Military Review

Why are modern ships so weak?

168
Why are modern ships so weak?



Help! Call the police! We were deceived and our reserve load stolen!

This is how the usual work day began at the Bath Iron Works (Maine) shipyard when the documentation of the Soviet project 26-bis fell into the hands of engineers. The amazement of the Yankees knew no bounds - the cruiser Maxim Gorky, launched in the distant 1938 year, showed anomalous characteristics.
In some incomprehensible way in the old days it was possible to build real warships - with large-caliber artillery, armor and an exceptionally high speed in the hull with a displacement of less than 10 thousand tons.

Nowadays, 10 thousand tons are barely enough to build flimsy warships without a hint of armor belts and artillery towers of the main caliber with powerful barbetas and protected ammunition cellars.
Armor, huge reserves of fuel, heavy large-caliber guns, powerful propulsion systems capable of accelerating the ship to 35 and more nodes - all this has disappeared these days. At the same time, the displacement remains the same!



Obviously, something had to appear in return. But what was the free load reserve spent on? Why do modern ships look so "weak" against the backdrop of their glorious ancestors?

Characteristics of the cruiser "Maxim Gorky" - objectively, very weak and imperfect first-born of the Soviet shipbuilding, in our time arouse sincere respect:

Crew - 900 man.
Power GEM - 129 750 hp
Full speed up to 36 knots!
Fuel autonomy - 4880 miles at economic speed 18 knots.



The composition of weapons:
- nine guns of caliber 180 mm, placed in three rotating towers MK-3-180;
- Universal and anti-aircraft artillery: six guns caliber 100 mm, nine 45 mm semiautomatic 21-K;
- two three-tube torpedo tubes of caliber 533 mm; mine rails - the entire cruiser could set up 160 sea mines;
- 20 depth charges BB-1;
- aviation armament: catapult 13K-1B, crane, two seaplanes KOR-1;

Reservations!
- armor belt - 7 centimeters of steel.
- lower deck - 50 mm.
- booking GK towers and barbets - 50 ... 70 mm. Fighting tower - 150 mm (walls), 100 mm (roof).

The most important thing is that all this impressive array of weapons and mechanisms fit into the hull with a full displacement ... 9700 tons. Just unbelieveble!


Articles load cruiser 26-bis with reduced fuel capacity

Nowadays such a displacement has the Aegis destroyer Orly Burk of the IIA sub-series, but the modern ship does not closely resemble a war cruiser - neither armor nor heavy weapons, not a powerful power plant ... just a tin box swinging on the waves with computers.

After reading such a statement, the reader will certainly decide that the author has gone mad.
To call a “tin” the newest super destroyer equipped with the Aegis system ?! AN / SPY-1 radar with a phased array, Tomahawk cruise missiles, anti-aircraft systems, anti-submarine weapons and helicopters, amazing standardization and unification with ships of other classes ... we are just a masterpiece of design ideas!

However, it is important to understand that no one compares the "Burke" and the cruiser "Maxim Gorky" in terms of their combat capabilities. In this case, the interest is only a mass of mechanisms and article load. And here comes a difficult paradox ...

Arsenal

Comparison of the mass of the vertical launch Mk.41 of the Burk destroyer with the three heavy armored cruisers of the M. Bitter "give an obvious result. Each MK-3-180 tower weighed 247 tons - 10 tons more than the standard 61-charging Mk.41 equipped with Tomahawks and long-range anti-aircraft missiles.

And this is without taking into account the cruiser ammunition! - one hundred 97-kilogram shells for each gun + powder charges + equipped ammunition cellars.

As a result: three towers of the main caliber (3 x 247 tons) were placed on the old cruiser. On the modern destroyer, even two full-fledged Mk.41 units could not fit - the bow guard group had to be halved - to 32 cells.



Do not be embarrassed by the figure in 96 launchers (bow and stern groups UVP destroyer "Burke"). Despite all the apparent massiveness, the Mk.61 41 charging system in the “shock version” is a compact truss structure with 8,7 x 6,3 x 7,8 meter dimensions with power supply units and control equipment. The mass of the empty installation - 119 tons. Inside the launch glasses with various rocket ammunition are loaded, the mass of the heaviest starting glass with Tomahawk is 2,8 tons. The mass of glass with the Stand-2 anti-aircraft missile is much lighter - only 1,38 tons. On some ships, a loading device occupies three cells each, reducing the total number of starting cells from 64 to 61.

Universal artillery? Orly Burk has an aluminum 5 single-gun installation ”/ 62 Mk.45 mod.4 weighing 25 tons. At "M. Gorky "- six single-mounted installations B-34 weighing 12,5 tons each. The cruiser gets harder again!



On board the destroyer installed two six-barreled anti-aircraft guns "Phalanx" with built-in radar fire control. So what? Nine Soviet 45 mm semi-automatic weighed no less.

The destroyer is armed with small-sized torpedoes - the system Mk.32 ASW. The old cruiser also has mine-torpedo armament - “full-fledged” torpedoes of caliber 533 mm. As well as a stock of depth charges and mine rails.

Two anti-submarine helicopters MH-60R with a take-off weight of 10 tons are based on the Burke of the IIA sub-series, there is a helicopter platform with a takeoff and landing operation control post, two hangars, aviation fuel stock and an aviation ammunition cellar. Solid!



But then “M. Bitter "is not so simple! Two KOR-1 seaplanes, a stock of aviation gasoline, and most importantly - a rotary pneumatic catapult, which accelerated the 2,5-ton aircraft to the speed of 120 km / h. What is only one pneumatic, designed for air pressure 50-60 atmospheres. + Compressors. + Two cranes for lifting the plane out of the water.

Here again parity is observed. The composition of the aircraft armament of the cruiser is no less bulky and heavy than that of the modern destroyer.

In general, the weapons and ammunition of the cruiser "M. Bitter "weighed 1246 tons. How on the old cruiser fit such a massive pile of weapons, if the modern destroyer barely got 96 UVP cells, the only five-inch and a pair of helicopters?

And instead of the heart - a fiery motor

Guns and weapons are nothing. Much more serious is that the cruiser “M. Gorky was faster than any modern ship. The speed of a full stroke of knots 36 is not a joke. To disperse the whopper to 70 km / h, an extremely powerful and productive power plant was needed: six water tube boilers and two turbo-gear units with a total power of 130 thousand hp. For comparison: the destroyer "Orly Burke" is driven by four gas turbines with the power of "only" 105 thousand hp. (full speed - knot 32).

Even with a simple “head-on” comparison, the size of the engine rooms and the mass of the propulsion systems of the Soviet cruiser should exceed that of the Orly Burke. And if you take into account the progress in creating ship-based power plants - how do the ancient boiler for fuel oil combine with the high-tech gas turbine General Electric LM2500 ?!

Certain conclusions can be drawn from the following table. The power plants of modern ships are lighter at times than the GEM of their predecessors at equal power.



Another one fun moment is the fuel supply on board and the cruising range at an economic speed.

Maxim Gorky - 4880 miles on 18 nodes (1660 tons of fuel oil)
Orly Burke - 6000 miles on 18 nodes (1300 tons of kerosene JP-5)

It is clear that the gas-turbine installation of a modern destroyer on the 50% is more economical than the steam-turbine power plant of the cruiser “M. Bitter". A significant role was played by more advanced hull lines, the quality of the fabrication of cladding and screws - a consequence of the inevitable progress in the field of design methods and technologies of the metalworking process over the past half century.

But all this does not negate the main problem - the old Soviet cruiser was forced to have more fuel on the 20%. The extra 360 tons of petroleum products can be hidden somewhere in the double-breasted space, but you can't fool Mother Nature - the extra 360 tons of water spill out from under the bottom of the ship. Archimedes, and that's it!

Is armor strong?

This is really strange: the destroyer Burke, in contrast to the ships of the Second World War, is completely devoid of armor. The usual "can" with sticking through the casing ribs of the power set.

Of course, on closer inspection, it becomes noticeable that the designers made a number of efforts to increase the ship’s security: the combat information center, the premises of the personnel and the cellar of the ammunition have local anti-fragmentation booking. It is reported that 130 tons of Kevlar were used to protect important premises - more than on any of the modern ships.


Tin board of the destroyer "Porter" after a collision with a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, 2012 year

However, if you do not hesitate to call a spade a spade, then the whole “armor” of the destroyer “Burke” is nothing more than a bluff and a profanation of high protection. This clearly showed the case with the undermining of the US Navy Cole destroyer in the port of Aden (2000 year) - a surface explosion with a capacity of 200-300 kg of trotyl near the board of Cole completely destroyed the destroyer, 17 dead, 39 injured ... Yes, security is good . Any cruiser of World War II of similar dimensions - the Soviet 26-bis or the British "York" could withstand a much more powerful blow with less losses.

This is not so much about the security and real combat characteristics of the destroyer. How much that aluminum UVP covers with a thickness of 25 mm are not at all like the 50 mm steel cruiser deck “M. Bitter". This means that the lion's share of the displacement of the Soviet cruiser (1536 tons) was spent on booking.

Even minus the unfortunate 130 tons of Kevlar, the Burke has a huge “failure” - logically, the destroyer should be lighter by as much as 1400 tons.

And if we take into account all our previous conversation (towers of the main caliber instead of UVP, bulky GEM instead of gas turbines, 360 tons of “extra” fuel oil) - it turns out that the full displacement of the 26-bis cruiser and the super-destroyer Orly Burk should differ by several thousand tons

But, alas, this is not observed. The displacement of an old armored monster and a modern “tin can” is the same.

Zeno's paradoxes, or What was the displacement reserve spent on?

The version with an error in units of measurement does not pass - American feet are meticulously converted to meters, and pounds to kilograms. The result is the same - 9600 tons of full displacement "Orly Burke" versus 9700 tons "Maxim Gorky."

The radio electronics version sounds much more serious - a modern ship is chock full of all kinds of radars, sonars, computers and control panels. Powerful computing systems need efficient cooling systems, megawatt radars require the presence of an entire power station on board - that’s probably the whole answer, to which the displacement was spent ...


Steep until they beat him. Colossus on clay feet.

But let me, do radars, communication systems, additional generators and 100 computers weigh as 110-meter armor belt 7 steel centimeters thick (armor plate width is 3,4 meter, also, you need to take into account that the cruiser has two armor belts - one on each side + traverse bulkheads + barbettes of the three towers of the Civil Code + military conning building with 150 mm walls + armored protection of the tiller compartment, etc.) ... was this huge steel array lighter than semiconductor computers and radar antennas?

Finally, if we are talking about fire control systems, the cruiser Maxim Gorky had the equally bulky devices Molniya-AC (main caliber control) and Horizon-2 (anti-aircraft gun control) —analog calculators, stabilized sights and spaced rangefinder posts, covered with sheets of armor.



Maybe the whole thing in terms of accommodating the crew? Modern sailors serve in much more comfortable conditions - on the Burke destroyers on a human 1, 4 sq. meters of residential premises. Restaurant meals, drinks vending machines, air conditioners, a superbly equipped medical unit ... It would seem that this is the answer to the question of what the load reserve was spent on ...

Oh, well, in vain, we remembered the habitability of the ship!

The crew of the cruiser “Maxim Gorky” was THREE TIMES larger than the crew of the “Orly Burke” - 900 man vs 300-380 on a modern destroyer. It's amazing how we managed to place so many sailors on board the ship!

Once again, the truth slipped from our hands ...

Of course, experts now will bring a long list of equipment, which could be spent load reserve:

- MASKER system - air supply to the underwater part of the hull to reduce the sonar visibility of the destroyer;
- special requirements of anti-nuclear protection (entrances, sealing the ship, filters, increased pressure in the interior);
- desalination plant performance 90 tons of water per day;
- three reserve gas turbine engines;
- passive jamming system Mk.36 SRBOC;
- 25 mm Bushmaster automatic guns to repel terrorist attacks;
etc. etc.

Alas, this time a lot of questions arise. The superstructure, chimneys and mast "Orly Burke" are made of lightweight aluminum-magnesium alloys - nothing like the massive steel structures of the cruiser "M. Bitter".

You can continue in the same spirit: a modular design, facilitating the destroyer hull through the use of new assembly technologies, accurate computer calculations, accurate welding and fitting parts. Further, the extensive use of light alloys and composite materials (Burka’s helicopter hangars are completely made of composites) - all this, in theory, should partially or fully compensate for the increased loads from PAZ elements, backup GTEs and the MASKER system.

With regard to the presence on board the "Orly Burke" desalination plants and the lack thereof on "M. Gorky ”- imagine how many tons of fresh water should have been stored on board the cruiser with a crew of 900 people!

What the hell? The cruiser "M. Gorky "still looks heavier than the modern destroyer, although in reality their displacement is the same.

In vain, dear reader expects a brilliant ending in the Hollywood style - everything falls into place, good triumphs over evil. Happy End will not be. The competence of the author does not allow him to confidently explain the cause of the paradox with the displacement of modern ships. The author only identified a curious problem and is ready to listen with pleasure to the opinion of professional shipbuilders.

Afterword. Regarding the paradox, there are a number of simple assumptions: perhaps this is somehow related to the density of the ship layout: modern equipment requires more space, extra space, foundations and hull structures are required — this is what the entire displacement reserve is spent on. Jokes with ballast? Or the devil, which, as usual, lies in the details? However, these are just assumptions.


Artillery of the cruiser "Kirov"



UVP Mk.41



An interesting precedent from stories - Artillery cruiser type "Baltimore", upgraded at the beginning of the 1960-x project "Albany." Despite the powerful modernization with the complete replacement of artillery by five missile systems, the emergence of a large superstructure and bulky radars - the displacement of the cruiser remained the same.



Based on:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/
http://wikipedia.org/
http://www.fas.org/
Author:
168 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 23 September 2013 09: 26 New
    0
    Obviously, something was left behind the scenes - some secret contraption, maybe a hidden torpedo tube with a stock of torpedoes, or something like that ...
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 23 September 2013 09: 41 New
      +4
      There is an assumption - it is necessary to provide equipment service areas, and places for possible emergency dismantling / repair of equipment in modern ship compartments. those. stupid air.
      1. VadimL
        VadimL 23 September 2013 11: 16 New
        +2
        Hardly. In this case, for the work of 900 people of the cruiser’s crew, much more space was required than for 300-380 people on the destroyer.
        I think that partially the "extra tons" in modern ships appear due to higher requirements for reliability, security, struggle for survivability, etc.
        1. In the reeds
          In the reeds 23 September 2013 11: 57 New
          +6
          Well, yes, if he is afraid of a collision with a whale, like an Audi with a cow
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 23 September 2013 13: 38 New
        +1
        Quote: ben gun
        There is an assumption - it is necessary to provide equipment service areas, and places for possible emergency dismantling / repair of equipment in modern ship compartments. those. stupid air.

        Air weighs little and does not displace water, that is, it does not add displacement. Apparently the matter is in the ratio of the surface and underwater volume of the ship. On modern ships
        the surface part is much larger.
        1. slacker
          slacker 23 September 2013 16: 28 New
          +3
          The cruiser "Maxim Gorky", 8800 tons, an armored belt of 7 cm - 1944 - 12 hours fired from Kronstadt at the Finnish positions on the Karelian Isthmus - when the cruiser ceased fire, the Russian infantry launched an attack with almost no resistance from the Finns.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 23 September 2013 18: 49 New
            -9
            Soviet cruisers were created to fight the Finnish mortars? Soviet cruisers were created to fight against enemy cruisers! And where was this hero when the German cr-r entered the gulf and began to shell our advancing troops? Hiding in Kronstadt with other cruisers and a battleship?
            1. roma-belij
              roma-belij 23 September 2013 21: 42 New
              +4
              You would, dear, look at the maps of minefields, the answer itself would be found.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 24 September 2013 05: 32 New
                +2
                Gneisenau, Lutzov, Schleswig-Holstein, Schlesien “Deutschland”, “Seidlitz”, “Prince Eugen” “Hipper” operated in the Baltic in 44-45 years. Domination in our air, the Finns came out of the war - their bases and maps of our minefields. All of the listed German ships are in poor condition, many are not even on track. Question: WHERE were our cruisers and battleship, dear?
          2. nnz226
            nnz226 24 September 2013 00: 03 New
            0
            Still would!!! If after such an artillery preparation some Finns could shoot, the tribunal would have to wait for the commander of the cruiser and warhead 2. True, provided that the goals are explored and indicated correctly.
      3. carbofo
        carbofo 23 September 2013 17: 46 New
        +3
        Quote: ben gun
        There is an assumption - it is necessary to provide equipment service areas, and places for possible emergency dismantling / repair of equipment in modern ship compartments. those. stupid air.

