Military Review

"Degradation" of destroyers "Orly Burke"

114



... 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" ...

"Degradation" of destroyers "Orly 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.



By changing the length of the gun barrel from 54 to 62 calibers you will not get off here. As well as the addition of various high-tech systems (for example, MASKER, supplying air bubbles to the bottom of the ship to reduce sonar visibility). Autonomous RMS mine detectors, active-missiles, five armored bulkheads in the superstructure ... no! Need something fundamentally different!

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.



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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alikovo
    Alikovo 22 October 2013 08: 19
    10
    it would be great if the Americans simultaneously lose half of the aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, submarines.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 22 October 2013 09: 28
      15
      Quote: ....
      The Yankees are very hopeful of the Third series (Flight III).


      Killed on the spot.

      The destroyers of the new generation have other innovations, in particular, a light command cabin made entirely of composite materials.

      Is the conning tower the brain of a ship, the brain protected by plastic?
      Somehow I like it better - the conning tower of the battleship Mikasa in 1902. Displacement 15 140 tons.
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 22 October 2013 12: 38
        +6
        Is the conning tower the brain of a ship, the brain protected by plastic?
        Somehow I like it better - the conning tower of the battleship Mikasa in 1902. Displacement 15 140 tons.


        Before him it was even worse ...
        In the 1960s and 70s, add-ons made of flammable materials were generally made ...
        Although the destroyers in WWII did not actually have logging protection.
        True, at that time there were cruisers in the 10000t who had at least some but constructive protection.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 22 October 2013 14: 38
          +2
          Quote: cdrt
          Before him it was even worse ...


          I'm talking about the fact that in our time it’s really impossible to somehow protect the commander with anything other than plastic? There is also a multilayer, ceramic, dynamic armor ...
          1. PN
            PN 22 October 2013 16: 57
            +2
            Maybe I don’t have the correct info, but somewhere I read that the ISS anti-meteor protection is based on multilayer .... aluminum! And the speed (respectively, kinetic energy) in space is more than on earth. So what else is there to think about what is better and what is worse.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 October 2013 20: 21
              +2
              Quote: PN
              And the speed (respectively, kinetic energy) in space is more than on earth.

              What are the masses of particles and micrometeorites?
              Thousandths of a gram?
          2. Santa Fe
            22 October 2013 20: 19
            +6
            Quote: Vadivak
            I'm talking about the fact that in our time it’s really impossible to somehow protect the commander with anything other than plastic? There is also a multilayer, ceramic, dynamic armor ...

            This is the first Kars invented (on the forum) - to take in order of interest the hull of old ships and figure out how many modern weapons they will fit in the place of towers and barbets

            It turned out absolutely amazing things
          3. old man54
            old man54 23 October 2013 05: 13
            0
            Quote: Vadivak
            I'm talking about the fact that in our time it’s really impossible to somehow protect the commander with anything other than plastic?

            actually combat command post warshipstarting from the frigate, located in the depths of the ship, often below the waterline, it has cost-effective protection and several exits from it. Also has a duplication of basic control devices and ship and weapons.
            In the age of information technology, no one is going to control the battle from the bridge. What you wrote about it running bridge, i.e. control point for the ship in non-combat conditions, at the crossing by sea or during combat patrols. hi
      2. Santa Fe
        22 October 2013 20: 10
        +1
        Quote: Vadivak
        The conning tower is the brain of the ship, the brain protected by plastic? Somehow I like it better - the conning tower of the battleship Mikasa

        How do you, Vadim, the cabin of the frigate "Stark"? wassat

    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. washi
      washi 22 October 2013 10: 10
      +2
      Quote: Alikovo
      it would be great if the Americans simultaneously lose half of the aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, submarines.

      better let them continue to spend money on the operation of metal
  2. SmacXnumx
    SmacXnumx 22 October 2013 08: 28
    +3
    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.
    Which is not very pleasing.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 October 2013 12: 00
      25
      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 is not very happy


      How many letters (about the article as a whole) laughing
      Complexes, complexes, complexes ... (c) Pokrovsky Gate laughing

      It is clear that we want our BODs, which actually have only PLO armaments and self-defense systems, to be equal to a ship with 90 cells of any missiles, but this is not so. To amuse oneself with illusions is a sign of stupidity, no more.

      Lagged behind in the construction of destroyers for 30 years, now we need to catch up.
      This is how the current state of affairs is described.
      Of course, Orly is not an uberwaffe, just the next-generation destroyer relative to our 1155 BODs, which were largely created as a super-version of the Spruyens analogue

      Yes, some British destroyers with AFAR, with missiles with AGRLSN, with full electric propulsion are more perfect, but this has nothing to do with our BODs with 8 missiles of the anti-aircraft missile and self-defense air defense systems (in the article in this part, by the way, concepts are replaced - since Orly is inferior to Air defense Deringham, then ours).
      Continuous juggling also on radar target illumination. Available 3 AN / SPG-62 back in 1989 through the use of radio command guidance AN / SPY-1D in the middle part of the trajectory provided guidance to 22 in-flight missiles (Poyarkov B., Yurin Yu. Multifunctional weapon system “Aegis” (Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M.: "Red Star", 1989. - No. 10. - P. 53-60). What now - I don’t even know, I think a lot more, still 24 years of development.
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 22 October 2013 13: 06
        10
        Quote: cdrt
        command guidance AN / SPY-1D in the middle part of the trajectory provided guidance up to 22 missiles in flight

        It doesn’t mean much.

        SPY-1 is able to program an autopilot SAM and direct it towards the target. No more

        In the final section, for SM-2ER and ESSM missiles, in any case, radar illumination is required. But there are all three of them, one of them works on course angles! The duration of each target’s backlight is a few seconds. Despite the fact that the probability of hitting one missile is always less than 1, for a guaranteed defeat, 2 or more SAMs are issued for each target.

        While AN / SPG-62 will receive confirmation from the BSU Aigis central processor about destroying the target, information will be received on transferring the beam to the new target, while the radar will deploy and take up the necessary position in space (SPG-62 does this mechanically) - Burke will be fed with lead and TNT

        The conclusion is simple:
        Super destroyers "Berk" are defenseless against massive attacks from the air

        This is what AN / SPG-62 is. Burke has three
      2. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 22 October 2013 22: 25
        +1
        Quote: cdrt
        [i] Available 3 AN / SPG-62 as early as 1989 due to the use of radio command guidance AN / SPY-1D in the middle part of the trajectory provided guidance to 22 in-flight missiles (Poyarkov B., Yurin Yu. Izhis multifunctional weapon system ( Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M.: "Red Star", 1989. - No. 10. - P. 53-60). What now - I don’t even know, I think a lot more, still 24 years of development.


        Respected! Never refer to the 1989 Red Star. In those liberal-democratic Gorbachev times, all, without exception, the USSR mass media printed every burda that they could find in the bourgeois AD brochures, giving everything out at face value. They fiercely criticized everything Soviet and extolled everything foreign. Paper, as you know, "will endure"!
        the Americans still cannot hit a non-maneuvering target with two missiles with a probability of 0,3, but in 1989. at the same time 22 missiles could only be guided by "TUDY" .......... even today 22 missiles will go only in the direction of Rumba.
        And air defense pr.1155 and now and then it is capable of hitting all subsonic targets.
        And vice versa, the Ijesov’s air defense is not even capable of guaranteed to hit our anti-ship missiles with probability 0,5.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 22 October 2013 22: 30
          0
          Quote: soldier of fortune
          Quote: cdrt
          [i] Available 3 AN / SPG-62 as early as 1989 due to the use of radio command guidance AN / SPY-1D in the middle part of the trajectory provided guidance to 22 in-flight missiles (Poyarkov B., Yurin Yu. Izhis multifunctional weapon system ( Russian) // Foreign Military Review. - M.: "Red Star", 1989. - No. 10. - P. 53-60). What now - I don’t even know, I think a lot more, still 24 years of development.


          Respected! Never refer to the 1989 Red Star. In those liberal-democratic Gorbachev times, all, without exception, the USSR mass media printed every burda that they could find in the bourgeois AD brochures, giving everything out at face value. They fiercely criticized everything Soviet and extolled everything foreign. Paper, as you know, "will endure"!
          the Americans still cannot hit a non-maneuvering target with two missiles with a probability of 0,3, but in 1989. at the same time 22 missiles could only be guided by "TUDY" .......... even today 22 missiles will go only in the direction of Rumba.



          Didn’t figure it out, but give advice winked
          Quote from ZVO, Red Star - publishing house which ZVO printed winked
          There are claims to the cautorank, the candidate vn Poyarkov and the cautorang Yudin (ranks at the time of printing)? wink
          Provide links to sources - we will discuss. Same article discussion wink
          1. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 23 October 2013 02: 02
            +1
            Quote: cdrt

            Didn’t figure it out, but give advice winked
            Quote from ZVO, Red Star - publishing house which ZVO printed winked
            There are claims to the cautorank, the candidate vn Poyarkov and the cautorang Yudin (ranks at the time of printing)? wink
            Provide links to sources - we will discuss. Same article discussion wink


            I repeat once again: "The paper will endure everything!" I do not trust the 1989 source! Moreover, FOREIGN ADVERTISING BOOKLETS from which everything was then ripped off.
            Turn on sanity! Which, even a ground-based air defense system today, is capable of guiding 22 missiles? And estimate its overall dimensions (especially the radar), and look carefully at Burke ..... It’s not funny for yourself?
            And most importantly - "providing guidance" and hitting the target is not always the same! Today, you can see any target even from space, but how to reach it, and so to get there?
      3. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 23 October 2013 00: 26
        -1
        Quote. "For comparison, the Soviet BOD, which was never positioned as an air defense ship, was equipped with two antenna posts for the guidance of ZR95 missiles. Each radar with a HEADLIGHT provided SIMULTANEOUS guidance of up to 8 missiles at 4 air targets in the 60 x 60 degree sector." End of quote.

