KAZ-NK: active defense systems for surface ships

In the previous article Air defense active protection complexes We considered the possibility of creating promising last-mile defense systems, that is, in fact, ultra-short-range air defense systems, where not only missiles, but also artillery systems based on rapid-fire automatic cannons are ineffective.

Layout options for KAZ-PVO

But threat of an attack with a large number of high-precision weapons, exceeding the capabilities of modern air defense systems, exists not only for terrestrial objects. Based on the KAZ-Air Defense concept for fleet highly effective means of protection against massive attacks by high-precision weapons (WTO).

In order to avoid misunderstanding, let us clarify that, in fact, the considered KAZ are air defense systems of the super-close line of defense. The concept of "KAZ" is used as a distinctive feature to designate this class of weapons, and also because of the similarity of the proposed principles of work with the work of active protection systems for armored vehicles.

Why not high-speed automatic cannons?

The effectiveness of small-bore automatic cannons, as a means of self-defense of surface ships (NK) from anti-ship missiles (ASM), is sometimes questioned. Information on this matter differs, so let's assume that this is not the case.

But it cannot be denied that anti-aircraft artillery systems (ZAK), like anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), will have a certain minimum range of destruction, depending on the speed and angles of approach of anti-ship missiles to the protected ship. That is, next to the NK there is a dead zone of several hundred meters, in which the defeat of anti-ship missiles by existing means of self-defense is difficult or even impossible.

The effectiveness of the ZAK against modern anti-ship missiles is often called into question. Source wikipedia.org

The above does not mean the need to abandon the ZAK, but suggests that both the SAM and the ZAK can be supplemented by other means of short-range self-defense - complexes of active protection of surface ships (KAZ-NK). At the same time, air defense systems of various ranges, ZAK and KAZ-NK will form a single echeloned air defense of surface ships.

Expediency

Does it make sense to shoot down anti-ship missiles near the ship, at a distance of about 200-500-1000 meters?

The warheads (warheads) of anti-ship missiles are often capable of withstanding serious damage and can reach the ship even after the anti-ship missiles have received significant damage. And even if the anti-ship missile system is destroyed, its fragments can pose a significant threat to the ship.

Let's rank the threats arising from an anti-ship missile attack:

- direct hit by anti-ship missiles and programmed detonation of its warhead at the optimum point inside the ship's hull;

- direct hit by anti-ship missiles and unplanned detonation of its warhead at a random point inside the ship's hull;

- direct hit of anti-ship missiles into the ship's hull without detonating its warhead;

- detonation of the anti-ship missile warhead away from the ship and most of the fragments hitting the ship;

- detonation of an anti-ship missile warhead away from the ship and a small part of the fragments hitting the ship;

- complete destruction or significant deviation of the anti-ship missile system, or its fragments, from the ship, with minimal or no penetration into the ship's hull.

Each upstream scenario will be much worse for NK than the downstream one.

In addition, it was the Soviet Union that built monstrous supersonic anti-ship missiles, which, probably, without the explosion of a warhead, could sink many types of enemy ships. In the countries of the West / NATO bloc, they often create smaller anti-ship missiles, subsonic ones, but they can be used in large quantities in order to be able to oversaturate the air defense of surface ships. But such anti-ship missiles will also inflict much less damage to the ship, especially if they are completely or partially destroyed on approach. Yes, and it is easier to destroy small-sized subsonic anti-ship missiles.

Western anti-ship missiles are most often small in size, but can be massively used, in the first place aviation... Source wikipedia.org

On the other hand, if the use of KAZ-NK will radically reduce the likelihood of hitting anti-ship missiles ships, but the risk of damage to them by anti-ship missile shrapnel / fragments increases, then this will become an incentive to strengthen the NK design in order to protect it from this threat.

Advantages

The defeat of anti-ship missiles at an ultra-close distance requires the highest reaction speed from the KAZ-NK, but, as we already said in the article about the KAZ-air defense, such a reaction is fully provided by modern KAZ designed to protect armored vehicles. Moreover, it is believed that some KAZ for the protection of armored vehicles can intercept even armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles (BOPS), flying at a speed of about 1200-1700 meters per second.

At the same time, most of the anti-ship missiles of a potential enemy are subsonic. Supersonic, and even more so hypersonic, anti-ship missiles in an enemy salvo will be much smaller due to their large dimensions. Any carrier: air, surface or underwater, will take either less supersonic anti-ship missiles than subsonic ones, or they will have a shorter flight range. In addition, it is much more difficult to ensure their flight at an ultra-low altitude, which means that they can be destroyed by existing air defense systems at the maximum detection range. Accordingly, the main targets for KAZ-NK will be subsonic (less often supersonic) low-flying anti-ship missiles.

At the same time, protection at the minimum range has its advantages.

Firstly, in the final segment, the anti-ship missile system practically cannot maneuver - the closer to the target, the more predictable its trajectory.

Secondly, the closer the anti-ship missile system is to the radar and optoelectronic reconnaissance means of the KAZ-NK, the less effective the enemy's electronic warfare (EW) means and the means of reducing the visibility of the anti-ship missile itself will be.

Thirdly, taking into account the minimum firing range, weather conditions will have a minimal effect on the KAZ-NK reconnaissance means.

Thus, KAZ-NK is almost guaranteed to be able to detect approaching anti-ship missiles and will have a sufficient reaction rate to intercept subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Design

Since there are surface ships of various displacement, several versions of KAZ-NK of different dimensions will be required.

Do not forget that ships can be attacked by both anti-ship missiles and other weapons of the "air-to-surface" or "surface-to-surface" class, for example, anti-radar missiles (PRR), anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) or even anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) with the possibility of hitting surface targets.

First of all, KAZ-NK will be distinguished by a larger dimension of launchers (PU) and barrels / guides necessary for placing ammunition capable of destroying or damaging anti-ship missiles. Accordingly, in order for the mass and size characteristics of the KAZ-NK to make it possible to place it on the NK, the number of barrels in the launcher will be limited in comparison with the KAZ-PVO, which is designed primarily for the destruction of the cheapest and most massive means of destruction, such as small-sized unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). guided gliding bombs, small-sized high-precision missiles, etc.

The dimensions of the KAZ-NK will presumably be comparable to the dimensions of the short-range self-defense air defense system or the complexes for setting up protective curtains. Source wikipedia.org, bastion-karpenko.ru

What type of ammunition will be most effective against anti-ship missiles?

It's hard to say, the answer to this can only be given by calculations and practical tests.

Presumably, three main types of ammunition can be used in KAZ-NK - shrapnel type with ready-made striking elements, shrapnel type with ready-made striking elements in a container (opening after a certain period of time after exiting the barrel) and high-explosive fragmentation ammunition with programmed detonation on the trajectory. Depending on the type of anti-ship missile attacking the ship, it can be hit by one or more types of KAZ-NK ammunition.

The alleged appearance of KAZ-NK

In addition to the functions of anti-aircraft / anti-missile defense of surface ships, KAZ-NK can also perform anti-sabotage and counter-terrorism functions - it is easy to imagine what a powerful shrapnel charge would do with a high-speed motor boat filled with explosives.

Options and placement

The KAZ-NK version for small surface ships will be almost identical to the KAZ-PVO, taking into account the previously mentioned increase in the size of the launchers / barrels, that is, it will provide all-round defense of the surface ship (taking into account the restrictions imposed by the ship's structural elements).

Option of placing KAZ-NK on a small missile ship (MRK) of the project 21631 "Buyan-M". Source wikipedia.org

It can be assumed that for larger ships, the side-by-side placement of KAZ-NK, carrying out the defense of a given sector, will be the preferred option, while the protected sectors of the KAZ-NK should overlap. A variant is possible when KAZ-NK will be located on one ship, carrying out both sector and circular self-defense of the ship.

An example of the placement of KAZ-NK of different types on a frigate of project 22350

Hereinafter, the proposed placement of KAZ-NK does not take into account the hidden design features of the NK and, in fact, may differ significantly.

The presence of several KAZ-air defense systems on board the surface ship will allow hitting the attacking anti-ship missile system simultaneously from several directions, knocking it off the flight path and inflicting maximum damage on it.

The scheme of destruction of an attacking anti-ship missile system simultaneously by several KAZ-NK

There must be a lot of them ...

Countries waging active hostilities on land quickly come to the conclusion that active defense systems should become an integral part of modern armored vehicles, especially those on the front line. Promising KAZ-NK should also become an integral element of surface ships.

A distinctive feature of KAZ-NK from air defense systems of various classes should be cheapness, primarily of ammunition, as well as full automation of combat work.

The more surface ships, including auxiliary ones, will be equipped with KAZ-NK, the more anti-ship missiles will need to be spent by the enemy to destroy them, the more enemy aircraft will have to make sorties, in each of which it can suffer losses. It's one thing to spend a few anti-ship missiles to destroy a supply transport from a P-8 Poseidon flying by, another thing is to organize a full-fledged air raid for this at the expense of half a dozen or a dozen anti-ship missiles.

KAZ-NK can be deployed on surface ships of various classes and purposes. Source wikipedia.org

The presence of KAZ-NK will mean that more anti-ship missiles will need to be added to the ammunition of enemy surface ships, which means that there will be less space in their arsenal for missiles and surface-to-surface cruise missiles. The same applies to submarines: more anti-ship missiles means fewer torpedoes and / or cruise missiles designed to strike at ground targets.

It can be assumed that the most effective KAZ-NK will be in combination with complexes for the installation of protective curtains, which should also not be distinguished by high cost. This measure will increase the protection of auxiliary ships even in the absence of their escort by warships - in many cases, the enemy will simply waste the anti-ship missile ammunition and go home.

Installation of protective curtains by a surface ship. Source wikiwand.com

Conclusions

The development and widespread use of KAZ-NK will significantly increase the security of Russian surface ships, largely negate the advantage of potential adversaries in the number of combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines, and most importantly, in the effectiveness of reconnaissance and target designation, allowing the enemy to strike first from a safe for his distance.

A significant advantage of KAZ-NK will be the minimum cost of ammunition, incomparable with the cost of attacking anti-ship missiles, which will tilt the cost-effectiveness criterion in favor of the defending side.

It must be repeated once again - in the XNUMXst century, active defense systems will become the most important factor in the survival of military equipment and in achieving superiority in wars and armed conflicts. And surface ships will not be an exception.

Comments

[YOUR]

It must be repeated once again - in the XNUMXst century, active defense systems will become the most important factor in the survival of military equipment and in achieving superiority in wars and armed conflicts. And surface ships will not be an exception.

This will never happen on ships. Computing systems, radar systems will develop, and programmable ammunition will be developed. But KAZ will not be on the ships. Excess weight

[Grandfather]

Quote: YOUR

It must be repeated once again - in the XNUMXst century, active defense systems will become the most important factor in the survival of military equipment and in achieving superiority in wars and armed conflicts. And surface ships will not be an exception.

This will never happen on ships. Computing systems, radar systems will develop, and programmable ammunition will be developed. But KAZ will not be on the ships. Excess weight

I would like to see KAZ NK at least on serious ships, for example, "Peter" ... of course this is not for "karakurt", and their life will be short in battle, and therefore the combat value is not great, and there is nowhere to place ...

