New Navy ships of India: INS Kolkata and INS Kamorta

This July has become a landmark for the Indian naval forces. A few days difference to the Indian military the fleet two new ships were transferred at once, built according to the latest projects. July 10 shipyard Mazagon Docks Ltd. delivered to the fleet the destroyer INS Kolkata, which is the lead ship of the new project 15A. Literally a couple of days later, on July 12, the Navy at the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited plant hosted a ceremony for the delivery of the lead corvette of Project 28 - INS Kamorta. According to Indian press reports, the ships will be accepted into the naval forces in the next few weeks.

Destroyer INS Kolkata

The transfer to the fleet of new ships is an important event not only in the context of upgrading equipment, but also for some other reasons. Thus, the construction and testing of the head destroyer of the 15A project was seriously delayed. The development of the project was completed at the beginning of the two thousandth, and in September of 2003, construction of the lead ship of this type started. In accordance with the plans of that time, the ship INS Kolkata (Kolkata - the current official name of the city of Calcutta) was to begin service in the 2010 year. Construction of the ship was completed fairly quickly: already 30 March 2006, he was launched.

However, in the design of the ship and its systems were identified numerous shortcomings, because of what the tests and refinement was delayed for several years. Moreover, various incidents occurred until the very end of the trials. 7 March 2014 problems led to human sacrifice. During the inspection of the fire extinguishing system, an uncontrolled emission of carbon dioxide occurred, as a result of which one employee of the Mazagon Docks Ltd. shipyard. died and two others were hospitalized with poisoning.

As a result, the tests of the destroyer INS Kolkata ended only in the 2014 year, and the transfer to the fleet took place on July 10. In the very near future, some recent work will be completed, after which the ship will raise the flag of the Indian Navy and it will begin its military service. At the beginning of next year, it is planned to take the second ship of the 15A project, INS Kochi, into the fleet. The approximate deadlines for the delivery of the third destroyer, INS Chennai, are still unknown. According to the plans of the Indian Navy, only three ships of the 15A project will be built. However, at the beginning of 2011, it was decided to develop a project 15B, representing the development of the existing 15A. The new project will be built at least four ships.

Since the end of the last decade, the 15A project and the construction of the ship INS Kolkata have been seriously criticized for their economic characteristics. In 2008, the command of the Indian fleet claimed that the construction and first years of operation of a new type of destroyers would cost the budget about 38 billion rupees (about 640 million US dollars). However, the correction of deficiencies in the lead ship, the revision of the project, the protracted tests and many other factors led to a significant increase in the cost of the program. According to the 2011 year, the head ship of the 15A project went up in price by 220-230% - its value reached 117 billion rupees (2 billion dollars). The reasons for this increase in the cost of the Indian Ministry of Defense announced the increased wage costs for shipbuilders, inflation and improvements in various systems.

The development of the 15A project started back in 1986. Ships of this type were supposed to be a modified and modernized destroyers of the project 15. Since the Indian specialists did not have adequate experience in creating such ships, in designing both projects, it was decided to seek help from foreign colleagues. An important role in the creation of the 15 and 15A types of destroyers was played by the Soviet Northern PKB (Leningrad). In addition, at the beginning of the two thousandth year, the 15A project was slightly reworked based on the use of components and equipment supplied by Western countries.

The destroyer INS Kolkata has a displacement of 7600 tons with a body length of 163 and a width of 17,4 meter. In the design of the ship's hull, you can see some technical solutions inherent in modern military shipbuilding. The sides of the hull and the superstructure transform into each other, and some elements of the superstructure are a combination of large straight-line panels. This may indicate that the authors of the project took into account the need to reduce the radar visibility of the ship. At the same time on the decks and superstructure there are a large number of different protruding elements that can increase the ship's ESR. Probably, in the development of the project, stealth was not among the main tasks.

The 15A project destroyers are equipped with a COGAG (Combined gas turbine and gas turbine) power plant. Its main element is two gas-turbine engines M36E developed by the Ukrainian enterprise Zorya-Mashproekt. In addition, there are four DT-59 gas turbine engines in the power plant. Engines interact with the two propeller shafts with two RG-54 gearboxes. Also on the ships are installed two diesel engines Bergen / GRSE KVM and four Wärtsilä WCM-1000 electric generators with a power of 1 MW.

Such a power plant allows the ship to reach a maximum speed of up to 30 nodes. With an economic speed of 18 knots, the cruising range reaches 8000 nautical miles. Data on the autonomy of the reserves of provisions for the crew of 325 people are missing.

The main means of monitoring the situation on the ships of the 15A project is the EL / M-2248 MF-STAR radar with an active phased antenna array created by the Israeli company IAI. It is alleged that this radar is capable of detecting a high-altitude "fighter" target at ranges of at least 250 km. Detection of cruise missiles flying at low altitudes is carried out at ranges of at least 25 km. In addition, the electronic equipment of the destroyer INS Kolkata and its sisterships includes the Thales LW-08 and IAI EL / M-2238 radars. To counter enemy radar destroyers must use the electronic warfare system Elbit Systems Deseaver MK II of Israeli design.

The detection of enemy submarines is supposed to be carried out using the HUMSA-NG hydroacoustic complex installed in the bow of the ship and the Nagin towed system. Both systems are developed by the Indian company Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL).

BEL has also developed and is supplying a combat information and control system (BIU) for new ships. To coordinate the actions of various systems on the destroyers of the 15A project, the EMCCA Mk4 BIUS is used.

The main strike armament of the 15A project destroyers are BrahMos missiles. 16 of such products are loaded into two universal vertical launchers. For the destruction of enemy submarines, ships can use four torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm or two jet bombs of RBU-6000 installed in the bow of the ship.

The tasks of air defense are assigned to anti-aircraft missiles Barak 1 or Barak 8 with a range of up to 12 and up to 70 km, respectively. These missiles are loaded into four vertical launchers with 16 cells on each. Thus, the ship carries several types of 64 anti-aircraft missiles. To defeat air targets that have broken through two echelons of missile defense, the ships are equipped with Russian-made anti-aircraft artillery units AK-630. Also, the Oto Melara SRGM system with an 76 caliber mm gun is part of the ship’s artillery armament.

A helicopter landing pad is provided at the stern of the ship. The aft part of the superstructure houses the hangar to accommodate two helicopters.

Corvette INS Kamorta

On July 12, at the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited (GRSE) shipyard in Kolkata, the INS Kamorta head anti-submarine corvette was handed over to the naval forces. The new corvettes of Project 28 are assigned the task of combating enemy submarines, which determines their appearance. According to reports, by 2017, the Indian Navy should receive four such ships. They will replace the outdated Project 159E patrol boats, previously acquired from the Soviet Union.

The lead ship of the project, INS Kamorta (“Kamort” - one of the Nicobar Islands), transferred to the fleet a few days ago, was laid down in November 2006 of the year and launched on August 2009. The construction of the second project corvette (INS Kadmatt) started in the fall of 2007, and the third (INS Kiltan) in the summer of 2010. The fourth ship, INS Kavaratti, was laid at the start of 2012. According to current plans, starting from 2014, each year the Navy will receive one new corvette from the 28 project.

