"Sea Shadow" or Project IX-529. Was he that bad?

58
If you study everything that is in the Runet about this creation, then the main message of the overwhelming majority of authors boils down to one thing: the Americans are stupid, they spent billions of dollars on the creation, do not understand why, and then dismantled.

"Sea Shadow" or Project IX-529. Was he that bad?

Whether the homegrown "experts" are so right is worth investigating, since unsuccessful projects existed in all countries, but only those who do nothing at all are not mistaken. For even buying from those who produce the technique themselves, you can swoop in very sensitively. How one country swooped in and decided to order landing ships from another. And how nothing came of it, except for a small scandal. And the ships eventually went to a third country.



It is customary to look at the "Sea Shadow" or the IX-529 project in this way: failure from all sides, dismantled for metal and did not really give out and did not show anything.


And is it so?

To begin with, it's generally worth understanding where the wings grow from. And the wings are a normal and common thing for the Lockheed Martin Company, which has been engaged in aircraft since the Second World War.

And this company decided to create a stealth plane. And created, thereby, back in the 80s of the last century, setting the vector of development for aircraft. And today it is very difficult to imagine an airplane that lacks stealth technology. At least in modern designs.


"Night hawk" F-117

Was Nighthawk a bad project? Well it has been used in several conflicts, and has been used successfully. One downed plane in five conflicts is not much. Considering how many Iraqi targets were hit by the F-117 during the Gulf War.

One can argue for a long time, but the "Nighthawk" was for its time a successful aircraft, which gave the US air superiority for a long time.

And Lockheed Martin decided that it would be nice to spread stealth technology not only in the air, but also in other areas.

Oddly enough, it was decided to start the "Lockheed" from submarines. Yes exactly. After the planes, work began on the stealth of submarines.

Naturally, stealth technology in the air is very different from the problems of stealth for submarines. Radar beams work in the air, and hydroacoustic stations waves in the water.

And Lockheed created a stealth submarine project. Incredible, but true: the engineers of the airline were able to solve the problem of detecting a submarine using a sonar method. It was then that the method of covering the boat hull with special compounds was developed and shown as a model, which absorbed 95% of sound waves from hydroacoustic stations.

After receiving test data on models, "Lockheed Martin" showed their developments to the US Department of Defense. However, the idea "did not enter" there. The fact is that the submarine processed according to the "L-M" method was indeed less noticeable for hydroacoustic stations, but its speed was almost half that of the usual one.

The Defense Ministry decided that this was unacceptable. However, experts from the scientific and technical sector of the Ministry of Defense, DARPA, suggested that the company pay attention to surface ships. The offer, of course, won over, but ...

But "LM" decided "why not?" and got out the blueprints for the Nighthawk. After all, radars from aircraft and surface ships are the same in principle, they are not acoustic signals from hydrophones. And the environment is the same.

In general, there was an idea to take the F-117 and make a stealth ship out of it. It was planned to take such a stealth profile from the aircraft, maximum automation in order to reduce the crew, new methods of ship control.

It was not planned to build a battleship, the "Sea Shadow" was supposed to be an exclusively experienced ship, that is, a testing ground for various experiments.

Happened. Lockheed Martin (perhaps with the words “Why not?”) Built THIS.


It really was some crazy mix of Nighthawk and the landing barge. Structurally, it was a splendid experiment, although it smelled like madness. Judge for yourself.

The topside, very similar to the F-117 hull, rested on two underwater hulls, similar to beer eggplants.


The hulls are very narrow, this is done in order to minimize the most important unmasking factor: the wake. The supporting structures, connecting the surface hull with the underwater hull at an angle of 45 degrees, not only increased the lateral stability of the vessel, but also reduced its RCS - a characteristic of radar signature.

The hull of the ship had a special structure, which made the radar beam not reflect back, but, as it were, go to the side. The bow and stern ends were also planned in such a way as to reflect the beams of any radar somewhere into infinity. The main thing is not to the antennas of the receivers.

Plus, a special composition was developed that absorbed the radar beams, which covered the entire hull, and especially the joints of the hull structures. Typically, it is these places that are vulnerable points for radars, from which the rays are reflected best.


A very original system of curtain of the smallest splashes around the ship was also developed. This curtain greatly reduced the visibility of the heat trail from the ship's engines. Probably, it is not necessary to say that this could be important, because many missiles are guided precisely along the heat trail of either a ship or an aircraft.

Plus, the spray cloud blocked the radiation of high-frequency radars quite well (in theory).

In general, it turned out a semi-ship-semi-aircraft.


