American fleet. In high tech glamor

65

... three billion dollars! ”- the speaker finished his speech.
Ooh! - an excited drone rolled through the hall. Military officials, industrialists and members of the public began to actively discuss something among themselves.
- Mister Rear Admiral! - there was a cry from somewhere in the gallery - let me introduce myself, Johnny Cabot, Idaho-press. Tell me, is it true that our naval sailors shamelessly rob the budget, thereby condemning millions of Americans to a painful death from starvation?
An eyebrow twitched on the speaker's face, her face was covered with perspiration - there was no desire to engage in a deliberately losing discussion with the impudent reporter. Then the press will turn his name into a mockery, and, goodbye, a successful career. Fortunately, there was no need to respond to the provocation - under the indignant roar of the public, his comrades zashchik on the reporter.
“Dear colleague, an elderly admiral suddenly rose, flashing gold epaulets, and what about our beautiful Orly Burk squadron destroyers, are they… what?
- Admiral Davis, to date, the 62 ships of this type are in the ranks of the US Navy - the speaker has cheerfully reported.
Ooh! - the audience roared in delight.
“At the moment, we have an order for the Orly Burk IIA destroyers of the IIA modification for 9, the construction of ships continues in the shipyards of our company ahead of schedule,” said the representative of the Bath Iron Works shipyards.
“Khe, forgive me,” the old admiral Davis grunted - and how can all these guns, radars, be installed somehow, electronics be installed in the hull of the destroyer “Orly Burke”?
“Of course you can, Admiral Davis,” the industrialist answered joyfully, “any whim for your money!” Our company has always taken on any, even the most complex projects for our fleet. We especially respect sailors! In the case of the excellent destroyer "Burk" - I believe such a modernization is possible, the overall dimensions of the new systems are within reason, and the modernization potential of the "Berk" is far from exhausted. "We can create a ship with the capabilities of Zamvolta at a much lower price!"

At this time, sitting away, the head of one of the technical departments opened his notebook and quickly drew ...


"Zamvolt" and "Orly Burke"


The hysteria around the promising American destroyer Zamvolt has always seemed to me largely unfounded. And indeed, upon closer inspection, the new ship does not have any super-abilities, compared with proven destroyers of the Oblie Berk type (of course, this does not mean that Zamvolt is a useless destroyer — at the time of entry into service it will be the best ship in its class, along with the later modifications of “Berkov”).

Another thing is that there is nothing behind the fantastic appearance of the Zamvolt that could truly surprise the demanding public, no electromagnetic guns or hypersonic rockets. All the “innovations” of the super-destroyer are just a revival of old traditions and a deep modernization of current projects. At one time, the appearance of the Ticondeur rocket cruisers with the Aegis system and the Mk.41 universal launchers could have attracted much more attention from anyone who was not indifferent to the Navy’s theme, the Ticonderog was a truly “breakthrough” ship with unique control systems weapons.

The first advantage of Zamvolta is his AN / SPY-3 multifunctional radar. For the first time, a radar with active phased array — six flat phased arrays will be installed on an American warship, providing a three-dimensional view of the air and surface situation in the azimuth range 360 ° around the destroyer.

In addition to the functions of review, tracking and target recognition, AN / SPY-3 active phased arrays are designed for direct control of the ship’s weapons: programming autopilot rocket systems, target illumination for semi-active homing heads of Standard-2 and ESSM anti-aircraft missiles, artillery fire control.
American fleet. In high tech glamor

A small radio-electronic miracle is also capable of performing the functions of a navigation radar, automatically scanning the sea surface in search of floating mines and periscopes of submarines, conducting counter-battery combat and electronic reconnaissance.
One multipurpose radar AN / SPY-3 will be able to replace several types of radars used today on US Navy ships, including:

- Aids air system AN / SPY-1 radar,
- Radar target illumination AN / SPG-62,
- navigation radar AN / SPS-67,
- Radar control artillery firing AN / SPQ-9.

But what is behind all this demagogy? What is the main advantage of an active phased array?

Most modern air defense systems (C-300, C-400, Patriot, ship "Standard") are equipped with semi-active homing missiles. Simply put, the aerial target is not enough to detect; it must be taken on accompaniment and constantly “highlighted” by a special radar. Only in this case, the homing head of the rocket will catch the “ray of light” reflected from the target and will precisely lead the rocket to the target.

It all comes down to number of radar lights: A warship can detect hundreds of airborne targets, but is capable of firing at the same time only a few of them - no more than the number of radar lights on board. This is a sore point.
How many “radar lights” is usually installed on warships? - you ask. It happens differently: the 1164 rocket cruiser (Atlant code) carries only one radar to control the C-300F complex, the Orly Burk destroyer - three AN / SPG-62 radar, the Ticonderoga missile cruiser - four similar radars.

Missile cruiser "Varyag" firing at the air target. Above the helicopter hangar is visible the radar of the “Wave” illumination (naval nickname “female breast”)

American Aegis helps the American sailors: in addition to monitoring the air situation, it automatically controls the number of anti-aircraft missiles launched so that at any time there are no more than three (four) missiles in the final trajectory - by the number of illumination radar on the Orly Burke or Tikonderoge.

Returning to the super-radar of the Zamvolt destroyer: its active phased arrays consist of thousands of radiating elements grouped into several hundred receiving and transmitting modules. Each such module allows you to form a narrow beam to explore a specific quadrant of space.

Simply put, the cruiser Atlant has one radar for target illumination, the destroyer Orly Burk has three, the Zamvolta has hundreds. The new destroyer will be able to “beat off” anti-aircraft missiles at dozens of aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles within reach of their weapons “like a machine gun” - the capabilities of Zamvolt’s electronics many times exceed possible needs.

Test instance AN / SPY-3, installed on the old destroyer "Paul F. Foster" (DD-964)

Of the other advantages of a multifunctional radar with active PAR, reliability is: if an enemy fragment “knocks out” a dozen emitters from the array, the radar will remain operational. The main and only disadvantage of AN / SPY-3? Its cost.
Incredible opportunities to control the surrounding space, more than a thousand radars target illumination, versatility and reliability - you see, it sounds impressive. Alas, here I am compelled to voice a few “uncomfortable” facts, after which the brilliance and attractiveness of Zamvolt will fade considerably.

First, all this has already happened. Such radars have long been used on warships - for example, the British destroyers "Type 45" (the series is built with 2003) are equipped with two radars with active phased arrays. In particular, the SAMPSON multi-function radar is the best ship radar to date for monitoring the air situation. Coupled with the good location of the radar itself (on a high foremast), it all turns the destroyers "Type 45" into an ideal anti-aircraft ship.

The second important point is that British scientists (without any irony!) Once again beat the whole world by creating an Aster anti-aircraft missile with an active homing head: from now on, the rocket doesn’t require external illumination radar at all, the radio horizon problem is partially solved. Zamvolta simply does not have anything like this (the American Standard-6 anti-aircraft missile with an active GOS has not been tested for many years).

Note. The exact number of radiating elements in phased antenna arrays AN / SPY-3 is still classified. In his assumptions, the author proceeded from the data on the British radar SAMPSON: 2560 elements in each of its AFAR, grouped in 640 receiving-transmitting modules.

A super hero needs a super weapon - two automated AGS caliber 155 mm artillery systems.

Shot! Shot! ... it takes six seconds to reload each gun ... Shot! - in the automated cellars of the Zamvolta 600 shells, another 320 ammunition is stored in an additional packing. Moving along the enemy coast, invisible on the enemy’s radar “Zamvolt” will shoot port facilities, coastal cities and naval bases with impunity. The firing range of corrected ballistic projectiles or LRLAP active-reactive ammunition (literally - a long-range projectile for strikes against ground targets) in practice reaches 150 km. If we take into account that 70% of the population of the Earth live no further than 500 km from the sea coast, the prospects for the Zamvolt missile-artillery destroyer look more than solid ...

Thanks to the automatic loading and water cooling of the barrels, the two AGS naval artillery mounts are equivalent in terms of firepower to a ground howitzer 12 battery. To increase the stability of the ship when firing, it is possible that some compartments below the waterline may be flooded. The sinister appearance is enhanced by the fantastic covers of destroyer guns, made with regard to the stealth technology.

In addition to the “main” caliber, “Zamvolta” carry “universal”: two automatic guns Mk.110 (the licensed version of the Swedish installation “Bofors”): caliber 57 mm, rate of fire 240 rds / min. There are no official comments on these systems (after all, the attention is riveted on powerful AGS!), Because the appointment of "Bofors" on a modern warship remains unclear: a clearly insufficient rate of fire to combat supersonic aircraft and cruise missiles, at the same time, a modest range of fire and the low power of 57 mm ammunition does not effectively hit targets on the surface. Although it is quite possible "surprises" in the form of radar anti-aircraft projectiles, etc. "know-how" in the field of artillery.

The effective scattering area of ​​the Zamvolta, when irradiated with radar, corresponds to the EPR fishing boat. The creators have worked great on the look of a large 180-meter ship:

- exceptionally smooth deck without extra equipment,

- pyramidal superstructure of composite materials,

- parallelism of all faces and hull lines,

- an amazing nose- “breakwater”, typical for the destroyers of the Russian-Japanese war 1905. The design allows the “Zamvolt” not to be understood on the crests of the waves - the destroyer according to the developers, on the contrary, should hide from enemy radars in the sea foam in the middle of endless wave ridges the ocean.

- The final touch: littered "inside" the board. As a result, the radio waves are reflected in the sky, and not on the water surface, which, under normal conditions, gives a complex interference pattern, unmasking the ship.

- the specific contours of the ship contribute to the reduction of foam trail, which, in turn, complicates the visual detection of a ship with a low near-earth orbit.

All this, according to the designers, made the Zamvolt virtually indistinguishable at the border of two environments. In principle, there is nothing original here - such “tricks” are well known to engineers for more than half a century, and appear regularly in various combinations on warships and airplanes (the famous F-117 and SR-71, Lafayette-type frigates, warships of the coastal zone LCS, etc.). The achievements of the creators of Zamvolt were that they managed to harmoniously combine all the "stealth" elements in the construction of one ship. What will be the result - practice will show.

Of the other notable features of Zamvolta: developed aviation group - two anti-submarine helicopters SH-60 + a number of unmanned rotary-wing aircraft MQ-8 Fire Scout (the composition is formed depending on the tasks), coupled with a spacious hangar and a huge helipad, which occupies the entire aft part of the deck of the ship.
Progress in the field of electronics and automation has reduced the crew of the ship to 142 people (for comparison, the crew of "Orly Burke" consists of more than 300 sailors)!

