Military Review

Atomic strike cruiser CSGN

18



The project of the atomic strike cruiser CSGN appeared in response to the construction in the USSR of heavy atomic cruisers of the 1144 Avenue Orlan. There is no exact evidence on this score, but the principles laid down in both ships, like the chronology of events, completely coincide (1973 year - tab of the head Kirov, 1974 year - the urgent appearance of the CSGN program).

Why did the Yankees need to "hit hard" and compete with the Union in creating atomic surface monsters - in the presence of a developed sea aviation and the complete lack of experience in creating multi-ton supersonic anti-ship missiles? The strike cruiser’s project is an additional confirmation of the proverb “Fear is Big”, as well as evidence of the vile desire of the US military to “knock out” more money by intimidating its own leadership with the successes of the Soviet military-industrial complex (both real and fictitious).


Atomic "Orlan"! Pentagon dwellers collapse in consciousness

With all this, the project GSGN there was one major difference from the Soviet cruiser: eight-inch artillery! Yes, dear reader, in the age of nuclear reactors and rocket technologies, someone seriously expected to equip their ships with lumbering pieces of iron, spitting out pieces of hot steel to a distance of 29 000 meters.

Otherwise, the Americans sacredly followed the criteria laid down in the Soviet Orlan: "To love is like a queen, to steal is like a million." No concessions and compromises. Large, extremely expensive ship, equipped with the latest technology.

The nuclear reactor, the latest in its time, the Aegis IUSC, the most advanced detection tools, a huge ammunition set of 128 rocket-torpedo and long-range anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship Harpoons, small-sized torpedoes and a pair of anti-submarine helicopters. Later, the Phalanx six-barreled anti-aircraft guns and armored boxes with Tomahawks will be added to them.

Atomic strike cruiser CSGN


Cruiser Strike, Guided Weapons, Nuclear-powered - strike cruiser with guided missile weapons, and even on a nuclear move. Here is a rarity hidden under the nondescript designation CSGN. This "superhero" of the American action movie, able to deal with everyone who gets in his way!

Despite all its inadequacies, the GSGN program was in the process of being put into practice - in this sense история the nuclear strike cruiser repeated the story of the United States supercarrier (whose construction was stopped on the 5 day after the laying). The same irresistible desire of the admirals to get a "super-ship" - with the stubborn position of Congress, who did not want to get involved in another senseless spiral of the arms race.

Moreover, all the necessary components of the future CSGN existed "in hardware", and subsequently most of them went into service fleet.

Nuclear power plant

The tactical and technical requirements (TTZ) for the development of the strike cruiser set the highest speed at the level of 32 nodes. At the stated displacement in 17 thousand tons, the cruiser was required to have on the shafts of propellers at least 100 - 120 thousand hp.

At the time of the appearance of the TTZ, the main type of reactor for surface combatants was D2G, installed on eight US Navy atomic cruisers. A pair of such modest units provided power on the shafts of ships 44 MW (60 thous. Hp). On board the CSGN, two echelons of four similar NPGS with three GTZA designed to transmit more power could be installed. Or developed a fundamentally new reactor. In any case, the nuclear strike cruiser project would not have encountered any significant difficulties in terms of creating a nuclear power plant.


A squadron of six US Navy nuclear cruisers (the Yankees had 9 in total and all were sent for scrapping at the start of the 90's)

Another question - why the strike cruiser needed a nuclear power plant? Time gave the obvious answer - no need.

"Aegis"

The combat information and control system created on the basis of the most modern developments in the field of microelectronics and 70-s detection tools. Computerized combat information center, AN / SPY-1 radar with four fixed panels PAR. Reserve two-coordinate radar air review AN / SPS-49. Four anti-aircraft fire control radar AN / SPG-62. Navigation radar AN / SPS-64 and surface viewing radar AN / SPS-10F. Next are the antennas and units of the LAMPS data collection and centralized information processing system for the underwater environment, which combines an AN / SQS-53A hydroacoustic station and onboard systems of two anti-submarine helicopters.


