Military Review

Will the battleships return to the ocean?

61

From the 17th century to 1941, battleships were considered the main striking force at sea, and weapons - large-caliber guns.
The Russian-Japanese war showed a lack of effectiveness of small-caliber guns, and from 1906 onwards they began to install guns with a caliber of at least 120 mm. No smaller-caliber guns were used on the cruisers under construction, and the old, the same Aurora, 75-, 47- and 37-mm guns were removed.

With the advent of the air enemy on the Russian ships in 1915 – 1917. 37- and 40-mm Vickers and Obukhovsky anti-aircraft guns appeared, and the old 37-75-mm ship-guns were remade for anti-aircraft fire.

At the same time, the main gauge of the battleships in 1914 – 1918. gradually grew: 343 mm, 356 mm and finally 381 mm. Well, the Washington Agreement 1922, the main caliber of battleships was limited to 406 mm.

Nevertheless, the Japanese slowly put into operation in 1941 – 1942. two battleships - the Yamato and Musashi, armed with nine 457-mm guns. And the Germans in 1939 produced a 53-cm cannon Gerät 36, firing 2,2 tons of shells at a distance of 47,5 km. The gun was intended for promising battleships of the project "H 44" displacement 140 thousand tons. Each of them had to have 4 two-gun turrets with 53-cm cannons.
In 1943, the Americans achieved multiple superiority in the air in the Pacific, and the duel of large artillery ships ceased. Battleships were used exclusively for artillery support of the landings. In 1945, the era of fundamentally new weapons systems began - guided missiles, jet aviation and atomic bombs.

It seemed that the song of the ship artillery of both medium and large caliber was already sung. Indeed, aircraft carriers become the main striking force of the leading maritime powers of the West, and the main task of the large surface ships of the other classes is air defense and anti-submarine defense.

As a result, by the beginning of the XXI century in the West the 127-mm Mk 45 tower installation became the most powerful naval gun. Its first modification was created in the 1969 year, and the batch production of the 0 modification began in the 1973 year. Compared to other 127-mm installations, the Mk 45 is very light - 24 tons versus 60 tons for 127-mm installations Mk 42, produced from 1955 of the year. This is achieved primarily through the use of reinforced aluminum instead of steel in the construction of the installation and its armor. True, aluminum burns well, which was shown by the death of the frigate Sheffield during the Falklands War.
The drum magazine accommodates 20 unitary cartridges with conventional ballistic projectiles or 10 dual-cartridge loading shots with Dedai active-projectile projectiles.

Thus, setting up for a minute can release 20 conventional or 10 “Deday” guided missiles, and then another drum loading takes place and the barrel cools at the same time.

Since 1983, the Mk 45 Mod has been in production. 1 capable of shooting six types of shots. Moreover, the choice of the type of ammunition was made by simply pressing a button on the remote operator, located outside the tower.

The weight of the 127-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile was 31,3 kg, the initial speed was 830 m / s, the horizontal range was 24 km, the ceiling was 14,8 km.
Unlike the Western world, which refused to build large artillery ships and design artillery systems of a caliber over 127 mm, Stalin decided to build a "balanced fleet." It should have found a place for rocket submarines and surface ships, as well as for aircraft carriers and large artillery ships.

Accordingly, in the USSR, work was carried out on the creation of super-powerful naval guns. The 220-mm SM-6 three-gun turret was designed for 22 23 heavy cruisers with 500 tonnes and 66 30 heavy cruisers with X-numbers. 750 tonnes on both cruisers.

In 1953 – 1954 Tests were carried out on an experienced 220-mm gun manufactured by Barricades.

The same plant began production of the 305-mm swinging parts of the CM-33 for the three-gun tower SM-31 built heavy cruisers of the type "Stalingrad" Ave 82.

The ballistic data of CM-33 has not been surpassed until now. A high-explosive projectile weighing 467 kg with an initial speed of 950 m / s had a range of 53 km, and a long-range projectile drawing 5219 weighing 230,5 kg with an initial speed of 1300 m / s had a range of 127,35 km. The most curious thing is that by 1954, long-range projectiles with an “adjustment” were designed.

I note that so far the test materials for the 220-mm SM-6 and 305-mm CM-33 installations are secret.

Work on battleships and heavy cruisers at the end of March 1953 was stopped by Lawrence Beria, who sought to redirect funds to the nuclear and missile projects he oversees.

Then Nikita Sergeevich was not up to the super-linkors and super-guns - he was preparing a conspiracy to seize power. Only in 1959-1960. the rocket lobby managed to convince Khrushchev that large surface ships and naval artillery were an anachronism. Khrushchev, without further ado, stopped working on several types of missile cruisers, and ordered the caliber of new ship artillery systems to be limited initially to 57 mm, and later to 76 mm. Of course, the 57-mm AK-725 and 76-mm AK-726 were automatic, but the initial velocity of the shells and the firing range were not much better than the 75/50-mm Kane guns, armed with Russian fleet since 1891 and removed from warships after Tsushima.

The design of medium-caliber ship artillery systems resumed only after Khrushchev was removed from power. 29 June 1967 was issued a decree of the USSR Council of Ministers on the commencement of work on a single-gun X-NUMX automatic turret A-130 turret. In the Arsenal design bureau, she received a factory index of ZIF-217 (the Frunze plant).

The prototype was manufactured at the PO Arsenal and passed field tests at Rzhevka near Leningrad. Get the specified rate of fire 60 shots / min. failed for a variety of reasons. The weight of the sample exceeded the target by almost 10 tons. This did not allow to install it on the ships of the 1135 project, as a result of which the work on the ZIF-92 was stopped.

Ballistics of the barrel, ammunition and most of the design of the ZIF-92 were used to create a two-gun installation A-218 (factory index of the ZIF-94).

The artillery unit was controlled by the Lev-218 system (MP-184), created in Amethyst Design Bureau. The composition of the MP-184 includes dual-band radar target tracking, TV, laser rangefinder, equipment for the selection of moving targets and noise protection. Instrumental range of the system - 75 km. The weight of the system MP-184 – 8 tons.

Shooting is unitary ammunition. Ammunition, ready to fire, is placed in three drums. This allows you to have three different types of ammunition ready to fire, used depending on the tactical tasks to be solved, and to feed during the firing of drums that are not involved in the shooting.

The prototype ZIF-94 was produced by the Arsenal software in 1976, however, mass production was transferred to the Barricades factory. After lengthy ground tests and almost five years of operation on the destroyer of the 956 “Modern” project, the USSR Council of Ministers decree of 1 in November 1985. The ZIF-94 unit was put into service under the symbol AK-130 (А-218). In addition to the 956 project destroyers, it was installed on the 1144 project cruisers (except for Admiral Ushakov), as well as the 1164 project. Serial production of AK-130 units was carried out at the Yurgmashzavod production plant in the city of Yurga.
Comparison of tactical and technical data shows that our designers were guided by the 127-mm American artillery set Mk 45.0. At the same range with an ordinary projectile, the firing rate of the AK-130 is 2,5 times higher. But its weight in 4,5 times more than the Mk 45.0.

In the second half of the 1980-s, the development of the X-NUMX-mm single-gun A-130 M Armata turret automated complex A-192 M-192 P-5 began at the Arsenal Design Bureau. The ballistic data and the rate of fire of the new installation remained unchanged compared with the AK-10. The weight of the artillery was reduced to 130 t. The new unit’s radar system, Puma, was to control the installation’s fire. The ammunition was supposed to include at least two guided projectile - "Crossbow" and "Aurora". Installations A-24 M planned to arm the new destroyers of the project "Anchar" and other ships.

Will the battleships return to the ocean?

Layout of the installation A-192 "Armat"


In 1991, 98 shots from the Armata unit were made at the Rzhevka training ground, and state tests were scheduled to be held in 1992. However, the collapse of the USSR buried Anchar and other ship projects with new artworks, and work on the A-192 M was mothballed .

In the autumn of 2011, the media reported that the installation A-192 M was fired off at the Rzhevka training ground, which should be installed on the head skr of 22350 Ave. “Sergey Gorshkov. The control system is already known to the Puma 5 P10 specialists. The weight of the projectile 33,4 kg, firing range to 22 km. Thus, the installation has the same ballistics and the same ammunition as the AK-130.

Now in the domestic media very vague hints of the use of guided projectiles in A-192 M are published, but not only their tactical and technical data, but even names or indices.

In 1983 – 1984 a project of a truly fantastic instrument was developed. Imagine a ship, in the bow of which vertically sticks a certain pipe with a height of 4,9 m and a thickness of about half a meter. Suddenly the pipe leans in and crashes out of it ... whatever! No, I'm not joking. For example, our ship is attacked by an airplane or a cruise missile, and the installation launches an anti-aircraft missile. Somewhere over the horizon an enemy ship was found, and a cruise missile was flying out of a pipe at a distance of up to 250 km. A submarine appeared, and a projectile bursts out of the pipe, which, after landing, becomes a depth charge bomb with a special charge.

It is required to support the troops with fire - and 110-kilogram shells are already flying at a distance of 42 km. But the enemy sat down near the coast in concrete forts or sturdy stone buildings. 406-mm heavy-duty high-explosive shells of 1,2 tonnes, capable of destroying the target at a distance of up to 10 km, are immediately applied to it.

The setup had an 10 firing rate per min. guided missiles and 15 – 20 shots / min. - shells. Changing the type of ammunition took no more than 4 seconds. The weight of the installation with a single-tier slug cellar was 32 t, and with a two-tier - 60 t. Calculation of the installation 4 – 5 people. Such 406-mm guns could easily be installed even on small ships with a displacement of 2 – 3 thousand tons. But the first ship with such an installation was to be the destroyer of the 956 project.

What is the highlight of this gun? The main feature of the installation was the limitation of the angle of descent to 30 °, which made it possible to deepen the axle of the trunnions below the deck by 500 mm and exclude the tower from the design. The swinging part is placed under the combat table and passes through the embrasure of the dome.

Due to the low (howitzer) ballistics, the thickness of the barrel walls is reduced. Barrel lined with muzzle brake.

Charging was carried out at an elevation angle 90 ° directly from the cellar with an “elevator-rammer” located coaxially of the rotating part.
The shot consisted of ammunition (projectile or rocket) and a pallet in which the propelling charge was located.

The pan for all types of ammunition was the same. He moved along with the ammunition along the bore and separated after departure from the canal. All operations on submission and shipment were made automatically.

