What war is the fleet preparing for


The projectile fired from the barrel of the AK-630 flies 900 meters in a second, managing to complete 1260 revolutions around its axis. (900 / 23,8 * 0,03, where 23,8 is the steepness of the rifling, measured in calibers.)


In artillery systems using the Gatling scheme, shells are twisted not only by cutting, but also by rotation of the barrel block (after each shot, a rotation of 60 ° follows). At a fire rate of 4500 ... 5000 rds / min. cluster rotation reaches 800 rpm. Fiery whirlwind!

The purpose of the system is firing at air targets at oncoming courses. In this case, the velocity of the shells when they meet the target increases by another 200 or more m / s.

Six AK-630 barrels are mounted at a small angle (degrees °) to the axis of rotation of the gun unit, providing the most favorable dispersion during firing. When the sea anti-aircraft gun shoots, individual shots are not heard. Its rumble is like the buzz of a jet turbine.

The complex consists of two artillery installations with a fire control radar. The total rate of fire is up to 10 rds / min.


A cloud of damaging elements in the path of an anti-ship missile.


Then two main variants of events follow.

As standard ammunition for sea anti-aircraft guns, shells of high-explosive action were first used. OF-84 weighing 0,39 kg with 48 grams of explosive or OFZ for a similar purpose. It was believed that such ammunition possessed sufficient power to disable any Western-style anti-ship missiles. Able to cause a violation of its aerodynamic appearance, disable the missile guidance system or damage the engine. With the subsequent descent of the RCC from the trajectory and falling into the water.

There was only one problem: a rocket that fell into the water was not going to sink. Its fragments ricocheted off the surface and continued flying in the same direction. Sometimes the unfinished RCC did not even have time to collapse into the water. All this happened in the immediate vicinity of the ship (anti-aircraft gun - the last echelon of defense), which created the risk of its destruction by fragments of anti-ship missiles.

Given the thickness of the skin of modern ships, after a couple of such “successfully repelled attacks”, it should be noted that they will turn into a colander.

In practice, this was extremely rare. Ships in combat never managed to bring down anti-ship missiles using anti-aircraft guns. In half of the cases, the missiles reached their targets unhindered. The rest were struck from air defense systems at a considerable distance from the ship.

At the naval exercises, a couple of incidents were recorded when the ships caught fire from the debris of the targets that got into them.

No one tried to carry out such tests in their right mind: to direct a missile with an unconnected seeker directly to a ship with a crew. In the hope that anti-aircraft guns will 100% complete their task. The price of the error is too high.

Training firing is usually carried out in parallel courses or when flying a target behind the stern / in front of the ship. To exclude the possibility of meeting with debris.

These incidents were tragic accidents. The Americans, when hit by debris, damaged the frigate "Entrim". We have under similar circumstances died MRC "Monsoon". If a couple of close explosions of the Osa-M missile could not stop the target missile - how many high-caliber small-caliber shells would be needed?

Just once, in the early 1990s, overseas staged a show with the execution of the decommissioned destroyer "Stoddard". Even rats escaped from the doomed ship. Only the automatic Phalanx continued to rise in the middle of the empty deck; he was to repel attacks from all the points.

The Phalanx hit all targets. But when the specialists boarded the Stoddard, they were faced with twisted scrap metal. All light constructions bore traces of damage, and the open diesel generator was demolished by the uninhabited drone that fell into it.

The drone had a launch mass of only a few hundred kilograms. But in the west they knew about the size of Soviet missiles!

Legends about the kamikaze were fresh when the 40-mm Bofors shells could not derail the burning Zero with already dead pilots.


Kamikaze at that moment were too close to the ship. Now, to prevent ramming, you need to smash the planes to dust. And ordinary small-caliber automatic machines in such conditions were ineffective.

With rockets it will be the same. Time is running out. A special solution is required.

Therefore, as part of the ZA "Phalanx" appeared armor-piercing subcaliber projectile MK.149 with a detachable tray and a core of depleted uranium. Not for firing on any kind of armored missiles. The choice of BPS was dictated by other considerations.

Given the combination of ballistic characteristics (1100 m / s) and the design of the ammunition, the gunsmiths had the right to rely on the detonation of the warhead of the anti-ship missiles. In other words, a rocket’s self-detonation when a miniature core of a 20-mm shell enters the warhead body. Heat emission of hundreds of thousands of joules will play the role of a detonator for the most stable explosives.

An overly bold statement. Above was a story about the unenviable fate of ships, where the Phalanx, standing guard over the sky, failed. However, there was an explanation for this.

Naval target missiles (RM-15M Termit-R or BQM-74 Chukar) did not have a warhead. Under the presented conditions, a target without warhead was almost a greater danger than a missile with standard military equipment. She could not be destroyed from the inside.

A line of anti-aircraft guns went up and down, but the drone ricocheted off the water and set fire to the frigate's superstructure.

In combat conditions, experts still rely on a more positive result.

The development of naval weapons does not stand in one place.


Based on the AO-18K barrel block (AK-630 complex), Russian gunsmiths created the 3M89 Broadshell artillery complex. AO-18KD block with a barrel length of 80 calibers (instead of 54) with higher ballistic characteristics was used as a new artillery unit. And new BPTS ammunition with a residence permit tungsten alloy core.

10 rounds per minute - two cannon blocks with a guidance system mounted on a movable carriage.

What war is the fleet preparing for

3M89 Broadsword mounted on board the R-60 missile boat of the Black Sea fleet


According to reports, the BPTS shell has a similar design with the ZUBR8 Kerner BPS.

Since we are talking about such serious things, you need to remember the mighty “Goalkeeper”. The Dutch system has received particular recognition worldwide.

The artillery unit of the “Goalkeeper” is represented by a 30-mm GAU-8 seven-barreled cannon, similar to the anti-tank gun of the A-10 attack aircraft. The relatively large mass (approx. 10 tons) and not the highest rate of fire (4200 rds / min) are entirely compensated by the power of the shells. Subcaliber 30x173 mm MPDS with a 21 mm tungsten core, according to calculations, is capable of guaranteed to cause detonation of the warhead of the anti-ship missiles.


Almost imperceptible against the frigate, near the “Goalkeeper” is impressive in size

According to the data presented, the capabilities of the “Goalkeeper” allow in 5,5 seconds to crack down on a two-swing missile, similar to the Moskit anti-ship missile. Detection and escort at a distance of several miles, the opening of aimed fire at a missile approaching 1500 m, with complete destruction at a distance of 300 m from the ship.

300 meters. However, if the warhead does not undermine, the Dutch, by all accounts, expect bad consequences.

The wreckage of a 2-fly missile will pierce through any destroyer!


It remains to be added that, taking into account the similar caliber and ballistics (1100 m / s), the Russian-made Broadsword sub-caliber shells also have the likelihood of initiating the RCC warhead close to 1,0. The subsonic speed of all, without exception, NATO anti-ship means in this context simplifies the conditions of the duel.

AK-630 and AK-630M-2 “Duet”, “Dirk”, “Broadsword”, foreign “Goalkeeper” and “Falanks”.

Over the past 40-50 years, the idea of ​​shooting anti-ship missiles with quick-firing guns was considered an obvious solution for all fleets in the world.


Oerlikon went the furthest, introducing the Millennium anti-aircraft gun, using 35 mm programmable shells. An intelligent approach instead of the brute power of the “metal cutting”.

