Military Review

Battleships: death or hibernation?

86
This material is not a statement. On the contrary, it is rather a matter to be well-versed in naval specifics. And I was inspired to write it by watching the film “Sea battle”, more precisely, one of his moments: the battle of the battleship “Missouri” with an unknown shit of alien origin. But more on that later.

What is the main force fleet are battleships, considered an axiom for almost three centuries. From the time of the 1916th century Anglo-Dutch wars to the Battle of Jutland in XNUMX, the outcome of the war at sea was decided by the artillery duel of two fleets lined up in wake lines (hence the origin of the term "ship of the line", abbreviated as battleship). Belief in the omnipotence of the battleship was not undermined by any aviationnor submarines. And after the First World War, most admirals and naval theorists still measured the strength of the fleets by the number of heavy guns, the total weight of the airborne salvo and the thickness of the armor. But it was this exceptional role of the battleships, which were considered the undisputed rulers of the seas, that played a cruel joke with them ...

Paradoxically, the appearance of the long-awaited “ideal” battleships - high-speed, heavily armed and protected by powerful armor - brought the very idea of ​​such ships to complete absurdity. Another thing: floating monsters, because of their high prices, undermined the economy of their own countries more significantly than the invasions of enemy armies! At the same time, they almost did not go out to sea: the admirals did not want to risk such valuable combat units, since the loss of even one of them was equated to almost a national catastrophe. Battleships from the means of warfare at sea turned into a tool of big politics. And the continuation of their construction was no longer determined by tactical expediency, but by completely different motives. To have such ships for the prestige of the country in the first half of the twentieth century meant roughly the same thing that now possess nuclear weapons.

The Second World War clearly showed that the battleship had ceased to be a combat unit capable of having a significant impact on the course of the war. The example of Tirpitz, who by his own existence has caused a considerable damage to the reputation of the English Admiralty, is rather an exception. The defeat of the PQ-17 convoy is not the battleship’s merit, but the English admirals who described themselves from the news of the Tirpitz’s departure. Having rummaged in statistical data, I received the following picture in the countries-participants of the Second World War, which were armed with these vessels.

Japan. (12 battleships)

LC Fuso (1914)
LC Yamashiro (1915)
Both ships were sunk in a night battle with six American battleships in the Surigao Strait 25 of October 1944. The battle was without the use of aircraft (a rarity!), The battleships were sunk by torpedoes and artillery fire



LC "Yamato"
Yamato (1942): Sunk by American Aircraft 7 on April 1945 of Okinawa.

LC Musashi (1942)
Killed 24 October 1944, the battle in the sea Sibuyan from the attacks of American aircraft.

LC Mutsu (1921)
8 June 1943 in Mutu on the Hiroshima Bay was a blast of cellars of stern towers. The main cause of the explosion is most likely the negligence of the crew.

LC “Ise” (1917)
28 July 1945, drowned by American aircraft.

LC “Congo” (1913).
21 November 1944, sunk by an American submarine (SS-315).

LC “Hiei” (1914).
14 November 1942 drowned by American aircraft.

LC "Kirishima" (1915 g).
15 November 1942 was sunk in artillery fighting by the American battleships Dakota and Washington. (For the sake of fairness, we note that the Dakota has stood for repairs after the 14 battlefield for months).

LK Haruna (1915)
2 July 1945, drowned by American aircraft.

Losses from aviation: 5
Losses from surface ships: 3
Submarine Losses: 1
Other causes: 1

USA (16 battleships)

LC Oklahoma (1916)
Sunk Japanese aircraft 7.12.1941 g.



LC "Arizona" (1916)
Sunk Japanese aircraft 7.12.1941 g.

LC “Maryland” (1922 g)
Damaged by Japanese aviation 7.12.1941 g, did not participate in the war

LC "Virginia" (1922 g.)
Sunk Japanese aircraft 7.12.1941 g raised, but did not participate in the war.

LC Utah (1921)
Sunk Japanese aircraft 7.12.1941 g.

Losses from aviation: 5
Losses from surface ships: 0
Submarine Losses: 0
Other causes: 0

USSR (4 battleship)
Officially, there are no losses, but to be completely impartial:

LC “Petropavlovsk” (“Marat”) (1911)
German aircraft sunk 23.09.1941
Lay on the ground, was partially drained and turned into an art battery. Then he took part in the fighting, but not as a ship.



Losses from aviation: 1
Losses from surface ships: 0
Submarine Losses: 0
Other causes: 0

UK (17 battleships + 3 battlecruisers)
Added here the LCR on the basis that the British battlecruisers were not much inferior to the battleships. And if you compare with the USSR battleships ...

LC Barham (1915)
25.12.1941, sunk by German submarine.



LK Royal Oak (1916)
14.10.1939, sunk by German submarine.

LC Prince of Wales (1941)
10.12.1941 sunk by Japanese aircraft.

Ripals LCR (1916)
10.12.1941, sunk by Japanese aircraft

Hood LCR (1920)
24.05.1941. Sunk by LC “Bismarck”

Losses from aviation: 2
Losses from surface ships: 1
Submarine Losses: 2
Other causes: 0

Germany (2 battleship)

LC Bismarck (1941)
24.05.1941, sunk by British ships and aircraft.



LC Tirpitz (1941)
12.11.1944. Destroyed by British aviation.

Losses from aviation: 1
Losses from surface ships: 1
Submarine Losses: 0
Other causes: 0

Italy (7 battleships)

LC “Conti de Cavour” (1914)
11.11.1940 sunk by British aircraft

LC "Roma"
9.09.1343 drowned by German aircraft.

Losses from aviation: 2
Losses from surface ships: 0
Submarine Losses: 0
Other causes: 0

France (7 battleships)

LC “Jean Barth” (1908)
The 27.11.1942 was submerged in Toulon by a crew, raised by the German fleet and used as a ship-target. The 1944 was hit by an Allied bomb and sank.

Battleships: death or hibernation?


LC “Brittany” (1912)
4.07.1940, sunk by English ships

LC Dunkirk (1939)
4.07.1940, sunk by English ships

LC Strasbourg (1939)
27.11.1942 g. Flooded by crew.

Losses from aviation: 1
Losses from surface ships: 2
Submarine Losses: 0
Other causes: 1

The result is as follows:

Losses from aviation: 17
Losses from surface ships: 7
Submarine Losses: 3
Other causes: 2

That is, the battleships could still fight, sink enemy ships, arrange pogroms on the shores, there was even a curious case, when two German Nedolinkor shook the English aircraft carrier. But the star of the lords of the seas rolled under the keel of an aircraft carrier. This is proved by the figures. And the lot of battleships - either to be cut into metal, or to stand, like American ones, as museums. Well, this has already been discussed, and I have not said anything new here.

Ask, in fact, what's the gunman? And where. Who has not watched this film, I will briefly explain: water transformers-transformers flew to Earth, captured Pearl Harbor and wanted to send a signal from there to the main squadron. The area around the island was covered with a force field. By a strange coincidence, all the ships were at the exercises, three destroyers got into the zone. Two drowned immediately, the third bit managed to make war. And then the survivors with the help of veterans hijacked the Missouri exhibit and shot an alien base from the main caliber. The field was gone, aircraft carriers went to the course, happy ending.

What's the catch? But in what. Our age is pretty good technically. Active radars, satellites, tracking systems, guidance heads, EW facilities and other electronic technology. The picture is as follows: night. To the naval base / coastal city / port terminal (such as Constanta) rolls up the ship. Such a pyramid thing, poorly visible radar. And not very big. It uncovers cannon barrels (and not classic 155 today, but more times in 3) and deals artillery. Or the second option: the classic single raider, capable of delivering a nuclear-loaded projectile for 35-40 km. Small such, like "Sheer". What is now 10 000 tons? Destroyer.

It seems to be nonsense, but learned to fight with rockets. Not with everyone, but learned. The rocket can be tracked by radar. You can use anti-missiles, interfere, pour traps. And what can oppose the projectile? The projectile is a special case of a bullet fired. The bullet is a fool, as Suvorov used to say, a shell, respectively, a fool. And he, a fool, pofigu on radar, infrared traps, electronic warfare and other modernity. It is essentially the same as 500 years ago. Only behind his back are modern ballistic computers, computers and other things that can precisely direct him to the target.



Say, you imagined? I agree. But here's the catch: "Missouri", "Iowa", "Alabama", "Wisconsin", "Massachusetts", "North Carolina", "New Jersey", "Texas" - aren't bold as museums? Or in the states there is no place to put more money, as for the maintenance of these museums? And after all, everything is in such a state that tomorrow load ammunition and fuel - and go ahead. And not only guns are in service. Here, take the "Missouri":

Tactical strike weapons: KR BGM-109 Tomahawk-32.
Artillery: 9 × 406-mm AU, 12 × 127-mm AU
Anti-aircraft artillery: anti-aircraft installation Mark 15 Phalanx CIWS
anti-aircraft missile system "Stinger" - 5.
Missile armament: RGM-84 “Harpoon”
Aviation group: Anti-submarine helicopters

In, a museum, yes? And there are eight of them. And the question is, whether they themselves do not know what they are doing, or, on the contrary, they are well aware. They are waiting for the new materials to be brought to mind in the Silicon Valley. And there will be a super camouflage: there is a tanker on the satellite, a seiner on the radar, and under camouflage such a pod will hide.

In general, dear ones, who understand this, share your thoughts. Maybe I thought up this nonsense, but these museums do not come out of my head. Maybe the diagnosis is not “death” but “hibernation up to the right moment”?
Author:
86 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 18 December 2012 06: 43
    +2
    Roman, well, maybe they took them to the reserve and that’s all. Headache is enough for us even without the old battleships. With regards to new inventions, then if there are such, then no one will particularly deal with it, they saw the seiner-sank
    1. Sergh
      Sergh 18 December 2012 07: 20
      +2
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      With regard to new inventions, then if there are such, then, respectively

      I will continue the thought: "... accordingly, some amers will not be allowed to run far ahead, they will always catch up or overtake." Even the Chinese understood this in terms of the fact that they will not let someone go alone in the breakaway of progress. Although, it is always necessary to strive to break away, at least not far.
      1. ShturmKGB
        ShturmKGB 18 December 2012 10: 32
        +7
        In the event of a large-scale conflict, any "barrel" will be needed like air, not to mention warships. High-tech weapons will quickly run out and remain traditional, i.e. bullets, shells ...
        1. Civil
          Civil 18 December 2012 11: 23
          +3
          Losses from aviation: 17
          Losses from surface ships: 7
          Submarine Losses: 3
          Other causes: 2


          The conclusion is simple:

          need aircraft carriers and advanced naval aviation
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 18 December 2012 20: 00
            +1
            Very interesting reasoning, and quite real. From powerful artillery, naturally, it will not be worse. (well, except for the enemies)
        2. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 18 December 2012 11: 31
          +4
          In any case, America’s stance on old ships seems quite reasonable. Unlike the actions of our idiots in power
          http://topwar.ru/19067-nashim-akulam-ssha-vyrvali-yadernye-zuby.html\
          http://www.rusichi-center.ru/e/2504467-vremya-predateley-unichtozhenie-flota-fot
          o
          1. Adrenalin
            Adrenalin 21 December 2012 09: 17
            0
            did you read the article? America’s position just seems unreasonable.
        3. crazyrom
          crazyrom 18 December 2012 20: 04
          0
          In years through 5-10, Russia will begin to build nuclear-powered ships with railguns. (seriously, without irony). There a lot of metal is not needed, and the ammunition is awesome (gunpowder is not needed, only pigs according to 20-40kg). A nuclear reactor can easily produce the necessary electricity. Flight range - in the 200km region, projectile speed - kilometers per second. In short, the next generation of naval artillery.
          1. 19 December 2012 00: 13
            -1
            Quote: crazyrom

            In years through 5-10, Russia will begin to build nuclear-powered ships with railguns. (seriously, without irony). There a lot of metal is not needed, and the ammunition is awesome (gunpowder is not needed, only pigs according to 20-40kg). A nuclear reactor can easily produce the necessary electricity. Flight range - in the 200km region, projectile speed - kilometers per second. In short, the next generation of naval artillery.

            And where is the information, if not secret?
          2. S_mirnov
            S_mirnov 19 December 2012 01: 08
            0
            And where will he get the specialists? Old people will retire and oops. And migrants and highlanders are a people without harmlessness. Well seriously, not cops will sharpen the railguns with a file
            http://demotivation.me/z3zlfewff7u0pic.html
    2. Azzzwer
      Azzzwer 18 December 2012 21: 43
      0
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Headache is enough for us even without the old battleships

      maybe enough, or maybe add. Vaughn, it turns out in 1941 near Moscow, art. guns of the Russian_Turkish war of 1877 and successfully !, so who knows .... maybe someday the "Aurora" will go into battle again! laughing
  2. Mitek
    Mitek 18 December 2012 07: 10
    0
    Range of shot from the main caliber of the battleship against RCC? In general, I completely agree with the previous speaker))). There is plenty of Golovnyak without LK amers. AUG is much more disgusting due to range and a much wider range of tasks.
    1. postman
      postman 18 December 2012 14: 56
      +1
      Quote: Mitek
      Range of shot from the main caliber of the battleship against RCC?

      You forget that for the 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 (the main caliber of these battleships)
      conducted experiments with subcaliber shells
      LRBA 280 mm (11 ") shells - New Jersey (BB-62) 1969 (Vietnam) = 76 miles
      HE-ER Mark 148 - 330mm (13 "Extended Range (ER) = 64,000 miles.

      When using an active projectile and switching to a live rocket launcher, a range of 120-160 miles is achievable, and this is comparable to RCC
      1. postman
        postman 18 December 2012 15: 23
        0
        Quote: Mitek
        against RCC?

        Quote: Postman
        range 120-160 miles

        correction, test results show the achievement of a range of caliber 280mm = 278 Nautical Miles
        (although in this case the 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 barrels were doubled (butt end, second-hand welded) -40 meter barrel
        Gunfighter program
  3. Pon69
    Pon69 18 December 2012 07: 11
    +2
    Good day. We have battleships - the Orlans. One acting - three others at the wall. Like suitcases without handles with expensive things. And you can't leave, and it's hard to bear. And yet, as one American comrade said - "A kind word and a pistol are much more convincing than just a kind word." Therefore, we need a lot of ships and different ones, it's just not equipment that is fighting, but people. Therefore, having the skills, experience and sufficient motivation is possible with a stone to space crap. This is exactly what the legless veteran did in the film.
    1. Bykov.
      Bykov. 18 December 2012 07: 41
      +1
      Quote: Pon69
      We have battleships - "Orlans". One acting - three others at the wall. Like suitcases without handles with expensive items.

      So there seemed to be information that the Eagles were being withdrawn from the reserve and that modernization was also planned.
      Both in armament and on the radio-electronic base.
      Well yes, here is the link: http: //sdelanounas.ru/blogs/7673/? Pid = 27549
      1. Pon69
        Pon69 18 December 2012 08: 02
        +2
        They deduce that they deduce. But they don’t know what to do with them. Create AUG in Vladivostok. Although to form AUG-Mistral + 1 Orlan + 1 Atlant + 2-3 destroyers, BOD, corvettes + multi-purpose submarines. There will certainly be a formidable force.
        Especially with the attempts of China and Japan to become maritime powers. It just needs to be addressed quickly. And they said - "we will modernize", and they stood at the wall, and they are.
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 18 December 2012 09: 34
          0
          Which breeze is a strike ship? What are you speaking about?
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 12 February 2014 21: 22
            0
            Indeed, Mistral is only a landing ship built according to civil standards.
        2. Captain Vrungel
          Captain Vrungel 18 December 2012 10: 05
          +4
          The Mistral and the strike force? And what strike missions will this self-propelled barge perform? "With its speed and armament? Purely an auxiliary ship. Anti-aircraft strike groups are needed. Even in peacetime, to sit on the" tail "of the amers and wag their nerves, being at a visual distance. International shipping rules allow this. Wherever I want, I sail there And this American group will not seem so formidable. In Soviet times, our ships sailed in the ocean for the AUG, almost in the ranks of the Americans. The Russian ocean fleet is to be. It's not about size. ships, the matter is in solving the task at the level of modern requirements, not forgetting about high-speed supply vessels. Not all of them still have nuclear power plants. Fuel is needed in large volumes. And I want to eat.
      2. bddrus
        bddrus 18 December 2012 10: 34
        +1
        the eagles of modernization are not amenable to anymore - they have already been launched too much, only Nakhimov is being modernized, and then something is going on very slowly - apparently the final decision on modernization has not been made.
    2. Mikado
      Mikado 18 December 2012 08: 11
      +2
      "Eagles" are still cruisers.
    3. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 December 2012 17: 40
      +3
      By the way, I heard that about 500 rubles were spent on the daily maintenance of Peter the Great at the pier. and if he’s also on a campaign, then imagine.
      the essence of such a ship is more in the PR fleet. than in its combat readiness. young children who graduated from school, having seen such a handsome man, logically may want to serve on it, and not mow down from the army. that and besides, Peter the Great looks very proudly on long trips.

      hike "Peter the Great" near Toulon - Italy
    4. Volozhanin
      Volozhanin 18 December 2012 18: 51
      +2
      Peter the Great and Co. according to the NATO classification are battlecruisers.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 12 February 2014 21: 22
        0
        The battlecruiser and battleship are not synonyms!
    5. Basarev
      Basarev 12 February 2014 21: 20
      0
      A cruiser is not a battleship! There are only miserable half-breeds of a cruiser compared to battleships
  4. TRex
    TRex 18 December 2012 07: 13
    +6
    Interesting material - thanks to the author. It makes me wonder: why, indeed, such a mercantile nation, hides, sharks of capitalism, left afloat a squadron of old supercrafts, each trunk of their 406mm installation is capable of throwing a ton beyond 40 over an extra km away ... Why do they need so many museums? Either patriots, or businessmen, or just NOT FOOLS.
    For comparison: the cruiser "AURORA" - its condition and maintenance ... And, I understood, - there is no money in Russia ...
    Or the fate of post-war art cruisers. One in Novorossiysk is on the roadstead (sort of like a museum), all the rest are in scrap, on needles, for pennies ...
    Neither father nor mother ... No shame, no conscience ...
    1. Bykov.
      Bykov. 18 December 2012 07: 31
      +2
      Quote: TRex

      Interesting material - thanks to the author. It makes you wonder: why, indeed, such a mercantile nation, hides, sharks of capitalism, left afloat a squadron of old supercrafts, each trunk of their 406mm installation is capable of throwing a ton beyond 40 over an extra km away ... Why do they need so many museums? Either patriots, or businessmen, or simply NOT FOOLS.

      Yes, they plan to use them, probably, only against countries that do not have the military-technical potential sufficient to destroy them.
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 18 December 2012 13: 24
      +2
      For comparison: the cruiser "AURORA" - its condition and maintenance ... And, I understood, - there is no money in Russia ...

      Here is another one:
      The cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov, series 68 bis, modification 68-A.


  5. Vanek
    Vanek 18 December 2012 07: 16
    +2
    Big "bald" it is for that and BIG to be a "bald".

    LINKOR alone inspires respect.

    Hello to everyone. hi
    1. Kaa
      Kaa 18 December 2012 15: 57
      +2
      Quote: Vanek
      Big "bald" it is for that and BIG to be a "bald".

      An excellent armored floating combat platform, with good power-to-weight ratio, if you change the artillery GK to EMF-guns, there will be a completely rebranding 21-century wunderwafer.
      "The first industrial prototype of a combat railgun was built by the famous arms corporation BAE Systems. The device is not intended for adoption, but at the moment it is the closest model to the future serial" electric gun ". The latter should have a firing range of 90-185 kilometers in the initial version, and in the future, after improvements and changes, - up to 400 km. Such characteristics of the railgun are provided by the high initial velocity of the projectile - 2-2,5 km / s. And these are quite real values ​​already achieved on the tests of the previous stationary prototype. The US Navy laboratory in Dalgren built and tested the world's most powerful system of this type. The goal was precisely to adapt the long-known principle of projectile throwing for use on the battlefield. The weight of the projectiles of that laboratory cannon is several kilograms. This is already serious. At the speed of impact with the target. , estimated at 1,6-1,7 km / s, such shells and explosives are not needed. abre 2010, a colossal electromagnetic weapon set the world record for the energy of a shot for railguns - 33 megajoules. (One megajoule is comparable to the kinetic energy of a 1-ton car rushing at a speed of 160 km / h. The upcoming models should not only provide a high initial velocity of shells, but also fulfill the requirement of the military for a rate of fire, that is, make 6-10 rounds per minute without overheating. "http://www.membrana.ru/particle/17552
      Nine such barrels, "Harpoons", rest as unnecessary - you cannot intercept a projectile from such a gun, the range is the same, the power can be more.
      "It is assumed that by 2020 guns with a muzzle energy of 64 MJ will be created. These guns should go into service with the DDG1000 Zumwalt series destroyers under construction in the United States, whose modular design and electric transmission were calculated with an eye to promising EM-guns."
      We, too ... are trying "Recently, in the laboratory of the Shatura branch of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, tests were carried out of a unique device - the Artsimovich railgun, which is an electromagnetic cannon that shoots with very small projectiles, weighing up to three grams. Our projectile is one thousand times less, but its speed is two and a half times higher (6,25 km / sec.) http://svpressa.ru/society/article/40331/
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 18 December 2012 17: 43
        0
        I require a detailed and complete article, preferably with views winked
      2. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 12 February 2014 21: 51
        +2
        Quote: Kaa
        The first industrial prototype combat railgun built by renowned weapons corporation BAE Systems. The device is not intended for adoption, but at the moment it is the closest example to the future serial "electric gun." The latter should have a firing range of 90-185 kilometers in the initial version, and in the future, after improvements and changes, up to 400 km .

