Miracle Of US Navy Destroyer — “Zumwalt” Waits in Vain its Shells

Donate

Miracle Of US Navy Destroyer — “Zumwalt” Waits in Vain its Shells

Photo: AP/TASS

Written by Vladimir Tuchkov; Originally appeared at SVPress, translated by AlexD exclusively for SouthFront

It has been more than a year that the destroyer “Zumwalt” is part of the US Navy. But, last week the official spokesperson of the US Navy magazine Defense News announced that the question of how its shells will be used in its artillery is still not resolved.

The artillery weapons of the destroyer consist of two AGS towers with automatic artillery installations of 155mm calibre. Each of them must be supplied with 450 shells. However, there are less than seven dozens on the ship. And they will not be made by the American industry, specifically by Lockheed Martin. Each shell costs 800 thousand dollars. It is only two times cheaper than the cost of “Tomahawk” missiles, which are much more efficient. On the “Zumwalt” 80 “Tomahawks” can be placed in about 20 launchers.

It must be said that such a fantastic price for shells is not the fault of the manufacturer. Thirty-two class “Zumwalt” ships were supposed to be built for the US Navy. And with the large-scale production of shells the cost of each should not have exceeded 35 thousand dollars. However, two years before the laying of the flagship, it was decided to limit to 24 destroyers. Then the figure was cut to 7 units. And finally, the plan was left with 3 ships. For this reason, the price of a single projectile soared to unimaginable heights. The costs of development and production preparations were not divided on a large series of ammunition. In addition, the leadership of the US Navy refused to send to the enemy truly precious shells.

Such a sharp reduction in numbers, as announced, of the most powerful and effective destroyers in the world, belonging to a new generation was due to the fact that the US Congress was disappointed in terms of price and quality. One ship was worth almost $4.5 billion, due to the fact that new technologies are used.

Its displacement is equal to 14,500 tonnes. Its length reaches 183m and the width is 25m. All processes are so automated that the crew consists of only 148 personnel. This machine can reach a speed of up to 30 knots. This should be developed further below.

The shell LRLAP (Long-Range Land Attack Projectile), without a doubt is good. But its problem is that it was designed only for “Zumwalt” destroyers. And it’s not used anywhere else. Its length is 2.24m and its mass is 102kg. Its explosive mass is 11kg. The remaining mass is used for the jet engine, its solid fuel and the flight controls. The LRLAP is an active-reactive projectile, the range of which reaches 150 km with a circular error probability of 20-50m. The control system is inertial with adjustments through GPS signals.

Fifty metres is perhaps much, given the small weight of the explosive. However, the designers conceived the present weapon as a counterpart to multiple launch rocket systems for shelling shore targets, but in continuous action when the salvo is stretched over time. This is evidenced for example, with the high rate of fire for such massive ammunition with 12 rounds per minute. True, the shells of such a concept should be inexpensive. However, everything turned out to be just the opposite.

The price issue has led to the fact that the destroyer currently is not ready for combat. And it’s not known when the American military-industrial complex will create a more affordable replacement for the LRLAP shells.

However, this is not the destroyer’s only problem. There are serious doubts about the performance at maximum capacity of the ship’s power plant. The “Zumwalt” uses gas turbine engines of 87megawatt capacity. With the design used, the rotation shaft is not transmitted to the propeller but the generator. The generated electricity is supplied to the electric motor on the shaft on which the propeller is located. As a result of this multi-stage system, it reduces the system’s efficiency. But it wouldn’t be so bad. Such “intricate” engineering solution lowers the reliability of the power system that it makes itself felt under heavy loads.

The American sailors encountered for the first time this surprise after a month of destroyer’s trial operations as it passed through the Suez Canal. There was a failure of the power plant, whereupon the ship was left without electricity, lost control and “clinked” with the wall of the canal. In the process of ship repairs, towed to the shipyard, a leak was found. Seawater damaged a few bearings. The leak occurred as a result of depressurisation of the cooling system. It is symptomatic that the power plant of the destroyer came at the maximum load before the crash.

And recently there was a failure of the electrical filters that need to provide damping to sudden changes in voltages. And this also happened at a higher load.

The design under which the main engine transmits the rotation of the shaft through the double conversion of energy is well known. It is applied on the submarine “Ohio”. But there is it used only when taxiing to reduce noise. The cruising speed of the ship is realised according to the traditional design of a steam turbine shaft through the gearbox to the propeller.

The designers managed to convince the customer to use the principle of “electric speed”, arguing that the destroyer in the foreseeable future may have a railgun installed. And for its supply it needs huge electrical energy. It is for this reason that all mechanical energy from the turbine installation on the “Zumwalt” is converted to electric.

There is another “surprise” on the destroyer, which, as with the energy insecurity, cannot be attributed to the “infantile disorder”, which later can be “cured”. The “Zumwalt” has “futuristic” geometry that minimises the visibility of the ship to enemy radar. That is, all is a stealth game. To do this, designers had to bevel the sides to the water surface, which externally looks like a classic iron. But it significantly reduces the stability of the ship in side pitching. In a classic profile of a vessel, when tilting one side, the displacement increases in the direction of the roll. In the “Zumwalt”, everything is just the opposite.

In the American Navy, which was always built on the basis of large-scale production of warships, occasionally met with failures of replications of already designed and launched in serial production of innovative projects. It happened to the superb multi-purpose nuclear submarine “Seawolf”. These boats began to be built back in the late 80s. And to this day, they are the best in the world in their class. However, there were only three boats built. The continuation of the series was abandoned due to the too high cost of the submarines. And the fact that the US “finally and irrevocably” has won the Cold War. They decided to build less complicated boats such as “Virginia”.

With the destroyer “Zumwalt” the situation is somewhat different. The Congress, which dramatically reduced the series, scared by its price, but also by the discrepancy in quality expectations that have been associated with it. Using simple arithmetic, it was found that 80 “Tomahawk” cruise missiles is almost two times less expensive than 154 of the same missiles that arm each converted into a multi-purpose strategic “Ohio” submarine. The cost of upgrading is only $800 million. And there are excellent prospects to continue this process because at the end of the next decade the “Ohio” will be replaced with the promising underwater rocket launchers “Columbia”.

There is another aggravating moment in the fate of the “Zumwalt”. This destroyer, according to the concept, in addition to solving a number of problems must still provide air and missile defence to the group of ships. However, it was not able to defend itself properly. It has twin anti-aircraft 30mm calibre guns. It has as well RIM-162anti-aircraft missiles of medium range. However, they are not integrated in the ship’s missile defence system “Aegis”. The destroyer doesn’t have one, unlike many American destroyers of the “Ali Burke” type. That is, the “Zumwalt” is not able to participate in a group missile defence, which is provided by “Aegis”.

