Military Review

What could be the new American destroyer DDG-X?

118

The destroyer USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and the LCS-class ship are representatives of two unsuccessful projects


Currently, the US Navy's surface forces are based on numerous Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. As a supplement to them, newer and more advanced destroyers Zumwalt were going to be built, but these plans had to be reduced to a minimum. Now the naval forces are going to develop a new destroyer with an eye to the distant future. So far, this project is known under the working designations DDG-X or DDG Next.

The need for a new


Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have been in service since the early nineties and have undergone upgrades several times. Such ships remain in serial production, and their service will continue in the second half of the century. However, by now, the design's modernization potential has come to an end. The introduction of fundamentally new systems and weapons is no longer possible.

In the recent past, an attempt was made to create a new project Zumwalt, but it was unsuccessful. Due to the excessive complexity and high cost, the series was reduced to three ships. Two of these destroyers have already begun service, and the third is expected to be accepted.

The failure of the Zumwalt project led to the need to create another promising destroyer. Plans of this kind have been included in the promising shipbuilding program, and their implementation has already begun. It is known that specialists of the naval forces and shipbuilding enterprises are now working on the possible appearance of the future destroyer.


The destroyer USS Daniel Inouye (DDG-118) is the last of the built ships of Arleigh Burke, December 2020.

Project DDG-X has been a topic of interest in recent months News... Officials have several times disclosed certain plans and considerations, although so far they have dispensed with special technical or other details. Such statements allow us to imagine what a destroyer could be that meets the current desires and requirements.

Customer wishes


The general requirements for DDG-X are fairly simple. The Navy wants to get a destroyer with an increased rocket ammunition load, advanced electronic weapons, a modern type of power plant, etc. All this will make it possible to create a ship that is superior in its characteristics to the serial "Arlie Burke", but at the same time to reduce the cost of construction relative to the Zumwalt.

What the future DDG Next will look like, and what its architecture will turn out to be, has not yet been specified. At the same time, it is mentioned that such a ship will receive a completely new hull, due to which it will be larger than the current destroyers. "Arlie Burke" of the late series have a length of 155 m and a total displacement of more than 9,6 thousand tons. The new DDG-X may be larger and heavier - but the Zumwalt project will not be brought up to 16 thousand tons. Due to the growth in size, it is planned to provide sufficient volumes to accommodate the desired complex of weapons.

The issue of stealth technology has not yet been openly raised. However, the trends in the development of American shipbuilding suggest that the DDG Next project will take all measures to reduce visibility in all spectra. Thus, the exterior of the destroyer can be made up of many intersecting planes, as was the case in several modern projects.


The composition of the AN / SPY-6 radar complex

The possibility of using a modular architecture is being considered. Due to this, it will be possible to simplify the preparation of the destroyer for a specific mission, as well as accelerate the modernization. The Navy wants to ensure the longest possible operation of new ships, and a modular approach will help solve this problem.

The newest destroyers are adopting an integrated power system architecture. Main engines with high power generators will generate electricity for all consumers, incl. propulsion engines and electronic systems. It is assumed that such a power engineering architecture will ensure the operation of the ship's standard facilities, and also create a performance margin for further upgrades. With all this, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of the power plant.

Modern destroyers have developed and effective electronic means for monitoring the surrounding space, searching for targets and controlling fire. Ships with the Aegis BMD combat information and control system and related instruments and weapons are even able to monitor near space. Apparently, DDG-X destroyers will receive even more advanced electronic weapons with an increase in all basic characteristics.

The Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt projects provide for the use of the versatile Mk 41 vertical launchers, compatible with a number of missile types. Obviously, this approach is used in the new project DDG Next. By increasing the body, the number of cells can be increased. In addition, in the future, it is expected to create hypersonic missiles, which will definitely be included in the ammunition load of the new destroyer.


The destroyer USS Forest Sherman (DDG-98) firing from the Mk. 45 Mod 4, 2007

It is likely that DDG-X will retain the artillery installation, but the prospects for this direction are unclear. The cash destroyers are equipped with “conventional” guns; it is planned to create fundamentally new systems with an ultra-long-range guided projectile. Perhaps, before the start of the construction of new ships, it will be possible to complete work on promising artillery.

Time and cost


In the coming years, the Navy and shipbuilding organizations should carry out the necessary research and start designing. The defense budget already provides funding for such events. So, in 2021 FY. $ 46,5 million will be spent on the DDG-X program. In the future, an increase in annual expenses associated with the most complex work is expected.

The construction of the lead destroyer is planned to begin in 2025. The timing of its completion has not yet been specified; the ship will probably be put out for testing no earlier than the end of the decade. The expected cost is no more than $ 2,5 billion. At the same time, an increase in costs, at least for the project's lead ship, cannot be ruled out. However, in this case, DDG Next will be simpler and cheaper than the overly expensive destroyer Zumwalt - this program cost $ 22 billion and produced only three ships.

Serial ships will not be laid until the end of the decade. Accordingly, even in the absence of production problems, destroyers will be included in fleet only by the mid-thirties. It will also take a lot of time to create a sufficiently large group of such ships capable of exerting a noticeable influence on the Navy as a whole. This is likely to happen no earlier than 2040.

What could be the new American destroyer DDG-X?

Tomahawk Block V missile tests, November 2020 The launch is carried out by the USS Chaffee (DDG-90)

Ships of the future


With the help of the new DDG-X destroyer project, the American fleet plans to solve several problems. The first is the creation of a reserve for the quantitative growth of surface forces. The previous destroyer construction program ended in failure, but the Navy still needs a new project of this class. The second challenge concerns the quantitative indicators of the fleet. New destroyers will help increase the total number of ships to the required number.

The third task of the new project is directly related to the two previous ones. The US military and political leadership constantly talks about confrontation with Russia and China in all areas. To confront the two powers at sea requires a large and developed fleet. In the current state of the US Navy, it meets such a task, but in the future the situation will change, and the Pentagon will have to strengthen its fleet.

Whether it will be possible to bring the new destroyers to a large series depends on the customer's requirements and the complexity of the project. The events of past years have clearly shown what overly bold plans and demands lead to. The Navy is well aware of this, and is shaping the look of the new DDG-X taking into account the complexity, realism, cost and timing of work.

