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 All tactics and arsenals of the existing anti-ship will become outdated weapons.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 "Chancellorsville", pierced drone. The Aegis system failed to intercept the BQM-74 target, which simulated a subsonic low-flying anti-ship missile, despite the absence of a warhead, the ship suffered $ 15 million in damage.



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.

On February 10, 1983, the frigate “Entrim” almost died during training firing. His six-barreled anti-aircraft gun riddled the target, which collapsed into the water 500 meters from the side. But then the laws of dramaturgy intervened. flaming debris drone ricocheted off the water and in a couple of seconds overtook the frigate. The superstructure was pierced, a fire started. Fortunately, the losses among the crew were 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.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

266 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -10
    2 September 2015 06: 00
    There is such a thing - a neutron weapon.
    "A powerful flux of neutrons is not delayed by conventional steel armor and penetrates much stronger obstacles than X-rays or gamma radiation, not to mention alpha and beta particles. In particular, 150 mm of armor steel traps up to 90% of gamma radiation and only 20% fast neutrons. The damaging effect of neutron weapons on equipment is due to the interaction of neutrons with structural materials and radio-electronic equipment, which leads to the appearance of induced radioactivity and, as a consequence, to malfunction. "
    Such are the things. There is no smell of "Krupovskaya steel" here. Here depleted uranium is needed, boron, anti-nuclear liners made of polyethylene. How will they behave when hit by conventional ammunition, and what to do with uranium, an explosion smeared with a thin layer on a ship heated by brightly burning polyethylene, set on fire by a cumulative jet? There will be no armored ships. smile
    1. +15
      2 September 2015 08: 13
      Quote: i80186
      There is such a thing - a neutron weapon.

      No such thing

      for details - to the screenwriters of Mosfilm and Hollywood
      1. +4
        2 September 2015 08: 20
        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. -4
          2 September 2015 08: 36
          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. +8
            2 September 2015 08: 41
            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. 0
              2 September 2015 08: 50
              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 will 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. 0
                2 September 2015 19: 57
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                none of the top leadership of the Russian Federation and the United States will dare to press the "red button"

                And where is the "red button" and a tactical nuclear charge of 1-2 kilotons? Torpedoes and cruise missiles with YaZ are a very likely means of struggle.
              2. 0
                9 September 2015 23: 46
                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. +5
            2 September 2015 11: 22
            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. +1
              2 September 2015 15: 58
              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. +1
                2 September 2015 17: 55
                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. +4
                  2 September 2015 19: 16
                  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. +1
                3 September 2015 13: 13
                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. +5
              2 September 2015 23: 47
              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. +2
            2 September 2015 18: 33
            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. +2
              2 September 2015 18: 44
              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. 0
                2 September 2015 23: 07
                Quote: kocclissi
                Rare luck. Which did not have to rely on in subsequent battles .----------------------------------------- ------------------------------

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

                "Golden bullets" quite often hit the target. In the history of "Bismarck" there are already TWO of them!
          4. 0
            9 September 2015 23: 42
            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 re-read books about battleships ..
        2. +1
          2 September 2015 09: 28
          Against fast neutrons use armor with an addition to the Boron alloy.
          1. 0
            3 September 2015 19: 53
            Quote: Vadim237
            use armor with an addition to boron alloy

            Niels? laughing
        3. +3
          2 September 2015 09: 49
          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 ..." There was a series of articles about nuclear tests at sea on VO, read ... you are our neutron one.
          1. +3
            2 September 2015 23: 57
            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. +3
          2 September 2015 15: 52
          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. +1
          2 September 2015 22: 14
          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. +2
            2 September 2015 22: 29
            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. +1
            3 September 2015 00: 01
            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. +3
        2 September 2015 10: 28
        Here is the definition of a neutron weapon:
        "Neutron weapons are a type of nuclear weapon, which has an increased share of explosion energy released in the form of neutron radiation to destroy manpower, enemy weapons and radioactive contamination of the area with limited damaging effects of a 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 they 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. -4
          2 September 2015 11: 22
          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. +2
          2 September 2015 12: 40
          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. +1
            3 September 2015 00: 04
            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. +1
      2 September 2015 10: 38
      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. +3
      2 September 2015 23: 27
      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. +9
    2 September 2015 06: 10
    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. +14
      2 September 2015 07: 11
      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
      +5
      2 September 2015 08: 14
      Quote: ziqzaq
      I understood one thing from the article: the author really likes heavily armored ships ...

      And I generally did not read the title further, it is 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", he could have obsessed with an article about the invincible, not killed and not burning "Abrams" laughing Well, after all, there are more advertisements from us about this invincible tank than those of the "Zumvolt", and they have actually managed to fight. wassatThat would be the case! laughing Everything is more fun than remakes of "Zumvolt" to repackage, there is even something that we do not so much crucify about him.
    3. +1
      2 September 2015 13: 53
      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. 0
      2 September 2015 15: 42
      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. 0
      3 September 2015 02: 11
      Yes, everything is just a high-explosive cumulative part and kirdyk.
  3. +4
    2 September 2015 06: 14
    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. +5
    2 September 2015 06: 19
    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. +4
      2 September 2015 08: 15
      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. And such a "high-tech" is a pity to lose that one anti-ship missile
      1. +1
        2 September 2015 13: 00
        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. +4
    2 September 2015 06: 39
    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. +4
      2 September 2015 09: 09
      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. +7
        2 September 2015 15: 50
        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. +2
        3 September 2015 00: 26
        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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 55
      to make candy out of them, you need to thoroughly dismantle them
      cheaper to rebuild.
  6. 0
    2 September 2015 07: 15
    Well, how much can you procrastinate the same thing ?!
    1. +8
      2 September 2015 08: 17
      Quote: Arctidian
      Well, how much can you procrastinate the same thing ?!

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

        Indeed Oleg, so many words in the article and nothing about Ukraine ...
        1. AUL
          +3
          2 September 2015 09: 06
          Actually, not Dombas, but Donbas. tongue
  7. +2
    2 September 2015 07: 17
    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. +2
      2 September 2015 08: 27
      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 hitting subsonic KSSH with an inert warhead (who is the primary source of this nonsense? Nonsense - because it contradicts the entire history of battles at sea. Even solid "blanks" weighing 1225 kg (Mk.8 APC) at two speeds of sound did not leave such damage)

      Or about the cruiser Nakhimov. 12 hours later (when the rescuers reached the target cruiser), they found a hole in the waterline area. By that time, the cruiser had already received 1500 tons of water. And, naturally, he was on the left bank.

      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. +1
        2 September 2015 13: 03
        Why not Peter the Great's "secret ship"? As soon as the sum of technologies was accumulated (metals, reliable engines, etc.), the massive 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?

        More tests of anti-ship missiles on the destroyer "Boyky" in 1961. The rocket opened the deck from the stern to the bow AU.
        1. +2
          2 September 2015 17: 58
          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. +27
    2 September 2015 07: 21
    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. -4
      2 September 2015 13: 04
      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. +4
        2 September 2015 14: 15
        Su-25, Su-34 booked.
      2. +8
        2 September 2015 20: 43
        Quote: brn521
        Booking aircraft will also increase their survivability and crew protection.
        In vain you are ironic, armor has long been in military aviation, the same armored backs of pilot seats, frontal armored glasses, in some places the booking is especially thorough, to armor capsules and armor plates, for example, on attack aircraft (our Su-25), combat helicopters Mi-24 (and Mi -35), Mi-28, Ka-52. I myself like to joke, but there are things where it is stupid to joke, even the government drives armored cars in peacetime, why should sailors fight on "aluminum cans"?
        1. 0
          3 September 2015 11: 14
          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.
          Perhaps such an analogy would not have come to mind, but Oleg mentions the Arlie Burke series destroyers and their problem with armor and durability. So we take a heavy bomber, spread the carrying capacity on armor, reinforced engines and additional gas tanks. And we pretend it's a fighter / attack aircraft.
          1. +1
            3 September 2015 12: 52
            Quote: brn521
            Perhaps such an analogy would not have come to mind, but Oleg mentions the Arlie Burke series destroyers and their problem with armor and durability.
            To be honest, I did not find Oleg's special "crime" for destroyers like "Arleigh Burke", moreover, these destroyers to some extent demonstrate the correctness of Oleg's logic, on them the Yankees returned to the steel structure of the hull, increased stability (the ships became wider), and even applied armor (up to 25 mm, kevlar). The appearance of the Americans "Zamwalt" can be considered the next step towards strengthening the protection. We are, one might say, rebuilding our fleet, and being inferior 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. +3
              3 September 2015 18: 24
              Quote: Per se.
              To be honest, I didn't find Oleg's special "crime" for destroyers like "Arleigh Burke"

