Military Review

The return of big guns. Isn't the bet on anti-ship missiles wrong?

167
The appearance of anti-ship missiles in the second half of the last century led to a naval revolution. True, in the West it was realized only after the Egyptians sank the Israeli destroyer Eilat in October of 1967. A pair of Arabian missile boats armed with anti-ship PKR P-15 "effortlessly sent an Israeli ship to the bottom.


The return of big guns. Isn't the bet on anti-ship missiles wrong?


Then there was the Indo-Pakistani war 1971 of the year, where Indians with the same missiles, not really straining, caused great damage to Pakistan, using Termites against both surface and ground-based heat and radio contrast objects.

In NATO, where naval superiority over the USSR, on the one hand, was considered very important, and on the other, almost guaranteed, sounded the alarm. Already in the early seventies, several anti-ship missiles began to be developed, which later became de facto symbols of the Western fleets. So, in 1971-m started the development of such missiles as the American RCC "Harpoon", and the French "Exochet". Both were later used in hostilities, but they were not the only examples.

NATO’s surprise was all the more intense because during the Second World War, the Allies had already suffered losses from high-precision anti-ship weapons, and even developed effective protective measures - targeting interferences that interfere with the work of the radio command of German guided bombs.

In the Soviet Union, the development programs of RCC developed simply to unprecedented heights. Given the enemy’s presence of a powerful aircraft carrier fleet and the lack of such in its navy, the USSR found a way out in long-range and high-speed missiles with a powerful warhead, in some cases a nuclear one.

The speeds of the rockets grew, first overcoming one “sound”, then two. Improved homing systems, software algorithms, increased the size and distance of the flight ...

In principle, the apogee of those works can be observed today on board the cruisers of the 1164 project, where huge PUs for the PKR occupy a significant part of the ship.

However, in the combat use of anti-ship missiles there has been a certain turn.

In the 1973 year, during the next Arab-Israeli war, both the Syrians and the Egyptians, trying to use the P-15 anti-ship missiles against Israeli boats, suffered severe losses and suffered casualties without causing any harm to the Israelis. The latter, in addition to the vicious tactics of the Arabs, succeeded, using EW complexes, to “take away” all the missiles aimed at them.

But then we see one curious detail - the Israelis widely used not only anti-ship missiles, but also 76-mm guns. Moreover, the Arabs had no answer to that - their missile boats did not have comparable weapons, and could not fight after the exhaustion of the missiles.

It was a new trend. Rockets, as it turned out, you can simply lead to the side. And the guns, as it also turned out, are quite significant weapons even in the nuclear-missile era.

Let us venture to suggest that those two battles won by the Israelis "dry" became a kind of turning point.

It was after them that the whole world rushed to improve the system of jamming. And it was after them in the USSR that they again began to “invest” in the development of naval artillery, caliber over 76 mm, which had been stopped under Khrushchev’s directives.

Further events of the world military stories were very revealing.

In 1980, during Operation Pearl, the Iranians melted the entire nearly Iraqi fleet using the Harpoon anti-ship missiles and aviation UR "Mayverik". The parties did not apply interference and had losses in the ship's composition (however, interference against Iranian aviation, apparently, would not have worked).

In the 1982 year, during the Falklands conflict, the Argentine Exoset missiles could not hit ships that were covered with interference, but hit those that were not protected. Both during the destruction of Sheffield and during the defeat of the Atlantic Conveyor, it was confirmed that EW and jamming complexes are reliable protection against anti-ship missiles, but non-interference means the death of the ship.

In 1986, during a battle in the Gulf of Sidra, the Americans destroyed a Libyan boat and a small Soviet-built rocket ship using the Harpoon missiles launched from the Yorktown cruiser and the A-6 deck attack aircraft. Libyans did not apply interference. Another specific phenomenon in this battle was the use of anti-ship missiles at distances substantially smaller than the maximum.

In 1987, the Iranians seriously damaged the American frigate Stark by two anti-ship missiles Exocet launched from a Mirage aircraft. The frigate did not use interference complexes.

In the 1988 year, during the American operation Mantis against Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf, both Iranians and Americans used anti-ship missiles against each other’s surface ships. The fact of using missiles at a distance less than the maximum was repeated All Iranian attacks against American destroyers were neutralized using jamming systems. The Iranians did not have those on their ships, and suffered losses from American missiles. Massive use against SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles has become new. These missiles proved to be more effective than anti-ship missiles at short distances typical of the Persian Gulf. It was again confirmed that it was almost impossible to hit a ship covered with interference with PKR. It is an amusing way to repeat the Anglo-Americans fight with German guided bombs during the Second World War.

Later, the Americans generally abandon the installation of the RCC "Harpoon" on the newly built ships, "laying" the task of defeating surface targets on anti-aircraft missiles.

In the 2008 year, during the conflict in South Ossetia, the IRC Mirage of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia allegedly destroyed one Georgian boat using anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. Georgians did not have EW complexes.

Let us outline clearly emerging trends. Here they are:

- Anti-ship missiles are almost always effectively neutralized by jamming systems; But in the absence of such, missile attacks are deadly.

- Anti-ship missiles are used at much shorter ranges than the theoretical maximum ones. The typical distance is measured in tens of kilometers.

- Anti-aircraft missiles are often more effective means of dealing with ships than anti-ship missiles.

Moreover, the analysis of both the fighting in the Persian Gulf and the exercises there led the Americans to a paradoxical conclusion at first glance, namely: “Before an attack performed in the intensive shipping zone, the target must be identified visually.”

If the conclusion about interference is self-evident, then the following should be disassembled in more detail.

The specific nature of the anti-ship missile is that the target can be captured by its homing head (GOS) in different ways. Aviation missiles in theory can capture a target either on a carrier or on a course. But capturing a target on a carrier requires flying at a high altitude, or launching from a short distance. Flying at high altitude is fraught with an unpleasant encounter with an anti-aircraft missile, respectively, when an air-based anti-aircraft missile is struck, it is necessary to attack the target from not only from a low altitude, but also from a short distance. Hence the need to carry out the so-called "Breakthrough to the goal."

When using anti-ship missiles with a homing system, which is exciting the target on the course, that is, after the launch, there is another problem - when shooting at long distances, the target can go beyond the scope of the missile’s seeker’s sector. This again requires a reduction in the launch distance.

Naturally, the options for capturing the target on the carrier can be considered practically only in relation to aircraft missiles, it is not rational to have such weapons on ships, and for a shipboard anti-ship missile target seizure on the course is practically the only option.

From all of the above, you can make a simple conclusion - when shooting at long distances, the rocket needs continuous target designation. Or - to reduce the distance. Providing continuous target designation is difficult, even when the enemy does not apply any countermeasures, and it is often impossible.

And, of course, the problem is the inability of the missile to identify the target. “Hooking” its GOS to the first radio-contrast target, the rocket will go only to her, she will not be able to distinguish a cruise liner or a tanker under a neutral flag from an enemy warship. And this is already fraught with political complications, even involving the "neutrals" in the war on the side of the enemy, which is apparently unacceptable.

A kind of exception to this is the huge Soviet supersonic P-500 "Basalt", P-700 "Granit" and P-1000 "Vulkan" missiles, which have radar stations, their own jamming stations, and sophisticated target attack algorithms, including, presumably, recognition algorithms. But - trouble - they are huge and monstrously expensive, in addition, a modern combat ship working from such a rocket will detect from a great distance, and the rocket itself has a considerable EPR. Moreover, when flying at low altitudes, due to the Prandtl-Gloert effect, a huge high-speed rocket collects a real water reflector from the air, which increases its EPR and visibility in the radar range by several times, compared to small subsonic missiles (however, they have this effect is also present, just expressed significantly less).

Such missiles are in some sense a dead end - a modern warship can still detect and shoot them down, and it is a pity to spend them on a little less modern just because of the huge price. Yes, and tactical applicability of the size limit. So, in order to “break through” air defense warrants from ships equipped with the AEGIS system, a volley of dozens of such missiles will be required. And this means that, for example, the Pacific Fleet will have to “discharge” almost all of its ammunition in the direction of the enemy, which will put further participation of ships and strike submarines in combat operations “in question”. The fact that such missiles do not have a future is understood by the Navy, and it is not for nothing that the modernization of the nuclear submarine of the 949 project and the Admiral Nakhimov TAVKR implies their replacement with another weapon.

Another exception is the latest American anti-ship missile LRASM. Unlike the Soviet monsters, this rocket is much less noticeable in the radar range, and its “intelligence” is disproportionately higher. So, during the tests, the missiles coped with autonomous laying of the course to the attacked targets without the reference points laid down in the on-board computer beforehand, that is, the rocket independently planned a combat operation during the flight and carried it out. The rocket "incorporated" the ability to independently search for a target in the intended area of ​​its location, high maneuverability, the ability to recognize designated targets, the ability for long-term low-altitude flight, the ability to evade sources of radar radiation, the ability to receive data in flight and a huge range, up to 930 kilometers.

All this makes it an extremely dangerous weapon. At present, there are practically no ships in the Russian Navy capable of repelling such a missile attack, perhaps this is due to the new frigates of the 22350 project, provided that the Poliment-Redut air defense system has reached the required level of combat readiness and the required level of training. But even in this case, the frigates are not enough, because their series with a high degree of probability, will be limited to four ships. The Americans are already re-equipping the 28-e wing of the strategic aviation command of the Air Force on these missiles, in any case, the crews of the B-1B Lancer aircraft, which will use this weapon, have been training on simulators since this summer. Americans, thus, create at their place an analogue of the Soviet Sea-based missile-carrying aircraft, only in the Air Force system.

However, like any super weapon LRASM has a flaw - the price.

The first 23 pre-production rockets cost the Pentagon 86,5 million dollars, 3,76 million dollars for a rocket. The second lot - 50 serial missiles, will cost 172 million dollars, or about 3,44 million per rocket. At the same time, back in 2016, it was expected that the price of one rocket would be about 3 million dollars.

It is not difficult to guess that such missiles cannot be fired at any detected target. Yes, and "Harpoons" now went up - 1,2 million dollars for "Block II".

Well, and again, it is worth understanding that a reception will be found on this scrap, as part of the eternal competition of the sword and shield.

Thus, while PR leaders of defense companies lead the public in admiration of the parameters of new missiles, in practice the combination of EW efficiency, passive jamming, air defense of ships, and economic realities (RCC are expensive) leads to the fact that the use of these weapons in some cases simply turns out to be doubtful.

This is especially clear if you ignore the huge cruisers and destroyers, and look at light frigates and corvettes, which are the main types of warships in the world - few ships in the arsenal of more than eight anti-ship missiles. Even if we discard all those problems that in reality accompany their use, and assume that each rocket hits the target, then what to do after they are used up? During the exercises of the Baltic Fleet, the 20380 project corvettes moored overboard to the floating crane, and they were replaced with transport and launch containers right at sea. But a little further from the coast, this is no longer done, and indeed, it’s not a fact that it will work out in a combat situation. And of course, restrictions on the range of use of missiles, target designation, and non-selectivity of action for small ships with light missiles (the same UPR) operate in a much more “acute” form - they are simply insurmountable.

All of the above leads us to a simple conclusion - since rockets generally do not fly more than a few tens of kilometers (apart from the maximum flight range achieved in tests), since they are knocked down and diverted by means of EW and interference, since they create a tremendous risk of neutralization goals, sometimes with huge human sacrifices, then ... it is worth doing without them! Just as the relatively new destroyers of the US Navy, have no RCCs at all.

This conclusion is rather difficult to accept, but it may be so.

In fact, this does not mean that you need to take and abandon missiles. Still, they allow you to “start a fight” at a very decent distance, with a massive launch on one target, the EW system will most likely not be able to divert the volley, the passive jamming complexes have limited ammunition, and, in general, it is quite possible to sink even modern warships, if tactics and volley density at the right level. But it is not a panacea, and not a super-weapon. And it will often fail. Sometimes it will simply be impossible to apply. To this must be prepared.

What, then, should be the main means of fire with which some ships can fight with others?

The US Navy is now anti-aircraft missiles, and in other fleets do not think about it, relying on RCC.

We venture to suggest that in the future it will be guns. Like before.

At present, naval specialists in most countries are confident that the range of calibers 57-130 mm completely covers the needs of fleets in ship artillery. Almost everywhere, ideas about the revival of large (at least 152 mm) calibers, meet with sharp rejection.

