Military Review

US may refuse to build the third Zamvolta

106



The Pentagon announced its intention to stop building the third destroyer of the Zamvolt series.

According to a common statement, the US defense department initiated a revision at the shipyard “General Dynamics”, the results of which will decide on the further fate of the destroyer USS Lindon B. Johnson. The degree of readiness of the destroyer exceeds 40%, but at the Pentagon they are sure that it is more profitable to cut the ship now than to lower it into water and put it into operation. A radical decision will help to save over the next few years 1,5 — 2 billion dollars, which can be directed to other immediate needs.

Opponents of this decision - employees of the shipyard and senators from the state of Maine - argue the opposite: the rejection of construction will result in the loss of a first-class warship in exchange for dubious savings. Further, there are obvious things about the loss of jobs, the payment of penalties and the negative consequences for local business.

The program “Zamvolt” came to its natural finale. The ambitious plans to build the 32 stealth destroyers of the new generation were adjusted to seven, and then to just three experimental ships.

But long before the financial ground gnashed at the bottom of the Zamvoltov, the Pentagon started talking about the dubious combat effectiveness of these floating pyramids. The sufferers turned out to be unarmed, in addition, there are concerns about its stability. The unusual Δ-shaped hull with a massive high superstructure inspires mistrust to those who will serve on this destroyer. As the calculations showed, there are unfavorable conditions under which the super-ship can ... easily tip over (high wave from the aft angles). The creators of “Zamvolta” deny all the accusations and, paraphrasing the joke about the blind-sighted rhino, answer that with such dimensions it is not his problem. The probability of meeting with a dangerous wave is less than death in battle.

By the way, about the sea battles. Admirals express bewilderment about the tactics of using stealth destroyers.

Their number is too small to form a uniform impact connection. When operating as part of the squadron, the strike power of the Zamvolta dissolves against the background of numerous “ordinary destroyers”. At the same time, no one would risk sending the “golden ship” to a single raid to the shores of the enemy. With any absence of constructive protection on board!

"Zamvolt" is designed to remain unobtrusive to the enemy. But there are situations when a fight is inevitable.


After all, it is not known whether the 140 man would have enough strength to extinguish fires, quickly fill up holes and fight for the survivability of a huge destroyer.

In general, typical “white elephants” fleet. Overly expensive technical masterpieces with outstanding characteristics, but in the absence of any possibility / need to put them into practice.

US may refuse to build the third Zamvolta


Rocket artillery stealth destroyer of the type “Zamvolt”.

KVL length - 180 meters.
Displacement - 14 500 tons.
Staff crew - 140 people. (if necessary - up to 200).

Armament:

- 80 launch cells for the storage and launch of Tomahawk CDs, Asrok-VL anti-submarine missiles, ESSM short-range anti-aircraft missiles (4 in one cell);

- two automatic 155 mm guns AGS with 920 ammunition shells. 12 shots / min - flurry of fire! When approaching the coast by 100 km, the fire density of the Zamvolt exceeds the wing of the aircraft carrier Nimitz;

- two automatic 30-mm guns for self-defense in the near zone;

- an air group of a multi-purpose helicopter and three Scout Fire drones, the Zamvolta landing platform is designed to accept heavy helicopters - up to Chinook.

Additional features: the most powerful in stories Rolls-Royce MT-30 ship gas turbines. Full electric movement (reduced acoustic visibility, the ability to redirect all the generated energy to power railguns). Dock camera for high-speed boats. Propellers in ring nozzles-fenestrons, a system for supplying bubbles to the underwater part of the hull, coupled with specific contours. This makes the wake of the “Zamvolt” difficult to distinguish from space. The widespread introduction of technology "stealth": the heads of missile guidance is more difficult to detect such a goal against the background of the sea. The task is especially complicated in a storm - due to the specific bow of the “Zamvolt” it does not rise on the wave, but cuts it like a giant knife. Due to which constantly hidden among the water shaft.

Finally, the global automation of the destroyer, achieved primarily by increasing the turnaround time of all units and systems. Now the destroyer will be serviced exclusively in the base, at the end of the campaign.

Detection tools - a multifunctional SPY-3 radar with three fixed AFAR, performing the role of surveillance radar, horizon tracking radar, navigation radar, artillery fire control radar and multi-channel radar target illumination (dozens of simultaneously illuminated and fired air targets in any chosen direction).

He alone is stronger than most of the fleets of the world. The Zamvol lacks only satanic pentagrams on board. Then, the floating pyramid will be able to move through the worlds and turn into an absolute weapon.

Combat lasers and railguns

“Lyndon Johnson” is an independent subtype in the Zamvoltov family. This ship is created to demonstrate the most futuristic technology that goes beyond conventional guns and "stealth". Each "zamvolt" is designed for installing weapons on new physical. principles, but the real carrier will only be the last, the third destroyer of the series. “Lyndon Johnson” can be the first ship in the world armed with an electromagnetic railgun.

Due to financial disasters, the third Zamvolt has a number of unplanned constructive differences from the first two destroyers.

In connection with the transfer to the category of pure strike ships, all Zamvolts under construction since 2011 have been forcibly deprived of the missile defense function. The rejection of the SPY-4 radar in the project of a distant review greatly reduced the so-called. “Top weight” and created an unplanned reserve of stability.



In this situation, the add-in “L. Johnson ”was decided to make of cheap structural steel - in contrast to the“ Zamvolta ”and“ Michael Monsura ”, whose“ tower ”in order to save weight built using composites. How will this decision affect the level of conspicuity of the stealth destroyer? There are no developer comments on this.

Epilogue

Despite the complete collapse of the Zamvolt program, massive construction of obsolete Orly Burk destroyers continues across the ocean. Time-tested warships with 90 rocket mines and the Aegis air defense system.

In March, 2015 of the year, the 63 th destroyer “John Finn” was launched, referring to the IIA “Restart” subseries. Among the main features are the upgraded Aegis modification for missile defense missions, a promising mine detection system in the water column and a system of protection against bacteriological weapons.

Author:
106 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. PlotnikoffDD
    PlotnikoffDD 26 October 2015 07: 00
    12
    Here's how to properly manage the budget! First, they received money during construction, then during disposal.
    1. PAM
      PAM 26 October 2015 16: 07
      +7
      our "clever men" are even cooler, they did not get it, and then they received it again from another customer and solemnly handed it over. So, that ugly creatures are officially enough to steal in the highest circles here and there.
      1. Dmitry_24rus
        Dmitry_24rus 26 October 2015 21: 19
        +4
        Even more annoying is the huge number of "Orly Burke" .. This is how many tens (or hundreds) of times amers have more cruise missiles with their proven effectiveness? I am a patriot, but our lag in real ships with Caliber is depressing.
        1. Cresta999
          Cresta999 28 October 2015 20: 20
          +1
          Given that they have a fleet budget that is almost twice as large as the budget of our entire army, there is nothing to be surprised about.
  2. Mera joota
    Mera joota 26 October 2015 07: 22
    +2
    Despite the complete collapse of the Zamvolt program, the massive construction of obsolete Orly Burke destroyers continues overseas.

