Military Review

At the Bat Iron Works shipyard the Zumwalt class lead destroyer was launched

53
At the Bat Iron Works shipyard the Zumwalt class lead destroyer was launched

The US Navy announced on October 12 at General Enterprise Bat Iron Works' facility in Bat (Menn) that the Zumwalt-class head destroyer was launched.


The ship was removed from the dry dock and moored at the quay wall on the Kennebec River, where it will be completed.

The destroyers of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt project belong to the latest generation of multipurpose destroyers of the US Navy URO and are designed to ensure dominance fleet in coastal waters, the destruction of ground targets and fire support operations of the units of NE and the United States Marine Corps.

Initial contracts totaling 2,8 billion for the construction of two Zumwalt-class destroyers (DDG-1000 and DDG-1001) of the US Navy concluded with Bat Iron Works and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in February 2008. The construction of the ships began in February 2009. It was originally planned to deliver the US Navy 7 class destroyers "Zumwalt", but in April 2009, due to a significant increase in the cost of the program, it was decided to reduce the order to three units. At the same time, the Bat Iron Works' shipyard was chosen as the main contractor for the construction of all three ships.

Construction of the DDG-1000 began in February 2009 of the year. The destroyer keel was laid down at the Bat Iron Works 17 in November 2011. Currently, the destroyer readiness exceeds 87%. The DDG-1000 delivery of the United States Navy is scheduled for the end of the 2014 year.

The length of the Zumwalt-class ship is 610 feet (185,9 m), width - 80,7 feet, displacement - 15000 t. The shape of the superstructure and the special design of antennas significantly reduce the effective scattering surface. Maximum travel speed - 48 knots. The crew of the destroyer - 158 man, including the air group of 28 man.

The ship will be equipped with the latest weapon systems and will surpass the existing destroyers in firepower three times. It is assumed that the weapons of the destroyers will make 80 vertical launchers with Tomahawk, ESSM, and Standard missiles; 155-mm AGS advanced shipborne artillery systems firing 155-mm long-range Land-Attack Projectile long-range guided artillery; anti-torpedo and anti-missile weapons.

The DDG-1000, 1001 and 1002 destroyers will also be equipped with the X-band SPY-3 multi-function radar.

The ships will carry on board two MH-60R helicopters or one MH-60R and three unmanned aerial vehicles with vertical takeoff and landing.

As planned, the destroyer DDG-1000 will reach a state of initial readiness for combat use in 2016.

The second ship of the Michael Monsour series (DDG-1001) will be launched in the 2014 year and handed over to the US Navy in the 2015 year. The construction of the third destroyer Lyndon Johnson (DDG-1002) began in April 2012.
Originator:
http://www.armstrade.org/
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kafa
    kafa 1 November 2013 08: 54
    +5
    scary iron belay hope with non-stick coating laughing
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 4 November 2013 14: 39
      0
      Quote: kafa
      scary iron belay hope with non-stick coating laughing


      Well, what are you ... :) one must be happy for our partners laughing ... Let's congratulate the USA on another hole in the budget! laughing
  2. rrrd
    rrrd 1 November 2013 08: 55
    +6
    I can only rejoice in their assertiveness! Let and wash, and so on! But all the same they are doing something!
    1. Orel
      Orel 1 November 2013 09: 14
      +6
      Nevertheless, they are doing something!


      We will not be jealous. We have problems with the construction of ships, but they are gradually being resolved. There are no miracles, but we gradually begin to build modern ships and go from small to large, because during the stagnation, much has collapsed and is now being re-created. At first we only made boats, but now we have reached the corvettes and frigates. Maybe we’ll reach the destroyers soon. While the United States does not compete with the sea at sea, but it may not be necessary, for us the security of a retaliatory strike with the help of nuclear submarines is more important, and then we will see what the situation will be in the world and in the economy, maybe we will survive to full-fledged aircraft carriers ... And Zumwalt is not bad, let's see what happens ...
  3. Dangerous
    Dangerous 1 November 2013 09: 02
    +1
    Americans are not afraid to experiment with shapes - remember the same F-117 and B-2, now here is a destroyer of an unusual shape. In Soviet times, ours also did not hesitate to supply "exotic" to the army, for example, ekranoplanes, and now ... eh ...
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 1 November 2013 11: 16
      +5
      Quote: Dangerous
      Americans are not afraid to experiment with shapes - remember the same F-117 and B-2, now here is a destroyer of an unusual shape. In Soviet times, ours also did not hesitate to supply "exotic" to the army, for example, ekranoplanes, and now ... eh ...

