Military Review

Scientific and technological revolution in the field of the Navy

110

The year 1945 marks the end of the 600-year era of artillery ships weapons.


This история began with the Christophe sailing karaka with three bombers, and her first shots at the battle of Arnemaden (1338). And it ended with a series of Des Moines cruisers, where one gun barrel was as long as the entire karaka of the XNUMXth century.

Why is “Des Moines” taken for the finish line and not “Murmansk” (the last representative of the project 68 bis) laid down eight years later? Or the impressive battleship Vengard, which entered service in 1946?

The answer is simple. Naval artillery stopped in its development on the Des Moines project (the leading SRT was laid in May 1945, commissioned in 1948). Designed for Des Moines, automatic guns combined the power of an eight-inch caliber with a six-inch rate of fire. And it was wonderful.

And nothing more significant in the field of naval artillery has since been created. Just as not a single artillery ship was built, on which great hopes would be placed.

The Soviet-built 68-bis cruisers built after the war, like the LKR “Stalingrad” (project 82), were a development of projects of the 30s. The first were built more likely to revive the shipbuilding industry of the USSR. The second was removed from construction, and this fact puts an end to further discussion.

The British HMS Vanguard was equipped immediately with 22 radars and had unique capabilities in terms of fighting for survivability. A design that has absorbed the experience of both world wars. The flawless silhouette of the battleship was violated by the GK towers, inherited from the battlecruisers Koreges and Glories, which were converted into aircraft carriers in the mid-1920s. The gun turrets in the warehouses were rusted for two decades, until the creators of the Wangard paid attention to them. By the way, the 381-mm Mark I gun itself was developed before the First World War.

No one was going to create a new weapon for the latest battleship.

This fact once again confirms the stagnation and death of naval artillery in the mid-1940s.

What came to replace her? Probably, aviation?

After the war in the United States, of the six Midway-type aircraft carriers, only three were completed. And the construction of the head super-carrier “United States” was stopped five days after laying (1949).

As for the USSR, there the presence of aircraft-carrying ships in the Navy was not visible even in the long term.

In the end, the fleet cannot consist of aircraft carriers alone.

What were the ships of other classes armed with that replaced the cruisers and battleships?


They were armed with rockets!

The first domestic ship with missile weapons was the cruiser Admiral Nakhimov (68 bis). On its board in 1955, the experimental complex “Quiver” with the RCC “Comet” ship-based was installed.

The following year, the design of the first ships, originally designed for missile weapons, began in the USSR. And the obsolete KRL “Nakhimov”, despite its young age, was soon decommissioned and sent for cutting.

Notice, we managed to travel back in time to the end of the 1950s!

Across the ocean, the first missile carriers (Long Beach and Feregat) were also laid in 1957.

A pair of refitted Baltimore feed with Terrier air defense missile systems, like the domestic Nakhimov, does not count. Not the most successful improvisations based on artillery cruisers of the past.

It remains to be noted that in the period from the end of the war until the end of the 50s, not a single ship of the “new era” was built in our country or abroad.

All this time, the American fleet consisted of ships laid down during the Second World War.

After defeating Japan, the United States suddenly found that their fleet was out of work. All maritime powers were defeated on their backs. Those that have not completely lost their ambitions have moved into the category of allies. And the main and only rival had practically no fleet. The USSR was in no way dependent on maritime communications, and its territory stretched thousands of kilometers deep into the Eurasian continent.

The interests of the fleet receded into the background and for a long time forgot about it.

The Soviet Union at that time was conducting the belated construction of artillery ships with the goal of at least saturating the Navy. And breathe life into the shipbuilding industry.

The reasons are different, but the result is one. The transition from artillery to missiles took more than TEN YEARS. During which virtually nothing was done to move to a new level.

Everything happened in an instant, in 1956-57.

And then it suddenly turned out that the ships of the rocket era can have nothing to do with their predecessors!


Firstly, it turned out that the Navy will no longer see large ships.

The terms of the naval treaties of the 1930s, which spelled out the limitations of the standard displacement for cruisers “not more than 10 tons” or “000 tons” for battleships, seemed new in some conditions grotesque.

In the Soviet Union, missile ships were designed on the basis of destroyer corps. In an effort to emphasize their status, destroyers were reclassified to “cruisers” during the construction phase. And those that were built as “watchdogs” turned into “large anti-submarine ships”.

Overseas has a similar situation. The Feragat is a destroyer. The larger Legi is the leader of the guided missile destroyer (DLG).

How else to designate ships with a total displacement of 5 thousand tons?

The Legs are slightly larger - about 7800 tons. But on board are three missile systems at once, coupled with oceanic autonomy, previously available only to the best cruisers and battleships.

The real giant was only Long Beach (16 tons). In the title illustration of the article, you can see how this "white elephant" plows the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, accompanied by the battleship of the Iowa class.

When creating the Long Beach missile cruiser, the base ... was chosen for the hull of the Baltimore heavy cruiser.

It installed all available and all promising weapons systems. They “stuck” a cubic superstructure, whose walls were decorated with phased arrays of the SCANFAR experimental radar. Installed 4 missile systems, including the cyclopic Talos, whose 3-ton rockets were assembled from individual components in the workshops of the rocket plant directly on board the ship. The boilers were replaced by nuclear reactors, but the giant 200-meter Baltimore building, being underloaded, continued to stubbornly rise from the water.

Then the designers decided on a desperate step. As the main caliber for the "white elephant" was proposed a set of ballistic missiles "Polaris". Eight reserved mines in the middle of the hull for 13-ton rockets.

Scientific and technological revolution in the field of the Navy

Apparently, overseas they really missed the cruisers of the past era. In terms of their outstanding size and monumental appearance. They decided to build a giant missile ship, but could not find adequate and justifying weapons.

