In the US, work on the next-generation destroyer DDG-1000 Zumwalt is being completed.

155
In the US, they are coming to the end of their work on a project of a new, promising, unobtrusive Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyer. It is reported that Raytheon specialists have completed an analysis of the readiness of the “ship of the future” software, which is being built on the stocks of the Bath Iron Works shipyard in the state of Maine. The ship was launched at the end of last year. According to the information of the publication Naval Technology, at present all software products for this ship, which are installed on combat, life-support and navigation systems, have been tested - more than 550 thousands of lines of program code in total. In addition, the specialists completed tests of the new multifunctional radar AN / SPY-3, which has several modes of operation to monitor and search for targets. With the help of this radar several air objects were successfully spotted.

In addition, under the guidance of instructors in full swing is training for the crew of the new destroyer, it is reported that 55 sailors have already been trained to work with the control systems of the ship. Total for this project is currently being built 3 ship, the cost of each of which already exceeds 3 billion dollars. When building the hulls of the newest Zamvolt class destroyers, “stealth” technologies are massively used, even the ship’s lines should make the 180-meter destroyer as inconspicuous as possible for enemy radar. It is assumed that these ultra-modern ships will carry on board the most advanced weapons systems: long-range guns, railguns, combat lasers for air defense and a UAV squadron.


Some experts call multipurpose Zumwalt class destroyers the real battleships of the XNUMXst century, primarily in terms of their combat potential. These destroyers are designed to attack coastal and ground targets, to provide fire support to the landing and ground forces from the sea, to combat aviation the enemy. Ships are able to launch rocket-artillery attacks on enemy targets, including those located deep in its defense. After the changes made to the project, they can also be used as missile defense ships. One of the most important tasks for these destroyers will be the provision of zonal missile defense and air defense of multipurpose aircraft carrier groups of the American fleet.

The length of the DDG-1000 class Zumwalt destroyer is 183 meters, the ship can reach a speed of 30 knots (about 55 km / h). The ship’s total displacement is 14 500 tons, the crew is 148 people. Such a low crew size was achieved due to the highest degree of automation of all processes on the ship. For comparison: the crew of the Russian guards missile cruiser "Moscow" is about 500 people (3 times more). The hull and superstructure of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer are covered with a radio absorbing layer of materials approximately 1 inch thick, while the designers have reduced the number of protruding antennas to a minimum.

The armament of the ship is represented by 20 launchers MK 57 VLS, which are designed for the use of 80 missiles of various classes. These could be Tomahawk cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles, or ESSM medium-range anti-aircraft missiles. Artillery armament is represented by two unique 155-mm artillery installations of a new type. The guns can use conventional ballistic projectiles, as well as guided active-jet ammunition with high accuracy LRLAP, which allow you to confidently hit targets at a distance of 100 km. In addition, the ship has two 57-mm anti-aircraft guns Mk 110.


The special distribution of vertical missile launchers of various classes along the sides of the ship will help to better protect them during the battle. At the same time, the number of launchers on the Zamvolta (less on the 4 PU) is inferior to the number of launchers on the destroyers Arly Burk, which belong to fourth-generation ships. On the deck of the destroyer, you can equip a platform for the basing of three unmanned MQ-8 "Fire Scout" helicopters, which are planned to be used for reconnaissance purposes. In addition, the ship can be based up to 2's helicopters Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk. To carry out special operations near the coast of the likely enemy, several landing craft can be taken on board the ship.

While on the move, Zamvold class destroyers generate a tremendous amount of electrical energy - at a cruising speed, the ship produces 58 MW, and the maximum power of the destroyer’s power plant is 79 MW. This energy can also be used to feed the electronic systems of the ship, weapons and other equipment. The heart of the ship are two Marine trent-30 gas turbine power plants manufactured by Rolls-Royce. The propulsion system, which allows the ship to reach speeds in 30 nodes, is based on modern asynchronous electric motors. As the combat ships become more sophisticated and improved, the energy costs of the ship’s movement will decrease. More and more energy will be used to provide all ship mechanisms and systems. The unprecedented characteristics of the new radar, computing systems and other electronic systems will require the use of power plants of the appropriate power.

Currently, for the ships of the project “Zamvolt” the most “exciting” time comes. The progress achieved in the work on the three ships of this project is noticeable both in laboratories, at shipbuilding enterprises, and in test docks. Raytheon’s top manager Kevin Pepp said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that shipbuilders managed to establish excellent cooperation with the fleet and together we are moving towards one common goal - the creation of a qualitatively new class of warships. The first ship of the DDG-1000 series has already been completed on 90%, the second ship DDG 1001 has been completed on 78%, at the same time the work on the creation of the third ship of the project has just begun, at present the ship is ready on 8%.


Russian naval expert Vladimir Shcherbakov in an interview with the Russian Planet noted that only time would tell us whether Zamvol class destroyers would become a qualitatively new class of warships. “The idea is grandiose, but we'll still see whether the game is worth the candle. The ship turns out to be very expensive, and its combat potential may be slightly higher than that of existing modern destroyers belonging to the 4 generation, such as the truly successful Arly Burk class ships. A great example of irrational costs are the American submarines Sivulf. These boats are unique, but their combat capabilities after the end of the Cold War became unclaimed. The Americans carried out only their piece construction, after which they decided to launch mass production of cheaper Virginia project boats, in which many Sivulf solutions were embodied, the expert of Independent Military Review said.

The cost of building Zumwalt destroyers is a sore subject for Pentagon financiers. The price of the construction of three ships of the project DDG-1000 Zumwalt for the needs of the US Navy over the past 5 years has grown by more than 2 billion dollars, while only in 2014 year by 450 million dollars. Such information was given in the report of the Research Service of the US Congress of the CRS (Congressional Research Service). According to the budget data for 2015 fiscal year, the price of the Zumwalt program will be 12,069 billion dollars, which is 17% higher than the estimated cost of 3's ships of this class from 2011 of the fiscal year when the project cost was 9,993 billion dollars. Experts note that the rise in the cost of destroyers occurred due to a change in the schedule of work to speed up their deliveries to the fleet, as well as the sequestration of the military budget.


As the experts themselves say, initially the command of the US Navy hoped to build a series of new destroyers from 30 right away, but due to the sharp increase in the cost of the project, this program was substantially revised. As a result, in 2010, the number of ships under construction for this project was reduced to just 3 units. The launch of the first two ships of this project is expected in 2015 year.

Information sources:
http://rusplt.ru/world/korablprizrak-obretaet-plot-11689.html
http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/316/ddg-1000-zumvalt
http://www.paralay.com/zumwalt.html
http://vpk.name/news/109726_stoimost_stroitelstva_treh_novyih_esmincev_proekta_ddg1000_zumwalt_za_poslednie_5_let_uvelichilas_bolee_chem_na_2_milliardov_dollarov.html
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

155 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    19 August 2014 09: 16
    We are waiting for an article about how, after the entry of this brainchild into the Black Sea, the crew began to write off en masse ashore. After the "greetings" of the Black Sea Fleet naval aviation)))
    1. -2
      19 August 2014 10: 16
      Yeah, if he doesn't drown on the road before
    2. +29
      19 August 2014 10: 30
      Quote: PROXOR
      We are waiting for an article about how, after the entry of this brainchild into the Black Sea, the crew began to write off en masse ashore. After the "greetings" of the Black Sea Fleet naval aviation)))

      The harvesting of caps for throwing begins ... 100500 tons have already been collected, the Americans are already afraid and are writing dismissal letters, it’s better to bank poison in a Jersey corner than to go to the Black Sea ...
      1. +8
        19 August 2014 10: 42
        Quote: Nayhas
        The harvesting of caps for throwing begins ... 100500 tons already collected

        Not only, Eugene ...
        The first "salvos" have already been carried out by especially impatient and, by a "strange" accident, absolutely not related to the fleet.
        That's interesting - how many times have this "iron" been ground (even on VO), but this time it will turn out to learn something new? request what hi
        1. +12
          19 August 2014 10: 51
          I have long written about Zumvolt, and now I will repeat it. Technologies are being tested, the more modern they are, the more expensive. After the break-in, they will take the nodes they like for other ships, with a much lower cost.
          1. +6
            19 August 2014 13: 31
            Quote: schizophrenic
            I have long written about Zumvolt, and now I will repeat it. Technologies are being tested, the more modern they are, the more expensive. After the break-in, they will take the nodes they like for other ships, with a much lower cost.

            I’m here, as a collective farmer, I wonder ... if this thing, somewhere during the passage in narrow-mindedness, collides with someone and God forbid it blows the board, is it so electrified from the short circuit that it completely loses its course and the ability to maneuver, or is it all the same? If it is a missile defense and air defense ship, then next to it should be a ship of anti-aircraft defense?
            1. +1
              19 August 2014 13: 36
              Quote: Serg65
              this is a missile defense and air defense ship

              no
              1. +4
                19 August 2014 13: 44
                patsantre..Anton, why "NO"?
                1. 0
                  19 August 2014 21: 53
                  Zamvolt is not intended for air defense / missile defense. Its task is to plow the enemy’s banks with cannons and missiles.
                  1. Carbon40
                    0
                    20 August 2014 06: 56
                    Like Somalia and Ukraine?
                  2. +7
                    20 August 2014 07: 05
                    Quote: patsantre
                    Zamvolt is not intended for air defense / missile defense. Its task is to plow the enemy’s banks with cannons and missiles.

                    belay To work in tractor mode "Belarus" you need such tuning ????? Truly your ways are not confessed, Lord!
        2. +3
          19 August 2014 14: 20
          Quote: Ptah
          But this time it will turn out to learn something new?

          Yes please:
          On August 07, 2014, at the Ingalls Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), a signing ceremony for the delivery of the composite superstructure for the USS Michael Monsoor destroyer destroyer (DDG-1001) took place. This was announced on August 07, 2014 by the press service of HII.
          It is reported that the superstructure on the barge will soon be delivered to the Bath Iron Works shipyard of General Dynamics Corporation, located on the Kennebeck River in Bath, Maine, where it will be installed on the steel hull of the destroyer DDG 1001.

          1. +5
            19 August 2014 15: 00
            Quote: Nayhas
            The ceremony of signing acceptance documents for the supply of a composite superstructure was held


            This is understandable ... But I meant the appearance of some moments that would help, if not "drown this miracle," then at least "spoil the blood" of the creators. Apparently, apart from the high price, they are not (yet).
            Ships go to the introduction of new technologies in the fleet. And this cannot but rejoice, even if it is potential adversaries.
            But in Russia, people who are not "made with a strap-on" will also find their own ...

            And so it is enough to go through these links here to refresh the knowledge about "Zoom". Everything has been said, a lot of sensible comments from the moment when not just "shrieks" came to VO, but also people who understand "their topics" ...

            http://topwar.ru/search.html?searchid=2140493&web=0&text=Zumwalt
            1. -1
              20 August 2014 00: 14
              Quote: Ptah
              But I had in mind the emergence of some moments that would help, if not "drown this miracle", then at least "spoil the blood" of the creators.

