Military Review

The newest destroyer of the USA has begun tests

154
The first American ship in a series of destroyers of the Zumwalt type on Monday went to sea trials, reports RIA News message from the Associated Press.


drawing of the destroyer Zumwalt

"The ship is 183 long meters and a displacement of almost thousands of tons 15 out to sea from the shipyard in Maine to conduct sea trials," - said in a statement.

Earlier, the destroyer was criticized for instability, which, according to experts, was the result of "an unusual type of hull with a broken silhouette, reminiscent of old ships.

However, the developers believe that "this type of hull, together with its finishing with radio-absorbing materials, makes the ship unobtrusive to radar."

According to the agency, the destroyer "received a new diesel-gas turbine power plant with electric propulsion, new rocket systems and guns."

Earlier it was reported that due to the high cost of the first ship ($ 4,4 billion), their construction program was reduced more than 10 times: from 32-x destroyers to 3-x.

Help Agency: "The destroyer of the Zamvolt class is multi-purpose and is intended both for the struggle against enemy ground forces and for fire support from the sea and the fight against aviation. Thanks to wide automation, the crew will amount to only 140 people - much less than the previous ships of this class. ”
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com/
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Anton Gavrilov
    Anton Gavrilov 8 December 2015 11: 05 New
    37
    A new word of technology, comrades really move military affairs forward.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 8 December 2015 11: 10 New
      21
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      comrades really move military affairs forward.

      Well, what do you risk so comrade ?! ))) Now they will run over and say that this is a dough cut, sucks and all Americans are "stupid")))
      IMHA destroyer turns out to be very expensive like the B-2, but the acquired technology can be used in cheaper ships of other classes.
      1. Anton Gavrilov
        Anton Gavrilov 8 December 2015 11: 14 New
        +7
        Yes, this is not the first time, I’m here for pluses with minus signs somehow in parallel, I don’t chase after them.
        1. cniza
          cniza 8 December 2015 11: 23 New
          15
          Quote: Anton Gavrilov
          Yes, this is not the first time, I’m here for pluses with minus signs somehow in parallel, I don’t chase after them.



          It's not about the pluses and minuses, but what is really known about this contraption, except that it is very expensive, practically nothing. And the enemy must be watched and all must be known about him ... an unusual approach yes, new technologies yes, poor stability ??? - metacentric height is easy to change and will be like a tumbler ... this information is very small, I would not want to receive "surprises".
          1. Anton Gavrilov
            Anton Gavrilov 8 December 2015 11: 35 New
            +5
            A fundamentally new generation and quality of RTV, a fundamentally new level and quality of automation, there is a direct possibility of placing samples of weapons of the future railgun, and laser.

            The unique characteristics and features of the GEM-tandem GEDs, without gearboxes, fundamentally new converters, the EES is made as a single, integrated, in the sum of the latest factors 2 allow extremely quickly redirect 80% of energy to 1 specific consumer.

            A radically new level of secrecy, I think you can not talk about it here.

            The thing is extremely interesting, it really is a ship of a new level, if everything works out, it can make a revolution similar to a dreadnought in due time.
            1. cniza
              cniza 8 December 2015 11: 47 New
              +9
              Quote: Anton Gavrilov


              A radically new level of secrecy, I think you can not talk about it here.

              The thing is extremely interesting, it really is a ship of a new level, if everything works out, it can make a revolution similar to a dreadnought in due time.


              Regarding stealth, this is my opinion, yes, from the pirates, and about two dozen physical fields cannot be hidden.

              The fact that the ship is of genuine interest, of course, and I really want to understand how we will respond? ... "anti-ship" or a ship of a class higher?
              1. severniy
                severniy 8 December 2015 11: 58 New
                +8
                criticized for volatility

                Yes, judging by the pictures, this monster has already turned upside down ...
                1. cniza
                  cniza 8 December 2015 12: 08 New
                  +6
                  Quote: severniy
                  criticized for volatility

                  Yes, judging by the pictures, this monster has already turned upside down ...



                  In fact, you are right, they took the inverted body as the basis, as the most stable and strung on it everything necessary that they considered necessary. Very original approach.
              2. SMikhalych
                SMikhalych 8 December 2015 12: 32 New
                -1
                Quote: cniza
                and really want to understand how we will answer? ... "anti-ship" or a ship of a class higher?

                Why immediately ship? Maybe for a start and combat swimmers will be enough? But turnips, just in case, need to be scratched ... what
              3. SMikhalych
                SMikhalych 8 December 2015 12: 52 New
                +1
                Quote: cniza
                and really want to understand how we will answer? ... "anti-ship" or a ship of a class higher?

                I don’t know what about the "class above", but that. WHAT ABOVE - it is possible laughing

              4. Assistant
                Assistant 8 December 2015 13: 06 New
                +1
                Regarding stealth, this is my opinion, yes, from the pirates, and about two dozen physical fields cannot be hidden.


                The question is not what they will not notice, because they will necessarily notice. The question is, from what distance.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Saburov
              Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 34 New
              10
              What are you talking about? Nothing fundamentally new has been implemented, all technologies are as old as the world (if the laws of physics do not suddenly change)
              About the railgun
              Advantages
              1) High destructive power of a shot;
              2) An impressive firing range (from 150 to 350 km, only you probably forgot that the earth is round, which will not allow to realize this firing range)
              3) The safety of this type of weapon due to the lack of explosive fuel powder
              4) The reduced weight will allow you to equip the equipment with a large number of charges;
              5) The projectile speed can reach nine thousand kilometers per hour. (In the middle of the 80's, Soviet scientists created a prototype railgun. The speed of a projectile made of plastic, comparable in size to a bottle cap, reached 9960 m / s and punched 3 layer of duralumin with a thickness of 4 cm.)

