Upgraded Admiral Nakhimov will carry 80 missiles

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
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sasha 19871987 26 October 2015 16: 02 New
    • 33
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 15 New
      • 31
      • 0
      +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 26 October 2015 16: 24 New
        • 43
        • 0
        +43
        Snack 6 fleet of "Probable partner" Admiral Nakhimov 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 27 October 2015 11: 10 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          it seemed to me alone or I’m wrong .... diamond antey is already launching anti-ship missiles ?? ?? ... did not hear something
          1. Baikonur 27 October 2015 23: 27 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Probably, “Almaz-Antey” still seichas became a concern, and continues to become one!
            Just as the Kalashnikov concern began to produce both UAVs and boats!
            I think that’s good.
        2. VALERIK_097 28 October 2015 19: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 26 October 2015 17: 52 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 18: 20 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          There is infa that c-300 will be replaced with something more modern, and the refusal from the turret laying of missiles will increase their number by 2-3 times ... and even the "shell" there seems to be drawn ...

          And according to RCC, it should be supplemented with “zircon” 9К, but neither about it in the open press
          1. Falcon 26 October 2015 18: 32 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: razzhivin
            There is infa that c-300 will be replaced with something more modern, and the refusal from the turret laying of missiles will increase their number by 2-3 times ... and even the "shell" there seems to be drawn ...


            It is known that, at Polement Redoubt
            1. just exp 27 October 2015 10: 24 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +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 27 October 2015 10: 37 New
                • 9
                • 0
                +9
                It at one time on alternativehistory (alternative history site)
                someone imagined various modernization projects in 1144, there were several options :)) But, of course, no one took it seriously, and what was my surprise when I repeatedly see the “drawings” in the VO, and they are perceived as full-fledged and official modernization project
                I’m scared to be honest. We have fun there with alternatives, and someone takes it all at face value
                1. just exp 27 October 2015 12: 19 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  this crap is called cheers-patriotism when they have some kind of opinion based on non-existent facts.
                2. Alexey RA 27 October 2015 13: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 27 October 2015 14: 36 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And according to RCC, it should be supplemented with “zircon” 9К, but neither about it in the open press
            According to the blog, “the installations will be further developed for the use of the following missile systems: 3K-14 (Caliber), 9K, 3M55 (Onyx), 3K-22 (Zircon) (C)
            Well, they’ve called Zircon. In general, the M6-7,900km (true, this is with the Tu-22M3A / M3M, with which it has been successfully flying and landing since 2013, I don’t know the ground range, but it should be 1,5 times less) - there are no insider or open data on the ground didn’t have.
            1. Xsanchez 28 October 2015 10: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              "Zircons" is gorgeous. Let them shrink from fear!
          3. Yarhann 27 October 2015 21: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 28 October 2015 09: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 28 October 2015 11: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 29 October 2015 05: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            There is infa that c-300 will be replaced with something more modern, and the refusal from the turret laying of missiles will increase their number by 2-3 times ... and even the "shell" there seems to be drawn ...

            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 26 October 2015 18: 44 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          What is wrong with air defense?

          The S-300 has been outdated by Be for a couple of decades, Osa, too, with her long recharge is not all, must be changed, I will not cling to the "Dirk", well, the new BIOS
          1. The comment was deleted.
        3. Dart2027 26 October 2015 20: 14 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Lord of the Sith
          12 × 8 SAM S-300F "Fort" (96 missiles)

          Just already have a marine version of the S-400.
          1. Wiruz 26 October 2015 20: 48 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Just already have a marine version of the S-400

            First time I hear, please enlighten
            1. Rader 26 October 2015 21: 05 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 27 October 2015 03: 27 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Redoubt to replace Fort, it's like 7.62mm instead of half an inch
              2. Yarhann 27 October 2015 21: 55 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 26 October 2015 21: 18 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Redoubt-Polement.
              Due to problems with its refinement and dragged on the construction of new frigates.
              1. Wiruz 27 October 2015 03: 24 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Redoubts are like S-350F, unfortunately, they don’t get into 48n6 or even 40n6
                1. Dart2027 27 October 2015 20: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +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 29 October 2015 22: 44 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 26 October 2015 18: 54 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +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.
        There is an assumption that the export version of the Zircon missile is the BrahMos-II anti-ship missile.
        Expected TTX
        Range:
        - 800-1000 km
        Speed ​​- not less than 4.5 M
        1. Rus2012 26 October 2015 19: 19 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          and here it is -
          According to the blog, “the installations will be further developed for the use of the following missile systems: 3K-14 (Caliber), 9K, 3М55 ("Onyx"), 3К-22 ("Zircon")

          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 26 October 2015 19: 08 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 19: 20 New
          • -13
          • 0
          -13
          These ships as they were and will remain with their main drawback - dependence on external target designation. And all this beauty despite the fact that the EPR is awful, and a bunch of solutions are archaic - like aluminum add-ons. It’s good if an analogue of Aegis appears, but I don’t think that it will be on Nakhimov - rather, it will just be something like a “wetting” S-400.
          Actually for this reason, two more ships will go to the needles, and "Peter" is not excluded will go into reserve.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 19: 41 New
            • 18
            • 0
            +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
            It’s good if an analogue of Aegis appears, but I don’t think that it will be on Nakhimov - rather, it’ll just be something like a “wetting” S-400

            If by “Aegis” you mean BIUS, then most likely it will. And if by “Aegis” you mean the air defense system, then the “Aegis” level air defense didn’t fall sideways with us, as perhaps even the S-300F loses.
            Quote: clidon
            Actually for this reason, two more ships will go to the needles, and "Peter" is not excluded will go into reserve.

            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. Peter will undergo major repairs after the commissioning of Nakhimov and most likely under the Nakhimovsky project
            1. clidon 26 October 2015 19: 59 New
              • -8
              • 0
              -8
              Like, in fact, any missile carrier ship.

              Like any ship without a missile launcher.

              If by “Aegis” you mean BIUS, then most likely it will.

              What I mean by Aegis is, first and foremost, a combat control system that allows you to combine war ships into a single group. So far, only plans and it is not clear how close they are. And of course I would like a single headlamp.

              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.

              Not the only one. Also, the money was calculated how much it will cost. And “Peter”, without the support of an air group, can also simply be held back for modernization or just go to the reserve. There is little money, and the boats are very expensive.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 20: 26 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +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
                What I mean by Aegis is, first and foremost, a combat control system that allows you to combine war ships into a single group

                Aegis does not provide such a service :) At least for now :)
                Quote: clidon
                And of course I would like a single headlamp.

                It is difficult to say how successful this decision is. Radar "Daring" IMHO is preferable.
                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 26 October 2015 21: 01 New
                  • -11
                  • 0
                  -11
                  An old ship with missiles and a new aircraft carrier, is this a great investment for billions of rubles of budget?

                  Aegis does not provide such a service

                  Aegis just unites ships equipped with such a system into a single network.