[YOUR]

RCC Harpoon, several flight paths. In the final section, either above the water at an altitude of no more than 15 m, or in 10 km it gains altitude and dives onto the ship.
How do you plan to apply KAZ?

[Grandfather]

Quote: YOUR

How do you plan to apply KAZ?

sorry ... this is not for me ... we have a designer, the coolest in the world, they make atomic missiles, and they saddled hypersound, this is for them.

[YOUR]

So the designer will say so - pardon what, then we will be engaged in all sorts of nonsense. Better to make another air defense system.

[Grandfather]

Quote: YOUR

So the designer will say so - pardon what, then we will be engaged in all sorts of nonsense. Better to make another air defense system.

Time will tell.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

RCC Harpoon, several flight paths. In the final section, either above the water at an altitude of no more than 15 m, or in 10 km it gains altitude and dives onto the ship.
How do you plan to apply KAZ?

By deploying the launcher upward, according to the radar data. In general, high flying targets are a simpler target for an air defense system.

[YOUR]

The rocket climbs sharply and almost immediately begins to dive. A very, very inconvenient target.
In addition, the rocket can go at an altitude, as they write, from 2 to 15 meters. Well, two is in a row, but 10 -15 is very even

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

The rocket climbs sharply and almost immediately begins to dive. A very, very inconvenient target.
In addition, the rocket can go at an altitude, as they write, from 2 to 15 meters. Well, two is in a row, but 10 -15 is very even

What is "sharp" in your understanding? She must go uphill a kilometer, otherwise it will fall apart from overloads.

KAZ for armored vehicles have a reaction in milliseconds - that is why we use unguided or shrapnel ammunition at the minimum range, where anti-ship missiles can no longer maneuver.

[YOUR]

Teperich is not like Davic, the missiles can withstand an overload of up to 60 units.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

Teperich is not like Davic, the missiles can withstand an overload of up to 60 units.

This is a SAM, I doubt that anti-ship missiles are capable of such freaks - anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" 15G, anti-ship missiles "Onyx" 10G

[El Barto]

In terms of KAZ, a ship is no different from a tank, and an anti-ship missile system from an ATGM. This is exactly how ATGMs and ATGMs behave - either a direct attack or an attack from above.
Given the short reaction time, tank KAZ operate in automatic mode.
Which of this fundamentally cannot work on ships?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

In general, high flying targets are a simpler target for an air defense system.

Why "flying high ..."? If there are anti-ship missiles hitting a target at a height of 3-5 meters! Moreover, anti-ship missiles with warheads were offered "in the form of a" torpedo! Speaking of torpedoes ... Where is the protection against torpedoes? Having said A, you must also say B! And then the adversary will find out about your KAZ-NK and arm himself with rocket-torpedoes! By the way, the next step in your militaristic creativity suggests itself ... "development" of KAZ-PL! From there, you can borrow the protection of the underwater part of the NK! I just have to warn you ... KAZ-PL has already been "developed"!

[SHOPPING MALL]

On the destruction of ammunition attacking from different directions, incl. from above, in more detail in the article: KAZ-Air Defense - a complex of active protection of air defense

https://topwar.ru/188847-kaz-pvo-kompleks-aktivnoj-zaschity-protivovozdushnoj-oborony.html

[YOUR]

I remember this article. But you will excuse me, but further assumptions like now, if it did not go. They are not available and will be in a row. Especially in air defense

[Vladimir_2U]

Against anti-ship missiles at close range, shrapnel BBs are absolutely useless, they won't even hit HE warheads, let alone semi-armor-piercing ones. You need either direct hits, or BB with a lot of cumulative funnels, well, or whatever you suggest to the HE. But here a close detonation is fraught with the consequences of an armored ship, however, you also pointed to this.

[El Barto]

The tank KAZ even fights off the BPS, not to mention the destruction of anti-tank missiles.
Is there more anti-ship missiles? Well, the ship is larger than a tank, it can accommodate large KAZ charges.
And what does the armor have to do with it? KAZ is not a DZ, it does not need an armored base. In addition, they quite work for themselves on unarmored or lightly armored vehicles and no one has suffered from their own KAZ yet.
And there is no infantry near the ship, which KAZ could damage.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: El Barto

The tank KAZ even fights off the BPS, not to mention the destruction of anti-tank missiles.

It does not repulse (some kind of stupidity), no, but partially destroys (if you're lucky), or turns the BOPS with the subsequent destruction of the armor that the ship does not have) in both cases. And what KAZ? Shrapnel or what?

Quote: El Barto

And what does the armor have to do with it? KAZ is not a DZ, it does not need an armored base. In addition, they quite work for themselves on unarmored or lightly armored vehicles and no one has suffered from their own KAZ yet.

You do not seem to know anything about the anti-ship missiles and their warheads. In short: an anti-ship missile warhead is not a tin ATGM with a funnel, it is a projectile-like object with appropriate walls that cannot be taken with shrapnel) and a mass of explosives (namely explosives) in tens or even hundreds of kg.
RCC is considered dangerous until destroyed either by explosion or fall. And with the explosion of hundreds of KG, not counting the shower of debris, at the side - problems for the ship arise.

[El Barto]

BOPS BOPSom, I talked about BPS, which exactly what "fights back" - changes the trajectory and comes into the armor flat, sideways, without damaging it, or even goes to the side.
And the "scrap" is naturally not "tin".
Secondly, a fragmentation missile warhead. In fact, the same shrapnel and it somehow copes with missiles.
The essence of KAZ is the simultaneous detonation of a large number of charges (let's say several hundred) at a certain distance from the protected ship, and in the direction of the missile attack. Interspersed with smoke and heat shells. That, in theory, will either inflict multiple damage to the missile, destroying it, or force it to leave its trajectory, or trigger the warhead.
Today, the only alternative is to shoot rockets with a 20-30mm cannon.
Imagine how tankers shoot at ATGMs from machine guns, hoping to shoot them down

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: El Barto

BOPS BOPSom, I talked about BPS, which exactly what "fights back" - changes the trajectory and comes into the armor flat, sideways, without damaging it, or even goes to the side.

BOPS - a br. Feathered sub-caliber projectile, but what is a BPS? And with what kind of KAZ projectile he "fights back" there is no answer. Shrapnel, buckshot, shrapnel?

Quote: El Barto

Secondly, a fragmentation missile warhead. In fact, the same shrapnel and it somehow copes with missiles.

The author fights, proves that KAZ are needed at a CLOSER distance, and you just shoot down and what? They shoot down ISDAL and damage the airframe of the anti-ship missile system or the anti-ship missile engine, but not its warhead.

Quote: El Barto

The essence of KAZ is the simultaneous detonation of a large number of charges (let's say several hundred) at a certain distance from the protected ship, and in the direction of the missile attack.

Well, thanks for not millions. You should at least read the article before writing such nonsense.

[El Barto]

BPS is a 3ubm10 projectile.

Nonsense...
At short distances, the ship now has only artillery systems from air defense systems. Do you have any idea how they work?
The main method is the setting of barrage fire along the lines in the direction of movement of the air target.
Those are created by a cloud of shells / bullets in the path of an aircraft or rocket.
With the entire rate of fire of gun mounts of 20-30 mm, the density of the fragmentation field from shells of a larger caliber - from 100 mm, and a large number of barrels, will be several orders of magnitude higher. Plus the power of the explosion and the size and energy of the fragments.
That is, the KAZ must create a continuous field or a cloud of fragments and a shock wave with a length and depth of hundreds of meters. In the direction of the missile attack.
The debris of the rocket falling out of this cloud with a high degree of probability will not reach the ship, and if they do, they will not cause serious damage to it.
This implies a large number of barrels, the simplest are mortars, accuracy and range are not needed, with powerful high-explosive fragmentation shells.
KAZ for ships makes sense only in this configuration. There is no point in single anti-missile shots, by analogy with air defense missile systems.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: El Barto

BPS is a 3ubm10 projectile.

A 100 mm rifled gun? Is this the main threat to tanks? Funny.

Quote: El Barto

At short distances, the ship now has only artillery systems from air defense systems. Do you have any idea how they work?

Well someone has to imagine if you can't. Because the words: The main method is the setting of barrage fire along the lines in the direction of movement of the air target. show your COMPLETE incompetence in this matter, sorry.
ZAK ACCEPT the approaching target, and fire it with ARMOR-piercing projectiles, and precisely with the aim of detonating the warhead. Already from a distance of 1000 - 500 m, an anti-ship missile that was not destroyed by an explosion is considered missed. No fragments, fragments lose their relevance closer to a couple of kilometers to the ship.

Quote: El Barto

That is, the KAZ must create a continuous field or a cloud of fragments and a shock wave with a length and depth of hundreds of meters. In the direction of the missile attack.

Well, you are delusional! Do tank KAZ create some kind of field ?! There will not be enough combat elements. KAZ intercepts the target point-blank, in the case of a ship it is tens of meters, otherwise it is necessary to direct the installation both accurately and quickly, and this is no longer KAZ. A powerful HE part requires a powerful barrel, and this is weight, and that's it, about not only hundreds, about dozens of shells is out of the question! Therefore, for a hypothetical shipborne KAZ, only cumulative combat elements are suitable, and even then armor is extremely desirable.
You don’t understand what you’re writing because you don’t know the basics, excuse me.

[El Barto]

Well, you are delusional! Do tank KAZ create some kind of field ?! There will not be enough combat elements.

Exactly what they create. The explosion of a protective ammunition and a bundle of fragments completely cover the projection of the tank.
And if an explosion with a radius of destruction of 10 m and one ammunition is enough for a tank, then to protect a ship with a length of 100 meters, an explosion field of the appropriate size is needed.

To throw a powerful off-charge at 500 m, no "powerful barrel" is needed. Have you seen the mortar?

If the sailors shoot "direct hit" missiles, then this is a waste of ammunition.
How do they shoot, for example, a SPAAG - they cannot hit something smaller and faster than a helicopter or a corn truck

[Vladimir_2U]

.

Quote: El Barto

Exactly what they create. The explosion of a protective ammunition and a bundle of fragments completely cover the projection of the tank.

What a projection, you are talking nonsense. A bunch (sheaf) of fragments can only hit a tin ATGM, whether the sheaf is no longer able to hit at least deflect the BOPS. Here it is enough to compare PU KAZ T-90 and T-14, you can see everything at once.

Quote: El Barto

And if an explosion with a radius of destruction of 10 m and one ammunition is enough for a tank, then to protect a ship with a length of 100 meters, an explosion field of the appropriate size is needed.

Natural nonsense starting from a radius of 10 meters (watch the video of the KAZ operation) and ending with the "field of explosions", which the anti-ship missile warheads do not care about.

Quote: El Barto

To throw a powerful off-charge at 500 m, no "powerful barrel" is needed. Have you seen the mortar?

Well, everything is clear with you, you are not able to relate the size and weight and are not friends with elementary physics. The mortar (barrel) is not a fluff - once, the mine flies very slowly - two, and for "hundreds of charges" (hand to face) hundreds of mortars are needed.

Quote: El Barto

If the sailors shoot "direct hit" missiles, then this is a waste of ammunition.

The network is full of materials about the work of the ZAK on the RCC, if you are not able to understand them, then what is the point of writing something to you?

