Military Review

Are there any armor from the blows of fate?

131



Discussions on the subject of “projectile against armor” often bypass a number of important points, and as a result the conclusions of the participants have an erroneous interpretation. A new round of discussion is intended to dispel some of the existing myths about the security of ships and find a connection between entertaining theory and wretched reality.

As is known, modern ships sink (lose their combat capability and need assistance) after one or two hits ABOVE the waterline. Conventional 500-fnl. bombs, small-sized anti-ship missiles or suicide bombers on a boat with a bag of improvised explosives - the result will be the same: any modern cruiser or destroyer will be in the balance from death.

The current situation is in clear contradiction with the results of past battles. During the Second World War, armored cruisers of similar sizes withstood heavy blows without serious consequences. During the battle in Leyte Gulf, Takeo Kurita squadron went under three hours under continuous attacks, in which up to 500 American aircraft took part. Despite the heavy rain from the sky, all Kurita ships returned to Japan (except for three, but they died for another reason). The secret of the focus is simple - at that time, the Yankees had only the usual "mines" and there were no torpedoes.

In January 1945, the Australian cruiser HMAS Australia withstood four kamikaze rams + a bomb hit the waterline for four days! Despite the extensive damage and death of 39 seafarers, "Australia" stubbornly held to the position, firing on Japanese fortifications in the Gulf of Lingen. Upon returning home to Australia, the wounded cruiser did not manage to get qualified assistance, and somehow the patched ship went around the world to the UK - where it safely reached under its own power.

Are there any armor from the blows of fate?


HMAS Australia is a British-built cruiser of the County type, a victim of Washington restrictions with intentionally weakened reservations. Other ships, who are stronger, showed even more impressive vitality. Despite the mockery of the heroes, none of the dead battleships could not be destroyed by conventional bombs.

"Arizona" - the ancient battleship (1915 g.), Was caught off guard with "flat pants" in Pearl Harbor. The death came from an 800-kg special bomb made of an 410 mm caliber armor-piercing projectile.

“Marat” - his sinking was postponed until armor-piercing bombs with a mass of 1,5 tons were brought from Germany.

Italian "Roma" - was killed by two radio-controlled armor-piercing bombs "Fritz-X", dropped from an altitude of 6 kilometers. Imagine the kinetic energy of such a pig! And multiply it by the mechanical strength of the munition, which was a solid 1300-kg array of high-strength steel. I would not be surprised if such a “baby” can pierce through the 16-floor house. None of the modern anti-ship munitions does not have and cannot possess such a trajectory.

To say that the gloomy Teutonic knight "Tirpitz" died "only" from a pair of bombs means to offend common sense. The bombs were called “Tollboy” and weighed 5 tons. Only in this way, the British were able to deal with the "lonely queen of the North." The previous three years of hunting and 700 sorties did not bring success.


Nine direct hits with 227 caliber bombs and 726 kg did not add “Tirpitsa” beauty, but even taking into account damage from all previous attacks, the battleship remained afloat and retained the lion's share of its combat capability. The explosions severely beat the servants of anti-aircraft guns (in those days, the ships were not highly automated, and hundreds of people were on the upper deck). Operation Wolfram, April 1944

"Tirpitz" - a limiting case of the demonstration of the highest survivability of a large, perfectly protected ship. Much more indicative is the episode with a small “Australia”. Or damage to the cruiser "Columbia" - two kamikaze aircraft destroyed both aft turret and 37 man servants of anti-aircraft guns, but the cruiser continued to fire on the shore from the bow towers of the Civil Code. Japanese cruiser Kumano, American Louisville, British “York” ... The survivability of the ships of previous years is amazing.


Destroyer Cole, blown up by terrorists in the port of Aden, 2000 year. Surface explosion of an SVU with a power of 200-300 kg of TNT near the board - the crew lost 17 people killed, the ship lost the ability to move independently.



"Cardboard" aircraft destroyer "Porter" after a collision with a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, 2012 year. It is not surprising that these clowns die from one bag of improvised explosives.


Even the most modest armor can radically increase the combat strength and security of a ship, saving many of its crew members to live. But why in our days, when safety and human life are valued above all else, warships are completely devoid of any serious constructive protection? The layers of Kevlar, local booking of combat posts and fire fighting bulkheads — all these comedy measures of “increased security” play no role in a real encounter with an anti-ship missile or a boat controlled by a suicide bomber.

May be, the whole thing in the terrible destructive impact of the CRPfrom which no armor saves? No, this is absolutely not the case. And that's why.

Horror stories about multi-ton supersonic Granit rockets, sweeping away everything in their path, have little to do with reality. The Soviet rocket school in pursuit of the speed / range / power of warheads of anti-ship missiles exceeded a reasonable limit: the resulting missiles (in truth, disposable aircraft) were so gigantic in size that their accommodation required special ships and submarines. From here extremely limited number of carriers and lack of an opportunity for their real application. “Granites” are excessively expensive for local wars. They cannot be exported because they require a specialized carrier and special means of over-the-horizon target designation, without which super-missiles lose their meaning.

Heavy anti-ship missiles "Granit", "Mosquito", "Volcano" are scary, but extremely rare, exotic weapons. You can only meet with such a PKR in the event of a direct armed conflict between the US or China with the Russian Navy - the situation is almost unreal. As a result, during their 30-year career, the Granites have never been used in combat conditions and have not sunk a single enemy ship.


P-700 "Granite". The size and weight of this rocket are close to the MiG-21 fighter

It stands alone история with the P-15 "Termite" - the firstborn of anti-ship missiles, not yet a perfect rocket with a launch mass of 2 tons and a range of 40 km. But even in this form, “Termit” turned out to be much more effective than “Granites”, quickly gained popularity among the “third world” countries and distinguished itself in many local wars.

Unlike the Russian Navy, all the other fleets of the world are armed with mainly light anti-ship missiles - the French Exochet, the American Harpoon, the Chinese C-802, the Norwegian NSM, and the Japanese 90 Type - they are all small-sized missiles with a launch mass of 600 -700 kg. With subsonic flight speeds and warheads 150-250 kg, of which less than half is in explosives. The “semi-armored warhead” itself has no constructive measures to overcome armor, and its “armor-piercing” is determined only by slowing down the fuse.

A positive feature of the compact RCC is their small mass, size and cost. As a result, such missiles are numerous and omnipresent. The Yankees and their allies adapted the Harpoon for dozens of different carriers. Virtually any ship in the range from the boat to the battleship, any aircraft - from fighter jets to strategic B-52, ground-based PUs on the truck chassis ... how much imagination the developers had.















It is precisely small-sized “Exosets”, “Harpoons” and C-802 that are most intensively used in local conflicts and have already sunk a dozen ships. They are so cheap and practical that they can be acquired by any terrorist group and a country of the “third world”. In 2006, Hezbollah fighters shot down with the help of the Chinese Yingji anti-ship missiles, the corvette of the Israeli naval forces and a ship sailing under the Egyptian flag.

Accidental Exocset, launched from a Mirage that flew past, or unexpected Yingji, released from a camouflaged PU on the shore — such cases represent the main threat in modern hot spots and local wars at sea. And from them should be sought adequate protection.



It is in principle incorrect to compare the kinetic energy of the RCC with the body of duralumin and the nose cone of radio transparent plastic with the energy of armor-piercing shells, in view of the fundamental differences in the strength of these bodies. At meeting angles close to the normal, the missile warhead can simply collapse when it hits the armor. Upon impact on the tangent, the "soft" RCC is guaranteed to go into the rebound. Sources include numbers from 40 mm (realistic) to 90 mm (which is unlikely) - such a layer of steel is able to confidently protect the crew and the insides of the ship’s compartments from RCC, similar to Exocset.


"Toledo" - 12-th in a row in a series of 14 type cruisers "Baltimore". Launched in 1945 year. Complete in / and 17 thousand tons. Reservations (in brief): Armor belt - 152 mm, Deck - 65 mm, Battle house - 165 mm. GK towers - max. armor thickness 203 mm. Barbetta towers GK 152 ... 160 mm. Protection cellars 51 ... 76 mm. The total weight of armor 1790 tons or 12,9% of the standard w / and cruiser

If we take the cruiser “Baltimore” as a standard, its armored belt and armored deck can withstand the hit of any modern small-scale anti-ship missiles or close undermining of a boat with terrorists. A rocket would never break through a metal layer of such thickness, and with an external explosion, the design of the plastic “Harpoon” eliminates the appearance of heavy fragments - such fragments simply have nothing to form. Even if the shock wave bends the frames and stringers, pulling several armor plates off, the presence of armor minimizes damage and prevents the death of a large number of sailors. Doubters please look at the examples of the Second World War.

Where did the armor go?

It is not known for certain in whose bright head the thought of the uselessness of ship's armor was first born. Anyway, from the end of the 1950-ies began the massive construction of warships, the design of which protection was not paid attention.

The only reason for such a dubious situation is the appearance of nuclear weapons. The first sea test of nuclear weapons on the Bikini Atoll gave the opposite effect - armored ships that were over 1000 yards from the epicenter easily survived the explosion. However, the further evolution of nuclear weapons, whose power with the advent of thermonuclear bombs exceeded the megaton line, proved to be fatal. Preparations for a world nuclear apocalypse began, after which nothing mattered. Warships rapidly turned into "disposable" pelvis.

As time went on, there was no atomic war. But I had to get involved in a bunch of local wars, where ships became victims of the most common means of destruction - artillery fire, anti-ship missiles, boats with shahids on board or free-fall bombs.

The first alarm was sounded during the Falkland War (1982) - one of the British ships (Sheffield) burned down and sank from one of the unexploded RCC stuck in its hull. Strictly speaking, the Falklands cannot serve as a reference example of modern war - Her Majesty's unarmed frigates were drowned like puppies under the blows of decrepit subsonic attack aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

However, the only sea conflict of the modern era has clearly shown what happens to an unprotected ship when a small 500-pound or Exocset gets into it. If on the place of the small Sheffield or Coventry any cruiser Belknap or Springs, nothing would change in principle. Belknap, due to its large size and buoyancy margin, could not have drowned - but it would have burned out thoroughly. Numerous loss of life + damage of hundreds of millions of dollars. The ship would have to be rebuilt. Further events only confirm this thesis (a vivid example is Cole).


12 June 1982, the destroyer Glamorgan was located in 20 miles off the coast of the Falkland Islands, when a gift arrived from the coast - the Exocset anti-ship missile. The rocket’s history is unusual: the Argentines took it off one of their destroyers, transported it to the island with a transport plane, and launched it into the first British ship that caught their eye. The rocket slid along the deck (its footprint is visible in the photo) and exploded, destroying the stern part of the Glamorgan. The air defense system fell off, a helicopter broke out in the hangar and burned out. Killed 14 sailors. In general, the "Glamorgan" was lucky, what can not be said about other ships of the British squadron.



If a major maritime conflict occurs today (Chinese copies of Orly Berkov will fight with the Japanese Atago), the result will be terrible. Free ships will turn into flammable colanders with monstrous losses among their crews.

Facts just scream about the need to increase the security of ships. But no country in the world builds armadillos. What is the cause of the paradox?

Armor - expensive pleasure.

Adherents of this theory are not at all embarrassed by the fact that a boat costing $ 300 completely disables the destroyer for $ 1 500 000 000. In an era when the cost of the "stuffing" is estimated at billions, an extra couple of hundreds of millions for the armor and deck do not make the weather anymore, but they repeatedly increase the combat capabilities of the ship.

Finally, it is worth remembering that half a century ago armored ships were built in large series (Soviet 68-bis - 14 units!), And no one complained about the high cost and complexity of installing armor. Given that the machining technology was at a very primitive level compared with the current.

Installation of armor is impossible: modern ships are already overloaded with electronics, rocket systems, and so on. "High technology".

In the picture - the cruiser "Albany", 1962 year. You will not believe, but this is a modernized "Baltimore". The ship lost all its artillery, in return received a new super-superstructure, the PLUR complex and the 4 SAM system with fire control systems. Despite such a fierce "modernization", the displacement remains the same. And what kind of lamp computers and electronics were in 60's - even scary to imagine!



Hiding behind the armor is useless - the ship will still need long, expensive repairs.

Of course, it is much better to burn and sank off the coast of Iran with half the crew.

Armor will not protect radar and other fragile equipment - and then everything, kaput.

First, the ship will remain operational. To launch "Tomahawks" and shoot from a cannon at 45 km, adjusting the fire according to the UAV data - for this, the radar is not needed. Be sure, the wounded beast will become even more angry, release its ammunition for brazen “Papuans” and leave for repair on its own. The ship's PLO will not be affected - sonar, weapon. The move will continue. The ship will still remain a valid combat unit, but with limited air defense.

Secondly, it is difficult to disable ALL radars due to their number, location and considerable size of the ship. For comparison, on the Ticondeurogu cruiser there are four independent antennas of the AN / SPY-1 surveillance radar located on the walls of the front and rear superstructures - one for each direction. Plus backup radar review AN / SPS-49 (on the mainmast). Four radar target illumination. Navigation radar and surface viewing radar. As well as two anti-aircraft guns "Falanx" - each with its own radar fire control.



It will take a series of "successful" hits, but by that time the battleship can already calculate the offender and feed him with lead.

Do the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense of Russia in vain eat their own bread? If everything is so obvious, why hasn’t a TK for the creation of an armored ship yet been formed?

“Pitt is the greatest fool in the world, encouraging a way of waging war that gives nothing to a nation that already has supremacy at sea, and which, if successful, can lose this supremacy”,

- Admiral Lord Jervis spoke as he watched the naval minister rejoice in the successful testing of a new invention, a submarine designed by R. Fulton.

Seeing before them a new tool that could change the balance of power at sea, the British did not begin to develop promising technology, in return offering Fulton a life-long pension so that he forgot about his submarine. They didn’t want to change anything - they were happy with everything: double superiority fleet His Majesty over any of the fleets in the world. Then why give a reason for a new arms race if there is no certainty that they will come out of it as winners?

Currently, America continues to celebrate victory in the Cold War. The Yankees do not see worthy opponents at sea and do not want to change anything. Despite the experience, common sense and regular calls from our own analysts, the Pentagon is not going to force the creation of the “21th century battleship”: after all, if successful, it will immediately create all of their “Berki” and “Tikonderoga”, which were riveted in the number of 80 pieces.

It sounds surprising, but the Yankees do not prepare for wars at sea at all. Their newest ships are completely devoid of anti-ship weapons. Instead, sailors are becoming increasingly addicted to the subject of BMD (strategic missile defense) and other equipment that has only a remote connection with the sea.

States - the only ones who can create a fundamentally new ship CSW (Capital Surface Warship). But they will never take such a step - until someone else does. Frankly speaking, the American fleet lately has not shone with novelty solutions and, in its technical excellence, has been left behind many European and Asian fleets (which cannot be said about its size).

Don't wait News from Japan - this 51st state receives most of the technology from the United States and builds its fleet on the American principle.

China? These guys are copying everything from the hours to the ships. At the moment, they have taken a call from the Pentagon and are trying to catch up with the US fleet, building their copies of the "Berkov."

Russia and the countries of the eurozone - here we are not talking about non-badness in principle. We and the Europeans have enough strength only to build frigates - modest ships, which armor does not rely on rank.

The conclusion is straightforward - something epic has to happen so that the battleships will return to the sea. And there is no doubt that this will happen sooner or later.

The article used the ideas of Kars.
Author:
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Volkhov
    Volkhov 16 January 2014 09: 07
    0
    Do the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense of Russia in vain eat their own bread? If everything is so obvious, why hasn’t a TK for the creation of an armored ship yet been formed?

    The American does not need to create armored ships - they are, and Aurora was going to repair soon.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 18: 51
      0
      And we have icebreakers.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 17 January 2014 00: 03
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        And we have icebreakers.


        Apples and uncle in Kiev.

        There are icebreakers, but the navy is slowly leaving for scrap.
  2. old rocket man
    old rocket man 16 January 2014 09: 11
    +8
    I think that there was a place to book ships and it was advisable when artillery was their main weapon. Improving aviation and torpedo weapons, and finally creating anti-ship missiles, nullified this expediency.
    Mr. Kaptsov’s references to the weakness of the warhead of the anti-ship missiles are inappropriate, because instantly it is possible to replace the warhead with cumulative and even 100mm armor will not be an obstacle.
    , the time of the battleships was irrevocably gone.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 13: 32
      +12
      Quote: Old Rocketman
      Since you can instantly replace warheads with cumulative and even 100mm armor will not be an obstacle.

      A ship is not a tank
      Having pierced 100 mm armor, you will be taken to the first compartment from the side, where, as a rule, there is nothing important. A few meters of empty space - and a new bulkhead.
      By this time, the cumulative stream will be completely exhausted and that’s all - damage to the ship will be limited to the 10 centimeter hole in the armored belt.

      Cumulative ammunition is completely useless against TKR

      Booking scheme for TKR "Mioko" (it should be noted that this is a "Washingtonian" with weakened armor)
      1. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay 17 January 2014 18: 32
        0
        You forgot about the tandem option. In this option, quite a lot of explosives can fly into the first compartment, which is not fraught with minor troubles. I think if the armor returns to the ships, the anti-ship missiles will quickly evolve to overcome this obstacle once again. Improving air defense is the only way out in the fight against RCC.
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 January 2014 18: 55
          +2
          Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
          You forgot about the tandem option

          The tandem variants are only designed to overcome dynamic protection. He will not be able to make a hole of a sufficient diameter so that the leading warhead penetrates without hindrance.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 18 January 2014 06: 39
            +1
            tandem warheads of concrete bombs (from 15 to 500 kg) first pierce concrete with a cumulative charge, then a high-explosive main charge enters the hole and destroys a thin runway or powerful bunker
            1. Kars
              Kars 18 January 2014 13: 30
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              tandem warhead concrete bombs (from 15 to 500 kg)

              Give a name and a photo if it's not hard. Do not compare concrete and armor steel. This is a big difference.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 January 2014 14: 49
                0
                Yes, various fillings of the same Taurus, Jassm and Storm Shadow, which you do not notice at point blank.
                I’ll ask you straight: ammunition breaking through 2 reinforced concrete will overpower 100-150mm armor?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 18 January 2014 15: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  I’ll ask you straight: ammunition breaking through 2 reinforced concrete will overpower 100-150mm armor?

                  Cool video, but it’s a pity for some reason that the moment of contact was replaced with graphics, why would it?
                  If you outline what a miracle of technology is, directly, a gift for a goalkeeper or chestnut. The question will be how do they penetrate these 2 meters of concrete - with an explosion, or with kinetic energy.
                  and I’m most likely not answering the fifth question. But there’s nothing to say about the explosion deep inside.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 18 January 2014 16: 44
                    +2
                    Excuse me ... but it will master ... "we smoke materiel"
                    The history of tank building is a variant of a tank with a reinforced hull and its correspondence to the thickness of a similar tank armor.
                    "In comparative tests, a 60mm concrete barrier matched 20mm high hardness armor plates." (c) M. Svirin "History of the Soviet tank 1937-1943"
                    That is, ammunition capable of penetrating 2 meters of reinforced concrete is guaranteed to hit armor protection up to 500mm thick. crying

                    Yet again. / I want to remind you that I’m still a specialist in some way and I studied the parameters of TSA and saw their real power (albeit at the training ground) /

                    So the good old BRAB with "additional speed" were calculated to defeat, in particular, the BETAB 500 SHP with a total weight of only 424 kg guaranteed to hit armor up to 550 mm thick, providing an undermining of 77 kg of high-blasting explosive FOR ARMOR (the speed and altitude of the carrier do not matter - i.e. Because the necessary acceleration the bomb received due to the powder accelerator.