                  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 26 October 2015 21: 29 New
                    • 7
                    • 0
                    +7
                    Quote: clidon
                    An old ship with missiles and a new aircraft carrier, is this a great investment for billions of rubles of budget?

                    What does this not suit you? After kapitalki "Nakhimov" may well take another 30 years.
                    Quote: clidon
                    Aegis just unites ships equipped with such a system into a single network.

                    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 26 October 2015 22: 11 New
                      • -9
                      • 0
                      -9
                      What does this not suit you? After kapitalki "Nakhimov" may well take another 30 years.

                      Aurora could still walk. Caliber would have climbed onto it. It’s a pity that such modernization disappears.
                      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:
                      The common element of the Aegis multifunctional weapon system is the terminal equipment of LINK-4A, -11, and -14 digital radio communication lines. 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). An important feature of these lines is that the flow of digital data circulating in the communication subsystem is controlled by the OMVK computer, and the process of mutual exchange of Them is fully automated. 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 26 October 2015 22: 28 New
                        • 13
                        • 0
                        +13
                        Quote: clidon
                        Aurora could still walk. On it and the "Caliber" would climb

                        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.

                        Tell the USA about it. And then these stupid people are still stamping "Arly Burke" - a project of the 80s. Of course, Americans, by their poverty, bring their modifications to an acceptable level, but ...
                        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

                        A lot worse. He sees low-flying targets not just badly, but VERY badly, weapon control is vulnerable to the enemy’s electronic warfare. The same "Wave" will work on attacking low-flying anti-ship missiles much better.
                        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 27 October 2015 20: 08 New
                        • -3
                        • 0
                        -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.

                        Tell the USA about it. And then these stupid people are still stamping "Arly Burke" - a project of the 80s.

                        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 27 October 2015 20: 27 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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 27 October 2015 21: 44 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        I like posts like yours. People are discussing something, discussing, and then a “sage” appears who says “Anyway, nothing depends on us! You won’t be asked!”. And why did you come to the forum? Go do business or something.
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 22: 07 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: clidon
                      The tics are going to be written off, not to pin hopes on 30 years.

                      Lying is not good. The last "Ticonderoga" are going to write off as much as 2045. And the first Ticonderogs, peers of “Nakhimov” would leave the fleet, of course, earlier, well, so they, unlike our cruiser, went to the Morm / Oceans when the “Nakhimov” was on conservation.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Arly Burke entered service 10 years later

                      10 years later? :) The first Arly joined the fleet in 1991, the Nakhimov in 1988. Where is the difference of 10 years?
                      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?)

                      The Americans have LAMPS, and we have the EMNIP Ka-27 with the Octopus
                      Quote: clidon
                      and its distribution in a group with a unified system of collecting information and issuing MCs to weapons is not considered?

                      I will tell you once again - the passage quoted by you testifies to the ability of Aegis to transfer the target's command to another ship. All. Maybe Aegis can do something else, but you didn’t. And the ability to issue TSU is by no means "a combination of an order into a single group" and I wrote to you why.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Based on what do you draw such deep conclusions?

                      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. Initially, this radar was created for missile defense, it sees near space and air well, but low-flying - no. Spy began to somehow distinguish between low-altitude targets and modification D. This is a common problem with decimeter radars, our survey ones also have poor vision of low-flying targets, which is why we have developed a specialized Podkat radar. In principle, Arly also has AN / SPS67 (V) 3 focused on the detection of low-flying targets (this is by the way about the ONLY HEADLIGHT laughing ) but then the fun begins.
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 22: 07 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Both we and the Americans can detect low-flying targets (ours by tackle, USA - sps67) but what next? Nakhimov’s everything is simple - the Volna rotates with its centimeter (or millimeter? I don’t remember) range that has a wide scanning band, sees everything and directs 6 missiles at 3 targets. But Americans are forced to catch flying targets (focusing on the data of a two-coordinate radar) with backlight radars (i.e. poke a needle into a fast moving target, and American Pride Spy-1 in this procedure does not seem to be involved at all) I’m silent about the fact that one "Wave" in its capabilities at least corresponds to the capabilities of one Arly.
                      In addition, the Amer’s illumination radars are ONLY illumination radars that coordinate and direct the flight of the Spy rocket (and how will it aim without seeing a lump? It will be difficult to distinguish between its own missiles at low altitudes) And our “Wave” and sees the targets and their missiles and detects them due to the presence of a centimeter range radar.
                      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.

                      That's right, but where we needed to cut down part of the radar, the Americans had to read "Our Father".
                      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 28 October 2015 20: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Lying is not good. The last "Ticonderoga" are going to write off as much as 2045. And the first Ticonderogs, peers of Nakhimov will leave the fleet, of course, earlier ...

                      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.

                      10 years later? :) The first Arly joined the fleet in 1991, the Nakhimov in 1988. Where is the difference of 10 years?

                      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!" )

                      The Americans have LAMPS, and we have the EMNIP Ka-27 with the Octopus

                      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 ... ".

                      Maybe Aegis can do something else, but you didn’t. And the ability to issue TSU is by no means "a combination of an order into a single group" and I wrote to you why.

                      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 28 October 2015 20: 46 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +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.

                      To increase the frequency of updating data on low-flying CCs, and especially when they suddenly appear, for each headlamp there is an accelerated search for targets in the lower hemisphere (elevation angle from 0 to 4-5 °) with a specially allocated length of this search beam. Detection range in wake mode does not exceed 80-82 km. AN / SPY-I radar is also capable of providing radio command guidance of Standard-2 SAMs on the marching portion of the flight path. This allows you to apply semi-active guidance missiles only in the final section of the trajectory. As a result, according to foreign press, target illumination radars (AN / SPG-62) can sequentially target up to 22 missiles in flight. With this method, the fuel consumption of the rocket is reduced by reducing its deviations from the programmed flight path, which leads to an increase in the firing range.

                      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 29 October 2015 10: 41 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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

                      You listen to yourself. This means that a country whose military budget exceeds the rest of the world combined, is forced to leave the Ticonderoga RKR fleet for financial reasons until 2045. And we should not do this? :)) Are we richer, or what?
                      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!" )

                      Yah. Having studied the history of the Navy, you could find out that not the most optimal (and therefore expensive) projects received the same long life due to their "redundancy". The same British “Queen Elizabeth” were significantly more expensive (but also more powerful and faster) similar in terms of the construction of dreadnoughts, but thanks to this they looked good in WWII.
                      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 29 October 2015 10: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.

                      MRSK “Success”, for a second, transmitted not only the coordinates, but also the “radar picture” of the target formed by the main airborne radar and observed by operators both on an airplane (helicopter) and on a shooting ship. How do you think it is possible to transmit this information manually is a mystery to me
                      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”?