Atomic cruiser "Long Beach" with the Aegis system (unrealized project)

In general, a wonderful system for its time - BIUS, subjugating all the subsystems of the ship. The only problem of Ajis was its high cost, especially by the standards of 40 years ago. Moreover, the system was positioned as an "impenetrable shield" in repelling the attacks of Soviet anti-ship missiles and was intended for installation on escort cruisers of the US Navy. Shock CSGN had, frankly, other goals and areas of work. Like most American cruisers of those years, it could easily do with the simpler NTDS with a bunch of radar AN / SPS-48 and SPS-49. As it turned out later, these systems were no worse than the advertised "Ajis" - a powerful and reliable SPS-48 Yankees still put on their ships.

But that time the admirals wanted to do everything with “special chic”. The idea of ​​a “super cruiser” so deeply penetrated the brains of the inhabitants of the Pentagon that any compromises were excluded. Sailors chose only the best and at the highest possible cost!

Missile weapons

The CSGN cruiser ammunition consisted of 4 type missiles (Stender-2 SAM, AURROK PLUR, Garpun anti-ship missile and Tomahawk SLCM) - only one and a half hundred rocket ammunition for various purposes. Missiles were launched from launchers of three different types:

- Mk.26 GMLS Mod.2 - two universal beam PU, located in the bow and stern of the ship. The installations were intended for launching Stender-2 anti-aircraft missiles and ASROK anti-submarine rocket-torpedoes;

Even by the standards of the 70-s, the Mk.26 GMLS was considered too cumbersome, heavy and outdated (the “dry” mass of the Mod.2 is 265 tons!). By that time, the first models of underdeck launchers had been installed on Soviet ships (8-chargers of the C-300F drum-type launchers), and American sailors were looking forward to the appearance of the universal MK.41 UWP for storing and launching any types of missiles, which was announced in 1976 year. However, before reaching the Mk.41, operational readiness would have had to wait at least 9 years, so the strike cruiser was designed for the old PU Mk.26 Mod.2 (max. Capacity of the rocket cellar of each of the installations - 64 of the rocket);

- Mk.141 - sloping quadruple launchers for launching the Harpoon RCC. They represented a light truss structure with transport and launch containers (TPC) mounted on it at an angle 35 ° to the horizon;


Above is the “classic” CSGN. Below is its simplified version of the CGN-42 (Virginia-class nuclear cruiser with the Aegis system)


- Mk.143 Armored Launch Box (ABL) - armored launchers on the upper deck, designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles. The process of storing and launching Topor resembled the scheme used in the modern Russian Club-K missile system. Only instead of the sham 40-foot container under which the PU of the Russian Klab was made, the Mk.143 ABL was a heavy metal box with dimensions 7x2x2 m and weight 26 tons. If necessary, the top cover lifted and four TPK with "Tomahawks" occupied the starting position. Thus, it was supposed to place the latest Tomahawk missiles on the deck of any naval ship (including on old battleships built during the Second World War). With all its obvious merits, ABL was recognized as charscural and outdated. Soon after the appearance of the Mk.41 CWP, the Mk.143 installation was decommissioned.

Artillery!

Perhaps the most important feature of the draft cruiser. In the forward part of the CSGN, the well-polished 203 mm cannon sparkled - in addition to the missiles, the newest highly automated naval gun Mk.71 was supposed to be included in the cruiser armament.

The background to the appearance of this system is as follows: at the beginning of the 70's, the American fleet began a massive write-off of missile-artillery cruisers (impromptu based on WWII ships). Together with the old ships, the last large-caliber guns disappeared into the past. A few more years - and the only type of artillery armament of the US Navy will remain light "five-inch" Mk.42 and Mk.45.

"Yes!" - the reader will sigh. - Time rushes forward inexorably, erasing to the dust the achievements of the past years. The glorious era of battleships and big cannons was left lying on the dusty shelves of history. ”

However, despite the appearance of remarkable rockets, the sailors did not plan to part with their “big toys”. Fire support for amphibious assault forces and the shelling of the coast of the enemy (Naval Gunfire Support in the Basurman) remained a pressing task for the modern fleet. The Marine Corps experienced the most: instead of the corpses of their draftees, the Yankees preferred to throw packs of heavy projectiles at the enemy - and now they are seriously thinking about how to go into battle without having an “8” naval gun in the form of an offshore battery.



The transition from the 5 caliber (127 mm) to the 8 caliber (203 mm) meant a threefold difference in the mass of the projectile and a longer range of 5000 meters.

