When will “Zamvolt” overturn?

136
When will “Zamvolt” overturn?


"An unequal battle. The ship lurches ours. Save our human souls!" - Vladimir Vysotsky sang.

Now story with the lurching ship gained special importance. On the Internet, there appeared a mass of experts concerned with the stability and magnitude of the metacentric height of the new American destroyer.

“Zamvolt” really looks unusual. But maritime history knows examples of ships with a much more paradoxical design. Which, at first glance, could not keep on an even keel.

Japanese battleship pagodas

The ships of the sons of Amateras were distinguished by their own unique color.

The main “decoration” of all Japanese battleships was an extremely high superstructure, in which foreigners saw the features of classical Shinto pagodas. The highest was the “pagoda” of the battleship “Fuso”, it climbed up to 40 meters - like a modern twelve-story house!



Externally similar to the disorderly conglomeration of bridges and battle posts, in reality the “pagoda” was built strictly according to Feng Shui. Each level was designed for a specific task: a running bridge with an excellent overview - for the commander and helmsmen, navigator bridge, observation platforms, artillery rangefinder posts - for main, medium and universal caliber guns.

This structural element can be considered a brilliant find, if it were not about a warship, which, like any other watercraft, would have to meet the requirements of stability. Those. be able to withstand external disturbances, causing it to roll or trim, and return to equilibrium at the end of the disturbing influence.

In addition to the 40-meter “pagoda”, the battleship “Fuso” carried on the mighty shoulders of SIX towers of the main caliber - bulky rotating structures, whose front plates had a thickness of 28 centimeters. Each tower weighed 620 tons - all six in total weighed four times more than the composite superstructure of the destroyer Zamvolt. Apart from 12 thousand tons of armor and dozens of smaller caliber guns. Rate the scale!

In the end, “Fuso” turned over. This did not happen before the battled battleship received a couple of torpedoes during a battle in the Surigao Strait (1944).

Atomic cruiser “Long Beach”

After launching in the 1959, the cruiser “Long Beach” banked heavily and tipped over made a trip around the world. He served for thirty years, went through the Vietnam War, in 1991, covered the battleship Missouri during the shelling of Iraq.

He was known and feared: Vietnamese pilots were forbidden to fly closer to the coastline closer than 100 km, so as not to be hit by anti-aircraft systems of the cruiser "Long Beach". According to the Americans themselves, the cruiser still managed to bring down a couple of MiGs. In addition to providing air defense, the cruiser was used as a command post, coordinating the actions of groups with its powerful radars aviation.



In European waters, “Long Beach” appeared infrequently, having spent most of its service in the Pacific. The sailors of the Pacific Fleet were well acquainted with its enchanting silhouette. Alas, all expectations were in vain. Despite the storms and the fighting, Long Beach never fell over under the weight of its monstrous superstructure.

Its presence was not explained by the weak-mindedness of the designers, but by the necessity of locating the antennas of the experimental Hughes radar complex SCANFAR. Like Zamvalt, that cruiser was a demonstrator of new technologies that were ahead of their time by 20-30 years.

In the late eighties, there were plans to turn the Long Beach into a strike cruiser, similar to the Soviet Orlan. However, having fallen under the action of the Russian-American arms reduction programs, the legendary cruiser went, as a result, to the dump.

Modernization "Albany"

The cruiser “Long Beach” had the same awkward-looking colleague called “Albany”.



This ship of the Second World War is famous for having undergone a sex change operation. Being built as a heavy artillery cruiser, the Albany was chosen as an experimental platform for the deployment of rocket weapons. In the course of modernization at the end of 50's. He lost all the towers, cannons and superstructure, which took the form of a tall tower.

Instead, they installed five missile systems and 12 modern radar, which turned the Albany into the heaviest armed missile cruiser in history.

The quaint appearance of the Albany cruiser did not remain without consequences. Those who stood on the bridge described a chilling fear when the 17-thousand-ton Makhina lurched around the bends. And then also reluctantly returned to an even keel.


The true dimensions of radar and missiles are evidenced by subtle human figures.


The main problem was the inadequate size of computers and the bulkiness of 60-year-old radars. Another nuisance was the irrational layout of the premises and compartments, originally designed for the installation of artillery weapons. Plus, completely useless in the existing form of armor decks, weighing over a thousand tons, but due to the changed layout, are no longer able to cover the most important compartments of the ship.

Trying to somehow reduce the “upper weight” and maintain stability, the Yankees built a superstructure of light alloys, simultaneously laying two thousand tons of lead in fuel tanks along the keel. This markedly reduced the cruising range, but Albany’s seaworthiness still left much to be desired.

However, the cruiser did not capsize. “Albany” served in a new guise for a long 18 years, fulfilling the position of the flagship of the Sixth fleet.


Fire from all trunks!


Finale

“Fed up the rhinoceros”, “the big closet falls more loudly” and other caustic comments do not reflect the situation. It is unreasonable to draw fast conclusions based only on the appearance. How large or small the stability margin of a ship can only say is “the calculation of stern nuts and steel”.

Stability and seaworthiness depend on many parameters: ship dimensions, the ratio of the length and width of the hull, the shape of the contours in the underwater part, the ratio of “top weight” and ballast reserve, the height of the bead, the depth of the draft, the distribution of weights inside the hull and superstructure ...

Nevertheless, based on the examples given and the laws of incomprehensible eternal logic, it can be noted that “Zamvolt”, with all the desire, clearly does not fall into the “risk group”. All known facts of a technical nature indicate that a destroyer is “more adequate” than his famous predecessors.





The superstructure pyramid does not exceed the “box” of the “Long Beach” cruiser in terms of dimensions, while the “Zamvolt” objectively should have an advantage due to the below-deck weapon placement and the absence of huge radar boxes for target illumination set to max. high altitude above water surface.

Due to the strong collapse of the sides, the Zamvolta structure is concentrated around the center of mass, which also has a positive effect on its stability in comparison with the ridiculous “box” and the tower of past cruisers.

Finally, the destroyer is shorter, wider and more “stocky”, which means it is a priori more stable. The dimensions of the Zamvolt are 183 x 24,5 m versus 200 ... 220 meters with the standard hull width of the American cruisers of that era 21,3 m.

As for the example with the Japanese battleship, the “Fuso” is undoubtedly a masterpiece of naval engineering. A direct comparison with the “Zamvolt” is hardly appropriate - the battleship is three times greater than its displacement. But the scale is amazing: only the towers of the main caliber weighed four times more than the entire Zamvolt superstructure (the most bulky element of the modern destroyer, 920 tons in mass). Repeated talk about the 40-meter “Pagoda” is considered superfluous.

The creators of Zamvolta know all this better than us. Not by chance, having received an official refusal to install a complete set of radars, they made changes to the project of the third destroyer of the series. Instead of light (and expensive) composites, the superstructure of the destroyer “Lyndon Johnson” will be made of ordinary structural steel.




Superstructure "Zamvolta"



The battleship "Fuso" overturns! Joke. Only tests of the counterattack system of compartments (1941)


136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +51
    4 March 2016 06: 47
    Why this opus ?? what Yes, they joked about the appearance of the "Zamvolt" - but it seems like there was no question of stability. Or maybe I missed something winked ?
    Yes, and outwardly you can’t say that this iron can have stability problems - even the ratio of the visual height of the bead to the height of the superstructure is not significant. The tipping factor is affected by the upper weight - this is precisely noticed. The size of the upper superstructures can affect the windage and also involves discomfort with strong side winds. But this is the topic of a separate article on the stability of ships in different conditions. request The article is again sucked from the finger lol For me personally and in my deepest understanding. feel
    Minus for the article, plus for the photos ...
    Because nothinghi
    1. +19
      4 March 2016 07: 16
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Why this opus ??