The seaworthiness was quite, mainly due to the double underwater hull with screws on the eggplants. During the tests, the "Sea Shadow" showed that the sea agitation up to 6 points and waves up to 5,5 meters in height are not afraid of it. And the ship behaves pretty well in such excitement. The Shadow's speed reached 28 knots. Not god knows what, but again, this is an experimental ship.


The minimization of the crew also affected. Inside "Sea Shadow" had quite comfortable working places for the crew, which consisted of 12 people. But with almost all the amenities.

In general, four people were more than enough to manage the ship. Why place twelve is hard to say, the Sea Shadow was not designed for long trips. But nevertheless, there were 12 sleeping places inside, a kitchen, a sanitary block.

For over 10 years, Sea Shadow has participated in various stealth tests. In 1993, the ship was first shown to the general public. But before that, America was well shaken by calls from citizens who unexpectedly saw "Sea Shadow" going out for trials. "Alien Floating Ship" is the simplest call from dazed citizens.


The first ten years "Sea Shadow" was taken out for testing using a dock ship, and since 1993, "Sea Shadow" began to go out for testing without observing the secrecy regime. And America got a little carried away.



And then it was over. It really ended in 2012, when the ship was disassembled into its components. And there and then the cries began on both sides of the ocean that, they say, polymers of that, and money of that, and in general.

In fact, we look at the facts.

For more than 10 years, "Sea Shadow" was irradiated with all types of radars and conclusions were drawn about which shape of the hull and coating is most beneficial for the ship of the future. And the ship of the future appeared. And not alone.

For a start, you can look at Zamvolt.


There are so many developments from "Sea Shadow" in it, we can say that the invisibility of the destroyer was based on the invisibility of the "Shadow". Then there was the Freedom, a littoral ship, the stealth of which was also given a lot of attention.


And the F-35, which is obviously much better than the F-22 and just has the right to some sane future.


So how bad was Sea Shadow? Yes, and to what extent did the $ 195 million go down the tube or drown at sea?

This is a very interesting question.


Yes, today you can grumble enough about the fact that the Zamvolt is a worthless ship. And the F-35 is a very "so-so" plane. And both have one problem - no price / quality ratio.

However, a very important question: could there be new ships and new aircraft without the "Sea Shadow" not lugging around at night in the Bay of San Diego? Or a completely useless and very expensive F-22 appeared.

This is fine. This is called "progress". This is the development of military technology. This is the future. Why certain processes were worked out on "Sea Shadow", we do not know for sure. But the fact that they were being worked out is a fact. And who said that all sorts of miracles, from "Mermaid" to "Poseidon", are not crammed in our secret hangars? Quite, you know, possibly.

The Americans are great. Having poured in a huge amount of dollars, they may not have received anything right away. More precisely, they received knowledge for the future. And if in the future they can realize this knowledge, it will be very unpleasant for those who find themselves on the other side of the barricade. That is, on our side. We will always be on the other side of this very North Atlantic barricade. But there is nothing to be done, you have to answer by creating your own "night wolverines" and other things that will make potential people think in the same way.

The main thing is that everything created is real and not animated.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    23 July 2021 04: 50
    The Americans are great. Having poured in a huge amount of dollars, they may not have received anything right away.
    request

    And the F-35, which is obviously much better than the F-22 and just has the right to some sane future.


    F-35s around the world began to rapidly degrade F135 engines
    Photo: Cpl. Francisco J. Diaz Jr. / US Marine Corps / Getty Images
    The Drive: 15 percent of F-35s in the US stopped working with F135 engines
    F-35s around the world began to rapidly degrade engines. Currently, the engines of 46 fighters (15 percent) of the fifth generation F-35 Lightning II of the US Armed Forces are not working, The Drive notes.
    The reason for this was the rapid wear of the heat-protective coating (degradation of calcium-magnesium aluminosilicate) of the rotor blades of the F135 power plant.
    This is so, speaking of "the right to some sane future."
    1. 0
      23 July 2021 04: 57
      Quote: aszzz888
      This is so, speaking of "the right to some sane future."

