Military Review

Shestipalya Phalanx: Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery complex

29
Shestipalya Phalanx: Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery complex

The discussion about anti-ship missiles is closely related to the discussion of the capabilities of the ship’s air defense weapons. And every time, in this place hot disputes flare up between the adherents of various opposition systems. Indeed, what is better: anti-aircraft guns, anti-missiles, or maybe it is worth hiding behind thick armor?

As for the self-defense anti-aircraft artillery complexes, the erroneous opinion is widespread that they are not suitable for anything, since their effective range of fire usually does not exceed 4-s kilometers. What is the 3-4 km distance for a transonic anti-ship missile? 10 seconds of flight! What can be done during this time? Nothing!

Fallacy is due to ignorance of the algorithm of such systems. The radar of the anti-aircraft artillery complex takes the target to escort, as soon as it appears above the radio horizon - and this, at least, 20 - 30 kilometers! As you well understand, the computer brains of an anti-aircraft machine gun have a lot of time to accurately calculate the trajectory of the flight of projectiles. Further, the self-defense anti-aircraft complex does not wait for the target to fly very close; As soon as the rocket approaches the 5-6 kilometers, the automatic anti-aircraft gun opens fire immediately - after a few seconds, the shells will meet with the anti-ship missile at the borders of the affected area. The next 10 seconds RPC will have to fly through a continuous swarm of automatic anti-aircraft guns.

Among the various systems of self-defense is very common name "Phalanx". Indeed, the American anti-aircraft artillery complex is one of the most common in its class.
The official name of the system is the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS (English Phalanx melee system). Anti-aircraft artillery complex is designed to protect ships from any anti-ship missiles, as well as from guided bombs and corrected ammunition. "Falanx" is able to effectively hit any air targets within a radius of several kilometers, and the declination angles of the gun allow, if necessary, to fire at surface targets. Produced serially with 1978. American sailors, for their resemblance, were called “Phalanx” R2D2, by analogy with the hero of the Star Wars saga - a silent robot that looks like a large cap.

Technically, the Phalanx is a 20-mm rapid-fire six-barrel cannon with a rotating block of barrels mounted on a single gun carriage with two radar guidance (for detecting and tracking a target). Also in the "Phalanx" includes a rack with electronic units and a remote control. The mass of the system is 6 tons.

Episodes

“Phalanx” was repeatedly used in real combat to repel rocket attacks (at least it was obliged to do this), but, alas, unsuccessfully: by accidental coincidence, either the target was outside its area of ​​operation, or there was an own ship on the shooting line, or In general, the anti-aircraft machine gun was disabled. Twice this led to combat losses. And if the Israeli corvette “Khanit” got off relatively easily (the Chinese Yingji anti-ship missiles, released by Hezbollah’s fighters hit the helipad, killing the 4 sailor), the US Navy stark frigate was heavily damaged, crew members 37 died.

Objectively, the fault of “Phalanx” was not there - on the “Khanite” the sailors had a meal, turning off all means of detection, and the only nasal “Phalanx” could not reach the rocket in the rear hemisphere. “Stark”, on the contrary, (the law of meanness!) Was attacked from course angles, and the only aft “Phalanx” could get “Exosets” only by flashing the frigate's superstructure with fiery tracks. The clever apparatus did not do this, and later it turned out that he was generally in a state of disability.

Much brighter talk about the ability of "Falanx" three funny times when he fired to kill. The first state of emergency took place 10 February 1983, when the US Navy frigate "Entrym" was trying to knock down an unmanned aerial target.

Terminator Return

... "Phalanx" zealously buzzing servo, trying to catch a supersonic target in the crosshair of an invisible radar sight. Short turn. Another one. The target still follows the course to the ship. “Falanx” panics and switches to continuous firing mode, spitting out 7 kilograms of death every second ...

From a distance of half a mile, the automatic anti-aircraft gun was able to shred the drone, which had burrowed into the waves, causing a lighter sigh for the operators in the combat information center. On this история for “Phalanx” is over, and for the frigate “Entrym” has just begun.

The laws of drama came into effect: a riddled far and wide, a flaming drone emerged from the sea foam and a second later the frigate hit the superstructure painfully. Simply put, the wreckage of the target ricocheted from the water, like a successfully thrown pebble, and made a fire center on the frigate. The only victim was a civilian specialist, who was hit by a wreck.
In principle, a good example of topmast bombing.

Beat your own

The next story is the banal "friend fire". During the war with Iraq, the frigate URO "Gerret" had the honor to defend the battleship Missouri.
On a dark winter night, the 1991 of Missouri calmly spud Iraqi shores from its monstrous 406-mm cannons. The Iraqis sent their cruel “hi” to the battleship - two Hayin anti-ship missiles (a Chinese copy of the Soviet Termite P-15 with an increased range of fire). The first missile was intercepted by a British destroyer, the second disappeared somewhere along the way (the EW battleship of the battleship turned on). The Gerreth frigate was especially notable: the Phalanx anti-aircraft machine gun mounted on it was so keen on hunting anti-ship missiles that the battleship standing in the line of fire did not notice and fired Missouri with a fiery shower.

Beat your own-2

The stupid story happened 4 June 1996 of the year. American sailors taught their Japanese counterparts to use the Phalanx. The task is to get from an anti-aircraft machine into a towed air cone. It was only necessary to charge the gun and turn on the power in time - the smart machine will do the rest on its own. But even here they managed to spoil everything.
The Yugiri squadron officer pressed the “Glory to the robots!” Button too early! Kill all people! ”,“ Phalanx ”came to life and joyfully buzzed, spinning a block of trunks.
The Japanese announced on the radio: "Banzai!"
The American pilots answered: ... (however, we will give the reader the opportunity to independently guess what the Americans answered, who had not yet had time to leave the danger zone by that time).