Subsequently, this awkward cruiser with a nuclear power plant became a source of inspiration when creating the domestic "Orlan".

But the speech in this article is still not about the strange ways that technical progress sometimes turns, but about the ships created at the turn of the 50-60s. The firstborn of the rocket fleet.

See what results the Soviet designers achieved in this race!

True masters “fit” maximum weapons into limited sizes.


Project 61. The parent was laid in 1959.

“Singing Frigates” - this is the name of the world's first series of warships with gas turbine power units. Yes, once we were leaders in the field of ship power plants. “Without asking for help from anyone, she herself rose from the ashes of war and dust ...” (K. Simonov).

When the representatives of the project came into operation, 61 were classified as “watchdogs” (TFR). Then, adjusted for dimensions (standard in / and - 3500 tons) designated as BOD II rank. Decades later, when the fleet was saturated with more modern units, they were returned to their original designation - TFR.


The point is not in the power plant, which allowed to develop the course from the cold state in 15 minutes (instead of the few hours required for the "dilution of vapor" KTU). Not in the presence of atomic protection and not in the placement of the main command post on the lower deck. These are obvious consequences of technological progress.

The main feature is in a situation in which there is no need for a large displacement. After all, until recently, 10 tons were missing for ships of this importance.

How can I describe the capabilities of the BOD, in comparison with the ships of the artillery era?

BOD pr. 61 corresponded in size to the leaders of the destroyers ("Tashkent", "Mogador").

"Tashkent" could fire shells weighing 33 kg.

The “Singing Frigate” could deliver to a range of 14 km ammunition weighing 500 kg (after the burning of a turbojet engine) containing 32 kg of explosives!

To "ship" the enemy half a ton of death, in the past era, an artillery gun weighing 55 tons was required (along with the bolt). It made sense to install such a system only on ships with a displacement of tens of thousands of tons. In this case, the performance of the 305-mm guns of the battle cruiser "Alaska".

Where is Alaska and where is the “singing frigate”?

Shooting on surface and air targets in this context does not matter. "Frigate" operated ammunition of such a mass that previously used only LKR and battleships.

Despite its microscopic displacement, against the background of the ships of the past BOD, Project 61 was armed with two M-1 Volna anti-aircraft missile systems related to the ground S-125.

Double girder PUs - one each in the bow and stern. The ammunition of each air defense system was carried out from two eight-shot drum-type stores. The total ammunition consisted of 32 missiles, which had a starting weight of 900 kg.


Each air defense system included a bulky Yatagan post consisting of four antenna devices. All this is on radio tubes. Hence the outstanding dimensions with very unconvincing characteristics. So, the effective firing range was only 14 km. But give a discount on the imperfection of the technology of the 50s!


In the next modification of the Wave, this value increased to 22 km, without a noticeable change in the mass and dimensions of the rocket (end of the 1960s)

Designers of Project 61 did not forget about the "destroyer" origin of the ship. In addition to missile weapons, a full set of mine-torpedo weapons (mine rails, 533 mm torpedoes and RBU) was stored on board.

To top it off, there was a place for artillery. Despite the small caliber (76 mm), the AK-726 artillery pieces occupied a significant share of the mass of weapons of the BOD. Each weighed 26 tons: the result of full automation and the rate of fire of 100 rds / min. on each trunk.

By modern standards, the “singing frigate” had an exceptionally powerful propulsion system for its size. 72 000 h.p.

Of course, this is not “Tashkent”, which had the same size of power plants with a capacity of 130 hp. Unlike torpedo attacks and artillery duels, where speed could be crucial, for rocket ships this parameter faded into the background. Missiles will overtake any enemy, regardless of the difference in speed plus or minus several knots.

We note this as another global change in ship design standards. For all subsequent years, the trend was only to reduce the power of the power plant and increase its operational qualities.

Having familiarized themselves with the appearance of the project 61 BOD, many will express doubts about its sufficient autonomy and seaworthiness. A full-fledged ship from the “tin” with a standard displacement of 3500 tons and a total of 4400 tons cannot be obtained.

Do not forget, this is a ship of a new era, for which all the laws of the past ceased to work. The side height in the bow of the “singing frigate” reached 10 meters!

This is one of the most important signs of missile ships. It is still weakly manifested in small units, such as pr. 61, but it becomes especially evident in larger examples.


TARKR "Orlan" and "Yamato" on the same scale. Ships of the past are like icebergs; the main part of their body was hidden under water

Where the upper deck used to go and the main-caliber towers stood, now the hull structures continue upward. Ships have a small draft relative to the freeboard height, almost throughout the hull.

Let me explain again: the ratio of the underwater and surface parts of the hull has changed. Many were interested in what would happen to the modern "high-breasted" ship if they decided to install an armored citadel on it. By the type of ships of the past. The answer is nothing. He would have "donkey" a few meters in the water, returning to the proportions of the ships of the first half of the twentieth century.

As for doubts about the sufficient autonomy of BOD Project 61, this is partly true. The USSR Navy ordered ships of the near sea zone. Increasing autonomy for them was a matter of technology. And the sizes of battleships are useless there.

Nothing like the “Washington restrictions” and the torment of designers who could not build a balanced ship with a standard displacement of 10 tons.

Take a look at the next generation of Soviet missile ships. Missile cruiser pr. 1134 (“Berkut” code) with a standard displacement of 5300 tons. Full - just above 7000.


At the same time, there are twice as many weapons on board than the BOD Pr. 61.

The same story as with the cruisers URO "Belknap" and "Lehi". Well, who dares to blame these ships for insufficient autonomy?

I hope readers will enjoy such a versatile excursion into the history of the navy.


This material will help to answer frequently asked questions. What changes did the fleet end with the end of World War II? Why don't battleships build anymore?

Because 5000 tons and 50 tons are disproportionate.

