Military Review

Time for ultra violence

90



And it will go, it will go to glory, / As a heat blow from the hearth, / With a howl, with a screech lisping / Clearing the way for the infantry, / Beat, break and burn into a circle. / Village? - A little village. / House - so the house. Blindage - dugout. / You're lying, do not sit out - you give!

The harder the battles, the more the army relies on artillery. It would seem, what have the fleet?

But with that. Stationary carriage and the absence of rigid weight and size restrictions due to the size of the carrier (ship) provide ship guns with absolute priority.

Due to the lack of need for transportation on roads and rugged terrain, naval artillery systems are not at all like the short-barreled howitzers of ground forces. Their trunks reach lengths of 60 caliber (more than ten meters!), Hence the high initial velocity of the projectiles.

Multiple-kilogram blanks fly faster than rifle bullets. At an unattainable distance for ground guns.

To assess the scale of the cataclysm, read how many problems the project on lengthening the barrel of the American howitzer M777 from standard 39 to just 52-56 calibers caused. Two additional meters M777ER immediately raised the question of transporting the new system.

Further more.

Automated Ammunition. Powerful electric and hydraulic drives in guidance systems. Unlimited coolant supply (seawater).

All of this - many times greater density of fire.

The rate of fire in ground six-inch howitzers does not exceed 2-3 rds / min (briefly, by trained calculation - up to 5 rds / min.).

Back in the years of the Second World War, naval artillery systems were created that were capable of “spitting out” hot steel at a rate of 12 rpm. Such was the technical regime of fire at the guns of the cruiser “Des Moines”. There was little that depended on the training of the calculations themselves; all operations were performed automatically.


Heavy cruiser "Helena" firing along the coast of Korea. The total consumption of naval artillery shells in the Korean War amounted to 414 thousand units. Also, in the first three years of the Vietnam War, the American fleet fired a million shells along the shores of the 1,1.

It is worth considering that the eight-inch shells were more than twice as heavy as the shells of the aforementioned six-inch shells. 118 vs 50 kg!

Only a pair of such guns had a fire performance greater than that of the whole artillery battalion. As part of two batteries, four howitzers each (8 guns).

Another advantage - ammunition. In the artillery cellar of the ship were stored several cars of ready-to-use shells. Needless to say, how much ship artillery surpasses ground batteries in this parameter (gentlemen artillerymen, how much is the rate of shots per gun?)

And how does this affect the duration of the shelling.

* * *

So, we were convinced, what power is concluded in trunks of ship guns. Long range, rate of fire, power - a fierce cocktail!

Another curious example. During the war, the Luftwaffe did not have 100-kg bombs. It was believed that to defeat most targets on the battlefield and in urban areas, an 50-kg “Betty” (SC 50) containing about 25 kg of explosives is sufficient.

The next caliber after 50 kg immediately went 250 kg “Ursel”, which was used against serious fortifications and large objects. And if there was not enough of her, a thick 500-kg “Gerd” fell from the sky.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to doubt the sobriety of fascist calculations. Betty fighters and dive-bombers caused immeasurable damage.

What does this mean in the framework of the question of naval artillery?

If the Germans in most cases lacked 50-kg bombs, then 118-kg shells these days should be enough for the eyes. Or, as a colleague of EvilLion correctly put it:

A caliber of 203 mm or more already allows you to go beyond the design resistance of 99% of land objects and throw something comparable in power with aviation bombs.


Smaller coefficient the filling of old projectiles (8,21% versus 50% in the SC50 aerial bomb) is compensated by a more than twice as large mass (118 kg), as well as half a century of progress in the field of ammunition and explosives.

The fill factor of modern high-explosive fragmentation projectiles may exceed 20%, for example, the 47-kilogram six-inch M795 contains almost 11 kg of explosives.

Given the properties of modern plastic explosives, the power of the gap will dramatically exceed the performance of the German “Betty” Plus, the kinetic energy of a supersonic projectile, which allows to break through the barrier and explode inside the structure. With the formation of a huge number of massive fragments.

Alles Kaput.

As for bunkers and other hard-to-reach objects, against which bombs weighing over 250 kg were required.

To design guns capable of firing projectiles of such a mass, now no one will. Against the bunker, it already makes sense to launch the “Caliber”.

Artillery - to help aviation and cruise missiles.

For the decision of a certain spectrum of tasks in which the best qualities of a gun are realized.

About them it was spoken repeatedly.

Shells invulnerable to air defense. Guns with impunity shoot through the areas covered by any “armor” and C-400.

A small-sized projectile is almost impossible to knock down, and if it is shot down, the next one will arrive in a second.

It is worth recalling that the loss of one squadron of modern aircraft is equivalent in value to the loss of a destroyer.

And tactical cruise missiles, no matter how smart they are, have subsonic flight speeds and are very vulnerable to anti-aircraft weapons. In terms of cost, they are also not sugar: the cost of a salvo of two dozen “Calibres” is equivalent to the Su-35 fighter.

Shells save time, money and the lives of pilots.

Among other advantages of artillery:

- Minimum reaction time, supersonic speed of projectiles.

From the moment of receiving the request to the first shot of the ship artillery, no more than 2,5 minutes should pass

United States Marine Corps Standard, 1999 year.

- Ballistic trajectory and severe calculation. The concept of horizontal visibility has no meaning.

The cannons beat at the indicated coordinates through the continuous mist from the smoke of burning tires and oil wells, through sandstorms and fog.

“The problem of aiming through the clouds is not completely resolved; there is no guarantee of air strikes in difficult weather conditions. "

Lt. Gen. E. Bedard on critical aviation deficiencies in the performance of tasks related to the direct support of troops [./ i]

- The highest density of fire. Did you expect another?

As acknowledged by the US military, in order to “dump” the same amount of ammunition (by mass) on the enemy, which artillery ships of the WWII era fell out in an hour, a couple of aviation regiments will now be needed.

- Low cost ammunition. Regular 6-8 caliber shells are 1000 times as cheap as cruise missiles. Managed - 10 times.