The innocent victim of Japanese aggression Grumman A-6 Intruder

The deck attack aircraft A-6 "Intruder" was mercilessly cut in half, after which the Phalanx lost interest in the towing vehicle and began to make holes in the target cone. It was this circumstance that gave the pilots a chance to eject by some miracle. When the power of the Falans was cut down, only two white spots of parachute domes swayed among the waves ...

System evaluation

The Phalanx anti-aircraft artillery complex has many advantages: simple design, minimal weight and dimensions, low price ... The system is deservedly popular and widely spread all over the world - the ships of the 23 states are armed with Falans. But, like any weaponit is not perfect. Truth is best seen in comparison with anything. A direct analogue of the “Falanx” is the Soviet automatic ship installation AK-630. We will try to draw some parallels between them. First, immediately an important technical feature - in AK-630, a block of trunks rotates powder gases, in the Phalanx it is done by a separate electric motor. "Falanx" can not instantly open fire, like any gun M61 "Volcano", his gun takes 1,5 seconds to spin the barrels.

The main drawbacks of the “Falanx” are always called a small caliber (the mass of the projectile is only 100 grams) and a relatively low rate of fire (adjustable within 3000-4500 rpm). According to these parameters, the AK-630 is breaking far forward - the rate of fire of the domestic 5000 system is rpm / min, and its high-explosive fragmentation projectile weighs 390 grams!
But not everything is so unequivocal: the lower rate of fire of the American installation is compensated by its greater accuracy of shooting: the Phalanx’s weapons and guidance systems are on a single carriage, at the same time AK-630 and its Vympel radar are spaced apart. In addition, AK-630 analog drive guidance requires periodic careful calibration - a difficult process to be carried out on combatant ships in the realities of our Fatherland. This deficiency was corrected in the next development of the Soviet military-industrial complex - the Kortik anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex, in which two blocks of barrels, two launchers and guidance systems are combined in a single unit.

The strengths of the AK-630 are excellent ballistic characteristics and greater power of ammunition. The trump card of the American system is the Mk.149 sub-caliber projectile made of depleted uranium core. High-speed ammunition, when hit by an anti-ship missile, causes a powerful release of thermal energy and instantaneous detonation of the anti-ship missile unit (this is exactly what is required from the self-defense anti-aircraft systems, simply damaging the missile is not enough - fragments will ricochet off water and can damage the ship).

Shooting "Falanx" can not be compared in terms of entertainment with the "Dirk". Almost invisible flame

Due to the smaller caliber of 1,5, the Phalanx emits less heat when fired at 5. The length of the continuous line of the American installation can reach 1000 shots, but this is not the main thing: less heat generation allowed the use of an air cooling system for the shafts and reduce the mass of the installation. The speed of the horizontal targeting of the lightweight Falunks reaches 115 degrees / sec (in AK-630, this indicator is equal to 70 degrees / sec), in the vertical plane the situation is similar - 115 degrees / sec. "American" versus 50 degrees / sec of the Soviet "metal cutter".
For the sake of justice, it should be noted: the shortcomings of the Soviet shipboard anti-aircraft system AK-630 were compensated by the fact that the AK-630 was installed on ships of the USSR Navy in the form of a battery of two guns. You do not need to be a mathematician to calculate the total rate of fire of such a system - 10 000 shots / min!

Everything is done to reduce installation inertia

Sometimes the Phalanx is criticized for being too open. For example, the photographs immediately catch the eye of the absence of the casing of the propellant feed mechanism. In fact, it should not be there. Especially strong contrast is felt in comparison with the tightly sealed AK-630 - it seems that the Soviet anti-aircraft gun is completely sealed. The design of "Falanx", on the contrary, is extremely facilitated and open to the views of others - it is terrible to think what will happen to the American system in the harsh conditions of the North Atlantic.

The Phalanx will instantly freeze and fail. However, the US Navy and its allies care little about this aspect - most of the world's population lives in temperate latitudes. New York is located at the same latitude with the resort of Sochi. And it is considered the north of the USA? From the southernmost point of America 90 miles to Cuba. The tender Mediterranean Sea, the hot air of the Persian Gulf, the tropical islands of the Indian Ocean ... only crazy Russian climbed to the very north of the Eurasian continent, where perennial pack ice covers the coast of the Arctic Ocean more reliably than any Coast Guard.
It becomes clear why the Phalanx has such a strange construction, or, for example, why there is no catapult icing problem on American aircraft carriers - the US Navy ships simply have no need to act in the Arctic.

As for the protection from combat damage, this issue was not even considered. To ensure sane protection, at least from a rifle caliber bullet, 8 millimeters of armored steel is required. Light radiotransparent cap - that’s all the equipment protection of the complex. Especially, when it comes to combat damage in modern naval combat, it means that things are bad and no one cares about Phalanx.

