Military Review

"Zumvalty" today will be like battleships during the Second World War - command of the US Navy

199
"Zumvalty" today will be like battleships during the Second World War - command of the US Navy

October 19, the newest US destroyer DDG-1000 Zumwalt will be launched, the event will be a “technology holiday,” mil.news.sina.com.cn reported today.


Currently, this ship is the largest in the world in its class (15000 t), originally planned as a replacement for destroyers of the type “Arly Burk” and cruisers “Ticonderoga”. The final design of the ship was approved in 2005 year, thanks to the highest degree of automation, the crew of the ship will be only 140 people. With ships of this class, the US Navy pin their hopes on maintaining dominance in the Pacific Ocean. The creation of DDG-1000 will further increase the technological gap of the United States from the navy of other countries of the world.

The use of revolutionary technology dramatically increased the cost of the ship. Initially, the price for one destroyer was estimated at 3,8 billion, but this price increased to “stunning” 7 billion (with the cost of the ships being replaced is only 1,2 billion per unit). As a result, the US Navy reduced the number of ships planned for construction from 32 to 7, then this number was reduced to three.


The command of the US Navy emphasizes that the Zumwalt class destroyers will be as powerful ships as the battleships of the Second World War were at one time. In the construction of the ship, the principle of maximum module availability has been applied. Recent advances in stealth will allow this ship to have a radio contrast comparable to a “small fishing boat.” The ship’s hull and superstructure are enclosed with radio-absorbing materials about one inch thick (1 inch is equal to 2,54 cm - approx. “VP”), the number of protruding antennas is reduced to a minimum.

The destroyer has a powerful radar potential capable of detecting low-flying enemy anti-ship missiles and even terrorist boats at long distances. The ship is equipped with ultra-long-range cruise missiles for strikes against ground and other targets from vertical launch installations. Two newest guns are capable of shooting at a distance of 150 km, but this is not the limit. The fixtures were developed by BAE Systems, the 12 m long barrels have 5000 shot survivability, the maximum range of 370 km, and within 30 minutes they can launch 600 shells along the coast of the enemy. The power plant is capable of generating 75 MW of energy, which is enough to equip the ship with promising high-energy laser systems weapons.

Destroyers will become a kind of platform for testing new naval technologies to create warships of future generations.

Originator:
http://www.militaryparitet.com/
199 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bddrus
    bddrus 17 October 2013 12: 46
    17
    I don’t know if it’s bad, but apparently it’s certainly a powerful demonstration of manufacturability.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 17 October 2013 13: 00
      27
      Quote: bddrus
      apparently of course a powerful demonstration of manufacturability.

      "The US Naval Command emphasizes that the Zumwalt-class destroyers will be as powerful ships as the battleships of World War II were in their time."

      If the Zumwalts will still be and are as "effective" as battleships, then I do not mind. wink
      1. bddrus
        bddrus 17 October 2013 13: 35
        +6
        for that, in my opinion, the battleships could swim sideways - if they shoot in one gulp))

        And what was wrong with the battleships in World War II? not useful?
        1. edge
          edge 17 October 2013 15: 21
          +1
          Quote: bddrus

          And what was wrong with the battleships in World War II? not useful?

          I'll correct it a little, - the "Red Caucasus" in the defense of Sevastopol beat the Deutschlands well; the German "Tirpitz" went to sea a couple of times, was attacked and damaged by a sub under the command of Travkin, returned to Bremen, where the British Air Force was safely drowned ...
          1. Fornit
            Fornit 17 October 2013 16: 14
            11
            Quote: hert
            I'll correct it a little, - the "red Caucasus" during the defense of Sevastopol beat the Deutschlands well

            I'll also correct it a little: in fact, "Krasny Kavkaz" is a light cruiser with a displacement of 8200 tons, not a battleship ...
          2. Heccrbq .2
            Heccrbq .2 17 October 2013 17: 13
            -7
            But how much Tirpitz was diverting to himself by simply standing at anchor in the port? And was the cruiser Hood not on his account? In those days, it was a kind of deterrent.
            1. Kavtorang
              Kavtorang 17 October 2013 17: 24
              +1
              Quote: Heccrbq .2
              But the cruiser Hood is not on his account?

              So you demoted "Hood" from battle cruisers (upgraded to a fast battleship) to a cruiser?
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 October 2013 17: 47
                +6
                Quote: Heccrbq .2
                Tirpitz was distracting himself and his forces simply by anchoring in the port, and wasn’t he the cruiser Hood?

                actually at Bismarck.
            2. cdrt
              cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 23
              0
              But the cruiser Hood is not on his account?

              Huda was sunk by Bismarck - Tirpitz sistership.
              Fleet in been - both then and now the strategy of the passive side at sea (usually the passive side coincides with the loser)
            3. Basarev
              Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 44
              0
              The cruiser Hood on the account of Bismarck
            4. poccinin
              poccinin 18 October 2013 12: 25
              0
              it was the battleship "Bismarck"
          3. UVB
            UVB 17 October 2013 18: 01
            +9
            "Tirpitz" was attacked 05.07.1942/21/XNUMX by the K-XNUMX submarine under the command Lunina N.A., not Travkina. Although the opposite side denies the fact of torpedoing and this remains one of the controversial episodes of the war.
          4. Barracuda148
            Barracuda148 17 October 2013 19: 27
            -5
            In fact, "Tirpitz" did not return to Bremen. And there are also many questions about whether Travkin is damaged or not.
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 46
              0
              Tirpitz stood almost the entire war in one of the Norwegian fiords, where he was sunk
          5. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 17 October 2013 21: 00
            +5
            Quote: hert
            German "Tirpitz" went out to sea a couple of times, was attacked and damaged by a sub under the command of Travkin, returned to Bremen, where the British Air Force was safely drowned ...

            LK "Tirpitz" was not in Bremen, which is 60 km from the edge of the North Sea and is connected to it by the river Vesen. The operation to destroy Tirpitz is described as follows.
            "On November 12, 1944, 32 Lancaster squadrons of the 9th and 617th squadrons took off from Great Britain and flew to the north of Norway. Here, in a bay near the port city of Tromsø, a German battleship was based. blow and return, additional tanks were installed on them and the upper turret was removed.
            During the operation, three 5-ton Tallboy bombs hit the target, and two exploded next to the battleship. A violent explosion tore off the ship's gun turret "C". Bombs tore out 200 feet of the battleship's hull. Having lost stability, the ship turned upside down and sank. Of the 1700 crew members who were on board the Tirpitz at that time, 1000 people perished, including the commander, Captain Zur-See (Captain 1st Rank) Robert Weber.
            Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8883
            1. DimychDV
              DimychDV 18 October 2013 03: 31
              +1
              What is not in the Internet is not in reality, media whispers. Tomorrow they will whisper through all the channels that he was bombarded in Bremen - and it will be so. Also, the whole of Bremen is a witness to the signature 8)))). Simple things - media technology ...
          6. morpex
            morpex 17 October 2013 21: 57
            +3
            Quote: hert
            German "Tirpitz" went out to sea a couple of times, was attacked and damaged by a sub under the command of Travkin, returned to Bremen, where the British Air Force was safely drowned ...

            Correct you. Tirpits is the second Bismarck-type battleship that was part of the Kriegsmarine. He practically did not participate in the hostilities, however, by his presence in Norway, he threatened the Arctic convoys in the USSR and fettered considerable forces of the British fleet. Attempts to destroy the Tirpitz continued for several years, but were unsuccessful only in November 1944 after an air attack with Tallboy type heavy bombs. the battleship was attacked by the Soviet submarine K-21 under the command of N. A. Lunin. The boat fired a salvo of four stern torpedo tubes. The crew of the boat did not directly observe the result of the attack, but heard 2 of a strong explosion and a series of explosions weaker. Lunin in his report suggested that the explosions were due to torpedoes entering the battleship, while also assuming that the torpedoes hit one of the escort destroyers. Tirpitz’s documents about Operation Horse Riding do not contain any mention of Lunin’s attack.
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 18 October 2013 11: 48
              0
              Attempts to destroy the Tirpitz continued for several years, but were unsuccessful only in November 1944 after an attack from the air with heavy bomb type Tallboy




              One example of the work of British military intelligence.
          7. cdrt
            cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 21
            +1
            I'll correct it a little, - the "Red Caucasus" in the defense of Sevastopol beat the Deutschlands well; the German "Tirpitz" went to sea a couple of times, was attacked and damaged by a sub under the command of Travkin, returned to Bremen, where the British Air Force was safely drowned ...

            Horses mixed up ... people. smile

            Travkin apparently drifted from the Baltic to Northern Norway (he probably had RCCs, just very secret ones) laughing

            Not Rabinovich, but Katz, did not lose, but won, not 1 million, but 100 rubles. laughing

            Tirpitz did not attack Travkin, but possibly Lunin (perhaps because the results of the attack seem to be not confirmed by facts).

            Drowned Tirpitz not in Bremen, but in Norway ...

            The truth is really sunk RAF, everything is right here smile
        2. silver_roman
          silver_roman 17 October 2013 15: 59
          15
          not useful?

          not, well, why not come in handy: excellent melt. museums came out.
          but seriously, remember the Yamato or German Tirpitz, which was stuck on all sides by aviation.
          To be honest, I am extremely happy for our overseas "friends". Let there be planes at 300 million apiece, ships at 7 billion apiece. They have a large budget, although the debt is even greater. let themselves be driven into the grave, dogs!
          1. Serg 122
            Serg 122 17 October 2013 18: 47
            +4
            excellent melt. museums came out.

            The same Missouri. Here you have a museum, plus an actor, etc., etc. ...
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 50
            0
            Still, it’s good that at least the USSR had the intelligence to curtail work on battleships such as the Soviet Union
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 17 October 2013 16: 18
          +4
          Quote: bddrus
          And what was wrong with the battleships in World War II? not useful?