[failure]

Barrage? On PCR? Seriously?
I would understand if it was about World War II, and shooting at torpedo bombers slowly flying in your direction.

Kaz is not the setting of protective clouds of debris, but a detonation aimed at a specific target. And it is desirable - the detonation is very, very close to the target - even to defeat a banal ptur.

Mortars like mortars with scanty flight speed will not give such anticipation and accuracy at a distance of a kilometer from the ship.

Yes, and the use of hundreds of such shells to intercept one missile defense system ... All for one missile defense system chtol?

[Yarhann]

the tank is so well armored and the explosion of the OFS, cumulative or partial destruction of scrap ensures that it won’t be a fig.

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: YOUR

RCC Harpoon, multiple flight paths

So what?
As the author correctly noted, she still flies to the ship. Those. KAZ will be on its trajectory with a 100% probability.
The only question is in the radar / OLS review sector of this hypothetical KAZ and its guns / missiles.

[YOUR]

Yeah, especially if it goes over the water at a height of 10-15 meters. Suggest to hang the ship around the perimeter

[Jacket in stock]

Quote: YOUR

Suggest to hang the ship around the perimeter

And what other options. The only way.

[YOUR]

Quote: Jacket in stock

And what other options. The only way.

Isn't it all that bad?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

Yeah, especially if it goes over the water at a height of 10-15 meters. Suggest to hang the ship around the perimeter

They turn, these are not stationary launchers - just a few, along the sides, or one on a hill, for small ships, or different combinations.

[gregor6549]

"Never say never" - James Bond used to say, and he was right.
We cannot predict what will be the future surface ships of various ranks and how the technologies used in their creation will develop.
It is quite possible that systems similar to the KAZ systems described in the article will appear, and a return to the reservation of the vital zones of the ship, and to a decrease in the height of their superstructures to dimensions that are difficult to imagine now, and the rejection of their own emitting sensors or their removal from the ship at decent distances , and much more.
At one time, the proposals to install dynamic and / or active protection systems on armored vehicles also did not come from everyone and did not always find understanding. And now such systems are perceived by the majority of people related to armored vehicles, as a matter of course, although the controversy around such systems still does not subside. And in general, the path to science is strewn with numerous corpses of bold ideas, but from time to time some of them come to life and are implemented in life. Perhaps the KAZ of surface ships will eventually be in demand by those who count people by the piece and appreciate the life of each of them.

[YOUR]

An explosion of medium power ammunition of a volumetric explosion in 50 - 100 meters from the ship is guaranteed to disable it. Demolishes all antennas, then a floating, toothless platform

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

An explosion of medium power ammunition of a volumetric explosion in 50 - 100 meters from the ship is guaranteed to disable it. Demolishes all antennas, then a floating, toothless platform

What does "average power" mean? Nuclear?

Bulk ammunition is ineffective in open spaces, in the anti-ship missile system of the warhead.

Shrapnel - yes, they can cut, but it's better than an explosion inside. And the range of destruction of KAZ NK for the most part should be higher.

[YOUR]

Don't you take the shockwave into account?

[gregor6549]

Dear Andrew,
I got carried away by reading your article and forgot to thank you both for the interesting article and for the unconventional approach to solving the issue of protecting surface ships from anti-aircraft weapons in the near zone (last line of defense).
Yes, it is very difficult to introduce new approaches into the consciousness of many people, because their knowledge and previous experience instinctively oppose new methods, especially those that are radically different from the ones they have known and mastered for a long time.
For example, I have long and repeatedly expressed the idea that it is not entirely rational to drag the Pantsir-type air defense missile system, originally intended for use in "pedestrian" air defense systems, to surface ships, because creating a high density of fire in one direction / in a narrow sector due to the mechanical combination of cannons and missiles, the Pantsir does not allow such a density to be achieved in other directions. And this means that in case of: a stellar "raid by SVN on a single ship or a small group of ships, each of which has one Shell, the chances of these ships to survive are very illusory. The possibilities of creating a" fence "from the Shells around the entire perimeter of the KUG using the Shells of other ships are not always available.That is, as a rule, they are not available Yes, and when reflecting an EHV raid from one direction, problems arise because EHV can be at different ranges, azimuths and elevation angles, and those targets that are good for cannons may turn out to be inappropriate for missiles and vice versa.In addition, the algorithms for controlling guns and missiles are quite different from each other, etc.
But the reaction of the majority of VO readers to this thought was unequivocal: this cannot be because can never be. And in general, how did he (that is, I) dare to encroach on something that has no analogue in the world and on the authority of its creators.
This is how we live, not daring to encroach ...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: gregor6549

For example, I have long and repeatedly expressed the idea that it is not entirely rational to drag the Pantsir-type air defense missile system, originally intended for use in "pedestrian" air defense systems, to surface ships, because creating a high density of fire in one direction / in a narrow sector due to the mechanical combination of cannons and missiles, the Pantsir does not allow such a density to be achieved in other directions.

So "Pantsir-M" is not a land system. This is a shipborne "Kortik" with a new missile unit, radar and SUAO. Land and sea "Pantsir" are like the Tu-22 and Tu-22M.
The main problem of Pantsir-M is that it is a complex designed to operate in an echeloned air defense system. Its task is to finish off single anti-ship missiles that have broken through all the other air defense missile systems of the ship and formations. And in this regard, the missiles on it are quite justified - nevertheless, it is too dangerous to start finishing off the breakthrough anti-ship missile system 2 km from the side (effective range of 30-mm guns).
But if we put "Pantsir-M" alone, then its tasks change. This should no longer be a ZRAK of the last frontier, but a full-fledged air defense complex. And then the features described by you come out. On the mind, for small ships it is worth returning to a separate missile and cannon air defense unit, as it was before - "Wasp" and AK-630. Only now, instead of "Wasp", put a purely rocket "Shell" (of the "Arctic" type).

[gregor6549]

Uv. Alexey, Who denies that there are differences between the land and sea Shells both in the composition of software and hardware, and in interfacing with external systems (BIUS ships, command and control air defense systems), and in the principles of their application. I don’t deny it.
But these differences are not fundamental, since there is a rigid bundle of guns and missiles in both versions of the Shell, and therefore there are common problems, which I briefly mentioned in my comment.
And these problems arose even before the appearance of Shell, for example, in systems such as Tunguska, i.e. where, at the behest of the chief designers of these systems, the unification "in one bottle" of missile and artillery weapons of air attack was used.
That. you and I have come to the same conclusion: guns separately, missiles separately.
And this conclusion can be implemented in different ways, including as you propose, although instead of a rocket Armor, I would use Thor, which at least does not need, apart from rotating its "head" in azimuth, to "nod" containers with missiles in elevation as the Shell does.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: gregor6549

And these problems arose even before the appearance of Shell, for example, in systems such as Tunguska, i.e. where, at the behest of the chief designers of these systems, the unification "in one bottle" of missile and artillery weapons of air attack was used.

Just "Tunguska" had no problems - its missiles were only "range extensions" of the cannon part of the complex. And the purely anti-aircraft missile part of the air defense system remained - the Tunguska worked in conjunction with the Strela-10.
In general, the whole history of the ZRPK began with the fact that the army team needed to increase the range of fire of the ZSU beyond the effective fire of the cannons - because the main targets could fire from a line of 5-7 km from the ZSU. As a result, we got "ZSU with missiles".
In the original version, the Pantsir also has no problems - it also serves as a means of the last line of echeloned air defense, designed to finish shooting that which has broken through the previous lines.

[O. Bender]

I completely agree. Kaznk, the last line of defense on, relatively inexpensive, does not take up much space. And yet, the treasury is not instead of the air defense, but in the place with the air defense of the NK. If you want an analogue of the knife.

[El Barto]

A long time ago there were shells with a directed stream of fragments and fragmentation-beam shells. Accordingly, the distribution of the directions of the power of the shock wave.

[Grandfather]

somehow with our history, it doesn't fit well ...

[venik]

Quote: YOUR

Computing systems, radar systems will develop, and programmable ammunition will be developed. But KAZ will not be on the ships. Excess weight

=======
The very idea of ​​the KAZ-NK seems to be very dubious (in contrast to ground armored vehicles). At the same time, at the beginning, the author himself writes: "....The warheads (warheads) of anti-ship missiles are often capable of withstanding serious damage and can reach the ship even after the anti-ship missiles have received significant damage. And even in the event of the destruction of the anti-ship missile system, its fragments can represent for the ship significant threatsу...... ". Which in general is absolutely true! Suffice it to recall the death of the Musson MRK, when a damaged target missile (with an inert warhead) hit the superstructure of the Musson MRK and how it ended ....:

And it ended with the death of the ship and 39 crew members (out of 76!) .....
And at the end, the author draws a diametrically opposite conclusion:
"...It must be repeated once again - in the XNUMXst century, active defense systems will become the most important factor in the survival of military equipment and in achieving superiority in wars and armed conflicts. AND surface ships are no exception...... "
This is the last thesis that raises serious doubts! It's still better to shoot down an anti-ship missile (or steer it aside) at ranges of more than 1 km (and in general, the farther, we melt - the better!). And to shoot buckshot at anti-ship missiles weighing a quarter or half a ton, from a distance of 100-300 meters ... As it is doubtful ...

[YOUR]

Well all the guy you hit. Now adherents of KAZ will throw cons to you.

[venik]

Quote: YOUR

Well all the guy you hit. Now adherents of KAZ will throw cons to you.

=======
A! No getting used to! Slippers from the sofa "jamb" - a familiar thing!
Wrote what I think! If the KAZ for the protection of armored vehicles from cumulative (especially cumulative) shells is what the "doctor ordered", then to protect the NK from the anti-ship missiles, especially if the small displacement NK (MRK, IPC, corvette, and even a frigate), let the anti-ship missile at a distance of a couple of hundred meters is nonsense: too risky! Better to focus on highly effective air defense / missile defense systems (the same "Thor" or possibly "Pantsir"), allowing you to work on several targets, filling them at a distance of several kilometers (!) Well, + active and passive jamming systems ..... So it is more reliable will!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: venik

Quote: YOUR

Computing systems, radar systems will develop, and programmable ammunition will be developed. But KAZ will not be on the ships. Excess weight

=======
The very idea of ​​the KAZ-NK seems to be very dubious (in contrast to ground armored vehicles). At the same time, at the beginning, the author himself writes: "....The warheads (warheads) of anti-ship missiles are often capable of withstanding serious damage and can reach the ship even after the anti-ship missiles have received significant damage. And even in the event of the destruction of the anti-ship missile system, its fragments can represent for the ship significant threatsу...... ". Which in general is absolutely true! Suffice it to recall the death of the Musson MRK, when a damaged target missile (with an inert warhead) hit the superstructure of the Musson MRK and how it ended ....:

And it ended with the death of the ship and 39 crew members (out of 76!) .....
And at the end, the author draws a diametrically opposite conclusion:
"...It must be repeated once again - in the XNUMXst century, active defense systems will become the most important factor in the survival of military equipment and in achieving superiority in wars and armed conflicts. AND surface ships are no exception...... "
This is the last thesis that raises serious doubts! It's still better to shoot down an anti-ship missile (or steer it aside) at ranges of more than 1 km (and in general, the farther, we melt - the better!). And to shoot buckshot at anti-ship missiles weighing a quarter or half a ton, from a distance of 100-300 meters ... As it is doubtful ...

