Military Review

Missiles riddled the US Navy cruiser

86



Commander Barton was right about the capabilities of his ship. He was able to shoot down missiles released by packs and undermine the Soviet submarines at depth. But with fire contact with an American plane, the life expectancy of a LEAHY class cruiser did not exceed one minute.

In 04: 00, two explosions flashed in the sky, responding with a chain of flashes along the mast and the superstructure: the broken cables laid out in open places were short-circuited. An instant later, the safety protection worked, and the Warden plunged into darkness. The wounded and one killed remained lying inside the shattered bridge and the combat information center.

Who shot? Who hit?

In the morning, collecting the wreckage, the sailors were surprised to find fragments of anti-radar missiles of American production. Interspersed with aluminum fragments of its own superstructure, crushed by the force of the explosion.

Results of the investigation: both missiles were fired by a ground attack aircraft, mistakenly mistaken for the radiation of the Warden radar for the North Vietnamese radar. The exact name of the perpetrator of the incident could not be established.

Missiles riddled the US Navy cruiser


At dawn, the crew of the cruiser managed to restore power supply and control of the ship. Weapon still inactive: “Warden” lost most of the radar. The Shrike's shards pierced the upper deck and entered the ASROK anti-submarine missile cellar. It is still unknown if there were special W44 ammunition with 10 kiloton capacity in it. Commander Barton believed that the combat functionality of the ship had decreased by 60%.

The damaged cruiser went to the ersatz-repair in Subic Bey (a naval base in the Philippines), where repair crews patched holes, repaired cable line breaks and put the equipment in combat posts in order. The Parsons destroyer “shared” the SPS-48 surveillance radar antenna with the cruiser.

After 10 days, “Warden” returned to the position in the Gulf of Tonkin.

New technical task

The first experiments with the restructuring of artillery cruisers into rocket ships demonstrated the exceptional compactness of the new weapons. With all the archaic electronics and rocket weapons 1950-60. rocket complexes had a smaller mass, occupied a smaller volume and required less effort to maintain them. Compared with the artillery weapons, under which these ships were originally designed.

New weapons removed the requirements for high speed. Dramatically reduced the parameters and sizes of power plants.

In the era of self-guided missiles capable of hitting a target at a distance of tens of kilometers from the first volley, the speed of the ship was no longer critical, as was the case in artillery duels. Games with speed were expensive: for example, while reducing the required maximum speed from 38 to 30 nodes, the required power of the GEM was halved!

At the same time, the need for any constructive protection disappeared. The main reason, in my opinion, was a sharp increase in reactive capabilities. aviation: a single Phantom could drop as many large-caliber bombs as a whole group of WWII dive bombers. Covering them with the entire cruiser, from tank to stern.



What seemed to make senseless attempts to eliminate the consequences of hits. In the event of a breakthrough to the target, the plane in two accounts will burn and sink the ship. Especially given the high vulnerability of antenna devices.

However, the planes would have broken anyway, given the general primitiveness of the air defense system of that time. So, during the demonstration shooting in 1962, in the presence of Kennedy, the cruiser “Long Beach” failed three times to get into the target aircraft. What then is the general sense to build a cruiser, if he is guaranteed to die in the first minutes of the battle? This question was left out of the discussion.

Returning to the trend to the limit to facilitate new ships: in addition to jet bombers, there was a fear of "sizzling" nuclear fire. Despite the results of the Bikini explosions, which showed low effectiveness of nuclear weapons against ships, the overall assessment of the fighting was reduced to a third world war. In which the survivors envy the dead.

The end result: the nuclear-missile era lowered the design requirements. Speed, security, bulky weapons and crews of thousands of people - everything is in the past.

The first series of missile cruisers, designed in the conditions of the new time, differed unexpectedly small size, lightweight superstructure of aluminum alloys and the rate of rocket weapons.

When creating the RNR of the 58 (Grozny) project, the Soviet shipbuilders took as their basis the hull ... destroyer of the 56 ave. (“Calm”) with a total displacement of 5570 tons. Nowadays, ships of this size belong to the class of frigates.



Unlike the Russian RKR project, which combined the Volna air defense system with powerful offensive weapons (two 4-container launchers for anti-ship missiles P-35), the Americans built a purely escort Lehi to cover aircraft-carrier formations.

The main weapon was chosen medium-range air defense system "Terrier". The cruiser received two launchers with four radars for target illumination, which (in theory) made it possible to repel attacks from two directions simultaneously.

To combat the submarines, another innovative tool was provided - rocket-torpeda ASROK.

In accordance with the emerging trend, the first missile cruisers lost their artillery. The only reminder of the “smoke of sea battles” was a pair of paired 76 mm caliber anti-aircraft guns, the combat value of which was doubtful: insufficient rate of fire as an air defense system, insignificant power against surface and coastal targets. Subsequently, the Americans completely abandoned the artillery, replacing the useless three-inch containers with the RCC "Harpoon".

American cruisers turned out to be somewhat larger than the Soviet first-borns of the rocket era: the full displacement of the Lega was due to increased demands for autonomy (8000 miles on the operational course of the 20 nodes). Otherwise, it was the same “tin” with a full displacement of 7800 tons, the crew of 450 people and a boiler-turbine installation on fuel oil with a capacity of 85 ths. Hp

For sailors who began service on board the TKR of the war years, the seaworthiness of the missile cruiser seemed simply magnificent: the “tin” easily climbed the wave. Unlike heavy artillery ships, which were forced to cut the shaft with shafts, forming avalanches of water spray. That led to difficulties in the work of weapons in the bow of the ship.

Total for the project “Legs” in the period 1959-64. It was built 9 serial cruisers and one experimental, distinguished nuclear power plant.


Atomic modification Legey - the cruiser "Bainbridge"


The admirals themselves were embarrassed to call these “tins” cruisers, so before 1975, they were classified as “destroyers leaders with missile weapons” (DLG).

The developers of the technical specifications for the Lehi-class cruiser can be congratulated in absentia on the construction of useless ships that could not hold out for a minute under the return fire. Unable to perform any “dirty work” associated with fire support, the fight against sea and coastal targets.

At the same time, the “umbrellas” for ship connections are absolutely useless in their main incarnation.

Now, looking back at 60 for years, you can see: the Soviet RKR series of the 58 pr. At least had a realistic concept of application. Nobody forced cruisers to beat off attacks of aviation for hours, still managing to cover other ships. The task of our RRC was to shoot their ammunition anti-ship missiles and repeat the fate of the "Varyag". Mounted onboard the air defense missile system was an aid, giving (in case of success) extra minutes to launch anti-ship missiles and cause additional damage to the enemy (“thin out” the attacking air group).