      The answer to this question lies in the name of the person who wrote it all.
      By the way, a respected expert stopped writing something about the F-35. Apparently it took inspiration to write about this miracle of the American aircraft industry. Yes, and about Sivulf, something is silent.
      As for such wunderwaffe, I look at the mattresses there is a tendency to invest money in expensive projects, and then modestly transfer them to the category "for the needs of special forces" or only "special operations." for this they are used.
      I will not be surprised if Zamwalt also turns out to be only "for special operations" with a lot of flaws and childhood illnesses.
      1. 0
        4 March 2016 08: 07
        "The armor is strong, our battleships are fast ..." laughing laughing laughing
        1. jjj
          +2
          4 March 2016 18: 57
          And here is the conversion project. Russian oligarch. Not Abramovich
          1. -1
            6 March 2016 15: 15
            Slaughter !!!
      2. +3
        4 March 2016 12: 41
        Quote: NEXUS

        As for such wunderwaffe, I look at the mattresses there is a tendency to invest money in expensive projects, and then modestly transfer them to the category "for the needs of special forces" or only "special operations." for this they are used.


        A special task may also be the accompaniment of exercises or the transition of Borea, for example, to Pacific Fleet. During this time, SiWulf will do so much for his country that he will pay back tenfold. So much information will be received that if such a task were projected onto our system, then the entire crew would go all the way to the Heroes of the Country.
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 13: 38
          The transition of Borea to the Pacific Fleet will not require Sivulf to heroically fulfill the special task, since the transition will be covered in the media.

          And in the case of the real need to ensure the secrecy of Sivulf, they are shugan by Ashen, that's all.
      3. +3
        4 March 2016 13: 39
        I look at the mattresses there is a tendency to invest money in expensive projects, and then modestly transfer them to the category "for the needs of special forces" or only "special operations."


        The sole purpose of production under capitalism is the production of profit. (Almost Marx)
      4. Dam
        0
        5 March 2016 03: 04
        I am not commenting on Mr. Kaptsov. Everyone already knows him well, and spring has come. As for the boat, it reminds me personally of a bank where American taxpayers' extra money is kept. IMHO, the problem with this floating iron is not in its strange appearance, but in the fact that it continues all the old illnesses of a really not working IJIS, with new "revolutionary" STELLZ developments.
      5. 0
        5 March 2016 17: 10
        I wouldn't be surprised if "Fast" and "Burny" are stupidly REPAIRED AND INTRODUCED INTO THE COMBAT at the docks. We are not talking about "Stormy" at all, "Fast" - at least on the last fart pair it dragged on. Further, your masturbation, on the topic of destroyers - does not make sense. Although, it is interesting to listen to opinions.
    2. avt
      +5
      4 March 2016 10: 06
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Why this opus ??

      what And he knows it, I don't know the guys. Moreover, the site had an article by a certain Oleg Kaptsov, where he directly printed this creation, well, the creation - "Zumvolt", a kind of biting and categorical - ,,,, Zumvolt "designed by PEST " laughing And this author probably did not read Oleg Kaptsov, and this "Zumvolt" was not armored, well, the pests were actually designed. laughing
      Quote: Rurikovich
      . Or maybe I missed something

      Probably the fact that different kaptsovs write different things, this one as a whole is satisfied with the creators of Zumvolta
      The creators of Zamvolt know all this better than us.
      . And so, in general, well, everything is as always.
    3. +9
      4 March 2016 10: 13
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Why this opus ??

      Probably to the fact that no matter what height the ship, but it is important where it has a center of gravity.
      I didn’t learn anything new.
      1. +1
        4 March 2016 19: 30
        Quote: Gray Brother
        Probably to the fact that no matter what height the ship, but it is important where it has a center of gravity.

        The center of gravity is the same "does not matter" wink
        He happens to be shifting








        (ships are so different)
    4. +4
      4 March 2016 11: 41
      Just dear Rurikovich you need to go down to the end of the article (if you think the material is dubious) and look at the author and then not waste time on written nonsense. And this companion of the work can not be perceived otherwise as "bullshit".
    5. +4
      4 March 2016 12: 38
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Why this opus ?? what Yes, they joked about the appearance of the "Zamvolt" - but it seems like there was no question of stability. Or maybe I missed something winked ?


      Oh well...
      At first, everyone allegedly "jokes", not noticing the "foam at their mouth", throwing minuses at everyone who "does not joke" ...
      Creating the impression of not a military-themed site - but some kind of a cabinet of curiosities with a gathering of self-taught clowns with knowledge of the times of Zarathustra, or a modern kind of Kashchenko, where they brought "banters" from all over the vast homeland.

      Then, it turns out they were "joking" and no one even doubted about stability ...
      Kindergarten!
      1. +4
        4 March 2016 16: 56
        Quote: mav1971
        At first, everyone allegedly "jokes", not noticing the "foam at their mouth", throwing minuses at everyone who "does not joke" ...
        Creating the impression of not a military-themed site - but some kind of a cabinet of curiosities with a gathering of self-taught clowns with knowledge of the times of Zarathustra, or a modern kind of Kashchenko, where they brought "banters" from all over the vast homeland.

        Bgggg ... compared to the comments on bmpd, Military Review is a bunch of adequate and extremely polite people. smile
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 19: 29
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: mav1971
          At first, everyone allegedly "jokes", not noticing the "foam at their mouth", throwing minuses at everyone who "does not joke" ...
          Creating the impression of not a military-themed site - but some kind of a cabinet of curiosities with a gathering of self-taught clowns with knowledge of the times of Zarathustra, or a modern kind of Kashchenko, where they brought "banters" from all over the vast homeland.

          Bgggg ... compared to the comments on bmpd, Military Review is a bunch of adequate and extremely polite people. smile


          Well, compared to articles at the airbase - still closer to Kashchenko ...
          There, if there are inadequacies, then somehow they quickly "bend" - apparently there is no ability to kiss each other with pluses and those who carried minuses to them ..
          I look at these marshals and I immediately remember a joke:
          - Do you know that Voldemar Amvrosievich is a bugger?
          - What are you? and I kissed him only yesterday ...
          That's how they live :)
      2. 0
        4 March 2016 19: 55
        Quote: mav1971
        Kindergarten!

        Kindergarten wink hi
        Secondly, if you have noticed, my post was quite neutral. Comrade Kaptsov's article is really not about anything. Maybe someone joked about the stability of this iron, but I again laid out my attitude in my comments. That is why I think that harnessing "Zamvolt" with the opponents mentioned in the article, to put it mildly ... request
        Maybe the comments of some members of the forum were sarcastic, but they were rather out of ignorance of the very essence of the stability of the ship, on which it depends, what influences it, etc., or because of typical trolling. But again, I personally consider these answers Kaptsov comments unnecessary, sucked from the finger. Most likely, the author just likes to scratch his tongue in order to assert itself according to Freud. That's why he writes similar materials. Yes, and in his recognizable manner. lol
        There would be a separate article, with analysis, with the history of the problem, without being tied to the protection of a separate ship (in this case "Zamvolta"), maybe it could be discussed. And so another answer to malicious ridicule. winked
        For me personally, "toothless" smile hi
        But this is just my opinion, since I have an idea of ​​the stability, seaworthiness, buoyancy and other characteristics of the ship ...
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 21: 07
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Quote: mav1971
          Kindergarten!

          Kindergarten wink hi
          Secondly, if you noticed, my post was completely neutral.



          I am not for you.
          I am in general.
          I apologize if I wrote so clumsily that you counted on your own account.
      3. 0
        5 March 2016 01: 35
        > At first, everyone allegedly "jitters", not noticing the "foam at their mouth", throwing minuses at everyone who "does not joke" ...

        about "not joking" is kind of an exaggeration. Objective analysis is rare, the rule is an emotional assessment, but from different sides / different signs.