According to current plans, the first stages of work on the new destroyer will take several years, and a full-fledged series will begin only in the distant future. The US Navy still has a substantial amount of time to complete all the necessary activities. But this time must be disposed of wisely, so that the new destroyer does not repeat the sad fate of the previous one. Otherwise, the naval forces in the future will face even more serious problems, and they will have to be solved without having enough time.
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Avior
    Avior 3 February 2021 15: 10
    +9
    ... Arleigh Burke and Zumwalt projects provide for the use of universal vertical launchers Mk 41

    Zamvolt has other cells, mk57
    They are approximately 1,7 times larger in volume than μ41
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 3 February 2021 15: 24
      +16
      The key difference is that there will definitely be a new American destroyer. It will appear regardless of the problems and conditions. The same cannot be said about his nonexistent Russian counterpart. As a result, there are only reports, "funny pictures" and models of the "crazy hands" circle.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 4 February 2021 08: 08
        -2
        Well, how did Lexus not lick the mattresses and throw poop into the Russian fleet? laughing
        1. Lexus
          Lexus 4 February 2021 08: 57
          +3
          I didn't throw you into the / navy. Oral services to the owner are yours and your fellow Kremlinists' work.
          1. DrEng527
            DrEng527 4 February 2021 16: 03
            -1
            Quote: lexus
            Oral services to the owner

            how are you openly and truthfully about yourself? respectful honesty hi
          2. Armata
            Armata 4 February 2021 17: 45
            +1
            It has long been proven that the reverse slope of a breakwater has many more disadvantages than advantages. One of the drawbacks is the casting of the deck with seawater. And why did we refuse it? Crew safety is more important. If you want, I will give you many more facts.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      They are approximately 1,7 times larger in volume than μ41

      Good evening! And where does this information come from, if not a secret?
      1. Avior
        Avior 3 February 2021 17: 48
        +10
        I saw this figure somehow - 1,67 - and did not check it. But in vain! And now I saw your question and decided to check it out.
        In fact, only 1,3 times.

        Apologize
        mk57
        http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk57_VLS.pdf
        mk41
        https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
        Apparently, the figure 1,67 was obtained by comparing a possible MK57 container and a real one from the MK57 cell, probably the rocket cell cm3
        Comparison with a real Tomahawk container gives a difference of 2,1
        I apologize for misleading
        In any case, the new cell is larger.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 February 2021 18: 10
          +2
          Real from MK41, ochepyatka
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 09: 01
          +1
          Quote: Avior
          I apologize for misleading
          In any case, the new cell is larger.

          No problem at all, and thanks a lot for the information! True, doubts gnaw at me - after all, the cross-section of the container and its length are not in any case equivalent to an increase in the useful volume in it. Understand correctly, I have no complaints about you, and I do not impose myself on the discussion, I just argue aloud. hi drinks
          1. Avior
            Avior 4 February 2021 09: 43
            +3
            there, according to the links, not just the volume of the cell, but the volume of a standard container that is inserted into the cell and which actually serves as a container for weapons.
            it eats away part of the useful volume of the cell. But at the same time, it doesn't matter - the larger the cell volume, the less the container itself takes in percentage.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 10: 21
              +1
              Got it, thanks a lot for the clarification!
              1. Avior
                Avior 4 February 2021 10: 40
                +1
                please smile
      2. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 17: 57
        0
        It depends on which version of the 41st to compare. There are three of them.
        1. Avior
          Avior 3 February 2021 18: 11
          0
          Strike, shock.
          But the standard container is smaller than the cell size
          1. ironic
            ironic 3 February 2021 18: 43
            0
            Well, in fact, you yourself have already recovered. smile
  2. Eldorado
    Eldorado 3 February 2021 15: 10
    -3
    The Pentagon is preparing for the next budget cut. The next "Zamvolt" will turn out.
    The United States already has the most powerful Arlie Burke-class destroyers, which are the best in their class. It's easier to ramp up their construction than spend billions on some DDG-X.
    1. Berber
      Berber 3 February 2021 15: 50
      -13%
      It is our "Admiral Nakhimov" that haunts them, they decided to "borrow" the concept. Let's rejoice, let them cut the loot further, the "machine" has a large resource, but not endless. Perhaps they will overstrain.
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 17: 49
        +6
        The States do not have and will never have anything in the style of Nakhimov. They don't find this concept productive at all. In addition, the Russian Federation is now practically not happy with the results of Nakhimov's modernization, and only greedy lobbyists can achieve a similar modernization for Per, which will lead to the presence of only two ships, by the 30th year, to the detriment of the rest of the surface fleet. And in the States, they always started with the top three, if something did not suit them, they redid the project. The first three Nimitz by the way also differ from the next 7, just because they were generally satisfied, the difference is not so great.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 09: 38
          0
          Quote: ironic
          The States do not have and will never have anything in the style of Nakhimov. They don't find this concept productive at all.

          That's why we constantly planned to build arsenals-ships for ourselves, and they refused from a large missile cruiser (larger than Zumvolt) only after the collapse of the USSR
          1. ironic
            ironic 4 February 2021 21: 16
            0
            Quite right, since in a certain sense they were suited to the opportunities that the modernized battleships demonstrated. But the ship-arsenal of American strike missiles and even the updated Nakhimov are, as they say in Odessa, two big differences.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2021 06: 44
              +1
              Quote: ironic
              But the ship-arsenal of American strike missiles and even the updated Nakhimov are, as they say in Odessa, two big differences.

              CG (X) was planned to replace Ticonderoga. 16 tons of standard and 000 UVP cells.
              1. ironic
                ironic 7 February 2021 13: 24
                0
                It was planned to replace both Ticonderoge and Burke, as a ship of excellence in the open ocean, as well as missile defense. ~ 18000t. The Zumvolt was supposed to be the ship for destroying enemy sea communications, and with no less displacement and 120th UVP.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 17: 38
                  0
                  Quote: ironic
                  was planned to replace both Ticonderoge and Burke

                  No, Burke should have replaced Zumvolts
                  Quote: ironic
                  The ship for destroying enemy sea communications was supposed to be the Sumvolt

                  Generally not from that opera. As such, the Zumvolt was never intended
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 7 February 2021 17: 41
                    0
                    Shouldn't have.
                    As expected in its first project reincarnation.
      2. Bagatur
        Bagatur 3 February 2021 21: 23
        -1
        "Nakhimov" is a warrior himself at sea. They will rivet in a series like pies. And Russia will build a frigate for 5 years ... And in addition, brand new frigates have already entered the series, 20 pikes for the beginning ... And in Russia there will be no analogous super-destruction only in the photo ...
    2. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 17: 50
      +1
      They have already done it, but it is impossible to endlessly exploit the morally obsolete concept and they are right that they are going forward correcting the Sumvolt project.
    3. shahor
      shahor 3 February 2021 17: 59
      +1
      Quote: El Dorado
      It's easier to ramp up their construction than spend billions on some DDG-X.

