Military Review

Upgraded Admiral Nakhimov will carry 80 missiles

198
The “Admiral Nakhimov” cruiser under repair to the 2018 g will be equipped with a universal complex consisting of 10-ti vertical launchers, reports Look with reference to the information of the enterprise "Sevmash", published by alexeyvvo blog.




“Sevmash has concluded contracts with Almaz-Antey for the manufacture and supply of 10 universal vertical launchers ZS-14-11442М for the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov,” the message reads. “One UVPU is designed for eight rocket spaces, so after upgrading the cruiser will carry 80 anti-ship missiles.”

According to the blog, “the installations will be refined to use the following missile systems: 3К-14 (Caliber), 9К, 3М55 (Onyx), 3К-22 (Zircon). The approximate value of the contract - 2,6 billion rubles. (limit - 3 billion).

It is noted that prior to the modernization, the anti-ship missile armament of the ship included the Granit complex - 20 missiles, one each in a launcher.
Photos used:
dokwar.ru
198 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 26 October 2015 16: 02 New
    33
    strongly! ... let the probable opponents poop more for themselves when they enter the weapons zone of this admirable representative of the Russian Navy ...
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 26 October 2015 16: 15 New
      31
      Now, what I wrote about yesterday is gradually coming true, now I would still have to tighten the air defense and radio electronics.
      1. Now we are free
        Now we are free 26 October 2015 16: 24 New
        43
        Закуси 6 флотом "Вероятного партнёра" Адмирал Нахимов drinks .
        But seriously, of course, the news is good, the main thing is that our shipbuilders can bring such an important and necessary undertaking to its logical conclusion.
        1. gispanec
          gispanec 27 October 2015 11: 10 New
          +2
          it seemed to me alone or I’m wrong .... diamond antey is already launching anti-ship missiles ?? ?? ... did not hear something
          1. Baikonur
            Baikonur 27 October 2015 23: 27 New
            +2
            Наверное, "Алмаз-антеи" всё-таки сеичас стал концерном, и продолжает им становиться!
            Так же как концерн "Калашников" стал выпускать и БПЛА, и катеры!
            I think that’s good.
        2. VALERIK_097
          VALERIK_097 28 October 2015 19: 16 New
          0
          The problems of 2 ships of this class, not at all in the weakness of the weapons on board, are abundant enough, let the industry work and we will fix it. We will work again with two echelons (who is in the subject) according to Peter, and back to the database
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Lord of the Sith
        Lord of the Sith 26 October 2015 17: 52 New
        12
        Quote: lelikas
        Now, what I wrote about yesterday is gradually coming true, now I would still have to tighten the air defense and radio electronics.

        What is wrong with air defense?
        Long range:
        12 × 8 SAM S-300F "Fort" (96 missiles)
        range: 150km
        2 × 2 launcher launcher "Osa-M" (40 missiles)
        range: 15 km
        height: 4 km
        Middle range:
        6 ZRAK “Dagger”
        range:
        missile weapons: 8000 m
        artillery weapons: 4000 m
        height:
        missile weapons: 3500 m
        artillery weapons: 3000 m
        1. razzhivin
          razzhivin 26 October 2015 18: 20 New
          +8
          Есть инфа, что с-300 заменят на что то посовременнее, а отказ от револьверной укладки ракет позволит увеличить их кол-во в 2-3 раза...да ещё "панцирь" там вроде нарисовывается...

          А по ПКР должен дополняется "цирконом" 9К, но про него в открытой печати ни ни
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 26 October 2015 18: 32 New
            +5
            Quote: razzhivin
            Есть инфа, что с-300 заменят на что то посовременнее, а отказ от револьверной укладки ракет позволит увеличить их кол-во в 2-3 раза...да ещё "панцирь" там вроде нарисовывается...


            It is known that, at Polement Redoubt
            1. just exp
              just exp 27 October 2015 10: 24 New
              +3
              throw out this fake picture, it’s already been discussed, it’s someone’s fantasies, look at least for the presence of Morpheus.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 10: 37 New
                +9
                It at one time on alternativehistory (alternative history site)
                кто-то фантазировал различные проекты модернизации 1144, там было несколько вариантов:)) Но, естественно, там никто это всерьез не воспринимал, и каково же было мое удивление, когда я многократно вижу "чертежи" на ВО, причем воспринимаются они как полноценный и официальный проект модернизации
                I’m scared to be honest. We have fun there with alternatives, and someone takes it all at face value
                1. just exp
                  just exp 27 October 2015 12: 19 New
                  +2
                  this crap is called cheers-patriotism when they have some kind of opinion based on non-existent facts.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 27 October 2015 13: 23 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I’m scared to be honest. We have fun there with alternatives, and someone takes it all at face value

                  Fleet of Admiral Furashita (C) smile
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. Thronekeeper
            Thronekeeper 27 October 2015 14: 36 New
            +1
            А по ПКР должен дополняется "цирконом" 9К, но про него в открытой печати ни ни
            По данным блога, «установки будут дорабатываться для применения следующих ракетных комплексов: 3К-14 ("Калибр"), 9К, 3М55 ("Оникс"), 3К-22 ("Циркон")(С)
            Ну вот и "Циркон" назвали. Вообще М6-7,900км (правда, это с Ту-22М3А/М3М, с которго он с 2013г успешно летает и попадает, дальность наземнях я не знаю, но должна быть меньше в 1,5 раза) - по наземным ни инсайдерских ни открытых данных не имел.
            1. Xsanchez
              Xsanchez 28 October 2015 10: 09 New
              0
              "Цирконы"-это шикарно.Пусть срутся от страха!
          3. Yarhann
            Yarhann 27 October 2015 21: 43 New
            0
            there is simply no zircon so far in nature, more precisely not even zircon work on the layout and the engine goes no matter the very concept of using hypersonic missile weapons - and the final form of the rocket and its characteristics will very much depend on building the concept of using hypersonic weapons.
          4. Xsanchez
            Xsanchez 28 October 2015 09: 59 New
            +1
            On this ship, if you’re smart, you can cram a lot of things: the base allows you to do almost all the news that our VPK releases in this building
          5. chunga-changa
            chunga-changa 28 October 2015 11: 25 New
            0
            Quote: razzhivin
            There is infa that the S-300 will be replaced with something more modern

            No, they will not replace. Already ordered the repair of turret installations.
          6. Sergei1982
            Sergei1982 29 October 2015 05: 22 New
            0
            Есть инфа, что с-300 заменят на что то посовременнее, а отказ от револьверной укладки ракет позволит увеличить их кол-во в 2-3 раза...да ещё "панцирь" там вроде нарисовывается...

            Read the contracts for Nakhimov before writing this, it clearly says repair and modernization of the Fort complex, two contracts are one for 280 mil.rub, the other for 320 mil.
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 26 October 2015 18: 44 New
          +7
          Quote: Sith Lord
          What is wrong with air defense?

          С-300 как бэ устарел на пару десятков лет , Оса тоже , со своей долгой перезарядкой не алле , надо менять , к "Кортику" не буду цепляться , ну и новый БИУС .
          1. The comment was deleted.
        3. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 October 2015 20: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: Sith Lord
          12 × 8 SAM S-300F "Fort" (96 missiles)

          Just already have a marine version of the S-400.
          1. Wiruz
            Wiruz 26 October 2015 20: 48 New
            +2
            Just already have a marine version of the S-400

            First time I hear, please enlighten
            1. Rader
              Rader 26 October 2015 21: 05 New
              +2
              Initially, they planned to put the Redoubt in place of the C 300, but they abandoned the idea (not for economic reasons, not because of the unpreparedness of the Redoubt) And they said that there would be a modernized version of the S300F.
              P.S. About S-400F, yes, and already ready to do the same for the first time I hear belay
              1. Wiruz
                Wiruz 27 October 2015 03: 27 New
                +2
                Redoubt to replace Fort, it's like 7.62mm instead of half an inch
              2. Yarhann
                Yarhann 27 October 2015 21: 55 New
                0
                guys, what’s yours? The bazaar, even on Peter the Great’s, has a modernized one with 300 that can shoot at 200 km why you can’t put a type with 400 - it's just that it’s a completely different complex for the sake of which you will have to modernize the ship deeply - that’s why they don’t put redoubt - by the time this spike will be ready redoubts will be finished, but vseravno it does not channel on this ship - this is not it. I completely agree with the concept of the overhaul approach - they will replace the armament itself with a new one and CIU. And to completely recycle the ship is idiocy - it’s easier to build a new one from which it will be more useful.
                In general, the most important thing to consider and understand about this ship is that it will have powerful air defense and most importantly carry powerful weapons to strike inland, that is, the Kabiber is the most important thing - that is, it will be universal in nature - although with this approach to fight with It’s already capable of AUGs - and there’s also a viable order for us to do something for now - wait and see - as for me there will be no Zircon — and this will most likely be a hypersonic missile with a flight range of 200-300 km in the first stages It is worth threatening AUG.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 26 October 2015 21: 18 New
              +2
              "Редут-Полимент".
              Due to problems with its refinement and dragged on the construction of new frigates.
              1. Wiruz
                Wiruz 27 October 2015 03: 24 New
                +2
                Redoubts are like S-350F, unfortunately, they don’t get into 48n6 or even 40n6
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 27 October 2015 20: 49 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Wiruz
                  Redoubt is like S-350F

                  Really? In my opinion, the S-350 is a medium-range complex and was not oversized.
                  1. Wiruz
                    Wiruz 29 October 2015 22: 44 New
                    0
                    Really? In my opinion, the S-350 is a medium-range complex and was not oversized.

                    Well, depending on what is considered medium range. And yes, in fact it turns out that the Redoubt is a numbed S-350, although the second appeared later and its further fate is still unknown. You can, in this case, say that the S-350 is a land version of Redut laughing
      4. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 October 2015 18: 54 New
        +7
        Quote: lelikas
        Here, then slowly comes true

        ... of interest is THESE THINGS -
        3M22 Zircon
        Interspecific missile system with a hypersonic missile / anti-ship missile of operational purpose.
        Есть предположение, что экспортным вариантом ракеты "Циркон" является ПКР "BrahMos-II".
        Expected TTX
        Range:
        - 800-1000 km
        Speed ​​- not less than 4.5 M
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 26 October 2015 19: 19 New
          +4
          and here it is -
          По данным блога, «установки будут дорабатываться для применения следующих ракетных комплексов: 3К-14 ("Калибр"), 9K, 3М55 ("Оникс"), 3К-22 ("Циркон")

          Missile Information 9K not available in open sources.
          Most likely we are talking about 9K720, i.e. about Iskander-K with KR P-500. Those. This product can also be installed in a universal launcher :)
      5. Observer2014
        Observer2014 26 October 2015 19: 08 New
        +8
        At one time it was just not a cruiser, but rather a battleship! The Orlan project shocked our sworn partners. Yes, and now it’s just power. It’s a pity that we have only two left in the fleet of 4 cruisers of this project. Imagine what our Navy would be capable of if Russia had at least a dozen of them in the ranks! But it all depends on the economy. We can maintain such ships. That means we will have no equal at sea.
        1. clidon
          clidon 26 October 2015 19: 20 New
          -13
          Эти корабли как были так и останутся со своим главным недостатком - зависимостью от внешнего целеуказания. И вся эта красота при том, что ЭПР тут аховая, а куча решений архаично - типа алюминиевых надстроек. Хорошо если появится аналог Иджиса, но не думаю, что это будет на Нахимове - скорей просто будет что то навроде "оморячивания" С-400.
          Собственно по этой причине ещё два корабля пойдут на иголки, а "Пётр" не исключено уйдёт в резерв.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 19: 41 New
            18
            Quote: clidon
            These ships as they were and will remain with their main drawback - dependence on external target designation.

            Like, in fact, any missile carrier ship.
            Quote: clidon
            Хорошо если появится аналог Иджиса, но не думаю, что это будет на Нахимове - скорей просто будет что то навроде "оморячивания" С-400

            Если под "Иджисом" Вы понимаете БИУС, то скорее всего - будет. А если под "Иджисом" Вы понимаете систему ПВО, то ПВО уровня "Иджиса" нам боком не упало, поскольку проигрывает, пожалуй, даже С-300Ф.
            Quote: clidon
            Собственно по этой причине ещё два корабля пойдут на иголки, а "Пётр" не исключено уйдёт в резерв.

            Единственная причина, по которой первые два корабля серии пойдут на иголки - отвратная эксплуатация во времена развала СССР и не менее отвратная консервация. "Петр" пойдет под капремонт после ввода в строй "нахимова" и скорее всего - по "Нахимовскому" же проекту
            1. clidon
              clidon 26 October 2015 19: 59 New
              -8
              Like, in fact, any missile carrier ship.

              Like any ship without a missile launcher.

              Если под "Иджисом" Вы понимаете БИУС, то скорее всего - будет.

              Я под "Иджисом" понимаю в первую очередь систему боевого управления, которая позволяет объединять корабли ордера в единую группу. Пока только планы и непонятно насколько ещё близкие. Ну и конечно хотелось бы единую ФАР.

              The only reason why the first two ships of the series will go to needles is disgusting operation during the collapse of the USSR and no less disgusting conservation.

              Не единственная. Ещё и деньги подсчитали во сколько это обойдётся. А "Пётр" без поддержки авиагруппы тоже может просто подзадержаться на модернизации или просто пойти в резерв. Денег мало, а кораблики Очень дорогие.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 20: 26 New
                +4
                Quote: clidon
                Like any ship without a missile launcher.

                In AUG, the missile carrier ship also needs external target designation, it can simply be provided by deck-based wing aircraft. I understood you, of course, we hope that all the same, aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation will be given the green light - there are many prerequisites for this.
                Quote: clidon
                Я под "Иджисом" понимаю в первую очередь систему боевого управления, которая позволяет объединять корабли ордера в единую группу

                Такого сервиса "Иджис" не предоставляет:) По крайней мере - пока:)
                Quote: clidon
                And of course I would like a single headlamp.

                Сложно сказать, насколько это удачное решение. РЛС "Дэринга" ИМХО предпочтительнее.
                Quote: clidon
                Not the only one. Also, the money was calculated how much it will cost

                And it turned out that not too expensive. The high cost of commissioning the first two nuclear powered ships is precisely due to the fact that there the repair volumes are such that it is easier to build new ones
                1. clidon
                  clidon 26 October 2015 21: 01 New
                  -11
                  An old ship with missiles and a new aircraft carrier, is this a great investment for billions of rubles of budget?

                  Такого сервиса "Иджис" не предоставляет

                  "Иджис" как раз объединяет корабли оснащённые такой системой в единую сеть.

                  It is difficult to say how successful this decision is.

                  This is a very good solution. Especially considering how different radars interact badly on a ship. And not only radar of course.

                  And it turned out that not too expensive.

                  And who found out then? )
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 21: 29 New
                    +7
                    Quote: clidon
                    An old ship with missiles and a new aircraft carrier, is this a great investment for billions of rubles of budget?

                    Чем Вас это не устраивает? После капиталки "Нахимов" вполне может проходить еще лет 30.
                    Quote: clidon
                    "Иджис" как раз объединяет корабли оснащённые такой системой в единую сеть.

                    Let’s then with links to sources.
                    Quote: clidon
                    This is a very good solution. Especially considering how different radars interact badly on a ship.

                    I have already cited Daring as an example. Take a look at SAMPSON. But what’s really bad is one decimetric HEADLIGHT for all occasions.
                    Quote: clidon
                    And who found out then? )

                    According to the open press, the cost of modernizing Nakhimov does not exceed the cost of one Arly Burke, despite the fact that the output will be a much more formidable car than Arly
                    1. clidon
                      clidon 26 October 2015 22: 11 New
                      -9
                      Чем Вас это не устраивает? После капиталки "Нахимов" вполне может проходить еще лет 30.

                      Аврора до сих пор могла бы ходить. На неё и "Калибр" бы влез. Жаль пропадает такая модернизация.
                      You can recall the Americans who initially swelled money in a PR project to modernize battleships, and then slowly removed them from the composition. The fleet needs modern ships, and not old projects, which, according to poverty, are brought to an acceptable level.

                      Let’s then with links to sources.

                      For a start:
                      Общим элементом многофункциональной системы оружия "Иджис" считается оконечная аппаратура цифровых линий радиосвязи LINK-4A, -11 и -14. Первая из них предназначена для наведения самолетов на воздушные целй, а две другие используются в каналах тактической связи для обмена данными целеуказания между кораблями соединения (группы). Важной особенностью этих линий является то, что управление потоком цифровых данных, циркулирующих в подсистеме связи, осуществляется ЭВМ ОМВК, а процесс взаимного обмена Ими полностью автоматизирован. http://pentagonus.ru/publ/materialy_posvjashheny/1970_1990_gg/mnogofunkcionalnaj
                      a_sistema_oruzhija_quotijisquot / 120-1-0-1422


                      But what’s really bad is one decimetric HEADLIGHT for all occasions.

                      One powerful headlamp for all occasions is better than a hodgepodge on a ship the size of a battleship. Do you like Daring, build Daring.

                      According to the open press, the cost of modernizing Nakhimov does not exceed the cost of one Arly Burke

                      Are we going to build an alternative to Burki in shipyards?
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 22: 28 New
                        13
                        Quote: clidon
                        Аврора до сих пор могла бы ходить. На неё и "Калибр" бы влез

                        Those. the fact that the American and Ticonderoges of 1987-1990 are jauntily jaunting across the seas is wonderful, but does our Nakhimov go down? Double standards - they are so double ...
                        Quote: clidon
                        The fleet needs modern ships, and not old projects, which, according to poverty, are brought to an acceptable level.

                        Расскажите об этом США. А то эти неумные люди до сих пор штампуют "Арли Берки" - проект 80-х годов. Конечно, американцы по бедности своей доводят их модификациями до приемлемого уровня, но...
                        Quote: clidon
                        For a start:

                        Read
                        Quote: clidon
                        The first of them is designed to direct aircraft at air targets, and the other two are used in tactical communication channels for the exchange of target designation data between ships of a compound (group)

                        Do you understand the difference between the banal transfer of TsU (which almost any helicopter knew how to do in the last century) and the management of a group of ships?
                        The management of the group would take place if the system itself collected data on targets somewhere in a single place, it would itself distribute targets between the weapon systems of a group of ships and would itself appoint means of destruction of these same goals.
                        Quote: clidon
                        One powerful headlamp for all occasions, it is better than a hodgepodge on a ship the size of a battleship

                        Много хуже. Низколетящие цели видит не просто плохо, а ОЧЕНЬ плохо, управление оружием уязвимо для РЭБ неприятеля. Та же "Волна" сработает по атакующим низколетящим ПКР значительно лучше.
                        Quote: clidon
                        Do you like Daring, build Daring.

                        You did not confuse me with USC? :)
                        Quote: clidon
                        Are we going to build an alternative to Burki in shipyards?

                        Yes, destroyers have been designing for a long time, although in GPV 2020 the maximum, what can we wait for - the laying of one is closer to 2020. Another question is that a lot of fantasy is mixed around their performance characteristics.
                      2. clidon
                        clidon 27 October 2015 20: 08 New
                        -3
                        Those. the fact that the American and Ticonderoges of 1987-1990 are jauntily jaunting across the seas is wonderful, but does our Nakhimov go down?

                        The tics are going to be written off, not to pin hopes on 30 years.

                        Расскажите об этом США. А то эти неумные люди до сих пор штампуют "Арли Берки" - проект 80-х годов.

