It's both funny and sad: a destroyer instead of a cruiser, and nothing else

171
It's both funny and sad: a destroyer instead of a cruiser, and nothing else

Of course, nothing like that. It’s just that the Ticonderoga-class cruisers are rapidly running out, there are no new ones and there won’t be any, and air defense has always been a necessary part of security for naval formations like the AUG, and it remains so. Moreover, today, with the advent of drones-kamikaze and anti-ship missiles new generation, Defense has become more relevant than ever. And the absence of a single command center in a naval group is a very unpleasant matter.

Modern radars on ships are capable of many things. But the information from them must be processed, targets must be classified, tracked, and assigned importance. That is, who needs to be shot down at the furthest approaches with a missile, and who will be enough for artillery shells on approach. After all, you wouldn’t launch a million-dollar missile at a drone assembled in a barn and limping along at the speed of a car with a couple dozen kilograms of explosives on board?



Here's a modern anti-ship missile flying at supersonic speed - that's a more than worthy target, isn't it?

The AUG Air Defense Headquarters is a very responsible position. It is there that all targets are tracked and priorities are set, since the main task of the headquarters is to protect all ships from air attacks, from the aircraft carrier to the bunker tanker, or, as they are also called, the technical tanker. It is clear that in battle it is not customary to make a mess (in general, depending on the circumstances, and sometimes it is not so shameful), but after the battle the absence of a bunker tanker can sadly affect the moral and volitional qualities of all crews.

Or, since we're talking about it, a tanker. It's clear that an aircraft carrier doesn't need fuel, the Americans have a nuclear power plant there, but those same destroyers don't feel good on the water without fuel oil. And water, which, as we know, is essential, especially on the water, is also transported by tankers.

In general, there are no useless ships in the group and there cannot be any, so in the event of an air attack, the air defense headquarters will work hard, smoking with brains and processors, repelling attacks from whatever flies towards the ships.


And these, we note, must be specially trained people at their workplaces, equipped with very good computers connected to the group's combat information network. So that it would be possible to promptly receive and process information from all the radars of the ship group and distribute target designations to both ships and aircraft.


The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally assigned this role, with additional space and computing power. Now the Tiks are going into history, and at a time when the air becomes… uncomfortable.

Considering that the new cruiser program died at the development stage, the Zumwalt was planned instead of the Ticonderoga. But this miscarriage of American shipbuilding, naturally, is in no way capable of replacing the Ticonderoga. Apparently, there was a change in the engineering and design school, and if the designers were able to fit 9800 universal launch cells and rooms for the air defense headquarters into the 122-ton displacement of the Tika, then only 15 launch cells fit into the 90 thousand tons of the Zumwalt. Well, and an absolutely unseaworthy hull, with which the under-destroyer simply cannot follow the order.

Overall, everything turned out sadly, the solitaire didn’t work out, and neither did the budget.

What to do when such a situation arises? Naturally, use what is at hand. And besides the Arleigh Burke, at your disposal fleet The USA has nothing.

That is, the principle is clear: “Use what is at hand and don’t look for anything else.”


Last year, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers took on the role of air defense headquarters for two carrier strike groups, and plans are underway to expand the practice.

As the U.S. Navy looks to add new Arleigh Burke-class III destroyers to the fleet, the existing IIA-class destroyers will increasingly assume the air defense headquarters role in the carrier strike group (CSG), which has long been served by the aging fleet of Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

Destroyer instead of cruiser...



The U.S. Navy has four types of guided missile destroyers in its fleet: Class I, Class II, Class IIA, and Class III. The Class III will one day assume the air defense commander mission, as they were designed specifically for that role, but to date only one, USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125), has been commissioned.

As a result, the IIA-class ships will assume the Commander-in-Chief Air Defense (CSG) mission as the Navy's cruiser fleet is decommissioned. Unlike traditional destroyers, which are often commanded by O-5s, the CSGs will be commanded by O-6s, like the cruisers, reflecting the increased importance of the mission.


USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125), the first of the Type III destroyers

A warship that serves as the AUG's air defense center is responsible for tracking any objects in the sky and coordinating actions within the AUG to identify and, if necessary, neutralize these threats. It is the air combat control center and can use all air defense assets of the group of ships to accomplish its missions.

Cruisers, which traditionally perform such missions, have a larger combat information center (CIC) with more operators and more equipment. Advances in destroyer equipment and the ever-improving Aegis combat system mean that the IIA class can perform the missions the Navy asks of them, even if it means making some compromises and carrying more crew, which leads to cramped conditions. However, it is unfortunately not possible to talk about a destroyer replacing a cruiser.


The Combat Information Center (CIC) aboard the modernized USS Ticonderoga is significantly larger than those on the Arleigh Burke destroyers, which were never designed to perform air defense command functions.

“As we get the III class ships online, we’ll gradually get there,” said Rear Adm. Joseph Cahill, the head of the Navy’s Atlantic Surface Forces. “But we had a gap there that we needed to fill, and by using the IIA class destroyers as air defense hubs, we’ve filled that gap. We think it’s going well from an implementation standpoint, but we’ll have to monitor it closely and continue to manage it.”


This year, destroyer commanders will increasingly serve as air defense center ship commanders, and eventually each of the Navy’s 11 carrier strike groups will have its own destroyer performing the mission. Surface Navy leaders say they are encouraged by the destroyers that performed the mission for two carrier strike groups last year.


USS Cowpens (CG-63) fires a salvo of standard surface-to-air missiles

The USS Frank E. Peterson, Jr. (DDG-121) deployed last year as part of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) Carrier Strike Group as an air defense hub. Meanwhile, fellow IIA-class destroyer USS Daniel Inui (DDG-118) also performed similar duties for the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) carrier group last year. The Daniel Inui trained for the role before the deployment, then assumed the mission after the strike group’s cruiser was out of action for technical reasons, according to Vice Adm. Brendan McLane, chief of Naval Surface Forces.

While McLane did not identify the cruiser by name, online reports indicate that the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) was unable to participate in the mission. However, McLane said the USS Daniel Inui performed well after the cruiser's air defense crew was transferred to the destroyer.

“So that team was there with the commander, and that allowed them to do that,” he said. “And I can tell you it went very well. I was pleased, and the feedback we got from the strike group commander on the Frank E. Peterson was such that you wouldn’t have known the difference. And the Daniel Inui, even though it was a quick turnaround, it was the same. They did very, very well.”

According to him, both warships were prepared for such a scenario before the deployment began.

The aging cruiser fleet has had problems with operational readiness, and as outside analysts have put it, botched upgrades have resulted in billions being wasted (we wrote about this) while the service life of the cruisers has barely increased.

While the details remain unclear, last month the USS Gettysburg (CG-64) found itself at the center of a friendly fire incident when the Gettysburg shot down an F/A-18 Super Hornet from the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) in the Red Sea. The ship, which was just a few years from the end of its service life, had recently been modernized and is the most advanced of its kind to date, but that didn’t seem to affect its combat effectiveness. Or rather, it did, but not in the way the Navy would have liked.


Flights aboard the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman on December 18, 2024

Between the retirement of the last cruisers and the commissioning of the Type III destroyers, the Navy plans to use one Type IIA destroyer as the air defense hub for each of its 11 carrier strike groups. The USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) will deploy this summer as part of the USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) carrier strike group, and the USS Mason (DDG-87) is preparing to take over that role with another carrier, Cahill said. The Navy has not named the other ships that will assume air defense command, but it is clear that they will be assigned.

“All of the warships that we’ve selected for this role have been modernized and equipped with the latest systems to counter threats, so that’s another important point,” Cahill said. “These integrated air and missile defense systems have incredibly capable and lethal combat systems.”

Meanwhile, other IIA-class destroyers are undergoing upgrades to improve their performance and extend their service life.

The ships will be equipped with a new automated chemical warfare agent detection system that successfully completed operational testing aboard the USS Mason. By the end of the year, the Navy plans to install the new system, designed to quickly alert service members to the presence of chemical warfare agents, on all guided missile destroyers and cruisers, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, littoral combat ships, and cargo ships/supply ships.

The question is where chemical weapons could be used against American ships weapon, remains open for now, but if there are concerns about this, it means that the command understands where it is going to send its ships.


USS Mason (DDG 87)

As for the air defense center equipment, the destroyer can accommodate additional personnel required to perform air defense tasks, which requires the presence of several additional observation posts in the warship's BIC.


Time and combat use of destroyers will show how convenient this is to implement. Moreover, there is one unpleasant aspect: designating a destroyer as the center of the group's air defense means that the AUG will have one less warship to perform other tasks. The personnel documents for the IIA-type ships also do not indicate the necessary additional people, which could lead to long-term changes in the crew.

This adds another layer of training and speeds up the tempo of operations a bit for everyone on the ship. Also, typically all other AUG battle group commanders are on the carrier, as there is much more space there to begin with, and there has long been a debate in the community about whether the AA commander's mission should be performed from a cruiser/destroyer, or whether the AA center belongs on the carrier.

And here, of course, there is a lot of food for thought. An aircraft carrier is a very stable platform, and a nuclear one never knows a deficit in energy. But, firstly, even without air defense, there are a lot of radars working to support flights, and secondly, in case of troubles like an anti-ship missile hit, you can lose many commanders. If it lands well, of course.