The design of this super versatile cannon was very interesting and original. But the leadership resolution did not differ in originality: the caliber 406 mm is not provided for by the standards of the Russian Navy.

In the middle of the 1970-ies, the design of the 203-mm shipboard installation "Pion-M" began (not to be confused with the ACS "Pion-M", 2 С7 M, obtained in 1983 by upgrading 2 С7) based on the swinging part of 203-mm 2 А44 guns SAU "Peony". This was the Soviet response to the Mk 71. Even the number of ready-to-fire ammunition for both systems was the same - 75 shots are separate-sleeve loading. However, the Pion’s rate of fire was higher than the Mk 71. The Piona-M shooting control system was a modification of the Lion system for AK-130. In 1976 – 1979 Several reasonably substantiated justifications of the benefits of the 203-mm gun were sent to the Navy's leadership. So, for example, the size of the high-explosive projectile funnel from AK-130 was 1,6 m, and that of the Pion-M was 3,2 m. 203-mm active-reactive, cluster and guided projectiles had much greater capabilities compared to 130 mm. So, the Pion-M active-missile projectile had a range of 50 km.

Or maybe Khrushchev and his admirals were right, that after the end of the Second World War, the guns of a caliber above 127 – 130 mm are not needed for the fleet? Alas, all local wars have denied this claim. According to no one disputed claims by the American admirals, the most effective ship weapons of the Korean, Vietnamese and Lebanese wars were the American battleships 406-mm guns.

The Yankees, with the emergence of serious local conflicts, made the re-entry and modernization of their Iowa-type battleships and actively used them to bombard enemy coastal targets.

The last time the 406-mm guns of the battleship Missouri fired on Iraqi territory in 1991.

The beginning of the XXI century battleship "Iowa" met in a reserved state, although three of its "Sister Spike" turned into maritime museums.
Actively involved in local conflicts and 15 American heavy cruisers built 1943 – 1948, armed with nine 203-mm guns. The last of these, the Des Moines, was excluded from the lists of the American fleet only on July 9 1991.

As we see, the Yankees act reasonably enough - why create new large-caliber artillery systems and build ships when dozens of heavy artillery ships from World War II are in reserve.

The Soviet Navy was not actively involved in the local wars of the second half of the twentieth century. But the ships of the 5 th operational squadron from 1965 to 1991 "restrained" the American 6 th fleet in the whole area of ​​the Mediterranean Sea. Our cruisers kept the aircraft carriers under the sights of their 152-mm guns.

Here, for example, in the 1965, the cruiser "Dzerzhinsky" "pass" the US aircraft carrier "Franklin Roosevelt". According to the memoirs of the participants of the campaign, the distance to the aircraft carrier reached 500. The Yankees were nervous, and the aircraft carrier lifted the planes into the air. Fighter-bombers began to unfold on the horizon and at a height of several tens of meters rush over the "Dzerzhinsky". Moreover, the speed of the aircraft during the passage increased so that the capture of the sound barrier took place just above the Soviet cruiser. From each such air strike "Dzerzhinsky" flinched, as when firing the main caliber. To top it off, the American cruiser “Boston” began dangerous maneuvering and sharply cut the Dzerzhinsky course once.

Then the Soviet sailors decided to hold a exercise with a show of force. A training alert was announced. The bells of the loud battle rang out, and the personnel occupied their combat positions according to the combat schedule. Unexpectedly for the Americans, the Dzerzhinsky launched a volley of two bow towers of the main caliber. Shooting was carried out directly on the course without turning the towers. The provocative "attacks" of American aircraft ceased immediately.

By 1969, the Soviet command banned cruisers from approaching aircraft carriers a distance closer than the 70 cable (about 13 km). Closer our cruisers were suitable only for carrying out any reconnaissance operations. Naturally, aircraft carriers by all means strove to get away from our cruisers. So, in 1969, the aircraft carrier “Saratoga” took shelter from the cruiser “Dzerzhinsky” in the territorial waters of Italy, and then began to park in Venice.

The Americans watched closely when low-speed transport supplies were suitable for our cruisers. And as soon as the overload of fuel began, the aircraft carrier was in full swing and disappeared over the horizon.

I am sure that many people have a question: what is the use of old cannons when our fleet was armed with first-class anti-ship guided missiles (ASM). Alas, as the commander of the 2 warhead of one of the 5 squadron ships told me, their first-strike weapons against American aircraft carriers and cruisers were ... Volna anti-aircraft missiles, and not anti-ship missiles. Why? The reaction time of the CRP is several times longer than that of the Zour. Well, about the "pukalki" 57-and 76-mm calibers and there was no speech.

Of course, the power of the 152-mm projectile is insufficient to penetrate the armored deck of an aircraft carrier - thanks to Nikita Sergeyevich, who eliminated the 305 and 220-mm superguns. Nevertheless, on the hunt for aircraft carriers, our 68 cruisers were constantly on alert No. 2 and even No. 1, which made it possible to open fire on aircraft carriers no later than 15 seconds after receiving the order.

Our sailors were well aware that they would not have to fire for more than 5 minutes due to the fire of the aircraft carriers and attack attackers if they managed to take off. There, they are both morally and physically ready to open fire.

I note that in 1964, in the USSR, the design of a projectile with a nuclear warhead (PUD) 3 BV 3 for the 152-mm howitzer "Acacia" began. Needless to say, a direct hit or close gap at the side of an aircraft carrier of such a projectile would surely eliminate the need for a further cruiser to fire.

I note that the first shells with YABCh were introduced by the Americans into the ship's artillery. In 1956, for the 406-mm guns of battleships, the M-23 Kati projectile with 20 kt power was adopted, and in 1957, the M-422 projectile with 5 kt projectile for 203-mm cruisers guns.

In the future, neither in the USSR nor in the USA, no matter how much they fought, failed to create 130-mm and 127-mm nuclear weapons. The maximum caliber from the 1960-s to this day remains the 152 mm.

Needless to say, the admirals of the United States and other leading powers understand the significance of large-caliber ship guns in modern warfare? As a result, from the middle of the 1960-ies, the design of naval artillery systems of caliber 152 mm and above proceeded almost continuously. So, at the very end of the 1960-s in the United States, in the strictest secrecy, they began to work on the 203-mm single-gun Mk 71 turret. It was the world's first fully automated installation of this caliber. It was controlled by one person. The setup could provide the pace of 12 shots per minute and fire at that pace 6 minutes. In total 75 shots of six different types were ready for shooting.

The 203-mm gun Mk 71 in 1971 was installed on the nose of the DD 945 “Hell” destroyer with the full displacement of 4200 t instead of the 127-mm Mk 42 unit.
According to the American press, the tests of the Mk 71 were successful, and the 203-mm gun before 1979 was in service with the DD 945. However, the Mk 71 installation did not enter mass production.


Shooting 203-mm installation MK.71 on the destroyer "Hell" 17 April 1975 g.


In December, the Germans on the frigate F-2002 "Hamburg" instead of the nasal 220-mm installation of the GTR set up a tower from the 76-mm SAU PzH-155. The length of the howitzer barrel 2000 caliber. Semi automatic wedge valve. Charging separately-sleeve. Feed is fully automated. During the first minute of howitzer fire at the SAU at the landfill in 52, 1997 fired shells, but then the rate of fire dropped significantly due to the warming up of the barrel and recoil devices.


155-mm howitzer on the frigate "Hamburg"


Testing 155-mm howitzers on the "Hamburg" were conducted before 2005 g. In the course of them revealed periodic failures in the mechanisms of supply of ammunition. The purpose of the test was to create a MONARC (Modular Naval Artillery Concept) 155 mm shipboard installation. MONARC units planned to equip the 4 of the new German frigates of the F-125 Ave. with a displacement of about 7,2 KT.

2 November 2011, the head frigate of the F-125 Avenue "Baden-Wuerttemberg" was founded in Hamburg. The estimated date of entry into the fleet - 2016 year. However, at the last moment, it was decided to equip it not with 155-mm guns, but with an 127-mm LW installation from Oto-Meller. The company has already received an order for 5 of such installations, one of which will be training.

Barrel length 127-mm installation LW 64 caliber, weight 25 t, rate of fire 25 rds / min. The new sub-caliber fired shells Vulcano should be its highlight.


127-mm long-range shells


The Vulcano projectile is designed in three versions: 1) unmanaged with a range of 70 km; 2) with homing heads for firing at surface ships; 3) with inertial control system with GPS correction for shooting at coastal targets at a distance of up to 120 km.

According to foreign media reports, the Vulcano unmanaged projectiles entered production in 2007, and the production of guided projectiles was supposed to start in 2011. However, apparently, the Vulcano guided projectiles have not yet been brought to mind. It is not difficult to guess that the firing of unguided projectiles with a range of 70 km will give a huge dispersion. Of course, the media does not write about this.

Back at the beginning of the XIX century, gunners found that the larger the caliber, the more stable the flight of the projectile and accuracy at the same distance.

Nevertheless, the United States and NATO are persistently creating ultra-long shells for ship guns of medium caliber 127 – 155 mm.

So, in the United States is the development of 155-mm installation AGS. It is a tower weighing 87,5 T with an under-deck loading system. In this case, the loading is performed with a vertical arrangement of the trunk. Vertical guidance angle from –5 ° to 70 °. Shots separate-sleeve. 102 kg weight Length 2,224 m. Explosive weight 11 kg. As you can see, by the weight of explosives, the projectile is intermediate between 152-mm and 203-mm shells from the Second World War. In the nose of the projectile 4 "control" of the wing, and in the tail section - 8 blade stabilizers. Inertial control system using GPS. The quadratic probable deviation (CEP) of the projectile is 20 – 50 m. The cost of one projectile is 35 thousand dollars.


155-mm installation AGS


In October 2001, the prototype passed the first test shooting. On tests of 16 June 2005, the projectile flew the distance 110 km in 280 seconds, completing a series of maneuvers.

31 August 2005. 45 shots for 8 seconds.

September 30 2011 AGS guns were carried out two shots with guided projectiles with GPS correction, which allegedly hit targets at a distance of 81 km.

The first copy of the 155-mm AGS installation was delivered to the US Navy 25 in May 2010.

In the United States, work is underway to create ship-type electromagnetic guns (EMOs) of the rail type.

