Military Review

Five components that the US Navy will use to defeat any enemy

130

Kyle Mizokami. National Interest and a bunch of other publications. One of the most sober-minded analysts in the United States today and an excellent specialist reflects on how things are today in the US Navy.


Five Ways the US Navy Will Beat Any Enemy at War

Mizokami believes the US Navy is on the cusp of a technical revolution. And over time, aircraft carriers will simply have to give up their place, let's say, less expensive ships, armed with all these lasers, railguns and other science and not so fiction.

Yes, it is understandable that aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships are not going anywhere, since they are the cornerstone of all US naval strategy. But, besides them, there are other, no less deadly ships, so Mizokami's idea is surprisingly clear that this list in 10 years may look completely different.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer



If aircraft carriers are fists fleet, then the destroyers "Arlie Burke" are his skeleton. 62 ships is a difficult result for other countries. And the ship is good and has almost no weak points.

The heart of the destroyer's combat systems is the Aegis radar system, which is capable of operating against any air targets. "Aegis" can work in group mode, building up the defense of a group of ships, can intercept targets at a considerable distance, using data from AWACS E-2 "Hawkeye" aircraft.


Anti-aircraft missiles "Sea Sparrow" as weapons short-range missiles, long-range SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, and some ships can launch SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles.

The anti-submarine detection equipment is not only one of the best in the world (AN / SQQ-89 CIUS with an in-hull AN / SQS-53 HUS and an AN / SQR-19 towed HAS), it also has great potential for further upgrades. The warhead is represented by six MK.46 anti-submarine torpedoes. MH-60R helicopters are used to search for submarines at distant lines.

Artillery armament is classic. 127-mm gun capable of striking both surface and coastal targets, as well as air ones. Two artillery complexes "Vulcan-Falanx", consisting of two six-barreled 20-mm systems that can fire at helicopters, UAVs and anything that breaks through the missile barrier.

Additional means include four 12,7 mm machine guns, which began to be installed on all destroyers after a suicide attack on the Cole EM in 1999. A large-caliber machine gun can easily pick out both an inflatable boat and a wooden one.

Everything is beautiful? Not really.

As a ship capable of fighting other ships, the Arlie Burke, alas, is not very good. The destroyers of the first series still have the Harpoon anti-ship missile, but this is a rather old rocket, from which you simply cannot demand something like that. And eight missiles are not much by modern standards.

In fact, the absence of anti-ship weapons was quite justified at the time the Berks appeared, because American destroyers had no rivals at sea at that time.

Each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer carries up to 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk Block 3 cruise missiles. But there is also a minus, and a decent one: the peculiarity of the Mark 41 UVP is that the crane equipment of the ships does not allow loading Tomahawk-type missiles and promising NTACMS tactical ballistic missiles (the ship's version of the MGM-140 ATACMS mobile tactical BR) from ships supply, for this reason, the equipment of the Mark 41 UVP with missiles of these types can only be carried out at the bases of the US Navy ships.

Arlie Burke is likely to enter history of the American Navy as a ship produced in the largest series. Almost 40 years in production is quite impressive.

The next component of the shock five.

EA-18G, carrier-based electronic warfare aircraft


Five components that the US Navy will use to defeat any enemy

Developed on the basis of the F / A-18F Super Hornet, which proved to be more than a successful aircraft. The Growler is primarily an electronic warfare aircraft, which nevertheless can easily supply the enemy with conventional fighter-style weapons. More than an aggressive plane.

The difference between the "Growler" and "Super Hornet" is not very big: the built-in M61 cannon was removed and an AN / ALQ-227 communication jamming system was placed in its place, and AN / ALQ-99 jamming radar modules were placed on standard hardpoints, next to with rockets.

The result is a very versatile aircraft. "Growler" can conduct suppression of enemy air defense systems, both accompanied by electronic warfare drones and independently. Can jam communications and enemy radars on the ground. Can attack radars with special HARM anti-radar missiles. Can interfere with enemy aircraft in the air.

Well, just like the ancestor of the F / A-18F, which has complete order in combat maneuverability, the Growler can use its AMRAAM air-to-air missiles. Moreover, its main targeting device is the same APG-79 AESA multi-mode radar with a helmet-mounted aerial combat tracking system.

Yes, there are not so many "Growlers", only 115 pieces, and a certain number will be built in excess of this figure, but the aircraft is very interesting precisely for its versatility of use.

Virginia-class multipurpose nuclear submarine



One of the most successful weapons programs since the end of the Cold War. The Virginia-class attack submarine combines an advanced nuclear submarine and an affordable shipbuilding program. It is planned to build at least 33 units.

12 vertical launch tubes for Tomahawk missiles and four 533mm torpedo tubes capable of launching Mk 48 ADCAP self-guided torpedoes, mines and torpedo launchers unmanned submarines are a decent set for an attack submarine.

The Virginia submarines are also useful observation platforms. Each boat has an extensive sonar complex, a complex for detecting enemy signals. Intelligence can be transmitted using high-speed satellite data transmission systems.

Most importantly, the Virginia class is very cost effective. The Seawulf project that preceded it was a financial disaster: it was planned to build 29 submarines, but the first three ships cost an average of $ 4,4 billion each, and plans for further construction of the Seawulf were canceled.

Each Virginia costs Americans a little less than $ 2 billion.

Ohio-class cruise missile submarine



The four Ohio-class guided missile submarines (SSGNs) (Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia) are the four most heavily armed ships in the world. Each of them is equipped with 154 cruise missiles and can carry up to four platoons of SEALs.

Originally built as ballistic missile submarines. Each submarine carried 24 D-5 Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Under the terms of the START II treaty, the United States has four extra submarine hulls for ballistic missile armament. Instead of writing them off, the US Navy paid $ 2 billion to convert them to accommodate conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Twenty-two Trident missile silos have been converted to house seven Tomahawk missiles each. The result was an underwater missile platform capable of firing 154 Tomahawk missiles, greatly increasing the power of the American fleet.

The exact ammunition load of each submarine is classified, but according to some reports, it consists of a mixture of Tomahawk Block III and Tomahawk Block IV missiles.

The Block III / C Tomahawk has one 1000-pound conventional warhead and a range of 1000 miles. Block III / D has a payload of 166 cluster bombs and a range of 800 miles. Each rocket has multiple navigation methods and can be targeted using inertial navigation system, terrain matching and GPS.

Tomahawk Block IV / E have the ability to quickly retarget in accordance with the received intelligence.

The remaining two Trident launchers were converted for use by SEALs and equipped with airlock chambers for submerged exiting the boat. Each of the Ohio-class SSGs can carry 66 SEAL commandos, as well as submerge a combination of two miniature submarines.

Submarines "Ohio" were first used on March 19, 2011 during Operation Dawn of the Odyssey in Libya. In the future, cruise missile submarines can be used as launch vehicles for unmanned underwater vehicles.

Landing transports docks type "Austin"



It might seem odd that an aging amphibious transport dock is on this list. In fact, these ships are decommissioned for further disposal, but the main landing vehicle for the Marines can now get a second life.

As a floating platform armed with laser weapons.

The laser system is designed to destroy unmanned aerial vehicles, low-speed helicopters and fast patrol ships. In a video posted by the Navy on YouTube, a laser detonates an RPG-7 anti-tank missile, burns out the engine of a small boat, and shoots down a small unmanned aerial vehicle. The process appears to take a split second.

The US Navy claims that the laser will not be used to target individuals under the Geneva Convention. However, it is safe to say that detonating explosive devices, fuel or causing catastrophic damage to a vehicle can have fatal consequences for the crew.

There are no details about the range of the laws or how many shots he can fire in combat. The laser beam is not visible to the naked eye.

It is estimated that a "shot" from a laser cannon costs only 69 cents per shot, and it seems that one shot will be enough to disable a small boat. The Griffin missile, which the US Navy also viewed as a weapon against small targets, costs $ 99 each. RAM, a point defense system, costs over $ 000 per missile.

