Military Review

Modern destroyers Arleigh Burke (USA) and Type 45 (United Kingdom)

99
Today, the most versatile and common class of warships are destroyers. They are used to protect aircraft carriers from attacks from the air, covering amphibious ships, and destroying submarines. To date, the largest destroyer fleet in the United States of America, and given the pace of construction of vessels of this type in other countries, the US leadership will continue for a long time. At the base of their naval forces are destroyers of the Arleigh Burke type. What is the secret of the success of these courts, and who are their main competitors?




The destroyers Arleigh Burke belong to the destroyers with guided missile weapons The fourth generation is rightfully considered the best in the world, and by some indicators they surpass all existing ships. A modern American destroyer can simultaneously detect a significant number of targets, as well as take them to escort. At the same time for the destroyer there are no impossible tasks.

The main combat missions of the Arleigh Burke destroyers include: protecting naval strike and aircraft carrier groups from massive missile attacks; air defense (convoys, naval connections or individual ships) from aviation the adversary; fight against submarines and surface ships. In addition, they can be involved to provide naval blockade, artillery support for landing operations, tracking enemy ships, as well as to participate in search and rescue operations.

The development of Arleigh Burke destroyers began in the late 1970-s. The main demand that the military presented to the new ship was universality. The main task of the destroyers is to escort aircraft carriers and the new ship should have been able to easily cope with any targets: torpedoes, missiles, coastal installations. The fire detection and control systems had only seconds to decide on the use of weapons.

The destroyer Arleigh Burke demonstrates new shipbuilding approaches. One of the most impressive changes was the reshaping of the hull. Traditionally destroyers were narrow and long. The designers of this ship decided this problem differently. In Arleigh Burke ship architecture, one unique value was preserved - the ratio of length and width, which means an increase in stability. As the operating experience shows, the new design has several advantages. With a wave heights up to 7 meters, the Arleigh Burke is capable of maintaining speed up to 25 nodes.

In addition to the unique form of the hull, the American destroyers received other changes in the ship's architecture. For example, the design again became steel. The fact is that during the Second World War, the destroyers were made of steel, and by the 1970 years, steel replaced aluminum. The change in material was due to the weighting of radars and other sensors placed on the masts. Aluminum is an excellent alternative to steel, but it has certain disadvantages, including vulnerability to fire. The designers of the destroyer Arleigh Burke decided to return to steel, but at the same time retained many modern electronic systems. Vital premises of ships of this class are additionally protected by 25-mm sheets of armor and covered with Kevlar.

The design of the destroyer Arleigh Burke is more compact than its predecessors. Their superstructures are less cluttered, quieter than those of previous structures.



Initially, ships were designed to protect American aircraft carrier groups from missile strikes (primarily from ship missiles) that could be inflicted on the Soviet Navy. That is, these are missiles that were based on aerial platforms, surface-launched missiles and missiles launched from submarines.

Almost invulnerable squadron destroyer Arleigh Burke makes the combat information management system (BIUS) Idzhes. The unique information and control combat system destroyer Arleigh Burke can simultaneously lead anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and anti-ship defense. The main element of the CICS is a powerful radar station that is able to automatically detect, track and track several hundreds of targets simultaneously. Its main feature is that it collects information not only from the main antennas installed on the towers of the ship, but also from the hydroacoustic station scanning the underwater space and quickly detects enemy submarines.

This system is capable of detecting aerospace targets at 380 ranges of thousands of meters, air and sea targets at 190 ranges of thousands of meters. At the same time, it can be tracked to 1000 targets with guidance of eighteen missiles of various purposes.

Modern destroyers Arleigh Burke (USA) and Type 45 (United Kingdom)


Arleigh Burke ships are equipped with weapons that are unparalleled in the world. This includes setting the Mark 41 vertical launch, consisting of 100 compartments in which the missiles are stored. However, the main feature of this installation is not the number of missiles, but the ability to combine them. For example, anti-aircraft, anti-submarine, cruise missiles or torpedoes can be placed at the same time, which allows the ship to be prepared for repelling any danger. Ammunition can be combined depending on the task. If the Soviet ships for each type of missile had its own individual launchers, then at Arleigh Burke for them a single system is provided. This technical solution allowed to minimize the number of "dead" cargo, that is, installations that will not be used for a specific mission.

The weapons of the Arly Burke destroyers of various sub-series (Series I, IΙ and IΙA) are quite different. The main weapon of all existing ships of this type is the 2 vertical launch of the Mark 41 VLS. A set of weapons UVP destroyers of the series I and IΙ:
8 cruise missiles BGM-109 Tomahawk,
74 anti-aircraft missiles RIM-66 SM-2,
8 anti-submarine missiles RUM-139 VL-Asroc (multipurpose version).
In addition, the ships could be equipped with 56 cruise missiles BGM-109 Tomahawk and 34 RUM-139 VL-Asroc and RIM-66 SM-2 missiles in a shock version.

On the IIA Series destroyers, the number of missiles increased to 96. Standard armament kit UVP:
8 anti-submarine guided missiles RUM-139 VL-Asroc,
8 cruise missiles BGM-109 Tomahawk,
24 missiles RIM-7 Sea Sparrow,
74 rocket RIM-66 SM-2.

In 2008, the Ijes system SM-3 rocket launched from a US base in Alaska hit an object in outer space. The target was a falling military satellite. The performance of this rocket is fantastic. The designers claim that the rocket is able to destroy the target at a distance of 500 km. This shot was fired from the destroyer Lake Eric of class Arleigh Burke. Today, almost all ships of this class have received this powerful weapon. According to Russian experts, these firing data were carried out to test the anti-missile system.



On board the destroyer class «Arleigh Burke» except launchers installed 127-millimeter artillery unit (680 ammunition projectiles), six-barreled 2 20-millimeter anti-aircraft guns «Phalanx» and 4 gun «Browning» system 12,7 millimeters caliber. In addition to the deck armament, the 2 SH-60B “Seahawk” helicopter with anti-submarine and anti-ship armament kits can be placed on board, extending the range of the destroyer. The use of helicopters allows you to detect and attack targets for tens of kilometers. This arsenal enables ships not only to protect the squadron, but also to deliver high-precision strikes on the enemy. In other words, “Arleigh Burke” is not just a tactical, but an operational-tactical weapon unit, that is, they are capable of hitting targets deep in the enemy.

Undoubtedly, Arleigh Burke is the best ship of this class, however, other maritime states are constantly improving their destroyers. For example, in the UK there is a destroyer Type 45. According to its creators, the 45 Type One can replace, by fire capabilities, a whole fleet of destroyers of the past generation. His newest weaponry can easily destroy an airplane, helicopter, aerial bomb or UAV. The accuracy of the guidance system is so great that the gun is able to shoot down a flying tennis ball. On these vessels, a European fire detection and control system was developed, which was developed very recently.

The main armament of these destroyers is the PAAMS anti-aircraft missile launcher with Aster-30 and Aster-15 missiles. Also on the warship there are six “Sylver” systems deployed for vertical launch of each installation of eight “Aster” missiles. In addition, the destroyer installed artillery armament - one 114-mm unit, which serves for strikes on coastal fortifications and two 30-mm guns on manpower.



The most powerful missiles in the arsenal of the 45 Type destroyer are “Aster-30”, but their maximum range is 120 thousand meters. These missiles can perform certain anti-missile defense functions, short-range missiles, interception and illumination. Of course, it is impossible to compare this weapon with the Arleigh Burke. The British are losing on all counts.

Despite this, the 45 Type has its own unique features. This could include an integrated energy system. The ship has two gas and two diesel turbines. The engine on liquid fuel gives energy to electric motors to rotate the screws. Due to this, the ship's maneuverability was increased and the consumption of diesel fuel was reduced. In addition, four turbines can replace an entire power plant.