The rest of the Soviet scope of “innovation” was not inferior to the American one — the cruiser “Grozny” represented a “one-time” ship, on which it was not planned to continue the battle after meeting the very first shard. Superstructures entirely of aluminum-magnesium alloys, finishing rooms with the use of synthetic materials, open launchers and torpedo tubes on the upper deck.

And the point is not that on a ship that grew out of a destroyer, with a displacement of 5500 tons, with so many weapons, there could be no load reserves to increase security and survivability. The question is - why was it at all to base the destroyer hull?

The attack using the PRR on the cruiser “Warden” once again showed that the concept of a modern “high-tech” ship created as a naval air defense platform is deeply flawed. Ship to fight aviation, which will be destroyed by aircraft in a matter of minutes. Such a scenario makes senseless the very construction of large surface ships.

The Yankees were very lucky that none of their opponents had any decent means and / or political will to organize an attack on an aircraft carrier group. Otherwise, the Lega escort cruisers would have shown even more "impressive" results.

A remarkable case with “Worden”, about which colleague Sergey recalled in a recent topic (Serg65), lies in the same plane with Sheffield, burnt from unexploded PKR, and other lesser-known incidents, in which not the smallest and powerful enough for their time, expensive ships immediately failed in an air attack. Sometimes not even having time to notice the enemy.

In the case described, 16 April 1972, two AGM-45 “Shrike” missiles, equipped with an 66 kg warhead. The explosion thundered at a height of 30 meters above the ship (according to other data, 30 feet) and led to dire consequences.

Death is just the beginning

In fact, the disastrous scenario of the cruiser “Warden” has a very distant relation to the modern the fleet. The severity of the situation in which the “Warden” was, was due to the following circumstances:

1. The absence of any other weapons on board, except for archaic air defense missile systems with the method of "along the beam." The ASROK launcher also, unfortunately for the Yankees, was damaged (because it had protection only against water splashes).

Therefore, it is not surprising that after the loss of part of the radar and ASROCA, the cruiser functionality decreased by 60%. Actually useless trough.

Modern destroyers have an order of magnitude wider range of weapons, which, in principle, do not require any radar. All cruise missiles (ASM, “Calibres”, “Tomahawks”) have a horizon distance of flight and use external means of targeting. Often, flight missions are loaded into the “brains” of the CD long before the ship arrives in the launch area.

With the development of technology, there was even the possibility of firing anti-aircraft missiles with ARLGSN according to data from other ships and DRLO aircraft.

Therefore, a destroyer with damaged radar is only the beginning of a battle. It will be a threat until it is completely burned. And this is a completely different problem ...

2. The general cumbersomeness of the old radars and their unfortunate location on the cruiser 1960's, which fluttered in the wind, like the sails of caravels.

Modern ships use much more compact radar, consisting of several antenna arrays. Which is impossible to “knock out” with one explosion. And modern microcircuits are extremely resistant to strong vibrations, compared with hundreds of radio tubes of the TERER air defense system.

Finally, the antennas of communication systems on the most modern ships are made retractable, which also makes it impossible for them to fail at the same time. Not to mention the 21 century technologies and pocket-sized satellite phones.

3. Frankly dubious decisions of designers "Legey", which brought the idea of ​​"one-time ship" to the point of absurdity. From the cable routes laid in the open on the roof, to the classic AMG alloy. It is surprising that the 2 / 3 trapped inside the “Worden” fragments belonged to the ship itself.

More modern projects are already deprived of that levity peculiar to designers of the middle of the last century. Steel, only steel. An increasing number of internal armored bulkheads. Some attempts are being made to protect the ammunition - one of the most expensive and dangerous elements on board the ship. UVP lids have anti-fragmentation booking - shrapnel should not penetrate inside, as happened on the “Warden”.

How effective are such measures? Once in the situation of “Worden”, the modern “Burke” would be able to maintain the lion's share of combat capability. In all other situations, according to the apt expression of one of the readers, sailors still go into battle under the protection of a layer of paint.


Despite the playful name, the "tin cans", like any other ships, were monstrously large compared to all things we were used to.


Returning to decades in the past, we saw that the developers of the TZ on rocket ships 60-s. literally made mistakes in everything. Even in assessments of the survivability of ships, which, only by virtue of their size, can withstand SUCH, which sometimes seems like martial fiction.

30 August 1974 in the Sevastopol region tragically killed the BOD “Brave”. In the burning stern cellar were 15 anti-aircraft missiles. The first stage of each SAM had a solid propellant PRD-36 jet engine equipped with 14 cylindrical powder checkers with a total weight of 280 kg. The engine of the second stage was filled with a powder saber weighing 125 kg. The warhead of the missile is a high-explosive fragmentation weighing 60 kg, of which 32 kg is an alloy of trotyl with hexogen. Total: on board the 4500-ton ship, which had deck deck 4 mm thick and built in the best traditions of “disposable weapons”, detonated six tons of gunpowder and almost half a ton of highly blasting explosives.

According to the majority, the internal explosions of such power should not have left a trace from the ship. But “Brave” stayed afloat for another five hours.
Author:
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ruslan
    Ruslan 15 January 2018 07: 06
    12
    right now again for 100-200 comments they will need to argue whether the reservation is necessary or not :-)
    I am personally in favor. here stands in novorossiysk “mikhail kutuzov”, why not a cruiser with armor? put the gauges, yes s-400 and try to "bend" it later.
    plus “duets”, plus “package”, plus “torus”, a helicopter is the dream ship.
    and make ships smaller by its principle, destroyers and frigates. some pluses as for me.
    1. Santa Fe
      15 January 2018 07: 14
      10
      Quote: ruslan
      why not a cruiser with armor?

      location of security elements does not meet modern threats

      protection "Kutuzov" was designed against six-inch shells flying from a distance 50-100 cab; Against the rocket flying at 5-10 meters, it is ineffective - the rocket will hit the unprotected board. This is not good
      Quote: ruslan
      right now again on the 100-200 comments

      100-200 a little
      1. Ruslan
        Ruslan 15 January 2018 07: 27
        +7
        location of security elements does not meet modern threats

        Well, I didn’t offer to directly copy. on the wiki he has armor: Side - 100 mm, Bow traverse - 120 mm, Aft - 100 mm, Lower deck - 50 mm. and how and where to already have it, this must be watched, of course, given the modern weapons of the enemies.
        100-200 a little

        as YouTube bloggers say, “let's get 400 comments and 1000 likes, I know we can do it” :-)
        1. Santa Fe
          15 January 2018 07: 33
          +7
          Quote: ruslan
          Vick on his armor: Airborne - 100 mm

          Here is an example of this moment.
          you need to look at the location of the belt, its length and height.