                        Arly Burke entered service 10 years later and, in essence, a generation higher than the Nakhimovs (a single UVP, a single radar, Aegis, steel superstructures). And of course, the choice to continue the construction of the Burks for US Navy did not come from a good life. The plans were initially much cooler, but "could not." However, they can be understood - after all, “Burke” and “Tika” are workhorses, of which more than 80 pieces are now walking. How many Nakhimovs will there be?

                        Do you understand the difference between the banal transfer of TsU (which almost any helicopter knew how to do in the last century) and the management of a group of ships?

                        But is it not considered to be an automated transmission of a command station (which helicopter was it in addition to the RC?) And its distribution in a group with a unified system of collecting information and issuing a control system to weapons?

                        A lot worse. He sees low-flying targets not just badly, but VERY badly, weapon control is vulnerable to the enemy’s electronic warfare.

                        Based on what do you draw such deep conclusions? I’ve got acquainted with the results of the exercises of the Northern Fleet for the 80s. There, some systems had to be turned off (for example, gun radars) so that others could work without interference. Everything was wonderful on paper, but in life ... In addition, a variety of funds, although multiplied by the quality of electronic components, did not produce the most outstanding results. However, here modernization can fix it.

                        You did not confuse me with USC? :)

                        Are we about the fate of the fleet or about raising money for the construction of citizens ’wallet?

                        Yes, destroyers have been designing for a long time, although in GPV 2020 the maximum, what can we wait for - the laying of one is closer to 2020. Another question is that a lot of fantasy is mixed around their performance characteristics.

                        Our fleet needs massive workhorses, not old reloaded wunderwaffles. As for the "fantasy", then there is nothing new - the domestic defense industry realized that you need to "file" yourself, otherwise you may be left without funds.
                      3. mark2
                        mark2 27 October 2015 20: 27 New
                        +2
                        Our fleet needs massive workhorses, not old reloaded wunderwaffles


                        That's what our fleet needs, so they forgot to ask this forum. If the problems were known from the time of the USSR, then they should be eliminated. If they don’t fix it, then we will not know about this one figs soon, if at all. And the superiority of some guidance systems and coordination over others only battle will show.
                      4. clidon
                        clidon 27 October 2015 21: 44 New
                        +2
                        Мне нравятся такие посты как ваш. Что то народ обсуждает обсуждает, а потом появляется "мудрец", который изрекает "Всё равно от нас ничего не зависит! Вас не спросят!". А на форум то зачем пришли? Идите займитесь делом что ли.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 22: 07 New
                      +3
                      Quote: clidon
                      The tics are going to be written off, not to pin hopes on 30 years.

                      Обманывать нехорошо. Последние "Тикондероги" собираются списывать аж к 2045 году. А первые Тикондероги, ровестники "Нахимова" покинут состав флота, конечно, раньше, ну так они, в отличие от нашего крейсера по морм/океанам ходили, когда "Нахимов" на консервации стоял.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Arly Burke entered service 10 years later

                      На 10 лет позже чего?:) Первый Арли вошел в состав флота в 1991 году, "Нахимов" - в 1988 г. Где тут разница 10 лет?
                      Quote: clidon
                      and in essence a generation higher than the Nakhimovs

                      Only in the fantasies of those especially in love with the US Navy.
                      Quote: clidon
                      single UVP, single radar, Aegis, steel superstructures

                      Of the good, only steel superstructures are visible so far, and as for the unified radar - they made fun, yes.
                      Quote: clidon
                      However, they can be understood - after all, “Burke” and “Tika” are workhorses, of which more than 80 pieces are now walking. How many Nakhimovs will there be?

                      Yes, at least 800 - the number of units built does not affect the quality of the project.
                      Quote: clidon
                      And the automated transmission of the control unit (which helicopter was it possible for the RC?)

                      У американцев - LAMPS, а у нас ЕМНИП Ка-27 с "Осьминогом"
                      Quote: clidon
                      and its distribution in a group with a unified system of collecting information and issuing MCs to weapons is not considered?

                      Я Вам еще раз говорю - цитируемый Вами отрывок свидетельствует о способности Иджиса передавать ЦУ цели на другой корабль. Все. Быть может, "Иджис" умеет что-то еще, но Вы этого не привели. А умение выдавать ЦУ никак не является "объединением ордера в единую группу" и я Вам писал выше, почему.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Based on what do you draw such deep conclusions?

                      На основании того, что AN/SPY-1 является РЛС дециметрового диапазона, который априори плохо видит на фоне моря. Изначально этот радар создавался для ПРО, ближний космос и воздух он видит хорошо, а вот низколетящие - нет. Спай начал хоть как-то различать низковысотные цели с модификации D. Это общая проблема дециметровых радаров, наши тоже обзорные тоже плохо видят низколетящие цели, именно поэтому у нас разработали специализированую РЛС "Подкат". В принципе, у Арли есть еще AN/SPS67(V)3 ориентированный на обнаружение низколетящих целей (это к слову о ЕДИНСТВЕННОМ ФАР laughing ) but then the fun begins.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 22: 07 New
                      +3
                      И мы и американцы можем засечь низколетящие цели (наши подкатом, США - sps67) но что дальше? У "Нахимова" все просто - поворачивается "Волна" с ее сантиметровым (или миллиметровым? не помню) диапазоном которая имеет широкую полосу сканирования, видит все и наводит 6 ракет на 3 цели. А вот американцы вынуждены ловить летящие цели (ориентируясь на данные двухкоординатной РЛС) радарами подсветки (т.е.тыкать иголкой в быстро перемещающуюся цель, причем Американская Гордость Спай-1 в этой процедуре похоже вообще не участвует) Я уж молчу о том, что одна "ВОлна" по своим возможностям как минимум соответствует возможностям одного Арли.
                      КРоме этого, амерские радары подсветки - это ТОЛЬКО радары подсветки, координирует и донаводит полет ракеты Спай (и как он будет наводить, ни шиша не видя? Он и свои-то ракеты на малых высотах будет с трудом различать) А наша "Волна" и видит цели и свои ЗУР и донаводит их за счет наличия РЛС сантиметрового диапазона.
                      Quote: clidon
                      I’ve got acquainted with the results of the exercises of the Northern Fleet for the 80s. There, some systems had to be turned off (for example, gun radars) so that others could work without interference.

                      Правильно, но там где нам надо было вырубить часть РЛС американцам оставалось читать "Отче наш".
                      Quote: clidon
                      Are we about the fate of the fleet or about raising money for the construction of citizens ’wallet?

                      We are about what to offer me to build Dering is at least strange.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Our fleet needs massive workhorses, not old reloaded wunderwaffles

                      If the fleet receives a child prodigy at the price of a workhorse - so be it!
                    4. clidon
                      clidon 28 October 2015 20: 46 New
                      0
                      Обманывать нехорошо. Последние "Тикондероги" собираются списывать аж к 2045 году. А первые Тикондероги, ровестники "Нахимова" покинут состав флота, конечно, раньше...

                      The first five Ticonderogs are ALREADY decommissioned, and the decommissioning process for upgraded cruisers will take place from 19 years on. The fact that the latter will be delayed until the age of 45 does not mean that this is a wonderful ship, but that there is simply not enough money to maintain such a number of ships. Replacing them in the form of a new generation of cruisers did not come.
                      We have little money, and instead of spending it on the dubious “super all in one” project, we need to increase the pace of building ships that the fleet needs as air. About the new generation of destroyers for 60-100 billion, I will not say anything.

                      На 10 лет позже чего?:) Первый Арли вошел в состав флота в 1991 году, "Нахимов" - в 1988 г. Где тут разница 10 лет?

                      Later, the lead ship of project 1144, which is "Kirov".

                      Only in the fantasies of those especially in love with the US Navy.

                      Of course, "we have our own way." )

                      Of the good, only steel superstructures are visible so far, and as for the unified radar - they made fun, yes.

                      Well, yes, reduced EPR and a single UVP, with Aegis this is also nonsense.

                      Yes, even 800 - the number of units built does not affect the quality of the project

                      Yah. "I am not an accountant, I am a creator!" )

                      У американцев - LAMPS, а у нас ЕМНИП Ка-27 с "Осьминогом"

                      We are not about to search for submarines by the domestic fleet. The octopus did not give any automated data to the ships, the helicopters in the group exchanged. Only the Ka-25RTs had the control system (on the basis of the Ka-27, they did not manage to make a gunner, as far as I know, but what can the Ka-27M not know now) and the Tu-95RTs, although everything was pretty archaic there with manual data entry. The rest "Vasya! I see the target in a square of 12-40. How do you hear Burun? I repeat ... ".

                      Быть может, "Иджис" умеет что-то еще, но Вы этого не привели. А умение выдавать ЦУ никак не является "объединением ордера в единую группу" и я Вам писал выше, почему.

                      That is, you want the person to not participate at all? Or do you doubt that Aegis combines intelligence data with a common “base”?
                    5. clidon
                      clidon 28 October 2015 20: 46 New
                      +1
                      Based on the fact that AN / SPY-1 is a radar of the decimeter range, which a priori is hard to see against the background of the sea.

                      Why do you think that he “a priori” sees poorly? How much worse sees. It is interesting that the United States, creating the URO destroyer, whose main task was the air defense (PLO) of the group, has a radar station that poorly sees the main target, but this suits the military.
                      It was not created for any missile defense - when the Aegis was being made, such a task was not "at all" at all. Neither at sea, much less before land. But the task of defense against groups of Soviet missiles was. Moreover, the priority, as everywhere indicated.

                      Для увеличения частоты обновления данных о низколетящих ВЦ, и особенно при их внезапном появлении, для каждой ФАР предусмотрен режим ускоренного поиска целей в нижней части полусферы (угол места от 0 до 4-5°) специально выделенным дли этого лучом поиска. Дальность обнаружения в гаком режиме не превышает 80- 82 км. РЛС AN/SPY-I способна также обеспечивать радиокомандное наведение ЗУР "Стандарт-2" на маршевом участке траектории полета. Это позволяет применять режим полуактивного наведения ЗУР только на конечном участке траектории. В результате, как сообщает зарубежная печать, радиолокаторы подсветки цели (AN/SPG-62) могут осуществлять последовательное наведение до 22 находящихся в полете ЗУР. При таком способе сокращается расход топлива ракеты за счет уменьшения ее отклонений от программной траектории полета, что приводит к увеличению дальности стрельбы.

                      In fact, your entire epic layout is based on one thing - the SPY-1 system is blind and does not see anything. And this is confirmed .... I tortured one here. Well, "there is no data on successful interception." And that’s it!

                      We are about what to offer me to build Dering is at least strange.

                      Well, personally, I and Nakhimov do not propose upgrading you ...

                      If the fleet receives a child prodigy at the price of a workhorse - so be it!

                      That is, instead of three, four, or five modern frigates - one old wunderwafer is great?
                    6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 10: 41 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      The first five Ticonderogs are ALREADY decommissioned, and the decommissioning process for upgraded cruisers will take place from 19 years on. The fact that the latter will be delayed until the age of 45 does not mean that this is a wonderful ship, but that there is simply not enough money to maintain such a number of ships

                      Вы себя послушайте. Значит, страна, чей военный бюджет превышает остальные страны мира вместе взятые, по финансовым причинам вынуждена оставлять в составе флота РКР "Тикондерога" до 2045 года. А мы подобного делать не должны?:)) Мы богаче, что ли?
                      Quote: clidon
                      We have little money, and instead of spending it on the dubious “super all in one” project, we need to increase the pace of building ships that the fleet needs as air

                      And how do we need air? Ships of the first rank of the ocean zone, which are so lacking in the Mediterranean Sea or in other areas where our presence is desirable. And TARK here is what the doctor prescribed.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Later, the lead ship of project 1144, which is "Kirov".

                      Clear.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Of course, "we have our own way." )

                      On which it is advisable not to make American mistakes
                      Quote: clidon
                      Well, yes, reduced EPR and a single UVP, with Aegis this is also nonsense.

                      The EPR there is extremely conditionally lowered, and a single UVP is not what our fleet should strive for.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Yah. "I am not an accountant, I am a creator!" )

                      Да ну. Изучив историю ВМФ Вы могли бы узнать, что не самые оптимальные (и оттого дорогие) проекты как раз таки и получали долгую жизнь за счет своей "избыточности". Те же британские "Куин Элизабет" были существенно дороже (но и мощнее и быстроходнее) аналогичных по срокам строительства дредноутов, но благодаря этому неплохо смотрелись и в ВМВ.
                      I do not consider 1144 an optimal project for my time (the same applies to Arly), but due to the large size and mass of weapons it has great modernization potential, which is a sin not to use.
                      Quote: clidon
                      We are not about to search for submarines by the domestic fleet. The octopus did not issue any automated data to the ships; the helicopters in the group exchanged

                      As far as I know, he could transfer to ships. Although here I could be wrong.
                    7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 10: 43 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      Only the Ka-25RTs had the control system (on the basis of the Ka-27, they did not manage to make a gunner, as far as I know, but what can the Ka-27M not know now) and the Tu-95RTs, although everything was pretty archaic there with manual data entry.

                      МРСЦ "Успех", на секундочку, передавал не только координаты, но и "радиолокационную картинку" цели формируемую основным бортовым радиолокатором и наблюдаемая операторами как на самолете (вертолете), так и на стреляющем корабле. Каким образом Вы полагаете возможным передачу этой информации вручную - для меня загадка
                      Quote: clidon
                      That is, you want the person to not participate at all? Or do you doubt that Aegis combines intelligence data with a common “base”?

                      В третий раз. Вы описали выдачу ЦУ "Иджисом", которая принципиально ничем не отличается от передачи данных с Ка-25РЦ на РКР проекта 58. И данное ЦУ попадет "в общую базу" того, что видят РЛС крейсера 58.
                      Управление группой заключается в ином. Есть некий "Центр" в котором формируется картина по данным ВСЕХ кораблей (т.е. идет не передача одиночного ЦУ а постоянный обмен данными ВСЕХ источников информации со ВСЕХ носителей)В случае атаки (допустим - массовый налет ПКР) "Центр" автоматически определяет наиболее угрожающие/приоритетные цели для каждого корабля и определяет, какой именно корабль каким именно оружием будет его атаковать. Принципиальное отличие от индивидуальной работы Иджиса в том, что несколько Иджисов различных кораблей могут определить одни и те же приоритетные цели и атаковать их одновременно. При групповой работе это невозможно. Далее, при групповой работе не исключено, что один (или несколько) кораблей будут вообще работать не по угрожающим им целям, а по целям, угрожающим другим кораблям - при индивидуальной работе это невозможно (Иджис будет оценивать угрозы только своему кораблю). И прочая и прочая.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Why do you think that he “a priori” sees poorly?

                      Because decimeter radars are BAD seen at sea level :)) This is physics, and the detailed argumentation is a little lower.
                      Quote: clidon
                      It is interesting that the United States, creating the URO destroyer, whose main task was the air defense (PLO) of the group, has a radar station that poorly sees the main target, but this suits the military.

                      Absolutely right! Do you know why?
                      Потому что во время создания "Иджиса" ПКР летали весьма высоко:)) Даже П-35 атаковала с высоты 100 м (и туда он снижался где-то в 15-20 км от корабля, до этого шел на 400 м и выше), про более ранние нечего и говорить. Но вот ракеты следующих серий сильно "снизились" "Базальт" (50 м), Гранит (25 м)и далее.
                    8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 10: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      It was not created for any missile defense - when the Aegis was being made, such a task was not "at all" at all. Neither at sea, much less before land. But the task of defense against groups of Soviet missiles was

                      ПРО - расшифровывается как противоРАКЕТНАЯ оборона, так что Ваше утверждение (не для ПРО а от ракет) весьма забавно:) Но я понял, о чем Вы: в принципе Вы правы, только вот забываете, что тогдашняя угроза от которой собирались отбиваться корабли США состояла из советских ПКР воздушного базирования, которые представляли собой хоть и скоростные, но ВЫСОТНЫЕ цели. Та же Х-22 пикировала на цель с большой высоты - вот от таких ПКР и создавался AN/SPY-1 для "Иджис". Появление ракет, способных атаковать на 50 м и ниже стало для янки крайне неприятным сюрпризом и высветило ошибочность концепции американского ПВО.
                      Quote: clidon
                      In fact, your entire epic layout is based on one thing - the SPY-1 system is blind and does not see anything. And this is confirmed .... I tortured one here. Well, "there is no data on successful interception." And that’s it!

                      The evidence is very simple:
                      1) There is a clear physical explanation why the decimeter radar does not work well at low altitudes.
                      2) There is knowledge that Soviet decimeter radars with a general overview are poorly visible at low altitudes.
                      3) Иностранные военные СМИ неоднократно называли британский "Дэринг" лучшим ПВО-шником мира именно потому, что его РЛС является "два в одном" - сочетает дециметровый и сантиметровый радары, при этом «поимка» низколетящих целей осуществляется именно сантиметровым.
                      4) Корабли ВМС США - носители "Иджиса" в дополнение к AN/SPY-1 поголовно оснащены специализированной РЛС для обнаружения целей у уровня моря (в т.ч. низколетящих) (которая, тем не менее не может выдавать ЦУ для ЗУР)
                      5) Yes, there is practically no data on successful interceptions of low-flying targets.
                      6) The prospective US Navy radar AN / SPY-3 uses the centimeter range.
                      Is this not enough for you?
                      Quote: clidon
                      Well, personally, I and Nakhimov do not propose upgrading you ...

                      And thanks for that.
                      Quote: clidon
                      That is, instead of three, four, or five modern frigates - one old wunderwafer is great?

                      In comparable numbers, the project 22350 frigate was estimated at about 21 billion rubles, and the cost of upgrading Nakhimov at 50 billion. Well, and in terms of its combat value, the modernized Nakhimov obviously exceeds 2,5 frigates.
                    9. clidon
                      clidon 30 October 2015 23: 54 New
                      +1
                      And we should not do this? :)) Are we richer, or what?

                      I do not remember that the Ticonderoga were going to modernize so large-scale and expensive.

                      And how do we need air?

                      The only (or there will be two of them - as planned) TARK which (as history shows) will be afraid to let go in the face of a much superior enemy is this what you need to invest in?
                      And you need ships of the coastal zone, corvettes, frigates, destroyers and submarines. And in series, and not "buy 5, no 6, no 4".

                      The EPR there is extremely conditionally lowered, and a single UVP is not what our fleet should strive for.

                      Условно? Это при таких "ёлках" на мачте? Единая УВП? Это часть правильного флота, который будет состоять не из уникальных единиц, а представлять собой систему. Во всём.

                      Yah. Having studied the history of the Navy ...

                      “Queen Elizabeth” is well preserved for another reason - Washington agreements. And the first violin in WWII was played by modern projects (moreover, a modern approach), and not by envoys from the past. 1144 is an extremely expensive project to operate, as are all unique mastodons. And like any expensive toy, it will have only two positive effects - to serve as an overkill for all Papuans and proudly show the flag (well, propaganda, we love people who are big and unique). Moreover, as I see it, the latter played the main role. No wonder it was just for the election and from United Russia that there was a "trick" - we will restore the "Eagles"!
                    10. clidon
                      clidon 30 October 2015 23: 55 New
                      0

                      How do you think it is possible to transmit this information manually is a mystery to me

                      The quality of the “Success” work was criticized - the picture was analog and the “pens” operators kept in touch.

