The previous series of the short story about the "best fleet" caused a mixed reaction among topwar.ru visitors. Many of the commentators have warned the author about the inadmissibility of excessive self-confidence and "shamelessness" in relation to the "probable enemy", especially when it comes to such a formidable formation as the American fleet. The US naval forces are not an ideal weapon, they, like everyone else, suffer from slovenliness and accidents in peacetime, suffer losses in zones of military conflicts, but at the same time stubbornly strive for their goal. And if they are unable to complete the task, they do everything to harm their opponent as much as possible.
The annual budget of $ 155 billion, which is more than the Russian state defense order envisages until 2020, makes it possible to increase the number of ships' personnel without restrictions and, if necessary, grossly "overwhelm" the enemy with equipment. At the same time, the scientific potential of the United States (where, according to statistics, 80% of the world's research supercomputers are concentrated) implies that each combat unit with the USS (United States Ship) index should be an unsurpassed technical masterpiece. Tomahawks and Aegis, supercarriers, littoral warships, the world's first 4th generation submarines (SeaWolf class), Ohio submarine missile carriers with a powerful and reliable SLBM Trident-2 (151 successful launches, 4 failures) … Such facts must inspire respect. But for some reason, the feeling of respect is increasingly being replaced by a feeling of disappointment.
By the beginning of the 21st century, the American fleet was completely outdated and degraded: in some incomprehensible way, the Navy, on the development of which hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually, were left without supersonic anti-ship missiles. It's hard to believe, but all the latest US Navy destroyers are generally deprived of the ability to carry and use anti-ship weapons!
Despite the huge expenditures on its maintenance and development, the American fleet is still left without anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (similar missiles have been in service with many European and Asian countries for 10 years in the form of the PAAMS naval air defense system).
And this despite the fact that the fire control systems based on the multifunctional SPY-1 and radars "illumination" AN / SPG-62 for the semi-active missile guidance systems of the "Standerd" / ESSM family also do not shine with perfection: mechanical control in azimuth and elevation, in total 1-2 simultaneously fired targets when attacking from one selected direction.
Yankee ships were left without radar with active phased arrays. But radars with AFAR - FCS-3A, SAMPSON, EMPAR, APAR, S1850M have long been used on ships of the Navy of Japan, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands … This is without taking into account the fact that the ships of all these countries are equipped with several specialized radars for of each type of threat - in contrast to the American focus, when one AN / SPY-1 UHF radar is trying to simultaneously track both space and anti-ship missiles. Tracking targets on LEO works well, in contrast to the search for low-flying anti-ship missiles.
A small Japanese destroyer of the Akizuki class, equipped with the state-of-the-art CIUS ATECS and dual-band radar with active phased array FCS-3A. Designed specifically to protect "large" destroyers of the Atago and Congo types (copies of the American Berks) from attacks from low-flying anti-ship missiles. It is this "companion" that American cruisers and destroyers lack
The Americans do not have anti-aircraft systems for submarines. Despite the seeming absurdity, this is one of the most interesting and relevant naval developments. All enemies of the submariners fly awkwardly and slowly: as tests have shown, the submarine with the help of its hydroacoustics is able to detect the "trail" from the helicopter propeller on the surface of the water and shoot the rotorcraft with fiber-optic missiles. In 2014, a similar system is planned to be adopted by the Germans (IDAS). The Turkish fleet expressed its interest. The French and Indians are working on the theme. But what about the Americans? And the US Navy again found itself "in flight".
An amazing story is connected with the promising destroyer Zamvolt: a ship whose R&D value exceeded $ 7 billion, by a strange accident, lost its surveillance radar! The Americans had enough money to experiment with stealth technology and to develop six-inch models with a firing range of 150 km, but did not have enough money to install a dual-band DBR radar. As a result, the super destroyer will only be equipped with a multifunctional AN / SPY-3 station, which is not capable of effectively tracking air targets at a great distance. As a consequence, Zamvolta's anti-aircraft ammunition is limited only to short / medium-range ESSM missiles.