Nevertheless, think a little.

During the battles for Quito-Kanavale in 1988, Soviet military advisers paid attention to new South African shells - when they fell on the target, they glowed in the dark and were visually observable. At the same time, the distance from which South African troops fired on Angolans and their Soviet instructors exceeded 50 kilometers, and the accuracy of hits in principle did not differ from conventional artillery systems.

A little later, it became known that the South Africans used active-rocket projectiles against Angola, which were fired from conventional howitzers with 155-mm caliber. Creation of the tragic artillery genius Gerald Bulle, these shells have shown that an ordinary, not modernized gun can easily reach a firing range comparable to rocket weapons, if you use special ammunition.

Another interesting historical example is the reactivation of American battleships in the 80s. Their guns had a chance to shoot in a combat situation only at ground targets, from which many military history enthusiasts concluded that they were returned to the system in order to shoot at the shore.

In practice, the battleships were intensively trained in firing from cannons specifically for naval targets, and in the event of war with the USSR, it was intended to form naval strike groups around them that would act against the Soviet Navy in areas with a low level of air threat, for example, in the Indian Ocean. Moreover, there were projects to create 406-mm active-rocket projectiles with direct-flow-air engines, which, in the fall on the target would reach hypersonic speed. The authors of the projects were confident that the range of 406-mm guns with such ammunition will reach approximately 400 kilometers. The Navy, however, did not invest in obsolete ships.



It is worth noting that the old Soviet light cruisers of the 68-bis project, when carrying out tasks of directly tracking US and NATO ship groups, were perceived by the latter for a very long time as an extremely serious threat. A cruiser, for all its obsolescence, would do nothing to open heavy fire on an aircraft carrier, making flights from its deck impossible, and then, before drowning, to inflict huge losses on light escort destroyers. The guns when performing such a task were simply incomparably more effective than any type of missile, especially if you remember about several towers capable of firing at several targets simultaneously. The same British, whose ships were much more "flimsy" than the Americans, considered the cruisers 68-bis as a very serious threat, in fact, they were such a threat. It is also worth noting that the caliber 152-mm already allowed in theory the use of nuclear ammunition, have any in stock, and the ship be equipped with the appropriate way. This makes a completely different look at the potential of the Soviet light cruisers. However, now it is no longer relevant.

The first attempt to return the big guns to the ship in the modern era is the construction program for the Zumvalt class destroyers. From the very beginning of one of the tasks, these huge ships had fire support of an amphibious landing, for which they received two ultramodern 155-mm guns.



The American military industrial complex nevertheless played a cruel joke with the Navy, driving the cost of projectiles for the new system into a seven-digit figure, which deprived the idea of ​​meaning. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the Zumvalt gun quite successfully fired at 109 kilometers, which exceeds the range of use of the Harpoon achieved in real battles by a factor of three. The gun fired, however, at the ground target, but if it were a homing anti-ship projectile, it would not hurt anything to shoot at the surface. Projectiles, thus, reached a completely "missile" range.

Make a bold assumption.

Even if an artillery shell costs a million dollars, like a projectile for a Zumwalt AGS, it is still more profitable than anti-ship missiles, and here's why.

RCC is detected using radar in advance, and makes it possible to resort to means of electronic warfare and passive interference. The projectile flies much faster, and leaves little time for reaction. Most modern ships are not able to detect artillery shells, and certainly can not bring it down. And the most important thing is that the crew understands that they are shooting at their ship only after the first explosion - and the same passive interference can simply not be in time, because you need to know that a rocket or projectile is coming at you! And with a projectile is impossible. Now at least. Well, the speed of the projectile is such that the ship from the ejected cloud of passive interference simply does not have time to leave, the projectile will be no matter what to look for, it will still get into the ship too.

RCC on the ship can not be much. The exception is super-expensive LRASM on cruisers and destroyers with UVP, but there and the order of prices per shot is a completely different one. Shells on the ship can be hundreds, at least dozens.

Placing the CRP in large quantities makes the ship large. Artillery ship much more compact.

The rocket ship needs complex and very expensive upgrades. The artillery ship needs to load new shells into the cellar and no more.

And if you make a shell three times cheaper? At five?

In fact, if you think carefully, it turns out that guided and self-guided projectiles are a far more promising thing than the continuous and extremely expensive development of large, heavy and expensive guided missiles. Rockets, as already mentioned, will not cancel, but here they will squeeze their niche.

And it seems that in the West this is realized.

Relatively recently, a consortium of BAE Systems and Leonardo introduced to the market a family of ammunition for 76-127 mm caliber naval guns, and 155-mm ground howitzers. This is a family of ammunition. Volcano.

Consider, for example, only one of the ammunition in the family - the sea 127-mm projectile. Like everyone else, it is subcaliber, with improved aerodynamics. Due to aerodynamics, its flight range is 90 kilometers. The trajectory correction is made according to satellite and inertial navigation systems. And in the final segment, the projectile searches for a target using an infrared homing system.



This is still an imperfect solution, it is not universal and has a number of conceptual flaws. However, such a projectile in any case significantly increases the combat potential of any ship to which it is loaded. And most importantly, this is a truly massive decision; for the use of these ammunition, ships practically do not need any refinement. This is the beginning of the artillery renaissance.

Technologies that allow “for cheap” to pack in a projectile homing system, and in a larger projectile - a jet engine, no doubt, will change the nature of the battles at sea. After all, the caliber of 127 millimeters allows you to make a decent active-rocket projectile in the future, which means the gun will become a launcher, and the projectiles will merge with missiles in their development, only shells on board can be taken more than missiles and their replenishment at sea is no problem.

When creating new ships, it is possible to “rebalance” the ship’s weapon systems — instead of a multitude of anti-ship missile launchers, which take up a lot of space and require an increase in displacement, you can simply load more guided or self-guided projectiles into the ship, increasing the artillery cellars, and quantity, or use for something else, such as anti-aircraft missiles or anti-submarine weapons. In the alternative - to reduce the size of the ships, making them cheaper and more massive, more subtle.

Such innovations could be very appropriate for a country that will soon have to recreate its fleet again. For a country that has excellent guns with a caliber of 130 millimeters, and generally a great artillery gun making school. And if in the caliber 130 mm you can create a long-range self-guided projectile, then, when approaching the caliber 200 millimeters, you can create an already active-reactive with a powerful warhead. And to achieve decisive advantages in any kind of battle, except the battle with aviation. Moreover, it is not very expensive compared to the creation of purely rocket monster ships.

Probably, it is not necessary to say that Russia will sleep through all these opportunities again.

But it will be very interesting to watch the beginning artillery renaissance at least from the outside. Naturally, while all these innovations do not hit us.
Author:
Photos used:
US Navy, Leonardo
167 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. just exp
    just exp 13 December 2018 06: 28
    +42
    that is, RCC is crap because it is removed by interference, and artillery is buzzing, there is low accuracy at long distances, or guided missiles, but there are also GOS, and therefore we will not talk about interference, otherwise the whole point of the article will disappear.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 13 December 2018 07: 47
      +8
      The author's joke did not understand the same. Is it not necessary to direct shells in the final section? And if the homing shells on the same principle as rockets, then what is the point?
      EW (successfully or not) can confuse GOS RCC, by the way, some of the examples are not confirmed by the absence of EW on targets, in some cases, IMHO, there was an attempt to hide the unsuccessful counteraction, and not the absence thereof. But, squeeze the radio-photonic technologies into the dimensions of the anti-ship missiles, add AI recognition, and then the electronic warfare will have to be tight, and if there is maneuvering environmental sound and an intellectual pack of such anti-ship missiles, then ...
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 December 2018 08: 17
        +1
        [/ Quote] The same did not understand the author's joke. Guidance is not necessary in the final section? And if the shells are self-guided on the same principle as the rocket, then the point? [/ Quote]

        Interference is triggered in response to a threat. If you have three or four seconds for the whole cycle: "detection - reaction - influencing the threat - moving the threat aside", then you are unlikely to have time.

        For example, a cloud of passive interference can be substituted for the RCC - to shoot them and take the ship. With a projectile this will not work - it is too small, it is discovered late, it falls on the target too quickly, even if its GOS goes to the cloud, then the ship from under it simply does not have time to leave.

        The text about this is written, by the way, read carefully.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 13 December 2018 09: 19
          +17
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          By the way, read carefully in the text about this.

          What is your name Alexander? Not Oleg? Very much your articles remind Kaptsov !!!!!
          1. jjj
            jjj 13 December 2018 10: 16
            +6
            I also read and thought: when about the booking of decks will begin ...
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 14: 00
              0
              You confuse me with someone.
          2. timokhin-aa
            13 December 2018 14: 00
            +2
            There are objective trends. In the 60-x limit caliber, which in the USSR was put on new ships was 76 mm. Now - 130 mm.
            This is almost a doubling.
            Americans on Zumvalt for the first time in decades have stepped over 5 inches.
            The five-inch guided missiles are already flying 90 km.

            This is not someone's ideas, this is already a reality. She can be seen by your Kaptsov, and by me, and you - by anyone.
            She is objective.
            1. Horse, people and soul
              Horse, people and soul 13 December 2018 20: 52
              +7
              There are objective trends ...


              The trend to put on small ships is not powerful weapons, but long-range missiles. The trend for battleships and artillery cruisers is definitely not. A large-caliber artillery installation with a tower and a cellar weighs so much that it is simply not possible to put on small ships. To build large ships specifically for the main caliber - today this idea is completely crazy. It is better to build many small ships with long-range missile weapons than one two mega-battleships with guns, missiles, etc.

              Remember all the eggs in one basket?

              hi
              1. snerg7520
                snerg7520 16 December 2018 06: 03
                0
                Quote: Horse, lyudovѣd and soulѣlyub
                A large-caliber artillery installation with a tower and a cellar weighs so much that it is simply not possible to put small ships

                Do not la-la!
                On the world market, there are enough towed ACs of various calibers installed on any chassis, and in our case, directly on the deck of a small ship - and yours cannot be turned into elementary.
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 December 2018 10: 32
          +6
          You did not think of such a thing as restrictions on dimensions and ultimate loads. For missiles, they are not as significant as for UAS
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 December 2018 14: 17
            -1
            Yes, but with UAS, all these problems have already been solved. No matter what the requirements are tougher.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 December 2018 16: 10
              +6
              With UAS, the problem is not solved absolutely, rather the opposite
              1. timokhin-aa
                13 December 2018 18: 11
                -1
                What's wrong? Shells are, fly, hit the target, are inexpensive - for many years already.
                What is not solved there?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 13 December 2018 22: 33
                  +8
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  There are shells, they fly, they hit targets, they are inexpensive - many years already.

                  You have a lie written here. The cost of a guided missile approaches the cost of a rocket. The guided projectile has the same electronic warfare as the missile.
                2. dauria
                  dauria 14 December 2018 02: 22
                  +4

                  What's wrong? Shells are, fly, hit the target, are inexpensive - for many years already.
                  What is not solved there?


                  For a start, the range has not been decided. You and your artillery will be in the position of a bull tied to a pillar for slaughter. Neither catch up with a light enemy, nor run away, nor get a shell. At the same time, they will shoot you with rockets. And believe them, there will be a combined GOS of all ranges up to ultraviolet
                  active and passive with intellect capable of reading the inscription, translating it into Hebrew and highlighting the prostitute in the crowd at the train station. You have a clue about EW and GOS from the late seventies.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 13 December 2018 14: 49
          +7
          Ship radars will detect the projectile. If this is a blank (arrow) without a seeker, then it cannot be shot down, but it will not hit the ship. If the GOS is present and turns on, then the laser will have time to dazzle it perfectly. Not for nothing that Americans begin to put lasers on ships.
          On ships, it is reasonable to leave one 130-155 mm gun in case of shooting enemy ships that were left without a stock of anti-ship missiles. But creating ultra-long-range shells is unprofitable.
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 December 2018 18: 15
            +1
            Even if the laser has blinded the projectile, then it continues to fall on the target as unmanaged, and given the fact that earlier he had a course correction, there is no reason to believe that he will be worse than a blank. I note, the shells are shot not one by one. The same AK-192 spits out a shot every two seconds. It is necessary to laze on such a volley.
            In addition, the ships leading the artillery battle can easily concentrate the fire on one target, carry it, etc., the benefit is not the 1905 year.
            Too many goals for the laser, considering, for example, that the beam does not hit the optical element of the projectile until a certain moment.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 13 December 2018 18: 25
              +6
              "ships conducting an artillery battle may well concentrate fire on one target, transfer it ..." ////
              -----
              What distance are you talking about? Hopefully not about line of sight with telescopes? Ships of the American AUG, for example, in a combat situation, continuously maneuver, without reducing speed to 30 knots. How do you intend to direct artillery by firing every few seconds?
              Even the RCC will have to rely only on its "eyes" (IR video). Any illumination of targets other than aviation is impossible. But you don't consider aviation at all. Therefore, I see artillery as a means of cheap finishing off enemy ships when they are left without rocket ammunition or are damaged.
            2. vadimtt
              vadimtt 15 December 2018 12: 02
              +1
              Do not forget about the possibility of adjusting projectile trajectories during firing so that they arrive at a given distance simultaneously. Moreover, even from two double-barreled towers in 10-20 seconds it is possible to collect such a volley with a given dispersion characteristic that no homing is needed, which will make the price of this volley disappearingly small against the background of the target cost. bully
          2. Horse, people and soul
            Horse, people and soul 13 December 2018 21: 01
            +2
            On ships, it is reasonable to leave one 130-155 mm gun


            Which ship?

