Ships for the third world war

40
Prologue

1962 year, the Caribbean crisis. One of the consequences was the shipbuilding program McNamara's Folly. In honor of the head of the Pentagon, superbusinessman and (later) the head of the World Bank, Robert McNamara.





In the midst of tension and the threat of a new world war, McNamara suddenly decided that the fleet no longer require nuclear carriers. And missile cruisers also do not need much.

Instead of powerful warships, the offspring of the nuclear-nuclear era, McNamara approved the construction of a series of rather strange uses. After reviewing the technical assignment and realizing that these ships would become the basis of the Navy in the coming world war, the sailors came to a real bewilderment.

The 46 series of ships is known as the Knox class frigates. The main feature is the inability to use the squadrons and aircraft carrier groups. Too weak dynamics and speed in 27 nodes did not allow frigates to accompany warships.

The only propeller shaft, one turbine - in combat stability, the Knox did not meet any of the accepted military standards.

Radar detection devices also did not match the time. The two-dimensional SPS-40 general detection radar even by 60's standards seemed a complete anachronism. The radar was assembled on radio tubes, was distinguished by indecently high sensitivity to vibrations and therefore low reliability.

Even less such a frigate was suitable for participation in local conflicts. No “colonial cruiser in Zanzibar” could have come out of it. If Knox attempted to declare itself, any rebels and rebels would have poured it to the fullest.

The frigate lacked strike and anti-aircraft weapons. And the very first air threat was his last - Knox could be bombed as a training target, without any consequences for the attacking side.

Later, in the 70-ies, part of the frigates received a short-range “SiSperrouv” air defense system, with manual guidance through the viewfinder, which was more an ornament than a real weapons. Due to the lack of high-quality radar facilities, the crew of the Knox would hardly have managed to play a combat alarm.

The Knox had neither speedboats nor a capture group on board. They were not intended for capturing pirates and operating in coastal waters. There was not even a helicopter - initially the project only provided for an anti-submarine drone of the DASH type.

At the same time, the frigates were not an ersatz project, a remake of the old trawler “with more money, cheaper at the price”.



The Knoxes had a total displacement of 4200 tons, a crew of 250 people, and their cost at current prices would be 500-600 million.

Full combat, but very highly specialized ships.

Created for only one theater of war, under the same conditions and one chosen enemy.

The hull of the frigate was as if built around a “drop” of the sonar with a range of submarine detection in active mode to 60 km. The armament was based on anti-submarine missiles equipped with warheads in the form of self-guided torpedoes. And the shock drone, which allowed the submarines to attack at a distance significantly greater than the distance of the torpedo attack, which seemed very cool by the standards of the 60-s.



The hydroacoustic station AN / SQS-26 was so successful that it is still installed on destroyers of the Orly Burk class; the difference between the GAS of the Knox frigate and the modern GAS SQS-53 lies in the digitization of the signal and the new interface (Mk.116). But it is based on the same antenna.

To increase the chances of a deadly duel, the Knox creators equipped the frigate with Praire / Masker acoustic masking systems. Four perforated lines encircling the hull in the area of ​​the engine room - to supply low-pressure air to the bottom of the frigate. Bubble curtain reduces noise.



The technical appearance of "Knox" ahead of time. But, despite the better than anyone else, the capabilities of the PLO, the frigate was not designed to act as part of the naval forces.

Then for what purpose did you need a large series of low-speed (and very expensive) anti-submarine ships?

To accompany civil courts. Otherwise - provide convoys. This is clearly confirmed by the primary Knox classification - DE (destroyer escort).

Then the next question is where did the Yankees intend to equip convoys in the coming world war?

Obviously, to Europe. In Rotterdam and other major ports.

It remains to find out - why convoys in world warif everything ends an hour after it starts?

“It’s not over,” grumbled McNamara, “who decided that the war would be nuclear?”

* * *

This is not often said, but there is such an opinion: in the “hour X” no one dares to press a button. World War have to wage conventional weapons.

Unlike the shouting “bahn! the whole world is in dust! ”, for those who have the“ red button ”in their hands, they have something to lose. At once, digging into the ground one’s status, privileges, way of life, and even depriving oneself of life for the sake of ... These people are used to making decisions in a more balanced and thoughtful way.