          None of the schemes for the protection of ships of the period of the second world modern realities does not respond. In an attempt to find a more or less close example (precedent), I had to go a little deeper into history, 1890.

          the cruiser "Dupuis de Lom" was built with full protection of the freeboard (100 mm from the waterline to the upper deck). Exactly what is needed. And the main thing - it is not a drawing of the artist, but a really built ship
          1. Ruslan
            Ruslan 15 January 2018 07: 44
            +7
            I once heard the expression, "you will try to protect everything, you will not protect anything." I am a supporter of booking, but does it make sense to make such a stronghold?
            such an amateur look. ship hull 50 mm and extra. reservation is already inside the case. 100 mm box for UVP, armor layers, in the area of ​​engines and other important elements.
            or are you a supporter of a continuous booking of the type "de-scrap", they say if they took to book, then in full, and not fragments?
            1. Santa Fe
              15 January 2018 07: 54
              +8
              there is no sense to protect the extremities, citadel booking. The main thing is that the belt in the citadel area should be across the entire height of the side - and for this there is an excellent example (de Lom)

              Horizontal protection is also at the level, purely hypothetical - if the entire upper weight of the "de Loma", formed by the towers ABOVE the deck. Remove the tower - and melt on the armor plates. Here and armor of non-acidic thickness, from diving RCC with "slides"

              + internal security features, splinterproof bulkheads
              Quote: ruslan
              and add. booking already inside the case. box in 100 mm for uvp, layers of armor, in the area of ​​engines and other important elements.

              Everything is possible. Let the calculations and further research involved people who receive a salary for it

              my idea is fixed - https://topwar.ru/72092-superkreyser-neuyazvimec-
              buduschee-flota.html
              published April 1, which is a joke. But there is some truth:

              Citadel booking with the use of technology of the new time. Protection elements are integrated into the power case package. Materials: armored steel with cemented outer layer, ceramics, kevlar.
              Differentiated by the thickness of the armored belt (100 ... 127 mm) in the middle part of the body.
              .A mandatory splinterproof bulkhead on the opposite side of all compartments and aisles along the bead (“puff” - 5 mm steel + 50 mm ceramics + 5 mm steel).
              Installing numerous splinterproof bulkheads in the hull and superstructure (25 ... 50 mm of steel or Kevlar) will allow localizing the scale of the pogrom even after the penetration of a special armor-piercing warhead into the hull.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 15 January 2018 11: 28
                15
                Hello Oleg hi
                A noteworthy case of “Worden”, about which in a recent topic colleague Sergey (Serg65) recalled

                laughing I will give you another noteworthy case about these words ..
                Quote: Santa Fe
                there is no sense in protecting the ends, a citadel reservation. The main thing is that the belt in the area of ​​the citadel should be along the entire height of the side

                In October 89, at the Pacific Fleet in the Gulf of Peter the Great, forces of the 175 DBK carried out anti-aircraft missile shooting for the prize of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. The KUG air defense included the destroyers of the 956 project “Combat” and “Prudent”, the BOD of the project 1155 “Admiral Tributs” and the missile defense system of the project 1135 “Gusty”. The BOD "Admiral Tributs" was determined by the firing warrant equalizer.
                Shooting training RCC produced; K-127 submarine with two RM-6 missiles, TU - 16 with two KSR-5NM missiles, Redut missile system with two RM-35 missiles and La-17MM unmanned aerial vehicle. To create the background of the jamming situation, Tu-16SPS-55 and Tu-16DOS aircraft were involved in the shooting. The active jamming area covering the strike by cruise missiles was determined in such a way as to reliably mask the missile approach.
                As a result of firing, “Combat” shot down 6 missiles and “Prudent” 1 missile.

                и

                laughing Moreover, a year before these events, EM “Prudent”, again at the shooting for the prize, managed to drown both the target and the tugboat dragging this target with its 130 kami
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 15 January 2018 11: 30
                  16
                  Why am I all this Oleg?
                  And to the fact that any ship’s air defense in skilled hands is 100 times better than the thickest armor hi
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 January 2018 13: 49
                  +5
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Moreover, a year before these events, EM “Prudent”, again at the shooting for the prize, managed to drown both the target and the tugboat dragging this target with its 130 kami

                  The traditions of the tower commander of the Darkened are true!
                  "... and please, go to Klyushka and confirm that I am terribly busy, I don’t want to write to her, otherwise she will cry, and I can’t, if she is crying. Lie better, don’t get confused. The main thing is that in the end as a result, all this happened because of her, and, if you tell everything, she will be unpleasant, and she will blame herself for not going on time, but who knew that they invented such inhuman shooting, since I was late and I wasn’t at the meeting of the command staff, where the commander explained. I thought the shooting was normal. The main thing was that I was glad that there were no one in the tower, there were only two electrical students, and as I examined the sights, I gasped: I see that the degrees thirty to the side, now, I think it’s good that I noticed in time, I set the students to look. And they say: in the morning the senior gunner came, sent for you, waited, waited, then said: okay, he’ll appear, I will give him his life, - and turned the sights to the side. I thought that he was checking my vigilance, and, you know, he himself, let’s quietly coordinate according to the cathedral, so no one knew that I had an institution in the tower - and nothing more. And the commander, when he later broke my tail, asked: “Comrade. Then what’s full of your head? When you received the order to point at the“ Messenger ”, could you really not realize that it’s abnormality and will cover the“ Messenger ”now? I was rightly surprised why they were shooting at the “Messenger”, and then I realized that, probably, shooting at short-range, as you remember, since the flagart itself was shot here, he sees it. He wanted to do better, but it turned out - they almost killed ” Messenger, "and now I have such a disgrace to the whole of the RKKF, even if you shoot, but feel sorry for Klyushka, it turns out that you do not do much service — they beat and you re-serve - they beat. Forgive me, please send me Klyushkin’s letters right here, I will answer.
                  With artillery greetings, your comrade.
                  F. Darkened.
                  July 21, 1923, garrison guardhouse. "
                  © Sobolev
                  1. Serg65
                    Serg65 15 January 2018 13: 53
                    +6
                    Hello Alexey hi !
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    The traditions of the tower commander of the Darkened are true!

                    laughing There are few such traders in the fleet, but you can find them in almost every unit!
          2. 27091965
            27091965 15 January 2018 08: 56
            +3
            Quote: Santa Fe
            the cruiser "Dupuis de Lom" was built with full protection of the freeboard (100 mm from the waterline to the upper deck). Exactly what is needed. And the main thing - it is not a drawing of the artist, but a really built ship


            The reservation system of the cruiser "Dupuis de Lom" was designed to protect against high-explosive shells of medium caliber. But penetrated armor-piercing shells of 4 inch English guns from a distance of 2000 yards (1820 m), about 6 inch armor-piercing shells is not worth mentioning.