In the next two years, the US Navy plans to test more powerful systems - with a capacity of 100 to 150 kilowatts.

What can be added here? Only that Mizokami fell off at the end. It is unlikely that today anyone will question the effectiveness of the US Navy, in which 62 Arleigh Burks and 70 nuclear submarines play an important role. Especially while the aircraft carriers are stuck in repairs.

But with the fifth point, that is, with "combat" lasers - too much. However, if it is so convenient for the Americans, no question. The laser, as well as some sci-fi projects from the other side of the globe (such as nuclear misunderstandings in the upper atmosphere), are just a way to scare both ours and others. Their budget will be allowed to inflate, strangers will do something stupid.

An old and proven method since SDI times. However, if it can raise the morale and confidence of US citizens from their security, no one is against. Moreover, their submarines and destroyers are really good.
Author:
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Asad
    Asad 30 September 2020 05: 54
    +2
    It is interesting to know the opinion of Roman Skoromokhov's opponents!
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 30 September 2020 06: 10
      0
      they have really good ones.
      And there are enough of them. We are waiting for the opinion of opponents. hi
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 30 September 2020 06: 51
        -8
        Right here is the morning pumping of patriotic sentiments for American patriots at VO. I read it, choked on breakfast and sang the American anthem out of excess admiration for US NAVY. laughing
        1. kepmor
          kepmor 30 September 2020 07: 38
          17
          the most important thing is not to take off your rose-colored glasses ... to watch and listen only to Simonyan, Solovyov and Skabeev ... to sacredly believe in the sun-face with his Poseidons and petrels ...
          then breakfast will go straight in and life will turn pink again ... blooper, however ...
          the author is definitely right ... although the truth is bitter for us, but it is true ... and not the bullshit from Konoshenkov like Kavkaz-2020 ...
          1. Hermit21
            Hermit21 30 September 2020 08: 29
            +5
            It was difficult to braid, but you did it
          2. Uncle lee
            Uncle lee 30 September 2020 08: 49
            +4
            Quote: kepmor
            do not take off pink glasses ..

            On VO with a bang, there are articles about kakunas all good and kakunih is all bad. But a comprehensive analysis is somehow not perceived ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Nemchinov Vl
              Nemchinov Vl 9 October 2020 18: 06
              -1
              Quote: Uncle Lee
              But a comprehensive analysis is somehow not perceived ...
              was there a comprehensive analysis in the article ?! belay
            3. v.biseroff
              v.biseroff 18 November 2020 14: 43
              +1
              For a comprehensive analysis, patience and work are needed, but here, in the majority of cheers, patriots are a handful - they would tear their vests on themselves, but let the horse think, she has a big head.
          3. Mitroha
            Mitroha 30 September 2020 12: 00
            -2
            the most important thing is not to take off your rose-colored glasses ... only watch and listen

            Are there only these two extremes for you? My condolences
            1. Uncle lee
              Uncle lee 30 September 2020 12: 19
              -1
              This is not actually my quote! And I look with wide open eyes and listen with two ears! But to draw conclusions, it already depends on what I saw and heard.
              1. Mitroha
                Mitroha 30 September 2020 12: 40
                0
                So I did not answer you. hi Possibly a site glitch ..
                1. Uncle lee
                  Uncle lee 30 September 2020 12: 42
                  0
                  Accepted ! hi
                  Quote: Mitroha
                  site glitch ..
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 30 September 2020 09: 32
          +8
          sang the American anthem out of excess admiration for US NAVY. 

          Admiring the enemy is amazing ... negative
          But it is respectful that the "antics and jumps" of politicians and presidents do not affect the US Navy in any way. The aircraft carrier has been mastered for decades,
          surface and underwater programs. People design, build and modernize ...
          Unfortunately, our politicians have a direct impact on the fleet, so shipbuilding programs are constantly being disrupted.
          1. Mitroha
            Mitroha 30 September 2020 12: 07
            0
            With a sense of humor, byada is straight .. Sarcasm is
        3. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 30 September 2020 12: 24
          0
          Quote: Mitroha
          sang the american anthem

          On the motive "Khasbulat daring" ... lol
        4. Azamat Ramazanov
          Azamat Ramazanov 4 October 2020 12: 01
          -1
          You better for the Russian dock, rejoice at it, your boobies drowned it. Besides, it was built under Brezhnev and was the only one in Russia. And for the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, who smoked like a steam ship
      2. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 30 September 2020 08: 15
        -15 qualifying.
        And what to oppose that? A large number of excellent targets for an adversary who is armed with no less sophisticated weapons: submarines, anti-ship missiles, etc.: China, Russia. For a war with small countries, this is not necessary, but against countries with nuclear weapons, ordinary scrap metal.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 30 September 2020 08: 58
          +5
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          A large number of excellent targets for an enemy who is armed with equally advanced weapons

          As for the perfection of weapons, one can argue, but what is indisputable - the number decides. No matter how wonderful the Russian and Chinese, say, nuclear submarines are, they are simply physically few in comparison with what the amers have.

          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          This is not necessary for a war with small countries

          Hello, please: Iraq, Libya, Syria and many others have already managed to get their portion of democracy from "excellent goals". Yes, for a single small country an armada of 60 destroyers is redundant, but there are a lot of such countries around the planet, and the United States wants to be able to inform any of them as quickly as possible who is in charge on the globe.
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 30 September 2020 10: 09
            +5
            Yes, for a single small country an armada of 60 destroyers is excessive ...

            Even 4 destroyers are 224 Tomahawks. Such a "flock" is very difficult to stop. Even if half is "removed", then 100 missiles will hit 100 targets, and these are communication centers, headquarters, warehouses, bridges, radars and air defense units. For a small country, if not the end, then a tangible blow. And this is only 4 ships. And if 300 km. also a couple of Nimitz grazing ...
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 10: 49
              +3
              it is obvious that in front of the American fleet it is useless to puff up the senseless Kuzey and UDC with their cruisers, but it is necessary to rely on nuclear weapons and defensive defenses. Therefore, in naval policy, it is necessary to develop submarines, coast-based naval aviation, coastal missile systems, and not stupid nonsense about destroyers and aircraft carriers, Who minus that patriot who is out of touch with reality in his empty dreams. And to sell Kuzya until they give him something, and not wait until he decays in eternal repair without a dock.
              1. Doccor18
                Doccor18 30 September 2020 11: 06
                +3
                Therefore, in naval policy, it is necessary to develop submarines, coastal naval aviation, coastal missile systems, and not stupid nonsense about destroyers and aircraft carriers, Who minus that patriot who is out of touch with reality in his empty dreams ...

                I partially agree. The emphasis, at this time, must be made on the development and construction of MAPLs, long and medium-range air defense systems, coastal anti-ship missiles, as well as regularly update and modernize fighter aircraft. All this will warn Russia against any kind of armed invasion or provocation.
                But it is criminal to forget about the surface fleet. Frigates must be built! Constantly! Build as many opportunities as there are. Or we'll just lose the fleet forever. Because the fleet is not so much ships as crews ..
                And with Admiral Kuznetsov everything is sad. There is no money for new. And the old and only one will last a maximum of 10-12 years ... If we lose the crew of the aircraft carrier and the deck pilots, then it will probably not work to revive all this.
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 13
                  +2
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  But it is criminal to forget about the surface fleet. Frigates must be built! Constantly! Build as many opportunities as there are.
                  frigates are necessary for local peacetime tasks and for PLO of nuclear submarine bases, but their number should not be too large, say 4-5 per ocean and ... everything has its price ... there is no money for nuclear submarines, su57 , TU160, be200, for minesweepers ..
                  .
                  Quote: Doccor18
                  with Admiral Kuznetsov everything is sad. There is no money for new. And the old and only one will last another 10-12 years maximum ...
                  well, it will not serve, for another 5-8 years money will be sawed for its repair, and then it will be written off due to old age, it was initially a mistake to build in the USSR unnecessary for combat use of non-aircraft carriers
                  1. Doccor18
                    Doccor18 30 September 2020 11: 25
                    0
                    frigates are necessary for local peacetime tasks and for PLO of nuclear submarine bases, but their number should not be too large, say 4-5 per ocean ...