Lord of the ocean - there is no use arguing here. "Zamvolt" really cool, powerful and modern ship. But the price for all the advantages turned out to be huge: the Zamvolt displacement increased by 50% compared to the Orly Burk destroyer (Orly Burk IIA sub-series - 9500 tons, Zamvolt - more than 14 thousand tons of full displacement).
By itself, the constant increase in the size of destroyers is a normal process throughout the twentieth century, it is enough to recall the tiny destroyers during the Russo-Japanese War (the total displacement is 400-500 tons). The patrol ship "Petrel" (1970-s) was twice the size of the Soviet destroyers of the Second World War. And this is normal - along with the increase in displacement, the combat capabilities of ships increased many times: modern destroyers can destroy ground targets at a distance of 2500 km and bombard satellites in low near-earth orbit.

However, despite the increase in size, the Zamvolt suffered irreplaceable losses in rocket weapons: the number of launchers decreased to 80 units, compared to destroyers of the Orly Burk type (96 rocket mines). This unfortunate fact is due to several reasons:

- UVK Mk.57 is designed for heavier rocket containers weighing up to 4 tons,

- “Peripheral” launcher Mk.57 has an unusual design that facilitates its maintenance and increases the survivability of the ship. Now, any fire or missile crash will not be able to lead to the detonation of the entire ammunition - the missile shafts are dispersed around the perimeter of the deck, outside the destroyer's robust hull. Outside UVK Mk.57 covered with armor plates. The mass of each module has increased in 4 times in comparison with the previous MU.41 DCC.

Alas, all these explanations do not suit the American sailors a little - the loss of 16 rocket mines will have a sensitive effect on the combat capabilities of the ship, and those located on the perimeter of the CIP are even more vulnerable to enemy attacks. As they say, they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.

Resuscitation "Orly Burke"

... the modernization potential of "Burke" is far from being exhausted. We can create a ship with Zamvolt capabilities at a much lower price! ”

At this time, sitting a little away, the head of one of the technical departments opened his portable laptop and quickly drew a rough sketch of the new Orly Burke modification:


Estimated appearance of Arleigh Burke-class guided missle destroyer, Flt III


First of all, the Americans are trying to increase the number of universal launchers on the ship: on the “Burke” version III, their number is likely to increase to 128 (48 UVP in the bow and 80 UVP in the aft part) - 1,5 times more than on the destroyer “Zamvolt” !

The nose 127 mm destroyer gun may be replaced by ... correctly, the 155 mm AGS cannon mount, similar to the Zamvolt destroyer.

The famous AN / SPY-1 will be replaced by the promising AMDR radar, a dual-band radar for viewing surface and airborne conditions. Originally, this system was developed as part of the CG (X) missile defense project (the project was closed in 2010), because AMDR already initially specializes in controlling low near-earth orbits.

To detect point objects in outer space, exceptional antenna power characteristics are required, and as a result, AMDR radar is extremely voracious, power consumption is 10 MW (this is 300 times more than power consumption of the Fregat-M2 radar installed on the Peter the Great nuclear-powered cruiser ).

Installing the new AMDR radar will require upgrading the electric generators and the entire Orly Burk electrical network, in particular, increasing the voltage of the onboard network from 400 to 4000 B. There is no doubt that safety problems and other engineering difficulties will arise.

USS Spruance (DDG-112) - The 61 th Destroyer of its type

In the period up to 2016, the construction of 9 Orly Burk squadrons of the Ora Burk type IIA + sub-series was planned, combining some elements of the future III series destroyer. From 2016 to 2031, the inclusive 24 bookmark of the Burke sub-series III with a complete set of new equipment is scheduled. In the future, the development of "Burke" subseries IV.

However, the number of American destroyers will never reach hundreds of units. By the end of this decade, the first “Berks”, laid out at the beginning of the 90's, will become unusable and will have to be written off (sold to the allies). As for the super-destroyer Zamvolt, then "as an experiment," no more than three ships of this type will be built at a price of 3 billion dollars each.


Russian "Zamvolt" - 120 meter white beauty yacht "A" oligarch Andrey Melnichenko.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +33
    12 December 2012 08: 43
    Traditional American design, 150 years of tradition
    1. Brother Sarych
      +4
      12 December 2012 08: 50
      But it was great invented - you can’t say anything ...
    2. +4
      12 December 2012 09: 44
      If I'm not mistaken - "Merrimack". Participant of the world's first battle of battleships, Monitor and Merrimac. good
      1. +6
        12 December 2012 10: 48
        Quote: Maksim86
        If I'm not mistaken - "Merrimack"

        Former Merrimack remodeled in CSS Virginia

        Virginia rams and sinks the American frigate Cumberland. , then there was also the northerners frigate Congress, and Monitor, unable to withstand the battle with Virginia, fled
    3. +8
      13 December 2012 10: 21
      You do not understand the main thing in this article. It has two key phrases:
      1. "Any whim for your money!"
      2. "We can create a ship with Zamvolt capabilities at a much lower cost!"
      That says it all!
      We here, in Russia, brand our bureaucrats for kickbacks, cuts, etc. But ours is a "children's matinee on .... lawn", compared to them.
      USA absolutely not needed. Just the true owners of the shipyards need to get very expensive orders. And the military, for those same kickbacks, convinces the public that without these Zamvolts (F-22, B-2, SiVulfov, etc.) they simply cannot save American values.
      The value of this ship is not in its fighting qualities, but in its price! That’s the main thing!
      It is important for them to "cut" their military budget. And God forbid this budget has suddenly decreased. What are you !!! As soon as Congress curtails the appetites of the military (read arms corporations), some Syria or some Iran will literally attack the United States. Well, terrorists will blow up another skyscraper to the brink ...
      In short, our saw cutters and haulers, more than one generation puff to their level.
      1. Karish
        +1
        15 December 2012 13: 27
        Quote: Hammer
        In short, our saw cutters and haulers, more than one generation puff to their level.

        Yes, but the ship is done laughing
        and we have
        Stepan! Stepan, the guest’s carriage broke.
        “I see, master.” The axis flew. And the needles must be changed ...
        - How much will you do?
        - I'll do it in a day.
        - And for two?
        - Well ... We’ll do it in two.
        - And in five days?
        - If you try ... it’s possible for five.
        - And for ten?
        - Well, master, you set the task ... For ten days, one can not cope. An assistant is needed. Homo sapiens!
      2. 0
        11 January 2013 22: 58
        and where without them
  2. Brother Sarych
    +6
    12 December 2012 08: 51
    Unfortunately, my hands are tied with the promise of good behavior on the site ...
    1. +10
      12 December 2012 09: 14
      I understand you...
      The article is funny, well illustrates the essence of what is happening there. Yes, there are no other problems in the states, enemies around, and without new destroyers anywhere. And then they will enslave a proud, but small country ...)))
      10 billion ... well, guys at the machine tools will erase their hands, and robots are manipulators, printing green!
      Another question, where do they all do it? A shotgun that hangs on stage in a theater (especially military action) should fire. Otherwise, taxpayers there may ask, like, what for did we spend our money?
      But ...
      1. Vito
        +5
        12 December 2012 10: 20
        Banshee Good afternoon, dear hi
        Quote: Banshee
        Another question, where do they all do it?

        That's what they do to keep the whole world under their boots!
        Once they declared the entire globe "the zone of their vital interests."
        PUPPIES of the world, what else can you say!
      2. 0
        13 December 2012 21: 41
        They lost their conscience, Somehow here on the forum there was a note that there was no roofing felts on the shores of Sacred America, I wrote then that the Yankees were completely worn out even the boat could not be properly escorted, So it’s bad with the fleet, I think the Senate Budget Committee it will soon be decided what the fleet needs, One thing is clear that the TIKANDEROGUE really needed modernization about it last year, the cruiser supposedly became obsolete and the real weapon was about to be ready, the cruiser has on board the wrong missile system under which it is now time to build under its own dear, We’ll soon hear about this unprecedented miracle of weapons and a new cruiser which, after re-equipment, will be much more powerful and more dangerous than the former, And this is how to put the people of AMERICA before the fact they said they worked hard but didn’t have time, They say the enemies are pushing along the coasts urgently need to make decisions,
    2. vylvyn
      0
      13 December 2012 04: 02
      I would also like to comment on the presence of our stealth yacht and the prospects for its unpunished use against American destroyers.
  3. AK-47
    +2
    12 December 2012 09: 23
    The achievements of the creators of "Zamvolt" in that they managed to harmoniously combine all the "stealth" elements in the design of one ship ....
    ........ the loss of 16 missile silos will have a sensitive effect on the combat capabilities of the ship, and the perimeter UVP located along the perimeter are even more vulnerable to enemy attacks.

    Perfection has its limits.
    However, good, performance characteristics are impressive. Expensive, because all the new weapons are much higher than the existing ones.
    Interestingly, the Russian fleet has something to answer?
    1. Nickname
      +13
      12 December 2012 09: 48
      With Zamvolta’s money, you can repair a 3 km road in Moscow
      1. snek
        +7
        12 December 2012 10: 13
        Quote: Nickname
        With Zamvolta’s money, you can repair a 3 km road in Moscow

        With the faint hope that this road will not be washed out after the first downpour.
        1. +7
          12 December 2012 12: 46
          snek,
          With Zamvolta’s money, you can repair a 3 km road in Moscow

          With little hope that this road will not be washed out after the first downpour .---- Then 1,5km !!!! feel or 500 meters but with a guarantee !!! laughing
          1. FID
            +7
            12 December 2012 12: 59
            Quote: datur
            but with a guarantee !!!

            Will wash out after the third rain!
          2. Karish
            0
            15 December 2012 13: 29
            Quote: datur
            With little hope that this road will not be washed out after the first downpour .---- Then 1,5km !!!! or 500 meters but with a guarantee !!!

            Then there will be money for another 3 Lockups.
  4. +7
    12 December 2012 09: 23
    Is it true that the American fleet is stronger than the Russian one by 10 times? And what if our budget includes money for the construction of an aircraft carrier and destroyers, then the Russians, so far, have a maximum of corvettes and MAKs?

    the American general perked up noticeably and joyfully reported that these data were true.
    1. vyatom
      +5
      12 December 2012 16: 07
      He was stronger in Soviet times 8 times. And now I heard more about 25 times.
      1. PLO
        0
        12 December 2012 16: 12
        He in Soviet times was 8 times stronger

        well, in 8 times you bent it
        USSR possessed the most numerous nuclear submarine fleet
        in the 80s, Americans were amazed at the crisis in the country, and the USSR atomic-powered ships bake like pies
        1. +11
          12 December 2012 16: 53
          Quote: olp
          He was stronger in Soviet times 8 times. And now I heard more about 25 times.

          Quote: olp
          well, in 8 times you bent it
          USSR possessed the most numerous nuclear submarine fleet


          De facto, by the end of the 90, the displacement of the ships of the USSR Navy was by 17% higher than the displacement of the American fleet. I do not insist on the correctness of these figures, but 17% is often found in sources. In principle, the figure is similar to the truth - even with the naked eye you can see how huge the Soviet fleet was.

