"Degradation" of destroyers "Orly Burke"
... By his twenty-five years, Vasya had completely dropped and lost the meaning of life. Bad heredity and reduction of financial assistance from wealthy parents played a cruel joke with him: in general, not a bad guy, according to his neighbors and acquaintances, he finally “lost his temper” and got hooked on the needle. Emaciated skeleton with a swollen face - all that remains of the former athlete, candidate master of sports in freestyle wrestling. The former contender for the title of the winner of the regional martial arts competitions has completely lost touch with reality and now attaches importance to things, to put it mildly, strange - occasionally kneading his flabby muscles, offending the kids in the yard, and most of the time he spends in a comatose state, shaking in convulsions overdose
As the reader has already guessed, this is not about a living person, but about a ship — a squadron destroyer with a guided missile weapons (um uro) type "Orly Burke". The destroyer is in many ways unusual, a recognized record holder in a number of combat characteristics and in the volume of construction.
62 built ship on the 2013 year - the number of American "Berkov" exceeds the number of destroyers under the flags of all the other countries of the world combined! At the same time, the construction of the "Berkov" continues: two more ships of the new IIA + series were laid in 2011 year. In total, according to the plans, the IIA + series will include 9 units. And then a more avalanche of even more advanced “Berks” of the series III (Flight III) will rush with the steel - twenty units after 2020.
Launch of USS John McCain (DDG-56), 1992 year
This is without taking into account the overseas "replicas" of the American Aegis-destroyer - the Japanese Atago and Congo, the Spanish Alvaro de Basan, and the South Korean King Sojon ... The situation takes a frightening turn. "Aegis" crawl around the world, like poisonous insects.
The massive appearance of the Berkov is the result of maximum standardization and unification of the US Navy: in the near future, as part of fleet only one type of universal destroyer should be preserved, which will replace all existing (or existing) types of missile cruisers, destroyers and frigates.
How fair is this solution? Will the Aegis-eminacer be able to effectively solve the tasks of ships of other classes?
The answer is obvious - the destroyer "Berk" will brilliantly cope with the tasks of any frigate, but the economy of any country will "turn down" from such "standardization" - the destroyer with a displacement of 10 thousand tons instead of 4-5 - a thousand-ton frigate! The Yankees are building their ships in an unpaid loan, so they don’t think too much about the exorbitant costs of the fleet. Given that the cost of the latest "Berkov" is estimated at 1,8 ... 2 billion.
Admirals will ask for more 20 destroyers? Sure, not a problem…
Scenarios for the development of the US Navy to 2042 year. The first, optimistic, suggests 40-year destroyers life cycle. The second, pessimistic, with limited funding, suggests the 35-year cycle. The plans - to keep the number of destroyers at the level of 90 units.
Ticondeur-type cruisers (CG-47) will be definitely written off by 2028
"Berks" I and II series (DDG-51) are gradually being replaced by DDG-51 series III
"Zamvolty" (DDG-1000) - narrow band, a series of three experimental destroyers
DDG (X) - the destroyer of a new generation. Nobody knows yet what it will look like.
Why is the domestic BOD not inferior to "Berk"
90 rocket launchers. The combat information and control system "Aegis", which combines all the means of detection and communication, a complex of weapons and combat systems for the survivability of the ship. Reliable and efficient GEM. The body, built with technology "stealth". A multipurpose robot ship that can smash targets on the ground, under water, and in the air.
However, the first impression is deceptive. Admiration when meeting with “Orly Burke” is quickly replaced by suspicion about the inconsistency of his declared combat capabilities with the real state of affairs.
After all, created as a "castrated" version of the Ticonderoga missile cruiser, the destroyer Burke did not initially shine with high performance and was a "step back" in terms of creating surface warships. The only thing that attracted the admirals in this project was the declared low cost and efficiency: according to initial calculations, the destroyer had to keep the cruiser's 2 / 3 capabilities at 1 / 2 of its value. But even these numbers turned out to be overly optimistic.
Launched to the sound of fanfare, the head USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) was far from the idea of a “perfect” destroyer.
Truth is known by comparison. In order to understand the main problems faced by American sailors, I suggest taking for comparison its Soviet / Russian peers - the large anti-submarine ships of the 1155 and 1155.1 projects.
Even for its intended purpose - as an air defense ship - the design of the Burke raised a lot of questions. The first and most important thing is why the supersweeper has only three radars for target illumination? Of these, only one is associated with the front hemisphere. Clear evidence that the destroyer, contrary to the stated qualities, is not able to repel massive air attacks.