        Quote (and now I am quoting you) "in the article in this part, by the way, a substitution of concepts - since Orly is inferior in air defense to Daring, then ours" end of the quote.

        The author says unequivocally that 1155.1 is not an air defense ship. But at the same time, the BOD with target designation for anti-aircraft missiles is doing better than the supposedly "best" air defense destroyer. Where does it say that Orly is inferior to ours? Those who put pluses read the article at all? ... what
    2. Airman
      Airman 22 October 2013 13: 07
      16
      Quote: Smac111
      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.
      Which is not very pleasing.

      Immediately I ask the question, who can fight the United States? Possible adversaries may be Russia, China, India (theoretically). What forces can these 3 countries put up against the United States? After all, "Berks" do not go alone. And the number of anti-ship missiles fired against them is not comparable to the capabilities of the AUG air defense. So you don't have to go overboard and think that Americans are fools.
      1. M. Peter
        M. Peter 22 October 2013 15: 06
        +7
        Quote: Povshnik
        Just ask the question, who can fight with the United States? A likely adversary may be Russia, China, India (theoretically).

        Well then, the only option, the destruction of the AUG, all this retinue consisting of what there is under water and on it, this covering with one nuclear umbrella, albeit with a dope, but very effective. smile
        1. Santa Fe
          22 October 2013 20: 34
          +2
          Quote: M.Pyotr
          Well then, the only option is to destroy the AUG

          From what

          There are quite practical ways to protect your own coast - what awaits the AUG when meeting with the enemy, capable of putting up two regiments of fighters ... no longer need to be explained

          Nothing good awaits the grouping when passing through the square, where the heels of the submarine are on duty under the water - "Skorpen", "Type 212/214", etc.

          In 2006, the Swedish nuclear submarine "Gotland" interrupted the entire US XNUMXth fleet during exercises. In a real combat situation, this would mean the loss of at least a destroyer, submarine or AB from the actions of one hostile boat. And Gotland will not be alone



          Finally, the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles DF-21 with a space reconnaissance and target designation system. It will take another 10 years, the Chinese will reach the system to mind - and no AUG and KUG will dare to approach 1500-2000km to the coast of China
          1. soldier of fortune
            soldier of fortune 22 October 2013 22: 48
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It will take another 10 years, the Chinese will reach the system to mind - and no AUG and KUG will dare to approach 1500-2000km to the coast of China


            Well, why do you need 10 whole years at once .......... You yourself posted a photo ....... everyone sees holes ...... over the past time after these shootings, all conclusions and improvements have been made .
            And if necessary, there can be much more such holes within the red contour. By the way, the shooting was carried out by the training warhead so that there was something to explore. And if with each parcel yes 500 kg of high-explosive explosive ....... ????? :)
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 23 October 2013 00: 22
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There are quite practical ways to protect your own coast - what awaits the AOG when meeting with the enemy, capable of putting up two regiments of fighters ...

            Duc he did not climb to the protected coast until Tomahawks cleaned up air defense facilities ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In 2006, the Swedish nuclear submarine "Gotland" interrupted the entire US XNUMXth fleet during exercises. In a real combat situation, this would mean the loss of at least a destroyer, submarine or AB from the actions of one hostile boat. And Gotland will not be alone

            Well Duc with the Swedes, they are not going to fight. The Swedes, on the contrary, help them how to deal with such threats. Those. for the US Navy this is no longer a surprise. Our Navy has nothing of the kind and our diesel-electric submarines (of which there are not so many left) have to regularly pop up under the snorkel, thereby giving out their location with the sound of a running diesel engine, exhaust and retractable devices. And the Chinese are even worse with this than ours. So while there are no special threats to the United States in this regard.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Finally, the Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles DF-21 with a space reconnaissance and target designation system.

            Well, the Chinese have not yet seen much success in terms of detection and target designation. The DF-21 is nothing more than a fiction, a scarecrow for congressmen. Perhaps it falls into the drawn motionless squares in the desert, but the targets in the sea are quite different, they are not easy to find, but when you find them, they will point to exactly the place where it will be after that time that it takes to launch and the flight time. Honestly, the Chinese with detection tools are very bad, their naval aviation is quite in its infancy ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Santa Fe
              23 October 2013 00: 59
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              Duc he did not climb to the protected coast until Tomahawks cleaned up air defense facilities ...

              To clean the submarine as usual.
              Bomb - Air Force

              AUG in flight. Extra component. Moreover, the most expensive.
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well Duc with the Swedes, they are not going to fight.

              The question was simple: effective countermeasures. Hypothetically. Okromya nuclear weapons

              The US Navy is not going to fight with anyone at sea.
              The power of the US Navy is excessive - in its present form, they do more damage to themselves than to their geopolitical opponents
              Quote: Nayhas
              naval aviation is quite in its infancy ...

              Dongfeng 21 does not work with aviation
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well, the Chinese have not yet seen much success in terms of detection and target designation

              There is nothing special about this - they were able to do this in the States and the USSR 40 years ago (MKRC, Pershing-2 with its unique airborne radar)

              http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0

              %BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0

              %B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F

              A country with the first economy in the world, clothing, shoes and manufacturing equipment for the whole world. Chineses do not throw words into the wind
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 23 October 2013 01: 04
                +1
                Oleg greetings, here is an interesting material. Http://www.rusfact.ru/node/6503. The position of the Nimitzes and the US Navy's amphibious assault ships on February 20, 2013. Eight out of ten Nimitz-class aircraft carriers proudly display the flag at home ports and in shipyards. One more walks along the coast of the United States and only one is in position in the Arabian Sea.
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 23 October 2013 01: 06
                  +1
                  Here is the destination for the aircraft-carrying cruiser found the Soviet sailors
                  1. Santa Fe
                    23 October 2013 01: 18
                    +1
                    But what about the driving of supported foreign cars?
                    or a basketball stadium on board Carl Vinson?)))
                2. Santa Fe
                  23 October 2013 01: 17
                  +1
                  Hi Sasha.
                  http://www.rusfact.ru/node/6503 - это копия с Топвара, я глумился над супервафлями))
                  A real shemka from the Startfor site
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 23 October 2013 01: 19
                    +1
                    Damn Olegitch, where you can’t get on the Internet, I find your tracks everywhere laughing good
                    1. Santa Fe
                      23 October 2013 01: 32
                      +2
                      Quote: Alex 241
                      Damn Olegitch, where you can’t get on the Internet, I find your tracks everywhere

                      You know, Sasha, I would not want to be associated with jokes about superwaffles. It would be better with this:
                      http://topwar.ru/33924-fotografiya-zemli-s-rasstoyaniya-6-mlrd-kilometrov.html
                      1. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 23 October 2013 01: 41
                        +1
                        I understand. Oleg, you on the MiG-31 branch were interested in heat direction finders. Do you need to drop the information, or have you already found it?
                      2. Santa Fe
                        23 October 2013 01: 50
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        I was interested in heat finders. Do you need to drop off the information, or have you already found it?

                        About that mysterious outgrowth under the belly of MiG?

                        Not now. Now we have no time - we are celebrating the entire Mossad department with Bar Mitzvah (x ... they cut off my nephew ... once)))
                      3. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 23 October 2013 01: 53
                        +1
                        .............
                      4. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 23 October 2013 01: 55
                        +2
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        (x ... they cut off a nephew ... once)))

                        One x .. the whole department? what Where this M..ossad is heading bully
                      5. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 23 October 2013 02: 06
                        +1
                        If you measure seven times, then you can not cut laughing
                      6. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 23 October 2013 02: 12
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        can not cut

                        There are those that do not need to be cut and increased wassat But this is usually among draft dodgers negative Though sticking under the ass with tape just not to serve am
  • Revolver
    Revolver 22 October 2013 21: 00
    +1
    Quote: M.Pyotr

    Well then, the only option, the destruction of the AUG, all this retinue consisting of what there is under water and on it, this covering with one nuclear umbrella, albeit with a dope, but very effective. smile

    Do you want to see a nuclear winter or something else post-apocalyptic? I don’t. And I think that Putin also does not want to.
  • Santa Fe
    22 October 2013 20: 26
    -2
    Quote: Povshnik
    Just ask the question, who can fight with the United States?