        My compliments, it has not been "on the air" for a long time hi
        One question is about hit accuracy.
        When shooting at such distances, the influence of the atmosphere is inevitable. What will be the QUO?
  6. VadimSt
    VadimSt 18 December 2012 07: 26
    +2
    Amer, not fools - the benefit of funds is enough.
    Developing the topic, you can continue to fantasize. In the first days and weeks of the conflict, most of the enemy ships are destroyed, both at sea and in bases. Naturally, it is practically impossible to build new ones, in a short time, and then, "museum values" are taken from the stock. And whoever has this "fund" is covered in chocolate. The usual logic is that if you need to defend yourself, then the ax from the Armory funds will come down.
    Of course, we can talk about the transience of the war, its nature, results, etc. But still...........
    This is exaggerated, but in fact, probably not to compare today's mobilization resources with those that had to be seen in the 70s - in particular, on the territory of Kazakhstan. Maubreser, in general, has apparently become a "golden feeder" for the initial capital, elite and enterprising officials.
  7. cgk
    cgk 18 December 2012 07: 30
    0
    Thanks to the author for a good article. I read it with pleasure
  8. Egen
    Egen 18 December 2012 07: 36
    +5
    Actually, but the question is what? Why do we need LC in modern wars, the Americans have clearly shown on the example of the island war with Japan, and Vietnam is not much. All sorts of Libya, etc. in the 80s - a continuation of this concept. Aircraft launchers give stability to an aircraft carrier’s connection; according to the results of recessed after BB2 during nuclear tests it is also known that their nuclear resistance is higher. In principle, everything is clear.
    About missiles ... Missiles today are also not fools :) I'm talking about the usual warhead, at least the same Harpoon. Only aliens in the cinema can admit to the firing range of the GK guns in modern combat :) Well, the shells in the museum are stored only in the cinema :)
    As for museums, my IMHO - what else to do with these ships? For scrap? So the United States produces so much of this metal that it’s unprofitable to cut such a drop into the sea. Where are the guns? Even the coastal defense will not work - there are missiles, and the battery content will spill a penny. So let them stand, maybe they will come in handy when. And most importantly, they serve to educate their patriotic spirit. And it’s not bad.
    I wasn’t on the ships, but I was at the aviation museums in Tucson and there is a museum of the strategic missile base nearby, it seems the Minuteman, I don’t remember already. There are enough excursions there, the people feel the strength of their army and again admire the embodiment of the great ideas of democracy and the protection of their home.
    And here, alas, not so: ((
  9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 08: 04
    +5
    With statistics it would be possible and more careful
    "Jean Bar" never drowned in Toulon (unfinished, he was taken to Casablanca where he lived safely until the end of the war and even managed to fight from his only tower with American Massachusetts)
    Probably meant Dunkirk (which lay on the bottom in Mers-El-Kebir as a result of aviation), but instead of Dunkirk - Provence.
    C'mon it only!
    If the French were counted for the deceased Provence and Dunkirk (which later went to Toulon and was sunk there), then God himself ordered the British to count two battleships blown up by Italian saboteurs and sinking to the bottom in Alexandria. However, no.
    The German Scharnhorst (more than thirty thousand ton ship) was not counted as a battleship (sunk by British surface ships) But the French 26,5 thousand ton Dunkirk and the old-time and less than 24 thousand ton Cavour - battleships.
    The question of who died and from what is even more complicated. There is no doubt that the Bismarck was sunk by British battleships. But they overtook him only thanks to a successful attack by carrier-based aircraft, so the line opposite Bismarck - "sunk by British ships and aircraft" looks reasonable. But the Japanese "Hiei" was registered with aviation - although everything was exactly the opposite with it - the battleship, damaged in a night battle and got at least 50 203-mm cruising shells, was damaged by the helmsman, because of which it could not go beyond the range of American aviation ... Those. he was really destroyed by aviation - but aviation overtook him only thanks to the damage received from surface ships ...
    Well, then ...
    It seems to be nonsense

    Do not you like
    The picture is as follows: night. To the naval base / coastal city / port terminal (such as Constanta) rolls up the ship. Such a pyramid thing, poorly visible radar. And not very big. He uncovers cannon barrels (and not classic 155 today, but more times in 3) and launches an artillery strike.

    With Konstanza, maybe it will. And even that is unlikely, to be honest. But then - everything is very sad - while the ship is hammering the main caliber into the air, "Phantoms" and "Folkons" are soaring and which carry the aforementioned ship into molecules. Isn't the price too expensive for half an hour of shooting in the squares?
    Well, for more serious sea powers, this ship will not come close to anything like that - they will observe from the air and from under the water. And they crash at the slightest sign of aggression. Do not delude yourself that there is no ammunition against armored ships now - firstly, the Sheer is a very conditionally armored ship, and today's missiles will tear it, and secondly, if such artillery greetings from the WWII only appear, the corresponding warheads will stand on weapons even before the ships leave the stocks.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 08: 05
      +4
      Or the second option: the classic single raider, capable of delivering a nuclear-loaded projectile for 35-40 km.

      Only one question - why? The single raider today is doomed to death, and very fast. Aviation and submarines will use this device with any projectiles, even if they are still nuclear, there is nothing to be done here.
      The rocket can be tracked by radar.

      And the projectile - no? laughing laughing laughing This sometimes succeeded even the radars of the Second World War.
      And what can oppose the projectile?
      Normal Zur.
      For some reason, it seems to many that the projectile is ohhhhhhhhh ... untangled ... completeness. This is a fairly large pig, which flies along a ballistic trajectory at a speed of the order of 1,6-1,8 thousand km / h, which is perfectly visible on the radar. In this case, for example, the projectile does not need to be destroyed at all - it is enough just to deflect it from a dangerous trajectory. Those. you do not need to hit ALL shells, but only those that really threaten the ship - with the identification of such today's komputery cope.
      The most simple way is simply not to expose artillery fire in general. For the Soviet Navy, it was known to bring the long-range anti-ship missiles to the AUG to the launch distance (about 500 km), and how can you fight with an artillery ship?
      Only behind his back are modern ballistic computers, computers and other things that can precisely direct him to the target.

      Can not.
      By the way, even in the times of WWII, ballistic calculators and fire control systems of battleships took into account rolling, air humidity (!) Wind direction and strength, and so on and so forth ... for free, which is analog. But at a distance in 10-12 miles (19-24 km), all the same, on the strength of 2-3,% of hits were issued ... So, no need to build illusions.
      1. Egen
        Egen 18 December 2012 08: 17
        +4
        ... and by the way weighed a few tons :) And the data was entered with pens - it looks cool in old photos :)
        As once an artilleryman :) I can say that you still need to take into account the parameters of the projectile and charge, T and wind speed at different heights. Since no projectile can be made equal in weight to another, and meteorological parameters are constantly changing, even though you crack with computers, anyway the spread of shells is better than the shooting tables will not :) And of course, the greater the caliber and range, the spread will be more :) In BB2, 3-5% of hits were considered to be very good - and rightly so, already with the PUAO, but with long-term firing, that in today's battle, when countering an equal opponent, no one will allow :)
        Exit - go to the guided or guided projectiles, but we are moving to another area ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 08: 47
          +4
          Quote: Egen
          and weighed a few tons by the way :)

          Aha :))))
          Quote: Egen
          I can say that you need to take into account the parameters of the projectile and charge, T and wind speed at different heights. Since no projectile can be made equal in weight with another, and the meteorological parameters are constantly changing, even if you are cracking with computers, you still cann’t scatter better than in firing tables :)

          In-in, though I am not an artilleryman, but it is quite clear to me
          Quote: Egen
          Exit - go to the guided or guided projectiles, but we are moving to another area ...

          There, as I understand it, problems arise - the projectile induced by, say, GPS can have an accuracy of up to a couple of meters, but it costs, the female dog is very expensive. Moreover, it becomes vulnerable to EW funds (at least in theory). And guided projectiles ... who is there to highlight them with a laser? :)))
          1. Egen
            Egen 18 December 2012 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And guided projectiles ... who will target the laser there? :)))


            seals of course :))) Why are they still needed :)))
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 10: 24
              +4
              Quote: Egen
              Seals of course :)))

              This is a thought! laughing But then it's better as something :))
            2. postman
              postman 18 December 2012 16: 19
              +1
              Quote: Egen
              Seals of course :)))

              UAV
              F-35 (with its radar and ECO)



              seals sorry ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 17: 07
                +2
                The UAV is demolished by the air defense of the ship. Like the F-35, if it tries to fly up to the range of its laser rangefinder.
                1. postman
                  postman 18 December 2012 18: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  UAV demolished light air defense of the ship

                  in my opinion the conversation was about the attack of coastal zone facilities.

                  But that is not the point.
                  1. UAV still need to be detected. And if there are a lot of them, then you get tired of demolishing. UAVs, except for OES, there may be a radar
                  2.F-35, not all ECO



                  Link Northrop Grumman
                  According to the Northrop Grumman press service, the possibility of using F-35 fighter sensors to detect missile launches, select group ballistic targets and provide target designation to weapons of destruction was demonstrated in practice. This problem is solved by a system with a distributed aperture DAS (Distributed Aperture System) AN / AAQ-37 and a radar with an active phased array AN / APG-81. During the tests, the sensors were not installed on the F-35 fighter, but on board the BAC1-11 flying laboratory. Both AN / AAQ-37 and AN / APG-81 are planned to be installed on F-35 fighters - as well as, probably, on other flying platforms.
                  During the tests, the possibility of detecting a multiple launch rocket launch (at least up to 5 missiles), their tracking from the moment of launch up to the transition to the passive section of the trajectory after the completion of the second stage was demonstrated. The AN / AAQ-37 radar is capable of independently providing the capture of ballistic targets and their dynamic localization with an accuracy sufficient for independent targeting of weapons. DAS AN / AAQ-37 used to detect targets, including at long range and in any direction (the so-called spherical awareness); Radar AN / AAQ-37 has a limited field of view.
                  Identification, tracking of ballistic targets and development of target designation performed automatically and do not interfere with the fighter pilot to solve the tasks.



                  If on the PU the BR gives the control center, then on the coastal object (more and more stationary), and on the ship (more and more "metallic") - SIMPLY, and "without leaving the cash register" (without being distracted from the main task

                  //// The question is why such discrimination: for missiles, target designation and target illumination is FORWARD, but for wigwam artillery?
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 21: 18
                    +2
                    Quote: Postman
                    The question is why such discrimination: for missiles, target designation and target illumination is EASY, and for wigwams for artillery?

                    Yes, because in your post mixed up in a bunch of ponies, people, and volleys of thousands of guns.
                    This is what F-35 really can do:
                    1) To give the CO with the help of its AFAR, i.e. AN / APG-81. But how does he do it? And it’s very simple - receiving data on the target (position in space, distance, speed and motion vector and knowing the parameters of the rocket flying towards the target, he tells the rocket the correction of its trajectory.
                    In other words, when a missile with an active or semi-active seeker goes to the target, this seeker will be able to capture the target (catch the illumination beam) at a relatively short distance from the target. Until that time, the rocket is forced to fly "blindly" and if the target is mobile, then it can simply leave the trajectory and from the zone where it could be captured by the seeker.
                    those. in this case, the rocket is already corrected in flight.
                    How do you imagine the adjustment in flight of the projectile, pruschego on ballistic?
                    2) AN / APG-81 can also "copy" a stationary target. But in this case there is no sense in this - a stationary one can be easily opened from a satellite and then - suppressed in any way - even with a rocket from a GPiEs, even with artillery fire, even with NURS from a helicopter. This is not fundamental.
                    3) The F-35 has its IR cameras. This is quite an interesting thing on which you can see heat-radiating objects. But there is also bad news - neither distances nor coordinates in the space of the IR camera define. But if the camera saw something, then you can cut in the radar and try to see the object, thereby determining its coordinates
                    But even knowing these same coordinates, of course, no projectile (in flight) you will not correct.
                    4) And finally, the F-35 has a laser range finder. Which can highlight the target and in combination with the direction to it, a change in the angular velocity of displacement and the position of your own plane in space - you will know the coordinates of the object, not including the radar.
                    And they can highlight the target for a guided projectile.
                    So here. Think for yourself and find out which way can help you point an ordinary 406-mm caliber ballistic missile at a moving target (hint - no :)))
                    The guided projectile could have been guided with a laser rangefinder, but this means that the plane would have to be located a few dozen kilometers from the target and zigzags until the projectile arrives. Very dangerous solution - for the aircraft.
                    And in order to direct the projectile with the help of AFAR - you have to, in fact, not make a projectile, but a rocket that can be fired from a cannon.
                    Quote: Postman
                    1. UAV still need to be detected. And if there are a lot of them, then you get tired of demolishing. UAVs, except for OES, there may be a radar

                    UAVs are very easy to spot, because their "stealth" is very conditional.
                    The cost of a UAV with a radar and or ECO is more than high - spending them on strong, strong air defense targets is just silly. The power of a radar UAV is small (not stronger than the aircraft) and is well suppressed by means of EW.
                    1. postman
                      postman 18 December 2012 22: 30
                      0
                      about "dwarf horses," people "and a bunch of honestly did not understand.
                      The question was: how to implement the command and guidance. I suggested options.
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      AN / APG-81. But how does he do it?

                      Makes AN / AAQ-37 (provides passive spherical awareness)


                      and AN / APG-81

                      like this:

                      SAR image AN / APG-81. Has the ability to track a moving target.

                      where is the target flying towards the meeting "? We are talking about control center / guidance / destruction of ground / surface objects!
                      note air targets AN / APG-81 "sees" as follows:


                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      How do you imagine the adjustment in flight of the projectile, pruschego on ballistic?

                      The shot takes place in the direction of the target, according to the coordinates obtained, taking into account the weather conditions and all "accompanying"
                      What are the problems of controlling (adjusting) the flight of a projectile?
                      So:
                      1. postman
                        postman 18 December 2012 22: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        How do you imagine the adjustment in flight of the projectile, pruschego on ballistic?

                        continued ....
                        Or so:
                        RU (11) 2265790 (13) C1
                        RU (11) 2265788 (13) C1
                        Control compartment homing artillery shell contains case with an internal ledge, homing head steering gear with folding aerodynamic rudders, power supply unit and control equipment.
                        Or like this:
                        Center of mass displacement and derivation (oh silent)
                        WHAT IS THE COMPLEXITY OF CONTROL OF THE BODY FLYING ON THE BALLISTIC TRAJECTORY IN THE FIELD OF EARTHGROUND AND IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
                        Projectile (especially 406 mm / 862 kg) SAME HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GOS (at least a radio, even a laser or IR)!
                        The same right as a rocket, we are all equal.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You aim at a moving target an ordinary 406-mm ballistic projectile (no hint :)))

                        your statement is not true and contrary to logic, wrote the above. DO NOT DISCRIMINATE a 406 mm 862 kg projectile flying in the atmosphere and having a significant supply of kinetic and potential energy (roughly speaking equal to the energy stored in the explosive)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        AFAR - you will have, in fact, to make not a shell, but a missile that can be fired from a cannon.

                        Do not have to. The rocket has the classic Tsiolkovsky Curse.
                        the shell does not have it (even if it is actively reactive)
                        The projectile is cheaper, the shot is cheaper

                        About "firing" a rocket from a cannon: read about hypersonic generators
                        DRDC Valcartier - HEMi, EADS-MBDA-HFK, MRM-CE, FMV- BUSTER
                        what interferes with 406mm if tested at 122mm and 152mm?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        UAVs are very easy to spot, because their "stealth" is very conditional.

                        Is there any data?
                        The ESR of the X-47 UAV is minimal when irradiated from the front and rear hemispheres and reaches its peak when the irradiation is directed normal to the longitudinal axis of the airframe. The UAV has a reduced radar signature in the low-frequency region, generated in particular by Russian VHF radars with an active phased antenna array.
                        In 2006, Northrop Grumman recruited John Caschen as a consultant (he headed work on reducing the radar visibility of the B-2 bomber; until 2006):

                        The calculations performed by Northrop in 1981 established the maximum achievable ESR value of 30 dB / m2.
                        and so the EPR of the UAV 0,1m2 (TK for - EASY TO DETECT IT?
                        The ESR of the JSF (F-22) is estimated at 40 dB / m2 (0,3 m2)
                        Why the UAV is detected faster and its "stealth" fairy tale is not very clear ...
                        UAV-less (significantly) has no systems Zh.O.P.A. (life support pa), cockpit and a lantern (without binding or binding, what's the difference ....

                        Moreover, all the UAVs that we see are the beginning of the journey.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The power of the UAV radar is small

                        here: RU (11) 2429990 (13) C1
                      2. postman
                        postman 18 December 2012 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        (not stronger than airplane)

                        do you need more? But at what "height" is this low-power radar station?
                        F-35 gives 800km, it can be used as AWACS (long arm)
                        and on the Falklands the British used it:
                        Fairey Gannet AEW Mk3 with AN / APS20A Radar

                        how did the aircraft drllo connections, such a grandfather, from the time of the korean war, missed the connection?
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 23: 08
                        +2
                        Quote: Postman
                        F-35 gives 800km, it can be used as AWACS (long arm)

                        sagging! laughing
                        Well, you give :))) I have read anything in my life, but so that the F-35 radar is at 800 km wassat
                        Yeah laughing
                        Okay, now it's too late, tomorrow I will explain with links the whole depth of your errors
                        800 km ... it will be necessary to show VAF laughing
                      4. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 00: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        800 km ... it will be necessary to show VAF


                        Do not disturb a respected person, let him walk with a dog.
                        NOTE - I DIDN'T SPEAK ABOUT DETERMINING THE FIGHTER !!!!
                        (with an EPR of 0,3-7 m2) - you probably missed it hotly.
                        I talked about the GROUND OBJECT (or the ship), for detection and TsU.
                        F-35 does not stand on deck, but flies (cruising height ND, Practical ceiling: 18200 m)

                        Well, the arithmetic is simple. Yes, and on topwar they already gave a calculation, taking into account that the Earth is round, the Radar is at an altitude of 10-12000m. Farther yourself. Target Aircraft carrier or object of attack on land.


                        reference:
                        To detect the start of tactical and operational-tactical ballistic missiles, as well as sea-based missiles, an infrared system for detecting the flare of a rocket engine can be installed on a modernized aircraft (A-50DRLO), capable at an altitude of 10 m detect the launch rocket torch at a distance of up to 1000 km.
                        I hope you don't refer to infrared waves as "over the horizon"?

                        there is no open data (reliable) for AN / APG-81, according to the developer, it is 2-2,5 times more effective than AN / APG-68
                        works simultaneously in the air-to-air and air-to-surface modes, recognizes and classifies group and single objects,
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 08: 50
                        +1
                        First - you write
                        [quote = postman] F-35 does not stand on the deck, but flies (cruising height ND, Practical ceiling: 18200 m) [/ quote]
                        Radio horizon is easy to calculate. Approximate formula - radio horizon in km = 4,124 * square root of height in meters http://www.ta.ru/content/view/54/31/ for 18 200 m it gives 556 km. so that you can’t specify the 800 km you have indicated for ground targets IN PRINCIPLE.
                        I'm not even talking about the fact that the thought "and now the F-35 will climb 18 km and see everyone from there" is .... how to say it ... :)))))
                        Secondly - you write
                        [quote = postman] there is no open data (reliable) for AN / APG-81, according to the developer in 2 - 2,5 is more efficient than AN / APG-68 [/ quote]
                        We look at the characteristics of AN / APG-68 http://pentagonus.ru/publ/18-1-0-546
                        280 km are aerial targets and 150 km are surface (and ground) targets. Your 2-2,5 fold is 300-375 km.
                        But here's the thing - in the tabular values, the MAXIMUM detection range is usually indicated, i.e. theoretically possible. For example, the 68 km range specified for AN / APG-280 refers to a target, the size of Star Destroer, and then in ideal conditions.
                        -I DIDN'T SPEAK ABOUT DETECTION OF THE FIGHTER !!!!
                        (with 0,3-7 m2 EPR) [/ quote]
                        Naturally, they didn’t say, I don’t blame you for this :))) I came across data that with EPR in 1m2 AN / APG-68 can be seen on 70-75 km. The truth is where I saw - huchubey I do not remember, until I found it only in Vic
                        Thus, I believe that AN / APG-81 will still be able to "copy" a destroyer created without the use of stealth technologies - 250-300 kilometers.
                        [quote = postman] locate the torch of the launching missile at a distance of 1000 km. [/ quote]
                        Read your own links carefully. AN / AAQ-37 can issue a control center for ballistic missiles from "long distances" - it is not specified which ones :))) And, yes, infrared sensors can see the launch of a missile even for 1300 km :))) But it is written so smoothly that the reader concludes - target designation is possible from 1300 km laughing
                        And this is not so :)))
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 23: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        Projectile (especially 406 mm / 862 kg) SAME HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GOS (at least a radio, even a laser or IR)!
                        The same right as a rocket, we are all equal.