              Arlie Burke is a compromise. They were designed at a time when there was a certain parity with the USSR; not only quality, but also quantity was needed. So they decided to rivet instead of two cruisers from Aegis for the same money, three destroyers, with the same Aegis. Combat power increased by 10 percent of the strength. But the overall efficiency in total is one and a half times, provided that it is used in squadrons. Well, yes, it turned out to be a flimsy structure, 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)

              It is no longer possible to repulse the native squadron from the Soviet hordes of air. As well as the participation of the fleet in large-format conflicts in general. Therefore, police tasks came to the first line. And here it is no longer very good to have a structure that can be opened with a can opener. I also had to increase the autonomy, the same power reserve in order to increase the independent combat value. So they finalized it as best they could. Instead of switching from "Aegis" to some heavier and more voracious, but at the same time big-eyed and intelligent "Aegis-2", which would help to maintain military parity further.
              Quote: Per se.
              The appearance of the Americans "Zamwalt" can be considered the next step towards strengthening the protection.

              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”

              Right now, such a breakthrough is impossible. Previously, large ships really solved many problems in global politics, because they could only be opposed by a symmetrical answer. But nuclear weapons are a great invention, the "shield" has lost completely and irrevocably. Global politics has changed dramatically.
              1. 0
                4 September 2015 06: 59
                Quote: brn521
                Previously, large ships really solved many problems in global politics, because they could only be opposed by 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 a global, nuclear war. With this approach, skepticism can cause not only the booking of surface ships, but, perhaps, the surface fleet itself, as such. I have already expressed myself in the comments before, 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) that is the main tool of the pre-war state, daily work, "settling" in local conflicts, covering their strategic boats, showing the flag, creating pressure points. This is, if you will, prevention from a big war, and it is more important. Previously, the Romans had the expression that it came to triarii, 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, points of pressure. Finally, apart from "prevention", it is the ships of the surface fleet that are the main force of the prelaunch state of war, its prelude. In this, the importance of the surface fleet continues to be an important instrument of global politics, and strong surface ships are its trump cards.
                1. +1
                  4 September 2015 07: 24
                  It should be added that the role of the surface fleet continues to remain extremely important not only in the prelaunch state and "prelude" of war, but also during the first strike in any war, including a nuclear one. As for the future, now one can only debate and assume, but it is not a fact that in a nuclear war, should such a war happen, 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 the enhanced protection of surface ships ...
                2. 0
                  4 September 2015 12: 34
                  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. +1
                    4 September 2015 17: 57
                    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. 0
                      5 September 2015 13: 44
                      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. 0
                        5 September 2015 16: 13
                        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. 0
                        7 September 2015 14: 52
                        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
                        0
                        7 September 2015 15: 03
                        Quote: brn521
                        And in our case it was precisely leukemia.

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

                        And who will then treat the healers themselves? Especially those who have a clear addiction to the "scalpel"?
                      5. TWR
                        0
                        7 September 2015 18: 56
                        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. 0
                        8 September 2015 11: 16
                        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 fell from the sky to us, not otherwise. For example, why have families and children? The wife is the problem. Children are a problem squared. This is especially evident in a "progressive" society in which the social functions of men and women are equalized.
                      7. TWR
                        0
                        8 September 2015 12: 03
                        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" an 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 equalized.

                        Here I agree with you. The "progressive society" that exists in the world today, in my opinion, is doomed to destruction. One can only argue about the timing and what factors will be determining, external or internal. I would bet on external ones. Somehow it is hard to believe that a "progressive society" will find self-healing mechanisms in itself. It seems to me that they have already passed the point of no return.
                        This is not sad. The sad thing is that the supposed alternative "healthy society" also looks unattractive. From the point of view of a European.
                      8. 0
                        8 September 2015 16: 21
                        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
                        0
                        8 September 2015 17: 04
                        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 whatever you want. They, in my opinion, do not care. Others (more developed), you will not tell anything. They will not believe And will not support. There are no "bloody regimes" without support. The minimum 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 :).

                        It is, yes. But not everyone can be influenced. And as society develops, there are more and more such "immune" ones. And there are more than one information centers.
                      10. TWR
                        0
                        8 September 2015 17: 04
                        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 whatever you want. They, in my opinion, do not care. Others (more developed), you will not tell anything. They will not believe And will not support. There are no "bloody regimes" without support. The minimum 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 :).

                        It is, yes. But not everyone can be influenced. And as society develops, there are more and more such "immune" ones. And there are more than one information centers.
                      11. 0
                        9 September 2015 11: 50
                        Quote: TWR
                        Minimum need is the support of the minority and the apathy of the majority.

                        An apathetic majority is the norm for any large state. Otherwise, the state loses its stability, it begins to be torn apart. Groups of interests are formed, and often these interests run counter to the existence of the state. An example is organized crime. The regime was bloody, I admit it. But this problem was not local, like these are executioners and sadists, and the rest are white and fluffy. Conventional example, the whites terrorize the Reds, the Reds terrorize the Whites, and they both terrorize the peasants, the peasants become anarchists and begin to terrorize both. Another example is some serious group of people who find themselves in cramped conditions and without control. A negative forecast for the development of such a community is most likely. It is very rare that there is a combination that simultaneously there was “good” and at the same time it was “with“ fists. ”This means that“ good ”can quickly end up at the very bottom of the formed social structure. And crime is always, everywhere, and Another example is an uncontrollable crowd of people. Assessment of the actions of such a crowd in the overwhelming majority of cases is negative. If someone is punished, then in the most cruel way, if something is broken, as much as possible, and as thoroughly as possible, etc. In general, human nature is not inherently positive and irreproachable.
                        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 "immune" ones.

                        These are the same "do not care" who do not care about anything. Good material. Not very durable, but versatile. As a justification, a simple example. If we had "developed neofigists" we would have created our own political party long ago. And about those who conventionally understand something, but do not support them with deeds, there is nothing to say. What's the use of the fact that they are "correct" if their "correctness" remains virtual.
                      12. TWR
                        0
                        9 September 2015 12: 13
                        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
                        It is very rare to find a combination so that there is "good" at the same time, and at the same time it is "with" fists.

                        This "good" is called the "national elite" in all countries of the world. A country without a national elite has no future. And it can only exist as a temporary formation.
                        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 "niggas" who do not care about anything

                        These are not nonsense.
                        Quote: brn521
                        If we had "developed neofigists" we would have created our own political party long ago.

                        "We have", where is it? Where "at you" would they create their party? Not in all countries you can take it like this and create your own party.
                      13. 0
                        9 September 2015 15: 35
                        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 "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
                        0
                        9 September 2015 16: 22
                        Quote: brn521
                        control performance is limited

                        It depends on the homogeneity of "education". We have known about the horse and the quivering 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". And "overly active" should be shot or in a psychiatric hospital?
                        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 "Holy Inquisition" Europeans were also not phlegmatic at all. And in the USSR, "in the matter of rooting out the enemies of the people", the comrades were also very quick. Each vegetable has its own fruit. As it ripens. Prerequisites. I already wrote to you about them.
                        Quote: brn521
                        The state administration did not cope with the accumulated contradictions,

                        But how could he cope if a gang of tramps in red trousers with Mausers came and dispersed the "managers" (at best)? You mean the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in January 1918. have you heard anything at all? Why did the Civil War start, 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 it is always like this with comrades, a person lives well, which means a criminal. Where does such wild, I would even say, animal envy come from? All over the world, being envious is bad. And the comrades are 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.
                      15. 0
                        9 September 2015 15: 36
                        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
                        "We have", where is it?

