Military Review

The phenomenon of armored ships

266



This article contains answers to the comments left by readers during the debate about the need for constructive defense in the military navy.

Here you are proving what you want, only no country in the world builds armored ships. And in the foreseeable future will not build.

“Why encourage a way of waging a war that does not give anything to a people who already have the primacy of the sea, and who, if successful, can lose this primacy”, - said Admiral Lord Jervis about the submarine designed by Robert Fulton.

The Yankees are already running to write off their 84 Aegis and lay modern “armored vehicles” in their place. The version with the “admiral conspiracy” does not claim to be the highest truth, but it is at least logical and has a real historical precedent. How cautious the British once rejected the idea of ​​submarine warfare! What is not the answer to all skeptics - why no one is working on the security of modern ships.



The appearance of a highly protected warship will produce an effect similar to the “Dreadnought”. All NATO missile destroyers in one moment will be “second-rate” ships. All tactics and arsenals of the existing anti-ship will become outdated weapons. And if Russia had taken the lead with such a project, it would have raised the prestige of our fleet and overnight made the surface component of the Navy the strongest in the world.

However, first things first ...

The epoch of armor and a couple is long over. Whatever the fans of the battleships wrote there, the battleships are a thing of the past.

The battleship is an ugly, deep-set, thick-skinned monster. But every feat of battleships, battleships and heavy cruisers of the WWII era is an example of the highest combat stability.

Interest is not so much the battleships themselves, as their combat "scars". Type of ammunition used, location of hit, list of damage recorded.

The phenomenon of armored ships


As a rule, monstrous power munitions were used to destroy them, capable of breaking the modern ship to shreds. However, ships of past eras staunchly held a blow and only in rare cases had serious problems.

Unfortunately, the majority of readers do not pay any attention to this, starting to discuss the gauss cannons of the dreadnoughts of the future.

And here the guns? This is a constructive defense!

Whatever the fans of armor were saying, the highly protected ships stopped building right after the Second World War.

The reasons are given as examples (answers are given in brackets):

- nuclear weapons (damn two, all tests, on the contrary, showed exceptional resistance of ships to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons);

- rocket weapons (where armor-piercing shells did not cope, there is no one to frighten rockets. In overcoming armor, speed and mass do not solve anything. The main thing is mechanical strength, which missiles never had);

- development aviation (in the mid-50s. reactive attack aircraft could raise a couple of tons of bombs and fill the ship with them from bow to stern. It was impossible to prevent this: the anti-aircraft missiles were too imperfect, the air defense of the ships remained at the level of the war years).

In fact, with the end of the war, shipbuilding technologies were frozen for 10 years. When serial construction was once again improved, it turned out that in the era of rocket weapons, big ships would be useless. Rockets and electronics fit easily in a case with a displacement of less than 10 thousand tons. Further, the flywheel unwound, the designers began to facilitate the ships as much as possible. After all, in the case of the Third World War, they don’t last long enough: high-precision missiles hit the target with the first shot. And in general, ships are unlikely to fight ...

However, I had to fight. And it was a shame to lose a destroyer from one unexploded rocket. Or from a bag of a solarium with fertilizers. This is where the designers' disgrace - the superbjector for a billion dollars is completely out of order, having lost part of the crew’s 1 / 5 (undermining USS Cole)


The number of people killed on the Eagle was 25 people (of the 900 aboard). Now let my opponents prove to the crew of the “Eagle” that armor is an unnecessary whim.


The Eagle itself was completely broken. It hit over 50 projectiles of large and medium caliber (anyone can count the equivalent of modern missiles). However, this makes no sense. If the ship, by the will of circumstances, allows unpunished execution of itself for many hours, then no armor will help it.

Modern ammunition pierce any obstacle. The eternal dispute "shield vs sword" ended with an unconditional victory of the means of attack. Covering up armor is useless.

What brilliantly proves the continuous increase in the mass of land armored vehicles (example: “Kurganets”, 25 tons - twice as heavy as armored personnel carriers of the Soviet period).

The ship is not a tank. Despite the huge size of the citadel, it is easier to protect it than an armored vehicle.

Reserved volume tank - just a few cubic meters. meters. The ship this figure is tens of thousands of cubic meters!

That is why ships are not afraid of cumulative ammunition. In the first compartment from the side, there is no ammunition, critical systems and mechanisms. And ahead - a developed system of splinterproof bulkheads, which will absorb and stop any shard and penetrator.

The purpose of constructive protection is to distort the design of armor-piercing ammunition to such an extent that even when the defense is broken through, the remaining warhead could not cause significant damage to the ship. You can fence multi-stage warheads, install boosters and cumulative preloads, as a result, only solid scrap can fly into the depths of the hull, tearing off several distribution boards and striking sparks when meeting bulkheads.


Any ship (even a destroyer) is monstrously large compared to everything we are used to encounter in everyday life. Hit you with a crowbar, he won't notice

On the other hand, it is possible to increase the initial mass of the warhead so that the “scrap” contains at least some amount of explosives (while maintaining a high mechanical strength and filling ratio of a few%). Alas, in this case, the launch mass of the rocket will exceed all permissible limits, reducing the number of possible carriers to several pieces. And the dimensions and EPR of such a rocket will please anti-aircraft gunners.

It is much more profitable to spend reserves not on an array of ceramics and metal, but on active means of protection.

As evidenced by the cruiser Chancelorsville, punched by a drone. The Aegis system failed to intercept the BQM-74 target, imitating a subsonic low-flying anti-ship missile, despite the absence of a warhead, the ship was damaged in 15 million dollars.



Experts will now come and explain that Aegis knew everything, and the “human factor” spoiled everything. They saw - they did not report, they reported, but not to that, they pressed, but not the wrong button ... What the hell is the difference, these are the problems of Aegis itself. The main result is a punched superstructure.

Here is another hero, the stark frigate (1987 year). We are arguing here now, and there 37 people turned into mincemeat.



Of course, it was just a frigate. If there was a Starck site, a full-fledged cruiser Chancellorsville with the Aegis system ... then it would be a 137 of the dead. Charred chest. And a bottle of rum.

Active remedies do not cope with the task.

“Sheffield”, “Stark”, Israeli “Hanit” (2006), “Chancelorsville” (2013). Every time, there is a reason why a rocket breaks through to the target.

In this case, noticing the danger even in time and knocking down a rocket, active means do not guarantee peace of mind.

10 February 1983, the Antrim frigate almost died during the shooting firing. His six-barreled antiaircraft gun riddled the target, which collapsed into the water in 500 meters from the side. But then drama laws intervened. The flaming debris of the drone ricocheted from the water and after a couple of seconds overtook the frigate. The superstructure was pierced, the fire started. Fortunately, the losses among the crew turned out to be small - only one dead.

A warship must be prepared for the fact that sooner or later he will have to be hit.

Unable to protect radar and external antenna devices.

Everything in this life would be possible.

For example, “Zamvolt” with retractable antennas. Destroy them all at once will not work: they can not be used simultaneously for reasons of electromagnetic compatibility.

Here are the stationary HEADLIGHTS mounted on the walls of the superstructure and improvised prism-like masts. To destroy all four antennas will require four times to get into the ship from different directions.



Composite radiotransparent fairings - for additional protection of the antenna web from small fragments and a blast wave. Moreover, the active phased array maintains its performance even when “knocking out” a part of its receiving and transmitting modules. And modern microcircuits (unlike gyros and fine mechanics) are extremely resistant to strong vibrations. Destroy such an antenna can only be a direct hit.

Perhaps for someone it will be a discovery, but with the loss of the radar only air defense will suffer. All other functions of the ship will remain in full. To launch “Harpoons” and “Calibrov” on targets beyond the horizon (hereinafter referred to as 20-30 km), radars are not needed. By virtue of the laws of nature, target designation is carried out only by external means (airplanes, satellites, intelligence data). While the satellite phone can be in the pocket of each officer (I exaggerate, but the essence is clear).

“Knock out” the radar, suppress the air defense system, after falling asleep the helpless ship with ordinary bombs.

Such an operation would require an air army. And while the enemies will "suppress" his air defenses, the protected ship will complete the task. And there will be a help already ...

One torpedo under the keel - and goodbye!

The number of combat-capable submarines worldwide two orders less the number of combat aircraft.

The main threat is a means of air attack.

No matter how well protected the ship is, it will require costly repairs after the battle.

It is better to immediately burn and sink, along with the crew.

Booking will affect the size of the ship.

Modern destroyers have already grown to 15 thousand tons. Against this background, a reasonable increase in constructive protection will pass almost unnoticed.

While the international treaties limiting the displacement of warships, in our time are absent.

Together with security will increase the cost!

Is it really not worth the high-tech “stuffing” of the ship? (as well as human lives)





How much will the cost of the ship increase with the addition of constructive protection? Against the background of superradars, gas turbines, reactors and combat information centers.

After all, it is known that the Orly Burke corps itself costs less than the Aegis system installed on the destroyer.

What to make armor? From titanium? Or from rhodium alloys?

Krupp armored steel with cemented top layer.

Ceramics and Kevlar are suitable for internal splinterproof bulkheads.

Those who claim that bombs easily pierce the ground and reinforced concrete do not understand the catastrophic difference between the ground and high-grade armor steel. Each of us can drive a shovel into the ground over the entire tray - but try to leave at least a scratch on the tank's “skin”! As well as driving a nail into a rail (although with a nailing gun the gun easily pushes them into the panel of houses).

How much effort - to bend a sheet of metal with a thickness of 5 inches.

Wow, 100 years ago massively built dreadnoughts with 12-inch armor, but now they can't. Despite progress in the field of metalworking and increasing productivity.

And how many countries can highly protected ships allow themselves?

Do many countries have an ocean fleet?

Just as at one time only six of the most developed countries of the world had real battleships.

What would such a ship look like?

An infinite variety of layout options, using modern technologies.

Thickness-differentiated external protection (3-5 inches). Integration of armor plates in the power body kit. “Iron-shaped” forms, reminiscent of the overseas “Zamvolt”: rational armor installation angles + a radical reduction in the upper deck area. Developed system of internal protivosklochnyh bulkheads Listed measures to protect external antenna posts.

Total displacement - about 20 thousand tons.

The composition of weapons - like the three destroyers “Burke”.

Anyone who does not believe in the possibility of building such a well-armed and protected ship in the specified dimensions - please contact the creators of “Queen Elizabeth” (the ultimate dreadnought model 1912), or, for analogue load items, TKR of “De Moine” type (1944) .

What will such a ship do?

Go safely to military conflict zones, patrol in “hot spots” (the coast of Syria, the Persian Gulf). In the event of war - to act where the ordinary ship will die almost immediately. In peacetime - to cool with your mind the lush heads of enemies. Get new allies, demonstrating the power and technical superiority of the country, under the flag of which this masterpiece walks.

Why is it still not built?

See item number XXUMX.
Author:
266 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. i80186
    i80186 2 September 2015 06: 00 New
    -10
    There is such a thing - a neutron weapon.
    “The powerful neutron flux is not delayed by ordinary steel armor and penetrates much more strongly through barriers than x-ray or gamma radiation, not to mention alpha and beta particles. In particular, 150 mm of armor steel holds up to 90% of gamma radiation and only 20% of fast neutrons. The astonishing effect of neutron weapons on technology is due to the interaction of neutrons with structural materials and electronic equipment, which leads to the appearance of induced radioactivity and, as a consequence, disruption of functioning. "
    Such are the things. "Krupovskaya steel" here and does not smell. Here depleted uranium is needed, boron, anti-nuclear rebounds from polyethylene. How will they behave when conventional ammunition hits, and what to do with uranium, a thin smeared explosion on a ship heated by brightly burning polyethylene, set on fire by a cumulative jet? There will be no armored ships. smile
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 13 New
      +15
      Quote: i80186
      There is such a thing - a neutron weapon.

      No such thing

      for details - to the screenwriters of Mosfilm and Hollywood
      1. i80186
        i80186 2 September 2015 08: 20 New
        +4
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        No such thing

        And why then did the anti-nuclear gunpowder on tanks appear in the 60s? To burn more fun? smile
        Read about it on Mosfilm W-70-mod-0.
        1. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 08: 36 New
          -4
          Quote: i80186
          And why then did the anti-nuclear loot on tanks from the 60's appear?

          Are you going to use nuclear weapons?
          1. i80186
            i80186 2 September 2015 08: 41 New
            +8
            Do you think that an armed conflict with the United States is possible without the use of nuclear weapons? Do not make me laugh. smile
            1. Santa Fe
              2 September 2015 08: 50 New
              0
              Quote: i80186
              Is an armed conflict with the United States possible without the use of nuclear weapons?

              1. Absolutely
              none of the top leadership of the Russian Federation and the United States dare to press the "red button"
              hence the main plot of the cold war: Russian tanks rush to the English Channel, the Yankees carry reinforcements across the Atlantic. From here - the amers had FRAM and 150 anti-submarine frigates, we had multipurpose submarines and PLARK

              2. In addition to the Russian Federation and the USA, there are still 198 countries
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 2 September 2015 19: 57 New
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                none of the top leadership of the Russian Federation and the United States dare to press the "red button"

                And where does the "red button" and tactical nuclear charge of 1-2 kilotons? Torpedoes and cruise missiles with nuclear weapons are a very likely means of fighting.
              2. Wasiliy1985
                Wasiliy1985 9 September 2015 23: 46 New
                0
                None of those who had tactical nuclear weapons were going to withdraw from armament, but, on the contrary, were only improving it. This is for your reference. Peace-loving hippies in the style of Libya, Iraq and Yugoslavia have already been erased from the political map of the world, if you still do not know ..
          2. brn521
            brn521 2 September 2015 11: 22 New
            +5
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Are you going to use nuclear weapons?

            If tactical and on ships - easily. Unlike land use, collateral damage is low, ships are destroyed and damaged. Radiation pollution takes over the ocean. And there is no question of pressing red buttons. It is one thing to destroy a group of ships, another is to strike on a land surface, with pollution and civilian casualties. Those. it will be the problem for the injured party whether to press the red button due to failed plans and the lost fleet and whether to start a war of annihilation in which anyone wins, but not she.
            1. I do not care
              I do not care 2 September 2015 15: 58 New
              +1
              excuse me, but figs to you - the states have completely conducted a test hitting the apples in the guard order for aug ALL ships remained afloat, crew survival is still a great mystery
              1. Throw
                Throw 2 September 2015 17: 55 New
                +1
                The article is interesting, but extremely speculative - not a single example of a reservation scheme, layout changes, estimates of increased displacement, reduction of performance characteristics. And then maybe it’s not worth breaking the spears ..

                And about the reservation I remembered a good quote from the forum Courage

                I recall that the Japanese and Americans studied the experience of the British raid on Taranto. But the conclusions were different. The Americans sighed in relief - the bombs did not penetrate the deck armor of the battleships. Therefore, the defense of Pearl Harbor was limited to a bono-net fence and mining. And the Japanese stupidly welded stabilizers to armor-piercing shells and began training ...
                1. Santa Fe
                  2 September 2015 19: 16 New
                  +4
                  And what did they achieve with their bombs


                  All battleships except Arizona were damaged by torpedoes. Yankees forgot to put the network
                  And Arizona could break through with the usual bomb, the 1915 dreadnought of the year with no horizontal protection
              2. brn521
                brn521 3 September 2015 13: 13 New
                +1
                Quote: me by
                ... falling into the security order ...

                And who is talking about strikes on the area? The same missiles and torpedoes, whose task is to achieve the goal and undermine. That's just when using nuclear warhead hit is no longer needed. An explosion of 20ct at a distance of 200m for any ship is a total overkill. Another thing is that during the trials on the Bikini Atoll and Novaya Zemlya, these unfortunate 20kt were for happiness. Now this is not a problem, the technologies have been developed, including for small calibers.
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 2 September 2015 23: 47 New
              +5
              Quote: brn521
              If tactical and on ships - easily.
              Read and understand the primer at least for yourself who gives permission to use tactical nuclear weapons!
              Quote: brn521
              It’s one thing to destroy a group of ships, another thing is to hit a land surface,
              A ship is not a tank! Destruction of any ship is a declaration of war on the flag state! For the ship is the sovereign territory of the flag state. Destruction of a large surface ship is a national tragedy requiring revenge! So, with impunity, even one ship cannot be destroyed openly without consequences, not to mention a group of ships.
              Quote: brn521
              whether to press the red button
              This is a political decision. The business of the military is to carry out the orders! Including the use of doomsday weapons!
          3. kocclissi
            kocclissi 2 September 2015 18: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Are you going to use nuclear weapons?

            And then why?
            According to the new version of the military doctrine, the Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when it is compromised the very existence of the state.

            RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20141226/1040317907.html#ixzz3kb0ALQeP
            1. kocclissi
              kocclissi 2 September 2015 18: 44 New
              +2
              Booking "Iowa" - the main internal armored belt (310 mm) gradually passed into the lower one, which was part of the ship’s anti-torpedo protection system
              -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
              ----
              - In the morning came the battleships and heavy cruisers, who fired 2500 shells of the main and medium caliber into the Bismarck. Then they threw four torpedoes into it. Finally, the “wunderwaffe” sank. It would seem that only one torpedo ruined a first-class ship! Rare luck. Which did not have to rely on in subsequent battles .----------------------------------------- ------------------------------
              ------------
              1. tomket
                tomket 2 September 2015 23: 07 New
                0
                Quote: kocclissi
                Rare luck. Which did not have to rely on in subsequent battles .----------------------------------------- ------------------------------

                ------------

                “Golden bullets” quite often hit the target. In the story with “Bismarck” there are already TWO!
          4. Wasiliy1985
            Wasiliy1985 9 September 2015 23: 42 New
            0
            No, damn it, the blanks of the times of Tsushima will be exchanged.
            Olezhek, wake up, you are not a department of the headquarters of the Navy, you are a "boy" who has read books about battleships ..
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 2 September 2015 09: 28 New
          +1
          Against fast neutrons use armor with an addition to the Boron alloy.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 3 September 2015 19: 53 New
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            use armor with an addition to boron alloy

            Niels? laughing
        3. 17085
          17085 2 September 2015 09: 49 New
          +3
          Quote: i80186
          And why then did the anti-nuclear gunpowder on tanks appear in the 60s? To burn more fun?
          Read about it on Mosfilm W-70-mod-0.


          And here is the anti-nuclear strike (depleted uranium !?) and the neutron bomb (a neutron weapon is just funny (it's kind of funnier than funny)), which type was invented, but can't do?
          "I heard a ringing but I don’t know where it is ..." At VO there was a series of articles about nuclear weapons tests at sea, read ... you are our neutron.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 2 September 2015 23: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: 17085
            At VO there was a series of articles about testing nuclear weapons at sea, read ... you are our neutron.

            Yes, the ships did not immediately sink, but nobody canceled the filtration of water, the breakdown of mechanisms from the foundations. So, vigorous weapons significantly affect the combat readiness of ships!
        4. remy
          remy 2 September 2015 15: 52 New
          +3
          neutron radiation calmly stops plexiglass!
          but in general the article is excellent!
          It would be cool if TARK Admiral Nakhimov, the one on modernization:
          . would equip with 150 mm armor around the perimeter!
          . ZRAKI 8 pieces, as it were already! from the breakthrough of RCC in the near zone!
          . Well, the total ammunition: 200 missiles, 80 anti-ship missiles, 20 missiles
          Well, three helicopters for overseas target designation are already available!
        5. Maxwrx
          Maxwrx 2 September 2015 22: 14 New
          +1
          By the way, on all our new tanks starting from about the 90s (maybe I’m wrong with the year, I’ve read it for a long time), they began to install the Kevlar ballistic shatter, instead of the anti-atomic one. in the usa and europe like even earlier. so no one is seriously preparing for a nuclear war.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 2 September 2015 22: 29 New
            +2
            Quote: MaxWRX
            By the way, on all our new tanks starting from about the 90s (maybe I’m wrong with the year, I’ve read it for a long time), they began to install the Kevlar ballistic shatter, instead of the anti-atomic one. in the usa and europe like even earlier. so no one is seriously preparing for a nuclear war.

            Dear MaxWRX, that’s not the point.

            The tank (at the sudden start of the database) must also be withdrawn from the park, at least .. for the battalion, for example, it is half an hour (if all is successful). From the moment of the start of the l / s from the location to the park and until the mafia leaves the gates thereof.

            The tank lives in battle for six minutes (I was taught this). What, see .. antiatomic ?? So burn, for a sweet soul ..

