Aircraft carriers will cry for "Tika"

91
Aircraft carriers will cry for "Tika"

I don’t know, but I would really like to know, what do the admirals at the command of the US Navy think about the fact that in 4 years they will have navy there won't be a single Ticonderoga-class cruiser?

The US Navy's longest-lived class of warship, the cruiser, is scheduled to disappear in four years, ending 143 years of continuous service. The last of the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers is scheduled to be retired in 2027, removing more than 1500 missile silos from the fleet.



In general, this is a more than serious figure, and what they are going to replace it with is a big question.

The 13 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers in question are representatives of the second half of a series of 27 ships commissioned between 1983 and 1994. That is, the youngest ship is 30 years old. The first half of the series (14 ships) has already practically been withdrawn from the fleet, and only 4 ships from the second are in service, the remaining 9 are put into reserve. We know what the American reserve of ships is, this is an honorable stop before disposal, unless a miracle happens in the form of some large-scale mess and the ships are recalled.


But miracles in the American fleet happen extremely rarely, and therefore the fate of the cruisers is clear, understandable and sad.

Sorry for Ticonderoga? Oh, of course not! These were good ships, so their conclusion is good news, in contrast to, say, littoral areas. Many people reacted with disapproval to the news that the LCS class ships would be withdrawn from the US fleet and scrapped for complete failure. It could have been better, these troughs could have been drinking money from the budget for another ten years, which is to our advantage and not at all useful to the Americans.

But now they come to their senses...

As for Ticonderoga, everything is very clear there.


The Ticonderoga-class cruiser was conceived as a multi-role combat ship capable of surface, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. However, the main emphasis was placed precisely on anti-aircraft warfare. This class of ships has gradually developed the ability to engage virtually all air and space threats, from anti-ship missiles flying 10 meters above the tops of the waves to satellites in low Earth orbit.

The ships have served continuously since then, and for more than 40 years, the U.S. Navy has always assigned one cruiser as the primary air defense asset to each deployed carrier strike group. It was the “Tikis,” as they are called in the navy (or were already called) that carried out the tasks of covering ships from threats from the air, and the Arleigh Burke destroyers, part of the AUG, served as carriers of anti-ship, anti-submarine and tactical weapons.

Of course, the Arleigh Burke is capable of fighting air targets no worse than a cruiser, but there is one small nuance that can explain a lot.

It so happened that the crane equipment of American ships and the design of the UVP Mark 41 cells do not allow receiving from supply ships and reloading at sea such types of weapons as Tomahawk cruise missiles and NTACMS tactical missiles (a ship version of the MGM-140 ATACMS mobile tactical ballistic missile) . This could only be done at the base.

Because of this, such a division of responsibilities resulted: the destroyers were loaded with tactical and anti-submarine weapons (in addition, the Arleigh Burke of the 2nd and 3rd series already had better radar weapons, which is important), yes, the Arleigh Burke was an anti-submarine ship better than Ticonderoga, and the cruiser was filled to capacity with air defense missiles.

Considering that the Tiki had 122 launch cells versus 90 (1 series) or 96 for the Arleigh Burke, it turned out that if used, the cruiser’s ammunition was preferable.

The Arleigh Burke strike version (Gulf War) carried 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 24 RIM-66 SM-2 air defense missiles and 10 RUM-139 VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

A typical Ticonderoga load consisted of 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 16 ASROC PLURs and 80 Standard-2 missiles. It is clear that the Tomahawks, according to the assigned task, could not be loaded, but replaced by Standards. 106 anti-aircraft missiles - you must agree, this was a lot in those days and almost enough today.

But why did Tiki cease to be relevant?


But they didn't stop. In general, in addition to the fact that the Tiki has more launch cells, the ship has another very important advantage over the destroyer: its size. Yes, the Ticonderoga is a third larger than the Arleigh Burke, so carrying approximately the same electronic equipment (AN/SPY, Aegis and other components), the cruiser could accommodate an air combat analysis and control group in its premises.


That is, a destroyer could throw missiles from its cells no worse than a cruiser. Tactically. But the air defense command post was always located on the cruiser, because it required additional computing power and - most importantly - additional crew members who worked on these capacities, determining strategic tasks and tactical patterns of battle.

"Ticonderoga" as part of the AUG always played the role of air defense headquarters, because there it could be done with maximum comfort and efficiency. Both are very important components of success.

In the post-Cold War era, ships were often used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles at enemy ground targets in various operations. But then the United States simply did not have opponents who could oppose anything in the air. Today, with a return to air warfare, the ships are simply too old to continue serving either as squadron air defense centers or as destroyer leaders.


But is it? If we draw parallels and comparisons with Soviet ships that still serve in the Russian fleet, then no.

Let's look at the list of five ships that have already been decommissioned and dismantled for scrap during the recycling process.
"Ticonderoga" Served 21 years and 252 days.
"Yorktown". Served 20 years and 159 days.
"Vincennes". Served 19 years and 359 days.
"Valley Forge." Served 18 years and 225 days.
"Thomas Gates." Served 18 years 116 days.

As you can see, not very much. But here, of course, the question is how to serve. If you stand at the quay wall, doing nothing, then the service life may be like that of the Project 641 Zaporozhye submarine. From 1970 to 2020, that is, exactly 50 years.


Yes, for the first 10-15 years the boat was actively used, visited Cuba, Tunisia, but the last 30 years under the flag of Ukraine... However, you know everything just as well.

But American cruisers were used seriously. That is why, frankly speaking, their condition came to such a sad and natural end, down to the core, there were 2 cruisers per nuclear aircraft carrier. And they had to wander around very mentally all these 40 years.


Of course, it is impossible to say that in the USA they did nothing, but only pushed the tail and the mane. Time and money flew away - one can only envy, and if the first series of ships quickly disappeared from the scene into reserve, then the second was dragged with all their might for the same reasons, because there was nothing to really replace the Tika.

By mid-2013, two cruisers had completed modernization of their hull, mechanical and electrical systems, and eight cruisers had undergone complete modernization of combat systems. These are an upgrade of the computing power of the Aegis system with the installation of new computers and networks, an upgrade of the SPQ-9B radar system, providing increased air defense fire control capabilities, fiber-optic data transmission and software updates, as well as modifications to the vertical launch system, allowing two modules of 8 cells each to conduct fire with RIM-162 ESSM missiles.

The most recent cruiser upgrade packages include SM-6 missiles and the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Air (NIFC-CA) system. Another update is the improvement of the SQQ-89A(V)15 sonar with a multi-function towed antenna. This significantly increased the anti-submarine capabilities of the cruisers, which, admittedly, were not up to par.


Upgrades to the hull, sonar, radar, electrical, computer systems and weapons could cost up to $250 million per ship.

But, as they say, not everyone survived. In the early 2000s, the US Navy retired the first five ships of this class, which used obsolete twin-boom Mk.26 missile launchers. The service has taken seven more cruisers out of service in recent years. The age and active use of the ships have made them difficult to repair and expensive to maintain.

According to Naval News, the US Navy will retire the remaining ships by the 2030s. Modernization efforts have failed to solve the ships' problems, and the Navy wants to get rid of them all within the next three years.

And here the question arises: who next?


By all accounts, some class of ships would have to replace the Ticonderoga. Since cruisers were originally supposed to serve as bodyguards for aircraft carriers, battleships and large landing ships, protecting them from aviation and missile attacks. The ships could also act as the flagship for a surface task force, a task force without an aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship, with two or three other destroyers.

Ticonderoga's retirement has been a long time coming, and there have been several attempts to find a replacement. For various reasons, mainly due to lack of funding for the naval service and poor decisions, the ships of the future never made it past the concept stage. Today, the US Navy plans to replace the cruisers with the future DDG(X), a new guided missile destroyer that will have only 96 missile silos, compared to Ticonderoga's 122.

But what is DDG(X)? A ship that, in theory, is designed to replace three types of ships: Ticonderoga-class cruisers, Arleigh Burke- and Zamvolt-class destroyers, with which everything also went wrong.

A destroyer that is larger in displacement than a cruiser. 13 tons versus 500 for Tika. Even in theory, the performance is still zero; it is known that this overgrown destroyer will be armed with a standard 9-mm Mk 800 Mod 127 gun, and in terms of missile weapons, it will have three units of the Mark 45 vertical launch system (VLS) of 4 cells each, that is, 41 cells. Plus 32 launch cells in two blocks with RIM-96 air defense missiles.

Overall, it’s a fairly tough ship, naturally, with more advanced electronics and sensors.

The problem is that by 2030 all "Tiki" will be sent to the finals of their stories, but nothing will come to replace them.