So no one argues that it is better to shoot down further. But in reality, the anti-ship missile system can slip through. One tragic incident should not be judged, so we can conclude that the near-zone air defense systems are not needed at all. It is not known what damage that target received, and what would have happened to it after a dense volley of ready-made submunitions, even from +/- 500 meters.

The problem and happiness is that there has never been a big war, and there never will be. Nobody knows how tens or hundreds of anti-ship missiles will behave in one salvo, tens or hundreds of self-defense missiles, all this in the conditions of electronic warfare, protective curtains and false targets.

PHC KAZ-NK is the last chance, and of course, it may not always work.

But the advantage of the KAZ-NK is that a close-range defeat will ensure a high density of the radar field (detection with a high probability, even when the enemy's electronic warfare equipment is operating), and a point-blank shot will inflict maximum damage on the anti-ship missile system.

[venik]

Quote: AVM

One tragic incident should not be judged, so we can conclude that the near-zone air defense systems are not needed at all.

========
For EVERY tragic incident, you need to judge, dress and carefully understand!
But what about - then they need to be done CORRECT and well CONSIDERED!
And one of the FIRST conclusions on the Monsoon tragedy: the maximum range of the Osa-M near-zone air defense missile systems (which were on the Monsoon) - up to 9 km, their reload speed and channel, as well as the probability of hitting the target of 1 missile defense system - in within 0.35-0.8, for effective defense against anti-ship missiles - INSUFFICIENT and DO NOT PROVIDE reliable protection !!! We need an interception range that is at least twice as large, TLUs that provide an immediate start as the next channel is released, a channel capacity of at least 4, A / u caliber 76/100 mm, multi-barreled anti-aircraft guns and systems of active and passive jamming. And all this is linked within one high-speed ship's CIUS! This is the only way to ensure an effective layered missile defense of a surface ship!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: venik

Quote: AVM

One tragic incident should not be judged, so we can conclude that the near-zone air defense systems are not needed at all.

========
For EVERY tragic incident, you need to judge, dress and carefully understand!
But what about - then they need to be done CORRECT and well CONSIDERED!
And one of the FIRST conclusions on the Monsoon tragedy: the maximum range of the Osa-M near-zone air defense missile systems (which were on the Monsoon) - up to 9 km, their reload speed and channel, as well as the probability of hitting the target of 1 missile defense system - in within 0.35-0.8, for effective defense against anti-ship missiles - INSUFFICIENT and DO NOT PROVIDE reliable protection !!! We need an interception range that is at least twice as large, TLUs that provide an immediate start as the next channel is released, a channel capacity of at least 4, A / u caliber 76/100 mm, multi-barreled anti-aircraft guns and systems of active and passive jamming. And all this is linked within one high-speed ship's CIUS! This is the only way to ensure an effective layered missile defense of a surface ship!

And all this is needed to hit one target missile? What, then, is the channel needed in reality, when more than one anti-ship missile will fly to NK?

[venik]

Quote: AVM

And all this is needed to hit one target missile? What, then, is the channel needed in reality, when more than one anti-ship missile will fly to NK?

=========
Exactly! The channel for the Tor-M2KM (tested in the ship version) has 4 channels, for the Marine Pantsir, too. Radar "Puma" accompanies - up to 4 targets. If we have, for example, 1 - "Armor" or "Thor", 1 AK-176 or AK-190 and 2 AK-630 or "Duet" (onboard), then it turns out that at a distance of 12-25 km we can fire simultaneously at 5 targets (from one side) at a distance of 1 - 4 km - simultaneously, from all directions - for 7 targets, with the exception of those flying up from the "dead zones"). Somewhere like that .....

[28st region]

Maximum damage to a rack weighing 700 kg at a distance of 10 .. 20 .. 30 m is about nothing. Even if it is scattered into debris and the b / h does not explode, the ship will still get it, Mom, don’t worry. This is at its best. In 99 out of 100, all this mass will pierce the board, and even the fuel will blaze. the result will be the same.

[28st region]

Oh, not that you gave an example, oh not that.

Finding the target, "Monsoon" hit it with two missiles from an anti-aircraft missile system, which exploded in the target missile's engagement zone. The second target rocket released by the firing boat followed in free flight over the “Monsoon”, as there was no time for it on the ship ...

The struck first target missile sharply changed its flight trajectory, began to descend, and after a few moments it stuck into the "Monsoon" superstructure - a radio room. Having pierced it, it exploded (fuel and rocket oxidizer) at the main command post (GKP) of the ship. "Monsoon", shuddering from the impact and explosion, caught fire

The missile missed two hits !!!!!!!!!! anti-aircraft missiles, she continued to fly, that for her some kind of KAZ b / h which is clearly lighter than b / h anti-aircraft packets and explodes not near the target but far from it, sending a bunch of shrapnel or rods to the target with a directed explosion

[El Barto]

And from the Falanxes and Goalkeepers on anti-ship missiles weighing 1/4 - 1/2 tons is it not doubtful to shoot?

[failure]

No doubt about it. Hundred-gram shells with explosives are not peas of fragments from kaz - they will surely detonate a warhead.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: YOUR

But KAZ will not be on the ships.

Of course it won't. A KAZ on a ship is an obvious absurdity, since the weight on its placement can be spent much more efficiently on the same ZAK or short-range air defense system.

[El Barto]

The conversation is about the last line of defense of the ship. If we compare the capabilities of KAZ and let's say some kind of Goalkeeper, then a continuous field of fragments will be more effective than shooting from a "large machine gun"
And the weight of the launcher and charges, as well as the dimensions, for the KAZ will be insignificant against the background of the air defense system

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

ZAK is the last line of defense. To arrange a continuous field of fragments, about which you are writing, at least 500 m from the ship, you will need a much heavier installation than the goalkeeper

[Yuri V.A]

The weight of the warhead alone, even of such an anti-ship missile system as Harpoon, which many do not want to take seriously, is an order of magnitude greater than the mass of the average ATGM. So, what size should the ship's KAZ ammunition be for guaranteed neutralization of an incoming missile, and then how will this installation differ from the near-zone air defense system?

[YOUR]

At what range will this KAZ take down the missile? It would be necessary to go further, at least 100 meters. At 10-15 meters ... yes, this is garbage
On the one hand, as one character said in the film, one tablet is enough, i.e. depending on where it gets, but this is a chamomile, he does not like it. On the other hand, the mass of the rocket is such that due to its mass it will still reach the ship and cause damage.
Output. Why do we need such a KAZ. He does not always save tanks. They show in advertisements how KAZ knocks down an RPG rocket, and what about an artillery shell ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: YOUR

At what range will this KAZ take down the missile? It would be necessary to go further, at least 100 meters. At 10-15 meters ... yes, this is garbage

Nobody talked about 10-15 meters.

Expediency

Does it make sense to shoot down anti-ship missiles near the ship, at a distance of about 200-500-1000 meters?
...

[YOUR]

Then it will be a full-fledged short-range air defense system

[El Barto]

No, the KAZ charges are uncontrollable. They create continuous explosions and a field of debris in the path of the rocket.
Plus, KAZ is not only a counter-projectile. Ships use the same Cloud

[venik]

Quote: AVM

Nobody talked about 10-15 meters.
Expediency
Does it make sense to shoot down anti-ship missiles near the ship, at a distance of about 200-500-1000 meters?

=======
Interestingly, Andrey, and you have not tried to calculate WHAT will be the effectiveness of such a "macro-shotgun" at a distance of, say, 500 meters ??? I'm not even talking about 1000 meters ...
PS For reference: the effective range of tank KAZ is somewhere within 10 meters!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: venik

Quote: AVM

Nobody talked about 10-15 meters.
Expediency
Does it make sense to shoot down anti-ship missiles near the ship, at a distance of about 200-500-1000 meters?

=======
Interestingly, Andrey, and you have not tried to calculate WHAT will be the effectiveness of such a "macro-shotgun" at a distance of, say, 500 meters ??? I'm not even talking about 1000 meters ...
PS For reference: the effective range of tank KAZ is somewhere within 10 meters!

To calculate this, you need a whole R&D. Therefore, I indicated several types of potential ammunition - conventionally "buckshot" (with ready-made striking elements, most likely arrow-shaped), the same, but with elements in the container, which opens up some time after the shot, and range, and HE ammunition with remote detonation - in fact, this is the equivalent of firing a 120-mm cannon at air targets, only at a distance of up to 1000 meters, which will simplify the barrels as much as possible and reduce ammunition.

[venik]

Quote: AVM

and PF ammunition with remote detonation - in fact, this is the equivalent of firing a 120-mm cannon at air targets, only at a distance of up to 1000 meters, which will simplify the barrels as much as possible and reduce ammunition.

=======
And WHY "fence the garden" if the AK-176MA (76-mm) has an effective range of 12 km, reach in height - 7 km, with a rate of fire up to 120-130 rounds per minute, and AK-190 - a range of 21 km (!) and reach in height - up to 15 km, with a rate of fire of 80 rds / min. Moreover, both guns have shells with remote detonation and already long and effectively used to combat air targets such as "subsonic anti-ship missiles" ??? Why else would they "cram" some 120-mm short barreled gun onto the ship?

[El Barto]

The difference in the number of barrels and, accordingly, in the number of projectiles fired and the volume of the fragmentation field.
By and large, it can be 100-200 mortars, simultaneously firing charges at the side of the ship. Automatically or by pushing a button. Simultaneously with smoke charges

[venik]

Quote: El Barto

The difference in the number of barrels and, accordingly, in the number of projectiles fired and the volume of the fragmentation field.
By and large, it can be 100-200 mortars, simultaneously firing charges at the side of the ship. Automatically or by pushing a button. Simultaneously with smoke charges

=======
You still haven't understood anything, Alexey !!! These "100-200 mortars" are capable of hitting a target (anti-ship missiles) at a distance of 100 (at best - 300) meters from the side !!! And this is not just DANGEROUS - it is VERY dangerous !!! And at the same time - these "100-200 mortars" occupy to fig places и weigh - Oh oh oh!!! Let's calculate: if we assume that the weight of 1 (one) martyr together with the gun carriage and the charge is 100 kg (and this is very, very LITTLE), then it turns out from 10 to 20 tons !!! For reference, one 30mm Duet weighs approx. 4 tons (with a full 3 rounds of ammunition) and at the same time shoots up to no less than 000 10 mm rounds per minute at a distance to 4 km! And if they finally "finish" the blasting 30-mm projectiles with programmable detonation on the trajectory, then IMAGINE WHAT cloud of debris and what density creates a queue of 1 (one!) second duration ?! About 76-mm and 100-mm guns - and generally NOT SPEAKING! Just count how many shots at an anti-ship missile system flying at a speed of 900 km / h these installations will have time to make until the anti-ship missile system has flown 15 km (standard detection range and tracking of anti-ship missiles such as "Harpoon" or "Tomahawk")!
So the question is: "And what about the ass with a revolver?" (in the sense of 100 - 200 "mortars" ??? Isn't it better to spend money on improving the ALREADY existing and much MORE EFFECTIVE means of NDT missile defense?
PS KAZ complexes are very effective for protecting ground armored vehicles, where the probability of shelling from small and extremely short distances (from 50-100 m to 1 - 2 km) is very high, the projectile is very high-speed and easily vulnerable (especially - cumulative - 1 splinter or buckshot in the area of ​​warheads and the cumulative jet will not be formed any more or will very much lose in penetration) and NK - where there are completely DIFFERENT threats! Therefore, I claim that KAZ is for armored vehicles:
, and for NK it is nonsense!!!

