Military Review

Air defense efficiency of a promising destroyer. Alternative radar complex

121

1. Introduction. The current state of the defense industry



The state of the air defense reflects the general state of the defense industry and is characterized by one phrase: not to fat, I would live. There is such a confusion in the industry that it remains unclear when we will move from prototypes to serial ones. USC failed the 2011-2020 GPV program. Out of 8 frigates 22350 were built 2. Accordingly, there is no series of air defense systems "Polyment-Redut". If at the time of the laying of the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" in 2006, its radar, borrowed from the S-350 air defense system, at least somehow met the world level, now the radar with a passive phased antenna array (PAR) will not charm anyone and the air defense system will not add competitiveness. "Almaz-Antey" also thwarted the deadlines for the delivery of the air defense system, which delayed the commissioning of "Admiral Gorshkov" by 3-4 years.

General directors of enterprises most often do not understand their field, but they know how to negotiate with the customer. If the military representative signed the act, then nothing else needs to be improved. In competitions, the winner is not the one with the most promising offer, but the one with whom contacts have long been established. If you bring an invention to the CEO, you will hear in response: "Did you bring money for development?" Addressing directly with proposals to the Ministry of Defense also does not bring results, the typical answer is: we are conducting our own developments! Five years have passed, and the proposals remain unfulfilled. This article is devoted to one of such proposals of the author, sent in 2014 to the Moscow Region.

The prestige of the company does not play a role for its management: it is important to get a government order. Engineers' earnings are low. Even if young specialists come, they leave after gaining practical experience.

It is impossible to compare the quality of Russian weapons and competing foreign ones: everything is secret, and there is no serious war that would show who is who, thank God. Syria does not give an answer either - the enemy has no air defense. But Turkish drones are causing concern - how can we answer? The author cannot answer how to assemble a swarm of UAVs for a penny in a toy store - they did not teach. But if our defense industry gets down to business, then the cost will increase by orders of magnitude. Therefore, further it remains only to talk about the usual topic - about the fight against a serious enemy and how to do it for reasonable money.

When you hear a statement like “this weapons no one else in the world has yet ”, then you start to wonder: why not? Either the whole world has lagged behind our technologies, or no one wants to have this, or it can be useful only in the last war of mankind ...

There is only one thing left - to organize the NKB (People's Design Bureau) and independently speculate on the topic of where the exit is.

2. Forgotten destroyer


Many readers believe that we do not need a destroyer, since it is enough to control an area of ​​about 1000-1500 km from our shores. The author disagrees with this approach. Coastal complexes even without ships can shell a 600-km zone. From what ceiling the numbers 1000-1500 are taken is not clear.

In the Baltic and Black "puddles" and to control the economic zone, such ranges are not required, and destroyers are all the more unnecessary - there are enough corvettes. If necessary, also aviation will help. But in the Atlantic or in the Pacific Ocean, you can meet with AUG, and with IBM, and not only with American ones. Then you cannot do without a full-fledged KUG. In such tasks, the air defense of the frigate, even the "Admiral Gorshkov", may not be enough - you need a destroyer.

The cost of an unequipped ship is usually around 25% of its total cost. Therefore, the cost of a frigate (4500 tons) and a destroyer (9000 tons) with the same equipment will differ by only 10-15%. The effectiveness of the AA defense, the cruising range and the comfort for the crew make the destroyer's advantages obvious. In addition, the destroyer can solve the missile defense mission, which cannot be assigned to the frigate.

The destroyer should play the role of the KUG flagship. All of its combat systems must be of a higher class than the rest of the ships in the group. These ships should play the role of external information support systems and mutual protection. During an air attack, a destroyer must take over the main number of attacking anti-ship missiles and destroy anti-ship missiles in most cases with the help of a highly effective short-range air defense system (MD). The destroyer's electronic countermeasures complex (KREP) must be powerful enough to cover the rest of the ships with noise interference, and they must cover the destroyer with their less powerful KREP using imitation jamming.

2.1. RLC destroyers "Leader" and "Arleigh Burke"


Old people still remember that there was a "golden age" in Russia (2007), when we could boldly afford not only to build a destroyer, but at least to design it. Now the dust has covered this point of the GPV. In those "ancient" times, the destroyer of the "Leader" project, by analogy with "Arleigh Burke", had to solve the problems of missile defense.

The destroyer developer decided to install on it 3 conventional MF radars (surveillance, guidance and MD SAM) and use a separate radar with a large antenna for missile defense. To save money, we decided to use one rotary active PAR (AFAR). This AFAR was installed behind the main superstructure, that is, it could not radiate in the direction of the ship's bow. Then they added a radar for adjusting artillery fire. We can only be glad that such a freak RLC never appeared.

The ideology of the Aegis air defense missile system for the US destroyers is based on the fact that the main role is played by a powerful multifunctional (MF) 10-cm range radar, which can simultaneously detect new targets, accompany previously detected ones and develop commands to control the missile defense system on the cruising section of guidance. To illuminate the target at the homing stage of the missile defense system, a high-precision 3-cm range radar is used, which ensures the secrecy of guidance. The backlight allows the missile defense system to either not turn on the radar homing head (RGSN) for radiation at all, or turn it on for the last couple of seconds of guidance, when the target can no longer evade.

2.2. Alternative Destroyer Tasks


Folk Wisdom:

- when you dream, do not deny yourself anything;
- try to do well, it will turn out badly.

Since we have an alternative destroyer, let's call it "Leader-A".

It is necessary to explain to the management what such an expensive toy as a destroyer can do. One task of escorting KUGs will not convince anyone, it is required to perform the functions of supporting the landing of the landing and missile defense. Let the specialists write about the submarines. The destroyer Zamvolt can be taken as a basis, but the displacement is limited to ten thousand tons. The argument that we do not have such an engine can be ignored. If you can't make your own, buy from the Chinese, we won't build that many destroyers. The equipment will have to develop its own.

Suppose that the landing can be carried out only outside the fortified areas of the enemy, but he will be able to quickly transfer some light reinforcements (at the level of 76-100 mm cannons). The destroyer will be required to carry out artillery preparation along the bridgehead using tens to hundreds of shells.

The US Department of Defense reportedly considered the Zamvolta cannon's active-rocket projectiles with a range of 110 km to be too expensive and approaching the price of missiles. Therefore, we will demand that Leader-A be able to carry out artillery preparation with conventional shells, but from a safe range, depending on the situation, up to 15-18 km. The radar of the destroyer must determine the coordinates of the point of fire of the enemy's large-caliber artillery, and the unmanned aerial vehicle must correct the firing. The tasks of ensuring the air defense of the KUG were described in second article in the series, and ABM will be described in this article below.

3. State of the radar of Russian ships


The radar of our typical ship contains several radars. Surveillance radar with a rotating antenna located on the top. Guidance radar with one rotating (S-300f) or four fixed passive HEADLIGHTS (S-350). For the MD air defense system, they usually use their own radars with small antennas of the millimeter wavelength range (SAM "Kortik", "Pantsir-M"). The presence of a small antenna next to a large one reminds history with the famous theoretical physicist Fermi. He had a cat. So that she could freely go out into the garden, he cut a hole in the door. When the cat had a kitten, Fermi cut a small one next to the big hole.

The disadvantage of rotating antennas is the presence of a heavy and expensive mechanical drive, a decrease in the detection range and an increase in the total effective reflective surface (EOC) of the ship, which is already increased.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to achieve a unified ideology in Russia. Various firms strictly monitor the retention of their share of government orders. Some decades have been developing surveillance radars, others - guidance radars. In this situation, instructing someone to develop the MF radar means taking away a piece of bread from another.

A description of the SAM systems for destroyers, frigates and corvettes is given in one of the author's previous articles: "The missile defense has been broken, but what is left for our fleet?" From the material it follows that only the Admiral Gorshkov's Polyment-Redut can somehow be compared with the Aegis air defense system, if, of course, one accepts the half of the ammunition load and the firing range. The use on other ships in the 21st century of the Shtil-1 type air defense system is an open shame of our fleet... They do not have a guidance radar, but there is a target illumination station. The RGSN SAM must, before the start, capture the illuminated target itself. This method of guidance significantly reduces the launch range, especially in interference, and sometimes leads to re-targeting the missile defense system to other, larger targets. A civilian liner may also be caught.

The ships of the corvette and smaller class are especially poorly provided. They also have surveillance radars that are detected by conventional fighter-bombers (IB) at ranges of only 100-150 km, and you may not get 35 from the F-50. There may not be any radar guidance at all, but infrared or optics are used.

The cost of the Aegis air defense system is estimated at $ 300 million, which is close to the price of our frigate. Of course, we will not be able to compete with the Americans for money. We'll have to take ingenuity.

4. An alternative concept of radar ships


In microelectronics production technology, we will lag behind the United States for a long time. Therefore, it is possible to catch up with them only due to more advanced algorithms that will work with simpler equipment. Our programmers are not inferior to anyone, and are much cheaper than American ones.

Follow these steps:

• to abandon the development of separate radars for each separate task and make the most of the MF radar;
• select a single frequency range for the MF radar of all ships of the 1st and 2nd classes;
• abandon the use of outdated passive PAA and switch to AFAR;
• develop a unified series of AFARs, differing only in size;
• to develop the technology of group actions in the air defense of the KUG, for which to organize joint scanning of space and joint processing of received signals and interference;
• organize a high-speed covert communication line between the ships of the group, capable of not violating the radio silence;
• to abandon the use of "headless" MD missiles and develop a simple infrared homing head (GOS);
• to develop a transmission line of the signal received by the RGSN ZUR BD to the shipborne MF radar.

5. Radar complex of the alternative destroyer "Leader-A"


The value of the destroyer is also increasing due to the fact that only it can protect against ballistic missiles (BR) and KUG and objects located at a great distance (apparently, up to 20-30 km). The missile defense mission is so complex that it requires the installation of a separate missile defense radar, optimized for the task of ultra-long-range detection of subtle targets. At the same time, it is absolutely impossible to demand from her to solve most of the air defense tasks that should remain with the MF radar.

5.1. Justification of the appearance of the missile defense radar (special point for those interested)


The BR has a small image intensifier tube (0,1-0,2 sq. M), and it must be detected at ranges of up to 1000 km. It is impossible to solve this problem without an antenna with an area of ​​several tens of square meters.

If you do not go into such subtleties of radar as taking into account the attenuation of radio waves in meteorological formations, then the detection range of the radar is determined only by the product of the average radiated power of the transmitter and the area of ​​the antenna that receives the echo signal reflected from the target. The antenna in the form of a HEADLIGHT allows you to instantly transfer the radar beam from one angular position to another. HEADLIGHT is a flat area filled with elementary emitters, which are spaced with a step equal to half the radar wavelength.

PAR are of two types: passive and active. Until 2000, PFARs were used in the world. In this case, the radar has one powerful transmitter, the power of which is supplied to the radiators through passive phase shifters. The disadvantage of such radars is their low reliability. A powerful transmitter can only be made on vacuum tubes, which require a high voltage power supply, which leads to failures. The weight of the transmitter can be up to several tons.

In AFAR, each emitter is connected to its own transceiver module (PPM). PPM emits power hundreds and thousands of times less than a powerful transmitter, and can be made on transistors. As a result, AFAR is ten times more reliable. In addition, PFAR can emit and receive only one beam, and AFAR can form several beams at reception. Thus, the AFAR significantly improves noise immunity, since a separate beam can be directed to each jammer and this interference can be suppressed.

Unfortunately, Russian air defense systems still use PFAR, only the S-500 will have an AFAR, but for our destroyer AFAR we will demand it right away.

5.2. AFAR PRO design (special point for those interested)


Another advantage of the destroyer is the ability to accommodate a large superstructure on it. To reduce the radiated power, the author decided to increase the AFAR area to about 90 square meters. m, that is, the dimensions of the AFAR are chosen as follows: width 8,4 m, height 11,2 m. The AFAR should be located in the upper part of the superstructure, the height of which should be 23-25 ​​m.