          From the point of view of combat effectiveness, our Navy was still slightly inferior - and there is nothing to be done. They have all sorts of Aegis, aircraft carriers, Elks, Ohio ...

          In the 90s, the balance did not change at first - we wrote off some of the old trash, the amers did the same (68 bis - Iowa, esm. 56 and "singing frigates" - amers wrote off the Adams, we wrote off cruisers 58, 1134 - amers "Lehi" and "Belkgapy"). The real collapse of our Navy began by the end of the 90s and continues to this day.

          Talking about the modern Russian Navy is like a dead man: if you say nothing good, they say nothing. However, I will cite one fact: in the Russian Navy, 4 cruisers are capable of providing zonal air defense, as part of the US Navy such ships 84 (62 Burke and 22 Ticonderoga).
          1. PLO
            +6
            12 December 2012 17: 04
            However, I will cite one fact: in the Russian Navy, 4 cruisers are capable of providing zonal air defense, 84 of them are the US Navy (62 Berka and 22 Ticonderoga).

            I agree with it one hundred percent
            for me this is the most painful topic
            the most excellent most running BOD 1155 still can’t properly upgrade
            and after all, at low cost in a couple of years you can get 8 destroyers capable of acting alone, and so to accompany them even send no one request
  5. Nickname
    +4
    12 December 2012 09: 45
    Great article!
    I haven’t read it with such interest for a long time. Thank.
  6. +3
    12 December 2012 09: 48
    Melnichenko's yacht has an EPR, like a scandal filled with mullet. However, skinny silicone herrings on board should be.
  7. +2
    12 December 2012 11: 05
    Interesting article. It is very correct that in modern armaments most of the resources are occupied by detection, tracking and analysis devices.
    I would really like to know how much the Zamvolt project really costs, not in printed and cut pieces of paper, but in real measurements: there is so much iron ore; so much gold; so much oil, etc. Talking about the cost in pieces of paper is naive. The guys at the Fed will print as much as they need.
  8. +8
    12 December 2012 11: 36
    I liked the article, put a plus :)))) But!
    How many “radar lights” is usually installed on warships? - you ask. It happens differently: the 1164 rocket cruiser (Atlant code) carries only one radar to control the C-300F complex, the Orly Burk destroyer - three AN / SPG-62 radar, the Ticonderoga missile cruiser - four similar radars.

    The author only forgot to point out that the AN / SPG-62 is a single-channel radar capable of directing no more than one missile at a time, while the Atlanta radar provides guidance of 6 missiles at 3 targets (then it may have improved even further, too lazy to look ). That is, of course, the presence of only one guidance radar does not paint the ship, but the capabilities of the air defense and especially the missile defense of Atlanta are still higher than those of Burke.
    ... the modernization potential of "Burke" is far from being exhausted. We can create a ship with Zamvolt capabilities at a much lower price! ”

    But this is already an illusion. The point is that the cost of building a modern "Burk" is already about 1,7 billion dollars. Equip it with everything that is written in the article - the cost will come very close to "Zamvolt".
    1. PLO
      +3
      12 December 2012 12: 35
      the author has another blunder


      The second important point is that British scientists (without any irony!) Once again beat the whole world by creating an Aster anti-aircraft missile with an active homing head: from now on, the rocket doesn’t require external illumination radar at all, the radio horizon problem is partially solved. Zamvolta simply does not have anything like this (the American Standard-6 anti-aircraft missile with an active GOS has not been tested for many years).


      the author forgets about the 9M96 and 9M96M missiles that appeared much earlier and with better characteristics, not to mention the fact that the Aster is a bit heavier two-stage rockets

      In addition, ARLGSN is not a panacea, it is impossible to ensure continuous operation of an onboard radar of a rocket, battery energy is not enough, so ARLGSN is switched on directly when approaching a meeting point, before that it flies either according to the program laid down before launch, or is adjusted during a flight
      so that there is no question of any over-horizon autonomous defeat, the target should still be accompanied by the radar of the ship, or when flying over long distances, the target may go too far from the intended meeting point and the ARLGS will not find anything


      Above the helicopter hangar visible radar illumination "Volna" (naval nickname "female breast")

      Are we at the Institute of Noble Maidens? laughing
      Tits she is called)
      1. +4
        12 December 2012 12: 54
        Quote: olp
        The author forgets about the 9М96 and 9М96М missiles that appeared much earlier.

        To be honest, I somehow missed this fact - do not remind, in what year did we have these missiles? I would be very grateful
        Quote: olp
        besides ARLGSN is not a panacea

        That's right.
        Quote: olp
        Therefore, the ARLGHSN is activated directly when approaching the meeting point.

        And in another way it will not work out, well, not so powerful on a GOS rocket to see the plane from the ship.
        Quote: olp
        before that it flies either according to the program laid down before the launch, or is corrected during the flight

        Truly so! Moreover, it is corrected according to the radar, the truth is for general use, there is no need for a specialized radar of the illumination.
        Quote: olp
        so there is no question of any autonomous trans-horizon defeat of the target

        well ... it goes, but for the time being it is only theoretically, if you teach the anti-aircraft missile system with AGSN to be corrected according to some flying radar .... Well, flying radar to get hold of nearby, yes laughing
        Quote: olp
        Tits she is called)

        laughing And I did not know :)))
        1. PLO
          +4
          12 December 2012 13: 08
          To be honest, I somehow missed this fact - do not remind, in what year did we have these missiles? I would be very grateful

          they say that even at the beginning of the 90-s were developed, but exactly at the beginning of the 2000-s were offered for export
          here by the way the video of their firing from the S-300PM2 (or PMU2)


          Truly so! And it is corrected according to the radar, true - general purposeSpecialized radar backlight is not needed here.

          not every rls will be able to provide support
          for example, Furke cannot do it in the 20380s, in fact, she can do little, they say that the Intelligent during the repair after the fire at the same time will finalize the radar weapons, because so far he’s not getting anywhere
          and on the 20385s, the already cut polymer will be


          And I did not know :)))

          Well, this is a small remark to the author of the article) lol
          1. +3
            12 December 2012 14: 00
            Quote: olp
            they say that even at the beginning of the 90-s were developed, but exactly at the beginning of the 2000-s were offered for export

            I myself also imagined it this way, but the 15 Aster appeared at about the same time - in 2001. So, I think we are about nostrils in the nostril with the Britons, but I didn’t write about it for one simple reason - the author probably meant the marine air defense systems.
            But generally speaking to me, our C-300, and yes even PMU2 inspires confidence in a little more than some Astaire :))))
            Quote: olp
            not every rls will be able to provide support

            Of course. A rare bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper ....
            Furka weak simply - the signal does not reach the rocket. And, frankly, the idea of ​​cramming into the ship a little more than 2 thousand tons of displacement .... And that, according to rumors, was refined yet.
            Quote: olp
            and on the 20385s, the already cut polymer will be

            Yes? This is very good news! And I thought - dopilennaya Fourka.
            1. PLO
              +4
              12 December 2012 14: 11
              Furka is simply weak - the signal does not reach the rocket.

              they say that the matter is more serious there
              it’s just that Furke is not intended to support targets (the refresh rate is too small), according to its data, it is impossible to build a trajectory and issue normal control centers, plus there was no correction from Furke, i.e. rocket flew only according to the program
              Yes? This is very good news! And I thought - dopilennaya Fourka.

              3 reduced canvases instead of 4 large ones on 22350s
              moreover, he will also receive a new RLC in return for the Cougars (one of the paintings on the superstructure)
              20385th ship will already be what you need good
              that's the way he

              1. +4
                12 December 2012 15: 09
                Oh, what a handsome man!
                Yes, I already understand that - Corvette! good
                Thank you!
                drinks
                1. PLO
                  +4
                  12 December 2012 15: 21
                  please hi
                  here by the way the head 20380th Stereguschiy
                  also handsome, I hope they will still be finalized

                  author of both paintings V.M. Antonov, watercolor
            2. 0
              13 December 2012 16: 20
              In the early 90s, I developed the same radar in my dissertation. It was called my multichannel multifunctional radar, but not for the fleet but for the A-50. (This is the same flying radar). It's a shame to read now about such an implementation. They tried to laugh at me at one time and said that it was unscientific fiction that no one needed.
      2. 0
        12 December 2012 14: 50
        But are 9M96 and 9M96M used from the Atlanteans? Future destroyers were announced, from ground systems too, but on Atlanta there weren’t any messages / statements.
        1. PLO
          +2
          12 December 2012 15: 14
          But are 9M96 and 9M96M used from the Atlanteans? Future destroyers were announced, from ground systems too, but on Atlanta there weren’t any messages / statements.

          no, they don’t apply, but I didn’t say that it was so

          ABM Atlanta features? - If only missile defense from the Kyrgyz Republic

          not only, namely from PCR and other air targets within reach

          about BR, it seems like there were no reports of successful launches from Atlantes (and wink would certainly have boasted).

          again, I didn’t say anything like that, but you’re right to intercept the S-300F (FM) ICBMs

          On Berks, on the other hand, the Aegis system, everyone read as satellites and intercepted BRs, it is assumed as the basis of missile defense from BRs.

          satellite and MBR are two different things, it’s not a problem to calculate the satellite’s trajectory, so the SM-3’s ability to shoot down ICBMs in near space or maneuvering targets is a big question, it’s another thing that it’s guaranteed to shoot down ICBMs in the upper stage, that's why amer these missiles are closer pushed to our borders and mounted on ships
      3. +2
        12 December 2012 16: 13
        Quote: olp
        the author forgets about the 9М96 and 9М96М missiles that appeared much earlier and have better characteristics

        Aster Marine SAM

        Quote: olp
        in addition, ARLGSN is not a panacea, it is impossible to ensure the constant operation of the onboard radar missiles

        henceforth, the missile does not require an external radar at all backlight, partially solved the problem of the radio horizon.

        Quote: olp
        Are we at the Institute of Noble Maidens?
        Tits she is called)

        feel laughing
        1. PLO
          +2
          12 December 2012 16: 31
          Aster Marine SAM

          not the point
          even if uvp sylver appeared before the redoubt, then this is not essential
          UVP is the easiest part
          and 9m96 missiles are unified for firing from s-300/400 and redoubt

          in addition, 9M96 appeared much earlier, of course I don’t have any facts, but I strongly doubt that with fatal underfunding in the 90s, Almaz could develop a new rocket from scratch, bring a maximum, so the work was started in the 80s, and for some information in the mid 90s 9m96s already fired

          from now on, the rocket does not require an external radar of illumination at all, the problem of the radio horizon was partially solved.

          I agree the number of radar lights no longer limit the channel of the air defense system, but still it all comes down to the possibility of tracking the goals of a common radar

          solved the problem of the radio horizon

          I doubt that with the help of a ship’s radar alone it is still impossible to develop a control center for trans-horizon targets, and if the target went beyond the radio horizon after launching the zur, then you won’t
          1. +3
            12 December 2012 17: 18
            Quote: olp
            <Aster marine air defense system> is not the essence

            This is not the essence, it is a fact.