Prospects

“Falanx” is developing new areas of its application - the army ordered 43 units for ground-based modification of the complex to protect US bases abroad. The ground-based phalanx was designated the “Centurion” C-RAM (counter-rocket, artillery, mortar) –this abbreviation exhaustively explains the purpose of the complex — protecting the base’s territory from operational-tactical missiles, mortar shells and large-caliber artillery shells. C-RAM rate of fire reduced to 2000 fps / min. Unlike the naval "Phalanx", this modification uses the M940 HEIT-SD fragmentation and funnels - this is done, first of all, to increase safety - in case of a miss, the marine projectile with the uranium core will fly into the void and be buried in the waves, the ground projectile should in order to be sure to be equipped with self-liquidation. The complex is able to cover the area of ​​1,2 square. kilometers It is reported that in Iraq, the "Centurions" successfully repelled 105 mortar shelling of the American positions.

SeaRAM on trial

On the navy The Phalanx is gradually losing ground - instead of artillery, missile systems such as SeaRAM — the launcher on the Falanks carriage — come, but instead of the gun, an 11-charge anti-missile launcher with laser and infrared guidance is installed. Many destroyers of the Orly Burke type and the latest assault ships of the San Antonio type were put into operation without the noticeable white caps of the Phalanxes.

Of course, the Phalanx is not the best of the Pleiad of marine complexes, self-defeating, although it has an advantage in terms of cost - efficiency. From the point of view of paper TTX, the Goalkeeper anti-aircraft artillery complex (made by the Netherlands-USA) looks much more solid. Not less attention is attracted by the newest anti-aircraft automatic “Millennium” of the Swiss company “Oerlikon” - 35-mm gun with programmable projectiles, each of which contains 152 striking elements. Despite the low rate of fire - less than 1000 rpm / min, this design solution creates a horrendous wall of fire. And what a savings of ammunition!

Author:
29 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Redpartyzan
    Redpartyzan 12 September 2012 09: 49
    -2
    I liked the most about the action in the northern latitudes. As soon as an Amer destroyer or aircraft carrier enters the Baltic or North Sea, half of his equipment will be refused.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 13 September 2012 04: 19
      +2
      Do you have statistics on failures of "foreign" and domestic equipment, or again, what is desired is passed off as reality? And since when did the Baltic become a northern latitude? How is it necessary more carefully, or what?
  2. Civil
    Civil 12 September 2012 09: 58
    +2
    could not help posting:

    News. The large landing ship (BDK) Mitrofan Enko (Project 1174) of the Northern Fleet (SF) of Russia, which has been in reserve since 2002, will be finally decommissioned and sold for scrap. This was reported to "Izvestia" by a source in the Russian military-industrial complex (MIC).

    In order to make as much money as possible, the Northern Fleet command plans to arrange an auction of the buyer's choice. However, more expensive than 2,5 million more expensive than ENKO will not go away - such is the approximate market price of 11,5 thousand tons of steel, from which the ship is made. For comparison, the cost of the French landing helicopter carrier "Mistral" for Russia is 1,25 billion euros.
    - The Russian Ministry of Defense decided to write off and dump Mitrofan Enko on the scrap metal, primarily for economic reasons. Its repair would cost at least two small artillery ships. And from a strategic point of view, its demand is not obvious - Russia is not going to land an amphibious assault anywhere, ”he said.

    At the same time, an expert on naval technology, chief editor of the Export of Arms magazine Andrei Frolov noted that the Navy’s landing fleet will soon begin to decline rapidly, as it is based on old Soviet-era ships: first of all, 15 ships of the Polish-built 775 project (introduced the fleet from 1976 to 1991 year), as well as four BDKs of the 1171 project (Baltic shipyard Yantar), which became part of the USSR Navy at the end of the 1960 and 1970 years. The resource of the ships is practically exhausted, they will have to be written off in the next 10 years.

    - At the pace by 2020 in the Russian Navy only four large landing ships can remain - two French Mistral and two Russian BDKs of the new 11711 Ivan Gren project, the first of which should be transferred to the Navy in 2013, and the question of building the second not yet resolved. Thus, the fleet’s ability to carry out large-scale landing operations, which may be necessary in case of military operations outside the country, will be very limited, ”Frolov noted.

    BDK "Mitrofan Enko" was introduced into the combat structure of the Navy of the USSR in 1990 year. since 2002 of the year it has been a part of the Kola flotilla of diverse forces of the Northern Fleet as an “inactive unit”.

    The BDK of the 1174 project is the most spacious in the Russian Navy. In their capabilities, they are comparable to the Mistral-type universal landing ships purchased in France. The lead ship of this project - BDK "Ivan Rogov" - was cut in the 1996 year, another - "Alexander Nikolaev" - has rotted since the 1997 year in the Pacific Fleet.

    Enko can take on board up to 50 tanks, 80 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles or 120 trucks. Six landing boats are located in the docking chamber (Mistral has four) or three hovercraft (Mistral has two). The ship carries four Ka-29 transport and attack helicopters (Mistral - eight amphibious NH-90 and eight Tigre attack helicopters).
    According to a source in the military-industrial complex, the question of restoring "anko" by the Navy command has been raised more than once. Moreover, unlike the Mistral, ships of the 1174 project can land troops and equipment directly on shore.

