Military Review

Old American frigate showed "astonishing vitality" (video)

142
The old American frigate Fetch, which was set as a target on the RIMPAC-2016 maneuvers, showed “amazing survivability” - he resisted 12 hours of trying to sink it with missiles, bombs and torpedoes, reports Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Old American frigate showed "astonishing vitality" (video)


“At first, the ships and helicopters attacked the frigate with rockets - a total of Fetch had seven shots fired. Then the planes dropped on his laser-guided bombs. After each raid the ship was carefully examined, fixing the damage. There were gaps in the sides and superstructure, the helipad at the stern was torn apart by an internal explosion, ”the newspaper commented on the video.

The RIMPAC exercise runs from July 30 to August 4 near the southern coast of California and around the Hawaiian Islands. It employs about 45 ships, 5-submarines and about 200 airplanes and helicopters.

The exercises from the international waters are monitored by the Russian ships Admiral Vinogradov and the Baltic States.



Help newspaper: “The USN Thach 138-meter frigate (FFG-43) was launched in the 1979 year and assigned to the naval base in San Diego, where he served the 34 of the year. The ship was armed with harpoon anti-ship missiles, 324-millimeter torpedo tubes and carried two anti-submarine helicopters. They named the frigate in honor of Admiral John Fetch, a naval pilot of the Second World War, the inventor of tactics against Japanese fighters and kamikazes. ”
Photos used:
Frame from video
142 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. takeoff
    takeoff 21 July 2016 13: 22
    .
    Old-he and tenacious, man-made bird droppings, does not fall apart
    1. figwam
      figwam 21 July 2016 13: 23
      .
      Quote: take-off
      Old-he and tenacious, man-made bird droppings, does not fall apart

      Well, so not drowning.
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 21 July 2016 13: 27
        +72
        Quote: figvam
        Well, so not drowning.

        Well, I would not say that r .... The industry of our opponents is at a level they know how to do. And the frigate, he was conceived to hold the blow.
        The enemy is strong, and we need to keep in shape, not relax.
        1. Korney84
          Korney84 21 July 2016 13: 57
          +18
          This is not a tenacious ship, but fig rockets.)
          1. Lesorub
            Lesorub 21 July 2016 16: 20
            +19
            You need to understand that this Frigate - is used as a target - without ammunition and fuel, and equipment, wiring is most likely dismantled !!!
            1. sir_obs
              sir_obs 21 July 2016 22: 18
              +3
              Eat fuel there, no fuel does not matter. Anyway, it is lower than the waterline and does not explode due to impact. It all depends on the rocket. Granite even without a warhead is capable of breaking the ship in half when it hits the side.
              1. Buffet
                Buffet 21 July 2016 22: 39
                0
                what if this frigate and others like it can withstand the hits of "granite" ??
                1. sir_obs
                  sir_obs 21 July 2016 23: 37
                  +2
                  Everything is possible in theory.
                  But in reality, it looks depressing for such ships.
                  Starting weight 10 tons. Flight speed two and a half max. Of course, it will use up fuel in flight and become easier. But kinetic energy will still be colossal. Plus a warhead of 750 kilograms.
                  The ship may stay afloat, but will already be unsuitable. The mechanisms will be torn off the foundations, and personnel who will not be killed will receive such a shake-up as when falling from a height of a few meters.
                2. Lt. Air Force stock
                  Lt. Air Force stock 23 July 2016 15: 28
                  0
                  Quote: SHVEDsky_stol
                  what if this frigate and others like it can withstand the hits of "granite" ??

                  A 7-ton rocket flies at a speed of Mach 2,5, which is 3000 kilometers per hour, a warhead of 750 kilograms of powerful explosives (equivalent to 1000-1250 kilograms of TNT). I doubt that it will survive.
              2. kashtak
                kashtak 22 July 2016 15: 13
                0
                Quote: sir_obs
                Eat fuel there, no fuel does not matter. All the same, it is below the waterline and does not explode due to impact

                even as it has. fuel, removed equipment, etc. has weight. and the loaded ship will sink faster.
              3. The comment was deleted.
          2. HERMES
            HERMES 21 July 2016 18: 24
            +8
            Quote: figvam
            Well, so not drowning.

            Quote: take-off
            Old-he and tenacious, man-made bird droppings, does not fall apart

            The tragedies of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Afghan war, the Chechen war on the conscience of people like you ... underestimate you ... others are dying.
          3. Shell-shocked
            Shell-shocked 21 July 2016 22: 39
            +1
            Most likely training (discs). And practiced accuracy hit.
        2. figwam
          figwam 21 July 2016 14: 21
          +21
          If you have a "good" torpedo, then even a super American ship will not survive.
          1. figwam
            figwam 21 July 2016 14: 27
            +11
            And still a powerful explosion and no construction of the ship will help.
            1. HERMES
              HERMES 21 July 2016 18: 30
              +2
              Quote: figvam
              If you have a "good" torpedo, then even a super American ship will not survive.

              How much intelligence is in this commentary ... from a "good" torpedo - no "nationality" of the ship will save. By mocking and smearing everything western you do not become a big patriot, and you don’t help the Motherland.
            2. sir_obs
              sir_obs 21 July 2016 23: 44
              +2
              When the Japanese battleship Yamato got on board the first six torpedoes, he didn’t even lose his turn.
              He received direct hits of 22 heavy avmombomb and 24 torpedoes, continued to move for another two and a half hours.
              Then the aircraft still finished him off.
              So the construction design is different.
              1. Lt. Air Force stock
                Lt. Air Force stock 23 July 2016 15: 31
                0
                Quote: sir_obs
                When the Japanese battleship Yamato got on board the first six torpedoes, he didn’t even lose his turn.
                He received direct hits of 22 heavy avmombomb and 24 torpedoes, continued to move for another two and a half hours.
                Then the aircraft still finished him off.
                So the construction design is different.

