"Alvaro de Bassan" as a collective image of the future Russian destroyer

This story began a year ago, when Roman Trotsenko, president of United Shipbuilding Corporation, held a press conference at the 2011th International Naval Salon (IMDS XNUMX), he made an intriguing statement: according to Trotsenko, the corporation is designing an destroyer class ocean ship with nuclear power plant for the Navy of the Russian Federation. He emphasized that the destroyers of the new project will not be exported, but are intended only for the Russian Navy fleet.

Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, confirmed the design of a ship for the ocean zone for the Russian Navy. Having specified that the laying of a new Russian destroyer is possible already in 2012-2013, there is confidence in 90 percent that the ship will be with a nuclear power plant.

In principle, the new Russian destroyer of the 21956 project has been talked about for 20 years, but this issue has never been discussed at such a high level.

Now from all points there are conflicting data. The absence of any specific information about the project of a new Russian destroyer from officials, gives rise to a whole flurry of various improvisations on this topic, which we have not heard only strange things during this time! Nuclear power plant, stealth technology, universal firing systems, supersonic anti-ship missiles, twin 152 mm artillery "Coalition-F" artillery units ... The displacement of the Russian destroyer Ave 21956 pr. then the classic American "Orly Burke", then the newest "Silver Bullet of the Pentagon" destroyer URO-type "Zamvolt" ...

The approximate cost of the new destroyer of the Russian Navy - $ 2 ... 2,5 billion has already been announced. In the medium term (15-20 years), the 14-16 of the newest destroyers is planned. on average, 4 ship for each of the fleets of the Russian Navy.

Personally, I share the following expert opinion: the newest Russian destroyer is positioned not as a destroyer of ships, but as a kind of superhero - a huge, complex, terribly expensive ship, allegedly capable of almost single-handedly fighting with any surface, underwater and aerial targets, destroying enemy positions on the coast and act without support in remote areas of the oceans. Officials say the same thing: the newest Russian destroyer (cruiser? Dreadnought of the 21st century?) Will replace several existing classes of ships at once: destroyers Ave. 956 Sovremenny, large anti-submarine ships of the projects 1134B Berkut-B and 1155 Udaly, 1164 "Atlant" missile cruisers. Commendable aspirations. Only then can anyone answer the question: what exactly does Russia plan to build for its navy? How much does this prospective warship (the concept of which, in fact, differs radically from the destroyer URO destroyer) corresponds to the tasks of the Russian Navy?

Almirante Álvaro de Bassan

As an unexpected plot of the story, I suggest readers briefly travel back to sunny Spain. There, in the very south of the Iberian Peninsula, stands a fortress city - the legendary Gibraltar, a territory that has been under British jurisdiction for 300 for years, a key stronghold and NATO naval base, the main gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Due to its geographical position, during the Cold War, the “bottleneck” of the Strait of Gibraltar became the most serious barrier for Soviet nuclear submarines on its way to the Mediterranean Sea - the narrow, shallow water area was saturated with acoustic and magnetic sensors and was heavily patrolled by anti-submarine weapons. Times have changed, but even nowadays, NATO ships are constantly patrolling here in these parts. Here is one of them - sparkles with freshly painted plating in the bright Mediterranean sun. Meet gentlemen - Alvaro de Bazan, the operation code F100, the newest frigate Armada Española (Spanish Naval Forces).

A series of four Spanish frigates of this type was built in the period from 1999 to 2006. Warships are designed to operate as part of the search and attack groups led by the aircraft carrier. The standard displacement of frigates is 4500 tons, the total displacement reaches 5800 tons (in the long term, taking into account modernization - up to 6250 tons). As you can see, "Alvaro de Bassan" is a large enough ship for its class, its size is close to the destroyers.

Like any NATO military project, the Spanish frigate is the fruit of international cooperation. Even with the naked eye it is noticeable that “Alvaro de Basan” is another reincarnation of Aegis, the destroyer “Orly Burke”. The hull lines, armament, power plant, the Aegis IUIS - most of the constructive elements of the Spaniard are copied from the American warship. Of course, the Spaniards created their own frigate for the needs of their own naval forces, because the "Alvaro de Basan" acquired its original features - firstly, it is much smaller than the "Orly Burke", and therefore cheaper.

The steel hull and superstructure of the frigate are built using “stealth technologies”, command posts and personnel premises are protected with Kevlar armor. Combined diesel-gas turbine unit allows the frigate to reach 28,5 knots, cruising range is 5000 nautical miles (on 18 knots) - a slight decrease in driving performance, compared to Orly Burk, - the consequences of replacing two General Electric LM2500 gas turbines with sustainer low-speed diesel engines Bazan / Caterpillar 3600 with total power 12 000 hp

The basis of the ship’s combat systems is the Aegis IUIS based on the Baseline 5 Phase III modification with the AN / SPY-1D multifunctional radar. Software that provides LAN communication between Spanish and American-made equipment was developed by FABA (Spanish Fábrica de Artilleria de Bazán). The combat information management system uses computers Hewlett-Packard, 14 color displays SAINSEL CONAM 2000 and two integrated control consoles. Communication with other ships, aircraft and coastal objects is maintained through Link 11 / 16 tactical systems, as well as through SATCOM satellite communication systems. EW facilities include the CESELSA Mark 9500 electronic intelligence system, the Aldebaran SLQ-380 electronic countermeasures system, and the 4 six-barreled 130-mm launchers for passive interference SRBOC.

Rocket weapon the ship is in the 6 eight-charge Mark-41 vertical launcher modules, the total number of 48 launchers. Typical ammunition consists of long-range Standard-32 2 and 64 self-defense anti-aircraft missiles RIM-162 ESSM with a launch range of 50 km (4 missiles in one cell). In addition, two inclined Mark-141 launchers were mounted in the middle part of the frigate to launch the Harpoon anti-ship missiles (subsonic anti-ship missiles with an effective range of 130 ... 150 km, warhead weight 225 kg).

Artillery is represented by the 127 mm 5 54 / 45 Mark 45 nasal gun. Thanks to the simplified design and lack of cellar mechanization, the Mark 24,6 is the easiest naval artillery system of its caliber — only 23 tonnes. / min

For the anti-missile and air defense frigate, an anti-aircraft artillery complex “Meroka” of caliber 20 mm is installed, which is a radar station and X-NUMX automatic guns “Oerlikon” mounted in a single unit. Also there are two guns "Oerlikon" with manual control. All of these systems are optional and can be easily replaced with any other anti-aircraft self-defense complexes.

Anti-submarine frigate weapons are also somewhat different from the Orly Burke armament complex. It is based on two 3 tube torpedo tubes of the Mark-32 system, but unlike the American destroyer, a recharge is provided here - 24 anti-submarine torpedoes of the 324 caliber are provided. Also, the frigates are equipped with two ABCAS / SSTS jet bomb bombs, an advanced range of hydro-acoustic equipment and a towed anti-torpedo defense system - the AN / SLQ-25 Nixie, standard for all NATO ships.

The requirement that has become mandatory for modern ships is a deck helicopter. The frigate “Alvaro de Bassan” has a hangar for the permanent deployment of two Sikorsky SH-60 “Ocean Hawk” helicopters, as well as a 26-meter helipad provided with the RAST forced landing system. In peacetime, to save money, only one helicopter is based on Spanish frigates.
The price for building one ship is € 600 million ($ 800 million).

Main combat ship

In my personal opinion, ships like the overgrown frigate Alvaro de Basan could become a good base for the Russian Navy in the medium term. My somewhat seditious point of view was confirmed by people directly related to the Russian Navy - it is such small efficient ships, laid down by a large series, that our sailors are waiting for, and not the most complicated and monstrously expensive atomic monsters that high-ranking Russian officials are talking so much about . Due to the lower price and relatively modest displacement, such semi-destroyers are quick to build and easier to operate. Those. they acquire one of the MAIN properties of the destroyer - mass, and therefore ubiquity. In the future, I propose to call this hypothetical project "main battle ship", by analogy with the main battle a tank - an extremely successful concept of a combat tracked vehicle.

URO-type destroyer "Orly Burke"

The destroyer of the project 21956, which was discussed at the beginning of the article, reflects the good intention to make a ship superior to the American DDG-1000 Zamvolt. But after all, American experts recognized the fallacy of their theories - Zamvolt, too expensive, could not become a new type of destroyer of the US Navy, it was decided to resume the construction of simple and reliable Orly Berkov, their number had already exceeded 60. According to the Zamvolt project, three ships are slowly being built, with a total displacement of 14 thousand tons - the US Navy is just working on new technologies. Obviously, the American sailors have surplus funds, if they allow themselves to build such "vundervafli." I repeat, the US Navy refused to build Zamvoltov in a large series. Doesn't it mean anything?

Our "main combat ship," despite the fact that on paper it is inferior in terms of the performance characteristics of Zamvalt, is intended for mass construction. As for the combat qualities of a promising Russian destroyer in the form of a “main combat ship,” the situation is as follows:

Anti-ship weapons
The Caliber family of missiles, the Bramos supersonic anti-ship missiles, the lighter X-35 Uranus - this is a whole range of modern anti-ship weapons ready for installation on a “main battle ship”. Either in the form of a universal firing complex, or in inclined launchers on the deck. It must be understood that “one is not a warrior in the field” - in the US Navy, such tasks are assigned to the deck Aviation and dozens of aircraft for various purposes. Without external target designation, the detection range of surface targets in any destroyer is limited by the radio horizon - 30 ... 40 km. The E-2 Hawkai carrier-based early warning radar is capable of exploring 100 sq. km ocean surface - still, the radio horizon at the Hawk radar antenna, raised to a height of 000 kilometers, is 10 km!

A destroyer ammunition - 8 (perhaps a little more) anti-ship missiles can not be compared with the cellars of the aircraft carrier, containing 2520 tons of ammunition. Therefore, it is not necessary to indulge yourself with the illusions that the destroyer is capable of any struggle with avinos shock groups, this is not his purpose. Although, in a fair one-on-one battle against their peers, for example, the Orly Berkov, the “main combat ship” can show teeth, especially if the new generation of supersonic anti-ship missiles are included in its armament. Again, the Berki, like other NATO ships, rarely sail in the ocean without air cover.

Anti-aircraft weapons
Really important factor! As part of the Russian Navy at the moment, only 4 of the ship can provide zonal air defense of the squadron: TARKR “Peter the Great” and 3 cruisers of the avenue 1164 “Atlant”. As far as I know, Azov, which, for experimental purposes, installed two S-300F SAM missile launchers, was removed from the Black Sea Fleet.

Long-range naval anti-aircraft missile systems should be the basis of armament of promising Russian destroyers. The “main combat ship”, similar to Alvaro de Basan, offers 48 launchers, 32 long-range missiles + 64 short-range missiles. This amount is quite enough to reflect any provocation or successful actions of the “main combat ship” in local conflicts. It would be naive to believe that the destroyer will ever have to shoot down enemy aircraft with batches - if the 32 did not have anti-aircraft missiles to repel an air attack, then World War III began.

It is worth paying more attention not to the number of missiles, but to the creation of a combat information and control system like the Aegis.
The self-defense system of the “main combat ship” can be enhanced through the installation of short-range anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems — the Dirk, the Palash — there is always room for them.

Artillery

I do not share optimism about the twin 152 mm naval artillery system "Coalition-F". The reason is too complicated construction. Huge weight and exorbitant cost. On the positive side, the system allows firing at coastal targets from a long distance, outside the zone of enemy artillery (although it is much more likely that the opposition will not be a Grad missile, but an anti-ship missile, for which the extra 30 ... 50 km are only additional seconds of flight). However, there was a precedent off the coast of Libya - a NATO ship, during a shelling of the coast, received a shell from the coast. So large-caliber artillery systems are a very promising direction. The main thing to make the tool compact and simple.

Does the destroyer need a nuclear power plant
All statements about YASU on a prospective Russian destroyer cause only irritation. Perhaps it is beneficial to a certain circle of people, but for the Russian Navy this approach does not have any distinct advantages.
Even 50 years ago, it was proved that nuclear power plants are vital only for three classes of ships:
- To aircraft carriers (only a nuclear steam generating plant can provide the catapult with enough energy in the form of superheated steam or electricity)
- To submarines (only YASU is able to provide boats with the necessary amount of energy in a submerged position, which increases their submerged time, and therefore stealth, by an order of magnitude compared to diesel submarines)
- Icebreakers (the need for a powerful source of energy for long-term work in difficult ice conditions, possible wintering and other force majeure, requiring the provision of high autonomy of the icebreaker)

All other attempts to adapt YASU to cruisers or civilian vessels ended in failure — the ships had no advantages over their non-nuclear colleagues, but there were flaws in the whole sea.
Nuclear power plants have an enormous cost, which is further aggravated by the cost of nuclear fuel and its further disposal.

YASU is considerably larger than ordinary GEM. The concentrated loads and larger dimensions of the energy compartments require a different location of the rooms and significant redevelopment of the hull structure, which increases the costs when designing the ship. In addition to the reactor itself and the steam generating plant, YASU necessarily requires several circuits, with its biological protection, filters and an entire plant for seawater desalination: firstly, bidistillate is vital for the reactor, secondly it makes no sense to increase the cruising range of the fuel, if the crew has limited freshwater supplies. The maintenance of the YSU requires more personnel, with higher qualifications. This entails an even greater increase in displacement and cost of operation.

The survivability of an atomic destroyer is much less than a similar destroyer with a conventional GEM. Defective gas turbine can be turned off. And for whom will a destroyer with a damaged reactor loop become more dangerous — for the enemy or for his own crew?

The autonomy of the ship in terms of fuel reserves is not all. There is autonomy in possession, in ammunition, endurance crew and mechanisms. For example, the heavy nuclear cruiser “Peter the Great” has 60 autonomy for 24 hours in reserves of provisions. Everything. Next you need to look for a port or coral of complex supply. The best nuclear-powered cruiser will not be able to stay in a given area of ​​the oceans indefinitely for a long time - people and technology need rest. A pair of cheap "main combat ships" can always be in the area in shifts.

There is an opinion that YASU is smaller than a conventional power plant, due to the absence of huge fuel tanks. Well, I can give the following numbers:
The destroyer of Her Majesty "Daring" - a modern British destroyer of air defense type 45.
Powerplant: 2 gas turbines Rolls-Royce WR-21 total power 57 000 hp (there are also auxiliary diesel engines, but their mass disappearing is small in our calculation)
The mass of each turbine together with the auxiliary equipment is 45 tons. The volume of fuel tanks destroyer - 1400 cube. m, the mass of fuel - 1120 tons. This is enough to ensure the 7000 nautical miles at nodal speed (from St. Petersburg to the Panama Canal across the Atlantic Ocean!).

Nuclear submarine cruiser pr.949A "Antey".
Two OK-659 reactors with thermal capacity 190MW. Two turbines with a total shaft power 90 000 hp The mass of the equipment of the reactor compartment, excluding radiation protection - 2500 tons (!).

These are the thoughts I had while meeting with materials about a new Russian destroyer. The ship is undoubtedly necessary and useful. It remains only to decide where we go on it, why we go there, and with whom we go there.

Instead of "Alvaro de Basana", the leadership of the Russian Navy decided to procure the UDC "Mistral". Well, they know better

Comments

[jamert]

Thank you, very informative.

[Optimist]

Lord !! I understand that I will get cons! BUT a little disagree with the author.

