Military Review

Cruiser and destroyer. Battle rules

190



They learned to live.
Now they will have to learn how to fight


Warships combines a single architecture. High freeboard, above which a box-like superstructure soared, overlapping the upper deck from side to side. The price of such delights is thousands of tons of hull structures, and the extreme “top weight” and high windage require compensation in the form of additional hundreds of tons of ballast.

Despite the global reduction in the mass of mechanisms and weapons, ships suffer from chronic “obesity”. Analysis of load articles indicates unexplained degradation fleet.

80 years ago, the Maxim Gorky cruiser accounted for 15% of its standard displacement (1236 tons).

For modern destroyers of the U.S. Navy - only 6%. In absolute terms, this is ~ 450 tons (missile launchers with ammunition, artillery, aviation).

Another 18% of the standard Gorky displacement is armor protection.

The destroyer Arleigh Burke has no serious armor even to speak of. There is local protection from Kevlar (rumored to be 130 tons) and five steel bulkheads one inch thick. Less than 4% of standard displacement.

Artillery ship WWII: 15 + 18 = 33% (one third of the displacement - armor and weapon!)

Modern destroyer: 6 + 4 = 10%.

Where are the remaining 23%, by the way - a quarter of the standard displacement of the destroyer?

Typical answer: spent on radar and computers. Such an answer is no good. This is crazy and absurd. Even the entire add-on entirely from computers would weigh less than the barrel of the main caliber 180-mm gun.

Secondly, if we took it, even if dear experts on radars count the mass of analog calculators, stabilized sights and KDP with a base of 8 meters. As well as a lot of calculated control devices for firing the main caliber “Molniya-AC” and “Horizon-2” (anti-aircraft fire). Installed in the radio room receiving-transmitting equipment on the radio tubes of that era. And, finally, they will take into account the mass of four British-made radar stations (Type 291, Type 284, Type 285, Type 282).

And maybe with a lot of luck, the mass of this equipment will be at least no more than that of the Aegis radar.

Cruiser and destroyer. Battle rules


Will we continue the comparison?

Crew - 380 people. against xnumx.

Power plant power - 100 ths. Vs 130 ths. Hp in favor of the cruiser of the 30 era

Full speed - 32 instead of 36 nodes.

The total displacement is the same (around 10 000 t).

I do not compare their combat capabilities. I do not consider the need for 36-nodal speed or the equipping of the destroyer with three hundred cruise missiles (so that its DPS could be equal in weight with the towers of an artillery cruiser).

Нет!

The question is that all this was. And then this load disappeared. So what was the allocated reserve spent on? The answer was given in the first lines: the main part of this reserve went on lengthening the forecastle for almost the entire length of the hull. And partly on a giant superstructure. It is obvious. Otherwise, where would such elements come from while maintaining the original displacement?

But this answer does not give a clue about the causes of the paradox. It is interesting to understand the logic by which such a look was chosen for warships.

The high side provides less splashiness and improves working conditions on the upper deck. But is this parameter necessary?

The cruisers of the Second World War era had a smaller board in 1,5-2 times, but who has the courage to accuse them of low combat capability?

Modern ships have no combat posts on the upper deck. Weapons are controlled from the compartments inside the hull. Those who doubt the possibility of firing from water-splashing CIP, simply do not understand what kind of power is at stake. As soon as the airtight lid opens, splash a barrel of water inside. Want - the whole three. In response, the 10-meter pillar of fire will fly out, in which both the barrel and the water will evaporate.


Instant shot, see 0: 45


What is the high side for the ship for? To increase the silhouette of the body and increase visibility?

Now go to the add-in. Why add a modern destroyer?

Steers like to watch the ocean sunset from a height of a 9-storey building. But why is this warship? In the era of 60-inch LCD monitors and high-definition cameras cameras with the ability to work in the thermal range?



Now, attention, the main question: which of the equipment installed in the superstructure cannot be placed on the third deck inside the hull?

Radar installation height. The higher the radar installed, the farther the radio horizon extends, the earlier the detection of targets. But where is the superstructure?

In the past, masts with antennas were installed on ships. On the new domestic frigates and projects of new destroyers classic masts are missing. Instead, tower-like structures are used, gradually growing from the superstructure.



The American mast was preserved at the American destroyers, but something imperceptibly, so that the Yankees sought to ensure the maximum height of the radar installation. The foremast “Arly Burke” (it’s the only one) is used to house communication antennas and navigation aids. As a decorative flagpole.

The main combat radar "Ajis" is located directly on the walls of the superstructure. Conveniently. Although the superstructure is not a mast. With such a small height of the antenna suspension, the radar is weak-sighted and does not see low-flying targets.

Hence the question. If this is true, then why a high superstructure? Is not it easier to install the radar in a separate tower. Also, as the horizon tracking radar is installed on the British destroyer “Type 45”. Or, as on the test bench - the destroyer “Foster”, which tested the radar for the “Zamvolta”.


Hexagonal prism on the mast, nothing more than AN / SPY-3. Cover the truss with a casing of radio-absorbing material, and the problem is solved.

The rest of the add-on is to tear it away.

It only worsens the seaworthiness and increases the visibility of the ship. While absorbing thousands of tons of payload.

If the design experts (there are definitely such) express disagreement with my point of view, then I ask you for a detailed explanation. Why is a modern ship by no means indispensable without a superstructure the size of a skyscraper.

Attempts to explain the phrase “experts know better” are not considered. Specialists - they are. Two thousand years was repeated after Aristotle, that the speed of falling is proportional to the mass of the object. Although, in order to understand the error, it was enough for them to push a couple of stones off a cliff. Damn it, two thousand years!

As for the ships ...

Someone will argue that there is not enough volume inside the case. After all, the specific density of modern missiles is lower than that of artillery weapons of cruisers. Multi-ton guns and a powerful clank clash against half-empty starting cells. Solid mass of steel with a filling ratio of 2% versus cruise missiles made of aluminum and plastic.

The specific values ​​are highly unequal, and the density distribution is too heterogeneous.

Comparison of the density values ​​could still have some meaning, if the missiles were equal in mass to the artillery armament of the ships of the WWII era.

And the layout and placement of weapons would be the same.

But none of the above criteria is met. As we have already seen, the weapons of the modern destroyer weighs less than 2-3 (450 vs. 1246).

On the differences in the layout, you can add legends. To begin with, the massive towers of the cruisers were located outside the hull, above the upper deck. They did not occupy volumes inside the building (there will be a separate conversation about the cellars). How can we compare such structures with the underdeck UWP of modern ships?

The only thing that can be considered at this stage is the radius of knocking over the trunks. Comparing it with the size of the covers of the launch cells.

64-cell launcher covers an area of ​​55 square. m

Square overthrowing the trunks of the tower of the cruiser “M. Bitter ”was 300 square. meters!

The designers of those ships had real problems. It is not possible to place anything near the tower. Dead zone. Additional armament is only at the cost of lengthening the hull by tens of meters. Or limit the angles of pickup.

The tower is just the tip of the iceberg. Under it there is a turret compartment with drives, a cellar and an ammunition supply elevator.

According to the data from the presented scheme, the volume of the turret branch of the three-gun turret MK-3-180 was ~ 250 cube. m. (a pipe with a diameter of six meters, extending deep into the body on 9 meters).

Three towers of the main caliber - 750 cube. meters

The MK.41 launcher of the longest modification (Strike) has dimensions of 6,3x8,7x7,7 m. The volume of the lightweight truss is 420 cube. meters The armament of the destroyer consists of two DPS, one of which has twice the smaller capacity (32 cells).


Everything is too obvious here without a lot of calculations.


Total:

The volume occupied by the missile ammunition is on the order of 650 м3.

The volume of the three sub-compartments of the old cruiser is the 750 м3.

There are still willing to argue that modern missiles need more space inside the body?

For the sake of curiosity, I was offered to compare the volumes given for the placement of weapons on ships of similar size. This is a heavy nuclear cruiser of the 1144 Ave. and a battle cruiser Alaska.


Always surprised his height


The main armament of the Orlan is 12 of below-deck drum-type PUs for anti-aircraft missiles and 20 launchers for the Granit P-700 ASM.

The main caliber of “Alaska” - three three-gun turrets with 305 mm guns.

All other weapons (anti-aircraft guns and “Daggers”, seaplanes and helicopters) mutually reduce. In this matter, priority will be given to the main armament of ships.

On the basis of the presented schemes, it was concluded that 96 missiles of the C-300 complex occupy a volume approximately equal to 2800 m3, and as many more launchers for the Granites.

The volume of all three “Alaska” substated branches is 3600 м3.

5600 vs. 3600. The lead missile cruiser, his weapon takes up more space. But with a couple of reservations.

“Orlan” is a bad example when describing the current situation. The head "Kirov" was launched 40 years ago. The age of the project itself 1144 passed for half a century. TARKR was designed at a time when radio electronics occupied completely different volumes, technologies were less perfect, and rockets were larger.

Due to the absurd requirement to reduce the number of holes in the deck, the designers had to create rotating (!) Launchers that “compared to the MU 41 UHF cellular payload that appeared later in the US, with the same capacity, the 2-2,5 was heavier and their volume - 1,5 more times. ”

This is the answer: if we discuss prospects, it makes no sense to focus on Orlan. Modern weapons are smaller and take up much less space.

The very difference in 2 thousand "cubes" is negligible on the scale of a giant ship. By the most modest estimates, the volume of the Orlan’s hull exceeds 100 thousand cubic meters!

As for the equipment of combat posts, the conversation will be brief. We know that the hardware of the most complex C-300 complex is installed on a mobile chassis.

We know that the control panel for downloading flight tasks is located in the same container as the PU with “Caliber” (“Club” complex). The same “Gauges” are launched from tiny RTOs and corvettes, on board which there are no “giant halls with computing equipment”.



With the modern level of reliability of systems and mechanisms, as well as the lack of need for repairs in the open sea (maintenance only in the base, modular repairs), there was an opportunity for a global reduction of crews. The reference example is “Zamvolt”, which requires only 140 people to manage. For comparison, the crews of similar WWII cruiser displacement consisted of 1100-1500 people.

After all this, the “specialists” will tell you how demanding modern ships are in terms of volumes and what incredible efforts are required to accommodate modern equipment.

The main conclusions from these calculations are:

1. Missiles occupy a smaller volume than under-the-gun units of artillery ships.

2. The resulting difference means little. The internal volumes for weapons installations were insignificant and could not affect the overall architecture of the ship.

The appearance of warships is determined by completely different parameters.

For WWII cruisers - the placement of combat posts and weapons on a limited area of ​​the upper deck. The lower height of the freeboard was dictated by the weight of outdated mechanisms and armor - so that there was no place for reserves to build up the sides. However, the designers were much more concerned with the issue of the length of the power plant, associated with the need to ensure the speed of 35-40 knots. for large displacement ships.

In the design of modern destroyers, priority is given to things, to say the least, strange. For example, reduce visibility. In the desire to reduce the visibility there is nothing bad. Disguise - the basic principle of military science.

It is only unclear why to pile up a solid superstructure, trying to ensure a smooth transition of its walls to the freeboard. And combining gas ducts and antennas in its structures. Thousands of tons to the wind. Is it not easier to abandon the add-on at all - at least, modern technologies allow it.

Immense reserves allow us to embody all the ideas of designers. Thanks to the forecastle extended to the stern, it became possible to make all the decks parallel to the constructive waterline. This simplifies all calculations, communications, installation, installation and replacement of equipment.

But this aspect will remain relevant exactly as long as the ship is not opened fire in battle.

Author:
190 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mystery12345
    Mystery12345 16 January 2017 06: 42
    +13
    wow topic ... I even "hung up" thinking ... what
    1. avt
      avt 16 January 2017 10: 07
      +6
      Quote: Mystery12345
      wow topic ... I even "hung up" thinking ...

      laughing
      Because Kolya Taraskin is still young. And then, Kolya Taraskin does not know the 6 rules of Gleb Zheglov. You, so be it, I’ll say.
      Be careful with "hanging" - you will fall under the spell of Oleg's syllable and join the ranks of the adepts bully Just enjoy the syllable of the text.
      Quote: burigaz2010
      Hmm recognized the author without even reading the article!

      laughing Come on ! They probably read it
      Despite the global reduction in the mass of mechanisms and weapons, ships suffer from chronic "obesity." Analysis of the articles of the load indicates an inexplicable degradation of the fleet.
      80 years ago, the Maxim Gorky cruiser accounted for 15% of its standard displacement (1236 tons).
      In modern destroyers of the US Navy - only 6%. In absolute values ​​it is ~ 450 tons (missile launchers with ammunition, artillery, aircraft).
      bullyI stopped here, I realized - there’s no fantasy today. request
      1. Santa Fe
        16 January 2017 10: 33
        +7
        Kolya Taraskin, Zheglov, charm, adherents, fantasy, smiles in each line. In the discussion of the article about the Navy

        It was wonderful
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 16 January 2017 10: 43
          +10
          Is this a serious article about the Navy?
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 16 January 2017 12: 17
            +5
            This is an attempt to understand why the appearance of modern, warships is irrational.
            1. DrVintorez
              DrVintorez 16 January 2017 12: 56
              +5
              And who in general said that the appearance of modern ships is irrational? Maybe the other way around? For example, the author categorically asserts about the "underload" of modern ships, but the option of "overloading" the ships of the past is not even perceived. Could it be Iowa overloaded, not the eagle underutilized?
              1. seos
                seos 18 January 2017 02: 17
                +2
                In fact, it is clear that the modern look of warships is irrational, they are looking for new, more efficient structures (for example, American Zimvolt, Litra ships of a catamaran, etc.), the old concept of fleet development has become obsolete and it is already difficult to pull it into the concept of modern wars. The shape of the ships is gradually changing, helicopter hangars, vertical launch installations, radars with AFAR were added.
                Within 10-15 years, a new effective appearance of the modern ship will most likely be formed.
                1. yehat
                  yehat 22 March 2017 17: 13
                  0
                  Oleg discusses inefficiency within old forms.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 16 January 2017 13: 59
              +27
              Quote: Razvedka_Boem
              why the appearance of modern, warships is irrational.

