Military Review

Lead and cotton. About the confrontation of electronics and armor

40



They say that the truth lies between the two opposing views. Wrong! Between them lies the problem.
(Johann Wolfgang Goethe)


At the beginning of the year topwar.ru portal published an interesting article by Vladimir Meylitseva "Explosion on the armor." The article caused a lively discussion and has received from readers many positive ratings.

Indeed, the absence of serious structural protection on warships remains one of the most intriguing trends in modern shipbuilding. Neither USC leadership or top management of Bath Iron Works did not give any official comments and pretend as if such a problem does not exist. All decided a long time without you. Do not ask stupid questions!

Traveling across the expanses of the Internet, I accidentally discovered that the article "The explosion in the armor" was another interesting chapter ( "Why do electronics eliminates the armor?"), In which the author convincingly substantiated the thesis that the armor disappearance - an inevitable consequence of the development of electronics and rocket weapons.

There are summary data for the decade from 1951 to 1961. The volume occupied by weapons increased during this time in 2,9 times; volumes by an electronically - in 3,4 times. ... it is clear that the armor is no room.


The article provided several sparkling examples of the evolution of appearance fleet and related changes in ship design. But, as it seemed to me, too ordinary conclusions were made.

What happened to the cruiser "Oklahoma City"?

In the American sense, the phrase "A guy from Oklahoma," sounds about the same as we do, "Chukchi in Chukotka." However, despite all the provincialism of Oklahoma City, ship USS Oklahoma City (CL-91 / CLG-5) turned out well. Twentieth in a row cruiser "Cleveland" type Launched in February 20 1944 years.

The war soon ended, and the cruiser a great future: along with two of the same type cruisers "Oklahoma City" was selected to participate in the project "Galveston" to transform the outdated artillery ships in the carrier missile. This is where the fun began.

Sturdy armor and artillery checked fought for the right of existence of modern computers, missiles and radars!

The result was as follows:

Lead and cotton. About the confrontation of electronics and armor


reservation scheme remained unchanged. However, the cruiser lost three towers main battery (152 mm) and five universal gauge towers (127 mm). In addition, each three-gun turrets Mk.16 170 weighed tons, excluding mechanization cellars and ammunition! Together with the towers disappeared barbettes armored and armored stern director of MSA Mk.37.

The tremendous weight savings! But that was the ship return?

Only a long-range SAM "Talos". New enhanced add-on and a couple of tall truss masts with radar - antenna leaped up to 40-odd meters above the waterline! In the aft part of the superstructure will be an additional post of guidance anti-aircraft missiles.

SAM "Talos" with ammunition 46 missile radar two coordinate air review AN / SPS-43, three-coordinate radar AN / SPS-30, viewing surface radar SPS-10A, two radars for missile guidance SPG-49. And also: a navigation radar, radio control transmitter AN / SPW-2 - only forty-seven additional antenna devices for various purposes (communications, radar, transponders, beacons, EW means).

So what finally happened to the "Oklahoma"?

The answer is obvious - the only air defense system and equipment of a new generation of "ate" whole load reserve, which arose after the removal of 3 / 4 artillery GC and five towers with twin universal tool! But it was not enough. The electronics modules required significant volumes to accommodate them - the cruiser "swollen" and repeatedly increased in size superstructure.

It turns out that electronic systems and rocket weapons are the main load items in the design of modern ships!

In general, this is a wrong conclusion. And that's why:



God forgive me, Vladimir Meylitsev, but given in his article SAM "Talos" storage of ammunition and supply circuit looks like a mockery of a unique complex that 20 years had no analogues in the world's oceans.

"Talos" missiles were stored disassembled. Before the start of the required dock warhead missiles with a marching step on liquid fuel, and then attach the two-ton solid rocket booster. Length superrakety assembled reached 9,5 meters. As you understand, installation and transportation of such a complex and cumbersome system was not a trivial task. As a result, the stern of "Oklahoma" has become a huge rocket shop!






Interior armored rocket cellar.
Cruiser-museum "Little Rock" also upgraded on the avenue. "Galveston"

Mark-7 storage and prelaunch system consisted of an armored hopper on the upper deck (wall thickness 37 mm hatches protected from the blast), as well as from the system deck spaces intended for loading, storage and transport of warheads in prelaunch ZUR zone . Tunnels, trolley, room for inspection and testing SBCH, elevator shaft, penetrating the ship to the bottom - combat troops "Talos", including in nuclear performance, were stored in the cellar below the waterline. Also, the complex includes a bulky launcher - dvuhbalochnye swivel pedestal, and its actuators in below deck.

Everything related to "Talos" can cause a shock. The complex is so huge that no one has ever built such monsters.

The starting mass of the Talos rocket is 3,5 tons. This is twice as heavy as any modern missiles!


"Talos" and its fire control system on the cruiser "Albany" - also improvised on the basis of the TCR since the Second World War. A good sense of the extent of this madness in comparison with the figures of sailors

The hard truth of the cruiser "Oklahoma City" was the fact that on board was installed long-range air defense missile system that is based on technology 50-ies. All electronics on lamps, heaviest radar, primitive rocket technology, bulky storage and preparation for the launch, ancient computers that occupied entire rooms ... It is not surprising that the installation "Talos" Americans had to dismantle the eight gun turrets!

Do not forget about the excessively high mast with massive antenna devices, enhanced add-on as well as the dubious idea of ​​a missile storage of ammunition in a bunker on the upper deck. To compensate for these factors and their negative impact on the stability (CM displacement, windage, etc.) along the keel "Oklahoma" was laid a few hundred tons of additional ballast!

And yet, in spite of the outdated technology, the Americans were able to create a full-missile artillery cruiser. "Talos" (firing range 180 km from the modification of RIM-8C) with a powerful complex. And to keep the nasal artillery group (two towers with five- and six-inch guns) and structural protection that included 127 bronepoyas mm and horizontal booking (deck №3 50 mm thick).

Total displacement of the modernized "Oklahoma City" has reached the value 15200 tons - on 800 tons heavier than the original design. However, the cruiser suffered from a small reserve of stability and even dangerous turn in a weak storm. The problem was solved part of the dismantling of the secondary equipment and laying of the superstructure along the keel 1200 tons additional ballast. Sediment has increased by more than 1 meter. Total displacement exceeds 16 thousand. Tons! In principle, the price paid was small - with a view of the "compactness" tube electronics, masts incredible heights and surprising SAM "Talos".

As the destroyer "Ferregat" turned into a cruiser "Leahy"

Another shining example of V. Meylitseva!

So, there lived a destroyer USS Farragut (DDG-37) - head in a series of 10 ships under construction at the turn of 50-60-ies. Very large destroyer and a half times the size of all of their peers - its total displacement was 6200 tons!



"Ferregat" was one of the first carriers of missile in the world. In the stern of the destroyer was installed SAM average "Terriers" range (effective range - 40 km, very solidly by the standards of those years) with ammunition 40 missiles. Also in the arms of the destroyer was part PU raketotorped "ASROK" weapon systems and highly automated Mk.42 caliber 127 mm.

Reservation "Ferregat" had.

Where is the "trick" here? The real intrigue begins with the appearance on the horizon of escort cruiser USS Leahy (CG-16).

Despite the difference in the classification, "Leahy" and "Ferregat" have much in common - the same powerplant output, a set of radar, weapons ... The main difference - the cruiser carried a two SAM "Terriers" (the total ammunition - 80 SAM). Otherwise, the cruiser and the destroyer looked like twins.

At the same time, the full displacement of the "Lega" reached 8400 tons!


URO cruiser "Leahy"



Destroyer URO "Ferregat"

Here it is, the detrimental effects of missiles and electronics to the design of modern ships! Installation of additional SAM increased the displacement of the ship on more than two thousand tons (30% of the total in the / "Ferregata"). What kind of armor can we talk about, if his weapon barely fits his weapon?

This erroneous conclusion. In his arguments, we have missed some important details.

The first obvious strangeness "Ferregat" was too much for the class displacement (by the standards of 50-x) - 6200 tons! In parallel with the "Ferregatom" in the United States build another series of missile destroyers - "Charles F. Adams." 4500 tons.


The destroyer type "Charles F. Adams"

"Adams" was armed with a short-range Tartar SAMs (ammunition - 42 missiles without a launch accelerator). However, the smaller mass of the "Tartarus" was successfully offset by the installation of an additional 60-tonne gun Mk.42 ("Adams" carried two instead of one on the "Ferregat"). The box "ASROK" was present on both ships without changes. The differences in the characteristics of the radar in this case do not matter - both ships were equipped with bulky electronics.

The difference in 1700 tonnes of displacement is difficult to explain only with rockets and electronics. It is worth paying attention to the following important factors: “Ferregat” plant was at 15 ths. Hp more powerful powerplant "Adams". In addition, "Farregat" had greater speed and range. And most importantly, the destroyer was a "remake": "Farregat" was created as a high-speed anti-submarine ship with classical artillery, torpedoes and rocket bombers. As a result, he had a non-rational layout, in contrast to the “Adams”, which was originally designed as a missile destroyer.