The use of nuclear weapons is like undermining a grenade in hand-to-hand combat. Nuclear parity (guaranteed mutual destruction) does not allow to use nuclear weapons with impunity and deprives all advantages of the one who decides to use it first.

A military confrontation between superpowers, which began on any occasion, most likely would not have been able to go beyond the level of conventional, non-nuclear weapons.

The superpowers once approached the “danger line” in 1962, not realizing that nuclear parity was established between them. And realizing this, they immediately surrendered, reflecting on the more traditional methods of war.

In addition to re-equipping the Armed Forces with outlandish weapons, McNamara proceeded with a sharp increase in the number of personnel. Prior to his resignation in 1968, he managed to increase by one and a half times the size of the US military from 2,48 to 3,55 million. The Madness of McNamara was a set of measures to prepare for a conventional war.

A small problem for the Americans traditionally was the transfer of reinforcements and the supply of expeditionary forces in the Old World. The personnel could be quickly transferred by air, but for the delivery of heavy equipment, fuel and food needed sea transport.

Navy in this war the decisive role was to secure the escort of convoys through the troubled waters of the Atlantic.

* * *

The naval war with the USSR would be the first conflict of this kind in stories. When one of the parties is completely independent of sea communications, and its fleet is forced to smash sea communications in the rear of the enemy, getting there through five seas and two oceans.

The situation confused all the maps and minds in the US Navy General Staff.

All concepts of the application of the Navy and the conclusions formed in the first half of the twentieth century according to the results of rivalry with the maritime powers (primarily Japan) in this situation were not suitable.

The USSR was independent of the sea routes, it had nowhere and there was no need to lead convoys in open sea areas. He practically had no surface fleet - against the background of the number of naval forces of the Anglo-Saxon countries. Someone seriously believes that the BOD Ave 61 or RKR Ave 58 could break through somewhere and noticeably affect the situation, in conditions of the absolute superiority of the enemy at sea and in the air.

Next - pure geography.

The ability of the US Navy to attack Kamchatka with impunity did not correspond to any of the real tasks and did not contain a single drop of practical meaning. All prepared lines of defense of AUG became useless. For purely geographical reasons there was not a single important and necessary task for large warships in the war against the USSR. Just as there could be no tasks for missile cruisers, which in the 60-s. have not yet had "Tomahawks."

Only the Anglo-Saxons had maritime communications. On which transports with military cargoes for European theaters would move.



There is no doubt that these sea routes would be the object of close attention from the Soviet submarine fleet. The Pentagon realized the danger and launched a specialized convoy ship in a series.

* * *

The Yankees were not so naive, hoping that the 46 "Knox" and 19 similar to the destination frigates "Brook" will be able to keep the defense against dozens of nuclear submarines.

To help frigates from the reserve, 127 destroyers of the Second World War era were extracted. Their outdated artillery weapons were dismantled, in return, the ships received anti-submarine weapons of a new generation. In terms of their capabilities, the PLO units were a weak similarity to the Knox frigates, but the numbers partly compensated for their quality. The shots of the rocket torpedo ASROK on any source of noise under water - what was required in the coming war.

Also you should not take away the fleets of the allies, because of the unfortunate financial condition, often unable to build anything larger than escort frigates. For example, the Navantia shipyard built under license five modified Knox frigates for the Spanish Navy.



As for the frigate "Knox", then, as noted above, it was a fairly large ship, the size of the destroyers 60-s, with the hull length 134 meter and full displacement 4200 tons. The latest project of the US Navy with a boiler-turbine power plant.

The architecture of the hull and add-ons was typical of foreign military shipbuilding of that era. Smooth-deck ship, with angular shapes, transom stern and distinctive mast pipe.

Two fuel oil boilers, single turbine, 35 000 HP Power supply system based on three turbogenerators grouped in one compartment. When they were damaged or steam was lost, the frigate became virtually defenseless: the power of a single backup diesel generator was not enough to control the weapon.

"Combat stability" was not given importance because of the appointment of the frigate. The only threat was the torpedoes of the Soviet submarines, and there was no anti-torpedo defense capable of rescuing a 4000-ton ship with a contactless undermining of 300 kg of explosives under the keel.