            No sloff recourse
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 September 2015 00: 01 New
            +1
            Quote: MaxWRX
            so no one is seriously preparing for a nuclear war.
            This is you * China * tell me, maybe then they will stop digging their endless tunnels!
      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 September 2015 10: 28 New
        +3
        Here is the definition of a neutron weapon:
        "A neutron weapon is a type of nuclear weapon that has an increased fraction of the energy of the explosion released in the form of neutron radiation to destroy manpower, enemy weapons and radioactive contamination of the area with limited damaging effects of the shock wave and light radiation. Due to the rapid absorption of neutrons by the atmosphere, neutron high power ammunition
        ineffective; the power of neutron warheads usually does not exceed
        several kilotons of TNT equivalent and are classified as tactical nuclear weapons "

        I must say, although a neutron weapon was born against dense groups of tanks, but its most effective use is precisely against a single large ship.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn 2 September 2015 11: 22 New
          -4
          contamination of the area with limited damaging effects of the shock wave

          dirty bomb or what? As far as I know, the woodpecker in Chernobyl, due to infection, covered the antenna
        2. goose
          goose 2 September 2015 12: 40 New
          +2
          Ordinary water is best kept against the neutron flux, you just need 40 meters of it for reliable cover. Only nuclear submarines will survive in a nuclear conflict, and even then not for long.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 3 September 2015 00: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: goose
            Only nuclear submarines will survive in a nuclear conflict, and even then not for long.
            At least twice as long as autonomy for provisions.
    2. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 2 September 2015 10: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: i80186
      In particular, 150 mm of armor steel holds up to 90% of gamma radiation and only 20% of fast neutrons.

      Boron carbide however all
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 September 2015 23: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: i80186
      There will be no armored ships.

      Entirely armored - will not.
      But booking and constructive protection of the most important parts of the ship’s hull is an axiom of today's shipbuilding.
  2. ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 2 September 2015 06: 10 New
    +9
    I understood one thing from the article: the author really likes heavily armored ships ...
    A modern hand grenade launcher pierces about 1000 mm of homogeneous steel, while weighing several kilograms. What can a cumulative charge weighing several hundred kilograms (warhead missiles) produce?
    The combat stability in the fleet is achieved primarily by competent selection of warships in the warrant and the coordinated work of the crew ....
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 2 September 2015 07: 11 New
      +14
      Purely cumulative, by and large nothing, since the defeat is due to the impact of a cumulative stream, drops of metal, debris. Another thing is that a high-explosive cumulative warhead is used in anti-ship missiles. An ammunition caliber allows you to make a large-diameter charge, which gives a massive and long cumulative jet, followed by a high-explosive warhead and an engine with fuel residues. In complex warheads, several cumulative funnels located at an angle to the axis of the rocket were used. Such ammunition worked like a few knives, and then a high-explosive charge flew in.
    2. avt
      avt 2 September 2015 08: 14 New
      +5
      Quote: ziqzaq
      I understood one thing from the article: the author really likes heavily armored ships ...

      But I didn’t read further than the title, it’s immediately clear that Oleg Kaptsov went on the warpath with the battleship Zumvolt, which was actually confirmed by the presence of pictures at the end of the article. laughing It is a pity that Oleg writes only about the unsinkable and all-conquering ,, Zumvolt ", could have tempted him with an article about the invincible, not killed and not burning," Abrams " laughing Well, after all, Usovskaya’s advertisements about this invincible tank are more than Zumvolt’s, and they’ve actually managed to fight. wassatThat would be the case! laughing Everything is more fun than remakes for Zumvolt to turn over, there’s even something we’ll not crucify about it so much.
    3. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2015 13: 53 New
      +1
      you repeat, like a robot, the dogma of naval tactics
      and at the same time, nonsense, comparing potential targets of a hand grenade launcher with ships.
      if you want to compare with a grenade launcher, then this weapon is like Greek fire, with the same range. This is me to the fact that the weight of the warhead in a few kilograms should deliver several by several other kilograms
    4. spiolist pas harp
      spiolist pas harp 2 September 2015 15: 42 New
      0
      Quote: ziqzaq
      author really likes heavily armored ships ...

      The author, most likely, is sleeping and sees how the resources of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation are squandered into wunderwaffles (albeit small ones). laughing
      It is necessary to finish what has been started, and not rush to extremes. How many submarines were laid, Armata should be launched into the series, what was decided with the White Swans (or PAK YES?), The T-50 can’t wait in the army ... Thank God, even destroyers and submarines are launched at least with a tortoise pitch.
      And he... fool
      Quote: Comrade Sukhov
      "Peacocks, you say? Heh ..."
    5. Orlenok ILLI4A
      Orlenok ILLI4A 3 September 2015 02: 11 New
      0
      Yes, everything is just a high-explosive cumulative part and kirdyk.
  3. Bongo
    Bongo 2 September 2015 06: 14 New
    +4
    The Yankees are already running to write off their 84 “Aegis” and lay modern “armored vehicles” in their place
    Are they all writing off all at once? no Oleg, with all due respect, should not be so categorical.

    Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke for a long time will form the basis of the American Navy. Moreover, it is planned to build new Burks.
    Of the 27 cruisers of the UIC of the Ticonderoga type, 22 cruisers remain in service. They wrote off mainly the early-built cruisers with double-beam universal launchers for launching rockets of the Harpoon rocket, Standard missiles and anti-submarine ASROK.
  4. EGOrkka
    EGOrkka 2 September 2015 06: 19 New
    +5
    An interesting article, but there is one thing - (in my opinion the dreadnought time has passed) - it’s better to build a thousand drones with 10 missiles than one dreadnought with 1000 missiles. Both in terms of mass and cost, it will be the same, but most likely not in terms of efficiency. Although I think that 1000 drones can be in 1000 places and 1 dreadnought in one.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: EGOrkka
      thousand drones with 10 missiles

      drones will not solve the problem of zonal air defense / missile defense and anti-aircraft defense

      in turn, such tasks will require equipment worth 2-3 billion dollars. And such a "high-tech" is a pity to lose that one RCC
      1. EGOrkka
        EGOrkka 2 September 2015 13: 00 New
        +1
        SWEET_SIXTEEN
        drones will not solve the problem of zonal air defense / missile defense and anti-aircraft defense


        Your logic is strange: in one product everything and everything is possible, but 1000 products are impossible ?! oh? smile
  5. D-Master
    D-Master 2 September 2015 06: 39 New
    +4
    In this scenario, the easiest way to join. They have reserved Iowa class battleships. Who fought last time in Iraq. They are beautifully armored. Of them, if desired, they can fashion candy - Newlinkor. However, they are in no hurry to do this. Future will tell .
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 2 September 2015 09: 09 New
      +4
      Quote: D-Master
      In this scenario, the easiest way to join. They have reserved Iowa class battleships. Who fought last time in Iraq. They are beautifully armored. Of them, if desired, they can fashion candy - Newlinkor.

      No longer no All of these battleships turned into museums, without any chance of returning to duty.

      Goole Earth Satellite Image: USS Missouri BB-63 at Pearl Harbor
      1. spiolist pas harp
        spiolist pas harp 2 September 2015 15: 50 New
        +7
        Quote: Bongo
        No longer no All these battleships turned into museums, without any chance to return in build.

        belay You're deceiving me crying I saw the movie "Sea Battle". Yes, humans, with the help of these battleships, more aliens will win! tongue
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 September 2015 00: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: Bongo
        All of these battleships turned into museums, without any chance of returning to duty.
        Before becoming museums, these battleships underwent a major overhaul with a bulkhead and a complete revision of the machines. The only problem is the main caliber shells. And the rest: backwaters - and let's go!
        In a word - the Yankees
    2. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2015 13: 55 New
      0
      to make candy out of them, you need to thoroughly dismantle them
      cheaper to rebuild.
  6. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 2 September 2015 07: 15 New
    0
    Well, how much can you procrastinate the same thing ?!
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 17 New
      +8
      Quote: Arctidian
      Well, how much can you procrastinate the same thing ?!

      Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota
        Mera joota 2 September 2015 08: 58 New
        +7
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ukraine, Poroshenko, Dombas

        Indeed Oleg, so many words in the article and nothing about Ukraine ...
        1. AUL
          AUL 2 September 2015 09: 06 New
          +3
          Actually, not Dombas, but Donbas. tongue
  7. strannik1985
    strannik1985 2 September 2015 07: 17 New
    +2
    On the first point. So what, that in RN reacted negatively to the idea of ​​submarine warfare? The development of the submarine fleet did not slow down at all; in World War I, submarines were massively used. Or do we have an international conspiracy?
    For the rest. For the tenth time, grind examples of tests of still Soviet anti-ship missiles on ships? Meaning? Anyway, with zero effect.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: strannik1985
      The development of the submarine fleet did not slow down at all

      slowed down on xnumx years
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фултон,_Роберт
      Quote: strannik1985
      in World War I massively used submarines

      Germans
      Quote: strannik1985
      For the tenth time, grind examples of tests of still Soviet anti-ship missiles on ships?

      Tell me something interesting

      about 55 sq. m hole in the skin of the TKR "Stalingrad" - from getting subsonic KSSh with an inert warhead (who is the source of this nonsense? Nonsense - because it contradicts the whole history of battles at sea. Even hard-bodied blanks weighing 1225 kg (Mk.8 APC) did not leave such damage at two sound speeds)

      Or about the cruiser Nakhimov. After 12 hours (when rescuers reached the target cruiser), they found a hole in the waterline area. By that time, the cruiser had already taken 1500 tons of water. And, of course, stood with a roll on the forehead.

      So put it on an even keel - Naturally, the hole will be above the waterline. The missile went above the armored belt (the cruisers of those years had a specific reservation scheme - with thick airplanes in the area of ​​the KVL)
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 2 September 2015 13: 03 New
        +1
        And why not the "hidden vessel" of Peter the Great? As soon as the accumulated amount of technology (metals, reliable engines, etc.), the mass development of the submarine fleet began.

        So what? Did German submarines fulfill their mission?
        RN was given the task of ensuring supremacy at sea, submarines here which side? Didn’t the submarine component develop in the English fleet?

        If you have your own information about the tests of the KSSh so share it, what is the problem?
        The initial speed of 406 mm Mk8 armor-piercing projectile from the mark7 gun 762 m / s (HE-820 m / s). This is the initial speed, the farther, the lower it is.
        The weight of the rocket without fuel and starter is 2281 kg (plus 220 kg of fuel), cruising speed 260-280 m / s. The weight of the warhead is 620 kg. That is, the weight of the rocket is twice as much. What is the problem?
        Inaccuracy. It’s a FIRE on Nakhimov for 12 hours to extinguish, the time for which I got to the target did not meet me. If you have your sources, could you indicate them?

        Another test of anti-ship missiles for the destroyer "Boy" in 1961. The rocket opened the deck from the stern to the bow of the AU.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 2 September 2015 17: 58 New
          +2
          There are tests about KS-1. Red Caucasus. The mass is the same. Slower speed. He withstood as a target more than a dozen hits (600kg of blank was flashing through two sides of 75mm of armor, the outlet was 10 square meters.). Drowned in the final test a dozen times the cruiser perforated by landing with the warhead. It is clear that there was no smell of normal repair there. Dolby long and hard.

          But the red Caucasus first was out of date already. Secondly, it had a displacement of 8200 (the destroyer now). In the third, there were more than a dozen through penetrations of 600 kg by blanks. And only at the end of the tests he was finished off. Most of the hits were in the center of the ship. And they thought that he should not drown.

          We look further. About the building of Stalingrad is generally stupid. The crew was not removed from there during the FIRE tests. According to the Germans Aircraft Carrier, he was generally hardly sunk in tests as a mess.

          On KShchS still more interesting. 1600 tons of water is a hole of 0,01 sq. Meters in 6 hours of water supply. They extinguished it for 12 hours. The problem is most likely that the steel plate did not touch the armor at all. And she went under water after a long flow of water.
  8. Per se.
    Per se. 2 September 2015 07: 21 New
    +27
    Yes, there are arguments, such as, a hand-held grenade launcher punches about 1000 mm of homogeneous steel, weighs several kilograms at the same time, and, what, tanks were refused armor? You can also add that a bullet, in a few grams, kills a healthy guy under the center weight in body armor, so did the infantry die out as a species, did they refuse to perfect helmets and body armor? Enough to argue with the obvious, if booking a ship increases its survivability, increases the protection of sailors, the armor should return to the ships, it's worth it. At one time, armor was not sacrificed to a small extent due to devouring displacement by bulky computers and the first missiles, now electronics has become incomparably more compact, almost what used to be a room as a computer began to mix in a laptop, tablet, smartphone. Missile weapons also became much more advanced, and new alloys of armor, composites, ceramics, and active protection appeared. In general, it is strange that the obvious still needs to be proved, no one calls for building dreadnoughts, but the topic of increasing the survivability of warships has long been relevant, in this I agree with the author of the article.
    1. brn521
      brn521 2 September 2015 13: 04 New
      -4
      Quote: Per se.
      Enough to argue with the obvious, if booking a ship increases its survivability, increases the protection of sailors, the armor should return to the ships, it's worth it.

      Booking aircraft will also increase their survivability and crew protection.
      1. vrach
        vrach 2 September 2015 14: 15 New
        +4
        Su-25, Su-34 booked.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 2 September 2015 20: 43 New
        +8
        Quote: brn521
        Booking aircraft will also increase their survivability and crew protection.
        In vain, you’re ironic, the armor has long been in military aviation, the same armored pilot seats, frontal armored glass, in some places the reservation is especially careful, to armor capsules and armor plates, for example, on attack aircraft (our Su-25), Mi-24 combat helicopters (and Mi -35), Mi-28, Ka-52. I myself like to joke, but there are things where it’s stupid to joke, even the government drives armored cars in peacetime, why should sailors fight on “aluminum cans”?
        1. brn521
          brn521 3 September 2015 11: 14 New
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          In vain irony

          I’m ironic in the subject. According to the logic of Oleg, these your Mi-24/35, Ka-52, Su-25 and Su-34 are no good. They are shot down by SAMs (in the case of a successful hit of course), and an ordinary Shilka can, in case of case, turn into a colander in a couple of seconds. And even when this aviation at the airport is a catastrophe, any in-flight armored personnel carrier can arrange an armageddon of a local scale, causing damage in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars in a few seconds. What is it, even 5,45 Kalash punches them, albeit not everywhere and from a short distance, but it can spoil the filling, and repairs will cost much more than Kalash and cartridges for it. Hence the conclusion - we need armor. And do not care that the range and speed will fall, the mass and operating costs will increase. But the equipment and crew will be safe.
          Such an analogy might not have crossed my mind, but Oleg mentions the destroyers of the Arly Burke series and their problem with armor and durability. So we take a heavy bomber, we throw a reserve of carrying capacity on armor, reinforced engines and additional gas tanks. And pretend it's a fighter / attack aircraft.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 3 September 2015 12: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: brn521
            Such an analogy might not have crossed my mind, but Oleg mentions the destroyers of the Arly Burke series and their problem with armor and durability.
            Honestly, I did not find a special “crime” in Oleg for destroyers such as Arly Burke, moreover, these destroyers to some extent demonstrate the correctness of Oleg’s logic, the Yankees returned to the steel hull structure, increased stability (ships became wider), and even applied the reservation (up to 25 mm, Kevlar). The appearance of the Zamvolt among the Americans can be considered the next step towards strengthening the defense. We can say we are rebuilding our fleet, and yielding in quantity we should try to win in quality. In this sense, Oleg’s lines deserve attention.
            The appearance of a highly protected warship will produce an effect similar to the Dreadnought. All missile destroyers of NATO countries in one moment will be "second-class" ships. All tactics and arsenals of the existing anti-ship weapons will become obsolete at once. And if Russia had pulled ahead with such a project, it would have raised the prestige of our fleet and overnight made the surface component of the Navy the strongest in the world.
            1. brn521
              brn521 3 September 2015 18: 24 New
              +3
              Quote: Per se.
              Honestly, I did not find a special “crime” in Oleg for destroyers such as “Arly Burke”

              Arly Burke is a compromise. Designed in those days when there was a certain parity with the USSR, it was necessary not only quality, but also quantity. So they decided to rivet instead of two cruisers with Aegis for the same money, three destroyers each, with the same Aegis. Combat power grew by 10 percent of the force. But the overall efficiency in the sum is one and a half times, provided that it is used in squadrons. Well, yes, it turned out to be a flimsy design, but together they could conditionally intercept 1,5 times more cruise missiles, find, drive away or sink 1,5 times more submarines. The price for this is a flimsy and cheap case as well.
              Quote: Per se.
              Moreover, these destroyers to some extent demonstrate the correctness of Oleg’s logic, on them the Yankees returned to the hull’s steel structure, increased stability (ships became wider), and even applied a reservation (up to 25 mm, Kevlar)

              To repel the native squadron from the Soviet air hordes no longer shines. Like the general participation of the fleet in large-scale conflicts. Therefore, police tasks came to the forefront. And here, as it were, it’s not very good to have a structure that can be opened with a can opener. We also had to increase autonomy, the same power reserve in order to increase independent combat value. So they finished it as they could. Instead of switching from Aegis to some heavier and voracious, but at the same time big-eyed and clever Aegis-2, which would help maintain military parity further.
              Quote: Per se.
              The appearance of the Zamvolt among the Americans can be considered the next step towards strengthening the defense.

              Of course, the tasks are now different, the police, he is now half a gunboat. Covering the squadron is now not so important. It is necessary to strike along the coast and in the territories. And from there, and the answer can fly. And if the ship drowns from this, it will be a disaster, in contrast to normal military operations.
              Quote: Per se.
              The appearance of a highly protected warship will produce an effect similar to the “Dreadnought”

              Just now, such a breakthrough is impossible. Big ships used to really solve many problems in global politics, because they could be opposed only with a symmetrical answer. But nuclear weapons are a great invention, the “shield” has lost completely and irrevocably. Global politics has changed dramatically.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 4 September 2015 06: 59 New
                0
                Quote: brn521
                Big ships used to really solve many problems in global politics, because they could be opposed only with a symmetrical answer. But nuclear weapons are a great invention, the “shield” has lost completely and irrevocably. Global politics has changed dramatically.
                I would agree with you here without a doubt, if we talk only about global, nuclear war. With this approach, skepticism can cause not only the reservation of surface ships, but, perhaps, the surface fleet itself, as such. I have already expressed myself in the comments, but let me repeat myself. If it comes to a major nuclear war, it will be a war of submarines rather than a surface fleet. But, it is the surface fleet (and aircraft carriers with missile cruisers in particular), the main tool of the pre-war state, daily work, “razrulivaniya” in local conflicts, covering their strategic boats, displaying the flag, creating pressure points. This is, if you will, prevention from a major war, and it is more important. The Romans used to have an expression that it came to the Triaries, and so, if it comes to strategic submarines, this is a loss in the prevention of war by the surface fleet, a loss in local conflicts, pressure points. Finally, in addition to "prevention", it is the surface fleet ships that are the main force in the prelaunch state of the war, its prelude. In this, the significance of the surface fleet continues to be an important tool of global politics, and strong surface ships, its trump cards.
                1. Per se.
                  Per se. 4 September 2015 07: 24 New
                  +1
                  It should be added that the role of the surface fleet continues to be extremely important not only in the prelaunch state and the "prelude" of the war, but also in the first strike in any war, including nuclear. As for the future, now we can only debate and assume, but not the fact that, in the event of such a war, the surface fleet will have nothing to do, that any squadron is doomed to die from a nuclear explosion, this is still a question, especially with enhanced protection of surface ships .
                2. brn521
                  brn521 4 September 2015 12: 34 New
                  0
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I would agree with you here without a doubt, if we talk only about global, nuclear war.

                  And we only need to talk about global war. Who are we now? Well, we pull ourselves up and rivet several armadillos of a new wave. Whom do we scare? Would we drive this pile of iron to the shores of Iraq and what, would it suddenly scare the Americans and they would abandon their plans? That is the point. If we would like to help Saddam or Assad against external aggression of such proportions, here we need not floating tins, but sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems that we could pass on to them. Or take a possible global war. We look at our fleet and look at NATO. We look at our economy and look at NATO. Still not funny and it still seems that a few cans of slightly thicker tin than usual will change something here? My opinion is that if some countermeasures help here, then they are asymmetric.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  This is, if you will, prevention from a major war, and it is more important.

                  If it really were prevention, a big war would have erupted long ago. Compare the armed forces of the USSR and the Russian Federation.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  In this, the significance of the surface fleet continues to be an important global policy instrument.

                  Only if it pays off economically. For example, we riveted the fleet and the army, drove to the UAE, overthrew the regime there and put puppets. Can you imagine such a picture? Yes, even the USSR could not afford such a thing. Well, about how the army may not pay off and how it ends - please, again, the USSR and its fate as an example. Instead of solving internal problems, there was an emphasis on the army and foreign policy. So, how did the army and the political support of a number of countries from the socialist camp save the USSR itself from collapse?
                  1. Dart2027
                    Dart2027 4 September 2015 17: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: brn521
                    We look at our economy and look at NATO.

                    When trillions of dollars are printed from the air, this is not an economy.
                    Quote: brn521
                    Instead of solving internal problems

                    The only problem that had to be solved without fail was traitors. Everything else could be experienced.
                    1. brn521
                      brn521 5 September 2015 13: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      When trillions of dollars are printed from the air, this is not an economy.

