Military Review

The nuclear cruiser Peter the Great against the Aegis system

221



The increased presence of the Russian Navy in the World Ocean responded to the flow of loud messages in the media: interviews, questions, forecasts, comments and assessments of domestic and foreign experts. The main "star" of the events, as usual, is the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, the largest of the non-aircraft-carrying warships in the world, the 26 000-ton giant with the monumental look of an imperial cruiser and three hundred missiles on board.

Whenever the name of “Peter” is mentioned on the forums, its comparison with foreign ships of a similar class and purpose begins. Of course, there are no direct analogs of the domestic TARKR - this cruiser is a unique technical masterpiece of its kind. But, according to a number of parameters, it is possible to pick up rivals: the capabilities of Peter’s air defense can be compared with the American Ajis cruisers (or destroyers — which, however, is the same thing). And this is where the fun begins ...

The nuclear cruiser Peter the Great against the Aegis system

Launch of anti-aircraft missile complex C-300F

- The cruiser carries on board the 200 with more than anti-aircraft missiles, that's enough for everyone - the patriots confidently say.

- Not! - pro-American citizens are yelling, - the Aegis (Aegis) combat information system is worth the whole world. Your cruiser is just a puppy compared to the proven "Ticonderog" or "Orly Burke."

- Go to hell! - supporters of the domestic lose their temper fleet - there are two S-300 complexes on our cruiser - just try to snoop around!

- Shoot, cheap! - respond to them from across the ocean - Ships of the Yankees are able to hit targets in low near-earth orbit - this is where the real, and not ostentatious power!

Constructive dialogue does not happen as long as one of the vigilant citizens does not notice the oddity in the guise of the Russian cruiser: - Gentlemen, why do the Peter’s superstructures look like the Chernobyl forest after the accident?

An artsy silhouette, bulky pyramidal masts, sprawling "branches" of antenna devices of radar and communication systems stick up everywhere ... The mere enumeration of this "zoo" can cause a smile: the Peter the Great radar equipment complex includes the Voskhod radar, Frigate M2 "," Tackle "," Positive "," Wave ", 4Р48 with a phased antenna array, antenna post 3Р95, artillery fire control radar MP184" Lion ", finally, two navigation radar" Vaigach-U ".



In addition to the general irrationality and difficulty in coordinating the work of such a large number of radio equipment, Petra’s sloppy appearance greatly increases its visibility - the cruiser shines on the screens of enemy radars, like the brightest star. Surely, backward Bolshevik technologies played a certain role ... But not to the same extent!

How fine and modern, after that, the American Aegis destroyer of the Orly Burk type seems to be - clean lines of add-ons made with regard to the stealth technology, a minimum of external decor elements, the only multi-purpose detection radar with fixed canvases of HEADLIGHTS. The American "Burke" is similar to a guest from other worlds - its appearance is so unusual compared to the ships of the Russian Navy.


Destroyer type "Orly Burke"

But is it really? What are the "pitfalls" behind the stylish image of an American destroyer? And is our “Peter the Great” outdated, as it seems at first glance?

In high-tech glamor, or Miser pays twice

The American ship is built around the Aegis combat information and control system, which combines all means of detection, communications, weapon and systems to combat the survivability of the ship. Universal robot destroyers are able to exchange information with their own kind and make decisions for the commander. The creation of such a system of the Yankees went 20 years - a truly serious development, which laid the most progressive ideas of modern naval combat: at the forefront is the detection and instant selection of targets. The American ship will be the first to make a decision, the first to shoot and the first to destroy the enemy. The Pentagon calls the Aegis destroyers the best naval air defense system to date.

A key element of the system is the AN / SPY-1 radar station, which is a combination of four planar phased antenna arrays fixed on the sides of the destroyer superstructure. Spy can automatically perform an azimuth and elevation search, capture, classify and track hundreds of aerial targets, program autopilots of anti-aircraft missiles on the starting and cruising segments of the trajectory.


Phased array radar AN / SPY-1D

The use of a single multifunctional radar made it possible to simplify the collection and analysis of information, as well as to eliminate mutual interference occurring on other ships when a large number of radar stations are operating.

However, behind the apparent advantage of the SPY-1 lies the most complex technical problem: How to teach the radar to efficiently detect targets at large and at short distances simultaneously? Decimeter waves (“Spay” works in the S range) are well reflected from the sea surface - a barrage of interference makes it difficult to recognize the rockets flying above the water, making the destroyer completely defenseless against supersonic anti-ship missiles. In addition, the low location of the SPY-1 antennas reduces the already short detection range of low-flying targets, taking the precious seconds from the ship to react to the threat.

No one in the world ventured to repeat the American focus with a “single multi-function radar” - on projects of warships created in other countries, in addition to the general detection radar, the installation of a specialized radar to detect low-flying targets is always provided:
- British "Daring" (decimeter survey S1850M + centimeter SAMPSON)
- the Franco-Italian Horizon (S1850M + centimeter EMPAR)
- Japanese "Akizuki" (dual-band FCS-3A with active PAR. In fact - two radars (range C and X), united under a common name).
But what about the detection of the EC at the Russian nuclear cruiser?

Radars "Peter the Great"

The Russian ship is in perfect order - the detection of air targets is assigned to three radar stations for various purposes:

- powerful survey radar MP-600 "Sunrise" (located at the top of the foremast - the first mast from the bow of the ship);

- three-coordinate radar MP-750 "Frigate М2" with a phased antenna array (located on top of the next, lower mainmast);

- specialized two-coordinate radar MR-350 "Tackle" for detecting low-flying targets (two antennas are located on the sites on the sides of the foremast). The main feature of the station is a special radiation pattern with narrowed “side lobes” (scanning at a small elevation angle) and a high frequency of updating data.

It is precisely this radar that the American Aegis destroyer lacks.


At the top of the foremast - the antenna of the Voskhod survey radar, just below, on the sites on the sides of the mast, two antennas of the Podkat radar are noticeable. Ahead, on the roof of the superstructure, a phased antenna array of the radar OMS ZRK S-300FM "Fort-M"



Scheme of a general type of the TARKR superstructure Peter the Great, view from the starboard:
1 - combat module SPORT "Dirk"; 2 - PU SG1PP PC-10; 3 - command module SPORT "Dirk"; 4 - direction finder; 5 - the stabilized post of a TV system for monitoring the near outdoor environment "Rotan"; 6 - AP Vaygach radar; 7 - wheelhouse; 8 - AP complex "Crystal-BK"; 9 - astrocorrector AP; 10 - optical periscopic reamer; 11 - AP RLS SU "Fort-M" SAM C-300FM; 12 - navigation bridge; 13 - optical periscopic sight of the conning tower (PCG); 14 - operational logging; 15 - AP of the Privod-V system; 16 - AP radar "Sunrise"; 17 - AP of the Privod-V system; 18 - AP radar "Sunrise"; 17 - AP complex of EW "Kantata-M"; 18 - AP complex "Coral-BN"; 19 - AP Radar "Podkat"; 20 - rubber spherical mooring fenders; 21 - AP FARGAT-M2 radar; 22 - AP RLS SU "Fort" SAM C-300F; 23 - RBU-12000 of the Udav-1 complex; 24 - lazport RTPU PARK "Waterfall"; 25 - AP RLS SUAO "Lion"; 26 - AP RLS SU VC "Dagger"; 27 - command post control the landing (take-off) of the helicopter; 28 - 130-mm AU AK-130.


But to discover does not mean to destroy. The goal must be taken to escort, point the weapon at her and control the entire process of the missile’s flight to the target.

As usual, the AN / SPY-1 multipurpose radar, as well as three target radar radar, deals with this in the US ship. Spay super-radar can simultaneously monitor up to 18 ... 20 anti-aircraft missiles: determine their position in space and automatically transmit corrective impulses to the automatic pilots of the SAMs, directing them to the right sector of the sky. However, the Aegis system carefully monitors that the number of missiles in the final segment of the trajectory does not exceed three units.

The trick is that most modern naval air defense missile systems (including the "Standerd" and C-300F) use a semi-active method of targeting: a special radar "highlights" the target, the rocket head reacts to the reflected "echo". It's simple. But the number of simultaneously targeted targets is limited by the number of radar lights.
As noted above, the American destroyers have only three AN / SPG-62 radars. The course corners are covered by one, the feed corners - by two, from the board - all three together. The situation is fundamentally different for the Russian nuclear cruiser: the C-300F and 300FM missiles are guided by two specialized radars, each of which provides tracking of the missile defense system from the moment it starts to hit the target:

- a radar with a phased antenna array 4P48 (flat "plate" in front of the Peter the Great superstructure). Unlike the American AN / SPG-62, which provides simultaneous illumination of only one target, the domestic system generates six guidance channels: a total of 4Р48 is capable of simultaneously guiding 12 missiles at 6 air targets!

- the second radar - 3Р41 "Wave", received in the fleet for its distinctive appearance the nickname "boob" (clearly visible in the rear part of the superstructure). In fact, it was used to install modern 4Р48 at this place, but, alas, during the construction of the cruiser, there was only enough money for a boob, and modern 4Р48 were sold abroad and installed on board Chinese destroyers of the Liuzhou type.
As a result, from the stern "Peter" is able to direct all 6 missiles on three targets - but, in any case, this is the best result, compared with the US Ajis destroyer.

In addition to a larger number of control channels, the domestic fire control scheme based on the specialized 3P41 and 4P48 radars provides much more reliable and interference-proof missile guidance on the cruise missile, compared to the American multifunctional AN / SPY-1.



Unlike the American Aegis destroyer, where all types of anti-aircraft missiles (“stander-2,3”, “si sparrow”, ESSM) are guided by a single fire control system (SPY-1 + three SPG-62), the Russian cruiser is equipped with two types of air defense systems with individual guidance systems. In addition to the C-300F / 300FM zonal air defense missile systems, the Petra has a Dagger self-defense system - 128 short-range missiles designed to repel anti-ship missiles.

"Dagger" has its own antenna post 3Р95, located in the rear part of the superstructure, next to a paired artillery gun. The anti-aircraft complex uses the 4-x channel radio command system, which provides simultaneous guidance of up to 8 missiles at 4 air targets in the 60 ° x 60 ° sector.


Launch of the Dagger SAM system from the Frunze atomic cruiser (Admiral Lazarev), the end of the 1980's

The last line of defense of Peter is formed by six Kortik anti-aircraft artillery complexes - each combat module is a twin 30 mm machine gun (total 10 000 firing rate / min) combined with a short-range 9М311 anti-aircraft missile block. In addition to its own radar facilities, the Dirks receive target designation from two antenna posts of the Positive radar.

In this case, the American cruisers and destroyers are much sadder - on board the Orly Berkov, in the best case, a pair of automated anti-aircraft guns, the Phalanx, are mounted, consisting of a six-barreled 20 mm gun and a compact radar fire control, mounted on one gun carriage. In connection with attempts to reduce the cost of their construction, the destroyers of the US Navy of the last series are completely deprived of any anti-aircraft self-defense tools.

Actually, “Orly Burke” is deprived of a lot of things - the fantastic Aegis destroyers, positioned by the Pentagon as the best air defense / anti-missile warships, have neither a special radar to detect the NLC, nor a sufficient number of target radar. This explains the pleasant “smoothness” of their add-ons and the absence of “extra” antennas.

Epilogue

“Fragat”, “Tackle”, “Wave” ... Each of the radars has its specific purpose and is focused on performing some specific task. Combining them into a single “universal” station is an attractive idea, but difficult to implement in practice: the fundamental laws of nature stand in the way of engineers - for each case it is preferable to work in a specific wavelength range.

It is no coincidence that one of the most advanced developments in the field of marine detection equipment - the promising radar AN / SPY-3 with three active phased arrays, planned for installation on the American destroyer Zamvolt, was originally created as an integral part of a system of two radars: the centimeter AN / SPY- 3 for searching low-altitude targets and viewing AN / SPY-4 (decimeter wave range). Subsequently, under the blows of financial cuts, the Pentagon abandoned the installation of AN / SPY-4, with the wording "the destroyer is not intended to provide zone defense". Simply put, the super-destroyer Zamvolt cannot effectively hit aerial targets at a distance over 50 km (however, unlike Berk, which can shoot down space satellites, the Zamvolt is ideal for repelling low-flying anti-ship missiles).

The Yankees, as you know, are big fans of standardization and unification - now let them choose what is better ...

Unlike the American Idzhisov and Zamvoltov, the Russian nuclear cruiser carries on board a full set of fire detection and control tools for hitting air targets at any distances. Even now, given the deliberate weakening of its characteristics, due to the well-known political and economic events, the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Peter the Great remains the strongest combat unit whose capabilities, in terms of air defense, are equivalent to two or three US Ajis destroyers.

This giant has enormous potential - replacing the outdated Voskhod radar with a modern radar with active lights, similar to the European S1850M and equipping the ship with C-400 missiles and replacing part of the ammunition with anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads - will turn the cruiser into an inaccessible sea fortress .



Based on:
1. http://militaryrussia.ru/
2. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
3. Reference book "SHIPS of the Navy of the USSR Volume II. Impact ships. Part I. Aircraft carriers and rocket-artillery ships of 1 and 2 ranks ”, Apalkov Yu.V.
4. “Nuclear-powered cruisers of the Kirov type”, A. Pavlov
Author:
221 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. fzr1000
    fzr1000 13 November 2013 09: 00
    52
    Ie, if the radar station on Aegis is destroyed or "jammed" with interference (is it possible ??), will it become useless? Is it more difficult to do this on Peter the Great because of the larger number of radars, or is there no difference?
    Kettle, so don't kick hard.
    1. Airman
      Airman 13 November 2013 10: 22
      29
      Quote: fzr1000
      Ie, if the radar station on Aegis is destroyed or "jammed" with interference (is it possible ??), will it become useless? Is it more difficult to do this on Peter the Great because of the larger number of radars, or is there no difference?
      Kettle, so don't kick hard.

      At the end of the 70s, he participated in air defense exercises, so the AN-12PP pair (jammers) scored radars of meter, decimeter and centimeter ranges so that the indicators had continuous illumination. With HEADLIGHTS, this is a little more difficult.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 14 November 2013 11: 36
        +5
        Quote from the article: "In connection with attempts to reduce the cost of their construction, the US Navy destroyers of the latest series generally deprived of any anti-aircraft means of self-defense."
        It’s just that amer’s admirals believe that with a large number of aircraft carriers, gaining air superiority in the target area is a settled issue. Thus, until the aircraft carrier is destroyed, the enemy’s ships will be in an unenviable position. Logically true. However, not all performance characteristics of anti-ship missiles that are in service with the Russian fleet and their future prototypes are taken into account in this version of the state fleet defense.
      2. maxvik
        maxvik 14 November 2013 11: 49
        +3
        Why is it harder to do with the PAR? This is not a fact. Both PAR and AFAR are not a panacea. Although of course the radar with AFAR is a potentially noise-immune system. With passive headlights, everything is much more complicated. To assess their noise immunity, you need to know what methods of dealing with interference are incorporated into the system. It may turn out that a radar with a phased array is no better than a radar with a simple mirror antenna.
      3. Polovec
        Polovec 14 November 2013 13: 49
        15
        The article pleased, but it’s a pity that we have only one such cruiser. We need dozens of ...
        1. AVV
          AVV 16 November 2013 13: 25
          +5
          Yes, and Peter would not be bad to upgrade, according to the latest requirements, but at first Atlantes will probably upgrade, and then they will get to Peter !!! Faster !!!
    2. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 12: 14
      15
      Quote: fzr1000
      Ie, if the radar station on Aegis is destroyed or "jammed" with interference (is it possible ??), will it become useless?


      phased arrays allow the system to place a “zero” antenna pattern in the direction of the interference source and thus block its entry into the receiver.
      1. bogdan
        bogdan 13 November 2013 14: 03
        27
        Pleased with the title of the article: the author did not, as is usually done now, replace the word "against" with "VS"
        1. postman
          postman 13 November 2013 20: 28
          -53 qualifying.
          Quote: bogdan
          the author did not, as usual

          Yes, the author is just lol, he doesn't even know what "vs" is lol
          1. Elm
            Elm 15 November 2013 12: 15
            11
            IMHO, lol is who uses VS.
            1. postman
              postman 17 November 2013 16: 24
              -3
              Quote: Elm
              IMHO, lol is who uses VS.

              Yah?
              And those who use PS, PC, TV, or, END, etc. SAME
              Poor Newton, Wiener and others like that, they vs used
      2. Genry
        Genry 13 November 2013 14: 36
        +8
        Quote: Postman
        phased arrays allow the system to place a “zero” antenna pattern in the direction of the interference source and thus block its entry into the receiver.

