Military Review

Ocean B-2. First steps of Zamvolta

256



From the bridge, commanding “Full speed ahead!”, The mechanic standing on the lower deck increases the speed of the turbine. Where to go? Which enemy? He still does not see anything except the steering wheel control steam. Most of the team members are silent cogs in the system, their participation in the battle is limited to the transfer of commands from the bridge to the machines and mechanisms. And then what?

“After 54 minutes of battle on the cruiser, a battle exploded, and he died along with the entire command: 919 man.”

Why risk life? Is it possible to transfer many functions to automation, leaving people with only the most important tasks of controlling the ship and selecting targets in battle?

So argued at the beginning of the last century, but then it seemed an impossible dream. Today it is becoming a reality. The crew of the largest and most modern destroyer in the world has been reduced by three times compared with the crews of ships of a similar class of the Cold War era.

A team of 15 people is enough to control the 140 thousand ton "destroyer" with powerful and diverse weapons. (according to other data, 180).

The breakthrough is associated with the integrated automation of the tasks of collecting and processing tactical information, combat maneuvering, reproducing the external environment, weapons, navigation, remote control of technical means and movement. The second critical point is the increase in the turnaround time of all mechanisms, systems and equipment. The crew of “Zamvolta” is free from the need for repairs in the open sea. No workshops, teams of masters and electricians. All maintenance will be performed only in the database - before and after the end of the hike. Finally, another serious point that nobody paid attention to before was the automation of loading processes of ammunition, food, spare parts and consumables in preparation for the march.

The race to reduce the crew has its negative side. Will the Zamvolta crew be able to organize a struggle for survivability in case of an emergency situation on board? Who will eliminate the consequences of the accident if, even without that, a small team, suddenly lose part of their sailors?

And once again comes to the aid of complex automation destroyer. Automatic survival control systems with monitoring of the situation in each of the compartments (water and smoke sensors, video cameras). Capable of automatically locking hatches and doors, preventing the spread of water and fire. Include fire extinguishing systems and start pumps for pumping water.

But what if the damage is too great? Will Zamvolt be able to return to the base on their own, as did the heavily damaged New Orleans and the German LCR “Seidlitz”? Where the mechanics died, standing up to the waist in boiling water, ensuring the work of the turbines. And the crew who did not sleep for four days struggled with the flow of water.



All the hope of the creators of Zamvolta is the SAFFiR complex (Shipboard Autonomous Firefighting Robot) and similar systems. In the summer of 2014, the robot successfully coped with a test arson aboard the landing ship Shadwell. With the growth of 177 cm and weight 65 kg SAFFiR had enough strength and intelligence to haul the fire hose, to overcome the debris and open the doors. In addition to the smoke detector, the android is equipped with infrared stereo sensors and a rotating laser range finder (lidar), which detects light sources. Thanks to this, the machine can move even in smoke-filled rooms, and the stabilization system allows it to maintain balance even with heavy rolling. The “humanlike” form of the android is a consequence of the working conditions. Tracked platform is not optimal when moving along steep ladders and narrow passages inside the ship.

Seaworthiness
“Well, stupid ones”
- classic


“Nose in the wave”? .. Contrary to doubts skeptics, “Zamvolt” is designed to pass through the water walls, cutting them with his sharp inclined stem. As a result:

a) parasitic pitching disappears;
b) speed increases and improved seaworthiness;
c) the range of restrictions on the use of weapons in a storm is reduced;
d) profitability increases - it is easier to pass through the wave than to climb it every time.

In terms of seaworthiness, Zamvolt is an ideal ship.

Why so smart? Why such a good and obvious solution has not yet been applied to other ships?

Ships of past generations have traditionally had a direct or impending stem and camber. Due to this, their decks are less flooded with water, allowing brave sailors to be on the upper deck and look at the sights of guns.



Zamvolt does not have this problem: the deck is completely empty, there is even no fencing in the bow section. Only hermetic UVP covers and folding automatic 155 guns. All radar antenna posts and fire controls are mounted on top of the superstructure, as high as an 9-storey building.



Hippo sees poorly, but this is not his problem (s). Show a wave that can overwhelm an 180-meter ship with an 15 flange height. And even if the small 300-ton destroyers of the Russian-Japanese war could bypass the globe without losses, what to expect from the 15-thousand. ton leviathan?

Approximately from the same series doubts about the insufficient stability of “Zamvolt”.

V-shape of the underwater part of the hull corresponds to ordinary ships. At the same time, the ᴧ-shape of the surface part and the superstructure does not violate the stability of the destroyer. Due to its pyramidal shape and littered sides, the Zamvolta structure is maximally concentrated around the center of mass, which, in turn, only increases its stability.

Turbo electric transmission

Turbo-electric transmission was used at the beginning of the last century on many types of military and civilian ships, incl. aircraft carrier “Lexington” and battleships of the type “Colorado”. It eliminates the need for complex and noisy gearboxes (GTZA), simultaneously contributing to an increase in efficiency. And, at the same time, increasing the cost of the entire system.

Conceptually, the Zamvolta transmission is not new, but impressive in terms of its technical performance.

The most powerful shipboard GTE Rolls-Royce MT-30 (up to 40 MW). Each of the two turbines “Zamvolta” produces twice as much power as the entire power plant of the battleship “Colorado”!

But the main feature of the power plant is its full integration into the destroyer power supply system. This allows for a few moments to redirect up to 80% of the generated power to one specific consumer (for example, railgun).

Stealth

Characteristic obstruction of the sides (reflection of radio waves upwards, into the void), a continuous superstructure “from side to side”, empty deck with a minimum number of radio contrast elements. All of the above elements of reducing visibility are already 20 years used in shipbuilding.


Russian frigate “Admiral Grigorovich”


The only thing that distinguishes the “Zamvolt” - in its design techniques for reducing visibility reached its apogee. How does this affect his combat capabilities. At a minimum, does not make the destroyer weaker. Ideally, it will make it difficult to capture homing missiles, especially in conditions of strong excitement.

How does this affect seaworthiness? The answer is no way. Details in the previous chapter.

Radiolocation - the main method of detection in modern warfare. Nevertheless, the creators of “Zamvolta” took care of reducing the visibility of the ship in other ranges.

Infrared: long-known solution, mixing turbine exhaust with cold air.

Acoustic: low noise transmission, propellers in ring nozzles (fenestron).

Optical: shapes of the contours in the underwater part of the hull, together with the long-used MASKER system (supply of air bubbles to the screws and the underwater part of the hull). The creators of “Zamvolta” promise that the destroyer will have a short and weakly pronounced wake trail - the main unmasking element when ships are detected from space.

Armed and extremely dangerous

The 155 shot of mm of the Zamvolt is twice as heavy as the shells of the usual six-inch (102 vs. 55 kg). Due to its unique abilities, a guided munition with a bottom gas generator can be considered the equivalent of a Caliber / Tomahawk cruise missile.

The “Caliber” data is classified, while the “Tomahawk” is equipped with an 340-kg warhead. Despite the threefold difference in the mass of the warhead and 10 times shorter range, 155 mm LRLAP projectile, in some situations, can be a direct replacement for SLCM.



First, art. The projectile has its strengths: minimum reaction time and high flight speed (2,5 sound speed versus subsonic rocket). Small size and high speed make the projectile unresponsive to enemy air defense systems. Also, the shells can fly under any visibility and weather conditions. At the same time, even the most high-tech LRLAP costs less than a cruise missile at 10. Savings and efficiency.

Rate of fire. Even a whole mix of Aegis destroyers will not be able to launch “Tomahawks” with the pace of 20 rockets per minute. A gun "Zamvolta" can.

And, of course, ammunition - 900 shots. 10 times more than the number of cruise missiles on board any cruiser or destroyer. And for a snack - another 80 rocket launchers.

Fighting near the coast does not require very large ranges. A third of the world's population lives in a coastal strip 50 km wide. More than half of megacities of the whole world are concentrated on the coast: Istanbul, New York, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo ...

While it is more than enough the power of 102-kg art. To defeat a wide range of sea and land targets. shells.

In existing realities, if the Yankees have fleet out of 60 missile destroyers, the appearance of 2-3 “Zamvolty” weather will not do. The missile and artillery destroyer can be seen as a technology demonstrator.

And yet, with all the evidence of the situation, it would be too naive to consider the Zamvolts to be peaceful floating laboratories. When compared under the conditions of a “spherical vacuum,” such a destroyer alone is stronger than most fleets in the world.

It remains to add that 7 December 2015, the lead destroyer of the USS Zumwalt entered sea trials in the Atlantic Ocean.

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Griboedoff
    Griboedoff 11 December 2015 06: 14 New
    22
    To a big ship - a big torpedo!
    Campaign unnecessary negation in the text:
    "Tracked platform is NOT optimal"
    1. qwert
      qwert 11 December 2015 07: 04 New
      24
      “Nose bursts into a wave” ...? Contrary to skeptics' doubts, Zamvolt is designed to pass through water shafts, cutting them with its sharp inclined stem. As a result:

      A) parasitic keel pitching disappears;
      B) increases speed and improves seaworthiness;
      C) the range of restrictions on the use of weapons in a storm is reduced;
      D) increased efficiency - it’s easier to go through the wave than to climb it every time "

      Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ???? And even the era of armadillos did not make them smarter, until geniuses who realized that the bow of the ship had to be tilted in the other direction appeared in the USA? What doesn’t happen in this world wassat
      1. Santa Fe
        11 December 2015 07: 10 New
        12
        Quote: qwert
        Those. has humanity been stupid for three thousand years?

        For three thousand years, sailors were on the upper deck.

        Only now, with the advent of automation, it became possible to control the ship and weapons without climbing to the deck. And yes, such a solution was occasionally applied where flooding the deck was unprincipled. For example - destroyers of the Russian-Japanese war era. In armadillos, this, by the way, was also encountered.

        And here’s the good soundtrack for the article -
        1. Andrey Skokovsky
          Andrey Skokovsky 11 December 2015 08: 00 New
          +6
          The US built Aurora
          the previous one was bouncing along its own in 17 years after launching,
          Now time is more dynamic - it should be soon.
          wait when it shoots .....
          1. Lord of Wrath
            Lord of Wrath 11 December 2015 08: 54 New
            12
            Personally, I really like the boat. Handsome man
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 11 December 2015 09: 08 New
              +2
              Quote: Lord of Wrath
              Personally, I really like the boat. Handsome man


              Outwardly, nothing like that. Stuffy filling
              1. Throw
                Throw 11 December 2015 12: 05 New
                +7
                Brutal ironing, but handsome on the go! fellow

                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 11 December 2015 13: 21 New
                  +4
                  Of course, I’m a complete ignoramus in the maritime industry, but in the second video it seemed to me that the wake of Zamvolt is not so small.
                  Is there anyone on the forum who can comment on this?
                  1. Throw
                    Throw 11 December 2015 13: 34 New
                    +5
                    Nothing to comment yet:
                    1. The wake must be viewed from a great height
                    2. It is not known whether the air discharge system under the housing is turned on.
                    1. Darkmor
                      Darkmor 11 December 2015 14: 37 New
                      13
                      Not impressive.

                      I don’t understand why everyone is babysitting with these radio-reflecting structures?
                      Everything should be in moderation - it is one thing to straighten the contours of the ship for less noticeability, it is another thing to straighten the entire ship to achieve the desired contours. Zwolvt, a vivid example of the latter approach. Do you know who else was a prime example, though in a different element? F117. He was a flying iron, and this one is floating.
                      And you know, I remember publications about the invisible plane. And I remember the praises ... exactly the same as they sang for free now. Although he has problems - a wagon and a small cart.
                      I’m just wondering - if in 10 years a new generation of anti-ship missiles will use (and IT WILL) new principles of capture and guidance, what to do with irons? Even the change and strengthening of the radar, which will undoubtedly happen, will make the "almost invisible" now locked up very visible.
                      To make a destroyer protected from missiles of the previous generation is characteristic of the USA, fighting with the "Papuans".
                      And I sincerely hope that we do not follow their path. Although, no doubt, research is necessary.
                      1. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 11 December 2015 15: 07 New
                        15
                        Quote: Darkmor
                        F117. He was a flying iron, and this one is floating.

                        For the sake of justice, it is worth saying that after the F-117 they made a much better F-22 (despite the high cost and other shortcomings).
                        And as for Zamvolt, is this essentially a test of the pen, an attempt to create a new look for NK, will it fail? Maybe there may be flaws that can be fixed without major design changes, or maybe you have to redo everything.
                        Here we must wait for the results of all his tests, boring, but otherwise nothing.
                      2. gladcu2
                        gladcu2 12 December 2015 21: 07 New
                        0
                        Darkmor

                        Do not find a black man in a dark room, especially if he is not there.

                        The shape of the ship corresponds to the general concept of seaworthiness and anti-radar invisibility. It does not interfere.
                      3. dauria
                        dauria 13 December 2015 13: 43 New
                        0
                        The shape of the ship corresponds to the general concept of seaworthiness and anti-radar invisibility.


                        the left above the radar antenna and the "new" guns have air defense. The right one has better seaworthiness, "invisibility", but very low and weak radar and cruise missiles and dubious air defense ...
                        Decided to bring each other closer? In general, the shape is interesting, and the nasal wave is not noticeable.
                      4. Aqela
                        Aqela 19 December 2015 08: 21 New
                        0
                        I think that at a computer demonstration (on the left) it was lazy to draw all kinds of waves and breakers there ...
                  2. mojohed2012
                    mojohed2012 15 December 2015 22: 56 New
                    0
                    Then the irons will make Auroras and open museums in them.
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 11 December 2015 15: 04 New
                  0
                  Quote: Lance
                  Nothing to comment yet:

                  Thanks for the answer hi
                  As for the wake length, in principle, I wanted to know, among other things, how long it should be (minimum) in order to be clearly visible from space?
                  1. Throw
                    Throw 12 December 2015 01: 39 New
                    +5
                    The question is more correct - how long the wake trail lasts after the passage. Emnip, after the passage of a heavy vessel such as a tanker or aircraft carrier in the middle course of the CS, it lasts almost a day.

                    KS is a combination of: turbulent inhomogeneities in water, microbubbles of gases, temperature.

                    The ability to detect CS from a satellite depends on:
                    - resolution and sensitivity of the optical and infrared equipment of the satellite,
                    -height of the orbit
                    -conditions of the atmosphere and ocean,
                    therefore, there can be no single answer.
                    If interested, a lot has been written on this topic in tyrnet. hi
                3. lelikas
                  lelikas 11 December 2015 15: 05 New
                  -5
                  The article could immediately be entitled - goodbye Zamvolt, they repeated the fate, almost all wunderwaffles (V-2 didn’t fly here and there) - limited edition, simplification of subsequent and after several years of trial operation - auctioning ....
                  1. Bayonet
                    Bayonet 11 December 2015 17: 13 New
                    +6
                    Quote: lelikas
                    (V-2 didn’t fly here and there) -Limited release, simplification of subsequent and after several years of trial operation - auction sale ....

                    Currently, out of 21 B-2 aircraft, 16 are in service, four are used as training and one (AV-1), as a flying laboratory for testing high-precision weapons systems planned for adoption. Yes, the plane is very expensive and released in small series, but what kind of "auction" are we talking about? request
                  2. lelikas
                    lelikas 12 December 2015 15: 49 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Bayonet
                    Currently, out of 21 B-2 aircraft, 16 are in service, four are used as training and one (AV-1), as a flying laboratory for testing high-precision weapons systems planned for adoption. Yes, the plane is very expensive and released in small series, but what kind of "auction" are we talking about?

                    If you re-read, carefully, what is written above, then there it is that B-2 is an “accomplished” project, albeit a small-scale project, and Zumvlt has already been cut in the bud. Auction - such - http://aviaforum.ru/threads/ne-tolko-my-pilim-lun-sea-shadow-pechalnyj-konec.358
                    46 /
              2. spravochnik
                spravochnik 11 December 2015 17: 31 New
                +5
                The MASKER system has nothing to do with the wake trail. It serves to reduce underwater noise and therefore does not affect the visibility of the wake trace.
            2. guzik007
              guzik007 11 December 2015 13: 38 New
              -7
              Of course, I’m a complete ignoramus in the maritime industry, but in the second video it seemed to me that the wake of Zamvolt is not so small.
              -------------------------------------------------- -
              Actually, if my memory serves me, the boat is made according to the catamaran scheme, hence the width.
              1. Throw
                Throw 11 December 2015 13: 57 New
                +6
                Yeah, and the second hull of the catamaran is made on technology "full stealth"
                wassat
              2. Albert1988
                Albert1988 11 December 2015 15: 01 New
                +1
                Quote: guzik007
                Actually, if my memory serves me, the boat is made according to the catamaran scheme, hence the width.

                Unfortunately, you are mistaken — Zamvolt has an ordinary hull, a “multi-hull” (trimaran) —Amer’s only almost completely failed “littoral” ship is a kind of universal transformer ship for coastal defenses.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 12 December 2015 00: 11 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Albert1988
                  Unfortunately, you are mistaken ... the "multi-hull" (trimaran) is for Amers only the almost completely failed "littoral" ship - a kind of universal transformer ship for coastal defense.

                  Unfortunately, yes - To attack the shore of the enemy. Most of the LCS ship was made to accommodate two helicopters with a hangar and a platform for them and amphibious landing means through the aft ramp.
                  capabilities of a small assault transport, including a flight deck and hangar for housing two SH-60 or MH-60 Seahawk helicopters, a stern ramp for operating small boats, and the cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on / roll-off port facility. Standard armaments include Mk 110 57 mm guns and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles. They are also equipped with autonomous air, surface, and underwater vehicles.
                  Air defense is weak but covered by its aircraft. In fact, this is a seaworthy mini-UDC which, if gouged, is not so great a loss.
                  The concept is close to optimal for the transfer of light forces (but there is no nasal ramp). The size and amphibiousness was no more than it was in the USSR before Khrushchev, in which the same pests as he began to collect all the troops as in “Armenia” under one bomb.
                  It can also take V-22 convertibles, SQUWP Harrier and F-35.

