Military Review

New ships of the American fleet. 2013 year

129
This year has been extremely saturated with loud events in the field of shipbuilding: it is important swaying in the wake, several large combat units stepped onto the surface of the sea. Each of these ships has its own scandalous история. They all mark the next generation. fleet - The change of the entire previous paradigm and the transition to new concepts of the use of naval forces.


For example, in the last 10 months, the naval squad of the Russian Navy has been supplemented with the Boiky missile corvette. In September, Yury Ivanov was launched in St. Petersburg - a large reconnaissance ship (communications vessel) of 18280 Ave. A little earlier, in summer, the frigate Admiral Butakov was laid at the Kaliningrad plant Yantar. 8 November 2013 of the year completed the state tests of the K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" - a strategic missile submarine, built on a new project 955A "Borey". And somewhere on the other side of Europe, in France, the body of the Vladivostok helicopter carrier for the Russian Pacific Fleet was launched.

Of course, much has been done! And more things are planned for the future ...

But it is with us ... And what about the overseas comrades? How is the mighty American fleet doing, the costs of which exceed the costs of all the other fleets of the world combined? What are the huge funds spent on? Do the Yankees in secret from all build a spaceship?

It turns out no. The starship was never built, but in 2013, a warship appeared that looks like the pyramid of Cheops.

October 29 2013 at the Bath Iron Works Shipyard (Maine) the USS Zumwalt squadron destroyer (DDG-1000) was launched. The stealth ship, which has been talked about so much over 10 years, finally ceased to be science fiction and became a reality as a 14500-ton steel monster with rockets and large-caliber artillery.



"Zamvolt" is positioned by the Pentagon as a counter-terrorist ship designed to strike at the shore. Like a ghostly shadow, he will move along the coast of the enemy, “pouring” the bases, ports and coastal cities with a shower of six-inch shells and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Unusual pyramid setting, nose-breakwater, "littered" inside the side, the stern, completely given under the helipad. AN / SPY-3 radar with three active headlights, 80 peripheral launchers (80 "Tomahawks" or to 320 ESSM anti-aircraft missiles), and most importantly - two Advanced Gun System naval guns with an estimated range of 155 miles (80 km). Ammunition - 150 "conventional" and active-projectiles. Due to the high automation and efficient cooling of the shafts, the effectiveness of two AGS marine equivalent 920 land howitzers of the same caliber.

Representatives of the Pentagon emphasize that the destructive power of the new Zamvolt will be similar to the battleships of the Second World War.

27 September 2013, another remarkable event took place - Austal shipyard delivered the fourth coastal zone warship (Littoral Combat Ship) to the customer - USS Coronado (LCS-4).
Fantastic trimaran 3100 tons full displacement, capable of moving at speeds above 40 nodes.


Coronado Sister Thorn - USS Independence (LCS-2)

The concept of LCS implied the creation of a universal ship with a small draft, combining the functions of a patrol ship, a corvette, a submarine hunter, a mine-sweeping ship, and
landing craft and transport platform for the rapid transport of goods in areas of military conflicts.
The entire aft part is occupied by a spacious helipad, the built-in hangar is designed for the basing of two Ci Hawk helicopters. The scope of LCS application has been expanded with the help of sets of interchangeable modules (first of all - detection tools), created for specific tasks, as well as the possibility of basing various UAVs, flood and underwater unmanned vehicles on board the LCS.

Launched in the 2012 year, Coronado could not pass state tests for a whole year: a fire broke out in the engine room twice, and cracks in the hull appeared at full speed. Finally, the "Coronado" still brought to mind. Final adoption by the US Navy is scheduled for April 2014.

Another alarming event that went unnoticed by the general public happened on May 14 of the year 2013: as part of the Shipping Command USNS Monford Point (T-MLP-1) was accepted. In appearance - a slow-moving clumsy barge, resembling a semi-submerged ship, with an empty displacement of 34000 tons. So it is, from a technical point of view - this is a regular tanker of the Alaska type with cut out tanks.



But the first impression is deceptive. "Monford Point" seems harmless exactly until it becomes known the purpose of this hellish machine. The Yankees themselves are much more eager to talk about aircraft carriers, destroyers, and universal landing ships than about the special technique of the Maritime Transportation Command. Advertise such things are not supposed to.

"Monford Point" is classified as MLP - mobile landing platform (interchange terminal and floating base for landing craft). During the landing, it occupies a position at a distance of several dozen (hundreds) kilometers from the enemy coast, and an 60 thousand ton rollback-container carrier with parts of the US Army Armored Division 3 is moored to her side. Under their own power, the tanks descend along the ramp to the MLP deck, then they are loaded onto landing craft - and off you go, into battle!

The use of "Monford Point" allows you to dramatically increase the intensity of the landing, directly using the high-speed roller and container ships Military Sealift Command. It becomes possible to quickly deliver bulky cargo and heavy armored vehicles to the shore.

This is what the Monford Point MLP is. And so it is so dangerous.

The fourth ship, which is worth mentioning in this review - USS Minnesota multipurpose nuclear submarine (SSN-783)transferred to the US Navy 7 September 2013, ahead of schedule on the 11 months. Silent underwater assassin of the Virginia type (series II).



... The boat is approaching the theater of operations at a speed of 500 miles per day, but none of the opponents do not even know how close it is to its goal. Minnesota extracts oxygen and fresh water from seawater, and its hydroacoustic complex is able to track the movements of ships on the other side of the ocean. The system of insulated decks, the S9G reactor, which does not require recharging during 30 years, is a multifunctional mast with television cameras and thermal imagers, instead of the usual periscope: Minnesota is quite remarkable from a technical point of view. One of the most advanced boats in the world today.

Mine torpedo weaponThe 12 mines for launching the Tomahawks, a lock chamber for the exit of combat swimmers, unmanned underwater vehicles — Virginia-type boats were created as a response to the threats of the new millennium. The main tasks: naval intelligence and observation of the coast of the enemy, participation in local operations, the landing of sabotage groups, striking cruise missiles at coastal targets.

In early November, the media slipped information about laying a shipyard destroyer USS John Finn (DDG-113) at Paskagul’s shipyard. The event did not cause much excitement - a typical destroyer of the Orly Burk type IIA series. In addition to the shock and defensive (air defense / anti-aircraft defense) functions, Finn will specialize in solving national missile defense tasks and conducting convoys on saturated mines to sea areas. The only small feature of the new destroyer - "Finn" plans to become the first US Navy ship equipped, in addition to the standard ESD, a system of protection against biological weapons.


USS Arlington (LPD-24)

No less quiet and inconspicuous in February 2013 was the ceremony USS Arlington amphibious assault transport (LPD-24) is launched. The eighth ship of the type "San Antonio", designed to transport the Marine Corps expeditionary group to the other end of the Earth. 22 is thousands of tons of full displacement, 350 manned crew, up to 700 marines. Also in the equipment of the ship includes 2 hovercraft, 4 helicopter and light defensive weapons.

Now it is time to announce the details of two major projects, which became known last week:

November 5 2013 years trials began universal landing helicopter carrier USS America (LHA-6). The head of the UDKV class of the same name, with a solid flight deck, looks like a plump Mistral.


USS America (LHA-6)

The helicopter carrier with a displacement of 45 thousand tons, by a strange coincidence, appeared in public WITHOUT aft dock camera. As the designers explained, the space was given for the expansion of the air group (however, on subsequent ships, the camera promises to return the camera to its place). As a result, “America” lost the opportunity to land even trucks and light armored vehicles — the only way to deliver personnel — the 12 convertible planes MV-22 Osprey and four heavy CH-53E helicopters. In addition, six F-35B fighters, seven Super Cobra attack helicopters and a pair of Pave Hawk search and rescue helicopters will be included in the UDKV air wing.

The creators of "America" ​​claim that, if necessary, their waterfowl can be used as a light aircraft carrier (up to 20 VTOL F-35B), but, alas, the situation is too obvious: this time the Americans built nonsense.

Even despite the absence of any technical delicacies, aft docking chamber and unification of 45% of nodes with the UDC of the previous project (“Wosp”), the cost of building “America” flew into US taxpayers in 3,4 billion dollars. For comparison, the odious “Mistral” cost Russian Navy at a price of less than 1 billion dollars apiece. But who dares to assert that the amphibious capabilities of "America" ​​are three times higher than those of the "Mistral"? There is an inefficient waste of money. Using "America" ​​as a light aircraft carrier is also a useless undertaking. Where even the powerful Nimitz cannot cope, this non-avian carrier with the F-20B 35 "vertical boxes" does not mean ANYTHING.

At the same time, the very fact of the construction of such a large and complex ship testifies to the great potential of American industry.

Finally, the final chord of the American shipbuilding program-2013.

November 9 at the Northrop Grumman shipyard in Newport News on the water the strike carrier of the new generation USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was launched.



112000-tonne Leviathan, the construction of which cost the Pentagon 12,8 billion dollars (another $ 4,7 billion was spent on R & D). "Gerald Ford" is considered the largest, most expensive and complex ship in the history of mankind.