            Large ships (even destroyers) are not being built in Russia. Small ships cannot bear the weight of a large-caliber artillery installation with a tower, a cellar, etc.

            It is more logical to build a relatively cheap and quickly built enlarged version of corvettes or frigates not for 8 "Calibers", but for 16 or even 32, than to spend precious volume on an artillery installation.

            hi
        5. Setrac
          Setrac 13 December 2018 22: 31
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Interference is triggered in response to a threat. If you have three or four seconds for the whole cycle: "detection - reaction - influencing the threat - moving the threat aside", then you are unlikely to have time.

          Where does such a time period come from - 3 seconds? 3 seconds is a point-blank shooting and no controls for artillery shells are needed.
        6. Sckepsis
          Sckepsis 21 December 2018 16: 31
          -1
          Dear author, do not soar e nonsense. Your "small" shells are baked at a height much earlier than hefty anti-ship missiles, but at 10m.
      2. just exp
        just exp 13 December 2018 08: 24
        +2
        and if the GOS is also duplicated, then EW generally has little chance
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 08: 46
          0
          Why? The radio-electronic interference removes the GOS to a false target cloud, and the false target cloud is not just metallic, it is also hotter. Multispectral interference was implemented a long time ago, many decades ago.
          1. Army soldier2
            Army soldier2 13 December 2018 10: 03
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Why? The radio-electronic interference removes the GOS to a false target cloud, and the false target cloud is not just metallic, it is also hotter. Multispectral interference was implemented a long time ago, many decades ago.

            Are you serious? Do you distinguish EW questions from questions of simulating false objects?
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 10: 47
              -1
              You mean that the LOC can be simulated simply by interference? I know, but it does not work against IR-guidance, if that. And when you do not know exactly what is going on you, you can’t do that.
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 December 2018 14: 52
            +4
            In modern seeker systems there is a scanning IR video camera. Even the "profiles" -pictures of ships are laid in order to strike a vulnerable spot. Aluminum foil from the Falklands War is of little help today.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 18: 15
              0
              It is more likely in rockets.
    2. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 16
      0
      Interference is triggered in response to a threat. If you have three or four seconds for the whole cycle: "attack - reaction - influencing the threat - moving the threat to the side", then you are unlikely to have time.

      For example, a cloud of passive interference can be substituted for the RCC - to shoot them and take the ship. With a projectile this will not work - it is too small, it is discovered late, it falls on the target too quickly, even if its GOS goes to the cloud, then the ship from under it simply does not have time to leave.

      The text about this is written, by the way, read carefully.
      1. just exp
        just exp 13 December 2018 08: 27
        +12
        1) our anti-ship missiles fly faster than a projectile (more than 2M)
        2) a projectile that flies farther than 10-20 km is a large-caliber projectile and they are perfectly visible to all radars. if you think that they are invisible, then read what a counter-radar radar is, which is several times less in capabilities than the radar on large ships, and moreover, they see medium calibers and see them also for tens of kilometers (usually 10-25 km)
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 08: 45
          -4
          1) Sound speed in air 336 m / s. The speed of a medium-caliber projectile at the exit of the barrel is usually three times higher, sometimes four.

          2) 127 mm projectile - large-caliber? On the 20 km, even the 76-mm Vulcano flies, just like on the 40. And such targets are cut too late.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 December 2018 12: 04
            +5
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            1) The speed of sound in air is 336 m / s. Medium caliber projectile speed at the exit of the trunk usually three times higher, sometimes four.

            The key is highlighted. Alas, we have an atmosphere on Earth, and as it flies through it, the projectile slows down.
            But RCC can give out 2M when approaching the target.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 14: 02
              -1
              He slows down if he is not actively reactive. Well, to a certain point the projectile flies up, and then downwards))).
              Plus spot them harder at times.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 13 December 2018 16: 03
                +4
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Slows down if it is not actively reactive.

                That is, either we exchange part of the explosives for fuel, or increase the length of the shot. And after a series of iterations we come to ... a rocket. smile
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, to a certain point, the projectile flies up, but then down))).

                It won't help. At the same 5 "/ 51, when fired with a 25 degree UVN, the projectile had an initial speed of 960 m / s, and the final one (at a distance of 17 km) - only 303 m / s.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  13 December 2018 18: 25
                  0
                  In any case, compare with PKR - it has an advantage only in the last kilometers, but before that it is more vulnerable, plus the shells are easier to provide a massive volley, at least active-reactive, even if just manageable. And they are cheaper.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 13 December 2018 22: 39
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    In any case, compare with RCC - it has an advantage only in the last kilometers

                    First, not "in the last kilometers", but "in the last tens of kilometers."
                    The second - the opposition begins exactly where the missiles have an advantage.
          2. just exp
            just exp 13 December 2018 12: 22
            +4
            1) usually 2-2.5M
            2) I already wrote that the middle calibers are also visible
            and such targets are detected at a distance of 20-25km.
            what is enough to intercept.
            3) during the war, what the hell ship will approach the KUG or AUG at 20km.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 14: 04
              0
              In the Persian Gulf, for example, closely. In the Red Sea too. Plus traffic from merchant ships is very dense. In some cases, and on 10 will come closer, but this is not the case.
              The fact is that it looks like shells will soon fly hundreds of kilometers.
              And fall on the target with quite rocket speeds.
      2. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 13 December 2018 08: 28
        +3
        Old demotivator instead of an answer. Dude with a sledgehammer - artillery, sniper - missile:
      3. Army soldier2
        Army soldier2 13 December 2018 10: 06
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Interference is triggered in response to a threat. If you have three or four seconds for the whole cycle: "attack - reaction - influencing the threat - moving the threat to the side", then you are unlikely to have time.

        Do not tell me how the artillery radio-technical intelligence manages to determine the projectile in flight, build its trajectory and determine the point of the shot, and this in less time than the projectile’s flight time to the target?
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 14: 18
          -3
          Can you tell me where we have the battery radar on the Arleigh Burke? I missed something.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 13 December 2018 14: 57
            +6
            AFAR will detect a large projectile at least 50 km from the ship.
            For a radar, it’s all the same what flies: a rocket, an airplane or a shell. If only his EPR fell within the minimum value.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 13 December 2018 16: 55
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Can you tell me where we have the battery radar on the Arleigh Burke? I missed something.

            I suggest AN / SPY-1D. For "Aegis" with its HEADLIGHTS, there is no problem to emulate the simplest artillery radar - two radar barriers one above the other, when the projectile passes through the difference in crossing time and the difference in the range of marks, the coordinates of the firing gun can be calculated.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 18: 28
              -3
              It remains only to be confused on the CPU, right? Well and most importantly - here are three frigates giving Burk a volley of six shells each, with the rate of fire rate limit for AK-192, that is, with a total of three courses in six 12 seconds, 18 corrected discs fly to Burke.

              What's next? Plus, I still very much doubt that the CICS will be able to push off the radar data and show where the firing weapons are located as accurately as the smuggling army radar. Do not know how until the ships in counterbattery fire.
              1. Horse, people and soul
                Horse, people and soul 13 December 2018 21: 15
                +7
                Well and most importantly - these are three frigates that fire a burst of six rounds at Burke, each with a maximum rate of fire for the AK-192, that is, as a result, from 12 courses in six 18 seconds, XNUMX corrected blanks fly to Burke.


                Where did the three frigates come from next to Burke at the distance of an artillery shot? Do you suddenly jump around the corner?

                lol
        2. 1810BM86
          1810BM86 13 December 2018 15: 08
          0
          Quote: Army 2

          Do not tell me how the artillery radio-technical intelligence manages to determine the projectile in flight, build its trajectory and determine the point of the shot, and this in less time than the projectile’s flight time to the target?

          And how long do you think the projectile needs to fly in order to fly 15 + km? smile
          1. Army soldier2
            Army soldier2 13 December 2018 16: 07
            +3
            Quote: 1810BM86

            And how long do you think the projectile needs to fly in order to fly 15 + km? smile

            It depends on which shell. Take for example the AK-130 gun shell. Initial speed 850 m / s. Given the decrease in speed along the entire flight path, I think about 25 seconds. Of course, you can accurately calculate the formula.
            1. 1810BM86
              1810BM86 13 December 2018 16: 12
              +4
              Quote: Army 2
              Given the decrease in speed along the entire flight path, I think about 25 seconds. Of course, you can accurately calculate the formula.

              The D-30 with an initial 650 flies by 15 for about a minute. Active-reactive Krasnopol flies for 20 km the same minute. During this time, anything can be calculated.
              1. timokhin-aa
                13 December 2018 18: 29
                -2
                Howitzer shells are much slower, and army smuggling radars are much better suited for this type of task than shipboard ones.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 13 December 2018 22: 44
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Army contraband radars are much better suited for such tasks than naval ones.

                  That's a moot point. Arly Berks are bullshit ships, but if anything good is in them, it's a radar.
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 14 December 2018 11: 29
                    0
                    yeah. Given that Arly Burke is the best destroyer in the world today, it’s scary to imagine that with the rest lol
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 14 December 2018 21: 18
                      0
                      Quote: Avior
                      yeah. Given that Arly Burke is the best destroyer in the world today, it’s scary to imagine that with the rest

                      The best destroyer at the moment is the English Daring.
                2. 1810BM86
                  1810BM86 14 December 2018 07: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Howitzer shells are much slower, and army smuggling radars are much better suited for this type of task than shipboard ones.

                  If you want to prove something - give reasons other than "much slower" and "much better."
      4. 1810BM86
        1810BM86 13 December 2018 12: 29
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        For example, a cloud of passive interference can be substituted for the RCC - to shoot them and take the ship. With a projectile this will not work - it is too small, it is discovered late, it falls on the target too quickly, even if its GOS goes to the cloud, then the ship from under it simply does not have time to leave.

        The Zoo radar station sees an active-rocket projectile at a distance of 30 km. He, after finding the target, fly another minute. Well, I don’t know, of course, maybe this very hindrance is being shot back completely, but not by the same amount. smile
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 14: 22
          -4
          You want to say that the average velocity of the projectile on the trajectory of 250 m / s? Come on. At the exit of the barrel about 1000 m / s, if it is actively reactive then its engine accelerates to 2000-2500 in seconds.
          Next, count for yourself how much time from a 30 km to the solution will be
          1. 1810BM86
            1810BM86 13 December 2018 15: 33
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Offline
            timokhin-aa Today, 14:22
            0
            You want to say that the average velocity of the projectile on the trajectory of 250 m / s? Come on. At the exit of the barrel about 1000 m / s, if it is actively reactive then its engine accelerates to 2000-2500 in seconds.
            Next, count for yourself how much time from a 30 km to the solution will be

            I want to say that Krasnopol flies 20 km for about a minute, well, then think for yourself how much time there will be.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 17: 58
              0
              Krasnopol is a howitzer "land" projectile, where the speed is somewhat different.
              1. 1810BM86
                1810BM86 13 December 2018 18: 28
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa


                The barrel length is 2C19 - 47 calibers. This is a real gun. For example, the ZiS-3 has only 41 caliber. So do not need this here. Moreover, comparing 10 kg of explosives in this 152 mm projectile with 300 kg of Onyx is just ridiculous. Again, no comparisons will be made soon in the final section, the trajectory itself on it. Projectile - it stupidly falls, falls at a speed near the speed of sound, falls from top to bottom. But the rocket flies with two swoops. And there is no need for fairy tales. And the guidance head weighs a little more than the entire projectile put together. Or do we need 203 ++ mm shells? So what's their point?
          2. Army soldier2
            Army soldier2 13 December 2018 16: 35
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            At the exit from the trunk about 1000 m / s, if it is actively reactive, then its engine accelerates to 2000-2500 in seconds.