In connection with the above condition, this destroyer, with its original geometry, can cause aesthetic delight, is not destined to become a “ship of the future”. This characteristic at its mention is heard less and less.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • AM Hants

    Not forgetting, the ship cannot be seen by merchant shipping and fishermen, but, easily exposed to Chinese and Russian radars. Poor little ship, has it got anything going for it?

    • FlorianGeyer

      ” Poor little ship, has it got anything going for it? ”

      It has increased the US National Debt, so its a Win Win for me.

      I look forward to the day when one is sunk by a missile whilst the hapless Zumwalt crew thought they were invisible :)

      • Solomon Krupacek
        • Alex
          • Solomon Krupacek

            this is not my country. but i can shov you thousands of pictures of russian wc-s. hole in the groud. so eurasian tatarian primitive ….

          • Alex

            Lol Russia is big, many nations and tatarians live there but not all of us are. Thing is, it IS your country, since you are the west europe’s toilet cleaners, be proud of it :) All you can do is cheer for your masters on your toilet cleaning break.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            moscow, st.petersburg. the most civilized are primitive, eurasian.

          • Alex

            I think you are hallucinating from all of those toilet gases

          • Solomon Krupacek

            slight introduction

            https://www.tripsavvy.com/toilets-in-russia-public-toilets-in-russia-and-eastern-europe-1502256

            i have hondreds of photos. made in miscow, leningrad/st. petersburg. during socialism, also now. you are shitty nation :)))

            “nice” photos from lomonosov university …

          • Alex

            Yeah i get that, you like clean public toilets that why you go to western europe to clean them and not to us, less work and all i understand, you shitty servant nation, prostitute beggars that cannot develop anything themselves and also boast with someone else’s accomplishments, it’s their accomplishment not yours :), to them you are nothing more than a toilet cleaning servant and will always remain that way no matter what nation will be the leading super power next :)

          • Solomon Krupacek

            i stay here. and i wil do everything, that you stay also behind your borders.

          • Alex

            Does that include holding off nato ? cause you know, when or if they attack, we will be rolling and bombing all over your country, again :) We’ll turn your country into a big tatarian toilet :)

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you? you dlost your ussr, you idiot. every year is minus 1 million russian in russia. you are in toilet and as i see, you will never go out.

          • Alex

            Outdated info, pal, we don’t loose a million each year you retarted toilet cleaner, the eastern parts of the ussr were nothing more than dead weight, just costed money nothing more :). You are always been a money whore and will always remain so, the only thing that is changing about you is the hat you wear, first it was the communists hat and then you decided to go and suck somewhere else cause they were paying 5 cents more, now you have put on a capitalists hat and crying to the extreme about you being pro western gayropean, in any case pal those are the eastern european countries that are in decline most of the youth that is able is moving to the nordic counties or uk for work , baltics are for example dying out, lol, and you brag being part of so called prosperous west, windowdressing nothing more :) Why have you joined Eu and nato in the first place, thought you wanted freedom, can’t you live without someone telling you what to do ?

          • Bob

            If you loathe Russia so much why do you apparently travel there and obsess about it so much? You appear to suffer from a pathological ethnic prejudice and/or possible insecurity vis-a-vis Russians and Slavs.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            in russia is beautiful nature.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            btw., why do you not react to reality? all of you wrote, in russia are top thing. i showed, that there are huge problems with elementery hygieny. please, comment this fact, not my person.

          • Bob

            No – it is far more pathological than that – you constantly throw out anti-Russian statements and anti-Russian ethnicity based attacks – you use notably inflammatory and derogatory terms like ‘Russkie pigs’.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            i only react to lies. if somebody attack russia and was wrong, i defended russia.
            you are wrong, boy

          • Bob

            Solomon, your use of the term ‘boy’ in your response is in itself a pathological defense mechanism on your part. It is an obvious and desperate attempt to talk downwards, and devalue any legitimate criticism, the intent being to attempt to assert some sort of authority in the debate – yet without any actual merit or substance to back it up.
            It is a classic indicator of someone operating from a profoundly weak position – ie you being called out over your systematic anti-Russian, anti-Slav, prejudice – and knowing full well that your own litany of published comments within these SF forums clearly illustrates this prejudice.

          • Toni Liu

            Ha, he love to sniff jenkem, maybe he forgot to sniff one today

          • Solomon Krupacek

            see you, that can be. your toilette holes infect the whole earth

          • Alex

            I think that’s rather from all that gay propaganda that you receive from the west, the have fucked so deep up your butt that your brain got damaged.

          • Bob

            Solomon, you are obsessively anti-Russian, this suggests you are either a paid troll or pathologically unhinged with an ethnic hatred against Slavs.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            i am not anti russian. if i were, i would not visit russian balett, orchestra, etc. but i have right to write the truth. you all think, russia = paradise. i tell sou, russia is underaverage country.

          • Tsarski

            No where in these comments that are saying Russia is paradise. Most of the people here are commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the systems discussed. For instance, you didn’t comment once on the real problem of the propulsion system of the Kuznetsov.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            huh, floriangeyer, moron tumor, jesus amd lot of other write, rusia is perfect, never mistales, bestest weapons, etc.
            idiots. and i will talk about idiotisms.

          • AM Hants

            Really?

            A primitive in action, compared against, the 21st century model. Which one would you trust?

            “THE WORLD IS ON NOTICE!” Emergency United Nations Security Council Meeting On North Korea
            wwwMOXNEWScom… https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=q13yzl6k6w0

            Trump’s strangest moments of 2017… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yCMy4xpF6U

        • Gary Sellars

          ..of course, the fact that the exercise was announced the day BEFORE the fire kinda undermines your contention.

          Stupid Russian-hating Czech Jew cunt…

          • Solomon Krupacek

            :))))

      • Solomon Krupacek
        • AM Hants

          Which is one more than we have got in the UK. She only went to Syria, to give her a jolly in a warzone, before she is decommissioned.

          Now if you were in charge of procurement and had the choice between the USS Theodore Roosevelt, that is prone to electrical jamming, the Zumwalt or a little Russian Corvette, what would you go for?

          Let’s have a look.

