Now is the time to return to comparing the tasks and capabilities of a promising EM for the Russian Navy and "Arleigh Burke". The Americans created an air defense / anti-aircraft defense ship with the ability to perform the functions of an "arsenal ship". The usual ammunition load of a destroyer (74 SM2 missiles, 24 Sea Sparrow, 8 Tomahawk and 8 ASROK) gives the ship excellent air defense capabilities. With anti-missile defense, alas, everything is not so rosy. The fact is that in the United States, the issue of intercepting low-flying supersonic missiles has remained an unresolved issue.
Theoretically, low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles can be intercepted by SM2 standards, but they have an interception limit of 15 meters above sea level, and our new anti-ship missiles fly lower. The Sea Sparrow, in the opinion of the Americans themselves, is capable of intercepting only subsonic missiles. True, the Americans have recently created a medium-range missile defense system ESSM, which, according to their statements, is capable of intercepting low-flying supersonic targets, but …
You can cross-hair the handouts and all Standard CM2 and ESSM test reports. You will see that on tests these missiles successfully hit supersonic high-flying and subsonic low-flying targets. But I could not find any reports on the defeat of supersonic low-flying targets. Generally. So even the very possibility of hitting low-flying supersonic targets with existing US missiles is at least controversial. But let's say even ESSM can still do it.
I already wrote above about the differences between semi-active and active seeker missiles. So, the ESSM is equipped with a semi-active seeker, which means that to aim at a target, it needs a target illumination station. There are only three such stations at Arleigh Burke - and, of course, all three of them can work simultaneously not from all angles. Since 2 illumination radars are located behind the second chimney, then from the bow angles "Arleigh Burke" has the ability to simultaneously direct the ESSM to only one anti-ship missile.
The small number of guidance channels, in combination with the very average ability of detecting low-flying targets by the SPY-1 radar, greatly limits the capabilities of the Arleigh Berkov missile defense system. The fact is that decimeter radars do not very well see what flies directly above the sea surface (the Americans have tried for DECADES to adapt it for these purposes) They have generally squeezed out everything possible, made a real feat in software, having learned to peel off most of the interference and now "Spy" is relatively good at distinguishing low-flying targets, but all this together does not make American ships the record holders in missile defense capabilities.
In this respect, the newest British destroyer Daring is much more powerful than the Arleigh Burke. Its SAMPSON surveillance radar is essentially two radars in one - decimeter and centimeter ranges. In the decimeter range, the radar performs long-range target detection, but in the centimeter range it perfectly "sees" everything that happens near the water surface (there is no interference to the centimeter range, it sees much better near the water than decimeter radars:)). And it guides missiles with an active seeker at any targets.
Even such a thing as a radio horizon is much bigger for the Daring than for the Arleigh Berks. I think it is clear to everyone that the radio horizon is a relative concept and depends on the altitude of the radar above sea level. See where the seam bars are located on the Arleigh Burke (rectangular patches on the superstructure)
and where is Daring's radar (ball on the highest mast)
Earlier on "Berks" there were a pair of "Volcano-Falanxes" It was a very good complex for its time. But it was counted on to counteract relatively small subsonic anti-ship missiles, or large, but already damaged by close explosions of anti-aircraft missiles. Its capabilities to counter heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles tend to zero. And on the last episodes of "Berks" "Phalanxes" have already been removed.
The PLO capabilities of the "Arly" are perhaps even more modest than the missile defense - the whole point is in the extreme weakness of its anti-submarine weapons. The ASROK complex for a long time did not fly at a distance of more than 10 km (now it is flying 20 km). The available 324-mm TA with Mk46 had an even smaller hitting distance. At the same time, the modern GAS submarines, under certain circumstances, made it possible to "target" enemy surface ships in ideal conditions even from a distance of 90 km., And in less ideal … well, tens of kilometers. And at such distances all the hope of "Arleigh Burke" was only and exclusively on its deck helicopters, of which there were only 2 and they could not organize a round-the-clock patrol. True, the situation was changed for the better with the advent of a very powerful sonar station AN / SQS-53B / C, which, with luck, could detect an enemy submarine from a distance of several tens of kilometers … but in practice it would look like this. Found an unknown underwater target, 40 kilometers from the ship.