          It came in handy, but lost the combat with aircraft carriers. As a result, they left the stage.
        4. cdrt
          cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 11
          0
          And what was wrong with the battleships in World War II? not useful?

          Well, sort of ... Matapan, Crete, the hunt for Bismarck, Leyte.
          + landing support - Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Mariana Islands, Normandy.
          Yes, and as the center of the warrant of aircraft carrier groups of Iowa, S. Carolina, and U.S. Dakota, they seemed to act as an offset.
          A real center for building air defense, virtually impenetrable
      2. GDP
        GDP 17 October 2013 14: 03
        +3
        I don’t remember that during the Second World War the battleships showed themselves seriously. The Second World War was the sunset era of the Battleships, then for the first time it became clear that to dominate the sea, it was not battleships that were needed, but aircraft carriers, and then rocket carriers. The comparison in my opinion is not very successful.

        7 mlr dollars are two aircraft-carrying cruisers or three powerful missile cruisers. I don’t think that 1 this destroyer will also be effective.

        Fear is caused only by guns that can possibly very effectively suppress coastal defense in the presence of a course of quick detection of targets at such a distance and the absence of long-range missiles at the enemy like a yacht ...
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 17 October 2013 14: 52
          +6
          Normal showed. You approach the strov, shoot a day, then the marines clean out the remaining Japs, while the survivability of the battleships was beyond praise.
          1. olegff68
            olegff68 17 October 2013 15: 42
            +1
            Quote: Avenger711
            Normal showed. You approach the strov, shoot a day, then the marines clean out the remaining Japs, while the survivability of the battleships was beyond praise.

            German Tirpitz, Japanese Yamato, American Arizona and Oklahoma showed "vitality beyond praise"
            But what they showed, what ships of other classes could not cope with - a question.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 October 2013 15: 51
              +2
              Quote: olegff68
              But what they showed, what ships of other classes could not cope with - the question

              It is necessary to ask the Japanese garrisons of the Pacific islands that plowed the battleships. Then Koreans, Vietnamese.
              In fact, art bombing is cheaper and more mobile than airstrikes (naturally, in the coastal zone where a very large percentage of the planet’s population is concentrated), and with modern artillery guidance systems this efficiency has increased.
              1. silver_roman
                silver_roman 17 October 2013 18: 11
                +6
                all this is true, but against whom are such ships used?
                As you say, art shelling ... so a "standing enemy" such a ship will not let a volley at a distance. I do not take into account "Axes" or "ASROC", but about art. If you believe the same characteristics as indicated in the article (300 km), then modern anti-ship complexes will get them. And besides, the Americans themselves will not really risk golden ships. In addition, we all know about the notorious advertising, so such performance characteristics, I think, are slightly overestimated.
                And to fight against pirates - as if ridiculous even on the Berks.
                In general, it smells like another dough cut. It feels like the overseas "kids - corrupt officials" have decided to milk a cow to death in the form of amerskoy economy.
                Our Serdyukovs are truly just puppies in comparison with those Rottweilers!
                1. Army1
                  Army1 17 October 2013 18: 39
                  +2
                  Quote: silver_roman
                  In general, it smells like another cut of dough.

                  No, unfortunately, the state is simply improving its fleet, but the axes have remained, but the range of the ship’s gun has increased, new detection and target designation systems have appeared. Water will boil in an old kettle, but in an electric kettle it’s better !? No one has canceled technological progress. This is all we have just begun by 2016.
                  1. Basarev
                    Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 56
                    -1
                    Just do not pull three super destroyers to the global fleet renewal. Even our Ash-trees and Boreas are more like this
                  2. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 18 October 2013 11: 04
                    +1
                    Water will boil in an old kettle, but in an electric kettle it’s better !?

                    I agree, but what's the point of buying a teapot worth half your salary ???
                    I repeat: weapons in modern warfare play more a role of intimidation.
                    Recent armed conflicts show that to achieve these goals it is not necessary to use such expensive systems and complexes!
                    Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan ... what's the point there in the latest radars or jamming? to suppress the Taliban or something, or the Iraqi army, which still used analog devices ???
                    Another example: the US Army and authoritative generals unanimously declare: we no longer need abrams, we have them all so much. And they buy anyway. and why? but because those who sell abrams have a huge influence in public administration. From here all legs grow!
                2. Kars
                  Kars 17 October 2013 20: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: silver_roman
                  ..so a "standing enemy" such a ship will not allow a distance of

                  And with a fake .. opponent .. then you don’t have to fight? We’ll write it down.
                  And how many more or less worthy opponents of the USA are in the world?
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 18 October 2013 10: 57
                    0
                    I repeat: what is the point of fighting on a similar ship with Somalia or with the same Libya if the destroyers in service at this time are enough with the head ??? And in an armed conflict with a state that has effective coastal anti-ship complexes (the same line with a yacht, for example), this is not an justifiable risk. Think for yourself: the US Air Force is afraid of letting its f-22s go, but here we are talking about an amount larger by an order of magnitude, the means of destruction of surface ships are fully complete and it is no less difficult to defend against them.
                    And how many more or less worthy opponents of the USA are in the world?

                    I will perceive this question as rhetorical! if your goal is to find fault with words - this is one ... I just did not understand your post.
                    1. Army1
                      Army1 18 October 2013 16: 50
                      0
                      Quote: silver_roman
                      I repeat: what is the point of fighting on a similar ship with Somalia or with the same Libya if the destroyers in service at this time are enough with the head ??? And in an armed conflict with a state that has effective coastal anti-ship complexes (the same line with a yacht, for example), this is not an justifiable risk. Think for yourself: the US Air Force is afraid of letting its f-22s go, but here we are talking about an amount larger by an order of magnitude, the means of destruction of surface ships are fully complete and it is no less difficult to defend against them.
                      And how many more or less worthy opponents of the USA are in the world?

                      I will perceive this question as rhetorical! if your goal is to find fault with words - this is one ... I just did not understand your post.

                      There is a sense in your words, but progress does not stand still, and the USA in the world are not the founders of everything and everything, there is also Russia, which is improving its Navy, and these are mostly experimental ships.
                      1. silver_roman
                        silver_roman 18 October 2013 17: 53
                        0
                        Understand that in this matter I completely abstract from politics, from nationality, origin, etc. I am talking purely about the economic component of this issue.
                        Modernization is a necessary and correct thing, but everything should be a measure.
                        This is equivalent to the fact that Russia will now begin the construction of aircraft carriers.
                        It is clear that US GDP is huge, but again their debt is even greater. Does it make sense in such expensive ships?
                        At the expense of "experimental ships" - not so important. the party was supposed to be a dozen ships.
                3. nickname 1 and 2
                  nickname 1 and 2 18 October 2013 09: 26
                  +1
                  That's right! Make a fool of our brother!
                  Gun mounts were developed by BAE Systems, 12 m long barrels have a survivability of 5000 rounds, a maximum firing range of 370 km, and can launch 30 shells along the enemy’s coast within 600 minutes

                  And there were = like giant tanks, or a king - a cannon (for example), etc.
                  And no one knows how the aircraft carriers will show themselves - in a serious war.

                  370km -? and accuracy? 600 rounds? But we and e have seen this. don't hi play yourself
                  1. silver_roman
                    silver_roman 18 October 2013 11: 06
                    0
                    I agree. PR in its purest form.
              2. Basarev
                Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 54
                0
                But the battleships didn’t scare the Japanese, Koreans, or Vietnamese. Even the atomic strike didn’t break the Japanese. But the Soviet troops broke
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 18 October 2013 15: 49
                  0
                  The Japanese did not break even an atomic strike

                  I do not agree with this. The Japanese are now US puppets. They actually lost sovereignty. Without a US tire, Japan was not so bold in a dialogue with China about the disputed islands or with Russia about the Kuril Islands.
            2. cdrt
              cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 32
              0
              German Tirpitz, Japanese Yamato, American Arizona and Oklahoma showed "vitality beyond praise"
              But what they showed, what ships of other classes could not cope with - a question.


              Tirpitz ... well, a bomb of 5 tons weighing yes with almost 10 km abandoned will sink any ship, without exception.
              Yamato - so how many planes then killed him?
              Arizona, Oklahoma ... but does it mean that a ship can be taken by surprise in a base that it is bad? In the base in peacetime, any ship can be flooded
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 18 October 2013 06: 30
                0
                Quote: cdrt
                Arizona, Oklahoma ... but does it mean that a ship can be taken by surprise in a base that it is bad? In the base in peacetime, any ship can be flooded

                In the case of "Novorossiysk" it is generally not clear whether the Italian saboteurs were, or they appropriated fame from the explosion of a stray mine brought by the current. True, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet burst out there, there was a chance to throw himself ashore, but he did not allow, and when he did agree, it was too late. They spat a star from him, but you can't return the dead.
          2. novobranets
            novobranets 17 October 2013 16: 54
            +1
            Quote: Avenger711
            You approach the strov, you shoot a day

            After several volleys of the main caliber, the landscape of the coast changes.
            1. Basarev
              Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 59
              0
              I remember that a similar story happened during the Soviet-Finnish war. Then the Finns called the Soviet howitzer B-4 the Architect of Karelia
        2. PSih2097
          PSih2097 17 October 2013 15: 09
          +1
          Quote: GDP
          Fear is caused only by guns that can possibly very effectively suppress coastal defense in the presence of a course of quick detection of targets at such a distance and the absence of long-range missiles at the enemy like a yacht ...

          as far as I remember, there was an article on the site that the fleet wanted to put a rail (gaus) instead of conventional guns on Zumwalt ...
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 17 October 2013 15: 53
            +3
            that the fleet wanted to put a rail (gaus) instead of conventional guns on Zumwalt ...

