Military Review

Battleship instead of aircraft carrier

126
We have a common opinion that without an aircraft carrier, nowhere. I don’t know how many thousands of kilometers and where it is generally supposed to be fought, but air support should be required. In December 1983, when the Americans wanted to strike at the positions of the Syrian forces in Lebanon, they apparently reasoned the same way. All over for aviation sadly: two planes were shot down, the set goals were not achieved. Then came the good old battleship and simply plowed the Syrian positions from the good old guns of the main caliber.


Battleship instead of aircraft carrier


In general, when it comes to battleships and their ancestors battleships with dreadnoughts, first of all they begin to compare with each other. On the one hand, it is logical, the battleships were created primarily to fight their own kind (everything that is smaller than them, they allowed to the bottom by definition), hence the corresponding requirements for speed, booking and armament. Opponent had to catch up, or go away from him, if it smells like roast, hence the very impressive speed. It was necessary to withstand the blow of the enemy, hence hundreds of millimeters of armor. According to the enemy, in a short time it was necessary to release a large number of shells, hence several towers, from which the trunk sticks out on the 3. And what to do when the enemy is safely drowned or holed up in the harbor? It is widely believed that after Tsushima and ending with nothing and nothing (OK, the Germans formally won on points) of the Jutland battle, there was not much work for the battleships, or they, like Yamato, went ahead with a song to death under a barrage of bombs and torpedoes. As if not so: the same sunk battleships in Pearl Harbor were raised and repaired by the year of 1944. These old ruins could no longer chase the Japanese squadrons, the speed was not the same, but they greatly contributed to the stripping of the Japanese of various islands. The island and the Japanese fortifications will not run away anywhere, and the shells by the ship with a displacement of several tens of thousands of tons are in abundance.

After World War II, the use of battleships as floating batteries continued, for example, an 406-mm projectile was left simply by chic craters in place of the Vietnamese jungle. The last time the main caliber guns opened fire during the "Storm in the desert." In fact, the battleship of the Second World War is capable of striking 40 + km at a distance with shells weighing more than a ton. Of course, the accuracy is limited by accidents affecting the flight of the projectile, but the shells themselves are worth pennies compared to the guided bombs and the cost of the flight for their delivery. Missed meters on 30, repeat with the amendment.

The question arises: is it possible, instead of an ultra-high-speed steel monster, producing maximum shells for the minimum of time on the same moving target, to build a well-armored artillery ship not for fighting its own kind, but for shelling the coast? The speed of such a ship is not needed, huge savings are achieved in the power plant and fuel, while shooting for the most part will take place on requests from ground forces, i.e. in small batches, which means dragging 8-9 guns in 3-4 towers not required, enough 2 turrets for 2 guns. In fact, the battleship is obtained at a new technological level. Acting such a ship, like an aircraft carrier, should be part of a compound that will take on air defense and anti-submarine defense, which means that additional armament can be minimized: near anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense, which can be used by some Somali pirate or terrorist in a boat loaded with explosives to drown. The displacement of the battleships of the 19-20 turn of the centuries with four 305-mm guns was about 15000 tons, something similar should happen and we, if not less, can also save on armor, and leave the 150 armor belts. Yes, and 305-mm gun - it is very harsh, to counteract such a little that count.

Compared to the era of the Second World War, such a ship will have a number of advantages:

1. The plane then cost a penny, cheaper tank, now for the price of one aircraft you can buy a tank company. Plus departure price. Each cruise missile has a sophisticated engine, a sophisticated navigation system, all one-time. In fact, it is a disposable aircraft. The shell is worth a penny. Just like pennies (and even a negative amount due to the need for disposal) are high-explosive bombs, abundantly poured by our bombers on the heads of Ishilovites and other abnasra. Artillery generally solves any tasks much cheaper than aviation, the only question is range.

2. The torpedo bombers disappeared as a class. Divers, too. And the resistance to subsonic anti-ship missiles at an armored ship should be very high. As with any shelling from the ground. Stationary coastal batteries of the same battleships in the presence of cruise missiles simply lose their meaning. To sink such an armadillo will not be easy.

3. Modern air defense systems can be provided within a radius of tens of kilometers, and even hundreds. 70 years ago, only fighters could make long-range interception of aerial targets, now it will be perfectly available with missiles. On the other hand, if not the same, then similar enemy air defense systems readily repeat the one described at the beginning of the article. history, but already with our planes. Before the aircraft carrier can really help someone, he will have to somehow solve the task of suppressing enemy air defenses.

4. The projectile can be equipped with homing tools. The 152-mm guided projectile Krasnopol and its foreign counterparts Copperhead and Excalibur have been around for a long time. You can use shells with an extra long range. Zamvolt was about to spit on a 120-mm cannon for 155 km. For operations to capture the bridgehead, where you can then deploy and capture the airfield, the defeat range is quite enough. You can even clear the sky for aviation, destroying, among other things, the detected SAM batteries. The highest efficiency, when receiving the coordinates of the target, it is enough to charge the gun and enter the coordinates into it, the computer will calculate all the necessary pointing angles instantly. Well, if the range is not enough, then, if necessary, you can connect the "Gauges", which can also be folded into a small specialized carrier (arsenal ship) and strategic aviation. In fact, the Zamvolt is such a “battleship” for shelling coastal areas, only without armor, a pair of ultra-long-range guns and it is unclear why the Tomahawks pack, that is, everything that was possible was crammed onto the ship. A sort of floating T-35. Although the idea of ​​an arsenal ship that could carry hundreds of cruise missiles, launching them on command, has already been like 30 years old. But, apparently, the construction of extremely simple systems did not meet the task of developing the funds allocated to the American the fleet.

You do not need to perform acrobatic tricks on speed ejection, when an aerofinisher cable breaks or another trouble occurs on an aircraft carrier, and build monsters in 100 000 tons, living in Midway’s realities with Guadalcanal. Everything you need to successfully install your flag on a foreign shore was invented even in the 19 century, and much earlier, in those very times when they learned how to make powerful floating batteries from ships.

Maybe someone will have a question: if everything is so simple (to develop, for example, an 254-mm gun and a ship with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons, to install it, compared to the design and construction of even a mini-aircraft carrier - the simplest task) why not build? Well, apparently, for the same reason that aircraft carriers are not building either. The task of disembarking a couple of thousand kilometers from home beyond the reach of ground aviation is simply not worth it, or rather, the probability of such an operation is estimated as negligible.
Author:
126 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. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 26 January 2017 06: 19
    +6
    They could be useful in operations such as the Syrian or the protection of, say, the interests of corporations in third world countries. There used to be "gunboat diplomacy" which was replaced by "aircraft carrier diplomacy".
    Indeed, a large ship makes an indelible impression on those who first see something like this.
  2. igordok
    igordok 26 January 2017 06: 54
    +14
    Initially, I thought that this was an article by Oleg Kaptsov, but it turned out to be too small for Oleg’s creations.
    According to the article. At sea, as on land, everything must be balanced. And barrel artillery, and aviation, and missiles, and UAVs, each at one time, depending on the circumstances.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 26 January 2017 07: 06
      +10
      Not only small, but the style is not Kaptsov’s smile But according to the material, the author is an adherent of the church of lovers of armor and Kaptsov’s guns fellow Although his opinion has the right to life and discussion yes
      1. smershxnumx
        smershxnumx 26 January 2017 07: 41
        +3
        Rurikovich Today, 09:06 ↑ New
        Not only small, but also the style is not Kaptsovskaya smile But according to the material, the author is an adherent of the church of fans of armor and Kaptsov’s guns fellow

        Is it like the Order of the Armored worshipers or something ??? wassat
      2. avt
        avt 26 January 2017 09: 42
        +3
        Quote: Rurikovich
        and discussion

        laughing JOUGHT WHAT ?? This one ?!
        The question arises: is it possible to build a well-armored artillery ship instead of a superhigh-speed steel monster, firing a maximum of shells in a minimum of time for the same moving target, not to fight its own kind, but to shell the coast? Such a ship does not need speed, huge savings are achieved on the power plant’s power and fuel, but for the most part firing will take place on requests from ground forces, that is, in small batches, which means to drag as many as 8-9 guns in 3-4 towers not required, enough 2 towers of 2 guns. In fact, it turns out an armadillo at a new technological level. Such a ship, like an aircraft carrier, should operate as part of a compound that will take on anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense, which means that additional weapons can be minimized:
        laughing This is either nonsense of a minor, or maraz falling into childhood. Well, let him buy himself a model of the battleship ,, Potemkin "and cut this unit out of it. Poto-oh-oh, to give power, he will buy everything, including the aircraft carrier bully for
        which will take on the anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense, which means that additional weapons can be minimized: near air defense and MZA,
        And then let him carry around the table, or a sofa in battles with figures of Somali pirates, you can even play boarding
        .... and the MZA, which can be used to drown a conditional Somali pirate or terrorist in a boat loaded with explosives.
        and let’s not forget the model submarine, well, put it under sneakers. Yes! forgot! two modelki ,, Potemkin "he needs to immediately buy something! The second for
        if necessary, you can connect the "Gauges", which can also be folded onto a small specialized carrier (arsenal ship) and strategic aviation.
        what Yok Makaryok! And I missed a little about the bomber model on the chandelier! wassat
        Quote: smerx24
        Is it like the Order of the Armored worshipers or something ???

        Oleg’s sect, but this adherent is somehow ... unstable, doubting, well, judging by the final conclusion
        Maybe someone will have a question: if everything is so simple (to develop, for example, an 254-mm gun and a ship with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons, to install it, compared to the design and construction of even a mini-aircraft carrier - the simplest task) why not build? Well, apparently, for the same reason that aircraft carriers are not building either. The task of disembarking a couple of thousand kilometers from home beyond the reach of ground aviation is simply not worth it, or rather, the probability of such an operation is estimated as negligible.
        bully I can tell the author of this particular
        Maybe someone will have a question
        This is my friend YOU yourself are. laughing They wrote this opus and don’t know how to turn the back on the subconscious. What can I advise? Well, if only Leninist is to study, study and still study. Read the gistoria for creating and using monitors from Civil in USA to almost World War II, where a couple of shaved seemed to be lying around, well, think about it.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 January 2017 10: 15
          +4
          Quote: avt
          This is either the delirium of a minor, or the maraz flowing into childhood. Well, let him buy himself a model of the battleship Potemkin and cut this unit out of it.

          laughing Well popped our urban !!
          Greetings Great White Shark hi
          1. avt
            avt 26 January 2017 10: 19
            +2
            Quote: Serg65
            Well popped our urban !!
            Greetings Great White Shark

            hi laughing Well, you can still read Oleg - he writes eloquently, but here's a copy-paste of this, and even with ,, striping spots and lines with a cartridge "- thank you!
          2. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 26 January 2017 13: 59
            +1
            Quote: Serg65
            Greetings Great White Shark

            Probably the problem with vision is the Big Blue Evil Shark, the man tried, wrote the article, and then she vulgarized everything.
            1. avt
              avt 26 January 2017 15: 29
              0
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Probably the problem with vision is the Big Blue Evil Shark, the man tried, wrote the article, and then she vulgarized everything.