            RCC speed does not depend, like a projectile does on the range of the target, to spend a large amount of weight on anti-shatter protection of the entire side, which will still be broken, the designers will not.
            1. your1970
              your1970 15 January 2018 11: 34
              +5
              "According to majority views, internal explosions of such power should not leave a trace from the ship. But “The Valiant” stayed afloat for another five hours. "- The first time I see Kaptsov that he VS armor ...
              1. brn521
                brn521 15 January 2018 12: 51
                +3
                Quote: your1970
                But “The Brave” stayed afloat for another five hours. "

                For such cardboard-foamy ships with an aluminum-magnesium superstructure, the buoyancy margin is comparable to their own displacement.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Serg65
                  Serg65 15 January 2018 13: 30
                  +8
                  Quote: brn521
                  For such cardboard foam ships

                  Hm m! The battleship Sevastopl, having fallen in the 8 ball storm in Biscay, was forced to return to Brest, while the 61 flying Dutch passed Biscay under the same conditions!
                  No need to pour mud on what you do not know !!!!
                  1. brn521
                    brn521 15 January 2018 14: 12
                    +1
                    Quote: Serg65
                    No need to pour mud on what you do not know !!!!

                    And what does this have to do with it? Kaptsov ranking shipboard cardboard? Cardboard. That means it will certainly burn when it is covered with fragments of a rocket. By the way, what’s burning at least there? As far as I understand, this is the main survivability problem of the modern fleet.
                    Quote: Serg65
                    at the same time, 61st flying Dutchs passed Biscay under the same conditions!

                    I do not argue. For this they were built.
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 15 January 2018 14: 29
                      +5
                      Quote: brn521
                      By the way, what’s burning at least there?

                      An aluminum-alloy alloy burns and then if it is allowed to ignite, although everything can burn, including steel, as evidenced by fires on the battleships of the squadron of Admiral Rozhestvensky repeat
                      1. brn521
                        brn521 15 January 2018 14: 56
                        +1
                        Quote: Serg65
                        what is the evidence of fires on the battleships of the squadron of Admiral Rozhestvensky

                        In those days, auxiliary junk was made from available materials, mainly from wood. Metal beds were touted as the foremost achievement of progress.
                        Quote: Serg65
                        Aluminum burns magnesium alloy

                        From it only a superstructure.
          3. vrazhin
            vrazhin 15 January 2018 19: 26
            +2
            1890 ...... what armor belt is 100-200-300-400 ..... mm.
            Look at the characteristics of though used simple concrete bombs. BOMB !!!! BOMB !!!! Not even rockets !!!! Penetration up to 10 meters !!! REINFORCED CONCRETE !!!! What armor ???
            1. Archon
              Archon 16 January 2018 09: 51
              0
              1 meter. 1 meter of reinforced concrete.
    2. Orionvit
      Orionvit 15 January 2018 11: 22
      +1
      Quote: ruslan
      right now again for 100-200 comments they will have to argue whether the reservation is necessary or not

      Tanks were booked, they were booked, but they weren’t finished, they still pierce. Let's now build ships with 300 mm multi-layer composite armor with mounted (or built-in) dynamic protection. laughing On occasion, they’ll drown anyway, especially with the current technological diversity of weapons.
    3. sergevonsohrn
      sergevonsohrn 15 January 2018 11: 41
      +1
      Of course, the time "tins" has passed! “better less, but better” ... the time has come for small, well-armored ships (3-5-8 thousand tons), designed for 3-4 reloading of the ammunition, the destroyer urofregat destroyer line. and the destruction of enemy materiel is mainly entrusted to the submarines with powerful long-range missiles. for air cover of tactical areas of operation of the submarine, it is necessary to have at least one powerful aug in the composition of the "ocean" fleets (sf, tof) ...
      1. vrazhin
        vrazhin 15 January 2018 19: 03
        +1
        Are you kidding me???? What are 3-4 ammunition reloads ???
        The point is to protect target designation systems, control, communications and ensure the main arsenal is operational for the time necessary to make a decision, direct and shoot at least part of the explosives. Ideally, give the opportunity to shoot the entire ammunition.
        No one will return to the port for reloading the ammunition (in the case of large-scale clashes).
    4. brn521
      brn521 15 January 2018 13: 34
      +1
      Quote: ruslan
      here stands in novorossiysk “mikhail kutuzov”, why not a cruiser with armor? put the gauges, yes s-400 and try to "bend" it later.

      Better to consider some high-class container ship. In peacetime, he does not spend money, but earns. Speed ​​is 20-25 knots. The crew of several people. Tens and hundreds of thousands of tons of load. Sinking reluctantly, even when broken in half.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 January 2018 14: 35
        +3
        Quote: brn521
        Better to consider some high-class container ship. In peacetime, he does not spend money, but earns. Speed ​​is 20-25 knots. The crew of several people. Tens and hundreds of thousands of tons of load. Sinking reluctantly, even when broken in half.

        Heh heh heh ... EMNIP, in ancient times on the VIF uv. FVL during the next dispute over the survivability of modern ships (eternal theme, eternal ... smile ) suggested using supertankers as hulls of unsinkable URO ships. And as an argument he cited statistics of the tanker war in the Persian Gulf, in which tankers demonstrated excellent survivability. What is no wonder - taking into account all the constructive protection that was piled on them according to the requirements of environmentalists.
        However, VTs, and before any economic conditions there, were distinguished by rare survivability. During WWII, from the point of view of crews, the best escort aircraft were considered AVEs based on tankers, because they were very reluctant to drown.
        1. brn521
          brn521 15 January 2018 17: 38
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          suggested using supertankers as hulls of unsinkable URO ships.

