Military Review

Large US Navy ships: cut without waiting for peritonitis

52

The largest naval forces in the world, with the largest funding, are suddenly forced to reduce their composition and shipbuilding programs, and this is against the backdrop of rising budget military spending.

A bit about promises


As you know, our mishandled agent Donald Trump loves to make various promises that turn out to be unrealizable, and wishful thinking. In the United States, even in Congress and the Senate, there are enough idiots who believe in an "agent", as well as in "Russian interference in the elections," but they all cannot be mistaken? Among his statements and promises, there is also a story about the rise of US nuclear power to previously unattainable peaks - with continued degradation and a fall in the size of the nuclear arsenal. And the stories about secret instruments and missiles that allow America to "maintain leadership" in the missile sphere - which is not even mentioned, but there is a lag behind Russia in a number of technologies, not even for years, but for 10-20 or more years: it's all about the same "hypersonic" technologies of maneuvering and planning warheads, hypersonic missiles, etc. And there is a promise to strengthen the missile defense system, for example, to deploy additional GMD anti-missiles with new interceptors - instead, they closed the interceptor program, opened a new one, and even want a new missile defense system.

But it seemed that the intention to increase the fleet to 355 units was quite real - with fleet Americans are doing well. However, it does not seem to come true here either.

Cut without waiting for peritonitis


The US Department of Defense has sent a plan to the White House that will reduce the construction program for destroyers of the Ural-type Arleigh Burke series 3 (Flight III Arleigh Burke) by more than 40 percent in the years 2021-2025. In total, this proposal to abandon the construction of 5 of the 12 destroyers planned under the so-called Future Defense Program, or FYDP. This plan will lead to a cut in the overall budget for military shipbuilding by $ 9,4 billion, or 8 percent, according to a note from the Office of Management and Budget of the Moscow Region for the White House. About this writes the online edition of Defense News. It is also planned to accelerate the process of reducing the number of UIC-type Ticonderoga cruisers in the fleet to 9 by 2025, having written off 13 cruisers. Last year, the fleet proposed abolishing the modernization of the Bunker Hill, Mobile Bay, Entietam, Leite-Gulf, San Jacinto, and Lake Champlain cruisers in 2021–2022, now they’ll simply be written off. ”Monterrey, Vella Gulf and Port Royal, 2022-3 years ahead of schedule, and Shiloh until 7, will also be disabled.

Thus, the fleet will not only not grow in number, but will also decrease from 293 to 287 units now. And this is not all the “gifts” for Christmas for sailors.

"Necessary unnecessary ships


It is proposed (and it is proposed by the command of the Navy) to write off the first four hulls of ships of the LCS type. We are talking about ships with the names Freedom, Independence, Fort Worth, Coronado. These ships to the minimum serve at least 12-17 years, but in fact, more could be. The same "Freedom" went into operation at the end of 2008, however, right there it went into repair for several months to eliminate deficiencies.

It is clear that LCS ships of both subtypes, to put it mildly, have dubious utility in their current form. They promised a lot of things for them, and the implementation, as often happens, let us down. In addition, the first cases have a mass, obviously, to the end and not eliminated the shortcomings. So they want to send them "on needles." But the Navy, in fact, a little earlier on the contrary stated how much they needed these first ships, which they planned to use to test load modules that were late for a decade. In addition, a few years ago, the "concept has changed" by LCS. It was previously planned that when all the planned load modules are made like an anti-mine mine (the idea of ​​a minesweeper of 3000 tons smells like idiocy), anti-submarine and others, then replaceable crews trained for a certain type of load modules will be attached to each hull. Then they decided that each ship would receive its own constant type of load, and, accordingly, the crew, and they were going to train them on these 4 first ships. Now all of a sudden these ships were "not needed." Now the Navy will have to think about where to test the new modules and where to train the crews later.