                      According to Aegis, of course, the situation is lighting up for all ships equipped with Aegis according to communication systems, and they are so connected with the subsystems that they can target each other, so you only need an administrative decision to deploy the headquarters. In which the operators sit and issue commands to use weapons warrant.
                      http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2015/992/exci554.png

                      Потому что во время создания "Иджиса" ПКР летали весьма высоко:))

                      It turns out that when they built the “Burki”, they were oriented not on the “Granites” and “Basalts” (“Gorshkov in the sea“ Aegis ”!), But on the old P-35 and X-22?

                      The appearance of missiles capable of attacking 50 m and below was a very unpleasant surprise for the Yankees and highlighted the fallacy of the concept of American air defense.

                      That is, the whole world (and the United States themselves) switched to low-altitude rockets, and the Yankees thought that ours would fly high? And they continue to think like this for decades.

                      The evidence is very simple: ....
                      ....
                      Is this not enough for you?

                      1. Perhaps he does it worse than short-range radars, but there is no evidence that he does it badly.
                      2. This is not an argument at all.
                      3. It is easy that the best, it is fresher. However, no one calls the “Burki” bad Pvoshniki.
                      4. And why can’t it transmit to missiles? Time replaces the main radar in the most important task?
                      5. Such general test results were not published in the open press.
                      6. That's what is promising. Who can really prove that the powerful Spy-1 HEADLIGHT poorly sees low-flying targets? Almost all of this “seems to me so because I really want to.” And I even remembered the name and surname of that person. His name is Oleg. ) From all kinds of “low-altitude search modes”, he generally dismisses them “Well, there they tried to do something, but obviously bullshit happened.”

                      In comparable numbers, the frigate of project 22350 was estimated at about 21 billion rubles, and the cost of modernizing Nakhimov at 50 billion.

                      I saw the numbers and lower for the series, and not the lead ship unfinished. However, do not forget - nuclear unique ones will be very expensive to operate. This even leaves out the fact that the real cost of such a large-scale modernization will probably be higher.
                    11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2015 14: 00 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      I do not remember that the Ticonderoga were going to modernize so large-scale and expensive.

                      Nor would ours be necessary if we treated the contents of the ship systems qualitatively. However, the dashing 90s.
                      У нас значительнейшая часть средств - это восстановление работоспособности механизмов "Нахимова", обновление вооружения стоит не так уж дорого.
                      Quote: clidon
                      The only (or there will be two of them - as planned) TARK which (as history shows) will be afraid to let go in the face of a much superior enemy is this what you need to invest in?

                      Да, по образцу и подобию 5ОПЭСК. "Нахимов" может сопровождать АУГ, а залп 80 современных ПКР вполне может оказаться для авианосца фатальным. Размен страшный, но выгодный для нас.
                      Quote: clidon
                      And you need ships of the coastal zone, corvettes, frigates, destroyers and submarines. And in series, and not "buy 5, no 6, no 4".

                      I don’t understand :))) Do you need coastal destroyers? :)) You will make it easier - tell me what tasks the fleet designed by you will solve, so it will be more understandable.
                      И, повторяю, на 50 ярдов, которые потратят на "Нахимова" никакой серии никаких фрегатов не построить.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Условно? Это при таких "ёлках" на мачте?

                      What kind of Christmas trees? :))) Well, tell me more, you can - in numbers, what kind of EPR is Arly Burke. You said that he has a low ESR - you justify.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Unified UVP? This is part of the correct fleet, which will not consist of unique units, but will be a system. In everything.

                      Если Вы видите основную задачу флота в том, чтобы "представлять единую систему во сем" - это Ваше право. Но мне думается, что основная задача флота заключается в выполнении стоящих перед ним задач. И конструкторские решения должны обеспечивать выполнение этих самых задач, а не стремиться к какой-то мифической "правильности"
                      Американцы вон устремились. Результат - плачевный. Их корабли не несут ударное вооружение, потому что его банально нет под существующие УВП. Американцы были вынуждены отказаться от разработки сверхзвукового варианта LRASM, (из за "возможных технических проблем") Какие там проблемы? Что, США не могут сверхзвуковую ракету сделать? МОгут, конечно. А вот упихнуть сверхзвуковую ПКР в Увп41 - нет. ПРотиволодочное оружие. Ходили-ходили с разнесчастным додревним АСРОК-ом, потому уже ясно, что так дальше нельзя, стали разрабатывать новую ракету - RUM-139 VLA. Разработчики умучались ее делать (компанию, которая занималась разработкой слияли/поглощали, сорвали все сроки разработки и т.д.) а на выходе получили конструкт с дальностью аж 28 километров - дальность не то, чтобы совсем анекдотическая, но явно недостаточная для современного морского боя. Наши калибры и водопады работают на 50.
                      As a result, all that American ships can do is to drag aging Tomahawks and provide air defense against high-flying targets. But - the right fleet, yes.
                    12. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2015 14: 00 New
                      0
                      Quote: clidon
                      “Queen Elizabeth” is well preserved for another reason - Washington agreements. And the first fiddle in WWII was played by modern projects (moreover, a modern approach), and not by messengers from the past.

                      Вопрос не в том, почему сохранились Куины, а в том, что они за счет своих ТТХ они оказались вполне "ко двору" ВМВ. Куин Элизабет сыграли существенную роль в борьбе в Средиземном море.
                      Quote: clidon
                      1144 is an extremely expensive project to operate, as are all unique mastodons.

                      Figures in the studio. Explain why the project’s nuclear ship is so super expensive.
                      Quote: clidon
                      The quality of the “Success” work was criticized - the picture was analog and the “pens” operators kept in touch.

                      расшифруйте пожалуйста термин "аналоговая картинка" и расскажите, откуда Вы все это взяли. После чего (а можно и - до) вспомните, что мы очень хорошо знаем о недостатках наших систем, но очень плохо - о недостатках систем импортных. Они (как и мы, кстати) не спешат трубить об этом в официозе. Однако когда доходит до дела (та же атака американского линкора ПКР Ирака) - работают почему-то британские СИ Дарты.
                      Quote: clidon
                      According to Aegis, of course, the situation is lighting up for all ships equipped with Aegis according to communication systems, and they are so connected with the subsystems that they can target each other, so you only need an administrative decision to deploy the headquarters. In which the operators sit and issue commands to use weapons warrant.

                      In this case, what is the advantage of the Ajis praised by you over a bunch of RRC pr58 and ka-25RTs? :) Both the operators are sitting there and there, and they are making decisions there ... what is it about? :)))
                      Your picture, by the way, characterizes the data transmission through the pre-ancient satellite system SATCOM to the pre-JISUOS Navy control unit of the US Navy NTDS. Those. in the best case, again, all the same target designation, without control of military means.
                      Quote: clidon
                      It turns out that when they built the “Burki”, they were oriented not on the “Granites” and “Basalts” (“Gorshkov in the sea“ Aegis ”!), But on the old P-35 and X-22?

                      And what advice would you give the Americans? They have a boiled Aegis with a no less boiled AN / SPY-1, but nothing else. And what to do? Refuse to build new ships until a new radar is created?
                      Quote: clidon
                      That is, the whole world (and the United States themselves) switched to low-altitude rockets, and the Yankees thought that ours would fly high? And they continue to think like this for decades.

                      Well, why - for decades. Measures were taken - they began to make a new modification of AN / SPY-1D (V), with improved search capabilities for low-flying targets (amplified signal), and since existing missiles could not reliably intercept anti-ship missiles - they launched the development of ESSM. But all the same, nothing good came of this, so in the future the Americans created their promising radars with the mandatory participation of the centimeter range.
                    13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2015 14: 03 New
                      -1
                      Quote: clidon
                      1. Perhaps he does it worse than short-range radars, but there is no evidence that he does it badly.
                      2. This is not an argument at all.

                      For those who believe in invincible, superior American weapons, of course not. For those who understand that the decimeter wave will not have fundamental differences, regardless of whether it is produced by the Soviet or American radar, the fact that our Frigates have poor low-altitude vision shows a lot.
                      Quote: clidon
                      It’s easy that the best, it’s fresher. However, no one calls the “Burki” bad Pvoshniki.

                      А вот почему-то фрегаты "Горизонт" на которых стоит тот же PAAMS, что и на "Дэринге" - никто лучшими ПВО-шниками мира не называет. А знаете почему? Потому что у них нет SAMPSON, а есть обычная дециметровая РЛС-ка:)
                      Quote: clidon
                      And why can’t it transmit to missiles? Time replaces the main radar in the most important task?

                      Не умеет. Ни в одном источнике нет сведений, что данный радар может выдавать ЦУ. Скорее всего, там идея такая - РЛС обнаруживает цели и посредством Иджис передает AN/SPY-1 ("ищи вооон в той точке!!!") а Иджис, в свою очередь, осуществляет усиленный поиск по полученным координатам
                      Quote: clidon
                      Such general test results were not published in the open press.

                      Repeatedly transmitted, and - in English. And for some reason ALWAYS reported the downing of supersonic high-altitude and subsonic low-flying :))) But the downing of low-altitude supersonic - netuti. But there is recognition of problems with the interception of supersonic low-flying http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/navy/2011ssds.pdf
                      2011, by the way.
                      Quote: clidon
                      That's perspective. Who can really prove that the powerful Spy-1 HEADLIGHT poorly sees low-flying targets? Virtually all of this “I think so because I really want to”

                      very funny. Present at least one somewhat solid English-language source in which Aegis’s ability to intercept low-flying supersonic targets is firmly affirmed :))))
                      The joke is that you will not find anything like that. After reading the reports about the excellent Aegis, you yourself thought that Aegis is good at catching low-flying anti-ship missiles. Precisely because
                      Quote: clidon
                      “I think so because I really want to”

                      Quote: clidon
                      From all kinds of “low-altitude search modes”, he generally dismisses them “Well, they tried to do something there, but obviously bullshit happened.”

                      I don’t know what Oleg shrugs off, but the latest versions of the Frigate (according to network data, the source, unfortunately, have not been found) sees at a height of 15 meters a rocket with an ESR of 0,1 square meters at a distance of 15-17 km when working in special mode - forming a beam in power twice exceeding the typical impulse AN / SPY1.
                    14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 31 October 2015 14: 06 New
                      0
                      However, we can argue about the possibilities of Aegis for a long time. I want to remind you how this debate started - you announced a single headlamp as what all the ships of the world should strive for :))) Perhaps now you still understand that AN / SPY-1 is not at all exemplary a solution that is completely superior to other solutions. If this is clear - I propose to finish :)
                      Quote: clidon
                      I saw the numbers and lower for the series, and not the lead ship unfinished. However, do not forget - nuclear unique ones will be very expensive to operate.

                      I gave you my numbers - bring yours. At the same time, it would be nice to describe how the content of 2 eagles became more expensive than the content of 5 frigates. And how much. And as far as the fighting power of the two Eagles exceeds 5 frigates. And not to forget about seaworthiness / autonomy.
                    15. clidon
                      clidon 7 November 2015 19: 13 New
                      0
                      Nor would ours be necessary if we treated the contents of the ship systems qualitatively. However, the dashing 90s.

                      But we are not talking about what and why, we are talking about what we need to spend money on now. And to give them to an old ship with a rotten hull in such a furious amount is either public relations or hopelessness. Both are depressing.


                      Да, по образцу и подобию 5ОПЭСК. "Нахимов" может сопровождать АУГ, а залп 80 современных ПКР вполне может оказаться для авианосца фатальным. Размен страшный, но выгодный для нас.

                      Accompany AUG, hoping to have time to shoot first, maybe a destroyer. To what extent this practice of “a pistol at the temple” is practicable, and even more so in the event of an attack is a big question.


                      I don’t understand :))) Do you need coastal destroyers? :)) You will make it easier - tell me what tasks the fleet designed by you will solve, so it will be more understandable.

                      I would first of all focus on frigates. And maybe destroyers working under cover of base aircraft. Plus submarines in the ocean. In a fleet which is at the size of 1-2 AUG (or alas, simply “UG” without any “A”), it will butt with an adversary that surpasses quantitatively (and still qualitatively) simply multiple - this is suicidal. Therefore, in real life, I won’t be surprised if they do not let out air defense and Nakhimov from under the umbrella. Trite fearing his loss and related problems.

                      What kind of Christmas trees? :))) Well, tell me more, you can - in numbers, what kind of EPR is Arly Burke. You said that he has a low ESR - you justify.

                      Do you think that the pyramidal tower dotted with the corner reflectors of the antennas “shines” as much as the comfortable “Burke” setting? Here the Americans refused the “Harpoons”, because “installations increase the EPR” ... Seriously, without numbers, nowhere? )
                    16. clidon
                      clidon 7 November 2015 19: 14 New
                      0
                      But - the right fleet, yes.

                      This fleet, which was built around the aircraft carrier during the Cold War and had the most advanced universal weapons - Tomahawks, Standards plus Harpoons, etc. The main task of the security ships was then and remains now air defense and anti-aircraft defense. Impact tasks were carried out and are being carried out by carrier-based aviation; it is further and more flexible in use, has the capabilities of additional reconnaissance. That is why interest in missiles is much lower than ours. As for supersonic missiles, do you really think that 6,2 meters can’t make an SV rocket, and 8 meters can already be imagined?
                      A universal 4-meter LRASM (which is generally a variant of aviation KR) is a secondary weapon for the fleet (ship's crew). "Schaub Bulo," as the Harpoon used to be. Moreover, relatively cheaper, more long-range and based on stealth.

                      Вопрос не в том, почему сохранились Куины, а в том, что они за счет своих ТТХ они оказались вполне "ко двору" ВМВ. Куин Элизабет сыграли существенную роль в борьбе в Средиземном море.

                      I have already suggested upgrading Aurora or Kutuzov. "Caliber" fit, there is armor, some kind of special speed is not needed. There will be no other ships - they will definitely be in demand.

                      Figures in the studio. Explain why the project’s nuclear ship is so super expensive.

                      Well, where do I get you our (true to the same) figures. However, I know without any figures that a hefty unique vessel, for the sake of only fuel service, which requires a special ship and specialists, and spent fuel requires disposal in the Urals (and with reprocessing, unlike the Americans), is somewhat expensive.
                      If you look at the Americans, then a serial aircraft carrier costs (without aviation) $ 120 million a year. Destroyer (Burke) at $ 25 million. The frigate can be assumed to be 12-13 million. An aircraft carrier is a relatively “empty” box (although the size and crew are of course larger) - the cruiser is crammed with sophisticated weapons and both have an expensive nuclear power plant, so I won’t be surprised if the numbers of its operation are not much less, 80 million a year.

                      расшифруйте пожалуйста термин "аналоговая картинка" и расскажите, откуда Вы все это взяли. После чего (а можно и - до) вспомните, что мы очень хорошо знаем о недостатках наших систем, но очень плохо - о недостатках систем импортных.

                      You do not know the difference between an “analog” signal and a digital one? And about the “where” - said the same person as about the teachings (and most likely about the same teachings of the destroyer 956 project of the late 90s, which is on the Internet). True, literally in two phrases, he was not connected with guidance at all - special in navigation.

                      After which (and you can - before) remember that we know very well about the shortcomings of our systems, but very poorly - about the shortcomings of imported systems

                      Then I almost fell off the chair. Only when Serdyukov began to talk about the shortcomings of our systems, it was something to say (when he fought with the military-industrial complex) that they were immediately accused of being unaccustomed as a dirty slap. For we always have officially “everything is OK” and a thumb up. Best of all and has no analogues. And the Yankees saw cut, decline and a film about "Bradley".
                    17. clidon
                      clidon 7 November 2015 19: 17 New
                      0
                      They (like us, by the way) are in no hurry to trumpet this in officialdom. However, when it comes down to it (the same attack by the American battleship of the RCC of Iraq), the British SI Darts work for some reason.

                      The reasons for this "work" can be a lot and some deep conclusions are definitely not worth building.

                      In this case, what is the advantage of the Ajis praised by you over a bunch of RRC pr58 and ka-25RTs? :) Both the operators are sitting there and there, and they are making decisions there ... what is it about? :)))

                      All operators of all Aegis ships see the same picture received from all sensors (AWACS, GAS and LAMPS, SPY-1, etc.) and can target each other’s weapons, is this not a success?

                      And what advice would you give the Americans? They have a boiled Aegis with a no less boiled AN / SPY-1, but nothing else. And what to do? Refuse to build new ships until a new radar is created?

                      Steamed? Soon, "everything was lost", and the base series ships are being built unarmed? We, in my opinion, have another problem - everyone is trying hard to imagine from the Pentagon a bunch of clinical thieves idiots.

                      But all the same, nothing good came of this, so in the future the Americans created their promising radars with the mandatory participation of the centimeter range.

                      That is, it was only in the mid-90s that they decided that at least something needs to be done? Here the house has been burning for more than 15 years, there is a cold war, “hawks” are at the helm, and the department is lazily making some attempts to improve something a little. And he does not refuse the “blind” decimeter range for 30 years, putting it off “for later”.

                      For those who believe in invincible, superior American weapons, of course not. For those who understand that the decimeter wave will not have fundamental differences, regardless of whether it is produced by the Soviet or American radar, the fact that our Frigates have poor low-altitude vision shows a lot.

                      I'm not saying that the decimeter range sees low-flying targets better or less than shorter ones. The important question here is how much worse and how much this can be countered by an increase in the beam power, software processing, etc. But there was no answer to this, and for our critics, it means “no way” worse.

                      Can not. There is no information in any source that the given radar can give TsU.

                      That is, even here the silly Yankees goofed off?
                    18. clidon
                      clidon 7 November 2015 19: 17 New
                      0
                      Repeatedly transmitted, and - in English.

                      I can say that the tests of both the MA-31 and the Vandals were a bunch. Can you tell me their results?

                      After reading the reports about the excellent Aegis, you yourself thought that Aegis is good at catching low-flying anti-ship missiles.

                      I assume that the US Navy is people who know their enemy’s weapons and that’s why Aegis appeared on which naval specialists lick (and promise that “it will be, it will be soon!”) ​​And what’s from the “photo” and comparisons you can think of a lot, and no doubt. I remember that they also proved to me that in the 91st year, Americans from Iraq will take away tens of thousands of coffins. For the Yankees are tender and do not know how to fight in the desert, and Sadadm has our equipment, specialists, courage and many years of experience ...

                      I don’t know what Oleg shrugs off, but the latest versions of the Frigate (according to network data, the source, unfortunately, have not been found) sees at a height of 15 meters a rocket with an ESR of 0,1 square meters at a distance of 15-17 km when working in special mode - forming a beam in power twice exceeding the typical impulse AN / SPY1.

                      Without going into details of capacities and devices: it turns out that stealth planes see modern radars at arm's length. ) In general, such figures need to be compared in one plate and from one proven source. And it can easily become clear that the conditions are somewhat different.

                      Perhaps now you still understand that AN / SPY-1 is not at all an exemplary solution that is completely superior to other solutions. If this is clear - I propose to finish :)

                      Specifically, AN / SPY-1 is a solution that is 30 years old - although I think that there is still much that can be solved with modernizations. As for the unified (for you, “conditionally”) conformal radar, we can easily come to it if we can because there are a lot of pluses from such a solution (powerful radar, EPR, easier repair, cheaper operation, no mutual interference from other REV facilities). Perhaps when we will have SPY-1 level technologies. Let in your and your favorite centimeter range. )

                      I gave you my numbers - bring yours. At the same time, it would be nice to describe how the content of 2 eagles became more expensive than the content of 5 frigates. And how much. And as far as the fighting power of the two Eagles exceeds 5 frigates. And not to forget about seaworthiness / autonomy.

