Military Review

A promising destroyer for the Russian Navy - which one and why? (ending)

66
A promising destroyer for the Russian Navy - which one and why? (ending)


Now is the time to return to the comparison of the tasks and possibilities of promising EM for the Russian Navy and Arly Burke. The Americans created an anti-aircraft / anti-aircraft ship with capabilities to perform the functions of an arsenal ship. Conventional destroyer ammunition (74 missiles CM2, 24 - Sea Sparrow, 8 Tomahawk and 8 ASROK) gives the ship excellent air defense capabilities. With missile defense, alas, everything is not so bright. The fact is that in the United States the question of intercepting low-flying supersonic rockets remained an unresolved issue.

Theoretically, low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles can be intercepted by the “CM2 Standards”, but they have an interception limit - 15 meters above sea level, and our new anti-ship missiles fly lower. "Sea Sparrow" in the opinion of the Americans themselves are able to intercept only subsonic missiles. True, the Americans recently created the ESSM medium-range SAM, which, according to their statements, is capable of intercepting low-flying supersonic targets, but ...

You can move the flyers and all test reports of the “Standard CM2” and ESSM. You will see that on tests these missiles successfully hit supersonic high-flying and subsonic low-flying targets. But the reports of the defeat of supersonic low-flying targets, I could not find one. At all. So even the very possibility of hitting low-flying supersonic targets with existing US missile weapons is at least debatable. But let's say even ESSM can still do it.

I have already written above about the differences between semi-active and active GOS Zur. So, the ESSM is equipped with a semi-active GOS, which means that it needs a target illumination station to target the target. There are only three such stations at “Arly Burke” - and, of course, all three work at the same time can not from all angles. Since the 2 radar lights are located behind the second chimney, from the forward angles, Arly Burk has the ability to direct the ESSM with just one anti-ship missile at a time.

A small number of pickup channels, combined with a very average ability to detect low-flying targets with the SPY-1 radar, greatly limits the capabilities of the Arly Berkov missile defense system. The fact is that decimeter radars do not very well see what flies right above the sea surface (Americans for decades have tried to adapt it for these purposes). They generally squeezed everything possible, accomplished a real feat in software, learning to peel off most of the interference and Now “Spay” distinguishes low-flying targets relatively well, but all of this in aggregate does not make American ships a record holder in the PRO-capabilities.

In this respect, the newest British destroyer Daring is much more powerful than Arly Burke. Its SAMPSON surveillance radar is essentially a 2 radar in one decimeter and centimeter range. In the decimeter range, the radar performs long-range detection of targets, but in centimeters it perfectly “sees” everything that happens at the surface of the water (there is no hindrance to interference in the centimeter range, it sees much better at water than decimeter radars :)). And leads to any target missiles with active seeker.

Even such a thing as a radio horizon for "Derring" is much more than for Arly Berkov. I believe it is clear to all that the radio horizon is a relative concept and depends on the height of the radar placement above sea level. See where the “Junction” grids on “Arly Burke” are located (rectangular blocks on the superstructure)



and where is the radar of DERING (the ball on the highest mast)



Previously, on the "Berks" was a pair of "Volcano-Falanx" This was a very good complex for its time. But he was counting on the opposition of relatively small subsonic anti-ship missiles, or large, but already damaged by close interruptions of anti-aircraft missiles. Its ability to counter heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles tends to zero. And on the last series of "Berkov" "Falanx" has already been removed.

Arley’s PLO is probably even more modest than missile defense - it’s all about the extreme weakness of its anti-submarine weapons. The ASROK complex did not fly for a long time more than 10 km (it is now flying 20). Available 324-mm TAs with Mk46 had an even smaller defeat distance. At the same time, under his circumstances, the modernity of the SAS of submarines made it possible to “target” enemy surface ships in ideal conditions even from a distance of 90 km., And in less ideal ... well, tens of kilometers. And at such distances all the hope of “Arly Burke” was solely and exclusively to their deck helicopters, of which 2 was the only one and they could not organize a round-the-clock watch. True, the situation was changed for the better with the advent of a very powerful hydroacoustic station AN / SQS-53B / C, which with good luck could detect enemy submarines from a distance of several tens of kilometers ... but in practice it would have looked like that. An unknown underwater target was discovered, kilometers in 40 from the ship.

And they went, until they prepare the helicopter for departure, until it takes off, until it leaves the submarine area ... all this time it remains only to pray to all sea gods and wipe cold sweat every second, looking at the radar - will there be any illumination? cruise missiles from this very submarine? Our ships equipped with rocket-torpedoes with a range of 50 km on this background look much more advantageous.

Apparently the whole point is that the US PLO tasks were to a greater extent placed on deck Aviation - in the old days, they were solved not only by PLO helicopters, but also by the regular Viking squadron, capable of suspecting something big and unfriendly, quietly creeping up to the ACG under water, to check the thickness of sea waters for 300 kilometers in any direction from an aircraft carrier ... But the days of the Cold War have passed, the Vikings were written off for wear and tear, but they did not develop new aircraft - save, p. However, I was distracted again.

“Arly Burke” has a very high potential for strikes against ground targets - in the shock version the ship is loaded to the 56 KR “Tomahawk”. This is a huge force that can suppress the air defense of a small country. But the potential of Arly Burke to destroy surface ships is extremely small.