              And then it came and after reading my comment, began to clap on the clave - do not touch the glitches. bully
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 January 2017 16: 30
                0
                Quote: avt
                And here it is
                .
                Yes it is, deity.
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 26 January 2017 17: 13
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              Vision problem probably

              Yes, no sweetheart, with my eyesight everything is fine, it’s your worldview and Identification of the inhabitants of the underwater world problems!
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              a man tried, wrote an article, and then she vulgarized everything.

              Dear, it turns out that if a person wrote something, then immediately applause turning into loud applause ??? I understand that the opposition does not like criticism?
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 January 2017 17: 47
                +1
                Quote: Serg65
                Yes, no sweetheart, with my eyesight everything is fine, it’s your worldview and Identification of the inhabitants of the underwater world problems!

                Come on, I just went to say hello.
                Quote: Serg65
                I understand that the opposition does not like criticism?

                Under this article, I am neither in opposition to you, nor to the Great White Shark.
                Quote: Serg65
                what if a person wrote something, then immediately applause turning into loud applause ???

                No but that
                Well, Oleg can still be read - writes fabulously, but here’s a copy-paste of this, and even, with ,, striping spots and lines of cartridge "- thank you

                somewhat rude.
            3. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 26 January 2017 19: 02
              +2
              Quote: saturn.mmm
              this is the Big Blue Evil Shark

              Come on fellow without humor in the world today you can go crazy yes And we all sit on this site for years and understand where fellow ,And where negative wink
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 26 January 2017 20: 12
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Come on, without humor in the world today you can go crazy

                So they did not understand me. crying
        2. EvilLion
          26 January 2017 13: 10
          +2
          Your feedback is very important to us. Stay in touch.
        3. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 26 January 2017 18: 59
          +1
          Quote: avt
          JOUGHT WHAT ??

          But what about the Constitution about the rights of citizens of a single state? what
          Quote: avt
          This is either nonsense of a minor, or maraz falling into childhood. Well, let him buy himself a model of the battleship ,, Potemkin "and cut this unit out of it. Poto-oh-oh, to give power, he will buy everything, including the aircraft carrier


          Quote: avt
          And then let him carry around the table, or a sofa in battles with figures of Somali pirates, you can even play boarding

          Quote: avt
          and let’s not forget the model submarine, well, put it under sneakers. Yes! forgot! two modelki ,, Potemkin "he needs to immediately buy something! The second for
          if necessary, you can connect the "Gauges", which can also be folded onto a small specialized carrier (arsenal ship) and strategic aviation.
          what Yok Makarek! And I missed a little about the bomber model on the chandelier! wassat

          Alas request the influence of Oleg’s ideas is strong yes wink
          Quote: avt
          Oleg’s sect, but this adherent is somehow ... unstable, doubting, well, judging by the final conclusion

          But he even tries request differ yes
          Quote: avt
          This is my friend YOU yourself are.

          Ugh you - I thought it was me wassat
          Quote: avt
          the use of monitors from Civil in USA to almost World War II, where a couple of shaved seemed to be lying around

          come on belay And the river "battleships" of our country and some countries of Eastern Europe, which belong to the class of monitors. Any monitors too. After all, “monitors” are not only low-breasted, as the warriors of “kindness” call them, but also small-sitting ones, for the war on the rivers that we are called request yes
          Quote: avt
          Well, think about it.

          drinks hi
          1. avt
            avt 26 January 2017 19: 33
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            But he even tries to be different

            what No. Does not look like it . , because above him, as one comrade noted
            Quote: Rurikovich
            the influence of Oleg’s ideas is strong
            wink
            Quote: Rurikovich
            And the river "battleships" of our country and some countries of Eastern Europe,

            They lost a lot, including captured Polish ones, they were really consumables in the land war, and the most successful armored boats were Gorshkov, in particular, only after the Red Army and the advantage in the air, well, even in the skerries in the Baltic, but it’s real that I do not regret - the specifics of the theater. Well, yes
            Quote: Rurikovich
            shallow-seated, for war on the rivers with which they call us

            Well, I’m talking about really marine ones and the Angles have left over from the First World War. hi
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 26 January 2017 19: 52
              0
              Quote: avt
              Quote: Rurikovich
              the influence of Oleg’s ideas is strong
              wink

              So what to do request - you have to put up laughing
              Quote: avt
              Lost a lot, including captured Polish ones; they were actually consumables in the land war

              Geography, 5th grade of the school - enclosed inland waters yes tea is not airplanes - you won’t play them back and forth yes repeat
              Quote: avt
              and Gorshkov’s most successful armored boats worked in particular, and only after the Red Army

              Read above, but only in the change of arrows on the maps soldier
              Quote: avt
              Well, even in the skerries in the Baltic, but there is really something that I do not regret - the specificity of the theater.

              To each his own request
        4. Aqela
          Aqela 30 January 2017 10: 54
          0
          Well, if sclerosis does not fail, has the USA still not abandoned the program for building monitors? what So the author is not alone in his thought exercises ...
      3. EvilLion
        26 January 2017 13: 09
        +1
        The author is a lover of money with which aircraft carriers certainly do not combine. laughing
      4. lis-ik
        lis-ik 26 January 2017 19: 24
        +2
        I read the headline and immediately scrolled down, there is no Oleg, I read and understood. Here it is a worthy change. But while it’s not enough and it’s necessary to learn a little, at least from the same Kaptsov, it’s still interesting, that's why it’s a plus.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 26 January 2017 11: 29
      +4
      Quote: igordok
      On the sea, as on land, everything must be balanced

      + 1!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Although his opinion has the right to life and discussion yes

      ...It has!
      About -
      Then came the good old battleship and simply plowed the Syrian positions from the good old guns of the main caliber.

      If I remember correctly, I also quickly left, learning about the arrival of coastal RCC ...

      And further...
      Modern MLRS "shoot" much further than the "40 +" of the old guns of the main caliber! Moreover, they have the property of "homing", especially against iron objects.
      They only ate art dishes against the Papuans and "Somali pirates" on the shore.
      And then, "Somali pirates" on the water can provide worthy resistance, for example, dropping from their boats the simplest passive "planning underwater mines."
      1. Gray brother
        Gray brother 26 January 2017 13: 13
        +3
        Quote: Rus2012
        They only ate art dishes against the Papuans and "Somali pirates" on the shore.

        An idea has a right to life. Only armadillos and battleships are too fat for her, you need a small armored artillery ship and necessarily driven by propeller wheels - wheels are better than screws, if you give them enough power, then he can use them to crawl ashore and land an assault.
        Papuans will be in shock.
        1. igordok
          igordok 26 January 2017 13: 54
          +3
          Quote: Gray Brother
          Papuans will be in shock.

          Thanks for the photo. I already twitched. So you can become a stutter. I found out that this is the creation of Bondarchuk.
          A real, fighting, heroic swallow.
          1. Gray brother
            Gray brother 26 January 2017 13: 56
            0
            Quote: igordok
            I found out that this is the creation of Bondarchuk.

            Yes, Bondarchuk is still that.
      2. EvilLion
        26 January 2017 13: 20
        +1
        If RCC would drown him, then there are no questions. And so, he shot the batteries, did not suffer any losses, well done battleship.
        An underwater mine will drown the same Peter the Great even easier. So what to do? Anti-torpedo protection. Well, that is, we are also going to the battleships. However, I can hardly imagine how to throw a mine from a boat.

        The homing property is provided by:
        1) The presence of a target marker sensor. The laser spot sees, or analyzes the picture from the video camera, it does not matter.
        2) Presence of course correction bodies.
        Well, and the connection between the first and second, I think, is fundamentally no different from industrial PID controllers. And guided shells are mentioned in the article.
        And here the MLRS is generally incomprehensible, especially since the ultra-long-range shells are also equipped with additional jet engines. Moreover, both the shell and the MLRS missile after the acceleration from the engine, or powder gases fly along a ballistic trajectory.

        We learn the materiel in general.
        1. Archon
          Archon 26 January 2017 14: 21
          0
          there is a super solution. an armored battleship must hide under water. like a submarine, only armored and cannon. although, for sure, in the anime they already drew it.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 26 January 2017 14: 48
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          I can hardly imagine throwing a mine from a boat.

          elementary!
          About such a "carcass", weighing no more than 100-200kg

          the trajectory is approximately the same 1000 meters per 7km

          at the lower point it drops ballast and begins to surface exactly under the bottom of the "rust trough".

          Guidance m.
          different -
          by wire
          passive sonar
          ...
          1. Rus2012
            Rus2012 26 January 2017 15: 06
            +1
            here "kin" - http://www.yapfiles.ru/show/1565695/662c0824ea2c7
            079ce6dc9d725d1bdc4.mp4.html

            [media = http: //www.yapfiles.ru/show/1565695/662c08
            24ea2c7079ce6dc9d725d1bdc4.mp4.html]

            Last summer, Russian media, which referred to a document on the development of the Russian Navy, reported that by the 2017 year, the fleet should receive unmanned underwater vehicles - gliders, whose main task will be to search for the enemy and reconnaissance of the ocean. Gliders are a kind of underwater gliders that are able to solve a fairly wide range of tasks in the interests of military and civilian structures. Moreover, these devices can be swimming for months. According to military experts, today there is not a single naval task that could not be tried using gliders.

            The tasks that gliders can solve in the interests of military structures are really extensive. These underwater vehicles are able to conduct reconnaissance, analyze the environment, conduct anti-submarine and anti-mine warfare, protect water areas, search for sunken objects, inspect military cables and pipelines, deliver cargo to the bottom and much more. In addition, they are able to conduct a variety of scientific and hydrological research.