In the author’s personal opinion, high technologies are useless in this case. As the above examples testify, even direct hits by "land mines" can not lead an offensive missile off course. How will close gaps “scratching” the target with small fragments be useful?

To play according to the traditional rules, the Millennium is prevented by an overly complex construction. The outstanding ballistics and the presence of “conventional” BPS in the ammunition depreciate completely at a low rate of fire (only 200-1000 rds / min) and a small ammunition load (252 shots). In its insolence, this is never a Broadsword. And not even the AK-630 of the mid-1960s.

"Millennium" appreciated the naval forces of Denmark, Indonesia and Venezuela. But something tells us that the Venezuelan Coast Guard sees another purpose for this system: shooting at boats and other surface targets.

Another well-known development in the field of anti-aircraft guns comes from Italy.

Developed in the 1970s. DARDO system adopted by 14 countries. In fact, it was an attempt to “squeeze” the latest opportunities from the Bofors submachine guns. The artillery unit consists of twin 40 mm caliber guns. With all due respect to the well-deserved Bofors, his time was up. The rate of fire of the latest modifications reaches 2x450 rds / min - an insignificant value in the fight against modern missiles. The high power of 0,9-kg shells in this case is not at all a comforting parameter.

The most common (23 countries, 400+ ships) remains the Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery. Which lacks stars from the sky, but contains fewer flaws than all other systems. With certain advantages.


The system is completely autonomous. The latest modifications, in addition to radar, are equipped with sighting OLS

The "phalanx" was originally designed on the same carriage with the guidance system, to simplify calibration and reduce errors when shooting. General Dynamics designers understood the importance of speed drives: the machine is capable of sending a block of barrels from the horizon to the zenith in less than a second. It is relatively simple and compact, does not contain controversial "innovations" and elusive records. The impression is spoiled by the relatively small caliber and low power of 20 mm ammunition, however, the creators of the complex are more likely to hope for the effect produced by shells with a uranium core.

All of these developments are united by one:

Inability to use in real combat conditions.


Due to the extreme lack of time and high missile speeds, the advantages of ZAK can only be realized in automatic mode. The system should independently search for targets and open fire to defeat. She has no time to ask for confirmation.

The threat is not created by the notorious “insurrection of machines”, but, on the contrary, by the imperfection of electronic brains. The program has restrictions on the speed range and sizes of possible targets, but it is impossible to predict what decision the computer will make. And this is not just a program bug. This is 70 rounds per second.

He is dangerous.

Eyewitnesses who saw the “Phalanx” near speak of a depressing impression during the operation of the installation. The complex is constantly buzzing with drives and aims somewhere in the sky. What he sees there, no one has time to understand. “Phalanx” is already pointing at the next object, which, in his opinion, is capable of posing a threat.

In 1996, the anti-aircraft machine of the Japanese destroyer Yubari was shredded by the Intruder attack aircraft flying near it.

Another time, the Phalanx, mounted on board the El Paso weapons transport, after firing at an aerial target, transferred fire to the Iwo Jima helicopter carrier, killing those on the bridge.

On a hot February night in 1991, the anti-aircraft gun frigate "Jerrett" tried to intercept the anti-ship missiles issued by the enemy. Instead of Iraqi missiles, he "planted" on Iowa.

By the way, those missiles were intercepted by a British destroyer with the help of air defense systems.

ZAK are not used in practice. Their work is demonstrated in ideal conditions of marine ranges. In the absence of near all living and nonliving, except for the target itself. After successful firing, they turn him off and forget about his existence.

How to use it in combat conditions? Desperate times require desperate decisions.

Everyone understands that the anti-aircraft means of escort ships can properly “thin out” the air group of their own aircraft carrier. Or arrange a powerful exchange of volleys between the forces of the connection. Otherwise, there is a risk of missed missile attack. Choosing the worst of two evils.

The problem is that combat conditions come too suddenly.

The crew of the Israeli corvette Khanit clearly forgot about the presence of the Phalanx on board. Patrolling along the coast of Lebanon, the corvette was suddenly hit by an anti-ship missile (2006).

Of course, ZAC was inactive at that moment. As already noted, the continuous operation of the Phalanx carries unjustified risks. An automatic anti-aircraft gun will sooner or later be riddled with a liner landing at Beirut Airport.

None of the military is ready to bear responsibility for a possible tragedy. Therefore, in peacetime and wartime, the fleet will do without the “Phalanx”.

Is it any wonder that during the missile attack in the Persian Gulf the ZAK frigate “Stark” was in the “manual control” mode. Simply put, it has been disabled. Without the ability to use the combat potential inherent in it.

How the ZAK installed at the stern could intercept the missile at the course angles, this is another matter. We will talk about a couple of paragraphs below about why the frigate’s project included only one Phalanx.

A self-propelled anti-aircraft gun is similar to a pistol stored in a safe. In the event of a threat, there is no time to get it. And walking with such a gun is inconvenient, because there is no fuse. And in general, he shoots at an arbitrary point in time.

The following thesis could be a good introduction to the article or its epilogue. In practice, explicit parameters are not so important weapons (faster / higher / stronger), how many of its invisible features in the context of the organization of military service.

What happens if a weapon is a source of ongoing emergency?


All officers - from the very top and down the chain of command, will by any means avoid the handling of such weapons in their units. No one wants to risk shoulder straps. Ultimately, at the time of the threat, everyone will forget about him.

It seems that this is exactly what is happening with the naval anti-aircraft complexes of close defense.

The damaged Stark, which belonged to the Oliver Perry type, was equipped with the only ZAK covering the stern corners. The reason was the savings in the construction of frigates, which were created for patrol tasks in peacetime. And were under the reliable protection of their national flag. All more or less serious rivals, understanding the consequences, bypassed the American frigate.

Other ships, which formed the basis of the naval forces, always had a closed loop of near air defense. Which consisted of 2-4 automatic anti-aircraft guns.

Anti-aircraft guns were installed without exception on all combat and auxiliary ships, including boats, transports and integrated supply ships. Cheap and cheerful with fairly high combat capabilities.

This continued until the end of the 1990s, when a systematic rejection of near-defense complexes was outlined. Starting from the 35th Corps, all Burke destroyers lost the bow of the Phalanx.


French and Italian Horizons do not have ZAC at all. Just don't talk about Sadral / Simbad / Mistral. A single launcher with six short-range missiles will provide protection against anti-ship missiles from any direction? With any massive attack? No, this is just a decoration.

Another well-known class of frigates (FREMM) is also devoid of ZAC. The Narwhal and Erilikon KBA cannon launchers are anti-terrorism weapons. They are not suitable for intercepting high-speed means of air attack.


A strange structure on the roof of a helicopter hangar, on the right side - Sadral air defense system in the stowed position

Frigates of the Northwest Group (Iver Hütfeld, De Zeven Provinsien) retained the rudiment in the form of a lone Goalkeeper or Erlikon Millennium in the aft part of the superstructure. One, just one.

Finally, Zamvolt. The destroyer of the future was never planned to arm ZAK. According to the project, they promised a pair of 57-mm Bofors universal cannons for protection against threats in the near zone. At a rate of fire of about 200 rounds / min, such guns are difficult to consider as anti-ballistic missiles.

In reality, the destroyer received a 30mm GDLS with a futuristic design, which is not bad for firing at fishing boats. With the known power of 30-mm ammunition and the rate of fire 50 times lower than that of the Broadsword, they are not designed for more.