              Only battle dolphins! laughing
              The answer should be asymmetric, non-standard and much cheaper.
    3. 0
      19 August 2014 12: 48
      This brainchild will not enter the Black Sea. Displacement will not allow
      1. +2
        19 August 2014 13: 53
        Yes, it will not technically go, Ships with a displacement of at least 65000 tons calmly pass through the Black Sea straits (aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov").
        1. +2
          19 August 2014 15: 22
          They meant the Rules for the passage of ships through the Black Sea straits. The so-called Montreux Convention ...
          But do not give a damn about it a trifling matter / taftology /, given that she signed at a time when Turkey was not "a member" ...

          The order of passage through the Black Sea straits of warships is regulated by articles 8-22 of the Convention. From appendix IV to the Convention on the regime of straits, it can be seen that ships of any class (i.e., aircraft carriers) can be in the fleets of the Black Sea states. At the time of passage of the straits, it is forbidden to perform flights of aircraft on board ships.
          Non-Black Sea countries are allowed to navigate through straits into the Black Sea only light surface ships and auxiliary vessels with a displacement of one ship no more than 10000t. The total displacement of the squad of ships at the time of passage of the straits should not exceed 15000t. and their passage is permitted only in the daytime. Non-Black Sea states are not entitled to introduce aircraft carriers and submarines into the Black Sea. The total tonnage of the squadron of warships of non-Black Sea countries located in the Black Sea should not exceed 45000t.

          The time spent on the Black Sea by a detachment of warships of non-Black Sea countries should not exceed 21 day, regardless of the purpose of the parish. Turkish authorities should be notified through diplomatic channels of the passage of warships through the Black Sea straits, for non-Black Sea countries - in 15 days, for the Black Sea - usually in 8 days, but not less than three. The passage of foreign warships through the straits and during the war is regulated. If Turkey is a belligerent, the passage of ships depends entirely on the Turkish government.
          1. +2
            19 August 2014 16: 59
            So I wrote technically, but according to international agreements this is another matter.
          2. +2
            20 August 2014 01: 15
            Sincerely. And if the Americans rent 2-5 (or even more) ships of Romania and Bulgaria (with the flag of these countries raised) with American personnel, then the ships can be for many days in the Black Sea and then what? And even a decommissioned aircraft carrier can go in and there can be an American reconnaissance aviation link on it. (True, an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea has nothing to do)
            1. +2
              20 August 2014 02: 38
              1. Theoretically - maybe.
              2. Hypothetically - not only "lease" but also donate. And even train the team and provide equipment, and carry out modernization and "maintenance". Why bother with Romanians or Bulgarians when there is Turkey?
              3. This is the area of ​​activity of international lawyers and relevant specialists, in the opinion of many, this Convention has been overgrown with so many amendments that it is high time, if not to abolish completely, then at least to radically rewrite it. But who will benefit from it and how will they "turn it over" ... request
              4. That is why, in order for Russia to be able to maneuver, if it wants to control this shabutnoy region, a base beyond the Bosphorus is needed by the edge. The same Tartus (at least), and even parity with America is difficult to achieve with their number of VM bases in the Mediterranean.
              And Turkey, again, is a "very valuable" member ... hi
            2. 0
              20 August 2014 12: 34
              Quote: denis02135
              decommissioned aircraft carrier

              if they are Nimtsian, then they have nuclear reactors on them, and by some kind of agreement there can’t be ships with a nuclear power plant in the Black Sea.
            3. +2
              20 August 2014 16: 25
              America's aircraft carrier under any sauce on the Black Sea is a huge coffin of "two hundredths" ...
          3. Davidon
            +1
            20 August 2014 02: 50
            Yeah, how many agreements were signed, only whom they care about after all the events on the Black Sea.
      2. 0
        17 September 2014 05: 34
        Zumwalt - the total displacement of the ship is 14 tons.

        The total tonnage of military vessels of non-Black Sea states in the Black Sea should not exceed 30 thousand tons (with the possibility of increasing this maximum to 45 thousand tons in case of an increase in the naval forces of the Black Sea countries) with a stay of not more than 21 days.

        hi
    4. 0
      19 August 2014 20: 01
      lagging behind again
  2. +3
    19 August 2014 09: 22
    It seems that the entire development of "military" thought boils down to the fact that all modern weapons must fight against the Papuans. And voynushki in the understanding of all "developed" countries is a kind of game, when the big boys sitting at the monitors smack the abreks with armed ak hundreds and thousands of kilometers away. But a weapon in a "big" war is just a tool, not even a tool, but a consumable! And it should be massive and cheap! After all, even the United States in the event of a global "conflict" will not be able to supply such expensive toys. The question is WHY are they being built at all? Against Syria, Iraq, North Korea? Not funny ... Working out scientific ideas? More like drank some dough ... And the most offensive thing is that many countries are joining this "technological" race, despite the fact that OGOGO is spending money on it. Well, nafig we do not need such a complex and expensive weapon!
    1. +6
      19 August 2014 09: 52
      The American strategy of war is to sit and hammer on the buttons. It is advisable to sit comfortably. And hammer on as few buttons as possible. And of course, Coca-Cola is a chilly and juicy hamburger nearby.
      1. +11
        19 August 2014 10: 14
        Quote: Wedmak
        The American strategy of war is to sit and hammer on the buttons. It is advisable to sit comfortably. And hammer on as few buttons as possible. And of course, Coca-Cola is a chilly and juicy hamburger nearby.

        Do you offer rams? Well, in the sense it requires courage and heroism ...
        So, on any modern ship, the war is waged only with "buttons", the rocket continues on by itself ... The Russian fleet is no exception, there are enough buttons on our ships ...
        1. +2
          19 August 2014 10: 33
          Do you offer rams?

          Of course not. I am for rockets and long-range high-precision artillery. It’s just interesting if the high-tech of this ship will not be its weak point.
          1. +7
            19 August 2014 10: 42
            Quote: Wedmak
            Of course not. I am for rockets and long-range high-precision artillery. It’s just interesting if the high-tech of this ship will not be its weak point.

            Of course not. For example, everyone believes that our Lira pr.705 submarines were a step into the future, there were no equal to it in terms of automation. But this was not her weak point, the project certainly had flaws, but it had nothing to do with automation.
            Modern combat aircraft in terms of avionics are several goals ahead of their predecessors from the middle of the last century, but no one believes, for example, that emfs are more vulnerable than mechanics?
            1. 0
              20 August 2014 07: 55
              Quote: Nayhas
              but no one believes, for example, that EMF is more vulnerable to mechanics?

              Vulnerable, on the Yak-130 with fourfold dubbing was already her refusal
        2. +2
          19 August 2014 14: 06
          Quote: Nayhas
          ..National fleet is no exception, there are enough buttons on our ships ...

          "WITH GAS" - "WITHOUT GAS". Joke, I hope you remember where it came from?
      2. Tirpitz
        +13
        19 August 2014 10: 42
        And the right strategy. Better stake and hamburgers than trenches and melee. no one needs dead heroes.
        1. Carbon40
          0
          20 August 2014 06: 54
          Your flag is noticeable. Especially about the strategy ...
        2. Victor-cort
          0
          21 August 2014 09: 26
          Quote: Tirpitz
          And the right strategy. Better stake and hamburgers than trenches and melee. no one needs dead heroes.

          Here, yes .. the ability to do your policy without wars (at least without wars with the participation of your people and troops) should be learned. You just need to understand that when the moment has come "in one vest for machine guns" - then this is already a loss.
      3. -12
        19 August 2014 12: 03
        And if a broadband jammer is working nearby, then everything, a stake on the floor, a burger on his pants and a little bit of writing a report about leaving the ship (God forbid flying the SU-34 at the same time, then your tin, they will file a lawsuit against the admirals) laughing
        1. +10
          19 August 2014 13: 37
          And who will let him in wartime?
          And why did you decide that the plane would drown out a huge ship, and not vice versa?
          Do you read anything besides news?
          1. +1
            19 August 2014 14: 03
            It can completely drown out the level of the Tu-22M3RB unless of course there are such versions of this aircraft, the electronic warfare equipment does not stand still and in this area of ​​military equipment we have very good developments. All you need to do is to clog the interference with 250-300 channels at a distance of 100-200 kilometers and then their much-praised BIUS can bend from overload i.e. to go blind, and here's how to technically implement it is already the task of the designers. The technology was tested on the Su-24, now it remains to bring it to perfection, well, or they have already finished it, it seems like the info about the A-100 passed.
            1. 0
              19 August 2014 21: 51
              Can you somehow confirm the words about the ability of the Su-24 to drown out the cruiser from a distance of 100 km?
              Quote: jayich
              The technology was tested on the Su-24,

              When is this?
            2. 0
              20 August 2014 07: 57
              Quote: jayich
              All you need to do is clog the interference with 250-300 channels at a distance of 100-200 kilometers

              100-150 GHz millimeter-wave radar you drown from such a distance7
            3. Victor-cort
              0
              21 August 2014 09: 29
              any means of electronic warfare is like a beacon in the night; it works effectively only in peacetime. A lot of things will fly to the military on this lighthouse ... both managed and not very :)
    2. Praetorian
      +3
      19 August 2014 11: 26
      In the modern world, in my opinion, only AK can be put on stream. Tanks gather for months, planes .. Missiles for years. Ships for five years. Well, what flow?
      1. +3
        19 August 2014 13: 58
        Quote: Praetorian
        Ships for five years. Well, what flow?

        You tell the Chinese that recently the twentieth! frigate type 054A was launched, and started in 2006 ... in eight years, twenty ships!
        And for the whole last year they built 18! ships:
        2 Type 052C destroyers, 3 Type 054A frigates, 9 Type 056 corvettes and 4 supply ships.
        Just have time to cook the crews ...
        1. +1
          19 August 2014 14: 11
          twenty ships!
          And for the whole last year they built 18! ships:
          2 Type 052C destroyers, 3 Type 054A frigates, 9 Type 056 corvettes and 4 supply ships.
          Just have time to cook the crews ...

          All this is buzzing! But this speed affects the quality of both ships and crews.
        2. +1
          19 August 2014 15: 15
          Passed to completion, or the fleet?
      2. +1
        19 August 2014 14: 11
        You can completely put the T-72 on the stream there, in principle, an analog circuit without complex electronics, and the same Mercedes M class is somewhat more complicated than the tank in terms of electronics. It’s more difficult with airplanes to have too many specials. alloys and complex electronics. Ships are more complicated, but in principle, if you do not take the radio electronics and displacement to be limited to 1500-2000 tons (destroyer of the Second World War), you can rivet in 5-6 months. The whole question is in the installation of the manual, the conveyor is the conveyor, and in principle it does not matter whether it is a Mercedes or a tank.
    3. +2
      19 August 2014 14: 25
      Quote: ehan
      ? More like drank some dough ... And the most offensive thing is that many countries are joining this "technological" race, despite the fact that OGOGO is spending money on it.

      Everything will come down to this, (cut the dough) as in the case of an invisible plane, which has problems above the roof, and flies through once.
      1. 0
        19 August 2014 21: 55
        What kind of plane is this?
        1. Carbon40
          -3
          20 August 2014 07: 06
          В2 Spirit - 2.1 yards, subsonic, easily detectable, not bearing a nuclear load.
          1. +2
            20 August 2014 12: 01
            Quote: Carbon40
            subsonic

            What is so?
            Quote: Carbon40
            easily detectable

            Actually just the opposite. Did you decide to troll it?
            Quote: Carbon40
            not carrying a nuclear load.

