Cruiser and destroyer. Battle rules
They learned to live.
Now they will have to learn how to fight
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.
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.
Information