So the principle of not keeping all your eggs in one basket is quite applicable here. Especially since, with reservations and some modifications, the Arleigh Burke generation IIA can cope with such a task.

The change in missions for the IIA-class destroyers comes as the Navy awaits the mass entry of the III-class destroyers. Navy officials have not said when the new destroyers will join the fleet, but analysis and other reports indicate that the III-class ships are suffering from rising costs and delivery delays.

The U.S. Navy currently has 74 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Two second-generation Arleigh Burke destroyers and 2 third-generation Arleigh Burke destroyers are already under construction or have already been approved for procurement by Congress. An earlier Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate also found that the 18 third-generation Arleigh Burke destroyers called for in the Navy’s latest 3-year shipbuilding plan would cost an average of $23 billion, up from previous estimates of $3 billion per ship.

In principle, nothing new or surprising, there is an opinion that Congress will find money for destroyers. Or, in extreme cases, they will start the press and print a couple of truckloads of dollars, thereby solving the financing problem.

"In a briefing to the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service, the Navy said the increase in its Class III DDG cost estimates is due to shipbuilding inflation outpacing the broader economy and deteriorating shipyard performance,"
— the Congressional Budget Office report says.

The report also said that the destroyers currently under construction have “suffered significant delays.” Only one Type III destroyer, USS Jack Lucas (DDG-125), has been commissioned to date, and the keel of a second destroyer, the future USS Louis H. Wilson, Jr. (DDG-2023), was laid in 126. The future USS Ted Stevens (DDG-128) was also launched in 2023. Inside Defense reported in June that other Type III vessels could be delayed by six to 25 months.


While Navy leaders have expressed confidence that the IIA-class destroyers can handle the air defense mission while the service awaits the III-class ships, the stopgap solution nonetheless reflects long-standing challenges the service and the American shipbuilding industry face when it comes to procuring and delivering warships on time. And while legislative and other efforts are underway to potentially address these shortcomings, it remains to be seen whether American shipbuilding can be set on a better path.

In general, what we call "Trishkin's caftan". It cannot be said that everything is smooth and even in the Russian fleet, and we have strange maneuvers. Just recently, the Americans were unanimously discussing the Admiral Nakhimov's launching of tests in terms of whether it was a betrayal or a victory. Yes, a huge chest filled with missiles is debatable. It is, one might say, unfashionable. The ship should be small and inconspicuous.

But if it comes to distribution - this stealth will go to the sea devil, and a couple of hundred missiles that the Admiral Nakhimov can launch at once - this is a couple of hundred missiles. This will make any ballistic computer sweat, and especially the one that will be installed on a destroyer and is not really intended for such tasks.

But there is nothing to be done: for lack of, as they say... Therefore, while there are no destroyers that can almost fully replace cruisers, the Ticonderogas will be replaced by destroyers that can do this almost fully.

Well, it's not for us to judge the processes that are happening in the best navy in the world. For now, at least, in the best, and then we'll have to see. At this rate, they'll sail far...
171 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    1 February 2025 05: 38
    It's embarrassing to even compare our fleet with the US. At least they fired missiles with warheads from "Oreshnik" at Banderovites from nuclear submarines a couple of times. They showed that we are not sleeping, we are on combat duty. Especially since submariners command the fleets now.
    1. +30
      1 February 2025 06: 08
      The US Navy has no problems! Another delirious article by Roma with distorted facts and fantastic conclusions. It is better not to read this nonsense.
      From Wiki:
      The Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are multi-role ships of the United States Navy. The class is named after the lead ship, the guided missile destroyer USS Arleigh Burke, named after the American World War II admiral Arleigh Albert Burke.

      As of December 2024, all seventy-four Arleigh Burke-class destroyers built are in service, with nineteen more planned for commissioning.

      https://yandex.ru/video/preview/1848873165416771232
      All ships are integrated into the Global Information Space, where ships and most enemy submarines are tracked in real time... This is what we should dream about...
      1. +7
        1 February 2025 06: 22
        Quote: Okko777
        Another delirious article by Roma

        Personally, I read like this - I immediately look at the author, I see ... Skomorokhov, I don’t start reading... winked
        1. 0
          1 February 2025 15: 11
          Skomorokhov has too much variation in the quality of his articles. There are suggestions that under one name there is a whole group of authors with very different levels of knowledge in the subject area they write about
        2. +2
          1 February 2025 16: 53
          Unfortunately, I also try not to read K. Ryabov. He is not at the level of V.O.
        3. +1
          2 February 2025 02: 58
          Quote: sub307
          Quote: Okko777
          Another delirious article by Roma

          Personally, I read like this - I immediately look at the author, I see ... Skomorokhov, I don’t start reading... winked

          Two or three years ago? That's not the point, but I got three dozen minuses for a similar comment! The question is not about the minuses, of course, but about the fact that "Skomorokhov is already annoying!"
        4. 0
          6 February 2025 02: 32
          Quote: sub307
          Personally, I read like this - I immediately look at the author, I see ... Skomorokhov, I don’t start reading...
          laughing
          and then what to do with Ryabov... ??! smile
          1. 0
            6 February 2025 09: 55
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            Quote: sub307
            Personally, I read like this - I immediately look at the author, I see ... Skomorokhov, I don’t start reading...
            laughing
            and then what to do with Ryabov... ??! smile

            As you wish... And what..., do you think it's time already??! winked
      2. -10
        1 February 2025 06: 41
        Quote: Okko777
        It's better not to read this nonsense.
        From Wiki:


        And you suggest that we go to an even more delusional website?
        1. -2
          1 February 2025 19: 44
          Only Ukrainian sites are more delusional lol
      3. +12
        1 February 2025 08: 02
        Well, Ticonderoga was actually based on the hull of the destroyer Spruance, the predecessor of Arleigh Burke. And she was originally numbered as a destroyer, DDG-47. The cruiser, which among other tasks was planned as a flagship, was designed separately, but it did not go beyond the project. But a flagship was needed. Therefore, Ticonderoga received, in addition to what it had, cabins for staff officers and a flagship suite, and was therefore reclassified as a cruiser, with the number CG-47.
        1. -11
          1 February 2025 09: 37
          Yeah, but it's much bigger than "Spruance" and was originally created as an air defense/missile defense command post. And "Bjork" wasn't supposed to do that. Now they're trying to make a smart face, but it's not working out well.
          1. 0
            7 February 2025 21: 29
            Yeah, but it's a lot bigger than Spruance.

            How can Ticonderoga be bigger than Spruance if it was built in its hull? The dimensions are practically identical!
            And in terms of combat capabilities, the "Berkes" are not that much inferior to the "Ticonderogas"; the possibility of using them as air defense command posts, if I'm not mistaken, was included from the start.
            1. 0
              7 February 2025 22: 22
              Tika is 10 years younger and 900 tons heavier. They are currently trying to convert Berks into air defense command posts, how it will turn out - no one knows yet.
      4. -14
        1 February 2025 09: 35
        Yeah, so integrated that they shoot down their own planes.
        1. 0
          1 February 2025 22: 48
          Well, our newest Su-57 shoots down the Okhotnik (also the newest) and what...especially in modern aviation, where everything is electronic and it (as everyone who uses their computers knows) tends to malfunction...
          1. -4
            1 February 2025 23: 49
            Why and under what circumstances the "Hunter" was shot down is still unknown. But it is known that the Su-57 is participating in a real war, not like the F-35 in the pioneer game "Zarnitsa". By the way, the mattress makers have cancelled the "penguin's" flight performances at the air show in India. It will only be on the ground display, but the Su-57 will fly. Why would that be?)))
            1. +5
              2 February 2025 00: 43
              Quote: TermNachTER
              not like F-35 in the pioneer game "Zarnitsa"
              Did they also bomb Iran as part of Zarnitsa?
              1. -1
                2 February 2025 11: 16
                Considering how much effort and resources are involved in ensuring their flights, this is not even "Zarnitsa", but rather educational games in the junior group of a kindergarten.
                1. 0
                  7 February 2025 21: 30
                  But after this "Zarnitsa" Assad for some reason was left without Iranian cover.
                  1. 0
                    7 February 2025 22: 14
                    Assad's problems are Assad himself. If a person does not want to help himself, no one will help him.
      5. +1
        1 February 2025 21: 32
        Quote: Okko777
        All ships are integrated into the Global Information Space, where ships and most enemy submarines are tracked in real time...

        You know... I understand, it's the weekend. But you need to have a snack!
        1. 0
          2 February 2025 07: 25
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          But you need to have a snack!

          Theoretically, they currently have all the resources for this. Only there is no one to process such an object of information yet. They need to connect AI, and this is already "terminatorophobia"...
          1. 0
            2 February 2025 09: 11
            Quote: Puncher
            Theoretically, they currently have all the resources for this.

            No other country in the world has even close to such resources.
            1. 0
              2 February 2025 10: 47
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              No other country in the world has even close to such resources.

              All information from the command center of a combat ship can be sent via Starlink online to a single center.
      6. 0
        3 February 2025 07: 02
        Quote: Okko777
        The US Navy has no problems!