          Nevertheless, the situation with container ships is more stable. Supertankers are either building, or breaking, or how they use floating warehouses. Plus, their re-equipment will not be easy to carry out. And where the container ship caught, there he outfitted. The very possibility of modular formation of the combat load from standard containers is very interesting. As a result, even a river barge can quickly acquire a rather dangerous arsenal.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 15 January 2018 18: 52
            +3
            Vitality. Container ships are built on the basis of maximum commercial efficiency - that is, subject to all the norms at the lower limit. For, with a container ship crash, there is, of course, a threat of environmental pollution - but it is not so high.
            But the tankers, after all the horror stories like "Exxon Valdez", are built with constructive protection, as it were, no better than the LC. And drowning them is much more difficult.

            Khikhiks ... “CD carriers based on container ships” - Zorich immediately remembered something.
            1. brn521
              brn521 16 January 2018 10: 42
              0
              Quote: Alexey RA
              But the tankers, after all the horror stories like "Exxon Valdez", are built with constructive protection, as it were, no better than the LC. And drowning them is much more difficult.

              Until we find a suitable tanker, while we unload, while we re-equip, nobody will need it anymore. And the container ship drove, loaded and ready.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Container ships are built on the basis of maximum commercial efficiency - that is, subject to all the norms at the lower limit.

              But there are many of them and they are paying for themselves. Supertankers are either scrapped or converted into floating oil bases. Meanwhile, the need for container ships is only growing and they are constantly being built. At the same time, they receive the most modern engines and automation, regular and high-quality service.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              “CD carriers based on container ships” - Zorich immediately remembered something.

              I have not read it. It’s just here that Kaptsov hovers our brains on the topic that the weapons and equipment of modern ships are so tiny that they can easily be hidden under a full-size citadel with an armor thickness of 10 cm. He cites land samples and civilian equipment as an example. In such cases, it’s easier not to build useless battleships, but to shove the necessary junk into standard containers. After which it will be much easier to transport, service and install. After reading Kaptsov's articles, I came to the conclusion that this is the only somewhat adequate direction in which his ideas can be developed.
        2. vrazhin
          vrazhin 15 January 2018 19: 20
          +2
          And what to consider them ..... In the case of the GREAT WAR, everything and everything will go ,, under the gun ,,,.
          1. brn521
            brn521 16 January 2018 11: 02
            0
            Quote: vrazhin
            In the case of the GREAT war, everything and everything will go ,, under the gun ,,,.

            This is if the nuclear weapons somewhere evaporate and the war goes according to the scenario of the WWII and WWII. And I suspect that the value of the same tankers will increase so much that no one will have a chance to convert them into a warship. So container ships are our everything.
    5. vkfriendly
      vkfriendly 15 January 2018 18: 11
      +2
      In World War II, small torpedo boats made more useful than all the battleships and cruisers combined.
      1. Seryoga Gord
        Seryoga Gord 16 January 2018 13: 52
        0
        after the Second World War, we took away from Germany for reparation from the forces of the Navy, only torpedo boats and submarines, and small-shavens grabbed the battleships and cruisers ...))
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 17 January 2018 18: 16
          0
          Well, my friend you do not finish a bit. Battleships and cruisers stupidly did not give us. Those who knocked out were received with great difficulty.
    6. vrazhin
      vrazhin 15 January 2018 18: 53
      +1
      Plus, plus, plus ..... is it rubber ????? Let's try to cram all the air defense and missile defense on the boat ......
      We need air defense cruisers, missile cruisers, etc. The fighter-bomber has already passed the stage. We all wish and sit on honey and ...... sit .....
      Another issue is finance. It all rests on. We do everything possible with the balances (after plundering) of our funds.
  2. demiurg
    demiurg 15 January 2018 08: 01
    +3
    Armor can carry ships with a displacement of 7000-8000 tons. Unfortunately, the most necessary thing in modern combat (radar) cannot be covered with armor, so that any hit of a rocket or bomb in a ship will disable it anyway.
    And local booking (cellars, posts, a bridge, cars), plus something like carapace armor, at least anti-shatter on my sofa opinion, is still a necessary thing. Indeed, even with damaged radars, a ship costs a lot of money, it’s easier to repair than to rebuild.
    1. Conductor
      Conductor 15 January 2018 08: 54
      +1
      Local booking a cellar, isn't it complicated? again the rake will be.
      1. Orionvit
        Orionvit 15 January 2018 11: 26
        +5
        Fighting control center in the wheelhouse, armored on battleships, that’s what I understand armor. Let then the sides do so. Although they’ll break through anyway. wink
        1. Terran
          Terran 15 January 2018 12: 51
          +2
          In the photo, it’s clearly not the entrance to the “Fighting Control Center in the cabin”, but the entrance to the barbette of one of the main caliber towers - there is armor there as well as the GK tower itself, to protect the elevator for delivering shells and projectile charges from the cellars to the gun.
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 January 2018 13: 24
            +2
            Fighting control center in the wheelhouse, armored on battleships, that’s what I understand armor. Let then the sides do so.

            Yeah. And put on so that there are the main guns of 9 pieces and so that not less than 410 mm. So there are more torpedoes, more atomic ones. So that the armor was wow, so that the ship could be put in line, like armadillos. A nuclear reactor (but better 3) for speed, ninety kilometers an hour is enough. And more calibers, more ... fellow
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 15 January 2018 14: 38
              +1
              But do not we remember the classics from Pereslegin ... laughing
              The requirements for speed and autonomy uniquely determine the nuclear power plant. Of course, there can be no question of placing on the ship a backup propulsion system using fossil fuels. Moreover, the 38-knot full speed speed requires a reduction in bioprotection mass and the installation of a supercritical reactor. (It is possible to use two reactors with a common neutron field and a variable neutron flux coupling coefficient. Such an installation is, of course, unsafe. But we must be aware that a warship is created to fight the enemy, and not to protect the environment. moreover, that the real harm from such a battleship is in any case less than from the supertanker.)
              Note that the proposed power plant allows you to force the power (due to changes in the absorption coefficient of neutrons in the wall separating the reactors). If necessary, you can even turn the battleship into a nuclear firewall.
              The artillery of the ship should include three three-gun turrets with a caliber of 12 - 14 inches. The guns should be equipped with active rockets with a maximum range of about 100 miles.
              The ship is not equipped with auxiliary artillery. Anti-aircraft and anti-ship defense is carried out by standard means: SAM, anti-aircraft missile launchers, depth charges, Sabrok-type installations.
              Instead of the fourth tower, an angular flight deck is placed: the armament of the battleship should include 4 to 5 light fighter-interceptors.
              Protection of the ship - armored belt on the waterline, armored deck, towers. Armor thickness 100 - 152 mm. The reservation scheme is classic.
              Radio-electronic equipment should significantly exceed that of a modern nuclear-powered cruiser.
              Ensuring the required characteristics is possible with a displacement of 45 - 50 thousand tons and a total capacity of the power plant of at least 160 megawatts.
          2. Orionvit
            Orionvit 16 January 2018 04: 22
            +2
            Quote: Terran
            The photo is clearly not the entrance to the "Combat control center in the wheelhouse"