Three DTDs, amphibious transport docks of the Whidby Island type, including the ancestor of the class, as well as the DTDs "Germantown" and "Gunston Hall", also plan to write off, although they had to serve at least 8- 14 years. A decision on them has already been made, and the ships will soon be ready for cutting. And 4 more UIC-type cruisers of the Ticonderoga type may also be decommissioned ahead of schedule.

Near-avian suffering


Moreover, amid heated discussions about the dubious future of aircraft carriers in the sharply changed conditions of the war at sea (we are talking about long-range supersonic, and especially hypersonic anti-ship missiles, it’s clear whose), and their usefulness as such in wars with even relatively strong adversaries (it’s not even about the Russian Federation or at least the PRC), and against the backdrop of problems with the serviceability of existing aircraft carriers and the lack of knowledge of promising Fords, and the expected early decommissioning of one of the aircraft carriers, another event happened.

Congress has cut funding for research and development under the F / A-XX prospective naval attack fighter program, which will replace the F / A-18E / F Super Horn in the 2030s. In the past year, only $ 5 million was allocated for this program, and most of the increase went to research in the field of creating a promising engine for this aircraft.

In fact, the program is now at the level of the initial definition of requirements for the aircraft, in general, the stage of Wishlist and finger-driving on paper, but it is also important - all programs begin this way. This year they wanted to get a little more than $ 20 million, but they only gave 7. The okoloflotsky circles, or rather, the representatives of the decks, immediately began to make comments on this subject that aircraft carriers, so they say, are at a crossroads, should they the road of oblivion, following the superdreadnoughts, dreadnought, armadillos and war elephants, and then there’s not even an attempt to develop an airplane, which, in their opinion, is “very important”. The Super Hornet, in general, is a good aircraft, but not for the 2030s, and the US Navy categorically does not want to replace the fleet completely with the lame, oblique and crippled F-35C - and they are doing it right.

Where does the money go?


All this reduction with the growth of the military budget looks strange. Of course, one cannot compare the US military budget in absolute numbers, one must look at comparable arms prices, which are growing by leaps and bounds in the USA, but still, even at comparable prices, the budget has practically reached the highest figures under Obama or even Bush Jr., i.e. large amounts are allocated. And at the exit we have a reduction in the crew and construction programs, and ships in the long repair lines. Yes, and the poor do not have enough money to paint, judging by the shabby look of many American ships in foreign and their ports.

Of course, the ship in sailing is always ripped off by the waves, but the ship that left the base a week ago cannot and should not look like the Gazelle of the minibus, which doesn’t give a damn that it pours mud through the holes in the back of passengers. Suppose that they were really forbidden by some not-so-clever heads to tint at sea, supposedly for environmental reasons (the truth is, it’s true, not the Americans, but the French, justifying the obscene appearance of the Navy ships), but he won’t need a week or two painting. What happens and where does the money go? A difficult question, especially if the auditors of the United States Department of Defense "did not find" significant violations in the expenditure of funds (or did not seek).

New threats and new solutions


But the fact that the financial blow for the purpose of saving is delivered precisely to surface ships, and large ones, without touching the US submarine fleet, suggests that the threats are "new types weapons“It’s the surface fleet at headquarters that is taken seriously. And they are gradually de facto moving away from the concept of large ships, while reducing their number. After all, the reduction in the number of destroyers and cruisers will be followed by a reduction in the number of aircraft carrier groups. As well as the construction of, for example, practically liquidated earlier class of frigates - now the issue is still being resolved.