                  The usual large UDCs were made by the Americans during the Cold War not really for litoral combat, but in order to transport equipment for their troops across the Atlantic, and to unload anywhere on the unequipped coast after the Soviet Union destroyed nuclear or mined European ports . Some kind of small “attacking” and not only transport component they appeared only with the advent of LCAC.
                  They probably will fail the LCS project so that the Chinese do not copy it and do not pose a usual non-nuclear threat to their continent.
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 12 December 2015 19: 07 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  LCS project, they may really fail so that the Chinese do not copy it

                  And why should the project fail? It is enough just not to give the Chinese access to materials, without clear technical information, the Chinese can not copy anything yet, since even their new developments are still a compilation of something already known and acquired / stolen from others, including ours.
                  And the littoral failed because the banal cost is too high, and the efficiency (which was shown in tests) is too low, and still worse than with the F-35.
                3. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 12 December 2015 23: 30 New
                  -1
                  Then, so that they would not like the example, and they would not come to them on it, just as they would not fly on the J-26.
                  This is the opposite of the American analogue of the DF-21, and the United States copied its F-35 (like much more) from the USSR.
                4. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 13 December 2015 13: 26 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  Then, so that they don’t like the example, and they don’t come to them,

                  Strange logic - in your opinion, if we do not want a potential adversary to steal something from us, do we ourselves have to give it up? In the USSR, secrecy was respected for this.
                  And then - the Chinese are pragmatic, they won’t copy such garbage as the Amer’s "littoral", because the design was so unsuccessful that it’s just that all the characteristics do not fully correspond to the declared ones (much lower), and the Chinese will not be able to "come" to such an Amer - the range of such a boat will be small. They are now tuned to creating powerful oceanic ACGs, and therefore they are developing and building aircraft carriers and large destroyers, and everywhere they apply schemes already worked out by someone and repeat such “shush-shiff” with extremely doubtful effectiveness, but they are unlikely to become of great cost, unless what the couple will do for testing.
                  As for the J-26, then the Amers have nothing to worry about - the Chinese can’t even do a “simple” turbojet normally and buy from us, what can we say about special engines for vertical bars?
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  This is the opposite of the American counterpart DF-21 no

                  That's right - it was made to defeat aircraft carriers, but now tell me. who apart from amers have powerful aircraft carrier formations? That's right - no one, for England and France are puppets of the United States, and Russia, China and India have only one aircraft carrier each, and then we have the Su-1, which are essentially interceptors, that is, Kuzya is a ship Air defense, not shock. And then the amers have so many military bases and such a number of ships that at the moment, only submarines can approach their shores, then the logical question is why develop a land-based BR to defeat enemy ships, if there is a cloud of means in the form of carrier-based aircraft and destroyers with anti-ship missiles, and the enemy will not break through to their shores?
                5. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 16 December 2015 05: 04 New
                  -2
                  At least they “understood” that he was for attacking the enemy’s shore and not for patrolling his own, as they had “thought” before?

                  Where is LCS small? In extreme cases, are there tankers in the fleet, or have they been canceled again?
                  Americans have long been worried about the J-11. laughing
                  She (DF-21) anything you want can amaze ... repeat Amers simply have no analogues. They bought the special engine and the vertical line from us. And officially ordered the service for its alteration in the F-35. AUGs with the advent of supersonic SCVVP are no longer needed by anyone.
                  Su-33 is not an interceptor. The interceptor is a MiG-25, which can also be a reconnaissance bomber. Besides all this kit, the Su-33 is also the best fighter for conquering air superiority (after the Su-35) at the moment.
                  Missed nothing out?
                  Almost all American planes are generally universal in terms of goals, and our Air Force bypassed such versatility in a strange way, or rather with your concerns, lol
                6. Aqela
                  Aqela 19 December 2015 08: 26 New
                  0
                  I think China also has no need to replace blacks with androids - its Chinese people with a diet of 2 cups of rice per day will come out more reliable and cheaper wink
      2. Arseny
        Arseny 11 December 2015 20: 17 New
        -5
        The trace seems to be smaller, but I do not think this is critical. I don’t really understand why everyone was attached to this trail. Such a ship will really be less noticeable, but I don’t see any problems either. Navigation works - yes, it means there are no problems detecting and classifying the target. And considering that everything is located at him and works inside the building and he actually can’t go blindly, for what I didn’t understand the kitchen garden. Comparing shells and missiles is stupid. These are two different things. Outwardly, the ship is ugly. Compare with our ships and everything will become clear. A small crew is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it’s good, on the other, the Su 24 (70 years old) will fly with Khibin on board and knock out all the electronics (as with Cook) to hell. Remember how in Yugoslavia a plane was shot down by the stealth Stealth -F 117 of the Soviet SUCHER from 125. So the sea will show what and how. Of the benefits, it’s like good guns and missiles to fig. And so what is a hybrid of a surface ship and a submarine.
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 11 December 2015 20: 54 New
          +3
          Quote: Arseny
          Outwardly, the ship is ugly. Compare with our ships and everything will become clear.

          Well, about beauty, I would argue with you - the appearance of any combat vehicle (including the ship) is dictated by technical necessity, the main thing is that the product can fulfill the tasks assigned to it, and how it looks is the tenth thing. Although to me personally his appearance seems very interesting and exotic, but not ugly in any way - in some ways it resembles old battleships. As for our ships (I mean Atlantes, eagles and various UAVs of Soviet construction), they have a very characteristic “style” (predatory nose, general shape of add-ons) which makes them beautiful, but I think that when they were designed, then cared about functionality, not beauty.
          For everything else - only time will tell)))
        2. Aqela
          Aqela 19 December 2015 08: 29 New
          0
          Well, I think that the BT-7 will be more beautiful than the M1 Abrams love but the fighting qualities are worse, and much worse ... request crying
  2. spravochnik
    spravochnik 11 December 2015 17: 14 New
    0
    The MASKER system has nothing to do with the wake trail. It serves to reduce underwater noise, so it does not affect the visibility of the wake track.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 December 2015 01: 45 New
      -1
      The speed increases, "lubricating" the bubbles with the hull like a torpedo. With cavitation on the screws, the opposite is true.
  • xan
    xan 11 December 2015 14: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Lord of Wrath
    Personally, I really like the boat. Handsome man

    Impressive! But how about cost / performance?
    Yes, and stealth is certainly good, but to pay a lot of money for it, hoping that the ship will not be found, and to use it on the basis of this hope is certainly not good. And what will happen if ours creates a cunning locator thousands of times cheaper than all this stealth?
  • mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 15 December 2015 22: 54 New
    +1
    you need to put it near the statue of liberty in the bay as a monument to the "revolution in shipbuilding" and let tourists there for money. And so, Aurora is.
  • Lord of Wrath
    Lord of Wrath 11 December 2015 08: 51 New
    +5
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    such a solution was rarely applied where deck flooding was unprincipled. For example - destroyers of the Russian-Japanese war era. In armadillos, this, by the way, was also encountered.

    It met, but for a completely different reason. Nose Shape - Ram
  • Serg65
    Serg65 11 December 2015 10: 05 New
    +9
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    deck flooding was unprincipled

    Oleg, a little advice, try someday happiness to be on the ship, while he is getting his nose into the wave! Believe me, an unforgettable experience especially when you visually see a longitudinal deformation of the body !!
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 10: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      try someday happiness to be on the ship, while he is getting his nose into the wave! Believe me, an unforgettable experience especially when you visually see a longitudinal deformation of the body !!

      noisy cotton with an unusually high height spray fountain

      Of course, this is possible only with a small wave. With strong excitement, the ship overcomes water shafts due to its buoyancy

      everything written is true only for ships with a traditional hull form. you won’t see such a fountain at the zamvolt, there is different mechanics and the direction of water flows
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 11 December 2015 10: 29 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        . you won’t see such a fountain at the zamvolt, there is different mechanics and the direction of water flows

        laughing Well, well, time will tell how the water flows.
        1. Throw
          Throw 11 December 2015 11: 06 New
          +4
          As for the form of the stem with an uninhabited deck and ports for armament with fire protection, I agree with the author, he himself wrote here about this for a long time:
          http://topwar.ru/61575-ezhi-shtevni-i-zumvolt.html
          There is a video that shows "how the water flows" wink
          Those. the ship rises to large waves due to buoyancy, and the medium passes through without slimming.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 12 December 2015 11: 50 New
            +3
            Quote: Lance
            There is a video that shows "how the water flows"

            Yeah, especially in the second clip on 2.10 min.
            And in this photo how everything happens in reality.
      2. xan
        xan 11 December 2015 14: 08 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        everything written is true only for ships with a traditional hull form. you won’t see such a fountain at the zamvolt, there is different mechanics and the direction of water flows

        What does the flow of water have to do with it? The main thing here is the deformation of the body. Is there no deformation of the case on this prodigy?
    2. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 07 New
      +1
      .... Oleg, a little advice, try someday happiness to be on the ship, while he is getting his nose into the wave! ...

      ... According to Kaptsov, at this time he will turn into a submarine !!!!! laughing
    3. Arseny
      Arseny 11 December 2015 19: 57 New
      +1
      During a storm, access to the upper deck is prohibited. Visually, you can observe only with the chassis (where access is allowed to units). The sensations are normal. The ship lives in a special mode - there are no constructions or raising the flag, only the running watch after the classic 4 hours.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 12 December 2015 12: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: Arseny
        During the storm, access to the upper deck is prohibited.

        Arseny, as I understand it, are you connected or were connected with the sea? Then I have a few questions for you ... are emergency work during a storm also prohibited? Is fuel received from a tanker, water from an aquarius, or is it possible to arm a towing wagon only in calm weather? What is ocean calm? Ice does not break before the storm ends?
    4. Aqela
      Aqela 19 December 2015 08: 30 New
      0
      In addition, the waves "with a nine-story house" - a thing not frequent, but not unique ... request
  • PPD
    PPD 11 December 2015 11: 10 New
    +6
    Give a computer shooter as an argument, no comments! ?? negative
    In general, ships are divided into 2 categories coming into the wave and, accordingly, under it. This vessel chose 2 option. And you know waves of different lengths.
    1. aleks 62 next
      aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 08 New
      0
      .... Yes, and you know the waves of different lengths ....

      ... Kaptsov is not known !!!! laughing
  • xan
    xan 11 December 2015 14: 05 New
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    For three thousand years, sailors were on the upper deck.

    For almost the entire twentieth century, sailors were in closed conninghouses, and hatches were always battened down. And for some reason they didn’t make such a nose.
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 12 December 2015 10: 38 New
    +2
    Now you are crammed with minuses for the fact that the visual content does not match the name.
  • kavad
    kavad 13 December 2015 21: 32 New
    0
    cutting them with your sharp inclined stem.

    In the battleships he was apparently dumb ...

    the deck is completely empty

    Aha, aha, sailors usually during crowds run around there!
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 11 December 2015 08: 56 New
    +8
    Quote: qwert
    Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ????

    You know sometimes it seems that yes, or at least it didn’t grow wiser wink
  • Pimply
    Pimply 11 December 2015 10: 24 New
    +3
    Quote: qwert
    Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ???? And even the era of armadillos did not make them smarter, until geniuses who realized that the bow of the ship had to be tilted in the other direction appeared in the USA? What doesn’t happen in this world

    Was humanity stupid that used to build ships from wood, and not from metal? Not. Just everything has its time. Previously, the presence of sailors on the upper deck was necessary. Now there is no such need
    1. kavad
      kavad 13 December 2015 22: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: Pimply
      Was humanity stupid that used to build ships from wood, and not from metal?

      I collect ship models. Wooden ships. I collect, of course, from wood. And I’m just losing my temper at that moment!
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 11 December 2015 11: 48 New
    +7
    Quote: qwert
    for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ????

    counter arguments for a zombolt -
    10 December 2015, 09: 01
    Destroyer of the American budget: why does the US Navy need a super expensive and helpless destroyer for the Papuans or the White Elephants of the fleet
    Initially, the naval forces hoped to get 32 of such ships, but due to the monstrous high cost (the first Zumwalt “ate” 4,4 billion of 22 intended for updating the fleet with these ships) this number was reduced to 24, and then to seven. And in 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense made the final decision to limit the series to just three units.

    ... the technical complexity of the project caused a delay in the delivery of tests even of the first ship. In particular, it was reported on the portal of the US Naval Institute (USNI) that the problem arose just with the manufacture of a power plant: the industry was not ready for such a production. As a result, the tests had to be moved more than a year, while simultaneously adjusting the availability of the second ship.
    .
    For a number of reasons, little is known about the performance characteristics of the new American destroyer. In terms of armament, the ship will be equipped with two dozen universal Mk-57 launchers, two long-range 155-mm caliber artillery launchers, as well as 30-mm anti-aircraft guns. In addition, it is possible to base one helicopter in the aft of the destroyer, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles.

    But to put the Zumwalt electromagnetic gun (versions that this promising ship will be equipped with promising weapons previously put forward in the American press), shipbuilders have not succeeded. The reason turned out to be commonplace: lack of energy.

    In addition, the declared tonnage record did not take place. Despite the fact that the Zumvolts turned out to be the largest non-carrier-carrying warships in the US Navy (the displacement of the destroyer was close to 15 thousand tons), Russian ships of the 1144 project with a displacement of 26 thousand tons remained a record in this sense. One of these ships is the Peter the Great heavy nuclear missile cruiser. To talk about its advantage in terms of armament is unnecessary: ​​the cruiser’s weapons range is anti-ship missiles, air defense systems, a large list of anti-submarine systems, and artillery weapons of various calibers.
    .
    In addition, it is surprising to place the ship’s combat information center in a superstructure stuffed with antennas. In the event of a missile launch, the homing radar will determine this target as central, destroying the ship’s “heart”.

    Not the best was the decision to abandon the Zumvolte and the mandatory presence of a double bottom. Experts remind that such anti-torpedo protection is mandatory for large ships, however, the authors of the Zumwalt project decided to save on this.
    .
    “As a result, the fate of the“ white elephants ”of the fleet awaits Zumwalt and his classmates - small-scale, extremely expensive and devastating toys stuffed with unique solutions that will also cherish and cherish,” summarizes Yaroslav Vyatkin. - Of course, they will be proud of these ships, shooting in action films about battles with sea monsters. But the same Arleigh Burke, whose cost is more than three times less than Zumwalt, will drag in the Navy. ”

    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201512100845-3zfu.htm
    1. Operator
      Operator 11 December 2015 15: 00 New
      0
      "... placement of the ship’s combat information center in a superstructure stuffed with antennas. In the case of a missile launch, the homing radar will determine this target as central, destroying the ship’s" heart "

      100500
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 12 December 2015 21: 24 New
      0
      At the expense of a double bottom.

      No one knows the volume and number of compartments written by sensors and automatic doors.
  • rumor_today
    rumor_today 11 December 2015 12: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: qwert
    Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ????

    At that time, there was no computer simulation of physical processes and hydrodynamics.
    1. stas777a
      stas777a 11 December 2015 17: 33 New
      -2
      Beak will break it on a good wave.
  • aleks 62 next
    aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 04 New
    -3
    ....Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ???? And even the era of armadillos did not make them smarter, until geniuses who realized that the bow of the ship had to be tilted in the other direction appeared in the USA? What just does not happen in this world wassat ....

    ..... Not only ... Kaptsova was already advised to read a little theory of the stability of ships and the influence of any direct and reverse on it .... Honestly, it seems that the main goal of the author is to quickly create another article .. . The speed with which he does this is amazing .... I don’t feel like commenting already .... You read more for fun .... lol
    1. vsdvs
      vsdvs 11 December 2015 15: 52 New
      0
      Wildly sorry, the day is crazy, instead of "+" I clicked on "-"
    2. dakty
      dakty 11 December 2015 21: 32 New
      +5
      The article is written so commendably and one-sidedly that the author has only to strain a little and will turn out in verse. After reading (by the way, I already recognized the author on line 5), a picture appeared: the author sits at the table with a radiant and dreamy face, and in the corner of the room, under the ceiling, hangs a photo of the star and the candle burns under it, like under an icon.
      He set the article minus not for the author, but for the bored and ONE-WAY, pathological worship of western marine technology. The author has not seen a single article praising the Russian fleet. Either there are no worthy ones, or a person is offended by our Navy with something ?!
    3. TELEMARK
      TELEMARK 12 December 2015 17: 49 New
      +1
      I am sometimes amazed that you will read if Kaptsov stops writing, thanks, Oleg, I apologize for the familiarity!
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 12 December 2015 23: 25 New
        0
        The professor stopped, and nothing.
  • tilix
    tilix 11 December 2015 19: 14 New
    +1
    Those. for three thousand years, humanity has been stupid
    For three thousand years, people rode riders, and what, didn’t you have to change the tractor?
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 11 December 2015 22: 17 New
    +1
    No, it is now stupid and degenerate, so some are no longer humanity at all, of those who write here ... Such a nose makes sense for small boats that pierce a wave through the storm, letting it pass over its superstructure, like modern submarines over the cabin in which the surface speed is therefore lower than the underwater. Ramming ships had such a form in order not to crush the stem and to reach the enemy’s side with a battering ram because of it. For ricochets, the obstruction inward is not profitable, because on the contrary, a projectile along a ballistic trajectory fits perpendicular to the armor plate. It is advantageous to cut the sides inward only for less radio visibility, because the radio wave reflected by the side is not repeatedly reflected from the surface of the water. And with such a blockage of the side, the continuation of which is the felling, you will not make your nose ordinary, or it will “shine” reflecting waves from the surface of the water. Why make a ship 2/3 stealth, if the rest of its 1/3 is not stealth? Therefore, such a nose.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 11 December 2015 22: 27 New
      +2
      And one of them already managed to put his minus ... wassat

      What about the deliberate downgrade on this page and the rejection of the fact that the USSR 25 years ago sold its EMR bombs even to Australia, or did it wash hand-to-hand?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2015 23: 36 New
        +2
        Catch the second.
        Quote: Scraptor
        Such a nose makes sense for small boats that pierce a wave through the storm, passing it over their superstructure

        Boat The wave? through? This is only you could write.
        Quote: Scraptor
        and rejection of the fact that the USSR sold its EMR bombs even to Australia 25 years ago

        And on Alpha Centauri. And if not for Palpatine, who forbade the launch of the Yak-141 series ...
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 December 2015 00: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Catch the second.

          And you are just a professionalZionYou can and from your Minnesota. bully
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And on Alpha Centauri. And if not for Palpatine, who forbade the launch of the Yak-141 series ...

          Yes, but he didn’t forbid to sell it to the same USA ... go to your blackjack already lol on the road, type in Google “EMR ammunition”.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 December 2015 01: 08 New
          -1
          still in his deceitful article on A.S. Yakovleva (Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1976; correspondent member 1943). Twice Hero of Socialist Labor. Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1971), six Stalin Prizes (1941, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) and the USSR State Prize (1977). Member VKP (b) since 1938.) you insist on your "opinion" that TK was not released on him in 1967 but in 1974 (on the Yak-41 and not on the Yak-141, on the second even later) and the design bureau hung with the same didn’t cope with the premiums?
          http://topwar.ru/84313-korabli-armageddona-tyazhelye-avianesuschie-kreysera-proe
          kta-1143.html
          And when you and Sladkim-16 are playing a couple of your own superlinkers and AUG supercarriers (putting their super blows with their super hull) in the jacuzzi, will you break the bottom?
          better, like him, write about the American police, maybe they’ll “donate two or three buckets of water” to your small pool ... laughing
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 December 2015 10: 10 New
            -1
            Quote: Scraptor
            and the design bureau hung with the same bonuses didn’t cope with its work?

