Military Review

What are the destroyers

85



The destroyer is a class of multi-purpose high-speed ships designed to combat enemy air, surface and submarine forces. The tasks of the destroyers include the escorting of sea convoys and formations of warships, patrolling, cover and fire support of amphibious assault forces, observation and reconnaissance, setting of minefields, search and rescue and special operations. In the 21st century, specific tasks were added to the “traditional” missions of squadron destroyers: delivering strikes against targets in the depths of the continent using high-precision weapons, Missile defense on a strategic scale (Theater Air Defense) and the destruction of objects in low-Earth orbit.

Sometimes they are scornfully called "tinsticks." It would seem an offensive comparison, but the British sailors, on the contrary, are proud of the derogatory nickname of their ships: after all, “can” (tin) sounds to the British ear like “can”! Maybe the destroyer is a lot ...

Small brave ships fought on a par with battleships and aircraft carriers, bravely enduring damage from enemy fire. The compartments flared and the hull set collapsed, the deck writhing in a raging flame — but the guns of the surviving guns glittered, anti-aircraft guns crackled endlessly and torpedoes plunged into the water with a dull roar. The destroyer went to his last attack. And when he received a mortal wound - he was hiding in the sea foam, and without lowering the flag in the face of the enemy.

What are the destroyers

Monument to the destroyer "Steregushchy" in St. Petersburg. The second monument to the crew of the guardian was installed in Japan - the enemy was filled with respect for the Russian sailors


The feat of the destroyer "Steregushchy", which alone took the battle with the Japanese squadron near the walls of Port Arthur. When four seamen from the crew of 50 survived, the heroes with the last effort flooded their ship.

The destroyer "Johnston", which saved the American aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Leyte. The antenna of the radar dangled among the gear, all the decks were covered with debris and torn seamen’s bodies. Growing roll. But "Johnston" stubbornly crawled forward, closing the carrier ships with a saving shroud of smoke. Until another Japanese projectile gutted the engine room of the destroyer.

The legendary Soviet destroyer "Thunderer", the heroic ships "Johnston", "Hole" and "Samuel B. Roberts" ... sinking Israeli destroyer "Eilat" ... the British destroyer "Coventry" fighting off Argentine Air Force planes ... launching dozens of "Tomahawks" destroyer US Navy type "Orly Burke" ...

Surprisingly, in each case we are talking about completely different ships - different in size, characteristics and purpose. And the matter is not at all in the notorious difference in age - even peer destroyers often have such major differences that they de facto belong to different classes.

The notion of a destroyer as a “small universal ship” is not true. Real life is far from any stereotypes - each warship is built for a specific task; for actions in predetermined conditions (in the coastal zone, in open sea areas, in conditions of possible use of nuclear weapons, etc.); against a previously known enemy (the United States and Japan had suspected about the upcoming war in the Pacific since the beginning of the twentieth century). An important factor is the financial potential of a single state, the level of development of its science and the potential of its industry. All this unambiguously sets the appearance of the future ship and influences the definition of the range of its priority tasks.

I invite readers to check which ships are hiding behind the banal phrase “destroyer” and which unexpected solutions are sometimes offered by shipbuilders.

First of all, be sure to note that destroyers are "real" and "fake". On these destroyers will be discussed below. As for the "fake", it is, most often, modest ships, which in their size and combat capabilities do not meet any of the requirements for destroyers of their generation. At best, these are frigates. At worst - anything, right up to the rocket boat.
However, with a slight stroke of the pen, and in spite of all enemies, they are enrolled in the honorary caste of destroyers. Typical propaganda and the desire to seem better than it actually is.

"Cheap Ponte" usually ends in failure - having encountered any serious enemy, the "pseudo-destroyer" releases steam from the punched boards and proudly sinks onto the seabed.

Famous examples:

The infamous destroyer Eilat, sunk by Egyptian missile boats in October 1967. He is the former British destroyer HMS Zealous, launched in 1944 year. It is fair to admit that at the time of entry into service, HMS Zealous looked depressed against the background of its peers - American, Japanese or German destroyers. Plain, outdated ship, 2000 total tonnes of displacement - not enough for a destroyer, even by the standards of World War II.

Ins eilat

And here are the other “outsiders” - the British destroyers of type 42 (better known as the “Sheffield”). By the end of the 1970s, degradation fleet Her Majesty reached such a scale that these unfortunate pelvis with a displacement of 4500 tons had to be credited to the destroyers - for comparison, the American and Soviet destroyers of those years were twice as large, and in terms of combat capabilities they generally exceeded Sheffield by an order of magnitude.
The consequences were not long in coming - during the Falkland War 1982, British replicas of warships were beaten with regular bombs from subsonic jet attack aircraft. A ringing slap on the fleet of Her Majesty.
(however, the British made of this stories certain conclusions - the 2-i and 3-i modification of the Sheffield turned out much better)

HMS Sheffield after a fire on board caused by an unexploded rocket

Now, excluding from consideration of the "fake", let's move on to the real destroyers - the remarkable combat systems that have become the "thunderstorm of the seas."

The first subspecies of destroyers - the destroyers of air defense.

The name speaks for itself, the ships are focused on the fight against air targets and, it must be admitted, the efforts of the designers were not in vain. Modern maritime SAMs allow you to control the space hundreds of kilometers from the ship’s side - if there is a destroyer of air defense in the warrant, an air attack on a squadron becomes an extremely risky and ineffective venture: even a supersonic anti-ship missile going at the utmost low altitude does not guarantee a breakthrough through the destroyer’s “invincible shield” air defense.

Famous examples:

The idea of ​​the destroyer of air defense is not new - such ships have been known since the Second World War. For example, the Japanese destroyer "Akizuki". Despite Japan’s serious lag in radio engineering and fire control systems, the Japanese managed to create a fairly successful destroyer with a total displacement of 3700 tons, which became one of the best destroyers of the Second World War. Exceptionally powerful anti-aircraft weapons (not by quality, by quantity - up to 60 barrels of anti-aircraft guns of all calibers!) + Incredible fuel autonomy (a full supply of fuel oil was enough for 8000 miles away)!

In our time, the undisputed favorite is the British "Daring" (45 type destroyer). In terms of dealing with air targets, "Deringu" is not equal. What is it worth one super-radar with an active phased array or a set of anti-aircraft missiles with an active homing head capable of getting an enemy aircraft below the radio horizon? Beautiful, powerful and modern ship, the pride of the fleet of Her Majesty.

HMS Dragon (D35) - the fourth to destroyer type 45


The second subspecies - "shock" destroyers.

These include destroyers, "sharpened" for the destruction of enemy ships, as well as having any special abilities for fire support of amphibious assault forces or launching missile and artillery strikes at coastal targets. Nowadays, their number is rapidly decreasing - ships are becoming more and more universal, however, the idea of ​​a “shock destroyer” is rarely realized in the form of absolutely fantastic structures.

Famous examples:

The destroyer of the project 956 (code "Sarych"). Rocket-artillery ship with automatic guns caliber 130 mm and supersonic anti-ship missiles "Mosquito". The classic strike destroyer, with a weakened air defense and anti-aircraft defense.



The second prominent representative is the Chinese destroyer type 052 “Lanzhou” (currently obsolete). Very mediocre capabilities in terms of anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense, but on board the "Lanzhou" whole 16 anti-ship missiles!


Chinese destroyer Qingdao (DDG-113). The Stars and Stripes is just a gesture of courtesy during a visit to Pearl Harbor.

And of course, you can not ignore the incredible destroyer "Zamvolt"! Fantastic stealth ship, “Pentagon silver bullet” - the euphoria around the promising American destroyer has not subsided for almost 10 years. In addition to unusual, futuristic forms, the project attracted public attention with an unusual composition of weapons - for the first time in the past half century, two automated AGS guns of 155 mm are planned to be installed on a warship. 10 firing rate / min. High-precision projectile firing range - more than 100 kilometers!

