Military Review

Are big ships going down in history?

159
Are big ships going down in history?

If you look at how military shipbuilding has developed over the past 150 years, you can draw a lot of conclusions. In general, our civilization has come a long way in terms of destroying our neighbors, including at sea.


In 1853, the brilliant battle of Sinop died down, in which sailing ships took part for the last time. And the timid steam-frigates, which were not close in armament to the white-sailed handsome men, for some reason, in some 50 years, progressed to the battleships of Tsushima.


Then everything went by leaps and bounds. The Battle of Tsushima took place in 1905, and literally 11 years later, battleships, which seemed to form the basis of all fleets, were already hopelessly outdated and suitable for secondary roles. In the battle of Jutland in the First World War, dreadnoughts and battlecruisers already ruled the death ball.


And after another 30 years, such monsters appeared on the seas, from the sight of which the blood in the veins of the crew members of the battleships should have curtailed in general. Agree, there was something diabolical in the swift and deadly beauty of the Mogami-class heavy cruisers, the rationality of the gopnik with a bat of the Cleveland-class light cruisers, and the prim sophistication of the British "colonists".


About the battleships that went to history, you can also say a few words, but after the end of the Second World War, they went after the battleships. Into history. By the way, cruisers also went with them. Those archaisms that remained in fleets today, this is an exception. I mean the wreckage of the empire, the heavy nuclear cruisers of the Orlan project. In principle, they are just as useless today as battleships, mainly due to the fact that the use of these ships in battle will inevitably lead to their death.

The rest of the classes began to undergo various changes. Today it is already difficult to understand who is who. It seems that the missile cruiser Ticonderoga has a total displacement of 9 tons, and the destroyer Arleigh Burke of the second series - 800 tons. And the total displacement of the new Chinese project 9 destroyer reaches 440 tons. And the Moskva missile cruiser has a displacement of 055 tons.


Is everything mixed up? In fact, yes. In fact, only the number of UVP cells matters, from which missiles can be launched both to protect the ship and to attack other objects. Ticonderoga has 122 UVP cells, and even 2 x 4 anti-ship missile launchers "Harpoon". "Arleigh Burke" - 96 cells, plus the old versions had the same 8 "Harpoons". That's the whole difference between a destroyer and a cruiser. If we add here the same speed and range, then it will be difficult to find a difference at all. Except in the electronic stuffing of ships.


So in fact - as you want, classify the ship. It turns out, of course, it's funny when a "huge" missile cruiser is smaller than a "modest" destroyer.

Yes, today many experts call the Chinese destroyer of project 055 a missile cruiser. The Chinese themselves believe that this is a destroyer. In principle, there is no difference in how the ship is called, the main thing is what its combat characteristics are.

But classification remains a very important part of military analysis. Indeed, how can one compare on paper the capabilities of one fleet or another, if only to assess the capabilities of a potential enemy’s fleet and determine one’s own capabilities in terms of counteraction?

So yes, there should be a classification.

The first class will remain aircraft carriers.


They will not go anywhere from the surface of the sea, at least until there is no need to project force on certain parts of the planet. Of course, it cannot be said that aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers are such a force, especially if you look at how many aircraft carriers in the world can boast of their combat readiness. The number is more than modest, and here stones can fly to both British and French gardens. But - they are. And here, in this class, there is a place for UDC.

The second class is tactical attack ships.


It will just have missile cruisers and destroyers. Or attack ships that have signs of cruisers and destroyers. As for anachronisms like "Orlanov", in some 15 years they will no longer be in principle, so you should not pay attention to them and classify them.

The third class is frigates and corvettes.


Defense strategy ships. Although it is worth noting that frigates are rapidly getting fat and catching up with destroyers in terms of tonnage. As an example, we can take a family of German frigates.

"Bremen" - 3750 tons
"Brandenburg" - 4490 tons
"Saxony" - 5690 tons
"Baden-Württemberg" - 7200 tons.


Almost doubling of displacement from the mid-70s of the last century to the present.
Corvettes remain ships with a displacement of about 1500-2000 tons.

The fourth class is missile boats, minesweepers and other small ships.


Further, it is worth noting that in our time, surface ships have more effective opponents than, say, in the Second World War. Aircraft, ship-based and coastal-based missiles, torpedoes.

And here the main shortcomings of large warships are clearly visible: they are slow, non-maneuverable, the main defensive means are very difficult (and often impossible) to reload at sea. And unlike submarines and aircraft, modern ships maneuver in two dimensions.

Yes, ships have artillery systems and missiles that, under computer control, are able to repel most threats, but it should be noted that missiles, torpedoes, and even bombs from the last war have become significantly “smarter” and pose a considerable threat.

That is, in any modern conflict, everything that the enemy can release from his side will fly into surface ships.

It is clear that the protective capabilities of the ships have also increased significantly, but they are not endless. In fact, it will be a war of attrition. Whoever empties the launch cells first loses.

In general, the special vulnerability of surface ships became noticeable even in that war. Especially if the attacks were combined, from the air and from under the water. As an example, it is not worth citing the death of the large ships Yamato, Repulse and Prince of Wales, since these ships went without proper air cover. Roughly the same thing happened with the PQ-17 convoy.

Here it is worth recalling the 1942 operation of the year, which was carried out by the forces of the British fleet to Malta. Operation Pedestal, when simply the strongest squadron of the Royal Navy, consisting of 4 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 7 light cruisers, 32 destroyers, was supposed to deliver 14 transports with military cargo to Malta.

If we leave behind the scenes the ridiculous attempts of the Italian cruisers to portray something intelligible, then German and Italian bombers and torpedo bombers, as well as submarines of the Italian fleet, acted against the squadron.

At the cost of 2 lost submarines and 50-60 aircraft, the Germans and Italians sank 9 out of 14 transports. And besides, an aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers and a destroyer were sunk. Moreover, 34 British aircraft were shot down, an aircraft carrier and two cruisers were damaged.

And this is not a defenseless convoy left without cover. This is a full-fledged squadron, with aircraft on aircraft carriers.

The second example is the battle for Okinawa. It's 1945, the US has an overwhelming advantage at sea and almost complete control of the air. More than 1000 ships, including about a hundred aircraft carriers and escort aircraft carriers. However, the capture of Okinawa came at a cost, mainly due to kamikaze attacks. The Japanese army and navy were incapable of anything else, but nevertheless: about 400 ships and vessels (368, according to the Americans) received damage of varying degrees of complexity, and 36 (including 12 destroyers and 15 landing ships) were destroyed.


Today's anti-ship supersonic missile is superior to kamikaze in all respects. And, if the coordinated massive kamikaze attacks were successful, and they were successful, then what will happen to any squadron of modern ships that come under a massive missile attack from all directions is not difficult to predict.

Aircraft with anti-ship missiles and missiles, moreover, not large and noticeable strategic bombers, but conventional fighter-bombers capable of bringing an anti-ship missile to a distance when it will be most difficult to neutralize it, coastal complexes, missiles from ships, missiles and torpedoes from submarines - all this makes surface ships not the most comfortable place in modern combat at sea.

But the most annoying thing is that ships today have less combat capabilities than their predecessors from the Second World War. I'm not only talking about armor, which is practically non-existent on ships today, and there is no point in it, supersonic anti-ship missiles will solve the problem of any armor. I'm talking about ammunition.

A modern ship is only good when its launch slots are full. Like an artillery cellar. As the BC is used up, the value of the ship decreases exponentially, and there is no getting away from this. Reloading at sea during combat is fantastic. All modern ships are forced to act according to the “hit and go” scheme, since in principle a protracted battle in the style of the last century is impossible.

In general, what is the theoretical modern combat? Nothing more than reaching the distance of launching one's own missiles, preferably outside the zone of action of enemy missiles, or in the zone of action, but with the maximum opportunity to fight them off. Launch and escape until enemy missiles fly up.

No romance of past years, solid pragmatism. The more missiles per salvo you can fire at the enemy, the less chance he has of surviving. The more anti-missiles in their cells, the more likely they are to survive on their own.

It is clear that a modern URO destroyer is capable of doing more things than a couple of battleships from the Second World War. Moreover, working along the shore, the destroyer is able to point-destroy the necessary objects with missiles, and not plow the area with shells.

Everything is the same at sea. The smaller the ship, the more likely it is to survive. Frigates and corvettes, whose strike armament consists of 4-8 anti-ship missiles, are the ships of tomorrow. Hit and go.

Handsome men like "Peter the Great", of which there are only two left in the world, are a relic of the past.


In modern combat, these ships can only die beautifully, pulling the maximum amount of enemy ammunition onto themselves. This is logical, since there is no talk of any invisibility. But while Peter the Great will fight off a flock of enemy anti-ship missiles with its missiles, other ships of the fleet will be able to complete their task of defeating the enemy. Unless, of course, we have these other ships. We should at least advocate for this systematically and regularly.

Large ships are potential suicide bombers. That in a mutual battle, that in a defensive battle, that in an offensive one.

The fact that this trend is gradually spreading to the fleets of the whole world is visible to the naked eye. Fleets are getting smaller, ships are getting smaller.

Now many will begin to nod towards the countries that… Well, yes, of course. United States, the main naval force. But today they are really trying to do something with this huge bunch of ships, which consumes money in huge quantities and is not capable of anything like that.

Others are no better off when it comes to NATO fleets. There is just a field for malicious criticism, but the fact is no better.

The dynamically and ambitiously growing fleets of Japan, China, and India are beautiful and impressive today. What will happen in 10-15 years, when the ships wear out the resource, is worth a look. And European countries are steadily demonstrating a decrease in the number of surface ships.

In principle, a compact fleet of small but well-armed ships is not such a bad idea. Which is better, a destroyer carrying 90 missiles, or three frigates armed with 30 missiles each? The question, of course, is the same. The construction of one destroyer will require fewer resources than three frigates, this is understandable. But drowning a destroyer is somewhat easier, despite all the tricks in terms of stealth. It is easier for a frigate to hide, primarily due to its size.

Of course, a ship with a large size is a more stable platform, more power-armed, which means that if there is more energy, it can be properly spent on the same electronic warfare systems.

But sizes don't really matter anymore. The Yamato was a very powerful ship. Intimidating. And what about the American planes that pounded him? But they won. "Peter the Great" is a very large and formidable ship. But the only question is how many missiles will need to be fired to disable it. quantitative question.

Of course, it is much more profitable to entrust the protection of the coast to small, inconspicuous ships carrying a sufficient amount of anti-ship missiles in order to, if not sink, then drive away the enemy. In order to fight at a distance from their shores, ships of a different class and size are needed.

It is clear that more is needed, and more of everything: water, food, fuel, everything is needed more. Accordingly, the sizes grow further in a circle. There's nothing you can do.

Involuntarily, you will begin to think about the fact that the submarine is the most effective tool for dealing damage. Since submarines have learned to launch missiles without appearing on the surface, they have become a very sophisticated tool for naval warfare. Many components of modern fleets are aimed at searching for and destroying submarines, and nevertheless, a submarine is, first of all, an inconspicuous strike ship that has every chance of hitting and hiding.

After that, you begin to think that the project of a diving ship equipped with both torpedoes and missiles, recently voiced by the Russian Central Design Bureau of MT Rubin, is not such a fantasy.

What do they want in the armies and navies today? First of all, to ensure the maximum survival of trained and trained military personnel. Today it is no less expensive component of any armed forces. It is very difficult, and most importantly, it is expensive to train, grow, and test an intelligent specialist. And lose it just like that? Not serious. Yes, a kind of business, but nonetheless. This is understandable and justified.

Therefore, it is clear that in the future the number of ships with a displacement of more than 10 tons will be significantly reduced. And no limiting agreements will be needed, this is the case when reality dictates not so much demands, but reasonable limitations.

Submarines will play an even more significant role in maritime confrontations, as they meet all the requirements in terms of stealth.

Countries that are solely concerned with the protection and defense of their coastline will build more ships of the corvette and boat classes, as this is economically beneficial and justified in terms of saving human resources.

Of course, there will always be a place in the world for those who dream of demonstrating to everyone the power of their fleet. And these countries will still build huge and often useless ships in order to flex their muscles both in the regions and around the world.

The only question is money.

And what is most interesting is that Russia does not belong to either the first or the second group!

Alas, the location of the water spaces of our country does not allow to pupate in coastal areas and sit quietly there. And we get our own way, somewhat different from the rest of the world. As always, though.

Black Sea. Here we have an almost toothless provocateur Ukraine and Turkey, which will bend its line always and in everything. So the more we have high-speed, stealthy and well-armed ships, the better. And yes, we have a target ship. It is difficult, and not necessary, to demand something more from the Moskva GRK. But it makes sense to demand from the industry "Varshavyanka" and support ships with cruise missiles.

Baltic Sea. Everything is the same, but submarines can be replaced with anti-submarine ships and the same small-format anti-ship missile carriers.

North direction. Here you can post anything you want. A sort of sump for old ships, where they can calmly and majestically live out their lives. It is clear that our dull aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" is unlikely to ever get out to fight, and it's not worth it. The main strike force of Russia in the North is nuclear submarines. Therefore, what is needed is anti-submarine ships and minesweepers, the main duty of which is to ensure the safe withdrawal of submarines to positions and upon return.

And, of course, the protection of areas from unexpected visitors in the face of American submarines.
Huge ships are not needed for this, as you understand.

Pacific Ocean. This is where it's the hardest. There is a certain tension here and, in fact, an enemy with a superior fleet. Everything is needed here and it was needed yesterday. The Pacific Fleet has submarine forces, but surface forces are a sad sight. Yes, the new project 1144 rocket collector is being repaired, but it is hard to say when the repairs will be completed.

Meanwhile, on the Kuril Islands, the construction of a couple of small naval bases is still requested, where it will be possible to receive and service both submarines (diesel-electric, of course) and missile ships capable of eliminating the threat from Japan if necessary.

If you look at all four water areas, you get an interesting picture: there is absolutely no need to build large ships of the destroyer class and larger. They are simply not needed! We need small ships with the latest missile weapons capable of solving any task of guarding and defending the coast and the near sea zone.

Excuse me, but the Onyx, flown from a small missile ship, say, into a British destroyer, will bring exactly the same destruction as that launched from a cruiser or destroyer launcher.