It is possible to enumerate various projects and solutions of designers for a long time. But, in my opinion, the conclusion is already quite obvious.

Contrary to popular belief about the importance of "active defense" in modern warfare at sea, in practice the exact opposite is observed.


Most Navy to date have excluded layered defense from consideration, assigning all the air defense / missile defense tasks to long-range anti-aircraft systems and electronic warfare systems. The latter deserve the highest praise, but every weapon has its limit and the probability of interception. Missing rockets in the near zone will not be shot down.

I admit, some time ago it seemed absurd to the author. ZAK stand mere pennies in comparison with other weapons aboard the first-ranking unit, significantly increasing its chances of surviving a missile attack. But there seems to be a serious reason for rejection.

ZAK are useless because of the fears of sailors to make trouble for themselves.

There are a number of fleets where they still adhere to the traditional point of view. Each Japanese destroyer is necessarily equipped with two Phalanxes. (Probably to surely interrupt the deck Aviation American allies.)

The Chinese are increasing the idea of ​​“Goalkeeper” in an increasing way, introducing in the recent past the 11-barrel Type 1130 anti-aircraft gun, making 11 rounds per minute. This is blasphemy. First of all, due to problems with overheating. If the Chinese Navy is so hungry for fire density, it is much more logical to consider an increase in the number of installations themselves. With a more compact and simple design, placed on the sponsors of the add-on under the rhombus scheme.

Which point of view adheres to the Russian Navy


One glance at the new and under construction frigates of the Navy is enough to see: Russian ships in no way give up the near line of defense.

On the other hand, the trend is obvious: short-range automatic anti-aircraft guns are gradually losing priority. On frigates of pr. 11356 (the head "Admiral Grigorovich") anti-aircraft batteries AK-630 have a reduced composition - one installation on each side. The data for firing are centrally generated using the Positive radar.


Frigates 22350 (the leading Admiral Gorshkov) are the carriers of the most powerful weapons for intercepting anti-ship missiles and strategic offensive arms in the near zone among all European and American ships. The sides of the frigate are covered with "Broadswords". Which, as mentioned above, hardly have equal rivals among the means of a similar purpose.


The Broadsword was created as a ZRAK with combined missile-cannon weapons, but its missiles are present only in the form of 3D models. Short-range missiles in this situation were considered unnecessary. A sober calculation with an eye on international experience or another result of “budget optimization”? This is a subject for evaluation by knowledgeable experts.

How “active defense” is organized at distant approaches, air defense systems and electronic warfare systems and their capabilities will be discussed in the next article.

Looking ahead, I will express seditious thought. Not a single modern surface ship, either singly or as part of a compound, can withstand the list of anti-ship means that have been created over the past decades.

What war are ships preparing for?
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. paul3390 1 June 2020 18: 25 New
    • 13
    • 3
    +10
    In general - it seems that the ships stopped building for a real war as soon as they began to remove their armor .. The plastic-duralumin vessel - by definition, raises strong doubts about the ability to survive in battle .. And if the pre-war ships calmly tolerated more than one hit by the main caliber of opponents , then what will happen to the outsiders if they get at least something serious?
    1. Kalmar 1 June 2020 21: 58 New
      • 16
      • 0
      +16
      Quote: paul3390
      And if pre-war ships quite calmly endured more than one hit by the main caliber of opponents, then what will happen to the outsiders if they get at least something serious?

      Perhaps this is due to the different nature of the use of weapons. Instead of exchanging artillery salvos, simply launch a swarm of missiles and comb into the sunset until the enemy responds. Well, it’s still more profitable to shoot missiles launched in response, than to endure hits (which inevitably damage even an armored monster).

      Another thing, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction: the destroyer, burning from getting light anti-ship missiles with an inoperative warhead (Sheffield, he himself) - this is somehow indecent.

      The fact that full-fledged naval battles did not take place for a very long time, since the WWII, in fact, also plays a role. As a result, combat survivability gradually ceases to be a factor in natural selection; economic considerations and a certain abstract combat power, counted by the number of Mk41 / 3C-14 launchers and the like, come first.
      1. bk0010 1 June 2020 23: 59 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Kalmar
        a destroyer that burns from a light anti-ship missile with an inoperative warhead (Sheffield, he himself) is somehow indecent.
        Destroyers never booked.
        1. Kalmar 2 June 2020 09: 57 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: bk0010
          Destroyers never booked.

          It’s not even a matter of booking, but simply a certain margin of safety and vitality.
    2. ProkletyiPirat 2 June 2020 01: 28 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: paul3390
      In general - it feels like the ships stopped building for a real war as soon as they began to remove their armor from them ..

      In fact, everything is quite simple, before armor made it possible to increase the efficiency and probability of completing a combat mission, but not today. It’s just that if the RCC got into the ship, then it doesn’t matter if there’s armor or not, anyway it’s either a corpse at the bottom or home to the shipyard, therefore there is no sense from the armor because it does not affect the combat mission. But earlier, armor allowed longer to stay in battle, more damage and therefore increased combat effectiveness.
      1. max702 3 June 2020 13: 05 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        There is a feeling that the armor was written off due to the nuclear weapons factor .. Here then, yes, with a database using nuclear weapons, the ship’s armor is absolutely harmful and its weight can be spent on something else .. BUT the nuclear weapons database did not happen, and the boats became so cardboard that now the very concept of the navy puts into absurdity because everything goes to the point that an infantryman with anti-tank systems can very well sink a large boat ..
        1. psiho117 3 June 2020 20: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: max702
          There is a feeling that the armor was written off due to the factor of nuclear weapons .. Here then, yes, with a database using nuclear weapons, the ship’s armor is absolutely harmful

          But nifiga. Google operation Crossroads.
          Of the 20 ships located within a radius of 914 m from 23 Kt of air explosion, only 5 sank:
          2 vehicles, 2 destroyers and a cruiser. other ships - aircraft carriers, battleships, sub. boats (in surface position), transporters, dry cargo ships - all ships further than 500m escaped with heavy, but repairable damage.
          “Nagato” generally suffered moderate rather than heavy injuries, despite a bunch of unrepaired injuries since World War II. I had to blow it again after 3 weeks wassat
          During the day, almost all surviving target ships were repaired. The ships were inspected, the tools were restored, and the ships were rearranged for the next nuclear test.
          Fifty-seven guinea pigs, 109 mice, 146 pigs, 176 goats and 3030 white rats were housed in 22 target ships in places where people are usually located.
          10% of the animals were killed in an explosion, 15% - from a flash of radiation, 10% died subsequently. A total of 35% of the animals died directly from the explosion or radiation.
          1. max702 12 June 2020 18: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, yes, it doesn’t hurt, of course, is it really from this? there they looked a little further and there was clearly an understanding that the nuclear weapons would be more powerful, more precisely, and more massive .. Therefore, with the increase in the potential and saturation of the nuclear weapons, there is no sense in armor .. That’s why they refused, the displacement and power of the SU are not rubber ..
      2. Alexander Samoilov 3 June 2020 19: 10 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        WWII battleships withstood several direct hits of 500 kg bombs, warheads of which are much more powerful than most modern anti-ship missiles.
        1. ProkletyiPirat 3 June 2020 22: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So the explosion is near or on the surface, and then the explosion is inside. Yes, and you misunderstood my idea, the matter is not in the armor itself, but in its help in increasing the damage done, and this is where armor does not help modern ships.
          1. Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 06: 46 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ships were usually bombarded with armor-piercing and they exploded inside, often piercing right up to the keel. I agree with the damage. Although, here, too, how to look. A modern ship will not always launch all missiles in one gulp. And to survive to the second armor is very useful.
            1. ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2020 15: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              firstly) you miss one small but extremely significant point, while most warheads exploded near the ships, both due to poor accuracy of artillery, and due to poor accuracy of bombing (especially under air defense fire), and even not all types of weapons had a sufficient design, weight and speed to get inside (for example, torpedoes, bombs without a moderator, bombs with a moderator but an inappropriate trajectory / speed). Modern RCC does not have all these shortcomings initially. Namely due to these shortcomings, the then armor gave an advantage in battle.