            According to the adopted resolution, from November 1977, the Yak should have been submitted to the state in 1982. Then the deadline was postponed until 1988. In fact, the aircraft turned out to be suitable for the state sometime in 1991, when its performance characteristics were already obviously insufficient.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 December 2015 13: 42 New
              +1
              TK, each time with the aircraft ready, customers changed three times and postponed the deadlines.
              The first version of the clean fighter Yak-41 Fulmar (the nickname was misunderstood, it seems, was given to someone by Stansfield M. Turner) began to pass them in 1979, when it was lit up on satellite images. Then they began to saw him into a fighter-bomber Yak-141 Freestyle. Ready for testing in 1991 was the Yak-43 NoName (the enlarged Yak-41 with the NK-32 engine developed in 1977 from the Tu-160, which gave more thrust than both Su-27 engines), which just did not have time to get through to them.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              when his performance characteristics were already obviously insufficient.

              For this next of his professional ravings with insinuations, Mr. "Marshal" from Minnesota, explain ...
              He has 12 records, most of which are still not broken by the F-35 copied from him. laughing
              In more detail according to your previous one: in 1967 the mission was issued for the subsonic Yak-38 Forger, after three years of successful testing of the Yak-36 Freehand which was ready and flew full cycle in 1964, but which even because of its redacted supersonic scheme as the Yak-38 in the long run it did not shine. Why this Yak-36 Freehand was not released while Forger was being developed, although a subsonic Harrier (which didn’t shine due to turbofan at that time) was still the same mystery from the series “chewing gum, apples, deposit, grated jeans” . Probably because in 1965 your USN in Middle-earth was very scared and ran to Hawker Siddeley for the AV-8A, and they even SUDDENLY introduced an article on the code of conduct on the sea to ban hovering over foreign ships.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 December 2015 14: 52 New
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                TK, every time when the plane is ready

                Do not lie, don’t take a sin on one’s heart :))) There weren’t any “finished airplanes” there, the first flight model was in 1985. I can’t say that the fault is solely of the Yakovlevites - they were greatly set up by the protracted development of the engine, but fact is a fact.
                Quote: Scraptor
                . Ready for testing in 1991 was the Yak-43 NoName (an enlarged Yak-41 with an NK-32 engine developed in 1977 from the Tu-160, giving more traction than both Su-27 engines)

                Are we raving again? On the Yak, the P79V-300 was used, which gave a maximum thrust of 10 kgf in afterburner mode and 977 kgf when using afterburner. For two Su-15 engines it is 500 27 kgf and 15 540 kgf, respectively.
                Quote: Scraptor
                For this next of his professional ravings with insinuations, Mr. "Marshal" from Minnesota, explain ...

                Yes easily
                Quote: Scraptor
                He has 12 records, most of which are still not broken by the F-35 copied from him.

                He has 12 records, among VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING PLANES. What are these records worth? Well, for example, the Yak-141 has such a record - pflying with 2 tons of cargo (everyone held their breath) as much as 13 115 m. Grazing !!!!
                But MiG-29 with a load of 2 tons climbed 35 m, almost three times higher than Yak, and this is not an absolute record in his class of aircraft. That's what your favorite vertical records are worth.
                Quote: Scraptor
                Why this Yak-36 Freehand was not released while Forger was being developed, although at that time a subsonic Harrier was being produced (which did not shine because of the turbofan too), it remains the same mystery

                This riddle is only for you. The Yak-36 could not carry almost any weapons, the design did not draw. So he could only attack using the kamikaze method. The shortcomings of the Yak-36, which was essentially a demonstration aircraft, became the basis for the continuation of VTOL operations, during which the Yak-38 was born.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 12 December 2015 15: 45 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Do not lie, do not take sin into your soul :)))

                  Jump out of you every time a professionalZionIt’s a total dirty dirty trick on this plane and on this aircraft designer. More than anything even more Soviet with your Laperouse-43km, against Seisin, Wonsan and the Kuril Islands lol
                  Maybe there was no NK-32 since 1977?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  they were greatly set up by the protracted development of the engine

                  the fact is that the P79-300 engine, which was "very tightened", was ready in 1976, the plane in 1978, and in 1979 your director from the former from the satellite was looking at it and "stupid" what was happening ...
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Are we raving again?

                  Again, sometimes we pretend that we do not understand? It was about NK-32 ...
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Yes easily

                  Yes, it will not work, even so stupidly ... With a practical ceiling of the MiG-29 at 18 thousand?
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  This riddle is only for you. The Yak-36 could not carry almost any weapons, the design did not draw. So he could only attack using the kamikaze method. The shortcomings of the Yak-36, which was essentially a demonstration aircraft, became the basis for the continuation of VTOL operations, during which the Yak-38 was born.

                  Oh really? And on Wikipedia it says Combat load: 2000 kg
                  Battle, Karl ... not a demo.

                  Try better, maybe they’ll pour water at public expense ...
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 December 2015 21: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Maybe there was no NK-32 since 1977?

                    Scraptor, you better tell me when it’s a dvigun from the Tu-160 to the Yak-141 set laughing
                    And so - for once you are right, 100% right - the NK-32 in 1977 was NOT, and could not be. NK-32 in 1977 was just beginning to be developed, and the first production copy was ready in 1983. And he never stood on the Yak-141, and he could not stand - he has a mass twice as high, I am generally silent about the length.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    the fact is that the "strongly tightened" P79-300 engine was ready in 1976, the plane in 1978

                    You're lying without blushing. In 1976 there was no engine, in 1978 the Yak-141 was only on paper (a bench test machine was made only in 1984)
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Yes, it will not work, even so stupidly ... With a practical ceiling of the MiG-29 at 18 thousand?

                    And you go down here http://www.testpilot.ru/review/ispmig/records.htm
                    Maybe that will come. But it will not work, so I will tell you - records are set in strictly defined conditions that have nothing to do with the daily operation of the aircraft. If you knew how to add at least two and two, you would have guessed what real performance characteristics your favorite had - if he has records three times worse than the twenty-ninth
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Oh really? And on Wikipedia it says Combat load: 2000 kg

                    On wikipedia? Well then!
                    You go to the site of Yakovlev http://www.yak.ru/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-36.php
                    EXPERIMENTAL aircraft ....

                    Read Airwar http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/yak36.html
                    And, of course, one cannot help but recall the air parade in July 1967 at Moscow's Domodedovo airport, when thousands of people first learned about the existence of an airplane with unique properties in their country. During training, a car with tail number 37 flew to the parade, and at number 38 on the day of the show. On pylons under the VTOL wing, viewers could watch the suspended NAR UB-16 blocks. But it was a fake weapon, since the aircraft lacked the equipment necessary for its combat use. Yes, and low load capacity did not allow the use of the Yak-36 in this quality, although similar studies were carried out.
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 13 December 2015 06: 36 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You're lying without blushing. In 1976 there was no engine, in 1978 the Yak-141 was only on paper (a bench test machine was made only in 1984)

                    You're lying from your Minnesota without stopping. In 1984, there was already a Yak-43 with a dviglom from Tu-160. Yak-38 and Yak-141 were with Klimovsky engines for MiGs, the cabins they had were from cruise missiles. Despite their tearful requests, they never did any engines for them, they just changed nozzles, where they had work for six months.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And you go down here http://www.testpilot.ru/review/ispmig/records.htm
                    Maybe that will come.

                    It won’t reach you. It’s immediately clear that if you went there it’s not a fact to read. For the Yak-141 b / w, even the combat radius is larger than the modern modification of the MiG-29 front-line fighter, only the maximum speed is lower.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You go to the site of Yakovlev http://www.yak.ru/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-36.php

                    And why is there nothing written about its load?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    But it was a fake weapon

                    With real weapons they don’t fly to parades ...
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Yes, and low load capacity did not allow the use of the Yak-36 in this quality

                    Small is what?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Scraptor, you better tell me when it’s a dvigun from the Tu-160 to the Yak-141 set
                    And so - for once you are right, 100% right - the NK-32 in 1977 was NOT, and could not be. NK-32 in 1977 was just beginning to be developed, and the first production copy was ready in 1983. And he never stood on the Yak-141, and he could not stand - he has a mass twice as high, I am generally silent about the length.

                    Again, mowing under ...? Well, the Tu-160 was also a good aircraft, but it was necessary to saw them in 1992 in Ukraine and tighten the release of the engine ready for it in 1977 and for the Yak-43 for 6 years and start to produce them only in 1983,
                    As well as sabotaging turbo-fan engines (although there were pipe-rotors) for subsonic SCVVP, Civil and Military Transport Aviation, giving a quarter of fuel economy, and additional traction on the sound.
                    As well as to give everything in 1992-93 to Lockheed.
                    To republish a wiki article on the Yak-141 which suddenly became not the best and not the first, "and in general", and "so learned" ...
                    And the Yak-43 should be recorded on the wiki on the planes of shortened take-off and landing, and not in the SKVVP.
                    Well, where is your expert article on SKVVP where?
                    Your gestures about what USN and USMC are "great" and the Soviet Navy in the Soviet-Japanese was "fie" everyone can see here ...
                    http://topwar.ru/87293-sovetskoe-uchastie-v-pereustroystve-yaponii.html
                    Are you waiting for when they pour water into the pool?
                  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2015 10: 43 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    In 1984 there was already a Yak-43 with dviglom from Tu-160

                    Scraptor, you're tired of already with your endless lies. Either your NK-32 turned out to be ready by 1977, then the NK-32 turned out to be on the Yak-141 :))) But slowly we will squeeze out the truth out of you - FINALLY it turned out that the NK-32 was supposed to be put on the Yak- 43
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    And the Yak-43 should be recorded on the wiki on the planes of shortened take-off and landing, and not in SKVVP

                    Imagine Not Just a Wiki
                    http://avia.pro/blog/yak-43
                    And in some places he appears as VTOL. Do you know why? Because all that Yakovlev Design Bureau has had is a DESIGN PROJECT. About which there is very little information. Those. no airplane in metal with any NK-32 in nature has ever existed. And rightly so.
                    Even the Yak-141 exceeded the MiG-29's design complexity by a ratio of 1,7 / 1A. And to put an arch-expensive engine from a strategic missile carrier on the fighter — the Yak-43 would have been more expensive than the F-22.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Yak-38 and Yak-141 were with Klimovsky engines for MiGs, the cabins they had were from cruise missiles.

                    Lies are shameless and illiterate. The engine for the Yak-141 was made by the Moscow Engineering Plant Soyuz. His previous work - R15V-300 for the MiG-25 - is much weaker and does not have a rotary nozzle.
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    U / b Yak-141 even has a larger combat radius than its modern modification of the MiG-29 front-line fighter

                    Huh. There is only a slight difference - the MiG has this indicator, the Yak-141 has a calculated one :)))
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    And why is there nothing written about its load?

                    Due to her absence? laughing
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    Well, where is your expert article on SKVVP where?

                    There are enough comments for you :))
                  4. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 15 December 2015 21: 54 New
                    0
                    Already do not know how to pervert?
                    Everyone can see above who wrote what and have long ceased to be doubled over what kind of larvae you are squeezing out of yourself ...
                    and on A.S. Yakovleva (Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1976; correspondent member 1943). Twice Hero of Socialist Labor. Laureate of the Lenin Prize (1971), six Stalin Prizes (1941, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1948) and the USSR State Prize (1977). Member VKP (b) since 1938.) too,
                    And that means to make a conclusion what kind of "stranger" you are ...

                    Quote: Andrew from Minnesota
                    And in some places he appears as VTOL. Do you know why? Because all that Yakovlev Design Bureau has had is a DESIGN PROJECT. About which there is very little information. Those. no airplane in metal with any NK-32 in nature has ever existed. And rightly so.
                    Even the Yak-141 exceeded the MiG-29's design complexity by a ratio of 1,7 / 1A. And to put an arch-expensive engine from a strategic missile carrier on the fighter — the Yak-43 would have been more expensive than the F-22.

                    What kind of artistic nonsense again? How does one at least in your “compilation” follow from another? bully laughing
                    What is the general difficulty in proportionally increasing the Yak-41 to the Yak-43 for a new larger engine?

                    Quote: Andrew from Minnesota
                    Lies are shameless and illiterate. The engine for the Yak-141 was made by the Moscow Engineering Plant Soyuz. His previous work - R15V-300 for the MiG-25 - is much weaker and does not have a rotary nozzle.

                    Stupid again, and confuse the pedals? And how does this contradict what is written?
                    And why the MiG-25 rotary nozzle?

                    Quote: Andrew from Minnesota
                    Huh. There is only a slight difference - the MiG has this indicator, the Yak-141 has a calculated one :)))

                    And where did you "sniff out" with your third eye? You think they miscalculated, but the MiG for production fell exactly on the last kilometer? lol

                    Quote: Andrew from Minnesota
                    Due to her absence?

                    There it is written about the Yak-36 - ABSENT?
                    Or all the same 2000 kg?

                    You have too high an opinion of yourself ... bully
                    Have you and the Grand Admiral already donated at least one bucket of water?
                  5. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 17 December 2015 03: 36 New
                    0
                    And where did you get the populist (although it’s clear why you are rubbing others) that the NK-32 is expensive? The "strategic missile carrier" Tu-160 has four such engines and not one. The MiG-15 also had a bomber dviglo, as well as later on Sukhoi aircraft. F-86 caught up with him in traction only at the end of the war in Korea (but not in the specific). wassat Reducing the coefficient of technical complexity by removing the brakes from the car (they were invented by cowards) or from the plane, the wing mechanization and making it a tailless ski with balance control like the first planes will thank you.
                    Now, after watching the whole kin (and not just the first minute) in an article about the “Cruiser L” Baltic Fleet we smear shit?
              2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2015 10: 47 New
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                Your gestures about what USN and USMC are "great" and the Soviet Navy in the Soviet-Japanese was "fie" everyone can see here ...
                http://topwar.ru/87293-sovetskoe-uchastie-v-pereustroystve-yaponii.html

                Of course. Like your nonsense about the landing of Soviet tanks in Alaska laughing
              3. Scraptor
                Scraptor 15 December 2015 21: 07 New
                0
                You have nonsense. But should they certainly pass through Europe and then go along the bottom of the Atlantic? lol Or are you afraid that you don’t have enough?
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lBFoZdgb1w
      2. gladcu2
        gladcu2 12 December 2015 21: 45 New
        0
        Feet, not meters. 35 m, even for the SR-000 a lot.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 December 2015 00: 32 New
          0
          Enough for the MiG-25, but all the same, all this is in a different record.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2015 10: 54 New
          -2
          Mia kulpa, the mistake came out. This link shows records on MiG aircraft, and not just on MiG-29.
          I'll take everything for guilt
          Link, hard labor, prison,
          But! I would like in July
          And preferably in the Crimea! laughing
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 15 December 2015 22: 00 New
          0
          This is not a mistake, this is your "level", which is lower than the baseboard from the example ... I must tell Bormental to better follow and less express it.
  • gladcu2
    gladcu2 12 December 2015 21: 01 New
    0
    qwert

    Humanity was not so technological.

    And stupidity is eternal and international.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 December 2015 00: 35 New
      0
      Yes, there will be no glider from it ... Even with a nuclear power plant. lol
  • ava09
    ava09 13 December 2015 04: 49 New
    -1
    Quote: qwert
    Those. for three thousand years, humanity was stupid ???? And even the era of armadillos did not make them smarter, until geniuses who realized that the bow of the ship had to be tilted in the other direction appeared in the USA? What doesn’t happen in this world wassat


    I did not like the article, but I like these comments even less. Apparently, “humanity was stupid,” if it didn’t even reach its individual representatives in the 21st century: There was no need to move along the upper deck, as the author directly pointed out. Previously, the crew took places on the combat schedule in places exposed to overflowing with sea water, but due to the level of modern automation and robotics, as well as the ability to place mechanisms and weapons behind the outer skin, the ship can function as a semi-submerged submarine.
  • Aqela
    Aqela 19 December 2015 08: 17 New
    0
    Yeah, despite the fact that the cruiser "Aurora" (which is in St. Petersburg), and not only he, at one time, already had a "reverse tilt" of the stem, but this decision did not take root for some reason ...
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 11 December 2015 13: 25 New
    -1
    The robot shown in the video in the article will run aboard this armored trains armadillo and drive away our torpedoes and diving warhead RCC with a sledgehammer. Unless we distract him with "blackjack with ..."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC2BEj13rNs

  • Operator
    Operator 11 December 2015 15: 42 New
    +1
    The author of the article is not aware that the specialization of the stealth bomber B-2 are single shock operations. Attempting to apply the Zamvolt in the framework of the naval connection will lead to the drowning of the destroyer from dozens of types of threats, including the cheapest ones.

    Therefore, the title of the article (contrary to the wishes of the author) sounds like a frankly mocking at a ship worth several billion dollars.
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 12 December 2015 01: 45 New
    +2
    I immediately remembered "USS Katahdin" with such a nose shape and terrible seaworthiness. In general, I would give the author of the article the opportunity to stand at the helm, in very fresh weather, against the wave. When they go in line, the ship begins to bury and stray off course. Therefore, climbing onto the wave is considered necessary. It was not for nothing that the Japanese made such elegant noses and tanks on their ships, since they had to deal with the lush Pacific Ocean, it was probably more visible. And it was not in vain that Marat and its sisterships were built up with a tank, just after relocating the Paris Commune across the Atlantic to the Black Sea.

    1. kazachyok69
      kazachyok69 23 December 2015 02: 03 New
      0
      And it was not in vain that Marat and its sisterships were built up with a tank, just after relocating the Paris Commune across the Atlantic to the Black Sea.

      You are a loser, my friend, what are you writing nonsense? lol
      The tank was increased before the transition ... the result, in a bay of Biscay fell into a storm .... the built-up tank began to draw water ... the caliber towers failed ... from the catastrophe it saved that the built-up lol it was after this that it was decided not to drive the battleship back, but to launch into the Black Sea ..
  • Waltasar
    Waltasar 11 December 2015 06: 27 New
    10
    If there is money, then why not make a mega expensive toy.
    Something on the imperial ships from Star Wars looks like.
    1. qwert
      qwert 11 December 2015 07: 06 New
      +3
      "Fighting near the coast does not require very long ranges. A third of the world's population lives in a coastal strip 50 km wide. More than half of the world's cities are concentrated on the coast: Istanbul, New York, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo ..." So against whom are Zumwalt going to apply laughing Well then everything is clear. And I thought they had a sight on Russia hi
      1. kudma
        kudma 11 December 2015 11: 53 New
        +2
        Coastal artillery will blow this trough as soon as it approaches 50 km.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Bormanxnumx
          Bormanxnumx 11 December 2015 23: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: kudma
          Coastal artillery will blow this trough as soon as it approaches 50 km.