Now I will be reminded: what about the “flag demonstration”? Oh yeah. Indeed, what about empty boasting? Yes, good. We have Peter the Great for representative needs, which has been under repair since 2018, but sooner or later the repair will be completed ... Then it will be possible to continue to demonstrate.

You don't have to show the flag. It is necessary to demonstrate the latest weapons on new (or not old) ships. This makes one more imbued with respect for both allies and opponents.

So perhaps we are lucky in the sense that we are not able to build destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers today. Most likely, the development of hypersonic missile systems will put an end to these classes of ships, bringing them to the brink of annihilation in any theoretical battle.

This does not mean, of course, that we should refrain from building new surface ships altogether. It's just that the development of armaments suggests that surface warships should become smaller.

However, as we usually do, everyone will have their own opinion on this topic.
Author:
159 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Gato
    Gato 16 February 2022 04: 26
    +16
    The size of a warship was always determined by the dimensions of the weapons that one wanted to stuff into it, and the weight of the armor (for ships that were in direct fire contact). In addition, I wanted all this beauty to travel fast and far - this is also the weight and the corresponding dimensions. With the advent of relatively compact anti-ship missiles and missiles, the dimensions could be reduced with an increase in combat capabilities.
    But all this, for obvious reasons, does not apply to aircraft carriers, landing ships and SSBNs - they will always be large fellow
    The same can be attributed to the ships of the Arsenal class, but nothing has been heard about them lately.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 16 February 2022 04: 40
      +18
      It's just that the development of armaments suggests that surface warships should become smaller.
      small ship - small opportunities .. small ammunition, weak missile defense, air defense, and GAS ... in short, such a "disposable" thing .. managed to shoot missiles and that's it .. "to rest."
      1. Gato
        Gato 16 February 2022 04: 50
        -5
        small ship - small opportunities

        Yes, but many small ships for the price of one large one cannot be destroyed with one rocket / torpedo / bomb. In addition, they can control a much larger area than a single ship.
        By analogy: remember why APRANET, the ancestor of the Internet, was created?
        1. bayard
          bayard 16 February 2022 08: 08
          +23
          Quote: Gato
          many small ships for the price of one large one cannot be destroyed with one rocket / torpedo / bomb. In addition, they can control a much larger area than a single ship.

          The choice of the type and size of ships for the Fleet is regulated by the combat missions and theater of operations on which it (the Fleet) will have to operate.
          What is the use of a flock of "Karakurt" if you have to act in the far sea, or even more so - the Ocean zone?
          Again, the choice of the composition of weapons is also regulated by the upcoming combat missions and CONDITIONS in which to operate. If future KUGs do not have air cover in DM and OZ, then the quality and size of the missile defense and radar BCs is extremely important. The possibility of hitting AWACS, PLO aircraft, patrol and naval reconnaissance aircraft, tankers and long-range bombers is highly desirable - at the limit of the range of vision of shipborne radars. And this is about 400 km. for a target height of 10 m. yes
          And now imagine and calculate HOW a ship should be capable of carrying everything necessary for such tasks. The size of its antenna panels, the number of UKKS cells for heavy missiles, the number of cells for attack missiles and PLURs.
          And since such a booze has gone, then the PLO should be appropriate for such a ship, and the SAC ... and a couple of helicopters, while at least one of them should be anti-submarine ... "Packet-NK" with torpedoes and anti-torpedoes, ZRAK ...
          Have you imagined such a ship?
          And?
          What do we get as the main ship (the core of the KUG) for the Oceanic zone?
          And it turns out that we have a ship with a minimum dimension of Chinese 055.
          Need reasonable sufficiency, but sane combat capabilities?
          To complement the core of the KUG in the face of its flagship (similar to 055)?
          Here is the 22350M project for you (in its well-known graphic image). It has everything that a DM and OZ strike ship needs:
          - 64 cells in 8 UKKS on the tank,
          - 96 cells for missiles of the Redut complex, three blocks of 4 UKKS each - 4 x 8 = 32, one block on the tank and two on the waist,
          - two side-by-side "Pantsir-M" (32 missiles in the BC for each),
          - "Package-NK" and a good GAK from the primitive 22350,
          - quite suitable RLC "Polyment",
          - two helicopters.
          - gun caliber 130 mm. for complete happiness.
          - and if you wish, you can also attach a pair of launchers on the waist - 2 x 4 = 8 anti-ship missiles X-35.
          True beast?
          And all this beauty will cost the treasury of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in the amount (without weapons) from 650 to 750 million dollars.
          Yeah, this is not a corvette pr. 20385 for 400 million dollars. - the result of a desperate dope and a ruthless cut of the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense.
          At the same time, the frigate 22350 - so far the only pride of the Russian Navy - costs 550 million dollars.
          But if you listen to the author, it seems that he does not see the tasks of the Fleet beyond the BMZ.

          A ship is always a balance of desires, capabilities and technical feasibility. It is impossible to solve problems in the far zone with "small ships". Especially in the ocean zone.
          And the expensive, complex and extremely NON-OPTIMAL so-called "large corvettes" pr. 20380 and 20385 are completely unnecessary and redundant. They are overpriced!
          And the combat capabilities are INSUFFICIENT.
          But a corvette made in an enlarged hull "Karakurt", with a power plant from pr. 20380, and in VI 1300 - 1500 tons, would give 30 full speed knots (and not 25 - 27 knots for 20380 \ 20385) ... and having as part of the UKKS armament for 8 - 12 cells for PLUR, anti-ship missiles or CRBD ... "Pantsir-M", "Packet-NK", BUGAS and a 76 mm cannon. .... This would be a wonderful PLO BMZ corvette, suitable for both shock and escort services, and for OVR.
          And this power and beauty would cost only 12 billion rubles. - one and a half "Karakurt" ... or a third of 20385.
          Such corvettes could be built quickly and massively. For there should be a LOT of such ships in the BMZ. At the very least , there should be enough of them . And such a price, the selected type and composition of weapons, it is quite possible.
          And any shipyard will be able to build such corvettes - the same Pela, Zelenodolsk, "Zaliv" in Kerch or any shipyard in the Far East (Amur Shipyard or any in Primorye).
          If such a project appeared before the laying of "Karakurt", it was necessary to build it. For such a corvette contains everything in one - PMK, RTOs, an OVR ship, an escort in the near zone. And in case of special need, such a one goes far.

          Frigates are escorts, anti-submarines and flag demonstrators on distant shores. These ships are auxiliary in the far zone, because the capabilities of their armament are limited. Like their BC.
          So it is necessary to build the above ships - as the main ones for the Navy.
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 February 2022 09: 32
            +5
            at the limit of the range of vision of shipborne radars. And this is about 400 km. for a target height of 10 m.

            These numbers don't show anything. The combat range at sea is dictated by the aircraft.
            1. bayard
              bayard 16 February 2022 14: 21
              +8
              Who would argue, that's why I listed the types of aircraft for long-range missiles. All of the above rarely fly below 10 m. And fighters almost never.
              But if the enemy’s naval reconnaissance aircraft, PLO or AWACS detect our ship at the limit of its range, then it will be able to direct its aircraft or give target designation to anti-ship missiles. Therefore, it is desirable to be able to shoot him down at the maximum range. And this is 380 - 400 km.
              And for enemy strike aircraft or anti-ship missiles at extremely low altitudes, there are short-range missiles and ZRAKs.
              So if the task is to control the airspace to the limit of visibility of the radar, then the naval version of the S-400 should be chosen as the ship's air defense system. And hence the corresponding dimensions of the ship.
              If it is enough to control and be able to hit targets at a distance of 150 km. , then "Polyment-Redut" "Gorshkov" is quite sufficient.

              And the aircraft will dictate only the choice of the tool that will be destroyed. Ships usually have layered air defense.
          2. KKND
            KKND 16 February 2022 13: 29
            +3
            Quote: bayard
            - 96 cells for missiles of the Redut complex, three blocks of 4 UKKS each - 4 x 8 = 32, one block on the tank and two on the waist,

            It remains only to understand that the missiles of the Redut complex are not 1800 kg "fools" hitting 400 km, but modest 600 kg missiles. "Hornets" before they launch "Harpoons" cannot be shot down by them, it remains to work on the "Harpoons" themselves.
            Quote: bayard
            True beast?

            This "beast" has much less fuel and autonomy than the "Arleigh Burke". What is critical for the DMZ.
            1. bayard
              bayard 16 February 2022 14: 44
              +6
              Quote: KKND
              It remains only to understand that the missiles of the Redut complex are not 1800 kg "fools" hitting 400 km, but modest 600 kg missiles

              And what do you think, what kind of missiles will "Admiral Nakhimov" have in the BC?
              After all, we are talking about DM and OZ ships "in general" - overview and not much attached to types.
              Or do you think that "Redoubt" will be installed on "Nakhimov" too?
              No, there will be a new Fort X.
              Quote: KKND
              "Hornets" before they launch "Harpoons" they cannot be shot down,

              And how to shoot down an enemy plane UNDER the horizon line? This requires either air cover by fighters, or guidance of missiles from an air target designator. The same "Redoubt" and S-350 can hit targets beyond the horizon, but this requires an external target designator (aircraft, UAV. And then the AGSN SAM will cope.
              Quote: KKND
              This "beast" has much less fuel and autonomy than the "Arleigh Burke". What is critical for the DMZ.

              Do you know the look of a genuine 22350M?
              It has not yet been published anywhere, but it has been stated several times that the sketches available on the Internet are just sketches.
              On the sketches, we see 6 UKKS on the tank, while it is already known that there will be 8 UKKS. And this already means that the VI will be more than the indicated 7000 - 8000 tons.
              And if the 22350M cells for the Kyrgyz Republic have the same number (not counting the anti-aircraft guns) as the Burke, while we know that our cells are larger, because not only Calibers, but also Onyxes with Zircons will start from them , and the "Redoubt" cells, although much more compact, are much larger than the cells for missiles on the "Burke".
              And how (!) pray tell, can such a ship be smaller than the Burke?
              Yes, ours will have a more economical power plant, but for the ocean zone, autonomy must be sufficient. Therefore, I assume VI 22350M:
              - standard 8 000 tons,
              - full - not less than 9 tons.
              The power plant will cope, only the cruising speed will be slightly lower than that of the Burke, but it can surpass the autonomy.
              So far, the 22350M radars seem to be left the same as on the Gorshkov, which means that it will have more medium-range missiles than on the Burke.
          3. Alemax
            Alemax 16 February 2022 16: 57
            +6
            Bravo! Instead of an empty article, only your full-fledged comment can be read.
            From myself I will add only one thing - communication and control ships. Without them, this whole armada will be a deaf-blind pack. And in our age of information, the one who first receives and processes it wins.
            1. bayard
              bayard 16 February 2022 17: 17
              +8
              Thanks for the feedback. hi
              Quote from Alex
              From myself I will add only one thing - communication and control ships.

              Rather, reconnaissance and target designation. On large ships, communication facilities are quite well represented; without them, autonomous navigation and combat missions are impossible today. And the headquarters of the KUG can be placed on the flagship. Although sometimes separate command ships are preferable.
              But naval reconnaissance - reconnaissance / target designation ships, should be and cling to each AUG or KUG operating in the area of ​​interest to us. Radio intercepts, direct tracking, the ability to transmit the exact coordinates of the AUG / KUG and the direction of their movement at any time.
              Maritime reconnaissance satellites and UAVs are also critical.
              To war (including at sea), the approach must be comprehensive.
              1. Alemax
                Alemax 16 February 2022 17: 41
                +2
                I absolutely agree with target designation and reconnaissance, this is a priori. But I'm talking about something else. The information itself needs to be processed. UAVs, satellites, fields of sonar surveillance equipment, data from all GAKs, aircraft, ships and everything that has ears and eyes should be available to everyone without exception and have real-time reliability. Ultimately, yes. All this is just an element of target designation. But the picture should be accessible and relevant. Otherwise, how to manage the situation as a whole?
            2. link
              link 17 February 2022 09: 36
              0
              Quote from Alex

              From myself I will add only one thing - communication and control ships. Without them, this whole armada will be a deaf-blind pack.

              It's funny. that no one writes about supply ships (tankers, integrated supply ships, floating workshops, etc.). Without replenishment of fuel and ammunition, you won’t gain much.
              1. Alemax
                Alemax 17 February 2022 17: 25
                0
                Somewhere I had a photo of refueling the aircraft-carrying cruiser Minsk from a tanker in the Mediterranean. And the view from the tanker))
        2. Doccor18
          Doccor18 16 February 2022 09: 03
          +22
          Quote: Gato
          Yes, but many small ships for the price of one large one cannot be destroyed with one rocket / torpedo / bomb

          You can't, you're right. But with such an ideology, we can reach the coastal fleet. And most importantly, these are the combat capabilities of the ship and its seaworthiness.

          To Article:
          Everything is the same at sea. The smaller the ship, the more likely it is to survive. Frigates and corvettes, whose strike armament consists of 4-8 anti-ship missiles, are the ships of tomorrow. Hit and go.

          What can 4-8 rockets do? A little. Can a corvette destroy a frigate/destroyer? In theory, maybe; in practice, not so much. And the most important thing is seaworthiness and autonomy. Not a single state in the world can afford to have hundreds of attack ships. A destroyer is able to be on a campaign for 60 days or more, a frigate - 30, a corvette - 15.
          The destroyer is capable of repelling a raid of 8-16 PKR, the frigate is doubtful, the corvette is definitely incapable.
          Which is better, a destroyer carrying 90 missiles, or three frigates armed with 30 missiles each?

          In terms of cost and time, the construction of three frigates will be twice as much as the construction of one destroyer. This alone is enough to put the last nail in the coffin of this idea, because all over the world they think how to solve problems cheaper and with fewer ships ...
          But sizes don't really matter anymore. The Yamato was a very powerful ship. Intimidating. And what about the American planes that pounded him? But they won

          And where did the more than two hundred American carrier-based aircraft come from? Maybe from aircraft carriers? And how many were there? And how many warrant ships did these aircraft carriers have? And what is the real comparison of the displacement of the Japanese battleship and the entire American connection?
          Involuntarily, you will begin to think about the fact that the submarine is the most effective tool for dealing damage.

          Just do not hit the "underwater euphoria". The Germans in WWII and thousands of boats did not help to achieve at least some positive shift ...
          So perhaps we are lucky in the sense that we are not able to build destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers today.