    When someone claims that something is outdated, it is implied that it is outdated in relation to something new. And what is new in the world in relation to what are Burke obsolete?
    In March 2015, the 63rd destroyer John Finn, which belongs to the new IIA sub-series Restart, was launched. Among the main features are the updated Aegis modification for missile defense, a promising system for detecting mines in the water column and a defense system against bacteriological weapons.

    And that's not it. September 25, 2015 Large-scale modernization of Ticonderoga-class URO cruisers has begun under the CG Phased Modernization Program, the USS Cowpens (CG-63) and USS Gettysburg (CG-64) have already delivered
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 07: 27
      -1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      what is outdated in relation to something new. And what is new in the world in relation to what are Burke obsolete?

      Zamvolt
      Quote: Mera Joota
      And that's not it.

      The 21th destroyer Delbert Black (DDG-2015) was laid down on 119 July XNUMX
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 October 2015 08: 45
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Zamvolt

        In my opinion, Zamwalt is like a concept car at the Detroit auto show, a step into the future that will never be made. And so he became. He is not even a "white elephant", but an experienced ship, two copies are enough ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The 21th destroyer Delbert Black (DDG-2015) was laid down on 119 July XNUMX

        Duc because it is the best there is.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2015 08: 53
          +3
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Duc because it is the best there is.

          There is much better

          Burke subseries 3 (planned 20 + ships, starting with 2018 g.). And there is AMDR
          with AFAR, and a centimeter radar tracking the horizon, and other goodies.

          British "Daring" with PAAMS-S, as well as its French and Italian twins (Horizon)

          Japanese "Akizuki"
          1. mvg
            mvg 26 October 2015 23: 01
            +1
            And there is also South Korean versions of "Burk"
      3. lelikas
        lelikas 26 October 2015 15: 54
        0
        Here is the answer to the last article, and why didn’t anyone believe that everything would end before it started and that these wunderwaffles would repeat the fate of all previous waffles? wink
        1. Throw
          Throw 26 October 2015 20: 36
          0
          Ehh .. albeit a suppostatsky waffle, but sorry ..

          Beautiful boat, stylish ..

          Drank some money, bought it, demolished a superstructure, put a keel with a mast - such a yacht would have turned out .. repeat wassat
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 29 October 2015 21: 11
            +1
            Quote: Lance
            Beautiful boat, stylish ..

            Well, yes, sample 1862 CSS "VIRGINIA" aka former "MERIMMAK"
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 26 October 2015 11: 54
      +1
      Quote: Mera Joota
      When someone claims that something is outdated, it is implied that it is outdated in relation to something new. And what is new in the world in relation to what are Burke obsolete?


      For me, the British is the most interesting destroyer. They would replace UVP with MK for axes.

  3. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 26 October 2015 07: 23
    14
    floating iPhone suffered the fate of flying (f-35)? iPhones thing is not durable ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 October 2015 18: 28
      +3
      Quote: Russian Uzbek
      floating iPhone suffered the fate of flying (f-35)? iPhones thing is not durable ...

      Another soap horror story from the Americans, like Sivulf, like the F-35, like the SOI, and so on ... Concepts of application have not yet been invented for such ships, and the technical level is such that: A-they are very expensive, B - insufficiently equipped with everything that, in theory, should be on it (due to the insufficient level of technology).
  4. Lyapis
    Lyapis 26 October 2015 07: 24
    +3
    Honestly, it will be a pity if the project is closed. Sailing is really breakthrough (in terms of technology) and very beautiful ships. But, apparently, they appeared too early ... request
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 26 October 2015 08: 48
      +2
      Quote: Lyapis
      But, apparently, they appeared too early ...

      No. Just in time. It just didn't turn out exactly what they wanted. No matter how grotesque they are about Zamwolt, the Americans are not standing still, taking into account the mistakes made, they will in any case give out what the whole world will look back at.
      1. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 23: 08
        0
        The Yankees build successful versions of projects in megaseries ... Let us recall the Second World War and 22 aircraft carriers, or a hundred destroyers. A dozen "Nimits", 80 "Berks", 2 and a half dozen "Tikanderog", so in "twenty" new, improved "Zamvolts" will go, a series of about 50 ..
        What other country can afford such a series of ships? 8-10, and even then, a maximum of frigates ...
        "Northwind" is unlikely to be more than 8 .. :-(
    3. tomket
      tomket 26 October 2015 09: 26
      +8
      Quote: Lyapis
      and very beautiful ships.

      EEEEEE .... Zamvolt beautiful ship ??? Apparently I do not understand anything in contemporary art ....
      1. Lyapis
        Lyapis 26 October 2015 09: 56
        +3
        Apparently I do not understand anything in contemporary art ....

        Well, apparently the way it is ... The taste and color of all the markers are different, after all.
    4. Hort
      Hort 26 October 2015 16: 01
      +2
      the felt-tip pens are different, yeah) I don’t think it looks pretty beautiful - an iron and an iron.
      In general, Russian ships always looked prettier, with predatory ones like dragrakars and rooks, contours :)
      1. Lyapis
        Lyapis 26 October 2015 17: 57
        0
        Once the steam dreadnoughts seemed ugly irons ...
        As for the Russian ships, in terms of appearance / design, they are no different (from the word absolutely) from American / Chinese / English or any other ships.
        1. Hort
          Hort 28 October 2015 14: 18
          0
          but no. look at the destroyers of the Udaloy class - they are handsome!) And the same Berks have a more straight side bevel.
    5. dumkopff
      dumkopff 26 October 2015 17: 06
      -1
      Beautiful ?! belay
    6. gladcu2
      gladcu2 26 October 2015 19: 48
      +1
      Lyapis

      Cool, of course.

      But apparently, the Americans felt that there was no necessary scope for such ships.

      Operations to turn governments into puppet using CIA methods are much cheaper.

      Ships are not relevant.
  5. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 26 October 2015 07: 26
    11
    Some time ago Oleg already wrote about the super-superfood of the zumvolt! What is a miracle, that there is no strength
    to deal with it, and all that jazz! Now, here's another writes ...
    Since some times, I come to the conclusion that there is no absolute weapon, and all these wunervaffe are in practice
    not worth a damn! Neither Fe-35, nor zumvolts, nor battleships with aircraft carriers, nor Mistral!
    Everything should be created in the required quantity, and with reasonable technical requirements!
    But the panacea in one thing does not exist!
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 07: 34
      -6
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      Some time ago Oleg already wrote about the super-superfood of the zumvolt! What is a miracle, that there is no strength
      to deal with it, and all that jazz! Now, here's another writes ...