The author sees ideally a massive Spanish "Alvaro de Basan" for our fleet. For me, project 22350 is more promising for us (strike complex 3S14U1 (UKSK) in two standard modules of 8 cells each with the ability to work on sea and coastal targets, all ammunition will be 16 missiles , is designed for several types of missiles with a vertical launch of the Onyx, 3M-54, 3M14, 91RTE2 anti-ship missiles (Kalibr-NKE complex missiles), + 32 medium-range air defense systems (9M96E / M missiles) A ​​new super-maneuverable short-range missile radius of 10 km, with the placement of up to four missiles in one cell, in this case, the full ammunition load can grow to a maximum of 128 small-radius missiles. (information taken from: http://www.paralay.com/22350.html) At the same time, the maximum displacement is 4500t ...

And for escort operations in AUG. we need a powerful destroyer (in our case, a cruiser 12000-14000t.) with a nuclear installation, with developed air-defense system and the possibility of three air defense zones, which is now being developed by the USC. Perhaps in the amount of 6pcs. for 2 AUGs.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Optimist

Moreover, the maximum displacement is 4500t.

Everything in this life has a price:
"Admiral Gorshkov" - 4000 miles, economic speed of 14 knots.
Alvaro de Basan - 5000 miles, economic speed 18 knots.
When moving at an operational speed (18-20 knots), the cruising range of the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" is reduced to 2500 miles - too little for operations in the ocean zone

Quote: Optimist

And for escort operations in AUG. we need a powerful destroyer (in our case, the cruiser 12000-14000t.) with a nuclear installation

Nda? And why is an escort destroyer a nuclear installation? The article is in detail about this.

[Optimist]

SWEET_SIXTEEN
1. on the project 22350 my opinion is assigned a slightly different task than the "Alvaro de Basan" 22350 was created as a replacement for large patrol ships. "Alvaro de Basan" rather an escort destroyer, given the presence of (Aegis, Aegis)

2.E.ee ... I think for autonomy) !, it’s a shame to watch when our 956 and 1155 go accompanied by auxiliary vessels (tankers, tugs)

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Optimist

. on project 22350 my opinion is assigned slightly different tasks than on "Alvaro de Basan"

Then your logic is not clear. How does your statement fit in with:

Quote: Optimist

The author sees ideally a massive Spanish "Alvaro de Basan" for our fleet. For me, project 2235 is more promising for us.

Quote: Optimist

"Alvaro de Basan" rather an escort destroyer, given the presence of (Aegis, Aegis)

In your opinion, the Russian destroyer does not need a BIUS similar to Aegis?

Quote: Optimist

I believe for autonomy)!

Did you read the article carefully?

Quote: Optimist

It's a shame to watch when our 956 and 1155 go escorted with auxiliary vessels (tankers, tugs)

And how do tugs affect the autonomy of 956 and 1155? This is a consequence of the unsatisfactory technical condition of the naval corps.
But supply vessels are always needed - should sailors chew on boots instead of bread?

[Optimist]

sw. SWEET_SIXTEEN I would like to say the tasks of the projects DIFFERENT pr. 22350 (in a large series) will be more optimal for our Navy than "Alvaro de Basan", the main task will be to fight (not far from the coast) with both single and groupings of ships, taking into account its weapons ( based on supersonic versus shipborne onyx missiles). "Alvaro de Basan" frigate (although to some extent it is a destroyer of 5800 tons), the missions are escort as part of the AUG, hence the series is small.

But this is my personal opinion !!!

[Evgen2509]

1) The series is small, because it’s not US NAVY, but only Armada Española;
2) These ships will not be escorted by any AUG - they have their own "Berks", only helicopter carriers, and then, very limitedly (see item 1);
3) But the tasks are certainly not very different, but on the contrary - a universal ship with an emphasis on air defense, i.e. the basis of the future fleet (not my words - one of the admirals);
4) And in general, after reading it, there was a feeling that the author, may he forgive me, was completely "out of topic" and about Gorshkov (they'd rather finish building it - we'll see what happens) didn't hear anything, like about weapons to assert about the "high cost", "complexity", etc. of what is still only on paper !!!);
5) Although it is difficult to disagree in the delusional idea of ​​another "white elephant" - over and above the expensive, unique, and therefore only ostentatious.

[adept666]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Nda? And why is an escort destroyer a nuclear installation? The article is in detail about this.

The fact is that the tasks of AOG are not just to leave point A to sail 7000 thousand km and come to point B. It is just the autonomy of the same Americans that rests on the non-autonomy of the ships of its warrant Tell me at least one operation of the US Navy where they would use their AUGs and at the same time there wouldn’t be in the vicinity of their bases or allied bases I don't think you will find it, but the ideology of using AUG is precisely the opportunity to wage a "long arm" war, to provide air cover for the same landing force, for example, far from their ground bases. Now imagine a certain task for the AUG RF, say, off the western coast of Africa, somewhere in the Gabon region ... Where to get fuel for the warrant? At the same time, keep in mind that the same tanker also eats it quite a lot + it does not have the capabilities for operational maneuvering, counteraction to aviation, the fleet that warships have, which means it is very vulnerable, and with it the whole AUG is vulnerable. So the presence of nuclear weapons in a ship of large rank is fully justified.

[adept666]

Well, actually

The article has details on this.

Compare the power plants of the Typ 45 destroyer with a total displacement of 8100 tons and a submarine with 24000, i.e. 3 times bigger, as it were, not quite correct. And if we discard conventions (something like environmental resistance, and this is also a very important factor ), then it turns out 3 times a large setting (to compare correctly) and will eat three times more, i.e. 1200 * 3 = 3600, + the author did not indicate the weight of the tank itself, but it also weighs a lot, and accordingly it will be multiplied by 3. Total with an equal full displacement we get about 4000 thousand tons. And most importantly, when using this fuel, the ship will certainly collide with a deterioration in balance qualities, which is not very good, and the task of compensating for this deterioration is very, very not trivial. So not everything is clear

[PatriotizTAT]

It was interesting to read!

[lotus04]

Roman Trotsenko made an intriguing statement: according to Trotsenko, the corporation is designing a destroyer-class ocean-going ship with a nuclear power plant for the Russian Navy. He emphasized that the destroyers of the new project will not be exported, but are intended only for the Russian Navy.

Here. Finally, the "Ocean Zone Ship". With information on it, "God bless her" is not necessary. If only they laid it and did it. And as in the good old days, all our enemies BORED, when it appears in the zone of visibility and not visibility.

[VAF]

Quote: lotus04

Here. Finally, the "Ocean Zone Ship". With information on it, "God bless her", do not

That's right, +, but as always, only plans ...... but in fact ????

The author is huge +! and respect !!!

[speedy]

Quote: vaf

That's right, +, but as always, only plans ...... but in fact ????

But in fact, in Severodvinsk, slipways are being prepared for future aircraft carriers, nuclear, and these child prodigies seem to be designed to strengthen future AUGs.

[Vito]

lotus04 (3, vaf (2). Good day to you, I am glad to meet you!
SUBSCRIBE TO EVERY word of yours!
WAIT TIRED !!!

[lexx-30]

The article is 100% correct, but I make this ship so expensive and complicated not to protect the interests of Russia, but to make it easier to steal money from construction and subsequent permanent repairs

[maxiv1979]

no doubt we need UVP, hundreds of a priori missiles, boats that have a cover, otherwise they will sink instantly ...

[Foamas]

There is a normal ship pr.22350, if they are built in the amount of 30 units + 6 high-speed universal ships of complex supply, then no destroyers / cruisers are needed. (IMHO)

[maxiv1979]

Quote: FoMaS

There is a normal ship pr.22350, if they are built in the amount of 30 units + 6 high-speed universal ships of complex supply, then no destroyers / cruisers are needed. (IMHO)

Yes, we can’t build so much, equip warships, well, maximum 1 per year, it’s not a fact ...

[Stealth]

The author is definitely a plus for a worthy work done!
But nevertheless, I would like to note that, apparently, a Project 22350 frigate is supposed to be the "main ship" for the Russian fleet.
http://paralay.com/22350/62.jpg
It is much lighter than the Spanish "Alvaro de Basan" (and cheaper) and will be only slightly inferior to him in the amount of weapons. It is these ships that should become the most massive in the ocean zone, and the project 20385 corvettes in the sea. Destroyers, on the other hand, will be built exactly like wunderwafers, so that, together with TARKs, they will form the core of the upcoming AUG. Those. a new destroyer - it will be something like a smaller and simplified version of the TARK.
In any case, just such a conclusion can be made judging by statements from officials.
And I think this is correct, because we already have one "main" ship, so why do we need another?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

It is much lighter than the Spanish "Alvaro de Basan" (and cheaper) and will be only slightly inferior to him in the amount of weapons

Admiral Gorshkov is too small for a "main warship", hence a number of disadvantages:
- unimportant cruising range - 4000 miles on 14 nodes, on 20 nodes it decreases to 2500 miles. Too little for ocean action
- complete absence of any similarity of BIUS "Aegis"

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- unimportant cruising range - 4000 miles at 14 knots, at 20 knots it decreases to 2500 miles.

A reference to the data is possible?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Too little for ocean action

4000 miles vs 5000 for a Spaniard? Yes this is of course a huge flaw
4000 miles is enough for independent actions, and he will go on long trips as part of the KMU, which includes support vessels.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- complete absence of any similarity of BIUS "Aegis"

Well, what BIOS will be on it is not yet known, so it's too early to judge. In any case, it will not be entrusted with a strategic missile defense and control of the group’s fire weapons (this is already the prerogative of TARKs of promising EMs), so it is quite adequate for its tasks.
But for some reason I don’t understand why to do some kind of nedo-destroyers and re-frigates ...

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

A reference to the data is possible?

Please, http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-611.html

Quote: Stealth

4000 miles vs 5000 for a Spaniard? Yes this is of course a huge flaw

You are a little off topic:
"Admiral Gorshkov" - 4000 miles, economic speed of 14 knots.
"Spaniard" - 5000 miles, economic speed 18 knots.
When moving at an operational speed (18-20 knots), the cruising range of the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" is reduced to 2500 miles

Quote: Stealth

In any case, it will not be entrusted with a strategic missile defense and control of the group’s fire weapons

Are such tasks entrusted to Alvaro de Basan?

[Stealth]

Firstly, I didn’t find the information from your link that at a speed of 18 knots the range decreases to 2500 miles.
Secondly, all this information is preliminary, it would not be bad to wait at least for sea trials of this ship.
Thirdly, for example, the BOD of 1155 pr. (With a displacement of 7000 tons) has a range of 5000 nautical miles at 14 nodes with the largest fuel supply and I don’t hear howls that it’s not an ocean ship and all that although the difference is not so great.
Fourth, this is more a problem of the engine than of the ship as a whole, which means there is hope for a further improvement in the situation. For example, at pr. 22356, it is already planned for 4500 miles.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Are such tasks entrusted to Alvaro de Basan?

Well, then what is the advantage of his BIUS Aegis for example over our Sigma? All the tasks that this frigate must solve, it allows you to perform no worse.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

Thirdly, for example, the BOD of 1155 pr. (With a displacement of 7000 tons) has a range of 5000 nautical miles at 14 nodes with the largest fuel supply and I don’t hear howls that it’s not an ocean ship and all that although the difference is not so great.

It is true that Soviet ships always had a limited range. It is time to abandon this practice. The U.S. Navy has always been the standard: 4500 miles on 20 nodes. (even for WWII destroyers)

[Stealth]

The whole question is how appropriate is the increase in range in this case. To increase the ship's displacement (and hence the cost) of the ship by 1000 tons, only in order to increase the range by 1000 miles? I don’t know, it seems to me that this is not necessary for our Navy, because our fleets, even the ocean ones, operate mainly at a small distance from their native shores, and for long trips (if such a need arises), several support ships can be added to the KMG.

[MURANO]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- complete absence of any similarity of BIUS "Aegis"

Why did you decide that, Oleg? People in the "topic" claim an unequivocal superiority.
Good article.
22350 is the best frigate. And it should be the main ship. As an option, a destroyer on its extended "base".

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MURANO

People in the "topic" claim a clear superiority.

Sergey, the amers brought Aegis 30 years, 3800 rocket launches in training ranges and in battle, but here they are trying to create everything from a read sheet and make loud statements

Quote: MURANO

22350 is the best frigate

For the needs of the Russian Navy - undoubtedly

Quote: MURANO

Alternatively, a destroyer on its extended "base".

I spoke about this in the article. For example, I considered an existing Spanish ship

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

I spoke about this in the article. For example, I considered an existing Spanish ship

But you didn’t explain to us why the Russian Navy needs a 5-6 thousand tons underdestructor? What would be inferior to "Arleigh Burkes" in everything?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

What would be inferior to "Arleigh Burkes" in everything?

Does Russia have enough funds and experience to build a ship equal to the Burke in a short time? The Americans went to Burke for 15 years.

Secondly, the Russian Navy has completely different tasks, in view of the completely different geographical position of the Russian Federation

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Secondly, the Russian Navy has completely different tasks, in view of the completely different geographical position of the Russian Federation

It's strange, because it is you who propose to create a fleet of destroyers in the likeness of the Americans. On the contrary, I think that "in view of a completely different geographical position of the Russian Federation" for our Navy, the main ship should be the frigate of project 22350 and its further modifications.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Does Russia have enough funds and experience to build a ship equal to the Burke in a short time? The Americans went to Burke for 15 years.

Enough or not, I think we will find out soon. As they finish with the frigates, they will go to the destroyers.
In any case, the solution you propose (a fleet of non-destroyers) is a previously losing step, since it will not allow us to surpass the Americans in terms of the number of ships or quality.
In general, I will repeat my position once again: as the main ship for the Navy, I see frigate 22350 (IMHO, it is quite sufficient for our conditions), we still cannot build a lot of destroyers (we already have experience - pr. 956, which should have been compared in mass with "Spruence"), so you need to surpass the "Berkov" in quality. Such a destroyer will be more effective when displaying a flag and more effective when protecting an aircraft carrier, of which we will also hardly have a lot (which means that a large number of destroyers are not needed to protect them). As a result, a promising AUG may consist of:
-avianosets (possibly + 1-2 UDC)
-1-2 TARKS
-2-4 EM
-4-6 frigates + support vessels.
I think that more than 2 AUGs until 2025, we still will not pull, so there is no point in building more than 10 EMs. And if so, is it not better to build 10 really powerful ships than to chase the quantity?

[bddrus]

since we already have one "main" ship - which one?

[Rider]

Quote: bddrus

since we already have one "main" ship - which one?

We do not have a "main battleship"

We have the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov", which has been under construction for 8 years. The ship does not have a modern CIUS. it, in comparison with foreign counterparts, has a limited cruising range and a smaller number of weapons

And we also have a corrupt project of the destroyer 21956 worth $ 2,5 billion per ship. And it’s necessary with the Nuclear Plant, without it, from Sevastopol to Tartus there’s no way to swim

[CARBON]

22350 quite adequate ship in terms of armament and cost. It was declared $ 400 million. Now is not the beginning of the twentieth century, and from approximately the same ships from different countries, an efficient fleet cannot be blind.

[Passing]

Without external target designation, the detection range of surface targets in any destroyer is limited by the radio horizon - 30 ... 40 km. The E-2 Hawkai carrier-based early warning radar is capable of examining 100 sq. km surface of the ocean - still, the radio horizon at the Hawk radar antenna, raised to a height of 000 kilometers, is 10 km!

Many compact drones + satellites are plugged into the belt of any Hokai.

And the destroyer’s ammunition load - 8 (maybe a few more) anti-ship missiles can not be compared with the cellars of an aircraft carrier, containing 2520 tons of ammunition. Therefore, one should not console oneself with illusions that the destroyer is capable of fighting the avinos strike groups in any way; this is not its purpose.