For comparison, the Soviet BOD, which was never positioned as an air defense ship, was equipped with two antenna posts for targeting missiles ZN95. Each radar with phased arrays provided SIMULTANEOUS guidance to 8 missiles at 4 air targets in the sector 60 x 60 degrees.
A small number of radar illumination and a limited number of targets fired - not all the problems of the American destroyer. The US Navy leadership ignored the claims of seafarers to the AN / SPY-1 multifunctional radar (of course, after billions were invested in the Super Radar program, there is no way back).
The main component of the Aegis system is a powerful three-coordinate radar with four fixed phased antenna arrays capable of detecting and automatically tracking hundreds of aerial targets, programming autopilots of anti-aircraft missiles and tracking targets in low-Earth orbit.
In practice, she showed the opposite. Despite its state-of-the-art look and ample opportunities to control the airspace over long distances, the AN / SPY-1 radar was “weak-sighted” when it detected low-flying targets (NLC) - and it shares!
Usually on warships, specialized radars are used to detect high-speed NLTs - for example, the domestic Tackle radar with a focused search beam and a high frequency of data updates, or a dual-band Japanese radar with an active FCS-3A phased array operating in the C frequency ranges (7,5 to 3,75 wavelength cm) and X (wavelength from 3,75 to 2,5 cm).
The Americans probably believed that they were the smartest of all, because they were trying to solve the problem of detecting NLC with the help of the multifunctional AN / SPY-1 - one radar for all occasions! At the cost of enormous efforts, the team of programmers managed to “jam” the interference and teach the AN / SPY-1 to scan with a narrow beam at a small angle of place. But how effective was AN / SPY-1 in this mode?
In the open press, there is still no information about the defeat by Aegis of supersonic air targets at extremely low altitude - probably, the American Berks have not learned how to deal with such threats. The released “Mosquito” or the Russian-Indian “Brahmos” are likely to break through the destroyer’s air defense / missile defense system and hit the target.
In addition, AN / SPY-1's ability to detect NLC is limited due to the unsuccessful location of antenna devices: unlike other ships, where antenna posts are trying to be placed on the tops of the masts, the AN / SPY-1 phased antenna arrays hang on the walls of the superstructure like paintings in the Tretyakov Gallery.
This gives the ship a stylish, modern look, but reduces the detection range of NLC (problem of radio horizon). Finally, as follows from the specifics of the work of the radar itself, four fixed HEADLIGHTS are not the best solution for repelling massive attacks from one direction. One of the grids becomes overloaded with information, while the other three are inactive.
To date, “Orly Burke” with its AN / SPY-1 is completely outdated - modern British “Derigi”, French-Italian “Horizons” or Japanese “Akizuki” are superior to the American destroyer in terms of air defense capabilities, especially in matters of high-speed NLC interception.
On destroyers of other fleets, radars with active phased arrays (SAMPSON, S1850, FCS-3A) have long been used. Flush flying anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (the European PAAMS system with Aster missiles). But Americans have nothing like that! Burke continues to use outdated technologies with the AN / SPY-1 blunted radar and the Stenderd-2 family of SAMs and RIM-162 ESSM with semi-active guidance. While, as mentioned above, the destroyer has only three AN / SPG-62 radars, capable of directing only one missile at a time.
The presence of the SM-3 super-ammunition capable of hitting targets at extra-atmospheric altitudes does not give the destroyer anything in a real battle - the SM-3 three-stage interceptor is useless against aircraft and low-flying anti-ship missiles.
That's it. The superhero turned out to be in reality a fraer with very mediocre characteristics.
If the ability of the destroyer "Burke" to repel air attacks can be defined as "medium", then its anti-submarine and anti-ship capabilities are rated as "below average", or even "none".
For example, the first 28 destroyers (Flight I and II) did not have a helicopter hangar at all - only the landing site at the stern. At a time when domestic BOD carried on board two anti-submarine helicopters!
Further comparison of the anti-submarine (PLO) capabilities of the first Berkov with the BOD of the 1155 project (the cipher “Delete”) is similar to the “one gate” game:
Our BOD was equipped with the Polynom hydroacoustic station with a mass of 800 tons. The detection range of submarines, torpedoes and sea mines under favorable hydrological conditions could reach 40-50 km. Even the most modern modifications of the American sonar AN / SQS-53 can hardly boast of such characteristics.