The problem was always not to sink, but to get there. The task of the submarine was to go unnoticed and attack the convoy before it was destroyed by the “hunters”.

The full composition of the Knox’s weapons was as follows:

- launcher RUR-5 ASROK (Anti-Subrarine ROCket) with 8 guides and ammunition from 16 rocket gun. The task is the supersonic delivery of self-guided torpedoes to a distance of 9 km (most of the time it was a parachute drop).

- two built-in 324 mm TA for the protection of the near zone.

- Hangar and landing pad for unmanned helicopter Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH with ammunition from two self-guided torpedoes.

- One 127 mm gun mount, installed just in case. Artillery duels were strictly contraindicated to the frigate, and the clumsy five-inch Mk.42 was inferior in terms of anti-aircraft qualities to rifles.

However, the priority of anti-aircraft weapons was in 7th place, immediately after the cost of operating the frigate. The threat from the Soviet aviation for convoys in the Atlantic, no one took it seriously.

Bombers and missile carriers had no chance to reach the line of attack. To do this, they would have to fly over the whole of Europe or the Norwegian / North Sea, while they spent hours in the zone of action of fighters from dozens of airfields of NATO countries.

As for the submarines with anti-ship missiles, this threat also seemed unrealistic. And it remained so for a long time. As in view of the imperfections of the RCC themselves and a small number of underwater carriers, and the lack of targeting in the open ocean.



* * *

Frigates were built. But world war did not happen. The entire subsequent history of the Knoxes was an attempt to adapt highly specialized ships to the unpredictable conditions of the Cold War. And learn to apply them where they never planned.

In the course of their service, the majority of the ships received the SiSperrow air defense missile system, which were later replaced with the Falans ZAK.

The anti-submarine drone turned out to be an interesting, but completely impractical idea, ahead of its time. After a short period of operation and regular accidents due to the failure of the control system, the survivors of the 755 built drones transferred to Vietnam, and partly transferred to the Japanese Navy. Instead, a full-fledged anti-submarine helicopter SH-2 SeaSprite appeared on the frigates.



All frigates were excluded from the Navy in the 90-ies. and mostly transferred to the allies. Currently, their operation continues in the naval forces of seven states.

Knox remains a unique Cold War project.

His peers, the TCRS 1135 "Petrel", came out completely different from the American "hunter for submarines." In terms of their construction and composition of weapons, the Petrels were typical guard ships, for the protection of maritime borders and the protection of state interests. "Anti-submarine" specialization took place, but was not as pronounced as that of the Knox.

The subsequent project of the frigates "Oliver Perry" also had a wider purpose. It was created as a cheap means to be present in many areas of the world's oceans. And it turned out quite unsuccessful - an attempt to combine strike, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and aviation weapons in the 4000 hull of tons caused the ship to fail to perform any of the tasks. The technological level of the last century made the idea of ​​creating a universal frigate unpromising. Perry themselves suffered offensive losses in local conflicts. Then the Yankees got too much money, and the compromises are gone. The modern US Navy in any situation uses the large and universal destroyers "Orly Burk".

* * *

In hell, McNamara hotly argued with Grand Admiral Doenitz. And McNamara argued that the excellent organization and technical level of the US Navy would keep the defense. Doenitz did not agree, in his opinion, the exceptional fighting qualities of submarine nuclear-powered submarines would guarantee the defeat of the convoys.

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    6 February 2019 06: 42
    Oleg, article five! Yes hi
    Then the Yankees got too much money, and compromises were a thing of the past.

    In the 71st year, when they abandoned the gold standard and green candy wrappers were printed in the right quantities lol
    The Knox's problem was that a big war did not happen and their narrow specialization was not useful. Although, by the way, the ideas that the one who turns out to be quieter wins are alive and relevant in the confrontation between the means of PLO and the submarines themselves (nuclear submarines, diesel-electric submarines) and now.
    And Kaptsov, hell in the direct sense of the type of boiler room with boilers for wood (fuel oil, gas, coal), depending on the quality and quantity of sins, does not exist. So it’s not a fact that Doenitz and McNamara met at all wassat laughing But as a joke a set-off bully
  2. -1
    6 February 2019 06: 48
    an attempt to combine shock, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and aircraft weapons in a 4000-ton hull resulted in the ship being unable to properly perform any of the tasks. The technological level of the last century made the idea of ​​creating a universal frigate unpromising. Perry itself suffered an insulting loss in local conflicts.

