Military Review

"Third American Compensation" went to sea

172



The first US destroyer of a new type with rocket armament on board, which gave the name to the entire class of ships, the Zamvolt, will soon enter service with the US Navy. This week began his trials at sea. The destroyer belongs to a fundamentally new generation of weapons created by the Americans.

"Carver Ship"

Zamvolt is the largest destroyer of the American fleet: its length is 183 m, width - 24,6 m, draft - 8,4 m, and displacement - 14,5 thousand tons. If the US Navy Zamvolt is second only to aircraft carriers in terms of displacement, then the Russian fleet has non-aircraft carriers and significantly larger than him. These are, for example, nuclear missile cruisers of project 1144 with a displacement of 26 thousand tons.

The crew of the Zamvolt consists of almost one hundred and fifty seamen. Such a small team for such a huge ship is explained by maximum automation.

The destroyer Zamvolt was built at the Bath Iron Works shipyards. On combat duty, he must step in next year. This ship resembles a futuristic ship of the future, which has just come down from the big screen or the pages of a science fiction novel. In principle, this is the case: the ship from James Bond's 1997 movie “Tomorrow Never Dies Never” looked almost exactly the same, built by the main villain Carver, who tried to seize power over the world with the help of the media and marine equipment. The real destroyer is so similar to its cine prototype, since it was implied that the latter was built using stealth technology.

At the beginning of this week, according to the AR agency, the destroyer escorted by tugboats left Fort Popem and sailed into the Atlantic Ocean, where he will be tested. In the US Navy, Zamvolt and two more ships of this class, which now stand in shipyards, are looking forward to. The destroyer Zamvolt is a ship of the XXI century. He has a completely new engine with full electric propulsion. Electricity is produced on board.


Largest in stories US Navy Destroyer Type USS Zumwalt
AP / TASS


The Zamvol is armed with X-NUMX Mk-20 rocket launchers, two long-range 57-mm guns and 155-mm anti-aircraft guns. To protect against radar, the destroyer hull and superstructure are “dressed” in an 30-centimeter “shirt” made of radio-absorbing materials. She's what makes him a movie hero. The price for Zamvolta is to match all the weapons and appearance. It costs at least 3 billion dollars.

At sea and on land

The Pentagon intends to frighten Russia and China, of course, not only with Zamvolt. In the American media, the day with the fire does not find messages about this, but in Syria and Iraq, the US Department of Defense is experiencing new exotic weapons systems.

This was recently told to journalists by US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, writes the Washington Post.

It seems that the Pentagon decided to fully take advantage of America in high technology. It is on them that a bet is made in the correspondence arms race with Russia and China. New weapons systems resemble weapondiscussed in the Star Wars Reagan program. With only an amendment to the three decades that have passed since then, and numerous scientific advances and discoveries.

The Pentagon reported on the innovation project system in November 2014 of the year, but until the beginning of this year, all the details of the program were kept in the strictest confidence. At the Pentagon, high-tech weapons systems are called "third compensation strategies."

The first compensation was the creation of tactical nuclear weapons, the second - high-precision conventional weapons systems. The third compensation involves the development of weapons systems of the XXI century, based on robots and artificial intelligence.

In the Pentagon’s budget for 2017, a lot of money was invested in the third compensation strategy. 3 billion dollars allocated for the development of programs against the actions of a potential enemy; 3 billion - for weapons systems that connect people and machines (robots); 1,7 billion for the development of cyber- and electronic systems using artificial intelligence. Half a billion are designed to test new weapons.

Robert Wark showed at a press conference the slides of one of the newest weapons systems - the Perdix microdron, the dimensions of which do not exceed 30. See For such "babies", in his opinion, the future of military operations in the new century. The fact that such actions will be, the general from the administration of the president-laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize, obviously, no doubt.

To this we can add that, as Expert Online wrote to 5 in February, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter named Russia among the "five main security challenges of America", along with China, North Korea, Iran (by that time already freed from international sanctions) and IG (banned in Russia). Thus, there is no reason to doubt who the new weapon is directed against and who is entitled to the “third compensation”.

Russia, by the way, has the answer to this. “We have developed several types of radio-absorbing materials with high characteristics in the required ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum, Nikolai Fedonyuk, head of the laboratory of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Krylov State Research Center, said on the eve of TASS. He also talked about the use of new composite materials in the designs of Russian corvettes of 20380 and 20385 projects, as well as frigates of the 22350 project, which should ensure their inconspicuity The rifled middle layer of the trim panel allows us to provide the necessary parameters for the effective scattering surface of the ship, ”the designer explained.
Author:
Originator:
http://expert.ru/2016/02/25/esminets-zamvolt-vpervyie-vyishel-v-more/
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. EvgNik
    EvgNik 28 February 2016 05: 51
    +2
    And what is this Egyptian pyramid?
    1. cap
      cap 28 February 2016 06: 23
      24
      Quote: EvgNik
      And what is this Egyptian pyramid?


      An inconspicuous ship for radars. I don’t know the truth for any. Probably Somali pirates.
      I saw with a similar decision on the Bosphorus 10 years ago, under the French flag.
      It was painted all gray paint, also apparently invisible. It looked futuristic. The Turks spoke in tongues. I do not remember the tail number.
      This is apparently the development of a long-standing idea. And the meaning?
      If there is money and there is a Ferrari, why not buy something like that.
      Dolphins scare.
      1. Darkmor
        Darkmor 28 February 2016 16: 14
        18
        Stealth is not bad.
        It’s bad when they start to confuse her with invisibility.
        Why do I need a subtle corvette, I can understand. Why do we need a subtle frigate - already an understanding with a stretch.
        But a stealth destroyer? ...

        Well, let's say you disguise its radar signature as a corvette. It's good.
        But this destroyer will not sail alone (he cannot act alone on the spectrum of weapons) - which means there will be a couple more corvettes and frigates around him. Those. you can’t hide the fleet in any way and do not disguise yourself as a peaceful tanker.
        Those. you ditch 2,5 times more money just to make your super destroyer visible as a corvette on a long-range radar. You are hiding a destroyer among your corvettes.
        Question - will the enemy regret the anti-ship missile on the corvette? It seems to me that no.
        And for this money, it would be possible to build 2-3 ordinary destroyers, each of which in all but stealth, would surpass the deadlock.

        For some reason, this reminded me of Hochma about f-117, which in Iraq bombed targets accompanied by 4 completely invisible f-16s.
    2. VadimL
      VadimL 28 February 2016 06: 29
      39
      This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :)
      1. Serg 122
        Serg 122 28 February 2016 07: 40
        +7
        It seems that the Pentagon decided to take full advantage of America’s advantage in high technology. It is on them that they are betting in the correspondence arms race with Russia and China. The new weapons systems resemble the weapons mentioned in the Reagan Star Wars program

        I remembered one book:
        Imagine - Africa, the jungle, a small pathetic pygmy, illiterate, but with a gun. And a dozen Harvard graduates, each of whom knows and knows so much that, if necessary, can burn with a laser beam or napalm not only the indicated pygmy, but all of Rwanda-Burundi as a whole ...
        - Here they arrive in a smart "Iroquois" with locators, URSs and
        NURSAMI, terribly smart and self-confident, and he suddenly because of a bush r-times ...

        As they say, for every tricky ... opa, we will also find something ... smile bully
        1. vodolaz
          vodolaz 28 February 2016 15: 28
          +3
          If I’m not mistaken, but even for the Americans, who are cutting money for it, it turned out to be very expensive.
        2. APASUS
          APASUS 28 February 2016 19: 28
          +5
          Quote: Serg 122
          As they say, for every tricky ... opa, we will find something too

          With such construction costs
          It costs at least 4,4 billion dollars.
          this ship, along with the aircraft carrier, acquires the symbol of a golden trophy, I think for many crews of submarines or pilots this is the way to the next position and an asterisk for shoulder straps.
          I read how, when attacking Pearl Harbor, Japanese pilots hollowed an inverted barge, thinking that it was an aircraft carrier. By the way, a barge was used to practice bombing on aircraft carriers, so the team could not make out for a long time what this attention means ........... .........
      2. Pilot
        Pilot 28 February 2016 15: 36
        -4
        Quote: VadimL
        This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :)

        This is a real combat unit.
        1. CTEPX
          CTEPX 28 February 2016 16: 01
          +3
          Quote: Pilot
          This is a real combat unit.

          The appearance of which was calculated on the fact that our aircrafts would not have time to "get" to modern technologies. But no, they "got". Now this is just a real combat UNIT)).
          1. user
            user 29 February 2016 22: 28
            +1
            Thus, there is no need to doubt who the new weapon is directed against and to whom the "third compensation" is intended.


            By the way, Russia has something to answer this.


            To be honest, we are certainly lagging behind in the "third compensation", but how this "third compensation" will fight in the conditions of massive use of electronic warfare, where we are not lagging behind, and in some places even ahead, only real combat actions will show.
  2. Russian jacket
    Russian jacket 28 February 2016 06: 53
    +7
    Hmm .... the states fed the rhino and sent to swimming ... But what if the rhino, for example, diarrhea happens wassat But seriously, it’s interesting, but how will such automation work when it is counteracted by electronic warfare equipment? negative
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 28 February 2016 08: 56
      19
      What is Zamwold's problem?

      Destroyer - he is the destroyer. According to modern concepts, a large, well-armed ship of the far ocean zone with a developed air defense system.



      You can evaluate the combat effectiveness of Zamvolt by comparing his performance characteristics and weapons with the performance characteristics of existing ships. For example, the missile cruiser pr. 1164 "Atlant", which is similar in size. What can “Moscow” and “Varyag” from what “Zamvolt” cannot?



      1. Anti-ship strike weapons
      "Moscow" - 16 super-heavy "Volcanoes"
      "Zamvolt" - theoretically, it can carry a dozen or so LRASM anti-ship missiles in the UVP (range up to 500 km, low-altitude flight profile, modern electronics - various search and attack schemes, target selection, satellite communication channel, relatively small size and EPR, warhead 450 kg). LRASM will enter service in the early 2020s, just by that time Zamwalt will reach operational readiness

      2. Impact weapons for striking along the shore
      Moscow has nothing but a 130 mm gun
      At Zamvolt - in the shock version, you can load Tomahawks (at least 2/3 of 80 missile shafts) + two 155 mm automatic guns with ammunition 920 guided and unguided shells. In most cases, the Tomahawk can be a successful replacement (in a battle, a couple of hundred kg of explosives is not always required, a couple of dozen is enough to defeat most targets, for example, the Luftwaffe had 50 kg as the main bomb). Each Zamvolt shell weighs twice as much as the usual six-inch shell (102 versus 55 kg) and in its power approaches 203 mm caliber. Range of fire - at least 100 km will provide him

      3. Air defense / missile defense
      Moscow has 64 S-300F missiles (range 90 km) and 40 Osa-MA air defense missiles (10-15 km)
      At Zamvolt - at least 20-30 cells can be occupied by ESSM missiles (max. Range of damage 50 km), four in each cell, total 80-120 missiles
      of the advantages - a modern radar with AFAR, dozens of simultaneously fired targets

      4. PLO
      Moscow - only 10 homing torpedoes and RBU, one helicopter
      Zamvolt - ASROK-VL anti-submarine missile torpedoes, two helicopters

      The main advantage of Zamvolt is the possibility of flexible changes in the composition of weapons, for any urgent tasks. 80 universal mines

      From useful innovations:
      - best seaworthiness
      - a modern EU, with the possibility of instant transfer of all generated energy to a specific consumer
      - less acoustic visibility (electric transmission, water cannons)
      - lower RCS (side roll-over, solid superstructure without protruding antennas, lack of radio contrast elements). The complexity of its "capture" by missile heads, especially in a storm, with active countermeasures of electronic warfare
      - a smaller crew (140 ... 180 people, why put a lot of people at risk?), increase the resource of all mechanisms, automate all processes up to loading ammunition
      1. PPD
        PPD 28 February 2016 09: 15
        17
        There was such a cruiser pr 58. Terrible, for example. On board were stockpiles of missiles. Like shooting, reload. Then it turned out that the time to recharge at least an hour, with a calm sea.
        In practice, they will beat earlier.
        To change the tomahawks, which are, to LRASM, which are not, at least you need to go to the base.
        If they give.
        In practice, it will be the same F 35. Although it is necessary to admit they have a super advertisement!
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 28 February 2016 09: 26
          0
          Quote: PPD
          To change the tomahawks, which are, to LRASM, which are not, at least you need to go to the base.