      This is 1 out of hundreds of major issues that are fixed annually and without the ability to fix problems ...
      1. +7
        23 July 2021 05: 26
        Yes, the F-35, okay, it still exists and is in the mass.
        but this one:
        One can argue for a long time, but the "Nighthawk" was for its time a successful aircraft, which gave the US air superiority for a long time.
        This Wobbly goblin worked only on the ground, only after the Tomahawks and with a number of 60 machines, it completed either 1,5 or 2 thousand sorties, despite the fact that both Yugoslavia and the first Gulf War were at the peak of his career. Less than forty per car! Very successful, one that is forgotten in relief.
        Or words about
        The hulls are very narrow, this is done in order to minimize the most important unmasking factor: the wake
        And below is a photo with a picturesque view of the "minimized", but no less luxurious trail. laughing
        So the rest of the author's reasoning in this article has about the same value.
        1. +11
          23 July 2021 08: 28
          In general, during the war in Iraq, F-117A flew 1271 sorties with a duration of more than 7000 hours and dropped 2087 laser-guided bombs GBU-10 and GBU-27 with a total mass of about 2000 tons, that is, about 1% of the total number of sorties of aviation of the multinational forces (and less 4% of the total number of combat sorties). Their effectiveness (the relative number of sorties with the destruction of designated targets) was, according to official estimates, 80-95%. In particular, it is claimed that the pilots of "stealth" achieved 1669 direct hits, making only 418 misses. (During the Vietnam War, efficiency averaged 33%, and by the early 1990s, 50% was the norm for conventional aircraft.) But perhaps most impressive is the statement that, with a strength of only 2,5% of of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf zone, operating in areas with dense air defense facilities, stealth fighters destroyed about 40% of priority ground targets, without incurring a single loss.

          https://cons-systems.ru/ssl/u/f8/df29de94c211e4bb3c940d9a955b35/-/Боевое%20применение%20F-117.pdf
          1. +3
            23 July 2021 08: 46
            Quote: sot
            Their effectiveness (the relative number of sorties with the destruction of designated targets) was, according to official estimates, 80-95%

            This was the determining factor for success:
            Quote: sot
            dropped 2087 bombs from laser-guided GBU-10 and GBU-27
            This is also the work of the forces of the Special Forces of the coalition, mainly Angles and Americans. And also the rather lousy level of Iraqi air defense, no matter what they write there.


            Quote: sot
            But perhaps the most impressive is the statement
            I can write impressive statements too, but the author of the article can do it even cooler: The Nighthawk was a successful aircraft for its time, giving the United States a long-term advantage in the air.
            The plane of two bombs, which could not do anything without illumination from the ground "gave an advantage in the air"! laughing
            1. +10
              23 July 2021 09: 57
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              The Nighthawk was a successful aircraft for its time, giving the United States a long-term advantage in the air.


              The author would not have written nonsense if at least had an elementary idea that the F-117 was not a fighter, despite the letter F in the name.

              The level of "VO experts" Yes I looked, the author even (!!!) is heading the section "Armaments" ...

              They swam, groped the bottom.
            2. -1
              24 July 2021 04: 50
              And also the rather lousy level of Iraqi air defense, no matter what they write.

              The strongest air defense in the region.
              who could not do anything without lighting from the ground

              Better study the device of this aircraft. Below is a laser target illumination station.

              Airplane of two bombs

              But inexpensive, 60 pieces of them were riveted and the technology worked out. I coped with my tasks.
              This, among other things, led to the construction of 20 Mega expensive B-2s, the combat load of which is quite impressive.
              1. +3
                24 July 2021 05: 48
                Quote: 3danimal
                The strongest air defense in the region.

                Among the Arabs and previously plowed with axes.

                Quote: 3danimal
                Better study the device of this aircraft. Below is a laser target illumination station.
                Study the issue, guidance and illumination were provided by the special forces.

                Quote: 3danimal
                But inexpensive, 60 pieces of them were riveted and the technology worked out. I coped with my tasks.
                Well, yes, inexpensive, only 100 million, at 1990 prices. even now the F-35 is cheaper at current prices. It's funny.
                1. 0
                  24 July 2021 06: 25
                  Among the Arabs and previously plowed with axes.

                  But still functioning, to overcome it with conventional aircraft would require many times more aircraft with inevitable losses.
                  Yes, many "Arabs" of the military studied in the USSR or were trained by Soviet instructors.
                  guidance and illumination were provided by the special forces.

                  Provided. But you said something else:
                  could not do anything without lighting from the ground

                  Which is not true, and I pointed it out.
                  The command determined what was more effective: to aim bombs at the target from the F-117 or from the ground.
                  Well, yes, inexpensive, only 100 million, at 1990 prices

