Military Review

Missile and artillery battleship of the XXI century

127
Missile and artillery battleship of the XXI century

Fighting near the coast requires support from naval artillery fire. Providing fire support with Tomahawk cruise missiles is not possible. We have the most serious intentions about naval artillery.


- Lt. Gen. Emil R. Bedard, United States Marine Corps

To begin with - a few facts and statistics.

A third of the world's population lives in a coastal strip 50 km wide. More than half of megacities of the whole world are concentrated on the coast: London, Istanbul, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo ...

The average range of naval artillery shots during Operation Desert Storm was 35 400 meters (guns of the battleships Missouri and Wisconsin).

The explosion of the 862-kg high-explosive projectile Mk.13 created 15-meter crater 6 meters deep. Vietnamese veterans recall how a blast wave cleared a “spot” in the jungle with a radius of 180 meters suitable for helicopter landing.

At a distance of 20 kilometers, the 1225-kg armor-piercing “suitcase” Mk.8 APС could penetrate half a meter of steel armor or over six meters of reinforced concrete - no fortification could stand up to the power of 406 mm guns.

By analyzing the video recordings, it was established that Iowa-type battleships could have been made an hour before 1000 shots with main caliber. A similar density of fire could create two aircraft carrier wings.

According to the US Navy, the operating costs of the Iowa battleship were 7 times lower than those of the Nimitz aircraft carrier.

“Put Aegis cruiser in the wake of the battleship - and you will go wherever you want. Add an aircraft carrier at a distance of a couple of hundred miles - and you will get an invincible combat system. ”

- Commander-in-Chief of the United States Navy Admiral Carlisle Trost at the Wisconsin Battleship Reactivation Ceremony, October 1988

“When we passed the Strait of Hormuz, silence reigned on the coast of Iran. The war on the sea completely stopped. ”

- Capten Larry Sequist, commander of the battleship "Iowa" about the events of the Tanker War (mid-80-x).


Battleship Wisconsin

Opinions of outside experts.

“Of all your fleet only the battleship looks like real weapon».

- Sultan Qaboos bin Said.

"We are ready to pay the cost of maintaining two Iowa class battleships in order to ensure their continuous combat patrols in the Persian Gulf for nine months a year."

- Appeal by the Sultan of Oman to US Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, autumn 1991

“The fire of the battleship has caused civilian casualties and cattle grazing in the valley.”

- An information source in the Syrian army about events in the Bekaa Valley (1983)

US intelligence claims the opposite: 300 shells from the battleship New Jersey silenced eight artillery batteries that bombarded the Christian neighborhoods in the west of Beirut. Positions of the air defense system in the Bekaa Valley were suppressed. One of the shells hit the command post, where at that moment the commander of the Syrian contingent was in Lebanon.

And again - dry statistics.

From the moment of receiving the request to the first shot of the ship artillery, no more than 2,5 minutes should pass - this is the norm of the United States Marine Corps, 1999 year (Emergency Fire Support).

During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), difficult weather conditions and poor visibility caused a partial or complete cancellation of 50% of sorties.

“The problem of aiming through the clouds is not completely resolved; there is no guarantee of air strikes in difficult weather conditions. "

- Lieutenant General E. Bedard on critical shortcomings aviation in the performance of tasks related to the direct support of troops.

Немного stories.

Between May 1951 and March 1952, US Navy ships shot at targets on the Korean 414 000 peninsula with artillery ammunition (90% are five-inch shells; the rest are six, eight and sixteen inches). The current conflict between South Korea and the DPRK will require equally intense fire support from the sea.

Between 1965 and 1968 American ships fired more than 1,1 million projectiles along the coast of Vietnam. This is serious.



Battalions ask for fire

By the end of the 20th century, the fleet had completely lost artillery in caliber over 5 inches. The vast majority of modern cruisers and destroyers have no more than one universal 76 caliber artillery installation - 130 mm. The gun is used as an aid for warning shots, shooting at unprotected objects and finishing off "wounded game".

The disappearance of large-caliber artillery did not mean the disappearance of the tasks traditionally solved by the guns of the ships. Yes, in the fight at sea artillery gave way to rocket weapons. But there remained a wide "gap" in solving problems in the "fleet against the shore" format. Suppression of enemy defenses, direct fire support of amphibious assault forces and army units fighting near the coast. Traditional areas of use for big guns.

At first nobody paid attention to this - everyone was passionate about rocket weapons and the idea of ​​a worldwide nuclear “holocaust”. Suffice it to recall the means by which the Yankees were preparing to clear the enemy coast in 60-s - a missile with a nuclear warhead RIM-8B, which was part of the maritime SAM Talos (power warhead - 2 CT). Finally, the geopolitical situation itself did not contribute to the development of the idea of ​​amphibious assault forces - the superpowers had allies in any region of the planet, through whose territory they broke into "visiting" the enemy (Vietnam, Iraq - all according to a single scheme).

But there were exceptions - the Bekaa Valley or the Falkland War of 1982, when the sailors had no choice but to uncover the guns and give a hundred volleys towards the coast. And if the Yankees were lucky in Lebanon - there was a reactivated battleship from the Second World War, then the British had to tight. Of the naval artillery, only 114 mm "farts" remained, poorly suited for shelling the coast. The situation was saved only by the mediocre preparation of the enemy. Get ashore dug into the ground tanks, the results of the “duels” could be disastrous for the destroyers of Her Majesty.


Destroyer "Cardiff" after the morning shelling of the coast

The US Marines were the first to sound the alarm. These guys had everything they needed to land from the sea: squadrons of amphibious assault ships and helicopter carriers, sea transfer terminals MLP, high-speed transports and air-cushion landing boats. Amphibious armored vehicles, special equipment and weapons. Everything you need - except for fire support. The Pentagon offered its fighters "to go breastfeed" on machine guns of an unsuppressed enemy defense.

But how to crush the defense? How to provide fire support forces assault?

Five inch destroyer cannons?

The power of 30-kg shells is enough only to combat unprotected manpower. Trying to destroy with their help long-term fortifications, prepared positions and infrastructure on the coast of the enemy is a waste of resources and time. The firing range (20-25 km) also does not contribute to the effective use of five-inch guns: a mine threat impedes approaching the shore, and the ship itself becomes vulnerable to enemy fire.

The use of small caliber guns is justified in case of massive shelling and "stripping" of the enemy coast. But modern ships are not even capable of that: just one cannon per destroyer with 600 rounds of ammunition. Neither of which the intensity of the fire can not speak.

The creation of guided munitions also does not solve anything: a five-inch projectile is not capable of penetrating even a meter of reinforced concrete, and its high accuracy means little in comparison with large-caliber ammunition. The radius of the 406-mm projectiles in any case is greater than the circular probable deflection of high-precision ERGM ammunition.


A shot of a five-inch Mk.45

For this reason, in the United States in 2008, work was completed on the creation of long-range projectiles for maritime "five-inch". The Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) program envisioned the creation of a guided projectile with an estimated range of 110 km, but the caliber chosen was too small.

Finally, one should not neglect the psychological factor - the tears of large-caliber shells can sow panic and lead to a mass exodus of enemy soldiers from the occupied territory. What has already been proven in practice.

Direct air support?

“All-weather aviation does not fly in bad weather” (Murphy’s Law). In a snowstorm, fog or a sandstorm, the landing party is guaranteed to remain without fire support. The second important factor is the reaction time: here, only a combat air patrol that continuously hangs over the front edge can compete with guns.


Sandstorm

American pilots felt masters of the sky in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. But what will happen in the event of a war with the DPRK or a landing landing on the territory of Iran?

The Iranians may have the appearance of modern air defense systems. The North Koreans have a huge number of anti-aircraft artillery barrels. This excludes flights at altitudes below 2 thousand meters, which in turn makes it difficult to use unguided weapons, makes it impossible to fly attack helicopters and substitutes aircraft at medium altitudes under the fire of anti-aircraft missiles.

What is a developed air defense system, the Yankees know firsthand. Vietnam has become a terrible warning from the past: according to official data, the losses in that war amounted to 8612 airplanes and helicopters.

American "aerocracy" is powerless against bad weather and anti-aircraft systems C-300. "Tomahawks" are too expensive and few in number. Five-inch guns do not have enough destructive power.

Only big guns can help the landing party.

To our displeasure, the American naval commanders and engineers quickly reacted to the situation and offered several solutions to the problem at once. Among the proposals that were made were the following.

Ship support fire on the basis of amphibious transport "San Antonio" (LPD-17), armed with a pair of 155 mm guns AGS. Relatively cheap and angry option.


Landing transport dock type "San Antonio"

The second sentence is the Zamvolt missile-artillery destroyer. This option subsequently received a start in life. It was planned that the Zamvolta would become the main type of destroyers of the US Navy (at least 30 units), but the exorbitant greed of shipyard managers and the sophisticated design of the ship forced them to change plans to reduce the order. In total, no more than three Zamvolts will be built. Specific shock tool for local wars of the future.

Also among the proposals was a conservative option with the construction of an additional aircraft carrier (which was completely out of topic - the fleet needed guns). And, finally, a provocative initiative to build a rocket-artillery ... battleship.


German frigate "Hamburg" with a turret from SAU Pz.2000 (caliber 155 mm)

Capital warship (Capital Surface Warship, CSW). Why not?

The estimated appearance of the ship is as follows.

360 launch cells for missiles (under deck UKP Mk.41).

Several artillery towers with guns of a caliber over twelve inches (305 and over mm). Modern shells with increased flight range and laser / GPS guidance (technologies developed under the ERGM program).

Five-inch caliber guns (127 mm) with cellars of increased capacity - for conducting massive shelling of the coast and the destruction of unprotected targets.

Modern radar and fire controls (similar to "Aegis"), integrated ship automation.

All the presented splendor is shackled in decimeter armor and enclosed in a case with a total displacement of 57 000 tons.

The neolinkor concept was proposed by the Department of Defense Forces (Office of Force Transformation, OFT) of the US Department of Defense in 2007.

Despite the seemingly improbability of such a ship, the idea of ​​CSW found broad support among sailors. Neolinkor is a simple and obvious solution for a number of important tasks: fire support (cheap, reliable and effective), demonstration of power in peacetime (it is easy to imagine what kind of ferocious CSW will have). Due to its armament and the highest combat stability, the battleship will be the most important figure in the theater of operations. The invulnerable and immortal warrior, by his presence alone, revealing awe at the enemy and diverting significant resources to attempts to destroy such a ship.

On duty, I had to deal with a variety of programs to improve the survivability of ships. In my personal conviction, there is no more enduring ship than a battleship.

- James O'Brien, Head of the Center for Fire Test and Combat Damage Assessment, US Department of Defense.


Battle house of the battleship "Massachusetts"

But is it possible to combine the traditional elements of the dreadnought era with the technologies of our time? On the technical side, the answer is overwhelmingly positive. The weight and size characteristics of modern weapons and mechanisms have declined radically: at CSW, every electric bulb, generator, or switchboard will be several times lighter than similar devices on the Iowa battleship (1943). The freed up load reserve will not be wasted. The modern battleship will have even more impressive security and enhanced weapons.

What is the main problem in implementing the CSW idea?

Of course, the cash needed to cover the costs of designing and building such an extraordinary ship. But how justified are the skeptics' fears and doubts?

Of course, CSW will not come cheap. Like its ancestors - the battleships and battlecruisers - the capital ship will become an attribute of the fleets of the leading powers. The rest will be quietly jealous aside, avoiding situations where this force can turn against them.

Neolinkor is much smaller than the supercarrier (57 thousand against 100 thousand tons) and, therefore, cannot be more expensive than an atomic giant with a superradar, electromagnetic catapults and a plasma system for garbage disposal. The cost of the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, without taking into account the cost of its wing, exceeds 13 billion. However, the colossal figure does not bother the military - Fords are planning to build a series of 10-11 units at a rate of one ship in 4-5 years.


The aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson" passes the parking of the battleship "Missouri", Pearl Harbor

Supporters of the CSW project estimated that the development and construction of a neolinkor would cost an amount close to 10 billion. At the same time:

The cost of operating the neolinkor is much closer to the cost of operating the Ticonderoga missile cruiser than the cost of maintaining the aircraft carrier and its wing.


While we should not forget that the battleship will carry as many weapons as ten "Ticonderog" and "Orly Berkov" together. In addition, it will have the highest military stability and ominous reputation.