              secondly) you probably know but clearly don’t understand the difference between the essence of naval combat with reference to the distance “then” and “now” (here I couldn’t formulate my idea in a strict form). Try to do the same as I once did, just grab and go through the stages of the battle laying out and sketching everything on paper. And in the second iteration, look at how the failure of the detection, recognition, target designation and / or other elements affects these stages. And in the third and subsequent iterations, try to work out options for maintaining the operability of these tools. In 3+ iterations, it’s like you and mine that the armor neither affects the stages themselves nor their sequence “now”.
              1. Alexander Samoilov 10 June 2020 18: 36 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Of course, now to disable a ship it is not at all necessary to sink it. Disruption of a combat mission can be ensured by damage to any of the systems you specify. But this is if the rocket hits them. And even in this case, he will return to the base and after a maximum of a week will be ready to go to the theater again. Replacing radar or RTS antennas and other little things will not require much time. It is quite another matter if, for example, an aircraft carrier with five thousand crew goes to the bottom. And this will happen just one small racket to get into the ammunition cellar. We did not have such precedents solely because of the lack of large-scale battles at sea after WWII. But the battleships are not in danger.
                1. ProkletyiPirat 10 June 2020 19: 47 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Alexander Samoilov
                  But the battleships are not in danger.

                  Why on earth? they were drowned and incapacitated due to much weaker and less effective shells. Why is RCC having an order of magnitude larger TTX will be less effective? And again, I told you what to do, and instead of that you repeat the same arguments again, you check them first to bring everything to a common denominator (what to put in it I wrote above), otherwise they all went smart all 10 / 100 is more than 2/3, but ten are five times more than two. fool
                  1. Alexander Samoilov 12 June 2020 15: 49 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What a news! "Musashi" sank after getting hit 20 torpedoes and 17 aerial bombs weighing 454 and 908 kg. The Mk-17 torpedo carries 400 kg of cc. And they fell below the waterline, where the thickness of the armored belt is 50-100 mm. FPR warhead "Granita" is equivalent to 618 kg of TNT. So, even if these missiles could penetrate the battleship’s armor, then the entire Petrovich ammunition would not be enough to sink. Since even the heaviest RCCs have a beer can body. It will turn into a pancake when hit by the armored belt of the monitor, not to mention the battleship. Simply put, the total mass of the rocket does not play any role. Only the mass of explosives in its warhead. And now, since you love mathematics so much, calculate how many explosives should be in the same 3M45 so that it can penetrate 40 cm of armor. wink
  2. tlauicol 1 June 2020 18: 27 New
    • 5
    • 11
    -6
    always considered ZAK on board a ship an unnecessary and useless thing
    ps Oleg has not been seen for a long time hi
  3. Kolka Semenov 1 June 2020 18: 33 New
    • 14
    • 1
    +13
    The article is competent and interesting. More to such.
    1. tihonmarine 1 June 2020 22: 08 New
      • 4
      • 5
      -1
      Quote: Semenov Kolka
      The article is competent and interesting. More to such.

      Here I do not mind. Article with title What war is the fleet preparing for
      Question "But why the war? " Russia is not ready for war. ( On the sea).
  4. antivirus 1 June 2020 18: 35 New
    • 3
    • 11
    -8
    3M89 Broadsword mounted on board the R-60 missile boat of the Black Sea Fleet

    -Starodursk "just passed by such a fool with a proudly raised flag
  5. Undecim 1 June 2020 18: 46 New
    • 22
    • 2
    +20
    900 / 23,8 * 0,03, where 23,8 is the steepness of the rifling, measured in calibers.
    23.8 - this is not the steepness of the grooves, but the stroke length of the grooves - the distance at which the groove makes one full revolution. It is measured in calibers. In small arms, the rifling pitch parameter, or twist, measured in inches or mm, is more often used.
    And the steepness of the cut is the angle between the generatrix of the bore and the groove. Measured in degrees.
    In artillery systems using the Gatling scheme, shells are twisted not only by cutting, but also by rotation of the barrel block (after each shot, a rotation of 60 ° follows).
    The author is fantasizing.
    The rotation of the barrel block does not affect the rotation of the bullet around its axis, since both the barrel and the bullet rotate around the axis of the barrel block at the same speed.
    1. Santa Fe 1 June 2020 19: 47 New
      • 10
      • 4
      +6
      23.8 - this is not the steepness of the grooves, but the stroke length of the grooves


      I’m more special about blasters rather than firearms, so I won’t argue
      The author is fantasizing.
      Rotation of the barrel block on the rotation of the bullet around its axis

      You too
      Nowhere is it written that the rotation of the block is connected precisely with the rotation of the bullet specified by slicing
      1. Undecim 1 June 2020 19: 57 New
        • 12
        • 4
        +8
        An author who claims to be a mega-specialist should appeal not to the Internet and Wikipedia, but to serious sources and at least a little understanding of the issue in which he tries to prove that D'Artagnan is the only one, and everyone else is tolerant. Over the network, this crap, launched by some nameless hero, has been walking for a long time.
        Open the textbook "Artillery Course" D.E. Kozlovsky on page 54.
      2. Undecim 1 June 2020 21: 17 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        In artillery systems using the Gatling scheme, shells are twisted not only by cutting, but also by rotation of the barrel unit (after each shot, a rotation of 60 ° follows)
        Kaptsov, who wrote this?
  6. Alexey RA 1 June 2020 18: 51 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Developed in the 1970s. DARDO system adopted by 14 countries. In fact, it was an attempt to “squeeze” the latest opportunities from the Bofors submachine guns. The artillery unit consists of twin 40 mm caliber guns. With all due respect to the well-deserved Bofors, his time was up. The rate of fire of the latest modifications reaches 2x450 rds / min - an insignificant value in the fight against modern missiles. The high power of 0,9-kg shells in this case is not at all a comforting parameter.

    “Dardo” takes not the rate of fire, but the effective range. He is the only ZAK, whose effective range exceeds 2 km, which allows working not only on warhead missiles, but also on the glider. EMNIP, the OS is operating at the “far frontier” of ZAK, and when the anti-ship missile approaches 2 km, the power switches to sub-caliber.
    1. Santa Fe 1 June 2020 19: 55 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      the only ZAK in which the effective range exceeds 2 km,

      Subsonic RCC flies a kilometer in 3-4 seconds.