      He alone is stronger than most fleets in the world.

      the coolest ship, the best of the fleet’s surface combat units to date
      but appeared clearly at the wrong time, the United States, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea
      1. AlNikolaich
        AlNikolaich 26 October 2015 09: 12
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        He alone is stronger than most fleets in the world.

        the coolest ship, the best of the fleet’s surface combat units to date
        but appeared clearly at the wrong time, the United States, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea

        Oleg! How can one speak of the best when this ship did not participate in any battle?
        All this is theorizing! No more.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2015 09: 16
          -3
          Quote: AlNikolaich
          when this ship did not participate in any battle?

          its analogues were involved
          and the results of their participation are known, show off, erase several states from the map


          Missile destroyer Cardiff after night shelling of the coast

          If Zamvolt had been in their place, it would have been even worse and more destructive. It does not have their disadvantages, but it has new advantages. Stealth, 6 'precision artillery, new detection and self-defense
          1. GRAY
            GRAY 26 October 2015 14: 14
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If Zamwalt were in their place, he would have turned out to be even more terrible and destructive. It does not have their disadvantages, but it has new advantages. Stealth, 6 'precision artillery, new detection and self-defense

            Worse and more destructive? 6 inch crackers ... smile
            Why did they then “Missouri” with “Wisconsin” have written off, but in the 91st year they also shot well.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 October 2015 14: 23
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        the US, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea

        ... everything is right!
        So they will beat him in other areas, where he is comparable with the opponent ...
      3. dumkopff
        dumkopff 26 October 2015 17: 09
        +1
        "the United States has no equal rival at sea even in the long term."
        Hehe. The Britons in 1900 probably also thought so.
      4. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 23: 14
        0
        Oleg, 20 "Granites" Petka will land in a volley? Now, if it's real? And in order for 140 people and 10 billion tugriks to go to feed the fish, even one is enough .. And if 1 "Granit" with a bunch of bombs crashed about 50 kilometers from it to begin with, for "blinding"? There is a right for every "waffle".
      5. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 27 October 2015 00: 24
        -1
        There is "Ash".
  6. Same lech
    Same lech 26 October 2015 07: 55
    +8
    US even in the long run there is no equal rival at sea


    Why are you laughing .... it's just that the USA has not yet encountered a worthy adversary.

    Do you really think that the real enemy will fight according to the rules of the US Navy ... he will find a weak spot and impose his war on him.

    And the Americans really do not like to play by the rules of others, and as a rule they lose in spite of their military and technological advantage.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 08: 42
      -5
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      it’s just that the USA has not yet faced a worthy adversary.

      The Imperial Navy of Japan is objectively the world's strongest navy as of 1941. Traditions, valor, training, the best ships, the best admirals, ready for all suicide bombers. Destroyed by the U.S. Navy, with a loss ratio of 9: 1
      1. insafufa
        insafufa 26 October 2015 10: 31
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        it’s just that the USA has not yet faced a worthy adversary.

        The Imperial Navy of Japan is objectively the world's strongest navy as of 1941. Traditions, valor, training, the best ships, the best admirals, ready for all suicide bombers. Destroyed by the U.S. Navy, with a loss ratio of 9: 1


        Oleg just Matrasia riveted the ships faster than they were drowned by Germany and Japan combined
        And also Germany and Japan lost the battle in production, not one wunder wunder can compare with the number of 69 destroyers will be much stronger than 3 super cruisers
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2015 10: 34
          -2
          Quote: insafufa
          Matrasia riveted ships faster than they were drowned by Germany and Japan combined

          Mattress sank Japanese ships faster than Japan sank American

          The ratio of losses there is clearly not in favor of japs
          Quote: insafufa
          Japan lost the battle in production

          There were excellent ships on both sides of the ocean
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 October 2015 14: 57
            +6
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Mattress sank Japanese ships faster than Japan sank American

            The ratio of losses there is clearly not in favor of japs

            Hospital average, taking into account the "playing out" 44-45 (when the Yankees sank ships right in Japanese bases) - yes.

            But if we take specific time periods, then by 1943, even taking into account Midway, japs ​​won on the sunken. The situation with the same AB at USN was so bad that I had to rent HMS Victorious from the limes, calling it USS Robin.

            In the first half of 1943, the Yankees at the very least turned over, jumping to the next island within the radius of the base aircraft from the previous one. And then the American conveyor, launched back in 1941, reached the last position - "the first military campaign after crew training." And away we go ... 1 "big" AB in 2-3 months + 1 "independency" per month. And the AVE crowd is "dancing". smile
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 October 2015 12: 57
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The Imperial Navy of Japan is objectively the world's strongest navy as of 1941. Traditions, valor, training, the best ships, the best admirals, ready for all suicide bombers. Destroyed by the U.S. Navy, with a loss ratio of 9: 1

        Heh heh heh ... the whole joke is that then, to ensure dominance at sea, the Yankees did not build wunderschiffs - "zumwalts", but instead they serially riveted and cooked a lot of "middle peasants" - "burks".
        "Yamato", "Mogami", "Taiho", "Shinano", "zero", "Long Lance" - all these "Zumwalts" and "F-35" WWII were ground by "Essexes", "Clevelands", "Fletchers" , "Bristols", "Wildcat", "Lightning" and "Cobras" (the main losses were incurred by the elite of the IJN aircraft carrier pilots during operations from the land airfields of the Solomon Islands and later, when the Yankees flew just these three types of machines).
      3. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 23: 25
        0
        Again, Oleg, you, of course, are a fan of the Navy .. all the more in an alternative version of the story .. :-), but about the fleet .. what do you dislike about the British fleet or the American? Or are the super linkors Yamato and Musashi haunted? South Dakota is no worse, Wengards (though not 41 years old) are also more interesting ... plus a kueva cloud of destroyers and cruisers ..
        It's lazy to get into the wiki for a 41-year-old squad, but even in Pearl Harbor the fleet was VERY not weak .. and even the aircraft carrier formation decided to go on a "cruise" ..
        Yes, and the Japanese frankly did not succeed ..
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 11: 56
      -1
      Do you really think that fools are sitting at the helm of the US Navy?
  7. Alex_59
    Alex_59 26 October 2015 08: 00
    +6
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    but appeared clearly at the wrong time, the United States, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea

    Even in the distant retrospective, they have not had equal rivals at sea for 70 years already. Especially if we take into account NATO. This is such an "unparalleled in the world" American fleet.
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The coolest ship, the best of the fleet’s surface combat units to date
    What are the best criteria? Air defense is better with 1144, Nimitz has better combat capabilities and flexibility of use, missile defense is better with Burke, anti-ship volley again with 1144 will be more serious. Why is it the coolest? Artillery probably ...
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 08: 35
      -4
      Quote: Alex_59
      They and in the distant retrospective of equal rivals at sea have not had 70 years

      USSR Navy isn’t?
      Quote: Alex_59
      What are the best criteria?

