Military Review

Ship Armor Reincarnation

209

Came to those successes

His armor was stronger.


Toward the end of the year, I wanted to please the public with a retrospective of the discussion on ship's armor. Some time ago, the topic was a huge success. Interest was not accidental: in the course of disputes, many aspects related to the armament, design and layout of ships were touched upon. New visitors may also be interested to know what the spears on the pages of "VO" broke so violently about.

I will try to decompose the theses on the shelves.

P. 1. Any additional obstacle to the enemy - this is a chance to survive. And you have to be very naive and technically illiterate in order to neglect this opportunity.


Hole left homemade bomb. Attack on Cole destroyer in Yemen, 2000 year


Here there is a detail that is not paid attention. Take a closer look again. See you The upper part of the destroyer board (shirstrek) is made of high-quality steel HY-80 with yield strength 80 thousand feet per square meter. inch (550 MPa). Below - cheap structural steel, which was torn to shreds by the blast wave. The border passes through the weld. It is no coincidence that when creating a new type of destroyer (“Zamvolt”), its hull was entirely made of high-strength steel grade HSLA-80.

Convincing enough? Only such an insignificant detail, as an increase in the strength of the skin, allows in an obvious way reduce damage.

Of stories naval battles: attack on the cruiser “York”, 1941. Instead of undermining a mine at the freeboard, the Italians developed a “cunning plan” with a breaking open boat and a sinking charge that worked at a depth of 8 m. Fighters of Prince Borghese understood that the explosion in the area of ​​the protected side is ineffective.


P. 2. Useful qualities of armor in modern conditions.

2.1. Guaranteed protection from debris shot down missiles.

Training interception of targets (PKR imitators) is always performed in conditions far from reality. The interception is carried out on parallel courses so that the wreckage does not “hook” the ship. Otherwise - the inevitable catastrophe. Even if automatic anti-aircraft guns (“metal cutters”) are shot down by anti-ship missiles, the debris of the rocket will ricochet off water and reach the target. Checked in the course of real incidents: wreck targets riddled the Entrim and Stoddard warships.

Practice shows: interception in the near zone is useless if there is no possibility to stop the debris.

The most realistic and reliable means of protection from this kind of threat is constructive protection.

2.2. Armor provides protection (up to full leveling of the threat) against all types of modern anti-ship missiles of NATO countries.

“Harpoon”, “Exoset”, NSM, Italian “Ototoma”, Swedish RBS, Japanese “Type 90” - depreciation of all world stocks of anti-ship weapons.

With a relatively small thickness, differentiated protection (50-100 mm) is able to protect against an explosive device containing tens and even hundreds of kg of explosives. The case with the destroyer “Cole” shows a sharp reduction in damage with a twofold increase in the strength of the skin. In the second case (“York”), we observed the refusal of an explosion in the area of ​​the armor belt due to the obvious futility of such an attack.

50 ... 150 kg of explosives is the equivalent of a warhead of most anti-ship missiles.

You, of course, remind about the speed of the rocket, which is close to the speed of sound. The answer is simple: speed without mechanical strength means nothing.

The results of hitting projectiles in armor are well known. Unfortunately, there is practically no reliable description of cases of collisions with the armor of aircraft (airplanes, rockets). I managed to find only one case, filmed on camera.

Ship Armor Reincarnation


Kamikaze strike in HMS Sussex cruiser armor with thickness 114 mm. Unsuccessful attack: paint is scratched. The same expects “Harpoon” when meeting with Kruppov's cemented armor: plastic anti-ship missiles will collapse. The explosion of the warhead will occur outside the board, with no noticeable consequences for the internal compartments.


A similar case - kamikaze hit on unprotected board, 15 dead


Other scenarios are possible. In reality, anti-ship missiles were never fired at armor plates, but two assumptions can be made based on examples from the history of naval battles:

- at sharp corners of meeting with armor there is a probability of rebounding;
- The warhead of the anti-ship missile can be destroyed in a time insufficient for triggering the fuse.

2.3 At a meeting with exotic heavy anti-ship missiles (“Brahmos”), constructive protection, one way or another, will contribute to the localization of damage.

At the same time, an increase in the speed and warhead (i.e., the launch mass of the missiles) negatively affects the number of possible carriers and the number of anti-ship missiles in the salvo, which undoubtedly facilitates the operation of the ship’s anti-aircraft weapons. Another indisputable advantage from the installation of armor.

* * *

In my opinion, sufficiently strong grounds were presented here (combating missile debris, devaluing existing RCC arsenals) so that the question of returning constructive protection would be given the right to life in the 21st century.

Damage to antenna devices is equally painful for both protected and unprotected ships. But, you see, it would be it is strange to write off a cruiser at the expense of having barely scratched the radar with the first fragment.

Only the cost of one unspent ammunition cruiser Ticonderoga can reach a billion dollars. Therefore, the damaged ship is recommended to reach the base. Not to mention the lives of 200-300 crew members. Be among them your son, and the number of skeptics who deny the benefit of constructive protection will immediately diminish.

Even with a broken radar modern ship is a threat to the enemy. Fighting submarines, shooting at external target designation. Technical capabilities allow you to fight to the last. The main thing - do not burn from the first burst missiles.


P. 3. Structural protection is a system of armor decks, bevels, internal splinter bulkheads and other protective elements. The shape of which is subject to continuous change.

In each of the epochs, designers demonstrated the difference in approaches to methods of protection and ensuring the combat stability of posts, compartments and mechanisms.

History knew a lot of interesting concepts, for example, “Dupuy de Lom”. French cruiser with solid freeboard protection: with armor thickness 100 mm from the waterline to the upper deck!



The existence of “de Loma”, the best of the cruisers of its era, refutes the skeptics' opinion that the armor belt is in the form of a narrow “strip” in the waterline region. And can not protect the entire board.

Another vivid example: the American cruiser "Worcester", where the priority was given to protection from aviation bombs. Hence - the most powerful 90 mm armor deck, exceeding the weight of the armor belt.

There were aircraft carriers with fully armored flight decks (Illustries, Midway).

The British had a battleship “Vanguard”, where the construction took into account the experience of both world wars. In addition to traditional armored belts, its designers did not stint on 3000 tons of splinterproof bulkheads.

Everything has its own purpose. Real samples of ships demonstrate an endless flight of design ideas. Just do not say that it is impossible. I hate that word.

P. 4. Armor is not an obstacle to weapons, antenna posts and systems of a modern ship.

You probably want to know where such confidence came from.

First, armor was an integral element of all ships of the past.

Second, the we reliably knowthat the mass and dimensions of modern engines and armaments are significantly inferior to their predecessors. They also impose less severe restrictions on the layout than artillery and ensuring high speed.

Nowadays, no one attaches any importance to the radius of overturning of trunks (“dead zone” on the deck, hundreds of square meters in area).

In the era of compact DPS, the notion of the angle chart of shelling guns disappeared, which had previously determined the value of a ship as a combat unit. And asked all his layout.

No one is trying to accelerate cruisers to 37 units, installing dozens of boilers and turbines with a capacity of 150 thousand hp.

Paradoxical example: according to its power, the Japanese cruiser “Mogami” (1931 year) exceeded the nuclear “Orlan”!



One tower of the main caliber “Mogami” weighed like 48 launchers for the “Caliber”. In total, the Japanese had five such towers.

Despite the bulky artillery, disproportionate in size power plant, a crew of thousands of people and imperfect technology 1930-x., Cruisers of that era had a powerful armor shell.

The cruiser “Mogami” with its brutal characteristics (speed, firepower) carried 2000 tons of armor.

So where do doubts come from that modern rocket ships are categorically unable to have constructive protection ?!

Radar and analog computers existed simultaneously with heavy artillery weapons and armor protection. For example, the “Mogami” was equipped with a standard radar general detection “Type 21” with an outstanding antenna size.


Radar "Type 21" on the cruiser "Ibuki"


Electronic equipment of ships of other countries differed even more diversity: for example, the KRL "Worcester" had 19 radar, the battleship "Vanguard" - 22.

About “Worcester” we remembered not in vain. The cruiser, among other things, was equipped with a system of anti-nuclear protection, which all modern ships have. Notice, without prejudice to its constructive protection.

What do these examples show? The fact that skeptics attempt to explain the refusal of armor by the lack of space due to the appearance of new equipment (radar, computing equipment, ESD) looks unconvincing.

Try, book: this is how the argument usually begins, with a proposal to describe the design of the installation of protection on the Peter the Great TARKR.

What will happen if you install an armored belt on Orlan? Speaking in general terms, nothing. The hull of the heavy cruisers will sink into the water for several meters, and the “Peter” will acquire the proportions of war cruisers.

Which draft exceeded freeboard height.

The board of the Peter the Great rises above water on 11 meters. In the bow it is even higher - a jump from there is similar to a jump from the roof of a five-story building. At the same time, the maximum value of its precipitation is “only” 8 meters. Atomic giant stands like an ankle-deep in water.

At a time when most of the hull of the ships of the past was under water.


“Zamvolt” and LC “Nevada” in one scale. A modern ship, with the same dimensions, is deprived of heavy artillery and armor, and therefore rocking on the surface like an empty box.


At that level, where the upper deck used to pass and towers with guns were standing, the tall plane continues now!

Skeptics are frightened by the thought of high sides. How many armor plates will be required! And how will this affect the stability? However, everything is much simpler.

Referring to the topic of constructive protection, one should not just sculpt armor plates to existing high-breasted cruisers, but rather carry out a more in-depth analysis, taking into account the appearance of highly protected ships of the past.

P. 5. The cost of installing the reservation.

Negligible.

Reasons for so many categorical statements:

5.1. The cost of the metal for the manufacture of the hull “Arly Burke” is only ... 5% of the final cost of Aegis destroyer!

The main costs associated with high-tech weapons.

5.2. Highly protected ships were massively built in the first half of the twentieth century. So, at the turn of 1940-50x. In the Soviet Union, a series of 14 cruisers, the 68-bis, was built. In the 21 century, with the presence of new metalworking technologies and an increase in labor productivity, the manufacture of 100 mm metal plates will become a truly insoluble problem.

The described examples testify to one thing: the introduction of armor elements will remain unnoticed against the background of other expenses during the construction of a combat ship with a full displacement of 10-15 thousand tons.

Everything that is done by one person can be broken by another.

The whole question is in effort and time. To withstand one hit more than the enemy - it is priceless.

Above, sufficient reasons were given for the realization of the idea:

- increased combat stability (protection from debris and most types of existing anti-ship missiles);
- technical feasibility (if they could before, they can and now).

The solution for a variety of problems at minimal cost.

Facts and logic.

Such is the whole concept of increasing security for warships. Which causes genuine amazement to all who are accustomed to believe that armor is a relic of the past, and in modern combat its use is completely useless. Skeptics are not even embarrassed by the fact that ground combat equipment is constantly increasing in mass (already reached 80 tons) due to continuous attempts to enhance protection.

Now I ask your questions and comments.



I express my gratitude to everyone who showed interest in this topic. Special ardent greetings to Comrade. Kars, whose ideas are used in every article in the armor cycle. Happy New Year, everyone!
Author:
209 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ImPerts
    ImPerts 18 December 2017 06: 55 New
    11
    Good morning Oleg!
    For a long time there were no your articles, for a long time there were no fierce disputes. I am not an expert in this field, but I am pleased to read the discussions that appear under each such article)))
    1. Walking
      Walking 18 December 2017 13: 34 New
      +8
      Honestly, the first thought after the start of the reading was one, Kaptsov wrote! Have not read your articles for a long time. Welcome back!
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 18 December 2017 16: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: Hiking
        ! Have not read your articles for a long time.

        Good article soldier
  2. 27091965
    27091965 18 December 2017 07: 07 New
    +1
    The existence of the “de Loma”, the best of the cruisers of its era,


    There are different opinions on this issue. In the United States, the Admiral Nakhimov was considered the best armored cruiser of the time.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 18 December 2017 11: 36 New
      21
      TARKR project 1144 "Orlan" the first warships after WWII, in the design of which a sufficiently developed local reservation, PTZ and a double bottom were laid. Engine rooms, RCC cellars and reactor compartments from the sides are protected by 100-mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the deck by 70-mm armor. Information combat posts and the main CP, covered by 100-mm side walls with 75-mm roof and traverses. Feed on the sides of 70-mm, roof of a helicopter hangar 50-mm, storage of ammunition and aviation fuel, tiller compartments in 50-mm.
    2. Grafova Irina
      Grafova Irina 19 December 2017 00: 26 New
      +1
      Let's also remember Orlando smile
      1. 27091965
        27091965 19 December 2017 08: 42 New
        0
        Quote: Irina Grafova
        Let's also remember Orlando


        It was a well-designed cruiser, but the intervention of the Admiralty, as in other countries, changed the project for the worse.
        1. Grafova Irina
          Grafova Irina 20 December 2017 00: 11 New
          0
          This is unlikely at that time ... Rapid-fire guns were then in their infancy, and the thick belt completely compensated for the "soft" extremities.
          Staff members had something similar, starting with Nevada (of course, much later). Even the Britons who ate the "dog" on the design of the capital ship, did not dare to bring this concept to its logical conclusion - the "Georges" had a belt on both sides of the beam. And most of all, the Japanese “burst” with their Yamato reservation system. In principle, the impenetrable citadel (at that time) helped them a little with extensive flooding outside it
  3. Herculesic
    Herculesic 18 December 2017 07: 21 New
    +4
    Oleg! And if a supersonic rocket pierces not the side, but the deck? As I understand it, you want to take a step back - to recreate the battleships, instead of developing naval air defense and missile defense systems? ???
    1. netslave
      netslave 18 December 2017 08: 41 New
      +1
      The reservation system of artillery ships of the first half of the twentieth century. included an armored deck.
      1. bayard
        bayard 18 December 2017 17: 01 New
        +5
        It is advisable to use armor protection on destroyers of the Leader type, although in this case it would be worthwhile to cross them into cruisers. The armored side and armored deck are insurance against the near-surface air defense system from wreckage and light anti-ship missiles, which are mainly armed with NATO countries and their allies. The use of armor protection on new ships of the Russian Navy of the cruiser-destroyer class will give a noticeable advantage in combat stability over the ships of the "partners".
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 22 December 2017 09: 24 New
          0
          laughing I have long been touched by the tendency to call light cruisers destroyers, and destroyers - corvettes. good As I understand it, this is due to the fact that modern monsters tend to build unbalanced, and something like "re-destroyer / undercruiser" comes out fool laughing
          1. yehat
            yehat 16 February 2018 13: 40 New
            0
            if such a freak is useful to the fleet, what's the difference, what is his balance?
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 18 December 2017 16: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: Herkulesich
      instead of developing shipboard air defense and missile defense systems? ???

