Military Review

Ships for New Year's Wars

35
What will be the warships of the future? While the first prototypes and published sketches evoke images of ancient battleships or ocean transports from science fiction films. But the appearance is not the main thing.


The aspirations of engineering in the design of surface warships are a reflection of the military-political concepts of the respective countries. The first thing that catches your eye is the general fashion for low visibility, or stealth technology. It is these technologies that give the ships a futuristic look, and the first in this row is the Swedish corvette Visby, launched in 2000 year. The characteristic angular design, which impedes radar, lightweight composite plastic body, a minimum of protruding elements.

The Swedish concept was that a nimble and subtle corvette would sooner detect an enemy target in coastal waters and destroy it, than it would be discovered and destroyed by itself. In the January issue of PM, she wrote about the newest Russian corvette of the 20380 project, which also used composites and elements of stealth technology.

Now, when looking at the trimaran of the USS Independence, a representative of the new class of coastal zone warship (Littoral Combat Ship, LCS), the characteristic features of stealth seem to be something that goes without saying. But if Visby and the Russian corvette are intended for operations in the national coastal zone with defensive targets, then LCS is obviously designed to participate in operations primarily on foreign shores. And this indicates a lot.

To distant shores

Strictly speaking, LCS is two different projects. One is the development of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, a single-hull ship. The project's firstborn in 2006 was the USS Freedom. The second version of LCS, the brainchild of General Dynamics, is a trimaran (number one in the series is USS Independence). Initially, the US Navy planned to make a choice of these two concepts, but then it was decided to finish building both lines with new ships.

However, since the famous weapons corporations performed a similar technical task, the parameters and capabilities of the two types of LCS were pretty close. The main thing that you immediately pay attention to is the cruising range quite decent for a coastal ship. The Lockheed Freedom has 3500 nautical miles at a speed of 18 knots, the Independence has 4300, which is almost 8000 km. Autonomy - 21 days. The second is the maximum speed of about 45 knots (83 km / h) and is provided by water-jet engines. This significantly exceeds the performance of Visby (35 knots) and the mentioned Russian project 20380 corvette (27 knots).

It is clearly talking about something more than just replacing obsolete corvettes and mine-sweepers, especially if we recall that at the time of launching the USS Freedom became the representative of the only class of American warships put into operation for all previous 20 years.

The appearance of lightweight high-speed ships, close in class to the corvettes, was the result of awareness of the new reality. But the reality was that the AUG, heavy cruisers and destroyers were well suited to show strength in the Cold War era, but for smaller-intensity conflicts, more subtle and cheaper tools were needed. Among American military analysts, even the concept of a “street fighter” was born - an inexpensive, small, specialized ship that can operate in shallow water in the coastal zone of the enemy.

The idea of ​​LCS is close to this concept - Freedom or Independence is easy to imagine performing tasks somewhere off the coast of the Persian Gulf. There such vessels could hunt diesel submarines and high-speed rocket boats (on which Iran hopes), free the water area from mines, conduct reconnaissance and eventually clear the way for a large-scale invasion from the sea.

Simple transformations

And what about specialization? This problem is easily solved at the expense of modularity, which is structurally embedded in both LCS projects. Modularity is obviously another basic trend in the development of both surface and submarine warships. When applied to ships of the coastal zone, this means the possibility of equipping them (depending on the upcoming operation) with a module to combat mines, a module for anti-submarine operations or a module to counter the enemy on the surface of water or land.

The modules are placed in special containers that are easily mounted on the ship, and, if necessary, are quickly replaced by others. The modules include a variety of reconnaissance equipment: for example, a robotic autonomous probe is used to detect mines, underwater sensors and air-based systems are used in anti-submarine warfare: LCS can carry a pair of MH-60R helicopters on the deck, as well as UAVs.

The 30-mm gun mk46, producing 200 shots per second, as well as NLOS launchers (out-of-sight) with high-precision missiles, are included in the “package” of countering the enemy on the surface.

“Closer to the coast” - this could be the slogan of many projects of promising warships. The long-publicized new class of destroyers with missile weapons - the so-called Zumwalt class - will perform their functions equally well both in the far sea zone and in the coastal shallow water. The first representative of this class DDG 1000 Zumwalt is to be launched shortly.