The cost of AFAR is determined by the price of the MRP kit. The total number of PPMs is determined by the step of their installation, which is equal to 0,5 * λ, where λ is the radar wavelength. Then the number of PPM is determined by the formula N PPM = 4 * S / λ ** 2, where S is the AFAR area. Therefore, the number of PPMs is inversely proportional to the square of the wavelength. Taking into account the fact that the cost of a typical PPM weakly depends on the wavelength, we find that the price of the AFAR is also inversely proportional to the square of the wavelength. We will assume that with a small batch size, the price of one AFAR PRO APM will be $ 2000.

Of the wavelengths allowed for radar, two are suitable for missile defense: 23 cm and 70 cm. If you select the 23 cm range, then 7000 PPMs are required for one AFAR. Taking into account that AFAR must be installed on each of the 4 faces of the superstructure, we get the total number of antipersonnel mines - 28000. The total cost of a set of antipersonnel mines for one destroyer is 56 million dollars. The price is too high for the Russian budget.

In the range of 70 cm, the total number of PPMs will decrease to 3000, the price of the kit will drop to $ 6 million, which is quite a bit for such a powerful radar. It is difficult to estimate the final cost of the missile defense radar now, but the cost estimate of $ 12-15 million will not be surpassed.

5.3. MF radar design for air defense missions (special point for those interested)


Unlike missile defense radar, MF radar is optimized to obtain maximum accuracy in measuring the target trajectory, especially low-altitude anti-ship missiles, and not to achieve maximum detection range. Therefore, in the MF radar, it is necessary to significantly improve the accuracy of measuring angles. Under typical conditions of target tracking, the angular error is usually 0,1 of the radar beam width, which can be determined by the formula:
α = λ / L, where:
α is the antenna beamwidth, expressed in radians;
L is the vertical or horizontal length of the antenna, respectively.

For AFAR about we get the width of the beam vertically 364 °, and the horizon - 4,8 °. Such a beam width will not provide the desired accuracy of missile guidance. In the second article of the series, it was indicated that to detect low-altitude anti-ship missiles, it is required to have a vertical beam width of no more than 0,5 °, and for this the antenna height should be about 120 λ. With a wavelength of 70 cm, it is not possible to provide an antenna height of 84 m. Therefore, the MF radar should operate at much shorter wavelengths, but there is one more limitation here: the shorter the wavelength, the more the radio waves attenuate in meteorological formations. Too small λ cannot be chosen. Otherwise, for a given beam width, the antenna area will be too reduced, and with it the detection range. Therefore, for ships of all classes, a single MF radar wavelength was chosen - 5,5 cm.

5.4. MF radar design (special item for those interested)


AFAR is usually manufactured in the form of a rectangular matrix, consisting of N rows and M columns of MRP. With a given APAR height of 120λ and a PPM installation step of 0,5λ, the column will contain 240 PPMs. It is absolutely unrealistic to make a square AFAR 240 * 240 PPM, since almost 60 thousand PPM will be required for one AFAR. Even if we allow a threefold decrease in the number of columns, that is, allow the beam to expand horizontally up to 1,5 °, then 20 thousand PPMs will be required.Of course, such PPM power as for a missile defense radar is not required here and the price of one PPM will decrease to $ 1000 , but the cost price of PPM 4 AFAR set of $ 80 million is also unacceptable.

To further reduce the cost, we propose instead of one more or less square antenna to use two in the form of narrow strips: one horizontal and one vertical. If a conventional antenna simultaneously determines both the azimuth and elevation of the target, then the strip can only determine the angle in its plane with good accuracy. For MF radar, the task of detecting low-altitude anti-ship missiles is a priority, then the vertical beam should be narrower than the horizon. Let's choose the height of the vertical strip 120λ, and the width of the horizontal one - 60λ, along the second coordinate the size of both strips will be set to 8λ. then the dimensions of the vertical strip will turn out to be 0,44 * 6,6 m, and the horizontal one 3,3 * 0,44 m. Further, we note that it is enough to use only one of the strips to irradiate the target. Let's choose horizontal. On reception, both strips MUST work simultaneously. With the indicated dimensions, the beam width of the horizontal stripe in azimuth and elevation will be 1 * 7,2 °, and the vertical one - 7,2 * 0,5 °. Since the signal from the target is received by both strips simultaneously, the accuracy of measuring the angles will be the same as for one antenna with a beam width of 1 * 0,5 °.

In the process of target detection, it is impossible to say in advance at what point of the irradiating beam the target will be. Therefore, the entire height of the irradiating beam of 7,2 ° must be covered by the receiving beams of the vertical strip, the height of which is 0,5 °. Therefore, it will be necessary to form a fan of 16 beams spaced vertically by 0,5 °. AFAR, in contrast to PFAR, can form such a fan of rays for reception.

Let's determine the price of AFAR. The horizontal strip contains 2000 PPMs at a price of $ 1000, and the vertical strip contains 4000 purely receiving modules at a price of $ 750.Then the price of the kit for all 4 sides of the superstructure will turn out to be equal to $ 20 million. Doll.

Air defense efficiency of a promising destroyer. Alternative radar complex

Figure: 1. The layout of the AFAR on the verge of the superstructure

1 - AFAR PRO radar 8,4 * 11,2m (width * height). Beam 4,8 * 3,6 ° (azimuth * elevation);
2 - horizontal AFAR MF radar 3,3 * 0,44 m. Beam 1 * 7,2 °;
3 - vertical AFAR MF radar 0,44 * 6,6 m. Beam 7,2 * 0,5 °.

The final resolution in angle, formed by the intersection of the beams of two AFAR MF radar, = 1 * 0,5 °.
In one of the upper corner cutouts of the missile defense radar antenna there is free space where it is supposed to place the radio intelligence antennas. The antennas of the REB transmitters can be located in other cutouts.

6. Features of the functioning of the missile defense radar and MF radar


The task of detecting a BR is divided into two cases: detecting by an existing control center and detecting in a wide search sector. If the satellites recorded the launch of the BR and the direction of its flight, then in a small search sector, for example, 10 * 10 °, the detection range of the head part (RH) of a BR with an image intensifier is 0,1 sq. m increases by 1,5-1,7 times compared to the search without control center in the 100 * 10 ° sector. The problem of the control center is somewhat eased if a detachable warhead is used in the BR. then the BR housing with an image intensifier is about 2 sq. m flies somewhere behind the warhead. If the radar first detects the hull, then, looking through this direction, it will detect the warhead for a long time.

The missile defense radar can be used to increase the efficiency of the MF radar, since the use of the 70-cm range gives the missile defense radar a number of advantages over conventional surveillance radars:
- the maximum permissible power of the PPM transmitter turns out to be many times higher than that of the PPM of shorter wavelength ranges. This makes it possible to drastically reduce the number of PPMs and the cost of APAR without losing the total radiated power;
- the unique antenna area allows the proposed radar to have a detection range that is much greater than even that of the Aegis MF radar;
- in the range of 70 cm, the radio-absorbing coatings on stealth aircraft almost cease to function, and their image intensifier intensifies almost to the values ​​typical for conventional aircraft;
- most enemy aircraft do not have this range in their CREPs and will not be able to interfere with the missile defense radar;
- radio waves of this range are not attenuated in meteorological formations.

Thus, the detection range of any real aerial target will exceed 500 km, of course, if the target comes out over the horizon. When the target approaches the firing range, it is transmitted to a more accurate tracking in the MF radar. At ranges of at least 200 km, an important advantage of combining two radars into one radar is increased reliability. One radar can perform the functions of another, albeit with some degradation in performance. Therefore, failure of one of the radars does not lead to complete failure of the radar.

7. The final characteristics of the radar


7.1. List of tasks for an alternative radar


The missile defense radar should detect and preliminarily accompany: the warheads of the ballistic missile; hypersonic anti-ship missiles immediately after leaving the horizon; air targets of all classes, including stealth, except for low-altitude targets.

The missile defense radar should interfere with the radar of the Hokkai AWACS aircraft.

MF radar detects and accurately tracks: air targets of all types, including low-altitude anti-ship missiles; enemy ships, including those beyond the horizon and visible only along the upper part of the superstructure; submarine periscopes; measures the trajectory of enemy shells in order to determine the probability of a shell hitting a destroyer; measures the caliber of the projectile and the organization of anti-cannon fire at large calibers; gives advance warning, 15-20 seconds in advance, to the crew about the numbers of compartments that are in danger of being hit.

In addition, the MF radar should: direct missiles; receive signals from jammers both independently and relayed by missile defense systems; correct the firing of your own guns at radio-contrast targets; carry out high-speed information transfer from ship to ship up to the horizon range; carry out covert transmission of information with the announced radio silence mode; to organize an anti-jamming communication line with the UAV.

7.2. The main technical characteristics of the radar


Radar missile defense:

The wavelength range is 70 cm.
The number of PPMs in one AFAR is 752.
Pulse power of one PPM - 400 W.
Power consumption of one AFAR is 200 kW.
The detection range of the BR hull with RCS 2 sq. m without control center in the search sector 90 ° × 10 ° 1600 km. The detection range of a warhead ballistic missile with an RCS of 0,1 mv without a control center in the search sector 90 ° × 45 ° is 570 km. If there is a control center and a detection sector of 10 * 10 ° - 1200 km.
The detection range of the Stealth aircraft with an RCS of 0,5 sq m, flight altitudes up to 20 km and an azimuth search sector of 90 ° in air defense mode is 570 km (radio horizon).

Angle measurement error in both coordinates: at a distance equal to the detection range - with a single measurement - 0,5 °; when accompanied - 0,2 °; at a range equal to 0,5 detection range - with a single measurement - 0,0,15 °; when accompanied - 0,1 °. The error in measuring the bearings of the Stealth aircraft with an RCS of 0,5 sq. m at a maximum firing range of 150 km - 0,08 °.

MF radar characteristics:
The wavelength range is 5,5 cm.
The number of PPM horizontal AFAR - 1920.
Pulse power of PPM - 15 W.
The number of receiving modules in the vertical AFAR is 3840.
Power consumption of four AFAR - 24 kW.
The azimuth measurement error when adjusting artillery fire at a radio contrast target at a distance of 20 km is 0,05 °.
Detection range of a fighter with EPR 5 sq. m in the azimuth sector 90 ° - 430 km.
Detection range of the Stealth aircraft with RCS 0,1 sq. m without control center - 200 km.
The detection range of the ballistic missile head by the control center in the angular sector 10 ° × 10 ° is 300 km.
The detection range of a projectile with a caliber of over 100 mm in an angular sector of 50 ° × 20 ° is 50 km.
The minimum height of a detectable anti-ship missile at a distance of 30 km / 20 km is no more than 8 m / 1 m.
The fluctuation error in measuring the azimuth of an anti-ship missile flying at an altitude of 5 m at a distance of 10 km is 0,1 mrad.
The fluctuation error in measuring the azimuth and PA of a projectile with an RCS of 0,002 m2, at a distance of 2 km - 0,05 mrad.
The peak speed of receiving and transmitting information on the UAV is 800 Mbit / s.
The average speed of receiving and transmitting information is 40 Mbit / s.
The speed of transmission from ship to ship in stealth mode with "radio silence" is 5 Mbps.

8. findings


The proposed radar is far superior to the radar of Russian ships and the Aegis radar, while maintaining a reasonable cost.

The use of a 70 cm wavelength range in the missile defense radar made it possible to provide an ultra-long detection range for targets of all types, including stealth, both in missile defense and air defense modes. Noise immunity is guaranteed by the absence of this KREP range in the enemy's IS.

The narrow beam of the MF radar makes it possible to successfully detect and track both low-altitude anti-ship missiles and projectiles. This allows the destroyer to approach the coast at a line-of-sight distance and support the landing.

The use of AFAR MF radar to organize communications between ships allows all types of high-speed communications, including covert communications, to be provided. Noise-immune communication with the UAV is provided.

If the Ministry of Defense listened to such proposals, such a radar would already be ready.