                      The third time. You described the issuance of the Aegis CMS, which is essentially the same as the transfer of data from the Ka-25RC to the RRC of Project 58. And this CMS will fall into the “common base” of what the cruiser 58 radar sees.
                      Group management is different. There is a certain “Center” in which a picture is formed according to the data of ALL ships (that is, there is no transmission of a single control unit but a constant exchange of data from ALL sources of information from ALL carriers) In the event of an attack (for example, a massive anti-ship missile), the “Center” automatically determines the most threatening / priority targets for each ship and determines which ship with which particular weapon will attack it. The fundamental difference from the individual work of Aegis is that several Aegis of different ships can determine the same priority targets and attack them simultaneously. In group work, this is not possible. Further, in group work, it is possible that one (or several) ships will generally work not for goals that threaten them, but for goals that threaten other ships - this is not possible with individual work (Aegis will only evaluate threats to his ship). And other and other.
                      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?
                      Because during the creation of the Aegis, anti-ship missiles flew very high :)) Even the P-35 attacked from a height of 100 m (and there it descended somewhere 15-20 km from the ship, before that it went 400 m and higher), nothing about the earlier ones. But the missiles of the next series greatly “decreased” “Basalt” (50 m), Granite (25 m) and further.
                    8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 10: 44 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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

                      Missile defense - stands for missile defense, so your statement (not for missile defense but from missiles) is very funny :) But I understood what you were talking about: in principle, you are right, but you forget that the then threat that the US ships were going to fight back from Soviet airborne anti-ship missiles, which were albeit high-speed, but ALTITUDE targets. The same X-22 dived at the target from a great height - it was from such anti-ship missiles that AN / SPY-1 was created for Aegis. The appearance of missiles capable of attacking 50 m and below was an extremely unpleasant surprise for the Yankees and highlighted the fallacy of the concept of American air defense.
                      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) Foreign military media have repeatedly called the British “Daring” the best air defense officer in the world precisely because its radar is “two in one” - it combines decimeter and centimeter radars, while the capture of low-flying targets is carried out precisely by centimeter ones.
                      4) Ships of the United States Navy - carriers of Aegis, in addition to AN / SPY-1, are polls equipped with a specialized radar for detecting targets at sea level (including low-flying) (which, however, cannot issue a missile defense system for missiles)
                      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 30 October 2015 23: 54 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +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.

                      Conditionally? Is it with such "Christmas trees" on the mast? Unified UVP? This is part of the correct fleet, which will not consist of unique units, but will be a system. In everything.

                      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 30 October 2015 23: 55 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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

                      Because during the creation of Aegis, anti-ship missiles flew very high :))

                      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 31 October 2015 14: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.
                      We have a significant part of the funds - this is the restoration of the operability of the Nakhimov’s mechanisms, updating weapons is not so expensive.
                      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?

                      Yes, on the model and likeness of 5OPESK. "Nakhimov" can accompany the AUG, and a volley of 80 modern anti-ship missiles may well be fatal for an aircraft carrier. The exchange is terrible, but beneficial for us.
                      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.
                      And, I repeat, for 50 yards that they will spend on Nakhimov, no series of frigates can be built.
                      Quote: clidon
                      Conditionally? Is it with such "Christmas trees" on the mast?

                      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.

                      If you see the main task of the fleet in "representing a single system in this" - this is your right. But I think that the main task of the fleet is to fulfill its tasks. And design decisions should ensure the fulfillment of these very tasks, and not strive for some mythical "correctness"
                      Americans rushed out. The result is deplorable. Their ships do not carry shock weapons, because it is corny under existing UVP. The Americans were forced to abandon the development of a supersonic version of LRASM, (due to "possible technical problems") What problems are there? What, the USA can not do a supersonic rocket? Might, of course. But to cram supersonic anti-ship missiles in UVP41 - no. Anti-submarine weapons. We walked and walked with an unhappy old-fashioned ASROK, so it’s already clear that it’s impossible any further, they began to develop a new missile - RUM-139 VLA. The developers were tormented by doing it (the company that was involved in the development was merged / absorbed, frustrated all development terms, etc.) and at the output they got a construct with a range of as much as 28 kilometers - the range is not that completely anecdotal, but clearly insufficient for modern naval combat . Our calibers and waterfalls work at 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 31 October 2015 14: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.

                      The question is not why the Queens survived, but that they, due to their performance characteristics, turned out to be completely "to the court" of WWII. Queen Elizabeth played a significant role in the struggle in the Mediterranean.
                      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.

                      Please decipher the term "analog picture" and tell us where you got all this from. After which (and it is possible - before) remember that we know very well about the shortcomings of our systems, but very poorly - about the shortcomings of the imported systems. 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.
                      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 31 October 2015 14: 03 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -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.

                      But for some reason, the Horizon frigates on which the same PAAMS stands as on the Daring - no one calls the best air defense forces of the world. Do you know why? Because they don’t have SAMPSON, but they have an ordinary UHF radar :)
                      Quote: clidon
                      And why can’t it transmit to missiles? Time replaces the main radar in the most important task?

                      Can not. There is no information in any source that the given radar can give TsU. Most likely, the idea is there - the radar detects targets and through Aegis transmits AN / SPY-1 ("look for the war at that point !!!") and Aegis, in turn, carries out an enhanced search by the received coordinates
                      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 31 October 2015 14: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 7 November 2015 19: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.


                      Yes, on the model and likeness of 5OPESK. "Nakhimov" can accompany the AUG, and a volley of 80 modern anti-ship missiles may well be fatal for an aircraft carrier. The exchange is terrible, but beneficial for us.

                      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 7 November 2015 19: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.

                      The question is not why the Queens survived, but that they, due to their performance characteristics, turned out to be completely "to the court" of WWII. Queen Elizabeth played a significant role in the struggle in the Mediterranean.

                      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.

                      Please decipher the term "analog picture" and tell us where you got all this from. After which (and it is possible - before) remember that we know very well about the shortcomings of our systems, but very poorly - about the shortcomings of the imported systems.

                      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 7 November 2015 19: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 7 November 2015 19: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 29 October 2015 18: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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) There is also some truth in the need for a more massive fleet than eggs in one basket. I always remember the picture of the destruction of Yamato or Bismarck. But on the other hand, I personally have no idea how the modernized Nakhimov will show himself: ideally, he should work simultaneously, repelling enemy attacks from aircraft, anti-ship missiles, conducting defense both at distant lines (s-300F) and at close ones with his own by means or by a command center (either satellite, or A-50, it doesn’t matter) enemy targets at a distance (ships, aircraft carriers, etc.) During the USSR, we had a mosquito fleet and any “masik” could put a super-modern-day anti-ship missile system the size of a RCC on its side, after which the latter went to feed the fish!
    3) I plan everything, I plan a “leader”, but for now problems with the introduction of frigates. I’m talking about 22350. One "Gorshkov" is only in service and something else seems not to have been transferred to the fleet.
    But in fact, we are all trying to get away from multi-series and nothing at all: only I remember building 11356 (export and 6 pieces at the Black Sea Fleet), 22350 (Gorshkov and KO), 20380 and another 100500 of its upgrades, now with a caliber, now with Uranium, I honestly got confused already), in the Caspian Sea in general, 11661 "Tatarstan, etc. (also exported to Vietnam), they also want 22800 - a small ship under 800t with a caliber. Also add here everything is old, what floats in us from the USSR + the new "Leader" + all kinds of BDKs there + several types of submarines get a hellish hodgepodge. The content of all this is wildly expensive and not justified. We urgently need to unify everything, but at the same time stupidly destroying old samples that can still serve for a long time, And introduce new ones.
    The amers have: Arly + Tikanderog, a nuclear submarine (they don't have diesel-electric submarines, it’s hard to democratize “underdeveloped” countries), they have coastal ships, but they are considered unsuccessful, there are still remnants like Oliver Peri, but they’re being taken out of the ship) essence. On the submarine, everything is also simple in several projects: some carry “axes”, others carry nuclear missiles. All in essence.
    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 29 October 2015 21: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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.