The compact, automated Mk.71 cannon with 55 barrel lengths of calibers together with ready-to-fire ammunition weighed 78 tons and ensured the rate of shooting of 10-12 shots / min. Power was supplied from the 75-charging store. To control the mechanisms of Mk.71 during her firing, an 1 sailor was required. However, in the future, when moving the ammunition from the main installation to the store, it was necessary to attract another N-number of strong hands.

Supergun could produce 118 kg shells at a distance of 29 km. In addition to the usual "blanks", the Mk.71 arsenal was attended by the Mk.63 lighter projectile, created during the Vietnam War, which allowed shelling Vietcong bases at a distance of more than 40 miles!



The actual gun model was assembled and tested on the Hull destroyer in the 1975 year. According to official data, the accuracy of the Mk.71 was low, and when firing active projectiles "eight-inch" had almost no advantage over the "five-inch". But, most importantly, the "five-inch" was cheaper! The developers of Mk.71 did not receive funds for the further continuation of the work and in 1978, the project of the modern marine 8 “gun” was minimized.

Currently, the main artillery gun of the US Navy remains the Mk.45. The Yankees are trying to compensate for the lack of her power with adjustable projectiles and high initial velocity ammunition: the barrel length of the Mk.45 Mod.4 was brought to incredible 62 calibers!

Wreck of a CSGN project

According to the 1974 budget of the year, the fleet expected to receive one experimental CSGN based on the upgraded Long Beach atomic cruiser (estimated cost of $ 800 million) and 12 serial strike cruisers at $ 1,5 billion each. In the 1975 budget of the year, the number of serial CSGNs has been reduced to 8 units. The necessary funds were to be obtained by reducing the order for the construction of Virginia-type nuclear cruisers from twelve to four units (which happened in reality).


USS Long Beach (CGN-9). It was launched in 1959 g. Full displacement of the giant - 17 thousand tons.





USS Long Beach after a slight upgrade at the start of the 80.
Clearly visible are the protruding RCC "Harpoon", white caps of the "Falanx" and armored containers with "Tomahawks".


In the future, the projects were repeatedly revised; as a result, five different projects are immediately hidden under the designation CSGN:

- two heavy "classic" CGSN (samples 1974 and 1976), differing only in the composition of weapons and the perfection of the technical performance of their structures;

- “test” CSGN-9 based on the old cruiser “Long Beach”;

- “light version” of the CGN-42 - nuclear missile cruiser with the Aegis system in the hull of the Virginia cruiser with a simplified composition of weapons.

In reality, none of the projects was implemented. Only Long Beach has been upgraded by a simplified project — without installing the Aegis system and no major changes in the design of the cruiser.

What ruined the brilliant project of the "superhero ship"?

It turns out that the blame has become ... political correctness. To the congressmen’s direct question: “Why did you need strike cruisers?” Followed by a completely nonsensical answer: “Fight with the Russians.”

But the main Russian power was hidden under the water! In order to effectively counteract the submarines of the USSR Navy, tens and hundreds of anti-submarine ships, destroyers and frigates were required. The impact of the CSGN in such conditions was completely useless, and Congress immediately "hacked" the project.

No, the American admirals were not so stupid. But they did not have the moral right to announce out loud the launch of the strike cruiser: the beating of “third world countries” in numerous local conflicts throughout the Earth.

Speaking seriously, the whole reason lies in the money. The designers noticeably became too clever with the design of the strike cruiser - in the planned form, the CSGN turned out to be excessively expensive to participate in local wars. And just as ineffective as an escort ship - for this purpose, the Yankees planned to build a large series of Aegis Ticonderoga type cruisers in the body of the destroyer Spryens (the contract for the construction of the head DDG-47 was concluded in 1978).

Project CSGN sunk into oblivion? On thematic resources devoted to fleet development trends, there is an opinion that we will not see such a ship in the 21st century.

Certainly not!

In the dank November 2013 of the year, a squadron destroyer of a new generation, the Zamvolt, stepped onto the water of the Kennebec River. Here are the sizes (14 500 tons), and the price ($ 7 billion dollars with R & D), and 80 rocket launchers, and the newest superradar AN / SPY-3 and a pair of AGS 6-inch ammunition with 920 ammunition.