Moving along the enemy coast, the invisible stealth destroyer will fall asleep to the ports, coastal cities and military bases of the enemy with their six-inch shells. And for "difficult targets" on board the Zamvolt, 80 UVP is provided for launching anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk winged kamikaze robots.

The third subspecies - Large anti-submarine ships or PLO destroyers

During the Cold War, the threat from ballistic-missile nuclear submarines was so great that both superpowers struggled to saturate the fleet with anti-submarine weapons. As a result - BOD - large destroyers with hypertrophied anti-submarine weapons appeared in the composition of the USSR Navy. The monstrous 700-tonne sonar stations, anti-submarine missile torpedoes, anti-submarine helicopter, rocket bombers and anti-submarine torpedoes are all means to detect and destroy enemy SSBNs!


The Yankees moved in a similar direction - “to have an anti-submarine frigate or a destroyer for each Soviet submarine.” One of the results of this approach was a large series of destroyers of the Spruens type. In the ranks of the US Navy, these ships performed the function of our BOD, with some adjustments to the universality of weapons. A notable feature of the Spryuans was the absence of a collective defense air defense system - the destroyers' air defense was rather weak and ineffective.
A good ship in all respects has become even better with the advent of vertical missile launch installations - six dozen Tomahawks turned the Sprewens into a real destroyer.

Fourth subspecies - helicopter destroyers

The specific invention of the Japanese genius. Nostalgia for the glorious times of Pearl Harbor. Constitutional ban on aircraft carriers and strike weapons. Serious threat from the Soviet submarine fleet.
All this determined the appearance of the Japanese destroyers: the main armament was helicopters. From 3 to 11 rotary-wing machines on board, depending on the type of ship. However, on board each of the Japanese destroyers, helicopter carriers, there are a number of built-in weapons: from artillery shells to air defense systems and anti-submarine rocket-torpedoes.


Helicopter destroyer "Haruna"



Helicopter destroyer "Hyuga". Sizes similar to UDC "Mistral"


Fifth subspecies - universal destroyers

Rare, but very cool type of destroyers. There used to be a lot of them, now almost the only “Orly Burk” and its derivatives remain. China is working in this direction, but so far all of its attempts do not reach the level of the American Aegis destroyer.
The creation of such a ship in our time requires tremendous efforts of the military-industrial complex, the highest level of development of science and huge financial costs. The only ones who managed to fully implement this idea were the Americans. At the beginning of the US Navy's 90, they received a super-ship with 96 vertical launch systems Mk41 (the entire nomenclature of missiles adopted by the US Navy — SAM, PLUR, cruise missiles “Tomahawk”, anti-satellite missiles “3 Standard” - everything except ballistic missiles ).


Universal Mk41 control gears would not have that mystical effect without the Aegis combat information control system — AN / SPY-1 radar with four phased antenna arrays. Simultaneous tracking of thousands of air, surface and underwater targets within a radius of two hundred miles from the ship. Efficiency and speed of decision making. Special modes of operation of the radar. Data exchange in real time with other ships and aircraft. All ship electronics - detection, radio, satellite communications, weapons - all ship systems are connected into a single information circuit.


Yeah ... The destroyer "Burke" is good, although it is not without flaws: thin tin boards and disgustingly low survivability is the scourge of all modern ships. In addition, the "Berks" of the first modification were not at all universal - the priority of Aegis destroyer was always air defense. All other problems did not interest him.
Initially, the “Berks” did not even provide for the permanent basing of the helicopter. Anti-submarine defense was relegated to simpler ships - the same destroyers of the Spruence type.

In conclusion, I would like to note that these five subspecies of destroyers (from the destroyer of air defense to the strike destroyer and the destroyer-helicopter carrier) are by no means a complete list of the specializations of the destroyers.
For example, during the Second World War, there was a need for escort destroyers — specific ships for escort missions — hence the unusual requirements for their design and weapon composition.

In addition, there were destroyers, minelayers (type "Robert Smith"); destroyers of the radar patrol; destroyers converted into anti-submarine ships under the FRAM program ... The range of tasks of the destroyer destroyers is extremely wide and it is not surprising that specialized structures are created to solve an important problem.


The destroyer of the project 956 and the American destroyer of the type "Spryens"
Author:
85 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak
    Vadivak April 19 2013 09: 13
    +9
    Hi Oleg. And what did Tashkent deprive of its attention? The construction is understandably Italian, but the project is our 1-38. 1935 year assignment
    1. Santa Fe
      April 19 2013 19: 36
      +4
      Quote: Vadivak
      Hi Oleg. And what did Tashkent deprive of its attention? The construction is understandably Italian, but the project is our 1-38. 1935 year assignment

      Great!

      "Tashkent" is still a "white elephant", a single ship of its type
      Xnumx years ago it seemed weird

      The last trip of "Tashkent" to Sevastopol is a real miracle in the history of naval battles. lack of armor, primitive anti-aircraft weapons (no analogue computers CIC or projectiles with a radar fuse), 80+ attacking Junkers, 300+ dropped bombs - and yet the ship survived and won!

      Remember how the Japanese sank Dorsetshire and Cornwell with bombs in a matter of minutes ...
      Against the background of these events, the salvation of "Tashkent" is some kind of paranormal phenomenon / LUCK
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak April 20 2013 21: 32
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Against the background of these events, the salvation of "Tashkent" is some kind of paranormal phenomenon / LUCK


        According to German concepts, the crew was paranormal there, only a virtuoso could maneuver, so the Germans did it only in the port, and on June 27, 42 during the Junkers attack, there were 86, the boib was recorded 336, well, I realized that you wrote from memory that you weren’t sclerosis you suffer
        1. Santa Fe
          April 21 2013 01: 41
          +1
          Quote: Vadivak
          so only a virtuoso could maneuver

          Yes, the crew saved themselves and their precious cargo with their competent actions. On board were thousands of people evacuated from Sevastopol
          Quote: Vadivak
          Well, I realized that you wrote from memory, do not suffer from sclerosis

          You know, I sometimes remember the number of bombs that hit the target. For example, the British Coventry (Falklands) accumulated from three bomb hits (one did not explode) ... or "Antilope" - two unexploded bombs, detonation when trying to clear mines
          But to remember the number of bombs dropped .... it's too much)))
  2. Russian
    Russian April 19 2013 09: 31
    +6
    Article plus! Although of course I would like more characteristics and photos of the destroyers themselves, as in a recent article about frigates.
    So, there were frigates, destroyers now, aircraft carriers remain, and I personally would be interested to see such a classification about submarines)
  3. PDM80
    PDM80 April 19 2013 09: 39
    +3
    Good article. I hope there will be a continuation hi
  4. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 19 2013 09: 41
    +3
    And what did Tashkent deprive of its attention? The construction is understandably Italian, but our project is 1-38. Assignment of 1935.

    Tashkent, Minsk, Kharkov and others should be attributed to another subspecies of destroyers - namely, leaders
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak April 19 2013 15: 22
      +3
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Tashkent, Minsk, Kharkov and others should be attributed to another subspecies of destroyers - namely, leaders


      Thank you I know, foreigners called them super destroyers

      1. Santa Fe
        April 19 2013 19: 57
        +3
        Quote: Vadivak
        Thank you I know, foreigners called them super destroyers

        will sound blasphemous, but the Soviet leaders - "Leningrad", "Minsk", "Tashkent" (a total of 7 ships built for 3 projects) were just analogues of the best foreign destroyers.

        "Ordinary" Soviet destroyers - sevens - are simply ashamed to compare with the Japanese Akizuki, American Fletchers, Sumners, Girings, or German "Type 1936". The Americans especially stood out - radars, computers, etc. high-tech gave them exceptional combat capabilities. Plus, they were built not by 1 ship, like "Tashkent", but in series of 70 or more units

        For example, Allen M. Sumner. Pay attention to the number - unlike the Soviet Navy, where tactical numbers were assigned spontaneously, in the US Navy the side number is attached during construction and forever - DD-692, indeed the 692nd built destroyer
  5. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 19 2013 09: 44
    0
    The author is a big plus. However, in such a small article, it is unrealistic to talk about all the subtypes of destroyers. The topic should be continued in a more detailed form for each subtype. It’s worth starting with the Iranian undershot, and ending with Zumvolt.
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 19 2013 09: 47
    0
    Nowadays, the British Daring (destroyer type 45) is the undisputed favorite. In terms of the fight against air targets, the Daring has no equal.