      - Why did you decide it was gone? It is not clear to me ... SU-27 and MiG-15, let it be known to you, are very daring planes, according to the "unstable integral triplane" scheme. The Americans considered such an option for their prototype F-15, but did not dare, and the Russians decided and created. And in my opinion, the SU-27 derivatives are significantly superior in flight characteristics to the F-15 derivatives. Now, within the framework of the MS-21, a number of bold innovations, when developing a wide-body aircraft (it seems like it is planned with the Chinese), will most likely risk an extremely bold so-called. "oval" fuselage.
      So you are erecting a vain slander. Americans, of course, well done, feel free to experiment, but among Russians, the combination of conservatism and innovation is usually better, hence the share of successful innovations among Russians is greater. When creating Russian UAVs, you will also see a number of interesting technical solutions, including and interesting experiments with forms, I'm sure of it. And the fact that you have not seen them so often lately is that the 90s go around, they just started to come to life, there will be more.
      Py. Sy. Unlike amerskih aircraft of the 5th generation and their helicopters, with all my dislike for amers, I have due respect to this Zumvalt development. Serious thing. Americans are all-Thai power, born to swim cannot fly, so they would not torture themselves ...
    2. AVV
      AVV 1 November 2013 12: 30
      0
      What can I say, the iron is the iron, It will beautifully go under water, it is unlikely that its weapons will save Onyxes, Yakhonts, Bramosov or Caliber !!! Let mattresses invest more money in such projects, although they have their own printing press, but the bottom of the state economy sooner or later will go and such projects of irons or F-35 will help that !!!
  4. Armata
    Armata 1 November 2013 09: 03
    +3
    Let's see how he shows himself on the chassis. Once I wrote about the controversy of this project, here we find out whether it was right or not. Although there is reason for envy. They do it quickly, and even new developments.
    1. Captain Vrungel
      Captain Vrungel 1 November 2013 09: 43
      +4
      Multipurpose, with emphasis on coastal and ground targets. Head DD-21. Judging by the contours of the hull, it seems that the add-on to the bottom stuck. Such a ship piercing the waves, but with serious weapons.
      1. Armata
        Armata 1 November 2013 09: 51
        +4
        Quote: Captain Vrungel
        Such a ship piercing the waves, but with serious weapons.
        This is what confuses me. One of the biggest drawbacks will be the deck bay and burrowing into the wave. But this is my personal opinion that rolling on a wave is much more effective than "piercing" it.
        1. Ptah
          Ptah 1 November 2013 11: 11
          +4
          Quote: Mechanic
          deck bay and burying in the wave.

          This is what immediately comes to mind. When burrowing into a wave - a sharp drop in speed, an increase in the load on running machines, propulsors, shafts. Hence the additional (stabilizing) mechanisms - an increase in displacement.
          The impact of the incoming stream falls on the cannon tower and superstructure - strengthening the structure, increasing the mass and displacing it up. The drop in overall stability entails the addition of ballast, which reduces the "useful" area and again the excess displacement.

          Seaworthiness, let's say right away, is low. But it is said that for coastal navigation. With the deterioration of weather quickly into the harbor.
          1. Mhpv
            Mhpv 1 November 2013 17: 00
            +3
            Quote: Ptah
            When burrowing into a wave - a sharp drop in speed, an increase in the load on running machines, propulsors, shafts.