[El Barto]

Personally, I am confused by the following:
- the power of a 30 mm projectile is scanty, as is the fragmentation effect
- artillery systems cannot shoot continuously in order to release the same 10 thousand shells in one salvo
- rate of fire 76 mm - 12 rounds per minute
That is, they will not be able to create the density of fire for guaranteed destruction of a high-speed air target.

The extra 10 tons of weight for the ship, it seems to me, does not matter. And a big bang could be useful as a last resort.

[venik]

Quote: El Barto

Personally, I am confused by the following:

=========
Let's try to figure it out!
---------

Quote: El Barto

- the power of a 30 mm projectile is scanty, as is the fragmentation effect

=======
Scanty, then scanty! But for 1 seconds from the "Duet" takes off approx. 160 "scanty" shells. 160 (one hundred sixty), Alexey! And this is almost 200 RGD-5 grenades! WHAT cloud will the shells themselves create? WHAT cloud will their fragments create ??? But 1-2 fragments in the wings or plumage of the rocket are enough and "bye-bye" - the probability of hitting even a fairly large surface ship from a distance of 2-3 km - will tend to 0!
----------

Quote: El Barto

- rate of fire 76 mm - 12 rounds per minute

========
How much? 12 (twelve)? Are you confusing anything, Alexey? A 125 (one hundred twenty five) +/- 12 rounds per minute - would you like to ?! Well, a little so, on order wrong!
--------

Quote: El Barto

That is, they will not be able to create the density of fire for guaranteed destruction of a high-speed air target.

======
Those. Until now, the AK-176M and AK-190 quite successfully fought against targets such as anti-ship missiles, but now suddenly they "cannot" ??? Why did it happen?
---------

Quote: El Barto

The extra 10 tons of weight for the ship, it seems to me, does not matter.

=======
Alas, Alexey! Not all that it seems is truth! 10-20 tons - this seems to be a little, but do not forget that this is a useless load (instead of which it would be possible to increase the ammunition load of the existing artillery systems or put 1-2 additional ones (for example: "Pantsir-M" with ammunition - weighs approx . 13 tons!).
PS The author's desire to come up with something very effective for protecting surface ships from anti-ship missiles is very commendable, for which he and: "+" !!! But, alas - the ship is not a tank, but an anti-ship missile system is for a projectile or a rocket-propelled grenade!
In the case of armored vehicles (where the firing distance can be from 50-100 meters to 1-3 kilometers, and the flight time of the striking ammunition ranges from a few seconds to fractions of a second!), for surface ships (where the detection range of anti-ship missiles is 15-30 km, and the flight time is calculated minutes - the very idea of ​​a "shipborne KAZ" - makes no sense!!!

[El Barto]

I will not argue, not a sailor.
There are some doubts about the effectiveness of the ZAK - our data, as usual, are not available, and the Americans, according to the experience of using Phalanx, which is shown in the picture in the article, and shooting simulations, estimate its effectiveness low.
Well, personal observations of the ZSU firing - usually they don't get anywhere :)

[failure]

100-200 mortars ... simultaneously firing charges ...

Ie at once on the first PCR? And a couple of dozen of them are flying. 1-2 RAM settings - I see it many times more useful for pro.

simultaneously with smoke charges

... which also block the radar. Those. all your kaz in the middle of an attack - suddenly stop seeing something.

[My doctor]

Quote: AVM

This is the equivalent of firing a 120-mm cannon at air targets, only at a distance of up to 1000 meters, which will simplify the barrels as much as possible and reduce ammunition.

As I understand. It turns out a multi-barreled 120 mm installation firing buckshot / shrapnel at a distance of 1000 m with direct fire? How many trunks do you have - "guides", 40-80? It seems to me such a bandura that you drew on "Buyan" will weigh more than 20 tons.

[AAK]

Dear Andrey! In my opinion, the article is interesting and the proposed idea is viable, but it requires a very serious study.
As for my thoughts "about", then:
1. Based on the minimum distance for completing anti-ship missiles from the ZAK from 500 to 1000 m, the launch range of KAZ combat striking elements should not exceed 1000m, the optimum is 500-700m, which will allow the production of such elements (for greater simplicity, they can be conventionally called mini-missiles) rather compact (the desired length is 100-120 cm, but not more than 150 cm), relatively inexpensive, with a small-sized accelerating engine, which will free up a large useful volume for warheads and seeker.
2. In general, the principle of operation of the ZAK is the determination of the target parameters using its own or shipborne radar, the calculation of the so-called. "look-ahead window", i. e. a section of space through which the anti-ship missile will surely fly, and then create in this window the maximum possible density of fired ammunition to defeat the anti-ship missile system with the desired detonation of the warhead. In this regard, and also taking into account the possible appearance of a potential enemy in a relatively short time period of anti-ship missiles with an increased speed up to hypersound and increased maneuverability, a "grate-and-shrapnel" warhead for KAZ mini-missiles may not provide reliable target destruction with full its destruction and withdrawal of the affected anti-ship missile system from the trajectory to prevent large fragments or parts of the rocket from entering the ship. In my opinion, the types of warheads that are more appropriate for this task are armor-piercing (for hitting a direct hit of the "hit-to-kill" type), or pivot with large arrow-shaped striking elements (such as the British Starstrick MANPADS), or carrying several striking elements type "shock cumulative core" (as in the Swedish ATGM "Bill"). Taking into account the possibility of creating a small-sized seeker of the millimeter range and the belt location of the orientation correction micromotors, it is quite possible to create a micro-missile defense system in caliber 76-82mm, capable of developing hypersonic speed and maneuverability with overloads of 500-50ZH at a distance of about 60m from the ship, sufficient for confident defeat ASM with its destruction as a result of the launch of only 1-3 micro-missiles.
3. The most promising and relatively quickly implemented on ships are "sector" KAZ installations with one package of TPK-guides (with a capacity of 16-36 mini-missiles (from 4x4 to 6x6) and its own compact antenna radar with AFAR, coupled with the ship's BIUS. - short reaction time when working in a sector of 90-120 degrees, the possibility of fast batch reloading (including the formation of a package of mini-missiles with different types of warheads), as well as relative compactness.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: venik

Interestingly, Andrey, and you have not tried to calculate WHAT will be the effectiveness of such a "macro-shotgun" at a distance of, say, 500 meters ???

I'm not a physicist, but let's try by analogy. A 12-gauge shotgun will hit the target at 60 meters. A 12-gauge bullet flies at 1800-1600 m (it’s about flight, not about defeat). Let's take 1600 m - the ratio is 26,7 roughly.
The ballistic range (also not a defeat, but a flight) of the AK-630 is 8 m, so it turns out that if its projectile is equipped with a shot, it will hit the target at 100 m, approximately. And we want 300 ...
Very roughly, of course, and on my knee, but I think I guessed right with the order of energies ...

[venik]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

The ballistic range (also not a defeat, but a flight) of the AK-630 is 8 m, so it turns out that if its projectile is equipped with a shot, it will hit the target at 100 m, approximately. And we want 300 ...
Very roughly, of course, and on my knee, but I think I guessed right with the order of energies ...

=======
In-in! Somewhere it is! All these "maxi shotguns" are getting too much "short-handed", but to do NUR with a very powerful warhead - so the cost is comparable to the same" Thor "or" Pantsir ".... And given the presence of high-explosive shells and remote detonation - it is not at all clear:" is the game worth the candle? " ?

[Grandfather]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

The weight of the warhead alone, even of such an anti-ship missile system as Harpoon, which many do not want to take seriously, is an order of magnitude greater than the mass of the average ATGM. So, what size should the ship's KAZ ammunition be for guaranteed neutralization of an incoming missile, and then how will this installation differ from the near-zone air defense system?

do you need a lot of explosives to undermine the warhead of the rocket? I think all the sensors will be fatally damaged.

[Yuri V.A]

The rocket is unlikely to evaporate after detonating its warhead, so that the hull, the engine, possibly the fuel and the remnants of the sensors will reach the target at low level.

[Grandfather]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

The rocket is unlikely to evaporate after detonating its warhead, so that the hull, the engine, possibly the fuel and the remnants of the sensors will reach the target at low level.

I see nothing fatal.

[Yuri V.A]

On Monsoon they saw something different

[Alexey RA]

You can also remember “Sheffield” - one anti-ship missile engine was enough for him.

[paul3390]

You tell the British, who lost several ships when hit by unexploded ordnance ..

[Illanatol]

Apparently, the anti-ship missile system will receive multiple damage. For KAZ to work effectively, one hit will not be enough. In this case, both the fuel tank and the engine will be damaged.
The problem of KAZ is disposability. What if it works on the LC? And recharging the complex, most likely, will require a lot (in a real battle) time.
The effectiveness of such a protection measure, in itself, is not great. But this is an element of the complex, the last line of defense of the ship. So its usefulness will be determined by specific characteristics, including cost.

[Yuri V.A]

Let at least single, at least multiple hits on an approaching rocket - where is the guarantee that it will change its trajectory? A ship is an expensive target, you can attack with dozens of missiles, you can go back to armoring warheads, you can make them split. In any case, it is easier to get rid of the carrier of enemy missiles, especially from special warheads.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Yuri V.A

Let at least single, at least multiple hits on an approaching rocket - where is the guarantee that it will change its trajectory?

In case of damage to the engine and / or fuel tank, it will definitely change. It just won't get there. Even at subsonic speed, the resistance of the oncoming air is serious. Most likely, there won't be enough inertia. And if it is enough, the speed will still drop, which will increase the ship's chances of survival.
Unless, of course, the distance to the "target" is not measured in tens of meters.

Not easier, but definitely better.

[Yuri V.A]

Remember how long the shot down kamikaze that became torches flew by

[Illanatol]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

Remember how long the shot down kamikaze that became torches flew by

Not the point is important. Question: did the kamikaze shot down at a short distance cause noticeable damage to the ship?
Judging by the footage of the chronicle, they still fell, not reaching. Perhaps not always. But it was worth bringing them down anyway.

[Yuri V.A]

Even as they flew, in the 45th destroyer Laffey only in one battle caught four or five downed kamikazes.
And what damage is possible, it will be like a card.

[Mustached Kok]

The article also says that KAZ NK is a means of SUPER close defense. At a short distance of less than a kilometer, even a close detonation to change the trajectory (especially for supersonic and hypersonic ones) will not help the projectile / rocket. The purpose of the KAZ is different, to destroy the projectile in such a way that it would not be a solid projectile that could penetrate the hull and detonate inside, but a group of fragments not capable of causing serious damage to the internal compartments.
The shrapnel can indeed damage the skin and external systems of the ship - but the ship itself with other systems (including those that did not fall under the cone of the fragmentation) will remain intact and operational, which means that the ship will either be able to return to port or even continue the battle.
Also, KAZ can take on targets that have been badly damaged by previous air defense systems, but by inertia they continued to fly in the direction of the ship. Such targets can be transmitted by the algorithm to the KAZ and it additionally inflicts damage in order to break the target into smaller fragments that the ship's hull can withstand.
It is certainly good to destroy carriers of dangerous missiles, but this is not an argument. Because I can say the same about any security system.
Why do we need anti-torpedo systems? We will just destroy their submarines before they shoot at us!
Why do we need long-range air defense? We will destroy their airfields and aircraft carriers before someone takes off from them!
Why do they need electronic warfare? We will destroy their radars with our missiles before they start looking for us!