              Disadvantages and problems
              1) A clear, sharp impulse is needed that the projectile accelerates and pushes before it scatters or evaporates
              2) A huge amount of energy with which the pulse gun will be activated (of the order of 60-70 megawatts, which compact energy sources have not yet been invented)
              3) Adverse effects of moisture and salt that corrode the system (relative to fleet use)
              4) System stabilization
              5) Complete unmasking of the launcher that occurs after the first shot
              6) The projectile must have a minimum mass, the material for the manufacture of the projectile and the rail must have high conductivity (to the question of the cost of the projectile)
              7) Guides in the gun have to be changed after every second shot.
              8) Work on increasing the speed leads to the destruction of shells in flight, and this also becomes a serious obstacle to the widespread introduction of the railgun. To this list you can add the need for a high-precision guidance and sight system.
              9) If you need to accumulate 60 megawatts for a shot, then these 60 megawatts need to be generated and saved! Even if without losses with 100% efficiency and type on superconductors, all the same huge aircraft carrier nuclear reactors at 300 megawatts will pump the energy of 15-20 minutes ... until the next shot. You’ll kill yourself, but the laws of physics can’t get around in any way, and to shoot 5 rounds per minute, you need the energy of 100 aircraft carriers ... LITERALLY 100!
              Well, backfill. The projectile will not fly along a ballistic trajectory with a decrease, but in a straight line like a laser beam, meanwhile the earth is round, and the horizon from the destroyer deck starts somewhere at a distance of 15 km, a target at a distance of 50 km cannot be reached with a direct shot . Shoot from an airplane? From the surface of the sea, from the ship, as a result, the projectile will pass in 400 m above the target. A speed of approximately 8 km / s is sufficient to enter the orbit of the earth; above it is already possible to fly to the sun. In addition, a shot with a speed of at least 6 km / s should cause, if it does not occur in a vacuum, a powerful shock wave and instantaneous heating of air in the shot zone.
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 36 New
                +4
                Well, and about the laser (especially for laser addicts)
                Let's go in order. Show me an article where, for example, it is clearly described in technical and scientific language how they managed to get around the main problems of building a laser? The natural divorce of suckers (military and taxpayers) on the headstock by American scientific and technical swindlers. For the reason that in the foreseeable future, “combat lasers” are not able, in principle, even to approach combat good old good guns / missiles. In the best case, their destiny is extremely narrow, specific areas of application such as burning optics for reconnaissance. equipment, sights, etc. If we talk about the use of lasers on the battlefield to “burn” tanks / infantry / missiles / aircraft, then this is just technical nonsense. And that's why. First, you only have to make a small introduction to the topic - how to evaluate and compare the impact on the target of different types of weapons. Those who are well versed in weapon physics may not read. For the rest of the educational program: What determines the degree of destruction of the target?
                1. Saburov
                  Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 36 New
                  +2
                  It is determined by three factors: 1) The power supplied from the weapon to the target. A commonplace banal example: the more you hit a person with your fist, the more damage he will inflict, all other things being equal. “Stronger” means applying more muscle at a greater distance in less time. This is power. With regard to guns: the faster the projectile flies, and the heavier it is, the more power. The more he damages the tank, all other things being equal. With reference to the laser - the greater the power of the beam in kilowatts, the stronger it will burn the target. And in the same kilowatts you can translate the damaging properties of any other weapon and compare them. What will we do later. 2) The second factor is the area on which we bring power from the weapon. The smaller it is, the more concentrated the target experiences, the stronger the defeat (we don’t take extreme cases!). If you push the bully with your fist, there will be nothing for him. If you poke him with an awl with exactly the same effort (power), he will not be greeted. When they want to break through a tank, they try to make it a thinner striking element. So as not to “spread” power over the area. If we shoot a beam - we must collect it on the smallest possible area. Remember children's games with lenses and the Sun. A lens collecting the light of the Sun from a circle with a diameter of 5 cm - burns paper perfectly when this beam is compressed to a size of a couple of millimeters. In principle, the first and second factors are usually combined into one - the energy flux density. That is, they receive power in watts divided by the area of ​​impact. The higher this density, the more dangerous the impact. Measured in watts per square centimeter. But I decided to break them down for clarity. 3) The ability of the target to reflect, fend off the power of the weapon. That is, for example, if we take two armor plates and a projectile flying in them, but put one sheet at an angle, then the projectile can bounce off the inclined sheet. All else being equal. That is, the degree of destruction of the target very much depends on its specific vulnerability to this type of weapon with the first two factors being equal. It’s so simple not to sort through the interaction, there are dozens of types of interaction, but then it will be easier. For now, just remember that this must be taken into account. So, we repeat once again: in order to assess the damaging effect of a weapon, we are primarily interested in its power, concentration and methods of protection. Now let's see what has been achieved in the field of lasers and conventional weapons in terms of the above criteria.
                  1. Saburov
                    Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 37 New
                    +5
                    Power criterion. The most powerful laser today is the ABL chemical COIL laser. Its power is about 1 megawatts. For comparison: the power of the 76-mm division gun F-22 of the 1936 model of the year is about 150 megawatts. 150 times more! Count yourself - the kinetic energy of the projectile (M * V ^ 2) / 2 divided by the time it is reached (about 0.01 seconds). We still do not take into account the explosive energy in the projectile itself. There are still as many. Think about this simple fact: a small ancient cannon from the time of the Second World War at a price of scrap metal is hundreds of times more powerful than an ultramodern “battle” laser weighing tens of tons and costing over 5 billions of dollars. A shot from ABL alone costs millions of dollars. And this energy shot is comparable to the burst of a heavy machine gun. The power of a Kalashnikov assault rifle is about 100 kilowatts. A US-Israeli laser with the same 100 kW (THEL) power was tested, they wanted to use it to protect against Grad missile shells. THEL installation in size - 6 delivered next to the bus. The project was closed at 2006 for complete inadequacy, although it still successfully shot down missiles and mines. By heating them in flight for several seconds. (The question is - what about the volley ????) Characteristically, no one even mentioned the possibility of defeating infantry with such a laser. Otherwise, even a child would clearly see its true capabilities, comparing it with an ordinary machine gun. It should be noted that it is no coincidence that the US military and experts believe that the minimum required laser power for combat use is 100 kW. As we see, this is really enough to at least get closer to the striking power of small arms.
                    1. Saburov
                      Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 37 New
                      +4
                      Laserophiles will say: well, maybe the beam can be concentrated on a small area and thereby achieve a much greater effect with less power? Indeed - after all, industry uses laser machines that quietly cut centimeter steel with powers of only about a few kilowatts. At the same time, their rays are focused on a patch of several millimeters in size. Alas! Here, the physically irresistible diffraction law comes into force, which states that the laser radiation always diverges from the angle = wavelength / beam diameter. At distances of the order of meters, it can be ignored. So what is next? If we take specifically a combat infrared laser with a wavelength of 2 μm (THEL combat lasers work at such a length, etc.) and a beam diameter of 1 cm, then we get the angle of divergence 0.2 of the milliradian (this is a very small difference - for example, ordinary laser pointers / rangefinders diverge by 5 milliradians and more). Divergence 0.2 mrad. at a distance of 100 meters it will increase the diameter of the spot from 1 cm to approximately 3 cm (if anyone else remembers school geometry). That is, the impact density will fall in proportion to the area in 7 times only by 100 meters. That is: if we know that a laser with a power of 100 KW burns an inch steel plate at point-blank somewhere in 2-3 seconds, then at a distance of 100 meters it will do this, roughly, 18 seconds. All this time, an armored personnel carrier (or whom you are going to burn there) must by itself patiently stand and wait. Do not violate those. process, so to speak. Well, as you know - a furrow of a couple of centimeters is unlikely to upset him anyway. For comparison: armor-piercing bullets from Kalashnikov calmly pierce 16 mm steel at the same distance. And I repeat - today the 100 kW laser is a huge installation weighing tens of tons, with huge tanks of toxic chemicals and sophisticated optics. When he "shoots" - huge clouds of poisonous smoke come from him, poisoning the entire vicinity. What will happen to all this if the enemy strikes from 100 meters throughout this kitchen from his good old large-caliber KPVT - you can imagine. And the rocket can accidentally hit ... And on a kilometer the beam density will fall already 300 times.
                      1. Saburov
                        Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 38 New
                        +5
                        Therefore, it is easy to understand that the distance of hitting a target even in 1 km for an 100-kW laser is an unattainable dream in real conditions. Unless you understand, for example, a canister of gasoline. Or a naked man tied to a tree. That is, a minimally protected target cannot be hit with such a laser at REASONABLE distances in combat conditions. By the way! On combat conditions: the battlefield is not always a desert White Sands training ground. It's rain. Snow. Fog. Explosions. Fumes. Dust. All these are almost insurmountable obstacles to the laser beam. Here, in general, you can forget about any concentration of the beam - it simply dissipates long before the goal. Who needs an assault rifle that is unable to hit targets in such conditions? I remember that the earliest firearms could not shoot in wet weather - the gunpowder was drenched. And the "shooters" just cut out the old fashioned way. Here it is, the inevitable fate of lovers of hyperboloids. 3) Also a very unpleasant point for "laser" is the ability to protect the target. And it’s very cheap and very cheerful. Because infrared rays are reflected from anything that is not hit (everyone can play with the remote control from the TV). A cheap window film with metallization reflects the vast majority of infrared radiation. Titanium reflects the IR laser very well. But we already barely brought it to the goal (just poetry!). Worse, there are also sublimation resins that are used to protect spacecraft from gigawatt heat fluxes, combined with the terrible mechanical effects of air pressure. In this case, the resin layer is damaged by a centimeter or two. That is, armor / steel is far from the most resistant material for the laser, no. It has long been an order of magnitude more "laser-resistant" coatings. It follows that even if it is possible to increase the power of laser guns by an order of magnitude, to gigawatts, this will not make them a prodigy at all. In this “sword and shield” competition, the shield has a huge, insurmountable head start. That is why laser-lasers very rarely tell WHAT goals they once again managed to hit and at what distance. And what is shown on the video raises more questions than answers. Ah well? - true laser lovers will say - but what do you all tell about chemical lasers when a technological breakthrough has already been made and “combat” solid-state light-pumping devices have appeared? There are no poisonous tanks, and they are much smaller! And decent power has already been achieved - for 100 kW!
                      2. Saburov
                        Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 38 New
                        +3
                        And it's called beautifully - Firestrike. Hmm .. And really, a very compact little thing - 7 blocks each weighing 180 kg. Total 1300 kg. So that? A dream come true? Let's not rush. There are a couple of nuances. This huge cabinet weighing per ton is just the radiating unit itself. At least 500 kW should be supplied with electric power, given that the achieved efficiency of this laser is about 20%. (and even that is very doubtful, usually much less - less than 10%). Thus, 100 kW went into the enemy with us, and 400 kW remained in this cabinet. And these kilowatts need to be put out quickly, right? Otherwise, expensive optics will suffer. The dimensions of a cooling system of such power can be imagined by looking, for example, at a cooling installation. A rather big bandura, weighs 120 kg. The system can just serve for cooling industrial lasers; it diverts power from as many as whole 6 kW. And she consumes the same amount of electricity. So you need something the size of a truck to cool our 100 kW cabinet when firing. And all this in total will consume megawatts of electric power under 1. Well how? Do you still like breakthrough 100 kW solid-state lasers? With the unimaginable power of defeat comparable to a Kalashnikov assault rifle?
                      3. Saburov
                        Saburov 8 December 2015 13: 40 New
                        +9
                        Practical experiments have already been scientifically proven, documented, and even carried out on the example of the Laser program in the USSR long before the USA and Israel such as Terra-3, A-60, SKIF space program, ship Foros and Dixon and so on, because the main problem has not been solved . There is only one way to deal with beam divergence - by reducing the wavelength. However, it follows from the fundamental laws of physics that the shorter the wavelength, the more difficult it is to implement quantum radiation amplification. That is to build a laser. So these stories about shot down missiles and shells (which by the way are not confirmed by anything, except for commercials where there is no data on range, nature of the target, trajectory, number of salvos, material, etc.) are not worth a penny, unless of course you are friends with physics .
                        PS The USSR at one time went all the way to create a combat laser from and to what the United States is now doing and reinventing the bicycle, I won’t be surprised if they soon begin to build an installation similar to Terra-3, but in the USSR they realized the futility of these weapons in time, except to blind and burn the enemy’s optics, the laser is not capable of more in combat conditions, due to weak power, irresistible laws of physics and elementary and CHEAP methods of protection against it, well, naturally, speaking about the laser, for some reason everyone forgets about the problem energy and cooling installation methods.
                      4. sisa29
                        sisa29 8 December 2015 15: 16 New
                        +3
                        Thank you, they explained us in great detail and intelligibly. Can sleep peacefully
                    2. DobryAAH
                      DobryAAH 8 December 2015 14: 31 New
                      +3
                      No, well, somehow Garin fleet drowned from a hyperboloid? Even if the Americans go around the whole physics, we will take out a sideboard with a mirror and burn them with a reverse impulse! wink
                    3. The comment was deleted.
      2. DobryAAH
        DobryAAH 8 December 2015 14: 40 New
        0
        A radically new level of secrecy, I think you can not talk about it here.

