The US Navy is suffering non-combat losses. Minus the super destroyer Zumwalt. The US Navy received the “invisible” super-destroyer “SP”: - What are the weak points of Zumwalt

home / From birth to one year

Russia plans to create the largest ship since 1989. The super destroyer will be armed with cruise missiles, as well as advanced air defense and missile defense systems. The Navy has identified its most ambitious project of the coming decade. As Izvestia found out, The High Command of the Navy approved the preliminary design of a promising destroyer for the far sea zone, which was presented by the Severnoye Bureau (PKB) in St. Petersburg.

The last large ship was built by Russian and then Soviet shipbuilders in 1989 - then the heavy nuclear-powered missile cruiser "Peter the Great" was launched, which in 1998 became the flagship of the Russian fleet and the world's largest warship (not counting aircraft carriers).

After defending the project of a promising destroyer, the designers will work on technical documentation, the appearance of the ship and its weapons for 2-3 years. Most likely, the super-destroyer will be laid down at the St. Petersburg Severnaya Verf, but the Navy High Command has not yet made a final decision.

A representative of the military-industrial complex (DIC) explained that the new destroyer will be the largest warship designed and built since Soviet times. " The destroyer's displacement is assumed to be equal to or slightly less than the Project 1164 Moskva missile cruisers. That is, around 12 thousand tons. This is a versatile ship with strike, anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and even anti-missile capabilities. It will also be able to support ground troops in coastal areas with fire.“said a source in the defense industry.

It is still quite difficult to imagine a huge destroyer the size of the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, the cruiser Moskva, and superior to the American URO (guided missile weapon) cruisers of the Ticonderoga class. In the US Navy, all 27 available cruisers are of this series.

According to Izvestia, the super-destroyer will be armed with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles for attacking ground targets, advanced air defense and missile defense systems, including the S-500 Prometheus. To combat underwater objects, it is planned to equip it with a hydroacoustic station and torpedoes.

In the navies of the USSR and Russia there was the only destroyer of Project 956 - “Modern”. With a displacement of 8 thousand tons, it was armed only with Mosquito anti-ship missiles and air defense systems, and had no means against submarines. The destroyer turned out to be very demanding on the maintenance of the power plant, especially on the quality of the boiler water. Therefore, starting from 1990, out of a series of 17 ships, nine remained in service, the rest were written off and disposed of.

« Our Navy desperately needs a destroyer, but don’t let its displacement bother you. The main American one is also considerable - 9648 tons, carries Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. All 62 destroyers have the most powerful air defense, with“, - commented the representative of the defense industry. According to him, the large size of the destroyer is dictated by the task of ensuring the combat stability of naval groups in remote areas of the World Ocean and the actions of the Marine Corps in expeditionary operations. Unlike the United States, Russia does not have bases around the world, the ability to replenish supplies is limited, so you need to “carry everything you own with you,” he emphasized.

First of all, the new destroyer must protect the Mistral helicopter carriers, and in the future, promising nuclear aircraft carriers. " Design Bureau "Severny" has accumulated good experience in designing large attack ships. The flagship of the fleet, the missile cruiser "Peter the Great", as well as the large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Chabanenko" are his developments", the interlocutor reminded Izvestia.

Retired Rear Admiral Vladimir Zakharov said that the minimum number of units in the series is three. " It would be nice to have nine new destroyers each in the Pacific and Northern fleets, and another five in the Baltic. But first of all - on the Pacific Ocean. The main task is to ensure the deployment of submarines", said the admiral.

Military expert, author of books on the history of the Soviet and Russian Navy, Dmitry Boltenkov, believes that over the past 20 years, Russia has, in fact, lost an entire generation of ships. " During this period, most of the world's major fleets managed to build many large and well-armed ships with multifunctional information and control systems, powerful missile defense and air defense systems, anti-ship and cruise missiles. It's time for us to connect", - he said.

According to D. Boltenkov, the current basis of Russia’s surface forces is cruisers 1164, large anti-submarine ships 1155, destroyers 956- good-quality ships, but the end of their service life is just around the corner.

This week, the US Navy will receive at its disposal the world's largest destroyer, Zumwalt, worth $4.4 billion (named after Admiral Elmo Zamvolta). American media call it the most advanced warship in naval history.

The latest generation multi-purpose ship is designed using stealth technologies and is distinguished by a characteristic angular hull shape. In addition, special radio-absorbing materials and coatings were used in production. As a result, as the developers assure, the destroyer is visible on radars as a small fishing vessel.

Meanwhile, the ship is far from small. Its length is 183 m, width - 24.6 m, displacement - about 15 thousand tons. The Rolls-Royce gas turbine unit develops a power of 58 MW and provides the ship with a cruising speed of 20 knots. If the power is increased to a maximum of 78 MW, the speed will be 30 knots. The destroyer was built at the Bath Iron Works shipyard (Maine), owned by General Dynamics.

Despite its impressive size, the ship is operated by a team of only 158 people, thanks to the highest level of automation. The destroyer's armament is also impressive. It is equipped with 20 of the latest Mk.57 vertical launch missile modules from Raytheon. These missiles can hit air, ground and surface targets. The Mk.57 differs from the previous generation of missile weapons in even greater autonomy and protection in case of defeat by the enemy or emergency situations on board.