      For everyone, Alex, who can only be

      Zamvolt - a masterpiece
      Quote: Alex_59
      1144 air defense is better

      it has not been updated for 20 years

      Zamvolt has such a combination of factors that none of the modern NKs have
      Quote: Alex_59
      Nimitz has greater combat capabilities and flexibility

      He is more than Zamvolta in 10 times)))
      Moreover, what tasks Zamvolt can perform and what technologies are inherent in this destroyer - Nimitz did not dream
      Quote: Alex_59
      Why is it the coolest?

      automation of all processes (loading of spare parts / ammunition / food), increased resource of all mechanisms, 140 man crew, turbines of 50 thousand hp, power plant scheme (electric ship - at the modern technical level), stealth, radars, new unexpected solutions , such as retractable antennas, fluffs, re-peripheral UVP, etc., etc.
      1. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 27 October 2015 00: 40
        0
        The higher the automation, the more useless the ship: to drown due to a hovering computer, or a banal cable break.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 26 October 2015 08: 48
      +8
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      USSR Navy isn’t?

      Nah.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      For everyone, Alex, who can only be

      The strongest argument. I convinced you to give up!
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      it has not been updated for 20 years

      And still delivers better than others. That's what they did! For centuries!
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      He is more than Zamvolta in 10 times)))

      You yourself have outlined a circle among whom he is the coolest - surface ships. Nimitz is not a submarine. What do you need?
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      automation of all processes (loading of spare parts / ammunition / food), increased resource of all mechanisms, 140 man crew, turbines of 50 thousand hp, power plant scheme (electric ship - at the modern technical level), stealth, radars, new unexpected solutions , such as retractable antennas, fluffs, re-peripheral UVP, etc., etc.

      Put together pretty commonplace technical solutions. How this makes him the best is unclear. Yes, a modern ship, no doubt. But why should we immediately kiss him in a hickey and prostrate? Fale already has three ships, and Berkov is a bunch. The German tank Mouse was also the coolest WWII tank. However, the German infantry, which was crushed by the ordinary T-34 in the trenches, did not warm this soul very much.
      And in general, then you write that Zamvolt was built by pests, then "only the stars are higher." Boring ...
      1. Santa Fe
        26 October 2015 09: 08
        10 th
        Quote: Alex_59
        Nah.

        What no if yes

        What could they oppose to such at the beginning of the 60's?
        And then only weight
        lee
        Quote: Alex_59
        The strongest argument. I convinced you to give up!

        Of course you are blown away, as usual
        Quote: Alex_59
        And still delivers better than others

        20 years of progress - for nothing

        Spy forms dozens of rays of illumination, planned for the Spy-4 project - this is generally a missile defense and targets in orbit of the earth, the creators of 1144 did not know this

        if you really like to compare 1144 - compare the number of shock weapons
        and at the same time secrecy in all ranges (radio / IR, acoustics, wake trace)
        Quote: Alex_59
        Nimitz is not a submarine. What do you need?

        Nimitz empty space without wing
        Quote: Alex_59
        Put together pretty commonplace technical solutions. How this makes him the best is unclear.

        a) solutions are largely non-banal. What are the contours of the case!
        b) the solutions incorporated in the Zwolvta require a non-banal level of development of science and technology
        c) how it makes it better - just obvious
        Quote: Alex_59
        Fail is already three ships

        he alone will perform more tasks than the entire Black Sea Fleet / Pacific Fleet

        that's the file.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 26 October 2015 09: 52
          +4
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          he alone will perform more tasks than the entire Black Sea Fleet / Pacific Fleet

          But will not tear? wink But what about "for every cunning ass there is .... with a screw"? Even if a non-versed person asks: is 2 "Zamvolta" cooler than 60 "Orly Burks"? Just go and catch them all 60 - we won't have enough underwater tray ... And for 2 pyramids, I think there will be one submarine each for guaranteed destruction. But in terms of the number of VP cells, "burks" are in no way inferior to "zamvolts". So it's not a fact that quality in this case is better than quantity. wink
          1. mvg
            mvg 27 October 2015 00: 35
            0
            I agree, quantity always beat quality ... For 2 thousand "Tigers" the Americans made 80 thousand "Shermans", and ours 40 thousand 34-ok ... and where are these cats now?
            And how many destroyers were built in WWII by amers? And the Essex ... And where are Yamoto, Musashi, and Shinano now?
        2. Seaman77
          Seaman77 26 October 2015 14: 41
          +7
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          a) solutions are largely non-banal. What are the contours of the case!


          About the contours:
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          The task is especially complicated in a storm - due to the specific bow of the Zamvolt, it does not enter the wave, but cuts it like a giant knife. Thanks to what is constantly hidden among the water shafts.


          Complete nonsense. Any wave will lift the ship to the crest, regardless of the contours.
        3. Alex_59
          Alex_59 27 October 2015 07: 08
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Of course you are blown away, as usual

          Not banging your head against a concrete wall is a sign of wisdom, not weakness :-))
  8. cormorant
    cormorant 26 October 2015 08: 23
    +4
    Ah, how glad I am ... Another project of American militarism was covered with a copper basin. Big ship - a big torpedo in the ass!
    1. Mera joota
      Mera joota 26 October 2015 08: 58
      +3
      Quote: cormorant
      Ah, how glad I am ... Another project of American militarism was covered with a copper basin. Big ship - a big torpedo in the ass!

      Do you naively believe that this is the finale of American shipbuilding? That they have come to a standstill and put a bold cross?
      I would understand your joy if something was built at our shipyards that could challenge the "project of American militarism" ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 October 2015 11: 18
      +4
      Quote: cormorant
      Ah, how glad I am ... Another project of American militarism was covered with a copper basin. Big ship - a big torpedo in the ass!