EMALS electromagnetic catapults and AAG electromagnetic airborne detectors, A1B nuclear power plant capable of operating without recharging for 50 years, dual-band AFAR radar, plasma PAWDS household waste incineration system (yank in direct and figurative radar, incapacitated, RAW burner (in the direct and figurative, portable, incapacitated, debris in the direct and figurative, PAWDS household flame, incapacitated, portable and portable, RAWDS, plus, there is an increase in household waste PAWDS (in the direct and figurative sense of the AFAR) reduce crew to 3200 sailors - on 800 people. less than on Nimitz type aircraft carriers ... In the long run, the ship is planned to be equipped with combat lasers, dynamic protection, and other promising examples of energy weapons - the new American aircraft carrier risks becoming a powerful demonstrator of modern developments in electronics, shipbuilding, nuclear energy and other related areas science and technology.

Although there are those who belong to the newest super-ship with some skepticism, and believes that the Ford supercarrier has turned into a parody of its illustrious ancestors, such as the aircraft carriers of World War II Lexington and Saratoga.

The Nimitz-class carriers can generate approximately 120 sorties a day. Ford-class carriers,
X-NUMX XS-1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXT; It seems that it’s very important that it has been for the United States George HW Bush, which is the last Nimitz carrier, the cost is $ 2 million. 160 percent more work


“Aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type are capable of providing 120 sorties per day, the new“ wundervafl ”is capable of lifting into the air up to 160 airplanes with the help of its electromagnetic catapults. The last of the Nimitsev cost us almost $ 7 billion. The approximate price of building a new Ford is $ 13,5 billion. As a result, the nation has to pay 2 times more for “vundervaflu”, which can do only a third more work, ” Outraged by the Rear Admirals of the US Navy, William Moran and Thomas Moore.

The opinion of the admirals is shared by the retired US Navy captain Ed McNamey, as well as the analyst of the American Security Center, the captain of the US Navy, Henry D. Hendricks. Aircraft ships have become irrelevant and ineffective. "Ford" is nothing more than an expensive toy, created in favor of the industrial and military lobby. Without it, many high-ranking Pentagon officers will lose their jobs, and industrial magnates will be left without orders.

The logic of equipping an aircraft carrier with a DBR superradar - a system consisting of a decimeter range radar and centimeter radar AN / SPY-3 with active PAR (as on the Zamvolt destroyer) is not quite clear. An aircraft carrier is not an air defense destroyer, but just a floating airfield, which covers a whole squadron of cruisers and destroyers. It has only primitive air defense systems. Even finding an enemy rocket, he is unlikely to have enough forces to intercept it. It remains only to hope for the escort destroyers.

The AN / SPY-3 features will remain unclaimed. Like, for example, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford itself: over the past 60 years there has not been a single operation in which these floating airfields would be of any use whatsoever.

Small photo gallery:


Littoral Warship





USS John Finn Destroyer Bookmark Ceremony (DDG-113)



Approximately it will look like built "John Finn" (in the photo - USS Spruance (DDG-111)



Landing transport dock (LPD) type "San Antonio"



MLP platform at work



And here is the high-speed roller, full of tanks - USNS Sisler (T-ARK-311)



The cabin of the destroyer "Zamvolt", December last year


New ships of the American fleet. 2013 year

Submarine USS Minnesota (SSN-783) on its way to Norfolk, September 2013
Author:
129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sirocco
    Sirocco 11 November 2013 08: 57
    +2
    I look, and there is an analogy to the fact that, in the light of all these stealth-covering vessels, is it not forgiving to rivet submarines. For the appearance of modern ships is increasingly taking the form of a submarine. And in the marine world there is no middle link, there are marine mammals and seabirds. Well, there is no Loch Ness monster. (Nature itself suggests that it is necessary to build)
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 11 November 2013 09: 32
      13
      Quote: Sirocco
      I look, and there is an analogy to the fact that, in the light of all these stealth-covering vessels, is it not forgiving to rivet submarines. For the appearance of modern ships is increasingly taking the form of a submarine.

      Well, Americans have no problems with this. By the number of nuclear submarines they have no equal in the world.
      42 types of Los Angeles
      3 types of Seawolf
      10 Virginia type (8 more ordered, 4 of them at various stages of construction)
      This is without strategists. As you see, they have plenty of nuclear submarines, enough for the whole world.
      1. 77bob1973
        77bob1973 11 November 2013 11: 14
        +3
        But most of all the submarines were still built by the USSR.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 11 November 2013 11: 42
          0
          Quote: 77bob1973
          But most of all the submarines were still built by the USSR.

          Can you indicate the number of projects?
          1. 77bob1973
            77bob1973 11 November 2013 12: 09
            +4
            We have 20 types of submarines without modifications, and together with them there are over 97 different projects embodied in metal and manned by crews and weapons. According to "Jane, s" for 1986, there are 364 submarines in service in the USSR, of which 76 (including 62 nuclear) with ballistic missiles, 67 with cruise missiles (50 nuclear) and 218 torpedo (73 nuclear). According to Soviet data, the Navy has 375 pl 192 atomic and 183 diesel.
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 11 November 2013 12: 27
              +6
              Quote: 77bob1973
              We have no modifications of 20 types of submarines

              And the Americans have only 4, 1 strategic and 3 multipurpose. Therefore, their operation is cheaper. The main reason is that our submarine has died of the "heterogeneity" of its composition.
              1. 77bob1973
                77bob1973 11 November 2013 12: 38
                +4
                The Americans do not have cheap, cheap it is with us - a low coefficient of combat use, extreme basing, etc.
              2. Siberian German
                Siberian German 12 November 2013 02: 45
                0
                yeah + democratization
            2. vjhbc
              vjhbc 11 November 2013 21: 50
              0
              and then some talk about the unreasonable spending of US funds; they talk about all sorts of prodigies; it’s certainly a speck in the eye of a neighbor more visible than a log in its own
              Quote: 77bob1973
              We have 20 types of submarines without modifications, and together with them there are over 97 different projects embodied in metal and manned by crews and weapons. According to "Jane, s" for 1986, there are 364 submarines in service in the USSR, of which 76 (including 62 nuclear) with ballistic missiles, 67 with cruise missiles (50 nuclear) and 218 torpedo (73 nuclear). According to Soviet data, the Navy has 375 pl 192 atomic and 183 diesel.
              1. Santa Fe
                11 November 2013 22: 05
                +1
                Quote: vjhbc
                We have 20 types of submarines without modifications, and together with them there are over 97 different projects embodied in metal and manned by crews and weapons. According to "Jane, s" for 1986, there are 364 submarines in service in the USSR, of which 76 (including 62 nuclear) with ballistic missiles, 67 with cruise missiles (50 nuclear) and 218 torpedo (73 nuclear). According to Soviet data, the Navy has 375 pl 192 atomic and 183 diesel.

                ))))
                Do you think the Yankees had less))) you are a naive person

                Multipurpose Atomic: Nautilus, Triton, Skate, Tallibi, SeaWoolf, Skipjack, Halibat, Thresher / Permit, Stegen, Brocade, Lipscomb, Los Angeles, Impruvd Los Angeles, finally, modern converted Ohio, SeaWolf, Carter and Virginia (3 subseries)

                Multipurpose Non-Atomic - http://topwar.ru/31384-proekt-guppy-mezhdu-vtoroy-mirovoy-i-eroy-atomohodov.html


                see how many projects are hidden under the designation "project GUPPY" + how many diesel-SSK built after the war

                Strategists: Washington, Ethene Allen, Lafayette, Madison, Franklin, Ohio (59 SSBNs, the first 41 rebuilt and re-equipped many times PolarisA1-PoralisA3-Poseidon3 - some people received Trident1 - they didn’t look like themselves at the end of the service)

                Upgraded diesel-electric submarines designed by GUPPY (Greater Underwater Propulsion Progr.), End of 1960's
          2. Sirocco
            Sirocco 11 November 2013 13: 41
            0
            The maximum number of submarines in the USSR Navy was at the beginning of 1981, a total of 426 units, of which: 174 nuclear submarines, including 76 strategic nuclear submarines (14 were under conversion for another purpose), 47 with cruise missiles and 51 multi-purpose torpedo; 252 diesel-electric submarines, including 124 large, 127 medium and 1 small.
            http://www.pobedaspb.ru/pflot.html
      2. RussianRu
        RussianRu 11 November 2013 14: 28
        +2
        There may be no equal in quantity at the moment. And in terms of quality? How can you explain that for a whole month our submarine "Pike B" housed the shores of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico. Not immediately noticed, but maybe ours and allowed to notice the submarine. There are a lot of similar examples. It has long been known that Americans love to promote their military-industrial complex. They have the best rockets, the best radars, the best planes, the best stealth, well, just exceptional.
        1. Santa Fe
          11 November 2013 14: 43
          13
          Quote: Russian
          How can you explain that for a whole month our submarine "Pike B" housed the shores of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico.