    Oleg does not like Peri too much, because under the same conditions the Knox would have suffered the same way. But unlike the Knox, Peri had better air defense and strike capabilities, plus a more advanced GEM with improved anti-submarine capabilities. Peri is a great frigate for her time.
    1. +7
      6 February 2019 07: 04
      Knox was created as an antisubmarine weapon and was the best

      Perry is designed as a universal ship to be present everywhere. And he coped rather weakly with his direct task - this required completely different sizes and weapons.
      1. -1
        6 February 2019 07: 16
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Perry is designed as a versatile ship for presence everywhere. And he coped poorly with his direct task

        What is weakness expressed in? That instead of eight container Mk.16 two three-pipe TA? And the fact that two anti-submarine helicopters with a LAMPS system is nothing? All the difference from Knox is only in the absence of PLUR.
        1. +8
          6 February 2019 07: 21
          In all. One-armed PU, even weaker art, two helicopters (initially one) are not equal to the GUS + AROK combination, there is no closed air defense circuit. Insufficient survivability single-shaft ship. Which, unlike the Knoxes, was originally prescribed to patrol in hot spots
          1. +1
            6 February 2019 08: 51
            Quote: Santa Fe
            One-armed PU

            Well yes, it's better than nothing on Knox.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            two helicopters (initially one) are not equal to the combination of GAS + ASROK

            If you take the time of detection-destruction, then yes, GAS + PLUR has an advantage ... if the target is on the range of the PLUR. But a bunch of GAS (sock / towed) + PLO helicopter gives an advantage in range. Two helicopters are an advantage in use, one is engaged in search, the second carries weapons.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Insufficient survivability of a single-shaft ship.

            But two gas turbines and a single-shaft scheme are less noisy.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            no closed air defense loop

            Phalanx + Standard1 is better than nothing at all.
            1. +2
              6 February 2019 08: 55
              Better than nothing - looking for what tasks. Knox they were not needed. Perry needed a completely different level to solve his range of tasks.
      2. +3
        6 February 2019 21: 09
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Perry is designed as a versatile ship for presence everywhere. And he coped poorly with his direct task


        Curious how it looked in the 1997 game "Harpoon". The Blue's task is to lead the convoy from one port in Norway to another. The convoy has two transports and two guards - Type 22 and Perry. Enemy forces: DPL and two MRK pr. 1234. It turned out like this: first, a helicopter with a "Perry" with its powerful radar detected Soviet corvettes for 80 miles. Then "Perry" fires four "Harpoons" - two at the target. He drowned one of the "Nanuchek". My surviving "Nanuchka" gradually approached the range of its radar and fired six missiles, three each, at the ship. The 22nd was drowning before he could say "oh". Perry shot down two of his rockets with Standards, and the third usually missed. After that, he quickly destroyed the unarmed MRK with a pair of Standards. A submarine against a helicopter also usually failed.
  3. +11
    6 February 2019 08: 18
    This is not often talked about, but there is an opinion: at "hour X" no one dares to press the button.

    And this opinion is deeply amateurish. As, incidentally, the opinion that someone will be "decided" ...
    In fact, the main scenario since reaching the state of "mutually guaranteed" is the gradual escalation of the nuclear conflict, where it is not about "decided", but about "forced"
    And in this bullish game, the choice is essentially the opposite. Or you don't use nuclear weapons at the next level, and you lose everything. All these "status, position, way of life", which are difficult to preserve in a concentration camp and near the execution wall. Or you use it, creating the likelihood that the enemy will not be able to take the next step
    1. 0
      6 February 2019 08: 36
      What a camp, what a firing wall. Ask Albert Speer, President of the Reichsbank Mine and Grand Admiral Doenitz. The mustache sat until the last day, ottyagil the end, and until then, they argued about the leak and chilil about the end of days at a ranch in Brazil or even so, at least theoretically the possibility was
      1. +3
        6 February 2019 12: 00
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Take a look at Albert Speer, President of the Reichsbank Schacht and Grand Admiral Doenitz.