An additional objective of the 28 project is the development of Indian shipbuilding. However, attempts to increase the potential of Indian enterprises, as in the case of the 15A project, have led to unexpected financial consequences. Initially it was assumed that the cost of each of the four new corvettes will not exceed 28 billion rupees (about 480 million dollars). However, in the first half of the two thousand years, when preparations were made for the construction of ships, the cost of the project grew so much that the cost of each corvette approached 70 billion rupees (1 billion dollars). According to reports, it was decided to finalize the project in order to reduce the cost, which led to noticeable delays: the construction of the head corvette began two years later than previously planned. The cost of the program with almost no change.

In the 28 project, various foreign components are widely used, but it was developed by Indian experts practically without the help of foreign colleagues. The reason for this was the orientation towards the development of domestic production and the minimization of purchases of foreign products.

The INS Kamorta anti-submarine corvette has a standard displacement of 2800 tons and maximum 3200 tons. The steel hull of the ship has a total length of 109,1 m and width of 13,7 m. The design took into account the need to reduce radar visibility, thanks to which the hull and superstructure of the ship have a characteristic shape formed by straight panels. At the same time, as in the case of destroyers of the 15A project, 28-type corvettes have a large number of protruding elements on the decks and superstructures. The crew includes 195 people, including 15 officers.

The power plant of the corvettes project 28 built on the CODAD (Combined diesel and diesel - "Combining diesel and diesel"). The design of the power plant Indian specialists were engaged in collaboration with French engineers from the company DCNS. According to some reports, the French participation in the project was to create a low-noise gearbox. The power plant incorporates four diesel engines Pielstick 12 PA6 STC, transmitting torque to two gears and two propellers. To power the on-board electronics, generators manufactured by the Finnish company Wärtsilä are used.

The maximum speed of the corvette INS Kamorta - 25 nodes. When driving at an economic speed of 18 knots, the cruising range is up to 3500 miles.

To detect surface and airborne targets, 28 ships must use the REVATHI radar, developed by the Indian organization DRDO. To control the weapons used radar IAI EL / M-2221 STGR Israeli production. In addition, the radar equipment BEL Shikari, the communication system BEL RAWL02, the sonar system and the electronic warfare system Elbit Systems Deseaver MK II are part of the radio-electronic equipment of the new corvettes.

The 28 project corvettes are designed to search and destroy enemy submarines and therefore have a specific set of weapons. For the destruction of enemy submarines on each side of the ship there are two torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm. In addition, in the bow of the ship, on a superstructure in front of the bridge, two jet bombers of RBU-6000 are installed. If necessary, the Westland Sea King or similar helicopter carrying the appropriate equipment can search and attack submarines.

To protect against air attacks, the corvette INS Kamorta and other ships of the 28 project carry rocket and artillery weapons. They are equipped with two launchers for different types of Barak missiles (2x8), as well as two AK-630M artillery mounts. In the forward part of the ship is the Oto Melara SRGM artillery mount with an 76-mm gun.

According to reports, the development of a new project with the 28A index has already begun, the goal of which is to eliminate the flaws identified in the basic 28 project and the subsequent modernization of anti-submarine corvettes. The command of the Indian Navy plans to build up to eight such ships in addition to the four corvettes of the base project, the first of which will soon be commissioned.

On the materials of the sites:
http://thehindu.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://naval-technology.com/
http://bharat-rakshak.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://business-standard.com/

Comments

[Rurikovich]

And what ... They build as they can, still learn how to fight on them, and look, after some time, a fully operational fleet will be formed for the level of a regional power.

[Panikovsky]

until then, Camort’s corvette will scare the surrounding octopuses and sharks for a long time with its nightmarish silhouette.

[clidon]

Why do you think that they are only learning to fight them? And the composition of the surface forces looks much more impressive than, well, for example, the same Pacific Fleet.

[Rurikovich]

Because, traditions have been forged for centuries in battles and campaigns. I can give a lot of examples. The Indian fleet is still being formed, they still need to go through so many humiliations and disappointments before not only ordinary sailors, but also admirals will look at the superior forces of the enemy as a slight misunderstanding. There are no bushes on the sea, there is nowhere to hide courage should be in the first place. The Russians and the British at least have someone to cite as an example, so that the sailors would not run without looking back at the sight of the enemy. The same Ushakov, Nelson. And who are the Hindus?
No, they are still being formed. And the quantitative factor is not always decisive. Proven by history

[clidon]

Centuries in battles? Our fleet was immediately a big loser - it did not participate in any successful large naval battles for 150 years (from the time of Sinop), in general, it won no victories. He didn’t sink a ship larger than the destroyer ... While Indian sailors fought at sea relatively recently - with Pakistan.
If desired, any words can be rotated at the most interesting angle.

As for all the pathos of history, I will say that a well-fed, trained and motivated soldier, under smart command, will win where an unwashed fighter with a rich history and a bunch of warlike ancestors prefers to raise his hands up. It is proved by history, including our country, and more than once.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Rurikovich

The Indian fleet is still being formed, they still need to go through so many humiliations and disappointments before not only ordinary sailors, but also admirals will look at superior enemy forces as a slight misunderstanding

An incredible battle of the Bengal trawler with two Japanese cruisers (emnip 1943) - the Indians and their Dutch colleagues from the Ogdin tanker sunk both and escaped themselves !!

And frankly - Indian sailors are one of the few who managed to participate in modern combat operations at sea. The sinking of the Pakistani submarine, raids of missile boats in Karachi, etc. exploits

[Vik.Tor]

Yes, you have to start with something, learn from your mistakes. Experience comes over the years and with painstaking work.

[Magic archer]

They also laughed at the first Chinese ships of their own construction! And now the Chinese fleet is replenished with ships that we do not have yet and are not expected in the near future ....

[sub307]

India is making serious demands for dominance in the region.

[gregor6549]

The ships are quite at the level. Moreover, in radio electronics and missile armament, their destroyer can give some of the "highly developed" a head start.

[mirag2]

It is not known how "cut down" there are systems, both electronic warfare and missile ...

[voyaka uh]

The Barak-8 medium-range missile defense system is the most advanced in its class.

[641111]

"Viam supervadet vadens" The road will be mastered by walking!

[Santa Fe]

handed destroyer INS Kolkata to the fleet

It’s a pity that the Russian Navy does not see destroyers of this level in the foreseeable future.