          For the same reason that Amer boats entered the Kola Bay, the main base of the SF. To date, there are no reliable means of counteracting submarines

          It is another matter that "to beat off the coast" is not in the least like a "convoy attack". there is a situation of "elusive Joe" - no one is looking for him, because no one needs him. Let them try to repeat the same trick in a real combat situation - intercept the convoy in the middle of the ocean. Where transports are covered by destroyers with sonars and Poseidons of base aircraft

          This is not to say that submarines are weak. And to the fact that, in its current state, the Russian Navy is better to keep silent and cut a couple of extra boats. But kremlezhulikov mind enough only for cheap provocations. While still in the ranks of Pike from the Soviet backlog
          1. RussianRu
            RussianRu 11 November 2013 16: 18
            0
            the situation of "elusive Joe" arises - no one is looking for him, because no one needs him.

            Nifiga itself, no one needs, with a nuclear arsenal.
            For the same reason that Amer boats entered the Kola Bay, the main base of the SF.

            As they entered, they left. Because they are very noisy. And the sea is cleaner here, you see far)))))))).
            Let them try to repeat the same trick in a real combat situation - to intercept a convoy in the middle of the ocean

            Repeated. Conflict with Georgia. Fleet ships that were not helped by either speed or maneuverability. This incident can be attributed to everyone. But the fact remains. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9N0CzNsWw
            1. Santa Fe
              11 November 2013 16: 40
              +1
              Quote: Russian
              with a nuclear arsenal.

              what an arsenal. "Pike-B" - multipurpose submarine, without ballistic missiles
    2. clidon
      clidon 11 November 2013 19: 11
      0
      The view may be approaching, but the capabilities of submarines and ships are still very different.
      1. 755962
        755962 11 November 2013 21: 38
        +1
        And they build and build a lot ... damn them!

        Yes, and the devil is not their brother ...
        Or maybe he helps them ...

        Sorry for the tautology ...

        In the United States launched the latest aircraft carrier “Gerald Ford”
        http://rus.ruvr.ru/news/2013_11_10

        The United States resumed its Arleigh Burke-class destroyer construction program, laying down another such ship on November 4, 2013.

        http://flot.com/news/navy/?ELEMENT_ID=155702&fromcategory=338

        The keel of the third mobile landing platform laid at NASSCO shipyard

        MLP


        http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=155830
        1. 755962
          755962 11 November 2013 21: 50
          +1
          Alfred Thayer Mahan (Eng. Alfred Thayer Mahan; September 27, 1840, West Point, New York - December 1, 1914, Kuog, New York) - American naval theorist and historian, Rear Admiral (1906), one of the founders of geopolitics.

          Mahan's principles:
          Having singled out the main factors, from his point of view, Mahan reduces them to several simple principles, proving that the remaining historical phenomena are of secondary importance to sea power.
          The sea is not a barrier, but a road. Anyone who considers the sea as a means of isolation, as a very wide “serf ditch” between himself and his neighbor, eventually discovers that the neighbor has already put the sea at his service. That is, the isolationist invariably loses, as he voluntarily gives all the benefits to those who see a medium of exchange in the sea.
          Possession of the sea decides the matter. Starting from the Punic Wars, according to Mahan, the one who owned the sea was able not only to win victories, but also to use their fruits, and as the highest goal - to create viable world empires. According to him, Hannibal, Alexander, Napoleon are examples of the opposite. That is, not understanding the importance of sea ownership, they did not hold onto their empires, despite military talent.
          Sea power is the path to sea ownership. According to Mahan, it consists in the freedom to use the sea, and the prohibition of using it for the enemy. Both tasks are provided by a strong fleet - primarily military, but also commercial.
          The basis of sea power is on land. Both the economy supporting the fleets and the bases, colonies, and strategically important territories are its necessary components. At the same time, he, in particular, constantly advocated the need for the United States to gain sea power, including communications between the two oceans through the Panama Canal (then not yet built).
          The defense of their shores begins off the coast of the enemy - the decisive nature of the offensive and the global nature of the war.
          The importance of the "big battle" - the war is decided by a general battle.
          The secondary, indecisive nature of the cruising war against trade.
          Mahan's findings

          The essence of the war is the struggle for naval dominance

          We need the conscious, consistent efforts of the government to achieve this goal both during the war and before it. That is, sea power should be part of big politics.

          If naval domination is ensured (read — the enemy’s linear fleet is destroyed), then trade protection is ensured.

          Part of Mahan's principles and conclusions remained relevant

          "America is an island. Large, but still an island. Our ability to influence world events depends on the ability to use all the capabilities of our ships - at any time, anywhere."
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 12 November 2013 04: 05
      +1
      The AN / SPY-3 features will remain unclaimed. Like, for example, the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford itself: over the past 60 years there has not been a single operation in which these floating airfields would be of any use whatsoever. lol comrade Oleg Kaptsov! and on what do you think "stars" are delivering democracy around the world?
      1. Santa Fe
        12 November 2013 08: 08
        0
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        comrade Oleg Kaptsov! and on what do you think "stars" are delivering democracy around the world?

        On US Army tanks and US Air Force aircraft

        Desert Storm: The coalition has concentrated 2600 combat and support aircraft against Iraq, incl. 400 carrier-based aircraft with 6 AB

        2200 and 400 - draw conclusions. The role of carrier-based aircraft in any of the conflicts does not exceed 10% (the number of sorties). Iraq had a "record", as much as 17%

        Here they are, the true peddlers of democracy:
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 November 2013 14: 32
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          On US Army tanks and US Air Force aircraft

          I want to add.
          On Arly Burke and high-speed vehicles.
    4. mirag2
      mirag2 12 November 2013 06: 36
      0
      But the plague ships ...
      With protection against defeat by biological weapons, this is a real island of security from everything.
      So, it’s not necessary to say that only Russia is arming itself, we still have a long time before that.
      Yes, and all the ships are expensive, monsters are straight-aircraft, destroyer, ships for landing, the newest boat, a bastard ...
  2. Alikovo
    Alikovo 11 November 2013 08: 59
    -16 qualifying.
    expensive scrap metal.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 11 November 2013 09: 02
    +2
    And we need to give an "answer" to the Merikatos. Again catch up, overtake and all again to "square one"
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 11 November 2013 09: 33
      +3
      Quote: aszzz888
      And we need to give an "answer" to the Merikatos.

      Do you want to ruin the country?
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 11 November 2013 10: 40
        +6
        No, I wish my Motherland Peace. "If you want peace, prepare for war."
        But still, I did not minus you.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 11 November 2013 11: 16
          +4
          Quote: aszzz888
          No, I wish my Motherland Peace. "If you want peace, prepare for war."

          And what do you think "give an answer"? In my opinion (maybe this does not coincide with your point of view) this is the creation of a fleet capable of resisting the US fleet. But this is simply unrealistic for Russia now, we will not stretch out such expenses ...
          1. Sirocco
            Sirocco 11 November 2013 13: 55
            +3
            Quote: Nayhas
            we will not extend such costs ...

            Why don't we pull it out? because the last 20-25 years, with the help of the EU and the United States, there was a collapse of the country, that is, our homeland. In such a situation, when everything around is collapsed, of course, it is difficult to restore everything, but we strive for this, despite the cries and discontent of the "partners". So the time passes when anyone walking can kick the wounded lion without consequences.
            1. Santa Fe
              11 November 2013 14: 14
              +1
              Quote: Sirocco
              Why not stretch it?

              Because the dollar is the world's reserve currency
              And in rubles over the past 20 years, we have pasted a wall in the toilet a couple of times.
              Quote: Sirocco
              because the last 20-25 years, with the help of the EU and the USA, the collapse of the country that is our homeland

              Even in its best years, the Navy of the USSR was smaller and cheaper US Navy three times
              Quote: Sirocco
              but we are striving for this, despite the cries and discontent of the "partners"

              Who is aiming ??
              Kremlezhuliki?

              Laughter starts from the moment 0:25
  4. Igor39
    Igor39 11 November 2013 09: 36
    +6
    The aircraft carrier is impressive. I also liked the catamaran.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 11 November 2013 10: 23
      +2
      In the LCS type Independence, according to the results of operation, very serious problems with strength got out. The whole series is reinforced, and sheets are welded onto the constructed ones. The first version of Freedom was much more liked by the military, and there are no special problems there.

      And the very concept of LCS is very controversial. In fact, it is a high-speed ship armed with a corvette with unlimited seaworthiness. Even in the USA they come up with real creaks. So far, only all sorts of dagger raids, landing of sabotage groups, participation in the clearing of straits as part of high-speed ship groups.
    2. ka5280
      ka5280 11 November 2013 11: 08
      +3
      It's a trimaran
    3. ed65b
      ed65b 11 November 2013 11: 28
      +1
      Quote: Igor39
      The aircraft carrier is impressive. I also liked the catamaran.