            Quote: olp
            besides 9М96 appeared much earlier, of course I have no facts,

            But I have them. Work on a promising Euro-air defense complex (future Aster) began with the signing of an agreement between the French "Matra" and the Italian "Marconi" in 1989, later the British BAE-Systems joined.
            The first successful test launches of Aster took place in July 1995.

            Quote: olp
            with fatal underfunding in the 90s, Diamond could develop a new rocket from scratch

            Diamond lived normally in 90, orders came from all over the world. DEMAND exceeded supply.
            Real shocks awaited Diamond in 2000.

            In the photo - the longest bar counter in Europe with a length of 140 m - in the largest assembly shop No.14 of NPO Almaz-Antey
    2. +2
      12 December 2012 14: 46
      ABM Atlanta features? - If only missile defense was from the Kyrgyz Republic, there seemed to be no reports of successful launches from Atlantes about the BR (and I would certainly have boasted wink ).
      On Berks, on the other hand, the Aegis system, everyone read as satellites and intercepted BRs, it is assumed as the basis of missile defense from BRs.
      1. +2
        12 December 2012 15: 07
        Quote: cdrt
        Missile Defense Atlanta? - If only a missile defense system from the CD, there wasn’t any message about the BR about successful launches from the Atlantes

        Of course from the CD. From BR .... well, when there is a BR, which at least theoretically could get into our RRC laughing then think about it.
    3. +1
      12 December 2012 16: 07
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      but the capabilities of the air defense and especially the Atlant missile defense are still higher than that of Burke.

      About air defense can be argued for a long time. If the threat from one direction - Atlanta chances are higher, if from all points - write is gone.
      About missile defense disagree 100%.

      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      But this is already an illusion. The point is that the cost of building a modern "Burk" is already about 1,7 billion dollars. Equip it with everything that is written in the article - the cost will come very close to "Zamvolt".

      New systems are not put in addition, but instead of the old ones. The cost of Burke will increase, but there will always be a billion difference between him and Zamvolt.
      1. +2
        12 December 2012 17: 12
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        About air defense can be argued for a long time. If the threat from one direction - Atlanta chances are higher, if from all points - write is gone.

        Given the greater speed Zur Atlant attacks the same number of targets faster than Burke. Just because no one bothers, breaking into targets from one point to turn the radar to another.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        About missile defense disagree 100%.

        Your disagreement does not change the fact.
        First of all - tit is universal, so it can work as a radar detection in the centimeter range (although the sector is not wide - EMNIP 75 hail) Ie while Decimeter An / SPY-1 will painfully find out what it is there that loomed on the horizon and whether it is a hindrance, the atlas, having spotted something incomprehensible and having checked it with boob, will begin to do it with rockets.
        Secondly - the ability of one of our channel boobs to simultaneously carry two rockets practically guarantees the destruction of a non-maneuvering target. A maneuvering target boobs accompanies constantly, adjusting the flight Zour. Idzhis has only the backlight, the missile defense system on the march is induced from the junction, and the EMNIP update rate is every five seconds, which is not too great for the missile defense system within sight, in general, our system will be more reliable
        Thirdly, our missiles from the fort are much faster than their contemporaries, CM2, so the atlas will hit the first targets and retarget to the second ones when the missiles will be launched to the first targets.
        In the fourth - Atlanta has the final frontier in the form of a rocket wasp and AK-630. Arly (from whom even the volcano was removed) has nothing of that
        New systems are not put in addition, but instead of the old ones. The cost of Burke will increase, but there will always be a billion difference between him and Zamvolt.

        Yes, it will not. If the ships have approximately the same range of weapons, then it will cost about the same. The same thing with the avionics. Or do you want to say that the body of the zamvolta is more expensive than the body of Arly in a billion? :)
        1. +3
          12 December 2012 17: 42
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Given the greater speed Zur Atlant attacks the same number of targets faster than Burke. Just because no one bothers, breaking into targets from one point to turn the radar to another.

          You can argue until hoarseness. Our 48H6 has 2 times the speed, their Standard 2 times the range. We have one multichannel radar, they have three single-channel radars, etc., we have a drum launcher, they have two airborne

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          About missile defense disagree 100%.
          Your disagreement does not change the fact.

          We once again did not understand each other.))) I meant space missile defense))))

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Thirdly, our missiles from the fort are much faster than their contemporaries, CM2, so the atlas will hit the first targets and retarget to the second ones when the missiles will be launched to the first targets.
          In the fourth - Atlanta has the final frontier in the form of a rocket wasp and AK-630. Arly (from whom even the volcano was removed) has nothing of that

          The basis of the Burke missile defense system (against the Kyrgyz Republic) is not SM2, but the new ESSM, according to rumors, 4 pieces are placed in one UVP.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes, it will not. If the ships have approximately the same range of weapons, then it will cost about the same. The same thing with the avionics. Or do you want to say that the body of the zamvolta is more expensive than the body of Arly in a billion? :)

          1. The nomenclature is not the same,
          2. The body of an ordinary Burke costs 500 million.
          1. PLO
            +1
            12 December 2012 18: 58
            You can argue until hoarseness. Our 48H6 has 2 times the speed, their Standard 2 times the range. We have one multichannel radar, they have three single-channel radars, etc., we have a drum launcher, they have two airborne

            as far as I know Atlantes have not been upgraded to S-300FM with 48N6 missiles with a range of at least 150km, they have an old S-300F with 5V55RM missiles with a range of up to 75km
          2. +2
            12 December 2012 20: 19
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You can argue hoarse.

            Well, yes, I agree :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            We once again did not understand each other.))) I meant space missile defense))))

            laughing M-dja :)))) But at some point such a thought crept in - and there would be no asking, eh? But I'm the smartest ... damn feel
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Again, Burke’s missile defense (v. KR) is not CM2, but the new ECCM, according to rumors, is placed in one DPS by 4 pcs.

            Channels are no longer ... Yes, and Atlanta is something older ESSMov will.
          3. postman
            0
            13 December 2012 22: 25
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            2. The body of an ordinary Burke costs 500 million.

            It was worth it. In the prices of 2002-2005.
            USS John Finn (DDG 113) $ 783
            114 and 113 a little more than $ 2 billion / for each

            This is 110
            1. 0
              13 December 2012 23: 10
              Quote: Postman
              USS John Finn (DDG 113) $ 783

              And what is included in this amount? Not just frames and lining?
              1. postman
                +1
                13 December 2012 23: 41
                Quote: Kars
                And what is included in this amount?

                they write about the body, without filling, probably the frames and sheathing and the work and the costs of production and Kevlar are still there (70 tons)
                Housing weight ХЗ, cost of steel (for defense) in the USA - хз
                I know:
                -on Dymax I bought buckets made of armored steel: for THREE (8100 kg) = $ 71'208.00 (FCA-Wamego, Kansas USA without TAX)
                - I bought a cold-rolled sheet at Wupperman (with 2x galvanization at 400 and a polymer 2x coating): 15736,25 EUR for 19650 kg)

                ====================================
                For 113, 100 tons of the sheet were delivered to the shipyard
                1. 0
                  14 December 2012 00: 03
                  Somehow expensive for just the case, the armor as such is not there as I understand it.
                  It’s just 700 mil per case, how much then the machine installation will cost, there are probably cables from the color of a couple of hundred meters. Then the electronics and weapons.
                  1. postman
                    +1
                    14 December 2012 02: 07
                    Quote: Kars
                    Somehow expensive for just a case

                    Well, on 113, probably this guy Jerri Fuller Dickseski (tel: +1 757-380-2341) email: [email protected] can give a more accurate answer. That's his job.
                    1. We do not know how much the price costs (cost price_
                    2. We do not know how much% of the profit is mortgaged.
                    There is still nothing (I) do not understand:
                    http://ir.huntingtoningalls.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=243052&p=irol-shfi
                    Sales and services (revenue) 2011: 6 ($ Mill.)
                    Operating profit 110 ($ mln)
                    And the "old" prices were
                    NGSS, formerly Ingalls Shipbuilding Inc. was awarded a $1,968,269,674 for four DDG 51-class ships, one in fiscal 2002, one in fiscal 2003, one in fiscal 2004, and one in fiscal 2005. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, Miss.
                    $ 1,968,269,674 / 5 = slightly less $ 500 000 000 per box

                    General Dynamics (GD), was awarded a $3,170,973,112 modification to contract for six ships that will be distributed between fiscal 2002-2005, one in fiscal 2002, one in fiscal 2003, two in fiscal 2004, and two in fiscal 2005.
                    $ 3,170,973,112 / 6 = slightly more $ 500 000 000 per box
                    =============
                    And can you imagine that Transocean invoices for the rental of the Deepwater Expedition drillship $ 714 per day! ?
                    =============


                    Quote: Kars
                    then the machine installation will be there, probably there are cables from the color of a meta couple of hundred kilometers. Then the electronics and weapons.

                    And this costs about 2/3 of the contract (of the total cost of the ship) - the same is not sour from $ 2,2 billion.
                    1. 0
                      14 December 2012 02: 28
                      Quote: Postman
                      Jerri Fuller Dickseski (tel: +1 757-380-2341)

                      Vryatli he burns in Russian or Ukrainian,

                      Thanks for the answer and the numbers.
                      I’m just interested in this in the light of a small dispute with the authors of this article - how much it will cost to build a battleship now - if 30 Queen Elizabeth in 000 cost 1915 million pounds. And Bismarck costs 2.1 tons 50 million marks. it’s not clear what.
                      1. postman
                        +1
                        14 December 2012 12: 43
                        Quote: Kars
                        olgo tormented with recounts, now in general it is not clear what.

                        It seems to me that everything is simple:
                        1.USS Iowa (BB-61) / was laid in New York. naval shipyard, June 27, 1940; launched on August 27, 1942 /

                        (he probably could change the course with a salvo of the main guns)
                        110 million dollars in prices of the 1940s.
                        58000 tons.
                        Specific: 110 000 000/58 000 = $ 1897 (1940) per 1 ton of water displacement in prices of 1940
                        2. Inflation and falling purchasing power $
                        2.1. SAUSAGE METHOD
                        Storefronts in Salem, Illinois in 1940.