The US Navy planned to create a prototype of such an installation for 2012, and to make a completely ready system in 2015 with its adoption by the fleet for 2018. In parallel with the development of the system itself, research on this project was carried out in the directions of creating a projectile and energy source.

According to the project, the barrel of an electromagnetic rail gun, in which rail guides are placed, will have a length of 12 m, be made of composite materials and ensure durability up to 5000 shots.

The guides are connected to a powerful current source that can convert the stored energy into a pulse with an active period of 10 ms.

Equipped ammunition and directional armature are laid between the rails in the breech of the gun. At the moment of activation (shot), the flow of energy runs through one rail and returns differently, creating a powerful electromagnetic pulse between them. The impulse acts on the guide (sliding) reinforcement located perpendicular to the rail conductor, which, under the influence of Lorentz force, accelerates along the barrel at hypersonic speed and pushes the loaded ammunition in front of it. Immediately at the moment of departure of the projectile from the barrel, the armature is separated from the projectile.


The alleged view of the American electromagnetic gun


However, according to media reports, the developers of the electromagnetic gun in the United States met with great difficulties, and the time of its adoption was not determined.

In conclusion, it should be said about the use of the GPS system for targeting shells. This is quite a promising direction, and, apparently, Russian designers should think about it. Another issue is that on a ship or onshore facility there may be a source of GPS interference. Well, in the case of using nuclear weapons, it is easy to create a field of particles in Earth orbit that interferes with the use of GPS. Recall the effect GPS has on solar activity, etc.

So, the answer to the question of whether the battleships will return in the 21st century is more positive than negative. Now the full displacement of cruisers in the US and Japanese fleets reaches 10 thousand tons, that is, corresponds to the displacement of the battleships of the early twentieth century. But new American cruisers of the type CG (X), the laying of which is already to take place, have a displacement of 16 thousand tons, that is, in this parameter they approach the famous Dreadnought. And trends in the development of naval artillery, it is likely, will lead to an increase in the caliber of guns to 203 mm and more.

From our dossier
Battleship (abbreviated from “battleship”) is a class of armored artillery warships with a displacement from 20 to 70 thousand tons, length from 150 to 280 m, armed with guns of the main caliber from 280 to 460 mm, with a crew of 1500 — 2800 people. Battleships were used in the 20th century to destroy enemy ships as part of a combat unit and artillery support for land operations. It was an evolutionary development of battleships of the second half of the nineteenth century.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.bratishka.ru
61 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. Zerstorer
    Zerstorer 17 November 2012 10: 01
    +13
    Interesting article. Thank.
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 19 November 2012 03: 56
      0
      As you know, history develops in a circle, and more precisely in an upward spiral.
      To paraphrase a well-known phrase: everything new is a slightly (well, or very) modernized old. wink
      Vryatli we certainly see battleships in their usual hypostasis for us, but everything goes to that - there will be large missile and artillery ships. The AUGs and KUGs will include large arsenal ships with hundreds of multi-purpose missiles and artillery mounts. In principle, nothing new was said in the article - just a long-known idea was wrapped in a slightly exotic package. bully
      1. sv-sakh
        sv-sakh 19 November 2012 08: 18
        +2
        Battleships?
        Submariners and the Air Force smiled a predatory grin :) laughing
      2. Dnepropetrovsk
        Dnepropetrovsk 25 November 2012 00: 40
        0
        I cannot understand one thing, I am quoting a piece of the article "So, at the very end of the 1960s, in the United States, in the strictest secrecy, they began to work on a 203-mm single-gun turret installation Mk 71. It was the world's first fully automated installation of this caliber. The installation could provide a rate of 12 rounds per minute and fire at this rate for 6 minutes. In total, 75 rounds of six different types were ready to fire. " And then another piece of the article. "In December 2002, the Germans on the frigate F-220" Hamburg "instead of the bow 76-mm installation OTO delivered a turret from the 155-mm self-propelled guns PzH-2000. The barrel length of a 52-caliber howitzer. Semi-automatic wedge shutter. During the first minute of firing, the howitzer on the self-propelled guns at the range in 1997 fired 12 rounds, but then the rate of fire dropped significantly due to the warming up of the barrel and recoil devices. " Question in the caliber 203mm barrel does not heat up?
  2. Vito
    Vito 17 November 2012 10: 15
    +10
    Indeed, the article is very interesting. Dear ALEXANDER CHIROKORAD, thank you very much for your work! hi
    As I understand correctly, the article raises the question of the second wind of artillery ships.
    Electromagnetic guns with guided projectiles sound menacing and tempting, but it all comes down to installations that must generate gigantic electric power! But something tells me that this direction will develop and be brought to mind, so as not to remain with a trough in this area?
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 17 November 2012 11: 29
      +9
      Hey. We are already behind. on cruisers of 16000 tons such energy sources are provided. so far we will confine ourselves to anti-sabotage boats and 2-3 corvettes in 5-6 years.
      1. Civil
        Civil 18 November 2012 17: 11
        +1
        while there is no king in my head it will be so
    2. Botanologist
      Botanologist 18 November 2012 21: 09
      0
      Hm. Predicting the return of battleships based on an analysis of the development of artillery is somehow one-sided. This is how to predict the release of car models based on the development of ABS or tires.
      The battleship is too large, and modern systems of destruction - from RCC to torpedoes - quietly make holes in it the size of a chest of drawers. And it is too expensive for these holes to be perceived calmly.
      In general, 6 frigates are better than 2 destroyers for the same price.
  3. Tatanka Yotanka
    Tatanka Yotanka 17 November 2012 11: 31
    +7
    It was the evolutionary development of the battleships of the second half of the nineteenth century.
    but what about sailing ships of the line? "Eustathius, Ingermanland" is their whole sea. The term "line" is taken from the tactics of building large multi-gun ships in a line for firing one side of all guns
    1. sv-sakh
      sv-sakh 19 November 2012 08: 19
      0
      Do not prompt laughing
  4. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 17 November 2012 11: 37
    +5
    So, as far as I understand, all hopes with the return of artillery ships as the "main caliber" of the Navy are connected only with electromagnetic guns. For good old gunpowder does not provide all the characteristics necessary for this ...

    My forecast is that when the electromagnetic cannon is brought to a series and (finally !!!) installed as the main weapon on a surface combat ship, aviation (including deck) and rocket weapons will also step forward. And everything will remain in its circles ...
  5. Kars
    Kars 17 November 2012 13: 03
    +3
    Quote: Chicot 1
    hopes with the return of artillery ships as the "main caliber" of the Navy are connected only with electromagnetic guns.


    where does this conclusion come from? because of the mention in the article? here we are talking more about the return of caliber 155-203 to service.
    Quote: Chicot 1
    aviation (including deck) and missile weapons will also step forward

    and where’s going further? The only thing left for aviation to do is exclude the pilot and then suborbitality. There are 5-generation fighter jets, and attack aircraft - bombers? Missiles are already hypersonic, low-flying with guidance from DPS, KSPi, etc. But it’s hard to select targets for their cost.
    1. Belo_ticketnik
      Belo_ticketnik 17 November 2012 16: 36
      +4
      I don’t know, I think the cost of a dozen anti-ship missiles is less than the cost of a NATO destroyer.

      I think as soon as the problem of target designation for anti-ship missiles with a range of more than 500 km is resolved, a large caliber will finally become a thing of the past.
      1. alex21411
        alex21411 17 November 2012 17: 48
        +1
        Right on target)
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 17 November 2012 22: 07
          +1
          Artillery is not suitable for naval combat. This became clear 70 years ago.
          And for shelling the coast there are much more powerful precision missiles and aircraft.
          1. Kars
            Kars 17 November 2012 22: 12
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Artillery is not suitable for naval combat. This became clear 70 years ago.
            And for shelling the coast there are much more powerful precision missiles and aircraft.


            I am amused. Tell it to the builders of Zemvolt))) even the Yankees caught up with the fact that missiles are expensive, and aviation is unreliable.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            It became clear 70 years ago

            Who is clear?
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 18 November 2012 01: 27
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Funny. Tell it to the builders of Zemvolt.

              Tell the builders of the zamvolt about saving))))))))))))
              Quote: Kars
              even the Yankees caught up with the cost of rockets

              The AGS guided missile cannons with extended range are not much different from missiles.

              Although, probably, in this form the modern missile and artillery system makes sense
              Quote: Kars
              and aviation is unreliable.

              The capabilities of aviation almost completely level out any classic naval artillery
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 November 2012 10: 52
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Tell the builders of the zamvolt about saving))))))))))))

                As a video game they conceive.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                AGS guided projectiles

                This is for extraordinary purposes. The most likely will be shells for a distance of up to 50 km.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                The capabilities of aviation almost completely level out any classic naval artillery

                How to LEVEL it, you want to say that if something happened somewhere you need to drive the AUG armada? And only the USA with a printing press can level it out like that, but even with 10 aircraft carriers they did something to do the barrel artillery.

                And just wondering what the aircraft carrier will do when they knock it out to a limited air group? Air defense systems do not go in place)))
                But the most important thing is that as you can see, not only do I expect the return of artillery ships
                Dreadnought reincarnation will happen in the next 20 years. The United States will be in a better position, which will be able to very quickly reanimate its battleships of the Iowa type, now used as museums.
                Developer of the site "Encyclopedia of Ships".

                I think this type of fleet takes longer than you
                1. Santa Fe
                  Santa Fe 18 November 2012 14: 59
                  +3
                  Quote: Kars
                  As a video game they conceive.

                  Yeah. Instead of the construction of the lockups, the Berks of the third series will go into the series. There, by the way, one AGS may be preserved, and the number of UVP will increase to 128
                  Quote: Kars
                  How to LEVEL it, do you want to say that if somewhere something happened you need to drive the armada AUG?

                  Not. You and I have already discussed these figures more than once - in any local war, land aviation does an excellent job (given the number of US air bases around the world).

                  In the absence of a real carrier fleet, anyone but the USA, with the development of aviation, the fleet became an auxiliary tool - all that was needed was to bring Tomahawks to the region and clear the pirates of the area.

                  Useless and dangerous, primarily for their own crew, large-caliber guns do not have any distinct advantages over aircraft:
                  - in local wars there are practically no problems associated with the distance 50 km. It requires a combat radius of 500 km minimum.
                  - your doubts about reliability are unfounded - aircraft perfectly perform night sorties in any weather conditions. (Iraq, Yugoslavia - that's just right now do not need about the crash of Apache - an isolated case)
                  - Aircraft ammunition and missile defense are many times more accurate than artillery
                  Quote: Kars
                  The United States will be in a better position, which will be able to very quickly reanimate its battleships of the Iowa type, now used as museums.