        Something like that, the colossal dimensions of the radar antennas, GAS, various energy systems, which, due to the absence of developed electronic equipment on Gorky, are simply not needed.
        Gas by the way weighs quite a lot, it seems we had a gas weighing 900 tons.
        In general, it strongly resembles an Infiniti car, it seems like a big one and does not differ from small ones, it is only more bloated.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 18: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: carbofo
          Something like that, the colossal dimensions of the radar antennas, GAS, various energy systems, which, due to the absence of developed electronic equipment on Gorky, are simply not needed.

          Do you think that Gorky’s cubicles were lit with paraffin candles?

          there was also a power station and developed electric. the system is very cumbersome, due to the imperfection of technology in those years
          and rangefinding posts with armored shields, coupled with analogue computers, stabilized viziers, a heavy tube radio station - also ate a lot of weight
          Quote: carbofo
          Gas by the way weighs quite a lot, it seems we had a gas weighing 900 tons.

          There was a powerful GAS Polynom 800 tons. under it had to specifically develop a ship - BOD, etc. 1155. The American Burke does not have this
          Quote: carbofo
          only bloated stronger.

          The dimensions of Burke and Gorky are similar - Burke is shorter by 20 meters and wider by 3 meters
          1. carbofo
            carbofo 25 September 2013 12: 35 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

            Do you think that Gorky’s cubicles were lit with paraffin candles?

            No, I meant that the number of electronics has increased significantly, These are various radars, their power supply systems, computers of the IHIS system, all this weighs a lot and quite voluminously, most of such equipment was not on our ship.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Gas Polynom 800 tons

            Yes, it was precisely her that I had in mind, and I know that the Americans do not have a milk sink, but there are other systems of a similar purpose that also want weight and space.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            The dimensions of Burke and Gorky are similar - Burke is shorter by 20 meters and wider by 3 meters

            There is no need to draw direct analogies, I expressed relatively abstractly.
            By the way, maybe this is a variant of the internal arrangement of arly berk
            http://www.gearpm.com/media/catalog/product/d/d/ddg_111-detail_1.jpg
    2. Civil
      Civil 23 September 2013 09: 58 New
      +2
      Well, what does it mean to eat there, but what will the specialists really say?
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 23 September 2013 12: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: Native American Joe
      Obviously, something was left behind the scenes - some secret contraption, maybe a hidden torpedo tube with a stock of torpedoes, or something like that ...


      Something apparently super secret. An interesting paradox was revealed by the author. In fact, it’s not clear where the water discharged from the armor belt happened ... apparently biosarty and something like that.
  2. Kiliny
    Kiliny 23 September 2013 09: 46 New
    +9
    In my opinion, with the development of anti-ship missiles, the designers decided that it makes no sense to protect the ships with serious armor, since when missiles hit the ship, one outcome is to the bottom! No armor will save. Although this is only an assumption
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 23 September 2013 10: 04 New
      +2
      In my opinion, with the development of anti-ship missiles, the designers decided that it makes no sense to protect the ships with serious armor, since when missiles hit the ship, one outcome is to the bottom!

      I agree, the bottom is not a fact, but the armor from supersonic anti-ship missiles should be very serious and heavy. And add-ons even from subsonic really can not be protected.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 23 September 2013 17: 07 New
        +1
        Supersonic RCC is a very large device, the smaller pieces of iron on the battleship will simply break.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 23 September 2013 17: 13 New
          0
          the battleship is also a large and expensive device or is there a rule: do not shoot at the battleships with supersonic sound?
          1. Avenger711
            Avenger711 23 September 2013 18: 14 New
            +1
            And drowning is also not guaranteed. Shells for trunks from 380 mm are also not 7.62x39, but the battleship holds them.
    2. little man
      little man 23 September 2013 10: 21 New
      0
      Exactly!
      The article is incorrect, but the photos are excellent.
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 23 September 2013 12: 14 New
        +2
        Yes, a good article and relevant 60+ years everywhere artillery returned after the missile revolution except the fleet
        1. Geisenberg
          Geisenberg 23 September 2013 12: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: In the reeds
          Yes, a good article and relevant 60+ years everywhere artillery returned after the missile revolution except the fleet


          Some people didn’t remove it from the fleet :) ... they still have ships built from 2 cm armor steel ...
          1. little man
            little man 23 September 2013 18: 10 New
            +1
            2 cm armor ??
            Yes, this is the usual skin for current ships. Boards on average 2-3 cm.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2013 18: 22 New
              +1
              Quote: man
              Yes, this is the usual skin for current ships. Boards on average 2-3 cm.

              Smaller, much smaller

              British frigates / destroyers type 42 ("Sheffield", which burned out from unexploded anti-ship missiles) - skin thickness 10 mm
              thickness of bulkheads and deck deck BOD pr.61 - 4 mm
              1. little man
                little man 24 September 2013 09: 28 New
                0
                Yes, Oleg, in the internet the range is 5mm - 5cm. Of course it depends on the destination, the displacement .... I meant my ship with 20 thousand tons. I didn’t see the documentation, but leaning out of the window you can immediately estimate the thickness smile
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 23 September 2013 14: 38 New
      +8
      Quote: KilinY
      In my opinion, with the development of anti-ship missiles, the designers decided that it makes no sense to protect the ships with serious armor,


      This is wrong here is one of the known cases.

      Oleg Kaptsov. The legend of the flaming walls.

      May 4, 1982. South Atlantic. A pair of "Super-Etandars" of the Argentine Air Force made a slide fired rockets ..... "Exoset" hit the Sheffield, flew through the galley and fell apart in the engine room. 165 kg warhead did not explodebut a running RCC engine set fire to fuel resulting from damaged tanks. The fire quickly swept the central part of the ship, the synthetic decoration of the premises flared hotly, from the unbearable heat the superstructure constructions made of aluminum-magnesium alloys lit up. After 6 days of agony, the charred skeleton of the Sheffield sank.

      The designers, in the pursuit of efficiency, have reached the point of absurdity - the destroyer is drowning from one unexploded missile, and if this goes on, they will soon be drowned from hand small arms.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 23 September 2013 14: 45 New
        +1
        "Lucky" that the RCC engine ignited the fuel. And then, even with a major fire, the ship stayed afloat for 6 days. And if not lit? It would have been a drifting barge.
        1. Vadivak
          Vadivak 23 September 2013 16: 22 New
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          And if not lit? It would have been a drifting barge.


          And there would be an armored board, a missile with a malfunctioning warhead simply bounced or collapsed and that’s all ....
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 23 September 2013 16: 27 New
            +3
            And there would be an armored board, a missile with a malfunctioning warhead

            What is the chance that the warhead will be faulty? And it’s not a fact that she wouldn’t have pierced the armored side. How much has become there? 50 mm? 100 mm? Designers of anti-ship missiles will quickly fasten some tandem hybrid warhead to the rocket. The missile is about to be assembled in a couple of weeks, and the ship?
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 23 September 2013 17: 09 New
              +4
              Quote: Wedmak
              What is the chance that the warhead will be faulty?

              Did I come up with a concrete example?

              Quote: Wedmak
              And it’s not a fact that she wouldn’t have pierced the armored side.

              Could not, she did not have a cumulative warhead. High-explosive fragmentation of 50 kg of explosives, which is about half less than the weight of explosives in the Soviet FAB-250 bomb. if Exocet hit 70 mm. she wouldn’t even have pierced the armor of Gorky, and the ship would not have lost combat effectiveness, and the explosion of the warhead of the anti-ship missile into 150 mm of armor. will give less damage than a 6-inch shell. The picture is not a battleship, but the English cruiser Australia with an armored deck of only 37 mm. And what could a kamikaze do with him?

              In general, which ships are against them and missiles.
              1. Selevc
                Selevc 23 September 2013 20: 23 New
                +1
                Quote: Vadivak
                Could not, she did not have a cumulative warhead. High-explosive fragmentation of 50 kg of explosives, which is about half less than the weight of explosives in the Soviet FAB-250 bomb. if Exocet hit 70 mm. Gorky’s armor, she wouldn’t even pierce the side,

                That right now - I wouldn’t have pierced !!! The shells and bombs of the Second World War are significantly inferior in their power to even mediocre modern missiles ... The reason is simple - neither a shell nor a bomb at a distance of a shot (dropping) just have time to pick up the speed that the RCC is gaining - since it can be launched from great distances. .. Consequently, even with a comparable warhead weight, the kinetic energy of a rocket at the time of a collision with a ship will be several times greater than the energy of a projectile or a bomb ... It is not for nothing that, during tests, anti-ship missiles often show how the target ship is simply breaking through !!!
                And even if we simply compare the weight of the warhead of the missile (let it be the same 50 kg) with the weight of the warhead of an anti-tank projectile, then it will not break through these 70 mm — don’t tell!
                And by the way, the weight of the Exozet warhead rocket is 165 kg ... Given its speed and mass + explosion energy, it would have pierced Maxim Gorky through and through !!!
                1. Kars
                  Kars 23 September 2013 20: 29 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Selevc
                  And even if we simply compare the weight of warhead missiles (even the same 50 kg) with the weight of an anti-tank projectile, then it will not penetrate these 70 mm - don’t tell!

                  By the way, you won’t break through. You not only compare the weight, but write down the strength and cross-section and speed of what the RCC and armor-piercing shell will have when meeting with armor.
                  Quote: Selevc
                  The reason is simple - neither the shell nor the bomb at a distance of a shot (dropping) just do not have time to gain the speed that the RCC is gaining

                  With subsonic anti-ship missiles this number does not channel.
                  1. Selevc
                    Selevc 23 September 2013 20: 56 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Kars
                    By the way, you won’t break through. You not only compare the weight, but write down the strength and cross-section and speed of what the RCC and armor-piercing shell will have when meeting with armor.

                    The same Exozet at its 0.9m speed will easily penetrate these 70 mm of armor without even exploding, simply due to the kinetic energy of the impact ...
                    And given the weight of warheads (the possibility of explosion) + the presence of modern, more powerful explosives - 70 mm is not armor at all ...
                    I also want to note that many of the remaining warships (the same cruisers) after the 2nd World War served as targets during the tests of the first generations of anti-ship missiles ...
                    1. Vadivak
                      Vadivak 24 September 2013 11: 09 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Selevc
                      The same Exozet at its speed of 0.9m can easily penetrate these 70 mm


                      Do you even look at Exocet’s sources for 50 kg of explosive mixture - 60% RDX and 40% TNT - this is one of the most modest RCC. Shell battleship purely for comparison has 890 kg of which 100-120 kg of TNT,
                      1. Santa Fe
                        24 September 2013 20: 14 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Vadivak
                        Shell battleship purely for comparison has 890 kg of which 100-120 kg of TNT,

                        Is it? request
                        EMNIP in armor-piercing coefficients. filling 2-3%
                    2. spravochnik
                      spravochnik 25 September 2013 00: 14 New
                      +2
                      Do not break. A missile is a rather fragile product in a collision and, unless special solutions are used (such as cumulative warheads, as in Soviet anti-ship missiles), it is not capable of penetrating such armor.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 September 2013 22: 15 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Selevc
                  The reason is simple - neither the shell nor the bomb at a distance of a shot (dropping) just do not have time to gain the speed that the RCC is gaining

                  BU-HA-HA !!! laughing
                  Thank you, made laugh. And now - if you please, count a little. Exoset speed (roughly) 930 km / h or 930 / 60 / 60 = 0,258 km / s. (258 m / s) The speed of the 180-mm projectile upon departure from the barrel is 920 / 950 m / s, at the target - depending on the distance - 500-600 m / s.
                  Quote: Selevc
                  Therefore, even with a comparable warhead weight, the kinetic energy of a rocket at the time of a collision with a ship will be several times greater than the energy of a projectile or bomb ..

                  You just forgot that the projectile, unlike the rocket, has sufficient hardness to penetrate armor and explode in the armored space. And "Exetzet", having stuck in an armored belt, at best will explode right on it (without deadly harm to the ship), but rather - it simply collapses from an impact.
                  Quote: Selevc
                  It is not for nothing that during the tests the anti-ship missiles are often shown as a target ship just breaking through !!!

                  In the unarmored part - yes
                  1. Selevc
                    Selevc 23 September 2013 22: 42 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    BU-HA-HA !!! Thank you, made laugh. And now - if you please, count a little. The exoset speed (roughly) is 930 km / h or 930/60/60 = 0,258 km / s. (258 m / s) The speed of a 180-mm projectile upon departure from the barrel is 920/950 m / s, at the target - depending on the distance - 500-600 m / s.

                    Thank you, you made me laugh even more !!! Did you study physics well at school? Consider the mass of the shell and the rocket - the shell is 5-8 kg and the rocket (even without fuel) is about half a ton !!! + note the mass of warhead multiplied by the speed of the rocket ... + note that the cruiser’s hull consists of welded sections and not solid !!!

                    The experience of naval battles of the recent past shows that even heavy armor cannot guarantee the protection of a ship. Today, weapons of destruction have evolved even more, so installing armor protection (or equivalent differentiated armor) with a thickness of less than 100 mm does not make sense - it will not become an obstacle for anti-ship missiles. It seems that 5 ... 10 centimeters of additional protection should reduce damage, because the RCC will already penetrate deep into the ship. Alas, this is an erroneous opinion - during World War II aerial bombs often pierced several decks (including armored) in a row, detonating in holds or even in water under the bottom! Those. damage will be serious in any case, and setting a 100 mm reservation is a futile undertaking.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 September 2013 08: 10 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Selevc
                      For hard-to-understand

                      wassat But this is in vain :)
                      Quote: Selevc
                      Thank you, you made me laugh even more !!!

                      Let's see what makes you so laugh
                      Quote: Selevc
                      Consider the mass of the shell and the rocket - the 5-8 kg shell and the rocket (even without fuel) - about half a ton !!!

                      And where are such fantasies from? The mass of the 180-mm shell of the cruiser of the 26-bis project is 97,5 kg. We consider kinetic energy (did someone talk about physics there? Remember e equal um ce square in half :)
                      rocket = 0,5 m * 260 m / s * 260 m / s / 2 = 16900
                      projectile = 0,0975 t * 600 m / s * 600m / s / 2 = 17550
                      We are surprised to find that kinetic energy is almost equal :)
                      Quote: Selevc
                      For hard-to-understand quotes from one article of the same site

                      wassat Are you quoting Oleg Kaptsov to me? :)))) This is what I survived laughing
                      If you are already undertaking to quote, then quote something more or less serious.
                      Quote: Selevc
                      It seems that 5 ... 10 centimeters of additional protection should reduce damage, because the RCC will already penetrate deep into the ship. Alas, this is a misconception - during World War II aerial bombs often pierced several decks in a row

                      If Oleg had given himself the trouble to study the materiel, he would have been surprised to find that the Second World Bombs, which so famously "pierced armor and exploded in the hold," had a maximum explosive filling factor of 0,1 to 0,5 (the same German air bombs (even high-explosive) had 0,5). in other words, half of the weight of the bomb was the case of the strongest and hardened steel, designed to break through the armor.
                      The rocket of this body has NO. She has only a light glider. But at the same time
                      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 September 2013 08: 10 New
                        +2
                        Conventional armor-piercing bombs weighing from 500 to 1800 kg were adopted by the 1940. Their combat use showed that when bombing from small heights (700-1500 m), the rate of bomb fall did not ensure penetration of all armored decks of battleships or heavy cruisers. An increase in the height of the bombing to 5-7 km sharply reduced the probability of getting into the ship
                        http://commi.narod.ru/txt/shirad/417.htm
                        So, 70 -mm - this is less than the deck armor of a battleship, but more than a heavy cruiser. But there is another little joke that Oleg seemed to have forgotten, but you never knew ...
                        The fact is that deck armor of ships was made of relatively soft homogeneous steel because they were made primarily to withstand shells. The projectile, falling at a small angle relative to the deck armor, had good chances to ricochet from it. But the sides of the ships were covered by cemented steel, which had much greater hardness. Those. if an air bomb could penetrate 50-70 mm mm of homogeneous armor, then penetrate 70 mm mm cemented it would be much harder.
                        The speed in 250-260 m / s corresponds approximately to a fall from a three-kilometer height. So if the exoset warhead is more than completely redone - 165 kg of its mass is only half left on the explosives, and the rest is made in the form of a hardened steel body, then the warhead is possible (although not too likely) to overcome the 70-mm
                      2. Selevc
                        Selevc 24 September 2013 08: 59 New
                        -2
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The fact is that deck armor of ships was made of relatively soft homogeneous steel because they were made primarily to withstand shells.