          4 Russian warships launch 26 missiles against ISIS from Caspian Sea…https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=NKoC3XH_iCM

          John Helmer: What The USS Donald Cook and Polish Navy Were Doing Off Kaliningrad When They Were Buzzed By the Russian Air Force… https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/john-helmer-what-the-uss-donald-cook-and-polish-navy-were-doing-off-kaliningrad-when-they-were-buzzed-by-the-russian-air-force.html

          Remember the same happened to the USS Donald Cook, 2 years previously in the Black Sea, and also with the USS Theodore Roosevelt, during an exercise off Florida, with a French submarine with Russian technology and also, in the Baltic Sea. It had to sneak into the UK, for some naval health care.

          Russian Defence Budget $47 billion
          US Defence Budget £700 billion

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you are not able to understand, what i criticise.
            your infinite admiration of russian weapons (also if they are shits) and endless hate of american ones.

            the truth is, ussr/russia never was able to build carrier. or normal ship. sorry, but zumwald is 1000x better than this kuznetsov and 100x better then any russian ship. zumwald has less problems then kuznetsov. be sure, yanks will solve and will have universal ship, about russians can only dream. the russian fleet in qualitative parameters can not compare with south korean or japanese. russia in half century will not be able to produce ships of that quality. russia has excellent technology in field of plane and rocket engines, they are the best in titan technology. but in technology of screw propeller and ship engines are simply lost. always were. also akulas (typhoons) are much lauder then british or holland submarines. due to perfect titan metallurgy they are able to dive in impressive depths, but are still detectable.

            back to kuznyetsov. i understand why sent the admirals to syria. but was really not good idea. two types of plane, two real attacks and in both cases lost 1 plane. and how? the pilots did not pinpoint the deck. i understand, that ruskies have no experiences in this field. but is very primitive sing annthems, how perfects were these pilots. also if they are not able to coordinate the movements with ship, had to train at home. not in warzone.

            again: zumwald is expensive. has problems. will be sold. and us navy will have uniq destroyer. also here, on SF was a movie, that 14 torpedos/missiles were not able to sink old american frigat. then realise, how big problem will be this doal in the case of modern ships?
            btw., zumwald is should not be an invisible, stealth ship. will have only reduces radar surface. also brom sideview. in comparison to otherships, mainly smoking kuznyetsov.

            for everybody, who is onanizing on zumwald or f-35: the ruskie pak has still not final engine, has large problems. also armata is in finished, there are problems. so, try to look at development on weapons really. last but not least, i can pit here movie with putin. one guy intrudced him new military car. and the handle stayed in hand of general…. typical, 50 years old problem with russian technology. and also the armata trouble last may befor eyes of whole world was nothing noble.

            uff!

          • AM Hants

            LOL, Russia defends not goes for the offensive, which is why they are not dependent on aircraft ‘sotitting ducks’ carriers.

            If you believe that the poor, expensive piece of junk, called the Zumwalt is the best on the market, carry on believing. Guess, the Littoral is also a good buy, despite getting stuck in Canada, owing to ice. Then you have the Aegis destroyers, that are so wonderful, they cannot see merchant shipping. How many have been written off, in just 2017 alone. That is before you look at the planes. Ooooooops, again very expensive pieces of junk.

            US Defence Budget $700 billion and what actually works?
            Russia defence budget $47 billion, in full working order and cost effective.

            By the way, how does the US manage to make it into space? Besides needing those Russian rocket engines?

          • Tsarski

            Actually NASA needs to rent seats on the Soyuz spacecraft to their astronauts to the ISS. We probably don’t need to mention the rest of the achievements of those primitave, underaverage eurasian people in the exploration of space…. ;)

          • AM Hants

            Haha, shhhhhhhhsh.

          • AM Hants

            Russia, lost a couple of planes in Syria, but, a lot less than John McCain, on the USS Forrestal. How many planes has the US lost in training exercises? How many ships have the US lost/written off, just cruising?

            With regards the Russian submarines, you are seriously behind times.

            The US is replacing her attack submarines with the Virginia class. However, her balistics, coming to the end of their shelf lives and again, as the UK leases her missiles, the new American balistics will not be ready for the market, till around 2029 and that is if they are on time and not a decade late.

            UK – Retired 6 Swiftsure, baby attack submarines, for Astute and had to extend the lives of the 6 Trafalgar Class attack submarines, whilst waiting for Astute to reach active service. So now there are 3 Astute attack, with 3-4 in build, 3 Trafalgar Class and 4 Vanguard class, the old balistic bombers, what are coming to the end of their missile shelf life. The replacements due in 2029.

            Russia, in the same period of time that Astute was on the drawing board, so was the Boreii balistic and Yassen attack. Boreii and aren’t they a 5th generation, balistic, rolling off the conveyor belts. 3 active and many more in various stages of build. To go with the Delta Class. The Typnoon, balistic are retired, with only one left in active service. The 5th generation, Yassen, is again in various stages of build and at least one in active service, a multi-role attack/precise missile boat, replacing the Akula attack submarines. Then you have the Kilo class and doesn’t NATO call them the ‘Black Hole’ owing to their silence? By the way, the Akula is an attack submarine and the Typhoon was a balistic.

          • dez nuts

            U.S. has a way better navy and ships.

          • AM Hants

            Really? Larger and more expensive, wehn it works, but, Russia has the most powerful military at a fraction of the cost.

          • Bob

            That tends to be the case when the annual budget is vastly greater than all other top navies combined. The US invests so massively in its navy because they use it as a political extension – for constant long range power projection – circulating their carriers globally as a show of force intended to keep both friend and foe in line. Basic gun-boat diplomacy.

          • AM Hants

            It is not working though, is it? A little grey corvette, out in the Caspian Sea, comes along and shows them just where they are going wrong.

          • Vido Dasler

            Why would they decomission her ? She is younger then most US CV in service.

          • AM Hants

            Hasn’t she recently had a refit? Will they retire her when the new ship reaches active stage.

          • Ivan Freely

            No. _He_ is due for one, if it isn’t already in dry dock.

          • AM Hants

            Thanks.

        • Justin

          most nations only have 1 aircraft carrier because missile destroyers make such ships obsolete!
          Russia is holding onto its last aircraft carrier whilst it decides to build another or not! Could easily sell to china who have the exact same ships!
          Keep in mind its not an aircraft carrier even tho it looks like one!
          Its a heavy aircraft CRUISER! It carries a whole slew of Anti ship missiles! This is why it only carries half the aircraft most other aircraft carriers carry! But its packed full of missiles! Could also be called a missile destroyer! On its own, its very dangerous!