Specifications of Arleigh Burke:
Displacement - 9,3 thousand tons;
Length - 155,3 m;
Width - 18 m;
The power plant - 4 gas turbines LM2500-30 "General Electric";
Maximum travel speed - 30 nodes;
Sailing speed at 20 speed nodes - 4400 miles;
Crew - 276 sailors and officers;
Armament:
Vertical launch installations (missiles SM-3, RIM-66, RUM-139 "VL-Asroc", BGM-109 "Tomahawk");
Artillery 127-mm Mk-45 installation;
Two automatic 25-mm installer "Phalanx" CWIS;
Four 12,7-mm Browning machine guns;
Two three-pipe torpedo tubes Mk-46.

Technical characteristics of the destroyer class "Type 45":
Displacement - 7350 tons;
Length - 152,4 m;
Width - 18 m;
Cruising range - 7000 miles;
Speed ​​- 27 nodes;
Crew - 190 man;
Armament:
PAAMS anti-aircraft missile launchers;
Six launchers "Sylver VLS";
Missiles "Aster-30" - 32 pcs. "Aster 15" - 16 pcs .;
Artillery 114-mm installation;
Two 30-mm artillery mounts;
Four torpedo tubes.
Helicopter "EH101 Merlin" - 1.














Author:
99 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 8 July 2013 07: 16 New
    13
    Probably, no matter who says anything, the Orly Burke-class destroyers are the best in the world today. And if we want to build destroyer-class ships in Russia, then we must build on the Orly Burke.
    But "Dering" is not so good. We have our own analogue - a frigate of the "Admiral Gorshkov" class. With almost half the displacement of 7300 for the Englishman and 4500 for ours, in terms of combat characteristics, our frigate is much more balanced and better. The "Gorshkov" is equipped with an air defense missile system with a launch range of up to 135 km (later they promised to increase it to 150). On "Deringa" there is no strike weapons, although it is possible to install 8 missile launchers "Harpoon". And from anti-submarine weapons - only a helicopter. So it is difficult to call "Dering" a successful ship.
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 8 July 2013 10: 28 New
      +3
      You just did not take into account the fact that the British, as needed, can build muscle ship. And now they are stupidly clamping loot in order to save ...
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 11: 41 New
      +6
      Quote: VohaAhov
      But "Dering" is not so good.

      Maybe so, only the Daring air defense is actually perhaps the best in the world and certainly better than Arleigh Burke
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 23 New
        +1
        I think this is true only for the radar, which is definitely the best in the world. Missiles are not a fact, although of course the SM-2 is much older than the Aster
      2. old man54
        old man54 8 July 2013 19: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: VohaAhov
        But "Dering" is not so good.

        Maybe so, only the Daring air defense is actually perhaps the best in the world and certainly better than Arleigh Burke

        oh?
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 22 New
      +1
      In fact, both ships are completely unbalanced.
      Ours is apparently re-equipped for such a displacement - nothing is given for free, most likely the upper weight will be quite large, respectively, metacentric height, respectively, with stability there will be questions. Well, for sure, questions with an insufficient range are traditional for our ships. Well, probably the same questions that the British Type 23 at one time asked - the concentration of virtually all weapons in one place in the absence of any constructive protection actually guarantees the failure of almost all weapons if only one anti-ship missile is successfully hit.
      In fact, it is not clear our desire to put as many weapons as possible on any platform. The steel structure in the ship is probably the cheapest component. Maybe it was worth not to limit the displacement, but to make the same Gorshkov with a displacement of 6-6.5 thousand tons. Stability and seaworthiness would, all else being equal, be GUARANTEED higher.


      As for Daring, he is surely stable, seaworthy (usually English ships from these points of view are designed quite correctly). Pretty decent range.
      Magnificent radar - in my opinion the first serial ship radar with AFAR, which is already an achievement.
      But - an inexplicable decision to leave the ship only in air defense armament. Everything from the 196X to the British has been lacking ... Even Type 23 IMHO was more balanced (despite the fact that of course each particular system was worse than Type 45).

      Well ... probably you should not compare the frigate with the destroyer. Still completely different classes.
      By the way - from this point of view, Type 45 is generally most similar to an overgrown frigate.
  2. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 8 July 2013 07: 37 New
    +7
    "Today the United States of America has the largest destroyer fleet, and given the pace of construction of ships of this type in other countries, the US leadership will continue for a long time." - I do not quite agree with this, the pace of construction of Chinese ships is no less impressive.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 8 July 2013 09: 43 New
      +6
      Quote: kotdavin4i
      "By far the largest destroyer fleet in the United States of America,

      It is sad to admit, but these ships (Arly Burke) are the best in the world, perfection itself with excellent electronics, with unified and powerful weapons.
      By the way, they are now one of the elements of the US missile defense.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 11: 57 New
        +8
        Quote: Arberes
        It is sad to admit, but these ships (Arly Burke) are the best in the world, perfection itself with excellent electronics, with unified and powerful weapons.

        And the saddest thing is that they are built for our money.

        US Debt Counter at West 44th Street and 6th Avenue, NYC
        The monstrous fleet of the US Navy is built unpaid loan - I'm really surprised that it's so weak. Over 17 trillion. (as of July 2013) could be built instead of the destroyers "Burk" starships

        here's another interesting reference - http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 32 New
      +2
      The fleet of the USSR quantitatively and in terms of total displacement slightly exceeded the fleet of the US Navy (Nikolsky as a source). At the same time, in the opinion of our admirals, it was possible to carry out tasks to contain the US fleet to a limited extent. Our military itself did not believe that it would be possible to interrupt US-Western European communications steadily. All that could, it is pretty stable cover the coast of the USSR. In the confrontation with the United States, China will ALWAYS, due to its geographical position, take up defensive positions: to defend the longest lines of communications for the supply of raw materials. How the US Navy can cut communications - they showed beautifully and unambiguously during WWII. And given the superiority in the number of AB, US submarines are fairly reliably protected from the actions of China's submarines. So ... China, even if compared numerically with the US Navy, will still be in a losing position.
      Well ... last but not least - the Chinese seem to be the last time they showed themselves to be talented navigators in the 15th century. The School of Navigation and Naval War cannot be replaced by anything ...
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 20: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: cdrt
        The fleet of the USSR quantitatively and in terms of total displacement slightly exceeded the fleet of the US Navy (Nikolsky as a source)

        This is cunning. On the balance sheet of the USSR Navy there was a huge amount of outdated and non-operational rubbish (however, like the U.S. Navy during the Cold War) - post-war diesel-electric submarines, old cruisers and watchmen originally from the 1950-60s. Floating ships, charging stations, training NK and submarines, etc. were also considered here. etc.

        In reality, if my memory serves me,The budget of the USSR Navy was 7 times less than the budget of the US Navy

        We were far behind in tactical weapons, but it didn’t matter - the war between the USSR and the USA could take place only in the format of the Third World War, and there was parity in nuclear weapons
        Quote: cdrt
        Our military itself did not believe that it would be possible to interrupt US-Western European communications steadily.