    “The cost savings, the purchase of the Mistral, as well as the need for a serious redesign of the Soviet ship for modern electronic equipment and weapons are factors that played a decisive role in the decision to abandon its restoration,” the representative of the defense industry said.


    so ... where are the praised businessmen, lords of oil and gas, take off for repairs, otherwise the masters of the army of the conditional enemy will take away the towers from you.
  3. vylvyn
    vylvyn 12 September 2012 10: 04
    +3
    So what's the point that the Phalanx is lighter than our system? A very dubious plus, which is likely to be two crossed minuses. Our system is uniquely thought out. Moreover, the weight would matter if it was installed not on a ship, but on a land chassis.
    Here "Oerlikon" really arouses interest, even among the PR people of their "Falas" amerikosov.
    At the same time, the article is very interesting and informative, especially in an attempt to compare our sample with "them". +
  4. Evrepid
    Evrepid 12 September 2012 10: 45
    +2
    A serious device, with all its minuses and pluses ...
    Will have to fight everywhere ... And in particular in those latitudes where certainly there will be no problems with the operation of this device.
    And you immediately begin to think about where to hide from him, and not so much that it is more powerful to oppose him.
    They will put a heated casing and you will not hide nichrome in the Baltic ... So it’s a very formidable weapon ...
  5. Kars
    Kars 12 September 2012 11: 21
    0
    assault rifles, anti-missiles, or maybe it's worth taking cover behind thick armor?


    One to the other, and the third is not an obstacle. An integrated approach is needed.
  6. matvey.z
    matvey.z 12 September 2012 11: 24
    0
    "For the sake of justice, it should be noted: the shortcomings of the Soviet shipborne anti-aircraft system AK-630 were compensated by the fact that the AK-630 was installed on the ships of the USSR Navy in the form of a battery of two guns. "
    Good "compensation"!
    Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS- 5 kg
    AK-630M - 3814 kg x 2 = 7268 kg
    Almost 2 tons + months + personnel + ammunition + energy, etc.
    1. Evrepid
      Evrepid 13 September 2012 11: 38
      0
      We can say that Phalanx is also installed at least in two pieces ... Or do you think that he shoots through an add-on?

      those. Your calculation is not entirely correct.
      1. Santa Fe
        13 September 2012 13: 39
        0
        Quote: Evrepid
        We can say that Phalanx is also installed with at least two pieces ...

        The number of phalanxes has nothing to do with it. The point is that each AK-630 battery with a radar weighs 2 times more than the Phalanx. There were at least two batteries on Soviet ships (4 AK-630 and 2 radar)
      2. matvey.z
        matvey.z 17 September 2012 18: 35
        0
        Quote: Evrepid
        We can say that Phalanx

        I’m completely different. Where Phalanx needs 2nd, then we have the AK-630M, it’s necessary 4re (!!)
        Accordingly, the weight.
        However
        Quote: Evrepid
        SWEET_SIXTEEN

        already answered, look
  7. Col.
    Col. 12 September 2012 11: 24
    0
    A good unit, put on almost all ships of the U.S. Navy. But in our official military literature it has always been called Volcano-Falanx.
  8. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 12 September 2012 12: 25
    0
    Yes, God forbid, to fall under such an avalanche of bullets ...
  9. Santa Fe
    12 September 2012 13: 01
    +7
    The main difference between the Phalanxes from the Russian Cortiks and Broadswords is that Broadswords are delivered to sea salons, where they are always highly appreciated. And the phalanxes are delivered to warships.
  10. Darck
    Darck 12 September 2012 13: 04
    0
    Indeed, what is better: anti-aircraft guns, anti-missiles, or maybe it’s worth hiding behind thick armor?
    So in modern destroyers all three were muddied, the same Arly Burke has ZAK, Anti-Missile and enhanced armor.
    So what's the point that the Phalanx is lighter than our system?
    It can be put on ships of smaller displacement and has smaller dimensions.
    Our system is uniquely thought out.
    In what?
    1. Santa Fe
      12 September 2012 13: 39
      0
      Quote: Darck
      , the same Arly Burke, has ZAC, Missile Defense and reinforced armor.

      Burke never had armor
      1. Darck
        Darck 12 September 2012 17: 33
        -3
        Burke never had armor

        Vital combat posts are located below the main deck; REV antenna posts were distributed throughout the ship in order to reduce the likelihood of damage. The anti-submarine sensor control and Tomahawk missile firing control posts are located separately from the 8 BIC. The premises of the GEM, REV and control posts have Kevlar ballistic protection [7]. In total, more than 130 tons of Kevlar (including 70 tons of this durable but expensive material, is used to protect combat posts) is used to protect the main combat posts and units of each Arly Burke type destroyer during construction [34].
        Kevlar reservation so it will be easier for you to sleep?)
        1. Santa Fe
          12 September 2012 18: 38
          +2
          Quote: Darck
          Kevlar reservation

          Then what kind of armor enhancement was discussed above?

          This is enough to protect against large caliber bullets. The destroyer "Cole" was completely disabled by the detonation of 200 kg of explosives near the side.
          1. Darck
            Darck 12 September 2012 19: 27
            0
            Then what kind of armor enhancement was discussed above?
            For reference, the Arly Burke hull is made of high-strength steel, armored bulkheads were installed to increase security. And the armor plates are made of aluminum-magnesium alloys.
            The destroyer "Cole" was completely disabled by the detonation of 200 kg of explosives near the side.
            What does it mean next to the side? A suicide bomber crashed into it on a boat, there was 200-300 kg of TNT equivalent, this was enough to smash the tank. They broke through the hull, disabled engines and killed 17 people.
            1. Santa Fe
              13 September 2012 13: 45
              0
              Quote: Darck
              For reference, the Arly Burke hull is made of high-strength steel, armored bulkheads were installed to increase security. And the armor plates are made of aluminum-magnesium alloys.


              Quote: Darck
              A suicide bomber crashed into it on a boat, there was 200-300 kg in TNT equivalent, this was enough to smash the tank. They broke through the hull, disabled engines and killed 17 people.