          • Peter Magnus

            If its puropse is to function as a cruiser it must be one of the hugest failures in maritime history, inside a massive crew intensive hull there is crammed 1,5 frigates worth of armaments, witch then also serves as the explenation of why the aircraft capability is compromized!

            A more rational explenation is a lack of escorts a need to cram the escorts weapons onto the carrier itself, the redesignation is just for politics.

          • zman

            When it comes to huge failures, the US and UK lead the pack. This article spells that out clearly with the Zumwalt. Then there are the US Littoral ships and the UK’s new subs and it’s lone carrier. I’m not even sure the Brits new toys have even been out of dock. No, I don’t think anyone has them beat. How you can call a ship that has seen service, been in-theater and brought death and destruction to the enemy a failure is beyond me. As a matter of fact, the Kznetsov has a better record with just one volley of Kalibr missiles than those cruisers and subs that fired 59 cruise missiles that did diddly squat in damage.

          • Graeme Rymill

            ” I’m not even sure the Brits new toys have even been out of dock”

            HMS Queen Elizabeth certainly has!

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2017/08/16/TELEMMGLPICT000137556025_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqZ_JcPYgesQnahAq0MEErmd1XXmXLJZ2y16zKcWjHpn0.jpeg?imwidth=1400

          • Tsarski

            Still waiting for the F-35’s to be delivered. But still, she makes a mighty fine target.

          • zman

            and they’ll be waiting for quite some time…if ever.

          • Graeme Rymill

            Another 5 years (2023) till all 24 Royal Navy F-35Bs are available! This long delay is caused by British defence budget problems.

          • zman
          • Gary Sellars

            Nice pic… a 50kT detonation of a nuke gravity bomb due to deck handling mishap perchance?

          • Graeme Rymill

            Definitely a thermonuclear reaction in the background

        • Justin
          • Peter Magnus

            Why do you keep on sprouting that old lie? The Kuznetsov class is a carrier, it is what its been designed to do and what it have ever been employed to do. The redesignation is just a piece of soviet propaganda, if we cant have a bigger carrier than the amricans, then we will call it something else. Do you really belive that the Kongo class-carriers are “Helicopter-carrying-destroyers”? Or that the late Invincibles were “Through-deck-cruisers”?
            I can also mention “Panzerschiff”, “Combination carriers” and Large light cruisers, all just political opportune ways to spell “battleship”.

            What a navy calls it capital ships is often very closely connected with politics, the navy will allways have to “sell it” to its politicians and population. Building a carrier 1/3 the size of the enemy will not cut it in propaganda, hence the name.
            Lastly you will probably make a fuss about the armament, isnt it possible that the Soviet navy with its cronic lack of hulls had to cram a lot of the escorts weapons onto the carrier itself?
            The Kriegsmarine was in the same situation and litterally loaded their carrier “Graf Zeppelin” with weapons usually found on the escorts.

          • zman

            Your whole post sounds like a propaganda sermon itself. The Kuznetsov IS a heavy cruiser, regardless of your claims. Its MAIN armament is cruise missiles, which tends to lend credence to the term HEAVY cruiser. It also represents a more future leaning approach to naval power, being that it is intended to contribute to fleet security, not rely on a fleet to protect it…which is why it also carries a wide array of defensive missiles and cutting edge electronics. The fact that it also carries aircraft is why they class it as an aircraft carrying cruiser, which describes its versatility. Your fascination with public propaganda to sell armaments may be necessary in the west, but means little to the Russians…as the quality, cost control, efficiency, performance and on-time delivery is what drives their acquisition. It seems to work very well, in as much as they are far ahead of the US in types and actual delivery of gen5 aircraft, not to mention they will actually fly, perform up to expectations and not kill their pilots doing it…and all at 1/10th the cost of inferior competition. Now, if you have to have something to carp about, you might have mentioned the Kusnetsov’s real achilles heel, its propulsion system…as much as you think you know about it, I would have thought you would have mentioned it.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            then why used for aircraft attacks in syria? THIS IS aircraft carrier. shitty, dunb, but IT IS! fortified with some missiles.

          • Justin

            HEAVY AIRCRAFT CRUISER CONTAINING 12 granit missile pods with a further 24 missiles in storage! Where on earth does any aircraft carrier carry 36 10metre long, almost 1 metre wide, long range cruise missiles with a 750kg war head designed to destroy other aircraft carriers with just 1 missile!

            Where? Which aircraft carries 36 of these??

            NAME ONE!

            I win! You lose!

            HEAVY AIRCRAFT MISSILE CRUISER

            BOOM!
            Tell your story walking!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            and! russians are idiots, they put missile also in apple pie.

          • Tsarski

            yawn…

          • Alex

            We’ll put a missle in your rectum, will be a vibrant detonation.

          • Justin

            yet they make the best rockets and missiles in the world! The USA uses RD-170 and RD-180 Russian engines to reach deep space for military weapons!

            Who won allspice races?

            Who has best air defence missiles?

            You need to show respect!

          • Graeme Rymill

            “Which aircraft carries 36 of these??”

            The question is really which “aircraft cruiser” carries 36 cruise missiles. By your own admission the Kuznetsov carries just 12 so the answer to that is none… zero…naught… you get the picture I think!

          • Justin

            So iets didnt make many aircraft carryIng ships because their wars were always designed for home turf! All russian major russian wars were home turf due to the advantage of their land size and being able to cut off the enemies lines of logistics! Hence their submarine fleet! U know damn well the soviets pumped their resources into subs more so than carriers! And if i may say, have the reputation of building the best subs in the world! (This does not include when they went broke and had maintenence failures/ deaths) and if u want a pissing competition, who won all space races? ALL!
            Russia!
            There was no moon mission re: van allen raditaion belt!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            you idiot, i was officer of warsaw pact when was designed. i remeber what taught us prudly the soviet comrades.

            THIS IS CARRIER. failed, shitty, smoky stupid unfunctionable carrier. fueled by coal, like in 19. century.

          • Justin

            Bullshit u were officer! One of the last conversations we had, u didnt even know the difference between the Mig 35 and the Mig 29! You didnt even know they are making a carrier version of the Mig 35!
            Stop lying!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            i never write everyting in 1 short comment. fuck yourself, sperm!

