Military Review

Cruisers die without a fight

102



What is heavier: a kilogram of cotton or a kilogram of lead?

This material is a logical continuation of the recent discussion about the mystical "disappearance" of articles of load on modern ships - http://topwar.ru/33625-pochemu-sovremennye-korabli-tak-slaby.html

Engineers of past generations inexplicably managed to “squeeze” into the cruiser hull with a displacement of ≈10 thousand tons of large-caliber guns in massive rotating towers, place bulky machine rooms with steam turbine power plants, provide housing for 900 people of the crew and cover all the crews. mnogosantimetrovaya steel armor!

The trouble is that modern shipbuilders hardly have enough of the same 10 thousand tons for the construction of a bezbronnaya "tin" with computers and light launchers for missiles. Weight and dimensions of the modern weapons little resemble the performance characteristics of the main caliber of the cruiser “M. Bitter ”(pr.26-bis, 1938 year) - 247 tons without ammunition, thick steel barbets and the mechanization of artillery grabs.

Modern computers, antennas and radars look very funny against the background of the 110-meter armored belts of the old ship (steel plates width - 3,4 meters; thickness - 70 mm). The total mass of the armor of the cruiser "M. Bitter "- 1536 tons!

At the same time, the full displacement “M. Gorky "was only 9700 tons. Like a modern cruiser or destroyer!


Cruiser project 26-bis

Armor, heavy weapons, engine rooms with fuel oil boilers, “extra” 360 tons of fuel ... it all disappeared. The crew dropped three times. But why is the displacement of modern ships remained at the same level?

The paradox has a number of simple explanations:

1. Jokes with metacentric height and stability were not in vain. Modern radar antennas are quite lightweight, compared with armor cruisers of the war years, but look where the antenna devices are located - on the roofs of the superstructures and the tops of the masts! The “lever rule” comes into effect - in order to avoid tipping and keeping the value of metacentric height in the normal range, you have to add hundreds of tons of ballast in the underwater part of the ship.

2. Electronics units weigh a little, but their placement requires a lot of free space. Tomahawks can no longer be delivered here or tons of fuel poured. Internal compartments "swell" in size - the designers "squeeze" them into huge superstructures. Compared with their glorious predecessors, modern cruisers have a less dense layout, but larger dimensions - as a result, a similar amount of water spills out from under their bottoms (“If the body is thrown into the water, it will not sink”, Greek Archimedes said ).

In addition, bulky superstructures have a large sail area, which also adversely affects stability - it is necessary to compensate for their influence with a regular portion of ballast (filled with lead and blocks of depleted uranium along the ship's keel).



3. Fresh shipbuilding trends:

- elevators and conveyor belts along the whole ship hull;

- automated systems for the localization of combat damage and the struggle for survivability (smoke and water detectors, automatic locking of hatches and doors, video cameras, signal processors, automatic fire extinguishing systems);

- sealing and elements of anti-nuclear protection (overpressure is maintained inside the cruiser hull, preventing incoming air from entering outside the ventilation system filters);

- increased requirements for power supply, cooling systems and air conditioning in the compartment where the electronics are installed;

- comfortable living conditions on board - gyms, swimming pools, restaurant meals ...

As a result, all these items and "devoured" the reserve load, freed up after the refusal of large-caliber artillery and heavy armor.

However, there was no intrigue here from the very beginning. We compared ships of different countries and epochs: despite some common displacement and dimensions, the Orly Burk series IIA and the cruiser M. Bitter "- completely unlike ships, designed at different times by different schools of shipbuilding for different tasks. It is clear that an explanation of the mysterious "disappearance" of load items should be sought in the differences between the level of technical development and the standards of ship design - now and 70 years ago.

But here come into force the laws of thriller. Happy End is not close yet ...

The Tale of the collapsing Teremka

The paradox with the mysterious "disappearance" of articles of the load, in an even more rigid form, is also observed today. Moreover, in contrast to the previous, purely theoretical comparison, the current situation threatens to become a textbook example in shipbuilding.



Ticondeur-class missile cruiser and destroyer URO of the Orly Burk.
One country One flag. One time. The same tasks - escort and launching missile attacks with SLCM. The cruiser and the destroyer use similar types of weapons, the same means of detection and communication under the control of the Aegis BIUS. Identical electronics. Identical mechanisms. Identical GEM - four gas turbines LM2500 on each of the ships ...

And yet they are different. So much so that the differences between "Tika" and "Burke" cause a considerable amount of controversy among lovers of naval subjects.

Cruisers die without a fight


A brief acquaintance with the paper description of the cruiser and destroyer (the number and type of radar / fuel supply / number of CWP cells) can cause a confusion among the layman: why did the Americans abandon the construction of such wonderful ships as Ticonderox and concentrated all their efforts on Berkov? ”

Even the most sophisticated of the Orly Burke modifications looks like a complete misery against the background of the missile cruiser. Judge for yourself:

- The cruiser on the 25% surpasses the destroyer in the number of rocket launchers - 122 UVP cells against 90 ... 96 cells onboard the "Burke".

- The cruiser has a twofold advantage in artillery - in contrast to the Ticonderoga, the Burke is deprived of aft 127 mm gun;

- The cruiser has more fuel on the 18%. Ticonderog sailing range - 6000 miles versus 4890 Burke miles at 20 economic speed.

- The cruiser has a significant advantage in the field of detection tools and fire control systems: four radar target illumination AN / SPG-62 against three radar lights on the "Orly Burke."



In addition, the cruiser has a "bonus" in the form of an additional airborne radar AN / SPS-49. Why did the Aegis-cruiser need the old two-coordinate radar? According to one version, the Yankees did not trust the newest AN / SPY-1 and decided to install a backup radar. In addition, the duplication of detection tools increased the combat stability of the ship - in the event of the failure of the main radar, the proven SPS-49 entered into force.

According to the opposite version, the installation of the SPS-49 had a much deeper sacred meaning. The decimeter SPS-49 in its work covers the frequency range 902-928 MHz. Radio waves at these frequencies are weakly reflected from the surface of the water, which is of critical importance when detecting low-flying targets.

Whatever it was, the AN / SPS-49 radar was installed on each of the Ticonderog. A highly located antenna post weighing 17 tons shifted the center of gravity of the cruiser up to 0,152 m, which, of course, led to a decrease in its stability. To compensate for the negative effect, 70 tons of ballast were added.

Is amazing?



But even more surprisingly, the following fact will be heard - the displacement of "Ticonderoga" and "Orly Burke" is the same.

Or, if to speak in exact figures:

"Ticonderoga" - 9600 "long" tons (or 9750 metric)
"Orly Burke" Series IIA - 9515 "long" tons (or 9670 metric)
- according to the Naval Vessel Register

But let me! - the surprised reader exclaims, - We removed a significant part of the weapon, dismantled several radars and reduced the fuel supply by 200 tons ... how did the displacement stay the same? !!

Surely Tikondery has its own terrible secret. But where to find the truth in this confusing case?

Let's take a brief visual inspection of the "crime scene."

Oh wow! (Amazed exhalation.) One glance at the cruiser is enough to be terrified by its stability margin - it's amazing how this clumsy box still hasn't turned over!



What is one helicopter pad "Tikonderogi" - located closer to the center of the body (where the amplitude of oscillations is less with longitudinal pitching), it is two decks tallerthan the Orly Burke stern helipad! It is not difficult to guess how this affects the stability of the cruiser ... And what will be the result (a hundred tons of additional ballast).



Even with the naked eye it is noticeable what a huge “tower” of the superstructure is in “Ticonderoga”. Moreover, there are two superstructures - fore and aft. Mass of structures + additional ballast = cumulative effect of increasing displacement.

Compare the installation height of the Phalanx anti-aircraft guns and fire control radars on the cruiser and destroyer.

Be sure to check out the 40-meter bulwark in the cruiser's bow.

Such tricks are not in vain - compared to the Orly Burke, the cruiser must expend a significant part of its displacement by the dead lead load in the lower part of the hull. And besides, he carries a lot more weapons, fuel and electronic systems than Orly Burk!



It’s just incredible how the cruiser displacement remains at the same level as the simpler, lighter and weaker armed destroyer. Miracles?

Hardly. There must be a logical explanation for everything.

Some mysterious element in the “Orly Burke” design “devoured” the entire allocated displacement reserve - after optimizing the appearance, removing thousands of tons of excess ballast, abandoning a number of weapons and systems?