      In general, the termination of construction of Zamvolts is bad.
      It would be better if the Yankees built individual Wundershiffs, each subsequent of which would be different from the previous one - and then try with their help to ensure a presence in all areas of their vital interests. And they would cut the budgets (and equipment) for their construction of mass ships - "workhorses" of future conflicts. smile
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 55
        0
        Do not count the Yankees as fools.
    3. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 54
      0
      They at least do something, but failed ...
  9. Belousov
    Belousov 26 October 2015 08: 51
    -1
    Completion all the same. They are now more expensive than window dressing. "After all, there are wild Russians around, we must give them a worthy answer." Well, it would be necessary to cut too, the budget in the sense.
  10. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 October 2015 09: 31
    10
    I've read the article ... And the comments ... I got the impression that you, Oleg, almost have an orgasm not only with the appearance of "Zamvolt" but also with its characteristics lol
    Oleg, and HOW THE ARMOR ???? You should read, so high automation (because of which the crew is 140) and other bells and whistles should gobble up a percentage of the displacement, which would be better (based on your previous articles) for booking. Then it would be YOUR SUPER SHIP! laughing And so in your opinion it’s just super .... In many of your articles, you contradict yourself !!! And many of the logical arguments arising from this are trying to level off with a selection of other examples that may not fit into the evidence base.
    For me personally, "Zamvolts" are ordinary ships with their advantages (which the designers tried to lay on the basis of the order of the fleet) and disadvantages (which ANY ships have that are built with certain compromises) In our Navy, they had some kind of analogs of the nuclear submarine pr . 705. Automated, with a small crew, with their own advantages and disadvantages ...
    I can only advise you Oleg (although you do not ask me about this request ) take one thing into account, thanks to which your articles may become more interesting to read analytically and cognitively. And this thing is called COMPROMISE! Any ship is a compromise between applications and needs, the possibilities of the economy, between the acquisition of some characteristics and the deterioration of others, between size and cost ... ANY! It has always been this way !! When you realize this, then your articles will be more rational without any orgasms in your pants and fainting from unclear which van der wafers.
    It's time to grow up, Oleg ...
    Sincerely hi
    1. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez 27 October 2015 00: 56
      0
      Explain to me, amateur: isn’t the most secretive move for new submarines? And why should the surface trough be more secretive than the submarine? As for volley with cruise missiles: yes, it takes longer to launch a volley from the submarine, but it won’t fly into the return line. Moreover, the destroyer is larger than the cruiser and no reservation, no reservation at all! And most importantly, price! More expensive than 2 submarines.
      1. Santa Fe
        27 October 2015 04: 53
        -1
        Quote: Xsanchez
        Explain to me, amateur: isn’t the most secretive move for the new submarines

        PL and NK solve different problems

        NK - primarily air defense of compounds and convoys, everything else is secondary

        Zamvolt - it was decided to add the fire support function, 2 155 mm broads, 920 high-precision shells + missile arsenal, not a single submarine except exotic converted ohio will take so much

        And secrecy didn’t stop anyone
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 27 October 2015 19: 52
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          PL and NK solve different problems

          That lurks somewhere in the approximate area of ​​location (hypothetically wink ) of the multibillion-dollar "Zamvolta" (to calculate this area, knowing the length of the firing of guns, take, for example, for Vladivostok the problem will not be) Submarine, for example, pr.636 and BAM !!! laughing three pieces of torpedoes in the side !! 1 and in for ... sorry, one place that you favorite "Zamvolt"! Even if the submarine is drowned by possible security, the exchange does not roll for such a toy fellow wink
          Oleg, maybe enough nonsense to carry, trudging from these 2 art ??? I have repeatedly suggested being objective, rather than upart wink
          But the task of protecting the sea borders from such vessels can be submarines? smile
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 27 October 2015 19: 54
        0
        Quote: Xsanchez
        Explain to me, amateur: Isn’t the most secretive move for new submarines? And why should the surface trough be more secretive than the submarine?

        Never mind lol . The evidence base of your opponent is sometimes one-sided and does not consider the problem wider than it is worth it. wink
  11. Technologist
    Technologist 26 October 2015 09: 33
    -1
    two automatic 155 mm guns AGS with ammunition 920 shells. 12 rds / min. - a flurry of fire! When approaching the coast for 100 km, the density of fire "Zamvolta" exceeds the wing of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz"



    Is that guns hit 100 km ??? The author attributed the extra zero to the campaign)
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 09: 35
      0
      Quote: Technologist
      Is that guns beating at 100 km?

      100 miles



      fact sheet -
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/155-мм_артиллерийская_устано
      wka_AGS
      1. Technologist
        Technologist 26 October 2015 12: 37
        +2
        Did not know. Thanks for the information!
        1. Throw
          Throw 26 October 2015 20: 47
          0
          Hmm .. 35 tyr raccoons for the shell .. belay
  12. Ruslan
    Ruslan 26 October 2015 09: 40
    0
    I think the ugly ship. although on the technical side, he is good. I just don’t understand why it was impossible to do with the same armament as that of a berk. Why was it wise? nafig two art.towers? instead of one it’s better to put more missiles. what for a platform for chinook? I think when the Americans are going to change the ticonderogs, they will still come to simplification and make a mini-zumwalt.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 09: 44
      -4
      Quote: ruslan
      nafig two art.towers?

      guns are an indispensable thing
      Quote: ruslan
      instead of one it’s better to put more missiles.

      920 missiles? think fit?
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 26 October 2015 09: 54
        +2
        I did not say that guns are not needed, but one seems to me enough. and the place from the second can be divided between about 40 more missiles and increase the ammunition load of the first ay to 600-700.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2015 10: 23
          -3
          Quote: ruslan
          but one seems to me enough

          the density of fire will fall

          one of the most important advantages of art
          along with little dependence on weather conditions (sandstorm, fog, snow charge - fluffs hit at any time of the day or night), speed of reaction (a shell will arrive a minute after sending the request), almost complete immunity to enemy air defense, and the size of the ammunition and low cost of delivery of ammunition

          The Yankees have enough destroyers with UVP, the marines and sailors just wanted gunship with a hurricane density of fire - the entire 20 battery is shot. min., thanks to water-cooled barrels, AGS steam equivalent 12 land 155 mm
          1. Ruslan
            Ruslan 26 October 2015 11: 04
            +1
            I will stay at my place. It seems to me too fat for the money to rivet a simple art battery. it would be cheaper to adapt ags to the berks.
            1. Santa Fe
              26 October 2015 11: 16
              0
              Quote: ruslan
              too fat for the money to rivet a simple art. battery

              there is not a simple battery, but 15tys. ton ship
              Quote: ruslan
              it would be cheaper to adapt ags to the berks.

              was a real project - a fire support ship with AGS based on the transport of San Antonio
  13. igordok
    igordok 26 October 2015 10: 14
    +4
    Their number is too small to form a homogeneous impact joint. When operating in the squadron, the strike power of Zamvolt dissolves against the background of numerous “ordinary destroyers”. At the same time, no one dares to send a “golden ship” in a single raid to the shores of the enemy.