The next article is supposed to consider the creation of a small aircraft carrier with an air wing in the form of a sixth-generation UAV.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The effectiveness of the air defense of an aircraft carrier strike group. Is a breakthrough possible?
The effectiveness of the air defense of the naval strike group
The problem of increasing the effectiveness of air defense. AA defense of a single ship
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 23 October 2020 18: 22
    -2
    As I understand it, Japan is planning to build something like a RLC.
    Japan has notified the United States of plans to build special ships designed exclusively to combat ICBMs. These ships will replace the American ground complexes Aegis Ashore and will be much cheaper than ships with Aegis systems. Also, the construction of ships and their placement does not require permission from local authorities, as happened with the American complexes.

    https://topwar.ru/174928-japonija-postroit-korabli-dlja-zaschity-ot-ballisticheskih-raket.html

    The next article is supposed to consider the creation of a small aircraft carrier with an air wing in the form of a sixth-generation UAV.

    A very interesting topic. Given the successes in UAVs, a small aircraft carrier with a purely unmanned or combined wing is asking for it.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 October 2020 18: 41
      -10 qualifying.
      no matter what "turbidity" they overtook, in the end our destroyers still don't remember ... in the ranks since '85 (956 sarychs) ... all the same in Ope, for everything. why the hell should we wash rotting bones? buzz ??? Let's talk better than "Leader", eh, Author? well, what is surfing the vastness of the Bolshoi Theater (the lifespan, we will compare with the USA), why should the commodity system, (I will not mention the last name) discuss the land of unsuccessful American women, and what we don’t have yet? money for an article cut down? Admins IN you-a puncture, right now you have to put nonsense to filter all the dregs, ... dial "modders", I am the ogel of the authorities, I don't count.
      1. Oleg123219307
        Oleg123219307 23 October 2020 22: 35
        0
        I've read it all, even analyzed it. Well written, competently. But why? And in two senses. Why do we need this ship, and why did you write this? By the way, by asking questions, I do not mean that the ship is not needed and there will be no sense from the article. It's just that I'm really interested in the opinion of the author and the participants in the conversation. I'll start with the second part of the question. Is there even a ghostly chance that the General Staff is reading us here? That you described the reasons for bablopil suddenly resolve themselves even if someone from there reads it? Or will we all just feel what could have been if? As in that joke about the bear - well, I heard, did you feel better? I do not argue that the article is cool. But in my opinion, no offense to the author, her place is more likely on the fantlab. chances are zero. Now for the first part of the question. This already applies rather to everyone involved in the discussion. Why do we need such a ship? For conventional war? With whom? Why exactly this? For nuclear? Again, why? We can destroy them 7 times, they have 10. We will do everything in beauty, with the army and the navy it will be the other way around. The question is - who will feel better? I don’t know how anyone, but for some reason it seems to me that the role of the fleet in modern warfare is rapidly falling, in proportion to the increase in the range and accuracy of weapons. What is the advantage of such a ship in a global war over those 6 ICBM regiments and 3 air defense / missile defense regiments that can be built with this money? Given that the range of the weapon already allows you to fire at the other from one pole? In general, I do not understand where this can really come in handy, enlighten if I took something into account. And to be honest, why? Resources? I myself periodically defend this point of view. But if you think about it - this is yesterday. The metal intensity of production is rapidly decreasing, recycling is developing, the oil economy is already on the verge of collapse - it is simply gradually becoming unprofitable, nuclear, and tomorrow thermonuclear energy ... Does any of the mighty of this world need that third world? Or just her shadow? Not to mention that we are on the cusp of the Singularity. Let me philosophize for a minute. After all, if we don't start a war today, tomorrow we have interesting prospects ... 30-40 years, and a bunch of Von Neumann replicators, molecular technology and clatronics will destroy humanity in its present form. Why will we live as before, if we get bodies made not of meat, living as long as we want, able to simply grow any objects from any particle of their own, from a toothpick to a starship, there would be a program, material and heat, and in the future they receive energy from where do you want? You can, of course, remember about religion, and say that replacing your cells with machines is not life, but it is today. When people have a choice - faith or immortality and almost omnipotence, it seems that faith will become more flexible ... And many understand that this will ultimately be the case. So will there be that war for which we all want this?
        1. Alien From
          Alien From 24 October 2020 23: 33
          +1
          Wow dear, the end of your comment is strong hi
        2. bayard
          bayard 25 October 2020 23: 11
          0
          Quote: oleg123219307
          I've read it all, even analyzed it. Well written, competently. But why? And in two senses. Why do we need this ship, and why did you write this?

          Are you offering to surrender?
          Or not at all to think about the country's defense capability, in anticipation of "new bodies and new abilities"? lol
          Right amused ...
          The author gave the answer to "why do we need this ship" and justified it quite convincingly. Then there was some flight of fantasy in the style of "if you fantasize, then do not deny yourself anything" ... and he did it quite well, too.
          Considered a combined radar for a ship of the first rank - destroyer / cruiser. With a displacement of at least 10 tons. Quite a rational proposal for long-term plans for the construction of the future fleet.
          Is modern Russia capable of building such ships?
          If we consider the medium-term perspective of the development of domestic shipbuilding, then it is. Scientific and technical groundwork allows, technical competence, in principle, is being improved. If the S-500s with AFAR begin to enter service (in the short term), then why shouldn't such AFAR be foreseen on future cruisers / destroyers (the division of these concepts is very conditional).
          The stock of good ideas is not enough for the headquarters.
          Quote: oleg123219307
          Is there even a ghostly chance that the General Staff is reading us here?

          There is, and I think that this chance is not at all illusory.
          And all the talk about the "need-unnecessary" Russian Navy is from the Evil One. Without a balanced Navy, the country's defense capability cannot be built - it will not work in principle. And this question has also been crushed hundreds of times on the forums of our site.
          And if we cannot do without the Fleet, if we want to remain within the old borders and protect our interests outside them, then we must build it.
          And for the construction of such a complex and multi-level structure like the Navy, long-term planning and theoretical study of all issues and aspects of this complex matter are necessary. This article is just in the piggy bank of the theoretical substantiation of the future appearance of the fleet and the individual components that make up it.
          But the "Fleet is built LONG" and must undergo some evolution in its construction. And evolution is always from a proven "simple" to more and more complex, perfect and ambitious.
          To date, the crown of the domestic military shipbuilding is the frigate 22350. The ship has a very moderate displacement, but has a completely modern set of weapons. It becomes the starting point for the development of programs for the construction of ships in the distant sea and ocean zones.
          The 22350M is its promising enlarged version, which can already be regarded as quite a destroyer (48 cruise missiles in the UKSK, increased 2 - 3 times by the air defense missile system, possibly 2 helicopters instead of one on the Gorshkov). But for this promising ship, the project is not yet ready, and there will probably be delays with the power plant - so far they have just brought to mind and will install the first domestic power plant on the frigate 22350, for the power plant 22350M they have not yet reached their hands. But if they made a reducer for a turbodiesel pair, then for a purely gas turbine power plant it will be even easier to do.
          But the 22350M will use the same radar as the 22350 - Polyment-Redut. And it is right .
          The same RLC, which was discussed in this article, may be useful only for the next project, with a larger VI and more ambitious tasks. But it is better to forget about the atomic "Leader" and never worry about this topic.
          At the same time, when the project of the Leader destroyer was presented, two variants of it were proposed:
          - with NPP and VI 18 t.
          - a destroyer on gas turbines, VI of about 12 tons, 000 cruise missiles in the UKSK, a powerful radar capable of directing heavy long-range missiles (sea version of the S-80 or even the promising S-400).
          Such a destroyer / cruiser has quite a chance of being implemented, after the successful launch of the 22350M frigate-destroyer into the series, as the next step in the evolution of the Navy.
          The power plant of such a ship can be performed on four gas turbines M-90FR / FRU. A capacity of 110 l / s for a VI ship of 000 - 12 tons will be quite enough, and this turbine is already quite serial. It's just a new gearbox.

          Quote: oleg123219307
          For nuclear? Again, why? We can destroy them 7 times, they have 10 of us

          Well, where do you get these numbers from?
          What are 7 (SEVEN)?
          What 10 (TEN !!!) times?
          This could be said when the USSR and the United States had about 50 nuclear warheads in service, and the bulk of their arsenals were precisely heavy and SUPER-HEAVY warheads. On ICBMs of a heavy class - "Titan-000", MX, R-2, UR-36, R-100, R-14, thermonuclear bombs in tens of megatons on strategic bombers ... Then even on anti-ship missiles nuclear warheads were up to 12 kt. and even up to 500 Mt ... Not to mention bottom sea bombs of 1 or more Mt.
          All this has long been absent from nature.
          Each of the two sides has 1500 nuclear warheads on strategic carriers, with a capacity of no more than 500 kt. And the trend is towards ever greater minimization of the power of warheads.
          So there is no talk of any total consequences for humanity. Causing unacceptable damage, destroying up to 70% of the economic potential and up to 30 - 50% of the population of the COUNTRIES OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT.
          And a change of leadership in the world.
          This is what the modern nuclear capabilities of the United States and Russia are capable of.
          Moreover, the United States, to a lesser extent, due to the degradation of its nuclear potential - the achievement of the deadlines for the guaranteed storage of nuclear weapons (30 years for the most advanced of them). The United States currently has NO production capacity to upgrade its nuclear arsenal. request
          This is the harsh reality.
          1. Oleg123219307
            Oleg123219307 26 October 2020 12: 56
            0
            Quote: bayard
            Are you offering to surrender?

            No. Respond asymmetrically to threats. We will not be able to compete with them in quantity, the budgets are incomparable.
            Quote: bayard
            Or not at all to think about the country's defense capability, in anticipation of "new bodies and new abilities"?

            It does not interfere.
            Quote: bayard
            The author gave the answer to "why do we need this ship"

            And yet - enlighten me. For I do not understand what is the use of him. From a series of 30-50 pieces, in defiance of berks, I would understand, but so ...
            Quote: bayard
            Is modern Russia capable of building such ships?

            I am capable, I have no doubt. 2, farting and straining 3 pieces in 10-15 years. So that is all. There is simply no money for more, no factories of the appropriate size.
            Quote: bayard
            The stock of good ideas is not enough for the headquarters.

            Here on VO ideas - take 3 Washington. But in fact there is no money ...
            Quote: bayard
            There is, and I think that this chance is not at all illusory.

            Oh well...
            Quote: bayard
            And all the talk about whether the Russian Fleet is "needed or unnecessary" is from the Evil One

            Not sure. There is no money to support something comparable to the US Navy, but what is there can only somehow ensure the combat stability of SSBNs before launches, but do little things like Syria and that's it. There is no network of bases, there is no transport fleet, there are no aircraft carriers and the competencies for their use, there are no 50-70 frigates and at least a couple of dozen heavy cruisers / destroyers, what in this form can the fleet against the United States? Die with honor, even taking with you three times as many enemy ships due to superiority in missiles? And what does this give us when the ratio in heavy ships is 1 to 7? And they are increasing ...
            Quote: bayard
            And this question has also been crushed hundreds of times on the forums of our site.
            And if we cannot do without the Fleet, if we want to remain within the old borders and protect our interests outside them, then we must build it.

            Why? They rub, they rub, but everything does not reach me. All ultimately appeal to the concepts of limited conflict. But no one except the United States is dangerous to us in such a conflict, and with the states it simply will not be. No one will risk, and if they do, they will immediately risk a nuclear club.
            Quote: bayard
            To date, the crown of the domestic military shipbuilding is the frigate 22350

            This phrase and the next half of the page - have you re-read Damantsev? A bunch of well-known figures about frigates. Frigates are inferior to berks in all respects, the class is not the same, and even how many of them were built then? And how should they help us in a real war? How will the nuclear submarine help, I still understand, but what about these? Or are we going to fight someone like India or Great Britain by establishing naval blockades?
            Quote: bayard
            Well, where do you get these numbers from?
            What are 7 (SEVEN)?
            What 10 (TEN !!!) times?
            This could be said when the USSR and the United States had about 50 nuclear warheads in service, and the bulk of their arsenals were precisely heavy and SUPER-HEAVY warheads. On ICBMs of a heavy class - "Titan-000", MX, R-2, UR-36, R-100, R-14, thermonuclear bombs in tens of megatons on strategic bombers ... Then even on anti-ship missiles nuclear warheads were up to 12 kt. and even up to 500 Mt ... Not to mention bottom sea bombs of 1 or more Mt.
            All this has long been absent from nature.
            Each of the two sides has 1500 nuclear warheads on strategic carriers, with a capacity of no more than 500 kt. And the trend is towards ever greater minimization of the power of warheads.