As the Long Beach example showed, the designers could not properly dispose of the displacement reserves inherited from the heavy cruiser of the past era. 16 tons turned out to be excessive for a rocket ship of the period of 000-50s.

But time does not stand still.

In the last years of the existence of the USSR in the field of naval weapons, a new technical revolution took place. I am not afraid to say that modern ships have more differences with ships of the Cold War period than the first-born, RKR, compared to ships of the artillery era.

Author:
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather
    Grandfather 31 March 2020 05: 57 New
    -1

    As for the USSR, there the presence of aircraft-carrying ships in the Navy was not visible even in the long term.
    belay
  2. Amateur
    Amateur 31 March 2020 05: 58 New
    +7

    This is in profile. And in front - Yamato is 1,36 times wider and 2,81 times heavier than Orlan.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 06: 20 New
      17
      Quote: Amateur
      And in front - Yamato is 1,36 times wider

      Do not forget about the form)

      LK cases had a fusiform shape. Wide in the middle part, they sharply taper towards the extremities. In contrast, the TAKR case has a constant width of 28,5 m over most of its length



      Ships of the past, in spite of the many times greater displacement, seem to be undersized against the background of modern ones. Even the battleship - in comparison with modern ones, is a very ugly ship. Close looks like a low-breasted scow

      Their displacement varies 12 times.
      In fact, this will only be noticeable in the dry dock, when the underwater part of Iowa, the height of a five-story building, is visible
      1. Sergey S.
        Sergey S. 31 March 2020 09: 31 New
        +3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Even the battleship - in comparison with modern ones, is a very ugly ship. Close looks like a low-breasted scow

        ??
        Even somehow it’s not convenient to talk about it.
        Sorry for the frankness, (-).
        1. Santa Fe
          31 March 2020 09: 54 New
          +1
          Something he is flat, squat
          is it 57 tons?



          Italian fremm looks more solid
          6000 tons
      2. Foxnova
        Foxnova 31 March 2020 09: 44 New
        +5
        Indeed, the tanker is now the most suitable tanker for contours
        1. Santa Fe
          31 March 2020 10: 02 New
          +7
          There are similarities



          Heavily loaded ships
          1. Foxnova
            Foxnova 31 March 2020 10: 55 New
            +1
            Parallelepiped riding

            A sea eagle triangular prism


            So about the fact that if you load it with armor it will be one and the same no, it will go into the water along the running gear. And if you increase in proportion to the displacement, he will remain all the same high-breasted.
  3. Silhouette
    Silhouette 31 March 2020 07: 01 New
    +9
    61 projects - "toothless handsome", did not have shock weapons. Dead-end branch. The error was then fixed by modernization. In real life, our first real missile ship was the "missile destroyer" aka the cruiser pr. 58, about which in the article, for some reason, not a word. But he was a breakthrough.
    1. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 23 June 2020 21: 24 New
      0
      And he was not intended to hunt large surface ships. Just a destroyer or even a large TFR (at the beginning and at the end of a career it was classified). And the air defense systems on it could well work in anti-ship mode, so he was not defenseless. At that time, none of our probable opponents had RCC .. But aviation was in abundance, so 61x weapons at the time of creation were quite adequate.
  4. Mihail2019
    Mihail2019 31 March 2020 07: 32 New
    +3
    In, I have been waiting for something interesting from Oleg for a long time! Finally pleased!
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 31 March 2020 07: 34 New
    +8
    When creating the Long Beach missile cruiser, the base ... was chosen for the hull of the Baltimore heavy cruiser.
    The missile cruiser Long Beach was designed and built from scratch as a frigate, then the project was changed and the hull was increased to "cruising" dimensions.
    On the basis of the Baltimors, the Albany-class URO cruisers were built.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 07: 50 New
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      then the project was changed and the hull was increased to "cruising" dimensions.

      Long Beach is the last ship that had a hull of this shape, size and with such contours
      What were the cruisers of the past era
      Quote: Undecim
      On the basis of the Baltimors, the Albany-class URO cruisers were built.

      Those were remade from the finished ones
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 31 March 2020 09: 02 New
        +5
        Agree that "which had a hull of the same shape, size and contours as the cruisers of the past era "
        and "When creating the Long Beach missile cruiser, the base ... was chosen for the hull of the Baltimore heavy cruiser. - not the same thing at all.
        1. Santa Fe
          31 March 2020 09: 26 New
          0
          not the same thing at all.

          But not what they wanted to catch the author
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 31 March 2020 10: 39 New
            +3
            The task of "catching the author" was not set.
  6. mmaxx
    mmaxx 31 March 2020 07: 49 New
    +4
    Extend a pilot boat to the size of a Yamato or supertanker. Almost all smaller ships have a relatively high side height. Moreover, the angle of sunset of the Reed diagram will be much larger.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 08: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: mmaxx
      Almost all smaller ships have a relatively high side height.

      It does not directly depend on sizes
      But the dimensions determine the purpose and design

      Destroyers never had armor. From this they were very similar to modern frigates, the same "high-breasted"

      The difference in the ratio of freeboard and draft is manifested in large ships (10 tons or more), because any warship of the first half of the XXI, starting with the cruiser, had very interesting load items - armor and heavy weapons. And this was very different from modern ships of the same size
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 31 March 2020 10: 58 New
        +2
        And this was very different from modern ships of the same size
        The armadillos seem to have deliberately designed every deep-seated one to reduce the width of the armored belt (that it is not necessary to armor in the water), even if at the cost of increasing the resistance of the water to the movement of the ship.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx April 1 2020 07: 29 New
          +1
          Nobody ever designed them specially deeply seated. There is the weight of the armor, which must be carried in addition to everything else. The ship is designed for the design load.
          It happened that they specially designed for a certain draft and width - that was. And to deliberately sit deeply - this will never enter anyone’s head.
      2. Sasha_rulevoy
        Sasha_rulevoy April 7 2020 07: 33 New
        0
        The surface / underwater board of an aircraft carrier looks funny.