      Not instead of "TOGETHER WITH". The point is that if there is no minimum required armor, even a downed rocket or its fragments will cause fatal damage.
    3. Aqela
      Aqela 22 December 2017 09: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: Herkulesich
      Oleg! And if a supersonic rocket pierces not the side, but the deck? As I understand it, you want to take a step back - to recreate the battleships, instead of developing naval air defense and missile defense systems? ???

      I believe that the author answered this question already in the first paragraph of his argument. request With the current defense system, even fragments of destroyed RCC can cause serious damage and put the ship out of action ... In addition, an attempt to hit the deck, in my opinion, will require increasing the flight height of the rocket or, at least, making the slide, which increases the chances of knocking it down anti-aircraft guns ... And so on. after the anti-aircraft guns were shot down by anti-aircraft guns, the question arises so that the fragments would not damage the ship ... what
      1. yehat
        yehat 16 February 2018 13: 44 New
        0
        the question is something else. the ship may not suffer, but on its surface there is a lot of fragile equipment - from radars and weapons to sailors. And even if the ship remains alive, its combat effectiveness is a big question.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 December 2017 07: 43 New
    11
    That's what I agree with Oleg, so that the armor will definitely not be superfluous. Even booking at the BMP level will significantly increase crew survival.
    1. igordok
      igordok 18 December 2017 13: 32 New
      +2
      There is no excess armor, excess weight, cost, etc. armor characteristics.
      1. Aqela
        Aqela 22 December 2017 09: 39 New
        +2
        Quote: igordok
        There is no excess armor, excess weight, cost, etc. armor characteristics.

        That's why armor is always considered as a foreign element? If even cars have long been made with a load-bearing body, then why is it assumed by default that armor is not included in the power pack? request In addition, it is clearly indicated that the corps costs about 5% ... Well, yes, the project will rise in price by 2% by increasing combat stability by 50% ... crying Personally, I was very impressed with the ability of a cheap boat loaded with a dozen bags of explosives to disable an expensive warship, if not to sink it to a goddamn grandmother ... sad Not that a strange trend is being outlined: hefty destroyers are being built, they plan to install an expensive, complex, powerful and long-range railgun on them, however, all this can take away a cutter with a large-caliber machine gun or a trotyl barrel, towed to the side by a boat or a diver ... request
        1. bk0010
          bk0010 23 December 2017 15: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Aqela
          Not that a strange trend is being outlined: hefty destroyers are being built, they plan to install an expensive, complicated, powerful and long-range railgun on them, however, all this can take away a cutter with a large-caliber machine gun or a trotyl barrel, towed to board by a boat or a diver ... request

          That is, the boat embarrasses you, but there is no torpedo?
  5. tasha
    tasha 18 December 2017 07: 51 New
    +3
    Let's throw off and give Oleg money! Let him build ...

    We are waiting for the article "Reincarnation of armor-piercing missiles, bombs and shells." Does anybody want? Start with the latest FX-1400 technology ...

    The high armor penetration of the bomb turned out to be excessive even for cruisers ... The bomb flashed through almost any ship through and exploded only in the water below it, which reduced the effectiveness of the application. In the end, it was decided to abandon these ammunition ...
    1. Santa Fe
      18 December 2017 09: 20 New
      +6
      Quote: tasha
      Start with FX-1400, built with new technologies ...

      It is interesting to look at the rocket with the warhead 1360 kg
      and on the one who will be able to raise it. An-Ruslan?
      1. tasha
        tasha 18 December 2017 10: 40 New
        0
        Just don’t say that it’s impossible. I hate this word.
        wink
        Well, for example, X-22
        1. Santa Fe
          18 December 2017 11: 45 New
          +3
          Quote: tasha
          Well, for example, X-22

          What a fine fellow you are to sink the ships of the Russian Navy with the help of the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Force
          1. tasha
            tasha 18 December 2017 12: 47 New
            0
            YJ-12, DF-12, DF-26 and AGM-158 to the heap ...

            As well as the next generation ..
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 18 December 2017 20: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: tasha
          Well, for example, X-22

          Now count the number of carriers of these colossals and compare with the number of carriers of any Harpoons?
          1. tasha
            tasha 19 December 2017 04: 09 New
            0
            Now count

            I did not understand your comment. Please explain...
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 19 December 2017 06: 10 New
              0
              Everything is simple. For rockets weighing several tons, appropriate carriers are needed, which in themselves are expensive, unlike light anti-ship missiles, which can be put on an actual boat.
              Quote: Santa Fe
              It is interesting to look at a rocket with a warhead of 1360 kg and who will be able to lift it. An-Ruslan?
              1. tasha
                tasha 19 December 2017 07: 09 New
                0
                Yes, everything is simple.
                Once again I did not understand .. Why should I count the number of carriers and compare? request
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 19 December 2017 19: 33 New
                  +1
                  Quote: tasha
                  Why should I count the number of media and compare?

                  And then, that a missile without a carrier is a pile of iron. For it to become a weapon, it must be launched from somewhere. And if a light anti-ship missile can stand even on a boat, then a heavy anti-ship missile is more difficult - either a strategist or a cruiser is needed.
                  1. tasha
                    tasha 20 December 2017 04: 23 New
                    0
                    And then, that a missile without a carrier is a pile of iron.

                    Yes, I believe you, you convinced me. wink And which conclusion follows from this?
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 20 December 2017 20: 18 New
                      0
                      Quote: tasha
                      And which conclusion follows from this

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      For it to become a weapon, it must be launched from somewhere. And if a light anti-ship missile can stand even on a boat, then a heavy anti-ship missile is more difficult - either a strategist or a cruiser is needed.
                      1. tasha
                        tasha 21 December 2017 04: 13 New
                        0
                        Yes, light RCC can stand even on a boat. With heavy, it’s already more difficult - you need either a strategist or a cruiser.
                        What did you want? Expand your thought ...

                        Anecdote in the topic:
                        Two teachers are talking:
                        - Well, I came across a class. Once I explain - they don’t understand. The second time I explain - they do not understand. The third time I explain - I understood it myself, but they still do not understand ...
                2. yehat
                  yehat 16 February 2018 13: 49 New
                  0
                  the difference is that the number of launchers for carriers of light PCR is hundreds,
                  and heavy ones - in dozens or pieces. with such a numerical ratio, you can hammer on heavy rockets and assume that there are only light ones.
  6. Serg65
    Serg65 18 December 2017 08: 11 New
    28
    Well hello, dear you are my Kaptsov! laughing
    Although your articles are the result of your own fantasies, but they (articles) well dilute the reluctance reigning in VO in recent times, for which special thanks to you!
    Nus old man, do not blame me!
    made of high-quality steel HY-80 with a yield strength of 80 thousand feet per square. inch (550 MPa).

    laughing In the mid-90s, I had to work as a decorator at a construction site and when passing the object I often uttered the same smart words (pounds, square inches, Pascals) and you know - this put the customer in a stupor !!!! bully
    In reality, RCC firing on armored plates was never carried out.

    what Is this your fantasy or a real situation, confirmed by at least experts ???
    I personally saw in the 87th at the training ground near Zmeinyi Island, an armor plate 100 mm thick with a hole of santims so 20 in diameter when testing the anti-ship missiles P-1000.
    an increase in speed and warhead (i.e., the starting mass of missiles) negatively affects the number of possible carriers and the number of anti-ship missiles in a salvo

    bully Again clever words, Oleg, and how much RCC is needed in a salvo? And if there are several carriers?
    Even with a broken radar, a modern ship poses a threat to the enemy

    Here I completely agree with the Author! Therefore, the blinded "Tika" will be finished off with all proletarian hatred !!! A modern ship that has lost its radar instantly becomes a shield for training firing or is it not so Oleg?
    The only correct direction of the armor is the anti-fragmentation protection against fragments of anti-ship missiles, here I also agree with Kaptsov!
    smile With the coming and you Oleg and all the Furoman! drinks
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 18 December 2017 08: 16 New
      +1
      Yes, the more modern anti-ship missiles can recognize ships, and stupidly do not hit the armor, but the fragments and all sorts of barmaley on boats - yes.
      1. seos
        seos 18 December 2017 15: 34 New
        +1
        There are rockets that make a slide and attack into the deck, there are torpedoes.
        Nowadays, reprogramming a missile to attack in vulnerable places or changing a warhead to a more armor-piercing one is not difficult ...
        And if you book a ship from all sides, including the deck, it’s easy to imagine how much damage the rocket will break through the armor and explode inside ...
        There are many more real ways to increase the survivability of the ship.
    2. Santa Fe
      18 December 2017 09: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: Serg65
      buzz words (pounds, square inches, pascals) and you know - it introduced the customer into a stupor !!!

      Here, on the contrary, the decoding of the steel grade, so that it would be clearer to the Russian-speaking reader
      in the name of our steels - hundredths of% carbon
      in amerskih - yield strength in pounds per square. inch. The figure 80 clearly indicates high quality (if converted to pounds to meters and see what happens)
      Quote: Serg65
      Is this your fantasy or real situation, confirmed

      Not confirmed by any photographs, diagrams or detailed description of the damage. Not a “hole” that someone saw somewhere, but specifically - the shape of the hole, the size of the hole, type b / n, speed at the moment of meeting the target, characteristics of the target itself, how and where it was fixed, the angle of meeting the target

      The absence of any photographs and evidence in the Internet age, when you can find everything - including photographs of target ships at the N. Earth nuclear test sites, indicates one thing - no one fired missiles at armor plates. This statement fits in with the logic - there was no point in such testsdue to the lack of armor on ships. For the targets used are decommissioned tank ships and the same armored ships.
      Quote: Serg65
      And if there are several carriers?

      These are the problems of the enemy. .for launching the same number of rockets, more carriers need to be searched
      Quote: Serg65
      A modern ship that lost its radar suddenly becomes a shield for shooting practice or is it not so Oleg?

      Not this way

      New ZURA are induced by DRLO and other aircraft of the compound
      Helicopter 1-2 and anti-submarine weapons left on board
      To launch the anti-ship missiles and calibers, radars are not needed in principle

      It will pose a threat until it burns out completely.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 December 2017 10: 13 New
        +9
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Decommissioned floating barracks and the same armored ships were used as targets.

        recourse Eh hehe ....
        At the dawn of the birth of anti-ship missiles, the targets were the cruiser "Red Caucasus" and the stronghold of LKR "Stalingrad"!
        Have you ever seen pictures of holes from anti-ship missiles in the KK or Stalingrad building ???
        I personally did not find those! But at the same time, the sinking of the Red Caucasus of the RCC KS-1 is confirmed by many, including you, Oleg, in an article dated April 15, 2015 on VO (Santa Fe = Kaptsov, isn't that so?)
        Quote: Santa Fe
        These are the problems of the enemy. .for launching the same number of rockets, more carriers need to be searched

        laughing Oleg, what are you right of word? In still glory to God, he did not turn into a magazine Murzilka ...
        Quote: Santa Fe
        To launch the anti-ship missiles and calibers, radars are not needed in principle

        wassat And then Ostap suffered ...
        And what is needed to guide RCC? Just don’t need about AWACS and satellites, you have started the WAR and all your devices have sunk into oblivion! Where and how to shoot?
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 18 December 2017 10: 22 New
          +5
          Quote: Serg65
          At the dawn of the birth of anti-ship missiles, the targets were the cruiser "Red Caucasus" and the stronghold of LKR "Stalingrad"!

          And many more retired foshists, including the creation of a gloomy Teutonic genius called "Count Zeppelin." True, the latter was tormented by bombs, but the meaning was exactly the same. And by the way, pictures of all this action were made in abundance. Hundreds of photos, all the little things recorded. The positions of the bombs were taken before the bombing, and even after. And try to find these photos on the Internet. You will sweat. The catch will be - a couple of poorly scanned photos of which the essence of what is not quite clear.
          1. Santa Fe
            18 December 2017 10: 31 New
            +1
            Quote: Alex_59
            including the creation of the gloomy Teutonic genius called "The Count Zeppelin". True last tormented by bombs

            Not in lotto, but in preference, not a car but a hat, did not win, but lost
            Quote: Alex_59
            about the meaning was exactly the same

            Yes, exactly the same
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 18 December 2017 10: 41 New
              +3
              Quote: Santa Fe
              Not in lotto, but in preference, not a car but a hat, did not win, but lost

              Photos like Zeppelin were tested by bombing no. So a lie - this was not. ))))
              Another example - before 07.10.1959 there was no "back of the moon." ))) There were no pictures - that means there was no object. Logically, what)))
              Quote: Santa Fe
              For the next 60 years, no one investigated the armor-piercing properties of PCR (due to the lack of meaning of such tests)

              Not provable. Based on the available facts, the statement “was not tested” and the statement “tested” are equal in degree of evidence, which is zero at the same time. Therefore, to draw any conclusions about this is not possible.
              And on the basis of motives, one can make the assumption that such tests could be carried out, because there could be a need to investigate such a question because the armored ships of the WWII period remained in the combat personnel of the US Navy until the 60s in very large numbers, and some representatives even to the 90s (LKR Missouri). Those. the USSR had a motive to try to test anti-ship missiles against an armored target, but whether it was actually done was impossible to say, how impossible it was to say that it did not.
              1. Santa Fe
                18 December 2017 11: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                Photos as Zeppelin was undermined by bombing no.

                But there is a photo and a detailed description of the bombs hit in other ships
                there are no examples at all
                Quote: Alex_59
                On the basis of the available facts, the statement "did not test" and the statement "tested" are equal in evidence.

                No are not equal

                If you were offered a bet, both you and I would choose the option that there were no tests at all. Too many indirect facts indicate that there were no tests (suspicious lack of data, as well as the very lack of meaning in such tests)
                Quote: Alex_59
                armored ships of the WWII period remained in combat strength of the US Navy until the 60-s in a very large number, and some representatives to the 90-x (LCR Missouri). Those. try to try the anti-ship missile against the armored target of the USSR;

                Did not have

                The reason is that the booking scheme for TKr of the war years did not provide protection from the Dac, it is designed for other threats. And the missile modernization generally made Albany and Littlelok armor ballast - all the most important posts in the superstructure did not have protection, the belt because of overload went under water
                2. The power of the Soviet PKR was sufficient to disable a ship of any class. there is no reception against scrap
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 18 December 2017 11: 07 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  The power of the Soviet Pkr was sufficient to incapacitate a ship of any class. no scrap against scrap

                  belay Blaspheming against yourself ???
                2. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 18 December 2017 11: 20 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  If you were offered to bet

                  Not in the lotto, but in preference, not a car but a hat, did not win but lost)))))
                  Bets, lotto, preference, fortune telling on the coffee grounds and so on, this is your fad, I do not bet.