          • Justin

            Solomon, u know ive caught u contradicting urself many times! Now ive just caught u lying! U know I screen shot your dumb comments! Dont make me prove that u are full of shit!
            Troll everyone else, but dont think about trolling me! I will fucking OWN you!
            U know ZERO about military! ZERO!
            So dont come here saying bullshit about being in the military!
            Youre just a fucking loser!
            Its time u turned things around!
            Stop support DutchNational.
            Learn about military equipment (if u want to comment on it)
            And stop Bullshitting people!

            Choose to be a person and not a loser troll!

            U know people attack u on this site because they can see a fuck he’d when they read ur comments! Maybe ure not aware that u actually expose urself because ure too caught up I your own shit!

            Stop being the fuck head and start observing urself! Monitor your own comments and ask urself (is this true or am I just trying to get endorphins from a fake win).
            You will never win against me because I know who and what u are!

            So like I said, choose new people to bullshit too!
            Im only going to embarrass u later if u bullshit to me!
            Would u rather continue lying and be exposed? or are u going to start behaving like a person who doesn’t know everything and sometimes asks questions rather than someone lying and saying that they know all!

            I will fuck u up without touching u!
            So go away u little piss ant!
            im 10 steps ahead of u at all times!
            Remember that!

          • Justin

            .”The design of Admiral Kuznetsov-class implies a mission different from that of the United States Navy’s carriers. The term used by her builders to describe the Russian ships is tyazholyy avianesushchiy kreyser (TAVKR) – “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” – intended to support and defend strategic missile-carrying submarines, surface ships, and naval missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian Navy.”
            “The aircraft cruiser (also known as aviation cruiser or cruiser-carrier) is a warship that combines the features of the aircraft carrier and a surface warship such as a cruiser or battleship.”

          • Justin

            .heavy aircraft cruiser carrying Cruise missiles which limit the amount of aircraft it can carry! Has far more defence capabilities than any other aircraft carrier! This is why its called a cruiser! Much less aircraft aboard!

            LEARN YOU DUMB CUNT! LEARN!!!!!!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e82d2c6470ca664fe8c76f77fcd9a7e5694e7662dcd0d747caa3ca2de5df6a69.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f77f1cb981016356f988787c0bf632c10d298cda1065662f5cd1a7995a84f6e3.png

          • Justin
          • Justin

            How am I lying when it says it in the description!
            I told u, name me 1 aircraft carrier that can fire in one go 12 long range cruise missiles! (but carries a total of 36 missiles)
            You failed!
            Therefore u are wrong!
            I am right!
            Reep the whirlwind! Reep it!
            Plus, there is no need to propagandise a ships classification! (pure stupidity)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea44954a7bd9069fa2f06a3d98ba6c8189e04f002c9d847890459b1e175b301c.png

          • Graeme Rymill

            In fact it the Kuznetsov only carries 12 Granit missiles. Even Russian sources say just 12 missiles.

            This just goes to show that you cannot take anything Justin says for “granit” :-)

          • Justin

            24 in Storage doesnt mean its on the ship! THINK! This ship does not necessarily travel alone! ALL SHIPS have rearmament logistical support ships!
            How do u think these ships get re-fueled (not a nuclear powered ship)! How do u think they get food and water or more bombs after they are used!
            THINK! These ships do not travel alone!
            In fact logistical support ships are the back bone of any navy! They re-fuel and they re-arm! did this even enter into your mind before u made your comment! READ my comment again!

            Example.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1554d687852554958ec80fa6f4e8f6f1de6b09688587abeedb585ad9128be2b.png

          • Graeme Rymill

            Reloading a 7,000 kg missile into a launch tube in a heaving sea is either one of two things:

            Extremely difficult and cannot be relied on except in dead calm conditions

            or

            Impossible

            [Thanks for the photo of a New Zealand Navy “Maritime Sustainment Capability” vessel. Perhaps you should have shown a photo of the tug that always accompanies Kuznetsov in case it breaks down again.]

            Below is a photo of a Granit being loaded onto a Russian sub. There are two things to note:

            This reload is at a berth so no heavy seas to contend with

            The crane just seen at the top of the photo is absolutely massive. Where does the Kuznetsov keep a crane able to reload a 7000 kg Granit while underway? [Hint: it doesn’t!!!!]

            https://i.redditmedia.com/j_aM5EDwtOBMsaVh8XpUVXxrdxsuvTbD4GGlfiAQdLU.jpg?w=1024&s=70a2f5ce31ae2249e97589cfb7e41b18

          • Justin

            Again u read wrong or you are blind!
            A logistical ship!
            EXAMPLE!
            DO YOU UNDERSTAND GREAME?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da12ef3ce4817ec4888109ffb91c5d0bbb622bb5d0977ecb37ce07b83d7687bc.png

          • Graeme Rymill

            The logistical ship goes along the Russian aircraft carrier and picks up and drops a 7000 kg missile down a launcher which is sitting in the centre of the carrier’s deck?????!!!!!! That would be the biggest shipboard crane known to mankind!

            This may be your wet dream Justin but it isn’t reality….

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            lol… ship models… really?

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            still water… ship at anchor

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            Read up on the USNS Gordon. it is a roll on/roo off ship. in other words it doesn’t do ocean replenishment. It does all its heavy lifting in ports. Your photos are laughable.

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            Bottom picture: smooth seas, ship at anchor.

            By the way the bottom photo shows a harpoon missile. This weighs well under a 1000kg

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            lol… everywhere I see calm water….. show me some photos of replenshment mid-ocean!!!

          • Justin

            i win!
            Small crane loading something where missiles are located!
            Hmmmmm, i wonder what they are loading with such a small crane…hmmmmmmm!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/520d687f9f19b0a78d7b23a304a50aefd1b7d3a45a4aaa6bb340601c98b2dea6.png

          • Justin

            Graeme! its official! U lost!
            U lost with “looks like a duck” because the quote says “PROBABLY is a duck”!
            U lost with Cranes being tall enough! even small cranes do the job! Even small cranes on ship can do the rest! Photos show great example evidence!
            U lost with ship classification! Treaty and wikipedia proves this!
            U lost with “loading missiles at sea”! As u can see, very possible and very logical to understand how neccessary it is to do this! Thats why ALL LOGISTICAL SHIPS HAVE FUCKING CRANES YOU DUMB CUNT! BIG OR SMALL DOESNT MATTER.! Just get them onto the ship and load missiles with ships smaller crane! Or perhaps load with super crane on another ship! either way who cares! I showed both AT SEA!

            TELL YOUR STORY WALKING!

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            They are fixed gantries – they cannot swing out over the aircraft carrier supporting a 7000 kg weight. Nice try but no cigar!