For the effective solution of emerging problems it is logical to use a combination of these weapons.

Guns instead of MLRS

MLRS can not be a full replacement for cannon artillery. The reasons:

- significantly higher cost of missiles;

- lower speed of the missiles;

- the general principle of the MLRS, which does not allow for a short time to transfer fire to another target. High area performance, with total inefficiency against single point targets.

However, you need to consider the advantages of the presence of MLRS on strike ships, in conjunction with the KDBK and barreled artillery.

Time for ultra violence

[i] 122-mm installation A-215 "Grad-M" on board the IAC "Makhachkala"



140-mm complexes A-22 "Fire" aboard the hovercraft "Evgeny Kocheshkov" (12322 "Bison")


Naval artillery as part of the concept of using Russian fleet

The only type of ship capable of rendering real assistance in conflicts in which the modern Russian army participated was the above-described strike ship combining missile and artillery weapons.

Fire support for hostilities in coastal areas of Abkhazia (08.08.08).

Fire support operations in Syria.

The reason why I speak so confidently about the benefits and necessity of ship guns in such conflicts is the official report of the Pentagon (Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Gap, 2007).



According to the findings of the direct participants in the events, most of the tasks in military conflicts of the last quarter of the 20th century. could be solved by naval artillery.

What does this look like in our case?

“The units of the 58 Army go over p. Psou. The ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving along the coast of Abkhazia, supporting the fighting in coastal areas with fire ”(all matches, of course, are random)

Participation in raid operations, like “Canyon Eldorado”.

The shelling of coastal targets and enemy positions (actions of British ships on the Falklands).

Shooting ground targets, reaction to the call of army gunners, coastal database support - where the front is.

And he will go there soon - a third of the world's population lives no further than 50 km from the coast. In the same place, on the coast, all large megacities and a set of important objects are located.




Testing 155 mm Pz 2000 howitzer on board a German frigate using the MONARC (Modular Naval Artillery Concept) program


Guns in a sea battle

Currently completely lost their meaning.

The option when opponents run out of missiles and they have to come together in close combat is not even considered seriously.

Last time the ships used artillery on the night of 11 in May 1982 g, when the frigate Alakriti sank the Argentine cargo ship Isla de los Estados from the nasal 114 mm gun.

In the 1988, the American Simpson also used its cannon to finish off the Iranian corvette Joshan, however, the insignificant caliber 76 mm and the severity of the injuries received by that time Joshan indicate a low value of firearms. The corvette would have drowned itself, without the intervention of artillerymen.

As for the unexpected discovery of fire in the “direct tracking of the enemy”, when ships accompany each other on the line of sight, even in this case, the use of modern missiles looks more effective.

All targets of ship cannons are on the shore!

Conclusions

The available information about the ship's artillery and its uses in the XXI century. give grounds to offer the possibility of building several ships of direct fire support (for each of the fleets of the Russian Navy).

Close to the concept of “Zamvoltu” or the draft of the strike ship based on the landing vehicle “San Antonio” (with AGS 155-mm guns) proposed by OFT - Office of Force Transformation (one of the Pentagon's departments).

Of course, without American excesses. With less sophisticated and innovative eight-inch caliber guns. With a developed object air defense and optimization of the design of the strike destroyer for a clearly defined task.

Author:
90 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 30 January 2017 06: 26
    +8
    The composition of the weapons on board the ship is determined by the tactics of its use. So far, there is no specialized artillery ship. Although, in the USSR there were serious, river monitors, and the "Hassan" was generally seafaring.
    On border rivers and lakes, an artillery armored boat would have been very helpful.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 30 January 2017 12: 55
      +13
      Given the properties of modern plastic explosives, the power of the gap will sharply exceed the performance of the German Betty

      The standard misconception of the amateur.
      In fact, plasticized explosives do not outperform traditional explosives in terms of power. Rather, they are even slightly inferior, because the explosive content in them ranges from 75% to 95% (for example, C4 is 91% hexogen, and the rest is plasticizers and other additives.) All the profit is in the “clay”, and the ability to fit snugly to the surfaces.
      So the shells are still flooded with the usual TNT, RDX, and their mixtures and derivatives.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 30 January 2017 16: 33
        +4
        Another misconception: "All the goals of ship’s guns are on the shore!"
        And the naval ones for some reason want to use them for air targets ...
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 30 January 2017 13: 28
      +19
      You see, what, in fact, is the problem ... The field artillery and the naval artillery have too excellent tasks. Yes, in some ways they overlap somewhat, but the shipboard can never achieve field effectiveness with the support of ground troops on land. And the field will never be able to achieve naval efficiency when hitting targets at sea, although it can be involved in this. No wonder they suffered with the "Beach"

      For example, the field is very actively "playing" with the trajectories. In some cases, the angle of incidence is chosen as close as possible to 90 degrees, in others, as when shooting at ricochets, on the contrary, it is closer to zero. Due to the unitary ship, this is not available. And switching to a separate-case, cartridge or modular ship will lose high rate of fire, especially in the last two cases.

      Not only that, along the trajectories: the field is very often used for firing at targets for various kinds of natural shelters. On the reverse slopes of heights, in ravines, in areas of development. This requires a hinged path. The ship’s ship uses the floor ship, since its task is to defeat point-based maneuvering targets in areas where there are no natural shelters by default. And at the maximum possible range.

      Field actively uses the principle "the more barrels, the better. Two volleys by a division are much more accurate and more effective than 6 volleys by a battery and especially 36 by one gun. Ship in this sense is also very limited.

      Most firing missions with field artillery involve firing at squares or lines, while naval targets are aimed at firing at highly maneuverable point targets.

      And so on.
      That is, on a "foreign field" artillery, both field and naval, can only perform an auxiliary function.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 30 January 2017 16: 14
        +4
        Yes, the guns are the same but different, on some it is written "land" on others "sea".