      The United States removes Tikanderogi from service. This new destroyer in terms of striking power can replace them.
  3. Tsoy
    Tsoy 3 February 2021 15: 15
    0
    The entire core of the us fleet was created in the twentieth century. The same berk, nimits, ticonderoga. Of the modern systems, only a submarine can boast of a successful project brought to mind. There is a clear problem with lobbyists who promote science fiction for fabulous money. The case when there are a lot of candy wrappers, but the result is tiny and flawed. So far, this really does not greatly affect the power of the navy, but another decade of such tricks and the fleet will decay. Piece pennants, and tons of money wasted.
    1. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 17: 43
      +3
      And the submarine was created in the same way, but no one would turn his hand to moan Sivylph and the subsequent decisions with Virginia, Calumbia will be like them.
    2. Berber
      Berber 4 February 2021 10: 44
      -3
      This is a side effect of the uncontrolled printing of money. Only they remain, there is no point in producing the rest. It's like a drug, it's very difficult to unlearn. Therefore, the crisis (at least), and even the collapse of the United States is inevitable.
  4. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 3 February 2021 15: 17
    0
    The status will oblige you to create something that is not inferior to the Chinese 055.
    1. Evgeny Seleznev
      Evgeny Seleznev 3 February 2021 18: 07
      0
      The declared displacement is somewhere in the range of 055. From 9,6 and less than 16, this is about 13000 tons as in 055. Which allows you to provide sufficient volumes to accommodate the desired set of weapons.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 4 February 2021 01: 19
        0
        So is all the interest in this sufficient quantitative and qualitative desired complex. The same larger Zamwalt had fewer, albeit more promising, launchers than Burke.
  5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 15: 28
    +7
    What could be the new American destroyer DDG-X?

    Stunned how expensive ...
    1. ironic
      ironic 3 February 2021 17: 41
      0
      A ship of this class cannot be cheap. The same was said about Sivulf, and now Virginia in the last years will be only slightly cheaper, mainly on the inflationary component from that time.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 08: 16
        +5
        Quote: ironic
        A ship of this class cannot be cheap. The same was said about Sivulf, and now Virginia will be only slightly cheaper in the last versions.

        First, Arlie Burke is cheap for a destroyer. So it can. Secondly, "Illinois", type "Virginia", handed over to the Navy in 2016 cost 2,7 billion dollars. "Jimmy Carter" (type Seawolf) in 2016 prices would cost 3,99 billion dollars. That is, " slightly cheaper "- this is only almost one and a half times
        1. ironic
          ironic 4 February 2021 21: 34
          0
          Excuse me, Andrey, how much will the next unit with 6 vertical units cost? 3.5? Well, this is almost, because, as always, it will be somewhat more expensive than you think.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2021 06: 51
            0
            Quote: ironic
            Excuse me, Andrey, how much will the next unit with 6 vertical units cost? 3.5?

            What is it? Block 5? So it is not even laid down. And "Jimmy Carter" in December 2020 prices is $ 4,38 billion. Inflation is a terrible thing
            1. ironic
              ironic 7 February 2021 13: 21
              0
              They have already begun to cut metal for this very block and the first two boats have been ordered, i.e. the initial price for them has been determined. Let's see where inflation will lead the price after the first two, but how definitely not the difference that was at the time of the first Seewulf and the first Virginia, especially when you consider that many Virginia processes became cheaper with the series, and Seewulf had only the initial series.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 17: 39
                0
                Quote: ironic
                They have already begun to cut metal for this very block and the first two boats have been ordered, i.e. the initial price for them is determined

                And we count on the final, on the date of issue.
                Quote: ironic
                Let's see where inflation will lead the price after the first two, but how definitely not the difference that was at the time of the first Sivulf and the first Virginia

                One and a half times :)))))
                1. ironic
                  ironic 7 February 2021 17: 43
                  0
                  Well, they will release and count again. It will only be more expensive.

                  1.25 wink Well, yes, but already not one and a half. Further it will be "worse".
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 09: 35
                    0
                    Quote: ironic
                    1.25 Well, yes, but already not one and a half. Further it will be "worse".

                    Taking into account the fact that Connecticut costs $ 2020 billion in December 5,082 prices, in order to be 1,25 cheaper than Virginia, it will have to rise in price to 4 billion, and - in 065 prices :))))
                    1. ironic
                      ironic 8 February 2021 14: 24
                      0
                      Even you have a total booth with prices. Your Carter is already cheaper. Connecticut is out. Leave, you first cut off the owl, and then we will pick up a globe for it. The trend is shorter, clear, if I was not accurate, then not by much. Actually, I wrote it a long time ago, but not on this forum.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 14: 35
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Even you have a total booth with prices. Your Carter is already cheaper. Connecticut is out.

                        I'm sorry, I counted something wrong. But the bottom line is that Connecticut was delivered to the Navy in 1998 and cost $ 2,4 billion, converting it into 2016 prices (from December to December) we get $ 3,5 billion against 2,7 "Illinois" - all equal to almost 30%
                      2. ironic
                        ironic 8 February 2021 17: 02
                        0
                        I have given you an even more extreme calculation with an even greater run-up, but do not forget the readable price of the series, even in the price difference between the first and second boat in the series of sea wolves. And this editorial component is much more virgins.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 17: 33
                        0
                        Sasha, do you at least understand that proving that Seawulf is not too different in price from Virginias, you bury your own analogy? :)
                      4. ironic
                        ironic 8 February 2021 17: 56
                        0
                        Did you understand that I was proving yes? That over time, Virginia grew and came to a price that could already be comparable to the wolves if they went into the series, but then they could not put them into the series, and over time, technologies advanced and it became possible to raise Virginia to a higher level of capabilities. What do you understand? Projects ahead of their time will be created further, their lot is small-scale, but they will pave the way for expensive projects, eventually rise to the same height or more. And who can afford it? Well, who can. In the end, the lucky ones are lucky.
  6. ironic
    ironic 4 February 2021 21: 57
    0
    So we'll see how much the new destroyer will cost, then this will settle our dispute.
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 4 February 2021 01: 29
    +1
    After the wave from Zamvolt, it will not be awesomely expensive, everything will be within the bounds of decency, it is not for nothing that Norwegian missiles and Italian frigates are being purchased.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 08: 17
      +2
      Quote: Yuri V.A
      After the wave from Zamvolt, it will not be awesomely expensive, everything will be within the bounds of decency, it is not for nothing that Norwegian missiles and Italian frigates are being purchased.

      Firstly, the destroyer is not purchased in Italy, and secondly, there are also problems with cost.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 4 February 2021 09: 24
        0
        Une momento, it is not yet known where it will be bought.
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 4 February 2021 16: 06
    0
    I recall how they opened the program for creating an inexpensive F-35 after the expensive F-22 ... and what did you get in the end? hi
    1. ironic
      ironic 4 February 2021 21: 37
      -2
      The result is an inexpensive plane by today's standards. wink
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2021 06: 51
        0
        Didn't work :)
        1. ironic
          ironic 7 February 2021 12: 45
          0
          How it turned out. An average of 85 lemons is the normal price for a plane, no maintenance or ammunition.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 18: 06
            0
            Quote: ironic
            How it turned out. An average of 85 lemons is the normal price for a plane, no maintenance or ammunition.

