Military Review

Dragons in the service of Her Majesty

51
Dragons in the service of Her Majesty



Legendary British pirate Sir Francis Drake argued that the best emblem for a warship is the corpse of an enemy nailed to the bow. The stem of the new British ship HMS Dragon is decorated with no less symbolic sign - a red Welsh dragon. National Emblem of Wales. Symbol of the integrity and security of the protected object. The vigilant guard, day and night, guards the treasures entrusted to him.

Medieval mysticism wonderfully intertwines with modern technology. “All-Seeing Magic Crystal” acquired the features of a three-coordinate radar with an active PAR, capable of seeing an albatross at a distance of 100 km. And the “arrows of Robin Hood”, having flown through seven centuries, turned into 48 anti-aircraft missiles of the Aster family, which hit the 120 kilometers without a miss.

HMS Dragon is the fourth ship in the series of six destroyers of the Royal Navy of Great Britain belonging to the Daring type (Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender, Duncan). Specialized air defense destroyers, "sharpened" under the protection of ship connections from any means of air attack in the coastal zone, in open sea areas and in the expanses of the oceans.


Dragon breath

The roots of the “Daring” destroyers (also known as “type 45” or “type D”) go back to the 1990s, when European countries decided to create their own new generation warship that is not inferior to the American destroyers like Orly Burk. The result of the joint British-French-Italian CNGF (common new generation frigate) program was the emergence of horizon-type overgrown frigates (adopted by the Italian and French Navy), as well as their more advanced version — the British Deering-type destroyers.

The idea was definitely a success: thanks to its perfect design and ultra-modern "stuffing", "Derring" and "Horizons" surpassed American Aegis destroyers in a number of important characteristics. Particularly impressive is the "Daring": even the latest modifications of the American "Berkov" politely leave at the sight of the British paladin.

Externally, “Daring” is a typical modern destroyer with a full displacement of about 8000 tons. Charming lines of superstructures and enclosures. A minimum of external decorative elements only emphasize the nobility of “Dering”, whose appearance is entirely subordinate to the “stealth” technology. Underdeck accommodation weaponsvertical rocket launchers, slender masts, a helicopter hangar and a landing pad aft ...


In this illustration, the dimensions of the "Dering" are well felt. The destroyer is quite large.

But the main secrets of the ship are hidden inside - under the brilliance of polished decks and the radio-transparent caps of antennas there is SOMETHING that challenged all existing technologies and canons of naval combat in the surface-to-air format.

British scientists, in collaboration with their Italian and French colleagues from MBDA and Thales Group, played all-in, managing to create the world's first anti-aircraft missile with fully autonomous aiming at the target, according to the principle of “fired and forgotten”.

Of course, this does not exclude the possibility of external control of the rocket: all SAM systems of the Aster 15 / 30 family are equipped with a reprogrammable autopilot: in the middle section of the trajectory, the rocket can be contacted by means of the ship’s electronic means and can be corrected until complete.

But the real focus is on the final leg of the flight: the Aster 15 / 30 rocket has an active homing head (GOS).

Everything! No more restrictions and troubles associated with the need for external illumination of the target - the active GOS independently radiates radio waves and receives the reflected signal. Destroyer "Daring" can, like a machine gun, "peel" at air targets, not thinking about the number of missiles in the air and the number of fire control radars on board - they simply do not need them.

An anti-aircraft missile with an active seeker is a real surprise for the enemy aviation: in vain the pilot throws the plane down, trying to go to an extremely low altitude - to where the radar lights mounted on board the ship will not get it. The launched Aster-30 rocket will calmly follow the intruder in any direction - when she sees her opponent only once, she will never lag behind her “victim”.

Aster 30's excellent flight characteristics, excellent maneuverability and high speed of flight, reaching sound speeds 4,5, allow you to intercept any aerodynamic targets in the range of heights from 5 to 20 000 meters: aircraft, supersonic cruise missiles, and combat blocks of short-range ballistic missiles.


A rather big toy. The length of Aster 30 reaches 5 meters. Starting weight 450 kg

4 April 2012 was set another record - the French frigate Forbin * was able to hit the Aster 30 anti-aircraft missile with a GQM-163A Coyote supersonic drone racing over the crests of waves at Mach 2,5 speed.
At that time, GQM-163A Coyote imitated the promising Russian-Indian anti-ship missile "Brahmos". It is reported that the drone's altitude was only 15 feet (5 meters), so the Aster anti-aircraft missile 30 was the first in the world to demonstrate the real possibility of intercepting supersonic targets at extremely low altitudes.

* D 620 Forbin - frigate type "Horizon". Almost complete analogue of "Dering", only with the difference that the British destroyer is even cooler and more perfect.

In addition to the “long-range” Aster 30, the “short” Aster-15, which is a complete analog of the Aster 30, but without a booster, is included in the ammunition package. Despite the worst flight performance (range of the entire 30 km, maximum flight speed no more than 3,5 M), the “short” Aster 15 has one important advantage: less response time and, therefore, more opportunities to intercept targets in the near zone (“dead zone "is just 1 mile from the ship's side) - a reliable means for the ship's self-defense against low-flying cruise missiles.

All of this is the PAAMS European Marine Anti-Aircraft Complex (Principal Anti-Air Missle System), which includes, in addition to the Aster family of missiles, vertical SYLVER installations and a fire control system based on the EMPAR or SAMPSON multifunction radars.



Unlike Italian and French frigates that use the powerful, but, in general, unremarkable three-axis radar EMPAR, the “Daring” is equipped with a far more fancy device - the SAMPSON radar with an active phased antenna array (also known as Sea Viper ).