      You’ll slip off the catamaran and all the kirdyk, why the hell do you grab it. But no doubt is beautiful
  5. 09061982
    09061982 11 November 2013 09: 45
    +2
    USS Minnesota multipurpose nuclear submarine (SSN-783- Do we have something similar ?????
    1. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 15: 17
      +2
      And we are in the midst of the Universiade 2019 day in Krasnoyarsk.
      You can’t drink a lot on boats, but the Universiade is a big deal, it’s a cut, THIS IS ALL!
  6. 09061982
    09061982 11 November 2013 09: 45
    +1
    USS Minnesota multipurpose nuclear submarine (SSN-783- Do we have something similar ?????
    1. jandjella
      jandjella 11 November 2013 13: 17
      +1
      Yep, the test is underway in Severodvinsk Project 885 "Ash" - nuclear-powered missile submarine cruiser (APRK). On June 15, 2010, the lead ship of the Severodvinsk project was launched. There is a second ship under construction - Kazan, being built according to the improved project 885M Yasen-M. The number of ordered ships changed several times. Initially, it was planned to build a series of 30 submarines, then the number of planned ships was reduced to 5, then plans for the construction of 6 or 7 submarines were announced, then it was announced that at least 2020 units would enter service by 8. Now 4 boats Kazan Novosibirsk Ufa have been laid at Sevmash. The delivery dates for the lead boat Severodvinsk have been postponed more than once. It is expected that "Ash" will largely correspond to the level of competing foreign projects. Thus, it possesses the most powerful complex of weapons for striking ground and surface targets in comparison with all other projects of the 4th generation due to approximately twice the ammunition load of powerful supersonic anti-ship missiles. American counterparts of the Ash are the multipurpose submarines of the Seawulf and Virginia classes ". Russian and foreign experts often compare the Yasen with the Seawolf, without giving any clear preference to one of the boats. The quietness of "Ash" is expected to be comparable to "Virginia" or "Seawulf", but "Ash" is intended for a wider range of tasks. In terms of functions, "Ash" will also correspond to the American submarines "Ohio", converted for armament with cruise missiles, significantly inferior to them in ammunition, but superior in speed and submarine attacking qualities. But there are still rumors about the construction of submarines according to another project. Bolie is a cheap project and, unlike ash, it is more intended for an anti-submarine barrier.
  7. Wolland
    Wolland 11 November 2013 09: 51
    +1
    Yes, not everything is as good with them as in reality, these things recorded in the article are collected for a long period of time, we can put out a much larger list, though without AN ....
    1. танк
      танк 11 November 2013 11: 36
      +2
      Well, what's the problem, the list is in the studio !!! We will be all for it!
    2. vahatak
      vahatak 11 November 2013 16: 24
      +2
      Quote: Wolland
      Yes, not everything is as good with them as in reality,

      How to understand it?
  8. Andreitas
    Andreitas 11 November 2013 10: 02
    +3
    So that everyone there does not talk about them, they do not care at all. They know their business, muscles pump up, and pump up. And as you know, they are afraid of the strong.
    1. wolfhunter2035
      wolfhunter2035 11 November 2013 10: 26
      -13 qualifying.
      strong? pahahahhaha)))) do you call them strong? yes their fleet sink just to spit!
      1. Hort
        Hort 11 November 2013 11: 32
        +5
        Oh, than just, do not tell. In comparison with their fleets, ours is a coastal flotilla, unfortunately. Anyway, for today.
        1. wolfhunter2035
          wolfhunter2035 11 November 2013 13: 29
          -3
          But I wouldn't say! Our quality is better! We can put their entire fleet with "malachite" to the bottom of the sea!
          1. Hort
            Hort 11 November 2013 14: 09
            +1
            Quality is quality, but there is no quantity needed yet. How many US fleets? Six or nine?
            It is clear that chasing them is not necessary in order to equalize the number of ships.
            But effective countermeasures are needed.
          2. vahatak
            vahatak 11 November 2013 16: 25
            +2
            Quote: hanter2035
            We can put their entire fleet with "malachite" to the bottom of the sea!

            Why malachite? Let's get a fly swatter right away if everything is so easy.
          3. patsantre
            patsantre 11 November 2013 22: 40
            0
            hanter2035 This is either a demented or a mediocre troll, do not react.
          4. SSeT
            SSeT 13 October 2016 17: 29
            0
            Well, then you spit and spit a hat
  9. Sam-07
    Sam-07 11 November 2013 10: 28
    +1
    Beautiful-Powerful-Brutal !!! in Hollywood. with alien evil butting with these toys is just that. or what blockbuster to remove ...
  10. hohryakov066
    hohryakov066 11 November 2013 10: 49
    +4
    Something it all reminds me .....
    1. leonardo_1971
      leonardo_1971 11 November 2013 15: 32
      +1
      it also occurred to me! Captain Nemo’s boat! Hollywood steers!
  11. Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 11 November 2013 10: 54
    +2
    All this miracle of hostile technology will look very good at the bottom of the sea
  12. moremansf
    moremansf 11 November 2013 10: 57
    +3
    We could, too, if not for the "help" of our overseas "comrades" ... destroyed the Union, all the ships on "needles", that's the result ... It's a shame for the state !!!!!!! The photo shows the descent of the first nuclear cruiser pr 1144 "Kirov" ...
  13. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 11 November 2013 11: 09
    14
    Russia and the USA have different concepts of the use of armed forces. In the USA, the fleet is in the first place and consumes the lion's share of the Pentagon’s budget. Therefore, chasing them in this regard is stupid. You just have to have a self-sufficient and decent answer. It’s just that in my opinion the Americans are still under the impression of landing in Normandy and operations in Southeast Asia. Their entire fleet is tailored precisely for this. In our country, due to the geographical position, such a fleet is simply not needed. But for submarines, I think it is necessary to maintain parity.
  14. ka5280
    ka5280 11 November 2013 11: 16
    0
    I have one question, against whom is this whole armada sharpened? Or is it a grand cut of the budget dough?
    1. vahatak
      vahatak 11 November 2013 14: 30
      +2
      Quote: ka5280
      I have one question, against whom is this whole armada sharpened?

      Americans do not seek to catch up and overtake. Therefore, their weapons are directed not against one state, but for a specific goal: hegemony throughout the world, and their armed forces will be the world gendarmerie.
      1. Kir
        Kir 11 November 2013 18: 15
        +1
        Will or will rave what will happen, this is one, the other and what the hell gendarmerie can be if this is compared to gangs. here Russia and China, coupled with other normal ones, can not only but must also be the World Gendarmerie so that the world bandit can sit and not rock the boat !!!
  15. 77bob1973
    77bob1973 11 November 2013 11: 20
    +4
    The fact of the matter is that in terms of displacement "Zamvolt" is comparable to the "Orlan" in terms of combat capabilities, it does not reach it, but at a price it is ahead by an order of magnitude - some kind of perversion !!!
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 11 November 2013 11: 51
      +2
      The USSR was already racing in the arms race for the United States, which many people knew that ended. The first two ships may still remain concept cars, as if it were not an attempt to steer the rest of the world on a false path to drive the budget into nothing.
    2. 1c-inform-city
      1c-inform-city 11 November 2013 12: 08
      +2
      Sorry, I’ll correct a little, the Orlan’s displacement is 26190t. It can be compared with the Atlanta 12000t, but in terms of combat capabilities it is clearly inferior to it both in pro and PCR.
      1. SSeT
        SSeT 13 October 2016 17: 56
        0
        And where is he inferior to him?
    3. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 14: 20
      0
      Quote: 77bob1973
      The fact of the matter is that in terms of displacement "Zamvolt" is comparable to the "Orlan" in terms of combat capabilities, it does not reach it, but at a price it is ahead by an order of magnitude - some kind of perversion !!!

      Total displacement:
      "Zamvolt" - 14 tons
      "Peter the Great" - 26 tons

      Combat capabilities - difficult to compare, too different concepts. Peter is stronger in naval combat and air defense in the far zone. Zamwolt has brilliant skills to "work" along the shore

      Cost - to compare is simply unrealistic. These are ships of different eras. In principle, the costs of a giant nuclear cruiser should be higher
    4. Armata
      Armata 11 November 2013 18: 45
      +1
      Quote: 77bob1973
      The fact of the matter is that in terms of displacement "Zamvolt" is comparable to the "Orlan" in terms of combat capabilities, it does not reach it, but at a price it is ahead by an order of magnitude - some kind of perversion !!!
      Yah? How many eagles do we have? And how many Zumvolts already? And so then Orlan atomic repeat fool
  16. Hort
    Hort 11 November 2013 11: 30
    +1
    And here is the high-speed roller, full of tanks - USNS Sisler (T-ARK-311)

    that's one of the first to be drowned.
    Zumwalt (in my opinion, such a transcription is still more correct, although I can be wrong =)) the shape of the hull reminded ships of the times of the 1st World War.
    1. 77bob1973
      77bob1973 11 November 2013 12: 40
      +4
      Rather, during the civil war in the states.
  17. ed65b
    ed65b 11 November 2013 11: 33
    +3
    Well, what not to build if the whole world buys up their pieces of paper and finances the country? If Russia had such a "miracle" would they sit in the same? and here we cut, restore what we have lost and destroyed, and build something else. It is enviable, of course, but I believe we have everything ahead if the current rulers or future rulers do not screw the country.
  18. kirpich
    kirpich 11 November 2013 11: 35
    +4
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    But on submarines I think you need to keep parity.