                  Cheaper than B-2 worth 2 billion, don't you think? And Nighthawk was the first of its kind, which does not contribute to the reduction in price.
                  It's easier to be rich, with the US budget the price is quite acceptable.
              2. -1
                25 July 2021 23: 11
                Quote: 3danimal
                Better study the device of this aircraft. Below is a laser target illumination station.
                We know what we have transferred from the hanging containers. And we know the evectivity of these ammunition, especially in the 1980s.
          2. +2
            23 July 2021 08: 47
            Previously plowed with topars.
          3. +2
            23 July 2021 23: 21
            Quote: sot
            In general, during the war in Iraq, F-117A flew 1271 sorties with a duration of more than 7000 hours and dropped 2087 laser-guided bombs GBU-10 and GBU-27 with a total mass of about 2000 tons, that is, about 1% of the total number of sorties of aviation of the multinational forces (and less 4% of the total number of combat sorties). Their effectiveness (the relative number of sorties with the destruction of designated targets) was, according to official estimates, 80-95%. In particular, it is claimed that the pilots of "stealth" achieved 1669 direct hits, making only 418 misses. (During the Vietnam War, efficiency averaged 33%, and by the early 1990s, 50% was the norm for conventional aircraft.) But perhaps most impressive is the statement that, with a strength of only 2,5% of of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf zone, operating in areas with dense air defense facilities, stealth fighters destroyed about 40% of priority ground targets, without incurring a single loss.

            https://cons-systems.ru/ssl/u/f8/df29de94c211e4bb3c940d9a955b35/-/Боевое%20применение%20F-117.pdf

            With such results, why did they not continue the concept from service?
            1. +2
              23 July 2021 23: 38
              The entire line of B-2, B-21 and F-117 is a rethinking towards stealth and a departure from the concept of B-1, TU-160, etc. But not everything is so literal. Technologies, as the author said, really migrate across the arms of the Armed Forces and the removal from service of a light bomber led to the adoption of a heavy destroyer. Not in direct relationship, but as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of stealth at sea. They roll back the technology on several Zamvolts, as on dozens of F-117s. And then a new destroyer will be put into production to replace Burke, based on already debugged concepts.
              1. +2
                24 July 2021 09: 25
                Quote: sot
                The entire line of B-2, B-21 and F-117 is a rethinking towards stealth and a departure from the concept of B-1, TU-160, etc. But not everything is so literal. Technologies, as the author said, really migrate across the arms of the Armed Forces and the removal from service of a light bomber led to the adoption of a heavy destroyer. Not in direct relationship, but as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of stealth at sea. They roll back the technology on several Zamvolts, as on dozens of F-117s. And then a new destroyer will be put into production to replace Burke, based on already debugged concepts.

                And here the fleet, I'm talking about an attack aircraft, here they sing praises to him. It is strange that he was very quickly removed from service if he is better than everyone else. The ends don't fit.
                1. +1
                  24 July 2021 09: 54
                  Let's say you earn 100 tr per month or 1,2 million per year. What for you to spend in aggregate 2400 rubles over several years?

                  For the US budget of 3 trillion, the 6 billion for the F-117 is the same. Well, we tried it, worked out the technology. Checked on Saddam and Milosevic. Well, they wrote it off. Penny same ..

                  They just have a lot of money. And they also print them. And they also lend them to them. Well what is there to waste time on trifles wassat
                  1. +1
                    24 July 2021 20: 49
                    Quote: sot
                    Let's say you earn 100 tr per month or 1,2 million per year. What for you to spend in aggregate 2400 rubles over several years?

                    For the US budget of 3 trillion, the 6 billion for the F-117 is the same. Well, we tried it, worked out the technology. Checked on Saddam and Milosevic. Well, they wrote it off. Penny same ..

                    They just have a lot of money. And they also print them. And they also lend them to them. Well what is there to waste time on trifles wassat

                    I'm talking about efficiency.
                  2. 0
                    26 July 2021 03: 49
                    From the role of $ as a world currency, they earn $ 40 billion a year. Just over 1% of the federal budget.
                    Checked on Saddam and Milosevic.

                    On Saddam 2 times smile
                2. 0
                  25 July 2021 23: 20
                  And the Lockheeds have it all the time. They will roll out something that is early ripening, they finish the whole time with a file, the attendants cost a lot of attendants, it serves 10-15 years and goes to the landfill. The approach of management and OCD is in the spirit of our time.
              2. 0
                25 July 2021 23: 18
                Quote: sot
                The entire line of B-2, B-21 and F-117 is a rethinking towards stealth and a departure from the concept of B-1, TU-160, etc. But not everything is so literal. Technologies, as the author said, really migrate across the arms of the Armed Forces and the removal from service of a light bomber led to the adoption of a heavy destroyer. Not in direct relationship, but as a consequence of the implementation of the concept of stealth at sea. They roll back the technology on several Zamvolts, as on dozens of F-117s. And then a new destroyer will be put into production to replace Burke, based on already debugged concepts.