While designing their super-destroyer, British scientists considered the American scheme adopted by Ajis cruisers and Burke destroyers to be non-optimal (four flat fixed radar AN / SPY-1 antenna arrays placed in quadrants at 90 intervals). This scheme, with its apparent simplicity and efficiency, has several disadvantages: for example, it is ineffective in repelling massive attacks from one direction - it overloads the grid, while the other three are not possible to use. Another important drawback - the American solution does not allow to install four heavy PARs high above the water surface (really, do not install an additional mast under each of the four antennas?) - as a result, the antennas are simply attached to the outer walls of the superstructures, like pictures in the Tretyakov Gallery, which are somewhat limits the radio horizon and the detection range of low-flying targets.



The British sailors are different.
At the top of the “Daring” foremast, a radio-transparent cap shines in the sun glare, under which the platform with two active HEADLIGHTS rotates, 2560 radiating elements each.

The radiating elements are grouped in 640 transceiver modules, 4 elements in each, capable of implementing 64 different gradations of the signal in phase and amplitude. Communication with the central computer takes place via a fiber-optic network with a data transfer rate of 12 Gbit / s. The mass of the antenna post 4,6 tons, speed - 60 r / min. The range of radiated frequencies 2-4 GHz (Short-band range at the junction of centimeter and decimeter waves). An antenna cooling system is available to reduce the heat signature of the destroyer. In the future, it is possible to install a third antenna array facing the zenith.

As noted above, a fantastic device is able to see the bird from a distance of 100 km - at short distances, the vigilance of the SAMPSON is amazing. In theory, the energy capabilities of the SAMPSON allow you to control the airspace at a distance of several hundred kilometers, however, this is not his task - see the next paragraph.

In the aft part of the “Dering” superstructure, a second early warning radar was mounted (damn, one is better than the other!) With active phased array - BAE Systems S1850M operating in the range of decimeter waves. The anthracite-black antenna S1850M weighing 6 tons every minute makes 12 revolutions around its axis and is capable of automatically tracking the position of air targets up to 1000 within 400 radius of the ship.

New "Dreadnought"

The efforts of the engineers were crowned with success: February 1 of the year 2006, rocking majestically on the waves of the Clyde River, the destroyer Daring stepped onto the water - the lead ship in a series of six destroyers. The invincible Asterion, whose arrows without a miss, “land” anyone who dared to break through to him through the air.

Today, HMS Daring is the most advanced air defense (antimissile) defense ship in the world, whose capabilities in repelling air attacks "are tucked into the belt" of any American Berk or Russian nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great.



Exactly 100 years before “Dearing”, 10 February 1906, another British ship HMS Drednought, a legendary battleship, instantly made all existing battleships and battleships obsolete, made a similar revolution in shipbuilding.

But, despite the repetition of success and impressive air defense capabilities, it was not without an obligatory portion of tar: one of the main drawbacks of “Derring” called it too narrow a specialization.
Anti-aircraft missiles are good, but where are the strike weapons? Where are anti-submarine weapons? Where are melee systems like the Russian "Dirks" or the American "Phalanxes"? And why is the anti-aircraft ammunition so small - just Aster 48 / 15 30 missiles?


USS Barry (DDG-52) - Aegis-destroyer of the US Navy type "Orly Burk"

With an impartial comparison with an American classmate, Aegis, the destroyer of the Orly Burk type, the British Daring looks like a real mediocre. "American", with a similar displacement (9000 ... 9700 tons versus 8000 "Daring") and equal cost carries 96 vertical launchers, each of which may contain an anti-aircraft missile of the Standerd family, the Tomahawk anti-aircraft missile, anti-missile torpedo or ESSM self-defense missiles (4 in one cell). Small-sized torpedoes Mk.46, a larger caliber of universal artillery and the presence on board of self-defense systems (Phalanxes, SeaRAM) can not even be taken into account - and without these "little things" it is clear that the Burke is a more efficient and balanced ship, and the relatively weak capabilities in terms of air defense are compensated by the huge number of built destroyers (62 “Burke” against 6 “Derring”) - radar and missiles will be enough for everyone.

But ...
The obvious advantage of “Burke” over “Daring” is not at all obvious, if you look at the situation from a slightly different angle.

Critical experts usually do not take into account that the “Daring” is structurally underloaded - on it, as on most ships of European countries, for economic reasons there is no number of systems originally planned and equipment. At present, British seafarers simply do not need a surface ship with sea-based cruise missiles, and the installation of the anti-ship missiles would be a waste in view of the absence of any possibility to use all these weapons.

When the need arises, the alleged weakness of the “Dearing” can be corrected as soon as possible: the destroyer provides for the possibility of installing two XWUM charging modules of the CIP - the French SYLVER A-8 or the American Mk.70 VLS in the “shock” version - to accommodate 41 cruise missiles "Tomahawk" or promising European SCALP Naval.

Modernization is facilitated by the modular design of the destroyer and the initial unification of the ship's systems with European and American weapons.
Also, there is a reserved space for the Mk.141 launcher for the launch of the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. In addition to the two already available rapid-fire artillery installations "Oerlikon" DS-30B with optical-electronic guidance systems, the installation of automated anti-aircraft guns Phalanx CIWS is possible.

Like any modern ship, “Dering” is moderately universal and allows you to solve many pressing problems that arise before the Naval Fleet these days.

“Daring” can hardly be called toothless in terms of anti-submarine warfare: as a modern destroyer relies on, it is equipped with an MFS-7000 underground sonar, and the lack of PLUR and small-sized torpedoes is partially compensated by two anti-submarine helicopters from Westland Lynx (or one heavy multipurpose AgustaWestland Merlin ACL that does not accept this one. 14,6 tons).