                    On KSF and KChF it may be enough, although 10 would be just right. But for KTOF it is very little. Minimum 12. 6 each in Vladivostok and Kamchatka. That is, at least 24, and preferably 36. In 15 years it is quite possible to build such a number.
                    And the Soviet "non-aircraft carriers" were not criticized only by the lazy ...
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 38
                      +1
                      at the kchf they are not really needed, the sea is completely blocked by missiles, including enemy missiles, in Vladik the same situation ... Conclusion, only the Northern Fleet and Kamchatka require frigates, the number is discussed and depends on the possibility of fulfilling the task of guaranteed safety of nuclear submarines near the base with access to the open ocean and return, even if we agree with you for 6-10 to the base of the nuclear submarine, then the total number of necessary frigates and corvettes for the Navy is 12-20 pennants (at least 8), while they are already building 8 total Gorshkovy, and more 3 1356, plus dozens of corvettes, no more ... they are not that cheap. The cost of the ship will be about $ 400 million. the cost of the Tu-160 is $ 250 million. The price of one Su-57 is up to 2,23 billion rubles, that is, approximately 35 million dollars for one aircraft, the cost of the Be-200 was at least $ 50 million, the result is one small frigate instead of the Pope Tu 160, 11 units of Su57, or eight Be200 ..... no extra frigates!
                      1. Beregovic_1
                        Beregovic_1 30 September 2020 14: 23
                        +2
                        The result is one small frigate instead of Pope Tu 160, 11 Su57 units, or eight Be200 flat ... no extra frigates!
                        1. How does the Be 200 relate to PLO? 2. It is necessary to save not on new units, but on writing off old ones. When commissioning frigates, remove ships from the fleet that do not make sense to upgrade. And their maintenance costs a pretty penny.
                        are already building 8 total Gorshkovy, and another 3 1356,
                        3. You forgot about 5 OPESK. 3 units 11356 will not be taken out of the permanent rotation to Tartus, and self-respecting people will not be at sea for years, away from the base (family). That is, the Black Sea Fleet also needs a pair of new frigates to replace the old patrol boats. And at the BF, to ensure the same rotation in Tartus and to give combat stability to corvettes and mrk. Well, at least a brigade for ocean fleets. In total, the minimum requirement is 12 frigates, taking into account the modernization of 4 units. 1155.
                        they are not that cheap.
                        The more they build, the cheaper each one.
                      2. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 18: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: Beregovyhok_1
                        And at the BF, to ensure the same rotation in Tartus
                        far and not needed, with the Black Sea Fleet closer https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/8521217
              2. Firelake
                Firelake 30 September 2020 23: 11
                +2
                Takr is a suitcase without a handle. He is no longer needed: there are no planes, crews for him, and most importantly: tasks and security detachments. Bottom line in scrap. But it is impossible because patriots will not understand. So we spend money that is better spent on corvettes / frigates / plots.
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 15: 35
              +1
              "And to sell Kuzya while they give something for him" - first of all - who gives what for him? It can only be sold for the scrap price. Secondly, what is so hot? Frightened by American bombers near our borders? So they flew all my youth near our borders - and nothing, there was no war. If we don't cut the Yars and the CH submarine cruisers on pins and needles, then there won't be, there's nothing to panic about. Has the country invested so much effort and money in our aircraft carrier, and put everything under the knife? And then bite your elbows and start over? Fast you. The value of "Kuzi", oddly enough, is not in scaring America, but in scaring all sorts of cracked mumbo-jumbs. The future belongs to the countries of the third world, and China, the United States, and Europe have understood this long ago, and they are investing in this very third world, and are building aircraft carriers to keep them in check .. English "Queen Elizabeth" and French " Charles de Gaulle "was not built against Russia, and the Chinese" Liaoning "- not against America (both are very weak). Russia, too, is not weakly investing in the third world, and these investments must be protected.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 18: 41
                0
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                The value of "Kuzi", oddly enough, is not to scare America, but to scare all sorts of cracked mumbo-jumbs

                partly true, but for this, the frigates will do ... it is expensive to maintain AB as a hypothetical scarecrow for hypothetical countries ... but there are more important tasks, nuclear submarines, minesweepers, for example
              2. Beregovic_1
                Beregovic_1 30 September 2020 22: 01
                +3
                The value of "Kuzi", oddly enough, is not to scare America, but to scare all sorts of cracked mumbo-jumb
                Didn't guess at all. Project 1143.5 is an air defense aircraft carrier and was created precisely against the US AUG, to provide air defense for our air defense units. Absolutely not intended to fight the Papuans, which was brilliantly proved in Syria. The ship is unsuccessful, we do not know how to use it. But you can't break. Otherwise, we will lose carrier-based aircraft. Another 10 - 15 years must live.
          2. meandr51
            meandr51 1 October 2020 15: 57
            -1
            Such a group somehow drove up to Venezuela. And what? And before that - to the DPRK. With the same effect ...
        2. Volder
          Volder 30 September 2020 12: 56
          -8
          Quote: Kalmar
          ... but that's what is indisputable - the numbers decide. No matter how wonderful the Russian and Chinese, say, nuclear submarines are, they are simply physically few in comparison with what the amers have.
          In this case, the number does not solve anything. First, it must be borne in mind that US ships and submarines are sharpened for strikes on EARTH. If the United States tried to attack Russia with its tomahawks, the response could fly in a nuclear version across America. Do they need it? Secondly, the American fleet, approaching the borders of the Russian Federation, will be attacked by our aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles. We have a hypersonic Dagger in store for the aircraft carriers. Not to mention the defense with the help of surface ships and submarines, which are sharpened for attacks on enemy ships and submarines.
          Conclusion: comparing the fleets of the United States and the Russian Federation only in terms of quantitative power in the context of an attack on the latter is utter folly. The purpose and precision of the fleets are different, and our Navy will be assisted by aviation from the shore.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 30 September 2020 13: 46
            +3
            Quote: Volder
            First, it must be borne in mind that US ships and submarines are sharpened for strikes on EARTH.

            The LRASM missile is compatible with the Mk41, i.e. Berks can launch it. She is already slowly entering the navy.

            Quote: Volder
            Secondly, the American fleet approaching the borders of the Russian Federation will be attacked by our planes carrying anti-ship missiles.

            And here the ratio of the number will play a very, very large role: it will not work out with a pair of information security systems.

            Quote: Volder
            We have a hypersonic Dagger in store for aircraft carriers

            "Dagger" is not an anti-ship missile system, it is not intended to work on aircraft carriers (and any other mobile targets).

            Quote: Volder
            Not to mention the defense with the help of surface ships and submarines, which are sharpened for attacks on enemy ships and submarines.

            And again, the number decides: we have very few ships and submarines that are seriously capable of butting with the American fleet.

            Quote: Volder
            Conclusion: comparing the fleets of the United States and the Russian Federation only in terms of quantitative power in the context of an attack on the latter is utter folly. The purpose and precision of the fleets are different, and our Navy will be assisted by aviation from the shore.