        Which of the following was the head of state? 8))))))

        By the way, all of those listed after the war were in prison, including Schacht, who was liberated from Dachau. And this can hardly be called the preservation of "status, position, lifestyle"
        1. +1
          7 February 2019 06: 21
          Quote: Spade
          Which of the following was the head of state? 8))))))
          If not one of those listed, then the fate of Adolf Hitler is a very murky matter. By the way, the "possessed Fuhrer", who allegedly committed suicide, did not dare to douse the advancing allies with mustard gas and sarin, but it seemed that he was already losing ... It may well be that Adik did not invade England either, giving the British to take their feet out of Dunkirk, just because he was a puppet of those who brought him to power, sponsored Germany, turned a blind eye to all violations of Versailles, with only one goal - to create an anti-USSR from Germany defeated in the First World War, for which is what the potential of all Europe, given to Hitler, was needed. The world was already ruled by the Anglo-Saxons, and Hitler was their servant, and it is no secret that Adolf was impressed by the achievements of England as a leader in world capitalism. Of course, the Second World War was not only an attempt to destroy the new social system, socialism, but also gave super profits in this war, led to the fact that the new center of influence shifted from London to Washington, and the dollar became the main world currency. What now? Russia in capitalism, there is a world, planetary model of this economy, and while we do not have socialism, whether you want to admit it or not, but Russia is dependent. Naturally, the Russian government can puff up its cheeks, otherwise, having inherited military potential from the Soviet Union, but in this show there are only two sides of the same capitalist medal. After the drunkard president, who lowered the country's image below the baseboard, it was possible to raise the rating of the authorities, and for the West, a new image of the enemy appeared, a new arms race, new super profits. In reality, who will bite the "feeding hand" of the West, what are the ideals of our bad boys in their bourgeoisie? It seems that the guys are squeezing out the remnants of the Soviet reserve of strength from Russia, and after that they will simply dump them to their treasures over the hill, or surrender the country in the name of "peace and humanism," other "effective menagers" who do not need science and industrial power, but need immediate profits from the trade in weapons and technology. That is the whole question of what will happen first, the degradation and backwardness of capitalist Russia, or a change in the social system, the return of the second world pole, the socialist one. Will there be a nuclear war? ... The West certainly does not need it, Russians can be destroyed with shitty cigarettes and GMO products, viruses and bacteria, while preserving natural resources, because of which Russia is now a desired target and prey, and not the threat of socialism, especially puppet capitalism from the Russian oligarchs.
          1. +1
            11 February 2019 08: 29
            Socialism has nothing to do with it, in Germany Hitler, by the way, also built socialism, only nationalism, no one wanted to build Germany as an anti-USSR,
            Hitler wanted to bargain with Britain for a place in the sun in Europe, focusing on the east, the United States and the political groups based there solved global issues of the collapse of the old colonial empires in order to expand markets and development spaces
    2. 0
      6 February 2019 20: 57
      Quote: Spade
      And the opinion is deeply amateurish


      Nevertheless, historically it has been confirmed. How many local wars, wars, shootings, conflicts, provocations were after 1945. A nuclear war never happened a single one.
      1. +1
        6 February 2019 21: 02
        Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
        Nevertheless, historically it has been confirmed. How many local wars, wars, shootings, conflicts, provocations were after 1945. A nuclear war never happened a single one.