            The trend towards minimization is associated solely with a decrease in CVR. So it won't get better. We each have 8 STRATEGIC warheads, and about 15 to 45 tactical ones. And 20KT is also not a joke if the goal is a city of 30 thousand. Compare the total figures with the number of industrial centers and more or less large settlements, and you will get the same results.
            Quote: bayard
            So there is no talk of any total consequences for humanity.

            Yes Yes. It would never occur to anyone to hit a nuclear power plant in order to deprive the enemy of the energy system. And for chemical plants. And along the dams. There will be no forest fires on half the planet. It is not tied to four main players, which will not be at all, the entire economy and production ... Nonsense you are talking about the absence of consequences. God forbid the American General Staff did not start to reason like that.
            Quote: bayard
            The United States currently has NO production capacity to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.

            A nuclear bomb, who would not say what, is a simple thing. And the states had plutonium heaps 3 times. They don't charge because they don't want to yet. But unlike us, they did not burn plutonium ... So I would not count.
            1. bayard
              bayard 26 October 2020 17: 03
              0
              Quote: oleg123219307
              bayard
              Are you offering to surrender?

              No. Respond asymmetrically to threats. We will not be able to compete with them in quantity, the budgets are incomparable.

              The asymmetric answer is our everything, perhaps that's why you strive so hard to fulfill Gref's behest - "save the planet - die voluntarily" ... lol
              Quote: oleg123219307
              It does not interfere.

              yes

              Quote: oleg123219307
              And yet - enlighten me. For I do not understand what is the use of him. From a series of 30-50 pieces, in defiance of berks, I would understand, but so ...

              Eco brings you - then move into other bodies, then give 30 - 50 missile cruisers ...
              But what about the asymmetry?
              If the need arises / realizes the need for such a ship - a heavy rocket ship, then we will need about 6 of them. - three for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet. There are also 6 frigate destroyers 22350M and 4 - 6 frigates 22350. Up to a dozen corvettes for each (already ordered for the Pacific Fleet). Dozen diesel-electric submarines for both and Naval Aviation - strike, reconnaissance, patrol, fighter.
              And no frills, to pull such plans.
              Where are you going to send half of hundreds of heavy missile cruisers ... I find it difficult to imagine.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              bayard
              Is modern Russia capable of building such ships?

              I am capable, I have no doubt. 2, farting and straining 3 pieces in 10-15 years. So that is all. There is simply no money for more, no factories of the appropriate size.

              Oh really ?
              Over the past 10 years, 10 diesel-electric submarines, 5 frigates ... and if it were not for force majeure with the supply of power plant, then today they would have up to 15 new frigates - from the calculation:
              - 6 pcs. 11356 on the Black Sea Fleet
              - 6 pcs. 11356 at the Pacific Fleet (due to delays in the delivery of 22350 for the air defense missile system, a decision could have been made to build 6 frigates for the Pacific Fleet, similar to the Black Sea ones), with a deadline for the completion of each one, on average, 3,5 years.
              - at least 4 frigates 22350 would be already in service.
              Our military shipbuilders carry out the mastered projects in a decent time frame for themselves. The export and delivery to the Burevestnikov Black Sea Fleet proved this.
              And the capacities in Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg make it possible to simultaneously build 4 - 6 VI buildings up to 8 tons. They have not lost their competence on export orders since the 000s.
              Now the issues with the power plant for 22350 can be considered resolved and the ships began to lay in 2 pieces. in year .
              Quote: oleg123219307
              There is no money to maintain something comparable to the state fleet,

              Why should we compete with them in numbers?
              You are for asymmetry. lol
              Reasonable sufficiency and balance of the forces of the fleet, coastal missile systems and naval aviation.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              There is no network of bases, there is no transport fleet, there are no aircraft carriers and the competencies for their use, there are no 50-70 frigates and at least a couple of dozen heavy cruisers / destroyers, what in this form can the fleet against the United States?

              Wow, what requests do you have.
              But the US is not the only one with a headache. There are still a lot of people they have to "frighten and restrain".
              And for us, not only the United States is a headache.
              Take Japan ...
              She, too, a nuclear club, if they climb the islands?
              And on the northern islands, American bases are poked like mud ...
              Well, how can you do without a fleet that must threaten and contain?
              Even excluding the United States.
              And even one such cruiser / destroyer with "Zircon" or "Onyx" on board - will be able to. Or a couple of 22350M ...
              Simply by the fact of its presence in the bases of Primorye.
              This is what the fleet is for - for discipline.
              yes
              Quote: oleg123219307
              that in this form the fleet can against the United States? Die with honor, even taking with you three times as many enemy ships due to superiority in missiles?

              Good death.
              Steeper than the memorable "Varyag".
              And new songs will be added. yes
              And aviation after such an exchange will have less work.
              A joke with a grain of joke.
              If it comes to war, then we will lay down to victory.
              But in order to build up, it would be necessary to have WHAT.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              bayard
              To date, the crown of the domestic military shipbuilding is the frigate 22350

              This phrase and the next half of the page - have you re-read Damantsev? A bunch of well-known figures about frigates. Frigates are inferior to berks in all respects, the class is not the same, and even how many of them were built then? And how should they help us in a real war? How will the nuclear submarine help, I still understand, but what about these?

              Young man, Damantsev is too young and ignorant for me to get carried away with his work. I myself can do much better and more interesting ...
              How will you, young man, protect the nuclear submarine from the air threat and surface hunters? What is the submerged submerged submerged awareness? About surface and air conditions?
              Who will cover this boat before entering the operational space?
              And why don't you like this project so much?
              Less VI than Burke?
              RLC more modest, shorter anti-aircraft missiles?
              But the strike complex is fully developed - not enough for one "Burke" if you give target designation.
              But with the anti-ship missiles at the “Burks” so far as it is rather weak.
              Till .
              But with us - for now.
              Quite a “Gorshkov” against “Burke” looks.
              And in battle will not yield.
              It costs only 4 - 5 times cheaper. Well, that's just a plus.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              We each have 8 STRATEGIC warheads, and about 15 to 45 tactical ones.

              belay
              More!
              Come on more !!! fellow
              Under the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, we with the United States cannot have more than 1500 warheads on strategic delivery vehicles. Including SLBMs and aviation munitions.
              And with tactical ammunition, the United States is doing very badly - only a few hundred old ones remain in good order, at the limit of the warranty period. Something is on new isotopes, but these are low-power charges and their number is not yet known. To the general public.
              And of course they have a lot of plutonium, but. It is taken from dismantled OLD warheads and is not suitable for making new ones without radiochemical processing. And at the moment there are NO radiochemical facilities in the USA.
              They are trying to do something, but their science and education have degraded so much over the past decades ... that they still have not succeeded. But in the medium term, they will be able to solve this problem. Then it will be tedious to accumulate / process this plutonium and assemble new warheads. In the meantime, everything is sad.

              But their fleet is strong.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              Yes Yes. It would never occur to anyone to hit a nuclear power plant in order to deprive the enemy of the energy system

              So, after all, they have already beaten - both at Chernobyl and Fukushima. NPPs were not the weakest ...
              But life on planet Earth did not die out from that ...
              And there have been forest fires in recent years, and even some - both in the taiga and in the USA ...
              Of course it will be bad for everyone.
              But not as bad as it would have been 30 years ago.
              Now, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere, the aborigines may not notice ... There and the wind from the Northern Hemisphere does not blow.
              Quote: oleg123219307
              Nonsense you are talking about the absence of consequences. God forbid the American General Staff did not start to reason like that.

              I'm talking to you about the DEGREE of consequences. 70 - 80% of the economy and 30 - 50% of the population is a LOT.
              Lots of .
              And life after that will flow differently.
              But this will not be "the end of everything."
              And someone will even feel better.
              1. Oleg123219307
                Oleg123219307 26 October 2020 19: 21
                0
                Quote: bayard
                The asymmetric answer is our everything, perhaps that's why you strive so hard to fulfill Gref's behest - "save the planet - die voluntarily" ...

                The asymmetric answer is space. The asymmetric answer is to secretly smuggle in and place a couple of three thousand warheads in the states, the hypersound turned out to be asymmetric, the asymmetry will create a laser or beam missile defense. In the end, the asymmetry will be a combat virus that will still be able to isolate and destroy the enemy by genetic markers, although I understand how difficult it is in the current tolerant world. And die voluntarily - this is to the heaps. I like to say it then, from a slightly opposite camp.
                Quote: bayard
                then give 30-50 missile cruisers ...
                But what about the asymmetry?
                Be consistent. Missile cruisers are a symmetrical response. And since it is qualitatively symmetrical, it should be comparable also quantitatively. And you want the cruiser, not me.
                Quote: bayard
                She, too, a nuclear club, if they climb the islands?

                First, kindly ask to leave. Well, so that no more than a hundred CDs arrived. They won't listen - yes, with a club. I am not a supporter of Gorbachev's ideas. Any people who encroached on our land are quite worthy of this.
                Quote: bayard
                Well, how can you do without a fleet that must threaten and contain?
                Even excluding the United States.
                And even one such cruiser / destroyer with "Zircon" or "Onyx" on board - will be able to. Or a couple of 22350M ...
                Simply by the fact of its presence in the bases of Primorye.
                This is what the fleet is for - for discipline.

                Well, or not to play more stupid things like the INF Treaty. And then any base can, even from the Urals. Easier, cheaper.
                Quote: bayard
                But in order to build up, it would be necessary to have WHAT.

                And isn't it better to have 2 SSBNs for these grandmothers?
                Quote: bayard
                Oh really ?
                Over the past 10 years, 10 diesel-electric submarines, 5 frigates ... and if it were not for force majeure with the supply of power plant, then today they would have up to 15 new frigates - from the calculation:
                - 6 pcs. 11356 on the Black Sea Fleet
                - 6 pcs. 11356 at the Pacific Fleet (due to delays in the delivery of 22350 for the air defense missile system, a decision could have been made to build 6 frigates for the Pacific Fleet, similar to the Black Sea ones), with a deadline for the completion of each one, on average, 3,5 years.
                - at least 4 frigates 22350 would be already in service.
                Our military shipbuilders carry out the mastered projects in a decent time frame for themselves. The export and delivery to the Burevestnikov Black Sea Fleet proved this.
                And the capacities in Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg make it possible to simultaneously build 4 - 6 VI buildings up to 8 tons. They have not lost their competence on export orders since the 000s.
                Now the issues with the power plant for 22350 can be considered resolved and the ships began to lay in 2 pieces. in year .

                Are you comparing the frigate and the cruiser suggested above? The production capacity for this and the competence was lost back in the 90s. Why invent something, when we have 4 Orlans - as a platform - super, you can shove anything you want. And there is no need to build. However, Nakhimov has been modernizing everything for 10 years already. You can create an industrial base, the technologies are still there, but is it necessary ... I'm not sure that there will be money for orders.
                Quote: bayard
                Young man, Damantsev is too young and ignorant for me to get carried away with his work. I myself can do much better and more interesting ...
                How will you, young man, protect the nuclear submarine from the air threat and surface hunters? What is the submerged submerged submerged awareness? About surface and air conditions?
                Who will cover this boat before entering the operational space?
                And why don't you like this project so much?
                Less VI than Burke?
                RLC more modest, shorter anti-aircraft missiles?
                But the strike complex is fully developed - not enough for one "Burke" if you give target designation.
                But with the anti-ship missiles at the “Burks” so far as it is rather weak.
                Till .
                But with us - for now.
                Quite a “Gorshkov” against “Burke” looks.
                And in battle will not yield.
                It costs only 4 - 5 times cheaper. Well, that's just a plus.

                What will he do with the air raid from outside the missile range? One by one they are comparable, but we have only a few of them, and they have hundreds and many aircraft carriers of different classes. Not even funny.
                Quote: bayard
                More!
                Come on more !!!
                Under the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, we with the United States cannot have more than 1500 warheads on strategic delivery vehicles. Including SLBMs and aviation munitions.

                1500 carriers. 8000 warheads.
                Quote: bayard
                And with tactical ammunition, the United States is doing very badly.