        And switching to a separate-case, cartridge or modular ship will lose high rate of fire, especially in the last two cases.


        The same T-72 looks at this game with bewilderment. Well, very large caliber guns, by definition, have separate loading.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 January 2017 16: 55
          +5
          Quote: EvilLion
          Yes, the guns are the same but different, on some it is written "land" on others "sea".

          Of course. They even have different ballistics. By the way, a gun for field artillery is a very rare endangered beast.

          Quote: EvilLion
          The same T-72 looks at this game with bewilderment.

          That's when he has the rate of fire of naval artillery systems, for example, like a 127-mm Italian woman with a rate of 40 shots per minute, and the charge starts to light up even before the wedge is closed, then he will look at the developer with his torn tower. With perplexity.

          Quote: EvilLion
          Well, very large caliber guns, by definition, have separate loading.

          And a very low rate of fire?
      2. yehat
        yehat 4 May 2017 15: 21
        0
        2 more important differences between marine and field - the radius of action associated with target designation and the possibility of camouflage.
        Although Väinemäinen seems to have managed to hide during shelling ...
    3. KaPToC
      KaPToC 30 January 2017 13: 43
      +3
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      So far, there is no specialized artillery ship.

      The author simply “forgot” about the main drawback of the barrel artillery - the short range of the battle. If guns could confidently hit targets of varying complexity over hundreds of kilometers of range, then artillery ships would still dominate the sea.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 30 January 2017 14: 00
        +3
        In fact, the author writes not about the sea, but about the land. And, for example, combing fire using cruise missiles, I do not quite imagine. It is possible, but very, very expensive.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 30 January 2017 15: 21
          0
          I will stand in defense of Oleg, it happens the same.
          You are comparing the available land and naval artillery, but the author talks about creating a new ship exclusively for artillery support, therefore there is nothing to prevent it from being equipped with land standards, for example, ready-made towers from the Coalition in a very significant amount. A division is not a division, but putting two batteries at all is not a problem.
          It seems to me that the main problem of Oleg’s idea will be exactly. Still, the movement of the platform to the end cannot be compensated for by any gps.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 30 January 2017 16: 03
            +3
            Quote: MooH
            You are comparing the available land and naval artillery, but the author talks about creating a new ship exclusively for artillery support, so there is nothing to stop equipping it by land standards, for example, ready-made towers from the Coalition in a very significant amount.

            On land, a battalion is attached to a battalion, or it supports it. That is, to support only one battalion, a ship is needed on which 9 two-gun towers of the Coalition are installed. A very large piece comes out, don’t you?
            Just for one battalion. Which in the offensive works at the front up to two kilometers.
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 30 January 2017 18: 24
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              On land, a battalion is attached to a battalion, or it supports it.

              And a regular mortar battery is available. Total 24 barrel caliber more than 100 mm per battalion. And all this economy will follow the battalion wherever it is needed. If the battalion goes further 120 km from the coast, then it will also go there. But the ship - no.
              1. Mooh
                Mooh 30 January 2017 23: 24
                0
                On land, a battalion is attached to a battalion, or it supports it. And all this economy will follow the battalion wherever it is needed. If the battalion goes further 120 km from the coast, then it will also go there. But the ship - no.

                So the boat is not instead, but in addition. On amplification so to speak ;-)
            2. Mooh
              Mooh 30 January 2017 23: 21
              0
              A very, very big thing comes out, don't you find?
              Just for one battalion. Which in the offensive works at the front up to two kilometers.

              This of course yes, the thing is not small and not very cheap. But then ammunition drags on itself normally and some air defense will provide.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 30 January 2017 23: 35
                +1
                Field artillery and military air defense will also do just fine with this.
                1. Mooh
                  Mooh 31 January 2017 02: 41
                  0
                  There are never too many trunks :)
            3. ssergn
              ssergn 31 January 2017 09: 19
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              A very, very big thing comes out, don't you find?


              And if you recalculate the cost of the shot, taking into account the cost of maintaining the ship, then not a fig and not cheap.
              I read that Oleg wrote, came to the same conclusions.
              And yet - there above Oleg compared the cost of the Caliber in relation to the plane. But what is the cost of the Caliber 1 million dlr?
              Something doubts take ..
        2. KaPToC
          KaPToC 30 January 2017 21: 57
          0
          Quote: Spade
          In fact, the author writes not about the sea, but about the land.

          This is what you think, the author "loves" battleships and tries to justify their existence.
          Quote: Spade
          And, for example, combing fire using cruise missiles, I do not quite imagine.

          And you imagine getting the first time, without combing fire.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 30 January 2017 23: 34
            +5
            Quote: KaPToC
            And you imagine getting the first time, without combing fire.

            What hit? There are no goals. Combing fire is used when the enemy does not manifest himself. but his presence in the area is very likely. But when he will be forced to take action due to combing fire, then there will be goals. Moreover, they are areal ones, because again it is very likely that not all elements of its battle formation are revealed.

            These are the pies. Trying to win a modern war using only guided weapons is very expensive, and very very long.
          2. ssergn
            ssergn 31 January 2017 09: 23
            0
            Quote: KaPToC
            hitting yourself the first time, without combing fire.



            Where? To the square? One rocket? With unknown exact coordinates, but only the coordinates of the square. It’s ridiculous.
            Although ... Of course, the NBC can solve this problem, but then the conflict goes to a different stage and, I am afraid, it will not be up to art.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 31 January 2017 11: 01
              0
              Quote: ssergn
              Where? To the square? One rocket? With unknown exact coordinates, but only the coordinates of the square. It’s ridiculous.

              That's it, funny, artillery is not engaged in the abstract combing of enemy territory.
              1. Usher
                Usher 5 February 2017 02: 47
                0
                lol made fun
                1. KaPToC
                  KaPToC 5 February 2017 11: 19
                  0
                  Quote: Usher
                  lol made fun

                  Glad you
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 30 January 2017 16: 11
        0
        Zamvolt strikes at 120 km.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 30 January 2017 16: 58
          +7
          What is striking? A rocket launched from the trunk? The cost of which is the same as that of a rocket launched from TPK.