        Who will need it when Washington and Moscow burn up ?! request
        Nuclear winter, deadly radiation, infection and the death of life on the planet.
  3. strange and pretty meaningless
    strange and pretty meaningless 8 July 2013 08: 24 New
    +7
    A practically invulnerable squadron destroyer Arleigh Burke is made by the combat information-control system (CIUS) of Ijes.
    ... and quickly discovers enemy submarines.
    Nice steamer - but why should we advertise it? request "Practically invulnerable" - there has been no practice of hurting him yet, the calculations are purely speculative. Kshno, amerskie sailors on the penultimate photo are stern, neither give nor take - practically invulnerable knights of the seas ...
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 8 July 2013 09: 29 New
      +7
      Quote: abyrvalg
      there was no practice of his injury

      Once the guys from some Arab terrorist group succeeded, they attacked the destroyer "COLE" somewhere in the Gulf of Aden on a boat with 300kg of explosives.
      It turned out a hole of about 12 by 7 meters killed 17 sailors!
      But the ship did not sink and, after repairs, became part of the US Navy again.
      Of course, I understand that this is completely different, but he was hurt and at that in a very primitive way!
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 11: 41 New
        +5
        Quote: Arberes
        Of course, I understand that this is completely different, but he was hurt and at that in a very primitive way!

        Destroy all 62 Burke in a similar way

        Cole was blown up by suicide bombers while refueling in the Yemeni capital in 2000. Suddenly, a high-speed boat approached the side of a destroyer standing in the port - this is such a force majeure.

        nevertheless, the relevant conclusions were drawn in the US Navy: now ships open fire on any floating craft approaching the board - those who, in their opinion, could be dangerous


        25 mm automatic cannon "Bushmaster" on the US Navy destroyer
        specially for such cases



        Promising complex: "Bushmaster" with automatic guidance



        standard "Browning" 50-gauge
        two on board


        A US Navy ship opened fire on a vessel off the coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The shelling began after he ignored the warnings and quickly became close to the American warship. According to unofficial data, one Indian fisherman was killed and three others were injured.

        - news from 17 July 2012 of the year

        And here, by the way, damaged Cole
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 8 July 2013 12: 04 New
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Destroy all 62 Burke in a similar way

          No explosives at all! hi
          But seriously, personally, I read such articles with sadness!
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And the saddest thing is that they are built for our money

          Yes, I remember, you have already cited this fact!
          Here I am generally silent. drinks
        2. old man54
          old man54 9 July 2013 00: 04 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          25 mm automatic cannon "Bushmaster" on the US Navy destroyer
          specially for such cases [/ i]

          good "thing, I liked it! I have not seen it." wink Do not compare with our "Cliff" on ships for the same purposes. good
          1. Russ69
            Russ69 9 July 2013 00: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: old man54
            good "thing, I liked it! Didn't see it. Can't compare with our" Cliff "on ships for the same purposes.

            I, too, was thinking about why not to put the aviation general aviation.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 35 New
        0
        hmm ... and someone else in that situation would have suffered differently? And here it is?
  4. altman
    altman 8 July 2013 09: 12 New
    +5
    there are no invulnerable ships .. any ship is dead without a crew, only training people makes it .. practically invulnerable!
  5. Orty
    Orty 8 July 2013 09: 21 New
    +5
    Quote: abyrvalg
    A practically invulnerable squadron destroyer Arleigh Burke is made by the combat information-control system (CIUS) of Ijes.
    ... and quickly discovers enemy submarines.
    Nice steamer - but why should we advertise it? request "Practically invulnerable" - there has been no practice of hurting him yet, the calculations are purely speculative. Kshno, amerskie sailors on the penultimate photo are stern, neither give nor take - practically invulnerable knights of the seas ...

    I agree as if you are reading the advertisement from the US Navy site, but Orliks ​​are indeed the most successful and powerful destroyers in the world today. For example, it turns out that the Orliks ​​are superior in strike capabilities to Peter the Great, and he is more displaced and in general an atomic cruiser.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 8 July 2013 12: 00 New
      -2
      Quote: Orty
      For example, it turns out that the Orliks ​​are superior in strike capabilities to Peter the Great, and he is more displaced and in general an atomic cruiser.


      It’s not just superior. Peter has no corny weapons. But Arly really, perhaps, surpasses in air defense, at least qualitatively. He is still far from the number of missiles.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 12: 15 New
        10
        In terms of air defense, Orly is significantly inferior to our nuclear cruiser. For Orly there is no anti-ship weapon comparable to the Granites of our TARKR. Anti-submarine capabilities are simply incomparable (again, not in Orly's favor). The TARKR carries 3 helicopters (versus one or two on different Arly modifications)
        So, as they say, we will not bow down :))))
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 8 July 2013 12: 46 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          So, as they say, we will not bow down

          Honestly, it doesn’t matter who anybody at all - they will never meet in battle
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In air defense, Orly substantially outperforms our nuclear-powered cruiser

          Oh really?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          For Orly there is no anti-ship weapon comparable to the "Granites" of our TARKR

          But TARKR has no strike weapons comparable to Burke

          and Burke's capabilities are far from bad at Burke
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          ARKR carries 3 helicopters

          First try to get them
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 13: 15 New
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Honestly, it doesn’t matter who anybody at all - they will never meet in battle

            I did not start to compare them
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Oh really?

            Yes fact
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            But TARKR has no strike weapons comparable to Burke

            Tomahawks? This is yes - no. Well, our ship was not designed for strikes along the coast, what can I do.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            and Burke's capabilities are far from bad at Burke

            What are these? :)))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            First try to get them

            And what's the problem?
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 8 July 2013 15: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Tomahawks? This is yes - no. Well, our ship was not designed for strikes along the coast, what can I do.

              Well, there’s nothing to argue about - ships were originally created for different tasks.
              It’s another matter that there are real tasks for the Berks, but no for the Eagles.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What are these?

              1. Harpoon on the first mod.

              2. BGM-109B on the first mod.

              3. Ax Block IV - rumored to have learned to work on moving and naval targets

              4. Helicopter-based penguin - the most for low-intensity conflicts

              5. Plans for equipping UVP with Harpoon-VL (as happened with SeaSperrow and ASROCOM)

              6. Promising RATTLERS with a range of 500 miles at a speed of 3-4M
              1. PLO
                PLO 8 July 2013 16: 25 New
                +3
                1. Harpoon on the first mod.
                2. BGM-109B on the first mod.

                happy for them, but that's history


                3. Ax Block IV - rumored to have learned to work on moving and naval targets

                yeah, just like the domestic X-59, by correction, with great limitations
                to seriously believe that in terms of efficiency it will be comparable to specialized anti-ship missiles with ARLGSN is extremely stupid


                5. Plans for equipping UVP with Harpoon-VL (as happened with SeaSperrow and ASROCOM)
                6. Promising RATTLERS with a range of 500 miles at a speed of 3-4M

                you know, we have no less plans, or even more
                from finished Onyx to Zircons

                Arly Burke currently has extremely weak anti-ship weapons
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 8 July 2013 17: 10 New
                  +2
                  Quote: olp
                  happy for them, but that's history

                  The need for a sea ax BGM-109B disappeared with the disappearance of the Soviet Navy
                  Although, Axes are still being produced, the Mk.41 has also remained the same.
                  So this is not a story. This is reality

                  The same thing about the harpoon: to return the Mk.141 PU back is a matter of several days. The missile was not withdrawn from service
                  Quote: olp
                  yeah, just like the domestic X-59, by correction, with great limitations

                  airborne radar, optical sensor system, data exchange system with each other, the possibility of external target designation
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 8 July 2013 17: 54 New
                    +2
                    Although, Axes are still being produced, the Mk.41 has also remained the same.
                    So this is not a story. This is reality

                    it will be a reality when they are stored in arsenals from where they can be taken out and loaded into launchers.
                    until then it's just an opportunity


                    airborne radar, optical sensor system, data exchange system with each other, the possibility of external target designation

                    and?
                    all the signs of a wonderful tactical missile. no more.
                2. cdrt
                  cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 40 New
                  0
                  Its purpose is the protection of AUG, KUG, etc. and possibly blows along the shore. U.S. Navy shock anti-ship force according to their plans - carrier aircraft with anti-ship missiles
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 16: 36 New
                +6
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Well, there’s nothing to argue about - ships were originally created for different tasks.

