Military Review

In the wake of heavy cruisers

41
In the wake of heavy cruisers

In 1962, there was a loud emergency on the Long Beach cruiser. In the course of firing practice in the presence of high-ranking officials of the state, among whom was President Kennedy himself, the newest nuclear missile cruiser could not intercept an air target. Annoyed, Kennedy inquired about the Long Beach armament. Having learned that the cruiser is completely missing artillery (there is only 4 missile complex), he, as a former sailor, recommended adding a couple of guns of universal caliber.

So, a bold idea to build a ship with a pure rocket weapons crashed. Soon, Kennedy was killed, and the Long Beach rocket cruiser has since carried two 127 mm guns on deck. Ironically, in the 30 years of service, the cruiser has never used his artillery, but regularly fired rockets. And, every time, hit the target.

On the other side of the ocean, similar processes took place. Immediately after the death of Joseph Stalin, in 1953 the construction of heavy cruisers of Project 82 “Stalingrad” was discontinued (total displacement - 43 thousand tons). Naval command fleet, including the legendary Admiral N.G. Kuznetsov, unequivocally spoke out against these ships: complex, expensive, and, by that time, already obsolete. The estimated cruising range of Stalingrad did not exceed 5000 miles with a 15-nodal course. In all other respects, the heavy cruiser was 10-20% inferior to its foreign counterparts, its anti-aircraft weapons caused many questions. Even the beautiful 305 mm guns could not save the situation - naval battle threatened to turn into a second Tsushima.

However, right up to the middle of the 1950s, the USSR had no real technical capabilities to create a powerful ocean nuclear missile fleet and was forced to build ships with conventional artillery and torpedo-mine weapons. In the period from 1949 to 1955, the naval staff of the USSR Navy was supplemented with fourteen artillery cruisers of the project 68-bis (type "Sverdlov"). Originally created for defensive operations in coastal waters, these 14 ships soon turned out to be one of the few effective means of the USSR Navy for launching paralyzing attacks against aircraft-carrier strike forces of the “likely enemy”. In moments of aggravation of the international situation, the cruisers of the 68-bis Ave were tightly stuck to the American AUG, threatening to bring down on the aircraft carrier decks at any moment hundreds of kilograms of deadly metal from their twelve 152 mm guns. At the same time, the cruiser itself could not pay attention to the 76 mm fire and the 127 mm guns of American escort cruisers - thick armor reliably protected the crew and mechanisms from such primitive ammunition.

The cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzov" project 68-bis.
Displacement 18 thousand tons, the maximum speed of 35 knots, turning: 12x152 mm guns of the main caliber, 12х100 mm guns of the universal caliber, 8 anti-aircraft guns AK-230. Bronepoyas - 100mm.


Among the lovers of the naval stories It is believed that the construction of three heavy cruisers of the “Stalingrad” type instead of 14 “68-bis” could significantly enhance the potential of the Soviet Navy — nine 305 mm heavy cruiser guns could sink the strike aircraft carrier in several volleys, and their range of fire exceeded the range of 152 mm guns. Alas, the reality turned out to be more prosaic - the cruising range of the 68-bis cruisers reached 8000 nautical miles at the operational speed of 16-18 knots - enough to operate in any region of the World Ocean (as noted earlier, the calculated cruising range of Stalingrad was almost two times less: 5000 miles on 15 knots.). Moreover, time did not allow to wait - it was required to fill the Navy of the USSR as quickly as possible with new ships. The first “68-bis” was put into operation already in 1952, while the construction of “Stalingrad” could only be completed by the end of 50's.

Of course, in the event of a real combat clash, 14 artillery cruisers also did not guarantee success - while tracking U.S. Navy carrier groups over Soviet ships, a swarm of carrier-based attack aircraft and bombers, ready to pounce on their victim from all the rings, waved. According to the experience of World War II, it is known that during an attack aviation the cruiser, similar in design to the 68 bis, from the moment the attack began to the moment when the mast of the ship was hiding in the waves, a time interval of 8-15 minutes passed. The cruiser lost its combat effectiveness in the first seconds of the attack. The capabilities of the 68 bis air defense system remained at the same level, and the speed of jet aircraft increased several times (the climb rate of the piston Avenger was 4 m / s; the climb rate of the reactive Skyhaw was 40 m / s).

It would seem, absolutely losing deal. The optimism of the Soviet admirals was based on the fact that the only successful hit could paralyze the AUG - just recall the terrible fire on the deck of an aircraft carrier from the accidentally triggered 127 mm NURS. The cruiser and its crew member 1270, of course, will die the death of the brave, but the AUG will significantly lose its combat capability.
Fortunately, all these theories have remained unconfirmed. The 68-bis cruisers appeared on the ocean in good time and honestly served 40 for years as part of the Navy of the USSR and the Indonesian Navy. Even when the basis of the Soviet Navy was nuclear submarine rocket carriers and space targeting systems, the old cruisers were still used as control ships, and, if necessary, they could take a battalion of marines on their decks and support the landing force with fire.

Inglorious scum

During the Cold War in NATO countries, the carrier-based concept of fleet development was adopted, brilliantly proving itself during World War II. All the main tasks, including strikes on surface and ground targets, were assigned to aircraft carriers - deck planes could hit objects at a distance of hundreds of kilometers from the squadron, which gave seafarers exceptional control of the sea. The ships of the other types performed primarily escort functions or were used as anti-submarine weapons.

HMS Vanguard, 1944 year. One of the best battleships on the totality of characteristics. Displacement - 50 thousand tons. The main caliber - eight 381 mm guns. Citadel Belt - 343 ... 356 mm Armored Steel

Large guns and thick armor of battleships had no place in the new hierarchy. In 1960, the UK sent its only battleship Vanguard for scrapping. In the United States, relatively new South Dakota type battleships were retired in 1962. The only exception was the four battleships of the Iowa type, two of which managed to take part in the operation against Iraq. The last half-century of "Iowa" periodically appeared on the sea, so that, after shelling the coast of Korea, Vietnam or Lebanon, disappear again, falling asleep on long-term conservation. Did such creators see such a destination for their ships?

The nuclear missile era has changed all ideas about familiar things. Of the entire composition of the Navy, only strategic submarine rocket carriers could operate effectively in a global nuclear war. Otherwise, the navy lost its importance and retrained in the performance of police functions in local wars. The aircraft carriers did not escape this fate - for the past half a century, the image of “aggressors against third world countries” who can only fight against the Papuans has firmly established itself. In fact, it is a powerful naval weapon, capable of inspecting 100 thousand square meters in an hour. kilometers of the ocean surface and strikes many hundreds of kilometers from the ship’s side, created entirely for another war. But, fortunately, their capabilities remained unclaimed.

The reality turned out to be even more discouraging: while the superpowers were preparing for a world nuclear war, perfecting the anti-nuclear defense of the ships and dismantling the last layers of armor, the number of local conflicts grew around the globe. While strategic submarines were hiding under the ice of the Arctic, ordinary destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers performed their usual functions: they provided “no-fly zones”, carried out a blockade and de-blockade of sea communications, provided fire support to ground forces, served as an arbitrator in international disputes, forcing by their presence “ debaters "to the world.