At the same time, the White House does not want to hear anything about the rejection of the promise of a “fleet of 355 units” and requires the US Department of Defense to “work through the issue” so that both the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe. That is, to reduce the crew and expenses, and somehow get 355 units. What are you talking about? They demand to work out a plan on how to get the desired fleet of 2030 units by 355 in a combination of ordinary and unmanned ships. To do this, you even have to change the law, and now unmanned underwater vehicles, crewless boats, etc. are not considered warships, but are used as ship equipment. But sailors are skeptical of an unmanned venture. Small boats and underwater vehicles are one thing. Another is to create a crewless, say, missile corvette or missile frigate. The simplest question that does not have an answer: how to carry out the struggle for the survivability of such a ship, say, when getting holes or in a fire? Populate it with craft robots from the Boston Dynamics that run to unfasten bulkheads with sliding stops in the iron fingers of iron hands? They are only good in videos, and not on a burning deck or in a flooded compartment of a ship, or, say, in a storm. And so far they are of little use to them more than from our robot FEDOR in his first trip into orbit. But dozens of such questions can be asked. And supporters of the "deserted frigates" will not be able to answer them yet. The “Flying Dutchman”, on which there were no living sailors, wandered forever along the seas only in legends. A real ship without a crew cannot and cannot, for a long time, probably.

But on the research and testing of such ships, you can learn good amounts of money, which would be enough to timely repair part of the current fleet.
Author:
Photos used:
thedrive.com
52 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 26 December 2019 05: 20
    0
    Large US Navy ships: cut without waiting for peritonitis

    In the form of peritonitis, did hypersonic RCCs of Russian and Chinese production come out? belay
    suggests that the threats of "new types of weapons" to the surface fleet are taken seriously at headquarters.

    Yes, it’s hard to poke around with a pig snout in Kalashny row with large-sized targets at the range of armed shooters ...
    1. Siberia 75
      Siberia 75 26 December 2019 10: 42
      +5
      Quote: ROSS 42
      In the form of peritonitis, did hypersonic RCCs of Russian and Chinese production come out?

      Peritonitis is an exclusively "internal" disease of the body, which the author has shown.
      RCC is more like an icicle from the roof to the head wink
      1. bessmertniy
        bessmertniy 26 December 2019 12: 31
        +4
        The Egyptians, too, at one time abandoned the building of the pyramids. They realized that they do not need them. wink So with a large fleet it can happen. hi
        1. Siberia 75
          Siberia 75 26 December 2019 12: 38
          +2
          Quote: bessmertniy
          The Egyptians, too, at one time abandoned the building of the pyramids.

          Oh, do not touch the pyramids. Now the "alternatives" will run in and lectures about Nibiru will begin laughing
          1. bessmertniy
            bessmertniy 26 December 2019 12: 41
            -2
            Here it is better not to talk about icicles. Since moralists can see some secret subtext that undermines the foundations. wink
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 26 December 2019 15: 20
          +4
          Quote: bessmertniy
          The Egyptians also once abandoned to build the pyramids

          The age of the pyramids in Giza is 10 thousand years.
          Egyptian civilization has 4 thousand years ...
          Who built the great pyramids?
          1. withoutreverse
            withoutreverse 26 December 2019 17: 01
            +7
            The pyramids of Giza in Egypt are the three great pyramids of the pharaohs of the ancient kingdom - Cheops (Khufu), Chefren (Hafra) and Mykerin (Menkaur) - father, son and grandson.

            They were built in 2639-2506 BC.

            In Egypt, there is a proverb: "Man is afraid of time, and time is afraid of the pyramids."
            - Egyptian civilization is much older than we think.

            630 years ago ...

            It is officially accepted that the history of civilized Egypt began around the fifth millennium BC.

            - The famous Herodotus (484-425 BC), for example, in Euterpe (the second part of his famous "History") wrote:

            “Until now, the Egyptians and their priests have passed me tales of ancient times. They explained to me that from the time of the first Egyptian king to this last priest of Hephaestus, 341 generations of people passed, and during this time there were as many supreme priests and kings.