[Yuri V.A]

This is not about giving up close range for defense, but about the priority and tactical advantage of the "long arm". PLUR is preferable to just a small-sized torpedo, although it does not replace it at all. Long-range air defense is dangerous precisely for the carriers, although the best option is to destroy the aircraft precisely at the airfields. The closest protection of the ship is armor, but after all, everyone abandoned it, that is, they do not find expediency. Likewise, KAZ NK - an element at a distance of 300 ÷ 500 m must accurately hit, being uncontrollable, have significant energy in order to spray the target, have sufficient ammunition and be cheap at the same time, this is too complex a combination.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Illanatol

Apparently, the anti-ship missile system will receive multiple damage. For KAZ to work effectively, one hit will not be enough. In this case, both the fuel tank and the engine will be damaged.

In the notorious ZVO, EMNIP, at the end of the 80s there was a review article on the ZAK. It provided data from foreign studies on the defeat of RCC. According to them, the work of fragmentation projectiles on the glider was allowed only at distances of more than 2 km. Closer - only the work of sub-caliber warheads with the aim of detonating it and destroying anti-ship missiles. Because when the OS was operating at distances less than 2 km, the affected anti-ship missile or its fragments could still get into the ship.

[Illanatol]

Aren't such systems being developed in the West? They are obsessed with these KAZ. Did it not occur to you that KAZ could be used to destroy these "fragments"? SAM or rapid-fire artillery defeats the rocket, and KAZ will deal with its fragments.

[Avior]

at the proposed distance, it makes no sense to damage the seeker of the anti-ship missile system, it no longer matters much, the anti-ship missile will reach the target without it.

[venik]

Quote: Dead Day

do you need a lot of explosives to undermine the warhead of the rocket? I think all the sensors will be fatally damaged.

========
1) AT WHAT distance is it necessary to detonate, say, 1 kg of TNT in order to detonate a warhead located in a steel (fragmentation) shell?
2) WHERE will the missile fly after ALL GOS sensors receive "fatal damage"? What is the probability that it (the rocket) will continue its flight "in a straight line" (with all the ensuing consequences?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

The weight of the warhead alone, even of such an anti-ship missile system as Harpoon, which many do not want to take seriously, is an order of magnitude greater than the mass of the average ATGM. So, what size should the ship's KAZ ammunition be for guaranteed neutralization of an incoming missile?

Obviously, it is comparable more than on armored vehicles.

First of all, KAZ-NK will be distinguished by a larger dimension of launchers (PU) and barrels / guides necessary for placing ammunition capable of destroying or damaging anti-ship missiles. Accordingly, in order for the mass and size characteristics of the KAZ-NK to make it possible to place it on the NK, the number of barrels in the launcher will be limited in comparison with the KAZ-PVO, which is designed primarily for the destruction of the cheapest and most massive means of destruction, such as small-sized unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). guided gliding bombs, small-sized high-precision missiles, etc.

Quote: Yuri V.A.

and then how will this installation differ from the near-field air defense system?

The type of ammunition and the algorithm of work.

[Yuri V.A]

Then this bandura will be together with a carriage the size of a ten-ton container.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Yuri V.A.

Then this bandura will be together with a carriage the size of a ten-ton container.

Not necessarily - look at the dimensions of the KAZ on the armored vehicles, and increase them 10 times. PMSM - barrels about 2-3 meters long, diameter - 100-120 mm (ammunition). The mass, of course, is difficult to calculate.

[Yuri V.A]

An increase in each linear dimension by an order of magnitude will give an increase in volume in a cube and comparable in mass. Moreover, on armored vehicles, the guides are fixed, and you have high-speed guidance in 2 planes and also stabilization of the machine, that is, a very significant weight of the installation.
The Americans not so long ago, when working out a new unified tactical control system, a field howitzer shot down a cruise missile, but the projectile was special, in general, the pleasure is not yet cheap.

[Momento]

harpoon okay. and if it is a hypersonic sm-6?

[Yuri V.A]

SM-6 is hypersonic only at the start, for a short time, and it’s hardly capable of evading air defense at the finish line, the flight path is probably high-altitude, but still a serious thing

[Avior]

KAZ on armored vehicles works at a very close distance. For a distance of hundreds of meters, you will have to use radars of a completely different level.
In principle, the complex described by the author quite exists

It only works at a distance of 500 meters to 10 km, and it works quite effectively.
The proposed kaz will turn out to be of the same size, weight and cost, but the efficiency of work will be much lower - the further the interception, the lower the likelihood of anti-ship missile fragments hitting the ship.
Therefore, the question arises - why put a less effective self-defense system instead of a more effective one?

[Grandfather]

Quote: Avior

Therefore, the question arises - why put a less effective self-defense system instead of a more effective one?

a reasonable compromise is possible? all the same, the hit of fragments into the ship is not comparable to the hit of the warhead of a rocket. It seems to me so.

[Avior]

In the picture above, there is practically the same kaz as described by the author. There is a survey search radar, a shooting radar, a video camera and an IR camera.
And ammunition with homing to boot.
It works completely autonomously, if necessary, it can also work in automatic mode.
It is possible to put ammunition in the launcher operating at a closer distance, closer than 500 m, but what is the point of deliberately deteriorating the parameters of the system?

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

KAZ on armored vehicles works at a very close distance. For a distance of hundreds of meters, you will have to use radars of a completely different level.
In principle, the complex described by the author quite exists

It only works at a distance of 500 meters to 10 km, and it works quite effectively.
The proposed kaz will turn out to be of the same size, weight and cost, but the efficiency of work will be much lower - the further the interception, the lower the likelihood of anti-ship missile fragments hitting the ship.
Therefore, the question arises - why put a less effective self-defense system instead of a more effective one?

Firstly, KAZ-NK will not replace such systems, but will complement them.

Secondly, it has a dead zone of 500 meters.

Thirdly, it works well in exercises, but how will a missile with IR-GOS work during a massive attack by an anti-ship missile system, when the ship will put up protective curtains and traps?

[Avior]

KAZ-NK will not replace such systems, but add.

If it is in the same dimensions, then the space on the ship is not dimensionless.
Dead zone at the rocket for the safety and reliable operation of the seeker.
Put unguided shells instead of Rome-116 in the PU, and you get exactly the system you described. Only accuracy and efficiency will decrease. Unlike the case with a tank, the ranges will be completely different, and the Ship is far from a point target.
The radar of this complex is just intended for firing unguided ammunition, moreover, the control system is closed.
And the third one is in Rome116 combined GOS - for IR radiation and for radiation of GOS PKR. Taking into account the high accuracy of the shooting radar, the minimum distance of 500 m, the probability of being diverted to your traps is minimal.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

KAZ-NK will not replace such systems, but add.

If it is in the same dimensions, then the space on the ship is not dimensionless.

The dimensions are likely to be comparable with Rome.

Quote: Avior

Dead zone at the rocket for the safety and reliable operation of the seeker.

Rather, just for the work of the seeker - it needs to have time to capture the target, but they also have maneuverability - until the rocket picks up speed, the aerodynamic rudders are ineffective.

Quote: Avior

Put unguided shells instead of Rome-116 in the PU, and you get exactly the system you described. Only accuracy and efficiency will decrease. Unlike the case with a tank, the ranges will be completely different, and the Ship is far from a point target.

Not really, I don’t know what the turning speed and targeting accuracy of the launcher are.

Quote: Avior

The radar of this complex is just intended for firing unguided ammunition, moreover, the control system is closed.

Probably.

Quote: Avior

And the third one is in Rome116 combined GOS - for IR radiation and for radiation of GOS PKR. Taking into account the high accuracy of the shooting radar, the minimum distance of 500 m, the probability of being diverted to your traps is minimal.

It seems like targeting anti-ship missiles is considered unreliable, but I am more worried about something else - Rome116 missiles do not exchange data with each other. When repelling the raid of anti-ship missiles following each other, the Rome-116 missile defense system can capture the closest one, the first of them, well, or the first and second, and everyone will fly into it, while the rest will go to the ship. Moreover, an increase in the number of Rome-116 will not solve the problem - only more missiles will be sent for the first time anti-ship missiles - this is a well-known problem of missiles with an ARLGSN or IR seeker - without correction, they can attack the most attractive target en masse.

Therefore, we are not increasing the number of conventional rims116, but supplementing them with KAZ-NK, which will finish off missed missiles.

[Avior]

Not really, I don’t know what the turning speed and targeting accuracy of the launcher are.

Not relevant, the direction of the approach will be known long before the arrival.
And the turning speeds are quite high, the basis is taken from Phalanx.
It should be borne in mind that the tank is a relatively point target, and the projectile fired towards the approaching rocket flies in a strictly opposite course - which cannot be said about the ship, when the missile defense system does not necessarily fly to the point where the air defense missile system is deployed, and the meeting at a small distance will be on intersecting courses, which complicates aiming and increases the likelihood of a miss

I'm more worried about something else - Rome116 rockets do not exchange data with each other. When repelling the raid of anti-ship missiles following each other, the Rome-116 missile defense system can capture the closest one, the first of them, well, or the first and second

No anti-aircraft missiles distribute targets among themselves.
yPKR will not fly strictly to one point of the ship, at close range the distance between them is palpable.
In general, the SAM system from Phalanx is designed for very accurate aiming - after all, this is an artillery system.
Therefore, the problem is not acute. In addition, these missiles are designed to finish off single anti-ship missiles that made their way through air defense and electronic warfare and did not go into traps.
The reliability of Rome116 is provided by the initial accurate aiming of the launcher and the combined seeker

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Avior

Not really, I don’t know what the turning speed and targeting accuracy of the launcher are.

Not relevant, the direction of the approach will be known long before the arrival.

In conditions of interference and protective curtains, there are no.

Quote: Avior

And the turning speeds are quite high, the basis is taken from Phalanx.

Possibly.

Quote: Avior

It should be borne in mind that the tank is a relatively point target, and the projectile fired towards the approaching rocket flies in a strictly opposite course - which cannot be said about the ship, when the missile defense system does not necessarily fly to the point where the air defense missile system is deployed, and the meeting at a small distance will be on intersecting courses, which complicates aiming and increases the likelihood of a miss

See the linear dimensions of most ships and the range of 500-1000 km. The approach angle will be less than 45 degrees in most cases. We do not follow the target, but shoot ahead of time, deploying the launcher to the meeting point.

Quote: Avior

I'm more worried about something else - Rome116 rockets do not exchange data with each other. When repelling the raid of anti-ship missiles following each other, the Rome-116 missile defense system can capture the closest one, the first of them, well, or the first and second

No anti-aircraft missiles distribute targets among themselves.

For them it is done by the air defense missile system and the targets are distributed over the radio correction channel. Rome-116, EMNIP does not have this.