                HA HA HA Here is one caveat, this plane is also not just a combatant, not even UNSOCCOM. And what does Northrop and Louckhid have to do with it? The F-117 & B-2 Spirit is no longer a line of weapons. They are just competitors. However, some do not even know that the SAC USAF tested projects for large-scale publicized anti-aerial attack aircraft and for cheaper. Type of missile launches from conventional military vehicles S-141, S-5, Boeing-747. We also manipulate or don't know about GTD-21 wastes. However, these programs were repeated in 2015. Those who are looking will find news here.
            2. -1
              26 July 2021 03: 42
              They were filmed in 2007. There was no particular tension in the world; they invested heavily in the F-35 program.
        2. -3
          24 July 2021 07: 15
          The F-117 is responsible for the breakthrough of the air defense. And then others got down to business. This made it possible not to incur losses and to hasten the defeat.
          What else do you need?
    2. +2
      23 July 2021 05: 06
      Quote: aszzz888
      This is so, speaking of "the right to some sane future."

      No matter how trite it sounds - only time (quite possibly not very distant) can show whether we will drink for health or for the repose of the F-35 Lightning II.

      The aircraft is very controversial, controversial, controversial, despite the fact that it was already sold in quite a decent series and is somehow operated.
      1. +1
        23 July 2021 06: 13
        "Sea Shadow" or Project IX-529. Was he that bad?

        The question is in many ways, purely rhetorical, akin to this, for example - was the casemate battleship of the southerners "Merimak", which had a very original architecture of the casemate-superstructure for that time, and was sunk in a duel naval battle by the more advanced "Monitor" of the northerners, during the civil war? North and South ...



        1. +5
          23 July 2021 10: 00
          Actually, the first battle of the battleships ended in a draw. And they drowned no one ...
          1. 0
            23 July 2021 10: 05
            Quote: Sahalinets
            Actually, the first battle of the battleships ended in a draw. And they drowned no one ...

            Yes you are right. I lied a little. But not intentionally.
          2. +2
            23 July 2021 23: 19
            Quote: Sahalinets
            Actually, the first battle of the battleships ended in a draw. And they drowned no one ...

            the battle of the 1st round ended by breaking through the Monitor's armor and dodging it. CSS Virginia did not pursue (because it itself was not very)
            True, if the battle on this raid is considered to the end, then only 7 killed on one side-and
            261 killed
            108 injured
            1 frigate sunk
            1 sloop sunk
            1 screw frigate damaged
            on the side of the northerners.
            And then other battleships and armored ships arrived and CSS Virginia could not do something and was blown up (but the Americans left its exhibits in museums)
            Virginia is correct. built from the wreck of the frigate "Merrimack"
            Fregat was destroyed (set on fire and burned down)
        2. +2
          23 July 2021 18: 02
          And I still think whom this miracle reminds me. All progress is the chimney cut down.
      2. -3
        26 July 2021 03: 44
        The pilots have good reviews.
        It turned out even more maneuverable than F-18, F-16 and Su-27 without OVT.
        And the presence of the NSC with all-aspect melee missiles significantly neutralizes the lack of OVT (they saved on it).
  2. +3
    23 July 2021 05: 02
    And the F-35, which is obviously much better than the F-22 and just has the right to some sane future.

    For some reason, most experts think otherwise!
    1. -1
      26 July 2021 03: 46
      Most of the sofa specialists, the pilots have great reviews.
      There is a video from the performances / exercises.
  3. +1
    23 July 2021 05: 06
    This article is from the category like an adversary, everything is fine, by analogy with yesterday's article, how everything is bad with our weapons. In fact, even the US dollar cannot abolish the laws of physics. The same wake from movement, thermal radiation from the ship's hull, energy sources ... Like a toy, the ship took place, like a combat unit, no. Problems in the placement of weapons, in their practical application, in the stability of the ship during firing in motion, and from the spot too. Therefore, the matter did not go further than a beautiful toy, the Yankees know how to count money, the minuses clearly outweighed the pluses.
    1. -3
      23 July 2021 05: 14
      Quote: Thrifty
      Therefore, the matter did not go further than a beautiful toy, the Yankees know how to count money, the minuses clearly outweighed the pluses.

      This is where the author is right - they realized on the creation of this toy that marketing is everything, quality is nothing! And now they successfully snatch Fu-35 laughing
      1. -6
        23 July 2021 06: 42
        Babay Atasovich
        Today, 05: 14
        NEW

        0
        Quote: Thrifty
        Therefore, the matter did not go further than a beautiful toy, the Yankees know how to count money, the minuses clearly outweighed the pluses.