              "Armor" did not protect Cole from explosions (the equivalent of a conventional anti-ship missile warhead); did not fulfill its task. Then what kind of booking enhancement can we talk about?

              There is no serious armor on modern warships, and this is fully justified
              1. Darck
                Darck 13 September 2012 15: 36
                0
                "Armor" did not protect Cole from explosions (the equivalent of a conventional anti-ship missile warhead); did not fulfill its task.
                Each armor has its own way of destroying it.
                Then what kind of reservation enhancement can we talk about?
                Strengthening residential modules and Kevlar ship control modules, what is it not strengthening the reservation? Given that it has a steel case and at the waterline level, there are plate armor. In relation to other destroyers, this is called reinforced booking. The hulls of other destroyers were made of aluminum.
        2. Fox
          Fox 13 September 2012 09: 00
          +1
          like Don Quixote: 3 layers of cardboard ...
  11. Passing
    Passing 12 September 2012 18: 10
    0
    It is reported that in Iraq, the Centurions successfully repelled 105 mortar attacks on US positions.

    "Successfully reflected" is somehow overly optimistic, in the style of a CNN report that likes to omit "irrelevant" details. I met such data that the effectiveness of the destruction of mines in Afghanistan was in the region of 80-90%.
  12. gregor6549
    gregor6549 12 September 2012 19: 31
    0
    Falanx has grown old for a long time, of course it is time for him to go to the museum, and if you compare it with those systems that appeared 30 years later, then you can find a bunch of "senile problems" in it. But it still works quite successfully for the purposes that it should "serve" and its design was thought out to the smallest detail. From the cannon's projectile power system, to the limiters of the firing sectors and the combination of a search radar and a guidance radar under one hood. In general, an old man who is very respected by many "foreign" fleets. Therefore, they still keep him in service and do not send him to retire.
  13. Kars
    Kars 12 September 2012 20: 17
    0
    it is advisable to react
    only the English Union Nicky managed to threaten
    (apparently the experience of the Falkland War is not
    wasted): the destroyer Gloucester missile
    Sea Dart was able to bring down one of the P KR, and
    she crashed into the sea before it reached
    700 yards (640 m) to Missouri. Second rocket
    N U-2, for the happiness of the Americans, missed
    - probably due to problems in
    homing system.

    February 25, Missouri became a member
    troublesome incident - its wrong
    escorted to r abl escort - frigate
    Jerrett Two Released from VolcanoFalanx
    "20-mm shell hit the battleship:
    one struck the side and exploded inside the corridor,
    and the other hit the first smoke
    the pipe. One sailor got a light fragmentation
    a wound in the neck.
    All artillery shelling battleships
    led from a long distance (18 - 23 miles), according to the US Navy, at
    damage to point objects in 28% of cases
    direct hits were observed or,
    at least severe damage to the target;
    the number of misses did not exceed 30%.
    All of it during Operation Desert Storm
    (, Missouri "fired 28 missiles (, Tomahawk" and
    759 (according to other sources, 1) 783 mm shells;
    (, Wisconsin "- 24 missiles (, Tomahawk",
    528 406 mm, 88 1 127 mm and 5200 20 m 1 shells.
    (True, it remains unclear: for what
    so many shells were fired at such targets
    20 mm artillery complexes (, Vulkan-Fa LANX
    "?). In addition, the Missouri crew
    discovered 15 Iraqi anchor mines, 1 Oh of
    which were destroyed directly
    battleship sailors.
    1. Santa Fe
      13 September 2012 13: 48
      0
      Quote: Kars
      Two Released from VolcanoFalanx
      "20-mm shell hit the battleship: one pierced the side and exploded inside the corridor,

      Yeah! even superlinker has vulnerable vulnerabilities

      Andrei, can you tell me why only 2 battleships from the 4 available were involved in the operation? winked
      1. Kars
        Kars 13 September 2012 21: 03
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        even superlinker has vulnerable vulnerabilities

        ridiculed. and even in the aga would have been RCC combat effectiveness lk there is no threat.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        2 battleships out of 4 available?

        "Swan song" battleships such as "Iowa
        "Became involved in the war against Iraq in
        during Operation Desert Storm "<Desert Storm
        "). After the invasion of Iraqi troops
        in Kuwait on August 2, 1990
        US President George W. Bush
        decided to "punish" Baghdad and his
        authoritarian leader Saddam Hussein.
        Despite the fact that trust in heavy
        artillery battleships after
        the Iowa tragedy was thorough
        undermined by the command of the american
        The Navy decided to use battleships
        in the upcoming campaign. Already on August 7
        at sea a battle group led by
        "Wisconsin" was directed to the shores
        Kuwait, and after 16 days she was already in
        Persian Gulf. At the same time
        urgently prepare for a military operation
        and the Missouri battleship - its usual “de monstrous”
        »Hiking in the Pacific Ocean,
        scheduled for September 1990, canceled
        just a few days before the release
        . November 13th accepted the full battle kit
        Missouri left Long Beach.
        Leaving a stern of two oceans and making
        short visits to Hawaii in
        Subic Bay (F of the Philippines) and P Attaya (Thai Land)
        He entered the waters on January 3, 1991
        P the Persian Gulf.

        Who in Akiva was the one and went.
        I liked the phrase - for all Iowa Byoa, I have been using it for 13 years, the rest is on conservation.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 September 2012 12: 56
          0
          Quote: Kars
          but in aha the anti-ship missiles would have got the combat effectiveness of the lk there is no threat.