There is universal artillery - “Daring” is able to provide modest fire support with its 4,5-inch (114 mm) Mark 8 naval gun or repel a possible terrorist attack (for example, undermining the Cole US Navy destroyer in the port of Aden, 2000) using the above two installations "Oerlikon" DS-30B.

Special features include a flagship command post, semi-rigid motor boats and the possibility of using a mini-UAV. Comfortable interior space destroyer with air conditioning, LCD panels and Wi-Fi can be in the blink of an eye turned into a modern hospital or a center for evacuation and assistance to victims of various emergencies.

It is noteworthy that for controlling a ship of considerable size, the crew has enough crew of just 190 people (for comparison, the crew of the American destroyers Burke consists almost of 400 sailors).

New British ship is worthy of sincere admiration. Again, the old anthem of “Rule, Britain, the seas!” Will sound again over the sea, however, this time it is necessary to recognize that despite all its British stiffness and the lingering sounds of bagpipes, the fantastic destroyer Daring is a collaboration of the best specialists from all over Europe .

Author:
51 comment
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 23 July 2013 07: 19 New
    +5
    The British act on the principle of "less is better." Saving money forces them to abandon secondary weapons systems, but at the same time allows them to concentrate on breakthrough technologies.
    1. Rustam
      Rustam 23 July 2013 12: 35 New
      +8
      It’s interesting, but the people put down the article why? An interesting article about the Navy of England and their development or because of envy?

      it is informative and there is something to compare-Especially in the pace of construction
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 23 July 2013 19: 13 New
        -1
        Quote: Rustam
        It’s interesting, but the people put down the article why? An interesting article about the Navy of England and their development or because of envy?

        it is informative and there is something to compare-Especially in the pace of construction


        I minusanul for fraud. Really a non-destroyer, just a self-propelled air defense platform with three helicopters. The author is trying to explain here to us that we are poorly prepared and Orly Burke is finally yours, etc. etc. The minus for this outweighed the plus for cognition.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 July 2013 19: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: Geisenberg
          Really under-destroyer

          and who according to your standards is a real destroyer
          1. Edward
            Edward 23 July 2013 23: 04 New
            0
            and in your ESKadrenny MINOSETS this .... - what *!
            can you explain?
            a question and to whom you answer an interesting question.

            and what else are destroyers?
            it's just a question from associations with the word "mine."
            and what is the difference between today's destroyers from real es (k) -mino carriers?
            1. Santa Fe
              23 July 2013 23: 52 New
              0
              Quote: Edward
              and what else are destroyers?

              First of all, they are “real” and “false”
              examples of "fakes" -

              Israeli destroyer Eilat (a tiny old bucket of / and 1700 tons)
              Her Majesty's destroyer type 42 Batch I (in fact - a frigate of / and 4000 tons)

              In the 1960-70s, completely different standards were established for the title "destroyer"

              Real destroyers are as follows:
              - Air defense destroyers (Japanese "Akizuki" from the Second World War or modern British "Daring")
              - strike destroyers (956 "Modern")
              - anti-submarine destroyers (large anti-submarine ships - Berkut, Udaloy, Chabanenko) ~ a purely Soviet chip!
              - escort destroyers (Cannon type of WWII times - weak artillery, but maximum depth bombs and anti-aircraft guns)
              - shock-anti-submarine-escort ("Spruance")

              There are recognized “universals” - “Fletcher” or modern “Orly Burke”, although they also have their own shoals and limitations ... unless the “Fletcher” can be called ideal - the best destroyer of the Second World War

              But the Haruna destroyer (a purely Japanese version of the destroyer)
              1. Edward
                Edward 24 July 2013 00: 11 New
                0
                not for the sake of argument I will ask more
                - can any torpedo boat, ship be considered a "destroyer"?
                And what are similar ships called not in Russia?

                In the 1960-70s, completely different standards were established for the title "destroyer"
                what kind? and why is it not displayed in the name !? or anti-submarine weapons are not taken into account?

                air defense destroyers
                Well, you understand that this sounds a little strange! Air defense and mines :) well, etc.
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 July 2013 01: 33 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Edward
                  - can any torpedo boat, ship be considered a "destroyer"?

                  can. it all depends on the arrogance of the sailors

                  there, in Jamaran-2 destroyers are being built in Iran (a vessel of 1400 tons, without air defense systems and with weapons outdated by a quarter century)
                  Quote: Edward
                  And what are similar ships called not in Russia?

                  In Western countries, destroyers have always been called destroyer (literally - destroyer)
                  For example, for the Burke, the US Navy uses the DDG index (destroyer guided missile)
                  Quote: Edward
                  what kind? and why is it not displayed in the name !?

                  Cheap show off. Destroyer (Destroyer) sounds more solid than a corvette or missile boat
                  Quote: Edward
                  In the 1960s and 70s, completely different standards were set for the title "destroyer".