    Everything can be. It is possible that the Aegis operates a group of ships. Or all the US Navy. Maybe Aegis rules the United States, or maybe he leads the world government at all. Or Galactic. It is even possible that Aegis can scratch the back of the operator.
    So as soon as some kind of confirmation appears, we are welcome. The argument "I think," here, excuse me, can hardly be accepted.
    Quote: silver_roman
    She also controls all weapons systems. We have for each gun on its own radar, which are in no way connected

    Well, I don’t know how it is with you, but we have actually got a Sigma in the Russian Navy, which can do something.
    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.

    “It seems” is a killer argument. But if you allow me to give you advice - read something at your leisure about the SM-3 and S-300. Very soon you will find that you compared white to heavy - the SM-3 is exactly that anti-satellite missile, capable of also intercepting (possibly) warhead ballistic missiles in near space. Neither an aircraft nor anti-ship missiles can be shot down with this missile. S-300 missiles, on the contrary, are optimized for intercepting cruise missiles and aircraft, there are opportunities to hit a ballistic missile, but they are very modest - they were not made for that.
    But only in naval combat missiles are needed, capable of hitting anti-ship missiles and aircraft.
    Quote: silver_roman
    During the USSR, we had a mosquito fleet and any “masik” could put a super-modern-day anti-ship missile system the size of a RCC on its side, after which the latter went to feed the fish!

    Could not. The capabilities of the "mosquito fleet" are extremely limited, in fact, analytics was even on this site. Very unsightly for a mosquito fleet analyst.
    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 27 October 2015 22: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 27 October 2015 22: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 27 October 2015 23: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 28 October 2015 13: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 28 October 2015 13: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 29 October 2015 00: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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.

          But let's say that “Liana” was brought to mind after having formed a sufficient satellite constellation. In this case, potential goals will be monitored continuously (especially in the pre-war period). Accordingly, the delay in the transfer of the control system to the ships will be minimal.

          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.

          A single missile, of course, can lose its purpose in such a scenario. But if you launch a whole volley of 20-30 missiles, deploy them in a chain and provide data exchange between them, then you already have the opportunity to "comb through" the area of ​​the alleged location of the attacked group and still find it. For greater search efficiency, you can teach individual missiles to make a "hill" from time to time in order to inspect the surroundings from above.
        4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 11: 05 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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.
          The satellite constantly scans a certain surface. It transfers information “down”, i.e. to the ground, but not constantly, but when it is relatively close to the “receiving antenna” - or it uses a satellite-relay (but if it is knocked down, it will be sad)
          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
          But let's say that “Liana” was brought to mind after having formed a sufficient satellite constellation.

          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
          But if you launch a whole volley of 20-30 missiles, deploy them in a chain and provide data exchange between them, then you already have the opportunity to "comb through" the area of ​​the alleged location of the attacked group and still find it. For greater search efficiency, you can teach individual missiles to make a "hill" from time to time in order to inspect the surroundings from above.

          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 29 October 2015 11: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Those. information on the ground comes with a certain delay.

          Of course. The question is the magnitude of the delay. If the "picture" in the headquarters is updated, say, once every 10 minutes - this is more than enough.

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

          This is true. But observation must be carried out even before the start of real hostilities. Recognize targets (possibly with additional sources like reconnaissance ships and planes) and constantly monitor them. At He, therefore, the whereabouts of potential candidates for raking should be known. The only question is what means of camouflage the enemy will use.

          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

          You can detect any RCC. Ultrasonic is even simpler: fly high. This is a question from another area: how many missiles do you need to "push through" air defense warrants?

          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 :)

          It also seems to me that it would be very, very practical to have at least small aircraft carriers tailored purely for air defense tasks (the SLCM strike function) in the fleet. That's just all this is unrealistic for a long time and expensive, but the same "Liana" is still somehow produced right now. On foolishness, as they say, the fist is blonde :)
        6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 29 October 2015 21: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I apologize, I’ll answer tomorrow - today there’s something of a hotsta bainka :)
        7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 30 October 2015 11: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Of course. The question is the magnitude of the delay. If the "picture" in the headquarters is updated, say, once every 10 minutes - this is more than enough.

          Yes, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately, we do not know the performance characteristics of “Liana”, and the American counterparts with their “1 hour” and, in theory, do not inspire much hope.
          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
          You can detect any RCC. Ultrasonic is even simpler: fly high. This is a question from another area: how many missiles do you need to "push through" air defense warrants?

          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 30 October 2015 15: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Unfortunately, we do not know the performance characteristics of “Liana”, and the American counterparts with their “1 hour” and, in theory, do not inspire much hope.

          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 27 October 2015 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 28 October 2015 18: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 20 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Alexander, you're wrong! Where is it, tell me graciously, an adversary, or “our partners”, can hide? Are there really zones outside the reach of ships like the Admiral Nakhimov in the oceans?
    1. Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Are there really zones outside the reach of ships like the Admiral Nakhimov in the oceans?

      In general, if we take into account the ratio of the numbers of our and "partner" fleets, then the "Nakhimov" (like any NK) will be really combat ready only where it is covered by coastal aviation. Away from his native shores, he will inevitably be ushatted from the air by the forces of a couple of AUGs, failing to even reach the range of use of his weapons.
      1. mark2 27 October 2015 20: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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

        You know, if the destruction of one Nakhimov, according to your calculations, requires 2-3 AUGs, then this is a funky ship. I remember in history there were already two such ships that pulled over themselves entire fleets of opponents: Tirpitz and Bismarck
        1 “Nakhimov” - 2-3 AUG, 2 “Nakhimov” - 4-6 aug, 3 “Nakhimov” - 6-8. 4 Nakhimov and the enemy AUGs ran out))
        1. Kalmar 27 October 2015 22: 10 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          They are adapted for the use of advanced Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

          Speculation. So far, there is not even evidence that work on this rocket is underway. Given the pace with which we are now developing new weapons, we are good at these Zircons if we see them in 15-20 years.

          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.

          You know, if the destruction of one Nakhimov, according to your calculations, requires 2-3 AUGs, then this is a funky ship.

