Ship Armor Reincarnation
Came to those successes
His armor was stronger.
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.
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!
Information