        1. Santa Fe
          April 7 2020 09: 10 New
          -1
          AB freeboard height exceeds draft

          Naturally, its layout does not contain armored hulls and gun turrets weighing thousands of tons
          Hull structures and "half-empty" volumes
  7. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 31 March 2020 08: 19 New
    +2
    Kaptsov has changed his role and is now praising rockets?
    1. agond
      agond 31 March 2020 08: 45 New
      0
      It seems that in the near future a radical change in the proportions of ships of frigate dimension can be expected, for the possibility of installing 3-4 diesels or more in one row, the stern will be made wider, perhaps it will be the widest place of the hull, by the way, several engines were thought to put in a row along the transom at the beginning on commercial ships and this turned out to be a successful design decision.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 31 March 2020 13: 45 New
        +2
        A wide aft increases drag, no? Pay attention to the photo of the same Iowas in service with modern ships: at the same speed, the foam trail behind the battleship is much smaller.
        1. mmaxx
          mmaxx April 1 2020 07: 33 New
          +2
          There is no connection between wide stern and resistance.
          More wave formation behind the smaller ship occurs due to the fact that at the same speed in the order, the shorter ship travels at a higher relative speed. Hence the waves from him more.
  8. Maks1995
    Maks1995 31 March 2020 09: 18 New
    +1
    Thank you.
    Good article, sensible comments.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 09: 41 New
      +1
      Please max
  9. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 31 March 2020 09: 52 New
    -1
    "Tashkent" could fire shells weighing 33 kg.
    The “Singing Frigate” could deliver to a range of 14 km ammunition weighing 500 kg (after the burning of a turbojet engine) containing 32 kg of explosives!
    Unusual parameter for comparison, interesting article, thank you to the author!
  10. Wasilii
    Wasilii 31 March 2020 10: 14 New
    0
    Compare white with round and and kilometers with kilotons. The author is pathologically obsessed with armaments, although in modern ships, and even more so in old-fashioned ones, the mass share of weapons systems and ammunition is by no means so great. But the mass of armored battleships, wow. Here try to keep within 35 thousand tons.
  11. bk0010
    bk0010 31 March 2020 10: 51 New
    -1
    A design that has absorbed the experience of both world wars
    Really? It began to be designed in 1939, completed in 41. And in general - a second-hand store of some kind, and not a battleship. IMHO, the battleships, taking into account the experience of WWII, were not built, they drank what was for the current tasks, no more. But what could they be the idea can give a draft of Montana, IMHO, again.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 13: 12 New
      +3
      Is it?

      “Vengard” is a champion in combat stability and survivability systems.

      A developed pumping and counter-flood system, which absorbed the entire experience of the war years, six independent posts in the field of energy and durability, four turbo-generators of 480 kW and four diesel generators of 450 kW, located in eight compartments distributed throughout the ship. For comparison, the American “Iowa” had only two emergency diesel generators of 250 kW each (for the sake of justice, the “American women” had two echelons of GEM and eight main turbogenerators).
      Further: the alternation of boiler rooms and turbine compartments in a “checkerboard pattern”, spacing of lines of internal and external shafts from 10,2 to 15,7 meters, remote hydraulic control of steam line valves, ensuring the operation of turbines even in the event of complete (!) Flooding of the turbine compartments.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 31 March 2020 21: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        “Vengard” is a champion in combat stability and survivability systems.
        This is good, but not enough for a battleship. Now, if he were the champion in artillery, air defense and reservation, then the champion in the fight for survivability would not be so relevant for him.
        1. Santa Fe
          April 1 2020 01: 39 New
          +2
          Air Defense and Booking

          Absolute champion
          Unlike Iowa - Wangard had an outer belt
          belt thickness 350, horizontal protection 150

          In addition to the classic citadel - Wangard used 3000 tons of steel for anti-shatter protection of posts in the superstructure. As the practice of world wars has shown, such a solution is more useful than a conventional conning tower

          Air defense - the best in the class, all the same it is the end of the 1940s
          ----
          381 mm broads are not very interesting these days, but measures to increase survivability are worth paying attention to
          -----
          Here are the priorities for creating the last battleship
        2. mmaxx
          mmaxx April 1 2020 07: 36 New
          0
          Reasonable sufficiency made him a champion.
  12. Niko
    Niko 31 March 2020 11: 38 New
    0
    INTERESTING, BUT THIS IS A NEW FASHION TO COMPARE THE WEIGHT OF ONE SINGLE AMMUNITION, AND NOT THE WEIGHT OF A VALVE? NOT SAYING ALREADY ABOUT PERFECTION (OR NOT PERFECTION (FOR ROCKETS OF THOSE YEARS) OF FIRE CONTROLS?
    1. bk0010
      bk0010 31 March 2020 12: 44 New
      +4
      Volley weight is of little interest if one has a percentage of hits of -2 and the other has 85, I wonder how many explosives the target received per battle or per unit of time.
      1. Santa Fe
        31 March 2020 13: 03 New
        0
        and another - 85

        If the addressee correctly uses electronic warfare, he will not receive damage at all

        Missiles have their weak point
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 31 March 2020 14: 16 New
          +1
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Missiles have their weak point


          Only missiles without ISN.
          But low-flying anti-ship missiles, which arrived in the target area, must be detected in a timely manner.
          And it's not a fact that electronic warfare and "noodles" will have time to form stable interference, and the anti-ship missile, having a flight time of about 60-90 s, will not have time to take a lead, who knows what is in the programmer. On a single target - it will definitely not miss.

          This is not an Atlantic conveyor :))
          1. Santa Fe
            April 1 2020 01: 46 New
            +2
            But low-flying anti-ship missiles, which arrived in the target area, must be detected in a timely manner.