    Anyone
    from the Navy of the PRC / DPRK to suicide bombers in boats with explosives or Arab punks who like to shoot at the parking lots of American ships from a 120 mm mortar (not uncommon in the Middle East)
    Quote: Povshnik
    And the number of anti-ship missiles issued by them is not comparable with the capabilities of AUG anti-aircraft defense

    Oh really. India is armed with hundreds of supersonic anti-ship missiles "Bramos" and even more of them carriers - frigates, submarines, fighters, even the military transport Il-76 are trying to adapt

    I’m no longer talking about torpedoes from non-nuclear submarines and nuclear submarines

    Bramos under the fuselage of the Su-30MKI Indian Air Force
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 22 October 2013 20: 35
      +4
      Bramos in service with submarines is not yet standing. Features vertical launch. So far, they are only testing from a submerged platform.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 22 October 2013 20: 44
        +1
        MOSCOW, March 20. (ARMS-TASS). India successfully launched a BrahMos rocket today from an underwater test bed. This was reported to the ARMS-TASS correspondent by telephone from the launch site by a representative of BraMos Aerospace.
        According to him, from an underwater platform located off the coast of the Bay of Bengal in the vicinity of the Visakhapatnam naval base, a BrahMos missile was launched in a submarine version. The launch took place at 14:10 local time.
        For the first time, the BrahMos rocket was launched from a vertically located container located under water; the test bench itself was a sealed compartment of a submarine.
        After coming out of the water with the help of a solid-propellant rocket engine and its compartment, a ramjet rocket engine was launched, which switched to a supersonic sustainer mode and carried out a programmed flight along an estimated trajectory of 290 km. The flight of the rocket was controlled by the support stations of the telemetry complex. These included the radar stations of the Indian Navy warships dispersed along the trajectory of the BrahMos missile.
        According to telemetry, the high accuracy of the missile’s flight to the intended target was confirmed.
        According to the head of the BraMos Aerospace company, Dr. Sivathanu Pillay, the BrahMos missile in the version for submarines is completely ready for use from vertical launch containers. The adoption of this version of the missile into service can significantly increase the striking power of the Indian Navy's submarine fleet, while the torpedo tubes of submarines can be used for firing with the use of defensive torpedo weapons.
        The naval version of the BrahMos missile for attacking surface and ground targets is currently used to arm Indian Navy surface ships and can be launched from both inclined and vertical launchers.
        These missiles will also be equipped with all the new Indian surface warships under construction.
        Photo by Bramos Aerospace
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 22 October 2013 21: 00
          +1
          It is assumed that the presence of vertical launchers is the main trump card of our Amur in the Indian tender 75i. Just under the Bramosa.
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 October 2013 08: 42
          0
          cool. It remains only to build a submarine with VPU. or Amer can now be afraid
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 23 October 2013 08: 40
      0
      Th, the Indians will be direct bullets with these models? about underwater and air Bramos you bent
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 23 October 2013 09: 34
      0
      "The first launch of the aircraft version of the BrahMos rocket is scheduled for June 2014." "The Su-30MKI fighter equipped with a BrahMos missile will hopefully be ready in September 2015," Sivathanu Pillai, President of BrahMos Aerospace.
  • Revolver
    Revolver 22 October 2013 20: 55
    +1
    Quote: Povshnik
    A likely adversary may be Russia, China, India (theoretically).
    India - it is not clear with what joy America is at war with India, there are neither ideological nor territorial disputes.
    China - only if the Chinese attack any of those whom America has entered to cover up (Taiwan, Japan, Philippines).
    Russia - again, as with India, there is neither ideological (communism a thing of the past) nor territorial disputes. And somehow it does not seem to me that the GDP will be decided on open hostilities against America because of some thread of conditional Dushmanistan.
    And with their main task - to cover the aircraft carrier from all sorts of troubles - "Berks" will quite cope.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 October 2013 21: 18
      0
      Quote: Nagan
      And with their main task - to cover the aircraft carrier from all sorts of troubles - "Berks" will quite cope.

      There is no war yet
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 22 October 2013 22: 47
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Nagan
        And with their main task - to cover the aircraft carrier from all sorts of troubles - "Berks" will quite cope.

        There is no war yet

        There will be no war between America and Russia. If this did not happen in Soviet times, today and in the foreseeable future there is no reason why anyone would want guaranteed mutual destruction.
        With china? Chinese leaders can be anyone, but they are not suicides.
        And with all smaller ones like Iran, where the best thing they can put up is a half-dead, long-flying resource and not seeing decent F-14 Tomcat maintenance, a couple of AUGs will figure it out without much stress.
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 22 October 2013 22: 54
          +1
          Plusanul. I understand that a random typo, but it turned out very meaningfully:
          Quote: Nagan
          today and in Aboutсrome the future
          lol
        2. Santa Fe
          22 October 2013 23: 00
          0
          Quote: Nagan
          AUG couple will understand without much stress.

          How about Iraq sample 1991?))
          Do not recall the number of sorties per day in the first week of the war?
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 22 October 2013 23: 23
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            How about Iraq sample 1991?))
            Do not recall the number of sorties per day in the first week of the war?
            It is strange how many articles have already been written about the effectiveness of the AUG in hostilities, but one argument, IMHO, has never surfaced. Namely: on June 22, 1941 the Germans lifted ALL of their aviation armada into the air and attacked with FULL tension of forces. The USSR, in response, also raised ALL that was. Yes, they lost a lot, but they nibbled fairly, using almost all of their reserves. So, I’m not confusing anything?
            And now we look at operations in Serbia, Iraq, etc. Almost everywhere, the bulk of the DECK air wing is in the RESERVE, a LEAD DUBA hanging above the attacker's head. And as a result, he, constantly reserving his forces to compensate for another attack, even by the time of his complete defeat ... does not use the most formidable parts of his defense. And then they are groundlessly crushed by the advancing infantry and armor (since this formidable equipment is practically not dangerous for them) ...

            IMHO, but isn’t this the main goal of the AUG at the moment - to delay the compensation of a possible threat the lion's share of the defensive capabilities of the attacked? Air defense forces are not dimensionless. And their remnants can easily be crushed (along with the country's main defensive potential) conventional aviation ...
            1. Santa Fe
              22 October 2013 23: 25
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              And now we look at operations in Serbia, Iraq, etc. Almost everywhere, the bulk of the DECK wing is in RESERVE

              Come on)))

              They fight like everyone else, but their power is insignificant
              1000 ... 1500 sorties per day
            2. Kars
              Kars 22 October 2013 23: 26
              +2
              Quote: Misantrop
              And now we look at operations in Serbia, Iraq, etc. Almost everywhere, the bulk of the DECK air wing is in the RESERVE, a LEAD DUBA hanging above the attacker's head.

              Something you wrote garbage. In all these countries, except for carrier-based aviation, there were a lot of land somolets. With such a numerical and qualitative superiority that everything that took off went astray (with rare exceptions) At the same time, Iraq in general or buried part of its aviation in the literal sense of the word, or fought in a neighboring country. in Yugoslavia, the ground component began generally after the ceasefire.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 22 October 2013 23: 32
                0
                Take a smaller scale operation - Yugoslavia, 1999 year. In total, the order of 1000 aircraft of NATO countries took part in the bombing of Serbia! Naturally, against the backdrop of this incredible amount of equipment, the contribution of carrier-based aviation from the single aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt turned out to be just symbolic - only 10% of the tasks performed. By the way, the heavy-duty aircraft carrier Roosevelt began performing combat missions only on the 12-th day of the war.
  • soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 23 October 2013 01: 47
    0
    Quote: Povshnik
    And the number of anti-ship missiles issued on them is not comparable with the capabilities of the anti-aircraft missile defense.


    The air defense capabilities of the AUG are not enough to guarantee the repulsion of an attack by a flock of anti-ship missiles, which has been repeatedly confirmed by practical shooting at air targets. At long and medium distances and at altitudes, they still fall within 0,5 (in sterile conditions for straight-flying targets), but at close and extremely low altitudes at targets with speeds> 2M they don't even try ... well, no neither radars nor missiles with such capabilities. Even Standard-3 falls short of our Fort in many respects.
  • alekseyal
    alekseyal 22 October 2013 08: 34
    +2
    The essence of geopolitics is the opposition of two principles: Sea and Sushi. Two civilizations, two principles of being. Land and Sea are constantly fighting each other. The situation determines the goals, it determines the means. The civilization of the Sea is building a fleet and is engaged in maritime trade, the Sushi civilization is expanding by land. The task of Sushi is to prevent the Sea from blocking it, to take control of the coastal zones and to reach the World Ocean itself. The task of the Sea is to close Susha access to the sea, to subordinate coastal zones to its influence and, splitting into parts, gradually swallow Susha. Land civilization is strong in the army, marine civilization is in the navy. To defeat the enemy, you must not let him develop a fleet or a strong army, depending on the situation. But there are not two players on the planet, there are more of them. Fighting with the wrong hands, pitting two Sushi or two Seas together is already an applied part of geopolitics.

    Geopolitics. How it's done
    http://nstarikov.ru/books/29544
  • PDM80
    PDM80 22 October 2013 08: 37
    30
    The article is interesting, but the author, as I forgot to mention, that the Americans build their ships in packs to walk, with the distribution of roles, and ours make lone hunters, who hang all conceivable and inconceivable weapons.
    1. Fuzeler
      Fuzeler 22 October 2013 09: 46
      15
      Totally agree with you. The US Navy always operates in a complex, and it is unlikely that such a ship will "graze" in the ocean.
      In addition, we must not forget that the Americans, in my opinion, now proceed from the fact that they do not have equal opponents in the ocean. Well, if they do, then the Yankees, I'm sure, are building ships so that they can be ready for modernization (including the installation of a melee air defense system).
    2. avt
      avt 22 October 2013 09: 51
      12
      “In the meantime ... the Americans are powerlessly clenching their fists at the sight of Iranian missile corvettes." ----------- laughing laughing You can not write anything else in the article. Ah, YES! More was needed about Daring's superiority.
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 22 October 2013 13: 11
      +7
      The article is interesting, but the author, as I forgot to mention, that the Americans build their ships in packs to walk, with the distribution of roles, and ours make lone hunters, who hang all conceivable and inconceivable weapons.