One of the prerequisites for the popularity of the project became CSW problems associated with the construction of the destroyer "Zamvolt".

Two six-inch guns firing at a range of 160 km. 80 vertical installations for rocket weapons.

Alas, the remarkable concept of a rocket-artillery ship was ruined by a monstrous level of technical execution. Attempting to make invisible 14 500 ton destroyer, coupled with numerous innovations (radar DBR with six AFAR, water jet, peripheral UVR of a special design) - all this led to a natural result. The cost of “Zamvolta”, taking into account all the R & D and the construction of a prototype super-destroyer on the scale of 1: 4, exceeded 7 billion dollars.


USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)

Top management of the US Navy is concerned about the extreme complexity and abnormally high cost of the destroyer. All the louder there are doubts about the combat value of this ship, which, due to the duty of its service, will have to draw closer to the enemy’s coast less than 100 miles. Nevertheless, the huge expensive ship is almost devoid of constructive protection (peripheral armored UVP - no more "shell" from the Thai boxer). Worse, Zamvolt is largely deprived of active defenses: there are no long-range anti-aircraft missiles in the ammunition, the ship does not carry any Phalanxes and RIM-116.

"Zamvolt" is designed to remain unobtrusive to the enemy. But there are situations when a fight is inevitable.


It is easy to guess what happens in this case with the 7 billionth Zamvolt. It’s not clear whether the 150 has enough strength for the sailors (such are the results of the destroyer's total automation) to put out fires and quickly fill the holes in the 180-meter hull.

Exceptionally high cost, dubious combat stability, small ammunition (a total of 80 UVP and 920 shells in both piles).

The Yankees themselves are asking an obvious question: maybe it was worthwhile to stop work on the obviously unpromising project of the invisible destroyer. And instead of "white elephants" to build a pair of really combat-ready ships, capable without fear of operating near the enemy coast and demolishing everything from their huge cannons.

Capital warships CSW, the most relevant to the challenges of the new millennium.

“The battleships are designed to project their strength and survive in battle. They are able to resist any form of aggression - like no other ship in our Navy. They are well armed and dominate the sea. ”

- Admiral Train's statement in connection with the start of the program to reactivate old battleships


Chinese "battleship"


According to the materials of the report Joint and Interdependent Requirements: A Gap, 2007
Author:
127 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Turik
    Turik 14 May 2014 09: 02
    +41
    The Chinese were impressed, the guys did not bother much. Barge + SPG = Battleship. laughing
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 14 May 2014 09: 51
      +10
      Quote: Turik
      The Chinese were impressed, the guys did not bother much. Barge + SPG = Battleship

      The Chinese are not the first in this matter, the Germans installed turrets from the 155-mm PzH 2000 self-propelled guns on the frigates Hamburg and Hesse.
      1. NOMADE
        NOMADE 14 May 2014 10: 58
        +13
        And the Germans are not the first. First, I think our great-grandfathers, who, when crossing the Great Patriotic War, on rafts with T-34s and cannons, shot at the enemy.
        1. GHG
          GHG 14 May 2014 12: 48
          +9
          In the Great Patriotic War, the T-34 and T-28 towers and the BM-8 and BM-13 RSs were mounted on armored boats.
          1. NOMADE
            NOMADE 14 May 2014 16: 29
            +2
            Well, it goes without saying .., but these options are relatively "factory". And then the "collective farm" of the Chinese, I was talking about forced measures.
    2. NOMADE
      NOMADE 14 May 2014 10: 46
      +4
      I agree! laughing Also, I was impressed by the volley of the "Grad". This is an "asymmetric" response to Washington)) wassat
      And on the topic:
      Great and logical article, with good arguments and great quotes. Oleg, for your perseverance, I take off my hat to you) hi
      1. Ased
        Ased 14 May 2014 12: 52
        +3
        Yeah, volleys of the main calibers in the photo look very impressive! The steepness is incredible!
      2. zarya
        zarya 14 May 2014 13: 18
        +2
        Quote: NOMADE
        I agree! laughing I was also impressed by the Grad salvo. This is an "asymmetric" response to Washington)) wassat


        I nevertheless believe that towers firing "hail" will be installed on ships that will come closer to the shore.

        Although ... if you think about it, it may turn out that due to the possibility of increasing the size of the shells (since the launchers will be located on the ships), the flight range can be increased, and in this way a volley fire system for battleships will become possible.

        Am I not too keen on my assumptions?
        1. NOMADE
          NOMADE 14 May 2014 16: 35
          0
          no, no offense, but you got too carried away;) "grad", has long stood (large landing craft, "river battleships" that are on the rivers, as an example of the Amur), on battleships, to put them, to put it mildly, not very .. their task is different in differences from artillery)
        2. JIaIIoTb
          JIaIIoTb 14 May 2014 20: 35
          0
          On our BDK are hail.
        3. JIaIIoTb
          JIaIIoTb 14 May 2014 20: 35
          0
          On our BDK are hail.
      3. Santa Fe
        14 May 2014 13: 55
        +1
        Quote: NOMADE
        Great and logical article, with good arguments and great quotes. Oleg, for your perseverance, I take off my hat to you)

        Say thanks to Google Translator!

    3. Basarev
      Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 06
      0
      But let me! A decent battleship 152 mm - this is not even an average caliber. I remember when building the linear ships of project 23, then there were serious numbers: the main caliber is 406 mm. I don’t remember the average caliber, but I think it is commensurate with the main one - I think 305 mm. Universal caliber - 127 mm. And a bunch of trunks 30 mm anti-aircraft caliber. So: 152 mm howitzers of Chinese self-propelled guns certainly surpass the Soviet Union’s universal caliber, but they don’t even pull on the average. With 400 mm, real major calibres have just begun.
  2. desant_doktor
    desant_doktor 14 May 2014 09: 15
    +4
    The idea, by the way, has been in the air for a long time. In addition, that fight art. ship with other ships is also relevant. To bring down a 300-400 mm suitcase flying at a speed of 2 sound is more difficult than a cruise anti-ship missile. 2-3 of these suitcases that fall into the flydeck of an aircraft carrier are guaranteed to deprive him of the ability to receive and raise aircraft. After breaking through the deck and exploding in a hangar with aircraft, shells turn the aircraft carrier into a large iron, devoid of shock capabilities. It is clear that alone, the so-called neolinkor will not be able to fight. To give combat stability, air defense ships and the same aircraft carriers and destroyers are also needed. But in terms of shock capabilities, neolincors have good prospects.
    1. Realist1989
      Realist1989 14 May 2014 10: 27
      +8
      And who is interesting to let the enemy warship go several tens of kilometers (even 160 km, although how to make a giant 300/400-mm suitcase fly at such a distance is unclear) shell to the aircraft carrier? =)))))
      1. svp67
        svp67 14 May 2014 15: 52
        +5
        Quote: Realist1989
        And who is interesting to let the enemy warship go several tens of kilometers (even 160 km, although how to make a giant 300/400-mm suitcase fly at such a distance is unclear) shell to the aircraft carrier? =)))))

        To begin with, you are not carefully reading the article. The article proposes a rocket-artillery ship with heavy armor. Where guns cannot be reached, missiles will fly there, and for them 160 km is not a distance. But this is not the most important thing. Until now, aviation is not completely all-weather, and even deck-based aviation in general, under which weather conditions it cannot rise from the deck of an aircraft carrier and can approach it, so your conclusions are NOT correct. Read carefully the proposed material.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 14 May 2014 10: 35
      +7
      Quote: desant_doktor
      To bring down a 300-400 mm suitcase flying at a speed of 2 sound is more difficult than a cruise anti-ship missile.

      And what is the probability of being hit by such a "suitcase", what do you think?
      Quote: desant_doktor
      2-3 of these suitcases that fall into the flydeck of an aircraft carrier are guaranteed to deprive him of the ability to receive and raise aircraft.

      Undoubtedly, only before "hitting the flydeck with a projectile" there is an impossible task, to approach the shot range with the main caliber.
      Quote: desant_doktor
      It is clear that alone, the so-called neolinkor will not be able to fight. To give combat stability, air defense ships and the same aircraft carriers and destroyers are also needed.

      And what the hell do you need this "neolinkor"?
      1. Santa Fe
        14 May 2014 13: 07
        0
        Quote: Nayhas
        there is an impossible task to approach the distance of the shot with the main caliber.

        On the tactics of escorting NATO ships at a direct line of sight - much has already been written.

        Sometimes this led to amazing situations.

        10 seconds before the collision of the destroyer "Bravy" with the aircraft carrier "Ark Royal" during combat service in the Mediterranean, November 9, 1970
        1. Basarev
          Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 16
          0
          And Cho minus the guy? Quite a sensible idea has been expressed. And most importantly - materially confirmed. And therefore, the arguments of some of the relatively absolute impossibility of approaching the nose for the gift of a direct shot seem to me not quite reasonable.
      2. desant_doktor
        desant_doktor 14 May 2014 13: 12
        +2
        So, if you follow the logic, we need an aircraft carrier? He, too, cannot act alone, only as part of the AUG. Maybe this is news for you, but no ship can fight alone.
        Further. Naval artillery during World War II had a range of up to 2 miles or even more. Modern active-reactive systems have a long range. How to approach the battleship to the effective range? This is the task of supply ships. Regarding hit accuracy. Have you probably heard of missile guidance systems using target designation from satellites or AWACS aircraft? I agree that the probability of a shell getting hit is still less, but the shell is several times cheaper than a missile, especially a supersonic one.
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 14 May 2014 14: 25
          +4
          Quote: desant_doktor
          from satellites or aircraft AWACS

          The satellites have not yet been intelligently implemented; where will the AWACS plane come from? That's right, from an aircraft carrier, from him, darling.
          1. Santa Fe
            14 May 2014 14: 36
            -2
            Quote: patsantre
            AWACS plane from where will it get?

            "Eye in The Sky"





            J-STARS E-8 control and target aircraft with high-resolution cameras and side-view radar to track ground targets at a distance of 200 km

          2. desant_doktor
            desant_doktor 14 May 2014 16: 09
            +1
            As far as I remember, there is only one model of AWACS aircraft designed for use from aircraft carriers - the American Hawkeye, and due to its size, its radar range is small.
      3. DanSabaka
        DanSabaka 14 May 2014 13: 13
        +5
        that's right ... neolinkor is needed not to destroy the AUG, but to shell the coast, support the landing forces ....
      4. zarya
        zarya 14 May 2014 13: 21
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Undoubtedly, only before "hitting the flydeck with a projectile" there is an impossible task, to approach the shot range with the main caliber.


        Will it be possible to adjust the flight of such a large projectile as that of ground artillery? Some of the "flower" Russian self-propelled guns can definitely shoot like charges.
      5. Basarev
        Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 14
        0
        Nosy also do not act alone. But for some reason, all the bearer seems to be a very necessary ship.
    3. Basarev
      Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 09
      +1
      Comrade, you express an interesting thought ... Battleship shock groups. We’ll build at least five of them - and then everyone will shudder in front of our MEANS!
      1. Santa Fe
        16 May 2014 01: 32
        0
        Quote: Basarev
        Battleship shock groups.

        Already been, 1986 year
  3. cobalt
    cobalt 14 May 2014 09: 20
    +3
    In Chinese, cheaply, angrily, drown, not softly.
  4. EvilLion
    EvilLion 14 May 2014 09: 22
    +4
    RTS fans have already said everything about this: "There is damage - no microcontrol is required!" laughing

    Technically, I don’t see any special reasons to make a battleship with more than 2 towers, to shoot at sea with 3% chance of hitting is still not required, and for shooting along the shore there will not be much plop. 2-3 shots to solve the problem. Regarding the main caliber, it is unlikely that the 305 mm will be insufficient.
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 14 May 2014 09: 29
      +3
      Quote: EvilLion
      3% Chance to Hit

      With a guided projectile system, the percentage of hits will be much higher.
      It’s best to think about range. smile
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 14 May 2014 09: 40
        +1
        A guided projectile requires illumination of the target, and in general there will be just the 6-7 tons of tons like the P-700 just right, the shell will not fly to such a distance.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 May 2014 13: 09
          0
          Quote: EvilLion
          the 6-7 tons rocket like the P-700 will be just right, the shell will not fly at such a distance.