    How familiar. Paraphrase.
    Their number is too small to form a homogeneous impact joint. When operating in a squadron, the strike power of the “F-35” dissolves against the backdrop of the numerous “F-16”. At the same time, no one dares to send a “golden plane” in a single raid to the shores of the enemy.
    There must be a lot of them, both Zamvolta and F-35, otherwise they are not profitable. But "toys" are too expensive to risk.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 10: 30
      -9
      Quote: igordok
      When operating as part of a squadron, the strike power of “F-35” dissolves against the backdrop of numerous “F-16”

      fleet F-35 in the future will exceed the number adopted by f-16

      Quote: igordok
      At the same time, no one will risk sending a “golden plane”

      where did you get that golden

      For objective reasons, F-35A is cheaper any fighter generation 4 + and 5

      Are you surprised?
      1. _KM_
        _KM_ 26 October 2015 11: 53
        +5
        If the F-35A is cheaper, then why does everyone refuse to buy it and rely on the high cost of the car ???
      2. dokusib
        dokusib 26 October 2015 13: 28
        +4
        Do not drive olezh. lol more expensive than the F-35 is only the F-22. Although the modification of the F-35A is the cheapest of all three
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Andrey77
        Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 58
        0
        And who needs 5 generation fighters?
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 11
    0
    Three pieces their budget will pull. Three experimental innovation platforms
    on their huge Navy - fine. And the number can be Orly Burke
    catch up.
  15. PPD
    PPD 26 October 2015 11: 47
    +5
    Zamvolt’s problems were laid down by designers from the very beginning. Alas. Why does he need invisibility with tomahawks? If Harpoon were the main weapon, then yes! If he goes with other ships his invisibility is a dead poultice. And alone, as soon as he can act effectively no one dares to send him, expensive and terrible to lose. An artisan support ship with invisibility? wassat
    As about f 117 according to Zadornov: "Why invisible, he is flying (floating)."
    The range of tomahawks is up to 2500 km. Why would he hide from the radar from such a distance. What the devil invisibility. Ninja Damn.
    The ill-conceived ship.
  16. Taoist
    Taoist 26 October 2015 11: 50
    +5
    Yes, really "traded, had fun - counted, wept" ...

    The question is what for? Well, let's put "stealth technologies" - but the paradox is that you can't make a ship completely invisible, and such a shed, with all its super-super-contours, outrages a large number of physical fields anyway ... The fleet lives not only by radar.
    Armament? Also, in general, there is nothing special ... The artillery systems are certainly not bad - but why should they be used? Exclusively for the fight against the Papuans - because the very first attempt to shoot along the coast where there is a normal defense will end in failure. Because even the poorest anti-ship missile flies farther than the cannons shoot ... And when the cannons shoot, what kind of "stealth" is there?
    Artillery systems of "short-range defense" are not impressive at all - in any case, there are "non-projectile zones", not to mention the fact that a maximum of 2 simultaneously fired targets is not at all serious ... (with such dimensions it is)
    Well, if this ship was still built as a missile arsenal - then damn then 155mm guns then what for?

    so yes, "white elephants" in full growth.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 October 2015 12: 47
      +3
      Quote: Taoist
      The question is what for? Well, let's put "stealth technologies" - but the paradox is that you can't make a ship completely invisible, and such a shed, with all its super-super-contours, outrages a large number of physical fields anyway ... The fleet lives not only by radar.

      With an invisible ship there will be exactly the same problems as with an "invisible" aircraft.
      As soon as the ship needs to navigate in space or illuminate the air / surface situation (or just go on the air to receive data) - it will light up in the radio range like a beacon. Skunk Works struggled with this problem in relation to airborne communications and radar systems of stealth aircraft.

      The second problem of the "invisible ship" is just its stealth even for its own people. Because of this, the "lame goblin" had to hang reflectors on the "lame goblin" before the "Desert Storm", and during the operation itself - to allocate to him separate flight areas, closed to the rest - for the sake of ensuring flight safety and preventing collisions.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 26 October 2015 13: 03
        +2
        Well, with "invisible" planes, it's still easier ... There, invisibility is needed exactly until that moment to advance to the line of attack and not "stir up" the air defense. Then this is the tenth thing. Again, using passive sensors, in theory, stealth will detect the enemy earlier if he is actively searching ...
        But with ships it is worse ... you know the wrong speed, maneuver is also only in 2 planes, and while remaining in the "passive" mode, the detection horizon sharply narrows ... despite the fact that the ship will be heard ... and it can be seen (size has the meaning)

        Well, the Goblin was kept separate from normal aircraft so as not to frighten him ... he could hardly stay in the air anyway. ;-) In general, IMHO, of course, but it seems to me that the total fascination with "invisibility" is more of a fashion ... I understand for a scout - came silently, silently left ... And for a shock machine ...? I think that electronic warfare is more effective for anyone. If instead of targets you have one continuous exposure ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 October 2015 13: 21
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, the Goblin was kept separate from normal aircraft so as not to frighten him ... he could hardly stay in the air anyway. ;-) In general, IMHO, of course, but it seems to me that the total fascination with "invisibility" is more of a fashion ... I understand for a scout - came silently, silently left ... And for a shock machine ...? I think that electronic warfare is more effective for anyone. If instead of targets you have one continuous exposure ...

          So the "goblin" was made for 2 purposes:
          1. Breakthrough of the enemy's air defense and the destruction of key components of the military infrastructure in general and the air defense system in particular (radar, control and communications centers) - after which the air defense system collapsed into separate autonomous "islands", the effectiveness of which dropped by an order of magnitude.
          2. Economic exhaustion of the enemy - to compensate for the decrease in the EPR of strike vehicles, the enemy (read - the USSR) had to either multiply the number of conventional radars and air defense systems, or invest in work on unconventional means of detecting "invisible" (and then also equip them with the results of the air defense system ).