        It turns out that from the side of the source of interference, you can beat on the "zeroed" radar, because he does not see nifiga.
        1. postman
          postman 13 November 2013 14: 56
          0
          Quote: Genry
          It turns out that from the side of the interference source,

          Interest Ask..
          How to peel?
          By the reflected signal of the electronic warfare? or by eye?
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 14 November 2013 14: 57
            +5
            Since when does an anti-ship missile need a working target radar to notice it? RCCs are equipped with ARGSN, they do not care if AFAR is working or not.
            1. postman
              postman 15 November 2013 12: 07
              0
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              Since when does an anti-ship missile need a working target radar to notice it? RCCs are equipped with ARGSN, they do not care if AFAR is working or not.

              it was about analog Harm
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 14 November 2013 05: 52
          +4
          In addition to the general irrationality and difficulty in coordinating the work of such a large number of radio equipment, Petra’s sloppy appearance greatly increases its visibility - the cruiser shines on the screens of enemy radars, like the brightest star. Surely, backward Bolshevik technologies played a certain role ... But not to the same extent!
          what I remember until recently everywhere it was mentioned about the low visibility of "Peter", almost "stealth" technology, and now vice versa! where is the truth?
      3. maxvik
        maxvik 14 November 2013 11: 56
        +2
        Phase synthesis algorithms for generating zero in the direction of the interference source are quite complex and not the fact that they are implemented there.
        Another thing is that the jammer is an easily detectable target and, accordingly, it can be reached. And staging wide-spectrum interference from a long range will require a lot of energy on board.
        1. postman
          postman 15 November 2013 12: 05
          0
          Quote: maxvik
          and not the fact that they are implemented there.

          So says the manufacturer.
          With this, he went to the congressional subcommittee.
          Quote: maxvik
          And staging wide-spectrum interference from a long range will require a lot of energy on board.

          I always talk about it
          Aircraft and ship, remote control (SU) them are simply not comparable, and the size, mass,
          And the power (intensity) of the signal, we all know how it falls from a distance ..
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 13 November 2013 16: 28
      12
      Quote: fzr1000
      Ie, if the radar station on Aegis is destroyed or "jammed" with interference (is it possible ??), will it become useless? Is it more difficult to do this on Peter the Great because of the larger number of radars, or is there no difference?
      Kettle, so don't kick hard.


      All is simpler. It is enough to exceed the possibilities of highlighting targets from the least protected direction.
      1. Botanologist
        Botanologist 13 November 2013 19: 37
        +6
        I am generally wary of the author's calculations. This is abstract mathematics in a laboratory setting. Same as calculating the armor penetration of the Kornet and then concluding that the number of Kornets in the army should be equal to the number of tanks and armored vehicles of a potential enemy multiplied by two minus the number of missiles for helicopters wassat .
        Even that started at 1 second intervals. the rockets will fly like a barbecue, and, accordingly, targeting the latter in a salvo will be either impossible or very difficult. And you can't count it on a calculator.
        So the article .... is not very professional. Primitively somehow argued.
        1. Phantom Revolution
          Phantom Revolution 13 November 2013 22: 06
          -1
          Quote: Botanologist
          the number of "Cornets" in the army should be equal to the number of tanks and armored vehicles of the potential enemy

          The point is not only this, the most important weapons and the combat radius have not been considered.
          As I understand it, the same ticonderoga has tomahawks, with the help of which it is not necessary to enter the affected area of ​​our cruisers. 30 versus 3, let's say this version of 10 launches tomahawks at the same time, 120 on board the missiles. 1200 on 10 ships, even taking into account that 1 will be shot down to 1, there will not be enough stupid ammunition.
          1. Botanologist
            Botanologist 13 November 2013 22: 52
            27
            Quote: Phantom Revolution
            the same ticonderoga has tomahawks,


            Both the Berks and the Ticonderoger have tomahawks, but they are for sushi. And their RCC - Harpoons. And there are very few of them. On Berks, EMNIP, usually around 16.

            Quote: Phantom Revolution
            10 will simultaneously launch Tomahawks, 120 on board the missiles. 1200 on 10 ships, even taking into account that 1 will be shot down to 1, there will not be enough stupid ammunition.


            Where did you count the 1200 missiles? If our group is fighting against AUG, then we have a pair of Ticonderocks, pieces of 5 Berkov. And a dozen aircraft in the air (at the same time). Therefore, first the HARMs will fly, which will knock out the radars, and then everything else. And in total, from the side of the AUG there will be no more than 150 - 200 harpoons, well, and our group will be able to hypothetically consist of 1156 frigates, which will be hollowed by Onyx, and a cruiser, which after modernization will use the Caliber. Let there be 4 frigate and cruiser, it is less than 100 RCC.
            If anti-ship missiles are used simultaneously, then there will be nothing left of the AUG and our group, even without taking into account the radar performance and the number of missiles on board. For the simple reason that:
            - the rockets fly like a barbecue, and only the first in a salvo are shot down. The rest are shaded by those that fly first.
            - after falling into a rocket on radars there is a flare from debris and pulses. It greatly interferes with detection and guidance, especially when it occurs among a dense group of targets.
            - the range of the radio horizon for memory, 30 kilometers. Therefore, the AUG has a little more than a minute for everything, even with subsonic anti-ship missiles. Actually, we do too. So consider how many missiles the AUG escort radars will be able to bring to targets if 14 radars work at best (2 per ship), and each is carrying 3 missiles. And during this time the "shish kebab" continues on its way, it will not wait.
            - What is the likelihood of missile launcher RCC? 0,5 - 0,8? So, for each anti-ship missile launch 2 missiles. Consequently, such a soup from the flare on the radar is already boiling in the air that the BIUS can even think for a couple - three seconds. Or minutes.
            - we will not forget, that hitting the anti-ship missiles with high probability will deenergize the ship, and all its radars will turn off from the fun. The load on the rest will increase.

            And this we still do not consider artillery, which will also contribute to the destruction of anti-ship missiles and to the chaos that they will see on the screen.
            And we do not consider systems for jamming and camouflaging ships, electronic warfare, and much more.

            In general, the launch of 100 anti-ship missiles with a high degree of probability will lead to the destruction of the shelling group. Therefore, the one who does it first will win.
            1. lucidlook
              lucidlook 14 November 2013 05: 16
              -5
              Quote: Botanologist
              In general, the launch of 100 anti-ship missiles with a high degree of probability will lead to the destruction of the shelling group. Therefore, the one who does it first will win.

              It will not lead to anything, because it will not be. How are you going to direct "Calibers" and "Granites"? Specifically, where (from which platform) will the control center follow? Taking into account the fact that the AUG (being on alert) will constantly keep E2D and SH-60F in the sky and AN / SQR-19 under water and will shoot down / drown everything that it sees.
            2. postman
              postman 14 November 2013 11: 41
              +4
              Quote: Botanologist
              - range of the radio horizon for memory, 30 kilometers.

              ? No anti-ship missile system "goes" to WWI (Start, Acceleration, Approach, Attack)
              Aegis (AN / SPY-1B or D radar) provides control of the tactical situation in the hemisphere with a radius of 200 miles.
              If (and as a rule in BO this is so) a helicopter of the LEMPS subsystem (MKZ), AWACS E-2S "Hokai", deck anti-submarine S-3A and V "Viking" and base patrol R-ZS "Orion + ALL THIS IN A ONE NETWORK digital radio lines LINK-4A, -11 and -14 ...
              Chances to "spit" RCC from 30 km = NO
              "Standard-2" can be launched at a predetermined point in the airspace in the direction of the targets according to the onboard unit of the inertial navigation system. Then, in the middle section of the flight path, missiles were received from SPY-1 radar (can transmit radio correction signals to missiles)signals of the adjusted target position and corrected their flight ..

              Quote: Botanologist
              - rockets fly like a barbecue, and only the first in a salvo get lost

              Fans are flying, not kebabs
              Quote: Botanologist
              - after getting into the rocket on the radar there is a flare from debris and impulse

              Nothing of the kind, even with a ZAK shot down by a phalanx (Gravity, Aerodynamic drag, inertia)
              Quote: Botanologist
              how many missiles AUG escort radars will be able to bring to goals,

              18 missiles each Aegis platform. QUOTE:
              SURVEILLANCE 250-300 and guidance (for the most threatened) of them up to 18 missiles. The radar operates on the principle of temporary compaction of the radiation channels, receiving and processing signals. In normal mode, the majority of the time emitted electromagnetic energy is allocated for the search and detection of targets, however, depending on the tactical situation, environmental conditions, interference situation, damage received during the battle, and other factors, the station’s time and energy resources may be redistributed, and operating parameters may change a wide range of possible values, which allows to optimize the modes of its operation. For example, by reducing the search area, the freed up time and energy resources provide an increase in the number of tracking targets and targeting a larger number of missiles.
              1. postman
                postman 14 November 2013 11: 42
                +2
                Quote: Botanologist
                that BIUS can think for a couple - three seconds. Or minutes.

                Do not create such a density of fire.
                the maximum that is possible, a system reset, with a SINGLE APPROACH of 2 or more targets, with the SAME LEVELS of THREAT ...
                But it's almost unbelievable
                ============
                AN / SPY-1 radar possesses high noise immunity not only due to changes in the operating frequency, high power of electromagnetic energy in a pulse and a narrow radiation pattern of the PAR, but also due to the possibility of a quick transition to the radio silence mode and then resumption of operation (within a short time) . So, restoration of target tracking in the lower hemisphere takes place within the first second, and updating of the entire system-wide database of tracking data is carried out in 18-20 s.
                Quote: Botanologist
                and all his radars will turn off from the fun. The load on the rest will increase.

                the system is flexible and the power supply is the same, see "Quote"
                + LINK-4A, -11 and -14 provides the transmission of target designation, tactical conditions, guidance of warrants and aircraft by m / a, both by one's own and from the shore
                1. 1c-inform-city
                  1c-inform-city 14 November 2013 13: 18
                  +4
                  The Aegis system, as well as the Standard family of missiles, are geared towards destroying ballistic targets. With PCR, everything is pretty mediocre.
                  1. postman
                    postman 14 November 2013 15: 31
                    +2
                    Quote: 1c-inform-city
                    The Aegis system, as well as the Standard family of missiles, are geared towards destroying ballistic targets. With PCR, everything is pretty mediocre.

                    Nonsense. AEGIS (Airborne Early Warning Ground Environment Integration Segment)
                    SM-2 MR (RIM-66C, RIM-66B mod. 5, RIM-66G, RIM-66J, RIM-66H, RIM-66L, and adapted for starting from UVP - RIM-66M and -66K), SM-2 ER (RIM-67V)
                    All this is PURE SP, unable to shoot down BC
                    SM2 120,4-166,7 km, interception height 0,015-20 km, flight speed about M = 3
                    SM-6 will replace SM-2 from 2016

                    with Aegis BMD 3.6.1. (2008) SM-3 Block IA missiles, can shoot down both BC and satellites on BUT

                    Aegis BMD 5.1.1. since 2020 SAM (SM-3 Block IA / IB / IIA and SM-6) interception of ICBMs


                    Quote: 1c-inform-city
                    .With PCR, everything is pretty mediocre.

                    Yes .... What is this based on?
                    1. sivuch
                      sivuch 14 November 2013 16: 12
                      +4
                      Yes, even on this
                      IOT & E Phase 1 flight tests, SM-6 demonstrated significant
                      new capabilities against maneuvering targets, low-altitude
                      targets, and targets with electronic countermeasures,
                      successfully completing 7 of 12 intercept attempts.
                      http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=57290&page=4
                      Here, too, there is an unstoppable optimist who confuses future time with the present. So far, Standard rockets do not intercept supersonic sea-skimming targets with sufficient reliability. Although, until 2015, they have time
            3. Bombowoz
              Bombowoz 14 November 2013 21: 03
              +7
              Sorry, men. But nothing, that after the use of so many weapons is this a war? And why then trifle. On both sides there is something more powerful to spread.
          2. Su24
            Su24 14 November 2013 08: 22
            0
            Quote: Phantom Revolution
            Quote: Botanologist
            the number of "Cornets" in the army should be equal to the number of tanks and armored vehicles of the potential enemy

            The point is not only this, the most important weapons and the combat radius have not been considered.
            As I understand it, the same ticonderoga has tomahawks, with the help of which it is not necessary to enter the affected area of ​​our cruisers. 30 versus 3, let's say this version of 10 launches tomahawks at the same time, 120 on board the missiles. 1200 on 10 ships, even taking into account that 1 will be shot down to 1, there will not be enough stupid ammunition.


            What you wrote, I did not understand, at all!
          3. 1c-inform-city
            1c-inform-city 14 November 2013 13: 09
            +1
            The Tomahawk is not an anti-ship missile. The last anti-ship tomahawk had a range of 450 km and was decommissioned in 91-93 of the last century.
        2. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka 13 November 2013 22: 13
          -16 qualifying.
          Quote: Botanologist
          I am generally wary of the author's calculations. This is abstract mathematics in a laboratory setting. Same as calculating the armor penetration of the Kornet and then concluding that the number of Kornets in the army should be equal to the number of tanks and armored vehicles of a potential enemy multiplied by two minus the number of missiles for helicopters wassat .
          Even that started at 1 second intervals. the rockets will fly like a barbecue, and, accordingly, targeting the latter in a salvo will be either impossible or very difficult. And you can't count it on a calculator.
          So the article .... is not very professional. Primitively somehow argued.

          For that patriotic.
    4. Megatron
      Megatron 14 November 2013 00: 46
      +1
      How good the photos are! I copied myself!
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 14 November 2013 11: 04
      +8
      Quote from the article: "Nobody in the world dared to repeat the American trick with the" single multifunctional radar "- on the projects of warships"
      ================================================== ===========
      For amers, this is logical. Since the destroyers of this project are integrated into a single information network. Therefore, there is no need for multiple duplication of all radars on one ship (to increase the survivability of the ship, they are simply distributed among the ships of the group as one multifunctional ship, thereby increasing the overall detection efficiency of targets. Also, if the radar is damaged, the information will come from other ships of the group.
      On "Petra" everything is brought together "under one roof". This arrangement is traditional, and has both disadvantages and indisputable advantages (due to the large size, capacity for ammunition, etc.)
    6. gridasov
      gridasov 14 November 2013 23: 04
      +2
      You are not far from the truth. The range of the working scale of all radars is quite narrow. Different systems do not solve the general concept of a locator. A pulse is applied and the signal is reflected. Another thing is who will be the first to master the technology when a broadband energy source will only receive an incoming pulse. I think there is no need to explain that all objects are energetic, but in different ranges of the potential radiation scale. This I’m not talking about electro-magnetic weapons, when a simply directed impulse of disturbance along a vector can bring out the entire modern radar. The only question is the source of energy. Things are just around the corner.
  2. govoruha-otrok
    govoruha-otrok 13 November 2013 09: 02
    +6
    I would like to read about the practical application of air defense systems. And so - this is a retelling of the technical characteristics from TK to design, i.e. it should be. Did our cruiser fire more than two missiles? Moreover, in terms of the use of the main complex of RO, artillery and other conditions? That's what is interesting
    1. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 13 November 2013 09: 35
      44
      As far as it is known, but not by "Peter", "Nakhimov" at one time fired in automatic mode at four simultaneous targets - all were hit. And for "Peter" with a more advanced system, this is not a problem.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 14 November 2013 11: 55
        +2
        Quote: 77bob1973
        "Nakhimov" at one time fired in automatic mode at four simultaneous targets - all are hit. And for "Peter" with a more advanced system, this is not a problem.

        Shipborne air defense systems are not developing in a void, but as an advanced response (if possible) to the development of anti-ship missile systems. Therefore, statements such as: "this is not a problem for him" are at least not correct. I specially wrote "complexes of anti-ship missiles", since the attacking weapon has a wider set of means of overcoming the "defense". Otherwise, it would not be called shock, and would not have any danger for the purposes yes
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 13 November 2013 09: 48
      32
      The article, albeit on technical documentation, is competent. It was designed under the Union, and then all the systems were worked out very carefully.
  3. knyazDmitriy
    knyazDmitriy 13 November 2013 09: 03
    34
    BEAUTY, we are waiting for Nakhimov in Vladivostok. I hope they will do everything wisely!
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 14 November 2013 13: 02
      +4
      Quote: knyazDmitriy
      BEAUTY, we are waiting for Nakhimov in Vladivostok. I hope they will do everything wisely!