                  Compare the same British “Sheffield” (type 42 sub-series 1) with the Soviet BOD Bercut-B or the American missile destructor “Spruance”.
                  Firstly, they are 2 times larger than Sheffield
                  Secondly, their weapons, equipment and capabilities are simply INCOMPATIBLE
                  Quote: Edward
                  Well, you understand that this sounds a little strange! Air defense and mines

                  Title - Anachronism
                  Each country builds destroyers (destroyers) the way it needs them - the USSR, for example, built "large anti-submarine ships" - the name speaks for itself. In the United States, pure escorters were built before, now shock universal

                  Here’s the modern Hyuuga helicopter destroyer, Japan
                  And try to prove that this is not a "Destroyer")))
                  1. Edward
                    Edward 24 July 2013 02: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Here’s the modern Hyuuga helicopter destroyer, Japan
                    And try to prove that this is not a "Destroyer")))
                    Well, why should I prove that this is not a destroyer, if you yourself spoke about this in detail ?!
                    "Acting OUT of Order" is very Russian and sounds clear! - after all, this is how you can translate "de-builder"), or otherwise - a multi-purpose ship.
                    There is nothing to argue!
                    And probably all floating vehicles possess the function of a mine-clearing mine today! including
                    simple motor boats.
                    1. Edward
                      Edward 27 July 2013 23: 24 New
                      0
                      In Western countries, destroyers have always been called destroyer (literally - destroyer)
                      For the sake of educating the people, so to speak, I’ll hint again that the “destroyer” is incorrectly applied to the “de-builder”. And in the west and everywhere, these ships were considered more independent, namely, as "able to operate out of order"!
                      And the term "destroyer" is already modern poetry, reflecting the capabilities of these ships.

                      The prefix "de" is not so rare. This Latin heritage in other European languages ​​is inconspicuous only for completely alien humanoid ones.
                      For example:
                      demobilization;
                      denomination
                      de-volition
                      .
                      I am sure these examples are enough for explanation.
  2. T80UM1
    T80UM1 23 July 2013 07: 37 New
    +1
    Question to experts: what can the Russian Navy oppose to this destroyer?
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 23 July 2013 09: 12 New
      +3
      I'm not special at all, but two options:
      1. massive raid of anti-ship missiles;
      2. "thick" torpedoes from a submarine.
      This is if the brave advertising statements of the British are true about the impenetrability of these ships from the top of the hemisphere.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 10: 23 New
        +5
        The easiest way is to “stun” the dering radar with massive interference + PRR
        1. Pacifist
          Pacifist 23 July 2013 12: 21 New
          +3
          It is unlikely that this will work out in full, and they have missiles with an active seeker ... so it's a tough nut ... compared to him, Ajis is just bullshit. In general, it’s a very serious machine ... and it’s not sad for us so far with analogues in terms of efficiency, tight ... now if we developed a rocket with an active seeker for a 300F ... it would be a blow from the bottom
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 12: 28 New
            +4
            Quote: Pacifist
            It is unlikely that this will work out in full, and they have missiles with an active seeker ... so it's a tough nut ..

            Of course, this is a toughie. It will be difficult to crush him, here we need a comprehensive suppression program - electronic warfare, anti-radar missiles, anti-ship missiles ...
            Quote: Pacifist
            it’s not sad for us so far with analogues in terms of efficiency ...

            Right. Redoubt should have become our counterpart, but ... something about him is not a bright prognosis. Although there is an opinion that regular firing is planned for this year.
            Quote: Pacifist
            Now, if you develop a rocket with an active seeker for 300f.

            well, they make a rocket.
    2. Alexander borey
      Alexander borey 23 July 2013 10: 14 New
      -1
      One of the options: Coastal anti-ship complex 4K51 "Boundary"
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 10: 21 New
        10
        There is no need even to spend ZUR on the "line" of a modern warship - just one electronic warfare is enough.
        What an amazing prodigy - Termite rocket, for a second, adopted by the 1960 year? And what do you want from this respectable old woman? So that she would click the nuts like nuts on your 53 year of life?
        Let's get from heaven to earth somehow.
        1. Alexander borey
          Alexander borey 23 July 2013 13: 31 New
          0
          The 4K51 Rubezh complex with the upgraded Termit-R missile was adopted by the USSR Navy on October 22, 1978 and has a great deal of potential for modernization. The old woman is still a long way off.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 15: 20 New
            +5
            Those. Do you seriously believe that
            1) The filling upgraded in the 70's meets current noise immunity requirements?
            2) What is the range in 80 km - is that it for coastal installations?
            3) What is transonic speed for modern anti-ship missiles - is this great?
            OK then:)))
            1. Alexander borey
              Alexander borey 23 July 2013 17: 13 New
              0
              I seriously believe that as a result of modernization and installation of modern noise-resistant electronics, as well as the adoption of the latest anti-ship missiles, the 4K51 Rubezh coastal missile system will still serve. And the electronic stuffing is now being updated everywhere. This is normal practice for almost all types of military equipment, when after modernization increases the resource of military equipment and is in many respects not inferior to the latest analogues. This also applies to missiles and tanks and military aviation, etc. In addition, both conventional and nuclear warheads can be installed at the border. This will quickly cool the fervor of even the hottest "enemies of Russia.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 17: 48 New
                +4
                There is time for modernization, and there is time for the adoption of new weapons. Do not upgrade the “frontier” anymore, but sensible anti-ship missiles will not come of it. Do you need to increase the range? It is necessary. 80 km is a permanent frivolous distance. EPR does not hurt to reduce? not prevent. Do you need to teach ultrasonic flight at low altitude? Need to. AGSN to improve? Mandatory. But what is the point of investing in EACH element of the RCC, if there is a “Caliber” on which all this has already been implemented? Here, after all, the necessary modernization of the Frontier is already comparable to the creation of a new rocket. So why?
                1. Alexander borey
                  Alexander borey 23 July 2013 20: 51 New
                  0
                  Modernization saves enormous resources of the state and the time it takes to create a model from R&D to entering the army. Creating a fundamentally new hypersonic missile using stealth technologies based on the existing PU with a deep modernization of the latter is much easier than creating everything from scratch. There is a wonderful saying - the old furrow horse in essence, it will already be a new complex with technologies of the XNUMXst century. The caliber is also good, but it’s too early to write off the arms, it’s impossible to narrow the range of weapons in any case. It should also be noted that each weapon is created for a specific task.
                  For example, the “Tor” and “Shell-S” short-range air defense systems were created in order to clean up what missed the main air defense / missile echelons. The main echelons are mainly three hundred and S-400 Triumph. The same can be said about "Frontier". Think about the name.
                  It is necessary to invest not in EVERY ELEMENT, but in the COMPLEX OF ELEMENTS, which can and should be used not only to modernize existing samples, but also to create fundamentally new ones. As for electronic warfare, Russia is fortunately in the world leaders today, both in suppression and and in counteraction.
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 23 July 2013 21: 45 New
                    +3
                    The caliber is also good, but it’s too early to write off the Frontier