What if a battalion is hiding inside the Burke’s corps? tanks Abrams? No, what if it’s true?

Or, maybe, the displacement reserve was spent on armor and increasing the level of protection of the destroyer?

Hell no! The real level of security of the Orly Burke, clearly demonstrated the case of undermining USS Cole (DDG-67) - Port of Aden, 2000 year. Close explosion equivalent in power 200 ... 300 kg TNT completely destroyed the destroyer. 17 dead. 39 wounded sailors.

Security “Burke” is not fundamentally different from security “Ticonderoga” - local booking of important premises with the use of Kevlar and 25 mm plates made of aluminum-magnesium alloy.

You can begin to argue from the reverse - the reserve load for the installation of new systems and huge add-ons could not appear from nowhere. The creators of Tikonderoga obviously saved on something. And saved considerably. But on what?

Gas turbine GEM cruisers are almost identical to the destroyer. Fuel supply? He, on the contrary, has been increased. It remains the last option - the body ...

... During operation, cruisers were detected in 27 add-ons over 3000 cracks

- www.navytimes.com, “The epidemic of cracking on Ticonderogs”

In 1983, the supership was launched on the sea - the USS Ticonderoga missile cruiser (CG-47), equipped with the advanced combat information-control system "Aegis". At the stern of the cruiser, a huge banner flared in the wind: “Stand by admiral Gorshkov:“ Aegis ”- at sea!” (Watch out, Admiral Gorshkov! Aegis at sea!).

If you look at the event without the star-striped pathos, it becomes obvious that the Yankees brought to the sea an incompatible rusty bucket. Superpuper cruiser cracks at the seams under the weight of its own weight and falls apart even without any fire influence from the enemy.


The Aegis system was also not that cool. The only trophy of American sailors is IranAir’s passenger Airbus, which Aegis’s radars have identified as a fighter. 290 passengers at once to the other world. The commander of the cruiser "Vincennes" - thanks for composure and fearlessness in a combat situation. And the characteristic statement of George W. Bush: "I will never apologize for America."

In an effort to "shove" into the modest hull inherited by the Ticonderomes inherited from the Spruens type ships, the maximum number of weapons and radio electronics, the Americans did not find anything better than using the aluminum-magnesium alloy 5456 as a construction material for superstructures.

In principle, the decision is quite logical - despite its potential fire hazard, light AMG alloys were widely used on ships around the world. But the Yankees outdid everyone - the Ticonderog superstructures were monstrously overloaded, their design was carried out at the limit of its strength. The result was not long in coming - the cruiser began to burst at the seams right in front of the amazed sailors.

And these are not some small microcracks visible only through a microscope. The cruiser is cracking quite seriously and truly.

A new crack of length 8 feet (2,4 meters) has been discovered in the superstructure of the cruiser Port Royal.

- Post for September 2009 of the year. It is noteworthy that Port Royal suffered - the newest of Tikonderog, which was commissioned in 1994 and just returned from major repairs after landing on a reef in February 2009.

The cruiser was out of action for six months. Restoration of a cracked deck, along with work aimed at preventing similar scenarios in the future (ha-ha), cost the Pentagon $ 14 million dollars. The Yankees, if possible, reinforce the design, apply special welding methods (Ultrasonic Impact Treatment), try to extend the life of their Ticonderox to 2028 year. However, there are serious suspicions that the number of cruisers will begin to gradually decline in the coming years - the Crack Plague epidemic (the plague of cracking) leaves seafarers no other choice.


Port Royal, firmly seated on a reef near the coast of. Oahu

Already in the spring of 2013 of the year, it was planned to write off four cruisers - USS Cowpens (CG-63), USS Anzio (CG-68), USS Vicksburg (CG 69) and USS Port Royal (CG-73), which have the greatest damage to superstructures. However, the fleet still defended their ships, "knocking out" the necessary funds for their regular overhaul.

Returning to the main theme of this story - namely lightweight aluminum superstructures with minimal safety margin, provided the Tikonderom with the necessary reserve of displacement, which was spent on the installation of additional weapons, radar and increased fuel reserves.

However, when the deck cracks beneath your feet, and the “tower” of the superstructure all the time threatens to tumble to the side, drowning the entire command staff of the ship in waves - this situation hardly contributes to increasing the morale among the crew members of the super cruiser.

The next time the Americans were more cautious: when creating a destroyer of the Orly Burk type, it was decided to sacrifice part of the weapon, radio electronics blocks and navigation range in favor of increasing the strength of the hull and increasing its stability margin. The “Burke”, in contrast to the cruiser, has completely steel superstructures - they, together with a new, more “stocky” and robust hull, as a result “absorbed” the entire released reserve load.


Written off "Ticonderoga" rust at the pier of Philadelphia Naval Shipyard






Based on:
http://www.nvr.navy.mil/
http://navsource.org/
http://www.naval-technology.com/
http://www.navytimes.com/
http://www.wikipedia.org/
Author:
102 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SHILO
    SHILO 25 October 2013 08: 33
    54
    The soldier asks.

    Comrade lawmaker: what is heavier: a kilogram of cotton wool or a kilogram of iron? lol
    - of course a kilogram of iron! recourse
    - and here it is not right! laughing
    - But, I’ll give you a kilogram of iron on the head to find out what is right! fool soldier
    1. Airman
      Airman 25 October 2013 10: 39
      34
      No need to engage in capsizing, underestimate the enemy. They have "Port Royal" after landing on the reef six months in repair, we have no accidents for several years in repair. Negative experiences are experiences too, and learn from mistakes. It is good that they have bad things, and bad that they have a lot of ships.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 26 October 2013 01: 20
        +1
        Repair repair discord
    2. alexng
      alexng 25 October 2013 16: 09
      +3
      But the problem with cotton and iron is not at all trivial. For the layman, of course, they are equal to each other, but in reality it’s not so simple ... because if a weighted kilogram of cotton wool is compressed by a powerful press, then the obtained compressed cotton wool will be heavier than a kilogram. hi
      1. PLO
        PLO 25 October 2013 16: 16
        +7
        since if a weighted kilogram of cotton wool is compressed by a powerful press, then the obtained compressed cotton wool will be heavier than a kilogram.

        and if both materials become liquid, it will become even more interesting)
        1. MAG
          MAG 25 October 2013 17: 38
          14
          To translate everything into a liquid is our national fun))))
          1. 755962
            755962 25 October 2013 21: 25
            +4
            I must admit and pay tribute - "Burke" is one of the best ships in the world .... whatever one may say.
        2. Cyber7
          Cyber7 25 October 2013 22: 33
          0
          Do not be surprised, but the answer will not change.
          They will be equal.
          Weight and mass on one planet depend on the gravity of the planet, and not on linear dimensions or density. They are proportional to one g.
          In a liquid, solid, gaseous or other other state.
          This is the "squaring the circle" of this joke.
          The change in volume directly depends on the density (or weight, or mass, or linear dimensions).
      2. Cyber7
        Cyber7 25 October 2013 22: 24
        +4
        A decrease in volume with an increase in density does not affect the mass in any way.
        With the same gravity (9.8 G is the Earth’s surface), 1 kg of cotton and iron will weigh the same for ANY degree of packing.
        hi
        1. PLO
          PLO 25 October 2013 23: 30
          0
          A decrease in volume with an increase in density does not affect bulk.
          With the same gravity (9.8 G - the surface of the Earth), 1 kg of wool and iron will
          to weight
          equally for ANY degree of packaging.

          uh .. you are wrong.
          otherwise there would be no puns and jokes on this subject.
          Weight and mass in physics are different concepts.
          1. Cyber7
            Cyber7 25 October 2013 23: 39
            +1
            I know. That is why I mentioned "the same gravity".
            Quote: Cyber7
            With the same gravity (9.8 G - the surface of the Earth)

            Any doubts?
            1. PLO
              PLO 25 October 2013 23: 59
              0
              I know. That is why I mentioned "the same gravity".

              gravity has nothing to do with it.
              you forgot about the Archimedean force
              1. Cyber7
                Cyber7 26 October 2013 00: 20
                +2
                Swim downstream. There I mention the power of Archimedes.
                In Wiki (Oh! How would we live without Wiki ?!) this force is denoted by p (density of the substance into which the body is immersed), V (volume of the immersed body) and q (acceleration of gravity).
                p and V are linearly dependent, g is a constant for a given planet (Earth).
                I can agree that weight and mass on the Moon are not the same as on Earth.
                I’m ready to discuss this over a beer and convince you of your wrong. drinks
                1. PLO
                  PLO 26 October 2013 00: 28
                  -1
                  this force is denoted by p (density of the substance into which the body is immersed), V (volume of the immersed body) and q (acceleration of gravity).

                  tell me how the density of the Atmosphere (we are immersed in it) depends on the volumes of mine and your bodies?