Everything is not easy here ...

As for the comparison of the cruiser and the destroyer, it clearly shows that “electronics and rockets” are not the dominant articles of the load when designing modern ships. It is strange that the author did not pay any attention to this.

First, Lega was created as a cruiser to accompany aircraft carrier groups at any distance from the coast and had a tremendous cruising range — 8000 miles on 20 nodes (for comparison, the cruising range of Ferregat, from various sources, varied from 4500 to 5000 miles on 20 knots.). Simply put, Leahie was forced to carry additional 500-700 tons of fuel.

But all this is nothing compared to the main thing!

"Adams", "Farregat", "Legs" and other masterpieces of that era were miniature "pelvis", the largest of which ("Legs") were half the size of World War II cruisers!

No missiles and bulky lamp electronics could compensate for the lack of armor and artillery. The firstborn of the "rocket era" rapidly "shrank" in size.



The table is not entirely correct. First, ships of different classes are compared - the 3000 ton Fletcher and the 9000 ton Belknap. So the extra 150 tons of electronics for Belknap is like a grain bastard. As well as additional 400 cubic meters of space for its placement. And, as already noted, the radio electronics of those years was not very compact.

Equally unreasonable is the reference to the increase in energy consumption of new equipment. Just look at the required power of the GEM ships of the Second World War and compare them with the same "Leahy". The American - 85 000 hp A similar in size Soviet light cruiser of the 26 Ave. “Maxim Gorky” (1940 g.) Had hp on the shafts of 130 000 propellers! So much power was needed to accelerate the ship to speed 37 nodes.

In the coming era of rocket weapons, this speed proved to be useless. The released reserve of load and free space was successfully spent on the deployment of an additional ship power station and switchboards.

The heavy cruiser “Des Moines”, built at the end of the war, had “specific power capacity” 0,42 kW / t (per ton displacement) ... on the Bainbridge atomic frigate (1962), this figure was already 1,77 kW / t.


That's right. But it is worth remembering that the atomic frigate Bainbridge was half the size of the Des Moines.

Epilogue

“Farregat”, “Adams”, “Legs”, “Bainbridge” - all considered examples are ancient vessels of the beginning of the Cold War.

How much have radar and electronics evolved today? How have rockets and fire controls changed? Does the Talos armored cellar look like a compact decking UVP? (for this purpose, a comparison of the modern Mk.41 with the beam Mk.26 PU from 70-s is indicative). What is the difference between steam turbine GEM on fuel oil and modern gas turbine?

New technologies in design, new welding methods, new materials and alloys, ubiquitous ship automation (for comparison, the Oklahoma crew consisted of 1400 sailors; modern Zamvolt and Type 45 cost only a couple of hundred).


The German frigate "Hamburg" model 2004 g. Full displacement - 5800 tons. A small faceted turret in the nose of the superstructure duplicates all the giant antennas that were installed on the ships of previous years: detection of air and surface targets, navigation, artillery fire correction, flight control of missiles, target illumination — the only multifunctional AFAR radar with 4 active FAR operates everything . The anthracite-black SMART-L long-range radar is visible in the rear of the superstructure. This thing sees satellites in low earth orbit. "Oklahoma" with its cumbersome radars did not stand close by

Such things give a cumulative effect of reducing the main articles of the load ships. The appeared reserve was successfully spent on increasing the area of ​​residential premises, new-fashioned gyms / fitness centers and the transformation of a warship into a brothel. In addition to “inflating” add-ons, the reserve was spent on any customer's whims: if you wish, you can shove several hundred samples of rocket weapons onto a modern ship (for example, the South Korean "King Shogeng"), install any radar, or leave room free — to save money in peacetime .

Much has already been written about the need to equip modern ships with armor. Let me quote three main points:

1. The armor was removed due to the threat of imminent nuclear war. The third world didn’t happen, and the trouble-free "pelvis" as a result turned out to be easy victims in modern local conflicts.

2. The existence of a reservation scheme similar to the schemes used in the most advanced and rational design cruisers of the time of WWII (for example, the Baltimore-type TKR, adjusted for new technologies), today excludes heavy ship damage in the war with the Third World countries. And to the utmost it makes it difficult to defeat him by means of an air attack in a fight with an opponent of equal strength.

3. Installing armor will undoubtedly increase the displacement of the ship and its cost (up to 30%, taking into account the hull volumes necessary to maintain the same stability). But what does an additional pair of hundreds of millions mean when the ship’s “filling” is worth billions?

In this case, an armored cruiser can not be disabled by a single explosion. He will not be able to knock out suicidal fanatics on a leaky feluge. Yes, and most modern samples of RCC will be powerless in front of an armored monster.

The lack of armor on modern ships is not a consequence of any constructive limitations. It is dictated by the personal interests of the naval leadership of the leading countries of the world (USA, Japan, NATO). Countries that are able to build a warship with a displacement of 10-15 th. Tons, are not interested in the appearance of Neo-Carriers. The appearance of such a ship will instantly make all 84 American "Ticonderoga" and "Orly Burk."

“You have to be the greatest fool to encourage developments that give nothing to a country that already has absolute dominance at sea. Moreover, if they succeed, we can lose this domination ... ”(British Admiral Lord Jervis about the testing of a current submarine model, 1801 year).

PS In the title illustration of the article - BOD (patrol ship) of the 61 project. The total displacement is 4300 tons. The technical design of this BOD was approved in 1958 year - because the watchdog seems overloaded with giant antennas.


Oklahoma City missile and artillery cruiser



URO cruiser "Leahy"



Destroyer URO "Ferregat", 1957 year (after a modernization in the 80-e)



Destroyer URO "Ferregat", 2006 year


Based on:
http://bwana.ru
http://forum.worldofwarships.ru
http://navsource.org
http://okieboat.com
http://wikipedia.org
http://wunderwafe.ru
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Arberes
    Arberes 20 February 2014 09: 24
    +8
    The evolution of shipbuilding is really fascinating and is of great interest! It’s even ridiculous at the thought that what can now be hidden in a ship with a displacement of 4500-6000 tons under the beautiful name Frigate used to be located in cruisers with a tonnage of 12000-15000 thousand with great difficulty. tons Remember friends, the first mobile phones and what is now in our pockets of our suits or on the table in front of our eyes! I don’t know how Western shipbuilders, but I still tried to protect my ships! The time has come for composite materials. They are lightweight, durable. Now the nuclear apocalypse has also become less feared, as world practice shows, it all comes down to local conflicts!
    But the main argument is the constantly improving means of destruction of surface ships! Mankind is steadily increasing the range and speed of anti-ship vehicles!
    Maybe you shouldn’t rely solely on modern electronics (BIUSs) - capable of intercepting almost everything (again, if you believe the brochures) of some Western countries ???
    Partial booking with composites coupled with electronics is probably the next step in shipbuilding?
    I wonder how the cost of a ship dressed in new armor from modern materials will increase. This is probably a powerful argument for the customer? But everything is improved and debugged over time, and therefore cheaper?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 20 February 2014 10: 55
      +14
      Quote: Arberes
      I wonder how the cost of a ship dressed in new armor from modern materials will increase.

      If you use classic armor, it’s not so expensive. Composites can only be used in add-ons because they are not repairable. It’s easier with steel, I cut a piece of the kit, welded a new one and go further ... The question is how much this steel will be needed and how the manufacturers of anti-ship missiles will react. You will reserve the sides, they will begin to dive from above punching the deck to the very bottom (this is not a novelty now), it is not difficult, now even a reinforced concrete bunker does not guarantee safety, the little GBU-39 SDB weighing only 100 kg. pierces a meter-long reinforced concrete shelter, and this is just an air bomb, it does not have a jet engine. And what next, put the armored deck? In the race armor-shell, armor always catches up and is not always successful. It’s easy in tank building, the size of the tank is small, you can indulge in expensive armor, but this is simply unacceptable for ships ...
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 20 February 2014 14: 28
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        .. The question is how much this steel will be needed and how will the manufacturers of anti-ship missiles react to this.

        A depleted uranium rod effortlessly like a hot knife will penetrate into oil and 300mm high-grade tank alloy steel with a meeting angle even in 60 degrees and not current ...
        One misfortune - you don’t have it, but Toko from the superpowers - the USA, the Russian Federation and they say among the frogmen laughing
        The fact that "rusty axes" and their torpedoes are equipped with this is no secret, the same is probably the same with us (such as "B" ammunition)

      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 20 February 2014 14: 33
        +3
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: Arberes
        I wonder how the cost of a ship dressed in new armor from modern materials will increase.

        If you use classic armor, it’s not so expensive. Composites can only be used in add-ons because they are not repairable. Since steel is easier, cut out a piece of a set, ...