            Nobody talks about a wall-to-wall collision in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, our Navy has its own tasks, which it must solve even with the opposition of the US Navy (in spite of the other "purpose and imprisonment" of the latter).
            1. Volder
              Volder 1 October 2020 14: 00
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              The LRASM missile is compatible with the Mk41, i.e. Berks can launch it. She is already slowly entering the navy.
              From what sources is this known? I have other information: Lrasm has not been adopted for service, it is being launched purely for experimental purposes. Even small-scale production is questionable.
              And here the ratio of the number will play a very, very large role: it will not work out with a pair of information security systems.
              What is information security? And why are there only a couple of them ?? In any case, the number of anti-ship missiles and the range of their use are of prime importance.
              "Dagger" is not an anti-ship missile system, it is not intended to work on aircraft carriers (and any other mobile targets).
              Of course it is. Representatives of the Ministry of Defense officially announced this. Targeting for the "Dagger" will be given by AWACS planes and the system of orbiting space reconnaissance satellites "Liana".
              And again, the number decides: we have very few ships and submarines that are seriously capable of butting with the American fleet.
              There are few missile carriers, yes. However, the number of missiles is enough to sink any AUG approaching the borders of the Russian Federation.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 1 October 2020 14: 38
                0
                Quote: Volder
                From what sources is this known? I have other information: Lrasm has not been adopted for service, it is being launched purely for experimental purposes. Even small-scale production is questionable.

                If you are talking about launching from Mk 41, then such tests (successful) were carried out back in 2014 - 2016. The early operational capability for the F-18 is declared. In general, work on the rocket is proceeding slowly (but where is the hurry?), But it is going. Yes, there were also notes about the plans of the US Navy to revive the concept of the anti-ship "Tomahawk" - of course, on a new element base.

                Quote: Volder
                What is information security? And why are there only a couple of them ?? In any case, the number of anti-ship missiles and the range of their use are of prime importance.

                Fighter-bomber. As for the pair - I'm talking about this and that the ratio of the number of aviation and navy plays a very important role in their confrontation. I read that during the Cold War, two regiments of the Soviet MRA were allocated to destroy one AUG. Nowadays, it will not be possible to quickly assemble such an aviation "fist" in every direction.

                Quote: Volder
                There are few missile carriers, yes. However, the number of missiles is enough to sink any AUG approaching the borders of the Russian Federation.

                As usual, everything is not easy. The main carriers now are the Project 949 nuclear submarine, I think. The topic of the capabilities of our submarine against the American one at VO was repeatedly discussed; the overall result is disappointing: the chances of our nuclear submarines to survive to the possibility of launching their missiles are small. There is nothing to say about surface ships: no matter how good the frigate of project 22350 may be, it simply cannot resist the whole AUG alone, and there is no one to strengthen it.
          2. Bez 310
            Bez 310 30 September 2020 13: 54
            0
            Quote: Volder
            the American fleet, approaching the borders of the Russian Federation, will be attacked by our aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles. We have a hypersonic Dagger in store for the aircraft carriers.

            Yeah, it would have happened in the USSR.
            And Russia does not have the required number of aircraft that
            could cause significant damage to the US Navy.
            About aircraft carriers - the RF Armed Forces are not able to destroy even
            1 (one) US Navy AUG.
            About "Dagger" on ships - dreams.
            1. Volder
              Volder 1 October 2020 14: 12
              -1
              Quote: Bez 310
              Russia does not have the required number of aircraft that could cause significant damage to the US Navy.
              Of course, the Russian Federation has the required number of aircraft. There are so many of them that any AUG can be sunk with rockets fired from aircraft alone. And the number of missiles is all the more sufficient for a slack. In this case, it is not necessary to enter the enemy's air defense zone.
              About aircraft carriers - the RF Armed Forces are not able to destroy even
              1 (one) US Navy AUG.
              Of course he can. We have everything for this. Moreover, we can destroy it repeatedly.
              About "Dagger" on ships - dreams.
              These are not dreams. This is an established reality. Targeting for the "Dagger" will be given by AWACS aircraft and the system of orbiting space reconnaissance satellites "Liana". 1 aircraft carrier requires 1 dagger.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 1 October 2020 15: 59
                -1
                I envy you...
                Remain happy in your ignorance.
              2. Kalmar
                Kalmar 2 October 2020 13: 39
                0
                Quote: Volder
                Of course, the Russian Federation has the required number of aircraft. There are so many of them that any AUG can be sunk by rockets fired from aircraft alone.

                First, there are where? The aviation stationed in the European part of the country does not threaten the AUG in the Pacific. And tossing it just won't work.
                Second, what kind of missiles? What anti-ship missiles does Russian aviation currently have in sufficient quantity? Perhaps only something of the X-35 level.

                Quote: Volder
                Of course he can. We have everything for this. Moreover, we can destroy it repeatedly.

                One - yes, perhaps. Two, probably. All 9-10 - no chance.

                Quote: Volder
                These are not dreams. This is an established reality. Targeting for the "Dagger" will be given by AWACS aircraft and the system of orbiting space reconnaissance satellites "Liana". 1 aircraft carrier requires 1 dagger.

                There is no evidence that the "Dagger" is able to work on moving targets, there is no test, not even a description of the principles of the GOS. At first they said something about work on ships, then timidly clarified that on ships at the berth (i.e. motionless), now they are suspiciously silent about it. Apparently, the whole venture with the "Dagger" was just an attempt to bypass the restrictions of the INF Treaty, which lost its relevance after the cancellation of the one.

                In general, a ballistic missile (which is "Dagger") has a very limited (compared to cruise) target search capabilities, which requires a very accurate and "fresh" control unit. And there is nowhere to take the control center: "Liana" gives "pictures" of the earth's surface about once every 1.5-6 hours (how to guess the orbits). It is still not easy with AWACS aircraft: it must be in the right place at the right time, and even live long enough to give out the exact control command.

                In general, as a summary: "Daggers" do not threaten the American (and any other) fleet in any way.
        3. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 30 September 2020 19: 00
          0
          Speaking of uselessness, I meant the absolute uselessness of spending huge funds on improving weapons when the enemy does not resist. Iraq, Libya, Syria do not have the means to suppress which Aegis needs, and most of the other novelties, but the A10 is quite necessary for itself.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 30 September 2020 22: 43
            -1
            Quote: Victor Sergeev
            Iraq, Libya, Syria do not have the means to suppress which Aegis needs

            Well, this business is such that today it is not, and tomorrow it is. Quite modern anti-ship missiles are affordable today even for different Papuans, so it’s better, as they say, to overdo it than to miss it. Then, in the list of enemies there are not only third world countries, but also, say, China, which may well one day want to measure the strength of the hero with the current hegemon.
            1. Viktor Sergeev
              Viktor Sergeev 1 October 2020 07: 39
              0
              Unfortunately, the Papuans, as well as the Arabs, turn any, even the most modern weapon into a heap of scrap metal. And most importantly, the most modern systems still do not sell. The ship group, no matter how huge it is, will be weaker than the ground forces of powerful countries, which will crush ships with the number of aircraft and missiles.
              I think it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future China will go to war with the United States and it is not the fleet that decides everything, but the nuclear component. Remove nuclear missiles and China will receive a huge advantage over the United States, for example, in the Taiwan issue, and so, they will bite each other, proclaim slogans and claims, the usual political chatter with the cheating of the situation from the military and the military-industrial complex in order to get more funding.
              The fleet has two main drawbacks: huge costs for its maintenance and slow obsolescence, which means even more money for modernization and replacement. I think China will wait until the US bursts like a bubble, life goes on, China has nowhere to rush, time is working for it.
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 1 October 2020 09: 06
                0
                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                Unfortunately, the Papuans, as well as the Arabs, turn any, even the most modern weapon into a heap of scrap metal.

                On average, yes, but there is always a risk that they will figure it out. Or hired experts will help. As the experience of the Falklands War has shown, even not the most perfect weapon in the hands of not the most experienced warriors can suddenly work.

                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                The ship group, no matter how huge it is, will be weaker than the ground forces of powerful countries, which will crush ships with the number of aircraft and missiles.