The culmination of these events was the Falklands War - the UK regained control over the islands lost in the Atlantic 12 thousand kilometers from its shores. The decrepit weakened empire has shown that no one has the right to challenge it, thereby strengthening its international authority. Despite the presence of nuclear weapons in Britain, the conflict proceeded on a scale of modern naval combat - with missile destroyers, tactical aircraft, conventional bombs and high-precision weapons. And the fleet in this war played a key role. Especially distinguished two British aircraft carrier - "Hermes" and "Invincible". In relation to them, the word "aircraft carriers" must be quoted. Both ships had limited characteristics, a small air group of vertical take-off planes and did not carry DRLO planes. But even these replicas of real aircraft carriers and two dozen subsonic "Sea Harriers" became a formidable obstacle for the Argentine missile-carrying aircraft, not allowing the Royal Navy to be completely sunk.

Atomic killer

In the middle of the 70, the US Navy began to return to the idea of ​​a heavy cruiser capable of operating off enemy coasts without the support of its own aircraft — a real ocean bandit capable of cracking down on any of the possible opponents. This is how the CSGN (cruiser, strike, guided missle, nuclear-powered) atomic strike cruiser, a large (full 18 000 ton displacement) project of a ship with powerful missile weapons and (attention!) Large caliber artillery, appeared. In addition, for the first time in the American fleet it was planned to install the Aegis system.

It was planned to include in the armament of the prospective cruiser CSGN:
- 2 slant launchers Mk.26 Ammunition - 128 anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles.
- 2 armored launchers ABL. Ammunition - 8 "Tomahawks"
- 2 launchers Mk.141 Ammunition - 8 RCC "Harpoon"
- 203 mm highly automated 8 ”/ 55 Mk.71 with the awkward name MCLWG. The prospective naval gun had a 12 fire rate per min / min, while the maximum firing range was 29 kilometers. The mass of the installation is 78 tons (including the store for 75 shots). Calculation - 6 people.
- 2 helicopter or VTOL



Of course, nothing like this in reality has appeared. The 203-mm gun was not sufficiently effective compared to the 127 mm gun Mk.45 - the accuracy and reliability of the MCLWG were unsatisfactory, while the lightweight 22-tonne Mk.45 had 2 times greater fire rate and, in general, no need for a new large-caliber artillery system It was.
The CSGN cruiser finally ruined the nuclear power plant — after several years of operation of the first nuclear cruisers, it became clear that the YSU, even if the price aspect was not considered, significantly deteriorates the characteristics of the cruiser — a sharp increase in displacement, a lower combat survivability. Modern gas turbines easily provide the 6-7 cruise range thousands of miles at operating speeds 20 knots. - more from warships is not required (under normal conditions of development of the Navy in Yokohama should not go ships of the Northern Fleet, there must go the Pacific Fleet). Moreover, the autonomy of the cruiser is determined not only by fuel reserves. Simple truths about them have already been said many times.

203 mm Major Caliber Lightweight Gun Tests

In short, the CSGN project was bent, giving way to Ticonderoga type missile cruisers. Among conspiracy theorists are of the opinion that the CSGN is a special operation of the CIA, designed to send the Soviet Navy along the wrong path of building the Orlan. This is hardly the case, given that all the elements of the supercar are somehow embodied in reality.

Rocket Dreadnought

In discussions at the “Military Review” forum, the idea of ​​a highly protected missile-artillery cruiser was repeatedly discussed. Indeed, in the absence of confrontation at sea, such a ship has several advantages in local wars. First, the “rocket dreadnought” is an excellent platform to accommodate hundreds of cruise missiles. Secondly, everything that is within 50 km radius (surface ships, fortifications on the coast) can be swept away by its 305 mm guns (twelve-inch caliber - the optimal combination of power, rate of fire and mass of the installation). Thirdly, a unique level of security, unattainable for most modern ships (only atomic attack aircraft carriers can afford 150-200 mm booking).

The most paradoxical thing is all these weapons (cruise missiles, systems, air defense, powerful artillery, helicopters, booking, radio electronics), according to preliminary calculations, easily fit into the Queen Elizabeth super-drednouta, which was laid exactly 100 years ago - in October 1912 of the year!

HMS Warspite - a super dreadnought type Queen Elizabeth, beginning of the twentieth century

An 800 vertical launcher of type Mk.41 requires an area of ​​at least 750 square meters. m. For comparison: two main aft caliber towers "Queen Elizabeth" occupy 1100 square. The mass of the 800 UVP is comparable to the mass of heavily armored two-gun towers with 381 mm caliber guns, along with their barbettes and armored charging cellars. Instead of sixteen 152 mm medium-caliber guns, 6-8 anti-aircraft Kortik or Palash complexes can be installed. The caliber of the bow artillery will decrease to 305 mm - again, a substantial saving in displacement. Over the past 100 years, there has been tremendous progress in the field of power plants and automation - all this should entail a reduction in the displacement of the “rocket dreadnought”.

Of course, with such metamorphoses, the appearance of the ship, its metacentric height and articles of load will completely change. To bring the external forms and content of the ship to the norm will require a long hard work of the whole scientific team. But the main thing is that there is not a single fundamental prohibition of such “modernization”.
The only question that stands in stride is the price of such a ship. I offer readers an original plot: try to evaluate the “rocket dreadnought” of the “Queen Elizabeth - 2012” type in comparison with the missile destroyer of the “Arly Burk” type, and we will do it not based on boring exchange rates, but using open source data + a drop of sound logic. The result, I promise, will be very funny.

So, Aegis-destroyer type "Arly Burke", IIA sub-series. Full displacement - approx. 10 000 tons. Armament:
- 96 cells UVP Mk.41
- one mm 127 gun Mk.45
- 2 anti-aircraft complex self-defense "Phalanx", 2 automatic gun "Bushmaster" (caliber 25 mm)
- 2 torpedo tubes caliber 324 mm
- helicopter pad, helicopter hangar on 2, shop on 40 aircraft ammunition

The cost of "Arly Burke" averages 1,5 billion dollars. This colossal figure is determined by three almost equal components:
500 million - the cost of the steel case.
500 million - the cost of the GEM, the mechanisms and equipment of the ship.
500 million - the cost of the Aegis system and weapons.

1. Body According to preliminary calculations, the mass of steel structures of the Arly Burk building is within 5,5 - 6 thousand tons.
The mass of the hull and armor of the battleship type "Queen Elizabeth" is well known - 17 thousand tons. Those. It takes three times more metal than a small destroyer. From the point of view of banal erudition and unfathomable eternal truth, the empty case box of Queen Elizabeth stands as a modern destroyer of the Arly Burk type - 1,5 billion dollars. And a penny less.
(By this, it is still necessary to take into account the cheapening of the construction of “Arly Burke” due to the large-scale construction, but this calculation does not pretend to mathematical accuracy).

2. GEM, mechanisms and equipment.
“Arly Burke” is driven by 4 gas turbines LM2500 with a total power of 80 thousand hp. Also, there are three emergency gas turbines manufactured by the Allison company.
The initial power of the Queen Elizabeth Power Plant was 75 thousand hp. - this was enough to ensure the speed of the 24 node. Of course, in modern conditions this is an unsatisfactory result - to increase the maximum speed of the ship to 30 ties. need twice as powerful power plant.
Onboard the Queen Elizabeth, 250 was originally located in tons of fuel - the British super-dreadnought could crawl 5000 miles at 12 knots.
Aboard the destroyer Arly Burke 1500 tons of kerosene JP-5. This is sufficient to ensure the range of 4500 miles 20-knots miles. the course.
Quite obviously, “Queen Elizabeth - 2012” in order to preserve the characteristics of “Arly Burke” will require twice as much fuel, i.e. twice as many tanks, pumps and fuel lines.
Also, a multiple increase in the size of the ship, the number of weapons and equipment on board will cause the crew of the Queen Elizabeth - 2012 to double, at least, compared to the Arly Burke.
Without misleadingly, we will increase the initial cost of the GEM, the mechanisms and equipment of the missile destroyer exactly twice - the cost of the “rocket dreadnought” will be 1 billion dollars. Anyone else have doubts about this?

