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 New
    +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 New
      +7
      our "wise men" are even cooler, they didn’t build, and then they received it from another customer again and solemnly surrendered. So, there are enough freaks to officially steal in the upper circles both here and there.
      1. Dmitry_24rus
        Dmitry_24rus 26 October 2015 21: 19 New
        +4
        Even more annoying is the huge number of "Orly Burke" .. Is this how many dozens (or hundreds) times have amers more cruise missiles with their proven effectiveness? I am a patriot, but our lag on real ships with Caliber is depressing.
        1. Cresta999
          Cresta999 28 October 2015 20: 20 New
          +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 New
    +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 New
      -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.

      21 July 2015 laid the sixty-ninth destroyer Delbert Black (DDG-119)
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 October 2015 08: 45 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Zamvolt

        In my opinion, Zamvolt is like a concept car at the Detroit auto show, a step into the future that they will never take. So he became. He is not even a "white elephant", but an experienced ship, two copies are enough ...
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        21 July 2015 laid the sixty-ninth destroyer Delbert Black (DDG-119)

        Duc because it is the best there is.
        1. Santa Fe
          26 October 2015 08: 53 New
          +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 New
            +1
            And there are also South Korean options for "Burke"
      3. lelikas
        lelikas 26 October 2015 15: 54 New
        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 New
          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 New
            +1
            Quote: Lance
            Beautiful boat, stylish ..

            Well, yes, the sample of 1862 CSS "VIRGINIA" aka former "MERIMMAK"
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 26 October 2015 11: 54 New
      +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 New
    +14
    floating iPhone suffered the fate of flying (f-35)? iPhones thing is not durable ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 October 2015 18: 28 New
      +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 New
    +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 New
      +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 New
        0
        The Yankees build successful versions of projects with mega-series ... Recall the Second World War and 22 aircraft carriers, or a hundred destroyers. About a dozen Nimits'evs, pieces of 80 Berkovs, 2 and a half dozen Tikanderogs, so that in about twenty years new, improved Zamvoltys will go, a series of pieces under 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 New
      +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 New
        +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 New
      +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 New
        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 New
          0
          but no. look at the destroyers of the Udaloy class - handsome!) But the same Berks have a more direct bevel.
    5. dumkopff
      dumkopff 26 October 2015 17: 06 New
      -1
      Beautiful ?! belay
    6. gladcu2
      gladcu2 26 October 2015 19: 48 New
      +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 New
    +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 New
      -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 New
        +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 New
          -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


          Cardiff missile destroyer after night shelling of the coast

          If Zamvolt had been in their place, it would have been even worse and more destructive. He does not have their flaws, but there are new advantages. Sneak, 6 'precision artillery, new detection and self-defense
          1. GRAY
            GRAY 26 October 2015 14: 14 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            If Zamvolt had been in their place, it would have been even worse and more destructive. He does not have their flaws, but there are new advantages. Sneak, 6 'high-precision artillery, new detection and self-defense

            Worse and more destructive? 6 inch crackers ... smile
            Why did they write off the “Missouri” and “Wisconsin” then, after all, in the 91st year they also shot well.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 October 2015 14: 23 New
        +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 New
        +1
        "the United States, even in the long term, has no equal rival at sea."
        Hehe. The Britons in 1900 probably also thought so.
      4. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 23: 14 New
        0
        Oleg, 20 "Granites" Petka will land in a volley? Now, if real? And in order for 140 people and 10 billion Tugriks to go to feed the fish, one would be enough .. And if 1 Granit with a stsbCh bang 50 km away from it to begin with, to "blind"? For each "waffle" there is a government.
      5. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 27 October 2015 00: 24 New
        -1
        There is Ash.
  6. Same lech
    Same lech 26 October 2015 07: 55 New
    +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 New
      -5
      Quote: The same Lech
      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 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: The same Lech
        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 New
          -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 New
            +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 "finish-out" 44-45 (when the Yankees sank ships directly 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.