            Wishlist burned out ... the machine of green pieces of paper was a little overheated.
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 18 October 2013 11: 00
            +1
            Gauss is not a rail! These are completely different types of electromagnetic weapons. And besides, the railgun is much more powerful than the Gauss gun.
        3. DEfindER
          DEfindER 17 October 2013 17: 47
          +1
          Quote: GDP
          Fear is caused only by guns that can possibly very effectively suppress coastal defense in the presence of a course of quick detection of targets at such a distance and the absence of long-range missiles at the enemy like a yacht ...

          I’m only interested in this news, the possible use of promising laser weapons on it, which will make any missiles senseless, because will be burned on approach, and no maneuvers will help. Let's see what they put on it there, the main thing is that the intelligence would work well.
          1. vadson
            vadson 17 October 2013 21: 02
            0
            Well, firstly, what is the range of Garina’s hyperboloid? secondly, how many seconds, in tens, is required to burn a rocket, thirdly and from lasers there are protection technologies you can google, fourthly, if not one but 4 yachts fly against the object, for example? the answer is four lasers do not channel - so much energy on this scandal will not
          2. Basarev
            Basarev 18 October 2013 11: 01
            0
            It is enough to cover the rocket with foil and missiles will not spit on all laser show-offs
        4. bddrus
          bddrus 17 October 2013 17: 51
          0
          here, one local expert laid out on the shelves why aircraft carriers are useless - like in the case of Libya where aviation from aircraft carriers was used only in 10% of flights (an approximate figure - the essence is very small) and mainly flew from land bases
        5. cdrt
          cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 29
          0
          Fear is caused only by guns that can possibly very effectively suppress coastal defense in the presence of a course of quick detection of targets at such a distance and the absence of long-range missiles at the enemy like a yacht ...

          Well ... long-range missiles will appear - they’re already doing it, and the Tomahawks haven’t gone anywhere.
          Well, there are so many missiles on it that it can oversaturated any air defense / missile defense of any ship.

          But the radar - uhhh.
          Although the ship as a whole is more than controversial.
        6. Chervonets
          Chervonets 18 October 2013 02: 01
          0
          The Aryans also suffered from gigantism, creating the technique as a whole a little better than the Soviet one (I compare the MEDIUM T-34s with the HEAVY Panthers, because the T-4s didn’t pass by. Tigers are worse than 2 and 3 Isovs) but incomparably more expensive and time-consuming.
        7. Basarev
          Basarev 18 October 2013 10: 52
          0
          Come on. They plan to stuff Zumwalt with lasers, against which even an ordinary blizzard helps a lot
      3. Yarik
        Yarik 17 October 2013 21: 32
        0
        As with battleships, eliminate the impact on them of something really "lethal" (in the case of battleships, aviation), and ... what if they show themselves?
      4. cdrt
        cdrt 18 October 2013 00: 02
        0
        If the Zumwalts will still be and are as "effective" as battleships, then I do not mind. wink

        Why didn’t the battleships please you?
        XVIII-XIX centuries, how many famous battles were held.
        And even before the advent of the year, by 1942, truly serious aircraft carrier aviation seemed to be the real embodiment of sea power - as now aircraft carriers, PLAKR.

        And on the topic: Zumwalt is of course technologically advanced - a super-radar (we would have it ... when they still create it, after only 15 years probably), full electric movement, etc.
        But ... I think it’s terrible as a mortal sin smile
        And considering that the best designs are usually beautiful - a bad project laughing
        Here Orly Burke - handsome, Ticonderoga, too.
        Loved Virginia at the time.
        Of our 1164 are handsome.
      5. Chervonets
        Chervonets 18 October 2013 01: 51
        0
        effective yet ok, let's believe advertising
        but it stands like an aircraft carrier group, including aviation and submarines, which is clearly more powerful than a lone destroyer, albeit fancy

        by the way, battleships have at least an armored belt
        and this one has obviously only aluminum alloys, as on alylebirk
    2. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 17 October 2013 13: 23
      +3
      Expensive toy ...
    3. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 17 October 2013 16: 04
      0
      Main characteristics
      Displacement 14 long tons (full)
      Xnumx length m
      24,6 width m
      Draft 8,4 m
      Reservation possible Kevlar protection of individual nodes
      Engines 2 x GTU Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30
      Power 78 MW
      Speed ​​30 knots (55,56 km / h)
      148 crew

      weaponry
      Radar weapons AN / SPY-3
      Tactical strike weapons 20 × UVP Mk.57 on 80 Tomahawk, ASROC or ESSM missiles
      Artillery 2 × 155 mm AU AGS (920 rounds, of which 600 in automatic loaders)
      Anti-aircraft artillery 2 × 57 mm AU Mk. 110
      Missile Weapons RIM-162 ESSM
      Anti-submarine weapons RUM-139 VL-Asroc
      Air Force 1 × Helicopter SH-60 LAMPS
      3 × UAV MQ-8 Fire Scout
    4. Army1
      Army1 17 October 2013 18: 33
      -4
      The range of 370 km was impressive, ours needs to be in a hurry.
      1. old rocket man
        old rocket man 17 October 2013 21: 18
        0
        Quote: Army1
        The range of 370 km was impressive, ours needs to be in a hurry.

        Where to gain superiority at sea, artillery is not needed, and to shell the coast of the Zulus is too expensive a toy.
        1. Army1
          Army1 17 October 2013 21: 40
          0
          Quote: Old Rocketman
          Artillery is not needed to gain supremacy at sea

          Seriously? I’m thinking it will not be superfluous. This time, and shelling and support of the same sabotage group will be right in the way. And the electromagnetic gun in the future has great prospects, both on land and in the navy. A-192, our ship, also has the ability to shoot active-rockets, and will have them both on frigates and on future destroyers. It would seem why? Against the Papuans or aircraft carrier request
          Why do our overseas "friends" need 20 heavy cruisers and 70 destroyers? also for the Papuans?
          1. old rocket man
            old rocket man 17 October 2013 22: 10
            0
            Quote: Army1
            our ship, also has the ability to shoot active-rockets, and will have them on frigates

            That's right, an opportunity. ARTILLERY IS NOT THE BASIC WEAPON OF DESTROYERS AND FRIGATES.
            And do not minus if you do not agree = this is not a reason.
          2. Revolver
            Revolver 18 October 2013 06: 39
            0
            Quote: Army1
            Why do our overseas "friends" need 20 heavy cruisers and 70 destroyers? also for the Papuans?
            For our common narrow-eyed friends. They still believe that Taiwan belongs to them, although in fact it’s been half a century or so. And if there hadn’t been US Navy there, the Chinas would have long been for Taiwan and much more.
            1. sergius60
              sergius60 18 October 2013 10: 04
              0
              Dear, resentment for Sevastopol and the Crimea lying under the "x-o-x-l-o-pedami" gnaws? And why should the Chinese be indifferent to the "shmatt of China"?
            2. Army1
              Army1 18 October 2013 16: 45
              0
              Quote: Nagan
              Quote: Army1
              Why do our overseas "friends" need 20 heavy cruisers and 70 destroyers? also for the Papuans?
              For our common narrow-eyed friends. They still believe that Taiwan belongs to them, although in fact it’s been half a century or so. And if there hadn’t been US Navy there, the Chinas would have long been for Taiwan and much more.

              Soon, US Navy will only serve to deliver humanitarian and military assistance to Taiwan.
          3. nickname 1 and 2
            nickname 1 and 2 18 October 2013 09: 49
            0
            Quote: Army1
            Why do our overseas "friends" need 20 heavy cruisers and 70 destroyers? also for the Papuans?


            And why?
            To fight us? So who could stop them in 90gg. take us without these horror stories?
          4. nickname 1 and 2
            nickname 1 and 2 18 October 2013 09: 49
            0
            Quote: Army1
            Why do our overseas "friends" need 20 heavy cruisers and 70 destroyers? also for the Papuans?


            And why?
            To fight us? So who could stop them in 90gg. take us without these horror stories?
    5. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 17 October 2013 19: 25
      0
      Attention to the crew on the course "Zumwalt" torpedo attack laughing
    6. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 17 October 2013 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: bddrus
      I don’t know if it’s bad, but apparently it’s certainly a powerful demonstration of manufacturability.


      "Now let's see if he can take off with all this garbage on board" (c) anecdote about a superplane.

      We are witnessing the launch of another American dream, which will eventually be cut into needles due to the fact that it is very expensive to maintain.
    7. kot11180
      kot11180 17 October 2013 22: 55
      -1
      about artillery, in my opinion, it’s overkill - 150 and then 370 is unrealistic for artillery
      1. Moore
        Moore 18 October 2013 16: 40
        +1
        If the railgun will be brought to mind, and guided missiles to it - why not?
    8. Russ69
      Russ69 18 October 2013 02: 08
      0

      Quote: bddrus
      I don’t know if it’s bad, but apparently it’s certainly a powerful demonstration of manufacturability.

      The ship is clearly not bad, but the price .... It is unlikely that anyone other than the United States can afford it now. Not yet known, the price of its service.
  2. mitya24
    mitya24 17 October 2013 12: 49
    +7
    Eddry-bash ..... this is the pepelats Americans shook off. And who is the competitor to them in the Pacific Ocean? Against whom is such a miracle?
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 17 October 2013 12: 59
      21
      Quote: mitya24
      Eddry-bash ..... this is the pepelats Americans shook off.


      Traditional american pattern. It has been operating since 1855.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 17 October 2013 13: 13
        17
        Quote: Vadivak
        Works with 1855 year.

        Even then, it was not noticeable to the radar. smile
        1. starhina01
          starhina01 17 October 2013 15: 01
          0
          monitor however yes
      2. Yarik
        Yarik 17 October 2013 23: 24
        +1
        "Merrimack", stripped down to overhead lines, thus. was armored first, but it was Confederate.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 17 October 2013 16: 09
      +3
      Quote: mitya24
      Eddry-bash ..... this is the pepelats Americans shook off. And who is the competitor to them in the Pacific Ocean? Against whom is such a miracle?