                So why argue? For the sake of the argument? Everything that you listed in a volley of 20 Granites, to put it mildly, does not even match. Therefore, I repeat, the anti-ship capabilities of the TARKR are HIGHER than that of Burke. Regardless of the fantasies about the presence / absence of tasks.
                1. Odysseus
                  Odysseus 8 July 2013 17: 39 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  So why argue? For the sake of the argument? Everything that you listed in a volley of 20 Granites, to put it mildly, does not even match.

                  Sorry, but who will give Granite target designation? What is the use of virtual weapons long ago?
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 8 July 2013 17: 45 New
                    +1
                    Sorry, but who will give Granite target designation? What is the use of virtual weapons long ago?

                    well .. A-50 or, for example, MPLARK
                    1. VAF
                      VAF 8 July 2013 18: 19 New
                      +1
                      Quote: olp
                      well .. A-50


                      Oleg .. about the A-50 ... it's you .. got excited wink
                      1. PLO
                        PLO 8 July 2013 18: 35 New
                        +1
                        Hello, Sergey.

                        Oleg .. about the A-50 ... it's you .. got excited

                        well why
                        when operating from aerodromes, they think they can provide TsU for 500-700 kilometers from the coast and at the same time can be covered by fighter aircraft
                    2. Odysseus
                      Odysseus 8 July 2013 18: 34 New
                      +1
                      Quote: olp
                      well .. A-50 or, for example, MPLARK

                      The idea is witty, but how to do it technically?
                      In ancient times, the Tu-95 RCs were used for this, but then they finally switched to satellites.
                      Judging by modern reports, the problem of target designation for the Granites will be solved in the most radical way, eliminating these Granites themselves. And on 949 and on Orlan they will be replaced.
                      1. PLO
                        PLO 8 July 2013 18: 38 New
                        0
                        The idea is witty, but how to do it technically?

                        near its borders it’s easy in the oceans

                        and yet the rejection of granites in favor of onyxes, IMHO, is justified
                      2. Odysseus
                        Odysseus 8 July 2013 22: 53 New
                        +2
                        Quote: olp
                        and yet the rejection of granites in favor of onyxes, IMHO, is justified

                        Justified, but the only question is when will we get the Eagles with Onyx? While they are talking about 2018 for Nakhimov. It is unlikely that the Americans will sleep all this time.
                      3. PLO
                        PLO 9 July 2013 02: 55 New
                        0
                        Justified, but the only question is when will we get the Eagles with Onyx? While they are talking about 2018 for Nakhimov. It is unlikely that the Americans will sleep all this time.


                        Eagles are far from the only and far from the first carriers of Onyxes and in general UKKS
                      4. Odysseus
                        Odysseus 9 July 2013 13: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        Eagles are far from the only and far from the first carriers of Onyxes and in general UKKS

                        Yes, but the discussion was about comparing the Berks with the Eagles.
                      5. PLO
                        PLO 9 July 2013 13: 54 New
                        0
                        Yes, but the discussion was about comparing the Berks with the Eagles.

                        come on )
                        but it seemed to me that the discussion was about the reason why they reject Granites on Aneti
                        well, or as a last resort about the availability of future plans for Arly and Orlan
              3. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 8 July 2013 18: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: Odyssey
                The idea is witty, but how to do it technically?
                In ancient times, the Tu-95 RCs were used for this, but then they finally switched to satellites.

                There was another way - CER
                By the way, it is still preserved
                Quote: Odyssey
                for the Granites they will decide in the most radical way — eliminating these Granites themselves.

                Yes, the system is out of date
              4. Odysseus
                Odysseus 8 July 2013 22: 55 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                There was another way - CER

                And used in practice? Curious.
          2. cdrt
            cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 45 New
            +1
            A-50? But he will not become a suicide bomber as soon as he reaches 1000 km to the AUG order? It will be easy to give target designation to a carrier-based fighter - this is not the right word ...
            1. PLO
              PLO 8 July 2013 19: 00 New
              0
              A-50? And he will not become a suicide bomber as soon as he reaches 1000 km to the AUG order.

              he can 600 if necessary)
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 44 New
          +1
          You can recall how Granit refused to fly during the exercises (during the tests of the new, smartest bomb in the world, the bomb refused to leave the plane wink ).
          It seems like because of old age (although of course there is no exact data, only assumptions (militaryrussia.com). If the truth is not surprising, they were released at least the last 20 years ago ...
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 8 July 2013 18: 43 New
        0
        Andrey, well enough about the Granites already, they haven’t been released for a long time, and the existing ones have expired, they were removed from Anteyev and Kuznetsov a long time ago, I don’t know about Petya, but he’s probably also empty.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 20: 57 New
          +2
          So what? If we take for comparison the ship that was handed over to the 15 fleet years ago, then maybe it is worth considering it with the full-time armament? And where did you get the idea that Granites were removed from Anteyev? :)
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 8 July 2013 22: 11 New
            0
            Because now their fate is being decided, either for butchering or for modernization. For cutting, because the storage period of the Granites has expired, no one will try to repeat the next Kursk and shoot missiles with an expired storage period. In 2011 Tver (formerly Vilyuchinsk) was unable to fire due to the failure of the three Granites. This year, granite celebrates 30 years in service with the Navy, in 2000. Some extended the life of up to 25 years, but that's all, nowhere to extend further.
            PS: Granite, by the way, can fly along two paths, high to maximum range and low, here the range is limited to only 145 km. The ability to fly the notorious wolf pack is not proven, because no attacks were ever made, most likely these are the speculations of the designers about what they wanted to implement.
            1. PLO
              PLO 9 July 2013 02: 51 New
              0
              Because now their fate is being decided, either for butchering or for modernization. For cutting, because the storage period of the Granites has expired, no one will try to repeat the next Kursk and shoot missiles with an expired storage period. In 2011 Tver (formerly Vilyuchinsk) was unable to fire due to the failure of the three Granites.

              that balobol still can’t calm down?)
              an attempt to bring Kravchuk's yellow burp as a source already says a lot
              Tver in 2011 shot normally

              PS: Granite, by the way, can fly along two paths, high to maximum range and low, here the range is limited to only 145 km. The ability to fly the notorious wolf pack is not proven, because no attacks were ever made, most likely these are the speculations of the designers about what they wanted to implement

              Well, you yap ..
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 07: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              For cutting because the storage period of Granites has expired

              Sorry, but what you wrote is complete nonsense. In our country, if anything, that year the "redoubt" fired a P-35, and this is a rocket from the sixties.
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 8 July 2013 22: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            So what? If we take for comparison a ship that was handed over to the fleet 15 years ago, then maybe it’s worth considering it with the staff of weapons?

            Then you need to enter accurate time criteria for the assessment.
            Now The Eagles in no way can surpass Burke in RCC due to their complete absence on the Eagles.
            If you compare the Eagles of the 80s-early 90s with the working Legend, then you need to compare them with the Berks with Harpoon and BGM-109B.
            If we compare Orlan-2018 with Onyxes, then Burke needs to be taken with promising developments.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 8 July 2013 12: 47 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    In air defense, Orly substantially outperforms our nuclear-powered cruiser

    What exactly? What US adversaries have naval aviation capable of destroying O. Berka?
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For Orly there is no anti-ship weapon comparable to the "Granites" of our TARKR

    Why does O. Burke have anti-ship weapons comparable to Granites? The tasks of destroying large enemy ships are solved by deck aircraft, and the MH-60R with Penguins will also cope with medium-tonnage ships.
    And in the end, O. Burke is three times smaller than Orlan in terms of displacement ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 13: 40 New
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      What exactly? What US adversaries have naval aviation capable of destroying O. Berka?