        In order to talk about the presence or absence of problems in the US Navy (there is no Navy in the US!!!), it is necessary to at least briefly present a destroyer as a weapons system and show its capabilities for searching and hitting primary targets, characteristics of the radar, the possibility of integrating the so-called "system of many units", the ship's modernization resource and the increasing combat parameters during the construction of a series. If this is not the case, then reasoning on this topic (the pros and cons of replacing cruisers with destroyers) is empty and meaningless.
    2. +19
      1 February 2025 06: 48
      An article from the series "look how bad things are for the "stripes"" with their huge and balanced fleet, and we, with our "white elephant" and it is not clear at all what kind of fleet... and still not bad, in comparison. Funny? Remember the fairy tale film about Aladdin, from Soviet times? There was a character there, "the night patrolman" - he walked around the city at night, knocked with a mallet and in a mournful voice said: "Sleep, residents of great Baghdad! All is calm in Baghdad! All is calm in Baghdad!"...
      1. -13
        1 February 2025 08: 01
        eh American soon your America will... kaput we'll all leave and move to you for permanent residence)) laughing live on benefits for generations and spit on the ceiling and then New Bishkek opens
      2. -11
        1 February 2025 09: 41
        So where have you seen a balanced fleet? The mattress admirals themselves are screaming that things are bad. The fleet began to shrink in the early 00s, and will continue to shrink until 2027, although I personally don’t understand why they hope that there will be growth later. When they start comparing the Russian Navy and the US Navy - I’ve asked many times - citizens, do you see a difference in tasks or where? The US has the entire world ocean and China on the back of its neck. Russia has only the seas directly adjacent to its territory.
        1. +9
          1 February 2025 10: 40
          So, is our fleet actually handling the Black Sea?
          1. -10
            1 February 2025 10: 41
            What exactly is so terrible happening in the Black Sea?
            1. +3
              1 February 2025 10: 43
              There is nothing terrible about the striped ones either, so that such articles could be written.
              1. -15
                1 February 2025 10: 46
                Mattress makers have a lot of problems and no clear solutions. I've been following the US Navy since the mid-90s and I see that the situation has been getting worse since the early 00s and is still getting worse, with no improvements in sight.
                1. +16
                  1 February 2025 13: 10
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  Mattress makers have a lot of problems and no clear solutions.

                  I wonder, what explains such an irrepressible craving for "the problems of the US and UK Navy" in you and the author??? Phantom pains from Soviet times? But the USSR is gone, it has been gone for 34 years. Or is this some simple and crude form of propaganda, a la "everything is bad there"...? But all this does not look like anything other than eccentricity. I would understand if "our eastern brothers" were examining the naval problems of the democrats under a microscope and loudly hooting about it in the press, but no, they are certainly looking, but they are very reserved and even more than careful in their statements. But with us - criticism and sarcasm simply gushes and pours out in uncontrollable streams... And all this looks rather ridiculous, against the background of the real naval capabilities of all sides...
                  1. -9
                    1 February 2025 16: 39
                    Yes, I lived in the USSR for 22 years and I think this country is the best. Regarding the problems of the USA and England - they are our enemies and always will be. And their problems cannot but make me happy. Especially since I personally do not see any positive outcomes for them.
                    1. +5
                      1 February 2025 21: 09
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      Yes, I lived in the USSR for 22 years and I consider this country the best

                      Who would have doubted it, but it is gone, and only a part of it remains, which, in its capabilities and desires of the elites, seriously contrasts with the past...
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      Regarding the problems of the USA and England - they are our enemies and always will be.

                      This is what you think, but what the owners of capital, who actually rule, think is something completely different...
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And their problems can’t help but make me happy.

                      The enemy's problems are the enemy's problems, you don't win a confrontation just by taking on the problems of others. You win thanks to your successes. The USSR didn't dwell on the problems with the armor of the fascist Panthers, but released almost 26 thousand T-34-85s to counter them... And what can we do now to counter eight dozen Berks?
                    2. +1
                      1 February 2025 22: 52
                      and so your "best country" collapsed like a house of cards... and where was the KGB and why didn't the army rise up (like in terrible Chile, but there really was Pinochet there) and finally where were the communists (all the "members" of the CPSU unanimously put down their... no, not what you might think... but their party card and... tried to get a job... and some (like you) lived until 2025...
                      1. -3
                        1 February 2025 23: 51
                        There are many reasons, and I know little about them. But I keep my Komsomol card - maybe it will come in handy again.
                      2. -2
                        2 February 2025 12: 49
                        well, just like in Bogomolov's book (yeah, August 44) when during a search Alekhine finds an ID and to the question... what the hell... what if it comes in handy...
              2. +1
                1 February 2025 14: 48
                As they say: we wish we had their problems laughing , but the article points out that the world's most fleet is clearly in great confusion today! Because they still can't grasp the trends in the development of naval weapons (and not only them), so the US is clearly not doing well with promising ships, that's a fact!
                Another question is to what extent their problems open up opportunities for others, primarily for China.
                1. 0
                  2 February 2025 04: 55
                  Well, in general, they are quite actively churning out unmanned boats and mini-submarines, but these are attack weapons. They are not very good at defensive weapons, defense is very expensive. A conditional hundred unmanned missile boats of the 183-R type with 8 anti-ship missiles and an air defense system of the Gibka-S type will cost as much as a Berk, and they will do so much nastiness to the enemy that few fleets will remain afloat.
                  1. 0
                    7 February 2025 21: 36
                    A conditional hundred unmanned missile boats of the 183-R type with 8 anti-ship missiles and an air defense system of the Gibka-S type will cost as much as a Berk, but they will do nasty things to the enemy

                    Thank you, made laugh.
            2. +2
              2 February 2025 07: 27
              Quote: TermNachTER
              What exactly is so terrible happening in the Black Sea?

              Ukrainian shipping is not blocked, landing operations are out of the question.
              1. 0
                2 February 2025 12: 01
                And what's so deadly about that? No one has really tried to stop Ukrainian shipping. Why? I don't know, there are opportunities for that, similar to the Houthis, and Russia has more opportunities. Landing operations are not possible because NATO is working on Ukraine's side. But that's not a mandatory condition - the LBS is already moving in the right direction, albeit not as fast as we would like.
                1. 0
                  2 February 2025 17: 18
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  And what's deadly about that?

                  Nothing. It is also possible without a fleet. If it did not exist. But if it was built, infrastructure for it was developed, personnel were trained, and it is not capable of performing a single task, for what purpose does it exist at all, then what should we call it?
                  1. -2
                    3 February 2025 12: 25
                    Quote: Puncher
                    But if they built it, developed the infrastructure for it, trained personnel, and it is not capable of fulfilling a single task, why does it even exist, then what should we call it?

                    Are you talking about the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet during WWII?
                    When they were building, they were building, without oligarchs, the most important thing - but the result was practically the same: the Black Sea Fleet was sitting practically where it is now...
        2. 0
          1 February 2025 21: 33
          The mattress admirals themselves are shouting that things are going badly. The fleet began to shrink in the early 00s, and will continue to shrink until 2027.

          Of course they will scream, fleet reduction = budget reduction
          1. -1
            1 February 2025 21: 46
            This is one of the factors, but not the only one. They may simply soon be given a combat mission, but they will not have the strength to carry it out.
            1. +1
              1 February 2025 21: 47
              It’s just that they may soon be given a combat mission, but they won’t have the strength to carry it out.

              And who is now able to resist this weak American fleet?
              1. -1
                1 February 2025 21: 51
                Right now, no one, but life does not stand still. And building a ship takes years. Therefore, if time is lost today, it will not be made up for tomorrow.
                1. 0
                  1 February 2025 21: 53
                  Well, as you yourself said: “Building a ship takes time”, who will be able to resist them in the next 10 years?
                  1. -2
                    1 February 2025 21: 54
                    In terms of construction rates, they are already lagging far behind the Chinese. And if the Chinese also improve their technology, the outcome for the mattress makers will be fatal.
                    1. +1
                      1 February 2025 22: 05
                      The Chinese will sooner or later crush the States and cling to India, due to their production base and one and a half billion population, education and money received in the same States, this is inevitable. But the Chinese have much more problems on the mainland than in the ocean
                      1. 0
                        2 February 2025 12: 03
                        A difficult question. Two old, wise nations will be able to come to an agreement, their contradictions are not so global.
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2025 18: 58
                        their contradictions are not that global.