        If the exaggeration of the achievements of one’s own country is excusable, then its conscious belittling, and exaggerating the achievements of the enemy in war is an act of supporting the enemy. And the Russian Federation is now under the sanctions of the whole West, and this is a clear element of the open war being waged against the country

        I would like to look at the "anti-turret" in the USSR, let's say even in 1944. Their average life / half-life is of particular interest.

        Do not take those around you as stupid as yourself - choose a side in the war, so don’t cry for the blows
    6. 0
      5 March 2016 16: 34
      Ticonderoga-122 cell for weapons
      Arly Burke-96 Cells
      Zumvolt-80 cells.
      There is more money, less weapons ...
    7. +1
      6 March 2016 14: 11
      Yes, they joked about the appearance of the "Zamvolt" - but it seems like there was no question of stability.


      It went on, it went ... and how. An article plus, though specific numbers and comparisons with "amazing" ships. Thanks to the author. For me, far from the sea, it is just too lazy to look for this on purpose. If someone could explain the unusual nose part with advantages and disadvantages - generally respect. Are there any ships?
    8. 0
      25 May 2017 10: 25
      totally agree
      By the way, I do not understand why Oleg did not give historical examples of overturning from overload
      for example, the English three-day 131-gun sail-ship battleship "Marlborough rolled over
    9. 0
      31 May 2017 10: 35
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Why this opus ?? Yes, they joked about the appearance of Zamvolt - but it seems that specifically there was no talk of stability. Or maybe I missed something?

      there was such a question. I, as a complete "kettle", asked a couple of times the opinion of a pro (no answers) about how a very large area of ​​the side and superstructure will affect stability. Zamvolta’s eye is much larger than that of the same Long Beach. logically, the wind load during a storm wind with such windage will be not weak. the author writes about the center of mass, but he also missed this question. I, as a teapot, would be interested in the opinion of a specialist. so what
      The creators of Zamvolt know all this better than us.
      I can remind you that the amateur built the ark, the professionals built the Titanic, so you need to be more modest, with respect. hi
  2. -15
    4 March 2016 07: 13
    Ay Maladets! Sometimes you need to bring to life the cheers-patriots.
    1. +11
      4 March 2016 07: 23
      Quote: tchoni
      Ay Maladets! Sometimes you need to bring to life the cheers-patriots.

      Do you call blind worship of everything American "to bring to the senses a hurray of patriots"? Hmm ... This author has been singing these praises for more than one year, while sometimes one gets the feeling that it turns out that if "sculpted in the USA" is by definition the most advanced , super-duper innovative, and all the others stupidly copy and monkey, spying on the "exceptional".
      1. -2
        4 March 2016 09: 30
        Go ahead of you with that phrase
        Quote: NEXUS
        Do you call blind worship of everything American "revive the hurray of the patriots"?

        I, like the author, just urge you not to find fault with bourgeois devices, made at a good scientific and technical level and are the product of serious programs for the development of weapons with phrases like: "yes, we saw this shed ... it will turn over without a fight" or "into the garden house abrashi I won't miss a drunk. " And take it seriously. Even despite the seeming absurdity of the decisions.
        1. +5
          4 March 2016 09: 40
          Quote: tchoni
          Go ahead of you with that phrase

          Following you, just don’t turn anywhere hi
          Quote: tchoni
          I, like the author, just urge you not to find fault with bourgeois devices, made at a good scientific and technical level and being the product of serious programs for the development of weapons with phrases like: "Yes, we saw this shed ...

          Dear, who wants it? The conversation is about that Zamvolt can be good at something, but for a narrowly specialized application it’s not smart to build a ship for 8 billion, to put it mildly, as well as riveting 187 fighters at a price of 350 million wrappers apiece and keep them at airfields, with the throat all over the world that this is the machine of the future, quietly covering production.
          Or build a nuclear submarine for 4 billion and give away all three pieces for the needs of special forces.
          1. +1
            4 March 2016 10: 02
            Quote: NEXUS
            Dear, and who wants them? The conversation is about what Zamvolt can do and is good at something, but for a narrowly specialized application to build

            Yes, you take and read ALMOST ANY article dedicated to this ship. Even your comment is the last. No one has ever seen a destroyer in battle or in long-term operation, but they are already yelling that it is super expensive, highly specialized, and useless to anyone. Instead of studying and thinking about the reasons for the decisions that brought to life this particular ship.
            1. +4
              4 March 2016 10: 06
              Quote: tchoni
              Nobody has ever seen a destroyer in battle or long-term operation, but they are already yelling that it’s super expensive,

              The price of the destroyer is voiced by the Americans themselves. This is not a secret.
              Quote: tchoni
              Instead of studying and thinking about the reasons for the decisions that brought to life this particular ship.

              And in my posts there is even a word that no one is studying the experience of the adversary? By the way, our developments and retaliatory steps come precisely from those threats and the tools that cause them.
              1. +2
                4 March 2016 10: 46
                Quote: NEXUS
                The price of the destroyer is voiced by the Americans themselves. This is not a secret.

                And it will support the SCIENTIFIC sector of the REAL economy of the USA itself. Great move, I think. Better than placing our rubles in US debt bonds supporting their economy. And the result of the placement of the amers will be technologies inaccessible to others.
                And, as regards your posts specifically, I do not presume to judge them en masse, since I am not a fan of yours. But besides yours, there are a lot of other posts here, meaningless and thoughtless .. For example: "This is the floating tomb of Pharaoh Pindoca forty-fourth. :)"
                Very valuable comment, isn't it?
                or "You can't miss this floating latrine!"
                I do not knowingly indicate the authors.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +3
          4 March 2016 10: 40
          Quote: tchoni
          Like the author, I urge everyone not to blame the bourgeois devices, made at a good scientific and technical level and which are the product of serious weapons development programs

          And no one even wants these devices, they just zadolbla already enthusiastic snot and drooling about the ship, which only went on sea trials. He was still standing on the slipways, and about 100500 thousand opuses from the same Kaptsoff had already come out about him, which Zamvolt was all invincible / invulnerable / elusive, and alone the whole fleet was sunk wassat Along the way, watering our fleet’s GMOs - we’re not building it, it’s not so, and in general we are all fools, some Americans are smart and horrible ... And we urgently need to drop everything and build our buzzwords ...
          Let it pass even though it’s running and confirm at least part of its characteristics, then there will be a real subject for discussion, but for now all Olegov’s snot from the category of blah blah blah ...
          P.S. And yes, it’s unlikely that we will know its true characteristics ... Only by chance if (((
          1. 0
            4 March 2016 11: 15
            Quote: Raven1972
            no one wants these devices

            Ah, check out my previous comment. There are a couple of quotes, "do not find fault"
            Quote: Raven1972
            He was still standing on the slipways, but about 100500 thousand opuses from the same Kaptsoff had already come out about him,

            Because the device is UNIQUE. It contains a lot of NEW AND UNIQUE technical solutions. Good, bad, it will be seen there ..
            But I must admit, the ship is extraordinary. Therefore, a storm of emotions causes. It would be mediocrity. would not argue
            1. +1
              4 March 2016 12: 16
              Quote: tchoni
              bad, it will be seen there ..