It is characteristic that this destroyer, which for the first time in more than a hundred years will be built according to a scheme with an expanding hull (a la cruiser Aurora), was particularly interested in the command of the US Marine Corps. “Marines” view Zumwalt as a powerful support for naval assault. The ship could help the assault with rocket and artillery strikes to the rear of the enemy, as well as provide air defense of the site of the operation. It was even suggested that the destroyer of the class Zumwalt is able to act as a supporting element of the Freedom or Independence type LCS operating in the coastal waters of the enemy.

For the sake of operations in the coastal zone, special attention was paid to stealth, which, in fact, dictated the unusual design of the ship. And this is despite the fact that the Zumwalt (14 500 T displacement) actually has the dimensions of a battle cruiser and significantly more of a class destroyer with missile armament of the Arleigh Burke type. Zumwalt bears the helicopter and three multi-purpose drone MQ-8 Fire Scout, built on the helicopter scheme (the same equipped and LCS).

In the design of the destroyer, another interesting trend in shipbuilding is visible - the transition to a single electrical source. Two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent 30 gas turbine engines spin Curtiss-Wright generators, and the propellers that drive the rotors are powered by this electricity. In addition, it is possible that various promising weapon systems like railguns will be powered by electricity in the future.

Ship robots

British BAE Systems, as a rule, actively participates in large American defense projects, however, it also has its own developments that fully meet current high-tech trends. In particular, approximately from 2012, the “Royal Combat ShipType 26” should be adopted by the Royal Navy of Great Britain.

“Type 26” by displacement refers to frigates (that is, it is more than a corvette and less than a destroyer), and it will eventually become a “workhorse” fleet, which suggests a high degree of versatility. This will be achieved, naturally, with the help of a modular design - the ship can easily be converted to combat piracy, a humanitarian operation or the task of establishing a blockade of the coast.

But perhaps the funniest British concept of a future surface ship (this is also a BAE project, although its timing is unclear) can be considered the so-called UXV Combatant. This ship the size of a destroyer is designed to become a floating base, focused on work with unmanned vehicles, both flying and floating.

It is assumed that the UXV Combatant will serve a small crew (about 60 people), and all the ups and launches of reconnaissance or strike drone can be done automatically. In the end, it is probably this British project that shows where the entire arms industry in developed countries is gradually moving, and shipbuilding is no exception: soon robots will be sent to war.

Ships for New Year's Wars

The design of the USS Independence is based on the design of the high-speed ferry Benchijigua Express, developed by the Australian company Austal. Nowadays, civilian shipbuilding is often technologically ahead of the military.


The integral superstructure and unusual hull will make Zumwalt-class missile destroyers look like submarines. Perhaps they will be able to fight in a semi-submerged state to ensure greater stealth.


Britain has a very advanced development. In addition to the high-tech destroyers "type 45" creates "type 26" - a frigate, called the "Global Warship."
Author:
Originator:
http://www.popmech.ru/
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 27 July 2013 07: 37 New
    +6
    These ships are generally not clear for any wars. No combat use experience. In fact, the designers fantastically develop a kind of initially fantastic model (the connection with old ships that have developed from the experience of real wars is already very relative). But practice - it can be very unexpected - remember the fascination with aluminum on warships. And then Sheffield met with Exocet and died in fact from a fire caused by the remnants of rocket fuel and the presence of flammable materials and alloys in the ship’s structure (the rocket itself did not explode).
    1. il grand casino
      il grand casino 27 July 2013 08: 05 New
      +2
      Wait and see. But one thing is clear, the design is interesting - therefore, taxpayers will like it and they will eagerly unfasten their hard earned money for this miracle
      1. loft79
        loft79 27 July 2013 08: 12 New
        +4
        No one asks taxpayers laughing
      2. dustycat
        dustycat 27 July 2013 19: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: il grand casino
        Wait and see. But one thing is clear, the design is interesting - therefore, taxpayers will like it and they will eagerly unfasten their hard earned money for this miracle

        What is invisible in the rays of its radar is visible in the rays of a neighboring radar.
        Divorce of taxpayers to grandmas and no more.
    2. smsk
      smsk 27 July 2013 10: 53 New
      +7
      Quote: serge-68-68
      These ships are generally not clear for any wars. No combat use experience. In fact, the designers fantastically develop a kind of initially fantastic model (the connection with old ships that have developed from the experience of real wars is already very relative). But practice - it can be very unexpected - remember the fascination with aluminum on warships. And then Sheffield met with Exocet and died in fact from a fire caused by the remnants of rocket fuel and the presence of flammable materials and alloys in the ship’s structure (the rocket itself did not explode).