        Our ultra-secret neutrino radar sees it through the thickness of the earth, right at the American base.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. PIN
    PIN 8 December 2015 11: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    Yes, this is not the first time, I’m here for pluses with minus signs somehow in parallel, I don’t chase after them.
    Purely -....! I don’t need awards, but I’ll say that I don’t! laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • bulvas
    bulvas 8 December 2015 11: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: Scoun
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    comrades really move military affairs forward.

    Well, what do you risk so comrade ?! ))) Now they will run over and say that this is a dough cut, sucks and all Americans are "stupid")))
    IMHA destroyer turns out to be very expensive like the B-2, but the acquired technology can be used in cheaper ships of other classes.



    One can imagine how all these “run-in” would yell if something like this had appeared in our country

    And they wouldn’t remember how much it costs and what disadvantages
  • Foresterer
    Foresterer 8 December 2015 11: 43 New
    19
    Technologies can be developed in a cheaper way. F-35 worked a lot? The US military-industrial complex is bold and is not looking at anyone looking for money. They understand that Russia will never attack first, and there are simply no other real rivals in a real war! Only 3 of these products will be made (the ship doesn’t dare to call the ship) not because it is very expensive, but because. that they didn’t find other fools to invest in this business this time, as in the case of the F-35. In general, I consider the plus or minus articles on the arming of our opponents to be unacceptable; I consider foreign armaments only as a likely way of killing me and my family.
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 8 December 2015 12: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Foresterer
      F-35 has worked a lot?

      inappropriate comparison of IMHA)) why then not with the F-22? but he gained a lot.
      Quote: Foresterer
      The US military industry is bold and not looking at anyone, sawing money.

      and what are we looking around for "sawing" and in what context are we sawing? )))
      Quote: Foresterer
      not because it is very expensive, but because. that they didn’t find other fools to invest in this business this time, as in the case of the F-35.

      How many F-35s have already been riveted? and US partners that all refused to buy the F-35s? )))
      and how to understand did not find someone to invest in? what they were looking for someone to "invest" in the B-2 or F-22 and they are selling them to someone?
      Quote: Foresterer
      Plus or minus articles about the arming of our opponents in general I consider unacceptable

      Herein lies the main misconception of forum users, PLUS and MINUS is not a POSITIVE and NEGATIVE article or comment, but an INFORMATIVE and NOT INFORMATIVE, ERROR and NOT ERRORious article / comment.
      hi
      1. Foresterer
        Foresterer 8 December 2015 13: 49 New
        +1
        Very indicative and informative about the F-35 program here:
        http://id-bedretdinov.ru/journals/journal-aero/post-aero/95-sostoyanie-programmy
        -razrabotki-i-proizvodstva-f-35-lightning-ii.html

        I have no doubt that with this money allocated to scientific institutions, there would be an order of magnitude more breakthrough technologies. And by the way, which are present in the F-35? Zamvolt is a movie toy and has already starred in one Hollywood craft. Remember my words after a couple of years, this "product" will not participate in any serious military conflict, because with 100% certainty it will either be badly damaged or sunk, and this is a guarantee of financial death in the USA. This product needs a better escort on a hike than for an aircraft carrier, because embarrassment with it would be worse for Americans than Pearl Harbor. One demonstration trip will be, they will give a shoot and act in films again. Surely our VKS will make a control flyby, show it to the invisible that it is not so exclusive and invisible to everyone. And the sophisticated automation will not benefit, 140 people will not be able to save the ship in an emergency. I do not belittle the possible exclusivity and combat effectiveness of Zamvolt, but I will not admire it either. He is still in trials and it is not known what money this will end up in the end.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 8 December 2015 13: 10 New
      +2
      Quote: Foresterer
      F-35 has worked a lot?

      Actually - very much. You can ironize as much as you like, but all the main problems of the F-35 are just because of the huge number of breakthrough technologies that dramatically change the appearance and capabilities of a modern attack fighter
      1. Foresterer
        Foresterer 8 December 2015 14: 02 New
        -2
        You will not find in the internet the number of original patented technical solutions for the F-35, because their number is vanishingly small or they are borrowed from Russian designers. But there are a lot of problems, because:
        It’s not possible to harness one cart / Horse and trembling doe
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 8 December 2015 14: 47 New
          +3
          Quote: Foresterer
          You will not find in the internet the number of original patented technical solutions for the F-35, because their number is vanishingly small or they are borrowed from Russian designers. But there are a lot of problems, because:
          It’s not possible to harness one cart / Horse and trembling doe

          My friend, your ignorance makes you look tenderly at you. Go play in the sandbox, don't bother the adult uncles
          1. Foresterer
            Foresterer 8 December 2015 15: 04 New
            0
            Rudeness is not great valor.
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 8 December 2015 19: 47 New
              -1
              Quote: Foresterer
              Rudeness is not great valor.

              To stupidity - you can
      2. Saburov
        Saburov 8 December 2015 15: 39 New
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        Actually - very much. You can ironize as much as you like, but all the main problems of the F-35 are just because of the huge number of breakthrough technologies that dramatically change the appearance and capabilities of a modern attack fighter

        Pimpled, if you are talking about something, then please give an example!
        Show or name at least one breakthrough technology or method on the F-35 Lightning II ???
        1. Foresterer
          Foresterer 8 December 2015 15: 56 New
          +1
          This Pupyrchaty is an Intourist, he only praises American and Israeli weapons without shyness, he does not need arguments and facts.
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 8 December 2015 19: 53 New
            -1
            Quote: Foresterer
            This Pupyrchaty is an Intourist, he only praises American and Israeli weapons without shyness, he does not need arguments and facts.

            Of course, only Israeli and American.
            You see, my little illiterate friend, you confuse. This is when you mention American and Israeli technology is a strange excitement. I have no desire to blame Russian equipment, since it is often really good. You just confuse this with the fact that I don't like cheers like you
        2. Saburov
          Saburov 8 December 2015 16: 07 New
          +1
          In 1995, Lockheed Martin announced a partnership with Yakovlev Design Bureau. The knowledge and experience of Soviet technical specialists gained during the development of the Soviet Yak-141 vertical take-off and landing fighter was used to develop the F-35. The demo version, Lockheed Martin X-35B, in many respects resembles the Yak-141. Although the Americans do not like to mention it. The 3BSN rotary nozzle mechanism was developed by RR back in 1964 for the RB.153-76A engine according to the German project VJ 101E, and before the 67 year, the engine and the nozzle passed quite successful ground tests, including fire tests. In 1968-69, the same engine was developed under the AVS project. By the way, for this project, for the first time, a scheme with a lifting fan with a gas-dynamic drive was worked out. By the time work began on the Yak-41, the nozzle mechanism was already in the museum of the company, where it remains until now. A little later, the Yakovlevites used not only the 3BSN scheme, but also the general layout scheme of the VJ 101E, which is generally not surprising, since at the time the work was completed according to supersonic VTOL in Europe, this very scheme was considered the most promising. Subsequently, the Yakovlevites' successful experience in creating an aircraft with 3BSN attracted the attention of LM, who at that time were in search of the optimal scheme for their promising VTOL aircraft under the JSF project. Despite the fact that RR offered its 3BSN development services on the basis of its AVS developments, LM preferred to purchase documentation from Yakovlevites, since they were primarily interested not so much in the kinematics of the nozzle (it was well-known for a long time at that time), but as the accumulated operating experience nozzles on the Yak-141, and the Yakovlev experience was valuable because the Yak-141 scheme as a whole resembled that chosen for the X-35. In addition, cooperation with the Russians seemed more profitable for financial reasons. RR received a contract to develop the LM fan invented in LM, as well as to develop a gas rudder system (in this area, RR’s global leadership is undeniable).
        3. Pimply
          Pimply 8 December 2015 19: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: Saburov
          Pimpled, if you are talking about something, then please give an example!
          Show or name at least one breakthrough technology or method on the F-35 Lightning II ???