    Ah, better priority.
  19. carbofo
    carbofo 11 November 2013 12: 04
    0
    I liked the trimaran, I don’t know what its seaworthiness is, but for the ships of the coastal zone it is very convenient.
  20. carbofo
    carbofo 11 November 2013 12: 04
    0
    I liked the trimaran, I don’t know what its seaworthiness is, but for the ships of the coastal zone it is very convenient.
  21. Ahmed Osmanov
    Ahmed Osmanov 11 November 2013 13: 16
    13
    Some visitors to the military review have the amazing ability to turn any news related to the introduction of new types of weapons into the US Armed Forces into laughter and underestimation. While you are laughing here every year or two they commission new ships, planes, etc. The question is, what are we doing in the meantime? Laughing ?! Our shipyards build ships for the needs of the Navy of 5,6,8 years. Here it is necessary to think about it, and not laugh at the successes of others. After all, none of us knows the real capabilities of these ships. We were only told 1%, the remaining 99% is top secret information.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 11 November 2013 13: 30
      +5
      We are also upgrading, the issue is financing, the United States is printing money and providing it with the whole world, we earn foreign exchange earnings by selling our products and resources.
      1. Hort
        Hort 11 November 2013 14: 12
        +4
        it creeps with us, unfortunately.
        And what a shame, that is, the loot, just distribute it in the wrong direction, preferring to cut and roll more
      2. True
        True 12 November 2013 03: 48
        +1
        The USA prints money and provides them with the whole world, we earn foreign exchange earnings by selling our products and resources.
        They draw money, we pump resources. Here are just our products in terms of quality and demand for them in the world to compare and their high-tech, high-quality products is not possible. Mediocre enameled basin vs ipad?
    2. Sirocco
      Sirocco 11 November 2013 14: 07
      +2
      Quote: Akhmed Osmanov
      Some visitors to the military review have the amazing ability to turn any news related to the introduction of new types of weapons into the US Armed Forces into laughter and underestimation.

      And some visitors to VO have such a peculiarity to spoil everything ours and what we have done. You are probably inattentive, the media periodically reports on the introduction of new systems, types of weapons, and the introduction of new ships and submarines.
      1. Ahmed Osmanov
        Ahmed Osmanov 11 November 2013 14: 22
        +3
        Read all my comments and you will not see any bad reviews about our weapons. I have never "crap" about our designers who produce weapons, never. You reproached me for my inattention, in part it may be true that I am not perfect, but I notice that, how and when it is put into operation. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that they are doing this in a more intense manner. And some people either do not notice this, or notice, but with particular persistence they just "crap". Underestimating the enemy leads to failure, and this is a very bad trait, especially when it comes to the confrontation between two great powers. Yours faithfully! hi
        1. Kir
          Kir 11 November 2013 18: 28
          +1
          I agree that underestimation is not only unacceptable, but also criminal !!!, but there is one nuance - very much of what they do or say that they will make in a considerable if not more propaganda that they are a stronghold of all the best and progressive starting from the physical power and ending socio-political system. And here it is not a fact that the main thing is to win in the field of ideology, because if the Army and the People are weak in spirit and do not believe their State, then everything else is only a matter of time, and of course the technology.
          1. Abracadabra
            Abracadabra 11 November 2013 19: 34
            -3
            What nonsense ..
      2. True
        True 12 November 2013 09: 33
        +2
        Yeah, they saw tiny boats and submarines under flightless missiles.
  22. spirit
    spirit 11 November 2013 13: 39
    +2
    Truly in the USA "CRISIS" sad
    1. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 14: 24
      0
      Quote: spirit
      Truly in the USA "CRISIS"

      If everything is fine with us, but they are so bad
      Why is it so good for us, and is so bad for us

      How the USA will fall apart, the dream is already 90 years old
  23. UVB
    UVB 11 November 2013 14: 21
    +1
    Representatives of the Pentagon emphasize that the destructive power of the new Zamvolt will be similar to the battleships of the Second World War.
    And the representatives of the Pentagon do not indicate how many hits of torpedoes or 130 mm of shells will it withstand? I will not say anything about anti-ship missiles.
  24. Santa Fe
    11 November 2013 14: 51
    +8
    The most surprising thing is that the construction of the IAC (small artillery ship) or the anti-sabotage boat Grachonok is rattling all over the media day and night, senior government officials are present at the ceremony, showing what kind of patriots they are and how they care for the Russian Federation. The ships are given great-power names, "they promise to re-promise the promised promises", they tell how they have no analogues in the world

    Against the background of our dull talking room - a high-speed corvette (LCS), a boat, a platform (MLP), a landing ship (LPD) + a huge destroyer and aircraft carrier were launched ... and silence.

    The proverb says correctly: he who does does not speak. Who speaks - does not

    At the groundbreaking ceremony in Severodvinsk, the Knyaz Vladimir submarine. July 30 last year
  25. saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 11 November 2013 15: 02
    -3
    More Americans ships: Zumvoltov, Fords, Sivulfov.
    Defenders of the Earth from alien evil spirits
  26. Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 15: 23
    0
    That’s interesting, moreover, in the topic of AUG Sun APRK, http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-11-08/1_flot.html the conclusion is not a comforting dual AUG we are too tough.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 15: 34
      0
      Quote: Pajama
      http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-11-08/1_flot.html

      The author who wrote this has to learn many interesting things
      Or he knows everything, but is engaged in ordinary populism. In any case, his calculation is nonsense from start to finish. "Aegis", "Aegis", "Aegis" ... - he does not know ANYTHING about this system: ranges and operating modes of SPY-1, number of radar illumination ...

      Onyx "will be under fire for 28 km. Onyx will cover this distance in 37 seconds, and "Arly Burke" during this time will release 69 "Standards-2".
      laughing While AN / SPG-62 is only 3

  27. Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 16: 09
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    AN / SPG-62

    Explain that I didn’t understand 3 on one, in ARG 5-6 Arly Burke, total 6-7 Aegis units in the attacked sector, if one system allows you to track up to 100 targets, then the question is not the number of radars, but how many Standards2 will be able to release AGG further * 0.65, now if the AUG is doubled then in the permanent Super 8 Hornet patrol + 12-15 Aegis, but it’s not even how successful the attack on the double AUG will be, the question is, if 30% of the attacking councils lose the remaining ones AUG means of the Navy will no longer be. I am wrong ?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 16: 29
      0
      Quote: Pajama
      . I am wrong ?

      Of course you are wrong. And for most points. On the attacking sector there will be 1 (one - so as not to be confused) destroyer, 8 super hornets will carry not only air-to-air missiles. Knowing the carelessness, hindsight of the Americans, it may turn out that the Americans will not fire a single shot when attacking the AUG.
      In addition, the basic value is incorrect in the calculations - the number of missiles for one hundred percent destruction. The fleet will attack with 10-15 missiles with a probability of success of 25-30% (approximately) and in two or three attacks it will destroy the entire compound.
      The only one hundred percent way to protect the AUG is the destruction of cruise missile carriers.
    2. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 16: 35
      +1
      Quote: Pajama
      Explain, I didn’t understand so 3 on one, in AUG 5-6 Arly Burke, total 6-7 Aegis units on the attacked sector

      3 is at best. From the side.
      Course angles Arly covers only 1 radar illumination
      aft corners - 2
      Quote: Pajama
      if one system allows tracking up to 100 targets

      Нет!
      To see is not to point missiles yet

      Standerd-2 on the marching section is controlled by multifunctional AN / SPY-1 (able to control MORE THAN 20 issued missiles). At the terminal site - AN / SPG-62 backlight radar. And there are, at best, only three of them.



      As a result, Burke is capable of simultaneously firing at NO MORE than three air targets.

      But this is not the main problem - the decimeter AN / SPY-1 is ideal for detecting targets at great distances (stratosphere, objects in the extra-atmospheric space, low Earth orbits), but sees little at low altitudes - decimeter waves are reflected from sea water - a squall arises interference. All other fleets ALWAYS use 2 specialized radars (S and X bands) to detect high-altitude and low-flying targets. The Americans do not have this - Burke runs the risk of missing the serve, not to notice the small "Caliber" rushing over the water itself (detachable head, speed 3M)
  28. Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 16: 46
    -1
    Quote: Setrac
    Of course you are wrong. And for most points. On the attacking sector there will be 1 (one - so as not to be confused)

    In combat guard of 6 destroyers, why will there be 1 in the sector? While all APRKs must attack in one gulp, and at best with 100 km, this is the minimum and this is from the areas patrolled by submarines accompanying the AOG. For the navy of a probable enemy, the loss of one AUG is not critical, but the loss of 30% of the APRK ends the hostilities for us.
    PS I just jokingly thought that the State Department stopped all Russian to find fault with "procrapolymer" now on the contrary. left to finish, citizens should understand what the budget goes to, to Russia-NATO summits or to new planes, tanks, ships.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 17: 02
      +2
      Quote: Pajama
      Citizens should understand what the Budget is going for, the Russia-NATO summits drank, or new planes, tanks, ships.