              You tell the specialists of the Central Research Institute of Krylov. And we will listen to their friendly laughter!
              All forms, especially the underwater part of the ship, lick in the pool up to mm. There, wind loads are also studied ...
              So why is Kuzi a high board ??? - Well, damn it, super question, on 1 000 000! And somehow, their ears were bent, their eyes went down ... But about seaworthiness, who, Pushkin should think ... And the flooding of the upper deck for Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievich?
              It is now the PAD in a split second throws the KR / SAM 30 m upward, and in the 70s the P-500 launchers were "sent flying." Yes, and the P-700 are at an angle, although the start is wet.
              Now this is no longer there. Corvettes and frigates with the same bead height as the adversary.
              Then the super question: where did the thousands of tons of load on a modern ship go?
              I would like to ask a question to Oleg - Have you ever gone to the galley on the old artillery cruiser 68 bis? Lunch, dinner? No, there wasn’t! Because there was a tank system! And the lads slept in bunks in the 3 tier! and watched the film in the cubicles ... It’s better not to remember about the sailor’s bath, and you also had to do the washing ...
              And now! Cruise liner, damn it, not a Zerstehrer! We didn’t take a lot of weights, but the volumes of the ship premises were spent on everyday life. That's for sure. And what is most characteristic, it cannot be otherwise. The fleet is no longer galley, give everyone comfort, the 21st century is in the yard.
              By the height of the superstructure masts. Oleg, well, for the sake of decency, you would have walked through the English "Dragon" at least once. And then load everything into our garden! (Well, complete Kapets!)
              This is because Type 45 is a classic missile defense / air defense system. and he needs a pyramid that the Egyptian pharaohs in the next world envy. No, our architecture does not stop Oleg! Well, he does not like it when others have a beautiful, and not so clumsy as on "Long Beach" (rest him in Bose, Lord) was amerskoy.
              If these attempts to justify our shipbuilders' designers according to their architectural preferences are not pulled by a lawyer's feat, then I can only say one thing: academics know better. But the fact that our ships are the richest in weapons per ton of displacement is an indisputable fact. The Yankees themselves recognized him. Perhaps today, due to the technological breakthrough of the staff, we are inferior to them. But this business is fixable, and in the very near future. IMHO.
              1. Razvedka_Boem
                Razvedka_Boem 16 January 2017 16: 27
                +6
                You tell the specialists of the Central Research Institute of Krylov. And we will listen to their friendly laughter!

                If I see you, I’m interested. And Kaptsov writes, although emotionally, but interestingly. If you have something to tell you, write an article, what is there in the comment to get excited.
                With a knowledgeable person, it’s not a sin to learn and learn.
              2. yehat
                yehat 22 March 2017 17: 16
                0
                why is Long Beach clumsy? In my opinion, the layout is quite normal
            3. Prince of Pensions
              Prince of Pensions 20 January 2017 13: 40
              0
              rational. in the movie, all this is very personal.
        2. avt
          avt 16 January 2017 11: 39
          +10
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In discussion of an article on the Navy
          It was wonderful

          Oleg, well enough! Why discuss that ??? “The armor is strong-ah-ah, our battleships are fast”! ?? bully Well, this is a symbol of faith, but the symbol of faith is not discussed, they accept it or not. Well, Az was a sinful cynic, and for the time being no one recruited adherents. bully I'd rather wait for the fantasy of your pen. Well, zababan something, as already suggested, in the spirit of the world of the same thorn, "a lapse in time" and the defeat of the Japanese if not "Resilier" (which would surely warm my soul laughing ), then the four dreadnoughts "Petropavlovsk" - "Poltava" for sure, well, at least a fantasy where, instead of the third squadron in Tsushima, "Glory" with "Andrey" and "Pavel". This will be the plot! I really believe that work out.
          1. My address
            My address 16 January 2017 12: 39
            +15
            AVT!
            Sorry for the indiscreet question. Here I am wondering what you have proposed new? What, in your opinion, is the author wrong? I do not hear and do not see in the publications. And also for interest - and you know that no more than a third of well-thought-out ideas substantiated by specialists go into serious development? What of the serious developments in the experimental series / sample is again not more than a third? And yet, in response, do not poke me. Around And how. Production experience is not drunk.

            Citizens! Stop criticizing in order to show yourself! And then there are "creatives" all over the place, but there are not enough creators ...

            And the article is interesting.
            1. avt
              avt 16 January 2017 13: 13
              +8
              Quote: My address
              Sorry for the immodest question.

              Az pardoned, sleep well. bully
              Quote: My address
              So I wonder what you proposed new?

              Do you order the copyright certificate to lay out the times of work in the first specialty? Well, in the closed fund VNIIGP it remained, I didn’t receive it in my hands, and I seem to have skipped 25 rubles for it somewhere else in 1983.
              Quote: My address
              What, in your opinion, is the author wrong?

              Nothing, I don’t argue with sect followers, I’ve been able to get rid of myself when I try to recruit, and so I don’t have any desire for it.
              Quote: My address
              I do not hear and do not see in the publications.

              Byada-ah-ah-ah, well, if the comments for the publications are not counted, although since 2012 Chastsenko has been blaming me that I inflate the comments to the size of an article, Roman, benshi, "won't let him lie, he called them" megami "
              Quote: My address
              And yet, do not poke me in the answer. I have it. And how.

              laughing laughing Is it like “keep me seven?” The warning flag weighs on me, not on you. bully Like registration in 2013 passed and do not remember that hacked to death with such "beavers", you are no match. So sleep well dear friend for
              Quote: My address
              I have it. And how.

              don’t bother, Az sinner generally does not communicate with dogs on their sounds, barking, which is called in common people, nowhere, neither on the street, nor even more so I do not even know how on the Internet. bully
              Quote: My address
              but the creators are not enough ....

              You are our creator ... barking.
              Quote: My address
              And the article is interesting.

              Enjoy it. And Az will wait from Oleg
              Quote: avt
              I'd rather wait for the fantasy of your pen.
            2. Alex_59
              Alex_59 16 January 2017 13: 19
              +11
              Quote: My address
              Citizens! Stop criticizing in order to show yourself! And then there are "creatives" all over the place, but there are not enough creators ...
              And the article is interesting.

              90% of the population of our country every evening sits in sweatshirts and T-shirts in front of the TV and with glass eyes and open mouth watches an "interesting" series about cops on NTV. And as soon as you tell them that you are watching slag, both from a cultural and a technical point of view (well, there are no such cops as in TV shows!), They immediately respond in the same spirit: stop criticizing, and the series is interesting!

              Meanwhile, the series remains slag. So audience delight is not a criterion for product quality.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 16 January 2017 18: 51
                +3
                Quote: Alex_59
                90% of the population of our country every evening sits in sweatshirts and T-shirts in front of the TV and with glass eyes and open mouth watches an "interesting" series about cops on NTV. And as soon as you tell them that you are watching slag, both from a cultural and a technical point of view (well, there are no such cops as in TV shows!), They immediately respond in the same spirit: stop criticizing, and the series is interesting!

                Meanwhile, the series remains slag. So audience delight is not a criterion for product quality.

                Well, what do you explain without numbers wassat - according to Kaptsov, this is equivalent ... mmm ... winked ... near laughing (at least softer hi ) He disdainfully considers such explanations request wassat And, therefore, do not convince adherents what wink
            3. Walking
              Walking 16 January 2017 16: 48
              +6
              Quote: My address
              AVT!
              Sorry for the indiscreet question. Here I am wondering what you have proposed new? What, in your opinion, is the author wrong? I do not hear and do not see in the publications. And also for interest - and you know that no more than a third of well-thought-out ideas substantiated by specialists go into serious development? What of the serious developments in the experimental series / sample is again not more than a third? And yet, in response, do not poke me. Around And how. Production experience is not drunk.

              Citizens! Stop criticizing in order to show yourself! And then there are "creatives" all over the place, but there are not enough creators ...

              And the article is interesting.


              All that had to be said, Oleg has already been told or do you think this article is the first. Articles by Oleg Kaptsov are recognized from the first lines and often it is written about the same in other words only.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2017 15: 34
            +8
            Quote: avt
            Oleg, well, complete! What to discuss then?

            I agree! Again weights and loads. But the title of the article promised a talk about combat use (Cruiser and destroyer. Battle rules.), But it turned out again - a box, 5 course.
            Although it is understandable: write about what you know. Then at least it will be possible to answer questions.
            IMHO.
          3. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 16 January 2017 18: 59
            +2
            Quote: avt
            Well, this is a symbol of faith, but the symbol of faith is not discussed, they accept it or not.

            Plus, the dandy yes good
            Quote: avt
            I'd rather wait for the fantasy of your pen. Well, zababan something, as already suggested, in the spirit of the world of the same thorn, "a lapse in time" and the defeat of the Japanese, if not "Reshilje" (which would surely warm my soul laughing), then a four dreadnoughts "Petropavlovsk" - "Poltava" for sure, well, at least a fantasy where, instead of the third squadron in Tsushima, "Glory" with "Andrey" and "Pavel". This will be the plot

            Lublu fiction fantastic mana drinks good Toka "Richelieu" not abijay mana - ana the beautiful drinks
            1. avt
              avt 16 January 2017 19: 16
              +3
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Toka "Richelieu" not abijay mana - ana the beautiful

              That you sho-oh-oh-oh-oh! And the thoughts did not boil! I really want Oleg Tsushima to play a fantasy with Richelieu, then for sure no one will object! Yes, Andrei is from Chelyabinsk and we will not demand to include all aircraft carriers in the narrationbully drinks
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 16 January 2017 19: 24
                +2
                Quote: avt
                I really want Oleg Tsushima to beat “Richelieu” in fantasy, that's when no one will object for sure!

                Um ... what Given Kaptsov’s writing talents, such an idea is not without meaning winked The question is small - will Kaptsov break into this creation? request
                Quote: avt
                Yes, Andrei is from Chelyabinsk, and we will not require all aircraft carriers to include in the story

                This is true if you follow the canon of battle yes
                I personally am interested in the question of when we read the last chapter about the battle in the Yellow Sea. Something Andrei Kolobov has not been heard for a long time what .
                1. avt
                  avt 16 January 2017 19: 26
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  I personally am interested in the question of when we read the last chapter about the battle in the Yellow Sea. Something Andrei Kolobov has not been heard for a long time

                  request Wait, all the same holidays. laughing
              2. Taoist
                Taoist 17 January 2017 15: 07
                +1
                Objection ... as without aircraft carriers, as well as a tank and battleships? This is no longer "fantasy of the steampunk era" ... ;-)
          4. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 January 2017 19: 11
            +3
            Quote: avt
            Well, zababan something, as already suggested, in the spirit of the world of the same thorn, "a lapse in time" and the defeat of the Japanese, if not "Reshilje" (which would surely warm my soul laughing), then the four dreadnoughts, , Poltava "for sure, well, at least a fantasy where instead of the third squadron in Tsushima" Glory "with" Andrey "and" Pavel ".

            Duc ... The first option is Marty Stew in its purest form. Type of the post-war USSR, suddenly transported to 22.06.41. He came, he saw, heaped. smile
            And the second ... it depends on which crews "Slava" and "Andrei" will be in the 3rd TOE with. If these are commands arr. 1904, and collected after the 2nd TOE took the best - I'm afraid little will change. To take full advantage of all the advantages of the "Borodino" and "Andreichs", we need teams arr. 1912 year. Either Baltic or Black Sea. sad
            1. avt
              avt 16 January 2017 19: 17
              +2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              and those collected after the best were sent to the 2nd TOE - I'm afraid little will change. Here we need commands arr. 1912 year.

              No problem . Oleg will take into account and write.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 16 January 2017 19: 22
                +3
                Quote: avt
                No problem . Oleg will take into account and write.

                Giggles ... I remembered how Glebich wrote "Varyag the winner".
                - To continue playing the battle, we again urgently need the commander of the Japanese fleet.
                - Shaw, again ?! This is already the third!
                - Duc, the first two could not stand it. We have been modeling this fight for several weeks ...

                And all this - under the fierce fire of riveters and other archivists. smile
          5. Taoist
            Taoist 17 January 2017 15: 03
            0
            So I'm still waiting for something in the spirit of "Huge black ship" ... Maybe the style and syllable are all there. And engineering calculations can well, well, well, they don't go and don't need ... ;-)
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 16 January 2017 13: 17
          +9
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          In discussion of an article on the Navy
          It was wonderful

          Cruiser and destroyer. Battle rules

          And by the announcement of the article, Oleg, could anything be written? I’m very interested in the RULES of BATTLE of modern destroyers and cruisers!
          That would be wonderful!
          1. Sofa expert
            Sofa expert 16 January 2017 13: 46
            0
            I agree to all 146%
        4. ben gun
          ben gun 16 January 2017 17: 09
          0
          The designer’s soul can’t stand another five such articles, but she carries me to the textbooks of marine shipbuilding. While holding on
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 16 January 2017 18: 20
            +1
            Quote: ben gun
            While holding on

            RELEASE KRAKEN !!!
        5. KaPToC
          KaPToC 16 January 2017 22: 55
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It was wonderful

          And you don’t think that such a buoyancy reserve - a multiple of several times the displacement - does this primarily ensure combat stability?
    2. the most important
      the most important 16 January 2017 12: 51
      0
      Quote: Mystery12345
      wow topic ... I even "hung up" thinking ...

      Some time ago, for a discussion, I suggested, as one of the types of development of the fleet, this is a symbiosis of a surface ship and a submarine. In the stowed position it is a submarine, in the surface or underwater state, and if necessary, it is ascended, space target designation antennas are advanced and rocket salvo is carried out. What weapons of a modern surface ship cannot be placed in the hull of a submarine? An aircraft carrier, of course, will not be able to, but everything else is quite real.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 13: 34
        +2
        If you wish, you can also push an aircraft carrier into a submarine (there were such pictures on the Internet). And you get a bad submarine. The first Soviet submarines with the Kyrgyz Republic were built on this principle (for example, pr. 651). They swam in, put forward antennas and launchers, carried out the preparation and launch of missiles. Subsequently, this idea was abandoned as a vicious one.
        1. the most important
          the most important 16 January 2017 21: 36
          0
          Quote: spravochnik
          you will get a bad submarine.