          The main thing is that there is an opportunity

          And they choose the composition of weapons before entering the BS
          The war with another Iraq. Or escorting a convoy in the Atlantic. Even in the universal version, it carries missiles for all occasions more than any European / Chinese / Indian ship
          1. PPD
            PPD 28 February 2016 10: 09
            +8
            He does not carry anything yet. Nothing to carry. A missile after 2020 will appear, maybe.
            Tomahawks in the PCR version were also developed, and?
            1. Bennert
              Bennert 28 February 2016 16: 54
              +3
              Quote: PPD
              He does not carry anything yet. Nothing to carry.

              CRBD "Tomahawk" - put into service in 1983
              ASROK-VL - has been in service since 1996
              RIM-162 ESSM - in service since 2004
              Quote: PPD
              Tomahawks in the PCR version were also developed, and?

              adopted in 1983
              Designator - BGM-109B TASM
              now replaced with the new UGM-109E TLAM-E
              Quote: PPD
              A missile after 2020 will appear, maybe.

              small-sized anti-ship missiles with launch from UVP

              Structurally, the AGM-158C LRASM introduces the JASSM cruise missile with an accelerator
              JASSM in service since 2001
        2. CTABEP
          CTABEP 28 February 2016 09: 28
          +1
          Having 80 cells, most likely they will be loaded with the whole range of weapons, just the balance will shift in any direction depending on the task. In fact, the main problem of it as a warship - the lack of a working anti-ship missile so far - here BENNERT correctly noted.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 28 February 2016 10: 51
            +3
            Quote: CTABEP
            In fact, the main problem of it as a warship - the lack of a working anti-ship missile so far - here BENNERT correctly noted.

            Until 2020, and on the "Moscow" "Calibers" can be placed if you spend a billion dollars.
          2. Morrrow
            Morrrow 28 February 2016 12: 29
            -9
            Stealth redeems all.
      2. 73bor
        73bor 28 February 2016 10: 01
        +2
        So far, from what the Americans wanted, there is only a ship and a certain range of missiles, there are no guns either, there are no aircraft on board, and the ship itself is not for the ocean zone, the F-117 fighter supposedly reminded, no one has canceled the buoyancy requirements!
        1. aiw
          aiw 28 February 2016 14: 12
          0
          What is wrong with buoyancy?
        2. Bennert
          Bennert 28 February 2016 17: 02
          +4
          Quote: 73bor
          and a certain range of missiles

          the entire range of missiles is adopted
          of promising developments - anti-ship LRASM, in service - from 2018 (plan)

          Quote: 73bor
          no guns either

          Yes, I do not want to

          Advanced Gun System in the assembly shop
          Quote: 73bor
          and the ship itself is not for the ocean zone

          15 thousand tons, three times larger than Russian frigates
          Quote: 73bor
          buoyancy requirements

          what is wrong with buoyancy?

          just to "fart" something, you don't need to know
          will soon become a marshal
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 28 February 2016 20: 07
            -1
            Quote: BENNERT
            just to "fart" something, you don't need to know
            will soon become a marshal

            It's time for the generalissimo to introduce and invent something new
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 28 February 2016 20: 27
              +4
              Quote: Pimply
              It’s time to introduce and invent generalissimo something new

              (Thoughtfully): The color of the pants, for example (c) Kin-Dza-Dza ..

              belay
      3. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2016 11: 18
        +7
        “Zamvolt” should be compared with “Rostov-on-Don”:
        - 100 percent invisibility;
        - electric gas control system;
        - weapons "Caliber" and "Zircon";
        - crew 52 person;
        - cost in ten times less;
        - A series of 12 units.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      4. ametist415
        ametist415 28 February 2016 12: 50
        -1
        The main advantage of Zamvolt is the possibility of flexible changes in the composition of weapons, for any urgent tasks. 80 universal mines.
        This is the main advantage of all American ships of the Ticonderoga, Arlie Berg type and this over ours. Even pr. 1144 and 1164 are obsolete ships at the stage of their construction.
      5. Yarhann
        Yarhann 28 February 2016 13: 35
        +5
        ingenious demarcation of the Eminets and the flagship of the odred of the fight against AUG. anyway that BMP and tank compare. The Atlant and ORLAN projects were created solely to combat the enemy’s ACG anywhere in the world. For this, there were Antei long-range aviation submarines of the same type 95 and so on, and a group of satellites for detecting and over-target targeting for anti-ship missiles were all the main point of these ships and The entire naval strategy of the USSR during the Cold War.
        As for me now, the Chinese are developing the best version of the fight against AUGs, these are ballistic missiles to fight AUGs, we could also be engaged in this direction, and given the love of a mattress for geeks and co-ship size as large as a zumwalt and the same astronomical value, this project would be justified . It is only necessary to develop methods and methods for accurately determining the location and target designation for a ballistic missile and adjusting its flight path to the target - well, in short, as long as the mattress creates kinetic interceptors of cm3 and cm6 ballistic missiles, the same technology can be used to create an effective tool to combat the flagships of the fleet. Creating your own missile target designation system for the final targeting of the ship is not a matter of warheads for a ballistic missile, it is large enough and you can install a small-sized powerful radar which, when the warhead enters a given area, is detached from the warhead and brakes on braking parachutes - then it finds the target and gives targeting to the carrier at a frantic speed down the warhead - why the GOS is not in warhead like on anti-ship missiles - there the body will be so warmed up by friction and flight speed that plasma will be formed on the warhead surface that the radar of detection and target designation will not work. Well and the second option is just external target designation with satellites, but as for me satellites are more suitable for finding a meta of the ship itself, and then even so, each rocket should have its own seeker.
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag 28 February 2016 16: 25
          +1
          Quote: Yarhann
          As for me now, the Chinese are developing the best vaprint for fighting AUGs. These are ballistic missiles to fight AUGs.

          Not the best, no one will understand conventional or nuclear ammunition there, so the answer will be to the maximum, therefore they will not be applied until they find a spare Earth
        2. ametist415
          ametist415 29 February 2016 23: 37
          -1
          Any cruiser or destroyer without a universal VPU for different types of missiles and a multifunctional integrated control system for all weapons are obsolete projects since the 80s, regardless of the tasks for which they were created. Therefore, pr. 1164, 1144 became obsolete almost immediately, as well as pr. 956 and 1155. They still have a "secret", they cannot go fast for a long time. Their engines are unsuccessful.
      6. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 28 February 2016 17: 20
        +6
        Quote: BENNERT
        At Zamvolt - at least 20-30 cells can be occupied by ESSM missiles (max. Range of destruction 50 km), four in each cell, total 80-120 missiles

        Zamvolt has ONLY 20 Mk.57 launchers for 80 missiles! And this is for anti-ship missiles, and for air defense, and for PLO! So no need to be misled! wink
        1. Bennert
          Bennert 28 February 2016 17: 55
          +4
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Zamvolt has ONLY 20 Mk.57 launchers for 80 missiles!

          80 cells

          The number of missiles may be greater; ESSMs are placed 4 in each cell
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 28 February 2016 18: 33
            0
            Quote: BENNERT
            The number of missiles may be greater; ESSMs are placed 4 in each cell

            Here you are right. I acknowledge. hi But this does not mean that before each going out to sea someone will hang out the number of missiles on the ship. All the same, the operation takes time and money, and therefore they will divide the total number into three parts and will float with such a composition all the time. I believe in a change in the composition of weapons, but not before every exit to the sea
      7. xtur
        xtur 28 February 2016 19: 25
        0
        > LRASM to enter service in early 2020s

        compare existing weapons with what will be in 3 years ...

        Yes, by the way, then I’m very disappointing you - by this time in Moscow and Varyag will already be, according to plans, hypersonic "Zircons".

        In the battle of Wishlist Americans in ... dung. Probably due to lack of imagination, yes
        1. CTABEP
          CTABEP 28 February 2016 21: 21
          +2
          Hardly. Plans are plans, but you need to look at things realistically - it is good if they will be there at least in 6-7 years.
          1. xtur
            xtur 29 February 2016 14: 29
            0
            > Hardly. Plans are plans, but you have to look at things realistically

            no offense - but you need to read carefully, because, in essence, I talked about comparing plans unnecessarily LRASM, about which Kaptsov spoke, comparing with actual anti-ship missiles, this is only plans.

            Plans must be compared with plans, so I said that even if we compare plans, then even in this case the comparison is not in favor of "Zamvolt"
      8. korvin1976
        korvin1976 28 February 2016 20: 37
        +8
        Bennert
        Excellent calculations of the strike power of "Zamvolt": according to your calculations, the "Zamvolt" simultaneously in the cells can contain:
        anti-ship missiles LRASM -20 pcs
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM от куда 500 км?
        in the strike version, you can load the Tomahawks (at least 2/3 of 80 missile mines) - 52 pcs.
        at least 20-30 cells can be occupied by ESSM missiles - 25 pcs. (average)
        total we get: 97 pieces of cells.
        Question. How do 97 rockets fit in 80 cells? And this is without taking into account anti-submarine missiles, if you also count them, you get an interesting movie.
        We take "Moscow" without any joint cells on board:
        "Moscow" - 16 super-heavy "Volcanoes"
        64 S-300F missiles (range 90 km) and 40 Osa-MA SAM missiles (10-15 km)
        10 homing torpedoes and RBU
        total we have: 120 missiles and 10 more torpedoes, and what is the quantity in fact, and not in theory
        Amazing math nearby, learn spelling at school, without calculators
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 28 February 2016 22: 10
          +1
          Quote: korvin1976
          Question. How do 97 rockets fit in 80 cells? And this is without taking into account anti-submarine missiles, if you also count them, you get an interesting movie.

          Zamvolta has 20 launchers, 4 cells each. A total of 80 cells. Formally, there are 80 missiles for everything - anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles. BUT anti-aircraft missiles ESSM in one cell, due to its size, 4 units are placed. But this only applies to missiles of this type! As a result, if, for example, you use 6 launchers (that is, 24 cells), then you can use 24x4 = 96 ESSM missiles. Medium-range missiles - up to 50 km. In all other cases (except for short-range missiles - they can be piled up in heaps due to their size), one cell-one missile is exchanged. So simulate. Naturally, if you use other types of air defense systems, then also: 1 cell - 1 missile. So here in BENNERT I agree. ONLY HERE wink
          1. korvin1976
            korvin1976 29 February 2016 10: 05
            +2
            Sorry, I made a mistake in the post not 97 missiles, but 97 cells, if you read carefully, you will understand my slip
      9. silver_roman
        silver_roman 29 February 2016 18: 39
        -1
        worthily compared!
        but interesting:
        Quote: BENNERT
        At Zamvolt - at least 20-30 cells can be occupied by ESSM missiles (max. Range of damage 50 km)

        But something more long-range can be used? I understand that the main limitation on missiles?
        If we take, for example, the S-300F, then there is stupidly sadness, sort of like with the TsU. It seems like 48N6 and further along the line work for 150 km, but the problem is in the radar.
        Correct if not right.