      Are we talking about air defense of ships, or about naval aviation? If about the air defense of ships, then the "Berk" has only three target illumination radars. Those. at the same time he can fire at exactly three aerial targets. But our TARKR has 2 radars, each of which (on the old versions) could simultaneously direct missiles to 3 targets, but on the "Veliky", as far as I know, 6 targets. Total TARKR can simultaneously fire 6-12 targets against 3 targets of Arly. But that's not all - the fact is that in addition to the S-300 (which I just wrote about the radars), there is also a "Dagger" with its own guidance channels - this is at least 4 more targets. Thus, Peter the Great has the ability to fire up to 16 targets against 3 at Burke. And this despite the fact that the S-300 "Velikiy" installations can use 48N6E2 with a maximum launch range of 200 km. About all sorts of "Daggers" I generally keep quiet - especially given the fact that even the old-time "Phalanx" is no longer installed on the arli - they are now installing RAM missiles instead of it, but, disgusting, the guidance channels are no longer there ...
      Quote: Nayhas
      Why does O. Burke have anti-ship weapons comparable to Granites?

      I see that you are a fan of replacing some questions with others. TARCK EXCEEDS Arly Burke in the anti-ship component, and whether Rally Arli Burke is needed or not is another question. You think that you don’t need it, and the Americans who are developing LRASM with all their might - long-range anti-ship missiles for 1000 km of range with the possibility of placing the same Burke in UVP - apparently they think differently
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 16: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Those. at the same time he can fire exactly three air targets

        But from different directions
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in addition to the S-300 (which I just wrote about the radars) there is also a "Dagger" with its own guidance channels - this is at least 4 more targets.

        RIM-6 ESSMs (total 162) are occupied by 24 birch cells
        speed 4М, range 50 km, active seeker
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And this despite the fact that the S-300 "Velikiy" installations can use 48N6E2 with a maximum launch range of 200 km

        phallometry began))

        RIM-67V and 67E (SM2 Block III) - firing range of 100 miles (marine or Amer? 160 ... 180 km)
        RIM-174 Stanard ERAM - 240 km, active seeker
        RIM-161 SM3 - more than 500 km. Peter doesn’t have such a specific weapon at all.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        TARKR can simultaneously fire 6-12 targets against 3 targets of Arly.

        And if we consider SAM with an active seeker wink
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        "Dagger" with its guidance channels

        "Tackle" is installed only because "Fregat" has problems with the detection of low-flying targets
        AN / SPY-1 has it all right
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        ro all sorts of "Daggers" I generally keep quiet - especially given the fact that even the old-time "Phalanx" stopped putting on arli

        In view of the general senselessness of the dispute, the question should be formulated as follows:
        which is more effective - 1 TARKR or 2 Burke for the same price?
        1. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 16: 36 New
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In view of the general senselessness of the dispute

          ))))))))))))))
          Displacement (tons): 28000
          Displacement (tons): 8373
        2. PLO
          PLO 8 July 2013 16: 46 New
          0
          But from different directions

          Regarding the directions, Peter has much more opportunities than Arly with fixed HEADLIGHTS

          phallometry began))
          RIM-67V and 67E (SM2 Block III) - firing range of 100 miles (marine or Amer? 160 ... 180 km)
          RIM-174 Stanard ERAM - 240 km, active seeker
          RIM-161 SM3 - more than 500 km. Peter doesn’t have such a specific weapon at all.

          Well, let's continue)
          neither SM-2 B3 nor SM-6 can still be compared with the 48N6DM with a range of 250 km and 3 times the warhead
          not to mention the fact that the SM-6 has not yet been adopted and will be ready, apparently, no earlier than the 15th year

          And if we consider SAM with an active seeker

          Do radars have the ability to track and correct all of these missiles? or they shoot on the principle of whom God will send)



          In view of the general senselessness of the dispute, the question should be formulated as follows:
          which is more effective - 1 TARKR or 2 Burke for the same price?

          so ask about it patsantre
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 16: 49 New
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          But from different directions

          Like the 2 TARKR radar
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          RIM-6 ESSMs (total 162) are occupied by 24 birch cells
          speed 4М, range 50 km, active seeker

          ESSM HAS A SEMIACTIVE GOS. And the backlight radars are 3 :)))
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          phallometry began))

          It's only you, Oleg. I just wanted to say that the range of our missiles is practically not inferior to the US
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          RIM-174 Stanard ERAM - 240 km, active seeker

          Yes, yes ... When, by the way, will they adopt it? And when will the rocket go into production (not in small series, as it is now, but start to go into service?) I heard - in 2015?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          RIM-161 SM3 - more than 500 km. Peter doesn’t have such a specific weapon at all.

          That's right, because he does not need such a perversion. Can you come up with an assignment for this missile in a naval battle?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          And if we consider SAM with an active seeker

          Which are not ...
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          "Tackle" is installed only because "Fregat" has problems with the detection of low-flying targets
          AN / SPY-1 has it all right

          well ridiculed :))) The junction with the detection of low-flying NEVER was and NEVER will be all right. Because, Oleg, you can kill yourself against the wall, but NEVER decimeter radar will not see against the background of the sea wave, at least approximately the same as a centimeter. So all that you said is exactly the opposite.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In view of the general senselessness of the dispute, the question should be formulated as follows:

          The question was who is stronger, giraffe or elephant. It turned out that all the same an elephant :))) And the question of economic feasibility ... not enough data
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 8 July 2013 18: 47 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Like the 2 TARKR radar

            At the Burke 3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            ESSM HAS A SEMIACTIVE GOS. And the backlight radars are 3 :)))

            True, semi-active

            As for the radar backlight:
            While midcourse updates might require just fraction of a second, very terminal guidance does seem to need continous illumination. In that regard, each ESSM requires 2 seconds of dedicated illumination time before final interception.

            What do 2 seconds mean? The attacking aircraft will fly more than a kilometer (compare with the SM-2ER firing range)

            as for the guidance time for the following target:

            It swithces between targets, circling through them, painting each for a fraction of a second.

            Aegis herself helps a lot, automatically adjusting the number of missiles on the final part of the trajectory - no more than 3.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I just wanted to say that the range of our missiles is practically not inferior to the US

            Peter has only one S-300FM air defense system, the second - the old S-300F. What about guidance systems? Spledley new radar with headlamp, and a tits sticking out on his back
            Not good.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            When, by the way, will they adopt it? And when will the rocket go into production (not in small series, as it is now, but start to go into service?) I heard - in 2015?

            The first batch of RIM-174 was delivered to the fleet in 2011.
            Full Rate Production - 22 May 2013
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            That's right, because he does not need such a perversion. Can you come up with an assignment for this missile in a naval battle?

            The tasks of the US Navy are not limited to naval combat
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            NEVER decimeter radar will not see against the background of the sea wave at least approximately the same as a centimeter

            It will be if they are executed at a different technological level

            AN / SPY-1 has a special mode for detecting low-flying RCC - a special radiation pattern with a narrow beam and side lobe suppression + high pulse refresh rate

            interference cut off by software methods
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The question was who is stronger, a giraffe or an elephant. It turned out that all the same elephant :)))

            It turned out that the elephant is useless and ineffective if compared with the destroyer
            At the same time, the 26 000-ton TARKR confidently blows the destroyer at all points, except for anti-ship missiles and PLO in the near zone
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 20: 25 New
              +6
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              At the Burke 3

              Only now Petra’s radar can highlight 6 targets (older models - three each) and Arly’s radar - ONE
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              As for the radar backlight:

              Oleg :))) Try at least ONCE to simulate a situation, say, by repelling a missile strike at low altitude, taking into account notching targets, missile launch speed, etc. etc ... Arly in this respect even inferior to Glory, not to mention TARKR
              And I'll tell you one thing - do you even know how the spay will correct the flight of the missile defense system? about once every 5 seconds. Can you imagine the strength of the junction signal at a distance of one and a half hundred kilometers? With a little bit of electronic warfare, the correction will fly off and the rocket will be buzzing. Radar illumination is a much more serious thing, well, imagine that you have one missile defense system - correction from a general-purpose radar, and on the other - accompaniment of illumination radar ... can you imagine the degree of increase in reliability? And when intercepting low-altitude anti-ship missiles that jumped out of the horizon (especially supersonic ones) - will a correction with an interval of 5 seconds help you a lot? In general, I love those who like to count how Arly, having 18 missiles in the air at the same time, clicks "granites" by hundreds, but is it such a simple fact that Aegis has never hit a low-altitude supersonic target (only low-altitude subsonic and high-altitude supersonic targets)?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              What about guidance systems?