            This is precisely the battle center, and it is in the wheelhouse. We look from 17 minutes.
        2. Hog
          Hog 16 January 2018 23: 05
          0
          This is the conning tower.
  3. Conductor
    Conductor 15 January 2018 08: 53
    +1
    In fact, the armor is archaism, right now it’s not so much the board that needs to be protected, but the superstructures, but the armored superstructure at Burke is somehow weak.
  4. shinobi
    shinobi 15 January 2018 09: 11
    +2
    Against anti-ship missiles flying on board at a speed of 2,5-3 Mach, the armor should be like that of a full-fledged cruiser of an old building.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 15 January 2018 09: 29
      +4
      Quote: shinobi
      Against anti-ship missiles flying on board at a speed of 2,5-3 Mach, the armor should be like that of a full-fledged cruiser of an old building.

      RCCs must bring down active defense means, armor is needed from fragments of a destroyed rocket.
      1. ZVO
        ZVO 16 January 2018 18: 00
        0
        Quote: KaPToC
        Quote: shinobi
        Against anti-ship missiles flying on board at a speed of 2,5-3 Mach, the armor should be like that of a full-fledged cruiser of an old building.

        RCCs must bring down active defense means, armor is needed from fragments of a destroyed rocket.


        And again I agree with you ... Partially.
        Because. that anti-radar missiles in the Hornet suspension in the anti-ship version are mandatory. But then they will hit with fragments from above.
      2. Hog
        Hog 16 January 2018 23: 06
        +1
        That is, you do not even allow the possibility of a missile breakthrough to the ship?
        RCC will launch one at a time, so that they have time to shoot down?
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 16 January 2018 23: 09
          0
          Quote: Hog
          That is, you do not even allow the possibility of a missile breakthrough to the ship?

          The ship will not support the weight of the armor that the rocket cannot penetrate.
          Quote: Hog
          RCC will launch one at a time, so that they have time to shoot down?

          Remedies must be able to attack several targets at once.
  5. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 15 January 2018 09: 46
    +9
    At one time, knightly armor reached its perfection, making the warrior dressed in him almost invulnerable.
    But the development of firearms put an end to the knights as a class.
    But everything repeats, and modern special forces soldiers, and in the future ordinary infantry, are becoming more and more like medieval knights - in their protective suits, heavy bulletproof vests and helmets with visors.
    The development of ships was determined by the development of both technology and naval art. At the moment, attention is not paid to the reservation of ships, but this is due to only one factor - the absence of war.
    She will be the examiner.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 15 January 2018 10: 23
      +4
      Off topic for this topic, but the fact that the knights won the development of firearms is a common misconception. Yes, the knights first and began to use artillery as a long arm against archers. And the Swiss, on the contrary, neglected the firearms, for which they began to rake. No matter how trite it sounds, the knights were defeated by the economy. the Swiss, and later Landsknecht and Reiters, were incomparably cheaper and more universal.
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 15 January 2018 10: 42
        +8
        that knights defeated the development of firearms - a common misconception

        Let me disagree with you.
        The development of firearms made it possible for a layman to emerge victorious from a fight with a knight - a professional warrior. It was the development of the firearm and its mass distribution that made heavy armor meaningless.
        Also, this is precisely what caused the “spirit of chivalry” to disappear. In a face-to-face match, personal mastery decides everything. The gunner completely eliminated the difference on the battlefield between a commoner with a primitive gun and a knight in magnificent armor.
      2. novel66
        novel66 15 January 2018 10: 47
        +2
        yes, actually, the battle of Agincourt has already shown that chivalry is no longer here, but in the past
      3. Varna
        Varna 16 January 2018 02: 01
        +1
        Quite right, there simply appeared a large number of cheap bodies that were too unprofitable to cover with expensive steel.
        Why now they began to cover the soldiers with bulletproof vests for two pieces and helmets apiece. - quite right, now there are few who want to go under the banner, it is necessary to protect such torn people, their bodies are valuable. The economy is also an economy in war.
        1. brn521
          brn521 16 January 2018 10: 07
          0
          Quote: Varna
          a large number of cheap bodies appeared that are too unprofitable to cover with expensive steel.

          On the contrary. Armor has become cheaper and more affordable. At the end of the cuirass and helmet lay in the bins of almost every shopkeeper or artisan.
  6. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 15 January 2018 09: 50
    0
    Booking is not continuous now, but in the most vulnerable parts. We need to make more partitions like honeycombs, due to stiffening ribs it will be survivable.
  7. Igarr
    Igarr 15 January 2018 10: 59
    +3
    Booking will not save anything if the most vulnerable parts are located high up and made of openwork strips - antenna arrays, or phased antennas.
    Well, the tuning of the HEADLIGHTS - and what further use is it to us in an invulnerable firing radar. If she sees the target in the wrong place.
    If we really set ourselves the goal of ensuring the safety of the ship’s eyes and ears, then we simply need to reserve and duplicate, or even triple, the replaceable complexes of antenna fields and arrays. Ideally, it is generally a backup retractable mast, with a complex of detection and target designation.
    One in operation, and three others (spare) - the hold of the ship, under reliable armor. And even in the capsule, under the bottom of the ship.
    Ahinea, of course. For. any retractable system is even easier to damage.
    What to do?
    If we can’t shoot down attacking missiles with 100% fidelity, then we need to make sure that these missiles fly by - NOT DETECTING THE PURPOSE.
    Which leads us to electronic warfare systems.
    Or, we make ghost ships, real ghosts. In another time, in another dimension, another direction of the continuum scan. Like the Eldridge.
    Funny.
    It is necessary to keep a lot of false cheap goals around the perimeter of orders, with drop dead EPR. And all the business.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 January 2018 12: 05
      +5
      "Ideally, in general, a backup retractable mast, with a complex of detection and target designation" ///