However, in modern times the admirals have a more flexible vocabulary: instead of straining the “strike cruiser” (no remnants of the Cold War!), The neutral word “destroyer” is used, and instead of the vile phrase “to hammer the third world countries” a beautiful traffic is used “this ship is oriented to counterterrorism operations. "



Based on:
http://www.g2mil.com
http://www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.harpoondatabases.com
http://www.wikipedia.org
Author:
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Crang
    Crang 19 March 2014 08: 25
    +5
    Large caliber artillery is needed on warships. So the Americans did the right thing here. Moreover, on such a giant ship there is enough space for it. In general, it is necessary to build battleships with artillery-missile-torpedo armament. They are smaller, but "fatter" and bulkier. That is, there is much more space in them. They are much stronger. Heavy duty armor. And the outer dimensions are about a frigate, no more.
  2. Crang
    Crang 19 March 2014 08: 27
    0
    Here are these:
    1. Santa Fe
      19 March 2014 08: 41
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Here are these:

      Tower from Panzerhaubitze 2000 on frigate "Hamburg"
      155 mm
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 19 March 2014 08: 34
    +1
    Returning to the previous polemic. In the USA there are people who keep their admirals in check and therefore monster projects remain on paper. Even their flirting with AEU on surface non-avian ships did not go beyond the reasonable. In theory, after the USS Truxtun (CGN 35) it was possible to tie it up, but it wasn’t obvious at that time, now of course it’s easy to blame them, but then there was the height of atomic euphoria, airplanes, trains, a civilian fleet with nuclear power plants, where they just didn’t try to use peaceful and not only atom. Yes, and the Sea Orbit round-the-world from a completely atomic AOG showed that a full AUG requires more ships with AEUs. It took years of operation to understand that the nuclear power plant does not give any advantages, but it creates a lot of problems.
    PS: The progenitor of GSGN, our project 1144 is a favorite of all patriotic Russians, who really consider him a "super ship" and therefore subsequent posts about which Yankees will be an obvious "stone in his garden."
    PPS: The latest news about a promising Russian destroyer is usually accompanied by plans to install a nuclear power plant on it, which is clearly welcomed in society. As always, we have extremes, either KTU or AEU, it seems that we simply do not know how to do GTU ...
    1. Santa Fe
      19 March 2014 09: 09
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      In the USA there are people who keep their admirals in check and therefore monster projects remain on paper

      9 atomic cruisers ...



      Or Zamvolt
      Super destroyer for 7 billion without a surveillance radar - is it not expensive to shoot the Papuans?

      Ford
      Why does a floating airfield need a super-radar to control near-Earth orbit?
      And why did the 150 ship take off per day - did he decide to compete with the Air Force? As a number of admirals correctly noted: an increase in the number of sorties by 30% - with a double increase in cost compared to Nimitz - is it worth it?

      A canonical example from aviation is the B-2. The first is why he was needed at all. The second question - why did the stealth aircraft need a cool radar with AFAR ?? The very principle of using radar contradicts stealth technology
      Or the B-58 Hustler - it was worth a piece of gold of the same mass. The ugly Valkyrie?

      Nuclear super-boat Triton? UDC like America (for 3 billion, but without a camera dock)?

      Americans squandering leave us far behind
      Quote: Nayhas
      our project 1144 is a favorite among all patriotic Russians, who really consider it a "super ship"

      And he did not please you?
      Quote: Nayhas
      about a promising Russian destroyer is usually accompanied by plans to install nuclear power plants on it

      Understand what we are creating - a large-scale universal frigate (6-8 thousand military units) or a shock super-destroyer similar to a free ship (~ 15 thousand tons). For the latter, a nuclear power plant looks like a rational solution - we have huge successful experience in the creation and operation of such systems

      PS / American way with 60 Burks is not applicable to us. My personal opinion is that it would be optimal to have a couple of large destroyers (strike cruisers) in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and a dozen simple frigates like Grigorovich for mass
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 19 March 2014 10: 30
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        9 atomic cruisers ...

        Believe that nine is a lot? Serial only six. Long Beach, Bainbridge and Truxtun are actually experimental vessels, the series went from California. Oleg, in the 60s they saw a great future in nuclear energy, remember at least the Ford Nucleon, a car with a nuclear reactor? In the end, it all ended at USS Arkansas (CGN 41), after which ships with nuclear power plants were not laid (except for aircraft carriers, of course).
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Or Zamvolt
        Super destroyer for 7 billion without a surveillance radar - is it not expensive to shoot the Papuans?