          An attack aircraft will never become a fighter ... A new submarine "destroyer" or "cruiser" is somewhat different than just a submarine. What prevents the installation of anti-aircraft missiles on a submarine and ensuring the defense of Syria from the west being on the surface and having space target designation? The need has disappeared - they went under the water and let the probable friends go crazy with the unknown. What's the difference with which rockets to load vertical shafts? The entire ammunition reserve of Peter the Great can be displayed evenly, but what secrecy! And the size will obviously be much smaller. How many times will a PoE be detected if it heads towards the states? And a completely different thing with a submarine.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 16 January 2017 23: 08
            +2
            Quote: the most important
            What hinders

            There are several objections here.
            Such a submarine will lose the main advantage of submarines - invisibility, even in the underwater position, because it will VERY shallow to dive.
            It makes no sense to bother with retractable antennas, the range of cruise missiles is such that external target designation is still necessary.
            Quote: the most important
            The entire ammunition reserve of Peter the Great can be displayed evenly, but what secrecy!

            The entire ammunition stock of Peter the Great's cruise missiles is perfectly accommodated by Antey-class submarine cruisers.
      2. Duke
        Duke 16 January 2017 17: 50
        +3
        Project 1231 experimental small submersible rocket ship (other names project 1231 "Dolphin", diving missile-carrying boat, design experiment: high-speed boat - submarine) - being developed in the 1930 — 1960's in the USSR, a fundamentally new type of ships (rocket-carrying hybrid of a surface ship in the form of a high-speed hydrofoil and submarine boat) brought to high level of design sophistication. According to Aframeev and Shirokorad, the reason for the development of the ship was not the real military need and effectiveness of the hybrid, but Khrushchev's personal desire as the country's political leader and, to some extent, the excitement of designers in solving such an unusual task. According to the basic idea, it was supposed to be a missile boat, capable of diving and moving under water, which would provide greater stealth compared to conventional combat boats at a higher surface speed than conventional submarines. The development of the diving boat was carried out in the period from January 1959 of the year to the end of 1964 of the year and was discontinued at the stage of the technical project due to the lack of prospects for implementation.

  2. burigaz2010
    burigaz2010 16 January 2017 06: 49
    +10
    Hmm recognized the author without even reading the article! Although Oleg is right in some ways, armor on a modern ship is needed!
    1. smershxnumx
      smershxnumx 16 January 2017 10: 32
      +4
      Hmm recognized the author without even reading the article!


      It's hard not to recognize laughing Well this is about armor ... laughing Rather, her absence ... wassat
  3. Alex_59
    Alex_59 16 January 2017 07: 19
    +19
    The volume occupied by missile ammunition is about 650 m3
    The volume of the three turret compartments of the old cruiser - 750 m3

    the cruiser “Maxim Gorky” was armed with 15% of its standard displacement (1236 tons).
    Modern Navy destroyers have only 6%. In absolute terms, this is ~ 450 tons (missile launchers with ammunition, artillery, aviation).

    Total: 450t / 650m3 = 623 kg / m3 in the modern destroyer and 1236t / 750m3 = 1648 kg / m3. And after that, the author still wonders
    There are still willing to argue that modern missiles need more space inside the body?

    So what was the allocated reserve spent on?
    So many writings, instead of taking literature and spending 5 minutes reading, instead of knocking on the clave:
    So, the appearance of rocket weapons and
    dioelectronic means
    niya on the design problems of such ships,
    like AVK, DK, TSCH, IPC, TKA and a number of others, not
    rendered. At the same time, the appearance of multi-purpose ships
    lei of the class CR, EM and SCR under their influence
    began to change rapidly. Equipping them with rocket
    weapons and electronic means
    required new approaches to issues
    their general location. On these ships, with
    maintaining the relative mass of ammunition at
    previous level, ammunition cellar volumes
    increased by 2.5-3 times compared with the ship-
    The people from the 50's So, for example, specific
    the volume of cellars 130-mm artillery battle
    the pass was only 5.5 m3 / t, and the zenith cellar
    Ny missiles already more than 15 mZ / t. Of course, design
    AVK by domestic designers
    It caused certain difficulties, but in theory
    In terms of plan, all fundamental issues are
    whether the difficulties were clear and caused only that
    "invented" by the leaders of the Navy (placement
    special gas vent devices, anti-ship missiles,
    EW facilities, the flagship command post and
    etc.).
    In the same period, the need for
    spare for the placement of management posts
    Plexi weapons and weapons. As a result
    this relative volume of premises occupied
    payload has grown 1.5-2 times and
    pitchfork to 30-40% of the total body volume with superstructure-
    Coy (table 8.3). And up to 30% of this volume
    already accounted for in the ammunition cellar (up to 12%
    total ship volume). With a significant increase
    specific payload
    a sharp increase in body volume
    the rabble, and therefore, increased and his
    total weight from 42-43% to 52-57% (table
    8.2). In the end, all this led to
    that the side height and dimensions of the steel superstructures
    increase rapidly. Moreover, rocket-
    rowing, due to the large size of the missiles, not only
    did not fit below the waterline, which
    she was an indispensable condition of location
    artillery cellars, but also in some cases
    went to the upper deck. This led to
    which is already more than 40% of the length of the ship occupied
    explosive rooms.
    In order to facilitate hull structures
    during this period, widespread
    whether aluminum alloys from which we made
    masts, superstructures, partitions and various
    Sewing on large NK. (In the domestic fleet
    only in the 80's was it decided to pre-
    reduced use of aluminum alloys
    in hull structures due to their fire hazard
    news).
    V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky
    USSR NAVAL NAVY
    1945 – 1991
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2017 07: 32
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      Total: 450t / 650m3 = 623 kg / m3 in the modern destroyer and 1236t / 750m3 = 1648 kg / m3. And after that, the author still wonders

      The author replied in black and white:

      Comparison of the density values ​​could still have some meaning, if the missiles were equal in mass to the artillery armament of the ships of the WWII era.

      For the most gifted -
      three times less weight with less than three times the density gives the same volume


      Yet?
      1236 tons is not just the GK towers. This is all the weapons of the cruiser - 6x100 mm universal, anti-aircraft guns, torpedoes, catapult and seaplane. However, this does not prevent you from counting numbers up to the sign, but above this I always laugh
      Quote: Alex_59
      V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky
      USSR NAVAL NAVY
      1945 – 1991

      I do not consider ships built 60's.
      There were completely different radars, a type of remote control of missiles, other computers, posts, girder launchers and bulky missiles

      What would Kuzin and Nikolsky say when they saw the "Caliber" container complex?

      behind the door with a porthole - control cabin, a photo of which is in the article
      Quote: Alex_59
      instead of taking the literature and spending 5 minutes reading

      You spent them, but as you can see, I did not understand anything
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 16 January 2017 08: 35
        +14
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I do not consider ships built 60's.
        There were completely different radars, a type of remote control of missiles, other computers, posts, girder launchers and bulky missiles

        Horror, horror! Bulky missiles, bulky launchers, bulky computers.
        Meanwhile, in the United States, after replacing the Mk26 beam-type launcher with the modern Mk41 on the Ticonderoga missile launcher, the volumes occupied by them have not changed - in a mysterious way. What has changed? The ammunition load of the old Mk26 was 44 missiles, and the new Mk41 - 61 missiles. When improving technology, designers when choosing what to improve - volumes or ammunition? - choose the latter. And this is correct, since no one needs volume reduction. While maintaining unchanged volumes and masses, the ammunition load of the Ticonderoga missile system increased by 38% during the transition to the UVPU, the permissible maximum size of missiles increased from 5,1 to 6,4 meters. Thus, the mass-dimensional improvement of equipment is transformed not into a decrease in volumes, but into the acquisition of new combat qualities and capabilities.

        I will ignore spitting in authoritative sailor authors from the side of Comrade Kaptsov (who suits him as great-grandchildren), as well as switching to personalities - you need to be higher than that.
        1. rasteer
          rasteer 16 January 2017 09: 50
          +4
          And how does your answer contradict Kaptsov?
          He writes about bulky beam PUs and less voluminous but more functional UVP.
          You are in contrast to the fact that when upgrading the Ticonderogo, more missiles fit into the same volume.
          That's how they say and talked.
        2. Santa Fe
          16 January 2017 10: 14
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          launcher beam type Mk26 on modern Mk41, the volume occupied by them has not changed - in a mysterious way.

          Mysterious?

          Installing the Mk.41 is twice as light as its predecessor (117 vs. 265 tons, “dry weight” without rockets). Energy consumption decreased 2,5 times (200 instead of 495 kW in peak mode, due to the lack of the need to move the missiles and rotate the “stand” of the launcher). The number of seafarers to maintain and control the installation was halved (10 instead of 20).

          The overall dimensions of 64-cell UVC are 8,7 x 6,3 x 7,7 m. For comparison, the length of the beam MK.26 Mod.2 exceeded 12 meters. The depth and width of the rocket cellar roughly corresponded to the DPS.

          Yes, I completely forgot. This version of UVP is designed for longer (+ 1 meters) and heavy (by 2 times) new-generation missiles - space interceptors and Tomahawks.
          Quote: Alex_59
          In this way, the mass-dimensional improvement of technology is transformed not into a reduction in volume, but into the acquisition of new combat qualities and capabilities.

          Your personal fantasies

          In fact - the reduction of volumes and weights, with an increase in BC
          Quote: Alex_59
          Spitting into reputable seaman authors

          Come on without it

          As far as I understand, questions on volumes were withdrawn
          I didn’t even argue about reducing the mass and volume of REO
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 16 January 2017 11: 27
            +9
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The depth and width of the rocket cellar roughly corresponded to the DPS.

            Key phrase.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Installing Mk.41 is twice as light as its predecessor (117 vs 265 tons

            + 1 to my calculations. While maintaining the below deck volume, the mass decreased by 2 times. 117 tons / 422 m3 = 275 kg / m3. And with Mk26 it was 265 / 422 m3 = 627 kg / m3. Those. Kuzin and Nikolsky wrote everything correctly. Well, that’s logical, people have been designing real warships all their lives, unlike the author.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In fact - the reduction of volumes and weights, with an increase in BC

            Deck volume has not changed. Weight has decreased. The specific gravity has decreased. BC - has grown.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Come on without it

            And let's do it. How many ships have you designed, what scientific works on the problems of military shipbuilding can you boast of? Zero? Well, calm down. Right now, of course, there will be blah blah blah about mediocre scientists and engineers who have been building ships for years burning like matches from unexploded exosets, etc. Not convincing. Engineers are building, but they are mistaken, and you only post pictures on VO, so do not make people laugh.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I didn’t even argue about reducing the mass and volume of REO

            Every time you leave the discussion (and you always do it earlier, apparently because of "time to work") I can insert such a phrase for self-affirmation. Like, he stopped talking - it means a drain. Isn't that funny yourself? To argue with each phrase - just VO is not enough.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 January 2017 11: 44
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              The depth and width of the rocket cellar roughly corresponded to the DPS.
              Key phrase.

              What is the key phrase?

              About the length did not notice? 6 instead of 12 meters
              Quote: Alex_59
              Underdeck volume has not changed.

              Something completely puts you
              Quote: Alex_59
              Not convincing. Engineers build, but they are mistaken, and you only post pictures on the BO

              And you can't even read the three lines
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 16 January 2017 12: 25
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                About the length did not notice? 6 instead of 12 meters

                You first decide where your length is and where its width. Mk41 has a length of 8,7, a width of 6,3 meters.
                Oh well. So say the length was reduced? So from 12 to 8,7. OK.
                Mk41 8,7x6,3x7,7 = 422 m3, specific gravity 117 / 422 = 277 kg / m3
                Mk26 12x6,3x7,7 = 582m3, specific gravity 265 / 582 = 455 kg / m3
                One FIG MKNUMX specific gravity with the transition to newer technology is falling. Those. at the same weight requires a larger volume. But by itself, with the same volume - it weighs less. Well so I always said that the deficit is volume, not weight. Armadillos were in short supply. What has changed? Nothing.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                And you can't even read the three lines

                I can. I am not a brilliant "designer of invincible-armored-electronic warfare cruisers", I am an ordinary mediocre radio engineer. smile But you should not be confused with the length and width. Wrong level. A person mixing with the dust of Cousin with Nikolsky cannot confuse such things. This is impossible, geniuses are not mistaken.
                1. brn521
                  brn521 16 January 2017 18: 47
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  But by itself, with the same volume - it weighs less

                  So the main theme of the author has long been directed towards. Once upgraded with less weight, then let's spend this weight on steel armor. But only with such dimensions of the surface part, it turns out either the thickness of a roofing sheet, or the size of a fig leaf, which the author is very dissatisfied with.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 17 January 2017 07: 01
                    +2
                    Quote: brn521
                    Once upgraded with less weight, then let's spend this weight on steel armor.

                    So they do so. There is infa that Mk41 is armored. And judging by the data on the thickness of the armor in 2 - 2,5 inches, it turns out exactly to save weight between Mk26 and Mk41. True armor in 2,5 inches will protect only from getting exoset. But there is no need for more protection - the main thing is to protect yourself from the Papuans who bought these Exocetos (from the same capitalists), and something more serious does not appear in their hands - they will not sell. If it comes to war with the Russian Federation and Granite or Onyx arrives, such armor will not save. But there will be no war with Russia. Businessmen are not suicides - they want to live, and live well.
                    1. brn521
                      brn521 17 January 2017 11: 25
                      0
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      So they do so. There is infa that the MK41 is armored.

                      But, as I understand it, Kaptsova does not satisfy such armor at all. He wants an armored belt and an armored deck instead of local protection. For the sake of what he proposes to put the surface of the ships under the press to reduce the size of the protected elements to acceptable. On this topic, in fact, stuck.
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      True, 2,5-inch armor will only protect against getting exoset.

                      Well, that's great. Protection against weak missiles, from large fragments, from the shock wave of thermobaric warheads. From accidents, finally.
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      If it comes to war with the Russian Federation and Granite or Onyx arrives

                      These Granites with Onyx are armed with a gulkin nose. Therefore, the chance to catch a direct hit directly to the launcher is small. These missiles are expensive, so almost any air defense is justified. Those. the states will prefer to rivet anti-missiles and equipment on such missiles for more accurate detection and interception.
                    2. Santa Fe
                      17 January 2017 22: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Alex_59
                      There is info that Mk41 is armored.