      Ideally, a balloon with an AFAR on it. And a spare (deflated) with a spare AFAR - on a ship under the deck.
      Aglichans planned to do so, but did not dare. And they erected a tall tower on their
      latest destroyers.
      1. Igarr
        Igarr 15 January 2018 12: 26
        +1
        I imagine a frigate is coming - and above it, like mine paravanes - from one side of a balloon-airship, from the other side. Yes, behind the stern in the distance stretches a third.
        On the deck ready to inflate a couple more "rubber products". And even half inflated.
        Enchanting spectacle. Impressive, furious. Much more impressive than an aircraft carrier, overwhelming.
        Something like a flying ship from the movie-tale "Pinocchio" is obtained.
        And so, such a miracle-yuda-frega-monster enters the port. In Rota. eg. Or in Gibraltar. Or in Tartus .... the sight still will be. Especially shoot from the borders. Bearded.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 15 January 2018 13: 25
          +3
          Is such a pyramid tower better? It has an AFAR. It is no longer possible to erect above - the limit.
          The AFAR in the balloon will have a view many times larger (beyond the horizon). At
          In this case, the ship itself will be low.
          Upon entering the port, the aerostat will naturally be tidied up to the deck.
      2. brn521
        brn521 15 January 2018 13: 00
        +3
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Ideally, a balloon with an AFAR on it.

        Imagine how it will shake and twist. And if the wind freshens a little, generally it will lie on the water.
    2. seos
      seos 15 January 2018 20: 17
      +1
      If we can’t shoot down attacking missiles with 100% fidelity, then we need to make sure that these missiles fly by - NOT DETECTING THE PURPOSE.

      A submarine with a retractable radar and drones ... surfaced, pulled out the radar, found a target, shot ... and disappeared from a retaliatory strike under water good
  8. sivuch
    sivuch 15 January 2018 11: 05
    +5
    When creating the RNR of the 58 (Grozny) project, the Soviet shipbuilders took as their basis the hull ... destroyer of the 56 ave. (“Calm”) with a total displacement of 5570 tons. Nowadays, ships of this size belong to the class of frigates.
    -------------------------------------------------
    -------------
    And it was designed as a destroyer. it was originally called a destroyer with missile weapons. The fact that he later became a missile cruiser is a personal merit of Nikita Sergeevich. Designers from the 11th department told this:
    Nikita came to the completion, looked, was surprised and said - what a big cruiser! Well, everyone agreed with him - indeed, a cruiser. And the fact that the cruiser was assigned a completely different state, right up to its orchestra, was of no interest to anyone.
    As for Liha, Barton could not have expected an attack on his plane using PRR. There were simply no tactical PRRs in the Union, and even more so in Vietnam. But attempts to attack the NK with bombs, NNP, were, and with negative results. By the way, during modernization, the Phalanxes were installed on Likhi, and metal pruners were installed on Project 58. It would be suicide to shove them with bombs.
    Project 61 is a classic example of insufficient protection from a fool. The chest had to press the button for flooding the compartment, instead, he jumped out with the cry of the half-moon, save yourself.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 15 January 2018 12: 45
      +1
      Quote: sivuch
      Project 61 is a classic example of insufficient protection from a fool. The chest had to press the button for flooding the compartment, instead, he jumped out with the cry of the half-moon, save yourself.

      Yeah ... and ran only 18 seconds, after which the aft cellar pulled.
  9. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 15 January 2018 11: 12
    +2
    Probably worth saying that project 58 was originally planned and built as a destroyer. And only the will of Khrushchev, in one fell swoop of the pen, turned the destroyer into a missile cruiser.
  10. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 15 January 2018 12: 40
    +3
    According to the majority, the internal explosions of such power should not have left a trace from the ship. But “Brave” stayed afloat for another five hours.

    Moreover, as shown by investigative experiments and tests of a specially constructed full-scale compartment, if the midshipman, who was behind the control panel of the rocket control post of feed cellar No. 8, would turn on regular fire extinguishing means, and not run away from the post, then the BOD could well survive.
    In accordance with the recommendations of the commission, on the basis of a joint decision of the Navy and the Ministry of the Shipbuilding Industry (SME), a full-scale compartment of the ship was manufactured in one of the shipyards in Leningrad in 1, which fully reproduced part of the project 977 ship with aft cellar No. 61 of the air defense missile system " Wave-M. " Structurally, the experimental compartment fully corresponded to the section of the hull with a superstructure in the region of 8-199 frames. By a joint decision of the Navy, SMEs and the Ministry of Aviation Industry, they approved a program for conducting interdepartmental fire tests, which took place at one of the naval training grounds near Leningrad in 222 - 1978. The program provided all possible options for the unauthorized starting of launch and marching engines of V-1979 rockets, determining the nature of the development of the accident, checking the reliability of the rockets in the drums, ways to increase the fire and explosion safety of the cellar and, finally, a practical check of the measures developed by the commission.
    As a result of field tests of the experimental compartment, in the Report of the interagency commission for conducting comprehensive field tests of the fire and explosion protection means of the Volna air defense cellar with B-601 missiles in the experimental compartment of the Project 61 ship, signed in early 1980, the following was made main conclusion: “The standard means of fire and explosion protection of the cellars of the Volna and Volna-M air defense systems have the necessary efficiency and high reliability. In the event of a marching or launch engine of missiles, they prevent the development of an accident that is dangerous to the ship as a whole, and provide localization of the emergency process within the cellar without causing significant damage to the equipment. " Regular exhaust devices of the cellars, the commission noted, provide pressure relief in the event of an emergency within 1-2 seconds. .
    1. brn521
      brn521 15 January 2018 14: 33
      +2
      Quote: Alexey RA
      if midshipman

      Something is somehow strange. The survivability of the ship depended on some midshipman. But did he even know where what is being pressed? And it can turn out like with an attempt to force the sergeants to drag officer tasks. Despite the fact that the lieutenants were actually trained for several years, and the sergeant only read the brochure.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 January 2018 16: 17
        +2
        Quote: brn521
        Something is somehow strange. The survivability of the ship depended on some midshipman. But did he even know where what is being pressed?