[adept666]

Judging by the nomenclature of weapons, it is comparable in combat capabilities to frigates 22350, which have a displacement of 1,5 less. However, it has an advantage in the range of navigation (i.e., increasing the rank of the ship just to sail further, take more fuel). Such a nedo-destroyer of the Russian Navy is not needed. This is a compromise when there is no way to build a real ship of this class. Russia needs to have a multifunctional replacement for its cruisers of projects 1144 and 1165, and this is a full-fledged destroyer comparable to the combat capabilities of the ships of the Airlie Burke series of the US Navy. Therefore, in the foreseeable future in the Russian Federation there are already analogues to such half-destroyers - frigates of project 22350.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

However, it has an advantage in cruising range (i.e., increasing the rank of the ship just to swim on, goryuchki take more)

size matters

autonomy, SEARABILITY - fewer restrictions on the use of weapons in a storm, the height of the antenna posts, the capabilities of the radars themselves (antenna sizes, number, volumes for their placement, energy)

Quote: adept666

Judging by the nomenclature of weapons, it is comparable in combat capabilities to frigates 22350

quantitatively - Kolkata carries 2 times more weapons
qualitatively - I can’t judge, nobody saw the work of the declared systems for 22350 in reality

RTS is an Indian in front. In Kolkata, a general-purpose radar (Thales) is associated with a radar with AFAR (tracking the horizon, detecting low-flying targets). For good reason, such a tower on the foremast

Quote: adept666

multifunctional replacement for your cruisers of the 1144 and 1165 projects

here we are already entering the field of science fiction, where domestic authors (Belyaev, Strugatsky) have no equal

[adept666]

size matters

This value is far from always positive.

autonomy, SEA - less restrictions on the use of weapons in a storm

Controversial allegations. If one can partially agree with greater autonomy (it takes really more fuel and food), then it is far from a fact about seaworthiness, especially since the restriction on the use of weapons is more dependent on the systems of stabilizers of the pitching and the capabilities of the weapon itself.

the height of the antenna posts, the capabilities of the radars themselves (antenna sizes, number, volumes for their placement, energy)

This would be more relevant for the air defense destroyer, and this destroyer is actually for the fight against surface ships and submarines. 250 km for the purpose of a fighter, if its missiles are more than 70 fly no waste of money, weight and volume IMHO. Plus makes the ship more visible.

quantitatively - Kolkata carries 2 times more weapons

I wonder what more? The main caliber of both: (URO / RCC / PLO depending on the set) 2 * 8 universal launchers. Air defense / missile defense (SAM): Indian up to 64 launchers with missiles (1-12 km) (5-70 km), Russian: 32 SAM 9M96E (1-50 km) or 32 SAM 9M96E2 (1-150 km) or 128 SAM 9M100 (up to 15 km) (by 4 missiles in one cell) or combinations, for example, 16 9M96E2 and 64 9M100. + 2 ZRAK Broadsword to 16ZUR 9M337 (which you can shoot at boats). Air Defense / Missile Defense (ZPK): Indian 4 * AK-630, Russian 2 * Broadsword, but the number of barrels is still parity , A PLO will be more interesting for a Russian (it’s easy to describe laziness further), so even though there are quite large differences in displacement, there is parity in weapons. Unless the Indian carries two helicopters ...

RTS is an Indian in front.

It’s a pitchfork, because we don’t know the real capabilities of the RTS ships.

here we are already entering the field of science fiction, where domestic authors (Belyaev, Strugatsky) have no equal

Is this urgent need for the Russian Federation to build a ship - an analogue of Airlie Burke in terms of capabilities - is it fantastic? Or are you talking about the 1165 project? I was mistaken simply, quickly wrote, had in mind 1164 (although they are very similar in the drawings, except that the GEMs are different).

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

limitation on the use of weapons to a greater extent depends on the systems of stabilizers pitching and capabilities of the weapon itself.

The possibilities of using a weapon depend on the amplitude of oscillations of the platform (ship)
The amplitude of the oscillations depends FIRST of all on the size of the ship itself

No pitching sedatives could save O. Perry in the open ocean. The 4000 toner stopped hearing anything underwater (ASG) due to bottom slimming, and on 5 points it generally became an unarmed bucket

I already wrote about the installation height of the antennas, the volumes for the installation of electronics and power supply, but you did not pay attention. although it is these things that determine the twofold increase in displacement (Kolkata, etc. 22350), but not the puny 500 tons of fuel and the additional 20 tons of food

Quote: adept666

for we do not know the real capabilities of the RTS ships.

Know know

The very presence of a radar with an active centimeter range phased array indicates that the Hindu has an undeniable advantage in air defense (defense against low-flying missile defense is a critical moment in modern combat)

Quote: adept666

to build a ship - analogous to Airlie Burke in terms of capabilities - is it fantastic?

of course
just see how many years we have been building the frigate Gorshkov

about the analogue of Burke - we have no experience in creating multi-functional headlights similar to AN / SPY-1. Or its analogue of the integrated UVP Mk.41

ps / this despite the fact that Burke has long been outdated in comparison with the British or Japanese destroyers

[adept666]

The possibilities of using a weapon depend on the amplitude of the platform (ship) oscillations. The amplitude of the oscillations depends FIRST of all on the dimensions of the ship itself.

Yeah, everything is correct, only it is important to remember that size is: length, height, width. In addition, the design of the platform (ship), displacement (weight), as well as ballasting are still important. Let's get started.

No pitching sedatives could save O. Perry in the open ocean.

Really utop meeting with the 2nd wave? (just kidding)

The 4000-toner stopped hearing anything underwater (ASG) due to bottom slimming, and at 5-points it generally became an unarmed bucket

Well, who studied what ... Although it is worth noting that at 5 points and larger ships used to become an unarmed bucket, so it’s not too shameful. As for a specific example, such behavior is quite predictable, the ship has only poor ballasting. And that's why. With its length (on the latest models) up to 138 m, it has a width of 13,7 m, a high superstructure that stretches along almost the entire length of the side and, at the same time, has a total displacement of 4200. With good excitement, this increases its side rolling and depending on the direction of approach to the wave significantly increases the yaw, so the ship enters the wave not exactly forehead to forehead, but, as it were, a little at an angle, giving a sharp roll into the formed air space between the side (as well as part of the hull bottom) and water begins to be pumped (absorbed ) a stream of water (which, when excited at 3-4 points, works like a bump), the ship, having a sufficient speed, travels onto this stream (like a springboard) and receives trim on the stern. Reason: not the optimal ratio of the main dimensions of the ship, its design and displacement. I strongly suspect that the frigates of project 22350 will have significantly better seaworthiness. The use of weapons without limitation up to 5 points, which is more than enough and I do not think that the Indian will have the best characteristics.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Know know
The very presence of a radar with an active centimeter range phased array says ...

The presence of AFAR only indicates that there is AFAR. Its effectiveness is highly dependent on the design and software, so in reality how it will show itself is far from clear.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

just see how many years we have been building the frigate Gorshkov

New technologies for building modern ships are being tested on it.

we have no experience in creating multi-functional headlights similar to AN / SPY-1.

We have rich experience in creating radars with headlamps, AFAR, and CAR. It would be a desire and political will. The road will be overcome by a walker

Or its analogue of the integrated UVP Mk.41

3С14У1

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Burke has long been outdated compared to British or Japanese destroyers

Hmm ... And what series and year of release do you mean Burke?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

In addition, the design of the platform (ship), displacement (weight), as well as ballasting are still important. Let's get started.

why 7

it is clear that the design and ballasting of both warships is made without flaws. Seaworthiness depends on the size (in / and)

Moreover, seaworthiness is only one aspect. Frigate is no match for the destroyer in the ocean

Quote: adept666

The presence of AFAR only indicates that there is AFAR. Its effectiveness is highly dependent on the design.

centimeter AFAR
in conjunction with the decimeter radar general overview

Quote: adept666

We have rich experience in creating radars with headlamps, AFAR, and CAR.

current domestic analogue of multifunctional headlamp with energy consumption 6 MW?