3. "Aegis" and weapons
The most interesting chapter. The cost of the Aegis system, including all ship’s electronic systems, is 250 million. The remaining 250 million is the cost of the destroyer weapon. As for the Aegis system of destroyers of the Arly Burk type, there is a modification with limited characteristics on them, for example, there are only three radar target lights. For example, there are four of them on the cruiser Tikonderoga.

From the point of view of logic, all the Arly Burk’s armament can be divided into two main components: the Mk.41 launch cells and other systems (artillery, self-defense anti-aircraft systems, jammers, torpedo tubes, equipment for helicopter maintenance). I suppose it is possible to assume that both components are of equal value, i.e. 250 mln. / 2 = 125 mln. Dollars - in any case, this will have little effect on the final result.
So, the cost of 96 launch cells 125 million dollars. In the case of “rocket dreadnought” “Queen Elizabeth - 2012” the number of cells increases 8 times - up to 800 UVP. Accordingly, their value will increase 8 times - up to 1 billion dollars. Any objections to this?

Artillery main caliber. The five-inch lightweight Mk.45 marine cannon weighs 22 tons. The 12-inch Mk.8 naval gun used on ships during the Second World War had a mass of 55 tons. That is, even without taking into account the technological difficulties and laboriousness of production, this system requires 2,5 times more metal. For Queen Elizabeth - 2012, four such guns are required.

Auxiliary systems. On “Arly Burke” two “Phalanxes” and two “Bushmasters”, on the “rocket dreadnought” 8 of much more complex rocket-artillery complexes “Kortik”. The number of SBROC launchers for shooting dipole reflectors increased two to three times. Aviation equipment will remain the same - 2 helicopter, hangar and landing platform, fuel tank and ammunition store.

I believe it is possible to increase the initial value of this property eight times - from 125 million to 1 billion dollars.

Here, perhaps, that's all. I hope the reader will be able to properly evaluate this terrible hybrid "Queen Elizabeth-2012", which is a combination of an old British ship and Russian-American weapon systems. The meaning is literally the following, in terms of elementary mathematics, the cost of the “rocket dreadnought” with 800 UVP, armor and artillery will be at least 4,75 billion dollars, which is comparable to the value of the nuclear aircraft carrier. At the same time, the “rocket dreadnought” will not have a share of the capabilities of an aircraft carrier. Perhaps this is the rejection of the construction of such a "vundervaffe" in all countries of the world.
Author:
41 comment
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. Kibb
    Kibb 29 September 2012 09: 15
    +9
    Bravo Oleg, very good
    1. Isr
      Isr 29 September 2012 23: 39
      -1
      Quote: Oleg Kaptsov
      Inglorious scum

      I read this paragraph and did not understand what the title has to do with the content. "Inglourious scum" - so who are they? And what does the Falklands crisis have to do with it?
  2. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 29 September 2012 09: 17
    +6
    nobody canceled the clinch, and a cruiser or destroyer (a large unit by today's standards) looks ridiculous and cannot, relatively cheaply, mix shit out of a battalion that has dug in on the shore and supports its own) guns are needed, cheap and cheerful. In any conflict, the most important thing is to kill the enemy soldiers and what will be scared, for example, Japanese marines, a cruise missile or an ordinary six-inch?)
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 30 September 2012 11: 47
      0
      In part, the concept of artillery support was supposed to be solved on the Zamvolta, although two 152-mm are not a 12-inch gun, but also not a 127-mm one.
      However, such artillery support is controversial. First, by the time of the landing, strategically important elements of the defense must be hit by the same RCs, and then the coast must be processed by AUG aviation. In principle, the Hornets can also support the landing. And no one has canceled attack helicopters.
      Therefore, the US Navy did not create a specialized artillery support ship. Zamvolty is an attempt at proof of concept and the creation of an artillery support opportunity "just in case." Thus, artillery support from destroyers and (or) cruisers can take place, but only under a certain set of circumstances. Accordingly, this is a secondary issue, at least for the United States.
      1. Kars
        Kars 30 September 2012 11: 55
        +1
        Quote: Bronis
        In principle, the Hornets can also support the landing. And no one has canceled attack helicopters.


        Response time to a support request? Helicopters and planes will have to enter the air defense zone. Even MANPADS
        Quote: Bronis
        strategic defense elements

        There aren’t enough missiles for every pillbox.
        Quote: Bronis
        this is a minor issue, at least for the US

        ONLY for the USA.
        Let’s fantasize about Mistral’s landing support?
        Quote: Bronis
        and then the coast should be handled by AUG aviation

        Some Japanese islands were worked out for weeks in 1944-45, and the centers of resistance still remained.
        And such an interesting question as the price of SD ammunition, and it would be interesting to imagine a Hornet assaulting free-falling bombs.
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 September 2012 14: 56
          0
          . Despite the fact that Britain had nuclear weapons, the conflict took place on the scale of modern naval combat - with missile destroyers, tactical aircraft, conventional bombs and high-precision weapons. And the fleet in this war played a key role.



          Somehow missed the presence of a multipurpose nuclear submarine of the Churchill class. The heating of which the Argentinean cruiser Admiral Belgrano very likely influenced the action of the ships of the Argentine Navy.
          1. Kars
            Kars 30 September 2012 22: 17
            +1
            Alas, the reality turned out to be more prosaic - the cruising range of Project 68 bis cruisers reached 8000 nautical miles at an operational and economic speed of 16-18 knots - enough to operate in any area of ​​the World Ocean



            Putting aside the fact that Stalingrad was proposed for completion not in the original version, where various changes are possible. The question arises of refueling liquid fuels from tankers at sea. Rozhesivensky's squadron reached Tsushima on coal armadillos through the floor of the world, or this option was lost from the Navy’s skills THE USSR.

            the construction of three heavy cruisers of the Stalingrad type instead of 14 68-bis could significantly strengthen the potential of the USSR Navy


            If such a conversation has already begun, then why 3? Of the layouts given above, a larger ship is cheaper on average (and ships just don’t even need to come up with coefficients - good artifacts for about one year) and on an elementary layout using a displacement it turns out 5.3)))
            and adjusted for Bismarck, all 8.
            This is so to think about.
            1. Kars
              Kars 1 October 2012 10: 51
              0
              Another interesting thought
              The last half-century “Iowa” periodically appeared in the open sea so that, after shelling the coast of Korea, Vietnam or Lebanon, to disappear again, falling asleep on long-term conservation. Is such a purpose for their ships seen by their creators?