    But it is necessary to check and compare the performance characteristics of the "Dering" with the performance characteristics of our project 22350 frigate of the "Admiral Gorshkov" class. Ours is almost two times smaller, and better in terms of air defense potential.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis April 20 2013 14: 39
      0
      In order to compare ships, they must already be in the combat composition of the fleet. 22350 not yet. But if everything conceived in the "Polyment-Redoubt" succeeds (and in other systems too), then a multifunctional warship may turn out, inferior to most destroyers, mainly in cruising range. But there are also problems. This ship is new. There are difficulties with fine-tuning. And building is half the battle. It is necessary to "bring to mind", launch into a series, prepare teams and infrastructure. A project on paper and the achievement of operational readiness by ships are two different things. In reality, it will be possible to talk about something in 6-8 years.
      The best or not the best "Doering" is a very relative dispute. The British built the ship they needed using whatever scientific and technical base they had. It turned out to be a completely modern air defense destroyer, and given that they are not going to fight with the United States, it is quite sufficient for them.
  7. Canep
    Canep April 19 2013 10: 14
    0
    We look forward to continuing about cruisers, frigates, patrol ships. Thanks to the author.
  8. Srgsoap
    Srgsoap April 19 2013 10: 16
    0
    One thing is sad, our fleet has neither destroyers, nor other modern ships ...
  9. 501Legion
    501Legion April 19 2013 10: 40
    +1
    excellent article, not enough of course but read with pleasure
    thank you
  10. 123dv
    123dv April 19 2013 10: 59
    +3
    Project 956 destroyer
    The best thing we had. Strong, beautiful. Do not save ...
    I served on that. A dream, not a ship!
    And do not say that boilers and turbines, and other garbage ...
    A friend asked the Chinese comrades whether they were happy with the ship and whether the problem of a steam turbine installation bothered them. So the Chinese are happy to screech, everything works for them. They have the most powerful ships in the fleet.
    And we could have ...
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 19 2013 11: 49
      +2
      Yeah, the photo did not see the Chinese 956? Smoke with terrible black smoke, which indicates the condition of the boilers. And in the 21st century, using boilers as a power plant is idiocy. The entire fleet at GTU, and for 956 separately prepare specialists for boiler-makers, water treatment plants, etc. And the aft Ak-130, why the hell is it needed? True, the Chinese refused it ...
      1. 123dv
        123dv April 19 2013 11: 54
        +2
        How uncultured! laughing
        They refused in favor of a full-size helicopter hangar and a full-time helicopter, nothing more. And they said that excessive firepower!
        Is firepower excessive ...?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 19 2013 12: 17
          -1
          Well, in order to crush a trifle, the bow AU is enough, but it won't go more serious against ships, at a distance of art. no one will let the shot go. So the Chinese "friends" are right.
          1. 123dv
            123dv April 19 2013 12: 59
            +1
            After all, anything happens in a war ...
            How many transports were sunk and burned by German submariners in the waters of the Atlantic, using a single gun! ... Torpedoes cherished however.
            And landing support is one of the main tasks of this particular ship. A flurry of fire, 180 shells per minute!
            I'm already silent about how it looks!
            1. Santa Fe
              April 19 2013 13: 13
              +1
              Quote: 123dv
              How many transports were sunk and burned by German submariners in the waters of the Atlantic, using a single gun!


              The most notable incident involving Alacrity was the sinking of the Argentine supply ship ARA Isla de los Estados by gunfire over the night of 10 – 11 May 1982, near Swan Islands.

              On the night of 10 on 11 on May 1982, the frigate HMS Alacrity drowned the ARA Isla de los Estados transport with artillery fire. It took about two dozen shots, after which the Argentine transport exploded. This case is considered the last naval artillery battle in modern history.

              Small HMS Alacrity with a single 114 mm gun
          2. seafarer
            seafarer April 29 2013 14: 37
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Well, to push a trifle, there is enough nasal AU, .......... So the Chinese "friends" are right.


            At 956, the 130-k turrets were universal. About 1/3 of the shells in the cellars were with radio fuses. So, the "Chinese friends" abandoned at least half of the medium-range anti-aircraft artillery.
            However, they most likely tried to strengthen the PLO.
            The 956th PLO was not a priority. Tactically, they were supposed to work in tandem with 1155s. They were built like that.
            Course tasks SK-1, SK-2 always worked out together 956 and 1155.
      2. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich April 20 2013 05: 16
        +2
        the son served on EM "Troubled" in Baltiysk ... stands idle because of the boilers, of course. they went out to sea on "PERSISTENT" a similar project (956) but on the traverse the boilers - "colonized" ... that's all the exercises ... request
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich April 20 2013 05: 10
      +5
      yes ... slightly smokes ... but the ship is 20 years old! but anyway, very beautiful agree!
  11. Kars
    Kars April 19 2013 11: 30
    +8
    and how it all began ....
  12. Andy
    Andy April 19 2013 11: 34
    +1
    The notorious destroyer Eilat sunk by Egyptian missile boats in October 1967. He is the former British destroyer HMS Zealous, launched in 1944. It is fair to admit that by the time of entry into service, the HMS Zealous looked depressed against the background of its peers

    And the Soviet destroyers of that period, well, just masterpieces. Their anti-aircraft qualities ... I will not say anything better.

    British replicas of warships were beaten with conventional bombs from subsonic jet attack aircraft. The sonorous slap in the face of Her Majesty's fleet.

    You can see this topic does not let you sleep, all of it procrastinate. put a monkey behind the wheel of a Mercedes, and then conclude that the car is useless. By the way, despite all the "slaps" and "inferiority" of aircraft carriers, they won that war at the "coast"!
    article minus. only photos are good
    1. Santa Fe
      April 19 2013 13: 21
      +1
      Quote: Andy
      And the Soviet destroyers of that period, well, just masterpieces. Their anti-aircraft qualities ... I will not say anything better.

      but this does not mean that the HMS Zealous is a great ship)))
      Quote: Andy
      despite all the "slaps" and "defectiveness" of aircraft carriers, they won that war at the "coast"!

      still would. British nuclear boats locked Argentinean fleet at bases

      The cruiser "General Belrano" without a bow end - such a fate awaited any Argentine ship that rushed to approach the Falklands
      1. Andy
        Andy April 19 2013 13: 39
        +1
        I agree, does not mean. but it means that it is not inferior to destroyers of other countries. And in general it was sunk by missile weapons, and was built as an artillery-torpedo. Do not tell me at the time of drowning its peers — our sevens were still in service or were already decommissioned 7

        "despite all the" slaps "and" inferiority "of aircraft carriers, they won that war at the" coast "!

        still would. British nuclear submarines locked in bases Argentine navy "
        interesting moment. means the British fleet completed the task of transferring troops, blocking the adversary in the base. and this is thousands of miles from home.
        what else do you want? that the war was, to put it mildly, strange is more related to the "professionals" on both sides. the technology itself does not fight
        1. Santa Fe
          April 19 2013 20: 38
          -1
          Quote: Andy
          but it means that it is not inferior to destroyers of other countries.

          what is this?))
          maybe the Japanese Akizuki? or the American Sumner? or HMS Zealous with German "Narvik"?))