                      A serial frigate costs 13-14 billion - 1135 and 18 - 19 billion - 22350. How much the content is different, I estimated above. As for power, how much will it be if the frigate and Orlan are put out of action? And in repair? And if “power” is needed in three places at the same time? Will we saw the “Orlan”? )
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. silver_roman
    silver_roman 29 October 2015 18: 17 New
    0
    read your discussion. I don’t understand the minuses to one and the pluses to another.
    Each leads a logical argument. apparently the matter is in the ranks.

    1) If I’m not mistaken, then AJIS can really combine all the ships into combat orders and display a common picture for all the ships in one order.
    She also controls all weapons systems. We have for each gun on its own radar, which are in no way connected.
    and by the way, as air defense: SM3 worked on satellites at altitudes of up to 200 km. That and sharpened to work on ballistic missiles. I do not presume to compare them with the s-300F, but it seems to me that it is not worse.
    But also, this does not cancel the facts of false control centers either on civilian airliners (the Iranian aircraft was shot down) or as relatively recently Arly caught a mock target in the boom when the AID did not notice it.
    2)Так же есть доля истины в том, что нужен более массовый флот чем яйца в одну корзину. ВСегда вспоминаю картинку уничтожения Ямато или Бисмарка. Но с другой стороны я лично понятия не имую как покажет себя модернизированный Нахимов: в идеале он должен одновременно работать, отражая вражеские атаки с ЛА, ПКР, ведя оборону как на дальних рубежах(с-300Ф), так и на ближних при этом атаковать своими средствами или по ЦУ ( то ли спутник, то ли А-50, не важно) вражеские цели на удалении(корабли, авианосцы и т.п.). ВО время СССР у нас был москитный флот и любой "масик" мог всадить в бок суперуберсовременнмоу тикандероге ПКР размером с дом после чего последний отправлялся кормить рыб!
    3)Все планирую планирую "лидера" да пока проблемы с вводом фрегатов. Говорю о 22350. Один "Горшков" только в строю и то еще вроде как не передан флоту.
    А по сути все мы пытаемся уйти от многосерийности и все никак: только у меня на памяти строятся 11356(экспорт и 6 штук на ЧФ),22350( "Горшков" и КО), 20380 и еще 100500 его модернизаций то с калибром, то с Ураном, я если честно запутался уже), на каспии вообще 11661 "Татарстан и т.д.(так же идет на экспорт во Вьетнам), еще хотят 22800 - малый корабль под 800т. с калибром. Так же добавьте сюда еще все старео, что плавает у нас от СССР + нового "Лидера" + всякие там БДК + несколько видов ПЛ корчое солянка адская получается. Содержание этого всего дико дорого и не оправдано. Нужно срочно унифицировать все, но при этом не тупо уничтожая старые образцы, котоыре еще могут служить долго,А вводят новые.
    У амеров: Арли + Тикандерога, паро АПЛ(ДЭПЛ у них нет, на них сложно демократизировать "недоразвитые" страны), есть прибрежные корабли, но признаны неудачными, есть еще пережитки прошло типа Оливер Пери, но их выводят из состава) и все по сути. По ПЛ так же все просто в нескольких проектах: одни несут "топоры", другие ядерные ракеты. Все по сути.
    And casting a series of 20 Berks, their price drops extremely strongly. That's what we need.
    I personally think that you need to have corvettes for coastal protection, supported by ground-based air defense, destroyers (the most numerous class), several helicopter carriers, BDK by itself, strategic and multipurpose nuclear submarines (i.e. Boreas and Yaseni. 667, Anthei need to be deduced from time). Purely my IMHO: nafig carriers are not needed.
    That's actually what I wanted to say about your discussion!
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 21: 07 New
    0
    Quote: silver_roman
    If I’m not mistaken, then the AHIS can really combine all the ships into combat orders and display a common picture for all the ships in one order.

    Все может быть. Возможно, что "Иджис" управляет группой кораблей. Или всеми ВМС США. Может быть "Иджис" правит Соединенными Штатами, а быть может он и вовсе возглавляет мировое правительство. Или Галактическое. Не исключено даже, что "Иджис" спину оператору чесать умеет.
    Так что как только появится какое-то подтверждение - милости просим. Аргументация "я думаю", тут, простите, вряд ли может быть принята.
    Quote: silver_roman
    She also controls all weapons systems. We have for each gun on its own radar, which are in no way connected

    Ну, не знаю как там у Вас, а у нас в ВМФ РФ вообще-то появилась "Сигма", которая кое-что может.
    Quote: silver_roman
    SM3 worked on satellites at altitudes of up to 200 km. That and sharpened to work on ballistic missiles. I do not presume to compare them with the s-300F, but it seems to me that it is not worse.

    "Кажется" - это убойная аргументация. Но если позволите дать Вам совет - почитайте что-нибудь на досуге об СМ-3 и С-300. Очень скоро Вы обнаружите, что сравнили белое с тяжелым - СМ-3 представляет собой именно что противоспутниковую ракету, способную также перехватывать (возможно) БЧ баллистических ракет в ближнем космосе. Ни самолет, ни ПКР этой ракетой сбить невозможно. ЗУР С-300 наоборот оптимизированы на перехват крылатых ракет и самолетов, возможности поразить баллистическую ракету есть, но весьма скромны - не для того они делались.
    But only in naval combat missiles are needed, capable of hitting anti-ship missiles and aircraft.
    Quote: silver_roman
    ВО время СССР у нас был москитный флот и любой "масик" мог всадить в бок суперуберсовременнмоу тикандероге ПКР размером с дом после чего последний отправлялся кормить рыб!

    Не мог. Возможности "москитного флота" крайне ограничены, собственно говоря, аналитика была даже на этом сайте. Очень неприглядная для москитного флота аналитика.
    Quote: silver_roman
    We urgently need to unify everything

    It's right. But a great deal of unification will not work - we have fundamentally different theaters - for the North and the Pacific, one ship is needed, for the Black and Baltic - completely different.
    Quote: silver_roman
    I personally think that you need to have

    It remains only to find out what tasks you are going to solve with the composition of the fleet voiced by you. Here's an example - why do you need destroyers, if you think that deck aviation is superfluous?
  • Yarhann
    Yarhann 27 October 2015 22: 06 New
    0
    aircraft carriers are not needed; you need a DRLO helicopter that's all or a ship in an order that will be a carrier of a DRLO helicopter that's all. And in the future, the AWACS helicopter should replace the UAVs of the helicopter type AWACS.
    Carriers are needed for a comprehensive attack on the coastline, that is, a breakthrough in air defense and the destruction of deshovy ammunition from the air of everything and everyone. And for target designation, excuse me, but somehow the aircraft carrier is too bold even ariha bold.
    And for whom the target designation is if for the caliber it is satellites and reconnaissance, if for the promising Zircon, then I think there will be the same target designation as that of Granit on this ship, and for everything else it will have its own radar system and this is the air defense system.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 22: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Yarhann
      aircraft carriers are not needed; you need a DRLO helicopter that's all or a ship in an order that will be a carrier of a DRLO helicopter that's all. And in the future, the AWACS helicopter should replace the UAVs of the helicopter type AWACS.

      And replace the UAV with a kite of the AWACS. Or a paper airplane ...
      The AWACS helicopter is not nearly matched by its performance characteristics to the AWACS aircraft.
      Quote: Yarhann
      then I think there will also be satellite target designation as it was with Granite

      Granite did not have satellite target designation - even the USSR did not draw the Legend.
      1. Yarhann
        Yarhann 27 October 2015 23: 49 New
        0
        Well, yes, of course, the DVLO helicopter is better without it, it’s better to build for 2 kkk Baku aircraft carrier for target designation you do not say stupidity. The difference between the pinwheel is that it has less time in the air and that’s all - and the airborne navigation system of the AWAC that on the airplane is that there are nothing to compare with the AWACS and A50 on self-propelled planes with aircraft carriers — so there’s nothing to argue about - the AWACS helicopter is needed in the future UAV helicopter AWACS it in time in the air will be no worse than a manned aircraft.
        Well, what about target designation, the sho didn’t understand the union - it simply pulled the union; the reformers collapsed - but I don’t seem to be using any other means of observation and target designation for the AUG - for which there is an Ajis complex for your AUG and their first goal was a satellite shot down by a rocket cm2 is just the reconnaissance satellite - a potential satellite that can do detection and target designation, and the Americans understand this very well - because no one even fits the aircraft carrier - they simply will not be able to - this is why we made a bet on two shock fists - this is a nuclear submarine (24 granites per each) and tu22m3 to the Kyrgyz Republic - the first receive target designation from satellites - there is no need for super-accuracy, just the coordinates of the target and its direction of movement and everything - further launch of all missiles from several nuclear submarines and in addition to supersonic airborne missiles burst into the air defense TU22m3 and dump in the same way with supersonic sound - that’s all - no one is going to fly something there and look for helicopters with AWACS, for airplanes - only a satellite - yes d To protect the warrant, you need AWACS helicopters - this is a fact and you won’t think of how helicopters are simply necessary for me on destroyer and frigate-level ships - on corvettes you need to think about unmanned AWACS, though not particularly distant ones. And in the future, all shipborne reconnaissance will be carried out with the help of UAVs - most likely it will be KR-type UAVs even with missile boosters for quick delivery to the observation area and return back to reload on a turbojet engine.
        BUT all this to search for one of two hidden ships that the AWACS plane is a helicopter — to war with the AUG or an order built around the TARK, we need space reconnaissance and naturally rockets with selective GOS — that is, we don’t have any special know-how here yet we protect ourselves from them, they are at war with the rest of the world)
        Once again, for a rocket, granite and so on, it does not matter whether or not there is a mess if there is intelligence confirmed there, you can simply launch missiles in coordinates - further on the approach, the GOS will turn on and the rockets themselves will figure out where the load carrier is all there. The satellites that were needed were simple for the post-control control of every AUG of the USA - but considering that, as a rule, our boats followed them, well, those with granites, as if target designations were not really needed.
        BUT in the event of a global war, satellites are simply necessary to destroy all or most of the enemy’s ACG in the first hours, and then the whole ocean will sharply become common without the ACG, it will be free for all, many countries will be able to turn around very much - we control most of the land) but the whole world’s ocean now the states control - and the ocean is the door to every coastal country in every house - yes there are countries that do not have access to the sea and the ocean but there are only a few of them)
        So there’s nothing to argue about - our modern astronautics will easily cover MO reconnaissance satellites, but this is a strategy - but tactically, we need rotors on each ship, I would like to have them, but they are necessary for them.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 October 2015 13: 42 New
          0
          Quote: Yarhann
          Well, yes, of course, the DVLO helicopter is better without it; better for 2 kkk Baku aircraft carrier to build for target designation you do not say nonsense

          I have no habit of saying stupid things, I wish you the same. And I strongly advise you to read at least something about target designation and intelligence for a change.
          Deck aviation does it this way - a patrol from 1 AWACS aircraft, one EW aircraft and two to four fighter jets (depending on the level of potential air threat) rises into the air. Moreover, if an enemy is being searched, then the leading role is played not by AWACS, but by the EW plane. It is he who, in passive mode, searches for enemy forces, and the DRLO radar is used only to clarify received intelligence (if at all) - simply because the DRLO radar is such a light that if you turn it on the whole district will know that the aircraft carrier is somewhere nearby . Therefore, the DRLO radar is not so much a means of searching for the enemy as a means of control in battle, although of course it is also used for search in many cases.
          In case of detection of an air enemy, it is possible to try to evade the battle (EW in many cases will hear the enemy before it detects patrol), or it may take the battle, directing its own fighters at the enemy, while the AWACS acts as a command post - on it there is all the necessary equipment and a sufficient crew. In this case, the electronic warfare aircraft is capable of causing group interference, covering not only itself, but also fighting fighters.
          An aircraft carrier patrol can advance up to 600 km and detect enemy ships, remaining undetected (not always, but if for some reason they do not observe the silence mode - completely)
          And which of the above can a helicopter? The answer is NOTHING. There is no developed EW on it, and it cannot be (the carrying capacity is not the same), so the only search method available to him is radar. But a helicopter’s radar is much weaker than an airplane’s, but the work of a helicopter’s radar will easily be detected by an enemy electronic warfare aircraft. After that, the helicopter will be destroyed by escort fighters - there are no own fighters capable of covering it, due to the absence of an aircraft carrier. But even if there were fighters - a helicopter (all due to the same limited payload) has neither the equipment nor the crew to be a command post, and here the aircraft carrier patrol has all the cards in hand - it will surpass the helicopter both in radar power and in EW and manageability.
          Conclusion - the helicopter has no chance to fulfill its function within the limits of the enemy carrier-based aircraft. So if it’s a pity that “2kk Baku” is an aircraft carrier - it’s not a question, then don’t even build AWACS helicopters - they still won’t fulfill their function and don’t take the ships out of the sea to cover coastal aviation - they’ll sink it.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 October 2015 13: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Yarhann
          Well, what about target designation, the union didn’t understand - he then pulled

          I just didn’t pull it, because they could not give the control center for the RCC with the available orbital group. A satellite in low orbit can contemplate a specific point on the planet for no more than half an hour a day, at the same time in our orbit there were no more than several satellites and some of them would be shot down with the outbreak of hostilities.
          Quote: Yarhann
          Once again, for a rocket, granite and so on, it does not matter whether or not there is a mess if there is intelligence confirmed there, you can simply launch missiles in coordinates - further on the approach, the GOS will turn on and the rockets themselves will figure out where the load carrier is all there.

          It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines ... Firstly - you forget about the time that elapses from the moment the target is discovered to the issuance of the command. Those. the satellite scans the surface, dumps the information down, there it is studied, the enemy is identified, its coordinates are determined, transmitted to the ships, and they already form the missile defense. And if everything worked perfectly, then somewhere in an hour after the discovery of AUG TsU will be issued. On a surface ship, because the submarine is in the underwater position and is out of communication and you can’t transfer the control center to it (there are means for long-distance underwater communication, but you can only transmit very short messages there, the control center will not fit).
          But the surface ship after receiving the TSU will still have to go to the rocket launch point (Granite - 550 km to the target), while the ACG detects surface ships at least 800-900 km away. But even if you take 700 km - all the same, before reaching the salvo point, you need to go 150 km or more than 2,5 hours at 30 nodes. Total - 1 hour for the issuance of command and control + 2,5 hours to the line of attack = 3,5 hours, during which the AOG, even not at 30 but at 20 nodes, will be 130 km from the detection site. And since it can follow in any direction, its location is a circle with a diameter of 260 km. AGSN Granita, if anything, in the absence of electronic warfare sees 80 km and missiles also need some time to launch and fly to the target ...
          And this is the PERFECT option, in which our ship expects TSU 700 km from the AUG, and that ship does not see it. In a real situation, the delay will not be 3,5 hours, but much higher. Well, submarines can get the control center from space only at a certain time, when they float up and set up a beacon for communication. There, the "real-time TSU" doesn’t even ring.
          In the USSR, sailors, by the way, perceived the Legend as a good means of reconnaissance, but not as a means of target designation, although in theory the Legend could do this.
          Quote: Yarhann
          but considering that, as a rule, our boats followed them, well, those with granites

          The nuclear submarines can “walk” behind the AUG only in peacetime (by the way, even in a peaceful AUG they were very rarely taken for escort) because the nuclear submarines of the same project 949A (Antei) had a low noise speed much lower than the AUG speed. In other words, chasing AUG even at 20 knots meant roaring half the ocean and being instantly destroyed when the conflict started
        3. Kalmar
          Kalmar 29 October 2015 00: 33 New
          0
          Sorry, that I interfere, but I would like to clarify for myself.

          the satellite scans the surface, drops information down, there it is studied, the enemy is identified, its coordinates are determined, transmitted to ships

          Here, there will be a time delay only if there is no continuous, so to speak, coverage of the surface of the world's oceans. Those. the satellite at the next round detects a target, the existence of which no one previously knew, and everything spun.

          Но вот допустим, что "Лиану" довели таки до ума, сформировав достаточную по численности спутниковую группировку. В этом случае потенциальные цели будут отслеживаться уже непрерывно (особенно в предвоенный период). Соответственно, задержка в передаче ЦУ кораблям будет минимальна.

          With submarines, everything is more complicated, of course. However, the submarines, as far as I know, can support one-way communication in the SDV range by dragging the antenna behind them. It is not necessary to swim up. True, I do not know how this affects the noise and speed of the underwater course.

          But the surface ship, after receiving the control unit, will still have to go to the rocket launch point

          Here, of course, it is necessary to radically increase the launch range of the RCC. The Americans, for example, want to teach their LRASM to fly 900 kilometers. At such a range, missiles with subsonic cruising speeds will fly in about an hour; At the same time, AUG can take 50-60 kilometers.

          Одиночная ракета, конечно, цель при таких раскладах может потерять. Но если выпустить целый залп в 20-30 ракет, развернуть их цепью и обеспечить обмен данными между ними, то уже появляется возможность "прочесать" район предполагаемого нахождения атакуемой группировки и таки ее отыскать. Для пущей эффективности поисков можно научить отдельные ракеты время от времени делать "горку" с целью осмотреть окрестности свысока.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 11: 05 New
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Here, there will be a time delay only if there is no continuous, so to speak, coverage of the surface of the world's oceans. Those. the satellite at the next round detects a target, the existence of which no one previously knew, and everything spun.

          Unfortunately, this is not the case.
          Спутник постоянно сканирует некоторую поверхность. Он осуществляет передачу информации "вниз", т.е. на землю, но не постоянно, а когда находится относительно недалеко от "приемной антенны" - или же использует спутник-ретранслятор (но если его собьют, будет грустно)
          Those. information on the ground comes with a certain delay. This is the time. Secondly, unprocessed information arrives on the ground, the satellite does not have the brains to identify it and give it a target. Accordingly, the whole mass of information has yet to be processed on the ground and the enemy should be identified. Then - transfer to the ships and the formation of the command center.
          Quote: Kalmar
          Но вот допустим, что "Лиану" довели таки до ума, сформировав достаточную по численности спутниковую группировку.

          The Americans were going to do this - the Discovery 2 project. There were 32 satellites in geostationary orbit (so that each satellite hung continuously over its own part of the planet Earth), and this was supposed to take 1 hour. The project is curtailed due to the high cost.
          With us, if my memory serves me right, there are 4 (FOUR) satellites of the Lian type.
          Quote: Kalmar
          However, the submarines, as far as I know, can support one-way communication in the SDV range by dragging the antenna

          In the SDV range (Miriametric, 100m - 10 km), the control center simply cannot be transmitted.
          Quote: Kalmar
          Here, of course, it is necessary to radically increase the launch range of the RCC. The Americans, for example, want to teach their LRASM to fly 900 kilometers. At such a range, missiles with subsonic cruising speeds will fly in about an hour; At the same time, AUG can take 50-60 kilometers.

