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.
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.
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.
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.
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.