                Is that what they said themselves? Uncle Sam can't talk nonsense of course ...
                Quote: bayard
                And at the moment there are NO radiochemical facilities in the USA.

                And how long will it take for their government to fix the problem?
                Quote: bayard
                So, after all, they have already beaten - both at Chernobyl and Fukushima. NPPs were not the weakest ...

                Who beat that? You don't seem to see the difference between a weak thermal explosion at one reactor in Chernobyl, just the melting of a zone without leaks in Fukushima, and a nuclear explosion that sweeps all the reactors, and most importantly, the nuclear power plant's storage, into dust and lifting it into the sky.
                Quote: bayard
                And someone will even feel better.

                Liberals and animal advocates. Bo will never again violate anyone's rights on the planet.
    2. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 23 October 2020 22: 33
      +1
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      Given the successes in UAVs, a small aircraft carrier with a purely unmanned or combined wing is asking for it.


      The only question is that there is no UAV.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 09
        0
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        The only question is that there is no UAV.

        The question is that it is not yet clear what kind of UAV is needed for the fleet! And this question worries both us and our "foes" wink
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 12
          +1
          In this too. But the fact is that there is no UAV and there is nothing to design an aircraft carrier for.
          1. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 15
            0
            The Americans did not just abandon the marine UAV, but made a tanker out of it! The distances are enormous, the vulnerability of the UAV is also preserved, and the cost of the aircraft
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 17 November 2020 16: 23
              0
              They abandoned not the UAV, but (for now) the idea of ​​building a combat UAV for the fleet. But research on combat UAVs is in full swing. The first UAV match against a manned aircraft has already been scheduled.
          2. ZEMCH
            ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 19
            0
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            there is nothing to design an aircraft carrier.

            It, in general, now makes no sense for us to build, first you need to understand the tactics and strategy of its use, taking into account the rapidly changing technologies and weapons)))
  2. Operator
    Operator 23 October 2020 18: 24
    +3
    I did not understand - when was the Navy banned from using the most effective radar range with a wavelength of 3 cm? :)
    1. Gust
      Gust 23 October 2020 18: 37
      +8
      The IMF was not banned. But the author is right about one thing, that no one will give up his meadow just like that. Therefore, one can simply forget about a single ideology for constructing the RLC. The only way out is one contractor who orders from colleagues / competitors exactly what he needs, and not what is more convenient for them.
      1. Grandfather
        Grandfather 23 October 2020 18: 53
        +2
        Quote: Rafale
        IMF is not banned

        Freudian slip of the tongue? lol
    2. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 October 2020 18: 42
      -1
      Quote: Operator
      I did not understand - when was the Navy banned from using the most effective radar range with a wavelength of 3 cm? :)

      this is to the author.
    3. aagor
      23 October 2020 22: 23
      +2
      There is no such ban and cannot be. It's just that at long distances of more than 150 km, the range becomes non-weather resistant. In addition, a large area AFAR is starting to cost incredible money. Author
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Operator
        Operator 24 October 2020 01: 04
        +2
        In the radio range with a wavelength of 3 cm, there is a transparency window in the atmosphere for electromagnetic radiation - water vapor molecules do not resonate with the frequency of this wave. Therefore, no particular non-weather resistance is observed in this range.

        3-cm AFAR - yes, more expensive, but no more than AFAR F-35 radar, for example.

        PS Authors' avatars in comments are highlighted in green.
  3. Asad
    Asad 23 October 2020 18: 31
    0
    Some of the arguments in the article are not clear to me as a non-specialist, but in general I like the author's articles! Well, the discussion in the comments will clarify a lot!
  4. Thrifty
    Thrifty 23 October 2020 18: 40
    +1
    Only one question for the author - how realistic is it now for Russia to create a similar radar station on its own, as a replacement or addition to a frigate or corvette radar?
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 23 October 2020 18: 51
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      Only one question to the author - how realistic is it now for Russia to create a similar radar station on its own, as a replacement or addition to the radar station -frigate or a corvette?

      not a frigate, but a Frigate, and ... already on the way ... no matter how ugly it sounds, but the analogue is almost like on the "burks" "three mirrors" are not rotatable, with a greater range. a couple of years, we will smoke, and appear ... maybe.
    2. aagor
      23 October 2020 22: 24
      +2
      Tomsk NIIPP is ready to manufacture similar AFAR.
  5. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 23 October 2020 19: 16
    0
    "The destroyer developer decided to install on it 3 conventional MF radars (surveillance, guidance and MD SAM) and use a separate radar with a large antenna for missile defense" - I wonder if there is a picture with a parsing? On that "Leader" with "pyramids" I did not really see anything, except for the nameless canvases of the PAR. "Boletus" with "Tackle" is not there. On the whole, I agree, maximum unification is needed, if, in addition to AFAR canvases, you put something else, then this whole "forest" will be linked by that task. On the other hand, since Almaz-Antey is mainly engaged in anti-aircraft AFARs, then a howl will rise that everything has been given to the Almazovites: BIUS, radars, Redut with UKSK.
  6. Eug
    Eug 23 October 2020 19: 33
    +5
    The main "disease" of O (B) PC is that as a result of "optimizations" competition has practically disappeared and no one is interested in a real reduction in the cost of products. On the contrary, the higher the cost, the better the prospects for "utilizing" budgets. Without a fundamental solution to this problem, nothing highly effective and at the same time inexpensive will work.
    1. Sergei 777
      Sergei 777 23 October 2020 21: 07
      +2
      Lack of competition is a problem of the Soviet military-industrial complex. There are exceptions, but they do not change the overall picture.
      1. Ua3qhp
        Ua3qhp 24 October 2020 22: 47
        +2
        There were no problems with competition in the Soviet military-industrial complex. On the other hand, It was practically the only NH industry where competition remained.
  7. lucul
    lucul 23 October 2020 19: 36
    -1
    The cost of an unequipped ship is usually around 25% of its total cost. Therefore, the cost of a frigate (4500 tons) and a destroyer (9000 tons) with the same equipment will differ by only 10-15%. The effectiveness of the AA defense, the cruising range and the comfort for the crew make the destroyer's advantages obvious. In addition, the destroyer can solve the missile defense mission, which cannot be assigned to the frigate.

    Who can argue. The answer is simple - where to get engines for the destroyer? There are none of our own yet, they will appear (of such power) at best in 10 years, European engines will not be sold to us (unless we lie under the Naglo-Saxons, but then there is no point at all), Chinese engines are not reliable enough. Create a nuclear destroyer? Brad. Then it's easier to build a nuclear cruiser right away.
    Where is the way out of the impasse? This is what it was necessary to sing about in the article. Instead of singing odes to the virtues of Western ships.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 25 October 2020 15: 38
      +1
      unless we lie under the naglo-Saxons

      What is this in your understanding? Refusal to support the separatists in the Southeast (would remove most of the sanctions and restrictions)?
      Instead of singing odes to the virtues of Western ships.

      Objectivity.
    2. bayard
      bayard 26 October 2020 00: 03
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      The answer is simple - where to get engines for the destroyer? There are none of our own yet, they will appear (of such power) at best in 10 years

      Actually, there are no special problems with the engines themselves (gas turbines) - there are M-90FR, M-70 FRU, on these turbines they are preparing a power plant for 22350M. The problem is in the gearboxes for these power plants - they were not previously produced in Russia, only in Nikolaev. But the first domestic power plant for 22350 has already been assembled and tested (turbo-diesel), next in line is a purely gas turbine power plant for 22350M, with which it should be somewhat simpler - the operating speeds of the M-90FR and M-70FRU are close, which means they will be married on one gearbox will be simpler .
      For the destroyer VI of 10 - 000 tons proposed by the author, a power plant on four M-12FR is quite suitable. It will be even easier to marry two turbines of the same type on one gearbox. So there are turbines, it's up to the gearbox, but here we are still gaining experience and expanding capacities. So it's a matter of time.
      But the idea of ​​the proposed radar is very interesting. Moreover, the proposed composition makes it possible to integrate both main radars (missile defense and air defense) into one canvas, as the Americans do in principle. And there will be no need to fence pagodas, as on the "Leader" model - four canvases at angles of 45 degrees. to the axis of the ship, and the two in one are completely integrated.
      But it will be possible to expect a similar power plant for a ship VI 12 tons not earlier than the second half of the 000s, and before that it is possible to fully decide on the radar for it.
    3. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 13
      0
      Quote: lucul
      The answer is simple - where to get engines for the destroyer?

      There are engines, and that's not the problem. The problem is in the gearboxes and intergear jumper!
      1. lucul
        lucul 17 November 2020 16: 45
        0
        There are engines, and that's not the problem. The problem is in the gearboxes and intergear jumper!

        With modern computer modeling, this problem could be solved in a couple of months.
        1. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 53
          0
          Quote: lucul
          With modern computer modeling, this problem could be solved in a couple of months.

          In modeling - yes, in production - no! I can explain, but there is enough volume for an article)))
  8. Dimon Krasnodar
    Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 19: 47
    +1
    Nice article, But this is all from a series of fantasies as we would like it to be.
    No proposals are actually good, but this is a message to nowhere, there are too many variables in the equation, such a proposal will cause rejection among those who are engaged in planning public procurement. That would be a person like Korolev (figuratively), he would be able to push through the most effective solutions both in radar and in the system and system approach to anti-submarine defense (search / overcoming) ...
    I myself sometimes like to dream, imagining suddenly our Navy has a strong surface fleet (out of 40 Gorshkovs, 40 20385, modernized 1144 and 1164 and heaps of small fry, trawler, MRK, MPK ... 16 885 and 32 636, normal anti-aircraft anti-aircraft in sufficient quantities etc.).
    But these are all fantasies, dreams of people who love the fleet)))
    In the meantime, we are glad that we have)
    After all, even a military tanker and a minesweeper are already a tactical group of warships)))
    The Americans are sending destroyers, and we are a tug and a tanker, even if we pore for fear))
    1. Dimon Krasnodar
      Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 19: 58
      +4
      It is now vitally important for us to organize training of specialists for the management of projects for the development of the military industry, not separately but in a common data set.
      And then we will have everything and planning and development and construction and training.
      And it turns out that we are now preparing only those who will swim on what is, I speak with meaning, because in wartime our Navy will not be allowed to walk))
  9. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 23 October 2020 19: 48
    +3
    The use of air defense systems of the Shtil-21 type on other ships in the 1st century is an open shame of our fleet. They do not have a guidance radar, but there is a target illumination station. The RGSN SAM must, before the start, capture the illuminated target itself. This method of guidance significantly reduces the launch range, especially in interference, and sometimes leads to re-targeting the missile defense system to other, larger targets. A civilian liner may also be caught.

    The rocket should before the start capture the highlighted target itself? Directly in the UVP, standing upright? belay
    About SAM 9M317ME usually write. that its control system is combined: inertial with radio correction during flight to the target, and in the final section - semi-active radar.
  10. Demagogue
    Demagogue 23 October 2020 20: 02
    +3
    The article is strange, to put it mildly. In a bunch of flies and cutlets. Missile defense and air defense. These are completely different topics. Long-range missiles on destroyers are needed for missile defense only. In air defense, they are relevant only if there is an AWACS aircraft capable of directing them beyond the radio horizon. Because the drummers now go only at low altitudes beyond the radar horizon. To protect the destroyer itself, short-range missiles are needed to shoot at means of destruction. And we need a lot of them. The long detection range of the radar, respectively, is relevant only for missile defense.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 October 2020 20: 12
      +2
      Quote: Demagogue
      In air defense, they are relevant only if there is an AWACS aircraft capable of directing them beyond the radio horizon.