              As for the destination ---- this is the killing of opponents in the WAR.
              And here's an interesting question --- an aircraft carrier can’t be almost outfitted --- his crew and the air group must constantly train, and not on simulators, but at sea, spending a lot of money and resources.
  3. iwanniegrozny
    iwanniegrozny 29 September 2012 10: 03
    0
    Interesting article.
    1. The subtitle "Inglourious scum" should probably sound "Inglorious that"because, from the point of view of the Author," Hermes "and" Invincible "were not purebred aircraft carriers (otherwise it turns out that they served as "slops" of the maritime society)
    2. "Vryatli" should be written as "hardly"
    3. And what about our "Eagles"? A couple of years ago there was an article in NVO about their effectiveness http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-09-25/8_kreiser.html
  4. iwanniegrozny
    iwanniegrozny 29 September 2012 10: 07
    0
    Interesting article.
    1. The subtitle "Inglourious scum" should probably sound "Inglorious that"because, from the point of view of the Author," Hermes "and" Invincible "were not purebred aircraft carriers (otherwise it turns out that they served as "slops" of the maritime society)
    2. "Vryatli" should be written as "hardly"
    3. And what about our "Eagles"? A couple of years ago there was an article in NVO about their effectiveness http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-09-25/8_kreiser.html
    Her conclusions, by the way, coincide with those of the Author.
  5. iwanniegrozny
    iwanniegrozny 29 September 2012 10: 09
    0
    Interesting article.
    1. The subtitle "Inglourious scum" should probably sound "Inglourious ki", because, from the point of view of the Author, "Hermes" and "Invincible" were not purebred aircraft carriers (otherwise it turns out that they were served by pussies - "crap" of the maritime society laughing )
    2. "Vryatli" should be written as "hardly"
    3. And what about our "Eagles"? A couple of years ago there was an article in NVO about their effectiveness http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-09-25/8_kreiser.html
    Her conclusions, by the way, coincide with those of the Author.
  6. iwanniegrozny
    iwanniegrozny 29 September 2012 10: 13
    +4
    1. The subtitle "Inglorious scum"(ie non-pureblood aircraft carriers" Hermes "and" Invincible ") this is because the site crosses out the word" ubludki " laughing ...?
    2. "Vryatli" should be written as "hardly"
    3. A couple of years ago there was an article in NVO about their effectiveness of our Eagles http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2009-09-25/8_kreiser.html
    Her findings coincide with those of the Author.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 13: 49
      0
      Quote: iwanniegrozny
      .e not purebred aircraft carriers "Hermes" and "Invincible"

      These just showed themselves in a real naval battle. The "Inglorious" are Iowa, Nimitz, Eagles, etc. etc.
      Quote: iwanniegrozny
      this is because the site crosses out the word "ubludki" ...?

      Actually, I thought "Hemingway", but I like the way you think laughing
  7. Kars
    Kars 29 September 2012 10: 41
    +7
    HMS Vanguard, 1944. One of the best battleships in terms of characteristics


    This is of course a loud statement.

    The combat work of the heavy cruisers in the Korean and Vietnamese war was completely lost.

    Of course, with such metamorphoses, the appearance of the ship, its metacentric height and load articles completely change

    Quin's superficial statement was also used FOR an example and figurative displacement - during the construction of the ship everything will go as usual, no one is going to look for Quins in the needles that they went on for another 50-70 years.
    So, the cost of 96 launching cells is $ 125 million. In the case of the “Queen Elizabeth 2012” missile dreadnought, the number of cells increases by 8 times - up to 800 UVP. Accordingly, their value will increase by 8 times - up to $ 1 billion.
    Wholesale buyers a big discount.
    the cost of a “missile dreadnought” with 800 aircrafts, armor and artillery will be at least $ 4,75 billion, which is comparable to the cost of a nuclear carrier.

    Is this about some sort of a mary aircraft carrier? A new one, as we found out, is approaching 10 billion.
    will be at least 4,75 billion dollars

    To begin with, we will not be compared with an aircraft carrier, useless without missile ships, a huge fleet of auxiliary vessels, etc.
    And let's take destroyers and cruisers - according to the impact capabilities of the TARK (heavy artillery cruiser), it will replace 8-12 of these ships --- worth about 12-15 billion dollars. The operating expenses will also be reduced.
    Well, he won’t lose his fighting efficiency from one miserable, accessible even to Exetzet’s terrorists --- while still demanding almost 200 million dollars for repairs)))))

    From the point of view of banal erudition and incomprehensible eternal truth, an empty box of the Queen Elizabeth corps stands like a modern destroyer like Arly Burke - $ 1,5 billion. And not a dime less


    Statements have been made in the literature that the greater the displacement, the lower the construction cost per ton of displacement.
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 29 September 2012 11: 10
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      To begin with, we will not be compared with an aircraft carrier, useless without missile ships

      Attack cruisers, too, should not walk without an escort. Solo voyage of Peter the Great in peacetime is not an indicator. This is a suicide ship in the event of a real conflict with the United States (even without NATO and the use of nuclear weapons).
      An example of the sinking of two British ships:
      The Battle of Kuantan is a fighting clash during the Pacific War, also known as the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Ripals. It happened on December 10, 1941 in the South China Sea between the connection of the Japanese base aviation and the British “Connection Z” of Admiral Thomas Philips as part of the battleship “Prince of Wales”, the battle cruiser “Ripals” and 4 destroyers (“Electra”, “Express” "," Vampire ", and" Tenedos "). During several successive attacks by Japanese bombers and torpedo bombers, both heavy formation ships were sunk. For the first time intact battleships were sunk by aviation on the high seas, having complete freedom for maneuver. This battle marked the sunset of the era of battleships. From now on, dominance at sea began to belong to aircraft carriers, leaving battleships a secondary role in naval operations.
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 September 2012 11: 20
        +5
        Quote: Tirpitz
        in case of a real conflict with the USA

        Why all the time in the USA? Maybe with Venezuela? Like Mistral is not a suicide bomber in a collision with the AUG of the US Navy.
        Quote: Tirpitz
        This battle marked the sunset of the era of battleships. From now on, dominance at sea began to belong to aircraft carriers, leaving battleships a secondary role in naval operations.

        And here is the sunset of aircraft carriers. But photo.

        Quote: Tirpitz
        the sea began to belong to aircraft carriers,

        This is probably said about the aircraft carriers of Brazil and their aircraft carrier Sao Paulo.
        Even a modern American aircraft carrier with an aircraft wing of 90 aircraft is not capable of breaking through mid-state air defense on its own.

        Quote: Tirpitz
        (even without NATO and the use of nuclear weapons).

        And how is it without nuclear weapons? For example, I can not imagine.
    2. Kars
      Kars 29 September 2012 11: 24
      +7
      At the same time, the "missile dreadnought" will not have a fraction of the capabilities of an aircraft carrier


      And what is it that 500 tamahawks and 1000 305 mm shells will not be able to do, which will make an aircraft carrier with 90 planes (at the same time they are not all percussion)

      PLO will not be considered.
      1. Kars
        Kars 30 September 2012 00: 21
        +1
        The initial capacity of the Queen Elizabeth power plant was 75 thousand hp. - this was enough to ensure a speed of 24 knots


        The power plant was designed for a speed of 23 knots with a normal power of 56000 hp. and 25 knots with a forced power of 75000 hp

        Onboard the Queen Elizabeth, 250 was originally located in tons of fuel - the British super-dreadnought could crawl 5000 miles at 12 knots.

        Fuel capacity was planned at 3500 tons, but with normal filling of the tanks (95%) it was 3325 tons (English ton = 1016 kg.). The maximum fuel supply, which the battleships had in practice, was about 2800 tons, since during the construction process their displacement exceeded the design one. In addition, a fence was provided for 100 tons of coal, which was used in the laundry and other support services.
        Total displacement - 33100 tons (with full armament, water supply, 3400 tons of fuel on board). Draft 10,19 m., MB 2,38., Maximum stability with a roll of 39 °., Tipping angle 79 °.
        For Queen Elizabeth 2012, four such guns are required.

        six 2x3
        152 mm medium-caliber guns can be installed 6-8 anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems "Dagger" or "Broadsword".