            Uh-huh. And without the 55 billion dollars thrown away for its design, which are not included in this price :)))))
            1. ironic
              ironic 7 February 2021 18: 24
              0
              Money is not thrown away for design, if the aircraft goes into series, and given that there are three types of this aircraft in series, with different aspects of pre-design from the basic version and the size of the series, then this is normal. Other aircraft are also not designed for free. The F-18 in the first version pulled at 12.8 lard, which is a much smaller project. wink
      2. DrEng527
        DrEng527 5 February 2021 11: 39
        0
        Quote: ironic
        The result is an inexpensive plane by today's standards.

        I believe in the American military-industrial complex, the new EM will be ONLY twice as expensive as the Sumwalds ... wink
  • Khibiny Plastun
    Khibiny Plastun 3 February 2021 15: 43
    -4
    Uh-huh, and the crew must be recruited from trances and always colored.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 3 February 2021 15: 46
    0
    S nulia nebudut stroit. Zadel u nich est, dvizhki est, tradicia korabelstroenia est.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 February 2021 16: 53
    -1
    In theory, the surface ship of the future should
    like an oversized LCS trimaran.
    1) an enlarged aircraft deck and hangars - nowhere without an unmanned aircraft component.
    2) rocket cells - which LCS does not have.
    3) AFARs on a lifting or retractable mast. Building high towers
    like the Sumvolts or the new British destroyers - stupid.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 3 February 2021 16: 57
      +10
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In theory, the surface ship of the future should
      like an oversized LCS trimaran.

      Your words, yes to American admirals in the ears laughing no, seriously, sabotage is worse than you can imagine :)
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 17: 39
        +2
        Well, yes, sabotage, Seawulf was the same sabotage only under water. Until now, no one has surpassed this sabotage.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 08: 18
          +4
          Quote: ironic
          Well, yes, sabotage, Seawulf was the same sabotage only under water.

          Sasha, according to your logic, if a country has made a copy of a perfect weapon, then all the other weapons that it makes automatically become the same perfect? Alas, this is not the case.
          1. ironic
            ironic 4 February 2021 21: 29
            0
            This is not so, and it cannot be according to my logic, but the analogy between Zumvolt and Seawulf can be clearly traced. If this does not happen in practice, I will have no problem admitting that I was wrong.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2021 07: 11
              +1
              Quote: ironic
              but the analogy between Zumwolt and Seawulf is clear.

              Where is it traced? Seawulf is a ship with a clear tactical purpose. It was created as a nuclear submarine capable of destroying our SSBNs in our own "bastions", that is, in the conditions of the dominance of the enemy surface fleet and in the area of ​​operation of its own anti-submarine aircraft. So, the Americans did it all, and Seawolf can do it all. Including today.
              And "Zumwalt" was supposed to replace "Arleigh Burke". That is, the US Navy wanted to get the same destroyer, only better - based on new technologies, etc. As a result, they received a ship too expensive for large-scale construction, but too weak to replace the Burke.
              The price analogy is purely imaginary. Seawulf was founded in 1989, it was expensive, of course, but the United States would have been quite willing to deploy them in the quantity they needed. They abandoned mass construction because the USSR fell, and with it our huge fleet went into oblivion. As a result, the need for such perfect atomarines has disappeared. That is, the reason for the termination of the Seawulf program is external.
              And Zumvolt began to be designed already in the 90s, that is, after the fall of the USSR. And the fact that its cost has gone beyond reasonable limits is the problem of its creators, that is, an internal problem.
              In other words, at the time of its creation, Seawulf fully corresponded to the tactical concept for which it was built, it was expensive (even before the fall of the USSR, the series was reduced from 30 to 12 units), but it was affordable. And "Zumvolt" turned out to be too expensive for serial construction "out of the blue", and does not meet the tasks for which it was created, which is why the admirals are now frantically trying to come up with at least some tactical niche for it (support for the landing force, etc.).
              This is why Seawulf should be regarded as a masterpiece and Zumwalt as a failure.
              1. ironic
                ironic 7 February 2021 13: 16
                0
                Of course, it can be traced, like Sivulf, the Sumvolt was projected by a drummer, both along the enemy's ships and along the shore. With the difference that Suvulf was supposed to become the new universal master of the seas, the main tactical nuclear submarine, and Zumvolt was not, he was not supposed to become the only destroyer in the US combat use, it was originally supposed to be a ship for disrupting enemy communications off the coast of the enemy and a ship accompanying the attack on the coast with their striking power. Arleigh Burke was to be replaced by another ship. However, the project was cut in half immediately after the collapse of the USSR, the requirements were changed, and then they were changed many times. It is the constant change in requirements that led to delays and overspending of allocated funds, no less than technological innovations, the cost of which was initially incorrectly calculated.
                The statement about the weakness of Sumvolt against the background of Burke does not sound serious, since it is not even fully equipped with weapons, and even if it was equipped with what is available today, it would not only not be weaker, it would be in many ways stronger, but the question now faces the Americans just how to equip it in order to use it as an ultimate striker. And as the tug of war continues, the results are accordingly. The conclusions that Sivul immediately answered everything that was wanted from him do not correspond to the practice of completing the last of them. As well as the conclusions that Sumvolt has become expensive out of the blue do not correspond even to its current filling. As well as what tasks it meets, because they were changed not only at the design stage, but also at the construction stage. Seawulf is a masterpiece because he still has no equal in his class, and Zumvolt cannot be a failure, because it is not yet finished and its refinement has not been stopped. Avot's potential is still a masterpiece, because it also has no analogue.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 17: 44
                  0
                  Quote: ironic
                  The sumvolt was projected by the drummer, both along the enemy's ships and along the shore.

                  He was never a "drummer" for enemy ships, these issues were decided by carrier-based aircraft. As for the actions at the enemy's coast, they were to be led not by the Zumvolts, but by the LCS, for this they were created.
                  Quote: ironic
                  The statement about the weakness of Sumvolt against the background of Burke does not sound serious, since he is not even fully equipped with weapons, and even if he was equipped with what is available today, it would not only not be weaker, it would be much stronger

                  It sounds more than serious, because the price even for such a Zumvolt is ALREADY dear to the United States, and if it is also improved, it will grow to values ​​that are unbearable even for a "series" of 2-3 ships.
                  Quote: ironic
                  The conclusions that Sivul immediately answered everything that was wanted from him do not correspond to the practice of completing the last of them.