Why "8 (maybe a little more)", why not 64-128, which interferes with a displacement of 14000 tons?
Why 64-128 missiles SIMULTANEOUS attacking AUGs can not be compared with 48 F / A-18 which, in principle, can not deliver a simultaneous strike with all 48 aircraft? And how will 2520 tons of ammunition of an aircraft carrier, after getting into it 64-128 anti-ship missiles, threaten at least someone other than fish?
If not destroyers, then who exactly will fight the AUG? Or are we, in principle, no longer planning to resist with any massive military pressure? Type Japan will require Sakhalin - we will give it back, it will require the USA or China deposits in the Arctic - we will give back. We will give everything back, because we are small and helpless, and our boats are small and helpless. But there are a lot of them and they are cheap. But there is no sense in them, because they can’t see anything beyond 30 km, and therefore their anti-ship missiles without a command center lose their meaning, but this is nonsense, we are adults, we don’t entertain ourselves with illusions, and we don’t intend to fight as an adult and end the war in the enemy’s capital, in which case we’ll immediately dump in London for permanent residence or in the most remote taiga partisan (who is closer).

offers 48 launchers, 32 long-range missiles + 64 short-range missiles. This amount is quite enough to reflect any provocation or successful actions of the "main warship" in local conflicts. It is naive to believe that the destroyer will ever have to pack enemy planes in packs - if 32 anti-aircraft missiles were not enough to repel an air attack, then the Third World War began.

And are we already preparing to lose the third world war in advance? Ships we do not need? Then I propose that we kill ourselves right now, with the whole of Russia, because we get losers, we do not rightfully occupy a place on this ball, we will free up living space for more resilient nations such as China and the USA!

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Passing by

Lots of compact drones

Too weak and vulnerable system compared to the AUG combat air patrol (AWAC Hawkai + a pair of Hornets)

Quote: Passing by

+ satellites plugged into the belt of any Hokai.

Hawkai Flight Hour - $ 4.000
ICRC satellite flight hour - $ 114.000 ($ 1 billion per year)
Still have questions?

Quote: Passing by

Why "8 (maybe a little more)", why not 64-128, which interferes with a displacement of 14000 tons?

Yes, even 256-512. The AUG just will not allow the destroyer to reach the range of the anti-ship missile salvo - the F / A-18 combat radius with 2 "Harpoons" and PTB - 700 km (variable flight profile, when approaching the target they go to PMV), Radio Horizon Houkai radar - 400 km , patrol range 200-300 km from the aircraft carrier

The coral has no chance to even fend off even the 2's F / A-18: the Hornets go to the PMV and are not included in the S-300 air defense range - they can’t even be found, and the attack aircraft, in turn, are well aware of the situation - Hawkai gives them target designations flying in xnumx km behind

The basics of modern naval combat

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The coral has no chance to fight back even from 2 F / A-18s: the Hornets go to the PMV and do not enter the S-300 air defense range - they can’t even be detected

Well, you bent it, as soon as the Hornets come out due to the radio horizon, you will still be detected. It is also not at all difficult to ward off them: 2 Hornets are 4 Harpoons, what do you want to say that a modern ship will not ward off 4 subsonic anti-ship missiles?
And now let's remember the 9M96 missile defense system with the ARL GOS from the "Reduta" and the existence of the Ka-31 AWACS helicopters. The conclusion, I think, is clear?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

Well, you turned it down as soon as the Hornets crawled out due to the radio horizon

Why would they crawl out from behind the radio horizon?

Quote: Stealth

Fighting them off is also not at all difficult: 2 Hornets are 4 Harpoons, what do you want to say that a modern ship will not fight off 4 subsonic anti-ship missiles? And now let's remember the 9M96 missile defense system with the ARL GOS from the "Reduta" and the existence of the Ka-31 AWACS helicopters. The conclusion, I think, is clear?

Dilettan nonsense.


I am really happy that there is no Congress in Russia. Of course, our army has many problems, but at least we are spared from such a misfortune. In the United States, generals are required to prove the need for their development to 535 by absolutely incompetent politicians in military affairs.
Congress (in our opinion ) screwed up a lot of cool and useful projects, instead pushing useless wunderwafles - for example, it was the case with the nuclear-powered cruiser Trakstan (CGN-35), naval sailors tried their best to abandon this miracle, but Congress insisted on building ...

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Dilettan nonsense.

not so that it will not beat off 4 harpoons? If daggers, daggers, goalkeepers do not do this, what for they are generally needed? Or will I come up with armor))))))))))

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

not so that it will not be beaten off by 4 harpoons?

The fact of the matter is Andrey, that there will be not 4 Harpoons, but 40 + hard interference - it is not for nothing that amers carry 4-6 EF-18 "Growler" with them ... although 4 can break through - accidents in the fleet are the main law, the fate of the ship envy only the position of the stars

Regarding your link with Queen Elizabeth - the author would be better compared with 1164

[Kars]

[quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Regarding your link to Queen Elizabeth - the author would be better compared with 1164 [/ quote]
There is with Ticonderoga.

And what statement can only growlers? [Quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN]

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

There is with Ticonderoga.

There is with Virginia.

And what do we see? The answer has already been given by the reader - these are ships for different wars.
The author there presses against 25 one thousand tons of Peter the Great, but this is an unsuccessful example. It is much more interesting to consider the 1164 - a very expensive and complex ship, if it is sheathed with armor like Queen Elizabeth and increased displacement to 30 thousand tons - it will generally cost like Nimitz
Armor is useless for nuclear war
Nimitz and his 80 aircraft are a good help in a local war, but what's the use of your "battleship"?

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

increase displacement to 30 thousand tons - it will generally cost as much as Nimitz

I didn’t ask about 1164, but I can say with confidence that a 30 armored heavy / battle cruiser with modern air defense and air defense and 000X3 2 guns will cost as much as one fifth of a modern carrier.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Nimitz and its 80 aircraft are a good help in local warfare

Unless the help to exploit and build it needs a huge economy, and in a local war you can easily do without it. And the incineration of an aircraft carrier will be five to ten times more expensive than a cruiser

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Armor is useless for nuclear war

There, where I got the link, there is a parsing that this is the wrong point of view.
Neglecting already that nuclear war is the defeat of all.



CHANCE "IOV" AGAINST "TIKONDEROG"
http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/sravn/aiova.htm

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

but I can confidently say that the 30 000 armored heavy / linear cruiser with modern air defense and air-launched aircrafts and the 3X2 254 guns will cost as much as one fifth of a modern carrier.

Where does confidence come from?
The cost of the Orly Burk with modern air defense and air defense systems is $ 1,2 billion.
10 thousand tons, almost no booking, GEM 80 thousand hp, 90 UVP, 1X130 mm, 2 Phalanx, hangar for a helicopter.
The cost of "George W. Bush" is $ 4,5 billion.

Quote: Kars

Unless the help to exploit and build it needs a huge economy, and in a local war, you can easily do without it.

Why is an armored cruiser in a local war? To release 100 Tomahawks along the shore? So it will easily do the SSGN "Ohio" - it is generally safe under water, 154 Tomahawk.

Quote: Kars

CHANCE "IOV" AGAINST "TIKONDEROG"

Poor to write an article "Iowa vs. Nimitz Odds"?
We compared a hedgehog with a walrus - a small Tikonderoga air defense / PLO is not intended for combat with surface ships at all. But it can shoot at Baghdad and at orbiting satellites.

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Cost of "George W. Bush" - $ 4,5 billion

nuclear carrier “George W. Bush” senior (USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77), cost - 6,2 billion dollars).

although I think it’s more expensive, plus for sure the air group.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And why in a local war is an armored cruiser? To release 100 Tomahawks along the shore?

Well, first you need to figure out what kind of local conflict it is, and it is very possible that besides missiles artillery will be used. And maybe even artillery. And a dozen tomahawks. It depends on what the purpose of the war is.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

SSGN "Ohio" - it is generally safe under water, 154 Tomahawk.

How much do you say Ohio is worth?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Poor to write an article "Iowa vs. Nimitz Odds"?

There are the author’s contacts there, your namesake, by the way, talk. In the meantime, this author and his arguments are suitable. Regarding the Ticonderoga - well, does he have anti-ship missiles and artillery? So personally, his problems are Large is created by his hull, which is overloaded from the desire to push the cruiser into the skin of a destroyer.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

nuclear carrier “George W. Bush” senior (USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77), cost - 6,2 billion dollars).

There is something to pay for:
- the wing is able to examine 100 thousand square meters in an hour. km of space
- combat radius of the Hornets with 2-harpoons - 700 km.
- 2520 tons of ammunition (Enterprise data)
The cost of the wing: 40 Super Hornet x 55 million + 4 Hawk x 80 million + 4 Growler x 55 million + 8 turntables x 20 million Total - 3 billion
You might think that land aircraft are cheaper ... or can we do without aviation at all?

Quote: Kars

Well, first you need to figure out what kind of local conflict, and it is very possible that besides missiles artillery will be used

Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan. What is the durability of the guns of the battleship?

Quote: Kars

How much do you say Ohio is worth?

2,5 Millard. 18 thousand tons

Quote: Kars

In the meantime, it is this author and his arguments that suit

He wrote stupidity, American cruisers do not fight with large surface targets

Quote: Kars

icunderogs - well, does he have anti-ship rockets and artillery?

But Harpuns were generally removed from Burke ...
5 inch Artillery - to destroy pirate boats and to launch a warning shot at intruder ships.

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

There is something to pay for:

These are the problems of the US Congress and their public debt.

But fact is ing.wiki fact - Cost: $ 6,3 billion
you

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The cost of "George W. Bush" is $ 4,5 billion.

This is more important. The prices for Olya Burke are at the bottom of the topic --- from 300 to 590 mil. Bakinsky.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

40 SuperHornets

In how many minutes do they end up in a local conflict with a country with medium air defense, such as Ukraine?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Total - 3 billion.

Plus the maintenance of pilots, training --- CONSTANT with departures. This is a year --- oh her

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

You might think that land aircraft are cheaper ... or can we do without aviation at all?

But they don’t need to be an aircraft carrier, but only a leased base, if not provided free of charge by the good neighbors of the victim in the hope of sharing the booty.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan

I would not say that these are local conflicts - these are wars, local conflicts are Grenada, Panama, Falkland with a stretch of Yugoslavia. But even there could be enough tomahawks there.
In none of the conflicts you listed were aircraft carriers alone, and artillery ships were active in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq

[Kars]

.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

2,5 Millard. 18 thousand tons

Tons could not necessarily be indicated --- the submarines are quite specific, and the displacement is not particularly important. Virginia is 8000 and cost from 2.5 to 1.8 billion.

in general, my boat will cost 1/5 of an aircraft carrier and have fire wax of 3-4 OL-Berk while having combat stability. And if you cut back on the appetites of an hourly US military-industrial complex, it might be cheaper.
And in principle, in a one-on-one battle, the very same aircraft carrier Nimitz will be able to destroy it (of course, a hypothetical option)

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

But Harpuns were generally removed from Burke ...
5 inch artillery - to wreck pirate boats

I repeat once again - these are the personal problems of Oli Berk, but if you want to communicate - the author loves to answer letters - I really don’t know how he is, alive or not.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

- the wing is able to examine 100 thousand square meters in an hour. km of space
- combat radius of the Hornets with 2-harpoons - 700 km.
- 2520 tons of ammunition (Enterprise data)

What is the detection range of surface targets in a battleship?
Possibilities of anti-aircraft battleship compared to an aircraft carrier?
The range of the guns of the battleship?

Quote: Kars

prices for Oli Burke at the bottom of the topic --- from 300 to 590 mil.bakinsky.

Where did such low prices come from?
Burke is worth 1,5 billion.
Alvaro de Basan 800 Million

Quote: Kars

In how many minutes do they end up in a local conflict with a country with medium air defense, such as Ukraine?

"medium air defense" is knocked out by Tomahawks and low-flying groups of attack aircraft, with the support of the Growlers, Hawkeys and satellite reconnaissance. Iraq-1991, 4 corridors were laid in one night.

Quote: Kars

Plus the maintenance of pilots, training --- CONSTANT with departures. This is a year --- oh her

Do you need to train ground pilots? Or we’ll do without aviation - we’ll fire at the coast and go home)))

Quote: Kars

But they don’t need an aircraft carrier

Therefore, they cannot operate at the Falkland Islands

Quote: Kars

and artillery ships were active in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq

And what is the result of their work? 1%.

Quote: Kars

In general, my boat will cost in 1 / 5 aircraft carrier

1,5 billion dollars? 30 thousand tons? With hundreds of UVP?
In short, you say nonsense. Burke, without armor, with full standardization of production, 10 thousand tons - 1,5 billion.

Quote: Kars

And in principle, in a one-on-one battle, the very same aircraft carrier Nimitz will be able to destroy it (of course, a hypothetical option)

At what distance will they find each other?
What are the Iowa air defense capabilities?

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What is the detection range of surface targets in a battleship?

I think 2 times more than Orly Burke WILL (like Aegis on it, but put it on the anchor nizya --- do not forget that the ships of the future. Tell us that we (like the Russian Federation) do not have it, but you don’t refuse to be able to shoot can)

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Possibilities of anti-aircraft battleship compared to an aircraft carrier?

Well, in the UVP there are 200 pieces of S-400 missiles (I don’t need it - I read about 5 years and the lighthouse factory or something) + up to 50 installations of artillery battle.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The range of the guns of the battleship?

60 km + KR to 2500 km

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Burke is worth 1,5 billion.

I asked to look down, okay, I’ll repeat

Quote: gregor6549

A type of Orly Burke is available at http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/statistics/costofddgs.htm

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

medium air defense "knocked out by Tomahawks

Where do you get tomahawks from? You have Hornets. Or, all the same, will you build carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic as if it’s not machinistic with respect to the super-duper aircraft carrier - so excuse me - you work without the MAGAVAWS, but you have an aircraft carrier with a thunderstorm of local conflicts.
Therefore, the question of how many minutes is enough for 40 Hornets remains.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Do you need to train ground pilots?

For their training, the aircraft carrier does not need to be driven.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Therefore, they cannot operate at the Falkland Islands

Maybe they have at least 3 of my cruisers.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And what is the result of their work? 1%.

And what are aircraft carriers? 3%? the rest is land aritleria and ballistic infantry with tanks. And the B-52 and B-29

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Burke, without armor, with full standardization of production, 10 thousand tons - 1,5 billion

Well, it doesn’t cost that much.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

At what distance will they find each other?
What are the Iowa air defense capabilities

Just not Iowa, or else we’ll start asking the Dreadnought air defense.
And the answers are higher.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

I think times in 2 more than Orly Burke WILL

D = 4.124√H, where H is the antenna suspension height in meters. Ten three kilometers.
An aircraft carrier in combat conditions - up to 1000 km

Quote: Kars

+ up to 50 artillery battlefield installations.

More in detail

Quote: Kars

60 km + KR to 2500 km

How many KR on board?
60 km is 12 times smaller than Hornet’s combat radius

Quote: Kars

http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/statistics/costofddgs.htm

Ahaha. This is where the legs of an unrealistic figure grow. A ship without weapons and all systems, a pure hull box - Hull and its Price
I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the report to Congress - http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543249
1 - in the 2010 fiscal year, 2,234 billion dollars were allocated for the completion of Berkov

Quote: Kars

Where do you get tomahawks from?

Small loss. We can do without Tomahawks

Quote: Kars

Maybe they have at least 3 of my cruisers.