        In general, the weight is at least 1 to 1. And there you can also count the weight of the ammunition.
        Weight (without screen) CPXIII, XIII * and XIII **: 14.5 - 14.8 tons (14.7 - 15.1 mt)

        R-3 "was 2,1 million pounds, according to the project" R-Z "it was 30 thousand cheaper, (Cost of Queen Elizabeth)



        It’s clear that Queen Elizabeth 2012 is the key to maintaining performance.

        Obviously, the topic needs to be studied more deeply, if I didn’t write to me, I would correct it, you know the address.
    3. Kibb
      Kibb 29 September 2012 11: 26
      +3
      Quote: Kars
      Statements have been made in the literature that the greater the displacement, the lower the construction cost per ton of displacement.

      EMNIP Sharn and Gnezia cost only a third more than the Deutschlands
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 September 2012 11: 49
        +4
        you beguiled --- Bismarck and Scharnhorst, respectively.
        Deutsch-80 million marks
        Scharnhost - 145
        Bismarck 183 million marks.

        And the author himself will look at the displacement of these ships and count from the point of view of banal erudition.
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 29 September 2012 11: 57
          +8
          In any case, the tendency to face is easier (cheaper) to build a large ship immediately than to try to push the maximum capacity into the minimum displacement
          1. Kars
            Kars 29 September 2012 12: 08
            +3
            I agree ---- and then the cases go cracks, break, everything does not fit, and so on.
          2. Kibb
            Kibb 29 September 2012 12: 21
            +3
            Yeah, I found it, an appendix to "Twilight of the Sea Gods", it was really about Sharn and Bismarck
    4. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 14: 06
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      The battle work of the heavy cruisers in the Korean and Vietnamese war was completely lost

      Infinitely small compared to aviation
      Quote: Kars
      Wholesale buyers a big discount.

      You already got a big discount laughing

      - Burke 7 of 12 UVP modules in short version
      - Truncated Aegis
      - relatively short range
      - the cost of the ship is reduced due to large-scale construction
      - bending 200 mm steel sheet is much more difficult than 25 mm aluminum
      Quote: Kars
      New, as we found out, is approaching 10 billions.

      This is tricked out.
      Kitty Hawk level ship buoys cheaper than your cruiser
      Quote: Kars
      tons of one miserable, accessible even to exoset terrorists

      Exocet is not available to terrorists. This weapon is worth 1,5 million dollars and it needs a carrier and target designation
      Quote: Kars
      while still then demanding almost 200 mil dollars for repairs

      The Stark was repaired for $ 142 million. The Iowa upper deck refurbishment alone cost $ 500 million (in 80s prices!)
      Quote: Kars
      Statements are made in the literature that the greater the displacement, the lower the construction cost per ton of displacement

      It's not always the same. This does not apply to the dreadnought - it is structurally an order of magnitude more complicated than the destroyer URO
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 September 2012 14: 56
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Infinitely small compared to aviation

        Maybe then cross out the infantry from the war?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        You already got a big discount

        When is that? I take 8 times more and they consider the price for each unit.
        96 launch cells $ 125 million. In the case of the “Queen Elizabeth 2012” missile dreadnought, the number of cells increases by 8 times - up to 800 UVP. Accordingly, their value will increase by 8 times - up to $ 1 billion.
        I at the place of the supply department (with a rollback to my beloved) would have achieved 700-750 million.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Kitty Hawk level ship buoys cheaper than your cruiser

        Well, ring, you yourself set the conditions
        "Missile dreadnought" type "Queen Elizabeth - 2012"

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Exocet is not available to terrorists. This weapon is worth 1,5 million dollars and it needs a carrier and target designation

        What is the name of the Chinese craft that the Jewish boat was damaged there, and EVEN to the terrorists - how many countries are I currently distributing anti-ship missiles similar in characteristics to Exocet.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        "Stark" was renovated for 142 million

        Well, let 142 mil --- after one racket (the second didn’t even explode) and he could sink a vet)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Iowa flew into 500 million (in 80s prices!)

        And what does it have to do with it? This network is not a repair from damage.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        This does not apply to the dreadnought - it is structurally an order of magnitude more complicated than the destroyer URO

        Didn’t read it? Well, so you
        Quote: Kars
        Deutsch-80 million marks
        Scharnhost - 145
        Bismarck 183 Million Stamps
        1. Santa Fe
          29 September 2012 15: 10
          0
          Quote: Kars
          Maybe then cross out the infantry from the war?

          We are talking about the fleet. The battleships' work in local wars was negligible.
          About 8000 Falkland shells - these were anti-aircraft shots
          Quote: Kars
          I take 8 times more and they consider the price for each unit.

          You are lucky that you are not taken into account in the calculation:
          - Burke 7 of 12 UVP modules in short version
          - Truncated Aegis
          - relatively short range
          - the cost of the ship is reduced due to large-scale construction
          - bending 200 mm steel sheet is much more difficult than 25 mm aluminum

          Quote: Kars
          What is the name of the Chinese craft that the Jewish ship damaged?

          1. C-802. A fairly primitive little thing, does not pose a threat to modern air defense systems and electronic warfare
          2. Israel has no need to build dreadnought. They only have corvettes and boats
          3. 1000-ton Jew was not drowned, and was not even badly damaged
          Quote: Kars
          And what does it have to do with it? This network is not a repair from damage.

          This is the cost of repair. What caused the repair - combat damage or modernization is generally unimportant.
          Re-equipping Iowa's upper deck flew half a billion at the price of those years
          Quote: Kars
          Deutsch-80 million marks
          Scharnhost - 145
          Bismarck 183 Million Stamps

          How much is it in our time, for example, in dollars?
          1. Kars
            Kars 29 September 2012 15: 24
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            About 8000 Falkland shells - these were anti-aircraft shots

            Give a quote --- vryatli they include anti-aircraft.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            We are talking about the fleet

            We are talking about WAR.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            You are lucky that you are not taken into account in the calculation:
            - Burke 7 of 12 UVP modules in short version
            - Truncated Aegis
            - relatively short range
            - the cost of the ship is reduced due to large-scale construction
            - bending 200 mm steel sheet is much more difficult than 25 mm aluminum

            Is that 1 billion for UVP?
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            1. C-802. A fairly primitive little thing, does not pose a threat to modern air defense systems and electronic warfare

            Jews will not say that anymore))))
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            2. Israel has no need to build dreadnought. They only have corvettes and boats

            The personal problems of Israel, even though I heard about the intention to build destroyers. And do not forget about the US fleet dangling in the vicinity.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            3. 1000-ton Jew was not drowned, and was not even badly damaged

            Well, there was one racket, and he was really lucky - what can you say about Shefield and Stark
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This is the cost of repair. What caused the repair - combat damage or modernization is generally unimportant.
            Re-equipping Iowa's upper deck flew half a billion at the price of those years

            Sorry, but here you’re just driving me, I have nothing to say.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Quote: Kars
            Deutsch-80 million marks
            Scharnhost - 145
            Bismarck 183 Million Stamps
            How much is it in our time, for example, in dollars?

            Do you care? Ships of the same time period and you are free to prove your banal erudition.
            type "Queen Elizabeth" is well known - 17 thousand tons. Those. three times as much metal is required compared to a small destroyer. From the point of view of banal erudition and incomprehensible eternal truth, an empty box of the Queen Elizabeth corps stands like a modern destroyer like the Arly Burke - $ 1,5 billion. And not a dime.

            First, give the cost of a ton of each listed vessel and explain the ratio.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 September 2012 17: 11
              -2
              Quote: Kars
              Give a quote --- vryatli they include anti-aircraft.