                  With their loot and fantasy ... what the hell is not joking
                  But I'm still sure that this will never happen - Iow has a very poor technical condition, at the end of the 90's they could no longer move independently.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 November 2012 15: 20
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    any local warfare is well handled by land aviation (given the number of US air bases around the world).

                    Have you tried not to get hung up on the US Army? There are hundreds of other countries and their army.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    in local wars there are practically no problems associated with the distance 50 km. It requires a combat radius of 500 km minimum.

                    Do you have such an impression? Congratulations.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    your doubts about reliability are unfounded - airplanes perfectly perform night sorties in any weather conditions. (Iraq, Yugoslavia - that's just right now do not need about the crash of Apache - an isolated case)

                    Well, when a boxer hits a child, while he was kept on starvation for decades, then American vultures can spavits.
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Aircraft ammunition and missile defense are several times more accurate than artillery

                    Who told you such nonsense? Not taking into account that they are many times more expensive, and you forgot to add the MANAGED to the aviation ammunition.
                    And bring you back to the quote from the article itself
                    According to the unchallenged claims of the American admirals, the most effective naval weapons of the Korean, Vietnamese and Lebanese wars were the 406-mm guns of American battleships

                    I posted about the Vietnamese epic, but I see it’s hard for you to perceive information that goes against your dogma.

                    But on the face of the fact, despite all your type of arguments, the Americans put a gun at the same time increasing the caliber, and as I wrote, they wrote a dozen aircraft carriers.
                    and for example, Mistal will not be able to provide normal support for the landing force, even if it is against Somalia.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      Santa Fe 18 November 2012 16: 01
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      There are hundreds of other countries and their army.

                      But the rest do not fight far in isolation from their shores.
                      Quote: Kars
                      in local wars there are practically no problems associated with the distance 50 km. It requires a combat radius of 500 km minimum.
                      This is your imagination

                      try to find a more serious argument
                      The main objectives in local conflicts are located hundreds of kilometers inland
                      Quote: Kars
                      According to the unchallenged claims of the American admirals, the most effective naval weapons of the Korean, Vietnamese and Lebanese wars were the 406-mm guns of American battleships

                      Considering the number of combat missions of aviation (deck and land) and comparison with the result of the "work" of battleships - Iowa's participation was purely symbolic
                      Quote: Kars
                      Aircraft ammunition and missile defense are several times more accurate than artillery
                      Who told you such nonsense?

                      Aircraft ammunition (even unguided NURS) and the Kyrgyz Republic are more accurate, many times more accurate. Battleship shoots for tens of kilometers, and the plane shoots at close range
                      Quote: Kars
                      This is not considering that they are many times more expensive

                      This is a meaningless statement - there is no alternative to aviation and the Kyrgyz Republic. Artillery cannot shoot for 500 km.
                      Quote: Kars
                      But on the face of the fact, despite all your type of arguments, the Americans put a gun at the same time increasing the caliber, and as I wrote, they wrote a dozen aircraft carriers.

                      First, the "Zamvolt" is not serialized
                      Secondly, AGS is not at all what you dreamed about. This is an alloy of artillery and rocketry.
                      Quote: Kars
                      Mistal will not be able to provide normal support for the landing force

                      The experience of the last 50 years shows that the landings mainly land in the capital's airports))))))))))
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 18 November 2012 16: 14
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        But the rest do not fight far in isolation from their shores.

                        Does it change something? If they have a sea shore and neighbors with the sea coast?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        try to find a more serious argument
                        The main objectives in local conflicts are located hundreds of kilometers inland

                        Only for Americans who are able to strike at infrastructure, disregarding the opinion of the world community about the destruction of non-military facilities, such as Baghdad's sewage pumping stations.
                        Imagine a local conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus for an example.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Considering the number of combat missions of aviation (deck and land) and comparison with the result of the "work" of battleships - Iowa's participation was purely symbolic

                        Given the number of shots and artillery rounds, the participation of aviation was purely symbolic.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Aircraft ammunition (even unguided NURS) and the Kyrgyz Republic are more accurate, many times more accurate. Battleship shoots for tens of kilometers, and the plane shoots at close range

                        Teach the materiel, they say it helps. And by the way, when the plane hits point-blank it is usually also point-blank, unless of course bombing hospitals and weddings.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        This is a meaningless statement - there is no alternative to aviation and the Kyrgyz Republic. Artillery cannot shoot for 500 km

                        This is a meaningless statement, since not all targets are located within 500 km, and no one spoke of an alternative as such, otherwise, assuming your statements, it makes sense to refuse land artillery, helicopters (how much can strike a target at a distance of 500 km and Venuts?)
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        First, the "Zamvolt" is not serialized

                        Does it change anything?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Secondly, AGS is not at all what you dreamed about. This is an alloy of artillery and rocketry.

                        Is this not particularly important, or will he not be able to fire conventional snayads?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        The experience of the last 50 years shows that the landings mainly land in the capital's airports))))))))))

                        Why the hell do the Americans keep amphibious assault ships? And former allies usually land in capital airdromes (or rather, allies who disagree with certain actions, but then tanks still fit)
                      2. Santa Fe
                        Santa Fe 18 November 2012 16: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Imagine a local conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus for an example.

                        There will be a usual massacre
                        Quote: Kars
                        Given the number of shots and artillery rounds, the participation of aviation was purely symbolic.

                        do you hint at low efficiency?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And by the way, when a plane hits point blank it usually also hits point blank

                        Did you fill a lot of Mirages in the 6-day war?
                        Got a lot of kadafi in 1986?
                        Even the extremely saturated Arab super-air defense system in 1973 could not stop the planes.
                        Quote: Kars
                        no one talked about the alternative as such, otherwise beating your allegations there is a sense of rejecting land artillery

                        So why do we need naval artillery GK? Why build battleships? To just shoot at 50 km? Shells will turn out gold

                        Do not count land artillery - a howitzer is easy to deliver to any land area. Even if the front line is 500 km from the coast
                        Quote: Kars
                        First, the "Zamvolt" is not serialized
                        Does it change anything?

                        Naturally, large guns are somehow in no hurry to return to the ships
                        Quote: Kars
                        Is this not particularly important, or will he not be able to fire conventional snayads?

                        most likely there will be no conventional shells. Will be with bottom gas generators, homing, etc.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Why the hell do Americans keep landing craft?

                        just in case.
                        Quote: Kars
                        And in the capital's airdromes, usually former allies land (or rather, even allies who disagree with some actions, but then tanks are still suitable)

                        this happens most often
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 18 November 2012 17: 26
                        0
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Imagine a local conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus for an example.

                        There will be a usual massacre

                        Yeah, like something more or less real, so you're on a frostbite. In addition to the US-Liechtenstein option, you can see it too much.

                        For the rest, I’m just truly sorry for you.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Will be with bottom gas generators

                        This is also the case with conventional shells. This is so offhand.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        So why do we need naval artillery GK? Why build battleships? To just shoot at 50 km? Shells will turn out gold

                        Performing the same tasks with a brilliant carrier or platinum aircraft will be more expensive and dangerous.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Did you fill a lot of Mirages in the 6-day war?
                        Got a lot of kadafi in 1986?
                        Even the extremely saturated Arab super-air defense system in 1973 could not stop the planes.

                        Here everyone knows that Jewish planes are unbreakable.
                        And so something in Vietnam and Afghanistan stuffed.
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Do not count land artillery - a howitzer is easy to deliver to any land area. Even if the front line is 500 km from the coast

                        But your favorite plane will also be able to do this, why pull it somewhere? Where is your logic?
                        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                        Why the hell do Americans keep landing craft?

                        just in case

                        Brilliant answer, brave
                2. Basarev
                  Basarev 28 February 2014 18: 13
                  0
                  Only one thing is bad - pushkodels are engaged in all sorts of kids of caliber 152-203 mm. That's when modern guns of caliber 406-457 mm will appear - then we can talk about the return of battleships.
      2. Kars
        Kars 18 November 2012 01: 06
        +4
        Quote: Belo_biletnik
        a dozen RCCs are less than the cost of a NATO destroyer

        Ships fight only with ships? When was the last time?
        The last conflicts, if anyone noticed the ships iron the shore, and it is difficult to think of an 8-16 inch gun better to support their troops in the coastal zone.
        And let the anti-ship missiles let PKR ami remain. And then the destroyer can also launch the anti-ship missiles)
        but this is a topic for another conversation.
      3. Bronis
        Bronis 18 November 2012 14: 46
        +2
        There are no fundamental technical problems with target designation for anti-ship missiles for a long time. If I am not mistaken, the P-1000 could hit targets at a distance of up to 700 km on the external control system. And the P-700 and P-500 are also within these limits. Only the USSR had such missiles, the Americans did not really need them in view of the presence of aircraft carriers - much lighter "Harpoons" had someone to deliver. Well, then everyone knows ... the collapse of the defense industry, the decommissioning of "Legend". And that's all ...
        Well, the 130-mm in the past, most likely, will not go away for a long time. Not for all purposes of the Kyrgyz Republic is it advisable to start up. And in view of the range of the goal and in view of economic feasibility
  6. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 17 November 2012 13: 09
    +4
    Great article. It was very interesting to read about the "second wind" of the barrel artillery. Considering the creation of co-corrected inertial ammunition and guided ammunition of the active-reactive type with the possibility of installing a nuclear warhead, now it is possible to use barreled artillery on ships. And the fire control and control systems (adjustments) directly by the ammunition on the trajectory of approaching the target sharply increase the effectiveness of the shot. This is confirmed by the Bal-E coastal complex.
    Actually, I’m not special in ships, I’m closer to tank themes, but the F-220 fascist project with a self-propelled gun turret is a good example.
    And frankly speaking, it is completely incomprehensible to me why it is necessary to create a weapon on the electromagnetic principle. inertial ammunition at the exit from the barrel can be dispersed to 1.5-2 km / s. Actively reactive can be dispersed to complete hypersound.
    1. Belo_ticketnik
      Belo_ticketnik 17 November 2012 16: 43
      +6
      To be honest, the "second wind" is more like a convulsive sigh :) why fence large-caliber artillery systems on ships? Will it float behind enemy aircraft carriers? to stick out as a target near the coast in the affected area of ​​coastal complexes?