          TsU issued in an hour, missiles fly an hour ... you know. At the same time, the detection of flying subsonic anti-ship missiles for AUG facilities (AWACS and EW aircraft) is not a problem, and a modern fighter can shoot them down without any special problems.
          Quote: Kalmar
          Но если выпустить целый залп в 20-30 ракет, развернуть их цепью и обеспечить обмен данными между ними, то уже появляется возможность "прочесать" район предполагаемого нахождения атакуемой группировки и таки ее отыскать. Для пущей эффективности поисков можно научить отдельные ракеты время от времени делать "горку" с целью осмотреть окрестности свысока.

          It’s possible, of course, all this is reasonable, but believe me, it’s better to have an aircraft carrier capable of completing the reconnaissance of the target and providing air cover for strike means :)
        5. Kalmar
          Kalmar 29 October 2015 11: 45 New
          0
          Those. information on the ground comes with a certain delay.

          Разумеется. Вопрос в величине задержки. Если "картинка" в штабе будет обновляться, скажем, раз в 10 минут - этого более чем достаточно.

          unprocessed information comes to the earth, the satellite does not have brains to identify it and give the target

          Это так. Но ведь наблюдение надо вести еще до начала реальных боевых действий. Распознать цели (возможно, с привлечением дополнительных источников вроде разведывательных кораблей и самолетов) и постоянно их отслеживать. В час "Хэ", таким образом, местонахождение потенциальных кандидатов на огребание должно быть известно. Вопрос лишь в том, какие средства маскировки применит неприятель.

          It was necessary 32 satellites in geostationary orbit (so that each satellite would continuously hang over its own part of the planet Earth), with this, the term for the issuance of satellite was assumed to be 1 hour.

          Hmm, 32 a lot. But you can get by with a smaller amount if you confine yourself to an overview of the border waters and some individual areas of particular interest at this particular moment (say, the SSBN deployment areas).

          In the SDV range (Miriametric, 100m - 10 km), the control center simply cannot be transmitted.

          Why? There was information that the transmitters' throughput in this range can reach 9600 baud, which is more than enough to send coordinates and describe the target. Detailed shots of the RCC area are not needed.

          At the same time, the detection of flying subsonic anti-ship missiles for AUG facilities (AWACS and EW aircraft) is not a problem

          Обнаружить можно любую ПКР. Сверхзвуковые даже проще: летят высоко. Это уже вопрос из другой области: сколько нужно ракет, чтобы "продавить" ПВО ордера?

          but believe me, it’s better to have an aircraft carrier capable of further exploring the target and providing air cover for strike means :)

          Who would argue :)

          Мне тоже кажется, что иметь в составе флота хотя бы небольшие авианосцы, заточенные чисто под задачи ПВО (ударная функция остается за КРМБ) было бы очень и очень практично. Вот только все это нереально долго и дорого, а те же "Лианы" все-таки худо-бедно производятся уже сейчас. На безбабье, как говорится, и кулак - блондинка :)
        6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 21: 09 New
          0
          I apologize, I’ll answer tomorrow - today there’s something of a hotsta bainka :)
        7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2015 11: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Разумеется. Вопрос в величине задержки. Если "картинка" в штабе будет обновляться, скажем, раз в 10 минут - этого более чем достаточно.

          Да, это было бы прекрасно. К сожалению, ТТХ "Лианы" мы не знаем, а американские аналоги с их "1 час" причем - в теории, особых надежд не внушают.
          Of course, if our satellites could form a command center with a delay of 10-20 minutes, this would make fundamental changes to the existing tactics of war at sea. But whether they can do it or not, I don’t know, I accordingly adhere to the pessimistic version. Realizing that I could be wrong.
          Quote: Kalmar
          But observation must be conducted even before the start of real hostilities

          The difficulty is that there are few observations - it is also necessary to organize escort, and this turned out to be too complicated even for the USSR Navy.
          Quote: Kalmar
          But you can do with less if you confine yourself to an overview of the border waters and some individual areas

          Yes, probably.
          Quote: Kalmar
          Why? There was information that the transmission capacity of transmitters in this range can reach 9600 baud

          As far as I know, some very short, usually code commands, are transmitted to the submarines. Information transfer seems to be out of the question. Perhaps the reason is that the capabilities of the transmitters that you indicated, for some reason for underwater communication, are much more modest, and maybe I have incorrect information
          Quote: Kalmar
          Обнаружить можно любую ПКР. Сверхзвуковые даже проще: летят высоко. Это уже вопрос из другой области: сколько нужно ракет, чтобы "продавить" ПВО ордера?

          This is true, as well as the other thing - if we strike from afar without connecting the AUG air group, then many more missiles will be needed.
          Quote: Kalmar
          It also seems to me that it would be very, very practical to have at least small aircraft carriers sharpened purely for air defense missions (the strike function remains with SLCMs) in the fleet

          I agree. Although it would be better of course more :)
          Quote: Kalmar
          On foolishness, as they say, the fist is blonde :)

          Or maybe instead of a football championship? :))) The money seems to be about the same :)
        8. Kalmar
          Kalmar 30 October 2015 15: 45 New
          0
          К сожалению, ТТХ "Лианы" мы не знаем, а американские аналоги с их "1 час" причем - в теории, особых надежд не внушают.

          The Americans do not really need such a satellite constellation: a full-fledged carrier fleet and a huge number of military airfields all over the balloon allow them to control the surface situation quite tightly. Perhaps that is why they have not achieved much success in creating a satellite tracking system - there is no incentive. So, despite the failures of the Western partners, in a deep theory, you can still dream, hope :)

          The difficulty is that there are few observations - you also need to organize support

          Of course, but still observation is paramount. And then, it is not necessary to accompany everyone, only those who curls nearby. In any case, this will make it possible to eject at least part of the enemy’s fleet, if necessary.

          As far as I know, some very short, usually code commands, are transmitted to the submarines.

          The coordinates and type of target can also be squeezed into a fairly compact form. I do not see technical difficulties here, but, of course, I am a purely couch expert; perhaps there are still some points that I don’t know about.

          Or maybe instead of a football championship? :))) The money seems to be about the same :)

          It seems to me that if we had stopped throwing wild billions into all such nonsense, then we could just have bought their entire carrier fleet from the Americans along with planes and servants :)

          For example, the Central Bank for August bought the US government bonds for $ 8 billion for some reason. With such funds, it would be quite possible to build an aircraft carrier, and there would still be left for aviation. Oh ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Stena
    Stena 27 October 2015 10: 11 New
    0
    Quote: Observer2014
    Imagine what our Navy would be capable of if Russia had at least a dozen of them in service

    For so many ships, there must be an excellent economic basis. And if - then a cataclysm, then a crisis in the economy - then even two ships - great happiness!
  • gav6757
    gav6757 28 October 2015 18: 36 New
    +1
    I would like our fleet to be away from all Serdyukovs and other Taburetins!
    And there would have been more Ushakovs and Nakhimovs in it!
    And in power instead of the Medvedevs, but the Siluanovs would be the Potemkins, with concern for the Russian state !!!
  • Aksakal_07
    Aksakal_07 26 October 2015 16: 20 New
    +3
    Александр, ты не прав! Где это, скажи на милость, может скрыться супостат, сиречь "наши партнеры"? Разве в мировом океане есть зоны вне действия таких кораблей, как "Адмирал Нахимов"?
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 43 New
      +2
      Разве в мировом океане есть зоны вне действия таких кораблей, как "Адмирал Нахимов"?

      Вообще, если принять во внимание соотношение численности нашего и "партнерского" флотов, то "Нахимов" (как и любой НК) будет реально боеспособен лишь там, где его прикрывает береговая авиация. Вдали от родных берегов он будет неизбежно ушатан с воздуха силами пары-тройки АУГ, не сумев даже выйти на дальность применения своего вооружения.
      1. mark2
        mark2 27 October 2015 20: 30 New
        0
        The heavy nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov, undergoing scheduled repairs, will receive new universal launchers ZS-14-11442M.

        They are adapted for the use of advanced Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
        There is no open data on 3K-22 Zircon yet, and the fact that it occasionally emerges in the form of intentional leaks and expert assumptions is rather vague.

        But something can be pulled out.

        The range seems to exceed 1,500 km, speed, respectively, more than 5M, it is possible the defeat of both sea and ground targets.

        One thing is known for sure - “Nakhimov” will carry 80 such toys in one salvo. Already in 2018.

        http://warfiles.ru/show-98610-kalibrami-rossiya-ne-ogranichitsya.html

        Знаете, если на уничтожение одного "Нахимова" по Вашим расчетам требуется 2-3 АУГ, то это обалденный корабль. Помнится в истории уже были два таких корабля, которые оттягивали на себя целые флоты противников это "Тирпиц" и "Бисмарк"
        1 "Нахимов" - 2-3 АУГ, 2 "Нахимова" - 4-6 ауг, 3 "Нахимова" - 6-8. 4 Нахимова и у противника АУГи кончились))
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 27 October 2015 22: 10 New
          +1
          They are adapted for the use of advanced Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

          Домыслы. Пока что нет даже сведений о том, что работы по этой ракете вообще ведутся. Учитывая то, с какими темпами у нас сейчас осваивается новое вооружение, мы эти "Цирконы" хорошо если лет через 15-20 увидим.

          The range seems to exceed 1,500 km, speed, respectively, more than 5M, it is possible the defeat of both sea and ground targets.

          And also bringing down satellites and submarines :) I’m just trying to imagine what size a rocket should be in order to accommodate enough fuel to fly at such a speed for such a range. Then something ballistic comes to mind.

          Знаете, если на уничтожение одного "Нахимова" по Вашим расчетам требуется 2-3 АУГ, то это обалденный корабль.

          2-3 АУГ - это тот флот, который противник может спокойно выставить против наших существующих ТАРК. Если рассматривать существующее вооружение (без всяких полумифических "Цирконов"), то "Нахимову" даже с одной АУГ будет очень тяжело тягаться без поддержки береговой авиации (а другой и нет). Причина проста - у авианосца руки длиннее (боевой радиус "Хорнетов" плюс дальность пуска "Гарпунов").
          1. Yarhann
            Yarhann 28 October 2015 08: 52 New
            -2
            about zircons - work is being done both on the missile model and on the concept of its application - the basis of the model is a stably working ramjet engine when it is ready, consider if you can talk about a real rocket and its capabilities.
            It will not be very large and 1500 km there, too, they will be in the first stages of 200-300 km. The rocket will fly on liquid fuel, that is, like a plane on kerosene or, perhaps, other muck. It will not be able to bring down satellites in any way because the engine will die out into outer space without oxygen) well, and the destruction of submarines is generally nonsense - this is already in the arsenal of rocket torpedoes.
            The trick of hypersonic missiles is that they do not just fly like ballistic along the trajectory but can perform maneuvers that is, they are great for hitting moving targets and breaking through the air defense missile defense.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 28 October 2015 12: 56 New
              0
              about zircons - work is being done both on the missile model and on the concept of its application - the basis of the model is a stably working ramjet engine when it is ready, consider if you can talk about a real rocket and its capabilities.

              Если и впрямь ведутся - это хорошо, но пока что даже про летающий прототип ничего толком не слышно. Это значит, что до принятия на вооружение еще очень и очень далеко. Для сравнения: про те же "Калибры" я больше десяти лет назад читал как о готовом изделии, однако в войсках они появились совсем недавно.

              in the first stages 200-300 km will be

              It will be uninteresting: NK will not be suitable for such a range to AUG. Unless an underwater launch will be realized; the submarine at this distance can still get close.

              It will not be able to bring down satellites in any way because in space without oxygen the engine will die out) Well, the destruction of submarines is generally nonsense

              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сарказм

              the trick of hypersonic missiles is that they not only fly like ballistic along the trajectory but can perform maneuvers

              БЧ баллистической ракеты тоже, в принципе, может маневрировать на конечном участке. У тех же "Искандеров" данная возможность является одной из ключевых фишек. И горючего меньше надо. Другое дело, что нужно до конечного участка траектории еще надо долететь: вражеские SM-3 не дремлют. Ну и точность обеспечить не так просто.
              1. Yarhann
                Yarhann 28 October 2015 22: 07 New
                0
                I wrote that there is a rocket mockup there so far work is underway on the engine, as it will be clear that it will be able to build the concept of the rocket and its applications, the launches were mostly unsuccessful, as the amers have the same thing there - but the work is going on.
                In calibers, it’s not about rockets if you are talking about the long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic — it’s all about the satellite constellation — that is, in order for us to fumble with their Caspian caliber, we need to have a bunch of different satellites in space — these are satellite photographs to create a map of the area for bookmarking legends of the route to the Kyrgyz Republic and the GLONASS satellite constellation for navigation — to hit the target precisely — that is, missiles, in principle, do not question, but to provide them with target designation and the exact following of the route is not easy and quick — let’s say so now two countries have such a complex in the world The RF and the USA are all. All other countries can use such missiles, but only with the support of the countries that own navigation satellites and reconnaissance and photo-satellites.
                As for the range of 200-300 km, it’s quite enough and there’s no question - I’ll explain why - the air defense systems are with us and they are at about the same level, that is, we will launch everything from the usual from conventional carriers, for the most part planes will be shot down and so on and so on, and already with rapprochement, they and we can only use the prodigy wunderwaffle - which I think is the Americans and we will put the missiles into service in the next 10-15 years already suitable missiles with a concentration of military use - and then we’ll finish it with a range file etc )
                As for maneuvering - well, it’s clear that there’s nothing to compare the plane with a flying blank, I’m not saying that the warhead warhead is especially vulnerable to maneuvering, but the same SM3 has a thermal warhead and it will, regardless of the maneuvering principle, it will see the warhead’s heat in vain - this is a joke that it is necessary to set many false goals, then all missile defense goes to the forest. And the Kyrgyz Republic in hypersound is the trick of maneuvering in that it can tumble low over the horizon, that is, 20-30 meters above the sea - you can imagine and at the same time do anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads at the level of an interceptor missile or even more, that is, it will the interceptor in the corners is all - that's the main point of hypersound.
                The main problem of these missiles is still to come; more precisely, it has already been drawn. This is the GOS. It will not work with these missiles in modern technologies, that is, it is possible to shoot so far only for stationary targets or with external radio command guidance, but I think it will be decided by us and by that time .
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 28 October 2015 22: 22 New
                  0
                  that there is a rocket model there so far work is underway on the engine

                  Как говорил товарищ Кармак, "ничего не сделано, пока все не сделано". А тут, получается, до готового изделия - как до Луны раком. Так что сейчас и в ближайшее будущее о "Цирконах" можно даже не думать.

                  In calibers, it’s not about missiles if you are talking about the long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic — it’s all about the satellite constellation — that is, in order for us to smash their Caspian with a caliber, we need to have a bunch of different satellites in space — these are satellite photographs to create a map of the area for bookmarking legends of the route in the Kyrgyz Republic and the GLONASS satellite constellation for navigation

                  Мы тут вроде за ПКР терли. Им фотографии из космоса не нужны: карта поверхности моря - штука весьма малополезная :) Нужны спутники, способные отслеживать надводные цели и корректировать ЦУ для уже летящих ракет (если хотим большую дальность на дозвуке). Для отслеживания есть "Лиана", но там КА еще очень мало. По получение ЦУ ракетами со спутника нигде не слышал.

                  As for the range of 200-300 km, it’s quite enough and there’s no question - I’ll explain why - the air defense systems are with us and they are at about the same level, that is, we will launch everything from the usual from conventional carriers, for the most part planes will be shot down

                  Подойти - очень большой вопрос. Посбивать самолеты не выйдет. Самая дальнобойная система ПВО сейчас - это С-300Ф, которая в модернизированном варианте может работать километров на 120. У последних модификаций "Гарпуна" дальность полета - за 250км, т.е. "Хорнетам" в зону действия нашей ПВО просто не надо будет заходить. Плюс авиация может подойти на малой высоте, и тогда наша ПВО ее просто не увидит из-за горизонта (загоризонтных РЛС и самолетов ДРЛО на наших кораблях нет).

                  Total: the enemy has the ability to attack us (if necessary, repeating the attacks over and over again - to exhaustion), but there is no way to answer him if he competently keeps his distance.

                  the same CM3 GOS has a thermal one and, on the principle of independence from maneuvering, it will all the same see the hot warhead

                  To see a little. In Sm-3 warheads is kinetic, i.e. requires a direct hit on target. If the BR begins to maneuver sharply, such a hit will be extremely difficult to provide.

                  And the Kyrgyz Republic in hypersound is the trick of maneuvering in that it can tumble low over the horizon, i.e. 20-30 meters above the sea

                  It is unlikely that it will be too hard to tumble at such a speed: the rocket itself will not withstand overloads. Another thing is that when such a pig will suddenly jump out of the horizon, the air defense of the attacked ship will have almost no time to destroy it. However, while hypersonic KR is not in nature, all this is just a fantasy.
                  1. Yarhann
                    Yarhann 29 October 2015 20: 28 New
                    0
                    according to air defense, it’s worth upgrading from 300 to 200, which is firing at 100500 km, as it were for a long time. And a little bit of fantasies how aviation can approach there, well, excuse me; I can fantasize XNUMX fantasies how to make aug; in real life, no one will know because nobody is going to bring down the wall against the wall; it’s inappropriately we don’t want to paint how everything can be but the fact that the AWACS are needed in the warrant is clear, as it were.
                    As for cm3 and warhead, the kinetic only of the GOS is thermal), so finding red-hot from the warhead speed in space is not a question, especially if you are nearby.
                    Well, as for the calibers - well, I’m not for RCC - because with the missiles that are now in the complex, even those that are supersounding the current air defense missile defense are almost impossible to get through with these missiles, unlike Granite, there is no electronic warfare system not unrealistic the masses - they are much simpler and cheaper because about using them against AUG, I somehow don’t really care much for the probability of extremely low damage to the flagship. I spoke for the caliber of the caliber, it was precisely these weapons that would make it possible to use TAKR in local conflicts around the world at least as efficiently as possible.
                    As for zircon, it will be a matter of time, as it were, in the next few years there will be no 2-3 years but after 5-10 years I think they will be adopted - it’s just that without this missile there will be no effective means of fighting the flagships of large naval groups. And the beginning of the maneuver - I think that maneuvering will be the main distinguishing feature of our missile when overcoming the anti-aircraft missile defense - because it’s just that high speed and surprise are not enough now, and after 5-10 years the complex of weapons that is on board our TAKR without zircon will be simply useless to deal with large naval groupings of ships.
                    And besides for a harpoon and so on, I don’t take such targets for significant when trying to attack the flagship of a group of ships - the Hornets can launch them at least thousands of this junk will be disintegrated by the anti-missile defense of a group of ships that ours will cut out all these under-missiles as well and they will cut out all our calibers are subsonic without any problems.
                    You understand, it’s not worth aiming to just get there once or twice, the task is not posed the task is to reliably take out the flagship that ours is theirs - therefore, nobody will use weapons purely for luck - there will be a large range of measures - for the most part I think that a powerful electronic warfare will go from the ACG with onboard Aviation, which will make it possible even for such miserable anti-ship missiles as a harpoon to pass echeloned air defense missile defense orders - that is, we must take retaliatory measures and also the ability to drown out the enemy, then you can shoot at him with calibers.
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 29 October 2015 22: 17 New
                      0
                      in air defense, it’s worth upgrading from 300 with a bullet that shoots for 200 km, as it were

                      200 км - это по-прежнему меньше предельной дальности пуска "Гарпуна" (220 км у модификации D).

                      A bit of fantasy, how can aviation approach it?