The construction of the first destroyer under the DDG(X) project is planned for 2032, but the whole question is whether the DDG(X) project will suffer the same fate as the CG(X) project, the cruiser that was supposed to replace the Ticonderoga?

Here it is worth remembering how much time it took to develop and build the Zamvolt. The project started in 1997. Construction began in 2007, if the starting point is the conclusion of the contract. The first ship of the series was laid down in 2009. The launch took place in 2013, and the ship was finished up to standard in 2016.


During this time, the CG(X) cruiser project died in 2010 and was closed. It’s difficult to say how the story of DDG(X) will end. But over the past 30 years, the US Navy has successfully buried more than one warship construction program, from the DD21 to the Zamvolt and the littorals. "Arleigh Burke" is the latest massive success of the ship project for the US Navy, and the "Ford", which is still being brought to condition.

Meanwhile, since we are talking about the fact that the United States has more than once declared China to be its main enemy at sea and all subsequent military conflicts are planned against the PLA, then it is worth noting that the Chinese are doing well with aircraft carrier escort cruisers.


The Renhai or Type 055 is considered a destroyer in China, but is considered a cruiser by NATO. 11 tons of standard displacement (000 when fully loaded) is very nearly a Zamvolt. And the weapons are not at all like those of the future American DDG(X), but cooler:
- 130 mm H/PJ-45 gun;
- 11-barrel 30-mm H/PJ-11 CIWS system;
- 1 launcher for 24 cells of the HQ-10 short-range anti-aircraft missile system;
- 112 vertical launch PU cells GJB 5860-2006 VLS.

This is practically the Ticonderoga, the only question is whether the Chinese ship can take the lead. Judging by what they write in the foreign press and the Chinese media, he can. There is more than enough space there; we will tactfully keep silent about electronics.

But we note that the PLA Navy already operates eight such ships. Considering the presence of more than 30 more destroyers of the previous Project 052, the picture we get is not very pleasant for the Americans at all. Undoubtedly, the Arleigh Burke are very worthy ships, although aged, but modernized with all care and diligence for huge amounts of money (comparable to the construction of a diesel-electric submarine).

Whether the Arleigh Berks will be able to really ensure the safety of aircraft carriers and other ships in the emerging confrontation between the two forces is a question. Even theoretically this is very interesting, but how can it work out in practice...


If American companies do not roll out a new metal destroyer by 2032, the situation will not be very optimistic for the American fleet, which continues to flex its muscles. In eight years, the Arleigh Burkes will not exactly get any younger, but the two dozen cruisers of Project 055 will be a very impressive force.

In general, in 2030 it will be very interesting to compare the two fleets, American and Chinese, in their real state of affairs. It's quite possible that things won't be very rosy, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars that are falling into the black hole of the American fleet.


In the meantime, the Ticonderogas are fading into history, thereby bringing the final line to the long-term service of American cruisers.
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    2 July 2024 04: 19
    An intelligent and interesting article, accessible even to me, a land traveler.
    1. +32
      2 July 2024 07: 44
      Roman sometimes publishes literate articles and sometimes something like this....
      Let's cry together how bad everything is for them. They put into operation on average one or two of the best destroyers of our time, Arleigh Burke, capable of effectively carrying out anti-aircraft defense and air defense, as well as fighting enemy ships and delivering massive strikes along the coast. By 2027, ALL Teconderogas being withdrawn will be replaced by new destroyers and the total number of cells will even increase, while their fleet will become more of the same type, which will simplify and reduce the cost of their operation and maintenance.
      The Chinese fleet, which has never fought at sea with a normal enemy that copies other ships, is of course moving in the right direction, but their destroyers, although they have more cells, are still significantly inferior in combat effectiveness to the Arly Berks. At the same time, the Chinese have a complete zoo with destroyers where they have everything from our Srychi to 055.
      Our fleet, especially the surface fleet, cannot be compared with the American one for a long time; we are already in a different league. We still have ships in service that were built to confront the predecessors of the Teconderoga, but the Americans sawed them off back in the 90s. We are building fewer 22350 frigates than they have destroyers. And all sorts of small missile ships and patrol ships have already shown in the Northern Military District what they are capable of, hiding in the bays from the forces of a country without a fleet. And now we have something to think about and grieve, because in Arly Burke alone there are more cells for Tomahawks than cells for Calibers in the entire warring Black Sea Fleet. And only in 2023, 3 Arleigh Burkes entered service, of which one is the newest series III.
      1. AAK
        +4
        2 July 2024 09: 30
        Indeed, the Tikis are very good ships, and very quickly (even by American standards) designed and built (the basis was the hulls of the Kidd-class destroyers, as well as the power plant developed on the Kidds and Spruances), about the set of weapons, and so on everything is clear... well, the photo at the beginning of the article awakened memories of my youth - the entrance of the AUG into the Mediterranean Sea (the rock in the background is Gibraltar), I observed a similar picture (though the aircraft carrier was not nuclear and the escort ships were different...)
      2. -5
        2 July 2024 15: 45
        Quote: ramzay21
        The Chinese fleet, which has never fought at sea with a normal enemy,

        You might think that the US Navy once fought with a normal enemy... Or are you talking about WWII and the US naval war with Japan? True, the ships and technologies there were completely different.
        Quote: ramzay21
        Teconderogas will be replaced by new destroyers and the total number of cells will even increase

        Did you read the article carefully? Tikki's value is not only in the number of cells, but also in the point of control and analysis of air combat. The Berks can't do that.
        Quote: ramzay21
        Our fleet, especially the surface fleet, cannot be compared with the American one for a long time

        Thanks, Cap! But the article is not about our fleet, but about THEM. A lot has been said about our fleet in other articles, why drag it in here?
        1. +2
          2 July 2024 22: 22
          You might think that the US Navy once fought with a normal enemy...

          Isn’t it an experience that they won the largest naval battles in history involving battleships, submarines, cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers? Did the Korean War in the 50s, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War take place without the participation of their fleet, which was opposed by our fleet? And wasn’t it also thanks to their fleet that they won the Cold War and successfully resisted us, creating a perfect combat-ready fleet?
          From the more recent war in Iraq in 1991, where the Americans defeated the Iraqi Navy, which was stronger than the Ukrainian Navy, simultaneously providing support to the coast and blockading the coast from the sea. Do the Chinese have such experience?
          Did you read the article carefully? Tikki's value is not only in the number of cells, but also in the point of control and analysis of air combat. The Berks can't do that.

          Yes, once upon a time Teconderogas outside the AUG were the centers of the KUG and in fact controlled the air defense of the formation. But the Arleigh Burkes of the modernized IIA series appeared, which easily replace the Teconderogas in this capacity, and the Arleigh Burkes of the III series, the first of which has already entered service, surpass them. And that is why the remaining Teconderogas are being removed from the fleet. Well, Americans are not fools.
          1. -1
            3 July 2024 09: 36
            Quote: ramzay21
            Isn’t it an experience that they won the largest naval battles in history involving battleships, submarines, cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers?

            These existed only in the US war with Japan.
            Well then our fleet is also one of the most experienced! Gangut, Sinop, Chesmen... wassat
            Quote: ramzay21
            Did the Korean War in the 50s, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War take place without the participation of their fleet, which was opposed by our fleet?

            Was our fleet opposing, or were databases being maintained between our fleets? Don't you find any difference?
            Quote: ramzay21
            From the more recent war in Iraq in 1991, where the Americans defeated the Iraqi Navy, which was stronger than the Ukrainian Navy, simultaneously providing support to the coast and blockading the coast from the sea. Do the Chinese have such experience?

            Oh yeah, the Iraqi fleet is certainly a serious fleet! Well, the Russian Armed Forces had experience maintaining a database in Syria. Did this help in any way in the SVO? Not at all, it actually did more harm.
            So, there is no need to fantasize. Neither the United States nor China have any experience or, IMHO, even an idea of ​​how databases of such large naval forces are maintained. And in turn, all victories of the US Navy over Japan were achieved only with a numerical superiority of two or more times. They did not demonstrate any military art or technological superiority then. And whether they can do it now is also a question.
            1. +1
              3 July 2024 10: 39
              Was our fleet opposing, or were databases being maintained between our fleets? Don't you find any difference?

              In the Korean War, their fleet ensured the supply and evacuation of their fighting army by sea and prevented our supplies by sea.
              During the Caribbean crisis, their fleet blockaded the coast of Cuba and prevented the passage of our convoy with missiles under the protection of submarines, forcing them to surface.
              In Vietnam, their fleet provided supplies, blockade and strikes.
              In all cases, their fleet completed its assigned tasks, without allowing any clashes with our fleet.
              Try to give an example of the actions of the Chinese Navy at the level of at least the Cuban Missile Crisis or the 1991 Iraq War.
              Oh yeah, the Iraqi fleet is certainly a serious fleet!