In fact, the commander of the ship has only the 8 RCC "Harpoon" at its disposal, which is enough except for the elimination of a corvette or a missile boat that turned out to be at the wrong time and place. And even then - the latest versions of “Arly Berkov” are completely devoid of “Harpoons”. “Tomahawks” in the PKR version have not been used for a long time, and, frankly speaking, subsonic CRP is not a very serious danger to a ship with modern air defense / missile defense. There is still shooting anti-aircraft "Standards" at the line of sight. And that's all.

Thus, it is easy to conclude that even Arly Burk, the support of the United States AUG, which many military analysts consider to be the best destroyer of all times and peoples, a magnificent main combat rocket-artillery ship of modernity, does not fully meet the requirements of a prospective destroyer RF. Although, of course, handsome, infection laughing


What can we say about smaller ships, like the "Alvaro de Bazan"? This ship, in contrast to the "Arly Burke" has not even 3 station illumination targets, but only two. Those. from different angles, he is able to direct missiles at only one, maximum - two attacking anti-ship missiles. If we compare this with our promising 9M100 SAMs, which must seize enemy missiles with their IR homing heads even before our anti-missile system leaves the launcher ... UVP on 48 cells is acceptable for a ship operating in the near-sea zone, but for the ocean it is a miser. Having thrown there four dozen “Standards” and 40 ESSM, you can still talk about some kind of aircraft defense, but the impact capabilities will be reduced to almost zero. Eight "Harpoons" in deck installations can only scare the Somali pirate. At least some sane PLO can be achieved only by placing PLUR ASROK in the CIP - and the cells are worth their weight in gold ...

Again, as I already wrote above, the UHM Mc41 is designed for approximately one and a half ton rockets. If you build a Russian "Bazan" with Russian weapons (and who will sell us "Aegis" with "Standards"?), Then you will either have to forget about heavy missiles, limiting yourself to "Poliment-Redut" with medium-range and short-range missiles for launching heavy missiles and “Onyxes” with “Calibers” but ... at the cost of reducing ammunition. And we will not have 48 cells, but well if 32.

The 127 –mm artillery system is practically useless for the purpose of supporting the landing - the projectile effect is too weak (this also applies to “Arly Burke” and (no matter how ridiculous) even our AK-130)

The range of navigation - 5000 miles on 18 nodes - is relatively small, although not so small (“Arly Burke” - 6000 miles, “Daring” - 7000 miles, our BOD project 1134 - 6500-7100 miles).

In general, a small ship - it is a small ship, and its capabilities will always be very limited. As one Englishman said: “If a ship that can hold 8 guns is 10, only 6 will be fired”. Or, as the inscription in one minibus even more concisely expressed the same idea:
"Do not push nevpihuemoe"


The Spaniards themselves do not in any way see the Alvaro de Bazan series as a certain Squadron of the Open Ocean. They are designed to operate as part of a search and strike group led by an aircraft carrier in the area of ​​Gibraltar - and that’s all.
Author:
66 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 22 August 2012 09: 25
    +3
    Norm analysis of combat capabilities, but it seems to me a mistake in determining the ability of amers to bring down PKR. Yes, now their eagles are not imprisoned for this, but all because of my opinion that they know that there simply is no adversary capable of applying supersonic PCBs on them, from whom is the threat? The Russians are frankly weak and will act like blind kittens with their solitary old ships of the 80s) and who has more? But as soon as the threat of the use of supersonic PKR becomes a reality, everything will appear and be installed on ships. Well, Daring, besides the declaration of skill there, has not yet shown himself to be absolutely nothing and, in general, seems to be at the stage of bringing to mind. IMHO
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 09: 36
      +4
      Quote: maxiv1979
      NORm analysis of combat capabilities, but it seems to me that there is an error in determining the capabilities of amers to shoot down PKR. Yes, now their Orli Berks for this is not sharpened, but it’s all because, my opinion, that they know - there is simply no adversary capable of using supersonic PCRs for them, from whom is the threat?

      Here's the thing - the threat of low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles did not arise yesterday. After all, this category includes the Basalt anti-ship missile system (put into service in 1975) and the Granit anti-ship missile system (1983). And the Americans were able to "persuade" the SPY-1 to distinguish relatively decently low-flying targets only in 2004 (modification of the SPY-1D (V)) and at the same time the ESSM was adopted. Prior to that, Aegis, in all likelihood, had no way at all to intercept our Basalts and Granites.
  2. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 22 August 2012 09: 30
    +6
    In fact, the modern destroyer for the Russian fleet should:
    1. NF to ensure the possibility of the fastest possible transition from one theater to another (in fact, from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific, such ships are still redundant for the Baltic and the Black Sea).
    2. It should combine all the best from the current destroyers and the BOD to unify the combat platform.
    3. He must be able to devote at least two opponents of the same class in one due to the fact that we will not be able to catch up with possible opponents for a very long time.
    4. He must work as part of a group led by an aircraft carrier, without covering from the air we will produce potential floating coffins.
    In my opinion, the conclusion is simple from all this. Ocean-class ships must be built in such a way as to immediately form shock combat formations.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 09: 38
      +6
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      In fact, the modern destroyer for the Russian fleet should:

      Well, in the first part of the article I’d seem to have written about this, no?
    2. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 23 August 2012 01: 57
      +2
      Forget those you are talking about me. Nuclear installation on destroyers ..... it has already passed and more than once it is not needed there .. this is nonsense
  3. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 22 August 2012 10: 07
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Here's the thing - the threat of low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles did not arise yesterday. After all, this category includes the Basalt anti-ship missile system (put into service in 1975) and the Granit anti-ship missile system (1983). And the Americans were able to "persuade" the SPY-1 to distinguish relatively decently low-flying targets only in 2004 (modification of the SPY-1D (V)) and at the same time the ESSM was adopted. Prior to that, Aegis, in all likelihood, had no way at all to intercept our Basalts and Granites.