            He has a nuclear load.
      2. Victor-cort
        +2
        21 August 2014 09: 33
        Quote: Sirocco
        as is the case with invisible aircraft

        In fact, even the very first f117, one of the most efficient aircraft in the history of aviation, because the number of losses, compared with the number of sorties, is simply negligible.
    4. +1
      20 August 2014 00: 20
      Quote: ehan
      The question is WHY do they build at all?


      The answer to your question:

      Quote: schizophrenic
      I have long written about Zumvolt, and now I will repeat it. Technology is being testedthe more modern they are, the more expensive. After the break-in, they will take the nodes they like for other ships, with a much lower cost.


      Read carefully the previous comments.
      hi
  3. -7
    19 August 2014 09: 30
    That will be a joke ... if some thread of our old "drying" Su-24MP "stuns" and "blinds"! And all at once. wassat soldier
    1. Praetorian
      +10
      19 August 2014 11: 29
      Do you really believe that the su24m was able to drown the ship in the black sea then?
      1. +7
        19 August 2014 11: 58
        With such, do not even try to engage in a constructive dialogue.
        1. +3
          19 August 2014 14: 09
          don't even try to engage in constructive dialogue.

          There is a word "must" wink
          Explain, chew. Then with a clear conscience to say: "I did everything I could, shoot him laughing "PS joke

          IMHO: not all Hurray-patriots are so "stupid", someone just reads little hi
      2. +1
        19 August 2014 18: 10
        of course not!
        Quote: Praetorian
        Do you really believe that the su24m was able to drown the ship in the black sea then?

        of course not !!! "biscuit" from Chelyabinsk just flew to see the sea, never seen it !!! wassat
  4. Crang
    +1
    19 August 2014 09: 37
    Cool battleship. We also need to build the same type. Only with tank armor and 203mm Peonies.
    1. 0
      19 August 2014 09: 54
      Quote: Krang
      Only with tank armor

      Also, make the tonnage bigger, so that everything fits. It is desirable to add anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship missiles, are also needed.
      1. +2
        19 August 2014 14: 20
        Yes, we have had such ships of the Orlan project for a long time, but they cost 28000 tons. Back in the 1950s, a 12 "/ 61 naval cannon was developed in my opinion for" Stalingrad "with a firing range of about 60 km. the main battery turret and all anti-aircraft guns and stick modern weapons on the vacant space + put a modern power plant and that's it.
        1. Hawk2014
          0
          20 August 2014 09: 38
          Quote: jayich

          Yes, we have had such ships of the Orlan project for a long time, but they cost 28000 tons. Back in the 1950s, a 12 "/ 61 naval cannon was developed in my opinion for" Stalingrad "with a firing range of about 60 km. the main battery turret and all anti-aircraft guns and stick modern weapons on the vacant space + put a modern power plant and that's it.

          Project 82 at that time was recognized by the unsatisfactory leadership of the Soviet Navy, even at the design stage. Its construction was supported by the political leadership of the country, which needed such a ship for representation purposes. To build such ships in our time is a clear anachronism. And the leadership of the fleet will be indignant at this approach and will refuse such ships.
    2. +1
      20 August 2014 00: 30
      Quote: Krang
      Only with tank armor

      Well, yes.
      And outside to stick with polystyrene.
    3. Victor-cort
      0
      21 August 2014 09: 38
      Quote: Krang
      Cool battleship. We also need to build the same type. Only with tank armor and 203mm Peonies.

      it’s not strange, but they tried to do this in the USSR (the military stuck all their Wishlist into the TTZ) ... as a result, with a terrible, it would seem, universality, the ship couldn’t fulfill any of the assigned tasks. and it turned out to be prohibitive in cost, so they forgot about the project and didn’t remember more about such garbage :)
  5. 0
    19 August 2014 09: 56
    June 27, 2014 at the Sredne-Nevsky shipyard in St. Petersburg launched the lead ship of project 12700 (code "Alexandrite") - the minesweeper "Alexander Obukhov".
    The minesweeper (serial number 521) was laid down on September 22, 2011 and was named "Alexander Obukhov" in honor of the Hero of the Soviet Union Alexander Afanasyevich Obukhov, lieutenant commander, commander of the armored boats of the 2nd battalion of patrol ships of the Water Area Protection of the Main Base of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet, participated during the Great Patriotic War in 138 naval battles. The main difference between the new ship is the world's largest hull made of monolithic fiberglass: length 61,75 m, width 10,8 m, displacement 720 tons.
    I could eat too
  6. +4
    19 August 2014 09: 56
    Judging by his description, electronics were crammed into him from keel to klotik. Wouldn't it be a shock for them when a seiner with the inscription "SSV" approaches this ship and enlightens this destroyer through and through like a chicken X-ray apparatus? Along the way, disabling half of the sensitive sensors and blinding him for a couple of hours.
    1. +2
      19 August 2014 11: 28
      Wedmak RU Today, 09:56
      a "seiner" with the inscription "SSV" will fit and enlighten this destroyer like a chicken X-ray machine? Along the way, disabling half of the sensitive sensors and blinding him for a couple of hours. "
      ... And how will this CER blind?
    2. +2
      19 August 2014 14: 06
      yes God is with you! Lightning will fall into it - it will go out laughing
    3. 0
      19 August 2014 14: 10
      Quote: Wedmak
      and blinding him for a couple of hours

      From blasters?
      1. +1
        19 August 2014 20: 48
        The human body (especially if it is "placed in a cotton cuff") is capable of absorbing a lot of energy when heated to a critical level and it takes some time for the laser (blaster) beam to inflict fatal injuries on a person. This time is quite enough for a person to have time to change their position, throw off a smoldering quilted jacket or hide in a shelter.

        As a means of dazzling a person, the laser is quite suitable, but international conventions prohibit the use of laser weapons to damage the human organs of vision.

  7. +4
    19 August 2014 09: 57
    No damn! Really! The Yankees are better off than building such super-expensive floating "explosives depots" they reanimated their (pre-war, up to 2 MRV) cruisers like the New Orleans or Brooklyn projects. These would not be inferior to the Sumvolts in terms of firepower. The first ones had 9 203 mm drins, but the second ones sported 15! 152 mm guns.
    And ... if you remove all 127mm turrets and all the old anti-aircraft equipment from them, then you could (if you wish) stick a decent-range air defense system and missiles of various kinds! )))
    The picture of the battle of the super modern DDG-1000 with what a thread is an old "San Francisco" is drawn in my head! And damn it is not in favor of the first one !!! Provided that the "S-Fe" has a modern radar complex and anti-aircraft systems, it will definitely fight off the attack of Zumvolt, and then he himself piles on him with his 203mm "suitcases"! And if in the case of a "passive" defense "San Francisco" will help its 127, or even 203 mm. armor! But DJ will definitely not be protected by his "Kevlar wallpaper". As you know, there is no reception against scrap! laughing bully wassat
    1. +3
      19 August 2014 14: 09
      Doc, well, you are just scrolling the script of the movie "Sea Battle" laughing
  8. Crang
    +1
    19 August 2014 09: 58
    Quote: schizophrenic
    Also, make the tonnage bigger, so that everything fits. It is desirable to add anti-aircraft missiles, anti-ship missiles, are also needed.

    His tonnage is normal. 14500 tons. Everything will fit. And he already has universal PU. But the artillery should be placed not linearly, but on the side as on the "Aurora". Simultaneous attack from different directions is a typical tactic for fighting warships.
    1. +1
      19 August 2014 10: 25
      Then, in my opinion, the data do not converge. What Zumwold will have to trim from the available equipment to accommodate armor and guns of a larger calliber. It seems that the power plant will have to sacrifice, and make cutting lower.
    2. Victor-cort
      0
      21 August 2014 09: 42
      Quote: Krang
      His tonnage is normal. 14500 tons. Everything will fit. And he already has universal PU. But the artillery should be placed not linearly, but on the side as on the "Aurora". Simultaneous attack from different directions is a typical tactic for fighting warships.

      nonsense, just a linear arrangement of artillery and allows you to increase the maneuverability of fire, all this has long passed.
  9. denosaur
    +3
    19 August 2014 09: 59
    in Yugoslavia they shot down an "invisible" F-117 with our missile of the 70s. I wonder what will sink this "invisible" wunderwaffe?
    1. -1
      19 August 2014 12: 00
      Before waving hats, you should understand the situation. 1000 times this case was sucked in Yugoslavia, but you are not trained, and what does this have to do with the ship?
      1. +5
        19 August 2014 16: 02
        and what does this have to do with the ship?
        What are you standing up for this boat so much, let it be built - bigger and more expensive. It’s a miracle of engineering, it’s a flight of genius ... It’s, it’s, it’s the tombstone of the American economy set on a barge))))) Hurray!
  10. Crang
    +4
    19 August 2014 10: 01
    Quote: denozavr
    in Yugoslavia they shot down an "invisible" F-117 with our missile of the 70s. I wonder what will sink this "invisible" wunderwaffe?

    Grenade F1.
  11. +10
    19 August 2014 10: 04
    An amazing story is connected with the promising destroyer Zamvolt: a ship whose cost including R&D exceeded $ 7 billion, by a strange chance, lost its survey radar! The Americans had enough money to experiment with stealth technology and to develop six-inch guns with a range of 150 km, but there was not enough money to install a dual-band DBR radar. As a result, the super destroyer will only be equipped with the AN / SPY-3 multifunctional station, which is not able to effectively track air targets over long distances. As a result, Zamvolta anti-aircraft ammunition is limited only by ESSM short / medium-range missiles.
    The events of the past 20 years have clearly shown that the “best fleet” is powerless in front of sea mines and diesel-electric submarines. The noise background of modern "diesel engines" turned out to be below the threshold of sensitivity of American anti-aircraft defense systems. The absence of rattling pumps and GTZA, air-independent power plants, small size and power, systems of electromagnets that compensate for anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field - the results of joint exercises with the Navy of Australia, Israel, and the Netherlands showed that such submarines can pass through any anti-submarine cordons of the U.S. Navy.
    The Swedish allies were urgently summoned from their Gotland NPL. Tests confirmed all previous concerns. The Swedish boat was immediately leased for two years (2006-08). Despite the intensive study of the Gotland and the development of measures to combat such submarines, the US command still considers non-nuclear submarines to be one of the most dangerous threats and is not going to curtail the DESI (diesel-electric submarine initiative) program.
    If some progress has been made in the fight against non-nuclear submarines — at least, the Yankees are paying increased attention to this problem and are actively looking for countermeasures — then the mine threat issue remains open.
    The US Navy suffered significant losses from enemy mines. In 1988, the frigate “Samuel B. Roberts” was damaged in the Persian Gulf (this prankster was blown up by a contact mine of the 1908 model of the year). Three years later, the Tripoli helicopter carrier (ironically, the flagship of mine-trawling forces in the region) and the cruiser Princeton (blew up on the cleared fairway and then stood alone for a long time, were blown up on Iraqi minefields. None of the US Navy ships ventured to help the dying "colleague").
    It would seem that the abundance of stocks of these deadly sea traps (according to military analysts and experts, one China has about 80 thousand sea mines!), As well as the real facts of familiarity with the "horned death" should have convinced the American command of the need to create effective means countering the mine threat. But nothing like this has been done!
    The fleet, which is proud of eight dozen cruisers and missile destroyers, has only ... 13 mine and mine ships!
    1. +2
      19 August 2014 11: 59
      It will be funny if Zumvolt destroys something like the Iranian Qadir.
    2. +2
      20 August 2014 13: 16
      What you wrote is not Zumvolt’s problem,
      and the structure of the American fleet is not enough minesweepers.
      Sea mine penetrates the lining of any ship: and stealth,
      and the most ordinary.
      There is a cure against the submarine: its own submarine -
      torpedo bomber covering the ship. In particular, to Zumvolt
      I would give a second one on a regular basis.
      The problem of minesweepers is, as a rule, slow-moving and outdated.
      And they can not accompany the fast destroyer in the campaign.
      Those. it is time to design a speed stealth minesweeper to
      he could interact with the latest warships.
  12. +4
    19 August 2014 10: 15
    a very good ship and he needs a very good torpedo laughing
    1. +6
      19 August 2014 10: 29
      enough and boats on board
      1. +4
        19 August 2014 15: 41
        We look at the instructions for an example of tanks and aircraft.