                    Well and still, after. NURS С-13Т having a flight speed of about 500 m / s (i.e. not much faster than most small anti-ship missiles) with a starting weight of 69kg. It has a penetrating two-module warhead designed to defeat objects behind protection up to 6 meters of land, or 1 meters of reinforced concrete, or armored barriers up to 200mm. In particular, when it gets into the runway, up to 20 sq / m of coating plates is out of order.
                    the first part of the warhead weighing 21kg ensures the destruction of the obstacle and the second part of the warhead weighing 16.5kg breaks behind it ...
                    So with the warheads to defeat the armor now there are no special problems. In any case, those 100-200mm that can still be placed on a modern ship without causing its fatal overload and a sharp deterioration in combat qualities.
                    Again, for reference, the "small anti-ship missile" X59 "Gadfly" with a starting weight of 930 kg. delivers to the target a "penetrating" warhead weighing 320 kg. The X35 "Uranus" at the starting point of 620 has a warhead of 145 kg.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 18 January 2014 16: 49
                      +1
                      Quote: Taoist
                      According to the results of comparative tests, a 60mm concrete barrier corresponded to 20mm high hardness armor plates. "(C) M. Svirin" History of a Soviet tank 1937-1943 "
                      That is, ammunition capable of penetrating 2 meters of reinforced concrete is guaranteed to hit armor protection up to 500mm thick.

                      This reasoning applies to armor-piercing kinetic ammunition, and cumulative.
                      Quote: Taoist
                      NURS S-13T

                      Also find a drawing
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Again, for reference, "small anti-ship missile" X59 "Gadfly

                      launch range, and meriage if not hard.
                  2. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 18 January 2014 16: 53
                    0
                    they break through as you please: both due to kinetic energy and due to the tandem warhead and in diving and from horizontal flight - I can’t put 30 rollers for you - take an interest in the above missiles themselves.
                    in general, 6-inch guns pierced armor of equal caliber and a meter of concrete. there are 2 meters of reinforced concrete.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 18 January 2014 17: 33
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      - I can’t put 30 videos for you

                      One could and for some reason not a fan.

                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      pierce as you please: and due to kinetic energy

                      Can’t clip, give the text.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      tandem warhead

                      Until now, the name of the ammunition and its characteristics have not been given, while the effect of the cumulative effect on concrete and on the armor plate is very different, relative to the resulting hole.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      actually 6 inch guns pierced armor of equal caliber and meter of concrete

                      This is how the design and the filling factor of warhead missiles will at least become SIMILAR to the design of artillery munitions (by the way, there at the effective ranges, the speed is all the same supersonic,) then come and tell me something.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      here 2 meters of reinforced concrete.

                      Well, they really vryatli vryatli, but about the explosion behind the armored partition, you can not even imagine.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 18 January 2014 17: 55
                        0
                        Taoos has not yet mentioned that BetAb penetrates 550 mm of armor at a speed of only 700-1100km / h crying The whole bomb weighs as much or slightly less than the warheads of the above missiles
                        if you don’t want a tandem - get the kinetics: JASSM / At present, the concrete-piercing warhead J-1000 is installed on the rocket. The casing of the warhead is made of a metal alloy based on tungsten steel. The mass of the explosive is 109 kg. The J-1000 warhead at a speed of 300 m / s can penetrate medium-density soil to a depth of 6.1 to 24.4 m and punch reinforced concrete slabs with a total thickness of 1.2-2.1 m.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 18 January 2014 19: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Taoos has not yet mentioned that BetAb penetrates 550 mm of armor at a speed of only 700-1100km / h

                        This is an erroneous figure, look for more.
                        BetAB-500ShP can break through a ceiling up to 550 mm thick. In medium-density soil forms a funnel with a diameter of 4,5 m.
                        http://aviaros.narod.ru/betab500shp.htm

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        A bomb weighs as much or slightly less than the warheads of the missiles listed above.
                        By the way, the parachute just gives the vertical approach, which is hard to do for missiles.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        J-1000

                        It has already been mentioned. There it is becoming increasingly less normal, as a filling factor for at least 10% can be reduced. And for concrete it is just not very thick.
                        By the way, it’s not clear what’s going on with the defeat of moving targets, and it’s not worth talking about the maneuvers to break through the air defense.
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 January 2014 06: 51
                        0
                        I don’t think it’s wrong. The pre-war bombs had armor penetration of 100mm or 1,5m of marble on subsonic. With half the mass.
                        If you like to refer to Shirokograd, then here is http://commi.narod.ru/txt/shirad/405.htm

                        Do you really think that creating a warhead of the right filling with a weight of 400-500kg is more difficult and longer than building battleships? Anti-aircraft missiles will destroy the same missiles (radar, launchers, planes, runways, warehouses, headquarters, barracks, armored and some other equipment)
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 19 January 2014 14: 47
                        +2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        don't think wrong

                        The most real mistake, which is being overridden from time to time. Do you think it was the first to show me?
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        With half the mass

                        Armor-piercing artillery ammunition with an approach speed of greater and greater mass does not penetrate such a thickness.
                        http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/BKM/QE/03.htm
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        http://commi.narod.ru/txt/shirad/405.htm

                        You yourself deny this link and if you even tried to read, you saw
                        The warheads of both bombs were 203-mm artillery shells (armor-piercing and concrete-piercing shells, respectively).
                        By the way, where is the scoop link?
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Do you really think that creating a warhead of the desired filling with a weight of 400-500kg is harder and longer

                        I am sure that when it is created, it will not get an analogue of light RCC, but something is simply huge.
                      5. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 January 2014 18: 13
                        0
                        Moreover, Shirokograd, that you yourself refer to it.

                        "The warheads of both bombs were 203-mm artillery shells (armor-piercing and concrete-piercing, respectively)" - And? what is refuted here? weight ? bomb speed? Jassm will take three of these and hit with greater speed. or one in 400-480kg and weighs a ton (something huge for you?)
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 19 January 2014 18: 25
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        ? what is refuted here? weight ? bomb speed

                        DESIGN.

                        And you think a typo is impossible? I have already cited two third-party sources that prove that there is an error / typo.
                      7. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 19 January 2014 18: 54
                        0
                        you have cited a source proving that the bomb is two and a half times lighter and tens of years older (BRAB200DS arr. 1940) with a minimum of 100 mm
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 19 January 2014 18: 26
                      +1
                      _________________
                2. Kars
                  Kars 19 January 2014 18: 11
                  +1
                  KC-type armor penetration with 1400 pounds. (635 kg) AP Shell
                  .
                  Range Side Armor Deck Impact Speed ​​Armor
                  0 yards (0 m) 17.3 "(439 mm) --- 2500 fps (762 m)
                  10000 yards (9144 m) 12.5 "(318 mm) --- 1850 fps (564 m)

                  http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_135-45_mk6.htm
                3. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 19 January 2014 18: 27
                  0
                  Armor Penetration with 850 lbs. (386 kg) AP Shell
                  . Range KC Side Armor Striking Velocity
                  0 yards (0 m) 16.8 "(427 mm) 3,010 fps (917 mps)
                  10,000 yards (9,144 m) 11.2 "(284 mm) 2,000 fps (610 mps)
                  from there the shell is twice as light, a hundred years ago
                4. Kars
                  Kars 19 January 2014 18: 47
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  from there the shell is twice as light, a hundred years ago

                  You start raving. Will you watch at speed? And you never knew
                  In the post-war period, the BetAB-500 ShP rocket-propelled bomb was adopted. Bomb length 2509 mm, diameter 325 mm. Gross bomb weight 424 kg.

                  424 kg is twice as heavy as 386 kg,

                  at the same time, what speed do you say at BetAB-500 more or less than 610 m / s?
                5. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 19 January 2014 19: 00
                  0
                  Brab200ds weighs 213kg - half the betab500shp.
                6. Kars
                  Kars 19 January 2014 19: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Brab200ds weighs 213kg - half the betab500shp.

                  Do you start slivatsa?
                  Quote: Kars
                  Taoos has not yet mentioned that BetAb penetrates 550 mm of armor at a speed of only 700-1100km / h
                  This is an erroneous figure, look for more.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  I don’t think it’s wrong.


                  So let's talk about what you don’t think. About 550 mm in beta-500

                  But BraB200 is completely unacceptable here, and did not even come close to armor-piercing even by the shell mentioned by you.
                7. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 19 January 2014 19: 20
                  0
                  in the sense of merging? Brab200ds weighs 213kg - two times less than betab500shp. Above, I wrote about the projectile two times lighter than you brought from http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons.
                  brab200ds According to the calculated data, the BRAB-200 DS bomb, dropped from "a height of 1000 m, should have penetrated 77-mm cemented armor or 109-mm homogeneous armor. Accordingly, at an altitude of 6000 m, the thickness of the pierced armor increased to 182 and 260 mm." why a modern bomb twice as heavy cannot penetrate 550mm of armor? because you wanted to?
                8. Kars
                  Kars 19 January 2014 19: 30
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  why a modern bomb is twice as heavy can not penetrate 550mm armor?

                  because the armor-piercing projectile weighing a third taller than the 500 betab
                  having a specialized structure - which the 500 betab does not have but the 200 brab has and the speed in 762 m / s pierces all 439 mm
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  because you so wanted?

                  because there is physics and material science.

                  And by the way, when do you make assumptions why do you think that the dependencies are linear?
  • Kars
    Kars 18 January 2014 17: 37
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    ammunition design
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 18 January 2014 18: 49
      +1
      You either poorly taught physics at school or you consciously distort.
      Do not forget that the thickness of the walls of an armor-piercing projectile and its, let's say, "a kind of design" will be explained not only (and to some extent) by the need to withstand the loads when breaking through the armor, but also those huge loads that the projectile experiences directly when fired. And to provide a "specific impulse" for breaking through an armored barrier today can not only stupidly "disperse a piece of iron". Opening a "tin can" with an overhead charge has not surprised anyone for a long time. Well, after the appearance of methods of mathematical modeling of the explosion, focusing any required impulse directly on the surface of the armored barrier is not a question.
      Unfortunately, I can't post here "diagrams" and "drawings" of such warheads (the secretary, you know, does not give out my old notes soldier ) But the numbers that I brought you are absolutely real ... How would you not like to believe otherwise.
      So ... I really like battleships too. In my childhood I still loved to draw them, and now I am collecting a Bismarck model from "nachette". But the love of dinosaurs sadly doesn't make Jurassic Park a documentary.
    2. Santa Fe
      18 January 2014 19: 09
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      the thickness of the walls of an armor-piercing projectile and its, let's say, "a kind of design" will be explained not only (and to some extent) by the need to withstand the loads upon penetration of armor, but also those huge loads that the projectile experiences directly when fired

      Do you think THIN-WALL HE shells should explode right in the gun barrels


      130 mm HE shell


      And here is another miracle - a radar anti-aircraft projectile, the Yankees fired 20 million of such babies during the entire war. The main secret is radio tubes capable of withstanding 20 overload 000g

      Consequently, the "peculiar design" of the armor-piercing projectile is explained by something else, and not by "huge loads when fired"
    3. Kars
      Kars 18 January 2014 19: 41
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      You either poorly taught physics at school or you consciously distort.

      You just want to catch me for nothing, but it’s not fate.
      Quote: Taoist
      Opening a "tin can" with an overhead charge has not surprised anyone for a long time.

      There the detonation speed is 7-8 km per second, what else do you want
      Quote: Taoist
      Well, after the appearance of methods of mathematical modeling of an explosion, focusing any required impulse directly on the surface of an armored obstacle is not a question.

      Oh well? And what will be something different from the cumulative effect?

      Quote: Taoist
      and now I am assembling a Bismarck model from "nachette".

      it's cool when I’m going to gather myself.
      This Tirpitz is true, but not the point.
  • La-5
    La-5 16 January 2014 09: 16
    0
    In a dispute, the armor-shell will always be behind the shell.
    1. svp67
      svp67 16 January 2014 13: 46
      +6
      Quote: La-5
      In a dispute, the armor-shell will always be behind the shell.

      Not a fact ... There are many examples in history that refute your statement.
      1. La-5
        La-5 17 January 2014 06: 18
        +1
        The shell will always be simpler and cheaper, therefore more efficient.
        1. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 18 January 2014 18: 56
          0
          It is not always technically possible to create such a projectile (which will fulfill its task, i.e., hit the target). In production, it is usually really simpler and cheaper to use a new weapon, rather than a new body armor. But it should be noted that there is a tendency towards modularity of structures, including armored ones. In the future, it is even possible to imagine the superiority of defenses over defeats in terms of the economy. Sincerely. hi
        2. anomalocaris
          anomalocaris 18 January 2014 20: 24
          0
          Well this is not always the case. There were times when the armor was ahead of the shell. It is enough to recall the history of the Middle Ages, when the siege of the fortress was not very simple, even with the advent of artillery, and fortresses built according to the Vauban system remained relevant until the appearance of powerful high-explosive shells in the late 19th century. On the battlefield, armor was relevant until the beginning of the 17th century, providing acceptable protection.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 16 January 2014 09: 23
    +8
    To author +, a rather interesting article (say, combining previous articles), although controversial.

    At the expense of the Mosquitoes, my father said (if we take the classic battle in the ocean) that in the sea from surface ships, in his opinion (by the AUG), for his destroyer 956, the most dangerous would be modernized American battleships (such as Iowa), by a simple reason - armor and artillery (+ after modernization and missiles). In his words, "Mosquitoes" could not penetrate his side armor belt, a conventional warhead. And he, in turn, having a sufficiently high speed, would begin to fire at first with Harpoons (in principle, 956 could not be bad to defend against them with his air defense system), and then, going to the rapprochement, he would also fire artillery fire. Then it would have been kaput. Although the AK-130 is a good weapon, it did not compare with the main caliber of the battleship.

    So that, the author’s opinion, I support, all the same, the armor would not hurt.

    I only disliked the quote - "Russia and the countries of the eurozone - here we are not talking about non-mednout, in principle. We and the Europeans only have the strength to build frigates - modest ships, whose armor does not rely on rank." ...

    Somehow he really lowered us ..
    1. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 16 January 2014 09: 56
      0
      So this is amer translation. the author. They still skip texts like the old tanks + rusty ships.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 16 January 2014 13: 06
        0
        This is not a translation, this is an article by Kaptsov.
    2. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 16 January 2014 09: 56
      0
      So this is amer translation. the author. They still skip texts like the old tanks + rusty ships.
    3. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 13: 35
      +1
      Quote: NOMADE
      I only disliked the quote - "Russia and the countries of the eurozone - here we are not talking about non-mednout, in principle. We and the Europeans only have the strength to build frigates - modest ships, whose armor does not rely on rank." ...

      Somehow he really lowered us ..

      I’ll tell you more, Russia even builds frigates for 8 years and so far no one has built
      1. NOMADE
        NOMADE 16 January 2014 14: 52
        0
        If you take "construction", then I agree, for now ... everything is sad and slow. (I meant the technological capabilities and reserves. If the "wop" bite, then we will begin to build normally and quickly, the main thing is that the will and desire (real, and not for the "public") at the top have.
      2. bask
        bask 19 January 2014 19: 35
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        about 8 years and so far no one has built

        Yes, because from the end of the 80's (the humpback) in the USSR, then Russia, hundreds of defense industry enterprises building ships were destroyed.
        1. Santa Fe
          19 January 2014 21: 34
          0
          Quote: bask
          Yes, because from the end of the 80's (the humpback) in the USSR, then Russia, hundreds of defense industry enterprises building ships were destroyed.

          The end of the 1980's peak skeletal engineering in our country
          And in the 1990's, ships were built, moreover, large (Peter the Great, Chabanenko, 6 atomic submarines)

          The Russian Navy is not replenished with ships only for the last 14 years (moreover, they are quite successfully built for export)
          1. Kars
            Kars 19 January 2014 22: 14
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And in the 1990's, ships were built, moreover, large (Peter the Great, Chabanenko, 6 atomic submarines)

            Rather, they were still being completed.
            When will you do the mail?
    4. Taoist
      Taoist 18 January 2014 16: 49
      +1
      A "Mosquito" on the side and never beats ... He makes a slide on the approach and hits the target on the deck ... And deck 100-200 mm Iowa it breaks through guaranteed. Those. if we assume that at least two Mosquitoes broke through the air defense orders, Iowa is no longer conducting any counter artillery fire, but is leading a desperate struggle for survivability ...
  • makarov
    makarov 16 January 2014 09: 30
    +1
    If KAZs are now installed on tanks, then on modern ships, with their sky-high cost, God himself ordered the installation of similar installations, and in my opinion their effectiveness is higher than building up armor.
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 January 2014 12: 48
      +2
      Quote: makarov
      If KAZs are installed on tanks now

      And this is what you think?
      Quote: makarov
      , and their effectiveness in my opinion is higher than building armor

      One another is not a hindrance.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 16 January 2014 13: 06
      0
      Their role is played by anti-aircraft missiles, KAZs are generally useless there.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 16 January 2014 09: 31
    +2
    Quote: La-5
    In a dispute, the armor-shell will always be behind the shell.


    Well, not quite so .., otherwise the MBT would have been "cardboard". We need a middle ground, as in tank building (I don’t know how appropriate a comparison is), by the way, missiles are also actively used and active protection. But for some reason, they do not give up armor, but try to improve.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 16 January 2014 11: 59
      0
      Quote: NOMADE
      But for some reason, do not give up the reservation, but try to improve.

      Probably because the tanks do not sink (on the ground, of course) laughing
    2. La-5
      La-5 17 January 2014 06: 30
      +1
      Because the shell has an initial advantage, the designers of the armored vehicles compromise otherwise the armored object will turn into a motionless monolithic cube, and then it can be broken. Of course, armor is needed, but practice shows that it is most often pierced.
      1. anomalocaris
        anomalocaris 18 January 2014 20: 30
        0
        Question by what means? It is enough to look at the history of the development of anti-tank infantry equipment from 7,92 mm anti-tank vehicles to 128 mm anti-tank vehicles. At the same time, at the end and immediately the ambassador of World War II, tanks appeared that were too tough for even such monsters.
  • Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 16 January 2014 09: 36
    +7
    I already wrote that modular combined armor of a honeycomb structure for ships and vessels was successfully developed and tested in the USSR and many countries. However, it did not enter service for a reason: in the USSR, due to the collapse of the union and the subsequent stagnation of everything and everyone, in other countries, due to the significant rise in the cost of ships when using it. In fact, the development of naval armor as cheap and lightweight as possible continues in many countries now. There is evidence that small vessels for sabotage and raiding operations are covered with plastic-Kevlar armor. Similar armor is used on most large modern US ships to protect command and other important posts. However, the use of armoring on ships of the old design with a large number of electronic devices outside the robust housing was problematic. But modern designs in which all radio-electronic devices and weapons systems are "hidden" inside the ship's box allow the use of armor elements in a wider scope.
    1. NOMADE
      NOMADE 16 January 2014 09: 41
      +1
      What I mean, I completely agree.
  • report4
    report4 16 January 2014 09: 56
    +8
    To put on existing carriers warheads capable of destroying ships with additional armoring is much simpler and cheaper than installing this same armor.
    The author confuses cause and effect, it was not the weakening of the armor that led to the appearance of light weapons, and the excessive power of these weapons itself led to the fact that the installation of this same armor did not justify itself.
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 January 2014 12: 51
      +2
      Quote: report4
      Put on existing warhead carriers capable of

      What to put on a subsonic missile? Even an elementary increase in the design of warheads will reduce the weight of explosives, which in itself makes life easier for the ship.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 16 January 2014 19: 16
        0
        Strengthening the design of the armor-piercing projectile compared to a high-explosive or semi-armor-piercing projectile led to a decrease in explosives, but the life of the ship did not facilitate.
        report4 is right - the battleship to build a couple is still!
        But when the Yankees needed concrete bombs - after only 4 months they already pierced many meters of soil, and under it reinforced concrete in Iraq. And for this, they did not need to reanimate 10-20 tons of Grand Slams. Just stuffed the old trunks with explosives and equipment - any fighter will take a couple of these. 4 months !