                        What a cute nonsense - do you even know a little about grades of steel? Have you ever opened a range of steels and alloys produced in the USSR? So take a look and read what is mild and especially hardened steel and their strength and impact characteristics !!! And inappropriately come up with the next myths !!!

                        The same Exozet in terms of size and weight of warheads is quite comparable with the average torpedoes of the 2nd World War - which were used to sink ships of any kind, from small cruisers to huge battleships ... Moreover, Exozet flies almost at a sound, and those old torpedoes sometimes dropped from low-speed biplanes and nevertheless they sometimes inflicted fatal damage to the enemy ...
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 24 September 2013 09: 31 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Selevc
                        So take a look and read what is mild and especially hardened steel and their strength and impact characteristics !!!

                        fool Read at least something about armor, a miracle. For example, here http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2005_N1/04.htm is presented briefly, but capaciously - just for beginners
                        Quote: Selevc
                        The same Exozet in terms of size and weight of warheads is quite comparable to the average torpedoes of the 2 world

                        wassat Tell at least ONE case where a torpedo would pierce armor, huh?
                        But in general - go here, for example, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_WWII.htm and gnaw at the granite of science - in terms of mass and mass of explosives, an “exoset” can only be compared with the lightest air torpedoes.
                      4. Selevc
                        Selevc 24 September 2013 17: 13 New
                        -1
                        Listen, have you ever opened a 5th grade physics textbook? If so, then I must understand that the greater the mass of the body, the greater its inertia !!! That is, any moving body (shell, bomb, rocket), the more its mass, the more difficult it is to disperse it and therefore the more difficult it is to stop it - even children know that !!! And the side of the ship makes its way not at the expense of armor-piercing elements in warhead missiles (although it may be impossible to understand those in the same Exozet that consume more than 100 kg of the warhead's total weight (165 kg) at 50 kg of explosives) - but due to the total weight of the rocket. .. Such a Fool - dispersed almost to the speed of sound weighing at least half a ton, could not stand any that existed at the time of the creation of the RCC, even the first generation, armor ...

                        And do not scare me with words - such as cemented steel or homogeneous armor - it's not scary !!! Unlike you, my friend, I know what cementation is - I spent 14 years of my life designing and creating plain bearings ... Cementation is the surface treatment of steel - to a depth of 5-10 mm - giving strength propertiesyou eat a small relatively thin layer of the surface and to give strength to the entire segment of the ship’s hull, this type of heat treatment is absolutely unsuitable ... And I, unlike you, often held heat-treated parts in my hands — which simply burst from residual stresses after heat treatment ... In the USSR, there was simply no equipment for heat treatment of such huge parts as the armor plate of the ship’s hull ...

                        And when designing the first generation of anti-ship missiles, there were still a lot of armored galoshes left from the time of the 2nd World War ... And do you really think that the designers developing the same Harpoons and Exozets did not put in them the guaranteed defeat of the ships of yesterday? Those product parameters that are usually officially announced by developers are usually 30-50 percent lower than real to ensure product efficiency ... And the fact that these missiles have been in service for so long is an additional confirmation of their versatility and effectiveness ...
                      5. Kars
                        Kars 24 September 2013 17: 35 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Selevc
                        Listen, have you ever opened a physics textbook of the 5 class?

                        Yes, Exet will not penetrate, it will not penetrate. If your arguments about the mass and so on would make sense, then high-explosive shells would penetrate the armor, but for some reason they do not - and they make armor-piercing shells.
                        by the way OFS is heavier than armor-piercing
                      6. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 24 September 2013 18: 23 New
                        0
                        Memoirs of the senior artillery officer Pashen, LKr Luttsov: “Until now, I scold myself for not shooting at the first hour with armor-piercing shells, but only with HE shells. I acted this way according to the general rules, backed up at the last moment by advice from an authoritative source. If we were shooting armor-piercing shells, the Lyon and Admiral Beatty would probably not have survived the battle. One of our high-explosive shells hit the roof of the tower at an acute angle and did not crash, but, breaking it, exploded. "
                      7. Kars
                        Kars 24 September 2013 18: 30 New
                        +1
                        _____________- filling factor we will remember?
                      8. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 24 September 2013 18: 57 New
                        0
                        Hit the roof of a high-explosive tower at an acute angle - the tower is broken, a shell explodes inside, a linear Cr Lyon at the edge of destruction. And you say do not break through.
                      9. Kars
                        Kars 24 September 2013 19: 00 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Hit the roof of a high-explosive tower at an acute angle - the tower is broken, the shell explodes inside

                        And you do not compare a high-explosive ship shell, with anti-ship missiles --- at least you do not compare them by section))) and, for example, the aforementioned shell that got into the Lion from 300 kg of a shell for an explosive had less than 20.







                        Although the weight of explosives in missile warheads is very high, but
                        as established by practice - high-explosive ammunition in principle
                        ARE ABLE TO PUNCH EVEN THIN ARMOR. It is absolutely proven.
                        the whole course of the Russian-Japanese war 1904-1905 years: the most powerful Japanese
                        shells 305 mm weighing 386 kg for the whole war were never able
                        break through the armor of Russian ships, and at best left in it
                        only dents with insignificant depth 15 mm. For example, such a dent
                        remained in the armor of the tower of the main caliber of the battleship "Tsesarevich".
                        But in contrast - in thin unarmored sides
                        Japanese shells made huge holes.
                      10. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 25 September 2013 03: 34 New
                        0
                        so pierced or not? tell me straight
                      11. Kars
                        Kars 25 September 2013 13: 20 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        so pierced or not? tell me straight

                        Watching which ones, or will you say that the OFS are the same? But in essence, the Exocet will not penetrate more than 40-50 mm armor in the best case.
                      12. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 25 September 2013 16: 38 New
                        0
                        With the permission of my comrades, I’ll stick here part of my message from a similar topic:
                        That “Bismarck” is limping along the sea - wait, it’s damaged by a torpedo, the steering wheel is jammed, fans will say! E-mine, 50000 tons of expensive steel can be simply put out of action and even drown in torpedoes on the first trip? Or can build fifty armored EMs?
                        So the twin Tirpitz is limping on the sea .. His brave commandants in five minutes. drowned "Hood." So why are they smearing now? Yes, just an eight-inch (yes, not 16, not 15, not even 11, but eight-inch) Norfolk shell hit the main rangefinder post. “Shaise” - the Germans shout: “we forgot to cover it with half-meter armor!” A better meter: :) Yes and the advanced checkpoint should be better protected, otherwise all the officers would be killed in it. On our forum, some people think: "nonsense, the main thing is that the ship maintains its course and buoyancy" Boisagag! Only here, the British, reveling in plenty of revenge, do not receive a single shell in response!
                        Here comes the blind "Scharnhorst" walking along the sea, having fastened an armored belt thicker than that of the "Tirpitz", according to the designers, he should protect the ship from 16 "British shells at ranges of more than 11 km. He is surrounded by an English squadron .. And the fun begins!
                        Wait, why blind? The fact is that the British cruiser destroyed his radar, and at the same time interrupted the servant. No, not 16 ”, but again with an eight-inch shell. The brave captain thought:“ Mine Goth, did you have to reserve a radar or something? ”And he turned off the aft radar so that the British would not aim their ships and guns, direction finding it.
                        Water boils around Scharnhorst. Why are its two towers silent, are they broken? Yes, like no, and the guns are intact. Is the armored belt pierced and the shell flew into the cellar? Well, no, it’s just that a stupid shell didn’t hit the armored belt at all, but hit a little higher, breaking through the side and the barbet under the armored deck - these are the aiming mechanisms and have failed. And the cellar had to be flooded, as incandescent fragments fell there. Well, then the 15th shell pierced the mastodon through and through! Just hit the middle of the side and went out through the double bottom, turning the boiler room on the way .. Well, nothing, the main thing, the armored belt intact (sorry, could not resist a joke).
                        And such stories, when the armor does not seem to be put to shame by a shell, and armored ships are still drowning, exploding, failing, mass. Just stupid shells and anti-ship missiles do not understand that all of these thick armored belts, towers, and conning towers were created against them. And they’re not getting exactly where shipbuilders would like to. However, anti-ship missiles are no dumber than a shell, they can hit both the side and the superstructure, and if necessary, make a slide.
                        Moral: cool ships wore armored belts, some even bulletproof vests, but never a single ship wore and will not wear an armored suit, armored overalls, or at least an armored jacket with a hood.
                      13. Kars
                        Kars 25 September 2013 16: 58 New
                        +1
                        Bismarck replied to
                        8.49 bow towers. Deutsch
                        battleship was. already far from the one LITO in battle
                        in the Strait of Patia. The crew was worn out
                        night attacks and STAYAJI is not in the best
                        state of mind. Unstable course
                        ship greatly reduced prediction accuracy
                        system.yu fire control it
                        position at the time of the volley. Nevertheless,
                        German l and n kor started firing
                        not bad. His first ZaJIP lay down with a shortage
                        about 900 m from Rodney), second
                        gave a flight to the same 900 meters, but
                        the third covered the target, though without hits,
                        but one shell fell just 20 meters
                        from english l incor. "Rodney"
                        made a dodge maneuver to the left, knocking down
                        Germans shot ku. In its turn
                        Bismarck began to stray to the right,
                        which worsened his shooting. Almost all
                        his subsequent volleys gave a flight
                        (one salvo gave a shortfall) to 8. 5 8 when
                        the Germans again managed to achieve cover.
                        Then "Bismarck") opened fire and
                        1 50-mm guns.
                        "Rodney)) quickly determined the distance
                        to the enemy. Although his first
                        the volley went far to the right, but the third and
                        his fourth salvo was covered by Bismarck)),
                        hairstyle .'1 Norfolk observed one hit
                        from these salvos in 8.50. British
                        l Incor began to diverge so as not to
                        interfere with each other. In 8.53 "Rodney" evaded
                        to the left, revealing corners of fire
                        third tower, and went across the German
                        l and nkoru, while George W is somewhat
                        turned right continuing
                        get close to Bismarck.
                        In 8.54 coming up with a countercourse "Norfolk
                        "Joined the shelling of" Bismarck
                        »From the other side, in addition, from behind
                        from the same side to the battlefield came heavy
                        The first cruiser Dorsetshire. After the first
                        success "Rodney" began to fire with
                        high rate of fire according to
                        its chief director who like
                        it turned out to give an overestimated distance,
                        and the shells went over the flight m and,
                        until in the xnumx the eighteenth salvo did not give
                        hit in a forecastle near the tower
                        "Anton", temporarily incapacitating her.
                        Through t \ .I And NUTU achieved unexpected success
                        Norfolk: 203-mm shell crashed
                        Nose KDP German l Inkor. "Bismarck
                        "Could answer with one tower" Bruno
                        ", And the effectiveness of his fire at that moment
                        fell sharply and has not recovered
                        end of battle.
                        In 8.59 distance to the enemy with
                        Tovi’s flagship dropped to about 1 4 500 m,
                        and "King George W" turned right
                        board to bring the stern into action
                        tower, being on the counter with German
                        battleship. "Rodney" around
                        9.03 turned after the flagship, turning around
                        almost 90 · to the 1 82 course. But
                        before turning he continued to cover German
                        l incor apparently having achieved
                        several hits n and th. One shell with
                        "Rodney" or "King" In 9.02 struck the frontal
                        the slab of the Bruno tower,>
                      14. Santa Fe
                        25 September 2013 17: 29 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        E-mine, 50000 tons of expensive steel can be simply put out of action and even drown in torpedoes on the first trip?

                        Torpedo

                        one of the most dangerous and destructive means of naval combat, striking the most vulnerable, underwater part of the ship - where there are no armored belts, where a hole will cause flooding, where there are propellers and rudders ...

                        The main problem - to release a torpedo
                        Modern aviation does not know how to do this closely (PLO aircraft cannot be cited as an example - after all, a submarine cannot snarl off air defense systems)

                        I'm not talking about the fact that torpedoes and their carriers have nowhere to get from the Papuans (but the Chinese anti-ship missiles, tanks, mortars and kamikaze boats they have)
              2. mehmeh
                mehmeh 6 December 2014 22: 20 New
                0
                He hit the joint of plates. There is a book about damage to ships in the battle of Jutland
        2. Selevc
          Selevc 25 September 2013 08: 48 New
          0
          Once again, high-explosive shells cannot penetrate the armor of the tank - because P = m * v ... Where P is the momentum (amount of movement), m is the mass, v-velocity ... High-explosive shells cannot penetrate the tank’s armor because of the comparatively lower mass than the mass of the sub-caliber projectile ... In principle, there are only two ways to hit a tank’s armor - either increase the mass of the projectile or increase its speed ... As was done throughout the 20th century, the caliber of anti-tank artillery grew or the barrels were lengthened to give the projectile a higher initial speed ... But anti-tank artillery must be mobile - therefore, it is impossible to infinitely increase the caliber (weight) of the projectile and therefore over time transferred to increasingly heavier core metals ...

          Comparing RCC with a projectile is difficult because the weight difference is about 100 times + about 20 times the amount of explosives - even if such a fool gets into the onboard segment of the vessel, then there may not be such a smooth and beautiful hole as from a sub-caliber projectile for a large mechanical impulse - the segment can simply burst or break out, + welds are unlikely to withstand ... I think that all these results have long been obtained yet
          when testing the first generations of anti-ship missiles ...
        3. Kars
          Kars 27 September 2013 16: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: Selevc
          the armor of the tank due to the relatively lower mass than the mass of the projectile ...

          OFS has a mass more than BPS
          Quote: Selevc
          projectile or increase its speed.

          subsonic RCC does not have a speed close to the speed of the BPS
          Quote: Selevc
          Comparing RCC with a projectile is difficult because the weight difference is about 100 times

          In general, initially armor was made to withstand shells weighing from several tons to tons.
    4. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 25 September 2013 08: 53 New
      0
      You, as a practical engineer, should have an idea that not only kinetic energy, but also the elementary mechanical strength of the projectile is important for breaking through the armor. If you do not believe that it will be strange, then put the following experience:
      1. Try using a 5 kg pick to break through a horizontally fixed 5 mm sheet of iron.
      2. Cut a wooden pickaxe of the same mass from the deck (increasing the size can be neglected, since we are interested in the mechanical strength of the impact part) and a similar sharpness of the tip. Well, or make it out of lead, but always the same weight of 5 kg.
      3. Repeat the experience with her.
      4. Compare the result.

      The same analogy: an ice meteorite, sometimes having a speed of tens of km / s and an impressive mass, is destroyed in the atmosphere. And iron, of the same mass, reaches the surface.
    5. Selevc
      Selevc 27 September 2013 16: 18 New
      0
      I will answer you again with the formula from the physics textbook P = M * V, it explains everything ... By the way, the process of destruction of armor at high speeds was well studied in the post-war years - there were even entire departments dealing with the physics of impact destruction of materials ...
  • Vadivak
    Vadivak 24 September 2013 09: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: Selevc
    Right now, it wouldn’t have pierced. And by the way, the weight of the Exozet warhead missile is 165 kg .. that’s how it will not penetrate these 70 mm — don’t tell !!!


    You are so worried about it. This and the manufacturer of Exoset confirms the declared armor penetration of 70 mm (real below Kaptsov writes). Warhead yes 168 kg. And the mass of explosives in it is 50 kg. The speed of Exocet M-0,9, 70 mm ship’s armor is not not 70 mm drywall. This is 7 cm of high-quality steel reinforced with steel bulkheads, and this is an additional reinforcement, in general, somehow ....
  • In the reeds
    In the reeds 23 September 2013 21: 45 New
    0
    Therefore, it took 60 years. Now, with the advent of + to KAZOV’s anti-ballistic missiles, one needs to think about returning the status of the fleet
  • Firstvanguard
    Firstvanguard 24 September 2013 09: 42 New
    0
    And there would be an armored board, a missile with a malfunctioning warhead simply bounced or collapsed and that’s all ....