          2-3 AUG - this is the fleet that the enemy can calmly set against our existing TARKs. If we consider the existing weapons (without any semi-mythical "Zircons"), then "Nakhimov" even with one AUG will be very difficult to compete without the support of coastal aviation (and the other does not). The reason is simple - the aircraft carrier has longer arms (the combat radius of the Hornets plus the launch range of the Harpoons).
          1. Yarhann 28 October 2015 08: 52 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -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 28 October 2015 12: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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.

              If indeed they are being conducted, it’s good, but so far nothing is even heard about the flying prototype. This means that it is still very, very far from being adopted. For comparison: I read about the same "Caliber" more than ten years ago as a finished product, but they appeared in the troops quite recently.

              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

              The warhead of a ballistic missile, too, in principle, can maneuver in the final section. The same "Iskander" this feature is one of the key features. And less fuel is needed. Another thing is that you still have to fly to the final section of the trajectory: the enemy SM-3s are not asleep. Well, accuracy is not so simple.
              1. Yarhann 28 October 2015 22: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 28 October 2015 22: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  that there is a rocket model there so far work is underway on the engine

                  As Comrade Carmack said, "nothing has been done until everything has been done." And here, it turns out, to the finished product - like to the moon with cancer. So now and in the near future, you can’t even think about Zircons.

                  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

                  We kind of rubbed it over the RCC. They don’t need photos from outer space: a map of the sea’s surface is a rather useless thing :) We need satellites that can track surface targets and correct missiles for missiles that are already flying (if we want a long range on the fly). There is Liana for tracking, but there is still very little spacecraft. I never heard of missiles from a satellite from a satellite.

                  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

                  Approach is a very big question. Knocking planes will not work. The long-range air defense system now is the S-300F, which in a modernized version can operate for 120 kilometers. For the latest versions of the Harpoon, the flight range is over 250 km, i.e. The Hornets will simply not have to enter the area of ​​our air defense. Plus, aviation can approach at low altitude, and then our air defense simply will not see it because of the horizon (there are no over-the-horizon radars and AWACS aircraft on our ships).

                  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 29 October 2015 20: 28 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    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 29 October 2015 22: 17 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      in air defense, it’s worth upgrading from 300 with a bullet that shoots for 200 km, as it were

                      200 km is still less than the maximum launch range of the Harpoon (220 km for modification D).

                      A bit of fantasy, how can aviation approach it?

                      What is there to fantasize about? Nobody canceled the radio horizon. There are formulas on the Internet; you can figure out at what height the Hornets should approach so that Peter cannot see them at any given distance.

                      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

                      But the entire trajectory flies at low altitude, which sharply reduces the risk of detection (a five-ton ingot rushing at supersonic at 20 km altitude is hard to miss). Plus they are smaller, i.e. TARK can carry them in very large numbers and, thus, "push through" air defense with zerg rush.

                      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

                      Let's face it: in the ocean expanses our fleet even with the Zircons does not shine to compete with the amers. The ratio of the number of fleets is very much not in our favor. With large groups, it will be possible to compete only relatively close to their native coast, where long-range aviation will connect to TARKs (say, Tu-22M with X-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.

                      But this is in vain. The Harpoon itself is not the most difficult goal, although it also manages to maneuver, so you won’t be able to snot. But: Air defense groups of ships flying "Harpoons" will only see when they emerge from the horizon. After this, the Pvoshniks will have 3-4 minutes to rock all the missiles. If 50 pieces arrive at once, then the indicated minutes may not be enough for the air defense / missile defense systems to process all the targets.
                    2. Kalmar 29 October 2015 22: 18 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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.

                      Of course: with the “Hornets” the “Growlers” will also arrive, so that it would be more interesting for our air defense to rotate the maneuver described above for carrying out a whole flock of missiles. But when attacking with “Caliber” we have nothing to suppress the enemy: Peter has no airplanes / helicopters. The ship itself can jam only what is in its line of sight, but so close to the AUG there is no chance to get at all.
  • hydrox 26 October 2015 16: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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
      • 0
      +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 26 October 2015 18: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 19: 01 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        This interesting contraption is called the "arsenal ship", there was such a topic in the USSR. In my opinion, the idea is tempting. It goes a little behind the naval group, and during a clash it overloads the air defense systems with a huge mass of anti-ship missiles. Well, then quickly to the base. Apparently, the designers did not manage to provide an acceptable “rollback” time between missile launches. It's a pity.
        1. clidon 26 October 2015 19: 22 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The USA had such a topic. The problem is that it’s not always possible to “go behind” at sea. )
      3. PSih2097 26 October 2015 19: 42 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +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.

        From TTX the following is known. It is long - 186 meters, width - 20 meters, draft - 7,6 meters. The displacement of the cruiser was to be 13200 tons. The ship was to be equipped with a 4-band radar, hundreds of different missiles, including the SA-N-24 (essentially C400 sea-based) 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 26 October 2015 21: 30 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Great device! Urgent in a series! good
        2. Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems "Chestnut"

          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 26 October 2015 18: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 26 October 2015 16: 44 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +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
      • 0
      +2
      ... And in general: "For those at sea!"
  • Tor5
    Tor5 26 October 2015 17: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yes, not a weak missile carrier will turn out, which cannot but rejoice!
  • SOKOL777 26 October 2015 22: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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:
    -close 800 km to "Peter the Great, do not approach!". negative
    1. NEXUS 26 October 2015 23: 25 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: SOKOL777

      There is a strict instruction in the US Navy:
      -close 800 km to "Peter the Great, do not approach!".

      Considering that there will be Caliber, Onyx, etc. on Nakhimich, there will be not 800 km, but thousands and a half, or even two. And there, you look and Petka will put new “fangs and claws” while his brother will keep order.hi
      1. Kalmar 26 October 2015 23: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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.

        Neither Yakhont nor Caliber in anti-ship performance even fly 800 km. Especially for one and a half thousand. Only the P-1000 Volcano can cover such ranges (as planned, in any case), but it seems that the time for such missiles has passed.
        1. NEXUS 27 October 2015 00: 02 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Kalmar
          Neither Yakhont nor Caliber in anti-ship performance even fly 800 km. Especially for one and a half thousand.

          Can’t gauges also? laughing
          1. Basarev 27 October 2015 06: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 27 October 2015 06: 34 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 27 October 2015 10: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And therefore, I believe that armored missiles would be more correct

              "Armor" can be covered only warheads. If you patch up the entire rocket, its mass will increase dramatically, which means that it will need more fuel, so you will have to increase the size of the rocket, which will increase the weight of the armor, which will require additional fuel ...

              In general, the survivability of individual missiles, of course, must be increased, but passive protection is a dead end.
            3. dvg79 27 October 2015 13: 39 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              With missiles, then the Aegis has a roof to go wassat
          2. Kalmar 27 October 2015 10: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Can’t gauges also?

            Anti-ship - no. Those that work on ground targets fly further than anti-ship missiles.
            1. NEXUS 27 October 2015 10: 13 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 27 October 2015 21: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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?