                What do you compare armored battleship with a frigate? Now the doctrine has changed, according to which air defense should intercept all missiles. Then they understood that anti-aircraft machine guns and guns could not destroy all torpedo aircraft, so they increased their armor.
          2. Lexx sharingan
            Lexx sharingan 22 July 2016 15: 01
            0
            So it seems, at the periscope depth and fired "macaques" in the "nose" of Fetch, threw up but did not sink. Apparently, the ideal option is to hit in the middle of the ship.
        3. sir_obs
          sir_obs 21 July 2016 22: 07
          +3
          I saw how a missile p6 was fired from a submarine at our old destroyer. In service since the early 60s.
          The surface-launch rocket was used on clamshell 675projects.
          Equipped with a high explosive-cumulative warhead 4G-48 (weight 800-1000kg), developed in NII-6, or a special warhead.
          The missile passed the midship of the destroyer, between the bow and stern superstructure at a height of 3 meters above the deck. Where she actually exploded. The ship did not sink, but as a result of the explosion it carried everything out to the bottom for 20 meters. The blow was so strong that the heavy hatches on the gun turrets in the bow and stern, tore off like paper. All mechanisms moved off the foundations. The sensors recorded that the resulting overload during a concussion did not leave a chance to survive most of the crew. Visually, it was larger than what is in this video.
      2. meriem1
        meriem1 22 July 2016 06: 52
        0
        Quote: figvam
        Quote: take-off
        Old-he and tenacious, man-made bird droppings, does not fall apart

        Well, so not drowning.

        This is not the point. This is how such ammunition fires. From the "Bastion" to get in ... Immediately everything became clear.
    2. AlexTires
      AlexTires 21 July 2016 13: 27
      .
      yeah, filled under the deck with foam or empty barrels
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 21 July 2016 13: 33
        +2
        Quote: AlexTires
        yeah, filled under the deck with foam or empty barrels

        If it increases vitality, then this is the tactically correct decision. wink
        The design of the frigate, however, does not allow it to sink immediately.
      2. hirurg
        hirurg 21 July 2016 13: 51
        +33
        They didn’t drown him! They just tortured him! Like in Guantanamo!)))
        1. y-yz
          y-yz 21 July 2016 17: 31
          +6
          Just like a dog is being beaten, which looks at the owner and does not understand why, I did everything right ...
    3. Kars
      Kars 21 July 2016 13: 37
      +1
      Where are the adherents of the omnipotent RCC)))
      1. dauria
        dauria 21 July 2016 13: 50
        +7
        Where are the adherents of the omnipotent RCC)))


        Ask the Sheffield crew, or the Atlantic Conveyor container ship. The Argentines had only 5 air-based Exocet units for the entire war.
        Once at a time is not necessary. Normal people will simply appreciate the probability in numbers and will take it into account when planning.
        military operations.
        1. Kars
          Kars 21 July 2016 14: 11
          +2
          Quote: dauria
          Once per time you do not have to

          So say the next time the question arises about the need to reserve warships.
        2. Armored optimist
          Armored optimist 21 July 2016 14: 53
          +8
          Quote: Kars
          Where are the adherents of the omnipotent RCC)))

          Here! I am an adept! Only real rockets, not from a scouting circle of modelers.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIwr8W1dr8E
          1. Kars
            Kars 21 July 2016 14: 54
            +2
            Harpoon anti-ship missile was first tested on a relatively small warship. Today the navaltoday.com information portal announced that during the international naval exercises RIMPAC 2016, the littoral ship LCS Coronado launched the Harpoon Block IC anti-ship missile.
            The compatibility tests of the littoral ship of the US Navy and anti-ship missiles took place in the Hawaiian Islands. LCS Coronado launched the Harpoon Block IC missile on the frigate Crommelin, which served as a target. The ammunition started normally, but at a distance of 20 miles to the target the missile disappeared from the radar


            And about Mosquito)) which was discontinued) why not 7 ton granite?
            1. Armored optimist
              Armored optimist 21 July 2016 15: 34
              0
              Duc not found.
      2. Waltasar
        Waltasar 21 July 2016 13: 50
        +2
        Holes in the board, as I understand it, are harpoons that omnipotent call the language does not turn.
        Is it possible to fling granite on the same ship?
      3. guzik007
        guzik007 21 July 2016 14: 02
        +11
        heels of vaunted Harpoons, plus aerial bombs, plus a torpedo. So I don’t understand, the destroyer is so good, if all their weapons are vaunted-full bullshit?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 21 July 2016 17: 38
          +23
          Quote: guzik007
          So I do not understand, the roofing felts are so good, the roofing felts all their weapons are vaunted-full bullshit?

          A frigate of class O. Perry is not a very tenacious structure in the presence of totliv, ammunition, trim cabins and cockpits l / s.
          But, if the goal is to show the power of the Mk-48, then the type 23 breaks in half. And if the goal is to show the unsinkability of the frigate, then it was mothballed. This is-- firstly.
          Second, the watched the video several times ...
          And what amazed me: well, 228kg of TGA cannot explode so "sickly"! And BZO Mk-48 for some reason did not break the keel in the bow of the ship. Although the helipad in the stern after the explosion broke off (!) Completely, but did not drown (?) According to all the laws of survivability, fires should have occurred on the ship ... but there were none! At Sheffield, with the unexploded Exoset, everything burned out, but here - no, no!
          Because the goal was to demonstrate the "amazing survivability" of the product ... because the remaining 36 units need to be removed from the fleet, but better, of course! they are sold-donated to countries such as Ukraine.
          So showmen from business are trying to show the goods face.
          IMHO.
          1. NDR-791
            NDR-791 21 July 2016 18: 18
            +2
            The exercises from the international waters are monitored by the Russian ships Admiral Vinogradov and the Baltic States.

            It looks like here the dog rummaged. Say - look unwashed how to build ships and be afraid in advance. Nothing new since Peter 1. Only then did this feint with the ears be performed by the Swedes Noglichans and Turks.
          2. HERMES
            HERMES 21 July 2016 18: 32
            0
            The first comment is essentially ... you +.
          3. samuil60
            samuil60 21 July 2016 20: 42
            +3
            Yes, the ship's really amazing survivability suggests that it was "cleaned" from the inside and the bulkheads between the compartments were welded.
          4. Manul
            Manul 21 July 2016 20: 48
            +2
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Because the goal was to demonstrate the "amazing survivability" of the product ... because the remaining 36 units need to be removed from the fleet, but better, of course! they are sold-donated to countries such as Ukraine.
            So showmen from business are trying to show the goods face.