In addition, the ship's weapons system includes Tomahawk cruise missiles, two 155 mm long-range AGS artillery mounts, a RIM-162 ESSM anti-aircraft missile system, an Asroc family anti-submarine missile system and two small 30 mm gun mounts.

Finally, the destroyer is equipped to operate one Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawk helicopter and three MQ-8 Fire Scout helicopter-type reconnaissance and combat drones from Northrop Grumman with a range of up to 280 km.

To manage this economy, the ship's crew had to be intensively trained for two years.

According to the American television channel ABC, the transfer of Zumwalt to the US Navy will take place on May 20 in Bath (Maine). And the official ceremony, after which the destroyer will take up combat duty, will take place in October in Baltimore. The ship will then head to its permanent base in San Diego.

Against whom does the United States plan to use the “invisible” super-destroyer, what ships can Russia oppose to the Zumwalt?

The Americans themselves de facto admit that the idea of building a series of advanced Zumwalt-class destroyers did not justify itself, notes President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences, Captain 1st Rank Konstantin Sivkov.

To date, the US Navy has ordered only three hulls of such ships from General Dynamics, although it was originally planned to build several dozen. The point here is largely due to the high cost of the project. In terms of cost, one Zumwalt is equivalent to two Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers, or three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. And it cannot be said that the combat capabilities of these ships are in the same ratio.

Of course, the Zumwalt has a powerful combat information and control system, which allows it to solve a wide range of information support tasks for the activities of this ship. But many questions arise about the remaining combat components of the newest destroyer.

"SP": - What are the weak points of Zumwalt?

For starters, the Zumwalt only has 80 missile launchers. For comparison: a Ticonderoga-class cruiser with a displacement of 9.6 thousand tons has 124 such installations, and an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has 96. This means that the Zumwalt’s strike capabilities are significantly less.

The newest destroyer's air defense capabilities are likely higher, primarily due to more advanced electronic equipment that provides target detection. But even here the question arises: how many ammunition loads of surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles does it have? I would venture to guess that the Zumwalt also has less ammunition than the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke.

Meanwhile, if the Zumwalt is attacked by a carrier strike force that is capable of firing a salvo of 40 missiles, 80-90 anti-aircraft missiles will be required to repel them. This means that after two or three enemy missile attacks, Zumwalt will simply lose its air defense ammunition.

It turns out that the new destroyer also has less ability to repel air targets than the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke - however, it is capable of detecting these targets more quickly. In addition, the Zumwalt will be more effective at repelling low-flying targets.

But from the point of view of solving anti-submarine missions, the “stealth” destroyer will definitely be superior to the “Ticonderoga” and “Arleigh Burke”. It probably has more advanced equipment.

Plus, it is more effective for supporting ground troops. Its 155mm gun mounts are capable of hitting targets at long ranges. Of course, this is not 180 kilometers, as some sources indicate. The actual range of such weapons is about 40 kilometers. Otherwise, the cost of the projectile will be close to that of a rocket: in particular, it will require a powerful powder accelerator. Fitting such a large projectile into a 155 mm barrel is a big problem, and I don’t think the Americans have solved it.

"SP": - Does the use of stealth technologies make this ship invulnerable?

Not at all. It is less noticeable to detection means than traditional warships, and even then not from all angles. You need to understand: stealth does not make Zumwalt truly invisible, and weakens its detection capabilities not radically - by 2-2.5 times.

The main disadvantage of this “invisible” device is its noise. Russian maritime reconnaissance assets today rely not on active location from aircraft, but on searching for the enemy with submarines that have powerful acoustic systems. Our submarines will be able to safely detect Zumwalt as part of the so-called orders (groupings) of ships.

"SP": - Does the adoption of Zumwalt change the balance of power in the World Ocean in favor of the US Navy?

I don’t think that three such destroyers will make radical changes to the combat capabilities of American groups. In the event of a mass introduction of Zumwalt-class ships, the amplification effect would have an effect, but three weather units do not.

Yes, if our opponent is a Zumwalt, detection of it by Russian missile homing heads will be difficult. This needs to be taken into account, and, perhaps, appropriate technical changes must be made to the guidance systems. For example, make these systems operate in several frequency ranges to obtain higher accuracy in ship detection. But I don’t see any other fundamental difficulties.

“SP”: - It turns out that the ships of the Russian Navy will be able to effectively fight the Zumwalt?

The combat durability of the Zumwalt, if our missiles have captured it as a target, is no higher than that of an ordinary American destroyer. Perhaps even slightly lower - some systems that increase self-defense capabilities are not visible on its deck. In particular, automatic cannons for “finishing” missiles that have broken through. For me, Zumwalt is nothing special as an enemy...

Ships of the Zumwalt type are intended primarily for the Asia-Pacific region, I am sure Director of the Center for Strategic Conjuncture Ivan Konovalov.

Let me remind you that at the end of February, China deployed the latest J-11 and JH-7 fighters on the disputed Woody Island in the South China Sea. US intelligence reported this. Earlier on this island, which is disputed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam, the Americans detected HQ-9 missile defense systems and a high-frequency radar. According to US military experts, this allows China to control sea and air traffic in the Strait of Malacca, through which up to a quarter of all maritime trade in the world passes. In essence, things are heading towards the fact that China, in military terms, will receive a “veto right” on the actions of the United States and its allies in the region. This, of course, is not to the taste of Americans.