        Swedes, Germans, French use warheads, engines, each other's electronics and their missiles fly. Italian Otomat and Exocet have interchangeable GOS. And you say warhead will be a problem. Even the ancient little Penguin drags the Bullap warhead. But for her there are both cluster and nuclear options and armor-piercing. Introduce the Penguin with JAB am

        JASSM, TAURUS, Storm Shadow - subsonic, plastic missiles of 1000-1300 kg. And their developers themselves have lost the number of warheads that are developed for them. In YouTube, you can easily see how Americans or Europeans punch 2-meter reinforced concrete with these subsonic plastics with penetrating warheads.
        1. Santa Fe
          16 January 2014 19: 44
          +1
          JASSM, TAURUS, Storm Shadow - subsonic, plastic rockets according to 1000-1300kg.

          not one of them is suitable for hitting moving targets
          In YouTube, you can easily see how Americans or Europeans pierce 2-meter reinforced concrete with these subsonic plastics with penetrating warheads.

          It is not reinforced concrete
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Just stuffed the old trunks with explosives and equipment - any fighter will take a couple of these. 4 of the month!

          To do this, you need to be at an altitude of a couple km above the target - suitable only for the Papuans. Modern air defense systems will not allow this
          Quote: Tlauicol
          report4 is right - the battleship to build a couple is still!

          Where is the droushka?

          Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Case Study in Solving Naval Surface Fire Support, p. 85
          claims that a ship like Iowa costs 2 times less than an AB with an air wing
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 January 2014 10: 32
            0
            JASSM / warhead J-1000 at a speed of 300 m / s can penetrate medium density soil to a depth of 6.1 to 24.4 m and punch reinforced concrete slabs with a total thickness of 1.2-2.1 m. - Speech is clearly not about papier. Not suitable for hitting moving targets? Without my help, you will perfectly recall at least fifty cruisers and dreadnoughts destroyed on the roads or near the mooring wall!
            But seriously: at least a dozen subsonic anti-ship missiles have learned to hit ground targets, Harpoon has been doing this for 40 years. There will be a task for JASSM, TAURUS, Storm Shadow to hit the battleship on the go - they will receive this opportunity before the keel of the ship is laid. I generally suspect that they will exchange warheads and GOS with existing models of anti-ship missiles and QAB - set only the task. Moreover, this practice has been around for decades and is international
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 January 2014 14: 21
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              JASSM / warhead J-1000

              warhead unit is made of tungsten alloy [7] and equipped with 109 kg of highly effective low-sensitivity explosive AFX-757

              Cool how the mass of explosives has changed for a ton of ammunition?

              there is no stealth approach like Rocket Harpoon on a low-level flight, an excellent target for air defense of a ship.
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Not suitable for hitting moving targets? Without my help, you will perfectly remember at least fifty cruisers and dreadnought

              Well, why do you live in the past again? Do you have a super modern missile, and does the enemy have an 40 air defense system? Can we still consider an attack on the base of the Russian Federation in the manner of pearl Harbor?
              Quote: Tlauicol
              . I generally suspect that they will exchange warheads and GOS with the existing

              Well, yes, you can always put a GOS ha unguided bomb without an engine and control planes. And maybe missiles will still be exchanged with maneuverable characteristics?
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 17 January 2014 16: 01
                0
                You are mistaken. Based on this missile, the Americans are developing a new anti-ship missile. To begin with, we taught how to hit a moving sea target (hello Kaptsova), to distinguish the desired target from a group of sea targets. She is now being crammed into the Mk41 UVPU. European Taurus also has the ability to fly over the entire range of altitudes, including at low and very low altitudes
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 16: 29
                  +2
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  On the basis of this rocket, Americans are developing a new anti-ship missile

                  DEVELOP? Or already have?
                  and what is the range of application with a low trajectory?

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  European Taurus also has the ability to fly over the entire range of altitudes, including at low and very low altitudes

                  Let's get its mass, warhead type, speed.

                  And I watch all the time that you forget that the ship has not only one armor, you remember that the ship, especially the large one, has many layers of protection, and the armor will give it combat stability, especially when it is massively used against the ship’s weapons. It will also make warhead detonations less effective at a distance, not contact, close misses, as well as when struck by substandard ammunition, it will also increase the likelihood of failure of the mechanisms of the striking ammunition, forcing it to work not normally.
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 17 January 2014 16: 46
                    0
                    Yes they are. Have you already laid the keel of the ship? google about Taurus. type of warhead whatever you want
        2. Kars
          Kars 16 January 2014 21: 41
          +1
          Quote: Tlauicol
          But when the Yankees needed concrete bombs

          Well, boyats is not worth the bombs, by the way, where does the bomb go to the rocket? And in order to penetrate many meters of concrete, the plane has to fly NU very high above the radar, and you need a very large plane.
          Quote: Tlauicol
          they just stuffed the old barrels with explosives and equipment - any fighter would take a couple of these

          Any fighter? Are you sure? And even a couple?
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Bullapov warhead.

          Is she armor-piercing?
          Quote: Tlauicol
          these subsonic plastics with penetrating warhead 2-HM reinforced concrete.

          And what's the problem here to post a couple of videos?
          1. Kars
            Kars 16 January 2014 22: 14
            +1
            Quote: Tlauicol
            And for this, they did not need to reanimate the 10-20 ton Grayslams.

            I look at GBU-28, and I need one F-15 left from the carriers, and the mass is kind of strange, well, very different from the mass of an average Harpoon type anti-ship missile more than TWO TONS, more precisely 2270 kg. And the range is strange
            Guidance System: Laser;
            Range: about 10 km .;

            Upon reaching the position, F-111 dumped from a height of the order of 8000 meters. One bomb missed the target - the operator incorrectly set the laser beam on the target - but the second hit exactly the bunker

            as many as 8 km.

            By the way
            The entire bomb program - from the start of development to the first (and only!) Test throw took TWO WEEKS. Immediately after the only test (during which the bomb broke 6,7 meters of reinforced concrete), the shell was put into service

            It’s a pity I can’t remember the documentary, they showed how they poured trotyl manually with buckets.
            I wonder what kind of anti-ship missiles has the same rugged body as the 8 inch howitzer barrel.
          2. tlauicol
            tlauicol 17 January 2014 10: 41
            0
            I mentioned the bomb as a vivid example of how quickly the ammunition will be developed if a task appears. Two weeks in artisanal conditions - you correctly noticed. The mass of 2 tons for concrete blocks compared with 10-20 tons?
            The penguin used a half-armored warhead from Bullap. There was armor-piercing and cluster and nuclear, etc. But why? Armadillos became extinct as a class. And there are no subsonic missiles with excellent breakdown ability (see above)
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 January 2014 14: 28
              +1
              Quote: Tlauicol
              I mentioned the bomb as bright

              You mentioned it in vain. Because we basically have light ammunition, nobody proves to you that armor cannot be pierced.
              Quote: Tlauicol
              olubronoynoy warhead from Bullap. There was an armor piercing

              And what are its characteristics? Or is it all half armor-piercing that slows down the fuse?
              http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-12_Bullpup
              Quote: Tlauicol
              A subsonic missiles with excellent penetration no

              This is the most important thing. And supersonic missiles are very large.
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 17 January 2014 16: 06
                0
                re-read it again - it says "Battleships became extinct as a class. But there are no subsonic missiles with excellent penetration" (ie, they are well and continue to develop)
                The Penguin and Bullap example is another of many examples of warhead rotation between different products. You still ask me how Exoset with Otomat GOS are changing
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 16: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  reread it again - it says "Battleships died out as a class

                  So what? We are discussing new armored ships. Which may appear.
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  subsonic missiles with excellent penetration no "(that is, they live and continue to develop

                  That is, why should they die out if there are goals? Do you have some kind of failure in the logic of argumentation. Or were the subsonic races designed to destroy exclusively armored targets?
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  The Penguin and Bullap example is another of many examples of warhead rotation between different products.
                  This is some kind of profonation on your part. You stir up the water with this rotation, and do not write what is changing for the warhead, what?
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  You still ask me how Exoset with Otomat GOS are changing

                  Are we not interested in GOS, or does it play a role in armor penetration?

                  therefore the question remains valid
                  Quote: Kars
                  And what are its characteristics? Or is it all half armor-piercing that slows down the fuse?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 17 January 2014 16: 52
                    0
                    New missiles will appear faster. already appear. armor penetration is increasing every year, and dimensions are reduced.
                    I don’t give a damn about Penguin - I’m interested in the very principle of rotating GOS, engines, warheads between ammunition, which simplifies their evolution and solving emerging problems. ANTI-LINKOR Subsonic RCC will be built earlier than LINCOR. if in a nutshell
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 17 January 2014 17: 11
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      New missiles will appear faster

                      Tomahawk something could not.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      I. armor penetration is increasing every year, and dimensions are reduced.

                      Proof? How much has increased the armor penetration of missiles (but not anti-tank) over the past 10 years, and how much the dimensions of these missiles have decreased.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      I don’t give a damn about Penguin - I’m interested in the principle of rotation of the seeker, engines, warhead between

                      The fact that you do not care is understandable. And what's wrong with the rotation?
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      it simplifies their evolution

                      Maybe it simplifies something, but certainly not the evaluation, it even slows it down, because the finished elements are shuffled, not new.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      ROTIVOLINKORNY Subsonic RCC
                      Well write (presumably its characteristics? Due to what, setting which warhead (for your spitting out of cash) will achieve this?

                      For example, I’ll say that they won’t be able to build it in reasonable dimensions to overcome modern air defense systems. Moreover, they could launch it from a wide range of carriers.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 17 January 2014 18: 47
                        0
                        RCC Tomahawk rather died with the disappearance of Soviet cruisers

                        Yes, what are the characteristics: near-sound / subsonic, 300-500km range, 300-450 kg of warheads, altitude range to ultralow, ton of weight, 4-5 meters of length. it remains to lay the battleship (which however will lose the race)
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 17 January 2014 18: 52
                        +1
                        And that Russia has no cruisers?
                        Yes, and such a large structure still needs to get into the ship, and even an 50 mm armor plate can initiate explosive armor outside the ship's hull.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 16 January 2014 23: 31
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        report4 is right - the battleship to build a couple is still!

        And what immediately battleship? Build an armored ship of smaller displacement.
  • Leopold
    Leopold 16 January 2014 09: 59
    0
    Conflict planning is now dominated by the thought “discovered is destroyed”. It does not matter what kind of armor, protection or survivability - the cost and damaging ability of the attacker always exceeds the potential of the defender. Large ships are built for large targets and their relative vulnerability to mosquito attacks is only a temporary gap in technology.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 19: 16
      +1
      Do not remind why the Germans in Tiksi fell off?
      Correctly. Just two howitzers 152 mm.
      So that pocket battleship was armored.
      Now imagine what can be done with the modern warship Mstoy from an ambush.
      At the same time, she has no chance against the battleship of the First World War. Even if he does not have modern means of detection, unlike a modern ship.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 16 January 2014 20: 20
        +1
        Incorrect conclusions from the correct message. There was a raider in Tiksi - i.e. even the smallest damage for him is tantamount to death. Therefore, in almost any raid operation, when resistance and the chance of such damage are detected, it will most likely be interrupted.
        But the fact that the MSTA has no chance against the battleship of the First World War? Well, damn it, then you take into account the persistence of the trajectory of the sea guns and the possibility of firing howitzer fire from closed positions ... Most likely, in this hypothetical confrontation, the MST will open up the enemy and he will not even be able to find it ... And the reservation of the MSTA decks will definitely break ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 16 January 2014 21: 44
          +2
          Quote: Taoist
          And the reservation of decks of the MSTA will definitely break ...

          It’s a bit difficult for her to follow the hinged path at a distance of 10-12 km. Moreover, it’s a moving target, moreover, on the cross-field, in principle, no one will illuminate the cross-field.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 16 January 2014 22: 54
            +3
            Well, the good old spotter sitting on the shore in the visibility of a target and dictating amendments has not been canceled. And the rate of fire of MST is definitely better than that of the naval guns of the First World War ... Again, the presence of normal ballistic computers and not a "Dreise table" ... ;-) If we are so tightly engaged in the "alternative history" ... In general, fire from the sea on the prepared coastal artillery positions, an extremely thankless task ... The allies in the Dardanelle operation were 100% convinced of this ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 16 January 2014 23: 29
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              Well, no one canceled the good old spotter sitting on the shore in the visibility of the target and dictating the amendment

              He didn’t cancel. Yes, and on earth no one canceled, and how many shells are spent on a direct hit on the target in 200 by 20 meters?
              Quote: Taoist
              with the rate of fire the MSTs are definitely better than the ship guns of the first world

              for a similar caliber they are almost the same 5-7 rounds per minute.
              Quote: Taoist
              In general, firing from the sea at prepared coastal artillery positions is an extremely thankless task ... The Allies in the Dardannel operation were convinced of this by all 100 ...
              The Allies didn’t have aerial reconnaissance, I’m not talking about satellites. And if the place doesn’t have Dreiser’s table, then imagine what the ship will have. By the way, about the closed position on the ship there are so many radars that .. making them .. The zoo .. will not be difficult . And then it will come to the fore that Msta shoots from the bipod, and the ship on the go.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 17 January 2014 12: 46
                0
                Well, we are talking about "alternative history" ... ie. as it was asked - "battleship of the first world" against MSTA ... Each with its own fire control system. bully

                Well, about the "number of shells" ... to switch to rapid fire to hit the target no more than three. Another question is how many projectiles will be required to "guaranteed to hit the target" - this is a question of standards and target durability. Against bunkers, this is one thing against armor is completely different ... But as real historical experience shows, two to three dozen 6 inch shells that exploded on the deck and superstructures of even a very well armored ship (battleship or EBR) certainly did not inflict fatal damage - but the ship's combat capability quickly sought to 0. For broken pipes and chimneys led to a drop in draft and speed. Destroyed command rangefinder posts to ineffective (practically airborne) main battery fire. (and the BC is not rubber - and no one will bring him to the position at sea). For that Bismarck was powerfully defended ... but two hits to the superstructures were enough and his mighty guns never hit anywhere else ... Well, on trifles, losses in personnel, fires that will be tormented to extinguish under a steel shower ... and etc. In general, the "alternative battle" battleship is likely to lose. Another question is that it is just an "alternative" ... Although it is not for nothing that the coastal defense artillery complex was riveted on our "Barricades". This and the modern "battleship" if the need happens, "throws a lulla".
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 14: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Taoist
                  "battleship of the first world

                  I’m sorry, I didn’t read anything. About the condition of the battleship of the First World War.
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Another question is how many projectiles will be required to "guaranteed to hit the target" - this is a question of standards and target durability

                  This is the main question - the transition to a quick fire is not a defeat of the target. And the standards here are generally useless - we need a real hit.
                  Quote: Taoist
                  the construction sites of even a very well-armored ship (Battleship or EDB) certainly did not cause fatal damage - but the ship's combat readiness quickly sought to

                  And not an armored ship just drowned with most of the crew. What do we need?
                  Quote: Taoist
                  In general, the "alternative battle" battleship is likely to lose.

                  Well, I don’t know. In your example, shooting at a moving target, but we need to shoot at a fixed target.
                  Quote: Taoist
                  Although - it was not for nothing that the coastal defense artillery complex was riveted on our "Barricades". This and the modern "battleship" if the need happens, "throws a lulla".

                  Only not armored, and even then not a fact, especially 130 mm .. The coast .. does not differ in decent range.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 17 January 2014 16: 06
                    +1
                    The standards are always for what - the standards are precisely the "average" number of hits on the target to ensure its destruction. Because there is, after all, a "golden shot" - and as a result, "Hood" takes off to heaven ... And there is also a reverse indicator when a projectile, hitting a vulnerable point, does not explode ... So if we are doing a "thought experiment" here, then it is necessary to use the "calculation-normative" method ... Although we can "roll the dice" bully

                    As for everything else ... Guys, well, I'm not against armor as such (read above) ... Well, if the author of this topic hates aircraft carriers (he can't even eat) and loves heavy artillery ships, then damn it to reality, what does this have to do with ? You can "pull an owl on the globe" by adjusting the arguments to suit your wishes. But this does not mean that the truth will suddenly be revealed to us. Well, there is no "wunderwolf" and never will be ... Any weapon is, first of all, a system, a system sharpened for a specific structure of use and application. And in the same way, countermeasures are systematically developed. Do you think that if you now sew up the ship with armor, then you will "rip it out of the system" and get the coveted "wunderwaffe"? Well, this is a delusion - because the opposing system will react in the same way, which is most likely "nonsimmetrically".

                    In order not to be completely unfounded, we will try to consider the same option with the "coast" complex and its counteraction, let's say, to an amphibious operation supported by an "armored cruiser".
                    Let's just say - with a similar firing range of the "main caliber" near the coastal complex, the advantage is in stealth - as you know, there are no ravines on the water and there is nowhere to hide. Those. the ship's grouping will be detected earlier and targeted. The ships will not be able to detect the positions of the Coast until the moment they open fire. Those. the "first shot" is definitely behind the coast. The Battery of the Coast is 6 barrels with a combat rate of fire of about 10 rpm. Taking into account the fact that radar guidance and ballistic computers guarantee almost immediate target destruction at a distance of actual fire. Suppose that the "cruiser" is ready to return fire and 30 seconds after the opening of fire from the shore, its guns will be ready to strike back. (although in fact it is more - after all, you still need to detect positions, calculate and issue data to open fire) Well, let it be 30 seconds ... During this time, 10-15 130 mm of "suitcases" will collapse on the deck and superstructure of our "battleship" - which will turn into ruins superstructures, antenna posts and other by definition "unarmored things" ... Ie. most likely there will be nothing to open return fire ... the ship will not lose its buoyancy and speed, but it is no longer worth taking it into account as a combat unit. Further, the "coast" calmly shoots light unarmored landing craft. And after 5 minutes he is no longer in position and the retaliatory strike falls into the void. The crippled dreadnought goes home for repairs and the status quo is restored. And all this despite the fact that the cost of one battery of the Coast is an order of magnitude lower than the cost of the involved order of forces.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 17 January 2014 16: 48
                      +1
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Norms are always what - standards are exactly

                      Not in our case.
                      Quote: Taoist
                      In order not to be completely unfounded, we will try to consider the same option with the "coast" complex and its counteraction, let's say, to an amphibious operation supported by an "armored cruiser".

                      Quote: Taoist
                      Let's just say - with a similar firing range of the "main battery" near the coastal complex, the advantage is in stealth - as you know, there are no ravines on the water and there is nowhere to hide.

                      And why is it similar? On the battleship 150 mm, and even from the platform above sea level at 4-7 meters? That is even against the American 5 inch.
                      The coast, km to 23 at the same time they will have to shoot the OPI priori.
                      Gun Mk45 Range 14.9 miles
                      Quote: Taoist
                      Suppose that the "cruiser" is ready to return fire, and 30 seconds after opening fire from the shore, its cannons will be ready to retaliate

                      What can I assume - it’s vet, it’s approaching the enemy’s shore, and the ACS still need to be relocated, or someone will tell you the landing point? And the covering cruiser will be at a small distance, and the shore will most likely have to shoot primarily at high-altitude facilities.
                      1. Taoist
                        Taoist 17 January 2014 17: 06
                        +1
                        I’ll tell you a terrible secret ... The coastline is above sea level ... in most cases, not even on the 4-5, but hundreds of meters higher ... tongue

                        Well, the fact that we know the landing point is also not surprising - there are not many of these points on the coast ... Yes, and no one canceled reconnaissance ... again, all modern similar artillery systems are mobile ... i.e. to transfer to a point of probable threat can be quickly. (obviously faster than the fleet will do).

                        well, and the range. Compare comparable. Or do you think that if your hypothetical "armadillos" appear in real life, it will be very difficult to revive at least such monsters to life? This is to the question of the "expediency" of a new reincarnation of "battleships" - after all, the means of fighting them have long been found and it is nowhere easier to bring it back to life at a new technological level ... Yes, booking a warship from existing light anti-ship missiles is relatively easy and possible. That's just senseless - because the means of destruction will immediately return, which in due time turned the class of "battleships" into dinosaurs.

                        Perhaps the armor will return to warships ... but obviously only then it will be solved not as a piece of steel plate but on new physical principles. For now, all this is only suitable for science fiction writers. We open the "Huge black ship" and enjoy ...
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 17 January 2014 17: 20
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        I’ll tell you a terrible secret ... The coastline is above sea level

                        I’ll tell you even more - in such places, they try not to land, and these skyscrapers are often quite a few kilometers from the beach.