            Or maybe they just used ammunition with a reduced charge, a kind of "semi-training". Yes, after battening down the bulkheads at the target. And not in order to sell ships of this type, but in order for all their participants to shoot at the exercises.
          5. alexmach
            alexmach 21 July 2016 21: 06
            +3
            So they do not use weapons, but carry out exercises. Maybe there is a reduced charge on their funds. So that everyone could once shoot at the target. Please note that they did not expect flooding after the first hit, they had a plan for further exercises.
          6. kvarfax
            kvarfax 22 July 2016 18: 30
            -1
            From something I saw some oddity. Namely, the explosions were not supposed to be inside. And outside. And it does not seem that they were sent to the ship itself. A legitimate question arises. Maybe I didn’t understand something and direct hit is not in fashion now, or should it be so? I’m silent that the consequences of such hits look somehow ... not convincing. If it was a battleship with a powerful armor belt, I can understand. But when is this ?!
      4. kolyhalovs
        kolyhalovs 21 July 2016 14: 20
        +8
        This is very convenient when the ship does not have ammunition and fuel. Neither fire nor detonation. How to fight!
      5. igordok
        igordok 21 July 2016 15: 08
        +5
        Quote: Kars
        Where are the adherents of the omnipotent RCC)))

        Where is Kaptsov?
      6. kashtak
        kashtak 22 July 2016 15: 27
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Where are the adherents of the omnipotent RCC)))

        look carefully. used practical ammunition plus the most unloaded empty case. but a torpedo is another matter, it seems like a close gap. interesting is it so laid on the teachings? or pad?
      7. The comment was deleted.
    4. seti
      seti 21 July 2016 13: 59
      +1
      It is necessary to draw the appropriate conclusions. So that our missiles and bombs are guaranteed to drown him.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Oml
      Oml 21 July 2016 18: 21
      +1
      Quote: take-off
      Old-he and tenacious, man-made bird droppings, does not fall apart




      Old reliable mine.
  2. AlexTires
    AlexTires 21 July 2016 13: 23
    +27
    From the ship there was one empty steel box with waterproof partitions. The ship is large enough, there are a lot of compartments, if they were torn up when exposed to a mixed field, then it is extremely difficult to drown. Fill tanks with fuel and water, load ammunition, etc. etc., then the ship instantly goes to the bottom.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 21 July 2016 13: 28
      +14
      Quote: AlexTires
      The ship is large enough, there are a lot of compartments, if they were torn up when exposed to a mixed field, then it is extremely difficult to drown it.

      Journalists have no idea what the purpose of the teachings was. Maybe that’s how it was all conceived and it was just necessary for the various weapons systems to work on the target. Fill the empty compartments of the ship with the same cellulose, and it will not sink, even after being completely turned into a sieve. On the other hand, many NATO ammunition - the same Harpoon, have warheads of limited power and are designed to harm the target by burning off the remaining fuel. Why burn in an empty iron box?
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 21 July 2016 14: 59
        +1
        Quote: Verdun

        Journalists have no idea what the purpose of the teachings was. Maybe that’s how it was all conceived and it was just necessary for the various weapons systems to work on the target.

        The old ship became a target for exercises to eliminate the ship of a conditional enemy. According to the plans and intentions, “Fetch” was to go into the abyss with one rocket. Yes, it was the Harpoon, but the soul of the old ship was clearly not ready for such an outcome. As a result, the frigate was under fire from the fleet and aircraft for about 12 hours, but was in no hurry to dive. Seven missile attacks did not confuse the 33-year-old frigate, and then the flying fortresses B-52 and the Hornets F-18 began to drown the old man. However, this could not send the ship to the depths of the sea. Hitting torpedoes also did not have the proper effect, and decided to roll out a more powerful tool. No, no one pleased him with nuclear weapons, but a one and a half ton torpedo, which turned the side and deck, managed to inflict fatal damage. Despite this, the frigate himself found peace and went to the kingdom of Neptune only the next morning.

        This boat shot down all their arrogance, including from the vaunted "Harpoon".
        http://slovodel.com/489780-12-chasov-unizhenij-staryj-fregat-oblomal-zuby-hvalen
        omu-garpunu
    2. Gray brother
      Gray brother 21 July 2016 13: 34
      -1
      Quote: AlexTires
      Fill tanks with fuel and water, load ammunition, etc. etc., then the ship instantly goes to the bottom.

      I think that the Americans guessed to load it with ballast, at least some white garbage lying on the nose which should not be there.
    3. figwam
      figwam 21 July 2016 13: 35
      +1
      Quote: AlexTires
      From the ship there was one empty steel box with waterproof partitions. The ship is large enough, there are a lot of compartments, if they were torn up when exposed to a mixed field, then it is extremely difficult to drown. Fill tanks with fuel and water, load ammunition, etc. etc., then the ship instantly goes to the bottom.


      It turns out if you go empty on oars, do not care for bombs, missiles and torpedoes.
      But seriously, the ship sits completely at the waterline, which means it is not empty and loaded to the full.
    4. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 21 July 2016 13: 36
      +4
      Yes, do not forget the crew that will fight for survivability. Well, in fact, the American shipbuilding school is one of the best in the world, so the result is not surprising. To sink a warship of this size quickly is a rather difficult task (it happens of course cellar detonation, but this is rather the exception).
    5. Professor
      Professor 21 July 2016 13: 41
      +6
      Quote: AlexTires
      From the ship there was one empty steel box with waterproof partitions. The ship is large enough, there are a lot of compartments, if they were torn up when exposed to a mixed field, then it is extremely difficult to drown. Fill tanks with fuel and water, load ammunition, etc. etc., then the ship instantly goes to the bottom.

      How to leave. The crew do not forget to leave who will fight for survivability. By the way, look at the waterline.
      1. Altona
        Altona 21 July 2016 13: 49
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        How to leave. The crew do not forget to leave who will fight for survivability. By the way, look at the waterline.

        --------------------
        When I was studying at the institute, the professor of resistance to materials joked that "the structure should have such a margin of safety that would allow it to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear bomb, the requirements of the military are aimed at us." laughing
        PS They used to build it for centuries.
        1. Professor
          Professor 21 July 2016 13: 55
          +4
          Quote: Altona
          When I was studying at the institute, the professor of resistance to materials joked that "the structure should have such a margin of safety that would allow it to withstand a direct hit from a nuclear bomb, the requirements of the military are aimed at us."