          From 50 km. You still need to get into this trough with an ordinary shell, and domestic guided shells have a maximum range of up to 25 km.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • From Samara
    From Samara 11 December 2015 06: 38 New
    +6
    In principle, we should not get involved in distillation with such toys. We do not have an expeditionary force. It is better to invest money in the development of aviation, air defense and motorized rifle units !!!
    1. qwert
      qwert 11 December 2015 07: 10 New
      13
      "And yet, with all the obviousness of the situation, it would be too naive to consider Zamvolta as peaceful floating laboratories. When compared in a“ spherical vacuum, "such a destroyer alone is stronger than most fleets in the world."
      What is a "spherical vacuum"? Is this in the absence of other combat collabels and enemy aircraft at sea? This, if hypothetically tossing Zumwalt into the Mesozoic era, will he be stronger than all plesiosaurs and pterodactyls combined?
      in a “spherical vacuum,” such a destroyer alone is stronger than most fleets in the world. Although it seems there are still in the vacuum there are other fleets. Maybe ancient Egyptian and Phoenician? good
      1. Pimply
        Pimply 11 December 2015 10: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: qwert
        What is a "spherical vacuum"? Is this in the absence of other combat collabels and enemy aircraft at sea?

        Under the conditions of the theory of the lack of other factors - aviation, for example, support ships, etc. Sumavalat against any fleet
      2. Val_y
        Val_y 11 December 2015 11: 39 New
        +7
        in a “spherical vacuum”, such a destroyer alone is stronger than most fleets in the world

        So I think that a costly experiment plus the desire to get a “little bit of a gesheft” 32 pieces of 4.4 Lard CLASS (let it go down with each subsequent) hi In addition, it’s an exclusively parade destroyer, “blah blah blah mega-super-uber automation”, but it’s awesome, but in combat use, what is its combat stability if it’s hit by a PRK with an inertial guidance head, but in the Moscow Region (and it’s not armored at all) de-energized, and FSE bye-bye repeat kapets. In the stern, I personally saw a container ship calling at the Odessa port and traversing the gate near the Vorontsov lighthouse, turned off at a speed of 8 knots, the tugs killed the ends, and the FSE entered the 2nd berth about 6 meters drowning the pilots (the sailors all saw and calmly packed their things) and documents and went out to watch) for 600 meters the pilot’s phrase on the ship "Oh, the machine responded, we will overload the system" So all the automation, well, but people SHOULD be able to use everything in manual mode wink and the crew on the machine did not know how to work in manual control by controlling each other by "walkie-talkie) smile mattress sailors are even worse, just a little FSE ... not in the regulation ... FSE. So that... hi
        1. grandfather_Kostya
          grandfather_Kostya 11 December 2015 22: 07 New
          +2
          Floating iron class "God forbid war. At least not hit." Instead of sailors, they at least provided for cybercaracans of 1000 pieces to fight for survivability and to shove more batteries for them in all corners!
  • Aleksander
    Aleksander 11 December 2015 06: 42 New
    11
    It remains to add that December 7 2025 g. USS Zumwalt's lead destroyer enters sea trials in the Atlantic Ocean


    The author penetrated the future. smile
    Ships of past generations have traditionally had a straight or overhanging stem and camber

    Why so? Submarines have long been built on the principle of Zamvolt. Did it save them from pitching?
    the range of restrictions on the use of weapons in a storm is reduced;

    With such a shape of the hull, will the "uncovered" guns and launchers not be affected by the masses of water that the ship "penetrates"?
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 06: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Aleksander
      Submarines have long been built on the principle of Zamvolta

      where are the boats ??

      modern submarines have an 10 case extension: 1, a cylindrical shape and the Albacor case type, oriented exclusively to the underwater position. When surface-mounted, a modern boat is barely creeping - a colossal cost of energy for wave formation


      what "principles of Zamvolt" are we talking about ??
      Quote: Aleksander
      With such a shape of the hull, will the "uncovered" guns and launchers not be affected by the masses of water that the ship "penetrates"?

      too high, what height should the WAVE be?

      guns not uncovered in a fierce storm
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleksander
        Aleksander 11 December 2015 07: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        where are the boats ??

        Sub ship. For example, the Submarine "Dolphin" (destroyer No.150) 1902 -with the stem of Zimvart yes

        1. Aleksander
          Aleksander 11 December 2015 07: 52 New
          +4
          And another ship, in my opinion, looks like a bow. "
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Bayonet
            Bayonet 11 December 2015 10: 00 New
            +9
            Quote: Aleksander
            And another ship, in my opinion, looks like a bow

            This form of stem is not at all random. At the end of the nineteenth, beginning of the twentieth century, ships were built with this particular form of stem for delivering ram attacks. In 1866, the famous battle of Liss took place, raising the ram to the rank of the main weapon of attack. The Italian battleship "Re d'Italia" was hit in the stern, its steering wheel was demolished, and the ship rocked helplessly on the waves at the heading of the flagship Tegetgof when he emerged from the smoke and crashed into it. Having pierced the iron and wood of the hull with its ram and not having received damage from the shock from the shock, the Ferdinand Max backed up safely and unhooked the doomed ship, which had sunk. After two unsuccessful tangent ramming strikes against the Palestro and the same Re d'Italia, this repeated successful attack with such a dramatic result turned out to be an epoch-making event - over 11,5 years after that, the ram was considered an attack weapon!
            So, although the ram’s reputation is based on the battle of Liss, the effect of a single successful strike turned out to be in all respects too exaggerated compared to many other unsuccessful ramming attacks, which were attributed to confusion due to the gun smoke of the Austrian ships. And this "exaggeration" had a strong impact on the entire course of naval thought and tactics of naval combat until the very end of the XNUMXth century.
          3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 December 2015 23: 42 New
            0
            Yes, he does not look like, the similarity is purely imaginary :)))
            RIF cruisers were made so as to enter the ocean wave, this was given special significance, of course, no “teething wave” would have been dreamed of by admirals and in a nightmare. And the form of the stem is such because of the ram.
            Breaking through a wave is generally nonsense with a cable, while masses of water will fall onto the deck and superstructures, respectively, much stronger hull structures than a regular ship will be needed
        2. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 08: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleksander
          L-ship. For example, Submarine "Dolphin"

          firstly, modern boats are not built like that

          secondly, how that changes the essence. Dolphin was flooded with a deck (and could it be otherwise - with such a hull shape and a side height of 1 meter?), But this did not bother him, because all weapons and crew were inside a sealed enclosure
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Aleksander
            Aleksander 11 December 2015 08: 38 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            secondly, how that changes the essence.

            I just wanted to draw attention to the inaccuracy of the author in his statement that
            Ships of past generations traditionally had straight or overhanging stem

            They had another.
            1. Santa Fe
              11 December 2015 09: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Aleksander
              Ships of past generations have traditionally had a straight or overhanging stem. They had another.

              The fact remains that 99,9% of ships and vessels of the 20 century have traditionally had a straight or overhanging stem. reason indicated
              Quote: Aleksander
              I just wanted to draw attention to the inaccuracy of the author in his statement

              moment from the article:
              even if small 300-ton destroyers of the Russo-Japanese War were able to bypass the globe without loss, what to expect from 15-th. ton of leviathan?
              the comparison is not accidental - the destroyers of that era had just such a stem and a blockage of sides. I do not remember other examples
              1. Aleksander
                Aleksander 11 December 2015 10: 59 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                I do not remember other examples


                And this one?
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 December 2015 11: 04 New
                  0
                  almost straight stem, only vaguely reminiscent of Zamvolt
                  the sides have a collapse, it does not seem at all
                  1. aleks 62 next
                    aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 26 New
                    +2
                    .... almost straight stem, only vaguely reminiscent of Zamvolt
                    the sides have a collapse, it does not seem at all ...


                    ... They made fun !!!! ..... Open the Aurora drawings and look ..... The ruler and protractor help you !!!! .... The sides are overwhelmed and the stem has a reverse angle far from 90 degrees .... lol
                  2. Aleksander
                    Aleksander 11 December 2015 13: 31 New
                    +2
                    The stem is clearly not straight. According to the sides, judging by the drawing of the transverse profile of the Aurora (and this is it), it resembled (remotely, of course) precisely Zamvolt-V-shaped underwater part and A-shaped above-water
                    1. aleks 62 next
                      aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 54 New
                      +1
                      ..... The stem is clearly not straight. According to the sides, judging by the drawing of the transverse profile of the Aurora (and this is it), it resembled (remotely, of course) exactly Zamvolt-V-shaped underwater part and A-shaped above-water ...

                      ... Here I am about the same .... hi
                  3. Aleksander
                    Aleksander 11 December 2015 13: 31 New
                    0
                    The stem is clearly not straight. According to the sides, judging by the drawing of the transverse profile of the Aurora (and this is it), it resembled (remotely, of course) precisely Zamvolt-V-shaped underwater part and A-shaped above-water
              2. The comment was deleted.
          3. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 22 New
            +3
            ..... but it could have been otherwise - with such a hull shape and a side height of 1 meter?), ...

            ... In your conclusions, you assume that the ship is 15 thousand. tons will behave like a light float from a fishing rod .... With such a mass, very large moments of inertia ..... And these moments do not always coincide with the moment of lift .... Look at the World Chronicle 2, where it is clearly visible (at pitching) ships with a large mass (cruisers or battleships) go under water for the most I do not want .... The amplitude of the pitching does not coincide with the amplitude of the wave .... And the larger and more massive the ship, the more pronounced this dependence ... . And the sides 15m can not save from this and this device .... lol
      3. netslave
        netslave 11 December 2015 08: 51 New
        0
        Hasn't the whole of World War II in the North Atlantic passed in the midst of severe storms? Or did Bismarck not send Hood to the bottom? Or was there a fierce battle at the North Cape? Or were convoys of the allies safe and sound getting to our northern ports?
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 09: 14 New
          +1
          Quote: netslave
          Hasn't the whole of World War II in the North Atlantic passed in the midst of severe storms?

          Of course not all
          365 days of the year a fierce storm, where have you seen this?
          Quote: netslave
          Or did Bismarck not send Hood to the bottom? Or was there a fierce battle at the North Cape?

          There was a fight. There was no storm.
    2. Bayonet
      Bayonet 11 December 2015 07: 01 New
      +6
      Quote: Aleksander

      Is it possible that with this form of the hull, “uncovered” guns and launchers will not be affected by masses of water

      They will, but not for long. In general, I must admit, a very serious ship with breakthrough technologies.
      1. Sashka
        Sashka 11 December 2015 10: 41 New
        +4
        Quote: Bayonet
        In general, I must admit, a very serious ship with breakthrough technologies.

        I agree. Admittedly, something can and will come in handy from all this know-how. I can’t say that he’s straight handsome, like the scenery for the movie "Star Wars" or something. If we can detect it at a sufficient distance, and the destruction systems effectively hit it with air defense / missile defense, then it will not be scary for our beautiful ships.
        But wait and see, the Titanic was also an unsinkable breakthrough achievement, but we all know how it all ended. Good day to all!
        1. KVIRTU
          KVIRTU 11 December 2015 14: 11 New
          +4
          Negative angles of inclination of the hull elements reduce the detection range of its coastal and naval radars, however, these same elements will be almost perpendicular to the direction of exposure to the side. Radar carrier aircraft RCC, which will increase its detection range from the air. Specific combat use is expected, apparently.
          1. Operator
            Operator 11 December 2015 15: 12 New
            +1
            From the point of view of AWACS aircraft, the destroyer Zamvolt is a complete setup for US Navy.
    3. qwert
      qwert 11 December 2015 07: 14 New
      +9
      Kaptsov, this time a little fun. smile For the first time in all of my articles. But, anyway, respect this author. hi As a rule, he writes correctly, justifying his conclusions. Although he agreed with him only twice. bully But, Oleg is not afraid to go against the tide. For what a separate respect
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 11 December 2015 07: 40 New
        +5
        Quote: qwert
        But, Oleg is not afraid to go against the tide. For what a separate respect

        That's for sure! Despite the fact that most of his opponents mostly only emotionally spew tons of hatred or give completely amateurish arguments. People really do not turn sour, and continues to bend their line. This, of course, he’s done well, although I also do not agree with him in 90% of cases. smile
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 10: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          Despite the fact that most of his opponents mostly only emotionally spew tons of hatred or give completely amateurish arguments.

          Quote: Alex_59
          although I also disagree with him in 90% of cases

          Do you consider your arguments hateful and amateurish? (Joke)
  • 717
    717 11 December 2015 06: 57 New
    +5
    automation is good. repair only at the base is super. But how will it be in reality? there is not a single ship that would not have malfunctions.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 07: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: 717
      automation is good. repair only at the base is super. But how will it be in reality? there is not a single ship that would not have malfunctions.

      I think they can change a blown bulb.

      Zamvolt is an all-electric ship. The more electricians and microelectronics - the more reliable. Electrical appliances are more reliable than any fur. systems and hydraulic drives

      If something comes seriously - only a modular repair at the shipyard, no one refuses this option
      1. dog1965
        dog1965 11 December 2015 08: 17 New
        -2
        An electrician will immediately fly out from an em pulse in the event of a nearby nuclear explosion.
        1. Banshee
          Banshee 11 December 2015 08: 21 New
          +6
          Another fan of fiction. Do we have EM pulses after HW is a monthly phenomenon?
          1. aleks 62 next
            aleks 62 next 11 December 2015 13: 30 New
            0
            .... Another fan of science fiction. Do we have EM pulses after the YW phenomenon monthly? ...


            ... You laugh in vain .... Generating a powerful EM pulse next to the ship is not a problem today .... Even without nuclear weapons .... Americans tested the prototype back in the 90s in the war with Iraq .... And enough effectively .... hi
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 11 December 2015 13: 52 New
              -2
              What does the Americans have to do with it? Even 25 years ago, Soviet EMR bombs bought half the world.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 11 December 2015 08: 33 New
          +8
          Quote: Dog1965
          An electrician will immediately fly out from an em pulse in the event of a nearby nuclear explosion.


          In the case of a nearby nuclear explosion, people will also fly out. It does not matter electricians or mechanics.
        3. Pimply
          Pimply 11 December 2015 10: 54 New
          0
          Quote: Dog1965
          The electrician will immediately fly away from the em pulse in the event of a nearby nuclear explosion.

          Quite often we have nuclear explosions
        4. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 December 2015 11: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Dog1965
          An electrician will immediately fly out from an em pulse in the event of a nearby nuclear explosion.

          If it comes to nearby nuclear explosions - believe me, crashed electronics will be the least of the problems. Because it can mean only one thing - the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons has been crossed. And soon the ICBMs will fly.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 10: 37 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I think they can change a blown bulb.

        Nowadays LEDs are used, even at the household level St. Petersburg "Svetlana" produces light bulbs that work for years.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Zamvolt is an all-electric ship.

        A lot of fiber optic cable is used, which has electromagnetic effects on the drum, moisture that does not require additional electrical power for signal transmission, is reliable, thick wire bundles are replaced with a finger-thick cable, the equipment is 10 times smaller and lighter, which in turn allows multiple redundancy and already quite reliable electronics
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If something is covered seriously -

        The main, primary blocks in the spare parts, will replace the block, they have become relatively compact.
        A good article, for some it’s fantastic, but for someone it’s reality.
        But did "Zamvolt" happen to be "purged" not at the Krylovsky SSC? And why the photo of "Grigorovich" and not "Gorshkov"?
      3. dvina71
        dvina71 11 December 2015 20: 58 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Zamvolt is an all-electric ship. The more electricians and microelectronics - the more reliable. Electrical appliances are more reliable than any fur. systems and hydraulic drives


        The executive part is still mostly hydro or pneumatic. A very controversial statement that the electric drive is more reliable than pneumatic .., I'm not talking about efficiency. Take at least the same temperature at maximum loads.
      4. dakty
        dakty 11 December 2015 22: 04 New
        0
        When repairing electricians of modern cars of different brands, I have to disagree with you. The mechanics are the most predictable and maintainable electronics. And about banal program crashes I’m generally silent ...
    2. Mera joota
      Mera joota 11 December 2015 09: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: 717
      automation is good. repair only at the base is super. But how will it be in reality? there is not a single ship that would not have malfunctions.

      In the civilian fleet, NOBODY is engaged in repair at sea, I will say more, in the port mechanics are also not engaged in repair, there are coastal services for this.
  • Good cat
    Good cat 11 December 2015 07: 03 New
    10
    Already at the beginning of the article, who the author understood, after reading, was convinced that he was not mistaken. Maybe this is the best ship, I do not know, time will tell, but its appearance is very unpresentable. Cheops floating pyramid.
    1. Evildaddy78
      Evildaddy78 11 December 2015 09: 16 New
      +2
      And in the case of a full Tryndets, the pyramid should clearly undock and fly to the base!
      1. igordok
        igordok 11 December 2015 14: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: Evildaddy78
        And in the case of a full Tryndets, the pyramid should clearly undock and fly to the base!

        I think that you are mistaken. Direct destination pyramids - to be a grave monument. Ready construction, only the date of death will be knocked out on board.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 11 December 2015 07: 08 New
    12
    I would not be surprised if Kaptsov has a US flag hanging on the wall, a photograph of Zamvolta and a bunch of lamps with candles around lol .
    In fact, the only plus is that hypothetically painted the possible benefits. The disadvantage is that the possible disadvantages are not sufficiently analyzed (and it happens that hidden disadvantages negate all the advantages). That's why I don’t put anything.
    Questions are being asked about how the small crew will influence the provision of unsinkability, the possibility of navigation due to contours. But they only ask themselves, remaining unanswered. Therefore, the main emphasis is on praising possible positive qualities and properties - art, radar and other tinsel. Kaptsov's style.
    But the northern waters can be closed for this iron, because a wet deck strong in negative temperatures will turn into ice, the sky-high cost will impose certain restrictions on its use in hazardous waters and will imply protection that will negate the hypothetical invisibility of radars (do not give a damn on stealth submarines worse wink ), and always, if you rummage around with your brains, you can find a lot of shortcomings that are either hushed up or not given any importance to them, believing that the pluses will be more important than the minuses (what such prejudices lead to - history will remind ... And for every tricky one cock eat booty with nooks laughing . Therefore, even for such a “vandervafly”, so beloved by Oleg, there is sure to be an antidote much more budgetary, a hundred already makes the benefits described in Diferembes not so important. Therefore, the use may be limited to banana republics, where the local Papuans are much more impressionable than adequate people. lol
    Oleg! I won’t get involved in useless talking with you (and you love it very much, especially with an abundance of numbers and epithets) - it’s time to work, but in order for your articles to really look like the articles of the analyst (as you see yourself), learn see the problem (or object) in a complex of positive qualities with flaws. Then the picture will be more true. And it will not frighten the townsfolk who are not familiar with the real picture wink
    And so: each "Zamvolta" is waiting for its own torpedo !!! laughing laughing laughing soldier hi And cheaper and more angry repeat
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 07: 20 New
      11
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the northern waters can be closed to this iron, because a wet deck will turn into ice strong in freezing temperatures,

      And will ships with a classic hull form be different?