      At one time, the cruiser "Kirov" SF project 1144 "Ornan" drove the NATO squadron across all northern seas, thanks to its size, technological advancement and power! The baton was accepted by "Peter the Great". This is a great heavy cruiser! And together with the aircraft carrier, this is an almost invincible AUG! Ours plan to start building the first real aircraft carrier (if I'm not mistaken) in the 20th year. I really hope that there will be no delays and adequate funding.
  4. Samy
    Samy 13 November 2013 09: 12
    26
    Really good ... but he's ONE. And if the failure of any systems as a result of a hit or just a breakdown? During what time will the unique and unique come back into operation, and during what time does Aegis standardized and propagated in many copies?
    1. Spectrum
      Spectrum 13 November 2013 12: 26
      12
      In my opinion, in the current conflict, in the event of a failure, there will be no time to repair either one or the other.
    2. Tiamat2702
      Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 21
      +6
      not quite alone. Soon three more of the same will be repaired and modernized.
      1. gispanec
        gispanec 13 November 2013 17: 08
        +2
        Quote: Tiamat2702
        not quite alone. Soon three more of the same will be repaired and modernized.

        not 3 but 1.a sorry
  5. Tarpon
    Tarpon 13 November 2013 09: 15
    +7
    The construction of this giant has enormous potential - replacing the outdated Voskhod radar with a modern radar with an active headlamp similar to the European S1850M and equipping the ship with S-400 missiles with replacing part of the ammunition with anti-aircraft missiles with active homing - will turn the cruiser into an impregnable naval fortress .

    It is necessary to realize this potential faster.
  6. VVooVVaa
    VVooVVaa 13 November 2013 09: 21
    24
    Peter is good to everyone! but the trouble is we have ONE! and the Ijesovs have a lot of them!
    1. Ihrek
      Ihrek 13 November 2013 11: 34
      +6
      This trouble is temporary. There will be new more modern ones soon. And not as noticeable on the radar as Petya.
      1. Pajamas
        Pajamas 13 November 2013 13: 22
        -25 qualifying.
        where are these new ones laid down and in what quantity, or is it basically in the foreseeable 500 years?
        1. bolonenkov
          bolonenkov 13 November 2013 15: 45
          18
          Quote: Pajama
          where are these new ones laid down and in what quantity, or is it basically in the foreseeable 500 years?

          13 years ago, they said that the Russian Federation will not exist, and you are talking about 500 years, and even visible)))

          But in fact, we do not foresee new crushers yet, but as a deterrent we are building the world's best submarine missile carriers Borey, so you should not worry about a global confrontation, but as soon as we fill in the holes after the amputation of 13 limbs, we will build our own an aircraft carrier, more abruptly than Ford and new cruisers with the names of glorious commanders from the history of our Motherland!
          1. Pajamas
            Pajamas 13 November 2013 16: 05
            +6
            I am all for, only I think, the efforts made are not enough, blind belief that everything should be fine only by the fact that we are Russians, worse than screaming about "screwing the pollemers"
            1. bolonenkov
              bolonenkov 13 November 2013 16: 34
              +7
              Quote: Pajama
              I am all for, only I think, the efforts made are not enough, blind belief that everything should be fine only by the fact that we are Russians, worse than screaming about "screwing the pollemers"

              If you look at the numbers, the dynamics of the arrival of new equipment in the troops will inspire optimism, the same can be said about our shipbuilding, since the number of corvettes, frigates, boats, submarines laid up or already launched, increases from year to year, and descent by the water of the communications vessel and the adoption of Boreev, Mace, S 400, PAK FA, Su-35, the completion of an aircraft carrier for India is an event in general, as it shows that everything is in order with high technology, but there is something to work on.
          2. baltika-18
            baltika-18 13 November 2013 16: 39
            -19 qualifying.
            Quote: bolonenkov
            we’ll also build our own aircraft carrier, abruptly Ford and new cruisers with the names of glorious commanders from the history of our country with you!

            Of course, we’ll build it if we remove Putin and the team from running the country.
            1. Old_kapitan
              Old_kapitan 13 November 2013 18: 43
              +2
              if we remove Putin and his team from running the country
              Boriska to the kingdom?
              1. biznaw
                biznaw 13 November 2013 19: 07
                12
                No. Vissarionovich.
                1. Sergey47
                  Sergey47 14 November 2013 20: 19
                  +3
                  Or maybe Alyaksandr Grygorich Lukashenko?
              2. bolonenkov
                bolonenkov 13 November 2013 19: 11
                +6
                Quote: Old_Kapitan
                Boriska to the kingdom?

                After such words are usually baptized, God forbid stop
                1. Rudy
                  Rudy 14 November 2013 18: 23
                  +5
                  Hmm, not only cross, but also a deeper aspen stake, and score the same. Yes, and a "spotty consensus" would not hurt. Though vicious and blasphemous, they deserve it by their deeds.
                2. bolonenkov
                  bolonenkov 15 November 2013 09: 39
                  0
                  Everyone is lazy over tagged
                  on YouTube a bunch of pearls from his interview
            2. bolonenkov
              bolonenkov 13 November 2013 19: 10
              12
              Quote: baltika-18
              Of course, we’ll build it if we remove Putin and the team from running the country.

              I don't mind in 5 years. We are waiting for a worthy candidate. I will vote for him with pleasure, if he inspires confidence and does not "jackal at foreign embassies."
        2. Pajamas
          Pajamas 13 November 2013 22: 44
          0
          he was nominated, the patriots, that is, they are building, but where we do not know, but we believe. God grant. Medvedev promised that after 12 years within two years they will begin to build 5-6 aircraft carrier groups. Maybe for this Koreans are being pulled up by Zenith and Mistral, give GOD something
          1. bolonenkov
            bolonenkov 14 November 2013 04: 09
            -1
            Quote: Pajama
            Medvedev promised that after 12 years within two years they will begin to build 5-6 carrier groups

            Where did you get this? I’m waiting for a new aircraft carrier in 7-10 years, since this is exactly the period that is needed for the development of the project and its implementation
            1. Ram chandra
              Ram chandra 14 November 2013 19: 49
              +1
              If you are waiting for sure you should have built! Punish them!
              1. bolonenkov
                bolonenkov 15 November 2013 09: 38
                +1
                Quote: Ram Chandra
                If you are waiting for sure you should have built! Punish them!

                Do not understand? Why punish them?
                For the Indians aircraft carrier completed
                And having stood, the industry was raised to a noticeably higher level
                The aircraft carrier project is being developed
                They will approve the project, implementation will begin, enough for everything about all 7-10 years
            2. Pajamas
              Pajamas 17 November 2013 12: 52
              +1
              Quote: bolonenkov
              Where did you get this? I’m waiting for a new aircraft carrier in 7-10 years, since this is exactly the period that is needed for the development of the project and its implementation

              Medvedev's meeting with LS TAVRK "Kuznetsov" 2008
              http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/reforms/newcarriers.htm
      2. spravochnik
        spravochnik 13 November 2013 22: 51
        16
        No need to exaggerate the visibility of "Petit". In the USSR, they began to engage in stealth ships starting with the BOD pr.61. If you look closely at the Soviet / Russian ships, you will see that they have no vertical surfaces. All have an inclination of 10-12 degrees from the vertical. In addition, a special paint map was drawn up for each ship. Up to 20 layers of special radio-absorbing paint were applied to certain places of the hull and superstructure. It was a real haemorrhoid for shipbuilders. And the forms of the Berks appeared under the impression of the appearance of Soviet ships. And before that, the Yankees had box architecture.
    2. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 12: 05
      24
      Until Russia unites at least the countries that were part of the USSR, it will not be able to pull economically more than 1-2 Orlanes. After all, there is still a submarine fleet, air defense, air force, ground forces. Everyone needs to put on shoes, feed, arm, refuel, equip, give a roof over your head, warm, etc. etc.

      And the whole world works for America. Including Russia and China, directing resources to green paper.
      1. CHILD
        CHILD 13 November 2013 13: 00
        25
        it seems to me if we are going to collect the USSR now, we won’t even pull Orlan,
        .... how much will it be necessary to invest again in the former republics ?????
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 13: 16
          24
          The deep delusion imposed by the liberals.

          Everywhere there were people, slave people with knowledge and hands. They just need to be organized. Now many are working in Russia, sending millions, hundreds of millions, to their homeland.

          We ourselves can grow bread, meat, make other products. And with the right organization of people, we can do this in much larger quantities, supplying the army.

          Despite the fact that the mishandled agents, led by the State Department, ruined the industry of Ukraine, we are still self-sustaining. So you don’t have to invest much, and the invested will quickly return.
          1. CHILD
            CHILD 13 November 2013 13: 41
            +8
            14 republics on self-sufficiency ????? it was not even a dream come true in Soviet times .... and even now, when our local elites have grown up everywhere ??? ... the idea is beautiful, but we can’t bear it .... the system is not the same ....
            1. Ivan_Ivanov
              Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 13: 54
              0
              All republics were at least self-sustaining. Otherwise, we would grunt before the war.

              Yes, in certain periods of time more resources (including financial) were not sent to specific republics than were taken into a common boiler, but this happened briefly at the time of large construction projects.

              Another thing is that Russia has always given much more to the cauldron than the rest - this is YES. But the rest also gave, albeit less than Russia.
              1. Pajamas
                Pajamas 13 November 2013 14: 56
                +2
                in 2004, the Russian Federation had the largest gold and foreign exchange reserves in the entire history of the USSR.
                1. DMB87
                  DMB87 13 November 2013 19: 15
                  +9
                  By 1941, the USSR’s gold reserve amounted to 2 800 t, twice exceeding the tsarist and reaching its historical maximum, still unsurpassed! On it we won the Great Patriotic War and restored the destroyed country.
                  Stalin left his successor 2 500 tons of state gold. Let us call it the "Stalinist stash."
                  In October 1991 of the year, then Deputy Prime Minister Grigory Yavlinsky declared that the country's gold reserves were equal to 290 tons. Together with debts, he transferred to the Russian Federation.
                  http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_15126/

                  Gold reserves in the state reserve of Russia as of June 2013 amounted to 1 013,8 tons.
                  1. Pajamas
                    Pajamas 13 November 2013 19: 45
                    +1
                    Quote: DMB87
                    By 1941, the USSR’s gold reserve amounted to 2 800 t, twice exceeding the tsarist and reaching its historical maximum, still unsurpassed! On it we won the Great Patriotic War and restored the destroyed country.
                    Stalin left his successor 2 500 tons of state gold. Let us call it the "Stalinist stash."
                    In October 1991 of the year, then Deputy Prime Minister Grigory Yavlinsky declared that the country's gold reserves were equal to 290 tons. Together with debts, he transferred to the Russian Federation.
                    http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_15126/

                    Gold reserves in the state reserve of Russia as of June 2013 amounted to 1 013,8 tons.

                    Excuse me. You prove what you want? That the amount of valuable metal in 41g was greater, but gold was greater, and why do not you want to compare platinum, sapphires, diamonds, now you say that it was not about them and I agree, but the conversation was about payment opportunities, you can pay with gold and bank tickets, if the parties are ready to accept these tickets. Tobish we are talking about gold and foreign exchange reserves, so the question is, what was the supply of currency in 41g in the USSR? and how much gold could be bought for this currency.
                    Now the currencies in Russia are worth $ 500 billion, this is about 10 tons of gold. Any questions?
                    1. abdrah
                      abdrah 14 November 2013 04: 53
                      +6
                      Unfortunately, sapphires and diamonds are boyan Jews, by the way the largest cutter of precious stones in the world, their price has nothing to do with reality, except for trinkets there is no other use. for the industry there are artificial diamonds, for which the de "beers prices" do not regulate. If South Africa did not artificially restrain diamond mining, their price would fall by orders of magnitude.
                      Py.Sy. When heated at about 900 ° C, diamond burns like ordinary coal - carbon is carbon.
                    2. DMB87
                      DMB87 14 November 2013 07: 38
                      +4
                      The world's annual gold production is less than 3 thousand tons. The assumption of the possibility to buy thousand tons of cut paper 10, to put it mildly, from the realm of fiction.

                      In the whole history, mankind has mined about 161 thousand tons of gold (estimate for 2011 year)
                      1. Pajamas
                        Pajamas 14 November 2013 22: 42
                        0
                        Quote: DMB87
                        The world's annual gold production is less than 3 thousand tons. The assumption of the possibility to buy thousand tons of cut paper 10, to put it mildly, from the realm of fiction.

                        In the whole history, mankind has mined about 161 thousand tons of gold (estimate for 2011 year)

                        What are you getting at? I wrote that the gold and foreign exchange reserve since 2004 In Russia, such as was not the case with the USSR, you started throwing links to the amount of gold in 41g. Then, that you can’t buy 10 tons of gold, that’s all there’s, the conversion to gold makes it possible to compare different currencies and their purchasing power for any period of time, which is not clear. How do you want to buy 000 tons and declare this fact fantastic in the discussion, I didn’t offer not to buy or sell, I talked about the financial possibilities of the country. What exactly is not clear?
              2. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 13 November 2013 16: 58
                18
                Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
                All republics were at least self-sustaining.

                The southern republics and the Baltic states have always been subsidized, and their provision went on a priority basis
          2. shtanko.49
            shtanko.49 13 November 2013 13: 46
            +1
            So that our domestic market does not depend on external influences and can develop, at least 250 thousand people are needed.
            1. CHILD
              CHILD 13 November 2013 14: 08
              +3
              very controversial)))) where do you take 250 (I suspect) millions? I’m afraid they will have to conquer ... or do you think everyone will happily break back ????. on a new one to assimilate into the economy, but she’s not so, not really is it mildly said and how much time will it take? who will give us this time ???? yes, as soon as it becomes clear that the revival of the union has begun, the FAS team will immediately sound))) and a new survival war)))) or you doubt that the next war we will again be domestic ???
          3. Mairos
            Mairos 13 November 2013 15: 47
            +2
            Yeah .. In Central Asia there are "VERY many" highly qualified specialists. ))))
            1. bolonenkov
              bolonenkov 13 November 2013 19: 13
              +2
              Quote: Mairos
              Yeah .. In Central Asia there are "VERY many" highly qualified specialists. ))))


              It is unlikely that there are a lot of them, and we need to pull them to us, since they all have learned their job from us, and we do not need 8 more republics-parasites, we have enough of our problem regions.
    3. bolonenkov
      bolonenkov 13 November 2013 19: 16
      +2
      Quote: VVooVVaa
      Peter is good to everyone! but the trouble is we have ONE! and the Ijesovs have a lot of them!

      It is more a system, not a ship. But the gap must be eliminated! Good luck to our veterans of science and their young shift! For more light and custom solutions !!! We have always been famous for this! At all times, with any king or General Secretary, in war and in peace! Go Russia!
    4. bif
      bif 13 November 2013 22: 12
      +2
      Quote: VVooVVaa
      Peter is good to everyone!

      According to the project, this is generally an attack cruiser, and air defense is for self-defense, but how serious it turned out.
      Quote: VVooVVaa
      and the Ijesovs have a lot of them!

      To exaggerate, the Aegis destroyers are a floating air defense-missile defense (and it turned out to be docked) defenseless in front of ships and anti-ship missiles ... "Modernized Patriot"
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 14 November 2013 13: 42
      -1
      Quote: VVooVVaa
      Peter is good to everyone! but the trouble is we have ONE! and the Ijesovs have a lot of them!

      We in the Black Sea generally need AUG. Look, the Americans brought them to the Mediterranean (to Syria) as many as TWO pieces together with the ship groups! By the time "Peter" arrived there, everything had already resolved (Putin threw it up, thanks to him). Naturally, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet "Moscow" is already 4! months in a hike (in the Mediterranean), how to change it? "Varyag", which can just as "quickly" come from the Pacific Fleet to this most important region of the world? When the amers there the 6th fleet is on standby! And to keep "Petra" in the Middle-earth on nothing, too, is not good, the north is bare .. request
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. PROXOR
    PROXOR 13 November 2013 09: 26
    +8
    All this is good. But project 1144 needs to be urgently modernized. All three remaining boxes. In the Pacific Ocean and a couple in the north, Peter alone is enough. In which case the Pacific will pull up. But the question remains that the autonomy of the course of this ship is such that there is no one to accompany it. All remy need to go to the ports.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 13 November 2013 10: 16
      -5
      Quote: PROXOR
      All this is good. But project 1144 needs to be urgently modernized. All three remaining boxes. In the Pacific Ocean and a couple in the north, Peter alone is enough.