          • Graeme Rymill

            Here is the problem shown eloquently in a photo. Your crane arm would have to be long enough to go the vast distance to the centre of the aircraft carrier where the Granit tubes are. It would have to be stable enough to not be effected by waves and swell and it would have to support 7000 kg.

            By comparison transferring oil via flexible pipes is kids’ play.

            The Kuznetsov doesn’t reload Granit missiles at sea from another replenishment ship because it cannot be done! it goes back to port, anchors and a massive cargo crane dockside does the job.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Aircraft_carrier_%22Minsk%22_in_1986.jpeg

          • Justin

            im not saying the yellow cranes place the missiles into the pods, im saying they lift the missiles onto the crane and a smaller crane places them!
            Explain this photo Graeme!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5fa09eda1d264f1cb17fadbb589e6f96f0b7736d119480d561890e54ba1360b0.png

            Oh im sorry, do these examples not suit your assumption?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1332a216cd26194db903bdc38cae5f9ebeee5e5dc07ad49a981834b48b982991.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62b24998c20ff6ee6dd1fbbedfaa9207ccd4ec65fc5372f523f0c47c89f261a3.jpg

            So the Ships with big Cranes load and the Small cranes place them!
            Wola!

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            In October 2016 the Admiral Kuznetsov went to Syria. It was accompanied by 6 vessels. The flotilla has included battle cruiser «Pyotr Veliky» and aircraft-carrier «Admiral Kuznetsov», as well as anti-submarine destroyer «Severomorsk», destroyer «Vice-Admiral Kulakov», a tug, a surveillance vessel and a tanker.

            Which of these were carrying the Granit reloads? The tanker? It was likely a Boris Chilikin fleet oiler. They carry:

            8,250 tons bunker fuel

            2,050 tons diesel

            1,000 tons jet fuel

            450 tons water

            450 tons feedwater

            250 tons lube oil

            220 tons provisions

            No sign that they carry bombs or missiles which is exactly what you would expect. Bombs and inflammable fuel don’t routinely get carried together.

            So please show me a photo of a Russian replenishment ship that carries Granit reloads. I don’t believe that there currently are any!

          • Justin

            Graeme, do u expect that the Admiral Kuznetsov was going to destroy more than 12 ships while at war in Syria fighting isis?
            THINK!
            Was it a world war?
            Were there not already Russian missile destroyers already there?

            Logical example, does the TU-160 strategic bomber (strategic meaning nuclear) carry with it a nuclear bomb for the Syrian war? NO
            It carries only what it needs!

            please think more before u comment!
            youre getting desperate!

          • Graeme Rymill

            You have gone off your meds again haven’t you? I warned you about that….

          • Justin

            GRAEME…. refuelling takes half a day!
            Do u know how they do it?
            First they fire string across to the other ship (while moving)
            Then the string pulls another thicker string, then thicker, then rope, then steal cable. Then its hoisted and sent across like on a flying fox (the fuel hose)

            You’d be amazed what is done at sea! BECAUSE ITS NECESSARY TO DO SO!
            Look at how dangerous and careful air refuelling is!

            Now u seem to assume that Missiles are impossible to load at sea?
            What about bombs?
            What about anything being done n these ships! These ships themselves are a fucking marvel! Just taking off and landing on such a small run way while its moving at night time is insane! In almost any weather condition!
            And here u are saying…. id imagine loading missiles onto a ship would be a task to great!
            BULLSHIT!
            Right here and right now u show how stupid u are! Stupid and niave!
            EVERYTHING they do is insane and almost impossible! But its neccessary!
            Any navy that can re-fuel on the move, or load fast, or land a c-130 on it, or carry a shit load of aircraft with folded wings, to land with a steal cable as a brake! Re-loading armsis no different to reloading food or fuel! or bombs! It gets done! Thats why they are called Logistical support ships!
            For some reason, ure “logical brain” cannot comprehend they do this!
            HELLO GRAEME!! ANYONE HOME?? its 2018!

            But to get back to what i stated! Did i state anything incorrect regarding the classificaton of this ship? did i?
            OFFICIALLY this is a Heavy Aircraft Missile Cruiser! not my words!
            Wikipedia and Montreux convention with NO signatures from ANY NATION protesting otherwise!
            Facts are Facts Graeme! They are stubborn!
            Tats why quoted “dont judge a book by its cover”
            and why u stated “looks like a duck bla bla bla”
            Well guess what Graeme! i am right and u are wrong!
            Thats all there is to it!
            I explained why! I quoted so much info as to why! And here u are, joining into this conversation with ur 2cents worth comment!
            WRONG Graeme! WRONG!

            I provied factual proof and an officalref to a document / treaty or convention!

            U provided an opinion and a 3rd grade quote!

            U dont win this won graeme!
            Save ur energy for another battle!
            You lost!

            Facts before feelings, Truth before sensitivity!
            Let that sink in!

          • Graeme Rymill

            “Well guess what Graeme! i am right and u are wrong!”

            You sound like a 10 year old child having a tantrum.

            Here’s some reality for you. A General Purpose Mk 84 bomb weighs about 1000 kg. This is the largest aerial bomb routinely carried by US aircraft. There are of course specialized bombs like daisy cutters and MOABs.

            So the Granit is 7 times heavier than this heaviest bomb. So if you had to you could perhaps haul bombs across to the carrier from another ship. It wouldn’t be easy and if you had to transfer a lot of bombs it would take forever. You then simply load the bomb into the carrier’s weapons storage area. Not so though with the Granit. You have to have something that will lift 7000Kg into the air and gently lower it into a launch tube all done while the carrier rolls and bucks in the ocean swells. read my lips Justin: it ain’t gunna happen! There is no crane on the Kuznetsov that can safely do this. Once those 12 Granits are fired it is back to base to reload!!!

            A helicopter of course would be much easier. Guess what? No Russian naval aviation helicopter can carry a 7000 kg granit load. Not internally; not even externally slung.

          • Justin
          • Justin
          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill

            that little crane isn’t going to lift 7000 kg into a launch tube!!!!

          • Justin

            Too small yeah? too small?
            Looks like one of those telescopic cranes!Oh look its right where the missiles are! Hmmm i wonder if its loading missiles!
            I wonder if its ON THE SHIP!
            I think this photos seals the deal Graeme!
            (now im smoking my cigar) :)

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5fa09eda1d264f1cb17fadbb589e6f96f0b7736d119480d561890e54ba1360b0.png

          • Graeme Rymill

            I wonder if it on the ship too. You simply can’t tell. It could well be a floating crane such as the one you see below.