                        Can. Only in this case it will cost MUCH more expensive than a rocket. Because, unlike a rocket, a projectile experiences a very wild overload in its life when fired. And the GOS does not tolerate this.
                        That is why the mechanism of laser illumination is used - it is more stable. This time
                        For GOS, you need ... how to say it :))) That the head of the shell would be radiolucent laughing In order for the antenna to work :))))) As soon as you develop such a projectile - require a Pulitzer Prize :)))))
                        Quote: Postman
                        About "firing" a rocket from a cannon: read about hypersonic generators

                        Read it carefully, all questions will disappear by themselves :))) Particular attention - energy intensity
                        Quote: Postman
                        Is there any data?

                        Common sense is
                        Quote: Postman
                        and so the EPR of the UAV 0,1m2 (TK for - EASY TO DETECT IT?

                        Yes ELEMENTARY, Watson :)))) Because it is an EPR in a certain and narrow range. And the UAV will have to maneuver, observing the connection, it cannot hang in place. It will be irradiated with several radar connections, and then also an air patrol. Its thermal exhaust will be visible in the ECO from a few tens of kilometers, 0,1 m2 - this roughly corresponds to the EPR of conventional anti-ship missiles, which are quite easily detected a few tens of kilometers from the ship. English SAMPSON, under good conditions, sees a pigeon (ESR 0,008m2) in 105 km from the ship. If the UAV carries a radar and it works - they forgot about the stealth right there, it is necessary to explain why?
                      7. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 01: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the GOS does not tolerate this.

                        Nonsense
                        bullets can reach 250 km / s2, shells -BEFORE 450 km / s2 (max), do you yourself count the exposure time?
                        The start of the RCC "Onyx" accelerates the solid-fuel accelerating unit to 2200 km / s (500-733 km / s2) in seconds

                        SiIMU02 can withstand acceleration up to 20000g (200 m / s000)

                        GOS withstands single impact with acceleration up to 117 600 m / s2.

                        Patent: RU (11) 2093782 (13) C1
                        GYRO-COORDINATOR
                        Usage: area of ​​guided projectiles, namely homing heads, used in control systems of artillery guided shells.
                        The aim of the invention is to increase the impact strength of the gyrocoordinator of the homing of an artillery guided projectile by eliminating the displacement of the radiation receiver relative to the optical system during firing while maintaining the possibility of disassembly.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        For GOS, you need ... how to say it :))) That the head of the shell would be radiolucent

                        and for laser illumination - optically transparent (for IR-GOS too)
                        SMArt 155 by Diehl
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        As soon as you develop such a projectile - claim the Pulitzer Prize :)))))

                        send it here please (they will appreciate it):
                        BAE Systems Bofors Sweden
                        BOSS (Bofors Optimized Smart Sheet)
                        The BOSS guided artillery shell is equipped with an autonomous radar guidance system. It has a powerful cumulative warhead with armor penetration of 600 mm. The homing radar allows you to search for targets from a range of 2000 m. The correction of the trajectory in the homing area is carried out by four head aerodynamic rudders. The mass of the projectile is about 46 kg.
                        = WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
                        Again the rocket can not be a shell?
                      8. Hoist
                        Hoist 19 December 2012 05: 51
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        The start of the RCC "Onyx" accelerates the solid-fuel accelerating unit to 2200 km / s (500-733 km / s2) in seconds

                        Where does this figure come from 2200 km / s, maybe all the same km / h ??
                      9. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 16: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Izar
                        Where does this figure come from 2200 km / s,

                        My little wick of course .......
                        2200m / s (2-2,6M)
                        Pony horses people and trunks all in a heap, as the respected Aich writes ...
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 10: 10
                        +1
                        Generally speaking, I spoke incorrectly, for which I apologize - there was, of course, not all GOS, but only radar GOS
                        Quote: Postman
                        Nonsense
                        bullets can reach 250 km / s2,

                        I do not know how many bullets can reach. But with the numbers in 250-450 km / s in a second - I agree
                        Quote: Postman
                        The start of the RCC "Onyx" accelerates the solid-fuel accelerating unit to 2200 km / s (500-733 km / s2) in seconds

                        ??? Onyx accelerates to 2200 km per hour or about 610 m / s. At the same time it does it FOR SECONDS. (in my opinion - in tens of seconds, well, I will not argue) Considering such acceleration by uniformly accelerated motion, we have the formula v to the degree 2 = u to the degree 2 + 2 a * s
                        Where u is the initial speed of the rocket is equal to 0
                        a - acceleration
                        s - time during which the acceleration acted
                        v - final speed of the body
                        Total - a = v to the power of 2 / (2 * S)
                        Total, if we assume that onyx accelerates to 610 m / s in 5 seconds, we have as much 37,2 km / s in a second :)))) so the difference with the acceleration of the projectile is ON ORDER.
                        But in fact, Onyx accelerates much slower.
                        Quote: Postman
                        send it here please (they will appreciate it):
                        BAE Systems Bofors Sweden
                        BOSS (Bofors Optimized Smart Sheet)

                        The most well-known foreign programs for the creation of guided projectiles were the following: ADC (Artille-rie Dirigee Charge, France); BOSS (Bofors Optimized Smart Sheel) and TCM (Trajectory Correction Munition, both Sweden), but for various reasons in the course of their implementation not a single shell was adopted http://pentagonus.ru/publ/materialy_posvjashheny/2000_nastojashhij_moment/artill
                        erijskie_boeprippus_povyshennoj_tochnosti_istorija_sostojanie_razvitie_2012 / 12
                        So the Pulitzer Prize awaits you for the time being :)))
                        In general - the same BOSS works like this - the projectile is a container in which the warhead and the AGSN are located. When approaching the target, the "container" opens (the front part falls off) and the AGSN can contemplate the surrounding reality :)))
                        Nothing about the payload mass of such a projectile, the mass of explosives, and so on, and most importantly - the cost - is not said.
                        So - not an argument.
                      11. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 17: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        but only radar seeker

                        BOSS (Bofors Optimized Smart Sheel) withstood his radar seeker.
                        What's the difference ? m / y infrared seeker and radar seeker (according to the degree of resistance to acceleration)?
                        explain?
                        For Pulitzer's idea (you can use):
                        1. the volume where the seeker is located is filled with a neutral non-electric liquid of high density (let it be KTZ-1600 with additives), at the end of the projectile's presence in the barrel (as long as there is acceleration), the drain valve opens, drains. GOS starts to work
                        2. The paraffin-like mixture, under the action of g, heats up, passes into the liquid phase, hereinafter referred to as No. 1.
                        GOS saved.
                        ABOUT GOS PATENTS for an artillery shell- wrote, read at your leisure (implemented without 1 and 2)
                        RU (11) 2265790 (13) C1
                        RU (11) 2265788 (13) C1

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But with numbers of 250-450 km / s

                        only SECONDS in a Square (2) essno and pay attention to BEFORE.
                        16 "/ 50 Mark 7 and HC Mark 13, 14: 6 powder bags, 820 m / s and 3 powder bags, 580 m / s. Barrel length 15,087 m (594"), 49,5 calibers, rifled 12,724 m, 41,7 , XNUMX calibers
                        Shot (duration): 0,001 (firearms) - 0,06 seconds (artillery) .. Let 0,06s (bags) а = 212 m / s2 (59km / s2 or 21,6g)
                        Let 0,01 s: a = 1272,4 m / s2 (353 km / s2 = 130 g)
                        Let as a bullet in a rifle 0,001 a = 12724m / s2 (3534km / s2 = 1298 g)
                        Quote: Postman
                        GOS withstand single impact acceleration up to 117 600 m / s2 .

                        Where does your "common sense" see the difficulty?
                        Person (pilot) 70 m / s2 (loop), 40 m / s2 at launch
                        a jump from the table (1 m) at 9,8 lasts 0,01 s. Acceleration in contact with the surface. ACCELERATION UNDER 100g (982m / s2) = can stand anything?
                        Note: explain with 2 common sense. "

                        At the time of exposure pay special attention, after departure from the trunk, (almost immediately) the following acts: G and acceleration (s -) from atmospheric braking.
                        note:
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        ??? Onyx accelerates to 2200 km in HOUR

                        Ochipyatka, I already wrote m / s, PS 1-2,5 sec, 112

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Onyx accelerates much more slowly.

                        wrong opinion.

                        V0 and S0 = 0. if you do not want to take into account the movement of the ship towards the target (or away from it)
                        take it easier:

                        And recount.
                        note this for a bullet / projectile essno. For a rocket, it is necessary to consider the h / s mass differential: a = F / (M - μt), μ-second fuel consumption
                        With your acceleration, Onyx will crash after leaving PC
                      12. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 17: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Most famous

                        and hu from "http://pentagonus.ru" ???? I do not know.
                        ADC (Artille-rie Dirigee Charge) - What's that?
                        About the other two, ask here:
                        Weapon systems bofors
                        SE-69180 Karlskoga
                        Sweden
                        Tel: + 46 8 586 81 000
                        Fax: + 46 8 586 85 700
                        Email: anders.l.gustavsson @ celsius.se
                        The fact that someone wrote the Pentagon, schih words is not very believed.
                        Even if they are not accepted. People work.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In general, the same BOSS works like this

                        You do not spread the thought on the table. WHAT DOES THIS RELATE TO: "THE GOS CANNOT WITHDRAW ACCELERATION WHEN THE ARTILLERY SHOT?"
                        doesn’t it mean they are firing from the barrel, but are being thrown over the target with an aircraft, with a parachute? Yes?
                      13. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 25
                        +1
                        I'll start here with this
                        Quote: Postman
                        You do not spread the thought on the table.

                        Generally speaking, initially we tried to figure out who and how to direct the target F-35. In the frame of THIS task I wrote to you
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And in order to direct the projectile with the help of AFAR - you have to, in fact, not make a projectile, but a rocket that can be fired from a cannon.

                        You answered
                        Quote: Postman
                        Projectile (especially 406 mm / 862 kg) SAME HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GOS (at least a radio, even a laser or IR)!
                        The same right as a rocket, we are all equal.

                        To which I replied
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Can. Only in this case it will cost more expensive than a rocket.

                        In response, you tell me that:
                        1) There is such a projectile - BOSS. And he has AGSN.
                        2) I myself already find the principle of the projectile action - at first it rushes along a ballistic one, and at some point (code close to the target) it drops the front part of the body, as a result of which it becomes possible to launch AGSN. Those. it is precisely the ROCKET in the shell of the projectile, or the planning bomb at the worst
                        3) Similarly, I myself find that none of these projectiles fired / forgotten was adopted. (and was developed not only BOSS)
                        Accordingly - you did not answer the question of how such a projectile can be induced using AFAR. In fact, your answer is NO, because the projectile, which you cite as an example, is induced with the help of an active radar homing head and without any involvement of AFAR. If I were inadequately adjusted to you - I would say that you distorted, transferring the conversation to another topic.
                        Further - the fact that despite several developments, none of them went into production indicates that:
                        1) Either the projectile failed (unreliable, little explosive, something else)
                        2) Either its price is exorbitantly high and EVEN laser-induced supplies are cheaper
                        3) Either the global conspiracy of alternatively gifted African-Americans of non-traditional sexual orientation was waged with a view to prevent such projectiles from entering the world.
                        Item 3 disappears - there was a lot of development. remains n xnumx or xnumx. Which one will you choose? :)))
                        Quote: Postman
                        The fact that someone wrote the Pentagon, schih words is not very believed.

                        Yes, no question - give a reliable source of the fact that such shells entered service - business something ...
                        You who feed me the comments the PATENTS. Which is not a fact that they are generally realizable, but you pass them off as fact and technical perfection. Hurray, patent. And someone tried to embody them in the metal? And what came of it?
                        now onyx
                        Quote: Postman
                        wrong opinion.

                        N-dya.
                        Quote: Postman
                        Only SECONDS in the Square (2) essno and pay attention to

                        Please note - I have written
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But with numbers in 250-450 km / sec per second - I agree

                        But all that you wrote on - I'm in shock.
                      14. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        Where does your "common sense" see the difficulty?

                        What is acceleration? Acceleration is the increase in body speed over time. 2 m / s2 means that the body increases its movement speed by 2 meters per second per second.
                        We will argue?
                        Now we look at the projectile. We ignore the speed of the ship, because in both cases (the shot of their gun, the launch of the rocket) we are talking about the same ship, so the movement of the ship is irrelevant
                        Those. We believe that both the projectile and the rocket are at rest before launching / firing.
                        So, the projectile is gaining speed IN DISTANCE in 16-17 m (barrel length) And maybe earlier, I do not know. Those. it receives acceleration, which accelerates it from a point of rest to speed in 800 m / s in an ill-fated fraction of a second, you write in 0,06 seconds. In my opinion, an erroneous figure has been committed, since it turns out that the average velocity of the projectile in the barrel is 275 m / s. But Allah is with him, let them be 0,06 seconds.
                        so here It would seem to be obvious to anyone that if there are 2 bodies, the first one (projectile) accelerates to 800 speed in m / s in 0,06 seconds, and the second body (rocket) accelerates to 611 speed in m / s even in 2 -3 seconds (which is complete absurdity), their accelerations differ by orders of magnitude. The fact is self-evident.
                        For all but you. You also managed to connect the mass differential here.
                        There is a simple formula: acceleration = change in speed / time interval. In our case it will be 800 / 0,06 = 13 333 and 610 / 3 = 203,33
                        In general - advice - keep it simple. Then you will not have to blush for such
                        Quote: Postman
                        jump off the table (1 m) while 9,8 lasts 0,01 seconds. Contact Acceleration Acceleration Under 100g (982 / C 2)

                        Acceleration of gravity - 9,8 m / s in seconds leads to the fact that the distance 1 m man flies over 1 m / 9,8 m / s2 = 0,1 seconds. During the flight, a person picks up speed
                        9,8 m / s2 * 0,1 sec = 1 meter per second. At the time of contact with the floor, this is the speed he has. And its acceleration is equal to one ge - 9,8 m / s.
                        Acceleration in 9 is the ultimate for humans. If at the moment of contact with the surface a person had an acceleration under 100, he would have spread it over the floor with a thin bleach
                      15. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 22: 48
                        +1
                        Let's get better on business :))) Without funny pictures
                      16. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 00: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        No funny pictures

                        What are they "funny"?
                        Everything from here:
                        Northrop Grumman

                        http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/
                        here is the official entry

                        Why so much fun
                      17. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 10: 12
                        +1
                        Merry here is that they have nothing to do with the issues discussed.
                      18. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 17: 55
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        they have no relationship

                        F-35 RS and ECO
                        guidance of shells. Target designation.
                        asked, we answer
                    2. Basarev
                      Basarev 12 February 2014 21: 35
                      0
                      But nevertheless, the cost of large-caliber shells in comparison with missiles is of interest.
      2. Kars
        Kars 18 December 2012 13: 59
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        "Phantoms" and "Folkons" soar into the air in caliber and which carry the mentioned ship into molecules.

        This is if the airfields are intact, and not destroyed by the same Tomahawks that are on Missouri. I think we won’t assume that the country that was able to build a battleship cannot provide a couple of three air defense destroyers?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And what can be opposed to a shell?

        Based on the rocket projectile, who was the first to destroy the same Iowa’s warhead in 1000 (roughly) projectiles --- despite the fact that its 16 inches are the maximum for a couple of degrees off the course.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        those that really threaten the ship - today's computers are quite capable of identifying those.

        only not to the ship but to the shore where even a deviation would still cause significant damage.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Can not

        will be able to be able to --- or stories of commanders of an art battery on o.Russky about hitting a barrel with 40 km of lies?

        here we just discussed recently this topic found (postman) an interesting American document
        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2007-05_JFSC_Thesis_NFS_and_DDG-1000.p
        df
        http://topwar.ru/21970-amerikanskiy-flot-v-glamure-vysokih-tehnologiy.html#comme
        nt-id-774572
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 14: 47
          +4
          Quote: Kars
          That is, if the airfields are intact, and not destroyed by the same Tomahawks that stand in Missouri.

          Beating up babies of some kind. Why then even a battleship? An ordinary barge with "grads" mounted on it is enough
          Quote: Kars
          I think we will not assume that the country was able to build a battleship, will not be able to provide a pair of three air defense destroyers?

          And a couple of aircraft carriers to cover the shipboard shock group. And the 3-4 PL to cover both. And ... Why then battleship at all?
          Quote: Kars
          Based on the rocket projectile, who was the first to destroy the same Iowa’s warhead in 1000 (roughly) projectiles --- despite the fact that its 16 inches are the maximum for a couple of degrees off the course.

          We consider. Iowa's ammunition EMNIP on 100 shots on the gun, guns - 9 from which follows the 900 shots on the battleship. With the provision of 3% of hits it turns out that the 27 shells will have to get into the ship as much as the ammunition is fully consumed. Total - about 54 ZUR + more 30 units for system errors - the defeat of those projectiles that the ship is not really threatened. Let it be 90, for the round bill.
          Given the fact that the frequency of full bursts does not exceed 1,5 per minute in any way, it is more than an hour to release Iowa’s ammunition.
          During this hour, an Iowa type battleship is easy enough to bang a torpedo submarine salvo or by organizing an airstrike on it according to all the rules.
          Total will be exchanged 90 SAM, the order of 12 anti-radar CR the same number of Garpun missiles and pieces 8-10 torpedoes Мк48. Considering 2 million dollars for each rocket - 248 million dollars. Building such a battleship will now cost a billion so 3 greens at least + ammunition laughing
          Even funnier. We put on the 2 destroyer five-turbine TAs with MK48 (38 km on 55 nodes, 50 km - on 40 knots) When a battleship is detected, we attack it and launch torpedoes. laughing laughing
          Quote: Kars
          despite the fact that its 16 inches zur maximum knocked off the course by a couple of degrees.

          What will give the deviation of the crash site in almost 500 m when hit the missile in the projectile at a distance 4000 m from the ship. Where more?
          Quote: Kars
          only not to the ship but to the shore where even a deviation would still cause significant damage.

          This thesis needs to be clarified :))) What damage does a projectile, which fell into 500 from the ship? :)))))
          Quote: Kars
          will be able to be able to --- or stories of commanders of an art battery on o.Russky about hitting a barrel with 40 km of lies?

          They will not be able :))) But still, tell me about the Russian - otherwise I will not be able to explain where you are wrong
          Quote: Kars
          found (postman) an interesting American document

          Alas, my English does not allow reading such documents. No
          1. Kars
            Kars 18 December 2012 15: 25
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And a couple of aircraft carriers to cover the naval strike force. And 3-4 submarines for cover and those and others. And ... Why then the battleship at all

            Why are aircraft carriers? They are too expensive. And without rocket ships they are almost useless. We (I at least) talk about small regional wars. Where a linear art missile ship + 4 anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft destroyers are quite a sufficient group.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            We count. Iowa ammunition EMNIP 100 rounds per gun, guns - 9 of which follows 900 rounds per battleship

            Not an 1220 without using a Broadway download.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            With 3% of hits, it turns out that as many as 27 will have to get into the ship

            You stubbornly steal a ship that no one needs and for which there is a RCC harpoon.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            2 five-turbo TA with Mk48 (38 km at 55 knots, 50 km at 40 knots) When a battleship is found, we attack it and fire torpedoes.

            As I understand it, the means that are able to intercept a torpedo over the last 50 years have not been invented?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            This thesis needs to be clarified :))) What damage does a projectile, which fell into 500 from the ship? :)))))

            What ship if fire is fired at coastal facilities? How many of the 1300 main-caliber shells were intercepted by Iraq's air defense? Missing percentage was 30%
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Alas, my English does not allow reading such documents. No way

            Google translator, and for a person in the subject to recognize the meaning of special work will not be.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            They will not be able :))) But still, tell me about the Russian - otherwise I will not be able to explain where you are wrong


            One tower was serviced by 75 people, and the total number of battery personnel was 399!

            The battery last fired in 1992 - then the last battery commander G.E. Shabot fell into a barrel with a diameter of 2 meters from a distance of 5 nautical miles! Until the last day of the combat service, the guns of the battery remained unprecedented accuracy, despite their advanced age
            certainly not 40 km I got excited.
            http://russianisland.ru/%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D
            1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%8F.html
            You can also provide data on the accuracy of the Crimean 305 mm battery after equipping the radar.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Beating up babies of some kind. Why then even a battleship? An ordinary barge with "grads" mounted on it is enough

            You can barge, but isn’t this a battleship a barge? And all the same, it’s advisable to approach closer to the shore, what a modern ship without armor would shoot a tank that accidentally survived.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 16: 56
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              We (at least at least) talk about small regional wars. Where the linear art-rocket ship + 4 destroyer of air defense and anti-aircraft defense is quite a sufficient group.

              And for what purposes is it sufficient? If our desire is to shoot along the shore and create a certain rustle without expecting serious resistance, then 4 air defense / anti-aircraft missile destroyers + a towed barge with "grads" will still be more useful.
              Quote: Kars
              Not an 1220 without using a Broadway download.

              OK, I won’t get into the sources - instead of 27 there will be 36-37 shells for interception :)
              Quote: Kars
              You stubbornly steal a ship that no one needs and for which there is a RCC harpoon.

              I? :)))) So what kind of ship am I sending? :)))
              Quote: Kars
              As I understand it, the means that are able to intercept a torpedo over the last 50 years have not been invented?

              So tell me about them. The US Admiral, when asked how he was going to protect the US AV from Russian torpedoes, which were guided along the wake trail, answered - "I will put a missile cruiser in the wake of an aircraft carrier"
              Quote: Kars
              What kind of ship if the fire is on coastal objects?

              I meant the battle between the ships.
              Quote: Kars
              How many of the main caliber 1300 shells were intercepted by Iraq’s air defenses?