                        They have irresolvable contradictions, a struggle for markets.
                      3. 0
                        13 February 2025 01: 20
                        For now, India is not a competitor to China. What will happen next - we will see.
  2. +8
    1 February 2025 05: 57
    The Russian Navy would have the same problems as the US Navy...
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 14: 56
      All happy families are alike, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way (c)
      Each Navy/Navy has its own problems. And the construction of fleets is carried out based on the tasks facing them. The fleet copes with the tasks set before the Russian Navy by the country's leadership (at the minimum required level). However, the comparison of "capabilities" is clearly not in our favor. In terms of combat potential, only SSBNs/SSBNs are, perhaps, comparable. And the surface forces of the Russian Navy ... want to be much better, especially in terms of the number of units. Well, etc.
      Until we have a MINISTRY OF THE NAVY, like the Yankees (yes, we had something like that in the post-war years, though not for long, which is a pity) and the fleets will "move with their boots" - you will not wait for any greatness and equality!
      And all because "the boot is always higher than the shoe!" (c) am
      1. -2
        1 February 2025 21: 48
        For them, the Navy Department is a figure of speech. It's still part of the Pentagon, even though it sits separately in Anacostia. The Pentagon budget is still unified, it's just clearly spelled out to whom and how much. We're in the dark in this regard.
      2. -1
        1 February 2025 22: 58
        Well, maybe the point is that we really need SSBNs (as part of a nuclear triad, and glory to Lenin, 404 drones don't reach Severodvinsk like they do Engels), but it's not clear about the surface fleet.. and why the hell??? to go to Syria (we don't have Tartus anymore..) or to Venezuela (for now, it seems, Erdogan is not around).. and let's say to protect our tankers in the Baltic or to rein in NATO in the Norwegian Sea.. so it turns out that we need boots, but as for shoes (unless of course this is a tactic from Lowa), that's a question...
        1. +1
          2 February 2025 12: 05
          Don't worry about Venezuela. Half of the state oil company belongs to China. Do you think Xi will give his oil to anyone?)))
          1. 0
            2 February 2025 12: 52
            when Xi (and the PLA at the same time) wins at least once (not even a war) their SVO... then I will say... you are right, the T-800 and Xi will tear anyone's throat out, but for now...
            1. 0
              2 February 2025 13: 17
              In the meantime, China has already won the economic race and is catching up in the technological one. So it's a matter of time. It's not for nothing that everyone is talking about 2027. Xi is not mine and never was, he's just a situational ally now. The situation may change when China really needs Russia. However, China needs it now. Without Russia,
              I think China would have been gobbled up by now.
              1. 0
                13 February 2025 00: 57
                Without Russian gas and oil, Chinese production will simply die out. The Chinese themselves know this, so without resources their technological breakthrough is impossible. They are somehow coping with the food industry, and the number of pensioners is growing. They even postponed the law on two children.
                Europe has been living in luxury for over 30 years thanks to Russian assets, and when they declared war over Ukraine, all their production became dead weight. There is no uranium, they buy gas from the US at inflated prices (they don’t even dare peep). That even factories in Germany have migrated to China. But this will soon be the nail in the coffin for them. Times will become even more difficult than 10 years ago.
                1. 0
                  13 February 2025 01: 02
                  And it is great that China understands its dependence on Russia very well. There will be no temptations.
                  1. 0
                    13 February 2025 01: 05
                    I noticed that you are downvoted more often than the pancakes that are baked for Easter. Apparently the truth hurts))
                    1. 0
                      13 February 2025 01: 13
                      Yes, for God's sake)) everyone has the right to their own opinion and the right to voice it. I don't pay attention - I want to, let them downvote. I rarely do it myself, unless I really disagree. This is an interesting site - although it is Russian, Russians are not welcome here.
                      1. 0
                        13 February 2025 01: 19
                        it's obvious, they're all khokhlo-minded
  3. +10
    1 February 2025 06: 12
    Note to Roman:
    The Americans' fuel is not fuel oil, and the tanker is not included in the order. Refueling at sea is carried out at a rendezvous.
    And now: what is the share of the cost of the nuclear power plant (half of Gerald Ford) compared to electronics, weapons and hull. So it is more logical to have a nuclear cruiser of 12-15 thousand tons with the indicated systems. For our Pacific Fleet - there is no alternative at all.
    1. -8
      1 February 2025 09: 44
      If the tanker is not included in the order - there is no need to protect it? If the universal supply transport is sunk or seriously damaged and it cannot "charge" the AUG, what will we do? The AUG must be moved away, without kerosene for the aircraft and ammunition - it is just a big target.
      1. +4
        1 February 2025 14: 22
        The tanker does not enter the zone of active combat missions, but goes to the rendezvous point when the UAG departs after completing the mission. The convoy (like the UKS) is minimal, mainly anti-submarine warfare. The tanker is refueled from storage bunkers, which are scattered across the ocean. If the enemy does not have the ability to carry out a massive missile attack on such a base, then the US fleet is provided with fuel and consumables.
        We don’t have even a percent of the opportunity to freely operate a squadron of surface forces in the ocean, much less refuel at sea.
        1. -5
          1 February 2025 16: 46
          With the current MAPLs and naval aviation, the zone of active combat operations is a very vague concept. Don't confuse now with WWII in the Pacific Ocean. Move back 300 miles and you are relatively safe, but that won't work now. And the mattress carriers don't have as many AUGs as before, so they can shuffle them like cards in a deck.
          Yes, boiler fuel and aviation kerosene can be filled anywhere, although there are nuances here too. But b/k will have to be brought from the USA, because the forward warehouses are quickly depleted. And now, their number one enemy is China. Let them have a headache, FOR NOW.
        2. 0
          13 February 2025 01: 03
          The Houthi story has shown that there are no safe supply zones or sea routes. All they had to do was block the trade sea route, and British dominance would crumble at the seams. Of course, they patrol there, but the Houthi anti-ship missiles make NATO admirals nervous. It is not necessary to have a large fleet that will eat up half the budget, it is enough to supply the allies with weapons and even the presence of the Russian army will not be necessary. Only small corvettes and boats will cope with the tasks.
  4. +1
    1 February 2025 06: 20
    Well, to swim further than we need to try really hard
  5. +8
    1 February 2025 06: 38
    Yes, we would like to have the problems of the Americans. They need to put the Ticonderogas back into service, modernizing them. True, we have something to answer for: several years ago, our "Admiral Kuznetsov" scared the British with its smoke. The poor guys probably thought that the First and Second Pacific Squadrons had risen from the depths of the sea and were heading home to Kronstadt.
    1. -4
      1 February 2025 09: 45
      It's all so simple for you))) "Tikis" won't be restored - they have problems with the strength of their bodies - from birth.
      1. -2
        1 February 2025 19: 51
        If the Kinzhal anti-ship missile penetrates the Tika, the sailors will shout: Yarik, get out of here, the tank is leaking! And then they jump overboard and drown with the sounds of gurgle gurgle gurgle gurgle!
        1. 0
          1 February 2025 22: 06
          Quote from warlord
          If the Kinzhal anti-ship missile penetrates the Tika,
          There is no Kinzhal anti-ship missile: "Kinzhal" is not an anti-ship missile, and there are no "Kinzhals" among anti-ship missiles.
          1. 0
            2 February 2025 13: 20
            Okay, let it be not "Kinzhal", but "Zircon" or its Chinese analogue. As far as I understand, both Russia and China have already adapted hypersonics to aircraft carriers.
          2. 0
            13 February 2025 01: 08
            In fact, although the Kinzhal is not an anti-ship missile, it was created as a universal multi-purpose missile.
  6. +15
    1 February 2025 07: 11
    The latest series of Berks are larger than Tikondkrog, and any distinction between a “cruiser” and a “destroyer” has long been erased

    Ocean-going missile ships with a full displacement of ~10 tons. Differences in classes only on paper

    The first sub-series of the Berk were indeed weaker, but this "weakness" was also conditional. The task was to get 3/4 of the Tika's capabilities for 2/3 of its price. The main radar and Ingis are identical, the differences are 3 air target illumination radars (spg-62) instead of 4 in the cruiser. Previously, this mattered, now - no, these radars are used less and less, because modern SAMs are equipped with active guidance heads (Standard-6, ESSM second generation)

    The first sub-series of Burke lacked a helicopter hangar. All subsequent ones had 2 helicopters, like cruisers.

    The destroyer's landing pad is at the stern, while the cruiser's is in the central part of the hull, where the pitching amplitude is smaller. But this advantage is conditional, 99% of the world's ships have a stern helicopter pad.

    1 artillery mount (127 mm) instead of 2 on the cruiser, also not a big loss

    A smaller number of UVPs, 90 or 96 - against 122 on Tika, but here the thing is, the number of missile silos, in both cases it is excessive. The US physically does not have enough missiles to load all the cells of even half of the 70 destroyers. Look at the production volumes of the same Tomahawks

    An interesting question - why did a destroyer with the same displacement fit less UVP than a cruiser, what was the displacement spent on? The answer is - Tika has an aluminum superstructure, and Burke is steel and more durable than a cruiser
    1. -6
      1 February 2025 09: 46
      The "tiki" have additional premises for the air defense/missile defense command post and additional personnel for it. The "bjerki" do not have this.
      1. +5
        1 February 2025 10: 32
        and additional personnel for it.

        The number of crews of a cruiser and a destroyer is the same
        1. -6
          1 February 2025 10: 40
          On the first "Bjerkas" there are 327 snouts, on the Flight II A, from which they now make the "Tika" type - 380. On the "Tika" there are 387.
          1. +10
            1 February 2025 11: 25
            on the flight II A, from which they now make the "tika" type - 380. On the "tika" 387.

            Is it a big problem to equip 7 bunks and put in 7 more lockers?

            On a ship as tall as a 15-story building
            1. +3
              1 February 2025 16: 25
              You DO NOT UNDERSTAND, this is different, these are insurmountable difficulties for Terminachter, which the Americans cannot (in his opinion) cope with)))
              1. -4
                1 February 2025 16: 31
                Yeah, because Terminachter has been riding on an iron box for almost two years and knows what he's talking about. But those who have only seen a ship (vessel) in a picture or on TV should keep quiet.
                1. 0
                  1 February 2025 16: 50
                  Yeah, because Terminachter has been driving an iron box for almost two years and knows what he’s talking about.


                  Yeah, yeah, okay, that's me... but the Americans, yeah, they also seem to only see ships on TV and in pictures, but terminology is a different matter)))
                  To understand what to talk about...you need to at least serve on these very same Arleigh Burkes to make such meaningful conclusions. It seems that this is how it works for you, right?) You are such a smart person, in the opinion of your superiors, you should understand this)))
                  But those who have only seen the ship (vessel) in a picture or on TV should keep quiet.