                        Three pounds of sausage - 25 cents. Today sausage costs about $ 4 per pound.
                        K = 16. Today, USS Iowa (BB-61) would cost :: 1 billion.70 million (not seriously considering the cost of DDG-1000)

                        2.2 U.S. inflation calculator:
                        http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
                        yields 1,773,137,142.86 in 2012. (which is comparable to the sausage method, but does not correspond to reality)

                        2.3. Salary method
                        1940- $ 42,91 per month ($ 515 year) and 2010 $ 3906,25 / m (calculation for 2012: + 4% = $ 4602,5)
                        K = 107,25. Today USS Iowa (BB-61) WOULD cost: $ 11 billion 799 million (already "warmer)"
                        2.4 inflationary method
                        1940-1945: K = 2,47 (official US data fall by 1/4)
                        from 1945 to 72, the general consumer price index rose more than 2 (K = 2)
                        02.1973, the United States the second devaluation of its currency, by 11,1% (K = 1,111)
                        1980 a fall in purchasing power of $ to 40% compared with 1967. Or, in terms of K (1973-1980) = 22 * ​​2/27 + 1,111-1,4 = 1,34
                        1980-2012: K around 3

                        which is consistent with this graph, if we take the value of the assets of MSCI Japan (0- 1980, along the Y-axis, along the X-axis), somewhere 3,03

                        TOTAL K = 22,28 Today, USS Iowa (BB-61) would be worth: $ 2 billion. 450 million (which is ridiculous)

                        BY REALITIES TODAY: SALARY METHOD THE BEST (first approximation of course)

                        An Iowa class battleship (BB-61) would cost $ 12-14 BILLION. What (in my opinion reasonable)
                        And most likely that in the USA, in the Russian Federation (yes, salaries are lower, but costs (lack of experience, heat, logistics, Vasilyevs, Serdyukovs, bonuses to top managers, theft of anchors - more).
                      2. postman
                        +1
                        14 December 2012 13: 08
                        Quote: Kars
                        They suffered for a long time with recounts, now it is generally not clear what.

                        Supplement No. 2

                        For reference:
                        AB Ark Royal = 3,75 million pounds Art.
                        AB Victories ~ 4,05 million f. Art.
                        LK Nelson ~ 7,5 million f. Art.
                        LC Wangard = 11,53 million f. Art.

                        This label will help

                        / tablet - from Fukui Shizuo, translated by E. Pinak
                      3. +1
                        14 December 2012 13: 21
                        The answer is much more detailed than I expected. Thank you so much.
                        As for the salary method, I think that the number of workers along the entire chain — met.plants-mechanical-shipyards — in 1940 was much larger than in 2000, but labor productivity should have changed.
                        And 90 Bush costs less with nuclear reactors.

                        But thanks again.
                      4. postman
                        +1
                        14 December 2012 14: 14
                        Quote: Kars
                        The answer is much more detailed than I expected.

                        I myself became interested.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And 90 Bush costs less with nuclear reactors.

                        USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) - Mortgaged in 2003 (9 years have passed) worth $ 6,2 billion
                        1. This is not a battleship, there is no armored belt, there is no main caliber, and the same is true for shooting. its cost is indicated without Air Group
                        2. the steel there is completely different: CVN-77 - Part of the steel for the construction of the ship was made of scrap metal (from support columns that were pulled out of the debris from the Twin Towers - 185101 tons of metal structures).

                        Chinese Baosteel acquired 50000 tons of this scrap metal at a rate $ 120 per ton

                        HOW MUCH PAID, THEN AND HAVE:
                        Due to the constant accidents in the vacuum sewage collection system of more than 5 people, the crew of the US Navy aircraft carrier USS George HWBush (CVN-000) running around the ship in search of a working latrine (toilet) and stand in lines.
                        The aircraft carrier’s vacuum drainage system is divided into two sections, fore and aft, which operate independently of each other. However, six times since the start of deployment of the aircraft carrier, both sections failed at the same time, as a result of which all 423 toilets of 130 ship latrines did not work.
                        Latitude commander of the aircraft carrier also failed.
                        bilge aircraft carriers fighting steadily spent more than 10 hours cleaning the system, purging 000 miles (!) of sewer pipelines,
                      5. 0
                        14 December 2012 17: 24
                        Quote: Postman
                        1. This is not a battleship, there is no armored belt, there is no main caliber

                        Armor alloys are used, but on Iowa the method of booking was used all or nothing. And the catapults in terms of complexity and cost are almost inferior to a pair of GK guns --- all the same, there is solid cast iron. I also don’t know what modern components to do, but more precisely for sure.
                        Although I came across numbers that Bush is about 10 billion - but okay.

                        As for the use of scrap metal from Gemini ---- I did not know, it was somehow symbolic. Still, the bullets would be cast.
                      6. postman
                        +1
                        15 December 2012 13: 03
                        Quote: Kars
                        .a catapults in terms of complexity and cost are inferior to a pair of guns GK-

                        Oh disagree. THIS IS RIGHT FOR US, since we didn’t do them (never) / The proletarian plant did not cope with the task, failed to really solve the difficult problem associated with tape seals of slotted cylinder catapults and the problem of heating the catapults in winter time /
                        And so the steam catapult is not very expensive:
                        EMALS from General Atomics contract FOR DEVELOPMENT 676,2 million dollars (with finisher)

                        and because of pollen, EPA is expensive. In addition to the ESS, PCS and LCS, EMALS also includes linear induction motors, a cart and kinetic to electric energy converters.
                        UK EMALS component sales approved by Congress.
                        The length of the launching section of the catapult for "Gerald Ford" is 91 meters. The length of the DF is 333 meters versus 284 meters for Queen Elizabeth.

                        UK Ministry of Defense in 2010 signed a contract with the French company Converteam to develop an electromagnetic catapult EMCAT. The deal amounted to 650 thousand pounds (1,024 million dollars). Great Britain intends to put an electromagnetic catapult on the aircraft carrier "Prince of Wales" of the "Queen Elizabeth" type

                        How much does precision machining of main caliber trunks cost?
                        how many countries can produce (produced)?
                        gun turrets?
                        shells?
                        the entire pickup mechanism (precise mechanics at gigantic loads) and loading mechanisms?

                        Quote: Kars
                        somehow symbolic. Still, the bullets would be cast.

                        Pragmatists (I always said) ... nothing "sacred." But selling to the Chinese is even cooler.
                      7. +1
                        15 December 2012 13: 15
                        Quote: Postman
                        How much does precision machining of main caliber trunks cost?
                        how many countries can produce (produced)?
                        gun turrets?
                        shells?
                        the entire pickup mechanism (precise mechanics at gigantic loads) and loading mechanisms?


                        I won’t answer by numbers, so deeply this topic in literature - (popular) is not covered.
                        As for countries, almost all developed countries with a shipbuilding industry were able to master their production, even the USSR was able to create a 406 mm gun, while Italians reached the serial production of 380 mm.
                        The mechanics are definitely precise - but still mechanics and scrap.

                        I’m not going to say that an aircraft carrier is more complicated than a battleship, but all the same, I’m inclined to simply be cheaper than the atomic Nimitz, which took more metal than Iowa’s displacement (not even weight)
                      8. postman
                        +1
                        16 December 2012 20: 19
                        Take it.
                        Foreign Military Review ", 1976, No. 2, p. 98-102
                        The cost of orders of the Ministry of Defense for the production of samples of artillery weapons is shown in the table (below)
                        large orders of the 1971/72 financial year, foreign specialists include contracts concluded by the Ministry of the Army: one for more than $ 21 million with Bowen-McLaughling York (York, Pennsylvania) for the production of 130 105-mm self-propelled howitzers M109 and another for 21 million dollars, providing for the manufacture of 200 175 mm self-propelled guns M107.
                        =========
                        9/21/2004
                        production of its M119 105 mm towed gun: 275 units, for only $ 300 million

                        In fiscal year 1972/73, the U.S. Army Department ordered almost 86 million dollars 550 155-mm self-propelled howitzers M109 (at the Bowen-McLaughling York factory)

                        The gauge is certainly not the same, but some approximation (not linear) can be made.

                        ====================
                        As for the battleships (after reading), I understood the idea ..
                        the thought is very interesting sound:
                        1.A are modern anti-ship missiles (without nuclear warheads) designed against an ARMORED adversary?
                        2. "Tomahawk" - 245 m / s has a warhead of 454 kg
                        Russian ship 305-mm shell of a sample of 1911 g 750/500 m / s - 470 kg
                        Yes + still this diagram

                        the German battle cruiser Seydlitz was hit by at least 24 large-caliber enemy shells + torpedoes, but remained afloat and even reached its home base on its own.
                        3. "Peter the Great" armor belt - only 50 mm
                        4. "Peter the Great" - only 20 ammunition (anti-ship missiles), against 1200 main battery shells on the most ordinary battleship of the First World War - on a dreadnought type
                        "Sevastopol". I will not mention the cost.

                        LINKORS NEEDED ???????????

                        Guided missiles in this century have not been able to finally bury the traditional weapons of battleships - the main caliber guns?
                      9. +1
                        16 December 2012 22: 43
                        Quote: Postman
                        The gauge is certainly not the same, but some approximation (not linear) can be made

                        For modern production for sure.

                        Quote: Postman
                        LINKORS NEEDED ???????????

                        If I understand the question marks correctly, then it makes me happy. I believe that large artillery-missile ships can be very useful for working offshore and in order to support naval landings.
                      10. Misantrop
                        +1
                        16 December 2012 23: 55
                        Project 68B light artillery cruisers (Ushakov, Dzerzhinsky, etc.), which until recently were part of our fleet, were excellently suited for this purpose. The not so serious main caliber of 152 mm provided both good ammunition and quite decent rate of fire. A shell weighing 50 kg (there is separate loading) flew 28 km with fairly decent accuracy. The nuclear charge weighed 40 kg and flew away. And to set up a branch of hell on the shore with his help was many times cheaper than cruise missiles or even aviation
                      11. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 02: 11
                        Quote: Kars
                        Kars

                        I'm laughing ... or sad ..
                        I’ll explain now.
                        While calculating the costl (for today) 8 and 16 inch systems for the fleet (for example, it turned out $ 7,8 and $ 13,9 million, respectively, I can’t vouch for loyalty, based on Analysis The Market for Self-Propelled Artillery Systems 2011 - 2020 t Code F653 )
                        and while trying to justifythat sausages of the coast do not need battleships, but something like monitors is enough, and the coast is a continuous airfield with a very unlimited number of aviation (Lebanon 1982 does not count),
                        ======
                        stumbled upon a most curious document. 178 pages-read time will allow, only on New Year's, and even as the daughter arrives, not German can not be mastered quickly.
                        Colonel Shawn Welch writes (track record and miss education) report at NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY -Acting Chief, Command and Installation Programs of the Division, Directorate of Military Analysis and Assessment Programs (PAED), G-8, Army Headquarters Branch Management Group
                        I do not know how competent he is (a person who is fond of and "sick" with artillery), but the report, continuous mathematics, numbers.
                        So for the argument
                        Quote: Kars
                        I'm just curious in light of a small dispute with the authors of this article - how much will it cost to build a battleship now - if

                        for 2007 the answer is here (below)
                        Aircraft Carrier Ford Blue
                        Ford aircraft carrier with black wing
                        Next, our "favorite" Zamvolt
                        ...
                        GSW Capitol Surface Warship - concept (not an Iowa BB-battleship) but a surface ship with main caliber guns) - "battleship of the 21st century"
                        Battleship - red modification
                        All the prices are clear. Tk. PDF file and it can only be "cut further part 3
                        Threat. Who turned out to be right?
                      12. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 02: 18
                        Part 2-1 source
                      13. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 02: 18
                        Part 2-2 source
                      14. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 02: 38
                        Part 3:
                        the document has a lot of interesting things:
                        - about the insufficient power of the DDG1000 guns
                        analysis of the use of battleships after 2MB
                        -fire support for landing operations
                        -analysis of local conflicts where America participated after 2 MB
                        the cost of the use of carrier-based aviation
                        -analysis of insufficient "destructive power" 152 and 1525mm compared to 203 and 406mm, again wives in relation to cost (taking into account logistics)
                        and so on and so on

                        Notable plate below

                        The cost (in thousands of $) of ammunition for a hypothetical CSW is shown in the table below - the main cost factor is Tomahawk tactical missiles and ERM ammunition
                      15. 0
                        17 December 2012 02: 50
                        Quote: Postman
                        it turned out 7,8 and 13,9 million. $ respectively

                        Not so expensive. Although with a tower, armor, serve will be more expensive naturally.
                        Quote: Postman
                        Battleship - red modification

                        General aircraft carrier - 13.7 battleship 10--? What is BB modernization, I did not understand.
                        Quote: Postman
                        and a surface ship with main caliber guns) - "battleship of the 21st century"

                        and what caliber?
                        Quote: Postman
                        Threat. Who turned out to be right?