              Oleg, I’m telling you once again - ONE old C-300 backlight radar serves as three Arly radars, and even more :))) The only drawback is that three radars can be brought in three azimuths, and one radar can be taken one at a time (although coverage is it’s not bad) But on TARKRE there are TWO radars :) And even if we assume that there’s an old thing on Peter, it’s 6 goals + 4 goals of the Dagger.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Full Rate Production - 22 May 2013

              Yah? A reference can be?
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              The tasks of the US Navy are not limited to naval combat

              That's right, they are still a deterrent. More SM-3 hardly suitable for something
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It will be if they are executed at a different technological level

              Oleg, that's it. And these levels are not in favor of a junction, just put up with it :))) Weed out on the software, ha! :))) on the first junctions, manually adjusted, like an old TV - if you turn the knob, will there be less interference? Do not give out a bug for a feature, this is not good. Generally speaking, a junction is a pretty fraud of the US Navy.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It turned out that the elephant is useless and ineffective if compared with the destroyer

              It turned out that Oleg again ignored the argument of the opponent
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              At the same time, the 26 000-ton TARKR confidently blows the destroyer at all points, except for anti-ship missiles and PLO in the near zone

              No matter how much you say "halva", your mouth will not become sweeter
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 9 July 2013 00: 31 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Can you imagine the signal strength at a distance of one and a half hundred kilometers?

                peak emission power SPY-1 6 MW
                Radar can simultaneously correct the flight of 18-20 missiles
                let's say that 10% transmit-receive modules are involved

                600 kW divided by 20 = 30 kW per channel

                For comparison, 30 kW is the radiation power of the Fregat radar
                Can you name the power of radiation ЗР41 tit wave?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                - correction from a general-purpose radar, and on the other - backlighting by a radar ... can you imagine the degree of reliability increase?

                it just means that the Fort shoots twice as slow (for Aegis, 18-20 missiles go to the target at the same time, for TARKRA - at best, 9)
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                ONE old S-300 backlight radar performs the function of three Arly radars

                Yes, only the target tracking range of the "fighter" type is 40..50 miles
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yah? A reference can be?

                http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2332
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                That's right, they are still a deterrent. More SM-3 hardly suitable for something

                accurately remove from low orbit US-A systems MKRTs or RTR satellite "Liana", as well as any other emergency or spy spacecraft
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 07: 22 New
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  peak emission power SPY-1 6 MW
                  Radar can simultaneously correct the flight of 18-20 missiles
                  let's say that 10% transmit-receive modules are involved
                  600 kW divided by 20 = 30 kW per channel

                  Oleg, what you have just written is nonsense, nonsense. Spy DOES NOT USE 10% to escort missiles. Spy ALWAYS uses 100% of its transceiver modules. Quite simply, "studying" the space (each point is viewed once every 5 seconds) the junction "sees" both the position of the missile defense system and the position of the target - correlating their location in space, the corrected course for the missile defense system is issued. There is no need to write about what you do not understand at all.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  it just means that the Fort shoots twice as slow (for Aegis, 18-20 missiles go to the target at the same time, for TARKRA - at best, 9)

                  This means, Oleg, that you are chatting again about what you don’t know. The number of missiles in the air is determined by a number of parameters, such as the rate of fire of the launchers (which is very important when reflecting anti-ship missiles) and the number of channels. In combat, Oleg, 2 missiles are used to hit the target. Therefore, in theory, AIDIS is capable of controlling 20 missiles, but it will direct them to 10 targets (otherwise, if there is an REB station on the target, then the missiles will go into milk). Well, TARKR has the ability to aim (even the old TARKRs that are now rusting) fire with X-NUMX missiles with C-300 6 targets, and Peter with at least 12 9 missiles. But they are constantly accompanied by the MSA radar, and do not hang out on a five-minute correction from a general-purpose radar.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Yes, only the target tracking range of the "fighter" type is 40..50 miles

                  Dashtoty? :)))))
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  carefully remove the ICRC system from the low orbit of the US-A

                  ... you can firing the same rocket from the United States.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 9 July 2013 07: 47 New
                  +2
                  And, yes, I completely forgot
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2332

                  Read
                  "The first full-rate production Standard Missile-6 is on track for an April 2015 delivery, which is three months ahead of contract."
                  So where is the reference to mass production in 2013?
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 8 July 2013 19: 20 New
        0
        Well, let's talk about air defense. Generally. AN / SPY-1 is reportedly capable of detecting 250 air targets and simultaneously firing at 20 air targets. The number of ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) and Standard Missile missiles in variations is indicated in the article. The Fort-M air defense system mounted on Petra can simultaneously fire 6 air targets at a distance of 150 km., The 48N6E2 missile has an increased size relative to 48N6 and therefore cannot be used with its launcher. The number of those and other missiles is known. 48H6E2 has no advantages over SM2 / 3; intercepting air targets at a maximum distance is possible only if the air target flies at an altitude of 10 km. and does not apply interference. Pilots, however, will not use their Clabs and SLAM-ER from minimum altitudes using radar suppression means. The result will depend on the number of missiles in the salvo and the organization of the air attack.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I see that you are a fan of replacing some questions with others.

        By no means, the point is in the concept of application; without this, the comparison will not be true. In the U.S. Navy, the main striking force is carrier-based aviation; in the USSR / RF Navy it was absent, so bet on long-range anti-ship missiles. With regard to LRASM, I can say that it is likely to become a victim of a reduction in the defense budget, since this is an excess.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 20: 48 New
          +3
          Quote: Nayhas
          AN / SPY-1 is reportedly capable of detecting 250 air targets and simultaneously fire at 20 air targets.

          Formally, yes. In fact, the number of targets fired is limited by the presence of only three of the target illumination radars.
          Quote: Nayhas
          SAM Fort-M

          I have to disappoint - on Peter the Great the C-300FM is unified with the C-300ПМУ2 so 48Н6Е2 goes there perfectly. And a new antenna post, if it corresponds to 30Н6Е2, can simultaneously fire at up to 36 targets. If it corresponds to 30Н6Е (1) - then 6 targets 12 missiles.
          Quote: Nayhas
          48Н6Е2 has no advantages over SM2 / 3

          It’s just that you didn’t give yourself the trouble to study the guidance of both of them on the target, but what about the missiles themselves - I generally keep quiet
          Quote: Nayhas
          Pilots, however, will not use their Clabs and SLAM-ER from minimum altitudes using radar suppression means.

          And here a large number of TARKR channels will manifest itself in all its glory.
          Quote: Nayhas
          By no means, the point is in the concept of application; without this, the comparison will not be true.

          Comparing the performance characteristics and combat qualities of two ships, this does not apply at all.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 9 July 2013 13: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Formally, yes. In fact, the number of targets fired is limited by the presence of only three of the target illumination radars.