                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  The reason is the reservation scheme of the TKr war years
                  God himself then ordered at least one test shooting to be carried out in order to be SURE in this, to have a piece of paper with measurements and seals of responsible testers, etc. For example, tests of nuclear weapons were carried out even when there was a fairly certain confidence in the power of this type of weapon. But they checked, double-checked, imitated various conditions.
                  Quote: Santa Fe
                  Too many indirect facts indicate that there were no trials

                  No fewer indirect facts indicate that you do not exist. This especially proves the absence of your photos. )))
                  1. Santa Fe
                    18 December 2017 11: 39 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Bets, lotto, preference, fortune telling on the coffee grounds and so on, this is your fad, I do not bet.

                    But what about probability theory
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    God himself then ordered at least one test shooting to be carried out to be SURE

                    Be confident in what.
                    Will a ton of explosives smash an unarmored Albany superstructure?

                    the USSR Navy had more important problems than this
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    confidence in the power of this type of weapon

                    Which never was
                    Unlike the public, the military knew that the power of the explosion was inversely proportional to the distance to the third degree. And the destruction of all is observed only in the epicenter
                    tested the design of charges, reliability

                    where is the example of nuclear weapons?
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Not less indirect evidence indicates that you do not exist. Especially this proves the absence of your pictures.

                    But there is Alex59. this is enough to make the discussion interesting
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 18 December 2017 12: 33 New
                      +4

                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      the USSR Navy had more important problems than this
                      There were more than a dozen reasons to check this. I will outline only one of this series.

                      Meeting with the commander in chief on new types of weapons. Captain-engineer O. Kaptsov stands up and declares: "Comrade Commander-in-Chief, our missiles are guaranteed to sink Missouri, even if warheads pop into the armor belt. I give a tooth. There is no desire to experience, our Navy has problems more important than this"
                      Pause.
                      The next scene. The captain-engineer O. Kaptsova is taken out of the office. Following him comes the red, like the revolutionary flag of the USSR, commander, with a shaking hand, finishes a glass of water, and a validol tablet finally slips into his stomach. He is leaning on the doorjamb, and from the office the timid voice of one of the deputies says to him: "Ssssergei Georgievich, you still threw a glass in vain at him ... you hit him directly in the forehead ... will it survive?"
                      The tired commander-in-chief, whom he gradually “lets go,” quietly squeezes out: “this one will survive” ...
                      A curtain.
                      Quote: Santa Fe
                      Which never was

                      Power was and is. Omnipotence - was not and is not.
                      And the degree of power was verified by numerous tests.
                      1. bayard
                        bayard 18 December 2017 18: 52 New
                        10
                        Funny arguing guys! Just crushed our site, there were no officers at all, since such a circus was on the forum ... Firstly, ALL Soviet missiles were designed to destroy booked targets. And the question was solved not only by the power (weight) of the warhead, its speed, but also by the way of penetration into the reserved space. Namely - ALL RCC of the USSR (except perhaps the most recent of the light class - X-35, X-31, etc.) had a cumulative head, sometimes multi-jet, to weaken the armor before the penetration of a high-explosive warhead. The warheads, in turn, had (and have) a very strong and thick shell, as well as the shape of a slightly blunted shell, which breaks through any armor weakened by a cumulative jet (jets). In addition to battleships, after the war, the United States still had a bunch of aircraft carriers with powerful side armor, and in a modernized form they served for a very long time. Namely, against these armored monsters, our anti-ship missiles were created. The bet on HEAVY RCC in the USSR was made precisely for this reason - large missiles for large purposes. Armor on ships in the postwar period was abandoned because everyone was preparing for a TOTAL nuclear war in which the armor could no longer save, and the saved displacement was used to maximize the saturation of ships with electronics of all kinds, which weighed a lot at that time and required corresponding volumes. At present, the return to the reservation of buildings is justified for the reasons indicated in the article. With this I agree with the author. But this makes sense in the case of ships of large and partly medium displacement, which Russia has not yet built. And on corvettes and frigates with a displacement of 2,5 - 4,5 thousand tons all these delights are not justified ... And more about the "fragility" of the ammunition. RCCs are of course made of duralumin, BUT ... The warhead even the high explosive near Tomahawk is made of thick-walled tungsten and has the shape of a bulb. Even at subsonic speed, this fool weighing 450 kg will break through any side (even the armored one if weakened by a cumulative jet). And if after that all duralumin husk remains outside - she did her job - brought the warhead to the target ... I doubt that it is 100 mm. armor will save from a half-ton tungsten blank. From "Harpoon" there is a chance, but only if in a high-explosive version without a cumulative head and at an irrational angle. But from the fragments of debris just right ... But of course there were tests.
                      2. Aqela
                        Aqela 22 December 2017 10: 01 New
                        0
                        with a shaking hand he finishes a glass of water, and a validol tablet finally slips into his stomach

                        Remark: Validol tablets dissolve, because their reflex effect ("peppermint" is a local irritant) and validol has no beneficial effect outside the oral cavity. Some stupid admiral comes out - even validol cannot normally accept. laughing This is the first. And the second one is the doping of water from a glass of a speaker recently launched in the forehead. Some kind of non-spill glass comes out ... Thirdly, the USSR flag was not revolutionary, because The USSR was formed after the revolution, and not during it. good This is the question of considering argumentation. You said a lot of pictures, but the value of the arguments is zero. Fourth, workshops, in particular, are also held to select the priority of certain works. As a result, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy of the USSR leaves illiterate tyrant. Where does such a judgment come from? wassat
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 18 December 2017 10: 58 New
            +8
            hi Greetings, my friend!
            Quote: Alex_59
            And try to find these photos on the Internet

            So, that's it! In the test I described at Snake, ministers with a warm heart and a cold mind took all the present from those present and seized all the cinema and photo equipment crying
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 18 December 2017 11: 31 New
              +4
              Quote: Serg65
              Greetings, my friend!

              Good health! And here I got the flu, so now I wish everyone health)))
              Quote: Serg65
              In the test I described at Snake, ministers with a warm heart and a cold mind took all the present from those present and seized all the cinema and photo equipment

              Kaptsov’s people worked. Destroyed proof for his future articles. )))
              I still have people at work who do not exist. You can also write articles. And most importantly, no one will object. No, okay. And good. )))
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 December 2017 11: 39 New
                +9
                Quote: Alex_59
                Kaptsov’s people worked. Destroyed proof for his future articles. )))

                belay Ah, who they really were, what a prophecy you must have in order to know that after 30 years their work will be rewarded to them! lol
                Quote: Alex_59
                And here I got the flu

                laughing Alexei, Russian folk medicine says ... vodka and women treat everything! Vodka in a limited number of women without restrictions ....... the main thing is to sweat wink drinks
            2. Aqela
              Aqela 22 December 2017 10: 03 New
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              hi Greetings, my friend!
              Quote: Alex_59
              And try to find these photos on the Internet

              So, that's it! In the test I described at Snake, ministers with a warm heart and a cold mind took all the present from those present and seized all the cinema and photo equipment crying

              Yes, yes! I would like to note that, in many field tests, the statute of limitations has not yet passed. Where, accordingly, will be the "firewood"?
        2. Santa Fe
          18 December 2017 10: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: Serg65
          l! But at the same time, the sinking of the Red Caucasus PKR KS-1 was confirmed by many, including you, Oleg, in an article from 15 on April 2015 of the year at HE (Santa Fe = Kaptsov, isn't it?)

          Was there a hit in armor?
          Citadel LCR "Stalingrad"!

          No reliable evidence of those events has been preserved. Subsequent 60 years no one studied the PCR armor-piercing properties (due to the lack of meaning of such tests)
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 December 2017 10: 53 New
            +4
            Quote: Santa Fe
            did you hit the armor?

            Do you have irrefutable evidence that the COP fell below the waterline?
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Over the next 60 years, no one investigated the armor-piercing properties of the PCR

            What prove ????
            1. Santa Fe
              18 December 2017 11: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Serg65
              Do you have irrefutable evidence that the COP fell below the waterline?

              It did not hit the main belt, due to its too small size (a narrow strip at the waterline) - do not be lazy, look at the diagram

              Arguments about whether the 3 ton rocket with the 600 kg of warhead could penetrate the 25 mm upper belt did not see much point
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 December 2017 11: 33 New
                +6
                Quote: Santa Fe
                do not be lazy, look at the scheme

                laughing Scheme or photo? If the photo is not, then your scheme is just a fiction (according to Kaptsov)
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 December 2017 11: 41 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Scheme

                  Red Caucasus reservation scheme
                  1. Aqela
                    Aqela 22 December 2017 10: 08 New
                    0
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Scheme

                    Red Caucasus reservation scheme


                    https://topwar.ru/73120-potoplenie-kreysera-krasn
                    yy-kavkaz.html
                    An article was published about the sinking of the cruiser "Red Caucasus". Reservation scheme is shown.
                    Here is a familiar argument, by the way, quite logical, in my opinion:
                    The case of the sinking of a light cruiser of the 1913 model with the help of super-heavy anti-ship missiles does not allow any conclusions about the high destructive effect or armor penetration of modern missiles. As follows from the testimony of eyewitnesses, before the final sinking, the target cruiser was repeatedly hollowed out with “Komets” with an inert warhead (which, of course, loosened and weakened the already decrepit power pack of the old ship). Even if “Comet” got into the upper armor belt, what's strange about how the 2-ton transonic “pig” pierced the thin splinter protection and, flying through the internal unarmoured bulkheads, tore a piece of the opposite side of the 3 the 3 meter?
        3. avt
          avt 18 December 2017 11: 00 New
          +4
          Quote: Serg65
          And what is needed to guide RCC? Just don’t need about AWACS and satellites, you have started the WAR and all your devices have sunk into oblivion! Where and how to shoot?

          recourse Persuaded. Armor, bow and arrows! wassat I see no other way wassat Well, maybe only if you charge from the barrel .....
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 December 2017 11: 04 New
            +6
            hi Greetings, The Great Cynic of all time !!!
            Quote: avt
            Well, maybe only if you charge from the barrel .....

            wassat Some kind of perversion ... ugh !!
            1. avt
              avt 18 December 2017 13: 17 New
              +3
              Quote: Serg65
              Some kind of perversion ... ugh !!

              bully I offer a compromise - it will only require! And .. Oleg will triumph with the reservation! bully
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 December 2017 13: 24 New
                +6
                Quote: avt
                I offer a compromise

                what Wow, how cynicism and compromise are combined in you! laughing Well, if only for the sake of experiment, especially for the triumph of Oleg, I agree! good
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 December 2017 19: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        - no one fired rockets at armored plates.


        Then, for what purpose did cumulative heads be made on anti-ship missiles?
        For example, "... a basalt cumulative recess approximately 50 cm in diameter. It is located in the lower part of the warhead (resembles a standard iron barrel) and the axis of the future jet is at an angle to the horizontal plane ....."
        http://topwar.ru/10606-chem-pohozhi-kamikadze-i-p
        -700-granit.html
        If they hadn’t expected to break through the armor, they would have cost an ordinary landmine.
    3. novel66
      novel66 18 December 2017 09: 57 New
      +5
      great harm! hi do not bother to think prospectively, air defense and about good, but if you are also covered with armor, there are still more chances, which is actually what we are talking about. " holiday greetings"? not too early to start? drinks lol
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 December 2017 10: 43 New
        +4
        Healthy flyer!
        Quote: novel xnumx
        do not bother to think perspectively

        Roma, thinking perspectively is a dangerous business and often nothing good comes of it ... anyway, you’ll have to run for the second drinks
        1. novel66
          novel66 18 December 2017 12: 03 New
          +2
          well, if only for the second, drinks
        2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 December 2017 12: 35 New
      +6
      Quote: Serg65
      A modern ship that lost its radar suddenly becomes a shield for shooting practice or is it not so Oleg?

      Not this way. He is able to continue to work on external target designation. Moreover, it can come from sources that, in principle, are difficult to eliminate during a battle of this kind. For example, aviation / UAV or satellite.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 18 December 2017 12: 57 New
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        For example, aviation / UAV or satellite.

        The satellite was knocked down from orbit, aviation and UAVs were neutralized by ground-based MA (This is WAR and not a game of paddock!) ........ where and how we shoot ???
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 18 December 2017 15: 00 New
          0
          Target designation can be issued from another ship located in the radio visibility zone and observing the target. It could also be a submarine, the conditions are the same. True, in this case, the boat will give itself away ... but, theoretically, the issuance of target designation from it to a surface ship is possible.
        2. seos
          seos 18 December 2017 16: 54 New
          0
          By the time all the satellites are knocked down (at least 24 hours of active hostilities) there will be no one to give target designation .... submarines on duty can only survive ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 18 December 2017 17: 05 New
            +4
            Quote: seos
            By the time all the satellites are knocked down

            Tortured knock. Relatively easy to destroy only satellites in low orbits. At the same time, the enemy is quite capable of quickly replacing them with short-lived microsatellites of air launch (the technology has already been developed by the Israelis.
            Well, in higher orbits, including geostationary ... we are here every few months alone with a creak, and here hundreds in a day ... Where can I get them and how to launch them?
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 18 December 2017 17: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: Serg65
          Satellite from orbit knocked down

          What?
          Quote: Serg65
          aviation and UAVs neutralized ground-based MA

          what is her range of action ?????

          Quote: Serg65
          where and how are we shooting ???

          You forgot to add that the detection systems were disabled for all ships of the group ...
        4. bayard
          bayard 18 December 2017 19: 12 New
          0
          We continue to maneuver and reflect missiles with armor ... Or we shoot at previously explored targets - maybe the missile is homing.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 December 2017 12: 58 New
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        He is able to continue to work on external target designation.

        For which one FIG needs antennas. And if the radar was shattered by fragments so that they were out of order, then I see no reason for the data transmission antennas to survive so beautifully and selectively.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 18 December 2017 17: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          For which one FIG needs antennas.

          Then they can be quickly replaced. Almost direct line of sight, no interference ... No problems.
        2. Santa Fe
          18 December 2017 18: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: Alex_59
          I see no reason that data transmission antennas survived so beautifully and selectively.

          They can be made retractable, as zamvolte
          also, mobile communication systems such as Iridium on military frequencies, Link21

          communication is best protected
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 19 December 2017 07: 07 New
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Then they can be quickly replaced.