      How many extra shots will Dardo have time to do?
      What is its accuracy over long distances
      + time to detect a target
  7. sergo1914 1 June 2020 19: 01 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    How can you write about what you don’t understand?
    PS He took part in the design of the Broadsword from 1990-1997. KBTM.
    1. Santa Fe 1 June 2020 19: 59 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      I agree with you.
      I took part in the design of Zircon 2012-2018, and I will say that the author and commentators do not understand anything. And why - I won’t say it, think for yourself
  8. Operator 1 June 2020 19: 47 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Plyusanul for clever thought at the end of the article - but not in the horse (cargoculture) feed.
  9. Avior 1 June 2020 19: 55 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3



    I think that the author did not cover all the nuances. His electronic warfare and traps fell out of his consideration of the problem.
    Like many modern melee systems.
    1. Santa Fe 1 June 2020 20: 12 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      EW and traps from him from the problem in general fell out

      how the “active defense” is organized at distant approaches, air defense systems and electronic warfare systems and their capabilities will be described in the next article.

      Looking ahead
      Like many modern melee systems.

      All have limited use. As well as your ciRam.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2020 20: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Santa Fe
        All have limited use. As well as your ciRam.

        Well, limited application is ruled out by the addition of other means of defense, ZAK will not be able to protect the ship alone from missile attacks, the same harpoons can launch attacks from several sides. ZAK should be considered in the complex of defense means, and not as a separate part.
        1. Santa Fe 1 June 2020 20: 31 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The whole question is in their placement

          Once removed the nasal complex, remove and feed. Otherwise, it’s the scenery. It means they are not taken seriously
          1. Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2020 20: 57 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Well, for some reason, we seriously consider and even develop new systems. The same AK-630M-2 Duet. And yes, it is placed only at the stern of MRK 21631 Buyan-M, although it would be better if the same Bend were installed and missiles were added.
      2. Avior 1 June 2020 21: 48 New
        • 7
        • 3
        +4
        All weapons are limited in use.
        And in general, it works in the system.
        If we talk about the Americans, then they no longer put the Volcanoes on Arly Burke.
        The basis of the mid-range and self-defense of air defense zones on Arly Berks is the ESSM, which covers all three zones and has a sufficient RCC range at extremely low altitudes from the horizon.
        A sufficiently powerful warhead, high overload ability, it has great potential, including, like a missile against anti-ship missiles of any existing type.
        Add the possibility of radio correction, which in combination with the very powerful Arly Burke radar reduces the capabilities of the enemy’s electronic warfare, as well as active homing, which greatly complicates the ability to overload with targets, high speed, large ammunition - 4 pieces in a cell - here’s an explanation of why main missile against RCC.
        SiRAM is put either in addition, or where it is impossible to put an ECM, and used for ship self-defense.
        At medium to long distances, before the GOS RCC sees the target, and the rocket flies in a straight line and usually either very high or low, but still higher than in the last section, SM-2 and SM-6 are used, then RCC , having noticed the goal, decreases, and the ECM enters the matter.
        And plus EW and traps.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock 1 June 2020 22: 21 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          If we are talking about the AUG, then the farthest interception line there is not SM-2/6, but F / A-18 Super Hornet, with Aim-120C7 / D missiles (120-180 km), with a combat radius of 726 km without refueling ( from wikipedia). Naturally, the search for targets will be carried out with E-2C / D.
  10. bk0010 1 June 2020 20: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Using tungsten ammunition for air defense missions is prohibitively expensive (it’s one thing to fire 1-2 shells at a tank, and another at tons per minute on missiles), let them think further.
    The Broadsword was created as a ZRAK with combined missile-cannon weapons, but its missiles are present only in the form of 3D models. Short-range missiles in this situation were considered unnecessary.
    Why do you think so? This is like the cannon part of Redut, its short-range missiles (9M100) can be loaded into the launchers, 4 pieces each.
    1. Knell wardenheart 1 June 2020 21: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Wolf can be replaced by depleted uranium, which we have in abundance
  11. loki565 1 June 2020 20: 53 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I wonder why they turned out to be from the missiles, because they greatly expanded the affected area, and the artillery would have finished breaking through the RCC, as was realized in the chestnut / dirk
    1. bk0010 1 June 2020 22: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not refused: they are in Redoubt (Polement-Redoubt).
      1. loki565 1 June 2020 22: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Redoubts are more medium and long-range air defense, but here we need missiles, near 10-15km
        1. bk0010 1 June 2020 23: 58 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          For him there is a 9M100 - just a short range.
          1. loki565 2 June 2020 00: 18 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            She has a number of nuances ...
            1) At the dagger, the rocket is aimed at the target and immediately turns on the marching engine, and the 9M100 first flies out of the cell, then turns to the side of the target and turns on the marching engine, for a near-radius missile, the loss of several seconds is already critical.
            2) We simulate the situation: 3 anti-ship missiles fly in the ship in close proximity to each other. According to them, 3 9M100 missiles are produced. There is no guarantee that they will take apart each goal. IR GOS can visit all on one target, and there will be no time for a restart.
      2. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 10: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: bk0010
        Not refused: they are in Redoubt (Polement-Redoubt).

        Rumor has it that the explanation for the rejection of missiles at the Broadsword as the fact that ZAK is included in Poliment Redut is from the “green grape” series. But in fact, KBTM just had problems with the missile part of the complex.
        1. ProkletyiPirat 2 June 2020 15: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          But in fact, KBTM just had problems with the missile part of the complex.

          Here the problem is not so much in the problems of missiles as in the restrictions on their placement under the launchers and, therefore, in the restrictions on the layout of the ship.
  12. Polente the Wanderer 1 June 2020 21: 17 New
    • 2
    • 14
    -12
    BUDGETS need to be cut is the main thing
  13. lucul 1 June 2020 21: 19 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    Looking ahead, I will express seditious thought. Not a single modern surface ship, either singly or as part of a compound, can withstand the list of anti-ship means that have been created over the past decades.

    What exactly is needed at the moment, our ship, to confront the RCC?
    I will answer - you need a drone that can guaranteed to hang over the ship 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (well, or continuously change, if there are several, during the battle) at an altitude of 1 m, not depend on weather conditions. And to have our own radar to move the radio horizon from the ship at once by 000 kilometers. Drones can significantly increase the target detection range, which will increase the survival of the ship. As well as the availability of a sufficient satellite grouping of military significance ....
    This is so offhand ...
    1. Knell wardenheart 1 June 2020 21: 46 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I see a number of problems with this approach - the unmasking factor, the over-vulnerability of hope for this approach from a technical point of view (a compact and efficient drone will be expensive, vulnerable to electronic warfare, limited power relative to the similar capabilities of the ship), possible difficulties in real-world use (kilometer transmission cable data and energy supply will be quite difficult for the drone itself, in conditions of air currents above the water at different heights and waves, this can be fatal for the aircraft in general)

      Probably the game will not be worth the candle, although such a device would definitely be useful, it would be expensive and the dependence on such a toy in the defensive plan would not benefit ..
    2. voyaka uh 1 June 2020 23: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "I will answer - you need a drone that can be guaranteed to hang over the ship 24 hours a day, 7 days a week" ////

      The idea is right.
      But for this, the ship must become a light aircraft carrier.
      Bearing multiple jet drones. Changing each other.
      Need a deck and a hangar aft.
      1. Glory1974 2 June 2020 09: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The idea is right.
        But for this, the ship must become a light aircraft carrier.
        Bearing multiple jet drones.