            Three radars operate in three directions at the same time each radar works for one second target, while the guidance is carried out by AN / SPY-1, AN / SPG-62 only picks up the guidance for several seconds. Formally, the characteristics of 30H6E2 are probably better than those of AN / SPG-62, but there are only two of them, and they do not provide 360 ​​degrees of view, which can end sadly when attacking from different directions. AN / SPY-1 provides 360 degree guidance and has no dead space.
    2. VAF
      VAF 8 July 2013 16: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: Nayhas
      What US adversaries have naval aviation capable of destroying O. Berka?


      Any countries with fighter-bombers or tactical aircraft. Or front-line bombers ... not necessarily "naval" affiliation. but "integrated" for the use of aviation anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 200 km or more! soldier

      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 16: 58 New
        +4
        Sergey, I welcome you categorically! :))) And, although they don’t put a hand on an empty head, I nevertheless get in the grunt and soldier
        1. VAF
          VAF 8 July 2013 18: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I welcome you categorically !:


          Andrey. Mutually, +! drinks
          I carefully read your "dialogue" with Oleg, both from me only ++++! drinks
      2. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 16: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: vaf
        but "integrated" for the use of aviation anti-ship missiles with a launch range of 200 km or more

        why so much?
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 8 July 2013 17: 11 New
          +1
          Schaub Bulo and the point.
        2. VAF
          VAF 8 July 2013 18: 24 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          why so much?


          Oleg drinks for reliability wink !

          But seriously, the launch from the PMV and from a long range guarantee less loss and the possibility of detecting a strike group! soldier
      3. Nayhas
        Nayhas 8 July 2013 18: 39 New
        0
        Well, if Burke comes to the shore and stupidly drifts and waits for an attack, then yes, IJIS will have to sweat, but damn, as the saying goes, "why the hell did that bathhouse fall?", Why should he do that? Purely hypothetically, Burke alone against coastal aviation may not stand it and blow bubbles, but damn Orlan's chances of turning into atomic waste are no less. The enemy to strike a single ship (if he finds it) ten aircraft with anti-ship missiles are enough to send it to the bottom, the scheme is the usual distracting and strike groups covered by electronic warfare means, the use of ultra-low altitudes excluding timely detection ...
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 8 July 2013 18: 58 New
      +1
      What US adversaries have naval aviation capable of destroying O. Berka?


      Well, for example:
      RF
      China
      India (not an adversary, but it will probably be able to destroy)

      Orlan’s air defense is stronger than Orly? This is due to what? Any competent attack will be massaged in a short period of time. How many target channels do Orly and Orlan have?
      What about the illumination sectors of S-300 stations? How is it with the reflection of a stellar attack from 3 directions? How is it with the reflection of the attack not only Harpoonov, but also HARM, with the selection of them?
      I think in this case Orly (also by the way not the god of air defense) will be able to cope a little better, especially considering his role is an escort (i.e. not one, and the entire order is combined into a single system with a common target distribution and target designation) in comparison with the role of Orlan (core build)?
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 8 July 2013 13: 05 New
    +3
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    TARKR carries 3 helicopters (against one or two on different versions of Arly)

    Arly has a RAST forced landing and towing system. The principle of operation consists in forcibly pulling a helicopter hovering above a ship to a fast mooring device using a steel cable and then moving it into the hangar along special guiding tracks.
    According to foreign data, the RAST system ensures the safe landing of a helicopter in the sea on a ship with on-board rolling up to 28 °, keel 5 ° and the speed of the deck lift 4,5 m / s.

    At TARKR, turntables are pushing with a shoulder
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 13: 51 New
      +6
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Arly has a RAST forced landing and towing system.

      Now I cope with delight
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      According to foreign data, the RAST system ensures the safe landing of a helicopter in the sea on a ship with on-board rolling up to 28 °, keel 5 ° and the speed of the deck lift 4,5 m / s.

      When the TARKR has a similar pitching, the helicopters no longer fly, because they are blown away and carried away to the center of the cyclone :))) I would like to remind you that helicopter submarines are searched for up to 5 points.
      Of course, the fact that they have a landing system, but we do not have a plus. But the size of the ship is leveled to a certain extent, and the lack of a hangar on Arly of the first series is much more sad
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 14: 59 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But the size of the ship is to a certain extent leveled

        Do you seriously think that TARKR is so great that it doesn’t have any excitement?
        only 1,7 times longer than Burke and 30% wider
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        with side roll up to 28 °, keel 5 ° and deck lifting speed of 4,5 m / s.

        tarcra has no landing systems and these values ​​are much less
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        and the absence of a hangar on Arly of the first episodes is much more sad

        no sadder than a deck hangar on tarcra

        Burke, as you see, is not a kid at all
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 8 July 2013 15: 05 New
          +5
          Here is another good photo that gives you a sense of the true size of Burke. Hefty n @ dla
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 15: 11 New
          +3
          Oleg, if you seriously think that your system overlaps the usefulness of a normal hangar and fuel and lubricants reserves / weapons and more helicopters - it's up to you
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Do you seriously think that TARKR is so great that it doesn’t have any excitement?
          only 1,7 times longer than Burke and 30% wider

          Oleg, you would be interested to begin with, that there is an excitement of 5 points. This is the wave height of 1,25-2 meters, and the wind at which large flags are pulled, large bare tree branches oscillate. If you seriously think that it will rock TARKR to the impossibility of take-off ...
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 8 July 2013 15: 41 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Oleg, you would be interested to begin with, that there is an excitement of 5 points. This is the wave height of 1,25-2 meters, and the wind at which large flags are pulled, large bare tree branches oscillate. If you seriously think that it will rock TARKR to the impossibility of take-off ...

            Then where does the limitation in 5 points given by you here?

            ps / As stated in the RAST advertising booklet - the system helps with vertical movements of the deck of 4 meters.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 15: 44 New
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Then where does the limitation in 5 points given by you here?

              This is a limitation on the search for a helicopter submarine. Those. if the excitement is higher than 5 points, then the helicopter cannot search for the submarine :)) So it turns out - if the excitement is up to 5 points, then TARKR can provide takeoff / landing, and if there is more, it makes no sense to raise them either Arly or TARKRU
              1. Santa Fe
                Santa Fe 8 July 2013 16: 05 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                This is a limitation on the search for a submarine by helicopter. Those. if the excitement is above 5 points, then the helicopter cannot search for submarines

                As you know, helicopter capabilities are not limited to finding submarines

                Transportation of people and goods, search and rescue operations, patrol, chasing and intercepting Iranian feluccas, etc. Links and Sikorsky are able to launch RCC
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 16: 14 New
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  As you know, helicopter capabilities are not limited to finding submarines

                  Naturally, but I talked about anti-submarine capabilities.
                2. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 8 July 2013 16: 55 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Naturally, but I talked about anti-submarine capabilities.

                  Then at least parity

                  The cruiser is inferior to the destroyer in the far-field PLO (MH-60F LAMPS III Update - this is not a Ka-27 from the 80s), but surpasses the destroyer in the near due to Pauline
                3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 17: 03 New
                  +4
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Then at least parity

                  Oleg, if the ship carries 3 helicopters, then this is a little more than 2. And to work in the PLO, the Pepelians need all kinds of equipment, such as discarded buoys and so on. Therefore, to declare right away that two sixties of Sikorsky (which, if anything, are 70's) are cooler than 3 Ka-27 I would beware. It may be cooler, of course, but it is somehow not obvious.
                4. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 8 July 2013 17: 44 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Oleg, if the ship carries 3 helicopters, then this is a little more than 2.

                  for first try to get them from the deck below the hangar.

                  while you roll out the second one, the first one will already use up the gore and will return ... and the third one will remain idle
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  It may be cooler, of course, but it is somehow not obvious.