          When I was teaching the structural mechanics of the ship and the theory of the ship, we were taught that "the ship must sink on an even keel." Why the hell is he drowning at all? - we said? And only when I became the commander of an emergency rescue party, only then did I feel how important it is.

          Quote: Verdun
          And his waterline is just quite high. Even after getting a few hits. And for sure there is no fuel with ammunition on the ship - otherwise it would have been burning long ago. What is presented in the video does not speak more about the high quality of the ship, but about the shitty lethality of the ammunition used. I think that if the same Mosquito had hit the target, it would not have to wait so long.

          No, not high. And set fire to this ship is not so simple. Fuel tanks below the waterline.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 21 July 2016 13: 57
            +5
            Quote: Professor
            No, not high. And set fire to this ship is not so simple. Fuel tanks below the waterline.

            Yeah. Taking into account the fact that the frigate did not catch fire even after being hit by a torpedo. And you can also voice such a position for the Sheffield destroyer team - maybe they will agree with you?))
            1. Professor
              Professor 21 July 2016 14: 02
              +1
              Quote: Verdun
              Yeah. Taking into account the fact that the frigate did not catch fire even after being hit by a torpedo. And you can also voice such a position for the Sheffield destroyer team - maybe they will agree with you?))

              According to your ship, it is filled with aviation kerosene and it remains only to bring a match to make it blaze like a sparkler? It is not so easy to set fire, but when it starts to burn, then extinguish it generally with hemorrhoids.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 21 July 2016 14: 05
                +3
                Quote: Professor

                According to your ship, it is filled with aviation kerosene and it remains only to bring a match to make it blaze like a sparkler?

                Of course not! But ammunition produced must do the trick. Otherwise, what's the point? Although, of course, you can fight like American submariners at the beginning of WWII. What did they say? Blunt sword?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 21 July 2016 14: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Verdun
                  Of course not! But ammunition produced must do the trick. Otherwise, what's the point? Although, of course, you can fight like American submariners at the beginning of WWII. What did they say? Blunt sword?

                  The task of the attack is not to sink and not to set fire, but to deprive the combat effectiveness. You can fly around with the Harbins and the demoralized team will resign. wink
                  1. velikoros-xnumx
                    velikoros-xnumx 21 July 2016 17: 21
                    +3
                    Greetings Professor hi
                    You can fly around with Harbin and the demoralized team will resign

                    Well, no way you are without st ... ugh it, humor. The topic has been sucked into repeatedly. Firstly, the Su-24, in principle, was not equipped with the Khibiny, but secondly, the Khibiny has a different purpose and "extinguish" the ship's electronics, including radars, neither he nor other air-based electronic warfare systems can. It seems to me that the most convincing version of "probing" the operating frequencies of the radars (other operating parameters?) AN / SPY 1, AN / SPS 67. Apparently, which was successfully done.
                    Regarding the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles, there have been many broken copies here, and more will be broken. With anti-ship missiles of the "light" class such as "Exocet" or "Harpoon" everything is very ambiguous, and apart from "Sheffield" I do not remember any cases of effective use. But with "heavy", and even supersonic anti-ship missiles such as "Mosquito", "Yakhont", "Bramos", "Granit", "Vulkan", everything is much more interesting and the chances for a relatively small target of the dimensions of a corvette-frigate even with a single hit Little. For example, the subsonic P-15. I think you understand that we are talking about the destroyer "Eilat", which was quite enough for two. In the event of an attack by a "pack" of heavy anti-ship missiles, the destroyer is unlikely to withstand, and even a modern-sized cruiser with the same air defense systems.
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 21 July 2016 19: 08
                      0
                      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                      Firstly, the Su-24, in principle, was not equipped with Khibiny

                      Yes, I know, I know. Just kidding.

                      Quote: velikoros-xnumx
                      Regarding the effectiveness of RCC, there were many broken copies, and it will still be broken.

                      Again. This is how the card will fall. Firstly, you need to get into the ship, and secondly, get there successfully. The sleeping "Eilat" was hit successfully, the sleeping "Hanit" was not successful. In other cases, they did not hit at all.
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 21 July 2016 20: 01
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        This is how the card will fall.

                        This is you in the sense that
                        "Yes, I can put an aircraft carrier to the bottom! If I'm lucky, of course ..."
                        ? smile So the luck factor has not yet been canceled. That's just the professionalism of the military and the quality of weapons increase this luck.
              2. dauria
                dauria 21 July 2016 14: 20
                +3
                According to your ship filled with aviation kerosene and there remains only a match



                Good to see you again, professor. Only next time compare with gasoline - it’s very difficult to light aviation kerosene, even when it is in a simple barrel full of holes, shot through and oozing. wink
                1. Professor
                  Professor 21 July 2016 14: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: dauria
                  Good to see you again, professor. Only next time compare with gasoline - it’s not easy to light aviation kerosene, even when it is in a simple barrel full of holes, shot through and oozing

                  Accepted. hi
            2. Dimon19661
              Dimon19661 21 July 2016 14: 32
              +3
              You absolutely do not know HOW a modern torpedo strikes a target. Study this question, and then write about the connection of a torpedo explosion with a fire.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 21 July 2016 16: 38
                +1
                Quote: Dimon19661
                Study this question, and then write about the connection of a torpedo explosion with a fire.

                The occurrence of a fire on the ship may be associated with the detonation of any ammunition. This often happens when the ship is in working condition. As a result of damage, ignition of energized wires occurs, steam and fuel lines break. Ammunition in the cellars ignites. It does not matter that the warhead of the torpedo is detonated at a distance of several meters from the ship.
          2. Panikovsky
            Panikovsky 21 July 2016 19: 57
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            No, not high. And set fire to this ship is not so simple. Fuel tanks below the waterline.

            Moreover, the fuel tanks were empty, the ammunition was dismantled, and what they have today was used as a weapon of the probable enemy.
      2. Verdun
        Verdun 21 July 2016 13: 50
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        By the way, look at the waterline.