                  Compliant. But they decided to adapt Carter for covert operations.
                  Quote: ironic
                  and Sumvolt cannot be a failure, because it is not finished yet and its development has not been stopped. Avot's potential is still a masterpiece, because it also has no analogue.

                  This is ALREADY a failure, because with the current price tag it cannot be serial.
                  1. ironic
                    ironic 7 February 2021 18: 01
                    0
                    Even as he was, he is still not without such opportunities. It was supposed to be equipped with surface-to-surface missiles and anti-ship missiles, and the fact that closer than 100 km to extinguish 6 "cannons with a total rate of fire of 20-25 rounds per minute. , but together.
                    In order for the Zumvolt to justify the already installed on it, it needs a cheaper artillery active-rocket, corrected projectile and a powerful anti-ship missile, an optionally light surface-to-surface ballistic missile in addition to axes and missiles. And all this the US military-industrial complex can and can at an affordable price.

                    And Carter was redesigned, which required an extra bomb and a serious time delay. In a small series of expensive ships, each for special operations, the first two were also reprofiled, especially their 650mm TA.

                    And since Zumvolt cannot be a serial due to its price and small batch size, it means Seawulf is also a failure, but both of them will act like ships of special operations, only Seawulf is already, and Zumvolt in the future. And like Seawulf, the Sumvolt will be a unique failure with capabilities that other ships don't have.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 09: 33
                      0
                      Quote: ironic
                      Even as he was, he is still not without such opportunities. It was supposed to be equipped with surface-to-surface missiles and anti-ship missiles, and what is closer than 100 km to extinguish 6 "guns with a total rate of fire of 20-25 rounds per minute.

                      Let's go without fantasies. It was not supposed to put any anti-ship missiles on Zumvolt, if only due to the lack of anti-ship missiles in the United States, which could fit into the Mk57. They initiated the development of LRASM much later.
                      Quote: ironic
                      And Carter was redesigned, which required both an extra bomb and a serious time delay.

                      Sure, not a problem. We take the second Connecticut nuclear submarine (of the Seawulf type), it cost $ 2,4 billion, commissioned in December 1998. At December 2020 prices - 5,082 billion :)))
                      Quote: ironic
                      And since Zumvolt cannot be a serial due to its price and small batch size, then Seawulf is also a failure.

                      As I already wrote, the analogy is false. I understand that you like it, but you need to be able to admit your mistakes.
                      1. ironic
                        ironic 8 February 2021 14: 46
                        0
                        Come on, fantasy is a favorite word. The anti-ship version of the Ax has not been canceled, 109B with an alteration in block 4 is called, can attack stationary and sea targets with equal success. It's like in that good old parable - you don't see it, but it is. By the way, the Railgun was also supposed to be first installed experimentally only on Lyndon Johnson and was developed during the construction of the Zumvolts. And LRASM was in preproduction in the 14th year.

                        For your booth with prices, I wrote elsewhere.

                        So it is only false for you. You believe that. Why should I take your faith for my mistake? The Bible has good advice - do not go after your hearts with which you fornicate. I understand what your faith is based on, but these gods have already fallen once ...
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 15: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: ironic
                        The anti-ship version of the Ax has not been canceled, 109B with an alteration in block 4 is called, can attack stationary and sea targets with equal success.

                        The fact that this modification was decommissioned and removed from service long before the design of the Zumvolt began, you, as I understand it, do not care at all :))))
                        Quote: ironic
                        It's like in that good old parable - you don't see it, but it is.

                        Exclusively in your fantasies. The fact is that the only ship-based anti-ship missile that the United States had at the time of the design of the Zumvolt was called Harpoon and was not installed on the Zumvolt, and work on the creation of a new anti-ship missile that it could use was not carried out. That a little so refutes your reflections on the theme of some kind of shock function of the "sumvolt".
                        It was striking only along the coast, and even then - relatively, because of the small number of cells.
                        Quote: ironic
                        And LRASM was in preproduction in the 14th year.

                        The problem is that LRASM began to develop when the development of Zumvolt had already been completed :) So - alas, again by.
                        Quote: ironic
                        For your booth with prices, I wrote elsewhere.

                        And I answered. Yes, I made a mistake in my calculations (unlike you, I always admit my mistakes), but Connecticut is still almost 30% (29,6%, to be exact) more expensive than Illinois
                        Quote: ironic
                        So it is only false for you. You believe that.

                        Yes. I believe that if the United States designs a destroyer that is incapable of using existing anti-ship missiles and does not create anti-ship missiles for it, then such a destroyer cannot in any way be designed to strike anti-ship missiles against sea targets.
                        What do you believe in? :))))
                      3. ironic
                        ironic 8 February 2021 16: 59
                        -1
                        Is this the fourth unit removed from service? Well, yes, only the 5th, only in the 20th, began to produce, but everything is fine, it’s been removed for a long time, it’s just overgrown with grass. I should be all in excitement.

                        Exclusively in your ideas about fantasies, which is nothing more than your personal stigma - there was no RCC-in except for Harpoons, but this is not so outside of your personal view of reality. And if you are already so aware, then the Harpoon does not have the implementation of a vertical start and therefore the shock functions of the Sumvolts could not rely on the Harpoons, and they were again, but in your selective gaze there is a filter that does not allow you to see it and even if they did see it, there were would be similar to the natives who first saw the ships of Columbus - do not believe your eyes. Shock on the coast, it was the same as on the water, since the plans to equip it with a surface-to-surface missile have also not been fully implemented until now. He has a sufficient number of cells in terms of approach to divide the strike into strategic, tactical and operational distances. For the first Ax, for the second, a surface-to-surface rocket was assumed, and for the third art. It is not a question of available opportunities, but of decision making and money.

                        Once again, the railgun was also being developed when the Zumvolts were being built. And the fourth Ax block began to be replaced only from last year. So again you don't see where it goes.

                        Let's make it even more extreme, Seawulf cost about 3 lam and did not have any serial price edition, according to the inflation calculator it is 4.87 as of the 21st year. The price of the last Vermont boat, delivered in the 20th year with all price editions of the series, is also 3 lemons. Those. if you do not take into account the price edition of the series, then this is x1.62 times, but not to take into account the price edition of the series is incorrect and illiterate. So I'm right and the price difference, taking into account the size of the series, is noticeably smaller. And in block 5 it will be even smaller. So why don't you admit two mistakes and not one?

                        You believe that the RCC is only a Harpoon, and this is obviously not the case. And I don’t believe in anything, I know that this is not so, and since I read periodicals about the 21st project from the very beginning of its release, I know about what impact functions were considered within the framework of this project and for what. Do you believe.
                      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 February 2021 17: 31
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Is this the fourth unit removed from service? Well, yes, only the 5th, only in the 20th, began to produce, but everything is fine, it’s been removed for a long time, it’s just overgrown with grass. I should be all in excitement.