                  Hahaha, what a local bumpkin!
                  1. 0
                    1 February 2025 16: 54
                    Ships (vessels) - are built according to generally similar projects, since ships are similar in their functions. I am not a bumpkin, it is just necessary and possible to judge when there is an understanding of the issue.
            2. +1
              1 February 2025 16: 29
              On a ship that was originally designed for 327 snouts? The problem is not only in the bunks and lockers. These extra 60 snouts need water, food. In addition, the rooms for the air defense/missile defense control center on the "tik" were designed from the beginning, and now they are trying to re-equip them on the "bjerka".
              1. +1
                2 February 2025 02: 58
                On a ship that was originally designed for 327 snouts?

                For a ship of 10 tons it makes no difference whether there are 000 people on board or 327

                People, all their belongings and the volume of compartments allocated for the crew are insignificant against the background of ship mechanisms. The "crew" load item traditionally takes up a small percentage of the displacement of large warships

                Even in times when crews consisted of thousands of sailors
                1. 0
                  2 February 2025 11: 20
                  Yeah, you'll remember the galleys, the crews there also consisted of thousands of people, including rowers. Only times and technology have changed a little. And yes, people are not only weight, relative to the weight of the hull. It's also the volume that they occupy in this hull. If 3 cubic meters per snout are multiplied by 380 snouts - how many cubic meters will it be?
                  1. 0
                    2 February 2025 15: 11
                    If 3 cubic meters per snout are multiplied by 380 snouts, how many cubic meters will it be?

                    1140

                    This value is 1-2% of the volume of the hull and superstructure of Burke
                    1. 0
                      2 February 2025 16: 29
                      A cubic kilometer is 1-2% of the volume of the "bjerka" rooms?))) And the crew's dining room? Where did you learn arithmetic? These are only the volumes for habitation, and also the volumes for work and for the corresponding equipment.
                      1. 0
                        2 February 2025 22: 00
                        A cubic kilometer is a million cubic meters. A thousand square meters is not a cubic kilometer. Where did you learn arithmetic? )))
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2025 22: 08
                        Okay, I was wrong. Well, what is the volume of the interior of the destroyer Arli Bjork?
            3. +1
              1 February 2025 22: 11
              Quote: Santa Fe
              Is it a big problem to equip 7 bunks and put in 7 more lockers?
              7 beds are not a problem, what to do with work places? You can't put them in the corridor, they need to be connected.
              1. 0
                2 February 2025 15: 30
                Quote: bk0010
                What to do with the workstations? You can't put them in the hallway, you have to connect them.

                Set up 7 tables with computers
                1. 0
                  2 February 2025 16: 29
                  Yeah, on the upper deck, maybe on the helipad)))
                2. 0
                  2 February 2025 22: 20
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  Set up 7 tables with computers
                  Well, yes. And connect them to Aegis and weapons via Wi-Fi. In addition, during the work, it is very likely that you will have to deal with classified information, which imposes requirements on the premises. At least here.
                  By the way, I wanted to tell you about your favorite topic. The other day there was an article about Oslyabya. It shows well what happens if there is armor, but it is not enough. You always vote for armor. Formulate what the armor should withstand (Oslyabya's armor did not withstand 12" Japanese) and what to cover (making an armor belt against Harpoon or LRASM is not a good idea) on a modern destroyer (less makes no sense).
                  1. 0
                    13 February 2025 01: 09
                    I think they have just as much of a secrecy problem. No one would put an AEGIS terminal in the hallway leading to the upper deck.
    2. +3
      1 February 2025 16: 14
      Quote: Santa Fe
      The US physically does not have enough missiles to load all the cells of even half of the 70 destroyers.

      Colleague, all Americans (it is included during construction!) have TRIPLE ammunition for each hull. And not only Axes are put into the UVP Mk-41. SAMs and anti-aircraft missiles are also loaded there... So, not only Axes
      Starting with the 6th corps, ... vertical launch units (VLU) for Mark 41 missiles with cell containers. This made it possible to increase the survivability of the launcher, increase the ammunition and range of missiles, and reduce the reaction time. Typical loading of UVP On Ticonderoga-class cruisers there are 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 16 ASROC anti-submarine missiles and 80 Standard-2 SAMs - a total of 122 missiles in 2 modules.

      Berki. 96 cells (32 bow + 64 stern). One cell can accommodate a TPK with a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile, an SM-2 or SM-3 anti-aircraft missile, or a block of 4 containers with a RIM-7 Sea Sparrow SAM. The UVP equipment allows for the simultaneous preparation of 16 missiles of different types for launch with a rate of fire of 1 missile/sec.
      Standard armament set of EM series I and II consists of 74 RIM-66 SM-2 SAMs, 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles and 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroc anti-aircraft missiles in a multi-purpose version.
      In the shock version the combination of missiles is different - 56 missiles of the BGM-109 Tomahawk type, 34 missiles of the RIM-66 SM-2 type and anti-aircraft missiles of the RUM-139 VL-Asroc type. The total number is 90 missiles.
      On the first two series of EM, 2 cells of each launcher section are used for a crane for reloading the UVP, so the total number of cells available for missiles is 3 units less.

      On the EM series IIA The total number of missiles increased to 96 units. The standard set of weapons on them is 74 RIM-66 SM-2 SAMs, 24 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (4 missiles per 1 cell), 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroc anti-submarine missiles. In the strike version, priority is given to the Tomahawk cruise missiles.
      1. -4
        1 February 2025 20: 02
        I have a question, what if MiG 31 detected an AUG or a single patrol ship on the radar and attacked. Will such a number of missiles in a powder keg help after detonation? I feel there will be a notable explosion and fire.
        1. -1
          1 February 2025 20: 10
          The mattress makers thought a lot about this, even developed the UVP Mk. 57, with partial armor, but somehow it didn’t work out.
          1. -1
            1 February 2025 20: 24
            I think that no armor will save from a kinetic strike of 10 Machs on the ship's hull. I think that it is better to strike not on the side, but from above and below on the mast so that no pumps can pump out the sea water. I saw on video the consequences of anti-ship missile strikes on a ship, there is a hole the size of an asteroid))
            1. 0
              1 February 2025 21: 43
              No, the point here was different, so that the detonation of the warhead in the UVP would go outside, and not inside the ship. It is clear that if a serious anti-ship missile hits, the damage will be serious.
            2. 0
              3 February 2025 14: 01
              Quote from warlord
              I think that no armor will save from a kinetic strike of 10 Machs on the ship's hull. I think that it is better to strike not on the side, but from above and below on the mast so that no pumps can pump out the sea water. I saw on video the consequences of anti-ship missile strikes on a ship, there is a hole the size of an asteroid))


              Let's learn the basics again.
              How can an anti-ship missile have a target impact speed of Mach 10?
              I'll say right away - none.
              There won't be more than 3 swings.
              Teach materiel.
              1. 0
                9 February 2025 21: 31
                3 Mach is the limit for an anti-ship missile, but it is not the limit for a medium-range ballistic missile. For example, the Oreshnik can reach up to 28 Mach in the active phase. I think that after such a strike, NATO's AUG will definitely be in trouble (considering the MIRV), even in a high-explosive version.
                1. +1
                  9 February 2025 22: 51
                  Quote from warlord
                  3 Mach is the limit for an anti-ship missile, but it is not the limit for a medium-range ballistic missile. For example, the Oreshnik can reach up to 28 Mach in the active phase. I think that after such a strike, NATO's AUG will definitely be in trouble (considering the MIRV), even in a high-explosive version.

                  Teach materiel.
                  For any seeker to operate, a speed no greater than 4M is required.
                  To get into the ship.
                  So that radio waves can penetrate.
                  So that the visible range is available in both TV and IR.
                  And not plasma.

                  And don't masturbate to Hazel.
                  This is a very old MRBM Rubezh.
                  These were made back in the 79s.
                  And back in the 60s, their use was assessed according to the direct type, but according to the AUG.
                  Even then it was assessed as useless.
                  If you don't reduce the speed to 3M.
                  And only in a monoblock version.

                  Learn the basics, you are very far from it. At the level of a farmer.
                  Study weeds and plowing further. It will be more useful to you.
                  1. 0
                    13 February 2025 00: 47
                    Don't tell me what to do. I didn't drink with you on a first-name basis. You're like the pig Khavronya from Krylov's fable who tends to see the worst.
                  2. 0
                    13 February 2025 01: 18
                    However, Yuzhmash was amazed by 6 warheads which, despite their "obsolescence and uselessness", worked perfectly. Half a century ago, the technologies were not yet sufficiently developed, now creating missiles from scratch is not just expensive. And the entire GDP for decades of work! The modernization of the RS 26 Rubezh looks quite reasonable. What was obsolete and useless half a century ago is terrifying. Otherwise, they would not have written about it in the media for no reason. And you masturbate to the US Navy. I bet you hold parades there under a pink flag?
        2. 0
          1 February 2025 21: 36
          Quote from warlord
          if the MiG 31 detected an AUG or a single patrol ship on the radar and launched a strike. Will such a number of missiles in a powder keg help after detonation?