    early Aegis probably couldn’t shoot down supersonic rockets, now these capabilities are being declared, missiles and targets are being developed for such tasks, for example, an excerpt from one article

    Of the anti-aircraft weapons in service with the U.S. Navy, the following weapons were reported to be able to intercept supersonic anti-ship missiles:
    RIM-116 RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) - in the Block 1 variant, in service with 1999;
    Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B - in service with the 1999;
    RIM-156 Standard Block IV (SM-4) - in service with 1999;
    RIM-162 ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) - in service with the 2004;
    RIM-174 ERAM (Standard Extended Range Active Missile, SM-6) - in service since 2011

    the real characteristics of the carriers of our pcr and the pcr themselves are also incomprehensible, it’s real and not declared. From the late 70s, as I understand it, the United States considered its capabilities to combat the carriers of such missiles (this is apl 949 project) as well as the missiles themselves (using the F14 Phoenix weapon system) ... Maybe amers who constantly grazed on of our test sites and undoubtedly had reliable telemetry on missiles and really knew and know the real characteristics of our supersonic PCR
  4. Armata
    Armata 22 August 2012 10: 13
    +5
    Thanks Andrew for the article. Everything about the case. Only one annoying. IT HAS STILL BEING PERSPECTIVE, and what happens is really incomprehensible. This is saying knowing our design bureaus in Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 10: 21
      +3
      Well, it's not a sin to dream laughing
      1. Armata
        Armata 22 August 2012 10: 53
        0
        I myself wanted to write an article about small boats for the needs of the FSB, such as "Harpoon", "Arrow" from "Design Bureau" Agat "(especially since we took part in the construction and design), but not everyone has a gift for writing.
        1. Vito
          Vito 22 August 2012 11: 04
          +4
          Steam locomotive (4Good day to you.
          Quote: Steam Train

          I myself wanted to write an article about small boats for the needs of the FSB, such as "Harpoon", "Arrow" from "Design Bureau" Agat "(especially since we took part in the construction and design), but not everyone has a gift for writing.

          At least I read your comments with pleasure!
          And you cast aside doubts and take a chance. Personally, I am sure that you will find grateful listeners. It is always interesting to read the opinion of a knowledgeable MAN!
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 August 2012 11: 04
          +3
          Well, you know, the first step is the hardest. You start writing - at first it may and will not be ice, but later it will be better and better. It is like in any business - there will be practice, there will be an improvement in writing skills.
          If it is STRONGLY unsure, I can offer help. Write as it will, send it to me - I will correct and return as much as I can with my modest forces.
          1. Armata
            Armata 22 August 2012 11: 38
            +1
            Thanks, I’ll try to write a little more freely.
            1. Igarr
              Igarr 22 August 2012 14: 55
              +2
              Eugene, we are not expecting from you "War and Peace on a Quiet Don, where the Lady with the Camellias".
              TTX such - from such tasks. The prospects are as follows.
              The options are.
              Difficulties met such, we try to solve so.
              Technical people will read it right.
              And aesthetes will not even read.
              We are waiting, sir.
  5. Vito
    Vito 22 August 2012 10: 36
    +2
    I want to ask specialists from our glorious Navy, my amateurish question! I apologize in advance for him, but it really hurts my curiosity.
    Is it possible in the near future to introduce into our S-400 a function to destroy enemy surface ships? I understand in advance that this is more from the realm of fiction, but what prospects and striking power opens up if this is achieved!
    Not a destroyer, "DREAM" -it will be obtained !!!
    ps
    All fiction comes true, sooner or later.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 10: 43
      +2
      At one time, I myself fantasized about this topic, wrote an article about it, on the topware it was posted here http://topwar.ru/7094-perspektivnyy-esminec-dlya-vmf-rf-pofantaziruem.html
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 22 August 2012 15: 00
        +3
        Well, dream up ...
        Andrey, is it possible to pull towed underwater platforms of ballistic missiles along with towed ASU?
        I got to the point, unhooked one platform. At the next point - the next. Then the satellite "winks" at her with a laser - she went to shoot back.
        How is the idea?
        Although tugs are easier to use, of course.
        ..
        And for the article - thank you so much.
        I read it with great pleasure.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 August 2012 15: 19
          +3
          Quote: Igarr
          I got to the point, unhooked one platform. At the next point - the next. Then the satellite "winks" at her with a laser - she went to shoot back.
          How is the idea?

          What's the point? It’s just not possible to hide the ballist platform in the ocean - God forbid anyone will see, send a group of combat swimmers, pick up, disassemble cogs, learn all the secrets and will, as is typical, in their right - nobody’s ocean, except for the waters. On the other hand, an ordinary ground-based intercontinental ballista will cost no less than a ballista + underwater platform.
          Quote: Igarr
          And for the article - thank you so much.