        This is not so in fact. Everything is being perfectly repaired. In the same way as created. The only thing that can decrease the strength indicator is insignificant, to infinity, of course, gluing holes will not work.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 20 February 2014 18: 06
          +1
          Quote: Geisenberg
          This is not so in fact. Everything is being perfectly repaired. In the same way as created. The only thing that can decrease the strength indicator is insignificant, to infinity, of course, gluing holes will not work.

          Meant elements of a power set. After deformation, frames and stringers are cut out and new ones welded (not along the entire length of course), these elements from composites cannot be restored.
      3. inkass_98
        inkass_98 20 February 2014 14: 56
        +5
        There were armored cruisers as a compromise (Aurora, Varangian). But when a combat unit breaks down because the watchmen overslept the approach of a fishing longboat, after which the ship can be squeezed into scrap metal, is this not a waste? In this case, an armored belt would be cheaper than a major overhaul.
  2. ABV
    ABV 20 February 2014 09: 24
    +4
    An interesting look ... Oleg in his repertoire!
    Thank you for the work done and the quality review.
    1. Panikovsky
      Panikovsky 20 February 2014 13: 54
      +4
      Quote: ABV
      An interesting look ... Oleg in his repertoire!
      Thank you for the work done and the quality review.

      as Arkady Velliurov (L. Broneva) said at the Pokrovsky gate: And if he is right ?!
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 20 February 2014 22: 48
      +1
      Quote: ABV
      An interesting look ... Oleg in his repertoire!
      Thank you for the work done and the quality review.


      Thanks to the author for the review. If it were not for the children's level of "analytics" (conspiracy of admirals around the world laughing ), then it would be very good laughing
  3. Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 February 2014 10: 36
    +10
    How difficult it turned out for you. Primary:
    Refusal of reservation allowed to reduce displacement - this is obvious.
    Reducing the volume of electronics (due to its miniaturization with lower power consumption) can improve the living conditions of the crew and increase the number of systems - it is also obvious.
    And your conclusion is clear too:
    The lack of armor on modern ships is not a consequence of any constructive limitations.

    Undoubtedly, due to part of the systems, it is possible to strengthen the reservation within the existing displacement. For example, on the Berks, this can be done by abandoning the Seahawk helicopters in general (together with the hangar) and removing the towed GAS AN / SQR-19, tightening the crew ...
    If you leave all the systems unchanged, then you will perforce have to increase the displacement and everything will depend on how much armor you are going to hang on the ship.
    Further. RCC hit statistics show that all hits fall above the waterline, and very often in the superstructure, this always led to a fire (the worst thing that can happen on a ship). Does it follow that it is necessary to book add-ons? If so, how much? Also 150mm. armor?
    What anti-ship missiles do you propose to install armor from? If from NSM, Uranus, Harpoon and Exocet this is one thing, if from Mosquitoes, Volcano, Yakhont another. Further, the RCC trajectory in the final section is different, some dive, others hit the side ...
    The United States had only one potential enemy during the Cold War, the USSR. The USSR had a fairly wide range of anti-ship missiles, they did not spare money and the designer riveted them (Chelomey especially "frolicked") so much that it is a pity to list the time. Main characteristics: supersonic speed, huge mass and powerful warhead. The Americans rightly considered that no armor would save from a 1-ton b / h unit flying at supersonic speed (especially if it is also a cumulative high-explosive like on the Kh-22 or Amethyst with Malachite), therefore it is better to develop means of intercepting such missiles using under them the maximum of the available displacement. Working in both directions at the same time would lead to the creation of creepy monsters with a displacement of at least 20 thousand tons. The work resulted in the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Orly Burke-class destroyers. Absolutely correct decision. And suicide bombers on boats can be driven away by Bushmasters ...
    For clarity, the work of the RCC Volcano and Mosquito (from left to right naturally)

    P.S .:
    The resulting reserve was successfully spent on increasing the area of ​​residential premises, new-fangled gyms / fitness centers and turning the warship into a brothel.

    I was always amazed at your negative attitude towards the care of the US Navy to its sailors. The U.S. Navy has been doing military service off the coast for months, as it is not draftees who serve, the conditions of service are very important for the attractiveness of service in the navy. And the reduction in crew fatigue allows us not to reduce its combat readiness. Personal room, air conditioning and ventilation are great ...
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 20 February 2014 16: 10
      +1
      For clarity, the work of the RCC Volcano and Mosquito (from left to right naturally)


      And, probably, with a weight-dimensional breadboard model of the warhead? (in the sense of not fighting), otherwise the photo would not work?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 February 2014 18: 08
        +2
        Quote: neri73-r
        And, probably, with a weight-dimensional breadboard model of the warhead? (in the sense of not fighting), otherwise the photo would not work?

        Naturlich, otherwise the target ships would not have lived for a long time ...
    2. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 20: 25
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      within the existing displacement.

      What for? Do we have a Washington treaty artificially restricting ships and / or ships?
      Quote: Nayhas
      RCC hit statistics show that all hits fall above the waterline

      laughing
      Quote: Nayhas
      and very often in the add-in

      But from this place please in more detail
      Quote: Nayhas
      Does it follow that it is necessary to book add-ons?

      otherwise why all this conversation
      Quote: Nayhas
      If so, how much?

      50 mm external armor plate integrated into the power case kit
      The opposite wall of the first compartment from the side is an anti-fragmentation bulkhead (a "puff" of two thin 5 mm steel sheets and a ceramic filler. Or ordinary Kevlar)
      Quote: Nayhas
      If from NSM, Uranus, Harpoon and Exetet

      Yes
      Quote: Nayhas
      Mosquito, Volcano, Yakhont

      The chance of meeting such a fool in a real battle tends to zero
      Quote: Nayhas
      I was always amazed at your negative attitude towards the care of the US Navy to its sailors.

      I answered a little lower
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 21 February 2014 13: 59
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What for? Do we have a Washington treaty artificially restricting ships and / or ships?

        No one is going to create an armored ship from scratch at the moment, the reasons are more financial. Therefore, we can only talk about changing the existing project. Therefore, it is required to "fit" into the existing displacement.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        But from this place please in more detail

        Do not be foolish, the photo with RCC hits on the network is full.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        50 mm external armor plate integrated into the power case kit
        The opposite wall of the first compartment from the side is an anti-fragmentation bulkhead (a "puff" of two thin 5 mm steel sheets and a ceramic filler. Or ordinary Kevlar)

        50mm vs 200kg. penetrating b / h? Do you really think that will help?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        The chance of meeting such a fool in a real battle tends to zero

        Come on you. But what about the confrontation with the PRC fleet? So they have Mosquitoes and Caliber. Moreover, the own development of YJ-12 based on the X-31:

        1. Santa Fe
          21 February 2014 15: 42
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          No one will create an armored ship from scratch now

          Zamvolt somehow created

          Although it contradicts the entire prevailing paradigm of world shipbuilding: rocket-artillery stealth destroyer with six-inch artillery (for the first time in 60 years!), Electric propulsion, a new radar, peripheral armored air-craft, forming a kind of ship’s armored belt.
          Quote: Nayhas
          photo with RCC hits on the network is full.

          Much more photos with hitting the body. Which is logical - this is the most "contrasting" place for the rocket radar



          Quote: Nayhas
          50mm vs 200kg penetrating b / h?

          Even when 165 kg is hit at right angles, the Exocet warhead will not penetrate 40 mm of armor. At an angle of meeting over 45 hail. off normal - guaranteed rebound

          AS.34 Kormoran is a special warhead with 16 cumulative holes: it penetrates 70-90 mm, but after breaking through the outer side, the explosion products do not penetrate deep into the hull, due to the second, anti-fragmentation bulkhead

          Your favorite NSM is equipped with a warhead weighing only 120 kg and has no cumulative holes

          Finally, the "penetrating warhead" will not help in any way when meeting the armor. "Penetration" applies only to unarmored targets and is provided by decelerating the detonation of the fuse.
          Quote: Nayhas
          But what about the confrontation with the PRC fleet?

          The probability is negligible compared to the confrontation with the Iranian Navy or the Hezbollah coastal fortifications.

