceived, and how it will work, it is not necessary to check ... we need it.
              All the same, absolute protection against everything and everything has not been invented, and will it be when ???
              Offensive weapons are also developing, becoming faster, trickier, more inconspicuous .... in short, let's live in the WORLD, however we will keep the gunpowder DRY!
              1. +1
                1 August 2018 12: 30
                And we won’t bomb Japia itself - we’ll drop a couple of megatons into the “mainland fault” and they will get a pussy, it won’t even be Focusable, according to rumors from geologists (or who is responsible for the mainland plates) - sooner or later there will be a “breaking off" of the plate and the Dzhapovsky islands (and, unfortunately, our Kuril Islands) will literally "wrap themselves" in the sea bottom. belay Japia is located at such a tense school, even if they are lucky and “the plate can withstand and not break”, then Japan will “wrap” it on the sea bottom under which the matic plate is wrapped.

                not the best picture (there the japia does not creep onto the Pacific plate and with it wraps around under the Eurasian plate "like stuck surfaces"), but in general it’s clear = they may not even have time to pop up at any moment.
                1. +2
                  1 August 2018 15: 18
                  At night, our scientists will change the gravitational field of the earth and America will be under water!
                2. NKT
                  +4
                  1 August 2018 16: 05
                  Well, at the expense of "breaking" and "wrap up" - these are all fairy tales, as well as the fact that you only need a couple of megatons. An earthquake of magnitude 9 is approximately 10 Mt, but even this is not enough to cause significant changes in the movement of lithospheric plates. In the USSR in the 000s, calculations were carried out on geophysical weapons and, as a result, this area was closed.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
            2. +9
              1 August 2018 12: 37
              A good boat, a full-fledged unit of the Japanese fleet, they are built to capture the Far East and do not hide their intentions. Our fleet in that region, nobody even includes in the alignment of forces. Enviously everyone is building ships, and we are kayaks, I hope we don’t get to the traction. We all reduce the toning of ships of various classes. If this continues, then after ten years the entire fleet will fit in the leadership in one basin. At least it will always be with me.
              1. +2
                1 August 2018 14: 57
                Quote: comb
                A good boat, a full unit of the Japanese fleet

                The "full-fledged unit" is armed with as many as eight harpoons (its Japanese counterpart), where are there our kayaks with onyxes!
                Quote: comb
                Our fleet in that region, nobody even includes in the alignment of forces.

                Let me draw your attention to the fact that this is the destroyer of the URO anti-aircraft defense - its main task is to bring down Russian anti-ship missiles.
                1. ZVO
                  +2
                  1 August 2018 17: 10
                  Quote: Setrac

                  Let me draw your attention to the fact that this is the destroyer of the URO anti-aircraft defense - its main task is to bring down Russian anti-ship missiles.


                  Its main task is to counteract North Korea and China.
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2018 17: 17
                    Quote: ZVO
                    Its main task is to counteract North Korea and China.

                    Especially North Korea! Probably Korean missiles are more dangerous than Russian ones.
                    1. ZVO
                      +1
                      1 August 2018 17: 34
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Quote: ZVO
                      Its main task is to counteract North Korea and China.

                      Especially North Korea! Probably Korean missiles are more dangerous than Russian ones.


                      For the Japanese, yes.
                      1. +1
                        1 August 2018 18: 12
                        Quote: ZVO
                        For the Japanese, yes.

                        It is a pity that the Japanese do not confirm your words.
                2. 0
                  1 August 2018 21: 02
                  Actually, the Aegis is "imprisoned" under the BR, because of its low altitude it is not very good. So, onyxes, and even better, zircons are what you need. The previous speaker somehow “forgot” that Russia still has the Air Force and Air Defense in the Far East. And then there is China which has certain claims against Japan.
            3. +1
              1 August 2018 12: 38
              They don’t even hide who this destroyer is for, aircraft judging by the stars on the fuselage are Russian ...
              1. +1
                1 August 2018 12: 59
                1 Tu-22M3M with 4 anti-ship missiles Dagger - with a guarantee of 200%, 2 of such Japanese anti-aircraft missile defense-PRO, will send to the bottom
                1. +2
                  1 August 2018 15: 38
                  Are you sure that something will take off from our airfields after such a destroyer strikes at it by changing the Standard rockets to Tomahawks in their Mk.41 launchers?