              Give you all the beating of babies. And you don't need a battleship to kill babies. The effectiveness of the usual "hail" will not be lower.
              Quote: Kars
              The percentage of misses was 30%

              Sorry, but it is not. Well, except that if the goal is to understand the location of the Iraqi division, then yes, maybe :))) With an indispensable condition - the borders of the location are determined by the Americans :))))
              Quote: Kars
              The last time the battery fired was at 1992, then the last commander of the battery, GE. Shabot hit the barrel with a diameter of 2 meter from a distance of 5 nautical miles!

              Forgotten only to indicate where the barrel was located (not on the shooting range?) And with what shot the target was hit.
              Generally speaking, for example, "Worspight" in the dark and from a distance of 3 km from the first salvo hit the target (Fiume) with five shells out of six. But when the Scharnhorst was sunk (the battle distance is 11-20 thousand m), the British achieved only 446 hits out of 13 shells fired.
              Quote: Kars
              It is possible and the barge, and unless the battleship is not a barge?

              No, the barge is very different from the battleship :)))))
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 December 2012 17: 21
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                4 AA / PLO destroyers + a towed barge with "grads" will still be more useful.

                Well, I don `t know, I don` t know for some reason, the RSZA didn’t squeeze the artillery out of the Armed Forces for this reason, which means something.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                I? :)))) So what kind of ship am I sending? :)))

                You, so I think which one?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                SAM missiles at a distance of 4000 m from the ship

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                that really threaten the ship

                you know better.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                So tell me about them

                The complex "Udav" was developed by the Moscow Scientific and Production Association "Splav". Complex composition: rockets (diverter and barrage-deep), launcher, feed device, fire control devices.

                This complex is reflected in large-scale scientific research on the problem of creating an effective way to actively counter both existing and future torpedoes
                375 mm RPK Bofors anti-submarine missile system designed to provide anti-submarine and anti-torpedo defense of surface ships at shallow depths and in coastal waters.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Sorry, but it’s not.

                Well, if not, then let sifirki, and everything will fall into place.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You only forgot to indicate where the barrel was located (not on a shot range?) And from what shot the target was hit

                I don `t know, but does it play a role for modern radar and ballistic computers?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But when the Scharnhorst was drowned (the battle distance was 11-20 thousand meters), of the 446 shells fired, the British made only 13 hits.

                So is he a ship? Sharnhost? Let us recall what kind of radar the English had, what analogue ballistic computer?
                what is the weather before the new year in the atlantic?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                No, the barge is very different from the battleship :)))))

                Yes, in principle, nothing if you start digging deeply,
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 18: 16
                  +2
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, I don `t know, I don` t know for some reason, the RSZA didn’t squeeze the artillery out of the Armed Forces for this reason, which means something.

                  Because the barrel artillery has a lot of tasks and shooting at areas of them - in general, probably not the most important, and certainly not the only one.
                  However, the use of naval artillery, described by you, implies the shooting of squares. What else will you do in Constanta? Point out individual nine-story buildings? :)))) Have fun on the war that Mercedes who is so amusingly trying to escape along that highway? Hardly, I think :)))
                  Quote: Kars
                  You, so I think which one?

                  I don’t push anything. But when the battleship is being pushed to me - I squeal and rest :))))
                  Quote: Kars
                  The complex "Udav" was developed by the Moscow Scientific and Production Association "Splav". Complex composition: rockets (diverter and barrage-deep), launcher, feed device, fire control devices.

                  The effectiveness of such a solution is not clear. The Americans won’t look at any rocket either - the probability of an 0,9 hit, and as it comes to battle - for a non-maneuvering and non-electronic warfare target (such as Iraqi aircraft) from 3 launches one hit.
                  Quote: Kars
                  Well, if not, then let sifirki, and everything will fall into place.

                  I have already unsubscribed on this issue. I can also add Kirishima, which "Washington" hit 9 times out of 75 from a distance of 7,5 km
                  You stubbornly confuse the accuracy of shooting with its effectiveness :))) These are different things.
                  Quote: Kars
                  I don `t know, but does it play a role for modern radar and ballistic computers?

                  Naturally. Or do you think that if you have a modern radar and a good ballistic computer, do you get anything from the first projectile? :)))) Well, at least you would think, why would someone make self-guided projectiles? :)))) )
                  Quote: Kars
                  So he karabl? Sharnhost?

                  Aha
                  Quote: Kars
                  Let us recall what kind of radar the English had, what analogue ballistic computer?
                  what is the weather before the new year in the atlantic?

                  So let's remember. The British radar was not seen so that Scharnhorst himself — she saw the EMNIP and the shells in flight. Analog machines then reached a peak - they were inferior in anything (except for weight) to modern computers.
                  about the weather - funny. Here is a short essay on the cruisers Admiral Hipper
                  Each of the information processing stations included an analog computer for calculating the vertical and horizontal guidance angles, as well as the main fire control computer (Art. Schuw. Rech, C / 35), which took into account data on the range, speed, course of the target, received from all rangefinders, as well as information about the strength and direction of the wind, air pressure and the degree of wear of the gun barrel. The data on the calculated vertical and horizontal aiming angles with correction for the longitudinal and transverse rolling were received by the guns and the KDP.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 December 2012 18: 28
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Because the barrel artillery has a lot of tasks and shooting at areas of them - in general, probably not the most important, and certainly not the only one.
                    However, the use of naval artillery described by you implies shooting at squares

                    What makes you think of it? Just the most normal shooting, like the usual artillery, which is now in 155 mm gauge, leads to 30-40 km and doesn’t cause any questions.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Point out individual nine-story buildings? :))))

                    Yes, and this, - to fulfill orders from the airborne assault troops, to fire on previously-explored targets. All that aircraft can do within 100 km from the coast, but ten times cheaper and more efficient.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I don’t push anything. But when the battleship is being pushed to me - I squeal and rest :))))

                    Well, scream, but you don’t need to steal the ship. It’s already clearly stated that it’s easier to use anti-ship missiles against the ship, although it is 16 inches possible.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    The effectiveness of such a solution is not clear

                    Clearly, it is not clear, but they are systems, and most likely continue to develop.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I have already unsubscribed on this issue. I can also add Kirishima, which "Washington" hit 9 times out of 75 from a distance of 7,5 km
                    You stubbornly confuse the accuracy of fire with its effectiveness :)))

                    And I already told you ten times that the ships do not interest us, and even so you can remember after what shot Hood was bent.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Or do you think that if you have a modern radar and a good ballistic computer, will you get into anything from the first shell? :))))

                    Probably yes.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Well, would you even think why then someone makes homing shells? :)))))

                    In order not to get into anything, but in small-sized targets, to which aviation gets into using CABs.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    about the weather - funny

                    And what was nebylo storm? That the aircraft did not fly.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    short essay on cruisers Admiral Hipper

                    Just the Hippers were distinguished by the saturation of the advanced self-propelled guns, but the bad luck was that it was almost always malfunctioning. And all the same, I think that for 70 years there has been progress, well, at least a little, right?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 21: 52
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      What makes you think of it? Just the most normal shooting, like the usual artillery, which is now in 155 mm gauge, leads to 30-40 km and doesn’t cause any questions.

                      From the fact that you seem to have a rather strange idea of ​​artillery.
                      Artillery can be used on stationary, previously explored targets with the task of destroying them.
                      Artillery can be used in support of attacking-advancing troops - to suppress and destroy the attacking enemy or his defensive positions. It can be as fire on the areas (orders of the advancing enemy) and the destruction of point targets (consumption of a dug tank or a bunker)
                      Well, the counter-battery struggle, of course.
                      The range of fire provides the possibility of maneuvering trajectories or maneuver fire. Those. having a range of 40 km you can support the troops stationed in 39 km from you, which is good
                      But always in the part there is an artillery observer, corrective fire
                      Phew And now, I repeat the question - what kind of point targets and with what kind of adjustment are you going to fire when approaching the enemy port?
                      Quote: Kars
                      Yes, and this, - to fulfill orders from the airborne assault troops, to fire on previously-explored targets. All that aircraft can do within 100 km from the coast, but ten times cheaper and more efficient.

                      Yes, it is thousands of times cheaper and more efficient to burn out the coastal strip of the MLRS, disembark the SAUšek company and they will carry out everything that needs to be carried out there without any battleship.
                      On land, with the BEST EXCEPTION, there are NO targets for artillery larger than 155 mm caliber.
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 21: 52
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, it’s ereschite, but you don’t need to push the ship in. It’s already clearly stated that it’s easier to use anti-ship missiles

                        Something I did not see, where it was clearly said. But races said - means said. it remains to find out for some reason you need a battleship
                        Quote: Kars
                        Clearly, it is not clear, but they are systems, and most likely continue to develop.

                        so are we still considering battleship battleship, or not? :)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        Probably yes.

                        Talk to the gunners. Understand the depth of your delusions.
                        Quote: Kars
                        In order not to get into anything, but in small-sized targets, to which aviation gets into using CABs.

                        And they are used mainly against stationary targets - that’s bad luck ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        And what was nebylo storm? That the aircraft did not fly.

                        Score in points I did not come across.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Just the Hippers differed in the saturation of the advanced ACS, but then bad luck it was almost always defective.

                        Her superiority was only in that it roughly corresponded to the battleship. What, did the battleships also not work? :)))) Bismarck hit the Danish Strait 7 times, firing 93 projectile :))) Distance - 7-10 miles :)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        And all the same, I think that over the years 70, all the same, there has been progress, at least a little bit, right?

                        A little bit, yes But not much.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 18 December 2012 23: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Something I did not see, somewhere it was clearly said

                        Quote: Kars
                        You stubbornly steal a ship that no one needs and for which there is a RCC harpoon.

                        Am I going to lie?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        so are we still considering battleship battleship, or not? :)))

                        No. We are considering war. So what is it.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Talk to the gunners. Understand the whole depth of your errors

                        Well, I'm an artilleryman with Hyacinth and what?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And they are used mainly against stationary targets - that’s bad luck ...

                        What bad luck? Or stationary destroy inappropriately? I did not know.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Score I did not come across

                        at midnight on December 26, German ships violated the radio silence mode, reporting to the command that due to severe weather conditions combat operations of destroyers was practically impossible - in response he was given permission to conduct a military operation by forces of one battleship.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Her excellence was only in the fact that it roughly corresponded to Linkor’s

                        Just not every battleship could boast so.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What, the battleships also did not work? :))))

                        Very often, and what robotic ones were much easier.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        A little bit, but not much.

                        Tell it to the Germans

                        http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 23: 40
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Am I going to lie?

                        This is what? What should I have understood from this phrase? Please, discuss with me, and not with the verdicts of the past discussions.
                        As from the phrase
                        Quote: Kars
                        You stubbornly ship a ship that nobody needs and for whom there is a PKR harpoon

                        I had to understand that the battleship turns out to work only for coastal targets?
                        Quote: Kars
                        No. We are considering war. So what is it.

                        So the war against an approximately equal in level of the enemy, or in Iraq?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, I'm an artilleryman with Hyacinth and what?

                        Well, then tell me how you hit the target from the first shot in all the chilling details laughing Conditions do not forget
                        Quote: Kars
                        What bad luck? Or stationary destroy inappropriately? I did not know.

                        The fact that the famous artilleryman from Hyacinth just wrote that the guided projectiles were created to destroy small-sized and moving targets, and the stationary ones were beating from the first shot with conventional ballistic ones. But for some reason, expensive projectiles are mainly used to defeat stationary targets.
                        And, do not believe it, even the calculations were somewhere (it is necessary to search) Proving that the number of shells to hit the hospital is such that it is cheaper to pinpoint a controlled one. But someone here has promised to hit targets with one projectile?
                        Quote: Kars
                        at midnight on 26 December, the German ships violated the radio silence, reporting to the command that, due to the severe weather conditions, combat operations of the destroyers of the destroyers are almost impossible

                        The 4 score is approximately. Forgotten, what is the navigability of German EM?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Tell it to the Germans

                        Tell - what? that their ballistic computer takes into account approximately the same number of parameters as 70 years ago?
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 00: 07
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I had to understand that the battleship turns out to work only for coastal targets?

                        You should have understood that there are other means against ships that can be deployed on a missile-missile ship such as Missouri, for example.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So the war against an approximately equal in level of the enemy, or in Iraq?

                        A real one, where opponents are not chosen. And if they choose, they are trying to be simpler like Georgia, Yugoslavia, Libya. Although the Russian Federation must have ordered the Mistrals for the war with the United States.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Well, tell me then how you hit the target from the first shot in all the chilling details. Do not forget the conditions.

                        Ordinarily - set the data, handed the shell and shoot. If you are well attached then you hit the target the first time. You didn’t shoot yourself, but the officers didn’t see anything special about it.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But for some reason, expensive guided missiles are mainly used to destroy just the same stationary targets

                        Where and by whom if not a secret?
                        When was the last time the Russian Federation shot Krosnopol? And stationary targets are also small.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        did someone promise to hit targets with one shell?

                        Specify the size of the target? The infantry company in the field type fortifications? Do not worry about the darling being managed to extinguish? Or the minaret battery? Buried according to the standards?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The 4 score is approximately. Forgotten, what is the navigability of German EM?

                        Is this your weather good?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Tell - what? that their ballistic computer takes into account approximately the same number of parameters as 70 years ago?

                        Didn't know that 70 years ago shot with 15 KVO at distance 30 km.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 10: 42
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        You should have understood that there are other means against ships that can be deployed on a missile-missile ship such as Missouri, for example.

                        Sorry, but I do not remember when it became your debtor. and I do not know how to read the thoughts of my opponent - no matter how clear some thought may be to you, this does not mean that I can guess about it. I handed over mylophone for repair, forgive me.
                        Quote: Kars
                        This, where the opponents do not choose. And if they choose something they try simpler like Georgia, Yugoslavia, Libya

                        and then write - I need a battleship in 10 billion dollars to drive Georgian boats.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Usually - put the data, filed a projectile and shoot. If you hit the target well, then you hit the target the first time

                        Let's still look over here
                        http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/PrBpr/PrBpr002.htm
                        Of course, I understand that I am not quoting TSB (I saw about the same calculation on a trustworthy link - but I did not save it and I can’t find it), but still -
                        consumption of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles for the suppression of a battery of self-propelled Ml09 self-propelled guns when firing to kill three batteries
                        4 KM - 156 shells
                        16 km - 902 projectile
                        somehow comment?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Where and by whom if not a secret?

                        Seeking. So far I have found only the statement that 92% of shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Specify the size of the target?

                        Tank
                        Quote: Kars
                        Is this your weather good?

                        We add - you want a battleship worth 10 billion for the war against Georgia in clear, quiet weather. Excitement - up to 3 points.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Didn't know that 70 years ago shot with 15 KVO at distance 30 km.

                        I did not know that QUO is related to ballistic calculators laughing
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 16: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        and I can’t read the opponent’s mind

                        this is not required, just read carefully
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        km - 156 shells
                        16 km - 902 projectile
                        somehow comment?

                        It’s easy, what year is the data? When did you use the lag rulers? And this data is provided with a RESERVE. Moreover, for a self-propelled target. Which may not work from the first notched position.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Seeking. So far I have found only the statement that 92% of shells fell no further than 4 meters from the target.

                        Something a little weak for that kind of money. On a moving tank?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Tank

                        Well, get together, we’ve arrived - even a UR aircraft will not destroy a tank without entering the air defense zone. And we shoot at the CLOCK of tanks. Do you understand that different targets for different types of artillery? With the PT, rapiers will hit the first time, so what?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I did not know that QUO is related to ballistic calculators

                        I am glad that you have learned something, almost everything is related to it, including barrel wear, the temperature of the charge in the chamber, the temperature of the surrounding air, the direction of the wind, the bend of the trunk, and several other factors.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 17: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        It is easy, what year the data? When using lagorithmic rulers?

                        When controlled shells appeared, then they believed, apparently
                        Quote: Kars
                        And these data are provided with STOCK. All the more, for a self-propelled target. Which may not work from the first notched position.

                        so you will dispute the consumption of shells or not? There are given specific numbers - either 902 OFS on 16 km or 9 managed.
                        Quote: Kars
                        Something a little weak for that kind of money. On a moving tank?

                        That is why it is doubtful to me about moving targets. Because the tank will pass by and not notice - how then to assume that the explosion was 4 meters from the tank?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well sdrati, come - tank

                        You asked to specify not the TYPE of the target, but the SIZE of the target. I pointed out. This is the question
                        Quote: Kars
                        requires, just read carefully

                        Quote: Kars
                        I am glad that you have learned something, almost everything is related to it, including barrel wear, the temperature of the charge in the chamber, the temperature of the surrounding air, the direction of the wind, the bend of the trunk, and several other factors.

                        But the ballistic computer has no relation to the KVO.
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 17: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        When controlled shells appeared, then they believed, apparently

                        This is a count for Acacia.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        specific figures are given - or 902 OFS for 16 km or 9 managed.

                        Naturally I’ll, you can take another expense for the ML-20. And I didn’t understand you clearly wrote that it is possible to use guided missiles with LK, although it makes sense when they can use a shell with cluster anti-tank elements against the M-109.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        You asked to specify not the TYPE of the target, but the SIZE of the target. I pointed out. This is the question

                        All the same
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, get together, we’ve arrived - even a UR aircraft will not destroy a tank without entering the air defense zone. And we shoot at the CLOCK of tanks. Do you understand that different targets for different types of artillery? With the PT, rapiers will hit the first time, so what?

                        I never heard that the goals in the tanks were measured, in parrots it seemed to be.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The ballistic computer has no relation to the CVO.

                        Yes you WHAT? Is it to order in your mind to consider all this data?
                        Vkente the word tank and you will be happy.
                        Although you can tell what you think affects the CVO.
                        A tank ballistic computer is an integral part of modern tank fire control systems, a device for calculating corrections that must be entered into the position of the gun due to the difference in firing conditions from normal.

                        Actual firing conditions are measured (recorded) by firing condition sensors and manually and (or) automatically entered into the ballistic computer (B.V.). The latter, on the basis of information received by it according to certain algorithms, produces calculated values ​​of the aiming angles in the vertical and horizontal planes (for example, in the form of electrical voltages corresponding to these angles). Further, these signals, depending on the degree of perfection of the tank’s fire control system, are input either into the sight or directly into the gun guidance drives. Automation of the process of preparing the initial data by introducing automatic correction accounting devices into the fire control system allows reducing the preparation time of the first shot by 1,3-1,5 times and significantly increasing the probability of hitting the target. B.V. there are mechanical, electromechanical and electronic. The latter, in turn, are divided into analog and digital. In analog B.V. each instantaneous value of the input quantity corresponds to instantaneous values ​​of the electrical “machine” quantity, which differs from the original scale factor, but changes according to the same law as the input quantity. In digital B.V. input information is converted to digital form and processed according to the corresponding program. In addition, each figure in B.v. one or more discrete signals
                      9. postman
                        postman 18 December 2012 22: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        On land, with the BEST EXCEPTION, there are NO targets for artillery larger than 155 mm caliber.

                        Let me disagree.
                        Again, from this "green book of General Bezak" / Pikul "Bayazet" /

                        the use question is a potential stumbling block for the future of CSW. This point can be illustrated by the assessment of major incidents in the 1980s, where battleships could replace aircraft carriers.
                        By combining the information in Table A-27 with the previous material from this article, Lehman Secretary points out the inability to properly use these platforms. Another point of view
                        to use the main caliber of the battleship in the Libyan events of 1986 reads: "in the bombing of the Libyan Air Force ... there were few military results, unlike political,Ghadaffi headquarters airstrikes very few the aircraft completed the task (reference 478)
                        The reluctance of the Navy to use platforms and strategies to solve this problem are the main obstacle to the resumption of the use of battleships and / or to build future CSWs.
                      10. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 23: 43
                        +1
                        You see, all these "questions" are shattered into one simple truth - there are practically no battleship-caliber guns in the armament of the ground forces. Do generals have targets for, say, 305mm guns, but don't have the courage to ask the developers for them?
                        And those that were - they are mainly for shells with nuclear weapons.
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 18 December 2012 23: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Do the generals really have goals for, say, 305 mm guns, but don't have the courage to ask the developers?

                        On land there are goals for everything, only the railroad can only give mobility to such installations, and this is conditional mobility. Therefore, the military comes at a cost of OTP and there are targets for aerial bombs over half a ton. But on land it’s easier because there are airfields, and the enemy’s There is no coast, and aircraft carriers are expensive and inefficient. This is Iraq proved. There were at least some downsides.
                      12. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 01: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        but don’t have the guts to ask the developers?

                        Courage is what they have. and who and on what will drag them?
                        Why ask a child’s question?






                        PLATFORM Need, in the size of the bridges, railway and auto roads!
                        And the sea akiyanu- according to FIG, as long as it passed into the Panama and Suez channels ...

                        And ammunition logistics there too
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 01: 20
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        Need, in the size of the bridges, railway and auto roads!

                        The Yankees were very tense on this occasion, it is worth recalling the M-110 and this device. And the Fritz even 380 mm could be compared - but the rocket is me about the Storm Tiger.
                        And the goal was found. The Germans in the First set the 380 mm sea on the shore as well - six months the positions were drawn up))))
                      14. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 02: 18
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        And the vet found goals.