          You are welcome !
      2. de_monSher
        de_monSher 22 August 2012 23: 04
        0
        Yes, thanks for the analysis. Good ... plus to you, friend ... *)
    2. de_monSher
      de_monSher 22 August 2012 23: 02
      0
      Well ... a ship, not a ship, but a boat can be sunk ... and TFR can be damaged. Only within the limits of the horizon - of course ... *) It seems to be something like this ... *)
  6. DDT_1976
    DDT_1976 22 August 2012 10: 44
    +2
    The end of the article is a worthy start. It was interesting to read. Thanks to the author!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 10: 45
      +1
      Thank you very much for a kind word!
      Nice to know that not in vain tried
  7. Leisure
    Leisure 22 August 2012 11: 12
    +2
    I would like to know what the author thinks about the EW facilities, communications, control on the future ship being represented.
    Article is good +
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 11: 18
      +3
      Quote: Lazer
      I would like to know what the author thinks about the EW facilities, communications, control on the future ship being represented.

      Believe me, the author would really like to have at least some information on Russian CBS, EW and communications, their features, shortcomings and directions of development. But alas, the author has no such information. crying
      That is why I didn’t write anything on this topic - I’d just get a set of good wishes.
  8. viruskvartirus
    viruskvartirus 22 August 2012 11: 15
    +1
    And why in both articles are not covered the means of electronic warfare? After all, this is an important topic ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 11: 24
      +1
      No, well, I have no data on domestic EW. crying There are not many of them, but only ours ...
      1. viruskvartirus
        viruskvartirus 22 August 2012 11: 32
        +1
        "Taking into account the experience of the Yom Kippur War, when, thanks to the use of the latest electronic warfare systems, none of the 54 P-15 Termit missiles fired from the ships of the Syrian and Egyptian naval forces reached their goal, Israeli sailors attach particular importance to electronic countermeasures systems." http://topwar.ru/17759-flagman-voenno-morskih-sil-izrailya.html#comment-id-52309
        7
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 August 2012 11: 41
          +1
          Well, about "no" missiles - I would not be so sure of that. Israel is very fond of hiding combat losses - this time. Second, EMNIP was not only working there. for example, it was done like this - in front of the Israeli RRC a helicopter is flying at a low altitude. The Arabs' radar stations take it for a ship, they beat it with Termite ... naturally, they do not hit it. But EW has nothing to do with it
          1. viruskvartirus
            viruskvartirus 22 August 2012 12: 34
            +3
            Interesting ... but I think that Termit's hit with 375 kg of explosives is difficult to hide, and for example, data on losses from the n-15 during the "War of Attrition" are open ... and even take a helicopter for a boat ... request

            Found "20-30 minutes before the strike group approached the detection line by the enemy's coastal surveillance equipment, helicopters advanced forward, tacking at low altitudes, imitating false surface targets. When a missile launch was detected, the helicopters, sharply gaining altitude to 300-500 m, evaded missiles and, simulating the disappearance of false surface targets, thereby created the appearance of missiles hitting the Navy ships Israel.
            Blocking tactical units maneuvered 20-25 miles from the locations of the enemy ships. Their advance to the line of missile attack was carried out from various directions. A missile strike on ships was carried out massively (in volleys) at high speeds of launch boats after approaching with a target of 9-11 miles. Helicopters armed with ATGMs also participated in the strike.
            The fleets of Egypt and Syria were aimed at conducting defensive operations. Missile boats usually operated tactical units on 2 boats in each. Transitions to patrol areas were carried out with disguise as fishing vessels in complete radio silence mode near the coast at low speed.
            Guidance of boats on target was carried out from coastal command posts. Rangout target designation radar boats were detected by Israeli boats at 45-50 km ranges. Missile launches were carried out in one gulp along 2-4 missiles from 20-40 ranges of km from the target. The actions of the Arabs include the following shortcomings.
            The advantage of P-15 missiles over Israeli Gabriel missiles (MK-1) in the firing range at 20 km was not used enough. The time of a missile salvo was not always reduced to a minimum. The interaction between the boats during the battle was poorly organized. The exit of the boats from the battle after the missile attack was delayed.
            It should also be noted the low level of training of the Rangout radar operators, who could not distinguish false targets (dipole clouds, helicopters) from true ones, which led to an unjustified consumption of ammunition. "
            http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/wars0/wars_28.htm
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              22 August 2012 12: 39
              +1
              In-in, I precisely about this
  9. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 22 August 2012 11: 24
    0
    I think it will be created on the basis of the golden serena ...
  10. borisst64
    borisst64 22 August 2012 11: 29
    +1
    "The 127-mm artillery system is practically useless for the purpose of supporting the landing - the action of the projectile is too weak (this applies to the" Arleigh Burke "and (funny as it may seem) even to our AK-130)"

    Indeed, with a seemingly small difference with the caliber of 152 mm, the power of the projectile increases dramatically.
  11. common man
    common man 22 August 2012 12: 21
    +7
    Given that these ships will be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleets, should their hulls be ice class? At least partially. Thank you so much for the article.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 12: 38
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      Considering that these ships will be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleet, should their hulls be of ice class?