            Can. You can quickly restore radar blades. Fuss. Time. While the court and the case-finish. Everything is possible, but not just that. Do not you know. I telescopic towers for communication in the cold, but in the rain I had the opportunity to lay out and raise. And then the ship and even in battle. It will be all fun.
            Quote: Santa Fe
            They can be made retractable, as zamvolte

            Can. But not all. And those that can be - of course let them be retractable. But this is a theory. But in practice, you need to know in advance when to fold it at the time of contact. And is it possible to advance after the attack, or is it still flying. If you know when to hide the antennas so accurately, then you don’t have to hide, with this info the battle has already been practically won. There are a lot of problems here. The designator will also spin, he will live hunting. UAVs will shoot down. Communication channels jam. If the opponent is serious. If the basmachi - then neither armor is needed nor the antennas are folding. Yes, and this is your active guidance on which you are so happy about everything - it works only from the moment when the target itself saw the AGSN, and taking into account the diameter of the antenna mirror in the missile body and its radiation power, it is at a distance of 15-20 km from the target. The rocket still needs to be brought to this line - and for this it is necessary, as in the semi-active version, to shine. Well, or the goal should be very dumb - to fly in a straight line. I think as soon as the AGSN becomes a daily routine, RCC suddenly begin to make deep zigzags along the course. Do not deny the enemy the opportunity to be smart.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 21 December 2017 09: 13 New
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              Can.

              Sure. You can make duplicate in advance. The cost is compared with the radar antenna is scanty.
              So do not look for difficulties where they do not exist.

              Quote: Alex_59
              The designator will also spin, he will live hunting. UAVs will shoot down.

              Who will shoot down?
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 21 December 2017 09: 24 New
                0
                Quote: Spade
                You can make duplicate in advance. The cost is compared with the radar antenna is scanty.

                It depends on which antenna. I think that we are primarily interested in "plates" with a narrow radiation pattern, and not just a wire on the mast or frame. Because the communication channel must be made narrow so that outsiders do not get into it "listen" and "make noise". So it’s not really a miserable price.
                Quote: Spade
                Who will shoot down?

                Life is a complicated thing. It depends on where the battle is going. Just in the middle of the ocean shredding these troughs is not entirely logical. The trough should come somewhere to shoot at someone. So the coast is not far away. This is where it needs to be wetted. And if the UAV sees someone, then they certainly see it too. And they “hear” even further than he can see someone himself.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 21 December 2017 09: 59 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  It depends on which antenna. I think that we are primarily interested in "plates" with a narrow radiation pattern, and not just a wire on the mast or frame. Because the communication channel must be made narrow so that outsiders do not get into it "listen" and "make noise".

                  And who will "climb into the channel" and even more so "make noise" there?
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Life is a complicated thing. It depends on where the battle is going.

                  Exactly!!!
                  Who said / that a ship group must go where it is most vulnerable to enemy aviation?
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  The trough should come somewhere to shoot at someone. So the coast is not far away. This is where it needs to be wetted.

                  Shooting "Caliber" from the Caspian Sea in your opinion is actually the wrong decision? It was necessary to get closer to the Syrian coast, and at the same time arrange the ships so that they could be hit from the coast with the greatest convenience?
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 21 December 2017 13: 48 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    And who will "climb into the channel" and even more so "make noise" there?

                    Now, if it’s still quite difficult with the question “shoot down UAVs” and maybe nobody will touch it, then with the question “make noise” - this is 100%. At one time, the Tu-22P and PD were so noisy that there were ripples in the TVs for hundreds of kilometers. And under this noise, missile carriers went to the AUG. And something to do about it was very difficult. So there is no “noise” in the communication antenna with a wide diagram. But in the "narrow" ... already more difficult. In general, I believe that in the future, in order to succeed with an AUG attack, it is necessary to make specialized electronic warfare missiles capable of putting active interference and protecting the flock. But this is still fantastic. However, everything here is about fiction, starting with the article.

                    Quote: Spade
                    Who said / that a ship group must go where it is most vulnerable to enemy aviation?

                    It’s not necessary to climb. But the closer you get in, the deeper the impact can be. So far, firing Tomahawks out of the reach of coastal aviation is only possible on coastal targets. In my city, for example, it’s impossible to shy away — you just have to climb closer to where vulnerability is growing. However ... chatter is all ...
                    Quote: Spade
                    Shooting "Caliber" from the Caspian Sea in your opinion is actually the wrong decision?

                    In the basmachi? Correct. Especially when Iran and Iraq gave the go-ahead. And if they had not given the go-ahead, or the goal was not basmachi? And would you have to shoot from Selivanovka?
    5. Dart2027
      Dart2027 18 December 2017 20: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Serg65
      when testing RCC P-1000
      The question is how many ships, in principle, are capable of carrying such colossus. If you recall the story, the main problem with battling armadillos was not that their armor did not penetrate, penetrate, without missiles and aircraft, but that, say, rank 3 ships could not carry weapons capable of this, it simply did not fit.
      Quote: Serg65
      and how much RCC is needed in a salvo
      Reflecting a dozen for air defense is much easier than a hundred.
      Quote: Serg65
      Therefore, the blinded "Tika" and will finish off with all the proletarian hatred
      But will she be alone?
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 19 December 2017 12: 56 New
        +6
        I will give you a small example.
        April 16, 1972 U.S. Navy carrier-based attack aircraft anti-radar the Shrike missile attacked the frigate of the Australian Navy Uorden Warden. The rocket exploded at an altitude of 25-30 m directly above the ship. A hail of fragments of the warhead and missile body showered the frigate. Short circuits started on the ship, the protection worked. Most of the devices and mechanisms were de-energized. The helpless ship drifted for about half an hour toward the shore. When the “Warden” was put into operation, its combat capabilities, as the ship's commander believed, decreased by about 60% of those envisaged by the project and could only be restored after a lengthy repair at the shipyard.
        Why am I doing this? And besides, the damaged ship could not give way, deaf and the use of weapons became impossible!
        Quote: Dart2027
        But will she be alone?

        So the attacker will not consist of one ship, and even plus aviation! At the same time, part of the defending forces will be used to assist the injured ship. Now let's imagine that the anti-ship missiles didn’t get to Tiku, but to the AB, and since Soviet times they learned to fight anti-ship cruisers like Cleveland, there’s a lot of confidence that the anti-ship missiles are in the hangar area, which, according to the old American tradition, is littered with ammunition ..... .from here minus the air roof. Aegis doesn’t work well for low-flying targets, his skate missile defense system and how there will be a Verwerg beat off a dozen RCCs that hit the target from different sides at the same time the grandmother said for two wink
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 19 December 2017 19: 41 New
          0
          Quote: Serg65
          A hail of fragments of the warhead and missile body showered the frigate. Short circuits started on the ship, the protection worked.
          That is, no air defense did not save him. This is the first. Secondly, what caused all these short circuits and the loss of progress - by the fact that they damaged the radars or by the fact that the fragments pierced the body and gouged everything inside? Do you know the chassis and the radar - these are slightly different systems.
          Quote: Serg65
          In this case, part of the forces of the defenders will be involved in helping the injured ship
          Do you think it would be better if the ship sank right away? The meaning of armor is to give a chance to survive a hit without instant drowning.
          Quote: Serg65
          Now imagine that the RCC did not hit Tiku, but in AB
          What do they have to do with it?
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 20 December 2017 07: 06 New
            +4
            Quote: Dart2027
            what caused all these short circuits and the loss of progress - by the fact that they damaged the radars or by the fact that the fragments pierced the body and gouged everything inside?

            The fragments damaged the radars, the electric network of which corrupted multiple faults, the ship electrical station failed from these faults. The ship was stupidly immobilized !!!!
            Quote: Dart2027
            The meaning of armor is to give a chance to survive a hit without instant drowning.

            I gave you an example with a radar missile !!!!! RCC will give completely different damage! Above, Kaptsov tried to convince me that, when testing the anti-ship missile system, the missile hit the side of the Red Caucasus cruiser, protected by 35 mm armor, but Oleg tactfully kept silent that the anti-ship missile also hit the 100 mm armor belt with the penetration of the latter! In addition, the Comet was also tested at the stronghold of the LKR Stalingrad, and there, I apologize, 200 mm of high-class armor !!!! The famous PKR P-15 in this armor made a hole 50 cm in diameter and exploded inside the case !!!
            This begs the question .... what kind of armor should I put? After how much time will the RCC developers figure out how to break through your armor? What will be the displacement of a ship with such armor?
            Quote: Dart2027
            That is, no air defense did not save him

            It was a friendly fire and therefore unexpected! In the 87th, during the test of the Fort SAM, the Azov missile defense system shot down a P-100 base missile with the Osa air defense missile system and followed by the shooting of AK-630 target fragments!
            hi
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 20 December 2017 20: 28 New
              0
              Quote: Serg65
              Fragments damaged radars, the electrical network of which corruptedly gave multiple faults

              As far as I understand, this is not accurate but the alleged information? It was quite possible that it was, only to provide protection against such a task is by no means impossible.
              Quote: Serg65
              tactfully kept silent that, anti-ship missiles fell into the 100 mm armor belt with the last
              Actually there was a 75 mm belt. In addition, I personally did not say that armor can stop heavy anti-ship missiles, it can protect against light missiles and fragments.
              Quote: Serg65
              It was a friendly fire and therefore unexpected
              Then what does he have to do with it?
              Quote: Serg65
              In the 87th when tested
              In fact, during the tests they didn’t shoot at the ship, but next to it, well done, but they might not have shot down, there can be a lot of fragments, especially if there are more than one anti-ship missile.
  7. Conductor
    Conductor 18 December 2017 08: 24 New
    +1
    Hmm, like breaking through the ship’s battered side is an outdated concept, in the 2nd world mounted fire. and you offer a return to the on-board booking, giving an example of the case of Cole. and this case is not typical, a suicide attack.
    1. Santa Fe
      18 December 2017 10: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Conductor
      But this case is not typical, a suicide attack.

      Of interest is the 200 kg blast (equivalent to warhead PCR) and the consequences of this explosion

      How the charge was delivered - by a rocket or a death boat, in this context it does not matter
      1. seos
        seos 18 December 2017 16: 58 New
        0
        The explosion was not on the hull, but next to the ship ... 80% of the energy was dissipated ... all the more it is not clear what kind of explosives there was ... maybe a "fecaloid explosive device" from fertilizers ...
        1. Santa Fe
          18 December 2017 18: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: seos
          The explosion was not on the hull, but next to the ship ... 80% energy dissipated ...

          why not xnumx%?
          Quote: seos
          all the more incomprehensible that there was an explosive

          is known. A mixture of nitrate with aluminum powder, 200 + kilo
          for comparison, the Exect warhead contains 56 kilo vv
  8. sevtrash
    sevtrash 18 December 2017 08: 36 New
    0
    Armor is not needed now. Ships go all / absolutely most of their "life" outside the war and / or the possibility of shelling. Why do they need armor? Excessive burden, which will lead to less speed, more spending on more powerful engines, etc. The potential adversary must be pressured by the potential strike capabilities, which they do.
  9. Rakovor
    Rakovor 18 December 2017 09: 43 New
    0
    So on the Eagles, there seems to be armor, an armored belt of 100 mm, at least on Kirov for sure.
  10. vasilkovichi
    vasilkovichi 18 December 2017 09: 47 New
    +4
    Modern armor is air defense, missile defense and electronic warfare. The rest is from the fragments. So the article smacks of bogeyman. Well, an excursion into history is even nothing. Both the Americans and ours simulated the battle between the missile and artillery cruisers, our equipped the artilleryman with a missile defense as well, as a result of which the cruiser was able to withstand the missile attack, but to approach it at a distance of an artillery volley in order to break through the enemy’s defenses, t to a conventional projectile in FIG and electronic warfare, and missile defense, could not - the missile fled.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 December 2017 12: 00 New
      +9
      Quote: vasilkovichi
      rocket man fled.
      All these are extremes, or-or, if armor, then according to the ideas and technologies of the era of squadron battleships, if RCC, then surely, not lower than "Granite" ... The unprotected missile wouldn’t have escaped if the armored "gunner" would have missiles. About this speech. It should be particularly emphasized that ship's armor, ship booking schemes, can be much more efficient than that used on tanks. Moreover, if the armor could be effective against large-caliber projectiles, then with modern technologies, armor can be effective against anti-ship missiles, especially when combined with means of active and passive protection. In general, I would replace the word "armor" with the term "protection" of a ship, which will be complex. In any case, even if the ship is critically defeated, there will be more chances for a crew on an armored (more protected) ship to either perform a combat mission longer, or, to have more time, to rescue a crew that will survive significantly more than duralumin bank ".
      1. seos
        seos 18 December 2017 17: 07 New
        +1
        Recent military conflicts have clearly shown the high efficiency of electronic warfare, if a rocket has no chance of getting into a ship then armor is not needed ...
        Protection can be thought out even without using armor, and it’s not a matter of defense, but the concept of using the fleet ..
        To begin with, it is necessary to determine the tasks of the fleet for 50 years and from these possible tasks to create concepts for the development of the fleet. As already written on this site, no logic can be seen in the creation of the Russian fleet - the fleet is built on the principle that it was anyhow ...
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 December 2017 19: 36 New
          +4
          And what kind of concept can be if the possibilities do not meet the needs? How many destroyers of the Sarych type are standing up without the possibility of repair - there is no one to repair boiler turbine installations - the plant has been looted since the 90s. Gas turbines have just appeared and are suitable only for frigates. Large ships from scratch for a quarter century as they did not build - and if you want, it will not work right away. Even corvettes and frigates are built through a stump deck - competencies are lost. So they are looking for a way out in the MRK, by placing Caliber on everything that floats. But there is logic - competencies are being restored, shipyards are being restored, personnel are being trained, naval air defense systems are being mastered, gas turbines are being mastered, sailors are being prepared ... We will see a normal fleet in 10 years, not earlier, and even if we build at least some of the first ships restore the rank.
          1. seos
            seos 20 December 2017 01: 40 New
            +1
            Any concepts that come to mind at their core contain marine unmanned aerial vehicles of various classes.
            The most difficult task for the fleet is to find the enemy and give target designation - this problem must be solved.
            It would be nice to come up with and implement the concept of a submarine with unmanned aerial vehicles (flying and submarines) capable of detecting targets and giving target designations for missile and torpedo attacks.
            Water and secrecy will give much greater protection than any armor, the only problem is that nothing can be seen from under the water ...
            The construction of the fleet should depend on the concept, maybe we do not need an ocean fleet and it will be possible to create specialized patrol ships ideal for protecting the coast ...
  11. Alexander War
    Alexander War 18 December 2017 10: 20 New
    +5
    Add a couple of videos
    1. Aqela
      Aqela 22 December 2017 10: 33 New
      0
      In the first video, the water was mutilated completely! laughing If missiles hit, it is impossible to estimate the amount of damage. So, where is the shooting of the damage - it’s not clear what they were done ... In short, the informational value of the video is close to zero ...
  12. Longin
    Longin 18 December 2017 10: 24 New
    +4
    The whole article is multiplied by zero by one fact: warheads on anti-ship missiles are not made of plastic. The explosive charge is in a thick and durable metal shell similar to a 250 kg (500 lb) caliber bomb. And then - warhead weight × rocket speed = nevermind armor. Be it at least 114, at least 406 mm. The explosion will occur inside the target.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 December 2017 12: 45 New
      +6
      Quote: Longin
      The whole article is multiplied by zero by one fact: warheads on anti-ship missiles are not made of plastic. The explosive charge is in a thick and durable metal shell similar to a 250 kg (500 lb) caliber bomb.