            But 300 generations is 10 years, counting three generations per century. Yes, in addition to 000, another 300 generation gives 41 years. ”

            These numbers, given by the father of history, as Herodotus is called, far exceed those accepted in the official historiography of Egypt.
      2. New Year day
        New Year day 26 December 2019 12: 55
        +4
        Quote: Siberia 75
        Peritonitis is an exclusively "internal" disease

        This is a complication of the disease, the ending, so to speak, but there are different diseases.
  2. Vitaly L
    Vitaly L 26 December 2019 05: 26
    0
    Ay, yes, "PARTNERS", ah, yes entertainers,
  3. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 26 December 2019 05: 47
    +2
    We would have their problems!
  4. Vyacheslav Viktorovich
    Vyacheslav Viktorovich 26 December 2019 05: 52
    +2
    Russia has two allies - public debt and peritonitis.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 December 2019 06: 44
    +1
    Where does the money go?
    The question is exclusively rhetorical. Americans also want a piece of bread with a thick layer of butter and caviar from the state budget.
  6. Air force
    Air force 26 December 2019 07: 13
    +9
    If we take away from their military budget the money for the maintenance of all the bases on the planet (dress, feed, shoe, logistics, salary, etc.) there are 800 or 1200 bases, but who knows how much actually, take away the inflated cost of the products manufactured by the military-industrial complex and take away "kickbacks", as well as take away the budget that is allocated to support their dictators, scoundrels, to support color revolutions. Then not so much money goes to the development of real promising types of weapons. From the 90s they simply used the brains and technologies that had flowed away from the countries of the former Soviet Union to the fullest, then using this opportunity, they staged several wars with obviously weak rivals and on this they promoted their technologies, since they are really strong in advertising and PR and many believed in delirium about the end of history and the victory of democracy. But in this world, history does not end, snickering empires end, it has always been so, and the opposite has never happened. So another empire will soon sink into oblivion. These are not stupid Maxwell films about X-Men, this is life. PS As for me, to be honest, this is an alarming signal, it would be better if they budgeted five more aircraft carriers, otherwise they apparently began to focus on reality. Whatever one may say at the moment, the hegemon is still strong, of course not as his "retinue of mongrels" draws him, but he is strong. Let's see what happens next.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 December 2019 15: 35
      +3
      Quote: Air Force
      Let's see what happens next.

      Yeah, let's see ... yes
      Now there are 293 ships, and there will be 287 ... The author tried to hide behind this figure a decrease in the surface fleet by "-" 6 units! bully
      Don was raving about 355 ships when he needed to get the votes ... fellow
      We better remember: the enemy is strong, cunning and treacherous! am
      And the second thing. "Enemies are not counted, but beaten!"
      So it will be more accurate.
      1. bayard
        bayard 27 December 2019 16: 34
        +2
        By the way, plans to decommission old ships before the resource is exhausted can also be a certain financial maneuver. Writing them off will save money on repairs, modernization and simple operation, and the saved money can be spent on the construction of frigates that are in demand again. The frigate is two times cheaper than the destroyer, so with the same budget and time to build, you can get twice as many pennants.
        Thus, it is really possible to reach the figure of 355 pennants with the same, and even smaller, budget.
        Will the US go this way? God knows.
        For me, they would have spent the entire budget on aircraft carriers and drowned when tested.
    2. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 31 December 2019 18: 18
      0
      This is public information. This year they pledged $ 53 billion to the military budget for research and prototype testing. So they spend almost as much on military science as we do on the entire budget.
  7. Avior
    Avior 26 December 2019 07: 17
    +2
    It seems that with these threats the fleet simply knocks out more money for itself
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 26 December 2019 12: 14
      +1
      Actually, information immediately appeared that Trampushka did not understand these ideas. It seems that the Navy decided that they were short of meat.
  8. Far B
    Far B 26 December 2019 07: 19
    +2
    But on the research and testing of such ships, you can learn good amounts of money, which would be enough to timely repair part of the current fleet.
    In vain the author ended with this. Without this research and testing, nothing will come of the word "absolutely".
    Well, as for the reduction in the ship's composition ... If this is true - velmi is good! But it was worth expecting: a lot of denyuzhok goes to the maintenance (especially active use). But plus a bunch of unfinished warfare around the globe, plus a hundred bases again around the globe ... In short, sooner or later it should have come around.
  9. Sasha_2
    Sasha_2 26 December 2019 07: 41
    +3
    The military budget in 2020 is a record 738 billion.
    A record indexation of allowance will be carried out - 3.1%. A new type of troops is being created - space troops.
    A lot of things are purchased, for example f-35 - 90 pieces. It is planned to support 11 aircraft carriers. Who cares - google in 3 seconds what will be purchased. under Trump, the army will be pumped. There is a part of the Democratic candidates who will win, who will probably want to redistribute the budget in favor of the social network and really cut everything.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 December 2019 08: 38
      -6
      Quote: Sasha_2
      The military budget in 2020 is a record 738 billion.