          Curtain...
          For the Anglo-Saxons, such opinions are like a balm for the soul.
          1. 1Alexey
            1Alexey 16 February 2022 13: 16
            +4
            Quote: Doccor18
            So perhaps we are lucky in the sense that we are not able to build destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers today.

            Curtain...
            For the Anglo-Saxons, such opinions are like a balm for the soul.

            And how Ukrainians rejoice! According to the author, it turns out that they are building the most modern fleet of the future. laughing
            With such an article, the author can safely claim to be the hero of Ukraine.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 16 February 2022 13: 31
              +8
              Quote: 1Alexey
              With such an article, the author can safely claim to be the hero of Ukraine.

              Yes, it's not even about the "ubiquitous Ukraine". This opinion is shared by many people in our country, there are plenty of them on this resource. "The fleet is not so important", "the fleet is an expensive toy", "we will solve all problems with aviation", "to the last resort, there is a nuclear baton, everyone is in the dust ..." and so on. Some write this way because they are paid for it, some do not understand, and do not want to, others firmly believe in it, and it is impossible to convince them.
              And most of them, unfortunately...
            2. bayard
              bayard 16 February 2022 14: 59
              +7
              Quote: 1Alexey
              With such an article, the author can safely claim to be the hero of Ukraine.

              And a Darwin Award.
              If not Vlasov. For this is far from the first article by the author on this topic - "the mosquito fleet will save Russia."
        3. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
          Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 16 February 2022 12: 01
          +2
          Quote: Gato
          small ship - small opportunities

          Yes, but many small ships for the price of one large one cannot be destroyed with one rocket / torpedo / bomb. In addition, they can control a much larger area than a single ship.
          By analogy: remember why APRANET, the ancestor of the Internet, was created?


          Yes, but a small ship means little autonomy (in terms of fuel reserves, provisions, etc.), and in addition, restrictions on seaworthiness and the use of weapons in terms of range at sea.
          In other words, a large squadron of small ships in the near sea zone, in good weather, covered by coastal aviation is good, but the same squadron in the far sea zone and in fresh weather ... is not a fact that it will be combat-ready.
        4. Region-25.rus
          Region-25.rus 16 February 2022 12: 03
          +7
          Yes, but many small ships for the price of one large one cannot be destroyed with one rocket / torpedo / bomb. In addition, they can control a much larger area than a single ship.
          and we will not take into account such factors as seaworthiness and autonomy? That at sea sometimes (it happens for several months) there is no storm either? Or will "small ships" coordinate their actions with weather conditions? Storm! - Nu its nafig go to sea!
          Autonomy - how do you imagine patrolling (for example)? Left the base, went to the patrol area, set fire to fuel and lubricants, the crew swallowed provisions and fresh water, and returned to the base in four days?
          1. Tomcat_Tomcat
            Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 14: 37
            +3
            Quote: Region-25.rus
            Storm! - Nu its nafig go to sea!

            yeah, and we’ll “ask” the enemy in a gentlemanly way to wait for good weather, otherwise it’s “so dishonest!” ..))
            Quote: Region-25.rus
            Autonomy - how do you imagine patrolling (for example)? Left the base, went to the patrol area, set fire to fuel and lubricants, the crew swallowed provisions and fresh water, and returned to the base in four days?

            and again we will ask the enemy at the time of rotation (if at all there is something to replace on patrol) to wait and not arrange "byaki")
            1. Region-25.rus
              Region-25.rus 16 February 2022 15: 22
              +3
              and again ask the enemy
              Well, yes. They are such cuties! Gentlemen to the core! They will raise their cap in a courteous gesture, they say - "It's OK! No problem bro! We have a tea time too"
              yeah, and we’ll “ask” the enemy in a gentlemanly way to wait for good weather, otherwise it’s “so dishonest!” ..))
              Well, unless we don't know. Well, how tomorrow our "guarantor" after "Poseidons, Vanguards, etc ..." will reassure the federal assembly and scare the adversary to the point of hiccups with a weather control weapon!
  2. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 16 February 2022 04: 31
    +19
    the authors - adherents of the "Witnesses of the RCC" sect forget one simple truth: NOT A SINGLE RCC WAS INTO A SHIP ON WHICH THE EW EQUIPMENT WAS TURNED ON. That's all you need to know about the "deadly" anti-ship missiles.
    None of them - neither the Harpoon, nor the Exoset, nor the BRAMOS, none of them hit the target if the electronic warfare equipment was turned on. That is, in the presence of electronic warfare equipment, all these "Deadly" anti-ship missiles turn into NURSs. Whether it's a subsonic NURS or a hypersonic NURS, whether it's a Nurse with 225kg warheads, 150kg warheads or 500kg warheads, it's still NURS.

    And we are not yet talking about the effect of MZA on anti-ship missiles, especially modern MZA with pre-programmable or radar or even laser fuses. Ridged even with fragments of anti-ship missiles, with holes in the hull, damaged control surfaces - the same NURS, and this is if the anti-ship missile perforated by fragments is not torn apart by air resistance (especially at hypersonic speeds). Well, not a single anti-ship missile can withstand a close gap of a 40mm projectile. The rocket does not have to be shot down. It is enough to disrupt its control / aiming / aerodynamics system for it to turn into a NURS. I remind you that if there is a serious damage to at least one of the steering / bearing surfaces of the anti-ship missiles, then it will fly ANYWHERE, but not where it was aimed.

    And that in general, the members of the "Witnesses of the RCC" sect forget that NOT ONE modern RCC could penetrate the armor belt of even the Cleveland-class Light Cruiser (127mm of armor). Thin-skinned anti-ship missiles, especially subsonic ones, will not do anything for an armored belt or an armored deck of a cruiser from the Second World War. Moreover, the old ships were not made of aluminum-magnesium alloy (Hello Sheffield and Monsoon).

    You can write tomes on the theme of "Super Duper" RCC, but as the Americans say, "Arguments won't hold water". And the facts - the facts stubbornly speak about the same thing. Against modern electronic warfare systems, anti-ship missiles are powerless, and modern MZA has both accuracy and ammunition capable of, if not destroying anti-ship missiles in the air, then disrupting their guidance and control system, and simply causing destruction of anti-ship missiles by air resistance if the integrity of the hull is violated.
    1. Gato
      Gato 16 February 2022 04: 58
      +2
      authors - adherents of the sect

      Then state your views on the prospects for military shipbuilding. If anti-ship missiles - UG, then how to equip the fleet? All Big Guns again?
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 16 February 2022 05: 35
        +11
        On a ship (3500 tons and above) with a displacement, much more powerful electronic warfare equipment can be placed than the means of breaking through it on anti-ship missiles (even if it has a weight of 3000 kg). A weapon is needed that modern electronic warfare equipment does not affect. And this is a gun. I assure you that having hit the same Allie Burke, a 6-inch shell from Cleveland will do much more business than the Harpoon anti-ship missile from Allie Burke will do to Cleveland. (see Armor). Yes, I believe that even a small booking of ships will send almost ALL modern anti-ship missiles to a landfill. Thin-skinned anti-ship missiles, even supersonic ones, simply cannot penetrate 127mm of armor. And even if on the radars instead of a ship there is a cloud of interference - a salvo of 9-15 artillery barrels into the center of this cloud will lead to target coverage, and modern ships - unarmored from the word at all, have resistance with artillery hits equal to zero.
        Yes, I believe that we need to return to armored ships with artillery. Of course, having equipped these same ships with air defense, missile defense, electronic warfare and electronic warfare systems. That is, using the example of Baltimore or Cleveland, leave the main battery as it was, and instead of all the universal 127mm artillery, 40mm and 20mm MZA and seaplanes, equip the ship with modern means of electronic warfare, air defense and missile defense, and anti-aircraft defense (RBU or ASROK).
        As for the armor, when a boat with explosives flew into the American Destroyer "COLE", it was perfectly clear that the damage was MUCH more significant in the UPPER part of the hull (Mild steel) than in the lower part (reinforced steel). although, naturally, the epicenter of the explosion was LOWER than the main damage. And there were more explosives on that boat than in the Exocet.
        Moreover, American EMs of the Allen M Sumner type withstood both Japanese air bombs (unlike the Argentine ones, the Japanese ones exploded) and hits by kamikaze aircraft with bombs. And on Sumner, I remind you - armor is 12.7-25.4mm. Sheffield had enough unexploded anti-ship missiles. Monsoon too. Sumner would not even lose combat capability (naturally, such a "gift" would not get into the BC.
        1. Gato
          Gato 16 February 2022 06: 37
          -1
          Will you also cover the antennas of electronic warfare and guidance radar with armor? With a massive attack of anti-ship missiles (which artillery will not be able to respond to, since its range is in any case less than the missile launch range), they will most likely be destroyed, no MZA will help. You won’t be able to catch up with the enemy either - for heavy armor. Further, the enemy will shoot with impunity such a ship with anti-ship missiles from a long distance. And then a torpedo or an air bomb (there is nothing to direct air defense), from which no armor will save.
          1. Dmitry Ivanov_8
            Dmitry Ivanov_8 16 February 2022 07: 07
            +9
            Armored British cruisers in WWII were fully accelerated to 34-37 knots. Which of the modern destroyers can do this?
            1. Gato
              Gato 16 February 2022 07: 14
              +4
              Armored British cruisers in WWII were fully accelerated to 34-37 knots. Which of the modern destroyers can do this?

              And they don't need to. If someone starts building artillery armored ships at such a speed, believe me, in response, they will start building unarmored EM UROs at an even greater speed.
              But how will you solve PLO problems at such a speed? What will your GAS hear?
              Well, in the conditions of using homing torpedoes, the principle "go quieter - you will be longer" works
            2. Tomcat_Tomcat
              Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 18: 57
              +1
              Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
              Armored British cruisers in WWII were fully accelerated to 34-37 knots. Which of the modern destroyers can do this?

              If it was necessary, they did it. Now speed is not everything, it is not in the first place.
              Besides. "there are nuances")
              For example, destroyers and cruisers of WWII times kept such a speed - under 37 - only on calm water. On the wave, their speed dropped noticeably. and the same battleships, holding their 30, were noticeably ahead of them.
              "Burke" stated that he can hold his 32 even with strong excitement. Of course, the Yankees may be lying, but this is unlikely. Moreover, the maximum speed for them is classified. As for their aircraft carriers (supposedly the same 30 knots, but they easily broke away from our ships) and for nuclear submarines. It is not the speed itself "in the pool" that is important, but the actual speed in the sea.
              I think that "Burke" would at least not lag behind your cruisers. Although he does not have 37 according to the sounded passport.
              A torpedo boat may be 45, but on what wave?
          2. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 16 February 2022 08: 28
            +3
            Kamrad. Before you write, you read, read. A little at least. The speed of the Cleveland is 32.5 knots (and this is with OLD engines, new engines of the same mass will give more power / speed and will consume less fuel). Allie Burke's manual speed is 31 knots. So ANYWHERE Burke will not leave Cleveland. Let's go further. WHAT will Burke hit Radars and EW? RCCs?
            We read the primary sources and understand that "None of the anti-ship missiles got into the ship where the electronic warfare equipment worked." Neither Harpoon, nor Exoset, nor Ottomat, nor Rb15, nor Soviet / Russian. NOT A SINGLE anti-ship missile hit the ship where the electronic warfare equipment worked. And this is without anti-missile artillery and all sorts of infrared and other traps. And this is also protection. All sorts of DARDO, VOLCANOES, OTO MELARA RAPIDE 76mm and others like them, even the French 100mm distinguished itself by shooting down anti-ship missiles. And the Swedish 57mm, together with the Italian DARDO 40x2 and OTO Melara RAPIDE 76mm, are sharpened precisely against supersonic anti-ship missiles. With shells like p3, with laser or pre-programmed fuses (for which electronic warfare does not work). So the battle between Burke and the modernized (new air defense, electronic warfare, and missile defense) Cleveland, or Brooklyn, will look something like this - Burke launches anti-ship missiles that miss due to electronic warfare or are shot down by missile defense systems. Even if something hits, it does not break through the armor. Cleveland gradually catches up with Burke and sends him to the bottom with a couple of volleys from 6 inches. (since there is zero armor, moreover, even the steel from which it is made is quite soft). Before writing about the speed of Cleveland-class cruisers, read the primary sources. By the way, hits by Japanese kamikazes loaded with explosives (and this, you know, more than anti-ship missiles) did not always disable radars on Cruisers and even Destroyers. If the SUMNER destroyers continued to fight after receiving two 250kg bombs each (which is approximately TWO HARPOON anti-ship missiles), not a single modern ship of a similar displacement, or even heavier, two Harpoons (or two 250kg bombs per deck) will survive. Especially if such a gift arrives at the UVP, which occupy a large area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe ship and armor at the same level as Cleveland or Baltimore were not protected at all.
            Anti-ship missiles are divided into TWO main types - small, inconspicuous (they fly slowly, but at low altitude, are detected by optoelectronic sensors, IR sensors and are worse detected by radars, and artillery has enough time to shoot them down). And huge super / hypersonic ones - these are generally detected by all means, from afar, they glow like a Christmas tree, and again missile defense artillery has enough time to shoot them down. Moreover, at supersonic speeds, ANY damage to the skin and surfaces leads to the DESTRUCTION of anti-ship missiles by air flows, moreover, by temperature (since a hole in the housing of the thermal insulation of electronics, fuel and BC does not help). Not a single anti-ship missile will fly through a cloud of fragments from a line of 40mm guns and above without damage. Flying into such a cloud will get a bunch of holes in the hull, plus damage to the control and bearing surfaces, that is, it will become a very bad NURS, and this is if we do not count the means of electronic warfare and active countermeasures. In any case, the advantage, at the moment, is with the means of electronic warfare and missile defense. At least at sea. There are very few folds of terrain to hide. About the fact that you can put a much more powerful radar into a ship with a displacement of 10000 tons than on a truck for ground-based air defense systems, I hope, comrade, you yourself understand.
            1. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 16 February 2022 10: 37
              +1
              We read the primary sources and understand that "None of the anti-ship missiles got into the ship where the electronic warfare equipment worked."