        1

        2


        We use something similar on ships ...
  13. +4
    19 August 2014 10: 26
    Following the Americans, the Chinese rushed to build a fleet of the 21st century, Type 055. The network already has a photo of the layout of the new cruiser on which they are working out the layout, radar signature, etc. Also on the network appeared images of this cruiser. Outwardly, it differs from Zumwalt, but not Burke as Type 052D. The displacement (of course Zumwalt with its 14500 tons of destroyer pulls, a purely cruising displacement) is similar to Zumwalt, but the placement of the UVP is classic, and the placement of antenna posts is similar to the British destroyers. It looks stern and judging by the fact that in addition to the UVP of serious weapons on board, the Chinese no longer managed to unify the entire nomenclature of weapons (except for close combat) ...
    This handsome man will clearly push the USA to a new ocean race ...



    1. +1
      19 August 2014 10: 57
      This is already at what level are the Chinese? Drawings, plastic models, full-size housing ...
      Of course, they will not announce the price, are the weapons only in general terms, without performance characteristics, about the SSU also silent?
    2. +7
      19 August 2014 11: 26
      The network already has a photo of the layout of the new cruiser on which they are working out the layout, radar visibility, etc.





      And some more photos of Chinese steamers:










      1. +7
        20 August 2014 00: 47
        Quote: DMB87
        And some more photos of Chinese steamers:

        Yeah ... now only a resident of the madhouse can laugh at the Chinese ...
  14. +1
    19 August 2014 10: 31
    A powerful toy, but how will it show itself in business? And yet it is a step forward. Our specialists would not be left behind ...
  15. +2
    19 August 2014 10: 32
    American "stealth mania" in all its glory. Another wunderwaffe for cutting the budget.
  16. +2
    19 August 2014 10: 37
    On the third boat, Lyndon B Johnson (DDG 1002) abandoned composite superstructures and a hangar in favor of steel (http://www.janes.com/article/41916/hii-delivers-composite-deckhouse-for-second-
    zumwalt-class-destroyer).

    As expected, HII has shuttered its Gulfport facility due to declining naval work in composites. The company was to have built a third deckhouse and hangar for the Zumwalt program, but navy officials opted to return to an all-steel superstructure design on the third and final ship of the class, Lyndon B Johnson (DDG 1002), after failed price negotiations with HII.
  17. Crang
    +7
    19 August 2014 10: 40
    Quote: Mad-dok
    American "stealth mania" in all its glory. Another wunderwaffe for cutting the budget.

    We don't need all this, right? "Torpedo" into the board if anything, we will throw grenades ... This is everyone who laughs at "Zumvalt" here. First of all, ours from the "torpedo" will fall apart in the same way. And secondly, optimists - I will look at you as you are all so equipped, in a spotted kerchief and with a healthy knife on the MB-151 tug hung with old tires with a PC machine gun on the nose, you will fight the squadrons of Zumvalts and drown them with torpedoes and with grenades. It won't be funny right away.
    1. +2
      19 August 2014 14: 32
      well, you’re exaggerating about the squadrons, they would finish building these three for a start, and with such a budget a large series is unlikely to succeed, I agree with Mad-dok - it looks more like a dough cut, no, no, not like a stealth cut smile
      1. +1
        20 August 2014 00: 54
        Quote: massad1
        more like a dough cut, no, no, not like a stealth cut

        laughing Stop the tantrum!
        I am sure we would have had more money, we would not have refused such a "laboratory" either.
        Of course, there is not much practical use for Zooms at this price. But in terms of testing new technologies and their feasibility, working out the tactics of using "innovations" - the project is of paramount importance!
    2. +1
      19 August 2014 14: 38
      No, everything is much simpler than pl. 636.6 "Varshavyanka" in the name of "Black Hole", now 6 pcs. will build 3 already on the water and goodbye to a high-tech tub. For me, I would have 18 more. ordered for the needs of the Navy for the near sea zone, but for the far sea zone of the nuclear submarine pr.885M. things 10. and then it was already possible to famously drown ov the tactics of "packs of wolves" justified itself; there was simply not enough level of technology development for that historical period.
      1. Hawk2014
        +3
        20 August 2014 20: 31
        Quote: jayich
        No, everything is much simpler than pl. 636.6 "Varshavyanka" in the name of "Black Hole", now 6 pcs. will build 3 already on the water and goodbye to a high-tech tub. For me, I would have 18 more. ordered for the needs of the Navy for the near sea zone, but for the far sea zone of the nuclear submarine pr.885M. things 10. and then it was already possible to famously drown ov the tactics of "packs of wolves" justified itself; there was simply not enough level of technology development for that historical period.

        Don't be ridiculous! Project 877 and its development - Project 636 were created for the closed sea areas of Russia, such as the Baltic, Black and Sea of ​​Japan. Nobody will send "Zumwalt" there. I repeat, these ships are not designed for high-intensity armed conflicts, and even against countries with nuclear weapons. So all the "hypotheses" about the "battle of the Zamwolts" with Russian submarines are idle speculation, nothing more. The following scenario seems to be real: the Zamwolts will repeat the fate of the American nuclear-powered cruisers of the "California" class. -20 (and maybe even less) and will be written off, but what conclusions will be drawn based on the experience of their operation - time will tell.
  18. +3
    19 August 2014 10: 44
    As if in a fog it accidentally "Enterprise" did not crush
  19. +2
    19 August 2014 11: 11
    I looked at the photo and thought that the ship did not seem to be calculated for a battle with a serious enemy. One good hit to the side between the main battery turrets will disable all the ship's weapons. Apparently the calculation is that not a single projectile or missile will reach the ship. Raises questions and seaworthiness. This shape of the nose was used at the dawn of armored construction and contributed to the flooding of the deck in "fresh weather".
    1. +5
      19 August 2014 20: 36
      Quote: a-cola
      I looked at the photo and thought that the ship did not seem to be counting on a battle with a serious enemy.

      O wisest of the wisest, outline the concept of a modern destroyer / cruiser designed to fight a serious enemy! And who is this hypothetical "serious opponent"?
      Quote: a-cola
      One good hit on board between the GK towers will disable all ship armament.

      Describe the effect of one "good hit" on any other warship? For example, in the area of ​​the nuclear reactor of the cruiser Peter the Great?
      Quote: a-cola
      This shape of the nose was used at the dawn of armored construction and contributed to the flooding of the deck in "fresh weather".

      Does Zumwalt have something to pour on the forecastle? See at least one coaming?
  20. Crang
    +2
    19 August 2014 11: 16
    Quote: a-cola
    This shape of the nose was used at the dawn of armored construction and contributed to the flooding of the deck in "fresh weather".

    This nose shape reduces hydrodynamic drag and minimizes wave formation. And all the floods do not care. No one should be on the deck on the hike.
    1. +1
      19 August 2014 17: 47
      Hydrodynamic drag consists of three parts ... Superficial, Sopr. The joined masses and wave formation are the third type, a good and, in fact, the only means of combating c. - this is a bulb. Do not hang noodles on your ears. Nose above the waterline, what resistance does it affect? For this, a wave in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in the fall can blow him a radar ...
      1. 0
        19 August 2014 17: 59
        Quote: 17085
        Do not hang noodles on your ears.

        No need to operate with such expressions. This is at least ...

        This nose shape / i.e. bulb) reduces hydrodynamic resistance and minimizes wave formation. / as one of the COMPREHENSIVE "fight" methods.

        "-" for carelessness ... hi
        1. +1
          19 August 2014 18: 02
          Yes, I say a bulb, but he says the shape of the nose, like on an armadillo, an armadillo with a bulb?
          Quote: Ptah
          Ptah

          Who is not attentive?
          1. 0
            19 August 2014 18: 17
            Bulb, or nasal bulb (from fr. Bulbe - bulb) - the part of the bow of the vessel that protrudes just below the waterline is like an element of the stem, which has a convex ellipsoidal shape. Bulb changes the direction of water flow throughout the body, reducing resistance, and, therefore, helps to increase speed, range and fuel economy. The nasal bulb on large vessels gives a gain, as a rule, from 12 to 15 percent of fuel efficiency compared to similar vessels without them.

            Nasal bulb. (but I didn’t hear about FODDER, i.e., located on the after-train)
            Nasal bulbs proved to be most effective under the following conditions:

            - When used on cases with a waterline length of more than 15 m;
            - for long and narrow cases;
            - at speeds close to the maximum speed of the vessel.


            Copper-clad NOSE extremities of ancient ships. What is not an analogue of an armadillo?
            TARAN when moving, when it was originally planned to find it below the OHL, can serve as a bulb.
            1. -1
              21 August 2014 19: 04
              Read your quote carefully. The bottom line is: a bulb is a bulb. a ram is a ram (at least because it is not an ellipsoidal form), where is the logic? what's in the water?
              hare troll
  21. +1
    19 August 2014 11: 30
    Quote: Krang
    Quote: a-cola
    This shape of the nose was used at the dawn of armored construction and contributed to the flooding of the deck in "fresh weather".

    This nose shape reduces hydrodynamic drag and minimizes wave formation. And all the floods do not care. No one should be on the deck on the hike.

    It's not that someone will wet his pants. I can’t imagine how he will go across the wave in a slight storm. And even more so while shooting.
    1. +4
      19 August 2014 14: 17
      Quote: a-cola
      how it will go across the waves during a slight storm. And even more so while shooting.

      Give at least one example of naval combat during a storm.
      1. +1
        19 August 2014 20: 45
        Quote: Bayonet
        Give at least one example of naval combat during a storm.

        I was tormented for a long time by the question about the reason for the minuses for your rather simple question ... The answer was only one: from anger. For the answer to your question is simple, nobody. For example, TARKRRYKRKYR "Peter the Great" hid from a storm off the coast of Scotland during a trip to the Mediterranean, waiting for "too fresh wind" so to speak. It would seem that the displacement is enough, and the power plant is powerful, but no, they were waiting for the storm to subside ... what kind of "sea battle" is there ...
  22. +4
    19 August 2014 11: 34
    Thanks to the author for the article, a good review in my opinion, the photos are good. Futuristic destroyer of the future, 21st century ship.
    I recall the frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov", the gun was never installed over the summer, everyone is suing shares and there are no guilty or responsible, where is Deputy Prime Minister D.O. Rogozin, why does not he solve this important issue for the Russian Navy , oh yes, I forgot, he is exploring Mars with his Chinese comrades.
  23. Crang
    0
    19 August 2014 11: 35
    Quote: a-cola
    It's not that someone will wet his pants. I can’t imagine how he will go across the wave in a slight storm. And even more so while shooting.