                  I’m ready to discuss this over a beer and convince you of your wrong. drinks

                  thank you drinks but it’s impossible to convince me of a wrong beer wink

                  ps
                  I can agree that weight and mass on the Moon are not the same as on Earth.

                  weight and mass are not the same anywhere.
                  Weight is measured in Newtons, and mass in kilograms (in SI)
                  1. Cyber7
                    Cyber7 26 October 2013 02: 04
                    0
                    Quote: olp
                    tell me how the density of the Atmosphere (we are immersed in it) depends on the volumes of mine and your bodies?

                    No way. This is a constant for a given planet at a given height from the surface at a given latitude (and other side factors). The weight and mass of our bodies depend on their volume, density and gravity on this planet. I already wrote about this.
                    That is why g. All other variables are linearly dependent on each other.
                    Quote: olp
                    thank you, but for a glass of beer it’s impossible to convince me of wrong

                    If you are a stubborn skeptic, unable to change your point of view under the pressure of "other" (possibly quite reasonable, but not acceptable to you for one reason or another) facts, there is no point in continuing this polemic. It's not worth reading further - a waste of time.
                    .
                    Quote: olp
                    Weight is measured in Newtons, and mass in kilograms (in SI)

                    Read at least the same Wiki (on the topics "mass", "weight", "Newton", "gravitational constant, Newton's constant").
                    Personally, the mere mention of "Newton is a derived unit" would make me think, and instead of a sapper shovel, pick up at least a bayonet. But I would advise you to take a shovel.
                    Dig so dig.
                    Good luck.
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 26 October 2013 02: 34
                      -5
                      however, you are very charged. I apparently made a mistake in you. I am forced to reject your offer to drink, for I do not drink with fools.


                      That is why g. All other variables are linearly dependent on each other.

                      You shouldn’t be so vivid to demonstrate your meagerness.
                      if you froze stupidity it was worth admitting it.

                      Read at least the same Wiki (on the topics "mass", "weight", "Newton", "gravitational constant, Newton's constant").
                      Personally, the mere mention of "Newton is a derived unit" would make me think, and instead of a sapper shovel, pick up at least a bayonet. But I would advise you to take a shovel.
                      Dig so dig.
                      Good luck.

                      you are very heavy lol case, for they are not able to understand even the meaning of words written by hand.

                      however, judging by what you wrote and how well you understand shovels, I can conclude that you did not finish school and now work as a digger lol
                      so to speak, personally change the density of the atmosphere with your exorbitant work.

                      ps please don’t dig anything tomorrow. I need clear and sunny weather.
                      1. Cyber7
                        Cyber7 26 October 2013 03: 06
                        +4
                        Quote: olp
                        for I do not drink with fools.

                        Your right.
                        Quote: olp
                        You shouldn’t be so vivid to demonstrate your meagerness.
                        if you froze stupidity it was worth admitting it.

                        I am not a hypocrite. If he froze stupidity - I’m ready to admit. But
                        Quote: olp
                        it’s impossible to convince me of wrong

                        are you god Then you are absolutely right and there is no point in arguing with you. I admit that I am not worthy of you. I am only a man. My opinion is subjective, but yours is objective. I’m no match for you. Forgive me, Lord.
                        Quote: olp
                        however, judging by what you wrote and how well you understand shovels, I can conclude that you did not finish school and now work as a digger

                        Judging by how you write, I can assume that you had a triple in Russian.
                        But I could be wrong.
                        I have not dug trenches since 1987. Once again, you made a mistake in your assumptions.
                        Quote: olp
                        so to speak, personally change the density of the atmosphere with your exorbitant work.

                        Usually, the transition to individuals is considered unwillingness to defend their point of view reasonably.
                        Your right.
                        Goodbye.
                      2. PLO
                        PLO 26 October 2013 03: 25
                        -4
                        Your right.

                        Who would doubt that.

                        are you god Then you are absolutely right and there is no point in arguing with you.

                        it was a comic answer to a comic offer to discuss this issue over a beer, when I had no doubt about your adequacy. you have obvious problems with logic, if you took this answer seriously.


                        Judging by how you write, I can assume that you had a triple in Russian.

                        you can’t just be wrong. you were mistaken as usual.
                        in addition, you made a syntax error in this sentence winked
                        it's funny lol


                        Usually, the transition to individuals is considered unwillingness to defend their point of view reasonably.

                        what irony.
                        I hope in the future you will think about it before turning to the individual.

                        Goodbye.

                        No, I don’t want to see you.
              2. old man54
                old man54 27 October 2013 12: 19
                0
                Quote: Cyber7
                q (gravitational acceleration) .p and V are linearly dependent, g - constant for a given planet (Earth).

                this is the last several thousand years, it is a constant, gravity and the acceleration of gravity as a result of this force, but in general over the history of life on Earth, it has changed regularly. wink
      3. Su24
        Su24 26 October 2013 22: 09
        0
        Quote: Cyber7
        A decrease in volume with an increase in density does not affect the mass in any way.
        With the same gravity (9.8 G is the Earth’s surface), 1 kg of cotton and iron will weigh the same for ANY degree of packing.
        hi


        What kind of gravity do we have !? 9,8 zhe ??? Haha, do you understand that this is exactly one earthly gravity, as well as pressure measured in atmospheres?

        And your answer is irrelevant. Try yourself to drop 1 kg of cotton wool and 1 kg of iron on your foot. This will immediately clarify the understanding.
      4. alexng
        alexng 28 October 2013 08: 26
        0
        Quote: Cyber7
        With the same gravity (9.8 G is the Earth’s surface), 1 kg of cotton and iron will weigh the same for ANY degree of packing.


        And if you squeeze out air from the cotton, what will happen? I repeat once again: the task is not entirely trivial
    3. Semen Semyonitch
      Semen Semyonitch 26 October 2013 02: 32
      +1
      Quote: alexneg
      But the problem with cotton and iron is not at all trivial. For the layman, of course, they are equal to each other, but in reality it’s not so simple ... because if a weighted kilogram of cotton wool is compressed by a powerful press, then the obtained compressed cotton wool will be heavier than a kilogram. hi


      As you do not press a kilogram, it will remain a kilogram ... Only the volume will change ...
      1. PLO
        PLO 26 October 2013 02: 37
        0
        As you do not press a kilogram, it will remain a kilogram ..Only the volume will change..

        in this salt.
        the volume will change - the weight in the Earth’s atmosphere will also change, but the mass will certainly remain unchanged)
        1. old rocket man
          old rocket man 26 October 2013 03: 23
          +2
          Quote: olp
          As you do not press a kilogram, it will remain a kilogram ..Only the volume will change..

          in this salt.
          the volume will change - the weight in the Earth’s atmosphere will also change, but the mass will certainly remain unchanged)

          Weight, dear, does not change from volume, there is such a concept-density, here it depends on volume, and weight is mass times acceleration of gravity.
          Fihika does not depend on politics laughing
          1. PLO
            PLO 26 October 2013 03: 37
            0
            Fihika doesn’t depend on politics laughing

            exactly. physics she is impartial.
            only theoreticians who are at the forefront of fundamental science do not talk about this)
            they have their own "politics" there winked


            Weight, dear, does not change from volume, there is such a concept-density, here it depends on volume, and weight is mass times acceleration of gravity.

            Weight, dear, in this case depends on the volume.
            The following forces act on a body immersed in the Earth’s atmosphere:
            1) the force of attraction is equal to the mass of the body multiplied by the acceleration of free fall, which is directed "downward"
            2) the force of Archimedes, equal to the product of the density of the gas (liquid) in which the body is immersed (in this case, the density of the atmosphere), the acceleration of gravity and body volume.
            Archimedes' force is directed "up" and seeks to push the body out of the earth's atmosphere.