    Nu-nu, we multiply the mass of anti-ship missiles, at its supersonic speed and come to disappointing conclusions, it has every chance to break through even the battleship, even without warheads wassat
    1. Santa Fe
      24 September 2013 20: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: Firstvanguard
      multiply the mass of RCC

      How about strength?
      Quote: Firstvanguard
      at her supersonic speed

      Where does supersonic come from?
      Most modern anti-ship missiles are 0,8 ... 0,9M. It is understandable - it is very difficult and costly to use supersonic anti-ship missiles (a huge mass - 3 ... 4 and more tons)
      Quote: Firstvanguard
      every chance to break through even a battleship, even without warheads

      Well these are jokes for kindergarten
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 23 September 2013 17: 37 New
    0
    in the USSR, during the exercises in the World Cup with a training missile, a destroyer was sunk, also an engine.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak 23 September 2013 18: 24 New
      +5
      Quote: Tuzik
      in the USSR during the exercises in the World Cup with a training missile sank the destroyer

      Well so it’s a completely different matter, it was the RTO pr.1234 “a pistol at the temple of imperialism” with P-120 Malachite missiles weighing 5,4 tons. The mass of the warhead is 500 kg, part of the missiles was equipped with a special warhead. The marching speed of the rocket is 0,9M.
      And it was April 14, 1987, and the fleet was Pacific and the target missile with an inert warhead hit the superstructure not the destroyer but the Musson MRK. In the first second, the commander and most officers, as well as the first deputy commander of the Primorye Flotilla, Admiral R. Temirkhanov . And then there was the Baltic on April 19, 1990, where combat training was carried out to work out the reflection of a missile attack. Under similar circumstances, the target missile hit the MRC Meteor, knocking down several antennas on the ship’s superstructure. Fly it a little lower - and the tragedy could happen again.

      Oleg Kaptsov, God grant him health, there is an excellent article on VO in these cases

      Division bad weather. Missile corvettes of the Soviet Navy

      September 8, 2012
  • vjhbc
    vjhbc 24 September 2013 01: 49 New
    0
    tell me if there was armor on Sheffield as if it were bitter it would be pierced by an Argentine exoset or just sprinkled overboard
    Quote: KilinY
    In my opinion, with the development of anti-ship missiles, the designers decided that it makes no sense to protect the ships with serious armor, since when missiles hit the ship, one outcome is to the bottom! No armor will save. Although this is only an assumption
    1. Santa Fe
      24 September 2013 02: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: vjhbc
      tell me if there was armor on Sheffield as if it were bitter it would be pierced by an Argentine exoset or just sprinkled overboard

      RCC similar to exoset would collapse upon impact
  • UVB
    UVB 23 September 2013 09: 48 New
    +8
    Article +++! I am not a specialist, just the history of the fleet is my hobby, but I myself came to think about the same thing. And the farther in time, the more paradoxical the situation. And here is another example, maybe a little incorrect. Take the Project 68bis cruiser and the battleships of the Empress Maria type, the latter were not much harder, some 3 thousand tons. But weapons 12-305mm and 20-130mm against 12 152 and 12 100 mm. For booking it is generally better to keep silent.
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 23 September 2013 13: 22 New
      +6
      It seems to me that there are no special riddles with the poor protection of modern destroyers ... Old Soviet cruisers were also designed according to the concept of Linear Battle - when the opponents approached and fired at each other with a barrage of shells - it is important to protect the most vulnerable and dangerous parts of the ship with an armored belt ... And after of war, missile weapons began to dominate among the means of destruction of ships - the armor belt is unlikely to help against it - all countries made a bet on intercepting missiles ...
      And the Americans are very practical in creating a fleet - ships need to be created quickly and a lot of them - what actually they did during the war and now too ..
      I would also like to emphasize that during World War II, the same bombers drowned ships with a very serious armor belt (for example, Tirpitz) - they simply made bombs more powerful and successfully solved the issue of defeating even a heavily protected ship ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 23 September 2013 13: 34 New
        +3
        Quote: Selevc
        just made the bombs more powerful and successfully solved
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 23 September 2013 17: 10 New
        +2
        Yamato and Musashi disagree with you. Tirpitz, only damaged.
      3. In the reeds
        In the reeds 23 September 2013 22: 00 New
        +1
        In this case, Berkeley would drown from an excess of self-doubt of his beloved
  • Crang
    Crang 23 September 2013 09: 55 New
    +5
    Well, cruisers pr.26 are not "very weak", but at one time the best light / light heavy cruisers in the world. But why did the author think of them? Compare immediately with the battleships of the late 19th / early 20th century. At the same displacement, they carried 4 305 mm guns (40-50 tons each and more than 300 kg shells), 8-12 152 mm guns. Rotating parts of gun mounts (with armor of 200-250mm) weighed 200 tons. And all (with turret compartment) all 800 tons. Moreover, such a ship was booked as a tank with 200-300mm side armor and 50-100mm deck armor. The armament was supplemented by a large number of small-caliber guns, torpedoes, mines, etc. And all this fit into 10-15 thousand tons. Therefore, I say that modern rocket ships must be made in the battleships of the early 20th century. Speed ​​is no longer decisive.
    1. shurup
      shurup 23 September 2013 11: 07 New
      +2
      Or, like the Americans, stamping ships in hundreds of canned hulls. Speed ​​is needed for an early replacement of a retired one in a theater.
      Which is better - one armored monster of 100 tons, or ten cans of 000 tons, moreover, on the conveyor?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Santa Fe
        23 September 2013 14: 13 New
        +3
        Quote: shurup
        Or, like the Americans, stamping ships in hundreds of canned hulls. Speed ​​is needed for an early replacement of a retired one in a theater.

        Do you know how many Yankees have built during WWII?

        47. and all are armored! and a bunch of launched ones were cut in the summer of 1945 due to the imminent end of hostilities and the lack of the need for their completion
        Quote: shurup
        Which is better - one armored monster of 100 tons, or ten cans of 000 tons, moreover, on the conveyor?

        The joke is that in the case of Burke and the armored 26 bis displacement is the same

        "Little Rock" (type "Cleveland"), launched in 1944
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 23 September 2013 14: 30 New
      0
      Well, the cruiser pr.26 is not "very weak", but at one time the best in the world

      Reading the same Nikolsky immediately relieve the feeling that Project 26 was the best in the world ... especially if you add the quality of their construction to the design features.
      A copy of the Italian light cruisers with dubious GK decisions, overweight (however, it seems that this applies to all post-London light cruisers and the beginning of WWII), i.e. virtually without the possibility of modernization ...

      By the way, the opinion of the compiler of a pretty good guide to our ships

      КAccording to the existing world classification, pr. 26 and 26 bis racers belonged to heavy cruisers. But because of the original main caliber - 180 mm - and their reservation, they were weaker than even the first British and French heavy cruisers, and in comparison with the German or American "peers" looked frankly weak. The bet on high speed itself, most likely, did not pay off. If only because in a combat situation the newest Molotov still developed no more than 28 knots
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 September 2013 22: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      Rotating parts of gun mounts (with armor in 200-250mm) weighed 200 tons

      WITHOUT armor. And by the way, without guns too
      Here's the towers of "St. Andrew the First-Called" http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/WeaponBook/Andrew/30.htm
      The weight of the bow turret armor was 260,7 t; stern - 252,6, the weight of the structure and mechanisms of each tower without guns - 224 t. (All tons are English).
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 23 September 2013 09: 57 New
    12
    Well, if “Maxim Gorky” with the main caliber from the first shot would cover the target at a distance of 200 km., And the artillery of universal caliber 100 mm. at least every tenth shell shot down an air target at a distance of 50 km., and the detection means would be seen as Spay1, and KOR-2 could detect enemy submarines under water and destroy ships, it would still be armed with surprise the whole world survivability .
    But seriously, Oleg, if modern designers had the opportunity to cover everything in the same displacement with reliable armor and organize an anti-torpedo belt, would they really not have done that? It is somehow difficult to compare KOR-2 with SiHok, SH-60B weighs about 10 tons at maximum load, and KOR-2 is only about 3 tons. 2 ShKASS and 4 FAB-100 (this is with wild overload), this is the limit of KOR-2, SiHokov’s ammunition is an order of magnitude larger and heavier, and much more fuel is needed for it.
    And from a good life, are there really such huge superstructures on the Berks? You have to pay for smart systems ...
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 14: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, if "Maxim Gorky" with the main caliber from the first shot would cover the target at a distance of 200 km., And the artillery of universal caliber 100 mm

      From the article:
      no one compares the Burke and the cruiser Maxim Gorky in terms of their combat capabilities. In this case, only a mass of mechanisms and load articles are of interest.
      Quote: Nayhas
      It is somehow difficult to compare KOR-2 with SiHok, SH-60B weighs about 10 tons in maximum load, and KOR-2 is only about 3 tons

      But what about the catapult and cranes? (somewhere below the branch I left a comment on this topic)
      Quote: Nayhas
      And from a good life, are there really such huge superstructures on the Berks?

      The "Albany" they are even more)) But this did not affect the full ship and / or in comparison with the ancestor - Baltimore
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 23 September 2013 16: 32 New
        0
        (C) At Albany they are even larger)) But this did not affect the entire ship’s complete ship, in comparison with the grandparent Baltimore (end of quote) - well, it’s clear that there are more add-ons, he himself is twice as big as Burke .
        Actually, it was a little reflected - Albany became HEAVier than Baltimore by 500 tons and got into the water two meters lower. Those. all the towers of the main and universal caliber were removed from the cruiser, the superstructure was completely removed along with the conning tower - they stuffed rockets into the cellar and built an aluminum tower - and they got a ship heavier! At the same time, the ship does not carry (unlike Burke) two helicopters on board, there are no hangars, and steel superstructures on Arly Burke
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 17: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Well, it’s clear that there are more add-ons; he himself is twice as large as Burke.

          Nobody compares Albany and Burke.
          It’s just that the size of the Albany add-ons did not affect him in any way and compared with the original artillery cruiser
          Quote: Tlauicol
          a little reflected - Albany became HEAVier than Baltimore at 500t

          3%.
          Arguing that the cruiser received even more bulky and heavy weapons and SLA (look at the size of the radar target illumination - this is a prodigy !!)
          Quote: Tlauicol
          rockets were stuffed in the cellar ... In this case, the ship does not carry (unlike Burke) two helicopters on board, there are no hangars



          2 Talos air defense systems with a range of 150..180 km
          2 short-range air defense systems "Terrier"
          1 ASROK anti-submarine

          + on the little things: helipad, small TA, later added 2 x 127 mm universal


          SAM Talos with part of the charging cellar. And here you are complaining about the lack of a helicopter)))

          Rim-8 missile of Talos complex / The cruiser’s ammunition included 100 stacks
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 23 September 2013 19: 21 New
            +1
            Answering Neihas, you yourself compared the add-ons of Albany and Burke. Talos-shmalos yes, well, the cruiser itself is twice as much! And the superstructure is aluminum, and there are no hangars, not just 4, even 1 helicopter, displacement has increased. And then, the charging cellars of 9 towers + the towers themselves and the barbets also weighed something, + ammunition. And still, when upgrading, we get the ship heavier, even with allum. add-on!
            Take the smaller M. Gorky and shove half of these 200 missiles into it! Che doesn’t cram :)) But helicopter hangars also need to be installed and a huge steel superstructure .. Here comes Arli Burke without armor with equal displacement.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2013 22: 29 New
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Answering Neihas, you yourself compared the add-ons of Albany and Burke.

              Where did I write this?

              And from a good life, are there really such huge superstructures on the Berks?

              The "Albany" they are even more)) But this did not affect the full ship and / or in comparison with the ancestor - Baltimore

              It's just that the add-in can not radically increase in / and, no matter how enormous it is (Berk has, by the way, very modest)
              Quote: Tlauicol
              And the superstructure is aluminum, and there are no hangars, not just 4, even 1 helicopter,

              There Talos are worth
              Or ASROK box

              Quote: Tlauicol
              displacement increased

              On 3%
              + crew increased by 100 people.
              Quote: Tlauicol
              And then, the charging cellars of 9 towers + the towers themselves and the barbets also weighed something, + ammunition.

              Instead of 4 air defense systems with 8 radar target illumination. + search radars, telescoping sonar and communication systems

              AN / SPG-49, antenna post weight 22 tons

              Quote: Tlauicol
              Take the smaller M. Gorky and shove half of these 200 missiles into it!

              This cannot be done, because the relationship between the on / off, the volume of usable space and the load is NONLINEAR
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 24 September 2013 05: 56 New
                0
                (C) “This cannot be done, because the relationship between the w / w, the volume of usable space and the load is NONLINEAR” (end of quote) - this is absolutely true, the same applies to add-ons apparently. Because Burke weighs so much.
                Let's go back to our rams: 100 Talos = 300t, armored storage tank, equipment and prelaunch 200t rockets. This is the mass of two Baltimore towers without cellars and mechanisms, without charges and shells. ALL towers were removed, missiles were put, and still the Albany cruiser is getting harder! A huge aluminum superstructure coupled with the equipment "ate" all the extra tons!
                So with Burke
                1. Santa Fe
                  24 September 2013 20: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  "This cannot be done, because the relationship between the on / off, the volume of usable space and the load is NONLINEAR"

                  You didn’t quite rightly catch my point
                  zavisimost between military and non-linear combat load - if 10 missiles penetrate a cruiser of 100 thousand tons, this does not mean. that 20 thousand should fit on a cruiser of 200 thousand tons. 300-400 will fit on a large cruiser

                  Reverse example: M. Gorky is 2 times less than Albany. But it’s not at all a fact that even 50 Talos will fit there
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  200t armored storage tank, equipment and prelaunch rocket

                  There were TWO cellars - for bow and stern air defense systems
                  and how many PUs did they weigh?



                  ps / don’t tell me where the data on the mass of the armor of the Mk.19 - 200 tons?

                  http://www.okieboat.com/GMM/GMM%203%20and%202%20CHAPTER%205%20Guided%20Missile%2


                  0Launching% 20Systems.pdf
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  A huge aluminum superstructure coupled with the equipment "ate" all the extra tons!

                  And 2 SAM Terrier, ASROK and Gigantism radars, of course, weigh nothing

                  + increase in energy consumption
                  + missile control posts
                  + sneaky CEO
                  + crew increase of 10%
                  + tall superstructures, mast pipes, ramps and bulky radars at great heights (ballast compensation required)
                  + "small things" - a helipad (a supply of jet fuel?), two station wagons, small torpedoes

                  Control post of SAM Talos:


                  The Talos hit the target destroyer. Non-acidic RCC?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 25 September 2013 03: 41 New
                    0
                    absolutely true - and this is without hangars and without a steel superstructure! so why does Burke surprise you? I think you yourself explained everything: the add-on and the equipment gobbled up the armor.
                    Non-acidic RCC? still - that's why the towers are overboard, you give 200 rockets!
                    1. Santa Fe
                      25 September 2013 14: 23 New
                      0
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      absolutely true - and this is without hangars and without a steel superstructure! so why does Burke surprise you?

                      Burke completely different weight category and other question

                      "Albany" - a curious example of how radar, ASG and electronics could not significantly affect the military and cruiser - it is equal to its predecessor.
                      And this despite the fact that the cruiser was stopped with paranormal weapons (I'm talking about Talos)
                      Mk 12 Talos GMLS
                      Weights: 800,000 lbs (unknown)
                      Capacity: 52 rounds
                      Crew: 33 men
                      Used on: Albany and Long Beach


                      +2 SAM Tartar
                      Mk 11 Tartar GMLS
                      weights: 148,450 lbs empty, 201,370 lbs loaded (missiles + fluids)
                      Magazine Dimensions: 196 ”diameter, 209” height
                      Capacity: 42 missiles
                      Rate of Fire: 1 salvo every 18 seconds.
                      Crew: 3 men


                      + overall ASROK
                      AND WATER DISPLAY REMAINED (though we still did not take into account the height of the superstructures wink)

                      As for Burke - it makes sense to compare it with M. Gorky. And there, too, a paradoxical result arises
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Non-acidic RCC? still - that's why the towers are overboard, you give 200 rockets!

                      A modern rocket like Talos will cost several million dollars (if a 1,5 ton Ax costs almost $ 2 million)

                      Therefore, hollowing targets in a couple of tens of miles is preferable with guns. Here, for example, this one - 8 '/ 55 Mk. 71 lightweight mount
                      (year of development 1975, weight 203 mm of an installation with an ammunition load of 75 rounds (automatic loading) - 78 tons, rate of fire - 12 rounds / min)

                      Experimental Mk.71 on the destroyer USS Hull
  • shurup
    shurup 23 September 2013 09: 57 New
    +6
    A ship is a complex in which a failure (breakdown) of one system leads to the transformation of the rest into dead iron.
    Similarly, in the absence of UPS and the disappearance of 220v in the socket, your home computer does not even have time to save data.
    Duplication, triple in places, batteries in all critical places - this is able to eat up the stock of displacement.
    Vitality now has a different meaning and the struggle for it is automated.
    1. Sadikoff
      Sadikoff 23 September 2013 11: 23 New
      +4
      That electronics is the weakest link and that’s why it’s necessary to beat all the stressors on this heel, the weapon EMP steers!
    2. In the reeds
      In the reeds 23 September 2013 12: 26 New
      +1
      Simplified sorry for the pun, but what about people or all the money
    3. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 14: 03 New
      0
      Quote: shurup
      Duplication, triple in places, batteries in all critical places - this is able to eat up the stock of displacement.