      Large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Yumashev"


      Icing of the cruiser "Belfast, Arctic convoy 1942 g.

      why attribute to Zamvolt the flaws inherent in all ships?
      1. tasha
        tasha 11 December 2015 07: 56 New
        0
        I will not be surprised that some kind of heating and anti-icing system is installed on Zamvolta.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 11 December 2015 10: 20 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why attribute to Zamvolt the flaws inherent in all ships?

        Oleg, the fact is that in the northern latitudes any ship, including Zamvolt, is iced up and the mass of ice on the deck and superstructures significantly affects the deferent, and also increase tonnage, which ultimately leads to an increase in fuel consumption. On ordinary ships, the crew solves this problem by ordinary ice chipping (manually), how do you think they will get away from this problem in Zamvolta? Under the condition that on the last wave will rage on the deck already at 5 balls.
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 10: 32 New
          0
          Quote: Serg65
          On ordinary ships, the crew solves this problem by ordinary ice chipping (manually), how do you think they will get away from this problem in Zamvolta?

          if such a problem occurs, most likely it will not, there is nothing to freeze there. No chains, no guards, no sticking guns or guides PU. Smooth narrow deck and steep side walls

          And I do not see a single goal for Zamwolt beyond the Arctic Circle. Moreover, the winter there is not eternal, and in the summer on the NSR there is nothing extreme in terms of weather
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 11 December 2015 10: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And I don’t see a single target for Zamwolt beyond the Arctic Circle

            what That is, initially, the Americans laid Zamvolt did not consider the Russian fleet as an enemy?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Moreover, the winter there is not eternal, and in the summer on the NSR there is nothing extreme in terms of weather

            Well, if you assume that 2 is cold there for a month, and the rest of the time, it’s very cold, probably yes, nothing extreme ...
            1. Santa Fe
              11 December 2015 10: 51 New
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              That is, initially, the Americans laid Zamvolt did not consider the Russian fleet as an enemy?

              Of course not

              all recent congressional reports are devoted to Chinese threats and terrorism
              discussion of the Chinese idea of ​​"restricted areas" - "anti-access / area denial" (A2AD), etc.
              Quote: Serg65
              Well, if you assume that there is 2 months cold

              It’s cold for people, but not for technology
              in Murmansk, something similar to summer usually lasts from April to the end of October
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 13: 10 New
                +1
                [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] It's cold for people, but not for technology
                The Gulf Stream is there.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 11 December 2015 14: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: Serg65
          Oleg, the fact is that in the northern latitudes any ship, including Zamvolt, is iced up and the mass of ice on the deck and superstructures significantly affects the deferent, and also increase tonnage, which ultimately leads to an increase in fuel consumption. On ordinary ships, the crew solves this problem by ordinary ice chipping (manually), how do you think they will get away from this problem in Zamvolta? Under the condition that on the last wave will rage on the deck already at 5 balls.

          De-icing reagents, for starters. And then - you say so, as if the crew is completely absent
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 11 December 2015 16: 30 New
            +2
            Quote: Pimply
            De-icing reagents, for starters.

            what Honestly, Mr. Pupyrchaty, I'm at a loss .... well, if you only consider the deck of the ship as a sidewalk in your city, then of course.

            Quote: Pimply
            you say that the crew is completely absent

            to understand, you need to knock with a scraper ...
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 11 December 2015 21: 21 New
              -1
              Quote: Serg65

              Honestly, Mr. Pupyrchaty, I'm at a loss .... well, if you only consider the deck of the ship as a sidewalk in your city, then of course.

              Oh, you're all so smart, and I'm all so stupid. Probably now is the century of the 19, there are no anti-icing fluids (which, by the way, are processed by aircraft before flight).

              If anything, in addition to the ice chips, the team has five main methods of dealing with icing:

              1. Unified Water Protection System (USVZ)
              2. Vibration resonance mechanical systems
              3. Induction Impact Systems
              4. Microwave heating
              5. Pre-treatment with anti-icing compounds

              I am wrong?

              Quote: Serg65
              to understand, you need to knock with a scraper ...

              And Mosin instead of modern machine guns, and even better a bow instead of a gun, and even better a stone - it’s easier
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 12 December 2015 11: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: Pimply
                If anything, in addition to the ice chips, the team has five main methods of dealing with icing:

                1. Unified Water Protection System (USVZ)
                2. Vibration resonance mechanical systems
                3. Induction Impact Systems
                4. Microwave heating
                5. Pre-treatment with anti-icing compounds

                Eugene, do not consider it work, name at least one warship on which at least one of the systems you have listed is installed?
                Where and when were these systems tested?
                The economic component of the use of these systems?

                Quote: Pimply
                And Mosin instead of modern machine guns, and even better a bow instead of a gun, and even better a stone - it’s easier

                Eco your buddy suffered !!! Only now about the blaster forgot to mention wink
      3. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 December 2015 17: 35 New
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        why attribute to Zamvolt the flaws inherent in all ships?

        But what, "Zamvolt" is not an ordinary ship? Or ordinary ?? And if it is not intended (let's say softer - it is not planned) to be used against us, then why should we even worry and read articles about the ship that we don’t have to fight with? Let the Chinese think ??
        Only in ordinary ships, a storm crew under peppy boatswain kicks, using safety ropes, will vigorously begin to reduce the increasing upper weight. Interestingly, on the "Zamvolte" such options will slip? Probably not. And the water freezes at low temperatures and on the walls of the towers (your photos confirm this wink ) We go further - with such contours of the hull, the ship will be constantly wet, which increases the likelihood of icing! And now let us ask ourselves the main question - if an order is received to complete a task in northern waters, what will the crew refuse ??? Here it smells like a tribunal ... Or will they wait by the sea for weather and heat? Then let them fight like the Germans in the 41st - calculated to catch the cold lol
        Hypothetically, it can be assumed that there are anti-icing systems mentioned in the comments - then you can take a chance. BUT! You yourself mentioned that it is planned to repair the ship ONLY at the base and the crew should only perform basic combat functions. When you ride in a car, the wiring does not burn out, the bulbs do not go out, the brakes do not fail? wink Where is the likelihood that the equipment is 100% reliable and that during the execution of the task some kind of fuse will not blow, which cannot be eliminated by the crew, especially not trained in such situations, and all anti-icing will be covered? Do you give such a guarantee? Me not. Therefore, before exalting something to heaven, you need to make sure that it is worth it and will not turn into a pile of metal (very expensive) as a result of misuse or, more simply, as a result of the human factor.
        Or is Zamvolt special? wink
        Best regards hi
        PS I always try to follow the usual logic and common sense, and not faith in miracles (although without them there is no)
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 18: 18 New
          0
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Where is the likelihood that the equipment is 100% reliable and that during the execution of the task some kind of fuse will not blow, which cannot be eliminated by the crew, especially not trained in such situations, and all anti-icing will be covered? Do you give such a guarantee? Me not. Therefore, before exalting something to heaven, you need to make sure that it is worth it and will not turn into a pile of metal (very expensive) as a result of misuse or, more simply, as a result of the human factor.
          Or "Zamvolt" some special

          I won’t fly on a plane anymore.
        2. Operator
          Operator 11 December 2015 20: 55 New
          0
          Zamvolts use the enemy's ballistic loaves as an anti-icing system. laughing
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 11 December 2015 10: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      so that your articles really look like the articles of the analyst (as you see yourself) learn to see the problem (or object) in a complex of positive qualities with drawbacks. Then the picture will be more true. And it will not frighten the townsfolk who are not familiar with the real picture

      Andrey, so are you FANTAST ??? Welcome drinks
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 11 December 2015 17: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        Andrey, so are you FANTAST ??? Welcome

        laughing drinks There is always hope for the best ... winked
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • maikl50jrij
    maikl50jrij 11 December 2015 07: 27 New
    +3
    Not a frail projector! About 10 billion one! And now, probably, more ... The more complicated the “unit”, the more difficult the repairs and talk about automatic emergency operations and electronic control devices speak only about high technologies ... As a comrade, an electronic engineer used to say: “This machine runs on an elastic band from cowards, then in five seconds it will work ... " repeat
  • Alex_59
    Alex_59 11 December 2015 07: 29 New
    +9
    Despite the threefold difference in the mass of warheads and 10 times shorter range, 155 mm LRLAP projectile, in some situations, can become a direct replacement for SLCM.
    Again we compare warm with soft ... 11 kg of explosives ... I wonder how many explosives does Tomahawk contain? Well, let 150 kg, although it really is probably more. So instead of one Tomahawk, you need 14 shells. If a shell costs cheaper than a Tomahawk in 10 times, then when 14 shells are used for the same purpose, we have that shelling it with artillery will cost 1,4 times more than launching one Tomahawk ... Where is the savings?
    Shot 155 mm guns "Zamvolta" twice as heavy as shells of the usual "six-inch"
    Only the mass of explosives is LRLAP 11 kg, and the good old Soviet 152 mm shell is 7,8 kg. Those. LRLAP has as much as a 1,2 meter a greater radius of "severe damage" (masonry destruction, for the Soviet 152 mm projectile it is accepted - 7,8 meter). No, I'm not saying that LRLAP sucks, on the contrary, it is an interesting weapon. But sighs about what a masterpiece it is, as usual, more than it's worth it.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 07: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: Alex_59
      instead of one, the Tomahawk needs 14 shells.

      It depends on what purpose

      It never occurred to you that the Ax (TacTom), as a means of fire support, in a number of situations, redundant

      An interesting historical precedent: the Luftwaffe did not have 100 kg of bombs. (rare SC100 - exception confirming the rule). The main calibres were 50, immediately followed by 250 kg

      There is no doubt in the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe. Those. the Nazis knew that to defeat most targets on the battlefield, 50 kg of bombs (the equivalent of 152 mm projectile) was enough. And the zamvolta is even more powerful
      Quote: Alex_59
      But sighs about what a masterpiece it is, as usual, more than it's worth it.

      Not even LRLAP itself is interesting here, but the concept

      return heavy. artillery on ships
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 11 December 2015 08: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It never occurred to you that the Ax (TacTom), as a means of fire support, in some situations, is redundant

        Yes, it may have come to me, but you write about saving, etc. In terms of savings, not oats are not in the horse. And in terms of redundancy - yes. SLCMs are good against targets that have clearly defined dimensions. And if the goal is a group of bearded martyrs or equipment distributed on the ground. Artillery seems to be better. But then again, even your LRLAP is just a coastline. The bullet from Latakia on fuel trucks in Deir Ez-Zor no longer rolls. In my understanding, such a task should be solved by a UAV or the same SLCMs with a cassette warhead with the "bus" principle of distributing submunitions on the route.
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 09: 02 New
          -1
          Quote: Alex_59
          But then again, even your LRLAP is just a coastline

          How do you like this picture:

          according to the Pentagon (this is an OFT report) - a battleship of the Iowa type could solve most of the problems in the conflicts of the second half of the 20th century. As for the Zamvolt, its weapons are even more accurate and long-range
          Quote: Alex_59
          And if the goal is a group of bearded martyrs or equipment distributed on the ground. Artillery seems to be better.

          Not like, but for sure
          minimum reaction time

          and do you think a LRLAP hit will not be able to demolish a bridge or damage an aerodrome runway?
          with complete invulnerability of shells to air defense
          Quote: Alex_59
          In terms of savings, not oats are not in the horse.

          Well, as you see, the Yankees counted and decided otherwise
          Quote: Alex_59
          SLCM with cluster warhead with the "bus" principle of distribution of submunitions on the route.

          And what will be the reaction time and cost of such a system ??
          the designers of the naval 155 mm gun are on the right track, and you are ready to accept and justify the most absurd decision, just not to do as they have. Why deny the obvious?
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 11 December 2015 09: 26 New
            +3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            you are ready to accept and justify the most delusional decision

            You somehow react too critically to criticism. I wrote in black and white that I did not consider LRLAP sucks, and in addition to it I proposed another option (additional!) To solve the problem, which you immediately call a delusional solution ... Active-recreational shells have their own niche, SLCMs with a cassette warhead - they can to have one. Warm and soft!
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Well, as you see, the Yankees counted and decided otherwise

            The rich have their own quirks.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And what will be the reaction time and cost of such a system ??

            About the cost - no more than the difference in price between FAB-500 and RBC-500. Well, maybe a little more. The price of SLCMs is a penny, like the cost of armor in a modern cruiser. smile Reaction time - like Tomahawk.
            1. Santa Fe
              11 December 2015 09: 34 New
              -1
              Quote: Alex_59
              The rich have their own quirks.

              Those. table is not an argument?
              Quote: Alex_59
              (additional!)

              Your option can provide some new opportunities for a proven bunch of missile-rocket?
              Otherwise, why is it needed?
              Quote: Alex_59
              which you immediately call a delusional decision ...

              disposable bomber, what could be more absurd?
              Quote: Alex_59
              Active-recreational shells have their own niche; SLCMs with cluster warheads can have their own.

              That's the joke that at some point their niches intersect
              And, according to a Pentagon study, a projectile in most cases is more effective
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 11 December 2015 10: 07 New
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Those. table is not an argument?

                The table does not tell me anything personally. What exactly could Iowa solve? If we are talking about artillery support of the coastal flank - no doubt. But the scope of the conflicts mentioned is not only limited by this.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Your option can provide some new opportunities for a proven bunch of missile-rocket?
                He not only can, he really exists and is used. At the OTRB, cassette warheads with a bus distribution principle existed in Soviet times. In aviation there is such a device - KMGU is called. Absolutely stupid piece of iron, which, by pressing the trigger, provides a reset of submunitions while the button is clamped. From imported vskidku - JP233. All this equipment, unlike single cluster munitions, will allow to drop submunitions not in one gulp at one point, but multiple times, in several places along the flight route. The choice of place is determined by the pilot, for SLCM this can be done by ANNs at given points. Until now, such warheads were not used in the Kyrgyz Republic because they were shot only at stationary compact objects, and now there is already a need for firing at group targets distributed over a certain area. What are the advantages? There is no risk for the pilot, the ability of one missile launcher to hit several targets at once (and not one) at different distances from the launch site, the ability to flexibly select the type of submunitions and their quantity depending on the nature of the targets, the ability to attack SLCMs with targets for which one-piece the classical warhead charge is excessive and its use is not economically justified.
                For example, such a missile launcher can not just kill against a separate building, but throw 3-4 munitions weighing 70-80 kg at different points of a large city, destroying several buildings at once (albeit smaller than with a monoblock warhead).
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                disposable bomber, what could be more absurd?

                More absurd is only a one-time bomber with one bomb - that is, Tomahawk or Caliber. But I would not call them absurd weapons, given the volume of their use. A single-use bomber with several bombs may be less absurd under certain conditions.
                1. Santa Fe
                  11 December 2015 10: 23 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  The table does not tell me anything personally.

                  But in theory should
                  Bekaa Valley-83, Fire on the prairie and all of these cases - this is the so-called "fleet raids", where the objectives were Syrian air defense systems, Tripoli military infrastructure, etc. objects that were carried out with the help of aviation.

                  As a result, in the 2007 report, the Pentagon admitted that the military underestimated the power of naval artillery. All of these operations could be performed by ship’s guns, much cheaper and with no risk for pilots
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Absolutely stupid piece of iron, which, by pressing the trigger, provides a reset of submunitions while the button is pressed

                  For this, the Kyrgyz Republic will have to fly over several regions covered by air defense
                  which is already highly unlikely

                  A CRBD has its own scope, this is a breakthrough in air defense and the destruction of critical facilities in the first hours of the war. All other strike functions are shared by artillery and aviation
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 11 December 2015 10: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    For this, the Kyrgyz Republic will have to fly over several regions covered by air defense

                    Firstly, flights over bearded martyrs are on the agenda. No air defense. There are goals. If you hollow them - why not improve the process?

                    Secondly, not always and everywhere anti-aircraft defense is guaranteed to kill the Kyrgyz Republic already over the first target. Objective air defense is very limited to see low-altitude targets that fly masked by the folds of the terrain. You can’t put your own air defense system on every mountain. And if we proceed from the fact that the air defense is so steep that it easily knocks down the RC, then it will bring them down with a single-warhead warhead. It turns out that the KR is generally useless weapon? No, that’s not how we see it.

                    Thirdly, the Kyrgyz Republic is also different. For example X-101, whose survival from air defense fire is many times higher. The United States does not have such a rocket. We have. Success must be developed.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    CRBD has its own scope, this is a breakthrough in air defense and the destruction of critical facilities in the first hours of the war
                    They were created for this, but they are actually applied much more widely. After all, I do not propose to remove the KR with monoblocks. Let hollow in the first hours of the war all that should hollow. And in the next hours of the war - let them hammer something that is not covered by strong air defense or against which art does not reach, or against which one does not want to use aviation. Bridges, roads, communication centers ... a lot of things you can think of. Let them destroy the infrastructure of the enemy. Each bridge has its own air defense system - no funds will be enough.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The Pentagon admitted that the military underestimated the power of naval artillery. All of these operations could be performed by ship’s guns, much cheaper and with no risk for pilots

                    Undoubtedly, the role of artillery in the Navy is still underestimated, and the United States and its cannon have taken a serious step to fill this gap. I do not argue with that. And I argue with some far-fetched theses in your article.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      11 December 2015 10: 58 New
                      0
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Firstly, flights over bearded martyrs are on the agenda.

                      Why apply KR against bearded martyrs?
                      There, the aircraft can handle it, and if necessary - naval and land artillery

                      The caliber is allowed to test and demonstrate the capabilities of the Navy, from a military point of view this is not necessary
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      They were created for this, but they are actually applied much more widely.

                      They are always used unambiguously - against especially important stationary objects.
                      Gauges against ISIS - it's pure training and PR
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      Undoubtedly, the role of artillery in the Navy is still underestimated, and the United States and its cannon have taken a serious step to fill this gap. I do not argue with that. And I argue with some far-fetched theses in your article.

                      What far-fetched theses?