            As a result, the weight of the body (i.e., the force with which the body acts on the support) is equal to the sum of the above forces.
            everything is simple, dear. yes
        2. Cyber7
          Cyber7 26 October 2013 03: 26
          +1
          Quote: olp
          in this salt. the volume will change - the weight in the Earth’s atmosphere will also change, but the mass will certainly remain unchanged)

          It's funny Now I understand what our misunderstanding of each other is. Here in this phrase:
          Quote: SHILO
          I’ll give you a kilogram of iron on the head to find out what is right!

          I understood you. I didn’t take offense at the minus.
          1. PLO
            PLO 26 October 2013 03: 44
            -2
            It's funny Now I understand what our misunderstanding of each other is. Here in this phrase:

            our misunderstanding of each other arose due to the fact that you are a stupid, narrow-minded and stubborn boor.

            I understood you. I didn’t take offense at the minus.

            really do not be offended.
            first put a plus, then a minus.


            I understood you. Minus no offenseИlsya

            Judging by how you write, I can assume that you had a triple in Russian. (C)
            what irony lol
    4. Patriot.ru.
      Patriot.ru. 26 October 2013 20: 49
      0
      If you compress a kilogram of cotton wool. So it turns out how many kilograms ???
  2. Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 25 October 2013 21: 26
    0
    Comrade Major General, have you just remembered the anecdote from "Stalker"? There are many more different ...
  • ramsi
    ramsi 25 October 2013 08: 38
    +6
    Well, why, then, do not switch to catamarans?
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 October 2013 09: 22
    10
    The article is super :)))))
    Only one "small" nuance
    But even more surprisingly, the following fact will be heard - the displacement of "Ticonderoga" and "Orly Burke" is the same.
    Or, if to speak in exact figures:
    "Ticonderoga" - 9600 "long" tons (or 9750 metric)
    "Orly Burke" Series IIA - 9515 "long" tons (or 9670 metric)
    - according to the Naval Vessel Register

    But I didn’t believe it - because Arly Burke was easier than Ticonderoga in life. From this it became strange to me and I climbed onto the site of these bulk, which without luck got into the register - check. It turned out
    http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CG47.htm
    TICONDEROGA (CG 47)
    Light Displacement: 7646 tons
    Dead Weight: 2496 tons
    Full Displacement: 10142 tons
    И
    http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/DDG51.htm
    USS ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51)
    Light Displacement: 6691 tons
    Dead Weight: 2269 tons
    Full Displacement: 8960 tons
    And even in the newest IΙA series, this same Full Displacement is still only 9515 tons http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/DDG86.htm
    Equal displacement? Nude nude
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 25 October 2013 12: 33
      +4
      10142 versus 9515 is an almost equal displacement with such a difference in armament.
    2. Santa Fe
      25 October 2013 14: 30
      +6
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Equal displacement? Nude nude

      Here you give!

      As if you don’t know that Ticonderoge there were two sub-series:
      the first - five cruisers CG-47 ... CG-51. These ships were equipped with girder launchers Mk.26 (empty weight 265 tons having forgiven 119 tons Mk.41). They (5 cruisers) were the first to fly from the fleet, because got it with their jokes - Mk.26 is less effective in battle, but much more demanding in operation (cooling / power consumption / maintenance labor).

      CG-49 Vincennes


      second sub-series - 22 cruisers CG-52 ... 73. Armament - 122 cells UVP Mk.41. It was these ships that were compared to the Berks
      For example - http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/CG60.htm
      Normandy - Full displacement 9600 tons

      CG-59 "Princeton" with below deck UVP
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 October 2013 21: 35
        +2
        Oleg, this is the rarest case in recent history when you are absolutely right, and I was mistaken laughing
        1. Santa Fe
          25 October 2013 23: 56
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          the rarest case in modern history when you are absolutely right, and I was mistaken

          Well, there is such a thing, usually you categorically do not recognize them))
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2013 00: 03
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            usually you categorically do not recognize them))

            Nope :) I always admit my mistakes. Just doing them very rarely :)
        2. tlauicol
          tlauicol 26 October 2013 05: 49
          0
          And there are spots on the sun :)
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 25 October 2013 09: 25
    +1
    The most interesting thing is that despite these cracks and small armaments, the United States wants to have berks or similar ships in the 90 Navy. The question is, how will they succeed with such problems?
    1. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 25 October 2013 10: 05
      10
      Cracks on "Ticonderogs" and on "Burks" everything is ok.
      1. AVV
        AVV 25 October 2013 15: 17
        +2
        The more cracks, the faster these cruisers will write off! And it may not be enough for new money, unless of course the printing press is launched !!! And the more America is wasted, the less possibilities it has left! And this is only for us !!! Faster industry will bring the composition of our fleet closer to the US !!! But for this you need to try !!!
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 25 October 2013 21: 59
          +2
          Quote: AVV
          The more cracks, the faster these cruisers will write off! And it may not be enough for new money, unless of course the printing press is launched !!! And the more America is wasted, the less possibilities it has left! And this is only for us !!! Faster industry will bring the composition of our fleet closer to the US !!! But for this you need to try !!!


          I just want to clarify.
          Are you talking about our fleet (in the ranks it seems like 1 nuclear cruiser, 2 conventional, 2 destroyers and 9-10 BOD totaling 14-15 ships) and about the American (84 Ticonderoga and Orly)?
          And you about our industry, which has been building a new frigate for about 7 years, promises to lay the first destroyer in a series of 6 pieces by 2016 (and looking at Gorshkov, they’re unlikely to build a destroyer before 2025)? Compared to 2.5 Orly, built in the US annually?
          If only some other mathematics will be applied ... in this reality does not converge
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 October 2013 09: 39
    21
    we still have to envy this "cracked" fleet, and the "stupid" system "Aegis" ... our fleet rotted without even cracking crying
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 October 2013 09: 46
    19
    If you look at the event without the star-striped pathos, it becomes obvious that the Yankees brought to the sea an incompatible rusty bucket. Superpuper cruiser cracks at the seams under the weight of its own weight and falls apart even without any fire influence from the enemy.

    You read this and think how the head Ticonderoga 20 years passed through the seas and did not fall apart? How did Yorktown not fall to pieces after being selflessly pushed along its port side in the Black Sea?
    Oleg continues his line of "debunking" the American Navy. This is especially true of the Aegis system. The pier does not correspond to the declared characteristics and that's it. In this case, the only "proof" is the incident with the destruction of the Iranian airliner that occurred in 1988. I don't quite understand why this is a sign of the uselessness of Aegis? In general, the tendency when all the characteristics and declared results of US weapons tests are questioned and denied, and the same with regard to domestic developments is 100% taken for granted, has recently been very widespread. When this comes from a person who is clearly not stupid and versed in the topic, then the question of his bias arises unambiguously.
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 25 October 2013 10: 36
      0
      Quote: Nayhas
      In general, the trend is when all the characteristics and declared results of US arms tests are questioned

      Quote: Nayhas
      and the same with regard to domestic developments is perceived 100% faith,

      Quote: Nayhas
      When this comes from a person who is clearly not stupid and versed in the topic, the question of his bias definitely arises.



      And equal to the turnover!

      And you just for a second admit = people are the same ?, etc. and they have a "class" and we have "byaka". It can't be like that !!!!!!!! Enough = before hailis! It's time to sober up.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 25 October 2013 12: 35
        +1
        And equal to the turnover!


        In-in, with their network wars already got, for example, but for some reason all of them believe that this is a prodigy.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 03
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          And equal to the turnover!


          In-in, with their network wars already got, for example, but for some reason all of them believe that this is a prodigy.


          Maybe because the military (for example, in our General Staff) do not know another war, where the pace of a successful attack was up to 240 km / day (when the enemy simply did not have time to understand what was happening, not to react)?
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 October 2013 13: 19
        +3
        Quote: nick 1 and 2
        And you just for a second admit = people are the same ?, etc. and they have a "class" and we have "byaka". It can't be like that !!!!!!!! Enough = before hailis! It's time to sober up.

        I can only speak for myself, I have never really been fond of this. Those. comparing the two systems, he relied only on the declared characteristics, or if so, on the statistical data on combat use. Regarding the comment below, there is nothing to compare here, the United States has experience of network-centric warfare, but we don’t have ...
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 00
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      If you look at the event without the star-striped pathos, it becomes obvious that the Yankees brought to the sea an incompatible rusty bucket. Superpuper cruiser cracks at the seams under the weight of its own weight and falls apart even without any fire influence from the enemy.