          No survivability threat
          The threat of loss of combat effectiveness is
          1. Kars
            Kars 14 September 2012 13: 07
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The threat of loss of combat effectiveness is

            Oh yes, RCC is a terrible threat to 16 inch guns.
            Although there is a share of instinct - 30-40 harpoons can and will somehow affect the appearance.
            Unfortunately, Iowa’s jurorization scheme doesn’t work out, but I hope you can imagine it.

            And of course you will take it as a miserable excuse if I say that Iowa is destined for a battle with an artillery ship with similar guns (shells weighing 1200 kg), which entailed a concentration of armor.
            1. Santa Fe
              14 September 2012 17: 31
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Oh yes, RCC is a terrible threat to 16 inch guns.

              A well-placed 500 kg bomb will deprive the ship of bow artillery. Examples - Mass
              Quote: Kars
              Although there is some instinct - there may be some 30-40 harpoons and will somehow affect the appearance

              So much smile definitely turn the ship into a blazing ruin: radar, rangefinding posts - the battleship will lose everything
              By the way, 30-40 Garpunov quite realistic alignment when meeting with carrier-based aircraft.
              Quote: Kars
              Iowa destined for battle with artillery ship

              Did that make her undetectable?

              Again, you forget that in the case of the appearance of armor on ships, the means of destruction evolve in a similar way, for designers there is no problem increasing the armor-piercing abilities of the anti-ship missiles or creating a powerful homing torpedo.

              Regarding Wangard, he was only late for 20 years to the Falklands.
              1. Kars
                Kars 14 September 2012 18: 09
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                A well-placed 500 kg bomb will deprive the ship of bow artillery. Examples - Mass


                Mass? Can I use one of the examples? I have something about it that only scratches the paint.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                definitely turn a ship into a burning ruin

                Vryatli, of course, will not add beauty. But South Dakota withstood a certain number of hits.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                30-40 Garpunov quite realistic alignment when meeting with carrier-based aircraft

                They also vryatli, and really only with a deck? Coast can not? Missile boats?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Did that make her undetectable?

                This was reflected in the reservation scheme.

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                no problem to increase armor-piercing abilities of RCC

                Well, it’s also vryatli, the number of carriers, the mass of warheads, the price and dimensions will increase immediately.
                1. Santa Fe
                  15 September 2012 19: 07
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  But can I use one of the examples? I have something about the fact that they only scratch the paint.

                  Tsushima battle
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, it's also vryatli

                  Progress Unstoppable
                  Quote: Kars
                  immediately decreases the number of carriers, warhead mass,increase pricedimensions

                  Naturally, a tough arms race will begin
                  The population of a country building armadillos instead of destroyers will receive matches on cards. But the cost of new aviation ammunition will increase slightly
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 15 September 2012 19: 18
                    0
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Tsushima battle

                    Really? And who did the bombers use there? It would be better if Jutland took there many towers incapacitated, but also that I didn’t hear bombs, even though zeppilins were flying.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Progress Unstoppable

                    Did I say the opposite?
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Naturally, a tough arms race will begin

                    And then she was not there.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    building armadillos instead of destroyers

                    Well 14 useless 68 bis somehow built.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    But the cost of new aviation ammunition will increase slightly

                    despite what is considered insignificant. it’s very possible that aircraft with armor-piercing missiles and old aircraft carriers would not fit, and in the salvo where you promise 40 harpoons, there will be 8 armor-piercing missiles.
                    and about long-range heavy torpedoes --- if they could be made, they would have been made anyway.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      16 September 2012 15: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Really? And who did the bombers use there?

                      landmines with shimosa - and as a result (pictured)
                      What does he look like?
                      Quote: Kars
                      Did I say the opposite?

                      Yes.
                      Quote: Kars
                      And then she was not

                      you offer a new round
                      Quote: Kars
                      Well 14 useless 68 bis somehow built.

                      over the same period built 70 obsolete 30 bis and 27 ave. 56
                      Are you kidding? It was necessary to saturate the fleet with simple and cheap equipment as quickly as possible, and not wait for 1959 of the year when the obsolete and useless stalingrad was ready
                      Quote: Kars
                      and in the salvo where you promise 40 harpoons, there will be 8 armor-piercing missiles.

                      I proceeded from the calculation of the group 20 aircraft x 2 RCC
                      will be 20 heavy RCC
                      Quote: Kars
                      and about long-range heavy torpedoes --- if they could be made, they would have been made anyway.

                      I see no reason to use aircraft torpedoes instead of anti-ship missiles in modern conditions
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 18: 10
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        landmines with shimosa - and as a result (pictured)

                        The towers of the Eagle remained operational, so that by. One of the four guns was damaged.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        What does he look like?

                        And if there were normal armor-piercing, it might have drowned.
                        And so let's go to
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        500 kg aerial bomb will deprive the ship of nasal artillery

                        Panim Bomb.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Yes.

                        Quote to the studio.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        you offer a new round

                        I suggest a different coil, and not another.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        over the same period built 70 obsolete 30 bis and 27 ave. 56
                        Are you laughing?