                      Чего тут фантазировать? Радиогоризонт никто не отменял. Формулы есть в интернетах; можете сами посчитать, на какой высоте должны подходить "Хорнеты", чтобы "Петр" их не мог увидеть на том или ином расстоянии.

                      to find red-hot to red from the speed of warhead in space, no matter how the question

                      Firstly, it repents already at the entrance to the atmosphere, when it remains to fly to the target quite a bit (we take into account the speed). By the time of this very entrance, warheads need to be detected, otherwise there will not be enough time for launching a missile defense. Secondly, it is one thing to find, and quite another to bring down :)

                      these missiles, unlike Granite, have no electronic warfare system or armor not unrealistic mass

                      Зато летят всю траекторию на малой высоте, что резко уменьшает риск обнаружения (пятитонную чушку, несущуюся на сверхзвуке на 20км высоте не заметить сложно). Плюс они меньше, т.е. ТАРК может их нести в очень большом количестве и, таким образом, "продавить" ПВО с помощью зерг-раша.

                      And according to zircon, it will be a matter of time, as it were, that it will be in the coming years not 2-3 years but after 5-10 years I think they will be adopted

                      Why? There, they will only be riveted, more or less a working prototype, for about 5-10 years, and wait and wait (if the project does not bend at all) before being adopted.

                      And about the maneuver - I think it is maneuvering that will be the main distinguishing feature of our missile while overcoming the anti-aircraft missile defense

                      And what is the problem to teach how to maneuver a subsonic missile? It is much simpler, and the effect will also be serious. The more actively the rocket hounds from side to side, the more difficult it will be to accompany it with air defense systems - and this is not only true for hypersound.

                      the armament complex that is on board our TAKR without zircon will simply be useless for fighting large naval ship groups

                      Взглянем правде в глаза: в океанских просторах нашему флоту даже с "Цирконами" не светит с амерами тягаться. Соотношение численности флотов очень сильно не в нашу пользу. С крупными группировками можно будет тягаться только относительно недалеко от родных берегов, где к ТАРКам подключится дальнаяя авиация (скажем, Ту-22М с Х-32).

                      And besides for a harpoon and so on, I don’t take such targets for significant when trying to attack the flagship of a group of ships - the Hornets can launch them at least thousands of this junk will be disintegrated by the anti-missile defense of a group of ships that ours will cut out all these under-missiles as well and they will cut out all our calibers are subsonic without any problems.

                      А вот это зря. Сам по себе "Гарпун" - цель не самая сложная, хотя маневрировать тоже умеет, так что соплей не собьешь. Но: ПВО группы кораблей подлетающие "Гарпуны" увидят лишь тогда, когда те вынырнут из-за горизонта. После этого у ПВОшников будет минуты 3-4, чтобы все ракеты посбивать. Если их прилетит сразу штук 50, то системам ПВО/ПРО означенных минут может и не хватить, чтобы все цели обработать.
                    2. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 29 October 2015 22: 18 New
                      0
                      I think from the AUG side a powerful EW from airborne aviation will go, which will probably make it possible even for such miserable RCCs as a harpoon to pass echolonized air defense missile defense orders - that is, from our side retaliatory measures must be taken and the same opportunity should drown out the enemy, then you can shoot at him and calibers.

                      Разумеется: вместе с "Хорнетами" прилетят и "Гроулеры", чтобы нашей ПВО было интереснее проворачивать описанный выше маневр по выносу целой стаи ракет. А вот нам при атаке "Калибрами" глушить врага уже нечем: самолетов/вертолетов РЭБ у "Петра" нет. Сам корабль может глушить лишь то, что находится у него в зоне прямой видимости, но так близко к АУГ подобраться шансов нет вообще.
  • hydrox
    hydrox 26 October 2015 16: 28 New
    +2
    Quote: sasha 19871987
    this lovely representative of the Russian Navy ...


    Exactly vertical ones: they are so compact, thin (about 8 m in a glass), and the length is only 8 m.
    Well, how many of them can be pushed into a real cruiser (in construction, and not in modernization!), After all, 200 pieces, at least ...
    How lovely!
    1. PN
      PN 26 October 2015 17: 03 New
      +3
      Such a topic has already been relished: about a cruiser with 300 missiles. Just don’t remember ours or not. In general, they came to the conclusion that such a ship is not promising.
      1. Maxom75
        Maxom75 26 October 2015 18: 08 New
        +2
        I'm afraid that during a clash, he will not have time to launch three hundred rockets, they will bang him. After all, they won’t act against kayaks.
      2. nazar_0753
        nazar_0753 26 October 2015 19: 01 New
        +3
        Эта интересная штуковина называется "корабль-арсенал", была такая тема в СССР. На мой взгляд, идея заманчивая. Идёт чуть позади корабельной группировки, а при боестолкновении перегружает системы ПВО огромной массой ПКР. Ну, а потом быстренько на базу. Видимо, не получилось у конструкторов обеспечить приемлемое время "отката" между запусками ракет. А жаль.
        1. clidon
          clidon 26 October 2015 19: 22 New
          +1
          Такая тема была у США. Проблема в том, что на море не всегда получается "идти позади". )
      3. PSih2097
        PSih2097 26 October 2015 19: 42 New
        +7
        Quote: PN
        Such a topic has already been relished: about a cruiser with 300 missiles. Just don’t remember ours or not. In general, they came to the conclusion that such a ship is not promising.

        Project 1157 missile cruiser. USSR.
        Even today, the characteristics of this ship are simply impressive. Even if now the Russian leadership decides to build this ship (and in almost 20 years, it has not lost its relevance), it will be the strongest ship in the world. A true modern battleship.

        The project of this ship was developed in the USSR as opposed to the American class destroyers Airlie Björk. The main idea of ​​this project was, so to speak, stealth modernization of the Slava type cruisers.

        The following is known from the performance characteristics. Length - 186 meters, width - 20 meters, draft - 7,6 meters. The displacement of the cruiser was supposed to be 13200 tons. The ship was to be equipped with a 4-band radar, hundreds of different missiles, including the SA-N-24 (in fact, the sea-based S400) and 4 Kashtan anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems.

        The propulsion system was to consist of 4 gas turbines, which allowed the ship to reach a maximum speed of 33 knots. The cruising range of the ship was 6000 miles at a speed of 15 knots.

        1. BULLIT
          BULLIT 26 October 2015 21: 30 New
          +1
          Great device! Urgent in a series! good
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 56 New
          0
          SA-N-24 (essentially C400 sea-based)

          Something I do not find mention of products with such an index. Is there a link to read?

          4-мя зенитными ракетно-артиллерийскими комплексами "Каштан"

          Not enough, as for me. In the end, in the event of a real attack on this cruiser, he will have to fend off flying anti-ship missiles at short distances, because beyond the horizon, he himself will not be able to see them, and we do not have aircraft carriers with AWACS aircraft. So the main burden here will fall on short-range complexes.
    2. UREC
      UREC 26 October 2015 18: 36 New
      +2
      This charm needs to be protected still, and then 200 pieces can detonate! For me it is better to have 20 pieces in 10 vessels.
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 26 October 2015 16: 44 New
    +7
    Upgraded Admiral Nakhimov will carry 80 missiles

    Today is a day of EXCELLENT maritime news good Long live the Russian Navy!
    1. Tor5
      Tor5 26 October 2015 17: 01 New
      +2
      ...И вообще: "За тех, кто в море!"
  • Tor5
    Tor5 26 October 2015 17: 00 New
    +1
    Yes, not a weak missile carrier will turn out, which cannot but rejoice!
  • SOKOL777
    SOKOL777 26 October 2015 22: 54 New
    +1
    Quote: sasha 19871987
    when they will go into the weapons coverage area of ​​this lovely representative of the Russian Navy ...


    There is a strict instruction in the US Navy:
    -ближе 800 км к "Петру Великому не подходить!". negative
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 October 2015 23: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: SOKOL777

      There is a strict instruction in the US Navy:
      -ближе 800 км к "Петру Великому не подходить!".

      С учетом того,что на Нахимыче будут Калибры,Ониксы и тд,там не 800 км будет,а тысячи полторы,а то и две. А там ,глядишь и Петьке новые "клыки и когти"поставят,пока его братец будет за порядком следить.hi
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 47 New
        +1
        Considering that there will be Caliber, Onyx, etc. on Nakhimich, there will be not 800 km, but thousands and a half, or even two.

        Ни "Яхонт", ни "Калибр" в противокорабельном исполнении даже на 800 км не летают. Тем более на полторы тысячи. Подобные дальности может покрыть разве что П-1000 "Вулкан" (по задумке, во всяком случае), но, похоже, время подобных ракет ушло.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 27 October 2015 00: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: Kalmar
          Ни "Яхонт", ни "Калибр" в противокорабельном исполнении даже на 800 км не летают. Тем более на полторы тысячи.

          Can’t gauges also? laughing
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 27 October 2015 06: 29 New
            0
            In general, as far as missiles are concerned, I believe that overloading Aegis with a huge amount of RCC is unproductive and wasteful. And therefore, I believe that it would be more correct to have armored missiles - to launch them relatively little, but each one will freely break through to the target and no one will be able to keep it.
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 27 October 2015 06: 34 New
              +2
              Quote: Basarev
              armored missiles would be more correct - to launch them relatively little, but each one will freely break through to the target

              Cast iron blank has a 100% chance of achieving the goal wassat It seems not only me after a stormy night fool
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 27 October 2015 10: 04 New
              0
              And therefore, I believe that armored missiles would be more correct

              "Броней" можно прикрыть только БЧ. Если заделать всю ракету, у нее резко возрастет масса, значит, понадобится больше топлива, значит, придется увеличить размеры ракеты, что увеличит вес брони, что потребует дополнительного топлива...

              In general, the survivability of individual missiles, of course, must be increased, but passive protection is a dead end.
            3. dvg79
              dvg79 27 October 2015 13: 39 New
              0
              С противоракетами -тогда у "Иджис" крыша поедет wassat
          2. Kalmar
            Kalmar 27 October 2015 10: 01 New
            0
            Can’t gauges also?

            Anti-ship - no. Those that work on ground targets fly further than anti-ship missiles.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 27 October 2015 10: 13 New
              +1
              Quote: Kalmar
              Anti-ship - no. Those that work on ground targets fly further than anti-ship missiles.

              Say everything correctly. But, excuse me, could you voice the real TTX of the anti-shipable Gauges (and ground ones too)? What do you really think is true in the wiki or other sources for general use?
              1. Kalmar
                Kalmar 27 October 2015 21: 53 New
                0
                Say everything correctly. But, excuse me, could you voice the real TTX of the anti-shipable Gauges (and ground ones too)? What do you really think is true in the wiki or other sources for general use?

                "Калибр" - это не уникальное явление в ракетостроении; у него есть очень близкий аналог - "Томагавк", характеристики которого хорошо известны.

                "Томагавки" последних версий летают где-то на 1600 км. "Калибр" несколько тяжелее (кило эдак на 200-300), так что, возможно, у него дальность пуска ближе к 2000 км (если доп. вес - это топливо). Противокорабельный "Томагавк" - TASM - летал километров на 500.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 28 October 2015 00: 35 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  "Калибр" - это не уникальное явление в ракетостроении; у него есть очень близкий аналог - "Томагавк", характеристики которого хорошо известны.

                  Sorry, although these are cruise missiles, they have the same difference as an elephant and a desman. With the same success, according to your logic, one can say that the Amers have a Patriot, looking at which you can talk about the TTX S-400. ..Do not you think that this is pure insinuation?
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  so maybe he has a launch range closer to 2000 km

                  That is, by FACT, you do not have the slightest idea about the real characteristics of the Caliber, if you are not their constructor ... therefore, speaking so confidently about identity or comparison with the Tamagavkas, to put it mildly, is not smart. How to compare say Mercedes and Lada ... 4 wheels, engine steering wheel and most importantly, they are both cars.
                  Sincerely. hi
                  1. Kalmar
                    Kalmar 29 October 2015 10: 02 New
                    0
                    Sorry, but it’s cruise missiles, but they have the same difference as elephants and muskrats.

                    Ой ли. Масса обеих ракет примерно известна, как и масса БЧ и габариты. Понятно, что из ТТХ "Томагавка" не получить по этим данным ТТХ "Калибра", но about you can evaluate them already. Those. it is unlikely that, ceteris paribus, our rocket will suddenly begin to fly, say, twice as much or four times as fast.
          3. purple
            purple 28 October 2015 15: 13 New
            0
            no anti-ship
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 27 October 2015 13: 10 New
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Ни "Яхонт", ни "Калибр" в противокорабельном исполнении даже на 800 км не летают. Тем более на полторы тысячи. Подобные дальности может покрыть разве что П-1000 "Вулкан" (по задумке, во всяком случае), но, похоже, время подобных ракет ушло.

          There is no point - a ship can fly a decent distance from such a distance during a flight and the rocket simply loses it, which means that it is necessary that the reconnaissance aircraft or UAV circulate in the visibility range of the object and provide new data to correct the target’s location. This puts the aircraft at risk of being shot down, and UAVs can easily bring down and change course.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar 27 October 2015 21: 57 New
            0
            There is no point - a ship can fly a decent distance from such a distance in a flight time and the rocket will simply lose it

            Technically, this is solvable.

            Во-первых, цели типа АУГ обстреливаются залпом в несколько десятков ракет. Если они умеют обмениваться данными между собой (как те же "Граниты"), их можно просто развернуть в широкую цепь. А там, как только одна из ракет увидит цель, она оповестит остальных, и вся стая скорректирует свой курс.

            Во-вторых, крупные цели типа крейсера или авианосца можно отслеживать со спутника (если "Лиану" таки доведут до желаемого уровня) и по спутнику же передавать целеуказание уже выпущенным ракетам, корректируя их полет.
      2. just exp
        just exp 27 October 2015 10: 53 New
        0
        1 onyx do not have 800 km.
        2 calibres performed by anti-ship missiles (anti-ship missiles, not missiles) do not have 800 km
        hope for zircon.
  • Zefr
    Zefr 27 October 2015 20: 18 New
    0
    And if he goes into their coverage area?
  • Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 26 October 2015 16: 03 New
    +4
    Let him go near any AG to potential friends, so that they do not sleep at night and choose a smaller place, just in case.
  • NordUral
    NordUral 26 October 2015 16: 04 New
    +3
    Good news! But small ships with 8-24 or more launch boxes are better. And more so reliable.
    1. veksha50
      veksha50 26 October 2015 16: 14 New
      14
      Quote: NordUral
      But better small ships



      A small far and will not reach ...

      So it’s better - more - both small and large ...
    2. purple
      purple 28 October 2015 15: 16 New
      0
      it’s a modernization, why not cram more sprats in the finished jar
  • McLuha-MacLeod
    McLuha-MacLeod 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    0
    Still all these balls would be replaced by AFAR
    1. smith7
      smith7 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
      +2
      Местные моряки называют антенну (центральную на надстройкой с носа и с кормы) "сиськой". Похоже :) Это принадлежность комплекса ПВО "Форт", IMHO. На "Петре..." уже заменили на АФАР, кстати.
  • Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    +2
    Your division ... Promises again! Projects and projections are full of cucumber priests and things are still there.
    By the way, and with the trunks it’s not very thick ... The Ticonderoga 122 has at 9800 tons full displacement. A 1144.2 with 25000 tons of 80 trunks. Not enough ...
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 26 October 2015 16: 21 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir
      Your own division ... How pissed off promises! Projects and projections are full of cucumber priests and things are still there.

      Что не так - модернизация идет , пусковые заказаны ? какого волшебства Вам еще надо ? В самых страшных прогнозах , боялись что так и останется с "Гранитами" .
      1. i80186
        i80186 26 October 2015 17: 12 New
        -2
        Quote: lelikas
        Что не так - модернизация идет , пусковые заказаны ? какого волшебства Вам еще надо ? В самых страшных прогнозах , боялись что так и останется с "Гранитами" .

        Ну так "граниты" никуда вроде не собираются убирать, собираются к ним ещё добавить. winked
        1. lelikas
          lelikas 26 October 2015 18: 28 New
          0
          Quote: i80186
          are going to add to them

          And where will they take the place?
        2. severyanin
          severyanin 26 October 2015 23: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: i80186
          Ну так "граниты" никуда вроде не собираются убирать, собираются к ним ещё добавить.

          "Граниты" вроде как давно уже вырезаны, еще с прошлого года:) на их месте сейчас дыра в палубе по площади с хороший бассейн и глубиной в пять палуб:)
    2. Maks7877
      Maks7877 26 October 2015 16: 31 New
      +3
      80 is only shock missiles, and there is also air defense. There, under two hundred it turns out, if all together.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 16: 31 New
      17
      Quote: Vladimir
      Projects and projections are full of cucumber priests and things are still there.

      На самом деле, это не обещания, это размещенный заказ (они же сейчас все в открытом инете расположены). Так что "Нахимов" получит именно 80 пусковых.
      Quote: Vladimir
      By the way, and with the trunks it’s not very thick ... The Ticonderoga 122 has at 9800 tons full displacement. A 1144.2 with 25000 tons of 80 trunks. Not enough ...

      You did not understand. The Americans put 122 Mk41 launchers on the Ticonderoga, but this was the end of the missile capabilities (the EMNIP put another 2 * 4 Harpoons, because they didn’t climb into the UVP). Tomahawk to choose from)
      We have 80 PU ONLY for RCC. This, by the way, is the right approach, a universal launcher is not too necessary, since it imposes strong restrictions on the size of anti-ship missiles, or else (if you do ALL launchers for large anti-ship missiles, it limits the number of launchers.)
      Ну а помимо ПКР, даже если на Нахимове оставят старые пусковые (что вряд ли) есть еще 96 пусковых С-300Ф (эти может и оставят, но ракеты будут новыми) и 2 "Осы" (боекомплект по 20 ЗУР каждая) И это не считая 20 ПЛУР "Водопад" (куда как продвинутый аналог "Асрока", только у Тикондерог он в УВП, а у Нахимова - в ТА) и ракеты шестерки ЗРАК-ов...
      В общем, по пусковым "Нахимов" превзойдет "Тикондерогу" как минимум вдвое:)
      1. Vladimyrych
        Vladimyrych 26 October 2015 16: 40 New
        +1
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk I am aware of the placed order. Only how much will he force this order. I have a strong feeling that this is a terrible unfinished building 1144.2 If already 22350 have been raped since 2006 and there are only 4 tons of this mastodon ... IMHO will rot faster.
        Or it is necessary to introduce criminal punishment for failure to meet deadlines in the State Defense Order.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 16: 48 New
          +7
          Quote: Vladimir
          Only how much will he force this order. I have a strong feeling that this is a terrible unfinished building 1144.2 If already 22350 have been raped since 2006, there are only 4 tons of this mastodon

          There is a fundamental difference. We already have UVP and have even been tested in conditions close to combat, so that there are no problems in its manufacture. The same applies to the rest of weapons modernization - the S-300F UVP will be supplied with more modern but existing missiles, control posts will be equipped with more modern, but already existing equipment, etc.
          А фрегат наш вогнало в долгострой именно то, что для него не были готовы новейшие системы вооружений - "Полимент-Редут", АУ и т.д.. Т.е. корабль создавался под перспективные технологии, которые следовало еще разработать, и задержки в разработке "фарша" фрегата чрезмерно затянули строительство. Здесь такого не будет
          1. Mera joota
            Mera joota 26 October 2015 19: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            in UVP S-300F will deliver more modern, but existing missiles

            Yeah, dreaming. It may remind you of Peter the Great, in which two types of missiles with the original UVP are absolutely incompatible because the missiles from FORT-M are larger than the missiles of the Fort. Well, the revolving PUs in the 21st century are terrible nonsense ... Therefore, the Forts will be cut out like the Granites ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            А фрегат наш вогнало в долгострой именно то, что для него не были готовы новейшие системы вооружений - "Полимент-Редут", АУ и т.д.. Т.е. корабль создавался под перспективные технологии, которые следовало еще разработать, и задержки в разработке "фарша" фрегата чрезмерно затянули строительство. Здесь такого не будет

            And what, Polement-Redoubt already worked out? And is not 9M96 small for such a ship?
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 26 October 2015 19: 49 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This, by the way, is the right approach.