      We take away the content of more than 800 bases, maintaining old weapons at the combat-ready level, modernizing existing weapons, financing wars and conducting military operations around the world, maintaining reconnaissance military services, storing decommissioned equipment, etc. and so on ... the result is not very bright for you and for mattress warriors.
      And if we recall the crisis of ideas in the US defense industry, then the picture is rather deplorable than rainbow.
      But, in fairness, it should be noted that the US Armed Forces continue to be one of the most powerful in the world. Why one of? And what about the USA with strategic nuclear forces?
      At the same time, the morale of the mattress fighters very rapidly falls to zero when they meet a worthy rebuff. And this was proved by both the Korean company and the Vietnamese.
      1. Octopus
        Octopus 26 December 2019 12: 03
        +1
        Quote: NEXUS
        Why one of? And what about the USA with strategic nuclear forces?

        All the same as before.
        Quote: NEXUS
        this was proved by both the Korean company and the Vietnamese.

        There weren’t warriors in Woodstock; you were deceived.
  10. andrewkor
    andrewkor 26 December 2019 07: 57
    -1
    Admirals in Waffenucromarine joyfully rub ruchenki!
    What if a pair of decommissioned cruisers drops?
  11. rocket757
    rocket757 26 December 2019 08: 02
    +2
    gradually de facto begin to move away from the concept of large ships, while reducing their number.

    Let's see, it's still ... written on the water with a pitchfork, nothing more.
  12. Mityay65
    Mityay65 26 December 2019 08: 36
    +2
    We must do everything so that plans to reduce the US fleet remain plans. The fleet is wildly redundant and costly. With their public debt and its growth, spending on weapons and maintaining a huge fleet is corroding the economy.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 26 December 2019 08: 45
      +4
      Quote: Mityai65
      the maintenance of a huge fleet is corroding the economy.

      Worldwide - yes, but not American.
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 26 December 2019 09: 15
        0
        I mean American. He is not familiar with the world economy.
        1. bar
          bar 26 December 2019 09: 59
          +2
          You don't have to worry about the American one, they have a printing press. Well, the "national debt" will increase by a couple of zeros. It is the world economy that will pay, to which they will crawl into their pockets.
    2. Victoria-V
      Victoria-V 26 December 2019 12: 52
      +1
      The US national debt is not very simple. To understand it, one must be an economist. The states cannot take and print money, because their federal bank is printing it, its shareholders are civilians, it’s not even officials. The bank is not subordinate to the US president, that is, the president cannot give the command to print money. The Fed Bank includes a printing press and provides a loan to the US government. This amount of money taken from the Fed is the US public debt, debt obligations to countries are actually just a drop in the bucket. And if it’s very simple - it is a planetary-scale MMM, but it will not fall apart soon. Not in our lifetime ...
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 26 December 2019 13: 04
        -1
        Quote: Victoria-In
        The US national debt is not very simple. To understand it, one must be an economist.

        Well, not all Nobel laureates understand the situation. At least they say so.
        Quote: Victoria-In
        MMM planetary scale,

        This is a very simplistic view of things.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 26 December 2019 16: 28
          +1
          Quote: Mityai65
          This is a very simplistic view of things.

          But accurate.
    3. New Year day
      New Year day 26 December 2019 12: 56
      +4
      Quote: Mityai65
      We must do everything so that plans to reduce the US fleet remain plans.