                      This is just the economy. Money is not just gathering dust in the virtual, they are bought nishtyaki. In particular, a huge fleet is being built, modernized and maintained.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      The only problem that had to be solved without fail was traitors.

                      The problems were much deeper and more global. Moreover, characteristic of any developing society. And as for the traitors ... What needs to be cut off, say, for an AIDS patient so that he recovers?
                      1. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 5 September 2015 16: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        In particular, a huge fleet is being built, modernized and maintained.

                        That is, when money is created from nothing - is it the economy? Then let’s and we print a couple of trillions and we won’t bother.
                        Quote: brn521
                        And as for the traitors ... What needs to be cut off, say, for an AIDS patient

                        When a person has a cancerous tumor, it must be cut off.
                      2. brn521
                        brn521 7 September 2015 14: 52 New
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        where and let us print a couple of trillions and we won’t bother.

                        The ruble is not a world reserve currency.
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        When a person has a cancerous tumor, it must be cut off.

                        Cancers are different. For example, with leukemia, we will cut the skeleton out of a person :)? And in our case it was precisely leukemia.
                      3. TWR
                        TWR 7 September 2015 15: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        And in our case it was precisely leukemia.

                        No, it was a healthy occurrence.
                        Leukemia and meningioma were among the forces uprooting everything new and progressive in society. When these forces peacefully sniff in the hole, they are called retrograde. When they terrorized the population of an entire country, and partially destroyed it, they were called "comrades." They had to be treated. From activity.
                      4. brn521
                        brn521 7 September 2015 18: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: TWR
                        They had to be treated. From activity.

                        And then who will treat the doctors themselves? Especially those with a clear addiction to the scalpel?
                      5. TWR
                        TWR 7 September 2015 18: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        And then who will treat the doctors themselves?

                        And without excesses is impossible? Be sure to shoot people in batches? Where does this psychology come from? Is that a self-destruct gene?
                      6. brn521
                        brn521 8 September 2015 11: 16 New
                        0
                        Quote: TWR
                        And without excesses is impossible?

                        I do not remember a single civilized country in which there would be no excesses.
                        The only question is how these excesses are presented by the media, which also includes historians.
                        Quote: TWR
                        Where does this psychology come from?

                        That is human nature.
                        Quote: TWR
                        Is that a self-destruct gene?

                        Everything that goes beyond personal interests has fallen to us from heaven, not otherwise. For example, why start a family and raise children? Wife is a problem. Children are a problem squared. This is especially evident in a "progressive" society, in which the social functions of men and women are aligned.
                      7. TWR
                        TWR 8 September 2015 12: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        The only question is how these excesses are presented by the media, which also includes historians.

                        The question is how the population (society) relates to this. If the population does not consider such “excesses” to be absolute evil, then it necessarily run into something similar. And he will feel everything in his own skin. But it will be too late.
                        Quote: brn521
                        This is especially evident in a "progressive" society, in which the social functions of men and women are aligned.

                        Here I agree with you. The "progressive society" that exists today in the world, in my opinion, is doomed to death. You can argue only about the timing and about what factors will be determining, external or internal. I would put it on the outside. Somehow I can’t believe that a “progressive society” will find in itself the mechanisms of self-medication. It seems to me that they have already passed the point of no return.
                        Sadly not that. The sad thing is that the alleged alternative “healthy society” also looks unattractive. From the point of view of a European.
                      8. brn521
                        brn521 8 September 2015 16: 21 New
                        0
                        Quote: TWR
                        The question is how the population (society) relates to this.

                        Society is material. What information to consume and how to use is taken out of nowhere. This is done by specific people. Everything that we know did not fall directly from heaven, it was presented to us, and goals can be very different. However, something may and truth falls from the sky, but it is supplied anyway through people anyway. And do not really distinguish what is what.
                        With information always like that, it goes in a continuous steady stream. And initially there are no labels on it. And the mechanisms that are rooted in our head help us hang labels. Where did most of these mechanisms come from? Yes, everything sailed along the same stream :).
                      9. TWR
                        TWR 8 September 2015 17: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        Everything that we know did not fall directly from heaven, it was presented to us, and goals can be very different.

                        It all depends on the degree of development of society. One (less developed) can tell anything. They, in my view, do not care. Other (more developed), you can’t tell anything. They will not believe and will not support. There are no "bloody regimes" without support. Minimum need is the support of the minority and the apathy of the majority.
                        Quote: brn521
                        And the mechanisms that are rooted in our head help us hang labels. Where did most of these mechanisms come from? Yes, everything sailed along the same stream :).

                        That, yes. But you can not influence everyone. And as society develops, there are more and more such “unresponsive” ones. And there are more than one information center.
                      10. TWR
                        TWR 8 September 2015 17: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        Everything that we know did not fall directly from heaven, it was presented to us, and goals can be very different.

                        It all depends on the degree of development of society. One (less developed) can tell anything. They, in my view, do not care. Other (more developed), you can’t tell anything. They will not believe and will not support. There are no "bloody regimes" without support. Minimum need is the support of the minority and the apathy of the majority.
                        Quote: brn521
                        And the mechanisms that are rooted in our head help us hang labels. Where did most of these mechanisms come from? Yes, everything sailed along the same stream :).

                        That, yes. But you can not influence everyone. And as society develops, there are more and more such “unresponsive” ones. And there are more than one information center.
                      11. brn521
                        brn521 9 September 2015 11: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: TWR
                        Minimum need is the support of the minority and the apathy of the majority.

                        An apathetic majority is the norm for any any large state. In a different scenario, the state loses stability, it begins to tear to pieces. Interest groups are formed, and often these interests run counter to the existence of the state. An example is organized crime. The regime was bloody, I do not argue. But this problem was not local, like these are executioners and sadists, and the rest are white and fluffy. A conditional example, whites terrorize the reds, reds terrorize the whites, both terrorize the peasants, the peasants turn into anarchists and begin to terrorize both of them. Another example is a somewhat serious group of people who find themselves in constrained conditions and without control. A negative outlook for the development of such a community is most likely. A combination is very rare to have “good” at the same time, and at the same time be “with fists.” So, “good” can quickly end up at the very bottom of the established social structure. And crime is always, everywhere, and there’s a lot of material for her. Another example is an uncontrollable crowd of people. The overwhelming majority of cases evaluate the actions of such a crowd as negative. In general, human nature is not inherently positive and impeccable.
                        Quote: TWR
                        But you can not influence everyone.

                        Depending on what the installation was. For example, it is much easier to feed Indian beef if he grew up and raised outside his own country.
                        Quote: TWR
                        And as society develops, there are more and more such “unresponsive” ones.

                        These are the same "do not care" who do not give a damn. Good material. Not very durable, but versatile. Justification is a simple example. If we had “developed non-pofigists”, we would have long ago created our own political party. And about those who conditionally understand something, but do not reinforce the matter, there is nothing to say. What is the use of the fact that they are "correct" if their "correctness" remains virtual.
                      12. TWR
                        TWR 9 September 2015 12: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        An apathetic majority is the norm for any any large state.

                        Not the norm. For any bourgeois (even in the first stage). And the norm for feudal in different variations.
                        Quote: brn521
                        In a different scenario, the state loses stability, it begins to tear to pieces.

                        What nonsense. Who is tearing France or Germany to pieces? You tie with Soviet agitation.
                        Quote: brn521
                        A conditional example, whites terrorize reds, reds terrorize whites,

                        This is not an example. There is no need to transfer the obviously abnormal situation of the Civil War to ordinary life.
                        Quote: brn521
                        A combination is very rare to have “good” at the same time, and at the same time it was “with fists”.

                        This "good" in all countries of the world is called the "national elite." A country without a national elite is destitute. And it can only exist as a temporary education.
                        Quote: brn521
                        And crime is always, everywhere, and in bulk for it.

                        Crime crime. There are different categories of crimes, do not generalize.
                        Quote: brn521
                        In general, human nature is not inherently positive and impeccable.

                        Nobody's perfect. But the function and task of the state is incl. development of positive qualities and oppression of negative qualities of people. Unfortunately in the USSR, everything was exactly the opposite. Rather, the same, but negative was presented as positive and vice versa. Through the looking glass.
                        Quote: brn521
                        These are the same "nonsense" who do not care

                        These are not nonsense.
                        Quote: brn521
                        If we had “developed non-pofigists”, we would have long ago created our own political party.

                        "With us," where is it? Where "from you" would they create their own party? Not in all countries you can take this and create your own party.
                      13. brn521
                        brn521 9 September 2015 15: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: TWR
                        Not the norm. For any bourgeois (even in the first stage). And the norm for the feudal in different variations

                        No. In any kind of large-scale social education, under which sauce do not serve it, bourgeois, feudal, socialist or whatever, the productivity of the governing elements is limited. If the bulk of the organization begins to take too many different initiatives, governance will be disrupted and the existence of the organization will be compromised. So the bulk must be passive, do what is supposed to, think what is supposed to, and put forward initiatives in the prescribed manner.
                        Quote: TWR
                        What nonsense. Who is tearing France or Germany to pieces?

                        In France and Germany, the overwhelming majority of the population are just nonsense. If you need an example of countries with an active population, please, Muslim countries of the Middle East. The struggle is ongoing, if the situation has settled down, it only means that the dissenters are once again cut out or dispersed in holes. But it is necessary to shake this matter slightly, then seething begins again and blood flows in a river. Compared to them, today's Europeans and Russians are a phlegmatic example.
                        Quote: TWR
                        There is no need to transfer the obviously abnormal situation of the Civil War to ordinary life.

                        This is just a normal situation. The state administration did not cope with the accumulated contradictions, and was destroyed. Many opposing views and ideologies. Too many active people. It is abnormal that the country as a result was not only able to survive, but also experienced a very serious shock in the form of the Second World War, although the contradictions were not exhausted, and the methods for solving them led to new problems.
                        Quote: TWR
                        This "good" in all countries of the world is called the "national elite"

                        Nothing like this. The national elite is just a part of society, which currently has the greatest impact on this society. Good and evil are out of the question. As well as a constructive approach and the ability to ensure this society lasting prosperity.
                        Quote: TWR
                        Strife crime

                        I am talking about economic crimes, not political ones. Those. people want to live well, but their methods run counter to the large society of which they are a part. In fact, there are a lot of such people, and the prerequisites for their existence are quite objective.
                      14. TWR
                        TWR 9 September 2015 16: 22 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        control performance is limited

                        On the uniformity of "education" depends. We have known about a horse and a trembling doe for a long time.
                        Quote: brn521
                        So the bulk must be passive, do what is supposed to, think what is supposed to, and put forward initiatives in the prescribed manner.

                        Something from your statements smacks of "socialism." A "too active" must be shot or in a nuthouse?
                        Quote: brn521
                        In France and Germany, the overwhelming majority of the population are just nonsense.

                        Do not make me laugh. You yourself know the main reason for the monolithic nature of these states; it is not for me to teach you.
                        Quote: brn521
                        it only means that the dissenters are once again cut out or dispersed in holes.

                        Oh. More recently, it was just in history. Do not agree?
                        Quote: brn521
                        Compared to them, today's Europeans and Russians are a phlegmatic example.

                        During the time of the "Holy Inquisition" Europeans were also not at all phlegmatic. And in the USSR, "in uprooting the enemies of the people," the comrades were also very quick. Each vegetable has its own fruit. As they mature. Prerequisites. I already wrote about them to you.
                        Quote: brn521
                        The state administration did not cope with the accumulated contradictions,

                        But how could he cope if a gang of tramp in red pants came with Mausers and dispersed the "managers" (at best)? You are about the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in January 1918. did you hear anything? Why did the Civil War begin, remember?
                        Quote: brn521
                        It’s not normal that the country as a result not only managed to survive

                        Think less and worry about that country. And any other. And more about Russia, since you have a Russian flag. In general, I was always amazed by the desire of comrades to think of HZ about what, but not about their country.
                        Quote: brn521
                        The national elite is just a part of society, which currently has the greatest impact on this society.

                        Roughly speaking, the national elite is a country. The rest of the population is extras. No more than that. Something will be able to prompt the elite with their behavior. Or not be able to. This is not so important.
                        Quote: brn521
                        people want to live well, but their methods run counter to the large society of which they are a part.

                        That is why comrades always do this, a person lives well, which means a criminal. Why so wild, I would even say animal envy? All over the world being jealous is bad. And comrades, good. I already wrote, this is Through the Looking Glass. And they call their envy "justice." Only this is not justice. This is an elementary base envy. It should be a shame.
                    2. brn521
                      brn521 9 September 2015 15: 36 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      But the function and task of the state is incl. development of positive qualities and oppression of negative qualities of people.

                      The task of the state in the first place is its own stability. Based on this, an interpretation is created which qualities of people are positive and which are negative.
                      Quote: TWR
                      Unfortunately in the USSR, everything was exactly the opposite. Rather, the same, but negative was presented as positive and vice versa. Through the looking glass.

                      I’m not observing anything like this. The same mechanisms, only controlled them in different ways. There was no mirroring. Private property, legal equality, free enterprise. The same thing, only in different numbers and in different terms.
                      Quote: TWR
                      These are not nonsense.

                      Typical do not care.
                      Quote: TWR
                      "With us," where is it?

                      In the Russian Federation.
                      Quote: TWR
                      Where "from you" would they create their own party?

                      Everywhere. Collect like-minded people, draw up a program. If the party is truly popular, nothing will stop it. While we have what we have. EP - the party of nonsense. Here in our city, for example, the EP insolently set its man as mayor by organizing fake elections (picking up the "right" candidates - a schoolboy, a convict and a candidate from EP). The turnout was a few percent. As a result, the nihilists won.
                    3. TWR
                      TWR 9 September 2015 16: 26 New
                      0
                      Quote: brn521
                      The task of the state in the first place is its own stability.

                      This is the task of the dictatorship, not the state. The state (normal), in my opinion, is stable in itself. And does not need additional supports.
                      Quote: brn521
                      Private property, legal equality, free enterprise. The same thing, only in different numbers and in different terms.

                      How are you feeling? Where did you all see this in the USSR?
                      Quote: brn521
                      Collect like-minded people, draw up a program. If the party is truly popular, nothing will stop it.

                      You like to joke, it seems to me.
                    4. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 10 September 2015 22: 39 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      The state (normal), in my opinion, is stable in itself

                      Provided that it exists in a vacuum and there are no people who want to rob it.
                      "Any war is a fight over money"
                    5. TWR
                      TWR 10 September 2015 23: 01 New
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      it exists in a vacuum and there is no one who wants to rob it

                      How many people want to rob some kind of conditional Czech Republic? Who plans to go to war with her?
                    6. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 10 September 2015 23: 21 New
                      0
                      The keyword is conditional. Czechoslovakia was quickly divided into parts, and the fact that just colonies remained from it.
                    7. TWR
                      TWR 10 September 2015 23: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Czechoslovakia was quickly divided into parts,

                      Who shared? These are two different peoples. Why should they live together? How much more did the Slovaks have to pay for participating in the war on the side of the Axis countries?
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      but the fact that she left just a colony.

                      You already somehow start talking in my opinion.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Keyword "conditional"

                      I do not like the Czech Republic, consider Slovenia as an example. Or Portugal. Yes, and many others.
                    8. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 11 September 2015 06: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      How many more Slovaks had to pay

                      Did they pay? And what was this?
                      Quote: TWR
                      You already somehow start talking in my opinion

                      No, I look at life soberly.
                      Quote: TWR
                      Yes, and many others

                      Which ones? Those who, on orders from Washington, click their heels and say there are? Or those who do not click and do not speak, because they simply do not need anyone and do not pay attention to them? Well yes Luxembourg may be
                      Quote: TWR
                      sustainable in itself
                      just because nobody needs it. But any country of any seriousness must either defend itself rigidly or be subordinated or destroyed.
                    9. TWR
                      TWR 11 September 2015 10: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      And what was this?

                      Well, at least in the fact that they lost their sovereignty and were part of a foreign state.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Those who, on orders from Washington, click their heels and say there is

                      All by order, click their heels and say "eat." Starting from clerks in the office and ministers, and ending with the states. To all. The one who does not click, he quits his job with his knee. On a statewide scale, this “dismissal" looks worse. Therefore, "every cricket knows his sixth." And the one who does not know does not live long.
                      That's life. The law of evolution. Nobody has managed to break it yet. And will not succeed. And no matter where specifically orders come from today. They always come from somewhere. And they will come.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      either toughly defend himself or be subjugated or destroyed.

                      Of course, there was no equality in the world, and never will be. It was only comrades, when they were eager for power, that embarrassed the idiots with such slogans. The idiots for a freebie were led and set their neck on them. Then they regretted it a million times, but it was too late. Everything happens exactly the same on a larger scale.
                    10. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 11 September 2015 17: 55 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      Well, at least in the fact that they lost sovereignty and were part of a foreign state

                      Lost sovereignty, and when did they have it? The division of Czechoslovakia is the principle of "Divide and conquer."
                      Quote: TWR
                      Therefore, "every cricket knows his sixth"

                      Do you think that the condition for the normal existence of the state is a willingness to be a servant of the United States? And how does this fit in with the sovereignty mentioned a little higher? Be a part of a large state
                      Quote: TWR
                      Of course, there was no equality in the world, and never will be.

                      That is, we return to where we started - the state does not need backups only on the condition that it exists in a vacuum and there are no people who want to rob it. Well, in order to avoid this, a 37-year-old large state with the potential to conduct its policy is needed - this is a loss of sovereignty. But to become a small country with zero prospects in big politics and completely controlled by the masters from across the ocean is “paying for participation in the war on the side of the Axis countries”?
                      Quote: TWR
                      Of course, there was no equality in the world, and never will be.

                      That is, any state can be stable only when it has backups for its protection. Where did we start.
                    11. TWR
                      TWR 11 September 2015 18: 29 New
                      0
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      The division of Czechoslovakia is the principle of "Divide and conquer."

                      Do not fantasize. Czechs and Slovaks, these are 2 different peoples. Or do you think that they are called differently for laughter?
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      a condition for the normal existence of a state is a willingness to be a servant

                      Be led by fear. Senior manager, director, president, leader, supreme shaman, master, burgomaster, etc. This is normal within a department. And as part of the company. And so, to the very top. This is normal. The main thing is that without excesses. Otherwise, all of the above persons must be replaced.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      And how does this fit in with the sovereignty mentioned a little higher?

                      Full sovereignty in our world is a luxury. Only rich and strong affordable. The rest should be content with limited sovereignty. Best case scenario. And who does not agree, they will turn off oxygen. Everyone is concerned. Vaughn, Switzerland until recently squeaked that it was very neutral. And today, obedient. It’s hard for her, without oxygen.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      the state does not need backups only on condition that it exists in a vacuum and there are no people who want to rob it.

                      The robbery of a neighboring state must also be sanctioned by the boss. You can’t just rob anyone. The last time, as far as I remember, a certain Adya Shiklgruber decided to rob Poland without the permission of the boss. You probably taught history? Remember how it all ended for him personally? Somehow like this.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      a large enough state with the potential to conduct its policy

                      The world does not tolerate dual power. Do not believe comrades. The world has long been Anglo-Saxon. And show off comrades in this world did not affect. Unless, laugh at the "harsh collective farmers." The "rivalry of the two systems" was far-fetched. He was not even in sight. Even in the project. These are all Bolshevik show-offs.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      But to become a small country with zero prospects in big politics and completely controlled by the hosts from across the ocean - is it "paying for participation in the war on the side of the Axis countries"?

                      I periodically have the feeling that you do not understand what I wrote at all. Do you see well? Do you understand what is written?
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      That is, any state can be stable only when it has backups for its protection.

                      When it becomes "under the roof". If you understand this terminology.
                    12. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 11 September 2015 20: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      Full sovereignty in our world is a luxury

                      That is, all the same, the colony?
                      Quote: TWR
                      a certain Adia Shiklgruber decided to rob Poland without sanction from the boss. You probably taught history? Remember how it all ended for him personally?

                      A strange war, when England and France kindly gave him the opportunity to do whatever he wanted, and then until the very end they did not believe that he would attack them.
                      Quote: TWR
                      Do you see well? Do you understand what is written?

                      Understand. So still answer the question.
                      Quote: TWR
                      The world does not tolerate dual power. Do not believe comrades. The world has long been Anglo-Saxon

                      Since the collapse of the USSR. And before that, the Ponts of the "Democrats" were divided and did not influence this fact.
                      Quote: TWR
                      When it becomes "under the roof"

                      Well, if for you this is the ultimate dream, then hold the flag. Just do not then talk about the stability of the state and sovereignty.
                    13. TWR
                      TWR 11 September 2015 20: 26 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      That is, all the same, the colony?

                      Of course. The world is just teeming with them. Only today is it called "neocolonies."
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      A strange war, when England and France kindly gave him the opportunity to do whatever he wanted, and then until the very end they did not believe that he would attack them.