      Against the People's Republic of China. The shipbuilding industry of the PRC, of ​​course, is still inferior to the American one, but the gap is narrowing rapidly.
      In the next decade we will witness a real "dreadnought race"
  3. Altona
    Altona 17 October 2013 12: 50
    10
    Something to see all the weapons are hidden inside the contours of this ship ... Most likely there is no armor ... It is interesting that such "miracles" really fought ... And then they launched another phantom of incredible cost, and what is the combat effectiveness?
    1. Shep
      Shep 17 October 2013 13: 00
      +2
      why such a colossus of armor? no one will throw stones at him
      1. MstislavHrabr
        MstislavHrabr 17 October 2013 15: 19
        0
        It is interesting that this store has a melee ... and is it possible to break through the skin in the right place with an RPG ...
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 17 October 2013 15: 54
          +1
          Nearest air defense systems to 50 km. And two Beauforts. You can break through, only the point ....
  4. zart_arn
    zart_arn 17 October 2013 12: 50
    +5
    Yes .. Beautiful dish. So far we have nothing to answer and cannot afford such a pleasure, but we must try. There is work for intelligence.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 18 October 2013 18: 09
      0
      Even the ancient boats of Project 949A "Atlant" are still a force - after all, their probable enemy is the American AUG. And the AUG is clearly stronger than even the most powerful destroyer.
  5. 6 sunrise 9
    6 sunrise 9 17 October 2013 12: 51
    14
    A ship may be a class, but what is better in this case to have 32 most perfect ships or only 3 of these revolutionary ones? Who will win in a real naval battle?

    PS all questions to people with knowledge of the fleet.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Kavtorang
      Kavtorang 17 October 2013 16: 01
      +4
      Quote: 6Sunrise9
      what is better in this case to have 32 most perfect ships or only 3 of these revolutionary ones? Who will win in a real naval battle?

      The statement of the question is not correct. Zumvolts are not intended for any naval combat at all. Their task is to wash the shore, not fight with an open visor at sea.
      1. 6 sunrise 9
        6 sunrise 9 17 October 2013 17: 03
        0
        I understood the ATP for the answer.
      2. Vasyan1971
        Vasyan1971 20 October 2013 22: 25
        0
        And what do we need the Club for?
  6. Augustswsw
    Augustswsw 17 October 2013 12: 55
    +6
    For that, during a storm, and in general excitement, it will actively bury itself. And why is it really needed if its price is not commensurate with its tasks? Will they be forever nagging and showing the flag, like the Japanese glowing "Yamato"?
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 17 October 2013 12: 59
      +4
      Quote: Augustwsw
      For that, during the storm, and indeed the excitement, the nose will be actively buried.

      Probably you mean: cut the wave

      Nose breakwater, like the destroyers of the Russo-Japanese War. The meaning of this decision: it will reduce visibility, the stealth ship will be hiding in the folds of the waves of the raging window
      1. Augustswsw
        Augustswsw 17 October 2013 13: 08
        +6
        It will hide, but it will also lose its speed and maneuverability, the entire classical nose scheme has not been sucked out of a finger, like an invisibility scheme, but is dictated by the mechanics of movement in an aquatic environment and many thousand years of experience.
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 17 October 2013 14: 07
          +5
          It is clear that no studies have been conducted regarding the shape of the nose, models have not been tested, and have not been discussed with designers. The students drew, the military liked it, decided to build it that way.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 17 October 2013 14: 17
            +3
            This shape of the nose was just miscalculated by many. She not only cuts the wave, but also can "pierce" it, the ship will pass through the wave and will not jerk up and down.
            Naturally, this is designed only for a certain wave height.
            1. nickname 1 and 2
              nickname 1 and 2 18 October 2013 10: 03
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Naturally, this is designed only for a certain wave height.


              AAAAA! so they are not all weather? Eeee! That toy is not for us!
          2. crambol
            crambol 17 October 2013 15: 36
            0
            Whether business with us!
          3. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 20 October 2013 22: 27
            0
            Sneaking up and ramming unnoticed!
        2. Magellan
          Magellan 17 October 2013 14: 16
          +1
          Quote: Augustwsw
          It will hide, but it will also lose its speed and maneuverability, the entire classical nose scheme has not been sucked out of a finger, like an invisibility scheme, but is dictated by the mechanics of movement in an aquatic environment and many thousand years of experience.

          destroyers of the Russo-Japanese War somehow fought with a breakwater nose
          even managed to go half the land as part of the 2nd Pacific Squadron
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 17 October 2013 15: 13
            +1
            Quote: Magellan
            destroyers of the Russo-Japanese War somehow fought with a breakwater nose

            there was no nose - a breakwater (then there was no such thing), and the ram (a la Greco-Roman galleys) was ...
    2. edge
      edge 17 October 2013 15: 35
      +2
      Quote: Augustwsw
      And why is it really needed if its price is not commensurate with its objectives?

      an elementary dough cut, nothing personal just a business.
  7. understudy
    understudy 17 October 2013 12: 56
    +6
    For science fiction films, it will. So far this is only an extraordinary shell with an unknown filling.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 17 October 2013 13: 39
      +1
      For science fiction films, it will.

      Exactly, just three is enough. And they’ll finish there ...
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 17 October 2013 17: 19
      0
      Quote: Understudy
      So far this is only an extraordinary shell with an unknown filling.


      Destroyers will become a kind of platform for testing new naval technologies to create warships of future generations.
  8. a52333
    a52333 17 October 2013 12: 57
    +3
    taking into account R&D, this price rose to a “stunning” 7 billion
    Russians with Chinese - prepare wallets.
  9. crambol
    crambol 17 October 2013 13: 01
    -1
    Quote: 6Sunrise9
    A ship may be a class, but what is better in this case to have 32 most perfect ships or only 3 of these revolutionary ones? Who will win in a real naval battle?

    Why do you think that all "32 not the most perfect ships" will gather at one point of the world's oceans? And who will win if it doesn't?
    1. 6 sunrise 9
      6 sunrise 9 17 October 2013 13: 20
      +4
      misunderstood you ...
      Suppose country "A" has these 32 ships and is going to start a war with country "B" which has 3 of these wunderwales. And where are the fighting ... well, let's say the passage through the gulf, or simply the destruction of the enemy fleet for the subsequent landing of troops.
      As you know, "A" and "B" are separated by the sea. Who will win in this case? Is it justified to reduce the number of ships so?
      1. common man
        common man 17 October 2013 14: 54
        +3
        Quote: 6Sunrise9
        what is better in this case to have 32 most perfect ships or only 3 of these revolutionary ones?

        Your question can be addressed to Russia. For America, it is not relevant. They already have Arleigh Burke's 32 Not Most Perfect. and even more. And they are not going to write them off. And these, at least for the development of concepts and technologies.
        Speaking of battleships. In the Pacific Ocean, yes aircraft carriers dominated. And in the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean. In the North, how did their prominent role manifest itself in World War II? Enlighten, otherwise I somehow do not recall.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  10. Basileus
    Basileus 17 October 2013 13: 07
    0
    High tech freak.

    On the sketch there is a helicopter on the site, with it, too, the EPR will be "comparable to a small fishing boat." Or is this a fishing trawler?

    Although a promising ship, you will not say anything.
    1. iwind
      iwind 17 October 2013 13: 33
      0
      And what will prevent him from being put into the hangar?
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 17 October 2013 13: 42
        0
        Probably the fact that he does not take off from the hangar. But I find fault, yes. In addition to appearance, I do not see any problems)
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 18 October 2013 06: 50
          0
          Quote: Basileus
          But I find fault, yes. In addition to appearance, I do not see any problems)

          As they say in America, "The beauty is in the eye of the beholder" which can be very roughly translated into Russian "there is no comrade for the taste and color of a friend" or "who likes pop, who is a priest, and who and a priest's daughter" (sorry, I do not remember the idioms closer in meaning). laughing
          1. Basileus
            Basileus 18 October 2013 07: 45
            0
            Well, really ugly. If there was a superstructure a little less, it would be prettier.
          2. Vasyan1971
            Vasyan1971 20 October 2013 22: 35
            0
            In our village they say "who is the priest, who is the priest, and who is the pig cartilage" fellow stop
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. The comment was deleted.
    2. Stiletto
      Stiletto 17 October 2013 13: 45
      +6
      Let them let it down soon. The Chinese do not wait, the copier is idle bully
  11. PROXOR
    PROXOR 17 October 2013 13: 08
    13
    The gun firing range seemed to me fiction alone? Why the heck to this pepelats rocket when he can hit 370 km with a gun.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 17 October 2013 13: 24
      0
      Quote: PROXOR
      Why the heck to this pepelats rocket when he can hit 370 km with a gun.

      I wonder what kind of guidance system such a gun has at such a distance?
      Something is not heard news on the frigate pr. 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" was going to send for testing in the Barents Sea for testing in mid-October, and now look out the window, October 17?
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 17 October 2013 14: 39
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        I wonder what kind of guidance system such a gun has at such a distance?

        By coordinates google Maps

        because all goals stationary - ports, moorings, bases, coastal infrastructure, bridges, roads, hospitals, schools ...
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 17 October 2013 15: 56
          +1
          Quote: Magellan
          because all goals are stationary

          About 300 km from the place where I live to Minsk, it’s so different at this distance: wind direction, humidity, pressure, temperature and precipitation, it’s hard for me to imagine how you can calculate all this ballistics.
          1. Magellan
            Magellan 17 October 2013 16: 09
            +3
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            pressure, temperature and precipitation, it’s hard for me to imagine how you can calculate all this ballistics.