        This is where the author is right - they understood on the creation of this toy, that marketing is everything, quality is nothing! And now they successfully snatch Fu-35 laughing
        Now those who are bombing Syria with a jackal will begin to process you)). wink
        1. -3
          23 July 2021 07: 04
          Now those who are bombing Syria with a jackal will begin to process you)). wink

          request me it somehow
  4. +3
    23 July 2021 05: 36
    And the F-35, which is obviously much better than the F-22.

    belay what request
    Hmmm .....
    The Fi-35 was conceived as a more budgetary version of the Fi-22, which was well, very expensive, even for the Pentagon's budget. wink
    How can he be better - I don't know
  5. +6
    23 July 2021 06: 09
    So this is natural ... the one who does nothing is not mistaken!
    Although, doing nothing does not end well.
  6. +5
    23 July 2021 07: 31
    The Americans are great. Having poured in a huge amount of dollars, they may not have received anything right away. More precisely, they received knowledge for the future.


    "Americans are a practical nation and they know how to count money" (c)
    I.V. Stalin
    1. -2
      23 July 2021 21: 18
      About the thrown-in money ...
      What's with the Science module? Its engines turned on for
      docking with the ISS?
      1. 0
        23 July 2021 21: 30
        And hell knows ... request
        Hi Aleksey. hi
      2. +3
        24 July 2021 06: 19

        voyaka uh (Alexey)
        Yesterday, 21: 18

        0
        About the thrown-in money ...
        What's with the Science module? Its engines turned on for
        docking with the ISS?
        The launch of the Proton-M rocket with the Nauka module was carried out from the launcher No. 39 of the launch pad No. 200 of the Baikonur cosmodrome on July 21, 2021 at 17:58:25 Moscow time.

        Apogee height - 375,5 km;
        perigee height - 199,0 km;
        inclination - 51,6 degrees;
        circulation period - 89, 96 minutes.
        Further rendezvous with the International Space Station is carried out by the engines of the Nauka module. The duration of the module insertion into the docking area with the ISS is 8 days.
        Docking is scheduled for July 29, 2021 at 16:26 Moscow time.
        What is your post number karyabal? 23.07.? When docking? Do not embarrass yourself!!!! fool fool fool shit on EVERYTHING Russian is your hobby, or will they not be paid in matzo? wassat This is the first.
        And the second: an article about - "" Sea shadow "or project IX-529 ..." so why your flood?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
  7. KCA
    0
    23 July 2021 07: 47
    Not a sailor, but it seems to me that on every warship, and on ships, there is also a long-wave radar, which this stealth had in mind, to file in a combat situation, a destroyer of the Zumvolt type looks like a destroyer, or like a motor boat, full of combat immediately, but in peacetime, what's the difference?
  8. +9
    23 July 2021 07: 57
    Marine development "Lockheed" is the clearest example of what happens when professionals in the same field, with their "charter" get in where they are delitants.
    Incredible, but true: the airline engineers were able to solve the problem of detecting a submarine

    Actually, the sound-absorbing coatings of the submarine hulls were developed by the Germans during the war. And since then, there has been a struggle between the developers of such coatings and the designers of the HAS, which led, in particular, on the one hand, to an increase in the thickness of the coating from several centimeters to more than ten centimeters, and on the other, to a constant decrease in the frequencies of the HAS, and as a result, low-frequency GAS, which are hardly affected by any coating. In particular, due to the decrease in frequencies, the emitters of modern boat SACs have increased from the size of a barrel to the size of a two-story house.
    Or "Sea Shadow", or rather the shape of its body. The pros are described in the article. Yes, she is very good on the wave. But, as usual, there is a nuance due to which other shipbuilders do not massively repeat it - the survivability of the ship. In particular, such a catamaran has a minimum buoyancy margin, which reduces its resistance to flooding of the compartments and makes it difficult to counter-flood, and the lack of a reserve of space leads to the threat of disabling communications and destroying the crew's paths in case of combat damage. Modern ships have almost no armor, but they have rather large free spaces that work in the same way as on the ships of the WWII PTZ, which is not on the thin racks of the "Sea Shadow" floats.
  9. -5
    23 July 2021 08: 04
    For experiments, it was possible to hang a body kit of the same shape on an ordinary ship. But real stealth is achieved by our new diving submarine. It is only necessary to attach a kit similar to that described in the article to the snorkel and accompany it with a dozen small ships for missile defense, anti-aircraft missile defense and communications.
  10. 0
    23 July 2021 10: 03
    I could create a stealth submarine on the surface.
  11. +1
    23 July 2021 10: 19
    A negative result is also a result, albeit an expensive one.
  12. +1
    23 July 2021 13: 53
    There are so many developments from "Sea Shadow" in it, we can say that the invisibility of the destroyer was based on the invisibility of the "Shadow"

    Funny statement.
    Then how are Visby type corvettes built? They did not get anything from the Americans and their trough.