                      Do not play down. Adya understood very well why he was threatened with declaring war on France and Britain. Therefore, he did not build illusions. But I tried to agree to the last. See "Hess's mission."
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Since the collapse of the USSR.

                      Do not make me laugh. The world became Anglo-Saxon many decades ago. Even centuries. The collapse of the USSR is a completely insignificant event in the history of this world. Many did not even notice. Do not repeat the agitation of the USSR about the "great and terrible social camp." I can give you a dozen examples of how the USSR "wiped itself with a broom" and "cried quietly in snot and tears." At the same time when the masters of the world took another sweet sacrifice for cooks.
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      Just do not then talk about the stability of the state and sovereignty.

                      So I do not tell. This is another story. Turn on the zombie, if you do not believe it.
                    14. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 12 September 2015 14: 06 New
                      0
                      Quote: TWR
                      Only today is it called "neocolonies."

                      And what is the difference?
                      Quote: TWR
                      Therefore, he did not build illusions. But I tried to agree to the last

                      That’s why he died, and if he had prevented the British army from escaping and having ended with France with all his might he fell upon the British, he could calmly and until old age breed true Aryans in Europe.
                      Quote: TWR
                      The collapse of the USSR is a completely insignificant event in the history of this world. Many did not even notice.

                      Who is this? Those who are constantly crying that Russia is becoming a threat again?
                      Quote: TWR
                      give a dozen examples

                      For example, Vietnam, Korea or an attempted coup in Czechoslovakia.
                      Quote: TWR
                      So I do not tell. Others tell it

                      Truth? So these are not your words
                      Quote: TWR
                      The state (normal), in my opinion, is stable in itself. And does not need additional supports
                    15. TWR
                      TWR 12 September 2015 14: 35 New
                      0
                      I’ll go down, otherwise writing is not convenient.
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 2 September 2015 13: 06 New
    0
    It is enough to go to the site of the research institute and the eyes are rounded off by how much the shield has advanced in the eternal dispute.
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 2 September 2015 07: 35 New
    +1
    Well, what is the need to create armored ships? Which theater of operations will require armored ships now or in the future? First of all, for the trendsetters in military affairs, the most belligerent country - the USA? A long time ago, there is a trend - they reach the enemy with a long arm of aviation, missiles, UAVs, while their opponent is not able to reach carriers, except by accident and extremely rarely. And those who have something more serious will only in a nightmare decide on a conflict with the leading military power in the world. What is the point of making armored ships if, due to this, they lose in the payload?
    It seems that there is no need.
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 2 September 2015 09: 43 New
      +2
      In the creation and construction of very expensive armored ships of a modern type (to recall how much reliable modern armoring of a tank costs - and there will be a bigger boat anyway) there really does not make much sense, just as their combat use seems to be difficult. But it is necessary to improve the constructive defense, otherwise the British thought of using magnesium alloys in the superstructures of their frigates and destroyers, which later burned like Christmas candles in the conflict at the Malvinas (Falkland) islands, while Argentine bombs and warhead missiles often did not explode - it turned out to be enough flared up rocket fuel residues to receive a fire that incapacitates a ship. It is unacceptable. And finally, a little positive on the topic: in the end they will find adequate weapons for any armor.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 September 2015 13: 48 New
        +2
        Quote: Aleksandr72
        But it is necessary to improve the constructive defense, otherwise the British thought of using magnesium alloys in the superstructures of their frigates and destroyers, which later burned like Christmas candles in the conflict at the Malvinas (Falkland) islands, while Argentine bombs and warhead missiles often did not explode - it turned out to be enough flared up rocket fuel residues to receive a fire that incapacitates a ship.

        There were no light alloy superstructures on the destroyers RN then - they were designed taking into account the experience of fires on ships with alloy superstructures. But it didn’t help Sheffield - the RCC that got into it interrupted the fire line, disabled 2 fire pumps (out of 3 serviceable) and set off a fire in which the theoretically non-combustible plastic of the interior decoration began to burn. Oh yes, until the heap, the rocket partially disabled the power supply system, which prevented the ventilation from being launched to pump out the dense poisonous smoke generated by burning plastic.

        But on the frigates "Antilope" and "Ardent" superstructures were alloy.
  • Avenich
    Avenich 2 September 2015 07: 37 New
    +3
    - nuclear weapons (yes, line two, all tests on the contrary showed the exceptional resistance of ships to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons);

    - missile weapons (where armor-piercing shells could not cope, there is no one to scare missiles. In overcoming armor, speed and mass do not solve anything. The main thing is mechanical strength, which missiles never had);


    Oleg, a traditional minus from me.
    In the comments on your previous opuses, your failure was proved in a repeated attempt to prove for some reason that battleships are "cool." So enter into a discussion with you, time to waste in vain. Moreover, you famously contradict your own words. Just one example. Recently, you told the whole world that an aerial bomb having reached supersonic speed simply flashed the ship through from the upper deck to the bottom. Now you are saying that "speed and mass do not solve anything in overcoming armor." As the saying goes "however" ...
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Avenich
      Recently, you told the whole world that an aerial bomb having reached supersonic speed simply flashed the ship through from the upper deck to the bottom.

      1380 kg, of which BB is less than 30%, the rest is solid metal

      Have you seen a modern rocket with warhead in 1380 kg ??
      1. Avenich
        Avenich 2 September 2015 09: 08 New
        +6
        Again on the same rake.
        “in the matter of overcoming armor, speed and mass do not solve anything.” It turns out that the mass decides something. Or speed separately, and mass separately, and armor separately, and the Kaptsov troll separately. In essence, please tell me what does not solve anything "in overcoming the armor" mass or speed. Either 1380 kg of “solid metal” didn’t penetrate the armor, or the bomb did not reach supersonic speed due to “monstrous air resistance”.
        1. yehat
          yehat 2 September 2015 14: 05 New
          0
          strictly speaking, it’s foolish to compare a supersonic missile to a bomb:
          1. I doubt that the rocket will fall vertically from above, due to a bunch of reasons - inertia, structural reserves of strength, vulnerability in flight not above the ground, etc. And if so, then the striking ability decreases sharply
          2. A bomb is an integral shell made. Making a rocket as simple as it sounds.
          1. TWR
            TWR 2 September 2015 15: 51 New
            0
            Quote: yehat
            a bomb is an integral shell made

            wassat
        2. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 14: 40 New
          0
          Mass and speed - a necessary but insufficient criterion

          I repeat the question Where did you see a rocket with warhead weighing per ton ??
          1. Avenich
            Avenich 2 September 2015 19: 36 New
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Mass and speed - a necessary but insufficient criterion

            I repeat the question: an air bomb weighing one and a half tons and at supersonic speed pierced the ship through? What is insufficient of these two physical quantities in the question of the defeat of a warship? Maybe there is some unknown quantity and it is somehow miraculously connected with mass and speed? In the comments in your previous research on the topic of strength, some comrades clearly indicated this dependence.
            And about the rhetorical question of where I saw the rocket, I’ll answer honestly the ship’s naval missiles I have never seen. I saw only air defense missiles of various modifications and types, aircraft, MANPADS, some cruise missiles, ballistic missiles at parades, though there are no more lies, and even models of missiles. Well, I’m not lucky in this life even once, I repent I did not see anti-ship missiles. And as for their mass, that is, warheads, you yourself singing with a nightingale that there aren’t any decent armor on the ships, but it’s a fig, to build serious missiles to destroy these cardboards. Don’t worry, even before the first modern battleship comes off the slipways, the necessary anti-missile missiles will be presented in the entire breadth of the range and sizes. Wow, the new term is: "anti-missile rocket," I’ll go tomorrow with a patented name.
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 2 September 2015 22: 07 New
              0
              When they talk about means of destruction, no one thinks about who will carry these means. Yes, on the shore you can place anything, but if at sea?
              Quote: Avenich
              one and a half tons aerial bomb

              In order to drop this bomb, the plane will have to fly very close to the ship, that is, become a convenient target for its air defense. With the corresponding result.
              In the USSR, it was supposed to use the regiments of strategic bombers, which by themselves were not cheap, to attack the AUG, not because there was nowhere to put the money.
              Quote: Avenich
              even before the first modern battleship descends from the stocks, the necessary anti-armor missiles will be presented in the entire breadth of the range and sizes

              And where will they be launched from? How many will fit on the ship? Giant 1144 carry 20 heavy PPH. With a hull length of 250 meters and a displacement of 26000 tons. How much will you cram on a regular frigate with a displacement of 4000 tons?
              1. Avenich
                Avenich 3 September 2015 07: 11 New
                0
                When they talk about means of destruction, no one thinks about who will carry these means. Yes, on the shore you can place anything, but if at sea?

                In order to drop this bomb, the plane will have to fly close to the ship.

                I don’t know how ingenious Germans managed, without hesitation, to get into the ships several times with those same bombs in those unfortunate ships, but, however, this fact took place. Moreover, the dear author of this event described in previous articles. So, dear, refer to the source.

                And where will they be launched from? How many will fit on the ship? Giant 1144 carry 20 heavy PPH. With a hull length of 250 meters and a displacement of 26000 tons. How much will you cram on a regular frigate with a displacement of 4000 tons?

                Further, I personally, in my life, am less than puzzled about where I will launch anti-ship missiles. And God forbid to put them on the ship. For heavy ammunition, there are less exotic delivery vehicles.

                Further, not in the text. Punching a ship through is apparently a very important and urgent matter, but to your great regret, it is excessive. So, based on the logic of the events that have occurred, we conclude: 1.5 tons and a speed of 1 max are excessive for guaranteed destruction of the ship. Therefore, the weight of the warhead can be reduced, and the speed accordingly increased. It is also necessary to add an ingenious guidance and tracking system, it turns out ... correctly, a modern anti-ship missile. The following problem now arises, when and how to undermine warheads after it penetrates the inside of the ship. There are quite competent specialists for this, and the experience is “the son of difficult mistakes. Perhaps a new tab appears on the commander’s laptop:” battleship Kaptsova, “clicked with the mouse, unhooked the wires and she went darling ... Let me go.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 3 September 2015 19: 09 New
                  0
                  Quote: Avenich
                  I don’t know how clever Germans managed

                  And at that time there were modern means of air defense? That is why airplanes are mainly armed with missiles, not bombs.
                  Quote: Avenich
                  least puzzled where I will launch anti-ship missiles. And God forbid putting them on the ship

                  That is, in essence, there are no objections and you can launch these monsters only from the coast?
                  Quote: Avenich
                  1.5 tons and a speed of 1 max is excessive for guaranteed destruction of the ship

                  Well, it’s you who offered the warhead weighing half a ton, and they answered you.
                  Quote: Avenich
                  it turns out ... right, a modern anti-ship missile

                  I don’t know if a modern rocket can penetrate the armor of a battleship of the Iowa or Yamato type, there are doubts - speed is not everything.
                  However, in any case, letting such giants into the series is really problematic. It seems more reasonable to me to experience the latest artillery ships of the USSR 68 bis. 100-120 mm will increase survivability by playing the role of body armor, without overloading the ship beyond measure.
    2. Kvazar
      Kvazar 2 September 2015 14: 40 New
      +1
      Sorry to achieve such a warhead mass (1400kg) of a modern rocket, it should have a starting weight of about 20 tons (I recall that the Granite rocket has a warhead of 750 kg (7t starting weight), in the technical characteristics of which the defeat of the monolithic armor of the US battleships is included.

      Do we have a lot of anti-ship missiles in the world with warheads of 1400kg and super sonic speed? with a starting weight of 20 tons of GS
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 2 September 2015 07: 45 New
    -3
    Why would such an armored ship wait for only one rocket? Four to five antennas on the wheelhouse? So even if you book them, the attacker can release a dozen missiles (and there is such an opportunity), they will knock out everything that is possible on deck. An attack on such a battleship will be carried out not by one missile, but by at least a dozen! Book not book, but all the same means of destruction, air defense machines, antenna posts will have to be brought to the deck. The hatches of the cells with missiles are not particularly bookable. One hit and hello boat. Nobody forbids to fill the deck with napalm or to use thermobaric ammunition. What will the crew do when the temperature inside rises to 60-70 degrees? What will happen to constructive protection against a close explosion of 100 kilograms of atomized explosives?
    Well, let's even say that the armored battleship does not take anti-ship missiles. But the goal is large, slow-moving, what will happen to him if the ICBMs are shot down? With a conventional concrete slab instead of nuclear weapons. Speed ​​under 7-10 km / s! Sew through your cruiser! And there you can upload a couple of dozen.
    Of course, you need to increase vitality, but to book as battleships of the 2 World War I is not effective.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 34 New
      +4
      Quote: Wedmak
      The hatches of the cells with missiles are not particularly bookable.

      What the heck

      Ammunition, a critical element of the ship, area of ​​highest protection
      Quote: Wedmak
      ICBMs? With a conventional concrete slab instead of nuclear weapons. Speed ​​under 7-10 km / s!

      Easier laser from an orbital station
      Quote: Wedmak
      Fill the deck with napalm

      You’ll peel off all the paint))
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 September 2015 08: 56 New
        0
        Ammunition, a critical element of the ship, the area of ​​highest protection

        Good. Book covers. And you can be sure that when a rocket hits these covers, their opening mechanisms will not jam / bend / break?

        You’ll peel off all the paint))

        Do you seriously think that this will all be enough? The fire on the ship is actually a terrible thing. You won’t make solid armor; there is always a weak spot.

        Each nut has its own threaded bolt. Now it makes no sense to build ships with armor, that's not build. And I think the reasons are only two - economically unprofitable and a large range of weapons.
        1. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 09: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Wedmak
          And you can be sure that when a rocket hits these covers, their opening mechanisms will not jam / bend / break?

          Absolutely sure

          cover thickness - 30 mm
          on top of the whole installation = movable armor plate, 100 ... 150 mm
          Quote: Wedmak
          The fire on the ship is actually a terrible thing

          there is nothing to burn on the upper deck
          Quote: Wedmak
          there will always be a weak spot.

          in weak places there is nothing important

          fire in a chain box?))
          Quote: Wedmak
          Each nut has its own threaded bolt.

          This allowed to abandon the tanks? Body armor?
          Armored capsules on the Su-34?
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 2 September 2015 09: 27 New
            -3
            cover thickness - 30 mm
            on top of the whole installation = movable armor plate, 100 ... 150 mm

            Yeah. And we get an additional tens of tons of mass. How and where are you going to move the armor plate in 100-150 mm (this is a few tons, please notice) and how long will it take?
            there is nothing to burn on the upper deck

            Ага.
            in weak places there is nothing important

            But usually there is something to burn. And from this place the fire may spread further. Again, it is impossible to calculate the damage mechanism in advance, they will damage the cabin, throw the warhead with napalm there, and there you have it.
            I just want to prove to you that booking is not a panacea. It’s not a tank, you won’t hang active armor, the environment is too aggressive, the volume reserved is large, heaps of hatches, cable routes, ammunition, hundreds of rooms, a large volume of the propulsion system, all this can only be partially booked. Each ton of armor worsens the seaworthiness of the ship, increases its dimensions, reduces ammunition and the amount of weapons.
            This allowed to abandon the tanks? Body armor?

            Well, you compared. Nobody says that tanks are invulnerable, and a man in body armor can stand against the 14,5 mm bullet.
            Armored capsules on the Su-34?

            That's just what the armored capsule is. Wings, engine nacelles, the rest of the fuselage is not armored! Vitality is achieved by other means - duplication, getting rid of fuel vapors, protecting more important elements with less important ones, etc.
            You actually offer to cover the entire ship with a shell and fight through the cutouts in the armor.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 2 September 2015 09: 36 New
          +2
          The napalm of the nut and the armored deck will not do anything, it will only redden to red so that you need to burn a termite.
    2. The brightest
      The brightest 2 September 2015 10: 01 New
      0
      And all this time, the dreadnought is not aware that he has a fight? Or maybe he’s all alone, not in a group. ICBM still gets off. And who told you that this is a slow-moving ship of 7-10 km / h? If archaic dreadnought had 21 knots, which is about 37km / h, then excuse me, modern awakens have no less.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 September 2015 10: 20 New
        0
        Why not in the know? It is repulsed by everything that is possible. Only everything that is possible, according to Oleg’s theory, is installed behind armored plates. That is, moves the plate, makes a volley, pushes it back? Or moved the slabs, opened the mines and go? And he stands so beautiful under open arms fire. And what for goat button accordion then? Why are these massive armor plates?
        The ICBM still gets off at acceleration only. No one has yet shot down an ICBM warhead on a combat course.
        37 km / h ... yep. Well, let it be 50 km / h, where will it go in half an hour? Even the horizon will not float away.
        I repeat my argument: to reserve if necessary, only the location of the crew and the control system. Everything else makes no sense. It is better to put an additional gun, a torpedo pack or a cell with missiles. More benefit will be.
        By the way, they forgot about the torpedoes ... should they also reserve below the waterline? To put anti-torpedo boules (or as they are correctly called)? Or networks? And help from missile torpedoes? Or still put a couple of installations with anti-torpedoes?
    3. 17085
      17085 2 September 2015 10: 15 New
      0
      Hello Wedmak ... very interesting you write here ...
      Why would such an armored ship wait for only one rocket? Four to five antennas on the wheelhouse? So even if you book them, the attacker can release a dozen missiles (and there is such an opportunity), they will knock out everything that is possible on deck. An attack on such a battleship will be carried out not by one missile, but by at least a dozen! Book not book, but all the same means of destruction, air defense machines, antenna posts will have to be brought to the deck. The hatches of the cells with missiles are not particularly bookable. One hit and hello boat.

      They wrote so much ... only one hit will not be enough, the author says about this, and booking a cell with a rocket is very simple, like on a submarine, I hope you understand the idea.
      Nobody forbids to fill the deck with napalm or to use thermobaric ammunition. What will the crew do when the temperature inside rises to 60-70 degrees? What will happen to constructive protection against a close explosion of 100 kilograms of atomized explosives?

      Napalm is on the deck, it’s easy to wash it off with water, even on my dish there is an irrigation setting that can be switched on remotely, in case of fire or cargo loading, protection against sprayed explosives can be done on the same principle, water is not measured, it’s for this reason anti-ship missiles with such warheads no, like class.
      Well, let's even say that the armored battleship does not take anti-ship missiles. But the goal is large, slow-moving, what will happen to him if the ICBMs are shot down? With a conventional concrete slab instead of nuclear weapons. Speed ​​under 7-10 km / s! Sew through your cruiser! And there you can upload a couple of dozen.

      Slow moving? Based on technology from the 40s? And to make an SZO from ICBMs - good luck.
      Of course, you need to increase vitality, but to book as battleships of the 2 World War I is not effective.

      In one phrase, agree and it seems not))). That's the question, it is necessary to increase the passive protection of ships, but no one asks and is not going to do the type of battleships of World War II. Tikanderog, for example, only because of his corps is still in service, but he is already outdated.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 September 2015 10: 32 New
        -1
        only one hit will be not enough, the author says about this

        And now there is a lot of one hit? Anti-aircraft guns didn’t work, anti-aircraft gunners overslept the target. Why do you think that armor will increase crew alertness? On the contrary, it will be euthanized, like try a break.
        water - unmeasured

        Well, not a good example. Convinced.
        And to make an SZO from ICBMs - good luck.

        I don’t see any problems. When appropriate goals appear, this will be done fairly quickly.
    4. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 2 September 2015 10: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Wedmak
      . Speed ​​under 7-10 km / s!

      The cruiser "Rurik" in the war of 1905 had a move of 17-19 knots
    5. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 2 September 2015 11: 28 New
      +1
      Four to five antennas on the wheelhouse? So even if you book them, the attacker can release a dozen missiles (and there is such an opportunity), they will knock out everything that is possible on deck.
      In order to disconnect all four antennas, there is no need to attack the “pyramidal radio adjustment” from four sides and to chop all the AFAR modular elements one by one. It is enough ONCE to break a hole in the superstructure and undermine a powerful landmine inside. The blast wave, coupled with fragments of everything that is there, will damage both the waveguides to all four antennas, and intermediate equipment, cables, power, and personnel, and other ...
      Book the same superstructure placed so thick as the main armored belt of the battleships - uh ... does everyone understand the term of stability?
      And such stretch of owl on the globe in the article car and trolley. With all the external harmony of reasoning.

      By the way, about modern composites. If you make the entire body of them, with the proposed tricks in terms of thickness and the number of explosion-proof bulkheads and other measures of internal structural protection, the price of the body itself will increase by an order of magnitude, if not more.
      Here composite booking of such a small volume as a tank or a helicopter cockpit, when the mass of consumed materials goes to hundreds of kg or tons (for a tank) causes an uncontrollable increase in their value. In the case of a bill of thousands and tens of thousands of tons, and with the production of multi-meter and very-multi-ton monolithic armor parts, the cost of production (and that is rigging and equipment, etc.) will increase immeasurably. And combat stability is questionable in this case.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 September 2015 13: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: abrakadabre
        In order to disconnect all four antennas, there is no need to attack the “pyramidal radio adjustment” from four sides and to chop all the AFAR modular elements one by one. It is enough ONCE to break a hole in the superstructure and undermine a powerful landmine inside. The blast wave, coupled with fragments of everything that is there, will damage both the waveguides to all four antennas, and intermediate equipment, cables, power, and personnel, and other ...