      Not a fact by the way.
      You attribute the traditions of raiding the Navy of the USSR / RF, which is not proven.
      It is more likely not a matter of raiding, but the fact that the fleet, which feels weaker (i.e., the one who has to dispute supremacy at sea) (for any reason of an economic, historical, mental, technical nature) seeks to make each of its units more powerful.
      This is what the French did in the XNUMXth century, the Germans in the beginning of the XNUMXth century, the Japanese before and during WWII, we have been since the beginning of the construction of the Great Fleet.
      The fleet, originally enshrined in dominance - the Royal, always preferred a larger number of less armed ships.
      The Americans now seem to be in the niche of the Royal Navy, with appropriate approaches: better more ships, albeit weaker than armed ones

      By the way - the reason is apparently mental, in WWII all the wartime projects of all countries were re-equipped (i.e. overloaded) to the limit.
      Actually after the war, most of the ships of military projects were decommissioned as having no reserves (top weight in the first place) for modernization
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 22 October 2013 13: 36
        +1
        Quote: cdrt
        The Americans now seem to be in the niche of the Royal Navy, with appropriate approaches: better more ships, albeit weaker than armed ones

        But unlike the modest caravels of the East India Campaign, the cost of building Burke corresponds to the whole dreadnought

        Those. the intentional weakening of the vehicle performance characteristics did not affect the decrease in its value. As for mass production, the expenses of the US Navy exceed the expenses of all the fleets of the world combined. There’s nothing to be surprised that the Yankees planed 60+ destroyers
      2. PDM80
        PDM80 22 October 2013 14: 59
        -1
        About raidostvo by the way and there were no thoughts. It seems to me that our fleet has been limping since the time of Khrushchev with his indefatigable love of missiles. And the best way of delivery in those days was the submarine, so the skew went in their direction, and over time it wasn’t somehow eliminated. Amerikos have huge aircraft carriers with us Sharks (Typhoon) in my opinion a vivid example in which direction the fleets developed
        1. Walker1975
          Walker1975 23 October 2013 16: 42
          0
          The distortion in the hoses went by the fact that if the country lags behind in the surface fleet, then it is cheaper and easier to build underwater than to build a balanced multi-class surface underwater. The Germans also compensated for the lag in the surface fleet with the mass construction of submarines during World War II.
  • Aubert
    Aubert 22 October 2013 09: 12
    +3
    Yes, everything in the described article coincides with reality, it is enough to take and count the number of such allegedly "underships" in the fleets of the United States and its allies and the number of our "uber-ships". The comparison is still not in our favor. There is safety in numbers.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 22 October 2013 15: 26
      +1
      According to some experts, our Chabanenko is an almost perfectly balanced destroyer in terms of weapons and capabilities.
      1. PLO
        PLO 22 October 2013 15: 44
        +4
        almost perfectly balanced in terms of weapons and capabilities, the destroyer.

        at the beginning of the 90s when it was laid down possibly, although still it remained more of an anti-submarine ship.
        at the moment it’s far from universal balanced, although modernization of the 1155s can make universal ships relevant even now
  • indiggo
    indiggo 22 October 2013 09: 26
    +1
    I liked the article, it was interesting to read. although there are moments where I do not share the opinion of the author.
  • HAM
    HAM 22 October 2013 10: 21
    +1
    Everything is defined in one phrase: about the "war with the banana republics", for this they are planning to beat someone without "surrender".
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 October 2013 12: 05
      +5
      US
      Everything is defined in one phrase: about the "war with the banana republics", for this they are planning to beat someone without "surrender".

      Illusions are illiterate.
      They were created as a means of escort AUG, which were supposed to withstand the blows of the Navy and MRA of the USSR, to carry out MAO on the Kola Peninsula and in Kamchatka
      1. soldier of fortune
        soldier of fortune 23 October 2013 02: 17
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        US

        They were created as a means of escort AUG, which were supposed to withstand the blows of the Navy and MRA of the USSR, to carry out MAO on the Kola Peninsula and in Kamchatka


        That is, you insist that Burke did not justify his existence, because they never had to carry out the task for which they, as you think, were created? :)
      2. HAM
        HAM 23 October 2013 17: 55
        0
        I agree. But the article is written in such a way that a layman draws just such conclusions.
  • Russ69
    Russ69 22 October 2013 10: 38
    +4
    The article, of course, is interesting, but too critical. As for me.
    The "Burke", like any ship, has its drawbacks, shortcomings, and others. But to say that the destroyer has degraded, the language will not turn.
  • Col.
    Col. 22 October 2013 10: 55
    +5
    The “degradation” of the Burke destroyer is nothing more than a malicious joke.


    Well done, Oleg! I already wanted to "restore justice" and intercede for these ships (even though they are "adversaries"), but this phrase explained everything. At first, the author "tore into a nut" the current possibilities of "Orly Berkov", but in the end he made a correct, objective and fair conclusion. The Americans are the most experienced specialists in the field of war at sea and know a lot about everything that is associated with the planning, development, construction of the Navy and, of course, with the improvement of naval art. They, of course, take into account the tendencies of changes in the military-political situation in the world, the development of the Armed Forces and military doctrines of other countries and, undoubtedly, will bring their navies (including the Orly Burke URO) in line with modern geopolitical realities and military- strategic conditions, and of course - in accordance with the requirements of modern naval combat. For the article - a plus!
  • mixxlll
    mixxlll 22 October 2013 11: 09
    -8
    Maybe I'm wrong, but if you cover an aircraft carrier, then the American fleet turns into an easily accessible and toothless target.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 October 2013 20: 38
      +2
      Quote: mixxlll
      if you cover an aircraft carrier, then the American fleet turns into an easily accessible and toothless target.

      50 atomic submarines
  • mixxlll
    mixxlll 22 October 2013 11: 11
    -6
    Maybe I’m wrong, but if the United States covers an aircraft carrier, the fleet turns into a good toothless target. So ours are also not shaky.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 22 October 2013 11: 35
    20
    How easy it is to lower the enemy, say as much more about his weaknesses as you inflate them as much as possible, don't say anything about your weaknesses, make a general comparison. Obviously a winning way to collect a bunch of positive feedback from those who are honestly too lazy to make real comparisons. Now in order.
    As far as I understand, we are talking about comparing pr.1155 and O. Berka, then the question immediately arises, which exactly Berki and which project 1155 Oleg compares? Having no strike weapons other than the artillery of Project 1155, whose lead ship did all the service without the Dagger, or being in a single copy of Project 1155.1? If we compare Chabanenko even with the initial Berks, then we can already see that in terms of air defense, the Shepherd is not next to Burke, because SAM Dagger of different weight categories with Standard2, this is the near air defense, almost the last line of defense.
    Now about the radar backlight. Yes, there are three of them, but they go into action intercepting guidance on AN / SPY1 in the last seconds. But Burke’s line of defense is from 120km. at maximum height to the radio horizon at small, and the Dagger has a range of 12 km. What comparison of air defense ships could there be at all?
    Now about PLUR. The RUM-139 VLA flies at 28 km., Of course, it is less than 50 km., But at a greater range the destroyer is engaged in the destruction of submarines, as towed GAS AN / SQR-19 Burke is capable of detecting submarines at 125km. Both ships have towed GAS and two PLO helicopters, as the topic of PLO helicopters and hydro-acoustic buoys is quite extensive, let's say that there is a certain parity in the capabilities of the PLO.
    Now about the shock capabilities. Ave. 1155 has no anti-ship missiles in general; against Burke, he has nothing to oppose with two guns. The Shepherd has eight anti-ship missiles Moskit, and the Berks of the latest modifications allegedly have no shock weapons at all. But this is not so. On Berks there is a very interesting helicopter PLO MH-60R, Romeo has an airborne radar for detecting surface targets for detecting periscopes of submarines, and it also carries two AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missiles with a firing range of 55 km. To defeat Burke, Chaban needs to approach 200 km., But before he reaches him the right distance, he can be fired by the Penguin anti-ship missile, while Romeo can do this at a safe distance, because near the SAM dagger range of only 12 km. In addition, the number of anti-ship missiles in Shepherd for more than eight cannot be crammed without radical restructuring, but after Berkov’s adoption of the LRASM anti-ship missiles, the number of latter can vary depending on the task, and no rebuilding of the hulls from the first to the last Burke is required, and the number is limited only the number of UVP cells.
    Now about the prospects. Chabanenko is the only one and there is no continuation for him, but the Berks descend every year and they have a great future. In the future we will see new Berks with AUs from Zumvolt, AN / SPY2 radar, Mk 57 UVP, LRASM anti-ship missiles, SM6 missiles, etc.
    Oleg takes evolution for degradation, not noticing obvious degradation, the one that takes place in our Navy ...
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 22 October 2013 13: 27
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      If we compare Chabanenko even with the initial Berks, then it can already be seen that in terms of air defense, the Shepherd is not next to Burke

      He should not have. He has a different specialization.
      in addition, these are ships of different eras - 1155 older than Burke by 10 years

      It is also interesting to compare the Burke IIA with the cruiser 1164. They are similar in displacement and size.
      Quote: Nayhas
      What comparison of air defense ships could there be at all?