                        The question is complex, given that we are not talking about a battleship at all, and even in the light of these figures, our calculations somehow look frivolous.
                        One of the points of the dispute, if of course it is interesting.

                        http://topwar.ru/19426-po-sledam-tyazhelyh-kreyserov.html
                        Quote: Postman
                        something like monitors is enough, and the coast is a continuous airfield with a very unlimited number of aviation (Lebanon 1982 does not count),

                        As I already wrote, we have not quite a classic battleship, and from the list it will also come to delete Korea, Vietnam and even Iraq 1991
                      16. postman
                        0
                        17 December 2012 04: 12
                        Quote: Kars
                        Not so expensive

                        Here the colonel is there with numbers and leads that there will be less sense from Zamvolt.
                        Colonel fant of artillery / Started as an engineer of the infantry task force (xs what is) in the 1980s, "with his own hands" learned the influence of artillery
                        during major exercises. As an avid amateur historian, he is on the council
                        Directors of the nonprofit corporation for the historical preservation, restoration and interpretation of artillery systems /
                        Quote: Kars
                        General aircraft carrier - 13.7 battleship 10--? What is BB modernization, I did not understand.

                        13,7 - WITHOUT AIR WING (+ $ 5,2 million) (with AK the price is lower),
                        10 is a "battleship" of the 21st century, m. spaced and active armor, SU, bplakinetics, etc.
                        BB is the modernization and commissioning of Iowa and others like it, taking into account today's realities.

                        Quote: Kars
                        and what caliber?

                        5 inch
                        or
                        155mm / 52 caliber
                        155mm / 60 caliber
                        or
                        8 inches
                        16 inches
                        5 and 16 for sure
                        And on 16 ordinary, ERM and with hypersonic generators, and 5 with ordinary and ERM
                        (the cost of ammunition in thousands of $? from the number of pieces, compared with the tactical tomahawk) - below

                        Quote: Kars
                        The question is complex, given

                        Response time to a support request? the same is considered in the report
                      17. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 04: 13
                        Here the colonel is there with numbers and leads that there will be less sense from Zamvolt.
                        Colonel fant of artillery / Started as an engineer of the infantry task force (xs what is) in the 1980s, "with his own hands" learned the influence of artillery
                        during major exercises. As an avid amateur historian, he is on the council
                        Directors of the nonprofit corporation for the historical preservation, restoration and interpretation of artillery systems /
                        Quote: Kars
                        General aircraft carrier - 13.7 battleship 10--? What is BB modernization, I did not understand.

                        13,7 - WITHOUT AIR WING (+ $ 5,2 million) (with AK the price is lower),
                        10 is a "battleship" of the 21st century, m. spaced and active armor, SU, bplakinetics, etc.
                        BB is the modernization and commissioning of Iowa and others like it, taking into account today's realities.

                        Quote: Kars
                        and what caliber?

                        5 inch
                        or
                        155mm / 52 caliber
                        155mm / 60 caliber
                        or
                        8 inches
                        16 inches
                        5 and 16 for sure
                        And on 16 ordinary, ERM and with hypersonic generators, and 5 with ordinary and ERM
                        (the cost of ammunition in thousands of $? from the number of pieces, compared with the tactical tomahawk) - below

                        Quote: Kars
                        The question is complex, given

                        Response time to a support request? the same is considered in the report
                      18. postman
                        0
                        17 December 2012 04: 28
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://topwar.ru/19426-po-sledam-tyazhelyh-kreyserov.html

                        I’ll read it tomorrow;
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The battleships' work in local wars was negligible

                        The plate below is the issue of battleships.

                        in the article the colonel writes:
                        the use question is a potential stumbling block for the future of CSW. This point can be illustrated by the assessment of major incidents in the 1980s, where battleships could replace aircraft carriers.
                        By combining the information in Table A-27 with the previous material from this article, Lehman Secretary points out the inability to properly use these platforms. Another point of view
                        to use the main caliber of the battleship in the Libyan events of 1986 reads: "in the bombing of the Libyan Air Force ... there were few military results, unlike political ones, the attack on the Ghadaffi headquarters very few aircraft completed the task (ref. 478)
                        The reluctance of the Navy to use platforms and strategies to solve this problem are the main obstacle to the resumption of the use of battleships and / or to build future CSWs.
                      19. 0
                        17 December 2012 14: 20
                        It is a pity that the document in pdf would have been read by Google at least.

                        Thank you, very interesting. Particularly pleased (in quotation marks Yankees vtaki) the price of resuscitation of old battleships. Yesterday the Sea Battle looked - Iowa is super and against aliens.
                      20. postman
                        +1
                        17 December 2012 17: 29
                        google translate and pdf
                        the truth is WELL OCHE / NL KORYAVO, but it will translate and will have to "beat" into several parts (about 20), otherwise it will not master.
                        http://translate.google.ru/



                        Enter text or website address or translate the document.

                        ====================

                        What is this movie? I didn’t look, I probably missed
                      21. 0
                        17 December 2012 22: 57
                        Quote: Postman
                        Enter text or a website address or translate a document

                        A link to the report?

                        Quote: Postman
                        What is this movie?
                      22. postman
                        0
                        17 December 2012 23: 55
                        oops and the link to the report was fucked ...
                        the file is.
                        I’ll look now
                      23. postman
                        +1
                        18 December 2012 00: 07
                        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.p
                        df
                      24. 0
                        18 December 2012 00: 19
                        Thank you. I'll try to read - I really want to know what their concept is drawn.

                        and the film is by the way cool, I liked how 1200 kg the projectile in the fourth was dragged manually, remembering that it weighs half a ton)) And the graphics are generally a bomb.

                        And as I understand it, if the concept costs 10 lards, then most likely Iowa would be built according to old lines, with the use of new technologies it would probably cost 3-4, and the aircraft carrier in any case must be compared with the AB, without it it does not represent a special combat values.
                      25. postman
                        0
                        18 December 2012 03: 08
                        Quote: Kars
                        Thank you. I'll try to read - I really want to know what their concept is drawn.

                        About the concept there is not much, there is a lot, about the fact that Zamvolt is worthless and expensive, and that battleships are needed.

                        Quote: Kars
                        liked how 1200 kg shell

                        yes we are done now .. view ..
                        They dragged not armor-piercing, but high explosive. mb almost 400kg easier
                        AP Mark 8 Mods 0 to 8 - 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg)
                        HC Mark 13 Mods 0 to 6 - 1,900 lbs. (862kg)
                        HC Mark 14 Mod 0 - 1,900 lbs. (862kg)
                        Target Mark 9 - 2,700 lbs. (1,225 kg)
                        Target Mark 15 - 1,900 lbs. (861.8 kg)
                        Target Mark 16 - 1,900 lbs. (861.8 kg)
                        Added during 1950s Deployments
                        Nuclear Mark 23 - 1,900 lbs. (862kg)

                        Added during 1980s - 1990s Deployments
                        HE-CVT Mark 143 - 1,900 lbs. (862kg)
                        ICM Mark 144 - 1,900 lbs. (862kg)
                        HE-ET / PT Mark 145 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg)
                        === but in order not to defame the Americans, we will consider: they dragged the caliber HE-ER Mark 148, just 500 kg, probably at the Museum of Missouri was lying around.

                        Being Yamato with type 94, they would have been even harder, still 1360-1460 kg


                        Quote: Kars
                        probably would cost 3-4,

                        4 probably would not fit. No fools, what would they say in the Senate? a soap box for 3 and an armadillo (how much will it be if you measure in Zumwalt?) for almost the same amount? Do they have Serdyukov in mind?
                        Guns !!!.
                      26. postman
                        +1
                        18 December 2012 00: 14
                        save pdf on the desired number of pages from the array - in the know how?
                        Note: 180 pages google will NOT translate. maximum 5 (probably)
                      27. 0
                        18 December 2012 00: 30
                        The link did not open, the exploit is chopped off. I'm here by the name of Nashol.
                        http://ebookbrowse.com/2007-05-jfsc-thesis-nfs-and-ddg-1000-pdf-d17547342


                        I also do not really want to work with pdf, but I already created too many problems. So I look through what I understand. Yes, and translating seems to be
                        This study was carried out with the knowledge that my son, specialist Adam Lloyd Welch and son-in-law, infantry second lieutenant Andrew White, may someday require timely, accurate and deadly naval surface fire to be maintained - a kind of fire support that only comes with a gun. It is my desire that this study stimulate serious measures to create a viable and effective marine fire support capacity within our fleet, to support soldiers and marines. This study cannot be written without the continued support of my wife Diana. She survived my long hours, often stretching over the whole weekend. She then did the painful job of editing this study. Anyone who thinks that the soldier’s wife doesn’t sacrifice for her husband knows not the army’s wife
                      28. postman
                        0
                        18 December 2012 02: 43
                        I finished watching movies

                        Quote: Kars
                        Link did not open

                        im f "crawled away". I sent in a personal, at the end there should be a pdf
                        Copy link to browser line
                        IE may not take it, it all depends on the security settings
                        better opera or mozilla

                        Quote: Kars
                        Anyone who thinks that the soldier’s wife doesn’t sacrifice for her husband knows not the army’s wife

                        What is this "translation"?
                        That I will not sleep today for sure ...

                        virtual printer converter
                        http://www.dopdf.com/ru/
                      29. 0
                        18 December 2012 03: 12
                        Quote: Postman
                        What is this "translation"?