          And in which of the three aircraft, Saburov? F-35 three pieces, in each his own, despite the unification
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 8 December 2015 22: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            And in which of the three aircraft, Saburov? F-35 three pieces, in each his own, despite the unification

            What is the manner of answering a question with a question?
            Name at least one of the three.
    3. theadenter
      theadenter 8 December 2015 13: 14 New
      +1
      The US military-industrial complex is bold and is not looking at anyone looking for money

      Yes, that's just they have enough money to cut, and to develop and replenish the army.
      This is not particularly critical for them. Indeed, no one will be able to bend them for the state debt, so everyone depends on its economy, even our country.
  • War and Peace
    War and Peace 8 December 2015 11: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: Scoun
    IMHA destroyer turns out to be very expensive like the B-2, but the acquired technology can be used in cheaper ships of other classes.


    the next 50pcs will already be cheaper ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • YARUSSIAN39
    YARUSSIAN39 8 December 2015 12: 03 New
    0
    Where have you seen Americans do cheaper classes?
    They always saw a “bobla” there on a large scale, and every time they ask more and more
  • dauria
    dauria 8 December 2015 12: 36 New
    +1
    the destroyer is very expensive


    And the displacement hit me. This whopper somehow has to be called differently. Well this is like a German "pocket" battleship.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 8 December 2015 18: 28 New
      0
      The super destroyer will do.
  • marlin1203
    marlin1203 8 December 2015 12: 52 New
    0
    That's about invisibility ... it's metal all the same and 183 meters of the colossus. Such as you try, you can’t hide. And stealth for such money is about the appropriateness of "still to be seen" negative
  • Chifka
    Chifka 8 December 2015 11: 12 New
    +4
    Christy's flying tank was also moving something somewhere. They are still figuring out where ...
  • the most important
    the most important 8 December 2015 11: 21 New
    10
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    A new word of technology, comrades really move military affairs forward.

    But, it is quite possible that along a dead end.
    1. kote119
      kote119 8 December 2015 11: 23 New
      +9
      to understand about the dead end of a path
  • vkl-47
    vkl-47 8 December 2015 11: 21 New
    +5
    It’s interesting to watch him when he gets into the storm. He looks like a floating pink coffin. A terrible sight
    1. 34 region
      34 region 8 December 2015 11: 42 New
      +8
      Do you think it was designed by stupid people? The nose of the ship is made to reduce resistance in water when moving. The slope of the sheets is also thought out. Stability? Probably counted. Here it is better to find out the opinion of marine experts, and not to guess what and how.
  • favn
    favn 8 December 2015 11: 25 New
    +1
    If only there was no deadlock ahead)))
    1. bulvas
      bulvas 8 December 2015 11: 35 New
      +7
      Quote: favn
      If only there was no deadlock ahead)))



      Would be afraid of dead ends - would have fought on sailing ships, or even on galleys



    2. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 11: 55 New
      28
      Quote: Anton Gavrilov
      , comrades really move military affairs forward.
      When two years later an article appeared on this site about the design of a new ship for our Navy in the silhouette and concept of Zumwalt, the local audience would be choked with ecstasy from the power supply, stealth and special seaworthiness of the designed ship. I am more than sure that all criticism of it 1.) because it is not ours, but American. 2.) because we cannot afford the development and production of such ships. 3.) because we burned money (when the barrel was 100 bucks in the sacrificial flame of the Olympic flame in Sochi , and all that was left was not swelled in Russian ie plants and shipyards, and valuable papers such amerikanskie.Pro jamb "taboo" Gutara on this site, because. there are a number of hard-hitting and beating on otmash issues laughing Geniuses of world geopolitics (tied to Ukrainian turbines). Missed the Ukrainian coup (betting on Yanukovych, but the fact that Yanukovych disgusted the Ukrainians with his "golden loaves" did not even occur in thought, because his brother-in-law and his people. And how was farsightedly give shelter to this thief-shapposhnik and just a coward, when in Ukraine there was 3-5% of the population’s support for him). Here we sit without turbines and without boats, and all that remains is the feces to throw in the American new destroyer.
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 8 December 2015 12: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        When in two years an article appears on this site about the design of a new ship for our Navy in the silhouette and concept of Zumwalt, the local audience will choke in ecstasy

        It is enough to recall how much ecstasy the audience received from the concept of the Armata tank))) and literally today))) in an article about the Su-34, people are delighted and what for example was planned
        The container of the brake parachute, which was located in the tail boom on the Su-27 and its modifications, was moved a little forward and made retractable for landing. Thus, in the tail boom Su 34 freed up space for the payload. In addition, it was significantly lengthened by the presence of a large radio-transparent fairing suggested that the developer intends to establish a rear-view radar station that could not only warn the crew of an enemy attack, but also control the launch of air-to-air missiles (in particular RVV-AE) capable of hitting not only aircraft but also enemy guided missiles ( no foreign attack aircraft currently have such capabilities)

        But in the end, Urya !!! ended with this
        The radar remained in unrealized plans. On serial Su-34s in the Air Force there is no radar in the beam. And since last year, cars are already in the beam from the APU. Look at the photo - on the left side, closer to the end of the beam, there is a grate - this is where the APU “lives”. There is no place for rear view radars.

        But as usual, many helmets)))
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 13: 21 New
          +4
          F-22s and 35s, too, did not have all the technical ideas, in principle, I am happy that the Novosibirsk people were able to give a shot to the country. Two, regiment, consider Roman, we already have and will arrive. I know how hearts are boiling, when what we didn’t get through the Air Force, especially by means of radar reconnaissance. But there are no miracles .. We will rejoice at 2 of these regiments (by the way, the sides are not alike). But anyway, this is our way, it means two radar regiments roam the earth. And he is a fighter in the fulfillment of his task --- work on the earth.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 December 2015 18: 32 New
            0
            The F 35 has problems mainly due to avionics and in modifications B, C, and with the modification A everything is fine - it is not as sophisticated as the rest.
  • kamil_tt
    kamil_tt 8 December 2015 11: 33 New
    0
    now they will declare you an enemy, because everyone knows that no one in the world, "except us," and the damned mattresses, moreover, can not build anything good ..
  • Val_y
    Val_y 8 December 2015 11: 51 New
    +3
    But as for me it’s a NORMAL and BEAUTIFUL cut dough, (as the program F-22 and F-35, by the way) is LESS in armaments than the berks, and at the cost of atomic avik (don’t throw some shit but the HEADLIGHTS put on many ships, automation is a beautiful word but ... downy new ones, however 155 mm, long-range but ... a projectile worth $ 35 thousand and a range of 110 km, sorry ... ordinary shells 7-10 rounds per minute (not ice). Our AK- 130 90 rounds per minute wink So ...
  • loft79
    loft79 8 December 2015 12: 04 New
    13
    Meeting the present with the past laughing
    1. GRAY
      GRAY 8 December 2015 12: 12 New
      16
      Quote: loft79
      Meeting the present with the past

      It suggested:
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 8 December 2015 14: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: GRAY
        It suggested:

        Only others thought in a different direction))) but in fact in the picture the innovative dreadnought “Monitor” with a rotating tower that set the heat of the “Merrimack” aka “Virginia”.
        By March 1862, the Merrimack (aka Virginia) was ready for battle. But the northerners had already had a worthy adversary by that time.
        Having learned about the creation of miraculous weapons by the Confederates and fearing that with its help the enemy could easily defeat Washington, the federal government took an urgent response. In a matter of months, the “Monitor / Monitor” was born under the project of the Swedish emigrant John Erickson (translated from Latin - “mentor” - the name was invented by Erickson) - a completely new and unlike anything warship.
        1. GRAY
          GRAY 8 December 2015 16: 59 New
          +1
          Quote: Scoun
          who set the heat to Merrimack, he is also Virginia.