              So what am I talking about?
              Quote: tchoni
              Ah, check out my previous comment. There are a couple of quotes, "do not find fault"

              So it’s not a ship that’s blown up, but jokes over the author of the opus, who has at least a head count on him, but he is still hammering his own praising a pile of iron, which we’ll say right now, well, no, only went out to the running ... Passes by - there will be topic for discussion hi
              It would be mediocrity. would not argue

              I repeat - as a ship (a set of machines and mechanisms) it is still none - neither good nor bad ... Yes, there are a lot of technical solutions, but how it will behave all together - while it is not known from the word at all, figuratively - that’s when it slams ARS on 150 km and KVO 3m, then you can talk about something hi
              1. +2
                4 March 2016 13: 54
                Quote: Raven1972
                I repeat - as a ship (a set of machines and mechanisms) it is still none - neither good nor bad ... Yes, there are a lot of technical solutions, but how it will behave all together - while it is not known from the word at all, figuratively - that’s when it slams ARS on 150 km and KVO 3m, then you can talk about something

                The same thing can be said about our fifth generation of fighter jets. BUT! TRY SAY. GMOs will stick from head to toe. But about the bourgeoisie - you can.
                1. +2
                  4 March 2016 16: 43
                  And they’ll stick around correctly, and stick the minuses, the pack will eventually go into the series, but the zombolt will not.
                2. The comment was deleted.
                3. +2
                  4 March 2016 17: 23
                  Quote: tchoni
                  The same thing can be said about our fifth generation of fighter jets. BUT! TRY SAY. GMOs will stick from head to toe. But about the bourgeoisie - you can.

                  The same can be said about mattress 5s, a crowd of apologists of the American military-industrial complex immediately rushes in and throws GMOs on all those who doubt the greatness of the "unsurpassed" Ph-22 or Ph-35 and do not react to any arguments negative And if I understand ours, then these well in any way, well, I don’t worry about the "achievements" of the American military-industrial complex, and knowing how mattress makers promote their technique, well, I very much doubt the compliance of real performance characteristics with commercials, remember at least the 117th or the super tank Abryams hi
            2. +1
              5 March 2016 01: 48
              > Because the device is UNIQUE. It contains a lot of NEW AND UNIQUE technical solutions.

              technical solutions should lead to an increase in the ability to perform combat functions, or at least to a new approach in the performance of combat missions.

              If this is not the case, or the balance of novelty and uniqueness is not beating, in simple modern Russian such an imbalance is called peeling.

              Lira / Ancharas and others were truly unique boats, because beyond the reactors with LM cooling there is certainly a technological future, and the balance of costs and combat functions of these ships was positive

              And on Zamvolte the most interesting this is the concept of full electric movement, which did not take place to the end - the ship does not have enough electric power to carry out the missions assigned to it, so it turned into a masterpiece of the demonstrator of new technologies with the easy movement of PR, although it was conceived as a full-fledged warship of a new generation.

              In fact, this new generation did not take place.
              1. aiw
                0
                5 March 2016 18: 02
                > Lyres / Anchars and others were truly unique boats, because liquid-cooled reactors are undoubtedly a technological future, and the balance of costs and combat functions of these vessels was positive

                The first submarine with an LM reactor was the Amer Nautilus - the first submarine in the world. The uniqueness of Lyra is not so much in LM as in automation and a unique combination of dimensions and performance characteristics.


                > And on Zamvolta, the most interesting thing is the concept of full electric propulsion,

                This is not news, the same Americans, for example, built a series of five battleships with full electric movement at the beginning of the twentieth century (types New Mexico and Tennessee).

                > the ship does not have enough electrical power to carry out the combat missions assigned to it

                And where did you get this from?
                1. 0
                  8 March 2016 17: 58
                  > Lyra's uniqueness is not so much in ZhM as in automation and unique combination of sizes and performance characteristics.

                  It is the combination of sizes and performance characteristics that is the salt of engineering / craft.

                  And so almost all possible types of reactors by both sides were calculated even in the framework of nuclear projects - for example, Landau, under the leadership of Alikhanian, calculated many types of reactors even before the first Soviet atomic bomb was detonated.

                  And the point is that the Americans were the first to build LM reactors - now in the world only the Russian Federation and is able to continue the topic of reactors with BN

                  > And where did you get this?

                  from that.

                  read project assignments for "Zamvolt" in the presentation of literate people
    2. +21
      4 March 2016 07: 36
      You will be laughing, but for some reason the damned hurray-patriots also built ships and ships (since at different times they belonged either to the Navy or to the USSR Academy of Sciences), which looked just as cumbersome, but for some reason did not capsize, although carried a huge superstructure. Moreover, they walked the seas-oceans in any weather. Thanks to perestroika in general and the Svidomo authorities in particular, who destroyed this beauty and pride of the Soviet fleet. I will cite only "Gagarin" as an example, you can find the rest yourself.
      1. -7
        4 March 2016 09: 34
        The word "damned" was not mentioned in the comment :-). And, in general, this word is too strong for narrow-minded people. They are not worthy of a curse, but, regrettable. For the mentally ill should be pitied :-).
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 11: 07
          Quote: tchoni
          They are not worthy of a curse, but regret. For the mentally ill should be sorry :-).

          You can only feel sorry for the quiet mentally ill, who do not interfere with the lives of others. Otherwise, they are not worthy of pity, but the premises in a medical institution are closed.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +3
        4 March 2016 12: 06
        Quote: inkass_98
        You will be smejazzo, but for some reason the damned cheers-patriots also built ships and ships (because at different times they belonged either to the Navy or the USSR Academy of Sciences), which looked just as bulky, but for some reason did not capsize, although carried a huge superstructure.

        In fact, the Soviet Navy also had warships with "pagodas" - "Oktyabrina" with "Parizhanka":
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. +2
        4 March 2016 12: 29
        For example, Oktyabrina:

        And here - "Parisian":
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 12: 46
          Quote: Alexey RA
          For example, Oktyabrina:

          Did they say about her "I walk under a crooked pipe"? :-)
    3. +5
      4 March 2016 10: 18
      Quote: tchoni
      Sometimes you need to bring to life the cheers-patriots.

      Perplexed? laughing
      1. aiw
        -2
        4 March 2016 12: 58
        > Perplexed? laughing

        They are not familiar with this feeling. Their permanent state is frantic pride for the State, to convulsions and rhinitis.

        One such with the nickname EMNIP "Operator" in the last topic about Zumvolt colorfully told how one Varashvyanka would drown AUG for AUG. Twenty Zircon missiles in a salvo, with AFAR, will all aim at Zumvolt in its unique silhouette. As proof of the installation of AFAR on the anti-ship missile system, he cited a cartoon from an adversary, where promising anti-ship missiles of the adversary sank Russian ships.

        True, during the conversation it turned out that the comrade is not aware of the principles of the AFAR, or elementary physics, or school geometry - but his visor is hypersonic armor-piercing, he drowns Nimitz from the first throw. The resulting explosion of reactors destroys all the ships of the order, even those that are being repaired at a distant port.
  3. +4
    4 March 2016 07: 14
    Did someone reproach Zamvolt for poor stability? The first time I've heard! hi
  4. Pig
    +5
    4 March 2016 07: 19
    one sofa expert versus other sofa experts
  5. +14
    4 March 2016 07: 21
    Quote: Wiruz
    Did someone reproach Zamvolt for poor stability? The first time I've heard!
    I agree. The superstructure is narrowed up, the sides are almost straight. They didn’t reproach him for stability, so that the article was a little off topic.
    “They knew and feared him - Vietnamese pilots were forbidden to fly closer than 100 km to the coastline so as not to be hit by the anti-aircraft systems of the Long Beach cruiser. - This is from American sources. And the Vietnamese pilots did not know that they The Americans are masters at composing legends.

    And by the way, Japanese pagodas were light and narrow. Nobody also believed that they could affect sustainability.
  6. 0
    4 March 2016 07: 24
    Quote: Rurikovich
    joked about the appearance of the "Zamvolt" - but it seems like there was no question of stability

    Quote: Rurikovich
    The article is again sucked out of the finger. For me personally and in my deepest understanding.