            Yevgeny Tatarenko, a professor at the Information Measuring Technique Department at the SamGTU - Samara State Technical University, noted that gliders can use various means to defeat the enemy. For example, today's 120-mm microtorpedoes, which can be equipped with new explosives, can be compared with 533-mm torpedoes.
            Such underwater torpedo-type gliders are a planning apparatus that carries out movement by changing its buoyancy. You can adjust this indicator using the hydropneumatic accumulator inside the glider in the form of a cylinder with a pump, a valve and a soft tank. In this case, the cylinder is divided by a membrane into two parts, into which a special polymer oil is filled (comparable in density to water in density) and air. When pumping oil, it presses on the membrane, the air is compressed, it becomes heavier and the glider goes down. To move the device up, the process is carried out vice versa.
            Evgeny Tatarenko noted that gliders do not have a propeller with a screw in their usual sense, so energy is spent only on the pump. The professor noted that these are very small devices, and they will have enough energy for several months of movement, which makes them very profitable.
            For example, an apparatus with a length of 2 meters and equipped with wingspan in the range of 1,3 meters with a mass of 50 kg will be able to take up to 5 kg payload, developing a speed of up to 0,5 m / s at a depth of up to 1000 meters. In this case, the device will be able to sail for 60 days.
            In addition, the “torpedo” glider is immune to the effects of waves and is able to be used in the hover mode over a given point.
            Finding a passive apparatus of this size comparable to large fish is quite difficult.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 January 2017 07: 12
    +2
    406-mm shell left just chic craters in the place of the Vietnamese jungle.

    The author's delight is not very clear ... Is it too weak to be in that place (instead of Vietnamese residents) where the shell leaves "gorgeous craters"? Perhaps after that, the delight would have diminished?
    1. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 13: 22
      +3
      A colorful explosion of “Iowa” would be even more chic, but somehow it’s not very symbolic.
  4. novel66
    novel66 26 January 2017 07: 31
    +3
    why not? Interestingly, do modern PCRs expect armor penetration? it can turn out quite ridiculously - such a miracle of Judah comes to Aug, paying no attention to anything, and fucks drowning it with ordinary artillery !!! what is embarrassment?
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 January 2017 10: 10
      +2
      Quote: novel xnumx
      it can turn out quite ridiculously - such a miracle of Judah comes to Aug, paying no attention to anything, and fucks drowning it with ordinary artillery !!! what is embarrassment?

      laughing Well yes! Only in this case it is also necessary to close your eyes on a nuclear submarine (at least one) with a bunch of torpedoes, I don’t mention the blessed memory of him. battleship Yamato (rest his soul!).
      1. novel66
        novel66 26 January 2017 12: 24
        +5
        Colleague, your vile habit of destroying my dreams exceeds all expectations! Well, yes, I forgot about the submarines - there are no problems, they just need to be lured to the surface, in the movie “capture” they were offered “tomahawks” for this, there is a certain feeding for every fish !!! and your desire to protect American aircraft carriers from me is suspicious! the relevant authorities will take care of you !!
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 January 2017 12: 44
          +3
          Quote: novel xnumx
          colleague, your vile habit of destroying my dreams exceeds all expectations

          laughing And since childhood I was a petty dirty trick!
          Quote: novel xnumx
          Well, yes, I forgot about the submarines - no problem, they just need to be lured to the surface

          bully Yeah. in the store "Everything for fishing" a lot of all bait is on sale.
          Quote: novel xnumx
          and your desire to protect American aircraft carriers from me is suspicious!

          Roma, my friend, but I’m protecting you from any unpleasant surprises! Imagine, you are so all over white with a hat ... girl. and girl, what is your name ??? And then, from behind the bushes, a boy emerges under two meters, fastening his fly with his fingers like sausages after relief! But I warned you !! Random communications are fraught with conflict! wink
          1. novel66
            novel66 26 January 2017 13: 15
            +3
            buddy, girls in the past, aircraft carriers in the future, feeding for submarines - yes! Need to think
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 26 January 2017 13: 39
              +2
              Quote: novel xnumx
              buddy, girls in the past

              what Oh, God forbid!
              Quote: novel xnumx
              aircraft carriers in the future

              wassat Nah, I like girls more! hi
              1. novel66
                novel66 26 January 2017 13: 43
                +3
                I am married, my friend, but not such a cynical cracker, and when we do drown the aircraft carriers in an honest artillery battle, you will be envious tongue
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 26 January 2017 14: 00
                  +2
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  i'm married buddy

                  repeat I’m a type of idle ....
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  and when we do sink the aircraft carriers in an honest artillery battle, you will be envious

                  Not Roma, I will stand on the sidelines and watch you break your forehead bully
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 26 January 2017 14: 28
                    +2
                    even you will not bring shells ???
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 26 January 2017 17: 22
                      +2
                      Quote: novel xnumx
                      even you will not bring shells ???

                      crying I am a disabled person!
                      Moreover, my friend Roma, the bullfight (you are all white and your battleship) and the bullfighter (an aircraft carrier that is nasty to you) must be watched from the ground floor !!!
                      1. novel66
                        novel66 27 January 2017 07: 18
                        +2
                        because of these, we retreated to Moscow in the forty-first one, no, grab a shell (300 mm) and drag it to the gun !!, and I will pull the handle
    2. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 13: 23
      0
      If N pieces of RCC are planted, then sooner or later everything will drown.
  5. ydjin
    ydjin 26 January 2017 07: 33
    +3
    Kaptsovschina bloomed terry! Oleg appeared loyal followers. laughing Although to force the peace of small coastal countries, this tactic can be quite effective! yes
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. Dart2027
    Dart2027 26 January 2017 07: 41
    +1
    In general, the idea of ​​creating a landing fire support ship is outlined. Quite a reasonable suggestion.
    Our BDKs were armed with 76 or 57 mm guns, I was always surprised - why? What is the use of these crackers? Then they thought of putting Grad on the deck - it certainly gives a good salvo, but one hit on practically open guides before they launch missiles and it will be ... unpleasant.
  8. Per se.
    Per se. 26 January 2017 07: 54
    +4
    Plus articles, mainly in attempts to take a fresh look at the forgotten old. Obviously, fire support from the sea is needed, but it is doubtful to create a "battleship" for the sake of it, all the more so, pushing new systems into the displacement of the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905. The realities are such that the tonnage and size of ships all the time increased in its class, so the destroyer of the Second World War approached in tonnage the cruiser of the First World War, and the modern destroyer, already to the cruiser of the Second World War. If we talk about the "battleship" to support the assault forces, then this in a tonnage of 12000-15000 tons will rather be a modern analogue of a gunboat, and not with 305 mm artillery (or at least 254 mm), but with 130-152 mm. Is there any sense in such "gunboats", possibly for special operations in the littoral zone. If we talk directly about the battleship as a revived class, then first we need to remember why the aircraft carriers took the palm from the battleships. Most importantly, the aircraft carriers had longer arms, the battleships did not have time to enter into fire contact and were destroyed by aviation before they could get close to the aircraft carrier. Secondly, aircraft carriers turned out to be more versatile ships, capable of carrying out broad combat missions due to the composition of the air wings on board. Currently, the "arm length", thanks to the development of anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles in surface ships, has increased significantly, and it can be expected that soon the aircraft carrier will be destroyed before its aircraft could come into contact with the newly-minted missile and cannon battleship, be it such a ship created. The scheme of the French battleship of the "Richelieu" class seems to be the most suitable for such a renaissance of a well-protected missile and cannon ship, with a conventional or nuclear power plant. In principle, our Orlan project cruisers are just as close to this scheme, except for the absence of heavy guns and any significant armor protection.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 January 2017 09: 05
      +2
      Quote: Per se.
      If we talk about the "battleship" to support the assault forces, then this in a tonnage of 12000-15000 tons will rather be a modern analogue of a gunboat, and not with 305 mm artillery (or at least 254 mm), but with 130-152 mm.

      Well, the article also proposes the idea of ​​a gunboat, only larger than those that were built a century ago. An artillery ship does not fight aircraft carriers or missile cruisers - its task is only to deliver artillery attacks along the coast.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 26 January 2017 09: 24
        +1
        Quote: Dart2027
        An artillery ship does not fight aircraft carriers or missile cruisers - its task is only to deliver artillery attacks along the coast.
        To approach the coast, you need to protect the gunboat itself or the newly-minted monitor, cover it with aviation, and for this, again, you will need an aircraft carrier, or an attainable proximity from your airfields. This, as with the "over-the-horizon landing", which against a strong enemy and without its own air cover is a utopia, a gamble, but against a weak enemy, over-the-horizon landing is not needed, the "horizontal" landing from traditional landing ships and barges is quite enough. A separate topic is the river-sea, where a new armored boat, monitor or gunboat can come in handy.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 January 2017 09: 38
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          To approach the shore, you need to protect the gunboat itself or protect the newly-minted monitor, cover it with aviation, and for this again, you will need an aircraft carrier, or reachable proximity from your airfields.

          I always said that our Navy needs aircraft carriers. You are trying to attribute to the alleged ship tasks that were not intended for it - it is intended only for fire support of the landing or for delivering simply artillery attacks along the coast. Actually, this is nothing new - in WWII, many US ships were mainly engaged in this. Yes, airplanes can bomb anything, but sometimes it’s easier to use artillery.
          Quote: Per se.
          and against a weak enemy, an over-the-horizon landing is not needed, a "horizontal" landing from traditional landing ships and barges is enough

          And here you are mistaken. Any enemy has enough of the same ATGMs, but it’s a shame to get serious damage to the BDK from penny weapons, so first it’s better to land on helicopters and boats, but when there is a safe zone, you can bring down ships.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 26 January 2017 09: 46
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            Any enemy has enough of the same ATGMs,
            It is not at all necessary to stick to the shore, the landing of floating armored vehicles in the sea has long been worked out, whether it be armored personnel carriers or, it would be smart enough for our fleet to get a BMP-3F. At the same time, amphibious assault ships will not reach any ATGMs, and if it is exaggerated, then MANPADS must be added to ATGMs, with which the natives can shoot down transport helicopters during over-the-horizon landing. I spoke about the "horse-boats"; there may well be such ships for support.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 26 January 2017 10: 08
              +1
              Quote: Per se.
              landing at sea floating armored vehicles worked long ago

              I know that.
              Quote: Per se.
              I spoke about the "horse-boats"; there may well be such ships for support.