This is why I believe Zumwalt is targeting China specifically. Americans adhere to the designated Barack Obama course Shift to Asia- “shift to Asia.” This course, in particular, implies a serious strengthening of the US grouping near China. According to plans, up to 60% of the US Air Force and Navy should be concentrated in the Pacific region.

I do not rule out that such ships could be used in the Black and Baltic Seas, but only for the purpose of demonstrating the capabilities of the American fleet, and for solving purely political problems.

Yes, Zumwalt is a serious ship, it is only called a destroyer, but according to previous ideas it is equivalent to three or four cruisers. But the specificity of the Baltic and Black Sea theaters is that here the ships are almost defenseless from aviation. These are very cramped theaters in which the use of large ships is, to put it mildly, unwise.

However, given the incidents in which our combat aviation has performed brilliantly, including the story of overflights of the American destroyer Donald Cook (DDG-75 Donald Cook) in the Baltic Sea, I do not think that the Zumwalt will go to the Baltic at full speed.

I repeat: such ships are not intended against Moscow, but against Beijing. Therefore, the path of Zumwalt most likely lies either in the South China Sea or in the East China Sea. And we can say that the Chinese are already waiting for him. It is no coincidence that in recent years the Celestial Empire has been developing its Navy at an unprecedented pace. The Chinese have adopted an aircraft carrier, are sending new nuclear submarines on sea voyages, and have added new destroyers, corvettes, hospital ships and even reconnaissance ships to the fleet. I hope the Chinese will cope with the Zumwalt-class destroyers, if not in quality, but in quantity...

MOSCOW, December 13 – RIA Novosti, Andrey Kots. The ultra-modern American destroyers "Zamvolt" seem to be haunted by a "family curse." No sooner had experts completed their discussion of last year’s breakdown of the lead ship DDG-1000 in the Panama Canal than this week its “younger brother”, DDG-1001 Michael Monsour, partially failed. . The ship's harmonic filters, which protect sensitive electrical equipment from power fluctuations, failed. As a result, "Michael Monsour" temporarily lost most of its high-tech electronic content. American sailors have an increased headache: ships, second in price only to aircraft carriers, stubbornly refuse to get rid of many “childhood diseases.” Read about why the project of the newest destroyers is still stalled in the RIA Novosti material.

Too advanced

The Zumwalt guided missile destroyers were supposed to become universal warships, but with an emphasis on combating coastal and ground targets. The Zamvolts were planned to be tasked with fire support for amphibious assault, precision weapons strikes against troops and infrastructure, as well as attacks on enemy surface ships. The program for the construction of promising destroyers started in 2007, when Congress allocated $2.6 billion for the creation of the first two Zamvolts. In total, the US Navy expected to receive 32 ships of this type and meet the cost of 40 billion.

However, the cost of the ships of this project, which American engineers tried to adapt to the high demands of the military, began to grow at an astronomical rate. First, the order was reduced to 24 destroyers, then to seven. As a result, in 2008, the fleet decided to limit itself to just three ships. Each of them, according to the latest data, cost the treasury $4.4 billion, not counting the cost of maintaining the ship throughout its life cycle (the total cost could exceed seven billion).

The first Zamvolt entered service with the US Navy on October 16, 2016. A month later - on November 21 - DDG-1000 stalled in the Panama Canal on its way to the port in San Diego. Seawater had penetrated two of the four bearings connecting the ship's induction engines to its drive shafts. Both shafts failed, and the Zamvolt crashed into the canal walls. The ultra-modern destroyer had to shamefully return to port in tow. Moreover, in San Diego, a leak was discovered on the ship in the lubricant cooling system, but its cause could not be determined at that time. As recent events have shown, the second destroyer in the series is also experiencing serious problems with its power plant.

“We must be aware that the Americans know how to build warships,” military expert Alexey Leonkov told RIA Novosti. “And the Zamvolt, in all its parameters, is a very interesting, original project. Especially its unusual power plant, similar to the one which is used on Ohio-class strategic submarines. The only difference is that the Zamvolta has a diesel-gas turbine engine instead of a nuclear reactor. It is connected to electric motors that are used at low and medium speed. In theory, this approach implies fuel economy, when the ship is cruising on electricity alone. In practice, such a system has sharply increased the cost of the propulsion system and reduced its reliability. Hence the breakdowns."

Alexey Leonkov recalled an old joke: “Americans always find the right solution, but only when they have tried all the wrong ones.” The expert emphasized that the same story happened with the initially “raw” M-16 assault rifle and F-16 fighter, which were eventually brought to almost perfection. There is no doubt that over time the Zamvolts will also be polished. But it’s still unclear what niche these three ships will occupy in the Navy.

Hole for the budget

William Beeman: Zamvolt destroyers off the coast of China - US fear of ChinaThe reason for the decision to deploy the latest weapons near China's borders is US concern about the growing influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region. This is how the American political scientist commented on the recent statement by the head of the Pentagon.

The strike capabilities of the Zamvolt are quite high, but not outstanding. Its main armament is 80 cruise missiles in vertical launch silos located along the sides. The destroyer's know-how was to be artillery weapons. Initially it was planned to install two electromagnetic railguns on it. However, the project was doomed to failure, since this weapon would eat up all the energy capacity of the ship. Armed with railguns, the destroyer essentially turned into a floating gun carriage and “switched offline” after each shot.