        Or to work out a fragmentation warhead with GGE from the outside - the GGE cone, having passed through a weak spot (HEADLIGHT mirror), will arrange another grinder inside.
  • chebman
    chebman 2 September 2015 08: 05 New
    0
    The author is confused in the evidence. First, he writes that a rocket breaking through the ship’s hull will not pose any threat to the ship. Further, he already gives an example of how the wreckage of a drone (not even the drone itself!) Caused a fire on the ship, which killed one crew member. So what's all right?
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 08: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: chebman
      a rocket breaking through the hull of the ship will not pose any threat to the ship.

      not a rocket, but its warhead in the form of a solid "scrap"
      1. chebman
        chebman 2 September 2015 08: 47 New
        -2
        Do not engage in verbiage, you understand what I mean. In the sense of my remark, is there anything to answer?
        1. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 08: 54 New
          +7
          Quote: chebman
          In the sense of my remark, is there anything to answer?

          Inside the Entrim penetrated the wreckage of a drone: the engine, the remaining fuel. If there was a warhead, Entrim would be burned to hell.

          In the case of an armored ship - all this will remain outside
          except warheads in the form of solid scrap

          So clearer?
          1. chebman
            chebman 2 September 2015 09: 30 New
            -2
            Unproven, Watson!
          2. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 2 September 2015 13: 19 New
            0
            Chet did not understand, modern bops have in their core cc, and why then in the notorious "crowbar" it will not be, especially considering that, to initiate a fire, a simulator rocket engine would be enough?
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 2 September 2015 08: 48 New
        -5
        and its warhead in the form of a solid "scrap"

        Who in their right mind would throw a crowbar into a ship?
      3. cosmos111
        cosmos111 2 September 2015 20: 53 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        not a rocket, but its warhead in the form of a solid "scrap"


        the Mk-48 mod.7 scrap torpedo was delivered to the US Navy on 7 December 2006 (uploaded to the Pasadena SSN-752 in Pearl Harbor)
  • Horn
    Horn 2 September 2015 08: 19 New
    +4
    Somewhere I read science fiction how Japanese ships of the Tsushima era “failed” in modern times and destroyed one of the US fleets, breaking it like a Tuzik warmer.
    1. Gani
      Gani 2 September 2015 09: 26 New
      +2
      please remember) !, and for several days now I have been tormented by the question of what to read.
      1. Hort
        Hort 2 September 2015 10: 01 New
        +3
        "7th aircraft carrier" is called.
        1. Gani
          Gani 2 September 2015 10: 48 New
          0
          thank you smile , found, rocked, I’ll read how I’ll remake all urgent matters at work, otherwise work will suddenly delay ... repeat
    2. 3HATOK
      3HATOK 2 September 2015 13: 38 New
      0
      This is fiction - "WAR 2025". Only there, our fleet broke into the future and defeated amers in dense fog and after an explosion in the atmosphere of tactical nuclear weapons. It was an interesting reading, but when I read it in 2005 it seemed much more fantastic than today - half of the described fantastic lotions in 2015 already exist.
      From the point of view of literature and syllable - not a masterpiece, BUT the author very coolly and prophetically described the war of the near future, especially at the level of small tactical groups: mini-drones, laser rifles for blinding, exoskeletons .....
      1. Hort
        Hort 3 September 2015 09: 19 New
        0
        There are also Red Stars by Fyodor Berezin. Also in the story, the Red Banner Pacific Fleet from a parallel universe ended up in the Pacific Ocean, torn to pieces the American group and the naval base and disappeared. A boring book, I must say.
  • Max repp
    Max repp 2 September 2015 08: 24 New
    +3
    I fully agree with the author
  • Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 2 September 2015 09: 01 New
    +8
    The article is strange. The author confuses the soft with the warm. The ship is considered combat-ready as long as "... it is capable of fulfilling its inherent tasks ..." Given the ever-growing volumes (cubic meters) of specials. equipment, nomenclature of weapons, requirements for storage conditions of bk and use of electronics; principles of protection of armored ships of the period up to the 40s of the 20th century are not applicable at the moment.
    The future now has only light structural protection, and even then in combination with redundancy of equipment. On a modern ship of consumers energy is several times greater than on battleships, and we will not forget that you can’t hide these consumers below the waterline, plus cable management thousands of kilometers long, an ammunition cellar (large, very complex) and so on.
    The battleships left due to the fact that despite the increase in displacement by several times compared with the ships of the 1st World War, their combat capabilities increased relatively little, and the other tasks of the war at sea were solved by other classes of B.K. Instead of one “elephant trap”, it’s better to have several multi-purpose ships, no one is planning to arrange senseless dumps like jutland, and not separate ships are fighting, but squadrons of diverse forces.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 2 September 2015 14: 44 New
      +2
      If that this boat has a reservation in 80mm armor + structural armor.
      US carriers have a reservation of 150mm +)))
      1. SPLV
        SPLV 2 September 2015 20: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Kvazar
        If that this boat has a reservation in 80mm armor + structural armor.

        Thank you The first time I encounter such information on this site, they usually write on the contrary: unprotected, etc. Below from A.S. Pavlov. Nuclear cruisers of the Kirov type (ave. 1144)
        In the initial technical design of the cruiser, an underwater structural protection appeared from the system of compartments with a gas-reflecting armored wall. With the advent of powerful anti-ship cruise missiles among the Americans, surface-based structural protection was introduced into the project. At first, a six-inch main armor belt was provided along the waterline, but during the design process it was "eaten" by unexpectedly appearing volumes and weights on some equipment, which, as a rule, always turns out to be heavier than stated.

        The Fort nasal anti-aircraft missile system was decided to be left without on-board armor protection (only covers), since they are located in the below-deck autonomous drums, inside which there are also launch containers. Thus, although the anti-aircraft installation was more cumbersome, a volumetric fire was excluded on a scale dangerous for the ship. But the Granit anti-ship missiles with liquid-fuel engines and powerful warheads were deemed appropriate to protect with inclined armor, which in the area above the waterline is 100 mm, along the deck and below the waterline- 70 mm. There is also constructive cover from the bottom of the ship, in case of rocket fire, the mines can be quickly filled with water, in addition there is a system of various compartments designed according to the cellular system. The hangar for storing the Metel anti-submarine missile and torpedoes is covered with a similar “box” (this compartment is not protected on subsequent cruisers).

        The following volumes subject to reservation are the premises of the main command post and the combat information post, which are located inside the building at the waterline level. Armored side walls - 100 mm, traverses and roofs - 75 mm. Armor with bevels covers the room of auxiliary steam boilers, as well as the reactor compartment. In the stern, light anti-fragmentation armor protection is available on the sides (70 mm) and on the roof (50 mm) to protect the helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, helicopter ammunition and tiller compartments, over which there is also a “local” armored cover. There is no side armor as such, but a thickened belt is “inserted” above the waterline at 2,5 meters and lower at 1 m from bow to stern. Local armored cover also have artillery mounts, cellars and other weapon systems. An analytical calculation shows that the total weight of the armor does not exceed 1100 tons, given that it includes reinforced plastics.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 4 September 2015 18: 39 New
          0
          From where already about 80mm I do not remember to be honest. But booked it very well. The side of this cruiser should have been 200 + mm.
          In general, the reservation scheme for existing ships is secret.
          But the boat was booked as best they could, because the gunsmiths not only could not bear the weight, but also tried to push even more weapons onto the ship.
          That is, the author’s ideas have long been worked out +)
    2. SPLV
      SPLV 2 September 2015 20: 54 New
      0
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      Instead of one elephant, it’s better to have several multi-purpose ships

      Of course, the basis is the cheapening of production. However, this significantly increases operating costs. Is not it?
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      The future now has only light structural protection, and even then in combination with redundancy of equipment.

      Right URO destroyer Cole "successfully" proved it. And he is not alone.
  • AUL
    AUL 2 September 2015 09: 03 New
    +4
    Quote: avt
    Quote: ziqzaq
    I understood one thing from the article: the author really likes heavily armored ships ...

    But I didn’t read further than the title, it’s immediately clear that Oleg Kaptsov went on the warpath with the battleship Zumvolt, which was actually confirmed by the presence of pictures at the end of the article. laughing It is a pity that Oleg writes only about the unsinkable and all-conquering ,, Zumvolt ", could have tempted him with an article about the invincible, not killed and not burning," Abrams " laughing Well, after all, Usovskaya’s advertisements about this invincible tank are more than Zumvolt’s, and they’ve actually managed to fight. wassatThat would be the case! laughing Everything is more fun than remakes for Zumvolt to turn over, there’s even something we’ll not crucify about it so much.

    "I have not read, but I condemn!"
    Yes, there are controversial points in Kaptsov’s reasoning, and quite a lot. But controversial - this does not mean that the wrong!
    And his love for battleships and armadillos is deeply sympathetic to me.
  • Pauls_77
    Pauls_77 2 September 2015 09: 16 New
    +7
    Hello to all readers! I apologize in advance to those who might hurt or feel insulted, but honestly, reading the comments of people completely ignorant in TUS and BZZHS, and seeing ships and the sea at best from the pier or on the beach, it seems that a bunch of kids gathered in the sandbox and discuss which machine cooler. Regarding the reservation of warships in the form in which it took place until the middle of the 20th century, to apply now in modern shipbuilding is of course complete stupidity. However, to “armor” a warship is necessary to increase its stability and survivability. Modern manufacturing techniques of various types of armor in the Steel Research Institute can already be said to have been put on stream. And to give ridiculous examples and arguments like napalm on the deck or ICBM will sew the ship through from top to bottom - it's all the same from the sandbox area and which machine is cooler.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 2 September 2015 09: 33 New
      -4
      And to give ridiculous examples and arguments like napalm on the deck or ICBM will flash the ship through from top to bottom

      Think ridiculous? Give reasons that it is impossible or inefficient. These are just options. I don’t argue that you need to book, but like you, I say that it makes no sense to book like battleships of the 2 World War II.
      1. Pauls_77
        Pauls_77 2 September 2015 09: 42 New
        +3
        Good day to you too! About the arguments. Even in civil shipbuilding, it is envisaged to withstand for a certain time fire bulkheads of temperatures above 1500 degrees. Therefore, napalm is ridiculous. Regarding ICBMs. I honestly have no idea how an intercontinental ballistic missile will hit a moving target.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 2 September 2015 09: 51 New
          -3
          Even in civil shipbuilding, it is envisaged to withstand for a certain time fire bulkheads of temperatures above 1500 degrees.

          A certain time. And then a targeted attack.
          I honestly have no idea how an intercontinental ballistic missile will hit a moving target.

          Departure into the zone of the ship's location at approximate coordinates, then optical or radar guidance of the BG to the target. Nothing is impossible; there would be a desire. And ICBMs can also fly to 1000 km, they even don’t really go into orbit, a low trajectory.
          If the cost of the weapon will be less than the cost of an armored ship (add the cost of repair in case of severe damage), such a tool will be quickly created and applied.
          1. yehat
            yehat 2 September 2015 14: 25 New
            0
            you don't understand something
            maneuvering mbr can be done
            taxis are also possible
            but quite accurate - not yet.
            The latest developments in this area are now among the Chinese and Americans so far consider them not dangerous enough.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 September 2015 09: 40 New
      -2
      Best for reservations are titanium alloys and boron carbide.
    3. Avenich
      Avenich 2 September 2015 10: 31 New
      -2
      Quote: Pauls_77
      And to give ridiculous examples and arguments like napalm on the deck or ICBM will sew the ship through from top to bottom - it's all the same from the sandbox area and which machine is cooler.

      About the stitched ships, the author wrote just the same in the previous opus. Search and quote laziness. As you can see, even an obvious and quite historical example easily passes into the category of “ridiculous examples”. The valiant Oleg has not yet told anything about the use of napalm in the fleet, but my acquaintance, unfortunately deceased nowadays, the admiral told me that on trips along the tropical seas the hot, unbearably bright equatorial sun made the deck a lot of inconvenience to the crew of the ship. And this is only the sun, and if modern napalm, up to 1600 degrees by the way. Burn may not burn, but whoever cooks inside alive definitely.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 2 September 2015 13: 30 New
        0
        During the war, either in Korea or in Vietnam, jet kerosene was spilled on the deck of one aircraft carrier, there was hell ...
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 2 September 2015 18: 01 New
          +1
          Well, not really like that. One stupid man loaded a rocket on another plane. There, 500 kg of aerial bombs began to burst (8 pieces per memory and a hundred nurses) and fuel burned. The result went to repair because led the deck.
  • common man
    common man 2 September 2015 09: 23 New
    +3
    To all opponents of Oleg. Following your logic, “why are we building tanks if any grenade launcher penetrates 1000 mm of armor?”. You need to take the platform, cram it with active protection, hang DZ, and cover the case with 2 mm iron. "From the wind." All invincible unit turned out. For some reason, it’s different in life.
    A modern ship can be destroyed not only by RCC. You can shoot light missiles, weighing 5 kg, with 10 drones, you can stupidly from a 30 mm aircraft gun provided that the air defense of the ship is broken, using REO as in the case of the Black Sea. (You are going to drop bombs on an armored ship). Again the laser, and they are developing rapidly, it is much easier to flash 5 mm of aluminum than 150 mm of homogeneous steel. I don’t know, my ships need protection at least from light and medium-caliber weapons.
    One of the reasons that armored ships are not being built can be called that it will cause a new huge round of the arms race due to the need to create new weapons and their carriers, and no one is ready for this in the context of the financial crisis.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 2 September 2015 10: 43 New
      0
      You forgot that the underwater part of the ship is the most vulnerable.
      It is on her that the attacks will be directed when booking
      surface parts.
      1. common man
        common man 2 September 2015 11: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        You forgot that the most vulnerable underwater part of the ship

        As far as I know, battleships like Iowa have excellent underwater protection. Double bottom, boules, waterproof bulkheads, etc. And torpedoes with "cumulative charges" seem to have not yet been invented.
        PS Aircraft carriers are also very vulnerable in the underwater?
        1. DimanC
          DimanC 2 September 2015 12: 59 New
          +1
          Underwater protection, "Iow" no one really tested in battle for strength. But their predecessors (North Carolina) clearly had problems with her
  • The brightest
    The brightest 2 September 2015 09: 39 New
    +5
    They stopped building the dreadnought solely because of the backward air defense and their high cost. If today all technological issues are resolved and there are means, why not. Neutron flashes should be applied close enough, not in water - because it will be harmless in general. And you know you can protect them from the Dreadnoughts and you can - for THE BRIDGES THERE ARE NOT A PROTECTION) In any case, this will not lead to drowning, and a new crew can be delivered quite quickly.
    P.S. Although I would rather build a dreadnought in orbit, and from it the democratic world has already been oppressed.
  • Ilya77
    Ilya77 2 September 2015 09: 56 New
    0
    I wonder if Oleg Kaptsov and Oleg Teslenko are one person? Somehow the link in Katsov’s article on Teslenko skipped. If so, then everything is clear, you can easily google who Teslenko is).
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 September 2015 13: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Ilya77
      I wonder if Oleg Kaptsov and Oleg Teslenko are one person?

      The main thing is not to merchants! laughing
  • Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 2 September 2015 10: 30 New
    +1
    For war, you need money, money, and again money. How much will it cost? At one time, battleships were more expensive than aircraft carriers. For an armored ship, you need a huge amount of armor steel, increased manufacturing complexity, an engine of a different level. How many times will it cost more? at least 2-3 times. The combat effectiveness of conventional 2-3 ships will be better than 1 armored.
    1. brn521
      brn521 2 September 2015 11: 34 New
      0
      Quote: MaxWRX
      For an armored ship, you need a huge amount of armor steel, increased manufacturing complexity, an engine of a different level.

      And another problem arising from this. The goods are expensive and piece. These can be monitored individually and pre-plan tactics before the conflict.
      1. Maxwrx
        Maxwrx 2 September 2015 11: 58 New
        0
        you shouldn’t talk about it at all) all the coolest systems are afraid to let them into battle (they suddenly lose because of miscalculations), and all the work is done by nothing stand out large-scale equipment. in history 2, the world of war is full of examples.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 2 September 2015 13: 41 New
      0
      Iron is not electronics, it is much cheaper, then we will get 1 reusable ship, and not three disposable, as they say to have a ship and not have a ship, this is a total of two ships.
      1. Maxwrx
        Maxwrx 2 September 2015 22: 08 New
        -1
        read about the cost of electronic systems, there are a bunch of sources where the cost of the ship is positioned. The main price is the body and engine.
        an order of 3 ships is much more difficult to sink than 1 armadillo, because they will have 3 times more air defense systems, plos, interference, etc.
    3. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 2 September 2015 18: 03 New
      0
      Quote: MaxWRX
      engine of a different level.

      this level was completed during the time of the battleship "Eagle"
      1. Maxwrx
        Maxwrx 2 September 2015 22: 02 New
        0
        I'm not talking about creating an engine. I'm talking about the fact that a more powerful and larger engine costs many times more.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 September 2015 10: 34 New
    +2
    It’s logical that the most effective way to hit a large
    a warship can be below the waterline: make a hole,
    and then water will make its dirty deed better than any cumulative
    jets or splinters.
    At the same time, booking under water is useless: with a strong explosion
    near the body, it is pressed inward by a hydraulic shock.
    This is how sea mines work.
    1. EGOrkka
      EGOrkka 2 September 2015 13: 06 New
      0
      voyaka uh
      It’s logical that the most effective way to hit a large
      a warship can be below the waterline: make a hole,


      ..logical and that if the entire ship will consist of armored bulkheads, then it may not sink ...
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 2 September 2015 13: 43 New
      0
      And bulkheads for what? Eka had to be a melon so that the ship sank, the bottom half of the board was ripped open, and the Marat generally fought half-flooded.
    3. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2015 14: 37 New
      +1
      you talk like an amateur: a system of developed bulkheads has long been used
      after epiciles such as Hood, lessons were learned and most modern ships to sink even with a mine is not so simple - how many cases were there when pieces of ships were torn off, and they remained afloat.
  • tchoni
    tchoni 2 September 2015 10: 53 New
    0
    Well what to say. “Oleg and the armor” is already a common nod and the world community can’t cope with it .... Although, logically speaking, there is a sound grain in the article ... Indeed, modern anti-ship missiles of Western countries are not designed to combat armored targets. and, as a result, the unexpected use of armor in combination with powerful anti-aircraft defense can weaken their potential for some time ... but, do not forget that Russian anti-ship missiles, starting with the "pike", were initially designed for serious damage to the ship with a displacement of more than 10000 tons with structural elements protect ...
    So everything is not clear and unsteady ...
  • brn521
    brn521 2 September 2015 11: 23 New
    +3
    Article plus, as usual. The tenacity of woodpeckers we sing a song.
  • pimen
    pimen 2 September 2015 11: 25 New
    0
    the idea of ​​booking is not bad, only maybe instead of a homogeneous carapace for a ship it’s better to put hollow cells with cutting carbide knives-spacers and an additional buoyancy margin
  • Forest
    Forest 2 September 2015 11: 47 New
    0
    Maybe you need to remember such a cruiser as the Red Caucasus, which was flooded by a subsonic anti-ship missile system, converted from a MiG that does not reach even half the mass of modern heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles? And the armor did not save. And modern aircraft carriers are armored, and nothing prevents them from hitting missiles.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 2 September 2015 15: 19 New
      +2
      Can. Displacement of the Red Caucasus SUDDENLY 8200 tons (approximately equal to Esnitsa Arli Burke).
      Sandals on him weren’t far from being a single Kameta. All without combat units.
      “As a rule, a projectile hit the middle part of the ship and“ pierced ”the cruiser through (600 kg of steel bar). Three holes remained on the attacked side — one large, the fuselage of the projectile, and two small ones, according to the diameter of the cargo at the ends of its wings "The wings of the shell were cut off like scissors with paper. A board with an area of ​​more than 10 square meters was breaking out at the exit. However, the Red Caucasus remained afloat and continued to move in a circle." Drowned him by stupidity. At first, to demolish half of the ship with test launches, they were not engaged in normal repair. And they did not think that he would drown.

      Recall that the booking of the side of this ship was 75mm armored (It is inferior to modern approximately 2.7 times). It can also be recalled that the Comets were withdrawn from the arsenal of the cruiser Nakhimov due to the weak impact on ships above 18.000 tons (that is, they could not drown the modern WWII cruiser, much less drown the battleship).