              In fact, it refers to the gunboat.
          2. Rus2012
            Rus2012 26 January 2017 11: 48
            0
            Quote: Dart2027
            I always said that our Navy needs aircraft carriers.

            Counter argument -
            KAPTSOV: During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), difficult weather conditions and poor visibility caused the partial or complete cancellation of 50% of combat missions from the AUG.

            “All-weather aviation does not fly in bad weather” (Murphy's Law). In a snowstorm, fog or a sandstorm, the landing force is guaranteed to remain without fire support.


            While - submarines, anti-ship missiles and aviation from distant land airports - there are no bans! :))))))))))
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 26 January 2017 12: 20
              +1
              Any weapon can be ineffective in certain conditions.
              Wunderwaffle is fantastic.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 26 January 2017 11: 37
        0
        Quote: Dart2027
        - his task is only to deliver artillery attacks along the coast.


        conventional MLRS missiles - are they much more expensive than the main caliber’s charges? And how do the cost of the gun and the launch MLRS. As for the accuracy of shooting - there are "adjustable" and "homing" MLRS cartridges.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 January 2017 11: 45
          0
          Quote: Rus2012
          there are "adjustable" and "self-guided" MLRS cassettes.

          MLRS may be an alternative
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 January 2017 12: 23
          +1
          Quote: Rus2012
          conventional MLRS missiles - are they much more expensive than the main caliber’s charges?

          MLRS fires on the area, and the howitzer is designed to deliver more accurate strikes, and with the defeat of the fortifications of 203-300 mm better than 122. In addition, the very location of the missiles on the deck
          Quote: Dart2027
          but one hit on practically open guides before they launch rockets and it will be ... unpleasant
          1. EvilLion
            26 January 2017 15: 55
            +1
            203 mm solid projectile is undoubtedly better, but the 300 mm tornado rocket will simply explode beautifully on the surface of the bunker.
    2. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 13: 32
      +2
      And our beloved (joke) Kaptsov just recently had an article about boats with anomalously powerful weapons, like 203 mm guns on a destroyer.

      and with 130-152 mm


      Well this is Zamvolt. In essence, the ship will simply have 6-inch batteries. IMHO, instead of Zamvolt, you could just make a corvette for a couple of thousand tons and thump on it 155 mm gun with a drum for five hundred “bullets”. And visibility is less, and the price. Well, if anything, then without a normal destroyer with an anti-aircraft missile system, such a ship will not go anyway. With the same success, you can roll out the Mstu-S onto the deck of the barge. But the caliber of 203 mm and more already allows you to go beyond the projected resistance of 99% of land objects and throw something comparable in power to aircraft bombs.
    3. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 26 January 2017 19: 09
      +1
      I completely agree with you. Simply, many do not understand that times are changing, and an analogue of armor (statistical, by the way, weight) can be a perfect air defense system, and strike force - cruise missiles. request , which, coupled with a satellite, can get into the open window. But no, give all the battleships armored and with more guns ...
      PS A "Richelieu" is handsome! fellow Personally, I consider it to be almost perfection (if they had not interfered with the restrictions, we could have created an ideal ... winked )
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2017 08: 13
    +4
    The author, alas, is captive to many misconceptions.
    the shells themselves, compared to guided bombs and the cost of a sortie for their delivery, cost a mere penny

    Not at all. Shells for large-caliber guns - quite an expensive pleasure
    firing for the most part will be held at the request of the ground forces, i.e. in small series

    Quite the opposite - the series will have to be quite large. I strongly recommend that the author familiarize himself with the concepts of the probable circular deviation and statistical calculations of the required number of shells, for reliable destruction of the area target.
    which means that it’s not necessary to drag as many as 8-9 guns in 3-4 towers, 2 towers of 2 guns are enough

    Watching for what. If you need to hit a stationary highly protected target, like a bunker, then yes. But if a fire raid is required on, say, an enemy brigade unfolding for an attack, then no.
    Yes, and the 305-mm gun is very severe, there is little hope for such a counteraction.

    That's right. Therefore, the range of tasks for such an instrument is extremely narrow - for the most part, the instruments of smaller caliber or MLRS, or guided munitions like the KAB, can do the same thing.
    Plus departure price.

    If we compare the price of the departure of the plane (for the United States - several tens of thousands of dollars per hour, the cost of the aircraft itself is taken into account) + the price of ammunition (the same several tens of thousands of dollars for a guided bomb) with the cost of leaving a large warship and its cover to hostile shores + tens heavy shells (and a smaller amount of the same bunker does not hit, dispersion however), then I'm not sure that the balance will be in favor of the ship.
    And the resistance to subsonic anti-ship missiles of an armored ship should be very high

    Why does he need it? If he acts as part of an amphibious warrant, then the coastal defense should be completely "taken out" to his approach and no subsonic anti-ship missiles. He is, perhaps, and armored, and transports with a landing?
    Torpedo bombers disappeared as a class

    Revive - just spit. It’s enough to adapt the PLUR to a modern aircraft - voila!
    Air defense with modern air defense systems can be provided within a radius of tens of kilometers, or even hundreds

    The key mistake of the author. Air defense ship formation in general can not be provided by air defense systems. A simple example - out of 85 planes that attacked British ships during the Falkland conflict (meaning the planes that managed to attack the ships) exactly 7 were shot down by air defense systems.
    A modern aircraft is capable of attacking a ship without entering the air defense zone at all, flying up to it at 40 km but remaining at a low altitude beyond the radio horizon. And no air defense system here is not an assistant
    There is no need to perform acrobatic stunts on high-speed ejection, when the aerofinisher cable breaks or another misfortune occurs on an aircraft carrier, and build monsters of 100 tons, living the realities of Midway with Guadalcanal.

    And where is he going to go? :))) You can send an airborne landing without air cover only against a country that does not have its own aviation. But even there is no need :)))
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 January 2017 10: 06
      +4
      Welcome Andrew hi
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      And no air defense system here is not an assistant

      Do you remember how Kaptsov? An extended telescopic antenna is able to see the aircraft for a long time before its takeoff! bully And just don’t tell me that such a fishing rod will mercilessly describe parabolas even on a small wave!
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 26 January 2017 11: 50
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        Do you remember how Kaptsov? An extended telescopic antenna is able to see the aircraft for a long time before its takeoff!

        I have no such

        You yourself come up
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 26 January 2017 11: 34
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      and transports with troops?

      No transports

      58 army enters through the Kodori Gorge
      ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving along the coast of Abkhazia, supporting the battle in coastal areas with fire
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      then coastal defenses must be completely "rendered"

      in the described case it is impossible
      Injee or club can run because of each chiara. or break in from 100 mm
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It is enough to adapt the PLUR to the modern aircraft - voila!

      parachute ammunition will shoot Phalanxes
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 26 January 2017 12: 13
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        in the described case it is impossible
        Injee or club can run because of each chiara. or break in from 100 mm

        hi Hello Oleg, when I watched the landing on the Opuk training ground, before the start of landing on the training ground area, two Tu-95-xs were worked out. I understood one thing for sure ... DON'T GIVE GOD to be there during the bombing.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        parachute ammunition will shoot Phalanxes

        Do the phalanxes already shoot at 8 km?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2017 18: 12
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No transports

        Why, then, support for transports? If there are none?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving along the coast of Abkhazia, supporting the battle in coastal areas with fire

        It just does not need
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Injee or club can run because of each chiara. or break in from 100 mm

        Moreover, which is characteristic, it is possible that from closed positions, without discovering which the artillery support ship will have to leave in tears ...
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 26 January 2017 21: 10
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Why then support transports?

          There are no transports, this is a problem you yourself invented
          army enters land

          the fleet provides support
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It just does not need

          How do you know that
          there was war.

          in all coastal conflicts, the fleet was engaged to bombard targets ashore. Falklands, Korea-Vietnam, the Abkhaz wars - the Abkhaz put the NURS unit from a helicopter on the boats))
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          not finding that the ship artillery support will have to leave in tears ...

          Therefore, we are talking about security

          And there are no wars without tears
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2017 08: 24
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There are no transports, this is a problem you yourself invented

            Clear, the landing is teleported.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            army enters land

            And why did she have a "military armored carrier"?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            in all coastal conflicts, the fleet was attracted to shell targets on the coast

            We look
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Falklands

            Landing operation with a bunch of transports (which are not according to Oleg Kaptsov)
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Korea

            The American Expeditionary Force in the Busan perimeter, the Incheon landing operation ... well, that’s never a landing. And not a single transport, which is typical! :))
            Oleg, almost all the coastal conflicts that you examined are either pure landing or operations of the expeditionary force. Those. part of the army / marines goes to distant lands. Do not confuse this with army operations on your own and / or adjacent territory.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Therefore, we are talking about security

            You did not understand. Googled the Dardanelles operation, you will learn about how the Turkish field artillery drove the heavily armored ships of the Allies - and they could not do anything.
    3. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 13: 53
      +2
      Not at all. Shells for large-caliber guns - quite an expensive pleasure


      But it’s unlikely that they are more expensive than the “caliber” engine alone. If you don’t know, there’s not some solid fuel primitive, like on a space rocket, but a completely airplane engine, that is, a VERY complicated and expensive turbine. And heavy-duty guns shoot very accurately. Guidance issues, and this is stupid physics and matan, are now perfectly solved by computers.

      If we compare the price of the departure of the plane (for the United States - several tens of thousands of dollars per hour, the cost of the aircraft itself is taken into account) + the price of ammunition (the same several tens of thousands of dollars for a guided bomb) with the cost of leaving a large warship and its cover to hostile shores + tens heavy shells


      That is, the 100000 aircraft carrier was no longer a warship. Like the planes on it, too, suddenly became completely free.

      Quite the opposite - the series will have to be quite large. I strongly recommend that the author familiarize himself with the concepts of the probable circular deviation and statistical calculations of the required number of shells, for reliable destruction of the area target.