            We are expecting from the Americans a video with Zumvolt during a storm, well, something like this:

            soldier
            1. Ptah
              Ptah 2 November 2013 03: 34
              +3
              Ay, power aaa! What a "bad power".
              And how the scale is superimposed on the topic. Maybe Morricone?
              When I see such pictures, the hair on the scruff of my neck gets up and my hands involuntarily look for some handrails.
              To treat this calmly requires nerves like propylene mooring lines, a "disconnected / broken" vestibular and an adequate environment.
              When I first got into such a gimmick (although from birth with my parents in a boat on large rivers), the commanders immediately said:
              "You rookies, get together somewhere closer to the DP, so as not to see what's going on overboard, grab whatever you want, just don't close your eyes and stay up. Drink plenty, piss in a canister and you can shout or sing in chorus."
              Later got used to it, although it’s impossible to get used to it.

              "It is necessary to sail the seas, life is not so necessary"
              / either the Greeks, or Heinrich the Navigator, or Peter I "
              1. Vasyan1971
                Vasyan1971 4 November 2013 03: 02
                +1
                I heard somewhere that either the Norwegians or the Danes used to say
              2. Mhpv
                Mhpv 5 November 2013 00: 11
                +1
                Yeah, feelings and impressions for life. It was the same thing when moving to Chukotka, I had to urgently run to hide in Olyutorsky. We also had a small cubicle almost on the tank, the memory was good, and below us was a bomb cellar for RBUShek recourse
                What was happening on top was also not seen, but the steering wheel said it was scary.
            2. Ptah
              Ptah 2 November 2013 03: 40
              +3
              That's who doesn't give a damn about the "Zumvolts" and other iron human traits.
              I'll give it away -
            3. Vasyan1971
              Vasyan1971 4 November 2013 03: 10
              +1
              People are divided into living, dead and sailors.
        2. alex86
          alex86 1 November 2013 18: 49
          +1
          Quote: Mechanic
          rolling on a wave is much more effective than "piercing" it.

          It’s not quite true, with a positive collapse of the sides, the bow rises, the ship must somehow rise to the wave, which it really can’t do, respectively, the speed drops, it picks up speed ... and the next wave. With negative collapse, the entire hull does not rise (or rather, it is much smaller), since the deck is empty in all respects, and it is easier to take 200-300 tons of water onto the deck than to lift the entire hull with a displacement of 15 tons. This is not all I came up with, it is now fashionable wink trend. Too lazy to look for the name, but there are ships with a much more "streamlined" appearance.
          1. alex86
            alex86 1 November 2013 20: 06
            +1
            Quote: alex86
            Too lazy to look for the name

            Not too lazy, this architecture is called X-BOW, in the case of Zumwalt, this architecture is not so obvious, but given the speed of 48 knots (something cool for 15 tons of displacement), it is understandable.
            1. Ptah
              Ptah 2 November 2013 02: 22
              +1
              Quote: alex86
              in the case of Zumwalt, this architecture is not so obvious

              There is no X-Box on Zumwalt at all -
              1

              2

              Advantages of the X-BOW design:
              - Increased cruising speed on calm water due to low entry angles and increased waterline length
              - Lack of a nasal bulb improving safety when towing and mooring
              - Smaller vertical and airborne accelerations
              - Reduced noise and nose vibration due to soft wave entry
              - Less spray
              - Slight penetration of "green water" (corrosive sea water) on the deck and bridge
              - The working deck and deck equipment are better protected due to the greater width of the hull
              - Increased cruising speed under adverse weather conditions, which leads to a decrease in energy consumption and / or high fuel efficiency at sea
              3
              1. alex86
                alex86 2 November 2013 08: 53
                +1
                Advantages of the X-BOW design:
                - Increased cruising speed on calm water due to low entry angles and increased waterline length
                - Lack of a nasal bulb improving safety when towing and mooring
                - Smaller vertical and airborne accelerations
                - Reduced noise and nose vibration due to soft wave entry
                - Less spray
                - Slight penetration of "green water" (corrosive sea water) on the deck and bridge
                - The working deck and deck equipment are better protected due to the greater width of the hull
                - Increased cruising speed under adverse weather conditions, which leads to a decrease in energy consumption and / or high fuel efficiency at sea
                [/ Quote]
                All this I meant. And he stipulated that in this case X-BOW is not so obvious due to the high speed, i.e. nasal contours are not rounded, because you do not need to save length, you do not need a tank developed upwards, etc. - the ship is a military one, the approaches to the design are different.
                So, from my (I emphasize) point of view, we have a "degenerate" X-BOW principle applied to a high-speed and military ship.
                (I do not insist, by golly, but I think so ...)
          2. Ptah
            Ptah 2 November 2013 02: 53
            +1
            Quote: alex86
            It’s easier to take 200-300 tons of water onto the deck than to lift the entire hull with a displacement of 15 tons.