            Doomsday War Precedent
            Of the 54 issued PCRs, not one hit the target. Eilat’s success could not be repeated

            On the Falklands, attacks with the use of anti-ship missiles, which were most primitively opposed - passive jamming clouds and foil from helicopters - ended to no avail

            The Iranian corvettes with Harpoons were unsuccessful - American EWs took rockets to the side
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. April 1 2020 09: 52 New
              +1
              All cases listed by you:
              Yom Kippur War - obsolete missiles, with which the Israeli electronic warfare "shifted" the point of impact behind the stern of the ship, which they wanted - one war - and change the ranges.
              Modern anti-ship missiles - at least have multi-band RSSGs. It is effective to set interference in the multi-range for the last 15 years - we have learned how to do it for 20 years. In the optical, radar and infrared spectra. But for this there are expensive SIDs - which predict the lead point, even if the target was covered by interference after detecting RCC
              And from a distance of 5-7 km - no noodles will help.
              Except - dynamically changing the ranges of modern electronic warfare and even that, it is extremely difficult to put interference in the sub-millimeter range.

              The incident at the Falklands was the reason for the limited ammunition load of only 5 exosets, two of which were positive - and the launches were carried out from the maximum distance, without any tactical maneuvering - there was no experience.

              Iranian harpoons are a classic, I would be surprised if our Navy did not manage to interfere with their own anti-ship missiles - even here, electronic reconnaissance ships are not needed to "spud" the training grounds of the Navy, in order to determine the parameters of the radar and, if you're lucky, the RGSN anti-ship missile system.
              In Soviet times, the means of detection worked conditionally called in daily and combat mode, so for the adversary, the transition to combat mode in case of conflict would be a surprise.
              The export ones did not have such a function - hence the defeat of the Syrian air defense in Lebanon in 1982 (Operation Medvedka 19) - having the time and money - it was wise to remove the radar parameters in advance and develop countermeasures to counter Syrian air defense.
        2. Niko
          Niko 31 March 2020 15: 02 New
          0
          It depends on which of the addressees, a good art cruiser even without the fire control devices of the end of the Second World War, that is, with the same 2-4% "throws" much more than 500 kg. And not everything is past .... but the new "cans" are enough and 2% of those caught.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 31 March 2020 17: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Niko
            that is, with the same 2-4% "throws out" much more than 500 kg.
            500 kg of what? Shells of 500 kg and more were, but they only have 80 kg of HE in a high explosive version. One missile drags explosives like 6 shells of a battleship.
            Quote: Niko
            .a new "cans" will be enough and 2% of those who have got.
            If a good artillery cruiser survives to approach a distance art. fire.
            1. Niko
              Niko 31 March 2020 19: 38 New
              0
              Let me remind you: the article was about 14 kilometers. And a significant loss in speed
            2. Niko
              Niko 31 March 2020 19: 43 New
              0
              Look at the rate of fire and weight of ammunition, their effect on unarmored targets for cruisers of the late c2. 1 rocket in a few tens of minutes, or several hundred shells in a couple of minutes with 2-4 percent of hits, they are guaranteed to bury the tin in a "fair fight" ((funny name but suppose equal battle conditions), I'm not saying what will happen if there are 2 targets for one rockets.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 31 March 2020 21: 18 New
                0
                And why
                Quote: Niko
                1 rocket in a few tens of minutes, or several hundred shells in a couple of minutes
                , and not vice versa? What prevents to give a full missile salvo? A few hundred shells in a couple of minutes - this is only the anti-aircraft gun, even Des Moines gave no more than 90 shells per minute.
                1. Niko
                  Niko 31 March 2020 21: 58 New
                  0
                  We are talking about the late 50s and early 60s. And what’s better: to get one 500 kg rocket into the bow projection of a ship or 10 -50 kg of six-inch shells.
        3. bk0010
          bk0010 31 March 2020 17: 43 New
          +1
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Missiles have their weak point
          The old missiles had a weak point: the radar guidance had electronic warfare and foil fountains, the remote-controlled ones had electronic warfare, the infrared seeker had an irrigation system that washed away the infrared image to complete indistinguishability (one that was against chemical weapons and radiation), etc. Against multichannel missiles, all this doesn’t really help.
        4. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 31 March 2020 23: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Santa Fe
          If the addressee correctly uses electronic warfare, he will not receive damage at all

          Timely put the word "if" good
          During the "tanker war" in the Gulf, the Americans successfully rejected two "Harpoons" (their own, but sold to the Iranians). But two "Exocets" were immediately caught. Although three days before the incident, they managed to report to the command that the frigates were also guaranteed to be protected from French missiles. Someone interfered with this untimely report on reliable electronic warfare. laughing
          1. Santa Fe
            April 1 2020 01: 50 New
            0
            Timely put the word "if"

            This is the uncertainty of hybrid wars.
            You can suddenly shoot like an ally

            Another question is whether it will be possible to repeat against a real enemy in a real combat situation.
            -----
            Missiles have a weak point and these 0.85 probability of defeat only in exercises
            1. Saxahorse
              Saxahorse April 1 2020 22: 48 New
              0
              Quote: Santa Fe
              Another question is whether it will be possible to repeat against a real enemy in a real combat situation.