        In general, it is difficult to compare. Zamvolt (as it is not sad to admit), is simply many times more perfect. Here and art installations, the latest electronics, automation, computing power, EPR, engines .... in general, almost EVERYTHING!
    2. Pilot
      Pilot 28 February 2016 18: 15
      -3
      Quote: Russian quilted jacket
      Hmm .... such automation will work when counteracting it with electronic warfare? negative

      I think they provided for autonomy.
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 28 February 2016 07: 09
    14
    Didn't understand the article. The author begins by talking about the beginning of the tests of the zimvolt, then a little copy-paste on Wikipedia about it, then talks a little about America's asymmetric responses to the Russian bombing of "Onijayeti" in Syria, and ends with the phrase: "We have the same stealth destroyers." So go, sort it out after that, his mysterious soul and what he wanted to say with this article. Like "They have a zimvolt - but we are not afraid!"?
  4. kote119
    kote119 28 February 2016 07: 16
    23
    normal ship. Now, if our such "pyramid" went to sea for testing, there would be no breath of applause and enthusiasm on the site, but if the adversaries, then immediately - poop, sawing the dough, etc. Children in one word ..
    1. vlad_vlad
      vlad_vlad 28 February 2016 12: 58
      +4
      +
      I especially liked the "patriotic" comments at the beginning - "floating tomb ...", "on a cunning ass ..."

      to dunk in shit. Mo everything is only on the principle "ours / not ours" is a sign of moronism, not patriotism.
  5. aszzz888
    aszzz888 28 February 2016 07: 42
    -2
    You won’t miss this floating latrine! laughing
  6. misterwulf
    misterwulf 28 February 2016 08: 06
    12
    In terms of displacement and armament, this is a "light cruiser". And further. Interesting. How is a large ship different from an airplane? The stealth plane is justified. The concept itself.
    The concept of a large invisible ship smacks of idiocy. To whom are they going to sneak up unnoticed? On such a coffin, growing from a 9-12-story building .... And 190 meters long.
    Suppose, being invisible, he launches a rocket from afar. But, from now on, his "stealth" fuck nobody needs. With a return volley or from an airplane, he "will be killed" despite the stealth ... fool
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 28 February 2016 08: 09
      +8
      Wait ... Now, O. Kaptsov will drop by, he will give you an expanded form and answer wink laughing repeat
      1. dakty
        dakty 28 February 2016 18: 51
        +4
        He’s been here a long time already! Bannert ....
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 28 February 2016 11: 31
      0
      The sniper fired, the sensor noted it, and a mortar hit was struck right there and heavy fire blew the bushes, but the general’s brains were already on the wall. wink

      Here the situation is the same, plus any reduction in the EPR reduces the chance of the RCC of the radar of the seeker getting into the EW conditions.

      PS: If you have a question about sniper detection by sensors, then this is here http://topwar.ru/37817-akusticheskie-sistemy-opredeleniya-vystrela.html
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 28 February 2016 14: 19
        -4
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The sniper fired, the sensor noted it, and a mortar hit was struck right there and heavy fire blew the bushes, but the general’s brains were already on the wall. wink

        Here the situation is the same, plus any reduction in the EPR reduces the chance of the RCC of the radar of the seeker getting into the EW conditions.

        PS: If you have a question about sniper detection by sensors, then this is here http://topwar.ru/37817-akusticheskie-sistemy-opredeleniya-vystrela.html



        Again. You have the wrong premise.
        In this case.
        You didn’t notice a shot, you only noticed a bullet flying.
        You can determine the direction of flight.
        But you cannot determine the distance to the sniper.
        And you have distance options to 3 km.
        What and how will you cover?
        This is if very simplified.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 28 February 2016 22: 54
          +2
          You can determine it, take the ballistic curve of the bullet’s flight and rest its other end on the ground.
          Cover with mortar, enough range. Mines are now with guidance.
    3. dauria
      dauria 28 February 2016 12: 39
      +4
      To whom are they going to sneak up unnoticed


      Well, low radar signature (in the classic ranges of 10 cm, 3 cm and 8 mm) in airplanes and ships is actually not to hide smile (The lions in Africa also have a masking color, although whom they fear laughing ?)
      This is an advantage over conventional ships and aircraft in the range used. on them weapons. Of course, a small EPR does not guarantee complete invulnerability, but the probability of survival increases.
      You are putting a soldier in camouflage, and not in a bright orange jacket with reflectors. smile Although there are thermal imagers that do not care about camouflage.
      Now, stealth is a legitimate norm, whether you want it or not.
      1. kote119
        kote119 28 February 2016 13: 45
        -4
        you got the first adequate stealth answer - to haters, the fact is especially enraging, when our ship with the elements of such technology is lowered, everyone shouting cheers, it has no analogues in the world, and we will fill Americans with zircons.
        And I wanted to add with respect to the appearance of this ship:
        1. Yes, outwardly it doesn’t look usual (but if you look at our same models of promising ships, you also see many unusual forms and solutions)
        2. about "how this iron will cut the waves" - it seems that some of the chief designers of the ships have gathered here, the Americans can also count.
    4. mav1971
      mav1971 28 February 2016 14: 16
      -3
      Quote: misterwulf
      But, from this moment on, his "stealth" fuck nobody needs. With a return volley or from an airplane, he "will be killed" despite the stealth ... fool


      Why on earth?
      If you saw a flying ax. but you don’t see the one who threw him - where will you bullet it?
      Your eyes do not care. except for the flying ax they see nothing ...
      and besides, the ax is also inconspicuous and you will see it not from the launch distance. and from a distance three times less ...
      In the best case, you’ll get a referral.
    5. 4thParasinok
      4thParasinok April 1 2016 21: 44
      0
      Quote: misterwulf
      In terms of displacement and armament, this is a "light cruiser".

      duck used to be called Uro destroyers, they are trying to deceive taxpayers by renaming a class
  7. Ivan Tucha
    Ivan Tucha 28 February 2016 08: 08
    +2
    wonder-whale fish-whale. terribly terrible. I painted such boats in my early childhood, when I could not hold a pencil or a brush correctly.
  8. fif21
    fif21 28 February 2016 08: 16
    +3
    To a big ship - a big torpedo! wassat Perhaps he is also silent? But is it also not visible in the periscope? And in the thermal imager? For each radar there is a radar detector, and for each radar there is a left-hand radar! I’ll tell you a terrible secret - in Russia they also make glass radio lamps, diodes, triodes, and different pentodes wassat And if their super duper radars do not see this "piece", this does not mean that our radars do not see it either (we have radars of the wrong system) wassat And yet, if the ship has radio communications, cellular communications, JPs, engines, a microwave, a radar, a metal gun, then talking about its invisibility is simply ridiculous. hi
    1. Morrrow
      Morrrow 28 February 2016 12: 30
      -2
      Do we have a different physics? No need to joke like that.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 28 February 2016 14: 29
      -1
      Quote: fif21
      To a big ship - a big torpedo! wassat Perhaps he is also silent? But is it also not visible in the periscope? And in the thermal imager? For each radar there is a radar detector, and for each radar there is a left-hand radar! I’ll tell you a terrible secret - in Russia they also make glass radio lamps, diodes, triodes, and different pentodes wassat And if their super duper radars do not see this "piece", this does not mean that our radars do not see it either (we have radars of the wrong system) wassat And yet, if the ship has radio communications, cellular communications, JPs, engines, a microwave, a radar, a metal gun, then talking about its invisibility is simply ridiculous. hi


      Do you judge radio communications only by household radio stations or films about scouts from the time of the Second World War?
  9. Blondy
    Blondy 28 February 2016 08: 22
    +6
    Well, yeah ... more. And the very concept of stealth is from the same hole. Invisibility due to the shitty radars. As the Yugoslav experience has shown, some could not adequately assess the overseas intellectual efforts and they found the radars of the wrong system. The impression is that overseas, for some reason, they are sure that "the wrong system" is not amenable to modernization, or they decided to secretly bring democracy to all the island Papuans under the guise of a Russian threat.
  10. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 28 February 2016 08: 22
    +9
    Personally, my opinion is that any theory is either confirmed by practice, or not confirmed by practice. Therefore, all these speculations about the combat capabilities of the Zamvolt crackle on paper and will remain until they are confirmed in real conditions. If we boast so much that all these "stealth" are bullshit and we see them perfectly, then we have nothing to fear - we can only laugh maliciously. And in any case, you can find an antidote of much lower cost than this multi-billion dollar vessel. In short, for every cunning advantage there is a priest with nooks and crannies.
    So I'm more than sure that this iron will frighten the Papuans in some banana republics (if force majeure does not happen with the very existence of individual countries - the time is not bad and unpredictable what )
    And what kind of ship is it - no aesthetics negative
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 28 February 2016 15: 25
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Personally, my opinion is that any theory is either confirmed by practice, or not confirmed by practice. Therefore, all these speculations about the combat capabilities of the Zamvolt crackle on paper and will remain until they are confirmed in real conditions. If we boast so much that all these "stealth" are bullshit and we see them perfectly, then we have nothing to fear - we can only laugh maliciously. And in any case, you can find an antidote of much lower cost than this multi-billion dollar vessel. In short, for every cunning advantage there is a priest with nooks and crannies.
      So I'm more than sure that this iron will frighten the Papuans in some banana republics (if force majeure does not happen with the very existence of individual countries - the time is not bad and unpredictable what )
      And what kind of ship is it - no aesthetics negative


      Only here is the talk about that. what do we all see - does it stop us from creating planes of exactly the same pattern?
      What for?
      Spending billions and trillions of rubles on PAK-FA?
      Just because it really works.
      And if our aviation school was in parity with the United States in terms of science and had a reserve for the future, which now allows us to creak but still make an 5 generation aircraft.

      That shipbuilding and its infrastructure are in deep failure. Since Soviet times.
      Modular construction of ships - still not mastered.
      UVP with a range of missiles, with standardized sizes for all types of applications (missiles, missile systems, missile systems, missile defense) - still no.
      There are still no normal gas turbine engines.
      I only read about the full electric propulsion of military ships as "about the future". Although the idea of ​​full electromotion has been discussed by our clever people since the mid-50s. But they have been discussing for 60 years, and there is still no real combat model for at least 5000 tons.

      And those same Americans didn’t start to cost it from the bay.
      They have been calculating his concept since the mid-80's. And by the middle of the 90's they decided. that they can.
      And the first one was built just now.
      Almost 30 years have passed from the idea to the implementation.
      During this time, all those who allegedly wanted to "cut the loot", come up with a "wunderwaffe" and other nonsense thoughts - either died long ago, or changed positions and profiles of activity.
      Have you thought about this?
      They are cutting loot here and now, and when they close your sawing program, they will open it, then they will open it but reduce it - in general, there is no uncertainty - no one will cut it.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 28 February 2016 17: 10
        10
        Do not forget that we had a not-so-polite period of the 90s. Plus the collapse of a powerful economy. Yes, it was with certain distortions, yes, the ideological component played an important role. Americans now under the faith of the world, a word in their green piece of paper, can afford to build such ships. But will these costs justify the declared possibilities?
        What is Zamvolt? This is the concept of a conventional arsenal ship. Inflated with various bells and whistles for mastering money. Do not forget that American corporations are entirely private companies.
        What is it about it that everyone straight ends from one mention? Nothing. Only appearance. Electric movement? So in order to twist the generators, you need other units - either a nuclear installation with turbines, or an ordinary gas turbine. There is nothing innovative in this, but only the large power consumption of the ship's systems contributed to this decision.
        Here somewhere someone (yes, in my opinion, the same BENNERT) deliberately misleads the members of the forum with the power of the ship, inventing so many cells for launching missiles that it really seems strong. In total, there are 20 universal launch cells for 80 missiles of all types (anti-ship missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, and anti-aircraft missiles). On the same "Burks" and even more than -96, and on the old "Ticonderogs" already over a hundred !!! For two artillery systems with prohibitive firing range, you need to constantly hover over the target either guidance aircraft or satellites. The question is - who will allow this? We already have electronic warfare equipment capable of covering a good area with an electronic dome. Shells with their own guidance systems? Yes, very expensive shells will turn out - with a super rate of fire, they can quickly drive the country into default. Unobtrusive due to construction and coating? So any "Warsaw woman" will visually recognize him and he will receive his torpedo. Automation? A fire or a hole who will put out and batten down? computer scientists with operators? Yeah ...
        And we don't need to create such squalor - we have three ships of Project 1144 Orlan, which after modernization with the replacement of Granites with launch cells in the amount of 80 (20x4) units (!), As on Zamvolta, plus 96 air defense missiles. A total of 176 missiles! The same ship is an arsenal, only without pornography in the form of an "erotic" silhouette. hi
        1. alstr
          alstr 29 February 2016 12: 01
          0
          I will add that all of our air defense systems can shoot at the ground / water if necessary.
          And for the S-300, there is also a container with 4 missiles. Upgrading the software box for such a rocket is easy.
      2. xtur
        xtur 28 February 2016 19: 34
        +1
        you are, as always, in your role, and meanwhile "Zamvolt" is an obvious failure of American designers who failed to fulfill the tasks assigned to them - "Zamvolt" does not have enough power for this.
    2. Morrrow
      Morrrow 28 February 2016 17: 54
      -2
      And what Russian technology was practiced ???
  11. Siberia M 54
    Siberia M 54 28 February 2016 08: 33
    +4
    This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :) Very correct words! There is nothing more to add.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 28 February 2016 14: 31
      -3
      Quote: Siberia M 54
      This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :) Very correct words! There is nothing more to add.