    I understand this article in response to another discussion here http://topwar.ru/91585-korvety-pr-22160-malozametnye-patrulnye-korabli-s-vozmozh
    nostyami-esminca-vsled-za-soobrazitelnym.html

    There I gave an example of how seaworthiness worsens when the sides are blocked inward and not outward.
    1. -3
      4 March 2016 09: 00
      There I gave an example of how seaworthiness worsens when the sides are blocked inward and not outward.
      The designers of the "Tsarevich" and the battleships of the "Borodino" type, as well as the sailors who went on them, would not agree with you.
      1. -1
        4 March 2016 11: 16
        Quote: blizart
        The designers of the "Tsarevich" and the battleships of the "Borodino" type, as well as the sailors who went on them, would not agree with you.

        "Tsarevich" is French by birth. The EBR series of the "Borodino" type is the successor of his glorious work. By the way, nowhere, except for the French fleet and its successors, such an outrage was no longer used, especially since the legs of this constructive solution grow from the days of the sailing fleet.
        1. 0
          4 March 2016 14: 07
          Do you understand what I mean? I deliberately squeezed a quote from the previous author. I repeated the words of Kostenko about the excellent seaworthiness of the "Eagle" precisely due to the sides heaped inward. And here you shine with average erudition. The Tsarevich is French, disgraceful. Ugliness is your conceptual apparatus.
          1. -3
            4 March 2016 17: 50
            What do you shine with? Asterisks on uniform or with their enchanting rudeness. Rather, the latter, and these are already problems of your conceptual apparatus.
            1. -2
              4 March 2016 19: 52
              Oh oh what are we gentle fellow ! You minuses do not measure with me, mine will be heavier for now. And the way Vysotsky sang, you will never become a major. I don’t call you on, it’s sung in the song like that, otherwise you won’t understand what again. And about the designs of the ships, Comrade aiw is opposing you with dignity. Shine in front of us - in common places.
              1. -1
                4 March 2016 22: 21
                Quote: blizart
                You minuses do not measure with me, mine will be heavier for now.

                And also thicker and longer. Still not out of that glorious age, when there is a desire to be measured?
                1. 0
                  5 March 2016 12: 16
                  Yeah, thank god.
        2. aiw
          +1
          4 March 2016 14: 29
          Actually, there were many arguments in favor of the sides piled inward in the pre-radar era, and sailing ships had nothing to do with it.

          And the sides were filled up not only by the French, but also by the Britons like mines.
          1. -2
            4 March 2016 17: 52
            A photo of a British battleship with sides heaped up like a Borodino in the studio.
            1. aiw
              +2
              4 March 2016 18: 19
              Well, look for yourself on armadillos like Lord Nelson or Royal Sovereign.
              1. 0
                4 March 2016 22: 39
                Here is a photo of Sovereign. Now show with your finger where it has the same heaped sides as Borodino. "Borodino" for comparison to lay out?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. aiw
                  0
                  5 March 2016 18: 25
                  Your photo didn’t work out. To assess the degree of obstruction of the sides, the photo is not enough - you need a sectional drawing.

                  Here is http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Parks_5/Draw/20.jpg (from the venerable Parks). It is clearly seen that in the vicinity of the Vl. the blockage inside is almost the same, starting from the second deck, the Cesarevich’s blockage is bigger, but Formidebl has a freeboard lower, which for your seaworthiness is much worse than a blockage (you can consider this an endless blockage).
    2. aiw
      +2
      5 March 2016 20: 38
      > I gave an example of how seaworthiness deteriorates when the sides are blocked inward and not outward.

      And here they say the opposite - how seaworthiness improves when the sides are blocked:

      http://kirillaristov.com/data/kb/article-technical-and-historical-analysis-of-sh
      ip-seakeeping_en.pdf
  7. +3
    4 March 2016 07: 34
    SHO, AGAIN!?!?! (with)
  8. +7
    4 March 2016 07: 51
    Kaptsov already does not know how else to praise the great and terrible Zamvolt, which alone can sink the entire Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation - this ship of the future, which is 200-300 years ahead of time and which, after minor modifications, will be able to hit unarmored ships from near of space.
    PS. The impression that Oleg himself doubted the stability of Zamvolt, and now he was released when he dug up the facts
    1. +6
      4 March 2016 09: 16
      Comrades! The days of "Vaza" are long gone. Let's stop presenting Americans as fools who pump up money that others have never dreamed of in the project of an unworthy ship. They are generally notable ships. For example, they did not have ever-building freaks like "Andrew the First-Called". Their naval doctrine did not allow battleships to stay in the harbor throughout the war; it (given the appropriate geographical position) simply would not have allowed their construction. Their fleet, unlike the Russian one, developed progressively and continuously. Your disadvantages will not change the geographical position of Russia, as well as its maritime history.
  9. 717
    0
    4 March 2016 08: 13
    "Zamvolt"? then on which "constipation" and "outposts" chased for "Aston Martin"? most likely, this is where his story ends, like the previous vessel, which was only in the cinema that was formidable)
  10. +3
    4 March 2016 08: 22
    "Zoom-bolt" itself will not capsize unless the valiant American sailors help it from within, or their equally valiant opponents from the outside.
    To do this, you need to stupidly and for a long time extinguish a fire on board with water inside or critically violate the integrity of the outer side in fresh weather.
    In both cases, it will not do without the human factor, which is what the public should take care of.
    And Kaptsov, what, again secretly pushing through the armor?
  11. 0
    4 March 2016 08: 25
    I wonder what else Kaptsov will write about this iron? Already sucked it from all sides. Is there really no other topics and interests of the author? Either F-35 or zamvolt. Some kind of blinkered, unqualified gaze.
  12. FID
    +4
    4 March 2016 08: 30
    Oleg! Always glad to meet you at VO! Och.khor., Och.khor .... But, the sailor would say not "... ON an even keel ...", but ".... Into an even keel ...".
    1. +3
      4 March 2016 16: 17
      Quote: SSI
      But, a sailor would say not "... ON an even keel ...", but ".... Into an even keel ...".

      In the civilian fleet, the term "go ON an even keel ..."
      hi
      And even then, not knowing the design features of the "ship", it is difficult to judge its seaworthiness. To do this, you need to go out to sea on it and, so to speak, feel the magnitude of the heeling moment, and the rolling period, and many other delights of sea life ...

      PS The height of the superstructure is dictated by the desire to install the radar as high as possible - "I sit high - I look far away."
  13. +3
    4 March 2016 08: 34
    Plus armored decks that are completely useless in their existing form, weighing over a thousand tons, but, due to the changed layout, are no longer able to cover the most important compartment of the ship.
    Oleg Kaptsov against armor is something new. request
  14. +2
    4 March 2016 08: 47
    I think the next article of the author will be about how the poor "Zamvolt" will be dressed completely in armor from the tank to the stern and from the keel to the shroud, it is not for nothing that he cited the Japanese battleship "Fuso" in the article. ;-)
  15. +2
    4 March 2016 09: 05
    Quote: anodonta
    Today they are not used for anything at all, as well as nuclear weapons. But if nuclear weapons are not used, this does not mean that they are not needed!