                        Quote: Taoist
                        Well, the fact that we know the landing point is also nothing surprising - there are not many on the coast of these points

                        There are significantly more than one, and even than 10.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        again, all modern such artillery systems are mobile

                        I pointed it out
                        Quote: Kars
                        , and self-propelled guns shore still need redeployment

                        Quote: Taoist
                        Comparing comparable. Or do you think that if your hypothetical "armadillos" appear in real life, it will be very difficult to revive at least such monsters to life?

                        Such monsters are very vulnerable to missiles. You don’t think that a modern battleship comes with one barrel artillery.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        bring it back to life at a new technological level is nowhere easier ..

                        Well, do not tell me, do not tell.
                        Although we still have a specific gun, the SAU Shore, at least against the unarmored Burke, or against the 6 Zvolvt inch.
                        As a result, for me the self-propelled guns Coast causes two feelings - why such a small caliber, only against the landing of mosquitoes.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Perhaps the armor will return to warships ... but obviously only then will it be solved not as a piece of steel plate but on new physical principles

                        New physical principles - the spiral of history, and everything new, well-forgotten old, have already served
                        Quote: Taoist
                        We open the "Huge black ship" and enjoy ...

                        I just love the gigantic hovercraft.
                      3. Taoist
                        Taoist 17 January 2014 19: 54
                        0
                        / According to the results for me, the self-propelled guns Coast causes double feelings - why such a small caliber, only against the landing of mosquitoes. /

                        Yes, everything is simple, for a theoretically probable opponent of this for the eyes. Well, if you have to clash with "Zamvolt" you don't think that in this case "vigorous loaves" will not fly? And without vigorous loaves ... everything that the irrepressible imagination of our gunsmiths invented will be used ... And I don't even know theoretically what the "combat stability" of the next American wunderwaffle really is ... This is the case - until we try, we will not find out. .. Otherwise we always get it like in that tank joke:
                        "The Tiger is a wunderfaff. And the Panther is a wunderwaffe. But drunken Russian tankers on the ISU-152 do not know this and therefore beat them with all their foolishness. There is nothing worse than a drunk Russian, and the ISU-152 sucks, created by stupid Asians." lol
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 17 January 2014 20: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Yes, everything is simple, for a theoretically probable opponent of this for the eyes.

                        Theoretically, the mission to the shore was issued in the interval from 1978 to 1980.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        ISU-152 - sucks created by stupid Asians.

                        What can I say - do not confuse SU-152 and ISU-152
                        it’s also not worth it even in an anegdot (even though I hear such a first time) to equate an assault self-propelled gun and a heavy tank.
                        Well, I’m surprised if on the account of SU-152 there are more than a couple dozen .. fat cats ..
                      5. Taoist
                        Taoist 17 January 2014 20: 30
                        0
                        Well, I don't write jokes ... so all the questions are for the author of Murphy's Laws for the Panzerwaffe.

                        And than the timing of issuing the terms of reference for the "shore" contradicts what I wrote above, I do not understand. Well, the "coast" was not designed to counteract the "zamvolt", if only because the highly mobile artillery complex is only the "last line of defense" (well, or the penultimate one) and before that "redoubts", "frontiers" and other large and small ones should be shot R"...

                        In general, I don’t understand why you clung so ... all the above scenarios for our country are still utopia, thank God ... And if suddenly the United States or someone else has a dozen extra billions lying around, then let them build "new battleships" - I personally do not mind. .. Again - suddenly aliens will arrive ... bully
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 17 January 2014 20: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: Taoist
                        so all questions to the author of Murphy's Laws for the Panzerwaffe.

                        divorced inventors.

                        Quote: Taoist
                        And what is the timing of issuing the terms of reference for the "shore"

                        the fact that they were given when the calculations for vigorous loaves were not theoretical. a cold wave was on, and the United States re-opened and modernized its battleships of the Iowa class
                        Quote: Taoist
                        In general, I do not understand that you are so caught on something.

                        Well, how then do we solve the issue of confrontation between an armored ship and an art battery?
                        at the same time, the 6 inch gun battery will lose to the battleship of the first world (calculation of armaments of one time period)
                        and the Msta-S battery has almost no chance against the modern (my theory) armored capital ship.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        And if suddenly the United States or someone else is lying around a dozen extra billion

                        So now it is the Russian Federation that is at the stage of re-equipping the fleet, and could use non-standard moves, and not copy the United States with its emphasis on modularity.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Again - suddenly the aliens will arrive
                      7. Taoist
                        Taoist 17 January 2014 21: 31
                        +1
                        You forgot that Iowa was mothballed and mothballed repeatedly ... and in general, without much success ... Americans and ganships are building ... well, that’s the very thing against the Papuans. But here we meant defense and not a fight against battleships ... The principle of reasonable sufficiency ...
                        The key phrase "in my theory" - I'm afraid even to ask the "theoretician" for military education, that is? Otherwise, in this case, the theory with approximately the same degree of tolerance to probability as the same "Huge black ship". Well, even now I can hardly imagine a goat with a button accordion. Those. a real and not from a flashlight a combat mission for which this very "battleship" is needed.
                        Fight everyone with your mighty appearance? Or reassure your crew that "under armor is not so scary"?
                        I, too, certainly not a military theorist - but just a practical military engineer ... but damn it in the database, even we were given the basics of strategic planning. And your dear, solid "I want it so much." Modularity is not a whim - it is an opportunity to extend the service life of a ship and not build a new ship for each new task, as was the custom in the USSR. We have no sea communications, we stupidly need to cover the coast and the possibility of deployment in the event of a threat from "strategists". Because we have not even had the ambitions of the USSR for a long time either. What will the battleships do? if seriously and not the "LSI option"?

                        Well, the real "asymmetric answer" is several dozen "Yakhonts" in standard sea containers on completely peaceful ships under the "Liberian flag" and the same containers somewhere on the sorting railway lines of ports ... And "go find a knife there" .. ...
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 17 January 2014 21: 50
                        +1
                        Quote: Taoist
                        You forgot that Iowa was canned and canned several times.

                        With modernization in 80.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        and in general, without much success

                        Well, the Vietnamese and Koreans do not agree with you, even shot at Iraq.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        But we meant defense rather than fighting battleships

                        We don’t understand what if it’s honest. From side to side, from extreme to extreme.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        The key phrase "in my theory" - I'm afraid even to ask the "theoretician" for military education, that is?

                        Just its absence allows not to think with numbed stamps.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        Those. a real and not from a flashlight a combat mission for which this very "battleship" is needed
                        A full range of combat missions, and from what Olie Burke was built to support landing operations.

                        Quote: Taoist
                        Modularity is not a whim - it is an opportunity to extend the life of the ship and not build a new ship for each new task, as was usual in the USSR

                        And along this, the Ticonderoga corpses are cracking. The Russian Federation is trying to take only the worst from the modular structure from the Americans.
                        Quote: Taoist
                        we have no sea communications, we stupidly need to cover the coast and the possibility of deployment in case of a threat from "strategists".
                        Then why do you need a surface fleet? And the cover for deploying strategists is only their unmasking. Despite the fact that they can launch rockets without leaving their bases further than a couple of three kilometers.

                        Quote: Taoist
                        Because even the ambitions of the USSR, we also have not had

                        I think that it’s a BOD in the Mediterranean Sea, even missile cruisers - which are generally useless there, as they are imprisoned for a suicidal attack on the AUG.
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 16 January 2014 10: 28
    +2
    The whole question is the cost of operation ... War-war, and in peacetime you need to get into the pocket of the taxpayer to support the combat fleet. What will the reservation of existing ships give?
    1. Changing the project completely, which will entail the restructuring of production lines with an increase in the cost of the final product;
    2. An increase in displacement, with a corresponding drop in speed, it will be necessary to increase the power of the power plant, fuel consumption, which increases the cost of operation (if you do not sacrifice the range / speed characteristics).

    By the way, the above-mentioned "Albany" had a total displacement of 17500 tons, and the 1134-Buki, which was equivalent in terms of armament, had a total displacement of only 9000 tons.
    Those. the use of a full reservation (otherwise meaningless) will require a twofold increase in displacement.
    Now the question. Is it worth it? How can the creators of RCC respond to this?
    Currently, the creators of anti-ship missiles during the development of b / h missiles proceed from their characteristics of booking modern ships, therefore the mass and type of b / h on almost all anti-ship missiles are identical: RP weighing 150-200 kg.
    The use of reservations with surface ships will accordingly entail a change in the type and mass of b / h anti-ship missiles. Here you should refer to the history of booking tanks. The appearance of cumulative shells led to the fact that a simple increase in the thickness of the armor absolutely did not provide protection for the tank, the armor was 200 mm. burned with a bang shot PG-7, had to apply multi-layer combined booking.
    The Baltimore-class cruisers had an armor belt of only 152-102mm. (depending on the location), this armor did not save from HE / cumulative b / h anti-ship missiles X-22 weighing 900 kg. It is clear that if the mass of a similar b / h were 150kg, then in this case, 152mm. homogeneous rolled armor would not have resisted, and the cumulative jet would have provided a good fire on board the ship (and this is the worst thing for any sailor). The use of armor of the "chobham" type (and other varieties) on a ship is impossible, on a tank the area is relatively small and you can spend money, but a ship will require hundreds of square meters ...
    Perhaps the armor will eventually return to the ships, but so far there are no prerequisites for this, ammunition has the advantage ...
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 14: 26
      -3
      Quote: Nayhas
      1. Changing the project completely, which will entail the restructuring of production lines with an increase in the cost of the final product;

      This is called scaring the hedgehog bare back.
      Can you recall how many Cleveland-class cruisers were laid by the Yankees?
      Quote: Nayhas
      An increase in displacement, with a corresponding drop in speed, it will be necessary to increase the power of the power plant,

      Baltimore - 17 thousand tons - 33 nodes
      These days, the CSW speed can be limited to 25 knots. So horror stories about a more powerful GEM - nothing
      Quote: Nayhas
      above "Albany" had a total displacement of 17500 tons, and the 1134-Buki equivalent in terms of armament had a total displacement of only 9000 tons.

      Something logic fails you - the Albany project is more dangerous than 1134B for 15 years, and the platform itself (Baltimore) - appeared on 30 years earlier
      And who told you that they equivalent on the composition of weapons ??


      Armored missile cellar of the Talos air defense system. The mass of each anti-aircraft missile is over 2 tons!


      Quote: Nayhas
      The use of reservations with surface ships will accordingly entail a change in the type and weight of b / h anti-ship missiles

      It’s interesting to know your suggestions for increasing harpoon armor penetration.
      Quote: Nayhas
      this armor did not save from RP / cumulative b / h RCC X-22 weighing 900kg

      Very funny example.
      11-meter idiot X-22 and a "wide" range of its carriers. Take a look at its operation and tactics of application (there is no chance of flying)
      Quote: Nayhas
      and the cumulative jet would provide a good fire aboard the ship

      And what would catch fire there?
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 January 2014 16: 20
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        These days, the CSW speed can be limited to 25 knots. So horror stories about a more powerful GEM - nothing

        But is it possible that with the growth of technology in Baltimore, it is impossible to put a much more powerful GEU for the place of its GEU while saving both the weight of the machine installation and the fuel?
        1. Santa Fe
          16 January 2014 16: 25
          -1
          Quote: Kars
          But is it possible that with the growth of technology in Baltimore, it is impossible to put a much more powerful GEU for the place of its GEU while saving both the weight of the machine installation and the fuel?

          this reserve can be used in another way - here everyone is worried about the deck and booking "advanced superstructures"
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas 17 January 2014 10: 29
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Something logic fails you - the Albany project is more dangerous than 1134B for 15 years, and the platform itself (Baltimore) - appeared on 30 years earlier
        And who told you that they are equivalent in composition of weapons ??

        Albany:
        Artillery 2 × 127 mm
        Missile weapons 2 × 2 launchers Mk 12 SAM Talos (104 missiles)
        2 × 2 launchers Mk 11 SAM "Tartar" (84 missiles)
        Antisubmarine weapons 1 × 8 launchers Mk 112 ASROC
        Mine-torpedo armament 2 × 3 TA Mk 32

        BOD 1134-B:
        Artillery 2 × 76-mm AK-726 (1600 rounds)
        Anti-aircraft artillery 4 × 30 mm AU AK-630
        Missile weapons 2 × PU air defense system "Storm" (80 SAM V-601)
        2 × "Wasp-M" (40 SAM)
        Antisubmarine weapons 2 × PU URPK-3 "Blizzard"
        2 × 213 mm RBU-6000 (144 RSL-60)
        2 × 305 mm RBU-1000 (48 RSL-10)
        Mine-torpedo armament 2 × 533 mm TA PTA-53-1134B

        In addition, there is only a helipad on Albany (that is, the base of the helicopter is only temporary), on pr.1134-B a full-fledged helicopter hangar. Those. Albany’s greater ammunition and 1134-B helicopter hangar cancel each other out.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The mass of each anti-aircraft missile is over 2 tons!

        The mass of missiles V-611 from the air defense system Storm 2,4 tons.
        Let us return to the main issue, displacement 1134-B - 8500 tons, displacement Albany - 17500 tons. The difference is not 20-30%, which would allow talking about taking into account the time of construction and the old age of electronic equipment (although this issue is more than controversial, since the USSR had a large lag in this regard), but about 95%! This is only thanks to the reservation.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        It’s interesting to know your suggestions for increasing harpoon armor penetration.

        My assumptions are RP / cumulative b / h, the developers can come up with a lot of things that are not available to me, but my version provides penetration of the armor belt with the formation of a fire in the reserved space.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And what would catch fire there?

        A lot of things can burn on a ship, starting with paint ...
        1. Santa Fe
          17 January 2014 13: 28
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          In addition, there is only a helipad on Albany (i.e. the helicopter base is only temporary)

          This Albany surrendered to you.

          There, one Talos rocket (with a booster) weighed 3,5 tons and hit 180 km - Talos had no analogues until the end of the 1,8th century. For comparison, the "Storm" zur weighed 50 tons and flew XNUMX km.
          Further - the rocket "Osy-M" weighed 128 kg. Rocket "Tartar" - half a ton. And there are 80+ such pieces.

          And, finally, the ammunition storage system - a whole rocket factory was located inside the Talos multi-level armored cellars. moreover, on 1134B, the b / c was stored deep below deck, and the main assembly shop of Talos was above the deck level (something needs to be done to compensate for the loss of stability)

          There’s nothing to talk about, and you’re comparing the whole helicopter
          Quote: Nayhas
          old electronic equipment

          Take another look at the number of radars installed on board Albany. And most importantly - the size of the superstructure and the height of the antenna posts (30-meter mast pipes!)
          Quote: Nayhas
          which would allow talking about accounting for the time of construction

          Of course, a steam turbine ship (120 thousand hp) is compared with a modern gas turbine ship (100 thousand hp) - by the way, the difference in the power consumption of the power plant is small with a double difference in I / O)))
          developers can come up with a lot of things that are not available to me

          come up with nothing there except for YaBCh
          A lot of things can burn on a ship, starting with paint ...

          The paint is off. Since Sheffield, non-combustible coatings have been used. There will also be no synthetic decoration


          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 17 January 2014 15: 25
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            This Albany surrendered to you.

            So you gave it as an example ...
            Let's make it easier. What armor belt will protect against the most common subsonic anti-ship missiles? In terms of the thickness of the armor belt, the thickness of the armored deck, the number of armored decks?
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 January 2014 15: 29
              +2
              Quote: Nayhas
              What armor belt will protect against the most common subsonic anti-ship missiles?

              50 mm homogeneous armor, with a cited front layer. Over important sections of 75 mm, and the second 30 mm armored bulkhead.
              the same first armored deck, over important areas two armored deck decks.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 19: 18
      0
      At 1, 2, etc. - and icebreakers are being built somewhere. Moreover, the first real icebreaker was built on a slipway for battleships.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 16 January 2014 10: 37
    0
    The Soviet missile school, in pursuit of the speed / range / power of warhead anti-ship missiles, exceeded a reasonable limit: the resulting missiles (in truth, disposable aircraft) were so gigantic that they needed special-built ships and submarines to accommodate them.

    Well, what is wrong here? All countries were fond of this. Only our sworn friends decided to bet on light RCC. We continue to make both light and heavy. Tell me, is it easier to shoot down twenty light, subsonic anti-ship missiles, or four or six heavy, supersonic ones?

    "Granites" are excessively expensive for local wars. They cannot be exported

    In local wars, any weapon other than WMD is used.
    And why export arms without carriers? After all, we sell weapons and carriers to India.
    1. Jaros81
      Jaros81 16 January 2014 11: 16
      +5
      It’s easier to bring down twenty light subsonic anti-ship missiles than 6 heavy ones ... When a 7-ton flywheel flies at you at a speed of 2,5 M along an unpredictable trajectory, and even, possibly, with a nuclear warhead, noise-proof ... Try to evade here. And their missiles can simply be shot down by the AK-630
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 16 January 2014 12: 04
        0
        Quote: Jaros81
        When a 7-ton colossus flies at you at a speed of 2,5 M along an unpredictable trajectory,

        And what "unpredictable" you can do at a speed of 2,5M?
        1. Jaros81
          Jaros81 16 January 2014 12: 28
          +3
          "The 3M-45 (P-700) missile has several flexible adaptive trajectories, depending on the operational and tactical situation in the sea and airspace of the operation area. The maximum flight speed corresponds to M = 2,5 at high altitude and M = 1,5 at The complex provides salvo firing with all ammunition with a rational spatial arrangement of missiles and allows to operate against a single ship on the principle of "one missile-one ship" or "flock" against the order of ships.

          PU Granite at TAVKR pr.1143.5
          In the rapid fire mode, one missile acting as a "gunner" flies along a high trajectory to maximize the target area, while other missiles fly on a low trajectory. In flight, missiles exchange target information. If the "gunner" missile is intercepted, then one of the other missiles will automatically take over its functions. The missiles themselves distribute and classify the importance of the target, choose the attack tactics and the plan for its implementation. To eliminate errors when choosing a maneuver and hitting a given target, the on-board computer (BCVM) contains electronic data on modern classes of ships. In addition, the on-board computer also contains tactical information, for example, about the type of ship orders, which allows the rocket to determine who is in front of it - a convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition. The on-board computer contains data on countering the enemy's electronic warfare, capable of jamming to divert missiles from the target, tactics for evading the fire of air defense systems. After the missile is launched, they themselves decide which of them will attack which target and which maneuvers for this need to be carried out in accordance with the mathematical algorithms incorporated in the program of behavior. The missile also has a means of countering the attacking missiles. Having destroyed the main target in the ship's group, the remaining missiles attack other ships of the order, excluding the possibility of hitting the same target with two missiles ...
          ... According to the experience of the combat and operational training of the Navy, it is almost impossible to shoot down such a missile. Even if you hit Granit with an anti-missile, the missile, due to its enormous mass and speed, can maintain its initial flight speed and, as a result, reach the target. "
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 16 January 2014 13: 32
            +1
            Quote: Jaros81
            The 3M-45 (P-700) missile has several flexible adaptive trajectories depending on the operational and tactical situation in the sea and air space of the operation area.

            I asked you a simple question, what can an unpredictable rocket get up to with a MiG-21 at a speed of 2,5M? Why do you quote me a reference whose data are not confirmed by anything? This refers to the flight in formation and missile defense ...
            1. Jaros81
              Jaros81 16 January 2014 14: 11
              0
              Which is easier to answer? Is it even easier? So. Free maneuvering and target selection. Or check out the post below by the old rocket man, or the "unconfirmed reference book." Here is the link: http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/granit/granit.shtml Or, finally, Wikipedia. And if you need confirmation, please contact our MO! They will definitely help you there. )))
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 16 January 2014 17: 16
                +1
                Quote: Jaros81
                Where is it easier to answer? Is it even easier? So. Free maneuvering and target selection.