      This is a clear example of a more practical American approach to their navy. Ships of the Burke and Ticonderoga type are equipped with the standard Mk 41 UVP. All ordered weapons according to the requirements of the US Navy can be operated by ANY ship equipped with this UVP, as well as the Mk 57 Zumwalta UVP. Even the most modern anti-ship missile LRASM will not require design changes throughout the Ticonderoga and Burke series. We have ... Even in one project 1164 TWO non-interchangeable anti-ship missile complexes Basalt and Vulcan! And on Project 1144 there are different S-300 and S-300F which also cannot be reinstalled! "Modernization" of the ships of Project 1144 is pure profanation, it is not feasible, a lot of funds will be spent with zero result ...
      1. Santa Fe
        13 November 2013 12: 40
        14
        Quote: Nayhas
        Americans’s more practical approach to their fleet. Ships of the type Burke and Ticonderoga are equipped with standard UVP Mk 41

        UVP began to be installed on ships of the U.S. Navy after losing 1986 year
        Ticonderogs entered service with the beam Mk.26. The first to receive the Bunker Hill UVP (CG-52) - commissioned in September 1986

        The first Orlan (Kirov) began to be built in 1973, transferred to the fleet in 1980
        In the 1984 year, the second TRACR - Frunze - went into operation

        So with the idea of ​​placing the PU below deck, we have outstripped the amers by more than 5 years
        Quote: Nayhas
        Even in one 1164 project, TWO non-interchangeable anti-ship missile systems of Basalt and Volcano!

        What do you want, without money.
        Allocate funds - old Basalt will be immediately replaced by a volcano
        Quote: Nayhas
        And on pr.1144 different C-300 and C-300F

        Allocate money - the boobs will be changed to 4Р48, С-300Ф to С-300ФМ
        If we had a budget similar to the US Navy, C-400 would have stood on them. Together with the radar active headlights. And so compare - who has small pearls, who has liquid soup ...
        Quote: Nayhas
        "Modernization" of the ships of Project 1144 is pure profanation, she is not doable

        )))
        Cruiser Albany before modernization


        Cruiser "Albany" after modernization
        1. ssergn
          ssergn 13 November 2013 18: 11
          +1
          Oleg, tell me, well, there’s a lot of talk about declining visibility. Of course, I’m not special, but wouldn’t the same Berks be shining on radars like Christmas trees because of their radars? The stealth of an airplane is one thing, the ship is another. And they say about planes that as soon as the radar turns on, they will immediately find it. And at the berks, the radars themselves are the size of an airplane.
          Thank you.
        2. Ascetic
          Ascetic 13 November 2013 18: 54
          11
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Allocate money

          For Zumwalt, due to cost savings, the dual-band DBR radar has already been excluded from the project, because the operating model has not yet been cut out and the money has gone a lot. The only thing that is well-tuned for them is marketing PR. We launched the HULL of the aircraft carrier CVN 78 "Gerald Ford" without the same DBR radar, without EMALS electromagnetic catapults and a widely publicized turbo-electric landing system (AAG). All of the above is at the stage of creating prototypes. But the hull was launched and how much of this tub will rust in anticipation "
          "Technical discoveries at the end of the construction of the ship."
          unknown
        3. Nayhas
          Nayhas 14 November 2013 09: 28
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          UVP began to be installed on ships of the U.S. Navy after losing 1986 year

          So what? Arms nomenclature has changed a lot? The standard flies from both beams and with UVP. Tomahawk and Asrok are similar.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Allocate funds

          You did not understand the main idea. The Americans do not need to allocate money to change the design of the ship to replace the rocket, but we do.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          So with the idea of ​​placing the PU below deck, we have outstripped the amers by more than 5 years

          What's the use? Can you push Volcano into PU Granita?
      2. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 30
        +7
        Unification and universalization is not always good. All specialized tools are usually more effective. And you don't have to talk about the Tiku at all - it is unclear how this trough floats at all, not to mention the cracking of aluminum superstructures on all ships of this project without exception.
        1. Bort radist
          Bort radist 15 November 2013 06: 48
          0
          Quote: Tiamat2702
          Unification and universalization is far from always good.

          "A narrow specialist is like a flux, its completeness is one-sided" Kozma Prutkov
      3. bif
        bif 13 November 2013 21: 55
        +6
        Quote: Nayhas
        Even in one 1164 project, TWO non-interchangeable anti-ship missile systems of Basalt and Volcano! And on Prospect 1144 there are different C-300 and C-300Ф which also cannot be reinstalled

        1. The article is not about pr.1164, but here you are mistaken, or rather late. P-1000 is now on all ships of Project 1164 - "Moskva", recently "Varyag" was rearmed, now "Admiral Ustinov" is undergoing modernization.
        2. there is no c-300 in the fleet, and even more so on 1144 ave., there is c-300f and c-300fm.
        3. On the issue of modernization, the Basalt is the progenitor of the Vulcan, so they were put on earlier ships of the 1164 pr., The same with C-300f and C-300FM ... the transition to a more advanced version is modernization.
        4. Unification is also underway, for example, "Onyx" - will be the main heavy supersonic anti-ship missile system (the "Granites" will be replaced with it, while on Antey and on the modernized "Admiral Nakhimov"), lighter anti-ship missiles will be replaced by the "Kolibr" ... Air defense will be S-400.
        "The main acquisition will be the UKSK - the newest universal shipborne firing systems. In the same launch containers it will be possible to install Onyx or Caliber missiles, which will become the main weapons. In addition, the air defense will be strengthened: the S-400 and new air defense systems of the near battle.
        In total, taking into account anti-aircraft missiles, the cruiser will carry more than 300 missiles of different types. [6]
        After the completion of the modernization in 2017, the cruiser will be transferred to the Pacific Fleet. "Http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5% D1% 80% D0% B0_% D
        0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B0_1144
        Do not write more nonsense, use authoritative sources, or at least Wiki.
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 14 November 2013 13: 52
      0
      Quote: PROXOR
      In the Pacific Ocean and a couple in the north, Peter alone is enough.

      And why the heck are they needed there in such an amount ?? When they are the other way around, from there they drive to Middle-earth ?! Isn't it more logical to base them somehow a little closer to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea?
  9. recrut6666
    recrut6666 13 November 2013 09: 27
    +4
    I have only one question! how many eagles berks versus 1 ours?
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 13 November 2013 10: 44
      14
      Why is this "against"?
      It's about the capabilities of air defense.

      If we talk about "against", then can you tell how a burke can shoot at Petya?
      1. bif
        bif 13 November 2013 21: 09
        +1
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        If we talk about "against", then can you tell how a burke can shoot at Petya?

        The main artillery armament of the Arleigh Burke-class ships is the lightweight 127-mm Mark 45 artillery mount. The firing range of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles has been increased from 23 to 37 km, ERGM and BTERM active-reactive ammunition with a flight range of up to 116 km have been added to the ammunition load. all!!! Although the gun mount is designed to "work" along the shore.
        1. Pajamas
          Pajamas 13 November 2013 21: 36
          +3
          Arly Berkov -62pcs on some 8 Harpoons on the last of which are anti-convulsive and how many are in their regular ranks. Berg is actually a destroyer and 4 times smaller, and Peter the Great Missile Cruiser but unfortunately one.
        2. m262
          m262 14 November 2013 00: 46
          +2
          An artillery duel in the 21st century? This is not even funny! At a speed of 860 m / s, a projectile for a maximum range of 116 km. will fly about 135 seconds, during which time the target will shift to 800-900 meters. The time of squadron artillery battles irrevocably passed.
    2. denson06
      denson06 13 November 2013 14: 02
      0
      If memory serves, then about 60 pieces of Orly-Berkov are now available in the US Navy ...
  10. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 13 November 2013 09: 28
    +7
    Radar, this is understandable ... But why does he need a radio transmitter frame? Whom did he intend to peleg? Imperial Navy spark transmitters?
  11. DNX1970
    DNX1970 13 November 2013 09: 35
    +1
    need a couple more of these boats
    1. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 13 November 2013 09: 53
      +7
      decided to repair three more eagles ..
      1. avg
        avg 13 November 2013 11: 40
        +4
        Quote: vthrehbq
        decided to repair three more eagles ..

        Two + Peter.
        1. ssergn
          ssergn 13 November 2013 18: 14
          0
          From authoritative sources I heard about three (from the leadership of one of the enterprises).
          1. bif
            bif 13 November 2013 21: 20
            +4
            Quote: ssergn
            about three

            Kirov / Admiral Ushakov It was decided to dispose of the ship. However, now it is planned to carry out its repair and complete modernization. Commissioning is possible after the 2020 year.
            Frunze / Admiral Lazarev Planned for disposal. However, in 2011, a decision was made to restore and modernize it.
            Kalinin / Admiral Nakhimov
            Since 1999, it has been undergoing repairs and modernization at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk. It is in a less deplorable state than Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov, and was not planned for disposal. In 2012, the design of the new appearance of the ship should be completed. First of all, it is planned to replace obsolete electronic equipment. After modernization, the cruiser should be transferred to the Pacific Fleet.
            Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/142 © "Modern Army" portal
    2. The comment was deleted.
  12. tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 November 2013 09: 43
    +6
    A bunch of equipment and weapons led to an increase in displacement, this is understandable. But do not explain that the battleship is stronger than the light cruiser, and the heavy cruiser of the destroyer is also so clear. 25000 tons on one side of the scale, 7-9000 tons on the other - what is surprising?
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 13 November 2013 10: 45
      +3
      We are talking about the possibilities of air defense / missile defense, and not about the direct confrontation between the two classes of ships.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 13 November 2013 11: 11
        +2
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        We are talking about the possibilities of air defense / missile defense, and not about the direct confrontation between the two classes of ships.

        So ships with Aegis almost do not go alone, but Peter is only one. Acting against the AUG Peter will not be able to break through Aegis because at a distance of 100 km. they won’t let him approach, and letting Granites reach the maximum range, the probability that they will reach the Aegis air defense zone is not great, their security planes will be knocked down.
        1. Tiamat2702
          Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 37
          +1
          Interestingly, and who will not come closer to Ajis closer than 100 versts? It is Berki who are included in the escort of an aircraft carrier, i.e. they are just around the edges of the aug, i.e. it’s just possible to come closer to them.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 14 November 2013 09: 30
            +2
            Quote: Tiamat2702
            It is Berki who are included in the escort of an aircraft carrier, i.e. they are just around the edges of the aug, i.e. it’s just possible to come closer to them.

            In peacetime it is possible. In a military horseradish. That's Hokai in the air and hanging ...
        2. poquello
          poquello 13 November 2013 20: 42
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas

          So ships with Aegis almost do not go alone, but Peter is only one. Acting against the AUG Peter will not be able to break through Aegis because at a distance of 100 km. they won’t let him approach, and letting Granites reach the maximum range, the probability that they will reach the Aegis air defense zone is not great, their security planes will be knocked down.

          What is the maximum range?
          What are security aircraft?
          What are the security planes going to bring down granites?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 14 November 2013 09: 35
            +1
            Quote: poquello
            What is the maximum range?

            Granite has two flight options. At a maximum range of 13 km. and 150 km. (here the data vary, from 100 to 150 km. in various sources, most likely depending on weather conditions) at a low altitude.
            Quote: poquello
            What are security aircraft?

            From an aircraft carrier.
            Quote: poquello
            What are the security planes going to bring down granites?

            AIM-120D AMRAAM.
            1. poquello
              poquello 14 November 2013 19: 31
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              AIM-120D AMRAAM

              I cried, you are going to knock down a seven-ton colossus with this toothpick.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 14 November 2013 19: 59
                +3
                Quote: poquello
                I cried, you are going to knock down a seven-ton colossus with this toothpick.

                Well, if you want to cry, then please. Such a rocket and more "colossus" go astray. By the way, the same is true for our missiles, for example, the RVV-SD, despite its modest size, can shoot down a B-1B, despite the fact that the latter is hundreds of times heavier than a missile.
                1. poquello
                  poquello 14 November 2013 22: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  Quote: poquello
                  I cried, you are going to knock down a seven-ton colossus with this toothpick.

                  Well, if you want to cry, then please. Such a rocket and more "colossus" go astray. By the way, the same is true for our missiles, for example, the RVV-SD, despite its modest size, can shoot down a B-1B, despite the fact that the latter is hundreds of times heavier than a missile.

                  Somehow here is not the same B1B, Mig25 and granite.
                  1. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 14 November 2013 23: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: poquello
                    Somehow here is not the same B1B, Mig25 and granite.

                    In appearance, yes, but in fact an aircraft with a turbojet engine and aerodynamic surfaces. Only Granite is not controlled by a pilot. And so for him, getting a missile into-in is even more fatal, loss of control due to damage to the wing or stabilizer will lead to an erratic flight ...
                    Granite has a powerful armored penetrating b / h which is really difficult to destroy, but this becomes important when the target is 200 meters and due to its high speed and mass, the loss of a wing will not affect the final trajectory. But when another 50 km to the target. and the explosion damaged the radar (which is not covered by armor because it is impossible), then Granite will not get anywhere.
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 November 2013 11: 27
        +3
        with the same success, you can write that on the destroyer of the WWII dozen Erlikonov and Bofors, and on the battleship a hundred
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 13 November 2013 11: 35
          +5
          Quote: Tlauicol
          with the same success, you can write that on the destroyer of the WWII dozen Erlikonov and Bofors, and on the battleship a hundred

          Oleg Kaptsov considers Aegis a profanity, so he regularly tries to convey this to everyone, especially with examples of incidents that happened in the past. He has many supporters for some reason believing that this is so, not realizing that Aegis is improving regularly, for example, there is now a NINTH basic modification and a new SM-6 SAM with ARLGSN capable of hitting targets behind a radio horizon receiving guidance from an E-2D AWACS aircraft. Those. Now the AUG air defense zone when using only shipborne missiles is not limited to the radio horizon. No one in the world has anything like it.
          1. Ivan_Ivanov
            Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 12: 55
            +9
            Do you want to prove that a ship + plane is better than just a ship?

            And why don't you compare the ship + mobile MBK Topol?

            And what does the 9th modernization mean? On ships that changed radars, or installed new ones? No?

            Ahhh ... Just replaced one circuit with another, one software with another? ... This is modernization, so modernization!
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 14 November 2013 09: 44
              +1
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              Do you want to prove that a ship + plane is better than just a ship?

              Not quite a plane + ship + submarine is better than just one ship, no matter how versatile it is.
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              And why don't you compare the ship + mobile MBK Topol?

              I give it to you. You probably have a rich imagination. I can imagine the complex ship + plane + BRF DF-21, most likely this is in China.
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              And what does the 9th modernization mean? On ships that changed radars, or installed new ones? No?

              Aegis Baseline 9 new hardware, software.
              Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
              This is modernization, so modernization!

              Please tell us about the number of upgrades of the BIUS “Lumberjack”, and then we will laugh together, if you have a desire of course.
          2. Santa Fe
            13 November 2013 13: 12
            +8
            Quote: Nayhas
            Oleg Kaptsov considers Aegis a profanity

            Not a profanity, but an outdated system - just below I attached a comment on this
            Quote: Nayhas
            Aegis REGULARLY improved, for example, there is now a NINTH basic modification

            Sense? From this increased the number of radar backlight? AFAR? Or did Aegis receive a centimeter radar to control the near field? Missiles with ARGSN? Guided anti-aircraft shells?

            YANKA DOES NOTHING ANYTHING, this is the difference from British, Italian, French, Singaporean and Japanese ships. Our Peter has at least a centimeter tackle + height of antenna posts + capabilities of C-300 missiles (2 times faster than Standerd-2, 2 times more warheads)
            Quote: Nayhas
            and the new SM-6 missiles with ARLGSN

            No.
            "The first full-rate production Standard Missile-6 is on track for an April 2015 delivery "
            - http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2332
            Quote: Nayhas
            Those. Now the AUG air defense zone when using only shipborne SAMs is not limited to the radio horizon

            3 / 4 time destroyers go outside the AUG
            Which AUG and E-2D covered the destroyers Stout, Gravelly, Ramage, Barry off the coast of Syria in September 2013?

            Sixth Fleet Mediterranean PRO Patrol (DESRON SIX) operates alone
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 14 November 2013 10: 50
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Not a profanity, but an outdated system

              Come on, you have in every line a mockery of Aegis, unfortunately love to "play in public" ...
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Sense? From this increased the number of radar backlight? AFAR? Or did Aegis receive a centimeter radar to control the near field? Missiles with ARGSN? Guided anti-aircraft shells

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              YANKA DOES NOTHING ANYTHING

              Well, actually, they use AN / SPS-67 as a near-field control with a detection range of 100 km., And Podkat’s total area is only 33,7 km. as indicated in the directories at an altitude of 100m. You are frankly inventing Aegis's problems in finding low-flying targets.
              Pyotr’s radar station Voskhod does not see low-flying targets at all, which is why Frigate was set up who also copes with this poorly and that’s why they set up a Tackle whose parameters for detecting NLCs are far from brilliant.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Quote: Nayhas
              and the new SM-6 missiles with ARLGSN

              No.