      Do you know why during the Great Patriotic War the artillery had big problems with ricocheting? The point is the strength of the shells

      In your example, if a warhead case with a fuse with a slowdown cannot penetrate the ship’s armor, then it will collapse in a probability close to 100%, and the explosion from the outside will either be greatly weakened or not at all.
      If you decide to splurge on a semi-armor-proof warhead, you will have the following problem - you will not be able to precisely set the deceleration. fuse. That he did not work, flying through the target.
      1. Longin
        Longin 21 December 2017 00: 36 New
        0
        What is a "fuse slowdown"? !! You came to the forum directly from the 50s of the last century? On guided missiles, executive (initiating) mechanisms with various types of target sensors, contact and non-contact, have long been installed. No deceleration is set. And when the warhead will collapse if it flies into the target at a speed of Mach 1,5 and above? Kinetics is comparable to an armor-piercing projectile of a caliber of 406 mm (MAIN CALIBER, for a minute, armored monitors of the first half of the twentieth century). Here, problems appear only for those who are not friends with physics. Well, also those who were on the target ship.
        1. Aqela
          Aqela 22 December 2017 10: 43 New
          0
          Well, firstly, you don’t need to get excited and be rude. am As far as I know, Lopatov is an artilleryman, and everybody knows that kind of alphabetical. Your attempts to interpret the primer to a professional are at least ridiculous. bully Secondly, during the destruction of warheads, all sorts of tricky sensors threaten to be crushed into dust. wassat fellow Thirdly, overloads in a collision with a solid target promise to be much tougher than even when fired from a gun barrel, which means the reliability of operation of all kinds of target sensors, etc. it is more difficult to provide, while the moderators in the fuse are much simpler, the probability of their operation is much greater, the price is lower. yes
          1. Longin
            Longin 6 January 2018 21: 36 New
            0
            1. With your comment, you have just equated to amateurs all designers of anti-ship missiles, starting from the 60s of the last century. According to Vaim, they have been sculpting ineffective hack all this time.
            2. Shovels can be thrice artilleryman. This does not make him a specialist in the field of guided missile weapons.
            3. Anti-ship ships, starting from the very first, were designed to defeat Iowa class ships.
            4. To undermine the AU warhead inside the ship’s contour, regardless of the thickness of the pierced armor, you can use an inertial target sensor located inside the armor-piercing warhead hull in combination with an inductive sensor located on the bottom of the warhead hull that responds to changes in the electromagnetic field. And no overloads to such simple and weightless sensors are fearless. So warheads worked even on the most
            the first anti-ship missiles.
            5. The armor will be broken. Even the Iowa armored citadel. Warheads are calculated for this.
  13. Waltasar
    Waltasar 18 December 2017 10: 43 New
    +3
    Good afternoon, Oleg. And you with the upcoming.
    Thank you for the comprehensive and most importantly short selection, traditionally with a freeze :)
    The fact that with armor is better than without it is by itself. But in my opinion the economy is interfering here - the armored ship will have to assign a longer service life, build it longer and with a slight increase in cost. It is more profitable to rivet lightweight housings with a short service life and a lot of expensive electronics. Doesn't the modern car industry resemble anything?
    1. Santa Fe
      18 December 2017 11: 12 New
      +1
      Good day!
      Quote: Waltasar
      But in my opinion the economy is interfering

      There are many strange decisions in life that have no rational explanation.
      It seems to me that the rejection of armor in the modern fleet is one of them.
      Quote: Waltasar
      It is more profitable to rivet light bodies with a short service life.

      All modern (armless) cruisers and destroyers serve for 30-40 years. Deadlines by the standards of the dreadnought era
      Quote: Waltasar
      Doesn't the modern auto industry resemble anything?

      No, why would?
      1. Waltasar
        Waltasar 18 December 2017 11: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        All modern (armless) cruisers and destroyers serve for 30-40 years. Deadlines by the standards of the dreadnought era

        The whole era of the Dreadnoughts fit into these same 40 years. The rate of development of industry and science in wartime is greatly increasing.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        No, why would?

        Thin metal and an abundance of electronics.
        Not the topic:
        I was interested in one of the shipyards where the berks are produced, at the time of the picture on Google maps there is a berk and will be locked in the building and a burke with will be locked at the pier.
        https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9050337,-69.81253
        18,560m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru
        1. Santa Fe
          18 December 2017 12: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Waltasar
          The whole epoch of dreadnoughts was packed in these very 40 years.

          Only every type has become obsolete for a couple of years.
          And none of the first dreadnoughts to the second world did not live
          Quote: Waltasar
          Thin metal and an abundance of electronics.

          There is an interesting problem about the intricacy of auto metal:
          heroes of the militants in shootouts hide behind the cars
          At that time, the tabular value for automatic bullets - stitch sheets of steel with a thickness of 5 mm (and more)

          Paradox??
          write an article?
          Quote: Waltasar
          https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9050337,-69.81253
          18,560m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru

          there on the bank another one
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 18 December 2017 18: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            And none of the first dreadnoughts to the second world did not live

            False wink
            “Courbet”, “Paris” and “Jean Bar” among the French;
            Trinity "Sevastopol" with us;
            Or the first only among the British and Americans?
            The same exceptional “Utah” as a target and “Arkansas” is very even in combat-ready condition.
            In Argentina, the launching of 1911 cozsebits of the year was written off only in 1956, the “Moreno” and “Rivadavia”
            Two Brazilian dreadnought launched into the water in 1908 were decommissioned in the early 50s.
            Kaptsov, well, why mislead people ???
            1. Santa Fe
              19 December 2017 01: 29 New
              +1
              What kind of kindergarten gave
              Quote: Rurikovich
              "Courbet", "Paris" and "Jean Bar"

              Any of them, when meeting a battleship of a late period (or the super-dreadnought of the PRC) turned into a target. Because "Courbet" and "Paris" were used as floating batteries, "Jean Bar" in 1937 converted into a training ship
              Quote: Rurikovich
              Trinity "Sevastopol" with us;

              Float battery. October feared to release even in the Black Sea, where the Germans had nothing bigger than high-speed barges.

              battleships were considered nominally, because nothing larger than the Land of the Soviets at that time had no ambitions. Damn, do you really need to explain such things?
              Quote: Rurikovich
              In the same exceptional "Utah" as a target

              He himself wrote - as a target
              Quote: Rurikovich
              In Argentina, the launching of 1911 cozsebits of the year was written off only in 1956, the “Moreno” and “Rivadavia”
              Two brazilian

              On these clowns something to watch, they had a fleet for holiday parades

              Once again: by the beginning of WWII, the gap in the characteristics of the Bismarcks and the first dreadnoughts was so great that there could be no talk of any battle between them. Old men, in isolated cases used for art. support, they lost their direct purpose by the middle of the PRC

              In the States, even the "standard battleships" (which is already 1916-23) could not be included in the shock connections, because of their insufficient speed.

              In the modern world, there are frequent situations when the 30-40 summer ship still has enough potential to be in the "first line", along with younger brethren
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 19 December 2017 06: 16 New
                +1
                Oleg, the conversation was about whether anyone of the first dreadnought survived before WWII. The answer is - survived. And to what condition, this is another question! yes Therefore, the rest of your shell does not belong to the first question. negative
              2. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 19 December 2017 06: 19 New
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Floating batteries.

                Quote: Santa Fe
                Because "Courbet" and "Paris" were used as floating batteries, "Jean Bar" in 1937 converted into a training ship

                Quote: Santa Fe
                Quote: Rurikovich
                In Argentina, the launching of 1911 cozsebits of the year was written off only in 1956, the “Moreno” and “Rivadavia”
                Two brazilian

                On these clowns something to watch, they had a fleet for holiday parades

                But after all, wink
                After all, you claimed that no one survived, therefore, you are lying ... sorry, misled yes
  14. Berkut24
    Berkut24 18 December 2017 11: 13 New
    +6
    Lord .... as much as you can!
    1) Modern anti-ship missiles are increasingly attacking from above. The battleship Marat was attacked by a conventional bomb from above into the deck. As a result, as a battleship, he forever ceased to exist. For even the armored battleships did not dare to afford to have circular armor because of the loss of buoyancy.
    2) Torpedoes do not hit the side right now. They go at a depth, undermining under the ship’s hull and creating a hydro-hole in which the ship’s hull breaks in half. And if not, then the hole is obtained under the armored body and the armor here will not help either.
    3) The nominal speed of movement of a modern combat ship to achieve operational mobility is about 30 knots. Cruising range on fuel - about 5000 nautical miles. If you turn a warship into a floating iron, I’m afraid that armor will remain the only value of such a vessel.
    4) A hypersonic weapon is approaching, which implies not a detonation of a warhead, but a powerful point kinetic strike at a speed 5-6 times higher than the speed of an artillery shell. At the same time, the mass of the rocket will not be inferior to the mass of 320 mm of the shell of a battleship, which pierced any conceivable ship’s armor at a distance of 30 km. What kind of armor are we talking about?
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 December 2017 12: 26 New
      +6
      Quote: Berkut24
      Lord .... as much as you can!
      1) Modern anti-ship missiles are increasingly attacking from above.
      Well, that way and body armor in the infantry, useless cargo, and "Javelin" for the tank "sentence" ... If so abut and climb into the absolute, then everything is gone, and there is no point in protecting the thermonuclear explosion, but in reality not everything so definitely. Even a hypersonic weapon is only on the way, and not for any purpose it will be used, and not at all and not always it will be available. What kind of armor is we are talking about now, rather, we are talking primarily about protection, comprehensive protection, and not about a steel plate of the same thickness. If so, then a more protected one, by definition, will be more resilient. The same seat belts in the car, not the fact that they will save in any accident, but with them the chances of surviving more, especially since not all accidents are fatal. If you catch an armor-piercing large-caliber bullet in battle or not, a helmet and body armor will save you from a lot of small fragments. Similar, you can talk about the ships, especially when the sea is around the abyss, and the whole life, your salvation, may depend on a couple of extra minutes, which the booking can give to the ship, before being completely flooded.
    2. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 December 2017 13: 05 New
      +3
      "What kind of armor are we talking about?" - about the one that is able to protect the vital centers of the ship from being struck by fragments of anti-ship missiles after it is destroyed. The best cruiser in the world URO type "Ticonderoga" has a similar armor. For example, there are armored artillery and rocket cellars and GKP, and this is at least. In fact, there are much more reservations ... and nothing, somehow they manage to "show" their flag all over the world. Kevlar, of course, is not armored steel, but it is at least some protection against fragments. And we don’t have one. Only Peter the Great has some kind of constructive protection in the form of a system of longitudinal-transverse bulkheads, but since they are the same, not armor ... From the shells, fragments, even bullets of small arms, the superstructures of our ships are not protected at all, because they are made AMG alloy and its modifications. In this sense, even merchant ships are much better protected, because their superstructures are made of thick enough steel ... I can’t say that all of our ships are “rubbish”. But the fact that not one of them, except maybe Peter the Great, can withstand the blow of Harpoon or Tomahawk, is absolutely certain. Alas.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 December 2017 13: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        The best cruiser in the world URO type "Ticonderoga" has a similar armor. For example, there are armored artillery and rocket cellars and GKP, and this is at least. In fact, there are much more reservations ... and nothing, somehow they manage to "show" their flag all over the world.

        Nevertheless, a boat with basmachs and hexogen, having fallen into the unarmored part of the ship, makes it completely unworkable. Although the GKP and the cellar survived. In war, this ship would be finished off instantly.
        If you could easily book everything, it would be done long ago. However, this is a very difficult engineering task. In order to guarantee the protection of the ship from the most massive anti-ship missiles of the Harpoon type, it is necessary to have an armor thickness of millimeters in 50 or more. And it is necessary to protect on the idea of ​​not only the cellar and GKP. Cellars and GKP is protection against instant death, and for combat stability it is necessary to arm energy, electronics, etc. Volumes in need of protection are very large. And if we pull the armor on all this, then its thickness is reduced to ridiculous numbers. How to avoid this? Make the ship larger so that the absolute value of its weight and, accordingly, the thickness increase. And here we begin to crawl out into dimensions no longer of Sheffield, and not even of Ticonderoga, but of crawling towards Peter the Great. There you can make an adequate reservation with a thickness of more than 80 mm over vast areas and volumes. It is solvable. Just something is not visible mass enthusiasm for such monsters. Frigates are mainly used in the world. Only a few build destroyers. If we look at what reservations ships of similar sizes and masses had during the Second World War, it will be very sad. Ships the size of a frigate cannot be seriously protected by armor in principle. Destroyers - only local booking (which is the place to be now on American ships). And if you do not make anti-fragmentation local reservations, namely missile reservations, then this is only possible for ships with dimensions approximately like that of 1144. Only such ships will be piece, for some reason they are in no hurry to build. Anyway, they crawl out into another tactical niche. Such a ship should not be drowned by "Harpoons". But something more serious. For example, "Onyx" or X-32. From what went to that and came - the power of armor grew - the power of a rocket grew.
        Therefore, everything is limited to local booking and rejection of AMG alloys. No more. It is better to have ten frigates than one 1144. Because no matter how strong 1144 is, he is not a warrior alone in the field. He will not be able to be in different places at the same time, and when he needs repairs, then in general everything will become sad.
    3. shinobi
      shinobi 18 December 2017 13: 17 New
      0
      Apparently, this refers to protection from 155mm naval artillery assault rifles. But again, at a distance of their use, the armor should be no less than the tank at least.
    4. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 December 2017 13: 18 New
      +3
      “Modern anti-ship missiles are increasingly attacking from above.” - Dear author, where did you get such information? For example, at the time of my cadet youth, I was taught that the Mosquito rocket approaches the target at an altitude of 10-15 m above sea level. " Its early versions flew up at an altitude of about 5 m., But, unfortunately, the sea is not a swamp, sometimes there are waves, sometimes quite large. In short, the height of the attack was increased. And until that moment, the rocket, as expected, makes a “slide” so that its own radar captures the target, and then - according to the program. Maybe I lagged behind life? It somehow sounds strange that the RCC is attacking the ship from above ... in this case, it is in the most favorable position for anti-aircraft gunners.
      1. Berkut24
        Berkut24 19 December 2017 11: 20 New
        0
        The same 3M55, although it goes to the target at an altitude of 10-15 meters, has an excellent opportunity to attack from above. There are plenty of videos on the net. In Syria, “Onyx” worked even for ground targets and, of course, no one was attacked on board there. A harsh flight reservation will simply result in an elegant, low-cost replacement of the software in the homing heads to change trajectory at the end of the flight. Making a slide is now not a problem at all, and this method has been used for several years in various rocket systems.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 19 December 2017 19: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Berkut24
          Make a slide now is not a problem at all