      What is it like? Decrypt
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 26 December 2019 13: 18
        -5
        Quote: Silvestr
        What is it like? Decrypt

        Exercise your brain yourself.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 December 2019 15: 47
      +5
      Quote: Mityai65
      We must do everything so that plans to reduce the US fleet remain plans.

      From your post it follows that you are in favor of maintaining the numerical strength of the Yankee fleet ... Maybe then, in your opinion, we should "reduce the fleet"?
      Whose mill are you pouring water on?
  13. Adagka
    Adagka 26 December 2019 08: 41
    -3
    The article is designed to strengthen the morale of the Kremlin boat troops defeated in the gas war with the Sumerians) Well, finally the stupid Yankees realized what the great reformers knew 20 years ago when they sawed needles larger than a tugboat, because the future lies with frigates and the mosquito fleet with hypersonic child prodigies that do not leave the pier will defeat the enemy anywhere in the galaxy. though wunderwaffles only fly in cartoons, but it's all the little things)
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 26 December 2019 09: 34
      -1
      An indiscreet question, do you write for mivin or for ideological reasons?
      1. Mityay65
        Mityay65 26 December 2019 13: 40
        -4
        Quote: demiurg
        write for mivina or for ideological reasons?

        Are there ideological trolls?
        Of course there are! wassat
        And ideological, and paid, and professional ...
        Something recently on the VO site they just breed. Perhaps someone threw a budget to someone?
  14. Forest
    Forest 26 December 2019 08: 45
    +1
    Yes, yes, cut these "Arlie Burke")
  15. Galleon
    Galleon 26 December 2019 10: 04
    +4
    The reduction in the construction of Aegis destroyers and the withdrawal of cruisers from the fleet is very good news. These are dangerous opponents.
    However, don't use the word "cut". In our understanding, this is to cut for scrap, in the article this word is used to cut costs. In our understanding, the Americans will not cut, as Khrushchev cut the fleet. They will mothball the ships and put them in storage. They have four Iowa-class battleships all alive, albeit as museums.
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 26 December 2019 13: 47
      -3
      Quote: Galleon
      The reduction in the construction of Aegis destroyers and the withdrawal of cruisers from the fleet is very good news.

      Don’t tell me. For me, it would be better to spend more on the surface fleet than on the strategic forces of the Air Force and the underwater component of the Navy.
      More aircraft carriers, UDC and F-35.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 26 December 2019 15: 59
      +1
      Quote: Galleon
      The reduction in the construction of Aegis destroyers and the withdrawal of cruisers from the fleet is very good news.

      Ticonderogens are excreted for technical reasons: the superstructure and the body are stratified and caroise ... and the life is nearing its end.
      And as for the Berks, so they will bring them up to 62 units. And everyone after Art Nouveau will be with the Aegis. Of these, the Amans plan to organize mobile naval missile defense areas.
      Somehow, however.
      1. Oleg83
        Oleg83 26 December 2019 23: 15
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Galleon
        The reduction in the construction of Aegis destroyers and the withdrawal of cruisers from the fleet is very good news.

        Ticonderogens are excreted for technical reasons: the superstructure and the body are stratified and caroise ... and the life is nearing its end.
        And as for the Berks, so they will bring them up to 62 units. And everyone after Art Nouveau will be with the Aegis. Of these, the Amans plan to organize mobile naval missile defense areas.
        Somehow, however.


        Arly Burke is already 67 units, 6 under construction
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 27 December 2019 17: 03
          +2
          Quote: oleg83
          Arly Burke is already 67 units, 6 under construction

          I'm talking about ships with Aegis under SM-3/6, which are intended for missile defense. yes
  16. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 26 December 2019 11: 14
    +2
    the idea of ​​a minesweeper in 3000 tons smacks of idiocy