        And what is right here?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        since it imposes strong restrictions on the size of RCC

        That is, 3C-14 rubber parameters? What kind of sausages do you like, will it fit?

        I still do not understand what is wrong with universality? You have 122 UVP in which you can charge the BC in any version. Or there are 40 under KR, 70 under missiles and 12 under PLUR, no more and no less. At the same time, each UVP is original, has its own launch system, control system, etc. I believe that the first option is more convenient and cheaper.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 21: 24 New
          +9
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Yeah, dreaming. It may remind you of Peter the Great, on which two types of missiles with original UVP are absolutely incompatible because missiles from FORT-M are larger than Fort missiles

          It is possible to recall, but only from that moment a lot of time passed, there appeared, for example, 9M96E2, which, as it were, would fit into four S-300F containers.
          Quote: Mera Joota
          Well, the revolving PU in the 21st century is a terrible nonsense ...

          Maybe creepy, but this nonsense is working properly, but what else is needed from the air defense system?
          Quote: Mera Joota
          And what, Polement-Redoubt already worked out?

          На "Горшкове" стоит.
          Quote: Mera Joota
          And is not 9M96 small for such a ship?

          120 km in range and 30 km in height - is this, in your opinion, not enough for a frigate? :))
          Quote: Mera Joota
          And what is right here?

          Посмотрите, с каким противокорабельным оружием сейчас ходят американские эсминцы. В лучшем случае - с "Гарпунами". В худшем случае - вообще ни с чем.
          УВП Мк41 рассчитаны предельно на "Томагавк"/Стандарт, т.е. на ракету предельно в 1,5 тонн весом. Вот американцы захотели новую ПКР, и что? А ничего, извольте соответствовать УВП, иначе овчинка выделки не стоит. В результате США вынуждены упихивать свои хотелки в 1500 кг массы ракеты.
          At the same time, our anti-ship missiles now weigh up to 3 tons (Caliber, Onyx). But such a launcher is completely redundant for missiles. Well, we won’t have three tons of missiles in weight :))) And we won’t shove a large number of missiles — the diameter of the anti-ship missiles and the missiles is almost the same.
          That's why it makes no sense to make a universal launcher for three-ton missiles - it is obviously redundant for missiles (to sustain the start of a three-ton missile is more difficult than a one and a half ton), respectively, more difficult, more expensive and heavier. It is easier to make two launchers - for RCC / PLUR / KR one and for all missiles - the second.
          At the same time, the shift of ammunition is a very conditional advantage. A ship is created for specific tasks, and ammunition is determined for them. If the ship is not supposed to be used as a strike, then there is no sense in setting the launcher for RCC. For Americans, the situation is slightly different, because global superiority in carrier-based aviation allows us to create zonal air supremacy and (at least in theory) dramatically reduce the number of missiles in the ammunition system, but this is not expected for a very long time.
      3. Stena
        Stena 27 October 2015 12: 44 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        И это не считая 20 ПЛУР "Водопад"

        А они останутся? На рисунке что был выше (проект, наверное эскизный) там только торпеды "Пакет" ... Честно говоря - вообще странный проект. На наших (имею ввиду СССР) кораблях обычно более внушительное противолодочное вооружение стояло - и РБУ и торпеды и иногда - ракето-торпеды. А по схеме - не понятно - это они показывают только планируемые изменения при частичном сохранении старых вооружений или это все вооружение (то есть - старое убирается полностью)?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 12: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Stena
          The figure above was (a draft, probably sketchy)

          This is not a conceptual design, this is a common network pampering with alternative histories. The man drew several options for a possible modernization of the cruiser. Has nothing to do with reality
          1. Stena
            Stena 27 October 2015 13: 01 New
            0
            Thanks - I get it.
    4. i80186
      i80186 26 October 2015 17: 11 New
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir
      "Ticonderoga" 122 trunks

      Ну нет, у нас там ещё 20шт П-700, 92шт 48Н6Е2, а ещё "Водопад" и "Кинжал", вот ещё теперь и ониксо-калибро-циркнов добавят аж 80 штук. Американец на фоне этого смешная надувная лодка. smile
    5. Brewney
      Brewney 26 October 2015 17: 59 New
      +3
      The ticonderoga carries a maximum of 26 axes or 4 air defense per container.
      So 122 barrels are air defense and not anti-ship missiles.

      Arly Burke carries 80 to 96 axes, depending on the series.
      Here it is already serious - the States of such Berks are incomplete 7 dozens.
      We have only one and then in the process.
      1. TiGRoO
        TiGRoO 26 October 2015 20: 57 New
        +1
        Nakhimov will have under 200 missiles (80 standard calibers + air defense / missile defense). The fact that the United States and the Berks are several dozen, yes a lot, but we even have small 8-caliber RTOs, plus frigates will be, plus the new Leader destroyer (60 missiles seem to promise), of course not parity, but not bad either.
        1. clidon
          clidon 26 October 2015 21: 12 New
          0
          У США Берков и Тикондерог около восьмидесяти. Мелкие МРК с "Калибрами", это не противокорабельные средства, а подвижные морские установки для запуска крылатых ракет в обход РСМД.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    +1
    Zircon?!!! C'mon, are they really doing it, what have they even brought to the series? If there are true Zircons, then 80 missiles are excellent, if without them, then this is very little for such a ship, this is the level of the American cruiser Ticonderoga and the latest versions of Burke.
    1. kagorta
      kagorta 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
      +4
      Burke has 96 cells in total. Nothing was said about our missiles.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 16: 36 New
        +4
        Quote: kagorta
        Our about missiles did not say anything.

        From which it does not follow that the SAM will not be :)))
        In general, according to rumors, the S-300F is going to be maintained by equipping only the most advanced missiles, and the better ones. There is no tragedy here - these missiles will last for a very long time :)
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 26 October 2015 16: 23 New
      +5
      Скорее всего , не стали менять коренным образом всю архитектуру и только на освободившееся место от "Гранитов "поставили .
      It was already here, but still cool!
    3. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 October 2015 21: 31 New
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Zircon?!!! C'mon, are they really doing it, what have they even brought to the series?

      ... well, if they were put in the list of possible missile launchers in TK ... :)

      Questions with the 9K complex remain.
      There is clearly something unfinished. Probably still 9K720 from Iskander. But what?
      If P-500 (9М728) - everything is clear, put in the container ...
      But, if the full-time aerobic 9М78-1 with optical or radar correlation GOS, - this is kapets 3,14ndostanu and NATO!
      After all, there is such a phrase -
      Комплекс "Искандер-МКР" - в ходе выставки МВМС-2005 было заявлено, что a sea-based missile will be created on the basis of the Iskander OTR.
      bully soldier
  • Max40
    Max40 26 October 2015 16: 10 New
    +4
    Ух ты опять сюрприз плавучий у нас. Нам то хорошо а вот нашим "коллегам" не очень)))
  • veksha50
    veksha50 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
    +5
    ", «установки будут refine for the use of the following missile systems: 3K-14 ("Caliber"), 9К, 3М55 ("Оникс"), 3К-22 ("Циркон")"....

    This is the thing ... The cruiser will become a universal military unit ...

    However, the timing, timing ... As soon as you hear them - so the teeth begin to whine ...
    1. gg.na
      gg.na 26 October 2015 16: 25 New
      +1
      Patience brother, patience !!! Patience and a little effort! Let it be a long time, but certainly for sure! And the quality in such matters is a very serious aspect! wink
      1. purple
        purple 28 October 2015 15: 21 New
        0
        I doubt about the quality, but there is no one to work ... old retired, youth all managers lawyers economists
  • bvi1965
    bvi1965 26 October 2015 16: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Mama_Cholli
    Let him go near any AG to potential friends, so that they do not sleep at night and choose a smaller place, just in case.


    Smaller? Will not save ... laughing
  • NDR-791
    NDR-791 26 October 2015 16: 19 New
    0
    Thus, after the upgrade, the cruiser will carry 80 anti-ship missiles.
    This alone speaks volumes. For example, that such a number of missiles should be fired at targets without interference, and this is the corresponding missile defense, air defense and escort. Yes, for such frankly we’ll say not a lot of money compared to four British boats ... But about the terms - yes I agree with veksha50
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 26 October 2015 16: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: NDR-791
      Yes, for such a frankly speaking, not a lot of money compared to four British boats ...


      Не забывайте, это не "с новья", а модернизация - оно ещё дешевле выходит.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 26 October 2015 17: 08 New
        0
        That's just the point - cheap and cheerful !!! So it suits us in all respects.
        1. Rader
          Rader 26 October 2015 21: 28 New
          0
          Quote: NDR-791
          That's just the point - cheap and cheerful !!! So it suits us in all respects.

          Вы что?! 80 ПКР это очень, ОЧЕНЬ сердито!!! Один залп - минус одна эскадра, "сердитей" и дешевле сейчас не сделаешь! wassat
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 26 October 2015 23: 15 New
        +5
        Quote: hydrox
        Не забывайте, это не "с новья", а модернизация - оно ещё дешевле выходит.
        This modernization costs 50 billion rubles; New Borey costs 23 billion, Ash - 29 billion.
        But, despite such costs, the country is still modernizing TARKr. The fleet must be balanced, otherwise it will be a repetition of the fate of the Kriegsmarine, with its magnificent boats, the absence of aircraft carriers and the small number (although excellent) of battleships and heavy cruisers.
        А то, что при войне ТАРКр станет ядром КРГ, охотящейся за АМГ -- ясно как божий день И то, что "долбить" ее будут авианосная авиация и ПЛА -- к бабке не ходи! Поэтому такому бриллианту нужна достойная (сильная!) оправа из ЭМ и ФР, и конечно же авиационного прикрытия.
        А это все "огромные тыщи стоит", как говорил известный персонаж...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 26 October 2015 23: 33 New
          +3
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Therefore, such a diamond needs a decent (strong!) Rim from EM and FR, and of course, air cover.

          Свита такому красавцу безусловно нужна.Но пока чинуши с макетиками Лидеров и Шквалов по выставкам бегают,что совсем злит.А ведь корабли то стареют.Эсминцы хребтина любого флота,а с новыми нашими эсминцами пока "а воз и ныне там".
          It would be faster if they started building these handsome men, and not chatting, but doing self-promotion. Americans finish the third Zimvolt, and we sit and row, to build or not to build our destroyers.
  • Koronik
    Koronik 26 October 2015 16: 20 New
    +1
    "Атомный крейсер «Адмирал Нахимов» получит гиперзвуковые ракеты"- будем надеяться и ждать,не было бы срывов в сроках.Да и "Петра Великого" надо бы модернизировать.
  • gg.na
    gg.na 26 October 2015 16: 22 New
    0
    The old man will also serve !!! More like that !!! More will bring HORROR on our ....... in lol partners!
  • novel68rus
    novel68rus 26 October 2015 16: 50 New
    +5
    I heard that the name was unfortunate in the ships .. all those with the name of Nakhimov had misfortunes with them constantly happened ... to change .. soldier
  • katalonec2014
    katalonec2014 26 October 2015 16: 51 New
    +2
    The Americans will be delighted, they have seen what our kids in the Caspian are capable of, and here such a giant, wait, it’s not long.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 26 October 2015 17: 23 New
    +4
    Не будем "гнать волну",раз решение принято,то значит и выполнено будет! Короче без паники ,всему свое время,а Нахимов встанет в строй я не сомневаюсь во-время, с таким славным именем, думаю что так и будет!
  • mav1971
    mav1971 26 October 2015 17: 25 New
    0
    Everyone is thrilled.
    Only now they forget one thing.
    The world is small and interdependent.
    The proverb about a cunning ass and a cunning member is known on both sides of the state border.
    The arms race will accelerate again.
    The latest weapons will come in both directions of the confrontation.
    No one will let loose and rest on their laurels.
    Do not forget about it.
    Do not throw bonnets into the air.



    Everything goes to war after 20's.
    Everyone is getting ready.
    Children and grandchildren feel sorry. :(
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 27 October 2015 01: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: mav1971
      No one will let loose and rest on their laurels.
      Americans too bothered to be the first in space!
      But now is not about that. Now about what is stated: in 2018, Nakhimov will come out with new hypersonic missiles! From this we can conclude: GZO we already ... have, or on the way (at the stage of state testing) And what about our sworn friends? 143 sec flight at 426 km with V = 4,8 M KR-51 (Boeing).
      At the moment, Russia is armed with hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles - Granites, Onyx, Yakhonts, etc., as well as an aeroballistic short-range hypersonic missile - X-15. But the United States has exactly zero units of supersonic KR, the last “Dogs of the Dogs” were written off as far back as 1976.
      In addition, in the early 90s, Russia became the first country to successfully conduct flight tests of an experimental aircraft with a hypersonic ramjet engine, ahead of the United States by nine years. That is, 25 years ago, several of our design bureaus solved the problem of creating hypersonic missiles, and moreover, some American experts are sure that our GEL / X-90 Koala project was not curtailed in 1992, but continues to this day, providing Russia has a leading place in understanding the physical processes and phenomena that accompany the flight of GB rockets.
      The most interesting thing is that only three countries are developing alternative hypersound engines - and there is no USA among them! It is more interesting for the Americans to throw hundreds of billions of dollars into a “cut” in DARPA and bluntly forehead to break through problems with the scramjet, because of which they have already failed at least 5 projects. And from the highlighted projects of alternative engines there are Russian-French developments on detonation engines (which so far are considered to be something like “Petrik filters”) and some Russian-Indian promising developments in the framework of work on the Bramos-2 hypersonic missile. Therefore, we are not in a hurry to reveal all the secrets to the BrahMos Indians, expanding access to secret developments. (To prevent amam from draining.)
      We are working not only on missiles with scramjet engines, but also created fundamentally new types of fuel that solve the problem of creating a “solid fuel” GB rocket, as well as our researchers are actively working with a detonation engine for hypersound. In addition, there is reason to believe that Russia already has an unmanned hypersonic aircraft - Russia has been suspected of this since 2004.
      It is possible that before the end of the decade we will see a domestic hypersonic, conditionally “solid fuel” cruise missile with a range of up to 5000 kilometers, which American radars simply cannot detect. And the last - a week ago it was announced that Russia was deploying a network of mobile radars "Sky-M", which confidently fix the target’s GB in the atmosphere. This is a breakthrough, and the breakthrough is very serious - because in addition to the hypersonic sword, we already have a shield in the form of S-400, S-500. yes
      In the photo X-51 (separation of the upper stage)
      1. Markiz_A
        Markiz_A 27 October 2015 07: 44 New
        -3
        Вы сравните характеристики нашей С-400 или даже с еще не созданной С-500 с американской системой "Иджис" и поймете что таких характеристик какими обладает "Иджис" мы достигнем только создав С-900, не раньше.
      2. xtur
        xtur 27 October 2015 13: 58 New
        0
        >Возможно, что ещё до конца десятилетия мы увидим отечественную гиперзвуковую, условно «твёрдотопливную», крылатую ракету с дальностью полёта to 5000 kilometers

        I understand correctly that the Kyrgyz Republic should fly only in high layers of the atmosphere, because only there it is possible to solve the problem of heat removal?
  • Support
    Support 26 October 2015 18: 08 New
    11
    Everything is fine, only gasoline in Kamchatka costs 43 with a hook of rub / l. Everything is fine, only products are becoming more expensive every month. And I’m not watching free medicine anywhere. Who would show me. This candy wrapper called medical insurance only allows someone babos squandering unclear what and why. And the joke - instead of lowering wages, officials are simply cutting posts. PAYMENT then falls and salary type is less. And so all is well. And honestly - I’m gouged by this dung called capitalism, headed by those who destroyed the USSR and still rob my country. FALSE. These polished faces with empty fish eyes .......
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 26 October 2015 18: 10 New
    +3
    Quote: Tor5
    Yes, not a weak missile carrier will turn out, which cannot but rejoice!

    And after the modernization of the next Petka, we will already have two such ships. But to be honest, I would like more: 4-5, so that the adversary from this fact alone would not even allow the thought that something could be done or said in our direction. But I really hope that soon the first Leaders and Squalls, new, powerful and armed to the teeth, will leave the slipways.
    1. Markiz_A
      Markiz_A 27 October 2015 07: 52 New
      +1
      Наш крейсер при водоизмещении 25800 тонн будет нести 80 ПУ. Пусть их у нас будет даже 2 (если будем модернизировать "Петра Великого").
      Американские крейсера типа "Тикондерога" несут 122 ПУ при водоизмещении 9800 тонн. Таких крейсеров у них 22.
      Американские эсминцы типа "Арли Бёрк" несут 96 ПУ при водоизмещении 9000 тонн. Таких эсминцев у них 62.
      We turn on the calculator and consider ...
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 27 October 2015 09: 04 New
        +1
        Quote: Markiz_A
        Наш крейсер при водоизмещении 25800 тонн будет нести 80 ПУ. Пусть их у нас будет даже 2 (если будем модернизировать "Петра Великого").
        Американские крейсера типа "Тикондерога" несут 122 ПУ при водоизмещении 9800 тонн. Таких крейсеров у них 22.
        Американские эсминцы типа "Арли Бёрк" несут 96 ПУ при водоизмещении 9000 тонн. Таких эсминцев у них 62.
        We turn on the calculator and consider ...