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

                        Anywhere. Gather like-minded people, design the program. If the party is really popular, nothing will stop it. So far we have what we have. EP is a party of nesses. Here in our city, for example, United Russia insolently put its man as mayor by organizing fake elections (selecting the "right" candidates - a schoolboy, a convict and a candidate from United Russia). The turnout was several percent. As a result, nihilists won.
                      16. TWR
                        0
                        9 September 2015 16: 26
                        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.
                      17. 0
                        10 September 2015 22: 39
                        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"
                      18. TWR
                        0
                        10 September 2015 23: 01
                        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?
                      19. 0
                        10 September 2015 23: 21
                        The keyword is "conditional". Czechoslovakia was quickly divided into parts, and what remained of it was just a colony.
                      20. TWR
                        0
                        10 September 2015 23: 31
                        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
                        The keyword "conditional"

                        I do not like the Czech Republic, consider Slovenia as an example. Or Portugal. Yes, and many others.
                      21. 0
                        11 September 2015 06: 44
                        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.
                      22. TWR
                        0
                        11 September 2015 10: 31
                        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 on order click their heels and say "is". Starting from office clerks and ministers, and ending with states. Everyone. Anyone who does not click is dismissed from work with the help of a knee. On a national 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.
                      23. 0
                        11 September 2015 17: 55
                        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 a Divide and Conquer principle.
                        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 props only on the condition that it exists in a vacuum and there are no people willing to rob it. Well, to avoid this, you sometimes need a 37-year-old large enough state with the potential to conduct its own policy - this is a loss of sovereignty. But to become a small country with zero prospects in big politics and completely controlled by the owners from across the ocean - is it "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.
                      24. TWR
                        0
                        11 September 2015 18: 29
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        The division of Czechoslovakia is a Divide and Conquer principle.

                        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 trust your comrades. The world has long been Anglo-Saxon. And the show-off of comrades did not influence this world in any way. Perhaps, to laugh at the "severe collective farmers". The "rivalry between the two systems" was far-fetched. There was not even a trace of him. 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 owners 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.
                      25. 0
                        11 September 2015 20: 16
                        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 it was divided and show-off of the "democrats" did not influence this fact in any way.
                        Quote: TWR
                        When it gets "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.
                      26. TWR
                        -1
                        11 September 2015 20: 26
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is, all the same, the colony?

                        Of course. The world is teeming with them. Only today it is called "neo-colonies".
                        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.

                        Don't underestimate. Adya understood perfectly well what the threat of a declaration of war between France and Britain was. Therefore, I did not build illusions. But he 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 didn't even notice. It is not worth repeating the propaganda of the USSR about the "great and terrible socialist camp." I can give you about a dozen examples of how the USSR "wiped itself off with a broom" and "quietly cried in snot and tears." At the very time when the masters of the world took another sweet sacrifice to the kukan.
                        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.
                      27. 0
                        12 September 2015 14: 06
                        Quote: TWR
                        Only today it is called "neo-colonies".

                        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
                      28. TWR
                        0
                        12 September 2015 14: 35
                        I’ll go down, otherwise writing is not convenient.
                      29. The comment was deleted.
                      30. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 06
      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.
  9. +1
    2 September 2015 07: 35
    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. +2
      2 September 2015 09: 43
      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. +2
        2 September 2015 13: 48
        Quote: Alexander72
        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.

        At that time there were no light alloy superstructures on the RN destroyers - they were designed taking into account the experience of fires on ships with light alloy superstructures. But this did not help Sheffield - the hit anti-ship missile system interrupted the fire main, disabled 2 fire pumps (out of 3 serviceable) and started a fire, in which the theoretically non-combustible plastic of the interior decoration began to burn. Oh yes, to a heap, the rocket partially disabled the power supply system, which prevented the ventilation from starting to pump out the dense poisonous smoke released during the burning of plastic.

        But on the frigates "Antilope" and "Ardent" superstructures were light-alloy.
  10. +3
    2 September 2015 07: 37
    - 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 to your previous opuses, it was easy to prove your inconsistency in a repeated attempt for some reason to prove that battleships are "cool". So to enter into a discussion with you, to waste time in vain. Moreover, you famously contradict your words. Just one example. Recently you told the whole world that an aerial bomb, having reached supersonic speed, simply pierced the ship from the upper deck to the bottom. Now you say that "in the matter of overcoming armor, speed and mass do not solve anything." As they say "however" ...
    1. +1
      2 September 2015 08: 32
      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. +6
        2 September 2015 09: 08
        Again on the same rake.
        "in the matter of overcoming armor, speed and mass do not decide anything." It turns out that the mass decides something. Or speed separately, and weight separately, and armor separately, and the troll Kaptsov separately. In essence, tell me, please, what does not solve anything "in the matter of overcoming armor" mass or speed. Either 1380 kg of "solid metal" did not penetrate the armor, or the bomb did not reach supersonic speed due to "monstrous air resistance".
        1. 0
          2 September 2015 14: 05
          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
            0
            2 September 2015 15: 51
            Quote: yehat
            a bomb is an integral shell made

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

          I repeat the question Where did you see a rocket with warhead weighing per ton ??
          1. +1
            2 September 2015 19: 36
            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 where I saw the rocket, I will honestly answer the warship missiles I have never seen. I saw only air defense missiles of various modifications and types, aircraft, MANPADS, some cruise missiles, ballistic at parades, however, no, I'm not lying, still covered, and even missile models. Well, I have never been lucky in this life, I confess I have not seen anti-ship missiles. And about their mass, that is, warheads, then you yourself are still singing like a nightingale that there is no decent armor protection on ships, but what a fig, to build serious missiles to destroy these cardboard boxes. Don't worry, even before the first modern battleship leaves the stocks, the necessary anti-armored missiles will be presented in the entire range of nomenclature and standard sizes. Wow, the new term turned out: "anti-armored missile", I'll go tomorrow the patent name.
            1. 0
              2 September 2015 22: 07
              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. 0
                3 September 2015 07: 11
                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. To pierce the ship through and through is apparently a very important and urgent matter, but to your great regret, excessive. So, based on the logic of the events that took place, we conclude: 1.5 tons and a speed of 1 max is excessive for guaranteed destruction of the ship. Therefore, the weight of the warhead can be reduced, and the speed can be increased accordingly. It is also necessary to add an ingenious guidance and tracking system, it turns out ... that's right, a modern anti-ship missile. Now the following problem arises, when and how to detonate the warhead after it penetrates the interior of the ship. There are quite competent specialists for this, and experience is "the son of difficult mistakes. Perhaps a new tab will appear on the commander's laptop:" Kaptsov's battleship ", clicked with the mouse, unhooked the wires and she went darling ... Let me take my leave of that.
                1. 0
                  3 September 2015 19: 09
                  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 do not know whether a modern missile can penetrate the armor of a battleship such as Iowa or Yamato, 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. +1
      2 September 2015 14: 40
      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
  11. -3
    2 September 2015 07: 45
    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. +4
      2 September 2015 08: 34
      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. 0
        2 September 2015 08: 56
        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. +2
          2 September 2015 09: 01
          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. -3
            2 September 2015 09: 27
            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. +2
          2 September 2015 09: 36
          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. 0
      2 September 2015 10: 01
      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. 0
        2 September 2015 10: 20
        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. 0
      2 September 2015 10: 15
      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. -1
        2 September 2015 10: 32
        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. 0
      2 September 2015 10: 43
      Quote: Wedmak
      . Speed ​​under 7-10 km / s!

      The cruiser "Rurik" in the war of 1905 had a course of 17-19 knots
    5. +1
      2 September 2015 11: 28
      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 turn off all four antennas, there is no need to attack the "pyramidal radio superstructure" from four sides and chop all the modular AFAR elements one by one. It is enough to punch a hole in the superstructure ONCE and blow up a powerful land mine inside. The blast wave, coupled with fragments of everything that is there, will damage the waveguides to all four antennas, and intermediate equipment, cables, power, and personnel, and so on ...
      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. +1
        2 September 2015 13: 36
        Quote: abrakadabre
        In order to turn off all four antennas, there is no need to attack the "pyramidal radio superstructure" from four sides and chop all the modular AFAR elements one by one. It is enough to punch a hole in the superstructure ONCE and blow up a powerful land mine inside. The blast wave, coupled with fragments of everything that is there, will damage the waveguides to all four antennas, and intermediate equipment, cables, power, and personnel, and so on ...

