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.
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.