        And if you replace the drone with an airship on a leash? Picked it up 1 km, it hangs there, overlooks the surroundings.
        1. voyaka uh 2 June 2020 09: 42 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Airships (balloons) will certainly appear. To that goes. They will install radars. But they can detect RCC from afar, but not destroy it. Most often, anti-ship missiles are destroyed from a fighter (or jet drone - in the future) flying above it, in the same course with a missile. But this plane must be had.
          1. ProkletyiPirat 2 June 2020 15: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            airships will not appear, because they have a number of drawbacks regarding LA-DRLO
            1) the problem of wind dependence, especially the load on the leash and even when the ship moves there will be problems
            2) the problem of range - the AWACS aircraft can be sent towards the enemy for thousands of kilometers, thereby increasing the time margin for shooting down anti-ship missiles
            3) the problem of redundancy and resistance to electronic warfare - there can be several, and not one, airplanes; airplanes can be redistributed in space to combat electronic warfare
            1. voyaka uh 2 June 2020 18: 21 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              There are disadvantages, I do not argue.
              But the radar towers with afar have already become caricatured high. Like a pyramid.
              Look at the latest English destroyers.
              And the result is scanty. A pair of interchangeable radar balloons will save cruisers and destroyers from these hyper-add-ons.
              Aircraft AWACS is good for everyone. But he does not belong to the ship. He is common. And his command can direct where he sees fit. Leaving the ships without eyes.
              1. ProkletyiPirat 3 June 2020 04: 32 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is solved by the BIOS by the same Ajis and an increase in the number of LA-AWACS.
                1. voyaka uh 3 June 2020 09: 44 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Imagine a simple situation: a single destroyer goes to reinforce its AUG. One. The strait.
                  And from the coast it is bombarded by incomprehensible partisans of the RCC.
                  There are no comrades or AWACS.
                  And I want to live. How to bring down rockets?
                  1. ProkletyiPirat 3 June 2020 22: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Imagine a battlefield, one soldier walks past the bushes, and there are incomprehensible guerrillas from the SVD, wink

                    In the context of a real modern war, only a complete layman will send a destroyer alone. Moreover, the point here is not even that he is a destroyer or he is alone or he does not have self-defense, but the trivial thing is "what will he do there, and even alone"? Here, take this list of “what this destroyer should do alone” and cross out the nonsense about “show the flag \ presence \ ...” cross out everything that the submarines can (actually strike operations) and write here everything that remains. Earlier in previous wars such parcels were good, but today it is either no longer or will not be in the near future.
                    1. voyaka uh 4 June 2020 00: 49 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      "In the conditions of a real modern war" ////
                      ----
                      Namely, in the conditions of a theoretical academic war -
                      will not be sent alone. laughing
                      But in real wars, this has happened, and will happen.
                      all the time. First class single ship
                      conditionally equivalent to an infantry division and must be able to stand up for itself
                      by oneself. Otherwise, it's worthless to him.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat 4 June 2020 13: 52 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You obviously did not understand the essence of my post, I don’t know how to formulate your idea in a different way so that you would understand that your proposals are mistaken at its core.
    3. tlauicol 2 June 2020 05: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lucul
      Looking ahead, I will express seditious thought. Not a single modern surface ship, either singly or as part of a compound, can withstand the list of anti-ship means that have been created over the past decades.

      What exactly is needed at the moment, our ship, to confront the RCC?

      you need a light missile in a Barak or Idas type UVP, etc. etc. But we don’t have such a rocket
  14. Knell wardenheart 1 June 2020 21: 33 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Little by little, they are preparing for a preventive war, hoping that the intimidation will continue to work and that it will not happen.
    The calculation of the Americans is understandable - they proceed from the argument that command and communication nodes will be quickly and massively destroyed in a limited time, in the future they will have the initiative and advantage of information and control (relative to their adversary), which, accordingly, for lack of opportunity to obtain adequate instructions from the center will remain the improvisation of the “blind kitten” - and within this improvisation the threat emanating to the complex of their forces from disparate enemy forces is regarded as insignificant. In other words, specifically by what you wrote, they probably think that in a war where the first blow will be theirs (just based on the quantitative and organizational indicators of the US forces, they cannot imagine that someone will attack them preemptively), pretty soon RCC from an uncontrolled zone will be quite modest - and all the more so given the chance of interception at long lines.
    We, in turn, proceed from a different position - a priori our Armed Forces “in practice” always prepared for an answer and actions after that.
    Other countries are forced to operate with slightly different representations of threats from our or American ones, because for those who consider themselves to be “superpowers”, sudden aggression in a local war is something unthinkable, suicidal, but for just regional powers in Asia or Africa or in the BV in general, that is a common thing. And they will have these complexes for the hypothetical solution of the whole variety of possible threats that can literally emerge from around the corner.

    Zy thanks for the numbers by the way, it was very interesting to read you.
  15. ser56 1 June 2020 21: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A curious beginning - we are waiting for the continuation ... hi
  16. Silhouette 1 June 2020 22: 21 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    I agree with the author on the effectiveness of artillery systems in missile defense. I observed a lot of firing at target missiles and did not see a single one destroyed with the help of the AK-630. Once even their superstructures were almost riddled with, escorting a rocket. But here are the air defense tasks, i.e. nobody canceled firing at aircraft. And other tasks are enough. And not only pirates to drown. So you need them anyway.
  17. Alien From 1 June 2020 22: 51 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Thank you very much to the author, I always read with interest!))
  18. voyaka uh 1 June 2020 23: 41 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    "Each Japanese destroyer must be equipped with two" Phalanxes "////
    ----
    And they are right.
    Phalanx imperfection of the end of the last century is a problem of software imperfection.
    Insufficient distinction between goals. Software can be brought to mind. Fear of robots
    will be held by the military. Automated and robotic systems are a trend that
    impossible to stop.
    1. Saxahorse 2 June 2020 00: 11 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Phalanx imperfection of the end of the last century is a problem of software imperfection.

      Software imperfection is half the problem. The problem itself is an extremely low probability of being hit, according to the frontal projection of a rocket it is less than one percent at a distance of 500-1000 meters. To get at least once you need to land at least 200-300 shells, and sequentially, moreover, one shell for a large missile may not be enough. You need something with a caliber of 80-100 mm. in order to destroy or at least knock off the trajectory from one stroke.
      1. Liam 2 June 2020 00: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In what part of the RCC is the GOS located for example?
        1. Saxahorse 2 June 2020 00: 46 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Liam
          In what part of the RCC is the GOS located for example?

          Do you hope to get directly into the IR sensor with a shell? Squirrel in the eye is cool, but it's not about six-barrels laughing

          And it’s too late to shoot the Kyrgyz Republic in the eye at the last hundred meters, a fool of a ton weighing just by inertia will fly like an ordinary shell. By the way, this is provided for in rocket software, the rudders immediately fix, flies directly by inertia.
          1. Liam 2 June 2020 00: 53 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Come on, why exactly 100 meters and not 1 km? And not only the GSN.Krylo will tear it off for example. The projectile impulse will at least half a degree roll off the anti-ship missiles and missiles miss for many tens of meters in 1 km. "and the air flow at 1000 km / h will break like a tusik heating pad
            1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 10: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Liam
              The projectile’s impulse at least half a degree off course will hit the RCC and missiles miss for many tens of meters in 1 km. And so on and so on. Optionally, the projectile must tear the rocket to shreds to get off course. A small “hole” and an air flow of 1000 km / h tear like an ace

              Will not work. They didn’t go from fragmentation to sub-caliber to ZAK, not from a good life - at a distance of 1,5–2 km the rocket needs to be destroyed, and not play Russian roulette with “deviate - not deviate - not deviate”.
              1. Liam 2 June 2020 17: 57 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                RCC is a very "dumb" and unstable object in the aerodynamic sense. To knock off a course or plop down into the water before reaching the target, even a slight damage to the planes is enough. This is not a plane.
                1. Alexey RA 2 June 2020 18: 25 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Liam
                  RCC is a very "dumb" and unstable in the aerodynamic sense of the object.