            Additional complication of the set (reinforcement of the structure), which does not contribute to a better "wave output".
            As you rightly noted, if there is a delay with the "discharge" of the leading water, the next blow will follow, already into the deck mechanisms and superstructures.

            tech-life.org/arms/124-zumwalt-class-destroyer

            Quote: alex86
            with positive camber

            What is meant? As far as I know, this angle is measured from the vertical to the sides. And it is different along the entire length along the frames (the side is smaller, the cheekbone, to the nose - more) For example, in "Burks" from 8 degrees. up to 35. We see that the "Zumwalt" slope of the sides, as it were "inward" (stealth architecture). Then we can consider that "negative".
            Also with the nasal tip. "The angle of inclination of the stem" - from the overhead line upward. If you count more than 90 degrees. "negative" - ​​maybe .........

            www.findpatent.ru/patent/215/2152326.html
            1. alex86
              alex86 2 November 2013 09: 10
              +1
              Quote: Ptah
              does not contribute to the best "going on the wave".

              So this is not necessary, he took his 200-300 tons of water on an empty (note) tank, they will not reach the superstructure - far, the hull does not rise to the wave - thus. energy of translational motion is saved - it is not translated into potential energy of ascent to the wave - and indeed, the wave is pierced. If you remember, then in France the option of a semi-submerged "Spruence" is being considered, this, of course, is not "Zumvalt", but the general idea and (I do not like this word, but where to go) the trend is now such that the open decks (spaces) are empty and presence a person is not demanded and even excluded.
              So, I think the architecture of Zumwalt is well thought-out, albeit strange at first glance. And it differs fundamentally from what we are used to, when the entire deck is packed with various weapons. But we are also heading for something similar, I think it's only a matter of time and expediency for northern conditions - well, are we going to bury ourselves under the ice (just kidding)?
              1. Ptah
                Ptah 6 November 2013 09: 13
                +1
                Quote: alex86
                a question of time and expediency for northern conditions - well, will we bury under the ice (just kidding)?

                Not a joke at all, but a logical continuation. Especially "in the light of the ongoing struggle for the Arctic." Russian Arctic !!!
                I remember that in childhood in the magazines "Science and Technology", "Tenika-Youth" and others. PROJECTS of semi-submersible vessels for ice navigation with a sort of "ripping ridge on the tank" appeared. Calculations were made that it is more economical to move along ice fields by not pushing over the ice with a further break, but lifting from below. Difference in density of media. (air and water).
                Maybe there is something like that. At the level of not a model, but a "prototype". It is very necessary for Russia.

                zhurnalko.net/=nauka-i-tehnika/tehnika-molodezhi/1976-11--num67

                zhurnalko.net/=detskie/koster/1984-02--num11

                zhurnalko.net/=sam/junyj-tehnik/1989-03--num12
                1. alex86
                  alex86 6 November 2013 19: 11
                  +2
                  Very touched by the links - as if rejuvenated. Thank.
                  In business - anyway, a joke. Theoretically, all these ideas have a right to exist, but in reality when confronted with ice, the simpler the design, the less likely it is to break.
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 1 November 2013 10: 09
        +3
        In terms of the main strike weapons, he loses to Burke in whose 96 rocket mines, against 80 in Zumwalt.

        The gun has no analogues, but is it really important to have 155 mm PU in real actions? Of course, it’s possible to shoot virtually missiles from the barrel is interesting, but why, if there are VPU mines with more efficient missiles. This is one of the main points of bickering on the project in the US commissions (a lot of money was spent on this innovation, is it really needed? Maybe it’s better to put 2 SPLASHES in their place?).
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 1 November 2013 10: 56
          +1
          Quote: donavi49
          The gun has no analogues, but is it really important to have 155 mm PU in real action?