              And can you clarify on what basis you made such a categorical conclusion?
              1. Usher
                Usher 18 February 2022 21: 36
                0
                Dolboslav or Radnover style.
            2. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 16 February 2022 14: 00
              0
              small, inconspicuous (they fly slowly, but at low altitude, are detected by optoelectronic sensors, IR sensors, and are worse detected by radars, and artillery has enough time to shoot them down).

              It was this extremely unpleasant sensation that caused the appearance of the French MM38 Exocet anti-ship missile. Which, by the way, did not have any stealth technology yet, but was simply low-flying. So it suddenly turned out that this was already enough to detect a missile when there was no time to shoot it down.
            3. Tomcat_Tomcat
              Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 11
              +3
              Let me put in my three cents, if you please.

              Yes, WWII ships withstood serious damage. But then again - the destroyers did not have armor. although they sometimes endured kamikaze hits, and even a torpedo hit. But - then the ships were made of steel (and not the once fashionable aluminum-magnesium alloys or composites as they are now), and the organization of the fight for damage has always had the highest level in the American Navy.
              If you make a modern ship entirely steel (and there is a tendency towards this, there was at least after the incompetent losses of the Sheffield and the Courageous BOD), then it will not be worse in terms of the survivability of old destroyers.

              Armor? So the fact is that you can’t put it on a modern ship, already overloaded with weapons and electronics. A 50mm armored belt won't save you. And even in 100 mm too. Suggest 200mm armor? Well, again, no, because the current anti-ship missiles do not hit under the waterline. They hit the hull and superstructures. And there, even the ships of WWII and WWII did not have armor - because it was too hard. Even the battleships did not have it there. here, as an example, only our relatives "Sevastopol". Yes, steel somewhat prevented the spread of damage - this is how it is necessary to put anti-fragmentation armor on current ships, and not unnecessary and non-acute armor belts.
              Why do you think that modern anti-ship missiles are not capable of penetrating the hull of an armored ship? Very even ... Although, looking like an armored one. If you sew up the entire board and superstructures with 150-200 mm armor, then completely. And now let's calculate the displacement .....

              Artillery? The thing is good, cheap and cheerful. But inaccurate. especially on moving objects. What is the percentage of ships hitting a ship during WWII? Yes, it's just insignificant. RCC, even the most dead ones, have at least 50% of it. That's all - while you are trying to shoot an enemy ship with shells, it will stick 5-10-20 anti-ship missiles into your side, and you will turn into a burning ruin if you don’t immediately go to the bottom.
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 17 February 2022 00: 01
                0
                Modern ship overloaded? How? Emptiness? Calculate how much armament and ammo took from the displacement on the same Sumners. Calculate the weight of weapons on the same Sumners, radars, sonars and other electronics were not weightless.
                1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                  Tomcat_Tomcat 17 February 2022 11: 00
                  0
                  A modern ship has much more upper weight than its WWII counterparts. All weapons - artillery and rocket, radio-electronic, ammunition cellars - all this is above the waterline. Radars, which have become much more - again above the waterline. Try to install all this on the same WWII cruisers - and you will get problems with stability. And you will be forced to either remove the armor, or increase the displacement. Well, it’s probably not entirely correct to say that a modern ship “carries emptiness”. Armament, communications, radio-electronic equipment require much more powerful power supply and cable lines, and, thank God, beds are not hung in three tiers now.
        2. Lykases1
          Lykases1 16 February 2022 08: 07
          +8
          As for the electronic warfare, I agree with you to some extent. At the expense of booking - booking of individual nodes, no more. Previously, ships fought, one might say, within sight. Now the first hit will take down half of the equipment. The ship will be helpless and will simply be shot. But how much will the construction of such armadillos cost the state? Which will still be destroyed. The fleet is developing in this way is clearly not easy. Otherwise, now the seas would be plowed by squadrons of battleships.
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 16 February 2022 08: 41
            +3
            How much will it cost? For some reason, the United States riveted Clevelands, Baltimores, and other cruisers without any problems. Armored. High-speed. Armed to the teeth. And nothing. Not broke. And THEN the American dollar was backed by something else, and now they print dollars as much as they need. Don't get broke. If the Navy orders $300+ coffee mugs, normal cruisers can afford it.

            If high-explosive 305mm shells during WWI and WWII did not always pierce even the armor of cruisers, then Harpoon and others like him have no chance against a ship with a 100-150mm armor belt from the word AT ALL. I will repeat once again. Even hits by kamikaze aircraft with bombs did not always disable radars and other electronics on American cruisers and destroyers. The ships continued to fight. Moreover, there were quite a few cases that planes with bombs crashed into the side of the cruiser or the superstructure exploded and ... did not penetrate. (The last words that the Japanese pilot heard were "Unpierced"). Even destroyers survived such hits. So, modern anti-ship missiles will not do ANYTHING to a WWII cruiser if, as I said, all universal artillery (12x127mm cannons), all MZA (40 and 20mm), seaplanes are removed from it and this weight is spent on new radars, air defense / missile defense systems and reb. About the fact that engines are now both lighter and more economical (and this will free up a lot of mass), you yourself know. So taking Cleveland as a model, putting new engines on it, new electronic warfare, air defense / missile defense / anti-aircraft weapons, new radars and sensors and new, faster-firing 6 inches - we get something that any modern ship will simply endure. True, such a "Super Cleveland" will not have the ability to launch Tomahawks at coastal targets.
            About the noise. Allie Burke running at 31 knots is not much quieter than Cleveland running at 32.5.
            1. Lykases1
              Lykases1 16 February 2022 08: 52
              +5
              And if you reprogram the PKR to attack from above, according to the Javelin principle? Is it possible to make all armor the same thickness? And so your thoughts resemble Kaptsov's articles. It has already been discussed here. All the same, I think that the fleet is evolving not in vain. And if heavy armor was abandoned, then this makes sense.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 16 February 2022 09: 32
                +2
                Quote: Lykases1
                And if you reprogram the PKR to attack from above, according to the Javelin principle?

                RCC hits from minimal heading angles into the superstructure turns any modern ship into an ordinary large iron boat!
              2. Doccor18
                Doccor18 16 February 2022 13: 22
                +7
                Quote: Lykases1
                And if heavy armor was abandoned ...

                But what should it be, this armor? You write about evolution in the Navy, I agree. But why can't armor evolve? After all, modern sixth-class bulletproof vests are not at all like the steel bibs of WWI attack aircraft ...
              3. Tomcat_Tomcat
                Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 23
                +1
                Quote: Lykases1
                And if you reprogram the PKR to attack from above, according to the Javelin principle?

                even that is not necessary. It is not possible to book the entire flight. And the anti-ship missiles will pierce the thin armor and not wince. It will turn out the same situation when the Japanese ships filled up the Russian OFS - even without breaking through the armor belt, they caused such destruction that the ship lost its combat capability. And this is an armadillo that did not have a radar located above the armored belt of unarmored weapons, etc.
                For some reason, the authors of such opuses admit two problematic questions:
                1. For some reason, all their anti-ship missiles and shells hit the armored belt
                2. The armored belt is able to withstand the impact of anti-ship missiles.
                Neither of these theses are correct. Modern anti-ship missiles do not hit the waterline. and in the hull and superstructures - an example of this is almost all cases of missiles hitting ships, incl. on the exercises.
                Three times - they are capable, no matter what, to break through up to 100 mm of armor. Except for the very frail missiles. And domestic supersonic ones are not even worth taking into account - at Mach 2, a rocket is capable of piercing a ship through and through.
                For example, there were tests of the first domestic anti-ship missiles KSCH in the compartment of the heavy cruiser "Stalingrad". The missile pierced the cruiser's armor without any problems - but it was also inert equipment, therefore it left only a hole.
            2. Terran ghost
              Terran ghost 16 February 2022 10: 47
              +2
              then Harpoon and others like him have no chance against a ship with a 100-150mm armored belt from the word AT ALL.

              Especially there will be a lot of sense from the armored belt against the destruction of the extremities, superstructures and other things that are not protected by the armored belt.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 16 February 2022 10: 54
                +4
                Especially a lot of sense

                It’s just that they don’t think that, the main thing is that the BNK can perform a combat mission, without the REV this is impossible. The strike will be delivered by PRR in order to disable the radar, communication and information exchange systems, and only then anti-ship missiles, air bombs, etc. What's the point of a broken hull, which, apart from staying afloat, can do nothing else?
                We have not yet compared the carcass of a rocket with a projectile.
                1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                  Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 29
                  0
                  That's it. In the place of the commander of the formation, who needs to attack the enemy KUG or AUG, I would take the PRR ammunition with the first strike - in order to disable the radars on enemy ships. He will be blind and deaf, unable to answer me. It would be nice if the PRR had a detonation mode when flying over the target, even if the radar is turned off - to destroy weapons and personnel not covered by armor - ZAK, air defense systems, cabins, premises, everything that is available to fragments. Then by the time I decide to strike the main blow, the enemy will be almost incapacitated. All he'll have to do is swallow my missiles into their hulls.
            3. vindigo
              vindigo 16 February 2022 10: 56
              -1
              Cannon shells can be made homing. To increase the chance of hitting. Optical target recognition and flight correction on the last leg of the path.
              1. Usher
                Usher 18 February 2022 21: 38
                0
                You first swim to the distance of the shot
            4. vindigo
              vindigo 16 February 2022 10: 57
              -1
              A cumulative warhead will be put on anti-ship missiles against the armored belt.
              1. Baron pardus
                Baron pardus 17 February 2022 00: 20
                +1
                A cruiser, or even a destroyer, is NOT a TANK. If you put a Cumulative warhead then: the armored action of the cumulative jet is not so hot. Excessively high projectile speeds - reduce the armor penetration of a cumulative warhead. That is, you will no longer make this anti-ship missile hypersonic - armor penetration is falling. RCC with a cumulative warhead is just as vulnerable to electronic warfare and air defense / missile defense systems as any other.
          2. Doccor18
            Doccor18 16 February 2022 13: 11
            +4
            Quote: Lykases1
            But how much will the construction of such armadillos cost the state? Which will still be destroyed. The fleet is developing in this way is clearly not easy. Otherwise, now the seas would be plowed by squadrons of battleships.

            There are several caveats here. Armor was abandoned a long time ago, at the dawn of the appearance of anti-ship missiles and the heyday of powerful naval artillery (305-432 mm.). Neither one nor the other armor could no longer be guaranteed to hold. At the same time, more and more equipment began to appear on ships, which weighed a lot and required large volumes inside the hull. It was pointless to "inflate" further (and so incredibly large) battleships.
            Now the situation is different. No one has had large-caliber artillery for a long time, and it is unlikely that it will appear. There are almost no monstrous PCRs like Granite / Basalt either. On the contrary, small mass-produced PKRs with plastic cases come into fashion.
            Note that the technology of armor for 70 years, after all, has advanced and
            effective shipborne missile defense / electronic warfare systems appeared.
            The only problem today is finances. Of course, an armored ship would be thirty percent heavier and cost twice as much. But the effectiveness of this combat unit will be incomparable with the "cardboard" destroyers of our time.
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 16 February 2022 09: 28
          +8
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          Yes, I believe that even a small booking of ships will send almost ALL modern anti-ship missiles to a landfill. Thin-skinned anti-ship missiles, even supersonic ones, simply cannot penetrate 127mm of armor.

          what Followers of the Kaptsov sect?
          The cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz" with its 75 mm armor was pierced for flight by the good old "Comet" with an inert warhead! And the hit of the same "Comet" with a warhead broke the cruiser in half!
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 16 February 2022 20: 23
            +1
            76mm armor will penetrate and 100mm cannon. I repeat, on Cleveland the belt is 127mm. On Baltimore, the belt is 150mm and the deck is 65mm. This harpoon will not penetrate. You can't expect the same durability from a 76mm armor plate as from a 127mm.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 17 February 2022 07: 47
              +1
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              76mm armor will penetrate and 100mm cannon. I repeat, on Cleveland the belt is 127mm.

              For especially literate comrades ..
              Quote: Serg65
              Cruiser "Red Caucasus" with his 75 mm armor, stitched out

              75+75...trust me, it's far from 76!
              Quote: Baron Pardus
              This harpoon will not penetrate

              Yes, the Harpoon will not penetrate ... its speed is low! Have you ever seen a photo of the destruction caused by a tornado ... in these photos there are boards with a thickness of 50 mm. pierced by a leaf of clover to take off .... how could this happen ???
        4. Avior
          Avior 16 February 2022 09: 41
          +5
          In order to ensure the neutralization of the electronic warfare of a modern sufficiently large ship, it is not enough to launch more anti-ship missiles at it in the hope that at least some will hit.
          We need full-fledged reconnaissance, target designation, the correct organization of the attack, the cover of its own electronic warfare by means of active counteraction to electronic warfare - for example, PRR.
          And only aviation can provide this.
        5. Doccor18
          Doccor18 16 February 2022 12: 43
          0
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          Yes, I believe that even a small booking of ships will send almost ALL modern anti-ship missiles to a landfill.