          Despite the fact that Virginia was built using stealth technology, (pay attention to the form of the add-on lol ), in battle she was unlucky.
    2. marlin1203
      marlin1203 8 December 2015 12: 54 New
      +2
      By the way, if this gun hits the zumwalt on board, it will strike .. that's ridiculous laughing
      1. shuhartred
        shuhartred 8 December 2015 13: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: marlin1203
        By the way, if this gun hits the zumwalt on board, it will strike .. that's ridiculous

        And if you landmine then finally sink, so what? KV-2 firing first and hitting any modern tank zaminusaet. So now do nothing or what? True photo test. So I want to shoot and see what happens.
  • sir_obs
    sir_obs 8 December 2015 12: 21 New
    0
    They reinvented the wheel, made a submersible submarine, and called it the most recent destroyer. Now we are waiting for a movie from Hollywood as this newest invisibility smashes right and left evil in the universe.
    In reality, they bang with the whole crew, no one even has time to get out.
    1. Phantom Revolution
      Phantom Revolution 8 December 2015 12: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: sir_obs
      In reality, they bang with the whole crew, no one even has time to get out.

      Even if anyone succeeds in banging with the crew, 140 people and 15 000 tons of displacement are not 540 people on Atlantes with a displacement of 11490 tons or 310 people on the Ticonderoges with a displacement of 9800 tons. I'm not talking about his possible firepower and ammunition.
      1. sir_obs
        sir_obs 8 December 2015 15: 26 New
        0
        And what is the problem of banging, especially with what size?

        And what is his special firepower? Railgun or laser? And how does it already work with might and main?

        High level of automation? So there are electronic warfare equipment for this and there is a very high probability that somewhere something will not work as it should.

        And exotic forms will certainly not help him covertly goof something, unless they are going to use it against the Papuans.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • 76SSSR
    76SSSR 8 December 2015 12: 46 New
    +2
    It would not have happened as with the F-117 and B-2 in the end ...) Well, what about the Americans - they’ll still print the dough ...)
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 8 December 2015 13: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: 76SSSR
      It would not have happened as with the F-117 and B-2 in the end ...) Well, what about the Americans - they’ll still print the dough ...)

      What's wrong with them? Everything was ok with them. Thanks to them, the Americans got a breakthrough in technology. And 117 also worked well
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 14: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: Pimply
        What's wrong with them?

        laughing and you don’t know))) 117 worked if not against the friendly regime (taking into account Boryan’s policies) BUT, BUT, BUT he worked against our Soviet weapons, and we couldn’t allow such a showdown "17 fell on our rockets burned, Russian missiles are aimed at center in the brain, rises by the wing of the planes of planes with 29-th back barto
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 14: 29 New
          +2
          Yes, they worked 117))) they didn’t take off at all, (if there is a dock, prove), and we don’t believe it))) Evgeny, you really can work super well, Evgeny, with information. I’m all in attention ( ((Like three battalions.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 8 December 2015 14: 48 New
          -1
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          and you don’t know))) 117 worked if not against the friendly regime (taking into account Boryan’s policies) BUT, BUT, BUT he worked against our Soviet weapons, and we couldn’t allow such a showdown "17 fell on our rockets burned, Russian missiles are aimed at center in the brain, rises by the wing of the planes of planes with 29-th back barto

          And the eternal battle
  • marlin1203
    marlin1203 8 December 2015 12: 49 New
    0
    Well done! It will be something for the Chinese to "bind." laughing Yes, and it would not hurt us. soldier
  • Teplohod
    Teplohod 8 December 2015 12: 52 New
    0
    at first glance - some kind of crap, I don’t even want to watch the second time. I hope the sea will tear him away.
  • SPACE
    SPACE 8 December 2015 13: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    A new word of technology, comrades really move military affairs forward.

    Yeah, I don’t think of a floating child prodigy with a streamlined iron, or a flying miracle with the aerodynamics of a poorly hewn ax laughing
    I don’t, I don’t understand these technical perversions, so look, under-plane, and such a sub-ship and an under-submarine, with a fighting ability such that it will drown from an airplane and will not sail far from a cruiser with a submarine. And why for the sake of destroying their own kind, exclusivity and fashion consumerism. In general, the idea of ​​secrecy or inconspicuousness, the fate of vile cowards, sooner or later, everything secret will become apparent.
    Z.Y. More missiles, all sorts and different yes
    So that vile filth did not form am
    Startup, and BSU missile strike angry
    I’ll smash it at once, I love the child prodigy ... good
    laughing
  • max702
    max702 8 December 2015 13: 22 New
    +2
    It seems to me that we need to stop playing "boats" .. Not ours is a game, in which we are traditionally strong? In the database on earth, rocket science and space, these areas need to be developed, we are good at making submarines, and also "we make missiles better than anyone else!" that's great ! The submarines, as carriers of nuclear weapons and strike missiles of the Caliber type, are ideal platforms, you can’t see them, you don’t see them, and they aren’t very expensive, is there a targeting issue, and here is space to help, are the satellites of the enemy’s ships hard to see? Well, then there is a front of work and it is necessary to do it, rockets fly far, but there are questions about data transfer after launch? So here there is something to be improved, suppose a satellite sees any ship that is in the ocean, and missiles can well receive information and work on the changing coordinates of the target, and any fleet can be written off! Now rocket science has come close to solving the problem of hypersound, and against such missile defense is useless! It remains the matter is small, to ensure target designation by introducing feedback into the missile guidance blocks .. Something tells me the pair of missiles for the same “zomwalt” is enough if you don’t drown it so deprive combat readiness by putting the latter on a long expensive repair .. In the future, space and missiles look even more promising, bringing these technologies to mind will allow placing platforms with missile weapons in orbit whose reaction rate to a threat will be calculated in a couple of three minutes, for example, a platform hangs in orbit at 2000-3000 km post I dropped the order and the missiles worked on the target on the earth at a speed of 30-50 km per second, for space these are the usual speeds, of course, many problems and tasks have to be solved both with missiles and target designation, but this way is much more promising than building expensive pelvis which often become obsolete even at the construction stage .. I am sure that when solving all of the above tasks, the associated technologies will drastically catch up which again will give an economic effect ..
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 8 December 2015 13: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: max702
      It seems to me that we need to stop playing "boats" .. Not ours is a game, in which we are traditionally strong? In the database on earth, rocket science and space, this direction needs to be developed, we are good at making submarines, and also "we make missiles best of all!" that's great ! Submarines as carriers of nuclear weapons and strike missiles of the Caliber type are ideal platforms

      Firstly .. Everyone is squinting at you ... Starting from Askold and Dir and ending with the admin. Kuznetsov.
      Secondly .. How do you imagine the deployment of submarine forces in positional areas without covering surface ships? Will you send them to slaughter?
      Third .. Chasing the military thought of the West is pointless. And acceptable to Zumwalt and even more so.
      Not to mention the very controversial appearance. Excessive automation is also not the best step. In addition, an indirect screw drive is not such a novelty.
      Well, the most prodigy, magnetic gun with hypersonic blank. Such ignorance of history and physics leads to the creation of such models. Story. Called aboard Japanese battleships and cruisers, Russian sailors noted a lot of penetrations in Japanese ships that did not cause damage. The shells simply flashed the sides without detonating. We are talking about 600m \ s and cemented armor. Speed ​​6000m \ s, the form of a blank specific to this speed and the lack of significant reservations on modern ships .. A very controversial venture.
      As practice has shown .. A pack of cheap carriers of expensive weapons is very effective.
  • I am Groot
    I am Groot 8 December 2015 11: 07 New
    +3
    you cannot hide from the caliber and the flurry
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. kil 31
      kil 31 8 December 2015 11: 13 New
      +8
      However, the developers believe that "this type of hull, together with its finishing with radio-absorbing materials, makes the ship unobtrusive to radar."
      I have a question. Should sustainability be sacrificed if radar generations change faster than building a ship? request
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Kil 31
        I have a question. Is it worth sacrificing sustainability

        There is no sustainability problem there

        and where to get it from. a pyramid is always more stable than a cube and a parallelepiped
        turn on your own brain sometimes
        1. favn
          favn 8 December 2015 11: 30 New
          14
          It is on a hard surface. This papelats must move on water. Hence, not stability, but stability arises, and for stability it is necessary to underestimate the center of gravity as much as possible. Optimum - below water level. For the pyramid, this will turn out an acute angle down. Sometimes turn on your own brain)))
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 42 New
            +4
            Quote: favn
            Optimum - below water level. For the pyramid it will turn out an acute angle down

            The underwater part of the Zwolvt hull is shaped like a regular ship
            acute angle down


            on top is a truncated pyramid. why should he have problems with stability?
            Quote: favn
            Sometimes turn on your own brain)))

            another great thinker
            1. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              on top is a truncated pyramid. why should he have problems with stability?