          Guns for shooting along the shore
      2. Basarev
        Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 22
        0
        Yes, and not very well-guided shells - now they have completely mastered the sensory SLAs, plus the guns themselves have become more accurate, so that the modern battleship is quite capable of sniper fire not even on the flight deck of the nose - but on the retractable aircraft. Plus, you can easily get into the add-in. Well, or shoot freely at a distance of over 60 kilometers.
  5. RPG_
    RPG_ 14 May 2014 09: 37
    +2
    Barge + SPG = Battleship.
    Rather, a light cruiser as there is no reservation.
    1. Crang
      Crang 14 May 2014 10: 17
      +3
      No problem. Why do you need sandbags?
    2. igordok
      igordok 14 May 2014 10: 31
      +5
      Quote: RPG_
      Barge + SPG = Battleship.
      Rather, a light cruiser as there is no reservation.

      Barge + SPG = Battleship Gunboat
  6. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 14 May 2014 09: 44
    +4
    during the arms race of the USA and the USSR, artillery was not destiny, since there were more chances to get anti-ship missiles from a great distance than to shoot, the fleet was chasing the Bismarck. And in the new realities of the bending of the bananas of the republics, then kanencho is cheaper and more medium than bullets for lemon bucks.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 15 May 2014 20: 12
      +1
      Quote: CruorVult
      during the arms race of the USA and the USSR, artillery was not destiny, since getting RCC from a long distance was more likely than to shoot

      Well, rockets are also not omnipotent - for example, the bow of the unfinished heavy cruiser "Stalingrad" was used to test the power of anti-ship missiles, a lot of heavy missiles were landed on it, and it remained afloat WITHOUT ANY MAINTENANCE AND STRUGGLE FOR LIVING, and now imagine that such a "Neostalingrad" there are 6-8 broadswords and "Polyment-redoubt" with hundreds of all kinds of air defense / missile defense missiles, and we also remember that there are NO heavy anti-ship missiles in the armament of carrier-based aviation, sinking such a ship by aviation will be another challenge, even if the goal is achieved remember the cost wunderwales and multiply by dozens of downed planes ...
      Ps - understand correctly, of course it will not be possible to use such a ship alone against AUG, but it will be simply irreplaceable as part of an order or for work on the ground, because as it is correctly stated in the article, there really is now nothing to cover the landing, and even amers with their emphasis on Navy ...
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 30
        +1
        Here I am about the same. The battleship must also act as part of the compound, because it is a ship of the first rank. Leader. Throughout their history, battleships acted as squadrons - that's why they are called - battleships, on behalf of linear tactics - the battleship strike group lined up in a wake column and gave a friendly salvo.
  7. Crang
    Crang 14 May 2014 09: 49
    -4
    Not - giant battleships are not that. It is necessary to build many powerful battleships of 10-16 thousand tons. Here they will tear anything, incl. and this "Wisconsin". In general, the Iowa-class series of battleships is very much touted by amers who are trying to present them as the best battleships in the world. In fact, of course, this is not the case.
    1. Crang
      Crang 14 May 2014 10: 18
      -4
      Those who put me downsides of those children in relation to whom the saying "history teaches one thing, history teaches nothing" is just as impossible.
    2. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 14 May 2014 11: 08
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      In fact, this is certainly not the case.

      Actually there is a criterion, cost + efficiency = result.
      1. Cruorvult
        Cruorvult 14 May 2014 11: 47
        +2
        :-D what is your interesting formula, that is, if the cost is billions, and the efficiency is 0, then there is a result.
        1. papik09
          papik09 15 May 2014 09: 18
          +1
          Quote: CruorVult
          :-D what is your interesting formula, that is, if the cost is billions, and the efficiency is 0, then there is a result.

          Of course there are laughing - spent a billion repeat
      2. Cruorvult
        Cruorvult 14 May 2014 11: 47
        +1
        :-D what is your interesting formula, that is, if the cost is billions, and the efficiency is 0, then there is a result.
        1. schizophrenic
          schizophrenic 14 May 2014 12: 10
          0
          Quote: CruorVult
          milliard value

          Efficiency is justified by the customer and if it suits them, then it means there is.
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 14 May 2014 11: 31
      +4
      In general, a series of battleships of the "Iowa" type are highly advertised by the Amers, who are trying to present them as the best battleships in the world. In fact, this is certainly not the case.

      Ivan, I also set a minus for you. Based on your conclusions about these battleships, the question arises ... have you seen them in your work? New Jersey volley heard over 15 miles! One salvo was enough for Hezbollah’s representatives to understand that hostage taking was not cultural. I’ll say with a share that this series is one of the best, the other thing is that the battleship machine is not for a full-scale war, nowadays it is a toy more for intimidating small nations soldier
      1. Crang
        Crang 14 May 2014 11: 49
        +5
        Quote: Serg65
        Based on your conclusions about these battleships, the question arises ... have you seen them in your work? New Jersey volley heard over 15 miles!

        Ну и что?
        Quote: Serg65
        I’ll say with a share that this series is one of the best,

        Well, the most powerful battleships in the world are rightfully considered the Japanese ships Yamato and Musashi. Which, however, did not help them. French battleships of the "Richelieu" class and their previous series "South Dakota" are quite comparable with this American "Iowa". In some ways even the Bismarcs and the Italian Vitorio Venetto will be better. But the British did the right thing - formally, their battleships of the Prince of Wales type were the weakest among all battleships built by WW2 and before WW2, however, they managed to build as many as 5 pieces, and taking into account the battleships of other projects, the British almost always managed to put up against one enemy battleship, two their own. This is the value of the battleships 10-16 thousand tons. Efficiency-cost / quantity.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 May 2014 13: 13
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          French battleships of the Richelieu class and their previous series South Dakota are quite comparable to this American Iowa.

          Iowa - 9 x 406 mm
          Richelieu - 8 x 380 mm

          As for the comparison with the "South Dakota" - Iowa was 70 meters longer (additional power plant echelon) and due to this it was faster by 4-5 knots (31+ versus 27 knots). Even cooler main guns Mk.7 with a barrel length of 50 calibers (versus 45 cal. In Mk.6) and other improvements
          1. Crang
            Crang 14 May 2014 13: 48
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Iowa - 9 x 406 mm
            Richelieu - 8 x 380 mm

            So it is, if you do not take into account the extremely high characteristics of the French 380mm guns. In addition, the Richelieu was very heavily armored and therefore well protected. The "Iowa" has B-class armor below the waterline along the entire length of the HHC - one accidental undershoot (as in "Glory" at Moondzund) and hello. Moreover, 380mm Bismarck shells and 356mm British shells are enough.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            As for the comparison with the "South Dakota" - Iowa was 70 meters longer (additional power plant echelon) and due to this it was faster by 4-5 knots (31+ versus 27 knots)

            You are her fault. If the South Dakota with protection was more or less normal, then the Iowa was not very good, and speed is not a characteristic of the offensive or defensive properties of the ship.
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Even steeper guns GK Mk.7 with a barrel length of 50 calibers (against 45 cal. Mk.6)

            Not much cooler.
            1. schizophrenic
              schizophrenic 15 May 2014 02: 32
              0
              Quote: Krang
              speed is not a characteristic of offensive or defensive properties

              I don’t really remember about the ship created in Russia that was built around 13-14, the first one seems to be a destroyer using liquid fuel, it was the first in the world to reach a speed of 30 knots, if I am not mistaken, it amounted to 1 million gold rubles, in 1 World War I showed my efficiency, victory over the German cruiser, as a result it turned out that speed matters in defense and offensive. When there is a gain in speed, you can dictate the battle to the enemy by maneuver.
              1. Basarev
                Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 40
                0
                In modern conditions, developing such a speed is not an extraordinary task. A nuclear power plant is very sirno helps in this matter. Plus it’s quite possible to make a battleship trimaran, which will increase speed even more.
      2. Basarev
        Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 36
        0
        C'mon! Here are the old restored battleships of the war - perhaps, but modern battleships are quite suitable even for the most difficult naval battle of our time - the sinking of the AUG. Just think - during the war years the most terrible enemies of the battleships were dive bombers and torpedo bombers. There are none of these borshets - the first ones lost effectiveness as soon as sane air defense systems appeared, and the second ones lost the ability to carry torpedoes due to a sharp jump in speed - it is simply dangerous to carry a torpedo on a supersonic deck - it will simply fall apart at best when it hits the water.
  8. PROXOR
    PROXOR 14 May 2014 09: 50
    +2
    That is why projects 1164 and 1144 are so eager for other fleets. And this is taking into account the fact that these projects do not contain possible artillery weapons and reservations. All ships of these series need to be reanimated, but their missile and artillery battleships are also needed. And it will be easier for us in this regard. Of course, an aircraft carrier is needed for escort, but in the absence of it you can do just a couple of ships with a powerful air defense system. Yes, and the battleship itself, too, can be equipped for the most do not spoil. My only concern. The last guns of this caliber in Russia were built before the revolution at the Obukhov plant. Who will undertake to build such a gun now?
    1. opium
      opium 14 May 2014 10: 47
      +3
      as if after the revolution and 305, 356, 406mm guns were built. and not enough. so everything is normal
    2. papont64
      papont64 15 May 2014 08: 58
      0
      remove from the Voroshilov battery on about. Russian
    3. papont64
      papont64 15 May 2014 08: 58
      0
      remove from the Voroshilov battery on about. Russian
  9. denchik1977
    denchik1977 14 May 2014 09: 58
    0
    The successful use of battleships in combat at sea was proved by Germany at the turn of the 30s-40s of the XNUMXth century: the battleships Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in place with the "pocket battleships" "Admiral Scheer", "Deutschland" and "Admiral Graf Spee" nearly put a fat cross on the British Royal Navy ....
    1. desant_doktor
      desant_doktor 14 May 2014 10: 00
      +10
      Yeah. Then the Allied aviation put a bold cross on the Bismarck and the Tirpitz.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 14 May 2014 10: 35
      +1
      Especially "Bismarck" ... although he alone in the parking lot held back the whole fleet with his name alone.
      1. Crang
        Crang 14 May 2014 10: 43
        +3
        "Bismarck" was sunk in its very first operation by a joint action of artillery and torpedoes, incl. and naval aviation in 1941. "Tirpitz" was sunk in 1944, when it was already given up by the combined action of aviation and submarines: from bombs, torpedoes and explosive charges. Moreover, "Tirpitz" hid in the fjords for almost the entire war. This shows once again - if the ships are very huge and very powerful, but because of this there are not enough of them, then they become like a thorn in the eyes, like a red rag for the enemy and he tries with all his might to destroy them, which in the end he gets ... But imagine that instead of "Bismarck" and "Tirpitz" the Nazis would have about 20 squadron battleships of the "Schleswig Holstein" type, each one has very powerful armor and is armed with 4 - 283mm guns and 14 - 170mm guns, this is not counting the secondary armament, air defense and TA ... Then the English women would really have problems because a flock of these armored cockroaches, suffering losses, would not give them life.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 May 2014 11: 44
          +6
          Oh, Ivan, I really don't know how to say? First ... how does an battleship differ from a battleship? How did Bismarck, Tirpitz, Yamato end their lives? Or do you think that battleships such as "Schlewig Holstein" are more tenacious? Three bombs were enough for the "Holstein" to lay to the bottom, by the way, you can admire its remains near the island of Osmussaar, it rests not far from the "Magdeburg".
          1. Crang
            Crang 14 May 2014 12: 25
            0
            Quote: Serg65
            Or do you think that battleships such as "Schlewig Holstein" are more tenacious?

            I believe that they are quite tenacious, provided that they are constructed at the technical level equal to the dreadnought, and most importantly, as you will not understand, there will be lots of... "Iowa" you will build two pieces and will hide them in the skerries, fearing to take them out to sea (just don't say that this is not so - this always it was so) and there were twenty such armadillos. Well, and which of them to target the enemy? It will be much better.
            1. schizophrenic
              schizophrenic 14 May 2014 12: 33
              +1
              Quote: Krang
              such battleships - twenty pieces

              I realized what you want to say, use armadillos as wolf packs, but in this case they should have a speed higher than that of other ships in modern conditions.
              1. Crang
                Crang 14 May 2014 13: 53
                0
                Quote: schizophrenic
                but in this case they should have a speed higher than that of other ships in modern conditions.