      So it goes.
      1. Forest
        Forest 2 September 2015 22: 06 New
        0
        So, modern RCCs are much higher both in terms of simple kinetic energy and in warheads.
        1. Kvazar
          Kvazar 4 September 2015 18: 41 New
          0
          600kg discs?
          You know the difference between a termite warhead with a high-explosive cumulative part of 550 kg and 375VV. And 500 kg of armor-piercing warheads with 10 kg of explosives, I think there is no need to explain the difference in destruction?
    2. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2015 23: 07 New
      0
      this, frankly, is far from a masterpiece of booking.
      In addition, the internal structure was originally made according to the very outdated standards of the First World War.
  • brn521
    brn521 2 September 2015 11: 55 New
    0
    Article:
    tests, on the contrary, showed the exceptional resistance of ships to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons
    Of course, the ships are quite stable against the damaging factors of nuclear weapons. Especially submarines, with their minimal superstructure area and rugged hull. But nuclear explosions have a characteristic radius, inside which water turns into steam, rock formations are crushed, and the bodies crumple like cans. And this radius is measured in hundreds of meters. Those. tactical nuclear weapons have indeed proven effective. In order to smash the battleship into the trash, no matter how expensive, large and armored it is, now you do not even have to get into this battleship.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 2 September 2015 12: 02 New
    +3
    "To start a Coke, start over again ..." (C)

    For tenacity, of course, plus ... but for the "tenacity", sorry minus ...
  • brn521
    brn521 2 September 2015 12: 11 New
    +1
    That's who it is good to strengthen the structure and strengthen the hull, so it is submarines. The battleship armor is a dead weight. For a submarine, the benefits of armor are many times greater - the same additional depth of immersion and resistance to explosions. Less chance of detection, more opportunities not only to survive, but also to complete a combat mission. In general, I propose that the author switch to underwater armored cruisers. In addition, such a fleet is excellent for the Arctic and Antarctic.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 2 September 2015 18: 07 New
      0
      Quote: brn521
      In addition, such a fleet is excellent for the Arctic and Antarctic.

      Swim under Antarctica? :-)
      1. brn521
        brn521 3 September 2015 11: 35 New
        0
        Quote: rosarioagro
        Swim under Antarctica? :-)

        "Antarctica (along with the Subantarctic) is the southern polar region of the globe, bounded from the north by Antarctic convergence. It includes Antarctica and the adjacent islands and parts of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans ...
        ... In East Antarctica, areas that were promising for the search for large deposits of iron ore and coal were discovered, manifestations of such solid minerals as tungsten, manganese, copper, polymetals, titanium, rare earth metals, apatite, lapis lazuli, mica, boron, gold, silver, diamonds, platinum. Vast sedimentary basins were opened on the continental shelf of Antarctica and in the regions adjacent to it, the content of which hydrocarbon raw materials can reach 70 billion tons of fuel ... "Wikipedia®
        So in the future there is something to do and what to fight about.
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 2 September 2015 12: 45 New
    +1
    I agree with the author in full, article plus. All the arguments of opponents come down to one thing - an armored ship can also be destroyed, what a revelation)) lol
  • srelock
    srelock 2 September 2015 12: 47 New
    0
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    - rocket weapons (where armor-piercing shells did not cope, there is no one to frighten rockets. In overcoming armor, speed and mass do not solve anything. The main thing is mechanical strength, which missiles never had);

    Oleg, I'm afraid you have a wrong idea about the design of modern missiles. For example, the warhead of the X-31 rocket is equivalent (in mass) to art. projectile caliber ~ 200mm., and the speed upon contact with the target reaches 800m / s. I doubt that of the available armadillos, someone will withstand (in the sense of penetration) such a hit.
    1. DimanC
      DimanC 2 September 2015 13: 01 New
      0
      I agree, especially since the late Soviet missiles were made with half-armored warheads (in any case, they printed such things about the Mosquitoes and Volcanoes)
    2. Kvazar
      Kvazar 2 September 2015 18: 23 New
      +1
      The vryatli cruiser will withstand (they hold 203mm at speeds up to 600m / s). Rather, the problem is that if you break through the armor. Then high-explosive filling will be ridiculous. For the entire rocket of 100 kg warhead on the explosive will be about 4-5 kg ​​if it is armor-piercing. If the floor is armor-piercing 10 approximately.
  • alovrov
    alovrov 2 September 2015 12: 47 New
    0
    Quote: brn521
    What will such a ship do?

    Go safely into the zones of military conflicts, patrol in “hot spots” (the coast of Syria, the Persian Gulf). In case of war, act where an ordinary ship will die almost immediately.


    To the Syrian coast regularly and without fear go never armored BDK. If battleships went there, it would be fun for the whole world. Like New Jersey, which shot Lebanese and Syrian bearded men from the main caliber with expired shells.
    Where "where the ordinary ship will die immediately"? Inside the warrant of an enemy AUG? Storming Pearl Harbor alone on the forehead?
    As usual, sheer boyish enthusiasm for superbatships and not a single common sense for their possible combat use.
    1. yehat
      yehat 2 September 2015 23: 18 New
      0
      It seems to me that well-protected ships can be used in short sorties, because any long hike is fraught with the discovery and preparation of a serious attack on ships. For short periods of response, the ship may withstand poorly prepared impact.
      But at the same time, it is not clear why aviation is worse?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 September 2015 12: 50 New
    +2
    The appearance of a highly protected warship will produce an effect similar to the Dreadnought. All missile destroyers of NATO countries in one moment will be "second-class" ships. All tactics and arsenals of the existing anti-ship weapons will become obsolete at once.

    Heh heh heh ... and is it nothing that the "missile destroyers" of the same USN are mostly escort soldiers and have not been sharpened on the task of fighting surface ships? Until recently, their task was to keep his Majesty an aircraft carrier intact, and to shoot along the shore as part of another operation against some zusuls. So obsolescence does not threaten them, because their main goals - airplanes, anti-ship missiles, submarines and ground targets - and not ships. And the composition of the EM armament seems to hint about this: more than a hundred air-guided missiles for missile defense, missile systems and missile systems ... and eight missile launchers for missile defense (with fairly average performance characteristics).

    By the way, when the United States recently decided to return to the concept of "anti-ship" NK, then it began to develop a new anti-ship missile system with warheads as high as 1000 pounds (454 kg). At one time, "thousand pounds" was enough for the Japanese AB and LC.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 15: 28 New
      0
      Escortnits cost 2 billion dollars

      Floating treasures
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 September 2015 16: 31 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Escortnits cost 2 billion dollars

        Floating treasures

        And what to do - the AV covered by them is even more expensive and is built much longer.

        Let the aircraft wing deal with the ships. And EM will protect him. Moreover, they don’t have anything to shoot at the ships: the Yankees wrote off the anti-ship "tomahawks", the old "harpoon" is suitable only for self-defense, and LRASM has not yet left the diapers.
  • Irkutian
    Irkutian 2 September 2015 12: 53 New
    -2
    Oleg Kaptsov! I understood as soon as I read the headline!
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 2 September 2015 12: 53 New
    +4
    Article minus. Already tired of all the same amateurism of the author of the article in his perseverance. Shell, armor, the struggle between them ... Delirium without end. Meanwhile, the development of the fleets of the world and ships in particular follows the universal law of unity and struggle of opposites, as the only source of development. Ships and their weapons were always built and created and will be built and created not based on the turbulent fantasies of individuals (although, if desired, you can find examples of this, and in our fleet too), but based on the tasks that arise for the fleet, taking into account their optimization (efficiency-value, opportunities and development of science, including military and industry)) and the method of application (preemptive strike, defense, deterrence of aggression). And the designer in the design of the ship has always been looking for and will seek the optimum between structural protection, reservation, reservation, means of fighting for survivability and so on, while the ship can fulfill its combat missions, including when receiving combat damage, with a certain given probability. All of the above applies to any type of armament and BT of other types of aircraft.
    1. Kvazar
      Kvazar 2 September 2015 15: 28 New
      0
      Well, how would I tell you. Peter and Kuzya bear the reservation gee +) Aircraft carriers so generally all +).
      Ships like with generations of tanks. When Kuma appeared, they also stopped booking +). Ride realized that idiocy and returned again to the reservation +))

      Everything is cheaper there and the life cycle is shorter, generations succeed each other faster.
    2. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 2 September 2015 21: 06 New
      -1
      Quote: okroshka79
      Article minus. Already tired of all the same amateurism of the author of the article in his perseverance. Shell, armor, the struggle between them ... Delirium without end. Meanwhile, the development of the fleets of the world and ships in particular follows the universal law of unity and struggle of opposites, as the only source of development. Ships and their weapons were always built and created and will be built and created not based on the turbulent fantasies of individuals (although, if desired, you can find examples of this, and in our fleet too), but based on the tasks that arise for the fleet, taking into account their optimization (efficiency-value, opportunities and development of science, including military and industry)) and the method of application (preemptive strike, defense, deterrence of aggression). And the designer in the design of the ship has always been looking for and will seek the optimum between structural protection, reservation, reservation, means of fighting for survivability and so on, while the ship can fulfill its combat missions, including when receiving combat damage, with a certain given probability. All of the above applies to any type of armament and BT of other types of aircraft.

      good drinks Ah yes well done !!! In one paragraph I expressed the essence of the problem !!!
      Super!
      Well, it doesn’t reach Oleg Kaptsov that booking will entail either an increase in the cost of the ship, which in the majority of countries will be considered unacceptable (and where is the guarantee that the built ship will not be drowned by RCC precisely?), Or such a change in characteristics that their construction she will be in doubt.
      Ships are now being armored, but armored pointwise, partially, anti-fragmentation, etc. Well, no one will build capital armored ships in the age of guided weapons !!! ARMOR PROTECTED FROM ACCIDENTAL ACCIDENT !!! Even if you book the same "Zamvolt", then it will radically change its other characteristics, and, consequently, the possibility of application! Well, Oleg Kaptsov doesn’t want to understand this !!!! And now there is no armor by weight of foam capable of withstanding normal RCC! NO !!!!
      And my personal opinion about this fuss with booking: stop hovering in the clouds !!!
      And you plus for the comment !!! hi Exactly, capaciously, on business !!!
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 2 September 2015 13: 06 New
    0
    Here are the fixed HEADLIGHTS mounted on the walls of the superstructure and the makeshift “prismatic” masts. To destroy all four antennas, you will need to hit the ship four times from different directions.

    What for? Even 1 beaten HEADLIGHT will give a dead sector of 60-75 degrees. 2 broken HEADLIGHTS (if the rocket comes from the beam or from the nose and whips the GGE on two adjacent panels) - and the ship is deprived of the possibility of normal viewing by about half the horizon.
    Composite radiotransparent fairings - for additional protection of the antenna sheet from small fragments and blast wave.

    What are the "small fragments"? To incapacitate a radar of such a ship, it will be operated on with missiles with warheads, which creates a cone / beaver tail of high-speed carbide gas missiles when blown up. They will not even notice this composite fairing.
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 15: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Here are the fixed HEADLIGHTS mounted on the walls of the superstructure and the makeshift “prismatic” masts. To destroy all four antennas, you will need to hit the ship four times from different directions.

      What for? Even an 1 embossed HEADLIGHT will give a dead sector of 60-75 degrees. 2 knocked-out HEADLIGHTS (if a rocket comes from a beam or from a nose and whips the GGE on two adjacent panels) - and the ship is deprived of the possibility of a normal view at about

      Modern cruiser will cease to exist
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 September 2015 18: 41 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Modern cruiser will cease to exist

        From one RCC with a fragmentation warhead? I doubt it ...
        1. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 23: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Modern cruiser will cease to exist

          From one RCC with a fragmentation warhead? I doubt it ...

          Sheffield, Stark Cole

          In 100% of cases
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 3 September 2015 10: 43 New
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Sheffield, Stark Cole

            In 100% of cases

            Sheffield and Stark are not cruisers. This is a budgetary EM and no less budgetary RF three times less displacement, and even built on the principle of "cheaper price".
            At the same Sheffield, the fire line lost pressure over the entire length when damaged in one place — there was no sectioning.

            Cole received 300 kg of explosives in the Moscow region. That is, a high-explosive, rather than fragmentation warhead. And not to the superstructure, but to the side at the waterline.
  • Taoist
    Taoist 2 September 2015 13: 08 New
    -2
    By the way, about the "dreadnought effect" ... Do you not think gentlemen that it is more likely a consequence of PR and psychological dependence? Indeed, in the end it’s all one "zilch" - well, countries rushed to spend resources on a battleship race - to build armored monsters of such a cost that the fleet from the "realpolitik" tool turned into a "sacred cow" which was frightening to lose elementarily? And what is the result?
    1. altman
      altman 2 September 2015 14: 10 New
      0
      I completely agree with you. Such expensive toys will be protected and not released anywhere. Full of examples.
      1. Kvazar
        Kvazar 2 September 2015 18: 26 New
        0
        And now very much released?
        If the Red Caucasus was sunk without a command after a dozen times were broken by blanks and then with warheads, and this is all without normal repair. Yes, and also warhead weighing 600 kg. And this is on a boat of 8.000 mass. What will happen to the destroyer at 18.000 from at least a couple of such hits (without undermining the warhead)
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 2 October 2015 15: 47 New
      0
      Everything was good for his era. With battleships, this is the appearance of a bunch of aircraft carriers, strategic aviation and submarines by the end of WWII.
      Therefore, further the insanity of all "Washington treaties" began.
      By the end of the 1970s, large aircraft carriers were outdated.
      Before that, first knights, then sailboats, then cavalry as such ... although this, too, was all beautiful, prestigious and expensive.
  • 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 2 September 2015 13: 21 New
    0
    In addition to the "Eagle" you can still give an example of "Varyag". I am still surprised that there are only 600 dead per 30 crew (I don’t remember the numbers for memory, but the order is like that)
    1. TWR
      TWR 2 September 2015 13: 48 New
      0
      Quote: 2-th12-th
      I am still surprised that there are only 600 dead per 30 crew (I don’t remember the numbers for memory, but the order is like that)

      23 died immediately and 10 later died from wounds. There were few hits in the Varangian. They counted from 9 to 11 hits, and the holes were counted 7. From this, a relatively small number of victims.
      1. Santa Fe
        2 September 2015 23: 57 New
        0
        Varangian was an armored deck cruiser


        In human terms - there was practically no armor, all guns and over the construction site had no protection
        1. TWR
          TWR 3 September 2015 00: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Varangian was an armored deck cruiser

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          there was practically no armor, all guns and over the construction had no protection

          The Varangian was not just an armored cruiser. He was a large armored cruiser - a trade fighter. This means that the reservation there was generally at a minimum. Even for an armored cruiser.
          For example, the armored cruiser - long-range reconnaissance hero Bogatyr was much better armored. And already very close to the reservation level of the semi-armored ship (Rurik).
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • DimanC
    DimanC 2 September 2015 13: 23 New
    +3
    Apparently, the author is really very nostalgic for the era of battleships and is ready to further defend his point of view. You can, of course, recall that once “noble” knights, shackled in armor, were “knocked out” by first long peaks, and then (and this is most important) muskets and buckshots. But after almost 400 years, armor returns in the form of sophisticated body armor, helmets, etc.

    But with the ships, not everything is so simple: we recall the famous "splendid cats" of Admiral Fisher - at once three of them took off in the air in one battle, because (of course, a combination of factors) THE FIRE REACHED AN AMOUNT. You can also recall “Barem” and “Mutsu”, and even “Marat” - about the same. And now, attention, the question is: any battleship is a floating arsenal of weapons. Exotic in the form of combat lasers that do not have the chemical components of fuel and tons of explosives in warheads - this is still unknown when it will be. But weapons that have a high-explosive fragmentation effect for such ships need it unambiguously and will be needed for a long, long time. Then how to arrange, armor and store them in such a way that a modern smart warhead capable of falling not just into a ship, but into its specific part could not force to detonate the ammunition? After all, since now you can aim at a specific part of the ship, therefore, you can purposefully hit the arsenals. Then really, it’s better to have dozens of URA cruisers instead of one new Iowa, so that the enemy had LOTS of targets and he would not have enough means of destruction ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 2 September 2015 14: 02 New
      0
      With knights, it was not so simple that the late armor of the 17th century completely held bullets (after testing the places where the bullets hit it were intricately decorated with engraving) and shrapnel, and in the 19th century there were armored cuirasses, during the war sapper assault groups had armored cuirasses to supply, which with the development of machine guns saved a lot lives. The actual period of lack of body armor was from the end of World War II to the beginning of Afghanistan with us and Vietnam with Amers.
  • Persifal
    Persifal 2 September 2015 13: 29 New
    +2
    An article is useless. A direct hit of only the 1st cruise missile can disable any ship of the 2nd or 3rd rank. On the 1st rank you will need 2, in rare cases 3 missiles (Aircraft carriers). The Vulkan, Granit, Onyx cruise missiles damage the radar of ships when hit, and there is no way to protect them (even duplicating systems, such as on the Orlan project TARK, does not guarantee operability after only one hit). The phrase about partially damaged radars does not lend itself not only to criticism, but even to logic. Without radar, including over-the-horizon radars, it is impossible to detect enemy ships, to give target guidance to missiles, it is also difficult, and most likely it becomes impossible to receive target guidance from other sources, although this will be difficult in modern combat conditions due to the operation of electronic warfare systems. Having lost the radar and other antenna stations, the ship loses its combat effectiveness.
    Booking a radar is not possible. It is also doubtful the reservation of the citadel, extremities and superstructures. 500 - 700 kilograms of fragments (CR Volcano / Granite) flying with a speed of more than 3 swoops are able to penetrate up to 75-150 mm of homogeneous armor. The installation of such armor on superstructures could not afford even the famous Yamato. Penetration of armor at such speeds is guaranteed to lead to a fire (In tests 1 rocket led to the emergence of several tens of foci) It is also worth considering the development of cruise missiles. In just 5-7 years, several countries will immediately adopt hypersonic cruise missiles. Because of the speed, the damaging elements of such missiles will have a significantly greater impact.

    There is an example of a P-1000 volcano hitting a target imitating a destroyer. from the 45th second
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QHlFrBrH_Q&index=41&list=LLExiAZPn-S4t4NM-6w79ip

    w
    1. Santa Fe
      2 September 2015 15: 22 New
      0
      How many volcanoes are there in the world

      What is the number of carriers))
      1. Persifal
        Persifal 2 September 2015 16: 13 New
        +1
        Volcanoes are on 3 project 1164 cruisers with 16 launchers. But Granite missiles have similar characteristics. They are on the 8th Antelay Project 949A nuclear submarine and on the 3rd Project 1144 Orlan TARK Submarine Total 252 Granit missiles and 48 Volcan missiles. These are only rockets in mines. How many of them are in stocks are not exactly known. All this without considering the older Basalt missiles and the newer Onyx and Caliber missiles on Project 885 Ash submarine. There are also other carriers ...
        I think there are enough missiles. For larger wars, the number of cruise missiles will no longer matter.
        1. Santa Fe
          2 September 2015 23: 59 New
          0
          Number of f18e fighter-bombers over 600
          Harpoon rocket - 10 000 pieces released

          And this is just the tip of the iceberg ..,
          1. Persifal
            Persifal 3 September 2015 12: 07 New
            0
            I did not understand how the f18e related to the issue of booking modern ships. Yes, and the harpoon rocket, sorry for directness - ordinary trash. How can a bullet and a projectile be compared? Harpoon - 10 times lighter than the Granite rocket, 4 times inferior in speed, has no radar counteraction systems and jamming. Any, even a portable air defense system is capable of knocking it down.
  • ermak.sidorov
    ermak.sidorov 2 September 2015 13: 46 New
    0
    Not a bit darker than the article, I just wanted to hear the opinion of competent and experienced: one acquaintance hung noodles on my ears or the truth was in his words.
    He served in the Pacific Fleet in the mid-80s and participated in firing exercises. Their ship (not a tugboat, but a full-fledged warship) pulled a "target" onto a cable (1-3 km ???). The "arrows" confused them with the target and as a result the radio was filled with selective mat after 2-3 hits of artillery blanks (as I understand it were without explosive fillings ???) on the "towing" add-on (there were no casualties and serious injuries) .. .
    And the second episode, when they themselves were already practicing shooting but at an air target (as I understand it, it was air defense artillery), because when shooting at the “protests” everything was “milk”, but all the same, they filled up on the peep ... during the award the management especially noted the reliability of the guidance and fire control systems ... the awarded were smiling and silent so as not to scare away the “medals”

    ... it was "noodles on the ears" or in reality this could be ???
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 September 2015 14: 24 New
      +2
      If your acquaintance served in the Pacific Fleet in the mid-80s, then he should have known about the third case - the death of MRC "Monsoon".
      In the course of the exercises, the target rocket (former RCC), ignoring the 2 “wasps” fired at it and the AK-725 fire, fell into the superstructure of the MRK. And then - everything is just like in “Sheffield”: burning RCC fuel and a fire on the ship (an eyewitness wrote that when other ships started approaching the “Monsoon”, containers with RCC were already burning on it). The only difference is that mooring to the "Monsoon" was forbidden - at first because of the danger of an RCC explosion, and then the fire crept up to the artillery cellar.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 2 September 2015 14: 33 New
      +1
      Hit missiles P-35 in the ship. With an inert warhead. Penetration through. Why so evenly? The speed was decent.
      Now we put the warhead warhead and think what kind of armor plate it must be to withstand the impact of a blank mass of ~ 2300 kg (2-th stage) with 800 kg of explosives.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 2 September 2015 15: 31 New
        +1
        The armor is enough about 200 mm, as far as I can tell. A dent is formed on the armor plate, most likely hitting with such a missile and undermining the warhead on the armor will not sustain the reinforcements behind the armor and loosening of the armor and a small flow of water will form if the blow and detonation are close to the water. That's all. There will be no penetration of the armor, they are painfully soft, rockets.) The maximum is a break, but in order to break through the armor stupidly you need several hits in the same power set of the case and armor fastening.