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)
The events of the past 20 years have clearly shown that the "best fleet" is powerless in the face of naval mines and diesel-electric submarines. The background noise of modern diesel engines turned out to be below the sensitivity threshold of American anti-aircraft weapons. The absence of roaring pumps and GTZA, air-independent power plants, small size and power, systems of electromagnets compensating for anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field - the results of joint exercises with the Navy of Australia, Israel, and the Netherlands showed that such submarines are capable of passing through any anti-submarine cordons of the US Navy. The Swedish allies were urgently summoned from their submarine "Gotland". The tests confirmed all previous concerns. The Swedish boat was immediately leased for two years (2006-08). Despite the intensive study of Gotland and the development of measures to combat such submarines, the American command still considers non-nuclear submarines one of the most dangerous threats and is not going to wind down the DESI (diesel-electric submarine initiative) program.
If some progress has been made in the fight against non-nuclear submarines - at least the Yankees are paying increased attention to this problem and are actively looking for countermeasures - then the question of the mine threat remains open.
The US Navy suffered significant losses from enemy mines. In 1988, the frigate "Samuel B. Roberts" was damaged in the Persian Gulf (this joker was blown up by a contact mine of the 1908 model). Three years later, the helicopter carrier Tripoli (ironically, the flagship of the mine-sweeping forces in the region) and the cruiser Princeton (blew up on the "cleared" fairway and then stood alone for a long time - none of the US Navy ships risked to come to the aid of a dying "colleague").
It would seem that the abundance of stocks of these deadly sea traps (according to the calculations of military analysts and experts, China alone has about 80 thousand sea mines!) mine threat counteraction. But nothing of the kind was done!
The fleet, which is proud of eight dozen cruisers and missile destroyers, has only … 13 mine-sweeping ships!
Minesweeper USS Guardian (MCM-5). On January 17, 2013, flew into a reef in the Sulu Sea (Philippines). Was abandoned by the crew and soon finally destroyed by the blows of the waves
In theory, in addition to the old minesweepers of the Avenger type, 4 littoral warships can be used to search for and eliminate sea mines. However, the 3000-ton LCS does not seem to be very effective as a minesweeper. Excessively large size, an abundance of metal structures - all this turns the search for magnetic mines into a deadly game. And after possible damage, it makes repairs unnecessarily difficult, time-consuming and expensive.
Further, only two squadrons of MH-53E helicopter minesweepers (HM-14 and 15 squadrons) remained in service with the US Navy. Some attempts are being made in the field of creating unmanned underwater vehicles for the search and destruction of mines - with a very dubious result. The 2012 exercise in the Persian Strait clearly showed that US Navy minesweepers, supported by ships from 34 Allied countries, were able to detect only half of the 29 assigned minefields in 11 days. In general, a shameful result for a superfleet, which claims global hegemony, but at the same time is unable to defend itself against the most primitive means of naval warfare.
MH-53E Sea Dragon minesweeping helicopters aboard the Wasp UDC
If we are talking about "primitive means of destruction", then this is an occasion to recall the attack on the American destroyer "Cole" in the Yemeni port in October 2000. Two Arab ragamuffins boldly moored to the side of the destroyer on a leaky boat and activated IEDs with a capacity of 200 to 300 kg in TNT equivalent. The consequences of a nearby explosion turned out to be terrible - a shock wave and red-hot explosion products through a 12-meter hole broke into the hull, destroying all bulkheads and mechanisms in its path. "Cole" instantly lost its combat capability, lost its speed and stability - an explosion tore apart the engine room of the left side, the lighting went out, the propeller shaft was deformed and the radar grille was damaged. Intensive flooding of the premises began. The crew lost 17 people killed, another 40 wounded were urgently evacuated to a hospital in Germany.
It is curious that in January of the same year the destroyer USS The Sullivans was subjected to a similar attack. However, that time the terrorists acquired a boat that was too full of holes - as soon as they "lay down on a combat course", their fragile boat was filled with water and sank, taking the unlucky kamikaze to the bottom.
Jumped
The Yankees are well aware of the dangers of terrorist acts involving fishing boats and feluccas - recently all destroyers are equipped with 25 mm remote-controlled Bushmasters; the order was given to shoot at everyone who tries to approach the board of the American ship (the Yankees have already managed to "fill up" by mistake several Egyptian fishermen and a pleasure boat from the UAE).