        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.
  12. 0
    2 September 2015 08: 05
    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. +1
      2 September 2015 08: 29
      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. -2
        2 September 2015 08: 47
        Do not engage in verbiage, you understand what I mean. In the sense of my remark, is there anything to answer?
        1. +7
          2 September 2015 08: 54
          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. -2
            2 September 2015 09: 30
            Unproven, Watson!
          2. 0
            2 September 2015 13: 19
            Chet did not understand, modern bops have cc in their core, and why then in the notorious "scrap" it will not be, especially considering that the engine of the simulator rocket is enough to initiate a fire?
      2. -5
        2 September 2015 08: 48
        and its warhead in the form of a solid "scrap"

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


        torpedo "scrap" Mk-48 mod.7 was delivered to the US Navy on December 7, 2006 (loaded on SSN-752 "Pasadena" in Pearl Harbor)
  13. +4
    2 September 2015 08: 19
    Somewhere I read science fiction, how Japanese ships of the Tsushima times "failed" into modern times and destroyed some of the US fleets, tearing it apart, like Tuzik - a heating pad.
    1. +2
      2 September 2015 09: 26
      please remember) !, and for several days now I have been tormented by the question of what to read.
      1. +3
        2 September 2015 10: 01
        "7 aircraft carrier" is called.
        1. 0
          2 September 2015 10: 48
          thank you smile , found, rocked, I’ll read how I’ll remake all urgent matters at work, otherwise work will suddenly delay ... feel
    2. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 38
      This is a fantasy - "WAR 2025". Only there, our fleet broke into the future and smashed amers in a dense fog and after an explosion in the atmosphere of tactical nuclear weapons. Interesting reading, but when I read it in 2005 it seemed much more fantastic than it is today - half of the described fantastic gadgets in 2015 are already there.
      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. 0
        3 September 2015 09: 19
        There is also "Red Stars" by Fyodor Berezin. Also according to the plot, the Red Banner Pacific Fleet from a parallel universe ended up in the Pacific Ocean, smashed the American group and the naval base to shreds and disappeared. Hardest written book, I must say.
  14. +3
    2 September 2015 08: 24
    I fully agree with the author
  15. +8
    2 September 2015 09: 01
    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. +2
      2 September 2015 14: 44
      If that this boat has a reservation in 80mm armor + structural armor.
      US carriers have a reservation of 150mm +)))
      1. +1
        2 September 2015 20: 59
        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 from a system of compartments with a gas-reflecting armored wall appeared. With the advent of powerful anti-ship cruise missiles from the Americans, surface constructive protection was also introduced into the project. At first, a six-inch main armor belt along the waterline was envisaged, but during the design process it was "eaten" by unexpectedly appearing volumes and weights for this or that equipment, which, as a rule, is always heavier than the declared one.

        It was decided to leave the Fort complex of nose anti-aircraft missiles without on-board armor protection (only covers), since they are located in autonomous under-deck drums, inside which there are also launch containers. Thus, although the anti-aircraft gun turned out to be more cumbersome, a volumetric fire was excluded on a scale dangerous for the ship. But the anti-ship missiles "Granit" with liquid-fuel engines and powerful warheads were deemed appropriate to be protected by inclined armor, which is 100 mm above the waterline, and 70 mm along the deck and below the waterline. There is also a constructive cover from the bottom of the ship; in the event of a missile fire, the silos can be quickly filled with water, in addition, there is a system of various compartments designed according to a cellular system. The hangar for storing the Metel anti-submarine missile-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 hull at the waterline level. Armored side walls - 100 mm, traverse and roof - 75 mm. Bevelled armor covers the auxiliary steam boiler room as well as the reactor compartment. In the aft section, light anti-fragmentation armor protection is provided along the sides (70 mm) and on the roof (50 mm) to protect the helicopter hangar, kerosene storage, helicopter ammunition and tiller compartments, over which "local" armor cover is also placed. There is no side armor as such, but a thickened belt is "inserted" above the waterline by 2,5 meters and below by 1 m from bow to stern. Artillery installations, cellars and other weapon systems also have local armor cover. Analytical calculations show that the total weight of the armor does not exceed 1100 tons, taking into account the fact that it includes reinforced plastics.
        1. 0
          4 September 2015 18: 39
          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. 0
      2 September 2015 20: 54
      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.

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

    And I generally did not read the title further, it is 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", he could have obsessed with an article about the invincible, not killed and not burning "Abrams" laughing Well, after all, there are more advertisements from us about this invincible tank than those of the "Zumvolt", and they have actually managed to fight. wassatThat would be the case! laughing Everything is more fun than remakes of "Zumvolt" to repackage, there is even something that we do not so much crucify about him.

    "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.
  17. +7
    2 September 2015 09: 16
    Hello to all VO readers! I apologize in advance to those who may hurt or feel offended, but to be honest, reading the comments of people who are absolutely ignorant of the TUS and BZZhS, and who have seen the ships and the sea, at best, from the pier or on the beach, it seems that a lot of kids have gathered in the sandbox and are discussing which machine cooler. Regarding the booking of warships in the form in which it took place until the middle of the 20th century, it is, of course, complete nonsense to use it now in modern shipbuilding. However, it is necessary to "book" a warship to increase its stability and survivability. Modern technologies for the manufacture of various types of armor in the "Research Institute of Steel" can be said to have already been put on stream. And to give ridiculous examples and arguments like napalm on the deck or an ICBM will sew through the ship from top to bottom - this is still from the sandbox area and which machine is cooler.
    1. -4
      2 September 2015 09: 33
      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. +3
        2 September 2015 09: 42
        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. -3
          2 September 2015 09: 51
          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. 0
            2 September 2015 14: 25
            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. -2
      2 September 2015 09: 40
      Best for reservations are titanium alloys and boron carbide.
    3. -2
      2 September 2015 10: 31
      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 sewn ships, just the same the author wrote, 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." Valiant Oleg has not yet revealed anything about the use of napalm in the navy, but my acquaintance, unfortunately now deceased, the admiral, said that during the campaigns in tropical seas, hot, unbearably bright equatorial sun, the deck brought a lot of inconvenience to the ship's crew. And that's just the sun, and if modern napalm, up to 1600 degrees by the way. It may not burn, but who will cook it alive inside unambiguously.
      1. 0
        2 September 2015 13: 30
        During the war, either in Korea or in Vietnam, jet kerosene was spilled on the deck of one aircraft carrier, there was hell ...
        1. +1
          2 September 2015 18: 01
          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.
  18. +3
    2 September 2015 09: 23
    All Oleg's opponents. Following your logic, "why are we building tanks if any grenade launcher can penetrate 1000 mm of armor?" You need to take the platform, stuff it with active protection, hang the DZ, and cover the case with 2 mm iron. "From the wind". Everything, an 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. 0
      2 September 2015 10: 43
      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. +1
        2 September 2015 11: 30
        Quote: voyaka uh
        You forgot that the most vulnerable underwater part of the ship

        As far as I know, Iowa-class battleships have excellent underwater protection. Double bottoms, boules, watertight bulkheads, etc. And torpedoes with "shaped charges" seem to have not yet been invented.
        PS Aircraft carriers are also very vulnerable in the underwater?
        1. +1
          2 September 2015 12: 59
          Nobody really tested the strength of the Iowa's underwater protection in battle. But their predecessors ("North Carolina") clearly had problems with her
  19. +5
    2 September 2015 09: 39
    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.
  20. 0
    2 September 2015 09: 56
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 38
      Quote: Ilya77
      I wonder if Oleg Kaptsov and Oleg Teslenko are one person?

      The main thing is not to merchants! laughing
  21. +1
    2 September 2015 10: 30
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 11: 34
      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. 0
        2 September 2015 11: 58
        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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 41
      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. -1
        2 September 2015 22: 08
        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. 0
      2 September 2015 18: 03
      Quote: MaxWRX
      engine of a different level.

      this level was completed during the battleship "Eagle"
      1. 0
        2 September 2015 22: 02
        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.
  22. +2
    2 September 2015 10: 34
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 06
      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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 43
      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. +1
      2 September 2015 14: 37
      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.
  23. 0
    2 September 2015 10: 53
    Well, what can I say. "Oleg and armor" is already a household name and the world community cannot cope with this .... Although, if you think logically, there is a healthy grain in the article ... Indeed, modern anti-ship missiles of Western countries are not designed to fight armored targets. and, as a result, the unexpected use of armor in combination with powerful air defense can weaken their potential for some time ... but do not forget that domestic anti-ship missiles, starting with the "pike", were initially calculated for serious damage to a ship with a displacement of more than 10000 tons with structural elements protection ...
    So everything is not clear and unsteady ...
  24. +3
    2 September 2015 11: 23
    Article plus, as usual. The tenacity of woodpeckers we sing a song.
  25. 0
    2 September 2015 11: 25
    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
  26. 0
    2 September 2015 11: 47
    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. +2
      2 September 2015 15: 19
      Can. Displacement of the Red Caucasus SUDDENLY 8200 tons (approximately equal to Esnitsa Arli Burke).
      On it sandals are not far from one "Kameta". All without warheads.
      "As a rule, the projectile hit the middle part of the ship and" pierced "the cruiser through and through (600 kg of steel billet). Three holes remained on the attacked side - one large, the size of the projectile fuselage, and two small ones - the diameter of the cargo at the ends of its wings . The wings of the projectile were cut off like a piece of paper with scissors. At the exit, a side with an area of ​​more than 10 square meters broke off. However, the "Red Caucasus" remained afloat and continued to move in a circle. " They drowned him out of stupidity. At first, they did not carry out normal repairs to smash half of the ship with test launches. And that did not think that he would sink.