            For the first half of 1943, the Yankees somehow turned over, jumping to the next island within the radius of the base aircraft from the previous one. And then launched in 1941, the American conveyor reached the last position - "the first military campaign after training crews." And away we go ... 1 "big" AB in 2-3 months + 1 "independence" per month. And the AVE crowd is "at a dance". smile
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 October 2015 12: 57 New
        +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 the “zumwalt” prowlers, but instead they massively riveted and cooked a lot of “middle peasants” - “burki”.
        Yamato, Mogami, Taiho, Sinano, Zero, Long Lance - all these Zumwalt and WW-F-35 were ground by Essex, Cleveland, Fletcher , "Bristol", "wildcats", "lightning" and "cobra" (the main losses of the IJN carrier pilots elite suffered during operations from land airports of the Solomon Islands and later, when the Yankees flew just on these three types of machines).
      3. mvg
        mvg 26 October 2015 23: 25 New
        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 climb into the wiki for the composition for 41 years, but even in Pearl Harbor the fleet was VERY not weak .. and even the aircraft carrier decided to go on a “cruise” ..
        Yes, and the Japanese frankly did not succeed ..
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 11: 56 New
      -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 New
    +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

    They and in the distant retrospective of equal rivals at sea have not had 70 years. Especially when you consider NATO. Here is such a "nonsense 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 New
      -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 New
        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 New
      +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, you write that Zamvolt was built by pests, then "only stars are higher." Boring ...
      1. Santa Fe
        26 October 2015 09: 08 New
        -10
        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 New
          +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 tricky butt there is .... with a screw?” Even if the non-versed person asks: Is 2 Zamvolta cooler than 60 Orly Burkov? Just go catch them all 60 - we don’t have enough underwater trays ... And I think there are 2 sub-pyramids each with one submarine for guaranteed destruction. But in terms of the number of VP cells, the Burki are in no way inferior to the "surrenders." So it’s not a fact that quality in this case is better than quantity wink
          1. mvg
            mvg 27 October 2015 00: 35 New
            0
            I agree, always the quantity beat quality ... For 2 thousand “Tigers” Americans made 80 thousand “Sherman”, and our 40 thousand 34-ok ... and where are these cats now?
            And how many destroyers were built in WWII by amers? And the Essexes .. And where is Yamoto, Musashi, and Shinano now?
        2. Seaman77
          Seaman77 26 October 2015 14: 41 New
          +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 New
          +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 New
    +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 New
      +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 anything was built at our shipyards that could challenge the "project of American militarism" ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 October 2015 11: 18 New
      +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!

      Actually, stopping the construction of Zamvoltov is bad.
      It would be better if the Yankees built single wunderdershiffs, each of which would be different from the previous one - and then with their help they would try to ensure a presence in all areas of their vital interests. And for their construction they would cut down the budgets (and equipment) of mass ships - “workhorses” of future conflicts. smile
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 55 New
        0
        Do not count the Yankees as fools.
    3. Andrey77
      Andrey77 26 October 2015 19: 54 New
      0
      They at least do something, but failed ...
  9. Belousov
    Belousov 26 October 2015 08: 51 New
    -1
    Will finish anyway. They are now showing more expensive money. "There are wild Russians around here, we must give them a decent answer." Well, it’s also necessary to cut it, the budget in the sense.
  10. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 October 2015 09: 31 New
    +10
    I’ve read the article ... And the comments ... I got the impression that you, Oleg, almost experience orgasm, not only with the appearance of Zamvolta, 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, "Zamvolty" is ordinary ships with their advantages (which designers tried to lay down based on the fleet order) and disadvantages (which are ANY ships that are built with one or another compromise) In our Navy, they had some kind of submarine analogs . 705. Automated, with a small crew, with its 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 New
      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 New
        -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 New
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          PL and NK solve different problems

          That lurks somewhere in the approximate area of ​​location (hypothetically wink ) of the multi-billion dollar "Zamvolta" (to calculate this area, knowing the gun firing length, we take, for example, for Vladivostok there will be no problem) Submarines for example pr.636 and BACH !!! laughing pieces of three torpedoes on board !! 1 and in favor ... sorry, one place is your favorite "Zamvolt"! Even with the drowning of submarines with possible protection, 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 New
        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 New
    -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 New
      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 New
        +2
        Did not know. Thanks for the information!
        1. Throw
          Throw 26 October 2015 20: 47 New
          0
          Hmm .. 35 tyr raccoons for the shell .. belay
  12. Ruslan
    Ruslan 26 October 2015 09: 40 New
    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 New
      -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 New
        +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 New
          -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 New
            +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 New
              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 New
    +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 should be a lot of them, and Zamvolta, and F-35, otherwise they are not profitable. But "toys" are too expensive to risk them.
    1. Santa Fe
      26 October 2015 10: 30 New
      -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 New
        +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 New
        +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 New
        0
        And who needs 5 generation fighters?
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 October 2015 11: 11 New
    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 New
    +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: "And why the invisible, he flies (floats)."
    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 New
    +5
    Yes, really "traded had fun - calculated tears" ...