                      If naval artillery is a serious step to correct the gap in naval armaments. So in many (according to the Pentagon itself - very many) cases, the projectile is more effective than aviation and missiles. What does it mean more efficiently? Either faster, or cheaper, or both. Yes, and invulnerable to air defense
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 11 December 2015 11: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why apply KR against bearded martyrs?
                        In a monoblock, maybe not why. And with a cassette warhead it may not be more expensive than aviation, but it needs to be calculated. + There is no risk of losing a pilot. Here you have a new counter-terrorism weapon. smile
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        They are always used unambiguously - against especially important stationary objects.
                        Well, if your same concerns about powerful anti-aircraft defense are viewed from a different angle? Monoblock warhead breaks through and kills air defense? Yes, she is capable of this, there are examples in Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc. Then what prevents the CR from the cassette warhead from making its first approach precisely to the SAM? The first submunition flies into the illumination-guidance radar. Well, then the Kyrgyz Republic begins to frolic in the district and scatter the remaining loaves on the now not covered by "especially important" objects. Air defense systems are not battleships, they will have enough 80 kg, there is no need to hammer them with 340 kg warheads.
                        Air defense distributed from several "Shells"? Such an anti-aircraft defense and missile defense with a monoblock will hardly be destroyed. There already as lucky. In any case, it’s more dangerous to send aircraft, but the art does not reach.
                      2. saturn.mmm
                        saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 13: 58 New
                        +1
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes, and invulnerable to air defense

                        Missiles shot down on Emba in 1986 with the Osa MA-2 air defense system
      2. albanian
        albanian 11 December 2015 09: 08 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Not even LRLAP itself is interesting here, but the concept

        return heavy. artillery on ships


        It seems to me that from the coast, a modern ship can be scared away even by the poets.
        There is a banal danger of missing a salvo from a very cheap missile defense system (albeit small probabilities), and a little more developed countries have a tendency to strengthen coastal defense, together with the greater availability of coastal missiles ...
        Ships equipped with missile weapons, artillery can not be scared.
        What is left with us? Shooting on holidays (in the truest sense of the word), but the fight against the martyrs' ferries, didn’t seem to forget anything?
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 09: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Albanian
          Banal danger of missing a salvo from a very cheap rszo (albeit small probabilities)

          I'll tell you more - it’s zero
          the ocean is large, the ship is small, because of the horizon it can’t be seen — let the Papuans shoot at the squares until they turn blue — hit the target with unknown coordinates and motion parameters, about how to win a million in a scam
          Quote: Albanian
          together with the greater availability of coastal ...

          What is the use if you do not know who to shoot
          Quote: Albanian
          missiles equipped with missiles, you won’t scare artillery.

          Artillery has its own good reason for ensuring its right to exist.
          1. albanian
            albanian 11 December 2015 11: 12 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

            I'll tell you more - it’s zero
            the ocean is large, the ship is small, because of the horizon it can’t be seen — let the Papuans shoot at the squares until they turn blue — hit the target with unknown coordinates and motion parameters, about how to win a million in a scam

            What is the use if you do not know who to shoot

            Artillery has its own good reason for ensuring its right to exist.


            Given the declared range of 150 km, and in fact they usually do not shoot at the maximum range, in the best case, one can hope for support of the landing and suppression of coastal "fortifications".
            But something tells me that no one will risk and will be banned along with the rest of the destroyers near the aircraft carriers, and this implies a “desirable” security zone of 100-300 nautical miles.

            Further, the claimed accuracy of 5-10 meters, something like that was obtained during firing at 80-100 kilometers, as I understand it with minimal sea waves and standing still (although this should not be essential for the corrected ammunition).
            With the power of the warhead at 11 kilos and this accuracy, I'm not sure that the ammunition will last long + a very low rate of fire coupled with the original loading system.

            As for the detection range of the zamvolt itself, in clear weather from the roofs of coastal skyscrapers, it will be observed almost from 50 km ...
            I think even the Papuans can find a place from which to observe and correct the fire of the same Chinese tornado clones at a very decent distance, which will not really help hit the ship, but seriously question the reasonableness of such an expensive property entering the coastal waters.

            To everything else, when was the last case of shelling from ships of 1-2 ranks, the coast at least theoretically capable of retaliatory actions?

            That's why I question the real prospects for the use of artillery from the destroyers, rather, I believe in the use of gunboats)
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 08: 11 New
      -4
      Quote: Alex_59
      Only the mass of explosives is LRLAP 11 kg, and the good old Soviet 152 mm shell is 7,8 kg.

      BB content is 1,5 times larger
      + greater number of damaging elements

      what is surprising here?
      1. Banshee
        Banshee 11 December 2015 08: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex_59
        If the projectile is cheaper than the Tomahawk 10 times, then at the expense of the same target 14 shells we have that shelling of its artillery will be more expensive 1,4 times than launching a single Tomahawk ... Where is the savings?


        Yes, but the Ax is quite currently positioned by modern air defense systems, and it can be knocked down. The same "Pantsir-M" will cope with it completely.

        But the projectile ... It is doubtful.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 11 December 2015 09: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: Banshee
          Yes, but the Ax is quite currently positioned by modern air defense systems, and it can be knocked down. The same "Pantsir-M" will cope with it completely.

          But the projectile ... It is doubtful.

          By itself. I'm talking about something else. There is a typical goal, say a stone structure 50X50 meters. To completely destroy it, you need an 1 tomahawk or 14 shells. 14 shells - more expensive than 1 tomahawks. Therefore, the art will not replace the tomahawks as the author of the article writes and will not save. It complements them provided that the target is close to the coastline. When shooting in areas, again, the art will not replace the tomahawk, because nobody shoots at areas with tomahawks, i.e. these are different types of weapons with different goals.
          1. Santa Fe
            11 December 2015 09: 52 New
            -2
            Quote: Alex_59
            14 shells - more expensive than 1 tomahawks.

            Even so, not much
            Quote: Alex_59
            There is a typical goal, say a stone structure 50X50 meters

            there is a typical target - an enemy’s firing point suddenly declared
            two minutes after receiving the request, it will be mixed with the ground

            ship cannons have the smallest reaction time

            or do you think that 100 kg of shells does not have the power to destroy the caponier with the aircraft standing inside? be sure to drag dear Tomahawk with 300 kg warhead, which, moreover, can bring down

            it is a mass-size analogue, 113-kg bomb SDB
            Quote: Alex_59
            It complements them provided that the target is close to the coastline.

            Once again - did you see the table?
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 11 December 2015 11: 53 New
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              there is a typical target - an enemy’s firing point suddenly declared
              Tactical level. There is no work for the Kyrgyz Republic. CDs at the operational and strategic level are applied. I can not compare the incomparable.
  • ZKVR
    ZKVR 11 December 2015 07: 46 New
    +3
    It was smooth on paper, but hit the ravines. Our less will be spent on research.
  • magician
    magician 11 December 2015 07: 47 New
    +2
    I wonder, how much will it cost us to fill up this toy in case of need? wink
    1. bracket
      bracket 11 December 2015 08: 05 New
      +3
      in a small ...
  • ILIA
    ILIA 11 December 2015 08: 13 New
    +1
    Tada)))) iron !!
  • Belousov
    Belousov 11 December 2015 08: 14 New
    15
    Based on the article there is only one question: where to go to give up?
    It seems like I want to poke the Professor with his next mistakes in the article, but looking at how tender he licks the American keel, I feel sorry for the man. Therefore, briefly about a pair of stocks.
    "Thanks to this, the machine can move even in smoky rooms, and the stabilization system allows it to maintain balance even with strong rolling." No one has yet been able to fully model the human vistibular apparatus, and even more so under conditions of constant nonlinear pitching. I'm not talking about possible damage due to a strong blow, for example, on partitions. In addition, the article considers only oncoming waves. At the slightest blow to the side, how will the ship behave? Under each wave you will not turn around, catch it with your nose.
    Repair in a campaign is not only to change a light bulb, as Kaptsov thinks. The phrase "The more electricians and microelectronics - the more reliable. Electrical appliances are more reliable than any mechanical systems and hydraulic drives" absolutely does not stand up to criticism. If the hydraulic drive is still possible to somehow reanimate on the spot, then a blown board at sea cannot be replaced, even taking into account the duplication of systems and circuits.
    Uncovered guns and launchers will be flooded. Are there mine pumping systems? How will all this merge?
    Regarding icing, these are really common flaws. But if on typical ships in emergency situations the crew can go out and banally scrap everything, then how will this happen on this wander alphabet? Firstly, the issue of crew safety, and secondly, the technical health of the electronics at constant negative temperatures and appropriate humidity?
    Given that alone it will not be possible to carry out serious tasks, it is necessary to organize serious tasks. Will it pull financially? And the cover of ordinary ships immediately kills the idea of ​​pseudo-stealth.
    In general, Kaptsov, as usual, sees only pluses, absolutely does not respond to obvious disadvantages. Apparently, really, "I won’t be surprised if Kaptsov has a US flag hanging on the wall, a photograph of Zamvolta and a bunch of lamps with candles around lol ..."
    PS The real B-2 was also positioned as a breakthrough in technology, etc. etc. Where is he now? wink
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 08: 30 New
      -3
      Quote: Belousov
      No one has yet been able to fully model the human vistibular apparatus

      Human flesh is also not a competitor to steel, asbestos or the heat-resistant coating of a teflon pan
      Quote: Belousov
      I'm not talking about possible damage due to a strong blow, for example, about partitions

      I'm not talking about the banal death from carbon monoxide poisoning
      Quote: Belousov
      At the slightest blow to the side, how will the ship behave?

      Probably not, after all, 15 thousand tons, a very inert object
      Quote: Belousov
      Uncovered guns and launchers will be flooded.

      the launcher opens a quarter of a second

      accidentally hit a bucket of water in the mine, will be able to stop the 10-meter pillar of fire and put the rocket launch?)))
      Quote: Belousov
      then a blown board at sea cannot be replaced.

      Do your boards often burn out?

      Electrical and microelectronics - the most reliable element of any system, the most resistant to overloads, shocks and vibrations. Reliable and extremely easy to maintain
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 11 December 2015 10: 29 New
        +6
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Quote: Belousov
        At the slightest blow to the side, how will the ship behave?
        Probably not, after all, 15 thousand tons, a very inert object
        Quote: Belousov

        You know, the ocean, I'm sorry, it’s deeply all the same that this “creation” of American shipbuilders has a displacement of 15 tons. The wave drowned like a chip and ships of a much larger tonnage. In a severe storm, this "inert" object will be thrown like a rag doll.
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 10: 38 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Wave drowned like a chip and ships of a much larger tonnage

          What are you, right?

          can I find out examples?
      2. fyvaprold
        fyvaprold 11 December 2015 11: 10 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Electrics and microelectronics - the most reliable element of any system, the most resistant to overloads, shocks and vibrations. Reliable and extremely easy to maintain

        Bullshit and profanity. In terms of reliability, an electrician is inferior to both mechanics and hydraulics, and microelectronics, in general, is an element of low reliability, hence the duplication of units and redundancy of systems. By level insecurity microelectronics is second only to a fool-operator suffering from epilepsy and bipolar mental disorder. Even for data centers, with their "laboratory" conditions, failures are an ordinary occurrence and not weak losses (those who wish can independently "google" the details). For a combat ship, the failure of a computer complex is an unambiguous death, especially for ships like the Tsumvolt, which without a computer, not only will not perform a combat mission, but will not even be able to swim, not “walk,” namely, “swim”, as g @ obviously in the hole. Tsumvolt, in fact, is a “floating” analog of the F-35, where everything is linked to computers and remote control.
        PS: Mr. Kaptsoff, if you don’t want to look ridiculous and ridiculous, don’t write about things and matters in which you are “not with your ear, don’t snout”, don’t make the audience laugh, this resource is not a school party, there are enough people who understand many areas, including including in microelectronics and knowing about its "unprecedented reliability" firsthand, but from personal experience, by the way, everyone here "sits" from under computers and, I believe, everyone has enough personal stories of technology failure.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 14: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: fyvaprold
          Bullshit and profanity

          This is especially evident in Voyagers.
          1. fyvaprold
            fyvaprold 11 December 2015 16: 32 New
            +1
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            This is especially evident in Voyagers.

            And especially in comparison with the Kremlin Chimes arr. 1705 years. Sincerely.
      3. spech
        spech 11 December 2015 15: 08 New
        +3
        Electrical and microelectronics - the most reliable element of any system, the most resistant to overloads, shocks and vibrations. Reliable and extremely easy to maintain

        laughing Damn my friend, he’s just living with electronics repair repeat
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 18: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: spech
          Damn my friend, he’s just living with electronics repair

          Su-35 flies with 9-fold overloads and it is a plague, electronics, everything works and works, and missiles up to 40g but still fly and fly to their destination.
          And what kind of load is the guided missile experiencing, and inside it sits electronics which, in your words, should fail.
          Your friend is repairing other electronics.
          1. fyvaprold
            fyvaprold 11 December 2015 21: 37 New
            +2
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Su-35 flies with 9-fold overloads and it is a plague, electronics, everything works and works, and missiles up to 40g but still fly and fly to their destination.
            And what kind of load is the guided missile experiencing, and inside it sits electronics which, in your words, should fail.

            Somewhat incorrect examples. The Su-35 may well fly without a computer, as test pilot Oleg Grigoryevich Tsoi demonstrated when lightning struck his Dryer and burned all the on-board electronics on the F-35, with its remote control, this is impossible. In addition, airplanes fly for a maximum of a couple of days, missiles, from several seconds to several hours, while their computers start working at the time of launch, or shortly before it, and some of them use fairly primitive and low-power electronics, sometimes even not micro. For example, in the first versions of the AIM-9 Sidewinder rocket, radio tubes were used, too, by the way "electronics", and a full-fledged autopilot appeared only in the last generations, before that there weren’t even gyroscopes on them, stabilization was carried out by rollers.
            The projectile suffers an overload of about 2000 G, but again, there are only a few minutes, and there the electronics start up when fired, i.e. MTBF - a few minutes. It is generally impossible to compare the filling of a shell with the filling of a destroyer, in a shell a primitive (relatively) highly specialized controller, and on a destroyer a full-fledged mainframe, with all its pluses and minuses, and it does not work for hours and minutes, but months and years, often without stopping. Therefore, it will be more correct to compare the control systems of warships that control almost everything, from latrine to missile defense to equipment of Data Centers using similar equipment and in similar modes, and the experience of operating data centers just speaks of true levels microelectronics reliability. At the same time, the supply of electronics, both for the Pentagon and the IT systems market, is carried out by the same companies and use the same, or even the same elemental base, with all the consequences ...
            Sincerely.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 23: 58 New
              0
              Quote: fyvaprold
              At the same time, the supply of electronics, both for the Pentagon and the IT systems market, is carried out by the same companies and use the same, or even the same elemental base, with all the consequences ...

              There are some doubts here.

              Any complex system consists of simple components, using the example of a projectile I tried to show how stable they can be.
              What is wrong with data centers?
              1. fyvaprold
                fyvaprold 14 December 2015 10: 00 New
                0
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                What is wrong with data centers?

                Yes, everything is so, but their example shows the reliability of microelectronics. Sincerely.
    2. Banshee
      Banshee 11 December 2015 08: 34 New
      +3
      Quote: Belousov
      No one has yet been able to completely simulate the human vestibular apparatus, and even more so under conditions of constant non-linear rolling. I'm not talking about possible damage with a strong blow, such as a partition


      Definitely +. The robot is, of course, great, but so ... with an eye on the 30 years ahead. I would not particularly count on androids, the robots didn’t really show themselves on Fukushima. Emergency team safer. Especially where it is necessary not only to pull the hose, but also to work with the head. I mean, where to water from this hose. And then you can pour something instead of IT and it will only get worse.

      Quote: Belousov
      In addition, the article deals only with oncoming waves. At the slightest blow to the side, how will the ship lead? Under each wave you will not turn around, catch her nose.


      Well, if the cabin is tall with 9-storeyed house, how? In full shake. A low center of gravity is, of course, good, but it will smack heartily into such an area.

      It is not necessary to unfold under each wave, as if the waves usually go in one direction.
      Quote: Belousov
      "The more electrics and microelectronics - the more reliable. Electrical devices are more reliable than any mechanical systems and hydraulic drives" absolutely does not hold water. If the hydraulic drive is still possible to somehow reanimate on the spot, then the burned-out board in the sea can not be replaced, even with the duplication of systems and circuits.


      Also agree. But with a reservation. Duplication is done to replace the failed element and live to the point where it can be replaced. And again, depending on where this board is mounted. We do not know about this, it is difficult to judge.

      But the hammer and the crowbar decided many things in the past.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 11: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Banshee
        there’s no way to replace a blown board at sea,

        Quote: Banshee
        I agree too.

        Explain why the sea can not replace a blown board?
        1. fyvaprold
          fyvaprold 11 December 2015 16: 38 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          Explain why the sea can not replace a blown board?

          For example, due to the lack of Plug and Play in military and industrial systems, associated with the requirements for vibration resistance. To replace one board, it is necessary to disconnect the entire computer and almost completely disassemble it. ZIF sockets and normal for PeK slots are not used in such systems. Sincerely.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 19: 05 New
            0
            Quote: fyvaprold
            To replace one board, it is necessary to disconnect the entire computer and almost completely disassemble it. ZIF sockets and normal for PeK slots are not used in such systems.

            Other contact groups are used, not the fact that it is necessary to disassemble, I do not think that the designers do not understand the maintainability problems.
            The US Department of Defense has unveiled a 30-year new Air Force development strategy. According to Jane's, the document provides for the transition to the use of modular aircraft using an open architecture. This approach will allow relatively cheap upgrades of aircraft as new technologies become available.

            Quote: fyvaprold
            Sincerely.

            Mutually.
            1. fyvaprold
              fyvaprold 11 December 2015 20: 57 New
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Other contact groups are used, not the fact that it is necessary to disassemble, I do not think that the designers do not understand the maintainability problems.

              You are right, they use other connectors, other contact groups, and this is to increase reliability, but it is these measures that make repair on the fly difficult, and in most cases you still have to turn off the system, and this is a loss of combat readiness. In addition, any component can fail, so duplication is used, since once you have to carry another computer with you, it is better to assemble and connect it than in the form of spare parts. Sincerely.
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 11 December 2015 21: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: fyvaprold
                In addition, any component may fail, therefore duplication is applied,

                This is natural for military equipment, but nevertheless there are spare parts. The main one is out of order; the backup one is turned on, while the backup is working, we fix the main one.
                1. fyvaprold
                  fyvaprold 11 December 2015 22: 07 New
                  0
                  Quote: saturn.mmm
                  This is natural for military equipment, but nevertheless there are spare parts. The main one is out of order; the backup one is turned on, while the backup is working, we fix the main one.

                  Rather, when the main one fails, the backup one works, the backup one fails, the emergency one is turned on, and in the meantime, one worker will try to assemble from two broken ones. Anything can fail, and it’s not practical to drag another computer in the spare parts, it’s very doubtful that there is an excess of space on warships to carry a spare computer in disassembled form. Sincerely.
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 12 December 2015 10: 38 New
                    0
                    Quote: fyvaprold
                    Anything can fail, but to drag another computer in spare parts is impractical,

                    Why the whole comp? In any system, there are weak links; here is for them spare parts, operating experience.
                    Quote: fyvaprold
                    Rather, when the main one fails, the backup one works, the backup one fails, the emergency one is turned on, and in the meantime, one worker will try to assemble from two broken ones.