                  RCC is a very heavy and fast object. And there is no guarantee that the defeat of the hull and wings will lead her off course.
                  Back in Soviet times, there was a review article on ZAK in ZVO. It explained why short-range fragmentation shells were ineffective and why warheads needed to be used.
                  Currently, abroad there are two main concepts of intercepting anti-ship missiles using short-range ZAK. One of them involves the destruction of a rocket by undermining its warhead (warhead) as a result of direct impact of kinetic impact projectiles into the last, causing detonation of the explosive charge. In another case, RCC damage is carried out by causing serious damage to its airframe and functional subsystems, primarily the homing head (GOS), as a result of detonation of high-density fragmentation projectiles near the rocket with ready-made striking elements made of high density metal and a non-contact fuse. According to the first concept, anti-ship missiles with a warhead containing 200 kg of RDX should be destroyed at least 150 m from the ship to prevent irreparable damage to its antenna systems, as well as general deformation and partial destruction of the hull structures by the blast wave and rocket fragments. In accordance with the second concept, the minimum range for intercepting anti-ship missiles with a subsonic speed of flight should be at least 600-700 m so that the damaged missile does not enter the ship during uncontrolled flight along a ballistic trajectory.
                  1. Fizik M 3 June 2020 16: 45 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Back in Soviet times, there was a review article on ZAK in ZVO. It explained

                    on the "harpoon" 30mm OFS AK-630 was acceptable
                    the ricocheting range of the most “problematic” - warhead and turbojet engine was much less than 1 km
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. Saxahorse 2 June 2020 00: 17 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Interesting article, thanks to the author!

    One can agree with the clearly low efficiency of cannon systems against modern missiles. The probability of being hit is low, the destructive effect of small shells is insufficient. There is a suspicion that some ship KAZ, designed, unlike SAMs of the same SeaRAM, at the very minimum distances of 30-500 meters, should become a replacement for the six-barrel. But his ammunition can be equipped with a serious warhead capable of destroying even fairly large missiles with a close detonation.
    1. prodi 3 June 2020 06: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In principle, an alternative is still possible: a fairly quick salvo firing with medium-caliber shells with simultaneous (radio?) Undermining of their warheads, although the recoil is likely to torture. Well, or NURS packages
  21. LeonidL 2 June 2020 00: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "Looking ahead, I will express seditious thought. Not a single modern surface ship, either singly or as part of a compound, can withstand the list of anti-ship means that have been created over the past decades." - It is quite a sound idea, especially with the prospect of supersonic more than 5M.
  22. Sasha_rulevoy 2 June 2020 04: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In the hot February of 1991, the Falunks did not aim at the battleship. He aimed at SRBOC dipoles floating in the air. Apparently, there was a gust of wind towards the frigate, which made the dipoles a moving target. The shells, flying through the dipoles, fell into the water, and at the end of the steam from them fell into the battleship, without causing any harm.
  23. gregor6549 2 June 2020 14: 00 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Oleg, thanks for the sensible, though not indisputable article. A lot of it echoes, for example, my views on anti-aircraft missile-cannon systems, including those intended for installation on surface ships.
    1. First of all, I emphasized more than once that in military systems, decision-making at all stages of the detection, tracking and destruction of targets (air, sea, ground) should be made by a human operator, ie any machine or semi-atom should be controlled by a person and false decisions made by a "bad machine" should be immediately blocked by it, by a person.
    Otherwise, there is a big risk of getting into your own.
    Yes, many modern systems use measures to reduce this risk. For example, in the same Phalanx, it is possible to pre-set zones / sectors in azimuth (possibly in elevation) in which shooting is prohibited. But such measures, as Oleg correctly noted in his article, work more or less normally in theory and in exercises, but in real battles they will be of little use.
    2. I have always been against the mechanical combination of SAM and ZAK primarily because targeting SAM and ZAK on targets requires both different guidance systems and different algorithms for these systems to work. In addition, due to the rigid binding of the trunks to the missile launcher, the possibility of independent work on various purposes is excluded. This restriction is especially pronounced in "stellar" raids, when you have to deal with targets located at different distances, azimuths and elevation angles and also moving along different trajectories.
    In addition, such combined installations have, as a rule, a large weight, which requires powerful servo drives, and the higher the weight, the lower the speed of transferring the installation from one azimuth / elevation to another.
    By the way, I had at one time (I think in the early 70s) a conversation on this subject with the creators of Tunguska during the tests of the latter at one of the dry army training grounds near Orenburg.
    They admitted, albeit with a creak, that I was right somewhere and this point of view was supported by some military men, but referred to the unshakable authority of the chief designers of such systems and advised me to keep my opinion to myself, because it was fraught with ....
    Well, then the same approach was repeated when creating the well-known Shell and its modifications as well as marine analogues.
    In this regard, the approach of some Western gunsmiths (for example, Oerlikon firms), who, as far as possible, avoided such a union, looks more rational.
    True, the same United States in the latest modifications of the Phalanx began to use the mechanical combination of the gun and long-range missiles. As they say, the flag is in their hands.
    3. Another "bad habit" was the combination of SAM and cannon weapons with active radar. And if at the dawn of the development of anti-radar and computer facilities, such a union was more or less justified, because Allowed to do without the cumbersome calculations required when reducing the coordinates of targets and firing systems to a single coordinate system, as well as without other difficulties inherent in spaced systems (data lines, etc.), now on the agenda there is an ever-increasing task of deploying "shooters" and emitting radio electronic means (radars, lasers, etc.), which are an excellent unmasking sign, as well as a beacon for enemy homing systems.
    Although I was a “land rat,” I participated several times in joint meetings with sailors dedicated to solving this problem. Ideas then came up with a variety of ideas, including such as placing emitting electronic equipment on towed or remotely controlled carriers / platforms.
    Unfortunately, the collapse of the USSR finished off all such ideas in the bud, because It was not up to the fat. Perhaps at some stages in the development of the Russian Navy, they will be able to return to such ideas and build a fleet not on the principle of “well, at least something and somehow,” but build a fleet that can be really effective and stable in modern and predicted conditions.
    It is possible that the era of "cardboard, disposable" ships will be a thing of the past and the ships will receive protection worthy of their time, including armor.
    It is possible that the ships will be equipped with something like active defense systems that are installed on tanks and other armored vehicles. It is even safer at sea, since there are no “pedestrian” soldiers near the ship.
    I apologize for the comment too long, but it became painful ....
  24. exo
    exo 2 June 2020 17: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: sergo1914
    How can you write about what you don’t understand?
    PS He took part in the design of the Broadsword from 1990-1997. KBTM.

    Maybe then share your vision of the situation? With interest, get acquainted. And to the author, Thank you for turning to an interesting topic.
  25. Arthur 85 2 June 2020 17: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And for some reason it seems to me that the rotation of the barrel block will not cause the projectile to twist, but its shift to the side of the rotation of the block. And this amendment is probably taken into account by the computer, otherwise it will be a blind shot in the white light.
    1. Santa Fe 3 June 2020 04: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are absolutely right
      This was meant by the author, only unclearly stated
      1. Arthur 85 3 June 2020 06: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        At night, another question came to my mind. But how does the Thunderbolt, on which such a gun is mounted, manage to fall into something?
        1. Santa Fe 3 June 2020 09: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Gun weight 280 kg, installed along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, passing near the center of mass
          Thunder take-off weight 20 tons
          Engine thrust 8 tons
          IMHO short bursts of several tens of shots

          Half a century ago, guns of even larger caliber were mounted on piston Yaks (N-37)
          1. YakimovSS 3 June 2020 12: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Honestly, it’s not very clear why there is a mass of guns here.