    The question is, what for? Well, let's put in "stealth technologies" - but the paradox is that you won’t make the ship completely invisible, and such a barn with all its super-superfluous contours anyway outrages a large number of physical fields ... Not only is the radar alive.
    Armament? Also, in general, nothing special ... Artillery systems are certainly not bad - but why use them? 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 badly. Because even the poorest RCC still flies farther than the guns shoot ... And when the guns fire, what kind of "stealth" is there?
    The artillery systems of "close defense" are not impressive at all - in any situation there are "non-shooting areas", not to mention the fact that the maximum 2 simultaneously fired targets is not serious at all ... (with this size then)
    Well, if this ship was still built as a missile arsenal - then damn then 155mm guns then what for?

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

      With an invisible ship there will be exactly the same problems as with "invisible" planes.
      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. Because of this, they had to hang reflectors on the “lame goblin” in front of the “Desert Storm”, and during the operation itself - to allocate separate flight areas to it, which were closed to the rest - in order to ensure flight safety and prevent collisions.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 26 October 2015 13: 03 New
        +2
        Well, with "invisible" airplanes it’s all the same easier ... There you need invisibility exactly up to the point that you would advance to the line of attack and not "stir up" the air defense. Then this is the tenth matter. Again, using passive sensors, theoretically, the stealth will sooner detect the enemy if he is actively searching ...
        But with ships it’s worse ... you know the speeds are not the same, the maneuver is also only in 2 planes, and remaining in the “passive” mode the detection horizon narrows sharply ... while the ship will be heard ... and it’s visible (size has the meaning)

        Well, they kept Goblin from normal airplanes so as not to frighten him ... he already barely kept in the air. ;-) In general, IMHO, of course, but it seems to me that the total hobby for "invisibility" is more of a mod ... I understand for a scout - silently came, silently left ... And for the shock machine ...? I think that electronic warfare is by any means more effective. If you have one continuous flare instead of goals ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 October 2015 13: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, they kept Goblin from normal airplanes so as not to frighten him ... he already barely kept in the air. ;-) In general, IMHO, of course, but it seems to me that the total hobby for "invisibility" is more of a mod ... I understand for a scout - silently came, silently left ... And for the shock machine ...? I think that electronic warfare is by any means more effective. If you have one continuous flare instead of goals ...

          So the "goblin" did under 2 goals:
          1. The 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, command and communication centers) - after which the air defense system fell apart into separate autonomous "islands", the effectiveness of which fell by an order of magnitude.
          2. The enemy’s economic starvation - to compensate for the reduction in the EPR of strike machines, the enemy (read — the USSR) had to either increase the number of conventional radars and air defense systems by a multiple, or invest in work on non-traditional means of detecting “invisibles” (and then equip their air defense system with their results).

          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 New
    +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 New
      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 New
    -3
    Dear, I can’t vouch for reliability, 50 DPRK submarines went out to sea and disappeared, after which there was a torpedo attack by an American bulk carrier, 26 sailors, 22 Americans and 4 Poles were killed, the USA turned to Russia and China for help finding submarines, coordinates the cargo ship’s drowning exceeds the DPRK’s submarine sailing range twice, but the fact is that the best fleet in the world is helpless against the “mosquito squadron”, this is also confirmed by the simulated attack on the US squadron, the squadron was cheaply and angrily destroyed, and here’s the conclusion
  19. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 13: 08 New
    0
    Quote: 31rus
    Dear, I can’t vouch for reliability, 50 DPRK submarines went out to sea and disappeared, after which there was a torpedo attack by an American bulk carrier, 26 sailors, 22 Americans and 4 Poles were killed, the USA turned to Russia and China for help finding submarines, coordinates the cargo ship’s drowning exceeds the DPRK’s submarine sailing range twice, but the fact is that the best fleet in the world is helpless against the “mosquito squadron”, this is also confirmed by the simulated attack on the US squadron, the squadron was cheaply and angrily destroyed, and here’s the conclusion