                    The most pleasant thing in this speech is a curtsy towards Caliber)

                    I agree with Andrey, any modernization Boundary has long been meaningless
                    for there are already ready-made complexes Bastion and Ball, which already replace completely replace the old Boundaries and Redoubts for tasks
                  2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 July 2013 11: 43 New
                    +3
                    I understand your point of view, but I do not share it.
                    Quote: Alexander Borey
                    Creating a fundamentally new hypersonic missile using stealth technologies based on an existing launcher with deep modernization of the latter is much easier than creating everything from scratch

                    Sorry, but from the very beginning everything will be much simpler - instead of trying to drag the existing elements of the Frontier, which are not designed for hypersonic missiles at all, or artificially restricting a missile in order to shove it into old launchers, it’s much easier to design and missile and launcher for a new, completely different from the OTZ Frontier. Of course, the experience of the development and operation of the Border should be taken into account, but no more.
                    Quote: Alexander Borey
                    For example, the “Tor” and “Shell-S” short-range air defense systems were created in order to clean up what missed the main air defense / missile echelons. The main echelons are mainly three hundred and S-400 “Triumph.” The same can be said for about the "Frontier"

                    Not certainly in that way. There is a big difference between the destruction of warships (amphibious assault landing craft) and the Kyrgyz Republic, and it consists in the fact that if you destroy the Kyrgyz Republic (sorry for the slightly drawn-up example), if you need to launch 4 SAMs to destroy the 12 KR, then by and large it makes no difference whether the 12 air defense system will launch one SAM or one SAM all the 12 SAMs in turn (if the time of arrival allows) but massaging is important for the destruction of ships, i.e. shelling first with long-range anti-ship missiles, then medium-range anti-ship missiles, etc. separation of weapons by range is not necessary and harmful - a simultaneous attack of 10 anti-ship missiles is much more difficult to repulse than 10 attacks of one anti-ship missile in series. Therefore, it is better to have a large number of the same “Caliber” in service than the “Caliber”, “Frontier” and so on.
            2. bif
              bif 23 July 2013 23: 28 New
              +1
              Perhaps the colleague does not know, but in the 80 of the last century they began developing complexes for replacing the Redoubt and the Rubezha ... they became the Ball and the Bastion. By the way, there are bastions in Syria (about the explosion of a warehouse with Yakhont missiles, they were like 50pcs there, I think they heard).
              http://las-arms.ru/?id=131
    3. Edward
      Edward 24 July 2013 00: 40 New
      +1
      any weapon of a reb.
      why can’t you write off the old and hard-wired “analog”?
      - that is why:)
      all these “super” ships would be good as developing technologies for breaking mankind into space, for conquering planets, etc. .. But they are completely unsuitable for the struggle of man against man. Because, people just kill each other (we will undoubtedly win!). And that's it. Because FORCES ARE EQUAL regardless of who has what kind of cutter of a new sample ...
      Children are measured by pussy.

      Everyone thinks that the strategic goal is Moscow!
      Come to your senses, this is not Moscow.
      And - just for the sake of argument - think about what are these important areas for the country?
      Where do you need to send two or three warheads, so that all of us, the Chinese and Europe would come kirdyk?
  3. T80UM1
    T80UM1 23 July 2013 08: 08 New
    +2
    “An anti-aircraft missile with an active seeker is a real surprise for enemy aircraft: in vain the pilot throws the plane down, trying to go to an extremely low altitude - where the radar lights mounted on board the ship will not reach it. The launched Aster-30 rocket will calmly follow the intruder in any direction - having seen her adversary only once, she will never lag behind her “victim”. " - I don’t understand this, the size of the rocket allows you to install a transceiver that can autonomously illuminate the target from the moment it is launched, or all the same, as I think, it turns on at the end of the trajectory like the S-300 and S-400. and his opus "But the real focus is on the final segment of the flight: the Aster 15/30 rocket has an active homing head (GOS)" - as if the rest of the modern missiles do not have it. In my opinion, the author is an employee of the manufacturers of this rocket.

    "To date, HMS Daring is the world's most advanced air defense (missile) defense ship, whose capabilities, when repelling air attacks, are" stuck in the belt "by any American Burke or the Russian nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great." - I would not say so categorically. Since the AFAR has advantages over the VFAR in detecting targets against the background of the surface, but alas, the VFAR will make the AFAR in range. and what prevents to put AFAR on the same BERK in the future on top ??? Article minus.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 July 2013 12: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: T80UM1
      all the same, as I think, it turns on at the end of the trajectory like the S-300 and S-400.

      no
      they have semi-active
      Quote: T80UM1
      Aster 15/30 rocket has an active homing head (GOS) "- as if the rest of the modern missiles do not have it.

      To date, AGSNs are used in missiles of only two naval air defense systems:

      - European PAAMS - Aster (the first brought to mind, adopted by a dozen countries of the world);

      - American Aegis / Standerd - Standard-6 (aka RIM-174) ~ serial production has just begun;

      Russia has similar developments: 9M96E2 / 9M96M or 40N6E for S-300PMU2 and S-400 systems, but only marine versions of these air defense systems have not yet been created. And the situation with the missiles themselves is more than controversial

      9M96M are trying to arm the coats of the ave. 20380 (SAM "Redut") - the result is known:

      The Ministry of Defense postponed for an indefinite period the testing of the Redoubt ship-borne anti-aircraft missile system (SAM), with which the new generation ships should be armed. A source in the Navy’s commander’s chief told Izvestia that all three test firing had failed.