              Of the recent examples, the war in Yemen. Saudi and Emirate ships received 2016 or 19 hits in 5-6 with severe consequences .. Sheiks do not save on modern equipment, but they break through despite electronic warfare. Although you are right, far from the first and second rocket.
        5. Niko
          Niko April 1 2020 12: 34 New
          0
          And once in serious: the article is really interesting and I look forward to continuing, and the rockets are good. I do not agree with the concept itself: "since we have missiles, we do not need armor" or at least with the fact that this is the ONLY TRUE path of development.
    2. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 13: 09 New
      0
      Do not scream like that, wake everyone)

      The salvo weight in this case is not interesting, because 10 shells of small caliber are not equivalent to 1 large

      Otherwise, why did the designers suffer, installing 305 mm -356 mm -381-and so on on ships. If you could achieve the same volley weight with a 6 '' quick-fire battery

      The trick is that the 3500-ton ship learned how to use half-ton ammunition
      1. Niko
        Niko 31 March 2020 15: 03 New
        -1
        In battle, battleship against battleship yes. And at night at Guadalcanal, 40mm x battleships were also enough
      2. Niko
        Niko 31 March 2020 15: 05 New
        -1
        I don’t criticize, just every author sees one side, but in terms of half-ton ammunition ... they were used before the 1st world ... (I mean torpedoes) and by the number of centuries long-range is far ahead of the missiles
        1. Santa Fe
          April 1 2020 01: 53 New
          0
          Torpedoes have so many features, restrictions on use and weaknesses that their example is superfluous
      3. Niko
        Niko 31 March 2020 15: 16 New
        -1
        "10 shells of a small hummingbird is not equivalent to one large ..." ASK "ADMIRAL SPEE"
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 31 March 2020 18: 42 New
          +1
          Quote: Niko
          ASK "ADMIRAL SPEE"

          Two 203-mm and eighteen 152-mm shells that hit him did not cause him fatal damage. The main artillery "Admiral Graf Spee" remained fully operational: despite three direct 6-inch hits on the turrets, the solid armor was so reliable that they did not even temporarily stop firing. Light artillery suffered more severely: one 150-mm gun was completely out of order, and the hoists for supplying ammunition to others were damaged. Of the three 105-mm installations, only one remained in operation. There were also minor floods through holes in the skin in the bow, but the ship had no heel or trim, and its energy was in perfect order. Of the nearly 1200 people in the team, 1 officer and 35 privates were killed, and another 58 received wounds and poisoning, most of them light.

          For that "Exeter" practically lost its combat effectiveness after the third hit of the 11 "-th blank wink
          Everything is relative. A hail of small shells to a well and sensibly booked ship will not do much harm than a small number of heavy and large shells .. Although in any case the important role is not the number of hits, but quality - i.e. shells that lead to loss of combat capability.
          1. Niko
            Niko 31 March 2020 19: 35 New
            0
            That's right. Now imagine that these are modern tins (in terms of armor) and armor penetration ceases to play a decisive role: the answer is obvious
            1. Santa Fe
              April 1 2020 02: 02 New
              +1
              I think you are confused in a dispute with a colleague bk0010

              In the first half of the twentieth century, the task was to shoot large ammunition (smaller calibers in a battle of linear forces were useless). Of the technical equipment there was only artillery. Art of this caliber was placed only on large ships

              Nowadays, the task has remained the same. Delivery of the largest possible ammunition to the target. If desired, any ship even less than 1000 tons in / and can launch ammunition weighing from an Iowa shell. Thanks to rocket technology that would be useless without electronics and guidance systems

              There was no need for large ships during the Cold War - one of the thoughts in the article
              Since the 90s, the situation has changed, but that's another conversation
              1. Niko
                Niko April 1 2020 08: 18 New
                0
                I can’t say that I’m completely confused, it’s just something like this a conversation between people arguing “who is stronger than an elephant or a whale” and the article is not bad, just there is no thought in the comments: “all this has already happened” and more than once ”and“ armless ships ”and“ new weapons that buried old ships and concepts "and" this is better forever "at once, although there are obviously a lot of NO. THEM WILL HAVE TO USE A DEN OF SCHA EW AND AIR AND THE PRICE OF THESE AMMUNITION.
                1. Santa Fe
                  April 1 2020 08: 49 New
                  0
                  Niko, target selection is not limited to ships of 3500 tons. These may be ground targets. Speaking of high-tonnage ships of 1000 tons with 500 kg of ammunition (warheads of missiles) I actually meant Buyans with calibers
                  1. Niko
                    Niko April 1 2020 09: 11 New
                    +1
                    I'm not against. And I don’t argue, it’s rather just interesting to talk to. It was said about the volleys of missiles. Again, who can afford these volleys (tens of millions of dollars) to solve the problem, which can be solved much cheaper, and this is one of the factors that will more and more strongly affect all the prodigies. Or the problem about the ship: at some point it may become cheaper and more reliable not to fight everything that flies and to defend yourself with armor again (in history there are many examples of how difficult it is to disable lx with the help of aviation, for example (as the equivalent of modern missiles) and even em getting hits Kamikazes with a total weight of tons were usually able to withstand. And the allied pilots' exercises in bombing with MONSTERY ammunition at fixed targets in German ports? Who can spend so much time and effort now? (Money) and Yamato in the last trip? Could this ace it sink? (especially without torpedoes?) 2-3sotni missiles? Where can I get them? And on the other side of the Falklands and the relatively modern ships lose their fighting capacity of unexploded ordnance.
          2. Niko
            Niko 31 March 2020 19: 52 New
            0
            In general, there was a good series of 2 articles about a year ago, "Reflections on the effectiveness of the Japanese medium-caliber artillery in the Tsushima battle", everything is well laid out about "armored monsters" and medium caliber. WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING IF SOMEONE COULD CONTINUE THE THEME IN THE PLAN OF INCREASING THIS EFFICIENCY FOR THE AVERAGE CALIBER WITH TIME (THE EXPANSION OF ARMOR, A HUGE NUMBER OF TARGETS WITHOUT THE BARROW) ...
            1. bk0010
              bk0010 31 March 2020 21: 22 New
              0
              No problem: ships that rely only on medium caliber will melt before they reach the firing range. The same as with an aircraft carrier: art. a ship can not only disrupt the rise of an air group, but also drown an aircraft carrier, only who will allow it?
              1. Niko
                Niko 31 March 2020 21: 55 New
                0
                Today's yes. 50-60s years ??? NO. TOMORROW? (WITH SMART APPLIANCES) and the inability to defend against many small goals ??? In practice: why do you have to shoot anything (usually anti-aircraft missiles) at the ships? The main weapon due to various circumstances is not at all as good as on paper
              2. Niko
                Niko April 1 2020 10: 16 New
                0
                Bk0010 "Ships relying only on medium caliber will sink before they reach firing range" ask Exeter, Ajax, or Achilles? How did they not understand that they were sunk?
                1. bk0010
                  bk0010 April 1 2020 10: 19 New
                  0
                  You still remember about Cole, offer ships to sink rubber boats. We must proceed from the general case, and not from exceptions.
                  1. Niko
                    Niko April 1 2020 10: 58 New
                    0
                    Practice shows that theoretical calculations (what you call a "common case") and life (real battles, real co-workers, in real conditions) are completely different things. Both have the right to life, but for some reason the lovers of "theory" do not want to reckon with specific cases (even if "exceptions") of which sometimes there are more than "non-exceptions"
                  2. Niko
                    Niko April 1 2020 11: 12 New
                    0
                    With rubber locks a great idea
          3. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 31 March 2020 23: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Rurikovich
            Two 203-mm and eighteen 152-mm shells that hit him did not cause fatal injuries.