              In the course of the conflict, nine P-KMF frigates fired nine X-Kat anti-aircraft missiles and fired 900 shots from 114-mm guns, resulting in 5 shot down and several Argentine aircraft damaged.
              Quote: Kars
              Quote: Kars
              Deutsch-80 million marks
              Scharnhost - 145
              Bismarck 183 Million Stamps

              How much is it in our time, for example, in dollars?
              Otherwise, the argument makes no sense
              1. Kars
                Kars 29 September 2012 17: 33
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                900 rounds fired from 114 mm

                How many frigates were there? 8? What is the total projectile consumption of only 8000pcs?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Otherwise, the argument makes no sense

                No, it doesn’t lose ----- ships of one time period, what doesn’t suit you? Translate into abstract units
                hinges - 38 = 100 mil
                bismarck - 50 900 = 183 mil
                and now prove your words
                considering
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                This does not apply to the dreadnought - it is structurally an order of magnitude more complicated than the destroyer URO

                And just the dreadnoughts. What's wrong?
                And based on your logic, Bismarck should cost -194 million when compared with the hinges, and 254 million if compared with Deutschland.
                Video trend?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 29 September 2012 23: 30
                  +1
                  The cost of "Arly Burke" averages 1,5 billion dollars. This colossal figure is determined by three almost equal components:
                  500 million - the cost of the steel case.
                  500 million - the cost of the GEM, the mechanisms and equipment of the ship.
                  500 million - the cost of the Aegis system and weapons


                  Do you remember the conversation on the topic of the Spanish destroyer, there was a link.
                  Something doesn’t coincide with your numbers, is it?
                  By the way, as a specialist, what is included in the amount in the table. And the cost reduction due to large-scale production is not particularly visible.
              2. Kars
                Kars 29 September 2012 17: 48
                +2
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                About 8000 Falkland shells - these were anti-aircraft shots

                Dotsenko Fleets in local conflicts page 278 I can not quote - paper book.
                it is precisely about the fire support of the airborne units.
                but the phrase ONLY from 114 mm guns more than 8 thousand shots were fired.
                and destroyers - 11 frigates 27
                1. Kars
                  Kars 29 September 2012 21: 47
                  0
                  During the day, the British expanded the seized bridgehead to 13 square kilometers and brought the number of their troops on it to 5 thousand people. With the second echelon of the landing, Scorpion light tanks, Rapira anti-aircraft missile systems, 105-mm guns and 81-mm mortars were delivered to the island. In a relatively short time, a launch pad (20 sq. M) for helicopters and Harrier and Sea Harrier aircraft was equipped on a springboard of steel plates. In tanks buried in the ground, created 3-day reserves of fuel and fresh water.


                  The British conducted active offensive operations only at night, after massive artillery and bombing strikes, which were carried out on the guidance of liaison officers who were in the battle formations of the advancing units. As a rule, the implementation of tasks was completed in the first half of the day. Of some 105-mm caliber guns, 500 rounds were fired daily. Naval fire support also played a significant role in the battles for the Falklands: more than 114 thousand shots were fired from only 8-mm guns.


                  http://militera.lib.ru/h/dotsenko/07.html

                  A major drawback of the Argentine Navy is the heterogeneity of ships and weapons systems that were purchased in the United States, England, France, Israel and other countries. Ships had low [255] anti-submarine capabilities. Due to the lack of a training base, the level of training of personnel was low.

                  The British operational connection exceeded the Argentine Navy in the number of launchers of anti-ship missiles by 1,5 times, and in the number of launchers of anti-aircraft missiles - by 7 times.

                  The British had an overwhelming superiority in naval composition in the conflict area, since the sinking of the cruiser "General Belgrano" at the very beginning of the conflict and the ongoing threat from the British nuclear submarines led to the complete inaction of the Argentine Navy, whose ships practically did not go beyond their territorial waters .

                  By the beginning of the conflict, numerical superiority in aviation was on the side of Argentina. Its Air Force had up to 450 aircraft (278 combat aircraft, of which 90% were combat-ready). In reality, the British could be counteracted by no more than 200 combat aircraft: of which 6 Super Etandar attack aircraft, 21 Mirage ZE fighter aircraft and 23 34M Dagger fighter aircraft, 75 Skyhawk A-4P attack aircraft, 10 Canberra reconnaissance aircraft B-62. 14 Skyhawk A-4Q aircraft were in the Navy (on an aircraft carrier).

                  Argentinean aviation was equipped mainly with obsolete Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs, UR R.550 Majik and R.530 Matra and a small number of modern American-made Mk 83 bombs. Most of the aircraft had outdated electronic equipment, which greatly limited them actions in difficult weather conditions.

                  .

                  1. Kars
                    Kars 29 September 2012 21: 49
                    0
                    The British could oppose only 20 Sea Harrier planes located on the anti-submarine carriers Hermes (12 units) and Invincible (8 units). Soon, however, the advantage of Argentine aviation was nullified. Up to 256 Harrier and Sea Harrier aircraft were delivered to container ships, [30] converted into aircraft carriers, and a squadron of the same aircraft with several refueling in the air made a flight from the British Isles to the South Atlantic. In addition, the U.S. government authorized British airplanes to land and refuel at the U.S. Ascension Air Force Base. From this base, British strategic volcano bombers (10 units), Nimrod MR-2 base patrol aircraft (5 units), Victor refueling planes (15 units) and Canberra reconnaissance aircraft operated , in mid-May, another 14 Sea Harrier planes joined them.

                    Over 80 helicopters of eight types (Link, Wessex, Sea King, Washi, Chinook, Gazelle, Commando and Scout) were based on operational connection ships
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 29 September 2012 21: 56
                      0
                      On June 2, British forces completely blocked the Argentine garrison from sea and land, and began intensive aviation and artillery processing of enemy positions. June 12th on the destroyer Glemorgan, fired at positions Argentine forces in the area of ​​Port Stanley were hit by two exoset MM-38 missiles. From the ship they managed to put away the passive interference and simultaneously perform an anti-ballistic maneuver. Only one missile hit the destroyer. The strike fell into the stern of the ship; the helipad and hangar were disabled. Just because that the missile warhead did not explode, the ship received relatively minor damage
  8. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 29 September 2012 10: 48
    +1
    In the next 50 years no one will take away the title of master of the oceans from aircraft carriers, all sorts of destroyers and cruisers are just suites.
  9. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 29 September 2012 11: 05
    +6
    Quote: Tirpitz
    In the next 50 years no one will take away the title of master of the oceans from aircraft carriers, all sorts of destroyers and cruisers are just suites.


    I agree, but the retinue is very important) one in the field is not a warrior, cruisers, destroyers and submarines, they make the aircraft carrier 10 times stronger, but the lonely aircraft carrier is doubtful, with all due respect to the air group, this is not all and not always, the weather is dumb and hi, but at a depth of, say, 100 meters, it doesn’t pump and the taget holds better)
  10. Kars
    Kars 29 September 2012 12: 12
    +2
    But even these replicas of real aircraft carriers and two dozen subsonic Sea Harriers became a formidable obstacle for the Argentine missile carrier aircraft, not allowing the Royal Navy to be sunk to the end


    I would salute the rescue from the drowning of the Corps fleet to the defective fuse of aerial bombs and the absence of air torpedoes.
    1. not good
      not good 29 September 2012 12: 41
      +1
      Yes, even bookmarks in rockets from the French ...
    2. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 13: 41
      +2
      Quote: Kars
      the honor of saving the Corf. Fleet from being drowned by malfunctioning bomb detonators and the absence of air torpedoes.