Which would be drowned in one day

Quote: Kars

And what are aircraft carriers? 3%?

Vietnam - 30%

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Ten three kilometers

It is even visible in the optical range finder. And less than the radars of the end of World War II.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

How many KR on board?

UVP on 400-600 cells.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

60 km is 12 times smaller than Hornet’s combat radius

But a hundred times cheaper, and let's not compare artillery with an airplane - otherwise we can begin to decide how many 20 mm the Hornet’s gun fires.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

More in detail

AK-306M-22 HurricaneAK-630M-2 Roy / DuetCortic3M89 Broadsword3M-47 Bending

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Small loss. We can do without Tomahawks

So get by with 40 Hornets, so how long will they last? At least for 100 sorties? (Not each, but all, of which 30% can complete the task)

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Which would be drowned in one day

Why didn’t they melt all the English then? And my .. boys .. even the rockets wouldn’t have to be used.
I will not answer in my own words.

The British bit their elbows because they sent the battleship Vengard to be scrapped, because with its help they could finish the battles on the islands in a matter of days. In addition, the good old battleship could simply not pay attention to the Exozets, which destroyed several ships. The missile warhead was a miserable 500-pound bomb, the hits of which the battleship would not even notice. And most importantly, the flawed policy of building mini-replicas of real ships of the main classes was clearly demonstrated, which the British pushed to poverty and the falsely understood principle of economy. “Invincibles” could not be replaced by real aircraft carriers, they were still suitable as an exhibition model for some Spain or Thailand, as proof that “we can too.” But

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Vietnam - 30%

Weakly verits, but God bless them - all the same, the Yankees lost.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

It is even visible in the optical range finder.

This is a horizon.
to see further - you need a plane AWACS

Quote: Kars

and let's not compare artillery with an airplane

So why then do you need a battleship if you have an aircraft carrier?

Quote: Kars

AK-306M-22 HurricaneAK-630M-2 Roy / DuetCortic3M89 Broadsword3M-47 Bending

And there will be 50 pieces?
Why so much? Who will manage them? 50 radars will create such mutual interference that it cannot be compensated for by any location

Quote: Kars

So get by with the 40 Hornets, so how long will they last?

And how will the battleship attack Ukraine?

Quote: Kars

Why didn’t they all melt the British?

A third of the ships were damaged. What would happen if they all came to the same Vengard?

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

This is a horizon.
to see further - you need a plane AWACS

Evidence please.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

So why then do you need a battleship if you have an aircraft carrier?

Artillery is an auxiliary weapon, if you need a range there is a CD. So once again I say do not compare art and horn, otherwise we will compare which of them shoots the cannon further and we will draw conclusions.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And there will be 50 pieces?
Why so much? Who will manage them? 50 radars will create such mutual interference that it cannot be compensated for by any location

They will be controlled centrally, and turn on their radars, or receive warrants from the central ones according to the algorithms. So there will be less radars, and they will not create mutual interference.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And how will the battleship attack Ukraine?

Tomahawks, and Sevastopol from the guns smashed. And I can do better (cause more damage) than you.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

A third of the ships were damaged. What would happen if they all came to the same Vengard?

Well, for starters, he would not be alone, but he would have burned a bit, but the landing would have captured the islands faster.

[Kars]

Quote: Kars

This is a horizon

Of course, I’m not the best specialist, so I’m wondering how you will explain it.

Rangout targeting radar boats were detected by Israeli boats at ranges 45-50 km Missile launches were carried out in a salvo of 2-4 missiles from ranges of 20-40 km from the target. The actions of the Arabs include the following disadvantages.

This is from the period of the sinking of Eilat.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

Evidence please.

D = 4.124√H, where H is the antenna suspension height in meters.
You can count it yourself. Do not forget x2 the resulting figure.

Quote: Kars

So once again I say do not compare art and hornet

So why do we need art if there is a hornet?
And why do we need 400-600 expensive KR, if there is a cellar with conventional bombs on 2500 tons

Quote: Kars

They will be controlled centrally, and turn on their radars, or receive warrants from the central ones according to the algorithms

It's buulshit. The radar must be combined with the gun, otherwise there will be a problem of error. On this burned the creators of AK-630
So, in terms of effectiveness, your 50 ZAKs with a single guidance radar will become equal to the 8 Phalanxes. Proven by practice.

Quote: Kars

Tomahawks

They are of little use to the sense. A purely auxiliary weapon.

Quote: Kars

and I’ll smash Sevastopol from the guns.

And Hornet will reach Sevastopl, Odessa and Novorossiysk. From the Bosphorus, not putting the ship under attack

Quote: Kars

Well, for starters, he would not be alone

Where from more? Shaved with a dozen hard 42 type riveted

Quote: Kars

so would burn a bit

He would have beaten the settings in the first run, and the second run would be bombarded. And that’s all.
And tell me, there’s a lot of help from a ship without communications, radar and weapons (this is in case he survived by a miracle, and Argentina had only 3 aircraft)?

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

D = 4.124√H, where H is the antenna suspension height in meters

Simply put, you can’t bring real evidence, just like in an anecdote - but the men don’t know.

Quote: Kars

Rangout targeting radar boats were detected by Israeli boats at ranges of 45-50 km

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

So why do we need art if there is a hornet?

At a distance of up to 50 km, artillery surpasses the Hornets in reaction time and economic efficiency, while the plane is shot down, and artillery shells cannot be counteracted, it’s strange to teach you such a thing.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

why do we need 400-600 expensive KR, if there is a cellar with conventional bombs for 2500 tons

To use them you need expensive planes, and even more expensive pilots who will be shot down, and then the local population will be beaten with oak trees and shown corpses on TV.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The radar must be combined with the gun, otherwise there will be a problem of error

This is garbage. Central guidance gives a target indication, and only then the missile launcher turns on its small narrowly directed radar, and destroys targets that have not shot down missiles of the far, middle and near boundary.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

So in terms of effectiveness, your 50 ZAKs with a single guidance radar will become equal to 8 Phalanxes. Proven Practice

It’s strange, why do you think that there will be one radar? My displacement is not like that of Ticonderoga, there are a lot of places.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

They are of little use to the sense. A purely auxiliary weapon.

You’ll tell this about the air defense of Iraq and Yugoslavia, without the air defense system you’ll die to break through the air defense with blood.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And Hornet will reach Sevastopl, Odessa and Novorossiysk. From the Bosphorus, not putting the ship under attack

Where did you get the Hornets? They’ve been beating them all for two days now

[Kars]

.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Where from more? Shaved with a dozen hard 42 type riveted

And what does the Brita have to do with it? I already have in mind an operation similar to the Falkland one carried out by the USSR. Yes, and the Britons built it if you do not know, and then built everything that came to the Falklands.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

He would have beaten the settings in the first run, and the second run would be bombarded. And that’s all.

I don’t begin to doubt your imagination,
What are add-ons for a battleship? Nothing. Even if it were calculated that all the bombs that hit the English ships would get into Vengard (the set didn’t explode at the same time), then Vengard wouldn’t lose combat efficiency, and we’ll subtract exosets altogether.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

communications, radar and weapons

Oh, yes, especially the main artillery will be damaged, the radar is not much needed for the artillery fire cracking on the island. The communications are also protected.

[CC-20a]

patience to you in a conversation with this individual

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

That's the thing Andrey, that there will be not 4 Harpoons, but 40

Comrade, you are somehow too inconsistent, where will the 40 Harpoons come from if they attack only 2 Hornets? What do they carry 20 Harpoons each?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

+ harsh interference - it is not in vain that amers carry with them 4-6 EF-18 "Growler"

Let's no longer play silly games and consider the possibility of one ship to resist the aircraft carrier group. Enemy "Growlers" should be dealt with either carrier-based fighters or cruisers and destroyers with long-range air defense systems. In general, I strongly doubt that the "Growler" will be effective from a range greater than 150-200 km.
And already at such a distance he will not be allowed to fly quietly.

[Passing]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Too weak and vulnerable system compared to the AUG combat air patrol (AWAC Hawkai + a pair of Hornets)

A single UAV is immeasurably weaker than Hokai and a pair of Hornets, but many, many UAVs are covered by mega air defense destroyer exactly the opposite. I mean, by a lot, I mean not 5-10 UAVs, but pieces 50-100.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Still have questions?

Sure! How long is the regular life of the Legend satellite? passive a couple of years, active something like a couple of months. How many modern satellites live? Ours are approaching 10 years (promising Glonas), some Americans are working for twenty years. Divide by 20-120, we get a penny cost. Moreover, Hokai’s count is on the watch, and on the satellite for years. Hokai does not fly all the time, it has limited resources, fuel for it on the aircraft carrier is limited, weather conditions are limited, and the satellite observes continuously, around the clock, from year to year.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

AUG will just not allow the destroyer to reach the range of an anti-ship missile salvo - the combat radius of F / A-18 with 2 "Harpoons" and PTB - 700 km

If the long-distance controlled border of the AUG is 700 km, and in the future it will not be able to move significantly, then why do we not have anti-ship missiles with a range of 800-1000 km? And because there are no target designation means, both anti-ship missiles will catch up, there are no insoluble technical problems, long-range anti-ship missiles are easier to do than a fighter with the same radius, pure arithmetic - anti-ship missiles fly one way, and a fighter two.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The coral has no chance to even fend off even the 2's F / A-18: the Hornets go to the PMV and are not included in the S-300 air defense range - they can’t even be found, and the attack aircraft, in turn, are well aware of the situation - Hawkai gives them target designations flying in xnumx km behind

But Hokai does not allow to bring down religion? Or do you think that on the promising destroyer will be the same Reef? And by the way, why do you ignore a lot of UAVs, why can’t they give guidance for air defense?

[Passing]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The basics of modern naval combat

No need to prepare for past wars, this is a typical mistake, usually fatal. Technology has changed radically, something that in the twentieth century did not work, or was not effective, has reached maturity at the present stage, and will determine the essence of future naval battles. For example, if in the First World War German submarines were kings of the ocean, then by the end of the Second World War, with the advent of radars and sonars, they became helpless, the Germans missed the point, focused on old ideas and lost. just like at the present stage, satellites and drones have evolved so much that they turn from an expensive toy with narrow functionality into a cheap, effective and convenient tool.

[Stealth]

Even in the article, the phrase pleased:
"Without external target designation, the detection range of surface targets for any destroyer is limited by the radio horizon - 30 ... 40 km."
Does the author not know about the effect of superrefraction?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

Does the author not know about the effect of superrefraction?

Obviously, you do not know anything about superrefraction, otherwise you would not ask stupid questions.
At the detection range is the state of the atmosphere. For example, if air temperature and humidity slowly decrease with height, the dielectric constant of air decreases and, consequently, the speed of propagation of radio waves increases. The path of the radio beam is refracted in the direction of the earth's surface, and the radio horizon increases. Similar superrefraction is observed in tropical latitudes. In arctic latitudes, on the contrary, the radio horizon becomes smaller. Typically, these fluctuations do not exceed a few% of the range of the radio horizon.

[Stealth]

Hmm, I wonder, what would you call the effect of the reflection of radio waves from the ionosphere, which allows you to "look" beyond the radio horizon? And why, then, at the Almaz TsMKB are sure that in the presence of "super refraction" the detection range of the Monument radar increases to 250 km?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

Why, then, at the Almaz TsMKB are sure that in the presence of "super-refraction" the detection range of the Monument radar increases to 250 km?

This is incorrect information.

Moreover, the effect of superrefraction does not depend on the type of radar - this is a purely natural phenomenon, it either exists or does not exist.

As for the mention of 250 km - the energy capabilities of the Monument radar make it possible to detect a target at such a distance in the upper atmosphere, i.e. above the radio horizon.

Quote: Stealth

what would you call the effect of reflection of radio waves from the ionosphere, which allows you to "look" beyond the radio horizon

This is an over-the-horizon radar. The effect is based on that. that long waves are reflected from the ionosphere and allow you to look beyond the horizon.
Installing such systems on a ship is not possible. Long-wave over-horizon radars have masses of thousands of tons and sizes of hundreds of meters (kilometers). By the way, they do not see anything near (at a distance of several tens of kilometers)

[Stealth]

At the expense of over-refraction - thanks, I filled the gap in my knowledge (I was a victim of advertising )

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

As for the mention of 250 km - the energy capabilities of the Monument radar make it possible to detect a target at such a distance in the upper atmosphere, i.e. above the radio horizon.

All the same, it’s strange, you say that super-refraction can give an increase in the radio horizon by a few percent, and the Almaz Metallurgical Plant assures that it is increasing as much as 6 times (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBz4cnjhzi8) !!!
What does it mean?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Passing by

I mean, by a lot, I mean not 5-10 UAVs, but 50-100 pieces.

Nanotechnology galleries?

Quote: Passing by

How long is the regular life of the Legend satellite?

US-A 45 days

Quote: Passing by

Hokai does not fly all the time, his resource is limited, fuel for him on the aircraft carrier is limited

Flies, even as it flies. Already 50 years.

Quote: Passing by

and the satellite observes continuously, round the clock, from year to year.

Well, the operation of the ICRC costs as 2 AUG. And in the event of hostilities, active satellites can be easily destroyed - their orbit is too low

Quote: Passing by

If the far controlled border of the AUG is 700 km, and in the future it will not be able to move significantly

Will be able. Usually, when the threat is increased, defense is echeloned - advanced air patrols go even further.

Quote: Passing by

about why we don’t have anti-ship missiles with a range of 800-1000 km? BUT because there is no means of target designation

You yourself answered your own question. An attempt to create such systems flies in the billions.

Quote: Passing by

But Hokai does not allow to bring down religion?

At the present stage of technological development, it is impossible to shoot Hawkai at a range of 300-400 km. What will happen in the future is unknown, but as they say a good spoon for dinner. Hawkai has been flying for 50 years, and we have a lot of drawings.

[Passing]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Nanotechnology galleries?

If very specifically: Ka-135 - 300 kg take-off weight, Kite - 500 kg. One flies with optics, the other with a radar or, quite possibly, with a GAS. And this is only the near future. Nothing prevents to cram 50 pcs. such babies in the destroyer. Well, perhaps the inertia of thinking, such as fencing giant hangars from the runway like the Mistral. It really will be cumbersome. It’s just not necessary to block the classical scheme of a helicopter carrier, but to organize UAV storage in compact multi-tiered cells, and to launch / receive 2-4 stabilized manipulators onboard. So many UAVs are needed for real all-round continuous viewing and loss compensation, which will be necessary. UAVs are consumables, such as missiles, all the more so because their cost is comparable.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Well, the operation of the ICRC costs as 2 AUG

I already wrote about value, is it proportional to the resource, or do you disagree with this thesis? So it will cost not as 2 AUGs, but as one aircraft carrier, such costs every ten to twenty years.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And in the event of hostilities, active satellites can be easily destroyed - their orbit is too low

Well, we are smart people, we will not make a hundred-footed monster alone watching the ocean, we will launch many, many small stealth satellites, while they will be looking for and shooting them for months, we will also launch, and in addition we will add a hundred or two more simulators.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Will be able. Usually, when the threat is increased, defense is echeloned - advanced air patrols go even further.

There are only 4 (four) hokaevs, not all fly at the same time, two planes cannot overlap 360 degrees, and the larger the radius, the more holes, the longer it takes to fly to the turn, the less time to patrol. Hokai has 4 hours of flight, an hour to the turn, two for patrolling, an hour back, i.e. you need two Hokai continuously changing every two hours, i.e. in four directions there are already eight hockeys and a bunch of interchangeable crews. How much in this mode will they stretch? A week maybe. A month, and two? And if you knock a couple? The defender is always in a losing situation, he is forced to disperse his strength. And the striker hits concentrated, at a convenient moment.