                  Also keep in mind that such a destroyer will not be alone and will be covered by everything from airplanes to submarines ...
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2018 16: 22
                    SLCM Tomahawk is a fat sluggish cow 880 km / h. An easy target for MANPADS, air defense systems: Shell, air defense systems: Thor, Buk, Wasp, Pine, Arrow, Tunguska, not to mention C-300, C-300В4, С-400 speed zur to 4,8 km / s.
                2. ZVO
                  +1
                  1 August 2018 17: 23
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  1 Tu-22M3M with 4 anti-ship missiles Dagger - with a guarantee of 200%, 2 of such Japanese anti-aircraft missile defense-PRO, will send to the bottom


                  Again I ask you the same question.
                  Already asked it seems a few months ago, but did not see the answer.
                  How many daggers will fit in the Tu-22M3M bomber, if it is known that:
                  1. The size along the length of the hatch does not exceed 5,5 meters ...
                  2. The length of the dagger is 7,5 meters.
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2018 17: 32
                    no one talked about placing the RCC Dagger in the bomb bay.
                    on the 2 external suspension on wings, by analogy with the X-32, and 2 under the fuselage on the “special” pylons
                    * so no one said that today's Japanese destroyer was accepted into the fleet
                    1. ZVO
                      +1
                      2 August 2018 06: 36
                      Quote: Romario_Argo
                      no one talked about placing the RCC Dagger in the bomb bay.
                      on the 2 external suspension on wings, by analogy with the X-32, and 2 under the fuselage on the “special” pylons
                      * so no one said that today's Japanese destroyer was accepted into the fleet


                      And what is the range with such suspensions?
                      400km?
                      There, the frontal resistance will increase times in 3 compared to the usual one. the flight range will drop multiple times.
                      1. 0
                        2 August 2018 07: 51
                        And what is the range with such suspensions?
                        400km?
                        There, the frontal resistance will increase times in 3 compared to the usual one. the flight range will drop multiple times.

                        depending on what to equate (!)
                        for example, if you drown the Japanese fleet in the Sea of ​​Japan, then the range is quite normal, from AB Belaya to Sakhalin 3000 km. BUT (!) In the endangered period, the Tu-22М3 are relocated to AB the same Vozdvizhenka jump in Primorye. And the range of RCC Dagger 1500 km.
            4. 0
              1 August 2018 19: 12
              A cartoon is a cartoon. A ship to go to sea and ocean. Look, they’re "locked up" as they advertised, but what happened?
          2. +2
            1 August 2018 12: 10
            The ship should strengthen the ability of Japan to protect its territorial waters primarily from the DPRK

            It seems that in the abbreviation "DPRK", the letter "D" is superfluous ... (Given the balance of power in SE-A).
      2. +6
        1 August 2018 12: 13
        Yes, for Japan, the United States and NATO countries, such ships are nothing special 96 missiles, and with the Mk.41 launcher, not only Standard-standard air defense missiles and Tomahawks with nuclear warheads can be launched ...

        And in Russia, the coolest is the frigate of project 22350 with 16 "Caliber" and it is not clear what the air defense of this ship ...
        1. 0
          1 August 2018 14: 53
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          Yes, for Japan, the United States and NATO countries, such ships are nothing special 96 missiles, and with the Mk.41 launcher, not only Standard-standard air defense missiles and Tomahawks with nuclear warheads can be launched ...
          And in Russia, the coolest is the frigate of project 22350 with 16 "Caliber" and it is not clear what the air defense of this ship ...