      Pe.d.do.sy - it is the Crimean (Black Sea) Greeks!
      Call a spade a spade and you will not look foolish.
      1. kush62
        kush62 28 February 2016 17: 40
        +2
        Quote: Siberia M 54
        This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :) Very correct words! There is nothing more to add.

        Quote: mav1971
        Pe.d.do.sy - it is the Crimean (Black Sea) Greeks!
        Call a spade a spade and you will not look foolish.

        It is written s, not s.
        And why ? Here is one of the versions.
        Where this nickname came from is well known to the Serbs. They are sure that they are its “ancestors”. The fact is that the American army has strict rules. Only unlike other military structures, much here is tied to money. The soldier will not receive insurance when he is wounded (if he is killed, then the relatives will be denied), if he does not have all the required ammunition. And this set is huge! Its weight is forty kilograms. There are ammunition from many items, batteries and weapons with spare kits, all sorts of dry rations and flashlights, water and special devices. You can't list everything! The Serbs wondered why do you carry all this on yourself? On a bright sunny day - and with a flashlight. It's funny! Only later did they figure out that they were sorry for the money. They injure, for example, a soldier, and with him there will be no knee pads or a night vision device - and that's all, he will not see insurance. Misery, in a word. And from such severity, American guys waddle across the "democratically occupied" lands that penguins are in the ice. Their gait becomes unprepossessing ... Why do cats carry dead animals home? 8 phrases that need to be told to a child every day Give up sweets and alcohol for a month. What will happen? s - penguins This was noticed by the Serbs, who have a considerable sense of humor. The fact is that in their language the word "" just means "penguin". This is not to say that the name is affectionate. Rather insulting to horror. This was noticed by the Serbs, who have a considerable sense of humor. The fact is that in their language the word "" just means "penguin". This is not to say that the name is affectionate. Rather insulting to horror. After all, the "seals" that stomped on the Serbian soil considered themselves heroes, fighters against terrorists. And here is a name that shows them as clumsy, stupid birds. This is why Americans are called ami. They strongly hurt the people - though small, but proud. Maybe the United States could not give a worthy rebuff to the gallant soldiers there, but the whole world was denounced by such an unpresentable nickname.
  12. Warm Padded Jacket
    Warm Padded Jacket 28 February 2016 08: 35
    +1
    Quote: Russian quilted jacket
    Hmm .... the states fed the rhino and sent to swimming ... But what if the rhino, for example, diarrhea happens wassat But seriously, it’s interesting, but how will such automation work when it is counteracted by electronic warfare equipment? negative

    there is a large staff of psychotherapists on board)))
  13. Lumumba
    Lumumba 28 February 2016 08: 49
    +8
    The ship may be inconspicuous, but not for the good old Soviet-made torpedoes with wake guidance. Or did they make him invisible too? And the noise and acoustic characteristics? The angularity is due to the "stealth", but that's only hydroacoustic noise, the angular shape of the body produces considerable. Papuans and other Somali pirates will be terrified.

    In my opinion, this is another super-expensive project for the development of the budgets of the Ministry of Defense. Serdyukov cries with burning tears, he never dreamed of such a scale of development. The only positive exhaust from such "projects" is some new civilian technologies. And that's all.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 28 February 2016 11: 51
      -1
      "on the wake. Or did they also make it invisible? And the acoustic characteristics?" ////

      They thought about both of these things.
      The wake trail at Zumvolt is very short, which makes it difficult to detect with
      satellites and submarines.
      And it is acoustically quiet. Its "noise" does not exceed the level of Los Angeles-class nuclear submarines.
      And it has the latest multi-position sonar for detecting submarines.
      1. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2016 13: 14
        +4
        How did the twin-rotor destroyer Zamwalt become acoustically equal to the single-rotor submarine Los Angeles, except in advertising murzilki (not to mention the fact that the methods of reducing noise on board the submarine are not limited to propellers)?
        1. severyanin
          severyanin 28 February 2016 16: 13
          -3
          Quote: Operator
          How did the twin-rotor destroyer Zamvolt become acoustically equal to the single-rotor submarine Los Angeles, except in advertising murzilki

          There are actually water cannons, they wrote above!
          1. Operator
            Operator 28 February 2016 16: 22
            0
            Zamvolt has transom stern, Los Angeles has spindle-shaped. The first has 2 (two) water cannons, the second has 1 (one) screw.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  14. PPD
    PPD 28 February 2016 09: 03
    +7
    Quote: Lumumba
    The only positive exhaust from such "projects" is some new civilian technologies. And that's all.

    Is this some kind of bottle of vodka invisible to the wife? laughing
  15. stabskapitan
    stabskapitan 28 February 2016 09: 25
    +9
    In my opinion it seems. After 150 years, the same thing)
  16. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 28 February 2016 09: 25
    0
    So many experts ....... Most of the truth has never seen a ship larger than a motor boat, but nothing, how can it be without them? You guys are currently watching the future of all fleets. Perhaps this is a new dreadnought, in a modern form. And before what to bring all kinds of nonsense-take an interest in modern control systems, weapons, detection, and then draw a conclusion about the need for such a ship. But this pearl generally killed-

    You can evaluate the combat effectiveness of Zamvolt by comparing his performance characteristics and weapons with the performance characteristics of existing ships. For example, the missile cruiser pr. 1164 "Atlant", which is similar in size. What can “Moscow” and “Varyag” from what “Zamvolt” cannot?


    I will answer you, with a direct clash, the chances of ZUMVOLT defeat are much higher. This is approximately how to compare destroyers of the 1st MV and 2nd MV.
    1. 73bor
      73bor 28 February 2016 10: 03
      +4
      And who told you that this is a MIRACLE for clashes !? Just an experimental ship that does not even have the entire range of weapons!
    2. PPD
      PPD 28 February 2016 10: 34
      +4
      Quote: Dimon19661

      I will answer you, with a direct clash, the chances of ZUMVOLT defeat are much higher. This is approximately how to compare destroyers of the 1st MV and 2nd MV.

      Are you serious? Why not tell me? RCC is not there. Comparing 1164 with Zamvolt is generally not correct. Judging by the composition of the armament, today it is designed to inflict a massive surprise attack on enemy ground targets more seriously than the Zulus and Papuans.


      Quote: Dimon19661
      Perhaps this is a new dreadnought, in its modern form.

      And most likely not.
      Quote: Dimon19661
      And before you bring any nonsense, take an interest in modern control systems, weapons, detection, and then draw a conclusion about the need for such a ship.

      And in a direct collision-radar, this miracle will include?
      1. aiw
        aiw 28 February 2016 14: 10
        -1
        > RCC is not there.

        RPC will not fit into its UVP?

        > Comparing 1164 with Zamvolt is not correct at all.

        Of course it’s incorrect - the BIUS and the radar are completely different; Well, I'm not talking about stealth.

        > And in a direct collision, the radar is a miracle Yudo will include?

        As needed.
    3. PSih2097
      PSih2097 28 February 2016 13: 30
      +1
      Quote: Dimon19661
      This is about how to compare the destroyers of the 1st MV and 2nd MV.

      no, it's like comparing the destroyers of the 2nd MV and "Sarych" project 956 ...
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 29 February 2016 16: 04
        0
        It can be compared.
  17. X Y Z
    X Y Z 28 February 2016 09: 30
    +2
    When I mentally imagine how much dough was cut during the design and production of this miracle, I am no longer afraid of the size of the US military budget. Now it is important to understand what happened after the cut and how dangerous this beast is to us in principle.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 28 February 2016 09: 41
      0
      Quote: XYZ
      Now it’s important to understand what happened after the cut.

      They handed over to the fleet a finished ship with a displacement of 15 thousand tons, neither a corvette nor a tug

      Which, objectively, carries more weapons than any of the existing domestic cruisers
      apart from other innovations: low-noise efficient electric transmission with a transmitted power of 100 hp and a modern radar with three active headlights
      Quote: XYZ
      how much dough sawed

      and how much
      the ship is built, all the promised technical innovations are present
      after all the expenses and R&D - how much did you manage to steal?
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 28 February 2016 10: 57
        +5
        Quote: BENNERT
        They handed over to the fleet a finished ship with a displacement of 15 thousand tons, neither a corvette nor a tug

        The article says "Coming soon" seems to have not passed yet, but it may take a long time. F-35 were supposed to take in what year? As well as the frigate of project 22350.
        Old Russian proverb:
        -Don't say gop until you jumped over the puddle.
      2. xtur
        xtur 28 February 2016 19: 44
        +2
        > a finished ship with a displacement of 15 thousand tons, which, objectively, carries more weapons than any of the existing domestic cruisers

        it’s only in your own Universe, exactly what it is - Marvel’s, Disney’s, or what else I will not say exactly, but it doesn’t matter

        But in reality, "Zamvolt" is a ship that does not correspond to the performance characteristics set in front of it, even in spite of the prohibitive price.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 28 February 2016 15: 43
      -3
      Quote: XYZ
      When I mentally imagine how much dough was cut during the design and production of this miracle, I am no longer afraid of the size of the US military budget. Now it is important to understand what happened after the cut and how dangerous this beast is to us in principle.


      I will repeat to the "sawmills" one more time ...
      The Americans didn’t start to cost it from the bay.
      They have been calculating his concept since the mid-80's.
      And by the middle of the 90's they decided. that they can.
      And the first one was built just now.
      Almost 30 years have passed from the idea to the implementation.
      During this time, all those who allegedly wanted to "cut the loot", come up with a "wunderwaffe" and other nonsense thoughts - either died long ago, or changed positions and profiles of activity.
      Have you thought about this?
      They are cutting loot here and now, and when they close your sawing program, they will open it, they will open it but reduce it - in general, there is no uncertainty - no one will cut it, because there is no prospect there.
  18. engineer
    engineer 28 February 2016 09: 30
    +2
    complete insanity. all in one add-in? and if there is a turn from the good old dshk. Will something from the management work?
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 28 February 2016 09: 49
      +2
      Quote: engineer
      and if there is a turn from the good old dshk.

      Most likely, he will not let you

      in addition to missiles, they have 30 mm guns, especially for such cases, the boat carries it to the chips from one hit

      single and automatic fire, belt power for 400 shells, remote control - no one is on the deck, guidance through cameras and thermal imagers, range of 4 kilometers

      anti-terrorist kit, already installed on landing ships of the "San Antonio" type

      ps / in general, it would be worthwhile to work on improving the security of Zamvolt. But this is my personal opinion
      1. PPD
        PPD 28 February 2016 11: 49
        0
        Quote: BENNERT

        ps / in general, it would be worthwhile to work on improving the security of Zamvolt. But this is my personal opinion

        In no case! What if something worthwhile comes out! Do we need it?lol
        Under certain conditions, with proper planning of operations, it can turn out to be a potentially dangerous thing.
      2. tlauicol
        tlauicol 29 February 2016 04: 18
        +2
        There is nothing there. It should have been written: probably, 30mm guns will most likely be standing, maybe later, if you want. And the air defense for such a colossus is weak
  19. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 28 February 2016 10: 46
    +5
    The United States has a lot of money. Rob the whole world. Let them spend it. And we recall how Serbian air defense made the Pentagon a “gift”: the most classified Lockheed aircraft were shot down from the Soviet Neva air defense system. F117 A $ 50 million Stealth, which was called the most invulnerable aircraft in the world.
  20. altman
    altman 28 February 2016 11: 10
    +4
    Still, you need to look at his seaworthiness .. Can he cut the wave .. And so - iron with an iron
  21. serverny
    serverny 28 February 2016 11: 29
    +4
    Quote: BENNERT
    Each Zamvolt shell weighs twice as much as the usual six-inch shell (102 versus 55 kg) and in its power approaches 203 mm caliber.

    Outright lies / distortion of reality. Weighing twice as much as a conventional six-inch shell, the amount of explosives differs insignificantly (11kg versus 10.8 for the "stupid" M795 land-based shell). At the same time, in the event of jamming / GPS malfunctions, the accuracy drops to 50m CEP.
    1. Bennert
      Bennert 28 February 2016 17: 51
      -1
      Quote: serverny
      11kg versus 10.8 for the "stupid" M795 land shell

      795 next fresh development
      contains twice as many explosives as its predecessor - M107 or conventional Msta-S shells
      Quote: serverny
      Frank lies / distortion of reality.