                Not at all necessary, although an armadillo built at a technical level of at least 2MB will have a speed of 25uz.
                1. Basarev
                  Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 48
                  0
                  I also remember an interesting story about armadillos. When the British put in operation the first battleship Dreadnought, an amazing effect occurred. All the battleships were obsolete at once!
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 14 May 2014 12: 43
              +4
              [Quote] [/ quote]
              I believe that they are quite tenacious, provided that they are constructed at the technical level equal to the dreadnought, and most importantly, as you will not understand, there will be lots of... "Iowa" you will build two pieces and will hide them in the skerries, fearing to take them out to sea (just don't say that this is not so - this always it was so) and there were twenty such armadillos. Well, and which of them to target the enemy? It will be much better. [/ Quote]
              Japan entered World War II with the 18 heavy cruisers and where are they? Heavy cruisers are very comparable to armadillos in your interpretation.
              1. Crang
                Crang 14 May 2014 13: 55
                +1
                Quote: Serg65
                Japan entered World War II with the 18 heavy cruisers and where are they? Heavy cruisers are very comparable to armadillos in your interpretation.

                Very not comparable... Huge, but at the same time quite cardboard ships with guns of caliber no higher than 203mm. What kind of battleship is this? These cruisers are 2-3 times more expensive than battleships, but at the same time possessing dubious efficiency - a sort of "ersatzlinkers of the 2nd class" - the same failed theory as the giant battleships themselves.
            3. Dart2027
              Dart2027 14 May 2014 22: 46
              0
              These are ships with different tasks. Why do you need 20 battleships? Pieces 6, well 8 - maximum.
              But 20 destroyers-battleships-cruisers, that is, cheaper and simpler ships - this is a necessary minimum
        2. fzr1000
          fzr1000 14 May 2014 15: 32
          +3
          I mean "Tirpitz" in the skerries. But the British were afraid of him even there. He and "Bismarck" - the same type.
    3. understudy
      understudy 14 May 2014 23: 02
      0
      Quote: denchik1977
      almost put an end to the british royal navy

      The whole point of the problem is precisely in this "barely" ... which does not count. repeat
    4. Basarev
      Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 45
      -1
      In general, an extremely entertaining story came out with Tirpitz. There is just a circus - the united fleet of non-short states has been engaged in only one battleship for almost the entire war. It’s just right to talk about the whole anti-turf theater of operations. No, you imagine - the only battleship won the whole group of fleets for several years in a row!
  10. jayich
    jayich 14 May 2014 09: 59
    0
    Well, let's see what will be done with Admiral Nakhomov, and on the basis of it you can already think about how to push a couple of towers from Kronstad onto such a ship, the displacement will increase to 45 thousand tons and there will be norms, or vice versa, project 82 or 24 will be redesigned for today's realities, but we have it will not be soon in eleven years and that is not a fact. And the ideal and cheap floating battery is Izmail or Sevastopol, although the project of the Russian-Baltic Plant in 1914. I like 16 406mm guns the most.
    1. Basarev
      Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 54
      0
      Something I do not really remember the number of the project, where the battleship had 16 406-mm guns. If such a battleship is now built, then it will be possible to furnish all the other fleets in terms of strike capabilities.
  11. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 09: 59
    +5
    Quote: PROXOR
    My only concern. The last guns of this caliber in Russia were built before the revolution at the Obukhov plant. Who will undertake to build such a gun now?

    In the USSR, actually built the 406-mm artillery B-37
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 14 May 2014 10: 23
      +1
      So a bit of history from a public source:
      Background to the development of the B-37 gun
      By 1917, the production of marine guns with a caliber of up to 356 mm inclusive was mastered in the Russian Empire. From the summer of 1912 to the beginning of 1918, a technical 406/45-mm gun (as well as a machine for it and a tower installation) for promising battleships of the Russian fleet was created in the technical bureau of the Obukhov steel mill. In addition, preliminary designs for two-, three- and four-gun towers for this gun were completed. Work on the creation of the first Russian 406-mm naval gun was stopped at 50% readiness of the experimental gun.

      In the 1920s, the production of naval artillery in the USSR fell into decay, and only work on modernizing the artillery of old battleships of the Sevastopol type made it possible to save and train new personnel. Since 1936, the development of tactical and technical tasks of all Soviet naval artillery installations, as well as the review of projects and the issuance of conclusions on them, was carried out by the Artillery Research Marine Institute (abbreviated as ANIMI), which was led by the famous artilleryman and rear admiral (later vice admiral) I. Gren.

      Hence the reasonable question: WHO WILL NOW DEVELOP OR REANIMATE THE B-37?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 18: 11
        +2
        Quote: PROXOR
        By 1917 in the Russian Empire, the production of marine guns with a caliber of up to 356 mm inclusive was mastered.

        This is not entirely true. In fact, it was possible to make a prototype of the 356-mm guns, EMNIP a dozen more were in different stages of readiness
        Quote: PROXOR
        From the summer of 1912 to the beginning of 1918 in the technical bureau of the Obukhov steel mill, the creation of an experimental 406 / 45-mm gun (as well as a machine for it and a tower installation) for promising battleships of the Russian fleet

        We made a sketch of the 406-mm / 45 gun, and also constantly linking its design with the technological capacities designed for the production of 356-mm guns of the plant, i.e. laying not the best decisions. Compared to B-37 - heaven and earth
        Quote: PROXOR
        Hence the reasonable question: WHO WILL NOW DEVELOP OR REANIMATE THE B-37?

        This can be done by any design bureau who made relatively large (152-203-mm) artillery systems
  12. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 14 May 2014 09: 59
    +5
    The battleship, like a warship, is certainly impressive, but it’s a very expensive toy for shelling coastal fortifications.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 14 May 2014 10: 28
      +3
      Cheaper than an aircraft carrier with an air wing. And to say something about the coastal fortified areas, you kind of hurried. When considering modern technology and explosives. Such a gun can shoot at a distance of up to 150 km and fall (at the tip of a ground or space SCS) into the window of the house.
      At the same time, I note that the shell will be cheaper than the KR.
      So your expression is fundamentally wrong.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 18: 31
        +1
        Quote: PROXOR
        Such a gun can shoot at a distance of up to 150km and fall (at the tip of a ground or space SCS) into the window of the house.

        и
        Quote: PROXOR
        At the same time, I’ll notice that the shell will be incredibly cheaper than the Kyrgyz Republic

        absolutely do not fit together.
        A conventional 155-mm guided projectile costs 50-80 thousand dollars. A 406-mm projectile will cost much more.
        A 406-mm projectile from WWII carries no more than 70 kg of explosives. A modern projectile, in which it is necessary to find a place not only on the explosive and the fuse, but also on the guidance system + fuel for active-reactivity will drag even less - and only by 150 km. The simplest "Harpoon" carries 225 kg of warheads for 300 km. The JDAM kit for an aerial bomb costs from 35 to 70 thousand dollars.
        In general, the cost of a "smart" projectile will not differ much from other methods of delivering explosives to the enemy.
        1. Santa Fe
          14 May 2014 23: 27
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The simplest "Harpoon" carries 225 kg warhead for 300 km

          The simplest Harpoon will end in 8 shots (Mk.141, UKKS - not the point)

          Moreover, the harpoon is worth a million
          + has a vulnerable design and subsonic speed - air defense can be shot down
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          A set of JDAM for an aerial bomb costs from 35 to 70 thousand dollars

          The JDAM set needs an aircraft for 100 million + cost of an hour of operation (fuel, maintenance) + a trained pilot

          And all this can be knocked down in the most vile way, not reaching the goal

          The use of naval artillery will significantly reduce the fate of aviation, saving considerable amounts
    2. svp67
      svp67 14 May 2014 12: 40
      0
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      The battleship, like a warship, is certainly impressive, but it’s a very expensive toy for shelling coastal fortifications.
      And the life of the Marines is certainly cheaper ....
      1. Uncle lee
        Uncle lee 15 May 2014 03: 04
        +6
        And where are you going to land the marines with the support of battleships? We are not going to attack anyone ...
    3. turanchox
      turanchox 14 May 2014 15: 47
      +3
      make a gun feces. 406 mm. certainly not more expensive than a steam catapult for an aircraft carrier
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 18: 33
        +2
        Expensive. The production of a large-caliber artillery system is an overwhelming process (such as the need for harvesting at 150 tons without the slightest defects, etc.) and the catapult is a common, albeit complex, engineering structure
    4. Basarev
      Basarev 15 May 2014 21: 57
      0
      No more expensive than destroyed enemy coastal infrastructure. A serious crepion is worth billions. However, the fire of 406-mm guns can blow it away in a matter of hours.
  13. Alf
    Alf 14 May 2014 10: 03
    -1
    On neolinkor still have to be 2 artillery systems-large-caliber mortars and MLRS. Very often the target is near, but behind the ridge or below ground level. Mortars in such a situation are simply priceless.
    1. svp67
      svp67 14 May 2014 12: 42
      +1
      Quote: Alf
      On neolinkor still have to be 2 artillery systems-large-caliber mortars and MLRS. Very often the target is near, but behind the ridge or below ground level. Mortars in such a situation are simply priceless.

      You still propose an RPG ... For the rest of the "little things" there is another "artillery little thing", like destroyers and frigates, and the battleship is the king's last argument ...
      1. Alf
        Alf 14 May 2014 17: 24
        0
        Quote: svp67

        You still propose an RPG ... For the rest of the "little things" there is another "artillery little thing", like destroyers and frigates, and the battleship is the king's last argument ...
        Reply Quote Report Abuse

        And on this "little thing" is there a means for conducting an external fire? In addition, the battleship differs from ships of other classes by the presence of powerful armor.
  14. Crang
    Crang 14 May 2014 10: 05
    -1
    Quote: Alf
    On neolinkor still have to be 2 artillery systems-large-caliber mortars and MLRS. Very often the target is near, but behind the ridge or below ground level. Mortars in such a situation are simply priceless.

    It is very dangerous for a ship to approach very close to the shore. You can get under the sudden and concentrated fire of tanks or self-propelled guns and then hi. The optimal distance from the coast for battleships I think somewhere 5-10km.
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 14 May 2014 10: 18
      +3
      There are 2 sides of the coin, the idea for the modern army is crazy, if only the Papuans can fight, self-propelled guns 30 years ago were fired 30 km, and there are also MLRS, and there are anti-ship missiles Granites, Basalts, Bramosa and coastal counterparts, so for I don’t understand the topic at all, I need the artillery system, but nobody will revive the battleships. Looking forward to WorldOfWarships ^^.
      1. Crang
        Crang 14 May 2014 10: 21
        -3
        It is necessary to revive the rocket-artillery-torpedo battleships. Which will occupy the niche of today's destroyers.
        1. schizophrenic
          schizophrenic 14 May 2014 10: 37
          +7
          Quote: Krang
          torpedo battleships.

          Able to reach Sirius and inflict a crushing blow, anti substance on the enemy. laughing
          1. schizophrenic
            schizophrenic 14 May 2014 10: 53
            0
            Quote: schizophrenic
            anti substance on the opponent

            And someone doubts that this will be the most effective battleship. laughing
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alf
      Alf 14 May 2014 17: 21
      0
      Quote: Krang
      Quote: Alf
      On neolinkor still have to be 2 artillery systems-large-caliber mortars and MLRS. Very often the target is near, but behind the ridge or below ground level. Mortars in such a situation are simply priceless.
      It is very dangerous for a ship to approach very close to the shore. You can get under the sudden and concentrated fire of tanks or self-propelled guns and then hi. The optimal distance from the coast for battleships I think somewhere 5-10km.

      The firing range of modern mortars is up to 10 thousand meters. Calculate how much the cost of a mortar shot is cheaper than a gun of the same caliber.
      1. schizophrenic
        schizophrenic 15 May 2014 15: 06
        0
        Quote: Alf
        The firing range of modern mortars is up to 10 thousand meters. Calculate how much the cost of a mortar shot is cheaper than a gun of the same caliber

        And why not use the developments on Nona, because then you will get a more universal weapon with the ability to fire, a shell and a mine. True, there will be problems in the development, but for the latest battleships there will be a big +.
  15. Nayhas
    Nayhas 14 May 2014 10: 28
    +6
    Good afternoon, Oleg. Your arguments in favor of "neolinkore" are somewhat lame:
    A third of the world's population lives in a coastal strip 50 km wide. More than half of megacities of the whole world are concentrated on the coast: London, Istanbul, New York, Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, Tokyo ...

    This does not mean at all that you can approach them at a range of naval artillery, albeit 406mm. Well, the main question, why shell cities? Moreover, with potential opponents of the United States, capitals are located very far from the coastline of Moscow, Pyongyang, Beijing, Tehran ...
    According to the US Navy, the operating costs of the Iowa battleship were 7 times lower than those of the Nimitz aircraft carrier.