    The corvette's body is made of a hybrid composite material (sandwich construction) - a polyvinyl chloride middle layer and outer layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic on a vinyl ester binder [6]. The technology for the manufacture of ship structures from polymer composite materials was developed at the Kockums shipyards, owned by the German company HDW, located in Karlskrona (Sweden). In addition to absorbing radar radio waves, carbon harnesses ensure their "dispersion", which helps to reduce the level of the secondary radar field of the ship. The upper part of the hull is made in the form of a combination of large flat surfaces located at different angles, which also contributes to the dissipation of electromagnetic energy. All main weapon systems, as well as mooring equipment are located in the ship's hull behind special sealed coatings, made flush with the hull structures, with the exception of the artillery mount, but the latter's tower is made of radio-absorbing material
    1. +1
      23 July 2021 23: 18
      Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
      There are so many developments from "Sea Shadow" in it, we can say that the invisibility of the destroyer was based on the invisibility of the "Shadow"

      Funny statement.
      Then how are Visby type corvettes built? They did not get anything from the Americans and their trough.

      The corvette's body is made of a hybrid composite material (sandwich construction) - a polyvinyl chloride middle layer and outer layers of carbon fiber reinforced plastic on a vinyl ester binder [6]. The technology for the manufacture of ship structures from polymer composite materials was developed at the Kockums shipyards, owned by the German company HDW, located in Karlskrona (Sweden). In addition to absorbing radar radio waves, carbon harnesses ensure their "dispersion", which helps to reduce the level of the secondary radar field of the ship. The upper part of the hull is made in the form of a combination of large flat surfaces located at different angles, which also contributes to the dissipation of electromagnetic energy. All main weapon systems, as well as mooring equipment are located in the ship's hull behind special sealed coatings, made flush with the hull structures, with the exception of the artillery mount, but the latter's tower is made of radio-absorbing material

      Do you need a lot of intelligence or something to understand the concept of stealth?
    2. 0
      24 July 2021 07: 21
      The Americans tested their concepts on experimental ships. And then immediately on the battlefield. Moreover, it is doubtful that this Visby has something real from stealth, except for a stealth-like appearance. Well, another round of naval architecture. The same Zamwolt is much more real.
      1. -1
        26 July 2021 12: 41
        Quote: mmaxx
        Moreover, it is doubtful that this Visby has something real from stealth, except for a stealth-like appearance.

        The detection distance of the ship by enemy radars is 13 km without the use of interference when the sea is 3-4 points and 22 km during calm, when setting up electronic jamming, the detection range is reduced to 8 and 11 km, respectively. The zone in which the corvette is able to detect and destroy the enemy, but itself, due to the low signatures of its physical fields, remains "invisible", the designers of the project call the zone of advantage

        There is a possibility - check.
        1. -1
          26 July 2021 15: 14
          I'm not going to check. Believe too.
          The Swedes have a policy of doing their own thing. But they will never be able to afford expenses like American and even ours. Therefore, everything is done on the knee. Of course there is an effect. But .... Here at "Zamvolt" almost nothing sticks out. Iron-iron. Even the mast for one piece with the wheelhouse was repaired. AUs are hidden. I will believe there. And all ideas have been tested on the same "Sea Shadow". And the "Visby" has a bow and stern with angles of 90 degrees. and less. These are already two planes giving total reflection. Well, etc.
  13. 0
    23 July 2021 23: 18
    And the F-35, which is obviously much better than the F-22 and just has the right to some sane future.
    What??????? How is it better?
  14. +2
    24 July 2021 00: 24
    Every time I read and wonder. What mododians are Americans! And then they came up with this. And now let's get into the essence. And where is that anti-radar coating. Did I understand you correctly, author? A coating has been created for the ship, which works in a completely unfriendly environment, that is, sea water. And then it is completely incomprehensible to moan about such a coating for the latest aircraft. That the paint is afraid of precipitation in the form of rain, and is completely unstable to abrasion on the air during flight. Is everything fine on the ship? Where is the logic? And I read a lot of laudatory articles about Zamvolt, as well as about the omnipotent littoral ships. And the result? All speculation about supposedly future technologies is talk in favor of the poor. The lack of knowledge of designs that are put into mass production is, sorry, a complete failure. Any weapon is created for a combat mission. Not what we will do, and then we will think about where to apply it (I'm talking about Zamwalt). Brad, agree? And the stealth of all these stealth technologies in a very narrow range is very, very doubtful. You always need to look at the result, what is the output. The rest is abstract philosophy.
  15. 0
    25 July 2021 22: 52
    Quote: sot
    In general, during the war in Iraq, F-117A flew 1271 sorties with a duration of more than 7000 hours and dropped 2087 laser-guided bombs GBU-10 and GBU-27 with a total mass of about 2000 tons, that is, about 1% of the total number of sorties of aviation of the multinational forces (and less 4% of the total number of combat sorties). Their effectiveness (the relative number of sorties with the destruction of designated targets) was, according to official estimates, 80-95%. In particular, it is claimed that the pilots of "stealth" achieved 1669 direct hits, making only 418 misses. (During the Vietnam War, efficiency averaged 33%, and by the early 1990s, 50% was the norm for conventional aircraft.) But perhaps most impressive is the statement that, with a strength of only 2,5% of of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf zone, operating in areas with dense air defense facilities, stealth fighters destroyed about 40% of priority ground targets, without incurring a single loss.