            1000 m / s and more is the anti-tank artillery, and the ship artillery that you are writing about is 15-20% less.
            2500 m / s is cool. It turns out that we have long had hypersonic weapons in the form of active-rockets, and you have remained silent to this day ... Take, for example, 2С7 Peony (it’s clear that it’s not ship artillery, but it’s easier for me). The initial velocity of the active shell 960 m / s, range 37,4 km. An active rocket has a range of 47,5 km. Those. range increment 25%. If its speed is 2500 m / s, then, something with physics is not right.
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 18: 36
              -2
              No, in old shells, the engine gave a plus on the strength of 200 m / s.

              I'm talking about such toys of the near future:

              https://army-news.ru/2018/06/artillerijskij-snaryad-s-pryamotochnym-vozdushno-reaktivnym-dvigatelem/

              Yes, there it will be. I note that in the photo for the article I just have a shell with a direct flow source.
          3. Horse, people and soul
            Horse, people and soul 13 December 2018 21: 20
            +1
            actively reactive, then its engine accelerates to 2000-2500 in seconds


            So - does not disperse. This is not a ramjet engine for hypersound.

            lol
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 December 2018 13: 50
      +8
      What kind of nonsense? "The projectile is too small, is detected late, falls on the target too quickly ..." That's for sure a couch strategist! 1.Is the projectile small? So how can he destroy the ship? How many of these "small" shells are needed for guaranteed destruction? How long can this number be launched? The author thinks that the enemy will provide this time? Well, well ... 2. Show up late? What is the author's "fantasy dream"? But what about the counter battery warfare radars? Anti-sniper systems that even detect a bullet? Modern radars detect a "bird" at a decent distance! Why are there radars !? A gun shot can be detected by a heat direction finder by thermal radiation, by an optical direction finder by a light flash ... by sound ... what the Penicillin complex "hints at"! 3.Falling too fast? Does the author dream of "shooting" point-blank? Or from afar? Tady, not only the projectile "falls quickly", but also the projectile's flight speed .... Well, a projectile without guidance can, probably, "afford mindlessly high speeds"! But guided (adjustable) ammunition "picks up" its speed for confident guidance, and this speed can be much less than the maximum! And on your coveted "nut" prepared 6-, 7-, 11-barreled anti-aircraft artillery systems! For ground-based air defense systems, "small-caliber" interceptor missiles are being created ... what prevents from urgently organizing such for ship complexes? To counteract electronic warfare systems, the "tactics of a wolf pack" are used, when almost all PC missiles (made in "stealth" technology!) Attack at an ultra-low altitude with the active mode of the radar seeker turned off, receiving "valuable instructions" from the leader rocket! (you can figure it out with water "dunes"!). Will shoot down the "leader" - the replacement is announced! And the variety of guidance systems? In the last years of the Union's existence, even an "active laser seeker" was developed for PC missiles! (for "Granite", it seems ...). And you launch an aeroballistic missile ... anti-radar: (active radar ... multi-mode ... with passive radar seeker mode + jammer mode + target designator mode for semi-active radar seeker ...) half a second before the launch of the PC missile with an active (semi-active / passive) seeker! And to deliver the "Smerch" type with simulator missiles with the simplest INS for reloading the ship's missile defense system? In general, hurry up with objections ... until the store closes ...
      PS I am forbidden to comment "directly" ... I have to take advantage of this ...
    4. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 18 December 2018 19: 06
      0
      The author mixes up a little different things, especially in terms of speed. The projectile flies no more than 3M, when modern anti-ship missiles have already reached 3M and are superior. What then is the superiority of artillery, there is no such, only the costs, that for corvettes a large caliber is unacceptable, but anti-ship missiles with a more powerful warhead corvettes perfectly carry ... Further analysis of the past, and where modernity is, is not visible, but according to it the main judgments. For so it is possible even before the use of grape-bombers and boarding "to reason", when they put forward the idea of ​​eye contact with the enemy .......
  2. Conductor
    Conductor 13 December 2018 06: 42
    +4
    Throw all the mines, and let them understand))))
  3. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 13 December 2018 06: 44
    +12
    The author exaggerates a lot and holds out for the ears.
    Phrase: A pair of Arab missile boats armed with P-15 Termite anti-ship missiles effortlessly sent an Israeli ship to the bottom.
    If we take into account that the destroyer was ancient and no one was waiting for the attack, but the generous soul of the Egyptians hatched four rockets on it, each with 500 kg of explosives, then yes, it’s easy and playful.
    Regarding artillery, it complements and does not replace missiles, and not a super weapon like the author is trying to describe.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher 13 December 2018 07: 10
      +5
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      Regarding artillery, it complements and does not replace missiles, and not a super weapon like the author is trying to describe.

      Absolutely, artillery cannot replace all anti-ship weapons.
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 December 2018 08: 41
        +1
        And no one claims this. But the rockets will have to move up.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 13 December 2018 07: 50
      +4
      So, in order to “break through” the air defense warrants from ships equipped with the AEGIS system, a volley of dozens of such missiles is required. And this means that, for example, the Pacific Fleet will have to “defuse” almost all of its ammunition towards the enemy, which will put the further participation of ships and attack submarines in hostilities “in question”.
      I also liked this passage. If the Pacific Fleet launches a whole AUG, then it will already be possible especially not to rush and in no hurry to replenish the ammunition at the base. If something remains of her after the arrival of a vigorous hotel. Everything will be sad with the US Navy bases. Only from our vigorous gifts.
      That is, the primary task (what to spend the first ammunition on) of the Pacific Fleet is to eliminate the threat in the near and middle ocean zone. On average, the same will work aviators. The far-off threat will definitely be taken by the strategic nuclear forces.
    3. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 21
      +3
      Well, the Arabs naparyagis or not? Just because anchor on the mark on the radar hit and everything.

      The Eilat team, by the way, spotted the missiles in advance, it was even fired back.

      Regarding supplements / replaces - right, but in what? It is believed that a significant (VERY significant) part of the tasks that are considered "missile" today will go to the guns very soon. Although, this does not negate the missiles, which is quite clearly written in the article.
    4. Looking for
      Looking for 13 December 2018 14: 34
      0
      Do not worry, Palestinian Cossack, all the same "the game was worth the candle."
  4. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 13 December 2018 06: 50
    +3
    Georgians did not have electronic warfare systems.

    The last confrontation of the RCC ship two years ago, the Hussites (who are mistakenly called rebels) for three days tried to cause damage to the American destroyers by launching Chinese S802 anti-ship missiles from coastal installations, they used up 7 missiles, none of which caused any damage, because fired by the interference and false goals of Nulka. It is understood that C802 has a radar seeker.
    The new was the mass use of anti-aircraft missiles SM-1 against surface ships. These missiles proved to be more effective than short-range anti-ship missiles

    Because missiles with a semi-active radar seeker are conducted by a powerful airborne radar, which is superior in noise immunity to any active radar seeker installed on a missile, its size and power are simply not comparable.
    RCC is detected by radar in advance, and makes it possible to resort to electronic warfare and passive interference.

    RCC with ARL GOS gives itself away when the GOS carries out a survey in search of a surface target, the radiation is recorded by means of RTR.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 21
      -1
      Well, you confirm everything yourself)))))
    2. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 19 December 2018 17: 35
      0
      If the electronic warfare protection is strong (like that of the USA), then switch from radar guidance. on thermal and video guidance, because actions in coastal regions and on outstanding ships, so the Houthis and others will be enough to "shoot" at coastal sea targets, and obviously not all will go into "milk" ...
  5. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 13 December 2018 07: 07
    +4
    A kind of exception to this are the huge Soviet supersonic missiles P-500 Bazalt, P-700 Granit and P-1000 Vulkan, which have both radar, and their own jamming stations, and sophisticated target attack algorithms, including, presumably, recognition algorithms.

    Pseudo-patriotic crap. The guiding principle of the RCC with the ARL GOS is identical regardless of the country of origin.
    when shooting at long distances, the rocket needs continuous target designation

    Correction that is implemented in American RCC.
    However, like any super weapon LRASM has a flaw - the price.

    A warship (even a corvette) is still more expensive at times.
    leads us to a simple conclusion - since missiles basically do not fly more than a few tens of kilometers (regardless of the maximum flight range achieved in the tests), since they are shot down and removed by electronic warfare equipment and interference, since they give rise to a tremendous risk of destroying neutral targets, sometimes with huge casualties, then ... it’s worth doing without them!

    Invalid output. Rather, referring only to RCC with ARS GOS, in the same LRASM, guidance is carried out by the IR GOS related to passive detection means. IR GOS does not give out its presence by any radiation, and radar interference and false targets do not interfere with it. The stored images of targets can reduce the likelihood of damage to non-combatant ships.
    new US Navy destroyers don't have any anti-ship missiles at all

    Wrong opinion. On each new destroyer of the US Navy there are two helicopters equipped with a radar and anti-ship missiles AGM-119 Penguin or AGM-114 Hellfire with IR GOS.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 26
      0
      Pseudo-patriotic crap. The guiding principle of the RCC with the ARL GOS is identical regardless of the country of origin.


      Only energy, noise immunity, the number of channels of guidance is very different. In Soviet heavy missiles, great attention was paid to insensitivity to EW facilities.
      I do not know. how it happened there, but for some reason I think that it is these missiles that are easier to shoot down than take away.

      A warship (even a corvette) is still more expensive at times.


      More expensive, but the budget is not rubber. The number of missiles delivered to the Navy will be finite, you will have to choose for what purposes they are to be spent, for which they are not. This is always the case with expensive weapons.

      Rather, referring only to the RCC with ARL GOS


      That is, almost all missiles in the world, right? Just nothing.

      Wrong opinion. On each new destroyer of the US Navy there are two helicopters equipped with a radar and anti-ship missiles AGM-119 Penguin or AGM-114 Hellfire with IR GOS.


      This is a weapon of helicopters, and with a very short range. Helicopters, sometimes, do not fly - wind or shot down yesterday. And the RCC destroyers themselves do not carry.
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher 13 December 2018 09: 28
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        but for some reason I think that it is precisely these missiles that are easier to shoot down than to divert.

        What is your understanding of "insensitivity to electronic warfare means"? Dipole reflectors create a curtain through which EM radiation does not penetrate or partially penetrates, depending on the amount of charges and the wind speed. Broadband interference emitted by 4 MW. SPY1 is not comparable to the capabilities of a small anti-ship missile radar. The missile seeker will simply go blind. It is clear that during an attack, not all of the ship's radar power can be allocated for jamming, but in any case, they will be enough for blinding. You yourself know that not a single ship using electronic warfare means was damaged by the attacking anti-ship missile system.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        More expensive, but the budget is not rubber.

        Compare with the cost of SM3, quite rubber. But besides LRASM there is NSM, which is much cheaper, but no less effective, though not so long-range.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        That is, almost all missiles in the world, right?

        In practice. But watch out for the trend. The USA created SLAM, LRASM, TASM, and they buy NSM from the Norwegians, all of them with an optical seeker. Harpoons are a thing of the past ...
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is a weapon of helicopters, and with a very short range.

        AGM-119 Mk.3 range 55 km., B / h 130 kg., You mentioned P-15 for 40 km. flew, like Exocet and Gabriel, but this did not stop them from becoming the most warring RCC.
        Just don’t talk about new conditions, the radio horizon has not changed over the years.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Helicopters do not fly - wind or shot down yesterday.