                        Sasha, stop talking nonsense. The Americans had an anti-ship Tomahawk, the RGM / UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM), and was decommissioned in the early 2000s. The first "Zumvolt", if anything, was laid in 2011. So the designers of "Zumvolt" could not count on any "Tomahawk" in principle.
                        After the decommissioning of the TASM, the United States did not have ANY ship-based anti-ship missiles other than the Harpoon before the LRASM appeared. And LRASM began to develop already in 2009. Hint - the main performance characteristics of the "Zumvolt" were determined in 2005, when LRASM still did not ring. As for the Tomahawks, which could hit surface ships - yes, there is such a "block". In developing:))))
                        And ... I'm tired of this argument, to be honest. Read English-language sources - Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421)
                        The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three United States Navy guided missile destroyers designed as multi-mission stealth ships with a focus on land attack. It is a multi-role class that was designed for secondary roles of surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare and originally designed with a primary role of naval gunfire support. The class design emerged from the DD-21 "land attack destroyer" program as "DD (X)" and was intended to take the role of battleships in meeting a congressional mandate for naval fire support

                        PROMPT will translate it for you
                        The Zumwalt-class destroyer is a class of three US Navy guided missile destroyers designed as multipurpose stealth ships with a focus on land attack... It is a multipurpose class that has been designed for secondary roles of surface and anti-aircraft warfare and was originally designed with a primary combat support role for the Navy. TOThe design of the class originated from the DD-21 "Land Assault Destroyer" program as "DD (X)" and was intended to take on the role of battleships in fulfilling the Congressional mandate to support naval fire
                        Point.
                      5. ironic
                        ironic 8 February 2021 18: 27
                        0
                        Well then, give me an example and don't talk nonsense. 109B was modernized and transformed into block 4, capable of hitting both surface and ground targets and was produced until the 20-year inclusive. Those. In addition to the Harpoon anti-ship missile system, the US has always had means of destruction of sea targets in the history of the Navy in recent decades. Once again, the Relsotron was also developed when the Sumvolt project was already fully formed, however, like the LRASM, it became an option for additional equipment as it was put into operation, but the railgun was not adopted, but the LRASM was. Tired of it? Well, don't argue. I didn't force you to answer me, but I don't have such funds.

                        An excellent confirmation of my words in English, and the translation into Russian is poor, literally do not translate. 1) focus on attacking ground targets - which I argued. 2) with a secondary role of air defense and anti-aircraft defense - which I argued, he is not a replacement for Burke. 3) Originally developed with the main role of naval support by artillery fire - which I argued, the violation of enemy communications in the immediate vicinity of land. 4) Take on the role of Linkers .... !!!!, and then more, you do not understand the meaning of the phrase congressional mandate, this is an action of domination and further - through naval fire support, i.e. seizing dominance in the enemy's coastal communications.

                        I wrote everything correctly and the point is correct. Only mine.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 February 2021 07: 17
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Well then, give me an example and don't talk nonsense. 109B was modernized and transformed into block 4, capable of hitting both surface and ground targets and was produced until the 20-year inclusive.

                        laughing fool
                        Sasha, I am revealing a military secret - Unit 4, which you are talking about, and which was supplied by the US Armed Forces CANNOT hit surface targets :)))))
                        In 2017, the US Navy was preparing a contract for the development of an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk cruise missile. The project involves the installation of additional equipment on board Tomahawk TLAM Block IV missiles (designed to strike at ground targets), allowing them to be used as anti-ship missiles. The project received the Maritime Strike Tomahawk code.
                        In September 2017, the US Navy signed a contract with Raytheon to develop and integrate a new multi-mode homing head into Block IV Tomahawk cruise missiles. After the upgrade, the Tomahawks will be able to hit moving surface targets.
                        Source: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/tactom/ VTS "BASTION" AVKarpenko
                      7. ironic
                        ironic 9 February 2021 13: 35
                        0
                        Andrey, I will explain to you the military, absolutely not a secret, present in the English-speaking sector

                        RGM / UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) - active radar homing anti-ship missile variant; withdrawn from service in 1994 and converted to Block IV version

                        In 2014, Raytheon began testing Block IV improvements to attack sea and moving land targets.

                        But the whole trick is that
                        Raytheon will provide 32 Maritime Strike Tomahawk upgrade kits in 2020; 50 kits in 2021, and 80 kits in 2022, at an estimated cost of about $ 457.9 million. To be continued ... but what was that?

                        In fact, it was always about the insufficient capability of existing sensors, the same as on the Harpoon rocket, for the requirements of modern remote sea combat, as well as moving ground targets, but the fundamental possibility of hitting surface targets was inherited by the 4th block from 109B from the very beginning ... For hitting very distant targets, this is true, but for a tactical range, when the target is known with great accuracy and cannot change significantly during the approach, this is not so critical. For a rocket moving at a speed of 0.9M and reaching the target in half an hour, even a destroyer performing a maneuver at a speed of 60 km / h will move only 30 km.
                      8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 February 2021 07: 46
                        +1
                        Quote: ironic
                        In fact, it was always about the insufficient capability of existing sensors, the same as on the Harpoon rocket, for the requirements of modern remote sea combat, as well as moving ground targets, but the fundamental possibility of hitting surface targets was inherited by the 4th block from 109B from the very beginning ...

                        Sasha, stop burning with napalm. He did not inherit anything because the equipment was removed from him. Otherwise, the US Navy would have received a "very long-range" cruise missile with a firing range of 460-550 km. The rocket has been REDUCED for ground use. Naturally, she lost her anti-ship capabilities.
                      9. ironic
                        ironic 10 February 2021 19: 39
                        -2
                        The US Marine Corps has indicated external link that besides the Naval Strike Missile, the service intends to field the Maritime Strike Tomahawk missile for anti-ship role as well.

                        Napalm counts. Annealing is performed.
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 February 2021 12: 23
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        Napalm counts. Annealing is performed.

                        You could not read your own link? :) Is it okay that it confirms my words?
                      11. ironic
                        ironic 11 February 2021 17: 06
                        0
                        I could, nothing that she does not confirm, you could not.
                      12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 February 2021 10: 46
                        -1
                        Quote: ironic
                        Smog

                        No matter how much you say "halva", your mouth will not become sweeter.
                        Can't into English? Read simpler articles. Well for example Navy, Raytheon Close to Finalizing Maritime Strike Tomahawk Missile Deal from August 16, 2017 10:00 AM
                        The Navy and Raytheon are close to signing a deal to integrate a new sensor into the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile to allow the missile to attack moving targets at sea, the head of the Navy's Tomahawk program told USNI News on Tuesday.