        Zamvolt is an attempt to look into the future. I don’t know how it will end. Perhaps they made a mistake and in the future there will be a different concept, but this is always the case with those who go ahead, there is no one to look at. Again, the appearance of the ship depends on the customer .. what was requested, then received ...

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ford
        Why does a floating airfield need a super-radar to control near-Earth orbit?
        And why did the 150 ship take off per day - did he decide to compete with the Air Force? As a number of admirals correctly noted: an increase in the number of sorties by 30% - with a double increase in cost compared to Nimitz - is it worth it?

        A canonical example from aviation is the B-2. The first is why he was needed at all. The second question - why did the stealth aircraft need a cool radar with AFAR ?? The very principle of using radar contradicts stealth technology
        Or the B-58 Hustler - it was worth a piece of gold of the same mass. The ugly Valkyrie?

        Nuclear super-boat Triton? UDC like America (for 3 billion, but without a camera dock)?

        Do you propose to discuss all this? It will take a lot of time, so I can only repeat: ordered, so it was necessary.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Americans squandering leave us far behind

        In terms of their budget, this is a penny. They spend more on social. provision and medicine with education. Compared with the costs of the same medicine, the military "smokes sadly on the sidelines." Social expenses providing for the poor is comparable to spending on defense!
        Compare the costs of defense and education in Russia and the United States: 1,2 / 0,55 trillion. rubles and 0,55 / 0,9 billion dollars, respectively.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        My personal opinion is that it would be optimal to have a couple of large destroyers (strike cruisers) in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, and a dozen simple frigates like Grigorovich for mass

        Our personal opinions will remain only with us. We cannot initiate "congressional hearings" on the need for spending on this or that type of weapon ...
        1. Santa Fe
          19 March 2014 11: 12
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          nine is a lot?

          This is a whole fleet
          Quote: Nayhas
          Serial only six

          2 California - Is It Serial?
          Quote: Nayhas
          in the 60s, they saw a great future in nuclear energy,

          Virginia built at the end of 70's
          Quote: Nayhas
          After all on USS Arkansas (CGN 41)

          the Yankees a quarter century stubbornly walked on a rake
          Quote: Nayhas
          Zamvolt is an attempt to look into the future

          The lock in its current form is inadequate to solve any problems
          CSGN with neutered air defense. The fact that he has no future - it became clear at an early stage of design
          Quote: Nayhas
          ordered, so it was necessary.

          In the fall of 1959, at the talks N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agreed that money for the armed forces is “knocked out” by defense ministers alike: first they frighten the Government with the adversary’s success in developing weapons, and then they demand money to close the “backlog”.
          Quote: Nayhas
          On a budget scale it's a penny

          Half their budget deficit
          Moreover, the US budget itself, like the budget of any "post-industrial" country, is based on the service sector and intangible values. And in this situation, the importance of military orders takes on special significance
          Quote: Nayhas
          We cannot initiate "congressional hearings" about the need for spending on this or that type of weapon ...

          It was about the Russian Federation!
          The conversation began with your indignation over the installation of a yasu on a destroyer - if you rely on world practice (a combat core of large ships + frigates), installing a yasu on a large destroyer looks like a justified solution
          Quote: Nayhas
          defense and education spending in Russia and the USA: 1,2 / 0,55 trillion rubles and 0,55 / 0,9 billion dollars

          Can not be
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 19 March 2014 12: 28
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            2 California - Is It Serial?

            Well, for the USA, of course not, we have this series already.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Virginia built at the end of 70's

            Let's just say all seventies.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            the Yankees a quarter century stubbornly walked on a rake

            Well, they went, got more than once in the forehead and stopped. By this time it was already clear that the nuclear power plant, if the future was far away, we had just begun to unfold and if it had not been for the global collapse we would have been configured to be healthy. Until now, floodlights are projected ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The lock in its current form is inadequate to solve any problems

            Time will tell, see. In any case, the United States will move from the Berks to another direction of the development of the surface fleet.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In the fall of 1959, at the talks N.S. Khrushchev and US President D. Eisenhower agreed that money for the armed forces is “knocked out” by defense ministers alike: first they frighten the Government with the adversary’s success in developing weapons, and then they demand money to close the “backlog”.