          By the way, the carriers of Mosquitoes in China are only 4 old ships.
          Quote: Nayhas
          own development of YJ-12 based on X-31:

          They're not too dangerous. They have an altitude flight profile - Aegis must calculate and click targets such as nuts
          Much more dangerous is a sudden meeting with Exocet or a boat of terrorists
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 21 February 2014 16: 39
            0
            Is this in your "kind of a ship's armor belt", or what?

            and 40mm armor was easily pierced even by 100 kg bombs from low altitude
            1. Santa Fe
              21 February 2014 17: 14
              +2
              Quote: Tlauicol
              and 40mm armor was easily pierced even by 100 kg bombs from low altitude

              http://www.uic.unn.ru/~teog/gruzi/b-evg2.htm
              The lower deck is 30 mm thick and the upper deck is also 30 mm. But it is quite clear that these thicknesses cannot be so simply summed up to get the erroneous figure 60 mm. After all, the upper deck is made of non-armored steel. And if you recalculate its thickness to the equivalent of Krupp's armor, then it will be significantly thinner than 30 mm. But now I do not have a reliable methodology for such a recount. It is possible that the reduced (reduced) thickness instead of 30 may turn out to be three times or at least one and a half less than the original. In order not to be confused for a long time in an obscure question, we will conditionally take a mid-ceiling solution: supposedly 30 mm, the thickness of the non-armored upper deck is equivalent to half this value - that is, 15 mm to Krupp armor. Then it turns out that the English bomb on its way met approximately 45-50 mm of armored steel (I lower the intermediate decks, because I consider their strength no more than that of paper ...). Consequently, 227 kg bomb could not penetrate 45-50
              mm of armor.

              Quote: Tlauicol
              peculiar ship armored belt

              Overlapping is not 70%. Maybe 25% of ship length

              The PVLS module consists of an isolated compartment that houses the universal 4 container launcher. The outer side of the compartment is a thin steel sheet, the inside (facing the ship's hull) is a thick sheet of armored steel.

              In November of the same year, the first tests of the new system were carried out. Full blown 162 ton system module was manufactured at Northrop Grumman's Ship Systems' facility in Pascagoul, Mississippi
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 21 February 2014 17: 39
                0
                did you seriously believe the author of this article? Cornwell and Dortsetshire and Japanese 100kg bombs just taunt her! And if you believe, then believe that the fragments will pierce the 50mm armored bulkheads inside the ship
                1. Santa Fe
                  21 February 2014 18: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  did you seriously believe the author of this article?

                  Have you read it to the end?
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  shards will pierce 50mm armored bulkheads

                  Plastic fragments Exozeta))
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Cornwell and Dortsetshire

                  Is this what? With their cardboard armor
                  1.25-inch (32 mm) over machinery
                  1.5-inch (38 mm) over steering gear
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Japanese 100kg bombs just taunt her

                  not 100 but 250.
                  110 kg hardly penetrated deep into the hull

                  Secondly, ships died not so much from direct bombs as from damage to the skin below the waterline - a result of dozens of nearby explosions.

                  During the death of D. and K., there were no severe fires and detonations b / c - they stupidly tipped and rolled over. By the way, most sailors escaped - even after 30 hours in the water.

                  In the photo, "Cornwell" does not even burn
                  1. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 21 February 2014 18: 46
                    0
                    I read it.
                    32-38mm - cardboard? and 30mm in the article is not cardboard?

                    not plastic fragments, but steel fragments of warheads

                    Dorsetshire didn't burn either?

                    you’re just like the author of that article: since you didn’t explode, then you didn’t break through :))
                    1. Santa Fe
                      21 February 2014 19: 05
                      +1
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      I read it.

                      Is there anything to object essentially?
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      not plastic fragments, but steel fragments of warheads

                      Then Chegozh Yankees build a peripheral armored UVP
                      By your logic, the detonation of the Tomahawk warhead should smash everything to shreds. And there is no point in PVLS
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      Dorsetshire didn't burn either?

                      Apparently not
                      10 direct hits - and not a single explosion art. cellars; most of the team saved
                      Quote: Tlauicol
                      just did not explode

                      So they didn’t break through. Or the explosion occurred in another place
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 22 February 2014 06: 36
                        +1
                        Dorsertshire is on fire

                        Didn’t they pierce the savannah either? Why didn’t it explode? A heavy bomb right in the cellar! Order the author an article - let him write that there was no penetration!

                        the author, and you repeat after him: since it did not explode, it means that there was no penetration - and begins fabrications "in essence"

                        and the protection of the UVP on Zamvolta is no more than a boxer's "shell" - it is even a blasphemy to call it an armored belt :)) And it serves to prevent the super destroyer from flying up into the air from the "plastic splinter" of NSM, which fell into, say, the superstructure or the middle of the side. No more
                      2. Santa Fe
                        22 February 2014 14: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Dorsertshire is on fire

                        The mere fact that his twin is not burning means a lot
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        Didn’t they pierce the savannah either? Why didn’t it explode? A heavy bomb right in the cellar!

                        missile pierced right through the armored turret roof of the No. 3 gun turret of the Savannah, passed through three decks into the lower ammunition-handling room, where it exploded, blowing a gaping hole in her keel, and also tearing open a seam in the cruiser's port side. For at least 30 minutes, secondary explosions in the turret and its ammunition-supply rooms hampered any fire-fighting efforts.

                        Losses among the crew - 197 people. - 2,5 times more than on "Prince Eugen"
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        And it serves to prevent the super destroyer from being blown up into the air by the "plastic splinter"

                        Why were they placed along the side, separated from the rest of the ship by armor?
                        This solution contradicts yours:
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        fragments will penetrate 50mm armored bulkheads inside the ship
                      3. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 22 February 2014 15: 27
                        0
                        "Quote: tlahuicol
                        shrapnel will pierce 50mm armored bulkheads inside the ship "- this is not mine, but the author you respect. Does not contradict my quote:" serves to prevent the super destroyer from taking off into the air from the NSM "plastic splinter" that got into, say, the superstructure or the middle of the side ... No more "- that is, it protects against fragments, which are still more than a dozen meters away, including through bulkheads. In case of a direct or close hit, even a baby NSM, Penguin or Kovsar, your" armor belt "will fly

                        2,5 times more losses than a ship docked for repairs? from a powerful bomb? very amazing!
                        (C) "The mere fact that his twin does not burn means a lot" -

                        and does the burning first twin mean nothing?

                        I would not be surprised at all if the Eugen bomb had pierced not 30, but 50mm of armor, and even at an angle - it was on the bevels. And the logic of thought: "did not explode - not pierced" is negative
                      4. Santa Fe
                        22 February 2014 15: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        and does the burning first twin mean nothing?

                        Despite the fact that both hit an equal number of bombs - there is a paradox

                        The first is on. second no. Explosions on both are absent. Most of the crew is safely saved. There is evidence that Cornwell began to roll quickly and drown from the numerous close explosions and tremors of the hull, which opened up leaks in the underwater part before a dozen bombs hit him.

                        Could burn paint, ammunition of small anti-aircraft guns and wires in an unprotected superstructure. If all 10 bombs penetrated the armored deck, detonation of b / c could not be avoided.
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        With a direct or close hit, even a baby NSM, Penguin or Kovsar, your "armor belt" will fly into the air

                        But it will fulfill its goal - it will protect the inside of the ship from fragments and explosion products. Otherwise, why the peripheral UVP ??
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        than a ship docked for repairs?

                        This does not mean that there were fewer people on it. The regular crew of "Eugen" is 2 times more than "Savannah" + workers. It looks like the explosion took place in the cockpit.

                        There are also doubts about the large number of crew losses.
                        The fact is that in the deck of the ship docked
                        there simply couldn’t be that many people - 60-80 people.
                        For example, ship generators do not work while parking
                        ship in the dock - because they must be cooled to work
                        sea ​​water. And in the dock, the ship receives all power from
                        the coast. But if the generators do not work, then what should people do there
                        a large number? Similarly, the central post.

                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        from a powerful bomb?

                        On the Savannah within minutes 30 explosions thundered in the tower and cellar, while the Yankees failed to flood him
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        And the logic of thought: "did not explode - not pierced" is

                        Have you definitely read the article to the end?
  • Panikovsky
    Panikovsky 22 February 2014 21: 17
    0
    Don't be sweet_sixteen, you're definitely right because you know what you are writing and talking about.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 February 2014 11: 38
    0
    In my opinion, it is obvious that in armaments it is necessary to be in the forefront. If the enemy is focused on guided weapon systems, it is foolish to go in a different direction. The available resources are always limited, we begin to spend some of them on the development, design and manufacture of armor, ceases to be enough for something else. Focusing on one direction, the adversary makes a leap, and in order to answer, we lack neither the forces nor the means nor the people. Any turn in development, even if it is simply a return to the old paths, requires a lot of investment and time. And if this does not give a cardinal gain, no one will fence the garden. Especially now, when we seem to have simple things stopped working, and the fleet is not the only and not the most important headache.
  • Mikhado
    Mikhado 20 February 2014 12: 58
    +3
    If we talk about caring for the crew not only on the march, but also in battle, it might be worth thinking about an armored capsule for personnel, from where during the battle all automated ship systems will be controlled, and in case of fatal injuries people will leave the ship in sealed capsules - boats directly under the water, without leaving the damaged deck.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 20: 06
      +3
      Quote: Mikhado
      about the armored capsule for personnel, from where during the battle control will simply be carried out

      Already come up with

      The conning tower of the battleship "New Jersey". Wall thickness - 430 mm steel


      But the problem is that modern battles have a significant factor of surprise. Savages - bang! - And they released RCC from a dugout disguised on the beach. Or a low-flying anti-ship missile that suddenly flies out from the horizon - 30 seconds before a collision! The crew simply does not have time to take cover, free from shifts will perish, resting in their bunks.