                Well, no one plans to win wars with the fleet alone; the rest of the combat arms will also have to work. And on the shore, aircraft and missiles still need to be able to transfer to the right place on time, which is not always and not always feasible.

                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                I think it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future China will go to war with the United States and it is not the fleet that decides everything, but the nuclear component.

                A major war is unlikely, yes. But some local clashes (possibly through some third countries of the Asia-Pacific region) - quite. The fleets will find work in this situation, and the nuclear component is all the "kings' last argument" in the most extreme case. If it were otherwise, of all the branches of the military, it would be possible to leave only the Strategic Missile Forces, and disperse the rest as unnecessary.

                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                The fleet has two main drawbacks: huge costs for its maintenance and slow obsolescence, which means even more money for modernization and replacement.

                In general, absolutely any modern weapon has these disadvantages. Whether it's a Mosin rifle and a sapper shovel))

                Quote: Victor Sergeev
                I think China will wait until the US bursts like a bubble, life goes on, China has nowhere to rush, time is working for it.

                Who will burst first here is a very, very controversial question. China also has many external and internal problems that force it to adhere to an active life position. Then, most of the Chinese exports go to the United States, so the "bursting" of the latter will not add health to China either. However, this is a completely different story.
      3. Looking for
        Looking for 30 September 2020 15: 21
        +1
        unfortunately. our only argument is nuclear weapons.
        1. Viktor Sergeev
          Viktor Sergeev 1 October 2020 13: 07
          -1
          Unfortunately, you do not understand anything either in the RF Armed Forces or in modern warfare. Nuclear weapons are the last argument, in relations with the United States and NATO, with the rest, conventional weapons will be enough for us, and most importantly diplomacy.
  2. slm976
    slm976 30 September 2020 09: 12
    +5
    It is interesting to know the opinion of Roman Skoromokhov's opponents!


    Was the article really the opinion of Roman Skomorokhov himself?
    In the article he gives someone else's opinion, his own there, in fact, only the last 3 paragraphs, in which he agrees that the Americans have a good, effective fleet))) .... and, by the way, it's hard to disagree with this!
    Yes, the Americans have a wonderful fleet, excellent ships and naval bases around the world, this allows them to dominate the world's oceans and control almost sea trade routes ...
    Do we need a similar fleet? My opinion is not! We need our own fleet .... We have other capabilities, a different geographic location, and our tasks are different, so we must build our fleet according to our tasks and capabilities, although of course with an eye on the experience of the enemy.
  • Grandfather
    Grandfather 30 September 2020 06: 02
    16
    yeah ... the states have an impressive fleet ... but it doesn't matter! because America is "rotting" and will soon get a kirdyk! (that's why ours don't "scratch" with the navy, why is it needed if the states will soon be gone?) fellow very bitter sarcasm (for those who are in the "tank")
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 30 September 2020 08: 51
      +2
      Quote: Grandfather is caste
      very bitter sarcasm
      Many do not understand this word and take everything at face value. hi
    2. Volder
      Volder 30 September 2020 13: 07
      -2
      Quote: Dead Day
      America is "rotting" and will soon be kirdyk! Therefore, ours and do not "scratch" with the fleet, why is it needed if the states will soon be gone?
      Agonizing, they can throw out some stupidity out of despair. It becomes more and more difficult to maintain hegemony, therefore the aggressiveness increases. Sanctions are of little help. Venezuela could not be broken ...
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 30 September 2020 06: 18
    -9
    A large fleet is to scare stupid Papuans, such as Libya, who did not understand who was the boss.
    The rest know very well who to pay tribute to and keep quiet in a rag.
    And some of them do, they screech as they want to please the owner.

    It is unlikely to seriously consider the option of using all these Burkes against a small, small, comparable enemy (there is still no equal).
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 30 September 2020 08: 53
      +4
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      It is unlikely to seriously consider the option of using all these Burkes against a small, small, comparable enemy (there is still no equal).

      It's funny that during the Cold War, the Soviet military leadership "all these Burkes" took more than seriously, and this despite the much higher potential of the armed forces (compared to "now").
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 30 September 2020 09: 57
        -4
        Quote: Kalmar
        the Soviet military leadership "all these Burkes" took more than seriously

        I wrote not about the frivolity of the Burks as such, but about the frivolity of plans for their actual combat use for a war against a comparable enemy.
        Theoretically, a thousand "axes" can easily penetrate any coastal defense, and almost immediately a response will fly to the "decision-making centers".
        Therefore, these "axes" are flying not to Shanghai or Murmansk, and not even to Pyongyang and Tehran, but to Tripoli or Damascus. To those "natives" who think they are equal to the "white master", but really do not have the strength to answer.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 30 September 2020 10: 41
          +6
          ... but almost immediately a response will arrive at the "decision-making centers" ... ... even not in Pyongyang and Tehran ..

          Well, what kind of "otvetka" can come from the DPRK and Iran. Intercepting several North Korean ballistic missiles is not such an unsolvable task. And Iran does not even have an aerial bomb with an atomic warhead yet.
          Simply by starting a war and destroying the DPRK, the balance in the east will change dramatically, and China will not allow this. Yes, and Iran could have caused a "desert storm", but then Russia will get involved. So ... if not for the PRC and Russia, the United States and NATO have long ago turned North Korea and Iran into "two Libya" ...
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 30 September 2020 11: 26
            -1
            Quote: Doccor18
            And Iran does not even have an aerial bomb with an atomic warhead yet.

            Tehran may well arrange a response "like 11/XNUMX" ...
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 30 September 2020 11: 35
              +1
              And the patriots of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Yugoslavia could not answer with this? Or is it only the Iranians can do it? Something the Americans were not frightened by such a "response" ...
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 50
              +2
              Did you know that September 11 was organized by the world behind the scenes, and not Hussein? ... look, look, the masters of the world blew it up to justify the aggression against Iraq and at the same time demolish an outdated unprofitable building, by detonating a low-power nuclear charge laid in a mine under the building and detonating termite charges on technical floors for uniform collapse. TV showed holographic animation ....
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 15: 40
                -1
                "The world behind the scenes arranged September 11" - do not watch TV and do not read the yellow Internet, it has a bad effect on the psyche
              2. Alien From
                Alien From 30 September 2020 22: 34
                0
                At the expense of a low-power nuclear charge, it seems that this is too much. But with the rest you can more or less agree.
              3. Arabfun
                Arabfun 2 October 2020 00: 42
                +1
                The Pentagon building is the most interesting inconsistency.
          2. Firelake
            Firelake 30 September 2020 23: 16
            0
            Russia does not fit anywhere. It is very expensive and oil is cheap nowadays ... it is a pity that in 20 years of stability we haven’t created a septic tank at the western level.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 10: 57
        -2
        Quote: Kalmar
        Soviet military leadership

        this is that vague .... Gorshkov just sawed the budget for unnecessary cruisers and aircraft carriers, with dozens of destroyers ... and Amelko, developed badly needed nuclear submarines, minesweepers, coastal aviation
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 30 September 2020 11: 22
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Gorshkov just sawed the budget for unnecessary cruisers and aircraft carriers

          what Are there pots ????
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 30 September 2020 11: 31
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          this is that vague .... Gorshkov just sawed the budget for unnecessary cruisers and aircraft carriers, with dozens of destroyers ... and Amelko, developed badly needed nuclear submarines, minesweepers, coastal aviation

          Those. about 3000 "Tomahawks" deployed on American naval carriers, didn’t really bother anyone? And a conceptual opportunity to neutralize the Soviet NSNF with the same "Berks"? Or I misunderstood your idea?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 44
            +1
            Quote: Kalmar
            a conceptual opportunity to neutralize the Soviet NSNF with the same "Berks"? Or I misunderstood your idea?
            If you're talking about a "conceptual opportunity", then I'm talking about tactics and strategy based on real means of combat use, destroyers 956, cruisers and non-aircraft carriers (including Kuzya) had no practical use in the struggle for
            Quote: Kalmar
            Soviet NSNF
            because in the days of the USSR it was a coastal fleet, and all the hope was only on the secrecy of nuclear submarines and their number
        3. PSih2097
          PSih2097 30 September 2020 11: 53
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          Gorshkov just sawed the budget for unnecessary cruisers and aircraft carriers, with dozens of destroyers ... and Amelko, developed badly needed nuclear submarines, minesweepers, coastal aviation