Later, it was decided to settle on two 155-mm AGS artillery guns of an unconventional active-reactive design with a firing range of up to 148 kilometers. The LRLAP projectiles used in them, according to developers from the Lockheed Martin concern, are so accurate that they are capable of “hitting targets in the canyons of coastal cities with minimal collateral damage.” Everything would be fine, but the cost of one ammunition of this type has already exceeded 800 thousand dollars. For comparison: the Tomahawk cruise missile, well tested in dozens of armed conflicts, has a range of 2.5 thousand kilometers and costs only slightly more - about a million. Since 2016, the US Navy command has been looking for an alternative to “golden” shells for the miracle gun, but so far without success.

“Thus, the Zamvolts have only 80 Tomahawks left per ship,” said Alexey Leonkov. “Now let’s do some simple calculations. One destroyer with 80 missiles costs 4.4 billion dollars. A Ticonderoga-class cruiser (up to 122 Tomahawks cost American taxpayers about a billion. An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (up to 56 Tomahawks plus anti-ship missiles and an Aegis missile defense system) costs about 1.8 billion, according to recent estimates. Both of these ships are well-tested in " Isn't it easier for the same money to build two Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which, in a non-strategic version, can carry 154 Tomahawks? Such a submarine cruiser is certainly less noticeable than the Zamvolt, and is twice as powerful in its striking power ".

According to the expert, Zamvolt will never go into large-scale production, remaining an expensive and useless “toy.” As Leonkov emphasized, the implementation of at least three ships of this type “in metal” is a direct consequence of the efforts of the project’s lobbyists in the ruling circles of the United States. American industry has long been able to build cheaper and more efficient ships. Even if they are not so high-tech and original in appearance.

The American shipyard Bath Iron Works, a division of General Dynamics Corporation, launched the lead missile destroyer of the future DDG1000. What is good and what is bad about this unusual-looking ship, and what are the US competitors preparing for it in response - the next strongest ocean-going fleets of Russia and China?

And is the American media really right in praising this ship to the skies?

The launch of the ship's hull was carried out without an official "baptism" ceremony, breaking a bottle of champagne and other traditions. The point is not only that the launch took place at night, away from the eyes of other satellites and intelligence officers “in civilian clothes” - this is how, for example, secret special-purpose nuclear submarines were often launched in the USSR and the Russian Federation, but also that they saved money on the “baptism”. Due to the recent US government shutdown, the launch itself was postponed for a week and a half, and the magnificent ceremonies will also take place later. Although superstitious sailors say that such things should not be neglected, this is not good.

The DDG1000, which is planned to be given the name “Zamvolt,” looks extremely unusual to the modern eye. It is no secret that all modern warships are built taking into account the task of reducing the effective dispersion surface (ESR), that is, the radar signature of the ship. By the way, one of the first warships built with partial consideration of these requirements was the Soviet nuclear-powered heavy missile cruiser Kirov (there are other opinions that such a ship was our patrol ship Neustrashimy or the French frigates of the Lafayette class).

The only smooth superstructure carved out as if with an ax, the minimum of protruding elements of electronic weapons and weapons - everything is subordinated to this goal. For the same purpose, the sides are also heaped in the opposite direction; they are often found on modern ships, but none have them heaped directly from the waterline, which makes the DDG1000 look like a battleship or armored cruiser of the late 19th or early 20th centuries.

What makes it even more similar to such ships is the sharp, reverse-angled, “ram-type” stem. This shape of the bow is the embodiment of a different, compared to the now common, concept of waves flowing around the bow of a ship - supposedly it guarantees good seaworthiness with a low side, in order to reduce the ESR. This is called "piercing", cutting through the wave - instead of climbing onto the wave. The Americans, of course, built a small prototype ship to test this idea, but neither computer modeling nor experienced ships can establish one hundred percent how it will all work out in real heavy seas. In general, we will see when it goes out to sea. It is worth noting that in Russia there are also ships built with a similar bow shape, and they are being built for the Arctic.

The destroyer was large - 183 meters long and 14,500 tons of displacement. It is difficult to say whether it can even be considered a destroyer or better yet a cruiser; at the moment, in the US Navy, these two types of ships have practically merged into one and differ only slightly in the size and capacity of universal vertical launchers (UVP). Considering that the Zamvolt is significantly larger than the Orly Burke-class destroyers being built in a large series, and there will only be three of these ships, it would probably be better to reclassify it as a cruiser. And its price corresponds not to a destroyer, but rather to an aircraft carrier, which ultimately ruined the dreams of a large series of these superships.

The history of this project itself is the story of a constant struggle with the continuously rising price and reduction of its serial production, as well as simplification of the design and reduction of tactical and technical characteristics (performance characteristics). It all started, probably, back in the late 70s, when the minds at the headquarters of the US Navy were captured by the idea of an “arsenal ship” - a ship with a minimum of superstructures, with a reduced ESR, but filled with the maximum number of cells of standardized silo launchers for various weapons, in mainly shock, for attacking ground targets. By the way, exactly the same idea came to the minds of the Soviet naval commanders - in those years there was Project 1080 - an attack cruiser-arsenal. We had such projects in the 80s. But in the end, such ships were not built either in the USA or in the USSR.