        That is, a serviceman who was admitted to the control panel of the missile control post of aft cellar No. 8 (and even a senior on a shift in the cellar) could theoretically not be familiar with one of the basic instructions on the cellar - instructions for using regular fire extinguishing equipment?
        After the training combat alert was announced, the midshipman, who was behind the control panel of the missile control post of feed cellar No. 8, in which 15 vertical missiles stored 601 V-XNUMX missiles in combat equipment of the Volna missile anti-aircraft complex, as required by the watchman in the cellar, ordered by internal communication to the sailors on duty at the post to connect external power. Then the midshipman, using the toggle switches on the remote control, applied voltage to the launcher rotation mechanisms - 380 volts and to the firing circuit (110 volts). Immediately after clicking the last toggle switch, he saw through the porthole a strong sheaf of flame on the left drum. Without turning on the fire extinguishing means, the midshipman left the post and ran along the corridor to the bow of the ship. At this time, a strong explosion occurred, the shock wave of which threw him aside ...
        1. brn521
          brn521 15 January 2018 17: 24
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          could theoretically be unfamiliar with one of the basic instructions on the cellar - instructions for using regular fire fighting equipment?

          About that and speech. Obviously, an incompetent character was behind the console. The analogy begs. They grabbed anyone, showed the minimum sequence of actions necessary for reporting. And as it came down to the matter, he could not perform the simplest task on which his own life depended. Therefore instructed him do not understand who and on the fingers.
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 15 January 2018 17: 52
            +1
            If the surname was not Russian .. And I wouldn’t have to break my head ..)
            And so .. What are the turns of speech ..)))
  11. 44 Locomotive
    44 Locomotive 15 January 2018 12: 51
    +2
    they still didn’t find out who fired at Worden ... I suppose Mack Kane was working again)))
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 15 January 2018 19: 45
      +1
      When he will be awarded the order. And then he is trying, he is trying, and there is no reprimand for the reporter.
  12. seos
    seos 15 January 2018 20: 12
    +1
    Therefore, a destroyer with a damaged radar is only the beginning of the battle.

    .... Oleg even understands that he writes ....
    1. Phoenix_L'vov
      Phoenix_L'vov 20 January 2018 10: 49
      0
      He understands - only he is.
  13. Yuriy Malyshko
    Yuriy Malyshko 15 January 2018 23: 03
    +1
    What the article was about, did not understand.
    1. Varna
      Varna 16 January 2018 02: 05
      0
      Yuri Malyshko] What the article was about, did not understand.
      About Oleg Kaptsov, of course)))
      Although, well done, he writes interestingly, enthusiastically, plus him.
  14. dumkopff
    dumkopff 16 January 2018 08: 47
    0
    You can agree or disagree with Oleg. But what not to take away - he knows how, drawing, to write lively and fascinatingly. For which I will say thanks.
  15. gladcu2
    gladcu2 16 January 2018 23: 10
    +1
    Kaptsov will ever get out of Aivazovsky.

    Substantively. In Russian. He even translated the name of the ship from English. And no collision with the USSR.
  16. sd68
    sd68 17 January 2018 01: 59
    +1
    It is clear that Legi is not Burke, and the problem of anti-shatter booking is described absolutely correctly, but the author is somewhat free to do with the information.
    On the Terrier, which was the world's first naval air defense system, semi-active guidance missiles began to be used very quickly, which dramatically improved their capabilities at all distances; the Terrier had active planes shot down in combat.
    About PKR P-35- this is not serious, its real effectiveness was low, and the traps being shot were firmly and long established on the ships.
    In fact, the author wrote about the high combat effectiveness of anti-radar missiles when using them on naval air defense systems with constant illumination and target tracking, like in boobs.
    And you won’t be able to fix this with any armor;
  17. assa67
    assa67 17 January 2018 18: 22
    +3
    the days of super-battleships have passed .... and the aircraft carriers will soon become obsolete ... speed, stealth, effective destruction are the tasks successfully implemented by our country
  18. Mikhail Anokhin
    Mikhail Anokhin 19 January 2018 16: 07
    0
    In the era of thermonuclear weapons, all these types of ships are old obsolete trash. And a lot of what was a formidable weapon in the past.
    Now it’s enough to bring one charge to the territory stuffed with nuclear power plants, platinum on rivers and the state kayuk!
  19. Sonet
    Sonet 19 January 2018 19: 07
    0
    My concept of an armored cruiser.
    1. Ilya_Nsk
      Ilya_Nsk 22 January 2018 07: 12
      0
      Your concept already runs under the name Zumwalt. Fucking but walking.
  20. 3danimal
    3danimal 19 January 2018 22: 13
    0
    Quote: Mikhail Anokhin
    Now it’s enough to bring one charge to the territory stuffed with nuclear power plants, platinum on rivers and the state kayuk!

    You are mistaken, this can only work against Singapore))
    And a similar blow to the state-holder of nuclear weapons makes a reciprocal-inevitable ...
  21. 3danimal
    3danimal 19 January 2018 22: 15
    0
    Quote: Sonet
    My concept of an armored cruiser.

    And again - too many cells for missiles. Where to place the power plant, people, helicopter hangar, other systems? You can safely reduce times by 3)
  22. Phoenix_L'vov
    Phoenix_L'vov 20 January 2018 10: 48
    +1
    I sensed Kaptsov from the first lines!

    Oleg - after your enchanting fiasco with discussions about the "uselessness of the air defense forces", are you not ashamed to continue to publish on this site? I don’t read your writings anymore, it’s obvious that you are incompetent in almost all matters.
    Take good advice - look for a stronger wall, one that would withstand the blow of your forehead ...
  23. Ilya_Nsk
    Ilya_Nsk 22 January 2018 07: 19
    0
    After the “Sheffield”, we re-opened Iowa, there is an armored hull and a hooded deck. Harpoons bounced off him like nuts from a brick wall, again, the cost of striking at a small (up to 30 km.) Distance, taking into account the huge number of shells ground during WWII, is also low. It would seem - here is an invincible efficient ship for you, but no, and these dreadnought museums. Maybe everything has grown old on them, the fatigue of the metal can’t be discounted.
  24. Edvid
    Edvid 27 December 2018 09: 47
    0
    Quote: ruslan
    I am personally in favor. here stands in novorossiysk “mikhail kutuzov”, why not a cruiser with armor? put the gauges, yes s-400 and try to "bend" it later.
    plus "duets", plu

    ///////////////////////////////////////////////
    Tests of the USA on Bikini in practice showed that the artillery cruiser of the pre-war building, even with an underwater (most dangerous) explosion of a nuclear warhead with a capacity of thirty kilotons, being lagged from the epicenter at a distance of 800 meters, remains afloat ...