      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. 0
        2 September 2015 22: 06
        So, modern RCCs are much higher both in terms of simple kinetic energy and in warheads.
        1. 0
          4 September 2015 18: 41
          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. 0
      2 September 2015 23: 07
      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.
  27. 0
    2 September 2015 11: 55
    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.
  28. +3
    2 September 2015 12: 02
    "On the stake, start over ..." (C)

    For perseverance, of course, a plus ... but for the "stubbornness", sorry minus ...
  29. +1
    2 September 2015 12: 11
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 18: 07
      Quote: brn521
      In addition, such a fleet is excellent for the Arctic and Antarctic.

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

        "Antarctic (together with Subantarctic) is the southern polar region of the globe, bounded in the north by the Antarctic convergence. It includes Antarctica and the adjacent islands and parts of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans ...
        ... In East Antarctica, areas 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 were found, gold, silver, diamonds, platinum. On the continental shelf of Antarctica and in the areas adjacent to it, vast sedimentary basins have been discovered, the content of hydrocarbons in which can reach 70 billion tons of fuel ... "Wikipedia®
        So in the future there is something to do and what to fight about.
  30. +1
    2 September 2015 12: 45
    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
  31. 0
    2 September 2015 12: 47
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 13: 01
      I agree, especially since later Soviet missiles were made with semi-armor-piercing warheads (in any case, this was printed about Mosquitoes and Volcanoes)
    2. +1
      2 September 2015 18: 23
      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.
  32. 0
    2 September 2015 12: 47
    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 is "where an ordinary ship will die at once"? Inside an enemy AUG warrant? Storming head-on at Pearl Harbor alone?
    As usual, sheer boyish enthusiasm for superbatships and not a single common sense for their possible combat use.
    1. 0
      2 September 2015 23: 18
      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?
  33. +2
    2 September 2015 12: 50
    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.

    He-he-he ... is it okay that the "missile destroyers" of the same USN are mostly escorts and were not sharpened for the task of fighting surface ships? Until recently, their task was to keep His Majesty's aircraft carrier intact, and to shoot along the coast as part of the next operation against some Zusul. So they are not threatened with obsolescence, because their main targets are aircraft, anti-ship missiles, submarines and ground objects - not ships. Yes, and the composition of the EM armament seems to hint about this: more than a hundred UVP for missiles, PLUR and KR ... and eight launchers for anti-ship missiles (with rather average performance characteristics).

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

      Floating treasures
      1. 0
        2 September 2015 16: 31
        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 AB air wing deal with the ships. And EM will protect him. Moreover, they have nothing special to shoot at the ships: the Yankees wrote off the anti-ship "tomahawks", the old "harpoon" is only suitable for self-defense, and the LRASM has not yet emerged from its cradle.
  34. -2
    2 September 2015 12: 53
    Oleg Kaptsov! I understood as soon as I read the headline!
  35. +4
    2 September 2015 12: 53
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 15: 28
      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. -1
      2 September 2015 21: 06
      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 being armored now, but point-by-point, partially, anti-fragmentation, etc. are armored. Well, no one will build capital armored ships in the age of guided weapons !!! ARMOR PROTECTED AGAINST ACCIDENTAL HIT !!! Even if you book the same "Zamvolt", then its other characteristics will change dramatically, and, consequently, the possibility of its use! Well, Oleg Kaptsov doesn't want to understand this !!!! And now there is no armor by the weight of the foam that can withstand a normal anti-ship missile! 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 !!!
  36. 0
    2 September 2015 13: 06
    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 "small pieces"? To disable the radar of such a ship, it will be used with missiles with a warhead, which, when detonated, creates a cone / "beaver tail" of high-speed hard-alloy GGE. They won't even notice this composite fairing.
    1. 0
      2 September 2015 15: 26
      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. 0
        2 September 2015 18: 41
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Modern cruiser will cease to exist

        From one RCC with a fragmentation warhead? I doubt it ...
        1. 0
          2 September 2015 23: 55
          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. 0
            3 September 2015 10: 43
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Sheffield, Stark Cole

            In 100% of cases

            Sheffield and Stark are not cruisers. This is a budget EV and no less budgetary FD three times less displacement, and even built on the principle of "cheaper price".
            On the same Sheffield, the fire main, if damaged in one place, lost pressure along its entire length - there was no sectioning.

            Cole received 300 kg of explosives in the MO area. That is, a high-explosive, not a fragmentation warhead. And not into the superstructure, but into the side at the waterline.
  37. -2
    2 September 2015 13: 08
    By the way, about the "dreadnought effect" ... Do you think gentlemen that he is more likely a consequence of PR and psychological dependence? After all, in the end, all is one "zilch" - well, the countries rushed to spend resources on a battleship race - to build armored monsters of such a value that the fleet from a "realpolitik" instrument turned into a "sacred cow" which it was elementary to lose? And what is the result?
    1. 0
      2 September 2015 14: 10
      I completely agree with you. Such expensive toys will be protected and not released anywhere. Full of examples.
      1. 0
        2 September 2015 18: 26
        And now very much released?
        If the Red Caucasus without a command was sunk after a dozen times with blanks and then with a warhead, and this is all without normal repair. YES, and a warhead weighing 600kg. And this is on a boat of 8.000 masses. What will happen to the "Destroyer" in 18.000 at least from a couple of such hits (without undermining the warhead)
    2. 0
      2 October 2015 15: 47
      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 insanity of any "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.
  38. 0
    2 September 2015 13: 21
    In addition to "Eagle" you can also give the example of "Varyag". I am still surprised that there are only 600 dead per 30 crew (I don’t remember the numbers, but the order is)
    1. TWR
      0
      2 September 2015 13: 48
      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. 0
        2 September 2015 23: 57
        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
          +1
          3 September 2015 00: 38
          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.
  39. +3
    2 September 2015 13: 23
    Apparently, the author is indeed very nostalgic for the era of battleships and is ready to continue to defend his point of view. It is possible, of course, to recall that once the "noble" knights chained in armor were gradually knocked out by "ordinary bumpkins" first with long pikes, and then (and this is the main thing) with muskets and buckshot. 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 - three of them took off in one battle at once, because (of course, a combination of factors) THE FIRE GOT THE AMMUNITION SET. You can also remember "Barem" and "Mutsu", and even "Marat" - about the same. And now, attention, a question: any battleship is a floating arsenal of weapons. Exotics in the form of combat lasers that do not have chemical components of fuel and tons of explosives in their warheads - it is still unknown when. But a weapon with a high-explosive fragmentation effect for such ships is definitely needed and will be needed for a long, long time. Then how to arrange, book and store them so that a modern smart warhead, capable of hitting not just a ship, but a specific part of it, could not force the ammunition to detonate? After all, since it is already now possible to aim at a specific part of the ship, therefore, it is possible to purposefully hit the arsenals. Then, indeed, it is better, instead of one new "Iowa", to have a dozen URO cruisers, so that the enemy has a LOT of targets and he simply does not have enough weapons ...
    1. 0
      2 September 2015 14: 02
      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.
  40. +2
    2 September 2015 13: 29
    The article is useless. A direct hit from only the 1st cruise missile can disable any ship of the 2nd or 3rd rank. Rank 1 requires 2, in rare cases 3 rockets (Aircraft carriers). The cruise missile "Vulcan", "Granite", "Onyx", when hit, damage the radar stations of the ships, and there is no way to protect them (even the duplication of systems, as on the TARK of the Orlan project, does not guarantee performance after only the 1st hit). The phrase about partially damaged radars defies not only criticism, but even logic. Without radar, including over-the-horizon, it is impossible to detect enemy ships, to give target indication to missiles, it also becomes difficult and most likely becomes impossible to receive target indication from other sources, although in modern combat conditions it will be difficult anyway due to the operation of electronic warfare systems. Having lost the radar and other antenna stations, the ship loses its combat capability.
    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. 0
      2 September 2015 15: 22
      How many volcanoes are there in the world