            300 km - this is the limit (most likely advertising murzilka). In any case, special accuracy is useless - this is shooting at squares

            during the Second World War, ships were already being built that could shoot accurately at 50 km - the same "New Jersey" turned the Syrian command post from its guns from a distance of 45 km (1984)

            I don’t see big problems for modern AGS in shooting at a distance of 100-150 with correction according to the UAV or E-8 J-STARS
            1. dedroid71
              dedroid71 17 October 2013 18: 34
              -1
              All greetings !! Indeed, for artillery, a range of 300 km already sounds strange. And about the "area" of such a caliber - just ridiculous at such a distance. MLRS caliber "Smercha" (320 mm, like?) Works at 120 km max. And what kind of accuracy will these wicks have? If they get anywhere, it’s perhaps by accident. What "areas" with such a caliber?
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 18 October 2013 00: 40
                +1
                Quote: dedroid71
                And what fit will these fityuleks have?

                The projectile control system is inertial using GPS. the Americans declare that "the KVO of the projectile is 20-50 m. The projectiles are manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The cost of one projectile is $ 35 thousand."
                Quote: dedroid71
                If they get anywhere, then perhaps by accident.

                "On September 30, 2011, the US Navy tested the AGS cannon, reports Strategy Page. The tests fired two GPS-guided projectiles, which hit their intended targets at a range of 81 kilometers. The tests were deemed successful."
                http://alternathistory.org.ua/eskadrennye-minonostsy-tipa-zamvolt-zumwalt-ssha.
                1. dedroid71
                  dedroid71 19 October 2013 09: 48
                  0
                  Greetings, Kaa. Thanks for the info, but you must admit that 81 km and announced 300 with a hook are not the same thing. And ammunition costing about $ 20 million per barrel is a little ruinous, eh ??
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 18 October 2013 00: 51
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            it's hard for me to imagine how you can calculate all this ballistics.

            Meteo-ballistic corrections, of course, are introduced (automatically!), And then there is a correction using aerodynamic surfaces that receive a control pulse from the on-board computer according to GPS data. In essence, ammunition is a hybrid of a shell and a rocket. Therefore, it costs 35t green.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 17 October 2013 13: 42
      +2
      Most likely it was not a simple projectile, but an active-reactive one. Then everything converges. Only here is the question of target designation at such a distance.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 17 October 2013 22: 39
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Most likely it was not a simple projectile, but an active-reactive one. Then everything converges. Only here is the question of target designation at such a distance.

        A missile with a control head is very similar to a guided missile. The cost of "Excalibur" is under $ 100000. For half an hour to bang 600 500 Merciers, I would have looked from the side.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 17 October 2013 22: 45
          +1
          "Excaliburs" - the last century. And even they have already fallen in price.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 18 October 2013 00: 28
        +2
        Quote: Wedmak
        Most likely it was not a simple projectile, but an active-reactive one.

        You are absolutely right. "The LRLAP guided projectile consists of the projectile itself and the engine compartment. The projectile length is 2,24 m, the mass is 102 kg, the explosive mass is 11 kg. There are 4 control wings in the nose of the projectile, and an 8-blade stabilizer in the tail. Ammunition 900 units. "
        Quote: Wedmak
        Only here is the question of target designation at such a distance.

        It is supposed to "fire long-range projectiles GPS-guided LRAP for striking ground targets "at a distance of 100 nautical miles (185 km). The ship will be able to support the actions of ground units in the depths of enemy territory. It is quite possible CC from a UAV in real time. Mainly to suppress pockets of resistance (defense) with known coordinates.
    3. Guun
      Guun 17 October 2013 14: 06
      +1
      The railgun was canceled.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 17 October 2013 14: 18
        0
        So then I would have had to put an atomic reactor there, the railgun eats sooo much.
    4. Magellan
      Magellan 17 October 2013 14: 38
      0
      Quote: PROXOR
      Why the heck to this pepelats rocket when he can hit 370 km with a gun.

      Smear the Syrian coast, not going into the coverage area of ​​the coastal missile and artillery systems of the enemy.

      2 AGS automated 155 mm naval guns in terms of firepower are equivalent to 12 land guns of the same caliber (the AGS has a much higher rate of fire and they are designed for a long time of continuous firing - because full automation and no special problems with barrel cooling)
  12. Orik
    Orik 17 October 2013 13: 12
    +6
    This ship will either "sink" its price or it will "sink" the budget. smile
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 17 October 2013 15: 20
      +1
      Quote: Orik
      This ship will either "sink" its price or it will "sink" the budget.

      11 aircraft carriers such as Nimitz and two under construction type Ford that do not drown their budget, it will be necessary to print more candy wrappers ....
  13. klimpopov
    klimpopov 17 October 2013 13: 12
    +6
    It looks like an Egyptian pyramid ...
    And also "a big ship, a big torpedo" ... But this is how I ...
    1. GELEZNII_KAPUT
      GELEZNII_KAPUT 17 October 2013 14: 06
      +5
      Quote: klimpopov
      It looks like an Egyptian pyramid ... And also a "big ship, a big torpedo" ... But that's me ..

      Hmm ... even a very large and cunning torpedo seems to me to be well, very cheap compared to a "wunder battleship"! winked
    2. My address
      My address 17 October 2013 14: 48
      +2
      Or a big CD.
      hi
  14. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 17 October 2013 13: 20
    +7
    Glamorouswassat
    And then there was a cry that America was kirdyk, that the fleet was not being updated, or whether it was us. Oh guys, guys.
    Zumwalt today will be like battleships during World War II

    The battleships of the Second World War were absolutely ineffective, so if the Americans evaluate their new destroyers the same way, then ...wassat
    1. illarion
      illarion 17 October 2013 13: 33
      +1
      So after all, they started building it before the crisis of 2008. And now they’ll finish building horseradish, if they haven’t finished building it yet
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 17 October 2013 13: 39
        +1
        So after all, they started building it before the crisis of 2008. And now they’ll finish building horseradish, if they haven’t finished building it yet

        There, everything is not as simple as we hear / see in the media. They also started a crisis for a reason.
        1. Peaceful military
          Peaceful military 18 October 2013 00: 23
          0
          Strange 2 minuses ...fool smile
  15. Kars
    Kars 17 October 2013 13: 28
    +6
    within 30 minutes they can launch 600 shells along the coast of the enemy.


    It is interesting that there is cooling barrel.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 18 October 2013 00: 10
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      It is interesting that there is cooling barrel.

      "The system is a turret 155-mm gun (barrel length 62 caliber) with an automatic loading system below deck. The shots are separate-sleeve, firing is fully automatic until the ammunition is completely depleted.
      Water-cooled barrel. The initial velocity of the projectile is 825 m / s, the survivability of the barrel is about 3000 shots. Loading is carried out with a vertical barrel, vertical firing angles from –5 ° to + 70 °, the drive is electric. "
      http://alternathistory.org.ua
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 18 October 2013 09: 56
        0
        Charging is carried out with a vertical arrangement of the barrel

        Eeeee ... but this is interesting. Each time to lift the barrel ... It's not a mortar Tulip. ))) Canopy was to place a machine gun turning machine? Well this is not a tank, this is a ship, an extra 100 kilo is not a hindrance to him.
    2. Alex 241
      Alex 241 18 October 2013 02: 54
      0
      The development of the AGS gun began in 2005. It can fire both unguided and guided projectiles, while they are designed specifically for this gun. Despite the fact that the caliber of 155 millimeters is widespread in US artillery, conventional shells for AGS are not suitable. The maximum firing range laid down in the project is 190 km for projectiles with GPS-guidance. Aiming with GPS allows you to fire with a maximum deviation of 50 meters - with a maximum range, the projectile will fall into a circle with a diameter of 50 meters. Guided missiles carry 11 kg of explosives. Shooting is carried out in the vertical position of the barrel. Ammunition is 335 shells, their feeding and charging are automatic. Water-cooled barrel provides a rate of 10 rounds per minute. In the photo Tests 155 mm guns AGS (Advanced Gun System
  16. spirit
    spirit 17 October 2013 13: 31
    +4
    For me, this is so stupid. Well, the plane and the submarine are one thing (the first principle saw the first killed) but the destroyer !! I doubt that even with this miracle of engineering, they will risk and go into the affected area of ​​the RCC. I won’t be surprised if after some time they decide 100000 tons.
    Aircraft carrier make invisible laughing
  17. Wedmak
    Wedmak 17 October 2013 13: 46
    +3
    Americans in their repertoire. Wurderwafer for the war with the Papuans. Ah .. already three waffles! I wonder if he can notice and fight off the attack of a pair of Yakhonts?
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 18 October 2013 03: 01
      -1
      If only so laughing
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 18 October 2013 11: 25
        +1
        wow ... !!! "tomahawk" !!! laughing
  18. svp67
    svp67 17 October 2013 13: 53
    0
    October 9, the newest US destroyer DDG-1000 Zumwalt will be launched, the event will be a “technology holiday,” mil.news.sina.com.cn reported today.
    And not BEAUTIFUL, "iron" what that. I wanted to see a Russian answer someday ...
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 17 October 2013 14: 22
      +2
      Looking at the shapes and contours of the T-50, I think the Russian answer will not become an iron)
    2. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 17 October 2013 14: 46
      +2
      I think there will be an answer. Something like a rocket torpedo launched from an airplane. Flew, dived, quietly "crept" at low speed, and then afterburner mode like "Squall" and the iron will be instantly heated!
  19. Gomunkul
    Gomunkul 17 October 2013 14: 37
    +1
    October 19, the newest American destroyer DDG-1000 Zumwalt will be launched, the event will be a "celebration of technology"

    - Well, it’s understandable as a holiday, the money has not been mastered by small.
    With the ships of this class, the U.S. Navy pins their hopes for maintaining dominance in the Pacific Ocean.

    - As you know, hope dies last.
    As a result, the U.S. Navy reduced the number of ships planned for construction from 32 to 7, then this number was reduced to three.