    What are the problems? It’s almost hermetic on a submarine. And there are no combat posts or equipment. Board height is more than solid. The battleships had no problems with this.
  24. +3
    19 August 2014 11: 52
    The debt of mattress makers is $ 17trln dollars, but they allow themselves to spend money on such expensive "toys", nonsense. Their bookkeeping is brilliant)
    1. Victor-cort
      0
      21 August 2014 10: 13
      Quote: Neprostoy
      The debt of mattress makers is $ 17trln dollars, but they allow themselves to spend money on such expensive "toys", nonsense. Their bookkeeping is brilliant)

      That's exactly what dollars are, and who prints dollars? That's right, they print, so they owe it to themselves .... they will forgive themselves :) But we should just do it in dollars, just the same for them, and given our GDP, we will give back for a long time. So they can still build a lot of things with our money.
  25. +7
    19 August 2014 11: 58
    You can laugh at the appearance, the amount of money spent, and the reality is that the Americans again created something new and took a step forward. Among the F22, F35, Sivulf, drones, etc. It is expensive, very expensive, but they can afford it and again go forward and farther.
    Everything is determined by means, personnel, and in the near and distant future, Americans will be leaders in creating something new. The Chinese are still very far from them, but no more competitors are visible. Russia does not have such funds, and money is also nurturing and supporting personnel.
    1. +2
      19 August 2014 18: 39
      If there are no funds, then an asymmetric answer is needed. Let's see and answer.
  26. Reasonable
    +3
    19 August 2014 12: 33
    But will he not bury his nose in a storm?
  27. +1
    19 August 2014 12: 45
    As I understand it, this wunderwaffle will be thrown boots on enemy ships. Harpoons didn’t put it on him, and the anti-ship Tomahawk died in its infancy.
    1. KAVTORANG -II
      +9
      19 August 2014 13: 14
      Do you think that complete dullness led the development of the project and polished the composition of the onboard weapons? If there is no RCC, then this carrier platform does not need it. Or the wrong application concept. Or a reserved place - it will be necessary, it will be plugged into any naval base.
      Why for the sake of such a dope with someone "pleasantries" in the form of an anti-ship missile system to exchange?
      Or are you a supporter of the last Civil Code of the Navy of the USSR: "shove in something unpickable" and more, more ...?
      1. 0
        19 August 2014 19: 23
        Quote: KAUTORANG-II
        Do you think that complete dullness led the development of the project and polished the composition of the onboard weapons?

        I bet ++, otherwise the "urya patriots" threw minuses!
    2. +1
      19 August 2014 13: 39
      Soon there will be LRASM. But fighting ships is still not his prerogative. And for the little things, AGS is enough for him.
  28. Hawk2014
    +5
    19 August 2014 12: 45
    It is too early to talk about the usefulness of such a ship. This course of events will show. Of course, the ship is a compromise. As often happens, we tried to please everyone. And Democrats, and Republicans, and admirals, and, of course, their beloved ones (i.e., American shipbuilders). The undoubted advantage of the "Zumwalt" is its high automation, and as a result, a small crew. For comparison, warships of a similar displacement during the Second World War had crews from 1300 to 2000 (!) People, that is, an order of magnitude more. The main disadvantage of the project is its high cost - this is the cost of a large volume of R&D. Most likely, the Zumwalt will remain more experimental ships, as well as the Seawolf-class submarines. But the developments achieved in their design and construction will be used for the development and serial construction of cheaper and mass-produced ships.
    1. AUL
      +1
      19 August 2014 20: 07
      Of course, the innovations in this project make the ship a very serious force! But there is one thing, but a big BUT!
      Any engineer or system technician knows that the reliability of the system is BACK TO PROPORTION to the complexity of this system. The ship is very complex, consists of a large number of interconnected and interacting systems. Failure in the functioning of any element of the system unpredictably responds to the functioning of the entire complex. And since 100% reliability does not even exist theoretically, the whole complex is quite unreliable. And this is without taking into account possible combat damage!
      Scrap is much more reliable than even AK!
      1. Hawk2014
        0
        20 August 2014 20: 40
        Quote from AUL
        Scrap is much more reliable than even AK!

        Well, advise Shoigu to decommission all AKs and arm the army exclusively with crowbars. And then tell me, what did he answer you? what laughing
  29. +4
    19 August 2014 12: 46
    F-117 was shot down from C-125. Zamvolt will be sunk by the P-15 rocket laughing . 146%
    1. +1
      19 August 2014 13: 41
      PAK FA can also be shot down even from the second world anti-aircraft machine gun under certain conditions, and so what?
  30. +3
    19 August 2014 12: 57
    It is clear that the ship is good and we cannot build one yet. So who prevents the creation of anti-car missiles capable of reaching him from afar or from under the water. And what is the firing range of "Bastion" or "Bereg" even "Ball" for 180 km. Beats. This is how such a painted man is suitable for landing and not being sure that he will not fly into his board from the shore with some kind of supersonic gift at an ultra-low flight altitude. Such ships do not need to be sunk enough to set them on fire or damage them, and half of the electronics will burn out, no matter what American sailors are good firefighters, and hitting an anti-ship missile ship and the subsequent destruction and fire leaves nothing good behind.
    1. Crang
      +1
      19 August 2014 13: 16
      Quote: UNCLE
      Such ships do not need to be heated; they need to be set ablaze or damaged enough, and half of the electronics will burn up, no matter what American sailors are good firefighters and the RCC hit the ship and subsequent destruction and fire do not leave anything good after themselves.

      Are you talking about the shortcomings of American warships? That is, to ours, all of the above does not apply to us? And why then on the deck of "Kuznetsov" is rolling a red "KamAZ" - "Pozhtekhnika"?
      1. +4
        19 August 2014 15: 33
        This applies to all modern ships of large tonnage. The second profession of a sailor on aircraft carriers of all countries possessing them is a fireman. And the fire can and extinguish quickly, then the destruction can not be restored, I mean everything above the waterline. But KamAZ on deck is okay, they have 131 ZILs there.
    2. +3
      19 August 2014 13: 22
      Pay attention to the ideology of creating such equipment - the first to see, the first to shoot, applies to almost all samples of American military developments. And he has enough detection tools (including drones), as well as defense and attack tools. Not to mention the fact that Zumvolt will never act alone.
      1. +5
        19 August 2014 14: 19
        If not alone, then the whole stealth in the ... Excursion will unmask it.
        And about the first to shoot. That is yes. This is an American concept. In aviation, it was first implemented in the F-4. He was the first to see the MiG-21 and bring them down with long-range missiles. But, something went wrong and F-4 got off in Vietnam not only with MiG-21-mi, but also with old people MiG-17-mi.
        F-117 also did not justify itself ...
        1. +6
          19 August 2014 15: 35
          The F-4 Phantom was conceived as a high-altitude fighter.
          But it turned out that he pulls a good load of bombs and
          surely throws them out. They trudged loaded like asses
          then small MiG-21s popped up, flying low over the jungle.
          And they brought down the Phantoms, like children.
          And the Americans did not have a light fighter cover. Rather, it was -
          F-5, but it was not enough to neutralize MiGs.
        2. Victor-cort
          0
          21 August 2014 10: 31
          Quote: qwert
          But, something went wrong and the F-4s got off in Vietnam not only with the MiG-21s, but also with the old MiG-17s.

          and that's why he was nicknamed "Mig Killer" ???
          Quote: qwert
          F-117 also did not justify itself ...

          This is in what reality then? You then pull the head out of the murzilka. And for an example look at the number of F117 sorties and the number of downed ones.
  31. Crang
    0
    19 August 2014 13: 14
    Quote: Wiruz
    As I understand it, this wunderwaffle will be thrown boots on enemy ships.

    Active reactive 155mm shells.
  32. +2
    19 August 2014 13: 18
    Nowadays, ships with X-bow type hull architecture are becoming popular.
    http://topwar.ru/19242-korabli-beregovoy-ohrany-novoy-arhitektury.html
    In the oncoming wave, such a vessel behaves better than with traditional contours.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqcpe5au_7M
  33. 0
    19 August 2014 13: 20
    The very best ship ... for Hollywood.
  34. +10
    19 August 2014 13: 22
    So. What we have?
    The first one. The assignment of this monster to the class of destroyers. There were pretenders in history when, in order to show their superiority, light cruisers were called destroyers, and battleships were called heavy cruisers. The fact that Zumwalt is a destroyer is from the evil one. 14000tn is at least a cruiser. But, it is not so profitable. Indeed, in comparison with destroyers, it looks cooler than if you compare it with cruisers. Those. it's a PR move
    Second. Initially, they planned railguns with a firing range of 270 km (if I'm not mistaken) and laser guns of the air defense system. Today we see "unique" 150mm guns and 57mm guns. What is unique about the 150mm? We are told in the firing range of an active-rocket projectile at 100 km. However, traditionally naval guns had a range of 25-30 percent than army guns of the same hummingbird. Modern weapons adopted for service have a firing range of an active-rocket projectile up to 70 km. Those. here we also see nothing supernatural. The range of the naval system is 30% higher than that of the land system.
    The third. On board can be two unmanned helicopters. What nonsense? The unmanned a priori will never surpass the manned one in terms of flexibility and capabilities. But it sounds cool, modern. As they say drones are now in trend.
    In general, Zumvalt is a collection of fashion trends. Here and stealth, here and drones and the promised laser weapons, and an awesome number of computers. Over time, we will hear about plans to place amphibious groups of cyborgs and clones on board the ship. But in fact there is nothing new on it yet. Stealth technology has set the teeth on edge. They generally keep silent about hydroacoustic invisibility, i.e. no anti-submarine protection. And the submarine is deeply indifferent to its unique guns and invisibility from aircraft. Of course, escort ships can provide anti-submarine protection, but then what does stealth have to do with it? The rest of the ships in the order will find out the location of the "super-duper-destroyer"
    1. Crang
      +1
      19 August 2014 13: 38
      Well, not the Americans here first. Not long ago, aircraft carriers with a full flight deck and a length of 250 m were launched in Japan. And democratically classified as "helicopter destroyers".
    2. 0
      19 August 2014 13: 45
      Quote: qwert
      We are told in the firing range of an active rocket projectile per 100km. However, traditionally naval guns had a range of interest of 25-30 than army guns of the same hummingbird. Modern guns adopted for service have a firing range of up to 70km with an active-rocket projectile. Those. here we also do not see anything supernatural. The range of the marine system exceeds the land by the same 30%.

      According to official figures, she will be able to beat on 180 km. From where the figure in 100 km in the article is a mystery. How it will be in reality is also unclear.
      Quote: qwert
      The third. On board can be two unmanned helicopters. What nonsense? The unmanned a priori will never surpass the manned one in terms of flexibility and capabilities. But it sounds cool, modern. As they say drones are now in trend.