              Yes.
              http://www.asdnews.com/news-51392/Raytheon_Awarded_3_M_Standard_Missile-6_Contra
              ct.htm
              From there: "The US Navy awarded Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) a $ 243,478,659 contract for procurement of 89 Standard Missile-6 Block I all up rounds, spares, containers and services. The contract was awarded in Raytheon's third quarter."
              Or "The US Navy has signed a contract with Raytheon to purchase 89 Standard Missile-6 Block I surface-to-air missiles, which also includes parts, transport launch containers and technical support services, ASDNews reported on Oct. 1."
          3. ultra
            ultra 13 November 2013 17: 20
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            Oleg Kaptsov considers Aegis a profanity,

            He probably doesn't think Aegis is a panacea, and then I agree with him! hi
          4. e3tozy
            e3tozy 13 November 2013 18: 23
            +5
            In general, a very interesting thing is the AUG air defense. According to Western experts (information from past forums), out of 100-150 of our supersonic cruise missiles, 7-15 will reach the AUG. Where did they find such grass. That they fired at their AUG at least the third part of the declared number of granites, basalts, yachts? Such a number of supersonic missiles, a problem even for our air defense, But it is the best. Despite the fact that these missiles themselves pose a strong interference. It is also not very easy to intercept them from planes. If such a pack goes in the direction of the AUG, then it will cease to exist, and very quickly. Petya will also strike more than one.
            1. Pajamas
              Pajamas 13 November 2013 19: 11
              +3
              Quote: e3tozy
              Petya will also strike more than one.

              And with whom ? In the USA, the Ticonderoga missile cruisers are three times smaller in displacement, but there are 12-15 of them (they are slowly writing off) 8 Harpoons each, the notorious Arlie Burke -60 units of 8 harpoons, 36 Los Angeles-type nuclear submarines with 8 Harpoons. We do not take strategic boats there only Tridents and Axes. That's the trouble here and there is no need for Aircraft Carriers, but we have "far from only Petya." I do not know whether the "sworn" have learned to hit a moving target with Axes or not, but if they did, then SADNESS.
          5. 31231
            31231 13 November 2013 18: 42
            +1
            Oleg Kaptsov considers Aegis a profanity, so he regularly tries to convey this to everyone, especially with examples of incidents that happened in the past.


            Profanation is not profanity, but the US AUGs and escorts were not close to the coast of Syria. Surely remember the Bastion and the modest aircraft of the SAR.
  13. Nayhas
    Nayhas 13 November 2013 10: 01
    -7
    It started again ..... Let's say the confrontation in the open sea between Burke and Peter without any outside support (of course, the situation is crazy, but without it there is no way). The outcome of the battle will depend on who is the first to discover the enemy. And the first to find it is Burke, who has his "keen eye" in the form of an MH-60R helicopter with an AN / APS-153 (V) radar. And most likely he will not enter into battle, but will keep at a respectful distance, calling out the one who can send Peter 1 to the bottom, for UNTIL the Berks have no means against Peter 1.
    1. Alexey
      Alexey 13 November 2013 10: 06
      +7
      At "Peter" ka-27RTs. Not?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 13 November 2013 10: 26
        +1
        Quote: Alex
        At "Peter" ka-27RTs. Not?

        No, there is no such helicopter. There are Ka-31s but there are only two of them in the fleet and most likely they are on the Kuz.
        1. Alexey
          Alexey 13 November 2013 11: 44
          +6
          Confused. The reconnaissance and target designation helicopter - Ka-27RLD (radar patrol). He is Ka-31.
          The fact that there are 2 of them left is a pity, but this does not prevent, if necessary, placing them on a cruiser. The project, at least that was provided. By the way, they can also order more helicopters.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 13 November 2013 12: 34
            +2
            Quote: Alex
            The fact that there are 2 of them left is a pity, but this does not prevent, if necessary, placing them on a cruiser. The project, at least that was provided. By the way, they can also order more helicopters.

            Purely theoretically, you can pick them up from Kuzi, but Kuzya will then become completely blind and there will be no sense at all from his kutsi air group. To build, of course, is also quite realistic and even with the best characteristics, but we are talking about the present. Romeo on the Berks is now. Ka-31 on Peter there.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 13 November 2013 19: 06
            +4
            And why didn’t you please the usual Ka-27PL? It’s anti-submarine, but its Initiative will see a large NTs of 200 kilometers. Although, it’s much more likely that Burke will be discovered much earlier by its radar radiation. However, there’s a double-edged sword
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 13 November 2013 10: 47
      0
      That damn thing.

      The article is about the capabilities of air defense / missile defense.

      Corrected.

      The question is whether he can keep his distance and who specifically will fly to drown Petya.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 13 November 2013 11: 07
        +2
        Quote: Evgeny_Lev
        The question is whether he can keep his distance and who specifically will fly to drown Petya

        And what will prevent him from keeping his distance? It is not inferior in speed to Peter, only in seaworthiness, because 25 thousand tons of displacement is not a joke ...
        And at the expense of drowning ... there are attack aircraft on the "nearest aircraft carrier" for this ...
        12 SuperKhornetov with anti-ship missiles SLAM-ER and false targets MALD-B / J. Approximate loading 10X2 SLAM-ER + PTB and 2X12 MALD-B / J + PTB.
        If they are not enough, then 12 more will be added ...
        1. desava
          desava 13 November 2013 12: 11
          +8
          And naval aviation will help us in response - we are considering a confrontation not far from our shores. Tu-22m3, interceptors, fighter-bombers ...
          Quote: Nayhas
          Let's admit a confrontation in the open sea of ​​Burke and Peter without any external support


          Quote: Nayhas
          And at the expense of drowning ... there are attack aircraft on the "nearest aircraft carrier" for that ..

          We are already going beyond the initial conditions - right?
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 13 November 2013 12: 23
            +1
            Quote: desava
            We are already going beyond the initial conditions - right?

            No. The man simply asked whom he could call Burke for help, and I indicated. In the initial confrontation, I am of the opinion that Burke will not want to come within shot range because he does not have his own long arm. Even if Harpoons are installed, they still do not fly beyond Granite, and the ship's commander is clearly not a kamikaze to check whether he can repel 20 supersonic anti-ship missiles and sink the enemy with 8 of his subsonic anti-ship missiles.
            1. desava
              desava 13 November 2013 12: 32
              +4
              It turns out that the dueling hypothetical situation will certainly be in favor of 1144.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 14 November 2013 23: 21
                +1
                Quote: desava
                It turns out that the dueling hypothetical situation will certainly be in favor of 1144.

                If he can imperceptibly for Burke to approach the distance of the shot, then Burke is actually doomed. True, the missile consumption will be more than 2-3 ... And so Burke will simply avoid meeting, but again, depending on the weather. Peter, due to the greater displacement, is more seaworthy and will be able to maintain high speed with great excitement, but Burke will have to slow down ...
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 14: 46
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              In the initial confrontation, I am of the opinion that Burke will not want to come within shot range.

              And what is the detection range of the helicopter and its combat radius?
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 14 November 2013 23: 27
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm

                And what is the detection range of the helicopter and its combat radius?

                SiHok has a radius of up to 180 km depending on the load (which task it performs). Synthesized aperture radar AN / APS-153 such a giant as Peter will notice from 200 km. definitely.
          2. Nayhas
            Nayhas 13 November 2013 12: 31
            +1
            Quote: desava
            And naval aviation will help us in response - we are considering a confrontation not far from our shores. Tu-22m3, interceptors, fighter-bombers ...

            If so then yes, it is possible to receive guidance from external sources, then Peter is dangerous. But for example, Peter is now in the Mediterranean Sea, where there is no where to get such help from and the Granites are of little use ...
            1. desava
              desava 13 November 2013 12: 36
              +2
              Quote: Nayhas
              where there’s no where to get such help from and there’s not much sense from the Granites ...

              I agree completely. Therefore, now our Ocean Fleet cannot be called an oceanic (that is, self-sufficient and autonomous).
            2. Tiamat2702
              Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 46
              +1
              How is it not from where, but Engels with his Tu-160. Do you think they’ll fly to the Mediterranean for a long time ?!
              1. desava
                desava 13 November 2013 13: 57
                +2
                Quote: Tiamat2702
                How is it not from where, but Engels with his Tu-160

                Su-27s in Krymsk can also provide support, but the airspace of other countries - Turkey, Greece is not free for military aviation flights. The issue is now acquiring a geopolitical character. winked
            3. lime
              lime 13 November 2013 18: 58
              +2
              Peter constantly receives information from satellites.
              1. Pajamas
                Pajamas 13 November 2013 19: 21
                +1
                Quote: Lime
                Peter constantly receives information from satellites.

                the probable adversary has no satellites and there are no sea tracking and warning systems, DRLO?
            4. kEpkA
              kEpkA 15 November 2013 17: 38
              0
              Peter is clearly not alone there, under the cover of apl
          3. poquello
            poquello 13 November 2013 21: 24
            +1
            Quote: desava

            We are already going beyond the initial conditions - right?

            He immediately went out for them - "he will keep his distance and call the aircraft carrier", already sunk by our ship.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 14: 35
          +6
          Quote: Nayhas
          And at the expense of drowning ... there are attack aircraft on the "nearest aircraft carrier" for this ...

          It seems you suggested considering the option.
          Again it began ..... Let’s admit a confrontation in the open sea of ​​Burke and Peter without any external support (of course the situation is crazy, but without this in any way). The outcome of the battle will depend on who first detects the enemy
          Well, if you take all sorts of options, you can fantasize.
          Peter's system will give a signal about exposure, a request will be sent to Liana about the square of the enemy ship’s location, after the received response 4 Granites will be released and there will be nothing for the helicopter to land on.
          1. desava
            desava 13 November 2013 14: 52
            +2
            By the way, as I understand the outcome of the battle, it will depend not only on who is the first to discover, but also on who has the club heavier and longer wink
    3. Tiamat2702
      Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 42
      0
      But do not tell me who can send Peter to the bottom?
      1. Alexander I
        Alexander I 13 November 2013 15: 51
        +2
        In a dueling situation, one on one is likely no one.
      2. gispanec
        gispanec 13 November 2013 17: 31
        +3
        Quote: Tiamat2702
        But do not tell me who can send Peter to the bottom?

        I think the moose can ... there are 50 to 50 chances
      3. PSih2097
        PSih2097 13 November 2013 21: 20
        +1
        any multipurpose nuclear submarine or submarine approved for the launch distance of anti-ship missiles ...
    4. Pashhenko Nikolay
      Pashhenko Nikolay 13 November 2013 19: 53
      0
      Doesn't Peter have air defense? How long will this "keen eye" see?
  14. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 13 November 2013 10: 22
    +5
    Great ship, more of them
    1. Ihrek
      Ihrek 13 November 2013 11: 36
      +6
      Well done Soviet engineers. Resource laid big in this ship.
  15. karal
    karal 13 November 2013 11: 16
    +7
    Beautiful and majestic ship! Pride and power of Russia! I take off my hat to designers, builders and sailors hi
  16. archi.sailor
    archi.sailor 13 November 2013 11: 40
    +2
    Nobody knows what is planned with Kirov?
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 13 November 2013 19: 10
      +1
      I think it’s only for scrapping. I worked at the Northern Bureau when they designed 11442 and I know that the differences from the base 1144 (i.e., Kirov) are quite serious.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 13 November 2013 23: 16
        +1
        Actually, 1144 is all different. And they will not be modernized according to Project 11442, but according to some new project.
  17. avg
    avg 13 November 2013 11: 49
    0
    Quote: Nayhas
    Again it began ..... Let’s say a confrontation in the open sea of ​​Burke and Peter without any external support (of course the situation is crazy, but without this in any way)

    Why crazy. This is approximately the situation during the war with Georgia. The destroyer McFaul is against the RC Moskva.
    1. wolfhunter2035
      wolfhunter2035 13 November 2013 12: 15
      0
      and what was there? otherwise I don’t know about it)))
      1. avg
        avg 13 November 2013 12: 58
        +2
        Well, there was no war with mattress toppers, but they tried to scare us. And when McFaul entered the Black Sea, a dueling situation could arise. It was commented by Admiral Kasatonov. And here is a quote from an interview with Admiral Baltin: "With a mighty outward appearance, NATO ships in the Black Sea do not represent a combat-ready grouping. If necessary, one missile cruiser" Moskva "and two or three missile boats of the Black Sea Fleet are enough to In 20 minutes the sea will be clean, - said Baltin in an interview with RIA Novosti.
  18. Kars
    Kars 13 November 2013 11: 50
    +3
    I read thanks.

    All the same, the question interested (purely hypothetical)

    One on one. Orlan vs Nimitz. The task of Nimitz is to strike at an island like Crete or Cyprus, Orlan destroy an aircraft carrier.
    who will win?
    1. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 12: 42
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      .Nimitz's mission to strike at an island like Crete or Cyprus

      Crete or Cyprus do not take, the Mediterranean Sea, too.You would have set a task on the island of Kronstadt or Svalbard.
      TAKE: Madagascar or Tutuila

      Quote: Kars
      One on one.

      1. According to "Kaptsov" Orlan will win, and not only Nimitz, but the entire US Navy
      Nimitz is insignificant, suitable only for transportation of used Japanese cars ( Although the author didn’t ask the question, Nafuya to American sailors would use Japanese right-hand drive cars):
      http://topwar.ru/24966-blef-i-realnost-amerikanskiy-avianosec-tipa-nimic.html
      http://topwar.ru/33053-krasnyy-shtorm-smozhet-li-avianosec-nimic-napast-na-siriy
      u.html
      Orlan is magnificent:
      -"here"
      - well, or in others
      2. In fact ....
      In ideal conditions of "vacuum" (tête-à-tête) ask the question WHO WILL DETECT WHOM EARLIER and WHAT WILL DESTROY.
      The answer seems to be obvious?
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 November 2013 13: 07
        +3
        Quote: Postman
        Crete or Cyprus do not take

        This is the size. You can count even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
        Quote: Postman
        In ideal conditions of "vacuum" (tete-a-tete) ask a question

        So I would like to read an alternative. Simulator type.
        Quote: Postman
        The answer seems to be obvious?

        I would not ask then. And by the way, a good hint for a new article.
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2013 13: 30
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          I would not ask then. And by the way, a good hint for a new article.

          Instead of Mistral, Rogozin signs a contract for 4 Skyline
          A convoy consisting of 10 container ships, the Bubnov tanker and the BDK under the escort of Peter and 4 Russian Gorizont-class air defense destroyers en route from Vladivostok to the Philippines.

          The route is covered by submarines. A bunch of straits, Mariana Islands - there is where to roam
          1. fzr1000
            fzr1000 13 November 2013 13: 35
            +2
            A little off topic, but also on the development of domestic shipbuilding.
            Rosneft, Gazprombank, Sovcomflot and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) have agreed to create a shipbuilding and industrial cluster in the Primorsky Territory. In accordance with the memorandum signed today in Seoul following the Russian-Korean summit talks, the Zvezda shipbuilding complex is scheduled to be commissioned in 2016. At the same time, it is planned to create a Russian-Korean Engineering Center for shipbuilding and marine equipment for offshore projects.

            In addition, the parties determined the basic conditions for the exchange of technologies, localization of production and placement of orders.

            "The company has undertaken high obligations to localize in Russia the production of ships and marine equipment necessary for the implementation of offshore projects, and is already actively working in this direction. Rosneft, together with its partners, is implementing a project to develop a shipbuilding and industrial cluster based on the shipbuilding complex." Star ", which will have a significant multiplier effect on a number of adjacent industries.
          2. Kars
            Kars 13 November 2013 13: 43
            +1
            It’s also interesting, but still like a knightly tournament. One on one.
            1. Santa Fe
              13 November 2013 13: 53
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              It’s also interesting, but still like a jousting tournament. One on one

              Here everything is obvious to the campaign - AWACS will allow you to control the situation and avoid meeting with Peter. Hornet range enough to fly around the danger zone and the bombing of Cyprus

              But with the escort ... There, the Yankees will have to drag their breasts onto the forks
              Quote: Postman
              Crete or Cyprus do not take, the Mediterranean Sea, too.

              Crete, of course, is not necessary. Great place. The southernmost of the Greek islands.
              The Turkish Republic of Cyprus - this is more interesting))
              1. postman
                postman 13 November 2013 14: 02
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Crete of course

                I meant ANOTHER (not historical, cultural or beach values), but the proximity of continental Europe, there it is all meaningless ("MV England and Hitlerite Germany with Italy Musolini, together)
          3. postman
            postman 13 November 2013 13: 59
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

            Instead of Mistral, Rogozin signs a contract for 4 Skyline

            Where did you get ????
            Rogozin, Ivanov, Dmitry Anatolich ... Kozhubetych still drag.
            Andryukha raised the question SPECIFICALLY AND UNIQUENLY:
            1. Nimitz vs Peter, tet-a-tet.
            2. Introductory on the island of Tutuila, the dictator accumulated chemical weapons
            3.BZ: Nimitz must arrive, punish the weapons to pick up (democratizer)
            4. Peter must protect a friend and partner of Russia

            Each of its points of permanent basing starts, well, or at the same distance (along the travel time)

            WHO WHO HIMS AND WHAT ???
            What are you fidgeting, getting away from the answer?