      Holy truth

      even 6 kilos of TNT is not a pound of raisins. zamvolta twice as much

      The main use of ISU-152 was fire support for advancing tanks and infantry. The 152,4 mm (6-inch) ML-20S howitzer-gun had a powerful HE-540 high-explosive fragmentation shell weighing 43,56 kg, curb 6 kg of TNT (trinitrotoluene, TNT). These shells were very effective both against uncovered infantry and against fortifications. One hit such a projectile in a regular medium-sized urban house was enough to destroy all life inside.
      Quote: serverny
      In the case of jamming / malfunctioning GPS accuracy drops to 50m CVO.

      Art is always effective even without any GPS
      the main thing is adjustment
  22. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 28 February 2016 11: 40
    +3
    "slides of one of the latest weapons systems - the Perdix microdron" ////

    A schematic drawing of this funny "perdy-ksa" laughing :
    But the idea of ​​exchanging them is not stupid. Such drones are very
    small, silent and therefore difficult to detect,
    can plan autonomously over the concentration of troops for a long time
    enemy, looking for targets and attacking them from a vertical.
    If air defense or electronic warfare begins to fight them, then they discover
    yourself, which is also useful for those who launched them.
    1. aiw
      aiw 28 February 2016 14: 15
      0
      And what will attack?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 28 February 2016 15: 56
      0
      I wonder how it behaves in different climatic conditions, especially at significant subzero temperatures? Or in the fog? What kind of batteries are there?
  23. misterwulf
    misterwulf 28 February 2016 11: 54
    +1
    Quote: PPD
    Is this some kind of bottle of vodka invisible to the wife?

    Well, why did that go? There is an electric kettle or an iron. By the way, it looks like a futuristic iron. Invisible Iron stop
  24. realist
    realist 28 February 2016 12: 31
    -2
    Papuans will not scare! Line of sight 3-5 km, at this range you can shoot from RPG or pturs at it! this miracle will not approach the enemy shore closer than 15-20 miles, they’ll be late! and in a clean sea, you won’t be so frightened by the fish and sailors, because you might be offended and go aboard, but we have a system of reps, with their principle of controlling weapons via wifi, it will be a lot of fun. So you can help Somali pirates take such an electric ship by storm!
    1. aiw
      aiw 28 February 2016 14: 17
      -1
      You can still throw peaks.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Oprychnik
      Oprychnik 28 February 2016 15: 27
      0
      You soldier is not really koryachitsya ... And if it suits?)))
  25. edeligor
    edeligor 28 February 2016 14: 28
    +5
    Excuse me for my, perhaps, amateurish reasoning. Here's what I mean. This is a super duper miracle Yudo, will one go or as part of a convoy? If the second, then explain why all this futurism: three centimeters of radio-absorbing coating, water cannons and super generators? You see what I mean. "Idiot" in 50 kilotons does not care about targeting accuracy ...
    What strikes me is the superiority with which they present it all. We’ll show you type and they’ll get laid out! It seems to be adults, smart people, how much history does not teach them, everything is like children ...
    1. aiw
      aiw 28 February 2016 14: 31
      -1
      At which max. 50 distance Who will be dangerous for banned? 2km? 5? 10?

      And what is the distance between the ships in the order?
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 28 February 2016 15: 46
        -3
        Quote: aiw
        At which max. 50 distance Who will be dangerous for banned? 2km? 5? 10?

        And what is the distance between the ships in the order?



        What should he explain to him?
        He scatters with nuclear missiles, as he goes to the grocery for a bottle ...
        1. Operator
          Operator 28 February 2016 16: 09
          +3
          At the beginning of the project, a series of 36 Zamvolt-class destroyers was planned in order to provide a fully "stealth" order for ship formations.

          Due to the astronomical increase in cost to 4,4 billion dollars per unit, the series was reduced to three ships. At the same time, the meaning of the combat use of "stealth" ships as part of a "non-stealth" order was completely lost.

          The latest US Navy trick: the program serves to develop promising technologies based on a series of three destroyers (total cost 13,2 billion dollars) - such as the reverse tilt of the sides, composite superstructure, electric transmission and conformal radars.

          As if these same technologies could not be worked out on one corvette worth 132 million dollars.

          PS 152-mm special warhead with a capacity of three kilotons, which landed on the Zamvolt deck, will be what the doctor ordered laughing
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 28 February 2016 17: 20
            -2
            Quote: Operator

            As if these same technologies could not be worked out on one corvette worth 132 million dollars.
            :


            How much does it cost to study and simulate from scratch the case of completely new contours?
            A completely different internal layout?
            It does not provide for repairs but a modular replacement of any unit.
            I ejected a turbine-generator unit - they change the unit immediately, and not repair it.
            The same single motor module with a shaft.
            All this must be calculated, on full-scale models to check.
            To create these very full-scale models.
            Model reduced in 10 times to do.
            The same modular add-in. made in a single unit in which case they also calculated to change.

            How much does it cost to create a turbine with power for 50K drugs?
            Or are they taken from the nightstand?
            And the generators for it?
            And electric motors for these powers?
            Again from the nightstands?

            What about new radars?
            Again from the nightstands?
            Or are they being developed from scratch?

            And that same incomprehensible covering of the whole ship with an incomprehensible shell in an 2-3 centimeter?
            It must also be invented with predetermined properties in terms of strength, weight, resistance to environmental media, temperatures, etc. Work out application technology in outdoor conditions.

            After all, if you understand the specifics of production, then it will become clear to you. that thousands of allied enterprises work.
            And since everything is new. everyone needs their R&D, re-equipment of their machine and technical base, etc.
            All this costs a lot of money.
            And all this in the end is the 1 ship.
            So it seems. that it is prohibitively expensive.

            And on the corvette it is impossible.
            The scheme of full electric movement, as I understand it, is very difficult, circuitry.
            Especially for non-mainstream consumers.
            And it is very different for large and small ships.


            Here is the news that we have. with our cheap workforce - the launch of the new Chevrolet Niva - costs 11 billion rubles. A machine. Which 50 years ago, 20 designers-technologists drew and prepared all the technical documentation for production in 4-6 months and for a million new equipment. And now 11 billion.
            1. Operator
              Operator 28 February 2016 19: 14
              0
              New technologies are tested on land benches, and trial operation is carried out on the first ship in the series, and only on its basis the second and subsequent ships are laid. Therefore, the thesis that in the case of "Zamvolt" development and trial operation will be carried out at sea on three ships at once is a pure excuse and cut $ 13,2 billion.

              After a missile salvo from the Caspian Sea, at least two expert reports have already been submitted to the US Congress (approving the military budget) on the erroneousness of the choice of a surface component as the basis of the national Navy. Those. one salvo of the Caspian flotilla "sunk" the entire US surface fleet, including the one that is still on the stocks and in the plans for the development of budget funds am

              PS The Russian project of the "Halibut" / "Varshavyanka" submarine, despite its high efficiency (low cost, low acoustic signature, missile armament, powerful GAS, high degree of automation), should be replaced by the promising submarine "Lada" / "Kalina" ( hello to AvtoVAZ laughing ) with electric movement based on fuel cells and partial robotization.
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 28 February 2016 20: 38
                +1
                Quote: Operator
                New technologies are tested on land benches, and trial operation is carried out on the first ship in the series, and only on its basis the second and subsequent ships are laid. Therefore, the thesis that in the case of "Zamvolt" development and trial operation will be carried out at sea on three ships at once is a pure excuse and cut $ 13,2 billion.


                How many times do you need to explain that long-term programs, such as Zumwalt, running in 30 years, from 1985 to 2017 year, which were either closed, opened, or cut, cannot be sawed by definition.
                If people who made the decision to start developing it in the 85 year, have they died long ago? If people - have long changed their posts and positions?
                Well, then think about it with your head, just by reality ...
                You can cut the contract in 1-5 years, but not in 30-40 years ...
                It seems that people are judging cuts and kickbacks here. who have never encountered this.
                Yes, you do not even understand what the essence of the cut.
                Like children, by golly.


                Quote: Operator

                After a missile salvo from the Caspian Sea, at least two expert reports have already been submitted to the US Congress (approving the military budget) on the erroneousness of the choice of a surface component as the basis of the national Navy. Those. one salvo of the Caspian flotilla "sunk" the entire US surface fleet, including the one that is still on the stocks and in the plans for the development of budget funds am

                After the volley - nothing has changed.
                Onyx is a much more advanced RCC than Caliber.
                The caliber in the anti-ship version compared to Onyx is much inferior.
                So why should they be afraid of the Caliber?
                Remember the Transfiguration phrase yourself? About newspapers?


                Quote: Operator

                PS The Russian project of the "Halibut" / "Varshavyanka" submarine, despite its high efficiency (low cost, low acoustic signature, missile armament, powerful GAS, high degree of automation), should be replaced by the promising submarine "Lada" / "Kalina" ( hello to AvtoVAZ laughing ) with electric movement based on fuel cells and partial robotization.


                These "our" promising projects have been submerged in Germany, Sweden and Japan for many years.
                Take an interest.
                Do not make a prodigy from Lada / Kalina.
                Here we are late for 15 years.
                Be honest.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 28 February 2016 21: 26
                  0
                  The technique is evaluated according to objective data, and not according to the opinions of authorities, even of Zaokensky origin.
                  In order to judge the cut, it is enough to know the cost of Zamvolt ($ 4,4 billion) and the superior Varshavyanka ($ 300 million) in battle - calculate the cut yourself.
                  The fact that the Zamvolta project has been kept afloat for over 30 years speaks not of its super-duper capabilities, but only of the lobbying power of the American military-industrial complex (the cutting duration is tens of years).
                  Since you like to give advice: as an oracle: read less - read more (all data is publicly available).
                  Alternatively, you can familiarize yourself on the Internet with the sudden insights of your overseas authorities: like looking at "Caliber" / "Varshavyanka" - see the second Pearl Harbor am

                  If our plans (for over seventy years, Karl) for the predominant development of the submarine fleet coincide with the modern plans of Germany, Sweden and Japan, then this triple means that the domestic fleet has chosen the right general direction, unlike the American with its surface obstinacy.
                  Of course, adjusted for the fact that all different germaniums have neither Yakhonts, nor Caliber, nor Zircons.

                  We are not late - our simple Varshavyanka is already an acoustic black hole and a rocket apocalypse for NATO fleets, and the planned commissioning of robotic Lad / Kalin will cause the dissolution of European fleets, similar to the elimination of their armored forces and aviation by now laughing
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 28 February 2016 22: 35
                    +1
                    In your epos, the role of the most terrible weapon - the demobile peakless cap - has not been revealed. One peak can drown one ship of the adversary, even if it is Nimitz.

                    Unfortunately, history teaches us that a scary peak in peacetime with a start of real hostilities turns into a simple headdress.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 28 February 2016 23: 22
                      0
                      Yes, yes, of course: "There is no more terrible sea beast than the Zumvolt in the world and Nimitz is his prophet."

                      It is useful to stop being an adherent of an outdated concept, especially given that your foreign authorities have already lined up for surrender.

                      It is time to finish bowing down to a potential adversary (ah aircraft carrier, ah Aegis, ah stealth destroyer) and begin to focus on the domestic nuclear missile-submarine solution.
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 28 February 2016 23: 44
                        +1
                        Mdya ... let’s you somehow substantiate your allegations about my authorities for example? For example, links to my comments? And then it looks like blah blah blah on your part and your dull projections.

                        > foreign authorities have already lined up to surrender.

                        Do they know? Would they write something to them, distribute the numbers ...

                        > It is high time to finish bowing before a potential enemy (ah an aircraft carrier, ah Aegis, ah a stealth destroyer) and start focusing on the domestic nuclear-missile submarine solution.

                        fool Tell me, how can a submarine provide target designation at large distances? Or how can a submarine defend itself against an asrok, does it not have air defense?

                        More A.N. Krylov wrote about the need to create a BALANCED fleet instead of the hypertrophied development of any one of its components.
                        Do you think that your worship of the submarines is better than someone else's (not mine) worship of surface ships?

                        There were a lot of cries about the high cost of the zumvolt. I want to remind you that so far, according to the price / quality criterion, Ameri shipbuilding programs have been better than ours. They simply made rockets for ships (and not vice versa) and carried out adequate planning and standardization.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 29 February 2016 01: 08
                        0
                        The issue of over-the-horizon target designation is equally relevant for the Zumvolt and for the submarine.

                        Please explain how you can get an ASROK torpedo with a range of 60 km into a submarine striking with missiles with a range of 600 or more than km?