      Manned there is also provided.
      Quote: qwert
      About sonar invisibility generally silent,

      There cannot be a priori invisibility, but hydroacoustic stealth is quite realized there.
    3. +1
      19 August 2014 13: 58
      it is necessary that this "good boat" light elves make 500 pieces like that at the original price and they will be happy.
    4. 0
      19 August 2014 22: 02
      however, in Zamvolte there are many new products
      for example, the expensive energy network of the destroyer, which can dramatically increase the power of installed devices.
      and allowing it to be used as a floating laboratory for new types of energy-intensive weapons - railguns and so on.
      But in addition to weapons, Zamvolt has the ability to power much more powerful antennas.
    5. Hawk2014
      +1
      20 August 2014 21: 08
      Quote: qwert
      The assignment of this monster to the class of destroyers. There were applicants in history when, in order to show their superiority, light cruisers were called destroyers, and battleships were called heavy cruisers. The fact that Zumwalt is a destroyer is from the evil one. 14000tn is at least a cruiser. But, it is not so profitable. Indeed, in comparison with destroyers, it looks cooler than if you compare it with cruisers. Those. it's a PR move

      This would be true if the "Washington" restrictions, or at least their criteria, were preserved. But this is not the case for the modern American navy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the division in the American fleet into cruisers and destroyers was not based on displacement (it differed little), but on purpose. Destroyers of the "Spruance" type were intended to protect aircraft carriers from submarines, and the air defense mission was assigned to the cruiser. The appearance of the Mk41 UVP made it possible to combine two classes of ships into one - a destroyer of guided missile weapons (URO). From that moment on, the cruiser in the American Navy as a class of ships practically disappeared. The remaining Ticonderogs perform the same tasks as the Burkes.
      Quote: qwert
      About hydro-acoustic invisibility they are generally silent, i.e. no anti-submarine protection. And the submarine is deeply indifferent to its unique guns and invisibility from aircraft.

      Yes, this ship is not intended for operations in areas of high activity of submarines. "Zamvolt", if that's what it is, is the heir to the monitors of the first half of the twentieth century. Its task is to "operate along the coast" in conditions of weak coastal defense and relatively low activity of enemy aircraft. It is foolish to say that a microscope is bad because it is inconvenient for them to hammer in nails.
  35. KAVTORANG -II
    0
    19 August 2014 13: 24
    Quote: Krang
    Active reactive 155mm shells.

    Quite right. And there are no problems at all to stick "Harpoons" on it - easy installation (usually 2x4 is reserved), connectors for connecting to power supply and CIUS. Voila - RCC is available. Only, IMHO, it is not his business to measure up with such pussy, for this, and cheaper "iron" in bulk.
  36. +1
    19 August 2014 13: 37
    Repeating the story of F22, expensive and not effective
  37. +4
    19 August 2014 13: 40
    Quote: Reasonable
    But will he not bury his nose in a storm?

    It will be mandatory, but here everything is interpreted about some kind of tightness. In addition to getting water inside, there are other problems. For example, the margin of safety of superstructures to deal with the impact of waves during a storm. Can you imagine such an iron going towards a storm wave? ETOGES is not a submarine. The hull is completely non-seaworthy. For a calm sea. Americans have seen enough of their own science fiction films. But of course it looks impressive, it’s not a pity to give even 100500 bags of money.
    1. +2
      19 August 2014 14: 25
      Quote: a-cola
      For example, the margin of safety of superstructures to deal with the impact of waves during a storm.

      Do you really think that it was designed by suckers who bought diplomas? So this is the other way!
    2. +3
      19 August 2014 14: 43
      He took his 200-300 tons of water on an empty (note) tank, they will not reach the superstructure - far, the hull does not rise to the wave - thus. energy of translational motion is saved - it is not translated into potential energy of ascent to the wave - and indeed, the wave is pierced. If you remember, France is considering the option of a semi-submerged "Spruence", this, of course, not "Zumvalt", but the general idea and "trend" now is such that open decks (spaces) are empty and the presence of a person does not require and even exclude.
      So, I think the architecture of Zumwalt is well thought-out, albeit strange at first glance.
      And already familiar from us, when the entire deck is clogged with various weapons, it differs fundamentally.
      But we are also moving towards this, I think, this is only a matter of time and expediency for the northern conditions ...
    3. +3
      19 August 2014 15: 49
      Quote: a-cola
      But of course it looks impressive, it’s not a pity to give even 100500 bags of money.

      The $ 300 million Russian Zamvolt, designed by Philippe Starck and Martin Francis and built by Blohm & Voss at the HDW shipyard in Kiel. The yacht was ordered in November 2004 and delivered to the customer in 2008. The yacht has a length of 119 meters and a displacement of 6000 tons, making it one of the largest yachts in the world.
      11

      2

      3


      Quote: a-cola
      Americans have seen enough of their own science fiction films.

      For example, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, filmed after the Zuma bookmark ... -
      1

      2

      33
    4. Hawk2014
      0
      20 August 2014 21: 16
      Quote: a-cola
      The hull is completely non-seaworthy.

      For that matter, American ships have always lagged behind the "British" in seaworthiness. But this had little effect on their activities. Because in the regions in which the American navy prefers to operate, severe storms are rare. These waters are popular tourist areas.
  38. +3
    19 August 2014 13: 50
    Regarding automation. At the beginning of the distant 70s of the last century, nuclear submarines of the 705 Ave. with a crew of 29 people were built in series in the USSR. Despite the fact that 29 people were at the request of the naval leadership, the developers developed a system for the crew in 16 (!!!!!) people. And here Zumwalt was not impressed.
    1. Hawk2014
      0
      20 August 2014 21: 23
      Quote: qwert
      Regarding automation. At the beginning of the distant 70s of the last century, nuclear submarines pr.705 with a crew of 29 people were built in the USSR in series. Despite the fact that 29 people were at the request of the naval leadership, the developers developed a system for a crew of 16 (!!!!!) people. And then Zumwalt was not impressed

      It is absurd to compare a submarine to a surface ship. Submarines from the very beginning of their development had small crews. It should be compared with surface ships of equal displacement. While "Zamvolt" is "breaking the record".
  39. KAVTORANG -II
    0
    19 August 2014 13: 53
    Quote: a-cola
    It will be mandatory, but here everything is interpreted about some kind of tightness. In addition to getting water inside, there are other problems. For example, the margin of safety of superstructures to deal with the impact of waves during a storm. Can you imagine such an iron going towards a storm wave? ETOGES is not a submarine. The hull is completely non-seaworthy.

    It is not useless to give links even to what has already been discussed on Topvar.
    "... AND OURS are more beautiful and at least push yourself here"
    Especially for you, I spent 3 minutes to find and three more posts to do:
    "...X-BOW developed by the Norwegian company Ulstein. The Ulstein Group is a family-owned company that has been involved in ship design for over 100 years.
    The unique and environmentally friendly design of the X-BOW hull provides significantly higher ship speeds in adverse weather conditions, and also provides more economical fuel consumption (7-16% depending on speed and weather conditions). The shape of the nose provides a soft entry into the wave, thereby reducing loss of speed, vertical and side accelerations, as well as eliminating the dynamic shock and vibration associated with conventional nose contours. The first ship with X-BOW was built in 2006 (Bourbon Orca), since then the seas and oceans plowed more than 40 ships with the bow of the X-BOW design ....
    Advantages of the X-BOW design:
    - Increased cruising speed in calm water due to low entry angles and increased length along the waterline
    - Lack of a nasal bulb improving safety when towing and mooring
    - Smaller vertical and airborne accelerations
    - Reduced noise and nose vibration due to soft wave entry
    - Less spray
    - Slightly hit "green water" (aggressive sea water) on the deck and bridge
    - The working deck and deck equipment are better protected due to the greater width of the hull
    - Increased cruising speed under adverse weather conditions, which leads to a decrease in energy consumption and / or high fuel efficiency at sea
    The design of X-BOW is patented in Norway, Russia, Singapore, Ukraine, the USA and Vietnam.
    "
    1. +1
      19 August 2014 15: 08
      Add:
      In the case of the Zuma, the X-BOW design is not so obvious and "pronounced", due to the need to provide the ship with high speed.
      Those. nasal contours are not rounded, because you do not need to save length, you do not need a tank developed upwards, etc. - the ship is a military one, the approaches to the design are different.
      So, we have a "degenerate" principle of "X-BOW" applied to a high-speed and military ship.
    2. +2
      19 August 2014 19: 55
      It is clear about the advantages, although something is controversial. And where are the disadvantages? Or did humanity in its development of shipbuilding, come to the conclusion that the ancient Roman triremes were unique? , always and at different times, was used by naval sailors for one purpose - TARAN. Remember the French "Dupuis de Lom", that crowbar lol .And for seaworthiness, in stormy conditions, the best stem is the "clipper nose". That is right in the first paragraph and it is indicated - in calm water. We will assume that seasickness does not threaten the crew of the "Zumvolt", since this ship will be used exclusively in calm, well, or stationary in the roadstead, - to frighten distant countries, if it swims.
      By the way, the American openwork masts installed on their battleships, at the beginning of the twentieth century, did not take root in our fleet ("Andrew the First-Called", "Emperor Pavel 1"), - the vibration annoyed us, we had to cut down and put up one-timber makeshift, so they entered the First World War. And how unusual and beautiful this innovation looked on the ships, and the recognition is excellent, it is immediately clear whose ship is in the port. The Americans even hung watches on the foremast, probably so that the entire base or port could be checked on them, it was practical.
      Please, the most "invisible" ship of the late 19th century. Nomination "Who has a longer nose."
  40. +7
    19 August 2014 14: 11
    Quote: patsantre
    According to official figures, she will be able to beat on 180 km. From where the figure in 100 km in the article is a mystery. How it will be in reality is also unclear.

    And again, I'm not impressed. Why? Yes, here's why:
    "In the post-war period, the MP-10 test site was used to test various unique artillery systems and ammunition, many of which are still classified. For example, in 1941-1951 an experimental swinging part of the SM-10 was tested from the MP-33 installation. from the 305-mm installation SM-31. Such installations were intended for heavy cruisers of Project 82.
    The SM-31 gun had the best ballistic data in the world. When firing a conventional armor-piercing or high-explosive projectile weighing 467 kg, the initial speed was 950 m / s, and the firing range was 53 km. And when firing a long-range projectile weighing 230,5 kg, the initial speed and range were 1300 m / s and 127 km, respectively. "
    In the far-off 1951 year before, the USSR was shot from a naval gun (prepared for serial production) with shells at 127km. At the same time, the shells were not active-reactive. Those. if you sacrifice power like the Americans for the sake of range, then from this system the middle of the last (!!) century you can fire with active-rocket shells at 180km.

    Quote: patsantre
    Manned there is also provided.

    And why are they silent about this? Like I said because drones are in vogue now? in a word, eyewitness in the style of the epic F-22. I'm not trying to throw hats, I'm just glad that the railgun didn't work out. And I am glad that the Americans sincerely believe in stealth technology and thump money in them. "White elephants" in the American navy are better for us than mass series of "workhorses"
    Quote: patsantre
    There cannot be a priori invisibility, but hydroacoustic stealth is quite realized there.