But what is the danger of such "asymmetric threats"? After all, next time it will not be a boat, but some other "trick" - for example, mortar shelling of a ship standing in the harbor (a well-known case is the rocket attack of the Jordanian port of Aqaba at the time when the US Navy ships were there, 2005) … Or an attack by underwater "saboteurs" (even at the most primitive level, using publicly available civilian equipment and impromptu attacks). As practice shows, it is impossible to deal with such flexible threats in the absence of a clear front line. For every American trick, the terrorists will certainly respond with another "stupidity".
The Yankees are lucky that no one is seriously at war with them - all incidents are limited to small outings of Islamist groups and the entertainment of Arab punks. Otherwise, the losses would be enormous. Every port in the Middle East would become a scaffold for American sailors.
In unison with the asymmetric threats of the War on Global Terrorism, the problem of the low security of ships sounds - a situation when a $ 300 submarine incapacitates a $ 1.5 billion ship sounds at least suspicious. No "active" means of defense or half-measures in the form of local reservation with Kevlar can fix this problem - only an armored belt 10 and more centimeters thick will help to minimize the consequences of an explosion.
Low security is a problem for all modern ships, without exception, built according to the standards of the second half of the 20th century. The American Navy is no exception. The Yankees riveted 62 disposable "pelvis" and are very proud of the achieved result. "Cole" showed that destroyers of its type completely lose their combat effectiveness from a surface explosion with a capacity of 200-300 kg of TNT - any cruiser of the Second World War would only flinch from the impact and looked in surprise at the bent armor plates in the epicenter of the explosion. The peripheral armored UVPs of the destroyer Zamvolt, which play the role of a kind of "armor belt", also cannot be considered a sufficient means of protection.
Nevertheless, the risk of losing a 7-billion ship from a single hit by a small anti-ship missile system should certainly draw the attention of designers to this problem.
Epilogue
The two-part story of the misadventures of American sailors was intended not only to laugh at the failures of "the world's best navy." These facts are a reason to think about the role of the navy in the 21st century and about its optimal appearance in the current geopolitical situation.
The main feature of the US Navy is that no one is afraid of them. Despite the huge number of ships and brilliant (often the best in the world) training, no one pays attention to the American squadrons moving on the horizon. The populist concepts of "power projection" or "control of sea communications" lose all meaning after acquaintance with real historical facts. Those countries who were supposed to be horrified by the invincible AUG and the amphibious groups of the US Navy, do not react in any way to the presence of ships under the stars and stripes off their coast, continuing to commit unfriendly acts towards America.
North Korea, without batting an eye, boarded an American reconnaissance ship in neutral waters, and a year later shot down an EC-121 reconnaissance aircraft of the US Navy over the Sea of Japan.
For several years Iran has fired at tankers and mined the neutral waters of the Persian Gulf, not at all embarrassed by the presence of American warships. In 1979, supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini captured the US embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats prisoner for 444 days. No demonstration of force with the help of the AUG had any effect there (as did the attempt to forcefully release the hostages by the Delta special forces).
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait without even looking in the direction of the US Navy's carrier strike groups.
Colonel Gaddafi for 40 years was a thorn in the eye of the American administration: even after Operation Prairie Fire, he continued to stubbornly bend his line and became really worried only after the collapse of the USSR.
The reason for this self-confidence is well known. All these political, military and religious leaders understood perfectly well: a real war would begin only when caravans of transports with American tanks and weapons were drawn to the ports of neighboring states. And all airbases and airports in the region will buzz from hundreds (thousands) of US Air Force and NATO airplanes flying from all over the world. Without all this, the defile of American ships was perceived as a cheap joke.
In 1968, the Yankees handed over to the Koreans a ship filled to the brim with secret electronic equipment. The trophy is still moored at the waterfront in Pyongyang.
The power of a modern fleet is determined primarily not by the number of ships, but by the political readiness to use this force - in close cooperation with other types of armed forces. Without all this, the fleet turns into a useless theater of pantomime. This is well demonstrated by the modern US Navy. A monstrously expensive, ineffective mechanism that, by its existence, causes more damage to the economy of its own country than to all the geopolitical opponents of the United States.