        And his waterline is just quite high. Even after getting a few hits. And for sure there is no fuel with ammunition on the ship - otherwise it would have been burning long ago. What is presented in the video does not speak more about the high quality of the ship, but about the shitty lethality of the ammunition used. I think that if the same Mosquito had hit the target, it would not have to wait so long.
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 21 July 2016 14: 04
        +7
        Quote: Professor
        How to leave. The crew do not forget to leave who will fight for survivability. By the way, look at the waterline.

        Oleg, but you, like a sailor, understand perfectly well that if a torpedo hits the area of ​​the bow rocket cellar there will be such detonation that it would be better if the crew were not present! The question is AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon! The rocket flies to the launch almost entirely, making only a hole in the body and explodes already at the launch. The Americans slammed the 8 harpoons and into the empty, and then another 12 hours they bombed the aircraft and allowed torpedoes ... but he does not sink! Paradox! And if the war ???
        1. Professor
          Professor 21 July 2016 14: 09
          +3
          Quote: Serg65
          And if the war ???

          And if there is a war, the crew will most likely be dead in the compartment where the missile took off, and there is a high probability that the ship will lose its combat capability while afloat. This is precisely the purpose of the attack, and not "to sink at any cost".
          About the bow of the ship. The ship is not a T-72 where almost every penetration leads to fire and detonation of ammunition.
          I agree with you on one thing. It would be even more interesting to watch the shelling of a non-"empty" ship.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 21 July 2016 18: 13
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            And if there is a war, the crew will most likely be dead in the compartment where the missile took off, and there is a high probability that the ship will lose its combat capability while afloat. This is precisely the purpose of the attack, and not "to sink at any cost".

            Oleg. I will not even argue with this, since it is true. I am confused by something else ... the destroyer Zealous (Eilat) was probably no worse in quality of construction and metal than the frigate "Fetch", but the first one had enough 3 Termites, and the second from 7 Harpoons only scratched itself. That’s the question ... is the Gorpoon not so scary, how is he painted?
            Quote: Professor
            About the bow of the ship. The ship is not a T-72 where almost every penetration leads to fire and detonation of ammunition.

            So you want to say that a torpedo that pierced a hole in the board with a football goal is not at all dangerous for a rocket cellar standing in its way? Did I understand correctly?
            1. Professor
              Professor 21 July 2016 18: 58
              -1
              Quote: Serg65
              Oleg. I will not even argue with this, since it is true. I am confused by something else ... the destroyer Zealous (Eilat) was probably no worse in quality of construction and metal than the frigate "Fetch", but the first one had enough 3 Termites, and the second from 7 Harpoons only scratched itself. That’s the question ... is the Gorpoon not so scary, how is he painted?

              This is how the card will fall. The battleship Novorossiysk sank even without rockets hitting it.

              Quote: Serg65
              So you want to say that a torpedo that pierced a hole in the board with a football goal is not at all dangerous for a rocket cellar standing in its way? Did I understand correctly?

              No, not right. The rocket cellar is not clogged under the deck with barrels of gunpowder and it will be difficult to predict what will happen after a torpedo hits.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 22 July 2016 05: 48
                +1
                Quote: Professor
                Missile cellar is not clogged under the deck with barrels of gunpowder

                Instead of barrels there are 40 rockets in two drums and, in addition to gunpowder, dozens of gallons of fuel.
                Quote: Professor
                what will happen after hitting a torpedo is difficult to predict.

                Your truth.
                Quote: Professor
                The battleship Novorossiysk sank even without rockets hitting it.

                Well, for him, the map went down winked
    6. INVESTOR
      INVESTOR 21 July 2016 13: 46
      +2
      Quote: AlexTires
      From the ship there was one empty steel box with waterproof partitions. The ship is large enough, there are a lot of compartments, if they were torn up when exposed to a mixed field, then it is extremely difficult to drown. Fill tanks with fuel and water, load ammunition, etc. etc., then the ship instantly goes to the bottom.



      Moreover, in real life he will also snap back much.
  3. Teberii
    Teberii 21 July 2016 13: 24
    +2
    Well, if you want to live, you will not turn around like that, the only question is what they drowned him with, educational.
  4. Gray brother
    Gray brother 21 July 2016 13: 25
    +3
    There is one of two things: either a tenacious ship, or a weapon not very.
    1. faridg7
      faridg7 21 July 2016 15: 58
      0
      No, there are two in one. the dish is strong, but they never learned to drown. Here is this vessel, but KSR5 to try (you can even without a special warhead). How much weight is there, eight hundred kilos or so. That one smells inside the case, so it will go at the seams
    2. investor
      investor 21 July 2016 20: 43
      +5
      Quote: Gray Brother
      There is one of two things: either a tenacious ship, or a weapon not very.

      I read this article at lunchtime and was sure that someone will explain for a long time what the word "SINKEX" means. It is in the description of the video, but for some reason
      they do not notice him point blank.
      SINKEX, a word used by the U.S. military to test weapons systems: missile (usually with a drone), torpedoes, and training sailors to use modern weapons. No one needs the ship to sink to the bottom after the first hit and everyone goes home to drink beer. Therefore, ships are specially prepared for such tests: they bulk up and weld bulkheads, fill with ballast, etc. and begin to test all types of ammunition: air, ship, underwater. After each salvo, the drone flies around the ship in order to assess the damage from a particular munition. Well, in the final torpedo drowns the target. Everyone is happy, everyone is going home.
      1. brn521
        brn521 22 July 2016 11: 39
        0
        Quote: investor
        the word "SINKEX" It is in the description of the video, but for some reason everyone does not notice it.