Quote: adept666

3С14У1

UKKS is a serious application, but he is far from the Mk.41 family (and the assortment of unified power supplies)

Quote: adept666

Burke what series and year of release do you mean?

any

on modern destroyers are already a pair of multi-functional radar - centimeter and decimeter ranges
usually afar

[adept666]

why 7

To quote your answers

it is clear that the design and ballasting of both warships is made without flaws.

In order to understand this, you need to look at how the ships behave at a speed of 14 knots and a sea state score of 3-4. However, you did not understand what I wrote to you about, namely:

Seaworthiness depends on the size (in / and)

NOT ONLY!

centimeter AFAR
in conjunction with the decimeter radar general overview

A similar scheme was implemented on Project 11434 "Baku" (although the FAR was not brought to mind then, but the technologies were not the same as now, especially since the Indians have not their own AFAR and the software for it is not their own)

current domestic analogue of multifunctional headlamp with energy consumption 6 MW?

There is no direct analogue. But the question remains, is an analogue needed? The fact is that the effectiveness of the multifunctional AN / SPY-1 has been repeatedly questioned by radar experts (and myself). It operates at frequencies of 3,1-3,5 GHz, and the wavelengths of such waves "go" very poorly over the horizon. And 6 MW is not power consumption, but peak power, the average power consumption will be a couple of hundred kW.

UKKS is a serious application, but he is far from the Mk.41 family (and the assortment of unified power supplies)

How far? And why? One can argue about the assortment of standardized bp, one Caliber missile family, in principle, covers more than half of the possible range for Mk.41, and there is Onyx, Bramos (despite the fact that relatives ), possibly fastened SAM. Not so far)) And if UKSK had been on the ships for 10 years already, then the assortment would have been more of course.

on modern destroyers are already a pair of multi-functional radar - centimeter and decimeter ranges
usually afar

And why do you need a pair of MULTI-FUNCTIONAL ones, if a multifunctional logic should be enough for one, like Arly Burke?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

A similar scheme was implemented on Project 11434 "Baku" (though the FAR was not brought to mind then

Mars Passat has never been brought to a combat state

Quote: adept666

There is no direct analogue. But the question remains: is an analogue needed?

Not. A system built at a similar technological level is needed

Quote: adept666

... It operates at frequencies of 3,1-3,5 GHz, and the wavelengths of such waves "go" very poorly over the horizon.

Electromagnetic waves always propagate straightforwardly

a rare phenomenon of superrefraction (refraction due to weather conditions) is equally true for radio waves of any frequency, moreover, it can both increase or decrease the radio horizon

Only SPRN stations allow glancing over the horizon - with the help of reflection of waves from the ionosphere or the so-called surface wave. It is impossible to install such equipment on the ship (and not really needed)

Quote: adept666

multifunctional AN / SPY-1 performance

I understood the idea was rubbish - to make a single radar follow the NLC and try to use it to make out objects in the upper atmosphere

The Yankees have already raped Spy-1 many times, re-flashed the software - as a result, they decided to put in the aid of a powerful decimeter station a centimeter Spook-nin (AN / SPQ-9B with a new rotating PAR) - the first such was perched on an ESM. Oscar Austin last year

This is Ticonderoga, cruisers are equipped with the same radar instead of the old two-coordinate general-purpose radar SPS-49
Although in terms of RTS, American Burks are still far from Daring / Horizon or Japanese Akizuki

Quote: adept666

possibly fastened missiles.

here as soon as

Well, the dimensions of the domestic UKKS

Quote: adept666

And if UKSK had been standing 10 for years already on ships, then the assortment would have been more of course.

Whose problems are these?

Quote: adept666

Indians have no AFAR and software for it is not their own

So what? they do not live behind the iron curtain

the main thing is that a combat unit with a full set of RTS and weapons systems has been put into operation, two more destroyers are in a high degree of readiness

Quote: adept666

And why do you need a pair of MULTI-FUNCTIONAL ones, if a multifunctional logic should be enough for one, like Arly Burke?

centimeter — tracking the horizon, searching for NLC and small-sized objects on the surface (mines, periscopes), optionally — duplication of the functions of the navigation radar and artillery fire control radar

decimeter - long-range radar

[adept666]

Mars Passat has never been brought to a combat state

Well, I’m talking about the same thing, but the problem was not in the antenna, but in the architecture. Iron worked well.

Not. A system built at a similar technological level is needed

At what technical level? In the field of PFAR, the Russian Federation has the most advanced developments. Of the large ones there is Polyment, 1L260 (although the latter is not a ship, but a multi-functional three-coordinate headlight)

Electromagnetic waves always propagate rectilinearly

Yes, nowhere did he actually say otherwise. It’s just that there is a constant evaporation process above the sea surface, and water is a very good conductor and the absorption coefficient increases with increasing frequency.

the idea was clear rubbish - to force a single radar ...

That's it, so why do we copy-paste rubbish ideas?

So what? they do not live behind the iron curtain

And the fact that it is not known at what level the radar and the on-board weapon control system were paired is because they are strong from different manufacturers.

Although in terms of RTS, American Burks are still far from Daring / Horizon or Japanese Akizuki

Well, as I wrote above, when it came to the Indian ship:

This would be more relevant for the air defense destroyer, and this destroyer is actually for the fight against surface ships

In general, it is incorrect to compare the multifunctional destroyer URO (Burke) and the highly specialized destroyer air defense (Darring). A highly specialized ship, ceteris paribus in its area of ​​specialization, will always win against a multifunctional one. As for the Japanese, well, I don’t know, I don’t know ... the size of the antenna posts is not very impressive.

here as soon as
Well, the dimensions of the domestic UKKS

Well, it’s just not an air defense system, everything else is basically blocked by analogs, so where is it here:

(and assortment of unified PSUs)

?
And what is wrong with the dimensions (in numbers if possible)?

centimeter - tracking the horizon ...
decimeter - long-range radar

Then why do you use the term multifunctional if they are separated by tasks, which means they are highly specialized? By the way, why a decimeter for long-distance viewing, if:

Electromagnetic waves always propagate rectilinearly

и

a rare phenomenon of super-refraction (refraction due to weather conditions) is equally true for radio waves of any frequency

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

Electromagnetic waves always propagate rectilinearly
Yes, nowhere did I actually say otherwise

Quote: adept666

and the lengths of such waves very poorly "go" beyond the horizon

Quote: adept666

multifunctional destroyer URO (Burke) and highly specialized air defense destroyer (Darring)

Firstly, Daring is structurally underloaded for economic reasons - if necessary, the 2 module (16 UVP) with the European analogs of Tomahawk - SCALP-NAVAL will fall into place. + any NATO RCC on the upper deck. Everything else he has

secondly, the modern destroyer is first and foremost a ship of air defense
the main threat is air attack weapons (START). and by the way, the Hindu in this area is also okay

Quote: adept666

As for the Japanese, well, I don’t know, I don’t know ... the size of the antenna posts is not very impressive.

FCS-3A works in C and X, i.e. centimeter range
Akizuki's main task is to cover the Aegis destroyers — object air defense, intercepting the NLC. Spay-1 works in the far zone

Quote: adept666

centimeter - tracking the horizon ...
decimeter - long-range radar
Then why do you use the term multifunctionalif they are separated by tasks, which means they are highly specialized?