      It is clear, I already thought that you understand what you are talking about, and you turn out to be an ordinary revolutionary-instigator.
      Quote: Pajama
      In the combat guard of 6 destroyers why the sector will be 1

      Because the Americans will not know where the attack will come from! And they will be forced to block the entire perimeter.
  29. Setrac
    Setrac 11 November 2013 16: 49
    -1
    Let me draw your attention to the fact that the Zumwalt should be replaced by the Spruance destroyers, and they are one in the ranks. Will they build one Zumwalt to replace one Spruance?
  30. Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 16: 50
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    SWEET_SIXTEEN

    Thank you, intelligibly, but somehow it makes the US Navy stupid.
    So it’s not in vain that they equipped Gerald Ford DBR - a system consisting of a decimeter range radar and an AN / SPY-3 centimeter radar with active headlights
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 17: 09
      +1
      Quote: Pajama
      Thank you, intelligibly, but somehow it makes the US Navy stupid.

      The Americans are not stupid at all, they understand very well that a completely different weapon will be used in the war with Russia. However, other countries have not so perfect rocket technology, and in the war with, say, Iran, the American AOG may well protect itself, although even so the chances are not XNUMX%.
      1. Santa Fe
        11 November 2013 17: 27
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        with Iran, the American ACG may well protect itself, although even so the chances are not XNUMX%.

        Already fought with Iraq (tanker war, 1988)

        The Yankees had the latest URO frigate for those times, the destroyer Kunz and the command ship LaSalle. Air cover - F-15 from Saud airbase. Arabia

        The Yankees snarled the moment of the attack with a thorn - the Iraqi Air Force Mirage F-1 fired Exocet missiles at the US frigate USS Stark, 37 dead, $ 142 million worth of damage.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 11 November 2013 17: 58
          +3
          Well, they didn’t fight Iraq then, but allied. a friend flew up - and stabbed with a knife
          20:00 - AWACS aircraft detected a take-off from the Iraqi territory of the Mirage F.1 fighter, which began flying southward.

          20: 05–20: 15 - the frigate commander G. Brindel, while in the BIC, received a report from the officer on duty that a combat aircraft of a friendly country follows the southeast course and is located 200 miles from the ship. After that, the commander climbed the bridge.

          20:43 - destroyer destroyer Kunts found the Mirage from 285 ° bearing 120 miles away from the Stark frigate at an altitude of 915 m and a speed of 540 km / h.

          20:55 - "Stark" found a fighter at a distance of 70 miles using its radar
          ship on relax (readiness 3), the alarm was announced only when they saw the launch of rockets. in case of war with Iraq, they had more than an hour to intercept Mirage
          1. Santa Fe
            11 November 2013 18: 14
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            Well, they didn’t fight Iraq then, but allied.

            Nichrome themselves, they were in the war zone.
            the alarm was announced only when they saw the launch of rockets

            oh it's not true

            In 18,06, the radio intelligence system (RTR), which is part of the AN / SLQ-32 complex of the RTR and electronic warfare systems (EW) installed on board the frigate, spotted the work of the radar sighting aircraft from a distance of 27 miles.

            At 18.09 Stark╩ reported that he had detected the work of the Cyrano aircraft fire control radar. By changing the tone of the received signal the operator of the PTP post concluded that the radar of the aircraft captured the target, and reported this to the BIC. Lt. Moncrif ordered the use of Mk.36 rocket launchers with anti-radar reflectors and infrared traps (Super RBOC).

            Almost simultaneously, the signalman on the bridge visually detected a bright flash on the left side on the horizon and then a rapidly approaching small-sized air target, i.e., anti-ship missiles. Having played the combat alert, in 18.10 ╚Stark╩ has deployed its own Mk.92 anti-aircraft fire control radar system (ROC) Mk.XNUMX, and after 5 seconds he got hit by a rocket on the port side in the area of ​​the 2 deck

            Those. even the interception of a single subsonic missile, in the line of sight, after repeated warnings and confirmations from AWAKSA and other ships, resulted in a lengthy process with a sad ending
            Quote: Tlauicol
            ship on relax (3 alert)

            In the moment preceding the unfolding events, the frigate had combat readiness ат3 (detection equipment and weapons - in readiness for use, personnel - at combat posts) and maintained automatic two-way communication with the destroyer URO DDG 40 oCoontz╩, the headquarters ship AGF 3 ╚La Salle╩ and the AWACS E-ZA AWACS system of the Saudi Arabian Air Force
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 11 November 2013 18: 37
              0
              What is not true? An alarm played after the start? after starting up! (almost completely). Shot an ally? - an ally! at combat posts a third of the crew. EW tools were not involved. The plane was observed MORE THAN HOUR - in case of war they would be intercepted ten times, and the alarm on Stark would be announced an hour before launch. For those with whom the Yankees fought (from Vietnam to Libya, including Iraq), this did not work
              1. Santa Fe
                11 November 2013 20: 13
                0
                1. The Yankees knew about the impending attack BEFORE rocket launch
                At 18.09 Stark╩ reported that he had detected the work of the Cyrano aircraft fire control radar. By changing the tone of the received signal, the operator of the RTP post came to the conclusion that the aircraft's radar station had captured the target, and reported this to the CIC. Lieutenant Moncrief has ordered the Mk.36 missile launchers with anti-radar reflectors and infrared traps (Super RBOC) to be ready for use.

                2. At the moment preceding the unfolding events, the frigate had readiness No. 3 (detection means and weapons were ready for use, personnel were at combat posts). The tale of a harmless sheep does not ride
                Quote: Tlauicol
                Airplane observed MORE THAN HOUR

                It's not about the plane

                An alarm played after the start? after starting up! (almost completely)

                Almost point blank! 15 miles - an ideal situation for simulating an attack of low-flying anti-ship missiles (for example, launched from a submarine) - it is at this distance that detection tools could detect anti-ship missiles in sea-skimming mode

                At that time, the situation was sparing: only two subsonic missiles + long before the attack, the Yankees knew about the direction of the threat, bearing and an approximate type of ammunition

                Nowadays, the situation could have been more complicated: a flock of 5-10 detached combat units of the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber (there the dimensions are smaller than those of Exocet), the speed is 3M, and the flight altitude is 5 meters. Burke with their obsolete AN / SPY-1 will die, not even having time to understand what and where it came from
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 12 November 2013 05: 09
                  0
                  So the alarm played after the start or not? What are you around the bush? We watched his hour, turned on the radar and did nothing .REB involved? No ! And nowadays they would destroy the carrier even over Iran - that’s what I’m trying to convey
                  roughly speaking, they saw how their friend came out of the house with a knife and watched him for more than an hour! even when a friend rang the doorbell and pulled out a knife, they opened it (and his own gun was in full readiness in a holster or in a nightstand) In the event of a war with the United States, did anyone roll this? No, and not a ride
                  1. Santa Fe
                    12 November 2013 08: 15
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    So the alarm played after the start or not?

                    In fact, before launch

                    At 18.09 Stark╩ reported that he had detected the work of the Cyrano aircraft fire control radar. By changing the tone of the received signal, the PTP post operator came to the conclusion that the radar of the aircraft captured the target, and reported this to the BIC. Lieutenant Moncriff ordered the preparation of Mk.36 rocket launchers for use with anti-radar reflectors and infrared traps (Super RBOC).

                    Those. on Stark’s bridge, everyone understood and began preparations even before they saw the missiles. In modern combat, this will not happen - the RCC will suddenly jump out due to the radio horizon at a distance of 15 miles
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    What are you around the bush?

                    15 miles - ideal situation for simulating low-flying anti-ship missile attack (for example, launched from a submarine) - it was at this distance that the detection means could detect RCC in sea-skimming mode

                    At that time, the situation was sparing: only two subsonic missiles + long before the attack, the Yankees knew about the direction of the threat, bearing and an approximate type of ammunition

                    Nowadays, the situation could have been more complicated: a flock of 5-10 detached combat units of the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber (there the dimensions are smaller than those of Exocet), the speed is 3M, and the flight altitude is 5 meters. Burke with their obsolete AN / SPY-1 will die, not even having time to understand what and where it came from
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    In the event of a war with the United States, did anyone roll this?

                    US fought with countries that have modern submarines with RCC?
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 12 November 2013 08: 41
                      0
                      What does the submarine have to do with it, did you cite the plot with Stark as the inability of the amers to repel even the attack of a single plane with subsonic missiles?
                      And I tell you, they watched the flight of the ALLIANCE plane for more than two hours from take-off to landing and did not hit it even after the attack! In the event of war, they could do this before and after eleven times! and then they spared Saddam's own fosterlings to confront Iran. At the cost of the blood of their own sailors. This does not mean the inability to repel such a simple attack by the enemy.
                      By the way, on foreign forums and on Wiki, information slipped that the Americans bought 8 anti-ship missiles Rocket for testing Aegis - and missed several missiles. Who, what, how many launches were not found. Maybe fake, but nice
                      1. Santa Fe
                        12 November 2013 08: 52
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        you cited the plot with Stark as the inability of the amers to repel even the attack of a single plane with subsonic missiles?