        Well, here is the first normal answer in the topic that I got to. Specially prepared (including in terms of ecology) hulls of decommissioned ships, on which they put experiments. That is: 1) it’s almost no frigate 2) worked out a research program on it, and did not try to flood it as soon as possible 3) it is a widespread method of ship disposal, Americans destroy about 2/3 of decommissioned ships in this way, 1/3 allowed for scrapping.
  5. HMR333
    HMR333 21 July 2016 13: 26
    +2
    it was necessary to gasp for a normal rocket and everything would be buzzing and a fire and a hole would have been jammed by firecrackers and now humorists are talking about survivability, they would have shot him with machine guns)))
  6. Wedmak
    Wedmak 21 July 2016 13: 26
    +2
    They leaked fuel, removed their weapons, and left a naked barge. And then they could not drown in adequate time. How is that? And if the ship resisted?
  7. Arkan
    Arkan 21 July 2016 13: 27
    +1
    Either old Fetch was tenacious, or the ammunition used was not powerful enough to destroy the old frigate.
  8. Skubudu
    Skubudu 21 July 2016 13: 28
    +1
    Only a torpedo in the nose normally attached.
    And yes, he’s considered an empty float, it’s difficult to sink it.
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 21 July 2016 13: 29
    +2
    Well, yes, a ship without ammunition and fuel, all bulkheads are battened down - this is a piece of foam - roughly speaking. Only break into pieces that will swim separately laughing
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 21 July 2016 13: 50
      +3
      In combat, any ship is bullied. He is in ballast, this is evident from the draft.

      Plus, keep in mind that no one leads the BBW.

      Perry just came out very tenacious. Vaughn Stark in a combat situation caught 2 real Exosets - 1 warmed up, but the warhead collapsed and separated, the second exploded inside. The result - another 13 years ran back to the U.S. Navy.

      But they went on one side, with fires, rapid flooding, but as a result, the BZZ and the oak construction made it impossible.
  10. 76SSSR
    76SSSR 21 July 2016 13: 30
    +12
    You can look at this fact from the contrary: not the old American frigate showed "amazing survivability", but modern American means of destruction showed their failure to drown the old frigate.)
    1. quote
      quote 21 July 2016 13: 34
      +5
      I adhere to the same opinion. So I saw that it does not fit with powerful (strong, modern) means of destruction.
  11. uav80
    uav80 21 July 2016 13: 31
    +3
    News from the future chtol .. ???

    Quote: mirtesen.ru
    The RIMPAC exercise runs from July 30 to August 4 ...
  12. Bayonet
    Bayonet 21 July 2016 13: 31
    +4
    How strong! With such injuries did not even heel!
    Quote: take-off
    bird droppings

    By the way, how did you discern the litter? Just eagle eyesight, even envy hi
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 21 July 2016 23: 33
      0
      Quote: Bayonet
      By the way, how did you discern the litter? Just eagle eyesight, even envy

      So after all, an eagle, itself and metal. What is there to look at? laughing
  13. Masya masya
    Masya masya 21 July 2016 13: 35
    +6
    So remembered wink
    "if you want to live, you will not be so hot ..." lol
  14. Potter
    Potter 21 July 2016 13: 48
    +2
    "To the characteristics of Project 56, we can add an example of the survivability of the Excited destroyer, which was shot as a target in Kamchatka. The KUG was the first to launch its missiles as part of three small missile ships of Project 1234, in addition, the coastal missile unit from Cape Shipunsky fired one volley. the veteran stayed afloat with two holes in the superstructure and several weak fires, and it was decided to tow the Excited to Petropavlovsk for reuse as a target.

    On August 12, 1991, the ship was taken to sea for the last time. This time they practiced artillery fire "Zealous" and "Sharp". The first fired about 60 shells, the second - 50, but despite the coverings, the destroyer remained afloat and did not think to sink. Meanwhile, daylight ended - as a result, "Sharp" came close to him and fired four shots from 100-mm guns in the waterline area. Reluctantly, the veteran began to lurch and soon disappeared under the water. One involuntarily thinks how different the situation would be if he could answer these young, harsh and zealous guys ... "
    From Pavlov's book "Project 56 Destroyers". The old men are tenacious, and the CD is so-so, a couple of holes in the superstructure. Which is metal, not balsa and fiberglass.
    1. stayer
      stayer 21 July 2016 15: 16
      +1
      I was present at this perversion in the 90th year.
      I previously described this episode here http://topwar.ru/55523-otechestvennye-glubinnye-bomby.html#comment-id-3147241 in the comments you will find.
  15. pofigisst74
    pofigisst74 21 July 2016 13: 50
    +3
    Sorry for the boat! crying
    1. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 21 July 2016 18: 59
      +1
      Quote: pofigisst74
      Sorry for the boat!

      Yeah...
      Say what you like, but we must admit that the veteran held on with dignity. Took the last fight so to speak.
      There's something about it(((
  16. Million
    Million 21 July 2016 13: 50
    +3
    You must be able to shoot. Alexander Ivanovich Marinesko would send him to the bottom with several torpedoes
  17. r.arkatov
    r.arkatov 21 July 2016 13: 51
    0
    Beat your own so that strangers are afraid))) But seriously, for us this is a good teaching aid.
  18. dmikras
    dmikras 21 July 2016 13: 51
    0
    They would give our nimsh about him
  19. iwind
    iwind 21 July 2016 13: 58
    +6
    Not, but what's so strange, the PCR was without a warhead. After all, the scientist’s goal is to give the crew the opportunity to practice combat launches, and what would be the point if the first crew member sank the ship. At the same time they look where the pcr gets.
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 21 July 2016 19: 34
      0
      Quote: iwind
      Not, but what's so strange, the PCR was without a warhead. After all, the scientist’s goal is to give the crew the opportunity to practice combat launches, and what would be the point if the first crew member sank the ship. At the same time they look where the pcr gets.


      Why then all these headlines about the incredible survivability of the ship? After all, you can shoot about it from a Kalash and, according to the results, give out the title - "An American frigate cannot be sunk at all!"
      1. iwind
        iwind 21 July 2016 19: 53
        0
        Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
        Why then all these headlines about the incredible survivability of the ship?
  20. berezin1987
    berezin1987 21 July 2016 13: 59
    +5
    Or maybe they will provide us with their ship for testing the P-700 Granite and P-1000 Volcano missiles? It would be interesting to see the result of hitting our missiles with warhead 1000 kg.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 21 July 2016 14: 32
      +2
      Quote: berezin1987
      Or maybe they will provide us with their ship for testing the P-700 Granite and P-1000 Volcano missiles? It would be interesting to see the result of hitting our missiles with warhead 1000 kg.