              The Iraqi fleet at that time was much more combat-ready than the Ukrainian fleet. However, after two years of hostilities, our fleet suffered serious losses and is hiding in bases while their military boats freely maneuver in the sea in the Odessa area.
              The American fleet destroyed the Iraqi fleet and blocked their coast, simultaneously supplying the landing forces and providing attacks on the coast.
              And in turn, all victories of the US Navy over Japan were achieved only with a numerical superiority of two or more times. They did not demonstrate any military art or technological superiority then.

              Amazing version of history! It’s immediately obvious that you haven’t read about the war at sea between the United States and Japan, which the whole world considers the largest naval war in history. And therefore, of course, you don’t know that the Japanese had a numerical advantage in the turning point battle of that war at Midway Atoll, as well as the fact that the Japanese had more aircraft carriers at the initial stage, and the best battleships in history remained two Yamato-class battleships! And you also don’t know that the Americans won that naval war on the basis of military naval art, competent planning of fleet composition and the ability to quickly build the necessary ships of good quality.
              The contrast is especially visible in the art of war, competent fleet planning and the ability to build the necessary ships if we compare their fleet then with our current Navy using the example of the Black Sea Fleet. Until now, they stubbornly build stupid ships that ingloriously die from the simplest crafts from shit and sticks, and neither at the factory nor in the fleet for 2 years they can install at least machine guns with thermal imagers on these misunderstandings and practice repelling the attack of some BECs and UAVs.
              But you continue to tell tales about the weak American fleet that repels, without problems and without losses, much more massive attacks by BECs and UAVs and Houthi anti-ship missiles
              1. -1
                3 July 2024 11: 28
                Quote: ramzay21
                In the Korean War, their fleet ensured the supply and evacuation of their fighting army by sea and prevented our supplies by sea.
                During the Caribbean crisis, their fleet blockaded the coast of Cuba and prevented the passage of our convoy with missiles under the protection of submarines, forcing them to surface.
                In Vietnam, their fleet provided supplies, blockade and strikes.
                In all cases, their fleet completed its assigned tasks, without allowing any clashes with our fleet.
                Try to give an example of the actions of the Chinese Navy at the level of at least the Cuban Missile Crisis or the 1991 Iraq War.

                This is all very, very far from combat. And why compare warm with soft is completely unclear to me.
                In the Caribbean crisis, as far as I remember, the Americans raised only ONE of our submarines.
                Quote: ramzay21
                The Iraqi fleet at that time was much more combat-ready than the Ukrainian fleet. However, after two years of hostilities, our fleet suffered serious losses and is hiding in bases while their military boats freely maneuver in the sea in the Odessa area.

                Did the Ukrainian Armed Forces have a FLEET? All our losses are from RCC and BEC. And calling inflatable boats with a motor a fleet is somehow not entirely adequate...
                Quote: ramzay21
                And therefore, of course, you don’t know that the Japanese had a numerical advantage in the turning point battle of that war at Midway Atoll, as well as the fact that the Japanese had more aircraft carriers at the initial stage, and the best battleships in history remained two Yamato-class battleships!

                At Midway, if there was any superiority of the Japanese, it was insignificant. The number of pennants matters little here. But aircraft carriers and the quality of their aircraft in that war turned out to be the decisive factor. Even more significant than the most advanced Battleships of Japan. The Battle of Midway, although considered a turning point, is still not the defeat of Japan. Subsequently, the United States fought only with a significant numerical advantage.
                Quote: ramzay21
                The contrast is especially visible in the art of war, competent fleet planning and the ability to build the necessary ships if we compare their fleet then with our current Navy using the example of the Black Sea Fleet.

                So this is no longer the art of maintaining a database by the fleet, this is strategic planning by the country’s leadership. And they won only because they were far ahead of the Japanese in producing aircraft carriers and aircraft for them.
      3. +2
        2 July 2024 18: 16
        As far as I have read, the decisive reason for accepting the Arleigh Burkes was their cost - 3 Burkes for the price of 2 Tick.
  2. +12
    2 July 2024 05: 44
    I was in Norfolk a couple of months ago. I won’t say that these are cruisers, but they are actively building (or repairing) something there at various shipyards. And this can be seen by a simple “teapot” like me, who drinks beer in a bar on the shore
    1. -3
      2 July 2024 06: 05
      For Ticonderoga. drinks
      Without clinking glasses. drinks drinks drinks
      Send it to the museum into the caring hands of corrosion. Yes good (C) Raise the periscope.
      1. +11
        2 July 2024 09: 43
        I visited Yorktown in 1992 during their visit to Vladivostok. I have only seen such cleanliness and order in our fleet on the Marshal Ustinov. And I remember well what our 20- and 30-year-old Project 1134A BODs were like: there was a corrosion hole in the superstructure deck, the edges of which were soft and collapsed when pressed. So don’t be dismissive of the Ticonderogas, they were cool and formidable cruisers and they were far from dummies. And the mileage they each have is as long as our entire fleet has miles on its propellers.
    2. +1
      2 July 2024 06: 57
      Naval Base Norfolk is huge, there is constantly something being sawed, cooked, painted.
    3. 0
      2 July 2024 18: 23
      I will not say that these are cruisers

      So the cruiser URO Tikodenroga, in fact, is a tuned destroyer Spruence.
  3. +8
    2 July 2024 06: 15
    What a different approach we and the Americans have to the service life of ships. In our country, 18-20 years is considered almost a new ship. "Perfect" would have already been written off in America. soldier
    1. +3
      2 July 2024 08: 00
      Everything is simpler. The first five Tikis were written off because they did not have air defense devices; they began installing fire control devices only starting from the 6th corps.
    2. 0
      2 July 2024 16: 05
      The ship must serve. And then it needs to be replaced. Industry needs to work, and sailors need new ships, not ones that are constantly being repaired.
      True, something has broken with this in America.
    3. 0
      2 July 2024 18: 32
      What a different approach we and the Americans have to the service life of ships

      An important issue here is the financing of the military-industrial complex and, accordingly, the income of it and its stakeholders.
  4. +4
    2 July 2024 06: 16
    Thank you, Roman!
    Everything is very colorful and artistic.
    Well, the era of Ticondirog is over, and there is nothing to replace it. The classification given is absolutely correct - these are not cruisers, but leaders of destroyers.
    And here the question arises: why are some ultra-light cruisers needed in the role of leaders, units that are practically the same in purpose? That's right - for nothing. Arleigh Burke can do everything too, only cheaper. Well, as for the squadron's command center - it is possible to convert several destroyers into flagships, reducing the range of weapons.
    And as for Chinese expansion in the oceans, it made me smile. In this configuration of military alliances, lone China is locked in the Yellow Sea and the South China Sea, so the power of the Chinese Navy is impressive, but the projection of this power is not so much.
    1. 0
      2 July 2024 18: 47
      Burkes increased from series to series and almost grew in size and displacement to Spruens, from which, in fact, Tikis were made, but it is not yet possible to cram something that cannot be crammed onto them.
      1. 0
        3 July 2024 14: 15
        In the third series, they completely replaced all the avionics of the command post and they can perfectly well be the leaders of the KUG.
        1. 0
          3 July 2024 16: 45
          Here we are not talking about whether they can become leaders of the CCG, because they can be any specialized control ships. Here we are talking about the possibility of a complete replacement of the functionality and capabilities of Tikodenrog.
  5. +8
    2 July 2024 06: 28
    1 The United States has been the strongest naval power and will remain so, with China in the role of catching up. You cannot compare the fleet by the number of pennants, 2 I think that the Japanese fleet is stronger than the Chinese. By the way, China understands this.
    Why did the author not provide any comparative information about the Russian fleet?
    Or the author believes that Russians and Chinese are brothers forever. We've already been through this.
    1. +14
      2 July 2024 08: 11
      Why did the author not provide any comparative information about the Russian fleet?

      And we have nothing to boast about. Of the surface and combat-ready frigates, only THREE 25 frigates have entered service in 22350 years, which are significantly inferior to the destroyer Arleigh Burke, destroyers are not even being designed, and MRKs and patrol ships without air defense and anti-aircraft defense, which en masse go to the fleet, have already proven themselves in actions against a country without a fleet, RKR Moscow, which was a real force in the 80s too. It’s better not to remember about PMO.
      In fact, the construction of the surface fleet over the past 34 years has been unsystematic and completely failed. Although, even with the funds allocated for the surface fleet, it would be possible to build at least a massive anti-aircraft/air defense corvette with UKSK and cover at least the needs of the near sea zone, instead of a zoo of stupid MRKs, patrol ships 22160 and expensive corvettes 20380/20385.
    2. -7
      2 July 2024 10: 30
      “The United States has always been the strongest naval power and will remain so.” But you, sir, are a seer. Guarantee for the future. But they will take and materialize the film “The Fall of the Empire” in reality. What is not the future of America?
      1. +5
        2 July 2024 11: 52
        But they will take and materialize the film “The Fall of the Empire” in reality. What is not the future of America?