                      No such information






                      https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-s
                      trike.pdf
                      1. Alex_59
                        Alex_59 18 January 2017 15: 49
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        No such information

                        Oh, nifiga, life is still warming here, I thought everyone had already gone to drink beer, it turned out that they were still scribbling answers. laughing
                        Well, by the expression "there is infa" I meant that it is supposed. A number of publications have suggested that the Mk41 on the Berks is covered by local armor about 2 inches thick. Naturally, I am not saying that this is the case. This may not be true.
    2. DanSabaka
      DanSabaka 16 January 2017 08: 04
      +8
      and also, the size of the rooms was increased to improve the comfort of the combat and social life of the crew .... saunas, gyms, etc. appeared on the warships ...
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 13: 53
        +2
        I immediately recall an example from the 30s. European and American shipbuilders have always wondered why, with the same, and often less displacement, Japanese EMs had more powerful weapons. Then they found out that the Japanese sailors slept in hammocks at their fighting posts, and they prepared food in the usually field kitchen.
        And as for Kaptsov. Well, a person is not used to operating relative values ​​(unit weight, unit volume and others like them), although it is they that give the most objective picture.
    3. brn521
      brn521 16 January 2017 18: 36
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      At the same time, the appearance of multi-purpose ships
      lei of the class CR, EM and SCR under their influence
      began to change rapidly. Equipping them with rocket
      weapons and electronic means
      required new approaches to issues
      their general location.

      Well, where would I read it, if not for Kaptsov :)
  4. Alex 2016
    Alex 2016 16 January 2017 07: 19
    +2
    An interesting article. I would like to see the arguments of the opponents of this opinion. With real arguments. And I always wondered where the armor from the warships had gone.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 16 January 2017 08: 14
      +8
      where did the armor from the warships go?
      The armor from warships was supplanted by the exorbitant size and weight of the first computers and missiles. After that, when a fantastic future struck in the head, in missile wars and the atomic Apocalypse, it was considered that since armor would not save from a nuclear torpedo (or anti-ship missile), it was not needed in the Navy. The fact that not every torpedo (or anti-ship missile system) will have a nuclear warhead, and even more so, not for every ship and not in every clash, was not taken into account. All supporters of "cardboard" sides and the indestructibility of heavy anti-ship missiles should be told that even with a direct hit by a heavy anti-ship missile (which, by the way, our sworn partner-friends do not have), there will be a big difference on how long it will take to sink a damaged armored ship and an unarmored one , in a couple of minutes, or there will be more time to rescue the crew. Finally, there is a big difference in how many sailors will die instantly when a ship is hit, five to ten, or practically the entire crew. This is in the case of a fatal defeat, but it is not a fact that there are no modern technologies to create effective, comprehensive protection from passive and active armor, electronic warfare and air defense systems. It makes no sense to advocate for a literal understanding of booking, using the example of battleships of bygone eras, but it is necessary to pay attention to the survivability of a warship, and if booking helps here, it must be done, especially since rocket weapons and modern electronics have become much more compact, and tonnage appeared.
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 16 January 2017 13: 33
        0
        And if you hit even light anti-ship missiles with a sap undermining, there will be no difference, the ship’s 10mm or 500mm armored belt.
  5. Santa Fe
    16 January 2017 07: 47
    +4
    V.P. Kuzin, V.I. Nikolsky
    USSR NAVAL NAVY
    1945 – 1991


    The data from this book is outdated
    They do not describe the shadow solutions used on ships built in the last 15-20 years.

    Among those:

    - multifunctional radar systems that combine the functions of survey radars and programming of autopilot rockets

    - anti-aircraft missiles with active seeker → no need for additional backlight radars

    - vertical launchers of cellular type → in 1,5 times smaller volume with the same ammunition

    - progress in computing (The Laws of Mur is an empirical observation, originally made by Gordon Moore, according to which the performance of a computer doubles every 24 of a month.)

    - progress in the field of power plants. Instead of boilers and low efficiency - compact turbines

    - multiple reduction of crews (about this in detail in the article)

    - the complete disappearance of girder launchers for missiles, such systems are recognized as deeply obsolete
    __________________________________________

    So it’s strange in 2017 to refer to a book in which ships of half a century old are described


    Antenna post "Yatagan" control system of the anti-aircraft complex "Volna" (late 50s)


    Systems of the cruiser "Albany" (USA, 1960s) - giant SPG-49 illumination radars, girder launchers of the Talos air defense missile system, all this in comparison with sailor figures

    HAVE YOU SEEN SUCH ON MODERN ESSENTIALS?

    Missile storage of the American atomic cruiser Long Beach (the missiles were stored unassembled and assembled on the conveyor before launch)
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 11: 23
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      - progress in the field of power plants. Instead of boilers and low efficiency - compact turbines

      I would not like to interfere in your disputes.
      The photo is an interesting, not often found, power plant of Zumwalt, two of them give almost 80 MW, the electronic equipment on Zumwalt also takes up a lot of space, but the capabilities exceed the ships of the 60s by hundreds of times.
      The single I&C of the ship includes 16 hardware modules (EME - Electronic Modular Enclosure) of four types, depending on the MGH. They consist of a set of PPC7A and PPC7D cell servers with common software and a standard "commercial interface". The total number of server racks is 236, and the number of processor devices is 327. The system as a whole includes up to 1890 network devices. Hardware modules, developed specifically for installation on EM type "Zamvolt", are essentially containers of four types of various sizes, in which racks with cell servers. These are mini-containers measuring 5,50x2,13x2,27 m, small - 7,62x3,6x2,27 m, medium - 9,14x3,6x2,27 m and large - 10,67x3,6x2,27 m.


      It is unlikely that a destroyer 60-s could monitor the situation on the entire globe
      1. Santa Fe
        16 January 2017 11: 46
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        It is unlikely that a destroyer 60-s could monitor the situation on the entire globe

        Is this a destroyer mission?
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 13: 00
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Is this a destroyer mission?

          And in the case of world domination? I didn’t set these tasks, they are only going to shoot a gun at 200 km.
          The network-centric principle is one of the key in the military reform that the Pentagon has been pursuing since the 1990s. According to this principle, the command, as well as each unit on the battlefield, each tank, and even each soldier will be integrated into one information network, exchange information, receive all necessary information about the enemy, which should increase the combat effectiveness of both the entire army and each of its component.

          Automation of the ship led to a reduction in personnel and, consequently, to cost savings, according to Zumwalt they plan to save 11 million annually.
          My philistine opinion, if you wish, it is quite possible to book if there is a need.
          Here is some more interesting information.
          The presence of protective containers allows use on ships commercial electronics and commercial standards instead of expensive electronics, previously developed specifically for military needs individually for each ship. For example, on battleships of the "Iowa" type, when firing the main battery, all non-combat electronic systems had to be turned off in order to avoid damage to their hardware. Separate combat electronic systems had protection against shock and vibration, which increased their MGH, purchase cost, labor intensity of maintenance and, accordingly, its cost. The open architecture of building modules and the use of commercial standards allow, if necessary, to reconfigure containers for specific requirements (to apply them to other NK and GS), which reduces the purchase cost and the cost of modernization, and also simplifies system testing.

          Zumwalt does not bury, it looks like the bulb does not allow, it goes beautifully.
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 16 January 2017 13: 59
            +3
            Zumwalt does not bury, it looks like the bulb does not allow, it goes beautifully
            If he buried in such a flurry, It would be a complete disaster.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 16: 25
              0
              Quote: spravochnik
              That would be a complete disaster.

              And in your disaster but do not suck?
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 16 January 2017 17: 43
                +1
                And in my opinion, such a form in terms of seaworthiness is very far from optimal.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 18: 11
                  0
                  Quote: spravochnik
                  And in my opinion, such a form in terms of seaworthiness is very far from optimal.

                  You know better, I'm far from shipbuilding, but I would like to see how Zumwalt will go with decent excitement.
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 16 January 2017 07: 59
    +11
    The author most likely never went on ships. Otherwise, he would not have written nonsense about a "barrel of water". When performing a combat mission in "fresh weather", the ship takes tens of tons of water on the deck, and not some kind of "barrel". And he probably has no idea what the seaworthiness of the ship is and how it differs from the state of the sea and how it is connected with the use of weapons and maneuvering. If he knew that, he probably would not have written all this nonsense. Although ... Indeed, in the world maritime literature, the idea has been widely circulated recently that the "ideal" ship of the future will be a submarine armed with all kinds of weapons and drones .... However, everything depends on the price and autonomy. Semi-submerged vessels do not have advantages over conventional vessels precisely because they experience a stronger impact of the environment, especially in terms of the use of weapons, than surface vessels and are more difficult to operate.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 16 January 2017 08: 27
      +1
      The author went on ships
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 16 January 2017 08: 49
        +7
        Quote: Tlauicol
        The author went on ships

        The author did not go on ships. The author went on ships. smile And these are two big differences.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 16 January 2017 09: 34
          +10
          Dear Alex, every ship is a ship, but, in fact, not every ship is a ship, for example, small boats, and, "duck" under the bed. Allegations about "walking" and sailing, ship and ship, have long been the subject of controversy, but in fact, everything rests on protrusion over the "land" and salads. Try to tell the combat swimmers that they only swim in the ice-hole, or that circumnavigation is a circumnavigation. There is a metacentric height of a ship, but there is no metacentric height of a ship; there was and is a shipbuilding industry and shipbuilding programs, including the military. One can argue for a long time, but once what was said became a tradition, moreover, in violation of all the logic and rules of the Russian language. If you look at similar topics in the British or other navy, there is no such crap. Thank God that pilots are still flying, not walking in the sky, and they don't have much of a difference in an aircraft and a ship. As far as I understand, Oleg is no stranger to our fleet, and he saw the sea not only in the picture.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 16 January 2017 09: 52
            +7
            Quote: Per se.
            As I understand it, Oleg is not a stranger to our fleet, and the sea was not only seen in the picture.

            The ship is military, the ship is civilian. Oleg once said that he worked on a seiner. Those. not on a warship. For work on the fisherman Oleg - exceptional respect and respect. hi
            But he doesn’t write about the fishing fleet.
            1. spravochnik
              spravochnik 16 January 2017 14: 10
              +1
              Speaking of birds. And why not Oleg, as a specialist, write an article about a significant increase in the volume of the surface hull and superstructures of modern fishing vessels.
            2. mmaxx
              mmaxx 16 January 2017 17: 03
              +2
              Yes. The fisherman is twice a sailor.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 16 January 2017 14: 05
            +2
            There is a metacentric height of the ship, but there is no metacentric height of the ship, there was and is a shipbuilding industry and shipbuilding programs, including military ones.

            Here you are completely wrong. There is a concept of "metacentric height", and then they write what it is applied to. There is a concept of "shipbuilding programs".
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 17 January 2017 00: 34
              0
              Quote: spravochnik
              Here you are completely wrong.
              Well, I’ll say a little differently, each ship has a "Ship (or Watchtower) Log", each ship has a "Rynda" - a ship's bell. In general, one of the meanings of the word, ship, is a large ship, military or civil. As I said, there is no point in arguing, every ship is a ship, but not every ship is a ship.
        2. mmaxx
          mmaxx 16 January 2017 17: 06
          0
          In general, I like the way the warriors grabbed the name of the ship. With such a fright? Not so long ago there was no difference. In here - military - first grade. The rest are on ships, the third.
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 16 January 2017 18: 49
            0
            If you strictly approach, then the ship was called exclusively a vessel with full sailing armament-frigate. Frigate = ship.
      2. avt
        avt 16 January 2017 10: 51
        +1
        Quote: Tlauicol
        The author went on ships

        Yeah yeah ???? So he turns out to be who the author is!
        Quote: Tlauicol
        tlauicol

        And I thought a sinful thing
        SWEET_SIXTEEN

        bully
  7. Pbs
    Pbs 16 January 2017 08: 21
    +11
    The author wants to teach experts how to build ships? So let him go to the specialists, they will explain to him where he is wrong. The author wants to get an answer where he is wrong from non-specialists? So why should non-specialists deal with this nonsense? Right, no reason. Conclusion: ignore how tired - he will stop.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 16 January 2017 08: 31
      +2
      What will we read? Fomenkovtsev and Slavic nationalists?
      1. Dekabrist
        Dekabrist 16 January 2017 09: 41
        +2
        You can antifomenkovtsev and Normans.
  8. Old26
    Old26 16 January 2017 08: 27
    +8
    I read Oleg's article and left some kind of ambivalent feeling from it. On the one hand, the author has done some analytical work, finding certain TTX among the mass and comparing them. On the other hand, these are by no means indisputable statements. And sometimes one gets the impression that Oleg's comparisons are solely for comparisons, for "tsifirek"

    Here are a few examples:
    80 years ago, the Maxim Gorky cruiser accounted for 15% of its standard displacement (1236 tons).

    In modern destroyers of the US Navy - only 6%. In absolute values ​​it is ~ 450 tons (missile launchers with ammunition, artillery, aircraft).

    Even if we agree with the data given by Oleg, what does it give? It is not clear what conclusion the author makes. At the same time, completely ignoring the fact that the firing range of the cruiser "Maxim Gorky" is not commensurate with the range of the destroyer's weapons. In addition, in order to hit a certain hypothetical target, the cruiser may need to fire fifty shells, and the destroyers - one missile. It is not entirely clear why these comparisons are made. Conclusions are not visible.

    Next

    Steers like to watch the ocean sunset from a height of a 9-storey building. But why is this warship? In the era of 60-inch LCD monitors and high-definition cameras cameras with the ability to work in the thermal range?

    Perfectly. And what will the helmsman do if these monitors fail, for example, are removed by an electromagnetic pulse? Or will the cameras be swept away by fragments? What will he do then with these "dead" screens?

    In the design of modern destroyers, priority is given to things, to say the least, strange. For example, reduce visibility. In the desire to reduce the visibility there is nothing bad. Disguise - the basic principle of military science.