          For example, one Arly Burke carries 96 missiles for various purposes, our project 11356 frigate carries 8 calibers and 24 anti-aircraft missiles — 32 missiles in total, which makes it two and a half times lighter than the “berk”.
          1. +5
            1 August 2018 15: 34
            You see what the difference is, on Arly Burke, 96 cells each can be loaded on the Tomahawk with a range of 2500 km, and our frigate of project 11356 has only 8 Caliber missiles that fly 1500 km and can go a little further, and 24 anti-aircraft missiles - it’s an analogue of land BUK missiles with a range of 50 km, and this Shtil-1 launcher, you will not cram any other missiles into it ...

            In addition, Arly Burke has other air defense systems, so even if all 96 cells are loaded with Tomahawks, even a destroyer alone can protect itself from everything, but in reality it will be something like this - dozens of destroyers will be loaded with Tomahawks already modified and as part of the ASG, under the cover of airplanes and other air defense ships, they will approach our shores, at once they will strike at the entire military infrastructure - garrisons, airfields, ports, factories and cities ... And they will hammer to melt until they are sure that the answer was not sent blowing ... And what will fly with our airfields and our mines will be detected and destroyed ... And then cleaning the area ...

            While this is the case, they have one and a half hundred destroyers and cruisers each under a hundred “Tomahawks” + NATO and Japan ships where the “Standards” can also be easily exchanged for “Tomahawks” as well as on the land-based missile defense system ...

            Yes, you can shout that we have powerful anti-aircraft defense, it is so, but we couldn’t even seriously cover Syria from the blow of only 3 frigates and 20-30 Israeli planes, none of the ships or planes of the aggressor received an answer ... I’m not sure that the answer will be when they will also bomb Russia ...

            Half a day, Dmitry Medvedev decided whether to send troops into South Ossetia or not, and at that time the Georgians were direct hammering from tanks at the position of our peacekeeping battalion, Medvedev was the next president in all hands, and Putin was 64 years old ...

            We lose the USA because they play long, and we play blitz ...

            The country needs to be prepared for defense in the most serious way ... Service in the army is urgent for all 100%, there are no delays, except for the 1st disability group, and it’s not always possible to be a radar operator without a leg ...

            At the international level, it’s more active to conduct foreign policy, not to chew snot, but to directly say that all elements of missile defense are a threat, and it’s not to drag Iskander to Kaliningrad, but to withdraw from the Treaty on the Elimination of Short and Medium-Range Missiles (INF) ... in fact, it now allows the entire US fleet to approach our coast for 500 km and from there fire practically with impunity across Russia, because their Tomahawks fly for all 2500 km, or maybe there are more long-range ones ... Than we will drive them away now from our shores? With two submarines and the unfinished frigate Admiral Gorshkov, they will not cause anything other than laughter ... But the presence of a large number of ground tactical missiles with a range of 500 to 5000 km is an argument that will discourage the United States from any desire to approach the shores of Russia and its borders by land ...
            1. +1
              1 August 2018 15: 43
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              Understand the difference on Arly Burke, 96 cells each can be charged on the Tomahawk with a range of 2500 km

              Arly Burke cannot physically charge 96 Tomahawk missiles, not all Mk-41 cells can become them. 8 to 56 Tomahawk missiles depending on the series.
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              In addition, Arly Burke has other air defense systems.

              The Arli Berke missiles are just what they have in the Mk-41 cells, they have no "other" missiles.
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              AUG under the guise of airplanes and other air defense ships will approach our shores, at once they will strike at all military infrastructure - garrisons, airfields, ports, factories and cities ..

              And they will receive nuclear weapons as a gift. A similar concentration of enemy ships at our borders is a war without options, no one will wait until they release their tomahawks.

              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              an argument that will discourage the United States from any desire to approach the coast of Russia and its land borders ...
              1. +4
                1 August 2018 16: 09
                Arly Burke has 32 bow and 64 stern cells for missiles, the fact that they are currently loading from 8 to 56 Tomahawks does not exclude the possibility of fully charging all 96 missiles of this type, which is why they put all the ships of the Aegis system as and on the ground system PU Mk.41 is a universal launcher and it can launch both Standard-defense air defense missiles and tactical Tomahawks ... What kind of missile you put, this one will fly ...