                        The eight options recommended by COEA vary primarily from the new 155 mm / 60 caliber gun to the new 8-inch / 55 caliber light gun. All options were a combination of ground attack missiles. The recommendations do not include the 5-inch Gun.93, which was noted as an important issue of government office accountability.94 One of the two long-range fleet cannon programs is the 5-inch cannon shell, which has suffered many technical problems and exceeded estimated costs by 550% 0,95 Gaobyl didn’t provide access to the CNA COEA, probably due to these conflicting points.96 with respect to large caliber guns, COEA also found the following: Percentage of indicators like gun barrel increase in length and diameter, hit increase and wartime target cost decreases. This is due to the corresponding increase in maximum ranges and the increase in warhead weight from rounds.97 The conclusion that large-caliber guns are more cost-effective in wartime is significant, however, since cost analysis and peacetime priority in COEA, this conclusion was not emphasized


                        Well, at least somehow - more or less understandable.
                      30. postman
                        0
                        18 December 2012 17: 43
                        Quote: Kars
                        The link did not open, the exploit is chopped off

                        "df" must be merged with "pdf"
                        It just didn't fit wide
                        AT THE END SHOULD BE * .pdf
                        (via text can)
  9. +2
    12 December 2012 12: 03
    The caliber of arudia is all the same small, even at least 10 inches, and the armor of myoimeters is 150-200 and there would be a decent boat. But with whom is the US fighting at sea?
    1. 0
      12 December 2012 13: 02
      Quote: Kars
      But with whom does the US fight at sea?

      Why at sea. Control of the coastline, the blockade of ports and all sorts of straits, the destruction of objects on the coast ....
      It's cheaper, easier, more efficient and less noise to send such a crap ... well, than to send an aircraft carrier group or a couple of destroyers. And then it can be attributed to a provocation on the part of the broken-down side. Like a boat sailed to itself and then it was rattled with a nail .. many scenarios can be thought up under such "pocket artillery".
    2. 0
      12 December 2012 14: 15
      why armor? After all, it is believed that he is so inconspicuous in all ranges that catch him, that "fast Gonzales"... wink

      but seriously - the article mentions how much the new radar system is voracious in the sense of energy consumption. If you also hang armor on this miracle, then in order to ensure the operation of the propellers and electronic equipment, would you have to shove a nuclear reactor into it? (and the ship, and so on, is one and a half times more in terms of displacement than the previous one)

      on the contrary, it is surprising that the SGA somehow curbed its craving for gigantism.
      1. +1
        12 December 2012 15: 17
        Quote: Nuar
        The article mentions how much the new radar system is voracious in the sense of energy consumption.

        On Zamvolte, and so, 78 megawatts without a nuclear reactor, when on Nimitz it is 8 times larger than 190.
        Quote: Nuar
        what to catch, what "fast Gonzales"

        You yourself know that the guarantee of success of the fast Gonzales is that there is no one to catch them, unlike the elusive Joe that no one needs.
      2. +1
        13 December 2012 16: 28
        This is a very serious question, determined by the energy ratios in the review. This is the first time I come across such a question in a discussion. No matter how much I tried to raise it myself, I received one answer: "The military is not interested, if we need to attach it to the Dneprogress board." refinement of the target coordinate area.
    3. +2
      12 December 2012 16: 39
      Shot! Shot! ... it takes six seconds to reload each gun ... Shot! - in the automated cellars of Zamvolta 600 shells

      Kars' mood immediately lifted))))))))
      1. +1
        12 December 2012 16: 48
        A little sorry only for the Americans. Where Peony M at least.
        1. PLO
          +2
          12 December 2012 19: 07
          sorry only for the Americans

          let's hope that the double-barreled Coalition-F appears on our destroyers / cruisers, otherwise it was apparently abandoned by the land artillery (


          Where Peony M at least

          203mm? what for?
          1. 0
            12 December 2012 19: 17
            Quote: olp
            203mm? what for?

            152-155 do not look very serious against coastal targets. And range can be increased. In principle, I stand for the return of 10-12 inch guns in the light of shelling the coast and supporting the landing.

            Help is better than mistral helicopters.
            1. PLO
              0
              12 December 2012 19: 28
              152-155 do not look very serious against coastal targets. And range can be increased. In principle, I stand for the return of 10-12 inch guns in the light of shelling the coast and supporting the landing.

              Well I do not know
              you will definitely have to give up the fight against air targets, and they will take up hell with ammunition, few ships will pull such a fool
              and helicopters are still much more versatile and "long-range"

              although who knows, maybe there will be a second round of the era of battleships)
              1. +2
                12 December 2012 19: 52
                Quote: olp
                from fighting air targets

                Why rockets? A modern 155 mm airplane is unlikely to be shot down.
                Quote: olp
                Yes, and the places will take up to hell with ammunition

                Washington cruisers of 10 pulled 000 4X2 mm and nothing.
                Quote: olp
                and helicopters are still much more versatile and "long-range"

                But the helicopter is quite easy to shoot down, and the reaction time to the request for fire support will be several times longer, then the price, crew, weather conditions.

                Modern shells with remote fuses and computerized MSAs will give a huge fire attack efficiency. And that not every ship will agree.
                The same Yankees so overloaded the Ticonderoga that their corps are constantly cracking))))
                Quote: olp
                second round of the era of battleships

                I hope. Aviation killed the romance of ship duels.

                Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Battle of La Plata.
                1. 0
                  13 December 2012 00: 16
                  Quote: Kars
                  Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Battle of La Plata
                  and in nine days - the end of the world crying
                  1. 0
                    13 December 2012 00: 26
                    Quote: Nuar
                    and in nine days - the end of the world

                    Until the national football team of Ukraine wins the World Cup, the end of the world is canceled)))))
                    1. +2
                      13 December 2012 02: 16
                      The universe died three times and was born again, and only the sinful Earth could not wait when finally the Ukrainian team will conquer this FUCKING CUP! wassat
                2. 0
                  10 August 2013 14: 57
                  Did you yourself hear the crack of their bodies or is it your sick imagination?
    4. postman
      +1
      13 December 2012 23: 59
      Quote: Kars
      The caliber of aruds is all the same small, even at least 10 inches

      They probably have hardly got into calibers with this ...
      In 2009, the US Congressional Research Services' “Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress” report update (# RL32109)

      "Industry has informed CRS about proposals to change DDG-51 (APAR SPY-1E instead of SPY-1). If DDG-51 hull is not lengthened, then DDG-51 design change (improved radar) will require removal of a 5-inch gunto make room and offset the weight for additional equipment. Housing extension can provide enough extra space and displacement to leave a 5-inch gun. Ancillary equipment for the installation will include an additional electric generator and additional cooling. The best place for a generator might be in a helicopter hangar, which, however, will reduce the capacity from two helicopters to one. "


      "... SPY-1E [active radar] radar can affect the stability of upgraded Arleigh Burkes because the SPY-1E panels weigh more than the earlier SPY-1 radar panels. The SPY-1E's weight is concentrated more in the panels, freeing up more space under by deck this more weight will be added to the superstructure of the ship.Combined with the relatively narrow hull of the DDG-51 and short length, this can cause stability problems, especially when swimming in bad weather ".
      1. +1
        14 December 2012 00: 10
        It has long been written in various places that Berkov’s hulls are overloaded for their displacement. Therefore, they cannot be cured by mechanical strength and further on. I understand that they are tormented with Sprüyens’s hull, whose base is in Ticonderoga and Berks (at least I can be mistaken) Why they don’t want to make at least 18 -20 tons, and not cram unbeatable, in savage economy something unbelievable.
        1. postman
          +1
          14 December 2012 03: 19
          Quote: Kars
          and Burke (at least I can be wrong)

          For "Arleigh Burke Flight I" a new hull was developed with full bow lines and small camber of the surface branches of the bow frames.
          "Plump" body:

          length to width L / B = 7,9 instead of 10
          the ability to use weapons at a wave height of up to 5 m (6-7 points) with a previously established requirement of not more than 3 m


          Quote: Kars
          Why they do not want to make at least 18-20 000 tons

          give you free rein (20000 tons), immediately the main 403 mm gun appears ... belay
          Once the destroyers were tiny HMS Viper (350 t)

          missiles, no helicopters and no gas, the same, but what AFAR was and did not know.

          If there were 18-20, then there would definitely not be enough for Abrams.
          and the Senate, having adopted a program of 70 pieces of 20 tons, the noble American people would have torn right at the Kapitaliysky hill
          1. +1
            14 December 2012 13: 26
            Quote: Postman
            give you free rein (20000tn), immediately the main 403 mm gun appears

            no more than 305 neither.
            Quote: Postman
            If there were 18-20 000, then Abrams would definitely not be enough

            maybe --- at least someone knows them and their printing press.

            Thanks again for the answers.
        2. 0
          10 August 2013 14: 59
          Most likely because they are more competent in writing.
  10. Born in USSR
    +9
    12 December 2012 12: 21
    Each of our oligarch who has unscrupulously robbed the country has a yacht. We must oblige them to purchase another destroyer or cruiser and donate it to the Navy! And the first 3 from the Forbes list to throw in an aircraft carrier! Someone must protect their Russian assets!
    1. +1
      12 December 2012 15: 00
      Quote: Born in the USSR
      And the first 3 from the Forbes list to drop on the aircraft carrier! Should someone protect their Russian assets!

      Well, considering their money, it’s more correct to write the aircraft carrier software hi
    2. 0
      13 December 2012 18: 06
      No, the first three on an aircraft carrier. from 3 to 16 for the rest of the cruiser destroyers and frigates.
    3. Tirpitz
      0
      14 December 2012 00: 15
      Quote: Born in the USSR
      Someone must protect their Russian assets!