            There is, of course, some truth in the words of General Isaac, but in matters of defense "it is better to skirmish than not to fight," especially in the face of confrontation between systems. It is important to have a limiter here, they have a congress, we had a Politburo (the fucking truth was a limiter from it), now ... I don't even know, judging by the costs it is not.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It was about the Russian Federation!

            Yes, I'm figuratively talking about congress ...
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            if you rely on world practice (a war core of large ships + frigates), installing a yasu on a large destroyer looks like a justifiable solution

            Stupid idea. Even in conditions of high power consumption of the ship network.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Can not be

            I agree, mixed up:
            Russia - education 550 billion rubles, healthcare 1,2 trillion. rubles, for defense - 2.3 trillion. rub.
            USA - education of 900 billion dollars, healthcare over 1 trillion. dollars (or 1,5, or 1,7 there is difficult with their medicaments, etc.), for the defense of 550 billion dollars.
            But that's not the point. The United States spends about 540 billion dollars on supporting the "low-income" segments of the population (benefits, food stamps, etc.). This money works against the country. In the US, it's not a secret for anyone that you can live on benefits and stamps while working unofficially without paying taxes, there are millions of such freebie lovers. And how much of the 540 billion is spent on drugs? Now compare with defense spending, out of $ 550 billion, the main part is production, R&D, and equipment maintenance. This money works for the country. I mean, there are places in the USA where it is more useful to tighten the strap ... on the neck ...
            1. Santa Fe
              19 March 2014 12: 55
              +1
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well, for the USA, of course not, we have this series already.

              For the USSR or the Russian Federation? Here you must immediately specify
              Quote: Nayhas
              Let's just say all seventies.

              No, California was built at the beginning of the 70's
              Quote: Nayhas
              then nuclear power plant, if the future, then far

              But what about the missile defense project CG (X) - was seriously discussed with 2001 on 2010 year. Stupidly not enough money
              Quote: Nayhas
              Projects are still being projected ...

              )))
              Quote: Nayhas
              and if it weren’t for the general collapse, we would have been well

              Not obvious. 1164, 11551 - all real projects of the end of 80's non-nuclear
              Quote: Nayhas
              Stupid idea.

              At least not worse than reviving cooperation on GTE with the Ukrainian "Zorya-Mashproekt"

              With YaSU, we have traditionally been fine - Peter runs fast around the ball, and 1155 barely crawl from repair to repair. About 956 and Kuznetsov not talking at all. New 22350 - and those of their diesels managed to burn
              Quote: Nayhas
              on defense - 2.3 trillion rub.

              Just Putin's arms race
              This era is not very interesting to me, there is nothing to discuss
              Quote: Nayhas
              The US spends about $ 540 billion on supporting the "low-income" segments of the population

              The rich have their own quirks
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 19 March 2014 21: 42
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                New 22350 - and those of their diesels managed to burn

                He is still alone and something was not heard that the diesel would be burned on it, probably you mixed up with the corvettes.
                1. Santa Fe
                  20 March 2014 08: 25
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  He is still alone and something was not heard that the diesel would be burned on it, probably you mixed up with the corvettes.

                  Absolutely correct remark
                  20380
            2. cdrt
              cdrt 19 March 2014 14: 10
              -1
              [quote = Nayhas] [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN]
              Russia - education 550 billion rubles, healthcare 1,2 trillion. rubles, for defense - 2.3 trillion. rub.
              USA - education of 900 billion dollars, healthcare over 1 trillion. dollars (or 1,5, or 1,7 there is difficult with their medicaments, etc.), for the defense of 550 billion dollars.
              But that's not the point. The United States spends about 540 billion dollars on supporting the "low-income" segments of the population (benefits, food stamps, etc.). This money works against the country. In the US, it's not a secret for anyone that you can live on benefits and stamps while working unofficially without paying taxes, there are millions of such freebie lovers. And how much of the 540 billion is spent on drugs? Now compare with defense spending, out of $ 550 billion, the main part is production, research and development, and equipment maintenance. This money works for the country. I mean, there are places in the USA where it is more useful to tighten the strap ... on the neck ... [/ quote]