And off we go - while they prepare the helicopter for takeoff, while it takes off, until it reaches the area where the submarine is located … all this time, all that remains is to pray to all the sea gods and wipe cold sweat every second, looking at the radar - will there be glare of cruise missiles from this very submarine? Our ships, equipped with rocket-torpedoes with a range of 50 km, look much more advantageous against this background.
Apparently the whole point is that the tasks of the US ASW were to a greater extent entrusted to carrier-based aircraft - in the old days they were solved not only by PLO helicopters, but also by the regular Viking squadron, capable of suspicion of something large and unfriendly, quietly sneaking up to the AUG under water, check the seawater 300 kilometers in any direction from the aircraft carrier … But the times of the Cold War are over, the Vikings wrote off due to wear and tear, and they did not develop new aircraft - economy, sir. However, I got distracted again.
"Arlie Burke" has a very high potential for strikes against land targets - in the strike version, up to 56 Tomahawk missile launchers are loaded onto the ship. This is a huge force capable of suppressing the air defense of a small country. But the potential of "Arleigh Burke" to destroy surface ships is extremely small.
In fact, the ship's commander has only 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles at his disposal, which is only enough to eliminate some corvette or missile boat that happened to be at the wrong time and in the wrong place. And even then - the latest versions of "Arlie Berkov" are completely devoid of "Harpoons". "Tomahawks" in the version of anti-ship missiles have not been used for a long time, and, frankly, subsonic anti-ship missiles are not a very serious danger for a ship with modern air defense / missile defense. There is still the shooting of anti-aircraft "Standards" at the line-of-sight range. And that's all.
Thus, it is easy to draw a conclusion - even "Arleigh Burke", the mainstay of the US AUG, which is considered by many military analysts to be the best destroyer of all times and peoples, the magnificent main combat missile and artillery ship of our time, does not fully meet the requirements for a promising destroyer RF. Although, of course, handsome, contagion
What can we say about smaller ships like "Alvaro de Bazan"? This ship, unlike "Arleigh Burke", has not even 3 target illumination stations, but only two. Those. from various angles, he is able to direct missiles only one, maximum - two attacking anti-ship missiles. If we compare this with our promising 9M100 missiles, which must capture enemy missiles with their infrared homing heads even before our anti-missile leaves the launcher … A 48-cell UVP is acceptable for a ship operating in the near sea zone, but for an oceanic zone it is minuscule. Having thrust in there four dozen "Standards" and 40 ESSMs, one can still talk about some kind of air defense of the ship, but the shock capabilities will be reduced to almost zero. Eight "Harpoons" in deck installations can only scare a Somali pirate. At least some sane PLO can only be achieved by placing the ASROK PLUR in the UVP - and the cells are already worth their weight in gold …
Again, as I wrote above, the Mk41 UVP is designed for approximately one and a half ton missiles. If you build a Russian "Bazan" with Russian weapons (and who will sell us "Aegis" with "Standards"?), Then you will either have to forget about the heavy missiles altogether, limiting yourself to the "Polyment-Redoubt" with medium and short-range missiles, or install a UVP to launch heavy missiles and "Onyx" with "Calibers" but … at the cost of reducing ammunition. And we will not have 48 cells, but it will be good if 32.
The 127-mm artillery system is practically useless for the purpose of supporting the landing - the action of the projectile is too weak (this also applies to the "Arleigh Burke" and (funny as it may seem) even to our AK-130)
The cruising range - 5000 miles at 18 knots - is relatively small, although not so small (Arleigh Burke - 6000 miles, Daring - 7000 miles, our BOD Project 1134 - 6500-7100 miles).
In general, a small ship is a small ship, and its capabilities will always be very limited. As one Englishman said: "If you put 10 on a ship that can hold 8 guns, then only 6 will shoot." Or, as the inscription in one minibus expressed the same idea even more succinctly:
"Do not shove unstoppable"
The Spaniards themselves in no way see the Alvaro de Bazan series as a kind of Open Ocean Squadron. They are designed to operate as part of a search and strike group led by an aircraft carrier in the Gibraltar area - and nothing more.