          It is incorrect to compare it with Soviet destroyers - sevens older than HMS Zealous years on 10
          Quote: Andy
          Do not tell me at the time of drowning his peers - our sevens were still in the ranks or have been decommissioned 7

          Yes, in 1967, sevens were still part of the USSR Navy - obsolete trash was used as rescue and decontamination ships at Novaya Zemlya training grounds, floating ships or target ships.
          1. Andy
            Andy April 20 2013 11: 13
            -1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            in 1967, sevens were still part of the USSR Navy - obsolete trash was used as life-saving and decontamination ships at Novaya Zemlya training grounds, floating ships or target ships.


            are you kidding peers: one target, the other in service! and what do you want from a hopelessly outdated ship?
            1. Santa Fe
              April 20 2013 15: 53
              +1
              Quote: Andy
              peers: one target, the other in the ranks!

              Well done, in terms of quantity and quality of weapons the Soviet Navy did not stand close with the Israeli Navy
              what Israel fought in the Union has long been thrown into a landfill and built new ships
              Quote: Andy
              and what do you want from a hopelessly old ship?

              That it is not used in the "first line". Otherwise, the result will be sad.

              Soviet missile cruiser Ave. 1134, 1967 year
        2. Santa Fe
          April 19 2013 21: 09
          +1
          Quote: Andy
          it means the British fleet completed the task of transferring troops, blocking the adversary in the base. And this is thousands of miles from home.

          According to statistics, 80% of the bombs from Her Majesty’s squadron’s destroyers, frigates and landing ships didn’t work properly
          Explode at least half of them - and the British fleet had a chance to not complete the task)))

          The reason for everything is the frankly weak air defense of the British squadron
          Quote: Andy
          what else do you need?

          So that the bombs don't hit the ships. Otherwise, everything turns into "Russian roulette". Will explode - will not explode. Will survive - will not survive.
          Quote: Andy
          technology itself does not fight

          This does not mean that you need to go with the tanks to the forks
          1. Andy
            Andy April 20 2013 11: 10
            -1
            At this time, Sheffield was negotiating with London via the Skynet satellite communication channel. To eliminate interference, the ship's commander ordered to turn off all onboard electronic equipment

            turn off the radar and be surprised at the rocket in the side. "So that the bombs do not hit the ships." I have already unsubscribed about the monkey driving the Mersa. But Kaptsov cannot comprehend this, everything blames the technique, not its illiterate use, and here is a confirmation
            Quote: Andy

            technology itself does not fight

            * This does not mean that you need to go with the tanks to the pitchfork *
            1. Santa Fe
              April 20 2013 16: 06
              +1
              Quote: Andy
              At this time, Sheffield was negotiating with London via the Skynet satellite communication channel. To eliminate interference, the ship's commander ordered to turn off all onboard electronic equipment

              turn off the radar and be surprised at the rocket in the side. "So that the bombs do not hit the ships." I have already unsubscribed about the monkey driving the Mersa.

              Sheffield case famous

              But as Andy explains the doom:
              - destroyer "Coventry"
              - frigates "Ardent" and "Antilope"
              - landing ship "Sir Galahad"
              - military transport "Atalantic Conveyor"

              severe damage:
              - destroyers Entrim and Glasgow
              - frigates "Plymouth", "Brodsward" and "Argonaut"
              - landing ships "Sir Tristram" and "Sir Lancelotte"
              - naval tanker "British Way"
              (all these ships are corpses, explode at least one of the bombs that hit them)

              damage:
              - destroyer "Glamorgan" (hit by anti-ship missiles "Exocet")
              - frigates "Brilliant", "Elecrity", "Arrow"
              - landing ship "Sir Bedivere"
              - military transport "Stromness"

              Did the British sailors (monkeys, according to Andy) always turn off the radar?
              Why are there such large losses from the obsolete Skyhawks of the Argentine Air Force ??

              Sinking destroyer "Coventry"
      2. Mikola
        Mikola April 19 2013 13: 41
        +1
        And the submarines also suppressed the activity of the Argentine Air Force? After that, the activity of the Argentinean fleet went to naught. You are the original, your surface of the sea is controlled not by naval aviation, but by eyeliner))))
        1. Santa Fe
          April 19 2013 21: 02
          +2
          Quote: Mikola
          And the submarines also suppressed the activity of the Argentine Air Force?

          No, the submarines completed their task - they drove them to the Argentine Navy bases

          The activity of the Argentine Air Force was never suppressed - the destroyers of the URO and the frigates of the fleet of Her Majesty tried to do this, but, due to the weakness of anti-aircraft weapons, the task could not be completed. In this case, a third of the squadron received damage.
          1. Mikola
            Mikola April 19 2013 21: 47
            +1
            Here are the statistics on the "weak" air defense of the British - A large role in the air defense and missile defense of the expeditionary forces was played by air defense systems, which account for more than 50% of the downed aircraft and helicopters. Particularly high combat capabilities were shown by the Sea Wolfe air defense system, on the combat account of which there were 5 shot down planes and two Exocet missiles. The complex was adopted by the British in 1979 and installed on URO frigates to combat low-flying targets with an effective reflective surface of up to 0,1 square meters.

            Ship SAMs: “Sea Wolf” 5, “Sea Darth 8,“ Sea Cat 10 Total 23.

            80% of ships and vessels were sunk by aircraft. This indicates that, as during the Second World War, aviation remains a formidable force in combat operations at sea.

            In the Falkland War, 350 combat aircraft and helicopters were used. The Argentines at the beginning of the war had about two hundred combat aircraft: of them 6 Super Etandar attack aircraft, 21 Mirage ZE fighter aircraft and 23 Dagger 34M fighter aircraft, 75 Skyhawk A-4P attack aircraft, 10 Canberra reconnaissance aircraft -62. 14 Skyhawk A-4Q aircraft were in the Navy (on an aircraft carrier). In reality, 150 cars participated in the war.

            The British could oppose only 20 Sea Harrier planes located on the anti-submarine carriers Hermes (12 units) and Invincible (8 units). Soon, however, the advantage of Argentine aviation was nullified. On container ships converted to aircraft carriers, up to 30 Harrier and Sea Harrier aircraft were delivered to the conflict area, and a squadron of the same aircraft with several refueling in the air made a flight from the British Isles to the South Atlantic. Directly on ships deployed off the Falkland Islands, there were more than 80 helicopters of eight types (Link, Wessex, Sea King, Washi, Chinook, Gazelle, Commando and Scout), and In total, about 130 helicopters were involved. smile And why are the British stubbornly building aircraft carriers is not clear to Oleg Kaptsov?

            During the conflict, the UK deployed 42 VVP aircraft in the South Atlantic (28 Sea Harriers FRS.1 and 14 Harriers GR.3). They carried out more than 2000 sorties south of the island. Ascension, including 1650 in the war zone. The flight time per aircraft was 55 hours per month - up to 6 sorties per day. One pilot made 3-4 sorties a day, which required about 10 hours of stay in the cockpit. At the initial stage of hostilities, the expeditionary forces had 12 pilots for every 10 aircraft, and at the final stage - 14. The combat readiness of all Harriers as a whole was over 80%.

            During air attacks, Sea Harrier aircraft fired 27 volleys with sidewinder missiles, 24 of them hit the target, 7 of them were shot down with a 30 mm Aden cannon. Of the 31 shot down aircraft, 19 were Mirage fighters. Moreover, not one “Sea Harrier” was shot down in aerial combat.

            Argentine Aviation Losses

            According to English data: The losses of Argentinean aviation amounted to more than 100 planes and helicopters, including “Super Etandar” - 1, “Mirage” and “Dagger” - 26, “Pukara” - 23, helicopters - 18, etc. The Argentinean Air Force suffered the greatest losses from anti-aircraft missiles (45 aircraft), 31 aircraft lost in air battles, 30 - at the airfields.

            You probably had some other war on the Falklands in a parallel universe))))
            1. Santa Fe
              April 19 2013 22: 12
              0
              Quote: Mikola
              80% of ships and vessels were sunk by aircraft.

              The British generally have 100% of ship losses - sunk by aircraft
              Mikola forgot to indicate the main thing - the Argentine Navy did not take an active part in the war, which, in fact, predetermined the victory of the British.
              Question: Why were the Argentine Navy unable to take an active part in the hostilities? wink
              Quote: Mikola
              aviation remains a formidable force in naval operations

              Has anyone claimed the opposite?
              Quote: Mikola
              Ship SAMs: “Sea Wolf” 5, “Sea Darth 8,“ Sea Cat 10 Total 23.