    It is only unclear why to pile up a solid superstructure, trying to ensure a smooth transition of its walls to the freeboard. And combining gas ducts and antennas in its structures. Thousands of tons to the wind. Is it not easier to abandon the add-on at all - at least, modern technologies allow it.

    Just a smooth transition from the walls to the side, the lack of angles leads to a decrease in visibility, as I understand it. So this is the situation here. You must pay for stealth. It is probably possible to abandon the add-on, but what will it give, what is the gain, of course, except for the weight of the structures?

    For the sake of curiosity, I was offered to compare the volumes given for the placement of weapons on ships of similar size. This is a heavy nuclear cruiser of the 1144 Ave. and a battle cruiser Alaska.

    The main armament of the Orlan is 12 of below-deck drum-type PUs for anti-aircraft missiles and 20 launchers for the Granit P-700 ASM.

    The main caliber of “Alaska” - three three-gun turrets with 305 mm guns.

    All other weapons (anti-aircraft guns and “Daggers”, seaplanes and helicopters) mutually reduce. In this matter, priority will be given to the main armament of ships.

    On the basis of the presented schemes, it was concluded that 96 missiles of the C-300 complex occupy a volume approximately equal to 2800 m3, and as many more launchers for the Granites.

    The volume of all three “Alaska” substated branches is 3600 м3.

    5600 vs. 3600. The lead missile cruiser, his weapon takes up more space. But with a couple of reservations.
    “Orlan” is a bad example when describing the current situation. The head "Kirov" was launched 40 years ago. The age of the project itself 1144 passed for half a century. TARKR was designed at a time when radio electronics occupied completely different volumes, technologies were less perfect, and rockets were larger.


    Yet again. Comparison for the sake of comparison? Yes, "Orlan" was designed from half a century ago, when, as you are right, the characteristics of the equipment and weapons were different. But comparing with "Alaska" it would be worth not only to measure the volumes occupied by weapons, but also what this weapon allows to do?
    In order to fire all nine guns of the "Alaska" group of companies it is necessary to become a side to the enemy. And what can he do? What is the probability of hitting an aircraft carrier type target at the maximum firing range? In this case, not on a stationary, but on a moving target. And what is the probability of hitting a target with one missile. I do not write "incapacitation", namely defeat. Still, it is worth remembering that the modern weapons of the Civil Code have become "more powerful". Etc.

    In short. Thank you for the article to Oleg, but to be honest, the article is completely incomprehensible ..
    1. common man
      common man 16 January 2017 09: 41
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Perfectly. And what will the helmsman do if these monitors fail, for example, are displayed by an electromagnetic pulse?

      An electromagnetic pulse is a nuclear explosion, as I understand it? What will the helmsman do while standing on the navigation bridge? Probably look in the smoked glass and enjoy the bright glow.
      Quote: Old26
      Or sweep the camera with fragments?

      In order for the cameras to be boldly shattered with fragments, it is necessary that the superstructure be smashed by a direct hit of a rocket (unless of course you shoot at them from a hunting rifle with shots. Anything larger will flash through the navigation bridge). What will the helmsman do on the bridge? Most likely nothing.
      And about the article. The improvement of the crew's living conditions probably takes a large amount. Someone please analyze, otherwise I'm a "couch". The helicopter hangar takes up a lot of space. Nothing else comes to mind. Alex 59, it is a little incorrect to compare the artillery cruisers of the 50s, which have absorbed all the best in the history of artillery ships, and the missile cruisers of the 50s, which are the newborns of missile technology.
      And a little bit for seed. While reading the article, the idea arose of creating a retractable mast with radars, like a periscope. Those. a telescopic mast with radars extends from the hull with a superstructure in an endangered period, reducing the overall height of the ship at another time. As much as possible?
      1. Santa Fe
        16 January 2017 10: 22
        +3
        Quote: man in the street
        Large volumes probably takes an improvement in the living conditions of the crew

        Given that the crew has declined 10 times ...

        Or the cruiser should look like a 5 * hotel, with a covered golf course.
        Quote: man in the street
        Those. telescopic mast with radar extends from the body

        This is the new Zamvolta
    2. rasteer
      rasteer 16 January 2017 10: 08
      0
      Actually, in the article, the question is not posed about what is more effective "armored ship" or "cardboard rocket ship" but on the basis of these calculations the question is asked where the difference in displacement has gone. Actually, Kaptsov has long worn about the idea of ​​"stealth merimak" so that his conclusions are predictable, but the question is really interesting. What is the reason for such an inverse proportion in shipbuilding in the inertia of thinking, or are there objective reasons for the increase in displacement with a decrease in the weight of the main functional.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 14: 25
        +1
        Once again, operate with relative values ​​and you will understand everything.
    3. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 12: 27
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Perfectly. And what will the helmsman do if these monitors fail, for example, are removed by an electromagnetic pulse? Or will the cameras be swept away by fragments? What will he do then with these "dead" screens?

      Zumwalt has a feedstock in the stern, if it is gouged in the bow, it will be controlled from the stern.
      1. DrVintorez
        DrVintorez 16 January 2017 14: 53
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Zumwalt has a feedstock in the stern, if it is gouged in the bow, it will be controlled from the stern.

        They will fight for survivability.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 16: 34
          0
          Quote: DrVintorez
          They will fight for survivability.

          It was about a broken monitor.
        2. spravochnik
          spravochnik 16 January 2017 17: 47
          0
          They will fight for survivability.

          And it’s not a fact that it is successful with such a size and number of teams.
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 January 2017 23: 45
            0
            Quote: spravochnik
            And it’s not a fact that it is successful with such a size and number of teams.

            1500 crew members did not help General Belgrano, they fought for survivability for 25 minutes, everything is relative.
    4. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 January 2017 18: 31
      0
      Quote: Old26
      And sometimes one gets the impression that Oleg's comparisons are solely for comparisons, for "tsifirek"

      Bingo!!!! fellow good drinks
      Quote: Old26
      But comparing with "Alaska" it would be worth not only to measure the volumes occupied by weapons, but also what this weapon allows to do?

      And this will already hit the evidence base and contradicts the meaning of the article, and by this anathema yes request
  9. Ham
    Ham 16 January 2017 08: 29
    +6
    the author takes examples from the 30-40s and tries to impose them on the 21st century ... so he draws far-reaching conclusions ...
    typical sofa theorist;)
  10. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 16 January 2017 08: 37
    +6
    The author analyzes the issues of theory and practice of shipbuilding, not owning either one or the other. But there are many numbers and text, this cannot be taken away.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 16 January 2017 09: 18
      +6
      Quote: Dekabrist
      this does not take away.

      Well, a person likes to compare the ships of WWI, WWII and modern! He has such a hobby!
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion 16 January 2017 08: 53
    +2
    And what share in the electronic filling is occupied by the actual computing units, which even with the 500 nm manufacturing process can be made tiny, relative to the computers of the 50s, and what equipment that is not particularly amenable to miniaturization?
  12. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 16 January 2017 09: 06
    +15
    Graphomania is also a disease.
  13. fan5
    fan5 16 January 2017 09: 08
    +4
    So I don’t really understand, like progress, new durable, cheap materials, new technologies, savings, production optimization, logistics, production robotics, the transition to a unified standard base, cost reduction, and as a result, every new car costs more than the previous model. Maybe our grandfathers knew what secret how to assemble on a knee from improvised materials and forever?
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 16 January 2017 10: 00
      +3
      You will get acquainted with the history of shipbuilding, especially military. Each step forward after the sailing fleet resulted in huge costs. Each new shipbuilding program rested in finances. Nothing changed.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 16 January 2017 10: 02
      0
      Quote: fan5
      Maybe our grandfathers knew what secret how to assemble on a knee from improvised materials and forever?

      Our grandfathers collected at state-owned shipyards, from parts that are produced at the same state-owned factories. And now there are quite a number of CJSC, JSC and LLC, in which 70% of parasites effectively counting money and 30% of really producing specialists are sitting, this is not counting individual shareholders who generally have nothing to do with the enterprise, but once invested ruble, then to withdraw from profit 10 rubles.
    3. Großer feldherr
      Großer feldherr 16 January 2017 10: 18
      +1
      They did not know about the programmed wear, and they did it for centuries.
      And do not talk about prices, prices are one thing, and affordability is completely different.
    4. rasteer
      rasteer 16 January 2017 10: 20
      +1
      Not very correct comparison. In each new car model, unless of course you take some kind of redirection of the eighties type of Nexia, much more functionality (often excessive marketing, so to speak) is laid down, but it all costs money. A machine with Moskvich 412 functionality of early production is now worth 1000 bucks, at least in production in India (the weight of the salary in total costs varies greatly from country to country).
      So the secret is only in people's needs to have something cooler than others, well, and relative well-being. If you recall that the heyday of wheelchairs like Messerschmitt fell in Europe in the post-war years, but this does not mean that the Germans have sharply forgotten how to make full-size cars, their needs have changed.
    5. Sofa expert
      Sofa expert 16 January 2017 14: 12
      0
      Of course they knew)) look at our KAMAZ old and new .. I think the difference is more than obvious, the same throughout the world, and the Navy as well ..
  14. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 16 January 2017 10: 01
    +3
    Again Kaptsov pondered, firstly, at a very low side, the sad fate of the Monitor is immediately recalled, and surface ships are not submarines. And finally, the water itself stops shells better than any armor, by the way.
    Secondly, Kaptsov along the way are attracted to the ram forms of the bow. That's right, not a shell, so a spy.
    Thirdly, despite the attractiveness of the small crew, I advise Kaptsov to serve on surface ships himself, to spend endless shifts, mooring and fighting for survivability. This is not a submarine where high automation is justified with much larger bases.

    And as a technical extremist, in general, I think the acre of submarines and aviation, the fleet has no prospect in real modern combat, except for RTOs, missile cruisers, as well as landing transports and SVPs.
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 16 January 2017 10: 47
      +2
      If you develop your idea, you are a technical extremist, the author of the article is a technical who?
      1. itvs
        itvs 16 January 2017 13: 25
        +5
        "If you develop your idea, you are a technical extremist, the author of the article is a technical who?"
        technical historical onanist
        1. Dekabrist
          Dekabrist 16 January 2017 13: 30
          +3
          I did not say that!
    2. yehat
      yehat 22 March 2017 17: 31
      0
      surface fleet is the most efficient way to move a payload
      therefore it will not disappear
  15. Großer feldherr
    Großer feldherr 16 January 2017 10: 39
    +1
    Oleg, you have many similar articles, I often read them, since you write beautifully and clearly even for people far from the topic. But I can't catch the "moral of the fable". They took away the armor from the ships, all the same, they were preparing for the 3rd world, it was logical, they took away heavy artillery and gave light missiles, it was also logical, so modern warships became smaller, up to 10k tons.
    What is wrong here?
    The fleet will not help fight ISIS; a serious opponent will use nuclear warheads.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2017 10: 54
      +4
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      What is wrong here?

      80 years ago ships in 10 thousand tons carried 1500 tons of armor and 1200 tons of weapons
      In addition, they had 35 + speed nodes (which means a heavier engine)
      And they had a larger crew in 3-4

      Now the destroyer 10 thousand tons carries 450 tons of weapons and symbolic protection

      The question is what was spent on what was left after the removal of armor and heavier weapons and mechanisms. If the displacement remains the same. The answers are set out in the article.
      1. Großer feldherr
        Großer feldherr 16 January 2017 11: 13
        +2
        They would build even smaller ships, but then seaworthiness suffers, these same "free" 3000 tons were used to strengthen the structure.
        And the power plants of the ships of the times of World War II, in order to give out the desired power, simply burned a cosmic amount of fuel (for example, the Reich was able to afford one single exit of the "tirpitz" into the sea), neither Russia nor the United States can afford such spending in peacetime.
  16. Nikita Dmitriev
    Nikita Dmitriev 16 January 2017 10: 57
    +17
    Oleg, you are already starting to demand what is not feasible.
    If the design experts (there are definitely such) express disagreement with my point of view, then I ask you for a detailed explanation. Why is a modern ship by no means indispensable without a superstructure the size of a skyscraper.

    To explain what you are mistaken, you will need to provide you with drawings of the general arrangement of modern projects. The same 20380 or 22350. But no one will do this. In words, without blueprints, personally I can’t imagine what evidence to bring to you. The opinion of the people who built these ships do not interest you.

    I can only repeat myself and say that our corvettes are clogged with equipment under the very roof of the superstructure. In the engine room, I squeezed through with difficulty. (190cm height, 100kg weight) The crew is rammed like herring into barrels. And in general, from my own experience in designing, I can say that the body volume is NEVER enough for all equipment, because the customer ALWAYS wants everything and more, but more powerful. True, there is no such problem on tankers. But we do not consider these boxes.

    And further. Oleg, the numbers you quote are very interesting, but they do not show anything. Each project is unique and is designed according to Tech. tasks. Weight loads can vary significantly, depending on the navigation area, extreme seaworthiness and degree of automation.

    For example. What am I doing now. Icebreaker 22600. Customer required temperature range + 50 / -50. ATTENTION! + 50 - for the icebreaker. As he said, what if you have to transport tanks to Syria. I'm serious. I said so. So, the cooling system, under standard requirements for the icebreaker, weighed 150t, and now it has become 500t and scored everything engine. Here is an example of ship requirements.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2017 11: 32
      +2
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      modern projects. The same 20380 or 22350.

      There are no questions about the corvette and frigate 4000 t with the armament of the destroyer

      Three (!) Hydroacoustic stations are installed on the corvette. And long-range air defense systems - a unique ship.
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      provide you with general layout drawings

      Arly Burke. Or a project of a promising destroyer of the Russian Navy with a displacement of 18 thousand tons

      where are these sizes from?
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      Each project is unique and designed according to Tech. tasks.

      How uprooted should be a technical project to spend 3-4 thousand tons (after the disappearance of super-power GEM, artillery and armor) is not clear what
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      Weight loads may vary significantly, depending on the navigation area

      The fuel supply on Burke and 26-bis is the same. The number to call?
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      The customer requested a temperature range of + 50 / -50. ATTENTION! + 50 - for the icebreaker. As he said, what if you have to transport tanks to Syria.

      Here it is time to talk about the inadequacy of TK
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      So, the cooling system at the standard requirements for the icebreaker weighed 150, and now it has become 500 and scored all the engine.