      A very blasphemous argument - what does the death of a couple of dozen sailors mean - against the background of the destruction of UVP, computer servers, weapon control panels, gas turbines, and other high-tech and expensive equipment?

      Finally, the damaged ship loses speed, lose its combat effectiveness and becomes a guaranteed victim in case of repeated attacks of the enemy. So the armored capsule is not an option at all

      Bits Aircraft Cruiser



      Acoustic Station Post AN / SQS-53


      GTU LM2500 - the heart of the ship. There are four of them
  • q_556
    q_556 20 February 2014 13: 01
    +2
    It seems that some authors are directly obsessed with the idea of ​​reviving battleships. They will find a hidden threat in American ship-museums, or they will sort out the battleship’s collision with aliens. Now, they offer to return the reservation to modern ships. What for?


    1. The armor was removed due to the threat of imminent nuclear war. The third world didn’t happen, and the trouble-free "pelvis" as a result turned out to be easy victims in modern local conflicts.


    Arlie Burke is a pelvis? Is the eagle a pelvis? And what kind of "victims in contemporary local conflicts" are we talking about? The only thing that comes to mind is the battle between the Mirage and the Georgian boats, but there the "pelvis" won.
    Or, was it about the death of Sheffield in the Falkland War? But there was an example of the command’s mediocrity - to launch an attack during bad weather, which disabled the ship’s military equipment - this had to be thought out ...

    2. The existence of a reservation scheme similar to the schemes used in the most advanced and rational design cruisers of the time of WWII (for example, the Baltimore-type TKR, adjusted for new technologies), today excludes heavy ship damage in the war with the Third World countries. And to the utmost it makes it difficult to defeat him by means of an air attack in a fight with an opponent of equal strength.


    Wars with the countries of the "third world" in principle exclude serious damage, because the countries of the "third world" usually do not have a navy, and if they do, then they do not have heavy weapons. As for the "enemy equal in strength" - what thickness of armor is needed to withstand a hit from an Onyx missile with a warhead weighing 300 kg?
    Regarding countering aviation: the Japanese had such a battleship "Yamato", the largest ship in history, and so he died in a battle with American aircraft and no armor saved him. If even such a monster as Yamato could not cope with aviation then, what kind of monster would you need to build today?

    3. Installing armor will undoubtedly increase the displacement of the ship and its cost (up to 30%, taking into account the hull volumes necessary to maintain the same stability). But what does an additional pair of hundreds of millions mean when the ship’s “filling” is worth billions?

    And the case is like that, a penny ...

    Also, regarding the shortcomings, the author mentioned an increase in displacement and cost of production, but did not say about:
    - An increase in the mass and dimensions of the ship will lead to a deterioration of seaworthiness, and, in particular, the speed of the ship
    - It will require the installation of a more powerful ESA
    - An increase in size will increase the visibility of the ship and, in particular, noise
    1. postman
      postman 20 February 2014 15: 20
      +3
      Quote: q_556
      Now, they offer to return the reservation to modern ships. What for?

      Nostalgia....

      Quote: q_556
      And what kind of "victims in contemporary local conflicts" are we talking about?

      March 1, 1967 Heavy cruiser URO "Canberra" (CAG-2)
      At 18 hours 19 minutes, 25 km north of Dong Hoi, the cruiser Canberra, together with two destroyers, fired at the North Vietnamese blockhouse when it hit under intense return fire of 57-mm guns and was hit by two shots at a distance of 11 yards. There was a hole in the deck with a diameter of 0,5-1 inches, a hole in the wall of the radar compartment, numerous light fragmentation damage to the superstructure, and several life rafts were also damaged. One sailor was wounded. The coastal battery that fired at Canberra was suppressed. The ship continued its combat mission.
      According to Vietnamese data, a battery of 85 mm guns fired.


      April 16, 1972 Frigate URO "Warden" (DLG-18)
      On the night of April 15/16, the frigate was east of Haiphong, supporting the first air raid on the city after the resumption of the bombing of the DRV. At 3 hours and 35 minutes, he received combat damage, including damage to the deck, superstructure, radar, ASROC anti-submarine missile launchers. One sailor was killed (3rd-class boatswain assistant Robert Sterling) and 9 were injured. The ship went for repairs in Subic Bay (Philippines).

      January 24, 1973 Destroyer URO "Prebl" (DLG-15)
      The ship fired at automobile and tank columns in the area of ​​the demilitarized zone, when he came under fire from 130 mm guns from the shore. Near the bursts of shells one antenna was destroyed, the superstructure was damaged. One sailor is slightly injured


      Quote: q_556
      Wars with the countries of the "third world" in principle exclude serious damage,

      above vietnam

      According to the RCC developer Aerospatiae, during the war between Iran and Iraq in the Persian Gulf missiles "Exocet" AM.39launched from Iraqi Air Force aircraft, 112 ships and vessels were damaged (60 hits installed accurately, 52-possible). 57 ships and vessels learned serious injuries, only one case of defeat without explosion was noted.

      Quote: q_556
      what is the thickness of the armor needed to withstand hit Onyx missiles with warheads weighing 300 kg?



      In January 1945, the Australian cruiser HMAS Australia survived for four days three rams of kamikaze + bombing in the area of ​​the waterline!
      Quote: q_556

      And the case is like that, a penny ...

      ? over 30%
      6 hulls of destroyers ordered by Bath Iron Works for laying in 2002-2005 cost $ 3, the cost of 170 hulls ordered by Ingalls Shipbuilding in the same period = $ 973.
      1. Santa Fe
        20 February 2014 19: 31
        0
        Quote: Postman
        112 ships and ships were damaged (60 hits installed accurately, 52-possible). 57 ships and vessels learned serious damage, only one case of defeat without explosion was noted.

        Herr Postman, I suppose it's a lie

        60 hits of the Exocetons - and not a single dead ship .. this cannot be. In the Falklands, three ships (of which 2 did not explode) burned and huddled two ships.

        Most likely we are talking about ALL missiles launched including light AS-12, SiSqua, etc. trivia helicopter-based (+ grenade shelling, etc. pranks of Persians and subjects of Saddam Hussein)
    2. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 19: 43
      +2
      Quote: q_556
      Arly Burke - pelvis?

      Even some



      200 kg IED completely failed from a close explosion. 20% of the crew in salvage (17 of the dead, 39 of the wounded) - lost speed, power supply, combat efficiency, the engine room of the forehead was flooded - the super-ship was returning home on the platform
      Quote: q_556
      What kind of "victims in contemporary local conflicts" are we talking about?

      A third of Her Majesty's squadron in the Falklands War, the Stark frigate, the Cole destroyer, the US Navy ships off the coast of Vietnam ...
      Quote: q_556
      Regarding countering aviation: the Japanese had such a battleship "Yamato",

      killed in battle with 8 aircraft carriers. Very funny.
      Quote: q_556
      And the case is like that, a penny ...

      No more than 1 / 3 of the cost of a modern ship
  • Taoist
    Taoist 20 February 2014 13: 07
    +4
    Well, everything is as usual, if an article about "battleships" appears somewhere, then the signature can not even be read. As the saying goes, "loyalty to the idea" commands respect.

    And on the topic - well, until "passive protection" on new physical principles appears, then we are unlikely to see "non-armored carriers" in the seas. It's just not profitable. Reservation under the conditions of the use of modern weapons will not greatly increase the "combat stability" (I want to emphasize not the "survivability" but namely the combat stability) of the ship, but its combat effectiveness will be affected by the displacement of the active means of defense and attack. And this is evaluated primarily from the point of view of energy. Passive protection must dissipate or resist all the energy (kinetic and explosion) of the warhead reaching the side. Active defense, on the other hand, can operate with much smaller (of a different order) energies. it only needs to deflect the trajectory of the weapon.
    That is why the development and improvement of active protective equipment will always be more profitable (both energetically and economically) than weighting with armor. The ships were armored when there was no other technical means to protect the ship from enemy weapons. Now it’s technically easier to hit a rocket or projectile on approach and simply prevent them from hitting a ship. In any case, the development trend is precisely in this logic.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 19: 26
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      It is simply unprofitable

      And to lose a ship for $ 1.5 billion from a single hit by a small rocket is very profitable.
      Quote: Taoist
      it’s enough for her to just reject the trajectory of the weapon ... technically easier to hit a rocket or projectile on approach and just don't give hit them ship

      Tell this to the crews of the destroyers Cole and Coventry, the dead sailors from the frigate Stark and the corvette Hanit
      (I will not cite the unfortunate destroyer Sheffield as an example - you will say that the commander’s erroneous actions were to blame)
      Quote: Taoist
      And this is evaluated primarily in terms of energy

      Naked theory
      Quote: Taoist
      weaning displacement from active protective equipment

      You can instruct the phalanxes at least 10 pieces - the whole point is their electromagnetic compatibility. Armor and other load articles have nothing to do with it
      Quote: Taoist
      As the saying goes, "loyalty to the idea" commands respect.