      What is the number of carriers))
      1. +1
        2 September 2015 16: 13
        The volcanoes are on 3 Project 1164 cruisers with 16 launchers each. But the Granit rockets have similar characteristics. They are on 8 Project 949A Antey nuclear submarines and 3 Project 1144 Orlan TARKs. A total of 252 Granit missiles and 48 Vulcan missiles. These are just rockets in the mines. How many of them are in warehouses is not known exactly. All this does not take into account the older Basalt missiles and the newer Onyx and Caliber missiles on the 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. 0
          2 September 2015 23: 59
          Number of f18e fighter-bombers over 600
          Harpoon rocket - 10 000 pieces released

          And this is just the tip of the iceberg ..,
          1. 0
            3 September 2015 12: 07
            I did not understand what relation the f18e have to the issue of booking modern ships. And the "Harpoon" rocket, excuse me for being straightforward, is just rubbish. How can you compare a bullet and a projectile? "Harpoon" is 10 times lighter than the "Granit" missile, 4 times inferior in speed, does not have radar countermeasures and jamming systems. Anyone, even a portable air defense system, is capable of bringing it down.
  41. 0
    2 September 2015 13: 46
    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 took part in shooting exercises. Their ship (not a tug, but a full-fledged combat ship) pulled a "target" on a cable (1-3 km ???). The "shooters" confused them with a target, and as a result, the radio broadcast was filled with selective obscenities after 2-3 hits of artillery blanks (as I understand, there were no explosive filling ???) on the "towing" superstructure (there were no casualties and serious damage) .. ...
    And the second episode, when they themselves were already practicing shooting at an air target (as I understood it was air defense artillery), tk. when firing at "pro-fires" everything was in "milk", but in all the same they filled it up ... at the awarding ceremony, the management especially noted the reliability of the guidance and fire control systems ...

    ... it was "noodles" or in reality it could be ???
    1. +2
      2 September 2015 14: 24
      If your acquaintance served at the Pacific Fleet in the mid-80s, then he should have known about the third case - the death of the MRK "Monsoon".
      During the exercise, the target missile (former anti-ship missile system), ignoring 2 "wasps" fired at it and the AK-725 fire, hit the superstructure of the MRK. And then - everything is like on "Sheffield": burning fuel anti-ship missiles and a fire on the ship (an eyewitness wrote that when other ships began to approach the "Monsoon", containers with anti-ship missiles were already burning on it). The only difference is that it was forbidden to moor to the "Monsoon" - first because of the danger of an anti-ship missile explosion, and then the fire crept up to the artillery cellar.
    2. +1
      2 September 2015 14: 33
      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. +1
        2 September 2015 15: 31
        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. -1
          2 September 2015 15: 40
          Who told you about "soft rockets"? An armor-piercing or "armor-piercing high-explosive" warhead has absolutely the same durability characteristics as an artillery shell ... All the difference is that the projectile flies up "naked" and the warhead is in a "shell" from the design of the missile itself ...
          1. +1
            2 September 2015 16: 03
            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. 0
              2 September 2015 16: 21
              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. +1
                2 September 2015 16: 35
                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. 0
              2 September 2015 16: 40
              Quote: barbiturate
              I do not see armor-piercing and high-explosive armor-piercing warheads, can you tell me which missiles are installed on them?

              The high-explosive-penetrating warhead is on the same "Harpoon".
            3. 0
              2 September 2015 16: 45
              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, ie. to penetrate 200 mm of armor, a 200 mm projectile is enough - and this is only about 100 kg. Those. Warhead even of a light anti-ship missile.
              1. 0
                2 September 2015 17: 15
                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 do not understand what you are talking about, although you apparently "smoke" the materiel, unlike me) So you pointed out the "penetrating" semi-armor-piercing warheads, they are designed to destroy protected objects, in our case, ships. so show me their armor penetration? Since they are designed to break through something, then show me this most important characteristic. Where did you read in the characteristics of our there or not our anti-ship missiles the characteristic - PROTECTION? IT is not there, this characteristic, but do you know why? Because the designers of these anti-ship missiles absolutely did not count on the fact that these missiles would have to penetrate the armor, but counted on their semi-armor-piercing warheads for a certain penetration into the ship and detonation with a slowdown. In order to undermine the warhead with a slowdown, it is necessary that it does not collapse at least for some time, penetrating into the ship, therefore it is made durable 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, ie. to penetrate 200 mm of armor, a 200 mm projectile is enough - and this is only about 100 kg. Those. Warhead even of a light anti-ship missile.

                It is true, only you forget the other. The design of a 203mm caliber AP projectile is not difficult to find and weighs 100kg. What should be the design and mass of the missile's warhead in order to get the mass of explosives behind the armor that modern anti-ship missiles carry as a "combat load"? As far as I know, no one has carried out such calculations, but there are a lot of difficulties even offhand, but all this must also fly, and even quickly, it is also desirable that the ability to maneuver is needed in the target area.))
                1. 0
                  2 September 2015 18: 52
                  Quote: barbiturate
                  What should be the design and mass of the missile's warhead in order to get the mass of explosives behind the armor 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 amount was carried by USN dive bombers in that war when striking the LK and AB IJN. ICHH, "thousand pounds" was enough for their sinking.
                  If armor-piercing is really needed, the LRASM will calmly raise a 12 "armor-piercing projectile. And carry it to the target at a much higher speed than if they were fired from a gun.

                  In addition, anti-ship missiles can always take advantage of a "dishonest trick" - a blow from a hill. Is it weak to book a deck in the same way as an onboard booking? I'm not even talking about the fact that the accuracy of anti-ship missiles is higher than that of shells, and they can be guided into those zones of the ship's hull where the armor protection is weakened due to structural reasons (for ships with a non-nuclear power plant, this is the area of ​​pipes).
                  1. +1
                    2 September 2015 19: 11
                    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 amount was carried by USN dive bombers in that war when striking the LK and AB IJN. ICHH, "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, the LRASM will calmly raise a 12 "armor-piercing projectile. And carry it to the target at a much higher speed than if they were fired 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. +1
                      3 September 2015 11: 35
                      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 - "Iso", "Hyuuga".

                      By the way, CD "Mikuma" at 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 cases of" projectile-armor "and" warhead anti-ship missiles-armor ", the armor penetration of the anti-ship missile warhead without overclocking will be somewhere around 150-170 mm. This is if we take 12 "/ 52 at a range of 30 kiloyards and take into account the indicated difference in angles and the lower speed of the warhead.
                      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 shell when fired, the French showed well at Richelieu, when at the very first combat salvo the LC lost 2 guns: gun # 7 exploded, and gun # 8 swelled at a length of 8 m. The reason is the presence of BBS 4 in the aft -x cavities under the OM. These cavities were covered with a lid, which collapsed when fired with a standard SD21 charge, the fragments passing through the cavities pierced the shell of the projectile and reached the explosive, which detonated.

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

                        By the way, CD "Mikuma" at 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. +2
                        3 September 2015 17: 26
                        Just copy:

                        "The mystery is the penetrating power of American bombs: the penetration
                        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 reported about 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, "Mogami" was 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 "Mog-
                        mi "did not happen, and the bomb undoubtedly hit in front of 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. 0
                        3 September 2015 17: 44
                        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 cases of" projectile-armor "and" warhead anti-ship missiles-armor ", the armor penetration of the anti-ship missile warhead without overclocking will be somewhere around 150-170 mm. This is if we take 12 "/ 52 at a range of 30 kiloyards and take into account the indicated difference in angles and the lower speed of the warhead.


                        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 durability of the stern for the projectile and what happens to the body of the projectile when fired by the French on the Richelieu, when at the first combat salvo the LC lost 2 guns: gun no. 7 exploded, and gun no. 8 swelled at a length of 8 m. Reason - the presence in the aft part of the BBS 4 cavities under the OM. These cavities were covered with a lid, which collapsed when fired with a standard SD21 charge, the fragments passing through the cavities pierced the shell of the projectile 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. +1
                    2 September 2015 19: 23
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    In addition, anti-ship missiles can always take advantage of a "dishonest trick" - a blow from a hill. Is it weak to book a deck in the same way as an onboard booking? I'm not even talking about the fact that the accuracy of anti-ship missiles is higher than that of shells, and they can be guided into those zones of the ship's hull where the armor protection is weakened due to structural reasons (for ships with a non-nuclear power plant, this is the area of ​​pipes).