      Rather, not to direct, but to transmit to the air defense missile system data on the current position of the missile defense system and the target and transmit data from the air defense missile system to the missile defense system for trajectory correction - in order to bring the missile into the target area of ​​the onboard seeker.
      1. Demagogue
        Demagogue 23 October 2020 20: 24
        -1
        Not certainly in that way. The destroyer receives information from the AWACS radar, and it only relays it to the missile. Guides the plane. He gives CU. But you can think otherwise))
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 23 October 2020 20: 28
          +6
          Quote: Demagogue
          Not certainly in that way. The destroyer receives information from the AWACS radar, and it only relays it to the missile. Guides the plane. He gives CU. But you can think otherwise))

          The missile is guided by the one who processes information about the coordinates and parameters of the missile defense and the target and generates signals for trajectory correction. This is done by the SAM equipment installed on the ship. The aircraft only provides it with input data for calculating the trajectory correction and retransmits the correction signals to the missile defense system (this is for very over-the-horizon interception, when the EM does not see not only the target, but also the missile defense system smile ).
    2. Dimon Krasnodar
      Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 23: 48
      +3
      Friend, please answer the question, why is there air defense on the ship at all? I am asking exactly what you put it to share flies and cutlets ...
      You can't reach the carriers anyway, they will launch a rocket at you, so a good radar and multi-environment coverage will never be superfluous. And if you stuff the destroyer with only close-range missile defense / air defense weapons, then flies will fly to you on a pistol shot and shoot everything that hits you. Will grow insolent to the edge, you will drive away the hell)))
  11. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 23 October 2020 20: 15
    +2
    Some strange logic. Almost meter waves for missile defense, the desire for an extreme (and unreasonable) permission for the radar against cruise missiles, which for some reason he called "MF". Moreover, he turned these "MFs" into almost linear ones, which, in addition to being ridiculous, for many purposes will create false targets, and when jamming - whole overexposed areas.
    Can AFAR have many receiving beams in such a way that each receiver participates in the formation of many beams at once? It seems to me (on my couch) that not - each receiver can participate in only one beam. If so, then splitting into 16 beams will make the resolution of the vertical antenna 16 times worse.
    And if you do not divide, then it is not clear why then phasing arrays at all. Good old "narrow" parabolic antennas, one in the vertical plane, the other in the horizontal. laughing
    All in all, this is all nonsense. You need a single square antenna for everything.
    1. aagor
      23 October 2020 22: 45
      +1
      This is the advantage of AFAR that it can form many beams in digital design without loss of gain. Author.
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 24 October 2020 14: 16
        0
        I don’t know, dear Andrey, if this is the answer to my question. Can each receiver participate in multiple beams? Moreover, I would also clarify - the rays in arbitrary directions, because if they are shifted by certain angles, then some of the receivers, due to some coincidences, will be with the same phase as in the main lobe, and then it can be taken into account. And if it can, but does it multiply the price of each receiver so that it is not much more expensive to make just a separate antenna?
        1. aagor
          24 October 2020 18: 25
          -1
          For the formation of 16 beams, it is required that the AFAR canvas be divided into at least 32 clusters and each cluster is connected to its own receiver. The output of each receiver is digitized, and a summary diagram is formed by summing all the data in the digital signal processor. If the signal of each receiver is digitally multiplied by the phase shift, then the total beam will turn in the same way as if these were the phase shifters of a real PFAR. The signal processor can form many such beams. Author
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 24 October 2020 19: 09
            +1
            If you read between the lines, then the answer seems to be positive - maybe, therefore, each receiver participates in the formation of many rays? .. Probably it can. Why "at least 32 clusters"? Are the receivers of the same cluster spatially grouped? And within the cluster, the phase shifts do not change? So, when a general shift is introduced in the signal processor, some numerical errors arise?
            1. aagor
              26 October 2020 08: 51
              +1
              Consider, for example, a vertical bar. The division into 32 clusters, all the same, gives some error in the phase front of the received wave, since ideally it is necessary to connect its own receiver to each PPM. The calculation shows that if it is necessary to shift the diagram by the beam width, then it is necessary to have two clusters per shift. Therefore, a 16-ray shift would require 32 clusters. The receiver is more expensive than the PPM, so it is desirable to have the minimum number of receivers required.
              1. Falcon5555
                Falcon5555 26 October 2020 19: 20
                0
                Roughly understandable. Thanks for the answer.
                The calculation shows that if it is necessary to shift the diagram by the beam width, then it is necessary to have two clusters per shift.
                In my understanding, the beam offset in this way will be noticeably less "sharp". That is, the angular resolution you are so worried about will deteriorate. But you can also have more clusters. Then it won't be so bad. In general, it's understandable.
      2. Ua3qhp
        Ua3qhp 24 October 2020 22: 52
        +1
        Not, but. Physics cannot be fooled. The more beams, the less the gain in each beam.
        I can suggest another topic for discussion - digital phased array.
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 25 October 2020 02: 07
      +2
      Klimov for this author is not. He's a layman, for me it became obvious at the beginning of the article, where he describes the work of "Aegis" and "Calm-1". You can expose it in detail, but here you need to write a separate article, but is it worth it ...
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 25 October 2020 14: 14
        0
        I also noticed about Calm ...
  12. Trojan_wolf
    Trojan_wolf 23 October 2020 20: 26
    0
    Thank you. Interesting.
  13. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 23 October 2020 22: 28
    0
    Our programmers are not inferior to anyone, and are much cheaper than American ones.


    There is at least one misconception here. Maybe two.
    1. Dimon Krasnodar
      Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 23: 36
      +1
      There are no delusions here, and our algorithms are actually strong, and in a fundamental sense. If you think that good programmers are those from India who make all sorts of leaky Windows codes using ready-made codes, then you are deeply mistaken.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 00: 57
        0
        Those programmers who are "strong in algorithms and precisely in a fundamental way" are not cheap. And the quality of education after the collapse of the Soviet Union is falling slowly but steadily.

        Quote: Dimon Krasnodar
        those of India who make all sorts of leaky windows using ready-made codes


        Judging by your vocabulary, you know about the profession at best by hearsay.
        1. Dimon Krasnodar
          Dimon Krasnodar 24 October 2020 16: 21
          +1
          I am not a programmer, but I understand what's what and what resources there are in the country to create software-instrumental-hardware complexes responsible for automated control. In our country, data transmission networks and converged services are being developed very effectively at the enterprise level. The integrated software and hardware platform of which guarantees the integrity, noise immunity and security of data transmission from IoT sensors, M2M applications or other elements of the enterprise infrastructure, allows you to combine the elements of the ecosystem into a single closed circuit of the company.
          And all this is being developed by our guys ...
          Therefore, you will moderate your CHSV a little.
          1. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 16: 32
            -1
            Quote: Dimon Krasnodar
            In our country, data transmission networks and converged services are being developed very effectively at the enterprise level.


            This does not contradict the fact that qualified specialists are worth a lot of money. The decline in the quality of education - too (no special qualifications are needed to assemble a system of cubes). And "converged networks" are just some loud marketing chatter. Technicians usually avoid this.

            Quote: Dimon Krasnodar
            And all this is being developed by our guys ...


            I don't know who "your guys" are, but enterprises usually simply combine ready-made modules. From ready-made controllers to ready-made DBMS.

            Quote: Dimon Krasnodar
            Therefore, you will moderate your CHSV a little.


            If you promise to stop using terms that you don't understand.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 16: 46
              -2
              * specialists, of course repeat
            2. Dimon Krasnodar
              Dimon Krasnodar 24 October 2020 21: 10
              0
              A respected technician who knows terms that others do not know.
              Because you know what others do not know, that means it probably is)))
              Therefore, I take my leave, I do not want to continue to engage in chatter and listen that everything is bad in our country ...
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 25 October 2020 02: 14
      0
      The key point is where and for whom "our programmers" work. There are suspicions that an intelligent programmer wants to work at Google or Yandex and receive, respectively, and not at a defense enterprise for a pittance, but with admission and, as a result, without the possibility of traveling abroad for the coming years and limited communication with the world community, because ... a comrade from the first department has his own career aspirations
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 25 October 2020 02: 35
        0
        So.
  14. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 23 October 2020 22: 30
    -1
    The peak speed of receiving and transmitting information on the UAV is 800 Mbit / s.


    100MB / s transfer? What for?
    1. Dimon Krasnodar
      Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 23: 32
      +1
      There is never much speed)))
      You can also score 10 Gbps info from sensors
      Here is just a way to implement what?
      You can't do without a satellite or an accompanying special plane. This speed cannot be raised from the ground
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 01: 05
        0
        Quote: Dimon Krasnodar
        You can also score 10 Gbps info from sensors


        The question, if you do not understand, is why 100MB / s for transferring to the UAV.
    2. aagor
      24 October 2020 18: 29
      0
      Then, to keep the radar busy with data transmission as soon as possible. Author.
  15. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 23 October 2020 22: 42
    +1
    very interesting article by respected Andrey, I will answer your questions, Thank you for understanding the obviousness that in the Baltic Caspian Sea, the fleet is almost unnecessary, except for a limited number of ships of rank 3 The same is in the Japanese and Black, but taking into account the fact that ships of the third rank there can and there should be diesel-electric submarines ... Ships of the second and first rank should be only in the Northern Fleet and in Kamchatka ... I completely agree about the unification of the NK air defense, you need to have identical air defense for the Frigate and the corvette, and do not do other surface ships, minesweepers and IPC can have weak air defense otherwise will not fit there ... now answers to questions 1) why 1000-1500 km, this is the range of confident operation of coastal aviation, maximum 3500 km, this range is enough to ensure a safe exit zone and return of nuclear submarines from both bases. 2 about the price of a destroyer, it is prohibitively expensive, and this is not a matter of displacement, but the fact that its filling is also larger and correlates with its displacement, otherwise why a large hull? so it won't be cheap. There are already such cruisers 5 pennants and they will be in service for at least 5-10 years, but their tasks are identical to frigates = anti-aircraft missile defense of the coastal zone, and air defense of self-defense, so it is obvious that nothing more than a Russian surface frigate is needed, it is better to make more coastal aviation and submarines. 3) Russia does not need sea missile defense of the coastal zone at all !!! on the seas, it is coastal, and on the oceans, point air defense of nuclear submarine bases and ports is needed that can be counted on the fingers of one hand, Murmansk, Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky, Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok ... ABM of taiga and tundra is too costly and pointless, despite the fact that while we have unsatisfactory missile defense system of St. Petersburg and Moscow .....
  16. Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 23 October 2020 22: 45
    -2
    I thought Damantsev. And it turns out there was another one like that.
    Autumn ??, off-season.
    1. Dimon Krasnodar
      Dimon Krasnodar 23 October 2020 23: 55
      +2
      And what is bad about Damantsev?
      There are different opinions, the person prepares the texts, you are discussing everything, you raise your PSI
      And Damantsev is far from being a dreamer in some way, yes, but not. The person is actually in the subject and knows a lot, does not think in a standard way, but there are also sound ideas, and it is interesting to read well writes.
      1. Ua3qhp
        Ua3qhp 24 October 2020 22: 25
        +2
        Damantsev is very fond of listing the performance characteristics of a technique without really understanding what it is and what it is eaten with. I can see this especially when he talks about the advantages and disadvantages of radar and electronic warfare systems. When a little aware of the real state of affairs, you can see what kind of blizzard he is carrying.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 25 October 2020 02: 16
          0
          I completely agree that Damantsev has knowledge of performance characteristics, but he does not have how it is applied in practice.
        2. TermNachTer
          TermNachTer 25 October 2020 10: 08
          0
          Maybe a person is paid extra to "carry a blizzard"?))) Psychological warfare is a complex and multifaceted thing.
  17. Phoenix
    Phoenix 24 October 2020 00: 04
    +2
    The author, out of pure curiosity, I ask in what form did you submit an offer to the MO and who are you by education / occupation? The article seemed very interesting, but I "do not rummage" and you have to take your numbers "on faith".
    1. aagor
      24 October 2020 18: 39
      +2
      Education - Faculty of Radio Physics. He was a radar developer at GosNIIAS, the head of the DA and SA defense sector. I do not guarantee digital data, I bring them from memory, as I am visually impaired.
  18. Avior
    Avior 24 October 2020 00: 32
    0
    The author overloaded the article with figures, as in my opinion.
    To the detriment of explanations.
    For example, it is not entirely clear how his MF radar will work at all.
    In a PAA, the beam is formed by changing the phase of individual emitters.
    And how will the beam from the antenna located in the form of a horizontal strip move vertically?
    Or will it only move horizontally? After all, the beam is not vertically displaced, the strip is narrow. What is a "strip" in general? First, the author talks about columns and rows, for some reason introduces the designations M and N for them, and then does not use them anywhere. Why did he enter then? For pseudoscience? Then the author suddenly, without explanation, goes to the "stripes". How many vertical and horizontal elements are there in each strip? Or is it a row and a column?
    A similar problem with the vertical stripe. How will it move horizontally?
    The author should either explain his idea in detail, or give information about the existence of such radars so that the reader can see how it works, or at least a patent if the idea has not been implemented by anyone.
    And so at every step in the article.
    request
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 01: 17
      -1
      Quote: Avior
      And how will the beam from the antenna located in the form of a horizontal strip move vertically?