          ARS is essentially the same rocket. With an expensive jet engine that can withstand the load when fired.
          1. ssergn
            ssergn 31 January 2017 09: 28
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            The cost of which is the same as that of a rocket launched from TPK.


            Again, the cost of the carrier is missed. And this should be taken into account in the cost of the shot. So it turns out - there is no alternative to land artillery, in this case not.
            And Zumwalt, in my understanding, is, for example, like a very expensive maritime special forces for work along the coast. Again - for those who can afford it.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 31 January 2017 10: 15
              +1
              Quote: ssergn
              And Zumwalt, in my understanding, is, for example, like a very expensive maritime special forces for work along the coast. Again - for those who can afford it.

              Rather, as a means of supporting special forces on shore, including fire. The only advantage of the ARS is a relatively short flight time. Therefore, they have not yet been abandoned in favor of classic missiles from TPK.
  2. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 30 January 2017 06: 52
    +4
    Naval guns are certainly good, but land systems have already caught up with range. Another point, I look above 152-155 mm there is no benefit to build up. And the MLRS has an undeniable advantage in mass and range. And the price of guided missiles is comparable to a missile.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 30 January 2017 11: 18
      +5
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Ship guns are certainly good

      Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
      Shells invulnerable to air defense. Guns with impunity shoot through the areas covered by any “armor” and C-400.
      A small-sized projectile is almost impossible to knock down, and if it is shot down, the next one will arrive in a second.


      Oleg, the projectile from moraine starts from a distance no further than 50km. At such a radius, no sea vessel will last (even not fit) and 10 minutes! Whether it’s possible to shoot shells with horseradish if they don’t exist. And if you need a few dozen - then the Jewish "... dome" - to the rescue!

      And if all of a sudden it comes to shore (where everything is already ruined, there is no air defense / missile defense, anti-ship missiles ...) - what is there to fire at? Lebanese partisans with small arms?

      As for the accuracy of the MLRS - there are cassette tapes with elements of selective accurate destruction, for example, armored vehicles (they are pre-mounted on parachutes for magnetic anomalies). And homing shells, like whales, Krasnopol, aerophone ...
      In this case, the MLRS - "shoots" already as-BE and not "salvo", but quickly - on one shell ...
  3. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 30 January 2017 06: 57
    +16
    I read and danced crying ... Oh God, what words! "Ferocious cocktail" ... "Alles Kaput" ... winked
    And the pictures, and the style ...
    Kaptsov, well, them, these couch experts, they are all without exception, and your fingertip is not worth it wink , let’s immediately write to Trump that society has wandered into the wrong steppes, you need to open your eyes to new opportunities, that the “Burks” and “Zamvolty” built pests and whether now to swing at restoration from oblivion, like a phoenix from the ashes, old, good ” Des Moines "? AND? fellow And we will be the kings of the world! yes So what? what
    A ride good
    wassat laughing
    1. avt
      avt 30 January 2017 09: 43
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Kaptsov, well, them, these couch experts, they are all without exception, and your fingertip is not worth it

      good It's time to write poetry ... Like Pushkin
      - We get up, brothers, for Dadon
      Let's set the enemy a chime!

      “Why not ask?”
      - If only we could find him!

      “Is the enemy hero here?”
      Brothers, lean down at once!

      - It's possible!
      - Yes first
      Do not burn from the squeak?

      - Right! Leaving everyone in the distance
      Charge the squeaky core!
      Light the wicks!
      Aim, brothers!
      Well, fallen!
      bully
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 30 January 2017 11: 26
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      “Burki” and “Zamvolty” built pests and not now swing at restoration from oblivion, like a phoenix from the ashes, the good old “Des Moines”? BUT? And we will be the kings of the world!

      ... that if it is necessary to build, then add to the sea vessels, something like this -

      406,4 mm universal smoothbore gun-launcher turretless type. Designed at the end of 1983 - early 1984 years. Separate loading. Ammunition - shells or missiles.
      TTX
      Calculation - 4-5 people

      Barrel length - 6500 mm (16 calibres)
      Muzzle height in stowed position - 4900 mm
      Under deck diameter - 4000 mm
      Vertical pointing angle - from + 30 to + 90 degrees.
      Horizontal pointing angle - 340 deg.
      Installation weight:
      - 60 t (at 2's tier cellar)
      - 32 t (at 1 tier cellar)
      The mass of the swinging part of the installation - 18 t

      Range:
      - 250 km (guided missiles)
      - 42 km (projectile weighing 110 kg)
      - 10 km (projectile weighing 120 kg)
      Rate of fire:
      - 15-20 rds / min (shells)
      - 10 rds / min (missiles)
      Ammunition type change time - 4 sec.

      Application: all types of ships with a displacement of more than 2000 tons.

      Not accepted for development due to non-standard caliber.

      And everyone would be happy! ;)
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 30 January 2017 13: 34
        +3
        Big mortar ... Good idea. With modern fire controls, it can show itself well. Just add a small-caliber barrel, for example, 120. To shoot "test" shells at the same height of the trajectory and thereby determine the shooting conditions.
        8)))
  4. DM51
    DM51 30 January 2017 07: 03
    +7
    Due to the lack of need for transportation on roads and rough terrain, marine artillery systems are not at all like short-barreled howitzers of the ground forces. Their trunks reach a length of 60 calibers (more than ten meters!), Hence the high initial velocity of the shells.
    Multiple-kilogram blanks fly faster than rifle bullets. At an unattainable distance for ground guns.