                        According to A.N. Krylov, the balanced fleet is the one who can perform all tasks (fighting surface ships and submarines, working along the coast, counteracting carrier-based aircraft, landing amphibious landing, escorting convoys, laying mines and trawling). A submarine with missiles and torpedoes solves the main tasks - it sinks AB, NK and submarines, destroys ground objects. The remaining tasks are solved by frigates, corvettes and BDK.

                        aiw: "Amers' shipbuilding programs were better than ours in terms of price / quality."
                        What is the cost of programs for creating any class of SSBNs - domestic and American, including R&D, shipbuilding, and coastal infrastructure? If you do not name, then confirm the opinion of your blind worship of foreign propaganda publications.

                        You will not argue that the cost of the program for the creation of "Ash" exceeds the cost of the program for the creation of "Virginia" (with the ordinal difference in the military budgets of the two countries). Or that the capabilities of Virginia are more than an order of magnitude greater than those of Ash.
                2. mav1971
                  mav1971 29 February 2016 00: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Operator

                  In order to judge the cut, it is enough to know the cost of Zamvolt ($ 4,4 billion) and the superior Varshavyanka ($ 300 million) in battle - calculate the cut yourself.


                  Compare LaGG-3 and PakFA - according to your logic, there is no difference between them. They both can shoot down planes.


                  Quote: Operator

                  The fact that the Zamvolta project has been kept afloat for over 30 years speaks not of its super-duper capabilities, but only of the lobbying power of the American military-industrial complex (the cutting duration is tens of years).

                  This indicates his complete innovation.
                  Developing from scratch the whole principle of the ship and its strategy.
                  We do not understand and do not see the point, but they repelled from something, since almost 10 years they had been working on the concept of its combat use.
                  And they transferred their shipyards and near-shore construction industry to a completely different level.

                  Quote: Operator

                  Since you like to give advice: as an oracle: read less - read more (all data is publicly available).

                  Sorry, but your advice is completely in the wrong direction.
                  I really read a lot, but I also worked a lot with the economy. Both trade and manufacturing enterprises.
                  And I know perfectly well what and how and how much it costs.
                  What production chains are needed even to create a single bearing or fan.
                  Therefore, I always write about the clouds of allies and their re-equipment.
                  You should have seen how Kalina was launched at the VAZ, and what was happening on this subject at all subcontractors. And I saw.
                  And you teach me ... It's funny ...

                  Quote: Operator

                  If our plans (for over seventy years, Karl) on the predominant development of the submarine fleet coincide with the modern plans of Germany, Sweden and Japan,

                  Do you understand yourself?
                  On the one hand, you contrast our country with the Americans, on the other hand, put it on the tactics of weapons on a par with countries of the sea level, so to say, the 3 level. Countries where ponds are like puddles (Germany and Sweden).
                  Japan why are you written? Can't you see. What surface fleet is Japan building?
                  He is already superior to the Pacific Fleet.

                  Quote: Operator

                  We are not late - our simple Varshavyanka is already an acoustic black hole and a rocket apocalypse for NATO fleets, and the planned commissioning of robotic Lad / Kalin will cause the dissolution of European fleets, similar to the elimination of their armored forces and aviation by now laughing

                  Well, yes.
                  Then everyone at 2002 began to do VNEU. And ours in 2007 were launched. so she did not pass the test. And it will not work, for they have abandoned its VNEU. Failed.
                  And now - yes, let's say that "the grenades of the wrong system." and we don't need them.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 29 February 2016 01: 29
                    0
                    Let's compare: "Zamvolt" is a horse carriage in an open field, and "Varshavyanka" is an airplane in the clouds. The operating environments are different, therefore, in the first case, stealth is zero (despite the stealth sophistication), in the second - one hundred percent.

                    You are denying the obvious (which is strange for an economist) - the difference in the cost of Zamvolt and Varshavyanka, while the latter will sink Zamvolt plus the aircraft carrier it guards (worth about $ 15 billion, including the aircraft wing) one or two times.

                    Germany, for your information, is the only country that has experience in super-mass construction and the total use of submarines.

                    What is the point of the cool Japanese fleet - to watch from the sea the "glass transition" of Japan by a Russian-Chinese nuclear missile strike on American and local bases on the Japanese islands? Or fight to break into the Arctic Ocean (after the completion of the "glass transition")?

                    I do not share your skepticism about opportunities modern Russian shipbuilding industry.
      2. edeligor
        edeligor 28 February 2016 17: 56
        +3
        Quote: mav1971
        He scatters with nuclear missiles, as he goes to the grocery for a bottle ...

        And what do you imagine the conflict between Russia and the United States without the use of nuclear weapons? You, my friend, only run for kefir.
    2. edeligor
      edeligor 28 February 2016 18: 00
      +3
      Quote: aiw
      And what is the distance between the ships in the order?

      I don’t know, I warned that amateur. At one time I was taught that the US Navy is superior to the Navy of all other countries combined (I do not think that something has changed now) and that fighting this evil without nuclear weapons is like running against a tank with a naked jo ... ...
      1. aiw
        aiw 28 February 2016 18: 21
        +2
        S t.z. common sense, when threatened with the use of nuclear weapons, the distance between the ships should ensure the survival of the remaining ships with the defeat of one, these are the first kilometers.

        In this case, Zamvolt has good chances - the rocket will go to a more noticeable target.
        1. Operator
          Operator 28 February 2016 18: 53
          0
          The new anti-ship missiles have a millimeter-wave RGSN with AFAR - with the help of her ship is visible as a silhouette, and not as a point.

          The missile's computer memory contains radar silhouettes of enemy ships from several angles. A missile in a salvo will select Zamvolt by its silhouette as a secondary target (the primary target is the aircraft carrier, tertiary targets are the rest of the ships of the order).
          1. kote119
            kote119 28 February 2016 19: 55
            0
            you can ask - new ones, which ones?
            1. Operator
              Operator 28 February 2016 20: 15
              0
              Anti-ship missiles "Caliber" and "Zircon" - otherwise why switch to a millimeter RGSN with a deliberately shorter range than a centimeter?
              1. kote119
                kote119 28 February 2016 21: 04
                0
                Well, if you are so knowledgeable about these PCRs (especially about zircon), then be it your way, and which of these calibers does such a charm cost?
                1. Operator
                  Operator 28 February 2016 21: 55
                  0
                  The index of the armament model of the Navy Commander-in-Chief will not tell, even if I knew laughing
          2. aiw
            aiw 28 February 2016 21: 47
            +1
            > The new anti-ship missiles have a millimeter RGSN with AFAR - with its help the ship is visible as a silhouette, not as a dot.

            EW orders will, of course, be disabled.
            1. Operator
              Operator 28 February 2016 22: 08
              0
              The emitter of the shipborne electronic warfare system for the AFAR of a millimeter-wave RGSN rocket (with a matrix of transceiver modules number in the order of 1000 units) is seen as a meter spotlight against the background of a hundred-meter silhouette of the ship.

              Moreover, the direction to the "searchlight" is cut out by the RGSN computer from the rocket's field of view - so as not to get confused underfoot.

              This solution (aiming at the silhouette of the target, and not at the generalized point) is already being used in millimeter RGSN air-to-air missiles. With much greater success, it can be used in the RGSN of anti-ship missiles because of the order of magnitude larger linear dimensions of ships compared to aircraft.
              1. aiw
                aiw 28 February 2016 22: 24
                0
                It depends on what the EW emits. I’m not a specialist, but from the point of view of banal erudition, even if the RSSS operates at a jumping frequency, a powerful directional EW beam with a wide spectrum can clog a useful reflected signal. In this sense, again, the buzvolt wins - the reflected signal is weaker from it, it is more difficult to distinguish it from the background of interference.

                As you know, shipborne electronic warfare systems are several orders of magnitude more powerful than aviation ones.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 28 February 2016 23: 35
                  0
                  The APM AFAR matrix is ​​a complete analogue of the human eye. A multichannel AFAR cannot be blocked by a beam from a point source of radiation - this is not a single-channel Cassegrain radar antenna that does not distinguish a source against the background of a target.

                  EW radiation power also does not matter - the RGSN computer simply applies a zero filter to all radiation emanating from a point source (such as a lens for sunglasses for the eye).

                  Moreover, after a computer analysis of the spatial location of the silhouette of the target and the point source of the electronic warfare, the latter can become an excellent radio beacon for a rocket (if the coordinates of the target and the source coincide).
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 28 February 2016 23: 51
                    +1
                    If we are talking about an analogy, have you ever come across a laser pointer in your eye? Clearly visible after that?

                    As soon as the noise / signal ratio exceeds the capabilities of the equipment, we arrived. And the channel does not matter here.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 29 February 2016 01: 43
                      0
                      You understand the situation correctly - an unprotected eye is damaged by a laser "pointer", protected by a filter - is not damaged.

                      Once again, talking about the signal-to-noise ratio as applied to the entire antenna is possible only in the case of a single-channel receiver such as the Cassegrain antenna. In the case of a multi-channel AFAR type receiver, this parameter is different for the individual transceiver modules making up the antenna matrix. For the most illuminated, a computer programmatically reduces sensitivity, that's all.

                      It can be illuminated with interference only in one case - when the linear size of the interference source is comparable with the linear size of the target, which is impossible in the case of a ship physically (except to use most of the surface of the ship as a radiator, but then it turns out to be a beacon, not an obstacle).
                    2. aiw
                      aiw 29 February 2016 10: 25
                      -1
                      "For the most exposed, the computer programmatically reduces the sensitivity, that's all."

                      Mdya .... the trouble is that ALL elements of AFAR are illuminated the same way. Unlike a conventional radar with a mechanically orientated plate, which really can reduce the sensitivity when the plate is directed to the electronic warfare, it is not steamed.


                      I’m saying that you don’t know the principles of the AFAR, but you tell tales about submarines plowing the vast expanses of the Bolshoi Theater ...

                      Fu to be like that.
                    3. Operator
                      Operator 29 February 2016 10: 40
                      0
                      Yeah, mechanically ... but didn’t try it manually?
                      Is there such a way - programmatically, have not heard?
                2. The comment was deleted.
              2. aiw
                aiw 29 February 2016 00: 55
                0
                In general, you are such a storyteller! I somehow did not immediately realize ... ;-( So:

                > Matrix PPM AFAR is a complete analogue of the human eye.

                Bullshit is not. Do you even know how the AFAR works? The human brain and eye do not produce interference signal processing. Unlike AFAR.

                Further, for a wavelength of 1 mm and an antenna with a diameter of 0.5 meters, the angular resolution is 1/500 radians, if without a synthesized aperture. For RCC, SAR looks like unscientific fiction. This means that with 10 km the size of the pixel in the picture will be 20 m - in such a picture you can see the silhouette of the ship.

                And finally, the reflection of parvil EW radiation from the surface of the sea will create a bunch of false targets, not to mention clogging the AFM AFAR noise - it's like trying to make out the small features of something looking against the sun ...
                1. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 02: 03
                  0
                  How do you know about the processing of an optical signal in the human brain? laughing In fact, some researchers believe that it is there that the phase field of the light image projected onto the fundus is restored.

                  The millimeter range is usually a wavelength of 8 mm (one of the atmospheric transparency windows). The smallest quarter-wave size of a single-channel PPM is 2 mm. The maximum number of MRPs in a matrix with a diameter of 500 mm can be estimated at one hundred thousand units. It is very good to distinguish between the 100-meter silhouette of the ship at a distance of 20 km (radio horizon at low altitude).

                  Indeed, in the millimeter-wave range of radar, there was a problem of re-reflection of the sounding signal from the underlying surface (this was especially important for helicopter radars with a low take-off and landing speed - the Doppler effect was small). The problem was solved by increasing the spatial resolution during computer processing of the echo signal - the processor "understood" where the objects are and where the underlying surface is.

                  So the rocket does not need to examine the small details of the ship in the conditions of the action of the electronic filter ("sunglasses") - it only needs to sketch its silhouette.
                2. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 09: 57
                  -1
                  "The maximum number of PPMs in a matrix with a diameter of 500 mm can be estimated at a hundred thousand units. It is very good for distinguishing a 100-meter silhouette of a ship at a distance of 20 km (radio horizon at low flight altitude)."

                  Everything is clear with you. Those. You pour smart terms, but you don’t know either the principles of the AFAR, or even elementary physics. What, already the diffraction limit for the AFAR beam does not work?