                        No.
                        Of interest is the last minute before missiles hit the frigate’s hull

                        On the Stark bridge they knew exactly the direction of the threat, and the exact time of the attack (At 18.09 ╚Stark╩ reported that he had detected the work of the Cyrano aircraft fire control radar) - it means that a strike will be delivered from minute to minute
                        then there was an attack with two subsonic missiles from 15 miles

                        The result is known.

                        At present, it will be more difficult for Burke - on some day D and hour X from an unknown direction at a distance of the WG (15 miles, flight altitude 5-10м) a flock of supersonic missiles will appear. Burke skips feed 100%
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        By the way, information on the fact that the Americans bought 8 anti-ship missile system Automation for testing Aegis slipped on foreign forums and on Wiki

                        This is an interesting topic. MA-31, Vandal, coyote ..
                      2. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 12 November 2013 09: 37
                        0
                        Exozet would fly 15 km per minute, but not miles hi ! You are interested in the last minute, and to me the previous 70 minutes. during which the enemy’s aircraft would have been repeatedly intercepted and there would have been no launches. as well as the next 70min. until landing, when the Iraqi was simply given life
                      3. Santa Fe
                        12 November 2013 18: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Exozet would fly 15 km per minute, but not miles

                        So much the worse for the Yankees

                        They had 2 minutes left, but they HAVE NOTHING TO DO ANYTHING
                      4. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 12 November 2013 18: 57
                        0
                        minute - at 18:10 already hit. point blank start
                        rather, it will be said that they DID NOT DO ANYTHING, although they discovered a launch including even visually
  • Santa Fe
    11 November 2013 17: 41
    0
    Quote: Pajama
    So it’s not in vain that they equipped Gerald Ford DBR - a system consisting of a decimeter range radar and an AN / SPY-3 centimeter radar with active headlights

    In vain removed DBR c Zamvolta
    that's the joke

    On Zamvolte there is only a centimeter AN / SPY-3. what came of it?
    While optimized for volume search, the horizon search capability is limited. The DDG-1000 is still expected to perform local area air defense - Zamwolt, unlike Burke, is not intended for zonal air defense / missile defense. Although in the near zone promises to work well

    Aircraft carrier Dual Band Radar (DBR) - that dead poultice. He doesn’t have enough self-defense means to fight back. And to see what is being done in space is not his problem at all
    Quote: Pajama
    but somehow it makes the US Navy stupid.

    request
    it is what it is

    Nobody uses "universal radars" - for example, Her Majesty's destroyer HMS Dragon. At the top of the foremast is a centimeter SAMPSON. At the stern - an anthracite-black antenna of the S1850M surveillance radar (decimeter range)
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 November 2013 21: 23
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      it is what it is

      So that American shipyards do not repeat the fate of Detroit, you need to build something, at the same time you can experiment with the Zumvolts, give the ships a fantastic look and a fantastic price. Who threatens America and American interests-NEVER.
    2. Assistant
      Assistant 11 November 2013 21: 47
      0
      At the stern - anthracite-black antenna of the surveillance radar S1850M (decimeter range)


      But is his foremast radio transparent? Otherwise, I don’t understand something about the location of the surveillance radar.
      1. Santa Fe
        11 November 2013 22: 12
        0
        Quote: Assistant
        But is his foremast radio transparent? Otherwise, I don’t understand something about the location of the surveillance radar.

        Two radar antennas. One of the two will block the other in any way - SAMPSON was given priority, he has an important task, the score goes there for seconds

        As for the surveillance radar - there is an optical illusion, in fact, they are far apart in space. The fact that a small sector at heading corners is closed by a superstructure is not a problem, this can be fixed by changing the course
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 11 November 2013 16: 56
    0
    Alas, impressive and alarming ...
  • Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 17: 26
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: Pajama
    Citizens should understand what the Budget is going for, the Russia-NATO summits drank, or new planes, tanks, ships.

    It is clear, I already thought that you understand what you are talking about, and you turn out to be an ordinary revolutionary-instigator.
    Quote: Pajama
    In the combat guard of 6 destroyers why the sector will be 1

    Because the Americans will not know where the attack will come from! And they will be forced to block the entire perimeter.

    although I don’t understand anything, but 6-7 destroyers around the perimeter will have a minimum of 3-5 Aegis with a course attack.
    Well, if I'm an instigator, then how do you differ from Ur patriots? Caps all AUG USA throw? If, after mine, strangers, any provocations, they develop a normal doctrine, increase the number of APRKs, stand the Russian aircraft carrier, and don’t arrange a drink SOCHI 2014, then I will also become a patriot.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 17: 36
      0
      Quote: Pajama
      , how do you differ from the patriots of Ur? Caps all AUG USA throw

      Patriots without Ur perfectly understand that to compete with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers is pointless, this is a battle on the enemy’s field, which we will lose, we must impose our own rules of war.
      Quote: Pajama
      Russian aircraft carrier stand

      The whole ONE aircraft carrier that will scatter ten American?
      Quote: Pajama
      although I don’t understand anything, but 6-7 destroyers around the perimeter will have a minimum of 3-5 Aegis with a course attack.

      Here experts must say their weighty word.
      Quote: Pajama
      Caps all AUG USA throw?

      I repeat, we do not need to throw our caps on the American AUG, we can throw missiles on the American continent. Let me remind you how the American AUGs left Syria.
      1. Santa Fe
        11 November 2013 17: 49
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Let me remind you how American AUG left Syria.

        But there were no American AUGs in Syria

        The position of the Nimitz and Uospa on 5 September 2013
  • vuvarovskiy
    vuvarovskiy 11 November 2013 17: 30
    0
    Thank you for the article-conclusion one, to strengthen the country's defenses, otherwise they will devour us, it’s not a secret against which country all these weapons will be sent !!!
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 11 November 2013 21: 25
      0
      Quote: vuvarovskiy
      Thank you for the article-conclusion one, to strengthen the country's defenses, otherwise they will devour us, it’s not a secret against which country all these weapons will be sent !!!

      And what country is it directed against?
  • Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 18: 13
    +2
    Quote: Setrac

    Patriots without Ur perfectly understand that to compete with the United States in the number of aircraft carriers is pointless, this is a battle on the enemy’s field, which we will lose, we must impose our own rules of war

    Ok, by their rules, in the USSR they believed that suppressing 1 AUG requires 6-7 APRKs, now the question is what to do in modern realities against a dual AUG without using nuclear weapons.
    Quote: Setrac
    The whole ONE aircraft carrier that will scatter ten American?

    If there is not one then one is not needed? It’s necessary to start somewhere we don’t build now, then it will be much more difficult, we’ll fill up the cones but we will gain experience and technologies. Are you only considering the possibility of a conflict with the United States? In your opinion, a springboard for 7 lards in Sochi is better than an aircraft carrier. The Chinese and Indians, of course, have bad oceans around them more than ours.
    Quote: Setrac
    we can rocket the american continent

    Well, only if you are aliens, then yes, because because of Syria, it’s just the very thing to start a nuclear war. You (aliens) can in response then it will not fly.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 20: 51
      0
      Quote: Pajama
      If there is not one then one is not needed?

      The value of one aircraft carrier, or ten, no difference, without developed logistics, is zero point zero.
  • EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 11 November 2013 18: 36
    +1
    "Liberty" for the northern convoys was built in 3 days. World record for modular assembly.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 November 2013 20: 18
      0
      Quote: EdwardTich68
      "Liberty" for the northern convoys was built in 3 days.

      lies.
      Record "Robert E. Peary" collected in 4 days 15 hours
      The build pace of regular Liberty ship was ~ 24 days
  • wolfhunter2035
    wolfhunter2035 11 November 2013 18: 53
    0
    Quote: hort
    But effective countermeasures are needed.

    Malachite is precisely this measure!
  • Black
    Black 11 November 2013 18: 58
    0
    Mistral is our asymmetric answer?
  • Black
    Black 11 November 2013 18: 59
    +3
    Mistral is our asymmetric answer?
  • Ols76
    Ols76 11 November 2013 19: 10
    0
    The catamaran is impressive. The future of the fleet is for stealth technology ships.
  • waisson
    waisson 11 November 2013 20: 20
    0
    they have something to be proud of and what we should envy of them
  • starhina01
    starhina01 11 November 2013 20: 22
    +1
    well at least on icebreakers ahead of the rest hi and the article well covers the topic we are not sleeping and the enemy is not asleep soldier
  • vitantin
    vitantin 11 November 2013 21: 39
    0
    One year, one full modern AUG. It’s scary to imagine their program until the 20th year. Trillions of debt, but something is not noticeable.
  • vitantin
    vitantin 11 November 2013 21: 40
    0
    One year, one full modern AUG. It’s scary to imagine their program until the 20th year. Trillions of debt, but something is not noticeable.
  • Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 21: 43
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    The value of one aircraft carrier, or ten, no difference, without developed logistics, is zero point zero.