        But getting such a missile into Peter the Great, for example, will lead to his death, almost certainly or a complete loss of combat effectiveness, God forbid they drag him to the port))
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 2 September 2015 15: 40 New
          -1
          Well, who told you about the soft rockets? An armor-piercing or “high-explosive armor-piercing” warhead has absolutely the same strength characteristics as an artillery shell ... All the difference is that the projectile flies “naked” and the warhead in the “shell” from the design of the rocket itself ...
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 2 September 2015 16: 03 New
            +1
            I do not see armor-piercing and high-explosive armor-piercing warheads, can you tell me which missiles are installed on them? And then, the results of the shooting of armor of different thicknesses with various guns are well known, like the design of the shells themselves, how they are made, what is their fill factor of the total mass, the mass itself, etc. and what is needed for the armor to be pierced. Hence the conclusion, based on the usual logic and facts of the effect of shells on the armor. How much warhead missiles should be in order to break through the armor of a cruiser (for example 180mm) and bring 200 kg of explosives into the reserved space at least 2 explosives? The shells that pierce such armor drove the explosive mass into the armored space by 203 orders of magnitude less. (Of course, we mean the shells of cruisers 200mm, since we are talking about the armor of cruisers for example) And here the rocket tries to launch XNUMXkg of explosives (for example) under armor, which dimensions of mass and thickness should be an armored tip. Think, evaluate.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 2 September 2015 16: 21 New
              0
              I do not see armor-piercing and high-explosive armor-piercing warheads, can you tell me which missiles are installed on them?

              On the same Yakhont stands a penetrating warhead weighing 200 kg.
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 2 September 2015 16: 35 New
                +1
                a semi-armor-piercing warhead is installed in Yakhont, the term semi-armor-piercing warhead means that when it enters a modern (i.e., not armored or extremely weakly armored ship) warhead penetrates to a certain depth, the hull of this ship is penetrated and only then does an explosion occur. This of course is ensured by some strength of the warhead and slowdown of the explosion, but it is not at all intended to overcome at least some serious booking.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 2 September 2015 16: 40 New
              0
              Quote: barbiturate
              I do not see armor-piercing and high-explosive armor-piercing warheads, can you tell me which missiles are installed on them?

              High-explosive warhead stands on the same "Harpoon".
            3. Taoist
              Taoist 2 September 2015 16: 45 New
              0
              We smoke "materiel"

              Penetrating warhead
              Type of warheads that are designed to undermine targets protected by armor, concrete or a layer of soil. Structurally, they are a durable case, with a charge placed inside (high-explosive or high-explosive fragmentation). In the event of a collision with an obstacle, due to the robust housing, the charge breaks through the obstacle and explodes behind it. The main objectives are ships and in-depth bunkers and bomb shelters. Depending on the type of targets, the following types of warheads are distinguished:

              Half-armor-piercing warhead - Designed to destroy ships.
              Warhead - penetrator - designed to defeat bunkers.
              Ammunition representatives

              Semi-armor-proof warhead: anti-ship missiles Flag of the USSR 3M-80 Mosquito · P-500 Basalt · P-700 Granite · P-1000 Volcano USA Flag A / U / RGM-84A / B / C / D · BGM-109C Tomahawk France Flag MM -38 / SM-39 / AM-39 / MM-40
              Warhead - penetrator: Flag of USAUAB GBU-28 · GBU-37; KR AGM-86D (CALCM Block II)

              And yet, by default, it is known that the armor penetration of an AP shell is approximately equal to its caliber, i.e. 200 mm projectile is enough to penetrate 200 mm armor - and this is only about 100 kg. Those. Warhead even light RCC.
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 2 September 2015 17: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Semi-armor-proof warhead: anti-ship missiles Flag of the USSR 3M-80 Mosquito · P-500 Basalt · P-700 Granite · P-1000 Volcano USA Flag A / U / RGM-84A / B / C / D · BGM-109C Tomahawk France Flag MM -38 / SM-39 / AM-39 / MM-40


                You obviously don’t understand what you’re talking about, although you apparently “smoke” the materiel, unlike me) So you pointed to the armor-piercing warheads “penetrating” the floor, they are designed to destroy protected objects, in our case, ships. so indicate me their armor-proof? Since they are designed to break through something, then indicate to me this most important characteristic. Where did you read in the characteristics of ours there or not our anti-ship missiles the characteristic - ARMOR RESISTANCE? ITS not there, this characteristic, but do you know why? Because the designers of these anti-ship missiles did not REALLY expect that these missiles would have to penetrate the armor, but calculated their semi-armor-piercing warheads for a certain penetration into the ship and detonation with deceleration. To undermine the warhead with a slowdown, it is necessary that it does not fall apart at least for some time penetrating the ship, therefore it is made strong and is called semi-armor-piercing.


                Quote: Taoist
                And yet, by default, it is known that the armor penetration of an AP shell is approximately equal to its caliber, i.e. 200 mm projectile is enough to penetrate 200 mm armor - and this is only about 100 kg. Those. Warhead even light RCC.

                It’s true, only you forget the other. The design of the BB projectile 203mm caliber is not difficult to find and it weighs 100kg. What should be the design and mass of warhead rockets to bring for the armor the mass of explosives that modern anti-ship missiles carry as a "combat load"? As far as I know, no one has carried out such calculations, but a lot of difficulties arise even offhand, and yet it should also fly, and even quickly, preferably the ability to perform a maneuver is needed in the target area.))
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 2 September 2015 18: 52 New
                  0
                  Quote: barbiturate
                  What should be the design and mass of warhead rockets to bring for the armor the mass of explosives that modern anti-ship missiles carry as a "combat load"?

                  Well. We take our beloved LRASM, which, it seems, will soon become the standard USN anti-ship missile system. The weight of its warhead is 454 kilograms.
                  Exactly the same number of USN dive bombers carried during the attacks on LC and AB IJN. ICH, "thousand pounds" was enough for their sinking.
                  If armor-piercing is really needed, then LRASM will calmly lift a 12 "armor-piercing projectile. And it will deliver it to the target at a much higher speed than if they were shot from a gun.

                  In addition, anti-ship missiles can always take advantage of a "dishonest reception" - a hit from the hill. Weak to book a deck the same way with onboard booking? I'm not talking about the fact that the accuracy of anti-ship missiles is higher than that of shells, and they can be aimed at those areas of the ship’s hull where armor protection is weakened due to structural reasons (for ships with a non-nuclear power source this is the pipe region).
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 2 September 2015 19: 11 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    Well. We take our beloved LRASM, which, it seems, will soon become the standard USN anti-ship missile system. The weight of its warhead is 454 kilograms.
                    Exactly the same number of USN dive bombers carried during the attacks on LC and AB IJN. ICH, "thousand pounds" was enough for their sinking.


                    You are right, thousand pounds was enough to sink unarmored or weakly armored targets, and what large armored targets were sunk by thousand pounds? But a thousand pounds will be enough for Tikonderoge or Chabanenko.

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    If armor-piercing is really needed, then LRASM will calmly lift a 12 "armor-piercing projectile. And it will deliver it to the target at a much higher speed than if they were shot from a gun.


                    Well, LRASM is a subsonic rocket, so what speed are you talking about? And at what speed does a 305mm shell fly? And at what range with what speed does he meet the target? I have an idea, and you?
                    Yes, and there are a lot of other problems in delivering the projectile, but if you omit all the problems and attach such a projectile to a missile, do you know how much such a projectile will deliver to the explosive? Read, take an interest.

                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 3 September 2015 11: 35 New
                      +1
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      You are right, a thousand pounds were enough to sink unarmored or weakly armored targets, and what large armored targets were sunk by a thousand pounds?

                      Offhand - "Iseo", "Hyuuga".

                      By the way, the Kyrgyz Republic “Mikuma” under Midway is just our case. Armor: side 100 - 140 mm, deck 35 - 60 mm.
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      Well, LRASM is a subsonic rocket, so what speed are you talking about? And at what speed does a 305mm shell fly? And at what range with what speed does he meet the target? I have an idea, and you?

                      So do I. For subsonic anti-ship missiles, the closest analogue is our 12 "/ 52 at extreme distances. So, taking into account different meeting angles for the" shell-armor "and" warhead anti-ship missile systems, the armor penetration of warhead anti-ship missiles without overclocking will be somewhere around 150-170 mm. This is if you take 12 "/ 52 at a distance of 30 kiloards and take into account the indicated difference in angles and lower warhead speed.
                      Quote: barbiturate
                      Yes, and there are a lot of other problems in delivering the projectile, but if you omit all the problems and attach such a projectile to a missile, do you know how much such a projectile will deliver to the explosive? Read, take an interest.

                      13 kg - if you take 12 "BBS arr. 1911.
                      But - there is one subtlety. The strength of the BBS hull is designed not only to break through the armor, but also to resist loads arising from the shot. The latter in the case of warheads can be removed - and then it is possible to reduce the mass of the hull and increase the mass of explosives (say, by reducing the thickness of the hull in the aft).

                      The Japanese went this way in 1941, when they received an armor-piercing bomb weighing 1000 kg with 14,9 kg of explosives from a BBS weighing 811 kg containing 35,7 kg of explosives (Type 2 (Model 1942) No. 80 Mark 5 Model 1).

                      How important is the stern strength for shell and what happens to the shell of the projectile when fired, the French showed well on the Richelieu, when, at the very first salvo volley, the LK lost 2 guns: gun 7 was burst, and gun 8 was blown up at a length of 8 m. The reason is the presence of BSS 4 in the stern cavities under the OM. These cavities were covered with a lid, which, when fired with a standard SD21 charge, collapsed, fragments passing through the cavities pierced the shell of the shell and reached the explosive, which detonated.

                      The warhead will not have such loads, which means the stern can be significantly facilitated.
                      1. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 3 September 2015 17: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Offhand - "Iseo", "Hyuuga".

                        By the way, the Kyrgyz Republic “Mikuma” under Midway is just our case. Armor: side 100 - 140 mm, deck 35 - 60 mm.


                        You read the circumstances of the sinking of these ships and how many bombs they took, how many explosions were nearby (flooding) what and how detonated? The fact that if the ship is bombarded with bombs and sooner or later it will sink, I have no doubt) Mikuma was destroyed by the detonation of his own torpedoes after hitting 5 bombs and it would not be so bad, but his own torpedoes let us down. But next to him was another cruiser - the Mogami and the torpedoes on it did not detonate, they were dropped before that. Take a look at the results?
                      2. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 3 September 2015 17: 26 New
                        +2
                        Just copy:

                        "The mystery lies in the penetration power of American bombs:
                        did they drive the main armored deck of the Japanese cruisers or not? About
                        no one thinks about it, but the question is quite interesting - armored
                        the main deck of the cruisers was not particularly thick - only 35 mm, which
                        would not have taken bombs. However, it does not seem to have evidence
                        telstva its penetration. Here is this analysis:
                        The second bomb hit a fire in the torpedo compartment at
                        Mogami. But since nothing is said that the fire
                        watched and the engine room, then everything was fine there. Still
                        one thing - the main confirmation of a satisfactory situation in the Moscow Region -
                        that the cruiser didn’t slow down at all.
                        And that says a lot. So the bomb with its explosion is not so bad
                        Ko did not penetrate the 35 mm armored deck, although the torpedo compartment is located
                        lagged directly over the MO. It can be concluded that the bomb is not
                        not enough kinetic energy to penetrate horizontal
                        armor - if it was an armor-piercing bomb, not a hundred-kilogram charge
                        a series of explosives to tear it apart - if a high-explosive exploded. By-
                        the heat of course was, but not so great, knowing that we could handle it
                        just an hour away.
                        That is, it must be assumed - in this case, the American bomb
                        could break through only two upper unarmored thin decks
                        from non-hardened mild steel, and COULD NOTHING TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST
                        35 mm steel armor protection.
                        After that, the Mogami got hit in front of the nasal over-
                        building and again to the aircraft deck - but the damage was medium
                        its severity - not even a fire is noted. And the last hit
                        happened again on the airplane deck. All of course pass by
                        attention to this fact, being more interested in hits from which
                        catastrophic destruction occurred, and hits from
                        for some reason, readers are not interested in a big effect.

                        But the result of this hit is very symptomatic. Sweat
                        mu, that any heavy cruiser immediately in front of the bow superstructure-
                        the towers of the main caliber are located, and under them are their cellars
                        ripasa. It is easy to predict what will happen to the ship, which
                        the bomb will break through the armored deck and explode right in the hook camera or
                        close to her - there will be a huge force of detonation
                        ammunition, and destroy the ship! But since this tragedy with Moga-
                        mi didn’t happen, but the bomb undoubtedly hit the superstructure -
                        then she also could not penetrate the 40-mm armored deck!
                        Moreover, there were two more hits on the plane deck - already three
                        in this area - and again no mention of damage to cars-
                        separation and speed reduction. Not only that, this Japanese
                        the cruiser has never slowed down less than 14 knots (and this is his
                        cruising move) - and this is with the nose completely torn off! AND
                        at the end of the voyage, when the cruiser received an additional
                        your fuel, and it became possible not to save it - I developed a speed of 20
                        knots! There can be no doubt that the armored deck withstood the blows and
                        explosions of all four bombs without any consequences for themselves and for
                        protected by her vital premises. That is, universal opinion
                        about the easy penetration of thin armored decks it seems very
                        wrong. "
                      3. barbiturate
                        barbiturate 3 September 2015 17: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        So do I. For subsonic anti-ship missiles, the closest analogue is our 12 "/ 52 at extreme distances. So, taking into account different meeting angles for the" shell-armor "and" warhead anti-ship missile systems, the armor penetration of warhead anti-ship missiles without overclocking will be somewhere around 150-170 mm. This is if you take 12 "/ 52 at a distance of 30 kiloards and take into account the indicated difference in angles and lower warhead speed.


                        I agree with the numbers, but the thing is that the 305mm armor-piercing shell and contains very little explosive as a percentage of its own weight, and the RCC warhead has a completely different fill rate and is not intended to penetrate anything at all. If the rocket delivers the projectile and it breaks through the armor, then the large armored ship did not sink from a single hit even of a large projectile, too few explosives inside. This is where all the salt is, if you try to make a warhead of anti-ship missiles with armor penetration of an ammunition shell say 305mm, how many explosives will you fit there or what size and mass will such warheads be?


                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        13 kg - if you take 12 "BBS arr. 1911.
                        But - there is one subtlety. The strength of the BBS hull is designed not only to break through the armor, but also to resist loads arising from the shot. The latter in the case of warheads can be removed - and then it is possible to reduce the mass of the hull and increase the mass of explosives (say, by reducing the thickness of the hull in the aft).

                        The Japanese went this way in 1941, when they received an armor-piercing bomb weighing 1000 kg with 14,9 kg of explosives from a BBS weighing 811 kg containing 35,7 kg of explosives (Type 2 (Model 1942) No. 80 Mark 5 Model 1).

                        How important is the strength of the stern for the projectile and what happens to the shell of the projectile when fired, the French showed well on the Richelieu, when the LK lost 2 guns at the very first combat salvo: gun 7 was burst, and gun 8 was blown up at a length of 8 m. Reason - the presence in the stern of the BBS 4 cavities under the OM. These cavities were covered with a lid, which, when fired with a standard SD21 charge, collapsed, fragments passing through the cavities pierced the shell of the shell and reached the explosive, which detonated.

                        The warhead will not have such loads, which means the stern can be significantly facilitated


                        in something you are right, but only partially. So they themselves brought the Japanese alteration and see what the ratio of the mass of explosives and steel is all the same, which means not in overloads the main thing, but in armor penetration. You can take the same high-explosive shells, they also leave the barrel at the same speeds as the BB practically, but their hulls are thinner and have more explosives. So again, this is not a matter of strength characteristics, but of providing armor penetration.
              2. barbiturate
                barbiturate 2 September 2015 19: 23 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                In addition, anti-ship missiles can always take advantage of a "dishonest reception" - a hit from the hill. Weak to book a deck the same way with onboard booking? I'm not talking about the fact that the accuracy of anti-ship missiles is higher than that of shells, and they can be aimed at those areas of the ship’s hull where armor protection is weakened due to structural reasons (for ships with a non-nuclear power source this is the pipe region).


                decks are also armored and shielded from each other. About what a terrible blow from a hill you say, if shells from long distances just fell on decks))

                You are so trying to invent a method of hitting an armored ship that you completely forget about comparison, and everything is known in comparison as is known. Not armored ships died from what happened the whole history after the Second World War, but we won’t reserve anyway)
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 3 September 2015 11: 40 New
                  0
                  Quote: barbiturate
                  decks are also armored and shielded from each other. About what a terrible blow from a hill you say, if shells from long distances just fell on decks))

                  Fall angles remember? Maximum - 40 degrees.

                  RCC also recalls the worst nightmare of admirals of the steam era - an accurate mortar with projectile angles of 60-80 degrees. Moreover, the striker in the field of weakened booking of the ship.
                  1. barbiturate
                    barbiturate 3 September 2015 19: 23 New
                    0
                    why 40 degrees maximum? the guns of the 203mm cruiser Des Moines give an angle of incidence of 54,7 degrees.
                    RCC is not yet able to penetrate good armor protection
            4. Taoist
              Taoist 3 September 2015 13: 51 New
              0
              Well, yes, of course, I "don’t understand" ... And being a personnel officer of the fleet’s aviation and having the appropriate specialized education, I certainly don’t understand the true essence of the term “semi-armor-piercing" ... (By the way, you will not reveal a terrible secret for hitting any such "protected objects" "were these ammunition intended? (8 number in the picture).
              Alas, I can’t answer your question on what kind of armor penetration these BChs are designed (well, unfortunately, no one has posted the literature "top secret" on the Internet ...) But taking into account the fact that even the old X-23 (which I taught) was is designed to overcome the reservation up to 75mm, it can be quite confidently extrapolated that the Granita 200mm warhead will not slow down much.

              In general, arguing with amateurs is a very tedious task. So continue to "wet dream of armadillos" ... ;-)
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 3 September 2015 18: 12 New
                0
                Well, staffing and officership in itself still does not give knowledge, rather even minuses, I had to observe officers from extremely close range in the army for the officer himself, but from the “jackets” (I see your joyfully contemptuous smile) smile

                I won’t tell you terrible secrets, but I’ll assume that the projectile from picture 8 is designed to fire at targets harder than the destroyer, but softer than the battleship - for cruisers probably. Only the meaning of the term semi-armor-piercing after a hundred years can be very different, don’t you?


                Quote: Taoist
                But taking into account the fact that even the old X-23 (which I taught) was designed to overcome up to 75mm reservations, we can quite confidently extrapolate that the 200mm Granite warhead will not slow down much.


                I have never met a mention of the characteristic - armor penetration of the X-23 missile, so I would like to ask about which reservation was overcome? where? when? what was made of? steel? concrete? pierced or simply broke through a relatively weakly reinforced armor?
                But if you just look at your own picture of the Granit warhead and your own picture with shells, then there really is no doubt about the obvious difference in the construction. Warhead Granita "screams" directly smile the thickness of its walls, which in the century of armored ships in 1911 would be 100% called high explosive!, and in the age of unarmored shells, it would also be pulled half-armor-proof, for that wall thickness (as in the photo) is just enough to deeply flash thin aluminum-magnesium alloys and detonate deep inside.