      Who is to blame, except for the customer placing the requirement beyond the reasonable
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      you will need to provide you with drawings of the general layout of modern projects.

      Yes, we wash and so, to the naked eye to see
      What's inside the FREMM frigate superstructure

      giant empty spaces
  17. Nikita Dmitriev
    Nikita Dmitriev 16 January 2017 11: 42
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    What's inside the FREMM frigate superstructure

    giant empty spaces


    I will surprise you. There are hidden speed boats (chasing offenders). Probably the launch of torpedoes was removed from him.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2017 11: 51
      +3
      Quote: Nikita Dmitriev
      I will surprise you. There are hidden speed boats

      Did they hear about the inflatable zodiac?

      Do you think that the destroyer for a billion euros 6000 tons w / and was created in order to chase violators on a boat? Wash is easier here: these ships were built in peacetime for parades. That is why the creators of FREMM can be allowed to spend half a superstructure on a hangar for a speed boat.

      If the situation changes, the whole paradigm of the modern fleet will change. Other ships will be required.
      1. Nikita Dmitriev
        Nikita Dmitriev 16 January 2017 12: 05
        +8
        That's right, now ALL countries are building universal warships. Those. and drive the pirates, and drown the enemy, and cover the air. And this is correct, since large ships have no enemies on the sea.
        A seven-armed ship entails a bunch of excess equipment.

        And FREMM in the niches has exactly boats (these are not zodiacs, but boats are much larger, with a stationary engine and navigation system and a machine gun).

        By the way, our corvettes and frigates also have such. Just stand on the sides of the hangar.

        Why should a boat have a boat? Yes, at least not to chase all the carcasses for all the husk, but to send an inspection team on a boat.
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 16 January 2017 14: 28
          0
          Quote: Nikita Dmitriev


          And FREMM in the niches has exactly boats (these are not zodiacs, but boats are much larger, with a stationary engine and navigation system and a machine gun).
          Why should a boat have a boat? Yes, at least not to chase all the carcasses for all the husk, but to send an inspection team on a boat.


          If the angle grinder is called a grinder, judging by the figure, the boat is the zodiac. Inflatable sides and a rigid bottom.
          Can't deliver a helicopter inspection team?
          1. Nikita Dmitriev
            Nikita Dmitriev 16 January 2017 14: 55
            +3
            Helicopter of course can. Provided that the inspection team will jump on the iron deck of the intruder meters from 3x-5. But I think there are few such heroes in the carriage. And this is provided that the mast and cranes will not stick out of the vessel in different directions. Then in general does not fly up.
            1. Hog
              Hog 16 January 2017 18: 47
              0
              Can't I drop on a cable from a turntable?
              Or do you think heels from the warship will go for inspection?
              1. Nikita Dmitriev
                Nikita Dmitriev 17 January 2017 11: 27
                0
                Then take them as you will? To moor? And the fuel that the helicopter will burn for these hangs? There is not much fuel on the ship and it is probably better to use it for patrolling and searching, if there is a boat, fuel to which to fig and more.
                1. Hog
                  Hog 17 January 2017 22: 35
                  0
                  But it must be borne in mind that this is a combat ship and it will be engaged in inspection only in emergency situations, and for this, a helicopter can be used. The presence of an "extra" boat on board eats up quite a lot of volume that could be used for more important purposes.
                  1. Nikita Dmitriev
                    Nikita Dmitriev 18 January 2017 08: 59
                    0
                    You don't seem to understand. The fact of the matter is that these are many targeted ships. For example, our corvettes in the Navy were adopted as multipurpose patrol ships. What you are talking about is a narrowly specialized wartime ship that will turn out that nobody needs right now. From all modern ships to all countries require multitasking. Including the possibility of border protection. Purely warships in general no one is building. Except, of course, submarines. But this is a separate issue.
                    1. Hog
                      Hog 19 January 2017 22: 02
                      0
                      Well then, we and Peter need to send our patrols to the border, the British type 45, and the amers Burkov or Zamvolta, right?
                      Your multitasking does not require ships larger than a corvette (where a helicopter is rare), and anything larger does not "fit" here. Even the Americans will not allow their destroyers to be driven to inspect fishing boats.
            2. yehat
              yehat 22 March 2017 17: 51
              0
              you need to say bluntly - a helicopter cannot. Its application requires much more conditions.
          2. spravochnik
            spravochnik 16 January 2017 15: 15
            +1
            If the angle grinder is called a grinder, judging by the figure, the boat is the zodiac. Inflatable sides and a rigid bottom.

            Specifically, at FREMM, "Zodiac" can also (as it is a French company). In general, in world practice, boats with a rigid bottom and inflatable sides are called RIB (rigid inflatable boats).
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 16 January 2017 13: 19
        +5
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Did they hear about the inflatable zodiac?
        Do you think that the destroyer for a billion euros 6000 tons w / and was created in order to chase violators on a boat? Wash is easier here: these ships were built in peacetime for parades. That is why the creators of FREMM can be allowed to spend half a superstructure on a hangar for a speed boat.


        The less knowledge, the more difficult the understanding.
        "Graduate of vocational school", criticizes the team of designers ...
        I have no words
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 16 January 2017 13: 54
          +4
          Quote: DimerVladimer
          "Graduate of vocational school", criticizes the team of designers ...
          I have no words

          Take more. He mixed with dust not only some engineers there, he also does not consider the scientists of the 1 Central Research Institute of the RF Ministry of Defense for people. smile
      3. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 14: 43
        0
        Did they hear about the inflatable zodiac?

        Even the inflatable zodiac is stored on ships in inflated condition and still requires lifting equipment for launching.
  18. CooL_SnipeR
    CooL_SnipeR 16 January 2017 12: 27
    0
    Not bad, but the topic is already fed up ...
  19. Kars
    Kars 16 January 2017 12: 48
    +2
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Kolya Taraskin, Zheglov, charm, adherents, fantasy, smiles in each line. In the discussion of the article about the Navy

    It was wonderful

    What can I say not everyone has the breadth of thought)

    By the way, I came across a phrase about improving machine installations
    But before the first series of perestroika was completed, one of the ships, the Urspite, became the object of the second, most significant modernization, which completely changed both its appearance and the “stuffing”. The work took about four years and was completed in 1936 year. Instead of 24 Yarrow steam boilers, there were 6 new with small diameter pipes, each of which was installed in an individual compartment. The turbines that directly rotated the propellers were replaced with a Parsons turbo-gear unit with a gearbox. The new power plant provided 85 000 horsepower. instead of the original 75 000 hp, although its weight has decreased by 40% - technical progress has progressed so much over two decades.
  20. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 16 January 2017 12: 52
    +2
    Are you going to abandon the masts !?
    And on what will they raise the Flag!

    The article should have been called "reflections on the incomprehensible" - dilettantism.
    How can one discuss the design of a ship without understanding the principles of design?
    Always designing the case, is carried out for equipment, and not vice versa, as the author intended.
    1. yehat
      yehat 22 March 2017 17: 54
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Are you going to abandon the masts !?
      And on what will they raise the Flag!

      do they dry laundry on the ship? so the flag is where to hang fellow
  21. ZAV69
    ZAV69 16 January 2017 13: 09
    +1
    In order to design a warship, you need to study at the shipbuilding institute (then you will be entrusted with designing some kind of unanswered unit), finish graduate school, and defend a doctorate. After another state commission. Most of those present here did not. How can ships be judged? Oleg constantly judges. Well, I would call amateur notes.
    The only thing that bothers us is that the United States did not begin to cut its battleships built on the eve of the war. Ships museums .... All units are intact. Bring to a combat ready state is not difficult.
    When the stocks of tomahawks and guided artillery shells run out, high-tech plants burn up in a nuclear explosion, pouring TNT blanks that lie anywhere in a dry warehouse is easier than riveting a tomahawk.
    Remember the words of Einstein that the fourth world will be waged with a stone ax?
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 16 January 2017 13: 50
      +5
      I allow myself to continue your sensible idea about how to teach shipbuilders and what knowledge is needed to discuss ship design issues.
      I think everyone knows V. Yurkevich and his liner "Normandy".
      Just at the time when V. Yurkevich was in high school at the IV Moscow gymnasium, there were disputes in the higher state spheres of Russia: it is necessary or not to open a shipbuilding department in the newly established Petersburg Polytechnic Institute.
      The arguments of the supporters prevailed, and in the summer of 1902, the first admission of students to all four departments of the newly founded St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute took place - economic, electrical, metallurgical and shipbuilding. Admission to the shipbuilding department, headed by the creator of many ships of the Russian fleet, K. P. Boklevsky, was the smallest. If 125 people were enrolled in the economic department, 60 in the electrical and metallurgical sectors, then only 500 were accepted into the shipbuilding of the 27 people who applied for! These all, all five hundred were gold medalists.
      Vladimir Yurkevich, who graduated from high school with a gold medal in 1903, fell into the second set and studied at the same time as such prominent figures in Soviet shipbuilding as V. L. Pozdyunin, P. F. Papkovich, V. T. Strunnikov, K. I Bokhanevich, V. F. Popov, V. M. Malinin, B. G. Kharitonovich and others. In addition to lectures, practical classes, course projects and exams, each student in the shipbuilding department had to undergo three summer practices: in a commercial port for studying port facilities, methods for receiving and withdrawing merchant ships and organizing their loading shki and unloading; at a shipbuilding or mechanical plant for familiarization with the construction of ships and mechanisms; in foreign navigation on a commercial vessel for familiarization with the conditions of navigation and operation of ship mechanisms.
      By the final exams, each graduate student had to submit three detailed projects - a commercial vessel, its main mechanisms and a coastal structure. Only after that he could defend his thesis - an independent study, the topic of which the student chose at his own request and which corresponded to the main task of the Polytechnic Institute: to graduate specialists, whose higher education should indicate new ways of discoveries and inventions to the natural mind and talent. As such a study, V. Yurkevich presented his thesis: "Increasing the efficiency of a steam installation by heating the air that feeds the furnace and the water that feeds the boiler." The project was protected in the summer of 1909, and the newly baked ship engineer came to life ...
      Thus, future shipbuilders studied for 6 years. By the way, "History of the CPSU" and other nonsense were not taught then.
      If the graduate intended to design warships, then another year.
      And "Normandy" is a separate article.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 January 2017 18: 16
        +1
        Quote: Dekabrist
        then out of 500 people who filed petitions for shipbuilding, only 27 were accepted! These all, all five hundred were gold medalists.

        good
        Where are today's "victims of the exam" to such indicators winked and peaks request
  22. demiurg
    demiurg 16 January 2017 13: 57
    0
    Oleg, repeat. You already had a topic about weight and volume. Only there was armor mentioned.
    1. yehat
      yehat 22 March 2017 18: 01
      0
      I am a builder by training more than a shipbuilder, however, I want to notice Oleg one obvious thing. In construction, there is a concept of excess strength, and this is not 1.2, and often coefficients from 3 to 6 are required and this significantly complicates the design. If it is free to shift to ships, if a displacement of 10000 tons is required, 30000 are built to ensure safety standards and other things. I think there is something similar in shipbuilding and these standards are tightened, i.e. payload by NORMS should be less than before.
      This, in my opinion, is the simplest answer to a question that has long been haunting Oleg.
  23. Recoil
    Recoil 16 January 2017 14: 34
    0
    If the author is not the Head of the design team of a leading shipyard in the country, why does he teach shipbuilders?
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 16 January 2017 14: 54
      +2
      This is where he teaches? Show.
      He just asks why and how.
      For example, I am also curious.
      If you are a shipbuilder, write down the weights and volumes.
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 15: 20
        +1
        It is who will provide you with such secret information on modern warships. If you add deck plans to this information, answer Kaptsov’s questions like two fingers.
        1. demiurg
          demiurg 16 January 2017 17: 04
          +1
          By 1134B is it possible? Or is it a secret too?
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 16 January 2017 17: 53
            +1
            You have a summary table of the weight loads for this ship and the composition of the equipment. Share it.
            By the way, Kaptsov should have no complaints about this project, the board is very moderate in height and small superstructures.
        2. yehat
          yehat 22 March 2017 18: 04
          0
          what's the secret? and from whom? you sorted out with secrets.
          I am sure that for all marine nations in this matter there are no secrets for 40 years.
  24. Tektor
    Tektor 16 January 2017 15: 38
    0
    Perhaps the height of the Kirov's side is related to the requirements for hull strength to counter bending and torsional loads in a strong storm.
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 16 January 2017 19: 22
      +2
      "The initial search for the optimal shape of the ship's hull is carried out on the basis of the integral of John Henry Michell (1898), the physical and geometric interpretation of which makes it possible to reveal the relationship between ship wave formation at high speeds and the force effect on the ship's hull from the sea waves. In practical design to optimize the shape the hull has an ample choice of hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces, the distribution of which along the hull is determined solely by the geometric features of the ship lines. "
      1. spravochnik
        spravochnik 16 January 2017 22: 55
        0
        And this is what you are for. This is from a completely different opera.
      2. yehat
        yehat 22 March 2017 18: 17
        0
        "The initial search for the optimal shape of the ship’s hull is based on the integral of John Henry Michell (1898), the physical and geometric interpretation of which reveals the relationship between ship wave formation at high speeds and force impact on the ship’s hull from sea waves

        Lies! this is the same as the Schrödinger equation. It seems to be there, but it’s impossible to use properly. Moreover, this equation is far from always true. You can hang noodles for those who haven’t studied mathematics or physics, but I’ve been lucky.
        Solved the problem getting the integral - what do you call the solution ???
        The methodology of real, non-approximate and non-imperial (!!!) calculations appeared only at the junction of the 50s and 60s in the USSR with the development of solutions to a number of types of equations and typical constructions like integrals of go diffours and the development of computers. by the 70s it became available all over the world, but a very narrow circle of sufficiently qualified specialists. And before that, empirically selected templates and coefficient tables were used.
        And no American integrals !!!
        Stop hanging noodles from Wikipedia. By the way, about the correctness of the integral and the author of the integral formula, I would argue as well! You still tell what a great inventor Edison!
  25. sevtrash
    sevtrash 16 January 2017 16: 47
    0
    How much can you squeeze out of modern - more or less - ideas about the design / equipment / armament of a promising ship in the far sea zone - it already exists, Zamvolt. I think that the Americans have worked out all the reasonable options and hardly anyone has surpassed this level of elaboration. So, reading Kaptsov’s article, one can imagine it as some kind of current - tomorrow’s Zamvolt ideal. There is still no better / more advanced one.
    1. yehat
      yehat 22 March 2017 18: 24
      0
      and yet the feeling that Zamvolt is a military yacht and not a ship does not disappear.
      somehow a lot of questions to him.
  26. realist
    realist 16 January 2017 18: 47
    0
    without even reading the article, I understand who the author is!
    But, the height of the board allows you to improve seaworthiness, and the increased volume was used just to accommodate light but voluminous computing equipment (placement of the BIVC) and to improve the habitability of a warship, compare the volumes of cubes on ships of different years of construction and you will learn a lot about yourself.
  27. brn521
    brn521 16 January 2017 20: 04
    +1
    Another progress. The author came to the conclusion that in order to resolve the issue of returning the armored citadel to the structure, it is necessary to consider modern freshly built ships of the destroyer class and higher. What are they shoving there into the building that it has grown so much above the waterline? And why didn’t they want to go back to the good old armor, once the opportunity arose? It seems to me that the answer was accidentally already mentioned in the discussion. This is about frigates, in which everything that is possible is stuffed, there is not even room left for the crew. And they don’t even have such minimal armor protection as Arly Burke’s. But, in the words of the author, the equipment of frigates is also very expensive. As for me, we must climb into the economy. What tasks does the Navy solve and what ships are required for this? How and how much money is allocated for his needs? After all, it’s clear that frigates are from poverty, and Banned are from fat.
    1. ZAV69
      ZAV69 16 January 2017 21: 45
      0
      If a shell arrives in Arly Burke, at least from Sarych, will his defense keep it? Something seems to me that either through or through, or will explode in a car or artillery cellar and the end of arly berk.
      1. brn521
        brn521 17 January 2017 11: 58
        0
        Quote: ZAV69
        If a shell arrives in Arly Burke, at least from Sarych, will his defense keep it?