        Come on ... Fact: If the US decided to use nuclear weapons in the Korean conflict, as MacArthur demanded, they would have won. But ... they didn't dare. And thanks to the "Chinese volunteers" the situation has returned to the pre-war status quo.
      2. +1
        8 February 2019 06: 53
        Give an example of military interventions involving the United States and NATO, where an enemy with nuclear weapons opposed them. Indirect participation of "specialists" to cite as an example, at least, is not serious.
        The author is not in vain comparing nuclear weapons with a grenade, but the conclusion is completely in the wrong direction. Yes, the use of nuclear weapons is comparable to mutual destruction, BUT! Look, when and in what situations they blew themselves up with grenades - WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS TO DESTROY THE EXCELLENT FORCE OF THE OPPONENT. Think about why the United States conduct only indirect wars and promote the ideas of exceptionally small conventional warfare ... They do not need victory, they need to weaken the enemy with small bites as much as possible, not leading to the situation when the soldier surrounded by them will explode both himself and their grenade ( Nuclear weapons). Figuratively, they played with the bullfighters, waving red rags ... But there is a joke about them:
        After the 8th consecutive bullfighter who fell on the bullfight, the cross-eyed bull was still shot ...
        smile
  4. -5
    6 February 2019 09: 30
    For a fig to sink sea convoys - it's easier to reset ports in America and Europe with Poseidons bully
    1. +1
      6 February 2019 10: 18
      Then "Poseidons" were not)
      1. +1
        6 February 2019 10: 27
        I updated the topic.

        Although Soviet submarines, starting in the late 1960s, could have bombarded NATO ports with nuclear torpedoes / megaton warheads for a sweet soul. And no external target designation would be required.

        That’s why naval convoys in nuclear war are fantastic. bully
        1. +1
          6 February 2019 13: 13
          It remains to find out - why the convoys in the world war, if everything ends an hour after its start?
          “It’s not over,” grumbled McNamara, “who decided that the war would be nuclear?”

          Read the article before scribbling comments))
    2. 0
      7 February 2019 01: 53
      Here you are funny people - "Poseidons" ports to zero)))
      If the ports are so important, then they will be protected by the densest system and it will not be possible to "zero" them)))
      At least the most important ports and bases.
      1. 0
        7 February 2019 02: 53
        Poseidon is the Kali rocket.
  5. 0
    6 February 2019 09: 41
    As for the submarines with anti-ship missiles, this threat also seemed unrealistic. And it remained so for a long time. As in view of the imperfections of the RCC themselves and a small number of underwater carriers, and the lack of targeting in the open ocean.

    16 buildings 651 projects, 29 buildings 675 projects, 16 - projects 670 and 670M. MRCTs "Success" system. Kaptsov, do you think this is an unrealistic threat? As for the imperfection of the CD, it is also a controversial statement. Study the material carefully.
    1. +2
      6 February 2019 09: 52
      Forgot to specify the year of entry into service

      Knox was created in 1962-63, how many PLACs were then in service?

      MRSTS is not a space system, the ability to conduct reconnaissance of Tu-95РЦ in the conditions of enemy domination in the air is unlikely
    2. 0
      6 February 2019 13: 24
      16 cases of 651 project, 29 cases of 675 project, 16 - projects 670 and 670М.

      During the war, hundreds of German boats were unable to disrupt shipping in the Atlantic. To do a few dozen?
      1. +1
        6 February 2019 22: 08
        They failed to stop. And they also violated how, especially at the beginning of the war.
        1. 0
          7 February 2019 10: 14
          upset a little. need to stop
  6. -1
    6 February 2019 10: 06
    “It’s not over,” grumbled McNamara, “who decided that the war would be nuclear?”

    This is not often said, but there is such an opinion: in the “hour X” no one dares to press a button. World War have to wage conventional weapons.


    Bullshit, of course. Otherwise, Russia would have ceased to exist in the 90s. Now we can fight back even in a conventional war, and then in the troops (and even in the zero ones it was not much better) there was such a tear that even Chechen terrorists could hardly be defeated. If the Americans knew that we would not use nuclear weapons, they would crush us in the 90s. So nuclear weapons definitely play a role
  7. +4
    6 February 2019 11: 57
    Quote: Spade
    this opinion is deeply amateurish. As, however, the opinion that someone will be "decided"

    In the context of the deployment of MRBMs with an approach time of less than 10 minutes, this is doubly true - everything should be automated as much as possible, the decision on the use of nuclear weapons was transferred to the level of the early warning system and the duty group of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces - in accordance with the instructions, of course, like "call the Supreme Commander before pressing the red button. to the commander-in-chief, if he did not answer - press. "

    Instructions should provide for only two options for retaliatory action: transition to a local level of conflict (missile strike is not directed against the national territory of the Russian Federation, respectively, retaliatory strike only at US military bases in foreign territory) or immediately to the global level (missile strike is directed against national territory RF, respectively the launch of all types of missiles, the activation of all types of drones and the take-off of all nuclear carrier carriers).