                Do you yourself believe that at a speed of 2,5M, a Granit-sized rocket is capable of vigorously maneuvering without being destroyed by overloads? Not having developed aerodynamic surfaces and gas-dynamic control?
                What can be the "target choice" in this case, when the GOS dangles in all directions? And at a height of 10m. from sea level also maneuvers, dives and emerges?
                1. Jaros81
                  Jaros81 16 January 2014 19: 24
                  +1
                  I do not believe I know
                2. dustycat
                  dustycat 16 January 2014 19: 32
                  +1
                  The reason for the inability to maneuver vigorously on the MiG25 on 3M is a living pilot.
                  Take the pilot out of the cockpit - the design allows maneuvers with 6-8-fold overload.
                  Granite is just such an unmanned option.
            2. yehat
              yehat 16 January 2014 15: 08
              +3
              1. even sluggish maneuvering virtually eliminates artillery defeat
              2. maneuvering significantly affects the ability to detect and accompany the target. Bearing on a target is not yet an opportunity to hit it, because the exact coordinates are another matter.
              3. At a counter speed with a missile defense - and this is of the order of 4-7 maxs, even a 1 meter maneuver actually leads the missile away from defeat. At the same time, the missile defense problem is complicated by the fact that it is very difficult to precisely detect the target in the opposite courses - infrared radiation is not suitable, the EPR for the radar is small.
              4. Finally, the last chance for the ship’s self-defense - a fragmentation explosion to cover a cloud of fragments and other rubbish - again a bummer, the rocket's forehead is armored and protects.
              5. The last option is to try to bring down the rocket by plane. on 2.5 maximally unrealistic in the classical scheme (there is a minimal chance if the plane with the right missiles (not every one is suitable for such a task!) was barraging already at the right point and was just waiting for a signal to intercept), unrealistic and on the forehead.
            3. The comment was deleted.
            4. dustycat
              dustycat 16 January 2014 19: 28
              0
              Actually a good combat drone. Though one-time.
              And since the drone is what prevents the maneuvers from 5-8ZHE?
        2. old rocket man
          old rocket man 16 January 2014 12: 31
          +3
          Quote: Nayhas
          And what "unpredictable" you can do at a speed of 2,5M?


          For example, climbing and hitting a target with a vertical dive, the air defense of the target in this case is powerless
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 16 January 2014 13: 33
            0
            Quote: Old Rocketman

            For example, climbing and hitting a target with a vertical dive, the air defense of the target in this case is powerless

            A rather controversial statement. But. Why do you think that until the rocket begins to climb it remains invulnerable?
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 16 January 2014 16: 59
              +4
              Quote: Nayhas
              A rather controversial statement. But. Why do you think that until the rocket begins to climb it remains invulnerable?


              it falls, as it were, vertically due to the line of the radio horizon already from the gained height.
              the same Onyx is a typical example. He has an accelerator inside his ramjet, which accelerates the rocket to a speed of 2M, then it turns off and is thrown out by an incoming stream of air and onyx (Yakhont) continues to fly on the ramjet with a speed of 2,5M. Then, at a distance of about 70-75 km, the radar captures the target and turns off the radar while diving steeply to very low altitudes (about 5-10 m). As a result in the middle section, the flight is carried out under the lower boundary of the air defense zone. In the future, after the release of anti-ship missiles due to the radio horizon, the radar is switched on again, captures and accompanies the target that the missile is aiming at. On this relatively short flight the supersonic speed of the Yakhont makes it difficult to defeat it by short-range air defense systems, as well as jamming its homing head.
              There is also a flight algorithm (usually for subsonic anti-ship missiles) when, about 2 km to the target, the rocket makes a sharp vertical maneuver and dives at the target at a vertical angle, as the Old Rocketeer speaks of. In this case, we carefully detach the warhead and the anti-missile defense system and then turn on the final radar of the seeker and go to vertical dive under the cries of the scattering crew of the enemy ship smile
              1-target designation;
              2-launch rockets;
              3-acceleration section of the trajectory;
              4-height part of the trajectory;
              5-inclusion of radar seeker, capture and selection of targets;
              6-reduction of the rocket under the horizon;
              7-movement at a height of 5-10m;
              8-re-enable the GOS;
        3. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 16 January 2014 16: 50
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          And what "unpredictable" you can do at a speed of 2,5M?

          The speed itself gives the effect of unpredictability - when the zone from the radio horizon to the side of the ship is overcome in less than a minute or two.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 16 January 2014 12: 00
      0
      Quote: kirpich
      Well, what is wrong here?

      The question is in the number of RCC carriers. In the USA, one (in fact) Harpoon anti-ship missile system could be installed on any ship, on all attack aircraft, on some PLO aircraft. In our country, each type of ship had its own anti-ship missile system, absolutely not interchangeable with other ships. And it all started so hopefully ... The P-15 anti-ship missiles, in addition to the Project 206 RCA, were able to be installed on the ships of the Project 61,56,1159, thereby increasing their capabilities. But the rather modest characteristics of the P-15 anti-ship missiles required the creation of a new anti-ship missile. An attempt to replace the P-15 with the supposedly "light" anti-ship missile system that could be installed on most ships turned into the creation of the "Mosquito", which surpassed its predecessor both in weight and in size almost twice!
      As a result, the Soviet Navy received such a variety of anti-ship missiles that even now it is impossible to mention them all ... Moreover, they were of such size that it was impossible to install them on ships of the previous construction.
      Quote: kirpich
      Tell me, is it easier to shoot down twenty light, subsonic anti-ship missiles, or four or six heavy, supersonic ones?

      Of course, supersonic knock down is easier, because there are fewer of them. For modern air defense systems, supersonic air targets are not a problem. And at the end of the last century, supersonic air target was not a problem, both our and American air defense systems were shot down. For air defense systems of the end of the last century, the problem was the interception of several air targets with low EPR flying from different directions.
    3. anomalocaris
      anomalocaris 18 January 2014 21: 06
      0
      Only our sworn "friends" did not have the task of sinking strike aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants.
  • user
    user 16 January 2014 11: 17
    +2
    It's just that there hasn't been a "Big War" for a long time without the use of weapons of mass destruction with an equal enemy, so the issue of the ship's survivability is not given due attention. I think that the very first such experience will force us to return to the issue of strengthening the protection of ships.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 16 January 2014 12: 17
      +4
      Quote: user
      It's just that there hasn't been a "Big War" for a long time without the use of weapons of mass destruction with an equal enemy, so the issue of the ship's survivability is not given due attention. I think that the very first such experience will force us to return to the issue of strengthening the protection of ships.


      Unfortunately, I must disappoint you, the survivability of any type of military equipment, including the ship, is of interest to the customer, in the person of the state, only until the moment of loss of combat effectiveness, in fact, the lives of the personnel in all calculations are in last place, and in the first place always PRICE request , money rules the world, the goal of any war is to inflict the most damage on the enemy at the lowest cost, but people do not cost (the state) anything
      1. Santa Fe
        16 January 2014 14: 13
        +1
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        and in the first place is always PRICE, money rules the world, the goal of any war is to inflict the most damage on the enemy at the lowest cost

        Some Hamas will destroy a destroyer for 1,5 billion with a rocket worth $ 200 thousand

        Here you have the whole PRICE. The cost of modern ships has exceeded billions - an extra couple of hundreds of millions for the installation of armor does NOT mean anything
      2. Jin
        Jin 16 January 2014 16: 47
        +3
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        people do not cost (the state) anything


        But I do not agree with this ... Or rather, I do not completely agree. The lower ranks of sailors, soldiers cost nothing, but for example, to train a pilot, navigator, captain, in short any specialist with a high level of training, like retraining thereof, is very expensive! But on the whole, you expressed the idea correctly, and so it is by and large ...
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 16 January 2014 19: 47
          0
          Uh-huh. Especially "high" education requires fired-forget ammunition.
          And in light of the sad state of military literacy in mattress and its satellites, more and more are being developed and purchased.
          1. Jin
            Jin 17 January 2014 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: dustycat
            Uh-huh. Especially "high" education requires fired-forget ammunition.


            Yeah, that's exactly what it is ... The "easier", how you Again, it seems, to launch the ammunition "fire-forget", the more complex the control systems of the complexes (carriers) from which they are launched. Your irony is irrelevant, because you are looking from a very narrow angle. Here is the question: what is the value of a real pro, how does he differ from an ordinary "soldier" ??? Aha, exactly! The ability not only to shoot well, but also to maintain, and, if necessary, troubleshoot (within reasonable limits) when field repairs are required, and not run around in panic around the unit (system, carrier) that suddenly malfunctioned !!! And even more valuable is a specialist with versatile training, i.e. several military specialties! And according to your logic, modern defeat systems, as you put it "fire-forget", can be controlled by any loser ??? Sheer nonsense, nonsense! Well, yes, well, yes ... with the notorious S-300, for example, of course any conscript can handle it at once! Who would doubt ... in fact, what is taught for several years in military universities ??? Ah yes! to hem, to clean boots and to make beds with "piping", for sure, I remembered !!! The same militants undergo training camps for what? And, mind you, not every one of them can handle the same MANPADS (not the most difficult to control, let's say, complex) !!! Although the overwhelming majority of men who have encountered spirits note their good combat training, don't they?
            1. Jin
              Jin 17 January 2014 10: 32
              0
              Quote: dustycat
              And in light of the sad state of military literacy in mattress and its satellites, more and more are being developed and purchased.


              Where did you get this awareness? Oh, yes ... the internet is a terrible force! There are videos, pictures with all sorts of incidents ... and in which army there is no such thing, in ours ??? I'll give you a dozen amusing (sad) ones right off the bat, it's from which side to look, I can tell stories from personal experience, if you like ... Given the level of equipment and the use of modern weapons, at present, which army (soldiers and officers of these armies) more experience and more of these "weapons" themselves? Our ??? Or Israel and the United States, for example? And of course your pearl: "And them in light of the sad state of the military literacy in the mattress and its satellites" finally killed ... Of course, modern weapons are produced precisely in this way !!! laughing In short they said, they said so ... like in a puddle straight, you yourself know what. Sincerely.
  • shurup
    shurup 16 January 2014 12: 30
    +1
    The gunboat is a small, inexpensive, well-armored, low-speed, shallow-sitting vessel, mainly with powerful artillery weapons.
    Designed for action in the coastal zone - the demonstration of the flag, the provision of landing and other diplomacy.
  • Delta
    Delta 16 January 2014 13: 28
    +2
    “During the Second World War, armored cruisers of similar size withstood much stronger blows without serious consequences. During the battle in Leyte Gulf, Takeo Kurita's squadron went for three hours under continuous attacks, in which up to 500 American aircraft took part. Despite the lead rain from heaven, all Kurita ships returned to Japan (except three, but they died for a different reason). The secret of the trick is simple - at that time the Yankees had only ordinary "fugasks" and did not have torpedoes. "

    and now let's remember how it was with Taffy-3 and Kurita's compound: "..." Suzuya "received 2 bombs and was badly damaged. Its speed dropped to 23 knots, and it also turned to the left ... "" ... "Chokai" received severe damage and stood without a move. Therefore, the destroyer "Fujinami" was ordered to remove the command from her and sink the cruiser with torpedoes. In turn, "Novaki" took off the crew of "Tikuma" and sank the cruiser. At 9.50, 30 planes attacked the Suzuya. At 10.00 he received a torpedo in the nose, lost control and began to roll. After 2 new hits by torpedoes, he sank ... "

    and where is some other reason why ???

    By the way, Paul Dall, whom you and I, Oleg love to mention on occasion, declares the following in his work: "The results of the battle (this is about the battle in Leyte Gulf) showed definitively and undoubtedly that even the most powerful combination of artillery ships without air cover now has no chance."

    This is about the issue of booking, submarines and air cover, the importance of which you deny
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 13: 54
      0
      Quote: Delta
      and where is some other reason why ???

      I'll tell you
      Quote: Delta
      The Suzuya received 2 bombing and was badly damaged. His speed dropped to 23 nodes, and he also turned left ...

      The Japanese cruisers had one creepy feature - 610 mm long-oxygen torpedoes on the upper deck. - one of the dropped bombs hit TA

      To get to such a place is pure luck. But luck with the Yankees ended - and the rest of the TKR and LK Kurita left. By the way, had Baltimore or Cleveland been in their place, everyone would have left.
      Quote: Delta
      The Chokai sustained severe damage and stood idle.

      The same thing, he was shot from a destroyer - one of the 5 'shells hit the TA
      Quote: Delta
      In 10.00, he got a torpedo in his nose, lost control and began to roll. After 2 new torpedo hits, he sank

      And these are torpedoes. Submarine explosion - other laws apply there
      Quote: Delta
      even the most powerful formation of artillery ships without air cover now has no chance. "

      I know what P. Steven Dall wrote. But this conclusion does not fit well with what he described in the same book the page above. And the results of the battle are surprising - almost everyone has gone from retaliation
  • moreman78
    moreman78 16 January 2014 13: 31
    -1
    Well, what else was to be expected from this author?
    Naturally, everyone around is STUPID - both the British, and the Americans, and the Japanese, and the Russians, and the Chinese .... in short, everything! One Oleg Kaptsov - D'Artagnan and all in white! He knows everything better than anyone!
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 16 January 2014 13: 33
    +2
    I repeat. Americans build their ships without armor based on the use of Soviet missiles on them. Our build ships based on the characteristics of the American. For some reason, the author does not indicate how thick the armor should be placed against granites and what to do with burning fuel residues. And does not indicate whether domestic large ships are booked. Without this, such articles make sense if you indicate that calculations and examples are given for an imaginary war, when the parties will use American and similar missiles and ships, and the Soviet PRK and ships will not participate in it.
    In addition, the author does not pay attention to the fact that in addition to the armor from the ships, numerous large-caliber guns also disappeared. Apparently, based on the experience of WWII, a conclusion was drawn that both weapons and defense were not effective. If a big war happens and it is decided that the armor is effective, the ships will begin to armor.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 16 January 2014 13: 44
    +6
    Well, for starters, it is worth considering "ship survivability" as a complex concept. And the presence of passive protection (and booking is exactly it) today is not the only element included in this concept. In general, no one has canceled the booking as an element of protection - practically all modern ships have one or another structural protection provided. Well, the fact that it does not look like the armor belt so beloved by the author (and taking into account the fact that most modern ASPs are designed to defeat the deck first of all, it is more likely to talk about armored ships), then there is an elementary calculation of efficiency. On any dispute between "shell and armor", the shell wins. And here the only solution that suggests itself is to ensure the prevention of this very "shell" to the board. This is how ship defense systems develop. But the case is that someone still breaks through and serves as a constructive protection of the posts of survivability and "key positions".
    In general, armor should not be considered a "panacea". Perhaps it is somewhat neglected and more can be squeezed out of a rational booking system with the widespread use of modern composites. But in any case, this is a kind of compromise in which something will have to be sacrificed.

    And one more "remark on the topic" - the relatively low survivability of modern ships is also connected with the fact that there was no one to fight for this very survivability. With a crew of one and a half hundred people, there is simply no need to talk about the timely sealing of a hole or extinguishing a fire if the automation is out of order.
  • castle
    castle 16 January 2014 13: 44
    0
    Quote:
    The first alarm was sounded during the Falkland War (1982) - one of the British ships (Sheffield) burned down and sank from one of the unexploded RCC stuck in its hull. Strictly speaking, the Falklands cannot serve as a reference example of modern war - Her Majesty's unarmed frigates were drowned like puppies under the blows of decrepit subsonic attack aircraft of the Argentine Air Force.

    The loss of the Navy of Her Majesty (Royal Navy) in the Falkland War

    In those days, it is unlikely that all of the aircraft listed below can be called "decrepit"

    The destroyer HMS Sheffield (D80) was damaged (later sank) by the AM39 Exocet (the missile didn’t explode when it hit the side of the ship) launched by a French Étendard aircraft. The kinetic energy when a rocket hits the side of the ship was enough to ignite in the compartments of the ship even without a warhead rocket explosion.

    The destroyer HMS Coventry (D118) was damaged (later sank). A-4 Skyhawk Aircraft Bombing (1000 pound bombs)

    The frigate HMS Ardent (F184) was damaged (later sank). A-4 Skyhawk and IAI Nesher Bombing (1000 - lb bombs)

    The HMS Antelope frigate (F170) was damaged (later sank). A-4 Skyhawk Aircraft Bombing (1000 pound bombs)
    These unarmed frigates were armed:
    1 × 114 mm / 55 Mark 8 - 114 mm shipboard universal installation
    2 × Oerlikon 20 mm automatic gun
    4 × MM38 Exocet Rocket
    1 × four-barreled (4-track) Sea Cat SAM air defense missile launcher
    2 × three-barrel (three-pipe) torpedo tubes
    2 × radio jamming equipment (dipole reflectors fired)
    1 × Type 182 towed decoy
    Well, one helicopter

    SS Atlantic Conveyor container ship sunk by two AM39 Exocet missiles launched from Super Étendard

    Landing ship (it was rather a ship for transporting various cargoes than a landing ship) RFA Sir Galahad was damaged (later sank). A-4 Skyhawk Bombing (500 pound bombs)

    Landing boat LCU Foxtrot Four was sunk by bombs from A-4 Skyhawk aircraft
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 14: 08
      0
      Quote: hrad
      The loss of the Navy of Her Majesty (Royal Navy) in the Falkland War

      Something little you listed

      - the destroyer "Entrim" - a 454-kg unexploded bomb in the engine room. In the balance of death
      - destroyer "Glamorgan" - anti-ship missiles "Exocet", damage
      - the destroyer "Glasgow" - unexploded bomb
      - Frigate "Plymouth" - 4 unexploded AB
      - frigate "Brodsward" - pierced through by an unexploded bomb
      - frigate "Argonaut" - 2 unexploded bombs, in the balance of death
      - frigate "Elekrity" - unexploded bomb
      - frigate "Brilliant" - shot from 30 mm aircraft cannons
      - landing ship "Sir Lancelotte" - 454 kg unexploded bomb
      - landing ship "Sir Tristram" - heavily damaged by bombs
      - landing ship "Sir Bedivere" - damaged by bombs
      - British Way naval tanker - unexploded bomb
      - transport "Stromness" - damaged (how - I don't remember)

      ...


      Burnt Sir "Tristram" is evacuated on a semi-submerged platform

      Quote: hrad
      In those days, it is unlikely that all of the aircraft listed below can be called "decrepit"

      Can. Skyhawk - 1950's Subsonic Car
      1. castle
        castle 16 January 2014 15: 16
        0
        I wrote about really destroyed (sunk - irrecoverable losses) ships. 7 ships were destroyed. Your list contains ships that were damaged and later returned to service or decommissioned. My reaction was to the words of the author of the article: "Her Majesty's unarmed frigates were drowned like puppies."
        A-4 Skyhawk was created as an attack aircraft, and also as a deck attack aircraft. The car was excellent and tenacious. She did her work as it should. If I am not mistaken, the Su - 25 attack aircraft was created later than the A-4 Skyhawk, but is also subsonic. It’s just that these planes are designed for a specific job. The British during the Falkland War, in addition to long-range bombers, used BAE Sea Harrier aircraft. Also subsonic. Maximum speed - 1 km / h (182 meters per second)
        1. Santa Fe
          16 January 2014 15: 36
          +2
          Quote: hrad
          were damaged and, later, returned to duty or were discarded.

          Interesting logic. Sunken landing boat counts
          Destroyed and burnt through "Sir Tritram" and "Argonaut" - as if out of the list of losses, like everything is ok

          The British were lucky that 80% of Argentine bombs did not explode - otherwise, they would have lost all the ships listed. So the phrase "drowned like puppies" is completely justified. From such a weak enemy - they suffered such terrible losses, a third of the squadron was down the drain
          Quote: hrad
          The A-4 Skyhawk aircraft was created as a ground attack aircraft, and also as a deck attack aircraft. The car was excellent and tenacious. She did her job as it should

          If only to drown unarmed British frigates

          It was an obsolete aircraft, without a radar and guided missile weapons - all weapons were limited to free-falling bombs. Although you are right - the car was very reliable - high-quality American equipment (which can not be said about Mk.82 bombs). And the brake hook came in handy when working with the icy strip of the Rio Grande
          Quote: hrad
          If I am not mistaken, the Su - 25 attack aircraft was created later than the A-4 Skyhawk, but is also subsonic

          He has completely different tasks - to hammer the tanks and firing points of the Basmachi. Slow "flying tank"
          Quote: hrad
          used aircraft BAE Sea Harrier

          Harrier another generation car, the marine version had radar and missiles

          Argentine Skyhawks Attack British Squadron! If the Britons had at least some modern air defense - these freaks were sent into the water long before they flew over the ship
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 16 January 2014 15: 42
            0
            "If only to sink unarmed British frigates"
            (C)
            "If the Britons have at least some modern air defense - these freaks were sent into the water long before they fly over the ship" (c)

            Oleg, you again forgot to say about the armor winked Only about air defense.
            1. Santa Fe
              16 January 2014 15: 48
              0
              Quote: Tlauicol
              Oleg, you again forgot to say about the armor

              Where did the British get 1982 funds for armadillos?