        Right! Why should our leaders strain themselves and build a fleet? You have to work hard and strain yourself! Better to wait! What if aliens attack Omeriga and defeat them! Well, either the supervolcano will die or meteorites will arrive!
        1. -2
          2 July 2024 13: 30
          What does our government have to do with it? I simply responded to the statement - America is “always first.” But our government is a separate issue. I’m still surprised how this crowd doesn’t laugh out loud when Putin, with a smart look, is telling them about his wishes. Through all their activities, these types have proven that creating is not about them. Cutting the budget - yes.
          1. 0
            2 July 2024 17: 30
            Quote: Khibiny Plastun
            I simply responded to the statement - America is “always first.”

            The question is substantive, but the person you are asking did not write that the United States will forever be first at sea. His statement rather refers to the fact that after the withdrawal of Ticonderoga, the superiority of the US Navy will not go away.
            Quote: Khibiny Plastun
            But they will take and materialize the film “The Fall of the Empire” in reality.

            It is fantastic. The movie, I mean. A president like the one depicted there will be removed long before he has time to cause a significant row. In general, the USA, of course, does not look like a healthy state and the further it gets, the worse it gets, but it is still very, very far from falling
            1. 0
              2 July 2024 18: 07
              Good evening, dear Andrey Nikolaevich.
              Let's see, what remains for us? But who knows, the Democrats will begin to put pressure on the Republicans, as in the last elections, they will imprison Trump and systematically continue to cheat, this will heat up the Republican States and away we go. Sometimes it’s easier to start than to stop.
              But this is such a lyrical digression from the topic of the article.
              It’s a pity that you don’t often post articles on the resource. Your articles comparing the characteristics of ships, analysis of the ships themselves... can be called the golden fund of VO. and the comments were no less interesting to read.
              The field is not completely plowed, huh? Maybe some more?
              1. 0
                2 July 2024 21: 19
                Thank you for your kind words, but for now I am immersed in the issues of armor penetration of RYAV guns, which is what I write about, posting articles once every one or two weeks.
      2. 0
        2 July 2024 15: 08
        Over the years, fantasy plays out more and more
      3. +2
        2 July 2024 15: 55
        Quote: Khibiny Plastun
        in, how. But you, sir, are a seer. Guarantee for the future. But they will take and materialize the film “The Fall of the Empire” in reality. What is not the future of America?

        Well, yes!!! They're idiots right there! They can’t even rot in time as they should. In the USSR, from the middle of the last century, they were told everything - you’re rotting, you’re rotting. But they still can’t cope. Well stupid!!! (With)
    3. +1
      2 July 2024 15: 51
      1. I agree completely.
      2. I don’t agree. China has already surpassed Japan in fleet. How many aircraft carriers do the Japanese have? What about the nuclear submarine?
      3. So as not to spoil the mood of a good article. This article is not about our Navy. And it is right. You should not compare the 5th point with your finger.
  6. +3
    2 July 2024 06: 56
    Teak initially had a problem with the hulls. The designers, wanting to save the weight of the hull, made a mistake with the longitudinal strength. Cracks in the plating, and possibly in the frame of the hull, that’s why they were written off. And thank God. Without clinking glasses.
    1. 0
      2 July 2024 22: 34
      The hull was based on Spruence, and 7 and 10 thousand tons of displacement are still a noticeable difference.
      1. +1
        2 July 2024 23: 08
        Well, we could recalculate the longitudinal strength, the results from the new dimensions and weights inside the body. But I think that a fairly common phenomenon has happened - to cram maximum weapons into minimum displacement. The admirals "pushed" the designers.
  7. -3
    2 July 2024 07: 17
    For objective reasons, the strength of the US Navy will decrease in the main classes of ships until 2030-2032, but then some revival is possible - if new frigates begin to enter service, which, in addition to being built at home, the United States also wants to order from South Korea . But this is if nothing happens to the United States itself before that time and if we all survive until that time, because the hegemon does not know how to lose and does not intend to and can do any kind of crazy things in the very near future, without waiting for his own natural death.
    What would I like to say about the desired and very real/possible prospects for the development of our Fleet in the light of what we have read and what we expect? After all, at the recent Security Council, a new shipbuilding program for the Fleet was discussed; the president expressed his intention to load all shipyards so “that not a single slipway stands idle,” as well as his intention to build two more large shipyards (in the Far East and the North). And of the most anticipated, of course, we have the laying down of a series of “large frigates”, Project 22350M. Its approximate parameters and characteristics are known, and since the article so actively counted the cells on American ships, then for comparison, purely for mental gymnastics, we can count those on the 22350M. Let's take the most modest available data:
    - 48 cells in the 6th UKSK for strike weapons (PLUR, GZ anti-ship missiles "Zircon", "Caliber", "Calibr-M" \range up to 4500 km\),
    - 64 cells of the Poliment-Redut air defense missile system,
    - two modules of the Pantsir-M air defense system.
    We will not consider other types of weapons; this has already been done more than once, but since... In the article, special emphasis was placed on the number of UVP cells, let’s count and compare.
    In terms of the number of strike missiles, our frigate is of course inferior to the Burke, in addition, at least 8 cells will be loaded with the Answer PLUR, as a result, only 40 cells remain on the anti-ship missiles and missile launchers. But all of them, or a large/significant part of them, can be loaded with GB “Zircons” and this is a qualitatively very serious argument. In addition, no one is stopping you from placing not 6, but 8 UKSK on a frigate, if there is talk about achieving parity between the frigate and the destroyer.
    But here are 64 cells for the Redut air defense missile system... this is already interesting. Of course, the basis of its ammunition is medium-range missiles, but for a frigate to have such a number of missiles with a range of up to 120 - 150 km. , it is very serious . Both in terms of the capabilities of repelling an air attack, and in comparison with the capabilities of the Burke. In addition, if at least one UKSK (8 cells) is loaded with short-range missiles (4 pieces in each cell), then our BC of the Redut air defense system will be: 56 + 32 = 88 missiles (with each AGSN).
    But that’s not all in terms of the ship’s anti-aircraft capabilities, we also have two modules of the Pantsir-M air defense system, and that’s another 2 x 32 = 64 missiles (if all the missiles are only “large”). And if we count the number of Pantsire-M missiles along with the Nails (light missiles with a range of up to 10 km), we get: 44 x 2 = 88 missiles with a range of 10 and 40 km.
    In total, we get the total ammo capacity for missiles: 88 + 88 = 176 pcs.
    Oops... but none of the existing ships have anything like this in terms of air defense. And this is “just a frigate.” And this is with a very good (for a frigate) ammo ammo of strike weapons.
    If only we could wait for more such ships to be in service, life would take on completely different colors.
    1. +10
      2 July 2024 07: 35
      Quote: bayard
      In total, we get the total ammo capacity for missiles: 88 + 88 = 176 pcs.
      Oops... but none of the existing ships have anything like this in terms of air defense

      Come on:)))))))
      In a third of the mines of the UVP "Arly" we install containers with ESSM missiles (4 pcs per shaft) in total - 128 missiles + 48 mines for standards = 176 missiles, and another 16 mines for ASROK with tomahawks left + 24 "Sparrows" at IIA...
      1. 0
        2 July 2024 08: 32
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Come on:)))))))

        Andrey, well, I counted at the very minimum - I filled only one UKSK Reduta with short-range missiles, and there were only 8 of them (UKSK). Simply having two Pantsir-M modules, we already have plenty of short-range missiles. If you just count the cells, then the 22350M has 112 of them. (48 + 64), plus "Pantsiri-M" with their missiles up to 40 km. range (against a large non-maneuverable target, against a fighter - 32 km). Here there is parity in cells with “Ticks” alone... in quantity. Well, it’s a frigate after all. His VI is only 8 tons (full).
        But if, on the basis of this project, we build a VI destroyer of 10 - 000 tons, supply it with an AFAR radar (like the modernized Nakhimov), add cells - for strike weapons 12 in 000 UKKS, and for heavy missiles (BD at 64 and 8 km), in general the beauty will be inexpressible. Now “Almaz-Antey” seems to be sawing modifications of such missiles so that they can fit into the standard UKSK cell. Add 250 UKSK for such (heavy) missiles on the waist, and there will be a “Thunderstorm of the Seas”:
        - 64 drum cells,
        - 96 cells for missiles (of which 32 are for heavy missiles and 64 for “Redoubt”).
        And after all, all the components are already available - they have been tested at Gorshkov and Nakhimov. The main thing is that ship designs of increasing class should be a development of the previous one. Then the number of possible errors will be minimized, as will the novelty factor. This means that cooperation will be simplified, prices will be optimized (in the good sense of the word), technical processes will be simplified and unified, personnel training, maintenance, repairs, and operation in general will be simplified.
        A fleet takes a long time to build and is expensive, so mistakes must be eliminated at the planning stage, because these mistakes are immeasurably expensive.
        1. +3
          2 July 2024 11: 05
          Unfortunately, these are calculations of projections that do not exist in metal. And supastat has it in stock. That's when, at least they lay down a couple, then these same "M" can be counted. In the meantime, we only have "Nakhimov", what to count. Which at the end of the year will finally strengthen the fleet.
          1. 0
            2 July 2024 19: 03
            Quote: Khibiny Plastun
            Unfortunately, these are calculations of projections that do not exist in metal.