      It is in the conditions of total war for a day of battle, and could release half a thousand shells. And they released, and in such quantities as "tomahawks" were not released for all the time, this is the question of the price again. In subsequent wars, I shot up one request very little. Several dozen shells and there is no "competition" that we are against the enemy N shells per minute, and he is for us M. If M> N, for example, there are trite more guns, then we have problems. Theoretically, for shelling the coast, you can build a 3-turret ship, and so on. But I don't see the point, it's better to build a somewhat simpler one instead of one studded with guns. It is bad for battleship combat with each other, but good for service and flexibility. There is not enough one ship with 4 guns, 1 more is allocated, there will already be 8 guns.

      about the time of the Falkland conflict (meaning the planes that managed to attack the ships) the air defense system was shot down exactly 7.
      A modern aircraft is capable of attacking a ship without entering the air defense zone at all, flying up to it at 40 km but remaining at a low altitude beyond the radio horizon. And no air defense system here is not an assistant


      “Harriers” there demonstrated the ability to only catch someone on command from ships, as a rule, after the attack, well, yes, “harriers” are wretched by definition. The destruction range of the C-400 to 400 km, and even the old air defense systems in Moscow, reach the 75 km, so it’s not very clear to me who you were going to sink from the 40 km. Anyway, the key mistake made by the attack fans without entering the air defense zone, in air defense, a rocket is ALWAYS more and longer-range than that small thing that is suspended on an airplane.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2017 18: 48
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        But it’s unlikely that they are more expensive than the “caliber” engine alone.

        Why do we need a "Caliber"? A conventional high-explosive bomb will have accuracy comparable to a heavy projectile when dropped from an airplane (unless, of course, it is equipped with an appropriate sight, like ours in Syria)
        Quote: EvilLion
        And heavy-duty guns shoot very accurately. Guidance issues, and this is stupid physics and matan, are now perfectly solved by computers.

        I told you - take any textbook on artillery and do not disgrace. What accuracy? Any, I repeat, ANY task in artillery combat is solved this way (if on fingers) - for the chosen distance the projectile dispersion ellipse is determined, and then the number of shells that need to be placed in this dispersion ellipse is determined in order to, according to statistics, have a good chance of hitting the target. And the farther the distance - the larger this same ellipse of dispersion, and you need to spend a lot of shells. For example, the length of the scattering ellipse for a 305 mm / 52 gun at a distance of about 28 km was 800 meters.
        It would be different - no guided missiles would be needed.
        Quote: EvilLion
        That is, 100000 aircraft carrier warship ceased to be

        What does an aircraft carrier have to do with it? It is incomparable with your "armored-type diarrhea" in capabilities - the ability to carry AWACS and EW aircraft alone is more expensive than your three ships. An aircraft carrier can provide air defense connections, your ship - no, so no one will ever send it outside the radius of action of their own aviation. And within them, you need to compare the plane and your ship, and not the plane + aircraft carrier and your ship.
        Quote: EvilLion
        Like the planes on it, too, suddenly became completely free.

        Read one more time
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        If we compare the price of the departure of the plane (in the US - several tens of thousands of dollars per hour, the cost of the aircraft itself is taken into account)

        Quote: EvilLion
        In subsequent wars, one shot at a very small bid.

        No fantasies, kindly, learn how it really is
        Quote: EvilLion
        The S-400’s destruction range is up to 400 km, and even the old air defense systems in Moscow "reach 75 km, so I don’t understand who you are planning to drown from 40 km there

        Because you still have to study and study. Do you see the moon in the sky? You see, if there is no night, moon and clouds. What is the distance from the moon to the earth? Almost 385 thousand km. Can you see Kremlin stars from St. Petersburg? No. Although they are less than 700 km away. Why? But because - the horizon. The curvature of the zemshara. If you are standing on the ground in the steppe and looking into the distance, then the horizon for you is approximately 18 kilometers. For a ship that drags its radar quite high above sea level, it has a horizon of about 30 km.
        But for targets beyond 30 km the radar cannot watch. That is, if the plane goes on very small - well, about 30 meters above sea level, then the radar can detect it from 35 kilometers. And in order for the S-400 radar to see the plane at 400 km, you need to fly at an altitude of about 10 thousand m. Fly below - everything, the radar, like your view, the horizon is not trained to go around.
        Therefore, a modern combat aircraft may very well approach the enemy ship for 4-50 km, remaining completely invisible and invulnerable to the latter
        Quote: EvilLion
        Anyway, the key mistake made by the fans of the attack without entering the air defense zone is that the air defense has a rocket ALWAYS bigger and longer-range than the small thing that is suspended on the plane.

        Well, if you deigned to study the question a little, you would know that None of the air defense systems showed any superiority over aviation. Yes, air defense systems are a dangerous adversary and there have been cases, individual battles, when air defense systems from an ambush destroyed groups of enemy aircraft. But to provide air defense of ground forces (not to mention air supremacy) SAMs failed in any military conflict.
        And what, against this background, are your considerations? You didn’t even bother to study even the most general principles of the air defense system
    4. Leeder
      Leeder 26 January 2017 15: 53
      +1
      Shells for large-caliber guns - quite an expensive pleasure

      Compared to rockets?
      If you need to hit a stationary highly protected target, like a bunker, then yes. But if a fire raid is required on, say, an enemy brigade unfolding for an attack, then no.

      If we compare the price of the departure of the plane (for the United States - several tens of thousands of dollars per hour, the cost of the aircraft itself is taken into account) + the price of ammunition (the same several tens of thousands of dollars for a guided bomb) with the cost of leaving a large warship and its cover to hostile shores + tens heavy shells (and a smaller amount of the same bunker does not hit, dispersion however), then I'm not sure that the balance will be in favor of the ship.

      Aircraft that have been bartering all this time will be better and cheaper than the MLRS?
      Revive - just spit. It’s enough to adapt the PLUR to a modern aircraft - voila!

      What's the point? If the submarines (theoretically) can get close to the squadron, then the aircraft for launching a torpedo is no longer there, even theoretically.
      Here you need to approach how to solve the problem. -
      It is necessary to deliver the Nth quantity and weight of ammunition to predetermined targets, and upon request from an attacking landing. The key condition - it is MANDATORY to provide support, because without fire cover the landing is doomed.
      Other conditions (protection of delivery vehicles, delivery price, etc.) are only in 2nd place.
      If you manage to drag and cover an artillery ship, that’s great, because shelling will be cheaper and faster than using missiles and just cheaper and safer than using aircraft. If not, then missiles and MLRS, aviation in my opinion is the last thing that is necessary to support (Expensive and risky).
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 26 January 2017 18: 55
        0
        Quote: LeeDer
        Compared to rockets?

        Compared to Air Bombs
        Quote: LeeDer
        Aircraft that have been bartering all this time will be better and cheaper than the MLRS?

        Aircraft do not need to "barrage". Airplanes take off on a mission when necessary. MLRS indeed in some cases has superiority over both aviation and barreled artillery, but it has its own niche of use and MLRS can not replace either
        Quote: LeeDer
        What's the point? If the submarines (theoretically) can get closer to the squadron, then the aircraft for launching a torpedo is no longer there, even theoretically

        The plane can approach 40-50 km, for PLUR it is fie. This is even for a conventional torpedo within reach :)
        Quote: LeeDer
        ut should be approached as a solution to the problem. -

        Only here are the conditions you set incorrectly
        Quote: LeeDer
        It is necessary to deliver the Nth quantity and weight of ammunition to predetermined targets

        will they be determined by the landing? You landed on the coast, according to you, the SPG division worked out from an unknown distance. Where will you shoot?
        The enemy must first be identified. And for this we need air reconnaissance. And so as not to bring down, you need local dominance in the air in the landing zone. And nothing of this artillery ship (with MLRS) can not provide.
        1. Leeder
          Leeder 27 January 2017 13: 48
          +2
          Compared to Air Bombs

          Artillery shells at a cost that no delivery vehicle can outperform.
          At the cost of delivering the "cargo", it turns out Artillery - MLRS - Aviation - KR, right?
          That's why you need to use artillery when possible, because it’s cheaper and easier to deliver (only shells, unlike aviation, MLRS and KR)
          Aircraft do not need to "barrage". Airplanes take off on a mission when necessary. MLRS indeed in some cases has superiority over both aviation and barreled artillery, but it has its own niche of use and MLRS can not replace either

          At a distance of over 50 km, aviation is faster, but at shorter distances, aviation simply does not have time to take off, fly and cover the same self-propelled guns (which will also be covered by air defense), do not forget that the squadron cannot be located at a distance of less than 10 -20 km from the landing.
          The plane can approach 40-50 km, for PLUR it is fie. This is even for a conventional torpedo within reach :)

          The enemy must first be identified. And for this we need air reconnaissance. And so as not to bring down, you need local dominance in the air in the landing zone.

          Is there no contradiction here? Or local air supremacy, is it less than 50 km?
          Regarding torpedoes, the only torpedo with a range of more than 50 km is the Kit, which has been removed from service. And for PLUR, if I am not mistaken, the distance over> 50 km is also at the limit of possibilities.
          And so as not to bring down, you need local dominance in the air in the landing zone. And nothing of this artillery ship (with MLRS) can not provide.

          The ship with MLRS is not intended for this, it is necessary to provide fire support.
          Only here are the conditions you set incorrectly

          True, these are only delivery vehicles. The definition of goals is not included in this task, otherwise the conditions of the task would be completely different. Territory reconnaissance is conducted not only by airplanes, do not forget about satellites, drones, RER, counter-battery radars, etc.
          Well, there is no "Superweapon", a compromise of armaments is needed. And no aircraft carrier that you are hinting at here, without additional support ships that will protect not only him, is not capable of securing victory, there simply isn’t enough strength to provide air cover, fire support, protection from the sea, and so on.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 27 January 2017 16: 40
            +1
            Sorry, but what are we arguing about?
            I agree with you that artillery and MLRS have their own niche, where their use is fully justified and where airplanes do not need to meddle. Aviation will not replace either artillery or MLRS - they complement each other, like other types and arms
            I agree that a ship capable of providing artillery support is very useful with landing forces.
            Quote: LeeDer
            Is there no contradiction here? Or local air supremacy, is it less than 50 km?