                In addition to missiles, Arly Burke also has 30 mm quick-firing guns - near air defense and torpedo tubes ... And this destroyer will be covered by other air defense ships and aircraft ...

                Even if the United States drives its entire fleet to our borders, this doesn’t violate anything, ours is only that it enters the 12 mile zone from the low tide line, and then up to 200 miles there is a free economic zone where we are obliged to ensure freedom of navigation, and then generally neutral waters, that is, draws and whoever wants to swim there and as much as they want ...

                “Topol-M” is certainly a serious weapon, but not vulnerable to the enemy’s air defense system, especially in the case of a first US strike, we will immediately lose up to 90% of our nuclear potential ...

                A simple example Georgia attacked South Ossetia and shot our peacekeepers point blank from tanks, did Topol help us then? Not much ... Fact ... And their presence did not scare even Georgia ...
                1. +1
                  1 August 2018 16: 57
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  nor do they exclude the full charging of all 96 missiles of this type

                  I don’t know the details, it’s just that not all cells are the same and not all can have tomahawks. So there are no 96 tomahawks and never will be.
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  PU Mk.41 is a universal launcher

                  It’s not so universal, RCC does not become one.
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  In addition to rockets, Arly Burke also has 30 mm quick-firing guns

                  Yeah, and the officers - daggers - you can engulf the enemy.
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Even if the United States drives its entire fleet to our borders, they will not break anything.

                  So why should I listen to your stupid fabrications that are far from reality?
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  moreover, in the event of a first strike by the United States, we will immediately lose up to 90% of our nuclear potential ...

                  Just the dreams of our enemies.
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  A simple example Georgia attacked South Ossetia and shot our peacekeepers point blank from tanks, did Topol help us then? Not much ... Fact ... And their presence did not scare even Georgia ...

                  The brave Georgians fled? You yourself are not funny?
                2. 0
                  1 August 2018 19: 14
                  It is not entirely correct to compare Georgia and the USA
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2018 20: 35
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    It is not entirely correct to compare Georgia and the USA

                    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                    A simple example Georgia attacked South Ossetia and shot our peacekeepers point blank from tanks, did Topol help us then? Not much ... Fact ... And their presence did not scare even Georgia ...

                    I heard a jingle, but I don’t know where he is?
          2. +1
            1 August 2018 19: 58
            Project 11356 frigate carries 24 medium-range anti-aircraft missiles. At Arly Burke, similar RIM-162 ESSM missiles are placed in 4 pieces in one UVP. Theoretically, Arly Burke could carry 384 missiles
            1. 0
              1 August 2018 20: 50
              Quote: Mimoprohodil
              Project 11356 frigate carries 24 medium-range anti-aircraft missiles.

              Still, frigate 11356 is a budget frigate.
              Quote: Mimoprohodil
              At Arly Burke, similar RIM-162 ESSM missiles are placed in 4 pieces in one UVP. Theoretically, Arly Burke could carry 384 missiles

              Project 22350 can carry 32 (9M96) -128 (9M100) missiles in any combination, plus 16 cells for calibers - which (cells) are much larger than the MK-41.
              1. 0
                2 August 2018 08: 28
                Quote: Setrac
                16 cells for calibers - which (cells) are much larger than the MK-41.
                And MK-41 cells are much larger than cells with 9M96 mm versus 533 mm
                1. 0
                  2 August 2018 15: 01
                  Quote: Mimoprohodil
                  And MK-41 cells are much larger than cells with 9M96 mm versus 533 mm

                  The volume of the caliber cells is approximately three times larger than that of the Mk-41, i.e. 16 caliber cells as 48 Mk-41 cells.
                  1. 0
                    2 August 2018 15: 40
                    Quote: Setrac
                    The volume of the caliber cells is approximately three times greater than that of the MK-41,
                    And how did you calculate this rent? I Onyx is not three times bigger than Tomahawk.
                    1. 0
                      2 August 2018 15: 44
                      Quote: Mimoprohodil
                      And how did you calculate this rent? Onyx is not three times the size of the Tomahawk.