              Quote: Mikola
              The Argentinean Air Force suffered the greatest losses from anti-aircraft missiles (45 aircraft)

              45 - 23 = 22. Who shot down these 22 aircraft?
              Quote: Mikola
              The Argentinean Air Force suffered the greatest losses from anti-aircraft missiles (45 aircraft), 31 aircraft lost in air battles, 30 - at airfields.

              But what about naval anti-aircraft artillery? request
              Quote: Mikola
              And why are the British stubbornly building aircraft carriers is not clear to Oleg Kaptsov?

              How about the success of the Argentine aircraft carrier May 25 in the Falklands Conflict?
              1. Mikola
                Mikola April 19 2013 22: 18
                0
                The Argentine Navy played a very limited role in the war, although it had the ability to influence the course of the struggle. For example, more active use of modern submarines and destroyers with the Exocet anti-ship missile system could give very good results. The exit of the aircraft carrier "May 25" could divert significant British forces, having squadrons of Skyhawk attack aircraft and helicopters.

                If Argentina had put forward the aircraft carrier "May 25" with its attack aircraft, the losses of the British would have been much greater! But these are already questions of tactics for the Argentines themselves ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 23: 06
                  -1
                  Quote: Mikola
                  The exit of the aircraft carrier "May 25" could divert significant forces of the British

                  )))
                  The battle score of the nuclear submarine "Valiant" or "Korejes" would have replenished a non-acidic trophy))
                  Quote: Mikola
                  having squadrons of Skyhawk attack aircraft and helicopters.

                  at the bottom
                  Quote: Mikola
                  If Argentina had put forward the aircraft carrier "May 25" with its attack aircraft, the losses of the British would have been much greater!

                  For some reason, the Argentines decided that they themselves would have losses - and urgently hid the aircraft carrier in the base)))
              2. svp67
                svp67 April 19 2013 22: 19
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The British generally have 100% of ship losses - sunk by aircraft
                Mikola forgot to indicate the main thing - the Argentine Navy did not take an active part in the war, which, in fact, predetermined the victory of the British.
                Question: Why were the Argentine Navy unable to take an active part in the hostilities?


                And what could they oppose the British Navy? They could not detect the English submarine in time, and lost the cruiser. And this fact immediately cooled their ardor ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 23: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  And what could they oppose the British Navy? They could not detect the English submarine in time, and lost the cruiser. And this fact immediately cooled their ardor ...

                  I agree. The fatal shot of the nuclear submarine "Conquerror" decided the outcome of the war, ensuring the British supremacy at sea.
                  The fall of the blocked Falkland garrison was only a matter of time
                2. old man54
                  old man54 6 May 2013 14: 39
                  0
                  In general, the Americans did a tip-off to the Argentine cruiser "General Belrano" from the English nuclear submarine, it seems that via satellite. Here's where to start, that's when it becomes clearer why Argentina hid its fleet at the base and why the “tomies” behaved so brazenly and confidently.
              3. Mikola
                Mikola April 19 2013 22: 25
                0
                Quote: Mikola
                45 - 23 = 22. Who shot down these 22 aircraft?

                Probably ship anti-aircraft artillery? smile Below gave a source read
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 22: 58
                  0
                  Quote: Mikola
                  Probably ship anti-aircraft artillery? Below gave a source read

                  As you can see, the Harriers (31 air victories) accounted for only 1/3 of the downed aircraft - 2/3 of the work was done by air defense systems
                2. old man54
                  old man54 6 May 2013 14: 58
                  0
                  the British naval zentite artillery was then already extremely undeveloped, almost absent, they more relied on the air defense system, for which they received a "face". But after all, Argentine aircraft not only shot down ships, but also the coast after the landing on the Falkland Islands. And there there was MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery, and there was a land-based air defense system, they used a mobile one, not very well, prada, but still. :)
              4. Mikola
                Mikola April 19 2013 22: 33
                +1
                The submarine fleet played its role, of course, but the British were afraid to lose not a submarine, but aircraft carriers, I repeat with the quote - “It remains a mystery why the Argentine command missed the opportunity to strike at the Hermes.” If they succeeded, the British would collapse. Knowing this, we fought a war on the blade of a knife. I knew that just one accident - a mine, explosion or fire on either of our two aircraft carriers, would almost certainly be fatal to the entire operation. " (Sir Admiral John Woodward, in 1982 commanded TS-317).

                Losses in this conflict show that naval aviation played a major role, not submarines.
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 23: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Mikola
                  Losses in this conflict show that naval aviation played a major role, not submarines.

                  "The best win is a win without a fight." (Sun Tzu "The Art of War" IV century BC)

                  This is exactly what the British nuclear submarines did, ensuring the British supremacy at sea with the help of the "demonstration execution" of the Argentine cruiser

            2. old man54
              old man54 6 May 2013 14: 46
              0
              I would not so blindly trust British statistics of British air victories in this war. In general, the West tends to exaggerate its "achievements" and hide its defeats, trampling even former opponents in the mud. They claim that they have no witnesses of the combat losses of aviation at all in that conflict, but only not combat ones, due to difficult weather conditions. The type of flight and combat training of the Argentine pilots was the lowest, not like the type of them, tom. :) But the same pilots of the Argentine Air Force with the same level of training perfectly broke through the air defense of their ships and formations and laid ordinary bombs well !! into their ships. :) Probably something is not quite as English women say? :))
          2. Mikola
            Mikola April 19 2013 21: 57
            +2
            How the British themselves assess the role of their aircraft carriers in this war - “It remains a mystery why the Argentine command missed the opportunity to strike at the Hermes. If they succeeded, the British would collapse. one accident - a mine, explosion or fire on either of our two aircraft carriers will almost certainly be fatal to the entire operation. " (Sir Admiral John Woodward, in 1982 commanded TS-317).
            1. Santa Fe
              April 19 2013 22: 29
              -1
              The loss of an aircraft carrier would be a heavy moral blow to the squadron - the death of a large ship meant the death of dozens (hundreds) of crew members. Impact on the reputation of the British Navy. Sowed by fright in British public opinion.
              Thatcher's government would have been forced to wind down the operation in the South Atlantic and conclude a truce.

              Another thing is that purely from a military point of view, the importance of the aircraft carrier was not great - the British squadron would only have won if instead of the "Hermes" and "Invincible" heels of destroyers, even such unlucky ones as Type 42, were built.

              ps / British squadron consisted of more than xnumx pennants - If TF317 had left Porsmouth, leaving Hermes and Invincible in the base, it would not have affected the operation in any way.
            2. old man54
              old man54 6 May 2013 15: 04
              0
              so they, the British, also hid them from the Argentines, taking them outside the tactical range of the ground-based air forces of Argentina. I do not think that the Argentine command did not understand this benefit for themselves and did not seek to sink them.
          3. Mikola
            Mikola April 19 2013 22: 06
            +1
            But how British strategic aviation acted, I remember you are hoping to replace aircraft carriers with it? am

            The Falklands War was the first for the "aged" strategic bombers "Volcano". Introduced into service in 1956, they were the first to go into action in 1982. Not to say that the participation of these aircraft in the war brought significant benefits to the British. Of the 7 Black Buck operations, three ended in failure: the flight was either canceled, or the plane returned to base before reaching Falkland.

            The first time "Vulcan" bombed the Port Stanley GDP on May 1, but only one bomb out of 21 hit the target. Martin Withers was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his "successful mission" and Bob Tuxford was awarded the Air Force Cross.

            Volcano aircraft bombed the Falkland Islands 4 more times; 2 times attacks were made on planes at the Port Stanley airfield and at warehouses (to no avail); 2 times - on the radar located near Port Stanley. In the latter case, anti-radar Shrike missiles were used. In one case, it was possible to damage the radar, killed 4 operators.

            Hardly all costs "paid off".