      Do you think it's better to just sit and do nothing?
      Some developments from these projects will certainly be used in further developments. Fiction or not, but about 30 years ago, who would have thought that drones would push ordinary planes out of the battlefield?
    3. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 27 July 2013 11: 18 New
      15
      Once the submarines were delirious crazy, tanks idiocy, and armadillos nonsense.
      The seeker will find, the inquiring may find - to get acquainted, take into account shortcomings, gain experience and do better. This is the motto.
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 27 July 2013 16: 53 New
        +3
        The key phrase is "get experience." Aircraft, submarines, tanks only became weapons when they were repeatedly tested in battles. And not just in some kind of "shooting" for the natives with batons, but in battles with an equal opponent. Nobody knows how a “drone” will behave on a battlefield saturated with various weapons and other radiating nonsense, in conditions of active fire contact and enemy opposition. And here is how Sheffield behaved, having received an unexploded Exocet aboard, we know - it burned down and drowned.
        In this regard, a simple question (exaggerating somewhat): what to bring with you for long-lasting and possibly heavy obsolete battles - never fired electromagnetic machine of any kind or AK?
  2. Constantine
    Constantine 27 July 2013 09: 18 New
    +4
    The new is always interesting, but not always feasible to the extent that it is conceived. The same LCS, for example, resulted in an epic cut of money, and its modularity is so whimsical about the infrastructure, and to a sufficient amount of time, that there will be no sense in it. Unless as a technology demonstrator in a small series. smile

    In general, there is a tendency toward unification, however, the universality of technology in aviation (F-35) and in shipbuilding (LCS), so far, looks, to put it mildly, wretched next to the specimens ground for specific purposes. sad
  3. Master Taiga
    Master Taiga 27 July 2013 09: 52 New
    +2
    Ultimately, not technology is fighting, but people.
  4. Goryn
    Goryn 27 July 2013 11: 08 New
    +1
    Good development, in any case, is visible progress and development. Especially with regard to modularity, it is the future.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 27 July 2013 19: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: Goryn
      Good development, in any case, is visible progress and development. Especially with regard to modularity, it is the future.

      Some kind of strange concept of modularity.
      Modularity is when using the KLKK you can turn a roller into a base for air defense, missile defense, air defense or into a carrier of percussion weapons with the help of a port crane.
      I think so.

      And when for this the ship needs to be docked, disassembled add-ons and then reassembled, or else during construction it will be decided what it will be - you need to change something in the conservatory.
  5. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 27 July 2013 12: 38 New
    +2
    They bent the cheaper ships. The cost of building and operating these boats is much higher than that of Arly Burke and Tikonderoger. By the way, they have only had problems with the electrics and armament to debug the artillery component. During trial transitions, there are always problems. I think they are too clever, they put everything that is possible and unfeasible there. The more complicated the product, the more failures. But I want more and more money, so they screw everything up, and how it works ten. Well, as for me, they seem to be torn with Zumvolt.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 29 July 2013 17: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      They bent about cheaper ships. The cost of building and operating these boats is much higher than that of Arly Burks and Ticonderoge.


      Why? This is where you read this?
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Well, with Zumvolt, they seem to be torn apart.