            In any case, as always with your photos, the Kuznetsove is anchored and the sea is dead calm. Missile resupply whilst underway doesn’t happen!

            https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/all/2016/12/05/sukhoi_su-33_fighters_tass_18121054_b.jpg

          • Graeme Rymill
          • Justin

            nice high res pic!
            Agree on the dock!
            Do they or can they load missiles at sea is the question!
            U seem to think size and weight is an issue even tho we have seen missiles being loaded (although smaller) on other ships!
            I believe war ships are made to be ships that can do all at war and not need to return to base for armaments unless they are damaged. Even then, they usually do repairs first before they hobble back to port!
            In an all out war, why would a ship be limited to the arms it carries when there are support ships with cranes that follow it anyway!
            They give them all they need including bombs for planes!
            all this stuff is lifted on sometimes in full containers!
            Ive seen missiles being loaded at sea and I dont think this aircraft would be any different just because their missiles are heavier!
            If this ship was 7000 miles from its port and at war I dont think they would be sending it back just to get missiles placed in! Im sure ships with cranes can do the job easy! do they do it at sea or in another countries port I dont know! I guess thats why Syria has a Russian navy port!
            But we will never know because this ship has only been in a realtor one time (Syria). The missiles in them are most likely rare fired and only fired in testing. cheaper to load at port for sure! But those ships with cranes can do a similar job!
            U and I have both seen the ships with small and large cranes! They can do the job for sure! Do they need calm waters or a port to do it? Well we both know they dont for feeling, loading food and bombs etc! Can they also load missiles at sea too?
            I think yes!
            Those ships can carry a lot and can certainly lift 7 tonnes! But u seem to think occupation health and safety rules apply lol!
            Its war dude!

          • Graeme Rymill

            “There are none so blind as those that will not see”

          • Graeme Rymill

            To sum up there are only 3 practical ways supplies can be transferred from ship to ship:

            Helicopter:- Russian navy helicopters cannot lift 7000 kg
            Crane:- Requires anchored ships and smooth conditions
            Rigging a line between 2 ships:- In the United States Navy “The maximum designed cargo load is 5,700 pounds [2,600 kg] that can be transferred in up through sea state 5 and with up to 200 feet ship separation.”

            http://navybmr.com/study%20material/NTTP%204-01.4.pdf – Chapter 5, page 4.01.4

            2,600 kg is way short of the 7000 kg required to transfer a Granit P-700 missile. By comparison a Tomahawk missile with booster is 1,300 kg. It is the immense size of the Granit that makes it impossible to transfer from ship to ship whilst at sea.

          • Justin

            “The design of Admiral Kuznetsov-class implies a mission different from that of the United States Navy’s carriers. The term used by her builders to describe the Russian ships is tyazholyy avianesushchiy kreyser (TAVKR) – “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” – intended to support and defend strategic missile-carrying submarines, surface ships, and naval missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian Navy.”
            “The aircraft cruiser (also known as aviation cruiser or cruiser-carrier) is a warship that combines the features of the aircraft carrier and a surface warship such as a cruiser or battleship.”

          • Justin

            heavy aircraft cruiser carrying Cruise missiles which limit the amount of aircraft it can carry! Has far more defence capabilities than any other aircraft carrier! This is why its called a cruiser! Much less aircraft aboard!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e82d2c6470ca664fe8c76f77fcd9a7e5694e7662dcd0d747caa3ca2de5df6a69.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f77f1cb981016356f988787c0bf632c10d298cda1065662f5cd1a7995a84f6e3.png

          • Justin
          • Graeme Rymill
          • Justin

            ..I REST MY CASE!

            “NO OTHER SIGNATORY TO THE MONTREUX CONVENTION HAS CHALLENGED THE SHIPS’ CLASSIFICATION”!” (This means that EVERYONE has accepted this ships classification! EVERYONE!!!!!!!)

            .”The design of Admiral Kuznetsov-class implies a mission different from that of the United States Navy’s carriers. The term used by her builders to describe the Russian ships is tyazholyy avianesushchiy kreyser (TAVKR) – “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” – intended to support and defend strategic missile-carrying submarines, surface ships, and naval missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian Navy.”

            “The aircraft cruiser (also known as aviation cruiser or cruiser-carrier) is a warship that combines the features of the aircraft carrier and a surface warship such as a cruiser or battleship.”

            “The Kuznetsov class is classified as heavy aviation cruisers, reflecting their greater weight as well as the larger number of aircraft they can operate. In addition to helicopters, they are also capable of operating conventional fixed-wing aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-33 and the Mikoyan MiG-29K. The ships have an angled flight deck as well as an axial flight deck for takeoff. Since there is no catapult, a bow ski jump is used to assist takeoff. Kuznetsov also carries the P-700 Granit cruise missiles that form the main armament of the Kirov-class battlecruiser.”

            “All Soviet aircraft carriers were built at the Nikolayev Shipyard in the Ukrainian SSR. Their classification as aircraft cruisers is VERY IMPORTANT for the purposes of international law, as it allows them to transit the Turkish Straits on their way into the Mediterranean Sea. Under the Montreux Convention, aircraft carriers heavier than 15,000 tons may not pass through the Straits. However, there is no tonnage limit on capital ships operated by Black Sea Powers.[3] Turkey has always allowed Soviet and Russian aviation cruisers to transit the Straits, and no other signatory to the Montreux Convention has challenged the ships’ classification”

            “Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as “aircraft carrying cruisers.” The aircraft carriers were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which were also found on the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result of this is that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, while at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.

            Turkey chose to accept the designation of the Soviet aircraft carriers as aircraft cruisers. Any revision of the Montreux Convention could leave Turkey with less control over the Turkish Straits. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had already established more liberal passage through other straits. By allowing the Soviet aircraft cruisers to transit the Straits, Turkey could leave the more restrictive Montreux Convention in place”

          • Graeme Rymill

            You and the Russian can call it what you want.

            However if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck!

          • Justin
          • Solomon Krupacek

            this is aircraft cerrier. it was planed, designed for this role.

          • Justin
      • George King

        Unfortunately it is just that (debt) pushing the Empire in its death throes that will bring Casus belli, WWIII.

    • You can call me Al

      Whahahahaha – nice one AM.

  • You can call me Al

    “In connection with the above condition, this destroyer, with its original geometry, can cause aesthetic delight”

    Aesthetic delight to whom ?, the dead, dumb and blind kid playing pinball ?; it looks like my dog made it out of lego. As for stealth; what a crock.