            I think I completely described to you on the facts the inferiority of your theory of the "inferiority" of aircraft carriers)))))))))))))))))))
            1. Mikola
              Mikola April 19 2013 22: 21
              0
              This text is taken from http://historiwars.narod.ru/Index/XXv/Folk/F11.htm, War History, Falkland War
            2. Santa Fe
              April 19 2013 22: 37
              0
              Quote: Mikola
              But how British strategic aviation acted, I remember you are hoping to replace aircraft carriers with it?

              Yes, only Mikola forgot to clarify one detail:
              the British in the 1982 year did not have strategic aviation. the British had flying trash falling apart on take-off, with drop-down cockpit glazing and falling off fuel rods

              It makes no sense to compare decrepit "Volcano" with B-1B or B-2
              1. Mikola
                Mikola April 19 2013 22: 43
                0
                If, yes, it wouldn’t be for me anymore))) The experience of that recent war clearly showed that strategic aviation does not solve tactical issues ....
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 22: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: Mikola
                  strategic aviation does not solve tactical issues ....

                  Did anyone say the opposite?
                  Quote: Mikola
                  But how British strategic aviation acted, I remember you are hoping to replace aircraft carriers with it?

                  F-111, F-15E and F-16 become strategic aviation?

                  ps / What important tasks did British carrier-based aircraft perform in the Falkland War?
              2. Kars
                Kars April 19 2013 22: 48
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                decrepit "Volcano"

                And I like the volcano, only it has never been in the GDP in mine.

                And the main run of the Argentines - they didn’t transfer artillery and tanks to the Falklands. Even a couple of T-55s would have made the Angles a battle as if they were trying to break into the dardanillos of the English-French squadron)))
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 19 2013 23: 15
                  +1
                  Photo of the deceased "Sahand"?

                  Any thing is good as long as it is new. The same applies to the "Volcano"

                  By the way, the Args had a real tank landing ship, I even had a photo somewhere
    2. aleks
      aleks April 19 2013 13: 47
      0
      And you look at this background EM project 30 bis, it may not be so sad.
      1. Andy
        Andy April 19 2013 14: 02
        0
        tell me the strengths of this project. I see the construction of an obsolete type of ships, because the pre-war project 30 was not implemented due to the war. Then it was necessary to somehow make up for the loss of the Navy in a quick way, while another is in development. Hence the improved 30 bis. But I would not talk about a breakthrough.
  13. anatoly57
    anatoly57 April 19 2013 12: 10
    +3
    Good article, we need to continue the topic. To dwell in more detail on the period of the 50s - 70s, because in the Soviet fleet it was the heyday of destroyers. Projects 30 bis (the most numerous in terms of ships built), 56, 956, many of their modifications, and how many BODs were built, 61 projects, the famous "singing frigates", 1134, these are just masterpieces of their time!
    1. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 19 2013 14: 30
      -1
      Quote: anatoly57
      Projects 30 bis (the most numerous in built ships), 56

      Ships obsolete are still at the bookmark stage. 30 bis without any universal HA, and the level of gearing 56 was 10 years earlier.
  14. lazy
    lazy April 19 2013 13: 36
    +3
    and the destroyers "novik" and then in childhood they read something, but I don't remember anymore, it seems they were some of the best at that time
  15. Mikola
    Mikola April 19 2013 13: 49
    0
    This compote of outstanding ships lacks the Novik-class destroyers, which were one of the founders of the destroyer class! But Thundering was never a destroyer), but a destroyer.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 19 2013 20: 17
      +4
      Quote: Mikola
      But the Thundering was never a destroyer), but a destroyer.

      Mikola, surprised!
      Guards destroyer "Thundering" is perhaps the most famous representative of the "7" project
      1. Mikola
        Mikola April 19 2013 21: 27
        0
        I confused the name, I meant the "Guarding" destroyer, which is included in the article about destroyers ...
        1. Santa Fe
          April 19 2013 21: 45
          0
          Quote: Mikola
          I confused the name, I meant the "Guarding" destroyer, which is included in the article about destroyers ...

          Clear

          "Guarding", "Thundering", "Burke" - all one pedigree
  16. leon-iv
    leon-iv April 19 2013 14: 46
    0
    There is not enough Persian super destroyer for Caspian
  17. spravochnik
    spravochnik April 19 2013 15: 09
    +1
    "A classic strike destroyer, with weakened anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons."
    Not entirely correct statement. The Sarych's anti-aircraft missile defense is really weak (no wonder, it was originally created as a fire support ship for the landing party), but the anti-aircraft defense. Two multi-channel medium-range air defense systems at the time it was created - not bad at all. Especially if you use the latest missile modifications with an increased range. That's who, really, has a weakened air defense, so this is Project 1155. Two short-range air defense systems for such a ship are really not enough.
    1. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 19 2013 15: 34
      +3
      capture on the Uragan launcher - when working on the Harpoons, a very controversial decision, not to mention all the limitations of the channel (as we saw in TOF-89)
      the main thing is that this decision imposed extremely stringent requirements on the quality of support for the NLC with a low RCS, and if the Fregat had everything chocolate with this, no one would have dragged the "Podkaty" instead of the additional OVTs radar to the ships (and the target flight altitude would not bully "would - it is typical that for MRK" Monsoon "" his "RM was a much more difficult target than those with which the 956 Tikha OpEsk" frolicked "at the prize shooting in 1989 !!!)

      Uragan's air defense potential is certainly much higher than that of Wasp (including anti-ship missiles)
      the question is different, the non-optimal performance characteristics of the real "Hurricane" - for example, the introduction of radio correction and capture on the trajectory sharply increased the capabilities of this air defense system, or the possibility of additional target search with the "Nut" (in the conditions of an insufficiently accurate control center) - I assume that this was implemented on the "Hurricane-Tornado" , and even when installing a mm-range radar for work on the NLC, the defeat of the anti-ship missile system was reliably ensured in the entire affected area of ​​the air defense system
  18. spravochnik
    spravochnik April 19 2013 15: 17
    0
    "A classic strike destroyer, with weakened anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense." Not entirely correct statement. The Sarych's PLO is small, indeed, weak (No wonder, after all, it was originally created as a fire support ship for the landing party). But the air defense. Two multi-channel medium-range air defense systems at the time of its creation are not bad at all. Who really has weak air defense is pr, 1155. Two short-range air defense systems for such a ship are really not enough.
  19. Horde
    Horde April 19 2013 16: 23
    +2
    The first destroyer "VZRYV" was built in 1877. The desire to expand the combat capabilities of the carriers of torpedo weapons led to the appearance in the Russian fleet of the first-born seagoing destroyers. So, "Explosion" became the ancestor of a new class of warships. It was from that moment that the rapid and complex evolution of destroyers began, in which Russian engineers and naval specialists played a leading role, and the ships they created were often copied abroad, in particular, the Batum, which had good seaworthiness and cruising range, and the Kotlin, for the first time received two screws, which significantly improved its maneuverability and increased survivability.
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6517/182898939.f/0_a00cb_655184c2_L.jpg
  20. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 19 2013 16: 36
    +1
    Very good material. Well structured, easy to read and with a twinkle. And it will be interesting to look at the real state "Zamvolt" and see how they will be able to realize their typical Napoleonic plans.
  21. sop.ov
    sop.ov April 19 2013 17: 11
    0
    The 956 project has the only big "-" this is the power plant. At 56, the "Sovremenny" Bram went to repair the SU in 1989, "Desperate" - 1990, "Olichny" - 1991, "Perfect" - 1992 - none of them returned to the brigade. At the time of setting up for repairs on all these ships, all the weapons were in combat readiness, but they did not participate in the exercises due to constant problems with the control system. And the boats were just over 10 years old. It would be better to burn with coal.
  22. PLO
    PLO April 19 2013 17: 17
    +4
    sweet, as usual in his repertoire with a bunch of interesting information and a bunch of twitches
    starting from the super-universal destroyer Arly Burke (which has practically no shock anti-ship weapons and a mediocre PLO), ending with Zamvolt, which have not even finished building (although yesterday he seemed to be considering only ships under construction)

    you can still remember about fantasies about shooting down targets for the WG
    1. Waterfall
      Waterfall April 19 2013 17: 31
      +1
      Quote: olp
      mediocre PLO

      VL-ASROC and AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15 - "average"? Flight IIA has 2 more good PLO helicopters with a hangar. Who is stronger?
      1. PLO
        PLO April 19 2013 17: 51
        +1
        VL-ASROC and AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15 - "average"?