            And by the way PySy: Nafuyu American sailors bu Japanese cars with right-hand drive, which they carry on nimitsa (unknown where)


            / O. Kaptsov "And you can also distill supported foreign cars from Japan" /
            1. Santa Fe
              13 November 2013 14: 13
              +2
              Quote: Postman
              I mean OTHER

              Yes, I was joking.
              Quote: Postman
              Each of its points of permanent basing starts, well, or at the same distance (along the travel time)

              Here everything is obvious to the campaign - AWACS will allow you to control the situation and avoid meeting with Peter. The range of the Khornets is enough to fly around the danger zone and bombard the island
              Quote: Postman
              transported on nymets (unknown where)

              It is known where. From San Diego to Brementon
              Quote: Postman
              And on it you can distill supported foreign cars from Japan

              It is possible from Germany. Gut?
          4. postman
            postman 13 November 2013 14: 14
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Instead of МIstrala рOguzin signs a contract

            Though I’m not a mordator and not an admin, I throw Oleg a remark:
            -Мthe capital with capital?
            -A рcapital ogozin?
            Why are you mister good dear to the end?
            Olegovich, the main expert on the plates,PERSON representing the RF in one person on issues of the military-industrial complex, Roscosmos, Moscow region, against NATO, AK and AKM, USC and Superjet, as well as other important questions) with capital?
            Solder you an insult to the symbols of statehood, you are homegrown mistralefil
            1. Santa Fe
              13 November 2013 14: 23
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              Though I’m not a mordator and not an admin, I throw Oleg a remark:
              -Mistral with a capital?
              And Rogozin with a capital?
              insult to the symbols of statehood

              I strongly protest the provocations of Mr. Postman, an agent of influence of the Western special services (including the Stasi). I believe that under the guise of a postman hides a whole staff of trained employees from the information warfare department of the Russian Federation and its legitimate government tongue
              1. postman
                postman 13 November 2013 14: 30
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I believe that under the guise of a postman hides a whole staff prepared

                Offset ...
                The youngest from school will come, I will show you. Let pride be my dad.
                1. Santa Fe
                  13 November 2013 14: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Let pride dad.

                  At the same time show him a comment about the ignoramus and the charlatan

                  http://topwar.ru/33924-fotografiya-zemli-s-rasstoyaniya-6-mlrd-kilometrov.html#c


                  omment-id-1545115

                  Let him draw a conclusion)))
                  1. postman
                    postman 13 November 2013 15: 15
                    +1
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    about ignoramus and quack

                    And for the "ass" - you will answer!
                    ============================
                    And you will answer for Kant!
                    In Rostov, on the day of the city, two unfamiliar young people 26 and 28 years old collided in a grocery stall. And they argued ... about Kant's philosophy. Well, with whom it does not happen. Word for word, and the argument grew into a fight, and then one of the connoisseurs of the great thinker of the XVIII century he grabbed a Wasp pistol from his pocket and shot his opponent several times.

                    They also say that our youth do not know anything, read nothing and are not interested in anything! Do not generalize. We have all kinds of youth.
                    1. xan
                      xan 19 November 2013 00: 23
                      +2
                      Quote: Postman
                      In Rostov, on the day of the city, two unfamiliar young people 26 and 28 years old collided in a grocery stall. And they argued ... about Kant's philosophy. Well, with whom it does not happen. Word for word, and the argument grew into a fight, and then one of the connoisseurs of the great thinker of the XNUMXth century grabbed a Wasp gun from his pocket and shot his opponent several times.

                      Having learned about this from the press, one Pole wrote in a review: "I thought that nothing happening in Russia would surprise me. But they raise the bar every time."
          5. patsantre
            patsantre 13 November 2013 21: 12
            0
            Maybe Mistralay, and not Mistral? Horizon will come out even more expensive Mistralika.
            1. Santa Fe
              14 November 2013 00: 47
              0
              Quote: patsantre
              The horizon will come out even more expensive than the mistralika.

              almost the same. there may be a percentage difference 10-20%

              this is also a large frigate (a small destroyer - depending on how you count) - 7000 tons of displacement
        2. postman
          postman 13 November 2013 14: 08
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          This is the size. You can count even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

          Tutuila, aaadnoznachnim

          Quote: Kars
          So I would like to read an alternative. Simulator type.

          Pentagon anal boom search
          Quote: Kars
          I would not ask then.

          Nimitz (if that-a-that) unequivocally.
          1. detect early
          2. Destroy Petty without entering the affected area
          / well, if the American sailors again will not dry footcloths on the underwing pylons, as was the case with Exocet /
          Quote: Kars
          And by the way, a good hint for a new article

          I think Kaptsov understood this transparent hint ... he will pass the euphoria on the USSR Navy (how it went on aircraft carriers), he will take over goods, Especially with its performance
          wassat
          1. Kars
            Kars 13 November 2013 15: 43
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            2. Destroy Petty without entering the affected area

            This is interesting to me. How much can Orlan bring down the Hornets, can he grind.
            Quote: Postman
            Especially with its performance

            that's right.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 16: 37
              +2
              Quote: Kars
              This is interesting to me. How much can Orlan bring down the Hornets, can he grind.

              In 1982, in the Lebanon war, an S-200 system shot down a DRLO aircraft from a distance of 195 km and it somehow went wrong on the opposing side.

              It is very interesting to be able to grind.
              1. Tourist Breakfast
                Tourist Breakfast 13 November 2013 16: 41
                0
                In 1982, in the Lebanon war, an S-200 system shot down a DRLO aircraft from a distance of 195 km and it somehow went wrong on the opposing side.


                A reference can be on this Old?
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 17: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                  A reference can be on this Old?

                  http://www.airwiki.org/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html
                  I was a little mistaken with the year January 1983 is indicated here
                  1. Tourist Breakfast
                    Tourist Breakfast 13 November 2013 22: 37
                    0
                    http://www.airwiki.org/history/locwar/bv/mig23/mig23.html


                    Vladimir Ilyin is a famous storyteller paired with Nikolsky. The whole article is pure fantasy.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 14 November 2013 19: 06
                      +1
                      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                      Vladimir Ilyin famous storyteller

                      Perhaps I personally do not know him, but other authors have references, for example, Oleg Granovsky:
                      - The S-200 air defense missile system with a Soviet calculation (220th regiment), stationed in Syria, shot down the Hokkai E-2C.
                      As far as the reality is, I cannot say, personally I was not there, but as they say, "there are rumors."
                      http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm
              2. postman
                postman 13 November 2013 17: 10
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                In 1982, in the Lebanon war, an S-200 system shot down a DRLO aircraft from a distance of 195 km and it somehow went wrong on the opposing side.

                Michael is a disinformation.
                I can send:
                - Stasi report (in German), how the United States "mutilated" the air defense of Libya, bypassed, about the carelessness of the Libyan air defense
                - reports of ours (signature stamp removed): analysis of HARM work on S-200
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 18: 02
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Michael is a disinformation.

                  Well, I bought a desu.
                  I could have immediately guessed that the S-200 could not shoot down the Hawkeye in any way.
                  1. postman
                    postman 13 November 2013 20: 22
                    0
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    I could have immediately guessed that the S-200 could not shoot down the Hawkeye in any way.

                    Yes, her.
                    I could knock it down. And they would have shot down.
                    If only ours were driving.
                    and there were HZK Tuaregs, Arabs
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 13 November 2013 22: 46
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      If only ours were driving.
                      and there were HZK Tuaregs, Arabs

                      Actually, the quote from the article
                      - Soviet crews of the S-200 air defense missile system destroyed the E-2C Hawkeye AWACS aircraft and three American Fireby unmanned reconnaissance aircraft at the maximum distance over the Mediterranean Sea.
                      A serious mess was brewing there, NATO pulled its fleets to Syria, including the battleship. All sorts of ultimatums and stuff.
                      1. postman
                        postman 14 November 2013 14: 38
                        +1
                        Quote: saturn.mmm
                        Actually, the quote from the article

                        Pancake. Sorry. I confused (completely blind) Libya (Attack on her) and Syria ..
                        Yes, they write a lot about it ...
                        WHAT ISRAELI (NOT American!) DESTROYED Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
                        However, Israel was delivered 4 (!) Pieces in 1981, participated (under cover of F-15) in IAF raids on SAM arrays in the Bekaa Valley.
                        3 (!) Sold to Mexico
                        1 (!) At the Israeli Air Force Museum
                        1 + 3 = 4.
                        QUESTION: WHOM AND WHAT WERE KILLED?
                      2. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 14 November 2013 17: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        1 (!) At the Israeli Air Force Museum

                        The museum in Israel is probably a noble exhibit.
          2. Santa Fe
            13 November 2013 16: 51
            +5
            Quote: Kars
            How much can Orlan bring down the Hornets, can he grind

            I'm afraid it's pointless
            they throw him with harpoons and harms because of the radio horizon. BC Petra - total 94 zur
            Quote: Kars
            that's right.

            you believe no, already replaced the 2 keyboard
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 November 2013 21: 01
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              you believe no, already replaced the 2 keyboard

              I believe.
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              t harpoons and harms

              But is everything smooth there? Pomnitsa at first thought that Aegis was a super-duper. Maybe something with Harmas and harpoons?
    2. ssergn
      ssergn 13 November 2013 18: 39
      0
      And by the way, Americans buy Dofuya right-hand drive. It’s like they’re like, it’s fashionable
      1. postman
        postman 13 November 2013 20: 26
        0
        Quote: ssergn
        And by the way, Americans buy Dofuya right-hand drive.

        They made me laugh ..
        Japanese boo junk canning? WHAT FOR?
        Connoisseurs, wealthy ENGLISH EXPAND RIGHT DRIVING MACHINES buy.
        (in the USA, in Europe)

        BUY S-class (W-140 special) LEFT EUROPEAN members of the Yakuza (who should), Very much appreciated (left-handed), well, and other shustriki like Ferrari
  • malikszh
    malikszh 13 November 2013 11: 51
    0
    Guys what was bought by the Ukrainian analogue of Peter?
    1. alex56
      alex56 13 November 2013 12: 24
      +1
      Ukraine, rumor has it, the unfinished cruiser of project 1164 will be bought. But “Peter” is another project (1144), we only have such))
  • Kubatai
    Kubatai 13 November 2013 11: 56
    11
    Unfortunately, we should not forget about one thing - Peter is a piece of goods, and Berkov is like dirt .. where he does not take quality, he will take the quantity ...
    and a comparison of what will happen if Peter and Burke meet are meaningless ... well, he will sink one, and then what? Amerikosy not stupid on one ship or plane will not be sent, but heaped in a flock.
    Therefore, if it is not possible to put other strength into force, you need to search and prepare a concept of how to level their advantage, and not to breed theories stronger or not stronger than the atomic cruiser and its opponent, the destroyer Burke, and how much better our approach is ...
    ps And lastly, neither of them, our ship, can’t withstand a normal planned attack .. they simply overload the air defense capabilities and that’s all .. well, maybe our PCR is knocking down .. there’s one result ..
    1. sub307
      sub307 13 November 2013 12: 33
      +2
      That's it. "The Yankees, as you know, are big fans of standardization and unification - now let them choose which is better ..." They will then choose which is better, we can be sure. But we, unfortunately, have nothing to choose from. Maybe, nevertheless, it is the same to become "amateurs" of standardization and unification, rather than to remain "amateurs" to create "unparalleled" single, at best small-scale copies.
      Interesting article.
    2. Walker1975
      Walker1975 13 November 2013 14: 49
      +2
      By the way, who will tell you how Peter has anti-submarine protection?
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 13 November 2013 12: 26
    +3
    PV displacement is three times the size of the berk. How does all of its rich capabilities accommodate a triple smaller ship, for example, the destroyer 956?
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2013 13: 33
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      How does all of its rich capabilities accommodate a triple smaller ship, for example, the destroyer 956?

      Remove YaSU and Granita
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 13 November 2013 21: 23
        0
        Seriously, will it be three times easier?
        On esm. 956, without YSU and Granites, it was not possible to deliver the s-300, there is a sea "beech", and mosquitoes, whose analogues are not put on berks because of their poor shock "power" Failed to drive in and "sunrise" and "tackle". In general, on a ship commensurate in size and power, it was not possible to achieve the same as that of the Americans. Approximately approached at twice the size of Atlanta.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 November 2013 00: 54
          0
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Approximately approached at half the size of Atlanta.

          BURK- 9515 TONS
          Atlas - 11300
          Peter -26000
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Seriously, will it be three times easier?

          If by force in / and not squeezed to the detriment of performance characteristics - 14-15 thousand will fit. Will be like the destroyer Zamvolt
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 13 November 2013 12: 34
    +3
    They were able to design and build not imitating, but stunning the imagination.
  • goody
    goody 13 November 2013 13: 04
    0
    An excellent PV ship, we would like to build more. Who knows how many "Orcs and Berkeley" the US has?
    1. Peaceful military
      Peaceful military 13 November 2013 14: 27
      +1
      Quote: goody
      An excellent PV ship, we would like to build more. Who knows how many "Orcs and Berkeley" the US has?

      Scheduled 75, in the ranks 62 (if not lying) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%80%D0% B5% D0% BD% D0
      %BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D1%8B_%D1%82%D0
      %B8%D0%BF%D0%B0_%C2%AB%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%91%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BA%C2%BB
    2. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 20: 30
      0
      Quote: goody
      Great ship PV, we would have to build more of these

      It’s very expensive, both in production and in service staff ...
      not overpower the country
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 13: 06
    +2
    The author compares the possibilities of the praised and advertised system of IJIS in terms of air defense and the possibility of air defense of Petit.

    It’s just funny when the “critics” to defend IJIS try to use the argument in the form of an AWACS helicopter for American ships, but deny Petya this right (to use the AWACS helicopter). Why would you? We only have 2 of these helicopters? Does Pete need 4? Or our industry, if necessary, cannot produce yet?

    You would have added the argument that the measures of the base around the world, but Petya does not. But what if it breaks? ...

    Or have already completed 9 upgrades of the IJIS. So what? Did additional radars appear on ships? No ... So, as they could aim at 3 targets on the final stretch, they can ...
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 13 November 2013 13: 39
      +2
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      It’s just funny when the “critics” to defend IJIS try to use the argument in the form of an AWACS helicopter for American ships, but deny Petya this right (to use the AWACS helicopter). Why would? We only have 2 of these helicopters? Does Pete need 4? Or our industry, if necessary, cannot produce yet

      Your logic will make you laugh even more, they have but they are bad, we don’t, but if necessary we will build? Yeah, a telegram will be sent to you: build a point, we’ll receive a point soon and don’t forget to prepare a flight and engineering personnel of the point.
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 13: 48
        +1
        Why then? We just have it. But the "critics" for some reason, when comparing, deny us the right to use what we have.

        Such a dialogue is obtained:
        - Petty's niches are seen further, they are launching more missiles.
        “And they can use AWACS helicopters.”
        - And we, too, can use AWACS helicopters.
        - And you only have 2 of them.
        “But Petya doesn’t need more.”
        “But this does not bother us.” You cannot use AWACS helicopters, but Americans can.
        - Why?
        - And we so want.

        Well, where is the logic here? laughing
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 13 November 2013 21: 24
          +1
          The Ka-31s are not assigned to Peta. There are no such helicopters for him. And if they do, they will find Petya with the help of Hokai, as well as the Ka-31, and both will be destroyed by aviation before they can understand what is happening.
      2. Tiamat2702
        Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 57
        0
        Building a helicopter is much easier and faster than a destroyer or a cruiser. Moreover, the Ka-31 is already planning to build.
  • Tiamat2702
    Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 13: 25
    +3
    Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
    Until Russia unites at least the countries that were part of the USSR, it will not be able to pull economically more than 1-2 Orlanes. After all, there is still a submarine fleet, air defense, air force, ground forces. Everyone needs to put on shoes, feed, arm, refuel, equip, give a roof over your head, warm, etc. etc.

    And the whole world works for America. Including Russia and China, directing resources to green paper.