            I do not believe. laughing

            For some reason, the final report says about two disabled main guns of the aft tower, not counting a bunch of other troubles. Well, the very first Exeter 8 "shell, which easily penetrated the main armor belt, made an extremely unpleasant impression on Langsdorf, and not only on him. It is not surprising that further he fired the main battery only at Exeter.
            1. Niko
              Niko 31 March 2020 23: 29 New
              0
              And even though everything was "good" on the Spee, he drowned here and now (omit details) and Exeter is on the other side of the earth, and after a while
            2. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich April 1 2020 06: 39 New
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              The final report for some reason says about two disabled guns of the aft turret

              I do not believe. I take data from a site where the author uses German sources. But he does not talk about two disabled guns of the Civil Code. No.
              1. 27091965
                27091965 April 1 2020 08: 18 New
                +1
                Quote: Rurikovich
                But he does not speak of two incapacitated guns of the Civil Code.


                This is not a statement, but an assumption.

                " The Admiral Graf Spee then changed course and fired two or three eleven-inch cannon salvos at the Achilles. The fact that the Admiral Graf Spee changed course to bring its forward turret on alert in order to fire these volleys suggests that the enemy's 11-inch aft turret was disabled at that time."1940. Admiralty battle report.
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich April 1 2020 18: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: 27091965i
                  This is not a statement, but an assumption.

                  You cite the English ASSUMPTIONS as early as 1940, and according to the German APPROVALS, for 80 years it has been said that all the guns were in good working order. Who to believe - English assumptions of ancient times or German statements ??? wink
                  Since the "pocket battleships" had only 6 main guns, the main gunner "Admiral Graf Spee", frigatten-captain Paul Ascher, alternated firing from both turrets, firing three-gun salvos, after covering to full 6-gun volleys. From the outside it could look like "uncertain shooting with separate control from different towers at different targets" (from the report of Harewood).

                  on the basis of such reports erroneous assumptions are formed yes
                  1. 27091965
                    27091965 April 1 2020 18: 52 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rurikovich
                    on the basis of such reports erroneous assumptions are formed


                    Dear Rurikovich, I have cited only the source where such information comes from. There are many such examples in history.
                    1. Rurikovich
                      Rurikovich April 1 2020 19: 07 New
                      0
                      Quote: 27091965i
                      I just cited the source where such information comes from. There are many such examples in history.

                      Ok hi
      4. Niko
        Niko April 3 2020 14: 07 New
        0
        By the way, the question is: Nowhere did I find information that these same "500 kg ammunition" (anti-aircraft missiles) could work without triggering a radio fuse (as for air targets), you will certainly agree that a 500 kg shell with lx exploded inside the hull, and the same weight anti-aircraft missile that exploded on approach is not the same
  13. 27091965
    27091965 31 March 2020 11: 55 New
    0
    No one was going to create a new weapon for the latest battleship.

    This fact once again confirms the stagnation and death of naval artillery in the mid-1940s.


    " Whatever the differences in size, both proposals, J. Forrestal and C. Vinson put forward a balanced fleet in composition with a very significant place for the traditional cannon ships of battleships, cruisers and destroyers. The President did not support either plan. Determined to curb deficit spending, Truman ordered a reduction in defense funding, while relying more and more on the US nuclear monopoly to guarantee victory in the event of war."
  14. KKND
    KKND 31 March 2020 11: 56 New
    0
    Oleg, I'm sorry, but you were engaged in the "brain mast ....." American "Zulmvat", then you said that it was an unsuccessful ship, before that ancient technologies of battleships and armor protection, and now it seems that you are throwing your love object again?
    Well, as if for a young man this is normal, but something tells me that you have not been a young man for a long time.
    Although they say that the Millennials generation is almost not growing up.
    On the topic, I’m not strong, but we can say that the military knows seemingly simple but absolutely not obvious things for ordinary people they are much more aware of what equipment to order from the industry. And at the same time, they often get to the bottom where ordinary people understand why they have done this and not otherwise.
    1. Santa Fe
      31 March 2020 12: 29 New
      0
      American "Zulmvat", then they said that it was a bad ship,

      Years passed, previously unknown things became clear. Project stalled

      It would be strange not to change your mind, despite the new information
      Prior to this, the ancient technology of battleships and armor protection, and now it seems to again throw your object of love?

      Why do you think so?
      Nothing has changed on this topic.