              These rogues didn't even have the Phalanxes
              Destroyers "County", frigates "Rotsey" and Type 21 armed ... you will not believe ... Air defense systems SeaCat with subsonic missiles. 80 launches, all by - missiles could not even catch up with Skyhawk

              A small turntable, an anti-submarine mortar and a SeaCat air defense system (on the roof of the hangar) - that's the whole look of Her Majesty's fleet at that time. frigate "Plymouth")
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 16 January 2014 16: 27
                0
                I’m sure if they had the means they would have acquired good air defense, not armor
                1. Santa Fe
                  16 January 2014 17: 07
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  if they had the means they would have acquired good air defense, not armor

                  Is one contrary to the other?

                  Another thing - what kind of armor can be installed on the 3000-ton frigate?
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 16 January 2014 22: 27
                    +2
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Another thing - what kind of armor can be installed on the 3000-ton frigate?
                    For example, the armored cruiser of the 2nd rank "Novik" (displacement 3000/3080 tons). Anything that increases survivability is a blessing. Here I agree with you and Kars, when there are no agreements on displacement restrictions, it is foolish to refuse reasonable booking just because there are nuclear weapons.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 16 January 2014 22: 44
                      +2
                      ___________________
              2. Kars
                Kars 16 January 2014 16: 30
                +3
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                These rogues

                They threw a needle on their last ... armadillo ... and he could help.
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 16 January 2014 13: 54
    +3
    I am already reading the fifth or sixth article about the benefits of armor on a ship. Again, all the same arguments, the same examples. And again, stop mid-sentence! If the authors prove the usefulness of armor so convincingly, then I would like to see their vision of a rational scheme for booking a surface ship. Only by the example of a modern, with advanced superstructures, and not a monitor-like "Marat" or the like. The example of the modernization of "Albany" given in the article shows how the compact well-armored turrets of the main battery are being replaced by huge superstructures, which are completely devoid of armor, so as not to increase the "upper weight". In addition, the armor belt on the "Baltimore" covered far from one hundred percent of the side area. I suppose that the conning tower at Albany also disappeared during the modernization to reduce the weight of the superstructures.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 14: 50
      0
      Quote: Nick_1972
      the example of the modernization of "Albany" shows how the compact well-armored turrets of the main battery are replaced with huge superstructures

      It was half a century ago - take a look at the monstrous radars and electronics of those years


      Battle post SAM "Talos"


      AN / SPG-49 - Talos control radar

      Quote: Nick_1972
      In addition, the armor belt on the "Baltimore" covered far from one hundred percent of the side area.

      And no need.
      The most important compartments are a power plant, ammunition, a military information center, and military personnel.

      Baltimer is the very standard. Remove a couple of stern towers - 100-150 UVP will fit in place
      Quote: Nick_1972
      Only on the example of modern, with developed add-ons. and not a monitor-like "Marat" or similar

      Does Zamwalt look like a century-old monitor?
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 January 2014 16: 32
        +2
        Quote: Nick_1972
        a rational scheme for booking a surface ship

        It is enough to replace the modern inch skin with two-inch armor, this will certainly complicate the production, but it will be worth it, and book more important destinations - 100-150 mm.
      2. Nick_1972
        Nick_1972 17 January 2014 12: 19
        0
        In truth, I was expecting a proposal for a reservation scheme ... And essentially the questions asked:
        1. And what about the Spike on the Berks is much smaller than the Talos radar control?
        2. Believe it or not, I also know that I covered my belt. The only news was that the belt covered the crew quarters and the officers' cabins. Referring to the area of ​​the side belt, I just wanted to know how the apologists for armor want to see the side armor: in the form of 100 percent of the side area, like on the Sevastopol, or they prefer the American all-or-nothing scheme.
        3. Zamvolt does not look like a century-old monitor, it is enough to compare their area of ​​side projections.
        1. Santa Fe
          17 January 2014 13: 09
          0
          Quote: Nick_1972
          I was expecting a reservation proposal

          They answered you - Baltimore
          Quote: Nick_1972
          1. And what about the Spike on the Berks is much smaller than the Talos radar control?

          Radar illumination (4 pieces - for Talos, 4 pieces - for Tartarus) - that's not all.
          On board was a huge AN / SPS-48 (airborne 3D survey), early warning radar SPS-43 (2D), navigation radar and radar surface survey radar SPS-10 and SPS-30. And the rocket systems themselves were crazy in size - nothing like the modern compact Mk.41
          Quote: Nick_1972
          3. Zamvolt does not look like a century-old monitor, it is enough to compare their area of ​​side projections.

          Well, so I do not offer to book it completely
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 13
      +2
      What developed add-ons ?!
      Especially on stilt ships?
      Are they developed there?
      But Oslyabya or Mikasa, with the replacement of part of the side barreled artillery with launchers for "harpoons" or "exosets", with a developed barrel and rocket air defense system and short-range missile defense in stealth-style superstructures, with a modern encapsulated nuclear power plant - such a monster can only be done with Granite ... And not the fact that one is enough.
  • Walking
    Walking 16 January 2014 14: 32
    0
    What about the effects on the radars of a blast wave that can tear down antennas and damage them? In the event of an explosion, blackouts, short circuits, an electromagnetic pulse are still possible and the ship will remain deaf and blind.
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 January 2014 16: 33
      +1
      Quote: Hiking
      What about the effects on blast radars to

      During WWII, ships did not lose all radars from several hits, and explosions.
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 32
      0
      Antennas like our Niobium will be shitty of course.
      But who said they were "modern"?
      There is such a thing as semi-active and passive phased array antennas.
      Enlightened and reflective.
      In the architecture of the Stelt add-ons fit perfectly (the same Zamvolta).
      Structurally, not weaker than the armor - especially in the overhead version. For example, the front plate of a T72 tank made of fiberglass - and this is the basis material of such antenna arrays. And he himself can carry the function of armor.
      In terms of resistance to EMR - no worse than tube systems - everything is active and gentle in the depths of the steel casing, and the waveguides to them are easily protected by plasma switches. Moreover, the waveguides themselves are also not fragile and can be made of the same textolite.
      "Electric telegraphs" on the ships of the second Pacific squadron in the Tsushima Strait worked until the ships were submerged or the generators were turned off. Even numerous fires were not a problem for them. And the Japanese "treated" the superstructures and hulls of the ships of the Russian squadron with land mines with shimose.
      No problem.
  • Andof odessa
    Andof odessa 16 January 2014 15: 25
    +1
    All the same, Russia will have to build armored ships to control the Northern Route. well called icebreaking :-)
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 16 January 2014 15: 50
      0
      Why do you think that large ships made in the USSR, and there are no others in the fleet now, are not armored?
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 36
        0
        Russia inherited from the USSR the largest icebreaker fleet.
        To book their decks is not a problem, especially since there is a reserve of carrying capacity.
        There are also plenty of places for the installation of "special equipment" on the decks.
  • postman
    postman 16 January 2014 17: 05
    0
    Quote: Author
    The conclusion is straightforward - should happen something epicso that the battleships will return to the open sea. And the fact that this will happen sooner or later, no doubt.

    Well, why there used to be armadillos, but now it’s not (not needed) it’s clear:
    -high-precision, "long-range", guided, maneuverable weapons
    -New SCS and guidance
    - The "compactness" of the weapon (203 mm gun and the battleship's naval tower) cannot be put on a canoe, but an anti-ship missile system, in principle, yes ..
    -the cost (not energy) of steel production and the volume of its consumption in the world
    armadillos are unlikely to return (in the traditional sense) ... and the answer lies, oddly enough, in the fundamentals, in the concepts of ENERGY and the Law of conservation of energy (or rather its consequences).
    Armor always, with rare exceptions, lost to the striking element (even when only the physical strength of a person was used. And the thing is:
    -the armor is made for a LONG time and SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE-SOMETHING and she needs to protect the WHOLE object / subject
    - the means of attack (its energy supply) acts very LOCALLY (pointwise), INSTANTLY (practically), here and now

    1. Energy consumption for "receiving" per ton: Density 7700-7900 kg / m³ is 0,128m3 of armor we obtain for 100mm = 1,28 m per sq. armor plate
    / electricity consumption in electric steelmaking in Russia in recent years has grown and amounted to more than 2000 kWh / t of steel in old furnaces in 750, which is 15–40% more than in Japan and Germany /
    2. Kinetic energy of a moving body (projectile / RCC) + warhead energy (cumulative, brilliant, high-explosive, etc.)
    Not a complicated calculation shows -WAKE! ALWAYS!

    Conclusion?
    To ensure "non-penetration" and protect the booked volume, either / or:
    1. "Spend at least" a minimum "(of course, more, with a margin) the same energy on the site (AT LEAST) of penetrating / overcoming armor, AS THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE MEANS OF DAMAGE
    2. Destroy the damaging element on the approach path, in advance, before contact with the protected object, change its physicochemical properties
    3. Create such conditions for him on the approach trajectory and in the affected area so that he would change his trajectory, lose his kinetic and / or "internal (chemical, nuclear, etc.) energy of the warhead, change his physicochemical properties.
    4. Hide the target or retarget the striking element on the snag.

    5.?
    1. postman
      postman 16 January 2014 17: 07
      -1
      The implementation of this (based on the foregoing):
      1.Is it difficult to imagine what it will be? An analogue of the nanosuit in Crysis 2/3? Redistribution, dissipation of energy over the array of protection? Neutron coating? and so on ... "We are working" on this
      2. Implemented. Realized and will be realized, since the striking element is one by one (the carrier is far away), and the attacked object is next to the means of protection, At least the same chains on Carrots and side screens on tanks
      - a sharp impact on the projectile / pcr: heating by millions of degrees - heating, cooling is not suitable (the absolute minimum is -273 gC), which changes its fx properties. For example: microwave currents, magnetic fields, "spitting" of high-temperature plasma or antimatter towards, and so on.
      - irradiate it with something that makes the explosive charge non-explosive (vary the parameters of the Higgs field a bit, for example, strictly locally)
      3.Wide field for fantasy:
      - a sharp change in the environment on the flight path of the projectile / PCR (local vacuum, shot 1 m3 of water per meeting, mythical plasma, etc.)
      -Kick it (shell / RCC) into another dimension (Mobius strip?)
      -Kick him (shell / RCC) at another time (10 minutes?)?
      4. Invisibles, knock down the control unit, redirect it to the simulator, to the fake?


      IMHO:
      - armadillos can return only in case all Berks are knocked out, all anti-ship missiles, SD are shot for $ 10, and then it’s necessary to fight (to carry out the BZ), Iowa’s boom, that is (in the near foreseeable future) no renaissance expected.

      Something like this

      URL:

      Textbook sergeant rocket troops and artillery (for chiefs of computing teams) / ed. E.V. Zhukunov. - M .: Military Publishing House, 1990 .-- 227 p.
      1. Kars
        Kars 16 January 2014 17: 12
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        IMHO:

        Well, you bent.

        And is it possible that the cost is not an energy microchip compared to kg of armor?
        1. postman
          postman 16 January 2014 18: 35
          0
          Quote: Kars
          And is it possible that the cost is not an energy microchip compared to kg of armor?

          minuscule
          1. steel. ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION IN ELECTROMETALLURGY B.I. Kudrin (Akhtung is not that Kudrin !!)
          http://www.kudrinbi.ru/public/10571/index.htm
          2.Fab 32: 45nm process technology, environmentally friendly manufacturing (Intel has opened a new factory in the USA)
          According to Intel, Fab 32 will be one of the most environmentally friendly enterprises of the corporation. The factory has a number of measures designed to reduce electricity and water consumption.
          / There is nothing energy consuming (VALOVO !!). Materials - gram costs
          1. Santa Fe
            16 January 2014 18: 59
            0
            Quote: Postman
            minuscule

            But you, Mr. Postman, do not consider the costs of R&D and production line equipment. And they are huge

            There, one installation for the production of microcircuits (plasma etching in a given direction) can cost as much as a frigate. Or the installation of plasma implantation, an electron microscope, which can atomically apply layers. Electronic lithography and all that ...
            1. postman
              postman 16 January 2014 19: 44
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But you, Mr. Postman, do not consider the costs of R&D and production line equipment.

              I'm talking about the cost of energy and mass (substance).
              -Do you see that a microcircuit plant (well, or SM-3 at worst) would be located next to a powerful energy source? (hydroelectric power station, nuclear power plant, coal basin)?
              - volumes (millions of tons and hundreds of kg)
              1. Santa Fe
                16 January 2014 19: 48
                0
                Quote: Postman
                Have you seen a microcircuit plant (well, or SM-3 at worst) located next to a powerful energy source? (hydroelectric power station, nuclear power plant, coal basin)?
                - volumes (millions of tons and hundreds of kg)

                Well
                you yourself answered your question. There are huge energy costs - well, the corresponding result: VOLUMES, everyone needs steel
                1. postman
                  postman 17 January 2014 01: 17
                  0
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  VOLUMES, everyone needs steel

                  Steel, like "regular" armor, is a thing of the past.
                  Demand for steel is falling, ask scrapers, well, or Severstal at least.
          2. Kars
            Kars 16 January 2014 21: 49
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            minuscule

            I'm not as smart as you. Please write down the cost of 1 kg of armor, rolled, with a cemented top layer, decent ligation.
            and the cost of the microprocessor, well, I don’t know the Aegis type system that is part of it. You can by the way (I’ll make concessions) take the total weight of the electronics in the Indice and divide it by the cost. Or there the weight of the electronics in the RCC.
            1. postman
              postman 17 January 2014 01: 28
              0
              Quote: Kars
              Please write the cost of 1 kg of armor, rolled, with a cemented top layer, decent ligation.


              Have you decided to pester me?
              1. Not the cost should be "written" but the energy consumption !!!
              2. In any case, there will be less for microprocessors

              I will express my thought easier.
              produce (for some time) 10 cm square (I don’t know, maybe 30) armor plate, 100 mm thick ENERGY COSTS WILL BE LESSthan what ENERGY stands out when breaking through (instantly) these 10 cm square. armor-piercing
              (high explosive or subcaliber) shell !!
              IMHO: the armor (typical) will lose to the generator (no matter what it is).
              CONCLUSION: the means of destruction must be fought differently, armor is a thing of the past
              1. Kars
                Kars 17 January 2014 01: 42
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                Have you decided to pester me?

                ))))))))))
                Quote: Postman
                and energy costs

                But what do we care about energy costs?
                Quote: Postman
                IMHO: the armor (typical) will lose to the generator (no matter what it is)

                But how can it happen that it doesn’t penetrate armor? But leave only small recesses?
                1. postman
                  postman 17 January 2014 12: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Kars
                  But what do we care about energy costs?

                  You did not read what I wrote above. This is an indicator of penetration / not penetration
                  (the ratio of the energy spent on the production of armor) and the energy possessed by the means of destruction / penetration
                  Quote: Kars
                  but what about armor

                  1. The energy potential of the armor is greater than the projectile
                  +
                  2. probability factor (rebound for example)
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 17 January 2014 14: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    . The energy potential of the armor is greater than the projectile
                    +

                    I tried to read what you write, but still where does the energy potential come in? There is a piece of rolled iron, and there is a harpoon rocket.
                    And why do we need to know how much energy is spent on the production of armor, and how much on the production of rockets, and the energy that it develops when hit.
                    It will pierce or not pierce. If it penetrates, then there will be more or less damage than if it fell into an unarmored side or superstructure.
      2. Santa Fe
        16 January 2014 17: 27
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        slightly vary the parameters of the Higgs field

        Quote: Postman
        throw it (shell / RCC) into another dimension (Mobius strip?)

        Nichrome postman rushing))
        1. postman
          postman 16 January 2014 18: 40
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Nichrome postman rushing))

          the holidays are over !! SNOW FINALLY FALLS OUT OF PETERS !!! (though not enough)

          and what?
          1. About Higgs:
          If the Higgs field is slightly reduced, the first generation quarks (up and down), which are part of nucleons (protons and neutrons), will slightly “lose weight”. However, the masses of nucleons are mainly determined not by the mass of quarks, but by the energy of their binding in the nucleus with the help of gluons, which far exceeds the sum of the masses of bare quarks. So that the nuclei of all elements will become lighter, but very slightly. However, the matter is not limited to easy weight loss.

          A decrease in the Higgs field will also lead to a decrease in the mass of W bosons - carriers of weak interaction, which is responsible, in particular, for beta decay processes. This will lead to an increase in the Fermi constant, which determines the intensity of nuclear transformations of this type. As a result, nuclei that are unstable due to weak interaction and undergo beta decay will decay more frequently.

          / Do you remember there was such a fantastic novel of the 70s ??
          Ours and the Americans have created an emitter that turns nuclear weapons into ballast ...
          The BUTTON is still pressed. But Potm lived long and happily, peacefully

          2. About Mobius
          Mobius strip is just a topological model that gives an idea of ​​the properties of one-dimensional space,now if there (in one-dimensional) "taxi" (somehow) an anti-ship missile or a projectile, let the tama fly.
      3. dustycat
        dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 48
        +1
        Forgot to play around with Planck's constant. In local volume.
        1. postman
          postman 17 January 2014 01: 21
          0
          Quote: dustycat
          with Planck's constant.

          ? And what will the "game" give me with the number of Joules of energy, which contains a photon whose wave frequency is 1 Hz?
    2. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 17: 35
      -1
      Quote: Postman
      -high-precision, "long-range", guided, maneuverable weapons

      They used to beat with 50 cable - with a given accuracy
      Now they are beating from 100 miles - if there are any. failures, interference, air defense means - the same number of damaging elements will reach the target

      from which you need to protect yourself
      Quote: Postman
      and she needs to protect the WHOLE object

      Do not
      Quote: Postman
      the net energy of a moving body (projectile / RCC) + warhead energy (cumulative, brilliant, high-explosive, etc.)
      Not a complicated calculation shows -WAKE! ALWAYS!

      But it is not.

      Moreover, to break through does not mean fatal consequences. And the armor just minimizes damage
      Quote: Postman
      1. "Spend at least" a minimum "(of course, more, with a margin) the same energy on the site (AT LEAST) of penetrating / overcoming armor, AS THE TOTAL ENERGY OF THE MEANS OF DAMAGE

      As a result, the ships of the Yankees and Britons hammer everything to anyone - lonely exosets, boats, bombs of 30 years ago, and other nonsense
      Quote: Postman
      Conclusion?

      When you are already banned.
      1. postman
        postman 16 January 2014 18: 49
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        They used to beat with 50 cable - with a given accuracy

        NO!
        1. heating
        2. sighting
        3. Further it started.
        And% of hits? and accuracy?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Now hit with 100 miles

        I meant RCC and corrective ARS
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But it is not.

        Well, of course, the AKM bullet will not penetrate the T-34 armor.
        YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY THOUGHT.
        Penetration occurs locally, on a limited area. A OBJECT must be protected EVERYWHERE (practically)
        -Calculate the cost (energy) for the production of armor of this limited area and compare with the energy of the striking element (arrow, spear, bullet, projectile, RCC)
        WALL-MOUNTING MACHINES DESTROYED ANY FORTRESS WALL, and even as MV (gunpowder) and explosive appeared, ala huh.
        -Calculate costs (armor / shell) at least in $ at least in rubles

        that's what i wanted to say

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        As a result, the ships of the Yankees and the Britons are hammering everyone and sundry

        Well, do not exaggerate ...
        And, in spite of all of the above, YOU PERFORM THE PROBLEM (battle)
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        When you are already banned.

        as soon as I place an advertisement on the medium to increase penis, well, or skin care. / link AOC- for the family, I choose the best wink
        1. Santa Fe
          16 January 2014 19: 09
          0
          Quote: Postman
          And% of hits? and accuracy?