      Interception of NLC in the near field (in other words, issued by anti-ship missiles - the main anti-ship weapon of aviation).
      The most important and crucial moment. Here Burke is a complete goof compared to Shepherd and 1155

      Our ships have a "Podkat" radar, which is optimized for NLC detection + is affected by a higher antenna installation height

      2 x ЗР95 - 8 simultaneously guided missiles in any part of the trajectory. Burke has 18 ... 22 on average and only three on the final section (on course angles - one).
      Quote: Nayhas
      two anti-ship missiles AGM-119 Penguin with a firing range of 55km.

      This is a complete shnyaga

      Too long reaction time (while the helicopter takes off and reaches the line of attack). Low weight warhead. High media vulnerability
      Finally, you, dear, liars - the launch range of the Penguin - less than 30 km.

      Penguin can be safely neglected
      Quote: Nayhas
      evolution for degradation, without noticing obvious degradation, the one that takes place in our Navy ...

      US Navy Expenses - More Than All World's Fleets Together
      Given how many grandmas the Yankees spend on their fleet ...the result could be better
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 October 2013 13: 38
        +3
        Quote: Magellan
        This is a complete shnyaga

        Too long reaction time (while the helicopter takes off and reaches the line of attack). Low weight warhead. High media vulnerability
        Finally, you, dear, lied - the launch range of the Penguin is less than 30 km.

        And you, dear, are not curious. AGM-119 Mk3 range of 55 km.
        Quote: Magellan
        Interception of NLC in the near field (in other words, issued by anti-ship missiles - the main anti-ship weapon of aviation).
        The most important and crucial moment. Here Burke is a complete goof compared to Shepherd and 1155

        And where does such confidence come from? "Dagger" with any radar, even with a guide on a string more than 12 km. will not fly. And Standard-2 knocks down low-flying targets from the radio horizon. At the expense of supersonic, I did not meet data, but subsonic shoots down exactly. At the expense of the Dagger's ability to shoot down supersonic anti-ship missiles, it was also not reported, China does have them.
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 22 October 2013 13: 50
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          And you, dear, are not curious. AGM-119 Mk3 range of 55 km.

          I won’t argue here. may be
          in any case, this does not give Burke anything. Wrong caliber and reaction time
          Quote: Nayhas
          rope further 12 km. won't fly ... And Standard-2 knocks low-flying targets off the radio horizon

          WG for Bramos - it will just be 12km)))
          Of course, the target will be noticed a little further - from a distance of 15 ... 20 km, while preparing the air defense system for launch - the target will be in the affected area of ​​the Dagger

          3,6 times the square root of H, where H is the antenna suspension height in meters (do not forget to take into account the height of the RCC flight)

          So, the cruiser 1164 will be compared with Burke?)))
          1. PLO
            PLO 22 October 2013 15: 51
            +2
            So, the cruiser 1164 will be compared with Burke?)))

            The 1164th is no match for Berku, it was built earlier and surpasses its displacement and moreover has overwhelming superiority in armament.

            Burka’s peer is precisely BOD 1155.1, this is the type of ship that was supposed to be massively built with us, but as you know, not fate.
            and here the comparison is simple
            surpassing him in PLO and RCC, he is inferior to Burke in air defense.
            1. Santa Fe
              22 October 2013 20: 40
              -1
              Quote: olp
              1164th is no match for Berku, it was built earlier and surpasses its displacement and even more so has overwhelming superiority in armaments.

              )))
              Q.E.D.
              Quote: olp
              superior to its displacement

              on 10%
              1. PLO
                PLO 22 October 2013 21: 04
                0
                on 10%

                not quite
                standard in / and 1164th 9300t, Berka - 6600t-7000t (depending on the series), i.e. 30-40% higher than Atlanta higher than that of Burke.

                Atlantis' peer and direct competitor is Tika.)
                however, and there he has overwhelming superiority, albeit highly specialized
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Santa Fe
                  22 October 2013 21: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: olp
                  Burke - 6600t-7000t (depending on the series)

                  Take Series IIA
                  Series I is meaningless - it is very different from the Kyrgyz Republic (for the worse)

                  Full w / o project
                  Burke - 9648
                  1164 - 11380
                  Quote: olp
                  Atlantis' peer and direct competitor is Tika.)

                  She is an escort. The first five did not carry tomahawks at all - in the Mk.26 launcher, only SAM and ASROK were placed

                  Tiko was much more perfect Burke - 4 radar backlight. additional search radar AN / SPS-49, 30% more UVP, 25% longer range ... in the same displacement!

                  Guess the secret wink
                  1. PLO
                    PLO 22 October 2013 22: 46
                    0
                    Guess the secret

                    add-ons more weapons a little more

                    ps even if you compare the total displacement is not less than 17% smile
                    1. Santa Fe
                      22 October 2013 23: 05
                      0
                      Quote: olp
                      add-ons more weapons a little more

                      Tiki has more. Add-ons, weapons, radars

                      displacement is the same
                      Quote: olp
                      ps even if you compare the total displacement is not less than 17%

                      The striking and defensive power of pr. 1164 is much higher than 17%.
                      This is the trick.

                      And this is even without taking into account our lag in the creation of different ICUs, power plants and marine weapons systems over the past 20 years
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 22 October 2013 23: 22
            +2
            Quote: Magellan

            in any case, this does not give Burke anything. Wrong caliber and reaction time

            Well, of course, some 120 kg warhead. and low altitude trajectory, is it worth talking about this at all? Just think of a helicopter with radar and a range of 140km. and RCC, is it worth mentioning? Honestly, I didn’t understand what the reaction time was, what did you mean? I propose that most of Burke’s weapons be considered insignificant, and on Shepherd also salute cannons to be counted.
            Quote: Magellan
            WG for Bramos - it will just be 12km)))

            What the hell is Brahmos? Where did you see him on Shepherd? In which place? On a towed barge?
            Quote: Magellan
            So, the cruiser 1164 will be compared with Burke?)))

            Well, since the Shepherd is not suitable for Burke, so let's immediately compare 1144, so to speak, our answer to the arsenal ship
            1. Santa Fe
              23 October 2013 00: 03
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well, of course, some 120 kg warhead

              Let me notice, Eugene, the warhead is really weak.
              Warhead Harpoon 225 kilo
              Warhead Bramos 300
              Quote: Nayhas
              about the reaction time did not understand

              Here everything is simple: the approximate location of Burke was transferred to the Iranian RTOs from a scout (a disguised fishing felucca). RTOs immediately beat the missiles in the indicated direction

              The Yankees will have to roll out a helicopter, lift it into the air - while the spinner crawls to the launch line ... the Iranian will escape to his guards, under the cover of coastal S-802 launchers and artillery batteries

              Penguin can not be regarded as a real RCC. Pure means for the execution of pirate feluhs and longboats.
              To find the target, the turntable should be above the WG - it will be easily knocked down
              Quote: Nayhas
              WG for Bramos - it will just be 12km)))

              Bramos is a good example of low-flying RCC
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well, since the Shepherd is not suitable for Burke

              1164 is larger than Burke by only 1700 tons (design data), despite the fact that in / and both of the order of 10-11 thousand tons
              But their power is not comparable - even taking into account the technical backwardness of the Russian Federation over the past 20 years
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 23 October 2013 01: 01
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Let me notice, Eugene, the warhead is really weak.

                Oleg, please recall the weight of the warhead of the famous Exozet, 150 kg. And what did she do to Stark? Or do you think that Chabanenko’s superstructure is made of armored steel?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Here everything is simple: the approximate location of Burke was transferred to the Iranian RTOs from a scout (a disguised fishing felucca). RTOs immediately beat the missiles in the indicated direction

                Let's be realistic. The command of the American destroyer in the zone of probable conflict will not behave carelessly. All services are on standby, the helicopter is on patrol, everyone is busy looking for possible targets. This is in the case of "peacetime", the fate of the frigate Stark, everyone in the US Navy remembers for sure. So it will be difficult to sneak up on the distance of the launch of an anti-ship missile system unnoticed. In wartime, the Americans, realizing the alahakbaric essence of the enemy, will sink all the schooners that they consider dangerous.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Bramos is a good example of low-flying RCC

                Not bad, for me the Caliber is better, but it doesn’t matter, it didn’t cause any amazement to this topic when the respondent dragged Bramos for no reason.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                1164 is larger than Burke by only 1700 tons (design data), despite the fact that in / and both of the order of 10-11 thousand tons
                But their power is not comparable - even taking into account the technical backwardness of the Russian Federation over the past 20 years

                1164 is weaker and that’s why. Berks are able to increase their power not only by increasing the number of weapons depending on the task, but also due to the installation of more modern missiles for various purposes without special alteration of the entire ship. Those. it will be necessary to increase the anti-ship component, so the LM blinds the long-range RCC using stealth technology with a multi-mode GOS and jamming system, and this RCC can be launched from ANY Burke regardless of the year of manufacture. And in 1164, the life of the anti-ship missiles will expire and they will remain unarmed, because neither Bramos nor Caliber at 1164 can be installed without multi-million infusions, and RCC Volcano has not been produced for a long time. It is not possible to install new 48N6 SAMs in the Fort SAM, so go to 1164 with the outdated 5V55, which also expires before cutting. If on the IJIS it is enough to upgrade the software to version 3.6.1 and wait for an update to 4.0.1 to improve the interception performance, then the control system on 1164 for the entire time of its existence no one has definitely improved, and even if it was, then back in Soviet times .
                PS: Do you really believe in the effectiveness of the Chelomeevsky monster of the RCC Volcano? What solutions laid down in the 80s are still relevant?
                1. Santa Fe
                  23 October 2013 01: 13
                  0
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Warhead of the famous Exoset, 150 kg.