            This is an assessment of the project that was being prepared for construction at the Amur Shipyard. The fact that, thanks to the more compact cells of the Redut air defense system, the 8 ton VI can accommodate the same number of strike and defensive weapons cells as the Ticonderoga cruiser. And taking into account the missile defense systems of two Pantsir-M modules and summing up their firing channels with those of the Poliment-Redut, we get a fantastic 000 + 8 = 16.
            Once again - assessment of the project and comparison with the enemy’s existing ones.
            And let the Prosecutor General's Office, the Investigative Committee and the new Minister of Defense talk about reality.

            Quote: Khibiny Plastun
            That's when they'll at least lay down a couple of these same "M"

            This was impossible because, according to the head of VTB, the former management of USC turned the company into a “financial pyramid for theft of public funds” and drove it to bankruptcy. As a result, not only new projects were not launched, but also those ships that were supposed to be commissioned last year (for example, the frigate Admiral Isakov) were stuck without funding. "Isakov" has not yet been launched! And now it will be commissioned only next year. And according to the plan, two more frigates of the improved project 22350.1 were supposed to be delivered to the customer this year. Their delivery has been postponed to an even more distant future. All the money was stolen. And Shevtsova, allegedly, fled safely to France.
            Quote: Khibiny Plastun
            so far we only have "Nakhimov", what to count. Which at the end of the year will finally strengthen the fleet.

            It will not strengthen the Fleet by the end of the year, as some expected - only in October will it begin factory sea trials. Maybe next year. The same thing with "Kuznetsov".
            And there is no need to imagine Project 22350M as some kind of child prodigy in pipe dreams. This is just an enlarged frigate "Gorshkov". These can be built in large series on existing shipyards. This does not require a “new boathouse,” which was actually built for the construction of nuclear destroyers.
            1. +1
              2 July 2024 21: 34
              Quote: bayard
              This was impossible because, according to the head of VTB, the former management of USC turned the company into a “financial pyramid for theft of public funds” and drove it to bankruptcy.

              To be honest, it’s more like the first envelope “blame it all on the assholes.” It seems to me that the RF Ministry of Defense simply forced USC to contract at a loss, so....
              Quote: bayard
              Andrey, well, I counted at the very minimum - I filled only one UKSK Reduta with short-range missiles, and there were only 8 of them (UKSK).

              This is all good, but on Arly of the latest third series - AN/SPY-6, in comparison with which our Polyment... is a little different. Simply put, the American will surpass us both in range and channel, in which Polyment is strictly limited. Ours has 4 targets per grid that can be fired upon, and that’s all.
              1. -2
                2 July 2024 22: 15
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It seems to me that the RF Ministry of Defense simply forced USC to contract at a loss, so....

                Who was forced? Sechin?? One minister, a deputy, tried it and only got out of prison in 22. wassat
                1. +2
                  2 July 2024 23: 03
                  Saxahorse, I’m afraid to even ask where you saw Sechin
                  1. -1
                    3 July 2024 00: 17
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Saxahorse, I’m afraid to even ask where you saw Sechin

                    Well, it’s hard not to notice a person of this size... To do this, you probably need to be Andrey from Chelyabinsk laughing

                    May 14, 2008 Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin has been appointed as the new chairman of the board of directors of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), announced Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov.


                    October 03, 2011 The owner of NLMK, Vladimir Lisin, headed the board of directors of OJSC United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), as follows from the information on the company’s website.
                    Previously, the chairman of the council was Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who left his post as part of the execution of the instructions of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on the withdrawal of high-ranking officials from the boards of directors of companies with state participation.


                    July 31, 2012 Former president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Roman Trotsenko (net worth $950 million - 104th place in Russia according to Forbes rating) went to work for Rosneft, where he became an adviser to the head of the company Igor Sechin.. Roman Trotsenko came to USC in December 2009. It was reported that Igor Sechin, who then headed the board of directors of USC, played a significant role in this appointment. During Trotsenko’s leadership, he managed to consolidate all state-owned shipbuilding enterprises within the USC. The corporation's net profit increased from 96 billion rubles in 2009 to 779 billion in 2011.


                    25.04.2013/XNUMX/XNUMX The head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, was again actively involved in the work of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC). It was with him that the current wave of criticism of USC began, against the backdrop of which the discussion about changing the head of the corporation intensified. USC itself is now primarily counting on large-scale orders from Rosneft, linking with this the resumption of its largest projects - the construction of a new shipyard in Kotlin and Zvezda in the Far East. Igor Sechin has already raised the issue of the situation in USC to the level of President Vladimir Putin,


                    And so on. But since Andrei believes that Mr. Sechin has nothing to do with USC, then of course Andrei will have to believe it. wassat
                    1. +1
                      3 July 2024 07: 21
                      Yes, indeed, it would be better not to ask.
                      You wrote
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Who was forced? Sechin??

                      That is, in your opinion, Sechin is a person in whose interests it is to protect the interests of USC.
                      And at the same time, you yourself provide data that he
                      1) Left USC immediately after the 2011-2020 Civil Partnership Program began
                      2) Retained influence on USC management
                      And given the fact that Sechin is the head of Rosneft, which is a customer of USC, how did he use his influence?
                      Any reasonable person will say that for the benefit of Rosneft, that is, Sechin simply twisted the arms of USC. But Saxachorse is sure that Sechin, of course, acted for the good of USC.
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      But since Andrei believes that Mr. Sechin has nothing to do with USC

                      Sechin has nothing to do with the interests of USC, he is not their defender
                      1. -1
                        3 July 2024 22: 55
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Sechin has nothing to do with the interests of USC, he is not their defender

                        Now yes, not a defender. Sechin created the USC, and he buried it. (They say that it was Sechin who agreed on the transfer of USC shares to VTB.)
                      2. +1
                        4 July 2024 08: 17
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Now yeah, not a defender

                        You may not remember, but in 2011, the first serial order of USC from the Ministry of Defense arose - the five "Ash". (the Boreev series was contracted later). And the dust stood to the ceiling, because the Moscow Region and USC could not agree on prices, where the GDP personally intervened. In the end we agreed, but
                        Regarding the problems with concluding a contract under the state defense order in 2011, A. Dyachkov said that “The Ministry of Defense has defined completely new approaches to pricing products, so the first 6 months were spent ensuring that the military department and I came to a common understanding on pricing for products. At the end of August, such an understanding was found, and we began to formulate prices, and subsequently justified them in the Ministry of Defense. The work was completed on November 9 with the signing of documents.”

                        And Sechin left USC in August 2011. You can regard this as a well-known animal running away from the ship when prices were cut, you can - “the Moor has done his job, the Moor can leave,” they say he pushed through the first serial government contract - then on your own, but the point is that In any case, Sechin was not involved in government contracts for the Moscow Region under the State Program of Promotion. And they, too, did not kill USC immediately, but years later, because the problem is that the Moscow Region calculates inflation according to official, and not real data. If the official deflator index is 5%, then it will add 5% to the price of the ship, and it’s the same as if metal prices jumped by 25%.
                        At that time, Sechin acted as an interested party of USC’s customer, Rosneft, and he was unable to defend USC. Moreover, between us, Sechin is not a production worker and does not delve into production problems
                      3. 0
                        4 July 2024 21: 58
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And Sechin left USC in August 2011.

                        It’s not that he left, but that he was asked. I returned in 2013, as I reminded you just above.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        because the problem is that the Moscow Region calculates inflation according to official, and not real data.