The new concept of promising heavy ships of the US Navy SC-21 appeared after 1991. It consisted of the promising cruiser CG21 (then CG(X)) and the promising destroyer DD21 (then DD(X)). The main idea was versatility - it was assumed that both the cruiser and the destroyer should have the ability to perform any mission, both combat (supporting landings, striking ground targets or fighting surface ships, submarines, providing air defense for a naval formation) and non-combat ( for example, the evacuation of civilians from a “problem” country). Only all these good wishes for “everything and more” immediately ran into harsh economic everyday life.

The need for these ships was not obvious in the new conditions, and the price began to rise explosively. This was due to rising prices for modern electronics and weapons systems, and to the growing appetites of companies who, in conditions where the survival of the United States in a military confrontation is not at stake, do not care about the interests of the country, but their pockets are very important. Of course, an increase in price led to a reduction in the series, and a reduction in the series led to an increase in price, since the total costs were distributed over a smaller number of cases. The first victim of the Congress was the cruiser, which was first postponed, and now is not remembered at all. It is believed that there will be no replacement for Ticonderoga-class cruisers; more precisely, they will be replaced by Orly Burke-class destroyers of the latest series.

Then they began to cut down the destroyer. At first, the series, planned to consist of 32 ships, was reduced by eight. Then there were 11 of them, then seven, and eventually the series was reduced to two ships. And then the lobbyists for the project managed to beg for another one. The price, of course, has also increased. About $10 billion was spent on the development of the project alone. Together with the distribution of development costs over three hulls, the price per ship is about $7 billion per unit, not including life cycle costs. Yes, for that kind of money you can build a nuclear aircraft carrier or a couple of nuclear submarines! But here in Russia we would probably have enough for a couple of aircraft carriers (we would just have to wait a long time for them - while large ships are being built very slowly in our country).

Naturally, over time, not only the price increased, but also the capabilities of the project decreased. The DD(X) was eventually renamed DDG1000, while reducing displacement and armament. Moreover, the results of these cuts evoke a rather ambivalent attitude. Let's try to figure it out.

The DDG1000 uses a new type of universal vertical launcher (UVP) Mk.57 instead of the widely used UVP Mk.41. Each section consists of four cells, for a total of 20 sections and 80 missile cells. The DD(X) was supposed to have a larger number of cells - 117-128, but the ship itself would be 16,000 tons, having, however, increased capabilities. Moreover, the Zamvolta used an original solution - unlike previous projects, the air defense systems are placed not in two places (in front and behind the superstructures), but in groups along the sides throughout the ship. On the one hand, this solution makes missiles in launch silos less vulnerable and less prone to detonation. On the other hand, protecting the internal compartments with missile cells looks like a rather strange solution.

What does the destroyer carry in its 80 nests? These are, first of all, Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles of various modifications for striking ground targets in conventional equipment (the US Navy no longer has nuclear non-strategic weapons, they have been destroyed, unlike the Russian Navy, where they exist and are being developed). ASROC-VLS anti-submarine missiles can also be used.

With anti-aircraft missile weapons, the issue is somewhat more complicated. Initially, it was assumed that the destroyer would be able to perform the functions of both theater missile defense (TVD missile defense) and zone air defense of formations. To do this, it had to be equipped with the SM-2MR missile defense system, their descendant SM-6, and for missile defense tasks - with modifications of the SM-3 missile defense system. But none of this will be on these ships at this stage, perhaps just for now. Mine launchers are compatible with these missiles, but problems arose with the radar. For Zamvolt, a combination of two powerful radar systems of two different ranges was first developed: AN/SPY-3 with excellent capabilities for working against high-altitude targets and targets in near space and AN/SPY-4 - a volumetric search radar. Faced with the fact that SPY-4, also being developed for the “deceased” CG(X) cruiser, did not fit into the stripped-down DDG1000 project, the Pentagon simply stopped its development in 2010, starting from scratch the design of a new AMDR (Air Missile Defense Radar) system. . But then problems started with him, and there is still nothing in the output.

There are also problems with SPY-3, as a result of which so far the only type of anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) for Zamvolt is indicated everywhere - RIM-162 ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile). This missile defense system, created on the basis of the old Sea Sparrow missile defense system family (based on the famous air-to-air missile), is a deep redesign of them. It is adapted for launching both from old launchers and from the VPU. It has a range of up to 50 km and an interception ceiling of up to 15 km and corresponds approximately to the missile defense system of the Russian naval air defense system Shtil-1. This weapon is well suited for ships such as a corvette or frigate, but for such a destroyer, which should rather be called a cruiser due to its size, it is clearly not enough. Although ESSM has a big advantage: it is compact and fits into one cell of four pieces, so the ammunition load of these missiles can be measured in a couple of hundred. Despite statements by representatives of the developers of the ship's anti-aircraft systems - the Raytheon company - that the anti-aircraft and, in the future, anti-missile capabilities of the DDG1000 are “no lower than those of other large ships of the US Navy,” high representatives of the naval command have so far stated the opposite. In general, it is worth assuming that these ships will eventually have long-range SM-2 and SM-6 missile defense systems, but it is still unclear about missile defense capabilities.