        Yes, it’s average, the effectiveness of the PLO of the ship is determined primarily by the effectiveness of the HAC, and it’s very far from the Polynomial
        1. Waterfall
          Waterfall April 19 2013 18: 19
          -2
          Quote: olp
          and he is very far from the Polynomial

          In your fantasies, perhaps.
          1. PLO
            PLO April 19 2013 18: 26
            +3
            In your fantasies, perhaps.

            Thank you for your trust, if you contact me
    2. Santa Fe
      April 19 2013 20: 53
      0
      Quote: olp
      mediocre PLO

      VL-ASROC and AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15 + hangar for two helicopters.
      Quote: olp
      you can still remember about fantasies about shooting down targets for the WG

      what is impossible in this?
      if the missile has an active seeker + external control
      Quote: olp
      which has virtually no anti-ship strike weapons

      Burke has an ODP. There is a potential opportunity to "pack" in them anti-ship missiles, similar to "Harpoon". + 8 Harpoons always stood at the stern of Flight I in the form of an Mk.141 launcher

      Do you think this is Chinese chopsticks for sushi?
      1. PLO
        PLO April 19 2013 23: 30
        +1
        VL-ASROC and AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15 + hangar for two helicopters.

        a weapon is nothing without a control unit, which depends on AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15, which is inferior to Polynom, I did not write that AN / SQQ-89 (V) is 15 year old, I said that it’s average,
        you yourself highlighted Polyn against the background of the rest


        what is impossible in this?
        if the missile has an active seeker + external control

        only potentially, at the moment this function is not implemented
        and for that matter, you can highlight the over-the-horizon target for zur with PRLGSN external radar, but the praises are not in a hurry to sing about

        Burke has an ODP. There is a potential opportunity to "pack" in them anti-ship missiles, similar to "Harpoon". + 8 Harpoons always stood at the stern of Flight I in the form of an Mk.141 launcher

        again just an opportunity
        anti-ship tomahawks long ago removed from service
        and you know as well as me that in a large part of Berkov harpoons were removed during the modernization (+ 2A they weren’t originally installed), even recently, on this site infa slipped that American sailors want harpoons to be returned to them, for shooting standard on ships is not comme il faut
        1. Santa Fe
          April 20 2013 00: 01
          0
          Quote: olp
          a weapon is nothing without a control unit, which depends on AN / SQQ-89 (V) 15

          Is the Sea Hawk LAMPS III not taking part in the ship's PLO?
          The range of the helicopter at times exceeds the detection range of any shipboard GAS
          Quote: olp
          only potentially, at the moment this function is not implemented

          RIM-174 Standard ERAM
          Aster rocket family

          in the presence of an active seeker for a missile, it doesn’t matter anymore - the target in the coverage area of ​​the ship’s radar or dropped below the WP.
          Quote: olp
          and for that matter, you can highlight the over-the-horizon target for zur with PRLGSN external radar

          Overly complicated idea
          Quote: olp
          anti-ship tomahawks long ago removed from service

          they were removed for a very specific reason - the lack of need for them. The need arises - Raytheon immediately rivets how much you need
          Quote: olp
          and you know better than me that in a large part of Berkov harpoons were removed during modernization

          Similarly. They were filmed for organizational rather than technical reasons. - mount plastic TPK Mk.141 with harpoons - a matter of several days.
          1. PLO
            PLO April 20 2013 01: 48
            0
            Is the Sea Hawk LAMPS III not taking part in the ship's PLO?
            The range of the helicopter is several times greater than the detection range of any ship’s GAS

            What does the Sea Hawk have to do with it? on the same 1155s the same there are two ka-27s
            a PLO helicopter is a great thing, but it has a drawback, it cannot be in two places at the same time, the speed of its use also leaves much to be desired, and even two helicopters are very far from necessary to completely exclude the entry of the PL into the torpedo launch zone
            permanent submarine ship protection is primarily a GAS and only a GAS


            in the presence of an active seeker for a missile, it doesn’t matter anymore - the target in the coverage area of ​​the ship’s radar or dropped below the WP.

            nothing like this
            arlgsn turns on only when approaching the intended meeting point with the target, and if the maneuvering target leaves behind the WG, and there is no one to correct the trajectory, this will be a one hundred percent miss

            arlgsn is much more useful in another: in the absence of the need for a target illumination station and a cardinal increase in the number of simultaneously fired targets

            Overly complicated idea

            maybe but
            There will be a need - immediately rivet as needed



            they were removed for a very specific reason - the lack of need for them.
            They were filmed for organizational rather than technical reasons.

            far-fetched
            and if they don’t have time? and if they can’t?
            You claim that Arly Burke is now the most-most super-modern universal destroyers right now, but not potentially, but at the moment it’s not

            I myself am not against healthy optimism and talk "if only, if only", but you have to be consistent in the end

            however your article, your opinion, I just pointed out the obvious contradictions

            Well, for the article, naturally plus, although your IMHO, but interesting to read
            1. Santa Fe
              April 20 2013 02: 45
              0
              Quote: olp
              What does the Sea Hawk have to do with it? on the same 1155s the same there are two ka-27s

              Those. by number of anti-submarine turntables Burke = 1155
              Quote: olp
              and even two helicopters are very far from necessary to completely eliminate the entry of submarines into the launch zone of torpedoes

              a sap
              For good reason, towed antennas are placed on destroyers, for example AN / SQR-19 Tactical Towed Array Sonar
              and here at Burke and 1155 again parity
              Quote: olp
              arlgsn is much more useful in another: in the absence of the need for a target illumination station and a cardinal increase in the number of simultaneously fired targets

              in this case, it is easier and cheaper to use AFAR than to pay 5 lyamov for each RIM-174
              In December 2011, Navy PEO IWS reported the expected Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) to be $ 4.620M
              Quote: olp
              and if they don’t have time? and if they can’t?

              can now. Tomahawk Block 4
              Comrade Dunno video below
              Quote: olp
              You claim that Arly Burke is right now the most-most ultra-modern universal destroyers right now

              Air Defense - 5 +
              PLO - solid 4
              Kyrgyz strike on ground targets - Negro Mom, 5 +
              Anti-ship weapon - 4
              Special operations, evacuation, search and rescue operations - 5
              Quote: olp
              however your article, your opinion, I just pointed out the obvious contradictions

              I was very pleased to discuss
              Quote: olp
              Well, for the article, naturally plus, although your IMHO, but interesting to read

              Thank. Without your feedback, this would not make any sense.
              1. patsantre
                patsantre April 21 2013 20: 24
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Air Defense - 5 +
                PLO - solid 4
                Kyrgyz strike on ground targets - Negro Mom, 5 +
                Anti-ship weapon - 4
                Special operations, evacuation, search and rescue operations - 5


                5+ of course you are in a hurry to issue.
                I also consider Burke to be the best destroyer today. But I don’t agree with your estimates:
                Air defense - 8.5 / 10, no more. No AFAR, we have not really switched to missiles with AGSN, their ability to effectively hit low-flying supersonic targets is also questionable (if you have something to read about it - with pleasure). In general, a big question, but ideally, IMHO, there should be a missile capable of hitting AWACS aircraft, with an appropriate powerful AGSN, so that you can "find" the target again if it jumps over the radio horizon. It will greatly strengthen the ship's air defense, if this is realized. Or maybe the SM-3 is suitable for hitting such a simple target as an AWACS aircraft?
                RCC - 4 ??? If we talk about this moment, I think you understand that there is 0. And if you return the launchers with 8 harpoons ... miserable 8 light subsonic missiles, I’m not saying that they are bad, but considering their characteristics, here it’s necessary to take a mass of volley, otherwise it’s not enough. 8 harpoons are hardly enough to sink another destroyer with powerful air defense. So 2/5, no more.
            2. Waterfall
              Waterfall April 20 2013 02: 57
              +1
              Quote: olp
              two ka-27s

              Ka-27PL and MH-60R with AN / AQS-22 (the frequency range is common with the GAK NK, work with multi-static illumination) - heaven and earth. And RSAB is "a little" different.
              Quote: olp
              permanent submarine ship protection is primarily a GAS and only a GAS

              Why are you hooked on the polynomial, take the same "Star" (as on 11551).
  23. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 19 2013 22: 33
    +2
    The author writes:
    Moving along the enemy coast, an invisible stealth destroyer will bombard the enemy ports, coastal cities and military bases with its six-inch shells.