      You confuse cause with effect. If the British had a classic aircraft carrier (at least De Gaulle's level), not a single bomb would drop on TF317 ships.

      Clumsy subsonic CiHarrieres in the absence of target designation shot down 28 Argentine birds
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 September 2012 14: 56
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Clumsy subsonic CiHarrieres in the absence of target designation shot down 28 Argentine birds

        Well? Better write how many bombs did not explode.
        1. Santa Fe
          29 September 2012 15: 11
          0
          You again confuse cause with effect
          1. Kars
            Kars 29 September 2012 15: 16
            +1
            I?
            Quote: Kars
            But even these replicas of real aircraft carriers and two dozen subsonic Sea Harriers became a formidable obstacle for the Argentine missile carrier aircraft, not allowing the Royal Navy to be sunk to the end


            Where do you have strewn your head with ash on Charles Degol? --- There are about the available forces of the British and that’s all - so you can object to something without acknowledging your wrong.
            It was these bad bombs and missiles that didn’t allow the English to be flooded, you again didn’t take into account that with every ship that was out of order, the English group lost a significant part of air defense.
      2. viktorR
        viktorR 8 October 2012 17: 24
        +1
        They were very close in the maneuverable combat wink due to rotary nozzles.
  11. Kibb
    Kibb 29 September 2012 12: 32
    0
    Well, not only (although not without it). The British were able to land in a decent storm, while the Argentine ships could not go to sea at all
  12. Kars
    Kars 29 September 2012 12: 51
    +1
    Here is another statement
    Of course, in modern conditions this is an unsatisfactory result - to increase the maximum speed of the ship to 30 knots. twice as powerful propulsion system required


    I am not opposed to greater speed - which by the way is already increasing, what progress is made in calculating the body contours, hydrostatic resistance and other engineering subtleties.
    The above 30 knots are in order to accompany an aircraft carrier’s warrant. Otherwise, a pair of knots does not play a big role in the era of transonic missiles.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 14: 16
      +2
      Quote: Kars
      what is the progress in calculating the hull contours, hydrostatic resistance and other engineering subtleties.

      Alaska, 35 thousand tons - 150 000 hp
      Quote: Kars
      And the rest, a pair of nodes does not play a big role, in the era of transonic missiles.

      There are far from a couple of nodes. The difference is significant. And it’s not even about speed, but about driving characteristics and handling
      1. Kars
        Kars 29 September 2012 14: 59
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Alaska, 35 thousand tons - 150 000 hp

        Well, again by, well, what are you - and the weight is at least a third. And the year is only 1944 - it doesn’t. Yes and as many as 33 knots)))))
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And it’s not even about speed, but about driving characteristics and handling

        Again, you're somewhere in the wrong place ----- we are more interested in cruising speed.
        And directly so significant --- 27-28 knots against 30.
  13. not good
    not good 29 September 2012 12: 55
    +1
    In the USSR, light cruisers pr.68bis were planned to be converted into control cruisers. In various modernization options. 1 main caliber tower was removed, instead of an air defense missile system. Two universal caliber towers were removed - 2 "Wasps" were installed. Instead of outdated small-caliber anti-aircraft artillery, modern The ship's equipment was completely changed. As a result, the combat capabilities of the cruiser increased by an order of magnitude. The potential for modernization of the artillery cruisers was enormous, and at that time there was no equal to them in terms of armor protection. The artillery of the ship must exceed the range of coastal artillery, as the ship, unlike the self-propelled gun, cannot be hidden in the forest.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 29 September 2012 16: 32
      0
      Quote: Negoro
      The potential for modernization of the artillery cruisers was huge, but at that time there were no peers in armor protection equal to them
      Unfortunately, in my opinion, the USSR did not at all consider the possibility of re-equipping part of the cruisers into helicopter carriers or light aircraft carriers. The political component of the issue prevailed, and so, the 210 meter building, reinforced for stability by boules, quite for its time had the opportunity to equip the flight deck.
      1. Drednout
        Drednout 29 September 2012 19: 01
        0
        Quote: Per se.
        Unfortunately, in my opinion, the USSR did not at all consider the possibility of re-equipping part of the cruisers into helicopter carriers or light aircraft carriers

        The tactical and technical requirements for the project 68 cruiser being developed for development were approved in 1936! Purpose - reconnaissance, patrol, conducting a battle with enemy forces as part of a squadron, ensuring the operation of its forces, working on enemy communications, mine laying. All! Two seaplanes on the deck do not count (this is reconnaissance). After the Great Patriotic War, taking into account the experience of hostilities, on the basis of the laid down 68-K being completed, the development of the 68-bis began. Technical design assignment from September 1946! And anyway, 68-bis was already considered as a transitional project for the construction of no more than 7 ships. The more perfect pr. 65 went to replace (in the future, but in practice it was curtailed). Accordingly, the Sverdlovs were built in a large series in Nikolaev and Leningrad, then in Severodvinsk.
        There were a hangar for a helicopter during the alteration together with a landing pad (for example, "Admiral Senyavin" pr. 68-u-2), but considering a cruiser for installing a deck like "Minsk" is unrealistic!
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 29 September 2012 19: 37
          +1
          As for the "Minsk" type, it is not necessary, I meant something different, as, for example, the Americans did from the cruisers of the "Independence" type. It is also possible to create a light nuclear-powered helicopter carrier by re-equipping one of the Orlan project cruisers; the experience in alteration was gained thanks to the Vikramaditya light aircraft carrier from Gorshkov.
          1. Santa Fe
            29 September 2012 19: 54
            0
            Quote: Per se.
            nuclear carrier helicopter carrier

            Why atomic?


            Quote: Per se.
            made by Americans from cruisers like "Independence"

            Since then, landing speeds have increased ... as have the dimensions of the aircraft
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 29 September 2012 21: 15
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Since then, landing speeds have increased ... as have the dimensions of the aircraft
              Alas, the cruisers of the "Sverdlov" type are no longer there, one, like "Mikhail Kutuzov" remained in the sump, if not confusing. Dimensions and landing speeds, so it was possible for some helicopters, as we are now planning on the Mistral. Why nuclear, so the cruisers of the Orlan project with a nuclear power plant, the dimensions are suitable for a hull length of 250 meters. Yes, I agree, not Nimitz, but better than nothing or Mistral. It’s not very inspiring to wait for a new project and commissioning for a hundred years, but Kuza needs an addition and replacement. I apologize for the fantastic picture and naive dreams.
  14. patrianostra
    patrianostra 29 September 2012 14: 10
    +1
    people, see the price-to-price ratio, how much a shot costs to RPG-7 and how much Avrams costs the difference at times. Amers on the example of Yamato made conclusions that the author gave very correctly one sortie is cheaper than any most sophisticated missile. and the breakthrough of the air defense system is just the prerogative of cruise missiles that are aimed at the target by deep-reconnaissance groups that highlight the desired targets and only after them are the waves of aviation.
    1. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 14: 57
      0
      Quote: patrianostra
      Price-to-performance ratio How much does a shot cost to RPG-7 and how much does Avrams cost?