    That is, you equate the F-22 with the strategic deterrence tools, I did not miss anything? Never before had a phrase about a hangar dominator been so relevant.
  16. 0
    4 March 2016 09: 07
    The main thing is that the center of gravity should not be located too high relative to the waterline.
    And add-ons mainly increase the strength of wind resistance.
    I think so.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 11: 22
      Not the strength of wind resistance, but windage. And with such a height and area of ​​the superstructure, a very significant heeling moment will arise in a crosswind, which is not quite gut.
  17. +6
    4 March 2016 09: 09
    It’s foolish to joke on the latest destroyer when a handful of destroyers with steam boilers are floating around. In addition, the project of a promising destroyer will be over 15 thousand tons, nuclear, and judging by the latest models, it will have an add-on to match the battleship Fuso. Which in itself causes, if not laughter, then surprise at such a colossus, for some reason called a destroyer.
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 11: 27
      Quote: Engineer
      It’s foolish to joke on the latest destroyer when a handful of destroyers with steam boilers are floating around. In addition, the project of a promising destroyer will be over 15 thousand tons, nuclear, and judging by the latest models, it will have an add-on to match the battleship Fuso. Which in itself causes, if not laughter, then surprise at such a colossus, for some reason called a destroyer.

      Stop referencing this layout. This is the "vision" of the Krylov Institute, which was not involved in the real design of warships. In reality, Severnoye PKB is engaged in designing "Leader", and realists work there. Therefore, we will find out how the "Leader" will look when their project is announced.
  18. +6
    4 March 2016 09: 11
    Quote: blizart
    There I gave an example of how seaworthiness worsens when the sides are blocked inward and not outward.
    The designers of the "Tsarevich" and the battleships of the "Borodino" type, as well as the sailors who went on them, would not agree with you.

    Heh! Mr. ignoramus, at least read the theory of stability at your leisure so that you don’t look like a fool and drag someone into witnesses
    but especially for you I will repeat
    About stability. There are shapes and weights.
    1.Forms.
    If you have a collapse of the sides to the outside, when rolling, the volumes going under water are greater than the ones going out, respectively, the recovery moment is greater - stability is higher. I think I don’t need to explain what is good for a walking platform for launching weapons. Well, of course, if the obstruction is inside, then we change the minus to the plus)))
    1. aiw
      +1
      4 March 2016 09: 53
      > What is good for a walking platform for launching weapons, I think no need to explain.

      This leads to an increase in the pitching frequency and increases the requirements for stabilized weapons drives and antennas. This is not always good.

      On the topic of the article - I wonder if the patriots also laughed at the Dreadnought? And over the aircraft?
      1. -1
        4 March 2016 11: 29
        And what to laugh at them. Quite competent ships.
      2. +1
        4 March 2016 12: 08
        Quote: aiw
        On the topic of the article - I wonder if the patriots also laughed at the Dreadnought? And over the aircraft?

        In your opinion, if a person does not let enthusiastic snot about the achievements of the American (or other), not his military-industrial complex, then he automatically becomes a patriot? I don’t see anything wrong with that ... The dreadnought and aircraft carriers are honored ships that have shown themselves with their strengths and weaknesses, but they have proven themselves in practice, and when they begin to praise a ship that has not yet been launched / failed to test, which has not shown itself , while declaring that he’ll destroy the half-fleet straight from the slipways, and as the whole fleet comes out of the sea, then excuse this snot and no more ... Let it go out to sea at first, pass the tests, then we’ll see, and before that we have in mind and not b more ... hi
        1. aiw
          +2
          4 March 2016 12: 33
          > In your opinion, if a person does not let enthusiastic snot about the achievements of Merikansky (or otherwise), not his military-industrial complex, then he automatically becomes a hurray-patriot?

          Of course not. Hurray-patriot make a person enthusiastic snot like "yes one cruiser Moscow will drown all these sumvolts with one rocket." The mood of "throwing our caps off" cost Russia dearly in 1905, and in 1914, and in 1941.
          1. +3
            4 March 2016 12: 58
            Quote: aiw
            Of course not. Hurray-patriot make a person enthusiastic snot like "yes one cruiser Moscow will drown all these sumvolts with one rocket." The mood of "throwing our caps off" cost Russia dearly in 1905, and in 1914, and in 1941.

            But praising a ship that has not yet shown itself is also not a thing, right? wink
            1. aiw
              +2
              4 March 2016 14: 21
              Citizens express their opinion on a range of technical solutions. Someone likes, someone not. Where did you see the praise here?
          2. +1
            4 March 2016 17: 08
            With all due respect to Zumvolt, the shock capabilities of “Moscow” are really a cut above.
        2. 0
          31 May 2017 11: 02
          Quote: Raven1972
          The dreadnought and aircraft carriers are honored ships that have shown themselves with their strengths and weaknesses, but they have proven themselves in practice, and when they begin to praise a ship that has not yet been launched / failed to test, which has NOT shown itself to be, while stating that it’s straight from it will destroy half-fleet slipways, and as the whole fleet comes out of the sea, then excuse this snot and no more ...

          very fair statement of the question. I add that the advantages of the "Dreadnought" in front of the battleships then available are easily refuted by elementary logic. the same here, Zamvolt looks spectacular who would argue. but is he so good at dealing with a pair of ordinary destroyers equal to him in terms of tonnage and technical level?
  19. 0
    4 March 2016 10: 03
    If the Americans have doubts about the stability of the Zumvolt, then you just need to pass it on to the Israelis for a while. They will find how to flip it out of the blue - because they did it with hmmwv smile
  20. 0
    4 March 2016 10: 05
    what In my opinion, it’s important not the height of the superstructure, but rather the torque that it can give and the center of gravity, but it is probably located low under the waterline, weighted by the keel and engines, this allows you to get up from any tilt like a tumbler. For example, in sailing yachts, the mast height is often tens of times greater than the height of the hull, while the keel is weighted by a couple of tons (for small and medium).
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 11: 37
      You though do not write deceit here. Not torque, but heeling moment. In shipbuilding, there are cases when a location too low is as bad as too high. There is the concept of metacentric height. If it lies in the optimal range, then everything will be in order with stability.
      1. aiw
        0
        4 March 2016 12: 39
        In general, Kaptsov issued so many letters (though the photo and historical facts are good), but he could have limited himself to assessing how the add-on affects the meter. Offhand she will raise the m. at 1m - it would be something to talk about ...
    2. +5
      4 March 2016 14: 32
      I don’t understand if you read such articles. Is it really hard to read 10 pages about stability. I have nothing to do with shipbuilding, but I’ve passed the exam in ship theory for 10 years, and I remember - because everything is simple about stability.

      By the way, about the shape of the vessel and stability is not much more complicated:

      1. Metacentric height - the excess of the metacentre above the center of gravity.
      2. Metacentre - the center of curvature of the trajectory along which the center of magnitude moves during the inclination of the vessel.
      3. The center of magnitude is the point of application of the Archimedes force, that is, the resultant of the pressure forces.

      With the roll of the vessel, the distribution of the underwater and surface parts changes, respectively, the center is the center of magnitude, and with large rolls the metacentre and MC.
      The issues of sailing fit into the same formula, as well as the issues of stability at high speeds (taking into account centrifugal)

      By the way:
      "If you have side camber outward, then when rolling, the volumes that go under the water are greater than those that go out, respectively, the restoring moment is greater - the stability is higher."
      True, provided that
      - below the waterline, camber remains
      - flat sides
  21. -1
    4 March 2016 10: 11
    If you pour several thousand tons of lead into the hold, you can be proud of the stability of the resulting vessel.

    It is this "innovative" solution that will be implemented on the last (aka the third) ship of the Zumwalt project with a steel superstructure instead of a composite one - with a structure weight increased by 3,5 times.
  22. -2
    4 March 2016 10: 59
    Cardboard barge without reservation! wassat
    1. 0
      4 March 2016 12: 11
      Call me at least one modern ship with armor?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. -2
        4 March 2016 18: 16
        "Kuzya" and "Peter", for example.
  23. -1
    4 March 2016 12: 10
    If my memory serves me right, Zamvolt is built according to the scheme of a trimaran, therefore, to overturn it, you need to really, really try!
    1. -1
      4 March 2016 16: 41
      And you look at the photo. One case is visible, and 2 others where, still on the chassis did not reach winked?
      1. -1
        4 March 2016 17: 55
        Quote: spravochnik
        And you look at the photo. One case is visible, but the other 2 where, still on the chassis have not reached?