                  165 kg Two hit the Stark, one warhead worked

                  + a hundred kg of non-combustible fuel in each Exocet - most of those killed on Stark died not from an explosion, but from a fire
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Or do you think that Chabanenko’s superstructure is made of armored steel?

                  hitting a Penguin will cause the burning and death of a certain number of crew members
                  Hit Mosquito will turn Burke inside out. The death toll will be measured in many tens
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  The command of the American destroyer in the zone of probable conflict will not behave carefree.

                  How is Stark?)))))


                  There is nothing to argue about here - the Penguin is even to Harpoons and Bramos. Reaction time, destructive power, range. Useless. Of the goals only feluccas.
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  1164 is weaker and that’s why. B

                  Project 1164 10 years older than Burke

                  USSR designers managed to create a powerful ship for specific tasks. Without major design miscalculations like Burke. The Americans had all the super-technologies, and as a result, a very expensive, but mediocre and ineffective miracle-judo appeared
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 23 October 2013 01: 57
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    USSR designers managed to create a powerful ship for specific tasks. Without major design miscalculations like Burke.

                    All major projects of the USSR were one blunder. Assorted weapons are absolutely not interchangeable. Each new rocket categorically "did not want" to replace the old one. This is not a miscalculation?

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    There is nothing to argue about here - the Penguin is even to Harpoons and Bramos. Reaction time, destructive power, range. Useless. Of the goals only feluccas.

                    Well, wonderful of course. Since warheads are 40 kg lighter., Then there’s nothing to talk about? According to your 120 kg. a cumulatively high explosive warhead will not be able to cause particular harm to a cruiser / BOD ship? Well, like a fire in the cockpit and no more?
                    1. Santa Fe
                      23 October 2013 02: 37
                      -1
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      This is not a miscalculation?

                      No, this is the specifics of life in the USSR.

                      In any case, the budget of the USSR Navy was 16 times less than the American budget (1960s, data - Dragovoz). Even during its heyday - in the late 1980s, the Soviet fleet was 3 times cheaper than the US Navy. + technological backlog
                      Quote: Nayhas
                      Since warheads are 40 kg lighter., Then there’s nothing to talk about?

                      The remains of unburned fuel. On Stark, more people died from the fire than directly from the explosion
      2. Witold
        Witold 22 October 2013 23: 07
        +1
        You are apparently very worried about the funds spent by America. Isn't it better to look at the log in your eye.
        1. Santa Fe
          22 October 2013 23: 17
          0
          Quote: Vitold
          You are apparently very worried about the funds spent by America.

          This is US EXTERNAL DEBT

          Although ... something tells me, the States will simply annul it once and everything will remain as before. Without any world cataclysms. Money is not taken from the void - in the destroyers Burke is a particle of each of us. The Yankees built their incredible, excess fleet with funds from around the world. And now there’s nothing to ask from them. Money spent.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 22 October 2013 18: 54
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      Now in order.
      As far as I understand, we are talking about comparing pr.1155 and O. Berka, then the question immediately arises, which exactly Berki and which project 1155 Oleg compares?

      As the author rightly noted, the withdrawal of anti-ship missiles from the armament of the US destroyers is connected with the disappearance of the main enemy, the Soviet Navy. Unfortunately, at the moment, the Russian Navy can not be a rival to the American fleet. Therefore, the comparison of Burke with 1155, in general, is abstract.
      The expected return of anti-ship missiles to the U.S. Navy is primarily due to the increased capabilities of the Navy of the People's Republic of China. So, given the current realities, it would be more relevant to compare the Berkov 2A series with the destroyers O52S.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 October 2013 23: 29
        0
        Quote: Odyssey
        The expected return of anti-ship missiles to the U.S. Navy is primarily due to the increased capabilities of the Navy of the People's Republic of China. So, given the current realities, it would be more relevant to compare the Berkov 2A series with the destroyers O52S.

        Well, the fact that our fleet "probable enemy" wrote off from accounts is far from news. Comparing with 052C is not entirely true, it is a limited series, 052D is considered promising, which is currently being built in a large series. But not so much is known about the Chinese destroyers. One thing is for sure, work on the LRASM anti-ship missiles began against the background of the quantitative growth of the Chinese military fleet.
    3. SPACE
      SPACE 22 October 2013 22: 20
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      Now about the radar backlight. Yes, there are three of them, but they go into action intercepting guidance on AN / SPY1 in the last seconds. But Burke’s line of defense is from 120km. at maximum height to the radio horizon at small, and the Dagger has a range of 12 km. What comparison of air defense ships could there be at all?

      SAM "Dagger"
      Target hit range: 1.5 —12 km
      Target speed: up to 700 m / s
      Number of simultaneously fired targets: up to 4
      Number of simultaneously guided missiles: up to 8
      Main mode of operation: automatic
      Low flying target reaction time: 8 s
      Rate of Fire: 3 s
      Cruise missiles such as tomahawk or harpoon with a speed of 250 meters per second. overcome the distance in 12 km in 40 seconds i.e. three times can be shot down. Altogether, two Daggers can simultaneously fire at 8 targets! Add to this two Daggers or 4 AK-630.
      The radio horizon is 25-30 km, a mosquito will emerge from it at a speed of 600 meters per second and will cover this distance in 50 seconds ...

      Quote: Nayhas
      In addition, the number of anti-ship missiles on the Shepherd for more than eight cannot be crammed without radical restructuring, but after Berkov’s adoption of the LRASM anti-ship missiles, the number of latter can vary depending on the task, and no rebuilding of the hulls from the first to the last Burke is required, and the number is limited only the number of UVP cells.

      As the Americans say, "six is ​​not enough, thirty-six is ​​not enough" about pistols. Of course, they have the ability to load 60 anti-ship missiles, but this is as wild as a hundred-round revolver! Such a number against one BOD laughing You can understand what such an abundance of cells for unpunished strikes on unarmed canoes. Yes, and their super radar with a range of 120 km or 1200 km against whom? One horse-radish will drown him either in the North-Western Rocket Range on the crest of a wave, or a torpedo in the side. I believe the whole thing is that the AF is enough to drown two Berks of 8 Mosquitoes with an 100% guarantee!
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 22 October 2013 23: 54
        +2
        Quote: SPACE
        Cruise missiles such as tomahawk or harpoon with a speed of 250 meters per second. overcome the distance in 12 km in 40 seconds i.e. three times can be shot down. Altogether, two Daggers can simultaneously fire at 8 targets! Add to this two Daggers or 4 AK-630.

        I do not understand why mention the Tomahawks, they have not been in the RCC variant for a long time. Your confidence that the RCC will be guaranteed destroyed yes to God’s ears, as they say.
        Quote: SPACE
        Such a quantity against one BOD laughing. You can understand what an abundance of cells is for unpunished strikes on unarmed canoes. And their super radar with a range of 120 km or 1200 km against whom? One horse-radish will drown him either in the North-Western Rocket Range on the crest of a wave, or a torpedo in the side. I believe the whole thing is that the AF is enough to drown two Burkas by 8 Mosquitoes with a 100% guarantee!

        If you come from the position that everything is on Burke and crap, then was it worth it to make any kind of comparison? You have an ancient Dagger that is more than thirty years old and which has not undergone any modernization, is a panacea for any air troubles, and the latest destroyers on which weapons and electronics undergo regular modernization are empty places. Probably because they are made in the USA? There, a priori, they can’t do anything sensible?
        The mosquito is probably not a bad anti-ship missile, but for its use it is necessary first of all to detect the enemy, and secondly to approach the distance of the "shot", that is, 150 km. naively believing that the enemy will humbly drift awaiting his fate?
        1. Santa Fe
          23 October 2013 00: 06
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          I do not understand why mention the Tomahawks, they have not been in the RCC variant for a long time.

          They were at the time when Burke and 1155 appeared!
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 23 October 2013 01: 05
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            They were at the time when Burke and 1155 appeared!

            When Chabanenko appeared, Tomahawk had long forgotten about the anti-ship missiles, and when the unfinished Udaloy came out, there was nothing to compare there, at 1155 there were no anti-ship weapons (except guns).
            1. Santa Fe
              23 October 2013 01: 21
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              When Chabanenko appeared, Tomahawk had long forgotten about RCC

              EMNIP she was decommissioned in the new century.
              1155.1 was laid down in 1990, put into operation 1999
              Quote: Nayhas
              at 1155 there were no anti-ship weapons (except for cannons).

              Tell you what the first Sprouts looked like?)))
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 23 October 2013 02: 04
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                Tell you what the first Sprouts looked like?)))

                I remember very well. However, they received their Tomahawks and Harpoons (the first seven in containers), and 1155 still go without anti-ship weapons. Only Shepherd has it, but he is 1155.1.
                1. Santa Fe
                  23 October 2013 02: 40
                  0
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  and 1155 still go without anti-ship weapons

                  This statement would have been meaningless if the Russian Federation and the United States spent equal funds on their fleet.