                Caliber is not a unique phenomenon in rocket science; he has a very close analogue - “Tomahawk”, the characteristics of which are well known.

                "Tomahawks" of the latest versions fly somewhere for 1600 km. The “caliber” is a bit heavier (200-300 kilo commercials), so it’s possible that it has a launch range closer to 2000 km (if extra weight is fuel). Anti-ship "Tomahawk" - TASM - flew 500 kilometers.
                1. NEXUS 28 October 2015 00: 35 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  Caliber is not a unique phenomenon in rocket science; he has a very close analogue - “Tomahawk”, the characteristics of which are well known.

                  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 29 October 2015 10: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Sorry, but it’s cruise missiles, but they have the same difference as elephants and muskrats.

                    Oh oh The mass of both missiles is approximately known, as is the mass of warheads and dimensions. It is clear that from TTX “Tomahawk” it is not possible to obtain TTX “Caliber” from these data, but 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 28 October 2015 15: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            no anti-ship
        2. Corsair 27 October 2015 13: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Neither Yakhont nor Caliber in anti-ship performance even fly 800 km. Especially for one and a half thousand. Only the P-1000 Volcano can cover such ranges (as planned, in any case), but it seems that the time for such missiles has passed.

          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 27 October 2015 21: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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.

            First, targets like AUG are fired at in a volley of several dozen missiles. If they know how to exchange data with each other (like the same “Granites”), they can simply be deployed in a wide chain. And there, as soon as one of the missiles sees the target, it will notify the rest, and the whole flock will adjust its course.

            Secondly, large targets such as a cruiser or an aircraft carrier can be monitored from a satellite (if the Liana is brought to the desired level) and the satellite can transmit target designation to the already launched missiles, adjusting their flight.
      2. just exp 27 October 2015 10: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 27 October 2015 20: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And if he goes into their coverage area?
  • Mama_Cholli 26 October 2015 16: 03 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Good news! But small ships with 8-24 or more launch boxes are better. And more so reliable.
    1. veksha50 26 October 2015 16: 14 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +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 28 October 2015 15: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it’s a modernization, why not cram more sprats in the finished jar
  • McLuha-MacLeod 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Still all these balls would be replaced by AFAR
    1. smith7 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Local sailors call the antenna (central on the superstructure from the bow and stern) a "boobs". It seems :) This is an accessory of the Fort Air Defense Complex, IMHO. On "Peter ..." has already been replaced by AFAR, by the way.
  • Vladimyrych 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir
      Your own division ... How pissed off promises! Projects and projections are full of cucumber priests and things are still there.

      What is wrong - the modernization is on, launchers are ordered? what other magic do you need? In the scariest forecasts, they were afraid that this would remain with the Granites.
      1. i80186 26 October 2015 17: 12 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        Quote: lelikas
        What is wrong - the modernization is on, launchers are ordered? what other magic do you need? In the scariest forecasts, they were afraid that this would remain with the Granites.

        Well, the "granites" are not going to be removed anywhere, they are going to be added to them. winked
        1. lelikas 26 October 2015 18: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: i80186
          are going to add to them

          And where will they take the place?
        2. severyanin 26 October 2015 23: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: i80186
          Well, the "granites" are not going to be removed anywhere, they are going to be added to them.

          "Granites" seem to have been cut out long ago, from last year :) in their place there is now a hole in the deck over an area with a good pool and a depth of five decks :)
    2. Maks7877 26 October 2015 16: 31 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 26 October 2015 16: 31 New
      • 17
      • 0
      +17
      Quote: Vladimir
      Projects and projections are full of cucumber priests and things are still there.

      In fact, these are not promises, this is a placed order (they are now all located on an open Internet). So the Nakhimov will receive exactly 80 launchers.
      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.)
      Well, in addition to anti-ship missiles, even if old launchers are left on Nakhimov (which is unlikely) there are 96 more S-300F launchers (these may be left, but the missiles will be new) and 2 Wasps (ammunition of 20 missiles each) And this is not counting 20 PLOU “Waterfall” (which is like an advanced analogue of “Asrok”, only at Ticonderoger he is in UVP, and at Nakhimov - in TA) and missiles of the six ZRAK s ...
      In general, the Nakhimov’s launcher will surpass Tikonderoga’s at least twice :)
      1. Vladimyrych 26 October 2015 16: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 16: 48 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +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.
          But our frigate drove into unfinished construction precisely the fact that the latest weapon systems — Polyment-Redoubt, AU, etc., weren’t ready for it. the ship was created under promising technologies that had yet to be developed, and delays in the development of the frigate’s “forcemeat” overly delayed the construction. This will not happen here
          1. Mera joota 26 October 2015 19: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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
            But our frigate drove into unfinished construction precisely the fact that the latest weapon systems — Polyment-Redoubt, AU, etc., weren’t ready for it. the ship was created under promising technologies that had yet to be developed, and delays in the development of the frigate’s “forcemeat” overly delayed the construction. This will not happen here

            And what, Polement-Redoubt already worked out? And is not 9M96 small for such a ship?
      2. Mera joota 26 October 2015 19: 49 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -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 26 October 2015 21: 24 New
          • 9
          • 0
          +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?

          On the "Gorshkov" stands.
          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?

          Look at what anti-ship weapons American destroyers are currently using. At best, with Harpoons. In the worst case, nothing at all.
          UVP Mk41 are designed for Tomahawk / Standard, i.e. per rocket with a maximum weight of 1,5 tons. So the Americans wanted a new RCC, so what? But nothing, if you please comply with the UVP, otherwise the game is not worth the candle. As a result, the US is forced to push its Wishlist into 1500 kg of rocket mass.
          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 27 October 2015 12: 44 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And this is not counting 20 PLUR "Waterfall"

        Will they stay? In the figure that was above (the project, probably sketchy) there are only torpedoes "Package" ... Honestly - generally a strange project. On our (I mean the USSR) ships, usually more impressive anti-submarine weapons were - and RBU and torpedoes, and sometimes - missile torpedoes. But according to the scheme - it’s not clear - do they only show the planned changes while partially retaining the old weapons or is it all the weapons (that is, the old one is completely removed)?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 October 2015 12: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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 27 October 2015 13: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Thanks - I get it.
    4. i80186 26 October 2015 17: 11 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Vladimir
      "Ticonderoga" 122 trunks

      Well, no, we still have 20pcs of P-700, 92pcs of 48N6E2, and also Waterfall and Dagger, and now onyxo-caliber-circus will add as many as 80 pieces. American on the background of this funny inflatable boat. smile
    5. Brewney 26 October 2015 17: 59 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 26 October 2015 20: 57 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 21: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The United States has about eighty Berks and Ticonderoges. Small ballistic missiles with Caliber are not anti-ship vehicles, but mobile naval installations for launching cruise missiles bypassing the INF.
  • Engineer 26 October 2015 16: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Burke has 96 cells in total. Nothing was said about our missiles.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 16: 36 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +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 26 October 2015 16: 23 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Most likely, they did not fundamentally change the whole architecture and only put on the vacated place from the “Granites”.
      It was already here, but still cool!
    3. Rus2012 26 October 2015 21: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 -
      Complex "Iskander-MKR" - during the exhibition MVMS-2005 it was announced that On the basis of OTR Iskander, a sea-based missile will be created.
      bully soldier
  • Max40 26 October 2015 16: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Wow again, the surprise is floating with us. We are good, but our "colleagues" are not very)))
  • veksha50 26 October 2015 16: 13 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    "," The installation will refine for the use of the following missile systems: 3K-14 ("Caliber"), 9K, 3M55 (Onyx), 3K-22 (Zircon) "....