            There is no contradiction, because in the presence of an airborne AWACS, the ability to sneak up to 50 km undetected is sharply reduced :))) Not that it’s to zero, but much. In other words, carrier-based aviation is not only capable of providing local superiority in the air, but is also extremely useful as a means of reconnaissance.
            Quote: LeeDer
            And no aircraft carrier that you are hinting at here, without additional support ships that will protect not only him, is not able to ensure victory

            And there is no objection to this. An aircraft carrier is not a child prodigy, but an element of balanced naval forces, which, in turn, are themselves an element of a balanced armed forces. It’s just that the author of the article contrasts the artillery support ships to the aircraft carriers, and I kind of answer.
  10. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 26 January 2017 08: 35
    +2
    The topic of the next article: "Heavy artillery assault support ship based on the strategic missile submarine" Akula ". 23 tons of surface displacement, but if you remove the missiles. Two towers with 000 mm guns will stand up freely. And if you think about the railgun !!! In general, the monster will turn out. If I could still fly, but it's more difficult. Author, go for it.
    1. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 13: 55
      +1
      It would be possible to troll and recall cases of mega-hounds on submarines and even submarine aircraft carriers, yes lazy.
  11. kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 26 January 2017 08: 37
    0
    And Oleg would be more interesting drinks
  12. kvs207
    kvs207 26 January 2017 08: 38
    0
    Directly monitors of the "Erebus" type are described.
    Also at first thought on Kaptsova)))
  13. kvs207
    kvs207 26 January 2017 08: 40
    0
    Quote: Per se.
    The scheme of the French battleship of the "Richelieu" class seems to be the most suitable for such a renaissance of a well-protected missile and cannon ship, with a conventional or nuclear power plant.

    "Nelson" is even better)))
  14. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2017 08: 54
    +2
    Quote: igordok
    Initially, I thought that this was an article by Oleg Kaptsov, but it turned out to be too small for Oleg’s creations.

    I confess too.

    Quote: novel xnumx
    why not? Interestingly, do modern PCRs expect armor penetration? it can turn out quite ridiculously - such a miracle of Judah comes to Aug, paying no attention to anything, and fucks drowning it with ordinary artillery !!! what is embarrassment?

    Do modern ships have armor? And then. What prevents us from putting on an anti-ship missile, for example, a high-explosive cumulative warhead, as it stood on one of our anti-ship missiles?
    So this miracle of yuda does not fit anywhere. They will detect her for 1000 km and while she will go this thousand she will be drowned several times

    Quote: Per se.
    Plus articles, mainly in attempts to take a fresh look at the forgotten old. Obviously, fire support from the sea is needed, but it is doubtful to create a "battleship" for the sake of it, all the more so, pushing new systems into the displacement of the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905. ...

    He didn’t put anything into the article, although thoughts about an artillery support ship for the landing are not meaningless. That's just like it was, though I can’t name the author now, but there have been publications in the internet for about 20 years. True, there the idea of ​​such a ship was more multifaceted.
    Firstly, the "battleship" in those articles was, if I may say so, "half-submerged". Low side, almost complete absence of superstructure. and a pair of large-caliber towers. This is like the first option. To hit such a "low-sitting" goal, according to the author, is extremely problematic.
    The second option is also in the form of "semi-submerged". but no longer a battleship, but a certain arsenal ship with guns and cruise missiles.
    In the third version, it was proposed to have in the aft part of such an arsenal a platform from which 2-4 vertical take-off attack aircraft could start.
    True, the author did not work out such a thing as protection against air attack weapons. Anti-aircraft missiles can be positioned, but where radars in the absence of cabin is a problem

    Quote: Per se.
    Currently, the "arm length", thanks to the development of anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles in surface ships, has increased significantly, and it can be expected that soon the aircraft carrier will be destroyed before its aircraft could come into contact with the newly-minted missile and cannon battleship, be it such a ship created.

    Do not forget that the "arm length" of the aircraft carrier also increases. The radius of combat vehicles is increasing, AWACS aircraft are also becoming more and more "sighted". Already, the radars of such aircraft have a detection range of the order of 450-600 km. Add to this that such an aircraft loiters at a distance of about 400 km from the aircraft carrier and you get the desired figure. Such a battleship will be detected at a distance of 850-1000 km from the aircraft carrier. And they will hit such an artillery-rocket ship even before it gets close to a salvo range
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 26 January 2017 09: 36
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      And such an artillery-missile ship will be struck even before it approaches a salvo range
      If you contrast an aircraft carrier with a missile-cannon ship, but it’s more logical if they complement each other, both during an attack and during defense. Finally, the range of heavy anti-ship missiles will sooner or later exceed the range of the farthest deck attack aircraft, if only because it flies only one way, being essentially a unmanned kamikaze aircraft. In close combat, if it happened for any reason, the aircraft carrier, against the guns of the battleship, would have no chance. A powerful missile-cannon ship will also come in handy during landing operations, but, again, not as a contrast, but as an addition to an aircraft carrier.
  15. Mikhail Polnikov
    Mikhail Polnikov 26 January 2017 08: 56
    0
    Quote: ydjin
    Kaptsovschina bloomed terry! Oleg appeared loyal followers. laughing Although to force the peace of small coastal countries, this tactic can be quite effective! yes

    Yeah ... For example, to introduce such a vessel into the 6th US fleet, the one that is based off the coast of Belarus ... (c) by Jennifer Rene "Jen" Psaki.
  16. Gust
    Gust 26 January 2017 09: 38
    +1
    The article is obviously the seed for discussion. As for the armor, I think a small constructive protection of 50 mm in a circle will not hurt anyone in terms of protection against fragments of downed anti-ship missiles and missiles in case of their unconventional use. The main armored belts like Yamato's sense do not have the anti-ship missile systems with cumulatively high-explosive or simply armored warheads they can easily be sewn.

    As for the support of the landing, the issue is very controversial in the proposed concept. If the enemy’s aviation and coastal batteries are suppressed, then the armor is not needed, if not, then the armor will not save (see above). In this regard, I still can’t understand why they did Zamvolt except drank dough ...
  17. Serg65
    Serg65 26 January 2017 10: 02
    +3
    Then came the good old battleship and simply plowed the Syrian positions from the good old guns of the main caliber.

    Yes Yes!!!!!
    Quote: Rurikovich
    style is not kaptsovskaya

    Welcome Andrew hi , but in my opinion it reminds me of Oleg’s approach.
    After all, just like Oleg, the author gives some facts and is silent about others. I certainly understand. that the first war in Lebanon is the times of bygone years, but Andrei from Chelyabinsk took apart the battle in the Yellow Sea a hundred years ago, and then only 35 years have passed! The author sticking out the work of "New Jersey", for some reason is silent about the cruisers "Ticonderoga", "Virginia", the destroyers "John Rogers", "Arthur Radford", "Tatnell" who performed the same work more efficiently and in much larger volumes ! The author is also modestly silent about the fact that in February 1984 in Lebanon, with the active participation of the Black Sea and Baltic missilemen, the Redoubt battalion was deployed with the task of being ready to launch a missile strike on the battleship New Jersey of the US Navy. Upon receipt of intelligence about the deployment of "Reduta", the battleship for some reason left the conflict area and took refuge in the island zone.
    Now for the fantasies about the fire support ship. If the author is eager to create a sort of armor-cannon monster, then I can say that marine guns, as a result of their ballistics, are not suitable for these purposes, here the author needs to pay attention to land howitzers - more suitable for this case. But here the question arises, why and against whom is such a ship needed? An amphibious operation against a country with a modern, well-armed army is practically unrealistic, and against an underdeveloped country, such troubles with an expensive armor-cannon monster and, moreover, having a fate for most of their lives, stand against the wall and devour taxpayer money for their maintenance!
  18. Taoist
    Taoist 26 January 2017 10: 36
    0
    Damn, Kaptsov under a pseudonym?
  19. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2017 10: 36
    +1
    Quote: Per se.
    Finally, the range of heavy anti-ship missiles will sooner or later exceed the range of the farthest deck attack aircraft, if only because it flies only one way, being essentially a unmanned kamikaze aircraft. In close combat, if it happened for any reason, the aircraft carrier, against the guns of the battleship, would have no chance. A powerful missile-cannon ship will also come in handy during landing operations, but, again, not as a contrast, but as an addition to an aircraft carrier.

    You can make the missile range at least 3 thousand kilometers, at least 4 thousand. The question is different. In target designation. If it is a supersonic rocket, it will be a monster weighing several tens of tons. If it is subsonic, it will "cut" to the target for at least 4 hours. Well, if in battle they converge on a pistol shot, then yes, the battleship will win
    1. brn521
      brn521 26 January 2017 12: 41
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Well, if in a fight they converge “on a pistol” shot, then yes, the battleship will win

      Well, if you come closer even closer, you get a hand-to-hand fight between two captains.
  20. alstr
    alstr 26 January 2017 10: 42
    0
    After reading the article and comments, I realized that we still think in the past.
    Explain.
    Here the author sets the task for the new ship: landing support. And starts with guns.
    However, taking into account dispersion, etc. A cannon is not an ideal weapon. Firstly, there can also be guns on the shore. And from the sailing fleet it is known that one gun on the shore stands a ship at sea. Secondly, it is difficult to hit an air defense system precisely with one shell due to the small size and dispersed location of the air defense system.
    Based on this, it is more expedient to use the MLRS system for fire support. Firstly, their range is much higher. The range of ammunition is wider (from old and cheap), but firing close to new and expensive, which shoot up to 200 km (comparable to a hundred km for a projectile).
    Plus MLRS a high probability of covering the target, because coverage area is much larger.
    Although it’s impossible to refuse artillery at all, because at fairly close distances, it has an advantage over the RZSO.
    In addition, we must not forget about all kinds of scanners and other missile systems.
    By reservation: Necessary within reasonable limits, as if we don’t reserve the entire building equally well, then we can always program anti-ship missiles to detonate in the most vulnerable place (and already all anti-ship missiles can make a slide, and if necessary, they will dive under water). Therefore, it may make sense to emphasize the reservation of bulkheads (i.e., so that when the RCC hits, the defeat does not go beyond 2-3 compartments).
    Since we are talking about the landing, it is desirable to have the landing itself.
    In addition, we must also determine where the landing is planted. It is one thing to distant lands in Syria conditional, and another thing - in the Baltic or the Black Sea.
    In the first case, as a result, we get something like Mistral armed with long-range missile and artillery weapons due to, say, an air group or landing, and in another we get something like the Bison.
    Theoretically, for unification, they can be combined. Those. so that in the conditional Mistral, the Bison are used as landing modules.
    And even more delusional stuff into the Mistral - ekranoplan))))))
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 January 2017 11: 20
      +2
      Quote: alstr
      Based on this, it is more expedient to use the MLRS system for fire support. Firstly, their range is much higher. The range of ammunition is wider (from old and cheap), but firing close to new and expensive, which shoot up to 200 km (comparable to a hundred km for a projectile).