              I completely agree. The US does not have a huge military budget. Against the backdrop of spending on health and education - not so much. And in the benefits to the poor. They directly encourage people to not work. Which is more than harmful.
  4. Takashi
    Takashi 19 March 2014 09: 18
    0
    we, by the way, have also recently been using turnover: "this ship is oriented towards counterterrorism operations." for new corvettes
  5. Ruslan
    Ruslan 19 March 2014 12: 18
    +1
    why such hatred for ace on ships? maybe for amers it was superfluous and did not make sense since a lot of bases and allies around the world, but grandmothers allowed here and set up, tried, looked, did not like, refused. maybe if not for their costly military-industrial complex, they could bring to mind, upgrade. for Russia, as for me, an ace, this is more relevant. We do not have the above potential, but in the world’s oceans we need it, we need fuel autonomy. and by the way, why are they crying about the difficulties of operating ACS on surface ships, but they don’t remember that both the USSR and the USA have a bunch of atomic submarines and somehow cope with their reactors. maybe if you put apl reactors on a cruiser, will it be easier to keep them? although uranium is still more expensive than solariums. you need to think, it is necessary, it is not necessary.
  6. bvi1965
    bvi1965 19 March 2014 12: 54
    +2
    Quote: Krang
    Large caliber artillery is needed on warships. So the Americans did the right thing here. Moreover, on such a giant ship there is enough space for it. In general, it is necessary to build battleships with artillery-missile-torpedo armament. They are smaller, but "fatter" and bulkier. That is, there is much more space in them. They are much stronger. Heavy duty armor. And the outer dimensions are about a frigate, no more.


    There was an article on this subject, in the size of a frigate nothing will come of armor
  7. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 19 March 2014 14: 10
    0
    Our and the American fleets have fundamentally different strategic combat missions. They provide sea freight transport, we interrupt. They have to land troops on our territory, we have to repel them. Therefore, ours tried to build single super-raiders. And they are numerous escort ships. The rest of our fleet was built to counter the AUG and amphibious groups, but you know why nuclear submarines. The flawed idea of ​​raiding by large warships was shown by the example of Germany in WWII, and the Americans opposed our underwater "raiders" with a developed anti-aircraft defense.
    Instead, having created a coastal fleet to repel amphibious and carrier groups, and a group of missile nuclear submarines with airbags, for example, in Tiksi, we should have focused on the construction of two large amphibious groups on the Northern Fleet and the Special Operations Command. The first for the capture of Iceland, which instantly changed the alignment in the Atlantic, and the second for the capture of Japan, even the capture of Hokaido already made our Far East impregnable, or constrained the enemy’s forces. Based on these territories, it was already possible to launch a fight against convoys using at least simple 68 bis or even diesel submarines. Instead, we received in the Navy a set of diverse unique porcupines, each with its own unique history and flaws. As a result, the USSR fleet did not help and did not save anything.
    1. Santa Fe
      19 March 2014 15: 12
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      The damage of the idea of ​​raiding by large warships was shown by the example of Germany in WWII

      ?

      ... Seeing the German ships, the ships rushed scatteringly. Using onboard aircraft to search for scattered "prey", "Gneisenau" and "Scharnhorst" were able to sink five ships with a total displacement of 25874 gross tons (brt): the first, as befits a flagship, chalked up four - Trelawny (4689 brt), Kantara (3327 brt), ED Huff (6219 brt) ) and Harlsden (5483 brt) - and Scharnhorst got only the tanker Lastres (6156 brt).

      Three days later, they intercepted several tankers, of which Gneisenau one drowned (British 6197-ton "Simnia") and three captured(Norwegian 5684-ton "Bianca" and 6405-ton "Polycarb", 8046-ton "San Casimiro") as prizes. "Scharnhorst" sent two tankers to the bottom:British Strenge 7139 t) and Atelfoom (6554 t).

      On the morning of March 16, the battle cruisers found several more ships lagging behind the convoys. At this point, the raiders frolicked as much as foxes in a chicken coop. "Gneisenau" sunk six transports: Empire Industry (3648 tons), Norwegian Granli (1577 tons), Royal Crown (4364 tons), Maison (4564 tons), Rio Dorado (4507 tons) and the Danish Chilian Reafer (1739 t), and "Scharnhorst" - four: "Manghai" (8290 tons), "Silverfir" (4347 tons), "Sardinian Prince" (3200 tons), "Demeterton" (5200 tons).