    - With a quantity of 3 pieces, something does not fit with the doctrine of dominance.
    hi
  20. Polovec
    Polovec 17 October 2013 14: 37
    -1
    Definitely an impressive thing! I wonder how much time do the Chinese need to lick and release in the economy version? After all, they coped with Apache ...
  21. My address
    My address 17 October 2013 14: 41
    +1
    And it will easily turn out as with the F-35 or the aircraft carrier "De Gaulle". They wanted a lot at once. For example, as a land passenger, guns for firing 50 (and up to 370) km away are incomprehensible. Jules Verne has read a lot. At a distance of more than 30, it is cheaper than a guided MLRS. And more than 100 - UR or KR. In five years, they will easily create an optical control, recognition, guidance system based on the principle of the human eye, where will stealth be written off then?
    Denis correctly writes "The Witcher", this is a wunderwaffe.
    1. Samminosh
      Samminosh 17 October 2013 15: 00
      +1
      In this case, optical guidance is irrelevant - the ships are hiding behind the horizon. And there already are either over-the-horizon radars, or ships, or all kinds of AWACS aircraft.
      The Yankees have chosen the right direction, admittedly.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 17 October 2013 15: 27
        0
        Quote: Samminosh
        In this case, optical guidance is irrelevant - the ships are hiding behind the horizon. And there already are either over-the-horizon radars, or ships, or all kinds of AWACS aircraft.

        most likely GPS navigation, ode and I don’t think that this ship will sail alone, most likely as part of the AUG or KUG ...
        1. Kyrgyz
          Kyrgyz 17 October 2013 19: 33
          +1
          Quote: PSih2097
          I don’t think that this ship will sail alone, most likely as a part of AUG or KUG ...

          but it unmasks them
      2. edge
        edge 17 October 2013 15: 54
        +3
        Quote: Samminosh
        The Yankees have chosen the right direction, I must admit

        lounging a hefty, ammunition has already been created: they simply ruin all the electronics. After exposure to Amy, this pelvis turns into a tin can.
      3. Wedmak
        Wedmak 17 October 2013 15: 58
        +2
        In this case, optical guidance is irrelevant - the ships are hiding behind the horizon.

        Yes, but it will be difficult to capture the target in the end of the trajectory in the face of interference. And there are probably electronic warfare. And then optical guidance will give odds to everyone else. And in the sea the smoke screen is not as effective as on land.
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 17 October 2013 17: 05
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          And in the sea the smoke screen is not as effective as on land.

          The smokescreen gives, more precisely, had a positive effect when dueling artillery ships. With the modern development of radar guidance, the effect is zero.
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 17 October 2013 18: 20
            +1
            New stations for protection against ACP are constantly being developed in the world. EW and ACP adaptive filter systems, it’s like a projectile and armor competition, it’s unknown who will take it.
  22. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 17 October 2013 14: 57
    +5
    Well, that’s where the PR company began to justify cutting cuttings.
    So 1. The range of 370 km is clearly a lie, when shooting with conventional shells, you need to remove the zero, with active reactors maybe 70-90 km. There is a railgun which is not there and will not be at the next time. Holland tried to shoot actively-reactive in Afghanistan and quickly removed these sau from there. It turned out that when firing at the maximum range, accuracy was not better, but worse than that of ordinary ones. The thing is, even with such a barrel length of 370 it doesn’t work, even if the projectile is rocket, the payload will be ridiculous.
    2. The construction of this ship is constantly accompanied by scandals and mainly about armaments. It was not for nothing that the ships would be experimental sites. The fact is that almost all the armament of the ship is incapable, according to representatives of the congressional commission, only artillery works and then at the 70s ship level years. As they declared for 7 billion we received the usual frigate.
    3. The safety of missile weapons is worrying because it is located along the sides of the ship. Since the ship does not have any reservations, it can even die from 57 mm gun fire. Comparisons with our complexes Mosquito, Volcano, etc. will not be correct because they are on an external sling, and not inside the case, this is not the same thing.
  23. jekasimf
    jekasimf 17 October 2013 14: 57
    +4
    Maybe I and I.D.O.T. But ..... for such a firing range, the initial velocity of the projectile should be such that the projectile burns in dense layers of the atmosphere, like a meteorite ???
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 18 October 2013 00: 01
      +1
      Quote: jekasimf
      But ..... for such a firing range, the initial velocity of the projectile should be such that the projectile burns in dense layers of the atmosphere, like a meteorite ???

      The real firing range of this ship is 100 nautical miles (185 km).
      About the projectile. "The guided projectile LRLAP consists of the projectile itself and the engine compartment. The length of the projectile is 2,24 m, the mass is 102 kg, the mass of the explosive is 11 kg. In the nose of the projectile there are 4 control wings, in the tail there is an 8-blade stabilizer The projectile control system is inertial using GPS. CVS of the projectile is 20 – 50 m. Shells are manufactured by Lockheed Martin. The cost of one projectile is $ 35 thousand. On September 30 of the year, the US Navy tested the promising AGS gun, Strategy Page reports. During the tests, two shots were fired by guided projectiles with GPS-guidance, which hit their intended targets at a distance of 81 kilometer. The tests were found to be successful. "Http://alternathistory.org.ua
  24. tomket
    tomket 17 October 2013 14: 57
    0
    and he nose, like the battleship of the coast guard "Mermaid", will not bury itself in a storm ?????
  25. VADEL
    VADEL 17 October 2013 15: 12
    0
    We, the Chinese and others, ought to buy amerovsky bonds. LET'S HELP THE "POOR" to build all 32 boats. smile
  26. Aristarch
    Aristarch 17 October 2013 15: 48
    -1
    Project 1144 - "Orlan" will do it at once)) and waterism. 25t. In general, the main weapon, but there are no details of this pyramid. Let's see what our "Orlans" will be like after modernization, so, for comparison.
    1. edge
      edge 17 October 2013 15: 59
      +2
      Quote: Aristarchus
      Let's see what our "Orlans" will be like after modernization

      in general, the "Orlan" is the most powerful ship in the ocean, created to counteract and destroy aug., you see it bites the yamers, that they did not destroy them when there was an opportunity ...
    2. Kavtorang
      Kavtorang 17 October 2013 16: 09
      +3
      Quote: Aristarchus
      Project 1144 - "Orlan" will make it one time

      This will not happen. First "Peter I" will be buried, only then "Zumvolt" will go into battle. I will repeat once again - "Zumvolts" are ships of a different range of tasks. Sea battle is not included in this number.
      1. Aristarch
        Aristarch 17 October 2013 16: 26
        -2
        Will they be buried?))) It is necessary to try very hard and soon they will undergo a deep modernization after which you can simply forget about the "funeral".
        1. Kavtorang
          Kavtorang 17 October 2013 16: 52
          +7
          Quote: Aristarchus
          Will they be buried?))) It is necessary to try very hard and soon they will undergo a deep modernization after which you can simply forget about the "funeral".

          Aristarch, for each ... with a thread, there is always ... a screw. I'm just talking about that. And "Zumvolts" do not participate in this.
          And do not exaggerate, please, the power of TARKR. They did not come from a good life, but the concept of their application - was originally poher the concept of basing.
          What "THEM" are you talking about? Do you have any idea how long the modernization of such a ship is going on at our shipyard, and no one has ever done this before?
          EM project 956 "Burny" has been under repair, without modernization - for 8 years already. There are no visible horizons.
          BOD project 1155 "Vice-Admiral Kulakov" -repair with modernization - 19 years. From the very first battle - they dragged me by the "nostril".
          What, again: Yes We all of them - like a Tuzik rag?
          Sorry, no longer funny negative
        2. Wedmak
          Wedmak 17 October 2013 17: 44
          0
          You are an optimist. From two or three dozen tomahawks, Peter is unlikely to beat himself off. Heel 100% will get on board. What will happen next, one can only guess.
          1. Kavtorang
            Kavtorang 17 October 2013 18: 19
            +1
            Quote: Wedmak
            From two or three dozen tomahawks, Peter is unlikely to beat himself off. Heel 100% will get on board.

            There is no need for "Tomahawks" - there are practically no "Tomahawks" in their usual equipment, "Harpoons", and so many are not needed. As far as I remember, the manual of the VMA publication - 3 hits - guaranteed incapacitation. The ship does not sink, but it also loses its combat effectiveness what
            We have: 25000 tons of displacement, with nuclear power plants (it’s good if the AZ rods aren’t dropped and all the ship’s power supply is cut off before the EDC launches), which is trying to retreat under the cover of all available BB aircraft and all ships of direct combat guard.
            So that I never once saw am
          2. Strong
            Strong 17 October 2013 23: 52
            0
            Anti-ship Tomahawks have been gone for a long time.

            "Harpoon" (boat, ship, aircraft), torpedo Mk.48, in the future it may come to LRASM. IMHO that's all.
          3. Strong
            Strong 17 October 2013 23: 52
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            You are an optimist. From two or three dozen tomahawks, Peter is unlikely to beat himself off. Heel 100% will get on board. What will happen next, one can only guess.


            Anti-ship Tomahawks have been gone for a long time.

            "Harpoon" (boat, ship, aircraft), torpedo Mk.48, in the future it may come to LRASM. IMHO that's all.
      2. shpuntik
        shpuntik 17 October 2013 21: 18
        0
        Kavtorang RU Today, 16:09 ↑ New
        I will repeat once again - "Zumvolts" are ships of a different range of tasks. Sea battle is not included in this number.

        Can they supply LRASM anti-ship missiles instead of Tamagavk in the future, as a modular replacement?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 17 October 2013 22: 36
          +1
          Quote: shpuntik
          Can they supply LRASM anti-ship missiles instead of Tamagavk in the future, as a modular replacement?