          Well, then they decided to lower the EPR in conventional machines. True, why reduce the EPR of a radar-emitting machine ahead of itself - Who knows?
  17. _KM_
    _KM_ 26 October 2015 11: 52
    +1
    Strange things. It seems that the developers were not limited by the price of the finished product and did everything to the maximum. This, of course, is good, but nobody has yet canceled the criterion of efficiency-value.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 12: 00
      0
      Exactly! And with us, and with them - it will not work. The state question will ask the first question - how much does it cost? And only then - TTX.
  18. 31rus
    31rus 26 October 2015 12: 22
    -3
    Dear, I can not vouch for the reliability, 50 submarines of the DPRK went into the "sea" and disappeared, after which there was a torpedo attack by an American dry cargo ship, 26 sailors, 22 Americans and 4 Poles were killed, the United States turned to Russia and China for help to search for submarines, coordinates the sinking of a dry cargo ship is twice the cruising range of North Korean submarines, but the fact is, the best fleet in the world is helpless against the "mosquito squadron", this is confirmed by the simulated attack on the US squadron, cheap and angry the squadron was destroyed, here's the conclusion
  19. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 13: 08
    0
    Quote: 31rus
    Dear, I can not vouch for the reliability, 50 submarines of the DPRK went into the "sea" and disappeared, after which there was a torpedo attack by an American dry cargo ship, 26 sailors, 22 Americans and 4 Poles were killed, the United States turned to Russia and China for help to search for submarines, coordinates the sinking of a dry cargo ship is twice the cruising range of North Korean submarines, but the fact is, the best fleet in the world is helpless against the "mosquito squadron", this is confirmed by the simulated attack on the US squadron, cheap and angry the squadron was destroyed, here's the conclusion

    Where do you find such nonsense ....
    1. 31rus
      31rus 26 October 2015 15: 11
      -1
      Not a respected American general, during the exercises, he had to attack a squadron of ships with an aircraft carrier, he did it brilliantly, arming small ships and boats, against which the squadron was helpless, the result was classified, the general retired, but something still got into the media, here So, about Koreans, go to warfiles
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 15: 57
        +2
        Quote: 31rus
        Not delirium dear

        Unfortunately - it’s more nonsense than not nonsense.
        Quote: 31rus
        the American general during the exercises was supposed to attack a squadron of ships with an aircraft carrier, he did it brilliantly, arming small vessels and boats, against which the squadron was helpless

        Let's clarify. You are now recalling the Millennium Challenge teachings and the victorious van Riper :)
        The composition of forces there was approximately as follows (it is not known for certain, but it can be assumed):
        The United States –2 aircraft carriers, 2 UDK, 4 DKVD, and a couple of dozen cruisers / destroyers of the Ticonderoga / Arly Burke type, and all in all, about 30 surface warships with 4-6 submarines, by force. Up to hundreds of F / A-18 and, perhaps, pieces of 15-20 "Harriers" of the Marine Corps.
        Iran
        1) Up to 400 warships and boats (of which 25 - frigates and missile boats will pose a real danger, but try to figure out where they are - when the radars are whitened by light from hundreds of other boats)
        2) Up to 400 coast-based anti-ship missiles (though it should be noted that they won’t be able to launch all at once, but a salvo for a hundred missiles is quite capable, the rest as it reloads)
        3) Over 200 aircraft of various types, including 150-200 attack ones.
        So the balance of power was more likely in van Riper's favor. But even worse was the fact that the plan of the operation itself excluded any concealment of American ships, i.e. with minimal effort, the "Iranians" for whom van Riper played could constantly monitor the location of American forces, but the US Navy could not know van Riper's movements.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  20. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 13: 20
    +1
    Why are the Americans abandoning this ship? The reason is absolutely banal, expensive. For the same reason, the order for the Raptor was cut, the number of ordered Lightings is being cut, this is a normal economy. With this money it is easier to create a link of ships with a combination of great strike capabilities than to have one super-expensive a ship that is scary to use in combat operations, since in case of death it will be necessary to somehow justify to the taxpayers. And the Americans and the British primarily think about the economy (Winston Churchill "World War II"). And do not underestimate the Yankers, Since 1943 They have the best surface fleet in the world for a year, and no one will match them for the foreseeable future.
  21. Val_y
    Val_y 26 October 2015 14: 06
    -3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the US, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea

    Oh yes sho you speak !!! No way, EXACTLY?!?! We have already heard about the invincible army, now we’ll hear about the fleet, as for me the corrections for the fleet are mattresses. They became after a massive shelling with calibers for 1500 km, and in one gulp wink, and practically from boats wink the cost of storing which is 0,001% of this super-duper-quasi-uber -... So ... hi
  22. _KM_
    _KM_ 26 October 2015 14: 37
    -1
    IMHO: Invisibility is a good thing, both for a large ship and for a small one. But a large ship, unlike a small one, does not really need complete invisibility. Those. it would be good, but this is not the only factor by which its effectiveness is assessed. The mosquito fleet operating on the principle of hit and run is quite another matter. Therefore, if the "invisible" destroyer (with a dreadnought displacement and a crew of 200 people) is perceived as something absurd, then the small missile boat "Skjeld" is a well-grounded decision.
  23. Wiruz
    Wiruz 26 October 2015 14: 45
    -1
    But I don’t understand something. But is he unable to launch SM-2/3/6? Only ESSM?
  24. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 15: 01
    +1
    Quote: Val_Y
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the US, even in the long term, does not have an equal rival at sea

    Oh yes sho you speak !!! No way, EXACTLY?!?! We have already heard about the invincible army, now we’ll hear about the fleet, as for me the corrections for the fleet are mattresses. They became after a massive shelling with calibers for 1500 km, and in one gulp wink, and practically from boats wink the cost of storing which is 0,001% of this super-duper-quasi-uber -... So ... hi

    Hmm .... you have a lot of hats .... You first study the subject of discussion and then write your thoughts. In a real clash of these, as you said, boats with American destroyers such as Oli Burke, the first chances of victory tend to zero, namely therefore, Russia is reviving the ocean fleet. A ship should not only be able to shoot a racket at someone else’s target designation, but also be the first to detect the target, give the target designation to the squadron, destroy the target, and, if necessary, repel a strike. Therefore, self-respecting countries build ships of the first rank.
    1. Xsanchez
      Xsanchez 27 October 2015 01: 11
      0
      That's why we build .... submarines.
  25. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 15: 53
    0
    Quote: 31rus
    Not a respected American general, during the exercises, he had to attack a squadron of ships with an aircraft carrier, he did it brilliantly, arming small ships and boats, against which the squadron was helpless, the result was classified, the general retired, but something still got into the media, here So, about Koreans, go to warfiles

    Well VAAbsche ...... GENERAL-attack the squadron)))))))))))), you probably never saw the ship, you didn’t serve ... Can you imagine the role of the fleet in Hollywood films))))) Hmm ...... sadness sorrow ....... All the little thing, by the way, is shot without problems by the PDSS service .... A boat opposite an aircraft carrier — throw an idea in Hollywood — maybe Sigle will agree to the main role ... And about Koreans- you at least ask what composition of the submarine fleet they have.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 16: 02
      +2
      Well, whatever one may say, but General van Riper played for the Iranians in the Millennium Challenge.
  26. Taoist
    Taoist 26 October 2015 16: 59
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    So the "goblin" was made for 2 purposes:
    1. Breakthrough of the enemy's air defense and the destruction of key components of the military infrastructure in general and the air defense system in particular (radar, control and communications centers) - after which the air defense system collapsed into separate autonomous "islands", the effectiveness of which dropped by an order of magnitude.
    2. Economic exhaustion of the enemy - to compensate for the decrease in the EPR of strike vehicles, the enemy (read - the USSR) had to either multiply the number of conventional radars and air defense systems, or invest in work on unconventional means of detecting "invisible" (and then also equip them with the results of the air defense system ).