        Hmm, they are stealth, invisible. laughing
  24. 0
    4 March 2016 12: 21
    Quote: SWAROZHICH
    If my memory serves me right, Zamvolt is built according to the scheme of a trimaran, therefore, to overturn it, you need to really, really try!

    It changes a lot
  25. +2
    4 March 2016 12: 26
    Oleg, who pays you for these shit?
    It is clear that he will not roll over. What are these saliva bubbles in your mouth for? Prove what is obvious?
    The people were at a loss over their appearance, but no one doubts that the engineers calculated all the loads and that he would not roll over. It’s not in the Great U_kras that they built!

    Maybe you need to change the resource on which you are writing?
    Write better for WP or for Taims.
  26. +2
    4 March 2016 13: 10
    I don’t see the slightest reason to laugh at Zamvolt.
    I love our Navy, I love the Eagles, but they will really look very impressive.
    His designers a deep bow.
    In fact, a bunch of the most modern technology. And automation, which reduces staff to 180 + people, is generally amazing.
  27. -1
    4 March 2016 13: 22
    This huge target will be easy to hit. )))) smile
  28. +1
    4 March 2016 14: 10
    I did not rate the article, because it was neutral. However, a little criticism. So many words about stability ... and more than one calculation. If you undertake to judge the metacentric height - so calculate it, put it in a table for each ship and everything will immediately become clear. Can't you? Then why write? Well, not all of us are narrow specialists, ok! I myself will not calculate the metacentric height, it is very difficult. Well, then at least take advantage of amateur workarounds. Measure the superstructure of each ship according to the drawings, and I know the approximate saturation of the compartments with bulkheads, estimate their mass. And then - we compare the "upper mass" of all the ships presented in the article and in numbers (and not in oohs and oohs) we prove that the Zumwalt superstructure weighs less than that of Albany or Long Beach. Which leads us to the conclusion that Zuma's stability is no worse than Albany and Beach, and yet they somehow walked and did not turn over. This means that Zuma will not tumble.
    1. +2
      4 March 2016 14: 38
      Quote: Alex_59
      I myself do not calculate the metacentric height, it is very difficult.

      Not so difficult, there is corresponding software.
      Just not enough information:
      - no one knows what is inside him
      - no one knows what he has under the waterline
      - no one knows what he has made of

      But the American designers certainly counted, so it won’t roll over.
      1. +1
        4 March 2016 14: 54
        Quote: bk316
        Just not enough information:

        Well, I meant it, by the word "difficult". lol
        1. -1
          4 March 2016 16: 46
          Then why offer?
  29. 0
    4 March 2016 14: 16
    By itself, this iron will certainly not tip over, tady needs to help the American "friends". I think a couple of three torpedoes or missiles will make a contribution to the tip-over!
  30. -1
    4 March 2016 14: 54
    #prosralipolimery laughing
  31. 0
    4 March 2016 16: 14
    Quote: anodonta
    By the way, NEXUS, NEXUS ... What a familiar nickname and avatar! Where else have I seen him ???

    Most likely on a stalker site of some kind, most likely Amk-team.ru. But 100% not sure, at least that something similar was.
  32. 0
    4 March 2016 17: 09
    Finally, the destroyer is shorter, wider and “stocky”, which means a priori more stable.
    Again the Latin term is used by the amateur ((- a beautiful word why relevance ...
  33. +1
    4 March 2016 18: 27
    Dear author, he does not very closely follow publications about testing this ship or is disingenuous. Not long ago there was an infa about problems with longitudinal stability (the ship is burrowing its nose strongly into the wave. Now developers are puzzling how to fix this painlessly.
    1. +2
      4 March 2016 19: 18
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Dear author, he does not very closely follow publications about testing this ship or is disingenuous. Not long ago there was an infa about problems with longitudinal stability (the ship is burrowing its nose strongly into the wave. Now developers are puzzling how to fix this painlessly.


      Actually, this was originally laid in the project, burying one’s nose into a wave.
      And where did the woods come from, what became a problem?
      1. -1
        4 March 2016 23: 23
        And they thought, how Zamvolt will use his weapons in conditions of excitement? It is all concentrated in the bow.
  34. -1
    4 March 2016 20: 48
    Quote: mav1971
    it was originally laid in the project, burying your nose in the wave

    Burrowing into a wave is a defect and it cannot be laid in a project.
  35. 0
    4 March 2016 20: 59
    When will “Zamvolt” overturn?

    Not yet evening...
    When somersaults, the author will have sorrows)))
  36. -1
    4 March 2016 23: 49
    O. Kaptsov: "When will Zamvolt topple over?" - the campaign has already turned over, cap soldier

    The cost of the destroyer of the DD (X) Zumwalt project, taking into account the costs of design and testing, has already surpassed the bar in $7 billion.

    The shape of the nose of the ship should cut the waves - instead of climbing the wave. However, during sea trials, it was found that even with moderate excitement, Zumwalt begins seriously nod, which most negatively affects its speed and stability. It is not possible to eliminate this problem, since it stems from the existing geometry of the ship's hull; the only thing that can be done is to try to somehow level its negative impact on the seaworthiness of the ship. True, American engineers have not yet figured out exactly how.

    http://sokolov9686.livejournal.com/2141081.html
    1. +4
      5 March 2016 02: 54
      Quote: Operator
      The shape of the nose of the ship should cut the waves - instead of climbing the wave.

      Maybe enough crap to carry here?
      Quote: Operator
      even with moderate excitement, Zumwalt begins to seriously nod, which negatively affects its speed and stability. It is not possible to fix this problem, since it stems from the existing ship hull geometry

      And this is just bullshit ....
      All, I repeat - all ships and ships in the excitement bite their nose to one degree or another. It all depends on the ratio of the wavelength and the length of the hull of the vessel immersed in water. That's what it is pitching.
      And not one (you hear, Karl!), Not one designer will horn against this problem ...

      Zamvolt is not just a new type of ship, but also the lead ship of the proposed series. And all the lead ships are a headache for the designer and customer. After the first sea trials, all problems and errors made at the design and construction stage are summarized, which are then eliminated both on the lead ship (if possible) and on subsequent ships during construction.
      "Darkness and shame ..."
      1. -1
        5 March 2016 03: 42
        Why offend the author of the text via a web link?

        The nasal tip of Zamvolt's hull is made in the form of a breakwater, modeled on experimental vessels, starting with a British boat with a deltoid hull. The peculiarity of these vessels is that they do not climb the wave due to the collapse of the sides in the bow, but pierce it.

        But only if two conditions are met:
        - the nasal extremity should not have a blockage of sides, otherwise the body will bury itself in the wave, and not pass through it;
        - the deck superstructure should be as low as possible and streamlined in order for the wave to travel freely along the deck.

        The bow tip and deck superstructure of Zamvolt directly contradict these conditions. If the obstruction of the sides is still subject to adjustment (with the loss of stealth functions to reflect radar radiation upwards), then reducing the size of the deck superstructure is impossible due to the tight layout of the equipment placed in it (see the photo of the superstructure filling in the article by O. Kaptsov).