      You read this and think how the head Ticonderoga 20 years passed through the seas and did not fall apart? How did Yorktown not fall to pieces after being selflessly pushed along its port side in the Black Sea?
      Oleg continues his line of "debunking" the American Navy. This is especially true of the Aegis system. The pier does not correspond to the declared characteristics and that's it. In this case, the only "proof" is the incident with the destruction of the Iranian airliner that occurred in 1988. I don't quite understand why this is a sign of the uselessness of Aegis? In general, the tendency when all the characteristics and declared results of US weapons tests are questioned and denied, and the same with regard to domestic developments is 100% taken for granted, has recently been very widespread. When this comes from a person who is clearly not stupid and versed in the topic, then the question of his bias arises unambiguously.


      Propagandist he is such a propagandist laughing
      And the number of fleets, KONA, characteristics of ships, the history of fleets in the 20th century. no problem laughing
  • nickname 1 and 2
    nickname 1 and 2 25 October 2013 10: 11
    +1
    Well! What was required to hear! I have been saying for a long time that you should not praise this US military fleet.
    It cannot be that these greasy hogs scrubbed and licked their fleet. And they are made not for conscience but for a show off!

    What is really valuable for them is "hold the tail" and blaze! And if you do not praise your own then do not hait!
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 05
      -2
      Quote: nick 1 and 2
      Well! What was required to hear! I have been saying for a long time that you should not praise this US military fleet.
      It cannot be that these greasy hogs scrubbed and licked their fleet. And they are made not for conscience but for a show off!

      What is really valuable for them is "hold the tail" and blaze! And if you do not praise your own then do not hait!


      These "hogs" destroyed the fleet, which utterly defeated the Russian ...
      1. Santa Fe
        26 October 2013 00: 02
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        These "hogs" destroyed the fleet, which utterly defeated the Russian ...

        They and the ships were completely different.
        Real units

        Fletcher. Universal artillery, an effective complex of anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and torpedo weapons, a huge fuel supply, amazing strength and phenomenally high survivability - all this turned the ships into real sea monsters, the best destroyers of the Second World War. The Fletcher series consisted of 175 ships.
  • shurup
    shurup 25 October 2013 10: 16
    +6
    Why should the author not immediately take up the submarine? That would be where I went for a walk.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 October 2013 13: 20
      +2
      Quote: shurup
      Why should the author not immediately take up the submarine? That would be where I went for a walk.

      They took it off the tongue, oh I can smell Oleg on the "Virgin" ...
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 25 October 2013 10: 50
    +3
    The topic of the article is interesting. But, ator, if you write the third part, I would like more numbers for comparison. For example, take the Ticonderoga cruiser and some ship (artillery) that is also Shtanovsky of the same size and displacement, so that the standards are more or less the same. Give figures on the number of crews on both boxes, the weight of the hull of one and the other, the area of ​​the living and supporting rooms, the height of the superstructures above the waterline in the loaded state, the weight of ammunition, fuel, provisions, autonomy, etc. The tabular form is the most. And then the article has more questions than answers. And it is not clear with lead and depleted uranium ballasts: is it not more profitable to make the case in the lower part of thicker steel - why ballast then?
    1. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 25 October 2013 13: 13
      +3
      The fact is that when laying the ballast, the ship is centered, you will not do this with the hull.
  • katmaster
    katmaster 25 October 2013 11: 14
    0
    It sounds funny, of course, but a kilogram of cotton wool will be heavier :-)
    1. igordok
      igordok 25 October 2013 15: 19
      0
      Depends on air pressure. what
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 25 October 2013 22: 47
        0
        Write a formula or refer to a book in which you find an equation that confirms your thought.
        Air pressure (or altitude above the Earth's surface) equally affects any substance (Comrade Archimedes law). Weight (and body weight) does not depend on the height or density of the air (and why not carbon or nitrogen separately?) Above the Earth’s surface.
        Hope you understand the difference in weight and weight.
        Then where does this statement come from?
    2. Cyber7
      Cyber7 25 October 2013 22: 40
      0
      Good thing you smiled at the end.
      I almost thought you were serious.
      1. katmaster
        katmaster 4 November 2013 16: 39
        0
        If you are about to smile at me, then yes, seriously. A joke in the word "heavier". If we have each kg of both cotton and iron under equal conditions in the atmosphere, then when the atmospheric gas is removed, the weight of the cotton wool will increase more than the weight of iron will increase (Comrade Archimedes law)
  • komTMG
    komTMG 25 October 2013 11: 57
    +7
    There are cracks on our BOD 1155 as well. And everyone knows that. Who serves them. Every day go to the building. They are only silent.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 12
      -2
      Quote: komTMG
      There are cracks on our BOD 1155 as well. And everyone knows that. Who serves them. Every day go to the building. They are only silent.


      You just propagated the enemy laughing
      After all, everyone knows that our BOD in batches can drown Orly ... and he doesn’t even need to drown Tiki, they themselves will drown when leaving the port laughing

      Here the author is not like a fool, the ships can be seen that he loves, knows.
      What is it that stupidly exposes itself in articles in the last half of the year? (Well, not in all, I remember there was an article on WWII cruisers, there seemed to be a good article there)
      I would understand if they paid for it as propaganda ... in Soviet times, but here it’s just ...
      Maybe you just don’t write on topics where the priest is in pain because of the inferiority complex for our current fleet?
      How many interesting topics are there - WWII, WWI, sailing fleets, the confrontation between our Navy and the American in the 1960-1980s.
      1. komTMG
        komTMG 28 October 2013 15: 30
        0
        You probably took or drank something? It's time for my friend to grow up. BOD 605 has 3 cracks and it is the most "hollow" in this sense. I will not say in what places. Suddenly secrecy. And how BOD will be drowned in packs. And than tell. Pliz.
  • Witold
    Witold 25 October 2013 12: 19
    -12 qualifying.
    Before criticizing someone else's, it would not hurt to look back at your refuge.
    1. Far East
      Far East 25 October 2013 13: 36
      +9
      Quote: Vitold
      Before criticizing someone else's, it would not hurt to look back at your refuge.

      Dear Vitold! Shelter is at YOU! nationality. hi talking with amerikosovskie sailors: they oh, how afraid of our "KALOSH" I ask why: the answer killed me! you are NOT VICTORY! when we are told, sho Russians are enemies! and they must be destroyed! they get the impression of why WE have not been conquered in just years! these are their words! and you say !!!!!! look again (CAUCASUS CAPTIVE! and anecdote about a little bird!) do not spread the wings cut off. hi
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 25 October 2013 12: 44
    +3
    It is strange that the ballast is passive. Well, it could be filled with some batteries, finally. I think the history of shipbuilding will see a lot more bizarre. I personally like catamarans, ekranoplans and gliders. As a purely terrestrial person, it seems to me that the aquatic environment is too aggressive and massive, and hovering over it like a petrel is more fun and practical. wink
    1. carbofo
      carbofo 25 October 2013 14: 20
      +5
      Especially in the storm!
      1. Asan Ata
        Asan Ata 25 October 2013 23: 52
        0
        Well, yes, the petrel is)))))))
    2. lordinicus
      lordinicus 25 October 2013 16: 35
      +1
      I will advise you to search for photos of ships in the stormy sea. Mono-hull ships are drowning from storms, and you offer catamarans :).
      Balast is not just a counterbalance to its centering. Alignment at the shipyard is a whole epic, it is simply impossible to replace the ballast with something; the alignment will change immediately and the modern "sailing cruiser-destroyer" will turn over in stormy weather.
      Not even from a good life add-ons are even made of composites; modern Russian Navy corvettes have composite add-ons because aluminum is already too heavy.
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 25 October 2013 18: 29
        +1
        please explain, I correctly understood that the increased stability of catamarans reduces their survival in a big storm?
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 26 October 2013 01: 35
        0
        Do not say nonsense. The composite is used for reasons of stealth. And aluminum (and the Americans, too) was abandoned for reasons of combat stability. Aluminum add-ons when burned.
  • roial
    roial 25 October 2013 13: 07
    0
    Reading the author’s articles, I see a ZAMPOLIT in front of me that even a clear advantage of the enemy will make him a drawback.

    Could this haters be enough? We have already gone through all this.