    Given the howl of turbines emitting dozens of megawatts of power, I think that I had to tinker with sonar stealth. I am sure that this led to an increase in displacement by a thousand or two tons. But I'm sure that he was hardly much quieter than Arly Burke.
    In addition, the electromagnet background, from such an amount of generated electricity cannot but leave a trace. It should be touched by a magnetometer with IL-38. Perhaps this will give a worse result than the aircraft’s onboard radar.
    1. KAVTORANG -II
      +1
      19 August 2014 15: 05
      And you can ask. Where did you get the data? I discovered Shirokorada - I’m not a warhead-2, it’s excusable to me. But it hurts all smoothly in your presentation.
      At Shirokorad p. 973-975:
      "... In 1948 the ballistic barrel SM-31-1 was manufactured. In 1949-1951 the ballistic barrel was shot at Rzhevka from the MP-10 polygon machine.
      In 1951 the Barricades plant manufactured the first swinging part and carried out its factory tests. In 1952 the plant handed over five, and in 1953 six swinging parts of the SM-33 .... in May 1953, an order was received to stop work on the SM -31 ...
      The long-range projectile of drawing 5219 has not been tested. "
      1. 0
        20 August 2014 10: 18
        I did not talk about the so-called 5219 missile. It was about the caliber
    2. -2
      19 August 2014 22: 13
      Quote: qwert
      And why are they silent about this?

      He didn’t go far, opened the wiki and saw there
      group 1 × helicopter SH-60 LAMPS
      3 × UAV MQ-8 Fire Scou
      Quote: qwert
      Given the howl of turbines emitting dozens of megawatts of power, I think that I had to tinker with sonar stealth.

      Given the full electric movement, he became much quieter than any other ship. The nuclear installation of submarines, for example, is much louder.
  41. 0
    19 August 2014 14: 18
    The pictures show (3D graphics) how this product of the American shipbuilding "cool" shoots and fires rockets. But! On calm water! Not a specialist, but the contours of the hull will lead to the fact that with a more or less decent sea (ocean) excitement above 4 points, this ship will be flooded with water so that nothing from its bowels will be able to spit out due to fear of being flooded inside with a la Hollywood short circuits, sparks and other disastrous sequels. Yes, and the seaworthiness of a three-billion-dollar poverty with such a hull, God forbid, that it was within 5 points of excitement. They will exploit it on the Great Lakes? so and there waves happen ...
    1. Hawk2014
      0
      20 August 2014 21: 30
      Quote: nnz226
      with more or less decent waves of the sea (ocean) above 4 points, this ship will be flooded with water ...

      In those waters where "Zumwalt" is supposed to be used, pleasure yachts float calmly and are not flooded with any waves. It is unlikely that a battleship will have problems where inflatable boats have no problems!
  42. +1
    19 August 2014 14: 26
    Should pay attention to an unusually high
    energy equipment Zumvolta. Several times higher
    than ordinary ships. It can generate electricity
    for long-term operation of electro-guns and powerful lasers.
    1. +1
      19 August 2014 14: 55
      in Russia, work is underway on explosive generators to transform the energy of an explosion into an electromagnetic pulse, which can later be used in a railgun.
      1. +1
        19 August 2014 15: 26
        I think this is the right direction. Electricity instead of explosives.
        Zumvolt will be the platform for such futuristic systems.
        On ships, this removes the eternal nightmare of sailors - getting into
        in the powder cellar / shell depot. No storage - no detonation.
        1. +1
          19 August 2014 18: 09
          Failure of generators - and any karabel stuffed with "laser flashlights" with its team becomes "passive spectators" ...
          One of the modern concepts of naval combat in relation to ships of this class is the early detection of targets and "the devastation of OWN powder magazines."
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Should pay attention to an unusually high
          energy equipment Zumvolta. Several times higher
          than ordinary ships. It can generate electricity
          for long-term operation of electro-guns and powerful lasers.

          Again PR "raw" technologies? For what purpose? To attract rich, naive and dumb buyers ...
          The main difficulty of modern "phaser lasers" is aiming accuracy and beam retention time on the target.
          You can imagine how difficult it is to realize even on earth, and with the smallest excitement, the angle of deviation / amplitude of the beam becomes indecently huge ...
          1. 0
            19 August 2014 19: 22
            "The main difficulty of modern" phaser lasers "is accuracy
            aiming and holding time of the beam on the target "///

            As far as I know, there are no problems with pointing accuracy.
            Time for "burning" and power - yes, there are problems.
            The laser is not an "armor-piercing" weapon, not an all-weather weapon, and only in a straight line
            acting. These are the cons.
            But it’s very fast (speed of light!), Adjustable in power
            depending on the purpose and not explosive.
            1. +1
              20 August 2014 13: 21
              Specialists of the Shvabe holding (part of Rostec Group of Companies) have developed a laser gun for ice cutting and are currently testing it, said Sergey Maksin, general director of the holding, on RIA Novosti on Friday.
              “We created a ship's laser for exploring the Arctic. There is a difficult ice situation, while platforms work, and ships must pass. A peculiar laser cannon is put in, ice is cut like a glass-cutter, then the ship pushes it with its weight, ”Maxin explained during the Oboronexpo exhibition.
              According to him, the laser gun is currently installed on the icebreaker and is being tested. At the same time, the laser can also notch the ice going to the oil and gas producing platforms in the Arctic seas, making it easier to crack.
              “If the tests are successfully completed, then it will be possible to put laser systems on light ice-class vessels to provide Northern delivery through Siberian rivers, where the ice is thinner. We plan to conduct all tests this winter and from 2015 we can expect the first deliveries, ”added Maxine.
              And here we are going to cut ice with a laser and we’ll be healthy
              1. 0
                20 August 2014 19: 25
                Good afternoon! Everything goes to the point where lasers begin to be introduced
                both in the army and in the citizen.
          2. 0
            19 August 2014 22: 15
            Quote: Ptah
            To attract rich, naive and dumb buyers ...

            Well, yes, the admirals do not understand their ships, or is it you ...
    2. 0
      20 August 2014 10: 21
      In addition, it can be used for laser cannons, anigilators, anti-gravity engines and powerful force fields. Do not forget about quasitron bison-photon superlight engines.
    3. +1
      20 August 2014 13: 10
      it cannot generate for long-term operation of high-power lasers. There you need a completely different power. For this, MHD generators stolen from a collapsing USSR are used. Railguns ... maybe not sure yet. the main plus is that it can constantly supply much more powerful electronic equipment.
  43. Crimea-nyash
    0
    19 August 2014 15: 23
    two saw something similar, on the basis of a catamaran, under the American flag, they said super-modern. stood in Panama, in the canal at the container berths. my opinion is shit. the excitement of more than 5 points for him is death. And even more so gusts of wind. generally not a seafarer. so by a lake or by a river.
  44. +2
    19 August 2014 17: 14
    Come on, you, a normal ship, who does not, that is not mistaken. But we need to intensify industrial and military espionage; other people's secrets are very interesting. In general, if we were to realize at least half of what we had invented ourselves, we would already be ahead of the rest.
  45. -4
    19 August 2014 17: 37
    ... this freak "floats" for a long time ... just because it looks like a piece of plastic go-in or an iron ...
  46. +2
    19 August 2014 18: 02
    Quote: KAVTORANG -II
    Quote: a-cola
    It will be mandatory, but here everything is interpreted about some kind of tightness. In addition to getting water inside, there are other problems. For example, the margin of safety of superstructures to deal with the impact of waves during a storm. Can you imagine such an iron going towards a storm wave? ETOGES is not a submarine. The hull is completely non-seaworthy.

    It is not useless to give links even to what has already been discussed on Topvar.
    "... AND OURS are more beautiful and at least push yourself here"
    Especially for you, I spent 3 minutes to find and three more posts to do:
    "...X-BOW developed by the Norwegian company Ulstein. The Ulstein Group is a family-owned company that has been involved in ship design for over 100 years.
    The unique and environmentally friendly design of the X-BOW hull provides significantly higher ship speeds in adverse weather conditions, and also provides more economical fuel consumption (7-16% depending on speed and weather conditions). The shape of the nose provides a soft entry into the wave, thereby reducing loss of speed, vertical and side accelerations, as well as eliminating the dynamic shock and vibration associated with conventional nose contours. The first ship with X-BOW was built in 2006 (Bourbon Orca), since then the seas and oceans plowed more than 40 ships with the bow of the X-BOW design ....
    Advantages of the X-BOW design:
    - Increased cruising speed in calm water due to low entry angles and increased length along the waterline
    - Lack of a nasal bulb improving safety when towing and mooring
    - Smaller vertical and airborne accelerations
    - Reduced noise and nose vibration due to soft wave entry
    - Less spray
    - Slightly hit "green water" (aggressive sea water) on the deck and bridge
    - The working deck and deck equipment are better protected due to the greater width of the hull
    - Increased cruising speed under adverse weather conditions, which leads to a decrease in energy consumption and / or high fuel efficiency at sea
    The design of X-BOW is patented in Norway, Russia, Singapore, Ukraine, the USA and Vietnam.
    "

    So you found the text in Google, but looked at the photo? This iron with x-bow has in common except the reverse inclination of the nose cut, and even then only in the upper part, and even then very approximately. All. For example, the iron has a bulb, the absence of which in the h-bow is considered an advantage in the text you cited. The yacht presented above has a collapse of the sides in the bow. The iron does not. On the contrary, he has a blockage. The h-bow, at least those that I saw, has a forecastle with a height of 15 meters or more, and here it is much lower. So this is not about h-bow at all. This iron will stick into the wave and try to pass it along the shortest distance))) Well, or most likely it will bypass the storms on the tenth road.

    P.S. And yet, what is your opinion? What remains of the firepower of the iron if for example one shell or rocket hits the side between the towers of the Civil Code. In general, or is it some kind of garbage and not a warship or one of two ...
  47. 0
    19 August 2014 18: 47
    I read the article, read the comments, and came to the conclusion that the Americans built another super expensive crap in order to hammer the Papuans. Interestingly, North Korea as a testing ground for such ships? Or, those obsessed with the idea of ​​Joohe he can send him some kind of communist answer to imperialism. All this is show off and only. Beautifully, futuristically super expensive and super modern. Missing Joe Vader and Captain America on board. And so it is.
    1. 0
      19 August 2014 19: 51
      Quote: UNCLE
      that americans built another super expensive crap

      also visited such an idea. Likewise with B-2 - terribly expensive and vulnerable. So it seems here. One Onyx missile and 3 billion tanks are sinking.
  48. The comment was deleted.
  49. The comment was deleted.
  50. +1
    19 August 2014 20: 14
    The body and contours look fantastic. The question is to find an asymmetrical answer to this miracle. In order to nullify its possibilities, these billions were thrown to the wind. An example with a stealth plane, which the Yugoslavs shot down with ancient radar and air defense missile systems. winked
    So we are waiting for a smart head in our Navy!
    1. 0
      19 August 2014 23: 46
      Quote: xomaNN
      The question is to find an asymmetric answer to this miracle.

      Modernization of the nuclear submarine "Akula" pr.941 for cruise missiles, you can add the function of a minelayer.
      1. dzau
        0
        20 August 2014 02: 05
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Modernization of the nuclear submarine "Akula" pr.941 for cruise missiles, you can add the function of a minelayer.

