Fighting nuclear cruiser with battleship
Sea slaughter with the participation of the strongest. Steel and fire. Molten metal splashes in the swirling maelstrom of sinking debris. The names of the ships go to immortality, and the place of death remains in the format xx ° xx 'xx' 'of the specified latitude-longitude. This is a tragedy! This is the scale!
The recent discussion of the “Kirov” fight with the American “Iowa” could not pass unnoticed. Moreover, in the comments sounded the name of the author. And that means - time to answer to the honorable public ...
In my purely personal opinion, the American columnist of the “National Interest”, like his Russian opponent with “VO”, made a lot of misconceptions without paying attention to the most interesting Details. As a result, the simulation of the “Kirov” battle against “Iowa” presented in both articles turned into a terrible pseudoscientific fiction.
In the past, I managed to write a cycle of articles on the comparison of the battleship and TARKR, but none of the episodes affected the battle of these giants in the form of a knightly duel. It all came down to the analysis of design solutions and the search for the “missing” load. Why, with the same dimensions (250..270 m length), the displacement of the “Kirov” and “Iowa” radically differed in two and a half times. It is worth noting that the body of the battleship was “bottle-shaped” with a sharp narrowing in the extremities, and the width of the TARKR was unchanged (28 m) for the greater length of its body.
The answer turned out to be simple, just like the question - from the point of view of the designers of past epochs, the hull of a heavy missile cruiser corresponds in size to the largest battleships of the later period. At the same time, a large part of the “Kirov” building is OVER water, due to the “lightness” of the modern weapons, the low power of the nuclear power plant and the lack of full protection (for comparison, the “Iowa” carried 20 thousands of tons of armor, which, by the way, 300 railway wagons with metal). As a result, at the height of the freeboard 5 m, it “settled” into the water for whole 11 meters.
Like an iceberg, most of the battleship was hidden under water.
The freeboard of the atomic “Kirov”, on the contrary, considerably exceeds its underwater part in height (11 ... 16 against all 8 meters of draft).
I think this issue will no longer be. Designed in different eras of ships, differed, like heaven and earth. Another question - What advantages would a ship created according to the norms of the first half of the twentieth century have received in the course of modernization modern rocket weapons?
The knightly duel of “Kirov” (20 “granites”) and “Iowa” (32 “tomahawk” + 16 “harpoons”) from a distance of a couple of hundred miles would have ended with the destruction of both. As of the end of 80-x, none of the opponents had the opportunity to reliably repel a massive attack of low-flying CDs.
Here it is worth refraining from loud epithets “ripped in half”, especially with regard to the strongest “Iowa” (sheathing thickness is up to 37 mm). I'm not talking about the strength of the power set, which was designed for the installation of 20 thousand tons of armor plates. No surface explosions are capable of sinking such a ship. AT stories There have been cases of the detonation of dozens of oxygen torpedoes with an 600 kg warhead (“Mikuma”) or six tons of rocket powder and explosives (BOD “Brave”), after which the ships remained afloat for long hours. At the same time, neither the Japanese cruiser, nor the Soviet patrol (BNK 2 rank) were close in size with the TARKR or the battleship.
But in general, the line of reasoning was correct: after 10 + hits of cruise missiles (Granite and Tomahawk-109B), both opponents will lose value as combat units.
But this is not a reason for any conclusions and the statement of the equal sign between the highly protected battleship and the designs of the nuclear-missile era.
If the ship allows dozens of anti-ship missiles to shoot themselves with impunity, then no armor will help him.
But what if ...
What if anti-aircraft cruisers can knock down 16 harpoons and 31 “tomahawk”, and the battleship intercepts 19 from 20 “Granites” launched on it? There will be only one rocket that will reach the goal.
The composition of the air defense system "Kirov" is known. The “American” is much sadder, the four “Falanxes” argument is weak. But do not forget about the EW. During the Arab-Israeli war 1973, none of the Egyptian anti-ship missiles 54 reached the target. Means of electronic warfare - one of the most effective areas in the creation of protection against high-precision weapons.
And so, there was only one rocket left. For “Kirov” even the only hit of “Tomahawk” is mortally dangerous, while for the battleship the single “Granite” is an unpleasant, but quite tolerable damage. Ships of this class were originally calculated to keep strikes.
The fairy tale about the “seven-ton colossus” flying at 2,5 speeds of sound has gotten orders. In the dense layers of the atmosphere, when approaching the target, the speed of any “Granite” for obvious reasons becomes much less than 2M.