                        Yes, more than enough goals. and 813 mm there is work:
                        Maginot (did not have time, the French surrendered so quickly)


                        SEVASTOPOL against the famous Soviet 30th battery of captain G. Alexander and “Fort Siberia”

                        in Leningrad from the area of ​​the Thais station (we didn’t have time to thank God, our bolokada broke through faster)

                        Sevastopol:
                        The position for the “Dora” was chosen by General Zuckerort himself, commander of the compound of heavy cannons, during a flight by plane around Bakhchisaray. The gun was supposed to hide in the mountain, for which a special cut was made in it. Since the position of the gun barrel was changed only vertically, to change the direction of firing horizontally, the Dora was mounted on a railway platform, standing on 80 wheels, moving along a steeply curved arc of a four-track railway track.

                        The engineering training of the area was conducted by 1,5 workers and 106 sappers for four weeks. Since the Dora equipment was delivered in XNUMX wagons by five trains, a whole sorting station was built at the gun deployment site.
                        And how is it to take off with all this crap? Those. wage a maneuvering war?
                        And on the battleship she would probably not look bad ...
                        True, one, well, maybe another 12,7 mm fart, drive the raven so that they do not spoil the trunk
                      15. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 14: 54
                        +1
                        I read, laughed.
                        Dora was intended to break through the long-term fortifications of the enemy a la Maginot. There is simply no place for such fortifications in modern war
                        The Germans made an AFJ 18 assault guns. But in general - this is not heavy artillery, but only a machine for fighting in the city. At the time of creation, the question of offensive operations in the cities somehow did not stand, and they did not find any other application - as a result, they tried to use them as usual self-propelled guns for plugging holes
                        In general, if you want to prove something about heavy art, show GOALS for its application. Today's goals
                      16. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 17: 41
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In general, if you want to prove something about heavy art, show GOALS

                        Any city of the coastal zone (from St. Petersburg to Singapore).
                        Chelyabinsk can’t count on this,
                        In general, the dispute has already taken the form: a dispute about a dispute.
                        If unsubstantiated statements (I have not seen a single link and document) are attracted, then it is better here:
                        http://topwar.ru/22170-oruzhie-s-pereva.html
                        Archi's topic is interesting: micropullets, plasma cavitation. But better with weed if you consume. Otherwise, the wrong effect (it was a joke, I warn you right away)
                      17. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 37
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        Any city of the coastal zone (from St. Petersburg to Singapore).

                        Why is there 16 dm? Only Sevastopol, please do not offer. From Dora, no one shot at Sevastopol. it was necessary to crack the fortified area, specifically - our 305-mm tower batteries.
                        When you show me the strengthening of this type in St. Petersburg and Singapore - ready to continue
                      18. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 20: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Why is there 16 dm?

                        And why not? The greater the distance of firing, the more accurate the caliber the fire (in normal artillery terms) to shell the shore 155 mm, which means to come close to it and get hit by fire. Carrying out shelling of the shore with missiles is expensive, and systems Air defense is just sharpened on missiles and airplanes. So it would be difficult to damage a decent country with normal air defense. Low-cost rockets are cheap only up to 130 mm, and at the same time, the accuracy is very low, and a larger caliber is already the most expensive ammunition.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Specifically - our 305 mm tower batteries

                        who fired until the end of the defense of Odessa, and 30 was captured after the ammunition was used up, and there were no lamenting cries anywhere --- if it were not 12 but 6 inches. And the net found targets that even had to change the barrels.

                        And what about radar fuses? Why do they withstand loads? For firing at air targets, use ZS-44 shells with a remote fuse DVM-60M1 and shells ZS-44R with a radar fuse AR-32. ZS-44R effectively hits the target with a miss of up to 8 m when firing at anti-ship missiles and up to 15 m when firing at aircraft.
                      19. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 18: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Dora was intended to break through the long-term fortifications of the enemy a la Maginot.

                        And probably because of this, stupid Fritz dragged her first in Sevastopol, then under Leningrad, they probably wanted to help the Russians break the Manerheim line, a year from 1943-1944
          2. postman
            postman 18 December 2012 17: 03
            +2
            I will intervene with your permission
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            During this hour, an Iowa type battleship is easy enough to bang a torpedo submarine salvo or by organizing an airstrike on it according to all the rules.

            All calculations: the battleship alone, and all the swara (Tirpitz, Pacific operations) on it. The aircraft carrier in AUG, and the battleship - like a finger ...
            Yes, and then I think to sink it will not be so simple.
            250kg bombs did no harm, but "weak" pkr-can?
            On April 19, 1989, an explosion occurred in the two gun turret aboard the USS Iowa. 47 crew members were killed... Battleship "alive and well"
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            that as many as 27 shells will have to get into the ship at full expenditure of ammunition

            all calculations for 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 / Mark FCS 160 / DR-810 80x upgrade, development 1939
            Desert Storm USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin Sterlba Accuracy

            DDG-1000 system and LRLAP shell showed
            High overall efficiency: 42% hit / shots.

            The replacement of two DDG-51 ships with two CSWs in the OMFTS
            scenario demonstrates a 30% to 70% increase (based on target type) in combat power placed at the hands of the Joint Force Commander. CSW delivers much greater firepower than either DDG-51 or DDG-1000. The two CSW garners kills greater than 80 aircraft sorties which include a B-52


            The replacement of two DDG-51 with two in OMFTS (operational maneuver from the sea) according to the simulation demonstrates an increase of 30% to 70% in the combat power of the forces of the Joint Command. CSW provides much greater firepower than any DDG-51 or DDG-1000. Two destructive CSWs (efficiency / cost / defeat / logistics) replace more than 80 B-52 sorties
            When modeling, GSW hit (on 100%): 88% artillery, 68% mortars, 61% from enemy enemy multiple launch rocket systems
            / link OMB No. 0704-0188 Shawn A. Welch Colonel, United States Army
            / modeling by Sue Quensel and Douglas Harrison of Tec-masters, Inc., Lawton Oklahoma office (http://www.tecmasters.com/ModelingSimulation.html), Lieutenant Colonel Chris Niederhauser (USA), FortSill Combat Fire Laboratory

            GSW Capitol Surface Warship
            Concern "do you understand" the non-livelihood of canned food:


            Here they are studying: STUDYING DESIGN, PURCHASE AND OPERATION OF MODERN SPEED SHIPS in 2013 / perspective GSW
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 17: 45
              +2
              Quote: Postman
              All calculations: the battleship alone, and all the swara (Tirpitz, Pacific operations) on it. The aircraft carrier in AUG, and the battleship - like a finger ...

              Why you are alone? Not one is possible. But only conditions must be EQUAL. if my opponent has a battleship, but I don’t, then I must have something instead of the battleship that the enemy does not have. For example - aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine.
              Quote: Postman
              250kg bombs did no harm, but "weak" pkr-can?

              250 kg bombs did not harm those ships in which the SLA was at the level of PMV. But for those ships on which firing control was carried out from artillery 250 radar kg bombs were already critical. But there, at least it was possible to direct guns without a radar, but you can’t direct missiles without a radar.
              Quote: Postman
              On 19 April 1989, there was an explosion in gun turret two aboard USS Iowa. 47 crew members were killed. Battleship "alive and well"

              So what?
              Quote: Postman
              all calculations for 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 / Mark FCS 160 / DR-810 modernization 80s, development 1939
              Desert Storm USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin Sterlba Accuracy

              You seriously do not see the difference between the concept of "accuracy of fire" and the defeat of a moving target? Explain to me? Or are you already joking to joke, with a poor Jew?
              Quote: Postman
              all calculations for 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 / Mark FCS 160 / DR-810 modernization 80s, development 1939

              From practically the same Mark 6, practically the same Americans were able to hit the Kirishima at a distance of 7,5 km as much as 9 times by spending 75 shells. In fact, it is a very outstanding result for naval combat. But the distance is very small, that explains everything
              Quote: Postman
              Two CSWs are destructive (effectiveness / cost / damage / logs
              stick) replace more than 80 sorties B-52
              When modeling, GSW hit (on 100%): 88% artillery, 68% mortars, 61% from enemy enemy multiple launch rocket systems

              Those. 2 ship for 10 billion dollars (for this your document, it Kars posted below) each replace the WHOLE 80 PLANES IN-52? laughing Amazing.
              Tell me, and 20 stratobomber on 0,5 billion (B-1B in 1998 g cost less than 300 million) is not better? Another 10 billion will remain free ...
              By the way, take me as a modeler! I promise you - 100 shells will be hit by 450 targets. I already figured out how. Pancakes. Remember in childhood? Throw a flat pebble into the water, and it’s there, black-black-black-black ...
              Quote: Postman
              Concern "do you understand" the non-livelihood of canned food:

              Drowned, just the same torpedo Mk48 laughing
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 December 2012 18: 03
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                must be EQUAL

                Who said? Do you know the answer? Proto forgive?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                "accuracy of fire" and hitting a moving target?

                Again moving target, you stuck?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 18 December 2012 18: 31
                  +2
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  250 kg of bombs did not harm those ships in which the MSA was at the level of PMV. But for those ships on which firing was carried out

                  But compared with aluminum ships, it can be said that there will be no harm, and modern transistors are not as critical of annihilation as lamps and analog equipment used to be.
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Those. 2 ships of 10 billion dollars (according to this document of yours, Kars posted it below) each will replace the WHOLE 80 B-52 PLANES? Awesome

                  This will replace their ammunition consumption. We have completed the BC and 80 more B-52 sorties
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 21: 55
                  +1
                  Quote: Kars
                  Who said? Do you know the answer? Proto forgive?

                  ummm ... try to read your comment. Understand something? not? Here I am - no :)))
                  Quote: Kars
                  Again moving target, you stuck?

                  So I ask again - is a battleship not needed for a sea battle?
              2. postman
                postman 18 December 2012 18: 55
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                But only conditions should be EQUAL

                "Yamato" and "Musashi" forgot to warn about this .....
                Well, what equal in war. I’m coming to you, chtoli. Hit the enemy with what is at hand.
                So there will be Nne battleship, against AUG, and Battleship strike group (LUG) against AUG
                I want to see how the decks will attack the meadow, covered by Orly Burke with Aegis and PLO ships, and even with the F-35 X
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                SAM without radar, you will not bring.

                need to put a radar.
                This is the Americans with AFAR on the Navy a little behind, and Europeans have long been ...
                APAR AESA onboard Hamburg (F220)
                APAR Royal Netherlands Navy De Zeven Provinciën class
                adapt NORA 3 MK-5 (5 in 1) and the weather forecast will be given at the same time in the meteorological center

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                "accuracy of fire" and hitting a moving target?

                They talked about the defeat of coastal infrastructure.
                If the target moves (Escalibur) or (cheaper) principle:
                BLAM- Barrel Launched Adaptive Munition "Adaptive Ammunition Launched"


                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Of almost the same Mark 6, almost the same Americans were able to get at a distance of 7,5

                That was a long time ago. REMEMBER QUO-1 and FAX-2. But they are the same age ...
                1. postman
                  postman 18 December 2012 18: 56
                  +1
                  / continued /
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  WHOLE 80 V-52 PLANES? laughing Amazing.

                  This is serious work, modeling was carried out in a serious laboratory. Reviewers:
                  Dr. Alan Zimm of Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, then Kathy Luft and her Artillery Team at the US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
                  General Paul X. Kelley, the 28th Command of the Marine
                  Corps, Admiral (USN, Retired)
                  Harry D. Train, Charles E. Myers, former Director for Air Warfare, Office of the Secretary of Defense, FCCM (SW) (USN, Retired)
                  Stephen Skelley, Lieutenant Colonel (USA)
                  Brad Herdon, John Horn, Jon Millner, and Richard Ringler of US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC),
                  Samuel Loring Morison, Robert Sullivan, James B. Edwards, Colonel (USMCR) Mark Cancian, Russell Hill, Eric Duncan, Jerry Wyant, John Muerdler, Commander (USN) Bryan Clark, Jack Sterling, Captain (USN, Retired) Brian Schires, Chris “Saint” St. George, Colonel (USA, Retired) Michael Fitzgerald, Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. White, Captain (USN, ret)
                  Coenraad van der Schroeff, Thomas E. Doran, Leonard Wilson, Donald Jennings, Robert Lillard, Nathan Okun, Dr. Dennis Reilly, Major (USMC) Robert Washington, Lieutenant Commander (USN) Chris Inskeep, Steven Kienzle, Captain (USN, Retired) Douglas Cassidy, Lieutenant Colonel (USA, Retired) Dan Dall

                  Zy- he (the author) defended his thesis, today he learned

                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Drowned, just the same torpedo Mk4

                  Well, I say, cans, under the destruction of which all modern torpedoes and anti-ship missiles are imprisoned ....
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 22: 09
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    This is serious work, modeling was carried out in a serious laboratory.

                    Believe me, even more venerable tovarischi wrote the work that it is commercially profitable to launch satellites into orbit with Shuttles, and not with crumpled disposable space rockets.
                    Everybody needs money, you know
                    Quote: Postman
                    Well, I say, cans, under the destruction of which all modern torpedoes and anti-ship missiles are imprisoned ....

                    Shifting warheads is very fast
                    1. postman
                      postman 18 December 2012 23: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Believe me, the work is that it is commercially profitable to put satellites into orbit by Shuttles, and

                      I will not believe, because I don’t need to read anyone here.
                      I read more worthy authors
                      It will be so for a long time. Perhaps it (Skylon with SABER) will help:


                      ANY NUMBER OF LAUNCHES (more than 30-40 per year-more profitable Shuttle)
                      mp- the ratio of the mass of the payload displayed in near-Earth orbit to the launch mass of the carrier
                      this parameter for reusable systems in almost all known realistic projects decreases to 1 - 2% [PROJECTS, and Shuttle 1,5%] compared with 2.5 - 4% for disposable carriers.

                      energy efficiency coefficient ηp is the ratio of mechanical energy acquired by the payload (which corresponds to the useful work of the carrier) to the chemical energy of the fuel:
                      ηp disposable carrier rockets of the Soyuz or Energia type is 7 - 11%, Shuttle -4,3,%, for promising reusable systems such as Sänger or Delta Clipper, whose relative payloads are approximately the same and amount to 1 - 2%, it varies from 0.7 - 2% in the first case to 2 - 4.5% in the second.


                      / link: Cosmonautics (Encyclopedia) - ed. V.P. Glushko, Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia, 1985.

                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Shifting warheads is very fast

                      how do you re-sharpen it? Weight BB and warhead under 1000kg? Weight he is the weight that RCC will spitting at 50 Km?
                      why then RCC worth $ 980?
                      better 406 mm projectile for $ 24 (000 can be shy)
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 15: 07
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        I do not believe, because I do not need anyone to read here.
                        I read more worthy authors

                        Do you even understand what amazing discoveries you have posted in your comments?
                        Truly, there are no sense behind clever words.
                        So Space Shuttle. Able to bring payload to LEO 24,4 t, to GEO - 3,8 t. Starting mass - 2030 tons, launch cost - direct costs 450 million http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html #10 and the total cost of the launch - within 1,3 billion dollars
                        Proton Capable of outputting payload on LEO, on GSO - 23 tons. Starting mass - 3,7 tons. Launch costs - the cost of creating the rocket and launch are estimated now at 705 million dollars
                        Quote: Postman
                        how do you peretochish it?

                        Yes hands. A warhead is a missile compartment filled with explosives of a certain size and mass. it is easy to replace the warhead in semi-armor-piercing or armor-piercing
                      2. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 18: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        At least you yourself understood what amazing discoveries

                        I understood that, but you have a chronic problem: do not read what is written, or do not think about what you read.
                        5 Shuttles: done refuel, launch done. Shuttles remained, - for restoration, diagnostics, restoration of boosters and tank manufacturing (the cheapest component) + refueling. And further launch, and so 40 times a year. And so for X years.
                        Refuel: 650 thousand liters 1/3 of oxygen and 2/3 of hydrogen + about 1000 tons TT.
                        about $ 1,30 billion - it’s necessary for the Pentagon ...

                        Proton - made a rocket, refueled, launched, lost everything. All over again and so NOT 40 times and 40 X 24,4 / 23

                        And also you can count for cosmonauts (but not with a proton)
                        Or with large modules (then not 40 but all 90 starts will be required)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        A warhead is a missile compartment filled with explosives of a certain size and mass.

                        Here are the sizes and weights are limited, for a particular rocket.
                        Half-armor-piercing or armor-piercing warhead RCC based on Harpoon? Located beyond the GOS?
                        Yes, the battleship warhead equipped with an explosive will be all the same, and the mythical armor-piercing will bounce off the side and plunge into the water. Another question is: who will disperse it (armor-piercing) in the final section and what?
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: Postman
                        do not read what is written or do not think about what you read.

                        laughing
                        You really do not understand?
                        Shuttle needs to pull a payload into orbit AND SAM SHUTTLE
                        Proton needs to pull a payload ONLY into orbit.
                        the shuttle is very expensive, and its depreciation falls in the launch price, even though it returns (it has a certain number of departures, after which - for scrap)
                        Those. launching a proton is the cost of a rocket plus fuel for outputting a payload
                        The launch of the Shuttle is the cost of the rocket plus fuel for the withdrawal of the payload + the cost of fuel per archute for the withdrawal of the shuttle + the amortization of this shuttle.
                        is it really not clear? :)))
                      4. postman
                        postman 19 December 2012 21: 58
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the shuttle itself

                        you use Wiki, but you’re either reading incorrectly or not perceiving the information in the right way!
                        to ensure 22 shuttle flights from mid-2005 to 2010, NASA budgeted about 1 billion 300 million direct costs


                        A strange approach
                        $ 145 billion until 2010 (including development, design, production, maintenance, fuel, etc.) and 135 flights.
                        Roger Pielke, Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology holds $ 173
                        1600 tons + 355 astronauts (355x100kg (with a spacesuit) = 1635 tons:
                        88685 XNUMX $ / kg. (All inclusive)



                        Well, count Proton also: whole amount incl. development, R&D, testing and design production, fuel / for all flights.
                        +
                        Add the damage paid to residents of Russia and Kazakhstan.


                        The shuttle itself is the very THREE marching engines RS-25: 3X3,2 = 9,6tn and additional AJ10-109: 200kg remote control and orbital glider.
                        All of this is returned and reused. Like reusable packaging.

                        15 RS-25 and now in stock and will be used for SLS and Ares I and Ares V

                        How to take this into account?

                        And now try 40 starts a year
                        5 Shuttles and 40-50 Protons.


                        Payload percentage of total weight 1,4%
                        Proton = 3,1%

                        Proton: 70-100mln $ la la poplar, for internal use

                        Booster DM-3 with three satellites "Glonass-M"Fell into the Pacific Ocean 1500 kilometers northwest of northwest of Honolulu.
                        Satellites for 100 $ million are three. A total loss of $ 500 million
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 22: 48
                        +1
                        M-dya.
                        Read BILL the formula that I gave you
                        Still unclear? again
                        The USSR needs to put 23 tons into space. He builds a rocket that can output these 23 tons but dies.
                        The USA needs to put 24 into space. The United States is not looking for easy ways - it creates a 104 tonnage rocket and takes
                        24 tons - payload
                        80 tons - arhidoroguyu steel pig.
                        The rocket takes 24 tons of cargo, and the steel bar returns to the ground.
                        Attention is a question. Why was it necessary to carry this same disc back and forth?
                        Quote: Postman
                        for the maintenance of 22 flights of shuttles from the middle of 2005 of the year to 2010, the NASA budget allocated about 1 billion 300 million of direct costs

                        in Wick follow link 18 here - http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10
                        This is the official website of NASA read
                        Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?
                        A. It is about $ 450 million per mission.
                        Still we will argue?
                        Quote: Postman
                        Proton: 70-100mln $ la la poplar, for internal use

                        La-la-poplar- COMMERCIAL launch cost for foreign powers. But the 450 million shuttle is the average launch cost. What will be the commercial value of the launch - guess yourself?
                        Quote: Postman
                        How to take this into account?

                        Yes, elementary. We go all the same NASA and read the first question
                        Q. How much does the Space Shuttle cost?
                        A. The Space Shuttle Endeavor, the space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $ 1.7 billion.
                        So, 1,7 billion just for the device - CAM shuttle, without any powder accelerators out there and so on.
                        climb on wiki
                        Before the end of the 5 program, the Shuttles made 135 flights - or 27 flights to the Shuttle.
                        So - shuttle depreciation - just the cost of the shuttle, transferred as depreciation for each flight - is 1700 million / 27 departures = almost 63 million dollars. And this is only part of the price that had to be paid for carrying a heavy shuttle along with the payload.
                        Quote: Postman
                        The DM-3 upper stage with three Glonass-M satellites fell into the Pacific Ocean in 1500 kilometers north-west to north-west from Honolulu.
                        Satellites for 100 $ million are three. A total loss of $ 500 million

                        Of course, the hydraulics of the Challenger (in comparable prices - at the time of the death of our satellites - within 2 billion dollars + 7 astronauts) - this is such a trifle, right ...
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 22: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  "Yamato" and "Musashi" forgot to warn about this .....

                  And let's not interfere all in one pile?
                  If we consider the effectiveness of a battleship as a system of warfare at sea, let’s then simulate a battle of comparable forces, without a clear bias in one or the other direction — it’s best to do it at a cost, in my opinion
                  If you want to discuss Musashi’s unfortunate share, please, but this is a separate issue.
                  Quote: Postman
                  I want to see how the decks will attack the meadow, covered by Orly Burke with Aegis and PLO ships, and even with the F-35 X

                  laughing All right.
                  For my part, an 1 supercarrier (of the Nimitz level) with a standard 48 air wing, let the same F-35 8 EW 4 AWACS and other 2 missile cruisers approximately correspond to Atlant 2 destroyer URO. and a pair of nuclear submarines.
                  Your squadron?
                  Quote: Postman
                  need to put a radar.