      The large barrel of battleships is more like a brutal romance, otherwise it reminds me of an archer with a submachine gunner ... Yes, you can also kill an arrow, but it’s easier with an automatic machine :)
  7. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 17 November 2012 17: 27
    +3
    Of course they won’t come back!
    Allegedly, the effectiveness of battleships in recent conflicts where they took part is more a myth than a truth!
    What was the point of bullying 406 mm suitcases for those purposes? - a purely psychological impact, but then local in area ...
    1. dmitreach
      dmitreach 17 November 2012 19: 26
      +6
      Brother Sarych

      Warhead weight cast by a tomahawk?
      The weight of the warhead cast by the main battleship gauge?
      Speed ​​of approach to the target? (Tomahawk before sound CD)
      Fire density?
      We do not take range into account, because the natives do not have effective sabers. The situation made it possible to select affordable targets, firing from a safe distance.
      Shot cost?
      The number of units in the bins of the American country?
      The prospect of write-offs in the next decade (90s), these pelvis with their calibers.
      The realization by the American accountants that the ammunition accumulated over the years will need to be disposed of, and this is like never once cheap.

      Bottom line: lies a weapon of equal efficiency to the Tomahawks, but much cheaper, which will need to be disposed of at someone else's expense?
      Threat Russian money for drank battleships on pins will not allocate.

      These are the realities of the 90s. But are they needed now? I think no.
  8. homosum20
    homosum20 17 November 2012 17: 34
    +3
    The time of the battleships is over. too good and expensive target.
  9. George
    George 17 November 2012 20: 24
    +3
    During the war, the Japanese ships pierced the shells of our naval artillery while exploding outside the ship without harming manpower, while the Japanese shimosa mowed our sailors. This was about small-caliber guns. And the big guns were always big toys and a headache for those who created them. And battleships in general are also an expensive toy. Old.
    1. Nick
      Nick 17 November 2012 23: 00
      +1
      But the article is still interesting, interesting thoughts, interesting facts ...
  10. nerd.su
    nerd.su 17 November 2012 22: 16
    +3
    Battleships are old ... But artillery of 152 mm caliber and above is still relevant, especially in light of the development of guided, active-reactive and other shells. And the possibility of using nuclear charge.
    In addition, in local and regional conflicts, it is possible to use such systems against a less technically advanced side. And in a big war, after an exchange of nuclear strikes, it will be much easier to find in the ruins a pair of surviving lathes for the production of blanks than a bunch of enterprises for the production of missiles, rocket fuel, missile warheads, element base for the production of "smart" missile filling ... I am exaggerating, but the meaning is clear, I think.
  11. Mrakan
    Mrakan 18 November 2012 00: 19
    +3
    history moves in a spiral. The most interesting thing is that the return of battleships is quite possible, modern alloys and armor-piercing impact of anti-ship missiles make it quite cost-effective to create battleships.
  12. not good
    not good 18 November 2012 01: 17
    +4
    For cruisers and destroyers, a 203mm gun to reanimate and install during modernization would not be bad. Question to the command of the Navy.
  13. Ratibor12
    Ratibor12 18 November 2012 03: 48
    +1
    Classic artillery is unlikely to ever become the MAIN weapon of a ship again. Wrong range with normal accuracy. Wrong accuracy at normal range. Of course, driving the Papuans, as "Komsomolets of Moldavii" did with Eritrean batteries, is a nice thing. To drown any "mosquito fleet" is also good.
    And no one will return to such armor as it was on battleships. She will not save anyone.
    In short, artillery can be considered the main weapon except for boats. And then, without any MANPADS, SAMs, ATGMs, mini-anti-ship missiles, a purely artillery boat - money wasted. Worse just a torpedo ...
    1. Mrakan
      Mrakan 18 November 2012 10: 46
      +4
      The armor will save, modern ships are simply not tin-armored, but no one has done research on effective reservation, and if they start, then again everything will return to the battleships. RCC is good, but against a well-armored monster it will be mosquito bites, and when the battleship is saturated with anti-aircraft defense systems, which can accommodate 40-50 thousand tons in a monster, we get a breakthrough ship that can fit an effective firing range of 406 mm caliber, with with a range of 150 km, and with guiding shells, in a volley of 9 pieces and who then can stand against it?
  14. Su24
    Su24 18 November 2012 15: 54
    +1
    If the range of the projectiles is brought to hundreds of kilometers, then the gun is more effective than a rocket, no doubt. Otherwise, it is a waste of money.
  15. georg737577
    georg737577 18 November 2012 16: 07
    +1
    Gentlemen, subject to the use of nuclear weapons, any ship (and a battleship or aircraft carrier - especially ...) is a large and very expensive target, nothing more ... The first thing that will be disabled in the event of a total world war is satellites that provide the work of the GPS system, which will make all "ultra-precise" weapons simply accurate (sometimes), or even completely inaccurate ...
  16. bart74
    bart74 18 November 2012 16: 58
    0
    I think the battleships will return. With more advanced weapon systems and anti-radar stealth technology.
  17. cool.ya-nikola
    cool.ya-nikola 18 November 2012 17: 55
    +3
    The encyclopedic knowledge of Alexander Borisovich Shirokorad deserves great respect! I will take the liberty of recommending his books: "The Weapons of the Patriotic Fleet 1945 - 2000", "The History of Aircraft Armament (A Brief Essay)", "The Battle for the Black Sea", "Russia and Ukraine. When the Cannons Talk ...". Already by the given names it is possible (though far from fully!), To judge how large the range of interests of the author! And, since all of his works are written in a very simple and intelligible language, and (in my opinion!) Are quite informative, I think that Shirokorad's books should interest everyone who is interested in the history of the Russian Army and Navy!
  18. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 18: 42
    +6
    Battleships, alas, will never return.
    The 406-mm projectile of the American Iowa-class battleship has a weight of 1225 kg. Rocket "Tomahawk" - about 1200-1400 kg, depending on the modification. But the rocket carries 450 kg of warhead, while the projectile will contain (even a high-explosive) no more than 70 kg of explosives.
    In total, the missile is equivalent to about 6 battleship shells for explosives. But the accuracy of the projectile cannot be compared with the accuracy of the rocket - while the rocket has a probability of hitting about 0,9 artillery shells at long distances hit the target ... the usual percentage of hits for sea battles is 2,5-3,5 %. But let's say that due to super-supersystem guidance, we managed to bring this level to 10%. It turns out that to ensure the delivery of the same volume of explosives, with a probability of the same 0,9, about 54 406-mm projectiles will be needed ... And this will already be more expensive than the Tomahawk. You can certainly recall homing shells, there will be less of these, but their cost is much higher than that of conventional shells, so that's what it will do
    True, one can argue - they say, "The Tomahawk is a subsonic rocket, you can shoot it down, but a projectile ... And what about a projectile?"
    A shell from a heavy weapon of WWII times flies out at a speed of about 850 m / s - well, that's about 3M. And the projectile falls at a speed of about 1,5-1,7M. In this case, it should be borne in mind that even the radars of the WWII EMNIP sometimes saw enemy shells in the air. Those. projectile damage is the defeat of a target normally visible on the radar, flying at a speed of about 2M and even along a ballistic trajectory ... In other words, a 406-mm projectile is a completely "achievable" target for any modern missile defense system. No less amusing are the algorithms with which it is possible, having determined the trajectory of the projectile, to understand whether it threatens the ship or not and to fire only those projectiles that threaten ...
    Booking of battleships is also a very conditional thing. Thick armor defended a narrow strip of side on the waterline, and the armor shell covered the engine compartments from the bombs well ... but most of the side, superstructures, radar and so on were not protected - so modern means to drown the battleship, of course, it will be hard, but to put it out of action, depriving combat capability is no more difficult than an ordinary missile cruiser.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 18 November 2012 19: 00
      +3
      I, too, don’t believe in returning, but the question arose - well, and in what way can a ton of metal with filling be stopped in the air? Although 300 kg, and not 70, by the way, is not so little!
      But the distance is still too small, and the higher the caliber, the less shots the gun can withstand, especially if you shoot with maximum charges ...
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 19: 06
        +2
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        I also do not believe in returning, but the question arose - well, and in what way can you stop a ton of metal with filling in the air?

        And it does not need to stop - it is enough to reject it from a dangerous trajectory. This is quite enough for the conventional warheads of modern missiles.
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        Although 300 kg, not 70, by the way, not so little!

        No projectile ever had such a filling. Armor-piercing American shells had about 40 kg of explosives, and high-explosive - about 70 kg.
        Quote: Brother Sarich
        But the distance is still too small, and the higher the caliber, the less shots the gun can withstand, especially if you shoot with maximum charges ...

        Nuuuu, in WWII guns survivability reached 250-300 shots - then you have to change the liner ... But if the gun was resuspended (that is, too much charge was provided), then there could be 150 and 120 shots.
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 18 November 2012 19: 26
          +2
          Yes, something I did not look there, in our shell a little less than 90 kg of explosives ...
          In the possibility of changing the trajectory - something I can not believe ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 19: 44
            +3
            Quote: Brother Sarich
            In the possibility of changing the trajectory - something I can not believe ...

            Why?:)))
            Due to the fact that the projectile flies along a ballistic one, it is realistic to hammer even a kinetic warhead. But it is not necessary at all - I just remember one guy doing the calculation of the required energy to change the trajectory, this calculation I, of course, cannot be reproduced, but it turned out that the projectile is not so much needed.
            1. Vito
              Vito 18 November 2012 20: 01
              0
              Brother Sarych ,Andrei from Chelyabinsk Good evening, dear! hi
              Sorry to wedge into your conversation, but I thought your conversation was very interesting. I apologize again if that! hi
              I also imagined more than once whether it is possible to intercept or take away a projectile (a suitcase, as they call a large caliber) from its flight path! I read one article, probably a year ago in a newspaper (I don’t remember the name of the kill), there was a report of American specialists-technologists on missiles to STANDARD-2 interceptors. It turns out 60% of the interceptors did not destroy the target, but turned it off course. Probably an acceptable result for intercepting a conventional warhead, but if the warhead is unusual?
              Yes, I forgot to say, I also don’t remember the general statistics of the destruction and rejection of the target by interceptors, so I won’t say anything. so as not to look like a talker in your eyes! Andrei, and you do not have complete information on the interceptions of the AMERICANS! Maybe not so terrible AJIS as he is painted?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 20: 20
                +2
                Good evening, dear Vito!
                Quote: Vito
                I'm sorry to wedge your conversation.