[Stealth]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

At the present stage of technical development, it is impossible to bring down Hawkai at a range of 300-400 km.

RVV:
R-73 - 300km
KS-172 - 400km (being tested)
SAM:
40H6 - 400-460km
And what is impossible here?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

40H6 - 400-460km

This rocket is just a dream.

[Stealth]

This rocket has already completed the test, if you do not follow the news ...

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Stealth

This rocket has already completed tests, if you do not follow the news

She has been completing tests for 5 years already. And then it turned out that the Fakel plant did not even begin to manufacture the GOS and the radio fuse for this missile

[CC-20a]

Where do you get such a crazy heresy? Smart people tell you that they already made a rocket a long time ago, they even shot it at the exercises of the East Kazakhstan region this year ... and you still confirm like a ram (not an insult, just a hypothetical comparison) that there is no O_O rocket

[CC-20a]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Nanotechnology galleries?

Your frailty is limitless. You can immediately see that you are some kind of shkololo on vacation.
UAVs are different from 10 kg and above, I have met information about 2,5 kg.
100 UAVs this can be a lot but technically possible.
You didn’t know this, due to low awareness and schoolboyism.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

US-A 45 days

lies.
Service life from 45 to 120 days. The shutdown time of these satellites is not openly indicated anywhere, only the conclusions from the orbits of the satellite layouts and test flights are known.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Flies, even as it flies. Already 50 years.

Again a lie !!!
Tell me the tail number of this Hokai that has been flying for 50 years.
(I say right away, SUCH NO)

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Well, the operation of the ICRC costs as 2 AUG. And in the event of hostilities, active satellites can be easily destroyed - their orbit is too low

The cost of operating 1 AUG is the most expensive in the world, even the Americans admit, so do not breed it here.
It’s easy to bring down satellites ... uhahaha, I’m just wallowing with laughter, hmm ... and the Yusovites still don’t know ... and try to snub something there but every time they say about some failures sometimes and about successes, but a bunch grandmas were already burned to achieve satellite defeat with a very low probability.
And finally, what should be to assume that a satellite is easier to shoot down than a hokai
PS: as I understand it, you have not yet gone through physics at school (so you can shine in the classroom for the future ... I will tell you the secret of physics) the lower the satellite’s orbit, the higher its speed, so xs, US-A can be knocked down or not .

[CC-20a]

So in secret ... the US Navy cannot control the entire ocean and give tsu on moving objects, but only 300km zones around aug ... in the water area it is 0,00000001% of the total area of ​​seas and oceans.
You current do not worry that I shook the greatness of the United States Navy, in your brain, with their humpbacks)))

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

At the present stage of technological development, it is impossible to shoot Hawkai at a range of 300-400 km. What will happen in the future is unknown, but as they say a good spoon for dinner. Hawkai has been flying for 50 years, and we have a lot of drawings.

Such a schoolboy like you is definitely impossible)
At a distance of 300-400 km, the hokai itself will be on the horizon line, provided that there are S-400s, then the hokai can get it.

And so, if you need to, our pvoshniks will be knocked down by a hokai who has entered the air defense zone ... and after all, harpoon carriers will have to enter the zone because the harpoon has a range of max. so that the pcr reaches the goal, and then 250 meters of figs is not yet enough to reach the target and it will fall into the sea simply, well, and the pkr harpoon themselves are slow flying without maneuvering is not at all a strong problem

PS: why do we need Hokai in the absence of AUG? what to fly over your territory with a dry territory? We already have AWACS A-50. And there are blueprints because we can create and build, but whether it is necessary to build or not is another matter, which obviously more intelligent people decided to glory to God than you.

Well it is! where do you get such stupidity? where are you stuffing it? where such shkolole views?

[Santa Fe]

SS-20, you would like to drink some cold water

[CC-20a]

and you would have brains, well, or how else, but restore the gray matter in your head, otherwise honestly it’s not interesting to read you, it’s only funny and sad.

[Kars]

The choice of the art installation and its caliber is not particularly clear to me. And I do not even need to recall the RCC.
If you were to set it as 203 mm as if you were planning to develop a marine version of Peony, why do you need a vertical tower when two-gun towers were developed and tested long ago, while with a horizontal arrangement, the survivability of the installation is greater.

[Vito]

Good day to all my FRIENDS, very glad to meet you all on this topic! OLEG, to you, as always, respect and a huge plus from me (it’s a pity you won’t put much, well, God bless them).
I will express my opinion about the destroyers.
First of all, on nuclear installations, the destroyer is a universal, powerful weapon. He can attack and defend against almost all types and types of weapons, therefore ships of this class will always be at the forefront (conflicts and all kinds of confrontations in the oceans and seas), I agree with a respected author that any damage to a ship’s nuclear power plant is primarily a life threat the destroyer crew itself. There is another serious aspect that OLEG did not mention, is the disposal of the ship’s nuclear waste after its service life to our Navy! In my opinion, this is a serious nuance! I understand that our MOTHERLAND has immense open spaces, but you must agree with me dear colleagues, I do not want nuclear repositories to spawn on the territory of our state! By dilemma, the destroyer or frigate will express my point of view. No doubt both are needed, some are good at sea, others are indispensable in the ocean!
ps
With the modern and rapid development of technology, destroyers in the near future will replace cruisers, but this is my personal opinion!

[maxiv1979]

ordinary, strong destroyer, we need such escorts as aug itself is needed) satellites can’t do it here, uvp for mass launch of missiles, dlls and boats, only a complex, single targets, such as Peter the Great, will be instantly cracked

[Stealth]

And for what reason is Petya a single target? Religion does not allow him to be accompanied?
And if on the topic, I think that overgrowing frigates should be left to countries like Spain, which understand that they will not have destroyers anyway, that's why they went for such a hybrid.
For our Navy, it is better to divide the functions between numerous and universal frigates and small but powerful destroyers that will take on those functions that the frigate will not be able to perform (missile defense, ultra-long air defense line, force control (reserve, in case of failure of the flagship)).

[toguns]

I do not want to offend the author, but there are some inaccuracies in it at the beginning of the article, the author says that the universal weapon storage ship is bad, and at the end of the article it contradicts itself by stuffing everything into a small destroyer.
a simple example of air defense, and if you set it, it’s a S-400 naval option, but this thing was put on a displacement cruiser clearly above 10 thousand tons.
the question is how to shove it 7000 destroyer ???
anti-submarine weapons caliber okay let there be a caliber here options sea.
tactical strike weapons of the destroyer, this topic is not disclosed.
it turns out that there is an anti-submarine ship, but it’s practically without normal air defense, such a target will be eaten quickly.
it’s necessary to draw a larger conclusion so that it covers part of the air defense, but as if it were inexpensive and had efficiency like the s-400.
some unanswered questions :(

[Santa Fe]

Quote: toguns

the author says that the universal ship storage of weapons is bad, and at the end of the article it contradicts itself by stuffing everything in a row into a small destroyer.

Where did I say that everything should fit into a small destroyer?

Quote: toguns

this is a c-400 marine variant, but this thing was put on a displacement cruiser clearly above 10 thousand tons.

C-400 still exists only in the land version
And how did 8000 Standard-74 (firing range 2 km) and Standard-240 (firing range 3 km) fit onto 400 Orly Burke Series I?

Quote: toguns

the question is how to shove it 7000 destroyer ???

If you mean the S-300F, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Azov BOD - the only ship in the world with 3 air defense systems - Osa, Storm, S-300F. (plus, sea of ​​other weapons) Full displacement of Azov - 7000 tons

Quote: toguns

it turns out that there is an anti-submarine ship, but it’s actually without normal air defense

Do you think Alvaro de Basan has weak air defense?

Quote: toguns

such a goal aug will be eaten quickly.

AUG will quickly eat up any surface target without air cover

[toguns]

thanks for your reply.
so mean

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Where did I say that everything should fit into a small destroyer?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

If you mean the S-300F, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Azov BOD - the only ship in the world with 3 air defense systems - Osa, Storm, S-300F. (plus, sea of ​​other weapons) Full displacement of Azov - 7000 tons

this is shoved all in one pile the result will be a sort of analogue of an eagle pr 1144.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

C-400 still exists only in the land version
And how did 8000 Standard-74 (firing range 2 km) and Standard-240 (firing range 3 km) fit onto 400 Orly Burke Series I?

Standard 3 is a missile defense system, but it is necessary to deploy S-400 air defense in order to bring down Aug aircraft, when we have an S-500, we can talk about the topic with missile defense.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

If you mean the S-300F, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Azov BOD - the only ship in the world with 3 air defense systems - Osa, Storm, S-300F. (plus, sea of ​​other weapons) Full displacement of Azov - 7000 tons

for the sake of interest, compare the basics with Peter 1 in terms of the number of PU s-300fs, so there are clearly fewer of them at the call.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

AUG will quickly eat up any surface target without air cover

the range of a new missile at s-400 400 km, having a large number of pu ships, fighting off augs can be quite successful, the main thing is to give it covered from submarines and firing anti-ship missiles.
and where are the tactical missiles ??? you do not have it.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: toguns

this is shoved all in one pile the result will be a sort of analogue of an eagle pr 1144.

Azov is an experiment, and the BOD itself, etc. 1134B, were very successful
Of course, this has nothing to do with the modern "main warship", I just gave you an example when the S-300F embarked on a ship with a displacement of 7000 tons

Quote: toguns

Standard-3 is a missile defense system, but it is necessary to install S-400 air defense

The fact remains - long-range anti-aircraft missiles, like the S-400, climbed into the small Orly Burke in large numbers

Quote: toguns

for the sake of interest, compare the basics with Peter 1 by the number of PU s-300f so here at the call they are clearly less

2 PU C-300F instead of the Storm feed installation. It was just a successful experiment.

Quote: toguns

the range of a new missile at s-400 400 km, having a large number of pu ships, fighting off aug can quite successfully

Yes, even 500 kilometers, it is useless. The ship simply will not see the planes - attack aircraft fly below its radio horizon

Quote: toguns

and where are the tactical missiles ???

Caliber. 8-16 missiles, this is quite enough

[CC-20a]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes, even 500 kilometers, it is useless. The ship simply will not see the planes - attack aircraft fly below its radio horizon

Like the attack aircraft themselves will not see the ship .... the truth is I vaguely imagine how the A-10 will take off from the United States Aviation carrier ... but we will throw away your version with the attack aircraft and return to F18 ... carrying 2 PKR, at a low altitude outside the enemy’s radio range, in this case, the F18s themselves do not see the ship and cannot give TsU to harpoons ... moreover, at a distance of 400 km it is generally useless because the rocket will fly 150 km, and generally 100 km ... even in cases of a missile range of 280 km it is calculated provided that the hill is completed and rise to a significant height for launch ... at a given height f18 will be immediately e is shot down, well, and if you fly low to the stop until you see a tsu for a harpoon, then in this case f18 will not have a chance to get too close came there it will be covered not by S-300F current and hypothetical S-400, but also by short-range air defense systems .

As a result, if you do not twist the anti-ship missile, the harpoon is still launched in the enemy’s air defense defeat zone ... that is, to hit the enemy, you must first grab n ** lei yourself ...

[maxiv1979]

yes any ship, with air defense or not, aug will be eaten quickly, aug has only one rtvet, its aug

[toguns]

you forgot about the "maskite fleet" and SSGN and strategic bombers (hello weaving).

[Rider]

Quote: toguns

you forgot about the "maskite fleet"

How are "Ain Zaquit" and "Sahand"?
AUG examines 100.000 square meters per hour. kilometers of space

Quote: toguns

SSGN

Who will issue the target designation PLARK?

Quote: toguns

strategic bombers

Who will cover them over the ocean?

[gregor6549]

It makes sense to make such destroyers if they are an integral part of a naval grouping of dissimilar ships. The truth is, why such a "petty" nuclear power plant is not clear. Here is a set of sensors that allow you to "illuminate" the air, surface and underwater environment within a radius of at least 200-300 km, a modern CIUS that allows 100% use of the information from these sensors, as well as a set of means of destruction of detected targets, this is something without which this type of ship loses its meaning. Moreover, it is necessary that these funds be specially developed for such a ship and not drag the air defense systems of the country and ground forces onto it, as well as the means developed for submarines, as they once dragged air defense and missile defense systems onto the Kirov nuclear cruiser. And further. All radars, including the most modern HEADLIGHTS, are an excellent bait for missiles and projectiles guided by radio emission. If on land the defeat of the radar antenna system by such projectiles does not entail the failure of the entire radar, and even more so the air defense system, then hitting such an antenna installed on the ship may mean the death of the entire ship. A possible solution to this problem lies in the use of well-forgotten radar diversity, when the transmitter and receiver of a radar with antennas are separated by a certain distance. In the ship version, it can be a kind of floating craft with a similar transmitter (towed or remotely controlled) that is located at a safe distance from the ship. In a compact grouping of ships, one such device could work for all ships of the group. Previously, the issue of using such spaced-apart systems rested on frail computing systems, but now this is no longer a question.

[Darck]

I mean, by a lot, I mean not 5-10 UAVs, but 50-100 pieces.

Yeah, and what for every destroyer on the satellite you’re slaughtering? Where to base such a number of drones? Where to find so many operators and places for them? The price of such a number of drones will be comparable to two Hokai-yams (this is the minimum). This is all to plug 1 Hokai, and four are usually based on an aircraft carrier =) The time of patrolling one Hokai is 6 hours, as far as I know, a satellite cannot constantly monitor the same area, and this is expensive and the signal delays are large.

In principle, the new Russian destroyer of the 21956 project has been talked about for 20 years, but this issue has never been discussed at such a high level.

Yeah, at the level of drawings and layouts, they would already say what will be a miracle there.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

Yeah and what for each destroyer satellite companion?

Why for everyone? Network of satellites, radio reconnaissance, optical, radar. Fly with a certain frequency and look where someone has moved. The period can be widely varied by the number of satellites and the height of the orbit.

Quote: Darck

Where to base such a number of drones? Where to find so many operators and places for them?

Where to base, I wrote above, crowds of operators are needed only for primitive UAVs. Normal fly themselves. Operator attention will only be required when a target is detected.

Quote: Darck

The price of such a number of drones will be comparable to two Hokai-Yam (this is the minimum). This is all to shut up 1 Hokai

The price averaged 1-2 million bucks apiece. 50-100 million per destroyer. Not to say that beyond. But they hang in the air continuously, 24 hours, 365 days a year, and cover 360 degrees of the horizon, unlike Hokai, and it is incomparably more difficult to destroy them than any 4 aircraft.

[Rider]

Quote: Passing by

Where to base, I wrote above, crowds of operators are needed only for primitive UAVs. Normal fly themselves. Operator attention will only be required when a target is detected.

Naive dreams

[Darck]

Why for everyone?

And then, in order to keep track of each destroyer you need a cloud of satellites, existing ones will not be able to cope with such a task.

Fly with a certain frequency and look where someone has moved.

Who are they moving to, who are they looking at? Do you want to track all the fleets of the world? Then you will need a lot, a lot of satellites. You also need to look at nuclear weapons, submarines, etc. This is a mission not feasible.

Where to base, I wrote above, crowds of operators are needed only for primitive UAVs.

For UAVs to fly by themselves, they need a flocking mind, otherwise they will start to collide with each other, such developments are being carried out in the USA, in Russia there are none, where did you plan to get non-primitive drones? Not so much from Iran ... And even such a developed drones, we need a duplicated control system, so again we are confronted with the problem of operators and control panels, for 100 drones we will need our own aircraft carrier.