          Not that everything and not that to a landfill, but the problems will increase by an order of magnitude. The efficiency will decrease, which will require the redesign of missiles, an increase in the mass of explosives and speed, which will lead to an increase in the mass of the rocket itself, which means a decrease in the ammunition load of the ship / ib, which, in turn, will lead to a less massive first strike ...
          Therefore, I agree with you that the song of armor and artillery systems of medium caliber (152-203 mm) has not yet been sung ...
        6. yaglon
          yaglon 16 February 2022 20: 07
          +2
          "A 6 inch shell from Cleveland will do much more business than RCC Harpoon with Ally Burke will do Cleveland" Arleigh Burke can easily shoot with fifty Standards, which as an RCC will be no worse than Harpoon. And from Cleveland and a wet place will not remain.
    2. paul3390
      paul3390 16 February 2022 09: 08
      +3
      And ONE modern anti-ship missile could not penetrate the armor belt of even the Cleveland-class Light Cruiser (127mm of armor)

      I doubt that Cleveland would have liked a supersonic hit, for example Granite, weighing 7 tons and a head of 700 kg .. what
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 16 February 2022 10: 03
        -1
        Did Granite learn to overcome modern electronic warfare? Or can Granite sneak up on the ship undetected? Granite will light up on ALL systems as soon as it is launched. A flying telegraph pole with a huge jet torch. And then STANDARD missiles will work on it first, then, MZA will work on it, and if after that your "granite" will still fly and be controlled, then it will miss due to electronic warfare and traps. Moreover, the same Standard missiles will take the carrier of this "Granite" to hell, you won't hang Granite under each MiG-29? No. And if so, then Granite will be carried by some kind of carcass, which will also glow on radars like a Christmas tree. Moreover, how will you give Granite target designation? Let me remind you that the Standard air defense system not only works very well against anti-ship missiles and even ballistic missiles, but has a range of 160 km. How will you give target designation to your Granite without entering the radius of destruction of the Standard air defense system? Yes, the range of Granite is, like, 700 km, but how will you give target designation for 700 km? And if you launch it from the Ship, then all the more how will you give Granite target designation? And Granite's speed is max 2.7. It allows its interception of the Standard air defense system, ASTER air defense system, Sea Septor air defense system and Evolved Sea Sparrow air defense system (not to mention all sorts of Super Rapido, Dardo and others like them), but no one has canceled electronic warfare and traps either. So your notorious Granite is another NURS as soon as it enters the EW coverage area. Huge, fast, heavy NURS, but still - NURS. Especially without target designation - how will you do it (target designation then?).
        Granite will break through the Cleveland armor belt, I think without any problems. But first you have to GET. And without target designation, in the conditions of operation of modern electronic warfare, traps and air defense / missile defense systems, granite (as well as Harpoon) will not get anywhere. And if it is possible, in theory, to hang 16 pieces on a relatively small ship, then you cannot hang 16 Granites on a small ship. And if you can hang 4 harpoons even on an OLD Hornet (especially on a new one), then you cannot hang 4 Granites on the SU-33. Even on the Tu-22M4 you cannot hang 6 Granites. If you have large heavy missiles, then you simply won’t have enough of them to oversaturate the ship’s air defense / missile defense systems. If the air wing of an aircraft carrier can easily fire a volley of 40 harpoons (10 Super Hornets), then for 40 Granites you will need 10 TU-22M. And if, if desired, 4-pipe launchers for the Harpoon can be stumbled on ships in significant quantities (fortunately they don’t take up much space and don’t give much weight). By the way, there were experiments according to which even on the old Spruences they put not 8 launchers for the Harpoon, but 24. You won’t put 24 Granites on a Spruence-sized boat. They are heavy.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 16 February 2022 10: 48
          +1
          Reading you, I am amazed at one thing, why the hell do all countries rivet absolutely useless anti-ship missiles so hard? what
          1. Baron pardus
            Baron pardus 16 February 2022 20: 28
            -2
            Can you explain about capitalism? Can you explain how lobbying works? RCCs are riveted because it is FAVORABLE for large companies producing them. Absolutely no one thinks about how anti-ship missiles weighing even 1000 kg will burn electronic warfare equipment that are installed on a ship weighing 5000 tons. Nobody thinks about the fact that having fired Granite from 600 km, he (granite) needs to be given target designation, which NOBODY will let you do. No one thinks that in order to break through a ship's missile defense system, it is necessary to oversaturate its defense system, and this requires a lot of missiles. And you can’t put a lot of 7000kg banduras like Granite on a ship. I repeat, for 8 anti-ship missiles, a harpoon can even be put on a small missile boat (there were such, on hydrofoils, with 8 anti-ship missiles HARPUN). But you can’t put 8 Granites on RTOs. By the way, I remind fans of anti-ship missiles Penguin: a) The MZA works against the Penguin in the same way as against the HARPOON. b) NOBODY canceled IR traps.
        2. yaglon
          yaglon 16 February 2022 20: 13
          +1
          What are you talking about? Do not hang granite on an airplane at all! This is anti-ship missiles for submarines; on a surface ship, outboard water must generally be pumped into the Granite mine to start.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 17 February 2022 07: 51
            +2
            Quote: yaglon
            What are you talking about? Do not hang granite on an airplane at all

            Well, why are you like this? They took and ruined the evening for the guy !!!
      2. yaglon
        yaglon 16 February 2022 20: 15
        +2
        Granite Cleveland may well pierce through and fly further ... in supersonic))) Granite was created against heavy aircraft carriers.
        1. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 23 February 2022 23: 24
          0
          I explain. You don't have a lot of ships. You won’t put 8 granites on RTOs. Granite itself glows on all sensors VERY far away. Granite itself needs target designation. What is granite? The missile is too heavy to hang a lot of them and just push through the missile defense of the enemy squadron. A missile that glows on all radars and sensors instantly and gives missile defense enough time to react. A missile that needs target designation, since its own seeker cannot capture a target located at 200 + Km (Granite, if anything, flies at 600 km). But Harpoons, RB15 and others like them, these can be pushed into any pelvis, 2-4 can be hung under each aircraft, and simply and corny to push through missile defense. This will not work with granite, it can only be placed on ships that are not too small, and you have few of them. It can be put on a submarine, but then you need target designation, which no one will give you (Not a single AUG will allow an enemy AWACS to hang 300 km away and give target designation). There will not be many granites in the salvo, they will be noticed from afar, and first all sorts of Standards and Aster will be worked out on them, then Sea Septors, RAM, ASTER15 and ECSM, then MZA will work on them, and no one has canceled interference / traps.
    3. Bez 310
      Bez 310 16 February 2022 09: 09
      +8
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      NOT A SINGLE RCC WAS INTO THE SHIP ON WHICH THE EW EQUIPMENT WAS INCLUDED.

      Could you give examples of such "misses"?
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 16 February 2022 10: 08
        +1
        Sorry, Sir, but this phrase was repeated in a huge number of articles right here on the topwar. Moreover, Foreign Military Review also wrote about the use of electronic warfare by the Israelis, that not a single Soviet missile hit their ships, well, there were other cases. On the same Falklands, EMNIP took a couple of exosets with electronic warfare. Yes, there were other cases.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 16 February 2022 10: 23
          +6
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          but this phrase was repeated in a huge number of articles

          I understand that you cannot give specific examples, you just repeat what you once read in unverified sources.
        2. Yaroslav Zhigulin
          Yaroslav Zhigulin 16 February 2022 12: 00
          +2
          There were only 5 missiles for the entire TVD
        3. Bolt cutter
          Bolt cutter 16 February 2022 13: 31
          +3
          a couple of exosets were taken away by means of electronic warfare
          The Norwegian Penguin will not take any electronic warfare - thermal imaging guidance. Anti-ship missiles were little used in combat, so the statistics are unreliable.
        4. Osipov9391
          Osipov9391 16 February 2022 18: 13
          +2
          Anti-ship missiles "Granit" are now carried only by submarines of the "Antey" type, like the lost "Kursk". There are 24 of them. On airplanes, it does not apply at all!
          Su-33 generally do not carry anti-ship missiles!
          MiG-29K only X-35 can carry everything.
        5. Serg65
          Serg65 17 February 2022 08: 32
          +3
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          , Foreign Military Review wrote about the use of electronic warfare by the Israelis

          In the confrontation between electronic warfare and flying scrap in the form of anti-ship missiles Termit of the 50s, of course, electronic warfare will win. It was after the Yom Kippur War that the USSR received anti-ship missiles with anti-jamming guidance systems.
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          not a single Soviet missile hit their ships

          what Elite somehow passed by?
    4. Yaroslav Zhigulin
      Yaroslav Zhigulin 16 February 2022 12: 00
      +2
      What will you do with blunt bombs?
    5. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 February 2022 12: 02
      +6
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      And we are not yet talking about the effect of MZA on anti-ship missiles, especially modern MZA with pre-programmable or radar or even laser fuses. Ridged even with fragments of anti-ship missiles, with holes in the hull, damaged control surfaces - the same NURS, and this is if the anti-ship missile perforated by fragments is not torn apart by air resistance (especially at hypersonic speeds). Well, not a single anti-ship missile can withstand a close gap of a 40mm projectile. The rocket does not have to be shot down. It is enough to disrupt its control / aiming / aerodynamics system for it to turn into a NURS. I remind you that if there is a serious damage to at least one of the steering / bearing surfaces of the anti-ship missiles, then it will fly ANYWHERE, but not where it was aimed.

      It all depends on the effective fire range of the MZA (which is determined by the caliber). At present, the concept is generally accepted, according to which for MZA with a caliber of up to 40 mm (effective range up to 2 km), the only way to reliably destroy anti-ship missiles is to detonate its warhead. The defeat of any other parts of the anti-ship missiles does not guarantee that its warheads or debris will not reach the protected ship. That is why the "Goalkeeper" or R2D2 BC includes sub-caliber shells. And "Dardo" too - the complex switches to them when the anti-ship missiles enter the 2 km line.

      That is, it is possible to work on the anti-ship missile glider at ranges over 2 km. But for this, the ZAK caliber must be more than 40 mm (and such OSs have higher power). And this means a low rate of fire.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 16 February 2022 14: 18
        +4
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But for this, the ZAK caliber must be more than 40 mm (and such OSs have higher power). And this means a low rate of fire.

        57-mm AU, in my opinion, is a very good option (AU-220M, Mk 110). Small enough to put four to six on a destroyer, and powerful enough to damage anti-ship missiles / UAVs. And the rate of fire of 120-220 per minute is not that insufficient ...
      2. Lykases1
        Lykases1 16 February 2022 15: 58
        +1
        If memory serves, moment 31 during the exercises could not bring down the granite with the first hit. Requested permission for another ammunition. I say right away where I read it, I don’t remember and I won’t look for it.
      3. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 16 February 2022 20: 18
        -1
        Therefore, I also spoke about DARDO 40X2 and about the Italian OTO Melara Super Rapido 76mm. Super Rapido is 120 rounds per minute (145 was achieved in tests). Moreover, the Swedes have a 57mm with a rate of fire of 220 rounds per minute. All 3 are equipped with a variety of projectiles from guided to the so-called P3 providing the densest cloud of very sensitive fragments. Moreover, the French have 100mm with a rate of fire of 80 rounds per minute. The Chinese have a licensed version of this 100mm (they also have Super Rapido 76), so the Chinese did something with the French 100mm cannon so they have a rate of fire of 80-90 rounds per minute, moreover, the Chinese cannon has a very short reaction time , from the moment that all electronics are completely turned off at the gun, until the moment of the first shot at the target - 10 seconds. Moreover, she has a higher elevation and pointing speed than the French one. I think that any anti-ship missiles, up to Onyx, Granite inclusive, 40-100mm caliber guns of the type listed by me will be shot without any problems. By the way, the initial velocity of the projectile on the Swedish 57mm is higher than on the Russian 57mm, the same with the Italians. Super Rapido can still (if needed) actively fire VOLCANO rockets. So I think that people are churning out anti-ship missiles precisely for the sake of profits, the age of anti-ship missiles is over. Modern guidance systems and fuses did not leave chances for anti-ship missiles. And do not rely on ONYX and Granite. These banduras will be noticed on all sensors at launch, and shot with anti-aircraft guns. Be it artillery or air defense systems Standard, Aspide, Sea Septor, Evolved Sea Sparrosch or something else. And you won’t put 24 Onyx / Granite on the Small Rocket Ship. You simply don’t have enough anti-ship missiles to penetrate missile defense cruisers.
    6. Illanatol
      Illanatol 16 February 2022 13: 48
      0
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      the authors - adherents of the "Witnesses of the RCC" sect forget one simple truth: NOT A SINGLE RCC WAS INTO A SHIP ON WHICH THE EW EQUIPMENT WAS TURNED ON. That's all you need to know about the "deadly" anti-ship missiles.


      Maybe just change the guidance system? Highlight the target ship with a laser from a UAV? And on anti-ship missiles - a semi-active seeker with a laser guidance system.
      Actually, if a supersonic NURS with 300 kg of TNT flies into the side, breaking through this side, the ship will not seem enough. Yes, electronic warfare is a very effective means of protection, but this does not mean that an antidote cannot be found.
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 16 February 2022 20: 30
        0
        Laser radiation is easily detected. UAVs easily get lost, especially over the sea, where they cannot hide in the folds of the terrain. (A destroyer is walking along the sea, and suddenly, from behind a hill overgrown with woods, from a ravine, a UAV with a laser emitter appears)
    7. bk0010
      bk0010 16 February 2022 21: 10
      +1
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      None of them - neither the Harpoon, nor the Exoset, nor the BRAMOS, none of them hit the target if the electronic warfare equipment was turned on.
      Yes? Please list the cases that you considered for such a conclusion, well, except for the case of Jews with Arabs with P-35.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      And we are not talking about the effect of MZA on anti-ship missiles yet
      Why don't we speak? Let's talk: Harpoon's armor held 20mm Volcanoes and sparrow shards. If we talk about little things, then look how a completely modern Shell is trying to shoot down a high-flying and slow UAV with cannons (I’ll say right away that it doesn’t work out well).
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The missile does not have to be shot down.
      Mandatory: an intercepted missile may well fly into a ship or explode nearby, riddling everything.
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      And that in general, the members of the "Witnesses of the RCC" sect forget that NOT ONE modern RCC could penetrate the armor belt of even the Cleveland-class Light Cruiser (127mm of armor).
      Will there be proofs? Even an old Comet without explosives, converted from a MiG-15, broke through an armored ship, tearing out a huge piece of armored belt. You do not realize the possibilities of even a modest rocket (Harpoon): its weight is half the weight of a battleship projectile, it contains twice as much explosive as a high-explosive battleship projectile, the speed near the target is greater than that of a battleship projectile, and the probability of hitting and firing range is incomparably higher. And this is an ancient Harpoon. More serious missiles carry half a ton of TGA, even if you were right and the missile did not penetrate the armor belt, then the explosion of such a warhead would simply tear apart some destroyer. The battleship could survive such a hit, but not at the expense of armor, but at the expense of many times greater displacement.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 16 February 2022 04: 32
    +14
    The article is a contradiction on a contradiction!
    We need more missiles, but we need smaller ships. And where to shove the rockets?
    Enemy boats need to be met early, but ships are only needed in the near zone.
    Aircraft carriers are not going anywhere, but there is no need to be afraid of them.
    Weak, very weak!
  4. Private SA
    Private SA 16 February 2022 04: 54
    +6
    Curious article. But again reaches into the hands of "Sunset of the Lord of the Seas" from P.Ch. Smith: "We only need
    small ships, everyone agreed. Okay, in the 70s we had them, so what? Even tiny Icelandic
    gunboats could threaten Britain's maritime security." It seems that they had a conflict there because of the catch zones
    herrings.
    So let's get to "schnellboot" with Caliber missiles and one anti-aircraft gun mount on deck.
    But they will not swim across the Pacific Ocean to the missile launch zone ...
    fuel and seaworthiness is not enough.
    1. Gato
      Gato 16 February 2022 05: 10
      -1
      But they will not swim across the Pacific Ocean to the missile launch zone ...