        In theory, Zamvolt should have looked like this:
  37. 0
    5 March 2016 08: 48
    Well, say say for the coastal zone, well then it's just a great board for the Bastion laughing
  38. +1
    5 March 2016 13: 43
    People who understand, tell me why on one of the photos of the board of the zumwalt the casing is pressed into the inside and stiffening ribs are visible ??? Why I ask the main thing is that for the same reasons they criticized the armature (there were sample photos)
    1. 0
      9 March 2016 20: 54
      This means that on the sides of Zumwalt a transverse set system is used, i.e. the sheathing is divided by reinforcements into vertically oriented rectangles ("across" the side). For such a scheme, the phenomenon is generally common. There is enough strength, but the glamor of that - bye-bye ... lol
      hi
  39. 0
    5 March 2016 18: 03
    I would personally be interested not in the height of the metacentre of this "mega-iron" but in the period of its rolling both onboard and pitching ... something tells me that to ensure normal life this "masterpiece" is forced to use exclusively active "dampers" systems.
    1. aiw
      0
      5 March 2016 18: 28
      In general, the pitching period depends on the metacentric height including, and the smaller the metacentric height, the longer the pitching period.

      Do not share the source of your revelations? What exactly tells you that Zumvolt will be too roll?
      1. 0
        5 March 2016 19: 43
        The metacentre height is one of the factors affecting pitching. In particular, this unit is very reminiscent of submarines - and they do not differ in seaworthiness on the surface.
        1. aiw
          0
          5 March 2016 19: 47
          Excuse me, but is the poor seaworthiness of submarines on the surface due precisely to their valkost?

          You stated that zumvolt is extremely swath. How is the zolvolt's valkost related to its resemblance to a submarine? As for the similarity - compare the height of the freeboard of the buzzer and the submarine ...
          1. 0
            5 March 2016 23: 41
            I did not say that "zumwalt roll" - I inquired about the period of its rolling ... There is a cross section below the schematic - a natural roll-up. Those. the roll will be sharp with a varying amplitude due to the entrance and descent of water masses from the heaped side (as well as at the submarine) ... On the pitching, too, most likely there will be sharp blows due to the entrance to the wave ...
            1. aiw
              0
              6 March 2016 11: 26
              > I did not say that "zumwalt valok"

              Sorry, but the meaning of your first statement was exactly that. Your schematic is not attached.

              Your comparison with the submarine is absolutely incorrect - Zumvolt has a freeboard height of 5-10 times, and displacement too.

              In fact, on a keel pitching just such a nose provides cutting through the waves and reducing the amplitude.

              Well, for example, there is a whole work,

              http://kirillaristov.com/data/kb/article-technical-and-historical-analysis-of-sh
              ip-seakeeping_en.pdf

              which says that the reverse obstruction of the sides makes seaworthiness worse, and the observations of Kostenko sailing on the Eagle are given. I will not vouch for the loyalty of this work, but in the general case it is completely pointless to talk about the negative / positive effect of the littered sides on seaworthiness without taking into account the shape of the underwater part and the moments of inertia of the vessel, without experimenting with the pool and serious modeling.

              Something tells me that none of the local commentators of the drawings of the underwater part of the zumvolt saw the moments of inertia and metacentric height. But they argue ...
        2. 0
          5 March 2016 21: 57
          When the sea swells with a force of 5 points and a long wave, Zamvolt, moving towards the waves at an angle different from the normal, experiences:
          - keel pitching due to obstruction of the sides and the associated burrowing of the nose during the passage of waves;
          - lateral roll from impacts of waves passing over the deck to one of the sides of the superstructure.

          On a short wave, the deck of the Zamvolt’s tank is constantly washed by the waves, making it impossible to use rocket and artillery weapons
          1. 0
            31 May 2017 10: 43
            Quote: Operator
            When the sea is agitated with a force of 5 points and a long wave, Zamvolt, moving towards the waves at an angle different from the normal

            movement towards the waves and a gale from the cross beam agree different questions.
  40. -1
    6 March 2016 00: 29
    Quote: Taoist
    natural vanka-vstanka. Those. side rolling will be sharp with varying amplitudes due to the entry and exit of masses of water from the overwhelmed side (as well as for submarines)

    It’s easier to remake Zamvolta into a submarine - all that’s to do is install batteries laughing
  41. 0
    9 March 2016 03: 12
    What is the article about? Will it roll over or not? Advertising ZyumaVolta? Where armor?
  42. Americandream
    0
    9 March 2016 05: 21
    Such a boat will fit quietly and release all the ammunition. Here's something fun for the enemy will be
  43. 0
    9 March 2016 21: 36
    Mr. Kaptsov and his followers have a direct creed, like a hoax: the American (NATO) glass is always half full, the domestic one is always half empty.
    Here Mr. tchoni writes: "Because the apparatus is UNIQUE. It contains a lot of NEW AND UNIQUE technical solutions. Good, bad, it will be seen there." That's right, don't find fault.
    But read the two previous articles by Kaptsov - "The uselessness of ekranoplanes" and "Ekranoplan is necessary ... like a dead man's galoshes" dated February 17 and 19, 2016, respectively. The names alone make it clear not only who the author is, but also which technical objects will be ostracized. Of course, this is KM, of course - Lun, of course - Eaglet.
    But let me: are the listed devices not UNIQUE ?! Didn’t the mass of NEW AND UNIQUE technical solutions have been laid in them ?! Good, bad, will it be visible there? So why so on them ... disproportionately? For me, the cars were at least beautiful ... and cheaper ...
    But this is not about them. You can relate to the world either with a plus sign or with a minus sign. In any case, the world of your expectations will not deceive. So: to my World - the Russian World, which is already there - I prefer to relate with a plus sign. Despite all his kooky, disorder and disease. So Kaptsov and those who joined, if they cause curiosity, are slightly squeamish - well, like a bug under a microscope ...
    And as for Zumwalt ... Is there any sense in discussing its seaworthiness without a theoretical blueprint and the exact coordinates of the c.t.? Even better, of course, would be to know the distribution of the weight load along the length. And so ... Well, the lack of surface volumes in the nasal extremity affected me, well, I guessed right (if the data on the problems are correct) - so what? Here it is necessary to consider, simulate. Reluctance...
    Yes sneeze on this ... destroyer! If there is anything useful in it, we sniff it, communize it and bring it to life, yes! Only in its own way - better.
    At least - CHEAPER ... fellow
  44. 0
    26 May 2017 12: 58
    Eeee ... and the article was exactly written by Kaptsov? Why is the mention of the need for booking a buzzworm not mentioned?
  45. 0
    31 May 2017 10: 37
    Quote: kashtak
    Quote: Rurikovich
    Why this opus ?? Yes, they joked about the appearance of Zamvolt - but it seems that specifically there was no talk of stability. Or maybe I missed something?

    there was such a question. I, as a complete "kettle", asked a couple of times the opinion of a pro (no answers) about how a very large area of ​​the side and superstructure will affect stability. Zamvolta’s eye is much larger than that of the same Long Beach. logically, the wind load during a storm wind with such windage will be not weak. the author writes about the center of mass, but he also missed this question. I, as a teapot, would be interested in the opinion of a specialist. so what
    The creators of Zamvolt know all this better than us.
    I can remind you that the "ark" was built by an amateur, the professionals built the "Titanic" so you need to be more modest, with respect. hi
    1. 0
      31 May 2017 11: 19
      to blame, made changes there was a duplication of the comment, how to remove?
  46. 0
    11 June 2017 10: 46
    The overkill will overturn, only a little help is needed. A couple of torpedoes under the waterline am
  47. 0
    1 July 2017 11: 25
    The destroyer is largely experimental, rolling technology, cool! So far, Zumwalt is essentially an experiment, a mortgage for the future, for which technology is not yet available, but should appear in 10-20 years. They only do it at the expense of taxpayers, for expensive, along the process, sawing down certain amounts. All amerovsky: "doroho-bohato."
    Tell me, does he really have a flat bottom like a trough? lol