    The idyll can be seriously spoiled by new generation diesel submarines (for example, the Lada brought to mind), since guarding the naval base is one of the primary tasks of diesel-electric submarines. Probably it would be more correct to talk about fire support for landing on an unequipped coast, a fire strike on the accumulation of equipment, but not on the naval base with its security and defense system.
    Secondly, there is also BRAV with their coast-based anti-ship missiles (such as Redut, not far off BraMos), in the presence of which large NKs are not recommended to get too close to the enemy coast.
    So it’s not so simple, but the opponent is serious.
  24. Know-nothing
    Know-nothing April 20 2013 00: 45
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    they were removed for a very specific reason - the lack of need for them. The need arises - Raytheon immediately rivets how much you need

    It seems that the new Tomahawk has anti-ship capabilities along with receiving target designation in flight, which makes the old 109B unnecessary with a "snake" target search.
    1. Santa Fe
      April 20 2013 01: 26
      0
      I watched the video with interest, thanks

      It seems that the Yankees do not sit still and continue to improve the Ax
      Block IV learned:
      - reprogrammed in flight
      - barrage over the battlefield in anticipation of suitable targets
      - hit moving targets
      - and now, perform the functions of RCC
  25. jjj
    jjj April 20 2013 02: 10
    -1
    While there is no big sea mess, luminous steamers are in fashion. Type speed, invisibility, profitability. But we need an armored fleet that will not sink from the first salvo.
  26. Takashi
    Takashi April 20 2013 02: 42
    0
    1. destroyer "Guarding" - really never was a destroyer, moreover, the question of its death with the discovery of the Kingstones seems to be still open (in the absence of such). As they say in such cases, what was happening on board at that moment - "only God knows."
    To the class of destroyers - could include light cruisers: Novik, Diamond,

    2. Displacement has always been a controversial issue on the classification of ships.
    which means: "The infamous destroyer Eilat, sunk by Egyptian missile boats in October 1967. It is also the former British destroyer HMS Zealous, launched in 1944. It is fair to admit that by the time of entry into service, HMS Zealous looked dull against the background of their peers - American, Japanese or German destroyers. Nondescript, morally obsolete ship, only 2000 tons of displacement - not enough for a destroyer, even by the standards of World War II. " What does 2000 tons mean not enough? For a convoy destroyer or an air defense / anti-aircraft missile destroyer, this is quite enough. Small crew, high standard of construction, the probability of survival in the first battle was negligible, but sufficient to take the enemy with you. The same "Thundering" (7th project) was also ~ 2000 tonne.

    3. You know, as in one of the publications dedicated to the Navy, I read a rather serious article on the evolution of destroyers. The article was fully tracked - who, what, where. Moreover, even a diagram was presented with the main representatives of this class of ships: USSR \ USA \ France \ Great Britain \ Germany \ Japan. It seems to me, before writing ....... wee ... we should have turned to such scientific works and at least borrow a part (you do not write a dissertation, and we don’t resent it for the sake of historical and technical truth will).
    1. Santa Fe
      April 20 2013 15: 44
      0
      Quote: Takashi
      "The infamous destroyer Eilat, sunk by Egyptian missile boats in October 1967. She is also the former British destroyer HMS Zealous

      Eilat was not a destroyer in 1967.
  27. gregor6549
    gregor6549 April 20 2013 06: 32
    0
    Each of the destroyers listed in the article was created and optimized to solve those tasks at sea that were considered the main ones for ships of this type within the general structure of the Navy of a particular state, Naturally, these tasks were linked to the military doctrine of this state at the time of the creation of the destroyer, the role and place of the Navy in the Armed Forces and destroyers in the Navy, and, of course, with the economic and technological capabilities of the state, as well as its priorities in relation to one or another type of weapon. Therefore, a side-by-side comparison of a domestic destroyer created in a certain period of time with its American, French or English counterpart does not make much sense. We can only say that without effective cover of the destroyer with coastal or sea-based (aircraft carriers) -based fighter aircraft, ALL types of destroyers, without exception, will not be able to stay afloat for a long time with a well-planned and coordinated use of air attacks against them. And this has been proven many times in various global and local wars and in exercises too (though if these exercises did not turn into ostentatious "show masks" for very high-ranking officials).
  28. postman
    postman April 21 2013 09: 41
    0
    To the author a question:
    Is there any influence of the German school of shipbuilding on the Soviet, after 2mv? Well, in an anthology with rocket science, etc.?
    Why? It just seems to me that after the defeat of Germany, there is a certain breakthrough (before the "junk", as it were, after sometimes the best examples)
    And in terms of the "density" of the layout, the saturation of the weapon, the same resemblance to the kriegsmarine.
    ?
    Dance schoen
  29. seafarer
    seafarer April 29 2013 16: 09
    0
    The destroyer’s feat “The Guardian”, who single-handedly took the battle with a Japanese squadron at the walls of Port Arthur.

    On the night of March 9-10 (February 25-26), 1904, a destroyer detachment, which included "Guarding" and "Resolute", went on patrol to the Elliott Islands. On the way back the pair "Guarding" and "Resolute" lost the main detachment and by mistake joined the wake of the Japanese detachment heading for the Port Arthur raid. On the approach to the raid, the Russian destroyers were identified and immediately attacked by 4 Japanese destroyers, which significantly outnumbered Russian destroyers in armament, displacement and crew size. The "Resolute" managed to break free and go to P-Arthur. The fate of the "Guardian" is known.

    Fourth subspecies - helicopter destroyers

    11 helicopters - destroyer? wassat
    Project 1123 - 14 helicopters, and this ship was called "cruiser".

    EM Type "Hyuga" ............ ASM pr.1123 "Moscow" ... CVL Illastries ..... LPH Iwo Jima
    standard 13 950 t ........ 11 920 t ................................... 10 717 t
    total 18 000 t ........ 15 280 t .............. 20 600 t ............ 18 004 t
    Length 197 m .......... 189,1 m .............. 209,1 m ............. 183,6, XNUMX m
    Width
    on the take-off deck 33 m .......... 34 m ................. 36,0 m ............ ..25,7 m
    Draft 7,0 m .......... 7,7 m .................. 8,0 m ......... ...... 8,0 m
    LA 11 helicopters ......... 14 helicopters ......... 14cm / vrt (max 22) ..... 11-19 vrt

    Should such a ship be called destroyer?

    That the Japanese only build "educational" ships no more "destroyer" should not mislead us. It seems to me that it is worth starting from the purpose of the ship, its weapons and displacement. But in fact it is already a helicopter carrier, just like "Haruna" - a URO cruiser.
  30. Wild ferret
    Wild ferret 13 February 2018 16: 49
    0
    The article is interesting, but reading it in 2018 is somewhat funny, because Orly Burke has long surpassed, the most striking example of the super-destroyer Nippons Akizuki. It came out an order of magnitude better quality, and the cost amounted to 800+ million dollars, while Aegis the Beast costs 1 billion 800 million dollars! Yes, and “Zumvolt” (after all by the name of the admiral) did not succeed from the word at all.