    What about efficiency? Yes, and to compare US aviation in the early 90s and its current state is somewhat incorrect, then the proportion of use of guided ammunition was very low, so the number of sorties to destroy the target and the number of aircraft used was much higher. Now one Super Hornet is capable of completing the task of the Intruder link, if not more.
    During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), difficult weather conditions and poor visibility caused a partial or complete cancellation of 50% of sorties.

    And how would the presence of battleships help? Shell Belgrade from 406mm. guns?
    Can a battleship fire in low visibility conditions? In principle, yes, but the probability of hitting targets will be practically zero, by chance ... especially this applies to targets located beyond the coastline, without adjusting from the air, it is useless to bombard them, only spend shells and damage trunks ...
    Suppression of enemy defense, direct fire support of naval assault forces and army units conducting operations near the coast. Traditional applications of "big guns."

    And no more. Aviation is more flexible and functional. Spend one 2000 pound JDAM or 100mm on a fortified target. shells, which is better? If we turn to history, then cases where numerous naval artillery plowed (as was believed on the ships) the coastal defense of the enemy, and then the landing was met by the unsuppressed coastal defense.
    And if the Yankees were lucky in Lebanon - there was a reactivated battleship from the Second World War, then the British had to tight. Of the naval artillery, only 114 mm "farts" remained, poorly suited for shelling the coast.

    The British lacked normal aviation, both to protect their fleet and to destroy targets on the shore ...
    Continued below ...
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 13: 43
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, the main question, why shell cities?

      Where cities - there and everything else
      Industry, military bases, ports, airfields
      Quote: Nayhas
      to compare US aviation in the beginning of the 90's and its current state is somewhat wrong, then the proportion of use of guided ammunition was very low

      Then the battleship fired with ordinary WWII blanks
      Quote: Nayhas
      Shell Belgrade from 406mm. guns?

      If the land phase were required, army self-propelled howitzers would be fired on Belgrade

      The fleet does not need to duplicate the functions of the army in the depths of the coast
      Quote: Nayhas
      Can a battleship fire in low visibility conditions?

      the weather, like the time of day, does not matter

      In Lebanon, the battleship adjusted its fire according to the army radar on the shore
      The army provided the New Jersey with grid coordinates based on their R-TAB radar, which tracked the shells and calculated the position of the firing guns
      Quote: Nayhas
      this is especially true for targets beyond the coastline, without adjustment from the air

      Direct fire support - at the request of the Marines

      For air corrections, you can hang J-STARS a hundred miles or some UAV
      Quote: Nayhas
      Spend one 2000 pound JDAM or 100 406mm on a fortified target. shells, which is better?

      Mk.84 has become JDAM
      So why do you refuse the evolution of 406 mm projectile? Ergm
      Quote: Nayhas
      Aviation is more flexible and more functional.

      In Lebanon, it didn’t help much.
      Quote: Nayhas
      when numerous naval artillery plowed (as was believed on the ships) the coastal defense of the enemy, and then the landing forces were met by the unsuppressed coastal defense quite a lot.

      In such cases, aviation could not help either - too strong and well-built defense
      Quote: Nayhas
      The British lacked normal aviation, both to protect their fleet and to destroy targets on the shore ...

      Argentos lacked normal air defense systems
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 14 May 2014 16: 46
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Where cities - there and everything else
        Industry, military bases, ports, airfields

        And how many strategic objects, for example, Iran are in the range of artillery ch. caliber battleship Iowa? I'm not afraid to say, but not more than 1%, I am not talking about Russia at all. And for the sake of 1% to sculpt "neolinkora"? Is aviation capable of destroying this 1%? Undoubtedly.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        If the land phase were required, army self-propelled howitzers would be fired on Belgrade

        Duc because the battleships in that war were useless because Serbia has no access to the sea.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In Lebanon, the battleship adjusted its fire according to the army radar on the shore

        And what was the "integrity" with such guidance? Now, in the age of GPS, such intricate options are unnecessary. It is enough to transfer the coordinates of the target to the strike aircraft and regardless of the weather, the target will be destroyed.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        So why do you refuse the evolution of 406 mm projectile? Ergm

        I think the problems are to redo 406mm. in a guided projectile is not difficult, but what advantages will it have over a guided bomb? None. On the contrary, the number of explosives in a projectile is less than in an air bomb of the same mass because the bomb does not experience such loads as a projectile in the barrel.
        The projectile range is limited by the mass of the charge and the long barrel, the range of the bomb is limited by the range of the aircraft, which is several times more.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In such cases, aviation could not help either - too strong and well-built defense

        Praaaavilno, in those days, the shell was more accurate than aerial bombs, but now everything has changed.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        For air corrections, you can hang J-STARS a hundred miles or some UAV

        It is possible, but for the normal operation of reconnaissance aviation, cover aviation is needed, for the enemy will try to bring down the reconnaissance, but then why the hell would a battleship if there is already aviation?
        1. Santa Fe
          14 May 2014 23: 57
          +1
          Quote: Nayhas
          And how many strategic objects, for example, Iran are within the range of artillery of Ch. caliber battleship Iowa?

          But how well located are Libya and the DPRK!
          Quote: Nayhas
          Duc because the battleships in that war were useless because Serbia has no access to the sea.

          But it turned out to be very useful in Lebanon and would be very helpful in the Falklands.
          Quote: Nayhas
          And what was the "integrity" with such guidance?

          As you can see, enough - the Syrian batteries are silent

          By the way, any modern army has a radar for counter-battery combat (detection of the trajectories of its and enemy shells)
          Quote: Nayhas
          It is enough to transfer the coordinates of the target to the side of the strike aircraft and, regardless of the weather, the target will be destroyed.

          How's the Bekaa Valley?
          Quote: Nayhas
          I think the problems are to redo 406mm. in a guided projectile is not difficult, but what advantages will it have over a guided bomb?

          - weatherproof
          - invulnerable to air defense
          - efficiency, quick response to calls - in a couple of minutes the specified square will be mixed with the ground
          - lack of need for an extra expensive carrier (which can be brought down)
          - fire intensity - hundreds of shots per hour !!! The air regiment is unlikely to be able to work in this mode
          Quote: Nayhas
          Praaaavilno, in those days, the shell was more accurate than aerial bombs, but now everything has changed.

          It's not about bombs.
          And in the very possibility of detecting and accurately identifying the target (camouflage, false models of equipment and structures, etc.)
          Quote: Nayhas
          for the enemy will try to bring down the scout

          Scout does not need to climb into the database area
          The same J-STARS can correct fire from a distance of a hundred kilometers
          Quote: Nayhas
          then why the heck battleship if you already have aviation?

          Reduced Aviation Required

          When each fighter costs 100 million dollars, and each of its flight hours - tens of thousands of $
          1. Basarev
            Basarev 15 May 2014 22: 17
            +1
            Thinking right, man. I am also a fan of battleships. And I also believe that modern artillery systems with a caliber of 406 mm or more have prospects. And those who are against are thinking battleships of the Great Patriotic War.
  16. Nayhas
    Nayhas 14 May 2014 10: 29
    +3
    “All-weather aviation does not fly in bad weather” (Murphy's Law). In a snowstorm, fog or a sandstorm, the landing force is guaranteed to remain without fire support.

    And the battleship here will not help. Absolutely.
    American pilots felt masters of the sky in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. But what will happen in the event of a war with the DPRK or a landing landing on the territory of Iran?

    Well, as elsewhere, they will gain dominance in the sky and will take out first air defense and command posts, then everything else. Or is there any hope that the F-14 and MiG-29 will interfere with this?
    The American "arocracy" is powerless against bad weather and S-300 anti-aircraft systems. "Tomahawks" are too expensive and small.

    Well, at the expense of weather, one can argue, it will be very difficult to identify tactical targets, but how will the weather prevent the destruction of targets that are not capable of moving?
    The "insurmountability" of the S-300 is a myth; in general, there are no insurmountable ground-based air defense systems, they can create temporary difficulties, but no more. Yes, and the Americans had the opportunity to train on the S-300, so for them it has long been a "open secret" ...
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 13: 48
      -1
      Quote: Nayhas
      In a snowstorm, fog or a sandstorm, the landing force is guaranteed to remain without fire support. And the battleship here will not help. Absolutely.

      Yes, I do not want to
      Quote: Nayhas
      Well, as elsewhere, they will gain dominance in the sky and will take out first air defense and command posts, then everything else

      How is it in Vietnam?

      Immediate fire support will require lowering below the clouds (a bomb in most cases loses a laser beam when flying through the clouds) - where the Yankees will meet MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery of all calibers
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 14 May 2014 17: 00
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Yes, I do not want to

        Indeed. What is the main danger for the landing? That's right, enemy artillery that shoots from closed positions from the depths of the enemy’s defense, according to a spotter who sits in a reliable shelter without betraying himself. Who will be able to establish the location of the enemy battery? Only aviation, for landing on the coast is capable of detecting only firing points firing direct fire. And how do gunners of the battleship understand where to fire suppression?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        How is it in Vietnam?

        And what happened in Vietnam? US Aviation completed all scheduled raids. With losses, but committed. Vietnam's air defense could not defend the sky over the country. Or are you one of those who believe that the main task of air defense is to bring down enemy planes?
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Immediate fire support will require lowering below the clouds (a bomb in most cases loses a laser beam when flying through the clouds) - where the Yankees will meet MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery of all calibers

        Well, it's not for me to tell you about the nomenclature of weapons of the US Air Force. Ammunition with a semi-active laser seeker is far from the most common and if they cannot be used, this does not mean that there is nothing more to use.
        1. Santa Fe
          15 May 2014 00: 15
          +2
          Quote: Nayhas
          Who will be able to establish the location of the enemy battery? Aviation only

          Small one-time UAV - and the problem is solved

          Quote: Nayhas
          And what happened in Vietnam?

          8612 downed planes and helicopters
          Quote: Nayhas
          Vietnam's air defense could not defend the sky over the country.

          1,5 million sorties - naturally, some managed to break through to the goal

          But the amers failed to inflict critical damage on the Viet Cong, and the Ho Chi Minh trail functioned properly until the end of the war.

          Moreover, the loss of US aviation was catastrophic - had to wage war and carry away legs
          Quote: Nayhas
          this does not mean that there is nothing more to apply.

          What can be applied to an operatively identified target?

          Airborne gun?
  17. fktrcfylhn61
    fktrcfylhn61 14 May 2014 10: 32
    0
    It would be very nice to design an underwater artillery complex! And the secrecy, and the power of large-caliber artillery! There should be no technical problems at this time! And to hit such a ship due to the small elevation, literally gun turrets, it would be very problematic even anti-ship missiles. Unless from the top. So to speak: a vessel of minimal buoyancy. And minimal visibility.
    1. PROXOR
      PROXOR 14 May 2014 10: 34
      +1
      I represent the submarine pr. 941. even with one artillery tower. I have a question. How will you seal the tower shoulder?
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 14 May 2014 10: 39
        0
        No way. The tower is part of the hull, all the same one — two volleys can be made.
    2. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 14 May 2014 10: 41
      0
      Even before the revolution, the project was such a ship, but with the development of weapons, it was outdated on paper.
    3. NOMADE
      NOMADE 14 May 2014 10: 56
      +1
      )) Let's reanimate the submarine, type - L and S. Here in Vladivostok in the "reserve" on the ship's embankment, stands - C-56. There is just a 150 mm and 45 mm gun (if I'm not mistaken) laughing
      But seriously, in my opinion - submarines and heavy artillery, this is too much.
      Then for efficiency, you will need to book and book wassat It’s easier to leave it as it is — missile weapons.
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 14 May 2014 11: 44
        +5
        Then for efficiency, it will be necessary to pl and book wassat

        Then this device will not be able to swim ... but it will be able to move along the bottom. A sort of underwater tank battleship. For versatility, you can use torpedoes to peel from a cannon in an underwater position, but as soon as shells crawled out onto the coastline, you also need a flamethrower (I like flamethrowers).
        1. patsantre
          patsantre 14 May 2014 14: 44
          0
          set + for humor wassat
  18. barbiturate
    barbiturate 14 May 2014 11: 30
    0
    I completely agree with the author, artillery - cheaply and angrily + a large number of missiles and everything under reliable armor protection, coupled with air cover - is ideal.
  19. iwind
    iwind 14 May 2014 11: 32
    +2
    I really like battleships, but their time has passed. What are the chances for the battleship to complete the task if the Bastion PCR or similar analogues are deployed on the coastal line. Even if he knocks down 2/3 of the PCR, all the same he will have to interrupt the assignment and move on to repair. And in the ocean, ships without air cover are not residents.
    And about bad weather, the main thing is the right motivation am

  20. Delta
    Delta 14 May 2014 11: 46
    +4
    All the same topic, all the same Kaptsov, all the same categorical ...
    Oleg, do you know how Dostoevsky expressed his categorical views?