          The question is, of course, interesting ... (c)
          1. The situation is most likely hypothetical, but like any “situation” it has a right to exist.
          2. The 31 machine actually belongs to the HEAVY supersonic INTERCEPTORS. That is, an air combat machine... But there are modifications, for example the MiG-31K, which can carry the Kh-47M2 product, ...
          The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic missile was developed for use with Tu-22M3. It is one of several flagship weapons unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his address to the nation in early 2018. Putin and subsequent Russian commentators have emphasized The missile's speed and ability to maneuver in flight make it invulnerable to any existing missile defense system. The estimated range is between 2000 and 3000 km, making it a threat to critical ground infrastructure and large ground targets such as as carrier strike groups.
          So (hypothetically) the option of such combat use of the MiG-31 is not excluded, if the weight and dimensions of the Kh-47M2 allow it... But the Tu-22M3, that's quite possible...
          3. About detonation.. It is certainly a scary thing, but it does not always happen when a cruise missile hits. Let me remind you: the AUG has a powerful missile defense/air defense system, which includes all active and passive ship systems and complexes. The air defense depth is up to 500 km. In addition, the missile BC magazines have armor and security systems. But that is a separate article...
          Thank you for the question. Because nothing in our life can be excluded.
          hi
          1. 0
            2 February 2025 11: 26
            At the moment, given that the main interception is now the F-18, and the speeds of the carriers and the anti-ship missiles themselves have increased, then a depth of 500 km may no longer be enough.
            1. 0
              2 February 2025 15: 36
              In combat conditions, Hawkeyes and fighter patrols are constantly in the air. In addition, no one discounts the cruise missiles and air defense systems of the ships of the order.
              1. 0
                2 February 2025 16: 39
                There are only 5-7 "Hokkaidos", on board the AVIC. They physically cannot hang 24/7. It is theoretically possible during a threatening period, but not for very long. A pair of F-18s on duty in the air - can you imagine the fuel and engine life consumption? They are not at all infinite. So - the option is not for long and very so-so. On mattress sites, they are already very sorry that they wrote off and cut up the F-14.
                1. 0
                  2 February 2025 16: 56
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  This is theoretically possible during the threatening period,

                  Naturally, this is done when the AUG enters a zone dangerous from enemy air strikes. In the middle of the ocean, no one will increase the readiness of the air defense forces. There, most likely, the anti-submarine defense will be the leading one. Or the missile defense, at worst. The formation's FCP constantly analyzes the situation based on intelligence data flowing from all the IVI. That's why the combat broadcast sounds: -- Attention to the ship! The ship is entering a zone dangerous from enemy air strikes. Combat alert! (Or -- combat readiness No. 1 for air defense systems!) It used to be something like this.
                  AHA.
                  1. -1
                    2 February 2025 20: 29
                    And how many can work in 24/7 mode - six "hawks"?
                    1. 0
                      3 February 2025 14: 08
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And how many can work in 24/7 mode - six "hawks"?


                      They tried playing isolation in the early 80s.
                      It took 10-12 days.
                      In real life, on the 5th or 6th day, additional crews, spare engines and parts will begin to arrive on the aircraft carrier.
                      But again, I remind you once again of your constant problem.
                      You are comparing spherical horses in a vacuum.
                      Constantly.
                      One on one.
                      The Americans and NATO members will never let go of their 1x1 AUG.
                      They will cover it with their coastal AWACS. With their hundreds of tankers and hundreds of fighters, dozens of air bases, they can hold a coastal umbrella over any aircraft carrier.
                      1. 0
                        3 February 2025 15: 06
                        5-7 "Hawkeyes" lasted 10-12 days? Don't make me laugh. The average flight duration of a "Hawkeye" is 6 hours. 24 hours of continuous hovering - that's 4 boards. That leaves 2 for replacement and technical emergencies. Two flights a day - that's 12 hours in flight. Even if there are a couple of spare crews. You're stretching an owl onto a globe. A couple - three
                        days, then people will just start to fall over, equipment will fail. If you don't know, I can tell you that launching from a catapult and landing with the help of an arresting gear is a very exciting activity associated with big problems for the human musculoskeletal system and a lot of other problems, including retinal detachment. Where did you get dozens of air bases and hundreds of tankers?)) Look at the Asia-Pacific map))) The US has only about 100 tankers for everywhere and for all occasions. And they don't have an infinite number of AWACS either. And they can't fly forever either.
                      2. 0
                        3 February 2025 16: 29
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        5-7 "Hawkeyes" lasted 10-12 days? Don't make me laugh. The average flight duration of a "Hawkeye" is 6 hours. 24 hours of continuous hovering - that's 4 boards. That leaves 2 for replacement and technical emergencies. Two flights a day - that's 12 hours in flight. Even if there are a couple of spare crews. You're stretching an owl onto a globe. A couple - three
                        days, then people will just start to fall over, equipment will fail. If you don't know, I can tell you that launching from a catapult and landing with the help of an arresting gear is a very exciting activity associated with big problems for the human musculoskeletal system and a lot of other problems, including retinal detachment. Where did you get dozens of air bases and hundreds of tankers?)) Look at the Asia-Pacific map))) The US has only about 100 tankers for everywhere and for all occasions. And they don't have an infinite number of AWACS either. And they can't fly forever either.



                        That's exactly it. You write about something you don't know yourself.

                        look at the Asia Pacific map)))

                        Okay, let it be ATP.
                        Japan. 120 operating airfields with artificial surfaces and a strip of 1800 meters, 40 of which are 2500 meters long, allowing any military aircraft to operate.
                        20 of them are active air bases.
                        Korea - a little - 10-12 pieces.
                        Gam is the largest base,
                        Tinian and a couple of others on the islands of the second ring are being restored.
                        The Philippines has at least 10 military bases, including Clark, which was widely known during the Soviet era.
                        3 bases in Hawaii.
                        A minimum of 5 bases in Australia is required.
                        I wouldn't discount Indonesia either. It will give the US its bases if necessary.
                        Diego Garcia can be considered a participant in the Asia-Pacific region.
                        So the US has a ton of bases in this area.

                        the US has only about 100 gas stations for everywhere and for all occasions

                        Boeing KC-46 Pegasus - 96 units in service.
                        KC-135 aircraft - 398 units as of 3 years ago. (156 active Air Force, 70 Air Force Reserve, and 172 in the Air National Guard).
                        That is, there are already over 400 units in operation.
                        70 in reserve and 60 KS in storage in Arizona.
                        No more than 100?
                        Maybe you should sometimes read information instead of chewing it?

                        Apparently, only Russians are afraid of catapult launches.

                        Ejection launches and landings do not prevent several tens of thousands of pilots from living and existing here and now, both those serving in the US Navy, the USMC, and those who have become civilian pilots.
                        The devil is not as bad as they say.
                        Even if a third of the flights out of a normal annual flight time of 220 flight hours occur from the deck, then by your logic they should fall apart.
                        But no, they don’t fall apart.
                        And more.
                        Current US requirements are such that they now have a pilot/aircraft ratio requirement of 2/1.
                        In fact, they currently have 1.8/1.
                        And they have a ton of technicians on board and a ton of spare parts.
                        A military aircraft carrier is more than an airfield.
                        It was originally designed for military combat resistance.
                        220-250 flights and landings per day is its maximum, but possible and confirmed work rate.

                        so that they won't be falling off their feet in a week.
                        And the equipment will not fail.

                        I will repeat it again.
                        You are again and again comparing "1x1". When will you understand that the US will not be alone.
                        Japan will help them with all its aircraft, both combat and AWACS, and refueling and anti-submarine warfare, and Australia, and England, and France - they will all move their equipment where the US says and will do what the US says.
                      3. 0
                        3 February 2025 17: 16
                        Well, how many times can I remind you that "on paper" and in reality are completely different things. How many of them are listed in the Air Force does not mean that the same number of them are flying. And with the "Pegasus" there is a completely unclear story, well, except for the fact that the quality of the "Boeing" has fallen catastrophically. They start buying them, then stop buying them. And accordingly, they either allow their operation or prohibit it. Therefore, I don't know how many of them there are "on paper", in reality, somewhere around 0)))
                        Of course, Japan has many good airfields, so in case of a real fight - they are the first to fly. The Chinese are no dumber than you.
                        It's better to fly from Australia, it's harder for the Chinese to get there)))
                        I'm not even talking about whether these airfields have the necessary equipment and personnel to service such complex machines? And there are still a lot of nuances that seem trivial to you, they can be solved in a jiffy, but when it starts, it turns out that in real life, it is much worse than it is drawn on paper.
                      4. 0
                        9 February 2025 21: 59
                        The quality dropped because the oil and gas were Russian))
                        As per the law of algebra, if something decreases somewhere, it increases for someone else.
                      5. 0
                        9 February 2025 21: 55
                        Try flying 10-12 days without a break without refueling or rest. You talk such nonsense, even Boeing pilots rest for 3 days after daily flights Karl minimum!!
                        Japan and Korea will not send their ships to help defend the US coast. Otherwise, they will be left without protection at all. On the contrary, the US fleet is forced to constantly cruise in the Pacific Ocean, otherwise they will be left without their bases. And the Chinese fleet is just waiting for the moment when the Americans abandon their allies to protect their Florida coast.
        3. 0
          3 February 2025 14: 00
          Quote from warlord
          I have a question, what if MiG 31 detected an AUG or a single patrol ship on the radar and attacked. Will such a number of missiles in a powder keg help after detonation? I feel there will be a notable explosion and fire.