      Are additional batteries weighing as much as 1500-2000 tons?

      1,5 - 2 thousand tons - this is the standard displacement of modern diesel-electric submarines - with a hull, diesels, batteries, instruments and weapons
      1. shurup
        shurup 23 September 2013 14: 54 New
        +1
        The author proceeds from the standard (normal) displacement, intentionally forgetting that overload is a chronic disease of Russian shipbuilders resulting from a confusion of customer requirements.
        I am not surprised at the difference between 1500-2000 tons of displacement between the Admiral Lazarev and the Red Caucasus, which were the same hull, with the exception of the lengthening of the forecastle.
        In addition, the author may not know the difference between a long and a short ton.
        The point is the lack of information on the issue that the author wants to eliminate at our expense.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 23 September 2013 15: 02 New
          +4
          The point is the lack of information on the issue that the author wants to eliminate at our expense.

          Are you sorry or what? smile
        2. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 15: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: shurup
          which were one and the same body, with the exception of the lengthening of the forecastle.

          In the case of Burke, this is not observed - on the contrary, it is shorter than 26 bis by 20 meters. But 3 meters thicker.

          The dimensions can be twisted as you like - the main thing is why the ship still displaces the same amount of water if there are less heavy mechanisms
          Quote: shurup
          In addition, the author may not know the difference between a long and a short ton.

          light ton, etc. Anglo-American insanity can not be considered
          translate times into pounds in kg, and halons in liters and you will be happy
          Quote: shurup
          The point is the lack of information on the issue that the author wants to eliminate at our expense.

          The author just suggested an interesting, in his opinion, topic for discussion
          1. postman
            postman 23 September 2013 18: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            the main thing is why the ship still displaces the same amount of water if there are less heavy mechanisms

            1. “You lifted” up (shifted the CM, Metacentric height) radar antennas and some of the CIU elements (on platform 01 in the bow of the superstructure) - this must be compensated
            2. “You lifted” up, under the PU deck with ammunition, this must be compensated
            3. "You wanted" modern electronics, which, in addition to air conditioning and ventilation systems, require large volumes, this requires a half-empty place (here you can fill in extra tons of kerosene and you can’t hide a couple of tomahawks).
            Look at the air conditioning system (weight, submarine volumes, type Los Angeles - data is open)
            + comfort (air conditioning, gym, cinema, massage room, salon of intimate services, etc.) for the staff - this must be compensated
            4. “you wanted” and “you pulled up” bulwark about 40 m long and 1,4 m high to reduce the impact of waves and spray in stormy weather on nose installations, which something weighs - this must be compensated
            5. cruisers are built on a production line in a block-sectional way (ten blocks and sections) with modular installation of component parts and pre-saturated sections, this makes it possible to use the method of aggregate repair and quickly replace faulty units with the personnel of the ship and its service shipthat excludes manipulations to reduce the volume
            6. the use of various noise absorbing devices and coatings, low-noise power equipment manufactured by specially developed technology, which have the same (oddly enough) weight.
            7. Belt conveyors and elevators are mounted on the ship for transferring goods from the upper deck to the lower and moving them around the compartments. One of the conveyors provides horizontal movement of goods along the entire length of the ship - from bow to stern. In the bow and stern sections there are two posts for receiving goods delivered by helicopters, [i] which too ... (repeat 6) [/ i]
            8. The ship has a hull with a long tank extended far into the stern, extending to 85%. Its lengths, clipper nose and transom stern, [i] that too ... (repeat 6) [/ i]
            9. "You wanted" an additional radar AN / SPS-49, being backup (although it doesn’t help) in case of failure of the AN / SPY-1A station, whose weight (49th) is 17 tonsi] that too ... (repeat 1) [/ i]
            approx. ONLY this crap (item 9) has moved the center of gravity 0,152 m higher, which led to a decrease in the stability of the ship and reduced the already small margin of its buoyancy. At least 70 tons of ballast was added to compensate for this negative effect.
            10. "You wanted" to fuck (pooh of course) a semi-automatic emergency system with the help of special sensors informs the command about the nature and extent of damage and allows you to remotely close hatches and doors to prevent the spread of fire and water, that the system that the transmission and data processing lines weight must be compensated
            11,12, 13,14 and so on.
            Everything in the compartment gives that cumulative effect on displacement and booking.
            Either that, or inside is hiding the hyperboloid of engineer Garin, or fifty Abramsov
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2013 19: 23 New
              0
              Quote: Postman
              "You pulled up" up (shifted the CM, Metacentric height) radar antennas and some of the elements of the BIUS

              But what about the Albany cruiser?
              V / and remains almost the same. I did not complain about stability
              Quote: Postman
              2. "You pulled up" up, under the PU deck with ammunition

              but "removed" from the deck of the tower GK with their barbets
              the mass of the swinging part of the M-3-180 is 86 tons !!
              Quote: Postman
              “You wanted” modern electronics, which in addition to air conditioning and ventilation systems require large volumes, this requires a half-empty place

              I indicated this at the end of the article. Ship layout density - extra hull designs
              But is it really able to compensate for the lack of 1500 tons of armor ?!
              Quote: Postman
              bulwark about 40 m long and 1,4 m high

              from which bulwark? what is its thickness? out of tin again?
              Quote: Postman
              cruisers are built on the production line in a block-sectional way

              progress in metal processing, assembly and installation technologies, accurate computer calculation, welding instead of rivets (this is an extra hundred tons!)
              Quote: Postman
              Belt conveyors and elevators are mounted on the ship for transferring goods from the upper deck to the lower ones and moving them around the compartments.

              Ammunition elevators of 100 mm and 45 mm guns were lighter?
              Or mezzanization of GK cellars?
              Quote: Postman
              the use of various noise absorbing devices and coatings, low-noise power equipment

              Bulky unresolved GEM, ship power station, el. system
              Quote: Postman
              You wanted an "additional radar AN / SPS-49

              KDP covered with sheets of armor?
              sighting devices, gyroscopic devices and calculators, tube radio station, two steel masts
              Quote: Postman
              air conditioning, gym, cinema, mass
              [/ comment-show]
            2. shurup
              shurup 24 September 2013 00: 38 New
              0
              Or Fram tank roll and trim so that there is no sea sickness, as well as for helicopters.
              During construction, they weigh nothing, but the presence can be determined visually.
    4. Avenger711
      Avenger711 23 September 2013 17: 13 New
      0
      And the dishes are drowning in one fell swoop.
      1. Santa Fe
        23 September 2013 19: 25 New
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        "You pulled up" up (shifted the CM, Metacentric height) radar antennas and some of the elements of the BIUS


        But what about the Albany cruiser?
        V / and remains almost the same. I did not complain about stability
        1. postman
          postman 23 September 2013 20: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          But what about the Albany cruiser?

          What is Albany? almost immediately Obama, barack, ugh i.e. Albany
          4xAN / SPG-49

          this is not AN / SPY-1 in a certain tower:

          and besides him there:

          LAMPS subsystem helicopter;
          helicopter subsystem equipment LAMPS Mark З;
          Radar for detecting airborne (AN / SPS-49) and surface (AN / SPS-55) targets;
          own recognition station — alien AN / UPX-29;
          EW subsystem AN / SLQ-32;
          navigation equipment;
          BIOUS PLO AN / SQQ-89 with an inboard HAS AN / SQS-53 and a towed HAS AN / SQR-19;
          digital radio line terminal equipment (LINK-11);
          automated command and control subsystem (Mark 1);
          automated subsystem of coordinated control of ship weapon systems (Mark 1);
          radar control unit with headlight (AN / SPY-1);
          antenna and transceiver part of a multifunctional radar (AN / SPY-1);
          Automated subsystem for functional testing, troubleshooting and localization of faults (Mark 545);
          information display subsystem;
          radio communication equipment;
          Digital Radio Link Terminals (LINK-4A);
          launcher of the passive jamming subsystem (Mark 36 SRBOC);
          automated artillery fire control subsystem (Mark 86);
          Automated fire control subsystem of the Aegis SAM (Mark 99);
          launchers for shipboard missiles, missiles and missile systems (UVP Mark 41);
          Automated fire control subsystem of the Kyrgyz Republic “Tomahawk”;
          automated subsystem of fire control of anti-ship missile systems "Harpoon";
          anti-aircraft artillery complex "Volcano-Falanks" (Mark 15);
          Automated anti-submarine weapon fire control subsystem (Mark 116)

          Announce the entire list.
          All this junk must be nourished, tied, cooled
          and 2 MK 12

          it is not for you
          32 + 64 MK-41, loaded with buns

          (by the way, the same thing needs to be cooled sometimes, and sometimes heated, and commuted (better of course, communicated) again, it is necessary)
          13700 is where to unwind, it's not 6 with something
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 23 September 2013 09: 59 New
    +7
    It’s not entirely clear to me why the author compares the American destroyer and the Soviet cruiser. American ships have always been less saturated with weapons than Soviet or Russian. And the displacement has nothing to do with it. And if you compare the same "Maxim Gorky" with the modern, say, frigate of the project 11356R / M? The frigate has a displacement of almost half, and is packed with weapons so that with regard to fire and range, it covers Gorky by 2-3 times. And if you theoretically exclude anti-submarine weapons (which Gorky did not have and could not be), then what kind of comparisons are there.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 23 September 2013 10: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      American ships have always been less saturated with weapons than Soviet or Russian.
      Cruisers of the Maxim Gorky type were created before the war on the project of light Italian cruisers, where instead of 152 mm guns they put 180 mm, essentially making the armament of a heavy cruiser. The guns were with a forced range, and all three guns in the tower had one swinging part. On the following light cruisers of the pre-war bookmark of the Chapaev type, these dubious innovations were abandoned. As for “they were always less saturated”, here is an image of an American light cruiser of the Brooklyn type with fifteen 152 mm guns and a bunch of anti-aircraft barrels.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 23 September 2013 10: 57 New
        +3
        The first of them came to light soon after the commissioning - the body structure was too weak, which led to damage in stormy conditions and to the separation of the nose parts after torpedo hits. The shape of the bow of the hull was generally unsuccessful, reducing seaworthiness and creating problems in the protection of bow artillery cellars [11]. The second drawback became apparent already during the war, when the installation of new weapons and equipment led to a significant overload, reaching 15% of the standard displacement, which, in turn, led to serious problems with stability [11]. In addition, the Brooklyn, like the rest of the American cruisers, is criticized for the lack of torpedo weapons, although its need for ships of this class is controversial.


        Answer:
        Project 68 bis and 68K cruisers. Unfortunately, Brooklyn did not find radio-technical weapons.

        68 bis
        Project armament

        Artillery:
        12 (4 × 3) × 152 mm (B-38 guns in the MK-5bis turret installations)
        12 (6 × 2) × 100 mm (CM 5 - 1 bis)
        32 (16 × 2) × 37 mm (MZA V-11M)
        Torpedo
        2 × 5 - 533 mm (PTA-53-68).
        Mines (can carry mines in the overload on the upper deck)
        132 (arr. 1908) / 76 (arr. 1926) / 68 (Design Bureau "Crab")

        Radio weapons

        BIUS - “Link”
        General Detection Radar:
        Guys-2 or
        MP-500 Cleaver (Big Net) or
        "Keel"
        NC Detection Radar - “Reef”
        GAS - “Tamir-5N”
        Fire control radar:
        2 × "Volley" for AC GK
        2 Stag-B radio range finders
        2 × "Anchor-M" (as part of the SPN-500) for universal AC
        Dawn for TA

        command rangefinding posts:

        2 × KDP2-8-III for artillery GK
        2 × SPN-500 for universal AC

        heat direction finding station - “Sun-1” state recognition radar - “Torch-MO / MZ”


        68K


        weaponry

        Artillery: 12 (4 × 3) × 152 mm (B-38 guns in MK-5 turret installations); 8 (4 × 2) × 100 mm (B-54).
        Anti-aircraft artillery: 28 × 37 mm (66-K).
        Torpedo - 2 × 5 - 533 mm (PTA-53-68).
        Mines - 68 (can carry mines on the upper deck).


        Radio weapons

        General Detection Radar - Guys
        NC detection radar - 2 × "Reef"
        GAS - “Tamir-5N”
        Fire control radar:
        2 × "Volley" for AC GK
        2 × Anchor (as part of SPN-500) for universal control units
        command rangefinding posts:
        2 × KDP2-8-III for artillery GK
        2 × SPN-500 for universal AC
        State recognition radar - “Fakel-MO / MZ”
    2. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 14: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      American ships have always been less saturated with weapons than Soviet or Russian.

      Come on?!
      See how many weapons at the end of the Albany article
      Quote: Wedmak
      displacement has nothing to do with it.

      Displacement FOR EVERYTHING
      Quote: Wedmak
      And if you compare the same "Maxim Gorky" with the modern, say, frigate of the project 11356R / M?

      If you want to be surprised, then you should compare the frigate, for example, with the destroyer Giring of WWII
      Weapons, security, survivability, cruising range, radio electronics and LMS, habitat standards

      Albany, modernized Baltimore
    3. In the reeds
      In the reeds 23 September 2013 22: 17 New
      0
      If the Anglo-States had 11356 during operations in Normandy, who would shoot down German pillboxes at the landing, and after all, technology needs to go ashore so that it feels like that
  • Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 23 September 2013 10: 02 New
    +4
    Yes, even in a short battle, any modern cruiser, destroyer, frigates ... even kirdyk from Aurora’s grandmother will come :), but there’s one thing, but you still need to live on for a short grandmother, and this is awesome.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 23 September 2013 10: 18 New
      +1
      kirdyk will come even from the grandmother of "Aurora" :)

      I remember the film "Sea Battle" ... wink
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 23 September 2013 12: 40 New
        +1
        When we went to Motovsky on the "Andes" the half of the fleet looked and was silently in a rag how old Man Murmansk works.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 23 September 2013 13: 01 New
          0
          Is it possible in more detail?
          1. In the reeds
            In the reeds 23 September 2013 14: 21 New
            +3
            Yes, which is more detailed. In the yard of 1980 I could be mistaken for a year. It has been a long time since almost all SFs arrived in Motovsky Bay and began to rehearse landing operations in Norway. The entire Pechenga MP regiment was at the BDK but I don’t know who else. We accompanied Pechenga. The bottom line is when the tanks went from the BDK to the shore. Only the cruiser Murmansk and could bend their heads in the hills of the defenders on the shore.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 23 September 2013 10: 16 New
    +3
    The article and the topic are interesting, put a plus. But, for the sake of justice and objectivity, for the sake of the author, it would be necessary to draw a balance more accurately. Namely, a plate or a listing of the loads, not only for the old cruiser, but also for Arly Burke.
    And then in the text the author says that the artillery towers of the Civil Code weigh so much and do not say how much the modular launcher weighs. And so on the points.
    I propose to slightly revise the article with the addition of information in the key:
    1. Comparison of geometric dimensions.
    2. Bringing loads on both ships. If some part of the information is unknown to the author, then indicate it directly. With a request for all specialists in the subject, supplement the picture.
    3. A detailed weight distribution of weapons and supplies on board with a balance sheet.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: abrakadabre
      Namely, a plate or a listing of loads is not only for the old cruiser, but also for arly burke

      And you also need the keys to the apartment where the money is

      Seriously speaking, we need to look at the weight distribution according to domestic 1134, these should be in the public domain
      Quote: abrakadabre
      and doesn’t say how much the modular launcher weighs.

      Each MK-3-180 tower weighed 247 tons - 10 tons more than the standard 61-charging Mk.41, equipped with Tomahawks and anti-aircraft missiles
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 23 September 2013 14: 33 New
      0
      I read I remember a good book in my childhood - in my opinion, Shipbuilding from the past to the future.
      There were interesting facts:
      the share of the target load of warships in the displacement has not actually changed since they were created in the form of sailboats in the 17th century. up to the current moment.
      1. Santa Fe
        23 September 2013 14: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: cdrt
        the share of the target load of warships in the displacement has not actually changed since they were created in the form of sailboats in the 17th century. up to the current moment.

        today a figure has met - the share of armament in a super-BOD pr. 1134-B (missile cruiser, just chock-full of weapons - which only two Storm air defense systems cost! ammunition - 80 missiles)
        the share of weapons is 19% of the displacement, almost like on a 26-bis cruiser ... but the BOD 1134-B does not have any armor ... and the same. What else was the load spent on?

        rocket B-611 complex "Storm".
  • Igarr
    Igarr 23 September 2013 10: 16 New
    10
    Oleg himself (and us too) and answered in the article.
    The mass of electronic equipment. Hydroacoustics.
    All this economy must be reserved for nutrition. So batteries.
    Ventilation - give way. Air ducts occupy a volume.
    The approach to placing people is different. Come on Amer 4-6kv. meters per one. Our sailors in three tiers fit. On the submarine - generally priority.
    In the "A. Nevsky" KR, there were 180 km of cables alone. So, a meter cable type ZKPB weighs 1,5 - 2 kg.
    Imagine how many cables (copper) now.
    Fiber is good for information flows. Power drives on fiber optic lines will not go - only copper.
    .
    Good material. Thank you Oleg.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Igarr
      In the "A. Nevsky" KR, there were 180 km of cables alone. So, a meter cable type ZKPB weighs 1,5 - 2 kg.