        Quite. A direct hit on the vital element of the ship is very unlikely. And indirect is a blast wave and fragments. For the blast wave there are too large volumes, this is not a tank. And against the fragments, the Kevlar protection of the indicated vital elements will work.
        Quote: ZAV69
        Something seems to me that either through or through, or will explode in a car or artillery cellar and the end of arly berk.

        Rather gouging a piece of the add-in. Perhaps there will even be a fire. But this will be the only case in the whole war.
        1. DrVintorez
          DrVintorez 17 January 2017 15: 11
          0
          Quote: brn521
          But this will be the only case in the whole war.

          why the only one?
          1. brn521
            brn521 17 January 2017 16: 12
            0
            Quote: DrVintorez
            why the only one?

            Because the chance of such sloppiness - to let an obsolete ship into range of artillery firing - is close to zero. But since it is not equal to zero, we round up to one case. Moreover, the Americans did not expect such sloppiness from us, therefore, their artillery is purely formal.
            1. DrVintorez
              DrVintorez 17 January 2017 20: 01
              0
              Ahhh ... Sarych shooting artillery shells at the berk, yes. This is a complete sur. There on Sarych there seem to be more interesting things for sinking ships, isn’t it?
              1. brn521
                brn521 18 January 2017 13: 18
                0
                Quote: DrVintorez
                Ahhh ... Sarych shooting artillery shells at the berk, yes. This is a complete sur. There on Sarych there seem to be more interesting things for sinking ships, isn’t it?

                Nevertheless, the source text is as follows: "If a shell arrives at Arlie Burke even from Sarych, his protection will keep him? Something seems to me that either through and through, or it will explode in a car or artillery cellar and the end of the Arlie Burke." Logically, Aegis is somehow not very good at handling artillery shells. More precisely, nothing at all.
  28. jonht
    jonht 17 January 2017 07: 44
    +1
    Oleg likes to push his foreheads, although the question is not entirely trivial, but it is not significant either.
    Internal, even empty volumes of any ship (vessel) provide him with unsinkability and buoyancy. The survivability of modern ships is not given to armor, but to the division into waterproof bulkheads and balancing ballast systems, drainage systems and automation that automatically isolates compartments. The high side gives, in addition to seaworthiness, the internal volume of air (buoyancy), provided that the compartment is airtight. The equipment adds weight and reduces air volume. In my opinion, (I don’t remember exactly) 2 the assistant to the captain is responsible for this and must monitor the serviceability of the system for automatically closing waterproof doors and kicking mechanics if something does not work. True, far from all fishing vessels monitor this, the main thing is to check before going on a flight so that it works and a randomly selected raft works and opens, there is still no fuss on fishermen, and the smaller the boat, the more do not care. A year passed after the BATM seafarer, after leaving as a designer of fishing gear on the PCs, there was something to compare.
    1. brn521
      brn521 17 January 2017 13: 52
      +1
      Quote: jonht
      Internal, even empty volumes of any ship (vessel) provide him with unsinkability and buoyancy.

      Well, the author offered armor precisely for the sake of not having to fight for survivability by catching an accidental "Mosquito" or something similar. His main idea - why all these advanced air defense systems and a breakthrough of incomprehensible equipment, when you can close the ship with an armored belt and an armored deck? After that, hits from high-explosive and semi-armor-piercing warheads of small and medium caliber will no longer seriously affect the combat effectiveness. And we stopped there. For the sake of booking, it is necessary to shrink the surface volumes. But in modern ships, on the contrary, they are very large. The author has a natural question, why is this stuffed there, and is it possible to refuse all of this, or at least shove it under the waterline. Analysis showed that it does not fit under the waterline, everything is too light and voluminous. Therefore, the next question on the agenda is to refuse something. What does the author suggest in the article? I will try to comprehend. We take Arlie Burke, we cut off the entire superstructure, leaving only one mast. Cut off the upper part of the surface hull. And all that remains is enclosed in an armored box. We throw out old equipment. Instead, we put equipment designed for small frigates, it is supposedly also good, but at the same time compact. The crew will have to be pressed like sprat into a tin can. However, you can invest an extra ten or two billions in the construction of the ship for the sake of being able to leave only the captain and several of his assistants in the crew. And to make the equipment ultra-reliable and automated. Or you will have to leave part of the hull and superstructures to the detriment of the armor, providing living conditions there in peacetime. Helicopters and helicopter hangars will have to be removed as they don't fit into the format. First, they are vulnerable and burn well. Secondly, they require a landing deck and hangar protected from waves, while we will have a kind of armored hump with a mast sticking out in the middle. In this case, there will be no free space under the deck, in principle, everything will have to be packed so tightly there so that everything you need fits under the armor. All in all, a great project. It is quite possible to recommend him to a potential enemy. It is optimal to scrapped all NATO destroyers and frigates altogether, replacing them with such crap.
      1. jonht
        jonht 18 January 2017 01: 00
        0
        Unfortunately, the armor has one drawback; even withstanding the blow, it can crack or breaks appear. Someone has not yet canceled physics, if something is solid, it is usually more fragile. According to numerous descriptions of damage to the battleships after the battle, there were: cracks, chips, divergence of armor plates. Yes, and penetration of armor, too, had a place to be. At the same time, the flooding of several compartments is not the worst, on a ship, it is much worse and more difficult to deal with fires, but here it’s not even breaking through, but just cracks will be enough for modern high-explosive charges with their high-temperature incendiary mixtures to cause a fire. It is clear that the explosion inside will lead to great damage, but the armor will not solve anything, instead of just high-explosive blocks, they will put cumulatively high-explosive ones and that's all ... In order to understand the futility of armor, it is enough to analyze the development of tanks. Therefore, it is already necessary to put not just armor, but active armor or armor with dynamic protection, and this is no longer an obstacle, but taking into account that the missile is not a 125 mm shell, it’s much easier to insert a mechanism to overcome all this ....
        Something like that.
        1. Santa Fe
          18 January 2017 02: 50
          +1
          Quote: jonht
          and here it’s not even a breakthrough, but just cracking will be enough for modern high-explosive charges with their high-temperature incendiary mixtures for a fire to occur.

          The fire caused by the explosion of the warhead and fuel residues inside the compartment is easier to put out.
          Quote: jonht
          instead of simply high-explosive blocks, they put cumulative-high-explosive and all ....

          What is all about?

          The entire body gets 10 kg of TNT
          Instead of 300
          Quote: jonht
          In order to understand the futility of armor, it suffices to analyze the development of tanks.

          BMP-2 - combat weight 14 tons
          BMP T-15 Armata - combat mass 50 tons

          Israel Army BTR - Aharit (44 T, based on T-55), Namer (60 T. based on Merkava-4)

          On the example of BTT, we see a continuous increase in the mass of machines due to increased armor

          About MBT you can not speak - tens of tons of steel, ceramics and other materials - such protection as on modern tanks could not even imagine during the Second World War

          The T-72 upper hull front sheet is inclined at an angle of 68 ° to the vertical and is a multi-layer combined barrier 205 mm thick (steel - fiberglass laminate - steel, 80 + 105 + 20 mm.)
          1. jonht
            jonht 19 January 2017 01: 37
            0
            Oleg, the problem is that on the ground there are also restrictions on the growth of the mass of combat vehicles, and if you are interested, read about the project of the Nazi supertank "Rat" which would be armed with a turret from a heavy cruiser (two 203 mm guns). Although Hitler liked him, but only the generals dissuaded him, at a speed of 12 km / h and an area with half a football field, it would be such a tasty target for aviation ...
            Again, the cost of BMP-2 and BMP T-15 ....
            In addition, you can force a rocket to make a slide and break through the deck; you won’t be able to book everything. In addition, the military calculated various options for increasing the survivability of ships, and according to the results of the calculations, they came to the model that we have now. With modern means and the density of their use in a global conflict, the survival rate of single and group targets is not great, and the opportunity to destroy the entire spectrum of their offensive weapons came to the forefront.
            So something like this.
        2. brn521
          brn521 18 January 2017 13: 52
          0
          Quote: jonht
          instead of just high-explosive blocks put cumulatively high-explosive and all.

          Ships and tanks have completely different paths. The tanks have thick armor, but small armored space. Therefore, anti-tank cumulative shells actually form a kind of needle, the cross-section and length of which is approximately enough to touch something important in the armored space of the tank. The cumulative warheads of the anti-ship missiles do not form such a stream, because it makes no sense - everything of value is hidden far and deep, the thin cumulative stream by this moment will simply disperse. Cumulative anti-ship missiles form a directional explosion, amplifying the shock wave in a given direction. If an armored barrier comes across, then the shock wave is not so much breaking through as trying to break through. Well, such a shock wave gets through the usual ship structures deeper than the usual spherical with the same weight of explosives.
          Quote: jonht
          Therefore, it is already necessary to put not just armor, but active armor or armor with dynamic protection,

          The dynamic protection of tanks is designed to destroy a sub-caliber projectile or cumulative jet. For ships, this is completely irrelevant. As for the protection against the shock wave, the same ship anti-torpedo protection seems to be still passive, since no reliable means of active quenching of the shock wave has been invented.
          Quote: jonht
          much worse and harder to deal with fires

          Modern tools make it possible to ignore fires altogether. Cut off the ventilation in this compartment. And if there is something particularly combustible, then the fire will be crushed with the same carbon dioxide. The only thing is that light-alloy constructions do not tolerate even weak heating, so they refused light alloys in superstructures. Since it will require such a powerful and effective fire extinguishing system that it more than covers the gain in mass in comparison with steel.
          1. DrVintorez
            DrVintorez 18 January 2017 19: 38
            0
            Quote: brn521
            Cumulative RCC

            which ones?
            Quote: brn521
            the same ship anti-torpedo protection seems to be still passive

            RBU-12000 is indignant at such words!
            Quote: brn521
            Modern tools make it possible to ignore fires altogether. Cut off the ventilation in this compartment. And if there is something particularly combustible, then the fire will be crushed with the same carbon dioxide.

            correctly! in the compartments, there is no connection with other compartments. and no glands either.
            1. brn521
              brn521 19 January 2017 15: 21
              0
              Quote: DrVintorez
              which ones?

              KS-10S, X-15S, X-22, P-15, P-35, P-70.
              Quote: DrVintorez
              RBU-12000 is indignant at such words!

              Well, let yourself be indignant. This is a system of the same plan as naval air defense. Active armor here which side?
              Quote: DrVintorez
              correctly! in the compartments, there is no connection with other compartments. and no glands either.

              Compared to ancient ships, things are clearly better. Fewer crew, fewer combat posts, transitions and hatches. In combination with automatic fire extinguishing systems. The water cannons were left not so much in case of fire as for possible decontamination.
              1. DrVintorez
                DrVintorez 19 January 2017 15: 31
                0
                Quote: brn521
                KS-10S, X-15S, X-22, P-15, P-35, P-70.

                high explosive cumulative penetrating warhead.
                Quote: brn521
                Active armor here which side?

                duck you write
                Quote: brn521
                ship anti-torpedo protection seems to be still passive

                what does the armor have to do with it, if you write about protection?
          2. jonht
            jonht 19 January 2017 01: 19
            +1
            Unfortunately, practice shows that a ship that has received a breakdown is rescued much more often than ships on which a fire broke out. Modern decoration of ship premises is replete with various plastics, aluminum alloys and all sorts of other far from iron and steel things. In the process of extinguishing, more difficulties arise than in the fight against incoming water. It seems that with both, the compartments are isolated and de-energized, but if water can be pumped out, then smoke and cooling of adjacent bulkheads requires more funds, again if the fire is strong, then there is always a danger of its spread along cable routes, in contrast to the pipeline system, which in it is welded to the bulkheads and is sealed, the cables are forwarded and the holes are snipped and sealed. And if we also take into account the location of these cable routes, then it is much easier to get a patch for a breakdown. I myself took part in training at his institution at the BATM. But everyone who went through the simulator for practicing fire-fighting actions said "It's better to get wet than fry", turning off ventilation, working in a closed-loop apparatus, high breathing temperature, lack of visibility, limited rooms and their congestion with various units, all this makes the fire more difficult event than a breakdown. I was in practice on an old BMRT, during the flight the mechanics put 3 cement boxes on leaks in the hull without any emergency and panic, and my friend was on the PC like that because of the fire on the tank and its extinguishing of impressions and fear snatched enough. And I also forgot about such a detail as dust, it is unmeasured on old ships, but it burns like gunpowder and can even crash like the same gunpowder.
            So better breakdown than one fire.
            Extinguishing fire extinguishing agents are used only in the engine room and in submarines, but they are not compatible with breathing and require mandatory means of closed breathing.
            Regarding dynamic protection, the directed blast wave partially extinguishes the shock wave as well, which reduces damage and could be used to protect ships, if not one but how much should be carried on the sides of explosives and increase the risk of self-damage at the same mooring, therefore, it makes no sense both in armor and in such protection. In addition, ours did an analysis of the means of destruction and came to the conclusion that it’s easier to shoot down missiles than to build not cheap (in the size of a ship) defense, the sides are certainly not the whole ship and it’s even easier to make a slide and break through the deck, they taught how to make rockets back in 70 years old. Again in physics, how is the wave most efficiently suppressed? The presence of breakwaters, therefore, the presence of a large number of sealed compartments with a good longitudinal and transverse set of strength minimizes damage more effectively.
            1. brn521
              brn521 19 January 2017 17: 13
              +1
              Quote: jonht
              So better breakdown than one fire.