      What for? The Russian Federation is a continental country and does not set itself the task of controlling maritime trade. For now anyway...
      I think that first you need to decide on the strategies, inspect the wallet, and then decide which ships with which performance characteristics are needed, and which ones are not needed or cannot be afforded.
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 February 2022 05: 30
        +6
        I will be cruel! The mosquito fleet is the lot of the weak, it will not allow them to seize the strategic initiative and fight off the coast of the enemy, and not on their own!
        1. Gato
          Gato 16 February 2022 07: 38
          +1
          I will be cruel! Mosquito fleet is for the weak

          No need to go to extremes. It is better to be calm but devious and have a balanced fleet, rather than a bunch of boats or a crowd of superdreadnoughts tongue
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 16 February 2022 10: 01
          +4
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          fight off the coast of the enemy

          The only enemy we can reach by land is the US. To fight near its shores far from their bases is a utopia. But! Even under Comrade Stalin, a whole 14th combined-arms army was quartered in Chukotka! The divisions of which practiced ice crossing through the Bering Strait towards Alaska. The question arises ... why are Arctic troops being formed in Russia and what caused our military activity in the Bay of Conduct ???
      2. common man
        common man 16 February 2022 08: 44
        +6
        Quote: Gato
        What for? The Russian Federation is a continental country and does not set itself the task of controlling maritime trade.

        Sorry, I'm interfering. You can't win a war just by defending yourself.
        In the same way, a ship that can only destroy means of destruction (anti-ship missiles, torpedo, projectile) but cannot hit the carrier of these means (aircraft, ship, submarine) will never win. And for this you need a "long arm" (long-range air defense systems, an aircraft, a large torpedo, a rocket-torpedo.) Which, respectively, at the moment cannot be placed on a ship of small displacement. We need an aircraft carrier, destroyer-cruiser, BOD.
        In general, an article from the category "horses mixed up in a bunch, people." Didn't read it.
      3. Serg65
        Serg65 16 February 2022 09: 35
        +5
        Quote: Gato
        The Russian Federation is a continental country and does not set itself the task of controlling maritime trade

        Recently, Russia has interests in Africa and Latin America....what to do?
      4. strannik1985
        strannik1985 16 February 2022 09: 54
        +4
        But why?

        Suddenly, the Russian Federation is fighting in Syria and supplies the group, including the Syrian army, by sea.
  5. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 16 February 2022 05: 16
    +1
    And the timid steam-frigates, which did not stand next to the white-sailed beauties in terms of armament, for some reason, in some 50 years, progressed to the battleships of Tsushima.

    In fact, frigate steamers are the forerunner of cruisers, not battleships. The fathers and grandfathers of battleships and battleships were first-rank screw battleships (for example, Gluar).
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 16 February 2022 06: 05
      -5
      Yes, Peter the Great will be chasing one pirate junk with a semi-literate black man on board ...
  8. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 16 February 2022 06: 02
    -1
    The author will be devoured alive by adherents of the indestructible AUG.
    In addition, he did not mention the role of sea mines, although they are small dirty tricks, they can spoil the mood of any large ship for a long time.
  9. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 16 February 2022 06: 35
    +13
    Another fun as a form of cognitive dissonance: the author's statement about the widespread desire for compactness is confirmed by him by a twofold increase in the tonnage of ships of the main classes
    1. Dmitry Ivanov_8
      Dmitry Ivanov_8 16 February 2022 07: 20
      +8
      A heavier ship will more easily survive an anti-ship missile strike. The same "Nimitz" from one "Granite" cannot be drowned if it is not a "golden hit" in the cellars of the BC and kerosene of the air group. A heavy ship has greater autonomy and a larger displacement reserve for armament capacity. Armor placements: let not the outer belt, but cover the cars and ammo. In fact, a modern ship should have armor similar to the armored cruisers of a bygone era, when everything important is covered with an armored deck. Well, add-ons are consumables. As long as such a ship can shoot and move, it is alive. Otherwise, it's a stationary target. Here you are right.
      1. Lykases1
        Lykases1 16 February 2022 07: 55
        +7
        Naturally, you can’t drown without a special warhead. But can he raise an air wing after a hit is a question.
      2. KCA
        KCA 16 February 2022 08: 19
        +1
        And how will the hit of one anti-ship missile in the plywood cabin of a Zumvolt-type destroyer affect?
      3. paul3390
        paul3390 16 February 2022 09: 13
        +7
        Well, add-ons are consumables. As long as such a ship can shoot and move, it is alive

        Without superstructures, a modern ship cannot shoot - all electronics are in them ..
        1. Dmitry Ivanov_8
          Dmitry Ivanov_8 16 February 2022 10: 32
          +4
          Forget one thing. Then the battleships had spaced KDP on two masts. What's stopping you from doing this now? Close the fields of AFAR antennas with anti-fragmentation shields?
          The extreme battleships of 406 mm could shoot at 30+ km. Modern 203 mm can also be 40 km. But you can’t reject the artillery shell / you won’t take it away. He flies to the target like a fool. And 203 mm weighs from 130 kg. And there are a lot of them in the salvo. Here is the result. Anti-ship missiles can be deceived and taken away, and the artillery shell along the trajectory can try to shoot down the MZA. But here's the catch, he flies there at a speed of 800 m / s. 3 times more sound. Vot.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 16 February 2022 12: 14
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
            Close the fields of AFAR antennas with anti-fragmentation shields?

            And what will be the thickness of these shields, the EMP absorption coefficient for them, and most importantly, their mass? Because they usually try to raise the radar higher, and a heavy load on the superstructure is a direct path to overkill.
            Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
            Anti-ship missiles can be deceived and taken away, and the artillery shell along the trajectory can try to shoot down the MZA. But here's the catch, he flies there at a speed of 800 m / s. 3 times more sound.

            And since when does the projectile retain its initial velocity during the entire flight? wink
            The projectile of the same 8 "/55 RF Mark 16, installed on the Des Moines, when firing at 9,14 km, flew to the target at a speed of 519 m / s, at 14,63 km - at a speed of 418 m / s, and when ranges of more than 18 km flew to the target at a speed of 380-395 m / s.
          2. Tomcat_Tomcat
            Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 14: 50
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
            Then the battleships had spaced KDP on two masts. What's stopping you from doing this now?

            well, even now they arrange several antenna posts and try to spread them around the ship.

            But for this the ship must be large.
            Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
            Close the fields of AFAR antennas with anti-fragmentation shields?

            this is just unrealistic. These very anti-fragmentation panels should be radio-transparent and protect against fragments - and the fragments, although small in mass. but they fly at a very high speed. This is a mass, and, for obvious reasons, they try to lift the antennas higher. Those. the upper weight increases, which has an extremely negative effect on the stability of the ship. Modern ships already carry a decent amount of upper weight. And finally, how will the radar behave if its fairing is stuffed with metal fragments?
            Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
            But you can’t reject the artillery shell / you won’t take it away.

            but the projectile flies along a ballistic trajectory, it can be evaded by maneuvering.
      4. Avior
        Avior 16 February 2022 09: 45
        +2
        it was a hundred years ago that a sign of a ship's combat readiness was the ability to move and fire cannons.
        Now electronics is at the forefront, including in superstructures
  10. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 16 February 2022 06: 51
    +11
    Well, there was an episode when our missile boats made the transition to the Kuriles in a storm. For a long time they came to their senses ... Well, at least without losses. And yes, by the way, they could not use weapons on a big wave.
  11. Grossvater
    Grossvater 16 February 2022 07: 08
    +18
    "Young school"?
    Everything is smooth, only the wind blows on the sea from time to time. Again, the time of year is different. Remember WNA?
    A seaworthy warship is just starting with 6000 tons; to use weapons in shitty conditions, you need at least 10.
    Recall the death of Scharnhorst, when the German battleship was free to sail 30 knots, the English cruisers with great difficulty developed 20 in a stormy sea.
    For the use of weapons in any conditions, at least 25-30 thousand tons are needed.
    About autonomy and survivability, and so it is clear.
  12. Per se.
    Per se. 16 February 2022 08: 30
    +11
    Handsome men like "Peter the Great", of which there are only two left in the world, are a relic of the past.
    For today's Russia, the nuclear potential of the USSR, like the former leadership in space, is a "relic of the past" ... It may very well be that we will not be able to do a lot of things soon or will forget how to do it. This is how our mother Russia is milked and "optimized" by the henpecked masters of world capitalism.
    Therefore, the heading "Large ships go down in history" is for consolation, to our corvettes, which sometimes take 10 more years to build, and for those who do not get tired of "burialing" our fleet, talking about "Russian land".

    As for large ships, size has and will matter, both in the civilian fleet and in the military. "Handsome men like" Peter the Great "", with one presence they can cool too hot heads, ships capable of inflicting unacceptable damage to the enemy with one salvo, having a huge range and autonomy, will not replace coastal small fry.
  13. Eug
    Eug 16 February 2022 08: 41
    +6
    We need another MRA for the inter-theater maneuver.
    1. Evgesha
      Evgesha 17 February 2022 04: 25
      0
      This is so far the only, and moreover, the most economical way to carry out the transfer of forces from theater to theater !!
      The air division will be able to relocate from the Baltic Fleet to the Pacific Fleet in a day.
      And you can close the fool. So besides the MRA, we need all the other types of aviation for the sea.
      But alas .. we can say NOTHING!!!!
      They screwed up the MPA .. but the projectors with aircraft carriers are updated every year !!
      Anti-submarine aviation - one can say on its last legs .. there is no update .. the current is decommissioned by the sides
      1. Eug
        Eug 17 February 2022 07: 43
        0
        We need not only MPA as the most OPERATIONAL means of inter-theater maneuver. PLA too, but its use is much more tied to the hydrological features of a particular water area. It's more difficult...
  14. Maks1995
    Maks1995 16 February 2022 09: 26
    +5
    IMHO, the author is only partially right.

    There were articles on VO showing, using the example of wars in Asia and Persia, that small ships in direct battle lose to large ones. Large ones are also more seaworthy, technologically advanced, multifunctional, etc.

    But if there is no money - Iran, Korea, Indonesia and ..... are building small ships.
    I hid under the shore in the bay, and fell with calibers, just give me a lift. And weak air defense and weapons will allow you to fight off a helicopter or saboteurs.
    1. Ryusei
      Ryusei 16 February 2022 10: 06
      0
      Not a fact, the same states in WWII successfully hollowed out stationary naval bases and base aviation with carrier-based aircraft.
      1. Maks1995
        Maks1995 16 February 2022 10: 42
        0
        A little not.
        From planes and missiles, yes, you have to hide.
        But helicopters, hang gliders, part of the UAV - will fight off
  15. zxc15682
    zxc15682 16 February 2022 09: 44
    +5
    We take any batch Russia needs miners (miners) and minesweepers
  16. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 16 February 2022 10: 01
    +6
    Whatever ships carrying long-range weapons are, they are ineffective without a reconnaissance and target designation system covering all possible theaters of war. The creation of such knowledge-intensive systems should be a priority.
  17. Ryusei
    Ryusei 16 February 2022 10: 04
    +2
    How many letters and how often this author has nothing. Battleships were finished off not by aviation and not by size, but by economic feasibility, and by the way, with the development of anti-ship missiles, the return of armor is also possible ...
    In general, the author's nonsense and desire are outstanding for analytics ..
  18. smaug78
    smaug78 16 February 2022 11: 07
    +4
    And here the main shortcomings of large warships are clearly visible: they are slow, non-maneuverable, the main defensive means are very difficult (and often impossible) to reload at sea.
    Author, well, why write such nonsense? Watch TTX and understand your wrong. And at the expense of reloading in - good. How was "Yamato" reloaded at sea or "Iowa" do not tell me?
  19. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 16 February 2022 11: 51
    +3
    Today it is already difficult to understand who is who. It seems that the missile cruiser Ticonderoga has a total displacement of 9 tons, and the destroyer Arleigh Burke of the second series has 800 tons.

    In fact, everything is simple: initially, the future Ticonderogi were designed as destroyers - cheap carriers of the Aegis in addition to the planned new cruisers of the CSGN type. The lead Tika was originally a DDG-47.
    And only after the refusal to build CSGN "Tiki" were reclassified into cruisers. In fact, "Tika" is the destroyer "Spruence" (more precisely, "Kidd" with its pair of Mark 26 launchers) with "Aegis".
    Here it is worth recalling the 1942 operation of the year, which was carried out by the forces of the British fleet to Malta. Operation Pedestal, when simply the strongest squadron of the Royal Navy, consisting of 4 aircraft carriers, 2 battleships, 7 light cruisers, 32 destroyers, was supposed to deliver 14 transports with military cargo to Malta.
    If we leave behind the scenes the ridiculous attempts of the Italian cruisers to portray something intelligible, then German and Italian bombers and torpedo bombers, as well as submarines of the Italian fleet, acted against the squadron.
    At the cost of 2 lost submarines and 50-60 aircraft, the Germans and Italians sank 9 out of 14 transports. And besides, an aircraft carrier, 2 cruisers and a destroyer were sunk. Moreover, 34 British aircraft were shot down, an aircraft carrier and two cruisers were damaged.
    And this is not a defenseless convoy left without cover. This is a full-fledged squadron, with aircraft on aircraft carriers.