          From a distance 50 cab? Percent 30
          Quote: Postman
          I meant RCC and corrective ARS

          I mean the same. Given those. failures, interference, air defense - the same 30% will reach the target

          And they will have to defend against them, as before
          Quote: Postman
          A OBJECT must be protected EVERYWHERE (practically)

          Not. Citadel Reservation
          Quote: Postman
          Calculate the cost (energy) for the production of armor of this limited area and compare with the energy of the striking element (arrow, spear, bullet, projectile, RCC)

          1. production will cost the same price - you equate the dead thickness of metal with "hi-tech" (a post about an electron microscope - have you seen it?)
          2. Penetration is not yet a fact of severe damage. Armor localizes and minimizes the effects
          Quote: Postman
          that's what i wanted to say

          I understood your idea, but this is a bare theory - in practice, boats hit with anything and they burn and drown
          Quote: Postman
          as soon as I place an advertisement on the medium to increase penis, well, or skin care. / link AOC- for the family, I choose the best

          better banner with prostitutes of the petrograd
          1. postman
            postman 17 January 2014 01: 22
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            better banner with prostitutes of the petrograd

            Here (on the site) there are minors!
            this act (for which you provoke me) is criminally punishable
    3. dustycat
      dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 46
      0
      Quote: Postman
      2. Kinetic energy of a moving body (projectile / RCC) + warhead energy (cumulative, brilliant, high-explosive, etc.)
      Not a complicated calculation shows -WAKE! ALWAYS!


      And for some reason in the Tsushima Strait it’s not always ... In isolated cases.
      Even ten-inch land mines did not always ensure penetration of armored decks and armored belts.
      Smaller caliber shells could even less.
      The main reason for the withdrawal of the ships from the battle - the entire "reserve" of both gunners and gun servants was used up due to shrapnel wounds and because of the failure of the delicate mechanisms of targeting artillery systems - the guns themselves were generally recognized by the Japanese as suitable for further use.
      1. postman
        postman 17 January 2014 01: 23
        0
        Quote: dustycat
        And for some reason in the Tsushima Strait it’s not always ...

        A bullet from Kalash will not penetrate the T-34 !!
        So what?
        recount everything through ENERGY, and it will clearly break through / will not break through
      2. Nick_1972
        Nick_1972 17 January 2014 12: 34
        0
        The main reason for leaving the battle of ships in Tsushima was the loss of buoyancy. As for Oslyaby, Borodino, Alexander, they were sunk just from the impact of HE shells. Suvorov and Oryol were brought to a helpless state by them too (HE shells). Sweet Sistine offers a stronghold, just like armadillos. As a result, they quite quickly went to the bottom due to huge holes in the unarmored ends. After that, there was another extreme: the first Russian dreadnoughts were booked by almost one hundred percent of the board area. True, this armor was pierced by armor-piercing shells of peers of other countries at almost all battle distances. So it’s not so simple.
        1. Santa Fe
          17 January 2014 12: 57
          +1
          Quote: Nick_1972
          offers citadel armor, just like armadillos. As a result, they quite quickly went to the bottom due to huge holes in the unarmored ends.

          the example is incorrect.
          A projectile, unlike anti-ship missiles, can fall below the waterline

          About huge holes in unarmored extremities - tell Seidlitz or the cruiser Pittsburgh about this
          1. Nick_1972
            Nick_1972 17 January 2014 17: 21
            0
            Those. a cruiser that has lost its nasal tip during a hurricane and no one fired at it at the same time is presented as a model of strength and unsinkability? Respect. In addition, he has a standard displacement of about 14000 tons, a total of over 17000 tons. For comparison, Burke IIA has a total displacement of 10000 tons. Those. Pittsburgh is heavier than Burke almost twice with 102 mm of armor at the waterline. Which, in my opinion, cannot be a panacea for RCC.
            1. Santa Fe
              17 January 2014 19: 08
              +2
              Quote: Nick_1972
              Those. a cruiser that has lost its nasal tip during a hurricane and no one fired at it at the same time presented as a model of strength and unsinkability?

              read about this "hurricane". A unique natural phenomenon - the Yankees lost 4 destroyers, an exceptional case in history

              And here he shot, not shot. We have a fact - the entire bow was demolished to the cruiser, but it does not sink and moves on its own (which caused a hurricane, collision or enemy fire - in this case, it does not matter at all)
              Quote: Nick_1972
              In addition, he has a standard displacement of about 14000 tons, full over 17000 tons. For comparison, Burke IIA has a full displacement of 10000 tons.

              So, what is next?
              Is there some kind of agreement limiting the ship?
              Quote: Nick_1972
              while having 102 mm of armor at the waterline. Which, in my opinion, cannot be a panacea for RCC.

              It depends on which RCC. Harpoon, Exoset - 100% protection. Exoset and 40 mm will not break

              Below in the picture is the cruiser "New Orleans" (10 thousand tons) without a bow end (an explosion blew off a 610 mm Japanese oxygen torpedo Type 93 - 500 kg of explosives under water - the equivalent of 5 tons on the surface). As a result, the cruiser returned under its own power.

              So all your doubts and an attempt to recall Tsushima:
              Quote: Nick_1972
              As a result, they pretty quickly went to the bottom due to huge holes in the unarmored ends

              there is no argument. During WWII, ships continued to stay on the water even after the complete loss of unarmored ends
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 18 January 2014 07: 37
                0
                the trick is that, having lost a tip on the water, both cruisers and destroyers and sea hunters kept on. the loss of a flooded tip is rather a blessing and a chance to save the ship. And not only in WWII, but also earlier. (The destroyer Zubiets, for example, was assembled from the halves of Zulus and Nubian.) But the uninterrupted tip usually pulled the ship to the bottom like a stone.
                General Belgrano with his nose torn off has a trim in the stern - the second torpedo outweighed
                1. Santa Fe
                  18 January 2014 16: 42
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  But the uninformed end usually pulled the ship to the bottom like a stone.

                  Nothing like this. It all depends on the number of bulkheads and the availability of email. energy (or lack thereof, as on a torpedoed Belgrano)

                  a vivid example - the incredible return of Seidlitz
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  unbroken tip

                  Even the sly Cole with the 9-meter hole in the board did not drown. Roll quickly reduced to a couple of degrees. - the main problems were caused by the blast wave and explosion products that entered the ship (I won’t list the damage and losses - you know them yourself)

                  RCCs the size of Harpoon have no chance of sinking Baltimore by exploding near the waterline (even in the area of ​​the belt, even in unarmored ends). This will require dozens of hits (as during Tsushima) - today this is not realistic

                  Seidlitz’s status on 19: 00 1 June 1916. The mass of water taken is about 5300 tons. Flooded compartments are highlighted in red. Blue - compartments that have taken water to align the heel and trim. 1 - hole from the sixth hit.
              2. Nick_1972
                Nick_1972 20 January 2014 11: 47
                0
                1. The impact of enemy fire and the elements, in my opinion, are fundamentally different. And then, as Tlauikol correctly noted, the severed tip is more likely to be good for the ship than it is flooded. In addition to trim / roll, the presence of a large free surface of water in the ship's hull leads to a decrease in metacentric height and, consequently, to a loss of stability. Designing the ship’s hull with the expectation of complete separation of unarmored extremities in the presence of combat damage is completely absurd.
                2. There are currently no contracts limiting the displacement. There are economic realities, due to which so far no country has started building destroyers with a displacement tending to 20000 tons.
                3. Maybe it will not break. However, it is necessary to answer the question: is it more difficult to build a ship with an onboard belt of 102 mm or to modify anti-ship missiles in order to increase its characteristics?
                4. As already mentioned above, breakdowns and loss of tip are not the same thing. By the way, it’s not strong in the history of WWII, can you tell me cases of loss of two extremities by a ship that ended in a happy ending?
                1. Santa Fe
                  20 January 2014 16: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Nick_1972
                  The impact of enemy fire and the elements, in my opinion, are fundamentally different.

                  Do you think the fate of the Titanic would have been different if he had collided with a mine?
                  Quote: Nick_1972
                  Tlauikol, the severed tip is more likely to be good for the ship than it is flooded. In addition to trim / roll,

                  You can find hundreds of examples of severe damage in the underwater part from shells and torpedoes - and yet, the ships were kept on the water. Seidlitz the brightest case

                  It all depends on the number of waterproof compartments and the availability of dispersed generators + competent team actions.
                  Quote: Nick_1972
                  no country has begun building destroyers with a displacement tending to 20000 tons.

                  USA - Zamwalt (14 500 t)
                  Japan - Hyuga (18 t - destroyer (cruiser) PLO - analogue of our "Moscow" and "Leningrad")



                  Quote: Nick_1972
                  However, it is necessary to answer the question: is it more difficult to build a ship with an airborne belt in 102 mm or to modify anti-ship missiles in order to increase its characteristics?

                  It is more difficult to modify RCC.
                  An insoluble problem arises: the size of the RCC and its cost start to grow sharply, in return - a decrease in the number of carriers (and this is important)
                  Quote: Nick_1972
                  By the way, it’s not strong in the history of WWII, can you tell me cases of loss of two extremities by a ship that ended in a happy ending?

                  But what about the screws
                  1. Nick_1972
                    Nick_1972 21 January 2014 11: 24
                    0
                    1. Perhaps. In case of a mine explosion, hull structures between 2-3 watertight bulkheads would suffer, which, again, probably would not have caused such catastrophic consequences as a long breakdown received from a tangential impact on an iceberg.
                    2. I would like to ask, the example of Seydlitz refutes the fact of the flooding of Borodino, Alexander, severe damage to Suvorov (flooded subsequently) and Orel? Another example - Bismarck was turned by the British LC Rodney and King George into a flaming skeleton, and its citadel was not broken, the ship was completely small, but there were no explosions. The fact that Bismarck was finished off by torpedoes (although also a moot point) does not change the essence. At this point, he was in even worse shape than Suvorov before drowning, or Eagle before surrender.
                    3. The Hyuuga example is not entirely correct, I think you yourself understand this. In this case, it refers to terminology, not shipbuilding. With the same success, we can classify the Mistral as destroyers and rejoice that they built the destroyer more than Zwolt.
                    4. I disagree with you. Similar "... unsolvable problems ..." will arise during the construction of the "battleship". According to the list: ".. the cost, size, decrease in the number of carriers (and this is the main thing) begin to grow sharply". Only for some reason you think that in relation to a product weighing several tons, this is critical, and in relation to a product weighing 10000 - 15000 tons, these factors can be neglected.
                    5. I asked about the extremities, bearing in mind the hull structures, and not the movers.
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 January 2014 23: 20
                      0
                      Quote: Nick_1972
                      Maybe. In case of a mine explosion, hull structures would suffer

                      Who knows. Lusitania, like the aircraft carrier Arc Royal, had one torpedo

                      matter of chance. But, as a rule, warships, whose hull is divided into many water-tight compartments, with duplicated and dispersed generators, it is very difficult to sink one torpedo .. Yorktown at Midway received 4 hits - so he drowned all day.
                      Quote: Nick_1972
                      refutes the fact of the flooding of Borodino, Alexander, severe damage to Suvorov (subsequently flooded) and Orel?

                      Picture below
                      Quote: Nick_1972
                      Bismarck was turned by the British LC Rodney and King George into a flaming skeleton

                      2560 shots of the main, medium and universal caliber. If at least 10% is in Bismarck, it won’t be enough

                      All these are unique cases - ships were hollowed for hours by the forces of an entire squadron. Tens and hundreds of hits.
                      But, in the vast majority of cases (what then, what now), the naval battle ended with a short exchange of powerful blows - there was no possibility to endlessly hammer the enemy for hours. As a rule, those who were better protected returned home.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        21 January 2014 23: 32
                        0
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        With the same success, we can classify Mistral as destroyers

                        No we can not. Mistral has no 30-nodal course, built-in weapons (UVP) and sonar.
                        Hyuga has it all. Detection equipment and LMS - equivalents to the Akizuki-class destroyers (one of the best in the world - radar with 8 active PAR)

                        This is the coolest anti-submarine cruiser of our 1123. The traditional class of Japanese ships
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        and in relation to the product weighing 10000 - 15000 tons, these factors can be neglected

                        because the filling of the destroyer Burke costs> 1 billion dollars.And it can be gouged by savages without getting off the camel

                        The same Baltimore (modernization-2014) - with a / and 17 thousand tons it will be able to carry 2 times as much UVP + artillery + armor. More comfort for the crew, a huge helipad, facilities for the crew. And let it come out 2 times more expensive - so its capabilities will be incomparable with Burke.
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        in relation to a product weighing several tons, this is critical

                        Of course. You can’t put such RCC on the longboat. And the usual F / A-18 from the deck of an aircraft carrier with it will not fly

                        That is how Leningrad differs from Hyuga, except for the layout (continuous flight deck)?
                      2. Nick_1972
                        Nick_1972 23 January 2014 13: 38
                        0
                        To answer for points for a long time, so I will limit myself to individual comments:
                        1. Glad you recognized Hyuuga as a full-fledged anti-submarine cruiser. Therefore, her example as a destroyer of 20000 tons can be considered incorrect.
                        2. I agree that Bismarck was hammered. However, "... the main, medium, universal caliber ..." implies that the fire of 114-127 mm guns was dangerous for Seidlitz's descendant? And then, why such confidence in the transience of modern combat at sea?
                        3. I'm afraid it seems limited, but I wanted to ask: Baltimore, modernization 2014 - what is it about?
                        4. About a few tons rocket - this is the upper limit. It is possible to suspend something even easier and more exotic on a Hornet, for example, the similar AGM-158 (JASSM) with a tandem warhead (cumulative + penetrating).
                      3. Santa Fe
                        23 January 2014 18: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        Therefore, her example as a destroyer in 20000 tons can be considered incorrect.

                        "missile cruiser - destroyer". what's the difference??
                        the increase in the size of destroyers is a spontaneous and irreversible process
                        Russian-Japanese war - in / and destroyers 400t
                        PMV - 1400t (Novik)
                        WWII - 3000t (Fletcher)
                        Cold War - 9000t (Sprouts)
                        Modernity - from 10000t (Burke)
                        The near future - 14000t and more (Zamvolt) - it is much larger than the RRC Moscow

                        And Hyuuga fits perfectly into these standards - the traditional Japanese destroyer (the japas call him destroyer - they have every right. They could be called a cruiser, but nothing will change)
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        what for the descendant of Seidlitz was the danger of fire 114-127 mm guns?

                        destruction of posts on the upper deck (anti-aircraft guns, antenna devices, SLA), destruction of an unarmored superstructure
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        And then, where does such confidence in the transience of modern combat at sea come from?

                        Falklands, tanker war, Stark, Palestine (Eilat, etc.), Indo-Pakistan massacre - all in one scenario. A series of short powerful strikes (Air Force raid, missile strike and - lull)
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        Baltimore, upgrading 2014 - what is it about?

                        A metaphysical example is what if modern weapons and systems are installed on the WWII cruiser. Details in previous comment
                        Quote: Nick_1972
                        It is possible to suspend something even easier and more exotic on a Hornet, for example, the similar AGM-158 (JASSM) with a tandem warhead (cumulative + penetrating).

                        Ha! From this moment, fun begins
                        JASSM weighs more than a ton
                        1. not every pilot and not in every weather will lift this off the deck (there is a weight limit for b / p - 1000 fn.)
                        2. The number of anti-ship missiles in the salvo is DIRECTLY reduced (Hornet will not pick up more than one at a time - after all, he still has to drag the PTB and other necessary buns). It will be easier for the cruiser to fight back.
                        3. Availability of armor minimizes damage from JASSM hit

                        USS Little Rock - was transformed after the war into a rocket and artillery ship (it has no ice vidoc - radars and electronics from the 60's)
                    2. Nick_1972
                      Nick_1972 23 January 2014 13: 38
                      0
                      To answer for points for a long time, so I will limit myself to individual comments:
                      1. Glad you recognized Hyuuga as a full-fledged anti-submarine cruiser. Therefore, her example as a destroyer of 20000 tons can be considered incorrect.
                      2. I agree that Bismarck was hammered. However, "... the main, medium, universal caliber ..." implies that the fire of 114-127 mm guns was dangerous for Seidlitz's descendant? And then, why such confidence in the transience of modern combat at sea?
                      3. I'm afraid it seems limited, but I wanted to ask: Baltimore, modernization 2014 - what is it about?
                      4. About a few tons rocket - this is the upper limit. It is possible to suspend something even easier and more exotic on a Hornet, for example, the similar AGM-158 (JASSM) with a tandem warhead (cumulative + penetrating).
      3. Nick_1972
        Nick_1972 17 January 2014 17: 21
        0
        Those. a cruiser that has lost its nasal tip during a hurricane and no one fired at it at the same time is presented as a model of strength and unsinkability? Respect. In addition, he has a standard displacement of about 14000 tons, a total of over 17000 tons. For comparison, Burke IIA has a total displacement of 10000 tons. Those. Pittsburgh is heavier than Burke almost twice with 102 mm of armor at the waterline. Which, in my opinion, cannot be a panacea for RCC.
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 17 January 2014 12: 34
    0
    The main reason for leaving the battle of ships in Tsushima was the loss of buoyancy. As for Oslyaby, Borodino, Alexander, they were sunk just from the impact of HE shells. Suvorov and Oryol were brought to a helpless state by them too (HE shells). Sweet Sistine offers a stronghold, just like armadillos. As a result, they quite quickly went to the bottom due to huge holes in the unarmored ends. After that, there was another extreme: the first Russian dreadnoughts were booked by almost one hundred percent of the board area. True, this armor was pierced by armor-piercing shells of peers of other countries at almost all battle distances. So it’s not so simple.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 16 January 2014 17: 06
    +3
    the main goal of a unit or formation is the fulfillment of a combat mission. I think that in the event of a serious conflict, the fight for the survivability of the ship will probably not be on the conscience of the designers, but on the conscience of the commanders and crews. Skill and training (the former sailor himself) is the same armor. outfit PDSS and other "VETOSHYU"
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 January 2014 20: 21
    +1
    I would like to walk a little through the history of the confrontation between armor and a projectile. And it, as you know, began with a battle between "Virginia" and "Monitor". They developed further as a means of attack (the caliber of the series grew, the projectile speed increased, various tips for penetrating armor, new types of explosives were invented. Protection did not stand still: the thickness of armor grew, new types of armor steel were created, depending on the type of ship and its assignments, various booking schemes were invented. A jump in one area meant a response in another. Everything was in a more or less state, similar to equilibrium. And of course, the fight for the survivability of the team itself played a lot in defense.
    Under Tsushima, for example, the Japanese practiced the tactics of firing high-explosive shells, which brought victory in that battle. It consisted in disabling the unarmored parts of the ship. But the then school of armor meant, within a certain displacement, to protect the most important parts of the ship from armor-piercing shells. it was assumed that several large shells would hit in a "fair" battle in the line (each matelot of one formation against it in another). The Japanese concentrated fire several at a time, and since most of the ship's silhouette is unarmored, the destruction of large volumes of the hull led to a violation of combat effectiveness. The fires burned ships without breaking through the armor. Then the change in battle tactics led to the victory of the Japanese fleet, but not to the victory of the shell over the armor. In the future, the designers found an adequate answer to those tactics - an increase in the area of ​​the armored side and superstructures with a natural decrease in thickness. Against the Japanese tactics, that would be enough. Examples: Russian "Rurik II" and dreadnoughts of the "Sevastopol" type.
    But the battle distances increased, and the calibers of the main battery guns increased, and hence the mass of the projectile. Therefore, the Russian path was out of work. The solution was to increase the thickness of the armor with a certain differentiation within a certain displacement. But one should not forget about other combat parameters of the ship, because there is also speed (mass of the boiler-machine group), cruising range (fuel reserves, and therefore also a piece of displacement). Balance came to the fore. And the predominance of some elements over others sometimes led to contradictions. But the increase in displacement also entailed an increase in the cost of the ship. Examples: German battleships of the First World War (predominance of protection), British battle cruisers (predominance of speed data and gun power over protection). Later this confrontation resulted in a textbook battle between Bismarck and Hood. Who is fond of stories, he knows the results of major battles at sea in the First World War and their results.
  • dustycat
    dustycat 16 January 2014 20: 57
    +2
    What do you need?
    It is necessary that the DPRK acquire one of the battleships of the times of the Japanese war (or lift one of those lying at the bottom - there are many of them there).
    Homologated his weapons.
    So that this homologated battleship enters the landfill with an order from 5-6 South Korean modern ships and guts them into the trash.
    Then the mattress covers will return all their museum armadillos to the ranks and do more.
    And the British will pull out the drawings of Osama or Victoria from the archives and do it too.
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 January 2014 21: 01
    +2
    Further. Between the wars, the military also changed with shipbuilding thoughts. The increase in the thickness of the armor could not be infinite, so the designers came up with a way out in the form of giving the angle of inclination of the armor plates, which led to a decrease in the thickness of the armor without loss of resistance. They also began to divide the thickness of the armor layer into several parts to reduce the damaging properties of shells (Italian battleships of the Vittorio Veneto type, American Washington DCs and the following types with their armor inside the hull.) The same applies to ships of other classes (cruisers , armadillos among the Scandinavians), only in smaller proportions, respectively.
    But completely new types of deliveries of shells to armor (aircraft, missiles) were already emerging. An even greater increase in the reservation or its area would lead to an imbalance in the structure of the use of the ship. The skew in the use of missiles over shells led to the destruction of the ship’s armor even before it hit the armor. The armor turned into radars for detecting, tracking, guiding defense systems (air defense systems). And this is the piece of displacement that was previously occupied by the armor . With the change of the weapon of attack, the defense also changed, which from passive turned into active. Instead of large guns, RCC became, and instead of armor became anti-aircraft missiles.
    So the question of confronting armor and shell has not gone away. The concepts themselves simply transformed. And the installation of armor passive to active armor will entail an imbalance of balance within the allotted displacement, and therefore entail an increase in the cost of the ship as a whole. But the development of electronics leads to the fact that the guided missile will hit the ship in the unarmored part, making the appearance of armor pointless. And this is the new Tsushima in battle tactics.
    These are just my opinions on this article. I could have stated it more clearly and more. Laziness. repeat
    Those who are familiar with the development of the Navy as a whole will understand what I am talking about.
    1. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 21: 19
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      guided missile will hit the ship in the unarmored part

      So there’s nothing to worry about

      Only the vital elements of the ship are protected by armor - GES, B / K, cockpits, command center. Where there is no armor, there is nothing to protect

      cruiser Pittsburgh (type Baltimore) - tore off the entire bow. And nothing. Crossed the ocean under its own power.