      - This year, they shot three times - twice from the surface position from the Baltic Fleet “Soobrazitelny” and once from the ground installation. Every time unsuccessful. For example, in August, the launch took place as usual, but the homing head was unable to capture the target, and the missile self-destructed, the fleet’s commander said.

      http://izvestia.ru/news/537273
  4. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 23 July 2013 08: 13 New
    +8
    "The invincible Asterion, whose flapping arrows" land "anyone who dared to burst through him through the air."
    "Once again, the ancient hymn" Rule, Britain, by the seas! "


    The ship, of course, is good, but such phrases, frankly, were embarrassed. I thought the article was a reprint from some English patriotic magazine. Looked, but no, Mr. Kaptsov.
    1. avt
      avt 23 July 2013 10: 40 New
      +8
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I thought the article was a reprint from some English patriotic magazine. Looked, but no, Mr. Kaptsov.

      Do not worry . Here the British will finish off their two aircraft carriers, then they will get half from Oleg. laughing
  5. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 23 July 2013 08: 29 New
    +4
    In my opinion this is just an advertisement. The British have already built destroyers, sharpened only for air defense. How this ended is known. In 1982, two of them were sunk by the Argentines. I would like to compare the Englishman with our Admiral Gorshkov (I hope this year he will be tortured and sent for testing). With almost two times less displacement, we have approximately equal air defense potential. Our range is 135 km versus 120 for an Englishman. Ammunition 32 vs 48.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 09: 15 New
    12
    Ay, don’t pay attention :))) Of course
    An anti-aircraft missile with an active seeker is a real surprise for enemy aircraft: in vain the pilot throws the plane down, trying to go to an extremely low altitude - where the radar lights mounted on board the ship cannot reach it.

    and all the following are nothing more than “methods of silence” that have become, alas, commonplace for Kaptsov. Those. Oleg Kaptsov writes the truth, but ... not all.
    PAAMS, like all air defense systems with missiles with active AGSN, needs a ship's radar. Read more about PAAMS here http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/paams/paams.shtml, but if you are too lazy, I quote the paragraphs on the work of the complex
    The algorithm of the PAAMS complex is as follows. An air target is detected by the S1850M early warning radar. When the distance to the target is reduced to 250 km, the target is transferred to escort the multi-functional PAAMS air defense radar (if the target is low-flying, it is detected by PAAMS air defense systems independently). In the process of tracking the target, information about its coordinates is transmitted to the PAAMS C2 information processing and output system. When the distance to the target is reduced to the launch range of the Aster missile launcher, PAAMS C2 enters the target into the missile control system and issues a command to launch the missile launcher. After the start, depending on the distance to the target, the Aster missile launcher moves towards it either by the shortest route (when firing at short range) or along an aeroballistic trajectory. During the entire flight of the rocket, the radar of the complex monitors both the SAM and the target, constantly transmitting their coordinates to the PAAMS C2 information processing and output system. СThe PAAMS C2 system calculates the flight path of missiles and generates correction commands, which are transmitted on board the missile over the air. When the distance between the target and the missile is reduced to approximately 3-5 km, the AGSN is activated on the rocket (by the PAAMS C2 command), after which the Aster missile detects the target independently and intercepts it autonomously.

    That is, of course, the Aster SAM can only attack the target that the radar sees.
    For example, a combat aircraft crept under a radio horizon can not worry - the radar does not see it, volley missiles on it is impossible. A plane, spotted by a radar and fixing the launch of a missile launcher (say, using an infrared camera) will calmly go down, beyond the horizon and the radar, having lost sight of the target, it will no longer be able to bring the rocket on the marching section. And only if the pilot leads the plane so high that the radar sees it and at the same time lets the Zur on the 3-5 km to the airplane - only then the Zur will “grab” it with its GOS and leaving below the radio horizon will not lead to anything.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 July 2013 12: 26 New
      -4
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      only then the SAM will “grab” it with its GOS and leaving below the radio horizon will not lead to anything.

      What am I talking about?
      seeing her adversary only once, she will never fall behind her “victim”.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 12: 29 New
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        What am I talking about?

        The fact that in order to capture the Zur must be brought to the plane at 3-5 km. Using a ship’s radar. And you forgot to mention it
        1. PLO
          PLO 23 July 2013 18: 07 New
          +2
          The fact that to capture the Zur must be brought to the plane for 3-5 km. Using a ship’s radar. And you forgot to mention it.