    Everything would have been fine ... only the main losses were suffered by the convoy after the departure of the main covering forces (Form W) - when 4 CR and a dozen EM remained in the cover of the ships.
  20. demiurg
    demiurg 16 February 2022 12: 23
    +4
    First, Ticonderoga will fire first at Cleveland. Even if you put a megababy from Zumwalt on Cleveland, RCC will have priority.
    Secondly, even the Harpoon can easily open 150 and 200 mm of armor. This is not yet remembering adult anti-ship missiles, such as Onyx or Basalt. I remember either here or at the military-industrial complex there were good calculations. Harpoon analogue for penetrating 254-280mm semi-armored. Moreover, penetration does not decrease with increasing distance.
    And this, 150mm is a belt that covers 40 percent of the visible silhouette.
    Well, as a reminder. Interference interferes with the work of not only the GOS anti-ship missiles, but also the means of detecting the defending ship. A reminder will also fit here that many anti-ship missiles (and anti-aircraft missiles, which can also be fired at NK) allow manual control. And there is also a GOS with two, three types of guidance (including the source of interference).
  21. Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 16 February 2022 12: 47
    -3
    The message of the entire article can be reduced to a simple thesis: "Poor, poor sailors! Stuffed them in a tin can, under the guise of a warship, only in order to feed angry and hungry sharks in the first battle, after turning them into minced meat!" I read and cried! What a zhah!
  22. Operator
    Operator 16 February 2022 13: 07
    -4
    What is big, what is a small ship - in the current conditions, a one-time thing. Therefore, we need to stamp as many small disposable things as possible with a displacement of no more than 2 thousand tons and "Zircons" on board. Surface ships - to display the flag in peacetime, submarines - for war.

    Plus, two hundred and two Poseidon NPAs - so that all opponents at once into dust.

    Large NK and submarines are scrapped.
  23. Barberry25
    Barberry25 16 February 2022 13: 19
    -1
    Well, good article. Everything is to the point .. It's not the size, but the series, in principle, the Eagles can be dangerous ships, but provided that there are a lot of them .. conditional 3 Orlans with a group of support ships is very dangerous strength, but the question is that before building large ships, you need to solve the problem of ships of smaller displacement .. And for the Black Sea Fleet, for me it should be no smaller than the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, because. he is the base for working in szm .. Well, as I already wrote, before building destroyers and cruisers, you need a large series of corvettes and frigates.
  24. Conjurer
    Conjurer 16 February 2022 13: 55
    +1
    The author somehow forgets about the combat stability of the ship. Compare destroyer and battleship of WWII. A destroyer will sink from one hit of a 305 mm projectile (400 kg of warhead - like a cruise missile), but a battleship? You are tired of drowning. And this nonsense of his about the virtues of stealth. How many times have they explained that stealth is only an American feature, everyone else understands that this is garbage. An no.
    1. Evgesha
      Evgesha 17 February 2022 04: 28
      0
      in a 305mm explosive projectile, only about 50kg.
      1. Conjurer
        Conjurer 17 February 2022 14: 24
        0
        In 400 kg warhead explosives are about the same.
        1. Evgesha
          Evgesha 17 February 2022 19: 43
          0
          Warhead WDU-18/B semi-armor-piercing high-explosive, weight 220 kg, explosive charge weight DESTEX 98 kg.
  25. Tomcat_Tomcat
    Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 14: 38
    +5
    A large ship is more weapons, both shock and defensive. This is the best seaworthiness (the ability to operate in a DMZ and use weapons in bad weather conditions. At how many points can a corvette shoot back and at how many - a missile cruiser or destroyer?) This is autonomy, without which, again, no DMZ shines. Large dimensions still mean greater survivability, the ability to install at least some kind of constructive protection (at least anti-fragmentation, which will allow localizing damage), to separate systems, to smash them into compartments. It is not a fact that one or two missiles will sink a destroyer or cruiser or inflict such damage on it that will lead to a loss of combat capability, but one missile is enough for a corvette to stop it being considered a combat unit. If not to the bottom, then to the base for repairs for sure.

    Plus, let's take into account the peaceful component of the role of the fleet. This is participation in maintaining the safety of navigation (autonomy is needed here), participation in humanitarian missions and a banal, but not so unnecessary display of the flag. How "solid" in this role will a 900-ton corvette look?

    Of course, ships of different classes are needed. And not in single copies, but in a normal series, so that combat-ready formations can be formed from them. But in the DMZ, corvettes are useless, they are not very valuable with their extremely limited air defense and anti-aircraft defense capabilities of a formation, or convoy, for example, in the coastal zone, destroyers will be redundant. The main question is what we expect from the fleet. What tasks and on what theater of operations should he perform. When it is resolved, when the concept for the development of the fleet is adopted, then it will be extremely clear what kind of ships the fleet needs to solve the tasks assigned to it.
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 16 February 2022 16: 14
      -2
      Well, comparing a destroyer and a corvette is still not entirely correct, but the issue of price and timing is more important. those. the conditional Leader costs about 120 billion rubles, but SuperGorshkov costs about 45 billion rubles, i.e. for the same amount, you can get either one destroyer with 64 missiles or 3 super-frigates with 144 missiles on board ... Well, 900 tons is the size of RTOs, and a corvette is at least 1 tons, the point is that the Thundering ones are very expensive because of the new radar. For me, it’s necessary to build boats of 500 tons, patrol boats of 500 tons based on Karakurt, 1 tons to build light frigates Burevestnik and switch to the construction of improved Pots with an eye on Super Pots ...
      1. Tomcat_Tomcat
        Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 18: 42
        +1
        Quote: Barberry25
        Well, comparing a destroyer and a corvette is still not entirely correct

        Yes, I do not compare the incomparable. A small ship is far from being able to replace a large one in all cases, and in some scenarios it is not capable at all.

        An ocean-going ship should generally start from 6 tons, and even that is not much. Yes, you can go to the ocean for 3,5 thousand and even 1,5 thousand - but ask the sailors about their impressions, what it is like. It’s not even the ability of technology, but the ability of a person to simply endure storm conditions, what use of weapons is there? Of course, much is determined by the contours of the hull, its architecture, now there are active stabilizers (but again, this is a place that is scarcely in short supply), but all other things being equal, a large ship has better seaworthiness.

        There are many books about WWII, where life on PLO corvettes as part of a convoy in the Atlantic is well described. They were called "vomiters" and "a living hell for the crew." Not to mention the living conditions - to sleep in shifts and almost on top of each other. I have been on the cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzov" - already when it was permanently moored in Novorossiysk. Even on it, the conditions for the crew are wild - and the ship has 16 thousand tons, in size it pulls on a heavy cruiser. Yes, the crews have now become noticeably smaller in the state, but mechanisms have taken their place. My opinion is that you first need to create conditions for a sane life of the crew (if the crew is exhausted by the voyage itself, what can you expect from it in battle?) And the use of weapons (if 3 points and alles kaput - then why such a ship?), This will be the minimum for the ocean ship. Then try to fit weapons and RE equipment, a power plant and a supply of fuel and provisions into that displacement, and see what comes of it.

        It is necessary to save money on ships wisely. This is an expensive and piece goods. it is most reasonable to have a certain golden mean. Indeed, in fact, the hull is a very small part of the cost of the ship. There are weapons and electronic equipment. So it is necessary to create conditions for their full functioning. In my opinion, the whole history of shipbuilding only solves the question of how to cram more into a smaller displacement. But earlier there were restrictions - according to contracts, according to the capabilities of shipyards ... now there is only the latter. So why artificially pinch the ship? And the rocket will not care if it aims at 10 thousand tons or 3,5 thousand. Only 10 thousand can respond with conditional 10 missiles from a range of 200, and 3,5 - five from a range of 40.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 16 February 2022 19: 30
          -1
          well, we need to understand the goals and objectives, and start from them, taking into account the capabilities of the shipyards .. For me, at the moment, the RTO theory is erroneous, we need generalists, and since the main zone is the Baltic, Barents, Black, Mediterranean and Japanese, we need ships in 1 500 tons to replace missile ships, RTOs, MPKs, and it will already be seen there .. you need a massive backbone that can perform current functions. Your own budget Oliver Perry
          1. Tomcat_Tomcat
            Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 32
            +1
            Quote: Barberry25
            we need to understand the goals and objectives

            so I wrote about that - let them clearly indicate the goals and objectives, and it will not be difficult to create equipment for them (with competent leadership). If BMZ is one thing, if DMZ is another.
            But, whatever one may say, small ships are not serious, from all points of view. This is a very deeply erroneous opinion that only they are needed. albeit some hybrid semi-submersible. Roman for the future. Let's start a hypothetical battle between the NK type Arleigh Burke (well, let's say, 6 ships) and your "undersize" at least 24 in number. Additional conditions, of course, need to be discussed - the type of NK, theater of operations, support, etc. And conduct it like this called "virtual" exercises. Despite the fact that I'm not a sailor, but I hope for at least a draw. And if I were an admiral, I would cut dry.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 16 February 2022 19: 44
              -1
              well, for a DMZ, for me, at least a Petrel with 16 UVP
              1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 48
                +1
                Even he is small. And the point here is not only "stuffed with weapons" For me, 2 UVPs are better than 22, but not having the ability to shoot. What's the point of your weapons if you can't use them? Eh, I was a sailor, I told a thread of something boisterous and vital, but, alas ... real life is very, very different from all theoretical calculations and fabrications.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 16 February 2022 19: 49
                  -1
                  Well, for this, you need to make a normal frigate, i.e. install Monument-A for the control center
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 16 February 2022 19: 47
              -1
              Well, here the key point of such an experiment is whether the undersized will be equipped with the Monument-A radar, which will allow them to launch missiles for several hundred kilometers on their own .. And so, 24 ships are a lot, with well-coordinated work they will drown Berks after detection and beat off any attack due to the huge number of air defense guidance channels, but I think they themselves will lose up to 10 ships
              1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 20: 04
                0
                Quote: Barberry25
                And so, 24 ships is a lot, with well-coordinated work, they will sink Berks after detection and repel any attack

                it just seems that way. Not really. available corvettes and frigates "Berka" will drown with the loss of a maximum of one ship. Yes, incredible only at first sight, incredible, if you do not know the characteristics of each of their ships and a little bit of tactics.
                But this is not a simulated situation. There are no conditions. Therefore, further discussion is simply pointless.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 16 February 2022 22: 06
                  0
                  Well, how to say it ... The Berks, in fact, have nothing to drown, they have only 6 Harpoons for the 48th, but if we assume that they will load 56 PKR Tomahawks for each, they recently raised the topic, the maximum load, then 336 PKR will come out in a total salvo .. .if we assume that we have a small size, say, a budget Shell and a 76 mm air defense gun, then we have 72 channels for simultaneous shelling, which is sooo much, in fact 5 PKR per ship, moreover, each small size by state will have 4 pkr say onyx or zircon, then this is 96 pkr, which are very difficult to intercept .. i.e. 16 PKR per destroyer ...
                  1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                    Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 22: 24
                    0
                    Quote: Barberry25
                    well that's how to say...

                    that's the point. You talk about a spherical horse in a vacuum
                    Let's say, let's say ... no conditions, no theater, nothing. Even on paper, the berks will have an advantage - we load two ships of pure air defense systems and PLURs, the rest - anti-ship missiles. We take into account that the missiles have ARGSN, which means there will be a lot of interception channels. We competently build an order, we detach one ship as a radar patrol. We take into account a volley that will surpass your corvettes, which, in fact, have nothing to fight off 380 missiles (and even from 220) (their radars are not able to conduct so many targets), and destroyers have good missile defense. Yes, I would even bet on two Orlans against a pack of corvettes, if there are sensible commanders on the cruisers. They will shoot them with greater efficiency, and that's it.

                    A large number of small ships have only one advantage - to fall suddenly and all at once. If conditions permit. In all others, they will lose.
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 16 February 2022 22: 45
                      -1
                      well, it’s already been adjusted) you can specify a lot of things, For example, if the meeting is less than 40 km, then you can even use shells .. in any case, 6 destroyers will not be able to overcome 24 corvettes even if they are super-karakurts, and if they are guarding , the more so
                      1. Tomcat_Tomcat
                        Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 22: 59
                        0
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        well, it's already a setup)

                        from what? I even didn’t say that part of the UVP cells can be loaded not with standard SMs, but with smaller missiles, several per cell, although their range is smaller. And instead of mythical Axes, use LRASM, etc. In general, I said one thing:
                        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
                        But this is not a simulated situation. There are no conditions. Therefore, further discussion is simply pointless.
                        Well, if you introduce conditions for bad weather, when your corvettes will not only be unable to use weapons, but will barely stay on the water and their crews will be green from pitching, then there will be questions of who wins?
                        it was you who continued all sorts of simulations without having conditions.
                        Generally. we should strive for some kind of burke, if we think about the ship of the ocean zone. He is probably the most balanced ship of the currently existing, although, in my opinion, he still lacks displacement. The ship was overloaded. But there are good radars and air defense systems available, which can be loaded as you please - depending on the task of the ship, and the same type of ship in the order can play different roles - attack, air defense, anti-aircraft defense. And not only "here - missiles, here - anti-ship missiles, and nothing more."
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 17 February 2022 07: 24
                        0
                        well, these are the oceans .. they are still far away)
  26. Hog
    Hog 16 February 2022 15: 33
    +2
    A very strange article (to put it mildly).
    The size of the ship is the size of its weapons, and seaworthiness, and combat stability, etc.
    What is the use of corvettes, and even more so missile boats, in the far sea zone in weather other than calm (it’s already good if they don’t sink, but it’s not worth talking about completing a combat mission)?
    PS: I wonder where the same GAK Polinom would be stuffed onto some kind of corvette?
  27. gregor6549
    gregor6549 16 February 2022 15: 43
    -2
    Thanks Roman for an interesting article.
    To be honest, the abundance of publications here on the topic of Ukraine is already enough, especially since a significant part of them is based on speculation, the opinions of "well-known experts", and in many comments there is a clear desire to wipe Ukraine off the face of the Earth along with its people. At the same time, it is somehow forgotten that such commentators can be erased. Well, Boch with them. There have always been war parties in all countries, and Russia is no exception.
    As for surface ships, instead of them I would develop a two-medium class of ships that could operate under water most of the time and would surface only to perform those tasks that require such an ascent (landing and fire support of the landing, launching manned and / or unmanned vehicles and their acceptance on board after the completion of the flight task, etc.).
    Even twenty years or more ago, the same China seriously considered the possibility of building an aircraft carrier based on a submarine. Why not? Submarines of large displacement have already learned how to build (the Soviet "Akula" is an example of this), the launch of aircraft from it can be completely ensured using solid-fuel return boosters, following the example of the airfield-free launch of MIG 19 aircraft, which was experimented with back in the 50s, for their landing there are enough aerofinishers for the benefit of a large submarine may well find a place for such a landing. For long-range detection, it is quite possible to use balloon-tethered radars. or retractable masts, etc.)
    Well, if surface ships are kept as a class, then volens - nevolens will have to think about booking them, because. sinking modern "cardboard" vessels with even weak ammunition is not a problem. And don't bother with their invisibility. the same wake of a ship is detected from the sky faster than the ship itself
  28. Basarev
    Basarev 16 February 2022 16: 11
    -1
    In general, as I predicted. No need for a pretentious ocean fleet with huge and terribly expensive ships. We need a dull and practical, strong coastal fleet, nothing more. And yes, warships are only the highest link in a huge naval pyramid. Others are also needed. We need minesweepers, we need search and rescue ships, we need communication ships ... In general, all those inconspicuous hard workers who reduce the task of a warship to reaching a position and launching missiles.
  29. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 16 February 2022 17: 34
    +1
    A very entertaining article with an important question - the feasibility of building large ships in the modern world. The facts do show a trend towards building a fleet based on destroyers and frigates (although some models do not fit their names according to the usual classification). But the conclusion is completely wrong.
    Yes, more powerful weapons can now be put on lighter ships. Yes, 3 ships are more difficult to destroy than 1 larger one (at least from the need to shoot 3-4 times and not 1-2). But the factor of communication systems, electronic warfare, target designation, air defense / missile defense / anti-aircraft defense systems, which take up a lot of space and consume much more energy, is not taken into account at all. This means that light ships will not be able to carry and use them. Trite area and displacement of the ship is not enough.
    You propose to make a lot of light ships with good weapons. And it doesn't sound bad, a group of small and fast ships, enters the attack range, makes a volley and quickly leaves. But in reality, everything is more complicated. Firstly, on a small ship, the radar will also be small, which means that the visibility radius is low. So the ships will have to come close. You can use aviation, but this will deprive you of stealth and surprise. With a small size, there may not be enough space on the ship for high-quality PLO, and then some of the cooables may simply not reach the target. It's the same with air defense. You can't build good air defense on a small ship. And you can’t run away from an airplane / rocket / UAV - they are orders of magnitude faster. Part of the systems and weapons may even stop working quickly and efficiently as intended, simply because a light ship can get into heavy seas. And the enemy will not be noble, will not wait for good weather so that we work at full strength. Not to mention the fact that some of the systems needed by the squadron / fleet / group of systems are physically impossible to place on a small ship.
    1. Tomcat_Tomcat
      Tomcat_Tomcat 16 February 2022 19: 53
      +1
      Quote: Mustachioed Kok
      Yes, more powerful weapons can now be put on lighter ships.