          But in order for the flooding to begin, it is necessary that the side be pierced, and not the deck. In addition, anti-ship missiles attack against the water to make air defense more difficult, and the slide means that it is deprived of this advantage.
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 19 December 2017 22: 21 New
            +1
            Do not worry, it gets into the deck, and breaks a hole to the bottom. As for the "hill", the air defense system still does not have time to capture, identify, make a decision and shoot at a target that emerges from under the lower horizon, leaves in the direction from the ship and attacks with a sharp change in trajectory from the most problematic direction for defeat. Actually, at this point, all that remains of the ship at such a distance is the six-barrel, but there is a problem with both pointing and angular movements of the barrel. This is not a helicopter, it is 2-3 speeds of sound.
            By the way, Zircon was introduced into the new state program since 2018. Against this scrap, no one has any reception. From any direction and with any armor ....
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 19 December 2017 22: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: Berkut24
              enters the deck, and breaks a hole to the bottom
              It depends on who. Onyx, yes, but light RCC is no longer a fact.
              Quote: Berkut24
              then the air defense system still does not have time to capture, identify, make a decision and shoot at a target that emerges from under the lower horizon
              That is, they are of no use?
              Quote: Berkut24
              By the way, Zircon was introduced into the new state program since 2018
              Do our opponents have it?
              1. Berkut24
                Berkut24 20 December 2017 10: 28 New
                0
                I do not divide into light RCC and heavy. I just state the fact that armor is not a panacea, and for all its disadvantages, it can never guarantee the main plus. so the game is not worth the candle.
                Short-range air defense is only useful as a chance of last hope and as a means of destroying small targets on the water. This system is disabled. The question is not even in it, but in the fact that at the speeds that Russia is currently using, these systems are likely to remain out of the game. The Americans are stubbornly creating subsonic anti-ship missiles, and therefore our means of close air defense will continue to be relevant.
                Our opponents Zircon will never appear. The Americans are developing their child prodigy, but so far they have problems and have not announced their adoption. According to indirect information, we are still ahead, but when both Americans and Chinese put the hypersound into service, then all ship's air defense in its current form will become a dead chance of last hope.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 20 December 2017 20: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Berkut24
                  I only state the fact that armor is not a panacea
                  Of course no. Armor is an additional chance of survival, if not of the ship, so at least of the crew, as well as air defense of the near zone.
                  Quote: Berkut24
                  when both Americans and Chinese put hypersound into service, then all ship's air defense in its current form will become a dead chance of last hope
                  Wait and see, It is also being improved.
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 20 December 2017 00: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: Berkut24
          Make a slide now is not a problem at all
          For a rocket the size of Granite - a problem, both in energy and in resistance to overloads. In addition, the time spent in the air defense zone is increasing, and the closest is the largest.
          1. Berkut24
            Berkut24 20 December 2017 10: 46 New
            0
            Then I would agree with you, but the slides are different, the loads are calculated. I'm not strong about RCC, not my specialty. But about the air defense of the Americans, I have vague doubts as the air defense. If you drop all of the advertising husk and start looking at the confirmed facts and statistics, it seems that there are problems there. If they have subsonic non-maneuvering targets that follow a ballistic trajectory 50/50 go astray, then ...
            Actually, short-range naval air defense is not a simple topic in itself. Our torment is visible with the naked eye. Either they will pile the Buk onto the deck, or they will reformat the “Shell” ... But all this is an attempt to make a really normal defense. The near zone is a few seconds before the death of a ship with supersonic sound, and several tens of milliseconds with hypersound.
  15. Brylevsky
    Brylevsky 18 December 2017 12: 41 New
    +3
    On April 16, 1987, during the Pacific Fleet exercises, the small missile ship Monsoon was killed. A cruise target missile hit him. Without going into a description of the tragedy, I can say that if the superstructure of the ship were not made of aluminum-magnesium alloy, but at least of ship steel, even if not armored, then the death of the ship could have been avoided. Oh, and by the way, if my memory serves me well, then the British destroyer Sheffield was destroyed by only one RCC Exoset. For the same reason...
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 18 December 2017 14: 11 New
      +5
      Quote: Brylevsky
      On April 16, 1987, during the Pacific Fleet exercises, the small missile ship Monsoon was killed. A cruise target missile hit him

      Monsoon did not hit the rocket, but fragments of a rocket hit by two Monsoon missiles, and if AK-630 and AK-176, and not AK-725, were on the stern of Monsoon, then Monsoon would have a chance to stay alive!
      Quote: Brylevsky
      the ship’s superstructure was not made of aluminum-magnesium alloy, but at least of ship steel, albeit not armored, the ship’s death could have been avoided

      The statement is controversial, even if the superstructure was made of steel, rocket fragments hit the chassis, GKP, radio room, while 150 liters of fuel and 500 liters of oxidizer spilled onto the ship! Steel, you know, burns very well too! The truth does not flow like a river of fire - yes!
      1. Brylevsky
        Brylevsky 19 December 2017 14: 41 New
        0
        Is this fundamentally important for you? What exactly got into the "Monsoon": a rocket, as such, or its pieces? What difference already ... Personally, I read something more or less intelligible about this tragedy only in Shorokorad’s book “Weapons of the Russian Navy,” where a page is dedicated to it. I will not argue about whether the fragments of the rocket would have pierced the ship’s superstructure if it had been made of steel. I am a sailor of the merchant fleet, and on most of the ships I worked on, the thickness of the steel of which the superstructure is made reaches 10 mm, sometimes more - not sickly, right? And steel, yes it burns. As far as I remember material science, at a temperature of about 1400 C. I doubt that the fuel that the rocket was charged with emitted such a temperature when burning. Although maybe I’m wrong ... I’m sure of one thing: it’s better to have at least some armor on a warship than not at all ... anti-aircraft artillery systems, which, of course, is good, but the Monsoon from death they did not save.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 19 December 2017 14: 55 New
          +4
          Quote: Brylevsky
          I’m sure of one thing: it’s better to have at least some armor on a warship

          I repeat, I wrote this a little higher than your comment
          I will give you a small example.
          April 16, 1972 U.S. Navy carrier-based attack aircraft anti-radar missile "Shrike" attacked the frigate URO "Warden" of the Australian Navy. The rocket exploded at an altitude of 25-30 m directly above the ship. A hail of fragments of the warhead and missile body showered the frigate. Short circuits started on the ship, the protection worked. Most of the devices and mechanisms were de-energized. The helpless ship drifted for about half an hour toward the shore. When the “Warden” was put into operation, its combat capabilities, as the ship's commander believed, decreased by about 60% of those envisaged by the project and could only be restored after a lengthy repair at the shipyard.

          Now about your 10 mm.
          During the “tanker war” of the 81st, 135 civilian ships were struck by various anti-ship missiles, of which 14 were sunk and 60 were scrapped due to the impossibility of repair!
          And what kind of armor do you want to put?
          1. Brylevsky
            Brylevsky 21 December 2017 11: 30 New
            +1
            Quote: Serg65
            And what kind of armor do you want to put?

            Shatterproof, of course. And in this sense, even 10 mm of ship steel is better than nothing. By the way, you cited statistics: it follows from it that at least sixty-one cargo ships survived the RCC and continued to work as intended. Not a bad result, do you think? Especially against the backdrop of “Monsoon” and “Sheffield”.
  16. shinobi
    shinobi 18 December 2017 13: 10 New
    +1
    I don’t know how things are with the adversary, but our anti-ship missiles were tested on decommissioned military vessels of the Second World War. At speeds of 2,5 mach, our anti-ship missiles, from the 2nd generation with an inactive charge, penetrate the destroyer from side to side. Cruiser to the middle. than enough photo and video materials on this topic. There is a full-fledged documentary on the history of our RCC. Where does the author from such data is not clear.
  17. Romka47
    Romka47 18 December 2017 13: 10 New
    +1
    But can’t ships attach “screens” like on tanks? and easier and cheaper. or stupidity froze?)
    1. Brylevsky
      Brylevsky 18 December 2017 14: 34 New
      +5
      Can. But! Heavy sheets of armor located above the waterline will significantly reduce the transverse metacentric height of the ship, and the higher they are installed, the more they will be reduced. In simple terms, when a heeling moment that exceeds the calculated moment is exerted on the ship, the ship will tip over. But this is not the main thing. The metacentric height can be increased, it is enough to move the masses as low as possible - to lower the center of gravity. This is achieved by correct ballasting on an existing ship or by rational use of the internal volume of the ship’s hull - during its design. The essence of the matter is completely different: at the moment there is no ship's armor capable of delaying anti-ship missiles. At least with us. And it is unlikely that such armor will ever appear, otherwise we will have to roll back, in the era of armadillos. The most effective option is to shoot down anti-ship missiles at the approach. And in this case, “light” armor can and should be, as fragments of a destroyed rocket can significantly damage the ship.
      1. Romka47
        Romka47 18 December 2017 15: 41 New
        +2
        Thank you for the detailed answer.
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 18 December 2017 19: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: Brylevsky
        And in this case, “light” armor can and should be, as fragments of a destroyed rocket can significantly damage the ship

        Agree yes
        As Oleg said, some time ago "battles" were boiling at the VO over the re-incarnation and the need for armor request
      3. brn521
        brn521 22 December 2017 12: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Brylevsky
        And in this case, “light” armor can and should be, as fragments of a destroyed rocket can significantly damage the ship.

        How light and from what particular fragments? And what to do with secondary fragmentation? When after the explosion on the armor, fragments of armor fly apart in all directions. At one time there was even an opinion that underwater cladding should be cooked almost from the roofing sheet. Because, after hitting a torpedo, fragments of a full casing (3-4cm at the battleship) turned the bulkheads into a sieve. As a result, even from small torpedoes and mines, flooding was still extensive.
        This is one of the reasons why only vital elements of the ship are booked. If we add external armor to this, then fragments of this armor will be added to the damaging factors.
        1. Brylevsky
          Brylevsky 22 December 2017 14: 33 New
          0
          Quote: brn521
          How light and from what particular fragments? And what to do with the secondary fragmented

          You ask this question to those on whose decision the armor on the ship will depend or not. And I am an ordinary sailor, nothing will change from my opinion on this issue. How easy is it? Yes, hell knows ... in Kevlar, wrap a ship like an Egyptian mummy ... Listen, why do they make thick, multi-layer armor on tanks? Thick armor, it’s the same, it gives rise to secondary fragments when penetrated ... However, it doesn’t occur to anyone to make a tank with thin armor (with the exception of floating ones). Well then, let's continue to make superstructures of warships of aluminum-magnesium alloy, which breaks through with a pistol ... unlike the Americans, who have at least some kind of armor for the cruiser GKP. We will consider ourselves smarter than Americans. On that and we will solve.
          1. brn521
            brn521 22 December 2017 17: 15 New
            0
            Quote: Brylevsky
            You ask this question to those on whose decision the armor on the ship will depend or not.

            They have already decided. Aluminum-magnesium alloys from the supporting structures were removed. Not because they break through a bullet, but because of fire safety. But that’s all.
            And what does "ask a question to those ..." mean? The author asks this question to us. So we are looking for the answer, each at its own level.
            Quote: Brylevsky
            Listen, why are thick, multi-layer armor made on tanks?

            Tanks usually do not drown. And repair shops near them. Therefore, you can expose them under attack, then repair. It usually pays off. By the way, battleships also paid off, while the main adversary of the battleship was another battleship.
            Quote: Brylevsky
            Thick armor, it’s the same, it generates secondary fragments when penetrated

            The tanks really gave rise. The crew chopped into minced meat. The tank was being repaired, a new crew was planted.
            In the case of a ship, stability is largely determined by elements that cannot be hidden under armor. And the more complex the task, the more such elements. For example, take Arly Burke, remove something "superfluous", and in return put a double armored deck (this was set against bombs). However, when he flies into the superstructure, it doesn’t matter, by a direct hit, or by rocket fragments from falling into the armored deck, he will still fail as one of the Aegis elements. With the same success could drown. And surely drown, because without Aegis, the entire ship’s formation will be left without serious air defense and missiles will start to hit more often and more painfully. Well, what's the use of this armored deck?
            Quote: Brylevsky
            in which the cruiser’s GCP has at least some armor.

            Ticonderoges are gradually being removed from armament. Replacement - the notorious Arly Burke. Besides, what kind of armor does Ticonderoga have? The author criticized them no less than Arly Berkov.
  18. bk0010
    bk0010 18 December 2017 13: 12 New
    +4
    How I like your articles about booking ships! Objections requested:
    1) 1144 were going to book (except for jokes), but they overloaded something and, as a result, only the reactor and the main caliber were booked.
    2) The information on protecting ships seems to be secret, so no one will tell you how things are in reality.
    3) The cost of the hull at 5% of the cost of the ship for armor does not fail: armor is much more expensive than ordinary steel (thickness, cementing, rolling), though much cheaper than weapons.
    4) The missiles are now so small because there are no targets for large ones. There will be goals, there will be missiles. IMHO, in the articles you should clearly distinguish between whose fleets we are talking about: the USA or Russia (China). There are very different tasks and composition of forces. Americans live without serious RCC and do not bother: in case of problems, they will roll out all deck-based aircraft. Who to book? USA? Against Granites (Yakhonts) is useless. Are there few carriers? At times more than aircraft carriers. Should we book? You can try against their anti-ship missiles (and you won’t be able to reserve bombs from them), but they don’t build ships suitable for booking: an armored unit or an armored corvette is not a fountain, since even a quarter of a displacement under armor will still be small.
    5) Missiles, even small ones, carry a charge that is several times greater than the charge of the main caliber of battleships (70 kg, EMNIP). It alone can break armor, as it was before the invention of armor-piercing shells, when armor was broken by a concussion from huge cores. I remind you that even heavy tanks destroyed the 2nd world air bombs.
    6) IMHO, it is necessary to create not an indestructible armored belt, but to design a ship so as to direct the energy of the explosion inside in a safe direction. That is, to make external armor with guaranteed resistance to 76-mm shells so that boats could not riddle with automatic guns, break the ship into compartments where it is already serious to book important elements of the ship and create “guides” of the shock wave to safe places and blow-outs . And also provide the ship with backup retractable radar antennas, communications and surveillance equipment. Let not as steep as, say, the main radar (AFAR), albeit cheap, civilian (with yachts), but integrated with CIUS. Because a ship with absolutely no radar and communications and a ship with inferior radar and communications are two big differences.
    1. brn521
      brn521 22 December 2017 17: 38 New
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      IMHO, it is necessary to create not an indestructible armored belt, but to design a ship so as to direct the energy of the explosion inside in a safe direction.