    Where do you find such nonsense ....
    1. 31rus
      31rus 26 October 2015 15: 11 New
      -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 New
        +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 now recall the teachings of the "Millennium Challenge", and the victorious van Rieper :)
        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 rather in favor of van Rieper. But even worse was that the operation plan alone ruled out any stealth of American ships, i.e. with a minimum of convolutions, the “Iranians” for whom Van Rieper “played” could constantly monitor the location of American forces, but the US Navy could not know the movement of Van Rieper.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  20. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 13: 20 New
    +1
    Why are 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 was cut, this is a normal economy. With this money it’s easier to create a link of ships with a combination of great shock capabilities than having one super expensive a ship that is scary to use in military operations, because in the event of death it will be necessary to somehow justify itself to the taxpayers. And the Americans and the British are primarily thinking about the economy (Winston Churchill "World War II"). And do not underestimate the Yankers, since 1943 years they have the best surface fleet in the world, and in the foreseeable future no one will be equal to them.
  21. Val_y
    Val_y 26 October 2015 14: 06 New
    -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 New
    -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 nice, but this is not the only factor by which its effectiveness is evaluated. A mosquito fleet operating on the principle of hit and run is a completely different matter. Therefore, if the "invisible" destroyer (with a dreadnought displacement and a crew of 200 people) is perceived as something absurd, then the small Skjeld missile boat is a completely justified solution.
  23. Wiruz
    Wiruz 26 October 2015 14: 45 New
    -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 New
    +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 New
      0
      That's why we build .... submarines.
  25. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 October 2015 15: 53 New
    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 New
      +2
      Well, whatever one may say, but for the Iranians in the "Millennium Challenge" really played General Van Rieper
  26. Taoist
    Taoist 26 October 2015 16: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    So the "goblin" did under 2 goals:
    1. The 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, command and communication centers) - after which the air defense system fell apart into separate autonomous "islands", the effectiveness of which fell by an order of magnitude.
    2. The enemy’s economic starvation - to compensate for the reduction in the EPR of strike machines, the enemy (read — the USSR) had to either increase the number of conventional radars and air defense systems by a multiple, or invest in work on non-traditional means of detecting “invisibles” (and then equip their air defense system with their results).

    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 was a pure issue, but it turned out, in general, "as always" ... The defeat of "key air defense objects" by free-falling (albeit adjusted) bombs, in general, even for the "invisible", is quite suicidal. Either they thought or simply did not think. Again, as it turned out that "the young was not young" and if you shift the working wavelength of the radar, then it’s completely notched to itself if not the goblin so its trace.
    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 New
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Again, as it turned out that "the young was not young" and if you shift the working wavelength of the radar, then it’s completely notched to itself if not the goblin so its trace.

      With the "invisible" the problem is not in detection, but in capture and tracking. Yes, the radar OVTS, EMNIP, meter range sees him. But one thing is the point on the VIKO, and the other is the detection, capture and tracking of the target of its own radar air defense system, operating precisely in the range in which maximum stealth is achieved. And without a capture or at least temporary detection, it is impossible to direct a missile at a 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 New
        0
        This is all clear, but modern air defense systems, as a rule, do not work on only one channel ... So it was not by chance that the idea of ​​"invisibility in exchange for LTH" was abandoned - i.e. Signature reduction itself is a good thing, provided that it complements and does not reduce the actual combat characteristics ...
      2. Xsanchez
        Xsanchez 27 October 2015 01: 15 New
        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 New
    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 New
      0
      You can, abandoning the fleet. :)
  28. Xsanchez
    Xsanchez 27 October 2015 01: 25 New
    +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 New
    +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 New
    0
    Yes, even if they come up with a diving destroyer, what will it be like in business, will it be run in the Black Sea, remember, “cookie”?
  31. _KM_
    _KM_ 27 October 2015 11: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    He sees the eye - but the tooth is numb.


    Many missiles have a radio command SU. It is unlikely that guidance will be a problem for them. In addition, I have great doubts that the Americans reduced the EPR of a ship with a dreadnought displacement to such a value that the RCGS cannot be sighted at Zumvolt. In any case, on large missiles, you can put the corresponding GOS. So there is an effect from invisibility, but it doesn’t smell like a panacea.
  32. Gunther
    Gunther 28 October 2015 21: 19 New
    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 air 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 aircraft “Viking” (often used as scouts or flying tankers), 4 AWACS E-2C Hokai, 4 electronic warfare aircraft EA-6V Proler, 4 helicopters PL-SH-60F SiVi Helo and 2 search and rescue helicopters HH-60H Sea Hawk. "©
    Not a lover art whistle, the author, in my opinion, is exaggerating, and the virtual coast to which, according to the author, is close to "zamvolt" - the coast of the Papuans, because in reality the charred skeleton of "Zimvolt" would come closer to our coast.
    It doesn’t work "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 New
    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 armament of the ship consists of 20 universal launchersMk-57 with a total capacity of 80 missiles .. "
    ?
  34. Gunther
    Gunther 30 October 2015 13: 43 New
    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 New
    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))