                  The fact of the matter is that the anti-radar SDs and the penetration of anti-ship missiles will shake the installed radars to Benin’s mother
                  Quote: Postman
                  They talked about the defeat of coastal infrastructure.

                  They didn’t tell me. But the battleship ONLY for shelling coastal infrastructure is something.
                  Quote: Postman
                  If the target moves (Escalibur) or (cheaper) principle:

                  Who will highlight the goal? laughing
                  Quote: Postman
                  REMEMBER QUO-1 and FAX-2. But they are the same age ...

                  Those. You do not know that Mark 6 is almost the same as Mark 7. So let's write
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 18 December 2012 22: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    If we consider the effectiveness of a battleship as a system of warfare at sea, let’s then simulate a battle of comparable forces

                    To put it simply, if the enemy does not have a fleet, well, there are ten boats there, then attacking him with a battleship is an attack?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    on my side - 1 super-carrier (level Nimitz) with a standard air wing 48, let the same F-35s, 8 electronic warfare, 4 early-warning aircraft, and other 2 missile cruisers roughly corresponding to Atlant 2 URO destroyers. and a pair of nuclear submarines


                    18 billions of dollars net worth + billion dollars of exploitation per year. for the aircraft carrier.
                    2 Atlanta --- well, a little old, of course, but maybe they can be worth a billion

                    Destroyers? Who Zelenograd? 600 lemons?
                    Submarines - well, another 4 billion.
                    And you have to contain all this every year.

                    I’ll take Battleship for 10, and even better two Iowa for 4, and for the rest of the missile cruisers, instead of one submarine, I will build 40 pieces of PLO corvettes.
                    Two hours from your strike wing, 0 will be left without a wand. And I might lose one or two cruisers.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    They didn’t tell me. But the battleship ONLY for shelling coastal infrastructure is something

                    Nothing is Mistral, or an aircraft carrier without missile ships, is still expensive. And this despite the fact that a naval battle between squadrons does not threaten anyone in the foreseeable future, but shelling of the coast can very well be.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    REMEMBER QUO-1 and FAX-2. But they are the same age ...

                    Those. You do not know that Mark 6 is almost the same as Mark 7. So let's write

                    We should have understood that we are talking about guidance systems
                    1. Misantrop
                      Misantrop 18 December 2012 22: 37
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      instead of one submarine I’ll build pieces of 40 PLO corvettes.

                      Who need a maintenance infrastructure, crews, etc. And about their effectiveness ... wink When "Bars" (the main northern 971 project) was going to its first autonomous region, NATO learned about it in advance. They were given the task of finding him and recording his characteristic noises. To this end, they pulled EVERYTHING capable of working in this direction to the NATO PLO North Cape-Medvezhiy line. And ... they never found him. And he brought 74 contacts from that autonomous system (that is, he discovered, went to the line of attack and left unnoticed). But this is the PLO line, and not just a piece of the ocean. But, okay, the animal is, in fact, almost silent. BUT we were taught by the former commander of the BC-5 boats of the 1st generation. The one who was tasked with secretly infiltrating the order of the aircraft carrier "Nimitz" during its first call into Mediterranean. I was still a kid then, but I remember how the entire division of the Black Sea Fleet's naval missile carriers was on duty under the planes for almost a month in immediate readiness for departure (we carried coffee and sandwiches to the parking lots for our parents). So, that project 627 nuclear submarine not only penetrated into the warrant, but was also under Nimitz for 2 weeks in readiness for a torpedo salvo. And then she left just as imperceptibly ... wink
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 18 December 2012 22: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        Who need a maintenance infrastructure, crews, etc.

                        nothing unusual, this is not saying that in the ranks of them all keep all the time is optional.
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        And ... they never found him

                        Well, this is their problem, but here the task is simpler - to provide connection PLO, using active sonars, detonations of depth bombs to create an echo.
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        So, that project 627 nuclear submarine not only penetrated into the warrant, but was also under Nimitz for 2 weeks in readiness for a torpedo salvo. And then she left just as imperceptibly

                        Well, tell it to the owners of the aircraft carrier, I also have one submarine.
                      2. stalkerwalker
                        stalkerwalker 12 February 2014 22: 06
                        +2
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        To this end, EVERYTHING, capable of working in this direction, was pulled by them to the border of the NATO PLO North Cape-Bear.

                        And what about the Faroe-Icelandic border was forgotten? Or have NATO members outsmarted themselves? Or “Bars” went through the land of Franz Josef?
                    2. postman
                      postman 18 December 2012 23: 26
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      instead of one submarine I’ll build pieces of 40 PLO corvettes.

                      These 40 corvettes - what is the effect of the presence of a power in the regions, so to speak?
                      Not that one submarine.
                      Payback 100% per year
                      Tuk to Venezuela tensed ONE time drove, I think over the next ten years ....
                    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 23: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      18 billions of dollars net worth + billion dollars of exploitation per year. for the aircraft carrier.

                      What kind of fantasy? :)))) The last Nimitz cost 6 a small billion. The cost of maintenance is 150 million per year, along with flight support.
                      The cost of the wing - depends on the aircraft, but even 6 billion
                      Quote: Kars
                      I'll take the battleship for 10

                      Who told you that it will cost 10?
                      Quote: Kars
                      I'll take the battleship for 10, and even better two Iowa for 4

                      Construction of Iowa will now draw billions like that on 5 approximately. Good if. anyway
                      Quote: Kars
                      2 Atlanta --- well, a little old, of course, but maybe they can be worth a billion

                      Take the cost of the berk and RKR comparable - 1,7 billion per piece
                      Quote: Kars
                      instead of one submarine I’ll build pieces of 40 PLO corvettes.

                      Those. instead of 1 nuclear submarine for 2 billion dollars you build 40 corvettes? 50 million each? And nothing that "Guarding", for example, costs about 200 million?
                      In general - so. I have an AB with an air group of 12 billion dollars, 2 RKR + 2 EM defense - 6,8 billion, 2 nuclear submarines - 4 billion, and everything comes out - 22,8 billion
                      You have - 10 billion - two Iowas in their original form, 2 billion - nuclear submarines, 10,8 billion for cruisers with corvettes.
                      Quote: Kars
                      Two hours from your strike wing, 0 will be left without a wand. And I might lose one or two cruisers.

                      In two hours my wing will not lose a single plane, and half of your connection will be destroyed
                      .
                      Quote: Kars
                      We should have understood that we are talking about guidance systems

                      laughing But is it okay that in South Dakota (with Mk-6) and Iowa (Mk7) the guidance systems are almost the same?
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 18 December 2012 23: 40
                        +1
                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Who is here)))))))))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        What is this fantasy? :))))

                        I perfectly understand that the collapse of illusions is difficult, but read the signs that are posted here, otherwise the meaning of the comments?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The cost of maintenance is 150 million per year, along with the provision of flights

                        You cannot even keep 150 crew members on 5000 millions,
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Who told you that it will cost 10?

                        TABLES WITH PRICES)))))))))))
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Construction of Iowa will now draw billions like that on 5 approximately. Good if. anyway

                        Well, since you took Nimitz, with F-35, then why I can’t get Iowa, which is, and there is a price for their full modernization. We will assume that we are rich Arab sheikhs and the United States and Russia do not sell everything we want.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Those. instead of 1 nuclear submarine for 2 billion dollars you build 40 corvettes? 50 million each? And nothing that "Guarding", for example, costs about 200 million?

                        I will not have to impose associated loads on him; there will be clean small anti-submarine hunter corvettes.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In two hours my wing will not lose a single plane, and half of your connection will be destroyed

                        Yes, of course, do I have a wave in my UVP? not SM-1 / SM-2 MR for example.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But is it okay that in South Dakota (with Mk-6) and Iowa (Mk7) the guidance systems are almost the same?

                        But nothing has passed 70 years? And there is an opportunity to improve guidance systems, do modern ballistic missiles have the same QUO as the FAU-2, and the cruise ones like the FAU-1
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 16: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Who is here)))))))))))))

                        Hello, I have come to you.
                        Quote: Kars
                        I perfectly understand that the collapse of illusions is difficult, but read the signs that are posted here, otherwise the meaning of the comments?

                        Yes, I read something. You have not read
                        For CVN-21, the value is already indicated as 13,7 billion dollars. We go here http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf we read
                        The
                        Navy's proposed FY2013 budget estimates the ship's procurement cost at $ 12,323.2 million (i.e.,
                        about $ 12.3 billion) in then-year dollars. Of the ship's total procurement cost, about $ 3.3 billion is
                        for detailed design / non-recurring engineering (DD / NRE) costs for the class, and about $ 9.0
                        billion is for construction of the ship itself.
                        What translates into Russian sounds
                        it is planned to allocate $ 12,3 billion for the aircraft carrier, of which $ 3,3 billion is the cost of design work and $ 9 billion is directly The fact is that the Americans in shipbuilding are very fond of adding all development costs to 1 ship of the series. that is why the next Fords (second and third ships) will amount to $ 9,2 and $ 10,7 billion, respectively
                        And in the table - 13,7 billion wassat
                        But even simply from the fact that 13,7 billion * 5 pcs = 68,5 billion, and certainly not 61,7 billion - you are not prompted to any thoughts. And most likely you just did not notice.
                        The average price of one aircraft carrier is 61,7 / 5 = 12,34 billion. But this is adjusted for inflation, because these aircraft carriers will be built for many more years. But the current price of the aircraft carrier, taking into account the cost of its development, is
                        9 billion cost of construction + (3,3 billion on R & D / 5 serial ships) = 9,66 billion dollars. And not 13,7.
                        But this is Gerald Ford, the newest AB, with electromagnetic catapults and a bunch of unknowns to me yet. I don’t need this, I’ll get by with Nimitz. Just because Nimitz and its capabilities are more or less clear, but Ford is not.
                        And the cost of building the last Nimitz is $ 6,2 billion. Http://www.sea-bells.ru/avianosec_george_bush.shtml
                        This is what I need
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 16: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        You cannot even keep 150 crew members on 5000 millions,

                        Generally speaking, the figure is common. But since it raises doubts - put it aside, we now need to determine the initial cost
                        Quote: Kars
                        TABLES WITH PRICES)))))))))))

                        very clever, no, I will even say so VERY CLEVER to compare the REAL PRICES for REAL AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND Destroyers with the "half-finger-ceiling" of preliminary estimates.
                        Look at your leisure in what amounts the F-22 was planned and in which they received. In what amounts were planned F-35 - and in what received. In kaikh sums, they planned the same littoral ship - and in which they received it.
                        2 coefficient at least.
                        so take your 10 billion and multiply ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, since you took Nimitz, with F-35, then why can’t I take Iowa which is

                        Yes, take it, take it :))) two Iowa, and TTX?
                        Quote: Kars
                        I will not have to impose associated loads on him; there will be clean small anti-submarine hunter corvettes.

                        boats, or what?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Yes, of course, do I have a wave in my UVP? not SM-1 / SM-2 MR for example.

                        It makes no difference. Perfectly.
                        So, I'm waiting for the exact composition of the ships of your squadron and battleship battleships (for armament)
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 16: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        it is planned to allocate 12,3 billion dollars for the aircraft carrier, of which 3,3 billion dollars is the cost of design work and 9 billion dollars is the direct fact that the Americans in matters of shipbuilding are very fond of adding up all the development costs to 1 ship

                        What are you talking about? The thing is? Do you consider yourself an American? Will you sell it with a SETTING, and you yourself will build the fuckin on 40? Fill in. And 13 is without a wing.

                        And I will take a Used Iowa or a new LC on the same conditions as you, that is, or the numbers are those that are on the tablets or with the same margin.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And the cost of building the last Nimitz is $ 6,2 billion. Http://www.sea-bells.ru/avianosec_george_bush.shtml

                        As I wrote above, whoever sells it to you for that kind of money can subtract amartization? And once you are with the Hornets.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        But since it is doubtful, put it aside

                        Strangely, I voiced at least three PERSONNEL digits and they started with the 0.5 billionaire.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yes, take it, take it :))) two Iowa, and TTX?

                        The guns are the same. Shells are improved, improved air defense and radar with Aegis.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        boats, or what?

                        Anti-submarine hunters with a displacement of 1000 tons, up to converted private ships.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It makes no difference. Absolutely

                        And why do you need tth, you have decided everything for yourself, but without any evidence. According to your air defense of modern ships, you are not able to repel the attack aircraft, that you also don’t reason when the flagship Cher.F is mentioned.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 17: 30
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        What are you talking about? The thing is? Do you consider yourself an American? Will you sell it with a SETTING, and you yourself will build the fuckin on 40? Fill in. And 13 is without a wing.

                        I do not buy it. I translate the cost of the ships into a single coordinate system. And the construction of Bush cost in 6,2 billion, the construction of Ford - in 9.66 billion, and the construction of Burke - in 1,7 billion (9APL - 2 billion)
                        And who will sell to whom and for what margins - we are not in the market. We select the squadron, if not noticed. And I put 6 billion for the construction of AB and 6 billion for its air group (which is even more than your tablet :) And explained why.
                        Your "will sell - not sell, give - not give" - ​​it is not from this opera at all. I offered to simulate the fight between AUG and KUG, the postman seemed to agree. And in the KUG there will be a battleship (or two) and I will have an aircraft carrier. Accordingly, you need to somehow balance the squadrons. My suggestion is for the money.
                        So, it's a no brainer that it is necessary to compare what is comparable. Do you want me to take the Ford from the plate? Yes, no question - if you please, will fork out for 10 billion for a new LC. If you want to define the cost as a "sign - plus 205 profit on sale" - no question - wind up both me and yourself 20% each. You do not want? Take a ship from the 40s of the last century? Then why the hell are you telling me which aircraft carrier to choose? Because it seems to you that the construction of Iowa now would stretch for 4 billion? So you have already decided - either it seems, or according to the plate :)))
                        Basically, I’m ready to assume that 2 Iowa = at a cost of 1 AB without an air group. Because at one time Iowa cost about 100 million, and Midway - 90 million - but Midway is half the size of the supercarrier
                        That's why I asked about the performance characteristics that 10 billion for a battleship is a lot. Maybe you need a ship on 25 thousand tons with a pair of 406-mm guns, how do I know?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Strangely, I voiced at least three PERSONNEL digits and they started with the 0.5 billionaire.

                        Good. I withdraw my objection. But just what is it now?
                        Quote: Kars
                        The guns are the same. Shells are improved, improved air defense and radar with Aegis.

                        Air defense improved by what?
                        Quote: Kars
                        Anti-submarine hunters with a displacement of 1000 tons, up to converted private ships.

                        Armament?
                        Quote: Kars
                        And why do you need tth, you have decided everything for yourself, but without any evidence. According to your air defense of modern ships, you are not able to repel the attack aircraft, that you also don’t reason when the flagship Cher.F is mentioned.

                        I will explain when modeling
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 18: 08
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I put up 6 billion for the construction of the AB and 6 billion for his air group (which is even more than what is in your nameplate :) And I explained why.

                        For a start, you will not buy it for this money, but you will build it - from 20-to 40 mil.rd. And until you build it, you will build my LC a couple of times you will plow the 406 mm shipyards with shells - will the shipyard be a target, or not? ?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Good. I withdraw my objection. But just what is it now?

                        Well, we wanted to play reality? But to have an AB means that you have to chase and train pilots from year to year, don’t put him on conservation, and then don’t enter him six months before combat readiness. And with the same amount of money from AB you fly like fan nad (city of choice)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Better air defense than

                        than Iowa 1991
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Armament?

                        Sonar and two anti-submarine torpedoes.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I will explain when modeling

                        It’s no longer interesting, you AB was destroyed on a slipway at 25% readiness.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In two hours my wing will not lose a single plane, and half of your connection will be destroyed

                        Although it is not clear what kind of weapon they will use, and is there really no defense against it, why say daggers and goalkeepers put on ships.
                        You will still remain with your opinion, which has been christened out from the pressure of the superior Navy of the United States and its AB.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 44
                        +2
                        Quote: Kars
                        For a start, you will not buy it for this money, but you will build it - from 20-to 40 mil.rd. And until you build it, you will build my LC a couple of times you will plow the 406 mm shipyards with shells - will the shipyard be a target, or not? ?

                        Sorry, but this is nonsense. Yes, of course, the battleship is stronger than the aircraft carrier, because the battleship is already built, and the aircraft carrier is still not
                        Battleship, he is - he and the older Destroer is stronger. Because the battleship can sail and the shipyard, where the old destroe is built to shoot.
                        In general - plums, and most specifically, counted
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, did they want to play a reality? And to have AV it means that you have to drive and train pilots from year to year.

                        Yeah, the battleship is not necessary. laughing And the crew there netuti
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 19: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Sorry, but this is utter stupidity.

                        But it’s true, and not stupidity they will build a battleship faster and more likely to be put on alert.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because the battleship can sail up and the shipyard, where the old builder is being built to shoot.

                        Star Destroyers are built in orbit, the battleship will not float there.
                        Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        general - drain, more specifically, counted

                        yes please, but you even have nothing to count in this topic, there is NOTHING, no one is justified. And the Yankees, if you rejoice if they build, they will build in addition to their AB.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Yeah, battleship - no need. And there’s no crew

                        A modern battleship will have a crew of at least 5 times smaller. Pilots - there is no striking force AB on it, you can train gun crews without wasting fuel and aircraft resources, this number will not work with AV aviation. Computerized control systems for the main caliber will not be a problem at all, and Training is possible without departing from the pier most of the time.
                        So in any situation with EQUAL opportunities and finances, I will win.
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 22: 59
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Star Destroyers are built in orbit, the battleship will not float there.

                        And you upgrade it for 200 million and attach a space shuttle to the spacecraft - here it is, it will pull the battleship into orbit. For the rope
                        Quote: Kars
                        A modern battleship will have a crew at least 5 times smaller.

                        Only here he can not replace the aircraft carrier. Because more or less effectively only ONE can solve the problem - to shoot at the shore. More battleship can not do anything.
                        Those. having the task - to approach the enemy coast, cover the ships and troops and ships, establishing zonal sea and air domination, clearing the road to the troops on the coast and supporting it with fire the battleship can solve only the last two tasks - for all the others, an aircraft carrier will be needed.
                        Those. the question is not that there is an aircraft carrier, but you, rraz, replace it with a battleship. The question is that in addition to the aircraft carrier, you also need a battleship.
                        Therefore, the cost of the battleship should be compared not with an aircraft carrier but with a conventional landing craft capable of carrying 40 ACS units with good ammunition stocks and several MLRS on deck. And who can perform about the same tasks as the battleship
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2012 01: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And you upgrade it for 200 million and attach a space shuttle to the spacecraft - here it is, it will pull the battleship into orbit. For the rope

                        Is this a personal experience?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        .e. having tasks - to approach the enemy coast, to cover ships and landing and ships, establishing zonal sea and air domination,

                        And all this with 48 airplanes? I laugh and cry.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        approach the enemy coast

                        An aircraft carrier cannot do this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        cover ships and landing and ships

                        An aircraft carrier cannot do this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        establishing zonal sea and air dominance

                        An aircraft carrier cannot do this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        clear the way for the landing

                        Aircraft carrier can't do it

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        keep it alive

                        An aircraft carrier cannot do this.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Those. the question is not that there is an aircraft carrier, but you, rraz, replace it with a battleship. The question is that in addition to the aircraft carrier, you also need a battleship.

                        I? I have enough LC, and the United States drove even 4 aircraft carriers for Iraq, and they made about 8% of flights.
                        Andrey from Chelyabinsk,
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Therefore, the cost of the battleship needs to be compared not with an aircraft carrier, but with an ordinary landing ship capable of accommodating 40 self-propelled guns with good ammunition stockpiles and several MLRS on deck

                        Yes, even with a passenger airliner, without an art ship, the landing zagnetsa is approaching.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And who will be able to perform approximately the same tasks as the battleship

                        But this requires a minimum of landing, and at the same time they will be under enemy artillery fire, which no one will support since 48 planes will be shot down before approaching the coast of the paratrooper. You are supplanted by two Atlantes with 24 - TWENTY-FOUR RCC useless against the coast.
                    4. postman
                      postman 19 December 2012 22: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      18 billion dollars

                      I note this of course Ford with the new AUG aircraft
                      promising so to speak. Not ready yet to the end.
                      This figure was used in the work, just to prove the absurdity of such systems (like Zamvolt, and even in such numbers)
                      Old, like "Dad Bush" is cheaper.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2012 16: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Postman
                        I note this of course Ford with the new AUG aircraft
                        promising so to speak.

                        I drew attention to this but the net and promising LC for 10 in general is only being discussed.

                        And if you take the Nimits, then why with the new aircraft? The F-35 is also not the most complete and economically viable, of course I’m not special in this, but they will have to remake at least something on the old aircraft carrier.
                        And with the Hornets, special problems for the air defense of the modern Aegis cruiser should not be.
                  2. postman
                    postman 19 December 2012 01: 29
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Your squadron?