    Remember:
    From the speech of the “first red officer”, Marshal of the Stalin era Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov, which he delivered (September 16, 1936) at a rally in Kiev: “If the enemy attacks the Soviet Ukraine, Soviet Belarus or another part of the Union, we will not only we will not let the enemy into the borders of our Motherland, but we will beat him in the territory where he came from. ” And also: "... If the enemy appears, beating him must be in his territory."



    How did it all end?





    And only when they began to take the enemy seriously, when the parquet sharkuns and the power of the commissars ended.



    1. Santa Fe
      25 October 2013 15: 05
      +9
      Quote: roial
      Reading the author’s articles, I see a ZAMPOLIT in front of me that even a clear advantage of the enemy will make him a drawback.

      Berks and Ticonderoggs have no relation to the Russian Federation

      just an example for those interested in ships. Trends in the modern fleet. Mistakes Miscalculations. Competent decisions.
    2. lordinicus
      lordinicus 25 October 2013 16: 40
      +2
      You made a good post just not in the topic, you need to find a photo with a similar meaning only with the Americans :).
      All have flaws, but some recognize these flaws, while others do not. 1155 crack like cookies, but swim nothing and are silent about it. But Tiktanderog kipisha cracked :). Americans are smarter and know good reason, they understand that either change the ship or it should be less in the sea. They choose a better replacement. But in Russia, he cracked, well, that means he should swim less, so that he would not crack further.
    3. Abracadabra
      Abracadabra 25 October 2013 17: 19
      +2
      Cool song "If tomorrow is war"! :)
    4. carbofo
      carbofo 25 October 2013 21: 37
      +2
      Forgive me for the minus, but strategically we were already preparing for war, and ChTZ was built on the eve of the war, and reserves were created, and new tanks and aircraft went into the army.
      We lost tactically, so what happened happened.
  • komTMG
    komTMG 25 October 2013 13: 12
    +7
    Quote: komTMG
    There are cracks on our BOD 1155 as well. And everyone knows that. Who serves them. Every day go to the building. They are only silent.

    Yes, I forgot to say. I myself served on one of them. 605. so that putting the pink glasses off you put off.
  • kafa
    kafa 25 October 2013 13: 18
    +2
    Quote: Vitold
    Before criticizing someone else's, it would not hurt to look back at your refuge.

    hto is it barking? it’s either its own Vitold the sailor at the bathtub builds a flat fellow
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 25 October 2013 13: 45
    +7
    Speaking about Aegis ships, one should not forget that open architecture allows to regularly improve the system. For example, Aegis Baseline 9 is being installed, and the number 9 specifically indicates the number of basic modifications of the Aegis system. The Aegis Baseline 9 is currently (despite terrible cracks) mounted on a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, Chancellorsville. Moreover, this year she passed the tests and confirmed the claimed characteristics. For example, now 127 mm. the gun can hit air targets with high accuracy at an altitude previously only accessible by the SM2 SAM (in the sense that the projectile doesn’t fly at all, but gets where it needs to). SM6 missiles also destroy overseas air targets using external target designation from E-2D, which no one has in the world, i.e. Now the horizon is not a hindrance.
    Now the question is backfill? What modification of the Lumberjack-1164 BIUS is currently installed on the Varyag RKR? What year of release?
    1. Santa Fe
      25 October 2013 15: 15
      +6
      Quote: Nayhas
      Speaking about Aegis ships, one should not forget that open architecture allows to regularly improve the system. For instance

      For example, bring down the Airbus A-300 of Iranian airlines.

      It is impossible to distinguish the Phantom (EPR 10 ... 15 sq. Meters) from an airliner (100+ sq. Meters) - it's worth a lot







      Quote: Nayhas
      the example is now 127 mm. the gun can hit aerial targets with high accuracy at an altitude previously only accessible by the SM2 SAM (in the sense that the projectile doesn’t fly at all, but gets where it needs to)

      This is completely impossible. And to no avail
      Even if the Aegis calculates the lead with perfect accuracy - at the time of the shot, the pilot or the autopilot can arbitrarily / involuntarily change the course by 3 degrees or starts a descent (anti-aircraft manner, "air hole", etc.) - when the projectile arrives at the calculated point , the plane will be a hundred meters from this place

      Anti-aircraft artillery is completely ineffective at long distances - only missile defense with correction on all sections of the trajectory can help here
      1. recrut6666
        recrut6666 25 October 2013 18: 07
        +1
        according to the discovery, the Aigis showed that they were flying a civilian vessel, only the operator responsible for pressing the buttons was so intimidated by the Iranian threat that, seeing that the Aigis was issuing a civilian vessel, pressed the button, gave the order that a fighter was flying on them !: ))))
        1. Santa Fe
          25 October 2013 18: 25
          +3
          Quote: recrut6666
          according to the discovery, the Aigis showed that they were flying a civilian vessel, only the operator responsible for pressing the buttons was so intimidated by the Iranian threat that, seeing that the Aigis was issuing a civilian vessel, he pressed the button, gave the order that a fighter was flying on them!

          And why the hell is Aegis? If vseravno wrong and shot down the airliner.
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 25 October 2013 19: 06
            -2
            It’s better to bring down a liner than not to shoot down a fighter which can easily launch a couple of Exocet missiles. After the attack on the USS Stark and the broken career of its officers, no one wanted to risk it.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident
            1. Santa Fe
              25 October 2013 19: 40
              +1
              Quote: Nagan
              It’s better to bring down a liner than not to shoot down a fighter which can easily launch a couple of Exocet missiles.

              Since the difference is invisible - why pay more

              Fuck the Yankees super-radar and Aegis, if they shoot at everything that moves - let them use the usual SM-1MR and SPS-49
              1. Revolver
                Revolver 25 October 2013 20: 46
                +2
                Yes, there were doubts from the very beginning, otherwise they would not have asked or warned, but would have immediately shot down. But the point is a bench-press, but it’s not his uncle’s, and oh, how fearful it is. USS Stark officers were recaptured in full, so everyone made conclusions such as think less, act more.
                I can’t blame the USS Vincennes commanders, just as I can’t blame those who gave the order to shoot down the Korean Boeing 747. But a few years after the Boeing was shot down, they were afraid of scandal, didn’t give the order to shoot down - and they got Rust on Red Square. Well, to whom did it feel better?
              2. cdrt
                cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 20
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Quote: Nagan
                It’s better to bring down a liner than not to shoot down a fighter which can easily launch a couple of Exocet missiles.

                Since the difference is invisible - why pay more

                Fuck the Yankees super-radar and Aegis, if they shoot at everything that moves - let them use the usual SM-1MR and SPS-49


                Well, it’s like a smart person, and you know the answers. There about the frequency of updates, the number of goals followed, etc.
                So is a dispute for the sake of argument? Frowning?
        2. Airman
          Airman 25 October 2013 23: 35
          0
          Quote: recrut6666
          according to the discovery, the Aigis showed that they were flying a civilian vessel, only the operator responsible for pressing the buttons was so intimidated by the Iranian threat that, seeing that the Aigis was issuing a civilian vessel, pressed the button, gave the order that a fighter was flying on them !: ))))

          Confusing an airliner with a fighter is almost impossible, the marks from the target are different. It can be confused if a group of fighters goes in tight formation, like the aerobatic team of the Knights, then the mark from the target will be almost identical to the liner.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 25 October 2013 22: 56
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For example, bring down the Airbus A-300 of Iranian airlines.

        Aegis does not make the final decision on his own, the man decided to shoot down the target and shot it down. The fact that the system could not identify the air target as an airliner is certainly a disaster, but how many in 1988. was the ship's radar capable of doing this? You Oleg know very well that this case gave an impetus to improve Aegis in the direction of target identification. Now, as I said, the NINTH basic modification is being installed and if you doubt that the control is 127 mm. gun with the Aegis Baseline 9 has dramatically increased its accuracy, then stay with your opinion. On my question about the BIUS "Lesorub 1164" you have not answered and I know why. You are well aware that the ships of Project 1164 in this regard remained in the 20th century.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2013 00: 11
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          On my question about the BIUS "Lesorub 1164" you have not answered and I know why. You are well aware that the ships of Project 1164 in this regard remained in the 20th century.

          It would make sense to pick up domestic and Amer ships with equal spending on the fleets of each of the states
          Quote: Nayhas
          when in doubt, that control is 127 mm. gun with the help of Aegis Baseline 9 dramatically increased its accuracy

          The accuracy of 127 mm guns, like anti-aircraft guns, does not depend on Aegis.
          It depends only on the thoughts of the pilot and the presence of air holes (gusts of crosswind, etc.)