      Inexpensive? MLRS today is just an extremely expensive pleasure.
      Since the range of firing is important for the gunboat, only large-caliber systems are suitable for her as weapons. Here are the PC prices for Smerch for 2005:
      300 mm PC to 9A52
      High explosive 9M55F with adult 9B191: 2004986,26 XNUMX rubles.
      9M55K fragmentation cassette with adult 9B171: 1780600,01 rub.
      9M55K fragmentation cassette with adult 9B191: 2248396,48 rub.
      Inert fragmentation cassette 9M55K IN: 2083752,40 rubles.

      Not bad, huh? One full salvo of a 12-barrel launcher - and 20-25 million flew into the blue distance.
      1. alstr
        alstr 26 January 2017 12: 23
        0
        About inexpensive ones - I mean the old samples, which are no longer produced, but there are n warehouses. They clearly see a range lower, but higher than that of conventional artillery (50-70 km from the same tornado).
        Then the article also suggests firing volleys. In addition, adjustable shells also cost about 50 thousand dollars, which at the current rate is about 3 million rubles. So at cost we get approximate parity.

        In addition, the same Tornado has such a thing as an ammunition for mining the area - you must agree that the necessary thing to support the landing is to put a minefield on the approach to the bridgehead.

        There is another plus. The dimensions and weight of the MLRS are smaller than the main-caliber tower. True, they lose in weight and size of ammunition (I'm talking about Tornado). Smaller MLRS win here.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2017 14: 06
          +1
          Quote: alstr
          About inexpensive ones - I mean the old samples, which are no longer produced, but there are n warehouses. They clearly see a range lower, but higher than that of conventional artillery (50-70 km from the same tornado).

          So storage systems also have problems - because of solid fuel. And to use the RS immediately from storage - this means each time that the volley can fly on its own.
          Quote: alstr
          There is another plus. The dimensions and weight of the MLRS are smaller than the main-caliber tower. True, they lose in weight and size of ammunition (I'm talking about Tornado). Smaller MLRS win here.

          Large MLRS win in the main thing - in the range: 90 km versus 35. For the gunboat this is extremely important, since it can not crawl across the coastline. smile
          If you put "hail", it may turn out that the main enemy of the landing - the artillery of the enemy - will simply be outside the radius of the MLRS gunboat.
          1. alstr
            alstr 26 January 2017 14: 30
            0
            I meant that you need to put both, because in large MLRS min range is large (from 8 to 20 km). This niche can be filled with small MLRS and artillery
      2. EvilLion
        26 January 2017 13: 58
        +1
        A "caliber" or "tomahawk" will take the same money not in one gulp, but with one missile. laughing
        1. alstr
          alstr 26 January 2017 14: 31
          +1
          we can add that the preparation of a volley of caliber and MLRS - two big differences.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 January 2017 17: 20
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          A "caliber" or "tomahawk" will take the same money not in one gulp, but with one rocket

          And it will hit the target (even at maximum range). And not into a scattering ellipse - like near Mariupol, when the “tornadoes” at maximum range could not work out normally even for an openly located target the size of an airfield (and even the shanks landed exactly in the civilian sector).
  21. Gust
    Gust 26 January 2017 10: 43
    +1
    And yet, what is the best way to support the landing and damage the coastal infrastructure? After all, the Kyrgyz Republic is expensive and quickly ends;))
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 January 2017 11: 12
      +3
      Quote: Rafale
      And yet, what is the best way to support the landing and damage the coastal infrastructure?

      laughing Yes, put on the Volga-Balt pieces four self-propelled guns "Carnation" and horseradish where God sends

      Well, what about the “Bison”, you read at your leisure how on September 29 1993 of the year MDK-93 39 th dimds under the command of cap three Kremenchutsky, with a commander captain Maximov (future commander of the Navy) senior on board, tried to rescue the gray-haired Assol from terrible Abkhazians - Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, and at that time Chairman of the Supreme Council of Georgia E. Shevardnadze. Interesting story, I'll tell you bully
      1. EvilLion
        26 January 2017 13: 59
        0
        Therefore, it makes no sense to use something smaller than 203 mm.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 January 2017 14: 08
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        Interesting story, I'll tell you

        Yeah .. especially if you read its version from uv. u_96: If anything, write that I'm crazy! .. "or a naval tale in several parts. smile
        A gray-haired Assol sat in the bushes near the military sanatorium - former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Komsomol of Georgia, former minister of internal affairs of the Georgian SSR, former first secretary of the Communist Party of Georgia Tbilisi, former first secretary of the Communist Party of Georgia, Hero of Socialist Labor, former USSR Foreign Minister and member of the Politburo of the Central Committee CPSU, and now Chairman of the Supreme Council of Georgia, Eduard Amvrosievich Shevardnadze.
        Assol wrapped herself in a draped coat and stared at the sea with all her might.
        ... No, not in a plebeian way with some naked eye! The glance of the head of the Republic of Georgia was very armed. Great American binoculars. However, to the owner’s chagrin, even this miracle of capitalist technology showed the same thing as eyes devoid of any optics ...
        That is - completely, completely, to smithereens and half empty sea. Only on the horizon wandered some silhouettes. These were the Abkhaz.
        Actually, they were already everywhere. Abkhazians were not only in the air. But there were their shells and missiles, which in recent days have successfully failed the Tu-154 troika with a bunch of Georgian guards on board. In addition, the MANPADS and the Shilka of the Abkhazians so densely obscured the vicinity of the Babusher aerodrome that the pilots warned Eduard Amvrosievich that they would shoot better than try to fly up.
        That is why a citizen of Shevardnadze, born in 1928, was now playing in red sails, staring at the waves to the pain in his eyes. He looked out for his saviors - the Americans!
        Why the Yankees must certainly abandon all their affairs and rush to get him out of the encircled Sukhumi, this Hero of Socialist Labor himself could not explain. Which, however, did not prevent Shevardnadze from believing vehemently in this balcony. And not only to believe, but also to convince others.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 26 January 2017 14: 13
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          If anything, write that I'm crazy !.

          laughing Thank God Alexey that you did not place Baltina and Maximov’s negotiations here!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 26 January 2017 17: 21
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            Thank God Alexey that you did not place Baltina and Maximov’s negotiations here!

            No, no, no ... I already have one warning for obscene language. laughing
      3. Normal ok
        Normal ok 28 January 2017 17: 54
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: Rafale
        And yet, what is the best way to support the landing and damage the coastal infrastructure?

        Well, what about the “Bison”, you read at your leisure how on September 29 1993 of the year MDK-93 39 th dimds under the command of cap three Kremenchutsky, with a commander captain Maximov (future commander of the Navy) senior on board, tried to rescue the gray-haired Assol from terrible Abkhazians - Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, and at that time Chairman of the Supreme Council of Georgia E. Shevardnadze. Interesting story, I'll tell you bully

        I read it, interestingly. But this does not refute the idea of ​​artillery support for amphibious assault. Moreover, the Bison is just very vulnerable due to the complete lack of booking.
  22. spravochnik
    spravochnik 26 January 2017 10: 52
    +1
    The Chinese have solved this issue much easier. They took a large enough roller, a dozen 155-mm self-propelled guns and voila were installed on the deck, the landing support ship was ready.
  23. Gust
    Gust 26 January 2017 10: 58
    0
    Quote: Old26
    You can make a missile range of at least 3 thousand kilometers, at least 4 thousand. The question is different. In target designation. If it is a supersonic rocket, it will be a monster weighing several tens of tons. If subsonic - it will "cut" to the target for 4 hours at least.

    It is enough to exceed the radius of the AUG aircraft with refueling. Even if we disengage from the ICRC like Liana, Yaogan, etc., then modern GOS anti-ship missiles will see such carcasses from afar even with a big miss.
  24. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 26 January 2017 11: 04
    +3
    These old ruins could no longer chase the Japanese squadrons, the speed was not the same, but they contributed a lot to the task of clearing various islands from the Japanese.

    Heh heh heh ... actually, it was these "old ruins" that participated in the only battleship squadron battle on the theater of operations.
    Torpedo bombers disappeared as a class. Dive players too.

    Manned - yes. But unmanned carriers of armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing warheads, attacking from a dive or working on the underwater part of the ship (detachable warhead), quite exist. The same KSSh, pomnitsa, embodied the dream of the Japanese admirals - a diving shell.
    Air defense with modern air defense systems can be provided within a radius of tens of kilometers, or even hundreds.

    If the enemy goes at medium and high altitudes, then yes. But back in the 80s, a mixed profile was considered the standard profile for a KMG attack: a flight to the target area on the NE and a decrease by MV and PMV before entering the air defense zone.
    And on the MV due to the radio horizon, the range of the air defense system drops to 40-50 km.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 26 January 2017 11: 46
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      participated in the only battle squadron battleships on the TO theater.

      But what about Kirishima at Guadalcanal
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 January 2017 12: 25
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But what about Kirishima at Guadalcanal

        One LC from the Japanese side and two from the American side. It somehow does not pull on the squadron battle of LK.

        I can reformulate - the "old ruins" participated in a single linear battle battleships on the theater of operations. smile
    2. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 14: 00
      0
      RCC - this is the drone. No need to carry anything, just bump into all the dope.
      But supersonic anti-ship missiles weighing tons in the world are not so common.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 26 January 2017 17: 26
        0
        Quote: EvilLion
        But supersonic anti-ship missiles weighing tons in the world are not so common.

        This is for now. If USN does not depart from the concept of “besides AUG anti-ship KUGs are needed,” then RCC weighing a ton will become the standard. smile
  25. Old26
    Old26 26 January 2017 11: 43
    0
    Quote: Rafale
    Quote: Old26
    You can make a missile range of at least 3 thousand kilometers, at least 4 thousand. The question is different. In target designation. If it is a supersonic rocket, it will be a monster weighing several tens of tons. If subsonic - it will "cut" to the target for 4 hours at least.

    It is enough to exceed the radius of the AUG aircraft with refueling. Even if we disengage from the ICRC like Liana, Yaogan, etc., then modern GOS anti-ship missiles will see such carcasses from afar even with a big miss.