                    Need to think. Not a naval me. almost "classic" jacket with one funny fighting one.
                    The conference invited:
                    Surface Warships 2013
                    January 2013Madrid, Spain


                    Dear Vasily,
                    Thank you for your interests

                    I believe you requested some information in regards to the above event.
                    I deal with the delegate audience and handle all registrations for the conference.
                    If this is of interest for your colleague, please could you forward.
                    If you do wish to contact me to discuss the topic and conference content then please feel free to contact me my details are included below.
                    If you would like to attend the conference then all you need to do to register is:

                    Enter your details into the form.
                    Choose the package you would like to attend.
                    Email the form back to me.
                    When I receive the registration form back, I will then take care of the booking for you.
                    If you have any questions then please contact me at [email protected] or on +44 207 036 1301.
                    Rizwan bhana
                    Enquiries & Registrations Manager
                    [email protected]
                    www.iqpc.co.uk
                    P: +44 (0) 20 70361301 | F: +44 (0) 20 7368 9301
                    2nd floor | 129 Wilton Road | London | SW1V 1JZ
                    booking code ********* / I cleaned, otherwise suddenly someone will go instead of me ... /
                    IQPC Terms and Conditions:

                    ---------------------------------------------------------
                    Maybe they tell me what?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Who will highlight the goal?

                    I already answered 20?
                    I ask the oncoming one: Who will highlight the missile?

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Those. You are not aware that Mark 6 is almost nothing from Mark 7

                    In the know, I in the know. Only now are you comparing the results of the 1939 production tool with the modernization of the radar in 1984 and the 1929 projectile with MODERN anti-ship missiles and missiles
                    .
                    I write and compare with the FAU-1/2 and missiles Wasserfall and Schmetterling
                    IMAGE WITH VIA-1 the driving target, COMPARE QUO FAU -1/2 and the "accuracy" of Mark 8
                    try Wasserfall and Schmetterling to shoot Mark 13
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 16: 15
                      +2
                      Quote: Postman
                      Need to think.

                      so I'm not in a hurry
                      Quote: Postman
                      The conference invited:

                      Well, roll up -You have to powder it there so that they will actually start building the battleships :))) Motherland will not forget you :)))
                      Quote: Postman
                      I already answered 20?

                      They answered, they answered - there are simply too many comments and often one question pops up several times.
                      Quote: Postman
                      I set the counter: who rocket will highlight the target?

                      According to the sea - initially, the AWAC determines the location, and then - it’s the AGSN, so it doesn’t need ... On the land-based stationary - JP Sy or inertial or jointly.
                      Quote: Postman
                      Only now do you compare the results of the 1939 gun of production, with the modernization of the radar in the 1984 and the projectile 1929 of birth with MODERN anti-ship missiles and missiles

                      Because I DO NOT SEE where the breakthrough in the artillery business regarding 1939 r
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 18: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Because I DO NOT SEE where the breakthrough in the artillery business regarding 1939 r

                        Lada compare with Long Tom. Hummel, Gorilla, you can ISU-152 even though he is not quite that class, and say that there is no difference.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 19: 46
                        +1
                        We are talking about LINKORAH. And on them, the MPUAZ stood on the backside than on the Su-152
                        so - again past the box office
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 19: 50
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        We are talking about LINKORAH. And on them, the MPUAZ stood on the backside than on the Su-152
                        so - again past the box office

                        I understand that you have nothing to cover, but I do not limit you to the systems - you want to compare with any battleship a choice of at least German, at least American from the times of the second world M-109 will win anyway.
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 21: 15
                        0
                        Battery number 981. Interior
                        stereo wheelhouse
                        optical range finder. Left
                        to the right: transmitting device 54A
                        distance
                        central post, 24B device
                        receiving azimuth from the sight
                        VBC from the control room
                        fire and appliance 22, accept-
                        bearing rim azimuth
                        rotating cabin.
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 19 December 2012 21: 22
                        0
                        not that photo - the above is the device for transmitting comants to the cellar.
                      6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 23: 02
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        I understand that you have nothing to cover

                        I have already listed to you how many parameters Prince Eugen's ballistic computer took. Well, tell me, in all chilling details - how many more parameters are taken into account by a modern ballistic computer :))) This will be the answer to the topic - and the general words "nothing to cover" and so on. - it doesn't touch me at all.
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2012 01: 10
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: Kars
                        I understand that you have nothing to cover

                        I have already listed how many parameters


                        It’s interesting and the TIME of processing the information received from several dozen posts and entered manually will change something? Computing speed? Measurement accuracy? That even the time of data transfer from the calculated channel computer to the tower will change what? And mechanical descent?
                        Kipper Hippo CVO 200 m

                        So once again I wish you success, but do not count the drain.
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 20 December 2012 01: 32
                        0
                        http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0204/AKrus/AKrus001.htm

                        take a look too
        2. postman
          postman 18 December 2012 15: 54
          +2
          Quote: Kars
          we discussed

          We have not yet begun by ...
          On the inferiority of the battleship and its sunset, the idea arose after the Japanese-American Pacific battles.
          Yes, the battleship, helpless against aviation .. I mean, one (almost like Tirpitz)
          but if the Aircraft Carrier will be alone, without AUG, no one thought? full unit?
          So let the battleship go either as part of the AUG, or a LUG (he invented it himself), surrounded by Orly with birks and PLO ships.

          Quote: Kars
          who is the first to break out with Iowa’s 1000 warhead (roughly)

          1200 pieces = 16 "| 50 cal, 7000 pieces = 5" / 38cal
          comparison
          Quote: Kars
          her 16 inches zur maximum knocked off course for a couple of degrees.

          If it hits, of course, but even the B-37 shell (armor-piercing truth) was able to penetrate vertical armor 614 mm thick (splinters) at a distance of 5,5 km, or similar armor 405 mm thick at the same distance, while remaining intact.
          Missiles of several million $: how many of them can produce a country (even the USA), how quickly will they end in a conflict?
          1. Kars
            Kars 18 December 2012 16: 10
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            We have not yet begun by

            The main process.
            Quote: Postman
            or Meadow (he himself came up with), surrounded by Orly burks and PLO ships.

            So I am about the same.
            Quote: Postman
            If it hits of course

            given that there will be several at once, maybe even 9 if the fire is along the shore.
            Quote: Postman
            was punching vertical armor 614 mm thick

            Armor-piercing is a thing, but in our case we need a high-explosiveness --- and I think it is quite possible to increase the percentage of shells to 25-40 when using new explosives and phlegmatizers. Then, as mentioned above, shells with bottom gas generators, and what the hell is not joking with correction on the final section - they will still cost less than rockets.
            1. postman
              postman 18 December 2012 17: 10
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Armor piercing

              I'm talking about the resistance of the suitcase to external influences.
              Quote: Kars
              but in our case we need a high explosiveness

              There is already a choice






              And this is to the question of how to drag the shell in the film that I watched yesterday:


              BUT AS ALREADY WRITTEN, they (5 people) "dragged", most likely
              they dragged the caliber HE-ER Mark 148, just for 500 kg, probably at the Missouri Museum it was laden with something like that, otherwise ALL IT'S LIES! Is that right?
              1. Kars
                Kars 18 December 2012 17: 33
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                I'm talking about the resistance of the suitcase to external influences.

                Wow, this cannot be taken from them.
                Quote: Postman
                There is already a choice

                Pomnitsa still Japanese to their 18 inches made anti-aircraft stuffed with all sorts of things.
                Quote: Postman
                they (5 people) "dragged", most likely
                do not let them dragged armor-piercing in 1200, is that weight for an American sailor? Yes, even with Riana with a tattooed anchor))) next to it.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 17: 09
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            Missiles of several million $: how many of them can produce a country (even the USA), how quickly will they end in a conflict?

            To this I already answered - it’s enough to shoot down not all the shells, but only those that threaten to hit
            By the way, 406-mm projectile is VERY expensive
            1. postman
              postman 18 December 2012 17: 17
              +3
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              406 mm projectile is VERY expensive

              $ 26, approximately 000% of the cost of tactical Tomahawk

              I would say, generally does not cost anything by today's standards ....
              (in the scoreboard and 5 "and bombs, LRAP, ERM, EVERYTHING IN NO COMPARISON WITH ROCKETS)
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 22: 41
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                I would say, generally does not cost anything by today's standards ....

                Sorry, but that’s not even funny.
                406-mm shells are NOT RELEASED now. 26 thousand dollars is miles sorry, nothing more than the calculation of a person who wants them to be cheaper, as this plays into the hands of his research.
                The 406-mm shell during the WWII cost about 500 dollars. But at the same time, the Iowa class battleship cost about 100 million dollars.
                Don't you see that the 16 inch controlled in 100 thousand dollars and the 155 mm excalibur in 80 thousand dollars look absurd?
                1. postman
                  postman 19 December 2012 02: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Sorry, but it’s not even funny.

                  How annoying you are not the case. I have already read these 178 pages, I have read almost everything.
                  The dissertation was written on 17-05-2007. Prices 2007-2008 !!
                  Look at the scoreboard link 433, the article was given. This
                  The costs portrayed above are generally correct but due to inflation differences each of these costs are in then year dollars as reported in the their various sources. This data is meant to show order of magnitude, not pinpoint budget accuracy. For the Tomahawk and JSOW the cost is the direct procurement with no
                  overhead or recurring costs according to provided by Mr. St. George on March 9, 2007;
                  For Small Diameter Bomb costs, see FY2007 OSD Program Weapons Cost Book, accessed Nov 20, 2006
                  www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_weabook.pdf;
                  For 155mm excalibur costs See Army Budget submission for ammunition which was accessed 22 February 2007 at
                  http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/fybm.asp;
                  for 5-inch, 16-inch and LRLAP costs, Ibid.

                  anticipating further:
                  prices for aircraft carrier Ford, DDG-1000, CSTS 'nj wtys 2008? bcnjxybr ^
                  Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System, Fiscal Year 2008, 48.
                  Report to Congress on Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for FY2007;
                  The estimate for the CSW procurement cost is described in Appendix E.


                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  don’t you see that the 16-inch driven 100 thousand dollars and 155 mm excalibras of 80 thousand dollars look absurd?

                  I DO NOT SEE! I look at the documents. What is that?
                  And what is the difference then? in 406 -155 mm diameter or what?
                  155 mm ERM priced were between $ 35.000 and $ 60000
                  $ 12 million spent in 600 years
                  License acquired: Japan, Denmark, South Korea
                  How much is it now, xs.




                  Now the XM982-U Excalibur costs $ 102,000 per unit (scoreboard below)
                  / source National Defense Research Institute (NDRI) and
                  ARMY RDT & E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION (R2 Exhibit)

                  THE TRUTH Raytheon Missile Systems promises generation 1b Excalibur 30.000 pieces for $ 1.2 billion to rivet, i.e. back to $ 40.000
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 December 2012 16: 21
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    I DO NOT SEE! I look at the documents. What is that?

                    Yes, in that you compare the estimated cost of 16-dm shells (still to know - which one and how calculated) with the actual cost of real products.
                    Quote: Postman
                    Ford aircraft carrier prices

                    I unsubscribed to Kars on this topic - above
            2. postman
              postman 18 December 2012 17: 37
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Enough to shoot down not all shells, but only those that threaten to hit

              With what?
              RIM-161? in my opinion there are no facts and tests have not been carried out. Yes and the COST of bringing down a 406 mm suitcase for $ 24000 with missiles (one definitely not) for $ 10
              Cost (plant)
              RIM-161C IV SM-3 (Block IB) =. $ 9-10 million (when ordering more than 1000 pieces = $ 9,520.3 mmn)
              RIM-161D (SM-3 Block II) - $ 15 million
              RIM-156B (SM-2 Block IV) = 50% of the cost of SM-2 Block IV
              at 2011 prices

              in 2010 for Block IB they asked for $ 6.5 million when ordering 1000pcs

              URL:


              Or with different variations of the M61 Vulcan?
              Will the SCS detect? will bring? and a 20mm pill will do something with a 406mm suitcase?
              Nevertheless, the HC Mark 13 is not a self-made RSO that Palestinians masters in their villages and that can bring down (not always) the iron dome ...
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 22: 41
                +1
                I’ll answer it tomorrow :)))
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 18 December 2012 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      With Constance, maybe a ride. Yes, and that is unlikely, to be honest.

      Now Kars will get to the computer 100%, in the evening I will gladly read your correspondence.
      1. postman
        postman 19 December 2012 02: 21
        +1
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        Now Kars will get to the computer 100%

        Kars is like a provocateur belay
        first slipped the film, then invited to look at an article about the film ....
        So the day passed ..... The second one already.
        1. Kars
          Kars 19 December 2012 02: 34
          0
          I think it all started with the price of Burke’s empty hull.
          And I didn’t write an article,
          It is surprising why there is no author of an article about Zavlot, probably everything on the moon is not public.
          1. postman
            postman 19 December 2012 02: 49
            0
            Quote: Kars
            and why there is no author of an article about Zavloth, probably everything on the moon is not public.

            I will reveal a little secret- Oleg carefully reads everything .....
            Torpp Vigil / STAR SHADOW - Sergey Lukyanenko /

            and then he himself, if he wants.

            Quote: Kars
            And I didn’t write an article,

            But who called me here?
            with such hope I wanted to master a lot of things today ...
            fool
            and the preference lost to drabadan.
            1. Kars
              Kars 19 December 2012 02: 59
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              Torpp Vigil / STAR SHADOW

              I don’t even remember
              Quote: Postman
              But who called me here?

              I couldn’t do it under suspicion))))))
              1. postman
                postman 19 December 2012 03: 17
                0
                Quote: Kars
                I don’t even remember

                And I probably already read everything in the 4th circle. THERE IS NO NEW INTERESTING IN READ
                Now I will take on the fourth protocol sad
                1. Kars
                  Kars 19 December 2012 14: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  THERE IS NO NEW INTERESTING IN READ

                  There is such a thing. Lukyaneko also pecked several times - when there was generally tension with literature and ate what they would give to read.

                  Now (5 years already) I bought a reader and another problem arose - the choice was because I downloaded 6 gig of books in FB2. I notice that I often re-read the old with such an abundance. Unless Kontrovsky wrote about one of my favorite topics, the linkors wrote quite interestingly.
                  http://flibusta.net/b/256506
                  And so often I re-read Hyperion Simons, and Holdeman's Endless War. From Fantasy Black Squad of Cook.
  10. engineer74
    engineer74 18 December 2012 08: 17
    +4
    I knew! Aliens exist! Only 406mm will save the earth! wassat
    But seriously, the projectile and supersonic anti-ship missiles are for the same class of air defense. Another thing when the AUG runs out is to wave from the Chinese landing. For patriotic education, the battleship is also a useful thing - the power of the state embodied in metal.
  11. Strashila
    Strashila 18 December 2012 08: 22
    0
    Battleship or ships close in class are needed with art weapons, the best support for coastal defense, both in defense and offensive. Given the development of technology in the field of ammunition management, they are simply not replaceable today.
  12. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 18 December 2012 08: 36
    +2
    Ancient battleships have no chance against modern aviation and anti-ship missiles. In the modern naval battle, no one will approach the firing range of the main caliber of 35-40 km, unless of course the battle is with the Somali pirates.
    1. Strashila
      Strashila 18 December 2012 18: 30
      0
      Aircraft carriers also have no chance ... so float so what ...
  13. taseka
    taseka 18 December 2012 08: 55
    +1
    9 Museums - Battleships! This is beautiful! However, they educate their students! And then such fools modern means of destruction, quickly amaze!
    1. Averias
      Averias 18 December 2012 09: 20
      +1
      To educate what they educate. Only for some reason then these schoolchildren pick up the trunks and arrange a massacre in schools. Looks good at the power of the battleship, he considers himself unsinkable. And if it’s curious, then the battleship is needed to shake any Papuans. They say that this bubuka sailed :-). But in reality, you won’t include him in the aircraft carrier group, it’s unprofitable, and the goal is too big, hence the risk. As a separate group, the same is not an option, this is how many escort ships are needed, and again a large group target. So they are like museums in the roads, if anything, you can use them as coastal batteries. Although there are no chances against RCC and aviation.
    2. ded
      ded 18 December 2012 17: 58
      +1
      9 museums - Linkorov! This is beautiful! However, they educate their students!


      Schoolchildren are also brought up in Russia:

      one cruiser "Aurora", and then it was used as a film set for shooting a porno movie!
      1. Gad
        Gad 18 December 2012 20: 58
        +1
        Americans are great in preserving shipbuilding relics. And the author distorts the facts a little: "Texas" will turn 2014 in 100, its steam engine is considered an engineering relic and is preserved by the Polytechnic Museum. Where can such a "pensioner" go to battle? Only "Iowa" is in conservation, and the other 3 ships are museums. Do not forget that they, too, are already under 70 years old, and no one has changed the main engines since the day of construction. On "Missouri" the act of surrender of Japan was signed, so that fate itself ordered to make this ship a museum. And the film "Sea Battle" is funny, especially when the former veterans of the ship, six of them, carry a 1200-kg projectile on their shoulders from the bow cellar in the aft lol
  14. Volkhov
    Volkhov 18 December 2012 09: 01
    +2
    In the USSR, battleships of the "Stalingrad" type were created for the assault on Nazi bases, the Nazi Khrushchev cut them, but the problem remained - this is a real adversary of America with completely "alien" equipment, but in extreme cases, battleships are protected as disposable attack aircraft for rapprochement under a nuclear salute
    1. tomket
      tomket 18 December 2012 10: 00
      0
      Duc and who to storm with such a salute? New land? To Belgorod, he clearly does not swim before)
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 18 December 2012 10: 08
        +1
        They know better, they are constantly conducting reconnaissance.
        For example, the south of Chile, Pechenga - Kirkenes, Novosibirsk Islands. But are Germans in Belgorod like in Argentina?
  15. igor36
    igor36 18 December 2012 09: 04
    +1
    In any case, the ship will be tracked. As soon as information appears about the construction of an inconspicuous artillery ship, a technique for its detection will be developed. The ESR of the ship in any case is 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than that of a rocket.
  16. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 18 December 2012 09: 32
    +2
    Sharnhorst, for example? Is it uncountable, or what? It only immediately caught my eye - strange statistics ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 09: 58
      +4
      And this is not a nice :))) Here, I quote
      there was even a curious case, when two German Nedolinkors shook the English aircraft carrier.

      But Conte di Cavour is LINCOR laughing All battleships - battleship laughing laughing
      Come on. Well, the "Jean Bar" drowning in Toulon - who doesn't happen to? laughing
      But how beautiful - the Germans indicated the presence of only two battleships, even Scharnhorst with Gneisenau did not get into the battleships, but in the photo - a pickpocket laughing
  17. tomket
    tomket 18 December 2012 09: 58
    +1
    The author intuitively feels the potential remaining in the battleships, only he saw it in the wrong place. First of all, the strength of a battleship in modern conditions of war is its armor and not large-caliber guns. Let us recall the history of the "Sheffield" and similar ones in the Falklands War, when one missile that did not explode sank a modern ship, but such a gift from Super Etandar would not have caused any damage to the battleship, well, maybe except for painting. The thing is, the main killer of battleships was not an aircraft carrier as a new class of ships and not even an aircraft in the broad sense of the word, but A dive bomber, let's recall Midue and the same Marat, but this factor that destroyed the battleship itself disappeared with the advent of jet aircraft, even nuclear weapons did not remove all questions about the professional suitability of the battleship, because the ships of this class after the explosion near the epicenter sailed for another month until they were flooded (Prince Eugen). in general, the conclusion is that ships with reservations!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 10: 18
      +2
      Sorry, but in such a short comment you have told so many amazing things to the world :))) But don't be offended, but ... you have not tried to read historical literature? It helps :))))
      Quote: tomket
      First of all, the strength of a battleship in modern conditions of war is its armor and not in any way large-caliber guns. Let us recall the history of the "Sheffield" and others like him in the Falklands War

      The battleship's armor is a narrow strip along the waterline (usually not higher than 5 meters, or even less, of which only a part is above the water) and a number of armored decks, from one to three. And an armored anti-torpedo bulkhead. The battleship also has armored towers, barbets and wheelhouse and "all sorts of little things" such as traverses, steering gears, etc.
      So, of course, such armor could save the ship from destruction. But she absolutely does not save the add-on battleship and fire control systems - radar and so on. Therefore, yes, the battleship would not have died. But the combat capability would have lost - as has repeatedly happened during the years of WWII.
      and indeed it’s strange to compare a ship in 4500 with a ton weight (Sheffield) and a 45 000 ton giant - isn’t it? If there were an American nuclear aircraft carrier, no one could have reached it at all :)))
      Quote: tomket
      the main killer of the battleships was not an aircraft carrier as a new class of ships, and not even a plane in the broad sense of the word, but a Diving Bomber

      The main killer of battleships actually became a torpedo bomber.
      Quote: tomket
      remember midway

      And let us try to remember at least one battleship that fell during Midway :)))
      Quote: tomket
      but this factor ruined the battleship itself disappeared with the advent of jet aircraft

      To hang a modern, heavy-homing torpedo on a modern aircraft is a simple matter. Just unnecessary, there are no goals for them, but if they appear ...
      Quote: tomket
      because the ships of this class after the explosion near the epicenter sailed for another month until they were flooded (Prince Eugen)

      Firstly, the Prince is a heavy cruiser, and secondly, just what they sailed like this ... in the hole. But to go and perform combat tasks - could not
      1. tomket
        tomket 18 December 2012 12: 26
        0
        Well, how do we know anti-ship missiles hit the ship exactly on board, so the armored belt is quite appropriate now, secondly with modern air defense systems, it’s close to the ship for a torpedo attack and it’s unlikely that planes can bomb, Midway aircraft carriers fell because the battleships didn’t sail there , Vulnerabilities are being booked, which is what Shefield didn’t have enough, notice, the rocket didn’t explode in Sheffield, so it’s not quite appropriate to compare the tonnage, but it’s less in 10, and he didn’t get away from the 406mm suitcase, by the way, the forrestal is also a bit out of fire not drown ul, and the size here is by no means a panacea. Regarding Prince Eugen, there wasn’t much difference about what the atomic bomb was dropped on, Eugen would have been or would have been Yamato, for example, the main thing is to find out how it will develop, but it developed like this: it sank in a month since there was no crew on board, he didn’t maneuver, didn’t shoot, and didn’t fight for munch, so that they could perform tasks after the atomic bombing or not, even the American admirals could not answer this after a series of tests at Bikini Atoll .
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 13: 00
          +2
          Quote: tomket
          Well, how do we know the anti-ship missiles hit the ship exactly on board,