                  Well, I can’t help with anything. Read about the MH-60R, compare with the Ka-27, draw conclusions. ... what anyone has:
                  Synthetic aperture radars (mapping and recognition of retractable devices), thermal imagers, number of data transmission channels, interior equipment of the cabin, sonar capabilities.
                5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 July 2013 20: 50 New
                  +2
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  for first try to get them from the deck

                  One left
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Well, I can’t help with anything

                  and not only here, Oleg :)))
      2. 1c-inform-city
        1c-inform-city 8 July 2013 17: 19 New
        +1
        By the way, a limit of 5 points is valid not only for helicopters, but also for most other weapons both here and there.
  • Constantine
    Constantine 8 July 2013 10: 10 New
    +2
    While reading, I felt déjà vu. I was accompanied by the feeling that I had already read certain paragraphs somewhere. And here, at the Military Review. On the whole, I agree with the previous speakers. The ship is certainly good, but it’s like reading a brochure from the US Navy that only boiled eggs are cooler than them and “don’t even try to fight us, because it’s useless.” It should be simpler or something.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 8 July 2013 10: 29 New
      +4
      There really is nothing new in the article, it would be more interesting to learn about the Flight-3 series, the new AMDR radars, the new AEGIS BMD 4.0.1.
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 July 2013 13: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        new AMDR radars

        A promising system focused on missile defense functions (control of the upper atmosphere and low Earth orbits)
        The declared radiation power is 10 MW (300 times more than that of the Fregat-M2 radar on the Peter the Great cruiser). Impressive

        due to increased energy consumption, it will be necessary to place additional generator in the Arleigh Burke Flight III helicopter hangar, abandoning the second helicopter
        Quote: Nayhas
        about helicopters MH-60R

        The Yankees want to replace the entire fleet of Navy helicopters (minesweepers based on MH-53, "sea hawks") with a single universal machine on the MH-60 platform
        MH-60R - the next upgrade of LAMPS III to replace the SH-60B and SH-60F
        Glass cabin, new data transfer protocols, AN / APS-153 radar with the ability to detect periscopes and retractable submarine devices over long distances ... nothing really interesting
        Quote: Nayhas
        mine guided underwater vehicles ..

        Both underwater and surface
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 8 July 2013 18: 46 New
          0
          Thanks Oleg, but this is worth a separate article.
          PS: referring to controlled mine action vehicles, I talked about uninhabited ...
  • UzRus
    UzRus 8 July 2013 10: 56 New
    +2
    The 2012 film Sea Battle starred the real-life Orly Burke destroyers. Impressive boats!
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 8 July 2013 15: 56 New
      +7
      Yeah, especially impressive is the Missouri battleship museum, laid up since 1992 with full fuel tanks and artillery ammunition.
      And the fact that the aliens attacked the standing Japanese, and not the attacking Amerikos is impressive, but as always a cool drink ... US officers save the Japs and then the world.
      The hackneyed American theme of saving the world in an American way for residents of the star-striped McDonald's. laughing
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 8 July 2013 14: 06 New
    0
    Quote: UzRus
    The 2012 film Sea Battle starred the real-life Orly Burke destroyers. Impressive boats!

    They also drowned spectacularly. I applauded right in the hall.
    1. UzRus
      UzRus 8 July 2013 15: 59 New
      +1
      Well, having received so many hits, it is unlikely that anything will stay afloat ...
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto 8 July 2013 14: 48 New
    +4
    It is sad that we have no alternative to them at sea. Well, that's okay, it's not in vain that they say: "A territory is not considered conquered until an enemy soldier steps on it." In case of trouble I will wait for the crews of the Orly Berks and the gallant American Marines on the shore. With what might, we will treat: whether grandfather's Berdan, whether it is "PKM", given out by the Motherland ... Maybe they will crumble me before I see the enemy, but maybe not - we'll wait and see. However, "paws to the top" - that's for sure, pipes. Grandfathers also went to the tanks with a "mosinka". There will be no two deaths.
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 8 July 2013 22: 07 New
      +1
      I think that the Americans, this is what stops them from trying. Well, let's say they destroy some of our ICBMs and then what? Here our land and not theirs and their pseudo-Americans serve for their citizenship and not for the sake of the United States.
      No matter how dangerous the coyote bear is stronger, more cunning and more cunning, so all of their Orlpny and Orly scarecrows for fragile minds and Arab sheikhs.
      In general, their train went back to 90x. Now Russia is far from the one that can be scared by destroyers. Our TFRs (I prefer the Soviet classification of ships) are not inferior to these Orly Berks, we were just a little late with the modernization of weapons and control systems on them, and The performance characteristics of ships surpass theirs, but one modernization will allow them to stand on one level with these destroyers
  • Mhpv
    Mhpv 8 July 2013 17: 03 New
    +1
    And I'm proud of my service at this little bird:

    hi
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 8 July 2013 17: 41 New
    +1
    In1914, the repair of Marshal Ustinov begins. We'll see what will happen, they promise to hand over in 18.
    They say they will put in the region of 100 pcs. only Kalibrov, s-500, Redut, etc. The contract has already been signed, the plant has begun troubleshooting.
  • Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 8 July 2013 19: 05 New
    +1


    Compare Eagles and Arly is a bunch. If only because Arly is 65 pieces, and Orlan is only one. Orlan was a very good ship for the 80s. But while Russia stamped on its place, the rest went further.
  • Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 8 July 2013 19: 56 New
    -1
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    V1914 the year begins the repair of Marshal Ustinov, we’ll see what will happen, they promise to hand over in 18
    They say they will put in the region of 100 pcs. only Kalibrov, s-500, Redut, etc. The contract has already been signed, the plant has begun troubleshooting.

    Maybe in 2014 wink
  • fero
    fero 8 July 2013 21: 50 New
    +1
    This system is capable of detecting aerospace targets at 380 ranges of thousands of meters, air and sea targets at 190 ranges of thousands of meters. At the same time, it can be tracked to 1000 targets with guidance of eighteen missiles of various purposes.

    I will even say more - 380 million mm and 190 million mm. respectively. lol strange in the article "parrots", km would be easier to write.
    The accuracy of the guidance system is so great that the gun is capable of knocking down a flying tennis ball.

    And at what distance is it interesting to know?
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 8 July 2013 23: 02 New
    0
    Here are some photos from me .. Varna 2007. USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 8 July 2013 23: 06 New
    0
    USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 8 July 2013 23: 07 New
    0
    USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)
  • stoqn477
    stoqn477 8 July 2013 23: 08 New
    0
    USS Forrest Sherman (DDG-98)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pamir210
    Pamir210 9 July 2013 21: 28 New
    +1
    Great ships. Modern, strong.
    And most importantly, their quality is THEREOF.
  • Renzo
    Renzo 3 October 2013 16: 16 New
    0
    Tell me, please, what British BIUS do exist at all?
  • Pioneer321
    Pioneer321 24 July 2017 21: 04 New
    0
    Dear, if your topic is not closed, please help in understanding what type of their hats are:
    1 x Mk-41 Vertical Launching System / VLS
    32 cells / for a mix of:
    RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile / ESSM;
    RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC;
    Type-07 VL-ASROC.
    vertical launch missiles - submarines, missiles or ???
    Thanks in advance :-)
  • Bobik012
    Bobik012 28 December 2018 13: 04 New
    0
    And most importantly, give it to American sailors to read more often. So that they believe in it. And those who need to know how to drown them
  • asr55
    asr55 28 August 2020 19: 54 New
    0
    And what about the RCC, the author did not write anything. Again, only 8 harpoons, or all the same, AGM-158C LRASM was delivered and brought to mind. A contract was signed in 2019 for the supply of 24 pieces for $ 85 million and everything was quiet.
  • asr55
    asr55 28 August 2020 20: 26 New
    0
    moderator goof