          We learn materiel.
          How can a MiG-31 detect an enemy AUG on radar during combat operations?

          I'll say right away - none.
          Zero chance.
      2. 0
        2 February 2025 03: 13
        Colleague, all Americans (this is included during construction!) have TRIPLE ammunition for each hull.

        Dear Udav KAA, the statement about the TRIPLE ammunition supply looks like madness

        It might have been relevant thirty years ago, when there were only 10 Berks.
        . And not only Axes are shoved into the UVP Mk-41.

        Tomahawk is the most common example of the simplest and cheapest missile of the entire range of Mk.41 ammunition.

        The Yankees don't have enough Topors to equip even half of their 70+ destroyers. Even if they clear out all their arsenals and leave the submarine fleet completely without missiles.

        Missiles of other types exist in even smaller quantities. The simplest SAMs are several times more expensive than Tomahawks. Three-stage exoatmospheric interceptors are an order of magnitude more expensive and are produced in individual quantities.
        1. 0
          2 February 2025 11: 27
          It's cheap as hell))) 1,5 million greenbacks, so what's expensive then?))) I'm embarrassed to ask.
          1. 0
            2 February 2025 15: 20
            Fucking cheap))) 1,5 million green, so what's expensive then?)

            ESSM short/medium range anti-aircraft missile - 1,8 million. Designed to fit 4 pieces in one cell

            Long-range anti-aircraft system Standard-6 - 4,3 million.

            The Standard-3 exoatmospheric interceptor costs from 11 to 36 million, depending on the number of stages and the type of warheads

            https://www.twz.com/38102/here-is-what-each-of-the-navys-ship-launched-missiles-actually-costs

            There are no extra UVPs, in principle, not at all. There is always something to load into them.

            Well, let them look for something to load up on, 3000 cells

            Find rockets for at least half (35 out of 70) of the built Berks

            Ps. The Yankees don't have that many missiles in nature, even if they clear out all the warehouses and remove the tomahawks from all the submarines.
            1. 0
              2 February 2025 16: 34
              Well, why are they cheap? One and a half million - these are the old ones. Those that are now being redesigned for Bl. V will be even more expensive. 3000 UVP cells are very much fillable if you load them with anti-submarine missiles, anti-ship missiles, SAMs of various ranges, and "axes".
            2. 0
              3 February 2025 14: 11
              Quote: Santa Fe
              Fucking cheap))) 1,5 million green, so what's expensive then?)

              ESSM short/medium range anti-aircraft missile - 1,8 million. Designed to fit 4 pieces in one cell

              Long-range anti-aircraft system Standard-6 - 4,3 million.

              The Standard-3 exoatmospheric interceptor costs from 11 to 36 million, depending on the number of stages and the type of warheads

              https://www.twz.com/38102/here-is-what-each-of-the-navys-ship-launched-missiles-actually-costs

              There are no extra UVPs, in principle, not at all. There is always something to load into them.

              Well, let them look for something to load up on, 3000 cells

              Find rockets for at least half (35 out of 70) of the built Berks

              Ps. The Yankees don't have that many missiles in nature, even if they clear out all the warehouses and remove the tomahawks from all the submarines.

              Oleg,
              The Americans constantly maintain the figure of 5500-600 tomahawks.
              Review annual contracts for the supply of retired equipment.
              There are current deliveries of 50-80-200 missiles per year. Compensatory.
              Not counting the upgrades they do under separate contracts.
              1. 0
                7 February 2025 20: 31
                Quote: SovAr238A
                Oleg,
                The Americans constantly maintain the figure of 5500-600 tomahawks.
                Review annual contracts for the supply of retired equipment.
                There are current deliveries of 50-80-200 missiles per year. Compensatory.

                I came across this information

                Over the past decade, the Navy has spent $2,8 billion on TLAM procurement, resulting in only 1234 missiles being purchased.

                Considering the US Navy has more than 140 ships and submarines capable of launching Tomahawks, and purchases of new missiles are evenly distributed across the fleet: over the past decade Tomahawk purchases amounted to only 8,8 new missiles per ship.

                https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-is-the-u-s-navy-running-out-of-tomahawk-cruise-missiles/#:~:text=With%20a%20minimum%20sustainment%20rate,launched%20versions%20of%20the%20missile.
        2. 0
          2 February 2025 15: 47
          Quote: Santa Fe
          the statement about the TRIPLE ammunition supply looks like madness

          This is the regulatory framework for ordering and building a new hull. It is calculated for the life cycle of the hull. This does not mean that everything is produced and purchased at once. Rather, it is a "guideline" for the BSF manufacturer. The fact that after repelling the attack of the Houthis' air defense forces in the Red Sea, his frigate "ran out" of SM-6s speaks volumes about the stinginess of modern naval leaders (for example, the German one) and was forced to "return" it to the base, because it did not leave the base with a full BC. This says a lot.
        3. 0
          2 February 2025 18: 47
          I think that the triple BC is due to the patrol range, because the fleet covers tens of thousands of kilometers, some even circled the earth 100 times. It is not always possible to replenish the ammunition. However, such a strategy is also fraught, if there is a fire in the missile compartment, there will be a big bada boom.
          1. 0
            3 February 2025 14: 13
            Quote from warlord
            I think that the triple BC is due to the patrol range, because the fleet covers tens of thousands of kilometers, some even circled the earth 100 times. It is not always possible to replenish the ammunition. However, such a strategy is also fraught, if there is a fire in the missile compartment, there will be a big bada boom.


            Read about the Mk-41 device, preferably about fire and explosion safety.
            In English it exists in nature.
            1. 0
              9 February 2025 22: 13
              And have you forgotten about the fuel tanks? Let me remind you that when a thousand gallons of fuel explode, the temperature at the epicenter reaches 3000 degrees, no protection will help against that. Usually after that the ship is immediately written off for scrap, how many ships were sunk by German submarines? Tens of thousands, and these are irreparable losses.
              1. 0
                9 February 2025 22: 26
                Quote from warlord
                And have you forgotten about the fuel tanks? Let me remind you that when a thousand gallons of fuel explode, the temperature at the epicenter reaches 3000 degrees, no protection will help against that. Usually after that the ship is immediately written off for scrap, how many ships were sunk by German submarines? Tens of thousands, and these are irreparable losses.

                Have you ever looked at the design of a modern ship?
                Have you seen how warships burned over the last 60 years?
                What the hell is an explosion of thousands of gallons of fuel? What are you talking about? In general?
                Have you looked into the fuel capacity and range of a modern one? Do so before writing about explosions...
                1. 0
                  13 February 2025 01: 36
                  You are writing such nonsense, honestly. New designs that are built to protect ships are worth nothing. Let me remind you of the story of the aircraft carrier Forrestal, which was damaged by one unguided Zuni 1 mm rocket. Fire and the death of almost several hundred sailors, fuel spilled over the deck and compartments. Of course, the design was immediately changed and reworked after this tragedy. However, should I remind you of the explosion of the heavy cruiser Hood? or the explosion of the battleship Marat, which defended Leningrad. In addition to the powder magazine, there was fuel from oil. The battleship Tirpitz was hit by an armor-piercing Tallboy bomb, and who in their right mind would put anti-torpedo Bulli on civilian ships?
    3. +1
      1 February 2025 22: 09
      Quote: Santa Fe
      1 artillery mount (127 mm) instead of 2 on the cruiser, also not a big loss
      In connection with the development of drones, a second anti-aircraft gun seems to be quite useful.
      Quote: Santa Fe
      but here's the thing, the number of missile silos is excessive in both cases
      They stuff everything into these silos: anti-ship missiles, air defense missile systems, anti-submarine missiles, etc. There is no redundancy.
      1. +1
        2 February 2025 11: 29
        I can't help but agree. There are no unnecessary UVPs, in principle, not at all. There will always be something to load into them.
    4. 0
      2 February 2025 21: 55
      Excellent comment! It seems that the "experts" who write articles on VO are still operating in terms of ship classes from the Second World War.
  7. +15
    1 February 2025 07: 29
    The Berk is 20 meters shorter, but it is wider and has fuller lines than the cruiser. Because of this, their displacement is the same, and in the last series, the Berk began to overtake Tika.

    Due to the large elongation of the hull, the cruiser has less resistance (better propulsion characteristics) and, in theory, is capable of developing a couple of knots more with the same power of the power plant (Burke and Tika have the same power plant of four gas turbines, and no jokes with the diesel engines of economical speed. The Yankees do not care much about fuel consumption)

    The destroyer, on the contrary, has better seaworthiness due to its shorter and “fuller” hull.
    1. +9
      1 February 2025 10: 51
      Santa Fe, thank you for your professional comments. It would be better if you wrote the article than its author...
    2. 0
      1 February 2025 19: 56
      It is obvious that this is a professional comment. It turns out that this is why the tanker needs AUG support. Because of its gluttony, like that of a US citizen who lives in McDonald's without days off eating burgers.
      1. 0
        3 February 2025 14: 23
        Quote from warlord
        It is obvious that this is a professional comment. It turns out that this is why the tanker needs AUG support. Because of its gluttony, like that of a US citizen who lives in McDonald's without days off eating burgers.