          And I believe that this is not even a bad addition to missile strike weapons! Probably there are goals for which you can spend a couple of shells, and not one or two tomahawks ???
          The declared range of defeat is even more impressive if I am not mistaken 160 km?
          Hello dear donavi49 hi
        2. Ezhaak
          Ezhaak 1 November 2013 11: 04
          0
          Quote: donavi49
          Maybe it’s better to push in their place 2 more VPUSH?).

          Well, how the pirates in boats fit. How to fend off them? From hoses or slingshots?
          1. alone
            alone 1 November 2013 22: 41
            0
            Quote: Hedgehog
            Well, how the pirates in boats fit. How to fend off them? From hoses or slingshots?


            selected Russian obscene, which is stronger than any rocket)) wassat
      3. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 1 November 2013 10: 33
        0
        It seems to me that the design of the ship is made in such a way as to be invisible to radar. If not right - correct!
  5. fight
    fight 1 November 2013 09: 07
    0
    even wondering what happens))))))))))
  6. kafa
    kafa 1 November 2013 09: 11
    +5
    for minors I like this one more
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. kafa
        kafa 1 November 2013 09: 18
        0
        http://topwar.ru/7094-perspektivnyy-esminec-dlya-vmf-rf-pofantaziruem.html
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 1 November 2013 10: 10
      +2
      Quote: kafa
      for minors I like this one more

      But nothing that it is several times less displacement?
  7. tun1313
    tun1313 1 November 2013 09: 17
    +1
    Perhaps a pair of faithful on zodiacs will be enough, but the thing is serious, it is quite possible there will be problems like with f35, but these stubborn ones will finish it. Generation next and unfortunately this can be built so far only by the states. We need something asymmetrical.
    1. nik6006
      nik6006 1 November 2013 10: 13
      +4
      everything asymmetrical has long been in the mines, on alert, well, or under the water sneaking along the Caribbean.
  8. 31231
    31231 1 November 2013 09: 22
    0
    quote
    Quote: rrrd
    I can only rejoice in their assertiveness! Let and wash, and so on! But all the same they are doing something!

    with their financial capabilities it’s a sin to do nothing at all.
  9. Scandinavian
    Scandinavian 1 November 2013 09: 31
    +1
    Reminds an iron ...
  10. iwind
    iwind 1 November 2013 10: 08
    +1
    Like a few pictures.
    As a technology demonstrator, the ship is good, the most advanced technologies will be tested on it, and in 10-15 years they will create a mass ship based on the experience gained from Zumvolt

  11. little man
    little man 1 November 2013 10: 09
    +2
    It would be possible for us to modernize the eagles, would not concede to the zombolts.
    But where are our developments that should "have no analogues in the world"?
    Where are the BIUS, where is the UAV, where are the lasers, where is the sea s-500, etc.? What is the answer again - "Not all at once"?
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 1 November 2013 10: 12
      +5
      don't be surprised if they’ll finish building Zamvolt earlier than we Gorshkov :(
      1. alone
        alone 1 November 2013 22: 42
        0
        and do not hesitate to finish building earlier.
  12. 09061982
    09061982 1 November 2013 10: 33
    +2
    The destroyer is new, but the main weapons are the same tomahawks ...
  13. 09061982
    09061982 1 November 2013 10: 33
    0
    The destroyer is new, but the main weapons are the same tomahawks ...
    1. Bekas
      Bekas 1 November 2013 10: 44
      0
      So you have a complete list of weapons and provided. Surely something interesting prepared)))
    2. goldfinger
      goldfinger 1 November 2013 11: 00
      +2
      Land neighbor Belarus.
      Quote: 09061982
      The destroyer is new, but the main weapons are the same tomahawks ...