The Zamvolta also does not have one more type of weapon, which is practically mandatory for modern ships if they are considered multifunctional - anti-ship missiles (ASM). The US Navy has only one type in service - the Harpoon family of subsonic anti-ship missiles. In the Russian Navy, the direct equivalent of the Harpoons are the Kh-35 Uran and Kh-35U Uran-U missiles, and they are considered light weapons for small ships and for fighting light forces. But our situation is different from that of the Americans: we have much fewer ships, and they are also geographically divided into several isolated theaters. Therefore, we rely on extremely difficult to intercept supersonic anti-ship missiles with powerful, including nuclear, armored warheads, equipped with guidance systems, coordination of missiles in a salvo and advanced logic of behavior in battle. But the Americans don’t give a damn about the carriers, and they rely on a bunch of fairly simple and weak, relatively easily intercepted anti-ship missiles, counting on a simple overload of air defense channels on the attacked target. In addition, “Harpoon” could not be adapted to universal mine air pumps - it is launched from its own four-container installations, of which two are usually installed.

And now in the USA they have decided that the easiest way to fight ships is with aircraft from aircraft carriers. Therefore, both the latest series of destroyers of the Orly Burke type (the so-called Flight IIA series and the promising Flight III) and the Zamvolts do not have Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers. True, the Berks can still hit ships with SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, but this is clearly not the right weapon for such ships. Rumor has it that the Americans want to give these ships, instead of the Harpoons, another version of the Tomahawk cruise missile in an anti-ship version, but the idea seems dubious. Previously, in the United States such a modification was and was in service. It turned out that low-speed subsonic anti-ship missiles with a range of 450 km practically could not be used successfully at this range - due to the fact that the flight to the target took more than half an hour, the enemy could have time to leave the area in which the missile could detect him. And it’s much easier to intercept a Tomahawk than a Harpoon. Now the Americans hope that they will be able to solve all these problems. But the economic situation is such that, most likely, this development will be stopped.

The Zamvolta also has a hangar for one anti-submarine helicopter and three drone helicopters. Unmanned mini-boats are also planned on board.

What is really extremely interesting about the Zamvolt is its artillery. It is armed with two bow turrets with 155-mm latest AGS (Advanced Gun System) artillery systems. For a long time after the war, it was believed that universal medium-caliber artillery had lost its importance. But after a number of local wars, it became clear that guns were needed, for example, to support landings and for many other tasks. But artillery was limited to a maximum of 127 mm (130 mm in our fleet) caliber. Now there is a tendency towards an increase in the caliber and capabilities of ship artillery. In Germany they tried the turret of the 155-mm land self-propelled gun PzH2000 on a ship, in Russia they are developing a naval version of the extremely advanced 152-mm land self-propelled gun "Coalition", and the Americans created AGS. Although back in the late 70s, the USSR also developed the 203-mm Pion-M naval artillery system, but then this development was rejected.

The system is a turret-mounted 155 mm gun (barrel length 62 caliber) with an under-deck automatic loading system. The turret was created taking into account the requirements of radar stealth; the gun is hidden in a non-combat position for the same purpose. The shots are split-case, firing is fully automatic until the ammunition is completely depleted. The ammunition load of the two towers is 920 rounds, of which 600 are in automated ammunition racks. However, the rate of fire is stated to be very low - 10 rounds per minute, which is explained by the fact that the projectile is very long and the loading system only works with the barrel positioned vertically. But the gun is not intended to destroy high-speed sea or air targets; it is a weapon against ground targets, and against a weak enemy. Because this ship will not be able to approach the coast of, say, Syria - the coastal anti-ship missile systems "Bastion-P" with anti-ship missiles "Yakhont" available there are quite capable of sinking it at distances of up to 300 km from the coast. But Washington’s favorite targets for bringing democracy to the masses in recent years are weak states, and against them such a system will be in demand, capable of raining dozens of shells on targets at distances of tens of kilometers.

The ammunition used by AGS is extremely interesting. This gun does not fire conventional 155 mm shells, even adjustable ones. It only has special guided ultra-long-range LRLAP projectiles. In fact, this very long projectile with an engine and wings is better called a rocket both in design and in the ratio of the total mass to the mass of the warhead. The length of the projectile is 2.24 m, weight - 102 kg, explosive mass - 11 kg. There are four control wings in the bow, and an eight-bladed stabilizer in the tail. The projectile control system is inertial using NAVSTAR GPS. The range is promised to be up to 150 km, but so far they have fired at a range of 80–120 km. The accuracy is stated to be 10–20 meters, which, in general, is good for such a range, but not enough, given the low power of such a projectile at the target. And this is if the enemy does not use jamming to GPS systems. In any case, it is a very interesting artillery system, and it is worth taking a closer look at the experience of its operation when it appears.

Moreover, initially an electromagnetic gun was planned instead of an AGS, but they decided to go the traditional route. Particularly because when firing from such a cannon, it would be necessary to de-energize most of the ship’s systems, including air defense systems, and also to stop the progress, otherwise the power of the entire ship’s power system would not be enough to ensure firing. Development, or more precisely, the “development of funds” for the electromagnetic gun program is now continuing, but it is unlikely that this weapon will appear on the Zamvolts. This is expensive, and the resource of the guns is extremely small, and shooting from a blind and deaf ship is extremely dangerous for itself. The developers of the system, realizing this, are trying to enter with their gun from another entrance, offering it to the ground forces. But it is unlikely that anyone there will decide to purchase an artillery system, to ensure the transportation of all the vehicles of one copy of which “only” four heavy military transport aircraft S-17A with a carrying capacity of 70 tons are needed, which are capable of carrying away an entire battery of conventional self-propelled guns or missile systems. In general, this idea is reminiscent of the joke about a guy with a cool watch and two heavy suitcases - in them he has batteries for the watch.