                Get in without apologies, you are always welcome! :)
                Quote: Vito
                It turns out 60% interceptors did not destroy the target, but rejected it from the course. For the interception of conventional warheads probably an acceptable result, but if the warhead is unusual?

                There most likely it was meant that the target did not break up into atoms, but flew further on, but already along a path that could not threaten the ship. But without reading the article it is difficult to say for sure :))
                What do you mean by "unusual warhead"?
                Quote: Vito
                Andrew and you do not have complete information on interceptions AMERICANS! Maybe not so terrible IJIS as he is painted?

                I do not own, alas. But I really, really doubt that Aegis is so terrible as he is painted :))))
                1. Kars
                  Kars 18 November 2012 20: 33
                  0
                  No one will reject 20 minute art raid LC type Iowa,
                  As for% of filling, in the absence of armored targets, it can be raised to 20-25%

                  And maybe 16 inches and non-Net, but 10-12 is very much even possible.
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 23: 52
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    No one will reject 20 minute art raid LC type Iowa,

                    Yes, but no one substitute him :)))
                    Quote: Kars
                    As for% of filling, in the absence of armored targets, it can be raised to 20-25%

                    It is impossible. Too much overload on the projectile at the time of the shot. Therefore, the number of explosives in a dress - whether it is an armor-piercing, high-explosive or not - is relatively small and usually does not exceed 5% by weight of the projectile
                    Quote: Kars
                    And maybe 16 inches and non-Net, but 10-12 is very much even possible.

                    Everything can be, the question is only one - why?
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 19 November 2012 00: 13
                      +1
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Yes, but no one substitute him :)))

                      The shore began to arbitrarily change the coordinates? I was not warned.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      It is impossible. Too much overload on the projectile at the time of the shot. Therefore, the number of explosives in a dress - whether it is an armor-piercing, high-explosive or not - is relatively small and usually does not exceed 5% by weight of the projectile

                      There are no impracticable tasks, especially when even in Russian-Japanese the weight of explosives from the Japanese increased 5%
                      Shell Types and Weights AP - 850 lbs. (386 kg)
                      HE - 850 lb (386 kg)
                      Common - 850 pounds. (386 kg)
                      Bursting charge
                      (see note 1) AP - about 42 lb (19 kg)
                      HE - about 85 p. (39 kg)



                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Everything can be, the question is only one - why?

                      And why on ships even now are 130 mm? Although modern cobbles are almost unarmed against the shore.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2012 00: 24
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        The shore began to arbitrarily change the coordinates? I was not warned.

                        The ship is only for work on the shore - this is hardly seriously relevant. Well, I don’t see such coastal targets that would require something more than a 155-203-mm projectile
                        Quote: Kars
                        There are no impracticable tasks, especially when even in Russian-Japanese the weight of explosives from the Japanese increased 5%

                        Yes, the Japanese land mines almost doubled - to 9,5% And what's the use? The Japanese have dealt with so many problems with them that they themselves quickly abandoned high-explosive shells for GK LC — that is, they were, of course, but efforts were concentrated on armor-piercing
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 19 November 2012 00: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        A ship only for work on the shore - this is hardly seriously relevant

                        But something will hinder the installation of the anti-ship missile launcher in case of (almost unbelievable) encounter with an enemy ship.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        well, I don’t see point blank targets in the coastal strip that would require something more than a 155-203 mm shell

                        Caliber is not only power, but also range.
                        Ballistic data from the SM-33 are not surpassed to this day. A high-explosive projectile weighing 467 kg at an initial speed of 950 m / s had a range of 53 km, and a long-range projectile of drawing 5219 weighing 230,5 kg at an initial speed of 1300 m / s had a range of 127,35 km
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes, the Japanese landmines exceeded almost twice - up to 9,5% Japanese raked with them so many problems

                        I hope you take into account the progress in pyrotechnics and explosives more stable and more powerful picric acid?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        GK LK - i.e. they were over, but efforts were focused on armor-piercing

                        But we have no task for armor penetration.
  19. Vito
    Vito 18 November 2012 20: 42
    +1
    Well, by an unusual warhead, I mean a nuclear charge! But it can be both chemical and bacteriological. There are quite a few invented methods of destroying humanity (he himself can do it himself)!
    Let’s say the interceptor does not destroy the rocket, or the projectile, but partially it damages and deflects it from the course. Having flown along a modified trajectory, a certain segment of the target falls on the territory or near the ship's order and probably works? Well if the fuse is disabled, and if not?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 November 2012 23: 59
      +3
      Quote: Vito
      Let’s say the interceptor does not destroy the rocket, or the projectile, but partially it damages and deflects it from the course. Having flown along a modified trajectory, a certain segment of the target falls on the territory or near the ship's order and probably works? Well if the fuse is disabled, and if not?

      A nuclear charge is most likely not going to work. The fact is that in itself an atomic explosion ... will not arise just like that. I'll try to explain on the fingers.
      Undermining weapons-grade plutonium will lead to the fact that the micron fraction of this plutonium will detonate and smash the rest of plutonium into shakenness, it simply will not explode and scatter in different directions. In the end - it will turn out the explosion is not stronger than conventional explosives. In order to have time to react, most of the plutonium is done this way - weapons-grade plutonium is located inside a different bomb. At the moment plutonium starts to react, this very different bomb explodes around plutonium. the explosion. Well, any damage to the warhead up to the frag can break this delicate mechanism and there will be no gigabyte, but zilch alone.
      1. Kars
        Kars 19 November 2012 00: 26
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, any damage to warheads up to fragmentation can disrupt this delicate mechanism and will

        Well, I'm not sure about Mark 23, but something tells me that even a close explosion will not hurt his shell, they recently wrote that the projectile is still in the barrel experiencing huge loads, against which the fragments of SAMs are not serious. And if you recall that the same Petriot almost never did not undermine the Scud warhead during intercepts.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2012 00: 48
          +1
          If we are talking about an atomic projectile, it would not hurt, but it seemed to me that this was a rocket
          1. Kars
            Kars 19 November 2012 14: 51
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            but it seemed to me that this was a rocket

            Vryatli, write a discussion about artillery here. But let's remember the armor of ICBM warheads, although I understand its main task is not to let it collapse when it enters the dense layers of the atmosphere. And if it’s a nuclear warhead, it will destroy it.
    2. commbatant
      commbatant 19 November 2012 00: 03
      0
      probably all the same with a nuclear or cluster warhead (don’t know, just guess)
  20. marinist
    marinist 18 November 2012 22: 20
    0
    But will we have enough funds to build one battleship? The epic with the construction of Soviet battleships is known ...
  21. commbatant
    commbatant 18 November 2012 22: 53
    0
    Good! I still wildly apologize, but if I remember correctly, during the 1982 Anglo-Argentine conflict over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the only Argentine cruiser (flagship of the fleet) with artillery weapons of the caliber specified by the author was sunk by the English Sea Harriers at the initial stage of the conflict ...

    The battleships remained only with the "angry states" that were in the fleet reserve (far from active), with the new US naval concept of "strike from the sea" it is more profitable to remake battleships for super-missile carriers (remove turret installations with main-caliber cannons) and in their place to place rocket launchers with vertical launching missiles and anti-ship missiles.
    The damned empiricalists already did something similar during the Cold War with nuclear-powered URO-type cruisers of the "Ticonderoga" type ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 18 November 2012 22: 56
      +1
      Quote: commbatant
      but if my memory serves me right

      It changes, it changes --- it is obscured by an atomic submarine. Si Harier would be able to drown Belgrano, even though it was built in World War II.
      Quote: commbatant
      done during the Cold War with nuclear-powered URO cruisers of the Ticonderoga type ...

      not atomic, and they were missile from the very beginning.
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 18 November 2012 23: 05
        +1
        cruisers of the "Tikanderrog" type have always been with a nuclear power plant in the amount of 26 ships made them
        1. Kars
          Kars 18 November 2012 23: 26
          0
          It can be seen advise to learn materiel.
          http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100010

          and even wikipedia.
          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D
          0%BA%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B0_%C2%AB%D
          0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%C2%BB
          1. commbatant
            commbatant 19 November 2012 00: 00
            0
            READ BETTER ZVO MAGAZINE
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2012 00: 17
              +2
              Quote: commbatant
              READ BETTER ZVO MAGAZINE

              Can I link to the number? With ATOMIC Ticonderogs, and C Harriers that have sunk in Belgrano.
              Here, by the way, is a photo of these Sea Harriers
              The Argentine cruiser sank the second hull which with a deckhouse, Coneror, is called. Nuclear submarine type Sea Harrier, yeah wassat
      2. commbatant
        commbatant 19 November 2012 00: 23
        -1
        remember who sank the German battleship Tirpitz in World War II?
        1. Kars
          Kars 19 November 2012 00: 34
          +1
          Quote: commbatant
          remember who sank the German battleship Tirpitz in World War II?

          Really Si Hariera?
        2. Alex
          Alex 12 December 2013 19: 38
          +2
          Aviation. Specially hung bombs of high power. We will leave the stories about the English ultralow submarines for the popular literature (not in fact, but in terms of effectiveness).
  22. commbatant
    commbatant 18 November 2012 23: 03
    0
    read those about the modernization of cruisers it’s like, and I don’t deny that they were missile (I didn’t write about cruisers with guided missile weapons), but they still have artillery weapons
    In addition, for some reason Argentine (French-made) Ethanders' planes could damage the British aircraft carrier Hermes, the tank landing ship Sir Gallehead and did not diminish
  23. Kars
    Kars 18 November 2012 23: 18
    0
    Quote: commbatant
    (otherwise I did not write about cruisers with guided missile weapons) only now they still have artillery weapons

    And what, well, is there? Something you confuse as with the sinking of Belgrano.
    Quote: commbatant
    The Ethanders could damage the British aircraft carrier Hermes, the tank landing ship Sir Gallehead and did not diminish

    It’s cool to compare a ground attack aircraft and a fighter-type vertical take-off bomber. It can also be said that Belgrano, like Shefield, would have been burned up by an unexploded Exoset. Yes, and of course the tank paratrooper with the cruiser Brooklyn is also cool to compare.
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 18 November 2012 23: 58
      0
      I wanted to say that the British took into account the main mistakes:
      - a weak system of missile air defense (then they did not yet have the Sea Sparrow air defense system);
      -and widespread use in the construction of shipable superstructures of armor and partitions made of aluminum alloys (combustible bastards turned out to be)

      So, in order not to get away from the main topic - during the formation of the KMG, ASG and AUG, escort forces are formed from among the air defense frigates.