          Sailors are not able to change the trajectory of the projectile after a shot. And the plane can, and certainly, due to various reasons, it will do

          ... if only to shoot passenger Airbases strictly going in the same corridor ... and then hardly

          Check out the consumption of shells for one downed aircraft during WWII. And this is a unique Mk.37 SLA and shells with a radio fuse (VT-fuze)!
  • Alex toll
    Alex toll 25 October 2013 13: 58
    +2
    I realized - it was their eb.o cracked from greed and arrogance))))))
  • Alexey M
    Alexey M 25 October 2013 14: 05
    +2
    Quote: Vitold
    Before criticizing someone else's, it would not hurt to look back at your refuge.

    So look at yours first.
    You will never have such a refuge.
  • Guilty
    Guilty 25 October 2013 15: 26
    +3
    The opinion of a purely civilian-AAAAAAAAAA !!! Do not beat me !!!!!! The development of military shipbuilding reached its zenith. Everything that is now being done for the needs of the Navy (no matter which country) resembles the injection of a dying patient. Everyone hopes that the pills will prolong his life, but in fact they prolong his agony. It is impossible to do something huge, something that will be the most. There are those who want to compete. As a result, the Hague Conference and general disarmament again. Ships, the fleet, it was the fleet that recaptured their own under Skaggerak. So I beg your pardon, but there will be no more naval battles. Jump on the waves, merge a couple of boats, destroyers, and will stand in line for an entry in a history textbook. Now, hit))) tongue
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 25 October 2013 22: 26
      0
      Quote: Guilty
      The opinion of a purely civilian-AAAAAAAAAA !!! Do not beat me !!!!!! The development of military shipbuilding reached its zenith. Everything that is now being done for the needs of the Navy (no matter which country) resembles the injection of a dying patient. Everyone hopes that the pills will prolong his life, but in fact they prolong his agony. It is impossible to do something huge, something that will be the most. There are those who want to compete. As a result, the Hague Conference and general disarmament again. Ships, the fleet, it was the fleet that recaptured their own under Skaggerak. So I beg your pardon, but there will be no more naval battles. Jump on the waves, merge a couple of boats, destroyers, and will stand in line for an entry in a history textbook. Now, hit))) tongue


      Hmm ... what about WWII battles? Are there companies on Guadalcanal, Mariana Islands, Leyte? Okinawa (well, there really is a battle between aviation and the navy).
      The struggle at sea will not go anywhere while there is maritime trade.
      Although in some respects you are right - there is a slowdown in technological progress in military equipment - there is an avalanche-like rise in price of new projects of tanks, planes, ships ...
      From the TRTS point of view, there is an approach to a technological barrier that, with existing approaches, will be impossible to overcome. Dialectically - just something new
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 October 2013 23: 07
      0
      Quote: Guilty
      Ships, the fleet, it was the fleet that recaptured their own under Skaggerak.

      Oh, how ... I understand that the merchant fleet is also not needed? And the fishing fleet? Well then, it is worth sealing the Panama Canal, filling the Suez Canal, it is still not needed ... Sorry for the mockery, but even a "purely civilian" person must have brains in order to understand that as long as sea communications exist, they need to be protected, as long as there are controversial islands, you need to fight for them, while there are sea borders, they need to be protected, at least from poachers ...
      It is useless to beat ...
      1. Guilty
        Guilty 28 October 2013 13: 42
        0
        Oh by the way, about the pirates. But you don’t feel that all the hype with the pirates, the sending of the giant troops there, our squadron, etc. something like gum? Pirates armed with small arms, in boats, seize the ships of the merchant fleet, demanding millions of ransoms. Send AUG captures will stop. No sooner said than done.
        From a gun on sparrows-AHON !!!!!
        My friend, a trucker, after the next flight, said: "Now, if only to answer the bandits for every extortion on the road with the presence of a battalion. Why are we worse?"
  • cormorant
    cormorant 25 October 2013 16: 08
    +4
    The “lever rule” comes into effect - in order to avoid capsizing and keeping the metacentric height within normal limits, hundreds of tons of ballast have to be added in the underwater part of the ship
    Compensate for several tons of antennas with hundreds of tons of ballast? The stability will actually be affected by the spent fuel, the consumption of ammunition and other variable stocks if they are below the ship's center of gravity. And even then this is usually offset by a large margin of stability of the ship and the adoption of liquid ballast.
    One glance at the cruiser is enough to be terrified of its stability
    And how can you at a glance determine the stability margin without knowing the mass distribution in the body?

    Whatever it was, the AN / SPS-49 radar was installed on each of the Ticonderog. A highly located antenna post weighing 17 tons shifted the center of gravity of the cruiser up to 0,152 m, which, of course, led to a decrease in its stability. To compensate for the negative effect, 70 tons of ballast were added.

    The radar antenna weighs 3165 kg, the rest of the equipment that can be located below the deck below the center of gravity of the ship weighs about 6 tons. Where did 17 tons come from?
    lightweight aluminum superstructures, made with a minimum margin of safety, provided the Ticonderoger with that necessary reserve of displacement,
    The longitudinal strength of the hull is ensured by the set of the vessel and the superstructure does not affect the overall strength. They do it right that they make it from light alloys.
    1. Santa Fe
      25 October 2013 16: 22
      +2
      Quote: cormorant
      One glance at the cruiser is enough to be horrified by its stability margin. And how can you determine the stability margin at a glance without knowing the mass distribution in the hull?

      The masses of the main systems "Tiko" are not too different from Burke - the same below-deck cells of the UVP, power plant, radars with HEADLIGHTS.

      But Burke is much more squat.
      Quote: cormorant
      The radar antenna weighs 3165 kg, the rest of the equipment that can be located below the deck below the center of gravity of the ship weighs about 6 tons. Where did 17 tons come from?

      Comment from the last discussion. Link at the beginning of the article

      Perhaps taking into account the mass of the antenna drives and the mast itself
      Quote: cormorant
      The longitudinal strength of the hull is ensured by the set of the vessel and the superstructure does not affect the overall strength.

      Nothing in the add-in contains a large number of bulky systems and equipment

      Or are the 4-ton SPY-1 headlights just hanging in the air?
      Aggregation of antennas on the roof of the superstructure? etc.
      Quote: cormorant
      They do it right that they make it from light alloys.

      The Yankees with their Orly Burke decided it was wrong
      Quote: cormorant
      Compensate for several tons of antennas with hundreds of tons of ballast? The stability will actually be affected by the spent fuel, ammunition consumption

      not only antennas but also add-ons

      Or can you explain the difference in the load articles of pr. 26 and the same Ticonderoga in a different way?

      Where did the supply to / and after the removal of heavy artillery weapons and armor disappeared
    2. spravochnik
      spravochnik 26 October 2013 01: 55
      0
      Wrong, I repeat, when hit, they burn. And about the longitudinal strength you are wrong. It all depends on whether the structure of the superstructure is included in the longitudinal strength of the ship or not.
  • zWary
    zWary 25 October 2013 16: 46
    +3
    The article is good already because it caused such interest and active discussion.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 25 October 2013 17: 04
    -2
    . A lot of reasoning, but which one is the real use?
  • Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 25 October 2013 18: 50
    0
    Oh, there they all cherish! But quickly designed and assembled!
    comfortable living conditions on board - gyms, swimming pools, restaurant meals

    I will not be very surprised if the cabs of public girls appear on the ships of the Amer fleet.
    And the Americans quoted in the quotation will arrange for the ISS in their segment.
    The article is a definite plus, it is a pity that the only one.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 25 October 2013 23: 17
      0
      Quote: Hedgehog
      I will not be very surprised if the cabs of public girls appear on the ships of the Amer fleet.

      Your irony is quite philistine, you probably can not imagine how it is to hang out in the ocean for several days. What is wrong with the American command taking care of its sailors, creating comfortable conditions for them to serve?
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 26 October 2013 01: 08
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        What is wrong with the American command taking care of its sailors, creating comfortable conditions for them to serve?