                    Quite an option. But as we reserve cumbersome mechanical systems three times, there are weak links.
    3. Waltasar
      Waltasar 11 December 2015 08: 36 New
      +3
      You bring problems that a normal engineer could not help but think about when creating a ship.
      Steam supply will do just fine with the ice, I don’t know how much ice is needed to lose seaworthiness, but there’s enough steam to heat a couple of towers. And not all ships are intended for polar latitudes.
      Zamvolt is still an expensive toy, the embodiment of the ideas of engineers who were given the opportunity to create their ideas in metal. I even envy them a little.
      Now they will run in, determine successful and not so solutions and in the next generation they will probably apply. So far, it’s a military laboratory, but rather a laboratory.
  • Riv
    Riv 11 December 2015 08: 25 New
    13
    Well, the weaknesses of "Winter" follow from the description itself in the article. Three main ones:

    Extreme vulnerability to electronic warfare. Guns there, according to rumors, can only be manually guided through the barrel. And automatic guidance systems are helpless without radar. In general, the shoulder is very vulnerable. On the battleship, if the telephone went out of order, it was possible to swear out in the telephone receiver, or stupidly send a messenger. And then robots in the corridors ... dangerous ss ...

    The use of this ship in polar latitudes is practically excluded. The first storm, icing, overkill. I can not imagine how to get rid of ice on such a case. Oddly, the radar also, oddly enough, does not work. On armadillos, a rubber sleeve was attached to the heating system and gun trunks were steamed. Half an hour later the tower was ready for firing, and even the guns were already warmed up. On automatic weapons, such barbarism is hardly possible.

    An artillery shell is cheaper than a rocket, and a gun (taking into account the reload time) is faster. But the shells fired from the Winter cannons are not even gold. They are platinum. Rather, the delivery is platinum, because in operation such a ship is extremely expensive. Yes, the shells themselves are not cheap. : (((

    In general, the destroyer is somewhat reminiscent of the German Dora. Quoting, I don’t remember any of the Germans (Gepner seems): "A miracle of technology, but ... completely useless." Although humanly I like him. Brutal, futuristic look and all that.
  • Wolka
    Wolka 11 December 2015 08: 40 New
    +1
    not much, but impressive, this iron is similar to Bismarck and Terpitz only in the 21st century, now from the Yankees, and his fate is also quite predictable ...
  • Falcon
    Falcon 11 December 2015 08: 45 New
    +1
    The controversial little ship though.

    Ammunition on the sides - in the most vulnerable place, and can detonate on the first hit.
    There is no long-range radar - long-range SAMs are not applicable.
    There is no artillery defense - the last line of defense is not covered.
    About additional generators is not a word anywhere, in the event of a GTE failure.
    There are no anti-torpedo weapons either.

    The idea was good - the implementation is not particularly.

    Burke is much more thoughtful than ships. And for the break-in of technology, it could be easier to build.
    For example, experiment with Type 45.

  • vadimtt
    vadimtt 11 December 2015 08: 54 New
    +2
    I will not comment on everything for a long time. But I’ll ask you one moment - does the generator-commutation-electric motor link really have a higher efficiency than a mechanical gearbox? It seems like a fantasy?
    1. Falcon
      Falcon 11 December 2015 09: 02 New
      0
      Quote: vadimtt
      I will not comment on everything for a long time. But I’ll ask you one moment - does the generator-commutation-electric motor link really have a higher efficiency than a mechanical gearbox? It seems like a fantasy?


      What is fantastic there?

      It has long been applicable to civilian vessels even.


      Hybrids consume less equipment with the usual torque transmission scheme.
      1. vadimtt
        vadimtt 11 December 2015 09: 14 New
        +5
        There are no efficiency figures in the above pictures. And hybrids do not spend less, but use recovery. Efficiency of a mechanical gearbox was always higher than a generator / electromotor bundle and so far nothing has changed, despite the new-fangled frequency control and neodymium magnets. Electric transmission on ships is used for a completely different reason, and not because of better efficiency.
        1. Falcon
          Falcon 11 December 2015 09: 19 New
          0
          Quote: vadimtt
          And hybrids do not spend less, but use recovery


          What kind of recovery? When braking, the force is transferred to the generator - this is one of the possibilities of the hybrid.
          For example, a volt has no direct connection with the wheels from the engine. He’s like "dead on wheels"
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 11 December 2015 09: 28 New
          -1
          Quote: vadimtt
          There are no efficiency figures in the above pictures.


          Tesla-s 85 battery capacity kW - enough for 470 km.
          You can calculate how much diesel fuel the diesel generator will consume to generate such energy. And how many will eat v6 3,5 l on 470 km.




          Quote: vadimtt
          Efficiency of the mechanical gearbox was always higher than the generator / motor bundle and so far nothing has changed


          Why so categorically. The cost of the gearbox to reduce the frequency and to change the direction of traction - cardans - gearbox - and a bunch of outboard bearings. (also an oil system for cooling with pumps, etc.

          And then the GTE generator is a direct link. Electric motor (already with the right frequency right away (without any gears) - mover
          1. vadimtt
            vadimtt 11 December 2015 10: 42 New
            0
            This is all the lyrics, no numbers smile
            I quickly ran through modern megawatt generators / motors / converters, with the best examples of efficiency somewhere around 0.97.
            The naval gear machine has an efficiency of 0.96-0.985 (http://helpiks.org/6-382.html).
            Then we get the efficiency 0.97 (generator) * 0.97 (chastotnik) * 0.97 (engine) = 0.91 (and this is not taking into account the loss in wiring) with an ideal electric transmission.
            So in terms of efficiency, the gearbox is better. And from the article I realized that I managed to drive the efficiency of the drive into space. So I want specific numbers about the efficiency of the Zumvolt drive bully
            The fact that the electric transmission has a bunch of other advantages, I know.
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 11 December 2015 11: 04 New
              +2
              Quote: vadimtt
              This is all the lyrics, no numbers


              I have already given examples of what and how to calculate. If there is no desire, then you will not see numbers.

              The formula is one. Although he’ll be killed, at least KAMAZ ...



              Quote: vadimtt
              Then we get the efficiency 0.97 (generator) * 0.97 (chastotnik) * 0.97 (engine) = 0.91 (and this is not taking into account the loss in wiring) with an ideal electric transmission.


              Then calculate how much goes to the gearbox. I remember course in the third year I did this. The truth will have to be considered for a long time ...

              Quote: vadimtt
              So in terms of efficiency, the gearbox is better.


              The efficiency of a package of splined joints cannot be higher than the wires.

              Quote: vadimtt
              So I want specific numbers about the efficiency of the Zumvolt drive


              I, too, would have looked at the drawings. Now I’ll just call GD, I’ll ask John to throw me in the soap

              1. pimen
                pimen 11 December 2015 12: 26 New
                0
                the reason for choosing the electric ship can be explained by the fact that the pluses are that you still need a powerful generator, sound insulation should be better, you can refuse the adjustable pitch of the screws; this is not counting more freedom in the layout
              2. The comment was deleted.
  • Bogdarin
    Bogdarin 11 December 2015 09: 05 New
    +6
    "... The rate of fire. Even a whole formation of Aegis destroyers will not be able to launch the Tomahawks at a rate of 20 missiles per minute. And the guns of the Zamvolt can."

    Judging by the video launches, calibers are launched with a pause of about 4 seconds, i.e. "rate of fire is 15 v / m, and this is from a small (950t) boat :-)
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 09: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Bogdarin
      ... rate of fire. Even a whole formation of Aegis destroyers will not be able to launch the Tomahawks at the rate of 20 missiles per minute. And the Zamvolt’s guns can. "

      Judging by the video launches, calibers are launched with a pause of approx 4 seconds, i.e. "rate of fire is 15 / m,

      Here the author most likely got excited
      but not far from the truth - in terms of rate of fire no one compares to guns, and in terms of ammunition - fluffs are generally beyond competition
      1. fyvaprold
        fyvaprold 11 December 2015 21: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

        Here authormost likely got excited
        but not far from the truth - in terms of rate of fire no one compares to guns, and in terms of ammunition - fluffs are generally beyond competition

        Yes, self-esteem is evident. Talking about yourself in the third person is aerobatics of the FFM soaring to heaven. Probably in the future the following phraseological turns will follow:
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Here is the author, for all his genius maybe got excited although most likely, unlike the others, he is simply consecrated to the most secret secrets of the Pentagon and is the leading consultant of DARPA, but we - mere mortals, are not supposed to know about it
        and from the truth He not far away for it is simply impossible - no one compares to cannons in terms of rate of fire, and in terms of ammunition - fluffs are generally beyond competition

        This is humor. I ask you not to throw stones. laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
        Kaptsov fat +for self esteem.
  • Engineer
    Engineer 11 December 2015 09: 06 New
    +5
    I wanted to write so much - I took lope for the article. Just kidding, of course, but such a laudatory article from scratch. Seaworthiness, hull - yes, remember the first LCs in which the shape of the nose was exactly the same. And think about why you left her. And after 100 years, they again remembered and passed off as genius. Why did the author of the EU praise not even describe it? How is it different from the one on Burke? This is more interesting than a comparison with the Colorado dinosaurs. The author was beaten in Ships similar. What is it conceptually, the transmission is not new? At all, now the package of turbines through the gearbox transmits the moment to the propeller shafts, and then from the turbines to the generators, and those, in turn, to the electric motors that drive the shafts into rotation. Therefore, there is the possibility of a sharp loss of capacity. And the author praised, and what he praised, and you yourself do not know. Well, and about weapons ... yes it’s ridiculous to read. No, I understand that the author is a fan of cannon weapons, especially the LK GK, but in our century the main weapons of the ship are two 155mm guns? Power! And how to apply this power? On shore targets like a tank? Missile weapons are weaker than Burke's last options, but the modification is almost 2 times higher. Apparently this is compensated by the presence of a second gun) The only thing I agree with the author is that the ship is a floating platform for testing promising types of weapons, which so far are only available in laboratory versions.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 10: 04 New
      0
      Engineer such an engineer
      Quote: Engineer
      And think about why you left her. And after 100let again remembered and pass off as genius.

      the first in 100 years, there’s not even genius here, but the level of automation that allowed you to return from the flooded deck, on which there is nothing but airtight UVP covers and a pair of boxes with folding guns
      Quote: Engineer
      Yes, remember the first LCs in which the shape of the nose was exactly the same.

      can attach a picture, otherwise I don’t believe you in a word
      Quote: Engineer
      Why did the author of the EU praise not even describe it? How is it different from the one on Burke?

      The words "turbo-electric transmission" do not say anything to the engineer?
      The berk has a rigid mechanical connection between the turbines and the propellers
      Quote: Engineer
      And how to apply this power? On shore targets like a tank?

      seem tanks? Can there be other goals?
  • Kvaigon
    Kvaigon 11 December 2015 09: 06 New
    +3
    Zamvloth as a floating laboratory is very useful - it's about like a Su-47 golden eagle in our aviation.
    New technologies are being worked out on it, they are testing guesses and later they are introducing them to new ships.
    Why not build if you have money?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 11 December 2015 09: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: Kvaigon
      Zamvloth as a floating laboratory is very useful - it's about like a Su-47 golden eagle in our aviation.
      New technologies are being worked out on it, they are testing guesses and later they are introducing them to new ships.
      Why not build if you have money?

      in general, the "Golden Eagle" was created for the ATAKR Ulyanovsk air wing and subsequent AV with the AEU ...
  • Fox
    Fox 11 December 2015 09: 16 New
    0
    I want this !!! where to order?
    But seriously, it’s an interesting car. Only repairs on the base, it’s not very fun. Although if in a pack, it’s not scary.
  • Belimbai
    Belimbai 11 December 2015 09: 21 New
    +4
    “The 155 mm Zamvolt gun’s shot is twice as heavy as the usual six-inch projectile (102 vs. 55 kg). Due to its unique capabilities, guided ammunition with a bottom gas generator can be considered the equivalent of the Caliber / Tomahawk cruise missile.
    The data on the “Caliber” is classified, while the “Tomahawk” is equipped with a 340-kg warhead. Despite the three-fold difference in warhead mass and a 10-fold shorter range, the 155 mm LRLAP projectile, in some situations, can become a direct replacement for SLCMs. "
    Am I a dumb tankman? How can one compare a projectile with a cruise missile .... By weight of explosives? .... By range? You can compare the phrase: "... in a number of situations ..." for example shooting at close range. "Equivalent of a cruise missile" .... Idiocy.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 09: 37 New
      -2
      Quote: Belimbai
      Am I a dumb tankman?

      Not excluded
      Quote: Belimbai
      How can one compare a projectile with a cruise missile ....

      There is a definite task. It can be done in many ways.

      The decision depends on many factors. What is the use of warhead missiles more, it may just be redundant. But more important will be the high velocity of the shells and the shorter artillery reaction time.

      Any objections?
      1. Belimbai
        Belimbai 11 December 2015 10: 17 New
        +1
        Ohhhh, we got personal ... Is there a task to destroy the enemy airfield, on the coast, not far, 500 km .... Will we dig the channel? And so imperceptibly sneak up ... and sack 155 mm. And about the possibility ... and the same to you. Different factors .... different weapons for different purposes and different tasks. Let's compare the tank with a machine gun ... the reaction speed of the latter is higher ....
        PSDo not take my banter over you, for your victory ... you will be healthier.
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2015 10: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Belimbai
          .There is a task to destroy the enemy airfield, on the coast, not far, 500 km

          Those. you exclude the possibility of finding an airfield in the coastal zone

          How far from the sea is our air base in Syria?
          Quote: Belimbai
          Let's compare the tank with a machine gun.

          Their comparison is useless
          they a priori solve different problems, despite the fact that the machine gun is mounted on the tank

          but what’s more effective - to fire a rocket or a shell, often the choice is in favor of a shell
          1. Belimbai
            Belimbai 11 December 2015 10: 55 New
            0
            "Their comparison is useless ...." Nooo dear friend, their comparison is exactly the same ... why shoot three infantrymen from a cannon? The KR and the projectile a priori solve different problems, and if they intersect only in a narrow segment (rather, even by chance), and write about the equivalence of these weapons .... their creators will start to stutter.
            1. Santa Fe
              11 December 2015 11: 07 New
              0
              Quote: Belimbai
              "Their comparison is useless ...." Nooo dear friend, their comparison is exactly the same ... why shoot three infantrymen from a cannon? The KR and the projectile a priori solve different problems, and if they intersect only in a narrow segment (rather, even by chance), and write about the equivalence of these weapons .... their creators will start to stutter.

              You have not answered the question - How far from the coast is our air base in Syria?

              500 KM?
              or maybe 600?

              and about a narrow segment - tell the Pentagon and the authors of the report on the effectiveness of art. support from the sea. when a third of the world's population lives no further than 50 km from the coast
              1. Belimbai
                Belimbai 11 December 2015 11: 30 New
                0
                And how long will the existing air base endure shelling of 2 155 mm guns?
                Indeed ... artillery support ... Yugoslavia 700 missiles, Iraq more than 1000, even in Afghanistan 600 (where is where they fired?) There is no 155 mm that would be checked ....

                PS Yes, it is on the shore, on the shore!
                1. Operator
                  Operator 11 December 2015 15: 59 New
                  0
                  Artillery bombardment by the destroyer of the airbase, on which airplanes with a radius of detection and destruction of surface targets over 500 km are based, is fantastic.
              2. Belimbai
                Belimbai 11 December 2015 11: 30 New
                0
                And how long will the existing air base endure shelling of 2 155 mm guns?
                Indeed ... artillery support ... Yugoslavia 700 missiles, Iraq more than 1000, even in Afghanistan 600 (where is where they fired?) There is no 155 mm that would be checked ....

                PS Yes, it is on the shore, on the shore!
          2. Belimbai
            Belimbai 11 December 2015 10: 55 New
            0
            "Their comparison is useless ...." Nooo dear friend, their comparison is exactly the same ... why shoot three infantrymen from a cannon? The KR and the projectile a priori solve different problems, and if they intersect only in a narrow segment (rather, even by chance), and write about the equivalence of these weapons .... their creators will start to stutter.
      2. Belimbai
        Belimbai 11 December 2015 10: 17 New
        +1
        Ohhhh, we got personal ... Is there a task to destroy the enemy airfield, on the coast, not far, 500 km .... Will we dig the channel? And so imperceptibly sneak up ... and sack 155 mm. And about the possibility ... and the same to you. Different factors .... different weapons for different purposes and different tasks. Let's compare the tank with a machine gun ... the reaction speed of the latter is higher ....
        PSDo not take my banter over you, for your victory ... you will be healthier.
  • Mera joota
    Mera joota 11 December 2015 09: 21 New
    +1
    Here, many doubt the effectiveness of automation. I want to remind you that in the civilian fleet, automation has long allowed to reduce crews to a minimum. For example, the container ship Emma Mærsk with a displacement of 170 thousand tons serves the crew .... 13! There is no typo, 13 people. And the world's largest (so far) container ship Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller serves as many as 19! person.
    This amount is enough to service all ship systems and organize the struggle for survivability.
    1. Santa Fe
      11 December 2015 09: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Mera Joota
      For example, the container ship Emma Mærsk with a displacement of 170 thousand tons is served by the crew .... 13! There is no typo, 13 people. And the world's largest (so far) container ship Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller serves already 19! person.

      A warship is not a container ship. Civil vessel detection tools typically include 2-3 navigation radars. The Orlan nuclear-powered cruiser has eleven radars for various purposes for controlling the surrounding space and guiding anti-aircraft missiles. Apart from the podcast sonar station and radio equipment for direction finding of enemy signals, multi-channel satellite communications systems, electronic warfare equipment, and driven radio beacons for ship helicopters.

      Detection tools and weapons require vigilant control, from here to seven combat units, which, in turn, can be divided into several divisions - each with its own commanders, deputy technicians, etc. Without taking into account the medical service and the “secret unit”.

      But the submarines are especially interesting.

      The modern Ashen is managed by a crew of less than a hundred people.

      The absolute record holder was the Soviet “Lira”. This unique underwater interceptor was controlled by 32 midshipman and officer. The concept of “Lira” did not provide for the constant duty of crew members in individual units and mechanisms. Instead, it was planned to periodically conduct a routine inspection of the compartments. The combat change of the submarine consisted of only eight people.

      “Lira” is the 70 years. Why, on modern cruisers and destroyers, shifts consist of dozens of sailors?