          And Ustinov cut off the "sturgeon" for everyone, giving preference to the overland.
        4. Sergey Sfiedu
          Sergey Sfiedu 30 September 2020 15: 46
          +4
          "Gorshkov just sawed the budget for unnecessary cruisers and aircraft carriers" - how smart they are, mlyn! The fleet solves a complex of tasks not only in wartime, but also in peacetime. "Unnecessary" cruisers and aircraft carriers "ensured the presence of the Navy throughout the entire water area of ​​the world's oceans, maintaining the prestige of the USSR and ensuring the implementation of foreign policy decisions of the Soviet Government (there is no question of the rationality of these decisions themselves). And in wartime, they are not superfluous - as long as the enemy will hunt behind the cruisers, the nuclear submarine will have a chance to enter the operational space.
          "And Amelko, developed the badly needed nuclear submarines, minesweepers, coastal aviation" - "Khalzan" was also badly needed, or what?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 18: 59
            0
            Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
            ensured the presence of the Navy throughout the entire water area of ​​the oceans, maintaining the prestige of the USSR and ensuring the implementation of foreign policy decisions of the Soviet Government (there is no talk of the rationality of these decisions themselves). And in wartime, they are not superfluous - while the enemy is hunting for cruisers, the nuclear submarine will have a chance to enter the operational space.
            Did you read what you wrote yourself? you know that the decisions were unreasonable ... so why waste fuel, you can also be present on the frigate 1135 (by the way, the ship was useful, like 1155) ... and during the war you will use the cruiser as bait? ... it's all the same that mine fields with ferries with passengers to break through ... there are almost no minesweepers
            1. timokhin-aa
              timokhin-aa 2 October 2020 11: 50
              0
              Are you aware of how and when weapon tracking was used? Do you want to remember 1973 in Mediterranean? About 1971 in the Indian Ocean?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 2 October 2020 17: 26
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Are you aware of how and when weapon tracking was used?

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Are you aware of how and when weapon tracking was used?
                how and when these are just facts! but why, and what was the use of this, and what would have changed if tracking and patrolling were carried out not by strike ships, but by patrol ships? that's why it bothers you so emotionally, because I am right and you understand it, and bring facts against my obvious rightness in an attempt to save your erroneous stereotypes ... but so much the worse for your facts!
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 2 October 2020 23: 34
                  +1
                  Weapon tracking has been a critical part of American containment. It implied that the carrier of the missile weapon followed the enemy, receiving constantly updated target designation for the use of weapons against the enemy and being ready for the IMMEDIATE use of weapons against the enemy.
                  At the same time, it was necessary to ensure the impossibility of breaking contact for the enemy, which required, for example, speed from both the carrier (sometimes) and from the tracking "unit" (always).

                  What does your patrol ship have to do with it? Are you sure you served in the Navy? And then your fabrications run counter to all, without exception, guidelines on the use of the Navy over the past 60 years.
                  Something is not right here, Vladimir.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 3 October 2020 08: 29
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Weapon tracking has been a critical part of American containment. It implied that the carrier of the missile weapon followed the enemy, receiving constantly updated target designation for the use of weapons against the enemy and being ready for the IMMEDIATE use of weapons against the enemy.

                    do you mean the combat duty of the nuclear submarine? ..... And if you are talking about tracking a surface target, first of all, this is not critical, this is a formality, by the way, 1135 had enough missiles for this, and often performed such a task, a cruiser is not needed for this, and even more so AB. I was a mechanic, but now you seem to be completely confused.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 3 October 2020 11: 30
                      +2
                      No, Vladimir, I mean weapon tracking, direct tracking, etc.
                      What the fleet was doing from the 70s to the end of the Cold War, and what it sometimes resorts to now ..
        5. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 2 October 2020 11: 49
          +2
          When will you stop? This is a clinic already. I am not making excuses for Gorshkov's mistakes, but la-la is not necessary.
  • nnm
    nnm 30 September 2020 06: 25
    10
    Here:
    Kyle Mizokami. National Interest and a bunch of other publications. One of the most sober-minded analysts Of the United States today and an excellent specialist

    In a neighboring article:
    The opposite point of view of a fashion journalist (very poorly versed in the subject), columnist for The National Interest Kayla Mizokami:

    Straight away confused - to believe him or not.
    Yes, and TNI were previously seen mainly in attempts to lobby the US military-industrial complex - the bulk of the articles - in the style "everything is gone, we urgently need money for the military-industrial complex, otherwise we are lagging behind Russia." And one of the versions of the appearance of this publication under the supervision of Russia is interesting.
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 30 September 2020 08: 46
      +7
      For even they publish articles "We are the coolest and we will win everyone", for odd ones: "Give more money, otherwise the Russians (Chinese) have more and better."

      It concerns not only NI, but also BI.
  • Yuri Gagarin
    Yuri Gagarin 30 September 2020 06: 26
    +1
    But we have a Poseidon wagon, there's nowhere to go)
    1. Escobar
      Escobar 30 September 2020 06: 59
      -1
      Yeah, the whole world is in dust
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 30 September 2020 07: 42
    12
    To my great regret, we have nothing like this,
    if something is similar, it is in its infancy.
    We have almost nothing to oppose from conventional weapons
    United States Navy. Hence the conclusion - the main efforts in construction
    The Russian Navy should be aimed at providing combat
    stability of our SSBNs.
    1. ban
      ban 30 September 2020 09: 13
      -8
      We have almost nothing to oppose from conventional weapons
      US Navy


      And naval aviation? Su-34 with "onyx" can greatly complicate the life of mattress mats.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 30 September 2020 09: 39
        +4
        We have practically no Naval Aviation,
        There is no Su-34 in the Navy, and the Su-34 with Onyx
        - dreams.
        1. ban
          ban 30 September 2020 10: 16
          -1
          I know not. Well, at least the Su-30. The Indians did it, we are no worse, I hope.
          This can be done quickly
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 30 September 2020 11: 10
            -2
            Quote: ban
            Well, at least the Su-30.

            No, this is not the same plane ...
            It's hard to explain why this plane
            purchased for the Naval Aviation.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 30 September 2020 16: 57
              +1
              Quote: Bez 310
              It's hard to explain why this plane
              purchased for the Naval Aviation.

              Take what they give - and within budget.
              Plus, you remember what we had in MA during the order of the Su-30. The Black Sea Fleet, Pomnitsa, flew "clean" Su-24s, without letters. MA had to be rescued - and urgently. So they ordered what was in the series and what could be obtained quickly.
              According to the last criterion, the Su-34 did not fit - the plant was busy with an order from the Air Force and it was not possible to wait for new aircraft until it was completed.
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 30 September 2020 17: 08
                -1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                MA had to be rescued - and urgently. So they ordered what was in the series and what could be obtained quickly.

                This is a very controversial issue ...
                The role of the MA chief in this matter has not been disclosed.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 1 October 2020 21: 55
                  0
                  There is nowhere to put samples on Kozhin.

                  But in general, the Su-30SM would not be so bad as a base for a special naval modification - if someone made it.
                  When replacing the radar with a new one, such an aircraft would be able to defend itself during a combat mission. The Indians have shown well that it can carry a heavy rocket.