        The destroyer is stranded or stumbled with a tanker, the containers with missiles were damaged by a storm, but what’s the problem with life conflicts?
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 18: 47
          -1
          What is your understanding of "insensitivity to electronic warfare means"? Dipole reflectors create a curtain through which EM radiation does not penetrate or partially penetrates,


          It's a guessing game. The rocket and the ship are moving, the foil cloud after the ejection does not move, it has some permeability, and the rocket has a "standard" of the reflected signal in its head, to which it should go. We do not know what kind of algorithm is there in case the reflected signal has changed. But we know that the missiles were tested for about six years, specifically for a breakthrough in air defense with electronic warfare means, plus there are two ranges in which the radar operates, plus there are many missiles in a salvo, etc.
          I wouldn’t make such hasty statements about big rockets.

          Shoot down yes, you can them, especially if the attack comes with a high-altitude flight. I do not argue. But a dense volley of several carriers is guaranteed to break through AEGIS air defenses, the only question is to what extent.

          God forbid that we never know.

          Compare with the cost of SM3, quite rubber. But besides LRASM there is NSM, which is much cheaper, but no less effective, though not so long-range.


          SM3 is also not a standard weapon of budget, if that.
          NSM as a full-time weapon will only stand on LCS freaks, but firstly it will still be there, and secondly, these corpses can be drowned without PKR, it’s not for nothing that amers have more bases, no deployment in this year, none at all.

          AGM-119 Mk.3 range 55 km., B / h 130 kg


          These are the toys and will be squeezed with light shells. Onyxes, Gages, LRASM - will remain.
          And kids shells skharchat.

          The destroyer is stranded or stumbled with a tanker, the containers with missiles were damaged by a storm, but what’s the problem with life conflicts?


          Given that the standard weapon destroyers for strikes on surface targets for a long time are missiles and guns.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 14 December 2018 22: 34
            0
            "and secondly, these corpses can be drowned without anti-ship missiles" ////
            ------
            This is if you catch up ... only by helicopter. laughing These trimaran ships are capable of
            accelerate to 45 knots in the ocean. At the bases they stand due to the lack of trained crews.
            Their crew is tiny, but requires the highest technical certification. There are problems with this.
            Officers are trained in special courses. One of the ships was converted into a floating "training".
  6. Hole puncher
    Hole puncher 13 December 2018 07: 20
    -6
    Probably, it is not necessary to say that Russia will sleep through all these opportunities again.

    Already overslept. Until now, he relies on RCC with the GSS ARL without realizing that it is yesterday. As I already wrote, the Americans tested the false Nulka targets in combat conditions, which are equipped with all warships of the US Navy and not only. This system shoots traps from the ship’s EPR and relays the radar radiation of the ship’s systems. Against the background of established interference, the missile seeker identifies the trap as the main target with an appropriate outcome.
    There are no optical seekers on domestic shipboard anti-ship missiles and are not expected. There’s no need to talk about artillery, domestic adjustable shells got stuck in the 80s of the last century
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 28
      +1
      Well, for now there are chances, we probably have three years left.

      So let us agree that Russia is "sleeping out now" this business.
    2. brn521
      brn521 13 December 2018 11: 32
      +1
      Quote: Puncher
      There are no optical seekers on domestic shipboard anti-ship missiles and are not expected.

      And if anticipated, then how do we know about this? Piece goods, secrecy is easy to observe.
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 December 2018 14: 12
        0
        Piece goods? This is essentially ammunition. How can it be piece?
        1. brn521
          brn521 14 December 2018 10: 23
          0
          My comment refers to the quote from uv. Puncher: "There is no optical seeker on domestic ship-borne anti-ship missiles and is not expected." A complete set of specific warheads (in service, not for sale), including the features of the GOS, is an object of military espionage. Since WWI and WWII, nothing has changed. Even service technicians may not be aware of what is really fancy there. Moreover, at the current level of technology, you can do a lot of things, anti-ship missiles are relatively small, their total number is thousands, sometimes even hundreds, there is no need to organize a production line to modify the guidance system.
      2. Avior
        Avior 13 December 2018 18: 23
        0
        if it is piece, then it makes no sense with it, how to use it?
  7. riwas
    riwas 13 December 2018 07: 40
    +2
    No. Missiles allow you to have a large caliber even on a boat.
    I think it is advisable to take advantage of Chinese experience and use ballistic hypersonic missiles on ships.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 29
      -1
      They are also quite misguided. In addition, the Chinese do not have such missiles, if it is completely honest.
      1. riwas
        riwas 14 December 2018 08: 10
        0
        At the final stage of flight, missiles of the DF-26 type have hypersonic speed.
        https://regnum.ru/news/2037188.html
        http://nevskii-bastion.ru/df-26-china/
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 December 2018 11: 33
          0
          missiles like DF-26 are not anti-ship missiles and are not based on ships.
          And the fact that BR have a high speed to the end, it has always been so
    2. Avior
      Avior 13 December 2018 18: 22
      +1
      There is no such Chinese experience. they don’t have such missiles
  8. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2018 07: 52
    +12
    Honestly, I somehow did not expect such an owl pulling on the globe. Adjustable shells, if they differ in anything from missiles, then in that they
    1) Have a significantly weaker CU
    2) Much less interference free than rockets.
    And as for the arguments about the high cost of missiles ... what, is it now expensive to use 10 LRASM with a total cost of even 35 million dollars to destroy one modern corvette worth 150-250 million dollars?
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 08: 30
      -3
      1) Have a significantly weaker CU


      But they are more at times.

      2) Much less interference free than rockets.


      Not always in the first place, and secondly, against the projectile one must still have time to apply the interference. Time. Plus the fact that the IR traps in the ship are usually not hundreds of pieces.

      And about the reasoning about the high cost of rockets ... what, use 10 LRASM with an aggregate value even in 35 million dollars for the destruction of a modern corvette,


      The question is that the budget is not rubber. At the most optimistic moment of the program’s development, it was planned to make such missiles 460 with kopecks - on all naval wings, on all ships, and on Air Force bombers. In such conditions, these weapons will be protected for the highest priority purposes. No one will shoot these things at corvettes if there is an opportunity to shoot something else.
      Money must be saved.

      Well, sooner or later, they will learn to knock them down, this is not a scientific or technological question, but a purely engineering, this rocket will be a miracle weapon for a very short time.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 13 December 2018 10: 38
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Not always in the first place, and secondly, against the projectile it is still necessary to have time to apply interference.
        Since the Second World War, artillery has been fired according to data from radar guidance systems. Nothing prevents the defender, having discovered the fact of irradiation, to begin to expose distracting interference in place. Plus, as a rule, at the radar, the fact of the transition from general coverage to tracking (i.e. the beginning of continuous measurement of target parameters with a narrow beam) is detected by a change in the operating mode of the emitting radar. That is, you can even determine the moment of transition from "foreplay" to hotter events and only then start to put obstacles. And all this can be automated, so that the REB means are turned on independently when certain types of radiation are detected. So ... have time to interfere? Well, at what speed do electrons fly along the wires? Anything faster than shells))) Interference and electronic warfare is actually not only the shooting of the LCO, it is primarily active radio interference.
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 14: 10
          -1
          Now the network center is steering, the ship can shoot "aiming" not even with its own radar.
          Next we go to Vulcano 127 mm. He has the infrared homing on the final stage. And it seems like there are methods against infrared homing.
          But the projectile is too bad in comparison with the RCC, and flies too fast, infrared interference just will not work in this case.
        2. garri-lin
          garri-lin 13 December 2018 19: 04
          0
          Hurry not to start shooting interference, but to start scanning a particularly carefully indicated sector to find the flying "suitcases" with gifts.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2018 14: 02
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But they are more at times.

        THEN their price is not just approaching, but as if it does not exceed RK
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Not always firstly

        Is always. To date, adjustable shells can be used on moving targets only when they are illuminated by a laser, and the latter is nonsense in a naval battle. It will be possible, depending on weather conditions, every third time, without any opposition from the enemy
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The question is that the budget is not rubber.

        And the shells, given the chances of hitting the target, turn out to be more expensive than missiles.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, sooner or later, they will learn how to shoot them down

        They knew how to shoot them down back in 1980 - "Sea Wolf" shot down 114-mm shells during tests. I must say that shooting down a projectile is not a special problem at all, certainly no more difficult than shooting down an anti-ship missile
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 13 December 2018 17: 34
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          I must say that to shoot down a shell is not a special problem at all, certainly not more difficult than to shoot down anti-ship missiles

          Ummm ... not really. In a sense, it is more difficult to shoot down a projectile than an anti-ship missile system - the missile has no aerodynamic surfaces (it flies by pure ballistics) and its body is stronger than an anti-ship missile system (just because of the need to withstand overloads when firing and accelerating along the barrel).
          The only way to bring it down is to physically destroy it, causing detonation of the explosive. Or apply a lateral impulse sufficient to significantly deviate from the trajectory.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2018 18: 54
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Ummm ... not really like that

            Let's watch
            Quote: Alexey RA
            the projectile has no aerodynamic surfaces (it flies on pure ballistics)

            Normal - yes, but the manager they still have.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            and its body is stronger than the RCC warhead

            Certainly
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The only way to bring it down is to physically destroy it, causing detonation of the explosive. Or apply a lateral impulse sufficient to significantly deviate from the trajectory.

            And the last conventional high-explosive warhead missile launcher will do the last with ease, and I think that it will also hit the 30-mm projectile.
        2. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 19: 03
          -1
          THEN their price is not just approaching, but as if it does not exceed RK


          Vulcano - 191000 dollars (the price is old, now it may be different, but the order of numbers is this), and the Harpoon 2 block is 1,2 Leman.
          But the fact is that now this is a small-scale and very high-margin production, with prices too high at times.
          And if we are talking about a truly mass production, then there the order of prices will be different. An example is a completely complete guidance system for a US-made projectile, with all components - 20 kilobax (PGM).
          Well, let the shell is the same.

          How many harpoons? And LRASM with its 3 + million?

          Yes, there are fewer explosives there, but shells in bulk, and it is not necessary to tear the ship to pieces in the first shot, especially if the target is not Arleigh Burk, but some MEKO.

          Is always. Today, adjustable projectiles can be used on moving targets only when illuminated with a laser,


          I gave you an example of an anti-ship projectile with IR homing. Ships in battle that. in the drift lie?

          And the shells, given the chances of hitting the target, turn out to be more expensive than missiles.


          We let two Harpoons on 1,2 Lyula, with 220 kg of warheads, one knock down, the second gets, total 220 kg of explosives for 2400000 green money, or a kilogram for 10909 dollars.

          Let one of the three hits. Suppose we have 15 kg of explosives in a projectile, the price of an 50K projectile, hits one of three targets over a long distance. Total we have a blast of 15 kg for 150 kilobax. Same. If the projectile is 40 kilobax, the projectile will already be more profitable.

          But you can score dozens of shells on the ship, and dozens of harpoons — not.

          They knew how to shoot them down in the distant 1980 - Sea Wolfe shot down 114-mm shells during trials.


          First, I wrote about LRASM. Secondly, how many missiles are you going to spend on hitting the 130mm pigs flow, and then what to do when the missiles run out? Mk.41 by the way, can not let more than 1 Zur in 2 seconds.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 December 2018 19: 43
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Vulcano - 191000 dollars (the price is old, now it may be different, but the order of numbers is this), and the Harpoon 2 block is 1,2 Leman.

            On modification with one DGS? :)))))
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            An example is a fully integrated guidance system for an American-made shell, with all its components - 20 kilobax (PGM).
            Well, let the shell is the same.

            Alexander, you are still making fun of me :))) You take the system of only one jeep-targeting free-falling ammunition, and compare it with much more complex (at least IR targeting) miniature, withstanding wild overloads of equipment for an artillery projectile. So the projectile will never cost so much, it will always cost several times more - and it's good, as if not by an order of magnitude. A much simpler and more primitive "Excalibur" in production in large batches could fall in price to $ 50, as it was promised in the last century, but now prices have grown slightly simply due to inflation ...
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            I gave you an example of an anti-ship missile with infrared homing.

            And what, it has already been adopted? :))
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            We let two Harpoons on 1,2 Lyula, with 220 kg of warheads, one knock down, the second gets, total 220 kg of explosives for 2400000 green money, or a kilogram for 10909 dollars.
            Let one of the three hits. Suppose we have 15 kg of explosives per projectile, the price of the projectile is 50К

            It’s good to write an answer to the article :))) Alexander, for the 155 mm of the Copperhead the weight is BB-6,7 kg. Do y on 152-mm shells - up to 12 kg, where in the 127-mm projectile 15 kg BB?
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Let one of the three hits.