          I’ll clarify a little)
          he is not forgot, "forgot" wink
  7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 09: 47 New
    15
    Well, a little about the "Daring"
    To date, PAAMS air defense systems of British destroyers can indeed be considered the best naval air defense systems in the world. This is primarily due to the unique design of SAMPSON
    The thing is that for airspace control, the best, perhaps, is the use of a decimeter radar - such as the AN / SPY-1 of American Arly Burke. for example. But the decimeter radar has one extremely unpleasant glitch - it sees very poorly the targets that go above the waves. The Americans fought for a very long time over their sleep, until they managed to achieve a more or less acceptable result (in fact, towards the end of the 90's, the beginning of the 2000's) Before that, the Soviet anti-ship missiles, after leaving low altitude, became almost invulnerable to the American Aegis. And until today, Aegis has never hit a supersonic rocket at low altitude - either supersonic at a high altitude or subsonic at a low altitude.
    The centimeter radar performs well with the task of monitoring low-flying targets. But our sworn friends centimeter only had radar target illumination. And in order to turn it on, you need to get the coordinates of the target from the main decimeter radar. On their own, American backlight radars could not search for a target.
    Our centimeter radars could not only highlight the target, but also conduct a search in a narrow sector - so if a large radar detected something, then there was always the opportunity to look - what is it, a rocket or a hindrance? In general, the Soviet air defense system was more effective in missile defense than the American Aegis.
    Well, the British combined two in one - they have a decimeter grid to control the sky, and a centimeter to control the surface of the sea. Moreover, unlike Soviet air defense systems that used semi-active guidance (the number of targets is limited by the number of backlight channels), when using SAM with an active seeker, everything is limited only power of computers. In addition, the farther to the target, the weaker the power of the backlight radar and the easier it is to clog it with interference. At the same time, a missile with an active seeker is much closer, and it can be more difficult to fool her head (even if its power is significantly inferior to a ship’s radar).
    So dering, of course. It has a powerful air defense, but in all other respects the ship is more than ordinary. PLO, artillery and strike capabilities are absolutely not amazing.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  8. Pon69
    Pon69 23 July 2013 11: 11 New
    +6
    At Discovery, the film was about putting in a Doering. So at the very height of the exercises, it reflected an air raid - airplanes, anti-ship missiles, ship protection warrants - the previous destroyer, they had a power failure for computers, everything hung for 30 minutes. And on the bridge, sailors and officers looked through binoculars as warplanes entered the warrant ships according to the Falkland version. After 30 minutes, food was served and the captain said the smart thing: Do not respond to aircraft that broke through to the ships, consider them destroyed. So electronics is not so omnipotent.
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 23 July 2013 11: 20 New
      +1
      "..Kapitan said a smart thing: Do not respond to aircraft that broke through to the ships, consider them destroyed .."
      In my opinion, it would be more honest not to rejoin the planes and pilots on the ships to which the planes broke through, aren't they?
      If the computer crashed, put the sailor behind the anti-aircraft gun, let him turn the aim manually, you look at least scare the pilots.
      1. Pon69
        Pon69 23 July 2013 11: 42 New
        +2
        They have no anti-aircraft guns, an M-50 machine gun on a turret with a sailor.
        1. ben gun
          ben gun 23 July 2013 14: 01 New
          -1
          So what am I talking about?
          charge the tracers thicker and let's scare / amuse the pilots laughing
    2. Santa Fe
      23 July 2013 12: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: Pon69
      So electronics is not so omnipotent.

      "electricity", "miracles are wonderful" ...

      Despite the neglect of electronics and various doubts about its reliability, the main requirement for the design of modern systems is from air defense systems to space technology: as few moving mechanical parts as possible.

      As for electronics, it has many times more reliability and is less sensitive to adverse factors. All other boltology in the style of "computers are stuck" - tales from the evil one (this can happen during trials, but it is naive and pointless to hope for a failure in the enemy’s electronic systems in battle).

      Just a fact. The electronic part of any system is more reliable than all the others (mechanics, hydraulics, electric drive)
      1. Pon69
        Pon69 23 July 2013 12: 27 New
        0
        No one hopes that the enemy will end "lezderitstvo". There’s just a direction where you can hit both cheaply and angrily.
      2. ben gun
        ben gun 23 July 2013 14: 14 New
        +2
        With the fact that the less moving parts the more reliable you can not argue. But the more sophisticated the electronicron is and the more complex it is, the higher the likelihood of glitches and logical plugs in software, the more time it takes to debug and dock the various nodes of a large mechanism, read the ship. A dumb and not fair example of MS Windows.
        1. Pon69
          Pon69 23 July 2013 14: 27 New
          +2
          An example with our proton. Plus changed to minus :)
          1. ben gun
            ben gun 23 July 2013 20: 42 New
            +1
            Exactly. At one of the previous offices there was a girl, she managed to stick the power connector into the motherboard backwards, while the connector had protection "from a fool" and the installation was wrong. She managed to install this ill-fated connector backwards on the CONVEYOR and it was soldered to the motherboard)))), then they puzzled her for a long time like that and even for a limited time and without breaking off the "protection from the fool" laughing laughing
    3. fero
      fero 23 July 2013 18: 36 New
      +1
      IMHO, misinformation is everything, so that from the side they think "look like the technique of the Brit shakes ... well, the real trough with the calculator floats (sorry goes laughing ). "
      The ship for its tasks is simply excellent.
  9. user
    user 23 July 2013 12: 03 New
    +5
    A similar article only on a different topic (Advertising the recruitment of contract soldiers in the NATO army) is one cheer slogan, I think the military application will put everything in its place. But seriously, the air defense is really one of the best today, but the hell is in the details. And the details are as follows - constructive underloading can play a cruel joke until they correct it as soon as possible or melt them or the hostilities end. History shows that non-readiness for technical equipment "D" day usually puts an end to them
  10. Takashi
    Takashi 23 July 2013 13: 30 New
    +1
    I think that a good torpedo will not hurt this Dragon.
    Or 5-6 shells of 120 mm .. 152 mm guns under the waterline.
  11. USNik
    USNik 23 July 2013 13: 47 New
    +3
    Article translation from the cheers-patriotic site of the islanders. You will not praise yourself, no one will praise you. winked
    Owing to their perfect design and state-of-the-art “stuffing”, “Deringa” and “Horizons” surpassed American Aegis destroyers in a number of key characteristics