      The use of battleships for their intended purpose is unprofitable, because the empirialists no longer have enemies (such as the FRY and Iraq have already been destroyed).

      The PRC and the Russian Federation with powerful coastal defense units remained, battleships can be used against such countries only in the absence of an air and missile threat and at the final stage, when our units and formations will have to leave the coastal theater
      1. Kars
        Kars 19 November 2012 00: 00
        0
        Quote: commbatant
        I wanted to say that the British took into account the main mistakes:

        Unfortunately you badly want.
  24. commbatant
    commbatant 18 November 2012 23: 46
    0
    still the British were able to gain dominance in the air and at sea
    (Well, of course, the English SAS, burned 1,5 dozen Argentine aircraft at one of the airfields of Argentina, from which they took off to bomb an English squadron, having raided through Chile, with the permission of the then dictator Pinochet)
    in addition to what you do not like Harriers, they are in service with the Spanish Navy's own aircraft (light aircraft carrier "Prince of Asturias") and are in service with the US Marine Corps, but the bomb load and range are not the same, but they won, and the Argentines lost
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 November 2012 00: 03
      0
      Quote: commbatant
      Yes, the bomb load and range are not the same, but they won, and the Argentines lost

      The Argentines, even the aircraft carrier, were idle, and the British won because the Argentines had blast fuses on bombs and the exosets did not want to explode.
      And here there is someone to tell Brooklyn who withstood even the hit of X Fritz and reached the base.
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 19 November 2012 00: 21
        0
        In what modern operations are you going to use battleships to fight pirates off the coast of Somalia or to blockade the coast of Iran?
        1. Kars
          Kars 19 November 2012 00: 35
          0
          Quote: commbatant
          in what modern operations are you going to use battleships, to fight pirates off the coast of Somalia or for the blockade of the coast of Iran

          Ask this question to Mistral customers for the Russian Navy.
  25. commbatant
    commbatant 19 November 2012 00: 19
    0
    he would have used the aircraft carrier, would have been sunk right away, at that time the British had the most frigates of various classes, both air defense and anti-aircraft defense, among the countries of the NATO aggressive bloc, so the British lost only at the initial stage of the operation to return the group of crown islands
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 November 2012 00: 38
      -1
      Quote: commbatant
      he would use an aircraft carrier,

      Wow, is an aircraft carrier really garbage and doesn't mean anything?
      Quote: commbatant
      at that time, the British most of all among the countries of the NATO aggressive bloc had frigates of different classes, both air defense and anti-aircraft defense,

      Yes, really? Maybe even the Argentinean AB had to enter into an art duel with them?

      Or Si Hariera is a super duper, and Argentine planes are garbage)))))
  26. commbatant
    commbatant 19 November 2012 02: 58
    +1
    I can’t understand your logic, you assure me at first that the Argentine planes could have crushed the British armada (with two aircraft carriers) in the trash, though for some reason they didn’t defeat, on the other hand, British planes, in your opinion, are not capable of this, although domination of the air in the theater of conquest ...

    and most importantly, they did not prove the importance of battleships (such as Iowa, Missouri, Kirov, etc.) in modern naval operations (battles), like at least the above

    The Russian Navy does not need battleships now, but SSBNs, PLA (torpedoes + KP and torpedoes + ASR), destroyers (Pacific Fleet and SF), Frigates (on BF and CFL - corvettes), ships of the Mistral type on (Pacific Fleet and SF), if we deign to build an ocean fleet (and the purchase of the Mistral says this), you will have to build a cruiser such as the American Tikkanderog

    For starters, you can withdraw from the reserve all used heavy. cruisers, and the old SSBNs that are waiting for cutting to be redone, like the Americans under the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic (Pacific Fleet) and anti-ship missiles
    1. Kars
      Kars 19 November 2012 14: 47
      0
      Quote: commbatant
      I can not understand your logic

      Where's yours? You have British super aircraft carriers seized control of the airspace, and the agent’s so zero without a stick. At the same time, the British suffer heavy losses in super aggressive destroyers and frigates))
      Quote: commbatant
      The Russian Navy does not need battleships now, but SSBNs, PLA (torpedoes + KP and torpedoes + ASR), destroyers (Pacific Fleet and SF), Frigates (on BF and CFL - corvettes), ships of the Mistral type on (Pacific Fleet and SF), if we deign to build an ocean fleet (and the purchase of the Mistral says this), you will have to build a cruiser such as the American Tikkanderog

      What are you? Well, tell me why you need Mistral?
      Quote: commbatant
      and most importantly, they did not prove the importance of battleships (such as Iowa, Missouri, Kirov, etc.) in modern naval operations (battles), like at least the above

      Well, I’ll answer in my own words (PS Kirov light cruiser))))))) Iowa and Missouri are one type of LC)
      The British bit their elbows because they sent the battleship Vengard to be scrapped, because with its help they could finish the battles on the islands in a matter of days. In addition, the good old battleship could simply not pay attention to the Exozets, which destroyed several ships. The missile warhead was a miserable 500-pound bomb, the hits of which the battleship would not even notice. And most importantly, the flawed policy of building mini-replicas of real ships of the main classes was clearly demonstrated, which the British pushed to poverty and the falsely understood principle of economy.

      And you will explain what the Americans drove battleships to the shores of Iraq in 1991
  27. IS7
    IS7 19 November 2012 03: 55
    -2
    I do not agree with SWEET_SIXTEEN - it demonstrates some absolutization of aviation and missile weapons ... Some, directly, "Khrushchev syndrome" :))
    So:
    1. Its main argument is mistaken precisely because the range of naval artillery in the coming 10 years will grow far beyond the 50 and even beyond the 100km.
    Thus, a new generation of planning active-missiles of 127-155mm calibers will reach a range of 180-185km and up to 200km. These shells are already being tested by the very AGS. And we must bear in mind that the previous range of these systems did not exceed 24km.
    For systems of 203mm caliber with a range of 40-50km at the same Pion of old shells, with its 5-6fold increase due to new planning active-reactive shells, the range can reach 250-300km in 203mm caliber and large calibers. This is NOT an ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPON, but something like the LW-64 of Oto-Melara, brought to mind with a 52-65kal trunk length and projectile speeds of up to 1000m per second.
    2. When introducing a series of electromagnetic guns, Americans lay as a standard to get a range of 500 to 2000 km in second-generation guns (the first is now tested in iron, the series is promised by the year 16, the second is assembled and completed design - tests with 14 g, the series will be from the year 20).
    The second-generation electromagnetic gun with a range of 2000 km and a projectile speed of more than 2 km per second — and up to 12–20 km per second — has an advantage in the price of ammunition, is comparable in accuracy, the projectile is invulnerable to EMIs of air defense weapons and malouvuluyu to laser, when shooting kinetic - and for missiles when hit other than direct, it is slightly vulnerable. A kinetics with a speed of more than 10 km per second in a collision with a target (ship, bunker, tank or fortification) in the explosive as if no longer needed -when a collision of energy will be so much ... And such a blank flies several times faster than missiles and bring it down where it’s more difficult, and the BC ship will take more ... Such a ship, having detected the enemy’s AVU at 1500-2000 km at the same time as its opponent, due to the speed of flight of hypersonic shells - after 100-110 seconds from the shot (at a distance of 2000 km) the aircraft carrier will start to hit - when he still doesn’t have time to lift even a third of the air group in 2 minutes to strike him from the deck yet ... Even a hypersonic missile will overtake such a gun 3-5 times at a range of up to 2000 km, while the KVO will provide 10-15 meters due to G.I. ..for an aircraft carrier or a stationary target, grab to hit several shells from a series ... the gun’s speed will be 10-15 rounds per minute ..
    1. Alex
      Alex 12 December 2013 19: 56
      +2
      Quote: IS7
      and a projectile speed of more than 2km per second -and up to 12-20 km per second
      But nothing that even at 6-8 km / s air from friction burns metal? Or forgot about spaceships and meteorites? And they fly through the atmosphere for about the same amount of time as your hypothetical projectile from a fantastic electromagnetic gun should pour at your distances (so far only Hugo prize winners shoot well from it).

      And this is the first cosmic speed. And the second - a little more than 11 km / s. This means that such shells will become satellites of either the Earth or the Sun (depending on speed). So before you write nonsense, learn physics. At least in the context of the 8-th class of the Soviet school.