      - stages of the combat path of "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau"

      They stopped going to the Atlantic only in the summer of 1941 - the Fritz had an acute shortage of fuel and all resources went to the Eastern Front

      PS | TARKR 1144 - not a raider at all
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 19 March 2014 18: 32
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        .Seeing the German ships, the ships rushed in all directions

        This is such a writing trick, like they’re so scared that there’s something. In fact, any normal commander of the convoy, in view of the superior forces, would have ordered exactly this. So about nothing.
        Compare the effectiveness of these "mega raders" with the same "Atlantis". Now compare the efficiency / cost. It is strange for some reason that there was enough fuel for its action, how did it happen?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        TARKR 1144 - not a raider at all

        Tell me what he is?
        1. Santa Fe
          19 March 2014 20: 54
          -1
          Quote: chunga-changa
          So about nothing.

          What about nothing?
          They sank / captured over 20 vessels in one raid. Almost convoy PQ-17
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Compare the effectiveness of these "mega raders" with the same "Atlantis". Now compare the efficiency / cost.

          But it’s nothing that besides the shooting of ships, linear cruisers were able to do something else, for example, to fight an enemy battleship (Rinown) or to catch up and shoot an aircraft carrier (Glories)
          Quote: chunga-changa
          For some reason, it was strange that there was enough fuel for its action; how did it happen?

          Do you paint the fuel balance of Germany in WWII?
          Quote: chunga-changa
          Tell me what he is?

          Missile cruiser of inadequate size and cost.
          Although, as an air defense platform, it still has no equal
      2. 52
        52 20 March 2014 19: 20
        0
        Actually, cruising war is an initially perverse phenomenon, "the strength of the weak." By Mahen's Law, the sea is a route for delivery and battles. Strength is in the organization of normal convoys. Raider - "cruiser - killer" - a dead-end branch of development.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. irk_tma
      irk_tma 20 March 2014 18: 43
      0
      totally disagree with you
      judging by the payroll of the USSR Navy of 70-80 years, 80% of all funds were spent on PLO, then the main threat to the Navy command was seen as the NATO submarine fleet,
      to mitigate threats from the side of the AUG, the USSR had naval aviation, in the number of aircraft which, in total, exceeded the current air forces of the Russian Federation
  8. aleksandrs95
    aleksandrs95 19 March 2014 15: 56
    +2
    in terms of spending in the Russian Federation, you need to understand. For many years nothing has been done, it is necessary to restore everything. Therefore, against the general background, the figures of expenditures are not correctly shown. In the USA, 550 billion. Every year, I am sure there are hidden costs and not included in this amount.
  9. Jedi
    Jedi 19 March 2014 22: 14
    0
    well right let's observe the long beach
  10. Jedi
    Jedi 19 March 2014 22: 16
    -1
    by the way, say not one of our cruiser or destroyer slang beech is near
  11. Aleksandr89
    Aleksandr89 19 March 2014 22: 23
    0
    The article is interesting, but the author tried to grasp the immensity. An interesting interpretation of the behavior of American senators, the logic of American admirals is even more interesting, and they are not fools for all their love for the states. And the author’s just built "big toys" in the USSR and the Americans wanted to. In addition, as the author of the United States writes, such ships needed a quote "beating up" third world countries "in numerous local conflicts all over the world."From here, according to the logic of the author of the USSR, the same ships either beat countries of the 3rd world, or was going to beat them, which is an absurdity. The appearance of Zumvolt is a new round in the development of armaments; in Russia all eagles are going to modernize, and besides, if they do not lie from 2016-2018, construction of new promising destroyers will begin. Continuing the discussion, Russia also seeks to enslave the world. These ships have wide functions and a huge range of applications during the war (the organization of a powerful zonal air defense, practically with one ship, the carrier of a large number of cruise missiles, coupled with powerful radars and an acoustics system - a universal platform for fighting submarines and ships with opponents in a limited theater of operations.
  12. rebel
    rebel April 7 2014 18: 36
    -1
    Good cruiser, just a project ...