    You have a strange logic, there are no aircraft carriers and you don’t need it because there is no logistics, and there is logistics to drive half of the fleet into the Mediterranean Sea, but it is not for the aircraft carrier. But initially, Our conversation with you is about the fact that now our fleet is objectively weak, stealing, and what would be more convenient for the people to tell fables, you call me a provocateur. I tell you about Thomas. You tell me about Yerema, what the hell is this Olympics for? Armenian diaspora skating rinks with resorts set up? The entire preparation of 1,5 trillion rubles, this is 50 MPLATRK of the Yasen-M project, you can crap yourself out of fear. Here's what you want, you can 3-4 AUG with this money, plus re-launch the research institutes and PNIL, which were closed in the beginning of 90, you can’t restore them anymore, you can only restart them, and in 89-91 he worked at PNLR on unaccompanied underwater vehicles the leading specialists were 40-year-old men, they closed everything - their brains fled (someone (two) remained to teach, the rest went to free bread, the leading specialist on SU got a porter at the station, etc., they closed the topic, the finished product (running ones already went) was gone on scrap - a titanium case. Now they are all over 60, twenty years old, no one on the profile worked, I think, hundreds of such examples.

    A probable adversary is riveting new equipment; it has working shipyards and qualified personnel, well-equipped engineering, and at our place, in 87, I did an internship at one of the St. Petersburg defense plants, so in the tool shop there were 1914 domestic machines and 82g Czech manufactures, now enterprises this is not, but I think that the general trend in our own engineering is the same. That's where you need to invest, and not arrange winter Olympics in the tropics.

    I am always happy to read the news that new production is being launched, subscribed to "Made by us" but this is a drop in the ocean. No system, sad and embarrassing.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 11 November 2013 22: 55
      0
      Quote: Pajama
      But initially, Our conversation with you is that now our fleet is objectively weak, they steal

      In the United States, too, they steal more than ours, but they have a fleet, probably it is not only a matter of theft?
      Quote: Pajama
      You have a strange logic, there are no aircraft carriers and you don’t need it because there is no logistics, and there is logistics to drive half of the fleet into the Mediterranean Sea, but it is not for the aircraft carrier.

      I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is not at war, but is located. Developed logistics are needed to conduct intensive hostilities. In order for a warship to fight in the ocean it is not enough to build it, it must be continuously supplied. In order to build an aircraft carrier in some years, it is necessary now to build shipyards, naval bases and support points in other countries. And just to build an aircraft carrier "to be" I see no point.
      Quote: Pajama
      I am always happy to read the news that new production is being launched, subscribed to "Made by us" but this is a drop in the ocean. No system, sad and embarrassing.

      If you are reading "Made with us", you should know about new offshore projects, which will allow, after their implementation, to build and operate aircraft carriers in the oceans.
      1. Pajamas
        Pajamas 11 November 2013 23: 22
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Developed logistics is needed to conduct intense hostilities. For a warship to fight in the ocean it is not enough to build it, it must be continuously supplied.

        And why in the ocean to fight aircraft carriers ?. With the money that they throw out at the Olympics / Universiades / World Cup for football to revive / build / rent bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Algeria, Syria, India,
        There are no problems in Cyprus, if money doesn’t solve everything, then a lot.
        But in essence, there’s no answer from you what to do, you don’t see the use of AOG, there is nothing to resist the use of USA AUG, you only offer to throw missiles on their continent.

        Quote: Setrac
        I’ll draw your attention to the fact that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is not fighting, but is
        That is, in your opinion, he has the task of "being", a little bit away and home, and I see the formation being assigned a combat mission to go to a given area and "on-is", it was necessary to send a barge of the corresponding total displacement there.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 November 2013 00: 03
          0
          Quote: Pajama
          And why in the ocean to fight aircraft carriers?

          That's why he is an aircraft carrier.
          Quote: Pajama
          That is, in your opinion, he has the task of "being", a little bit away and home, and I see the formation being assigned a combat mission to go to a given area and "on-is", it was necessary to send a barge of the corresponding total displacement there.

          What's this? Like a fool decided to pretend?
          1. Pajamas
            Pajamas 12 November 2013 01: 09
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            What's this? Like a fool decided to pretend?

            no, I take an example from you
            Quote: Setrac
            I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea is not at war, but is located. Developed logistics are needed to conduct intensive hostilities. In order for a warship to fight in the ocean it is not enough to build it, it must be continuously supplied. In order to build an aircraft carrier in some years, it is necessary now to build shipyards, naval bases and support points in other countries. And just to build an aircraft carrier "to be" I see no point.

            According to your not "stupid" logic, AUG goes to the Ocean and there is fighting, and there it is supplied with "logistics"? And our aircraft carrier with escort ships, supply ships or as part of an expeditionary force will not be able to go on a campaign? By your logic, there was no Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, because the Japanese did not have "naval bases and support points in other countries". They left the Kuriles.
            In the Mediterranean Sea - the connection has a current task and it is, though battered by years of betrayal, but combat ready part of the Russian Navy, so to conduct, as you say, intense military operations is quite capable otherwise it would not be there.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 12 November 2013 02: 09
              0
              Quote: Pajama
              In the Mediterranean Sea, the connection has a current task, and this, though battered by years of betrayal, is the combat-ready part of the Russian Navy, so to conduct, as you say, intense military operations is quite capable otherwise it would not be there.

              Being prepared for hostilities and conducting hostilities are two HUGE differences.
              Quote: Pajama
              According to your not "stupid" logic, AUG goes to the Ocean and there is fighting, and there it is supplied with "logistics"?

              Do you at least take an interest in the question before arguing. This is open information, for example, how long an aircraft carrier's own reserves will last. This "stupid" logic forces the US to have a large fleet of fast ships, bases around the world, etc.
              1. Pajamas
                Pajamas 12 November 2013 10: 28
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Being prepared for hostilities and conducting hostilities are two HUGE differences.

                Quote: Setrac
                Do you at least take an interest in the question before arguing. This is open information, for example, how long an aircraft carrier's own reserves will last. This "stupid" logic forces the US to have a large fleet of fast ships, bases around the world, etc.

                You yourself don’t bring rubbish more than once, through dialogs you answer questions that no one has asked you and cheeks are inflated,
                You about the double AUG - in response to missiles about America, we will shower all of America.
                You are talking about the fact that it would be nice to develop mechanical engineering through construction, an aircraft carrier, you are told that logistics is needed, you are told that to solve combat problems, we can have a half of the fleet in Sredzezemnoe, here you have logistics, and with an aircraft carrier to solve tactical problems, a problem will not, but you are talking about the fact that the aircraft carrier needs resources, and any connection is required, you think now weapons and dogs have been brought to Syria on weapons and dogs, if necessary, already AVAILABLE not suitable for the fleet? . The problem is solved, and you cheat all your cheeks and write trivial things with a clever look, as if not the possibility of what already exists. The fleet solves the problem, the question has just been given and given to the Fleet, the conversation is not about sailors but about thieves above, and about the doctrine.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 12 November 2013 14: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Pajama
                  You puff all your cheeks

                  Do not write to me anymore.
  • voliador
    voliador 11 November 2013 22: 11
    0
    Look at the pace of construction of corvettes - what, nafik, AUG ?! The aircraft carrier itself will be built for about fifteen years, and now even its concept is not there.
  • Pajamas
    Pajamas 11 November 2013 22: 42
    0
    Quote: voliador
    Look at the pace of construction of corvettes - what, nafik, AUG ?! The aircraft carrier itself will be built for about fifteen years, and now even its concept is not there.

    AND? what not to do therefore? Concept of what is not, use, design? Is there a concept for the use of Mistrals, but not for an aircraft carrier? The United States has a design concept, India has it, China and Great Britain have a nuclear installation with a steam catapult. In general, the conversation about the AUG is separate, we do not need dozens of them, but they would not be in the way for the fleet, especially since we are going to do a deck-based PAK FA, otherwise every Qatar will prescribe "bream" to our diplomats, and we endure. We want to be a world power. We must have a fleet.
  • Legioner
    Legioner 11 November 2013 23: 15
    0
    The Americans are building whatever they want, and we are building what we can afford. Which is very annoying, but encourages to build less but as efficiently as possible.
    And, what about: the universal amphibious assault helicopter carrier USS America (LHA-6), then they can sell it to one of the countries friendly to the United States "bordering" the Pacific Ocean, and they have a doctrine to "contain" China.
    1. Pajamas
      Pajamas 11 November 2013 23: 26
      0
      Quote: Legioner
      The Americans are building whatever they want, and we are building what we can afford.

      Yeah, the Olympics in the tropics, at the price of the Navy.
      1. Legioner
        Legioner 12 November 2013 20: 19
        0
        The country is not only military and people working for the military industry, it is also a civilian population.
  • Muadipus
    Muadipus 11 November 2013 23: 46
    0

    And here is the high-speed roller, full of tanks - USNS Sisler (T-ARK-311)
    Something draft is not enough for a ship chock full of tanks.
    1. Santa Fe
      12 November 2013 01: 16
      0
      Naturally, in the photo empty)))

      But maybe this is the situation
  • Cormorants
    Cormorants 12 November 2013 07: 26
    0
    Well, they are building ships and what, and who migrants are fighting for them who want to get a U.S. citizen passport, or the descendants of dissidents who have forgotten their roots, they do not know what Homeland is, and this is very important in battle. But we do not need to be left behind, hello to our shipbuilders and let's give the most interesting and terrible things to the adversary.