      My opinion may change at any time if you can provide reliable facts proving the opposite.
  • postman
    postman 20 February 2014 13: 20
    +1
    Quote: Author
    But, as it seemed to me, too ordinary conclusions were made.

    What did you want to say? where is the mistake?
    “But where did tons of displacement go?”
    Quote: Author
    Countries that are able to build a warship with a displacement of 10-15 thousand tons are not interested in the appearance of neonarrier.

    ??
    It seems that these countries (or rather, their fleet), JUST RECEIVED EARNING from fishing boats and homemade weapons !!
    They just should be interested !!
    If my memory does not change, only the "breakthrough" of the drone (because of the dull operator) BQM-74 to the missile defense cruiser, class Ticonderoga STOLIL US Treasury $ 33
    1. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: Postman
      “But where did tons of displacement go?”

      Going nowhere

      modern Aegis destroyer - 9500 tons
      Artillery cruiser "Cleveland" (considered light) - 14 tons.
      Artillery cruiser 68 bis - 18 000 tons.
      Quote: Postman
      They just should be interested !!

      The Yankees are lucky that no one is fighting seriously with them. Undermining Cole - pranks of Arab punks.

      Their cruisers and destroyers are not designed for naval combat - on most there are no anti-ship missiles (and even means of close self-defense). All hope for submarines and aircraft. And to its traditional numerical superiority.
      Quote: Postman
      Class Ticonderoga MADE Treasury US $ 33 000 000,00

      Amusingly
      1. postman
        postman 20 February 2014 23: 48
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Going nowhere

        ?
        OLEG writes: "Moreover, each three-gun turret Mk.16 weighed 170 tons."

        170 tons, even if at a height of 10 (or lope) m from the CM = 1700 tons
        overturning moment (THREE of them) = 5 100 ton meter

        cruiser Ticonderoga.
        SPY-1A = 5,4 tons per grate 4 = 22 tons, at a height of 24 + 10 = 34 m from the CM
        OM = 756 ton meter
        +
        tripe (wire, cool day, waveguide) 5tn ("smeared along the height of 24 m)
        CM = 5X24 * 90% = 10 ton meter
        + equipment weight - from 6,7 tons
        CM = 6,7x10 = 67 tons meter
        + wind load (you need to return to the institute to calculate), let it be 400 tons
        TOTAL = 1233 ton meter (for the cruiser "Ticonderoga")
        I would venture to suggest that "AN / SPS-43 air surveillance radar, AN / SPS-30 three-coordinate radar, SPS-10A surface surveillance radar, two SPG-49 missile guidance radars. And also: navigation radar, AN / SPW-2 radio command transmitters" / USS Oklahoma City (CL-91 / CLG-5) / WEIGHS AS MINIMUM 3 times as much (and a bit of the same as above)
        TOTAL at CL-91 / CLG-5 tipping moment = 1233 x 3 = 3 ton meter
        In the "stock is" non-acidic 1400 tonne meter

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        most lack RCC (and even short-range defense).


        I think with MK41 and the new RCC, they will solve this very problem

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        All hope for submarines and aircraft

        OOOO !!! AIR CARRIERS NEEDED everything goes
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Amusingly

        Amuricans
        1. Santa Fe
          21 February 2014 00: 24
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          In the "stock is" non-acidic 1400 tonne meter

          Have you forgotten to consider a larger add-on? And the cellar SAM Talos
          Quote: Postman
          you have to go back to college to count

          Do not!

          Since truth forever passes from the hands
          Do not try to understand the incomprehensible, friend.
          Take the bowl in your hands, remain an ignoramus
          There is no sense, believe in the study of science.

          (O. Khayyam)
          Quote: Postman
          I think with MK41 and the new RCC, they will solve this very problem

          Considering that for the past half century all cruisers have not had a distinct anti-ship missile weapon, performing only the role of an AUG escort, it’s unlikely
          Quote: Postman
          OOOO !!! Aircraft carriers NEED everything goes

          Are needed! - The Americans created a scheme in which NK are deprived of armor, anti-ship missiles and means of close self-defense. And without air cover, they are all five to five minutes of blindfold

          (besides, who said that a floating airfield would be needed for cover ??
          As if the Marines F / A-18c AB Sheikh Isa (Bahrain) could not cope

          Look what's under the wing of the stratofortress !!
          1. postman
            postman 21 February 2014 11: 03
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Have you forgotten to consider a larger add-on?

            I have already introduced the coefficient "3", where does it go (if in the wind, then the towers ALSO "faint")
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            And the cellar SAM Talos

            the cellar, this is ANTI overturning moment, it’s like ballast

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Given that they have the last half century, all cruisers have no distinct anti-ship missiles,

            weird ...
            AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon
            In 1986 year American missile cruiser "Yorktown" type "Ticonderoga" and carrier-based attack aircraft launched several harpoon rockets on Libyan corvettes and missile boats in Sidra Bay. One Libyan corvette and one missile boat were sunk by these missiles.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            in which NK are deprived of armor

            all are deprived, not just learn

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            RCC and means of close self-defense.

            about harpoon above
            wrote about the neighbor’s

            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Marine Corps F / A-18c AB Sheikh Isa (Bahrain)

            I can’t imagine them (Bahoein) covering the warrant / convoy in the Atlantic.
            / You give too much hope to refuel in the air /
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Look what's under the wing of the stratofortress !!

            Weakly believe in the B-52 ATTACKING Russian cruiser equipped with the S-300 ..... it seems to me (B-52) it will not creep even to the zone of confident target identification
            1. Santa Fe
              21 February 2014 15: 12
              0
              Quote: Postman
              the cellar, this is ANTI overturning moment, it’s like ballast

              He is above the CM! Armored bunker on the upper deck
              Quote: Postman
              AGM / RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon

              Auxiliary weapons of cruisers. Drown Libyan feluccas
              Moreover, one of the main features of Harpoon - aviation-based
              Quote: Postman
              I can’t imagine them (Bahoein) covering the warrant / convoy in the Atlantic.

              Who can attack the convoy in the Atlantic ??
              Tu-22 will be intercepted by fighters from airfields in Iceland and the Faroe Islands
              Quote: Postman
              Weakly believe in the B-52 ATTACKING Russian cruiser equipped with

              Then what the hell is 6 Garpunov?
              there are many goals in the sea, except for the cruiser with the C-300
              1. postman
                postman 21 February 2014 15: 38
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                He is above the CM!

                Are you sure?
                I got a different impression. Don't confuse it with "above" the keel? with CM
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Auxiliary weapons of cruisers.

                what is their main thing? 100mm gun mount?
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Moreover, one of the main features of Harpoon - aviation-based

                Who argues .... poor granite
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Tu-22 will be intercepted by fighters from airfields in Iceland and the Faroe Islands

                You are not familiar with former plans.
                Faroe Islands and Iceland must be occupied or destroyed, otherwise how to live in the Northern Fleet?
                Guiche will not let the submarine pass, and indeed, hardly anyone wants to repeat the fate of Tirpitz

                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Then what the hell is 6 Garpunov?

                answer:
                1.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Drown Libyan feluccas

                2.we are looking at the GNSO agreement (1,2)
                A glider has not yet developed a resource
                3. see 2 (no tomahawks), bombs are only in Afghanistan
                1. Santa Fe
                  21 February 2014 16: 41
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  Are you sure?
                  I got a different impression

                  Missiles were stored on the upper deck
                  Quote: Postman
                  what is their main thing?

                  Standards Axes were added soon
                  Quote: Postman
                  Faroe Islands and Iceland must be occupied or destroyed

                  Nuclear fire?
              2. tlauicol
                tlauicol 21 February 2014 15: 43
                +1
                there are 12 of them, Oleg. Onyx / Brahmos nervously smoke and dream of the sky
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 20 February 2014 13: 26
    0
    There is a point in the Mikado post, it has already been written about, for small ships this is probably technically possible now, but for large ones? Surely the degree of reliability of the operation of automated systems in the aggregate (ship control and battle control) will not allow this to be done yet.
  • shurup
    shurup 20 February 2014 14: 36
    +1
    I did not notice catamarans and trimarans.
    And lovers of armor, let them build the good old gunboats with large guns for in-patients and flag demonstrations.
    The rest is a place on the open sea.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 20 February 2014 16: 21
    +1
    With all due respect to the author, his admiration for Talos is perplexing. Its dimensions are certainly amazing, at the same time its combat capabilities tend to 0 due to complexity.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 February 2014 19: 03
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      at the same time, its combat capabilities, due to complexity, tend to 0.