    https://cons-systems.ru/ssl/u/f8/df29de94c211e4bb3c940d9a955b35/-/Боевое%20применение%20F-117.pdf

    How annoying you are with this war.
  16. 0
    25 July 2021 22: 59
    Quote: Max PV
    Marine development "Lockheed" is the clearest example of what happens when professionals in the same field, with their "charter" get in where they are delitants.
    Incredible, but true: the airline engineers were able to solve the problem of detecting a submarine

    Actually, the sound-absorbing coatings of the submarine hulls were developed by the Germans during the war. And since then, there has been a struggle between the developers of such coatings and the designers of the HAS, which led, in particular, on the one hand, to an increase in the thickness of the coating from several centimeters to more than ten centimeters, and on the other, to a constant decrease in the frequencies of the HAS, and as a result, low-frequency GAS, which are hardly affected by any coating. In particular, due to the decrease in frequencies, the emitters of modern boat SACs have increased from the size of a barrel to the size of a two-story house.
    Or "Sea Shadow", or rather the shape of its body. The pros are described in the article. Yes, she is very good on the wave. But, as usual, there is a nuance due to which other shipbuilders do not massively repeat it - the survivability of the ship. In particular, such a catamaran has a minimum buoyancy margin, which reduces its resistance to flooding of the compartments and makes it difficult to counter-flood, and the lack of a reserve of space leads to the threat of disabling communications and destroying the crew's paths in case of combat damage. Modern ships have almost no armor, but they have rather large free spaces that work in the same way as on the ships of the WWII PTZ, which is not on the thin racks of the "Sea Shadow" floats.

    As I understand it, this is an iteration of the Australian wave pirser and water strider with a body from the Lockheeds themselves?
    By the way, I saw similar ships without stealth in the book "Ships of unusual shapes, ships on airspace and hydrofoils" it was still in the 1970s. so sho here the author is cunning too thickly about innovations in this area.
  17. 0
    25 July 2021 23: 08
    Quote: mmaxx
    The F-117 is responsible for the breakthrough of the air defense. And then others got down to business. This made it possible not to incur losses and to hasten the defeat.
    What else do you need?

    And they broke through a lot of air defenses to Iraq? Problematic night and slow-moving cuttlefish equipped with UPAB, UAB. It is their merit that Scanwork taught this rasp to fly tolerably on EDSU, at least in adverse weather conditions. Yes, piloting with an assistant, NAVSTAR, astrogation to the place and back. Otherwise, you will break your eyes with permission to drive the entire flight in combat on one IR GOLS. After all, this is from his sighting (from the SUO avionics) photos of the destruction of objects?
  18. -3
    26 July 2021 23: 28
    quote;
    "Remember the propaganda hysteria over the British destroyer?
    We ourselves have 4 destroyers.
    More Soviet.
    Of the four, two are under repair, one has been under repair for 15 years.
    That is why propaganda was hysterical.
    We have no ships similar to the British.
    We have only Putin's tales about "there are no analogues" "
  19. 0
    28 July 2021 13: 24
    Quote: sot
    But the most impressive, perhaps, is the statement that with the number of only 2,5% of the total number of aircraft deployed in the Persian Gulf zone, operating in areas with dense object air defense, stealthy fighters destroyed about 40% of priority ground targets without suffering not a single loss.

    When bombing the Zulu with their weapons, the effectiveness would generally be more than 100%. Because the crowds of panicked people trampled on more than the airplanes themselves did. Think, guy, WHAT opponent these super duper devices were against. Yes, they had no rival from the word at all.
  20. 0
    29 July 2021 23: 23
    Why is the F-22 "absolutely useless" - then? ))

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"