    Well, then they decided to lower the EPR in conventional machines. True, why reduce the EPR of a radar-emitting machine ahead of itself - Who knows?


    Well, what they wanted is a serious question, but it turned out in general "as always" ... The defeat of "key air defense objects" by free-falling (albeit adjustable) bombs, in general, is quite suicidal even for "invisible". Either they did not think it over, or they simply did not think. Again, as it turned out that "the young was not young" and if you shift the operating wavelength of the radar, then if not the goblin himself, then his trace is quite noticeable.
    So the calculation was definitely not on the military but on the economic effect, and even this is more likely from the category of marketing and advertising ... For a long time we believed in their brochures and pictures ... (let’s even remember the SDI). Some still believe and are eager to build AUGs ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 October 2015 19: 02
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Again, as it turned out that "the young was not young" and if you shift the operating wavelength of the radar, then if not the goblin himself, then his trace is quite noticeable.

      With stealth, the problem is not detection, but capture and tracking. Yes, the OVTs radar station, EMNIP, sees it in the meter range. But one thing is the point on VIKO, and the other is the detection, capture and tracking of the target of its own radar air defense system, operating just in the range in which the maximum stealth is achieved. And without capture or at least temporary detection, it is impossible to aim the missile at the target.
      He sees the eye - but the tooth is numb.
      Not for nothing that the S-125, in a certain case, worked on a backup optical channel.
      According to other sources, the mark on the screens of the guidance officer in the UNK did appear - but only when the target was already inside the zone of destruction of the air defense system (and, by the way, closer to the UAB reset range).
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 26 October 2015 20: 00
        0
        This is all understandable, but modern air defense systems, as a rule, do not work through one channel as well ... So it was no accident that they abandoned the idea of ​​"invisibility in exchange for flight characteristics" - i.e. in itself, a decrease in signatures is a good thing, provided that it complements and does not reduce the actual combat characteristics ...
      2. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 27 October 2015 01: 15
        0
        Hit the squares, it’s without armor. A nuclear warhead will cause unacceptable damage with high automation.
  27. Sagaidark
    Sagaidark 26 October 2015 19: 19
    0
    And so the superpowers leave the scene ... Every time it all starts with saving on the fleet, history repeats itself every time, is it interesting to get out of this circle? )
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 44
      0
      You can, abandoning the fleet. :)
  28. Xsanchez
    Xsanchez 27 October 2015 01: 25
    +1
    Nevertheless, the Amer’s fleet is redundant: there is no great need to stick out in all parts of the world at the same time. The dollar helps to maintain such a number of bases and ships. But problems are already arising here, so they will continue to reduce it.
  29. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 27 October 2015 02: 12
    +1
    Quote: Xsanchez
    Hit the squares, it’s without armor. A nuclear warhead will cause unacceptable damage with high automation.

    Read Shirokorad, he described very well the effects of a nuclear explosion on a surface ship.
    Quote: Xsanchez
    Nevertheless, the Amer’s fleet is redundant: there is no great need to stick out in all parts of the world at the same time. The dollar helps to maintain such a number of bases and ships. But problems are already arising here, so they will continue to reduce it.

    But the average statistical American is sleeping calmly, and he doesn’t give a damn about the rest of the world.
  30. vitya1945
    vitya1945 27 October 2015 06: 09
    0
    Yes, even if they come up with a diving destroyer, but what it will be in the case, will show the running in the Black Sea, remember, "cook"?
  31. _KM_
    _KM_ 27 October 2015 11: 10
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    He sees the eye - but the tooth is numb.


    Many missiles have a radio command control system. Guidance is unlikely to be a problem for them. In addition, I have great doubts that the Americans have reduced the RCS of a ship with a dreadnought displacement to such a value that the RGSN will not be able to target the Zumvolt. In any case, a corresponding seeker can be installed on large missiles. So there is an effect of invisibility, but it does not smell like a panacea.
  32. Gunther
    Gunther 28 October 2015 21: 19
    0
    ... two automatic 155 mm AGS cannons with 920 rounds of ammunition. 12 rds / min. - a flurry of fire! When approaching the coast for 100 km the density of fire "Zamvolta" surpasses the wing of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz"

    "standard wing includes 78 aircraft and helicopters: 20 F-14B / D Tomcat fighters, 36 F / A-18 Hornet or Super Hornet fighter-bombers, 8 S-3A / B anti-submarine defense (ASW) aircraft Viking (often used as reconnaissance or flying tankers), 4 E-2S Hawkeye AWACS aircraft, 4 EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, 4 SH-60F CiVi Helo PLO helicopters and 2 search and rescue helicopters HH-60H Sea Hawk. "©
    Not a lover art whistle, the author, in my opinion, exaggerates, and the virtual shore to which, according to the author, the "Zamvolt" is approaching - the coast of the Papuans, because in reality the charred skeleton of the "Zimvolt" would come close to our shore.
    Do not get a "flurry of fire")))
    Well, the fact that the Yankels tore up the navel, in their ambitions, is very revealing.
  33. Gunther
    Gunther 28 October 2015 22: 27
    0
    PS
    author:
    80 starting cells for storage and launch of the Tomahawk missile launcher, Asrok-VL anti-submarine missiles, ESSM short-range anti-aircraft missiles (4 each in one cell);

    on the wiki:
    "The ship's armament consists of 20 universal launchersMk-57 with a total capacity of 80 missiles .. "
    ?
  34. Gunther
    Gunther 30 October 2015 13: 43
    0
    Author Quote:
    Each “deadlock” is designed for the installation of weapons on new physical principles, but only the last, third destroyer of the series will become the real carrier. “Lyndon Johnson” may be the first ship in the world armed electromagnetic railgun.

    Oleg Kaptsov continues to please with his revelations, but, I hope, the revelations that the M16 shoots with gravity will not follow)))
  35. Things
    Things April 6 2016 20: 10
    0
    "... two automatic 155 mm guns AGS with ammunition 920 shells. 12 rds / min. - a flurry of fire!"

    In this case, one shot costs $ 400. This is not a typo. Nearly half a million dollars ONE shot. This is because the projectile is active with a guidance system.
    http://gosh100.livejournal.com/182532.html

    That is in just one minute the cannons of this "iron" release 4 million 800 thousand dollars down the drain unhappy American taxpayers))