Multifunctional - they perform not only the tasks of detecting / tracking / selecting air targets, but directly enter the anti-aircraft fire control system - the same SPY-1 programs autopilots up to 18 of the issued SAMs. British SAMPSON can do the same

DBR multifunction radar concept (bundle - centimeter AN / SPY-3 and decimeter VSR)

The AN / SPY-3 Zmolt destroyer not only manages missiles on the marching section, but also illuminates targets at the terminal stage (ESSM with semi-active guidance). In this, by the way, an important advantage of AFAR is the possibility of simultaneously lighting TENS of air targets. in addition, this thing will be able to collect data in a passive mode and be used as a high-speed data channel or electronic warfare station

A range (usually XC or S) only determines the purpose - a general search radar (volume search) or an NLC search (horizon-search)

Quote: adept666

By the way, why a decimeter for a long view?

The decimeter radar (S) has a higher detection range at the same output power than the X-band radar. The signal power loss increases with frequency

[adept666]

Firstly, Daring is structurally underloaded for economic reasons - if necessary, 2 modules (16 UVP) with European analogues Tomahawk will fall into place

So it’s just that they will get up)) And what now is the place of these modules (I mean in the form of ballast)?

secondly, the modern destroyer is first and foremost a ship of air defense

Why is such an unfounded conclusion made? The fact that someone did the anti-aircraft defense destroyer still does not say anything. In the USA, they are multifunctional, as it were, and continue to be made like that by the same Zamvolt.

the main threat is air attack weapons (START). and by the way, the Hindu in this area is also okay

Yes, how do you know ok or not? Mixed RTS molded into one from different suppliers.

Multifunctional - perform not only the tasks of detecting / tracking / selecting air targets, but directly enter the anti-aircraft fire control system

Then it’s more correct to say multifunctional within the framework of a highly specialized task. We are discussing the SPY radar and we talked a little about the other multifunctionality is not it? If you meant such multifunctionality, then I brought you the FAR analogs domestic.

Akizuki's main task is to cover the Aegis destroyers — object air defense, intercepting the NLC. Spay-1 works in the far zone

Rivet the whole destroyer for the object of air defense?)) This is more likely the task of the frigate. By the way, what is Burke far from in this case?

A range (usually XC or S) only determines the purpose - a general search radar (volume search) or an NLC search (horizon-search)

Yeah, narrow specialization in essence. Which is implemented on almost all ships.

The decimeter radar (S) has a higher detection range at the same output power than the X-band radar. The signal power loss increases with frequency

Yes, I remind you:

Quote: adept666
... It operates at frequencies of 3,1-3,5 GHz, and the wavelengths of such waves "go" very poorly over the horizon.

... It’s just that there is a constant process of evaporation above the sea surface, and water is a very good conductor and the absorption coefficient increases with increasing frequency.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

Why is such an unfounded conclusion made?

The main damage in modern conflict at sea was caused by strategic offensive arms. First of all - low-flying anti-ship missiles. They are the main threat and it is with them that surface ships have to fight. Destroyer (large surface combat ship) should be primarily air defense ship

Quote: adept666

In the USA, they are multifunctional and continue to do so. same Zamvolt

Нет!

Zamvolt will go into operation without a radar overview. and its anti-aircraft bk will be limited to short-range / medium-range missiles ESSM. This is a specific strike cruiser for operations in the coastal zone, a booth demonstrator of the latest technologies

The problem of the US Navy was that all 88 Aegis-racers and destroyers were until recently helpless in the face of low-flying anti-ship missiles.
Spy-1 practically does not see the target against the background of water

Quote: adept666

Then it’s more correct to say multifunctional within the framework of a highly specialized task.

??

Multifunctional radar - duplicates the tasks of search radars and fire control radars (optionally - communication systems and electronic warfare stations). That is what a modern ship radar should be. Desirable made by technology AFAR

There should be two of them on the ship - for tracking the horizon and searching for targets in the far field.

The Hindu is something like this
Frigate 22350 does not

Quote: adept666

Which is implemented on almost all ships.

Except American (except esm. Oscar Austin and Ticonderoge couples)
And the Hindu did everything right

Quote: adept666

To rivet the whole destroyer for object air defense?))

What to do if Atago and Congo (analogues of Berkov) do not see NLC

In addition, Akizuki is moderately functional - there is everything except SLCM (prohibited by the Constitution) and anti-aircraft missiles (for this there is Congo in the warrant). And they cost only $ 800 million - 3 times cheaper than modern Burke

In general, the Japanese destroyers pieces 30-40 - for all occasions

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

then I brought you the FAR analogs domestic.

These are not analogues of SPY-1 (3) or the same British SAMPSON - which have long been built in series and have passed dozens of the most incredible tests, proving their capabilities in practice

4 April 2012 on the missile test site of the French General Armaments Agency (Direction générale de l'armement) near the island of -le-du-Levant near Toulon, the frigate of the French Navy Forbin, equipped with the PAAMS, made a successful interception of the low-altitude supersonic target. Drone GQM-163A Coyote, flying at a speed of 2,5M at an altitude of less than 6 meters above the crests of the waves!

On February 21 on February 2008, the SM-3 rocket was launched from the Lake Erie cruiser in the Pacific Ocean and three minutes after launch [8] it hit the USA-247 emergency reconnaissance satellite located at 193 kilometers, traveling at 7 580 m / s [ 9] (27 300 km / h)

[adept666]

The main damage in modern conflict at sea was caused by strategic offensive arms. ... should be primarily an air defense ship.

It should have an air defense / missile defense system (for defense), but where does the task to be performed? The destroyer is primarily a multifunctional ship, it should be able to fight submarines, aircraft / missiles, surface ships with equal effectiveness. To do this, he needs balanced weapons. Why would he suddenly, following the example of the Englishman, specialize as a class of surface combat ships? Those. knocking down a missile launched by an adversary is a task, and destroying it yourself is such rubbish)) By the way, repulsing a simultaneous missile attack from several directions is an almost impossible task and in order to prevent this one must also be able to preemptively attack.

Нет!
Zamvolt will go into operation without a radar overview. and its anti-aircraft bk will be limited to short-range / medium-range missiles ESSM.

The right approach. A multifunctional ship for self-defense is more than enough.

The Hindu is something like this
Frigate 22350 does not

Similar. Polement can work with Broadsword.

Except American (except esm. Oscar Austin and Ticonderoge couples)

Well, exceptions are not excluded in nature)))

What to do if Atago and Congo (analogues of Berkov) do not see NLC

Do not copy-paste stupidly someone else’s, but do your own. Copy Burke, and then, in order to eliminate its shortcomings, make another destroyer)) Which is inferior in many respects to Burke, but works better on NLC))

destroyers 30-40 - for all occasions

We do not pull such a perversion economically.

These are not analogues of SPY-1 (3) or the same British SAMPSON

Yes lan, and there and there a phased array, and there and there electron beam scanning. What is the difference?

April 4, 2012 at the French General missile range

Coyote, unlike real anti-ship missiles, does not perform anti-missile maneuvers.

On February 21, 2008, the SM-3 rocket was launched from the Lake Erie cruiser.

The satellite is not such a difficult target, the ballistic trajectory, speed, etc. are known. so the achievement itself is awesome ...