                      It is three times heavier, apparently you skipped the math.
                      1. 0
                        2 August 2018 16: 01
                        3 tons three times more than 1,5?
  2. +4
    1 August 2018 11: 48
    Cool ship. 96 VPU Mk 41.
    2 times more than the Australian destroyers. hi
  3. +2
    1 August 2018 11: 52
    With such a displacement, an excellent workhorse was obtained.
  4. +1
    1 August 2018 11: 57
    Long time ago, it seems the Japanese were not drowning khibins.
    1. +14
      1 August 2018 12: 09
      Quote: Vladimirovich_4
      Long time ago, it seems the Japanese were not drowning khibins.

      Not with khibiny, but with caps. In the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 caps threw the Japanese fleet. wink
    2. +1
      1 August 2018 12: 13
      Khibiny must try to drown an empty bottle of vodka in a rusty cast-iron bath.
    3. +7
      1 August 2018 12: 15
      Yeah. Never ever. I can’t even imagine how many of these hanging containers will need to be thrown at him in order for him to drown under their weight.
      Quote: Vladimirovich_4
      Long time ago, it seems the Japanese were not drowning khibins.
  5. +4
    1 August 2018 12: 11
    It’s just an air defense missile defense destroyer, this destroyer, like all other ships of the Aegis system, has a universal launcher Mk.41 that can be used to launch standard air defense missiles and to launch Tomahawk tactical missiles, including nuclear warheads part and range of missiles up to 2500 km ...

    All these ships of Japan, like all other ships of NATO and the United States included in the Aegis system, will be used for a massive missile attack on targets in Russia, these devils are preparing for the next intervention in Russia, and therefore these destroyers are slammed like hot cakes, from the story that air defense system - just nonsense for simpletons ...

    The United States practically disarmed Russia by signing an agreement banning ground-based short and medium-range tactical missiles from 500 to 5000 meters, and the ban itself was successfully circumvented by placing elements of this system not only on ships but also on land in Europe, Japan and Korea under the guise of a system PRO-air defense, which will turn from an air defense system into a tactical missile system with a missile launch range of 2500 km very quickly, simply by changing the launch container with the Standard missile to the same container with the Tomahawk missile ...

    Only the United States from ships can simultaneously launch more than 7000 cruise missiles across Russia at the same time, not counting the ground system of the Aegis and the ships of NATO and Japan ... And then it will reload right into the sea and shoot with it until it melts until everything is destroyed in ruin and then the ground forces of the "free world" from the USA to Poland will rush to us to clean and divide the territory ...
    1. +2
      1 August 2018 12: 17
      Question to you. Why would anyone attack Russia?
      1. +5
        1 August 2018 12: 31
        All for the same reason that the United States has now attacked the countries of the Middle East, for the sake of resources.

        Why pay Russia for oil, gas, metals, timber and everything else, when you can take it and earn it yourself without paying a dime ... Resources on the planet are depleted very soon oil at $ 100 per barrel will seem fabulously cheap .. .

        Look at only two numbers - the first is oil consumption in the USA - this is about 20 million barrels per day, this is 25% of the world’s consumption, and the second is explored oil reserves in the USA 44 billion barrels divided by the current production rate of 10-11 million barrels per day and get production of 3,6 billion per year ...

        In total, it turns out that the United States is already consuming 25% of oil from world consumption, and it has 10 years left of its reserves ... And this is if neither consumption nor production will increase anymore ... But you can see the dynamics - everything grows US oil production and oil consumption both in the USA and in the world ...

        There is simply no way out of this situation, the United States will never accept that they will be dictated by the price of resources no longer from the Newer Exchange, but from some Petersburg or any other one and this will very soon lead to a crisis and a real world war for resources ...

        And the reason to find the current situation for the United States is not a problem at all ...