      Most likely their "Harpoons" were without b / h. The point is to sink the target with the first missile. And to work on it (target) for the rest of the participants? Also, after all, hands are itching to press the button and see where the rocket will fly.
      And if with a full b / h, then you will not save any targets. Well, + (I think so) Americans have additionally filled most of the volume with something hardly refundable (polystyrene, cellulose). Actually the weight of this filling gave normal draft to the ship.
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 21 July 2016 14: 45
        0
        And what's the point of shooting at a target with a blank? If the hull was made of aluminum alloy, then there would be a strong fire as a result of ignition of rocket fuel inside the ship. And it couldn’t rotate the helipad like a blank.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 21 July 2016 18: 24
          +1
          Quote: berezin1987
          And it couldn’t rotate the helipad like a blank.

          The stern with the helipad "separated" after being hit by the Mk-48, after being thrown up after a torpedo detonated. This can be clearly seen in the video, if, of course, you look carefully!
  21. sgr291158
    sgr291158 21 July 2016 14: 13
    0
    As I understand it, a torpedo flew into the left side, but it’s not clear which one. There is a lot of noise and the result is a bent board. Or really strong, or such a torpedo. Most likely a torpedo bullshit.
    1. Professor
      Professor 21 July 2016 14: 17
      -1
      Quote: sgr291158
      As I understand it, a torpedo flew into the left side, but it’s not clear which one. There is a lot of noise and the result is a bent board. Or really strong, or such a torpedo. Most likely a torpedo bullshit.

      And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you inspect the underwater part? Internal damage?
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 21 July 2016 14: 36
        +1
        Once again, people just don’t understand the principle of hitting targets in modern torpedoes. The times of Tsushima and Midway are long gone. Before commenting, study the question.
  22. yuriy55
    yuriy55 21 July 2016 14: 16
    0
    I don’t know what to believe? request

    http://warfiles.ru/show-123996-12-chasov-unizheniy-amerikanskiy-garpun-slomal-zu

    by-ob-staryy-fregat.html


    Fig rockets, the ship sank ... crying
  23. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 21 July 2016 14: 19
    +2
    The main thing is that O. Kaptsov does not see this article, otherwise it will be an additional trump card for him: imagine, he will say, and if you put the ship in armor, then it’ll turn out unsinkable lol And "fu" will say RCC, citing this sinking, as proof of the superiority of artillery wassatAnd he won’t forget that the ship is AMERICAN! am That's who is ahead of the rest. And if the country does not sink, then "Zamvolt" will still be a citadel on the waves wassat American doesn’t sink what and this is a proof of exclusivity request
    Here's a laugh at the evidence base
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 21 July 2016 14: 32
      +3
      Kaptsov strongly goes too far with the theme of armor, but he also has sound ideas. The ship must have armor of such a thickness that it does not penetrate artillery caliber up to 130 mm and light anti-ship missiles. This is approximately 150 mm armor thickness. This will force the enemy to increase the size and mass of anti-ship missiles, which will significantly reduce the ammunition of the ship or require an increase in displacement. In any case, no armor will save from a close explosion of anti-ship missiles with a nuclear part with the power of 200-500 ct.
      1. kolyhalovs
        kolyhalovs 22 July 2016 06: 31
        0
        In each topic, Kaptsov’s spears about armor are broken, although in each topic there is a reasonable person who indicates that the armor is meaningless because the sides are laid on nuclear confrontation, which is why there is no armor and will not be. Dot.
        But your comment is just a masterpiece! 120 comments to Kaptsov's article were stung in four lines! Kaptsov was criticized for the armor, immediately "proved" the need for armor and immediately refuted it. Bravo!

        Plus for you, definitely!
  24. Wiruz
    Wiruz 21 July 2016 14: 25
    0
    So we’re thinking now: either the ships of the Americans are tenacious, or the ammunition is weak, or the warriors are squinting.

    Or just acted on the principle of a video game - until the frigate HP ends laughing
  25. Galleon
    Galleon 21 July 2016 14: 26
    +5
    Empty ship hull with bulldozed bulkheads. Everything is de-energized, there is no fuel - there is nothing to burn. There is no ammunition - there is nothing to detonate. The ship was built according to all the rules of shipbuilding. I also support the opinion expressed on low-power weapons. Putting all these factors together at the output we have just such a picture.
    I recall what I read about the first test of our anti-ship cruise missile at the Black Sea Fleet in the 50s. The missile entered the target ship not across, but along and pierced it through, and not in the superstructure, but under the upper deck. I haven’t found this link now, but you won’t look at the photo without a shudder (for a while, what remained was still afloat).
  26. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 21 July 2016 14: 30
    0
    Made as it should, efficiently. And the American gunners are useless. There is no need to show off directly under the harpoon waterline.
  27. a71
    a71 21 July 2016 14: 35
    +3
    It seems that the missiles were without explosives, 225 kg explode harder than in the video, something like a torpedo flashed. By the way, we also use training missiles without explosives.
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 21 July 2016 14: 48
      +1
      There are no 225 kg BB.
      1. a71
        a71 21 July 2016 17: 31
        0
        on all the resources where I watched - 225-235 kg.
  28. berezin1987
    berezin1987 21 July 2016 14: 41
    0
    Soviet designers were right when they developed heavy anti-ship missiles with warheads weighing more than 500 kg. If 12 harpoons could not destroy far from the best frigate, then how to destroy a ship with a displacement of about 10 thousand tons? An occasion to think about the effectiveness of our RCC X-35, which is even lighter than a harpoon. It can sink a burke or 45 type only if it enters the compartment with the UVP.
  29. Operator
    Operator 21 July 2016 14: 45
    +2
    Video about anything:
    - the frigate is completely free from ammunition and fuel, there was nothing to explode and burn on board (this especially applies to getting into the stern, where under normal conditions there is a supply of aviation kerosene);
    - inside the frigate there could be a mass of glass balls to ensure unsinkability;
    - anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" were fired at the frigate with a warhead of half power compared to "Tomahawks" and "Calibers", not to mention the supersonic "Yakhonts", "Granites", "Basalts" and "Zirkons" (plus the kinetic energy of the rocket) ;
    - it is likely that missiles and a dashboard used training warheads of even lower power for video recording of many hits, and not one (after which the frigate would sink - see the video in the comments);
    - it is not known after which hit the radar equipment and the MSA (if they were there at all) failed and the frigate lost combat effectiveness.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 21 July 2016 15: 33
      0
      There is a real example of Stark - the same type. It was fully loaded, with ammunition, caught 2 combat exosets.