    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 26 October 2015 16: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 28 October 2015 15: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I doubt about the quality, but there is no one to work ... old retired, youth all managers lawyers economists
  • bvi1965 26 October 2015 16: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 26 October 2015 16: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 26 October 2015 16: 58 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: NDR-791
      Yes, for such a frankly speaking, not a lot of money compared to four British boats ...


      Do not forget, this is not “from the news”, but modernization - it comes out even cheaper.
      1. NDR-791 26 October 2015 17: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's just the point - cheap and cheerful !!! So it suits us in all respects.
        1. Rader 26 October 2015 21: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: NDR-791
          That's just the point - cheap and cheerful !!! So it suits us in all respects.

          What are you ?! 80 RCC is very, very angry !!! One salvo - minus one squadron, "angry" and you can’t make cheaper now! wassat
      2. Boa kaa 26 October 2015 23: 15 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: hydrox
        Do not forget, this is not “from the news”, but modernization - it comes out even cheaper.
        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.
        And the fact that during the war TARKr will become the core of the KRG hunting for AMG is as clear as God's day. And the fact that carrier carriers and submarines will “hammer” it will not go to the grandmother! Therefore, such a diamond needs a decent (strong!) Rim from EM and FR, and of course, air cover.
        And this is all “huge thousands worth”, as the famous character said ...
        1. NEXUS 26 October 2015 23: 33 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Therefore, such a diamond needs a decent (strong!) Rim from EM and FR, and of course, air cover.

          Such a handsome man certainly needs retinue. But while bureaucrats with mock-ups of Leaders and Shkvalov are running around the exhibitions, that makes him absolutely angry. But the ships are getting old. The destroyers of the ridge of any fleet, but with our new destroyers, so far "and things are there."
          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 26 October 2015 16: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "The nuclear-powered cruiser Admiral Nakhimov will receive hypersonic missiles" - let's hope and wait, there would be no breakdowns in time. Yes, and Peter the Great should be modernized.
  • gg.na 26 October 2015 16: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The old man will also serve !!! More like that !!! More will bring HORROR on our ....... in lol partners!
  • novel68rus 26 October 2015 16: 50 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 16: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 17: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    We will not "drive the wave", since the decision is made, then it will be done! In short, no panic, everything has its own time, and Nakhimov will get into operation. I have no doubt in time, with such a glorious name, I think that it will be so!
  • mav1971 26 October 2015 17: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 27 October 2015 01: 51 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +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 27 October 2015 07: 44 New
        • -3
        • 0
        -3
        You will compare the characteristics of our S-400 or even the S-500 that has not yet been created with the American Aegis system and you will understand that such characteristics that Aegis possesses can be achieved only by creating the S-900, not earlier.
      2. xtur 27 October 2015 13: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        > It is possible that before the end of the decade we will see a domestic hypersonic, conditionally “solid fuel” cruise missile with a flight range 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 26 October 2015 18: 08 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 18: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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 27 October 2015 07: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Our cruiser with a displacement of 25800 tons will carry 80 PU. Let us even have 2 of them (if we modernize Peter the Great).
      American cruisers of the Ticonderoga type carry 122 launchers with a displacement of 9800 tons. They have 22 such cruisers.
      Arly Burke-class American destroyers carry 96 launchers with a displacement of 9000 tons. They have 62 such destroyers.
      We turn on the calculator and consider ...
      1. NEXUS 27 October 2015 09: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Markiz_A
        Our cruiser with a displacement of 25800 tons will carry 80 PU. Let us even have 2 of them (if we modernize Peter the Great).
        American cruisers of the Ticonderoga type carry 122 launchers with a displacement of 9800 tons. They have 22 such cruisers.
        Arly Burke-class American destroyers carry 96 launchers with a displacement of 9000 tons. They have 62 such destroyers.
        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 27 October 2015 11: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 28 October 2015 15: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 26 October 2015 18: 24 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    News, in principle, as news. This is to be expected. Moreover, the "Caliber" has actually been tested in real combat conditions. Plus, even exchange air defense systems for newer missiles with radars and finally you will get nishtyak good Then another “Petya” with “Lazarev” as well to upgrade and get a powerful shock fist soldier
    That would be two more “Sharks" pr.941 so modernize, otherwise they will cut it !! And so we get two more units that can generally deliver powerful blows to the enemy with an element of surprise. On those, too, can be put under a hundred UVP. True, this requires money and desire. But you can dream repeat hi
    1. xtur 26 October 2015 20: 26 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      > That would be two more “Sharks" pr.941 so modernize

      yes, there "Caliber" could fit in about 15 times more than native missiles.
      1. clidon 26 October 2015 21: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You need to buy a supertanker and fill it with Caliber. There will fit them so much. The whole budget.
        1. xtur 27 October 2015 11: 02 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          > You need to buy a supertanker and fill it with Caliber.

          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 27 October 2015 07: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The Americans have 4 Ohio type boats each carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise ships. At best, we can convert 2 Sharks. The rest went on needles.
    2. Rader 26 October 2015 21: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      News, in principle, as news. This is to be expected. Moreover, the "Caliber" has actually been tested in real combat conditions. Plus, even exchange air defense systems for newer missiles with radars and finally you will get nishtyak good Then another “Petya” with “Lazarev” as well to upgrade and get a powerful shock fist soldier
      That would be two more “Sharks" pr.941 so modernize, otherwise they will cut it !! And so we get two more units that can generally deliver powerful blows to the enemy with an element of surprise. On those, too, can be put under a hundred UVP. True, this requires money and desire. But you can dream 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 26 October 2015 18: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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

    Well, no, we still have 20pcs of P-700, 92pcs of 48N6E2, and also Waterfall and Dagger, and now onyxo-caliber-circus will add as many as 80 pieces. American on the background of this funny inflatable boat. 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 26 October 2015 19: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Yeah. But no one writes that this is the TOTAL NUMBER of launchers. Anti-aircraft, shock, anti-submarine ...

      Naturally, because 80 launchers are ONLY for anti-ship missiles and are installed in place of Granit launchers. At the same time, air defense does not disappear, it is not known just how deeply it will be modernized.
      1. PLO
        PLO 26 October 2015 23: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 27 October 2015 08: 03 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -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 26 October 2015 19: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 26 October 2015 19: 34 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Wiruz
      It is almost the size of 77n6

      Excuse me, how do you know something about Zircon?
      1. Wiruz 26 October 2015 20: 28 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        May Google come with you
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 October 2015 21: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 26 October 2015 21: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 27 October 2015 13: 18 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -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 26 October 2015 19: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 27 October 2015 08: 05 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      But it would be nice.
  • Old26 26 October 2015 19: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Naturally, because 80 launchers are ONLY for anti-ship missiles and are installed in place of Granit launchers.