The price averaged 1-2 million bucks apiece.

The price of a primitive traitor is 4 bucks of llama, he works under the control of an operator, in addition he needs a radar, a method of taking off from the deck of a destroyer, his own control panel, etc., the same flocking mind. And you need a dough like an entire aircraft carrier.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

Who are they moving to, who are they looking at?

It seems you do not quite correctly imagine how tracking satellites work. They do not work like they do in Hollywood movies. They do not hang in one place, and do not follow one patch of Earth around the clock, they fly at altitudes of several hundred kilometers, i.e. fly around the Earth with a frequency of several hours, and during the flight over the desired area make observation. Rather, they observe a certain continuous strip of the Earth’s surface at a certain latitude, and they do not necessarily observe strictly downward, they can also observe from a certain angle, with increasing.
You can of course drive a satellite into a geostationary orbit, and then it will hang over the same point on the earth, but then the distance to the earth’s surface will be 40000 km, and in order to see something on the ground, you will have to use super-expensive multi-ton optics, which it’s kind of like the Hubble telescope, and such an apparatus will see exactly one segment of the Earth. Therefore, such a scheme is not used, because it is devoid of practical meaning, at least at the present stage of development.

Quote: Darck

For UAVs to fly by themselves, they need a flocking mind

You exaggerate the problem somewhat. At the same time, there will be not 100 vehicles in the air, but about ten to twenty, and they will not fly in packs on board, and each one is strictly in its segment at a distance of tens and hundreds of kilometers. You can even manually prescribe a tough algorithm where and to whom to fly from these twenty devices, such as a route map. But it’s better of course to do everything a little more intelligent, and I don’t see any problems here, a usual logistic task, such as traffic control in traffic in a city.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

The price of a primitive traitor is 4 lyam bucks, it works under the operator

http://z9.invisionfree.com/21c/ar/t8534.htm

Camcopter S-100 UAV System: $ 2.25 million for 2 aircraft & ground support. A helicopter-style UAV, the Camcopter S-100 is ideal for maritime environments and can even utilize two of the Lightweight Multirole Missile, delivering a 3kg blast / fragmentation warhead.
Camcopter S-150N UAV System: $ 4 million for 2 aircraft & ground support. A helicopter-style UAV like its cousin, the S-150N is optimized for deployment in maritime environments. Also features noticeably greater endurance, superior payload, and superior sensors / data feed capability.

Those. 1-2 million apiece with all the periphery. And keep in mind that domestic engineering is usually one and a half to two times cheaper.

[Darck]

Camcopter S-100 UAV System: $ 2.25 million for 2 aircraft & ground support. A helicopter-style UAV, the Camcopter S-100 is ideal for maritime environments and can even utilize two of the Lightweight Multirole Missile, delivering a 3kg blast / fragmentation warhead.
Camcopter S-150N UAV System: $ 4 million for 2 aircraft & ground support. A helicopter-style UAV like its cousin, the S-150N is optimized for deployment in maritime environments. Also features noticeably greater endurance, superior payload, and superior sensors / data feed capability.

At least you got acquainted with the series of helicopters before throwing a link to them. Flight time 6 hours (the same Hawkeye) Payload 50 kg, xs what you can load on it, ceiling 3,5.km. Distance from the operator 150km. Wind power there are no more than 20 knots for this native. (during take-off and landing) And we get a bunch of problematic birds that will keep track of the perimeter ... than photo cameras? And he needs an operator.

Those. 1-2 million apiece with all the periphery. And keep in mind that domestic engineering is usually one and a half to two times cheaper.

Dear, I even took into account that there is NO such technique of Russian development.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

You at least got acquainted with a series of these helicopters

I know them very well. He cited the price of a really existing apparatus for the Navy.

Quote: Darck

Flight time 6 hours (the same Hawkai)

So what is the problem? Hokkaev 4 pcs., And drones 50 pcs. Continue on, or can you add two plus two yourself?

Quote: Darck

Distance from the operator 150km

Why more? We need to expand the radio horizon to detect low-flying targets, as well as provide anti-submarine defense by hanging on some of the GAS devices, so such a range for self-defense destroyer tasks is more than enough. And for RCC targeting will give a satellite constellation. And besides, what prevents, in the event of the destruction of satellites, launching several UAVs in one direction at the maximum flight range? Like one in front, flies before fuel is generated, others serve as repeaters? This will provide a range higher than that of Hokai.
By the way, there is still such a moment - several dozen UAVs with a GAS will create a distributed network of sonars as a one-time American system, but ours will move with the ship and it will not need one-time buoys. Those. the sonar system will have a new, revolutionary quality.

Quote: Darck

The wind force for this native is not more than 20 knots. (During take-off and landing)

This is when starting in a free position, i.e. put on the runway, and from there it takes off. Naturally, it will be blown away by a strong wind. I suggest taking off from the position fixed by the manipulator. Those. the manipulator extends, the apparatus is rigidly fixed in it, pitching is leveled by swinging the manipulator. Those. instead of take-off and landing on the surface, docking-undocking takes place. In addition, I was not in vain citing two models of promising helicopter UAVs Ka-135 and Korshun. Both of them are built according to the coaxial scheme, i.e. they have no side wind problem, which is dangerous for single-rotor circuits, i.e. they can take off from the manipulator with any force and direction of the wind.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

Dear, I even took into account that there is NO such technique of Russian development.

We have helicopter UAVs, such as Radar-MMS or ZALA, but so far they are rather weak in terms of performance characteristics.

Here is what is in development:
http://bespilotie.ru/rossijskie-bespilotnye-vertolety/

UAV Ka-135 - a small unmanned helicopter with a coaxial arrangement of propellers, its characteristics:
- engine - piston;
- weight - 300 kg .;
- range - 100 km .;
- payload mass - 50 kg .;
- maximum speed - 170 km / h.
Unmanned helicopter "Korshun"
UAV "Kite" - a medium unmanned helicopter with a coaxial arrangement of propellers, its characteristics:
- weight - 500 kg .;
- range - 300 km .;
- payload mass - 150 kg .;
- flight time - up to 3 hours;
- maximum speed - 170 km / h.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

Payload 50kg, xs what can you load on it

http://missiles2go.ru/2012/04/23/маи-в-2012-году-завершит-разработку-новой/

The station is designed to solve reconnaissance and surveillance tasks at any time of the day and any weather, while providing high and ultra-high resolution (up to 0.5 m in the centimeter and 0,25 m in the millimeter wavelengths). In particular, it provides detection of ground and surface stationary and moving objects, determination of meteorological conditions, provision of low-altitude flight, detection of power transmission lines, mapping, as well as overview, detection, and tracking of air targets. The mass of a dual-band radar will be no more than 55-60 kg and will have a range depending on the task - from 0,2 to 28 km in the Ka-band and up to 160 km in the X-band. It is possible to supply radar in a single-band version. In this case, the mass with the Ka-band module will be about 23 kg, and with the X-band module - no more than 35 kg.

http://missiles2go.ru/2012/04/11/новости-фазотроностроения/

Now we are starting to create a radar with AFAR for naval helicopters Ka-27 or Ka-52K. The main difficulty is that the weight of the radar for a combat helicopter should be no more than 80 kg. To do this, the thickness of the mirror of the helicopter radar will decrease from 170 to 50 mm, the size of the grating will be 600 x 400 mm.
This radar should have characteristics and range that would allow the use of guided weapons directly from a helicopter - say, X-35 and X-31 anti-ship missiles. For long range and sea coverage, it is better to use the centimeter range, which allows you to get a detection range of up to 200 km.

[Darck]

We have helicopter UAVs, such as Radar-MMS or ZALA, but so far they are rather weak in terms of performance characteristics.

They do not closely resemble the Australian.

Here is what is in development:
http://bespilotie.ru/rossijskie-bespilotnye-vertolety/
UAV Ka-135 - a small unmanned helicopter with a coaxial arrangement of propellers, its characteristics:
- engine - piston;
- weight - 300 kg .;
- range - 100 km .;
- payload mass - 50 kg .;
- maximum speed - 170 km / h.
Unmanned helicopter "Korshun"
UAV "Kite" - a medium unmanned helicopter with a coaxial arrangement of propellers, its characteristics:
- weight - 500 kg .;
- range - 300 km .;
- payload mass - 150 kg .;
- flight time - up to 3 hours;
- maximum speed - 170 km / h.

This is all good, we have to wait until it all comes out, in what weather conditions it will be possible to operate, what price they will have, those services, etc. Again, operators, services and other headaches. This is a destroyer, not about a helicopter carrier or an aircraft carrier.

The station is designed to solve reconnaissance and surveillance tasks at any time of the day and any weather, while providing high and ultra-high resolution (up to 0.5 m in the centimeter and 0,25 m in the millimeter wavelengths). In particular, it provides detection of ground and surface stationary and moving objects, determination of meteorological conditions, provision of low-altitude flight, detection of power transmission lines, mapping, as well as overview, detection, and tracking of air targets. The mass of a dual-band radar will be no more than 55-60 kg and will have a range depending on the task - from 0,2 to 28 km in the Ka-band and up to 160 km in the X-band. It is possible to supply radar in a single-band version. In this case, the mass with the Ka-band module will be about 23 kg, and with the X-band module - no more than 35 kg.

Under what conditions can the media work? Can you combine all this into one CIUS? How much will this crap cost? Will it be reliable? You stupidly suggest replacing 1 AWACS aircraft, 20 drones, but even then they will not come close to the capabilities of Hokai.

Developers from the Moscow Aviation Institute believe that the station can be placed on civilian and military helicopters, medium and heavy UAVs with take-off weight of 800 kg and various aircraft.

Before such helicopters, as far as Beijing, on foot, and there will be more room for them than for the Chinese.

[Darck]

So what is the problem? Hokkaev 4 pcs., And drones 50 pcs. Continue on, or can you add two plus two yourself?

4 50 drones give Hokaya ... how to do a nefig ... It is enough to contrast the performance characteristics of helicopters and Hokai. Or you yourself could not understand this?

I know them very well. He cited the price of a really existing apparatus for the Navy.

But not as a replacement for AWACS.

And besides, what prevents, in the case of destruction of satellites, launching several UAVs in one direction at the maximum flight range? Like one in front, flies before fuel is generated, others serve as repeaters?

30-50 km maximum if it is in the direct line of sight of the radio signal, without interference. I don’t see the point of letting them caravan.

This will provide a range higher than that of Hokai.

Only in dreams.

By the way, there is still such a moment - several dozen UAVs with a GAS will create a distributed network of sonars as a one-time American system, but ours will move with the ship and it will not need one-time buoys. Those. the sonar system will have a new, revolutionary quality.

Hmm ..... She will need a cloud of operators, I imagine a destroyer and around it a flock of ravens, some are watching over water, others are under water, where is there so much space on the destroyer? Where is there so much space for equipment and operators, I don’t I want to disappoint you, but the GAS have already been installed on helicopters for a long time and they are on the same Arly Burke, only there are 1-2 of them (helicopters), and 50 helicopters with only small buoys will have the same function?

This is when starting in a free position, i.e. put on the runway, and from there it takes off. Naturally, it will be blown away by a strong wind. I suggest taking off from the position fixed by the manipulator. Those. the manipulator extends, the apparatus is rigidly fixed in it, pitching is leveled by swinging the manipulator. Those. instead of take-off and landing on the surface, docking-undocking takes place. In addition, I was not in vain citing two models of promising helicopter UAVs Ka-135 and Korshun. Both of them are built according to the coaxial scheme, i.e. they have no side wind problem, which is dangerous for single-rotor circuits, i.e. they can take off from the manipulator with any force and direction of the wind.

Come on, come on .... I’d like to see the amount of UAVs taking off from a destroyer during a storm or military operations. Everyone can fantasize, but there’s no way to build such carriers like a helicopter. You’ll already need an entire aircraft carrier.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

30-50 km maximum if it is in the direct line of sight of the radio signal, without interference. I don’t see the point of letting them caravan.

Why is 50 km maximum, where did you get it? We put a repeater instead of a radar, fly at altitude, the relay range will be say 100km (200km receive-relay). UAV flight range 500 km + 200 km radar range, i.e. you need to use a chain of 3 UAVs, they will provide a 700 km boundary detection AUG. Moreover, this is a backup option, in case of satellite inaccessibility.

Quote: Darck

She will need a cloud of operators, I imagine the destroyer and around it a flock of ravens, some are watching over water, others are under water, where is there so much space on the destroyer?

Wake up already from hibernation, now we have the age of miniature electronics, computers and artificial intelligence, and you all live in the concepts of the last century.

Quote: Darck

You will then need an entire aircraft carrier.

If you follow the traditional approaches of the last century. I brought you specific solutions. What is fantastic about them? Autonomous flight? Automatic takeoff and landing? Manipulators? Stable pitch compensation systems? All this is now! It is true separately, and not necessarily with regard to military equipment, but if the developers are properly assigned the task, then everything is really solved.

[Darck]

Why is 50 km maximum, where did you get it?

This is not what I took, it is written in the technical specifications of the Australian.

We put a repeater instead of a radar, fly at altitude, the relay range will be say 100km (200km receive-relay).

Let’s say, let’s put it. Put, do, p

[Darck]

UAV flight range 500 km

What prevents to bring down this UAV? As I understand it, all of this is 800kg radar banduras, a guide to find such a shaitan helicopter?

Moreover, this is a backup option, in case of satellite inaccessibility.

Isn’t it easier to put Aegis, to modernize an aircraft carrier, to put an aircraft AWACS.

Wake up already from hibernation, now we have the age of miniature electronics, computers and artificial intelligence, and you all live in the concepts of the last century.

Yeah, it’s special in the Russian Federation, show me miniature drones with the characteristics that are needed for the fleet. And yes, you also need to show the true mind too.

Autonomous flight?

And what kind of UAVs in Russia can carry out an autonomous flight, while interacting with each other? For how long does this entire fleet take off and begin to carry out its tasks, on an aircraft carrier it seems to take 20 seconds to take off between takeoffs.

but if the task is correctly set for the developers, then everything is really solved.

That everything is solved, if there are dibs, and where does the Russian Federation have so much dough? Isn’t it easier to go the way that is cheaper and more efficient? It’s not enough to create all this, it is necessary to unite, create a system for applying all this.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

What prevents to bring down this UAV?

Nothing but its stealth on the background of monsters under 30 tons in weight.
And it’s not a pity, we still have 47 such pieces. And every lost Hokai is an irreparable blow to defense, and a heavy blow to the budget.

Quote: Darck

Radar 800kg

Read carefully, an "adult" helicopter should not be heavier than 80 kg.
There will be options specifically for UAVs of 55, 35, 23 kg.
Choose for every taste.

Quote: Darck

Isn’t it easier to put Aegis, to modernize an aircraft carrier, to put an aircraft AWACS.

Type Aegis is a must. AWACS is needed for aviation, i.e. only for an aircraft carrier, and for a destroyer of UAV capabilities above the roof. And besides, AWACS does not provide anti-submarine defense.

Quote: Darck

And yes, a rational mind should also be shown.

A typical mistake. Artificial intelligence is not the same as artificial intelligence! The first has existed for a long time. For example, it is also called an expert system. If you want an example, this is the Aegis system, or a program replacing exchange traders in the USA (actually used by reputable companies).

Quote: Darck

That everything is solved, if there are dibs, and where does the RF have so much dough?

There were grandmothers on three Mistrals. Maybe there are really necessary things.