        Comfortable conditions?
        Well, yes.
        Ага.
        For some reason, the battle of Stalingrad was recalled. Not Bondarchuk. Grandfather told. Miraculously survived.
        War (and this is one of the main conditions for which, in fact, the passage of service is needed), this is when you drink, expand, dance in the evenings with all sorts of b ..., and in the morning you wake up at "eight-zero-zero" with a desire to drink anything in the sense of "aspirin"?
        Then you have a wrong understanding of the words "war" and "service". IMHO.
        Quote: Nayhas
        you probably can’t imagine how it is to hang out in the ocean for several days

        And you probably can not imagine how it is - 5 years to confront the enemy of the motherland.
        You should like Bondarchuk's "Stalingrad".
        IMHO.
        And it makes me sick.
        Because "hanging out in the ocean for a few days" is for suckers.
  • Vittt
    Vittt 25 October 2013 21: 28
    +3
    Quote: Povshnik
    It’s good that they have bad things and that they have a lot of ships.

    Rather, it doesn’t matter how many ships they have, it is important that we have few.
  • starhina01
    starhina01 25 October 2013 23: 16
    0
    Americans, the restless ones, understand the problems and mistakes of their fleet and constantly send cracked ships for repair to remain on top of the sea beyond the power. Well, they won’t get much flag in their hands and a drum on their neck in the middle of the ocean on such a vessel soldier
  • voliador
    voliador 26 October 2013 00: 26
    0
    Not their jambs should be happy, but not their own.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2013 01: 08
      +1
      Quote: voliador
      Not their jambs should be happy, but not their own.

      This article is about this.
  • bpk681
    bpk681 26 October 2013 20: 10
    0
    a video for everyone, but especially for those who see squalor in the Russian Navy, although Nicherta themselves do not understand
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=whf1Q0KTPdw
  • _KM_
    _KM_ 27 October 2013 14: 05
    0
    As far as I understand, everything that is placed in the superstructure and on the deck has quite significant weight. Does it not require additional ballast to maintain stability, which eats the displacement?
  • komissar
    komissar 29 October 2013 19: 20
    0
    In 2008, during the naval holiday in honor of the Day of the Navy in St. Petersburg, the Invincible TFR nearly went to the bottom. As a result of the detonation of an imitation mine at the stern of the ship, the side seams parted. So our warships built during the Soviet era (earlier it was called "Komsomol member of Lithuania") also had little hulls.
  • LAO
    LAO 31 October 2013 20: 20
    0
    An article, from a technical point of view, is not bad, but the tone of writing an article is simply boorish!
    You need to learn from mistakes, but do not jerk about it.
    To the author - more technical information, less emotion.
  • anatolvbrkv
    anatolvbrkv 21 November 2013 15: 22
    0
    I read both articles with interest. I myself have repeatedly thought about this interesting problem. This article flows from technical to political and is divided into two parts - the beginning about design, and the ending about wear and tear with political overtones. Let's go without politics. Weights and masses are probably more important in design, but not in assessing wear. At one time in the journal Foreign Military Review, I also happened to read some materials on the design of a missile defense missile system of the "Ticonderoga" type. There is a lack of a beginning - EM type "Kidd" and EM URO like "Spruens". After all, why are the Ticonderogs so heavy in the superstructure? Because the designer initially squeezed the Cruiser into the destroyer's hull. Those. By the beginning of the design of these cruisers, it was decided (probably for financial reasons) to try to use the hull tested on the EM Kidd and Spruens. And the customer satisfied the requirements of the fleet in the main. In terms of combat parameters, it turned out to be a cruiser. But the architecture of the ship has changed since the cruiser, excuse me, "kicked out" or "got out" in places from the EM hull into an oversized superstructure.
  • anatolvbrkv
    anatolvbrkv 21 November 2013 15: 51
    0
    But this, just does not carry any contradiction - American cruisers before Ticonderoga were generally larger - the mass-dimensional characteristics of post-war weapons and equipment "ate" the part of the weight load that was released due to the abandonment of armor. Plus - "social" - those very additional meters of living space, without which modern sailors do not want to serve. However, using the example of Ticonderoga, one can see that by the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s, i.e. when it (or his - KR, although in English, it doesn't matter - they have female ships) was designed, it was still possible, by optimizing the mass-dimensional characteristics of component equipment and weapons, etc., to get a more compact CR compared to previous cruisers. The correct example is given in relation to one of the radars, mainly, it was written in the ZVO, because of its antenna, i.e. "top" part (as I recall). Indeed, it increased the metacentric height of the cruiser by a little over 10 centimeters, which worsened its stability, and required the designer to increase the draft due to additional ballast by the tons indicated here. This, further along the chain, led to a decrease in fuel reserves (the body is from EV). If so, the speed limits were reduced - they refused from the initial maximum speed of 35 knots, taking 32 knots. Further, they said that because of this, there would be restrictions on the possibility of using these cruise missiles as part of the AUG, especially at speeds above 32 knots - AVMs are being designed in the USA taking into account 35 knots at maximum speed. In general, Ticonderogi is an interesting example for shipbuilders-designers.
  • anatolvbrkv
    anatolvbrkv 21 November 2013 15: 57
    0
    But this, just does not carry any contradiction - American cruisers before Ticonderoga were generally larger - the mass-dimensional characteristics of post-war weapons and equipment "ate" the part of the weight load that was released due to the abandonment of armor. Plus - "social" - those very additional meters of living space, without which modern sailors do not want to serve. However, using the example of Ticonderoga, one can see that by the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s, i.e. when it (or his - KR, although in English, it doesn't matter - they have female ships) was designed, it was still possible, by optimizing the mass-dimensional characteristics of component equipment and weapons, etc., to get a more compact CR compared to previous cruisers. The correct example is given in relation to one of the radars, mainly, it was written in the ZVO, because of its antenna, i.e. "top" part (as I recall). Indeed, it increased the metacentric height of the cruiser by a little over 10 centimeters, which worsened its stability, and required the designer to increase the draft due to additional ballast by the tons indicated here. This, further along the chain, led to a decrease in fuel reserves (the body is from EV). If so, the speed limits were reduced - they refused from the initial maximum speed of 35 knots, taking 32 knots. Further, they said that because of this, there would be restrictions on the possibility of using these cruise missiles as part of the AUG, especially at speeds above 32 knots - AVMs are being designed in the USA taking into account 35 knots at maximum speed. In general, Ticonderogi is an interesting example for shipbuilders-designers.
  • anatolvbrkv
    anatolvbrkv 21 November 2013 16: 23
    0
    Any ship is an engineering compromise - as a rule, you improve some characteristics at the expense of others. By the way, they wrote that in the second sub-series of these cruisers, due to the introduction of fiber-optic communication lines instead of copper wiring, it was possible to significantly reduce the weight in the superstructure, which partially (or completely, I do not remember now) compensated for the previous disadvantage with the excess weight of the radar. And yet, EM UROs like Orly Burke are not so similar to URO UROs like Ticonderoga. I didn’t come across anything about Orly’s design, but I think that this is the same company that designed Tika, maybe their body is almost identical again. Of course, Tika was interesting, incl. and its AMG superstructure. And its more intensive wear during operation, in comparison with steel, showed that on the new EM of the Orly Burke type it is necessary to return to steel. When iterating around the same hull, this probably required it to be expanded and shortened to maintain seaworthiness. And with all this, the newest EM in its capabilities is not much inferior to Tika, in fact, occupying an intermediate niche between FR URO and CD URO, it is essentially EM, but with the capabilities of CD. We would like to learn from the Americans about optimization and economy (although they also have problems with overestimating the cost of orders, since the Pentagon has a budget). In shipbuilding, if we analyze the weight loads, it is interesting to look at the economy, i.e. expenses. The costs of both construction and operation, and now it is customary to count them for the entire life cycle of a ship in terms of military equipment. This is how the energy and mass-dimensional costs for the construction of ships of various types "then" and now are reduced, how the choice of innovative technical solutions will affect the nature of combat and operational damage, which means the intensity of decreasing survivability and increasing wear, operating costs and life costs. cycle, it is important and you need to be able to analyze. Then, there will be no questions between the Ministry of Defense and shipyards about the cost of orders - head and serial, (as we had not so long ago), about the timing and cost of repairs, as well as many others. And the "exploiters" of technology, i.e. sailors must give a competent assessment of the parameters of the quality of military equipment in operation laid down by the designer. Excuse me, I'm finishing, I feel that I have left the topic and switched to banalities. The materials for the article are good, thank you, but the conclusions of the article suggest different ones.