    • so

      Reminds me of the ironclad, USS Merrimack. From the Civil War. Ba Boom!

      • You can call me Al

        Will you do me a favour please, just check the name or search the picture..

      • Solomon Krupacek

        me Aurora, lenins favourite ship

  • Holy Gark

    Typical over-engineered, over-priced piece of American “technological” garbage.

    • Attrition47

      “Trebles all round!”

      • Holy Gark

        Definitely.

    • Roddy Wehrmacht

      What an ugly piece of Orwellian, dystopic garbage this ship is. Really, it sits like an ugly metal hat on the water.

      • Holy Gark

        Representative of those who own-run the US.

  • Bolter10

    Jeez..throw maoney and keep throwing money away.

  • Hrky75

    800K $ a pop only to deliver 11 kgs of explosive within 50 meter from target. As oppose to shelling it with numerous cheap 155mm “slightly dumber” shells that can reach up 65kms for fraction of cost. Win or lose that particular war Lockheed Martin will make a killing – as usual…

  • Alejandro Bonifacio

    an expensive garbage can, what a waste of money

  • IvanSmith

    Stupid Solomon, the Admiral Kuznetsov is NOT an aircraft carrier, do you read this???

    It is an aircraft carrying MISSILE CRUISER.
    Firing the P 700 Granite missiles that will annihilate any US carrier strike group by a single salvo.
    You have no idea what you are talking about so please STFU.
    SU/Russian has been decades ahead in the production of anti-ship missiles.
    Soviet Union is the first country to build a special submarine to carry anti-ship missiles capable of submerged launch with the only purpose of destroying United States carrier strike groups.

    Plus read some more about the so called “stealth” technology.
    Stealth means low RCS (if you even know what RCS) when being painted by a low-wave-length targeting radar (radars working above 10-15 GHz, in a high power pulsed mode).
    Targets being stealth can be easily tracked an painted for targeting purposes using lower wave length radars, or by simply increasing the effective output power of your radar.
    For example, the SU 35S’s radar has an pulsed outpud power of up to 20 kiloWatts. (this is the official data), allowing it to detect even low RCS targets at hundreds of kilometers. Add a hi wavelength Search and Track radar and auxiliary Pulsed Doppler radar and a pair of SU 35’s located 1000km from one another, paired in data link mode, and you have your shiny F 35 exposed like the shit they are on a nice clean walkway in a sunny day.
    Also don’t forget that RCS is directional: just because F 35 has low RCS when painted from the front, doesn’t mean you have the same values from the sides or from behind. This is EXACTLY why Russians put so many efforts on data-linking all of the new Russian fighters like the Su 35s and SU 30 SM. The official data link range is up to 1000 km, not only enemy’s position is transmitted but also targeting data and missile locking algorithm. Meaning a single Su 35 can ‘paint’ the F35 from the flank, where their radar signature is higher, with it’s 20 kW radar, while a squadron of Su 30 can simply fly dead ahead only to launch their missiles which will be guided but the SU 35S’s targeting radar. Simple and robust.

    Plus you don’t need a bunch of negros to paint over your F 35 after every flight hahahaha.

    • Mattias Dahlström

      If allowed to, Gripen or Gripen NG can demonstrate this against F-35. If allowed to.

    • Solomon Krupacek

      bullshit! tje RUSSIAN admirality defins it AS carrier.
      fuck your daughter, you stupid, alcoholic ruski commie liar moron! dont troll here!!!

      (the rest of your spue i did not read; commie agitations is for kin un jong, not for me)

      • Alex

        They don’t, you toilet cleaner, it’s classified as heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser. Тяжёлый авианесу́щий кре́йсер (ТАВКР)

  • Robert McMaster

    Let us all be thankful for the ever competent U.S. Navy.

  • Tom Tom

    Shame on you! Lockheed NEEDS that money.

  • Django

    But at least it can serve well to bring the boys back home, … in their body bags, flags and coffins … ! ;)

  • Bob

    Stealth technology is about prioritizing a reduced radar profile and detectable disturbance signature. But to achieve this design brief in both aircraft and ships, the most basic principles of kinetic and dynamic flow are generally deeply compromised. An aircraft with sharp edged angular flight surfaces, a minimized central cross section, and the engine exhaust nozzle well forward between the vertical stabilizers, to shield the heat signature, creates a raft of stability and balance issues. The result is the need for heavy computational power to anticipate and counter all the kinetic deficiencies of the design – ie to keep it actually flying in stable and responsive manner. The same applies to ships, a hull with angular and inclined slab sides that narrow above the waterline, the massing of all traditional deck features into a single high tower, and the reverse raked bow to reduce water disturbance and wake, likewise creates a host of stability and balance issues. But ships operate in an extremely dynamic environment where a design that compromises pitch control and roll stability for stealth may actually be dangerous. So even with masses of computational power to anticipate and counter these kinetic deficiencies – if this Zumwault design pitches too deeply, in steep waves, there is a critical moment where traverse stability is simply lost – and it rolls over. It’s a worst case scenario but it is possible and creates a legitimate query over safety of design for crews. The point being, stealth technology is the radical prioritization of one feature – of low radar and detectable disturbance (heat or wake) signature. To achieve this in aircraft and ships, the most basic principles of kinetics that inform traditional designs are discarded. Whilst this presents a cutting edge engineering challenge, that can be largely managed with computational power, there is a fine line where both the exorbitant costs and kinetic compromises out-weigh the design brief. As illustrated by the $3 billion dollar Zumwault class stealth ship that is very dangerous to operate in high seas.

  • RichardD

    The US needs to look at the Jew threat to it’s national security, which is severe. The population of Russia is half what it would be if the Jews hadn’t mass murdered upwards of 66 million Russians. The Jews may try to do the same thing to the US. They need to be gotten out of politics, media, finance and academia where they do so much harm. Their evil cult should be outlawed to create a Jew free planet.

    Anyone who doesn’t think that Jews are a parasitical disease who gravitate to control positions to take over the host society needs to do a reality check:

    https://kek.gg/i/52SMbt.jpg

  • Graeme Rymill

    What this article isn’t upfront about is that these $800,000 shells have been cancelled two years ago.

    “In late 2016, the service canceled plans to buy the long-range land
    attack projectile, or LRLAP, a round designed to be fired from the
    ship’s massive 155mm Advanced Gun Systems weapon”