      1) The warhead detached and did not explode, but the remaining fuel caused a fire.
      2) It worked normally, an explosion inside.

      As a result, the fire, the bank, but the BZZ team worked, put out, straightened up, after an emergency repair in the nearest base, and also removing the bodies of the dead, he went to the USA for 8 months repair, after which he served another 13 years and was written off in 1999 year.
  30. starpom
    starpom 21 July 2016 15: 04
    +4
    The old American frigate Fetch, which was set as a target in the RIMPAC-2016 maneuvers, showed “amazing survivability” - for 12 hours it resisted attempts to sink it with the help of missiles, bombs and torpedoes, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports.

    The RIMPAC exercise runs from July 30 to August 4 near the southern coast of California and around the Hawaiian Islands. It employs about 45 ships, 5-submarines and about 200 airplanes and helicopters.

    Something I do not catch up. Maybe they live in the other hemisphere for a month ahead.
    1. Operator
      Operator 21 July 2016 15: 11
      +1
      That's right - from June 30.
  31. Karelof
    Karelof 21 July 2016 15: 07
    +3
    This is how the Mosquito hits

    1. RPG_
      RPG_ 21 July 2016 15: 55
      0
      Hmm, probably everything inside is fried to a crisp.
  32. Prisoner
    Prisoner 21 July 2016 15: 57
    0
    One out of two. Either the old frigate is good, or the new explosive manure.
  33. 100-2
    100-2 21 July 2016 16: 05
    0
    most likely the warhead on the PCR was weakened ... 300kg babakha harder than what they showed ..
  34. You Vlad
    You Vlad 21 July 2016 16: 11
    0
    Another Amersky advertising action! Yes, our ships can’t even sink!
  35. pts-m
    pts-m 21 July 2016 16: 13
    0
    Pendosov completely overwhelmed littering the waters of the Pacific Ocean. And where do the “green” pendostans look, why they do not organize attacks on participants in environmental pollution.
    1. You Vlad
      You Vlad 22 July 2016 06: 48
      0
      Green play for the same team do not hesitate!))
  36. vvp2412
    vvp2412 21 July 2016 17: 10
    0
    July 30 will come only in 9 days ... News from the future?
  37. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 21 July 2016 17: 44
    0
    Well, it’s tenacious because there were no people on it.
  38. ingenera
    ingenera 21 July 2016 19: 04
    +2
    Here, on the wave of patriotism, many confused the teachings with a real battle. This ship is a target. Dot. Did you hit the target? Yes. We put a plus for the arrows. Didn't you sink right away? So the purpose of the exercises is not to sink the target, but to work out its defeat. In battle, too, the task is not to drown stupidly (smash, destroy, lift into the air), but to suppress the enemy's resistance. And it doesn't matter if the ship sank, or the entire crew lies without movement and memory, or the observation and aiming devices or the weapons themselves are out of service. Here we can only talk about the "safety margin" of the structure of the warship itself and nothing more! So, screams about worthless "Harpoons", "shame of America" ​​are at least inappropriate. Anyone who considers a potential adversary to be a sucker is himself a greater sucker. The purpose of the publication is not clear. The spectacle, of course, is spectacular, but this has nothing to do with our defenses. And to them too, by the way. Just another video with not very clever comments.
  39. NACC
    NACC 21 July 2016 19: 22
    0
    Decent ship, it even became a pity!
  40. Gomel
    Gomel 21 July 2016 19: 24
    0
    Ek! tovarischi! Watching the first 10 comments, I understand that VO turns into an analog browser.

    there is a lot of leavened urapatriotism, of course, I understand, summer is at school holidays, but it’s impossible to read the comments to the professor!
  41. avaks111
    avaks111 21 July 2016 19: 29
    0
    How much metal is missing!
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 21 July 2016 19: 37
      0
      Quote: avaks111
      How much metal is missing!


      By the way, yes.
  42. iouris
    iouris 21 July 2016 21: 44
    0
    The only good news for the past month.
  43. VOENOBOZ
    VOENOBOZ 21 July 2016 22: 10
    0
    Yes, they soaked with blanks, single holes.
  44. Shell-shocked
    Shell-shocked 21 July 2016 22: 43
    0
    Most likely training (discs). And practiced accuracy hit.
  45. ohotnik101
    ohotnik101 22 July 2016 03: 08
    0
    Repeatedly watched Moskit anti-ship missiles firing. Missiles have always been without warheads, but they inflicted defeat simply terrible. Kinetic impact, burning of fuel residues - and on the ship it would not be up to the fulfillment of the combat mission. Moreover, when it hits the bow, the Mosquito pierces the ship to the stern, causing destruction and fires in all compartments. And if with a warhead ...
    1. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 23 July 2016 15: 37
      0
      Quote: ohotnik101
      Repeatedly watched Moskit anti-ship missiles firing. Missiles have always been without warheads, but they inflicted defeat simply terrible. Kinetic impact, burning of fuel residues - and on the ship it would not be up to the fulfillment of the combat mission. Moreover, when it hits the bow, the Mosquito pierces the ship to the stern, causing destruction and fires in all compartments. And if with a warhead ...

      And why without warhead shot? And another question is why weapons and air defense exercises do not use weapons that are on combat duty, but only special target missiles?
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 23 July 2016 18: 04
        0
        why don't they use weapons that are on combat duty at shooting and air defense exercises, but only special target missiles?


        Because we don’t have Tomogavks in service with potential partners. And the partners, respectively, do not have Mosquitoes and everything else. And in its own sense, what is thorny? it suddenly turns out that we can shoot down our own and others - no?
  46. 094711601
    094711601 22 July 2016 06: 56
    0
    Yes, they have the wrong grenades! Another show ....
  47. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 23 July 2016 15: 36
    0
    Yes, probably in order to sink such a frigate you need a lot of hits from Uranus missiles, in fact why exactly Uranus? It was this missile that was designed to sink ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, that is, Frigates. But 140 kilogram warheads and subsonic flight speeds are unlikely to allow a small amount to sink the ship. Many missiles will be intercepted, and those that reach should cause great damage, as can be seen from the video of the frigate Oliver Hazard Perry, a minimum of 10 hits will be required to sink.