                        It's still simpler and worse. They would agree on inflation and prices. But USC’s business plan was based on the desire to organize a screwdriver assembly of ships from Western components. Following the example of Superjet and AvtoVAZ. After South Korea and Japan joined the sanctions, this plan was covered with a copper basin. There is no own production of components and there are huge government contracts with penalties. Next you saw, USC instantly went to our main drain bank for bad assets.
                      4. +1
                        5 July 2024 06: 37
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Returned in 2013

                        “Going to work” and “returning” are very different things.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        But USC’s business plan was based on the desire to organize a screwdriver assembly of ships from Western components

                        This definitely does not apply to state defense orders. And for everyone else... Doubtful. Rather, there was a lack of domestic producers.
                      5. -1
                        5 July 2024 21: 08
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This definitely does not apply to state defense orders. And for everyone else... Doubtful. Rather, there was a lack of domestic producers.

                        Is it a surprise to you that our corvettes were powered by German diesel engines? You missed a lot, the circus with attempts to integrate diesel from diesel locomotives and dancing with tambourines around Chinese engines, for example.. laughing

                        But of course there is no domestic manufacturer, as one would expect. Where will he suddenly come from? Thanks to the efforts of the bakery crunchers, the once mighty Soviet industry was almost completely eliminated. But no one tried to create a new industry. Where will manufacturers suddenly appear without orders and investments? Even mold, it appears from dampness, you need to sprinkle it with something... And in the emptiness only Manilov dreams hover, and reports from fraudsters.
                      6. +1
                        5 July 2024 22: 52
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Is it a surprise to you that our corvettes were powered by German diesel engines?

                        This is a surprise for you. I wrote about this in the year of your birth, approximately 2018
                      7. -1
                        6 July 2024 20: 32
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                        This is a surprise for you. I wrote about this in the year of your birth, approximately 2018

                        Well, why then turn on the “fool”?
                        This definitely does not apply to state defense orders.

                        Isn't this your pearl?

                        In general, Andrey is in his repertoire... Let's finish here.
                      8. +1
                        6 July 2024 20: 55
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Well, why then turn on the “fool”?

                        Saxahorse, corvette engines have the same relation to USC as you have to logic - that is, nothing at all.
                        "Steregushchy" was laid down in 2001. Gorshkov - in 2006. And USC appeared on March 21, 2007, accordingly, only a person who has not mastered the calendar can blame this structure for the presence of imported engines for 20380 and 22350.
                        And even if it was USC that designed corvettes and frigates, then in this case the question about the engines is not for them, but for the Ministry of Defense, which managed to choose such a configuration
              2. 0
                2 July 2024 23: 29
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                To be honest, it’s more like the first envelope “blame it all on the assholes”

                That's exactly what it is. But the frontrunners tried VERY hard to have something to pile on.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It seems to me that the RF Ministry of Defense simply forced USC to contract at a loss, so....

                So it was. But not only that. There they piled up loans like crazy, but they didn’t build ships, or they did it very “slowly” (slowly, relaxed). But very... no - they reported VERY bravely and stated unrealistic deadlines for the delivery of the ships. "Isakov" was supposed to be delivered the year before last, was postponed to last year, then to THIS... but as it turns out now (mid-2024) it is just being prepared for launching!! And they promise to deliver it in the future. But even according to the gallant reports of last year, THIS year TWO frigates of the improved project 22350.1 were supposed to be delivered to the customer at once.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                on Arly of the last third series - AN/SPY-6, in comparison with which our Polyment... is a little different.

                But who equated the Gorshkov radar with the Burke? The discussion was (I specifically emphasized this) about comparing the number of cells with strike and defensive weapons. This is still a frigate, its missile range is no more than 120 - 150 km. , and radars cannot be compared. But the ability to repel a massive air raid, missile defense, etc. The 22350M anti-ship missile system is no lower, and in terms of the stock of missiles on board it is seriously higher than that of the Burke. Here it is no longer the range that is important, but the channel capacity of the air defense system and the stock of missile defense systems. The 22350M has significantly more of the latter.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                along the channel in which Polyment is strictly limited. Ours has 4 targets per grid that can be fired upon, and that’s all.

                This is not “just”, but 4 target designation channels per canvas, of which “Polyment” has four. Those. In total (in the event of repelling the Star Raid), all 16 target designation channels of the Poliment-Reduta will be used. And you missed one most important thing - all Reduta missile defense systems have an AGSN. Those. Having given the missile defense the lead point, the channel is freed up and can deal with the next target, because having reached the target acquisition line, the missile defense system itself will capture it and aim at it. So the productivity of Poliment-Redut is actually very high. Potentially, of course, because any theory must be confirmed by practice. But the air defense system still has 16 firing channels per circle.
                But even this is not all about the air defense channel of this frigate. We have dropped out of consideration two Pantsir-M modules. I don’t have reliable data about its channel capacity, but if we just left as many as the Pantsir-S1, then each module has four firing channels - three radar and one optical on each. If the modules are located not side by side, but linearly (on the tank, in the place where the “Gorshkov” has the “Reduta” cells and the second one behind/above the helicopter hangar). Each one will then have a firing sector of about 270 degrees. and both will be able to fire on one side. And "Pantsir" showed itself very well in the Northern Military District. I personally witnessed how one shell intercepted 12 Uragan MLRS missiles in one continuous salvo. And two more remaining missiles were intercepted by the second Pantsir. So, even if the enemy anti-ship missiles “shish kebab” from one angle at the side of the ship, at least 4 Poliment-Reduta channels will work simultaneously on them (which does not need to be aimed, just give target designation to the missiles at launch) and 8 firing channels two modules of the Pantsir-M air defense system. Those. at least 12 firing channels will operate simultaneously. To penetrate such air defense it will not even take very much, but simply a breakthrough of anti-ship missiles. I am telling you this as a professional reserve officer of the Air Defense Forces of the Country of the Soviets. As a combat control officer for an air defense formation.
                But the new AFAR radar and missile defense system should already be on a promising destroyer - a somewhat enlarged version of the 22350, with a new radar and increased ammunition capacity of strike weapons and missile defense system.
                1. 0
                  3 July 2024 08: 36
                  Quote: bayard
                  But very... no - they reported VERY bravely and stated unrealistic deadlines for the delivery of the ships.

                  Alas, this is the practice of the State Defense Order. Try to declare that you will not fulfill the state defense order (even when you know for sure that you will not fulfill it)
                  Quote: bayard
                  It's still a frigate

                  While it was Gorshkov, yes, but 22350M is essentially a destroyer.
                  Quote: bayard
                  This is not “just”, but 4 target designation channels per canvas, of which “Polyment” has four. Those. In total (in the event of repelling the Star Raid), all 16 target designation channels of the Poliment-Reduta will be used.

                  If I were the enemy, instead of a star raid, I would launch an attack from two opposite directions and correspondingly overload the channels.
                  Quote: bayard
                  And you missed one most important thing - all Reduta missile defense systems have an AGSN. Those. Having given the missile defense lead point, the channel is freed up and can deal with the next target

                  Not at all sure. At least foreign systems work differently - the radar provides correction for missiles from the AGSN until the target is captured by this same AGSN, and this is 10-15 km. Accordingly, when firing at 75 km, the radar gun accompanies the missile defense system and the target at least 60 km
                  As for the rest, I would be very happy that we have the 22350M, but I don’t think that air defense will be its strong point in comparison with foreigners
                  1. 0
                    3 July 2024 18: 34
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Alas, this is the practice of the State Defense Order. Try to say that you won’t fulfill the state defense order.

                    Yes, the fact of the matter is that in PRINCIPLE they were not going to fulfill the State Defense Order, but at the same time they reported almost until the day the ship was delivered that everything was going “according to schedule.” But in real life they simply converted rubles into bitcoins.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    While it was Gorshkov, yes, but 22350M is essentially a destroyer.

                    As I understand it, both in our country and in the West, the gradation of ships is based not so much on the composition of strike weapons and combat weapons, but on the presence/absence of a missile database and the corresponding radar on board. Therefore, the 22350M with its “Polyment” and medium-range missiles is classified as a frigate. And replace its radar with a more far-sighted AFAR radar, and add a missile defense system to the BC - and you have a destroyer. Such an AFAR radar (as far as I understand, because there is no reliable information in the public domain) was created for "Nakhimov" and in the future, in this or a slightly truncated form, it could be installed on a domestic destroyer, which in essence will be somewhat enlarged 22350M, but with a new radar and cells SAM database, and with everything else practically unchanged.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    If I were the enemy, instead of a star raid, I would launch an attack from two opposite directions and correspondingly overload the channels.