            The review is informative. I never looked at a topic from a stated angle. I do not agree with him, of course, but it was informative.
          2. Arthur 85 3 June 2020 22: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No, I'm in the sense that the Phalanx, by changing the aiming angles, can compensate for the "drift" of the projectile, but how does the attack aircraft compensate for it when the gun is firmly inserted into it? (Or it's built around a gun).
  26. zxc15682 3 June 2020 09: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Need armor am
  27. YakimovSS 3 June 2020 12: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    True, I heard the idea that the author stands for the fact that it is not fragments that should fly into the hull, but a product that is completely ready for detonation?
  28. Fizik M 3 June 2020 16: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    fool
    the next nonsense wassat from Kaptsov
    a bit reality https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-effektivnosti-korabelnyh-artilleriyskih-ustanovok-pri-otrazhenii-protivokorabelnyh-raket/pdf
    On the effectiveness of naval artillery installations in the reflection of anti-ship missiles
    PS who is Zhukovhopefully no need to explain
    angry
    1. prodi 3 June 2020 17: 47 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      you must not have understood the essence: 30mm is quite good for side shelling of anti-ship missiles (and other), but this is by no means the near zone of a specific missile defense, in which a particular frontal, point-wise attack is the most dangerous
      1. Fizik M 4 June 2020 00: 38 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Quote: prodi
        30mm are quite good for side shelling of anti-ship missiles

        belay
        The ONLY real case of the collapse of anti-ship missiles with a large parameter (1,5 km) is MPK-104 during the PI “Dagger”
        ALL
        MSA MSA are generally honed under the minimum parameter
        1. prodi 4 June 2020 07: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, read it carefully: even if a small-caliber projectile hits the slightly armored end of the rocket (immediately behind the GOS), there is little chance that it will not reach such a large target as a ship. Those. objectively, today there is generally no missile defense system that confidently covers the near field, and it’s not clear how to do it
          1. Fizik M 4 June 2020 09: 05 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Quote: prodi
            armored rocket butt

            fool

            я RAVE I do not comment
    2. Evgesha 4 June 2020 07: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I read this link.
      What can I say - it's just a retelling or compilation of data from the 80s.
      In 2015, comrade Zhukov described what was already understandable 20-25 years ago ..... "hand-face"
      and this was issued by the leading employee of the PBC !!!
      I’m really furious from this - is it that we are so behind?!?!?! ...
      1. Fizik M 4 June 2020 09: 08 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: Evgesha
        In 2015, comrade Zhukov described what was already understandable 20-25 years ago ..... "hand-face"

        "far to see a falcon by flight, good fellow by snot"
        as they say - "is everything clear? - and now DO!"
        he did it
  29. Evgesha 4 June 2020 07: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read the article.
    What can I say ... a bunch of words, a bunch of everything .. but the reality is somewhere nearby.
    Well, you can just ask the author - why such a meager review of ZAKov ???
    Where is the analysis of the probability of defeating RCC by each of the ZACs ???
    Where is the analysis of the reasons why the transition from 1x6 trunks to 2x6 trunks began? Why was it necessary to switch from a rate of 4000-5000 rds / min to a rate of 10000 rpm?
    The author mixed everything together - just an essay by an 8th grade student.
    At least he went to the library, so that he couldn’t find the data just once. Magazine "ZVO" would have read at least, some 30-35 years ago.
    And the word Chesz will be amused by the analysis of the reasons why all ships armed with ZAC “VolcanFlanks” for the first time are driven off. Rather, they are put into the “Manual control” mode .....
    In short - the topic of "boobs" is not disclosed.
    1. Fizik M 4 June 2020 09: 12 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Evgesha
      Where is the analysis of the probability of defeating RCC by each of the ZACs ???

      in CLOSED DOCUMENTS
      Quote: Evgesha
      Why was it necessary to switch from a rate of 4000-5000 rds / min to a rate of 10000 rpm?

      threat model has changed
      Quote: Evgesha
      on which all the ships armed with ZAC "VolcanoFlanks" are driven off for the last time .. or rather set to the "Manual control" mode .....

      is it YOU from the US Navy personally reported?
      Quote: Evgesha
      In short - the topic of "boobs" is not disclosed

      YOU have not grown up to them lol
      YOURS is the maximum duck in the dIVAN laughing
  30. Evgesha 7 June 2020 12: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: Evgesha
    Where is the analysis of the probability of defeating RCC by each of the ZACs ???

    in CLOSED DOCUMENTS
    Quote: Evgesha
    Why was it necessary to switch from a rate of 4000-5000 rds / min to a rate of 10000 rpm?

    threat model has changed
    Quote: Evgesha
    on which all the ships armed with ZAC "VolcanoFlanks" are driven off for the last time .. or rather set to the "Manual control" mode .....

    is it YOU from the US Navy personally reported?
    Quote: Evgesha
    In short - the topic of "boobs" is not disclosed

    YOU have not grown up to them lol
    YOURS is the maximum duck in the dIVAN laughing


    Esche one sofa iksperd tried to answer my questions.
    1. And how can I tell you - in fact, the analysis of the likelihood of defeating the RCC by shooting from ZAK is almost open information. You just have to work a little brain to find it.
    2. "The threat model has changed" - are the ships really threatened by the model? Threats have changed.
    3. no from the US Navy did not report to me. But!!! There are levels of combat readiness of the US Navy ships. So, "Automatic control" is switched on continuously only during hostilities, and is regulated by a higher command.
    4. The topic is not really open, the meaning of writing the article is not at all clear. Therefore, the topic is not open.
    And my "sausages" no longer cause excitement, the current cold calculation, but you definitely have complexes from the kindergarten - you probably didn’t get interesting toys, only concrete cubes.
    1. Fizik M 8 June 2020 09: 55 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: Evgesha
      Esche one sofa iksperd

      bunny, I only have a group of people on the subject of air defense of acquaintances people 5
      and communication with them goes CASE
      so let your bubbles in diVANA - ducks
      Quote: Evgesha
      1. And how can I tell you - in fact, the analysis of the likelihood of defeating the RCC by shooting from ZAK is almost open information. You just have to work a little brain to find it.

      YOU are talking nonsense
      what is in the open - applies only to export complexes (their drives, OMS, etc.)
      even in our declassified docks (for example, PAS V-1) the information is "blurred"
      Quote: Evgesha
      2. "The threat model has changed" - are the ships really threatened by the model? Threats have changed.

      YOU are not in the subject
      absolutely
      Quote: Evgesha
      USA. So "Automatic control" is turned on continuously only during hostilities, and is regulated by a higher command.

      it is clear ... "ducks from the divan sang"
      for in real life everything is completely different, and a reasonably enough (!) decision by the ship’s commander
      Quote: Evgesha
      current cold calculation

      fool
      YOUR "cold calculation" - the level of ducks in the di lol
  31. Pavel57 4 July 2020 14: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    An interesting look of the author.