    And now to the topic: personally, I have nothing against armor and leviathans with big guns, but your arguments ....

    “Put Aegis cruiser in the wake of the battleship - and you will go wherever you want. Add an aircraft carrier at a distance of a couple of hundred miles - and you will get an invincible combat system. ”
    - Commander-in-Chief of the United States Navy Admiral Carlisle Trost at the Wisconsin Battleship Reactivation Ceremony, October 1988

    this statement quoted by you somehow undermines your concept of fighting aircraft carriers in principle and fighting for ships of the battleship type in particular. By the way, this phrase was said on the reactivation of the battleship. A kind of tribute to the honored ship and the whole class. Who at the funeral says bad things about the dead man?)) About the statement of Sultan bin Said would generally be silent, because it is not just unprofessional. This is the opinion of a housewife, not higher.

    Oh well, with speeches. I will voice one of the nuances:
    During the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia (1999), difficult weather conditions and poor visibility caused a partial or complete cancellation of 50% of sorties.
    “The problem of aiming through the clouds is not completely resolved; there is no guarantee of air strikes in difficult weather conditions. "


    I wonder where the battleship will shoot if, in bad weather, fire adjustment is not provided? at random?
    1. Cruorvult
      Cruorvult 14 May 2014 11: 51
      0
      it’s as if it’s not always calm on the meore, but the main thing is not to screw up that thread is expensive (then you will have to give it to your grandchildren), the pilot may crash or something else, but here it’s a bullet in the fog and that’s all about civilians don't think too much.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 23: 38
      +1
      Quote: Delta
      By the way, this phrase was said on the reactivation of the battleship. A kind of tribute to the honored ship and the whole class. Who at the funeral says bad things about the deceased?))

      Reactivation is the opposite of DEactivation

      The upgraded Wisconsin was re-commissioned in the 1988 year - it was on this occasion that Trost spoke
      Quote: Delta
      this statement quoted by you somehow undermines your concept of fighting aircraft carriers in principle

      The cane is a little crazy - the aircraft carrier is behind, a couple of hundred miles away - how does this differ from the coast airfield (which the Yankees have everywhere)
      where will the battleship fire if in bad weather the fire adjustment is not ensured?

      GPS
      MSA radar data
      Marine Corrector

      But unlike an airplane, a battleship does not need to take off and land blindly. And if you miss it - there is a chance to instantly fix the mistake: the ammunition is huge, a new shot can be fired right away
  21. bistrov.
    bistrov. 14 May 2014 11: 46
    +4
    The article is controversial, the author's euphoria from battleships is most likely from not taking into account all the nuances of the operation and combat use of artillery ships. The Americans are far from stupid, otherwise they would not have put the modernized battleships of the "Iowa" type on the joke.
  22. Serg65
    Serg65 14 May 2014 12: 27
    +3
    Oleg, for your persistence in the desire to reanimate armored ships, I take off my hat hi We have already talked about booking, I would like to draw your attention to the artillery. The use of armored artillery ships is more focused on work on coastal targets, do you need expensive artillery towers of large caliber and ammunition for them? The AK-130 of the cruiser "Slava" (Moscow) at the Opuk test site was not even bad at suppressing coastal targets, and it also smashed shield targets to a distance of 10 miles to pieces.
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 12: 53
      +1
      Quote: Serg65
      Yes, and shield targets to remove 10 miles to smithereens.

      Let him try to smash a tank buried in the ground, self-propelled guns, a pillbox or building with bravely defending ones (aka-house of Pavlov in Stalingrad)
      seriously damage the aerodrome runway

      Volgograd, Gergardt mill (mistaken for Pavlov's house). In fact, the Pavlov’s house a half-year (!) Shelling of all types of weapons was almost completely destroyed, only part of the wall remained (on the other side of the street, integrated into the wall of the new house)
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 15 May 2014 08: 04
        +3
        SWEET_SIXTEEN. Oleg, let's not dissemble, it is problematic to destroy a tank, self-propelled guns, bunker and battleship buried in the ground with its flat trajectory of the shot. I am not a theorist, more practical, the participation of the Black Sea Fleet light forces in the artillery support of the landing operation "Sea" in 1943 was not very effective just because of the specifics of the ballistics of naval guns, most of the hidden targets were not destroyed.
  23. goose
    goose 14 May 2014 12: 33
    0
    Quote: PROXOR
    Cheaper than an aircraft carrier with an air wing. And to say something about the coastal fortified areas, you kind of hurried. When considering modern technology and explosives. Such a gun can shoot at a distance of up to 150 km and fall (at the tip of a ground or space SCS) into the window of the house. At the same time, I’ll note that the shell will be cheaper than the KR. So your expression is fundamentally wrong.

    During the First World War, the cost of a 14-15 inch ship projectile exceeded the cost of an aircraft in such an industrialized country as Great Britain. I have great doubts that the use of traditional high ballistic naval weapons will be effective for support from the sea. Rather, you will need something like "Tulips" or howitzers with a variable charge, thin-walled shells, caliber from 8 to 12 inches and a moderate range of up to 45 km.
    Do not forget that a lot of shells will be needed for this thing, and a large caliber will save on guidance and correction systems. Global navigation systems and optical heads are already cheaper than the 155-mm shell, and in the cost of the suitcase will not be visible at all. And yes, you still have to go broke into a small fleet of supply transports. Each shooting will require another vehicle, clogged with shells.
    1. postman
      postman 14 May 2014 16: 23
      +1
      Quote: goose
      During the First World War, the cost of an 14-15 inch projectile exceeded the cost of an aircraft in an industrialized country such as the United Kingdom.

      What nonsense!
      1.production of shells, akin to "pasta production" HUNDREDS of millions of pieces
      Obukhov Steel Plant, January 1917 power
      production of shells -1600 = 16 "caliber or 2000 = 14" caliber, of which 25% in both cases could be armor-piercing; 3200 shells = 12 "caliber or 8000 shells = 8" caliber, plus a huge number of shells for medium artillery.
      Shells !! (not to be confused with trunks), on the trunks the scoreboard below

      2. The maximum production of fighters at the then ("sea lion") British factories was about 100 cars a week. 100x52 (max) = 5200.
      Goering: "We had by the beginning of the air war against England aboutColo 950 fighters and about 1100 bombers- reported the chief of the operational department of the headquarters of the German Air Force, - and now we have 600 fighters and 800 bombers ...

      3.The theory and practice of the "artillery offensive" (which remains the subject of the legitimate pride of Soviet military science) assumed the many thousands tons of ammunition per day. (not ship, but the same is not frail

      4. As an example: A shot for the 76,2 mm gun, the most common in the USSR, cost 150 rubles. Tank BT - 100 thousand rubles. At the same time, the 76-mm cartridge was the cheapest, except for mines, 122-mm and especially 152-mm shells cost many times more. And the BT tank, on the contrary, was more expensive than most other Soviet tanks.
      / enter any coefficients

      Supermarine Spitfire = Unit Price, £ 12,604 (1939) ...

      =====================
      scoreboard below (“The case of the design and manufacture of large-caliber guns” (RGAVMF. F. 421, op.2, d. 2042, pp. 147–148). With double-shift work (9 + 9 = 18 hours a day), it took 14 days to make one 52 "/ 188 tool, or more than six months (not taking into account the time spent on casting and forging blanks of the inner tube, fastening cylinders and the casing)."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 18: 41
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        What nonsense!

        Absolutely no bullshit
        Quote: Postman
        During the First World War, the cost of an 14-15 inch projectile exceeded the cost of an aircraft in an industrialized country such as the United Kingdom.

        FIRST WORLD. PR than what is the second world?
        Quote: Postman
        1.production of shells, akin to "pasta production" HUNDREDS of millions of pieces

        Yeah. On average, the French fired an 2 dreadnought on the 3 of war day. War is a VERY expensive business, the cost of shells to you as an example.
        Just because shells were made by millions does not mean that they were cheap.
  24. goose
    goose 14 May 2014 12: 42
    -1
    Quote: Delta
    I wonder where the battleship will shoot if, in bad weather, fire adjustment is not provided? at random?

    I heard that the artillery fire control radar has been hit for 70 years. Now radar technology has progressed greatly, take, for example, the Zoo system (http://topwar.ru/7376-kontrbatareynaya-rls-zoopark-1.html). Such complexes make the artillery system independent if there is a topographic reference or target coordinates.
    1. Delta
      Delta 14 May 2014 16: 25
      0
      Quote: goose
      the artillery control radar hit 70 years ago


      and on deck aircraft there are no radars?))))
  25. postman
    postman 14 May 2014 13: 23
    +2
    Quote: Author
    German frigate "Hamburg" with a turret from SAU Pz.2000 (caliber 155 mm)

    Touched.
    1. Zalepuha (photo montage) from the Editor http://www.people.com.cn/: Li Xiang (or pisyan)
    2. Does not withstand the upper deck and the power elements of the hull

    3.F220 is constantly busy: it is part of the strike group until the completion of the ACG operation in the area of ​​responsibility of the 5th US fleet (the only ship in the West with three types of anti-aircraft missiles: Standard Missile 2 block IIIA (SM-2), the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile ( ESSM) and Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM)).

    4. The tower from the self-propelled guns Pz.2000 will not live in the waters (even the Baltic Sea) for more than six months = this product is not adapted for marine use
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 14: 02
      0
      Quote: Postman
      1.Zapuleha (photo montage) by the Editor

      In January 2003, Hamburg had a modified Panzerhaubitze 2000 turret with a 155 mm (6.1 in) gun fitted experimentally for the Modular Naval Artillery Concept. The experiment was a feasibility study for the projected F125-class frigate. The gun had a range of 40 nmi (74 km; 46 mi) and a rate of fire of 10 rounds per minute

      put in the order of experiment, currently dismantled
      Cause-
      Quote: Postman
      . The tower from the self-propelled guns Pz.2000 will not live in the waters (even the Baltic Sea) for more than six months = this product is not adapted for marine use

      + problems with barrel cooling during heavy shooting
      1. postman
        postman 14 May 2014 14: 54
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        In January 2003,

        I know, I know, the "British military obZenie" seems to be magazine # 23
        And do you know why this info is FUUFLO?
        1. See the scoreboard (below)!
        Do I need to comment? (A brand new frigate, COMPLETED in September 2004 on the water, shred in 2003?)

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        put in experiment

        Yeah, probably in the process of completing the lead ship 2?
        2.No information, neither from the crew, nor from the German Ministry of Defense, nor from (Blohm + Voss GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann -no

        3. For this "infe" - allegedly in Kiel. I know Kiel, I know the shipyard, I myself have been on the F220 (just in Kiel) = Shooting from this angle cannot be done (except for UAVs)
        4. So the tower (and any equipment), while the Germans will not put it, at least they will make a flushed "impregnirung" (impregnirung o-versiegelungstechnik) /
        And here, straight "from the fields", in camouflage EXPENSIVE Pz.2000 (considered the most advanced serial SPG in the world?
        5.It’s not enough for you 1,2,3,4 - ASK Christian Wikarczyk, senior Hamburg officer, he will laugh for a long time
        Note turn a cheap run booster- COVERED by anticorrosive, and dear 200-no.
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        + problems with barrel cooling during heavy shooting

        ? Well, there is no problem on land: three shells in 9 seconds or ten in 56 seconds, air cooling also copes, and then the sea breeze.
        The point is different:
        -corrosion of all materials that are used in its manufacture
        -corrosion of all electronics

        ALL THIS IS NOT INTENDED, not only for the sea, but also for the river.
        The Germans don’t do that (well, before the bearded Conchita they didn’t, anyway)
        But most importantly, the final scoreboard is lower. wink
        / nothing personal, but it's "quack-quack" /
  26. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 14 May 2014 14: 11
    0
    Quote: GES
    In the Great Patriotic War, the T-34 and T-28 towers and the BM-8 and BM-13 RSs were mounted on armored boats.