          Of course. Americans ordering weapons for their ships set different requirements for the developer, but the most important thing is the ability to launch them from a standard UVP cell, so when the LRASM anti-ship missile finally appears it can be operated on all ships with an Mk41 or Mk57 UVP.
          1. shpuntik
            shpuntik 18 October 2013 02: 35
            0
            Nayhas (1) RU Yesterday, 22: 36 ↑
            Of course. Americans ordering weapons for their ships set different requirements for the developer, but the most important thing is the ability to launch them from a standard UVP cell, so when the LRASM anti-ship missile finally appears it can be operated on all ships with an Mk41 or Mk57 UVP.

            Just about, and we are changing the "Granite" with a range of 700 km, for "Onyx" with a range of 300 km. Or am I missing something? What kind of baida ?!
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 18 October 2013 10: 00
              0
              For Granite, we do not have a target designation system. Unfortunately. And the dimensions ... Onyx is smaller, also supersonic, harder to shoot down. And 300 km, in my opinion, is quite an adequate distance.
              1. shpuntik
                shpuntik 18 October 2013 16: 15
                0
                Wedmak RU Today, 10:00 ↑
                For Granite, we do not have a target designation system. Unfortunately. And the dimensions ...
                Where did the central office system go? If there are links on the topic, please discard.
  27. _KM_
    _KM_ 17 October 2013 16: 00
    +1
    A gun with a firing range of 370 km ?!
  28. Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 17 October 2013 16: 32
    +7
    Dear, I courageously read all the comments, except absolutely crazy.
    Nothing new: a bucket with slops is obtained - this is for everything not ours (from a slingshot for special forces to the space system) and a bucket with dewy incense for everything, darling (from AK-47, to the mythical aircraft carrier).
    Imagine that such a construct was built in Russia and will be launched the other day: 90% of the site is in an alcoholic coma from happiness and a sense of heightened patriotism, for the article - 1000, not - 15000, not what there - 100500+ laudatory ods.
    What is in reality: there is a technology demonstrator that the day after tomorrow maybe will be launched. Above him, with a file, a wrench and such and such a mother, will be burned out for more than one year. What kind of boil out of the blue? Yeah, right tomorrow it will come to our "superstitious" shores and let's choose positions for volleys wink
    If you have something to peek at and adopt from this monster - you need to use it while you have time. But I do not think that one of the members of the forum holds a sufficiently high post for such decisions.
    IMHO: "box" is very difficult, but very narrowly sharpened. I've been reading about it for a long time. And in our "ZVO" and in theirs "Dzheyny", good knowledge of English allows.
    We'll see.
    1. iwind
      iwind 17 October 2013 17: 54
      +5
      There is such a good story about "the fox and the grapes", it's just that it is always more pleasant for a person to imagine that other than him are all fools, and if about the Americans, then they are completely "Nuuu stupid"
      The ship is very interesting. I have been following these projects for a long time, and it will have a fate like seewolf, based on it, new technologies will be worked out and a cheaper analogue will be created.
    2. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 18 October 2013 10: 28
      0
      Comrade, skepticism was not born out of nowhere. With aviation "5th generation", then everything is clear. And even if, even on the banal, visual perception of the structure, fundamental questions arise about the structure ... hmm.

      Pysy The fundamental question of the design is the name, the shape of the "nose" of the ship, let it "pierce" the waves, but what does it give? A ship like a submarine, the whole hull, except for the superstructure, is under water. What is its side height? It seems that the same wave height is enough to hide it under water, the question is:
      How will he fire from his vaunted guns or missile weapons?

      will stand and wait for calm.
  29. sys-1985
    sys-1985 17 October 2013 16: 34
    0
    What the fuck is that wunder wunder wafer ????? To fight against whom ??? Enlighten please, who thinks 370 km is real ??? If so, then ???
    1. Kavtorang
      Kavtorang 17 October 2013 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: sys-1985
      What the hell is my waffle wunder?

      To take out the shore from the beautiful far.
      Quote: sys-1985
      370 km is it real?

      This is to "BAE Systems" - their development and the actual "barrel" and shells. As for the reality, I'm not sure, but they work closely and have more than a reputation in the world market.
      They managed to adapt the tower group of 155 mm land-based ACS PZH-2000 to the German frigate (and this viper is that too) and to ensure interface with the ship's BIUS and successfully shoot outside the maximum speed (about 70-80 km, I won't go looking for a source - the children are sleeping) - this is you have to be able to. There were photos on this site, they were on the "ZVO".
      1. Kars
        Kars 17 October 2013 17: 21
        +5
        Quote: Kavtorang
        .Were photos
        1. Kavtorang
          Kavtorang 17 October 2013 17: 30
          +1
          Yes Yes. It. One of two dozen.
          Kars, just don't hit hard - poked the wrong button "+" / "-" crying Will you survive? drinks
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 October 2013 17: 47
            +1
            Quote: Kavtorang
            Kars, just don't hit hard

            I won’t. Now it’s clear why the picture is minus. I was surprised.
            1. Kavtorang
              Kavtorang 17 October 2013 17: 51
              0
              How to rehabilitate yourself for a "jamb", taking into account the fact that in BTT I am two to five? wink
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 17 October 2013 22: 52
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              I won’t. Now it’s clear why the picture is minus. I was surprised.

              As an artilleryman, do you want to answer about 370 km from a cannon with a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute?
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 17 October 2013 22: 59
                +1
                Rate of fire is quite achievable. Range, no, not even ARS. Just something electromagnetic or liquid propellants, although I'm not sure about the latter.

                The most advanced of what NATO has: http://bmpd.livejournal.com/327066.html

                http://www.militaryparitet.com/perevodnie/data/ic_perevodnie/3078/
                Here we are talking about 100 km
              2. Kars
                Kars 17 October 2013 23: 04
                +3
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                As an artilleryman, you don’t want to answer

                Yes, it’s not so special. Let the developers answer for themselves. Or the one who wrote / translated / copied the article.

                There is a link

                http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm

                there is very detailed but also more modest.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 20 October 2013 10: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  there is very detailed but also more modest.

                  It is clear that two cannons of ten rounds per minute at a distance of 110 km are active-reactive.
                  The trend of artillery return is noticeable in a new quality.
  30. wasjasibirjac
    wasjasibirjac 17 October 2013 16: 54
    0
    people, but in principle, why is this ship classified as destroyers, its displacement is like that of 3 "Varyag" RYaV, not a single torpedo. what a nafig destroyer, cruiser. The USA suffers from gigantomania. to build such a "destroyer" an aircraft carrier under 300 thousand tons? crying
  31. Bober
    Bober 17 October 2013 16: 55
    0
    The destroyer has a powerful radar potential, capable of detecting low-flying anti-ship anti-ship missiles and even boats of terrorists at great distances.

    And None Che Go said about finding beach catamarans? I'm sad....
    To discover, our answer to Chamberlain is a hundred CERs floating / walking everywhere.
  32. Slevinst
    Slevinst 17 October 2013 17: 07
    -2
    as always build weapons of attack. such are the democratic Americans, for me, as pure a freak as all the weapons of the United States. the only thing that attracts him is an unusual, albeit ugly, shape.
  33. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 17 October 2013 17: 30
    0
    What kind of miracle is there - cannons like that?
    370 km.
    It looks like a fake.
  34. marder4
    marder4 17 October 2013 17: 38
    0
    looks impressive, but what will be in action
  35. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 17 October 2013 17: 45
    +1
    Quote: Kavtorang
    Quote: sys-1985
    What the hell is my waffle wunder?

    To take out the shore from the beautiful far.
    Quote: sys-1985
    370 km is it real?

    This is to "BAE Systems" - their development and the actual "barrel" and shells. As for the reality, I'm not sure, but they work closely and have more than a reputation in the world market.
    They managed to adapt the tower group of 155 mm land-based ACS PZH-2000 to the German frigate (and this viper is that too) and to ensure interface with the ship's BIUS and successfully shoot outside the maximum speed (about 70-80 km, I won't go looking for a source - the children are sleeping) - this is you have to be able to. There were photos on this site, they were on the "ZVO".

    Here is the Netherlands of them and pulled in Afghanistan, according to them, the results were discouragingly low. both in accuracy and in the power of shells (in this sense, fire with conventional shells was more effective)
  36. oapvokin
    oapvokin 17 October 2013 18: 49
    0
    Beautiful ship, but expensive
  37. novobranets
    novobranets 17 October 2013 19: 12
    +1
    Battleships do not swim sideways, but to be near at such a moment means to swim upstairs. Http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2013/356/chek341.jpg
  38. APASUS
    APASUS 17 October 2013 19: 48
    +1
    Initially, the price for one destroyer was estimated at $ 3,8 billion, but taking into account R&D, this price increased to a "staggering" $ 7 billion (the cost of replaced ships is only $ 1,2 billion per unit). As a result, the U.S. Navy reduced the number of ships planned for construction from 32 to 7, then this number was reduced to three.

    No matter how perfect it is, but its price is almost like that of an aircraft carrier. Despite the fact that the technology has not yet been developed and it will be possible to judge its qualities after a serious military operation.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 18 October 2013 16: 37
      0
      Quote: APASUS
      Despite the fact that the technology has not yet been developed, it will be possible to judge its qualities after a serious military operation.

      Down and Out trouble started.
  39. Cherdak
    Cherdak 17 October 2013 20: 13
    0
    Do sailors have a heightened envy of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics, who have shaken off the memorable F-22 Raptor? The use of revolutionary technologies dramatically increased the cost of the ship - familiar to the pain!
    And will this precious trough stand in an air-conditioned paddock, afraid of the sun's rays and the cold wind?
    Again used only in Hollywood paintings?
  40. avg
    avg 17 October 2013 20: 43
    +1
    Again used only in Hollywood paintings?

    In no case! Sometimes, under the protection of aircraft carriers and Arly Berkov, they will go to Hawaii to develop new technologies. Because with each new technology, they will be more and more expensive for every naval soul.
  41. shpuntik
    shpuntik 17 October 2013 21: 23
    +3
    In the construction of the ship, the principle of maximum module readiness is applied.