                        Are you playing along with me? ETOGES destroys all your tales about bread coupons
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        It was necessary to saturate the fleet with simple and cheap equipment as quickly as possible

                        WHY? What could they give besides targets? This is an indicator of the inertia and inertness of the military.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I proceeded from the calculation of the group 20 aircraft x 2 RCC
                        will be 20 heavy RCC

                        And why did you get that 20 seats on an aircraft carrier? And that there are so few of 2 harpoons each? And it is very possible that money in the aircraft carrier’s BC is not enough for 20 expensive, bulky armor-piercing anti-ship missiles.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        I see no reason to use aircraft torpedoes instead of anti-ship missiles in modern conditions

                        but the fact that you’re not a videoconferencer doesn’t prove anything. Except that such a comforting outcome of the Falkland and Tanker war, with a minimum of sunken ships.
                        http://militera.lib.ru/h/dotsenko/09.html
                      2. Santa Fe
                        16 September 2012 18: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Panim Bomb.

                        Is the high-explosive effect of a 500 kg aerial bomb less than a 12 'round?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Quote to the studio.

                        Your constant doubts about armor-piercing anti-ship missiles and special torpedoes
                        Quote: Kars
                        I suggest a different turn, and not another

                        your "other" coil would tighten the belt of Soviet citizens around the neck
                        Quote: Kars
                        WHY? What could they give besides targets?

                        1. protection guide
                        2. preservation and development of shipbuilding technologies
                        3. sailors training

                        Quote: Kars
                        ETOGES destroys all your fairy tales about bread coupons

                        If instead of 30 bis they were waiting for Stalingrad, in the USSR there would have been no Navy for 15 years. So Stalingrad and 30 bis do not intersect.



                        Right now, the argument as usual will come to a standstill, therefore I propose to immediately decide:
                        Armor is basically great. The problem is that for local wars, booking is especially useless - even the loss of several "pelvis" will be cheaper than installing booking on all ships of the Navy without exception

                        For a real naval battle, an aircraft carrier is more profitable - at the same cost as a battleship, it has incomparably larger possibilities for controlling marine space, versatility and impact potential
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 19: 06
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Is the high-explosive effect of a 500 kg aerial bomb less than a 12 'round?

                        on the other hand, armor penetration is simply much less, and as has been repeatedly proved the inefficiency of high-explosive ammunition against armor.

                        And all the same, let's bomb, and then, as the video shimozniki of the Eagle Tower, they did not disable.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Your constant doubts about armor-piercing anti-ship missiles and special torpedoes

                        And where does it come from? Special torpedo - no, I did not deny the armor-piercing anti-ship missiles.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        your "other" coil would tighten the belt of Soviet citizens around the neck

                        Not 14 Encore and
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        over the same period built 70 obsolete 30 bis and 27 ave. 56

                        They didn’t tighten, but mine should tighten? Double standards - they are much more expensive, and in my turn 68 wouldn’t be blundering at all.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        1. protection guide

                        Oh, yes, only they could do it, of course, destroyers drive where boats fit.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        2. preservation and development of shipbuilding technologies
                        3. sailors training

                        Is the construction of strike cruisers not responding to this? Or are they using non-ship technologies?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        If instead of 30 bis they were waiting for Stalingrad, in the USSR there would have been no Navy at all for 15 years

                        Maybe it would be for the better. Not even talking about why 15 years? When reducing the construction of some ships, and forcing even the same stalingrad, he would go into operation in 1952
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The problem is that for local wars, booking is especially worthless.

                        And with whom could the USSR wage local wars on the sea? Can’t you reveal the secret?
                        And it’s just that the reservation is there, because local wars involve shelling the coast, and so there are a bunch of different-sized submarines.

                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        For a real naval battle, an aircraft carrier is more profitable - at the same cost as a battleship

                        and again, the USSR still could not have built an aircraft carrier, and if it had built a couple, then there was no sense in them against a flock of US aircraft carriers.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        it has incomparably more possibilities for controlling marine space, versatility and shock potential

                        If it is necessary, of course, and so they could not win the Korean War, or the Vietnam, or even Iraq.
                      4. Santa Fe
                        16 September 2012 19: 58
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        not tightened, but mine should tighten? double standards

                        Stalingrad would have to be built in addition to the 30 bis.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Oh, yes, only they could do it, of course, destroyers drive where boats fit.

                        Nothing of the sort - their seaworthiness is incomparable.
                        30 bis is a small cheap corvette by modern standards
                        Quote: Kars
                        while reducing the construction of some ships, and forcing even the same stalingrad, he would go into operation in 1952

                        Considering. that all three pieces were laid in 1951-1952 and even after a couple of years the construction could not see the end ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        And it’s just there that the reservation is because local wars involve shelling the coast

                        Not a single ship has been sunk in this way during the entire Cold War
                        Quote: Kars
                        and again, the USSR still could not build an aircraft carrier

                        Kami somehow built 6 TAVKROV and 4 Orlan. By complexity - like 6 classic AV
                        Quote: Kars
                        built a couple, there’s no sense in them against a flock of US aircraft carriers.

                        Six is ​​better than nothing. This would be a real threat to the Navy of the NATO countries.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and so they couldn’t win either the Korean War

                        The US won the Korean War by 50% thanks to AB. Comrade Kim until his death remembered amers with an unkind word
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 20: 37
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Stalingrad would have to be built in addition to 30 bis

                        And so what? The 68 Encore cruiser is already worthless. Yes, and less destroyers.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Nothing of the sort - their seaworthiness is incomparable.

                        What would protect the ter water of the USSR? Nobody was going to send them to the Mediterranean Sea.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        30 bis is a small cheap corvette by modern standards

                        Useless is not fish, not meat.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Considering. that all three pieces were laid in 1951-1952 and even after a couple of years the construction could not see the end ...