      no. Powerful weapons could always be put on ships. An example to you - monitors. Some had a truly battleship caliber.
      Well, what was the use of such ships?

      you can bet on what minute in the ocean the battleship will drown this misunderstanding. Nevertheless, these floating guns were useful. Along the coast, if there is no resistance. Only they had several hundred shells, and modern "monitors" had 8 missiles maximum.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 16 February 2022 23: 13
        0
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        you can bet on what minute in the ocean the battleship will drown this misunderstanding.

        "Goeben" and "Raglan". smile
  30. bk0010
    bk0010 16 February 2022 20: 49
    +3
    The very minimum displacement of a normal ocean ship is 6000 tons, more or less normal - 8000 tons. Instead of ship trifles, land-based missile systems can now be made - it will come out cheaper. Protecting a ship with a military capacity of less than 4000 tons with a Polyment-Redut type complex is expensive, and less steep is pointless (for our enemy, it is aviation that is the main strike force at sea). We have few ships, so they must be universal. So no, our ships must be large, since even small ships will still be expensive for us, but they will have unpleasant limitations. The states also have large ships, as they must accompany and protect the aircraft carrier. But the Swedes, for example, can follow the precepts of the author of the article.
  31. Aag
    Aag 16 February 2022 21: 07
    +1
    Sorry, off topic...
    I carefully read all the comments (the article, - diagonally, because - the message is clear. And the argument is controversial ...).
    I understand the situation as follows: there are no clear, clear tasks for the Navy for the next stage ...
    Even otherwise, the tasks of countering the enormity, but, due to the unavailability (of the command, the military-industrial complex ...), we still won’t be able to solve it promptly ... Let's try, at least, to work for the future (since the current stage failed, - The Strategic Missile Forces will cover ...).
    Well, let's!... hi
  32. DED_peer_DED
    DED_peer_DED 16 February 2022 23: 33
    +1
    Handsome men like "Peter the Great", of which there are only two left in the world, are a relic of the past.

    This is actually a piece of the country that has come off the mainland. Floating universal garrison, regiment, division with all their services, support and warehouses. A long arm for everyone there, recalcitrant and vacillating.
  33. bulava74
    bulava74 17 February 2022 03: 35
    0
    There is an interesting book series "Project Orlan".
    The plot is fantastic, but the problems with the use of the "Granite" type CR are described there quite truthfully.
    The main thing: "KR requires target illumination." In conditions where it is impossible to produce, all missiles become rubbish. Having a bunch of small-class ships, which the author of the article advocates, but without reliable target designation, a small ship is not capable of anything significant.

    In modern warfare, the role of electronic warfare will increase more than ever. This means that the hopes for the successful application of various methods of target illumination will tend to zero.

    Indirectly, this is evidenced by the latest facts on the use of electronic warfare in the Black Sea.
  34. bulava74
    bulava74 17 February 2022 04: 20
    +1
    There is an interesting book series "Project Orlan". The plot is fantastic, but the existing difficulties in using the Granit cruise missile are described quite reliably. Of course, the author kept silent about something, but he named the main problem in the use of CR - target illumination.

    In the conditions of modern warfare, the role of electronic warfare has increased incredibly. We see this in real military conflicts. Jamming of space, mobile, radio communications; damage to electronic equipment; setting false goals; jamming of radar equipment. As a result, the probability of receiving target designations of the CD decreases.

    If a country has a mosquito fleet that can only operate in the BMZ, then it deliberately gives the initiative to the enemy.

    The author mistakenly builds his theory, only on the facts of today. But we know that the main factor in reducing the number of DMZ ships is their cost. It is prohibitive for new ships and tolerable enough for modernization.
  35. Atlant1164
    Atlant1164 17 February 2022 07: 24
    +2
    There is military science. She proved long ago that a mosquito fleet without large ships is not combat resistant. She proved long ago that a submarine will not leave the base without a support operation, which is exactly what the big ships are doing. The case of the discovery of Virginia at the recent exercises of the Pacific Fleet is as indicative as possible. Military science proved long ago that too many tasks should not be assigned to one branch of the armed forces. One cannot be developed at the expense of others. Aviation alone cannot cope with the destruction of the fleet of a potential enemy. It is heterogeneous weapons that make it possible to offset each other's shortcomings and use the advantages to the full.
    I'm not saying that the composition and dimensions necessary to solve the load of weapons determine the size of the ship.
    But the author, apparently, does not know all this. Well, or he justifies the leadership of the country, which scored on the construction of a large fleet.
  36. link
    link 17 February 2022 10: 16
    -1
    Quote: Mustachioed Kok
    A very entertaining article with an important question - the feasibility of building large ships in the modern world.

    You don't speak for the whole world. The world is different. For example, Belarus does not need any ships. She has no sea. Large ships are needed by countries that have free access to the ocean. Russia's need for large ships is limited to just that. What is the point of keeping a cruiser or an aircraft carrier in the Caspian, Baltic, Japanese or Black Seas with their trap straits? For these seas, there will be enough small ships, submarines, BRAVs and aviation based on the coast. But the Kola Peninsula and Kamchatka are suitable as a base for large ships, and they are needed specifically for the DMZ. As long as there is an ocean, there is expediency in building large ships.
  37. nedgen
    nedgen 17 February 2022 11: 48
    0
    Hello Roman, unfortunately I do not know your middle name. An interesting article, but there is one very big BUT. Small ships are good, but it’s very problematic for them to fight off even an ordinary jet attack aircraft of the Su-25 type NOT CARRYING anti-ship missiles. It’s just that you can’t install a normal radar with AFAR on them (the dimensions don’t allow) and still don’t install a normal air defense system of at least the Buk type. Well, yes, some small ships have a dagger air defense system, etc. but this is a short-range air defense system and against anti-ship missiles .... Another very important thing is the low seaworthiness of small ships. For them, sea waves of more than 3 balls are already a problem. very often it simply excludes the use of weapons (excluding, of course, art complexes, and even for them, the accuracy of shooting drops.) In the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic Ocean, this is more than noticeable. There, small ships just have to keep to the coast. But frigates and destroyers are another matter. They also have restrictions on the use of weapons, but they are higher (I mean excitement). And unfortunately, submarines are far from being as invisible as before. And they also have an unrecoverable drawback (perhaps for now) They are absolutely defenseless against aviation. And she learned to detect submarines at depths of at least 50 m at a distance of tens of kilometers. And at depths greater than 50m, RCC or BR cannot be used (yet). And eo means only one thing, if a submarine emerges into the patrol area of ​​a submarine aviation at depths that allow the use of anti-ship missiles, then the probability of its detection increases dramatically by orders of magnitude. Of course, it all depends on the MTO conditions, but unfortunately this is the case. And our "partners" have very developed systems for low-frequency detection of submarines. They can detect a submarine even at a depth at distances of an order of magnitude, if not two, exceeding the detection systems of just 20 years ago. And this means that submarines still need to be covered, whether by aviation or air defense located on ships, and for this, unfortunately, small ships are not suitable precisely because of their small size. Of course, probably no one will build cruisers like Peter the Great anymore, but ships with a displacement of 10-15 tons, unfortunately, have no alternative yet. Just like the tanks in SV. Although I liked the article in general. hi
  38. Illanatol
    Illanatol 17 February 2022 13: 40
    0
    Quote: Baron Pardus
    Laser radiation is easily detected. UAVs easily get lost, especially over the sea where they cannot hide in the folds of the terrain.


    It's so easy. First, hit a small apparatus at a distance of 10-20 km. An air defense missile will cost an order of magnitude more ... well, let the ship spend them, depleting its air defense resources.
    Such UAVs can be relatively small and cheap, because the payload is small. Well, a low-power laser with a battery, a TV camera for control ... fuel, of course.
    And you can run several of them.
  39. iv.victor
    iv.victor 18 February 2022 20: 05
    0
    Our "big ships" (sorry, I write as in the title) have long gone down in history. And, of course, there will be commentators who will prove that we do not need them. Like, it's easy to drown them, or even better, that's our strategy.
  40. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 18 February 2022 20: 37
    0
    Cruisers as a class are leaving. But super-destroyers larger than cruisers are coming to replace them. This is such a dialectic. :)
  41. Alex968m
    Alex968m 18 February 2022 20: 56
    0
    The frigate is a ship of the far sea zone, the destroyer is the ocean! All developed countries have destroyers!
    Again, you contradict yourself: the destroyer has 96 missiles, the frigate has half as many, and the corvette / MRK has 2-4. Well, whose value as a combat unit is higher?
    Going on the attack against the AUG on a corvette (which, according to the Soviet classification, is a patrol ship) is the same as against a machine gun with a pistol.
  42. Alex968m
    Alex968m 18 February 2022 21: 07
    0
    And yes - Varshavyanka is already an outdated eyeliner, Frets must be built! (which, thank God, has already begun)
    Also, instead of Ash, it would be time to switch to Husky.
    But it is not worth relying entirely on the submarine fleet. It is necessary to develop the surface in parallel, building incl. destroyers.
  43. starshina
    starshina 19 February 2022 15: 00
    0
    It is immediately clear that the author of this article has never served in the Navy at all and has never been on a warship !!! The complete stupidity and stupidity of the article immediately catches the eye and I don’t even feel like commenting on this opus !!! It would be nice to put the author on Karakurt and send him to the Atlantic Ocean in a nine-point storm and after he has a good chat for a couple of hours and then, without having naval bases abroad and without logistics, make him repair all the damage after the storm and then complete the combat mission assigned to the ship !!! After all these adventures, I would ask him again to write an article about the uselessness of surface ships of the first rank !!!
  44. Bat039
    Bat039 20 February 2022 11: 48
    +1
    In general, nothing new. The eternal dispute continues about the need for large surface ships, the need for which the adherents of the theory of the mosquito fleet have been disputed since the end of the 19th century, and they have been disputed unsuccessfully, since the next war clearly proves the inconsistency of this very mosquito fleet. In the USSR, after the war in Spain was drained, adherents of the mosquito fleet were simply shot, since hundreds of torpedo boats and baby submarines that the USSR had were unable to protect Soviet sea communications and transport ships carrying military cargo to Spain .... It is obvious to any educated person that small ships, most often not universal (these live up to the first submarine or enemy aircraft), or universal, but with low seaworthiness, cruising range, restrictions on the use of weapons in bad weather and a small ammunition load, cannot be the basis of the fleet. Yes, small ships are needed, but the fleet must be balanced, it cannot consist of only aircraft carriers, or only RTOs, this is an absurdity bordering on a crime that makes the fleet incapable of combat ... The fact that frigates are increasing in size today just says that in a small hull it is impossible to place decent ammunition, a decent supply of fuel, decent search engines and decent fire control systems, ensure decent seaworthiness and the ability to use weapons in any weather.
  45. Eule
    Eule 3 March 2022 23: 49
    -1
    An important problem has been forgotten - fire support for landing on the coasts of third world countries in the course of peacekeeping operations. Somali and Malay pirates, other drug dealers - they need to be bombarded with cheap 8 inch and 12 inch shells from long-range cannons without wasting expensive rockets.
  46. 3danimal
    3danimal 6 July 2022 03: 35
    0
    with this huge bunch of ships that consume money in huge quantities and are not capable of anything like that.

    70+ "Ticonderog" and "Arly Berkov" are not capable of anything?
    Does the author contradict himself? Indeed, at the beginning of the article, he quite described their advantages to himself.
    Unlike archaic lines. cruisers pr 1144, on Tiki and Berki, all air defense is tied to one BIUS, which is already being developed by more than 30.
    Universal UVP, maximum application flexibility.
    Yes, expensive, but with excellent seaworthiness, range, air defense / anti-aircraft defense / strike capabilities.
    Another thing is that in the big Kolin only the USA and China can build them like that.