      Just their zumwalti and berki assets protect. All of their assets are in dollars and foreign banks.
  11. +3
    12 December 2012 12: 45
    the last photograph is just a masterpiece, so much in the subject
  12. +2
    12 December 2012 12: 48
    Born in USSR, just as soon as Abramovich is going to build another yacht, then he will be hinted at, and the aircraft carrier in addition, and live on !!! feel laughing
    1. 0
      10 August 2013 15: 01
      Yes, racket is a great thing.
  13. -1
    12 December 2012 15: 57
    the yacht is really beautiful, and some freak is some kind of beauty 0
  14. Ramldor
    0
    12 December 2012 16: 46
    eto sayt i yevo loooseri ne ustayot obsirat US ..... no vi zabivayayte odno God bless America ... rock yeah ... drinks
    1. +1
      12 December 2012 16: 53
      this site and its "loooseri" (I don’t know) never get tired of smearing the USA ..... But you forget one thing "God bless America ... yes .. rock"

      Dear, write better English, because your writings are very difficult to make out, but rather use a translator: http: //translate.google.ru
  15. +2
    12 December 2012 17: 04
    we also have beautiful boats ..)
  16. +3
    12 December 2012 17: 07
    But this phrase didn’t scatter anyone:

    "Incredible control of the environment, over a thousand target radar, versatility and reliability - agree, it sounds impressive ... "

    I apologize, but I have always believed that the range of AFAR is provided by adding the in-phase signals of individual elements into a single signal. Therefore, there cannot be any "thousands of illumination radars" there. Especially at a long range. No, somewhere they will highlight something one by one. But certainly not for tens of kilometers ... Maybe, of course, they did something with AFAR, breaking it up into independent arrays, but so that each element separately highlights, it seems to me - it's fantastic ...
    1. +1
      12 December 2012 17: 29
      Well, if the author himself did not come up with hundreds of goals, but subtracted it from somewhere, then this is really only possible when working with groups of elements as conditionally independent arrays. Not so fantastic. In the end, everything will run into computing power. Well, it’s like the Moore’s law is in force with them, and a fairy tale comes true every 3-5 years wink
      1. 0
        13 December 2012 16: 43
        When testing AK RLDN A-50, there were facts of the presence in the controlled area of ​​hundreds of targets. This is not fiction. But you are right, the computing resources of this complex of the 70s were not enough to process such flows. Currently, this is no longer a question.
    2. 0
      13 December 2012 16: 36
      In AFAR, each element has its own transmitting and transmitting devices, the signal that has already been received is processed. Radiation, as you rightly noted, is a superposition of fields. However, each element of AFAR can be considered as an elementary radar.
  17. -2
    12 December 2012 19: 43
    In principle, 62 destroyer for 20 years - the result is not particularly impressive laughing

    For four years of the Second World War, the American industry thrashed 300 destroyers (of three main types: "Fletcher", "Allen Sumner", "Gearing").
    Amer’s ships were very different from the destroyers Kriegsmarine, the Soviet Navy or the Royal Navy of Great Britain: these were healthy 3500 troughs of tons of full military and stuffed to the brim with artillery, with a set of radars and an ocean range.
    The Amer standard is 5-6 of universal five-inches (5 on Fletchers, 6 on Sumners and Gearings) + a couple of dozen Bofors and Erlikons. Sheathing - 18 mm structural steel.

    In the photo - "Allen Sumner" DD-692 (1943). Pay attention to the ship number and a bunch of radar stations on the superstructure and mast
    1. +1
      12 December 2012 20: 46
      Amid how many submarines (very modern for that time) the Germans built at the end of the Second World War, of course, is rather weak.
      1. +1
        12 December 2012 21: 06
        Quote: knn54
        Amid how many submarines (very modern for that time) the Germans built at the end of the Second World War, of course, is rather weak.

        Of the more than 1099 German U-bots built in Germany between 1935 and 1945, 703 were 800-ton pellets of Series VII.

        A boat is much easier to build than an Allen Sumner-level destroyer.
  18. 0
    12 December 2012 19: 45
    and the amperes won't crack their asses, how much green stuff to spend on overgrown men with their naval toys? why the hell do they have so many? Soviet propaganda-hawks of militarism were not right, the whole Western civilization was imprisoned for destruction and aggression, starting with the Crusades and td am
  19. +1
    12 December 2012 20: 04
    Peter1 said that Russia without a fleet was like a one-armed person with disabilities. The modern fleet combined all types of armaments - here and the marines, URO ships. Aircraft carriers became the peak of unity of the air and sea fleet. The United States throughout its history (and taking into account its geographical location) clearly They understood that WITHOUT THE GREAT Navy there is NO GREAT POWER. They understood this in the USSR, they began to understand it in the PRC and, I hope, in Russia. I would like to add the following.
    Our future is the ocean. Therefore, we need a powerful merchant fleet, a fishing fleet and, of course, research ships!
    1. 0
      13 December 2012 22: 27
      That's right, CHINA in the summer laid its own carrier on the slipways, There’s really no specifics, just the information and that’s all, We have only one news from China discussing Start of construction of a combat drones factory, From far away it’s like Yankisov’s, I think how they could do so quickly your drone
  20. sergeybulkin
    -1
    12 December 2012 21: 14
    Well done let them build, spend their billions. For ordinary people, it’s all good - jobs, salaries, etc. And to drown any ship is easier than simple and the more it is, the easier it is to destroy it! If the locator does not see it, it will see the satellite, one anti-ship missile will penetrate it through with ease, and along with it from the bow to the stern. So I think this is just another reason to knock out money for construction and then steal it completely.
  21. 0
    12 December 2012 21: 27
    "... the AMDR is extremely power hungry, with a power consumption of 10 MW."


    This is just an AMDR radar ...
    In the electromagnetic range, you cannot look at it (Ship) without a welding shield.
  22. sgv
    -2
    12 December 2012 21: 50
    This is not a task! In what Gulf of Aden is not a competent member of the team of fishing-assault, coastal and amphibious assault SHIPYAYAYAYAYA will throw from his own RPG (for the hard-earned purchase) and inflict such losses on this object out of ignorance that the crisis on Wall Street will seem just a trifle! And then what to do with this fool? Should I put it on the counter? So all Africa for this "ZAMVOLT" will work until the end of the world! Our task is to place as many RPGs as possible in the right place and teach Kudu to shoot! And then how the card will lie, and the card will obviously lie under us !!!!!!!!!! soldier
    1. 0
      13 December 2012 17: 30
      Are you sober at all? Or just so poorly versed in the topic?
  23. -2
    12 December 2012 22: 46
    Is the author a fan of American weapons? Flattery and honey whip right in a riotous stream. Something similar I read about the super-modern Stealth plane .... which was later shot down by the ancient KUB of the 60s.
  24. +3
    13 December 2012 09: 06
    Kapets .... This Melnichenko is the owner of our chemical holding. I have not indexed salaries for more than a year, people are leaving, are being reduced. And here...
    1. +1
      13 December 2012 10: 34
      Quote: Alexxeg73
      Kapets .... This Melnichenko is the owner of our chemical holding. I have not indexed salaries for more than a year, people are leaving, are being reduced. And here...
      Well, to each his own. For example, AK-Bars Holding (well, to be more precise, this is Ak-Bars Bank) financed the design and production of such ships for transporting passengers for a train and a river. Now the old are stubbornly changing for them. And by the way, only thanks to this project Zelenodolsk and Khabarovsk can make military orders, since they feed mainly on civilian shipbuilding. By the way, his speed is 60 +.
      1. +1
        13 December 2012 11: 03
        That's interesting.
        Steam engine, tell me more about this project.
        1. +2
          13 December 2012 12: 27
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          That's interesting.
          Steam engine, tell me more about this project.
          This is the project "Agat Design Bureau" based on A77 Harpoon Ave. The А145 project is the most promising among the passenger ships with an air cavity today. About 10 of them have already been released, in 2013 4 more in Khabarovsk and 3 in Zelenodolsk are being pledged (by the way, the funding is such that the ships will all be made in 1 year) I have a lot of photos since the moment of construction, it's a pity that I can't post them all. But this is what the salon looks like. Range up to 600 km. They are now actively taken in Sochi and the Volga. Once I wanted to write an article about them, but over time, problems, and a little off the topic of the site.
          1. +2
            13 December 2012 12: 29
            Well, here's another photo from Sochi, from the acceptance of the boat.
            1. +2
              13 December 2012 12: 36
              You know what interests me: tell me a little about engines.
              1. +1
                13 December 2012 12: 50
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                You know what interests me: tell me a little about engines.
                Well, the 2 drive of the Zelenodolsky water cannon, but the 2 Vizhki of the MTU diesel engine on 2000 mares in each.
          2. 0
            13 December 2012 12: 34
            Quote: Mechanic
            Well, here's another photo from Sochi, from the acceptance of the boat.

            The photo is familiar, but inside I saw for the first time

            Cool technique!
            1. 0
              13 December 2012 12: 54
              And here is the captain’s bridge
        2. 0
          13 December 2012 12: 34
          And this is from the Volga (earlier)
  25. AlexR
    0
    13 December 2012 09: 28
    Melnichenko especially liked the yacht. We, philistines, do not need war, but we need a beautiful life!
  26. ZKBM-BUT
    0
    13 December 2012 09: 59
    of the whole article, I liked only the journalist who asked a question of conscience.
    1. +1
      13 December 2012 10: 23
      Quote: ZKBM-BUT
      of the whole article, I liked only the journalist who asked a question of conscience.

      And, yacht "A" - is it a horseradish for you ?!
  27. 0
    13 December 2012 17: 39
    Well, what can I say. I consider Zamvolt to be a truly breakthrough ship. Synthesis of the most modern technologies (stealth, armament, BIUS and radio electronics, etc.). But the amount of UVP looks very sad, although 80 is not small, but it’s not such a displacement for a ship . In general, IMHO, this is the only really significant drawback.
    But it’s unlikely that it will be possible to upgrade the berks to the level of immolation. It doesn’t have any inconspicuity in the first place. UVPs do not take rockets weighing more than 2 tons, hypersonic missiles are unlikely to appear in it. time, at the expense of lasers - a long-term perspective).
    Yes, and it’s worth only 2 times the burke. Given that in fact it is a new generation ship, even without railguns and hypersonic CRs (and when they appear, there will generally be PPC), such a price, IMHO, is quite justified. instead of 9 birks, they would lay 5 bans.
    It’s another matter that the possibilities of freefalls and the number of berks are definitely redundant.
  28. postman
    +1
    13 December 2012 23: 00
    Author = Another thing is that behind the fantastic look of Zamvolta there is nothing that could really surprise the demanding audience, no electromagnetic guns or hypersonic missiles.

    So they do not have time. And already ES with a margin ...
    1. A promising "hybrid" installation on which the 25-mm artillery mount Mk 38 TLS will be combined with a combat laser.


    Boat set on fire by a “gun” with a solid-state laser.


    2. Uninhabited underwater vehicle for detection and destruction of mines of the RMS system.

    3. supersonic RATTLRS: Klune provides complete fuselage assembly for the new supersonic RATTLRS

    Rolls-Royce completes HiSTED test YJ102R

    4.Sci-fi railgun kinetics:
    This is real! The fleet is testing the first working prototype railgun
    / Kelly Vlahos Published February 28, 2012 FoxNews.com/




    Phase II, completed in 2017, is a full deployment project on Navy ships in 2025, although there is hope for an earlier date, Ellis.
    Energy is the biggest question.The amount of electricity needed to operate the railgun 32 MJ . The carrier may be the Zumwalt DDG-1000, which is currently designed as a multi-purpose ship ($ 3,3 billion per vessel).
  29. 0
    20 December 2016 23: 07
    There are 5 missile boats, they will "tear" it like a hot water bottle. :)
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 15: 54
      The teeth will break)
  30. 0
    7 August 2021 15: 54
    Zamvolt simply does not have anything of the kind (the American Standard-6 anti-aircraft missile with an active seeker has been unable to pass tests for many years).


    The SM-6 has been in service for a long time.