    Artillery system Hyacinth-B: initial projectile speed 945 m / s, range not less than sea guns, Peony: barrel length 55 calibers, range more than 40 km., Caliber 8 inches, Coalition-SV: maximum declared range of about 70000 m., rate of fire of more than 10 / m, barrel length 52 caliber, BC 70 shots. With mobility, these systems are also in order - all self-propelled. So all your theses on the superiority of naval art over land have no basis, and no one will make guns larger than 8 inches even in the navy
  5. dumkopff
    dumkopff 30 January 2017 07: 09
    +3
    Yeah. Precisely recalled the chapter. Terkin Wounded. "Tula, Tula ... / What are you, Tula? / Tula, Tula - this is me / Tula ... My homeland."
    And I said that Kaptsov, in addition to armor, also loves a woman! However, he wrote quite sensibly. There is nothing to argue with, in my opinion.
    The proposed ship can in no way be used in naval battles. It will not be a breakthrough like some “Peter the Great” (19th century) or “Argus”. And you get a sort of economical machine to support the naval assault or even your own ground forces and rash on the enemy a huge amount of shells and explosives. Subject to actions to a depth of 30 km from the coast. Gunboat!
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 January 2017 09: 08
      0
      Quote: dumkopff
      And it will turn out a sort of economical machine to support naval assault or even your own ground forces and raining a huge amount of shells and explosives on the enemy

      So in the article this is proposed. I also believe that 203-mm shells as a fire support would not have prevented our MP.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 30 January 2017 10: 01
        +1
        It is better IMHO to concentrate on 240 mm mortars, although their range is not ice. But for special cases, use active-reactive guided ammunition.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 January 2017 11: 06
        +6
        Quote: Dart2027
        I also believe that 203-mm shells as a fire support would not have prevented our MP.

        Our MP would not hurt to start a normal fleet. Without which you can not even think about DESO. Especially today, when even poor Yemenis can afford coastal anti-ship missiles.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 30 January 2017 11: 32
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          A normal fleet would not hinder our MP

          3-4 UDC and 10 BDK. Here I would put 1-2 203-mm howitzers on the BDK.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 30 January 2017 13: 12
            +3
            Quote: Dart2027
            3-4 UDC and 10 BDK.

            Before you build all this disgrace, it would not hurt to attend to an escort (air defense, missile defense, missile defense). Otherwise, the BDK will get out on mines, and the UDC will get on board the RCC. For the ability of UDC and BDK to self-defense is near-zero.
            What are we going to protect this armada with? Three 11356? A couple of live 1155? "Peter"? "" Kuznetsov "?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 30 January 2017 13: 30
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              What are we going to protect this armada with? Three 11356? A couple of live 1155? "Peter"? "" Kuznetsov "?

              belay How what? On each BDK 200-mm gun, tea can stand up for themselves!
              Welcome hi
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 30 January 2017 16: 13
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Before you build all this mess, it would not hurt to attend to the escort

              I am aware that landing ships need to be covered, but now we seem to be discussing which ships are needed for the MP, and not the necessary replenishment of the entire Navy.
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 30 January 2017 13: 36
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          A normal fleet would not hinder our MP
          During the Second World War, our marines landed even from torpedo boats. Russia, unlike the United States, has seas such as the Baltic and Caspian, which could have modern armored boats to support its landings in the coastal zone. In the Far East, armored boats were handed over to the border guards along the Amur and Ussuri, something similar to the 1248 projects could be done in an adapted form for the Baltic, with tank towers or from self-propelled guns.
    2. 3danimal
      3danimal 30 January 2017 16: 00
      0
      Well, why up to 30. Up to 40-70 conventional and with a bottom gas generator, up to 160 (at the moment, in caliber only 155 mm) active-reactive LRAP.
  6. Stas57
    Stas57 30 January 2017 08: 37
    +2
    on the first lines, kaptsov or what?
    Well, for sure.
    closed
    1. kolyhalovs
      kolyhalovs 30 January 2017 13: 46
      +4
      In my case it looks like this

      - The headline is somehow loud - Kaptsov or what?
      - At the end of the article - for sure.
      - Ok, then read the comments.
      laughing
  7. Nikita Dmitriev
    Nikita Dmitriev 30 January 2017 09: 06
    +7
    Art. support ship has the right to exist today. I agree with that. Question for which countries is it needed? And against whom will it be possible to use it?
    If we consider Russia, then somehow we don’t really need it, in my opinion. Russia is not able to carry out large amphibious operations. Yes, and our Fleet does not have such a task today. The maximum of our fleet is the transfer and landing of the MP brigade, not far from the borders. We simply have physically few Marines and it’s not rational to build a special ship for them purely for fire support of the landing. The BDK will also cope with the task of art preparation of the coastline, with its own cities. It is also necessary to take into account that now, the leading countries are armed with coastal defense anti-ship missiles and the fleet cannot afford to ignore them; accordingly, aviation and cruise missiles will extinguish them.
    That is, the landing will approach the coastline only when all the enemy’s powerful weapons on the coast have already been destroyed. What tasks can such a ship be able to carry out? Art support for advancing troops at a distance of 50km? Is that all? For this, art divisions are part of brigades and divisions.
    Such a ship would probably be useful to the United States, to extinguish popuas and to support the MASS landing of the Marine Corps, such as Operation Desert Storm. In Libya, too, he probably would have found use for him. Since the Bedouins do not have RCC. But we are not there and climb there, I hope, are not going to. In Syria, such a ship would have been useless. The coast of Barmalei was not controlled. And applying it against a modern adversary is not effective. Drown. And if they couldn’t drown, then the landing could no longer be stopped and whether the enemy had such a ship or not, would not play a special role.
    TOTAL: Russia does not need such a thing, but the Americans would be useful.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 30 January 2017 15: 28
      0
      If you take Mariupol or Odessa, such a ship is very useful.
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 30 January 2017 09: 20
    +7
    The total consumption of naval artillery shells in the Korean War amounted to 414 thousand units.


    Given the amount of nonsense that was written to me in the comments, it is worth remembering that the notorious "tomahawks" were made for the entire time of 7300 pcs. Although artillery shells of large caliber at the turn of the 19-20 centuries were bombarded with hundreds of ammunition in ships, firing ammunition during exercises.