      As for all the rest of your numbers, you get the impression that you are dealing with them, like with the rest of the characters: just drum on the keyboard ...
  28. IS7
    IS7 19 November 2012 04: 22
    -3
    However, such electromagnetic weapons will appear in 10 years ... and no armor can protect them ...
    In the meantime, of course, it’s optimal not to be a linkor, but a fire support cruiser ... It should be a river-sea ship with very high draft and optimized as an Alligattor or Ivan Gren type base ship for comparatively shallow waters.
    It can carry in its nose three installations of Tornadoes (or Tornado-S) with under-deck reloading (according to the RBU-6000 scheme) and then behind them a pair of Pion-M installations with new shells (cluster, with Glonass actively reactive planners) with a range up to 300km. Our modules of 152mm glonass-guided projectiles with the same accuracy as the notorious Escalibur cost less than 80 bucks, and only a little more than 1000.
    203 modules will cost the same hardly more than $ 1500 ... GOOD MUCH cheaper than Kaliber-Klab-type anti-ship missiles ... with comparable accuracy ... Such truth will fly like 50-60 km like the old ones, and those planning new ones will be more expensive, those that are 250-300km ... but in any case cheaper than missiles ... and those who did not return from the departure of the plane ....
    A ship with a low draft, river-sea class, with anti-fragmentation light armor (50-100mm) with weapons of 3 tornadoes with automatic reloading, several dozen VPU Hermes (those with a range of 100km), further closer to the middle of the ship from the bow, blue - sublimely - two peony towers-m (or two vertical arches 203mmm in the type of coalition-sv but 203mm) -with a rate of fire of 15 rounds per minute for each barrel ... + ZAK and polymer-redoubt complexes of air defense systems ... + several VPU (a bit, 16-24) Caliber-Yakhont missiles - this is all in the bow, in the stern there is also a VPU SAM and a hangar for 2 helicopters and 6-8 UAV corrections ... a ship for 6-7 thousand tons of standard ... sort of gunner destroyer or rather a kind of medium-heavy cruiser ... tornadoes of a typical type, coverage is 120-150km ...
    Bk Pionov - missiles run up to 50 km (cheaper different types, module upr and DGP up to 1500 dollars), and more expensive and long-range - planning actively reactive with a range of up to 250-300 km.
    Hermes range up to 100km ...
    Such a river-sea missile and artillery cruiser will be able to solve a wide range of tasks of supporting the coastal flank and landing (or disrupting landing) ... And it will be much cheaper than the battleship and maybe cheaper than our planned latest destroyers ...
    And the battleship, of course, is still redundant ... however, such a missile-artillery cruiser is very promising, and with the transition to second-generation electromagnetic guns, it will be able to make it guaranteed dysfunctional in a duel situation from 1500-2000 km in three to four minutes (and with a high probability of sinking ) and an aircraft carrier and UDC and any large, not very maneuverable target, not to mention ground targets ... So yes, but not battleships will return, but rather heavy and linear missile and artillery cruisers of increased survivability ... (the main thing in it will be not armor, but shielding of important units by secondary ones, guaranteed unsinkability with several flooded compartments, maneuverability, duplication of control systems and of course, active powerful air defense including lasers and SAMs ... well, and the speed and range of fire of its EMR guns.
    Such a ship with a new type of emi-guns will easily beat both AVU and missile cruiser at a distance of 1500-2000km.
    But even a simpler ship with peonies and tornadoes from a distance of 150 km (Harpoon range) will simply oversaturate the enemy’s air defense with targets and even Aegis on one or two cans will most likely not cope
    So, battleships aren’t battleships ... and missile-artillery cruisers with 152-203 guns with a new shell (or maybe 254-305mm), be! :))
    1. Alex
      Alex 12 December 2013 19: 59
      +2
      Quote: IS7
      However, such electromagnetic guns will appear in years through 10

      And in 100 most likely they will not appear. Judging by what the TV box shows, all this is just PR (like cold fusion) and propaganda of the US force: "Look and be afraid, in .... years we will make .... guns and all of you will ... "
  29. maxiv1979
    maxiv1979 19 November 2012 08: 55
    +2
    Quote: IS7
    So: 1. The main argument is mistaken precisely because the range of naval artillery in the next 10 years will grow even far beyond 50 and even 100 km. Thus, a new generation of planning active rockets of 127-155 mm caliber will reach a range of 180-185 km and up to 200 km. These shells are already being tested for the same AGS. And we must take into account that the previous range of these systems did not exceed 24 km. For 203 mm caliber systems with a range of 40–50 km for the same Pion of old shells, with its 5–6-fold increase due to new planning active-reactive shells, the range can reach 250-300 km in 203mm caliber and large calibers. This is NOT an ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPON, but something like the LW-64 Oto-Melara, brought to mind with a barrel length of 52-65kcal and projectile speeds of up to 1000m per second. 2. With the introduction of a series of electromagnetic guns, the Americans lay down as a standard to reach the range ranges from 500 to 2000 km in second-generation guns (the first is now being tested in iron, the series is promised by the year 16, the second is assembled and finished design - tests from 14 g, the series will be from 20). The second-generation electromagnetic gun with a range of 2000 km and with a projectile speed of more than 2 km per second — and up to 12–20 km per second — there is an advantage in the price of ammunition, comparable in accuracy, the projectile is immune to EMIs of air defense weapons and low-vulnerable to laser, when shooting with kinetic ones, and for SAM, if it is different from direct, it is not vulnerable . A kinetics with a speed of more than 10 km per second in a collision with a target (ship, bunker, tank or fortification) in the explosive as if no longer needed -when a collision of energy will be so much ... And such a blank flies several times faster than missiles and bring it down where it’s more difficult, and the BC ship will take more ... Such a ship, having detected the enemy’s AVU at 1500-2000 km at the same time as its opponent, due to the speed of flight of hypersonic shells - after 100-110 seconds from the shot (at a distance of 2000 km) the aircraft carrier will start to hit - when he still doesn’t have time to lift even a third of the air group in 2 minutes to strike him from the deck yet ... Even a hypersonic missile will overtake such a gun 3-5 times at a range of up to 2000 km, while the KVO will provide 10-15 m at the expense of G.P. ..for an aircraft carrier or a stationary target, grab to hit several shells from a series ... the gun’s speed will be 10-15 rounds per minute ..


    yes, it's fantastic) 50km is still real, but 100 is not there anymore and 15 years will be unrealistic, let alone 1000 or 2000) at speeds of 10km) what energies are needed for this? what guidance systems and which electronics? the shell must be controlled otherwise why satellite navigation? what will even a slight deviation of the rudders lead to at a speed of 10km / s in the atmosphere?) and will such kinetics be preserved when meeting a target over thousands of kilometers? can I just don’t understand something)
  30. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2012 09: 31
    +3
    Quote: IS7
    1. Its main argument is mistaken precisely because the range of naval artillery in the coming 10 years will grow far beyond the 50 and even beyond the 100km.

    Let's say
    Quote: IS7
    Thus, a new generation of planning active-missiles of 127-155mm calibers will reach a range of 180-185km and up to 200km. These shells are already being tested by the very AGS. And we must bear in mind that the previous range of these systems did not exceed 24km.

    It is doubtful, but, again, let's say.
    Quote: IS7
    Second-generation electromagnetic gun with a range of 2000km and projectile speed more than 2km per second - and up to 12-20 km per second - the name of an advantage in ammunition price, comparable in accuracy; for missiles in contact other than direct low-vulnerability.

    And now let's understand.
    The first is that a projectile capable of moving in the atmosphere at a speed of 12-20 km / s will, as it were, cost no more than a rocket. Because at such a speed the friction will be such that it will evaporate before it reaches the target. This time.
    Secondly, I’m forced to remind you that with a speed of 12-20 km / s no target at a distance of 500-2000 km you will not fire. Just because the second cosmic speed is only 11,2 km / sec, so that the projectile released by you will go in a straight line, leave the atmosphere, leave the Earth’s outer space and become a satellite of the Sun.
    Third - let's try to calculate the energy of the shot. As we remember from the school course of physics - E = ms2, so let's see ...
    If sclerosis does not lie to me, then the electromagnetic catapult that is supposed to be installed on a new type of American AV is fully capable of accelerating an 30 ton aircraft to a speed of 300 km / h
    This is roughly equivalent to 10 acceleration of a kg of projectile up to speed 4570 m / s. Or 40 projectile kg up to speed in 2300 m / s. And in order to accelerate the 40 kg projectile to a speed of 5 km / s, you only need 4,8 times more energy than an electromagnetic catapult.
    But the thing is - in spite of the fact that the American AB is planning to equip with atomic reactors, at least 25% more powerful than the Nimitsev, they still cannot provide enough energy for ALL THE ONE launch of an electromagnetic catapult. those. the energy to start must accumulate in some kind of batteries.
    So I have a question - how many "energizers" will the artillery system described by you need for a queue of 15 shots? :))))) I'm afraid that America's energy system will have hard times :)))))
    But the most important thing is not even that. Suppose we were able to create a gun firing at 1000 km. Only one question - who will find the target and how will you order to correct the fire?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 November 2012 09: 32
      +4
      You write
      Quote: IS7
      Such a ship, having found the AVA of the rival in 1500-2000km

      Tell the detection method, please. And then the people are going crazy, all sorts of scouts there and Dears planes are inventing, but you easily have taken it and found it!
      in fact, an artillery ship has NO means for detecting and adjusting fire on a target located outside of its radar, and for shipborne radars it is a radio horizon, i.e. all the same 30 km.
      Are you talking about homing projectiles? But there are two types of them now - the first type requires laser illumination of the target (and who will illuminate it, then?) And the second type is projectiles with GPS, but the thing is, the jeep-headboard itself is not induced. It just gets to a given point with a minimum KVO-1-4 meter. But who will set this point for him if the position of the target ship is unknown?
      I am silent about the cost of the projectile with GPS - you will pereklinit any imaginable limits, probably coming close to the cost of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Do you have any idea what kind of electronics should be in order to withstand almost instantaneous acceleration from a resting point up to several kilometers per second? This is not a rocket, the acceleration will be sharp, like an attack of diarrhea ... And the projectile fired at an initial speed of 750-850 m / s overcomes the 18 kilometer distance of the order of 30-40 seconds. The flying time of your super gear, do you count it yourself? But a ship moving at a speed of 30 nodes passes a kilometer in about a minute ...
  31. borisst64
    borisst64 19 November 2012 12: 36
    0
    Icebreaker "Arktika", displacement over 23 thousand tons.

    Well this is what a monster at 140 thousand tons
  32. hrenvamsredkoy
    hrenvamsredkoy 27 December 2012 10: 28
    0
    for example, artillery can and will grow in caliber in the modern fleet, but it will never be the main weapon of the ship
  33. Alex
    Alex 12 December 2013 20: 17
    +2
    An interesting article (like all the works of A. Shirokorad) and no less interesting discussion. But here's what’s interesting: it all comes down to re-chanting the range of the guns and all-out problems with this. But what I’m interested in is: are there currently tasks on a marine theater that only a battleship can solve? After all, this is a machine of narrow specialization, you can’t adapt it except for artillery fire (for whatever purpose). Yapy during the WWII riveted something like a battleship-aircraft carrier, but to no avail: the battleship is useless, and no aircraft carrier.
    As for me, battleships have gone down in history because their tasks are successfully solved by more universal means: missiles of all types and aircraft carriers, the composition of which air group can be changed depending on the tasks assigned.

    But there is another aspect. Almost all wars are waged by the United States (the Falkland War is an exception), which can be regarded as a large-scale maneuver. They themselves choose the time and methods of striking, the composition of the groupings and the tactics of their use both on land and at sea and in the air. So far, they have completely coped, in fact, with the same methods as they defeated Japan in 1945. And what will happen if the situation changes? Or an adversary? Hard to say...

    So what is thought, if suddenly there is a need for battleships - they will be reanimated. Most likely, these will be completely different ships. Like current tanks are not very similar to the English predecessors. But guessing exactly what the battleship of the future will be like is like pushing a pendulum with your hands: it’s a public activity, but the result is dubious.