      The answer is simple. There are significantly fewer combat posts on boats. The submarines lack radars and air defense systems, and all weapons are represented only by mine-torpedo weapons and cruise missiles. No artillery, no aviation weapons, electronic warfare equipment is much more primitive than on surface ships.
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 11 December 2015 10: 23 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        A warship is not a container ship.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Detection tools and weapons require vigilant control, hence up to seven combat units

        The claims of commentators come down to the fact that the reduced crew will not cope with everyday problems (as I understand it). Maintenance of ship mechanisms and systems, struggle for survivability. I’m saying that now there are no special problems to exclude a person from many processes, it’s easier in the civilian fleet, it’s more profitable for the ship owner to have a minimum of crew with the least qualifications (Pakistanis rule!), So shipbuilders make every effort to automate the processes.
        For me there was always a question, what do so many people do in the warhead-5 of any ship? I worked on a dry cargo ship, a mechanic and an mechanic stood guard on duty in the engine room, EVERYTHING! We had two main diesel engines, three diesel generators, all pumps, main switchboards and other little things. A mechanic was sitting near the main switchboard and reading newspapers or a book, but I was wandering about idleness in the compartment and the maximum that I did was drain the fecal overboard as it was filling ... The military in BS-5 has a whole bunch of unclear who is doing what it is not clear .. ..
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 11 December 2015 21: 01 New
          +4
          The reduced crew will cope with everyday problems ... but combat damage is a big question. Especially when, as a result of these very damages, the power industry flies and that automation is de-energized ... And if there is enough people from point A to point B, then 13 - press the buttons ... But we are talking here about ships whose purpose is to fight ...
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 12 December 2015 12: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Mera Joota
          I worked on a dry cargo ship, a mechanic and an mechanic stood guard in the engine room

          Ie watch electronic watch and electric watch on your cargo ship were absent? On a ship of 2 rank, only the deck electricians department consisted of 3 men, as well as minders, turbinists, and hold operators. A warship is not a bulk carrier, it’s not worth saving on it for states to get superprofits!
  • Egor-dis
    Egor-dis 11 December 2015 09: 32 New
    +1
    Automatic survivability control systems with situation monitoring in each compartment
    All the hopes of the creators of Zamvolta - on the SAFFiR complex

    And what about the protection of these systems from electronic warfare and electromagnetic radiation?
    Show a wave that can sweep a 180-meter ship with a side height of 15 meters.

    Given the increasing seismic activity, I would not be so optimistic.
    Fighting near the coast does not require very large ranges.

    But will the stealth technology ship have enough to approach the "ultra-small" ranges? Having deceived coastal radars, dodging coastal aviation and missiles? And even by approaching a sufficient distance, will he be able to suppress the entire coastal defense?
    IMHO, in the open sea - this is a fairly serious opponent, but it is better not to approach the coast on it. However, as with any other large-sized.
  • spolo
    spolo 11 December 2015 10: 18 New
    -5
    Nice ship. I hope to become part of the Black Sea Fleet after the defeat of the United States in World War 3, if Kaneshno survives. Renamed to "Ustyug" may be ..
  • bbss
    bbss 11 December 2015 10: 48 New
    0
    However ... Actions on coastal megacities are fraught with an answer. Not only coastal defense assets, but also conventional front-line aviation can take part in it.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 11 December 2015 10: 58 New
    +3
    Another prodigy!
    Very good comparison with the B-2. A very expensive, technological, but stupid beaver that can only bombard banana republics without a response ...
  • maikl50jrij
    maikl50jrij 11 December 2015 11: 24 New
    0
    lol Something I remembered "Titanic" ... Super ship with all the super-turns ... The cost of the ship ... the cost of the ticket ... the cost of living of passengers !!! Again the magnificent bzik! Again super-boat ... super-turns ... super-price ... and only 150 (180) teams !!! Yes! Still "unsinkable" androids ... And our hummingbird (lionfish, like hunting "swallow" to call ...) is far from an official iceberg hi
  • Taoist
    Taoist 11 December 2015 11: 26 New
    +5
    Regarding the contours and their effect on seaworthiness ... well, Oleg, in his usual manner, writes everything down in superlatives. In fact, the "casket just opened" - just as the flight data of the "limping goblin" were sacrificed to "invisibility" in the same way, the seafaring qualities of Zamvolt were also obviously sacrificed to it ...
    Yes, people on the upper deck are not required now. However, it has not been required for a long time, and if someone was present on the warship in the "combat alert" position, then there is nobody on the upper deck. people appear on the upper deck to eliminate fires and damage. But here it is not entirely clear. (By the way, let's see. Automation is certainly great, but in the case when everything works. In the meantime, no one has succeeded in creating a system that is completely protected from “inevitable at sea accidents”).

    IMHO but "locked up" is still in its pure form a "technology demonstrator" and there are great doubts about the appropriateness of using them. A ship in 15 thousand tons for coastal artillery fire? To put it mildly strange.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 11 December 2015 13: 39 New
      -1
      Quote: Taoist
      Weird

      It happens ... it's time to get used to it

      Quote: Turkish Air Force Survey. Step back

      "Trr. Flew!" laughing
  • alstr
    alstr 11 December 2015 11: 57 New
    +4
    Speaking of automation of fire fighting equipment, so to speak, remarks.
    1. Electronics, and especially communications, work very poorly in an intense fire. Electronics is also sensitive to radiation and EM shocks.
    At one time, he passed practice at the RTK in St. Petersburg. Just our laboratory tested a fire robot - so the first requirement is cable management, because in a fire, the radio control refused. And they told how all the robots in Chernobyl failed due to radiation, which negatively affected the development of this area

    2. No robot (universal human-robot) will climb into narrowness and will not be able to work there, because will not allow the rigidity of the body.

    My grandfather received a warrant for repairing the rudders of a submarine during a military campaign, where something had to be done in a small well. (by the way, there’s a similar episode somewhere in the film). I think that the robot is hardly capable of this. In addition, the robot will never replace a person during the repair, if you do not need a standard repair or standard repair, but no spare parts. Well, like there is no bolt, then you can stick a nail in and bend on both sides (bad, but it will work for a while).

    3. About the crew. The crew on a warship is more than a civilian for one simple reason: these are losses from enemy fire. Accordingly, in order to make up for these losses there must be a certain excess of people who will make up for the losses. I will give an example from air defense. Calculation of the guidance cockpit (i.e., who actually launches missiles) 5 people: a commander, a launch operator, a situation control operator, two fine-tuning operators (I don’t remember the exact name of the posts for years), but in fact the minimum calculation, i.e. . one person can shoot. In this case, of course, part of the efficiency will be lost.
    In addition, it is assumed (and the practice of military operations confirms this) that during the military operations (even without taking into account the enemy’s impact), repairs (small and medium) will be required plus the struggle for survivability. All this requires people.
    On civilian vessels, this is not required, so there is only the minimum necessary crew.
  • SergeyIV
    SergeyIV 11 December 2015 12: 30 New
    -1
    Fewer uglier structures. Please do not compare with the ships of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century - they still have grace. And this is either a coffin or an obelisk. The coffin is the entire Navy of America.
  • Captain45
    Captain45 11 December 2015 13: 30 New
    +4
    Of course, I’m not a specialist, like Oleg Kaptsov, I don’t know much about ships and their weapons, but somehow I don’t remember at Discovery or Dzhografik about half a year ago, I watched a documentary film there, Americans near California conducted tests of a new gun mount on ship, they just made a move, about 30 nodes, some electronic component failed in the sights from the case’s vibration. Some block was shown, see 10х15. They couldn’t replace it because they were missing and they were waiting for the engineers to arrive with VMB and will replace this part, but then, as luck would have it, happened nice weather, so this 5 ship hung around in the ocean for days without being able to shoot artillery. The ship itself couldn’t return to base due to fuel economy. I looked at it and thought, guys, you won’t win the war. .
  • Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 11 December 2015 13: 47 New
    +1
    Well, in general, the reverse obstruction of the sides is a good thing, and the French, and even we (the Russian Empire) sometimes used such a scheme. Rarely, but still. The stability and seaworthiness from this really increased (the only problem is that such a design at that time was very low-tech and expensive to implement, but the launch of boats was very difficult). At least, “Tsesarevich” from its use as a whole won.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 11 December 2015 13: 58 New
      0
      What was the gain? Do not explain? The reverse slope was then used solely for the purpose of increasing the firing angles ... But seaworthiness such a scheme does not increase but decreases - because not only does the recovery force decrease here but does not increase as it increases, as it should and the water masses entering this sloping side increase the overturning ... Now such a scheme can be used exclusively in combination with active pitching dampers. The only plus of such contours is the reduction in shock loads when moving side to side ...
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 11 December 2015 14: 15 New
    +1
    In terms of seaworthiness, Zamvolt is an ideal ship.

    Before the end of the tests and at least a couple of years of operation under various conditions, it is too early to make such statements.
    In general, this is obvious. Apparently, based on the results of this pilot operation, a decision will be made on the further construction of the series. So far, successful water-cutting cases are x-bow, but they are slightly different.
    By the way, a displacement ship will still be prone to rolling, despite the shape of the nose.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 11 December 2015 14: 42 New
    -1
    Before writing this, the author, just take an interest in the weapons systems on the ships, and do not compare the most sophisticated shell with the anti-ship missile system. It is possible that Zamvolt is the new Dreadnought, and do not compare it with Grigorovich, it's ridiculously simple.
  • Alex_Sis
    Alex_Sis 11 December 2015 14: 58 New
    0
    and where is the ship’s life-saving equipment? they are not visible in the pictures ...
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 28 February 2016 00: 20 New
      -1
      Quote: Alex_Sis
      and where is the ship’s life-saving equipment? they are not visible in the pictures ...

      If you are talking about boats, then this life-saving tool is so outdated that it is not made on warships anymore. To save there are inflatable rafts, sealed against sweeping waves. You can’t just see them on deck.
  • CSI
    CSI 11 December 2015 15: 16 New
    0
    Tin. Mechanical drones were especially surprised ... belay
  • Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 11 December 2015 16: 27 New
    -1
    Quote: Taoist
    But seaworthiness such a scheme does not increase but decreases - because not only does the recovery force decrease here but not increase as it should, as it should and the water masses entering this sloping side increase the overturning ...

    Sorry what? With an increase in roll, does the "restoring force" decrease? How is this physically possible, can you tell? Apparently, some other physics reigns on your globe.
    In general, about the positive work of blocking the board in opposing the waves, I recommend reading at least here: http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/236/2360827.html
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 11 December 2015 21: 09 New
      +2
      That physics reigns on my globe ... (I actually even build boats myself). But you would have to learn a theory. Now take and lay on this scheme a littered board - and draw the shoulders. You will find a lot of interesting discoveries. Do not forget the waterline.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 12 December 2015 20: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: Taoist
        You will find a lot of interesting discoveries.

        crying Mr. Mashtakov. don’t offend the kittens, the green ones will not forgive you when you next launch your boat they will picket you in front of the slipway angry good
  • KaraBumer
    KaraBumer 11 December 2015 17: 46 New
    0
    And if you have to go lag? And catch a 3-4 meter wave in the left, well, or in the right cheekbone ??
    1. sergei.84
      sergei.84 11 December 2015 21: 36 New
      -1
      Here to the place of the word from the song- "
      but it’s not seen in the sea who said that. I wouldn’t say "
  • Kibl
    Kibl 11 December 2015 18: 33 New
    -2
    An iron floats on the rivers, a piece of iron hu ... wa, well, let it float for itself, maybe it has a nest there!
  • python2a
    python2a 11 December 2015 18: 46 New
    +1
    The whole game of stealth for large ships is a waste of money, since you can’t do a large tilt angle, and visibility from above will be excellent.
  • CRASH
    CRASH 11 December 2015 18: 53 New
    0
    Interestingly, RCC Onyx, will fly out of this invisibility on departure?

    By the way, Sea Shadow sold already? He was also invisible)
  • TOR2
    TOR2 11 December 2015 20: 02 New
    +1
    As professor Ufimtsev said the theory was based on stealth: "even if you make absolutely absorbing material and the reflection coefficient is = 0, the reflected signal in power will decrease only by half, which means that a lot of dissipated energy remains in the surrounding space and it can be used to detect a stealth object. " This is described in the film "Russian stealth. The pursuit of the invisible."
    https://youtu.be/4Kr3Xk49NnE
    So the “Bastion” will “see” the uninvited guest.
  • Nirvanko
    Nirvanko 11 December 2015 20: 52 New
    +2
    It was always surprising how Americans are obsessed with the idea of ​​'stealth.' Often, other characteristics of the technique bring to her vest, as was the case with the F-117. Russian weapons are strikingly distinguished by their compromise of decisions.
    1. SIMM
      SIMM 11 December 2015 22: 21 New
      0
      Exactly, they shot down this F-117 in Yugoslavia by the "antediluvian" Soviet S-125)))))
  • SIMM
    SIMM 11 December 2015 22: 19 New
    -1
    What an interesting article!
    Already you can start to be afraid ???)))))))
  • andrew-z
    andrew-z 11 December 2015 23: 15 New
    +2
    Quote: Falcon
    About additional generators is not a word anywhere, in the event of a GTE failure.


    Like not, everywhere. There are two auxiliary modules of GTU RR-4500 with generators with a capacity of 3,9 MW. In addition, there are two emergency DG modules that are automatically put into operation in emergency situations.
    those. even if both main gas turbine engines "die", there will be enough energy for the low speed and operation of general ship systems.
  • NordUral
    NordUral 11 December 2015 23: 23 New
    0
    It’s not worth it to highlight the advantages that are not obvious so far, and even at such an insane cost this dangerous, of course. but toys. And not so indestructible, moreover. Naturally, it’s worth studying and adopting something. but not in the creation of such monsters, but in small armed armed ships, and in very large numbers. At the current pace of development of missile defense and air defense, the mass attack or repulsive attack, also massive, is of great importance.
  • serverny
    serverny 11 December 2015 23: 39 New
    -1
    Regardless of the material written and the absence of the slightest criticism of Zamvolt (including why and who needs it with such a configuration of weapons and cost - the US Navy has not yet been able to come up with anything about this) - the article from the literary point of view is written extremely clumsily, and in places frankly stinks of poorly crafted machine translation.
    Reading is just unpleasant.

    PS
    At the same time, even the most high-tech LRLAP costs 10 less than a cruise missile.

    And carries ten times less explosives - 11 kg in a shell. You will get tired of breaking the minimum fortifications with such bulbs.
    Plus, counteracting electronic warfare / disabling GPS will instantly worsen the AEC to about 50m. In such circumstances, it would be nice to have "stupid" shells.
  • Orionvit
    Orionvit 12 December 2015 01: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Darkmor
    Not impressive.

    I don’t understand why everyone is babysitting with these radio-reflecting structures?
    Everything should be in moderation - it is one thing to straighten the contours of the ship for less noticeability, it is another thing to straighten the entire ship to achieve the desired contours. Zwolvt, a vivid example of the latter approach. Do you know who else was a prime example, though in a different element? F117. He was a flying iron, and this one is floating.
    And you know, I remember publications about the invisible plane. And I remember the praises ... exactly the same as they sang for free now. Although he has problems - a wagon and a small cart.
    I’m just wondering - if in 10 years a new generation of anti-ship missiles will use (and IT WILL) new principles of capture and guidance, what to do with irons? Even the change and strengthening of the radar, which will undoubtedly happen, will make the "almost invisible" now locked up very visible.
    To make a destroyer protected from missiles of the previous generation is characteristic of the USA, fighting with the "Papuans".
    And I sincerely hope that we do not follow their path. Although, no doubt, research is necessary.

    The vaunted F-117, successfully flew only in 1991, in Iraq. But there they fought against the Arabs. As soon as they were used against the Serbs (for reference, as they say in the West, they are brainless Slavs), they immediately shot down one, according to other estimates, two unkilled aircraft. So it will be with this miracle. Those were shot down (the old S-125 complex), this will sink, what you worry. There are no inconspicuous goals. There is a complex of combat interaction, which includes satellites, and reconnaissance, and combat training, and generally a lot of things. As a matter of fact, I’ll say that back in the 60's. the entire complex of opposing enemy radar in the USSR was studied. Any object flying in the atmosphere at high speed (0.5-3.0 Mach and more), as a result of friction against the air, perfectly emit in the microwave and infrared range. That’s why in the West they are trying to make an irreversible miracle, in Russia the means of electronic warfare. I think so, on the cunning J .. pu, there is a he ... p with a screw.
  • Makarov
    Makarov 12 December 2015 02: 43 New
    0
    My humble opinion: a great car and a serious rival, especially guns. It is very impressive, especially when you consider that all the secrets will become apparent only in a real combat situation, so there are probably still a lot of tricky "lotions" .. to all those who are skeptical about the capabilities of such a ship, imagine it under the Andreevsky flag (so faster and it will be easier to understand its danger). Once again a very, very serious rival only by itself there are two BUT

    1) How is this ship doing with survivability with such a meager crew and so weak modern robotics?
    2) The purpose is not entirely clear - well, if it’s a destroyer, then its priority when laying capacities and capabilities was guided by the targets corresponding to the class - submarines, aircraft and enemy ships ... then what does the emphasis on coastal work ... or they themselves have not yet decided what it is for, roofing felts darken something ...
    1. andrew-z
      andrew-z 12 December 2015 03: 07 New
      +1
      1. And how do you determine survivability? crew survival or ship safety?
      - fewer crews - less potential losses (more than 956 people will die if the destroyer of the 350th project is dead, but only 140-180)
      - 15000 tons of displacement form such a volume of buoyancy that 2-3 pcr you can’t sink, but it doesn’t matter. After the first hit, he will not be able to continue the task. And which ship can?
      3. he has all the means to combat submarines, NK, LA, what do you miss? Not enough 80 UVP?
      Weak coastal work is the main drawback of all NKs except aircraft carriers, so they tried to fix it.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 12 December 2015 03: 54 New
        0
        It depends on what anti-ship missiles, its guns with adjustable shells can be used as anti-aircraft guns.
        1. andrew-z
          andrew-z 12 December 2015 16: 43 New
          +1
          they cannot be used as anti-aircraft guns, only 2 shells will be in the BC - along the shore (main, with gas generator) and anti-ship (without warheads)
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 16 December 2015 04: 18 New
            0
            Quote: andrew-z
            it is impossible,

            an attempt to compost the brain cast a spell ... take a pie and 30 cents from the shelf lol
            Anti-aircraft shells are much smaller calibers, and there is also the possibility of adjusting it in flight to the target.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 December 2015 03: 51 New
      0
      There is an appointment even in pedagogy.

      On airfields on the big coast and on the islands peel with tomahawks, then on the islands - with artillery.
      Support for LCS operating in the Russian Far East and in the Chinese seas. Of the Russian, the middle part of the Kuril Islands is the most vulnerable, of the Chinese, and so everything is well known.

      They were lying with Iran, although there was everything with drilling and Iranian frigates.