Quote: Avior

The anti-ship missiles will not fly strictly to one point of the ship; at close range, the distance between them is noticeable.

It doesn't matter if, on the same line of sight, the SAM with IR seeker will "devour" the nearest - the "brightest" target.

[Avior]

In conditions of interference and protective curtains, there are no.

will be known even before the installation of protective curtains and interference.

Possibly.

Falax is designed for use at the distances that you are writing about, so its dynamics and performance are high.

Maximum elevation angle, deg. - 85, minimum - -28
Vertical guidance speed, degrees / s - 92
Horizontal guidance speed, degrees / s - 126
Reaction time, s 0,0125
Effective firing range, km - 1,47

Actually, Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS is one of the variants of the very system that you propose.

See the linear dimensions of most ships and the range of 500-1000 km. The approach angle will be less than 45 degrees in most cases. We do not follow the target, but shoot ahead of time, deploying the launcher to the meeting point.

This is exactly what I wrote about - the conditions for use on a ship are fundamentally different from the conditions for using KAZ on a tank, which is close to a point target, therefore the task of intercepting an incoming ammunition is much easier from the point of view of calculating the trajectory.
In addition, launching anti-ship missiles in such a dense form, and not from different directions, greatly simplifies the task of naval air defense, electronic warfare and traps. One batch of traps will immediately lead a group of anti-ship missiles.

For them it is done by the air defense missile system and the targets are distributed over the radio correction channel. Rome-116, EMNIP does not have this.

The SeaRAM complex has a high accuracy of aiming PU when launching a missile, inherited from Flanx. At close range, more is not needed, there is simply no need and time for radio correction.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: AVM

Firstly, KAZ-NK will not replace such systems, but will complement them.

The only problem is that it is better to supplement such systems with the same systems, and not KAZ

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Quote: AVM

Firstly, KAZ-NK will not replace such systems, but will complement them.

The only problem is that it is better to supplement such systems with the same systems, and not KAZ

With the same success, we can say that it is better not to install short-range air defense systems at all, it is better to add long and medium-range air defense systems - why waste space? And a gun mount of 100 mm caliber as an air defense means is an efficient use of space on a ship.

In general, we will return to the problem of the dimensions of ships.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

You can't say that. Because long and medium-range air defense systems are deliberately redundant for missile defense in the near zone, and can be replaced by small air defense systems with a gain in channelization and ammunition. This cannot be said about KAZ, since KAZ in your design is comparable in size and weight to a small SAM or ZAK, but has no advantages over them.
The very idea of ​​the KAZ as an ultra-short-range protection is based, among other things, on the super-protection of the target - the tank is very well armored, it is enough to prevent the ATGM from forming a cumulative jet - already Profit. It doesn't work like that with a ship and won't work.

[Vladimir61]

I don't get it, damn it. But, I am sure of one thing, if designers, inventors, innovators and others, will go to the goal only one way, they will never find the shortest!

[sergo1914]

Such a thing has existed for a long time. It is not called KAZ. Not for ships. Effective enough under certain conditions. I did not see the description in open sources. For ships, the close radius is only artillery submachine guns. 30 mm. Barrel packages. Participated in the tests. The hypersound gets lost. If found in time and managed to turn around. A swarm of high-speed submunitions is flying towards the anti-ship missile system. If hit - dust and a sieve.
PS During the tests, I saw the auger feed from the bunker for the first time. The shells are just eating.

[Max PV]

Perhaps the only option when a KAZ on a ship can be effective is an attack with the use of anti-tank systems, when the ship passes narrows and is in ports. Imagine a situation: a ship is going through the Bosphorus, and a shot from an ATGM is fired from the roof of a house in a densely populated area of ​​Istanbul, aimed at the projection of the TLU. On the one hand, the threat to the ship is extremely high, on the other, the use of existing air defense systems is a complete alice in terms of consequences.
At the same time, it is extremely problematic to use all kinds of KAZ against full-fledged anti-ship missiles, especially shrapnel ones and made on the basis of all sorts of ersatz speed-shooters like Metalstorm. This is due to the very good protection of the anti-ship missile warheads, for the destruction of which it is necessary to consistently overcome: the fairing of the seeker, the seeker itself (up to one and a half meters in total, although not a strong but highly spaced obstacle, partially destroying and destabilizing the striking element), and then the body of the penetrating warhead from 30 to 100 mm of armor, possibly at a significant angle to the normal, while maintaining sufficient velocity to detonate explosives. So, in fact, only fragmentation anti-ammunition from a fragmentation warhead of radial damage remains, and all sorts of different combinations of cumulative or on a cumulative shock core. Despite the fact that the strength of the warhead and the side is rather big, it can be considered somewhere 3-6mm duralumin + 15-40mm steel.

[Pavel57]

KAZ may turn out to be a reality and no alternative in the face of massive attacks by anti-ship missiles.

[Klingon]

For another 20-30 years of development of accumulator and other energy technologies, lasers of the megawatt class will be installed on ships. These lasers will burn the anti-ship missiles at different distances and, accordingly, the closer the anti-ship missiles to the ship, the stronger the effect of laser radiation

[riwas]

It depends on which anti-ship missile. There are anti-ship missiles with an armored warhead specifically for breaking through air defense.

At the same time, the Soviet (Russian) anti-ship missiles "Granit" and "Vulkan" develop a much higher speed than foreign missiles - 2-2,5M. This, as well as the reservations of the warhead, increase their ability to break through enemy air defenses.

http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/294/protivokorabelniye-krilatiye-raketi-morskogo-bazirovaniya

[boris epstein]

"... in many cases the enemy will simply waste the anti-ship missile ammunition and go home."
If you do not have time to receive replies.

[Jacket in stock]

It seems to me that due to the use of the term KAZ by the author, there is a misunderstanding.
In fact, an ultra-short-range ZRAK with an almost zero meter zone is proposed.
Such a system has big questions with efficiency, which the author himself has perfectly described,
So, it seems to me, given the limited resources of a ship, it is better to increase the ammunition stock of missiles ready for launching short and medium-range missiles than to add such "last resort" means.

[Barberry25]

well, then the power there must be hellish to destroy a missile at a range of a hundred meters at a speed of 700 km / h, so that it does not cause significant damage to the ship ... then it is really easier to put an adapted air defense derivation module, 120 rounds / per minute for the eyes will allow shoot down a rocket + projectile power at the level of 76 mm cannon

[Nikolaevich I]

Presumably, three main types of ammunition can be used in KAZ-NK - shrapnel type with ready-made striking elements, shrapnel type with ready-made striking elements in a container (opening after a certain period of time after exiting the barrel) and high-explosive fragmentation ammunition with programmed detonation on the trajectory. And you "got sick" with a programmed detonation on the trajectory? And what was given to all "programmed detonation", if in this case it is more expedient to talk about programmable proximity fuses (PND) or simply NV, and not remotely programmable detonation! And yet ... are you going to "hit" a semi-armor-piercing warhead with shrapnel? But don't you remember the "sad-practical" experience of the last century, when the air-gunners "shot down" the anti-ship missile system during naval tests, but the warhead still got the "target" (ship) !? It is necessary to "keep in mind" counter-ammunition with cumulative warheads of direct hit! At the "worst end" - "nuclear strike" counter-ammunition ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And you "got sick" with a programmed detonation on the trajectory? And what was given to all "programmed detonation", if in this case it is more expedient to talk about programmable proximity fuses (PNV) or simply NV, and not remotely programmed detonation!

This is an option, the optimal solution will be shown not even by calculations, but only by tests.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And yet ... are you going to "hit" a semi-armor-piercing warhead with shrapnel? But don't you remember the "sad-practical" experience of the last century, when the air-gunners "shot down" the anti-ship missile system during naval tests, but the warhead still got the "target" (ship) !? It is necessary to "keep in mind" counter-ammunition with cumulative warheads of direct hit! At the "worst end" - "nuclear strike" counter-ammunition ...

"Shrapnel" is a conditional concept, in fact it will be ready-made striking elements made of hard alloys.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

"Shrapnel" is a conditional concept, in fact it will be ready-made striking elements made of hard alloys.

Wouldn't the hopes for "ready-made striking elements from hard alloys" turn out to be overly optimistic? Shrapnel, buckshot in the form of cubes, balls, rollers made of tungsten alloy have existed for a long time ... and they cope well with the "duralumin" airplane ... and cause explosives to detonate? I think they are rather "big"! This means that there will not be many of them in the grapeshot "charge" and therefore there is a possibility of a miss! The situation "slightly" changes when "multinuclear" counter-ammunition is used instead of shrapnel ... or cumulative "elements" capable of "burning through" the thick shell of a semi-armor-piercing warhead and detonating explosives ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: AVM

"Shrapnel" is a conditional concept, in fact it will be ready-made striking elements made of hard alloys.

Wouldn't the hopes for "ready-made striking elements from hard alloys" turn out to be overly optimistic? Shrapnel, buckshot in the form of cubes, balls, rollers made of tungsten alloy have existed for a long time ... and they cope well with the "duralumin" airplane ... and cause explosives to detonate? I think they are rather "big"! This means that there will not be many of them in the grapeshot "charge" and therefore there is a possibility of a miss! The situation "slightly" changes when "multinuclear" counter-ammunition is used instead of shrapnel ... or cumulative "elements" capable of "burning through" the thick shell of a semi-armor-piercing warhead and detonating explosives ...

Maybe something like this, only the size of the GGE is bigger in several "layers".

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

This is an option, the optimal solution will be shown not even by calculations, but only by tests.

The functional principles of the operation of the proximity fuse (NV) and the fuse programmed after the projectile leaves the barrel with the setting of the detonation time interval (DPV) logically suggest that the use of NV is more expedient ...

[Barberry25]

well, then it makes sense to make a small-caliber system in the form of an automatic 57 mm cannon, a projectile with a timer will cost less than a rocket, and a rate of fire of 300 rounds per minute with a guarantee will create a field of fragments

[Glagol1]

The side-by-side arrangement is optimal. Most of the trajectories overlap precisely from the sides. And there should be 100% automation.

[Klingon]

Quote: Intruder

"Shields" from Star Trek

No, from the field of military thought of Soviet science, she put any foreign fantasy in the middle of the last century on both shoulder blades precisely in the practical implementation of the flight of thought and the scope of scientific thrust !!!

And the laser will probably be easier or

There are more problems with optics and they are expensive, with high levels of energy in the optical spectrum, plus guidance - there, not trivial, on an air target maneuvering in three axes, up to a heap of factors of meteorological conditions of the disturbed atmosphere, etc.
With plasma more "understandable", the broadest groundwork was in nuclear (more precisely, thermonuclear) physics (+ a bunch of installations for the study of the ionosphere throughout the Union), which just has heavy components in itself, low-temperature plasma!

Thanks for the clarification, it's nice to deal with an intelligent person.
But probably a megawatt-class laser will not need to be held on the target for a long time if it is a very powerful pulsed laser. I think there will be 2 lasers, one purely sighting rangefinder, this is a lot to the radar. And the main laser will produce a millisecond but very powerful pulse. Yes, this is how I imagine the work of a very powerful laser

[Baron pardus]

Somewhere in the 80s I read an article in the Foreign Military Review specifically about protection against anti-ship missiles, and there they discussed the British project of such protection - several 6-8 barreled launchers with NURs of either 114mm caliber (common in Britain) or 127mm (American). NURSs are equipped with remote firing systems and are equipped with warheads either with ready-made striking elements (steel balls 10 - 12.7 mm) or with a rod. The idea is that PU for NURS will be MUCH cheaper than any cannon, be it a volcano or 76mm OTO Melara. And pre-programmable remote fuses are much cheaper than any GOS.