        Hope ...
      2. 0
        20 August 2014 18: 11
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Modernization of the nuclear submarine "Akula" pr.941 for cruise missiles, you can add the function of a minelayer.

        Who puts the cons, maybe at least give an argument, otherwise it is not clear that I do not like my profile picture?
  51. 0
    19 August 2014 20: 15
    Well, at least this “iron” can be removed in the next Hollywood craft, like the previous “coffin”, at least it will be of some use or scare the Somali pirates (if it “swims”).
    1. 0
      19 August 2014 21: 49
      Quote: GOGY
      at least what good or to scare the Somali pirates (if it “swims”

      There is no need to scare anyone with this SHIP, because it is by definition not a ship. With the lack of weapons.
      Surface ship "Sea Shadow" IX-529 is an experimental vessel joint development of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Lockheed Martin Corporation for the US Navy. The ship was built in 1985 at the Lockheed shipyard and was made using stealth technology.

      Sea Shadow development program was started back in the mid-80s. Its main task was to study various hull shape technologies, study a new concept for controlling the ship and equipment, as well as the introduction of automated reconnaissance systems aimed at reducing the size of the ship's crew. Development was carried out in the strictest secrecy, so only in 1993 the creation was made available to the public during sea trials and testing of the main systems.

      http://shaon.livejournal.com/188132.html
  52. 0
    19 August 2014 20: 19
    Let's sink! He is not the first, and he will not be the last!
    1. +1
      20 August 2014 05: 57
      did our fleet sink many destroyers? cruisers? aircraft carriers?
      1. Victor-cort
        0
        21 August 2014 10: 42
        Quote: Tlauicol
        did our fleet sink many destroyers? cruisers? aircraft carriers?

        Well, at least one aircraft carrier in the USSR was damaged... when a nuclear submarine stupidly surfaced under it laughing
      2. 0
        22 August 2014 03: 50
        I think enough! Since we can write about this, we need to sink more.
  53. +2
    19 August 2014 20: 36
    the ship is not bad, but the real effectiveness is in doubt, if you sink ships, then the anti-ship missile is clearly better and their carrier, at normal conditions there will be ice, if you work along the shore, then in general the smile of its fire performance and its shells, and is visible to everyone, neutralizing it will cost looks like 100 cheaper
  54. 0
    19 August 2014 22: 55
    new promising stealth destroyer DDG-1000 class Zumwalt (Zamvolt).
    And this low visibility will be enough to solemnly go to the bottom. Just like the F117 was enough to plop down from heaven to earth.
    1. -1
      20 August 2014 06: 02
      F117 was shot down at a line of sight distance of 13 km and a speed of 900-950 km/h. That's the whole secret. The rest of the time the air defense systems did not see them, even if they flew 30-40 km
      1. 0
        20 August 2014 22: 35
        F117 was shot down at a line of sight distance of 13 km and a speed of 900-950 km/h.
        The main thing is that he was shot down. The mattresses were in shock, the myth about their invulnerability was dispelled.
        The rest of the time the air defense systems did not see them, even if they flew 30-40 km
        We saw it, just as we saw it. What happened and how it happened is another matter. A special feature of the use of stealth in the military operation against Yugoslavia was their constant cover by electronic warfare aircraft. And this, dear, is the best evidence of the exaggeration of their invisibility for air defense systems.
        1. 0
          21 August 2014 06: 36
          The average person has no way of understanding that XNUMX Stealth is a visibility reduction technology, not an invisibility technology. A man puts on a camouflage suit and becomes less noticeable in the snow, in the forest... But he does not become invisible three steps away - however, no one laughs at him. As with any disguise.
          and shooting down a subsonic plane at a distance of optical visibility is like shooting down an airliner that you can see with the naked eye at an altitude of 11-12 km - pfft, that’s also an achievement for me
          1. 0
            22 August 2014 00: 54
            Ordinary people can't understand
            Sorry, dear, you are just a common man.
            That Stealth is a visibility reduction technology, not an invisibility technology.
            Are you saying this out of habit, or are you thinking of explaining it to people who know it perfectly well without you?
            A person puts on a camouflage suit and becomes less noticeable in the snow, in the forest... But he does not become invisible in three steps
            He turns out to be stupid and dead.laughing
            and shoot down a subsonic aircraft at optical visibility distance
            Dear, I repeat to you again and again, our old-style air defense system, namely the S-125 Pechora air defense system, detected F117 at a further distance than as you say: line of sight distance, this was evidenced by strong interference on the air.
            it’s like shooting down an airliner that you can see with the naked eye at an altitude of 11-12 km - pfft, that’s also an achievement for me
            What an achievement. Considering the powerful electronic warfare equipment deployed by the Amers, the anti-radar HARMs, the Serb brothers are just great! The Americans put in so much effort, so much money wasted, because stealth systems are very expensive, and despite all the tricks they are still shot down, the old ones are shot down Short-range air defense systems. As they say: the Americans, after making too much effort, just ended up with a fart!laughing
        2. Victor-cort
          +1
          21 August 2014 10: 45
          Quote: Venier
          The main thing is that he was shot down. The mattresses were in shock, the myth about their invulnerability was dispelled.

          Once a submarine shot down an airship, if you follow your logic, then a submarine is the best weapon for destroying airships :)
          1. 0
            22 August 2014 01: 17
            once a submarine hit an airship
            Many interesting, funny and even funny incidents happen in life, so what?
            if you follow your logic
            Are you sure that you are following it? In my opinion, you are following your own fantasies.
            then the submarine is the best weapon for destroying airships :)
            The best is not the best, but what can shoot down an airship is also not bad. In my discussion, with my opponent, we were talking about exactly what we were talking about. Namely, that old air defense systems, and this is very interesting, shoot down the newest, expensive, and the highly praised F117, which is very funny and even funny. That's it.
            1. Victor-cort
              0
              22 August 2014 19: 15
              Quote: Venier
              SAMs, and this is very interesting, shoot down the newest, expensive, and highly praised F117, which is very funny and even funny. That’s it.

              and I have an old sledgehammer, so it can kill any soldier in the most modern armor with one blow, isn’t it funny???
              1. 0
                22 August 2014 23: 24
                funny, is not it???
                True! Especially your bizarre way of reasoning. Dear, please don’t turn our air defense system, even if it’s old, into a slingshot. Have pity on the poor Americans, they were already in a bad way, but now they’ll feel completely worse when they learn that they were shot down not even from an old air defense system, but from an ordinary slingshot.laughing
  55. 0
    20 August 2014 06: 12
    To get a gunboat for $4 yards in the 21st century is the height of incompetence and inability to learn.
    The fact that the US Navy looked at this product, sighed, and ordered a dozen more Berks speaks for itself.
    1. -3
      20 August 2014 12: 03
      Go to your dvach, dear.
  56. -1
    20 August 2014 08: 01
    They've created another joke!
  57. Hawk2014
    +1
    20 August 2014 09: 17
    Quote: ehan
    It seems that the entire development of “military” thought boils down to the fact that all modern weapons should fight against the Papuans. ... After all, even the United States in the event of a global “conflict” will not be able to supply such expensive toys. The question is WHY are they being built at all? Against Syria, Iraq, North Korea? Not funny... Development of scientific ideas? More like drinking some dough...

    Such ships are NOT built for a global conflict, but for international “police operations.” That is, not against Syria and Iraq specifically, but against any country in the world, with the exception of Russia, China and India. To deter large states, there are ICBMs with nuclear warheads, and it is unlikely that anything more effective will be invented in the foreseeable future. But for adjusting the policies of small and medium-sized countries, the US Navy should be considered quite effective. It is extremely unlikely that the Yankees would have been able to destroy Iraq if they did not have a large surface fleet.
    As for the price of Zamvolts, for the USA $2 billion is not such a big amount. Well, as for developing scientific ideas and dividing the budget “pie”, these are different sides of the same “coin”. Two aspects of a single whole.
  58. 0
    20 August 2014 14: 39
    A destroyer at the price of an AIRCRAFT CARRIER fool , they can only build this way in the USA
  59. +1
    20 August 2014 14: 44
    As for the price of Zamvolts, for the USA $2 billion is not such a big amount. Well, as for developing scientific ideas and dividing the budget “pie”, these are different sides of the same “coin”. Two aspects of a single whole. 61 “destroyers” of the “Arleigh Burke” type (comparable in displacement to missile cruisers Project 58) built in a short time at a cost of each 2 billion dollars, and there are many more of the same improved ones in the project, this speaks of the capabilities of a power that, Unfortunately, you can’t throw your hats at us. “Peter the Great” and “Kuznetsov” are an excellent target. The nuclear cruiser Kirov was designed for 40 minutes of active combat, after which only AK-47s remained. Question: are such monsters needed or should we build a lot of small ones? About the balance of Water Area Protection (WAP) and the ocean zone for Russia.
  60. +1
    20 August 2014 19: 13
    Strange moment. The power plant is designed to generate large amounts of electricity for various weapons systems. Coupled with a huge displacement and considerable speed, we get huge fuel consumption. In this case, for gas turbines, which are the basis of the power plant. Why didn't they use nuclear weapons?!
  61. 0
    21 August 2014 15: 50
    Quote: Tlauicol
    F117 was shot down at a line of sight distance of 13 km and a speed of 900-950 km/h. That's the whole secret. The rest of the time the air defense systems did not see them, even if they flew 30-40 km

    First question. Will you see a plane at a distance of 13 km? Question two. Since when are missiles aimed using the eyes? Is it like an operator with binoculars sits on the street and points with a joystick?
    If this is a 125 complex, then it can only be aimed at the target using radar. Those. to a radar-tracked target. If it was fire from an air cannon, then the gun was a breakthrough one. Until now, in aviation, guns have been used at ranges of less than 3 km, but here they are as much as 13 km.
    Well, if the plane is shot down at a range of 13 km, this means that it began to accompany it at a range of 23 km. The missile was launched at a distance of 20 km. There is no other way. After all, the rocket, flying at a speed of 2M, covered 13 km. Well, during this time the plane will therefore fly twice as short, i.e. 7 km.
    1. 0
      21 August 2014 16: 49
      Raise your head up - do you see a passenger plane flying, drawing a stripe in the sky? It moves at an altitude of 11-13 km and is visible to the naked eye. F117 was flying at an altitude of 10 km, with a range of 13 km. The missiles (two) hit him after 17 seconds (how far did he travel during this time?)
      The target was taken for tracking at a distance of 14 km (total), detected 23 km from the launcher and periodically disappeared from the radar (although it was approaching). If it had flown 25 km (like all these days), it would not have been detected at all
      It is clear that they aimed the radar - the fact is that at 15 km they could not take the low-speed Stealth for escort. In this case, the target was tracked in the infrared (IR) subrange of optical waves according to the Philips thermal imager (optical range)
      Result: we saw a ninja, or a man in a camouflage suit, three steps away from us and struck. HOORAY ! Stealth Bullshit!
  62. 0
    26 August 2014 18: 35
    Do you remember the super modern stealth F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia. I'm afraid that this super smart vessel will also be sunk by a ship from the 1970s
  63. waggish
    0
    6 September 2014 16: 53
    Unbelievable ship!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"