    During the war years, the Luftwaffe did not have 100-kg air bombs. It was believed that 50-kg Betty (SC 50) containing approximately 25 kg of explosives was enough to defeat most targets on the battlefield and in urban areas.


    Well, our willingly and 100 kg threw.

    Now artillery is in some kind of pen, for the post-war years, all ran into aviation and missile systems. And also in tanks, they say direct fire will replace a shower of metal from howitzers. Meanwhile, aviation turned into a monster in terms of the size of the machines, the cost of their manufacture and operation. At the same time, the aviation range doubled. A typical multipurpose fighter with an empty weight of 9-11 tons and a load of a couple of tons of kilometers beyond the 500 for any flight profile will get it. You only pour 4-5 tons of kerosene into it and put a whole platoon of technicians for service, it will make 2-3 departure per day. Not fat? Here was Ju-87, which took off, immediately behind the front line Bombu (with a capital letter) threw it and a new one, IL-2, processing the front edge, or fifty kilometers behind it, cheaply and cheerfully. It was. And it became in the form of the same Su-34, which for some billion rubles by world standards is simply super-cheap. And this is an objective process, because airplanes are very much tied to fighting their own kind and surviving from attacks of their own kind, unlike the same old D-30, who, like 30, could throw at trenches, fortifications, and anything else , and now it can. As Jacob Kedmi spoke recently, why the hell would Israel bomb some Hezbollah fortifications with the F-16 when guns would destroy them much cheaper.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 30 January 2017 09: 30
      +1
      So artillery also does not stand still, in terms of price. What are the models with automatic loaders and stuffed with electronics. The towed artillery becomes vulnerable due to low maneuverability and rate of fire; it, like the Coalition, cannot let go of the line and quickly fall down, and besides, open immediately after a new one without a new one.
      But such parameters result in price and complexity. Sometimes it’s cheaper to send OTRK to the target than to shred shells.
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 30 January 2017 13: 45
      0
      Here was Ju-87, which took off, immediately behind the front line Bombu (with a capital letter) threw and a new one, IL-2,
      In the picture Il-10 "at work" during the Korean War. If you resurrect a project for modern tasks, modernize, then the attack aircraft will still fit, somewhere and there will be better attack helicopters.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 30 January 2017 16: 18
        +1
        The “shilka” analogs joyfully rub the trunks so that they can draw marks of the shot down on them massively.

        "Tukano" has long been, even though it is homeless compared to the Il-Xnumx.
    3. ssergn
      ssergn 31 January 2017 10: 12
      +2
      Quote: EvilLion
      It was. And it became in the form of the same Su-34, which for some billion rubles



      You somehow sharply dropped the front-line aviation — turntables, attack aircraft — Rooks are still flying?
  9. Vz.58
    Vz.58 30 January 2017 09: 25
    +1
    An article from the field “Russian Carriers Not Need!”
  10. novel66
    novel66 30 January 2017 09: 39
    +4
    Hurray ship artillery, it remains only to deliver the ship to the desired land area and the victory is ours !!!
  11. novel66
    novel66 30 January 2017 09: 40
    +2
    "" The option when the opponents run out of rockets and they have to converge in close combat is not even considered seriously. "" Another one according to my bright dreams !!!!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 30 January 2017 11: 13
      +2
      Quote: novel xnumx
      one more according to my bright dreams !!!!

      laughing Roma, that way you will soon create a contact group and you can build a battleship for a squad! Good luck to you!!!
      1. novel66
        novel66 30 January 2017 13: 02
        +2
        Yes, where are you going to create it, when everyone just tries to spit it out, if only someone was inspired by the idea
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 30 January 2017 13: 18
          +4
          Quote: novel xnumx
          at least someone imbued with the idea

          Well, judging by the pluses to the article, you still have ideological associates wink
          Quote: novel xnumx
          it remains only to deliver the ship to the desired land area and the victory is ours !!!

          laughing Why deliver, he himself will reach
          1. novel66
            novel66 30 January 2017 13: 57
            +2
            Well, we can when we want
  12. EvilLion
    EvilLion 30 January 2017 09: 47
    +1
    Returning to the Kyrgyz Republic in general and Zamvolt in particular.

    In the 2012 year, the U.S. Navy ordered Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile from Raytheon 361 for a total cost of 338 million dollars. The agreement provides for the transfer of 238 vertical launch missiles for surface ships and 123 missiles for submarines. Delivery should be completed in August 2014

    From Wiki. In general, 1 lam - 1 thing. The range of the "volume" ranges from half a thousand to 2500 km, depending on the modification. Involuntarily the question arises, if Zamvolt plans to use its 80 volumes, then in principle it will not fit the firing range of its 155 mm superguns. If it suits, then why does he need "volumes"? Let’s say our “Atlant” is not going to engage in close combat, its task is to genocide airplanes, and to distribute one-shot floating missiles with heavy missiles along the CD along the way, accordingly there is a gun, but it is one. Modern fighter jets also have a gun, and the crews of any military equipment have a gun (Gagarin also had a landing, a thread somewhere in the taiga with bears was not excluded), but there is a clear understanding of what is the main weapon and what is auxiliary. Zamvolt’s main types of weapons, in principle, do not make sense to use together. So for what city garden?
  13. lazy
    lazy 30 January 2017 10: 26
    +3
    In this matter, I probably agree with Oleg, an artillery support ship is needed, missiles are expensive and sometimes very expensive. so it won’t hurt at least one each in the fleet. (not serious further), but imagine what a beautiful television picture, an armored troop of marines comes ashore and in the background a prodigy is fired by, say, four 20-gun turrets with a caliber of XNUMX mm ;-). But seriously, if the infantry still needs artillery support, then the marine corps also needs it
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 30 January 2017 20: 24
      0
      Purely for a TV picture ... damn it, but computer graphics will still be cheaper ...
  14. Serg65
    Serg65 30 January 2017 10: 55
    +7
    Oleg, a few questions in the topic
    1. What did the 58 Army of the Russian Federation annoy you with so much that you want to drive into a long, narrow corridor 125 km long? 125 kilometers of solid targets !!! If Georgia had at that time 12-ti Su-25, 8-mi MI-24 and three airfields (Zugdidi, Senaki, Kutaisi versus one of ours in Adler). 300 mortars and the desired fighting spirit of the Georgian military nor any artillery support from the sea would help our soldiers!
    2. Where did you find artillery ships participating in Operation Eldorado Canyon?
    3. Any universal ship, say 956 Ave. or 11551 Ave. with its 130-ki giving 90 rounds per minute with 1000-shells in the cellars can not do the same job for which you want to create a separate super monitor?
    4,
    According to the findings of the direct participants in the events, most of the tasks in military conflicts of the last quarter of the 20th century. could be solved by naval artillery.