    The concept is correct: this is the next generation ship, we are behind unfortunately. And according to the technology of construction and the contours of the hull. 140 crew members for 15000 thousand tons of deadweight is the level of a submarine.
    1. Cat
      Cat 17 October 2013 21: 44
      +1
      Quote: shpuntik
      The concept is correct: this is the next generation ship, we are behind unfortunately. And according to the technology of construction and the contours of the hull. 140 crew members for 15000 thousand tons of deadweight is the level of a submarine.

      I wonder how these 140 people, if something happens, will conduct an event called BZZH (damage control)? Even if nothing anti-ship arrives on board, there are still storms, typhoons, reefs with shallows and other icebergs. And you don't have to lie about super-super-echo sounders and ZhPSy - one of the "Elks" managed to drive with all the foolishness into the rock, and the heaped up GAS did not help. Again, all these "stealth" lines are not by themselves, they somehow affect strength, seaworthiness, and so on (to the detriment of the latter).
      If the boat is supposed to be used as part of an order, which will come to the aid in difficult times, then what is the point in all this invisibility?
      1. shpuntik
        shpuntik 18 October 2013 01: 54
        +2
        Cat SU Yesterday, 21:44 ↑
        The interesting thing is: how do these 140 people, in which case, conduct an event called the BZZH (struggle for survivability)?

        They do not bet on it: they got on the rafts and set sail. In my opinion, so, but I will not confirm, I do not know their instructions. Submarine Los Angeles consists of three compartments, ours have up to 6-7 compartments, two-hull. Another approach.
        Even if nothing anti-ship arrives on board, there are still storms, typhoons, reefs with shallows and other icebergs there.

        Here you will not guess, it does not depend on the number of crew. Another thing is that the nose is different, cuts the wave, will bury. The entire upper deck before the superstructure will be in the water: there should be sealed turret guns, the question is: how did they get around this moment?
        ... Again, all these "stealth" lines are not on their own, they somehow affect strength, seaworthiness, and so on (to the detriment of the latter).

        These contours are higher than the waterline, they do not affect the seaworthiness, on the contrary, the windage is less, everything is oblique. Convenience, the work of deck mechanisms, mooring, etc., is another matter. It seems that the upper deck is not the main one, a tank with a waist. Cutting and fencing of antennas are most likely made of plastic, it is radio-transparent + light, stability is improved.
        If the boat is supposed to be used as part of an order, which will come to the aid in difficult times, then what is the point in all this invisibility?
        So the rocket it will be harder to search for it, like the ship. In any case, this advantage, more pronounced than on the F-117, does not affect speed. The only thing: the nose is in doubt. I think they will redo it later.
        PS Although hell knows, maybe specially, so that the splashes, the wave of stealth increased?
        1. Su-9
          Su-9 18 October 2013 05: 25
          0
          Concerning the contours of the nose: although it is not very intuitive, but the contours are quite seaworthy. And made this way not only for "stealth".
          Here's an example of a platform support ship that Ukrainians do in the bay: http://www.zaliv.com/en/news/one/51
          1. shpuntik
            shpuntik 18 October 2013 15: 11
            0
            Su-9 SU Today, 05:25 ↑
            Concerning the contours of the nose: although it is not very intuitive, but the contours are quite seaworthy. And made this way not only for "stealth".

            Yes, I agree, here the side height affects. For a small displacement will not work, but for medium and higher, normal. But in a good storm, it will still bury itself, in my opinion. Although this rarely happens.
            In my memory there was a case: a wave porthole in the superstructure knocked out, frontal. So the fragments stuck in the Soviet refrigerator, there the tin is good, not thin. And even in the locker door, there is durable plastic.
            1. Su-9
              Su-9 18 October 2013 20: 48
              +1
              It is rather a matter of the quality and strength of the glass in the window. Obviously it was not triplex and not plastic.
              I never went on warships, but on a 40-foot yacht I was at 8 points - in principle, plastic holds any storm / wave impact.
              1. shpuntik
                shpuntik 19 October 2013 18: 25
                +1
                Su-9 SU Yesterday, 20:48 ↑
                It is rather a matter of the quality and strength of the glass in the window. Obviously it was not triplex and not plastic.

                No, there seems to be a layer there, the Soviet porthole. A blow like that. It was on the trawler STR-503, the Bering Sea, on New Year's Eve.

  42. Achtaba1970
    Achtaba1970 17 October 2013 21: 41
    0
    370 kilometers is most likely an active-rocket shell, therefore, the explosive in it will be very small, and if taking into account the GOS, then it is just a minuscule. In addition to this problem of over-horizon guidance.
  43. The comment was deleted.
  44. SPACE
    SPACE 17 October 2013 21: 52
    +2
    The 941 project nuclear submarines are ready-made platforms for analogues of the Zumvolta type. Install various missiles, anti-aircraft, ballistic and cruise missiles in a rocket mine, adapt other weapons, including and radars pulled out of the mines and you get an excellent submersible ship which will not be equal ...
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 17 October 2013 22: 59
      +1
      Quote: SPACE
      Project 941 nuclear submarines are prefabricated platforms for analogues of the Zumvolta type.

      I fully support you, more abruptly it will turn out if you are creative.
  45. T100
    T100 17 October 2013 23: 54
    +1
    Can I ask an amateur? Stealth technologies ... invisibility ... dissipate ... do not reflect ... And what - THEIR radars also "scatter and do not reflect"? Or (well, not a fig for yourself!) - DO NOT even EMIT? Or are they simply not included? How can you not see the Emitter of radio waves?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 October 2013 00: 00
      0
      Radiation is not necessary. There are optics. There is a separation of the emitter and receiver. There is electronic intelligence. If you have a more advanced receiver, at the same range you will have less power than the emitter. This is not a big problem.
    2. shpuntik
      shpuntik 18 October 2013 02: 11
      0
      T100 UA Yesterday, 23:54 PM
      Can I ask an amateur? Stealth technologies ... invisibility ... dissipate ... do not reflect ... And what - THEIR radars also "scatter and do not reflect"?

      It seems that his task is to approach the coast unnoticed, in radio silence mode, to fire a salvo of 80 Tamaghawks in 30 minutes. fire 1200 shells, give full speed-30 knots, and dump in your own.
      If it creeps up to Vladivostok along the coast, Vladivostok will not.

  46. rudolff
    rudolff 18 October 2013 00: 17
    +1
    But if he does turn on the radar in the active mode, it will glow on the screen like a Christmas tree in the central square! And have to include. Optronic surveillance systems are not able to completely replace the radar, and air defense without a radar blinds one and a half eyes. The same is with regard to the work of the HAC. Active mode is periodically necessary.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alex 241
      Alex 241 18 October 2013 02: 46
      0
      The US Department of Defense has made several changes to the development program for promising DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers, Defense News reports. In particular, the Pentagon decided to develop "from scratch" half of the radar system of new destroyers, as well as to extend the ship development program for one year - now it will end not in 2015, but in 2016.
      The Pentagon has completely removed half of the promising system from the dual-band radar development program for DDG-1000 - the work on creating the SPY-4 surround search radar will be discontinued in the near future. Instead, an AMDR missile defense radar will be created. This radar will also be used in the destroyers of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke sub-series Flight III.
      Thanks to the new radar, the DDG-1000 destroyers will also be able to fulfill the role of missile defense ships. Which of the American companies will create a new radar is still unknown. The SPY-4 was developed by Lockheed Martin. The second half of the integrated radar system DDG-1000 creates Raytheon. This company is developing a multifunctional radar SPY-3.
      Meanwhile, in May 2010, the Pentagon had to re-certify the DDG-1000 development program in Congress, as the cost of the project violated the Nunn-Mackerdy ​​statute - the cost of the final product under the project increased by more than 50 percent. This was due to the fact that in 2008 the Pentagon reduced the volume of orders for ships from seven to three units. However, the cost of the development program has not been reduced.
      Multipurpose destroyers of the Zumwalt class are designed to attack coastal and ground targets, as well as to combat aircraft and provide fire support to troops from the sea. After making all the changes to the project, the ships will also be able to fulfill the role of missile defense. The construction of Zumwalt began in February 2008. As expected, the first ship called Zumwalt the U.S. Navy will receive testing in April 2013, and the second - Michael Monsoor - in May 2014.
      Zumwalt, which is 183 meters long, can reach speeds of up to 30 knots. The destroyer's armament consists of 20 MK 57 VLS launchers, designed for 80 missiles, as well as two 155-mm guns and two Mk 110 anti-aircraft guns of 57-caliber caliber. In addition, two Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters and three MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned helicopters can be based on Zumwalt. The development of the latter is in jeopardy.
      Lenta.ru
  47. cormorant
    cormorant 18 October 2013 03: 13
    +1
    The dubious stability of the boat with such contours, especially with great excitement and at maximum speed. Wunderwaffle definitely.
    Wanted 37 pieces, then 7, now one would be pulled in their dying economy. The price for one destroyer is $ 7 billion. belay , and it’s more expensive than an aircraft carrier negative
  48. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 18 October 2013 10: 31
    0
    It is strange that no one wondered.
    With this design of the "bow", the ship, "piercing" the wave, with its height equal to the height of the side, will submerge the whole hull under the water, except for the superstructure. How will he fire from his weapons and missile "mines"?

    will stand and wait for calm?
  49. nik6006
    nik6006 18 October 2013 11: 01
    0
    AAAAAAA! Here you are - Death Star !!!!
  50. Bigfoot_Sev
    Bigfoot_Sev 18 October 2013 12: 13
    +1
    I'm afraid to ruin the holiday. but it seems like tomorrow there will be no launch.
    source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=77056
    if brief, then "postponed indefinitely".

    = ^ _ ^ =