      What for? So the tomahawks are fine with them at the moment - to defeat a potential enemy. But I am sure that something new is already being prepared for the existing PU. And what to do with the artillery stocks? They have the battleship Missouri hitting Saddam with shells made during World War II. Rich means lean.
      On January 7, 1991, at 01:40, two Tomahawk missiles were launched from the Missouri battleship, which had never been launched from a warship of this class for targets located at a distance of 1400 km in Iraq and Kuwait. Initially, the fifty-year sixteen-inch guns fired fiercely. The target was the port of Hanji in Saudi Arabia. When powerful guns began firing every 15 seconds at the Iraqi fortifications, the US Army breathed a sigh of relief - it was a formidable weapon. In two hours, the battleship Missouri fired 135 series of shots. No enemy fire could overtake the battleship. The accuracy of fire control was achieved using unmanned aerial vehicles that were launched from ships using a catapult. They made adjustments to large-caliber fires, then returned, falling into the network. They re-equipped and launched again.
      Their computer system was controlled by a pilot from a control point. The received image from the airplane’s video camera was displayed on the internal television system, where the coordinates of the objects were shown. Thanks to the new guidance system, slightly obsolete guns were merciless when hit on target. The combination of new technologies has proven effective. Its volleys in the Persian Gulf became a farewell salute of those times when battleships reigned supreme on the seas and oceans. But the battleship USS Missouri was born at another time.
  14. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 1 November 2013 10: 49
    +2
    In my opinion, it’s excellent that the Americans conduct such expensive experiments for their money, I think the results of exploitation, the pros and cons of the shape of the nose, will very soon become known to everyone.
    Well, he is on Linux!)
  15. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 1 November 2013 10: 49
    10
    While the patriots are screaming that Russia will tear everyone up, the Americans continue REALLY rearm, although they are already very well armed. This is very sad, especially against the background of what is happening in Russia. By God it remains to hope for a miracle, it was not for nothing that Field Marshal Burchard-Christophe Minich said: “The Russian state has the advantage over others that it is controlled directly by the Lord God Himself. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain how it exists ... " GOD BLESS RUSSIA!
    1. Peaceful military
      Peaceful military 1 November 2013 11: 24
      +1
      I just heard on the news that Judah Kudrin was returned to power ... angry
      Here you have the new Russian ships ... sad
      1. military
        military 1 November 2013 11: 39
        0
        Quote: Peaceful military
        I just heard on the news that Judas Kudrin was returned to power ... So much for the new Russian ships ...

        Kudrin became a member of the presidium of the Presidential Economic Council.
        The chairman of the council is Putin.
        His deputies on the council are the assistant to the president in accordance with the established competence and the Minister of Economic Development.
        Together with Kudrin, the members of the Presidium of the Economic Council included:
        - First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov,
        - Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich,
        - Deputy Prime Minister Olga Starving man,
        - Aide to the President Aleksey Belousov,
        - Chairman of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina,
        - Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov,
        - Minister of Economic Development Alexey Ulyukaev,
        - Chairman of the Accounts Chamber Tatyana Golikova,
        - President of Sberbank German Gref,
        - Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin,
        - Tatarstan President Rustam Minnikhanov,
        - Governor of the Primorsky Territory Vladimir Miklushevsky,
        - President of RSPP Alexander Shokhin,
        - President of the CCI Sergey Katyrin,
        - President of the "Support of Russia" Alexander Brechalov,
        - Advisor to the President Sergey Eyes,
        - President of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under President Vladimir Mau.
        hi
        1. Peaceful military
          Peaceful military 1 November 2013 11: 49
          0
          Quote: military
          Quote: Peaceful military
          I just heard on the news that Judas Kudrin was returned to power ... So much for the new Russian ships ...

          here is the "Lord God" at the helm of the Russian state ... repeat

          Colleague, I just have no words ...
          1. military
            military 1 November 2013 11: 59
            0
            Quote: Peaceful military

            Colleague, I just have no words ...

            hi crying request
      2. military
        military 1 November 2013 12: 03
        +1
        Quote: Peaceful military
        Here you have the new Russian ships ...