      So what?
      A tank can't cost like an RPG shot
    2. Su24
      Su24 30 September 2012 14: 05
      -1
      And if the plane is lost?))
  15. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 29 September 2012 14: 22
    0
    SWEET_SIXTEEN,
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Clumsy subsonic CiHarrieres in the absence of target designation shot down 28 Argentine birds


    do you really seriously think that the matter is in the air group?)) 28 a fairy tale told to you) should somehow justify themselves for the sunken ships, and wretched si harriers, is this protection? in the absence of guidance ... and with it) you do not believe nonsense, why?) see how the Spaniards, Italians and others like them evaluate their small aircraft carriers) the argens melt the floor of the Briton fleet, and now they broadcast about dozens of downed ethandars)

    SUN TZI "WOULD WOULD BE FOLLOWED"
    1. Santa Fe
      29 September 2012 14: 55
      0
      You have read the yellow press.

      Quote: maxiv1979
      argens melt the half of the Briton fleet

      Oh, half already)))
  16. bamboo
    bamboo 29 September 2012 14: 24
    -2
    laughing who noticed the chip ???
    our brothers from Ukraine write about prices)))
    I certainly understand that this is the personal awareness of each member of the forum, and deeply respect their opinion (if it is adequate))))
    but forgive me again for joking with your government))
    You write about the cost and prices, commendable))) and your government will restore and sell, nothing to the country))) laughing
    some kind of financial interest is being swallowed by the Ukrainian side))) laughing
    well done))) our then about denyushki silent))) with respect))) hi laughing
  17. Argonaut
    Argonaut 29 September 2012 14: 45
    0
    Ships are handsome, but the time of their power has passed.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 29 September 2012 17: 02
      +1
      Rather, not the time of their power, but their leading role in the war at sea. Who knows how war at sea will change with the advent of new types of weapons and new requirements of the time. The emergence of cruise missiles, with a range greater than that of carrier-based aircraft, can already revive the battleship in a new capacity. I think Kars understands me best here. Here, for example, the scheme of the French battleship "Richelieu", in principle, when retrofitted with rocket weapons and helicopters, something like "Peter the Great" will turn out, but stronger and better protected.
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 30 September 2012 08: 15
        0
        About the stronger it is unlikely, and in a more secure way, would not be so categorical!
      2. Kars
        Kars 30 September 2012 11: 45
        +2
        I would rather prefer the Italian littorio.
        And here the question was of interest - and what will the sharks being decommissioned be doing with the nuclear reactors --- they are not so old.

        Quote: 77bor1973
        and even more securely wouldn’t be so categorical

        In terms of physical security, Peter the First, in comparison with Richelieu, is not even cardboard, but made of tracing paper.

        long rectangles
        square --- helipad (you can think of something with the hangar)
        1. 77bor1973
          77bor1973 30 September 2012 14: 49
          0
          By booking "Peter", rather an early Washington cruiser with local booking ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 30 September 2012 15: 01
            +1
            Quote: 77bor1973
            rather an early Washington cruiser with local booking

            he is twice the size of a Washington DC.
            And I remember about armor only on Kirov there was 100 or 80 mm armor above the reactor zone.
            1. 77bor1973
              77bor1973 30 September 2012 15: 31
              0
              I am writing that the Kirov has a constructive reservation, but not of a citadel, but of a local type - individual elements of the hull are protected.
            2. Per se.
              Per se. 30 September 2012 15: 51
              0
              Thank you Kars for your understanding. On the stern and sides, I imagined so myself, the helicopter hangar can be below deck, as it was on the "Moscow" and "Leningrad". According to "Littorio", it has three turrets, but, in fact, the booking scheme will be more suitable against anti-ship missiles. At one time, they wrote about a possible renaissance of heavy artillery at sea, thanks to the equipping of the main caliber with rockets (the estimated firing range is up to 200 kilometers). In addition to long-range cruise missiles, this is also an argument in favor of battleships that would find work in "peacetime" times of military conflicts, and as an additional deterrent factor. It seems that new atomic battleships may still appear, everything depends on the zigzags of our evolution.
              1. 77bor1973
                77bor1973 30 September 2012 16: 42
                0
                You still write where "Richelieu", "Algeria", "Littorio", "Giulio Cesare" and other giant metal structures that can rise from oblivion are now located ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 30 September 2012 17: 45
                  0
                  Quote: 77bor1973
                  that the "Kirov" has a constructive booking

                  Kirov, as the first-born of nuclear shipbuilding, has little in common with Peter the Great. Although, of course, I could be mistaken. I read that.
                  Quote: 77bor1973
                  other giant metal structures that can rise from nothingness ...
  18. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 29 September 2012 15: 10
    +1
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    Oh, half already)))


    this is of course a joke, but in every joke ...) who else suffered such losses in ships after 50gg? give an example, if the shaves achieved this, what films would you watch? fall of blackhawk?))

    Quote: Argonaut
    You have read the yellow press.


    you’ve just read the yellow and western press, if you believe that this squalor, the sidewinders so well let in, didn’t understand with what guidance and 28 planes were shot down))) be critical and think about who told you this and why, read the memories of the Argentine pilots, everything is online
  19. altman
    altman 29 September 2012 20: 20
    +1
    I hope, nevertheless, we’ll think of going the American way and will not build new destroyers with nuclear power plants
  20. Forward
    Forward 29 September 2012 22: 36
    0
    Cruisers or battleships ... military equipment will always improve. request
  21. 77bor1973
    77bor1973 29 September 2012 23: 05
    +1
    In the 60s of the 19th century, progress in shipbuilding reached the point that propeller-driven frigates, corvettes and clippers were so close in their technical parameters that they were united into one class, later called "cruisers". And now something similar is happening, all existing frigates, cruisers, destroyers are very similar in their tasks and capabilities ...
  22. Arct
    Arct 30 September 2012 02: 22
    +4
    I read the article and, honestly, did not understand what the author wanted to tell us about. I saw only his love for "Arleigh Burke". It seems that a person isolates a certain type of ship and tries to prove to everyone around that universalism is a cure for all ills. Well, okay, everyone has their own view of what is being discussed. Kars I have already noticed a number of nuances that the author simply pulled by the ears or too lazy to work deeper. I'm only interested in one phrase. "The estimated cruising range of the" Stalingrad "did not exceed 5000 miles with a 15-knot speed. In all other parameters, the heavy cruiser was 10-20% inferior to foreign counterparts, many questions were raised by its anti-aircraft armament." For 10-20%, please, a detailed layout, for I know from which dubious source this characteristic was pulled out and I require justification smile
  23. 77bor1973
    77bor1973 30 September 2012 07: 35
    +1
    Somehow the "Stalingrad" was lowered, although in comparison with "Alaska" it was only slightly behind in the number of MZA and in terms of bookings it was almost twice as high, but the country's top leadership got in on the range, considering that it was necessary to increase the speed, and so it turned out a cruiser " coastal defense ".
  24. Stasi.
    Stasi. 30 September 2012 14: 06
    +1
    Nowadays, the artillery systems of ships are inferior in terms of firepower to missiles. Nevertheless, it’s too early to write off artillery ships; they may very well be useful as fire support ships.
  25. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 30 September 2012 16: 41
    -1
    high-quality article, the author is just fine, the abundance of information was amazing, I read in one breath)
  26. SenyaYa
    SenyaYa 1 October 2012 23: 07
    0
    68 bis is an example of a waste of money !!!! I was on it in NOVOROSSIYSK ... the boat froze at the level of technology of World War II ... I was especially struck by anti-aircraft guns loaded with clips of 2 rounds !!!!!!!!!! This is the level of World War 5)))) What real is this miracle was to sink the aircraft carrier ?????? It was because of such mediocre projects of the USSR that the navel was torn !! Grandmas spent on delusional undertakings
  27. Sharjibridzhibajibaev
    Sharjibridzhibajibaev 23 March 2013 18: 47
    0
    Interesting article, whatever one may say.