On board the BOD there were eight anti-submarine torpedoes with a launch range of up to 50 km (“Rastrub-B” / “Vodopad-NK”), not counting the auxiliary means in the form of RBU. For comparison: modernized American torpedo missiles RUM-139 Vertical Launch ASROC can hit targets at a distance of no more than 22 km. From the point of view of actual conditions, 22 and 50 km no longer have a special meaning, due to the difficulty of detecting submarines at such distances. Nevertheless, the numbers testify against the "Burke" ...
Anti-submarine capabilities of the Aegis-destroyers increased markedly only from the IIA series (the leading destroyer, Oscar Austin, was introduced into the Navy in 2000). The entire aft part of the ships of this series was completely repacked, where two hangars appeared to accommodate the Sea Hawk helicopters of the PLA LAMPS III system.
Good for you!
As one of the readers of the Military Review portal deftly put it, modern ships are not designed for sea battle. They are created for the comfortable service of contract soldiers in peacetime.
This statement fully applies to the destroyers of the type “Orly Burk” - Wi-Fi, swimming pools and restaurant meals, 4,4 square. meters of living space for each sailor ... The only thing that was forgotten by the designers of the ship - the destroyer must be able to lead a naval battle. And the modern “Burke” is absolutely not capable of this.
BOD "Admiral Chabanenko" (Ave. 1155.1), adopted in the Navy in 1999
The new PLUR complex “Vodopad-NK” with the launch through ordinary TAs allowed to place on board eight supersonic anti-ship missiles “Mosquito”. The nose battery of the 100-mm guns has been replaced by a paired automatic AK-130 130-mm unit. Rapid AK-630 replaced by 2
In addition to the overall "fragility" of the design, typical of all modern ships (the destroyer Cole failed after the boat detonated 200-300 kg of explosives near its side, 17 dead sailors, 34 injured. Complete loss of progress and fighting efficiency - it is easy to imagine that will happen in case of a direct hit by the most modest anti-ship missiles in the US Navy destroyer) - in addition to low survivability and resistance to combat damage, the modern “Burke” is completely devoid of anti-ship weapons!
(The presence of a universal "five-inch" and the theoretical possibility of firing missiles at surface ships can be neglected.)
How so?
Very simple. The destroyers of the first series were equipped with two formidable naval combat systems:
- specialized subsonic RCC "Harpoon" (firing range 130 km, speed 0,85 M, weight of the warhead 225 kg) in two quadruple Mk141 launchers at the stern of the destroyer;
- anti-ship missiles BGM-109B TASM, which is a modification of the famous Tomahawk SLCM. The TERCOM relief guidance system has been replaced by an active radar seeker, similar to the Harpoon missiles.
Despite the ridicule at subsonic speed (0,75M), the Tomahawk anti-ship was a difficult-to-find lethal ammunition flying at a march at a height of only a few meters above the crests of the waves (unlike the Soviet M-monsters P-500 / 700 / 1000, soared up in waves that swept up into the waves (in contrast to the Soviet M-monsters P-450 / 2 / 3), soared up in waves that swept above the waves, (v. a couple of tens of kilometers). The low speed and obsolescence of data of the control center was compensated by special flight regimes in the final part of the trajectory (search by a “snake”). Finally, the flight range is half a thousand kilometers and the warhead weighing XNUMX kg is XNUMX-XNUMX times as large as conventional small-sized anti-ship missiles (the exotic bulky Granites and Volcanoes do not count).
In 1990-ies, a certain amount of BGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missle was usually found in the cells of vertical launch installations on board destroyers and cruisers of the US Navy.
The standard layout of the aft of the Orly Burke Series I
Two AN / SPG-62 radars for covering fodder angles (behind chimneys), Phalanx carriage (the complex itself was dismantled for technical reasons), Mk.141 tilt launchers for “Garpun” anti-ship missiles and, finally, UVP cells with "Tomahawk"
Alas, to date, "Burke" completely degraded. In view of the disappearance of the only worthy opponent - the USSR Navy, the anti-ship Tomahawk turned into an unnecessary ballast. BGM-109B completely removed from service in the early 2000-x.
On destroyers of the IIA series, the installation of anti-ship missiles was generally honored as an unnecessary and useless measure. As a result, “Burke” lost its last weapon - PKR “Harpoon”. Of course, the sailors did not think of abandoning the missiles - the fleet command, which sought to reduce the already exorbitant costs, decided everything for them.