                        And we will not take into account the bookmark in 1951 (even so the launch was planned for 1953 + completion), and given that a dozen 1952 are embedded in 53-68, I do not share your skepticism.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Not a single ship has been sunk in this way during the entire Cold War

                        Well, let's not forget that basically the US Navy fought with the Pygmies.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Kami somehow built 6 TAVKROV and 4 Orlan. By complexity - like 6 classic AV

                        In what years do you want to clarify? And TAVKR is a waste of money.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Six is ​​better than nothing. This would be a real threat to the Navy of the NATO countries

                        The US was threatened by submarines with ICBMs, and the USA laughed at TAVKR and did not consider it a particular threat. And again, do not forget the year.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        U.S. Korean War Won 50% Thanks

                        Won? And the South Koreans don’t know sitting at the 38 parallel. And why at 50% and not at 80%?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Kim until his death remembered amers with an unkind word

                        Americans or aircraft carriers?

                        And we deviated from the topic of 500 kg of air bombs that you used in Tsushima. By the way, Eagle, by the way, did not even have all the medium-caliber towers disabled.
                      6. Santa Fe
                        16 September 2012 22: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        So what?

                        Would go broke. And they would not have received anything except 3 useless "non-fish-non-meat" battle cruisers
                        Quote: Kars
                        What would protect the ter water of the USSR? Nobody was going to send them to the Mediterranean Sea.

                        Barents, Kara, Okhotsk, Bering - remotely almost like the Mediterranean, and hydrography, ice and climate - much more
                        Quote: Kars
                        Useless is not fish, not meat.

                        I called 3 the reasons why they were built
                        Quote: Kars
                        in 1952-53 there are a dozen 68, I don’t share your skepticism.

                        82 and 68 did not stand close in terms of labor input and costs
                        Quote: Kars
                        The US Navy fought with the Pygmies.

                        Neither in Korea, nor in Iraq, nor in Vietnam did anyone shoot ships from the coast. Strange, right?
                        Quote: Kars
                        In what years do you want to clarify?

                        The USSR Navy gained strength and climbed into the oceans around the beginning of the 70x. At this time, TAVCRA began to be created.
                        Quote: Kars
                        and the USA laughed at Tavkr

                        I say: without considering their fighting qualities, 6 TAVKRs and 4 Orlan in terms of labor input and costs were like 6 of classic Av
                        Quote: Kars
                        and the South Koreans don’t know sitting at the 38 parallel. and why at 50% and not at 80%?

                        And why not at the Busan bridgehead? Why does South Korea exist at all?
                        Kim did not like Americans, because their aircraft carriers played a decisive role in retaining the Busan bridgehead.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Eagle, by the way, did not even have all of the medium-caliber towers disabled.

                        From the opposite side
                        By the way, regarding the damaged towers - primarily the guns and equipment were damaged: The middle 6-inch tower is out of order, the wiring burned out, the tower is jammed in the mamerinza. etc.
                        What kind of table?
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 22: 47
                        0
                        quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] I gave 3 the reasons why they were built [/ quote] And I said that they were not fish and not meat, and for the most part they built WHAT would be [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] 82 and 68 did not stand close in labor costs and costs [ / quote] Yes, of course, but if you take into account that in this story they were built in parallel
                        [quote] The cruiser “Stalingrad” was built the fastest. By the end of 1952, contractors delivered 118 samples of component equipment to it: weapons, a boiler turbine installation, electric and diesel generator sets, auxiliary mechanisms, heat exchangers, ship devices and equipment, automation systems and instrumentation systems [/ quote] then not all as bad as you try to imagine. And in your best case it will be like 1 to 3, even if you take busy industrial sites, docks, people then even 1 to 2 (Stalingrad = 2 project 68 bis)
                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Neither in Korea, nor in Iraq, nor in Vietnam did anyone shoot ships from the coast. Strange, right? [/ Quote]
                        Firstly, they fired several times, especially in Korea. Secondly, the art systems of the countries listed are not very long-range, and for example, in Iraq, LCs were fired from 18 km, with absolute superiority in everything.
                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] considering their fighting qualities, 6 TAVKRs and 4 Orlan in labor costs and costs were like 6 classic Av [/ quote]
                        Once again, you don’t mention the year, and no more than 2 classic AVs. (Do not forget the infrastructure without which AVs do not work normally)
                        [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] Kim did not like Americans, because their aircraft carriers ) he probably didn’t like infantry and tank landing ships. [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] From the opposite side [/ quote]
                        He fired from both sides (crossover over t) [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] The average 6-inch tower was out of order, the wiring burned out, the tower was jammed in mamerins. etc. [/ quote] Well, the French design has never been particularly successful. [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] What kind of table? [/ quote]
                        Dotsenko V.D. Sunken. Battle damage to ships after 1945 g. [Quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] tower failed [/ quote]
                        All the same, I would like to know about the failure of the tower to hit an air bomb. Only the capital tower of LK.
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 16 September 2012 22: 48
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Would go broke

                        And why didn’t the ruin of the construction and operation of a dozen 68 bis?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Barents, Kara, Okhotsk, Beringovo

                        Coastal aviation and normal anti-submarine would do better. Than a bunch of obsolete destroyers. Moreover, in the 50-60 threats from this theater could be neglected. [
  14. mind1954
    mind1954 13 September 2012 02: 52
    0
    Actually, this "byaka", from the moment of its birth, was called
    "VOLCANO-PHALANX" !!!