    Where exactly did the artillery ships solve most of the problems in the last quarter of the twentieth century ???
    In 1983, New Jersey was washed away from the coast of Lebanon after the appearance of the Points W and Reduth, the Missouri and Wisconsin near the coast of Kuwait, near the Syrians, only after the ground and carrier-based aircraft cleared the Iraqi Air Force and Navy.
    The support of coastal flags in modern warfare is quite capable of being supported by universal ships of the frigate destroyer type with the active participation of the Air Force, so why bother with a garden?
  15. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 30 January 2017 10: 55
    +5
    The headline pleased. smile
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 30 January 2017 15: 12
      0
      ha
      Ha)
      five!
  16. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 30 January 2017 11: 06
    0
    Deleted this game. And the tanks there too. The author, to what level did the ships pump?
    There are a lot of bots in that game.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 30 January 2017 13: 25
      +1
      Quote: Prince of Pensions
      There are a lot of bots in that game.

      Duc ... there is a whole mode in crawlers when you fight with bots. smile
      There is not a problem in the bots, but in the server. The farther - the more ROS carcasses on the respawn, up to AB. Plus ping up to flights (I was thrown out yesterday when I was running on the T-22 between the islands from Farragut).
  17. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 30 January 2017 11: 23
    +5
    Good article. Ultras ..... ultras article.
    I read, and the drums beat in my head. Still deaf. Like carriages of shells from super-automated tower guns - and the lower tower is two-gun. and the upper tower - three-gun pour out all the liquid-boiling metal 40 km from the coast.
    To whom do they pour it? Does FIG know him? The infantry will depart 41 km from the coast ... and the entire short-lived.
    And if you pour on Rotterdam or there is Stockholm - then yes, it’s quite suitable.
    With the last shell you can fly yourself. To the court. Right away.
    And at the 42nd kilometer are the Bastions. And on the 43rd Hyacinths, Coalitions and all kinds of Peonies with Roses there are blooming. And at 44 is Iskander. A little further away are the Caliber. And somewhere far, far in depth, White swans with X-s themselves begin to draw. And what is going on in the nearest underwater depths of this metal-spitting monster - I am generally silent, I won’t push from the sabers and Shkvalov.
    In general, this enchanting picture reminded me of a scene from Water World. Where the operator, who was distraught from firing from a quad anti-aircraft gun, took, and walked along the control pontoon with fire.
    Everyone was good and fun.
    Development, of course, goes in a spiral. But not so curly and twisted.

    Here is the shooter
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 30 January 2017 12: 50
      +2
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      And if you pour on Rotterdam or there is Stockholm

      what No, it's not worth it in Stockholm, some have already tried it, so they got the overkill as a result!
  18. Ustinov 055 055
    Ustinov 055 055 30 January 2017 12: 55
    +2
    Damn, I immediately realized that Kaptsov read two sentences. Mr. Kaptsov, God forbid, I will see you with my own eyes, and as an acting officer of the Navy, I will ask NOW WHAT FOR NARROW YOU ARE CARRYING IN
    1. Rash
      Rash 30 January 2017 13: 44
      0
      Wang, that he (Kaptsov) did not serve at all! wink
  19. mar4047083
    mar4047083 30 January 2017 13: 59
    +2
    Any action always gives rise to opposition. As soon as the armor is strengthened, new methods of breaking through it are immediately born. Oleg, when will you finally understand that they refused the battleships because everyone was preparing for a global war with the use of nuclear weapons. A torpedo or a missile with a nuclear (especially with a thermonuclear) warhead deeply cares what kind of armor the battleship has. The larger the target, the easier it is to hit. And in local wars, such an enemy is chosen that he could not adequately respond (especially since no armor is needed). Did you see that the United States began a full-fledged war with states that have modern weapons of mass destruction? Battleships for the war against rogues are not needed. Are they going to destroy fishing huts on the shore, or drown boats of Somali pirates?
  20. brn521
    brn521 30 January 2017 14: 05
    +3
    Ships lose coastal artillery. The post-war artillery coastal fortifications were upgraded before mothballing with the expectation of stability against tactical nuclear munitions. This is not available to ships. In both senses, the combat stability of ships is low, and storage on conservation is difficult and expensive. Well, of course, you can remember the Second World War. The coastal installation with two heavy guns forced all ships, including battleships, to bypass this area, hiding behind the horizon. This business had to be raked by the air force and the landing force.
  21. mar4047083
    mar4047083 30 January 2017 14: 16
    +2
    Oleg, why do you always consider the effect of modern anti-ship missiles with a high-explosive warhead against the armored battleships of the Second World War. Modern missiles are designed for completely different purposes. Do you understand that nobody set the task of breaking through "mastodons" before the designers. The sinking of large ships such as an aircraft carrier by Soviet (and probably Russian) admirals was seen only with the use of special ammunition. The entry of 2-3 missiles with a nuclear warhead into the aircraft carrier’s connection completely solved the problem. Moreover, the accuracy of 500-1000m did not bother anyone.
  22. Dekabrist
    Dekabrist 30 January 2017 14: 36
    +7
    - What the hell is floating in the waves
    With a gun in wet sails?
    - This is undoubtedly him, -
    Our underwater battleship surfaced.