                        Once the deal is complete, Raytheon will start work to craft and install a sensor to convert a yet-to-be-determined number of Block IV TLAMs into a Maritime Strike Tomahawk variant, said Capt. Mark Johnson, Naval Air Systems Command PMA-280 program manager.

                        Prompt will explain to you what it means
                        The Navy and Raytheon are close to signing a deal to integrate a new sensor into the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile to enable the missile to attack moving targets at sea, the Navy's Tomahawk program chief told USNI News on Tuesday.
                        Once the deal is complete, Raytheon will begin work on building and installing a sensor to convert the as-yet-undetermined amount of Block IV TLAM into a Maritime Strike Tomahawk variant, said Captain Mark Johnson, Program Manager for Naval Air Systems Command PMA-280.

                        News from TWO. THOUSANDS. SIXTEENTH. OF THE YEAR.
                        Dot. Also bold :))))
                      13. ironic
                        ironic 14 February 2021 12: 25
                        0
                        I could again. It turned out that I suddenly understand English, judging by the Russian translation. I did not find a refutation of what I wrote above, neither in the English nor in the Russian text. All this concerns systems of active search when striking at a long distance, when a rocket requires a completely autonomous search and homing. Neither the taste of halva nor the size of the dot changed anything. wink Moreover, one of the components of this program is to make the missile capable of hitting ground-based moving targets, which have a slightly smaller size than a ship and a slightly greater ability to maneuver. lol
                      14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 February 2021 13: 11
                        -1
                        Quote: ironic
                        It turned out that I suddenly understand English, judging by the Russian translation. I could not find a refutation of what I wrote above, neither in the English nor in the Russian text.

                        It is clear that you are not in a position to admit your mistakes.
                      15. ironic
                        ironic 14 February 2021 13: 39
                        0
                        No, I am not in a position to recognize your idea of ​​errors as the only correct one. This will require getting used to your understanding of fallibility. I'm not used to it yet.
  • Couchexpert
    Couchexpert 3 February 2021 17: 43
    0
    and "possessing a modular design, allowing, if necessary, to equip the ship for any missions alone without escort ships." AND! And of course, unmanned vehicles are complete as an optional feature.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 3 February 2021 20: 49
    +1
    The trimaran body is much more difficult to manufacture than
    classic scheme. More difficult means more expensive. This is a disadvantage.
    Everything else is benefits.
    Shallow draft, greater stability at high speed.
    Greater survivability with holes.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 08: 40
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The trimaran body is much more difficult to manufacture than
      classic scheme. More difficult means more expensive. This is a disadvantage.
      Everything else is benefits.

      In addition, you forgot to write down the disadvantages - a more powerful propulsion system required to develop the same speed as an ordinary single-hull vessel of the same displacement at low and medium speeds (EMNIP up to 30 knots), because the khat and trimaran have a large wetting area and obviously lower payload, because the trimaran hull is much heavier than a monohull, and a more powerful power unit will require more weight
      That is, the trimaran is a priori less profitable in terms of payload. But more expensive
    2. ironic
      ironic 4 February 2021 21: 31
      0
      But one should not forget the noticeably higher velocity of the second littoral. Therefore, they have slightly different specializations.
  • ironic
    ironic 3 February 2021 17: 38
    0
    And will we put forward AFARs as the one looking ahead will notice the enemy? The height of the Zumwalt superstructure is below Burke's mast.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 February 2021 18: 00
      -1
      Yes. Ahead flying reconnaissance drone. They must,
      replacing each other, continuously conduct long-range reconnaissance.
      To do this, there must be at least three of them in the hangars.
      When they spot enemy ships,
      telescopic dream with AFARs.
      Notice I'm talking about the concept of the future.
      Will it be so? - we will see.
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 18: 46
        0
        But this is initially the wrong approach and I am sure that they will not implement it the way you have voiced.
      2. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 19: 02
        0
        In Israel, they already had experience, which means the main radars of the ship in the non-combat state.
      3. Ka-52
        Ka-52 4 February 2021 08: 16
        0
        Yes. Ahead flying reconnaissance drone.

        and if SMU? will sit like Tsar Saltan in a barrel - I see nothing, hear nothing? laughing
  • Avior
    Avior 3 February 2021 18: 02
    +3
    there is no point in extending the full radar antenna on the retractable mast.
    There should be a small second antenna, since if you don't push it out, the radio horizon will still really be limited to 45-50 km with a target height of 25 m, and if it's less, then the real range is less. This means that a powerful radar antenna is not needed at high altitude. Need a separate one - on the horizon
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 February 2021 18: 07
      -1
      Perhaps you `re right.
      Enough extra and, then, on a balloon.
      1. ironic
        ironic 3 February 2021 18: 47
        +2
        Also hang a signboard, I'm a stealth ship, I'm here.
        1. Avior
          Avior 4 February 2021 01: 44
          +3
          LPI in the radar exists, why shouldn't it be at the ships.
          In principle, the review of the radio horizon line is critical.
          the antenna of the short-range RTR station can also stand on the retractable mast, if the radio silence mode is used.
          All other targets will be determined by the main antenna of the radar and RTR of the ship.
          1. ironic
            ironic 4 February 2021 21: 55
            0
            Yes, there are such radars for ships, that Ms. Leonardo will help, but this does not change the situation with the hull. The conceptual issue here is simple, if this is a Zumvolt-type ship, then first of all it must have a certain shape, and then weapons and antennas must be strung on this shape. Secondly, experience has shown that the ship must always have situational awareness with its own means, and to this it must also be aware with the help of external means, and not external means launched, but released their own, it ends either with a missile to the side or with a torpedo. This is three times true for a Zumwault-class ship.
            1. Avior
              Avior 5 February 2021 00: 44
              +1
              In some cases, use the radio silent mode
              1. ironic
                ironic 7 February 2021 13: 30
                0
                They do, but it does not cancel all of the above.
  • Ua3qhp
    Ua3qhp 4 February 2021 08: 37
    0
    And what is the point in a folding mast if you need AFAR all the time?
    1. Avior
      Avior 4 February 2021 09: 46
      +2
      not always, but only in a combat situation under certain circumstances - for example, a ship in solo voyage.
      In other cases, it may receive information differently over the network - from aircraft or other ships
      1. Ua3qhp
        Ua3qhp 4 February 2021 17: 29
        0
        She is always needed. Need a navigational environment at any given time. Now there is such a trend, there is one radar station for all occasions.
        1. Avior
          Avior 5 February 2021 00: 49
          +1
          Both Zamvolta and Arly Burke have separate navigation radars
          On Zammernite it in front of the superstructure on top, on Arlie Burke - on the mast
          1. Ua3qhp
            Ua3qhp 5 February 2021 10: 00
            0
            Quote: Avior
            not always, but only in a combat situation under certain circumstances - for example, a ship in solo voyage.
            In other cases, may receive information differently