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

The destroyer is primarily a multifunctional ship, it must equally able to fight with submarines, aircraft / missiles, surface ships

And where did you see such

Quote: adept666

Why would he suddenly, following the example of the Englishman, specialize as a class of surface combat ships?

Well done Englishman - today is the best surface combat ship in / and 8 thousand tons. Britons, like most navies of developed countries (France, Germany, Japan), are well aware of what destroyers are now needed for: Marine defense. All other work is performed more efficiently by ships of other classes (the same Burke is not an Ohio competitor with 154 Axes + what is the level of submarine stealth! This is an example)

Quote: adept666

Those. knocking down a rocket launched by the enemy is a task, and destroying it yourself is so nonsense)

Tell this to Burke, who is completely devoid of RCC.

The enemy, as a rule, is the carrier ship of the anti-ship missiles. For this there is a zonal air defense

Quote: adept666

The right approach. A multifunctional ship for self-defense is more than enough.

Wrong. without a zoned air defense system, enemy aircraft will roll it into the trash without loss on its part (and the concept of using a stealth destroyer implies its single use - without cover by Arly Berkami)

Quote: adept666

Copy Burke, and then in order to eliminate his shortcomings make another destroyer

20 years ago Burke was better than Burke

Quote: adept666

Which in many respects is inferior to Burke, but it works better with NLC))

Akizuki worth its 800 million
A sturdy multi-functional ship of the ocean zone the size of a large frigate (a small destroyer - 7000 tons). + sound concept of its application in the warrant together with Aegis destroyers

Quote: adept666

We have such a perversion

This is wealth
The Japanese fleet is one of the strongest in the world.

Quote: adept666

What's the difference?

1. AFAR - thousands of individual transceiver modules. What are the advantages of this technology - we have already talked about this
2. SAMPSON, APAR, FCS-3A - multifunctional
3. They are already 10 years as standing on the warships of ten countries

[adept666]

And where did you see such

Project 956 destroyers, their weapons were not badly balanced.

Englishman well done ...

As the air defense destroyer agrees, not bad.

Tell this to Burke, who is completely devoid of RCC.

Only on the last IIA series, but since the aircraft carrier almost always spins next to it, this is offset by its air wing.

(the same Burke is not a competitor to Ohio with 154 Axes

The same Berg, in addition to axes, has PLO and ADMS + artillery.

Wrong. without zonal air defense system aviation ...

Even if there is a zonal air defense, aviation alone will take it away.

and the concept of using a stealth destroyer

The concept of using such a ship assumes that in the warrant you against the background of other signatures do not count it as a serious opponent, but in vain, it is the worst one))

20 years ago Burke was better than Burke

Well, so it was necessary to copy the good and eliminate the flaws at the same time, and not sculpt another destroyer, although this is permissible for majors with a big wallet.

This is wealth

Let everyone remain in their opinion))

AFAR - thousands of individual ...

And then AFAR, if you asked for analogues AN / SPY-1?

What are you saying

What is, then I say.

Any maneuvers with low overload in the same plane - for modern air defense systems do not matter, SAM is more maneuverable than any anti-ship missiles

Even as they have))

The tale of the well-known trajectory got out of order. WHICH of modern ships is capable of detecting a target at such a height.

This operation was prepared for more than 2 months, using a modified version of the rocket, and not the standard one. In order to work against this satellite, the ship had to stand on the trajectory of its flight (otherwise the rocket would not have had enough energy). Knowing the trajectory and speed, it is possible to determine the necessary launch time with great accuracy with reference to the place, the satellite conducted a whole pack of ground and sea station SBX, transmitted this data to the ship, which ship Aegis with a maximum detection range of 320 km are you talking about?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

956 project destroyers

No PLO
intended to be paired with 1155

Quote: adept666

Only on the latest IIA series

There was no helicopter in the first sub-series
There was no radar for tracking the horizon

Quote: adept666

Even with zonal air defense, aviation alone still pulled away.

By then, the ship will be able to complete the task.

Quote: adept666

Well, so it was necessary to copy the good and eliminate the flaws at the same time, and not sculpt another destroyer, although this is permissible for majors with a big wallet.

956 and 1155

The same Berg, in addition to axes, has PLO and ADMS + artillery.

Ohio PLO will be abruptly)) - a huge spherical HAS in the nose fairing

Why the boat SAM - it does not have such problems. Invitation-fired back
For one 5 inch, it is not necessary to have the destroyer 8-10 thousand tons

The destroyers these days (a large combat surface ship) are primarily an air defense ship for covering formations (assault forces, transports). The ships of other classes do the rest

Quote: adept666

And then AFAR, if you asked for analogues AN / SPY-1?

domestic analogues Spy-1 (spy-3, sampson, etc.)
they do not exist

Quote: adept666

What ship Aegis with the maximum detection range of 320 km are you talking about?

The station aimed missiles at a target in the upper atmosphere
(sm-3 has march control radio command)

RTS of what other ship can similar ??

[adept666]

No PLO

What is it all of a sudden? RBU-1000, SET-65. Yes, of course they are not as effective as all the other components of weapons, but they are.

By then, the ship will be able to complete the task.

Well, this is how lucky)))

956 and 1155

Well, the awareness of the fallacy of this approach resulted in the adjusted draft 1155.1.

Why the boat SAM - it does not have such problems. Invitation-fired back

She is defenseless against anti-submarine aviation only. In addition, axes need external target designation, and submarines do not seem to interact very well with aerospace reconnaissance. Therefore, ships can much more quickly adjust targets, unlike submarines that revolve around Taiwan with pre-defined goals in the event of a conflict with the PRC.

Destroyers today (a large combat surface ship) - primarily an air defense ship

Well, let the destroyer in your virtual universe, as a class of ship, be a floating base for air defense. In the general classification, he will remain a multifunctional ship, and any dances with a tambourine like ala air defense destroyer will not change this fact.

domestic analogues Spay-1

Spay-1 is a PFAR, we have large-sized three-coordinate PFAR. You requested a Spy-1 tax. Once again I ask where does AFAR?

The station aimed missiles at a target in the upper atmosphere

Flight level?

(sm-3 has march control radio command)

What `s next? Nobody canceled the external control center from the same SBX and ground stations, the IHIS does not have enough time reserves to direct a rocket at an object moving at the first space speed at an altitude of 247 km. For him, this is almost the maximum detection height, despite the fact that in the elevation angle it covers a 90-degree segment, the detection range and accuracy at such an angle will already be three times less.

RTS of what other ship can similar?

The counter-question is which ship and what is it for except Arly for?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

What is it all of a sudden? RBU-1000, SET-65

There is no PLUR and no permanent helicopter on board, GAS Platinum - complete junk in comparison with Pauline. RBU-1000 only punish the fish - the destroyer will shoot half the dock without even entering its PLO zone

In Xenum Xenia, even Daring looks like a powerful anti-submarine ship

Quote: adept666

By then, the ship will be able to complete the task.
Well, this is how lucky)))

Those. 50 / 50

Without zonal AA defense chance "0". The ship will be choked with a salvo of anti-radar missiles and anti-ship missiles, without fear of launching missiles at close range (<50 km)

Quote: adept666

into the adjusted 1155.1 project.