      IMHO, such a design will be even more bulky and heavy.
      Quote: bk0010
      And also provide the ship with backup retractable radar antennas, communications and surveillance equipment.

      This will never hurt. But there will be even more cables and drives. And there will be no sense from them if from each hit the whole electrical system fails, including engine control, and a fire starts.
      Therefore, improvements are really needed so that the electrician dies neater, and there are no fires at all.
  19. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 18 December 2017 13: 19 New
    +1
    Another near-fantastic nonsense ...... although many will normally eat like that ....
  20. Gomel
    Gomel 18 December 2017 13: 38 New
    0
    Always loved summing up :)
    Thanks Oleg!

    The topic is far from over: 0
  21. Curious
    Curious 18 December 2017 14: 41 New
    +2
    Reading such articles, for some reason the question always arises of the hopeless stupidity of shipbuilders around the world. Well, in fact, why do Americans mess with the Zamvolt iron, if it is easier to get the Iowa case drawings from the archives, insert a modern filling there, install launchers instead of main-caliber towers, fit modern electronics - and that’s all. An indestructible and invincible ship is ready. 19 tons of armor! Absolute power.
    The truth comes to mind the battleship "Eagle", the armor of which the Japanese shells did not crush. It was too tough for them. But as a combat unit, the ship ceased to exist, since due to damage to fire control systems it lost the ability to shoot.
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 18 December 2017 17: 58 New
      0
      Not the whole world, just duplicate for you
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      TARKR project 1144 "Orlan" the first warships after WWII, in the design of which a sufficiently developed local reservation, PTZ and a double bottom were laid. Engine rooms, RCC cellars and reactor compartments from the sides are protected by 100-mm (below the waterline - 70 mm) and from the deck by 70-mm armor. Information combat posts and the main CP, covered by 100-mm side walls with 75-mm roof and traverses. Feed on the sides of 70-mm, roof of a helicopter hangar 50-mm, storage of ammunition and aviation fuel, tiller compartments in 50-mm.
      1. Curious
        Curious 18 December 2017 18: 38 New
        0
        Compared with the main belt of 307 mm, local booking looks unconvincing.
  22. brn521
    brn521 18 December 2017 14: 54 New
    +3
    Just in case, I remind common truth. Armor is effective only in the surface. Under water, it is useless. Only PTZ saves under water. It doesn’t save much. Only active defense saves well - when the torpedo does not get to the ship at all.
    I also remind you that the armor not only weighs a lot, but also is located above the waterline. The ship has a certain supply of mass that it can carry over the waterline, in combination with the height of its location. In the framework of the proposed modernization, this is as follows. We cut superstructures and part of the decks. We remove part of the equipment and weapons - the one above the waterline. In return, we have the opportunity to equip the ship with some amount of armor. In terms of protective functions, this suggests the following. The ship will have fewer opportunities to detect the threat and actively counter it. Also, his armor is strictly individual and does not help the other ships of the connection. Unlike the optional air defense system kit, for example.
    So the problem looks pretty simple. We look at the above-water part of some Arly Burke and pretend that there would be such cut off to release the load capacity under the armor. This is where our topic got stuck. The author is not aware of what is there and what can be painlessly removed. In fact, we are witnessing the opposite trend - it came to fire hazardous magnesium alloy superstructures, just to release the weight for something very important.
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 18 December 2017 18: 00 New
      0
      You probably didn’t read the article, your theses were just broken there.
      1. brn521
        brn521 19 December 2017 16: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Lightest
        You probably didn’t read the article, your theses were just broken there.

        I read the article, read some comments. And he tried to return the discussion to at least the school level, recalling banal arithmetic.
        1. The Italians drowned boats with explosives not because of the presence of an armored belt at the intended target. And because in depth and at a certain distance from the side, the effectiveness of detonation is orders of magnitude higher. There will no longer help either the armored belt or the citadel. Only PTZ. And not that it will help. Allows you to survive and somehow limp to the base for the purpose of repair.
        2. Draft and linear measurements should remain the same. Speaking about the increase in draft, displacement or shape of the contours, we are changing the class of the ship. There was a corvette - it will become a destroyer. There was a destroyer - the battleship will become. And it will be served as a battleship, moorings and bases he will need battleships, which can be counted on the fingers. Therefore, the nonsense that the author makes in the article makes no sense. The meaning is only in changing the nature of the load. There was a destroyer, cut the settings and surface equipment, in exchange put armor. Remained a destroyer, albeit crippled. Measurements, displacement and driving performance are the same. But nobody will need the resulting trough if the fleet needed Aegis, and we cut this business for the sake of armor.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 December 2017 22: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: brn521
          Italians drowned boats with explosives, not because of the presence of an armor belt at the intended target. But because in depth and at a certain distance from the side, the efficiency of the explosion is several orders of magnitude higher.

          Why didn't the Arabs think about it?

          They rushed right at the side - and the destroyer could not even get to the base to thrash, I had to carry
          1. DimanC
            DimanC 20 December 2017 09: 02 New
            0
            The Arabs really could not have thought of this. And knowledgeable Arabs did not prompt them
            1. Santa Fe
              20 December 2017 09: 16 New
              +2
              the essence - the destroyer is removed from standing by a surface explosion

              70 years ago had to undermine charge at depth for the same effect.
          2. brn521
            brn521 22 December 2017 10: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Why didn't the Arabs think about it?

            They would be glad. But they had nothing except saltpeter. An attempt to repeat the design of Italian boats is out of the question. For these boats, the bow of the boat, stuffed with explosives, was stripped off with a squib when it hit the side, went to the bottom, then a fuse tuned to a certain depth worked. For martyrs armed with nitrate, it’s the same as building a spaceship.
        2. The brightest
          The brightest 21 December 2017 13: 56 New
          0
          Quote: brn521
          1. The Italians drowned boats with explosives not because of the presence of an armored belt at the intended target. And because in depth and at a certain distance from the side, the effectiveness of detonation is orders of magnitude higher.

          The double bottom of Orlan perfectly breaks this thesis in favor of armor.
          And it will be served as a battleship, moorings and bases he will need battleships, which can be counted on the fingers.

          It’s ridiculous to abandon ships because of the marinas ... It was necessary to freeze such a thing, really a school level.
          The meaning is only in changing the nature of the load. There was a destroyer, cut the settings and surface equipment, in exchange put armor. Remained a destroyer, albeit crippled.

          This is just the point is small, with rare exceptions. From scratch, such ships need to be designed or removed from the archives of old and remodeled taking into account modern technology.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 21 December 2017 21: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: Lightest
            It’s ridiculous to abandon ships because of the marinas ... It was necessary to freeze such a thing, really a school level.
            You in vain underestimate the problems of basing. The surface nuclear ships of the USSR, because of problems with basing, burned their resources in vain, on barrels, and therefore only Peter is now running. Kuznetsov has problems with basing (the couple lacks), so they try to drive him south every winter, not because of the need for the situation, but not to ruin, etc.
          2. brn521
            brn521 22 December 2017 12: 09 New
            0
            Quote: Lightest
            It was necessary to freeze this, really a school level.

            I do not argue that I have a school level. But why go down to kindergarten level? Here it is:
            Quote: Lightest
            The double bottom of Orlan perfectly breaks this thesis in favor of armor.

            - a typical kindergarten. Read Wikipedia or something.
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Конструктивная_прот
            and torpedo_protection
            Other tasks and different structure.
            Quote: Lightest
            It’s funny to abandon ships because of the moorings ...

            Exactly. Berth. And to him everything else. Full defense against major threats. Supply, maintenance and repair, equipment, docks. The naval base, designed for a bunch of corvettes, will do little to help destroyers and almost nothing aircraft carriers. But such a base is much easier to build and cheaper to maintain.
            Quote: Lightest
            This is just the point is small, with rare exceptions.

            Just such an approach is the only one that makes sense. Obviously, the same Arly Burke has a place and carrying capacity literally worth its weight in gold. Therefore, both designers and customers felt that expensive armor made of aluminum-magnesium alloys and Kevlar justifies itself due to its low weight. And here Oleg Kaptsov is declared on a white horse and intends to mount almost a citadel from the battleship in Arly Burke. Steel. Obviously, this is a very bold proposal, which neither the designer nor the customer will agree. Oleg Kaptsov’s considerations are as follows: equipment is becoming smaller due to progress, so space is being freed up. It must be used under armor, and not under more powerful equipment. So what's the matter? A specific proposal needs to be made. What specifically needs to be removed from Arly Burke in order to replace the citadel, and even from steel?
            Quote: Lightest
            From scratch, such ships need to be designed or removed from the archives of the old and remodeled with modern technology.

            No. Linear measurements, displacement and contours - this is the basis from which you have to build on. Otherwise, you have to deal with frank fantasies. Recall at least Kaptsov’s flat armored trough weaving across the ocean at the speed of a turtle with a balloon on a leash (instead of a superstructure with antennas). If the author of a specific proposal is not able to determine what can be cut from the same Orlan in order to make room for full armor, then what kind of projects can be expected from such an author? He does not even understand ordinary issues, and you want him to design the entire ship.
  23. Graz
    Graz 18 December 2017 16: 12 New
    +1
    maybe something about 20 mm sheets against fragments and can be put on those types of ships where this does not affect the ship's characteristics
    and as the author considers 100 mm in the article absolutely to nobody
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 18 December 2017 17: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Graz
      100 mm is absolutely useless

      Not from fragments, but from cruise missiles, firewalls, and fragments.
  24. Kolin
    Kolin 18 December 2017 18: 16 New
    0
    Somehow they forgot that the PCR knows how to make a slide, so the deck should be booked as a side. Well, if you put an armor-piercing warhead on Onyx, it will pierce 330 mm tongue
  25. yoyo1984
    yoyo1984 18 December 2017 18: 43 New
    0
    I saw the name and immediately recognized the author, face palm, again, IT! how long to?
  26. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 18 December 2017 19: 36 New
    +1
    For the millionth time, Oleg Kaptsov expressed his point of view and for the millionth time other people express their point. laughing
    Well so and I will express mine.
    The author’s pain is clear about the mismatch between combat capabilities and displacement of ships of the WWII era and modern analogues. The indignation towards modern shipbuilders and admirals is clear ... But ...
    Capital reservation in today's realities is nonsense, so that the author does not prove foam with his mouth and photos! And the capabilities of offensive weapons cannot be compared with WWII shells and kamikaze. The modern ship is so stuffed with cables and various small rubbish that you can’t physically reserve this farm. And how many times have I personally said that it is better to prevent a missile from entering a ship than to carry a dead load in the form of capital armor.
    But I am in favor with two hands for constructive protection and local booking for leveling hits of fragments, parts of anti-ship missiles, close gaps. It is rational and reasonable. It is advisable to cover especially important parts of the ship, but whatever you say, you still can’t protect - there are restrictions on the displacement. A ship is a balanced thing and the priority of some characteristics will lead to a low level of others. The author knows this, but still bends his line. request
    The best protection is high-quality air defense, anti-aircraft defense, electronic warfare. All. Here is the main armor. Only they can save from anti-ship missiles and torpedoes.
    The example of Dupuis de Lom is absurd. It has already been said more than once. Yes, at one time this ship made a splash on the weight of the armor. AND EVERYTHING! In all other respects, he was outstanding. But it is strange that Kaptsov sets him up as an example, knowing that in general, as a combat unit, he was abused mercilessly. And rebuilt. negative
    Comparison of the consequences of missiles delivered by anti-ship missiles and kamikaze on a protected (not protected) side also raises a lot of questions. Modern anti-ship missiles are much faster than a WWII aircraft, therefore, it is not true to compare the results of hitting an aircraft at a speed of 600 km / h and a rocket with 150 km / h. But the photo with kamikaze hit the Sussex armor walks from article to article as proof of the author’s rightness request
    In general, with the Coming, Oleg! hi drinks Best wishes!!! fellow smile
    1. Santa Fe
      19 December 2017 01: 02 New
      +1
      Happy New Year!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The example of "Dupuis de Lom" is absurd. It has already been said more than once.

      And more than once answered, that this is a great example of a booking scheme
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Yes, at one time this ship created a furor by weight of armor. AND EVERYTHING! In all other respects he was not outstanding.

      And maybe something else?

      Spoiler: one of the fastest armored cruisers, for the first time in the world with a tower location of the main and auxiliary artillery
      Quote: Rurikovich
      In all other respects he was not outstanding.

      The joke was that
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But it is strange that Kaptsov puts it as an example

      See p.1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Modern anti-ship missiles are much faster than the WWII aircraft, therefore comparing the results of hitting the aircraft with the speed of 600kmch and the missiles with 150kmch is not right.