              I support you. Medieval shipbuilders built just such ships and they withstood almost any storms and did not roll over. They didn’t have a keel and they didn’t really need it, because at the bottom in the holds was ballast.
        2. Starover_Z
          Starover_Z 8 December 2015 11: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          There is no sustainability problem there

          and where to get it from. a pyramid is always more stable than a cube and a parallelepiped

          Oleg, there are no questions with the stability of the pyramids, BUT ON THE EARTH, NOT ON THE SEA, with rolling and gale!
          And what to do with the flow, and yet another keel under water ...
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Starover_Z
            BUT ON THE EARTH, NOT ON THE SEA

            at sea does the gravity vector change direction?
            Quote: Starover_Z
            And what to do with the flow, and yet another keel under water ...

            Where do ordinary ships go?

            what is wrong with the keel?
            1. Starover_Z
              Starover_Z 8 December 2015 17: 44 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              at sea does the gravity vector change direction?

              The vector does not change, no matter how we discuss it here, but in such a dense and fluid medium, the action of the applied forces is specific. I did not ship, only express my point of view.
              Quote: Алексей_К
              There is no deep keel on modern ships.

              So interesting is the behavior of a vessel with such a "sailing" superstructure in a storm with a small keel.
              Actually, it seems that they wrote for this vessel that it is 2-keel ...
              How will it behave in a storm?
              1. Aleksey_K
                Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 20: 56 New
                +1
                Quote: Starover_Z
                Quote: Алексей_К
                There is no deep keel on modern ships.
                So interesting is the behavior of a vessel with such a "sailing" superstructure in a storm with a small keel.
                Actually, it seems that they wrote for this vessel that it is 2-keel ...
                How will it behave in a storm?

                These ships, of medieval times, conquered the seas and oceans for several centuries. They made great geographical discoveries, fought and didn’t drown just like that, remember that they were wooden, i.e. less durable compared to steel ships.
                Or do you not believe that such ships existed? But they did not turn over because the correctly calculated ballast in the hold on the bottom allowed them not to sink even in storms.
          2. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Starover_Z
            But still a keel under water ...

            This is not a yacht that requires a deep keel, and even with a counterweight, because there is a high mast with a sail, which is pressed by the wind and the yacht without a keel can roll over,. There is no deep keel on modern ships.
        3. kil 31
          kil 31 8 December 2015 11: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: Kil 31
          I have a question. Is it worth sacrificing sustainability

          There is no sustainability problem there

          and where to get it from. a pyramid is always more stable than a cube and a parallelepiped
          turn on your own brain sometimes

          Dear, I turn on my brain, so you read the article poorly.
          Earlier, the destroyer was criticized for instability, which, according to experts, was the result of "an unusual type of hull with a broken silhouette, reminiscent of old ships.
          Tell US experts about the pyramids.
          1. adept666
            adept666 8 December 2015 14: 11 New
            0
            Earlier, the destroyer was criticized for instability, which, according to experts, was the result of "an unusual type of hull with a broken silhouette, reminiscent of old ships.
            Are experts British scientists? smile
        4. Major_Vortex
          Major_Vortex 8 December 2015 11: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Quote: Kil 31
          I have a question. Is it worth sacrificing sustainability

          There is no sustainability problem there

          and where to get it from. a pyramid is always more stable than a cube and a parallelepiped
          turn on your own brain sometimes


          Stability with such contours is just not very. A typical victim of "stealth technology" (I'm talking about the ship).
          1. dauria
            dauria 8 December 2015 13: 07 New
            +1
            Stability at such contours is just not very


            Yes, nothing can be said about stability, without knowing how to assemble heavy units. Maybe "Vanka-vstanka" (toy-tumbler toy). And if there are problems, this is a "diving" of the nose at full speed with strong excitement. Although, there are no fools sitting, probably took into account. I was surprised by something else. destroyers formed as a class of universal cheap ships for air defense and anti-aircraft defense of other "troughs". And such a thing is a seductive goal itself, more expensive than those whom it protects.
      2. adept666
        adept666 8 December 2015 13: 57 New
        0
        I have a question. Should sustainability be sacrificed if radar generations change faster than building a ship?
        The ship had not yet had time to go to sea, but do you already know its stability and the fact that it is bad? smile Why do you think so?
        1. kil 31
          kil 31 8 December 2015 14: 38 New
          0
          Quote: adept666
          I have a question. Should sustainability be sacrificed if radar generations change faster than building a ship?
          The ship had not yet had time to go to sea, but do you already know its stability and the fact that it is bad? smile Why do you think so?

          Exactly, neither you nor I know anything about him. In this regard, I trust their experts, they know better than us.
          1. adept666
            adept666 8 December 2015 14: 55 New
            +1
            Exactly, neither you nor I know anything about him. In this regard, I trust their experts, they know better than us.
            Experts concept is extensible. We on REN TV also sit in all kinds of programs and Experts say such tales sometimes. Specifically, who is it desirable to speak with names?
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 8 December 2015 11: 11 New
    +3
    Looking at this photo and reading such news, one thought comes to mind - We would rather start building Leaders and Squalls.
    1. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 8 December 2015 12: 53 New
      +4
      Grandmas for project development and production development will be extracted from the air. -Where is the money, Billy ..? Do you know that the price per barrel has fallen sharply, and the ruble is firmly tied to this "trend" ..? As a result, the depreciation of the national currency and a decrease in the flow of foreign exchange earnings (in our economy designed for export). And this is with the sharply social nature of our domestic policy, when social guarantees do not allow a bold economic policy, because otherwise they will be swept away like Nikolashka and Gorbach. Leaders and Squalls --- Squalls and Leaders, Nexus, you liked the opening of the Olympics in Sochi how our leaders drowned in the light of the spotlights. Leader at a cost of many billions. And then there was a salute --- Urya, we won --- here you are Flurry.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 8 December 2015 13: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Grandmas for project development and production development will be extracted from the air. -Where is the money, Billy ..?

        Money must be sought from those stealing governors and Serdyukovs with Chubais, Harry! To calculate at least approximately how many our bureaucrats steal, I think that there’s more than one good aircraft carrier fleet. So I don’t have to “push” about the barrel and about the Olympics. this is the work of the prosecutor's office and related services.
        Tyagachev was such a citizen in the 90s. Didn’t you hear? So his American secret services recognized him as the most cost-effective spy in the history of espionage who sold the country. Thanks to this geek and his work, the Americans received materials on our friend or foe system, after which we in a hurry, I had to redo this system. And this is billions of dollars. And this is one of the episodes of this traitor. According to some reports, by his espionage he caused financial harm to the country in several hundred billion green wrappers. And he was not alone, there were others ( horse much less fortunate) .And this is counterintelligence, and of course intelligence.
        Best regards hi
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 December 2015 22: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          In the 90s there was such a citizen Tyagachev.

          Sorry, not Tyagachev, but Adolf Tolkachev hi
    2. adept666
      adept666 8 December 2015 14: 02 New
      +2
      Looking at this photo and reading such news, one thought comes to mind - We would rather start building Leaders and Squalls.
      This is an experienced ship and the big series will not likely be. Moreover, the two following from the first will differ in the materials of the superstructure (i.e., US shipbuilders are still in search of forms and ideas). And we would like to master the good frigates of the 22350 project with a serious series, so that all components are ours and of good quality and delivered by subcontractors on time (this is what the USA can envy for - logistics and production technologies, not DDG-1000). So far, we cannot really launch ships with a displacement of 4500 tons without a hitch, and you’re talking about destroyers of 12-15 thousand tons. That's when the project will take 22350-2,5 years from laying to be adopted by us at 3, and when there will be at least 12-16 of them in the fleet, then we can talk about some destroyers.
  • pts-m
    pts-m 8 December 2015 11: 11 New
    +1
    Successful immersion of this Yankiv “washing” machine! Without lifting to the surface.!
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 30 New
      +3
      It's okay, America will collapse very soon and the dollar will depreciate

      Putin announced the collapse of the global economy with the price of oil at 80 dollars (ASEM summit, Milan, 17.10.2014)
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 8 December 2015 12: 01 New
        +3
        Putin announced the collapse of the global economy at a price of oil at $ 80

        And this is so sideways to the American destroyer you respect so much.
        1. Banshee
          Banshee 8 December 2015 12: 42 New
          0
          It's kind of like sarcasm.
          1. rotmistr60
            rotmistr60 8 December 2015 13: 00 New
            0
            I understood sarcasm and the upholding of the American and the great too. It’s just that for them (a certain part of visitors) it has already become the norm in any case, but GDP must be mentioned with a subtle emphasis.
  • Frigate
    Frigate 8 December 2015 11: 11 New
    +8
    The newest destroyer of the USA has begun tests

    That he would count all reefs and shallows. ))))
  • Maxom75
    Maxom75 8 December 2015 11: 12 New
    +4
    The radio range is invisible, but in the thermal, and in the optical, but from the satellite? For that kind of money, it was possible to build three submarines and they are neither visible nor audible, and in terms of armament they are not much inferior. I don’t see any reason to swing into such projects, a lot of money is being spent, and if something is cut down and destroyed by electromagnetic radiation from nuclear weapons.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 8 December 2015 11: 29 New
      10
      Quote: Maxom75
      The radio range is invisible, but in the thermal, and in the optical, but from the satellite?