    Underwater battleship - battleship with armor and guns, capable of diving and moving under water in the manner of submarines. Battleships made of metal were very hot in the sun, so they were made underwater. Submarine battleships are armed with special shells with fins and fins, which, after a shot, sail towards an enemy ship. If the enemy ship managed to get ashore, then the shells catch up with him on an air cushion.
    1. Bashibuzuk
      Bashibuzuk 30 January 2017 15: 28
      +5
      And if the enemy ship itself is hovercraft?
      Or switched to ballooning mode? Not flying, namely swimming. Air ...
      What will hovercraft do then ?.
      Here they are ... Lindiagly ..... or DirLiny ..


  23. Operator
    Operator 30 January 2017 15: 00
    +1
    Shaw, again - ship artillery against the OTRK? laughing

    It’s high time to publish such opuses under the heading “Opinions”.
  24. bk0010
    bk0010 30 January 2017 15: 12
    0
    Everything would be healthy if Oleg took into account not only the cost of the shells themselves, but also the cost of a tower installation + the cost of the ship as a whole. How many art divisions can be built instead of one ship? The numbers would not be so magnificent. In addition, one should not forget about coastal defense equipment. The described ship should at least wash off after their exposure or work only near its shore. And even near its coast, it must withstand shelling of 155 mm artillery of the enemy. Not the "Yakhont" on board, but also robust.
  25. bk0010
    bk0010 30 January 2017 16: 03
    +4
    Quote: Dekabrist
    Underwater battleship - battleship with armor and guns, capable of diving and moving under water in the manner of submarines.
    In vain you laugh, and it was. French, EMNIP.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 30 January 2017 20: 21
      +1
      and British ... by the way ... ;-)
  26. Victor Wolz
    Victor Wolz 30 January 2017 18: 02
    0
    Well, a cheap artillery patrol frigate with a displacement of 4,5 to 6 thousand tons to chase pirates, and not use the resource of destroyers and amphibious assault squads for a long time. And if we could sculpt them like the Chinese in 1,5-2 years, then 4 were enough. They could not be done with stealth technology and limited to one flexible one. the main thing is the presence of a helicopter and boats. And the main caliber weapons are probably a paired 130 mm installation. Because it is also anti-aircraft in addition, and towers with 152mm are expensive to create, and there are no old ones, unless Kutuzov is removed. Well, a couple of 30 mm and 4 cords on the sides.
  27. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 30 January 2017 19: 26
    +3
    Large artillery ship will not be allowed to approach the shore
    to the distance of effective firing of his guns.
    Or he will have to be protected from aviation by several more
    air defense destroyers.
    The Americans understand this and therefore do not reanimate battleships,
    and they are betting on the long-range shooting of Zumvolt (with all
    its problems - high cost, etc.).
    Recently there was a note (on VO too) that Americans are planning
    in addition to AUG create a mini "art." squadron of 1 art. class cruisers
    Zumvolt, 1-2 Arly Berkov and 1-2 high-speed catamarans of the "coastal zone"
    (against submarines). Then there is a chance for Zumvolt to approach the shore.
  28. Taoist
    Taoist 30 January 2017 20: 18
    +3
    Rushed "soul to paradise" ... not armor so armor ... not gun so armor, but of course it is best and "both of these and the other can be without bread ..." (c)

    Of course, we forget about the cost of the artillery system and the real survivability of the trunks ... And we forget about the ratio of operating costs. But these are such trifles ... By the way, do you know why artillery support ships are mainly concentrated in the Caspian? Yes, simply because there at least theoretically there is work for them ... But the surrealistic picture of moving along the Abkhaz coast with the support of fire from the sea could probably have been imagined only by someone who had never been in those places ... Do you know the relief of the coast such that there’s nothing to do artillery at all ... well, except that only the enemy will consciously go on a "banzai attack" and crawl out onto the beach in order to attack in close formation ... (though there are no ice with beaches in general). Here you can theorize until you turn blue ... but for now, for such an expensive toy as a warship, there will be no real (and preferably permanent) combat mission, no one will build them ... (And they’ll do it right). And in case of need .... well, the self-propelled artillery images on board the "self-propelled barge" also fell off the moon ... Erzats of course, but why is it bad for an ersatz task?
  29. tchoni
    tchoni 30 January 2017 20: 48
    0
    What do you actually dislike? Herr Oleg? The fleet of the Russian artillery ships are present. The same "Makhachkala", and the artillery artillery is present on the paratrooper. For hail there are shells of increased accuracy and range. At one time, even a drone to adjust handballs to the caliber of hail. Further 50-60 km the barrel does not work. Maybe it's easier to load a turntable with quarters and km for. 50 to drive from the coast.
  30. andrewkor
    andrewkor 31 January 2017 19: 41
    +1
    After the firing of one ammunition -300 shells on the barrel, the trunks required re-entry (bent over)!
  31. akribos
    akribos 1 February 2017 00: 33
    0
    The article as a whole addresses the right topic. For the purpose mentioned in the article the project "Sarych" 956 was made. It is really, very versatile and good for its time. Powerful artillery, nose and feed. Also in air defense and anti-ship missiles, he exceeded his counterpart Spruence twice. However, the ES of the ship, not for our people, unfortunately, although there are exceptions that indicate that command personnel need to be carefully selected. Sincerely.
  32. bbss
    bbss 3 February 2017 01: 52
    0
    Warship's relapse ...
  33. saigon
    saigon 4 February 2017 10: 38
    0
    So it’s just wonderful.
    But there are nuances! So on trifles starting from the flat trajectories of ship artillery, otherwise why the hell do you land the howitzer on the ship (see photo) and especially about the carriages of shells and charges on the ship (and why ammunition for hundreds of shells per barrel on average?)
  34. Max golovanovo
    Max golovanovo 3 August 2017 12: 40
    0
    The battleship’s guns are good, one problem is to dig a channel deeper, and wider into the enemy’s territory.