        What is your version? Why Japan, whose national debt has already exceeded a bunch of economic problems for 200%, a series of new destroyers, and their former fleet is not small? With North Korea, or maybe with China ?! ))) They do not expect war with either Korea or China, but yes with Russia, they are preparing for a new intervention ...

        More precisely, the United States is preparing them for a new war with Russia ...
        1. +5
          1 August 2018 13: 36
          The costs and risks of a war are thousands of times greater than the cost of peacefully purchasing all the necessary resources. Fortunately, America has money.
          1. +3
            1 August 2018 14: 53
            If the United States had money, then they would not have owed 21 trillion dollars, of which 10 trillion they borrowed only in the last decade ...

            That is, as you see, the United States has no money ...

            The second point is that the United States has a negative trade balance, about 700 billion dollars a year, that is, they sell goods at a lower amount than they buy, and this suggests that more and more the United States will borrow in order to maintain the previous level of consumption. .. And they have to borrow the same 700 billion a year ... But even the United States will not be able to borrow indefinitely ... And lately, this trend has simply increased record-high, the USA over the past 10 years has doubled its public debt from 10 to 21 trillion dollars. ..

            And what is the solution? And there are only two of them:
            - reduce consumption and living standards in the United States by 700 billion a year, and preferably lower, to get a positive trade balance and begin to somehow pay off debts;

            - or take resources from someone by force ...

            For example, only Gazprom has 38 trillion cubic meters of gas, divided by 1000 and multiplied by $ 200 for 1000 cubic meters, we will only receive Gazprom’s reserves for today = $ 7,6 trillion ... Moreover, these are only public reserves that were available to mining companies, but in general Resource reserves in Russia are state secrets and cannot be disclosed, but given the size of our country, we can assume that there are a lot of reserves ...

            The United States is naturally not suicidal and will not attack Russia today, before the US attack, the situation inside the country will be maximally destabilized by provocations and bribery of individuals, it will be economically blocked under far-fetched pretexts, and it will attack when they are sure that there will be no retaliatory strike ...

            And the cost of the war is also conditional, if you count ammunition and equipment at the market price, then it’s not cheap, and if you take into account that the stock of ammunition has a limited service life like equipment, and that doesn’t come out so expensive ...
            1. +1
              1 August 2018 15: 24
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              For example, Gazprom alone has 38 trillion cubic meters of gas, divide by 1000 and multiply by $ 200 per 1000 cubic meters, we will only receive Gazprom reserves for today = $ 7,6 trillion ...

              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              If the United States had money, then they would not have owed 21 trillion dollars, of which 10 trillion they borrowed only in the last decade ...

              That is, the public "great" Gazprom reserves are almost three times cheaper than the US public debt ...
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              That is, as you see, the United States has no money ...

              And it pleased.
              This is apparently Medvedev on behalf of the US government said
              no money but you hold on, you all the best, good mood and health
              1. +2
                1 August 2018 15: 42
                So in Russia there is more than one Gazprom with its reserves ... I repeat, Gazprom’s reserves are only what is already public, and the true reserves of resources in Russia are state secrets ...

                In addition, today it is 1000 cubes of 200 dollars, and more recently, it was all 500 ... Are you sure that the price of resources on the planet where they are limited, and the population is growing will not return to the price of 500 dollars or even more?

                And if you count 500 dollars, then Gazprom’s reserves alone will be able to cover the entire US public debt ...

                Well, you will agree that if the United States had money, then they would not have to borrow it in such an amount? So ... Well then, what kind of doubt? Imagine, the United States borrowed to buy what they need, while they earn less than they spend, that is, they have nothing to repay with, moreover, they are forced to borrow more and more ...

                And judging by the defense budget, they are not going to save at all ...
                1. NKT
                  +1
                  1 August 2018 16: 23
                  True, as you say, reserves and resources are no longer state secrets.
                2. 0
                  1 August 2018 17: 33
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Well, you will agree that if the United States had money, then they would not have to borrow it in such an amount? So ... Well then, what kind of doubt?