            Why would you? With a primitive IC seeker, which will be much weaker than on light air-to-air missile systems? There one out of 10-15 if it hits, and then for happiness.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Secondly, how many missiles are you going to spend on defeating the flow of 130mm discs, and then what to do when the missiles run out?

            Shoot autocannons 30-mm caliber, the effect will be the same
            1. timokhin-aa
              13 December 2018 20: 47
              -1
              On modification with one DGS? :)))))


              There is no such modification there.

              So, the projectile will never cost so much, it will always be several times more expensive - and well, no matter how much.


              How much does Krasnopol cost?

              I gave you a pgm kit as an example of how much high-tech costs in principle. Vulcano has differences in the INS and the IR sensor. Plus the shell itself. Let the 40-45 kilobax system be assembled in a mass production. This is real.
              Excalibur, by the way, promised to shove in 40, not in 50. Maybe it would have burned out, with a large order, but we must understand that these are prices for production in the West, in Russia or China, it will be cheaper.

              And what, it has already been adopted? :))


              Now Available. We must assume that they are not selling prototypes.

              It’s good to write an answer to the article :))) Alexander, for the 155 mm of the Copperhead the weight is BB-6,7 kg. Do y on 152-mm shells - up to 12 kg, where in the 127-mm projectile 15 kg BB?


              There is 5,6, but in this case I did not mean a particular projectile or gun. In principle, in 203 mm you can stick in such a weight and hf. In the future sometime.

              Why would you? With a primitive IC seeker, which will be much weaker than on light air-to-air missile systems? There one out of 10-15 if it hits, and then for happiness.


              This is speculation, no more.

              Shoot autocannons 30-mm caliber, the effect will be the same


              Have you ever heard of overheating trunks, for example? But in practice, how do you imagine such an attack - shells along the same trajectory fall one after the other at predictable intervals?
              Ammunition and rate of fire ZAKOV You know?

              Well, the main thing - and the RCC is the harder it is to shoot down than a shell? and why did mega air defense suddenly, cut off massive Atillerian volleys in a couple dozen shots in half a minute, suddenly not be able to dump a half-ton rocket or two? Do not see a contradiction?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 December 2018 15: 26
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                There is no such modification there.

                Well, no, when there is one, it’s coming in 3 versions :))) With Jeepsey, with jeepsey + laser guidance and jeepsey + IR seeker
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                How much does Krasnopol cost?

                And what does Krasnopole have to do with it? If you want to compare it, it’s necessary with the cost of our RCC, not imported
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I brought you the pgm kit as an example of how much high-tech costs in principle

                This is a completely different hi-tech, it has nothing to do with ours
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Vulcano has differences in the ANN and IR sensor.

                Vulcano has differences in miniaturization, because his GOS is much more compact. And in the ability to withstand the superload that the projectile is exposed to at the time of the shot, the free-falling bomb doesn’t experience anything like that And yes, the IR sensor, of course :)))
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Let the 40-45 kilobax system be assembled at mass production. This is real.

                Assembled, it will cost 120-150 kilobax. This is real
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Now Available. We must assume that they are not selling prototypes.

                So you want to say that 191 kilobax is its SALE price, but at the same time it can be knocked down to 45 kilobax? wassat
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                There is 5,6,

                In total, to make an explosive that makes a harpoon for 1,2 lyama, you need 39 shells costing 1,5 lyama at the price of 50 kilobacks per shell, and given that shells are much more expensive ...
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                This is speculation, no more.

                This, Alexander, is not speculation, but the harsh truth of life, which consists in the fact that it is much more difficult to shove an IKGSN into a projectile than into an air-blast gun - this is the dimensions, weight, resistance to overloads, and the location of the sensors ... all in favor URVV
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Have you ever heard of barrel overheating, for example?

                I did, but you obviously forgot about her. Of course, your guns will have very strong barrel overheating during such shooting :))))
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Ammunition and rate of fire ZAKOV You know?

                Vpaaalne. And the bill is clearly not in favor of the Big Gun
    2. brn521
      brn521 13 December 2018 11: 50
      +4
      Well, the author himself wrote in the article. Suddenly, a production line will fall off the moon, allowing us to stamp full-fledged homing shells at the price of seeds. We must be prepared for this and now proceed with the construction of artillery cruisers.
  9. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 13 December 2018 08: 58
    +2
    Kaptsov now writes under a pseudonym?
  10. Glory1974
    Glory1974 13 December 2018 08: 59
    +3
    Guns or rockets? The same dilemma faced the aviators. The war in Vietnam showed that guns should not be abandoned. Since then, at least one gun has always been installed on airplanes.
    The same is true in the navy. One thing is not to choose, weapons should complement each other.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 04
      0
      The article is just about that.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 13 December 2018 09: 24
    +2
    In earlier articles they wrote that the ships are quite strong .... how many shells are needed to incapacitate the cruiser (a small ship is more mobile), if we take into account the% of the shells hit by a moving target and the fact that the corr shell has less explosive than usual?
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 14: 11
      -1
      Watching what shells.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 13 December 2018 18: 36
        +4
        We understood your idea.
        But:
        1) if the shell is very long-range, powerful and wound (with a complex seeker), then it becomes almost as expensive as the RCC (Zumvolt case).
        2) if the projectile is not very long-range, with a small warhead and a simple seeker, then they need a lot. And the enemy will have to sneak close. In sum, it turns out also expensive and more dangerous than shooting anti-ship missiles.
  12. wooja
    wooja 13 December 2018 09: 37
    +2
    Another "mustache is gone ....", but most likely there was a hurray !!!, another round of the spiral of artillery development, the missiles will not disappear anywhere - they will change, improve ...., ADDED with new guns, the world has entered a new stage arms race ...
  13. Taoist
    Taoist 13 December 2018 09: 46
    +7
    Another "owl on the globe" ... and visible to the naked eye.
    The omnipotence of electronic warfare for some reason will not affect the seeker of artillery shells - there apparently such special interference only against anti-ship missiles. By the way, an interesting question, if we shove the seeker into the projectile and even make it "active-reactive" - ​​then how will it differ from the anti-ship missile system except for a much smaller "payload"?
    In general, another fanatical fan of "arts".
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 04
      -1
      Do you understand the meaning of the words "infrared homing"?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 13 December 2018 20: 47
        +3
        I understand that ... moreover, I even know that there are "combined GOS" ... Including anti-ship missiles, but it is a little more difficult to stuff a serious GOS into an artillery shell ... and if we push it, this projectile will cost more than any In this case, missiles in the same way be subject to electronic warfare systems (If you are not aware, then interference can be set in any range - including infrared and optical ...)
  14. BAI
    BAI 13 December 2018 09: 49
    0
    . The new was the mass use of anti-aircraft missiles SM-1 against surface ships.

    Now Ukraine has made an anti-ship missile from an anti-aircraft missile. However, this caused a flurry of malicious ridicule on "VO".
    Good laughs whoever laughs last?
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 13 December 2018 12: 00
      0
      Ukraine made an anti-ship anti-ship anti-aircraft missile. In 1 copy. Because the shaft of ridicule.
      1. Avior
        Avior 13 December 2018 17: 54
        +1
        even in the photo it was visible that not in one.
        in Ukraine, an active GOS was developed for an old rocket.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 16 December 2018 16: 20
          0
          I didn’t develop it, but I wrapped it on adhesive tape from another Soviet missile. There are no serious developments in Ukraine since the 90s.
          1. Avior
            Avior 17 December 2018 14: 18
            0
            from which? which Soviet missile AGSN was?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 December 2018 17: 39
      +2
      Quote: BAI
      Now Ukraine has made an anti-ship missile from an anti-aircraft missile. However, this caused a flurry of malicious ridicule on "VO".

      Those who just laughed are not aware that since the times of the USSR, air defense systems have had coastal defense as one of their tasks, and all shipborne missiles should be able to work on surface targets. In the unforgettable naval battle in the 08.08.08 conflict, Pomnitsa, the Wasps were also used.
      1. Avior
        Avior 13 December 2018 18: 20
        +1
        The Americans are the same.
  15. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 13 December 2018 10: 44
    0
    RCC is detected by radar in advance, and makes it possible to resort to electronic warfare and passive interference. The projectile flies much faster, and leaves almost no reaction time. Most modern ships are not able to detect artillery shells, and certainly can not shoot it down. And most importantly, the crew understands that they only shoot at their ship after the first explosion

    In fact, the earliest radars had the ability to detect projectiles in flight. Here the video shows the mark from the volley and the splash: https://youtu.be/kAKuImRDFgE?t=790
    Not to mention specialized counter-battery radars that calculate the position of the gun along the trajectory of shells. Not to mention the fact that the attacking ship will give itself out even before the fire is opened by the guidance of the radar.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 05
      -2
      The ships do not have specialized counter-battery radar.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 13 December 2018 19: 12
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The ships do not have specialized counter-battery radar.

        Now not, but if there is a threat from artillery, they will appear. The technique is well-developed, there is nothing fundamentally new in it. And then, the IJIS radars were sharpened, including for missile defense, tracking a large-caliber blank for them is not a problem, I guess. The issue of minimal modifications to software updates.
  16. Per se.
    Per se. 13 December 2018 11: 37
    +3
    A plus topic, as deliberately provoking various comments, disputes. Oleg Kaptsov was a great provocateur on battleships, it seems that Alexander decided to "try his luck" in the reincarnation of "big guns". Well, good luck. As a personal opinion, I will express the following, artillery, presumably, will be in demand for a very long time, but it is unlikely that missile weapons will surrender the already won status of "main caliber" in the Navy. Moreover, even on tanks, most likely, guided missiles will become this main caliber, and artillery, like in the navy, will play an auxiliary role (missile and cannon tanks), used as specialized support. The article does not raise the topic of armor, how the missile would resist armor made of new materials, commensurate with the protection of battleships, there is only a search for advantages, how an artillery shell can be devastating, for "duralumin" sides of modern ships, as a shell seems to be less noticeable and almost invulnerable to means of active and passive protection. If you dream here, you can imagine a strike missile and gun ship, where artillery would complement strike missile weapons, could be used in local conflicts, in special operations, to suppress terrorist bases from the sea, to support amphibious assault forces. In that sense, there would be an excuse for the big guns to be in the navy. For example, the layout of a battleship of the Richelieu type "would be quite suitable, where helicopters can be based at the stern, missile silos are located on the sides, and in the bow of the tower with powerful cannons capable of firing both relatively cheap shells and active-rocket shells with nuclear warhead.
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 07
      -1
      Well, I am more modest, apparently. I would have a 100 and 130 line of guided and long-range projectiles on 90%, and if I had started OCD on a naval gun with 152 mm caliber (well, or 210), then nothing more could be wanted in this sense.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 14 December 2018 05: 57
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, I am more modest, apparently. I would have a 100 and 130 line of guided and long-range projectiles on 90%, and if I had started OCD on a naval gun with a caliber 152 mm (well, or 210)
        It is not at all necessary to take literally the Richelieu layout, with 381 mm cannons, let there be turrets with new 152 mm or 210 mm, two turrets, four guns each. It’s even enough for the intended tasks. If we also assume that such a newly-minted battleship, in addition to missile weapons and powerful artillery, will have powerful active and passive protection (booking with the use of new technologies in materials), have an atomic power plant, such a handsome man could be useful for the fleet, expand capabilities of the tasks solved by the fleet.
  17. Grossvater
    Grossvater 13 December 2018 12: 03
    +3
    Good day to all, take to the company!
    Now about the article.
    1. The speed of flight. It’s necessary to take a long time, but it’s stuck in my head that at the initial velocity of a large-caliber projectile in the region of 800 m / s, the average trajectory speed is in the region of 500 - 600. In principle, a supersonic missile, of course, does not fly much slower.
    2. EPR and visibility. On the one hand, there are no aerodynamic surfaces on the projectile, although the controlled and / or sub-caliber feathered one seems to be like that, on the other hand I can hardly imagine the "Stealth" projectile :)!
    It probably makes sense to consider the radar visibility of the projectile and rocket the same.
    3. Management systems. According to the simplest peasant logic, fuels and lubricants for a projectile should be more expensive than a missile. On the one hand, wild overloads at startup, on the other hand, compactness requirements. Of course, we can say that fuel and lubricants will be switched on only on approach, and before that the projectile flies along a ballistic trajectory, but nothing prevents the rocket from reaching the target area with an inertial system.
    4. Energy efficiency. Of course, the start and flight of a rocket requires much more gunpowder, rocket fuel, or whatever else.
    5. The mass of PU / guns. Then the gun drains the rocket dry.
    So, with all my love for big guns, it’s premature to say the least about the displacement of missile weapons by artillery. The development of guided artillery shells of increased range takes the idea beyond the bounds of reason.
    1. 1810BM86
      1810BM86 13 December 2018 14: 47
      +1
      Quote: Grossvater
      Flight speed. It’s necessary to take a long time, but it’s stuck in my head that at the initial velocity of a large-caliber projectile in the region of 800 m / s, the average trajectory speed is in the region of 500 - 600. In principle, a supersonic missile, of course, does not fly much slower.