      Unambiguously and without options
  12. Pacifist
    Pacifist 22 August 2012 14: 08
    +3
    To the author 100500+ for an interesting, albeit sometimes controversial, presentation and for a subtle sense of humor. I read with great pleasure drinks good
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 14: 25
      +2
      Thank ! And of course drinks
      1. Optimist
        Optimist 22 August 2012 15: 24
        +2
        Andrey from Chelyabinsk thanks again for a great article!)) Or maybe ask you ??? to prepare an article about a new project, what is now being developed at the USC (frigate corvette on a single platform with the possibility of changing weapons in connection with the tasks set) there is very little understanding of the information! but your opinion (assumption) is very interested !!!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 August 2012 15: 36
          +2
          Eeeeh, you know, I didn’t know that USC was preparing a project for such a ship :) I heard only Putin’s words, whether Medvedev’s theme, that they say modularity should be used to take, depending on the tasks, from the corvette to assemble a frigate, or is it the other way around wassat
          But I will look for such a thing. In general, there was a thought, if the article about destroyers was to be liked, to continue the theme with reflections on corvettes, frigates and all kinds of corvette frigates there. laughing
          1. Optimist
            Optimist 22 August 2012 15: 47
            0
            Thank you)) !!! a few years ago, Yatsenko talked about him, it is curious whether real development of this miracle is underway) in the USC, in my mind it seems something in the form of a trimaran))! In any case, we will wait for your articles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  13. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 22 August 2012 14: 14
    +2
    Personally, I did not like these articles in principle! Moreover, it is written well enough, you can even say that it is very good ...
    I have disagreements with the author in essence - many have probably already noticed that I have consistently opposed the construction of an ocean fleet for Russia!
    Yes, I believe, it’s even more accurate to say that I am convinced that Russia currently does not need an ocean fleet in principle! The times of the USSR have passed, there are no allies across the sea, there are no special interests either - well, do not consider the interests of any Deripaska in Africa as a reason to send a fleet to distant seas!
    It is bitter to admit this, but now on the agenda are questions of the defense of one's own territory, and not some mythical questions of "projection of power" to hell!
    First of all, there are questions of countering possible threats from the fleets of adversaries, and for this, not two AUGs in the best case, nor a few super-duper fancy destroyers will help!
    A sufficiently large fleet of relatively small, but well-armed ships is needed to protect the coastal zone and drive the enemy away from their own shores, and for this the question of creating highly effective missile weapons arises in full growth, because any ship is strong in its armament, and here Russia has In my opinion, there are enough problems!

    A wet adversary in any way will have vigorous bombs - and the adversary must be sure of the inevitability of punishment! the tasks of the fleet in the light of this are only auxiliary ...
    1. jo_lik
      jo_lik 23 August 2012 15: 32
      +1
      The best defense is ... well, you know, the fleet is needed and the strongest.
  14. gregor6549
    gregor6549 22 August 2012 14: 43
    +3
    Perhaps I am wrong, but the United States and its allies are trying to quickly respond to any threats, including the appearance of low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, they have long developed missile defense systems based on the use of the so-called. "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile" http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-162_ESSM. Naturally, such a system uses sensors that allow detecting and tracking low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles and aiming at them means of destruction, which include not only the outdated "Volcano Falanxes" but also more modern cannon systems such as Goalkeeper http://ru.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Goalkeeper.
    You can also mention the developments that are actively carried out by the US Navy and its allies in the creation of the "Direct Energy Weapon" ie. laser and microwave guns, decoys such as Nulka "i, etc. It is difficult to say how the anti-ship missile system will behave if a series of decent electromagnetic pulses is blown into its seeker in the frequency range at which this seeker operates or (if the anti-ship missile system is remotely controlled) frequencies, on which the anti-ship missile remote control systems work.Once again, we must not forget that modern ships are equipped with non-sickly systems for setting active and passive jamming, direction finding of radio and other radiation sources, etc.
    Those. for every s .... tsu there is always a bolt and misunderstanding of it only creates harmful illusions

    I forgot to mention that not only the USA but also China has been actively developing electromagnetic weapons lately and, above all, to disable the enemy ship, aircraft and rocket electronics.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 15: 13
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      Perhaps I'm wrong, but the United States and its allies are trying to respond quickly to any threats, including the appearance of low-flying high-speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, they have long developed missile defense systems based on the use of the so-called. "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile"

      So I'm about the same thing - the threat arose by the end of the 70s, and it was "promptly" reacted to it already in 2004
      Quote: gregor6549
      You can also mention the developments that are actively carried out by the US Navy and its allies in the field of creating "Direct Energy Weapon" ie. laser and microwave guns, decoys like Nulka "i, etc.

      It's like that. But for the time being all these microwave frequencies and so on are more than far from combat models. And will they bring them to mind? And in what century will bring? Unknown. Take the same laser - how many decades have they been doing? And what's the point?
      Quote: gregor6549
      It is difficult to say how the RCC will behave if a series of decent electromagnetic pulses is "blown in" into its GOS in the frequency range at which this GOS operates

      Difficult. There was only a question - and who vdul something? laughing Creating Yabvduvateli so far comes up against very, very, very great difficulty. Primarily related to the amount of electromagnetic energy required to destroy a missile seeker.
      Quote: gregor6549
      Again, we must not forget that modern ships are equipped with non-hauling active and passive jamming systems, direction finding of radio sources and other radiation, and so on.