      Harpoon speed - 900 km / h
      kamikaze speed - 500 +

      The rocket is plastic, and the Kamkadze had a massive engine in his nose - steel pig 545 kg dry weight
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the photo with the hit of kamikaze in the armor of "Sussex" walks from article to article as proof of the correctness of the author

      Find a picture where the plane or rocket struck the belt. And you will be right
  27. ICT
    ICT 18 December 2017 19: 39 New
    0
    Toward the close of the outgoing year



    there wouldn’t be a santi on the table, but he ...........

    the new year is coming, yet
  28. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 18 December 2017 20: 01 New
    0
    Refinements. Decent anti-ship missiles when approaching the target include the “humiliation” program and the last 20-30 meters “fly”, in fact, already under water, and hit 2-4 meters below the waterline. Secondly, anti-ship missiles have a high-explosive cumulative warhead, which provides penetration of armor much more powerful than the one about which the author says. True, cumulativeness is given to warheads for a basically different purpose - to pave the way to the main mechanisms and cellars. Thirdly, the kinetic energy of decent anti-ship missiles is enough to even destroy the destroyer right through the destroyer (project 56 em) from side to side or to demolish superstructures (in practical firing, the humiliation, if possible, is turned off so that the vessel doesn’t drown and could others have time to shoot; therefore, missiles fall into the surface part).
  29. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 18 December 2017 20: 11 New
    0
    bayard,
    While writing your comment (see below), yours appeared. I support.
  30. 7gor
    7gor 18 December 2017 20: 24 New
    0
    I’m reading the title of the article, I’m thinking, I think, Kaptsov! I really open Kaptsov wassat ! Welcome back, prodigal son of VO smile
  31. Sonet
    Sonet 18 December 2017 21: 55 New
    0
    Add my 5 cents, one of my concept art for ships of the future.
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 20 December 2017 09: 05 New
      0
      Hmm, where's the reservation scheme? drinks
    2. Longin
      Longin 6 January 2018 21: 45 New
      0
      Cruiser? 200 meters?
      Maybe all the same Frigate. Or, maximum, destroyer)
  32. bombardy corgi
    bombardy corgi 18 December 2017 22: 18 New
    0
    the topic of armor is certainly interesting, but I think that the ships were supposed to be destroyed by missiles with nuclear warheads, so the only chance for the ship to survive was to prevent a hit, while at the same time protecting it from the effects of an air and underwater explosion at some distance, so the windows disappeared, the superstructure merged with the side and, most importantly, the hull draft decreased, since the shock wave under water is much more destructive than in air, the author suggests returning to the concept of deeply submerged ships, whose board is pushing with a hydrodynamic shock, the modern ship is more like a destroyer of the Second World War, which did not have but the armor had a very solid set of hull and often such destroyers were blown up by mines, their nose or stern was torn off, but they still remained afloat ...
  33. Dedall
    Dedall 18 December 2017 22: 18 New
    +1
    Gentlemen, what is the argument about? At VO not so long ago there was a whole series of articles about RCC. About the tests, including the armored objects, it was described in great detail. Or did retrograde amnesia attack everyone?
  34. looker-on
    looker-on 18 December 2017 23: 40 New
    0
    I really like Oleg's articles; they are weighed and filled with common sense. But my opinion is this: as soon as the armor appears, the anti-ship missiles will pierce it. And I'm not sure that the armor in a mass bury the existing backlog of anti-ship missiles in warehouses (they will replace warheads and hello)
  35. Kars
    Kars 18 December 2017 23: 45 New
    +1
    Thank you for the mention, and that the topic does not throw.
  36. Grafova Irina
    Grafova Irina 19 December 2017 00: 23 New
    0
    Funny outlined ...
    Armor is, of course, good. But where and how to install it? There were many reservation systems, just too lazy to list.
    It’s safe for the author to delve into reference books (if we are talking about the days of the past - I’ll keep silent about the current ones) and admit that this “Frenchman” cannot be recognized as a perfectly booked boat, although his much later “compatriots” like “Richelieu” are closer to the ideal in terms of security ...
    The Italians at their Littorio and companies also did very well in terms of the reservation system. What can not be said about the Germans, which is even amazing ...
    The fact is, dear author, that the ship’s protection system is not a universal value or indicator. It is built under the specific conditions in which this carrier will be operated. And what means of destruction (and counteraction to them) will be used. Is not it?
  37. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 19 December 2017 03: 04 New
    0
    [quote = Shovels] [quote = Longin]
    if the warhead case with a fuse with a slowdown cannot penetrate the ship’s armor, then it will collapse in a probability close to 100%, and the explosion from the outside will either be greatly weakened or not at all.
    If you decide to splurge on a semi-armor-proof warhead, you will have the following problem - you will not be able to precisely set the deceleration. fuse. So that it does not work, flying through the target. [/ Quote]
    The problem that you present as unsolvable has long been resolved. When you touch the target in the fuse turns on the moderator. If the goal is insurmountable (which is determined by special sensors), then an instant detonation occurs.
    1. Longin
      Longin 22 December 2017 00: 06 New
      0
      There are no moderators in anti-ship missiles. The warhead undermines the actuator that triggers the target sensors.
      There are no "irresistible targets" for ala pigs penetrating aircraft bean weighing 1,5 tons and rushing at a speed of 1,5 - 2,5 Mach. The main caliber shell of the LinCore "Yamato" quietly cries aside from SUCH penetration.
  38. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 19 December 2017 03: 35 New
    0
    [quote = Lopatov] [quote = Longin] if the warhead case with a fuse with a slowdown cannot penetrate the ship’s armor, then it will collapse in a probability close to 100%, and the explosion from the outside will either be greatly weakened or not at all.
    If you decide to splurge on a semi-armor-proof warhead, you will have the following problem - you will not be able to precisely set the deceleration. fuse. So that it does not work, flying through the target. [/ Quote]
    The problem that you consider insoluble has long been resolved. When the rocket touches the target in the fuse, the moderator is switched on. But if the obstacle is insurmountable for the body of the rocket compartment with warheads (which is determined by special sensors), then an instant detonation occurs, and the warhead works quite normally, breaking through the obstacle insurmountable for the body with a cumulative jet.
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 19 December 2017 12: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      breaking through a cumulative jet

      And what immediately is not a laser beam?
  39. Wladislaw73
    Wladislaw73 19 December 2017 13: 08 New
    +1
    Happy New Year, everyone! Gentlemen officers, you have a heated debate in isolation from the recent history of the USSR and Russia is meaningless. The presence at the helm of our homeland comrade Gorbachev and the first president of the Russian Federation Yeltsin. Our fleet was taken out of combat state for a long time. No military power can save from such people. And thank God with the advent of GDP, we began to update and rearm the Army and Navy. It should also be remembered that very specific additives and additives are needed to create armor. Thanks to the activities of the above creative managers, the deposits of some necessary ingredients have remained outside the borders of Russia. As Napoleon said for the war, 3 things are needed: money, money, and again money. While liberal economists will put sticks in the wheels of the military budget, your dispute will remain only theoretical.
    Therefore, such ships as they are now coming into service with the Fleet.
    In addition, since the Second World War, the tactics and strategy of warfare, including at sea, have changed significantly. At present, fleet maneuverability is becoming increasingly important. The ability to inflict the first massive strike on the enemy without direct contact. Weighting ships with armor will lead to reduced maneuverability, and to replenish it with new engines and power plants, and this is becoming increasingly financially expensive. So armor is a distant future and not necessarily possible and necessary.
  40. Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper 19 December 2017 19: 02 New
    +1
    I guessed. Guessed by one name! wink Oleg, thanks! I always read with interest. And the comments ... wink wink wink wink
    1. Santa Fe
      19 December 2017 22: 09 New
      +1
      Gravitsapu come on
  41. gaudin
    gaudin 20 December 2017 10: 47 New
    0
    Again?
    Even with a broken radar, a modern ship poses a threat to the enemy. Submarine combat, external target designation

    And what target designation will you take, if the radar and antenna posts are damaged? Everything is as usual: It was smooth on paper and forgot about the ravines.
  42. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 18: 32 New
    0
    Quote: Serg65
    Satellite from orbit knocked down

    Here it is interesting: why are you knocked down? What do you know about interceptor missiles in the Russian Federation and their number?
    1. seos
      seos 20 December 2017 19: 48 New
      0
      Both we and the Americans have dozens of different ways of destroying satellites .... Moreover, you can’t even knock it down, you can burn all the equipment with electronic warfare equipment from the ground ... there were also tests with laser systems ...
      They have been working on the problem of destroying satellites since the 60s, and the best minds of the planet and money for these studies have never spared ...
  43. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 20: 18 New
    0
    Quote: Kolin
    Somehow they forgot that the PCR knows how to make a slide, so the deck should be booked as a side. Well, if you put an armor-piercing warhead on Onyx, it will pierce 330 mm

    This was already discussed. The warhead of Harpoon (Uranus) does not see the ship clearly, is limited in maneuver (the ship also moves), so it’s good if it just gets on board / deck. Only at LRASM (judging by the Lockheed video) are they going to realize the possibility of selective destruction of a part of the ship using a multispectral seeker and modern electronics.
    If you put an armor-piercing warhead on Uranus / Onyx, you will have to radically (at times) reduce the mass fraction of explosives, while maintaining the previous mass of the warhead of the rocket. This will significantly reduce damage to the vessel (and the installation of explosion-proof bulkheads inside is a mandatory attribute of the reservation). Something like this.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 20 December 2017 23: 16 New
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      Only at LRASM (judging by the Lockheed video) are they going to realize the possibility of selective destruction of a part of the ship using a multispectral seeker and modern electronics.
      They have already forgotten why in RCC do not use infrared seeker? Fine. We turn on the irrigation system (which is used to combat chemical weapons) and the silhouette of the ship is smeared in both the visible and infrared ranges. In general, guidance will be frustrated.
  44. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 20: 40 New
    0
    Quote: bayard
    at least part of the ships of the first rank will be restored.

    Question: Is it worth it to restore outdated and very expensive to maintain ships of the 1st rank weighing 16-26-40 thousand tons?
    Maintain and modernize the BOD, build corvettes (watchdogs), armed coast guard boats and large seafaring frigates with a displacement of 6-8 thousand tons and a significant range, in sufficient quantities to solve problems, especially coast protection. Frigate destroyers can show a flag well.
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 20 December 2017 23: 33 New
      0
      Of course. We need at least one ocean squadron (albeit a national team, such as a pine forest, like 7OPESK) with normal seaworthiness and autonomy (we are not Americans - we do not have bases around the world) that can solve problems in any corner of the oceans. This is necessary if only for the Americans to spend significantly more money to counter the threat from it. And the frigate, albeit with the weapons of a destroyer, is still a frigate, not a destroyer (although the price is already close to the destroyer).
  45. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 21: 27 New
    0
    Quote: Wladislaw73
    The presence at the helm of our homeland comrade Gorbachev and the first President of the Russian Federation Yeltsin

    Everything is much simpler: the economy is in crisis, republics with parts of production chains have disappeared and oil has cost $ 8-10 per barrel. Had it been for $ 100, we probably would not have called this time "dashing" ... Complex - yes. And the money to maintain / upgrade the fleet would be. And they began to sit on the oil needle under Brezhnev (just then they built the oil and gas transportation system to Europe), they decided to patch the problems in the lagging economy with petrodollars. But at the same time, by the way, the Union occupied 40% of the global civil aviation market. That safely descended into the pipe in the 90s and completely disappeared in the 00s. And the truth is oil at $ 60-100, why strain your head and compete in the high-tech market? (
    A separate topic: the leaders of large organized crime groups, having seized assets, now, for the most part, live quietly in Russia in houses for $ 10 and $ 100 million. And they make a profit on their expenses. Someone is sitting in the Duma. Now they have a dynastic period - a quiet life and inheritance to children (read about Vasilyev in St. Petersburg).
  46. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 21: 41 New
    0
    Quote: Sonet
    concept art of ships of the future.

    I can immediately say that the number of cells for missiles (the area under them) will need to be reduced by 2-3 times. You decided to remove artillery as an anachronism? ) And besides decide: either you have a hangar for 2-3 helicopters, or else UVP. The result is a brother Zamvolta)
  47. 3danimal
    3danimal 20 December 2017 22: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: Yuri Malyshko

    Decent RCC ... the last 20-30 meters "fly", in fact, already under water, and hit 2-4 meters below the waterline.
    Secondly, anti-ship missiles have a high-explosive cumulative warhead ...
    Thirdly, the kinetic energy of decent anti-ship missiles is enough ... to break through the destroyer (during practical firing, demeaning, if possible, is turned off so that the vessel does not immediately drown and others can have time to shoot at it; therefore, missiles hit the surface).

    Obviously, you read some information about the existing anti-ship missiles. And it is no less obvious that you could not systematize this information.
    First of all, NONE of modern missiles dives into the water: it is made maximum light, unstable as a result, and only its warhead has relative strength, so the rocket drops to a level of about 3 m and hits it at that height. The density of water is 800 times higher than that of air and at a speed of 900 km / h it will instantly collapse.
    Secondly, the high-explosive cumulative warhead had the p-500 Basalt and the p-1000 Vulcan, but not all. Not "Granite", not "Onyx, not" Mosquito ", etc.
    Thirdly, your “decent” RCCs were very limited in terms of carriers, which could deliver a mastodon weighing from 5 tons to the launch line. From aviation - only bombers (X-22 on Tu-22m3). "Granites" and "Volcanoes" - only ships over 10000 tons.
    And again: there is no "dive" function on modern RCC. In the 50s and 60s, they explored the possibility of diving a solid warhead (and not the entire rocket!) At a fixed distance from the side of the target, so that, due to the shape of this warhead (all control planes would immediately tear off), go through an arc and hit the bottom. The experiment ended unsuccessfully: the success rate of such a maneuver was too low.
    It was impossible to get to the entry point perfectly, the excitement at sea immediately made adjustments to the trajectory, etc. The conclusion was: only controlled flight at low altitude.
  48. 3danimal
    3danimal 21 December 2017 01: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: seos
    Moreover, you can not knock it down, you can burn out all the equipment with electronic warfare equipment from the ground ... there were also tests with laser systems ...

    Take an interest in the topic less superficially.
    EW is ineffective at such vast distances.
    Like lasers, the atmosphere is in the way. Or you need to create a mega-complex and expensive space fighter with a laser from scratch)
    Another thing is kinetic interception. With a rocket as a delivery vehicle. And here we are ... not strong.
  49. 3danimal
    3danimal 21 December 2017 01: 41 New
    0
    Quote: bk0010
    They have already forgotten why in RCC do not use infrared seeker? Fine

    Multispectral - RL + IR GOS.
  50. 3danimal
    3danimal 21 December 2017 01: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: bk0010
    And the frigate, albeit with the weapons of a destroyer, is still a frigate, not a destroyer (although the price is already close to the destroyer).

    8000 tons provide enough space for equipment and weapons, don’t you? Frigate, destroyer .. American "Burke" - 9000 tons (depending on the series), the British "Dering" - 8000 tons. You can call it anything you like, depending on the situation, even a cruiser.
    I need maximum unification by type of ship, I think. It is easier to maintain, maintain, train crews.
    The US did not accidentally abandon the construction of the new Oliver H. Perry.
    And the aircraft carrier we can’t afford now, and there’s nothing for it. Continental power, with a crisis economy and a predominance of hydrocarbon sales as a source of budget revenue (true).