As a result, a shameful situation has arisen: any Iranian corvette or MRK can “bluff” the defenseless Berk with a pair of anti-ship missiles, and the American destroyer will even have nothing to snap at.
Realizing their helplessness, the sailors made a fuss. The result of the debate was the LRASM project (Long Range Anti Ship Missle) - the development of a long-range subsonic stealth RCC based on aviation AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile launched from the Mk41 UVP cells.
Instead of a high-speed “race for survival,” LRASM relies on the “intellectual” breakthrough of the enemy’s air defense / missile defense system - high autonomy, stealth, difficult evasion maneuvers, and jamming. It is expected that the new rocket will go into service with the US Navy in the second half of this decade.
In the meantime ... Americans powerlessly clench their fists at the sight of Iranian missile corvettes.
Another moment of degradation of the "Orly Burke" - the last destroyers come into operation without self-defense systems. The usual six-barreled "Falanx" is recognized as an obsolete weapon, in return the destroyer received ... empty space. Initially it was assumed that the RIM-116 Rolling Airfame Missle (RAM) missile systems - the 21-charging launcher on the Phalanx carriage would replace the anti-aircraft guns with radar guidance; rocket design - the fuselage of the aviation "Sidewinder" + infrared GOS from Stinger MANPADS. The complex is suitable for hitting air targets at a distance of 9 km.
However, it was decided to save on the self-defense SAM system. “Burke” lost the last line of defense.
USS Spruance (DDG-111) IIA Series Destroyer. At the stern - outdated "Phalanx". Front - emptiness
At the moment, the shock armament of the Orly Burk destroyers is limited to Tomahawk cruise missiles — many modifications with various guidance algorithms and types of combat units. In this classification, there is no equal to American destroyers - the “Burke” in the “shock” version is able to take on the 56 “Axes”. Powerful rocket for conducting local hostilities, capable of a single salvo to finish off the air defense of any "banana republic." The main thing is not to come close to the shore, otherwise you can coolly “overwhelm” from counterfeit Chinese C-802 anti-ship missiles and other “vundervaffe” who bred around the world in extraordinary quantities. There is no hope for AN / SPY-1, but instead of the good old “Phalanx” from the Americans now, pardon me, bare ass.
Plenty of plans
I wonder how the Yankees are going to fight on these, even now outdated "pelvis", over the next 50 years? After all, no matter how much the Pentagon puffs up, there will be no other destroyers of the US Navy in the near future (the three experimental Zamvolt do not make the weather). Even if the appearance of promising DD (X) destroyers in the 2030-s is allowed, the “Berks” will remain the basis of the surface component of the US Navy until at least the middle of the century. And according to a number of predictions, the last of the Burke destroyers will leave the current 2070's composition! No type of ship yet stories did not remain in the service in the "first line" for such a long time.
Changing the length of the gun barrel from 54 to 62 calibers will not get off here. As well as the addition of various high-tech systems (for example, MASKER, which supplies air bubbles to the bottom of the ship to reduce hydroacoustic visibility). Autonomous Robots-RMS mine detectors, active rockets, five armored bulkheads in the superstructure ... no! Something fundamentally different is needed!
The Yankees very much hope for the third series (Flight III). Accurate information on these ships is not available. Surely even the developers themselves have not yet decided on the look of the modernized “Burke”.
But one thing is clear - the radar AN / SPY-1 will retire. Instead, there will be a radar with active phased array AMDR or something similar - extremely energy-intensive, to control the upper layers of the atmosphere and NOU. Having suffered a fiasco with a "universal" destroyer, the Yankees are increasingly inclined to the idea of turning the "Berkov" into floating missile defense systems of the national missile defense system.
There are plans to redesign the engine rooms - instead of gas turbines, the destroyers will equip with full electric propulsion. If necessary, one of the helicopter hangars will be donated to install an additional generator.
155-mm long-range gun AGS instead of a nose gun, active defense systems based on laser weapons, new types of missile ammunition, targeting radar from F-35 fighters ...
The tests and small-scale assembly of SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles are in full swing. Raytheon promises to supply the Navy with the first large batch in 2015. Yankees with a delay of 10 years still hope to adopt the active-guided missiles.
The "degradation" of the destroyer "Burke" is nothing more than an evil joke. The modern American destroyer does not really shine with its performance characteristics, but the quantity sooner or later turns into quality. The Yankees really have a lot of destroyers, and even more plans for their modernization.
What's next? Will show the future.
Information