            And then what is the point of folding the mast? The only thing that can be thought of is to reduce the visibility in a combat situation, but in a combat situation, AFAR is vital.
            1. Avior
              Avior 5 February 2021 10: 31
              0
              If, for example, somewhere in the area there is a drill, you can go to the strike position in radio silence mode
  • ironic
    ironic 3 February 2021 17: 31
    +2
    In addition to the fact that the article contains an error about the Sumvolt rocket cells, an unfounded opinion about the failure of the Sumvolt project and littoral ships is also replicated, although Sivulf's project does not turn out to be unsuccessful. And this despite the fact that what is described in the article cannot be reminiscent of just the situation with Sivulf and Virginia that followed him.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 4 February 2021 08: 48
      +3
      Quote: ironic
      so also the unfounded opinion about the failure of the Zumvolt project and littoral ships is being replicated

      Already in the United States, they recognized the failure of these ships, and you all consider this opinion "unfounded"
      Quote: ironic
      although Sivulf's project is not considered unsuccessful for anyone

      I correctly understood that if we created a Kalashnikov assault rifle, then any military products of the USSR / RF are beyond praise, and ahead of the rest of the planet?
      The fact that the Americans have created the world's best nuclear submarine does not at all mean that they are insured against failures in other projects.
      1. ironic
        ironic 4 February 2021 21: 26
        -1
        Someone removed from service and sent for cutting the Zumvolts or Litorals? Someone said that they would not be able to carry out the functions assigned to them? Not. Sumvolts are unfinished due to a change in the position on their weapons and the excessive cost of the project, which it was decided to leave small-scale (the same happened at one time with the Sivulfs), the littorals are being re-equipped in connection with the changed requirements. So the geopolitical situation has changed. In total, I do not see such recognition, I see more political statements by military officials, the main goal of which is to get more money. This is normal and familiar.
        And even the Kalashnikov assault rifle is no longer ahead of the rest of the planet, but this is not an argument.
        Failure and rejection of masseria are different concepts. Now, if the Zumvolts are sent to the reserve, I agree that this is a failure. And if they bring, as they brought the Sivulfs and make them ultimatum ships of special operations, this is a financial and tactical miscalculation, but not a failure.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 5 February 2021 08: 13
          +2
          Quote: ironic
          Someone removed from service and sent for cutting the Zumvolts or Litorals?

          Nobody sends a failed ship for cutting. They continue to serve, but cannot fulfill their inherent functions. By the way, the Americans put the first 4 LCS in reserve. This is after 6-12 years of operation ...
          Quote: ironic
          The sumvolts are unfinished due to a change in the position on their weapons and the excessive cost of the project, which it was decided to leave small-scale (the same thing happened with the Sivulfs at one time)

          I explained the difference in the comment above
          Quote: ironic
          So the geopolitical situation has changed.

          Not. It changed for the Sivulfs, but the Zumvolts were designed after the collapse of the USSR.
          Quote: ironic
          Now, if the Zumvolts are sent to the reserve, I agree that this is a failure.

          Failure is when we create a ship that does not meet the original TTZ. Zumvolt - does not answer. The US Navy refuses to use it as a destroyer.
          Quote: ironic
          And if they bring, as they brought the Sivulfs and make them ultimatum ships of special operations, this is a financial and tactical miscalculation, but not a failure.

          Sorry, but if you bought a microscope, but it does not work, and you, in order not to lose money completely in vain, adapted it for hammering nails, with which this microscope does an excellent job, then this is precisely a failure, not a miscalculation
          1. ironic
            ironic 7 February 2021 12: 58
            0
            Here is your thesis and does not work, those who cannot, are withdrawn to the reserve, and those who are not withdrawn, they can. Those that are withdrawn to the reserve, the first series, containing design flaws that are not productive for the money to bring, the rest are re-equipping and they will perform their functions and build new ones, too, will continue until the end of the ordered series.

            Your explanation of the difference is unsatisfactory, otherwise I would not answer or agree.

            The SC21 program began in the early 90s and its budget was immediately cut in half, precisely because of the collapse of the USSR.

            T.N. the initial performance characteristics were changed in the program at least several times even before the first Zumvolt was laid and, even worse for the project, they changed in the process of direct work, which actually became the reason for delays and misunderstandings between cooperating institutions. Working with this project fundamentally contradicted the general American approach to the construction of the first series of ships, so it is not surprising that the large cost overruns and the unfinished assignments are not surprising. The US Navy has not yet received a combat-ready ship to refuse to use it. So far, I see only graters at different instances, mostly running into money.

            The parable about the microscope is, of course, well-known, yes, that's just not suitable for the situation from the word at all.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 7 February 2021 18: 04
              0
              Quote: ironic
              Here is your thesis and does not work, those who cannot, are withdrawn to the reserve, and those who are not withdrawn, they can.

              My thesis works. Bad warships - serve. The problem is that the first 4 LCS could not be used as warships at all. For no purpose.
              Quote: ironic
              the rest are re-equipping and they will perform their functions

              Will not. They will not be able to perform their functions, since the idea of ​​modular weapons, for which they were created, has already failed miserably. Now we are talking only about the implementation of PART of the functionality for which LCS were created
              Quote: ironic
              T.N. the initial performance characteristics were changed in the program at least several times even before the first Zumvolt was laid and, even worse for the project, they changed in the process of direct work, which, in fact, became the cause of delays and misunderstandings between cooperating institutions

              First, you are now explaining WHY Zumvolt is an unsuccessful ship, and do not prove its success :)))
              Secondly, you are fantasizing with might and main. The performance characteristics have changed precisely because of the impossibility to create the necessary weapons / equipment, and not due to changes in views on the use of a ship of this class
  • Undecim
    Undecim 3 February 2021 19: 19
    +9
    The author, behind the verbal tinsel, did not bother to present at least one concept created within the framework of the program in question.
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 3 February 2021 19: 40
      +1
      Diesels Vyartsily, cool. And the railgun !! 111
    2. Avior
      Avior 4 February 2021 01: 47
      +3
      you still need to start with railguns and lasers, the experience of Zamwalt pushes for this.
      And the absence of a classic weapon is alarming.
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 3 February 2021 22: 04
    +2
    The set of wishes is almost the same as Zumwalt. It may happen that the same eggs come out ... What exactly I mean - all the main systems require new ones. Power plant, electronic equipment, artillery complex ... It was on this that Zumwalt got burned. Not on the price, but on the power plant and weapons.