              I think warships are about the same. If a fire started, then the automatic countermeasures were insufficient and some actions needed to be taken by the crew. Or vice versa, do not give a damn about this matter. For example, an auxiliary helicopter on a landing site can burn until it goes out, if all combustible materials from this site are initially isolated to the maximum.
              Quote: jonht
              And I forgot about such a detail as dust

              If the filtration system is designed for weapons of mass destruction, then a lot of dust will not accumulate.
              Quote: jonht
              Extinguishing fire extinguishing agents are used only in the engine room and in submarines, but they are not compatible with breathing and require mandatory means of closed breathing.

              Why? Carbon dioxide for example extinguish electrics and electronics. In some places even carbon dioxide stations were put, with wiring throughout the building, not only in the engine room, so as not only to extinguish the electrician, but also everyone who did not have time to scatter. But I don’t know about warships. Yes, and it worked in manual mode, i.e. it was necessary to stomp to the installation and twist the desired valve.
              By the way, about equipment and volumes. During the modernization of the Russian Navy in the 80s, re-planning and re-equipment of ships was carried out taking into account new requirements regarding fire and explosion safety. Extra weight and extra volumes, again at the expense of armor :).
              Quote: jonht
              Regarding dynamic protection, the directional blast wave partially extinguishes the shock

              The only thing that I know about this issue is the remote sensing of tanks. In the case of ships, this approach is not applicable. Different tasks and different conditions.
              Quote: jonht
              then how much do you need to carry on the sides of explosives

              Explosives will not work, because they generate a spherical blast wave, from which the body will also get. All we can do is try to dissipate the energy over as large a volume as possible. For example, putting one of the fuel tanks under attack to protect another, more important element of the ship.
              Quote: jonht
              Again in physics, how is the wave most efficiently suppressed?

              In this case, by stretching the pulse exposure time to such an extent that the resulting force does not exceed the mechanical strength of the structure. Those. a shot from a gunshot, just the opposite. All that ships can boast on this issue is the depth of the PTZ. The distance that a shock wave travels along the way breaking and crushing everything before it reaches vital elements. The second option is to make the torpedo explode not at the optimal distance, but further, allowing the water to be grinded for nothing. The same anti-torpedo network. Instead of a hole of 10 m there will be a hole of 1 m. But in return, hundreds of tons of additional cargo, used only in parking lots, and even then not always.
              Quote: jonht
              therefore, the presence of a large number of pressurized compartments with a good longitudinal and transverse set of strength minimizes damage more efficiently.

              Empty compartments below the waterline are bad for stability. In addition, the blast wave does not matter what to do, crush the kit, or make a water-fuel mixture. You can pour even fuel, but the same water. waste, technical or even drinking. Anyway, the energy of the explosion will be spent. It is also important that the structural elements farthest from the explosion spring, rather than collapse.
              1. jonht
                jonht 20 January 2017 01: 15
                +1
                Quote: brn521
                Empty compartments below the waterline are bad for stability.

                They are not empty, usually flaxseed water tanks, mining, no more fuel and leveling stability.
                In general, I mean the same thing that armor and any other protection, except for active (air defense) on ships, is not needed and no longer makes sense. It may make sense to rework the short-range missiles themselves, to put on them directed charges that create a continuous field of debris in the path of the missile or missiles, for example, as in the Afghanit-type systems from top to bottom with dispersion in an arc to increase the affected area.
                Or three directed sequentially exploding directed charges, which will also create a veil of fragments, and preferably large striking elements.
                1. brn521
                  brn521 20 January 2017 14: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: jonht
                  It may make sense to rework the short-range missiles themselves, to put on them directed charges that create a continuous field of debris in the path of the missile or missiles, for example, as in Afghanit-type systems from top to bottom with dispersion along an arc to increase the affected area.

                  For Afghanistan, it is required that only armored vehicles be in its coverage area. And not tilt trucks or armored infantry. Otherwise, friendly fire can do harm no less than an intercepted shell. Those. again, we turn to the topic of ship’s armor, covering all the most important things on the ship. Arly Burke will not be able to use such crap, the risk is high. And the aircraft carrier will not be able, and frigates escort. The price of error or failure is too high.
                  Quote: jonht
                  Or three directed sequentially exploding directed charges, which will also create a veil of fragments, and preferably large striking elements.

                  It is applied, but only at a safe distance. Missiles and torpedoes are fragile, they don’t need much.
  29. Wolka
    Wolka 17 January 2017 13: 19
    +1
    the author well outlined the topic, there really is something to think about for modern ship designers ...
  30. Taoist
    Taoist 17 January 2017 14: 34
    +2
    Well, it's clear to everyone for a long time ... this is an "anti-armor world conspiracy." Someone hates armor so much that they simply "cannot kyusha". So everyone was involved so that God forbid someone would not build an armored iron anew. But the great came and exposed everyone ... And they don't build an "iron" ... Zrada.
  31. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 17 January 2017 18: 53
    0
    I read, read comments .. I can’t resist and still add (I will not argue)
    "The specialists built the Titanic, and the amateur the Ark." ..)
    Py.Sy. From most comments, it blows negative. Moreover, the comments are only general considerations.
    1. DrVintorez
      DrVintorez 17 January 2017 20: 02
      0
      But didn’t you smell of delirium from the article? ;-) corny from the title and content?
  32. Gust
    Gust 17 January 2017 19: 15
    0
    I am sure that the designer is well aware of these problems. The fact that modern ships have just such forms is the result of a compromise of many requirements. If we change the weight coefficients in the direction of stealth, we get Zamvolt, if in the direction of speed and modularity, the so-called littoral and so on.
    The problem is different - instead of reasoned answers, many are clever in the style of "myself". angry
  33. LEK
    LEK 18 January 2017 00: 42
    0
    A bunch of stupid comments mocking the author ... But there is not a single reasoned answer.
    It is interesting to send this article by mail to some research institute, the only way to get reasoned answers.
    Respect to the author!
  34. brn521
    brn521 18 January 2017 14: 21
    0
    Quote: Razvedka_Boem
    Py.Sy. From most comments, it blows negative.

    Quote: LEK
    A bunch of stupid comments mocking the author ...

    Quote: Rafale
    The problem is different - instead of reasoned answers, many are clever in the style of "myself"

    So what's so surprising about that? The author actually trolls the Navy fans on the topic "you don't know anything about the modern Navy." At the same time, for his part, he is not able to offer anything, since he himself does not know anything about the modern stuffing of ships. He only makes assumptions. But the main theme of his reasoning is that modern ships are built incorrectly. That being said, the actual material is still zero or so. This epic has been going on for years and dozens of articles. Add here also typical journalistic tricks, when the title of the article has nothing to do with the content. Someone reads the title, thinks something new. He starts to read the text - and there the same Kaptsov is still marking time.
  35. SIT
    SIT 18 January 2017 15: 53
    +2
    Armor or aluminum, side height, seaworthiness, a lot or a little, etc. etc. Maybe I missed something? And what is the combat use of all this? Where to read about modern tactics of the Navy? Squadron battles, as I understand the beautiful past. What tasks should modern destroyers and cruisers solve? Do they need armor for this? A salvo from one cruiser is enough to destroy a medium-sized country. This means that such weapons will be used to destroy it, from which no armor will save. It is necessary to ensure maximum stealth and invisibility in all ranges. Is this for 10 tons of displacement? With satellite constellations in orbit? After all, if satellites begin to fall, then this is a signal for attacking everything else. If the enemy's satellite grouping is not disabled, it is possible to determine the current coordinates of the latrine, into which the cruiser commander walks, with an accuracy of a meter. So it turns out all these masses for wars with the Papuans like storms and rustles in the desert? For a serious war, only a nuclear submarine? And if she manages to go out unnoticed, which is also not easy. To increase the real secrecy of surface weapons, only complete chaos comes to mind. Containers with Club in the dark are loaded onto a container ship with excellent seaworthiness, a high, splash-free side and no armor. In the event of a threatened period, an armed crew of this very Club lands to the teeth on this container ship right in the middle of the ocean from "accidentally" by a passing yacht and informs the captain that his vessel is now a battlecruiser of the empire, and it is better for him to sit and not twitch where he will be put ... How long does it take to deploy the Club and launch from containers? After launch, everything else is not important.
  36. dkkayak
    dkkayak 18 January 2017 17: 32
    +1
    Damn, why authorship is not written before the article? This nuddy from the sofa expert is already sick
  37. Usher
    Usher 18 January 2017 22: 08
    0
    I did not understand the author why he puts question marks. Do not understand the article sending? Why, where did it go, etc. How do I know where these thousands of tons have gone.
  38. All1
    All1 19 January 2017 10: 22
    0
    I live in the middle of the continent, I don’t understand ships.
    I suppose that volumes went under living quarters.
    In wartime and immediately after the war, no one took crew comfort into account.
    Now it’s normal to have a bathhouse, a pool, a basketball court, and even a baseball ...
  39. Fartop
    Fartop 20 January 2017 19: 41
    0
    I don’t know where my nashyap is, I don’t remember from which site I downloaded it (I tried to search the net, but without result), but this image of a destroyer, a rank 1 rocket ship is like a balm for the soul! "Leader" itself will be an exceptional vessel. But this is enough for the soul!
    1. Fartop
      Fartop 20 January 2017 21: 00
      0
      http://vpk.name/news/172971_prinyat_ocherednoi_ko
      rvet_tip_056.html ----------------------------------------------- -
      -------------------------------------------------
      --------------
      31 corvette-against our 22350,22380 and 11356, which, two times, and miscalculated. Today they are not our enemies, but they say correctly, -Want peace, get ready for war.
    2. Nikita Dmitriev
      Nikita Dmitriev 21 January 2017 10: 27
      +1
      This is a project of Zelenodolsk Design Bureau. Corvette trimaran. After working out a conceptual design, they refused to develop it. Too expensive and all the equipment did not fit. The hangar for the helicopter did not fit, so many rockets did not work either.

      So this is just a futuristic picture, divorced from reality, made at the very beginning of the work for presentation to the Great Warriors.
  40. dmb91
    dmb91 21 January 2017 22: 16
    0
    Dear author of the article, the problem is probably more visible from the sofa than to the designers.
    They bought all the diplomas and sawed the money! Yes !
  41. Glad
    Glad 26 January 2017 11: 50
    0
    Quote: man in the street
    An electromagnetic pulse is a nuclear explosion, as I understand it?

    No not like this. For quite some time now, systems have been developed that make it possible to obtain EMP without using nuclear weapons. For this reason, you can read, for example, this:
    A. Prishchepenko. Robot killers: electromagnetic bombs. Popular Mechanics, 2005, No. 3
    Prishchepenko A.B. The rustle of grenades. M .: Morkniga, 2009 .-- 256 p., Silt
    Both works are on the Internet.
  42. Glad
    Glad 26 January 2017 12: 23
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The entire body gets 10 kg of TNT
    Instead of 300

    1. The proportion will be slightly different. Rather, 150-200 kg of explosives will fall inside the case instead of 300 kg, and not 10 kg.
    2. It will not be TNT, but an explosive with a very solid TNT equivalent.
    There was already a conversation about this. Moreover, a detailed one. Even possible constructions of warheads and patent numbers for warheads were cited, I remember, ... How quickly everything is forgotten ...
    1. Santa Fe
      26 January 2017 23: 24
      +1
      Quote: Glad
      Rather, 150-200 kg BB will get into the body instead of 300 kg,

      You do not seem to feel the difference between the mass of the warhead and the content of explosives in it

      The Execet warhead weighs 165 kg, and contains 56 kg of explosives
      Warheads of other missiles have the same proportion.
      Quote: Glad
      not 10 kg.

      The tandem warhead TAURUS KEPD-350 has a mass of 450 kg

      The second step, penetrating into the bunker - is a metal rod weighing kg 50
      how many explosives inside it are a matter of backfilling

      1. for comparison, odds filling armored piercing shells since WW2 was 1,5-2%
      2. a long rod requires high mechanical strength, it works to bend when passing through a hole from the main explosion
      Quote: Glad
      This will not be trotyl, but explosives with a very solid TNT equivalent.

      We are not talking about the characteristics of explosives, but about its content.
      Quote: Glad
      . They brought, I remember, even possible constructions

      They were ridiculed and denied.

      However, what else can you expect from people writing about 300 kg of explosives and not thinking about how much the shell weighs, from which fragments, fuses, fuses and other equipment are formed, which is part of the warhead

      Real designs, such as the anti-bunker tandem KEPD, do not give optimism, only a few kilograms of explosives will fly into the ship, instead of tens or even a hundred and fifty, in the case of heavy missiles with 454 kg fragmentation-penetrating and penetrating warheads
  43. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 18 June 2017 16: 29
    0
    Staya me ponravilas.
    Dumayu, shto autor prav. Budushcheye esminci, eto tipa i vida Zummbolt.