    And after the war, T-55 towers were placed on the border river boats
  27. Capitalist
    Capitalist 14 May 2014 14: 20
    +2
    oh my god .. again, .. spring, battleships, Oleg Kaptsov ...
    easy juggling with facts and figures and turns nonsense .. turns ... into an elegant article!

    take at random:
    The American "arocracy" is powerless against bad weather and S-300 anti-aircraft systems. "Tomahawks" are too expensive and small.

    Tomahawk Block IV costs about 915 thousand dollars a piece (the last order of 360 missiles for 330 million bucks). S-300 missiles, depending on type and modification, cost 1-2 million dollars a piece, and the new 40N6E is still one and a half to two times more expensive
  28. Capitalist
    Capitalist 14 May 2014 15: 06
    +1
    more from the pearls of the "disrespected author"

    It is easy to guess what happens in this case with the 7 billionth Zamvolt. It’s not clear whether the 150 has enough strength for the sailors (such are the results of the destroyer's total automation) to put out fires and quickly fill the holes in the 180-meter hull.

    7 billion is the total cost of the program for the current day (construction + R&D)

    the actual cost of construction from 1,3 to 3 billion dollars apiece. In 2007, 2,6 billion were allocated for the construction of the first 2 ships. The first was handed over without additional funds, the second was mortgaged, no additional money has yet been allocated. so we can hope that they will not cost much higher than 2 billion apiece, even with the planned limited series. for comparison, the latest Orly Burke go for about $ 1,2 billion apiece.

    The second sentence is the Zamvolt missile-artillery destroyer. This option subsequently received a start in life. It was planned that the Zamvolta would become the main type of destroyers of the US Navy (at least 30 units), but the exorbitant greed of shipyard managers and the sophisticated design of the ship forced them to change plans to reduce the order. In total, no more than three Zamvolts will be built. Specific shock tool for local wars of the future.
    Again a lie .. well, or the traditional lack of awareness of the "afftor". The Zamvolt was NEVER planned as the main destroyer type. This ship is part of a new assault support ideology, a stub of a large program with several types of ships. In fact, it was assumed that the Zamvolts would be ships of missile and artillery support for the landing and would act as ships of the second line in conjunction with the new LCS landing support ships (the program was also cut down) and the promising cruisers CGX (the program was canceled)
    1. Santa Fe
      14 May 2014 15: 27
      +1
      Quote: Capitalist
      Zamvolt "was NEVER planned as the main type of destroyer

      Created under the DD (X) or DD-21 program - a new generation destroyer project to replace Berkov
      Quote: Capitalist
      7 billion is the total cost of the program for the current day (construction + R&D)

      the total cost of the program is over 21 billion - 12 billion NOCR and 3 billion for each of the three ships
  29. Yarik
    Yarik 14 May 2014 15: 10
    0
    Bongo Today, 09:51 ↑ New
    Quote: Turik
    The Chinese were impressed, the guys did not bother much. Barge + SPG = Battleship
    The Chinese are not the first in this matter, the Germans installed turrets from the 155-mm PzH 2000 self-propelled guns on the frigates Hamburg and Hesse.

    Nope ... ours on armored boats.
    1. postman
      postman 14 May 2014 15: 36
      +1
      Quote: Yarik
      the Germans installed towers from the 155-mm self-propelled guns PzH 2000 on the frigates Hamburg and Hesse.

      did not set, this duck.
      Quote: Yarik
      Nope ... ours on

      Well, yes, but not on armored boats, if we consider SIMPLY ground artillery (there were no tanks and towers then), and the Turks were the second
      1.Russian light galleys "scampawi" operating in the Baltic during the Northern War (from 1700 to 1721) sometimes armed with 3-6 pound regimental cannons. The gun is often tied to the deck right on the wheeled carriage- in the naval battle, there was no sense in her, but she could be very useful in landing operations, for which mainly scampaveia were used.

      2. The symbol of the Ottoman greatness of the 16th century - giant bombards - decorated not only the Dardanelles - at the beginning of the 19th century they convincingly threw blocks of stone on the English battleships, - and at the beginning of the 20th they also threw (already unconvincing), but they were also used as sea guns. It is difficult to say why the Turks installed them on the lower decks of several battleships, or for lack of a better one, toli to the aggressor. The weight of these 400-millimeter, bullet-proof 80-kilogram marble cannonballs reached 7 tons, - a record of that period. The muzzle energy of these monsters was sufficient to make a solid "hole" in the side of the battleship of that time (early 18th century) (from a distance of 150-200 meters). But charging could take up to an hour. If the Turkish battleship of that time (no more than 1800 tons) was armed, for example, with 16 such guns, then the rest of the artillery could be represented only by four dozen 12 pounds.
  30. Analgin
    Analgin 14 May 2014 15: 48
    +1
    All the presented splendor is shackled in decimeter armor and enclosed in a case with a total displacement of 57 000 tons.
    10 cm of armor? Somehow, not solidly, not in a Linkor style. A heavy anti-ship missile will penetrate it right through, even subsonic — there were precedents. Plus, for confident shooting at the maximum distance, you will need at least an unmanned spotter.
    As for me, an aircraft carrier carrying a dozen or so stealth UAVs with a pair of 2000lb bombs in a bay will do the job of clearing the coast better.
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 May 2014 16: 12
      +2
      Quote: Analgin
      10 cm of armor? Somehow not solid, not in a Linkor style

      Here I agree. It is necessary 200 mm. From 200 to 50 mm differentiated
      Quote: Analgin
      A heavy anti-ship missile will penetrate her right through

      Heavy RCC is a rare bird, and its dimensions are large. It’s not a bad target for near-air defense systems, but from its debris 200-50 mm will be perfectly protected.
      Quote: Analgin
      Plus, for confident shooting at the maximum distance, you will need at least an unmanned spotter.

      Well, this goodness is now in bulk. Yes, and no one has canceled the crackers in the ranks of the landing.
      Quote: Analgin
      technology "stealth" UAV with a pair of 2000lb bombs in the compartment

      and they will not be more expensive than a battleship?
  31. Persifal
    Persifal 14 May 2014 16: 02
    +1
    You're kidding. What other battleships? The armor will approximately double the displacement of any ship (with the same dimensions of the surface part). You can compare the dimensions and displacement of the TARK "Orlan" and the battleship "Aiova". Of course, such a miracle will be more difficult to sink, but this is not required in battle. 1-2 cruise missiles with 240 kg warhead will be removed from the radar of any ship. And as a result, we we get a useless armored trough. And batteries? Laughter, not weapons. The mass of 3 batteries on Aiove is about 9000 tons (and this is most likely without shells) !!! Only this comparison is enough. Other characteristics may not even be considered. For a clear comparison of the effectiveness of these I will give a stupid example of a piece of iron. If, for a Chinese motive, you put on the deck not batteries, but a 9K58 "Smerch" MLRS, then there will be about 200 pieces (this is together with the launcher and the calculation). I think this amount will be enough so that instead of any coast, to make a bay in 2 minutes, and their range is not 30-40 km but 90, and the accuracy is clearly better.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 15 May 2014 07: 31
      +1
      Quote: Persifal
      Yes you are joking. What other battleships? Armor will increase the displacement of any ship by about half
      The modern achievements of metallurgy in the field of high alloy steels and titanium alloys will allow the battleship to have a reservation equivalent to the 356 degree of protection - the 380-mm armor of earlier times, but of smaller thickness and mass, which will make it possible to redistribute the released mass and volumes for armament.
      Quote: Persifal
      Of course, to sink such a miracle will be more difficult, but it is not required in battle. 1-2 cruise missiles with 240 kg warhead will be removed from the radar system of any ship. And as a result, we get a useless armored trough.
      One of the most common anti-ship missiles in the West is the American Harpoon. It carries a warhead weighing 225 kg. In addition, this warhead is high-explosive, not suitable for penetrating thick armor. Most anti-ship missiles (ASMs) carry a combined - inertial and active radar - guidance system. The rocket is guided by the reflected radio signal at the largest object or at the target captured first. Therefore, target selection by the point of hitting the target is not carried out. Consequently, from the point of view of the theory of probability, the most probable point of hitting anti-ship missiles is the middle part of the hull and superstructures. And it is this part of the structure that is most protected in battleships. Moreover, even if the missile before striking the target makes a "slide" and hits the ship on the deck, for a battleship not everything is as tragic as for other types of ships. The fact is that it has an armored deck or even several decks with an aggregate thickness of 127-180 mm, which makes them practically impenetrable for high-explosive anti-ship missile warheads. Thus, for reliable destruction of a battleship, urgent development of missiles with a flight speed of about 650-700 m / s and more, with an armor-piercing warhead weighing 750-800 kg, will be required, which will entail (while maintaining a flight range of 120-180 km) a sharp an increase in the mass of anti-ship missiles (up to about 3-5 tons) and, accordingly, a decrease in the number of these missiles, lifted by one carrier aircraft. As for the incapacitation of the radar, this only means that they also need protection, and not that, because of their vulnerability, the ship itself does not need protection. Systems of the "Smerch" type in the naval version could well complement the battleship, but they will not completely replace the cannon artillery and the arsenal of long-range cruise missiles, all this combined with powerful protection and can reanimate battleships.
  32. Bene valete
    Bene valete 14 May 2014 16: 57
    +2
    Of course, battleships like the Second World War may be archaic, but the Russian fleet must be universal!
    It's just that everyone was carried away by supernova bells and whistles by plasma torches and so on ...)
    And real hostilities in the Real world, and not in Internet fantasy, sometimes bring very different “gifts” (Example: Syria, Ukraine).
    Take the water area of ​​the Black Russian Sea and look along the shores ... from our Crimea, and I think a solid ship with powerful artillery weapons - there will be more than enough work!
    Will we protect our territories in the Arctic with a temperature of minus 50 ° C, frozen LCD farts, with tin sides?
    That's just for the Arctic, a dozen such ships with ice reinforcement and with simple weapons like a Kalashnikov’s one will be just right !!!
  33. supertiger21
    supertiger21 14 May 2014 17: 33
    0
    Everything is very interestingly said. good but still I don’t agree that the battleship is more relevant than the aircraft carrier. Still, the AUG solves a much larger scope of tasks than the battleship.
  34. e_krendel
    e_krendel 14 May 2014 17: 54
    0
    Quote: Turik
    Barge + SPG = Battleship

    mini battleship. "Adult" battleships of 12 caliber and more had wink
  35. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 14 May 2014 18: 05
    +2
    Where Oleg is, there are battleships ... Or a kapets to aircraft carriers ... Or both ...

    Oleg, it’s time you already understand one simple thing - no one will hand over the carrier ships and build instead of them new battleships a la battleship ... Nobody ...
  36. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 18: 55
    +5
    In fact, no battleships, of course, are even needed.
    The problem of fire support for landing when landing on a well-protected coast exists, and this is a big problem that now, perhaps, no country in the world can adequately solve. But it’s ridiculous to think that some battleship will come and decide everything
    On 2 on June 1916, German troops under the command of General von Lochov using the forces of three army corps (First Bavarian, Tenth Reserve and Fifteenth Army) launched a powerful offensive. The aim of the strike was again the French defense lines located on the right bank of the Meuse River. After the traditional two-day artillery preparation (the ammunition consumption amounted to one hundred and fifty thousand shells per day), a furious attack began. The Germans planned to take possession of the powerful Fort Vaud and the last defensive line of the French defense, passing along the perimeter of Fleury, Fort Suuville and the fortifications of Thiomon and Frouad. If the conceived attack were successful, Verdun would be doomed. At the cost of simply crazy losses and an unimaginable amount of shells fired, the Tenth Germans reserve corps completely surrounded and tightly blocked the defenders of Fort Vaud

    An example of the second is the Dardanelles. Old, ancient Turkish forts, old artillery, including firing with stone (!!!) shells. Against them - 16 squadron battleships, battleship, battlecruiser, not counting other little things. The result is an absolute failure. It was not possible to destroy the Turkish forts - not one of them was destroyed by artillery fire.
    So you can make a battleship. But it is much easier to land troops outside the long-term defense of the enemy.
    Of course, some kind of support ship is needed. But rather, it should be some kind of monitor, booked from Edita Pieha to you go on ... in order to withstand the fire of field artillery and with a dozen six to eight-inch barrels
    1. Kars
      Kars 14 May 2014 20: 13
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The aim of the strike was again the French defense lines located on the right bank of the Meuse River. After the traditional two-day artillery preparation (the ammunition consumption amounted to one hundred and fifty thousand shells per day

      Well, yes you did a cool example))) positions that have been digging for months.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      An example of the second is the Dardanelles. Old, ancient Turkish forts, old artillery

      Why this and the first example to the present? To art radars, corrected projectiles, aerial photography and small disposable drones?
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Of course, some kind of support ship is needed

      well, at least something. doesn’t the universal missile and artillery fix? You need an armored monitor with a dozen conventional guns that have no special advantages over field artillery, and an expensive cardboard destroyer that’s afraid to go ashore and could die from a crazy rocket.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 May 2014 20: 53
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        Well, yes you did a cool example))) positions that have been digging for months.