      It's right. But here the means of attack go in unison with the means of protection - new technical solutions like active-passive are being created (do not think bad laughing ) GOS and they themselves become more powerful and more reliable. In general, and in general, some number of missiles in the salvo will certainly be able to divert, but to reflect the massive use of anti-ship missiles by only EW is impossible
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        22 August 2012 15: 14
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        Those. for every s .... tsu there is always a bolt and misunderstanding of it only creates harmful illusions

        The illusion is the belief that in the confrontation of the sword and the shield a clear victory will be behind the shield. You see, there are 2 technical tasks. One of them is to hit the ship. Which is all huge and stomps at the speed of 30 nodes on the force. And another technical task is to hit a small one in comparison with the RCC ship, which will fuck at many hundreds of meters per second. The second task is much more complicated than the first one, which means that at a comparable technical level it is impossible to create 100 PRO% efficiency
  15. Arct
    Arct 22 August 2012 16: 15
    +1
    Brother Sarych - no offense. I’m not talking about you specifically, but about the approach. Narrow-mindedness of thinking, narrow specialization in life, exaltation and protrusion of one part at the expense of others, orientation only on defense, saving wherever possible — all this never did not lead to the desired and positive results. Source - Human History)
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 22 August 2012 17: 22
      0
      Why is there something offended?
      In my opinion, the sign of narrow-mindedness is precisely the desire to be like everyone else! America has an ocean fleet, the British have an ocean fleet, France has almost - so America is surrounded by two oceans, Britain is an island, France had a colonial empire, and Russia? There is ice in the north, a puddle in the west, a desert from the south and a couple more puddles, in the east - ice, or islands with narrow passages ...
      While the events of world history were going on in the Baltic and the Black Sea, the fleet mattered, and now this is the world outback ...
      Events began to develop in the East - and the fleet was not there! Events in the North - again, there was no proper fleet, although in terms of the number of ships it was almost an armada ...
  16. gregor6549
    gregor6549 22 August 2012 16: 36
    +1
    Andrey, Naturally, it's easier to get into a ship than into a rocket. But on the other hand, the ship also has something to fight back, and as the experience of all recent local conflicts has shown, the role of electronic warfare means in this "fight back" is no less than a fire defeat. And the electronic warfare means, although not a hyperboloid of engineer Garin, but they have an effect no less and sometimes more than a super duper cannon and missile. Moreover, they are used, as a rule, in combination with other means. And of course, I did not stutter about any 100% effectiveness of either means of attack or means of defense. It cannot be achieved even theoretically. Especially when these funds are controlled by people. And man is such a creature. Yesterday I drank too much, today I did not sleep enough, and all this cybernetics with mathematics or, more simply, kibenimatics goes down the drain. And further. Giggling at a potential enemy, of course, can be like looking for fleas in his skin. But in their time they giggled at the Germans too. And then it turned out that during the war they managed to create so many "toys that they still amaze the imagination of people who understand a lot about technology.
  17. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 22 August 2012 16: 52
    +3
    Andrew, regarding this part:

    You make fun of Arleigh Burke, forgetting that Burke is the best thing ever made at this stage of technical development. It is naive to believe that with our shipbuilders it will be possible to build such a ship from scratch, especially since the amers have gained vast operational experience - 61 Burke + about 20 of its foreign clones are constantly being improved and are participating in hostilities

    As for the "Daring" - please tell me how many missiles are on board the ship? And how does this correlate with your conclusion about the need for 100 anti-aircraft missiles?

    Regarding my concept based on Alvaro de Basan:

    From the article: In general, a small ship - it is a small ship, and its capabilities will always be very limited.
    "Do not push nevpihuemoe"


    Did anyone expect to "push the unproductive" onto the main warship? Someone talked about 10 guns and hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles? On the "Spaniard" 32 heavy missiles + 64 light, 8 anti-ship missiles - much more then?
    Moreover, I did not say that it is necessary to build a clone of the "Spaniard" - the displacement of the OBK is optimal in the range of 6-8 thousand tons

    Regarding the short cruising range of small ships - for example, the WWII destroyer Allen Sumner (a phenomenal ship) or the modern frigate Oliver H. Perry - both have 4500 miles at 20 knots. From Peter to New York. Where is the bigger destroyer?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      22 August 2012 18: 25
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      You make fun of Arleigh Burke, forgetting that Burke is the best thing ever made at this stage of technical development.

      Maybe so, but for other tasks. No one has ever designed and considered him as a ship for the destruction of enemy ship groups. It's just not his task, and that’s it.
      Well, about air defense / missile defense - really. What tricks did the Americans go to in order not to develop a normal backlight radar! we have overtaken them here for years so .... it's even scary to say how much :))) Apparently forever - because in the future the air defense of the units will not be based on semi-active air defense systems
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      As for the "Daring" - please tell me how many missiles are on board the ship? And how does this correlate with your conclusion about the need for 100 anti-aircraft missiles?

      48. It does not correlate in any way :))) But speaking of Daring's superiority, I meant the ability of the missile defense - that is, the ability to target supersonic and low-flying :)))) In this regard, Daring is definitely stronger, as far as I know, many import specialists gave him a palm tree superiority for the best shipboard air defense system in the world.
      The rest - a little later
      1. alex86
        alex86 22 August 2012 22: 35
        0
        Thank you for the article. I would like to note the following point: the overload of domestic warships with a variety of weapons exceeding expediency was repeatedly noted. From my point of view, the main reason for this was the understanding of the customer (Navy) that, on the one hand, the coherence and interaction of various combat units has always been our weak point, on the other hand, each such unit should have the potential to fulfill the full range of tasks regardless from the presence of other ships nearby, including due to their defeat. This led, for example, to the deployment of missile weapons on aircraft carrier ships. So, do I understand correctly that for the domestic fleet this approach is still preferable? Those. is excess and versatility better than expediency and narrow specialization?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          22 August 2012 22: 51
          +3
          Quote: alex86
          I would like to note the following point: the congestion of domestic warships with various weapons was repeatedly noted, exceeding the expediency