Quote: Darck

Isn’t it easier to go the way which is cheaper and more efficient?

Simple, but not effective - large frigates with scanty features + few, few submarines. And the sense that there are a lot of frigates? How can a pack of dogs threaten a lion?
More expensive (astronomically) and much more effective - destroyers + aircraft carriers + frigates + submarines, i.e. several aug. Good for attack and defense. Until the planes run out.
Effectively and much cheaper than the second - destroyers-arsenals + frigates + submarines + UAVs + space grouping. Surpasses in stability and power of a one-time blow of anyone. But only on the defensive. Those. the main task - for a reasonable amount of money GUARANTEED to sink the AUG.
IMHO

[Darck]

And it’s not a pity, we still have 47 such pieces.

I do not want to upset, but you have more than one

And every lost Hokai is an irreparable blow to defense, and a heavy blow to the budget.

So you must first bring him down, and therefore already talk about the loss.

Read carefully, an "adult" helicopter should not be heavier than 80 kg.
There will be options specifically for UAVs of 55, 35, 23 kg.
Choose for every taste.

Here is a quote from your article

There is funding and every effort is being made to implement the project, but there is no specific customer and accommodation facility for this radar yet. Developers from the Moscow Aviation Institute believe that the station can be placed on civilian and military helicopters, medium and heavy UAVs with take-off weight of 800 kg and various aircraft.

Take-off weight from 800 kg, your invisible drone has a take-off of 250 kg.

AWACS does not provide anti-submarine defense.

On a normal destroyer, there are two helicopters performing this function, their own ASG and towed.

If you want an example, this is the Aegis system, or a program replacing exchange traders in the USA (actually used by reputable companies).

I asked to show in Russia and the UAV.

There were grandmothers on three Mistrals. Maybe there are really necessary things.

Where is Mistral and where are fables about drones that are not clear how to show themselves. Aircraft carriers are not so expensive, no more expensive than the same ground airfield. And here and there, a loved one needs billions, only the aircraft carrier can be driven to its neighbors.

UAV

UAV in its current form, against the same fighters, bombers or AWACS will not be pulled. Here is your bug, in the photo you can see which bandura and sees along the way only in front of itself.

[Darck]

It seems you do not quite correctly imagine how tracking satellites work. They do not work like they do in Hollywood movies. They do not hang in one place

Tsstststs ... but we didn’t know .... tstststs .... no, we thought in Hollywood they only shoot documentaries .... tststststst .... Now turn on the logic and think again, I already wrote you, satellite If you’re unable to monitor the same area all the time, then you won’t have any real-time information. So clear? Now turn on the logic again and think how many satellites you need to monitor the entire globe, how many satellites you need to there was a signal in real time and not with a delay of 2-4 minutes. I'm already silent about the reconnaissance jammer satellite satellites

and about ten or twenty,

And what will be the benefit of only 10 helicopters that fly from a ship at a distance of 100 km and do not see the fucking farther than their nose?

You can even manually prescribe a tough algorithm where and to whom to fly from these twenty devices, such as a route map. But it’s better of course to do everything a little more intelligent, and I don’t see any problems here, a usual logistic task, such as traffic control in traffic in a city.

Of course, you can prescribe, if you do not take into account one such detail, such as the destroyer moving and not standing still. You also need to take into account such details as the direction and speed of the wind, at a higher permissible wind speed, your helicopters fall like dead doves. And yes again Do not forget about the duplicated control system.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

the satellite will not be able to observe the same area all the time, which means you will not own information in real time.

Continuity of observation is not very important, for example, for an hour AUG shift to 30 miles. RCC has its own GOS, compensates for the error on its own, in addition, you can enter the correction by extrapolating the course.
And most importantly, why would complicate our own lives, why not launch an attack in concert with the passage of the satellite, what prevents?

Quote: Darck

Now turn on the logic again and think how many satellites you need to monitor the entire territory of the globe

The logic is non-stop, the diameter of the earth is 40000 km, we discard the southern hemisphere as unnecessary, it turns out that we need to control a quarter of the diameter, i.e. 10000 km, we’ll take the AFAR radar coverage of 1000 km, and we get ten low-orbit satellites, with a period of several hours. But why do we need to survey absolutely all space, including land? We optimize the inclination of the orbits - such as introducing cross orbits over the oceans, and get a complete overview with the desired frequency of flight.

Quote: Darck

how many satellites you need, so that there is a signal in real time and not with a delay of 2-4 minutes.

We are not particularly interested in instant data from the opposite end of the globe from the destroyer, even if it will be with an hour delay. The destroyer, the AUG and the satellite will be in approximately the same area, so the connection will be instantaneous, no problems with guiding the RCC.

Quote: Darck

And what will be the benefit of only 10 helicopters that fly from a ship at a distance of 100 km and do not see the fucking farther than their nose ?.

I cited the radar data above, an overview of up to 200 km, 4-6 devices will cover 360 degrees of the horizon. Plus as many UAVs are looking for submarines. If necessary, add to the desired area or a long range.

[Darck]

[quote] Continuity of observation is not very important, for example, to move 30 miles in an AOG hour. [/ quote] C'mon, I remember how the USSR once lost an entire Nimitz class aircraft carrier, then you lifted such a boil, even lost one reconnaissance aircraft, who crashed. AUG may shift 30 miles, but their weapons will do such business in an hour. And at that moment, not a satellite, not your helicopters will help. [quote] And most importantly, why would you complicate your life yourself, why -Do not start the attack in concert with the passage of the satellite, what prevents? [/quote XNUMXHehehehehe ..... you want to attack the AUG as a destroyer? Then wait for the satellite ... then get the cradles from the AUG and a mustache. (figuratively, but the way it is) Just now you complicate yourself
life. [quote] discard the southern hemisphere as unnecessary [/ quote] Didn't you say that the war doesn't go according to plan? [quote] we get ten low-orbit satellites, with a period of several hours. [/ quote] Correction ten satellites to keep track of one perimeter, here’s what you’re thinking about where to get the dough runoff for all this and how much it will cost. [quote] But why should we survey absolutely all the space, including land? [/ quote] And then that the satellites were created to monitor the territory of the enemy and his nuclear weapons, ports, tactical centers, etc. This also requires satellites so that greet from the rocket or something else doesn’t come from land on your destroyer. [quote] ] We are not particularly interested in instant data from the opposite end of the globe from the destroyer, even if it will be with an hour delay. [/ quote] If AOG is on the other side of the globe, why the fuck do you need this destroyer? But if they are 600-700 km away from AOG, then in an hour AUG will make a destroyer out of a destroyer, then the satellite will not be needed. I know, AWACS can also direct missiles at the target. I have given the radar data above, an overview of up to 200 km, 4-6 vehicles will cover 360 degrees of the horizon. [/ quote] What kind of vehicles? They won’t pull it. 6 helicopters-see at 160km moreover, they fly low, their ceiling is not large. Will there be protection of electronic countermeasures, friend-alien identification systems, etc. 1 Hawkeye sees on 400 miles, can track more than 2000 targets (at the same time) and lead 40-100 of them, air-to-air and air-to-air missiles. [Quote] Destroyer, AOG and satellite will be in approximately the same area, so the connection will be instantaneous, no problems with guiding RCC. [ / quote] Yeah, glonas on the territory of the Russian Federation has a signal delay of 2 minutes, so there are problems, especially if the satellite is sent to tarara. And AUG can do this easily.

[Passing]

Darck, well, I just can’t understand why you don’t perceive my arguments, it seems that our brain waves are in antiphase.
About satellites: Glonass works as a single system, and our hypothetical satellite can communicate directly with the destroyer, you see, it flies over the AUG, sees both the enemy and our destroyer, and directly reports data. And so it will always be when we hunt for AUG. Do you understand? This happens automatically - if we don’t hunt for AOG, then our destroyer is not nearby, then the real-time data is up to us, and if the destroyer is near the AUG, then it will always have these same data in real time (well, with a passage period satellites).
About UAV repeaters: well, why did you run into the impossibility of relaying at 100 km? I don’t understand, honestly. What do you think is hindering, physics, technology, the will of the gods? Well, this is the same typical distance for control over the UAV radio channel from the ground, look at the performance characteristics of real-life UAVs.

[Darck]

Darck, well, I just can’t understand why you don’t perceive

Because there is today and there is tomorrow, all this miracle belongs to the generation of tomorrow. And the Russian Federation needs a destroyer today, that’s all the difference.

and our hypothetical satellite can communicate directly with the destroyer

That's exactly what he is hypothetical.

This happens automatically - if we do not hunt for AUG

And if the AUG is hunting you and there is no companion nearby? That's why I say war is not when it does not go according to plan.

About UAV repeaters: well, why did you run into the impossibility of relaying at 100 km? I don’t understand, honestly. What do you think is hindering, physics, technology, the will of the gods?

About the will of the gods xs, but the jammer can interfere, it can interfere with an enemy rocket, it can interfere with a storm, a lot of things can interfere.

look at the performance characteristics of real-life UAVs.

They are controlled by GPS, etc. Here is the helicopter that is shown above, like it is on a radio signal with a range of 15 km.

[Passing]

Quote: Darck

They are controlled by GPS, etc. Here is the helicopter that is shown above, like it is on a radio signal with a range of 15 km.

http://www.indelauav.com/F.A.Q.html

Chief Designer of KB INDELA Vladimir Chudakov
Communication range: Up to 100 km in direct line of sight.

And by the way, there is also an EPR of a helicopter UAV:

The HUSKY effective reflective surface (EOC) in almost all angles is less than 0.01 m² (quantile at the level of 0.5), i.e. even less EOF of cruise missiles based on Stealth technology, which excludes combat work on this radar and, moreover, the AHWG.

Well, and how, it will be easy to detect and bring down? Not lighter than the F-35. Hokai nervously smokes on the sidelines, waiting for his anti-aircraft missile.

[Darck]

Well, and how, it will be easy to detect and bring down? Not lighter than the F-35. Hokai nervously smokes on the sidelines, waiting for his anti-aircraft missile.

You saw its ceiling 2 km (in the advanced version). Xs, what about his EPR, as for me, they just took the cab from the night hawk and screwed the motor with screws to it. If you don’t see it on the radar (I doubt it, I think Hokai will notice) then they’ll definitely notice by eye. The communication range is up to 100km (I immediately remember the 3G modem)

1.Modem Specifications: INDELA-RM920
Frequency range: 902-928MHz.
Distribution Method: Frequency Hopping / DTS.
Bug Fixes: Hamming, BCH, Golay, Reed-Solomon.
Error Detection: 32-bit checksum, ARQ.
Communication range: Up to 100 km in direct line of sight.
Sensitivity: 108 dBm at 10-6.
Output power: 100mW - 1W (20-30 dBm).
Serial Interface: TTL.
Baud rate with host: 230.4 Kbaud.
Speed ​​of exchange on the air: 19.2 Kbaud - 1.3824 Mbaud.
Operating modes: Point-to-Point, Point-to-Multipoint, Store & Forward Repeater, Peer-to-Peer.
IP3 input (antenna) +12 dBm.
Receiver Sensitivity:
- selected channel 60 dB,
- adjacent channel 75 dB,
- out of range> 90 dB.
Supply voltage: 8-14 V.
Power consumption: - sleep mode <1 mA,
- no communication 20 mA,
- data reception <280 mA,
- data transfer <1500 mA.
Temperature range: -40 ... +85 С.
2. The frequency of updating GPS data is 5 Hz.

[Darck]

http://www.indelauav.com/F.A.Q.html

Immediately he needs a control station, personnel of 4 people, well, nafig. In bad weather, he certainly will not fly. His performance characteristics are weak, then this one will knock him down.

[Kars]

And here is the original?
Better come back to discuss the abrams - there I added a photo, look for traces of the VCA))))

[Darck]

And here is the original?
Better come back to discuss the abrams - there I added a photo, look for traces of the VCA))))

I already forgot about you ... I’ll be back if you promise not to be stupid, otherwise I’m sorry to spend time explaining everything to you 4 times. As you promise not to be stupid, I’ll be right back. (I repeat for you)

[Kars]

Quote: Darck

As you promise not to be stupid, I’ll be right back. (I repeat for you)

Well, I will repeat to you more often that you would better understand)
And there are many of them)))

[Darck]

Well, I will repeat to you more often that you would better understand)

So you didn’t drive again ... Although I repeated to you twice what else I can talk about with you. Until my conditions are met, I will not waste my time and good luck on this.

[Kars]

Well, if you insist, I will repeat to you twice.

YOU screwed up in full

YOU screwed up in full

Here, by the way, you can clearly see the place where on another photo it is punched by a BMD Bradley shot, look at the stern, right side.
(refers to a photo of another tank)
Here, by the way, you can clearly see the place where on another photo it is punched by a BMD Bradley shot, look at the stern, right side.
(refers to a photo of another tank)

[Rider]

From the article:

the legendary Gibraltar, a territory 300 years under British jurisdiction, a key stronghold and naval base of NATO, the main gateway to the Mediterranean Sea. Due to its geographical location, during the Cold War the “bottleneck” of the Strait of Gibraltar became the most serious barrier for Soviet atomic submarines on their way to the Mediterranean Sea - the narrow, shallow water area was saturated with acoustic and magnetic sensors to the maximum extent and was heavily patrolled by anti-submarine vehicles.

Ha! Someone else will tell fables about the brave Soviet submariners who undetected passed into the Mediterranean Sea and watched the AUG

[Stealth]

Quote: Ryder

Ha! Someone else will tell fables about the brave Soviet submariners who undetected passed into the Mediterranean Sea and watched the AUG

But the less is it a fact. Usually the passage of Gibraltar was carried out "under the belly" of large surface ships.

[Rider]

Quote: Stealth

Usually the passage of Gibraltar was carried out "under the belly" of large surface ships

Keep composing further
Such tricks were possible 70 years ago
Now electronics will arrange everything in frequencies and instantly calculate an uninvited guest

[Stealth]

Eg, Ryder, you would have taken an interest in the history of the Kursk at your leisure, maybe you would have learned something useful for yourself, although nothing will probably help you ...

[MURANO]

Quote: Ryder

Ha! Someone else will tell fables about the brave Soviet submariners who went undetected into the Mediterranean Sea and watched the AUG laughing

Did you type something unrealistically new and unknown that you quoted? And yet there were secretive passages. Or not secretive. With the subsequent separation. (Most often)

[Rider]

Quote: MURANO

. Or not secretive. With the subsequent separation. (Most often)

Suitable for window dressing.
And what if the war? After all, they’ll drown in the strait the entire red banner submarine squadron

Well, the Russian Navy does not exult - our fleet has always been completely useless in any serious matter. Only parades can hold, and then more and more ground, - there are not enough ships

[MURANO]

Quote: Ryder

And if the war?

That is why the straits were forced in peacetime.
But, in general, your mood is clear.
All the best.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Nuuuu Christmas tree .....
We'll have to write an article - with clarifications :))))

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Have to write an article - with clarifications

Write Andrew, it is interesting to know your opinion

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thanks for your kind words ! Posted :))) Even two (the text did not fit into one article). Waiting for the moderator to post

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Have to write an article - with clarifications

I have long wanted something new from you in this. I fully support Oleg

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Thank ! Taki wrote, waiting for calculations

[maxiv1979]

there is no konesh, a tale for fools about the passage of a huge loaf covertly through the gibaltar, it could have been lost in the middle-earth, a deficiency of amers, but it’s also doubtful ... the boat was not designed for this, its element and tsu ocean from satellites

[gregor6549]

The people, of course, I wildly apologize, but the manner in any topic to write about anything other than the issue raised by the topic begins to strain.
It would seem that this topic is about a Spanish frigate and whether the design of this frigate can be used as a model for a ship of this class of the Russian Navy. Instead of expressing your personal opinion on this issue, new fairy tales (or maybe not fairy tales) begin about how Soviet ships plowed the world ocean, constantly putting "foreign" opponents in a puddle or sitting in these puddles themselves. As far as I am aware, there was both, and there is nothing strange about it, tk. there are specific people behind every success and every failure. And man is a complex creation. Sometimes clever thoughts come into his head and he "thinks" them, and sometimes a thought comes and, not finding anyone, leaves.