                  Personally, I do not agree. In the modern world, the US public debt is used as an instrument of accumulation. Lack of public debt in the USA is a sign of a lack of accumulation in other countries (and a lack of accumulation has always been worse than their presence, as you understand). For many reasons, it is more profitable for most countries to invest in the United States rather than in gold. This is due to both liquidity and the most advanced technological and economic development of the United States; in general, there are many factors there.
                  You may not believe it.
                  You just asked me, I expressed to you what I adhere to.
                  Well, in general, pluralism is not bad.
                3. 0
                  1 August 2018 19: 17
                  When you write:
                  Only the United States from ships can simultaneously launch more than 7000 cruise missiles

                  take the trouble first to clarify how many such missiles (~ 4000) Americans have. laughing
      2. +2
        1 August 2018 12: 47
        resources, territories, water.
        1. 0
          1 August 2018 13: 35
          So far, no one has experienced the global effects of nuclear weapons, except for the Japanese, of course.
          Survived, will they want more?
          While there is nothing that can prevent a retaliatory strike .... because there is no global war.
          How will it go further? And who can say. More attack weapons become more diverse, no defense will save you from that!
        2. +4
          1 August 2018 13: 39
          America waged many wars in the 20th century, but did not annex any territories.
          She has not joined in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan, nor in Yugoslavia, nor in Korea.
          Resources successfully buys. Water and even more so they do not need.
          1. +1
            1 August 2018 14: 25
            Capture and control, the concepts are different .... costs, the efforts are also different.
            Aiming at control of the territory with the help of the same national elites, this is easy to believe. Carry out a real capture of vast territories ??? At who is capable of this now, is it really so?
            The costs of modern education, as before was the specifics of Soviet education.
          2. +3
            1 August 2018 14: 56
            Listen to the United States, and so it started the war in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Vietnam and a number of other countries illegally, none of these countries attacked the United States, what the United States did is an act of aggression, this is a crime ... And they haven’t answered for them yet for one reason that these countries are too weak to at least somehow confront the United States ...

            The United States has not legally subjugated other territories, but in fact has 800 military bases outside the United States and has a direct impact on the policies of many countries both in Europe and Asia ... In fact, these countries are dependent on the United States as a colony from the mother country ...
            1. +1
              1 August 2018 15: 17
              Shaw you, sho you write such seditious.
              The Yankees under the wings of their aircraft carry the most dermocratic bombs in the world to all the "oppressed" peoples! With home or head delivery, that's how it goes!
          3. +4
            1 August 2018 15: 20
            to steal territories it is not necessary to seize them by military means it is enough to control the country's power elite, which the Americans are doing around the world
          4. 0
            1 August 2018 17: 22
            Why connect, occupy yes !, what they do as fascists — they occupy and exterminate the local inhabitants, but Russia yes has JOINED Crimea and is caring as best it can.
  6. 0
    1 August 2018 15: 18
    Japanese ambitions will again lead to war in this region
    1. +3
      1 August 2018 15: 44
      This is not the ambition of the Japanese - this is a U.S. order ...
    2. 0
      1 August 2018 20: 35
      Will lead to war - with whom?
  7. 0
    1 August 2018 22: 24
    Someone is building destroyers, but we can’t let the frigate down for 10 years
  8. 0
    2 August 2018 16: 08
    Quote: Mimoprohodil
    3 tons three times more than 1,5?

    3 tons is three times more than 1.1 tons plus or minus one hundred kilograms.
    With TPN - 3900 kg
    1. 0
      3 August 2018 15: 43
      Quote: Setrac
      3 tons is three times more than 1.1 tons plus or minus one hundred kilograms.
      The tomahawk has 1500-1600 kg with a starting accelerator. Whatever one may say, 32 missiles and 16 Onyx are twice as light as rockets in 96 launchers of Arly Burke
      1. 0
        3 August 2018 17: 22
        Quote: Mimoprohodil
        The tomahawk has 1500-1600 kg with a starting accelerator.