As before, there was no zonal air defense (see the previous paragraph)

Quote: adept666

She is defenseless against anti-submarine aviation only

Only

where the boat has not passed, no one will. The most secretive and deadly class of warships, it is no coincidence that they were entrusted with the role of carrying nuclear weapons (and not some "invincible" AUG)

Quote: adept666

In addition, axes need external target designation.

Ax completely autonomous
Relief system TERCOM (terrain control) + IR / conventional camera at the terminal stage.

The only way to reliably protect against Tomanavka is to change the terrain along its flight route

Quote: adept666

he will remain a multifunctional ship

Do such destroyers exist?)))
As we already found out, the example with 956 does not channel

Quote: adept666

we have large-sized three-coordinate PFAR

multifunctional?
serial?
And which ones?

Quote: adept666

(sm-3 has march control radio command)
And then?

Spay-1 radar controlled a rocket at heights of hundreds of kilometers
Energy capabilities, sensitivity, speed

Quote: adept666

No one canceled the external data center from the same SBX and ground stations

Do not compose
SBX is not included (and by definition cannot!) In the RADIO-command system of the interceptor missile on the marching section of its flight. This is the function of the ship's fire control system.First Spy-1

Quote: adept666

The counter-question is which ship and what is it for except Arly for?

To "flip" satellites to the enemy's group?

[adept666]

half an hour the destroyer will shoot, without even entering the area of ​​his PLO

Debatable. The launch range of the torpedoes is also not hundreds of kilometers away. Moreover, RBU-1000 is primarily intended against attacking enemy torpedoes. But as I already agreed, the PLO is weaker than his other capabilities.

Those. 50 / 50

No, everything will depend on the specific situation.

Without zonal AA defense chance "0". The ship will be choked with a salvo of anti-radar missiles and anti-ship missiles, without fear of launching missiles at close range (<50 km)

There is always a chance. And who is the carrier of these same anti-ship missiles, which will do it with less than 50 km?

Only

Yes, this is a big problem.

The most secretive and deadly class of warships, it is no coincidence that they were entrusted with the role of nuclear weapons

Where? Under the polar ice? - Wow. In the open ocean, alas, no)) If this were so, then only submarines and air defense destroyers would be built would be an extra ballast of the economy)))

The ax is completely autonomous
Relief system TERCOM (terrain control) + IR / conventional camera at the terminal stage.

Those. Does he decide at what point he should fly? Read carefully:

In addition, axes need external target designation, and submarines do not seem to interact very well with aerospace reconnaissance. Therefore, ships can much more quickly adjust targets, unlike submarines

How does TERCOM work above the surface of the sea?

Do such destroyers exist?)))
As we already found out, the example with 956 does not channel

956 channels, but even more channels 1155.1. The only wrong approach is that for each type of weapon its own proprietary PU. Conclusions are made - UKKS.

multifunctional? serial? And which ones?

I already called you.

SBX is not included (and by definition cannot!) In the RADIO TEAM system

Just for this purpose it was created.

To "flip" satellites to the enemy's group?

Ahah grouping. Yes, in these orbits rarely even satellites of special reconnaissance fly and a cat burst into tears. What are you right about?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

And who is the carrier of these same anti-ship missiles, which will do it with less than 50 km?

Quote: adept666

Yes, this is a big problem.

Smaller, in comparison with the defense against low-flying anti-ship missiles and other modern IOS

Quote: adept666

Where? Under the polar ice? - Wow. In the open ocean, alas, no))

Father drove the American Madison with Poseidon C-3 in the Philippine Sea - from there they could get all the industrial and military centers of Siberia. It is no coincidence that all seven of the best Navy of the USSR Navy - 1134Б - were based on the Far East

And no AUG did not cover them - American SSBNs always acted in splendid isolation.

Quote: adept666

Those. Does he decide at what point he should fly?

Yes

Radar images of the area are prepared in advance, on the shore - in two mission preparation centers in Norfolk and Camp Smith.

The crew of the boat only displays the coordinates of the launch point - so that the ANN could bring the Ax to the coast

Quote: adept666

How does TERCOM work above the surface of the sea?

when flying over an area with poorly expressed radar contrast, the rocket is oriented according to the ANN. Gyroscopes and accelerometers work until the rocket arrives in the first correction area above the enemy’s coast, then TERCOM is turned on

Quote: adept666

but more channels 1155.1

which without zonal air defense

so weak to give examples of "multifunctional destroyers"?

Quote: adept666

The destroyer is primarily a multifunctional ship, he should equally effective be able to deal with submarines, aircraft / missiles, surface ships

spoiler - you can’t even take a steam bath, such ships DO NOT EXIST

Quote: adept666

Just for this purpose it was created.

This is a common surveillance radar of the SPRN system.

Programming autopilots of interceptor missiles on marching participation is the task of ship's JMAs, specifically Spy-1.

Quote: adept666

Yes, in these orbits rarely even satellites of special reconnaissance fly and a cat burst into tears. What are you right about?

US-A of the ICRC system

Amdr

[adept666]

http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/super-etendard-ara.jpg

And where do these beauties fly into the air? To intercept the ship in the open ocean?

Smaller, in comparison with the defense against low-flying anti-ship missiles and other modern IOS

The ships even have a chance to fight back, the submarine has practically none. And the survivability of a ship after hitting one or two anti-ship missiles is higher than that of a submarine after hitting even one torpedo, the environments are different ...

Father drove American Madison with Poseidon S-3 in the Philippine Sea

Oh, these bravura statements "drove". There is also the question of who drove whom. Cat and mouse is a common practice, but this does not mean that your father, if desired, could not be cut down by PLO planes from the same Philippines, Taiwan or from Okinawa.

Radar images of the area are prepared in advance, on the shore - in two mission preparation centers in Norfolk and Camp Smith. The crew of the boat only displays the coordinates of the launch point - so that the ANN could bring the Ax to the coast

This is if we are talking about axes that carry nuclear weapons. And if our tasks are more modest, blow up the dictator’s bunker? And then another warehouse with weapons. Go back to Norfolk reprogram the axes?))) Is there something wrong here you don’t think so?

which without zonal air defense

He has air defense for defense, he needs it in the framework of the tasks performed. Aviation no zonal air defense ground / sea without its own aviation in the air is not a rival.

so weak to give examples of "multifunctional destroyers"?

Not. 956, 1155.1 projects.

Programming autopilots of interceptor missiles on marching participation is the task of ship's JMAs, specifically Spy-1.

Not for purposes above 200 km. Definitely. Already prepared missiles were used there, since the target parameters were known in advance.

This is a common surveillance radar of the SPRN system.

This is far from the case. He can take targets for escort, and this is enough to aim the rocket.

US-A of the ICRC system

There are no more. You would still remember the year 57 ...

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

And where do these beauties fly into the air? To intercept the ship in the open ocean?

open ocean? we talked about the coast attack! (Zamvolt, Ohio, SLCM Tomahawk, etc.)