Of the 7 tons of launch mass, after separating the 2-ton launch accelerator and producing fuel, there are hardly any 4 tons left - the aircraft and its 700 kg warhead. We can see from the chronicles of numerous air crashes what happens to an aircraft in a collision even with a relatively “soft” barrier in the form of land. aviation the constructions collapse like a house of cards, even their most durable elements - refractory turbine blades fly apart and lie on the surface.
Now it is not necessary to start about the "more dense layout of a cruise missile." Everything related to aviation, built with a minimum margin of safety, otherwise it will not take off.
For the most doubters - fragments of the intercepted over Syria KR “Tomahawk”. Nobody drilled mines, trying to find in the bowels of the earth the wreckage of American missiles. They were all lying on the surface, torn to shreds by hitting the ground.
You say it was a blow on a tangent. Have you ever thought - what are the chances that in a naval battle a cruise missile will hit the board along the normal ???
This is me to the fact that in matters of overcoming obstacles (in this case - armor), the mass of the aircraft is in last place. A plastic fairing, antennas, short wings, engine fuel fittings, an aluminum body, and electronics modules will all be flattened out in a split second.
Only the combat unit will try to pierce the armor. Egg-shaped thin-walled object with a filling ratio ≈70%, flying at one and a half speeds of sound. The pitifully similar 356 mm armor-piercing projectile sample 1911 g. Only in that the filling ratio was 2,5%, the remaining 97,5% accounted for an array of hardened metal.
747 kg projectile contained only 20 kg of explosives - 25 times less than the combat unit "Granita"!
You do not think that the designers of the Obukhovsky plant were stupid and did not understand the obvious things (more explosive content is stronger than damage)? The creators of the ammunition knew that the BB projectile should not have any significant cavities, slots and other elements that weaken its structure. Otherwise, he will not complete his task.
For these reasons, “Granit” (like any of the existing RPCs) cannot be considered as an analogue of the BB projectile. Its closest counterpart is a high-caliber high-explosive aerial bomb.
In practice, in the absolute majority of cases, the mines could not cause serious damage to the ship of the class “battleship”.
If you try to simulate getting “Granite” in “Iowa”, taking into account all known (and little-known) details, you get the following:
With a high degree of probability, the rocket will break the side plating (37 mm of “soft” structural steel) and explode without even reaching the armor belt. I think that most of those present know that the “Iowa” had an inner belt, which was behind the outer skin of the board. The main reasons are the simplification of the design (roughly hewn plates did not need to repeat the smooth hull lines) and the desire to increase the resistance against BB shells, due to the greater angle of inclination of the plates.
In modern conditions, this solution is ineffective. The explosion of the RCC warhead will “turn” the outer skin on an area of several tens of square meters. m; the frames will be deformed and several armor plates will be torn off. A part of the equipment will be damaged by shaking for a short time. That's all.
When hitting the deck or superstructure, the antennas and open arms can be demolished without endangering the survival of the ship itself.
Outside the 140-meter citadel, there are no vital mechanisms (this is the essence of the citadel). A single bomb hit is not capable of causing any serious flooding.
Studying the design of the “Iowa” and combat damage of ships of the same class, I do not find a single reason for which the battleship could die from getting one or two anti-ship missiles like the P-700 “Granit”.
And this is its main difference from modern “tin”, for which even fragments of downed rockets pose a danger.
The plot of the confrontation of “Kirov” and “Iowa” is much broader than the boring exchange of “Granites” and “Tomahawks”.
If this happens at the line of sight (≈30 km), from a combat tracking position, the GK artillery will be used and, in response, C-300 anti-aircraft missiles aimed at the naval target. The only problem is in the very senselessness of the situation, from which it is unlikely that it will be possible to extract any benefit for further conversation.
In modern conditions, naval artillery is of interest only as a supplement to missile weapons, when firing ground targets. As regards the firing modes of the air defense missile system, anti-aircraft missiles on the Kirov are not effective against large surface targets, due to the lack of a contact fuse. The explosions of the combat units will occur at a distance, filling the deck of the battleship with a hail of small fragments.
You can try to destroy the battleship spetsBCH or simulate the battle, with the participation of his numerous escort, because the reacted “Iowa” always acted as part of the “battleship battlgrupp”, which, in addition to the flagship (LK), included the nuclear cruiser and escort ships of various classes.
In general, such alternatives do not cause the slightest interest. We just tried to extract the maximum useful conclusions from this dispute. The main ones are underestimation of constructive protection and overestimation of the capabilities of modern missiles.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.