      Vietnamese MiGs were afraid to fly to the coast because of the threat of getting hit by Talos

      Sailors from the cruiser Long Beach claim that they managed to "fill up" a pair of MIG-100s from a distance of 17+ km (Talos was installed on 7 ships of the US Navy). In addition to the usual RIM-8 (A, C), the ammunition included missiles with nuclear warheads - the explosion was capable of destroying an entire formation of aircraft.

      The "Oklahoma" mentioned in the article fired mod. RIM-8H on Vietnamese radar stations (mod. "H" had a seeker that reacted to the radiation of enemy radars).

      The super-complex had three purposes: an anti-aircraft weapon, a powerful anti-ship missile and a fire support weapon for landing in the Third World War (missiles with nuclear warheads)

      There was enough trouble with him - according to the regulations, each rocket needed to be assembled / disassembled at least 1 once a month for debugging and testing its systems. But 0 were half a dozen technologies long ago. Talos was imperfect - a fact, but this does not detract from his lethal abilities (with competent and timely service)

      Destroyer target, almost cut in half by a missile SAM "Talos"
    2. postman
      postman 20 February 2014 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      at the same time, its combat capabilities, due to complexity, tend to 0.

      1. SAM "Talos" took part in the US military operations against Vietnam.
      USSCHICAGO-1n MiG missile cruiser was destroyed at a 48 mile range
      2. "Talos" missiles (RGM-8H Talos-ARM missile) were used as "surface-to-surface" weapons at missile guidance stations from the ships USS OKLAHOMA CITY, USS CHICAGO USS LONG BEACH / target hit
      http://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20antiradiation%20shot.html

      3. RIM-8C rocket modification (A solid ring as a striking element ensured that an enemy aircraft within a radius of twenty meters would be hit with almost 100% probability)

      4. California 1968 the result of shelling a surface target


      ==== what is this ZERO?
  • Santa Fe
    20 February 2014 20: 39
    +1
    Quote: Nayhas
    I was always amazed at your negative attitude towards the care of the US Navy to its sailors. The U.S. Navy has been doing military service off the coast for months, as it is not draftees who serve, the conditions of service are very important for the attractiveness of service in the navy. And the reduction in crew fatigue allows us not to reduce its combat readiness. Personal room, air conditioning and ventilation are great ...

    Army and Navy - by definition, are associated with hardships and restrictions
    Otherwise, we get to the point of absurdity - you give each sailor / geologist / steelmaker / miner / long-range


    The comfort of 5 * hotel in the workplace!

    Nobody takes away the shkonka and konder from the sailors. But 4,4 square meters of living space per each member of the Burk's crew is a clear overkill. Take an example from submariners - six months without sunlight, but who can say that they have low combat readiness ?? !!



    "Rocking chair" in the missile bay of Ohio
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 20 February 2014 23: 25
      +1
      Oleg, sorry, but about 6 months without sunlight, you are misleading. The maximum autonomy on the nuclear submarine was at the 941pr, which you did not like so much, and also due to the "excess" volumes used, incl. for crew habitability. True, after several BSs for maximum autonomy, according to doctors' conclusions about the effect of the "artificial" gas composition on the body with prolonged exposure, autonomy was reduced to 90 days, and even lower on multipurpose ones.
      And about the reservation is empty talk. Offer a rational booking scheme for vital ship systems, and either get a survivable ship that has lost combat stability (blind and without weapons), or booked a superstructure of a monstrous monster (the weight of the ballast will compensate for all the displacement reserves to compensate for the deterioration in stability)
      Let me remind you the death of Admiral Makarov. One mine and no armadillo (remember that it is this type of armored ship that you consider a model)
      1. Santa Fe
        21 February 2014 00: 06
        +1
        Quote: mpa945
        6 months without sunlight

        The submarine is an extreme case.
        Service conditions on surface ships and submarines are different, both black and white. Fresh air, sun and a deck open to all winds. Moreover, the NK regularly visits foreign ports (bases / PIT), where sailors have the opportunity to go ashore. The duration of continuous stay at sea does not exceed a couple of months.
        Quote: mpa945
        Offer a rational booking scheme for vital ship systems

        Citadel reservation. Blockage, like Zamvolt

        Outer side - armor plates 50 mm thick, integrated into the power set of the hull and superstructure. The opposite wall of the first compartment from the side is a splinter / fire bulkhead ("puff" - 2 x 5 mm steel with ceramic filler). The main thing is to ensure that these compartments are free of flammable and explosive substances (fuels and lubricants, weapons, critical systems and mechanisms).
        Quote: mpa945
        having lost combat stability (blind and without weapons),

        An exaggerated threat.

        Provide anti-aircraft defense, launch Caliber, tomahawks, harpoons, shoot a gun at targets beyond the horizon - for all this, the radar is not required.
        Moreover, radars cannot be disabled by a single missile - due to their multiplicity and dispersal.
        Quote: mpa945
        monster monster

        Not worse than Zamvolta
        Quote: mpa945
        One mine and no armadillo

        One unexploded RCC and no Shaffield destroyer

        The chance of encountering mines is small, and with torpedoes it is generally negligible - compared to the chance of being hit by the small-sized Chinese anti-ship missile Yingji or the French Exocet, which is carried by each Papuan felucca and which can be hidden behind each palm tree (I exaggerate, but I think that the meaning understandable)
        1. mpa945
          mpa945 21 February 2014 09: 45
          +1
          "The sub is an extreme case.
          Conditions of service on surface ships and submarines are different, like black and white. Fresh air, sun and a deck open to all winds. Moreover, NKs regularly visit foreign ports (bases / PMTO), where seafarers have the opportunity to go ashore. The duration of a continuous stay at sea does not exceed a couple of months. "

          I do not state the opposite.

          "Take an example from the submariners - six months without sunlight, but who can say that they have low combat readiness ?? !!"

          Citadel reservations ... how does that save you from felucca? Are we going to add an armor belt?
          The walls of the compartments are transverse. Mean longitudinal bulkheads along the aisles and interior spaces?

          "Providing PLO, launching Calibers, tomahawks, harpoons, firing a cannon at targets beyond the horizon - all this does not require radar."
          - Do not get excited, shoot and hit different things.

          "Moreover, it is impossible to disable radars with one missile - due to their large number and dispersal."
          And this is not true for mattresses. Although for our ...

          "The chance of encountering mines is small, and with torpedoes, it is generally negligible - compared to the chance of being hit by the small Chinese Yingji anti-ship missile system or the French Exocet, which is carried by every Papuan felucca and which can be hidden behind every palm tree (I exaggerate, but I think that the meaning is clear) "
          - In a threatened period, the chance will increase dramatically. The cost of mine weapons compares favorably even with the Chinese anti-ship missiles, mine laying is technically simpler. And even from the same "felucca"

          And Zamvolt ... You yourself wrote articles about him. And how many of them, due to the high cost? But the problem will be that with comparable combat effectiveness, the armored analog will have a significantly greater displacement:
          - weight compensation for armor and ballast
          - increase in power of EU
          - more fuel
          All this will pull the price not only on the cost of hull structures. By the way, the cost of operation, too.
          1. Santa Fe
            21 February 2014 16: 14
            0
            Quote: mpa945
            Citadel reservations ... how does that save you from felucca? Are we going to add an armor belt?

            Конечно.
            All important (and most expensive) equipment is concentrated in the "citadel" - armored belt, traverse bulkheads, armored deck. Explosion products will no longer penetrate the Ministry of Defense and living quarters, as it was in the case of "Cole"

            Damage to the extremities is not dangerous. Let them even completely tear it off - the ship will return on its own, with a lively and healthy crew.
            Quote: mpa945
            Mean longitudinal bulkheads along the aisles and interior spaces?

            Yes
            Quote: mpa945
            shoot and hit different things.

            Not funny. Tomahawks are guided by pre-laid satellite maps or GPS coordinates. A modern anti-ship missile system operates on the "fire and forget" principle - a ship's radar is not needed for its guidance. For shooting beyond the horizon, you need external target designation posts (aircraft / satellite / special forces). Smash all the radars of Zamvolta - he will launch Axes and fire with 155 mm guns with the same efficiency
            Quote: mpa945
            And this is not true for mattresses.

            Just for them
            Quote: mpa945
            In a threatened period, the chance will increase dramatically.

            Countries with modern submarines (NPS / NPL) can be counted on the fingers.
            Quote: mpa945
            The cost of mine weapons compares favorably even with the Chinese anti-ship missiles

            Modern ASGs easily calculate mines in the water column + new technologies: autonomous mine drones, trawls towed by a helicopter, etc.

            Only bottom mines pose a danger: but their number is not large. And there are not many places where they can be installed.
            During the Gulf War, out of 200 ships of the states and their allies, only two were blown up on bottom mines.
            Quote: mpa945
            And how many of them, due to the high cost?

            More than operating destroyers of the Russian Navy
            In total, three are being built, 1 launched
            Quote: mpa945
            - weight compensation for armor and ballast

            Given all this, as well as additional volumes and body structures, the w / w will increase by a third.