    Ivan, your words to God’s ears! I fully support your views on the association!
    1. Ivan_Ivanov
      Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 13: 28
      +4
      Thank. I’m not hopeful, Putin, Russia is being married.
      Well, and we will do everything in our power.
  • Horn
    Horn 13 November 2013 13: 32
    +1
    I don’t understand anything in the Navy, but I have always been against universalism. You cannot cross a hammer and a microscope! Once upon a time I had a video double. The little daughter put a postcard in the cassette. The whole two died: both a VCR and a TV! Nah ... flies must be served separately from cutlets!
  • max702
    max702 13 November 2013 13: 36
    +3
    In terms of armament, the strategy of different countries is immediately clear, the Yankees have it clearly offensive and a large number of striking means and, on the contrary, low self-defense capabilities against a possible strike, that is, the principle is to strike first and so that there is no surrender, then defensive arming is not necessary. But on the contrary, our main task is defense, which will give us time to prepare a retaliatory strike. Consequently, the Americans thereby confirm the idea that no one is going to attack them, and all the talk about defending freedom and democracy is complete nonsense! Which completely exposes the Americans as aggressors spitting on everyone and all
    They care only about their interests. The rest is not important.
    1. Elm
      Elm 15 November 2013 15: 05
      0
      ... And they don’t even hide it !!!
  • postman
    postman 13 November 2013 13: 46
    +2
    Quote: Author
    Decimetric waves (Spay operates in the S-band) are well reflected from the sea surface - a barrage of interference makes it difficult to recognize rockets rushing above the water, making the destroyer completely defenseless against supersonic anti-ship missiles.

    Oleg love you to mislead the electorate ....
    1.A, what centimeter or (Oh!) Meter RVs do not reflect well from the surface of the water?
    (In the case of reflection RV from the sharp boundary of extended objects (wavelength
    - the characteristic size of the reflecting body) with a smooth coating (dielectric and metallic coatings, snow, aquatic and other surfaces) mirror O. r. takes place. A cut is described by Fresnel formulas. / Radar research methods of the Earth, M., 1980; Yakovlev O.I. /
    There is a concept, the higher the wavelength (the lower the frequency), the more it is able to go around obstacles. Conversely, the shorter the wavelength (higher frequency), the more straightforward the radio wave propagates. But this is hardly applicable to your example.

    2. It was:

    /O.Kaptsov "Cruisers die without a fight" /
    exploited, counted, It became:

    The situation described by you (reflections, interference) was resolved from version SPY-1B, and on SPY-1D (V), an answer was also given to New Threat Response (NTR)
    3.Could it be all about the software and capabilities of UYK-43/44?
    4.AN/SPG-62 Can be used as a surveillance radar
    1. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 13: 49
      +2
      Quote: Author
      - British "Daring" (decimeter survey S1850M + centimeter SAMPSON)

      Or maybe the point is not in "no one in the world has risked", but in "SAMPSON shipborne radar performs the functions of surveillance, target recognition and control on the cruising section of the trajectory for anti-aircraft missiles of the Aster family" I mean in the air defense system?
      I recall:
      The ability of the system to provide simultaneous interception of several targets was first demonstrated in 1977, when two RIM-34C Standard-66 SAMs were launched from two BQM-2 airborne targets from the Norton Sound ship. In this case, the target interception scheme differed from the usual procedure for intercepting targets by previous ship missiles, when for the RPAN system the target was highlighted throughout the entire flight path of the missile to the target. The difference was that initially Standard-2 missiles were launched at a predetermined point in the airspace in the direction of the targets according to the onboard unit of the inertial navigation system. Then, in the middle section of the flight path, the missiles received signals from the SPY-1 radar of the adjusted position of the targets and corrected their flight..

      Quote: Author
      Unlike the American AN / SPG-62, which provides simultaneous illumination of only one target

      ? YES?
      - AN / SPG-62: At the final approach site with goals laste LIGHT one Radar SPG-62 in a time-divided mode for homing each rocket to its target using
      RPA
      Н
      -radar AN / SPG-62 illuminates the intercepted target (last few seconds of flight)

      Quote: Author
      In addition, the low location of the SPY-1 antennas reduces the already small detection range of low-flying targets,

      poor fellows on 91Н6Е and 96Л6Е are even lower, and there are all sorts of hills, forests, of course, LOWER WAVES on the water surface ... probably only a 40V6M mobile tower for an antenna post (optional sold) saves? wink
      1. Santa Fe
        13 November 2013 14: 04
        0
        Quote: Postman
        At the final site of approach to targets, the latter are LIGHTED by one SPG-62 radar in a time-divided mode for homing each missile to its target using
        RPAN

        What is the principle of RPAN based on. In which sector is it possible to highlight several targets at the same time?

        Quote: Postman
        poor fellows on 91N6Е and 96Л6Е are even lower, and there are all sorts of hills and forests, of course they are LOWER WAVES on the water surface ... probably only the mobile tower 40В6М for an antenna post (optionally sold) saves?

        Why are aviation and the Kyrgyz Republic hiding on PMV? apparently helps.
        Quote: Postman
        "Universal radar" ..... "Shipborne radar SAMPSON performs the functions of surveillance, target recognition and control on the cruising section of the trajectory for anti-aircraft missiles of the Aster family" I mean in the air defense system?

        Is there anything else that the British have at the stern? Glare in the light of the rays of the setting sun
        1. postman
          postman 13 November 2013 14: 48
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          What is the principle of RPAN based on.

          I will not say, do not be too lazy to look at the manual on AN / SPG-62 and Mk 99 Missile Fire Control System
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In which sector is it possible to highlight several targets at the same time?

          And what do you think if the stabilized platform Mk 82 (on which it is installed) has an antenna rotation speed in azimuth of 72 ° / s, and it takes 1-2 seconds to irradiate the target? At the end of the attack site.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Why are aviation and the Kyrgyz Republic hiding on PMV? apparently helps.

          What am I talking about?
          And you Orly B. because of the "low" location of the radar antennas trampled into the mud
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Glare in the light of the rays of the setting sun

          Type 45 destroyer? I'm not very at night ...

          So this is for communication with the base, what would the house not to lose ....


          He generally has a lot of things:


          The S1850M radar, based on the Thales' SMART-L Volume Search Radar, was selected for the tri-partite PAAMS Program for the UK's Type 45 class and the French and Italian Horizon class. The S1850M system is a derivative of the Thales SMART-L radar, which features, among others, an increased update rate.
          1. Santa Fe
            13 November 2013 14: 56
            0
            Quote: Postman
            And what do you think if the stabilized Mk 82 platform (on which it is installed) has an antenna rotation speed in azimuth of 72 ° / s, and you need to irradiate the target for 1-2 seconds?

            Yeah. Those. at a certain point in time, he irradiates one target!

            Chip with irradiation of two - fast fur. rotation of the antenna. Right?
            Quote: Postman
            What am I talking about?
            And you Orly B. because of the "low" location of the radar antennas trampled into the mud

            No you don't understand
            I said that aviation easily avoids detection by ground-based radars. Low altitude flight helps

            At the berk because of its 15 meters - the radio horizon is not very large
            Quote: Postman
            Type 45 destroyer?
            So this is for communication with the base, what would the house not to lose ....

            What a house, what a base. This is a surround vision radar
            Why did the Britons not give this function to the universal SAMPSON?
            1. postman
              postman 13 November 2013 16: 27
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Chip with irradiation of two - fast fur. rotation of the antenna. Right?

              Well this is not the HEADLIGHT, that would be a phase shift right, left, top down ...
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              At the berk because of its 15 meters - the radio horizon is not very large

              http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/SPY-1_Family_brochure_6-pager.
              pdf
              Page Not Found

              http://firecontrolman.tpub.com/14099/css/14099_32.htm
              http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/CG_04-97.htm

              1. Santa Fe
                13 November 2013 16: 45
                0
                Quote: Postman
                http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/SPY-1_Family_brochure_6-pager.

                pdf

                I’ve been looking for this document for a long time, alas ... - page not found
                1. postman
                  postman 13 November 2013 16: 51
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  alas ... - page not found

                  I deleted ... Schaub was not bad ...
                  I have it somewhere, I need to find it, downloaded isho before removal.
                  pour a glass? then I'll look
                  1. Santa Fe
                    13 November 2013 16: 53
                    0
                    Nafuya, I'm straight from the throat ... Will you?
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 13 November 2013 19: 23
            0
            And what, does he instantly accelerate such a speed of 72 rpm? It happens! Even ZAKs cannot do this
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 13 November 2013 19: 19
        +1
        Or maybe it’s not worth comparing the hedgehog and the snake? Land and sea radars. That is, the Frigates were driven to the very top exclusively by stupidity.
        Yes, and for land radar all sorts of Unzhi developed, even for damage to mobility
    2. Tiamat2702
      Tiamat2702 13 November 2013 14: 03
      0
      The article was about Burks, and you have at least the top picture of "Tik".
      1. postman
        postman 13 November 2013 14: 21
        0
        Quote: Tiamat2702
        and you have at least the top picture of "Tick".

        And you read carefully: it was !! (on the ticonderogen)
        O. Berks REFUSED, and it is written by me ...
    3. Santa Fe
      13 November 2013 14: 08
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      1.A, what centimeter or (Oh!) Meter RVs do not reflect well from the surface of the water?

      Then what's the catch. Maybe in this
      Raytheon's X-band, active-array SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) offers superior medium to high altitude performance over other radar bands, and its pencil beams give it an excellent ability to focus in on targets. SPY-3 will be the primary radar used for missile engagement

      But isn't that important for surveillance radars ?? But they always use the S range
      Quote: Postman
      exploited, counted, It became:

      And what happened there?
      On Burke 80 antenna devices
      Quote: Postman
      New Threat Response (NTR)

      For example?
      1. postman
        postman 13 November 2013 14: 37
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But they always use the S range

        So here the envelope, just

        Surveillance radar, cool, NO Aegis needed, hand current

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For example?

        A modification optimized for highlighting low-flying targets under conditions of interference caused by the proximity of the coast or the action of enemy electronic counter-reaction systems.
        The number of rays working in the system for highlighting moving targets has been increased. An adaptive beamforming mode is used taking into account the noise level in the corresponding direction. This modification has the ability to capture and track ballistic missiles. The signal processor has been improved. Changes were made to the design of the transmitter, as well as to the program that controls the operation of the radar.
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2013 14: 46
          0
          Quote: Postman
          So here the envelope, just

          Don’t say it. I attached a comment about AN / SPY-3, there is another explanation
          Quote: Postman
          A modification optimized for highlighting low-flying targets under conditions of interference caused by the proximity of the coast or the action of enemy electronic counter-reaction systems.

          You will not find examples of successful interceptions of low-flying MA-31, coyotes, etc. US Navy destroyers. Supersound?
          1. postman
            postman 13 November 2013 14: 54
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I attached a comment about AN / SPY-3

            Zhzhzh. I didn’t read about the English(after the appolon merchandise the ban rolled me for English: I do not read and do not write in this disgusting language, in German, too)
            == need to read, figure it out
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You will not find examples of successful interceptions of low-flying

            and who will give me that?
            Let's wait for the results of shelling YJ-91
            1. Santa Fe
              13 November 2013 15: 04
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              (after the appolon merchandise the ban rolled me for English: I do not read and do not write in this disgusting language, in German, too)

              the postman rolled another brick in the Basurm language and got a ban for it)))

              Normalek. Today a new initiative is to ban dollars in the Russian Federation
              in this disgusting language, in German too

              Flygtsoig!
              (and ingenious) Schmetterling!
              1. postman
                postman 14 November 2013 14: 15
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Flygtsoig!

                himself like that.
      2. Tourist Breakfast
        Tourist Breakfast 13 November 2013 15: 44
        +4
        But isn't that important for surveillance radars ?? But they always use the S range


        A radar with a range of S has a higher detection range at the same output power than a radar operating in the X range. The signal power loss increases with frequency.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 13 November 2013 13: 48
    0
    Anyway, one is not a warrior in the field; many new ships are also needed.
    It is clear what is above the surface of the water, and what is under the water?
  • Dejavu
    Dejavu 13 November 2013 14: 05
    +2
    To be honest, all this talk, who is cooler - is about nothing. If you imagine that a full-scale conflict will take place, then in my opinion, the Chinese or ours will explode in space, something vigorous, transfer to the T-34 and go on a visit to the United States on barges. There will be no such confrontations, nor will there be a global war. For if it is, then we will not be, and neither are they. So to measure the pipettes of single ships and systems is simply pointless.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 13 November 2013 14: 19
    +2
    "Peter the Great" remains the strongest combat unit whose capabilities, in terms of air defense, are equivalent to two or three American Aegis destroyers.

    Only stupid will argue here, but ... BUT the destroyers Arly Burke are about 70 units !!!
    And the Aegis system was created to work in a complex connecting ships, and not as an individual system!
    It’s another matter if all 4 Orlanes were brought to mind (God forbid not everyone saws it all) and combined into one system while maintaining high individual fighting qualities, then there would already be an extremely impressive force !!!
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 13 November 2013 14: 33
    +1
    I was on "Mahan (e)" (class "Arleigh Burke"), he came to Tallinn in 2007 and was open to the public. Our BOD will be more impressive and, I am sure, their performance characteristics are comparable, except that they have Tomahawks there. And already "Peter the First" ... it is incomparable.
    BUT!
    They have more than 60 of them, and 75 are planned, and even "Zumval" went, and in Russia ???
    1. Eugeniy_369
      Eugeniy_369 13 November 2013 14: 43
      +7
      Quote: Peaceful military
      They have more than 60 of them, and 75 are planned, and even "Zumval" went, and in Russia ???

      What what ... Olympics, getting ready for the World Cup.
      1. Peaceful military
        Peaceful military 13 November 2013 22: 12
        0
        Quote: Eugeniy_369
        Quote: Peaceful military
        They have more than 60 of them, and 75 are planned, and even "Zumval" went, and in Russia ???

        What what ... Olympics, getting ready for the World Cup.

        Yes, it seems like one should not interfere with the other ... although your sarcasm is absolutely understandable.
      2. Very old
        Very old 13 November 2013 22: 17
        +1
        We should invite Mitvol from VVP - look at our "stadiums"
  • rudolff
    rudolff 13 November 2013 15: 09
    +6
    "Horses mingled in a heap, people and volleys of thousands of guns merged into a drawn-out howl ..." The comparison is a little incorrect. We started with MBIUS Aegis, then smoothly flowed into the capabilities of the air defense missile system and did not affect Peter's automated control systems at all. If we compare BIUS, then with BIUS, SAM with SAM, even if they are integrated. Without analyzing the capabilities of Alley-2 / 2m, Tron, Tour and other similar systems, the comparison will be incomplete. And we had problems with them, and not with individual radars or air defense systems. Therefore, the French made the presence of Zenit-9 an inapplicable condition for the purchase of the Mistrals.
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 15: 10
    0
    And further...

    What kind of stealth stealth ships in general ... can we talk about if the ship constantly emits a damn cloud of radio waves? If he ceases to radiate, he himself will become blind. And even if it stops blinding when it goes blind, how can you tell me can I hide a metal house on the sea plain?

    All these stealth technologies for ships and aircraft - stupidly drank dough.

    Therefore, the air defense of that ship is better who can swoop down further, who can shoot further, who can simultaneously direct more missiles. Therefore, in this regard, the air defense of American ships equipped with IJIS in comparison with the Eagles is a complete g ... o.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2013 15: 17
      +4
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      if this ship constantly emits a damn cloud of radio waves?

      ON and OFF Stealth mode
      f-117 did not have a radar, even a radio altimeter was switched off over enemy territory.
      If he ceases to radiate, he himself will become blind.

      Passive information collection systems. Optoelectronic cameras, thermal imagers (VAMPIR on the Mistral), RT antenna reconnaissance and radio interception
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      tell me can I hide a metal house on the sea plain?

      how to hide a sniper (living organic body) in the middle of a stone wasteland?
      disguise

      If we could see in the range of radio waves, the whole world would appear before us like crooked mirrors. You can fool the radar radar by scattering or absorbing the waves emitted by it - so that nothing is reflected back

      Find a sniper here
      1. Eugeniy_369
        Eugeniy_369 13 November 2013 15: 25
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Find a sniper here

        Barely found laughing laughing laughing
        1. Ivan_Ivanov
          Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 15: 30
          +1
          That is, he hid only in the wavelength of the visible spectrum. View and infrared - as in Lodoni. And after the shot - immediately reveals itself.
          1. Santa Fe
            13 November 2013 15: 38
            +1
            Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
            That is, he hid only in the wavelength of the visible spectrum.

            Zamwolt has priority - radio waves and IR.
            ultraviolet - on the side))
            after a shot - immediately reveals itself.