[Uncle Serozha]

Thanks to the author of the article. I understand little in naval affairs, but firstly it was extremely interesting to read, and secondly, the GENRE article itself is very pleased. Recently, this site has become a lot of either reprints or alternative historical nonsense. The same article is an attempt to analyze and project into the future the development vector of our Navy. Yes, this is the subjective opinion of one person, but the opinion is reasoned, and, it seems to me, deserving of being heard.

Thanks again for the material.

[altman]

Subjective opinion .. there are better three frigate-destroyer class ships than an atomic monster with incomprehensible tasks .. it is better to keep 2-3 ships on a PMO in Cuba than to drive a ship with support ships across the Atlantic in addition .. That's my subjective opinion

[gregor6549]

A detailed table of the cost of serial cruisers such as Orly Burke is available at http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/statistics/costofddgs.htm

The cost of the prototype amounted to about 1.1 billion bucks.

[Kars]

Thank you. I’ll copy the plate from there.

[Santa Fe]

Andrey, stop shaming
This is purely the cost of a steel box housing (Hull)

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

This is purely the cost of a steel box enclosure (Hull

Are you sleeping the right decision?
Provide a link with a cost, for example DDG-97 Halsey 2005
And the question will be closed, that would not work as with Nimets

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

Provide a link with a cost, for example DDG-97 Halsey 2005

I gave the link above:
Report to Congress: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543249
1 - in the 2010 fiscal year, 2,234 billion was allocated for the completion of Berkov. And such amounts are allocated ANNUALLY

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

p. 1 - in fiscal 2010, $ 2,234 billion was allocated for the completion of Berkov

Well, this is not one. And I agree that they cost more, even 1.1 billion with all the stuffing.
But Bush with an air group costs about 10 billion.
So when building at a state shipyard with a cheaper labor force, we will keep within 0.8-1.2 billion (if there’s 2 hell with it), which does not contradict my words in the price of 1/5 of a modern TKR aircraft carrier.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

So when building at a state shipyard with a cheaper labor force, we’ll meet the billions of 0.8-1.2 (if hell is 2 with it)

Shipyard is only 1 / 3. BIUS. electronics, weapons, power plants - all supplied by third-party firms
And you will never meet $ 2 billion.

Burke: 10 thousand tons, without armor, 90 UVP, 1 light gun without an automated cellar, 2 phalanx, GEM 80 thousand hp - 1,5 billion
Battleship: 30 thousand tons, heavy armor, 400-600 UVP, 254 mm artillery in three towers, GEM 200 thousand hp, - 2 billion

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Shipyard is only 1 / 3. BIUS. electronics, weapons, power plants - all supplied by third-party firms

Come on, will you give the exact layout? And then a half-billion sorry for one building doesn’t fit into any gates --- and if the shipyard is state-owned, then why should allies be private.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Battleship: 30 thousand tons, heavy armor, 400-600 UVP, 254 mm artillery in three towers, GEM 200 thousand hp, - 2 billion

Not a lot of 2, 1.2 are the edges. A direct comparison of the Sorry doesn’t channel --- UVP is purely boxes, armor is hull damage by 15%, the situation has historically been that the larger the ship, the cheaper it is per ton of displacement.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

254 mm artillery in three towers

in two towers.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Kars

and then I'm sorry half a billion for one building does not fit into any gate ---

Andrey, look at your schedule

Quote: Kars

Not 2 a lot, 1.2 is the edge.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

30 thousand tons, heavy armor, 400-600 UVP, 254 mm artillery in three towers, GEM 200 thousand hp

cost less than

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

10 thousand tons, without armor, 90 UVP, 1 light gun without an automated cellar, 2 phalanx, power plant 80 thousand hp - 1,5 billion

Yeah, I have not seen more absurdity

Quote: Kars

UVP is purely boxes

No, Mark-41 is a system: advanced gas lines, fire extinguishing systems, sensors, electronic components, drives - if interested, I’ll tell you more
And there are 6 times more such "boxes"

Quote: Kars

Historically, the situation is that the larger the ship, the cheaper it is per ton of displacement.

It happens in different ways.

Quote: Kars

in two towers.

It does not matter

[Kars]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Andrey, look at your schedule

I want to look at yours. As I understand it, only weapons and BIOS are not taken into account

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

cost less than

Let's remember about the old anecdote about the hammer for 18 dollars?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yeah, I have not seen more absurdity

If you don’t like it, I’ll survive it somehow. But in 1/5 of the modern TKR aircraft carrier I will meet.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

No, Mark-41 is a system: advanced gas lines, fire extinguishing systems, sensors, electronic components, drives - if interested, I’ll tell you more

Not really - can you tell me the price for one cell?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It happens differently

Maybe, but in this case it will be in my direction.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

It does not matter

For me it has - almost 30% savings. And more space.

[gregor6549]

Guys, for comparison, you can give the cost of building a similar "Spaniard" Australian ANZAC frigate, which is approximately 500 million dollars. And we are not talking about the hull, but about a fully equipped ship, which, albeit weaker than Burke, can also do something. So the amount of 1.2 billion for a production ship of the frigate type is somewhat overestimated. When it comes to the 2.3 billion required for the program to improve a large number of serial ships of the Burke class, there is nothing unusual. Moreover, when we are talking not about the usual improvement, but about endowing these ships with the functions of a strategic missile defense, i.e. the ability to fight strategic ICBMs such as Topol, Yars, etc.
And further. it makes no sense to talk about one element of the country's Armed Forces (in this case, a ship) in isolation from the entire Armed Forces system and the state's military doctrine. It was not possible to create a fleet equal in strength to the US fleet even during the "heyday of stagnation" when the development of the submarine fleet in particular was a priority number of times, and the Sudprom factories riveted ships in three shifts. And the situation with money, personnel, components and many others was much better. Therefore, it may not be worthwhile to copy the "foreigners" from their AUG again, but to try to create a balanced Armed Forces corresponding to the Russian military doctrine, which would allow maintaining the balance of forces in the world by "asymmetric methods", without wasting money down the drain. in water

[viruskvartirus]

Well ... you can argue about the nuclear installation, and it has decent advantages ... UU also does not stand still ... and they are already talking about a monoblock installation with the 30 summer campaign ... plus compact YaU can give out such power which to other energetic installation and did not dream ...

[gregor6549]

Of course you can argue, but it would be nice with numbers in hand. It’s one thing to build frigates with, say, a gas turbine power plant and quite another with a nuclear one. Money is significantly different as well as the qualifications of those who will service these engines. And the headache from these engines can not be compared.

Now a few words about the detection of air targets beyond the visibility of the radar of the ship.
In American AUGs, for example, this problem has long been solved by using AWACS and U aircraft based on aircraft carriers, as well as by collecting and combining information obtained using active and passive airborne sensors (radar, infrared, etc.) of other deck aircraft and helicopters and transmitted to ships via high-speed digital communication channels. Those. AUG ships are able to monitor the air, surface and underwater conditions of detection and tracking of air, surface and underwater targets far beyond the detection range of their own ship sensors. An example is the S-3 Viking and ES-3A Shadow aircraft developed by Lockheed in the middle of the 80.

[gregor6549]

http://www.airvectors.net/avs3.html

[yurasumy]

Once again, I would like to return to the economic component of the project.
how much money is needed to build and maintain one AUG. And separately, if you can say so economic efficiency (i.e. what tasks this group can solve).
We take the cost from the declared one. 1 aircraft carrier 4-5 billion raccoons. 2-3 destroyers (certainly nuclear, because if bases around the world are equipped for the American fleet and there are no problems to refuel the ships, then for Russia the autonomy of the group will be determined by the cruising range of the fuel. Refueling the group in combat conditions, as well as replenishing the ammunition in the sea with the supposed superiority of the enemy navy is a utopia. I repeat - the US does not have such a problem. They have bases everywhere. For them, the AUG is primarily a strike group, and not a means of fighting the enemy’s navy. For Russia, it is assumed that the AUG is more of a means of combat with the AUG of a potential enemy, shackling the enemy's Navy by actions on communications. To destroy the tankers and gas carriers of a potential enemy, a large ammunition is not needed. And the delivery of assault strikes in the Indian Ocean for the Russian Navy is a utopia.) So 2-3 prospective destroyers are 6-7,5 , 10 billion raccoons. Knowing the Russian military-industrial complex, this is still up to 40 billion. Aircraft. This is a special question. Fighters let's say there are 80 * 3.2 million. We get 10 billion raccoons. But a carrier-based AWACS aircraft must be developed and introduced into series with a maximum of 20-1 units. The development of such an aircraft will cost a pretty penny. I think 3 billion raccoons will not be enough. And there is no time either. A helicopter cannot be used for these purposes, since it cannot lift a lot of cargo. To use an existing plane? Which one? I'm afraid it won't work. Therefore, the AWACS aircraft is another 5-1 billion raccoons (with production) this is a minimum + the result is not guaranteed. Without this aircraft, the stability of the AUG is sharply reduced, especially since the support of coastal bases is not expected, unlike the US AUG. Nuclear submarine 2-2 pcs. it is necessary to build separately because there are not enough available ones to provide ARPLBR + patrolling of its territorial waters + counteraction of the enemy's naval forces on distant lines. that's another 4-18 billion coins. In total, we have from 25 to 25 billion killed raccoons per piece. Knowing the realities of the Russian military-industrial complex rather 3 billion. But that's not all. Now let's go to the infrastructure. Construction of ships. For the entire AUG at the same time, there should be at least 4 serious shipyards, and preferably 2 (One for an aircraft carrier, the second for nuclear submarines and one or two for destroyers. These shipyards do not exist yet. What is barely able to cope with "Boreas" and "Ashes". In order to put these shipyards into operation, it is necessary from 5-10 years, depending on the desire, and at least 2 billion raccoons for the arrangement. Why so many. I will answer. The cost of a ship's product has never been less than the cost of the shipyard + training. To this I added 4 + 2 + 2 + 10 and got XNUMX billion. A little oversimplified, but clear.) But that's not all.

[yurasumy]

We also need base points. Following the example of Novorossiysk (3 billion eons), I can assume that this is 10 billion raccoons for each base (because this is completely for other ships and the place is not very inhabited, unlike the resort Novorossiysk). As I understand it, 2 are going to build them (without bases with AUG it will be the same as with cruisers like "Kirov"). This means that the whole program is 50-60 billion coins per circle.
But it is necessary for a start. Further, the annual operating costs account for approximately 10% of the cost of equipment (for AUG). So this is somewhere around 1.5-2 billion raccoons a year. And now we are looking at the Budget of the Russian High-Speed ​​Command. About 15-20 billion raccoons come out per year. Following the example of the US Navy, the costs of AUGs are 10-15% of the Navy's budget. Let it be a priority program for Russia (although doubtful). But more than 4 billion raccoons cannot be allocated in any way. So we get 2 AUG for financing 12-15 years. The time of construction is the same. This is provided that during these 12-15 years there will be no cataclysms like a big crisis. In this case, these programs are minimized first. It has always been that way.
Now, briefly about the tasks that AUG can solve. Bombing and assault strikes against Australia, for example. Will not work. because for this you need to have not only AUG but a lot of other things. Forge your opponent's 3-4 AUG with your actions (this is the maximum). Moreover, it is doubtful that this will happen in the Atlantic. It is all crammed with NATO naval and air force bases and therefore the AUG will be quickly destroyed in the event of a conflict. There remains only the Pacific Ocean, where there is operational space (although here we are saving 10 billion raccoons based on the North Sea). Interruption of communications of a potential enemy? Again, the United States has no vital arteries in the Pacific Ocean. It is easier to use nuclear submarines in the Atlantic (and in the Pacific Ocean too). Those. the effect of these groups is insignificant. At most, a small local war like the War in Libya in 2011, and even then without the opposition of the US Navy (which is doubtful). Wouldn't it be better to use this money to increase the number of the same "Ash" with SLCM, which can be built taking into account the new infrastructure, 20 extra pieces. This will be a bigger problem for the US Navy.

[Dnepropetrovsk]

Here, it is better for Russia to follow the military doctrine of the USSR Navy.

[gregor6549]

There was no intelligible doctrine then. There was a hysterical reaction to the threats posed by the "opponents" and hectic attempts to eliminate these threats of the so-called. by "asymmetric" measures and riveting of all new underwater and surface "galoshes" without a clear understanding of where and how these galoshes should be serviced, repaired, etc. Ie. there was a clear attempt to compensate for quality with quantity. That is why it turned out that with a larger number of data "galoshes" than that of the foe, their number in combat service in the Akiyane sea was always less than that of the same foe. I mean the coefficient of operational tension. Yes, and those who went to such a service unmasked themselves so that they could be detected even before leaving the harbor, while they themselves remained deaf-blind. There is no need to talk about the fact that outside the coverage zone of coastal aviation, they all became quite easy prey for enemy AUG aviation. I can add about the numerous high-level meetings where the leaders of the Sudprom and the Navy were present and where the next task was to immediately catch up and overtake, otherwise it will be worse. And Sudprom plowed without unbending for 36 hours a day, giving out to the mountain (as a rule by December 31) another monster, which then had to be refined for another 2 or 3 years, including in campaigns to the BS, if it did not explode and did not sink before the completion of the revision. I do not even mention what it means to implement notifications for changes (i.e. improvements) afloat. And then everyone's interest in the improvements abruptly disappeared, since at the exit there was another straight from the tin monster with the same problems.

[Dnepropetrovsk]

Yes, and where are the threats, galoshes, catching up, overtaking here is not infiz, who lack galoshes on the market will suffice them all, the question is that in the USSR the fleet was against the fleet, though not as much as wanted, but the meaning is clear and now they don’t know which ships to build whether to build either on land or on surface targets, etc.

[gregor6549]

The word "threat" in this context means the emergence of new means of armed struggle, which may pose a threat to the armed forces of a particular country, and not verbal threats. Moreover, these (technical) threats begin to be assessed as soon as information about them becomes available to the other party, most often at the development stage. Of course, it is not always possible to create an "antidote" by the time a new weapon is adopted, but everyone strives for this, if the threat is recognized as serious enough.
Now about the fleet itself. Since the emergence of the USSR, it has never had a clear understanding of what ships to build and how many, and all this construction went in accordance with the "only correct" thoughts and instructions of the next party or naval leader (Stalin, Khrushchev, Gorshkov, etc.). A new leader came and immediately the priorities in the construction of the fleet changed. For example, Gorshkov was very carried away by ekranoplanes and very good samples were built under him (Olenok, Lun), but as soon as Gorshkov left, this case was immediately terminated. b. Read the book by Drogovoz "The Big Fleet of the Land of the Soviets". There it says very well about this, although the author sometimes gets hung up on negative points.

[Dnepropetrovsk]

* the emergence of new means of warfare, which may pose a threat to the armed forces of a particular country * Finally it dawned on what I had in mind in my comments, and what is currently interfering with the priorities and construction of the fleet?