        Someone there undertook to break the long-term fortifications that they build for months? :)
        Quote: Kars
        Why this and the first example to the present? To art radars, corrected projectiles, aerial photography and small disposable drones?

        The uselessness of battleships for breaking long-term fortifications.
        Quote: Kars
        Well, at least something. And the universal missile-artillery does not fix?

        That
        a) the most important task of such a ship will be the operational suppression of enemy firing points that were not detected / not hollowed by aircraft
        b) Super-calibers are not needed for this; the 6-8 inches indicated by me are quite enough. But fire performance is critical. A simple example. We land on the coast. Some inadequate decided to cover it with stationary batteries in concrete bunkers. These bunkers were sketched by the satellite before the start of the war, well, at the planning stage of the operation, they were taken out by aircraft / helicopters / missiles on the approach, and actually anything that can hit stationary targets.
        Disembark. And suddenly a battery of self-propelled guns disguised before that begins to hammer on us. No homing shells will help here - the exact exact coordinates of the self-propelled guns are unknown and there is no time for their installation. But having cut artillery reconnaissance and determining the flight path of enemy shells from a dozen trunks, we can simply fill the positions of self-propelled guns with fire.
        Moreover, there is always a considerable risk of losing the artillery ship - it needs to be close to the landing, therefore it should be as cheap as possible - it does not need rockets, super BIOS and superradars (except, perhaps, simple SAMs for self-defense) - all this should be on destroyers. On such a ship there should be only what the Esmans do not have - heavy artillery, controls, and armor. In fact, all these active-rocket shells on 150 km didn’t fall sideways to him - his task is to cover the landing, and for this it needs to be able to conduct fire combat from the force of kilometers on 30, maybe - 40
        1. Kars
          Kars 14 May 2014 21: 17
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          long-term fortifications that are built for months? :)

          But not hundreds of kilometers long, show me the analogues of the fortifications of the First World War, the Second World War and the post-war period.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The uselessness of battleships for breaking long-term fortifications.

          Here you are wrong. Now there are no such fortifications as in the First World War, and even Iowa in the old version would have dismantled the dardanyls.

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          a) the most important task of such a ship will be the operational suppression of enemy firing points that were not detected / not hollowed by aircraft

          what he will do with 6 inches at a short distance and with a huge expenditure of ammunition. This is the United States perfectly found out by the shooting of the atols, and in this case a massive use of aviation will be needed, and a neo-battleship will do without it, or with its minimal participation.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          b) For this, super-calibers are not needed, the inches indicated by me 6-8 are enough

          no not enough. The most optimal is from 10 to 14 inches. 16 too.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Yes, actually - anything that can hit stationary targets.
          I could build the bunkers, but there’s no air defense? How much is the miserable F-18 now?

          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          And suddenly a battery of self-propelled guns disguised before that begins to hammer on us. No homing shells will help here - the exact exact coordinates of the self-propelled guns are unknown

          and before that, half of the air shows and expensive levels were hit by dummy dots.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Dozens of barrels can simply fill the positions of self-propelled guns with fire.

          type 6 12 inches with cluster shells can do it slower and worse.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Moreover, there is always a considerable risk of losing the artillery ship - it needs to be near the landing, therefore it should be as cheap as possible - it does not need rockets, super BIOS and superradars (except, perhaps, simple SAMs for self-defense)

          in any case, except for the above Chinese, it will be as cheap as possible for a billion dollars, if not more.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          On such a ship should only be what the destroyers do not

          why the hell do they need those destroyers?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 May 2014 08: 42
            +1
            Quote: Kars
            But not hundreds of kilometers long, show me the analogues of the fortifications of the First World War, the Second World War and the post-war period.

            In the example I have cited, this is by no means a front of hundreds of klilometers, this time. Secondly, yes, at present it will be difficult to find coastal defense in concrete caponiers. Thirdly, analogues of the first world fortifications (field fortifications, trenches, dugouts, etc.) in the second world were more than actively used.
            Quote: Kars
            Here you are wrong. Now there are no such fortifications as in the First World War.

            And if not, then why then the battleship? :)))
            Quote: Kars
            what he will do with 6 inches at a short distance and with a huge expenditure of ammunition. This is the United States perfectly found out by the shooting of the atols, and it will require massive use of aviation, and the neolinkor will do without it

            on the "atolls" there was an extremely decent coastal defense, this time. And despite the presence of battleships, aviation was not done at all and in any way, these are two. And when the Americans landed, they had to gnaw through the Japanese defense with infantry and tanks, that's three.
            Quote: Kars
            I could build the bunkers, but there’s no air defense? How much is the miserable F-18 now?

            Firstly, 3 pennies for a concrete pillbox are completely incomparable with the enchanting cost of layered air defense. Secondly, correctly used aviation breaks any air defense. Thirdly, if there is no air supremacy over the landing territory, then when you try to bring the battleship and amphibious assault to the shore, enemy aircraft appear and drown everyone.
            Quote: Kars
            and before that, half of the air shows and expensive levels were hit by dummy dots.

            With artillery it will be the same
            Quote: Kars
            type 6 12 inches with cluster shells can do it slower and worse.

            Let's look at the ability to make explosives.
            In the 152 mm high explosive shell of the WWII times of the order of 6 kg of explosives
            In an 305-mm HE shell - from the strength of 50- 60 kg, let it be 60.
            Thus, an 305-mm installation with a rate of 3 rds / min will add 180 kg of explosives per minute, equivalent to 30 shells of 152-mm or 3 guns with a rate of 10 shells / min.
            1. Kars
              Kars 16 May 2014 22: 30
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In the example I have given, this is by no means a front of hundreds of klilometers, this time

              And how many miles?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              (field fortifications, trenches, dugouts, etc.) in the Second World War were more than actively used.

              True? Three-tier dugouts with a depth of 11 meters? And further. Even the strengthening of the course of the arc does not lie closely with the lines of Verdun or somma.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And if not, then why then the battleship? :)))

              To defeat the current as fortifications and moving targets.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              on the "atolls" there was an extremely decent coastal defense, this time. And despite the presence of battleships, aviation was not done at all and in any way, these are two.

              And despite the presence of aviation, it was not without battleships, but even without heavy cruisers and destroyers.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Thirdly, if there is no air supremacy over the landing territory, then when you try to bring the battleship and amphibious assault to the shore, enemy aircraft appear and drown everyone.
              And he drowns cardboard pelvis like the current destroyers, and the neolincor destroys enemy aircraft with his own anti-aircraft weapons, and does not burn from a crazy unexploded missile.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Firstly, 3 pennies for a concrete pillbox are completely incomparable with the enchanting cost of layered air defense

              Straight so shelled? I think the usual camouflage is also enough for a lot. And even a couple of shot down planes will already cool the ardor.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              With artillery it will be the same

              But cheaper and safer. How many battleships lost killed from their crews in Vietnam and Korea?

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Let's look at the ability to make explosives.

              not worth it. The 60 kg burst is more effective than a few hits of a smaller caliber.
              And then there's range, more stable trajectories
  37. Bosk
    Bosk 14 May 2014 19: 42
    0
    If I'm not mistaken, the destroyers of the "Modern" project were originally designed with a bias in support of the landing, but along the way, with all the changes and amendments, the ship turned out to be of a slightly different "orientation" and I must say a very good ship for that time, although of course they were too smart with engines And from all this "Support" only artillery remained and not bad by the way, I mean that the idea to create a support ship from time to time arises constantly, but somehow this thought constantly slows down later ... Maybe the reason is in narrow specialization?
  38. bk0010
    bk0010 15 May 2014 00: 31
    +1
    The Americans decided to set up a ship with "modern radars and fire control devices (like Aegis), complex ship automation." and 360 cruise missiles under shelling from the shore, covering only 10 cm of armor? They are crazy! If you make a ship art. support, then simple (so that you can repair or at least partially restore combat effectiveness) and cheap (because it will be a consumable, except for completely clinical cases, when all means of coastal defense are suppressed). And use all reserves to increase survivability, system redundancy and spaced booking. And from all troubles from the sea and the air, let those who protect the aircraft carrier cover it.
  39. SERGEYTSIKALUIK
    SERGEYTSIKALUIK 15 May 2014 01: 13
    +1
    On the Russian Landing Ships, the issue of fire support for the landing was resolved by installing the MLRS. Cheap and evil!
  40. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 15 May 2014 04: 02
    +5
    With all due respect to these beauties, but battleships are the last century. And they were built to fight the ships of the same type. But the realities were changing and the battleships were used to justify the costs of their construction. I don’t remember something, so that German battleships would be used to fire at military facilities in England, but they would use the FAA. Battleships, like the three-ruler legendary weapon, can still shoot, but other and more modern and other methods of military operations have replaced. hi
  41. denis02135
    denis02135 15 May 2014 04: 13
    0
    Gentlemen, the question of the amateur. And why a caliber of 400 or more if you can put a railgun when hit, the damage is probably more. If I’m not mistaken, 2016 will be a prototype will be tested on Zamvolte. The cost of the projectile is 25000 dollars, a range of 180 can reach 400 km, a speed of 2500 m / s.
    And the drone based on the battleship can do the target’s illumination, as they did in the first world seaplane, catapulting from battleships and other large ships while searching.
  42. lpd1
    lpd1 15 May 2014 06: 14
    0
    Everything will be determined by the power of electronic warfare. Whoever it will be more powerful and most invulnerable will be the winner wink
  43. xolod_22
    xolod_22 15 May 2014 08: 31
    +1
    Such battleships are needed precisely by the United States with their love to bring democracy. It is clear that such a ship will not be used against Russia or another country with powerful coastal defense and aviation. It is not needed for any kind of naval battles. But to suppress resistance, for example, on the coast Syria or a similar country is quite effective. The story with Lebanon is quite indicative. Thank you for the article.
  44. altman
    altman 15 May 2014 15: 42
    +1
    What is the point of endlessly sucking the same topic .. There will be no more battleships! The development of aviation has reached such a degree that it is not very difficult to deliver a nuclear charge and the area where such expensive toys are located .. As a result, they will sink the same way as an armored monster, a cardboard box with missiles ...
    1. schizophrenic
      schizophrenic 17 May 2014 21: 57
      0
      Quote: altman
      they’ll sink the same way that an armored monster, that cardboard box with missiles ...

      Not the same. The battleship will withstand the explosion and the box will sink. The Americans carried out explosions near the ships. The truth is, because of the received radiation, the crew will die, it all depends on the power and range of the explosion.
  45. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 16 May 2014 09: 31
    0
    I think that American admirals are simply nostalgic for these beautiful and spectacular ships. And I understand them. Battleship - sounds proudly. The ships are really beautiful. Being the captain of such a ship is a very ticklish feeling. A volley 12 "and above the gun looks very impressive.
    But ..
    Clear pepper, that there is nothing more destructive and demoralizing weapons, such as multiple launch rocket systems.
    Well, we are armed with ship hailstones. What will prevent us from putting the "Smerch" on the ship? Or something more advanced? This is if you work along the shore.
    And at sea, it has long been proven that aviation with anti-ship missiles has no alternatives. There is nothing to discuss here.

    Again, I repeat. I understand the nostalgia of American generals. Even in a raid, a battleship looks more aesthetically pleasing than an aircraft carrier.
  46. Glaz8000
    Glaz8000 19 May 2014 19: 04
    0
    The "teapot" question. 1. Why can't the alleged neolinkor be armed with drones? For example, 2-4 AWACS and 6-8 drone drone, carrying a couple of anti-ship missiles. 2. What prevents the creation of MLRS systems with a range of 300+ km and equipping large ships with them? 3. Well, and a completely stupid question - is it possible to create an AWACS based on a helicopter / seaplane and place them on a battleship?