    In fact, the idea is normal - because now the battlegrounds do not drag trawls along the minefield, but rather serve as the basis for remotely controlled mine action vehicles. Plus, the PMO uses an onboard helicopter, for the base of which squares and volumes are needed.
    Here's what they wanted to stick on LCS as a PMO equipment:
    - BUGAS AQS-20A Minehunting Sonar towed by an MH-60S helicopter or an unmanned Unmanned Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV)
    - Airborne Laser Mine Detection System (ALMDS) mine detection system mounted on an MH-60S helicopter
    - trawling system (mine weapon neutralization system) Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS), towed by a helicopter MH-60S
    - The Unmanned Surface Sweep System (US3) minesweeping system for acoustic and magnetic mines is towed by an unmanned surface vehicle Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV)
    - trawling of acoustic and magnetic mines can also be carried out by helicopter using the Organic Airborne and Surface Influence Sweep (OASIS) system
    - VTUAV Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle with coastal mine detection system / in shallow water / at sea surface Coastal Battlefield Reconnaissance and Analysis (COBRA)
    - containers with supporting equipment, control systems, spare parts, etc.
  17. Undecim
    Undecim 26 December 2019 11: 53
    +3
    Someone David B. Larter, whose articles someone Vyatkin translates (writes) from the network, is so prolific that, while Vyatkin was creating today's, he has already written two new ones.
    Is it worse with the US Navy (or better?)
    Just a few hours ago, resources like DefenseNews published an article by the aforementioned David B. Larter "Pentagon proposal cuts an FFG (X) and an attack submarine out of the budget" (The Pentagon proposes to reduce the purchase of FFG (X) and a multipurpose submarine).
    We are talking about the new frigates FFG (X) and the Virginia-class multipurpose nuclear submarine, the implementation of the construction program of which is planned to be “shifted to the right”. It is true that so far we are not talking about a reduction, only an extension of the deadline, but the "American patriotic public" is very alarmed by such an outrage against the US Navy.
  18. Operator
    Operator 26 December 2019 12: 27
    -2
    Sorosyata (Timoxin & Co) - don't forget to get manuals with the new mantra "effective mosquito fleet" laughing
  19. prior
    prior 26 December 2019 12: 50
    -1
    What? Does the pan-ataman lack gold reserves?
  20. IC
    IC 26 December 2019 17: 01
    -1
    A good example is that the development of the fleet is a very serious matter in order to receive it by the military.
    The US ditched fantastic money for unnecessary projects and continues to spend on maintenance.
    Already the USSR is gone. And they can’t stop. Fortunately, China has appeared.
  21. Ham
    Ham 26 December 2019 18: 56
    0
    all loot thrown to the fight against SP-2?
  22. Robertocalos
    Robertocalos 29 December 2019 23: 56
    -1
    There is logic - the ship did not work out, it is not clear what to do with it, it makes no sense to modernize it - for melting. This is cheaper than maintaining a limitedly combat-ready unit for another 20 years, which will not solve the assigned tasks. Russian analysts at the Ministry of Defense should think about this. Spend billions on upgrading and keeping 30-40 year old ships afloat, what would they "be", or, without pity, spend this money on building new ones? So the dream of an average VO-Schnik will come true - in 5 years 10-12 frigates, for example, and this is +1 pennant for both fleets annually. 10 years will fly by, and the fleets are already equipped with URO and PLO to a combat-ready state.
  23. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 1 January 2020 18: 18
    -1
    drinks this nothing protects the us fleet, literally nothing. Now tell me what will happen if a couple of submarines smell 48 missiles in it is nothing?

    soldier for those who are in the tank, there is an Aegis radar there but what can a submarine do like an ekranoplan / plane / boat launching a torpedo with a range of one hundred km or anti-ship missiles with 300 km or modern ones with 600 kilometers and the whole way will be OUTSIDE the radio horizon. and the potm comes to close combat and there are mercenaries without US citizenship and they pick it up with peakless caps for air defense there would not be a volcano module there .. and then it has a target speed such that any PCR will fly through the norm.
  24. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 1 January 2020 18: 23
    -2
    Quote: Victoria-In
    it will not fall apart soon

    Oga Niskoro)) in the USSR there was no money what?

    you generalize here I have also generalized))