The idea that a salvo of such NURSs is given towards the anti-ship missiles and the anti-ship missiles flies into the cloud of buckshot. Even if the warhead does not detonate, the control surfaces and the seeker will be damaged and, for sure, destroyed on the anti-ship missile system, turning the anti-ship missile into the Tiny Tim NURS only with damaged plumage (control surfaces), the accuracy will be even lower than that of the NURS. Missiles, whether they are NURS or anti-ship missiles or Sidewinder, are stabilized in flight by wings and other surfaces. Destroy them and what will you have? NURS that flies ANYWHERE except WHERE they were shot. By the way, the perforated body breaks the aerodynamics quite robustly, and if so, then it is quite possible that the PRK will change its course ... Even if it is stabilized by rotation (there are no such ones now). The next time you fire rockets for fireworks, rip off one stabilizer out of 3 or one out of 4 with the rocket. See where she goes (anywhere). It's like if you make an arrow for a bow (as we did in childhood), but glue the feathers to it obliquely - it will fly wagging its back anywhere except WHERE you shot it. By the way, such a missile has good chances of detonating a warhead, keep in mind that not only does the NURS (and if so, its striking elements) already have a certain speed, on which the speed of the anti-ship missile system is superimposed. So the chances of the anti-ship missile going through a cloud of buckshot (6 Nurses) and not being perforated and simply not being turned into shavings are extremely small. By the way, at transonic speeds, having received a charge of shrapnel, the rocket can itself collapse as it goes at transonic (or supersonic) speeds. And it itself will turn into a cloud of very NOT aerodynamic fragments that will fly anywhere.
Such is the volley of NURSs towards anti-ship missiles, this is the same KAZ, but on steroids :-)
By the way, I noticed that modern ships, not carrying armor, carry extremely LOW payload. Compare the weight of weapons, ammunition and radars on the same Sumner or Cleveland or Baltimore, in relation to displacement, and compare the weight of the same components on modern ships. Considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of anti-ship missiles are Fugitive Fugitives (only Cormoran has cumulatives that break through the road to a land mine). The same OTOMAT - the size of a Harpoon, penetrates 90mm of armor. I mean the Armor Belt. the citadel, main battery towers (and sometimes auxiliary ones), and the deckhouses of most WWII Cruisers with modern anti-ship missiles: Exoset, RB15, Harpoon, OTOMAT DOES NOT PUNCH. And changing warheads on all existing anti-ship missiles from high-explosive fragmentation to cumulative is expensive.

As for SHEFFIELD (and Monsoon). As far as I read (for which I bought, for which I sell), the fault is the aluminum-magnesium alloy from which both Sheffield and Monsoon were made, this alloy, at a certain temperature, CAM lights up and burns. The temperature of the burning fuel is sufficient. EMNIP, Monsoon was made from the same alloy.
Even the MINIMUM armor of the ship will reduce damage, not only from fragments (even 25mm armor of destroyers will not be pierced by all fragments, and if they do, it will reduce their ability to reach the vital centers of the ship), but also from direct hits.

When a shahid boat flew into our destroyer Kol, the damage to the hull was higher where SOFT steel was used than where high-hardness steel was used.

Modern anti-ship missiles follow TWO development paths: relatively small subsonic anti-ship missiles, which have recently been betting on stealth: their warheads are relatively small -180kg (Exocet) -300kg, subsonic speed, but even a small boat can take 8 pieces. ERP even without special coatings and hull / wing shapes. Plus they fly at low altitude. The second way is hypersonic hulks. They light up on all systems like a Christmas tree, like fireworks on May 9th. At low altitudes, they do not fly (huge aerodynamic resistance), their efficiency is low, since engines and tanks take up a lot of space. These missiles are betting on the fact that the enemy systems simply will not have time to react to them. SAM Standard is used even for ICBM warheads. Naturally, when a 4-ton whopper flies at a speed of Mach 3-4, it cannot particularly maneuver - it will fall apart from overloads. So, a small anti-ship missile will simply not penetrate the armor belt even 100-127mm (Brooklyn / Cleveland), and a large anti-ship missile will be detected very, very far from the target. For example, Brahmos first gains altitude (that is, it shines on radars from afar) and then dives towards the target. By the way, no matter how strong the BRAMOS body is, it will not work without consequences to fly at a speed of Mach 4+ into a cloud of 12.7mm steel balls flying towards the meeting, either for the body or for the rudders / surfaces. Damaged rudders and hull disrupt aerodynamics, and even if the air resistance does not tear the rocket to pieces, it will fly ANYWHERE except where it was aimed. By the way, the same fate awaits Harpoon, Exocet or Otomat, except that the total speed at which they fly into a cloud of 12.7mm steel balls flying towards them will be lower.

It seems to me that the British idea with NURS (remote programmable detonation) is a very good idea. Such NURSs can reach enemy missiles from both 500m and 3x + KM. By the way, American NURSs (as well as British ones) are famous for their excellent accuracy of battle. This is the same KAZ only working at a long distance. The principle is the same as in the Arena - a rocket is fired towards it, which detonates and the anti-ship missile system (or ATGM near the Arena), flies into a cloud of fragments.

[Bogatyrev]

How does the KAZ function fundamentally differ from the ZAK or the SAM? This is the same shell. Nothing. Only more limited ammunition.
And what prevents to protect the anti-ship missile warhead? Nothing.
The only way is the development of channeling and guidance systems for the ZAK and anti-aircraft missiles.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Mustachioed Kok

The article also says that KAZ NK is a means of SUPER close defense. At a small distance of less than a kilometer, even a close detonation to change the trajectory (especially for supersonic and hypersonic ones) will not help the projectile / rocket.

The potential enemy uses subsonic anti-ship missiles with a relatively small mass. KAZ is more likely to intercept them than domestic supersonic anti-ship missiles with a mass of several tons.
To me, an amateur, it seems that the anti-ship missile system should not only reach the ship, but also be able to pierce its side. For a small subsonic anti-ship missile system, this is already a problem, all these "exosets" and "harpoons" did not always cope with this. Our ships are old-fashioned, not aluminum Sheffields. Well, the partial destruction of the bourgeois anti-ship missile system can make the task of armor penetration generally impracticable.

[Conjurer]

Kaz on armored vehicles knocks projectiles weighing less than 30 kg (130 mm) off course. The PF warhead of a supersonic missile weighs 300 kg and flies at a speed of 500 m / s. What will be the weight of a KAZ grenade to carry this fool to the side at a distance of less than 50 m from the side (it simply will not get further)? And if you try to direct with a drive, as in an air defense system, how will this KAZ differ from it in the number of targets fired at the same time?

[Illanatol]

Quote: Conjurer

What will be the weight of a KAZ grenade to carry this fool to the side at a distance of less than 50 m from the side (it simply will not get further)?

Well, no need to literally compare, the systems are still different. For the ship's KAZ to work effectively, it must intercept at a distance of 0.3-1.0 km, otherwise it makes no sense. And the idea is that not one grenade will be fired at the target, but many, batch fire, judging by the presented figures.

[Conjurer]

For firing at 0.3-1.0 km, drives are needed in two planes, that is, this KAZ works like an air defense system - one target in fire. Batch shelling will immediately discharge a single-shot KAZ on one target, and then what?
That is, neither the simultaneous shelling of all targets (what the author dreamed of here), nor the ability to beat off the missile in the direction of the warhead, why is such a wunderwaffle needed?

[Illanatol]

Quote: Conjurer

Batch shelling will immediately discharge a single-shot KAZ on one target, and then what?
That is, neither the simultaneous shelling of all targets (what the author dreamed of here),

I myself tried to raise this issue, but alas. Indeed, the recharge time is critical.
What are all the goals? After all, this is only an element of the general defense system, the last frontier.
Those. The installation should work on the target that managed to overcome other lines of defense.
At long distances - the air defense system works, at small - from 5000 to 500-600 meters - rapid-fire artillery and at ultra-low - (if something breaks through) - finishes the KAZ.
And of course, the installation should not be alone. At least three on each side, with overlapping sectors.
You can't put this on a corvette, the stump is clear. But for a missile cruiser or a large anti-submarine - quite. There are not so many of them, it is worth using everything that will increase their chances of survival.

[Conjurer]

The author talked about a stellar raid, which tightly overloads the channel of all air defense systems and leads to a guaranteed defeat of the ship. He believes that KAZ, like on a tank, will be able to simultaneously (practically, with the interval of initiating a shot of the next KAZ pipe) beat off an unlimited (in the sense, limited only by the number of KAZ pipes) number of targets at an ultra-short distance, which will fundamentally solve the problem of antimissile defense of the ship. Then, however, he started thinking about drives, and ruined everything. If you use a drive, forget about simultaneity, that is, the rate of fire, that is, the principled solution of the issue. You, only, increase the channel of the air defense system with a completely stupid method.

[ja-ja-vw]

Quote: Author

that in fact the considered KAZ are air defense systems of the super-close line of defense. The concept "KAZ" is used as a distinctive feature to designate this class of weapons, and also because of the similarity of the proposed principles

Something from the set on edge from

trying to pull an owl onto a globe

1. Shoot down over 200m?
Pcr harpoon V = 900 km / h = 250 m / s. Less than a second from the point of interception to the target! Even the trajectory will not change. But, if it was possible to intercept at such a distance and did not gurgle (and it does not gurgle, maybe a slide), then the swarm of interception remnants will sweep away everything that is not behind the armor, but there is no armor.
Radar, REP systems, communications, an exhaust pipe and "everything, a hundred badly lies."
The close air defense zone also has a minimum interception distance, therefore, because it is meaningless.
A ship for a tank with armor and a different body kit, and dimensions. And you can't put a phalanx or a fort on a tank.
2. To throw an interceptor at 200m: requires the mass and volume of both the propelling missile itself and the installation.
Is there a reserve on a ship, all the more so, for it?
3. How to power all this?
SIP in armor? Or on poles on insulators?
4. If only you could not stick this mass anywhere. If there is no power frame in this place (support penny): the tin will simply be pushed through in this place.
5. Ships shakes, as you know. So it is necessary to install expansion joints, again step 2.
6. The system can only work in fully automatic mode, which means if a fire has started. (hole, pipe fell off), then the survivability group will not get out: they will be minced if this "decree" works.
7. Interference with the radar system of the ship's air defense system.
8. Yes, there are many things to remember here ..

And why "fence a vegetable garden"? If there is air defense of the ship?
The essence of KAZ to prevent the breakdown of armor by ammunition (KS, BOPS), counter energy (kinetics) is that the armor of a tank CANNOT BE PHYSICALLY withstand.
And modern ships make their way home (probably)

[Kedrovich]

but can be widely used

Something doesn't fit. If it comes to "Harpoons", then on most of the ships there are only a couple of quad installations directed in different directions. What is there to oversaturate?

[Anton Karaulanov]

The idea is interesting, but requires systematic research