                    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. 0
                      3 September 2015 11: 40
                      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. 0
                        3 September 2015 19: 23
                        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
                2. 0
                  3 September 2015 13: 51
                  Well, yes, I certainly "do not understand" ... And being a career officer of the fleet aviation and having the appropriate specialized education, I certainly "do not understand" the true essence of the term "semi-armor-piercing" ... (By the way, you will not reveal a terrible secret for the destruction of which such "protected objects "Was this ammunition intended? (number 8 in the picture).
                  Alas, I cannot answer your question on what kind of armor penetration these warheads are designed for (well, unfortunately, no one has yet 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 up to 75mm booking, then you can quite confidently extrapolate that the warhead of Granite 200mm will not slow down much.

                  In general, arguing with amateurs is a very tedious task. So keep "wet dreaming of armadillos" ... ;-)
                  1. 0
                    3 September 2015 18: 12
                    Well, staffing and officers by themselves still do not give knowledge, rather even minus, I had to observe officers from an extremely close distance in the army, because 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 warhead Granite and at your own picture with shells, then surely there is no doubt about the obvious difference in construction. BC Granita directly "shouts" 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 keep "wet dreaming 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. 0
                      2 October 2015 15: 16
                      Maybe then the non-amateur will say why this warhead of such a strange (not shell) shape? bully
            4. 0
              2 September 2015 21: 14
              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!
              MISSIONS ARE CONTROLLED and can cause damage in unarmored parts, which, when crammed with cables, radars and other "bells and whistles", will carry death
              1. 0
                3 September 2015 03: 56
                Of course, you cannot book the entire ship, so you need to approach this idea reasonably and I do not at all suggest building battleships instead of modern URO destroyers)) But still, the inflection is now very strong with the "bareness" of warships and it has already begun to be corrected in projects. In addition, there are also projects of modern ships with fairly 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!
                MISSIONS ARE CONTROLLED and can cause damage in unarmored parts, which, when crammed with cables, radars and other "bells and whistles", will carry death


                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
        2. 0
          2 September 2015 16: 11
          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 echeloned air defense, and you still have to be able to break through to it. But how "your" battleship will be equipped is a mystery.
          1. +2
            2 September 2015 17: 19
            Sorry, tired of answering, but above already answered similar)
  42. +1
    2 September 2015 14: 09
    I wonder what they would say about the booking of the Eagle sisterships, which are in Tsushima. What is the point of building armored monsters if you are afraid to use them. The same thing will happen with the "Zumwalts", if there is a mess .. any! Admirals will have to hide them if America and China clash at sea .. the pleasure of such ships is too expensive. 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.
  43. 0
    2 September 2015 18: 08
    With regard to Russian realities: to reconstruct the remaining armored vehicles of the 1144 project, having calculated the same "Adm. Ushakov" according to the criteria of restoration costs / combat effectiveness. And in the foreseeable future of the same EM "Leader", something like a coma of booking separate important compartments is hardly realistic.
  44. -1
    2 September 2015 21: 15
    It's funny ... I just want to ask: what was the author floating on? Not otherwise, as on a battleship ... :) Hurry, in WoT "Rat" in the hangar was allowed to put. 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.
  45. -2
    2 September 2015 22: 37
    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. +2
      3 September 2015 00: 04
      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?
  46. 0
    2 September 2015 23: 19
    - 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 "Operation Crossroads"?

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


    So there the nuclear submarine power was only 23 kt, now in our TNW the power is about 200-350 kt, it is clear that for an anti-nuclear warrant this is not scary, but there is a difference in the impact of 23 kt and 350 kt for a single (main) target of the order, such as "Nimitz "at a cost of $ 5-6 billion?
    1. 0
      2 September 2015 23: 36
      And here is a clear difference between them, on the left 350kt, on the right 23kt (American test operation at sea "Crossroads"), which, most likely, the author was guided by. Cry:
      350ct vs 23kt350ct vs 23kt

      (simulated in Nukemap3D)
  47. -3
    2 September 2015 23: 39
    not well, the author soaked the armor of tank ships))))
  48. +3
    2 September 2015 23: 57
    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. 0
      3 September 2015 09: 09
      "Really and some kind of ceramic armor with positive buoyancy
      Can't you think of a destroyer hull? "////

      You are well done! The idea is great.
      1. 0
        3 September 2015 11: 46
        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. -1
          4 September 2015 21: 59
          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?
  49. +4
    3 September 2015 02: 25
    In principle, you can drown any ship, if you drop a simple scrap from orbit, then he will sew the ship through, the main thing is to get it! The point is a little different, losing a ship worth 2-3 billion when it collides with an ordinary wooden boat with 100 kilograms of dynamite is much more stupid than from being hit by a rocket! And a similar case was when 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 very expensive repairs! Of course, it is easier and cheaper to churn out cans, and most importantly, you can make a lot of them, and quickly enough, only 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 out of the 4 remaining "Orlans", they decided to restore only two, they say it was expensive and not profitable. But it was a good idea to restore all 4, since we cannot build a new one, then there are no engines, then we cannot understand what we need! Reservation, of course, does not solve all the problems, but it provides some survivability for both ships and crew. If this were not so, then the tanks would not have been made armored, anyway on the battlefield, more than 30 minutes, he would not hold out. And a ship costs much more, and there is much more crew on it, so you need to think about the sailors, and not just about the cost of such a ship!
    1. 0
      3 September 2015 18: 19
      Everything is logical.
  50. 0
    3 September 2015 17: 19
    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. 0
      3 September 2015 21: 21
      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 are operating with numbers that are drawn to each other. Onyx? And what equipment and under what conditions can produce this "high-precision" weapon? It is highly accurate only on hover. We do not need aircraft carriers (judging by the tone of your comment, you are sailing with the current), which means that we will not have AWACS aircraft for a long time. A tracking satellite like "Legend" seems to be also not yet foreseen - the cosmodrome 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 be wrong). Only the radars of the attacking ship remain (communications ships, as I do not consider) - I will not lie I do not know how, who and how much "sees", but I am firmly convinced that the detection distance is much shorter than the Onyx flight. Now add the number of ships carrying the Onyx with the number of factors that make it possible to successfully launch the missile to the target ... And now we compare it with the number of commentators that we have missiles that will reach everyone.
      1. 0
        3 September 2015 22: 13
        Quote: Manul
        You are operating with numbers that are drawn to each other. Onyx? And what equipment and under what conditions can produce this "high-precision" weapon? It is highly accurate only on hover. We do not need aircraft carriers (judging by the tone of your comment, you are sailing with the current), which means that we will not have AWACS aircraft for a long time.


        The author of the article claimed that RCC allegedly in principle cannot hit battleships because of their "low armor penetration", and therefore aircraft 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.

        It is especially funny how you "by the tone of the commentary" determine the attitude of a person to aircraft carriers, about which he has not said 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. 0
          3 September 2015 22: 43
          Quote: SIvan

          The author of the article argued that anti-ship missiles allegedly, in principle, cannot hit battleships due to their "low armor penetration", and, therefore, aircraft with anti-ship missiles are basically useless against battleships. The commentator whom you criticize has denied this. All. There was no talk of Russian economic realities.