      Invigorating!
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 January 2014 22: 19
        +3
        And "Molotov" tore off the stern - he also returned to the base. This speaks only of the quality of the building at that time.
        Check out the armor that can withstand modern anti-missile systems, the cockpits, the conning tower (you are the command center), the Engine Room, the ammunition store, and the modern destroyer and see how much the displacement will increase. But then the destroyer will become a pocket battleship. But then the corps remains. Any missile into the waterline - and amba. Bul-bul. Example: "Cole". Protect the hull at least with a citadel along the power plant compartments and cellars, plus the combat deck (no one has canceled the bombs yet), then everything else turns into ruins with the ensuing consequences. A major (at least good) booking today is a dead end, that's my opinion.
        The only thing is that there can be a local anti-shatter reservation of control posts to mitigate damage and the best possible separation into waterproof compartments. With the coordinated work of the crew in eliminating the consequences of the defeat of the RCC, the ship can be saved soldier
        1. Santa Fe
          16 January 2014 22: 36
          -1
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Engine room, ammunition cellar, on a modern destroyer and see how much the displacement increases.

          Baltimore: 1790 tons of armor weight.
          12,9% of its STANDARD in / and
          Quote: Rurikovich
          Any missile in the waterline - and an amba. Bul-bul. Example: "Cole".

          But there is an armored belt!
          Quote: Rurikovich
          then everything else turns into ruins with the ensuing consequences

          To do this, get into the ship 100 times
          Absolutely unrealistic in modern conditions.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 16 January 2014 22: 58
            +3
            To smash an unarmored superstructure to smithereens, one rocket is enough. The energy of the explosion plus the mass of fragments turns the stuffed with electronics and various bells and whistles such as radars, antennas, the skeleton of the superstructure into a mass of iron. Plus the fires. Just don't talk about booking the entire ship - nonsense. Book the Orly Burke and at the end of the day, keeping the same displacement, you will receive a trough with weakened weapons or a short cruising range. The weight of the armor must be compensated for.
            The armor was intended to protect the ship from shells. And they are an order of magnitude lighter and have less BB than cruise missiles. Therefore, it is easier and more effective to prevent the entry of a modern rocket than to defend with armor. There were guns - there was armor. Missiles began - air defense appeared. Means of attack changed - means of defense changed.
            I am also a lover of the good old cruisers and surface ships until 1945, but not in those days. Alas. Armor will not save from missiles
            1. Kars
              Kars 16 January 2014 23: 33
              +1
              Quote: Rurikovich
              to smash an unarmored superstructure to smithereens

              And who said that the add-in will not be armored?
              and the radar antennas are not so vulnerable, they can continue to work even with knocked out sections. I really do not know whether this applies to the Inges type headlamp.
              Quote: Rurikovich
              book the Orly Burke on the way out, keeping the same displacement

              And with what joy is it necessary to maintain the displacement? Is it limited by any contract?
              Quote: Rurikovich
              The armor was intended to protect the ship from shells. And they are an order of magnitude lighter and have less than what, cruise missiles

              Well, rockets by several orders of magnitude have less mechanical strength, and the explosion inherently spreads towards minimal resistance.
              1. Rurikovich
                Rurikovich 16 January 2014 23: 56
                +1
                Well then build a modern super-armored, super-expensive combat platform. It will only be interesting to look at other characteristics besides the reservation, and what displacement it will be, how much it will cost, and how much you will build it.
                All such smart people sit and consider themselves smarter than the designers and designers building warships. And if foreheads in two or three higher educations considered that it would be profitable to book ships today and that it would cost and how to look, then they would have bungled something similar long ago. Somewhere on the site there was already an article on this subject, why ships do not book modern. Everything is laid out on shelves there.
                Do not agree? Write to the KB your exceptions in this regard in mathematical calculations and calculations, and it would be interesting for me to read the answer.
                NO ARMOR WILL BE SAVED BY THE SHIP FROM THE ROCKET. Therefore, they are not booked. Local fragmentation based on modern composite materials is present. Well, if you don’t maintain a certain displacement, then we’ll get to the Japanese, who called a full-fledged aircraft carrier of 25000 tons and 250 m long a destroyer! Bullshit? The same.
                Therefore, different assumptions about the booking account will remain at the level of measurement by something between us. The times of booked boxes with dozens of guns have passed. hi
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 00: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  Well then build a modern super-armored, super-expensive combat platform

                  If I solved it.
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  at. It will only be interesting to look at other characteristics besides the reservation, and what displacement it will be, how much it will cost, and how much you will build it.

                  The US will build no longer than Zavolt.
                  Displacement will be under 20 000 tons. Weapons will carry three Burke.
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  All such smart people sit and consider themselves smarter than the designers and designers building warships.

                  Well, you say that the designers building warships are infallible? And do not make controversial decisions? I’m more on tan --- can you explain how the Tiger 1 went into a series with booking without rational angles?
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  Do not agree? Write to the KB your exceptions on this subject in mathematical calculations and calculations, and I would be interested to read the answer

                  I do not receive money for this.
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  NO ARMOR WILL SAVE A SHIP FROM ROCKET

                  looking kokaya, and looking from what rocket. You something too categorical.
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  then we get to the Japanese, who called the full-fledged aircraft carrier in 25000 tons and 250 meters the destroyer!

                  And this no longer matters what to call. I don’t notice any special differences in the displacement of the cruiser Ticonderoga and the destroyer Ali Burke.
                  Quote: Rurikovich
                  Gone are the days of booked boxes with dozens of guns


                  Dreadnought reincarnation will occur in the coming 20 years. The United States will be in a better position, which will be able to very quickly reanimate its battleships of the Iowa type, now used as museums

                  http://ship.bsu.by/quote/55
              2. Норд
                Норд 17 January 2014 01: 02
                0
                Quote from Kars: "and the radar antennas are not that vulnerable, they can continue to work even with knocked out sections" ...
                Killed on the spot. Greater nonsense, and even scratched with such an aplomb, could not be read here. To the garden, my dear, to the garden ...

                On this topic. If modern ships do not armor, then it is justified both economically and from the point of view of their combat use. Well, shipbuilders and naval commanders of the whole world cannot be so globally mistaken. By the way, Rurikovich clearly and reasonably showed it.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 01: 11
                  +2
                  Quote: Nord
                  I didn’t have to read more nonsense, and even scratched with such aplomb. To the garden, my dear, to the garden ...

                  Only after YOU. Can you refute with a smaller aplomb? Did every bomb hit within a radius of 50 meters destroy all the radars?
                  Quote: Nord
                  If modern ships do not armor, then this is justified both economically and in terms of their combat use

                  For nuclear war they were built.
                  Quote: Nord
                  . Well, shipbuilders and naval commanders from around the world cannot be so globally mistaken.

                  Well, why, there were examples. Look how quickly the Americans got rid of their cruisers with a nuclear power plant, even though they spent more than a million.

                  Quote: Nord
                  Article Rurikovich clearly and reasonably showed it.

                  Where?
              3. postman
                postman 17 January 2014 01: 52
                0
                Quote: Kars
                Radar antennas are not so vulnerable, they can continue to work even with broken sections.

                Of course they can.
                Although, as a result of the high-explosive impact of even (!) Artillery ammunition on the headlight, the geometric displacement of its elements or the entire canvas relative to the primary irradiator is possible, which will significantly affect the accuracy of PRA implementation
                Quote: Kars
                I don’t know if this applies to the Ingesovsky type headlamp.

                Radar with phased array is more "protected" in this sense, in comparison with traditional radar, or rather damage can be corrected
                To provide sustainability of functioning Radar is necessary (and possible) to implement control and correction of the characteristics of the headlamp without removing the radar from its normal mode of operation.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 January 2014 01: 56
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  Radar with phased array is more "protected" in this sense

                  I'm confused here headlights, afar. etc.

                  And this one if it breaks a couple of three fragments will not work?
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 17 January 2014 12: 16
                    0
                    A pair of shards? this is an explosion of one of the most low-powered anti-ship missiles NSM - the ship is afloat, but the antennas were carried down to the living deck along with the superstructure. But there is warhead and more powerful, and even with the GGE, as in RBS 15, for example.
                    You will again begin to say that this is an armless frigate, so I will answer that the FAR / AFAr antenna is no stronger than its superstructure and the upper deck. And this is one of the most low-power anti-ship missiles!
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 17 January 2014 14: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      You will again say that it’s an armless frigate,

                      Of course I will.
                      I see in the photo that a cardboard add-on was unzipped and the antennas lost their support. Yes, and the explosion must have occurred in the depths of the add-ons.
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      And this is one of the most low-power anti-ship missiles!

                      Can you prove that the bombing on the armor of the main caliber tower of Tirpitz disabled all his radars? The bomb has more explosives than the smallest RCC. Or South Dakota. at Santo Cruz.
                      By the way, this post of yours perfectly showed that you do not understand what you are trying to refute.
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 17 January 2014 16: 26
                        0
                        Impossible antennas lost cardboard support? Do I understand correctly?

                        I can prove that a subsonic rocket weighing just a ton will pierce any Tirpitz tower at the request of the customer, or any chimney and exit through the bottom. I can prove that Scharnhorst was left without radar after an 8-inch shell (4-8 kg of explosives)
                  2. postman
                    postman 17 January 2014 12: 36
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    And such if

                    specifically for this
                    high-explosive impact will CHANGE the configuration (surface) of the antenna, it will not work.
                    This is not a PAR / AFAR; it is impossible to compensate for a change in the geometry of the antenna field.

                    A shard, of course, will not do much harm to her, if a single
                    Quote: Kars
                    I'm confused here

                    nothing to be confused here
                    AFAR - each emitter has its own transmitter or receiver.
                    of course it is more secure) in the sense that you mean
  • chizhik
    chizhik 16 January 2014 22: 32
    +2
    Every sailor knows that the flow of seawater is nothing compared to a fire. One little "Zuni" that fell on "Forrestal" in 1967 killed 132 people and burned 29 aircraft. There is no need to drown the ship, set it on fire and woe to all careless theoreticians. the armor of the personnel will do. In the early 50's, the Soviet "comet" in experimental launches pierced the old armored cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz" from side to side.
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 January 2014 22: 40
      +1
      Quote: Chizhik
      and the old armored cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz" from side to side. Greetings to the bukvoyedam!

      Hi. Are you sure that the Comet fell into the armored belt, but did not pass through the unarmored side?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 16 January 2014 23: 27
        +1
        Krasny Kavkaz has a 75mm waterline belt along the MKO. You still have to trick to get there. And I doubt that 600kg of explosives would not penetrate the armor of the old cruiser winked
    2. Santa Fe
      16 January 2014 22: 46
      -1
      Quote: Chizhik
      the old armored cruiser "Krasny Kavkaz" from side to side. Greetings to the bukvoyedam!

      Hello to the next fan of tales!

      It is still not known for certain whether the Comet hit the armor belt or passed higher.

      And the "armored cruiser Krasny Kavkaz" itself - a small old bucket built in 1916 - is as armored as a Chinese ballerina from you.

      And the "Comet", on the contrary, was large and heavy - the launch mass of KS-1 was about 3 tons! nothing like the modern Exocet or Harpoon
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 17 January 2014 12: 41
        0
        Is Nakhimov a bike too or is it too old? and there were plenty of subsonic missiles weighing 1.5 - 5 tons. Moreover, they are still being produced and developed (Club or Chinese art, for example). As it turned out, for a subsonic rocket, a tonne of 2 meters of concrete is no longer the limit.
        The Swedes (who can’t be blamed for impracticality) made the first Robot 04 weighing just 600 kg against our cruisers
  • chizhik
    chizhik 16 January 2014 23: 01
    +2
    The small, as you put it, the old bucket surpassed the sunk by the Toy Exocet destroyer Sheffield TWO and a half times. And the "comet" was no matter how you would call a belt, 800 kilos of explosive EXPLODE WITHOUT a SHELL EVEN AND LEAVE!
    1. Kars
      Kars 16 January 2014 23: 21
      +1
      Quote: Chizhik
      About the thought it was all the same like a belt you would not call, 800 kilo BB EXPLOD WITHOUT A SHELL EVEN AND GO OUT!

      There is a big difference - explode these 800 kg on the armor, or inside the ship.
      Quote: Chizhik
      A small, as you put it, an old bucket surpassed the sunken Toy "Exocet"

      So the comet is heavier than exoset. It was interesting to look at the comet getting into shefield.

      And actually, the main thing here was the flight of the Comet with an inert warhead through both sides of the cruiser. Judging by the descriptions, all the hits were significantly higher than the armored belt.
      Quote: Chizhik
      about authenticity. BOD "OCHAKOV" burned to the ground thanks to

      Well, where did the BOD come from? Was it armored? And maybe the fire started somewhere deep inside the hull, just where we reluctant to launch the damaging elements with the help of armor.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 16 January 2014 23: 12
    0
    about authenticity. BOD "OCHAKOV" burned to the ground due to elementary non-observance of safety precautions in a matter of hours at the plant's wall.
  • Tetros
    Tetros 16 January 2014 23: 23
    0
    Hanging armor is useless. Can you imagine what will happen to the ship when it gets into the wheelhouse 250-1000kg of warhead? The ship will not be able to fight. It can be added to repair shipyards if the fire does not finish or the second rocket.

    The same tomahawks have armor-piercing / concrete-piercing versions. And most importantly, they were successfully used to defeat Iraqi bunkers. If it breaks through reinforced concrete a couple of meters thick, it will also break through steel, there would be a target. And if this hypersonic rocket will be?

    No armor can protect a modern ship. Only the limited reservation of vital systems currently in use.

    Did booking Yamato help the same? Any reservation is a reduction in the net weight that the ship can carry. That is, equipment, ammunition, etc. And modern PC tools can hit the ship from any position, anywhere incapacitating complex combat systems.
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 January 2014 00: 17
      +1
      Quote: Tetros
      The same tomahawks have armor-piercing / concrete-piercing versions. And most importantly, they were successfully used to defeat Iraqi bunkers.

      Can you tell me how the Tomahawks were used against bunkers? How many meters of concrete were pierced?

      Quote: Tetros
      Helped booking Yamato the same

      It took so many hits, and even torpedoes, to sink Yamato. So this is not an example.
      Quote: Tetros
      A summer reservation is a reduction in the net weight that a ship can carry. That is, equipment, ammunition, etc.
      What is just the extra weight that burns or drowns from a penny (compared to a ship) RCC that can be launched by terrorists from a camel.
      1. postman
        postman 17 January 2014 01: 42
        0
        Quote: Kars
        Can you tell me how the Tomahawks were used against bunkers? How many meters of concrete were pierced


        BGM-109H (TLAM-C Block-IV)

        to destroy underground objects and fortifications
        The program failed, the "H" index was transferred to another object

        RGM / UGM-109H Tactical Tomahawk Penetration Variant with penetrating warhead
        WDU-43 / B

        You will probably find the parameters here:
        http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/ru/archive/sgsr19tongzhao.pdf
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 January 2014 01: 50
          +1
          Depth of penetration in
          to a certain extent is determined by the speed of the warhead.
          However, as the speed increases, the material of the weapon
          can no longer withstand high stresses
          in a collision with the earth, and collapses before
          explode according to design assignment


          Quote: Postman
          Program failed

          How so, they promised me here
          Quote: Tetros
          they were successfully used to defeat Iraqi bunkers
          1. postman
            postman 17 January 2014 16: 42
            0
            Quote: Kars
            How so, they promised me here

            the promised 3 (!) years are waiting and sometimes they can’t wait.
            In Iraq, the same S-200 was "shot down" by a tornado and a Galaxy with a gunship.
            What to believe any nonsense?

            24-kg GBU-900 bombs were used to destroy underground storage facilities. A shell of bombs made of a special nickel-cobalt alloy could penetrate concrete 11 m thick, and an incendiary shell created a burning cloud with a temperature of more than 500 ° C

            First test TTPV flight (RGM / UGM-109H Tactical Tomahawk Penetration Variant), was successfully held March 21, 2003, and IOC (as of September 29, 2004) planned on 2005
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 January 2014 23: 34
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    So the comet is heavier than exoset. It was interesting to look at the comet getting into shefield.

    I wouldn’t suffer for a long time laughing
  • chizhik
    chizhik 16 January 2014 23: 47
    +1
    Dear friends, I'm really against the strong, successful ships of my native fleet. I think the designers of the world know better, the problem is in the "thickness of combat readiness", the Russian is probably because the Russian did not hope not for fate, not for the tsar. We are the denser, the harder our armor is Thank you for your chat, good night!
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 January 2014 11: 08
    0
    The armor on the ship is not out of date at all and is needed by modern ships, with a competent approach to designing and choosing the thickness of armor protection, such modern ships will be ten times survivable and only very slightly more expensive, ceteris paribus. Here I fully agree with the author. To modern electronic countermeasures, designed to lead the missile from the ship, it is necessary to add a decent reservation and this is the zero), which will make the unit ten. In my opinion, everything is back to square one and the ships will soon begin to make a very decent reservation.
  • moremansf
    moremansf 17 January 2014 14: 45
    0
    Time will tell who is right ....
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 19 January 2014 09: 46
    0
    but it’s necessary that time doesn’t show ...