      A. Nevsky - a cruiser, pr. 68 bis (1950s), the world's last classic artillery cruisers, full military - about 18 thousand tons (that's what a 100 mm armored belt brings!)

      About cables - 180 mx 000 kg = 2 tons. Too small to compete in weight with an armored belt
      Quote: Igarr
      The mass of electronic equipment. Hydroacoustics.

      Bronepoyas, conning tower, barbets of the GK towers
      Quote: Igarr
      All this economy must be reserved for nutrition. So batteries.

      Technology imperfections, riveted housing instead of aluminum superstructures and plastic hangars - heavy Steel
      Quote: Igarr
      Come on Amer 4-6kv. meters per one. Our sailors in three tiers fit.

      right, because there were 3 times more
      Quote: Igarr
      Good material. Thank you Oleg.

      Please Igor
  • Selendis
    Selendis 23 September 2013 10: 46 New
    +1
    Well, plus weight sort for the Yankees, especially during exercises or military campaigns;). But seriously, Igarr is right, auxiliary modern systems and their duplication devours an additional displacement.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 23 September 2013 12: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Selendis
      auxiliary modern systems
      Modern weapons require a VERY rigorous supply of parameters for temperature, lack of vibration, extreme humidity, etc. I already wrote, I was in the boiler room 68B at the transition - a hell of a job. Any electronics in these conditions will not work categorically. Again, tight cubicles with 3-tier beds and a tank feed system. There is no dining room for personnel; they eat, sitting on berths, what they brought from the caboose galley.
      And to add to this just a huge amount of on-board spare parts carried with you and a place for its placement, all this is a huge weight and volumes ...
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 23 September 2013 13: 18 New
        +1
        So it was on all the ships, and ate at the tables of barrels above the table, the regular place on the ceiling swayed. And there was plenty of crew floor in a glitch MB did not eat at all
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 23 September 2013 18: 22 New
      0
      It just should not be devoured, because the displacement consumption is auxiliary, that is, everything except weapons and armor, well, the engines there, fuel, the crew should in theory fall due to the growth of automation and the level of technology.
  • Misantrop
    Misantrop 23 September 2013 10: 53 New
    +3
    Quote: Igarr
    The approach to placing people is different. Come on Amer 4-6kv. meters per one. Our sailors in three tiers fit. On the submarine - generally priority.
    That's just according to the living conditions on the nuclear submarines of the USSR many times better conditions are created than on the US nuclear submarines (which is why there is a decent difference in the displacement in their favor). On most of their submarines, a very small percentage of the crew has their berth (not to mention the cabin). Sleep shift in combat posts
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 23 September 2013 11: 05 New
      +2
      Sleep shift in combat posts

      How is that? That is, next to the combat post there is a “couch” and the changer immediately sniffs, curled up?
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 September 2013 12: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: Wedmak
        That is, next to the combat post there is a "couch"
        Dreaming ... wink Most often - hanging in a narrow aisle, where it turns out to attach. Remember how the dive officer slept in "Remove the Periscope"? That's about the same. And we equipped the “couches” ourselves with BP. Alarms sometimes are VERY long (up to one and a half days easily), so he sent fighters to sleep in shifts. And rest, and pull out is not difficult when needed. And then you’ll still reach the residential block ...
        1. In the reeds
          In the reeds 23 September 2013 13: 44 New
          +1
          Yes, the submariners are so ... We stood for 2 hours and down the dog’s cold
    2. Igarr
      Igarr 23 September 2013 11: 06 New
      +1
      I do not argue. Not a melt.
      And even that, I said something about .. "fit". Maybe now every "crucian" on the admiral's cabin is supposed to be on the waist.
      Long time ago I left the fleet.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 23 September 2013 12: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Igarr
        Maybe now every "crucian" on the admiral's cabin is supposed to be on the waist.
        Well, this is a bust, but on the submarine everyone (including the seconded ones) has their OWN berth. And - in the cabin, and not hell knows where
        1. pl675
          pl675 24 September 2013 00: 24 New
          0
          I'm wildly sorry
          submarine projects can voice, where each / even seconded / own bed?
      2. In the reeds
        In the reeds 23 September 2013 14: 47 New
        0
        Crucian is also a soldier. And on the cabinets, respected even the Kubrick, there wasn’t everything from the second deck
        1. pl675
          pl675 24 September 2013 01: 27 New
          0
          no, he is not a soldier.
          sailor like min.
      3. jjj
        jjj 23 September 2013 15: 20 New
        0
        The most amazing thing is that young officers require comfort on boats as on cruise ships. This, as they say in Severodvinsk, is reflected even in the documents on the results of tests of the lead boats of 955 and 885 pr.
      4. ka5280
        ka5280 23 September 2013 15: 20 New
        0
        At the auction of the fleet, a cadet cabin of 8 square meters with a separate bathroom =) Cabin 3 mechanics consists of an office and a bedroom, plus a separate bathroom.
    3. leon-iv
      leon-iv 23 September 2013 11: 49 New
      +2
      + I want to add more serious automation of everything and everything to our nuclear submarines
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv 23 September 2013 11: 03 New
    +1

    And in fact, ANY modern ship will send any old battleship to the bottom.
    1. PN
      PN 23 September 2013 13: 17 New
      0
      But not with the first RCC.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 23 September 2013 14: 44 New
      +2
      And in fact, ANY modern ship will send any old battleship to the bottom.

      Are you sure?
      For example, what will send the same BOD pr.1155 or destroyer pr.956 to the bottom of an Iowa-type LC?
      Well, or - 22350? By the fact that 8-16 “shells” weighing 300 kg arrive (that is, somewhere from a 280mm gun)? It is worth remembering - how long Yamato died, how many bombs, torpedoes were required.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 23 September 2013 14: 55 New
        +2
        how long Yamato died, how many bombs, torpedoes were required.

        So you do not compare those bombs and torpedoes with modern anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. And God himself ordered the one and a half-ton FAB to be dumped onto the sedentary cruiser in the area of ​​the weapon cellars. It’s necessary, they’ll apply the concrete-slaughtering - it’ll generally sew through it.
        By the way, marine air defense systems are capable of hitting surface targets. What actually demonstrated the famous "Mirage". I don’t know how on this score with the marine S-300.
        1. spravochnik
          spravochnik 25 September 2013 01: 30 New
          0
          With the S-300F, everything is in order. Also works on surface targets.
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 23 September 2013 16: 13 New
        +1
        Are you sure?
        \
        more than.
        We look
        3M-54E
        The mass of 2300 kg put in the way burns out 350-500 kg of fuel. BUT at the target it will be at a speed of approx. 3 max. We do not know how the initiation of warheads will occur, but it is very likely that there is a cumulative precharge. And we get that any non-composite armor this projectile will go through to do and be initiated inside.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 17: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: leon-iv
          but very likely there is a cumulative precharge.

          Cumulative jet? So, what is next?

          The ship, unlike the tank, immediately behind the armor does not have any vulnerable equipment (ammunition, engine, etc.)
          Quote: leon-iv
          And we get that any non-composite armor this projectile will go through to do and be initiated inside.

          A plastic racket will shatter when it hits an armor (100 mm or more), like an empty nut

          And in the case of a tangential hit, at large angles from the normal (after all, who said that the rocket should get strictly perpendicular to the side?) - it will ricochet
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 23 September 2013 18: 32 New
          0
          Oh come on, there go more than half the weight of fuel.
    3. In the reeds
      In the reeds 23 September 2013 15: 11 New
      +1
      In 1980, if I’m not mistaken, did the Americans drive Iowa to Lebanon, what did they comb between their legs?
      1. Santa Fe
        23 September 2013 16: 09 New
        +1
        Quote: In the reeds
        In 1980, if I’m not mistaken, did the Americans drive Iowa to Lebanon, what did they comb between their legs?

        In 1984.
        Sistership “Iowa” - “New Jersey” processed the position of the Syrian air defense systems in the Bekaa Valley of 406 mm guns
        Prior to this, the U.S. Navy carrier-based aircraft climbed there (ha ha ha), rubbed the Corsair and the Intruder, and shut up
  • Eugeniy_369
    Eugeniy_369 23 September 2013 11: 17 New
    0
    But actually, the question is interesting. But the article is minus. It would be possible to write a shorter question. I thought an article, I read, I read, in anticipation that the author would rip off “masks and bedspreads”. Oh no crying . In the end, it’s not like “Galiwood”, without a “happy end” laughing .
    1. In the reeds
      In the reeds 23 September 2013 15: 20 New
      0
      It was in Hollywood that the British took a timeout and these ... built super burgers
  • Delta
    Delta 23 September 2013 11: 49 New
    0
    "The composition of the cruiser’s aviation weapons is no less cumbersome and heavy than that of a modern destroyer."

    yeah, only KOR-1 weighed 2 tons in running order, and Sea Haw weighs over 8 tons in the anti-submarine version. Well, remember that KOR-1 is exclusively a scout, and the MN-60 takes 3 tons of weapons. Here is the answer to the questions.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 37 New
      +2
      Quote: Delta
      Sea Haw weighs over 8 tons in the anti-submarine version. Well, remember that KOR-1 is exclusively a scout, and the MN-60 takes 3 tons of weapons.

      Count the catapult

      + cranes
      + compressors for catapult pneumatics
      + FAB-100 reserve, because KOR-1 was not "exclusively a scout"

      1. Delta
        Delta 23 September 2013 14: 48 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Count the catapult

        + cranes
        + compressors for catapult pneumatics
        + FAB-100 reserve, because KOR-1 was not "exclusively a scout"


        will it be equal in weight to the armament of anti-submarine helicopters? 4 FAB (for one take-off, overload) = 400 kg. I think you understand that for two turntables aboard the Burke, the supply of torpedoes and missiles is not for one take-off. And what about the weight of the hangars? Where were KOR-1 located? Is it also in the hangars? no, on the upper deck is mok and was at risk from any shard.

        I realized that you are not comparing two ships from different eras, that’s right. But, nevertheless, at the same time, the opposition is in line with weight. And from here it’s like a question - isn’t it stupid to build SUCH ships like now? maybe it’s better to build leviathans, booked for the most I can’t?
        I will cite bomber aviation as an analogy. That's how defensive weapons were gradually removed from it, and modern ships over time no longer needed armor. Rare cases of falling into the "tin board" (in your expression) RCC .... hmm ... so what kind of armor will stand against them? and here’s the answer - armor now is like a hare’s fifth leg, for modern aviation and ships gradually, with the development of weapons, have come to confinement to strike from afar. So it was with submarines. A small submarine during WWII could sink to the bottom for one combat output of 5-8 ships. So, according to your logic, its combat effectiveness is not much less than a torpedo submarine.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 17: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          And from here it’s like a question - isn’t it stupid to build SUCH ships like now? maybe it’s better to build leviathans, booked for the most I can’t?

          I really like Baltimore, 17-18 thousand tons
          remove the GK towers from it - instead of 150 UVP cells + a pair of 155 mm AGS guns, the 152 mm armored belt will be preserved. At the stern, a chic helicopter landing pad is formed (you can take the CH-53E or Mi-8) with a deck hangar

          Power like the two destroyers Burke. And you won’t drown him with a single missile (at least the crew will be safe and sound). He sneezed at the jokes of terrorists (Cole) and the shelling of basing places with a mortar (a common phenomenon in the B. East)



          (This was already done in the 1960s, when the Baltimore was turned into the Albany rocket)

          The Yankees with their cardboard “Berks” and “Perry” are really lucky that no one is seriously fighting with them - the case of Cole’s bombing and mortar attacks - this is so, the local punks are indulging.
          Quote: Delta
          I will cite bomber aviation as an analogy. That's how defensive weapons were gradually removed from her

          Well, it wasn’t removed from the ships))
          Quote: Delta
          RCC .... hmm ... so what armor will stand against them?

          It depends on which RCC. The multi-ton “granite” will certainly not even hold on board the Iowa. Another thing is that Granite is a rare and specific beast, unlike the Chinese Yinji, Harpoon or Exocet
          Quote: Delta
          with the development of weapons came to sharpening a strike from afar

          It's just fighting the Papuans
          A normal country will quickly "reduce the distance" and make you think about security
          Quote: Delta
          will it be equal in weight to the armament of anti-submarine helicopters?

          There is one catapult which is worth it - pay attention to fig.

          about FAB-100 and SiHawk you don’t even have to bother - the destroyer has a lack of 247 tons (this is how much the third GK tower on the old cruiser M. Gorky weighed)
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 23 September 2013 17: 53 New
            +1
            Albany became 500T HEAVYER than Baltimore and got into the water two meters lower. Those. all the towers of the main and universal caliber were removed from the cruiser, the superstructure was completely removed along with the conning tower - they stuffed rockets into the cellar and built an aluminum tower - and they got a ship heavier! At the same time, the ship does not carry (unlike Burke) two helicopters on board, there are no hangars, and the superstructures on Arly Burke are steel. Make a steel superstructure on Albany, build a hangar for 4 helicopters (since it’s twice as large as Burke and Gorky) - you look and you’ll have to remove your armor
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2013 18: 23 New
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              completely removed the superstructure along with the conning tower - they stuffed rockets into the cellar and built an aluminum tower - and they got the ship heavier!

              I answered you a little higher.
              Check out the top of the Talos air defense charging cellar
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 September 2013 12: 02 New
    +8
    The author’s competence does not allow him to confidently explain the reason for the paradox with the displacement of modern ships.

    At least - honestly :)))
    In order to answer this question, it is necessary to collect the weight distribution of weapons and, more importantly, the equipment of the American destroyer. This, alas, is beyond my capabilities - here you have to run a lot about English-speaking resources, there are no scales in sight, alas.
    At the same time, I want to note - the weight of the weapons and armor of our cruiser of the 26-bis project was striving for 3 thousand tons. But GAS Polynom, which was put on our BOD of the 1155 project, weighed as many as 800 tons. The American destroyer has both a hull and a towed GAS. How much do they weigh? Who knows....
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      At least honestly

      At least a meter, you, too, could not give an answer straight away
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In order to answer this question you need to collect the weight distribution of weapons "Berka"

      The case is very difficult, I got the feeling that there are no articles of Burke's load in the public domain
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      GAS "Polynom", which was put on our BOD of project 1155, weighed as much as 800 tons.

      AN / SQS-53 is not a Polynomial
      Yes, and our BOD, etc. 1155 in its composition of weapons does not closely resemble Burke armed to the teeth

      The sonar emitter is a cylinder 1,75 m high and 4,88 m in diameter with 72 vertical bars located on it with 8 TR-313 transceivers in each (576 elements in total). The antenna mass is about 27 tons. The beam width is 5 ° in azimuth (Vick)
      Of course, it will fill with water + fairing mass + control computers
      but this is unlikely to compensate for the mass shot half-cruiser armored belt
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 September 2013 14: 18 New
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        At least a meter, you, too, could not give an answer straight away

        So I can’t "go straight". Weights are needed, but where to get them? It is clear that AN / SQS-53 is not Polynom even once, but who knows how much both GAS weigh? On assumptions you will not go far.
        The sonar emitter is a cylinder 1,75 m high and 4,88 m in diameter

        I know, but what else does it consist of, except for the emitter?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The case is very difficult, I got the feeling that there are no articles of Burke's load in the public domain

        It’s easy. The ship is modern, it seems it's just a secret infa
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, and our BOD, etc. 1155 in its composition of weapons does not closely resemble Burke armed to the teeth

        Oleg, so far I have found only an interesting phrase about our 1134-B
        The share of weapons and defenses in the standard displacement of the ship of 1134B project increased to 19,4% against 17,8% of the ship 1134А.
        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/MK/2006_05/03.htm
        By the way, it’s said that the standard displacement of 1134-B is 6,2 thousand tons, respectively, 19,4% of this will be more than 1,2 thousand tons. This is the only thing I have managed to dig up.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 14: 32 New
          +1
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          It is clear that AN / SQS-53 is not Polynom even once, but who knows how much both GAS weigh?