        That is why I’m talking about the speedy construction of Leaders and Shkvalov. All of our destroyers, which are now armed with Soviet-built and they are aging, but we are not building new ones yet.
      2. red_october
        red_october 27 October 2015 11: 06 New
        0
        It is tempting, of course, to be on par with the United States, to the last cruise missile on each destroyer.
        But we will not solve this problem - there are no production and financial opportunities.
        Just take the legacy of the USSR - both in terms of technology and finished ships - and create something that is a sufficient deterrent for the aggressor.
        This is already a lot, and almost no one in the world can afford it.
        The USA has a different ideology - to dominate and break everyone through the knee.
      3. purple
        purple 28 October 2015 15: 26 New
        0
        and after the calculator we turn on the brain and think where all these ticonderogs with berks are based, they are scattered all over the world ... and so, by the way, there are few sea borders, while those Americans will swim to us, there’s nothing left from their America
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 October 2015 18: 24 New
    +5
    Новость, в принципе,как новость. Этого и следовало ожидать. Тем более "Калибры" уже фактически прошли испытания в реальных боевых условиях.Плюс ещё комплексы ПВО поменять на более новые ракеты с радарами и вааще получится ништяк good Потом ещё "Петю" с "Лазаревым" так же модернизировать и получим мощный ударный кулак soldier
    Вот бы ещё две "Акулы" пр.941 так модернизировать,а то ведь порежут!! А так получим ещё две единицы, которые вообще могут наносить мощные удары по противнику с элементом неожиданности. На тех тоже можно под сотню УВП поставить. Правда на это нужны деньги и желание.Но можно и помечтать repeat hi
    1. xtur
      xtur 26 October 2015 20: 26 New
      +2
      >Вот бы ещё две "Акулы" пр.941 так модернизировать

      да, туда "Калибров" could fit in about 15 times more than native missiles.
      1. clidon
        clidon 26 October 2015 21: 09 New
        0
        Надо купить супертанкер и набить его "Калибрами". Туда их СТОЛЬКО влезет. Весь бюджет.
        1. xtur
          xtur 27 October 2015 11: 02 New
          +1
          >Надо купить супертанкер и набить его "Калибрами".

          if the supertanker is ice-class, and is capable of hiding under the ice when it is needed, then it will become the analogue of two submarines, pr. 941.

          hi
      2. Markiz_A
        Markiz_A 27 October 2015 07: 59 New
        0
        У американцев 4 лодки типа "Огайо" несут по 154 КР "Томагавк". Мы же в лучшем случае можем переоборудовать 2 "Акулы". Остальные пошли на иголки.
    2. Rader
      Rader 26 October 2015 21: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Новость, в принципе,как новость. Этого и следовало ожидать. Тем более "Калибры" уже фактически прошли испытания в реальных боевых условиях.Плюс ещё комплексы ПВО поменять на более новые ракеты с радарами и вааще получится ништяк good Потом ещё "Петю" с "Лазаревым" так же модернизировать и получим мощный ударный кулак soldier
      Вот бы ещё две "Акулы" пр.941 так модернизировать,а то ведь порежут!! А так получим ещё две единицы, которые вообще могут наносить мощные удары по противнику с элементом неожиданности. На тех тоже можно под сотню УВП поставить. Правда на это нужны деньги и желание.Но можно и помечтать repeat hi

      Well, Lazarev, no longer resurrect, he will not rise from scrap metal (most likely) ... But 2 is better than 0 yes
      About the Sharks. Yes, you can shove a lot of CR and RCC, VERY MUCH! But is there any point in such a rework? The submarine is too noisy by modern standards, the modernization itself, the replacement of the systems will stretch out over a long time and most likely will cost a pretty penny (maybe even a figure comparable to the construction of a new nuclear submarine). But to cut such beauties into scrap metal is sacrilege! am
  • Old26
    Old26 26 October 2015 18: 46 New
    +3
    Quote: hydrox
    Exactly vertical ones: they are so compact, thin (about 8 m in a glass), and the length is only 8 m.

    Yeah, with the length of the ship’s missile options from 8,2 to 8,9 meters ??

    Quote: Tor5
    Yes, not a weak missile carrier will turn out, which cannot but rejoice!

    Yeah. But no one writes that this is the TOTAL NUMBER of launchers. Anti-aircraft, shock, anti-submarine ...

    Quote: i80186
    Quote: Vladimir
    "Ticonderoga" 122 trunks

    Ну нет, у нас там ещё 20шт П-700, 92шт 48Н6Е2, а ещё "Водопад" и "Кинжал", вот ещё теперь и ониксо-калибро-циркнов добавят аж 80 штук. Американец на фоне этого смешная надувная лодка. smile

    Yeah. Inflatable boat. Of course, nonsense, 2 dozen cruisers, seventy destroyers. And ours. ONE. That’s funnier - it’s not clear. Reality or Hooray Patriotic Posts
    Yeah. especially if you compare a dozen of our carriers and a hundred of them ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 19: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Yeah. But no one writes that this is the TOTAL NUMBER of launchers. Anti-aircraft, shock, anti-submarine ...

      Естественно, потому что 80 пусковых - ТОЛЬКО под ПКР и устанавливаются на место пусковых "Гранитов". ПВО при этом никуда не девается, неизвестно только, насколько глубоко его будут модернизировать.
      1. PLO
        PLO 26 October 2015 23: 41 New
        0
        At the same time, air defense does not disappear, it is not known just how deeply it will be modernized.


        drum PUs will remain, but they say they will upgrade to 48N6
        http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/148698.html

        what radars all this will tie is still unknown. plus they say that instead of Granites, you can install 1,5-2 times more than 10 UVP 3S-14. so maybe something else will stand there. I hope Redoubt)
      2. Markiz_A
        Markiz_A 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
        -2
        80 launchers are for all types of missiles, and for air defense systems, and for the Kyrgyz Republic, and for anti-ship missiles.
  • Wiruz
    Wiruz 26 October 2015 19: 23 New
    +1
    Okay, I won’t ask what 9K is, but damn it, how are they going to shove Zircon into UKSK? It is almost the size of 77n6, does not fit either in length or in width
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 19: 34 New
      0
      Quote: Wiruz
      It is almost the size of 77n6

      Простите, а откуда Вы что-то знаете о "Цирконе"?
      1. Wiruz
        Wiruz 26 October 2015 20: 28 New
        +2
        May Google come with you
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 21: 32 New
          +2
          Yes, Google is with me now and forever and ever, but Zircon is netuti :))) In fact, it’s as if closed and somewhere even a secret development. laughing
        2. Rader
          Rader 26 October 2015 21: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: Wiruz
          Okay, I won’t ask what 9K is, but damn it, how are they going to shove Zircon into UKSK? It is almost the size of 77n6, does not fit either in length or in width

          Does not fit? May the file and the grinder come with you! wassat laughing
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 27 October 2015 13: 18 New
      -1
      Quote: Wiruz
      It is almost the size of 77n6, does not fit either in length or in width

      Well, you are a communist! (C)

      In addition, who knows what upgrades of the original UKKS are hidden under 11442M in the ZS-14-11442M?
  • Old26
    Old26 26 October 2015 19: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: Wiruz
    Okay, I won’t ask what 9K is, but damn it, how are they going to shove Zircon into UKSK? It is almost the size of 77n6, does not fit either in length or in width

    Yes, who cares. The main thing is to write. Say thank you that the YaRS was not put there ...
    1. Markiz_A
      Markiz_A 27 October 2015 08: 05 New
      -1
      But it would be nice.
  • Old26
    Old26 26 October 2015 19: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Естественно, потому что 80 пусковых - ТОЛЬКО под ПКР и устанавливаются на место пусковых "Гранитов".

    Andrei, I had in mind the number 300 that they write about. They often compare it and talk about the ship as a prodigy. Yes, it will be a strong, powerful ship, but there will be only 2-3 of them, against almost a hundred American
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 21: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      They often compare it and talk about the ship as a prodigy. Yes, it will be a strong, powerful ship, but there will be only 2-3 of them, against almost a hundred American

      I agree, but there is already little that can be done - the US Navy cannot be pulled by the United States. And it’s better to have 2-3 ships than not a single one - there are a lot of bad guys in the world and not all of them live in the USA
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 27 October 2015 02: 02 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there are a lot of bad guys in the world and not all of them live in the USA
        Вот, блин! А то, что они "дружат против нас" в НАТО -- так себе, погулять вышел?
        But those who are bearded, have no GZO. The martyr’s belt is a terrible thing, but far from the same as the Moscow State University!
        You need to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
        IMHO.
    2. purple
      purple 28 October 2015 15: 31 New
      0
      this hundred will still have to get to the place ... while America will have their kapets, then let alone lonely swim in the ocean by themselves.
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 26 October 2015 20: 07 New
    -10
    When Nakhimov begins to cut there for scrap many tears will be shed ...
    Столько фантази на тему "ах какой он будет"... Очнитесь люди, следующий год многим придется пояса подзатянуть, поэтому сначала заморозят модернизацию, а потом вообще прикроют...
    Well, as usual, a lot of corruption scandals await us ...
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 October 2015 20: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      When Nakhimov will begin to cut many tears in the same place

      Can the source be?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 October 2015 22: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: Mera Joota
      When Nakhimov begins to cut there for scrap many tears will be shed ...

      Простите,а с какого перепугу его резать то будут?И вопрос о Лазареве ПОКА открыт тоже...Нахимов в 18 году войдет в состав флота,а Петю отправят на модернизацию и ремонт в доки до 20-го года.Так было озвучено и пока никаких сомнений и причин нет в этом сомневаться.А просто ляпнуть ,что почти завершенный корабль "порежут"много ума не надо.Такие заявления надо доказательно с фактами и источниками говорить,уважаемый.
  • Berthan
    Berthan 26 October 2015 21: 06 New
    +2
    Into orbit, all this iron, into orbit! The 21st century is in the yard, and here we are floundering - you know ... Not solid)
    1. ermak.sidorov
      ermak.sidorov 27 October 2015 10: 43 New
      0
      ...идея заманчивая и "звёздная" в прямом смысле слова, но ведь договоры там всякие о том, что "низя большое ракетное рУжо" в космосе базировать...
      1. Berthan
        Berthan 27 October 2015 14: 33 New
        0
        This is if from the high stands, to rant about what else is missing. And if you silently build and bring out ... Who will say what, when it is here - it hangs at the zenith.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 26 October 2015 23: 54 New
    0
    Yeah, 80 RCC is strong. When exiting to the database, the cruiser will be separately assigned a flock of foreign vessels to watch. Because well, it’s just sycotic to imagine what 80 missiles can do in one salvo. And after all, the missiles are not MLRS, but each with individual guidance ...
    True, such a ship and retinue needs a decent ...
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 27 October 2015 09: 25 New
    0
    "Корабль-арсенал" по русски. Это хорошо.
  • YaMZ-238
    YaMZ-238 27 October 2015 09: 26 New
    0
    This is really a modern battleship !!!! The most beautiful of the existing ships !!!
  • misterwulf
    misterwulf 27 October 2015 09: 40 New
    +1
    Cool ship turns out. It would still be renamed. The name is bad unlucky) for any ship / vessel, though, and the symbol of our City. I think so
  • Alexstrigin
    Alexstrigin 27 October 2015 09: 46 New
    0
    Fear the enemy !!! Long live the Russian Navy !!!
  • ermak.sidorov
    ermak.sidorov 27 October 2015 10: 40 New
    0
    Offered rename rocket from "КАЛИБР" в PESEC laughing
    и перекрасить в белый цвет...будет 80 "песцов" на борту...целая свора пушистых собачек...
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 27 October 2015 11: 14 New
      0
      Quote: ermak.sidorov
      Offered rename rocket from "КАЛИБР" в PESEC laughing
      и перекрасить в белый цвет...будет 80 "песцов" на борту...целая свора пушистых собачек...


      Arctic fox is a polar fox.
      Most of the diet is.
      She loves to go after a polar bear and feed on the remains of its prey.
      Those. scavenger.
      And why do we need such a name?

      If something is consonant with your favorite profanity, then not everyone perceives your consonance. People also know the normal meaning. Do not forget from school.
  • red_october
    red_october 27 October 2015 10: 56 New
    +3
    Once, my hair was very combed under my right shoulder blade.
    I and so, and so - I can not get it. And as luck would have it, not a single door jamb.
    Suddenly someone’s hands scratched my back gently, but carefully.
    Ufffff .... ok ...
    Thanks to tell someone - I asked, looking around ...
    "Путин - наше все ....", - прошелестело в воздухе.
    I understood and smiled. It was the invisible hand of the Kremlin.
    Good to be a patriot!
  • Old warrior
    Old warrior 27 October 2015 14: 36 New
    0
    Fair wind and seven feet under the keel.
  • Old26
    Old26 27 October 2015 19: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    GZO we already ... have, or on the way (at the stage of state testing) And what about our sworn friends? 143 sec flight at 426 km with V = 4,8 M KR-51 (Boeing).

    I'm afraid that not everything is as good as it seems. No information, but with regard to the ballistic missile defense for ICBMs - no special breakthroughs are visible. Failures are the same as theirs. Just about the parameters of these failures we do not know.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    At the moment, Russia is armed with hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles - Granites, Onyx, Yakhonts, etc., as well as an aeroballistic short-range hypersonic missile - X-15.

    Да, сверхзвуковых у "заклятых друзей" 0. Но огромное количество дозвуковых. А вот у нас насчет сотен... Лодок 949 проекта ходовых у нас сколько? 2 на Севере и 3 на ТОФе. Плюс 3 в ремонте. Ладно 120 есть в наличии. "Ониксов" и "Яхонтов"... Ну "Яхонт" то и есть экспортный "Оникс". Сколько у нас сейчас носителей в строю? "Северодвинск"? На Каспии 5 вымпелов, из которых 4 типа "река-море".... Сколько Х-15?? А ХЗ. О ней уже лет 15 ничего не слышно. Даже на выставки перестали возить...

    Quote: BoA KAA
    In addition, in the early 90s, Russia became the first country to successfully conduct flight tests of an experimental aircraft with a hypersonic ramjet engine, ahead of the United States by nine years.

    But where is this aircraft?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26
    Old26 27 October 2015 19: 14 New
    +2
    Quote: BoA KAA
    some American experts are sure that our GEL / X-90 “Koala” project was not curtailed in 1992, but is still ongoing ...

    Самый часто повторяемый фейк. И у нас, и у них Был действительно такой аппарат ГЭЛА назывался. Летал, достиг каких-то скоростей... Ну и все. А все остальное - публикация о ракете Х-90 "Коала"... Ну любому, даже экспериментальному аппарату американцы давали свои названия - "Коала" это их название. Индекс был А вот название ракеты Х-90 - бред чистой воды, основанный на том, что писавший (первым) о ракете Х-90 - полный профан. И запутал при этом всех остальных. А теперь просто тиражируют то, что было написано ранее, добавляя свои комментарии

    Ибо тот, кто пишет, должен знать, что буква Х в американском обозначении, а эта ракета ЕМНИП имела индекс AS-X-19, обозначает, что ракета экспериментальная, не поставленная на вооружение. Да, была такая версия авиационного варианта ракеты "Метеорит-А". На западе проходила под индексом AS-X-19 "Koala". Испытания проходили достаточно успешно, но на ракете был поставлен крест из-за договора СНВ, запрещавшем иметь на крылатых ракетах более одной боеголовки. А у "Коалы" их должно было быть ДВЕ. В некоторых источниках даже заранее дали ей индекс Х-80. Хотя и писавшему следовало бы знать, что у нас индекс Х дается только ракетам, принятым на вооружение. Чего не было...
    And how this even if hypothetical index was transformed into the X-90 - no one knows. In addition, the rocket was SUPERSONIC, not HYPERSONIC ...

    И с тех пор по всем печатным источникам ходит-бродит индекс Х-90 и его западное обозначение AS-X-21 — предполагаемый индекс разрабатывавшейся МКБ «Радуга» сверхзвуковой крылатой ракеты. Разрабатывавшейся в отличии от AS-X-19 по инициативе КБ "Радуга" и называемой иногда "Koala" , а иногда и "Gela"... По сути эта ракета была лабораторным образцом....

    Quote: BoA KAA
    It is possible that before the end of the decade we will see a domestic hypersonic, conditionally “solid fuel” cruise missile with a range of up to 5000 kilometers, which American radars simply cannot detect.

    Maybe we'll see. That's just about radars, I would beware to say so. They’ll spot it. But there really can be problems with interception, although I don’t think ...

    Quote: ermak.sidorov
    Предлагаю переименовать ракету из "КАЛИБР" в "ПЕСЕЦ"

    Let's. And not only CALIBER, and all other missiles: cruise, anti-aircraft, anti-tank. This will increase the level of self-conceit ....
  • Yugra
    Yugra 27 October 2015 22: 06 New
    -1
    Хоть и "пенсионер",но такой красавец!
  • alex80
    alex80 27 October 2015 23: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

    Granite did not have satellite target designation - even the USSR did not draw the Legend.

    На замену "Легенды" планируется "Лиана". «Четыре спутника системы «Лиана» – два «Пиона» и два «Лотоса» – будут в режиме реального времени обнаруживать объекты противника – самолеты, корабли, автомобили. Координаты этих целей будут передаваться на командный пункт, где будет формироваться виртуальная карта реального времени. В случае войны по этим объектам будут наноситься высокоточные удары», – пояснил принцип действия системы представитель Генштаба.
    The new system is more versatile - because of its higher orbit, it can scan not only large objects in the ocean, which the Soviet Legend was capable of, but also any object up to 1 meter in size anywhere in the world. Accuracy has grown more than 100 times - up to 3 meters. And while there are no nuclear reactors that pose a threat to the Earth’s ecosystem.
    Link: http://army-news.ru/2014/01/morskaya-kosmicheskaya-sistema-razvedki-i-celeukazan

    iya-liana /
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 28 October 2015 13: 02 New
      0
      Four satellites of the Liana system - two Peonies and two Lotuses - will detect enemy objects in real time

      Everything is interesting: is it possible to graze a whole globe with just 4 satellites? Even if they can do something, the redundancy of the system is zero. Should the enemy spoil at least one, and immediately a huge piece of the ocean will fall out of sight.
  • Old26
    Old26 27 October 2015 23: 46 New
    0
    Quote: alex80
    На замену "Легенды" планируется "Лиана". «Четыре спутника системы «Лиана» – два «Пиона» и два «Лотоса» – будут в режиме реального времени обнаруживать объекты противника – самолеты, корабли, автомобили. Координаты этих целей будут передаваться на командный пункт, где будет формироваться виртуальная карта реального времени.

    But they can only detect in the capture zone. And from 4 - only two - PION. The other two are electronic intelligence. And they won’t even cover parts of the world's oceans.
  • OdenGKIT
    OdenGKIT 28 October 2015 02: 46 New
    -6
    Money from a private investor. Interest-bearing loans of up to $ 100.

    For business on one document.

    Contact us - money is for you only with us!
    Powerful affiliate program up to 50 percent with commission payments.

    Instant connection to the business without additional fees and charges.
    Build your business on granting loans without costs and investments!

    Details by S A Q P U: cheburashka411
  • ram89
    ram89 28 October 2015 14: 42 New
    -2
    Lord dreamers! It doesn’t occur to you that this self-propelled gun will not come out of the base in the event of a real war, just as it will be empty. This monster only scare the natives))).
    I recall the Japanese sailor heroes who are dear to your hearts (after all, they fought with ami). So these Japs claimed that there were three useless things in the world - the Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall and the battleship Yamato. So I want to add to this list the entire obsolete Russian Navy))))
    1. purple
      purple 28 October 2015 15: 36 New
      0
      in the event of a real war, there will be no one to stop this ship Nafik, they will hit the carriers of nuclear weapons in the first place.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 28 October 2015 19: 19 New
        0
        A caliber can carry nuclear weapons.
  • Megatron
    Megatron 28 October 2015 16: 39 New
    -1
    I would like to believe that the 2 remaining ORLANS will be restored, but I'm afraid it will remain only dreams!
  • taseka
    taseka 29 October 2015 03: 56 New
    0
    Yes! Let NATO scratch his head off in a daze and reflection, and their crews continue to write reports on dismissal!
  • bratchanin
    bratchanin 29 October 2015 14: 38 New
    0
    This is a good upgrade. Bravo!
  • alleksSalut4507
    alleksSalut4507 29 October 2015 15: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It at one time on alternativehistory (alternative history site)
    кто-то фантазировал различные проекты модернизации 1144, там было несколько вариантов:)) Но, естественно, там никто это всерьез не воспринимал, и каково же было мое удивление, когда я многократно вижу "чертежи" на ВО, причем воспринимаются они как полноценный и официальный проект модернизации
    I’m scared to be honest. We have fun there with alternatives, and someone takes it all at face value

    let them accept. on a cockroach