      From the satellite completely (in the picture). It’s another matter that, unlike in Soviet times, we don’t have satellites similar to the Soviet Legenda reconnaissance system, whose spacecraft tracked the movement of the American fleet in real time and could give target designation to Soviet anti-ship strike systems.
      1. Mareman Vasilich
        Mareman Vasilich 8 December 2015 11: 46 New
        10
        The device is serious, underestimating it is tantamount to stupidity and stupidity. Unfortunately, after the collapse of the USSR, promising military developments were completely degraded here. All that is is the legacy of the Soviet system. Catch up with a long and painful, and then not with the current system. In terms of quantity and quality, we are seriously inferior to the amers in the Navy and the Air Force. Shapkozakidatelstvo to good will not bring. But here, instead of seriously dealing with the country and its protection, they carry out desovetization and de-Stalinization. When officials and deputies with ministers think about their pockets in the first place, then there is no time to think about the country and its defenses.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: Maxom75
      but in the heat

      also smaller than other ships of a similar class
      Quote: Maxom75
      and in the optical

      it is unlikely that he will allow himself to admire himself with binoculars in the war zone
      Quote: Maxom75
      and from the satellite?

      experts say almost unseen

      he, due to the specific contours and the system of supplying air to the screws and the drive part, has an indistinguishable wake trace

      the main unmasking factor when observing a ship from orbit
      1. seregatara1969
        seregatara1969 8 December 2015 13: 48 New
        0
        the air at the screws will probably cause cavitation and noise in the water
    3. GRAY
      GRAY 8 December 2015 11: 56 New
      +7
      Quote: Maxom75
      Radio range he is invisible

      Why is he invisible? This ship is the size of the Titanic, its visibility is reduced but no more.
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 8 December 2015 12: 23 New
        +4
        If a resident of Wildwoods said invisible, then the Russians simply must not see him either through binoculars or on radar. Americans have always gravitated toward everything big that gives “strength” and inspires fear.
        1. Teplohod
          Teplohod 8 December 2015 13: 03 New
          +1
          to the invisible. it seems to me that they even chose the last President on this principle
  • kote119
    kote119 8 December 2015 11: 13 New
    +2
    the class is progressively impressive. It is bad that not our country displays such a ship.
  • nik39reg
    nik39reg 8 December 2015 11: 14 New
    0
    This .... belay Sailing add-on is impressive ... smile This, so to speak, "miracle" of Amer’s engineering is not afraid to roll upside down on a good wave?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 21 New
      +3
      Quote: nik39reg
      roll upside down on a good wave?

      15 thousand tons, height with a sixteen-story house

      the hippopotamus sees poorly, but this is not his problem (s)
      the analogy, I think, is clear. find such a wave

      1. ArcanAG
        ArcanAG 8 December 2015 11: 36 New
        +1
        A high wave is usually accompanied by a strong wind. High windage is not good.
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: ArcanAG
          A high wave is usually accompanied by a strong wind. High windage is not good.

          To a high wave, the ship almost always turns around with its bow. A high-storm storm is an element and ships, although they can fight in a storm, but in the majority they will simply fight for unsinkability and survival. You just can’t imagine how many failures of various mechanisms occur in a high-storm storm.
      2. nik39reg
        nik39reg 8 December 2015 15: 17 New
        0
        I agree if the hippo runs at you, and if in a tree? With this windage, in the event of a high-storm storm, until it turns across the wave .......
  • seos
    seos 8 December 2015 11: 14 New
    0
    2 towers on the bow with what guns?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 11: 22 New
      +6
      Quote: seos
      2 towers on the bow with what guns?

      155 mm, long-range
      in b / c there are guided shells


      Ammunition - 900 Shots
      guided missile shell with bottom gas generator (102 kg) - twice as heavy as conventional six-inch shells
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 32 New
      0
      Quote: seos
      2 towers on the bow with what guns?

      Retractable guns.
  • Tor5
    Tor5 8 December 2015 11: 14 New
    +4
    Well, if people managed to embody engineering achievements in metal, their honor and praise. Another question is where, against whom and, most importantly, WHO will decide how to apply this "metal".
  • protos187
    protos187 8 December 2015 11: 15 New
    -4
    Iron, he is an iron in Africa.
    1. rumiigo
      rumiigo 8 December 2015 11: 18 New
      -2
      More like a coffin
      1. nagel_Oz
        nagel_Oz 8 December 2015 11: 25 New
        -1
        Right! Such a dear, and at the bottom it will look epic ...
  • Taranchello
    Taranchello 8 December 2015 11: 16 New
    12
    I venture to run into cons, but 140 crew members on a 15000-ton destroyer are really impressive, and no matter what I say, I think that the ship will be brought to mind, although I would like for a completely different one ...
  • prabiz
    prabiz 8 December 2015 11: 18 New
    +2
    Actually it’s interesting to see what this shell can do?
  • Svarog5570
    Svarog5570 8 December 2015 11: 20 New
    +1
    the destroyer can be the same epic as the F-35, the main thing is that our developers implement their advanced technologies in domestic weapons on time.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 42 New
      0
      Quote: Svarog5570
      the destroyer can be the same epic as the F-35, the main thing is that our developers implement their advanced technologies in domestic weapons on time.

      Our fleet is seen by Russian shipbuilders in 2020 as follows:
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 8 December 2015 18: 39 New
        +1
        By 2040 I’m sooner, but for now we have no achievements in shipbuilding.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 8 December 2015 11: 22 New
    0
    Well, a rocket aboard, stranded under the keel, Khibiny over your head, Zamvolt
  • SmacXnumx
    SmacXnumx 8 December 2015 11: 28 New
    +1
    Kind of like a science fiction movie, but with the characteristics of how?
  • vadimtt
    vadimtt 8 December 2015 11: 30 New
    +1
    Why are you so jealous of this ship? In military terms, it does not represent any value, from the word at all. And as a laboratory, it’s quite good for itself, in fact, this is what serialization and cost say.
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 8 December 2015 12: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: vadimtt
      Why are you so jealous of this ship? In military terms, it does not represent any value, from the word at all. And as a laboratory, it’s quite good for itself, in fact, this is what serialization and cost say.

      Squadron destroyers of the Zamvolt type are a new type of destroyer destroyers with missile weapons, with emphasis on coastal and ground attack. The first destroyer launched on October 29 2013 of the year. The destroyers of this series are multi-purpose and are designed to attack the enemy on the coast, combat enemy aircraft and fire support of troops from the sea.
      Armament:
      Radar weapons - AN / SPY-3;
      Tactical strike weapons - 80 Tomahawk missiles;
      Artillery - 2 × 155-mm AU AGS (920 shots, of which 600 in automatic loaders):
      Anti-aircraft artillery - 2 × 57-mm AU Mk. 110;
      Missile weapons - RIM-162 ESSM;
      Anti-submarine weapons- RUM-139 VL-Asroc;
      Aviation group - 1 × helicopter SH-60 LAMPS, 3 × UAV MQ-8 Fire Scout.
      1. vadimtt
        vadimtt 8 December 2015 15: 56 New
        0
        You forgot to add the cost to the list of TTX. Crystal gun, alas.
        And 80 cells per 15000 tons versus 96 cells per 10000 tons at ArlyBerk?
        Just an expensive experiment. IMHO of course, because it’s never naval.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 8 December 2015 18: 41 New
          0
          And who said that there are 80 cells for cruise missiles.
          1. vadimtt
            vadimtt 9 December 2015 09: 32 New
            0
            As far as I understand, both there and there are universal cells. Instead of one cruise missile, either one long-range air defense / missile defense system or 4 medium-range air defense systems are installed.
  • Mihalich17
    Mihalich17 8 December 2015 11: 31 New
    +3
    As one wise and old friend used to say:
    "The higher the" crap "above sea level, the faster it goes to the bottom!"
    And this is a straight pyramid tower!)))
  • zllllo
    zllllo 8 December 2015 11: 35 New
    0
    140 crew members, in 10 commandos you can capture him ?!
    1. Kyrgyz
      Kyrgyz 8 December 2015 17: 31 New
      0
      Quote: zllllo
      140 crew members, in 10 commandos you can capture him ?!