                  By the way, the RLE software in overload has a greater combat load than the Su-34.
                  The Su-34 has superiority in the wing, under which heavier missiles can be suspended and the crew can more easily interact.
                  But the Su-30 can also be used effectively. But - modernized "under MA".
                  1. Bez 310
                    Bez 310 1 October 2020 21: 58
                    -2
                    Let's not dream, MA has no normal percussion
                    plane, and apparently never will.
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 2 October 2020 02: 33
                      0
                      It almost did not work out last year.
                      So I will dream.

                      And others in the likeness. An idea that has taken possession of the masses becomes a material force. And dreaming is not harmful
      2. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 30 September 2020 17: 47
        +2
        Quote: ban
        And naval aviation? Su-34 with "onyx" can greatly complicate the life of mattress mats.

        Tu-22M3M with X-32)) But so far there are no carriers and missiles, well, no external control center))) In the meantime, the Tu-22M3 has been transferred YES
        Reconnaissance Su-24MR. No replacement yet. There are no missile carriers from the word at all)))
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 00
      +2
      Quote: Bez 310
      Hence the conclusion - the main efforts in construction
      The Russian Navy should be aimed at providing combat
      stability of our SSBNs.

      correctly formulated! better not say! ++++++++++++
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 30 September 2020 11: 11
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        correctly formulated!

        So!
        I'm an old anti-submariner, something
        I understand in this matter.
  • ban
    ban 30 September 2020 09: 37
    +3
    Do not treat mattress toppers - Arlie Burke is a handsome man!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 30 September 2020 11: 03
      -8
      ugly ugly arlie berg, the pipes stick out, the mast is angular, even Inquisitive is more beautiful, but there is nothing to say about Borey, an ideal handsome man, all smooth without a single superfluous object! a real sea wolf. The sword is kladenets. Bogatyr, defender of the Russian land, guard against fear, joy and admiration for us.
      1. Charik
        Charik 30 September 2020 19: 07
        0
        Exactly Borey (how many) and Inquisitive (how many) Berkov 60
  • Operator
    Operator 30 September 2020 10: 55
    -7
    The author of an article in an American magazine tried to convey to the readers a thought simple as a nail: the US Navy, like any other Navy / Navy in the modern world, is a collection of useless floating craft that are fueled by nuclear missiles (including missile-torpedoes against nuclear submarines) ...

    But some readers began to dispute this thesis. laughing
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 30 September 2020 11: 24
    +4
    Twenty-two Trident missile silos have been converted to house seven Tomahawk missiles each. The result was an underwater missile platform capable of firing 154 Tomahawk missiles, greatly increasing the power of the American fleet.


    And we, together with the General Staff of the Navy, continue to discuss how to write off our nuclear submarines 941 projects? hi
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 30 September 2020 11: 31
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      And we, together with the General Staff of the Navy, continue to discuss how to write off our nuclear submarines 941 projects?

      it is expensive for our helmsmen to make SSGNs out of 941 projects, or to alter them under the "mace" - it's better to cut them with needles ...
      1. Beregovic_1
        Beregovic_1 30 September 2020 14: 34
        0
        It's actually easier to cut than upgrade there. The mass dimensions of the missiles are different. The mace weighs 2 times less than the old rocket, and only 4 pieces of Onyx fit into the mine. And why carry air and modernize the garden to fence for a salvo of 80 anti-ship missiles? The 949 projects, which are still on the move, are much easier. Although they do not.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 30 September 2020 17: 28
      -1
      Quote: xomaNN
      And we, together with the General Staff of the Navy, continue to discuss how to write off our nuclear submarines 941 projects?

      Is it like one of them remained? And the project is not without nuances: I read somewhere, because of the design features, this nuclear submarine does not like warm seas very much.
  • Volder
    Volder 30 September 2020 12: 35
    0
    The United States calls its fleet the Navy - the naval forces. The Navy is in Russia. The author does not know the elementary things, but for writing a simple article it is not critical.
  • iouris
    iouris 30 September 2020 13: 19
    -1
    It can be formulated as follows: "Five components, the real threat of the use of which will force any government to agree to Trump's terms" (if Trump persists).
  • Undecim
    Undecim 30 September 2020 13: 30
    +8
    Kyle Mizokami. National Interest and a bunch of other publications. One of the most sober-minded analysts in the United States today and an excellent specialist reflects on how things are today in the US Navy.
    This paragraph was enough to call the shit. The rest could not be written.
    If earlier mega-doctors of crust-bakers and Bolsheviks were popular on VO, today turbopatriots are fierce against all-fledged people, between whom realists are pinching, who are kicked from both sides.
  • Old26
    Old26 30 September 2020 14: 09
    +3
    Quote: ban
    We have almost nothing to oppose from conventional weapons
    US Navy


    And naval aviation? Su-34 with "onyx" can greatly complicate the life of mattress mats.

    And there it is, this naval aviation on the SU-34 with the Onyx. Dreams and Wishlist - yes, there are. There is no real naval aviation, even on the SU-34, but on the TU-22M3
    1. iouris
      iouris 30 September 2020 16: 25
      -1
      "For Russia, for the tsar and for the fan! (Although there is already nothing)."
      1. Alexey Z
        Alexey Z 30 September 2020 19: 38
        +1
        You can still get the fan.
    2. Sistemnik
      Sistemnik 1 October 2020 00: 54
      -2
      Tu-22 - the fear of the pend was and remains. What is meant by "no" in the manuals is not clear.
  • ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 30 September 2020 17: 28
    +1
    An old and proven method since SDI times. However, if it can raise the morale and confidence of US citizens from their security, no one is against. Moreover, their submarines and destroyers are really good.

    Here I absolutely agree with the author)))
  • Niel-le-Calais
    Niel-le-Calais 30 September 2020 22: 00
    0
    For world control of the World Ocean and its communication, the strongest and most numerous fleet in the world.
    Which is logical for the largest economy in the world.
    They can afford and they did. Whoever owns the World Ocean owns the whole world. He is everywhere and everywhere.
    In addition, the path to the Lady of the Seas was not easy. And I had to fight for this title. Taking him away from his progenitor.
    But the basis of everything is the economy and the geographic location of the United States. Well, people.
  • Sistemnik
    Sistemnik 1 October 2020 00: 51
    -2
    Some kind of undisguised hosanna to Amerzam. Funny, of course, and with aplomb.
    But it is as far from the real state of affairs as heaven is from earth.
  • Old26
    Old26 1 October 2020 11: 11
    +1
    Quote: Systemist
    Tu-22 - the fear of the pend was and remains. What is meant by "no" in the manuals is not clear.

    TU-22M3 - yes. There is no naval aviation on the TU-22M3, they were killed. In addition to the word "manual", at least for a change, you need to know the "materiel" (the history of the same MPA)

    Quote: Systemist
    Some kind of undisguised hosanna to Amerzam. Funny, of course, and with aplomb.
    But it is as far from the real state of affairs as heaven is from earth.

    But you have a continuous grunt. We have about a dozen "Living" destroyers, they have about 70, but for the "Sistemnik" this state of affairs does not correspond to reality (as far as the sky from the earth)
    1. Zhevlonenko
      Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 13: 28
      0
      Only here is a nuance of 62 arlibers 27 in the queue for cancellation, they are not written off only because there is nothing to replace and they swim from the word at all, only along the coastline. Only 7 pieces are being built, so the elephant is actually made of paper, since it is also necessary to control the vassals otherwise they will scatter. Aircraft carriers are also half at the quay wall, only 3 pieces are actively sailing.
  • Old Skeptic
    Old Skeptic 1 October 2020 14: 11
    0
    May I ask?
    How far to the shore do you need to get to effectively use all these magnificent weapons?
    And are there such places off the coast of Russia?
    And how effective and efficient should intelligence be?
    And how should the defending side act?
  • imobile2008
    imobile2008 1 October 2020 17: 45
    -1
    All 5 points This is AI - Artificial Intelligence has no chances! It is a pity that this is not in production or in the SH, but for destruction
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 1 October 2020 21: 50
    0
    Kyle Mizokami. National Interest and a bunch of other publications. ABOUTDean of the most sober-minded analysts in the United States today and an excellent specialist


    Where are the quotes? laughing
  • Zhevlonenko
    Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 13: 05
    0
    Of course, he is not a specialist, but in his reasoning there is one big minus, the service life of the arlibers is coming out, many ships have already received an extension, since there is nothing to replace them with. And with the construction of new plugs.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 18 October 2020 13: 30
      0
      the service life of the arliebers is coming out, many ships have already received an extension


      The Arleigh Burke Flight IIA entered production in late 1997. So they are relatively new, with 39 built.
      Moreover, Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) and Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) - entered service in December 2018 and July 2019, respectively, Delbert D Black (DDG 119) - in September 2017, and Frank E Petersen Jr (DDG 121) was launched on water in July 2018, Daniel Inouye (DDG 118)), in June 2019.

      there is nothing to replace them with. And with the construction of new plugs.