            Even the super-heavy Baltimore, created using 70 technology a year ago, had a mass of armor of about 15% full w / o.
            Quote: mpa945
            power increase

            Not required. Modern Burke (100 thousand hp) develops 31 bonds.
            In the case of the construction of the Russian armored cruiser, such speed is useless. Recently, in world practice, the value of the speed 25-27 knots is accepted. (Lafayette, FREMM, etc.). The power of existing gas turbines is enough for the eyes
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 21 February 2014 14: 42
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      Army and Navy - by definition, are associated with hardships and restrictions

      The fewer the better.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Take an example from submariners - for six months without sunlight, but who will say that they have low combat readiness ?? !!

      Well, the conditions for the submariners are not at all monastic, with rest they are fine and, unlike others, they are not tormented by pitching. And for their imprisonment they receive more of the sailors from Berkov.

      PS: At the expense of pitching, this is not a joke. Keeping a watch for yourself and for the guy who has been tormented by green at the school for a week is far from ice ... And the fact that you are not turned inside out does not mean that you are absolutely equal in pitching, the condition is not easy ... Tolerate it months no sugar.
      1. Santa Fe
        21 February 2014 16: 17
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        The fewer the better.

        It is not possible to provide 5 * hotel in the workplace to all steelmakers, miners and military sailors
        Quote: Nayhas
        Keeping a watch for yourself and for that guy who has been green at the school for a week has been suffering far from ice ...

        How does this relate to the gym and 4,4 sq. meter per person?
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas 21 February 2014 22: 02
          0
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          It is not possible to provide 5 * hotel in the workplace to all steelmakers, miners and military sailors

          Well, of course, it’s only possible in Russia how to lose miners as in a war (2005. Esaulskaya mine 25 people; 2007. Ulyanovskaya mine 110 people; 2007. Yubileinaya mine 39 people; 2010. Raspadskaya mine 91 people, in all cases the reason is difficult working conditions and violation of TB), but it is possible, as in the USA, to consider the work of a miner as completely safe because the automation of coal mining allows you to reduce the number of participants in coal mining and make their working conditions quite comfortable.
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          How does this relate to the gym and 4,4 sq. meter per person?

          Directly. The freer the space, the easier it is to endure being in the same team for a long time and the state "as I already have the rest. Or your snouts" comes much later. Each person has his own living space, the violation of which causes discomfort, which is fraught with stress. Imagine that you are traveling in a compartment with the same neighbors for a month? And if three? Now put on all this motion sickness from which everyone suffers (in various forms simply) and if there is nothing to be distracted by, to the same gym, to the computer, to talking with children, wife, girlfriend, to movies or music, then it can easily cover depressed, which is fraught ...
          Yes, in the end, read the front-line soldiers or participants in recent wars. What is the most exhausting? Not adjusted life. Bad food (if at all), cold, damp, dirt, there is no way to wash, it’s impossible to sleep because you sleep anywhere and again cold to the bone ...? What is wrong with the good backs that prepared the bath and the laundry, and clean DRY warm clothes, and fed nourishingly and prepared comfortable sleeping places?
          1. Santa Fe
            21 February 2014 22: 39
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Raspadskaya 91 man, in all cases, the reason is difficult working conditions and violation of TB

            In all cases - arrogant violation of TB by masters and seniors in the face. Soaked rag on methane sensor. The miners' fatigue has nothing to do
            Quote: Nayhas
            and make their working conditions quite comfortable.

            But do not bring them to the point of absurdity.
            There is no gym or sauna in the mine. And it’s worth saving your head - low ceilings with protruding equipment
            Quote: Nayhas
            Imagine that you are traveling in a compartment with the same neighbors for a month?

            Following your logic, all the inhabitants of the hostel should have killed each other for a long time

            Sailors are not convicts. Change of watches, lunch, smoking room, etc. simple "entertainment".
            Quote: Nayhas
            cold, damp, dirt, there is no way to wash, it’s impossible to sleep because you sleep anywhere

            No one takes away carrot shkonku, shower and wifi
            It’s about saving space: reducing S cubicles and avoiding excesses like a separate gym room
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 22 February 2014 19: 57
              0
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              It’s about saving space: reducing S cubicles and avoiding excesses like a separate gym room

              No, Oleg, not a single sailor will give up the "extra" squares, what you think is overkill is extremely important in a long voyage, the higher the fatigue, the more likely a mistake. It's hard for me to explain to you what it means to live in a confined space, to go on watch in the engine room, where you can talk only with signs, go into a storm for several days. I worked on a dry cargo ship and there were no problems with squares, there was no rocking chair, there was a tennis table in Leninka, but all the same, going ashore was a real holiday ... Yes, and went for 2-3 weeks.
              1. Santa Fe
                22 February 2014 21: 26
                0
                Quote: Nayhas
                It’s hard for me to explain to you what it means to live in a confined space, go on a shift to the engine room, where you can talk only in signs, go into the storm for several days. I worked on a dry cargo ship and there were no problems with squares, there was no rocking, there was a tennis table in Lenin

                Nuu compared
                Your bulk carrier and US Navy destroyer

                Although this debate no longer matters, the destroyer Burke is out of date. The number of crews of modern ships is reduced by 2 times, you can leave 4,4 square. meters per person
  • Nick_1972
    Nick_1972 20 February 2014 21: 47
    +1
    Again, nostalgia for armor :) About the weight in the region and above the waterline is more or less clear. What will be heavy for a neonarrier below the waterline? And then the stupid amers for some reason tried to reduce the weight of the add-ons in block 2 of Orly Burke. This stability was given to them. Bourgeois, I’m not afraid of the word, remnants. And we will take and reserve superstructures, and all one hundred percent of the area of ​​the side projection, and even 50 mm. With such a scale, one hundred and one can. And what is the little things? Someone wrote about a thirty percent increase in displacement. I think thirty business will not do. To maintain stability, you will have to increase the width of the case. This will require an increase in the power of the power plant, fuel reserves, and so on in a circle. I don’t argue, you can design and build a missile ship with armor protection. Only a lot of them will not be built. Again, who wants to lose such precious ships. And we will receive the reincarnation of the battleships of the Baltic Fleet, which stood throughout the First World War in Helsingfors.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 20 February 2014 23: 02
    0
    What is the article about? The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev. 30% of the displacement on tube computers! And this is in the early 40s? For the author there are topics and more interesting. For example, a secret Nazi base in Antarctica. Also 1944. So far no one disputed events. It seems like our fleet was there.
  • bvi1965
    bvi1965 21 February 2014 12: 37
    0
    Equally unreasonable is the reference to the increase in energy consumption of new equipment. Just look at the required power of the GEM ships of the Second World War and compare them with the same "Leahy". The American - 85 000 hp A similar in size Soviet light cruiser of the 26 Ave. “Maxim Gorky” (1940 g.) Had hp on the shafts of 130 000 propellers! So much power was needed to accelerate the ship to speed 37 nodes.

    What does shaft power and power consumption have to do with it?
    1. postman
      postman 21 February 2014 15: 47
      0
      Quote: bvi1965
      What does shaft power and power consumption have to do with it?

      1. The demonstration copy of MESAR 2 consisted of 1264 elements with a power of 10 W each, located in 316 transceiver modules.
      1264x10Wh316 = 4 Megawatts
      This is RADIATED
      - consumed under 6MW
      is a demo, and full-time 10-12MW
      2. Cooling systems (the module requires a low temperature
      3.BIUS ...
      see how the power of PC power supply units grows, 750W is already the norm (and there was 350W maximum speed)
      4.Mechanization, automation, air conditioning
      (there is an article on the organization of air conditioning on nuclear submarines "Ohio" - there are "good" numbers
      5. COMMUNICATION (Link 11, 16), satellite communications, GPS, inertial systems, gyroscopes, TVs and VCRs, microwave ovens ... cinema D max well and so on
      6. Crew disinfection and disposal systems
      7. gyroplatforms and systems for maintaining the working fluid of the desired temperature
      8. A bunch of everything else


      Quote: bvi1965
      What does shaft power and power consumption have to do with it?

      You can’t get electricity in the sea through the transmission lines from Chubais
      Wind turbines and wind turbines
      1. Santa Fe
        21 February 2014 16: 24
        0
        Quote: Postman
        I organization of air conditioning on nuclear submarines "Ohio" - there are "good" numbers

        there they produce oxygen by electrolysis from water
        Quote: Postman
        This is a demonstration, and full-scale 10-12MW

        SAMPSON is installed on the ship full of / and all 8 thousand tons
        (Moreover, a second, no less cool S1850M radar, PAAMS anti-aircraft complex, a cannon, a helicopter are all that a modern ship needs. And it was underloaded!)
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 April 2 2020 08: 12
    0
    Armor is needed if for the leadership of the country the life of sailors is at least of some value. A cruiser without armor is like using an APC instead of a tank.