      I have never heard of AFAR in the form of a PPM strip, vertical or horizontal. And the author did not talk about such an antenna.
      1. Avior
        Avior 24 October 2020 08: 46
        0
        I didn't say either.
        The author spoke of Afar in the form of two stripes
        ... To further reduce the cost, we propose instead of one more or less square antenna to use two in the form of narrow strips: one horizontal and one vertical.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 12: 59
          -1
          The author speaks of two MF radar antennas, both in the form of stripes. Each strip consists of several columns / rows (the total number of MRPs in a vertical strip is 4000, in a column - 240). If so, each strip can swing the beam in two planes.
          1. Avior
            Avior 24 October 2020 15: 09
            +1
            And you yourself thought that? Is 4000 divided by 240 without a remainder?
            And what will be the quality of the beam of this vertical strip when it is moved in the horizontal plane when it is formed from 16 modules? How does this fit in with the stated super characteristics?
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 15: 45
              -1
              Quote: Avior
              And you yourself thought that?


              Yes.

              Quote: Avior
              Is 4000 divided by 240 without a remainder?


              No. But this is not necessary - the antenna is not always a regular quadrilateral.

              Quote: Avior
              And what will be the quality of the beam


              But this is already a question for the author. I also find the idea strange and inoperable, but I'm not even close to being an antenna specialist.
              1. Avior
                Avior 24 October 2020 15: 57
                +1
                That is why I wrote that the author should justify such unexpected decisions about stripes with references to similar designs, if they exist in nature.
                Of course, the antenna is not always rectangular, this is not necessary for the classic Afar canvas.
                But in the author's strip, this is clearly useless.
                In any case, the author should write about it.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 16: 48
                  -1
                  I'm afraid the formulas will be too complicated. But it would be worth writing in more detail, of course - as far as I can tell, the highlight of the proposal is precisely in the unusual combination of antennas.
    2. aagor
      24 October 2020 18: 44
      0
      It is impossible to write a textbook on radar within one article. By "stripes" we mean an N * M MRP matrix, where N = 16, and M = 128 for the horizontal and 256 for the vertical stripes. Author.
  19. sevtrash
    sevtrash 24 October 2020 09: 44
    0
    I would like to say that there should be enough smart people in the relevant ministries to draw up plans and prospects for the construction of ships, as well as their equipment. This is most likely the case, although doubts, of course, arise. But plans are one thing, and the possibility of their implementation is another. And these latter are now, most likely, at a low level. Due to the loss or lack of competence in the development or production of a lot of things, like engines, element base, etc. This is not to mention the indispensable component - cutting the budget, 30-40% should go to interested people personally, first of all to those who decide to whom to give the budget money. They will evaluate the result, they will allocate state money next time according to the results. It is clear for your pocket. And the author talks about some detection ranges, angles or something else. And the main thing is to master the budget money, cut it and so that it’s not enough for the fixers, and at least write some result or even present it.
  20. bk0010
    bk0010 24 October 2020 11: 12
    +3
    I would like to clarify a number of issues:
    abandon the development of separate radars for each separate task and make the most of the MF radar
    This will greatly reduce the firing channel or raise the price of the product without any advantages to the possibilities.
    select a single frequency range for the MF radar of all ships of the 1st and 2nd classes
    How to solve the issues of electromagnetic compatibility when working in the IBM?
    abandon the use of outdated passive phased array systems and switch to AFAR
    Expensive.
    to develop a unified series of AFAR, differing only in size
    There are not only emitters, but also a lot of equipment. Wouldn't it be the equivalent of creating the An-2 by scaling the Tu-95?
    organize a high-speed covert communication line between the ships of the group, capable of not violating the radio silence mode
    What is it like? Wires will not work, the laser line is not reliable.
    to abandon the use of "headless" MD missiles and develop a simple IR seeker (GOS)
    With simple sense it will not be, she simply will not see the subsonic LRASM. If done, then not simple and multichannel (both IR and optics, at least).
    to develop a transmission line of the signal received by the RGSN ZUR BD to the shipborne MF radar
    It can be used by the enemy, for example, to aim at the signal "nails".
    1. aagor
      24 October 2020 18: 57
      0
      - The price of the product is given, and it does not exceed the price of a conventional radar at all.
      - EMC is provided in a natural way, since all radars emit the same signal synchronously.
      - AFAR is already divided into many clusters, which can be combined in different quantities.
      - The communication line is formed using the same AFAR for line of sight, secrecy is provided by low radiation power - less than 1 mW.
      - High accuracy of command guidance requires a range of IR seeker no more than 2 km.
      - The enemy will not be able to use the signal from the missile defense system, since it is encoded. This has been used in the Patriot air defense system for 40 years. Author.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 24 October 2020 21: 08
        +1
        Quote: aagor
        The communication line is formed using the same AFAR for line of sight, secrecy is provided by low radiation power - less than 1 mW


        The proposed AFAR can emit milliwatts? Seriously?
        1. aagor
          25 October 2020 07: 54
          0
          The radiated power depends on how much power you give it to the input. AFAR is just an amplifier. Author.
  21. mmaxx
    mmaxx 24 October 2020 18: 47
    0
    I read and read ... It became melancholy and stopped ... There will be no Russian "Zamvolta" soon. One community here on the site is worth something. Aggressively inactive. And personally, I have long doubted the brains of the admirals.
    The author is right about one thing. You have to want all the money. Otherwise, it's better not to take it.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 25 October 2020 15: 14
      0
      A considerable part of the public likes to say "approves" to the authorities and simply believes in a certain "superiority of the Russian nation" (we have all the best, in other countries - weaklings and fools).
      For the construction of Zamvolt, or better - the series (5+) "Berks", a slightly more powerful economy is needed. At least 20% of the Chinese one (the budget is $ 500 billion, twice as much as now).
  22. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 October 2020 14: 57
    0
    Here the author contradicts himself:
    In microelectronics production technology, we will lag behind the United States for a long time. Therefore, it is possible to catch up with them only due to more advanced algorithms that will work with simpler equipment.

    и
    • abandon the use of outdated passive PAA and switch to AFAR;
    • develop a unified series of AFARs, differing only in size;

    IMHO, the simpler (up to quite universal) equipment is the MF PFAR radar of 3-4 canvases on the superstructure (by analogy with Burk / Tika), at least.
  23. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 October 2020 15: 06
    0
    abandon the use of "headless" MD missiles and develop a simple infrared seeker (GOS);

    Is it better for Vina to go the "American" way and use the ready-made IR seeker from the R-73 / K-74 on short-range missiles (remember SeaRAM)? And ARL seeker from R-77 (or as it is also called) on medium / long-range missiles?
  24. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 October 2020 15: 19
    0
    Of the wavelengths allowed for radar, two are suitable for missile defense: 23 cm and 70 cm.

    And how is the author going to find low-flying RCCs in a timely manner with such wavelengths? When does the 10cm IDZHIS experience difficulties?
    IMHO, here you need the wavelength of the cm range.
    1. bayard
      bayard 26 October 2020 01: 09
      +1
      The range for the missile defense radar was proposed by the author on the basis of achieving the maximum detection range of high-flying ballistic and hypersonic targets. The attenuation coefficient in the medium is the lower, the longer the wavelength. That is why, as a rule, meter-range radars are used as watch stations in air defense RTVs.
      And for detecting low-flying targets and aerodynamic targets in general, the author proposed a range of 5,5 cm for a multifunctional radar. So I did not notice any contradictions.
  25. 3danimal
    3danimal 25 October 2020 15: 25
    0
    in the range of 70 cm, the radio-absorbing coatings on airplanes almost cease to function, and their image intensifier intensifies almost to the values ​​typical for conventional airplanes;

    Those. "Cleanliness of shapes", shielding of compressor blades, the use of s-shaped air intakes, a bare canopy with metallized glass give "almost no" effect?
    And the author did not ask himself the question of the accuracy of the "near-meter" (0,7m) radar? And why did the designers of the S-300/400 radar (long range and accuracy) choose exactly the centimeter range?
    1. bayard
      bayard 26 October 2020 01: 21
      +2
      For radars of the meter and near-meter range, no STEALTH effect exists in principle. The entire design and coatings for American stealth aircraft were developed from the calculation of countering the radar of enemy fighters (and missile guidance radar) of the extreme centimeter and millimeter range (this range was then switched to the United States and believed that it would be the same in the USSR). Soon, American developers were greatly surprised that all the air defense systems on duty of the USSR / RF are quite steadily observing their "invisible", and decimeter missile guidance stations capture them at a completely regular distance. They created "invisibility" for their radars ... Only now, the radars of Russian fighters are also using the extreme-centimeter range. And the "mm" range in aviation did not take root - there is a very strong attenuation in the medium (atmosphere). Today, we use this range only in short-range air defense missile guidance stations. And the naval "Shell" has serious problems with target detection in fog, low cloudiness and simply high humidity.
      But the accuracy, of course, is the higher, the shorter the wave of the probe signal. Therefore, all developers are looking for a compromise. Therefore, the Americans returned to centimeters.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 04: 09
        0
        For radar of meter and near-meter range, no STEALTH effect exists in principle

        The coatings stop working against this range.
        But the forms do not reflect to the sides from the X-ray source. You should not blindly repeat the cliche broadcast in the media.
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 October 2020 10: 31
          -1
          When the wavelength is commensurate with the elements of the aircraft fuselage or, in general, with the linear dimensions thereof, the target will be visible, despite all the design tricks. But in general, the energy of the response signal from a target with such (STEALTH) design will certainly be lower than the response signal from an aircraft with a conventional design. But not critical. The target will be visible.
          Another thing is the accuracy of a VHF radar. Have you ever seen a "bast shoe" on VIKO from a VHF station?
          5N84A, P-18, 55Zh6?
          Their task is to detect and uncover threats, and radars "dm" and "cm" are engaged in guidance and target designation - their diagram is much narrower, and the coordinates given out are more accurate.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 26 October 2020 11: 44
            +1
            But in general, the energy of the response signal from a target with such (STEALTH) design will certainly be lower than the response signal from an aircraft with a conventional design. But not critical. The target will be visible

            Are there INVISIBLE planes? No.
            The whole effect of Stealth consists in a noticeable decrease in the detection / capture range for tracking.
            In addition, there is a minimum RCS with which the air defense system can generally "work". For the S-125, this is 0,5-0,1 m2 (depending on the modification), which is still more than the frontal 0,001-0,01 F-117. I couldn't see / capture. (The only time in 1999, using the visual targeting channel.)
            and the radars "dm" and "sm" ranges are engaged in guidance and target designation - their diagram is much narrower, and the coordinates given out are more accurate.

            But it is for them that the "vigilance" is maximally reduced by means of measures to reduce the radar signature. The domes of detection and capture for escort noticeably (at times) "shrink".
            For example, if a target with an RCS of 3 m2 the air defense missile system "sees" at 70 km (Buk-M3), then the RCS of 0,01 m2 is 4.16 times less (the root of the 4th degree of the RCS difference is 300 times), from 16,8 km (sees - does not mean that he will take for escort). And the F-117 / F-35 simply does not enter the dangerous zone for it.
            1. bayard
              bayard 26 October 2020 12: 54
              0
              You name the EPR numbers F-117 \ 35 for which range? And who are these numbers from?
              Knowing the tradition of the American military-industrial complex to overestimate the declared characteristics of its aircraft, such figures should be treated more critically. And in what projection? But of course there is a problem, which is why they are in no hurry to give up the meter range in radar. And the counteraction algorithms are also worked out based on this.
              For interception, aircraft can be used for target designation of meter-long radars - it's rude, but the OLS of modern fighters is capable of detecting and capturing such targets at a distance of up to 50 km. (The Su-57 promises all 70 - 75 km.), While in passive (! ) mode.
              And with the radar air defense system, you can trick with a wideband signal, an increase in the total signal energy, receiver sensitivity and signal processing algorithms. This game will last forever as long as aviation exists.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 04: 18
        0
        Soon, American developers were greatly surprised that all the duty air defense systems of the USSR / RF are quite steadily observing their "invisible"

        Where did you insert this text from? (Directly deja vu arises)
        How about the Iraqi air defense systems on duty 1991/2003 and the FRY 1999?
        But the accuracy, of course, is the higher, the shorter the wave of the probe signal.