                  As for the analogies with the eye, a picture is formed in the eye due to the lens on the retina. What is the analogue of the lens for AFAR do not tell?

                  No phase processing occurs in the brain; these are your next fantasies.
                3. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 10: 44
                  0
                  Smoke "recovery of the phase front of the reflected signal" and you will be happy - AFAR (suddenly) phase device laughing
                4. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 11: 11
                  0
                  Yes, but alas, you don’t know what a phase device is.

                  I repeat two simple questions:

                  1) what do you think is an analog of the lens of the eye for AFAR?

                  2) is the diffraction limit valid for AFAR?
                5. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 11: 45
                  0
                  AFAR focusing is carried out not as a human eye (using a lens in the focal plane), but as a dragonfly facet eye (using algorithms in a computing device)

                  As for the limit of angular resolution (it is also diffractional) for 100000 AFARs of quarter-wave PPM with a wavelength of 8 mm in a matrix with a diameter of 500 mm for a target of 100 meters in size:
                6. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 12: 43
                  -1
                  "AFAR focusing is carried out not like a human eye (using a lens in the focal plane), but like a faceted eye of a dragonfly (using algorithms in a computing device)"

                  No, you write nonsense, enough to be dishonored. Is it really so difficult to even google the principles of the AFAR? In a dragonfly, each facet has its own focus, a separate element of the AFAR does not have a focus. The eye of a dragonfly is not a phase device.
                  Those. You talk with pathos about a topic which is absolutely incompetent.

                  So, I repeat one more question - what elements of the AFAR are you going to turn off to exclude the effects of the directional beam of the electronic warfare? The beam diameter is tens of meters, the AFAR racer is half a meter, all elements receive the same power.

                  "About the limit of angular resolution (aka diffraction) for an AFAR of 100000 quarter-wave PPMs with a wavelength of 8 mm in a matrix with a diameter of 500 mm for a target of 100 meters in size"

                  Digit, sister, digit! I affirm that for an AFAR with a diameter of 500 mm and a wavelength of 8 mm, the diffraction limit is 8/500 = 1/62 radians or almost 1 degree. At a distance of 10 km, the spatial resolution on the target will be 10 ^ 4/62 = 160 meters. How are you going to distinguish a silhouette with such permission?
                7. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 12: 59
                  0
                  It is necessary to determine the diameter of the probe beam of the radar signal in the AFAR plane and, accordingly, the diameter of the spot of light in the target plane at a distance of 10 km at an angle of beam opening in 1 of an angular degree.

                  With the beam diameter at the exit from the AFAR in 1 cm, the diameter of the spot of illumination will be 3 meters.
                8. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 13: 30
                  0
                  Not only do you not know the elementary physics and principles of AFAR, do you still have problems with school geometry?

                  The beam cross section in the AFAR plane corresponds to the size of the AFAR itself. A beam with a diameter of 1 cm at a wavelength of 8 mm is an almost point source, read about the Huygens principle.

                  Now about school geometry - the length of a circular arc is the angle in radians (!!!) times the radius of the circle. Those. at an angle of 1 degree per 10 km we will have a spot of 10000 * (1/57) = 175m. The initial beam diameter does not matter here, it is much smaller than the final spot size.

                  How did you manage to get three meters? What formula was considered?
                9. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 13: 31
                  0
                  And I repeat the question again - what elements of the AFAR were you going to turn off to exclude the influence of the directional beam of the electronic warfare? The beam diameter is tens of meters, the size of the AFAR is half a meter, all elements receive the same power.
                10. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 14: 05
                  0
                  I do not know the diameter and angle of the beam generated by any particular AFAR. In my post, only an assessment of these parameters was given.
                  In the technical descriptions of millimeter AFAR air-to-air missiles, it is directly said about target identification by its silhouette.
                  In the figure of the RCC attack given by me, this is demonstrated by the stepwise silhouette of the target in steps of several meters.

                  An anti-ship missile in homing mode performs anti-aircraft maneuver relative to the ship and, accordingly, the axis of the EW beam. Therefore, it can programmatically select the location of the electronic warfare source against the background of the silhouette of the ship, confirm their spatial coincidence and begin to aim at the electronic warfare source as a radio beacon.

                  In the aviation sector, in the case of using the millimeter range, the source of electronic warfare that generates echo interference is placed on a towed antenna.
                  Another, more advanced method is the pair operation of EW sources on two aircraft with the formation of flickering noise (virtual target) in the space between them.
                  In any case, the purely noise interference described by you in the millimeter range is not applied due to the high angular resolution of the AFAR of the attacking rocket.

                  In the process of receiving reflected signals, not a single AFAR AFM is switched off by hardware - in return, the received signal set by each AFAR is programmed to analyze the illumination from electronic warfare, natural obstacles, accumulated target pictures, received earlier, etc. etc. The excess is removed from the current picture after analytical processing of the entire data set according to the algorithms embedded in the computer.
                11. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 15: 36
                  0
                  [quote = Operator] I do not know the diameter and the angle of the beam generated by any particular AFAR. [/ quote]

                  You could just say “I don’t know (DOT)” - I see that you don’t know the match, and that would be fair. But if you had bothered to learn about the principles of work of AFAR, you would know that the diameter of the AFAR beam is the diameter of the AFAR itself. If you knew elementary physics, you could estimate the minimum opening angle from the diffraction limit, I wrote it to you above. This implies the size of the beam at a distance of 10 km, and it follows that it is impossible to estimate the silhouette with such parameters. The rest is blah blah blah.

                  How did you get 3 km with a single-radial beam of 10 meters for XNUMX km? You also don’t know, did you just want to write something?

                  [quote = Operator]
                  In the technical descriptions of millimeter AFAR air-to-air missiles, it is directly said about target identification by its silhouette. [Quote]

                  At what distances?

                  [quote = Operator]
                  In the figure of the RCC attack given by me, this is demonstrated by the stepwise silhouette of the target with a step of several meters. [Quote]

                  Your drawings are beautiful, but they have nothing to do with reality. A resolution of several meters with a degree beam opening will be obtained from a distance of hundreds of meters - it is too late to engage in target selection.


                  [quote = Operator]
                  In any case, the purely noise interference described by you in the millimeter range is not applied due to the high angular resolution of the AFAR of the attacking rocket.
                  [Quote]

                  In the elderberry garden ... where does the angular resolution come in, if you are told that shipborne electronic warfare, due to its high power, can clog the AFAR input path tightly with interference? Unlike a regular plate. You do not understand what is at stake?

                  Once again, watch your hands. Each AFAR AFM writes its own signal, then these signals are added with shifts (the shift is determined by the angle relative to the rocket at which you want to get the image pixel). If a strong interference in the form of a harmonic signal comes to the AFAR, such a signal will be completely extinguished. But if the signal has a white noise spectrum, then the remainder will be comparable or even much more than the useful signal at the target frequency that needs to be selected. Of course, you can determine the position of the electronic warfare, and try to take this into account when processing, but there are no miracles - there is a dynamic range, with fairly intense noise in the image there will simply be a mess from interference.

                  I'm not talking about reflection from the water.
                12. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 15: 54
                  0
                  The resolution of aviation centimeter AFARs in the spotlight mode during radar scanning of the earth from an altitude of 12-15 km is about a meter.

                  Give a link to the minimum diameter of the probe signal of a millimeter AFAR equal to the diameter of the antenna.
                13. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 16: 04
                  0
                  Those. You claim that the diffraction limit for AFAR is not valid? Huygens spins in a coffin ...

                  In SAR mode, you can get less than a meter. Are you sure that PPH can SAR? So far, you have not even confirmed the installation of AFAR on anti-ship missiles, you brought a photo with a banal slot antenna ...

                  If you knew elementary physics, you would know that the diffraction limit is lambda / D, the larger D the smaller the angle of divergence. The maximum possible D is the size of the AFAR itself (I do not consider SAR).

                  So how did you get 3m per 10 km with a degree beam divergence? Well, very interesting ...
                14. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 17: 22
                  -1
                  We are waiting for a link to the coincidence of the diameter of the beam and the antenna AFAR.
                15. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 18: 06
                  +1
                  I answered you in full detail, if you cannot understand this, go study.

                  There was a lot of bullshit from you in this thread and not a single correct figure. Nonsense of course in peacetime increases the destructive power of the peakless cap.
                16. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 18: 12
                  -1
                  I put you a plus for the recognition of IMHO in the issue of the diameter of the beam AFAR hi
                17. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 18: 32
                  0
                  http://window.edu.ru/resource/980/20980/files/9702_115.pdf

                  Enlighten yourself.
                18. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 21: 27
                  -1
                  "Soros Educational Journal", No. 2 for 1997 - now I understand the source of your knowledge on AFAR laughing
                19. aiw
                  aiw 29 February 2016 21: 32
                  0
                  I have to look for materials according to your level, although I assumed that it would be difficult for you. Actually, I am a Ph.D., engaged in including signal processing, something like the work of AFAR but in a different area.

                  You've screwed up so many times here - isn’t it yourself disgusting? How did you manage to get a 3m spot for the beam with a divergence of 1 degree per 10 km?
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. aiw
    aiw 29 February 2016 10: 01
    -1
    "Indeed, in the millimeter-wave range of radar, there was a problem of re-reflection of the sounding signal from the underlying surface (this was especially important for helicopter radars with a low take-off and landing speed - the Doppler effect was small). The problem was solved by increasing the spatial resolution during computer processing of the echo signal - the processor "understood" where the objects are and where the underlying surface is. "

    This is not about the reflection of the probe signal, but about the reflection of the EW signal, which is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the reflected probe signal. Here I painted an electronic warfare on the surface of the sea, the silhouette of a zombolt and hello - a rocket gurgle ...
  28. Operator
    Operator 29 February 2016 10: 50
    0
    My answer was solely to your message about natural interference to the radar from the water surface (reflection of the radio signal from waves and ripples).

    "Drawing" with an electronic warfare signal the contour of a ship on a moving and wavy water surface and even at an angle close to 90 degrees - share the brand of smoke, plz laughing
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 29 February 2016 04: 27
    +1
    Not a single RCC in the world has an AFAR - this is not true.
    Reasons: weight, diameter, power consumption, cooling (again, dimensions and weight) and price (2-3 times more expensive than the whole rocket)
    1. Operator
      Operator 29 February 2016 10: 56
      0
      In your opinion, does it make sense to put AFAR in the seeker of air-to-air missiles (for hitting targets worth up to $ 100 million), but not in the seeker of anti-ship missiles (for targets worth several billion dollars)?

      Does an air-to-air missile with a diameter of 200 mm and a weight of 200 kg provide more possibilities for placing an AFAR than an anti-ship missile with a diameter of 500 mm and a weight of 2 tons?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 29 February 2016 11: 53
        +1
        whether it makes sense or not - this is for generals and businessmen. the main thing is that there are no such missiles!
        1. Operator
          Operator 29 February 2016 13: 09
          0
          "Never say never" (C)
          - ARGS-35 anti-ship missile X-35Е (2005 year, Carl)
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 February 2016 14: 33
            +1
            this is a slot antenna, Karl. Where is your afar?
            1. Operator
              Operator 29 February 2016 16: 38
              -1
              LRASM anti-ship missile, starting with 4: 24

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvHlW1h_0XQ
            2. aiw
              aiw 29 February 2016 18: 04
              -1
              And where is AFAR? Krayisvy cartoon, you would have cited the post "Star Wars" as evidence.

              What's the point of putting AFAR on RCC? Why not be limited to PAR if you really want to?

              About the 3rd spot of the beam with a divergence of 1 degree per 10 km, you still haven’t answered ... you lie, old man. Fu to be like that.
          2. The comment was deleted.
  • edeligor
    edeligor 28 February 2016 19: 33
    +2
    Quote: aiw
    In this case, Zamvolt has good chances - the rocket will go to a more noticeable target.

    Now I don’t remember what a damaging factor a Yak of 50 Kt at sea, they are unlikely to have time to scatter far. The question is different, this floating computer is unlikely to withstand the EM pulse, but here I am, believe me not an amateur. Although now my Israeli friends will begin to tell me about the contours of Faraday, etc. smile
    1. Operator
      Operator 28 February 2016 20: 41
      0
      The simplest first-second tactic:
      - detonation of the 100-kt special warhead at the 50-km altitude above the AUG in order to extinguish all airborne and ship-based radars, and at the same time all-all-all AUG radio equipment (the Faraday cage cannot protect external antennas)
      - The shooting of AUG ships by any anti-ship missiles (Granites, Yakhonts, Caliber, Zircons - to choose from) in the absence of radar guidance of anti-aircraft missiles and carrier-based aircraft.