      The shells, they are mean, fly a little in a straight line, the air also interferes. The D-30 projectile flies 15 km for about a minute, with an initial speed of 650 m / s. That is, "average" 250 m / s.
    2. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 11
      -2
      1. Well, so be it, no one requires a projectile to fly on a hypersound, but there are exploits of projectiles that have a starting speed at the moment the 2,5M ramjet is activated, so ...

      2.No, the projectile is physically less at times, the EPR is also significantly less.

      3. No, you need something simpler on the projectile, see Vulcano in the article.

      4. And in general, the projectile is cheaper at times, even small-grain.

      5. PU discharges 1-4 missiles on it, the cannon has tens of tons of shells of various types. Each
  18. malyvalv
    malyvalv 13 December 2018 12: 14
    +4
    On earth, it is unlikely that artillery would supplant MLRS. Although both there and there are guided missiles and shells.
    Up to 20-40 km art reigns. Above - rockets.
    It seems to me that on ships no one will bet on art for combat at distances of more than 20 - 40 km.
    Although who knows, with the development of electronic warfare and air defense, it can even reach "hand-to-hand" at sea.
    1. Grossvater
      Grossvater 13 December 2018 14: 29
      +3
      Directly removed from the tongue! I just wanted to write that in the conditions of REP the ram will be the most reliable weapon!
      I completely agree with you, it’s all about the combat distances and, in general, it seems to me personally that guided missiles for high ballistic guns are not the best solution. And so the walls of the projectile are thick, and there is a place for the control system. Exploding why? And if also active-reactive ...
    2. BAI
      BAI 13 December 2018 16: 03
      +3
      At VO we have already discussed what would happen if the battleship Iowa and the missile cruiser (ours) converge in battle. This is from NI. But the authors of the article in NI immediately stated that they had no idea how a missile cruiser could come under fire from the battleship's main caliber guns, and this collision can only be considered theoretically.
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 December 2018 19: 12
        0
        In practice, the Americans just planned to use battleships against ships, it did not just burn out. But there was not one battleship, but as a part of the Central Command Directorate with a powerful air defense at that time to protect against RCC.
      2. malyvalv
        malyvalv 13 December 2018 21: 33
        +1
        It’s very easy to get under the fire of guns. When his missiles cannot overcome the battleship’s air defense and cannot escape.
        But in practice, the second world battleship and its air defense ended earlier than aviation on an aircraft carrier.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 13 December 2018 23: 02
      0
      Quote: malyvalv
      Although who knows, with the development of electronic warfare and air defense, it can even reach "hand-to-hand" at sea.

      Almost. The missiles that the person will control directly will fall into the target.
      1. malyvalv
        malyvalv 14 December 2018 03: 26
        +1
        EW will not allow on the radio channel. The wire distance.
        If only the man himself was put in a rocket.
        That’s why Putin just recently declared that the future in armaments rests with Artificial Intelligence.
  19. Kars
    Kars 13 December 2018 16: 33
    +3
    At first I thought that the article by Oleg Kaptsov.
    In our ranks arrived
  20. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 13 December 2018 17: 06
    +2
    In the 1982 year, during the Falklands conflict, the Argentine Exoset missiles could not hit ships that were covered with interference, but hit those that were not protected. Both during the destruction of Sheffield and during the defeat of the Atlantic Conveyor, it was confirmed that EW and jamming complexes are reliable protection against anti-ship missiles, but non-interference means the death of the ship.

    Not everything is so simple. ©
    The Falkland conflict showed one thing: single launches of anti-ship missiles on battle-ready ships and ship groups will not produce any results. The only way to achieve results with single starts is a surprise attack on a target not expecting a strike.
    At the same time, the Falkland conflict did not give an answer to the question - what will happen during mass launches of anti-ship missiles. Just because the args did not have missiles even for one such launch. And also - what will happen when the attacking side uses electronic warfare and anti-radar missiles / missiles with passive GOS.

    In addition, statistics are needed to conclude on the applicability or futility of RCC. And 5 launches are not statistics.
    1. Avior
      Avior 13 December 2018 17: 58
      +2
      He did not give an answer to the question - what will happen during mass launches of anti-ship missiles.

      The Doomsday War gave the answer - nothing will happen. They will leave by.
      Fifty odd launches, and every single one, past statistics?
      The Arabs sincerely believed that the RCC was such a prodigy that it would definitely hit the target. Not a single hit.
      1. timokhin-aa
        13 December 2018 19: 16
        +2
        Well, there is still a specific case - the Israelis have been preparing to fight off these missiles for several years, and the missiles were still quite primitive.
        1. Avior
          Avior 13 December 2018 19: 23
          +1
          and traps are even more primitive. Israel was then isolated, so signal cartridges for those in distress were used as traps.
          Circle Crazy hands.
          1. timokhin-aa
            13 December 2018 20: 27
            +1
            The result is important.
            1. Avior
              Avior 14 December 2018 10: 38
              +1
              this is understandable, but you wrote that the missiles are primitive, and the answer to them was the same.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 14 December 2018 10: 28
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        The Doomsday War gave the answer - nothing will happen. They will leave by.

        I didn’t give it - the Arabs used the export version of the RCC, which was significantly reduced in terms of capabilities. This is the same as evaluating the capabilities of the S-300, taking as a basis the statistics for the S-75.
        1. Avior
          Avior 14 December 2018 10: 38
          0
          and what was cut there? GOS?
    2. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 19: 14
      +1
      I have no other statistics for you)))

      In the text, I wrote that the massive salvo apparently did not take and not to beat off, but then the question of money starts to rise and reload PU at sea. Accordingly, according to the mind, anti-ship missiles should be used either to enter combat at long distances, or against high-priority targets. And for the rest - guns.
      1. Avior
        Avior 13 December 2018 19: 25
        -1
        not to withdraw and not to recapture, if the volley from different azimuths.
        and if there’s no difference from one thing, one rocket or ten, their GOS is the same
        1. timokhin-aa
          13 December 2018 20: 28
          0
          Well, for any attack from the air, it will be from different azimuths, when attacking the RCC hall with submarines and NK, it will also be from a pair of azimuths at least.

          But this is an apocalyptic scale fighting should be.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 December 2018 10: 34
            0
            NK and PL at the same time to put in such a firing position is not just not easy, but impossible, only by accident, and the enemy will not wait.
            And for aviation it’s no problem
  21. Avior
    Avior 13 December 2018 18: 18
    +2
    The author quite rightly wrote that RCC is by no means a child prodigy, as they like to portray in RuNet, and about which I myself wrote repeatedly.
    And even Granite, maybe the top of the Soviet anti-ship missiles, is also not a prodigy.
    RCC is able to give an advantage against a modern ship if the enemy was caught unawares or, when used in combination, with reconnaissance and attack from different azimuths, to complicate the operation of electronic warfare.
    In the USSR, they tried to gain an advantage in the first way, by increasing flight speed, but it turned out to be a dead end, electronics walked very quickly and in this way the American ship station REB AN / SLQ-32, supplemented by fired traps with dipole and corner reflectors and active Nulka Do not cheat or replay.
    In the States, they went the other way - for an integrated approach, they relied on aviation, which became the main anti-ship vehicle in the United States, and not only that. Aviation is able to conduct reconnaissance and provide a surprise strike as anti-ship missiles and other means. At the same time, missiles with special characteristics are not required.
    In fact, Americans have anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles for this purpose on ships for self-defense and not a very strong enemy. For this purpose they use helicopters - against ships with weak air defense - at Hussein, his fleet was knocked out by helicopters.
    Now the situation began to change, but the direction of the RCC change did not go along the Soviet path by increasing speed, but by the appearance of new types of GOS, providing increased noise immunity - matrix IR heads, AFAR with a synthesized aperture and their combinations, barrage, communication with a two-way carrier, etc.
    But the guns in the role of the RCC are not seen at all, the author cannot agree with this conclusion
    1. timokhin-aa
      13 December 2018 20: 31
      0
      But the guns in the role of the RCC are not seen at all, the author cannot agree with this conclusion


      But the facts are already there - the same self-guided 127 mm projectile, it is serial and sold on the world market.
      If in the course of real fights, the Harpoons shot at 30-40 km, then why not throw such projectiles instead of such Spears? Now, however, the profit is dubious, expensive shells, but they will be cheaper at mass production.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 December 2018 10: 06
        0
        Why guns have limited use as RCC
        1. The caliber of 127 mm, taking into account the homing head and at least the gas generator to increase the distance, does not allow creating a projectile with any significant warhead
        look how much the Vulcano takes a warhead
      2. Avior
        Avior 14 December 2018 10: 32
        +2
        full post
        In the first place in terms of application efficiency, aviation stands for a number of reasons; helicopters are also suitable against small ships whose air defense does not exceed 30-50 km.
        Long-range anti-ship missiles can be used with aviation support (although there is no such experience, and in general there is no real experience in using over-the-counter missiles)
        If it speaks of the actual naval means, then the range of their application should be determined by the limits of the radio horizon - 30-50 km. Theoretically, guns can have such a range. But practically ...
        Why guns have limited use as RCC
        1. The caliber of 127 mm, taking into account the homing head and at least the gas generator to increase the distance, does not allow creating a projectile with any significant warhead
        look how much the Vulcano takes a warhead

        and this is only with jeepies, without a laser head or IR.
        the total weight of the projectile is about 30 kg, that is, the warhead is about 10-12 kg.
        Which ships to shoot at? On boats, perhaps. For ECM, for example, it is 40 kg, for SM-2 about 60, and for small anti-ship missiles, about 200. Compare. The cost of a dozen guided missiles will be significantly more expensive than the cost of the Harpoon.
        2. Unguided shells can of course come in handy for killing an enemy with a preliminary hit, for example, an anti-aircraft missile devoid of combat readiness, but this is a very supporting role.
        3. The cost of guided missiles (and unguided only for mining) is quite comparable to the cost of short-range missiles. Do not forget that the GOS there is experiencing significant overload and is limited in volume, and therefore not cheap.
        4. The capabilities of missiles, including air defense systems, as a rule exceed the capabilities of shells.
        Take, for example, the common American SM-2-dual seeker semi-active radar + matrix IR, its traps are not so easy to deceive within the radio horizon, the reaction time is minimal, the speed is 3,5M within the radio horizon, and for shells no more than 2M at the time of the shot.
        5. Cannons 155 Zamvolta are generally unsuitable for anti-ship fire purposes due to the extremely low rate of fire.
        6. You can still write a lot why guns will be of secondary importance against ships .....
  22. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 December 2018 09: 52
    0
    RCC is detected by radar in advance, and makes it possible to resort to electronic warfare and passive interference. The projectile flies much faster, and leaves almost no reaction time. Most modern ships are not able to detect artillery shells, and certainly can not shoot it down.


    Complete nonsense.
    1) The projectile has a high initial speed, but it does not have its own engine and loses energy. An active rocket, by definition, is a type of rocket.
    2) When firing at a long range, the projectile flies in the stratosphere, by the way, this, by the way, is the basis for increasing range that the projectile moves in rarefied layers of the atmosphere. In this case, the velocity relative to the ground will be V * cos (cast angle). At the same time, it only glows on radars. Counter-battery radars have long been a curiosity. This thing can be mounted on MT-LB, not like on a frigate.
    3) A rocket flies in a straight line at the surface, covered by the curvature of the planet, appears on radars seconds before the defeat. If we are talking about serious supersonic missiles, then it will even be faster than a projectile.
    4) Without a homing system, the probability of hitting a projectile is small, in the era of art. ships unit percent. Yes, and firing 30 kilometers without a radar - it's like "Musashi" fought off the Americans in its last battle, by the flashes of shots.