        Tomahawks are different, white, black, cr ..... It doesn’t matter in three or two and a half difference. 16 WWVP caliber as 40 UVVP Mk-41 - and this is half the arsenal of the American destroyer, and 22350 is just twice as light in displacement.
        There are no miracles in the world, the armament of each ship is proportional to its displacement.
        1. 0
          3 August 2018 21: 02
          Quote: Setrac
          16 UVVP caliber as 40 UVVP Mk-41 -
          16 caliber UVP will launch 16 cruise missiles, not 40.
          1. 0
            3 August 2018 21: 17
            Quote: Mimoprohodil
            16 caliber UVP will launch 16 cruise missiles, not 40.

            In the event of a confrontation with the American fleet, they will be loaded with onyxes, and 16 onyxes are much cooler and more dangerous than 40 unknowns — for the Americans, there is no anti-ship missile for the Mk-41 airborne landing gear.
            Actually, “calibers” are much better than “tomahawks”.
            1. 0
              3 August 2018 21: 45
              Quote: Setrac
              Actually, “calibers” are much better than “tomahawks”.
              What is this, if we talk about subsonic options?
              1. 0
                3 August 2018 21: 56
                Quote: Mimoprohodil
                What is this, if we talk about subsonic options?

                The calibers have a lower price, the range of ammunition is greater, the flight speed is higher, the warhead is more ... enough for now.
                1. 0
                  3 August 2018 22: 25
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Gauges have a lower price
                  Did you personally report?

                  Quote: Setrac
                  warhead more
                  450 kg more than 450 kg, speed 0.8 more than 0.8
                  Quote: Setrac
                  more ammunition stock
                  3 vs 2. 91P is not a cruise missile at all
                  1. 0
                    4 August 2018 20: 25
                    Quote: Mimoprohodil
                    Did you personally report?

                    I’m surprised myself!
                    Quote: Mimoprohodil
                    450 kg more than 450 kg, speed 0.8 more than 0.8

                    Those tomahawks that carry 450 kg of non-nuclear ammunition fly only 460-550 km, so you haven’t guessed it - the tomahawks have less warheads
                    Speed ​​0.5-0.75 for tomahawks and 0.8-2.9 for calibers.
                    Quote: Mimoprohodil
                    3 vs 2. 91P is not a cruise missile at all

                    RCC, tactical and anti-submarine in calibres against only tactical tomahawk missiles. Three vs one
                    1. 0
                      4 August 2018 21: 50
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Those tomahawks that carry 450 kg of non-nuclear ammunition fly only 460-550 km, so you haven’t guessed it - the tomahawks have less warheads
                      These tomahawks are anti-ship, their range was limited by target designation. And with the usual, everything is fine:
                      Range: Block III TLAM-C - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
                      Block IV TLAM-E - 900 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1600 km)
                      Block III TLAM-C and Block IV TLAM-E - 1,000 pound class unitary warhead.

                      Quote: Setrac
                      RCC, tactical and anti-submarine in calibres against only tactical tomahawk missiles. Three vs one
                      RCC subsonic, RCC subsonic with supersonic final stage, tactical missile defense against tactical and anti-ship missile tomahawk
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Speed ​​0.5-0.75 for tomahawks and 0.8-2.9 for calibers.
                      Caliber 0.6-0.8, almost the same
                      1. 0
                        5 August 2018 00: 16
                        Quote: Mimoprohodil
                        These tomahawks are anti-ship, their range was limited by target designation. And with the usual, everything is fine:

                        Quote: Mimoprohodil
                        and tomahawk anti-ship missile

                        Such tomahawks (RCC) are not in service. And those that have (not anti-ship missiles) have a smaller warhead - 280-350 kg.
                        Quote: Mimoprohodil
                        Caliber 0.6-0.8, almost the same

                        Of course ALMOST !!! 25% off
  9. 0
    5 August 2018 10: 09
    Setrac,
    You can’t convert pounds to kg? 1000 pounds is 450 kg.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"