    Yeah, they just forgot about the shock capabilities and the fight against submarines, and so, I didn’t want to surpass them at all. The cunning plan for cutting the dough is especially touching, to release the bare air defense ship and then rearm it with everything else. For example, the excellent universal Orly Burke was worth $ 1.4 billion at the time of the descent, and the English SAM system destroyer is pulling 1 billion Euro ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 15: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: USNik
      Orly Burke was worth at the time of the descent 1.4bn $,

      Well, now under 1,7 billion
      Quote: USNik
      release a bare air defense ship

      A camel is a horse made in England
  12. andreitk20
    andreitk20 23 July 2013 16: 48 New
    +1
    "Currently, British sailors simply do not need a surface ship with sea-based cruise missiles, and the installation of anti-ship missiles would be a waste in the absence of any possibility of using all these weapons."
    The author is wrong, during the Libyan events of the Kyrgyz Republic, long-range Europeans ended quickly and they were forced to ask Uncle Sema for loans. NATO countries are now on the contrary re-equipping carriers under the Tomahawk as much as possible. RCC "harpoon", amers they have not been shot for 7-8 years, even for the sake of practice, perhaps even refused to use it.
    Apparently the author really liked the ship’s hull itself, and he, like the British, did not consider the filling.
    As an air defense ship it’s possible it’s also strong, although the ammunition load is small, because for collective defense with so many ships and missiles (6 and 288), accordingly, it is not enough. And if you take into account that some of the ships will be on inter-naval repair, the other will fulfill BP tasks. Really in the ranks of the ship 3-4. Accordingly, they will not be able again without the Americans.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 July 2013 17: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: andreitk20
      Europeans ended quickly during the Libyan events of long-range Kyrgyzstan

      So during the Libyan EMNIP events, the British had one frigate walking in the combat zone already with 4 (four) missile launchers in stacks (the rest were not ... because! in general, they have problems with money, oh, there are ... ) ... well, at least there was enough conscience not to shout "but we don’t need anymore!"
  13. PLO
    PLO 23 July 2013 17: 51 New
    +1
    British scientists, in collaboration with their Italian and French colleagues from MBDA and Thales Group, played all-in, managing to create the world's first anti-aircraft missile with fully autonomous aiming at the target, according to the principle of “fired and forgotten”.

    and then Ostap suffered ..
    as usual a lot of pathos, a huge number of exaggerations and omissions, however it is written interestingly.
    the author can be found in the first paragraph
  14. rudolff
    rudolff 23 July 2013 19: 02 New
    +5
    The destroyer is excellent. Perhaps really the best in its class or one of the best. The fact that he is not "stuffed" now with all that is provided for by the project is a banal saving of finances. So time is suffering. Do not forget that this is not the “warrior that is alone in the field”, a whole series is being built. At the same time on the slipways at once several hulls of the new submarine project. Plus two aircraft carriers at once. Moreover, all these are absolutely new, original and modern projects. About the "smaller" ships can not be mentioned. We would have such a technological level and such a pace of re-equipment of the fleet! Something to learn is not a sin.
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 23 July 2013 19: 13 New
      +1
      Uv.Rudolf, that’s what Capa is talking about. these guys are building great things, the main thing is not to yield to them in anything, this is the background of his post
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 23 July 2013 20: 04 New
    0
    I, guys, love Kaptsov because his posts are always professional, and Kapa has wonderful literary abilities.
  17. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 23 July 2013 21: 06 New
    -3
    hello capa-ANDREY KAPTSOV. whoever doesn’t like something, can bring down to some mother.
    1. Ykrofashist
      Ykrofashist 22 November 2015 22: 47 New
      0
      Andrey, this is the one from Chelyabinsk, and the name of Kaptsov is Oleg.
  18. Edward
    Edward 23 July 2013 23: 39 New
    +1
    The stem of the new British ship HMS Dragon is decorated with an equally symbolic sign - the red Welsh dragon. National emblem of Wales. Symbol of the integrity and security of the protected facility. A vigilant guard, day and night guarding the treasures entrusted to him.

    Well, what have the Welshians and other Welshmen to do with it ?!
    This is a typical Chinese dragon!
    and .. this dragon took on the coat of arms of Welsh when?
    who knows why Sherlock Holmes liked to smoke a pipe?
    and when did Conan Doyle live?
  19. jayich
    jayich 25 July 2013 11: 01 New
    0
    Well, let's see how Orlan will be modernized and how he will be able to chase this lizard. I would generally not bother with the destroyers would be better if another 4-7 Orlanes were built but expensively but efficiently.
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 4 August 2013 17: 23 New
      0
      two nuclear submarines-945 and two-945a, will be modernized. even at the RLS, they talked about this as a decision.
  20. Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 25 July 2013 20: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Panikovsky
    hello capa-ANDREY KAPTSOV. whoever doesn’t like something, can bring down to some mother.
    Kaptsov is the best. whoever doesn’t like CAPA, let it go, Kaptsov, it seems to me, is the most Russian of the Russians. Capa, take care of yourself.
    1. old man54
      old man54 27 July 2013 01: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Panikovsky
      Quote: Panikovsky
      hello capa-ANDREY KAPTSOV. whoever doesn’t like something, can bring down to some mother.

      Actually, his name is Oleg, wise guy! fool
      1. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 2 August 2013 21: 14 New
        0
        Thank you, this is bad luck, but I thought he was Mohammed Israilevich. Sorry, I don't know much by theirs. wildly, if sho.
      2. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 7 August 2013 20: 13 New
        0
        Thank you, I know the name of Kaptsova, I do not know only middle names. Andrew, I'm waiting for your stories. I understand that the new one will be on Monday. I look forward to.
  21. pt730
    pt730 26 March 2014 22: 07 New
    0
    Cool air defense system. I wonder when it will appear on the Berks SM-6 ?!