    In terms of price, the rocket has an expensive engine. A large anti-ship missile is a mini-plane, but artillery has more quantitative consumption and expensive guns. In wartime, when ships will die quickly, the question of which shells will fit more and the gun cheaper in the long run may not arise.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 14 December 2018 14: 39
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      ) Without a homing system, the probability of hitting a projectile is small, in the era of art. ships unit percent. Yes, and firing 30 kilometers without a radar - it's like "Musashi" fought off the Americans in its last battle, by the flashes of shots.


      In his last battle, Musashi suffered from aircraft.
  23. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 14 December 2018 14: 12
    +1
    In the 1973 year, during the next Arab-Israeli war, both the Syrians and the Egyptians, trying to use the P-15 anti-ship missiles against Israeli boats, suffered severe losses and suffered casualties without causing any harm to the Israelis. The latter, in addition to the vicious tactics of the Arabs, succeeded, using EW complexes, to “take away” all the missiles aimed at them.


    Naval battle at Runes
    Naval battle at Latakia
    Naval battle at Damietta
    Naval battle at Abukir
    Sea battle at Tartus
    anyone interested - link
    http://cyclowiki.org/wiki/Морские_сражения_Израиля

    Herut Zemah is mainly known as a military electronic engineer, creator of the electronic countermeasures system.
    Zemah installed active jamming systems on Israeli missile boats, which, adjusting to the radiation of the enemy’s missile radar, themselves began to emit at the same frequency, directing the missile in pursuit of electronic “ghosts”.

    Syrian minesweeper “Yarmouk”, patrolling near approaches, was ordered to leave under cover of coastal batteries. Boats of the western column of Israelis (after turning into the north) discovered the Yarmouk, and at a maximum distance of 20 km, Gaash launched a missile that missed the target. However, the rocket launched from Reshef hit the target. Almost immediately after that, Reshef fired at the Syrian minesweeper and the second Gabriel missile, which also hit the target.

    While the Israelis were waiting for the second hit, three new contacts appeared on the screen of the Reshef radar. After another second, six small fast-moving targets separated from them and a warning system informed of approaching missiles. It was the main opponent - two Syrian "Mosquitoes" and "Wasp". Syrians fired rockets, but all 6 Syrian missiles exploded behind the stern of Israeli boats, electronic warfare systems worked
  24. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 14 December 2018 14: 27
    +1
    Technologies that allow “for cheap” to pack in a projectile homing system, and in a larger projectile - a jet engine, no doubt, will change the nature of the battles at sea. After all, the caliber of 127 millimeters allows you to make a decent active-rocket projectile in the future, which means the gun will become a launcher, and the projectiles will merge with missiles in their development, only shells on board can be taken more than missiles and their replenishment at sea is no problem.


    How many homing shells are needed to destroy a corvette class target? With a very limited weight of explosives.
    Not one / two - exactly - in this case, RCC will be cheaper.

    Do not forget the difference in the price of electronics designed for shock loads (when launching an artillery shell) and electronics for anti-ship missiles. As well as the degree of miniaturization, which would fit into the dimensions of the projectile.

    The idea of ​​using shells with an additional reconnaissance and guidance system does not look promising at the current level of development of electronics.
    In general, a delivery vehicle using non-cheap means of guidance is wasteful.

    As an addition to existing anti-ship missiles and air defense systems, the use of reusable vertical take-off drones built using stealth technology, capable of reconnaissance and carrying relatively cheap means of hitting ships, looks more promising.
  25. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 16 December 2018 19: 02
    +1
    The article is a definite plus for the noble madness of the idea itself! :)

    Moreover, I myself completely agree with the critics on all points. And the GOS of the projectile is just as vulnerable as the GOS of the missile, and it can be detected even earlier than the missile, and it is quite possible to shoot down. But perhaps the main disadvantage of the idea is the insufficient damaging capabilities of the projectile compared to the rocket. A projectile with a caliber of 127 mm was considered rather weak even for destroyers of the WWII era. To destroy a ship of 6000-8000 tons, 50-80 hits are required, which is unlikely. And to return to the giants capable of carrying 16 "guns is impractical. Packing such firepower in missiles is much cheaper.

    But again, the article was interesting. And judging by the calm, reasoned answers of not only me alone. The author is well done. :)
  26. Xazarin
    Xazarin 19 December 2018 06: 28
    0
    I carefully read the article and comments. As I understand it, missiles are being shot down or retracted, and even few of them, shells do not reach or miss, and if they do, they don’t kill. Conclusion - the future belongs to TARAN !!
  27. Nikolai
    Nikolai 21 December 2018 16: 09
    +2
    Author, we have to go further. Anthei (Premier League) rearm not on Caliber and on 200 mm AC and grind from periscope depth.
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 22 December 2018 22: 22
      0
      Funny, but, for example, monitors were low-sitting vessels, although not submarines. In general, the idea of ​​using a water column as an armor is quite rational to reduce the damaging effect, since at high speeds it should slow down the projectile and simply drill such a vessel with a solid blank, as often happens on land with tanks, it becomes more difficult, there are landmines and cumulative charges from which have known means of protection that are much easier to place on a ship than on any land transport. Therefore, special, small stealth ships (not submarines in the usual sense of the word), with adjustable draft, so that their deck for 2-3 meters can be flooded with water, quite have a place in life: they are inconspicuous for radars and aircraft, they are a difficult target not only for shells, but also for missiles.
  28. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 21 December 2018 16: 27
    0
    After reading the author, it is very difficult to blame for the excess of intelligence ... Or is he an outspoken troll.
  29. Mobik
    Mobik 21 December 2018 20: 48
    0
    Wow ... guns. And now let's book the ships. Kaptsov will be pleased.
  30. Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 21 December 2018 22: 46
    0
    What does this garbage do in the Armaments section? Send him to Opinions, where he escaped from.
  31. ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 22 December 2018 21: 24
    0
    Most likely, shells can still take their place in the modern world. Only for this they will have to use stealth technologies to protect themselves from the effects of radars, lasers and jamming. And, for reasons of range, many marine and serf artillery systems will be electromagnetic.
  32. Newone
    Newone 24 January 2019 23: 40
    0
    Another from Mr. Timokhin.
    The quality of the material is standard for Mr. Timokhin (Damantsev is resting).
    The shell is obviously smaller than the RCC therefore:
    1) GOS is obviously weaker and easier to suppress
    2) The systems for counteracting the detection / destruction of a shell are either not present at all or they are obviously weaker
    3) Mandatory PRECISE target designation for media.
    4) The striking ability of the projectile is much weaker than RCC
    5) the strength requirements for the projectile control drive systems and the mechanical parts of its GOS are obviously large - the drive and the GOS are more expensive (this is not always true, for RCC moving with speeds comparable to overload projectile speeds are also comparable)
    At the same time, the art system obviously loses to the missile one in terms of mass and dimensions and reliability indicators.
    Conclusion: as an anti-ship system art. installation worse than RCC.
    Another thing is that the ship may have tasks of supporting the landing, and in these tasks art. installations have, in my opinion, serious advantages.
  33. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 6 March 2019 14: 42
    0
    If the problem is in interference, then the homing system should not hit the shell artillery shells.
    MLRS already now range and accuracy is better than that of barreled artillery, but the whole is much less.
    If an inertial system provides for a ballistic missile 100-200 meters KVO for several thousand kilometers and the warhead is more powerful, and the launcher is much easier, then what would be a better gun?
  34. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok April 21 2022 17: 37
    0
    The idea is interesting. It's just not feasible at the moment. The reason is simple - until they came up with an effective configuration of the projectile in which it flew far + would be able to cause significant harm to the enemy ship and at the same time it doesn’t stand like that, it would be a gold projectile.
    BUT this only means that you need to start research to find this optimal configuration.
    I do not agree with all the theses with the author, but in general - I agree with him. The development of naval artillery and shells for them will lead to the fact that naval artillery will expand the range of targets with which it will be able to fight, and will reach the point that it will block the range of targets with anti-ship missiles.
    This means that in the future the ships will have a zone (of the maximum salvo, at which both anti-ship missiles are already able to fly and shells can still reach). As a result, there will be a belt in which you can make a volley with a huge flood of targets for the enemy. At the same time, many small targets attacking almost vertically and fewer larger targets attacking almost horizontally or at angles (30-60 degrees). Such a volley will be much more difficult to stop than just missiles.
    In addition, for some reason, many opponents point to the insufficient firepower of the projectile, unable to destroy the enemy ship. Well, here I can only ask a response question - why exactly destroy it? It is enough to inflict such damage to make it difficult or impossible to complete the combat mission until repairs are made in the port. For example, damage the ship's radars, or damage part of the air defense installations due to which the ship will lose the ability to engage effectively. And in the case of small ships, even one shell can be enough to destroy. It's just that the protection and size of the ship is not enough to protect against the explosion of a 150 mm projectile inside. During salvo shooting of a small enemy ship (for example, frigates or escort destroyers), simply due to the number of shells and the small interval between them, at least one shell will hit the ship’s weak spot and lead to a fire in the fuel or detonation of ammunition.
    It also does not take into account the fact that the fleet does not have effective systems for detecting, tracking, targeting and destroying such targets as a projectile.
    The characteristics of the projectile differ from the characteristics of anti-ship missiles, and they differ dramatically.
    1. Size - the size of the shells is much smaller than the size of not only anti-ship missiles, but even some missiles. Because of this, accurately detect and identify projectiles at a distance much less than anti-ship missiles.
    2. Temperature - if we are talking about a corrected projectile without an engine, it will be cooler than anti-ship missiles or missiles. This means that it is more difficult to detect at a medium distance and accurately hit when intercepting at close range. For active-reactive projectiles, the thermal trail will be only in the first half or third of the way, when it is still far from the target and it will not yet be intercepted, after acceleration, it disconnects the booster block and again becomes cooler than the anti-ship missile or anti-aircraft missile engine. For a direct-flow projectile, it is possible to implement a system in which it is in the last third of the flight, it is used by the engine, and only uses the accumulated speed for maneuvering. Then, by the time it approaches the enemy ship, it will cool down to temperatures less than that of anti-ship missiles and missiles.
    3. Quantity - due to the rate of fire of the cannons, in the same period of time, the ship can make a volley of more shells than if it were missiles. And this gives a small interval between each individual projectile. As a result, the salvo is more "grouped", and using the correction, we can make it so that all the shells in the hall (And they can be made from 10 or more, up to several dozen) will arrive at the target simultaneously or almost simultaneously.
    4. Angle of attack - the angle of attack of projectiles is slightly different from missiles. They attack with a huge group of small/large area (depending on the decision of the commander and the used projectiles) almost vertically. At least 75-80 degrees. While the systems are mainly designed to look for missiles at shallower angles, up to searching for missiles that fly close to the surface at angles up to 30 degrees. You can say "what about our heavy super and hypersonic anti-ship missiles, which fly high above the horizon to achieve the required speeds", but here is the problem. A large group of small and cold (compared to heavy anti-ship missiles) shells, the group will look much less noticeable. Because of what, detection will occur at a shorter distance. This means that the response time is much less. Not to mention the fact that there are no missiles in the fleet capable of effectively intercepting shells - because there is no such threat yet. It will be difficult for automatic guns to fire because the shells are much smaller than the missiles, but there are more of them, and it will be difficult for air defense missiles to either hit them (due to their smaller size, contrast) or the missiles themselves will not be enough to intercept all the shells. Too many projectiles will arrive at once and too few missiles can be used to intercept at once.
    5. Defeat in passive mode - the projectile can correct the course when the enemy ship is in line of sight, then switch to silence mode and continue to save the route according to the inertial system. Given the small distance to the target and the fact that the projectile will fly almost vertically, the deviation will be insignificant and most of the projectiles will hit the enemy. Some projectiles can be guided by a thermal or contrast signature. But here is the problem. Having created a false target away from the ship, the projectile will still not have time to turn to the side during a fast vertical (perhaps even passive) fall, but simply by inertia will fly into the area where the ship was.
    Shells will never replace missiles in the fight against large targets and fight at long distances, but they can definitely become a weapon against enemy ships at short and medium distances. AND COMPLETE missiles when fighting large targets at medium range.