        Therefore, more or less modern air defense systems did NOT use the meter range. For the same C-125 - 3cm.
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 October 2020 10: 37
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Where did you insert this text from?

          Memory.
          And life experience.
          I read materials on this topic in the DSP weeklies - intelligence bulletins, in the late 80s - then talk about STEALTH technologies became acute for the first time, but the appearance of the F-117 was not yet known ... Then reports on "Desert Storm", some what about Yugoslavia ...
          RTV air defense, combat control.
          I did some analytics myself, but it was a work of local significance.
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 04: 30
        0
        Cube, Beech - also see range, S-300 - similar.
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 04: 53
        0
        They created "invisibility" for their radar ...


        99,9 percent sure it's from a book or article.
        They created an unobtrusive aircraft against modern Soviet air defense systems, whose radars worked in the cm range.
        (It was not possible to write an answer in one post)
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 October 2020 10: 55
          +1
          Quote: 3danimal
          They created an unobtrusive aircraft against modern Soviet air defense systems, whose radars worked in the cm range.

          Well, of course their designs and finishes are effective for the ultra-centimeter and "mm" ranges. But (!) All the stations, detectors of Soviet air defense systems, as well as the standby means of RTV air defense work (they were, and even today, too) in the meter range. So it is more rational in terms of energy (greater detection range with less energy consumption) and stable target detection with stealth design.
          If the target is seen by a detector (a meter-range watch station), then it is no longer invisible, and if problems arise (may arise) with the capture of the air defense missile system's guidance radar, then there remains the possibility of targeting an interceptor, which is able to detect and capture the target with its OLS and hit it with thermal missiles ... That is why in the USSR and later in the Russian Federation such attention was paid to the development and improvement of the OLS of our fighters. Today, their detection range capabilities have come close to the capabilities of radar for inconspicuous targets. And all this is possible in passive mode.
          Quote: 3danimal
          99,9 percent sure it's from a book or article.

          request You are mistaken .
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 26 October 2020 12: 29
            0
            But (!) All the stations, detectors of Soviet air defense systems, as well as standby means of RTV air defense work (they were, and today too) in the meter range

            Ok, which VHF station was used in the Buk-M2?
            SOTS 918 "Dome"

            If the target is seen by the detector (the station on duty of the meter range), then it is no longer invisible, and if problems arise (may arise) with the capture of the air defense missile system guidance radar

            I covered this question in the previous answer. There is no complete invisibility, it is enough to reduce the range of the air defense system (about invisibility - it's more about the impossibility of taking on escort because of the RCS less than minimal)
            capture the target with your OLS and hit it with thermal missiles

            OLS "standard" appeared only on the Su-27 / MiG-29. Compare the ranges of the F-15S radar and the OLS. MiG-29s were quite casually struck in the FRY in 1999. And not with a massive attack of 10 on one, but with the usual patrol 4-koy F-18 / F-15 against a group of Migs. (Not surprisingly, the AIM-120 is still a "cheating" weapon, but then it was generally irresistible)
            Today, their detection range capabilities have come close to the capabilities of radar for inconspicuous targets. And all this is possible in passive mode.

            On the one hand, yes, about 50-70 km, the radar can be even more myopic in terms of stealth. But a little remark: such a range for an OLS is possible only in a ZPS. In PPP - you can safely reduce it by half. But the AFAR radar on the F-22/35 will operate in LPI mode and will detect the enemy "on the pass" much earlier. The F-35 generally has the best OL system at the moment (all-aspect).
            1. bayard
              bayard 26 October 2020 13: 20
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              OLS "standard" appeared only on the Su-27 / MiG-29.

              It was a very long time ago and for this very purpose. Now they are on every fighter and their characteristics have increased significantly.
              Quote: 3danimal
              Compare the ranges of the F-15S radar and the OLS. MiG-29s were quite casually struck in the FRY in 1999. And not by a massive attack of 10 on one, but by the usual patrol 4-koy F-18 / F-15 against a group of Migs

              It is not worth comparing the "beating of babies", when the coalition has complete air supremacy and all-altitude radar illumination of the situation by AWACS aircraft - they took them for escort right from takeoff and on takeoff and struck. Yugoslavian MiGs were blind and took off for good luck ... "We sing a song to the madness of the brave" ...
              Air battles with an enemy more or less equal in strength and equipment are another matter.
              Quote: 3danimal
              On the one hand, yes, about 50-70 km, the radar can be even more myopic in terms of stealth. But a little remark: such a range for an OLS is possible only in a ZPS. In PPP - you can safely reduce it by half. But the AFAR radar on the F-22/35 will operate in LPI mode and will detect the enemy "on the pass" much earlier. The F-35 generally has the best OL system at the moment (all-aspect).

              If the interceptor (interceptors) are raised to intercept attack aircraft (with cover), according to target designation (for example) a meter-long radar (very inaccurate in its target designation), the navigator will direct them either into the rear hemisphere or from the side. In radio silence mode \ without turning on the radar. This is a passive search and target acquisition mode. If the radars of attack aircraft or fighters from the cover are active, then they will give themselves away and will be tracked. Remember the incident of the interception of the F-22 in Syria by the Russian Su-35 - according to external target designation, he in the passive mode went to the target, captured it with his OLS and conditionally struck ... after which he made itself felt to the uninformed enemy.
              The advantage of the OLS is precisely in the passive mode of target detection and capture - the hunter does not betray himself.
              The switched on radar, in turn, on the contrary, unmasks the hunter at a LARGER distance than he himself is able to detect the enemy. And makes him a potential victim of a more knowledgeable adversary.
              Quote: 3danimal
              Ok, which VHF station was used in the Buk-M2?
              SOTS 918 "Dome"

              There, of course, decimetres, but I was talking about DUTY air defense systems. In addition, P-18s can be attached to the same "Bukam" and others for constant watch and coverage of the air situation. The standard detector / target designator should be turned on only when the target reaches the guaranteed capture line, without unmasking itself ahead of time.
              And in war - as in war, the smartest, cunning, resourceful wins. Able to rationally and creatively apply the means at his disposal.
      5. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 05: 28
        +1
        Therefore, the Americans returned to centimeters.

        Aegis has a dm wave range. Excellent visibility over long distances and some difficulties with targets flying at sea level (the British on the "Daring" introduced a second radar for this).
        Only now the radars of Russian fighters also use the extreme-centimeter range.

        It would be interesting to see the fighter's meter-long radar smile
        Similarly: AFAR meter range will need to be installed on land, will not fit on the ship (with a sufficiently large number of APM).
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 October 2020 11: 02
          0
          Quote: 3danimal
          Therefore, the Americans returned to centimeters.

          Aegis has a dm wave range. Excellent visibility over long distances and some difficulties with targets flying at sea level

          I was referring to the return to centimeters from millimeters, and primarily for fighter airborne radars. For early warning stations (and "Aegis" is exactly that), decimeters are preferable (if target designation accuracy is also important), or meters (if this is a duty station for opening a threat).
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 26 October 2020 12: 33
            0
            Optimal - dm for long distances and cm - for the near zone. Why fence with a HEADLIGHT of the meter range?
            After all, the distances between PPMs are too large, and you need to get an acceptable number of these PPMs.
            1. bayard
              bayard 26 October 2020 13: 29
              0
              Quote: bayard
              or meters (if it is a duty station for opening a threat).

              Here I did not mean the shipborne radar, but the land-based RTV air defense radar.
    2. aagor
      26 October 2020 09: 01
      +1
      The missile defense radar solves the problem of detection range. The resulting tracking accuracy is 0,3 degrees. quite enough for guidance. At the final stage of guidance, you can also connect the MF radar.
      1. bayard
        bayard 26 October 2020 11: 07
        0
        I apologize, do you propose to implement these two antennas (missile defense and MF radar) in one canvas, or to fence the "pagoda", as was suggested on the "Leader" model? It seems to me that everything is possible to implement in a single canvas to save space / working area. On a ship, this is important - its linear dimensions are limited, and lifting up the antenna posts as high as possible will violate stability and complicate operation.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 26 October 2020 12: 32
          +1
          I repeat: IMHO, an excellent example is EM Daring.
        2. aagor
          27 October 2020 00: 10
          0
          For this, the author demanded the construction of the destroyer so that the upper part of the superstructure had a width of at least 10 m. AFAR PRO and MF radars are manufactured separately and have completely different shapes. The article contains both the figure and the dimensions of the AFARs.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 12: 31
        +1
        Explore the question of how the radars are arranged on the British Daring (they are considered the owners of one of the best air defense systems now).
        1. bayard
          bayard 26 October 2020 13: 26
          0
          I am familiar with such solutions, which is why I asked the author, because he himself has developed such systems in the past. It was a question for him.
      3. 3danimal
        3danimal 26 October 2020 15: 49
        0
        Look: the s1850m surveillance radar (EM Daring) has a wavelength of 15-30cm (1-2 GHz) with an active CAR rotating on a mast (Apparently, they saved on additional CARs).
        Tracks up to 1000 targets at a distance of ~ 400 km, including little noticeable ones - at a distance of 65 km (RCS = 0,001 mXNUMX).
        And it is she who is the MF, the survey.
        The second radar is a two-way AFAR, located on the highest mast, operates at wavelengths of 15-30cm and “sees” small targets at low altitude well.
        Why is this concept not optimal?
        Make a version of the 92N2E multifunctional control radar (cm range) rotating on a mast, and a variant of the dm detection radar 91N6E (all from the S-400 air defense system) on the other mast. There are already radars, it will be quite a budget option.
        1. aagor
          28 October 2020 10: 18
          0
          First, radars of the 15-30 cm range are not found in nature. Only the range of 21-25 cm is allocated. Secondly, the detection range is 400 km. does not provide a solution to the problem of missile defense. A radar of this range will not be able to form a beam with a width of 0,5 degrees, that is, it will not be able to track low-altitude targets. The rotating antenna allows you to address the target 1 time per revolution, and when aiming, you need to address it an order of magnitude more often.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 28 October 2020 11: 13
            +1
            The rotating antenna allows you to address the target 1 time per revolution, and when aiming, you need to address it an order of magnitude more often.

            Sampson can rotate up to 60 rev / s, it is a two-sided AFAR (before there is a reference to the target up to 2 times per second).
            Radars of the 15-30 cm range are not found in nature. Highlighted only the range of 21-25 cm

            https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampson
            Siotrite yourself - 2-4 GHz.
            Secondly, the detection range of 400 km

            It is ~ the standard for US and UK EVs. And also our land-based S-400, on the basis of which I proposed to make an analogue of the British "PAAMS".
            (We have a slightly smaller economy than the American one, I remind you)
          2. Lex_is
            Lex_is 28 October 2020 11: 58
            -1
            Secondly, the detection range is 400 km. does not provide a solution to the problem of missile defense. A radar of this range will not be able to form a beam with a width of 0,5 degrees, that is, it will not be able to accompany low-altitude targets.


            Can.

            In April 2012, a Horizon-class frigate, Forbin, of the French Navy shot down an American target GQM-163 Coyote, a mimicking naval supersonic anti-ship cruise missile flying at Mach 2,5 (3000 km / h) with an altitude of less than 5 meters.
            In 2012, the Type 45 conducted firing practice against a supersonic naval target, the ATK GQM-163A Coyote, flying at a speed of 5 m and a speed of Mach 2,5.
            In 2013, HMS Daring of the Royal Navy sighted and escorted two medium-range ballistic missiles at considerable range at the Ronald Reagan missile defense test site in the Marshall Islands.