                  Expenses of the Russian Navy arr. 2013 and US Navy are NOT COMPATIBLE
  • PLO
    PLO 22 October 2013 12: 16
    13
    perhaps the most interesting in Kaptsov’s articles is to observe the evolution of his opinion)
    in my memory uv. SWEET_SIXTEEN went the thorny path from worshiping aircraft carriers to contempt for them, finding a new idol in the form of ultra-modern destroyers Arly Burke (issuing a pearl about ultra-modern time-tested gas turbines) and now, as we see, he overthrew the next idol.
    further it will only be more interesting wink
  • velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 22 October 2013 12: 19
    +1
    modern ships are not designed for sea battle. They are created for the comfortable service of contract soldiers in peacetime.

    Apt phrase good
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 22 October 2013 12: 39
      +4
      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
      Apt phrase

      Honestly, I see nothing bad in the comfort of the service. American sailors have been fighting for several months away from their home, and if the living conditions are poor, you will not be lured into the Navy by any money, so ship designers have to reckon with this. And Oleg’s statement that this was done to the detriment of combat characteristics is nothing more than his purely personal opinion.
      1. velikoros-xnumx
        velikoros-xnumx 22 October 2013 15: 57
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        Honestly, I see nothing bad in the comfort of the service.

        It depends on what is meant by comfort. This is not bad to a certain extent. A warship should not turn into a cruise ship if we want to have sailors, and not ship strippers (the same applies to the army, the appearance of souls in the barracks is, in my opinion, the very limit of comfort for the army). If you want to raise a man, a soldier or just a leader, what conditions are preferable?
        - games with girls (mothers and daughters), a regular school, embroidery circles from circles, only drafts from sports (I have nothing against, rather the opposite);
        or normal men's games in childhood (for example, Cossack robbers, bast shoes, football, etc.), a cadet school, a section of hand-to-hand combat, boxing, athletics or weightlifting ???
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 22 October 2013 12: 56
      +3
      velikoross-88
      modern ships are not designed for sea battle. They are created for the comfortable service of contract soldiers in peacetime.

      Apt phrase


      Well ... it’s a well-known fact that due to more comfortable recruiting laughing (this is if you are concerned about the professionalism of today's sailors) on American ships in WWII, they could have a lot more Japanese crews at sea without losing crew combat ability (I mean the crews themselves, excluding the factor of marine logistics).
      It is also known that the Americans and the British have always been the most floating fleets (with the highest average KOH).
      Perhaps this is the case ...
      1. Santa Fe
        22 October 2013 20: 51
        +1
        Quote: cdrt
        on American ships in WWII, they could, without losing the crew’s combat effectiveness, are much more Japanese crews at sea

        1. on Amer ships of those years there was not much comfort. The sailor could either watch, or sleep, or tidy himself up and his uniform (there was no fitness room with a pool. There was only a laundry and a barber). Those with insomnia were allowed to play chess. Everything else is past. For games for money - a lip and dismissal from the fleet



        2. On Japanese ships there was pure bestiality. Residential premises at the rate of 1,5 square meters. meters per person. Ventilation is intermittent (in the tropics!). Open portholes from behind - due to the monstrous overload of yap. cruisers on the moves were overflowing with water

        Everything is good in moderation

        Kubrick AV Interpid.
  • koosss
    koosss 22 October 2013 12: 44
    +2
    BOD Admiral Chabanenko looks cool, like a real fighter bully
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 22 October 2013 12: 58
      +4
      koosss
      BOD Admiral Chabanenko looks cool, like a real fighter

      A sad analogy.
      Klitschko and Povetkin.
      The real fighter is one of them, but the other thinks and has long arms.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 22 October 2013 13: 48
    +3
    The author is far from the topic, as the Decembrists - from the people!
  • virm
    virm 22 October 2013 14: 31
    +4
    "Our BODs were equipped with a grandiose sonar station" Polynom "weighing 800 tons."
    800 tons !!!
    It’s like 30 railway cars. There are probably watermelon-sized transistors.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 22 October 2013 14: 33
      +1
      Quote: virm
      It's like 30 rail cars

      empty
      Quote: virm
      There are probably watermelon-sized transistors.

      There, under the fairing, water
      and hundreds of hydrophones
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 22 October 2013 17: 27
    0
    The author of the article began "for peace" and finished "in the health" of the described ship. In general, the article is a haphazard jumble of facts and fiction, but as history has shown, any attempts to fool a potential adversary ended badly. So it is in this case. The Americans began to create this ship in the mid-70s of the last century and took it into service in 1988.
    Naturally, this ship was designed taking into account the existing and predicted threats at the time of designing from potential adversaries and the desire of the US Navy as someone to compensate for the withdrawal of armaments from the then obsolete cruisers. Something the Americans did, something not quite, but Arly Burke turned out to be a very modern warship capable of solving many tasks, including the tasks of air defense of the AUG, PLO, support of the marine corps, etc.
    In general, one must not forget that having created some type of ships, the Americans are trying to modernize it to the last possible, bringing the combat capabilities of the ship in accordance with the new tasks and threats. a powerful multifunctional radar, which is used on this destroyer, otherwise it simply would not work, and an extra ten meters of height would still not make the weather. But the benefits of electronic scanning of the airspace carried out by this radar in azimuth and elevation in order to detect VCs and control their interception are obvious. And he is a radio horizon in Africa, a radio horizon, and for him the radar of the cm range is not very much and you will look even if you stand on tiptoe. In addition, one should not forget that such destroyers do not fight alone, but are used as part of the AUG, which, in addition to the radar of the destroyers, also has radars for the Hokaevs, Vikings, etc. "birds" that see much further than the "most" radar on the highest mast and can give target designation to the destroyer long before he himself can see anything. And the Aegis system should be criticized with caution. This system also does not stand still, but is constantly being modernized. In particular, the latest modifications of its missiles are quite capable of seriously fighting ballistic and other missiles of potential enemies.
    1. Santa Fe
      22 October 2013 21: 12
      +1
      Quote: gregor6549
      So in this case. The Americans began to create this ship in the mid 70s of the last century and took it into service in 1988.

      Adopted in 1991
      de facto head Burke passed the test for 2 more years

      this despite the fact that well-developed nodes were used on it:
      GTM GE LM2500 - have been used since the 1970s on Perry, Sprouts and Ticonderoges
      Aegis - tested since 1971 on the Norton Sound ship, put into service in 1983 on the Ticonderoga-type CD
      UVP Mk.41 - used on the Spruance and Tico since the mid-1980s ("Bunker Hill")
      all the rest of the weapons, tomahawks, cannons, helicopters - all serial samples that were in the ass for decades before the appearance of "Orly Burke"
      Quote: gregor6549
      tasks of air defense AUG, PLO. support of the marine corps

      The fact of the matter is that NO !!
      The destroyer is ineffective in each of these cases.
      On the first Berks there weren’t even helicopters, much has been said about air defense
      Quote: gregor6549
      and in add-ons it only says that to place in those days such a powerful multifunctional radar

      I needed one more specialized radar to detect NLC
      Yankees saved in vain
      Quote: gregor6549
      and an extra ten meters of height would not have made the weather anyway

      Radio horizon from a height of 10 meters ~ 11 km
      Radio horizon from a height of 20 meters ~ 16 km
      5 km is an extra 15 seconds
      Quote: gregor6549
      In addition, one should not forget that such destroyers do not fight alone

      You are deeply mistaken
      Take a look at the current position of the US Navy ships

      US AB position at the beginning of September
      At the same time, the destroyers Gravely, Mahen, Barry, Stout and Ramage were in the Mediterranean. Standard missile defense patrol in the Mediterranean. Without any Hokaev.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 23 October 2013 00: 05
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Radio horizon from a height of 10 meters ~ 11 km
        Radio horizon from a height of 20 meters ~ 16 km
        5 km is an extra 15 seconds

        As far as I remember, the weight of one IJIS antenna is more than 4 tons and they cannot be raised high, because it affects stability. The Chinese are trying to reduce weight to establish them on the masts 052D
        I have already indicated the use of MH-60Romeo on Berks. Thanks to his eye, Berks can detect enemy ships first and choose further tactics of action after identification. Why something, and speed characteristics is enough for him to maintain a safe distance. Helicopters can also imitate surface targets provoking the enemy into a missile attack, the Israelis once used this very technique very effectively.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 October 2013 00: 10
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          As far as I remember, the weight of one IJIS antenna is more than 4 tons and you can’t lift them high

          We need a SECOND radar, "sharpened" for the search of the NLC
          Like Daring or 1155
          Quote: Nayhas
          Why something, and speed characteristics is enough for him to maintain a safe distance.

          What is the safe distance?

          Daring. At the stern - anthracite black S1850 radar, decimeter range - control of air space in the far zone
          At the top of the foremast - centimeter SAMPSON to search for NLC on the background of water
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 23 October 2013 01: 21
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            We need a SECOND radar, "sharpened" for the search of the NLC
            Like Daring or 1155

            As far as I know, they decide the fight against NLC through the modernization of AN / SPY-1.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            What is the safe distance?

            Out of the reach of enemy RCC.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 October 2013 01: 29
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              they solve by upgrading the AN / SPY-1.