          How to say...
          Let's try to compare the total weight of the main rocket armament for large rocket ships
          “Arly Burke” - total displacement of 8488 tons, 96 containers, for example - in all “Standard SM-2ER” - total mass of missiles - 140,7 tons (per ton of missiles - 54,8 tons of displacement)
          “Ticonderoga” - full displacement of 9800 tons, 122 container, for example - also with “Standard SM-2ER” - total weight - almost 179 tons (for 1 tons of missiles - 60,3 tons of displacement)
          RKR "Glory" - full displacement - 11 380 tons, 16 "basalts" in 4,8 tons and 64 missiles with a mass of 1,6 tons - total 179,2 tons (in 1 tons of missiles - 63, 5 tons displacement)
          In general, of course, not the same missiles ... But I still would not categorically state the rearmament of our ships.
          Quote: alex86
          So, do I understand correctly that this approach is still preferable for the domestic fleet? Those. better excess and versatility than expediency and narrow specialization?

          Yes, but not only for our fleet - such is the global trend. Absolutely everyone wants to reduce the number of projects. Even the States, with their large budget, both strive to have one type of aircraft carrier, one - an escort ship, one - a coastal action, etc.
  18. Alejandro
    Alejandro 22 August 2012 17: 02
    +5
    Already wrote, but I repeat. Russia needs a powerful fleet, but it should be developed in stages and taking into account the country's economic and technological capabilities. First, provide reliable protection of the coastal zone - saturating the fleets with frigates, corvettes and guard patrols, and then, having prepared the infrastructure, build destroyers and aircraft carriers. And still striking is the desire of our leadership to build ships of the same class on various projects. I believe that we need one project for each class of ships, but making them in large series and with the possibility of changing weapons is both cheaper and easier to maintain.
  19. dm98
    dm98 22 August 2012 17: 29
    +2
    all the talk ...... but meanwhile the Eagles are rusting on
  20. Diesel
    Diesel 22 August 2012 23: 25
    0
    IMHO, in order for our Navy to do without air cover, it is necessary at least to develop marine over-the-horizon radars, maybe even create a special ship carrier radar, which will be included in the squadron of promising destroyers with hypersonic anti-ship missiles, then aircraft carriers will die out like battleships and dreadnought)
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 23 August 2012 04: 53
      0
      What "sea" over-the-horizon radars will provide air cover for the Navy, and what are "sea over-the-horizon radars"?
      Over-the-horizon radar is a several-hectare field studded with long-wave antennas. Such a radar can detect a group of surface or air targets beyond the horizon, but the accuracy of determining the coordinates of the detected targets, plus or minus the bast, does not in any way provide guidance for the destruction of these targets. Yes, and over-the-horizon radars were never intended to solve such problems. Further. Ships carrying radar have existed for a long time, but are mainly used as floating radar posts of the anti-ballistic / anti-space defense system and mainly where the detection zones of ground-based radars of this class are absent or insufficiently effective.
      And further. Even the radars that are already on the ships are an excellent bait for homing missiles for radio emission, although the designers of the radar are doing everything to confuse the GOS of these missiles by using all sorts of ingenious signals and operating modes of the radar. While this does not help much. GOS developers also do not sleep.
      And the last one. Even having an excellent field for detecting air targets over ships, providing them with 100% coverage relying solely on rocket-cannon weapons is hardly possible, which was proved more than once during WWII. After all, nothing has fundamentally changed.
      1. Diesel
        Diesel 23 August 2012 09: 14
        0
        Quote: gregor6549
        What kind of "sea" over-the-horizon radars will provide cover for the Navy from the air and what is this "sea over-the-horizon radar"

        You do not understand, they will not provide cover, they will be able to detect the alleged enemy faster and further than his AWACS planes. I think the radar should be, for example, a compact marine variant of Voronezh or something else like that, you can dream about. Yes, and someone will allow to launch an anti-radar missile if the enemy is detected first, and the range of their launch of at least our missiles is 50-80 km, so I think they will not be effective against ships
        1. gregor6549
          gregor6549 23 August 2012 10: 50
          0
          Dear Diesel, I do not want to offend you, but from your discussions about over-the-horizon radars and homing missiles on radio emission, we can conclude that you are familiar with this topic in the best case scenario in newspapers.
          The very nature of over-the-horizon radar does not allow them to be compact, and also does not allow them to detect targets with the required accuracy. This means that their information cannot be used to counter an air enemy attacking ships. "Voronezh" and other stationary radars are stations for early detection and tracking of ICBM warheads and have nothing to do with over-the-horizon radars. work within line of sight.
          Further. Homing systems for radio emission can now be installed on missiles and guided missiles of various types, including on the KR and ASR with a flight range of hundreds of kilometers as an addition to inertial and other guidance systems.
          Moreover, modern homing systems, in contrast to the GOS "Shrikov", etc. PRS of the Vietnam War era are equipped with microcomputer systems that allow them to recognize the "handwriting" of the emitting system, filter out interference, correct the trajectory of the missile / projectile and much more.
  21. Yurkin
    Yurkin 22 August 2012 23: 29
    +1
    Andrey, a very interesting article. +5
    And about the need to have us a fleet. This is elementary: if in the near future it will be economically feasible to build a fleet, then go!
    By economic justification, I mean that if the cost of the ocean fleet will be paid off by projecting our interests around the world. and not like in Iraq / Libya - our companies drove and we suffer direct losses.
    Globally, it remains to rely on nuclear weapons
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 23 August 2012 11: 02
      +1
      Of course, trying to protect the economic interests of the Russian Federation around the world with the help of a "long arm", ie. an interesting idea. But there would be enough gunpowder to protect these interests within its own coastal economic zone. And it would be good to calculate what the construction and maintenance of such a fleet will cost and compare with the expected gain from protecting some transactions over the hill and also determine from which nightstand to find the money to create such a fleet in the foreseeable period of time. Build is not to break. It was possible to break everything in a few years. But now, after all, everything must be started practically from scratch. There is no personnel, no production capacity, no spare parts, i.e. something that has been created since the 30s. And what is left, God forbid, was enough for the ships of the coastal zone and the renewal of the nuclear submarine fleet as an instrument of nuclear deterrence
  22. valerei
    valerei 23 August 2012 12: 02
    0
    Judging by that thoroughness in the small details, the author of the article owns the subject. But, as they say, His words are in the ears of God! Why did the author describe all these layouts on this site? Who reads the information on it? Ordinary audience, which has no opportunity to influence anything. Inform us and that's it? So? "Taburetkin" will certainly not turn to the author for advice.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      23 August 2012 16: 50
      +1
      Quote: valerei
      Judging by the care in fine details, the author owns the subject.