          But not at the level of armored belt LC - do not go RCC in 2-3 meters above the water. A significant part of the RCC makes the slide and hits the ship from above.
          Quote: tomket
          secondly, with modern aircraft, it will approach the ship for a torpedo attack and for aircraft bombing is unlikely to succeed

          They don’t need it - the torpedo can be dropped from under the radio horizon - the same American Mk48 is capable of passing 50 km under water
          But if it is more serious - there is a fairly effective tactic of destroying large ships - with demonstration groups and EW groups, assault groups and air clearance groups ... A demonstration group appears - the connection cuts in the radar and activates air defense, in retaliation, the aircraft cuts the EW into suppression and hits anti-radar missiles - and at this moment attack attack aircraft, striking the anti-ship missiles (and all this - because of the radio horizon, where the SAMs do not reach). And then, when the ships lost their air defenses — the radars were broken, superstructures and launchers were riddled — that was when they were just finished off by the planning bombs.
          And in our case - torpedoes. Although gliding bombs are also possible, the Italian "Roma" could not resist against the German Fritz-X, although it was all so booked ...
          The radar on the battleship is not much different from the radar on the destroyer :)))
          Quote: tomket
          during Midway, aircraft carriers fell, because the battleships did not reach there

          Why - did not swim, swam. A couple of "Congo" Yap people were there, one of them was even attacked by the Americans. Without consequences.
          Quote: tomket
          Vulnerabilities are reserved, so what did Sheffield lack

          Only here the rockets do not want to get into those vulnerabilities ...
          Quote: tomket
          you notice, the rocket did not explode at sheffield, so comparing the tonnage is not entirely appropriate

          Well, to say that an unexploded missile drowned 4,5 thousand tons of Sheffield, but the battleship in 45 thousand tons could not drown - even more inappropriate.
          Quote: tomket
          By the way, the forrestal, too, didn’t drown a little because of the fire, and the dimensions here are by no means a panacea

          Armor - even more so. Forrestal, by the way, was booked :))))
          Quote: tomket
          the main thing is to find out how it will develop, but it has developed like this: yes it sank in a month

          Condition running? Mechanisms? Radar? MPUAZO? Armament? Or do you think that if a ship is afloat, then can it fight?
          1. tomket
            tomket 18 December 2012 15: 13
            0
            on 45, when the b-29 was the only means of delivering nuclear charge, it wasn’t so hard to repel a raid on a warrant for battleships and aircraft carriers, radars made it possible, even if something fell somewhere near the best anti-nuclear defense except armor was hard to come up with. from the shock wave and radiation. during the midue, the Congo also sailed, and many others only yamato then diverted all other formations due to the loss of aircraft carriers, did not want to take risks in the conditions of loss of air cover, about Forestall I meant fires on the ship Sheffield, after all, didn’t sink from the hole in the board either. The 45 rocket hardly even struck a monster. About Eugen, I already wrote that there was no crew, and there was no fight for the life of the ship.
        2. Andof odessa
          Andof odessa 18 December 2012 15: 37
          0
          I am a little surprised, let's say so zaksyklennost on old armor. after all, if we take the tanks and the evolution of their armor as a basis and transfer them to battleships, then everything is not so bad as it seems to opponents of armor on ships, including when using nuclear weapons. The same is true with barreled artillery (40 km with a simple shell and actively reactive will be). naturally, they will have several significant disadvantages. 1 this is a dependence on alien means of detection that aircraft carriers do not have, much less flexibility in the application and when the situation changes, and yet there are less opportunities in countering aviation. and at the expense of museums, the upbringing of a patriotic spirit cannot be underestimated, as one general said there, in the price of victory, strength of mind to strength of arms correlates as 5 to 1, it seems so.
  18. Per se.
    Per se. 18 December 2012 10: 02
    +1
    Death or hibernation? The "dormant regime" of military museums, of course, cannot be completely excluded from the accounts of military potential, but if we talk about modern ships, then there are no battleships among them, it is silly to compare the veterans of the last century with the latest peeps of naval militarism. Another thing is the reincarnation of battleships in a new capacity. There are no absolutely invulnerable ships, but there are different degrees of protection and combat power, in this regard, the battleship is of interest. The emergence of anti-ship missiles with a range exceeding the range of carrier-based aircraft, new artillery with rockets, a nuclear power plant, helicopters and GDP aircraft, coupled with powerful protection, may well reanimate battleships as a class. For what? Yes, all for the same - the projection of force, leadership in local wars, from supporting amphibious operations to gaining supremacy at sea. On battleships, you can also install ballistic missiles, for a preemptive or retaliatory strike. Well, in a global nuclear war, in general, all ships are vulnerable, like our entire planet. Who and what will survive will continue to fight, perhaps the ships - museums.
  19. vadimN
    vadimN 18 December 2012 10: 45
    0
    "A projectile is a special case of an eaten bullet. A bullet is a fool, as Suvorov used to say, a projectile, respectively. back. "

    Well, I just can not agree with a respected author! Rather, not in everything. The projectile, of course, is d.u.s.r.k.a., but here is the fact that there is nothing to oppose it - this is not true in principle!

    Anti-artillery radar systems have existed for a long time, tracking the flight path of the projectile and calculating the shot point from it, that is, the location of the gun. Further, according to the calculated coordinates, the target designation of their artillery is given and the enemy’s weapon is suppressed! The speed of information processing of such systems is such that the enemy’s weapon simply DOESN’T BE ABLE to fire a second shot.
    Similar systems of American production were used against us by the Georgian army in the Abkhaz war in 2008. Similar systems exist for the fleet.
    1. Brother Sarych
      Brother Sarych 18 December 2012 10: 49
      -1
      The enemy’s ship will fire on the move, and the flight time of shells at large combat distances is long enough, so it’s quite problematic to answer, in my opinion ...
      1. vadimN
        vadimN 18 December 2012 11: 43
        0
        No, it’s not problematic ... Let's not forget that the ship itself is a sufficiently large and noticeable target for radars, and the distance of the artillery shot is relatively small (at least compared to the same missiles). So it’s very easy to track a ship in an artillery duel ... I’m telling you this with all responsibility, like a former ship officer ...
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 December 2012 11: 51
          +2
          In the confrontation between the ships - that is exactly so. And not only. A surface artillery ship can do little to oppose a submarine, aircraft, or a strike from an orbital complex. But as a fire support for the landing (with previously suppressed long-range weapons by the BRAV complexes), he is out of competition. What is the power of a volley per unit time, what is its cost, what is the response time
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 December 2012 11: 54
        +2
        Not at all. A modern projectile differs from a rocket only in the absence of its own engine. And he also has guidance systems wink
      3. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 19 December 2012 00: 34
        0
        Well, the karablik far from the salvo point will not go away, and along the reverse trajectory it is possible to launch the RCC and the GOS at the end of the trajectory will even capture invisibility.
  20. Averias
    Averias 18 December 2012 11: 51
    0
    I wonder what the same Missouri will do against a cavitation rocket-torpedo, for example, Shkval?
    1. vadimN
      vadimN 18 December 2012 12: 04
      +1
      Quote: Averias
      I wonder what the same Missouri will do against a cavitation rocket-torpedo, for example, Shkval?


      To sink such a tub as Missouri, it will take about a dozen and a half "Shkvalov" (with a conventional warhead), and even then it is not a fact ... Damage, immobilize - yes, but it is difficult to sink - too large displacement and good defragmentation of the hull into compartments ... And the "Shkval" has the same volume and weight of a conventional warhead is relatively small (sacrificed for speed).
      1. vadimN
        vadimN 18 December 2012 18: 04
        0
        I wonder what "expert" naval weapons minusanul ??? It's just that his arguments are interesting ...
  21. Professor
    Professor 18 December 2012 12: 01
    0
    Missouri passes the Panama Canal (the ratio of its length to width is not typical for such ships precisely because of its ability to pass this channel)


    Here are a couple of photos of this ship.







  22. sniper
    sniper 18 December 2012 13: 17
    +3
    Dear members of the forum, thanks for the clarification, it is obvious that you are completely right and battleships have no place in modern warfare. And this pleases, since we do not have them, but our overseas "friends" do, but nevertheless it is a little sad, such handsome men, the embodiment of human power ... huge plus per article , I liked it very much, it was beautifully stated, even taking into account the errors that our experts discovered ... After all, the author does not pretend to the ultimate truth and writes about it himself ... What a very beautiful fairy tale turned out to be, thanks, I read it with great pleasure! !!
    1. postman
      postman 18 December 2012 15: 20
      +2
      Quote: sniper
      Dear forum users, thanks for the clarification, it is obvious that you are completely right and there is no place for battleships

      forum users may be right, however, this little fellow: Colonel Shawn Welch (I will miss my track record and education) a report at the NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY comes to a completely different conclusion
      Source:




      The cost of an aircraft carrier, an aircraft carrier with AK, Zamvolta, "battleship of the 21st century": GSW-Capitol Surface Warship - a concept (not Iowa from an BB-battleship), the cost of modification and commissioning of battleships of the Missouri type:


      The cost (in thousands of $) of ammunition for the Aircraft Carrier and the hypothetical CSW are shown in the table below - the main cost factor is Tomahawk tactical missiles and ERM ammunition



      "Effectiveness" / "destructive power"
  23. Andrey_K
    Andrey_K 18 December 2012 13: 54
    +2
    And I believe in the future of battleships.
    And even suggest what kind of armor they will have.
    And the new armor can be ... made of foam metal - a sheet of metal foam, a meter or two meters thick ... or how much is needed - at least 10 meters.
    Such armor in itself does not sink and will not allow the ship to sink, even if it is riddled through.
    Well, radars and equipment will damage him - and for this there is a rear floating dock - he is also a repair factory.
    In a month, the ship will be put in order - it will fill the holes with foam (as in the repair of an apartment, fill the cracks with construction foam), install spare modules from the warehouse.
    Robots are engaged in repair - they do everything very quickly and without errors.
    When there is an accurate ship diagram and it is made on a modular basis - there is no problem to fix everything quickly.
    1. postman
      postman 18 December 2012 18: 05
      +3
      Quote: Andrey_K
      made of foam metal - sheet of metal foam

      Well, quite possibly.
      Aluminum-Celmet already has


      It remains to get foamed ceramic.
      Foamed metals obtained by technology with the addition of a foaming agent to powder metal (closed-cell foam) [19 companies]
      Foamed metals obtained by technology with gas blowing through molten metal and removing cured foam (closed-cell foam) [19 companies]
      Foamed metals obtained by technology with the addition of hollow ceramic spherical particles (closed-cell foam) to the molten metal [11 companies]
      Foamed metals obtained by heating and compressing a mixture of metal and plastic powders (open-cell metal foam) [13 companies]

      in sufficient quantities and cheap
      Changzhou Transea Machinery Co., Ltd.
      Leaders:
      NO.18 Hengshan Road, New District
      Jiangsu Changzhou, Jiangsu 213022 China

      Rotech Laboratories Ltd (Rubery Owen Group)
      Moxley Industrial Center Western Way Wednesbury, West Midlands WS10 7BG
      United Kingdom

      PEAK Werkstoff GmbH
      Siebeneicker Straße 235 42553 Velbert Germany

      Exxentis AG
      Schartenfelsstrasse 6 5430 Wettingen Switzerland
      1. Andrey_K
        Andrey_K 18 December 2012 18: 59
        +1
        Well, yes, such know-how has led to the idea that it can be used in military (and not only) shipbuilding.
        Only foam is needed without holes - bubble ... or you can fill the pores with some kind of polymer - polymer foam!
        Such ships will be invulnerable to torpedoes - after all, you can book the bottom without worrying about thickness and weight, and the foam metal will absorb the shock wave of almost any power - the maximum that it will be will doubt it.
        Also, cumulative ammunition is not afraid of him - the cumulative stream will dissipate long before overcoming the entire thickness of the material.
        How can you hit such a ship?
        Only something high-precision that gets into the window or other weak spot.
        Well, another ordinary kinetic blow - a steel bar at high speed - will pierce - but this is already artillery - i.e. than the battleships are armed.
        1. postman
          postman 18 December 2012 19: 10
          +1
          Quote: Andrey_K
          and came across a thought

          I suspect that you are not the only one.
          Quote: Andrey_K
          Only foam is needed without holes

          it is also possible with cavities: hydrophobic impregnation and anticapillary effect (physics: each medium “seeks” to reduce its surface area)
          Enough to cohesion was bigger adhesion
          Quote: Andrey_K
          How can you hit such a ship

          Bullseye
        2. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 December 2012 19: 21
          +1
          Given that the detonation of a torpedo warhead leaves a hole into which a railroad car passes sideways, what thickness do you plan to make protection? wink The idea is not bad: we take the destroyer and sheathe it outside. Somewhere to the size of an average aircraft carrier. The buoyancy reserve (due to foam) will not allow him to drown, even if a sieve is made of it. Everything is fine, but only for the movement of this miracle a power plant will be required in size ... a little less than a destroyer. In total, there will be room for a couple of cabins, felling, guns and a couple of dozen shells. Can be patented laughing
          1. postman
            postman 18 December 2012 19: 49
            +2
            Quote: Misantrop
            In total, there will be room for a couple of cabins, felling, guns and a couple of dozen shells. Can be patented

            he certainly didn’t mean it ....
            The battleships "Giulio Cesare" ("Novorossiysk"), "Conte di Cavour", "Leonardo da Vinci", "Andrea Doria" and "Cayo Duilio". Modernization of 1933-1937.

            Anti-torpedo protection (PTZ)
            The PTZ system, which was installed on all modernized and new Italian battleships, was the chief shipbuilder, Vice Admiral Engineer Umberto Puglise.
            Unlike other PTZ systems, which almost all were of a “layered” type (voids alternated with water or oil compartments in different combinations), this system was concentric — an empty round compartment in cross section inside a circular fluid compartment covered by one empty compartment. The inner wall of the middle compartment (with liquid) was made of 40 mm ER steel. This was a bilge or anti-torpedo bulkhead (PTP), which had the form of an open horseshoe, forming the back wall and the roof of the main part of the boule. There were also narrow internal compartments surrounding the anti-tank station, the task of which was to absorb leaks at its joints during an underwater explosion. From the outside and from below, the bulb repeated the shape of the hull. The outer skin was 13-14 mm thick, and the equidistant part of the inner boule was 10 mm thick (both made of ER steel). The innermost compartment had walls of 6 mm and was a cylinder extending along the entire length of the boule. Like the middle compartment, it was divided into 16 sections by partitions and at several points had supports that held it exactly in the center of the middle compartment. The maximum distance from the outer skin to the PTP was 6,6 m, and the maximum diameter of the inner empty cylinder was 3,4 m.
            It is necessary to fill all the "parasitic" volumes with foamed metal and organize the PTZ.

          2. Andrey_K
            Andrey_K 18 December 2012 19: 54
            0
            Not everything is so scary - the weight of a foam metal a meter thick does not exceed the weight of a steel sheet a centimeter thick (everything of course depends on the quality).
            The explosion of a torpedo leaves a hole in the steel sheet due to its dense structure of small thickness and the absence of "energy absorbers", while the foam metal can absorb energy by destroying its structure.
            In the "explosive team" (documentary series), it seems that the weight of a multi-ton truck at high speed was extinguished with the help of a specially glued rope due to numerous micro breaks in it.
            The collapse of the bubble structure can absorb enormous energy.

            Well, as for the large sizes - there are ship designs and for this case - catamarans.
            Well, the reservation is not offered for small ships - but for huge battleships - the extra few meters of board thickness mean nothing to them.

            Well, for aircraft carriers it would not be bad to have such unsinkability.
            (excessive buoyancy will not hurt anyone)
            1. Andrey_K
              Andrey_K 18 December 2012 21: 53
              0
              And I remembered, "laboratory of explosive ideas" (http://serialu.net/laboratorija-vzryvnyh-idej/), in the second episode there is a plot where it is shown how the plane stops with a strip of foam concrete - the braking strip is not so long, considering that it slows down front wheel only.
              Energy absorption due to the destruction of the internal structure.
              And they braked the truck with a rope in some other series.
  24. Pacifist
    Pacifist 18 December 2012 15: 23
    +1
    Let me also add my share of fantasies / suspicions to the common piggy bank.

    With the modern caliber of the main art systems of 152-155 mm, the average firing range varies from 26-40 km, (when using an actively reactive or other gas-generating principle, the range can be increased to 50-70 km., This is not taken into account so far)
    Those. technically, the ranges are about the same as for the main caliber of the battleship 350-406 mm. Now imagine, my friends and I discussed this about coastal batteries, if you make an active rocket for the main caliber of the battleship? Imagine a shell weighing from a ton to 3 flying at a distance of 100-120 km .... and you don’t need to change the gun platform, you only need ammunition.
    1. postman
      postman 18 December 2012 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: Pacifist
      Imagine a shell weighing from a ton to 3 flying at a distance of 100-120 km ....

      subcaliber HE-ER Mark 148 - 330 mm (13 "Extended Range (ER) = 64,000 miles tests. Calculations of 278 nautical miles (for 280mm) active jet.)
      The truth is no longer "under a ton", but all the same.
      and most importantly COST!
      Not to compare with a rocket.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2012 17: 50
      +1
      Only one question - how will you hit them?
      1. postman
        postman 18 December 2012 18: 10
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Will you hit the target?

        The goal is not maneuverable?
        -meteorological station, ballistic computer, radar, like a control center, you can use the same f-35 with its radar and ECO system (it is called the ship’s long-hand radar) or UAV

        Is the goal moorish?
        Then an active projectile, such as Excalibur
        + what is higher

        If far: Caliber HE-ER Mark 148
  25. killganoff
    killganoff 18 December 2012 15: 25
    +1
    Someone saws and sells what they have acquired by back-breaking labor, while others store and carefully store them "for every fireman." Note that the amers not only the LK of the 40s were taken to the reserve, in their fresh waters and a lot of other classes of warships and auxiliary ships are in reserve. And ours are on pins and needles and left to rot at the piers. Our Navy does not even have ships built in the 80s and 90s ... What can we say about old people.
  26. tomket
    tomket 18 December 2012 16: 14
    +1
    but about the fact that there is no place, I would say these are premature conclusions, take, for example, the same Falklands war, if the British had some kind of overwhelming "Duke of York" or "Nelson" everything would have been different, and the Americans would have driven it for nothing " Iowa "to the shores of Iraq,
  27. Setrac
    Setrac 18 December 2012 20: 50
    +1
    I wonder why the carrier is opposed to the battleship? It will be correct against two or three battleships of a MODERN building built against an aircraft carrier. Imagine an armored ship that can’t be sunk by one NON-NUCLEAR hit, the S-300F, an automated and computerized artillery air defense system (like an arena on a tank is only 1000 times more powerful), electronic warfare systems, active and passive defense. Well, as an offensive weapon, a main-caliber weapon (one or two towers in front), sub-caliber, actively-effective, guided ammunition. Instead of the rear towers of the main caliber, either large anti-ship missiles or a large-caliber MLRS including with guided projectiles.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 December 2012 23: 29
      0
      Quote: Setrac
      Well, as an offensive weapon, a main-caliber weapon (one or two towers in front)
      Approximately, the silhouette is close to the French "Richelieu", along the sides there are missile silos, at the stern the flight deck (helicopters and aircraft of the GDP) and also missile silos, a nuclear power plant. Quite, only the main weapon, long-range anti-ship missiles (plus cruise missiles for the coastal zone), and 410-420 mm cannons, rather as "additional" weapons.
  28. Setrac
    Setrac 18 December 2012 22: 51
    +1
    I want to pay attention that on such a large ship you can put a VERY powerful MLRS, a caliber of 800-1000 mm, with a combat range of 300-400 km.
  29. Kaetani
    Kaetani 18 December 2012 23: 14
    0
    It remains only to present such a picture.

    We all remember that almost all serious states work with EMP which, when hit, will perfectly extinguish all electronic mechanisms. In this case, I agree with the author - The commissioning of ships from the pre-computer era in such a situation looks very reasonable and effective.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 19 December 2012 00: 01
      0
      Not all, but only unprotected.
  30. bart74
    bart74 18 December 2012 23: 40
    0
    Conservation of battleships is an economically viable measure. Given the use of these monsters to bombard coastal areas and fortify areas. If many leading powers have taken this path, why not follow their example?
  31. ka5280
    ka5280 19 December 2012 07: 11
    0
    Vot predstavte tot zhe Yamoto, s kompleksom sovremennih sredstv PVO, PLO, REB avtomatizirovanaja silovaja ustanovka. Pljus v vide bonusa 9 mm orudij, streljajushih aktivno-reaktivnimi upravljaimimi snarjadami.
    Teper etu duru vvodim v sostav eskadri-korabli PLO, PVO. Podlodki. Tralshiki. Na moj vzgljad, dlja vedenija rejderskoj vojni vdol vrazheskogo poberezhja, eto prosto to, chto nuzhno!
  32. Black
    Black 19 December 2012 22: 25
    0
    Thanks everyone! With great pleasure I read the discussion.