      They abandoned it, 3 pieces will be completed and completion.
  6. poquello
    poquello 27 July 2013 14: 01 New
    +2
    “Another interesting trend in shipbuilding is seen in the design of the destroyer - the transition to a single electric source. Two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent 30 gas turbine engines spin Curtiss-Wright generators, and the rotary propellers are powered by this electricity. In addition, perhaps in the future various promising weapons systems like railguns will be powered by electricity. "

    I don’t understand anything, I heard about this implemented on our ships about 10 years ago.
    1. mirror
      mirror 27 July 2013 18: 42 New
      +2
      Civilian vessels have such - diesel-electric ships. But on our surface ships there is no such power plant. Steam turbines, diesels, gas turbines operating on a propeller shaft are common. Maybe someone somewhere such experiments and conducted, but in a series of such NK is not.
      1. poquello
        poquello 28 July 2013 01: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: Spiegel
        Civilian vessels have such - diesel-electric ships. But on our surface ships there is no such power plant. Steam turbines, diesels, gas turbines operating on a propeller shaft are common. Maybe someone somewhere such experiments and conducted, but in a series of such NK is not.

        He told me, in general, not marine, on special operations, on which they were bombarded by hz.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 27 July 2013 19: 26 New
      +3
      Quote: poquello
      I don’t understand anything, I heard about this implemented on our ships about 10 years ago.

      In fact, all river diesel electric ships of the sad sad Bulgaria type have had the same DESU since the 1960s.
      Since 1970 there have been turboelectric ships. With GTES. And also a typical one - the Yak40 engine and the Electric Power generator.
      1. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 28 July 2013 22: 56 New
        0
        The transatlantic liner Normandy also had electric motors on propeller shafts.
  7. datur
    datur 27 July 2013 16: 38 New
    +1
    damn I'm an infantry, so explain to me what kind of masterpiece is this? yes
    1. mirror
      mirror 27 July 2013 18: 49 New
      +2
      Roughly speaking, new types of platforms are being developed for the delivery and use of modern weapons in modern wars. Platforms should be invisible, unified - and already there is already a lot of big money to allow themselves to produce a lot of different projects. So they want to make a universal small boat, on which you can change part of the equipment and weapons, and which will run fast, and even be inconspicuous. Either he fights with submarines, then with surface ships, then he works along the shore, sometimes he fights with airplanes. In short, they think about ships for future wars, they try. Nobody wants to be in a situation similar to the one when the expensive battleships during World War II were practically out of work, although the resources for them were exhausted. We can say that not a single fleet has guessed what the next war will be.
    2. Sea snake
      Sea snake 27 July 2013 21: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: datur
      damn I'm an infantry, so explain to me what kind of masterpiece is this? yes

      For anyone who wants to learn more about the ships of the coastal zone, I suggest to open the link ---

      http://nnm.ru/blogs/smprofi/budushiy_korol_pribrezhnoy_zony/


      There is a beautifully illustrated article ... there are a lot of photos and videos. good
  8. Fofan
    Fofan 27 July 2013 19: 59 New
    +2
    Quote: Spiegel
    Roughly speaking, new types of platforms are being developed for the delivery and use of modern weapons in modern wars. Platforms should be invisible, unified - and already there is already a lot of big money to allow themselves to produce a lot of different projects. So they want to make a universal small boat, on which you can change part of the equipment and weapons, and which will run fast, and even be inconspicuous. Either he fights with submarines, then with surface ships, then he works along the shore, sometimes he fights with airplanes. In short, they think about ships for future wars, they try. Nobody wants to be in a situation similar to the one when the expensive battleships during World War II were practically out of work, although the resources for them were exhausted. We can say that not a single fleet has guessed what the next war will be.
    and the crew is also replaceable? or do the same people fight equally well with pl and strike rockets at enemy rear?
    1. 17085
      17085 27 July 2013 21: 26 New
      +1
      I agree one hundred percent. So it happened in the fleet, the commander of the ship is either an artilleryman, or, more often, a rocket launcher, etc. depending on specialization. Of course, the team can also be formed on the same principle - modular (which word).
      Although honestly for me it’s news that the Navy does not have electric ships, civilians have been using them for quite some time.
      Imagine Bora electrically - cool ...
      1. Corsair
        Corsair 28 July 2013 10: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: 17085
        Of course, the team can also be formed on the same principle - modular (which word).