          Cable bay with towed tass?

          This, of course, is not TASS but just the active PTZ Nixie, but its mass is very small - the sailors are holding
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          By the way, it’s said - the standard displacement at 1134-B is 6,2 thousand tons, respectively

          There are no paradoxes in the differences between 1134A and 1134B - there are quantitatively more weapons on Berkut-B

          But it is surprising that even on a "pumped" 1134B, weapons occupy only 19% - almost exactly as 26 bis. Interestingly, this mass includes the OMS?
  • soldier of fortune
    soldier of fortune 23 September 2013 12: 08 New
    0
    Yes, the question, of course, is interesting! ....... We should ask the sailors around ...... or shipbuilders.
    Specialists respond! :)
  • KononAV
    KononAV 23 September 2013 12: 20 New
    +2
    I got tired of reading and did not receive an answer))))
    1. ben gun
      ben gun 23 September 2013 12: 38 New
      0
      But the question "Where is the money Zin?" bully
  • ka5280
    ka5280 23 September 2013 12: 40 New
    0
    On modern ships, with a high degree of equipment with electronics, there is a need for the removal of heat generated by it and the supply of cooled and dried air. This leads to an increase in the volume of compartments. In general, the energy load of the power supply network of a modern vessel (these are household needs, ventilation and air conditioning systems, the consumption of on-board navigation systems and electronic combat systems), without a propulsion system, consumes about 2 MS energy. Plus, do not forget about the transported stocks, fuel and lubricants, spare parts, the navy has 4 meals a day, and to store food supplies you need very decent open spaces.
    So it appears that the old cruiser carried cannons and shells under armor, and on modern cobs, comfot and electronic equipment occupy a volume.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: ka5280
      This leads to an increase in the volume of compartments.

      you see, sir, the dimensions of Burke and M. Gorky are very similar
      Burke is shorter and thicker, Gorky is longer and narrower.
      The air mass in the superstructure of Burke can be neglected
      Quote: ka5280
      smacks about 2 MSh energy

      On board M. Gorky was also an electric station
      How about progress in the field of email generators. energy over the past half century?
      Quote: ka5280
      Plus, do not forget about the transported stocks, fuel and lubricants, spare parts, the navy has 4 meals a day, and to store food supplies you need very decent open spaces.

      Fuel and lubricants less than 360 tons
      300 sailors hardly eat more than 900
      SPTA ... SPTA and the tool was also on the old cruiser - from the grates of wire grates and cable bays, to bulky spare parts for engine room mechanisms
  • smprofi
    smprofi 23 September 2013 12: 41 New
    -2
    hmm ... beautiful as always. and also demagogic. as always...
    destroyer Arleigh Burke does not like, like the cruiser "Maxim Gorky"
    I do not like the Aegis system (for example), but like the 180 mm guns ...
    well, to each his own, as they say.
    only "Maxim Gorky" 180 mm guns can do this?

    1. ka5280
      ka5280 23 September 2013 12: 46 New
      +4
      The question in the article is posed not by anyone who can, but why such a difference in displacement.
  • ka5280
    ka5280 23 September 2013 12: 52 New
    0
    Judging by how ventilation is arranged at the destroyer, the creators of the destroyer did not think about the danger of a volume explosion.
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 23 September 2013 13: 09 New
    0
    I do not see the point in the main question of the article. Then built with such values ​​of the articles of the load, now with others. Moreover, the tendency to increase the weight of fire control devices, radar stations, etc. relative to the weight of weapons was already evident in the days of the youth of "Maxim Gorky." A vivid example is the history of the British "Towns", on which it was necessary to sacrifice, so dearly beloved by the author, the GK towers. Again, about the armor. And what function did she play on Gorky? Seven cm of the airborne belt will not save much even from 127-130 mm destroyer guns, not to mention the guns of classmates. Further, it seems to me that the author either is a little disingenuous or does not pay attention to such "trifles" as changing load parameters during the life of the ship. For example, the author piles up all the weight of weapons on Gorky. I am not very familiar with the history of Gorky, but I think I will not be mistaken if I assume that the catapult with the "accessories" and aircraft was present on the ship for the first two or three years, then it was sacrificed to strengthen anti-aircraft weapons. And so miraculously it turns out to summarize both the catapult and the radar and anti-aircraft artillery. Only this result has little in common with reality.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 13: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: Nick_1972
      I see no point in the main question of the article

      This is because you did not understand her
      Quote: Nick_1972
      A vivid example is the history of the British "Towns", on which it was necessary to sacrifice, so dearly beloved by the author, the GK towers.

      no one compares the Burke and the cruiser Maxim Gorky in terms of their combat capabilities. In this case, only a mass of mechanisms and load articles are of interest. And here a difficult paradox arises ...
      Quote: Nick_1972
      Then built with such values ​​of the articles of the load, now with others.

      WITH ANY OTHER ??
      that's where the puzzle is
      1. Nick_1972
        Nick_1972 23 September 2013 14: 51 New
        0
        And moreover, the British towns of 30-40. last century and a comparison with Burke? Did not understand you.
  • Anphy
    Anphy 23 September 2013 13: 11 New
    -4
    It is immediately clear that the author is not a professional. However, he does not hide this. He forgot about the gravitap on the modern destroyer.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 23 September 2013 13: 23 New
    0
    Good article. Volumes in modern courts are occupied by secondary equipment. The struggle of the intelligences, so to speak. Computers, backup power, cables, other attributes of quick response. I think that this is the Achilles heel of modern vessels. Designed to fight the savages, and not the modern army.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 23 September 2013 14: 02 New
    0
    Let's compare the project "Glory" with RKR Moscow.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 14: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Setrac
      Let's compare the project "Glory" with RKR Moscow.

      Comparison of the RKR “Moscow” with the same cruiser “Indianapolis” (launched in 1931) will give a similar result - a modern ship is a full loser compared to its ancestor

      The Indianapolis Cruiser Memorial, the heaviest casualty loss in the U.S. Navy - 4 days after the USS Indianapolis (CA-35) delivered the components of the nuclear bomb to Tinian Island, the cruiser was sunk by a Japanese submarine. The crew in life jackets spent 3 days in the ocean, during which time 800 people ate sharks
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 23 September 2013 14: 47 New
        0
        modern ship full wimp compared to its ancestor

        What is a wimp? As for armor, not for weapons. How much will armor weigh, at least somehow protecting against RCC? Let subsonic for definiteness.
        1. Santa Fe
          23 September 2013 16: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          What is a wimp?

          In load articles

          The creators of the cruiser Indianapolis managed to put on board a huge amount of massive equipment

          - 3 towers GK, 9 guns 203 mm (the weight of each tower is 250 tons, the mass of a projectile with a charge of 203 mm is 190 kg - there one ammunition of the main missile will weigh more than 16 thin-walled containers with volcano rockets (rocket weight about 10 tons)

          + universal and anti-aircraft artillery
          + armor (belt - 102..127 mm)
          + ocean range of 13 miles per 000 knots
          Quote: Wedmak
          How much will armor weigh, at least somehow protecting against RCC?

          It depends on which RCC

          40 mm (according to other sources - 90 mm) of the steel belt protects from Exozet
          Harpoon, X-35, NSM - old ships were invulnerable to these "suckers"
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 23 September 2013 16: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            In load articles

            I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in a load article any bulk carrier will surpass any cruiser of equal displacement, a stupid measure for warships.
            1. Santa Fe
              23 September 2013 18: 05 New
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in a load article any bulk carrier will surpass any cruiser of equal displacement with it

              it seems you did not quite understand what was going on

              In the old days, with the same military service, it was possible to place on board a much more bulky and massive armament, armoring and power plant (load articles) - and this despite the imperfection of metal processing technologies and installation of hull structures!
              Quote: Wedmak
              But the armor belt is below the deck, right?

              Raise it higher - who forbids?
              Timely anti-ship missiles, unlike shells, cannot dive under water
              Quote: Wedmak
              And if we talk about supersonic anti-ship missiles, with 10 tons of weight ... br ...

              The chance to meet such RCC tends to zero

              In contrast to the light Yinji, Exocetons and Harpoons, which have spawned around the world with thousands of pieces under a variety of media
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 23 September 2013 16: 43 New
            0
            40 mm (according to other sources - 90 mm) of the steel belt protects from Exozet

            But the armor belt is below the deck, right? And anti-ship missiles can easily crush superstructures (which are more difficult to protect with 40 mm armor) and this will be enough to disable the ship.
            And if we talk about supersonic anti-ship missiles, with 10 tons of weight ... br ...
      2. Cristall
        Cristall 23 September 2013 17: 25 New
        0
        almost all who were in water belts ... on rafts, people survived, except those who died from dehydration.
        it's creepy ...
        http://korabley.net/news/krejser_uss_indianapolis_tragedija_na_more/2011-09-18-9

        42
        if monsters are drowned so quickly by torpedoes, then even the appearance of armor will simply change the point of contact of the rocket - they will simply hit the underwater part.
        torpedoes also do not stand still ...
        Barracuda is already capable of maneuvering at cavitation speed. If you manage to get a torpedo with cavitation and a long range ... then nanobroning will not save either.
        Remote protection is often more important than passive armored.
  • UVB
    UVB 23 September 2013 14: 04 New
    0
    Quote: ben gun
    There is an assumption - it is necessary to provide equipment service areas, and places for possible emergency dismantling / repair of equipment in modern ship compartments. those. stupid air.

    But this will not affect the displacement.
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 23 September 2013 18: 46 New
      0
      This will increase the volume, which in turn will increase I / O.
  • michajlo
    michajlo 23 September 2013 14: 19 New
    +1
    The article is interesting, thanks to the author Oleg! good

    I would like to read the explanations of specialists and experienced from the Navy, why is this so? what

    And around us there are a lot of outdated, but quite functional and, most importantly, damn reliable things! i.e.
    Talented creators were, are and will be, only they need to be allowed to show their talents.
  • Hort
    Hort 23 September 2013 14: 25 New
    +1
    I'm certainly not a naval special, but I will assume that, given the penetration ability of a modern cruise missile (the same tomahawk), an armored belt will not help much.
    Again, in my opinion, it would be more correct to compare “Maxim Gorky” with our modern destroyers in order to see what they came to in shipbuilding. And Aegis is already like that, for general information.
    Well, on the other hand, if the old cruiser, such as Maxim Gorky, was deeply modernized by adding the same missiles, modern air defense and replacing the catapult with a helipad, it would probably have turned out very cool :)
    But, thanks to Comrade Khrushchev’s fleet development and modernization program was constipation (along with heavy tanks) ...
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 23 September 2013 15: 17 New
      0
      So that is the question: what are the resources spent on the removal of the armored belt! Everyone knows that the modern destroyer in terms of displacement is equal to the 2MV cruiser and the 1MV battleship. But where this space is spent and what filled the tons of displacement is really interesting.

      Weapon systems have become easier, crews have been reduced, the trough itself has become much easier. So why the ships do not get smaller? :)

      Or is it just time to abandon the usual classification and rename destroyers as "light cruisers"?
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 23 September 2013 14: 34 New
    0
    The article is interesting.
    But I didn’t see the answer in the “answers” winked

    We are waiting, maybe the shipbuilders will catch up ...
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 23 September 2013 14: 52 New
    +1
    Guys, let's just calculate how many ships were sunk after the end of World War II and with what weapons:
    -shore-based aviation: destroyers-3 (English “Sheffield”, “Coventry” sunk by the Argentines during the Falkland War; Turkish “Koçatepe” - sunk by its own aircraft by mistake during the Cyprus conflict of 1974); 2 frigates ("Ardent", "Antilope"); 1 container ship used as an Atlantic Conveyor air carrier, 1 Sir Galahad landing ship, Iran’s Rafael floating tank vessel with a Tu-16 missile (year 1984 or so), 1 Egyptian RCA, project 205 destroyed by Israelis in 1973 ; 7 Iraqi RCA ave. 205 by Iranians in 1980
    -deck aviation: 1 submarine (Argentinean Santa Fe attacked by deck-based Link helicopters (from 815th AE) from the frigate Brilliant (HMS Brilliant). As a result, a heavily damaged boat, unable to dive, at maximum speed went to the shore and jumped on the underwater sandbar, which allowed to save the crew. Later, the Santa Fe was finally disabled by subversive charges); 1 frigate (Iranian Sabaland - sunk by the Americans on 18.04.1988/1/1234), 1986 RTO of project 4 (Libyan Ean Zaquit, sunk by the Americans in 1); 3 RCA all La Combatant project (1986 Iranian Joshan sunk that day, 1 Libyan Americans sunk in 1), 3 Ilya Malvinas Argentinean Coast Guard patrol boat, XNUMX fishing trawler used for reconnaissance (Argentinean) Narwhal "), Argentinean armed tug" Commodoro Samevela "; XNUMX speed Iranian boats
    -PL: 1 light cruiser (Argentinean General Belgrano); 1 frigate (Indian Hukri sunk by Pakistan DEPL; 1 corvette presumably (South Korean Cheonan)
    -RKA: 2 destroyers (Israeli "Eilat", Pakistani "Khyber"); 2 minesweepers (Syrian "Yarmouk" type T-43, sunk by the Israelis in 1973; Pakistani "Muhafiz" sunk by the Indians in 1971); 9 RCA (2 Syrian projects 183, 1 Syrian and 3 Egyptian projects 205, all sunk by Israelis in 1973, 2 Iraqi projects 205 by Iranians in 1980, 1 Iranian "Joshuan" by Iraqis in 1980); 1 TCA (Syrian project 123)
    - torpedoes from boats: Kuomintang destroyer "Tai Ping (Tai-Ping)" in a battle near Tachen Island in 1954;
    -RCC from ships: 1 IDMS of project 1234 "Monsoon" (1987, error in exercises), 1 Georgian patrol ship, former Gantiadi seiner (sunk by MRS of project 1234 "Mirage"), 1 Georgian SKA "Dountless 01" (sunk SAM Osa-M with MPK Suzdalets)
    - artillery fire of ships: 1 Egyptian frigate "Damietta", sunk by the British in 1956; 1 South Korean corvette sunk by the Chinese in 1974; 1 Ethiopian landing ship “LCT-1035” (sunk by the Eritreans in February 1990), 1 Vietnamese ship (heated by the Chinese in 1988); 1 South Korean AK Dolphin AKA, 1 North Korean P-6 type TKA, 3 Jaguar Eritrean TKAs destroyed by the Soviet AK-312 Project 205P 27.05.1989/3/5; 1950 North Korean torpedo boats of type G-XNUMX in XNUMX
    - exploded on mines and drowned: 4 American minesweepers "Magpie" AMS-25, "Pledge"; South Korean minesweeper "JMS-306"; South Korean patrol ship "RS-704" - "Chiri San", Yugoslav patrol boat PČ-176 "Mukos",
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 23 September 2013 15: 09 New
      0
      Counted. What did this give us in this discussion?
    2. smiths xnumx
      smiths xnumx 23 September 2013 15: 25 New
      0
      - sunk by artillery fire from the shore: 1 frigate (the Thai “Prasae” was destroyed by North Korean artillery in 1951); 1 landing ship "Houston" is heated in Cuba in 1961; 1 Yugoslav minesweeper ML-143 “Iž” sunk by the Croats on 16.11.1991/XNUMX/XNUMX
      - destroyed in the port: 1 TFR of project 1159 Al Ghardabia, 1 Libyan interregional missile system of project 1234 Ain Zaara, 8 RCA (3 Egyptian: 1 project 205, 2 project 183, destroyed by Israeli commandos in October 1973, Georgian "Tbilisi" project 206, " Dioscuria "project" La Kambatant-2 "; 3 Libyan La Combattante IIG), 2 Egyptian TCA project 123, 2 Georgian SKA pr. 360, pr. 371U; 3 Georgian small boats pr.1398 "Stork"
      - surrendered: 1 destroyer (Egyptian "Ibrahim El Aval") - surrendered to the Israelis in 1956
      So what we have sunk:
      -cruiser-1 (100%) - attack the nuclear submarine;
      -Air-carrying ship-1 (100%) - coast-based aviation;
      7 destroyers, 3 of them (43%) - coastal aviation, 2 (29%) - anti-ship missiles with RCA; 1 (14%) - torpedoes with TCA; 1 (14%) surrendered voluntarily;
      6 frigates, of which: 2 (32%) - coast-based aviation, 1 (17%) - carrier-based aircraft, 1 (17%) - submarine attack, 1 (17%) - artillery fire from ships, 1 TFR, etc. 1159 (17%) - sunk by aircraft in the port;
      DEPL-2, of which: 1 (50%) - attack from carrier-based aircraft, 1 (50%) - attack by depth charges from ships;
      3 corvettes, of which 1 (33,3%) - an attack by submarines (presumably), 1 (33,3%) - by artillery fire from ships, 1 (33,3%) - by artillery fire from the coast);
      landing ships-4, of which: 1 (25%) - coast-based aviation, 2 (50%) - artillery fire from ships; 1 (25%) - artillery fire from the coast.
      MRK-3, of which 1 (33,3%) - carrier-based aviation), 1 (33,3%) - anti-ship missiles from ships (erroneously), 1 (33,3%) - was blown up in the port;
      8 minesweepers, of which 5 (62,5%) - were blown up by mines, 2 (25%) - missile attacks with anti-ship missiles, 1 (12,5%) - artillery fire from the shore;
      patrol ships-2, of which 1 (50%) - anti-ship missiles from ships, 1 (50%) - mine blasting
      1. smiths xnumx
        smiths xnumx 23 September 2013 16: 02 New
        0
        RCA-29, of which: 8 (27,5%) - coastal aviation, 4 (14%) - carrier-based aviation, 9 (31%) - anti-ship missiles with RCA, 8 (27,5%) - were destroyed in the port;
        TKA-10, of which: 1 (10%) anti-ship missiles with RCA, 7 (70%) - with artillery fire from ships; 2 (20%) - were destroyed in the port;
        SKA, PKA, AKA-11, of which 5 (45,5%) - carrier-based aircraft, 1 (9%) - anti-ship missiles from ships, 1 (9%) - artillery fire from ships, 1 (9%) - blasting in land mines, 3 (22,5%) were destroyed in the port.
        Thus, a total of 35 ships, 2 submarines and 50 boats were sunk, of which the bulk were destroyed by coast-based aviation — 7 ships (20%); 5 (14%) - were blown up by mines and 4 (11%) - by anti-ship missiles, 4 (11%) - by artillery fire from other ships. Deck aviation destroyed only 2 ships. It should be borne in mind that the bulk of the ships was sunk in conflicts at a low intensity sea (Indo-Pakistani, Arab-Israeli), when the parties had practically no large ships, for example, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the largest ships were WWII destroyers, or as in Indo-Pakistani did not use them (Pakistan), for the purpose of conservation. The same can be said about the Anglo-Argentine conflict of 1982, when, after the sinking of the English submarine, the cruiser General Belgrano, the Argentine fleet practically withdrew from further participation in the conflict.
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 23 September 2013 15: 46 New
      0
      several Yugoslavs still sunk artillery fire from the coast of the Croats:
      1 patrol boat out of order and captured
      1 minesweeper sunk
      1 minesweepers aground and left
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 23 September 2013 15: 06 New
    +1
    The article is entitled "Why are modern ships so weak?" Meanwhile, the author himself writes that modern ships surpass the "non-modern" in combat power and capabilities. Maybe the article should be called something different?
    As for the displacement. The author does not indicate exactly what he means in each case, this creates confusion. For example, mass differs from volume by 2,8%. And there is still standard, complete, largest, normal, there the difference is even greater.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 16: 18 New
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      For example, mass differs from volume by 2,8%. And there is still standard, complete, largest, normal, there the difference is even greater.