In many ways, it is precisely to ensure the operation of electromagnetic guns on this ship that the main power plant with full electric propulsion is used, that is, the propellers are turned only by electric motors. Energy is generated by gas turbine engines that rotate generators, and it can be redistributed depending on the needs of the ship. The system, in general, is not new, but it has not been used on warships of this class.

Short-range self-defense anti-aircraft artillery systems are represented on the Zamvolt by a pair of 57-mm Swedish Bofors Mk.110 artillery systems with a rate of fire of 220 rounds per minute and an anti-aircraft projectile range of up to 15 km. The transition to such a large caliber from the 20 mm used in the USA on such systems (in Europe, China and Russia - 30 mm) is explained, among other things, by the fact that neither 20 mm nor 30 mm projectiles are capable of knocking down heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles - even in the event of a direct hit from armor-piercing shells, the warhead of the rocket does not penetrate or detonate, but still reaches the target like a heavy projectile. The Mk.110 also provides a greater interception range and the use of adjustable projectiles, which will try to compensate for the drop in rate of fire from several thousand rounds per minute to a couple of hundred. How effective this will be is still difficult to judge. In Russia, work with 57-mm naval artillery systems is also underway - the AU-220M artillery system is being developed in Nizhny Novgorod.

The issue of ensuring the survivability of the DDG1000 is also interesting. The Americans claim that much attention is paid to this. There is probably no armor on this ship (it is now found only on aircraft carriers and heavy cruisers, and then extremely sparingly), but there is certainly constructive protection. This includes the placement of missile launchers in four groups along the sides, and various unimportant rooms around the perimeter of the ship, shielding important ones located inside. It is also possible to use various armored composites in critical areas - such as Kevlar or high molecular weight polyethylene. Of course, such protection will not protect against anti-ship missiles, but it will protect against fragments during an explosion.

True, there are also strange solutions. For example, the ship's combat information center (CIC), its heart, is located in the superstructure. And although it is made of composites, almost all of it is covered with various antenna arrays. And it will be determined by the anti-ship missile radar homing head as the central, most reflective part of the ship. And there is a possibility of getting into the BIC. True, it is also present in the body, since many missiles fly at an altitude of several meters and hit directly on the side. Even more strange is the absence of a double or triple bottom on the destroyer - this is clearly visible in the photographs from its construction. With the beginning of the use of torpedoes, such protection became mandatory for large ships. Or have the USA forgotten how modern torpedoes, exploding under the bottom, easily break through the hull over a large area and even break the structure of the ship, splitting it? No, it’s unlikely. One cannot rely on passive means of protection and jamming systems against torpedoes alone, of which there are enough on this ship, and the US Navy does not use active ones capable of intercepting a torpedo. But even if they were used, the bottom of the ship would still be threatened by torpedoes, mines, saboteurs, and rocky reefs. In general, something had to be done, otherwise the expensive supership would share the fate of the Titanic.

What about competitors?

The Russian fleet is not yet building new destroyer designs. A new destroyer is being designed, and little is known about it. It is only known that the lead ship will be laid down around 2015. There is also information about its displacement - about 12-14 thousand tons, that is, similar to the Zamvolt and slightly more than that of the missile cruisers Project 1164 of the Russian Navy. That is, in our country too, destroyers as a class in the future will practically merge with cruisers.

It is not yet very clear whether the new destroyer will have a conventional gas turbine power plant or whether it will be nuclear, which many in the fleet command really want. The logic of the “atom” supporters is clear - the new Russian aircraft carrier, when it comes to construction, will almost certainly also have a nuclear power plant, and the same escort will sharply increase its operational mobility. However, such ships are more expensive, even fewer shipyards in our country can build them, and not all ports of the world will allow them. Yes, and it will take longer to build, but in our country they are still building for an inadmissibly long time and with delays in terms of time. It is also unclear whether this ship will be of a traditional type, similar to the frigates and corvettes currently being built taking into account stealth requirements, or whether it will be something in the Zamvolt style. I would like to believe in the prudence of the admirals; our fleet does not need such a masterpiece - it is of much less use than it is worth.

The strike armament of the new ship will, like all newly built Russian Navy ships, from small missile ships to frigates, be located in UKSK 3S14 silo launch modules. Each module has eight cells. Considering that the 5,000-ton frigates Project 22350 currently under construction have two such modules, the destroyer should have at least four to six modules, that is, 32–48 cells for strike weapons. It will include:

– cruise missiles of the 3M14 “Caliber” family of strategic and tactical radii for attacks on ground targets;

– anti-ship supersonic anti-ship missiles P-800 “Onyx”;

– subsonic, but with the shock stage accelerating at the final stage to high supersonic speed of the 3M54 “Biryuza” anti-ship missile;

– anti-submarine missiles 91Р;

– promising hypersonic anti-ship missiles “Zircon” (in smaller quantities).