30 years ago SuperEthandars drowned British ships flying from the base of Rio Grande, 700-900 km from the war zone (Falkland Islands)

Quote: adept666

The ships have at least a chance to fight back, the submarine has practically none

Boat security provided by its secrecy. Everything else does not matter. Submariners - lords of the seas

"cocoon". A two-ton device lifted from the bottom of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk - amers' submarines have been listening to the underwater cable for 10+ years, constantly wandering under the nose of the entire Pacific Fleet - ships. aviation, OVR ... burned by accident, damaging the cable by the hull of the boat
This is how difficult it is to detect the presence of a boat.

Quote: adept666

There is still the question of who drove whom. Cat and mouse

I drove the BOD - after detection (loss of stealth), the American SSBN was forced to withdraw from the position and go into the ocean, noticing traces

Quote: adept666

blow up a dictator's bunker? And then another warehouse with weapons. Go back to Norfolk reprogram axes?)))

Go to the nearest forward naval base - disks with new cards and a new task will be delivered there
Targets are selected and assigned in advance, long before the boat reaches its position

Quote: adept666

Is there something wrong you don’t think so?

Therefore, the Tomahawk SLCM did not change aviation and naval artillery. the flexibility of their use is too low - a b / p worth 2+ million dollars is a serious weapon against a serious enemy. Strikes only on key fixed objects (bunkers, military bases, power plants, bridges, radio towers, etc.)

Quote: adept666

so weak to give examples of "multifunctional destroyers"?
Not. 956, 1155.1 projects.

The first without PLO, the second without zonal air defense. Frankly, you don’t know the examples of multifunctional destroyers, because such ships do not exist in nature.

Quote: adept666

They used already prepared missiles

?

Quote: adept666

He can take on escort targets and this is already enough to aim the rocket.

to aim the rocket, he must contact her GOS and transfer the amendment aboard the rocket

This is purely the Spy-1 function, but not the usual SBX surveillance radar of the SPRN system. There is no need to compose fables

Quote: adept666

There are no more. Would you still remember the 57 year ..

Amdr

[adept666]

open ocean? we talked about the coast attack! (Zamvolt, Ohio, SLCM Tomahawk, etc.)

Let's say. The launch range of the ax is from 1200-2500, depending on the warhead and modification.

Submariners - lords of the seas

The boat is protected by its secrecy.

You greatly exaggerate the stealth of submarines. Submariners are not in vain afraid of anti-submarine aircraft.

Sea of ​​Okhotsk - Amer boats listened to the submarine cable for 10+ years

Unfortunately, I haven’t heard such a heart-breaking story, so I can’t give a comment.

Go to the nearest forward naval base

For a submarine it is necessary, for a ship it is not necessary, this can be done directly on board.

Therefore, the Tomahawk SLCM did not change aviation and naval artillery. too little flexibility

Not therefore. Just because missiles, aircraft and artillery have slightly different tasks.

The first without PLO, the second without zonal air defense. Admit honestly that you do not know examples of multifunctional destroyers

And they have air defense and anti-aircraft defense. I told you, I consider it multifunctional, you are free to disagree, on this I propose to stop the dispute on this part.

?

What is there that is incomprehensible written? Missiles were not full-time.

to aim the rocket, he must contact her GOS and transfer the amendment aboard the rocket

SBX knows how to do all this.

There is no need to compose fables

I didn’t even think.

Amdr

And here - Air and Missile Defense Radar? We are about satellites like.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

The launch range of the ax from 1200-2500, depending on the warhead and modification.

1200-1600 in the conventional version (340 kg warhead), despite the fact that the SLCM has to fly deep into the continent

ps / nuclear modifications, fortunately, removed from service 20 years ago under START

the small SuperEthandar (12 tons) and some modern Su-34 or F-15E (max take-off weight 35 tons) are also very different planes, while the Argentines had only one active tanker - the same small and old KC -130

Modern aviation will smash any surface ship or KUG, which dared to approach the enemy’s coast, to smithereens

The main striking force of the fleet is submarines with SLCMs. They are most likely to complete the mission and return unscathed.

Quote: adept666

Submariners - lords of the seas

The distribution of the losses of the Japanese fleet from the actions of the Americans during the WWII. Submarines, aircraft carrier aircraft, artillery and torpedo duels, mines, etc.

Quote: adept666

Submariners are not in vain afraid of anti-submarine aircraft.

Risk - Nowhere Without It
But the boats have the highest chance of completing the mission and returning

Quote: adept666

Submariners are not in vain afraid of anti-submarine aircraft.

T-shirts of sailors from the Dutch submarine Valurs. During the NATO exercises, the little girl conditionally "overwhelmed" the entire AUG, remaining undetected.

The conclusions were the most severe - the Yankees introduced the DESI defense initiative, immediately leased the Swedish submarine Gotland, brought it to San Diego and spent two years trying to find an antidote to modern non-nuclear submarines. Today, as well as 100 years ago, there are no reliable measures to protect against the underwater threat - the boat will overwhelm any surface ship, as the U-9 did with the British cruisers Hawk, Albukir and Kreissy

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

Coyote, unlike real anti-ship missiles, does not perform anti-missile maneuvers.

What are you saying

At 2,5M speed, in the densest layers of the atmosphere - in si-skimming mode
Despite the fact that such a missile is located above the radio horizon, in the visibility range of the ship’s radar (and, accordingly, its ship’s GPS is seen by the ship) for no more than 20-30 seconds

Any maneuvers with low overload in the same plane - for modern air defense systems do not matter, SAM is more maneuverable than any anti-ship missiles

Quote: adept666

The satellite is not such a difficult target, the ballistic trajectory, speed, etc. are known. so the achievement itself is awesome ...

The tale of the famous trajectory got

WHICH of modern ships is capable of detecting a target at such a height, pointing its weapon at it and hitting it with a target (this is to the energy capabilities of Spy-1 radar)

Only 22 American Aegis cruisers (destroyers) and 6 Japanese destroyers of the Congo / Atago types can do this.

What is the consequence? Yankees can in a few days "click" the entire orbital grouping of the enemy (such as Liana or the legendary MKRTs Legend-M)

[Ram chandra]

Wow! Serious bid! And most importantly - to independently complete such a project is worth a lot.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: adept666

For a submarine it is necessary, for a ship it is not necessary, this can be done directly on board.

For what? All goals are indicated in advance - the dictator’s bunker will not change its position in space

quite possible. that at the current level of development of electronics, a rocket can be reprogrammed on board in a matter of minutes. a short satellite session - and the boat is ready for battle. Moreover, she does not need to be at periscope depth after the launch of the rocket - after departure from the TPK, the Ax is completely autonomous

Quote: adept666

Just because missiles, aircraft and artillery have slightly different tasks.

START has one task - to inflict maximum damage to the enemy as efficiently and quickly as possible, contributing to the success of other military branches

Unfortunately, it is impossible to solve this problem with SLCMs alone - disposable suicide robots are accurate and brave, but have not yet learned how to attack moving targets or carry heavy warheads (ax - only 340 kg max payload)

Quote: adept666

Missiles were not full-time.

and how did they differ from the regular ones?

Quote: adept666

SBX knows how to do all this.

Oh really))

and a reference can be to the source of heresy?

Quote: adept666

And here - Air and Missile Defense Radar? We are about satellites like.

With such a thing, the Burks of the third sub-series will be able to shoot through all the NOU - to heights of several thousand. Km

AMDR is much more powerful than obsolete Spy-1 radar