      Thanks for your kind words !
      Quote: valerei
      Why did the author describe all these layouts on this site? Who reads the information on it?

      And where should he get this information? The author has no relation to the aircraft or to the USC or to the military-industrial complex or the MO. Where are the author with a pig's snout and in Kalashny row laughing
      If you have any thoughts on how to properly use what is written, I will be very grateful :)
  23. gregor6549
    gregor6549 23 August 2012 12: 46
    0
    I believe that if the author had consulted Sir Taburetkin in full, he would hardly have understood what it was about. He probably has the deck of the ship only with a dining table or golf course and is associated. And besides, iron, not wood
  24. byben
    byben 24 August 2012 00: 01
    +1
    Probably a stupid question, but ...
    Now, if you take it to the maximum, a promising destroyer will have a displacement of 14000 tons and a nuclear power plant, but why will it be called a destroyer, not a cruiser? The sizes are quite cruising. How is the destroyer different from the cruiser now?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 August 2012 08: 09
      +1
      Quote: byben
      Probably a stupid question, but ...

      No not stupid
      Quote: byben
      Now, if we take to the maximum, the prospective destroyer will have a displacement of 14000 and NPI, but why will it be called a destroyer, and not a cruiser?

      I have already answered this question in the discussion of the first part of the article, but it is easy for me to repeat - it is a question of creating a single type of ocean-going missile-artillery ship. And how we call it - a destroyer, a cruiser, a battleship, a Star Destroyer - is the tenth thing.
      But the destroyer is better all the same - there is such a thing as Congress, so here is something my heart tells me that the American admirals will rampage, trying to redistribute budget allocations in favor of the fleet and arguing that Russia is building a mighty cruiser fleet, and the US Navy - some oldies Ticonderoga and destroyers laughing laughing laughing
      The American admirals understand everything perfectly, but this is politics. Why give them political dividends, calling ships cruisers? Stronger from this, our ships will not
  25. Dnepropetrovsk
    Dnepropetrovsk 24 August 2012 00: 13
    +1
    "But the potential of Arleigh Burke to destroy surface ships is extremely small." Many can now understand what the Russian Navy and other countries need.
  26. byben
    byben 24 August 2012 15: 36
    +1
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
    So how is a destroyer different from a cruiser?
    In addition to the names, of course)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 August 2012 17: 01
      +2
      Quote: byben
      So how is a destroyer different from a cruiser?

      From which cruiser? laughing
  27. byben
    byben 24 August 2012 17: 23
    +1
    How is the modern destroyer class ship different from the cruiser class ship at the moment?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 August 2012 18: 16
      +3
      The problem is that class definitions have floated "slightly" - and for a long time. Let's take the Americans - the same "Ticonderoga" was designed as a destroyer. When they developed it - they scratched their turnips - it turns out something cool for a destroyer. They called it a cruiser. But it seemed too expensive, the USA wanted a simpler boat. The "Arlie Burke" turned out to be simpler - a somewhat deteriorated Ticonderoga (less ammunition, less radar illumination, weaker artillery, etc.) So they called "Arly" a destroyer - although a ship of 10 thousand tons somehow does not fit this name.
      It was even funnier in our fleet - the first Grozny missiles were actually designed exactly as destroyers, and received the status of "cruiser" (according to rumors) in order to raise their commanders' salaries (it's a good thing - for the sake of such a goal it could be called a battleship). In the future, the division came out like this. Anything that is designed to strike enemy ships with heavy anti-ship missiles and has zonal air defense is a cruiser. Everything that is intended for the search and assassination of submarines - BOD. And everything that is neither a cruiser nor a BOD is a destroyer. laughing
      But it soon became clear that the times of dissociation were coming to an end - it was necessary to create a single combat ship of the ocean class. We tried to do something similar in the 21956 project - a nomenclature of weapons like a cruiser (RCC, C-300F) - but the dimensions are more modest and ammunition too.
      Well, a clear definition - this is a cruiser, this is a destroyer - cannot be given, alas.
  28. byben
    byben 24 August 2012 20: 42
    +1
    Ok, thanks)
  29. Mista_dj
    Mista_dj 25 August 2012 14: 21
    +1
    Good stuff.
    I read it with interest.
    Thanks to the author!