      And there is nothing to fear the start of a nuclear conflict, completely forgetting that I repeat once again for adherents of conventional weapons, all without exception, US aircraft carriers are equipped with nuclear reactors, the destruction of which with the help of a kinetic impact of a supersonic missile or a high-explosive high-explosive warhead explosion entails extensive radiation pollution (at least) and a nuclear explosion with a capacity of several megatons (maximum), several orders of magnitude greater than the damaging factors of all special warhead anti-ship missiles in a salvo.

      On the contrary, the faster an aircraft carrier is flooded by hitting a nuclear warhead with the power of some 3 ct, the less likely it will be that a local nuclear conflict in the sea desert develops into a global nuclear conflict on settled land.

      Nuclear missile weapons - the most humane weapon for AUG am
      1. aiw
        aiw 28 February 2016 21: 46
        -1
        The main thing you don’t tell the Americans about this is that they don’t know, and they don’t protect their antennas from EMP.
    2. aiw
      aiw 28 February 2016 21: 44
      -1
      From the electrical component of the pulse, the protection of the filling is banal. FROM magnetic is more complicated, but (I'm not an expert) a superconducting enclosure should help. Or a thick enough layer of which diamagnet thread.

      Antenna protection is of course much more complicated, EMNIP in tanks is just two antenna inputs for this case. But I think this is also possible.
      1. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2016 22: 45
        +1
        Protection against electrical and magnetic components of EMP is as simple as a nail - shielding electrical / electronic equipment, at least with the help of metal foil.

        Another thing is external antennas, which by definition does not make sense to shield. Various types of automatic fuses are built in between the antennas and the protected equipment, responding to a surge in current during EMR and breaking the galvanic connection between the antenna and the equipment.

        After that, it takes time to turn on the fuses and restore the operability of the antenna and equipment bundle. According to the experience of Soviet tests of radars at the Sary-Shygan training ground, the time to restore the radar's operability after exposure to electromagnetic radiation was from several minutes to a half dozen minutes.

        Plus, a cloud of ionized plasma arising from airborne nuclear explosions at an altitude of 20 km and above, which shields all targets behind it from air defense radars for a period of half an hour or more.
        At the same time, the effective radius of radar detection of targets is reduced to the size of the radio horizon - the same several tens of kilometers.

        In connection with the above, the last feature in the US Navy's air defense / missile defense system is an increase in the proportion of short-range anti-aircraft missiles (up to 50 km) onboard URO ships, since long-range anti-aircraft missiles of the SM-3 type cannot be aimed at high-altitude air ionization targets outside the radio horizon.
        1. aiw
          aiw 28 February 2016 23: 14
          -1
          Since the days of the USSR, electronics has gone far ahead, and the recovery time should be drastically reduced.

          With a cloud of plasma (by the way, there is no initiation of plasma by definition ;-)) it is more difficult, but it also screens the order from the OGSN if they go from above.

          The EMNIP cloud after some time sits down (if you explode in the ionosphere) and shortens / shields everything that can below for some time, but again the WGPS will not work either.
  • dvg1959
    dvg1959 28 February 2016 20: 52
    +1
    More optimism gentlemen. We are also reviving our fleet now.
  • Ironax
    Ironax 28 February 2016 23: 11
    +3
    Where did so many haters come from? American warships have not yet shown themselves to be fools. (May recall who has the strongest fleet in the world?)
  • lavis-rambo
    lavis-rambo 29 February 2016 00: 59
    0
    And yet history is a loop. Well, our regular warriors love that coffins float on the sea. find seven differences
  • beech
    beech 29 February 2016 05: 01
    +1
    So let them build these pieces of iron at the VSA many printed pieces of paper! RUSSIA is obliged to create electronic warfare for these pieces of iron so that they all go deaf and blind, and immediately the crews wrote applications to write off this "supermodern" hardware!
  • Americandream
    Americandream 29 February 2016 05: 56
    -2
    EW from the Soviets / Russia has always been weak, as is electronics. Only now is it possible to do something on imported components.

    Well, the boat is good: it will sneak up to the same cruiser "Moskva" and blast. And look for his fistulas later.
    It’s a pity that Russia will no longer have anything similar
    1. aiw
      aiw 29 February 2016 10: 09
      0
      In general, Russia came up with electronic warfare.
      1. Americandream
        Americandream 29 February 2016 15: 11
        -1
        Not Russia, but a group of scientists (scientist). So what, what did you come up with? The invisibility theory in the USSR was also developed by Ufimtsev, but Russia does not have a single aircraft using this technology. Only attempts to create a PAK FA.

        You can’t leave on a dream. EW needs electronics, and with it it’s very tight.
        Although, you probably are satisfied with EW from the Second World War. I don’t need electronics there
        1. aiw
          aiw 29 February 2016 15: 39
          0
          A group of scientists came up with, the Russian fleet introduced. Even before the start of the WWII.

          About Russian electronic warfare - googol to the rescue. Does a micron incandescent light bulb plant do you think? Yes, the element base is behind us. But this does not mean at all that there is no EW or that EW from the Second World War. for example, whose first serial fighter with a phased array was?
          1. Dimon19661
            Dimon19661 29 February 2016 16: 31
            +1
            Such an interesting debate ..... it is not clear from what sources the Operator took the technical characteristics of the rockets. Popular Mechanics Magazine is probably, although not, most likely it is a Foreign Military Review. It’s such an advertising book. only active electronic warfare stations, but passive interference is also periodically fired, such as aluminum foil dipoles, radars that are not involved in missile detection and destruction also interfere in the direction of a possible strike. And your GSN ship does not see it as a Hollywood action movie. Well, what about the explosion in several megatons when hit in an aircraft carrier is generally a pearl ...
            You stop reading such popular science literature, if possible, talk with those who are engaged in such weapons, or at least with the military, but preferably in high ranks. They know the tactics of application much better than young people. And then there are so many words, but I'm sorry, it's not about what..
            1. Operator
              Operator 29 February 2016 17: 15
              -1
              Missiles are fired at at the ship’s compound, so there are no unused ship’s radars.

              AB type "Nimitz" has two reactors with a total thermal power of 1,1 GW. The frequency of loading uranium fuel is 20 years. The weight of radioactive fuel cells is several tons, of which the fissile material uranium-235 is about one hundred kg.
              In case of penetration of the shielding and the reactor vessel by a Zircon supersonic rocket with an armor-piercing warhead, the destruction of the mechanism for controlling the nuclear reaction and a nuclear explosion, first of one and then of the second, are possible.
              The total explosion power can be estimated at 10 Mt. Plus, spraying in the air several tons of radioactive materials from the fuel cells.

              The installation of anti-radar interference in the mm range from an aerosol looks like a vertical curtain exhibited on the RCC flight path. Since the curtain does not have a ship’s silhouette, anti-ship missiles with millimeter AFAR pass through it without undermining the warhead and continue their flight to the ship
              1. aiw
                aiw 29 February 2016 18: 10
                0
                "the destruction of the nuclear reaction control mechanism and a nuclear explosion of first one and then the second reactor is possible.
                The total power of the explosion can be estimated at 10 Mt. "

                Rave. In the worst case, there will be a low-power nuclear explosion (fuzzle) and large-scale radioactive contamination, but a 10Mt explosion is in principle impossible. The rest is too lazy to comment. Those. the basics of nuclear physics passed you by, along with school geometry ...

                Who are you in your specialty?
                1. Operator
                  Operator 29 February 2016 18: 42
                  -1
                  Thank you for even the thermal explosion of aircraft carrier reactors and large-scale radioactive contamination confirmed. I hope you will not dispute the sad consequences of the actual thermal explosion for an aircraft carrier.

                  Large-scale pollution - is it covering the entire warrant of AUG ships with radioactive dust? And what will the ionizing radiation of dust do with the antennas of radars, electronic warfare sources and the radio transmitters of the ships on which it lies?

                  PS I have many specialties.
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 29 February 2016 18: 52
                    0
                    > I hope you will not dispute the sad consequences of a thermal explosion for an aircraft carrier.

                    The damage that led to the loss of control of the nuclear power plant will be fatal in any case, the aircraft carrier will not care.

                    > Large-scale contamination - is it covering the entire order of AUG ships with radioactive dust?

                    Not necessarily, most likely everything will go into the water.

                    > PS I have many specialties.

                    Announce at least a few - it’s terribly interesting where such an enchanting alloy of pathos and incompetence comes from.
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 29 February 2016 21: 33
                      -1
                      Absolutely competent opinion from aiw: "... most likely everything will go under water."

                      After all, as all readers of the Sorovsk Educational Journal know, American ships are painted with a special dust-repellent paint. laughing
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 29 February 2016 21: 47
                        0
                        Clear. There will be no answer about how you managed to get a 3m spot for a beam with a difference of 1 degree per 10 km. About your nonsense about the work of AFAR, etc., and it’s awkward to speak. But like trying to show sarcasm.

                        And go ka to the black list, weary of your rare combination of bloated conceit, stupidity and complete inability to admit your many mistakes.
    2. beech
      beech 1 March 2016 05: 16
      0
      you are amersky! You better ask your warriors how they fled in Romania from their "ultra-modern" ship. And this is for your "supermodern" shit, we will find a council let them take more diapers with them! One of our "LIRA" will ditch this tin can!
  • Operator
    Operator 29 February 2016 22: 26
    -1
    In 1985, in the Chazhma Bay of the Primorsky Territory (Shkotovo-22 village) at the 30 shipyard of the Navy of the USSR, a nuclear explosion of one of the reactors of the X-NUMX project K-431 nuclear submarine occurred during the loading of nuclear fuel.

    The boat was equipped with two VM-A reactors with a thermal power of 72 MW each. In an unsuccessful attempt to lift the reactor lid weighing 5 tons, a compensating grating was also lifted along with all the fuel rods, but without retardation rods. In hundredths of a second, the heat generation increased by 2000 times, the fuel elements heated up to a temperature of 3000 ° C, a thermal explosion occurred and the entire reactor core weighing about 4 tons went into the atmosphere in the form of dust and debris.

    The volume of radioactive contamination of the water area and the coast of the bay, the slopes of the surrounding hills, the territory of the plant and the surface of the adjacent ships amounted to about 6 million curies, which can be estimated as the minimum possible due to the absence of uranium fission products in fresh fuel.

    With a thermal explosion of one reactor of an aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" type with a thermal capacity of 550 MW, the minimum power of radioactive contamination will be 45 million curies.

    http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=1023
  • red_october
    red_october 1 March 2016 01: 41
    0
    Drown, disassemble and examine. Iron or not iron, and there are many interesting things. Starting with the fact that his artillery hits 40 (forty!) Kilometers!
  • SergeyIV
    SergeyIV 3 March 2016 11: 41
    0
    I certainly understand that designers are not designers, but I would not want to serve on a ship similar to a coffin belay
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 3 March 2016 14: 35
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Missiles are fired at at the ship’s compound, so there are no unused ship’s radars.

    AB type "Nimitz" has two reactors with a total thermal power of 1,1 GW. The frequency of loading uranium fuel is 20 years. The weight of radioactive fuel cells is several tons, of which the fissile material uranium-235 is about one hundred kg.
    In case of penetration of the shielding and the reactor vessel by a Zircon supersonic rocket with an armor-piercing warhead, the destruction of the mechanism for controlling the nuclear reaction and a nuclear explosion, first of one and then of the second, are possible.
    The total explosion power can be estimated at 10 Mt. Plus, spraying in the air several tons of radioactive materials from the fuel cells.

    The installation of anti-radar interference in the mm range from an aerosol looks like a vertical curtain exhibited on the RCC flight path. Since the curtain does not have a ship’s silhouette, anti-ship missiles with millimeter AFAR pass through it without undermining the warhead and continue their flight to the ship

    Where did you read all this nonsense ?????, What kind of aerosol ???? God excuse me, but you have porridge in your head. You definitely have never been to the shooting, and in general I doubt that you served. Hmm .....
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 13 August 2016 18: 40
    0
    It’s good that there is the USA and they have a lot of extra dough. Now we will see what kind of ship it is. It will be useful, you can do similar. If bad, then just throw a lot of money. In any case, purely technically good. Progress is moving. Where, it’s not clear yet.