              It is useless to force SPY-1

              We need different ranges, different operation algorithms + antenna post height

              Out of the reach of enemy RCC.
              How about zur. The guard is 40-50 km from the enemy ship, above the WG. Rake 100%
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 23 October 2013 02: 14
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                It is useless to force SPY-1

                Well, of course, you probably haven't read about the Vaseline-9 option? This year was tested. On it SM-6 practiced over-the-horizon shooting and 127mm defeat. cannon VTs at heights "previously available only SM-2". The USS Chancellorsville (CG-62) is.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

                How about zur. The guard is 40-50 km from the enemy ship, above the WG. Rake 100%

                I meant that being outside the enemy's anti-ship missile zone, Burke may not be afraid of him. For a Mosquito it is 150 km. Well, at Chaban's "guard" can be 15 km. fly without fear. In 1164, of course, you can't fly like that, but it is quite possible to imitate surface targets without fear ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  23 October 2013 02: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  On it SM-6 practiced over-the-horizon shooting

                  who issued the TSU
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  127mm. cannon VTs at heights "previously available only SM-2"

                  This is a useless skill.
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Well, at Chaban's "guard" can be 15 km. fly without fear

                  More and more modern ships receive a zonal air defense system. S-300 and its Chinese counterparts, PAAMS (Singapore and Saud. Arabia-Lafayette), Aegis, SM-1MR, Calm-1, Israeli Barak-8.
                  The chances of a penguin spinner melt every day

                  The shepherd is as old as Burke. But if the need arises - 1155 can be equipped with Calm or Polement-Redoubt
    2. soldier of fortune
      soldier of fortune 23 October 2013 02: 51
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      In addition, one should not forget that such destroyers do not fight alone, but are used as part of the AUG, which, in addition to the radar of the destroyers, also has radars for the Hokaevs, Vikings, etc. "birds" that see much further than the "most" radar on the highest mast and can issue target designations to the destroyer long before he himself can see anything. And the Aegis system should be criticized with caution. This system also does not stand still, but is constantly being modernized. In particular, the latest modifications of its missiles are quite capable of seriously fighting ballistic and other missiles of potential enemies.


      Do you offer the US Navy to hang over each hokai pelvis? Or would any Ijes go out to sea accompanied by an AUG?

      I ALL AND ALWAYS CALL FOR HEALTH !!! Before you write something - THINK!

      The radar station Burkov became detrimental, due to its placement, still at the design stage! And the British decided not to step on the same rake!
  • Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 22 October 2013 17: 43
    +2
    There are a lot of critics about the article expressed: about jerking, shapkozakidatelstvo, ignorance of performance characteristics, etc. I will not join, it's none of my business - I understand ships no better than Mexican cuisine (here is the topic of "shooters" is closer to me) laughing
    I drew attention to something else: Oleg, talentedly lulling the vigilance of the site’s regulars with a completely atypical article about the Wehrmacht’s unfortunate allies, returned to my favorite marine theme (applause at this point) fellow ! How come back! How many times have already been noted that the author's syllable and manner have their own face and are clearly recognizable. This article reminded me personally of the work of a wonderful Russian science fiction writer Oleg Divov (isn't the author responsible for the story of "Wunderwafl" in 2010 ???) wink
    I look forward to the following articles - they really cheer you up after work, though drinks
    1. Santa Fe
      22 October 2013 20: 57
      +1
      Quote: Raphael_83
      A lot of critics here addressed the article: about juggling, cap-hatred, ignorance of TTX

      Once Churchill was told after the speech:
      - See how many people have come to support you!
      Churchill answered:
      - If only they dragged me to the scaffold, people would have gathered 2 times more

      / I do not compare myself with Churchill. but this logic always works when you do something in public

      THX. Rafael for your feedback
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 22 October 2013 20: 14
    +1
    Of course, I am glad, together with the author, that our BOD1155.1 in some places seems to be steeper than the amerikosovsky EM, although it is debatable. But the number of Orly launched and "alive" wassat And with such series for shipyards, technologies have been worked out and minimized in price. It is not "on the knee" to sculpt every body. I vain hope that any of the new projects of the frigates of the Russian Navy will also roll out in double-digit series.
  • Strong
    Strong 22 October 2013 20: 34
    +1
    Oleg's articles are a suitable weapon of the information war. It gives rise to emotions in the first place - good or bad, depending on the reader’s worldview.

    And I'm still waiting for an authoritative opinion about the TAVKR "Kuznetsov". In the form of an article with pictures. In view of the author's focus on the naval theme and extensive knowledge in this direction - well, very interesting. Do we need such a ship as it should be, there is little alternative history. And so as always poetic.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 22 October 2013 22: 53
      0
      Not Oleg, but I have an opinion. Carriers are still weak in their main armament: the wing. I believe that with the advent of the corresponding multi-functional fighter and AWACS aircraft, the situation will become obvious in favor of aircraft carriers. By the way, I think that pure aircraft carriers without strike weapons are nonsense: a mountain of weapons and there is no way to use it promptly and in a hefty volley. Kuzya is a very solid aircraft carrier: he would have a corresponding wing, yes Granites should be replaced by UKKS, and air defense missiles from Buka M3 with an appropriate upgrade of systems.
      1. Strong
        Strong 23 October 2013 23: 40
        -2
        Quote: Tektor
        Not Oleg, but I have an opinion. Carriers are still weak in their main armament: the wing. I believe that with the advent of the corresponding multi-functional fighter and AWACS aircraft, the situation will become obvious in favor of aircraft carriers. By the way, I think that pure aircraft carriers without strike weapons are nonsense: a mountain of weapons and there is no way to use it promptly and in a hefty volley. Kuzya is a very solid aircraft carrier: he would have a corresponding wing, yes Granites should be replaced by UKKS, and air defense missiles from Buka M3 with an appropriate upgrade of systems.


        The MiG-29K will be here soon - this is the IFI, and the corresponding one has nowhere else to go. A springboard can do, easier, more universal than the Su-33.

        AWACS - only a helicopter. Comrade Kaptsov in one of his devastating articles indicated that an AWACS helicopter was enough.
        1. Santa Fe
          24 October 2013 03: 39
          -2
          Quote: Fuerte
          Comrade Kaptsov in one of his devastating articles indicated that an AWACS helicopter was enough.

          Looking for what, dear Fuerte
          1. Strong
            Strong 24 October 2013 19: 53
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Looking for what, dear Fuerte


            At least for such an important matter as air defense of a ship’s formation.

            http://topwar.ru/24966-blef-i-realnost-amerikanskiy-avianosec-tipa-nimic.html

            "The only" narrow "niche in which modern aircraft carriers can be used is the air defense of a squadron in the open ocean. But for solving defensive tasks, the power of the Nimitz is excessive. all kinds of nuclear reactors and complex catapults. (A real example of such a system is the British aircraft carriers under construction of the Queen Elizabeth type). " (from)
  • stayer
    stayer 22 October 2013 20: 53
    0
    Of course, they (Americans) Eagles bake like pies. Even if he loses in something to our BOD, then they are many times more. The very first combat defeat will cause a global modernization of all ships. Amerikosy will not release (just that!) A couple of ships from the series, and all the rest will receive both anti-ship missiles and close defense and the correct radars. After all, the Americans themselves also know about the shortcomings of the ships, and not just Oleg. But they have it so, it is necessary for someone to wash themselves with blood for a start ...


    I do not protect and do not condone amers, just the truth of life.
  • Arkan
    Arkan 22 October 2013 21: 54
    +1
    One Mosquito is cheaper than any Burke. It is necessary to modernize the anti-ship missiles.
  • I think so
    I think so 23 October 2013 21: 31
    0
    The article does not sufficiently deeply analyze the PURPOSE of the described ship ... But the point is that these ships are not intended for WAR! These ships are for missile defense and nothing else. This purpose is ALL defined. Why does a ship that will only shoot down strategic missiles need bells and whistles against submarines or flying low anti-ship missiles? Absolutely not needed! These ships, and especially their mass production, A VERY bad omen for Russia ... This means that the USA REALLY PREPARES FOR A NUCLEAR WAR WITH RUSSIA ... Deployment of such ships in large numbers anywhere can provide a sufficiently reliable missile defense both around Russia and around the USA. I do not share the bravura tone of the article about this ship ... Here at the time it is time to grab the strategic command of the Russian Federation ...
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 23 October 2013 22: 34
    0
    Great article. Everything is thoroughly compared and justifiably directly tears for the American admirals are welling up. Just why the author does not consider burke in the American concept of its intended use, but from the point of view of the concept of using our fleet, it is not entirely clear. Burke was created and is being optimized as a marine component of missile defense, from this point of view everything is fine with it, unlike the mentioned BOD Project 1155.1, which, for example, is generally unarmed from the point of view of missile defense. No battles at sea with the participation of the Burke in the foreseeable future are not expected. The concept of war among the Americans provides for a disarming strike and parrying a retaliatory strike of strategic nuclear forces, and this is the very parry, this is the Burke’s task, that’s it.
    Nevertheless, our very modest surface and submarine forces (except for strategic nuclear forces) will be occupied with what they are optimized for, the fight not against the Berks, but against the aircraft carrier formations, and these are the very aircraft carrier formations of forces and means for fighting ships and submarines quite enough. This, by the way, is a balanced fleet with a clear doctrine of construction and use, and not what we portray. And when China can claim something with the help of naval force, the production of new destroyers will begin according to the plan. I’m sure if they’re needed, they’ll optimize them even for the struggle with the Chinese fleet, at least with the Russian, if it becomes something sane, at least fight with aliens.
  • Dr_engie
    Dr_engie 4 February 2018 15: 17
    0
    A bunch of words and not a single confirmed fact about the shortcomings is a frequent guest at VO.