      If they can penetrate undetected and know the internal layout, you can try, but this is not feasible in the raid and it’s easier to launch in the port
  • Gavril
    Gavril 8 December 2015 11: 38 New
    +7
    Reading the comments of some comrades, I would like to ask what size cap to throw?
  • GAF
    GAF 8 December 2015 11: 39 New
    0
    "... and is intended both for fighting against enemy ground forces and for fire support from the sea and ..."
    So is it an amphibian or something. And to what depth of land it can penetrate for this fight, if the fire support from the sea is not enough.
  • vonWolfenstein
    vonWolfenstein 8 December 2015 11: 43 New
    +6
    A bit reminiscent of the Confederate battleship Merrimack
  • Manager
    Manager 8 December 2015 11: 47 New
    0
    Handsome, you can’t say anything!
    God forbid we should even build shipyards, on which it will be possible to build such ships. And then all boats and boats ...
  • Kibl
    Kibl 8 December 2015 11: 48 New
    0
    Iron, of course, it will be inconspicuous if it lies at the bottom!
    1. cniza
      cniza 8 December 2015 11: 57 New
      +4
      Quote: KIBL
      Iron, of course, it will be inconspicuous if it lies at the bottom!



      You also need to understand how to move it there.
      1. Manager
        Manager 8 December 2015 14: 55 New
        0
        They will say that the cruiser Moscow will tear it to pieces)))))
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Namba Six
    Namba Six 8 December 2015 12: 04 New
    +2
    Quote: I am Groot
    you cannot hide from the caliber and the flurry

    The flurry range is 12-13 km, try to approach this distance. And coming up, get in - this missile launcher lacks the possibility of homing (high-speed costs). And are these wunderwaffles in service at the moment?
    And the caliber will be brought down by the SM-6, with which it is planned to replace the obsolete SM of the previous series in 2016. At the exercises in 2014, the “six” (with the GSN from the PBM aim-120) was hit by a supersonic low-flying simulator. 1 target - 1 rocket. How many of these destroyers can Zamvolt carry?
    1. Doomph
      Doomph 8 December 2015 12: 22 New
      0
      http://td-41.livejournal.com/216644.html - первое, что выплыло в сети. Так что на 7км. подойти к амерскому ордеру думаю будет сложно, но возможно.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 8 December 2015 12: 06 New
    0
    anti-aircraft guns never installed
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 16: 35 New
      0
      bet on active remedies)))
  • TOR2
    TOR2 8 December 2015 12: 08 New
    +1
    At one time when the F-117 was being developed, the geometry of the body was sacrificed for the sake of invisibility. Flight performance worsened, and the myth of invisibility dispelled our old complex. Time will tell how viable the project is.
  • LINKor55
    LINKor55 8 December 2015 12: 11 New
    0
    Invisibility - only lateral? From above it is visible and not masked by anything.
    Excessive reliance on electronics - even if a projectile with an electro-magnetic impulse NEARS NEAR, then weapons and smart shells will become useless scrap.
    As for buoyancy, I think the Americans have relied again on electronics: additional ballast, calculation of the trajectory of movement.
    I agree with the opinion that this toy is from the category of F-35 or Valkyrie.
    If we take into account that modern conflicts are mainly resolved by aviation (and not by tanks and ships, although it is also impossible without them), then as they say, I don’t care from which side he has panama.
  • guzik007
    guzik007 8 December 2015 12: 12 New
    -1
    I can’t say anything, but I ran over the minus plus, replaced :-)
  • salad
    salad 8 December 2015 13: 11 New
    0
    This vryatli will turn over, the trash of the 70s is lined with plywood and is well painted laughing inside the slaves they turn the screws on the principle of a bicycle chain with pedals, so his footprint is not visible, but in general it looks like an inflatable boat, drive fishing laughing
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 8 December 2015 13: 21 New
    0
    All operate with some kind of interest, not understandable approximate amounts, different numbers there, which each turns in its own direction. For so long, spears have been breaking, that it would be easier to calculate the real project in real amounts and make a plate from which everything would be simple and clear, and simply send all consonants-dissenters to it.
    SW author, take a typical design of a modern ship, for example, the same Burke. Based on it, make a sketch of the armored destroyer with the same armament and speed, and the comparative costs and the effects obtained will immediately be clear, otherwise an unproven transfusion from empty to empty is obtained.
    I believe that it’s possible and necessary to build well-armored ships, there’s no point in just making them less than 20.000 tons.
  • dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 8 December 2015 13: 22 New
    -1
    A beautiful bird flies beautifully! This ship, just a natural ship's perversion. For the sake of stealth, so go into ugliness, because ultimately it will not help him at all.
  • Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 8 December 2015 13: 35 New
    0
    Quote: cniza
    The fact that the ship is of genuine interest, of course, and I really want to understand how we will respond? ... "anti-ship" or a ship of a class higher?


    A ship a class higher is unlikely, there are no means, no opportunities, no scientific foundation for this. Rather, a “counter-scramble” in this area is still not collapsed, although the lack of personnel is already strongly felt.
  • Conscience
    Conscience 8 December 2015 13: 47 New
    0
    if everything is tight - you can immerse yourself in water laughing
  • dzvero
    dzvero 8 December 2015 14: 36 New
    0
    As a technology demonstrator and experimental platform, the ship was undoubtedly a success.
    But, reading about weapons and scope, I can’t understand what is its superiority over similar ships and especially over multi-purpose submarines? Is this one of the reasons for the sharp reduction in the series from thirty to three?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 December 2015 15: 01 New
      0
      He has long-range artillery. A shot is much cheaper than
      a missile shot from a submarine, and much more ammunition.
      But the sharp benefit will be only when the guns become
      electric (railgun). To do this at
      a powerful power plant is envisioned.
      1. ZAV69
        ZAV69 8 December 2015 18: 44 New
        0
        At such distances at which it is stated in terms of the use of the reb, the percentage of hit will be like under Jutland. And to them the railgun as far as the moon
  • lunoxod
    lunoxod 8 December 2015 15: 10 New
    0
    All pr waves and about the wind. And as with the ice guys. Will it go under the ice?
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 8 December 2015 16: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: lunoxod
      Will it go under the ice?

      where did you see ice in the atlantic, pacific and indian oceans
      1. lunoxod
        lunoxod 8 December 2015 16: 38 New
        0
        As the Arctic, and they hope to capture us.
        1. kote119
          kote119 8 December 2015 16: 57 New
          -1
          and our ships in the Arctic that go to the icebreakers are similar?
        2. Kyrgyz
          Kyrgyz 8 December 2015 17: 36 New
          0
          Quote: lunoxod
          As the Arctic, and they hope to capture us.

          They only burn us into nuclear ashes, they understand this, and it will be the warm seas of Asia
  • Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 8 December 2015 17: 23 New
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    Grandmas for project development and production development will be extracted from the air. -Where is the money, Billy ..?

    Money must be sought from those stealing governors and Serdyukovs with Chubais, Harry! To calculate at least approximately how many our bureaucrats steal, I think that there’s more than one good aircraft carrier fleet. So I don’t have to “push” about the barrel and about the Olympics. this is the work of the prosecutor's office and related services.
    Tyagachev was such a citizen in the 90s. Didn’t you hear? So his American secret services recognized him as the most cost-effective spy in the history of espionage who sold the country. Thanks to this geek and his work, the Americans received materials on our friend or foe system, after which we in a hurry, I had to redo this system. And this is billions of dollars. And this is one of the episodes of this traitor. According to some reports, by his espionage he caused financial harm to the country in several hundred billion green wrappers. And he was not alone, there were others ( horse much less fortunate) .And this is counterintelligence, and of course intelligence.
    Best regards hi

    You need to earn money and protect against repeated thefts, but there is nothing to look for, everything is washed there and taken to a safe place, except to find and see.
  • theadenter
    theadenter 8 December 2015 17: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Anton Gavrilov
    A new word of technology, comrades really move military affairs forward.

    This is when they managed to become comrades for us? what
  • gammipapa
    gammipapa 8 December 2015 20: 37 New
    0
    Well guess what? , while nothing special is known.
    But it’s well known about the miracle of engineering, the invisible plane, the super duper the latest developments of the F-35. How was they admired (how much dough was ditched) and what? Yes, no ice already, no one is in a hurry to buy, and Americans are no longer enthusiastic.
    Wait and see .
    My opinion is that radars will still see it from far away, but the payload on the deck with such forms is many times less.