            What a difference then.
            the enemy is killed, the task is completed. Feet-in-hand and roll off
            1. sivuch
              sivuch 13 November 2013 19: 27
              0
              And this is how it will turn out. He shot and unmasked himself. Yes, and no one in wartime would dare hang around with all the radars turned off.
      2. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 13 November 2013 15: 26
        -2
        You can trick the radar radar by scattering or absorbing the waves it emits.

        You can not.
        1. ON and OFF Enough to spot.
        2. This is not F-117. Which has no defensive weapons. (but even he fonit, like a tree). Here, if you did not see the enemy first - krants.
        3. Only a small number of radio waves can be scattered and absorbed. Moreover, in any one range. Well, there are no materials, no technology to hide a metal house.
        Voronezh sees an ICBM launch over the horizon, and this is not a rocket, but a huge ship.
        1. Santa Fe
          13 November 2013 15: 36
          +2
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          1. ON and OFF Enough to spot.

          No, you did not understand my thought.
          When approaching the coast of the enemy (shock Zamvolt) - all radars and radios can (and should) be turned off, as f-117 did. the enemy finds out about the destroyer when 155 mm AGS shells start to fall on his head
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          Here, if you did not see the enemy first - krants.

          This is the whole prikl. Zamvolt is hard to see
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          . You can only scatter and absorb some small number of radio waves

          Or maybe a lot

          - the blockage of the sides "inward" - most of the waves from the coastal / navldnoy radar will be reflected into the sky (for ordinary ships it is reflected in the second water, there is interference)
          - minimum radio contrast
          - radar absorbing coatings, a recipe known since the 1950's

          In the end, we are not talking about complete stealth. But finding with 100 and with 20 miles are two different things
      3. ssergn
        ssergn 13 November 2013 20: 14
        0
        He went uphill pos (r) at, or crawled
      4. ssergn
        ssergn 13 November 2013 20: 14
        0
        He went uphill pos (r) at, or crawled
      5. Very old
        Very old 13 November 2013 22: 24
        0
        It seems that Ivan Ivanov did not hear you
      6. ydjin
        ydjin 14 November 2013 05: 35
        0
        So, there! In the upper right corner, half a second vzvina!
      7. Imigrantt
        Imigrantt 14 November 2013 22: 13
        0
        Sniper for 2 hours in the right corner, at the ready! lol
      8. Bort radist
        Bort radist 15 November 2013 06: 54
        0
        Easy - the muzzle sticks out i.e. stands out from the spectrum. It's easier to look for a side piece that doesn't fit, rather than waste resources looking for the whole. One "splash" will give the whole.
    2. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 16: 49
      +3
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      If he stops radiating, he himself will become blind

      NO, he can ONLY ACCEPT, and at the same time he will not go blind.
      (stupidly, simplified this situation is described in the Red Storm attack of the Tu-22M AU of the Nimitz compound in the Atlantic)
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      how do you tell me you can hide a metal house on the sea plains

      Well, after all, is there an EPR difference of 15000 m2 and 5000 m2?
      At what distance and at what beam power does this object Tu-95RTS detect (Bear-D)


      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      All these stealth technologies for ships and aircraft - stupidly drank dough.

      And taxpayers, experts of Congress and the State Duma, independent experts ... full lola, or what?
      Or have the same share?



      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      Therefore, in this regard, the air defense of American ships equipped with IJIS in comparison with the Eagles is a complete g ... o.

      vague doubts torment me ..
      the pulse power of the "Fregat" is 300 kW (4-6mW at SPY-1)
      The time for a full view of space at the "Fregat" is 2,5 seconds (12-24 seconds for the SPY-1)
      The frequency of updating data on an air target taken for tracking from the "Fregat" is 2,5 seconds (0,6-1 seconds for the SPY-1)
      SPY-1 (something like the sample of 1983)
      Pulse repetition frequencies (recorded in tests) 600 Hz and 1430 Hz with a pulse duration of 0,4 μs
      40 Hz at 20 and 40 μs
      Main beam width ~ 1,5 degrees
      Beam setup time - 10 μs
      The time for a full review of space is up to 14 seconds, space at low altitudes is viewed more often. The frequency of updating data on an air target taken for tracking is 1 ... 15 times per second.
      SPY-1 can transmit radio correction signals to missiles and is able to more accurately determine the coordinates and parameters of the target’s movement. It more reliably accompanies intensively maneuvering targets.
    3. Very old
      Very old 13 November 2013 22: 22
      0
      I agree with you a little, Ivan, all these technologies are more for the eyes, ears, and brains ... What is said in your last paragraph
  • Ihrek
    Ihrek 13 November 2013 15: 26
    0
    Quote: Pajama
    where are these new ones laid down and in what quantity, or is it basically in the foreseeable 500 years?

    Unfortunately I do not own the data, but I am sure of the plans. Because a lot is being done not only in words, but also in practice.
  • pluginigor
    pluginigor 13 November 2013 15: 37
    0
    Quote: Pajama
    in 2004, the Russian Federation had the largest gold and foreign exchange reserves in the entire history of the USSR.

    Nonsense, give a link.
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 13 November 2013 15: 55
      0
      http://www.pravda.ru/news/economics/04-02-2004/18952-0/
  • moremansf
    moremansf 13 November 2013 15: 37
    0
    A deep modernization of the Project 11442 Admiral Nakhimov heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser has begun, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, told reporters today when he visited the Naval Academy. Kuznetsova.
    "After modernization, the missile cruiser will carry up to 80 missile weapons for various purposes," he said. (Speech of the Navy Commander in the Naval Academy named after N.G. Kuznetsov on 6.09.2013).
    "Ushakov" (Kirov) will most likely be disposed of, and "Lazarev" (Frunze) has no repair base in the Far East, it is not a simple and expensive task to drag it to Severodvinsk. So there are questions about modernization. Three cruisers pr1164 (Moscow, Varyag, Marshal Ustinov) also carry the S-300F, Ustinov is currently undergoing modernization in Severodvinsk. Unfortunately, the years have been lost, thanks to the famous figures of the country and the stool reform, so again we only have to make up for lost time ...
  • tomich
    tomich 13 November 2013 16: 14
    +4
    I don’t see any reason to compare the only ship of Russia of this class with a serial American ship
    1. postman
      postman 13 November 2013 20: 36
      0
      Quote: tomich
      I don’t see any reason to compare the only ship of Russia of this class

      So, well, if there is a need, he (the only ship in Russia) will "debate" that it is not a serial one?
      Nah
      He (PV), together with the submarine, will go to catch, beat the Berks.
      =====
      therefore compares Kaptsov (go to him)
    2. clidon
      clidon 13 November 2013 21: 58
      0
      It makes no sense as such to compare even a non-serial ship with the AUG system. That is, a desperate attempt to make an all-in-one ubervaflu against a system of bricks.
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 13 November 2013 16: 16
    0
    Or can someone enlighten on the composition of the air defense / missile defense system?
    Does it have other elements besides the Orly Burke?
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 13 November 2013 21: 54
      +1
      Well, tics, the essence is the same berks.
      Nuclear submarines still, but they, of course, do not take part in air defense. But, for some reason, comparing our cruisers and their AUGs, our dummies remember about our supposedly completely invisible nuclear submarines, but forget about their submarine.
  • voliador
    voliador 13 November 2013 19: 15
    0
    The "Harpoon" anti-ship missiles are no longer placed on the II-A burkes. So they are equipped with standards and / or axes, and the functions of attacking enemy ships seem to be assigned to other ships.
    1. clidon
      clidon 13 November 2013 21: 56
      0
      The functions of the attack, as always, are assigned to the AUG aviation.
    2. Pajamas
      Pajamas 13 November 2013 22: 16
      0
      the modular system on the new Berks, there are anti-shipload Tomahawks BGM-109 B / E can let them go, Peter the Great is likely to knock them all down, low speed, lack of maneuvering, but it will spend part of the air defense system’s ammunition I hope the dagger is enough.
      1. clidon
        clidon 14 November 2013 05: 21
        +1
        Anti-ship "tomahawks" have long been removed from service ...
        1. lucidlook
          lucidlook 14 November 2013 05: 29
          +1
          Quote: clidon
          Anti-ship "tomahawks" have long been removed from service.

          In 2015, it is planned to adopt the Block IV upgrade to the MMT (Multi-Mission Tomahawk) version. The technology has already been tested, a contract has been issued and paid to Rayton. MMT can be used both on land stationary and on moving targets, including moving sea.

          True, for the latter case, it should be noted that for successful application they highly recommend an external data center at the terminal site (well, something like data from some GlobalHawk or something).
          1. clidon
            clidon 15 November 2013 16: 13
            0
            Well, this is not serious (homing on ships with air defense systems with a range of 150 km with the help of GH) /
  • voliador
    voliador 13 November 2013 19: 16
    0
    The "Harpoon" anti-ship missiles are no longer placed on the II-A burkes. So they are equipped with standards and / or axes, and the functions of attacking enemy ships seem to be assigned to other ships.
  • voliador
    voliador 13 November 2013 19: 28
    +1
    I recalled that I read somewhere that scrappers are trying to equip axes with systems that allow you to adjust the flight. Then, perhaps, they can shoot at the ships.
  • Archibald
    Archibald 13 November 2013 20: 41
    0
    Perhaps our cruiser is cooler than the American destroyer, but is there not too much difference in the displacement, and how many of these destroyers they have, against one of our cruiser ...
    1. Santa Fe
      13 November 2013 21: 08
      0
      Quote: Archibald
      but isn't the difference in displacement too big

      What do you want?

      Nuclear power plant.
      The bespontovye 7-ton Granite rockets (disposable attack aircraft, weigh like a MiG-21) - as many as 20 pieces.
      Reservations!
  • Patriot.ru.
    Patriot.ru. 13 November 2013 21: 23
    0
    It is clear that not a beautiful plane does not fly. Also, a beautiful ship does not float. These triangles in the Navy of the Navy are annoyed. Our planes and ships keep their shape !!!
  • scientist
    scientist 13 November 2013 22: 52
    +3
    The technical solutions applied at Peter the Great are based on a distributed design scheme for layered air defense. Aegis, on the other hand, is a centralized, highly unified system. Naturally distributed scheme significantly increases survivability, and separation of both frequency and rocket-artillery allows for greater stability.
    However, do not underestimate Aegis. If it is true that they write about the possibility of tuning in the 400 MHz range from pulse to pulse, these are serious problems for electronic warfare equipment. It is clear that the frequencies are still fixed, as a rule there are about 1000 of them, which in principle gives hope for the possibility of suppression by packet interference.
    On the other hand, for modern electronic warfare equipment, the spaced frequency range is not a serious problem, in addition, the Voskhod and Podkat radars belong to the old park and, by the way, have serious protection against interference. Most likely this is a standard set of 3-channel auto-compensators and the usual frequency tuning. Although it may be Frigate in the new versions has the functions of rapid adjustment from pulse to pulse like Aegis.
    Most importantly, I would like to note that the construction of a modern effective air defense system is impossible without modern RTR and electronic warfare systems. The struggle for control over the frequency spectrum is a very serious thing. Perhaps they are, but nothing is said about them in open sources of information.
  • dart_noos
    dart_noos 13 November 2013 23: 29
    0
    It is necessary to compare the combat potentials of the fleets, and how their commanders will realize them.
  • bublic82009
    bublic82009 14 November 2013 00: 02
    0
    why argue for nothing? it’s better for us not to know who will destroy whom. because because of this cat-like, little will not seem to everyone
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 14 November 2013 00: 16
    +5
    Thanks to the author of the article for the joy of our fleet. But there is much in the text that causes frank bewilderment, starting with the expression "sloppy appearance of the ship." I assure you that if this article is read by any of the crew members of "Peter the Great" and meets the author of the article in the life of the author, then maybe "on the face" inadvertently. I explain the author of the article to the best of my abilities: the scruffy appearance of the ship is when it has peeling paint on the outer contour of the hull, rusty smudges on the sides and a rusty deck, which happens after long trips in the stormy sea, soaked mooring ends, groomed good things, that it hangs out of the windows or overboard, etc. And now, on the technical side of the matter: 1. The title of the article itself is incorrect, because "Peter the Great" is still a ship, and "Aegis" is a combined ship system (radar + BIUS), so it is not possible to compare these two concepts head-on. 2. The author did not say a word about the technical means of automatically collecting and processing information and automatic target allocation of such a large number of AOCs, automatic control of electronic warfare and automatic guidance of IA, which is the most important in conducting air defense, and all the conclusions were not made by firing an air defense missile system with a single air defense system. Simply, we are talking about the ship's BIOS. 3. The antenna device of the Fregat M2 radar, for the information of the author, does not have a phased array, as can be seen from a closer look at the presented photos of the ship. 4. It follows from the text that, apparently, the author himself does not really understand what kind of control method is implemented in the "Fort-M" air defense system, as evidenced by this quote: ... "The trick is that most modern naval air defense systems (including .h. “Standerd” and S-300F) use a semi-active guidance method: a special radar “illuminates” the target, the missile head reacts to the reflected “echo”. It's simple. " In fact, this air defense missile system implements the method of controlling the missile defense system not "semi-active homing", but "telecontrol of the II type". This is when a radar of an air defense system devotes a target, an airborne direction-finding radar of a missile defense system generates its location relative to the target from the reflected signal and translates this error into the ship’s part of the air defense system, in which its control command is generated in accordance with the guidance method, which is transmitted via radio control channel to the missile, whose autopilot and fulfills the commands given, as a result of which the missiles are guided in the picture plane. So, not everything is so simple, dear. And yet, not the majority, but in the domestic shipborne air defense systems, a method of semi-active control of air defense systems is implemented (but not guidance! its modifications. I won't say anything about Polyment-Redut, what I don't know, I don't know. 5. It is perplexing ... "The irrationality and complexity of controlling the" zoo "of various radars ... "Peter the Great" Hmm! For information of the author of the article, this problem has been technically solved a long time ago on ships of much earlier construction. And in general, what does the "zoo" have to do with it? Apart from SUAO "Lev" MR-184, there is not a single "animal" name in the ship's radar devices. And why smile? 6. Well, also, it is completely incorrect to compare the Peter the Great tarkr and the Arlie Burke, since these ships have completely different combat missions. Without going into details, let us say that the main weapon of "Peter the Great" is still anti-ship missiles, i.e. Moscow strike weapon.
  • Marconi41
    Marconi41 14 November 2013 02: 18
    0
    The article is not bad (put a plus), but its discussion is better! The forum corresponds to the site "Military Review"!
  • lucidlook
    lucidlook 14 November 2013 04: 27
    +5
    No no and one more time no!

    The main thing in Aegis is NOT RADAR, damn it! I really want to wrest my hands on the one who first got this on the Internet! Radars (all), sonars (all) and other sensors in Aegis play a SECONDARY role. They are undoubtedly important, but they do not determine its danger. And not even rockets, torpedoes and so on.

    *** MAJOR DANGER OF IJIS IN ITS COOPERATIVE WORK ***

    The system allows you to combine not only data from different sensors within the same ship, for example, from sonars and radars to be displayed on one map, not only allows you to add data into a single picture to clarify the maneuvers of the target and its danger.

    Not only allows you to receive this data from all external sensors (for example, X-band aerial radars from deck-mounted SeaHawk helicopters - to the question of determining low-flying targets).

    This is all extremely important, but still even this is not the main thing.

    The main thing is how Aegis scales to handle all of these signals. "What's the use of an avalanche of signals from a bunch of sensors, if the fire control system cannot digest them, if there is a salvo attack?" - I believe that is exactly what the ideologists of the Navy of the USSR reasoned. And they were right ... for their time. But time has changed, and today various ships equipped with the Aegis system solve the problems of finding targets, tracking targets, issuing missile defense systems for means of destruction and launches jointly and simultaneously, AS ONE WHOLE.

    Those. Let's say there are 3 ships in the order, all three with the Aegis system on board. Then the network logic of the Aegis system will consist of three active nodes, and the computational load will be distributed evenly among the nodes. At the same time, on each ship, captains will see the result of these calculations - the same single picture of the battle - everything that every radar sees, hears every sonar and highlights each helicopter / plane, etc. etc.

    And in the event of an attack, Aegis will fight off as a whole, and not as three separate ships. Accordingly, in principle, such a situation is impossible when 10 missiles will be aimed at one anti-ship missile system, and not one at the other. That is why, and for no other reason, by the way, Aegis is aiming a maximum of 3 missiles in the RCC at one time. This is considered sufficient given the likelihood of a hit by each missile. (For comparison, in the S-300F - a maximum of two SAMs on anti-ship missiles).

    I would advise the author to familiarize yourself with the AWS (Aegis Warfare System) ideology in order to see what is called "forest for trees". You can get started here:

    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/dote98/98cec.htm

    And continue here:

    http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/navy/2012aegis.pdf