The ship will be equipped with a more powerful version of the Poliment-Redut air defense system than on the frigates currently under construction. Anti-aircraft weapons will be located in their own silo launchers. The number of standard cells for long-range missiles will clearly be no less than 64 (the frigate Project 22350 has 32 cells), or even more, which will give a total ammunition load of hundreds of long-, medium- and short-range missiles, as well as our small missiles can be placed several in a cell. In general, in terms of armament, the new destroyer will most likely not be inferior to the Zamvolts and Berks, and will surpass it in the strike component.

But so far no destroyer has been built yet, although it is planned to have about a dozen of them. Even the lead frigate of Project 22350 “Admiral Gorshkov” has not yet been tested - it is waiting for a gun mount. Although its serial descendants are built much faster than the main body, so there is hope for an improvement in the situation in the future.

But the modernization of the first of the planned heavy nuclear cruisers, the Admiral Nakhimov, is beginning. So far it is known that 20 silos for the Granit anti-ship missile system will be replaced on the UKSK with approximately 64–80 missiles of the same types as listed above, and the revolving launchers of the S-300F Fort air defense missile system can also be replaced with all the same “Poliment-Redut”, which will also dramatically increase the ammunition load. The resulting ship can become a real “arsenal” of the fleet, although the ammunition load there was already large. But we will have to wait until 2018 – our shipbuilding industry is still working very slowly with large ships.

Our Chinese partners are doing much better with the speed of building ships. But their ships are usually developed with outside help, which, however, the Chinese do not advertise. This was the case with destroyers of types 051C, 052B and a number of other ships. The exact same situation is very likely with the newest type of Chinese destroyer - Type-52D. Four ships of this project are currently under construction and eight more are in the pipeline. This very large ship with a displacement of about 8000 tons is armed with two universal UVP with 64 cells for anti-ship missiles and missiles. The air defense system is represented by the HНQ-9A system - a naval version of the HQ-9A system, which is adapted to Chinese requirements and modified by the air defense system based on the S-300PMU-1. The Chinese have subsonic anti-ship missiles - YJ-62, created on the basis of tactical versions of the Russian X-55 missile defense system and the American Tomahawk. Similar weapons, but with the placement of 48 anti-aircraft missiles of the HHQ-9A air defense system in traditional revolving launchers for the Russian fleet and the previous Chinese modification of the destroyer - Type 052C, of which six have already been built. But all these ships should be regarded as competitors not to the Zamvolta, but to the hard worker Berk. The Chinese are practical people and will not tear veins in attempts to create a ship “like the Americans’.”

So what is the DDG1000 Zamvolt? The author is of the opinion that this, undoubtedly extremely interesting for its innovative solutions, well-equipped and powerful ship will not become the new battleship Dreadnought, which at once made all its former classmates obsolete and created a new class of heavy ships. All its wonderful solutions pale in comparison to its gigantic price, which is much higher the higher its combat effectiveness, say, compared to Orly Burke-class destroyers. If the Dreadnought had cost not 10% more than its ancestor, an ordinary battleship, being five times stronger, but 5–10 times stronger, the era of such ships would never have come. In addition, many of the capabilities initially announced for the Zamvolts have not yet appeared on it and, perhaps, will not appear due to savings during construction or the technical complexity of the solutions.

As a result, “Zamvolt” and his classmates will face the fate of the “white elephants” of the fleet - small-scale, extremely expensive and ruinous toys, stuffed with unique solutions, which, in addition, will be protected and cherished. Of course, they will be proud of these ships, they will be featured in Hollywood action films about battles with the next monsters that have emerged from the depths of the director’s drug hallucinations, the presenters of propaganda programs for children on Discovery will talk about them, choking and shedding tears of emotion - all this will happen. But service in the US Navy will be carried out by the same Orly Burke, of which more than 60 have already been built and about three dozen more will be built, and they will replace themselves. And competitors’ projects will be focused precisely on superiority over the Berks, and not over the Zamvolts. And the “Zamvolts” themselves will most likely become an incubator for solutions that will gradually also be drawn to the “Berkes” of the latest series. Only a painfully expensive incubator...

text source: http://vz.ru/society/2013/11/5/658215.html - Yaroslav Vyatkin

We remember our recent review: and here’s another interesting question: what are they doing? The original article is on the website InfoGlaz.rf Link to the article from which this copy was made -

This week, the US Navy will take delivery of the world's largest destroyer, Zumwalt, worth $4.4 billion (named after Admiral Elmo Zumwalt). American media call it the most advanced warship in naval history.

To manage this economy, the ship's crew had to be intensively trained for two years.

Against whom does the United States plan to use the “invisible” super-destroyer, what ships can Russia oppose to the Zumwalt?

The Americans themselves de facto admit that the idea of building a series of advanced destroyers of the Zumwalt type did not justify itself, notes Konstantin Sivkov, President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences, Captain 1st Rank.

- What are the weak points of Zumwalt?

- Does the use of stealth technologies make this ship invulnerable?

- Does the adoption of Zumwalt change the balance of power in the oceans in favor of the US Navy?

- It turns out that the ships of the Russian Navy will be able to effectively fight the Zumwalt?

Ships of the Zumwalt type are intended primarily for the Asia-Pacific region, says Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Studies.

This is why I believe Zumwalt is targeting China specifically. The Americans are sticking to the Shift to Asia course outlined under Barack Obama. This course, in particular, implies a serious strengthening of the US grouping near China. According to plans, up to 60% of the US Air Force and Navy should be concentrated in the Pacific region.

Too advanced

Hole for the budget

Editor's Choice