        Quote: military
        Together with Kudrin, the members of the Presidium of the Economic Council included: .........

        here we are not only new ships ... here we are all "hell in the village" ... wink
  16. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 1 November 2013 10: 51
    -1
    The more expensive the American ship, the more pleasant it will be when it is drowned.
    1. goldfinger
      goldfinger 1 November 2013 12: 40
      -2
      From Minsk. Let banyat, but I will say. Here from such morons, and the image of Russia is appropriate, even among many Slavs.
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      The more expensive the American ship, the more pleasant it will be when it is drowned.
      1. JIaIIoTb
        JIaIIoTb 1 November 2013 13: 28
        +2
        All my life I have been taught to fight the United States and its satellites, both NATO and non-NATO.
        Because this country really threatened mine.
        No one called me a moron for science for war and for readiness to do it when the Motherland says.
        And now, if the Motherland says, to do everything so that this mixture of iron and high technology goes to the bottom, it will be so. Only it will not be done by pacifists, like you, but by such "pr. fools" like me.
        1. goldfinger
          goldfinger 1 November 2013 16: 18
          0
          Quote: JIaIIoTb
          All my life I have been taught to fight the United States and its satellites, both NATO and non-NATO.

          He himself served, but xenophobia was not taught frenzied, reaching cannibalism. And the goals of your Commander-in-Chief are different, at least in words.
          1. JIaIIoTb
            JIaIIoTb 1 November 2013 16: 47
            0
            Xenophobia from my post does not even smell. I am not a cannibal. But. It will be nice all the same if it drowns))))
  17. erofich
    erofich 1 November 2013 10: 53
    -2
    Moorings on this iron probably will not be, moorings will pierce.
    1. Captain Vrungel
      Captain Vrungel 1 November 2013 11: 17
      +1
      This is what you, BDK, poke your nose into the beach. In Amers, as is customary, do not moor at the berth with the stern to the pier, but with the lag to the berths and piers. Here's how he behaves on an ocean wave equal to or greater than its length. You can forget about a decent move, the add-on is a pity.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 1 November 2013 11: 28
        0
        Quote: Captain Vrungel
        This is what you, BDK, poke your nose into the beach. In Amers, as is customary, do not moor at the berth with the stern to the pier, but with the lag to the berths and piers. Here's how he behaves on an ocean wave equal to or greater than its length. You can forget about a decent move, the add-on is a pity.

        I think it was not designed on models, but tested in digital. And it is not accepted to "beat" at full speed on a good wave. hi
  18. mixxlll
    mixxlll 1 November 2013 11: 11
    0
    Do not forget that the main thing on the ship is WEAPONS.
    1. Ptah
      Ptah 1 November 2013 12: 01
      +5
      Quote: mixxlll
      the main thing on the shipWEAPONS.

      Are you talking about the coastal battery right now?
      And the main thing for the SHIP is such "trifles" as - seaworthiness, autonomy of navigation, stability, displacement, stability on the course, agility, sailing, resistance to rolling and something else .............
      I can also miss something.
    2. Mhpv
      Mhpv 1 November 2013 16: 48
      +1
      Quote: mixxlll
      Do not forget that the main thing on the ship is WEAPONS.

      A ship is a complex ergodic object consisting of five main parts ("elements"): crew, hull, weapons, weapons and technical equipment.
      Each of these parts can be considered as relatively independent, therefore, the definitions and reasonings set forth above apply to them. As an ergodic object, any warhead of a ship can be considered. Separation of a part of an object from the whole is advisable in solving specific particular problems. For example, the tasks of combat training, including on BZZh.
      "Vitality is the ability of a ship to withstand combat and emergency damage, while restoring and maintaining, to the extent possible, its combat capability" (1982). This definition is refined by introducing "survivability elements". Unsinkability is associated with a specific source of damage - the flow of seawater, explosion and fire - with safety, the survivability of weapons and technical equipment is determined directly, other than the survivability of the ship, and the survivability of the crew as a specific organizational structure is reduced to the protection of personnel.

      Many people forget about the crew, and without a crew any ship cans.
  19. Fornit
    Fornit 1 November 2013 15: 55
    0
    Even I did not understand ... On the combi-photo in one of the upper posts (where the technical characteristics) the stroke is indicated at 30 knots, and in the article - as much as 48 !!! An obvious mess. He clearly cannot overtake the leader of "Tashkent", the authors of the article, it seems, are not in the subject - minus ...
  20. stayer
    stayer 2 November 2013 07: 33
    +1
    I also do not understand, due to which the speed of 48 knots is achieved? Or will he have hydrofoils? Maybe a typo? Just the laws of physics are not so easy to fight. Experts explain ...