    The EWS and the duty group of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will clearly cope with this task.
    1. -1
      6 February 2019 13: 09
      The EWS and the duty group of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will clearly cope with this task.


      Straight Trinity's Child some))))

      There even the characters were with the same head as you laughing
      1. 0
        6 February 2019 14: 08
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Trinity's child

        You from Brighton Beach know better.
  8. +2
    6 February 2019 13: 13
    the author is determined by style in the 2nd paragraph))) ... and the article is as always interesting, informatively rich, ambiguous in conclusions. I like
  9. +4
    6 February 2019 13: 47
    "... the McNamara's Folly shipbuilding program."
    Such a program did not exist in nature.
    The McNamara's Folly Program, or McNamara's 100, is a 000s US Department of Defense program to recruit soldiers previously deemed unfit for military service due to mental or medical disabilities.
    And as applied to the Knox-class frigates, this is naval jargon.
    1. +2
      6 February 2019 16: 06
      The Madness of McNamara was a set of measures to prepare for a conventional war.
      and naturally, it is in every sense jargon
  10. 0
    6 February 2019 19: 01
    Quote: Puncher
    an attempt to combine shock, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and aircraft weapons in a 4000-ton hull resulted in the ship being unable to properly perform any of the tasks. The technological level of the last century made the idea of ​​creating a universal frigate unpromising. Perry itself suffered an insulting loss in local conflicts.

    Oleg does not like Peri too much, because under the same conditions the Knox would have suffered the same way. But unlike the Knox, Peri had better air defense and strike capabilities, plus a more advanced GEM with improved anti-submarine capabilities. Peri is a great frigate for her time.


    https://defence-line.org/2019/02/morskoj-oxotnik/#more-32573
    On January 31 of this year, the Leidos Defense Group defense project contractor, which was commissioned by DARPA, announced that it had passed the decisive stage of testing a mid-range unmanned vessel (MDUSV) or Sea Hunter. The ship itself was created in a single copy four years ago, and passed a complex of tests related to navigation and control during individual missions. Since it was originally supposed to be unmanned, its design implies increased stability and the appearance of a trimaran.
    The final stage of the test looked like an unmanned transfer of a vessel from the US Navy base in San Diego, California to Pearl Harbor base, Hawaii. The route was 5200 nautical miles. Since it was still a test flight, during the mission, engineers went on board several times, but their functions were reduced to inspecting components and assemblies. The contractor did not say anything about the need for repair or adjustment, and in general, the mission was recognized as successful, and the customer was preparing to conclude a contract for the creation of the second Sea Hunter II test vessel.


    The latest version in the anti-submarine ship (it can be used for other purposes) does not have weapons at all. And also there is no crew and he can lie in wait for the submarine hiding at the bottom for an unlimited time.
  11. +1
    6 February 2019 19: 23
    This McNamara, as you know, cheerfully finished laughing he was apparently mentally ill since birth laughing
    1. +2
      6 February 2019 22: 56
      McNamara was not mentally ill. He died of old age in 2009. Another thing is that in military affairs he was an amateur.
      1. 0
        6 February 2019 23: 10
        Help seen? belay
    2. +2
      7 February 2019 01: 25
      Quote: Bone1
      This McNamara, as you know, cheerfully finished laughing he was apparently mentally ill since birth laughing

      You seem to have confused Robert McNamaru with James Forrestal.
      This Forrestal threw himself out of the window (at age 57) due to a mental illness, and McNamara successfully lived to be 93 years old.
  12. 0
    10 February 2019 06: 38
    No matter how to criticize American ships - successful and unsuccessful - we have to admit that they always built everything for the tasks, And the tasks were real. In this country they said: "There are no bad ships, there are ships that are not used for their intended purpose." And they know how to do them for their intended purpose. Because they know why they need a fleet. They do not jump back and forth, as we do. Our real fleet began to take shape only by the 80s. And before that there was a mixture of old stuff and don't get what. Now shy again.