    If the RCC on the plane, let them see. But to shoot a ship at a range of 1-2 thousand, even with the most long-range missiles without target designation, does not mean to hit the target.
  26. prior
    prior 26 January 2017 12: 15
    0
    On a river-sea barge, put a couple - three "Coalitions" and let them shoot themselves. For air defense, load next to the "Shell". Cheap and efficient. Analogs are known - fire trucks on the deck of Kuznetsov.
  27. the same doctor
    the same doctor 26 January 2017 13: 04
    0
    Everything is beautifully written, but ... What are the goals and which rotivnik has a distance of 40 km from the coast? Does the likely adversary have enough RCC? How many shells will the armadillo release before drowning?
    .
    Well, let's say we have an armadillo in the AUG and they won’t be able to sink it, and it will release as many shells as it can. However, the dominance of the sea and in the air on remote TVDs never shines for us.
    .
    And where did you get the idea that a shot is cheap? One 450 mm barrel weighs up to one and a half hundred tons, and its resource is not more than 300, maybe up to a thousand shots. Add depreciation of the trunk and the ship itself, the cost of its maintenance in a peaceful period - the shell will turn out not cheaper than a cruise missile.
    .
    The future lies with small missile ships, possibly diving like submarines and using snorkel instead of stealth technology, and stealth technology to mask snorkel. For the price they will be even cheaper than the current missile boats, they will float only in the base and for launch, and wait for the storm under water.
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 26 January 2017 13: 55
      +3
      Quote: also a doctor
      The future lies with small missile ships, possibly diving like submarines and using snorkel instead of stealth technology, and stealth technology to mask snorkel.

      Dear also a doctor, I will answer you with the words of Taoist
      Quote: also a doctor
      Dear "everything is already stolen before us"

      You think with the brains of Nikita Segreevich Khrushchev, because it was on his order that TsKB-19 (the future TsMKB Almaz) began developing the 1231 ave., And after Khrushchev's resignation, they refused to design as not promising
    2. EvilLion
      26 January 2017 14: 04
      0
      1000 Shots are a high-explosive tank gun, if a goal ... pah, sub-caliber, then 5 times less. Only a rocket is still more expensive. You can compare a flash drive and a hard drive in terms of the cost of storing a gigabyte of data, the drive is complicated, but there all the electronics and mechanics serve a huge capacity, and on flash drives each has a bunch of electronics, like rockets have engines. Yes, a flash drive can be worn, it is convenient, but at the cost of a gig it is not a competitor to the screw from the word at all. Even figurative.
  28. Taoist
    Taoist 26 January 2017 13: 13
    +1
    Here I am always touched by the appearance of such "insights" ...
    Dear "everything is already stolen before us" (c)

    This topic was sucked repeatedly and with pleasure, only now it’s not even getting ridiculous. But once again for those who are "on an armored train."

    1) Who told you that the production of a large-caliber artillery projectile (much less managed) is cheap? For reference, the miracle of the gun, the miracle of the ship Zamvolt now without shells - there was not enough money.
    2) the use of LC against the coast, taking into account the ballistics of sea guns, is not only expensive, but very expensive ... and most importantly, it is almost useless. (The results of the Dardanelles operation against antediluvian Turkish cannons to help you) Coastal artillery is hiding in the folds of the terrain, but the ship sticks out like poplar on ivy ... And unlike coastal objects, it represents a wonderful target.
    3) if you really need large calibers to crack the coastal defense, then they build "monitors" - ships are much cheaper in terms of. In its present form, it will be really some kind of barge with self-propelled guns of the Coalition type installed - at least this will allow not to freeze resources in an armored coffin in anticipation of such an event.
    4) Aviation presents a flexible striking force that allows delivering strikes depending on the target and mission with exactly the required outfit. Again, taking into account the fact that we cannot predict exactly what the coming enemy and armed conflict will look like, freezing money and other resources in creating a highly specialized “armored barrage” is also the height of waste.
  29. brn521
    brn521 26 January 2017 13: 31
    +1
    First moment. As far as I remember, one of the previous articles considered the Iowa guns as a launcher for guided missiles. It seems that even calculations were made that making and launching one such projectile is much cheaper than firing a rocket with a similar efficiency in this distance. I don’t know what’s in there with the guidance system inside the projectile during wild overloads when firing, but I think it’s quite possible since there are similar options for smaller calibers. It is only clear that such a filling will cost more than in the case of a rocket. Probably a ride if there is a ready ship at hand. But whether the building will pay off from scratch is a question.
    Second moment. They mentioned the Nelsons. A great illustration of how shots from the main gun damage the ship itself. Damaged deck, superstructure. From shocks during a shot, equipment malfunctions. The question immediately arises, what will happen to modern equipment (including missiles in containers) when shaking from shots from such a caliber? Moreover, it was designed for missile ships, and not for battleships.
    The third point. Battleships could not fully tank. Only the part of the hull that was covered by the citadel was well protected. And everything else existed on the principle of "maybe they won’t hit, but if they hit, then not right away." What is the meaning of the same Dreadnought? The first to hit as many landmines from a long distance as possible at the enemy and not allow you to do the same with yourself. So you need to decide. If our ship absolutely must keep hits, while maintaining combat readiness, then we will have to build not a battleship, but a monitor. Moreover, strengthen his armor so that he could keep warhead tears weighing from 300 to 1000 kg. With low seaworthiness, a small margin of buoyancy, limited set of equipment. Or, after all, build a battleship, and include in the squadron a floating dock of appropriate sizes and an additional squadron with materials for repair. Otherwise, our “almost tank” will turn out to be disposable.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 January 2017 14: 27
      0
      Quote: brn521
      If our ship absolutely must keep hits, while maintaining combat readiness, then we will have to build not a battleship, but a monitor. Moreover, strengthen his armor so that he could keep warhead tears weighing from 300 to 1000 kg. With low seaworthiness, a small margin of buoyancy, limited set of equipment.

      This is what this article offers.
      The question arises: is it possible, instead of an ultra-high-speed steel monster, producing maximum shells for the minimum of time on the same moving target, to build a well-armored artillery ship not for fighting its own kind, but for shelling the coast? The speed of such a ship is not needed, huge savings are achieved in the power plant and fuel, while shooting for the most part will take place on requests from ground forces, i.e. in small batches, which means dragging 8-9 guns in 3-4 towers not required, enough 2 turrets for 2 guns. In fact, the battleship is obtained at a new technological level. Acting such a ship, like an aircraft carrier, should be part of a compound that will take on air defense and anti-submarine defense, which means that additional armament can be minimized: near anti-aircraft defense and anti-aircraft defense, which can be used by some Somali pirate or terrorist in a boat loaded with explosives to drown. The displacement of the battleships of the 19-20 turn of the centuries with four 305-mm guns was about 15000 tons, something similar should happen and we, if not less, can also save on armor, and leave the 150 armor belts. Yes, and 305-mm gun - it is very harsh, to counteract such a little that count.
      1. brn521
        brn521 26 January 2017 15: 25
        0
        Quote: Dart2027
        This is what this article offers.

        In the passage described, not a monitor, but an armadillo. Those. relatively full ship, in which the hull and superstructures are vulnerable. I'm talking about shit, in which the armor is distributed on the surface. Therefore, the deck is low, the superstructure is symbolic, and the towers draw water with guns on the ocean wave. But it will be the armor that will resist the hits.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 January 2017 17: 50
          0
          Quote: brn521
          In the passage described, not a monitor, but an armadillo.

          The classic monitor has no seaworthiness and was used off its coast, anyway, but the landing support ship should go into the open sea, so most likely it’s an armadillo, but of extremely low altitude.
  30. psy06
    psy06 26 January 2017 13: 38
    0
    But are military weapons not created according to the military doctrine of the state? In the US doctrines of Russia and China, there seems to be no task of bending the banana republics, protection of sovereignty is the cornerstone, and sovereignty is being protected from an equal or stronger enemy. Therefore, there are no artillery ships, since they are not spelled out in the doctrine. For we don’t go for bananas, and in defense of sovereignty such an aggregate is useless from the word at all, because it is heated by a single modern rocket, which, although terribly expensive, is by no means cheaper than one steamer with guns.
  31. Gust
    Gust 26 January 2017 14: 32
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    3) if you really need large calibers to crack the coastal defense, then they build "monitors" - ships are much cheaper in terms of. In its present form, it will be really some kind of barge with self-propelled guns of the Coalition type installed - at least this will allow not to freeze resources in an armored coffin in anticipation of such an event.

    I agree 100%, although there will be restrictions. IMHO need a universal lightly armored (50 mm) frigate for the marine zone with sharpening for PLO, on which there is a 100-152 mm artillery system. Such a frigate will be able to cover the patrol areas of its nuclear submarines, and as part of the KMG, in addition, support the landing force with fire.
  32. family tree
    family tree 26 January 2017 14: 52
    0
    Oh well, delirium of Kokoity belay
    Against the Papuans, you can just take a couple of trunks or an MLRS, put it on an ordinary barge, if in haste, load it with forest, and against anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, so the armor is just recessed hundreds of tons of scrap metal
  33. Sedoy
    Sedoy 26 January 2017 16: 16
    0
    let's say pi:) I do not need to build them ...
    they have all the battleships on the "siding" and moreover, they simply upgrade them - they put in new electronics and other, so to speak, last words ...
  34. Andrew3000
    Andrew3000 26 January 2017 18: 44
    +1
    The T-90 tank, for example, can fire both shells and missiles that fly further. Probably you can create missiles that would fly out of guns with a caliber of 305-450 mm and higher, and even with a guidance system, target designation, and maybe even install a tandem warhead. And also for guns it is possible and thermobaric ammunition. I imagine guns from the Second World War that shoot thermobaric missiles, either like a Cornet-M with a tandem warhead or like a chrysanthemum in fog and dust.
  35. Sasha_Sar
    Sasha_Sar 27 January 2017 15: 06
    +1
    Bullshit, not an article. "Khrushchev", just the opposite. Compare the cost of the aircraft with a gun, a projectile with the Kyrgyz Republic. And the cost of the ship type battleship with the cost of the tank, what did not ?!
    1. EvilLion
      30 January 2017 11: 07
      0
      Probably because the means of solving one problem were compared. But you need to put bubbles in a puddle.
  36. Aqela
    Aqela 30 January 2017 10: 44
    0
    In the 90s, Pereslegin was closely involved in this topic. Apparently, precisely following the results and under the impression of the war in Lebanon.