                    Shashlik? Bearing? Front?
                    This is important because the “kebab” is not capable of overloading the air defense system, it simply depletes its ammunition, and all anti-ship missiles of this salvo will be consistently hit by the air defense systems, which are very good on the 22350. After all, even if only one Poliment canvas and one Pantsir-M will work against each of the two (?) attack directions, this will be 4 + 4 = 8 firing channels. Moreover, in the case of a “kebab”, one “Pantsir-M” will cope with the raid, which will only be replaced by “Redoubt” during reloading (quite fast). In the case of a “front” and “bearing” with a high degree of probability (in theory, of course, because practice/ship is still far away) by the joint efforts of the 4 channels of the Redoubt and the 4 channels of the Pantsir, such a raid will also be reflected. It will be very difficult to overload such capabilities, because to do this you will have to use literally dozens of missiles from each direction.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    foreign complexes work differently - the radar gives correction to the missiles from the AGSN until the target is captured by this same AGSN, and this is 10-15 km.

                    And at what distance is a ship’s radar capable of detecting anti-ship missiles in WWI? 25 - 35 km.. It is at this distance that the ship’s air defense system will have to operate, and, as a rule, in automatic mode. And the firing channels will be cleared almost as targets appear above the horizon.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    when firing at 75 km, the radar accompanies the missile defense system and the target at least 60 km

                    If the targets come at higher altitudes, then there will be even more time for reaction and interception. If they go to both medium and WWI at the same time, "Redoubt" and "Pantsir" will divide the functions and each will do their own. But the greater the distance from the start of the battle, the more comfortable it will be for the air defense missile system crews to work. In any case, in terms of air defense, the 0M will be a pretty tough nut to crack, even with Poliment, Redut and Pantsir-M. But it’s much more interesting for me to look at the radar system of the cruiser “Nakhimov” and its capabilities. According to rumors, it will have 22350 Pantsir-M modules, as well as Forta-6 and Reduta missile defense systems. . In terms of BC, the missile defense system is simply a monster, but in terms of combat performance... 2 x 6 = 4 - only "Pantsir" firing channels.
                    But the enemies of the People have already done their job - the ships were not built on time and were not in time for the war.
                    1. 0
                      4 July 2024 08: 25
                      Quote: bayard
                      Shashlik? Bearing? Front?

                      2-3 Hornets rise from under the radio horizon, drop a pair of Harpoons and a pair of MALD blocks (4 each), and go back under the horizon to retreat, and 20-30 air targets with the same signature go towards the ship . And if after the launch they go to ultra-small ones, then it will be fun...
                      Quote: bayard
                      And at what distance is a ship’s radar capable of detecting anti-ship missiles in WWI? 25 - 35 km..

                      But he also needs to work on airplanes :)))))
                      Quote: bayard
                      In any case, in terms of air defense, the 22350M will be a pretty tough nut to crack.

                      I don't argue at all. Will. I myself was very happy when the first rumors about the 22350M came out, it’s just a pity that
                      Quote: bayard
                      the enemies of the People have already done it - the ships were not built on time
                      1. 0
                        4 July 2024 09: 44
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        MALD

                        An interesting product, but it is more for simulating an airplane, not a missile launcher. Moreover, this is precisely a false target, without a seeker. And in the algorithm of the fire control system and air defense system - hitting targets by priority. A rocket/missiles are flying at the ship - shoot it down. Strange objects are flying “here and there” - you can ignore them until the threat to the ship itself is eliminated. But they can, and probably will, work with such rubbish to deplete the missile defense system of an enemy ship. So if there are from 4 to 12 anti-ship missiles in this herd, then with a high degree of probability they will be intercepted. If the air defense system is operational and meets the stated characteristics. Even Pantsirs alone can cope with this. It was not for nothing that I gave an example of the Pantsir intercepting twelve Hurricane missiles coming in one dense salvo. Why not barbecue? Moreover, the targets were supersonic and ballistic. 12 out of 12! And this happened more than once. But I myself witnessed exactly that incident (spring 2022). Everything happened over Donetsk.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And if after the launch they go to ultra-small ones, then it will be fun...

                        RCC will definitely go away. Only Pantsir-M has just such a specialization. But WWI simulators will not be able to - they will loom at a slightly higher altitude and fly “somewhere there”.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: bayard
                        And at what distance is a ship’s radar capable of detecting anti-ship missiles in WWI? 25 - 35 km..

                        But he also needs to work on airplanes :)

                        This is if the planes are within range of the air defense system. And if not, or immediately after that they dive under the horizon again, then why care about them?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        it's just a pity that

                        And I'm sorry . After all, I took part in the discussion of its appearance - in communication with one of the designers. He was so inspired then that, despite the day off, he ran home to his drawing tools. And half a year later he sent me a photograph of the model from the exhibition; it is most often presented as an approximate appearance of the 22350M. So I'm especially rooting for this ship. If the Pantsir modules are also placed linearly (and not on board), the price for the ship will not be higher. But they need to be laid immediately on Amursky, and not wait until this circus with the “new boathouse” is over.
                      2. 0
                        4 July 2024 10: 59
                        I agree with all the reasons you listed. hi
                        Quote: bayard
                        This is if the planes are within range of the air defense system. And if not, or immediately after that they dive under the horizon again, then why care about them?

                        With them - yes, none. To divert the guidance channels to 2-3 Hornet aircraft, it will not be enough; you also need a demonstration group with a Growler - to show up, attack the PRR, jam, etc. All this is also possible, the Americans intended to work this way, but, of course, this significantly complicates the organization of the raid.
                        Therefore, I agree with you that although the RLK 22350M will be weaker than the Amer, the goal is still very, very difficult.
                      3. 0
                        4 July 2024 13: 18
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Therefore, I agree with you that although the RLK 22350M will be weaker than the Amer, the goal is still very, very difficult.

                        If we equip the 22350M frigate missile launcher for a defensive battle, then only in the 64 cells of the Redoubt we will get 112 missiles - by loading 2 UKS MD missiles we will get 64 units. + 48 SD missiles in the remaining 6 UKKS. And in two modules of “Pantsir-M” there are 2 x 44 = 88 missiles, taking into account “Nails”.
                        Total - 200 missiles for one frigate, not counting the Pantsirey guns and main guns, which can also attack air targets - with programmable projectiles. In general, it would have turned out to be fireworks.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        To divert the guidance channels to 2-3 Hornet aircraft, it will not be enough; you also need a demonstration group with a Growler - to show up, attack the PRR, jam, etc.

                        PRRs are shot down like any other missiles, the air defense system has shown this well, and aircraft at a distance inaccessible to the air defense systems will not load the firing channels and will simply be escorted. But they can interfere with the operation of air defense systems. And in general there is no point for a ship to hang out alone in wartime. hi
            2. 0
              2 July 2024 23: 25
              Yes, this chaos is simply indescribable. Strelkov is on Narakh, and the traitor and thief (does anyone doubt that the Deputy Minister of Defense, the bearer of secret information, did not participate in the theft of the budget and did not reveal secret information to Western intelligence services?) Shevtsova calmly heads into the enemy camp.
              1. 0
                3 July 2024 08: 39
                Quote: Khibiny Plastun
                Yes, this chaos is simply indescribable.

                Completely in solidarity
      2. 0
        2 July 2024 23: 18
        This is an option when the “Bjork” is “sharpened” for air defense. And they sail in the seas with different loads. Almost a third of them are constantly on the BS. They may simply not have time to be “packed” in a new way and they will have to meet the adversary with what is available, as in the Red Sea.
    2. +6
      2 July 2024 08: 59
      For objective reasons, the number of US Navy ships in the main classes will decrease until 2030 - 2032

      Come on! Just last year they had THREE Arleigh Burkes come into service and already have ONE this year.
      After all, at the recent Security Council, a new shipbuilding program for the Fleet was discussed; the president expressed his intention to load all shipyards so “that not a single slipway stands idle,” as well as his intention to build two more large shipyards (in the Far East and the North).

      How many of these meetings and intentions have there already been? Where are you?
      And of the most anticipated, of course, we have the laying down of a series of “large frigates”, Project 22350M.

      Considering that the boathouse for the construction of 22350M is just being built and how long the Northern Shipyard has been building corvettes, we will get the first 22350M in 2035 at best. Therefore, discussing the possible characteristics of the 22350M is the same as discussing flights to Mars, or the nuclear destroyer Leader and a promising aircraft carrier.
      If we remember what all the same people said in 2006 about frigate 22350, then even in the Black Sea Fleet and even in 2020 we should have had a brigade of 6 frigates 22350. But what is there in fact? But in fact there are only sad stories.
      1. +4
        2 July 2024 09: 45
        [b][/b]How many of these meetings and intentions have there already been? Where are you? At this rate, we will soon begin to intend to hold meetings and intend to make promises. Good afternoon hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. -1
        2 July 2024 19: 16
        Quote: ramzay21
        How many of these meetings and intentions have there already been? Where are you?