    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 26 October 2015 21: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 27 October 2015 02: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        there are a lot of bad guys in the world and not all of them live in the USA
        Darn! And the fact that they are "friends against us" in NATO-so-so, went out for a walk?
        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 28 October 2015 15: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 26 October 2015 20: 07 New
    • -10
    • 0
    -10
    When Nakhimov begins to cut there for scrap many tears will be shed ...
    So many fantasies on the topic “oh what will it be” ... Wake up people, next year many will have to tighten their belts, so at first they will freeze the modernization, and then they will cover it altogether ...
    Well, as usual, a lot of corruption scandals await us ...
    1. Dart2027 26 October 2015 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mera Joota
      When Nakhimov will begin to cut many tears in the same place

      Can the source be?
    2. NEXUS 26 October 2015 22: 58 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mera Joota
      When Nakhimov begins to cut there for scrap many tears will be shed ...

      Excuse me, but with what fright will it be cut? And the question of Lazarev is still open ... Nakhimov will enter the fleet in 18, and Petya will be sent to the docks for modernization and repair until the 20th year. there is no doubt and no reason to doubt it. And you simply don’t blunder that an almost completed ship will be “cut”. You need to say such evidence with facts and sources, dear.
  • Berthan 26 October 2015 21: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 27 October 2015 10: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      ... the idea is tempting and "starry" in the literal sense of the word, but after all there are all kinds of treaties that "lower the big rocket launcher" in outer space ...
      1. Berthan 27 October 2015 14: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 26 October 2015 23: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 27 October 2015 09: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Arsenal ship" in Russian. It's good.
  • YaMZ-238 27 October 2015 09: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is really a modern battleship !!!! The most beautiful of the existing ships !!!
  • misterwulf 27 October 2015 09: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 27 October 2015 09: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Fear the enemy !!! Long live the Russian Navy !!!
  • ermak.sidorov 27 October 2015 10: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Offered rename rocket from "CALIBER" в PESEC laughing
    and repainted in white ... there will be 80 "arctic foxes" on board ... a whole bunch of fluffy dogs ...
    1. mav1971 27 October 2015 11: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ermak.sidorov
      Offered rename rocket from "CALIBER" в PESEC laughing
      and repainted in white ... there will be 80 "arctic foxes" on board ... a whole bunch of fluffy dogs ...


      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 27 October 2015 10: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +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 ...
    "Putin is our everything ...." - rustled in the air.
    I understood and smiled. It was the invisible hand of the Kremlin.
    Good to be a patriot!
  • Old warrior 27 October 2015 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Fair wind and seven feet under the keel.
  • Old26 27 October 2015 19: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: BoA 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.

    Yes, "sworn friends" have supersonic 0. 949. But a huge number of subsonic ones. And here we have about hundreds ... How many boats of 2 draft of the project do we have? 3 in the North and 3 in the Pacific Fleet. Plus 120 under repair. Okay 5 is in stock. Onyxes and Yakhontov ... Well, Yakhont is the export Onyx. How many carriers do we have in service now? Severodvinsk? There are 4 pennants in the Caspian, of which 15 are river-sea types .... How many X-15 ?? And HZ. About XNUMX years nothing has been heard about her. They even stopped carrying exhibits ...

    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 27 October 2015 19: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 ...

    The most frequently repeated fake. And we, and they really had such a device called GEL. He flew, reached some speeds ... That's all. And the rest is the publication of the Koala X-90 rocket ... Well, to anyone, even to the experimental apparatus, the Americans gave their names - Koala is their name. The index was And here the name of the X-90 rocket is nonsense of pure water, based on the fact that the one who wrote (the first) about the X-90 rocket is a complete ignoramus. And at the same time confused everyone else. And now they simply duplicate what was written earlier, adding their comments

    For the one who writes should know that the letter X is in the American designation, and this EMNIP missile had the index AS-X-19, which means that the missile is experimental, not put into service. Yes, there was such a version of the aviation version of the Meteorite-A rocket. In the west was held under the index AS-X-19 "Koala". The tests were quite successful, but the missile was put to an end due to the START treaty, which forbade having more than one warhead on cruise missiles. And the “Koala” had to have TWO. Some sources even gave her an X-80 index in advance. Although the writer should have known that with us the X index is given only to missiles accepted for service. What was not ...
    And how this even if hypothetical index was transformed into the X-90 - no one knows. In addition, the rocket was SUPERSONIC, not HYPERSONIC ...

    And since then, the X-90 index and its western designation AS-X-21, the alleged index of the supersonic cruise missile being developed by the ICD "Rainbow", have been wandering around all the printed sources. Developed in contrast to the AS-X-19 at the initiative of the KB "Rainbow" and sometimes called "Koala", and sometimes "Gela" ... In fact, this rocket was a laboratory sample ....

    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
    I propose to rename the rocket from "CALIBER" to "PESEC"

    Let's. And not only CALIBER, and all other missiles: cruise, anti-aircraft, anti-tank. This will increase the level of self-conceit ....
  • Yugra 27 October 2015 22: 06 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Although a "senior citizen", but such a handsome man!
  • alex80 27 October 2015 23: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

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

    To replace the "Legends" is planned "Liana". “The four satellites of the Liana system — two“ Peonies ”and two“ Lotus ”- will detect enemy objects in real time — airplanes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these goals will be transferred to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed. In case of war, high-precision strikes will be delivered at these facilities, ”the representative of the General Staff explained the principle of the system.
    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 28 October 2015 13: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 27 October 2015 23: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: alex80
    To replace the "Legends" is planned "Liana". “The four satellites of the Liana system — two“ Peonies ”and two“ Lotus ”- will detect enemy objects in real time — airplanes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these goals will be transferred to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed.

    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 28 October 2015 02: 46 New
    • -6
    • 0
    -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 28 October 2015 14: 42 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -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 28 October 2015 15: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 28 October 2015 19: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A caliber can carry nuclear weapons.
  • Megatron 28 October 2015 16: 39 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    I would like to believe that the 2 remaining ORLANS will be restored, but I'm afraid it will remain only dreams!
  • taseka 29 October 2015 03: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes! Let NATO scratch his head off in a daze and reflection, and their crews continue to write reports on dismissal!
  • bratchanin 29 October 2015 14: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    This is a good upgrade. Bravo!
  • alleksSalut4507 29 October 2015 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    It at one time on alternativehistory (alternative history site)
    someone imagined various modernization projects in 1144, there were several options :)) But, of course, no one took it seriously, and what was my surprise when I repeatedly see the “drawings” in the VO, and they are perceived as full-fledged and official modernization project
    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