                Quote: Taoist
                In general, arguing with amateurs is a very tedious task. So continue to "wet dream of armadillos" ... ;-)


                Arguing with amateurs is really tiring. Well, you can’t even dream of modern ships covered with armor, they are already being designed and even made, something like that)
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 2 October 2015 15: 16 New
                  0
                  Maybe then the non-amateur will say why this warhead of such a strange (not shell) shape? bully
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 2 September 2015 21: 14 New
          0
          Quote: barbiturate
          Hence the conclusion, based on the usual logic and facts of the effect of shells on the armor. How much warhead rocket should be in order to break through the armor of a cruiser (for example 180mm) and bring a kilogram of 200 explosives into the reserved space at least XNUMX BB

          Will you book the entire ship with add-ons? I wonder what kind of metacentric height your ship will be able to keep afloat? Armor will be at least 200mm wink And it will be useless from your ship if a rocket destroys all means of surveillance, control, communications, radars. After all, the high-explosive part can be great - under a ton of explosives!
          CONTROLLED MISSILES and can cause damage in unarmored parts, which when stuffed with cables, radars and other "bells and whistles" is fatal
          1. barbiturate
            barbiturate 3 September 2015 03: 56 New
            0
            Of course you can’t reserve the whole ship, therefore you need to approach this idea wisely and I don’t at all suggest building armadillos instead of modern URO destroyers)) But the kink is now very strong with the “bareness” of warships and it has already begun to be fixed in projects. In addition, there are also projects of modern ships with rather heavy armor. Well, this is a separate conversation.

            Quote: Rurikovich
            And it will be useless from your ship if a rocket destroys all means of surveillance, control, communications, radars. After all, the high-explosive part can be great - under a ton of explosives!
            CONTROLLED MISSILES and can cause damage in unarmored parts, which when stuffed with cables, radars and other "bells and whistles" is fatal


            one rocket natryatli right like that and destroy everything, depending on where it gets. It is on an armored ship that you can make one of two well-protected antennas that will survive such hits. And then it’s not the problem of the ARMORED ship, but the problem of the ships as a whole. Well and something, I don’t see cunning rockets for hitting radars, all the same PB PBCh
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 2 September 2015 16: 11 New
      0
      But who told you that RCC is soft? If we remove all the electronics, which is really fragile, we get a warhead, fuel tank and a jet engine enclosed in a long, fairly strong frame that can withstand heavy loads. The warhead itself can be different, but usually high-explosive armor-piercing + fuel residues + engine and all this stuff flies at 2-3M speed. And accuracy allows you to fly into the window of the cabin. Which you will not reserve anything.
      Peter the Great is equipped with layered air defense, you still need to be able to break through to it. But how “your” battleship will be equipped is a mystery.
      1. barbiturate
        barbiturate 2 September 2015 17: 19 New
        +2
        Sorry, tired of answering, but above already answered similar)
  • altman
    altman 2 September 2015 14: 09 New
    +1
    It’s interesting what the Sisterships of the “Eagle” that are located near Tsushima would say about the reservation. What is the point of building armored monsters if they are afraid to use them. The same thing will happen with the "Zumwalt", if a mess happens..love! Admirals will have to hide them if America and China clash at sea ... too expensive pleasure from such ships. The same can be said about armored ships, if some kind of diesel engine slams them three or four torpedoes below the waterline .. Well, there will be no more armored ships .. their time has passed.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 2 September 2015 18: 08 New
    0
    In relation to Russian realities: to reconstruct the remaining 1144 armored vehicles of the project, having considered the same Adm. Ushakov according to the criteria of the cost of restoration / combat effectiveness. And in the foreseeable future of the same EM “Leader”, something like a coma for booking individual important compartments is hardly realistic.
  • RiverVV
    RiverVV 2 September 2015 21: 15 New
    -1
    It's funny ... I just want to ask: what did the author sail on? Not otherwise than on the battleship ... :) Rather, in WoT, “Rat” was allowed to put in the hangar. It would be his occupation for a long time.
    Battleships, as already mentioned, will be very useful in the event of an invasion of aliens armed with small-caliber Gauss weapons and combat lasers.
  • DmitriyZorro
    DmitriyZorro 2 September 2015 22: 37 New
    -2
    Armored ships are a thing of the past and this is a fact. The use of armor from getting anti-ship missiles with warheads of 200 kg tends to zero (warheads of 8-9 inches in the high explosive version were about 30 kg (German cruisers from the Second World War)), such anti-ship missiles must be shot down, not caught. But here is a competent design with a sufficient number of bulkheads, the correct location of the premises, vital components and assemblies, significantly increase the survival of the ship (it proved to be very good in the time of both warriors). And before the massive use of lasers and Gausses, one still needs to live.
    1. Manul
      Manul 3 September 2015 00: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: DmitriyZorro
      Armored ships are a thing of the past and this is a fact.

      And if a small-caliber automatic gun of a border boat can flash a frigate’s board, is this normal? If a stray drone is enough for a warship to be many times superior in cost it will be disabled - does this fit into the design literacy?
  • JackTheRipper
    JackTheRipper 2 September 2015 23: 19 New
    0
    - nuclear weapons (damn two, all tests, on the contrary, showed exceptional resistance of ships to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons);


    On what grounds is the author so dismissive of nuclear explosions in the ocean? Based on the American Crossroads operation?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads


    So there the power of the nuclear warhead was only 23kt, now in our TNW the power is about 200-350ct, it’s clear that this is not scary for the anti-atomic order, but there is a difference when a 23kt and 350 kt hit the unit (main) goal of the order, such as “Nimitz $ 5-6 billion?
    1. JackTheRipper
      JackTheRipper 2 September 2015 23: 36 New
      0
      And here is the obvious difference between them, 350kt on the left, 23kt on the right (Crossroads American test operation at sea), which the author apparently focused on. Cry:
      350ct vs 23kt350ct vs 23kt

      (simulated in Nukemap3D)
  • HMR333
    HMR333 2 September 2015 23: 39 New
    -3
    not well, the author soaked the armor of tank ships))))
  • Manul
    Manul 2 September 2015 23: 57 New
    +3
    And why does everyone always run into Oleg? Does he insist on creating amphibious tanks from armor-piercing steel? He just defends the meaning of booking ships. Can it really be that modern materials and technologies cannot provide this? There - they’ve come up with a floating armor for the Marines .. Can’t you even come up with some kind of ceramic armor with positive buoyancy for the destroyer’s body?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 3 September 2015 09: 09 New
      0
      "Really and some kind of ceramic armor with positive buoyancy
      not to come up with a destroyer hull? "////

      You are well done! The idea is great.
      1. Manul
        Manul 3 September 2015 11: 46 New
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        You are well done! The idea is great.

        hi There is no prophet in his own country. Now this idea will come up somewhere in France or England.
        1. Santjaga_Garka
          Santjaga_Garka 4 September 2015 21: 59 New
          -1
          There are no prophets in their own country, but not in many other fatherlands ...

          Who will allow them to destroy the hegemony of the United States at sea?
  • Tishka
    Tishka 3 September 2015 02: 25 New
    +4
    In principle, you can drown any ship, if you drop a simple crowbar from orbit, then it will flash the ship through, the main thing is to get there! The thing is a little different: losing a ship at a cost of 2-3 billion when it collides with a regular wooden boat with 100 kilograms of dynamite is much dumber than from a rocket! A similar case was when the pirates turned to the middle of the American ship, designed to protect the ships from their attack. And as far as I remember, there were human casualties and a very expensive repair! Of course, it is easier and cheaper to stamp cans, and most importantly, they can be made a lot, and quickly enough, but they will suffer just as effectively from the same Papuans who can afford to shoot hundreds of three arrows at them. There was a message that of the 4 remaining "Orlan", they decided to restore only two, they say it is expensive and not cost-effective. But it was a good idea to restore all 4, since we can’t build a new one, then there are no engines, then we can’t understand what we need! Booking, of course, does not solve all the problems, but it provides some survivability to the ships and crew. If this were not so, then the tanks would not have been made armored, anyway, on the battlefield, for more than 30 minutes, he could not hold out. A ship is much more expensive, and the crew on it is much larger, so you need to think about sailors, and not just about the cost of such a ship!
    1. The brightest
      The brightest 3 September 2015 18: 19 New
      0
      Everything is logical.
  • Mentat
    Mentat 3 September 2015 17: 19 New
    0
    The author, it seems to me, is just experiencing a desire for communication :)
    Or experiencing a lack of horizons with an acute desire to discuss, which is more likely.

    Why doesn't anyone book ships? The answer is very simple, and it is contained in the formula, for example, Jacob de Marr, who is a hundred years old at lunch, and which for the author, apparently, is a grand discovery laughing
    Here is an article on the topic: http://pretich.ru/articles.php?article_id=492


    Compare the kinetic means of destruction.

    A typical example of the marine artillery monster of those years: the English Mark I gun, caliber 381 mm, projectile weight 871 kg, warhead weight 194 kg, initial velocity 732-785 m / s, firing range ~ 30 km.

    Onyx anti-ship missile: mass 3000 kg, warhead mass 300 kg, target velocity ~ 600 m / s, firing range from 120 to 500 km. At the same time, the rocket is a high-precision weapon.

    If you look at the formula for calculating armor penetration, of course, we will see the speed and mass of the shell there. They are incomparable with the most monstrous armor-piercing shells and modern anti-ship missiles.

    Moreover, it is not difficult to modify modern anti-ship missiles to deliver liquid or gaseous explosives to the reserved space and arrange a thermobaric hell there and then the whole meaning of the outer hardened shell is lost.

    The price competition of passive defenses and attacks at this stage of technological development is lost, not even beginning - the guaranteed protection against penetration into the reserved space will cost crazy money, which makes it easier to build several more ships.

    The answer is very simple and, if desired, is a little more than in two clicks. What the author did when he wrote his essay is not clear.
    1. Manul
      Manul 3 September 2015 21: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Mentat
      The author, it seems to me, is just experiencing a desire for communication :)
      Or experiencing a lack of horizons with an acute desire to discuss, which is more likely.

      You operate with numbers that are pulled to each other. Onyx? And what equipment and under what conditions can this "high-precision" weapon produce? It is highly accurate, only on hover. We do not need aircraft carriers (judging by the tone of your comment - you are sailing along the general course), which means that we will not have any AWACS aircraft for a long time to come. A tracking satellite, like the Legend, is also not yet in sight - the spaceport has not been built, the Protons are falling, the Angara is in its infancy, not to mention the absence of a project (I want to make a mistake). Only the radars of the attacking ship (communication ships, as a combat unit I’m not considering it) - I won’t lie; I don’t know how, who sees how much, but I am firmly convinced that the detection distance is much less than the Onyx’s flight. Now add up the number of Onyx-carrying ships with the number of factors that allow you to successfully launch the missile to the target . And now we compare with the number of commenters that we have missiles that will reach everyone.
      1. SIvan
        SIvan 3 September 2015 22: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Manul
        You operate with numbers that are pulled to each other. Onyx? And what equipment and under what conditions can this "high-precision" weapon produce? It is highly accurate, only on hover. We do not need aircraft carriers (judging by the tone of your comment - you are sailing along the general course), which means that we will not have any AWACS aircraft for a long time to come.


        The author of the article claimed that RCC allegedly in principle can not hit the battleships because of the "low armor penetration", and, therefore, aviation with anti-ship missiles in principle useless against battleships. The commentator you criticize has denied this. All. There was no talk of Russian economic realities.

        Particularly funny is how you "by the tone of the commentary" determine the attitude of a person to aircraft carriers, about which he did not say a word. fool

        Now about the Onyx carriers. The Hindus are now being built by aircraft carriers on which the main aircraft will be the Su-30MKI, armed with the BraMos rocket (a further development of Onyx). Here is a life example for you hi
        1. Manul
          Manul 3 September 2015 22: 43 New
          0
          Quote: SIvan

          The author of the article claimed that anti-ship missiles allegedly, in principle, could not hit battleships because of "low armor penetration", and, therefore, aviation with anti-ship missiles was in principle useless against battleships. The commentator you criticize has denied this. All. There was no talk of Russian economic realities.

          Particularly funny is how you "by the tone of the commentary" determine the attitude of a person to aircraft carriers, about which he did not say a word.

          Now about the Onyx carriers. The Hindus are now being built by aircraft carriers on which the main aircraft will be the Su-30MKI, armed with the BraMos rocket (a further development of Onyx). Here is a life example for you

          You defend only one side of the issue, and do not want to understand the other. What should I talk about with you?
          But still ... The Bramos rocket is still in its infancy. The time when at least a dozen aircraft, at least at one base, and at least in one India, will be ready to take off with this rocket under the wing (I don’t want to say anything about us (and, by the way, she’s still “grow” under the wing necessary - not ready)), it seems at best - 3 years. Next - I consider all possible military clashes - In real time(oh, how you want to drink !!!) !!!. Imagine any possible military conflict at sea today against us, and let's - put forward your onyxes to defeat my alleged enemy forces. Despite the fact that all of NATO has united against us, and yesterday’s friends betrayed. Well, you - move the lever on the sofa! Let's fight ?!
          PS The bottom line is that booking will not save from missiles, but missiles, although they are developing, will never be expected in an ambush because of every angle due to the complexity of manufacture and use. But when a cheap torpedo, or a jet log, can damage a huge ship, it’s nonsense. You would end up arguing with dependency. You would look and consensus would turn out b.
          1. SIvan
            SIvan 4 September 2015 07: 45 New
            0
            PS The bottom line is that booking will not save from missiles, but missiles, although they are developing, will never be expected in ambush because of every angle due to the complexity of manufacture and use. But when a huge huge ship can be disabled cheap torpedo, or a jet log, this is nonsense. You would end up arguing with addiction. You would look and consensus would turn out b.


            1) Battleships also do not pop up due to corners. You and Oleg would also come down from heaven to earth.
            2) There are no problems with the manufacture of rockets. It is naive to believe that the enemy will never have them.
            3) A torpedo under the keel and the battleship can sink. Another thing is that either a submarine or a submarine must deliver it to the battleship. kamikaze torpedo bomber. Oleg is right in this.

            My opinion: some kind of reservation, of course, is needed. But overestimate its value is not worth it. In a battle with an opponent comparable in strength (not with the Papuans) and having normal missiles, it loses its meaning.
          2. Taoist
            Taoist 4 September 2015 12: 04 New
            0
            Here’s a strange conversation with “battleships” ... well, damn it, no one is against “constructive protection” - it exists, it is developing and improving ... But we are being called upon to return “armored belts and armored decks” - far from the most rational option protection. The second - Means of destruction, which allows you to overcome any, the most powerful passive booking has long been invented and allow you to hit absolutely any target. Well, do you seriously think that "blowing dust" from old developments and installing warheads appropriate for the task is longer and more expensive than re-building the "battleship fleet"?
            Booking very long ago lost the war to the shell - and retained its meaning only in the conditions of using unguided weapons. With the probability of an artillery projectile being measured by a few percent and the inability to guarantee its hit at a vulnerable point, it made sense to build up passive protection - thereby reducing the likelihood of a critical strike. In terms of URO, this is useless. Any warhead flying to the side is a guaranteed strike and exactly to the point at which it will be aimed. Those. the probability of the picture "a la Hood" is increased by orders of magnitude.
            Now the development of protective equipment is primarily to "prevent the warhead from reaching the target" and constructive defense is reduced to localizing and minimizing damage if all the same is "unlucky" - but this does not need an armored belt ... Both professionals and the designers understand this ... and the battleships are writing articles ... and we get together ... soldier
            1. barbiturate
              barbiturate 4 September 2015 16: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              Here’s a strange conversation with the “battleships” ... well, damn it, no one is against the “constructive defense” - it exists, it is developing and improving ... But we are being called upon to return the “armored belts and armored decks” - far from the most rational option protection.


              Structural protection is of little help if you let the rocket burst inside the ship, much better armor + structural protection. By the way, when they attached some importance to the ship, they still tried to book it in modern times. Here is the project 1144 cruiser (Peter the Great from this series). The cruiser’s hull is armored: the side in the area of ​​the reactor compartment is 100 mm, at the extremities 35 mm, the steering compartment 70 mm, the deck 50 mm, the wheelhouse 80 mm. And as historical examples show, the 50mm deck is already impenetrable for 1000fn American bombs, and therefore the high explosive and PB warheads of the Tomahawks and Harpunov, as well as the 70 + mm sides. In many cases, you can expect a guaranteed rebound from 35mm armor, because the ship launching missiles on the cruiser does not know at what directional angle the cruiser will go at the moment of meeting with the rocket. Apparently the Soviet designers perfectly understood what they were doing.
              Quote: Taoist
              The second - Means of destruction, which allows you to overcome any, the most powerful passive booking has long been invented and allow you to hit absolutely any target. Well, do you seriously think that "blowing dust" from old developments and installing warheads appropriate for the task is longer and more expensive than re-building the "battleship fleet"?


              Do not mislead people, there are no old developments to defeat heavily (medium) armored ships and there is nothing to blow dust. After the Second World War and tests of nuclear weapons, heavily armored ships began to quickly disappear from the fleets, and because they felt that they were not needed in the global war with nuclear anti-ship missiles and nuclear torpedoes, although they held the best strike.
              1. barbiturate
                barbiturate 4 September 2015 16: 31 New
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                Booking very long ago lost the war to the shell - and retained its meaning only in the conditions of using unguided weapons. With the probability of an artillery projectile being measured by a few percent and the inability to guarantee its hit at a vulnerable point, it made sense to build up passive protection - thereby reducing the likelihood of a critical strike. In terms of URO, this is useless. Any warhead flying to the side is a guaranteed strike and exactly to the point at which it will be aimed. Those. the probability of the picture "a la Hood" is increased by orders of magnitude.

                Once again, you tell tales to people, but meanwhile they are booking military equipment! And planes and ships and tanks, are you surprised? And quite a fairy tale about the blow "exactly to the point at which it will be aimed" laughing Read how the designers of these products learn and try to teach rockets, the principles of guidance and how many factors depend on getting into a ship and no one points to a point)), God forbid, a rocket gets at least into the priority PART of the ship (the middle there or in the stern), and from some angles the missiles will generally go into a rebound, but it is possible to still be undermined at the side and cause damage.
                Quote: Taoist
                And professionals and designers understand this

                that is why important ships have been booked before - aircraft carriers, large cruisers, are now moving to destroyers and who knows, they can already draw frigates and corvettes covered with armor.
              2. brn521
                brn521 5 September 2015 14: 11 New
                0
                Quote: barbiturate
                Here is the project 1144 cruiser (Peter the Great from this series). The cruiser’s hull is armored: the side in the area of ​​the reactor compartment is 100 mm, at the extremities 35 mm, the steering compartment 70 mm, the deck 50 mm, the wheelhouse 80 mm.

                The nuclear cruiser cannot be unarmored. The reactor requires a robust housing and reliable protection. So, as far as I understand, the main criticism of the project is the cost of construction and operation. Compared to the strike capabilities of a nuclear submarine, it will be cheaper and better protected.
                1. barbiturate
                  barbiturate 5 September 2015 14: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: brn521
                  The nuclear cruiser cannot be unarmored. The reactor requires a robust housing and reliable protection.


                  Why exactly does atomic require reliable protection? smile If you put the gas turbine, then you can do with the shell shell? Yes, and requires reliable BIOLOGICAL protection and a reliable rugged body of the reactor itself, this is for its reliable and safe work for people, and how thick the wall in the reactor room does not matter to him)
                  And then all the same, is the armor “reliable protection”?) In addition, not only the reactor compartment is covered with armor, is this for even greater reactor peace? smile
                  1. brn521
                    brn521 5 September 2015 16: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: barbiturate
                    If you put the gas turbine, then you can do with the shell shell?

                    Can. And they do. The maximum that damage to a gas turbine will result in is a fire that may well be extinguished automatically, and a large ship will only partially lose speed due to this. Whereas damaged pipelines of the primary reactor loop can spoil the entire ship to such an extent that no decontamination will help. And if the reactor itself goes into the distribution and a thermal explosion occurs, then please, Chernobyl as an illustration.
                    1. barbiturate
                      barbiturate 5 September 2015 19: 04 New
                      +1
                      So the designers of the nuclear reactor and the designers of the cruiser calculated that 100mm armored protection would save the nuclear reactor from the enemy’s RCC? You do not contradict yourself? Medium thickness booking, even thinner smile and the problem is solved, the reactor is safe) Why then stamp shells for billions of bucks? Here’s the way out, on the surface and when the ship is valuable - it’s being armored and it immediately gets combat stability, is it right?
                      1. brn521
                        brn521 7 September 2015 12: 18 New
                        0
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        when the ship is valuable

                        It is not that valuable, but rather expensive in the construction, operation and subsequent disposal. And dangerous not only for themselves, but also for the environment. And very vulnerable, the nuclear installation does not tolerate any damage in principle, plus it comes with maintenance equipment and specially trained highly qualified personnel. They also need to be protected.
                        Quote: barbiturate
                        ... he is being booked and he immediately gets combat stability,

                        The armor partially equalizes the situation, the ship with the reactor becomes comparable in stability with conventional ships.
                      2. Santa Fe
                        10 September 2015 04: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: brn521
                        And very vulnerable, the nuclear installation does not tolerate any damage in principle

                        what are you lying

                        a living example is Kursk. a powerful explosion that turned the whole boat. the reactors shut off automatically and there were no problems with them