        In the pockets of Shevtsova and the former management of USC.
        Quote: ramzay21
        Considering that the boathouse for the construction of 22350M is just being built

        It's already built. But it was built in such a way that launching ships from the stocks is impossible. And it was built for nuclear destroyers. And 22350M frigates can be built, even now, even yesterday, on several existing shipyards at once: Yantar (7 slipways of 170 m each), Amur Shipyard (7 slipways of 170 m each), as well as in the Zaliv city of Kerch ( Soviet super-tankers were built on its slipways; now two UDC VIs of up to 40 tons each are being built, and at the same time, at most half of the production capacity is loaded).
        Quote: ramzay21
        But in fact there are only sad stories.

        And USC, bankrupt by embezzlers.
      4. +1
        2 July 2024 23: 22
        How many were withdrawn? "Arly Bjork" was supposed to be decommissioned last year; its service life was simply extended. This year, four more should be written off, but their deadlines have also been extended. This is how a certain stability is achieved, although it will not deceive specialists. If the lifespan of the hull is 30 years, then after this age it is already a very dangerous gamble.
    3. +2
      2 July 2024 15: 09
      When they build it then we’ll count the number of cells and rockets, but for now we only have plans and models at various exhibitions
    4. 0
      2 July 2024 16: 01
      Quote: bayard
      But this is if nothing happens to the United States itself before that time and if we all survive until that time, because the hegemon does not know how to lose and does not intend to and can do any kind of crazy things in the very near future, without waiting for his own natural death.

      I completely agree here. And all their actions in EU and VNA 404 are precisely the very manifestation of their unwillingness to lose hegemony. Otherwise, with the loss of hegemony, their entire dollar system of robbing the world will collapse. And without plundering the colonies it will be very difficult for them to exist. But not impossible, still.
    5. 0
      2 July 2024 23: 12
      “Constellations” will not be added to the mattress IUD any time soon. The situation there is generally scandalous. As a result of American changes to the original project, the result is something completely different from what was wanted. We'll see what happens next.
  8. +3
    2 July 2024 07: 35
    Let's look at the list of five ships that have already been decommissioned and dismantled for scrap during the recycling process.

    The author is simply not aware - the first 5 Tikis did not have a vertical missile launch installation, they had ordinary beam holders, so it is not surprising that they were written off when the UVP became the de facto standard for a warship.
  9. +7
    2 July 2024 07: 36
    The US remains the strongest military power in general and the strongest naval power in particular. They can afford what no one else can, thanks to the world's most powerful economy.

    I don’t think that decommissioning an entire class of ships is a sign of weakness or stupidity.
  10. +3
    2 July 2024 07: 54
    If you stand at the quay wall, doing nothing, then the service life may be like that of the Project 641 Zaporozhye submarine. From 1970 to 2020, that is, exactly 50 years.

    641 boats of Project 75 were produced; by the time the already faulty boat was transferred to Ukraine, they had long been written off all over the world; these are ancient boats of the project of the 50s of the last century.
    It’s surprising that in Ukraine they were able to restore it, at least for training purposes, for training anti-submarine officers.
  11. 0
    2 July 2024 08: 14
    Well, something like this hi
    "Hey, sailor, you've been sailing too long.
    I managed to forget you.
    Now I like the sea devil.
    I want to love him."
  12. +3
    2 July 2024 10: 39
    The service life of teaks has been extended to 2035...2043. But Skomorokh is not aware of this key nuance, so the whole article is worthless.
  13. 0
    2 July 2024 12: 06
    All this variety comes from tradition.
    Take, for example, according to WIKI, British battleships of the 18th century.

    7 Battleships 1791-1830
    7.1 Battleships of 1st rank, 120-gun
    7.2 Battleships of 1st rank, 110-gun
    7.3 1st rank battleships, 100/104 guns, later classified as 110 guns
    7.4 Battleships of 2st rank, 98-gun
    7.5 Battleships of rank 2, 90/92 guns
    7.6 Battleships of 2st rank, 84-gun
    7.7 Battleships of 3st rank, 80-gun
    7.8 Battleships of 3st rank, 74-gun
    7.9 Battleships of 3st rank, 72-gun
    7.10 Ships of rank 4, 50 guns

    Then it migrated to armadillos and beyond.

    Meanwhile, most of the fleet’s tasks at all times could be solved by 2 types of ships:

    1. The main one is linear.
    2. Auxiliary - light cruiser.

    The benefits of standardization are enormous. Yes
    1. +1
      2 July 2024 12: 46
      2 battles of the Spee squadron indicate the opposite.
      1. 0
        2 July 2024 22: 53
        2 battles of the Spee squadron indicate the opposite.

        What kind of fights?
        1. 0
          3 July 2024 13: 16
          Coronel and Falklands.
          Coronel is a clear demonstration that light cruisers can only flee from a stronger enemy and do not in any way prevent him from completing his task.
          Falklands - if you are faster and can penetrate the enemy’s armored belt, but he is not yours, he is a khan.
          Therefore, there will not be enough battle cruisers to cover all directions, because you can’t build many of them, and in a linear battle, better protected battleships will tear them apart. And heavy cruisers, which are not inferior in speed to line cruisers, can do anything, because line cruisers will not catch up with them, and light ones are not dangerous.
          1. 0
            3 July 2024 14: 49
            Coronel and Falklands.
            Coronel is a clear demonstration that light cruisers can only flee from a stronger enemy and do not in any way prevent him from completing his task.
            Falklands - if you are faster and can penetrate the enemy’s armored belt, but he is not yours, he is a khan.
            Therefore, there will not be enough battle cruisers to cover all directions, because you can’t build many of them, and in a linear battle, better protected battleships will tear them apart. And heavy cruisers, which are not inferior in speed to line cruisers, can do anything, because line cruisers will not catch up with them, and light ones are not dangerous.

            That's right. As soon as the main ship appears on the horizon, it immediately restores order. But he needs cover and reconnaissance.

            We need main ships (battleships) and light ships (light cruisers). All.
            Well, or now - aircraft carriers and destroyers.
            Intermediate types are a waste of money.
            Well, and auxiliary forces, of course. Supply, repair, hospital vessels.
            Necessarily capable of maintaining the speed of the squadron.
            1. 0
              3 July 2024 23: 06
              The intermediate type (heavy cruiser) will fall away from the LK and sink a couple of light cruisers. In this case, it will be 2-3 times cheaper than a linear one. And what to do with them? It’s good if your own coastline is short and there are no colonies, you can cover yourself, but what if it’s like Britain? TK will nightmare everything that is not covered.
              Aircraft carriers are something completely different.
              1. 0
                4 July 2024 12: 59
                The intermediate type (heavy cruiser) will fall away from the LK and sink a couple of light cruisers. In this case, it will be 2-3 times cheaper than a linear one. And what to do with them? It’s good if your own coastline is short and there are no colonies, you can cover yourself, but what if it’s like Britain? TK will nightmare everything that is not covered.
                Aircraft carriers are something completely different.

                The intermediate type is a castrated male. Smaller caliber, less armor, slightly higher speed (3-5 knots), and costs 10% less.

                That is, you can build either 5 LC + 5 BKr, or 9 LC.

                Which squadron would you prefer to command? And which one would you prefer to meet? Considering that they will still have to be placed in a common line.

                And for a cruising war, a light cruiser with a 5-inch caliber is quite enough, as practice shows. He just doesn’t need to get involved in battles with the heavies, but mind his own business - sinking transports.
                1. 0
                  4 July 2024 15: 26
                  what amazing mathematics is this? Warships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries cost approximately 80-90 British pounds per ton. How can a heavy cruiser with a displacement 2-2,5 times less than the LC cost 10% less?
  14. 0
    2 July 2024 12: 35
    So, what do you want me to do?
  15. 0
    2 July 2024 12: 39
    Ticonderoga is a beautiful ship, just old. In the physical sense of the word. They are falling apart. Fatigue of metal, especially aluminum, which is abundant in their designs. Alas, nothing lasts forever.
  16. +2
    2 July 2024 13: 30
    In the event of a conflict with China, it will not be the Chinese and American fleets that will butt heads, but the Chinese and American plus the Japanese, Korean, Australian, French and British. Plus basic aviation, anti-ship missiles and air defense from local US bases and Taiwan. And these are not at all happy prospects for China.
    1. 0
      2 July 2024 18: 56
      Wow, the conflict will not allow the conflict to grow to such proportions.
      1. 0
        2 July 2024 19: 07
        And both sides have it. That’s why it won’t be used, just as it hasn’t been used in any war since 1945. Or do you think China has red lines of a different color? The expression "Chinese's latest warning" did not appear out of nowhere.
        1. 0
          2 July 2024 22: 29
          That is why the conflict will not grow to such proportions.
  17. 0
    7 July 2024 07: 01
    Very interesting and informative.