      That the ships of the first half of the twentieth century. were non-masters - there is a technical explanation for that. But beauty is not the main thing for weapons
  15. KKND
    KKND 31 March 2020 13: 09 New
    0
    On the subject:
    "Singing Frigate" could deliver to a range
    14 km
    Ammunition weighing 500 kg (after burnout TTRD), containing 32 kg of explosives!

    Exactly only 14 km? For a half-ton rocket for "slow" surface targets, there should be much more.
    Hence the outstanding dimensions with very unconvincing characteristics. So, the effective firing range was only 14 km.

    For 900 kg of a rocket, too, it’s 40-50 kilometers away by weakly maneuvering air can fly by eye.
    I’m a little familiar with rocket science and I’m not impressed by your numbers from the ceiling, learn physics.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 31 March 2020 16: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: KKND
      Exactly only 14 km? For a half-ton rocket for "slow" surface targets, there should be much more.

      The question is - how to aim at long distances? If we work on a radio-contrast surface target with manual tracking, then we run into the radio horizon, behind it the radar does not see anything, and the operators simply have no target mark. If the mode is "ground", then it is good only for a stationary target.
      Quote: KKND
      For 900 kg of a rocket, too, it’s 40-50 kilometers away by weakly maneuvering air can fly by eye.

      S-125 was spawning low-altitude and short-range. 30-32 km is the limit (the first models generally have 12-17 km).
      1. KKND
        KKND 31 March 2020 16: 50 New
        -1
        If you rely on the possibilities of radio visibility or the limits of electronics then rockets just have to weigh less. L-Logic. Then, there are practically no limits on the SAM range (they are very large if launched as ballistic missiles) it all depends on too many parameters, the most obvious of which is the target’s parameters.
        Stop believing the numbers a la S-400 400 km, Shell-20, etc. they have nothing to do with reality.
        Percussion:
        Specifically, on the "Singing Frigates" there was a giant P-15, about 14 km and about 32 kg of the warhead of speech at all there, where they from Kaptsov I do not know (getting old).
        According to the air defense system, there I think drifting balloons and I’ll hit from 60. (very rude by eye).
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 31 March 2020 20: 10 New
          +2
          Quote: KKND
          If you rely on the possibilities of radio visibility or the limits of electronics then rockets just have to weigh less. L-Logic. Then, there are practically no limits on the SAM range (they are very large if launched as ballistic missiles) it all depends on too many parameters, the most obvious of which is the target’s parameters.

          I really want to look at the launch of ballistic missiles S-125 - taking into account the fact that the complex works either according to the three-point method or the half-straightening method (more precisely, not exactly half wink ).
          Quote: KKND
          Specifically, on the "Singing Frigates" there was a giant P-15, about 14 km and about 32 kg of the warhead of speech at all there, where they from Kaptsov I do not know (getting old).

          On pr. 61 there were no anti-ship missiles. And the only anti-ship vehicle for them was the M-1 SAM system.
          P-15s appeared only during the modernization of five BODs at 61MP Projects and the completion of one BODs at 61M Projects - with the subsequent reclassification of this six into DBK.
  16. Operator
    Operator 31 March 2020 14: 04 New
    +1
    A big request to the author to bring his story about scientific and technical progress in the Navy to the present (since the scientific and technical progress of 30 years ago sounds like a sturgeon of the second freshness).
    1. Santa Fe
      April 2 2020 03: 20 New
      0
      I will do it soon hi
  17. Hog
    Hog 31 March 2020 15: 34 New
    0
    At the same time, one should not forget that the upper weight of battleships is several times higher due to the mass of the GK + Barbet and PMK towers, and that of modern ships the upper weight is several times lower, and this difference was allowed to the height of the side.
  18. Moon
    Moon 31 March 2020 20: 20 New
    +1
    Good article
    Nice comments.
    Thanks to the authors and commentators.
  19. Saxahorse
    Saxahorse 31 March 2020 23: 19 New
    +1
    The article as a whole really likes it. Beautiful and romantic. Thanks to the author! :)
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Arthur 85
    Arthur 85 April 3 2020 19: 33 New
    0
    As in that joke: and I'm stupid, I didn't understand ... Somehow they wrote that hull structures in modern ships are almost 5% of the cost, and everything else costs "radar". And the speed is not important, and the seaworthiness of the high-board is higher ... Well, I wrote about that a hundred times. Take a tanker of 300 thousand, and cut into it 300 UVP, and that sacred radar, which is most expensive. Or a cruise ship. What is the difference if the ship's only task is to direct its missiles (aircraft) to the target? And having caught a nuclear warhead, no amount of sealed compartments will save him?
  22. severok1979
    severok1979 April 6 2020 01: 42 New
    0
    What for on our ships and submarines put giant anti-ship missiles, the flight range of which was several times greater than the detection range of onboard ASG and radar ?! Did they seriously believe in stupid schemes with remote target designation from other ships, planes and satellites?
  23. DrVintorez
    DrVintorez April 12 2020 14: 03 New
    0
    Quote: Santa Fe

    Missiles have a weak point and these 0.85 probability of defeat only in exercises

    Pruflink is possible by numbers?
  24. Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar April 16 2020 19: 16 New
    0
    The progress of military technology is aimed at secrecy, range, accuracy.
    The problematic approach to the oceans determines the basing of naval forces in the reach of coastal forces and their means of cover.
    Only submarine forces of the navy, mobile (submarines) and stationary submarine bases fully meet such conditions, which greatly increases their combat effectiveness and survival, and therefore the deterrence factor of the Shchasovites from rash adventures and provocations, such as the possibility of the use of low-power tactical impunity nuclear warheads.
    The arsenal of such forces and means can vary, and they themselves minimally depend on the so-called. “Human factor”.
  25. The comment was deleted.