        Hands from one "module" fellow * Opu, the torso and legs from the other ... But maybe the head is not necessary? wink
  9. Vlad51
    Vlad51 27 July 2013 21: 21 New
    +1
    Money needs to be earned on something
  10. 17085
    17085 27 July 2013 21: 57 New
    +1
    For me, the principle of stealth for surface ships is a PR move. It is expensive, but it can be nullified without any problems. Yes, and the noise of the movers is not gone. Modularity is a dubious pleasure. Hulls of ships vary depending on the purpose and installed weapons. Even a possible sailing area affects the hull. (Ice class, maximum draft, wave height during the storm season, and a bunch of other things) Unification of equipment can achieve greater benefits. The widespread use of robotics also has enough limitations, the sea is a whimsical thing, often such weather that not every helicopter takes off, there’s little use for a 5-meter wave on the water from a robot. So the robot carrier in the middle storm can be boarded on the gallery.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 28 July 2013 10: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: 17085
      the principle of stealth for surface ships is some kind of PR move

      I can still understand about stealth while the pelvis sneaks in low noise. But what kind of "stealth" can we talk about after the start of using their systems in active mode? It’s clear that the gun is cool there,
      200 rounds per second
      I wonder how many minutes of battle the ammunition will last? I didn’t notice a docked barge there in the project lol
      Modularity is cool. But only anyone who has dealt with complex units knows what in practice means to dock a unit that has been stored in a spare part for a long time on the shore ... lol
  11. report4
    report4 28 July 2013 09: 30 New
    -2
    Zvizdets. Will anti-Papuan war toys come back a few lards apiece?
    The saddest thing (naturally for them) is that they are useless against the weapons of a potential adversary
  12. bulvas
    bulvas 28 July 2013 09: 40 New
    +3
    Let them search, try, if there is money

    The main thing that is enough for our minds is to learn from the mistakes of others, not from our own
  13. Corsair
    Corsair 28 July 2013 10: 41 New
    +3
    Perhaps they will be able to fight in a semi-submerged state to ensure greater stealth.

    Returning to Monitor and Merimac?
    Happy Fleet Day of the USSR and Russia!
  14. tol100v
    tol100v 28 July 2013 11: 45 New
    +3
    Sea Souls! HOLIDAY ALL OF YOU!
  15. aud13
    aud13 28 July 2013 18: 23 New
    +1
    200 rounds per second at the gun - what kind of miracle is this gun?
    1. ICT
      ICT 28 July 2013 20: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: aud13
      200 rounds per second


      sovereign typo, rate of fire 200 rounds per minute
  16. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 28 July 2013 21: 52 New
    0
    This is a miracle of technology PR at one time as a super-stealth, now they are selling as unnecessary, although new concepts are always good, technology is developing.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 28 July 2013 22: 17 New
      +2
      This is an experimental vessel that has served honestly for 27 years. Since then, technology has come a long way. Compare F-117 and F-22 - you will understand.
      1. report4
        report4 28 July 2013 22: 52 New
        -1
        Quote: Spade
        This is an experimental vessel that has served honestly for 27 years. Since then, technology has come a long way. Compare F-117 and F-22 - you will understand.

        Compare F-22 flying and permanently damaged F-117
        the idea is so-so. It is better to compare the number of shock missions f-22 and f-16;) the result will be interesting.))
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 29 July 2013 17: 21 New
          0
          Quote: report4
          It is better to compare the number of shock missions f-22 and f-16;) the result will be interesting.))

          How interesting will you be to compare if the F-22 is completely not intended for such missions.
  17. Woldemar
    Woldemar 15 August 2013 16: 14 New
    0
    And I like their trimaran independence outwardly. Someone here writes that they say the technology has not been tested and only money wasted. But once everything that they use now was new in technology and nothing, normally, was run in and began to be done in large batches. Something dropped out of course. But for this it is necessary to build and experience, and not just indiscriminately groan. We don’t build such people and it’s a pity. And modularity is in my opinion good and it is not necessary to constantly change weapons on one ship. Just one case, not ten different. But each ship can be sharpened for its own. Of the ten identical ships, one will have anti-submarine weapons and air defense, the other will have shock and air defense, but they will rivet them quickly and the weapons will be shoved as needed without any problems.