      M. Gorky ~ 9700 tons
      Orly Burke IIA ~ 9600 tons

      full displacement indicated full
  • jjj
    jjj 23 September 2013 15: 30 New
    0
    I dare say that modern buildings are trying to make less visible to locators. Hence the materials used are little reminiscent of armor. And then, all the weapons on the ship should be able to work simultaneously, all electronic systems should not interfere with each other. They have to be carried, often tens of meters apart. So we get a "floating island". Well, it’s a sin not to use the additional volumes that have appeared for restaurants, cinemas and fitness centers.
    But we understand that such a fleet is not for war, but for employment in a calm time
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 16: 21 New
      0
      Quote: jjj
      Hence the materials used are little reminiscent of armor.

      Those. Do you think that composites and radar absorbing materials, similar to the touch of room linoleum, can be compared in weight to armor plates made of high-quality steel?
      Quote: jjj
      often tens of meters apart. So we get a "floating island".

      This is completely wrong.

      the dimensions of Burke and M. Gorky are very similar (the modern destroyer is shorter by 20 meters and thicker by 3 meters)
      Quote: jjj
      But we understand that such a fleet is not for war, but for employment in a calm time

      totally agree with you
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 23 September 2013 16: 04 New
    0
    It seems to me that the weight of Gorky’s armored belt was assumed by the Aegis system with weapons and helicopters.
    The antenna itself weighs quite a bit, plus the GAS antenna and other sensors. Antenna mounts, cables, signal generators, electronics, backup systems. Further, the air group - two helicopters, fuel for them, ammunition, supplies, landing pad, hangars with equipment. The weapon of the ship itself, instead of fairly compact shells, 7 meter rockets in the TPK, and even in the module. They start on their engines, and this is the protection of neighboring cells, the removal of a jet stream (heat-resistant materials), the mechanization of opening / closing hatches, ammunition of artillery. We will add torpedoes and torpedo tubes here.
    And of course, comfort for the crew also probably weighs quite a bit.
    There they “bit off” a little bit, then they “added” a little bit, so you got what happened.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 18: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Wedmak
      Aegis system with weapons and helicopters.
      The antenna itself weighs quite a bit, plus the GAS antenna and other sensors.

      instead of 1536 tons of armor
      Quote: Wedmak
      Alee, air group - two helicopters, fuel for them, ammunition, supplies, landing pad, hangars with equipment

      Catapult, 2 cranes, 2 flying boats, fuel
      Quote: Wedmak
      The weapon of the ship itself, instead of fairly compact shells

      3 towers x 247 tons
      900 shells weighing 97 kg (+ powder charges 20 kg)

      + six 100 mm universal artillery guns in installations with armor shields
      Quote: Wedmak
      7 meter rockets in the TPK, and even in the module

      So, what is next?
      the heaviest TPK with Tomahawk weighs 2,8 tons, the usual one - 1,4 tons. In total 96
      the mass of the UVP itself with heat-resistant materials and control equipment is 60 tons (bow) and 119 tons (feed)
      Quote: Wedmak
      We will add torpedoes and torpedo tubes here.

      The cruiser has even more of them and they are heavier
      Quote: Wedmak
      And of course, comfort for the crew also probably weighs quite a bit.

      3 times less crew
      Quote: Wedmak
      There they “bit off” a little bit, then they “added” a little bit, so you got what happened.

      Paradox ... The mass of weapons has decreased, there is no armor, the power plant has become lighter, the hull is lighter, the crew is 3 times smaller - the displacement is the same !!
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 23 September 2013 19: 02 New
    +1
    As you yourself wrote, physics cannot be fooled. If the total displacement is approximately equal, then the weight of the armor went for something else. It is hardly a matter of magic.
  • Gur
    Gur 23 September 2013 20: 34 New
    0
    Hello everyone, let me express my opinion. In addition to all of the above, I think we should still not forget about the quality of steel. Modern steel, by strength and density, has gone far from steel of the beginning of the century. Remember why the T-34 armor was stronger than the thicker armor of other tanks and it was the recipe for steel itself therefore, destroyer hull elements may have more weight per unit volume.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 22: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Gur
      it was in the recipe of the steel itself, therefore, the elements of the destroyer hull can have more weight per unit volume.

      nothing like that.

      structural steels:
      The density of steel is 8, pn, kg / m3 7871
      The density of steel is 10, pn, kg / m3 7856
      The density of steel is 45, pn, kg / m3 7826
      Density of steel 30KhGS, kg / m3 7850

      the density of steel (carbon alloy with iron) is always within 7800 ... 7900 kg / mXNUMX. Differences from alloying additives - a few fractions of%
  • Enot-poloskun
    Enot-poloskun 23 September 2013 20: 37 New
    0
    The article is very interesting!

    It follows from it that the laws of physics (Archimedean force, etc.) have not been canceled.


    My version: maybe Americans are sawing the loot in a cunning way? So, what else is ours to study and study?

    Why is the Yankee the most expensive weapon in the world?)))
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 22: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Enot-poloskun
      or maybe the Americans are sawing the loot in a cunning way? So, what else is ours to study and study?

      No, this is typical of all modern ships - both our BOD, and the French frigates, and the Chinese destroyers, and the ships of the US Navy
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 23 September 2013 21: 10 New
    0
    A look at the lack of armor in modern ships is relevant. Perhaps this is a repetition of the aircraft’s aircraft arms revolution, when the Americans removed the cannon weapons from the fighters, relying only on missiles. But fighting life in air battles corrected them winked
  • SPACE
    SPACE 23 September 2013 21: 59 New
    +1
    It was necessary to compare the geometric profile of the underwater parts of the bottom of both ships, as well as the data of draft. Perhaps the so-called Burke's “mass defect” is to reduce the ship’s center of mass and increase stability by placing additional weights along the keel along the bottom, it can be filled with lead or packed with depleted uranium. In favor of this, I can assume that the draft of the 26 bis cruiser with its narrow hull should be larger, but also a more conical underwater part. And with Burke with a larger width of the hull and less draft, a flatter part of the bottom of the hull. For Burke, firing 2 with hot-launch missiles from under the deck, especially from the outermost cells to the board, should have a big effect on the ship's hull and lead to an increase in roll or swing, I suppose that in this case the missile could get stuck and explode at launch. Fuel placed below or additional ballast volumes for sea water cannot constantly solve this problem. Plus, the height of the wheelhouse with antennas, and for stable operation of the PAR antennas themselves in the short-wave range, there should be a minimum roll-off. In my opinion, on Russian ships, all missiles are slanted with the exception of anti-aircraft forts, but the drum launcher on them launches missiles when turning in a keel length.
    1. Santa Fe
      23 September 2013 22: 55 New
      0
      Quote: SPACE
      the board of the cells should have a large effect on the ship's hull and lead to an increase in roll or buildup

      Sorry, how are the 5-ton Malachites launched from domestic MRC pr.1234 (700 tons of full military)?



      Quote: SPACE
      Plus, the height of the cabin with antennas

      There are precedents - missile cruisers Providence, Galveston, Albany
      Despite all the bullying and monstrous superstructures (60s), their displacement remained the same.
    2. pl675
      pl675 24 September 2013 02: 47 New
      0
      ballast replacement tanks - 5-7-10 tons - not important. fired back-trimmed.
      that is, the scheme works like this - a 3t product came out of the LB mine - 3 cubes were immediately accepted into the tank.
      the next product from the mine PB - filled the tank.
      when they were shot completely - we evenly release tanks from sea water (if necessary).
      if we are talking about products in 2t - this is what is called "niac".
  • Mulfred
    Mulfred 23 September 2013 22: 43 New
    +1
    The article is very interesting, the author + for the idea and diligence. I will not insist on anything, although in the version that the Aegis system + the system responsible for the possibility of using weapons in case of strong excitement (as described by COSMOS), something is similar to reality. In any case, this article again reminded me that few people are designing or at least exploring the possibility of increasing the survivability of modern warships using armor. Of course, we are not talking about classic booking as on WWII battleships, however, if using a reasonable reservation it is possible to make the same destroyer resistant to 1-2 Exoset anti-ship missiles, is this not a step forward? Not all countries have the opportunity to stamp destroyers like pies ...
  • Tommygun
    Tommygun 24 September 2013 00: 21 New
    0
    At one time, a crossbow, and then the development of firearms forced to abandon the armor. This in turn caused the relief of edged weapons (from swords to swords). New materials made it possible to create body armor. The development of RPGs, ATGMs caused the creation of curtain arenas, but only armor saves from a bops.
    In general, any equipment is created under the terms of use. At this stage, it is more profitable to spend on / and on electronics. In principle, a certain middle ground can give an approach like the Il-2: the armor should be integrated into the power frame of the vessel, and not be hung additionally.
  • rpek32
    rpek32 24 September 2013 01: 20 New
    0
    duplicate systems more on orly
  • Rex
    Rex 24 September 2013 14: 54 New
    0
    Quote: Postman
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    the main thing is why the ship still displaces the same amount of water if there are less heavy mechanisms

    1......2."3."4."5.6.7.8.прим . 10.
    11,12, 13,14 and so on.
    Everything in the compartment gives that cumulative effect on displacement and booking.
    Either that, or inside is hiding the hyperboloid of engineer Garin, or fifty Abramsov


    Generally quite convincing assumption.

    Quote: SPACE
    Perhaps the so-called Burke's “mass defect” is to reduce the ship’s center of mass and increase stability by placing additional loads along the keel along the bottom, it can be filled with lead or packed with depleted uranium.


    So I understand that the 1400 calculator doesn’t have enough data to decompose?
    It is a pity however - the article aroused an unhealthy curiosity yes
    It was generally interesting to read a lot of the debate. Thank.
    At once, I read all the comments ...
    Although in the end it all came down to a personal initial amateur assumption of an unknown “additional equipment”. Like modern cars, when one model can differ significantly in weight.

    So you have to suffer before the capture of the developers or crew of the Burke laughing
    1. SPACE
      SPACE 24 September 2013 20: 35 New
      0
      And from where only such clever men hatch, decided to wit not sharp to wit? What normal can not you?
      Quote: Rex
      So I understand that the 1400 calculator doesn’t have enough data to decompose?

      Do you need help? Can't smudge a slice of butter on a stick? Or maybe you still chew? By the way, lead has certain vibration and sound insulating properties ...
      Quote: Rex
      It is a pity however - the article aroused an unhealthy curiosity

      And I'm sorry, you, but not for curiosity, but for ill health. I wish you hello.
      Quote: Rex
      At once, I read all the comments ...

      Satisfied your curiosity? Congratulations.
      Quote: Rex
      Although in the end it all came down to a personal initial amateur assumption of an unknown “additional equipment”. Like modern cars, when one model can differ significantly in weight.

      Looks like they didn’t carefully read the times, KamAZ with a body, you can’t tell from BMW.
      Quote: Rex
      So you have to suffer before the capture of the developers or crew of the Burke

      "There is strength, no mind," good luck, if anything, then share the info, but if not, then no.
      laughing
  • Rex
    Rex 24 September 2013 21: 43 New
    0
    Quote: SPACE
    And from where only such clever men hatch, decided to wit not sharp to wit? What normal can not you?
    Quote: Rex
    So I understand that the 1400 calculator doesn’t have enough data to decompose?

    Do you need help? Can't smudge a slice of butter on a stick? Or maybe you still chew? By the way, lead has certain vibration and sound insulating properties ...
    Quote: Rex
    It is a pity however - the article aroused an unhealthy curiosity

    And I'm sorry, you, but not for curiosity, but for ill health. I wish you hello.
    Quote: Rex
    At once, I read all the comments ...

    Satisfied your curiosity? Congratulations.
    Quote: Rex
    Although in the end it all came down to a personal initial amateur assumption of an unknown “additional equipment”. Like modern cars, when one model can differ significantly in weight.

    Looks like they didn’t carefully read the times, KamAZ with a body, you can’t tell from BMW.
    Quote: Rex
    So you have to suffer before the capture of the developers or crew of the Burke

    "There is strength, no mind," good luck, if anything, then share the info, but if not, then no.
    laughing


    It turns out was the answer "normal"?
    Lack of curiosity takes place, because I didn’t and will hardly be related to the Navy and the design of ships. Although the composition of the armament of the same "Burke" knew even before it was launched, again out of curiosity.
    Most of the posts were not related to the dilemma voiced in the article, and those that had had the form of assumptions. Sometimes quite convincing. Yours among them.
    Comparison with a car is quite appropriate, because the mass of the same model in different trim levels can differ significantly. Comparison of the masses of cars of the same dimensions and types produced 20-30 years ago and now, when the use of plastic has increased significantly, is even more relevant.
    One thing is obvious - none of the writers knows a reliable answer to the “posed question”. For all the seriousness of intentions.

    And why, after all this, not be ashamed? Including over your curiosity? laughing
  • shurup
    shurup 25 September 2013 01: 35 New
    0
    It’s time in the Military Envoy, in addition to the ranks, to introduce awards.
    He would award the author of the article, unanimously, with the medal "For the correct title" and the medal "For the difference in setting the topic."
    Sometimes a short discussion in the smoking room costs more than the outcome of many years of meetings.
  • Misha from Odessa
    Misha from Odessa 25 September 2013 19: 46 New
    0
    Are there really so much mass that the backup power units and electronics are “eating”?