      That would be great, but no.

      The lead Arleigh Burke Flight III is only expected in 2023.

      All in all, according to the US Navy's shipbuilding plan, for the period from 2020 to 2049, it is planned to build 22 Arleigh Burke Flight III ships, and in the future to start implementing the Future Large Displacement Surface Ship program.

      So, it is not worth hoping that US destroyers will fall apart from old age on their own.
      It is better to think about how to counteract them.
      1. Zhevlonenko
        Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 14: 52
        0
        You are confusing or deliberately misleading, arlys have been built since 88, series 97a has been built since 2, and the 27 about which I am talking about this are earlier versions. And yes, they are still in the ranks. And no one even hopes, on the contrary, I am glad, since they do not almost swim, and they consume much more resources to maintain, let them stay there still. Where do you see the contradiction? 22 will not replace 27. And during this time, the time will come for the rest of the ships.
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 18 October 2020 15: 21
          0
          Can't read my comment?
          I repeat:
          The Arleigh Burke Flight IIA entered production in late 1997. So they are relatively new, with 39 built.

          I specifically named you tactical numbers and years of commissioning.
          What you are talking about:
          - 21 mod. 1 (DDG-51 - 71);
          - 7 units of mod. 2 (DDG-72 - 78);
          just replaced since 97 39 th Arleigh Burke Flight IIА
          Now under construction:
          USS Harvey C Barnum Jr (DDG-124), Jack H Lucas (DDG 125), USS Louis H Wilson Jr (DDG-126), USS Gallagher (DDG 127), Ted Stevens (DDG 128), Jeremiah Denton (DDG 129) , William Charette (DDG 130), George M Neal (DDG 131), Quentin Walsh (DDG 132), Sam Nunn (DDG 133), PCU John E KIlmer (DDG 134)

          Five new destroyers that have been commissioned over the past three years are in the process of being built - this, in your opinion, is called:
          with the construction of new plugs.
          ?

          Yes, so that in Russian shipbuilding every year there was such a plug, two destroyers should be commissioned.
          1. Zhevlonenko
            Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 17: 56
            0
            They did not replace anything, is your math bad? There are 61 destroyers in service now, 39 block 2a, what is the rest? Nonsense do not tell who would change you at 97, 10 year old ships. Yes, these are tears, now we need 20+ of them, and not 2 a year. By the time they replace these, 20 more will need replacing. This is called a plug. When they should be as they say yesterday, and they will only be sometime. The replacement must be built in advance, by the time of write-off, and not when it is necessary to write off, and the replacement is only placed in orders. They may have built these 5, but I have not seen any reports of commissioning, their adoption by the Navy, which means that it does not count as an aircraft carrier Ford, but it seems that it is not
          2. Zhevlonenko
            Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 18: 12
            0
            Parodonte 68. According to my info, block 3 is still in development, and the navy did not seem to want to order block 2a, since it is morally outdated. So, in the absence of the foxes, they decided to finish off a series of jerboas.
          3. Zhevlonenko
            Zhevlonenko 18 October 2020 18: 44
            0
            Starting from 125, this is block 3, the first ship will be commissioned no earlier than 23, years, and since this is the lead ship of the project and the PDC is being finalized in the process of its construction, it may be delivered with a significant lag, judging by the trends of recent years, with the introduction of new projects ships. So I don’t share your optimism for 2 a year.
  • Ham
    Ham 31 October 2020 18: 50
    +1
    well, if "si sperrow", "arlie bjork" and, "aegis" who are already 40 years old are at least considered "newest" wunderwangs then yes ... everything is cool ...
    I dare to remind you that these wunderwales began to enter service in the early 80s and went into production just in time for the collapse of the USSR ...
    I have in my library a book by K. Stalbo, a military publishing house of 1990, "The Navy in US Politics", published for students of Soviet naval universities and several more similar ones from the late 80s-early 90s, the tactics of actions of the Soviet Navy against the American fleet armed with "the latest systems" ... and at the same time, the tactics of the actions of the American navy - which are armed with these systems ...
    and all the wunderwales are described there - both "Aegis" and "Arli Bjork" and "Sea Sperrow" ... and "hockey" is generally a hello from the 60s ... well, unless the latest radio electronics were stuck ...
  • nnz226
    nnz226 1 November 2020 21: 13
    0
    Except for nuclear submarines, all other ships do not inspire ...
  • Kettle13
    Kettle13 2 November 2020 08: 55
    0
    Teapot's opinion. I read professionals as about mathematics. Someone has more someone has less (weapons). Someone is sad about the Russian fleet, someone with hidden envy of the American fleet. In tactics, it is difficult to disagree on the quantitative, sometimes in the qualitative ratio of these fleets. Well, what about strategic, I would ask professionals. If the United States is so strong and greatly surpasses Russia, in particular in the navy, that the United States does not attack Russia :), and even more so did not dare or did not want to in the 90s, when the Russian army was still there: (They are afraid or they don’t need Russia for nothing ? For me, the most important thing for the United States is the profit of SPLIT finance, just to pay for the production of weapons. And then the end is the same for everyone, nuclear winter. And if you compare the 90s and now, is it possible to see the quantitative and qualitative growth of Russian weapons. PS We would have a strong economy, the rest will follow.
  • Dimon Dimonov_2
    Dimon Dimonov_2 4 November 2020 12: 38
    -1
    Arlie Burke is not only a skeleton ... but also the first target for the Khibiny ... after the attack, a third of the crew was written off to the shore.
  • Vitaly Lozovich
    Vitaly Lozovich 6 November 2020 14: 41
    0
    The impression from the reading is most likely not informational, but rather complacently idiotic. The author, it seems, by the end of writing the article obserted from the happiness of his - to write about the US Navy.
  • uralant
    uralant 18 November 2020 16: 07
    0
    The heart of the destroyer's combat systems is the Aegis radar system

    And on our destroyers and BOD, the team was at the heart of the ship. This is the biggest difference between us and them. The greatest military secret, knowing which, they cannot comprehend it. Neither Ushakov nor Nakhimov!
  • ALEXANDER-CRIMEAN MIKHAILOV
    ALEXANDER-CRIMEAN MIKHAILOV 27 November 2020 19: 23
    0
    MIZOYAKI MASTERED TAN WITH CARDBOARD POWER AGAIN!
  • Growlers
    Growlers 30 November 2020 11: 21
    0
    So far, it has not happened with victories. Win more with Hollywood
  • OXOTHuK_TyHYC
    OXOTHuK_TyHYC 1 December 2020 11: 10
    0
    Against the US AUG, we can oppose Tu missile carriers. Which have from 5 to 10 cruise missiles with a range of up to 5000 km.
    Two Carcasses in an hour will sink the aircraft carrier itself and the destroyers. And US submarines, without air support, will not poke in at the range of their CDs.
  • Oleg Salov
    Oleg Salov Yesterday, 00: 28
    0
    Many people paid the price for underestimating the Russians.