        Yeah.
        You should chew the burger yourself instead of talking nonsense about the need for a tanker in the order.
        Outside the BD zone, we are going at an economical speed. The cruising range of the shortest one is 4500 nautical miles. This is 8000 kilometers/
        From Norfolk to Tromso is 3400 miles or 7000 km.
        A rendezvous with a tanker can be arranged at any point within the last 1500 miles.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      2 February 2025 11: 30
      Shipbuilders have been struggling to create an optimal hull for a century and a half. There are too many mutually exclusive requirements. I can't say that the "Björk" hull is ideal. It is optimal for some requirements.
  8. +1
    1 February 2025 09: 34
    destroyer and cruiser, these are the names of the Russian Navy, in the West, a destroyer is a destroyer, that is, a destroyer, no reference to mine-torpedo weapons, by the way, just like a frigate and a corvette, the names are purely conditional, a destroyer can be larger than a cruiser, and a frigate the size of or larger than a destroyer, the same applies to the filling, it can be anything, it all depends on the displacement, and the latest series of Berks has 9700 tons, Ticonderogas have 9800....
  9. +2
    1 February 2025 10: 30
    What this article is about and for what purpose is completely unclear... Apparently, the author himself did not even understand why he sat down at the computer...
  10. 0
    1 February 2025 10: 38
    Yesterday I watched a video of the Arleigh Burke destroyer training. It has an interesting rapid-fire cannon from BAE Systems. A good thing for fighting drones! By the way, some Burkes also have laser cannons for fighting drones!
    1. -10
      1 February 2025 10: 49
      It is interesting to look at the specific results. And the results are that the mattress covers "slipped" from the Red Sea.
  11. 0
    1 February 2025 10: 43
    The main essence of the ArliBurke series ships is the legendary Aegis! A powerful missile defense system into which gigantic sums of money were pumped!
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 19: 58
      Yes, I remember Aegis from the time of the game Red Alert 2 (the Alliance has the best air defense).
  12. +2
    1 February 2025 10: 53
    In short and to the point: another analytical "opus" - about nothing... More precisely, about "what", with which the author deals very superficially, which suggests a very approximate "knowledge" in the area of ​​American strategy of using surface ships in air defense - defense of sea and land operations of the US Armed Forces...
  13. +2
    1 February 2025 11: 11
    The U.S. Navy currently has 74 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Two second-generation Arleigh Burke destroyers and 2 third-generation Arleigh Burke destroyers are either under construction or have been approved for procurement by Congress.


    This is where this article should begin and end. Roman really wanted to find some negatives, but all he found was "cramped and no room." And the fact that it's expensive. As if anyone in the US cared.
  14. +2
    1 February 2025 11: 49
    The Americans don't have destroyers. Burkes are cruisers.
    And they called them destroyers so that we and the Chinese wouldn’t worry... negative
    1. +1
      1 February 2025 20: 13
      The classification mess started a long time ago. When Bainbridge entered service, it was a frigate. And this doesn't fool anyone. They don't look at the class the owner positions the ship in, but at the real performance characteristics. So, everyone understands everything perfectly well. What kind of destroyers are they if they don't have torpedo tubes or mines?
      1. 0
        2 February 2025 20: 29
        The confusion over classification began a long time ago. When Bainbridge entered service, it was actually a frigate.

        At one time, the Americans called destroyer leaders frigates, that is, ships larger and better armed than the destroyer of their time.
        The Bainbridge is just such a frigate. In 1975, it was transferred to the cruiser class (like the non-nuclear frigates of the Lehi).
        And ocean patrol ships and escort destroyers began to be called frigates.
        What kind of destroyers are they if they don’t have torpedo tubes or mines?

        They do have torpedo tubes, however, and anti-submarine torpedoes.
        But these are rather translation problems.
        Destroyer is our term.
        The American Destroyer is not tied in any way to the presence of torpedoes or mines.
        1. 0
          2 February 2025 20: 33
          Destroyer, torpedo boat - there may be names and all of them have little connection with reality.
  15. +8
    1 February 2025 12: 04
    The whole point is that Americans are stupid.
    They have little understanding of cruisers and air defense.
    But they never managed to steal the plans for the Moskva and Admiral Kuznetsov.
    1. +3
      1 February 2025 12: 15
      They certainly got Kuznetsov's plans. They probably even wanted to build their own version of this floating wonder. The innovative smoke screen, which has no analogues in the world, received special praise. Unfortunately, environmental protection did not agree to the construction.
    2. 0
      1 February 2025 18: 29
      Veselov-Poselkin, you have to take the enemy very seriously and evaluate him regardless of your "gastronomic" preferences... The sad experience of the beginning of the SVO should have "strengthened" you in understanding this truth... And the "stars and stripes" have a fairly positive "understanding" of the role and place of cruisers and air defense in ensuring global dominance at sea... Yes, let me ask you, why do the Americans need the drawings of the "Moscow" and "Admiral Kuznetsov"???
      1. -1
        5 February 2025 00: 39
        Why? Because these are the flagships of the Russian fleet and they need to be studied in order to know how to fight them.
  16. +2
    1 February 2025 14: 07
    Burkes are improved versions of the Ticanderog. Better seaworthiness, all steel, better survivability.
    Compared to the Ticonderoga cruisers, the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have smaller overall dimensions, better stability parameters and combat survivability, and are also equipped predominantly with later and more advanced modifications of electronic, anti-aircraft missile and artillery weapons systems.
    1. 0
      1 February 2025 20: 15
      We will most likely never know which of them is better and which is worse. Neither of them took part in serious battles. And the "tick" will soon be written off and there will be nothing to compare it with.
  17. +3
    1 February 2025 16: 32
    World Championship fleet, that's where you'll really laugh your head off
    1. -6
      1 February 2025 20: 28
      Well, if Oreshnik hits the AUG, there will be no one to laugh there.
  18. +1
    1 February 2025 22: 16
    Quote: V.
    At least a couple of times they fired missiles with warheads from "Oreshnik" from nuclear submarines at Banderovites. They showed that we are not sleeping, we are on combat duty. Especially since submariners command the fleets now.

    Why would they fire Oreshnik from a nuclear-powered vessel? Firstly, there are no such missiles on nuclear-powered vessels, and secondly, if there were, why would they fire from the sea at a state with a huge length of common land borders?
  19. 0
    1 February 2025 22: 19
    Surely you wouldn't launch a million-dollar rocket at a drone built in a barn and limping along at the speed of a car with a couple dozen kilograms of explosives on board?
    If you want to live, you will. Besides, imagine the loss if this drone flies, say, into a radar field. Or into a missile launcher.
    It is clear that an aircraft carrier does not need fuel.
    And what to refuel the air group with? The aircraft itself has enough fuel for a couple of days and it is used up constantly (on patrols).
    The ship must be small and inconspicuous.
    A small ship in the ocean is very sad, it should be with at least 6000 tons, better 8000. What's the point of low visibility with working radars? In the hope that the anti-ship missile will be identified, or what? Well, they are multi-channel now, it seems, they will figure it out.
    1. 0
      3 February 2025 14: 35
      Quote: bk0010
      And what to refuel the air group with? The aircraft itself has enough fuel for a couple of days and it is used up constantly (on patrols).


      The fuel reserves on the aircraft carrier are 8 thousand tons.
      Here, 5-6 thousand tons are provided for the air wing and 2-3 thousand tons for refueling its order at sea.
  20. +1
    2 February 2025 00: 18
    What a voluminous one. One must be able to write so much fluff. Apparently the author will get a lot of money for the article. But in the end the author once again shoved our face into the shit, showing that our fleet is not even close to the Americans. Their problems do not concern us in any way. We do not yet have ships that can perform tasks of the level voiced. Roman, maybe you will change your priorities and will voice the real problems of our fleet, and not savor the problems of our opponents. I think that the benefit from this would be much greater. And one more thing. I see that when writing an article you do not delve into the depth of the problem, but having grabbed the top tips, you write various nonsense with indisputable aplomb. (for example - Ticonderogas run on fuel oil from your article). And I have read such comments from many users of the site. Take care of your authority. It is difficult to earn it, but easy to lose it.
  21. 0
    2 February 2025 13: 16
    The US Navy has four types of guided missile destroyers in its fleet:
    Yeah...
  22. 0
    5 February 2025 10: 11
    Comrades!

    Please tell me where I can dump the five-page "pseudo-scientific nonsense" (without pictures) that has accumulated in my inflamed brain on the topic of the approach to standardizing the transport of landing operations based on dual technologies and more or less existing engineering solutions.

    There is a set of loosely connected thoughts that are bursting in the head and making it difficult to walk.

    There is a desire to listen to criticism and thoughts of opponents (even ready for lukewarm applause).

    This is purely my hobby/(brain disease) related to the previous, naturally unsuccessful, theoretical attempt to develop a concept for the implementation of a high-speed marine landing armored amphibious vehicle (what we had in the form of the BMMP project, and they called it AAV/EFV).

    Thanks for the links to forums, sites (addresses, passwords), etc.

    PS
    My sense of humor is as sick as my imagination.
  23. 0
    5 February 2025 11: 00
    Quote: WapentakeLokki
    and so your "best country" collapsed like a house of cards... and where was the KGB and why didn't the army rise up (like in terrible Chile, but there really was Pinochet there) and finally where were the communists (all the "members" of the CPSU unanimously put down their... no, not what you might think... but their party card and... tried to get a job... and some (like you) lived until 2025...


    There are persistent rumors that some of them still have the ticket "under their hearts"