          It is especially funny how you "by the tone of the commentary" determine the attitude of a person to aircraft carriers, about which he has not said 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 Brahmos 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 for takeoff with this rocket under the wing (I don’t want to say something about us (and, by the way, it’s still under wing) it is 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. 0
            4 September 2015 07: 45
            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. 0
            4 September 2015 12: 04
            Here's a strange conversation with the "battleships" ... well, damn it, but nobody is against "constructive protection" - it is, it is developing and improving ... But after all, we are called upon to return "armored belts and armored decks" - far from the most rational option protection. Second - Means of destruction, something that allows you to overcome any, the most powerful passive booking has long been invented and allows you to hit absolutely any target. Well, do you really think that "blowing the dust" from old designs and installing appropriate warheads is longer and more expensive than rebuilding the "battleship fleet"?
            Reservation lost the war to the projectile a long time ago - and retained its meaning only in conditions of the use of uncontrolled weapons. With the probability of hitting an artillery shell measured by a few percent and the impossibility of guaranteeing it hitting a vulnerable point, it made sense to increase passive protection - thereby reducing the likelihood of a critical hit. In the conditions of URO it is useless. Any warhead that reaches the side is a guaranteed strike and exactly at the point at which it will be aimed. Those. the likelihood of painting "a la Hood" increases by orders of magnitude.
            Now the development of means of protection is primarily in the fact that would "prevent the warhead from reaching the target" and constructive protection is reduced to localizing and minimizing damage in case all the same "unlucky" - but for this an armored belt is not needed ... Both professionals and the designers understand this ... and the "battleships" write articles ... and we are looking at them ... soldier
            1. +1
              4 September 2015 16: 29
              Quote: Taoist
              Here's a strange conversation with the "battleships" ... well, damn it, but nobody is against "constructive protection" - it is, it is developing and improving ... But after all, we are called upon to return "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
              Second - Means of destruction, something that allows you to overcome any, the most powerful passive booking has long been invented and allows you to hit absolutely any target. Well, do you really think that "blowing the dust" from old designs and installing appropriate warheads is longer and more expensive than rebuilding 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. 0
                4 September 2015 16: 31
                Quote: Taoist
                Reservation lost the war to the projectile a long time ago - and retained its meaning only in conditions of the use of uncontrolled weapons. With the probability of hitting an artillery shell measured by a few percent and the impossibility of guaranteeing it hitting a vulnerable point, it made sense to increase passive protection - thereby reducing the likelihood of a critical hit. In the conditions of URO it is useless. Any warhead that reaches the side is a guaranteed strike and exactly at the point at which it will be aimed. Those. the likelihood of painting "a la Hood" increases by orders of magnitude.

                Again you tell people fairy tales, and meanwhile they are booking military equipment! And planes and ships and tanks, are you surprised? And already quite a fairy tale about a blow "exactly at 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. 0
                5 September 2015 14: 11
                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. 0
                  5 September 2015 14: 47
                  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 that means all the same the armor is "reliable protection"?) Besides, not only the reactor compartment is covered with armor, is it for even greater peace of mind of the reactor? smile
                  1. 0
                    5 September 2015 16: 35
                    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. +1
                      5 September 2015 19: 04
                      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. 0
                        7 September 2015 12: 18
                        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. 0
                        10 September 2015 04: 13
                        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
  51. -1
    3 September 2015 23: 25
    Quote: Manul

    Onyx? What kind of equipment and under what conditions can release this “high-precision” weapon? It is highly accurate, only when pointed.

    Those. you got into the discussion without even bothering to read at least the Wikipedia article.

    A tracking satellite like “Legend” also doesn’t seem to be in sight yet

    So that you don’t seem to have it, take it and use Yandex. He will tell you that Russia currently has visual and radar reconnaissance satellites. Satellites and a new target designation system are being launched. Then read about over-the-horizon radars. Start to realize that you are writing nonsense.

    "Protons" are falling

    Everything is bad. You have the information. And Russia leads in launch reliability.

    I won’t lie, I don’t know... but I’m firmly convinced that the detection distance is much shorter than the flight

    Do you read what you write yourself? “I don’t know, but I’m firmly convinced” - congenial. This is already beyond the bounds.
    Read about PEV radar. And in general, read first. And then participate in discussions.
  52. -1
    4 September 2015 00: 52
    If battleships have a future, it will be in orbit. And then with a bunch of reservations and nuances
    1. 0
      4 September 2015 22: 57
      If battleships have a future, it will be in orbit. And then with a bunch of reservations and nuances

      More like armored capsules for ships.
      Armoring the entire ship is too expensive. Minimum armor for maximum options for hitting the target.
      True, it can be fun with an armored capsule..."it will sail with the ship" laughing
      Not everyone will agree to this lol
  53. -1
    4 September 2015 01: 52
    By the way, the Chinese at the parade recently finally showed their DF-21D, or rather copies of the Pershing-2, adapted for firing at aircraft carriers.

    This idea can be developed further, especially since Russia has an order of magnitude more groundwork on this topic.
  54. 0
    4 September 2015 18: 05
    They came, clicked on the minuses silently, left)) Well, yes, there’s nothing left to say. If only I repeat once again that “I don’t know, then I’m firmly convinced!” laughing

    What didn't you like about the communication with Chinese missiles?
  55. 0
    4 September 2015 21: 57
    Ours will be built soon*)
  56. 0
    4 September 2015 23: 56
    the author BURNS. He himself writes that a modern ship will not last long in modern conflicts, as long as it has time to fire missiles. Be logical.
    Yes, active means of defense and attack are developing faster than passive means of defense. But a ship designed for strength against storms of up to 8-9 points and wind loads, acceleration loads, shifts of the center of gravity, temperature loads, shock loads and much more definitely has protection against fragments and small caliber.
    But you can talk over a can of good Czech beer. drinks
  57. 0
    5 September 2015 17: 41
    Quote: barbiturate
    In addition, not only the reactor compartment is covered with armor, is this for even greater peace of mind of the reactor?

    And for this too. What is the use of reactor protection if aviation fuel catches fire or ammunition detonates? In the end, the reactor will also suffer.
    Quote: barbiturate
    And that means that armor is still “reliable protection”?)

    Is not. Armor provides a certain chance that the ship will not receive critical damage, and that’s all. Based on this, it is calculated how many conditional anti-ship missile hits are required to disable a particular ship. In this case, not only armor is taken into account, but also air defense systems, squadron composition, etc. We should also not forget that the dynamic part of the defense (interception and coordination systems, squadron composition, etc.) is much easier to modernize if the intended enemy changes the range of anti-ship missiles or the composition of naval formations. But the armor included in the design of the ship does not provide such freedom. Let's remember the cruisers of the 68-bis series. Not bad armor, but at the expense of weapons. Many ships in the series were scrapped when they were almost completed. They quickly became outdated, and there was no point in finishing them and immediately sending them for conservation. While the flimsy "Arleigh Burke" swam, are swimming and are going to continue to swim.
    1. 0
      6 September 2015 10: 16
      Quote: brn521
      And for this too. What is the use of reactor protection if aviation fuel catches fire or ammunition detonates? In the end, the reactor will also suffer.


      Those. If you cover almost the entire ship with even thin armor, then the aviation fuel will not ignite and the ammunition will not detonate, so it turns out? You practically already agree with me, we have nothing to argue about)

      Quote: brn521
      Is not. Armor provides a certain chance that the ship will not receive critical damage, and that’s all. Based on this, it is calculated how many conditional anti-ship missile hits are required to disable a particular ship. In this case, not only armor is taken into account, but also air defense systems, squadron composition, etc. We should also not forget that the dynamic part of the defense (interception and coordination systems, squadron composition, etc.) is much easier to modernize if the intended enemy changes the range of anti-ship missiles or the composition of naval formations. But the armor included in the design of the ship does not provide such freedom. Let's remember the cruisers of the 68-bis series. Not bad armor, but at the expense of weapons. Many ships in the series were scrapped when they were almost completed. They quickly became outdated, and there was no point in finishing them and immediately sending them for conservation. While the flimsy "Arleigh Burke" swam, are swimming and are going to continue to swim.


      Of course, it would be stupid to say that armor provides absolutely reliable protection, but you yourself say that armor increases the security of a ship. That's what they book for. You mentioned the Project 68 bis cruisers, but they were modernized and nothing, the armored hull did not cause any special problems and the missile armament was strengthened. Possessing armor, they were not afraid of American universal guns when they constantly accompanied American squadrons. The Americans have modernized their Iowas, we are modernizing our 1144, work is constantly going on to modernize nuclear submarines, and you know, they have very decent thickness strong hulls and nothing, they open them up, change the filling and weld them back. And why did you decide that there was good armor due to weapons? Why 14 of them were built, and not 25, there are many articles by respected authors and everything is explained in detail, and nowhere have I come across such a statement, but they constantly talk about the big advantage of these cruisers - armor. A tip from the wiki about the 68 bis armor:

      One of the cruisers of this type was sold to Turkey for metal, but in fact, after studying the features of the contours and hull design, it was tested by the US Navy as a target ship during exercises. As a result of the torpedo attack, the ship, thanks to its armored hull, remained afloat. From the section of the front main caliber turret to the section of the rear main caliber turret, the ship's hull had an armored belt from 0,5 m above the waterline to a 100 mm thick keel; the armored belt was integrated (included) into the power structure of the cruiser's hull, which, together with 16 sealed compartments, ensured it very high anti-torpedo survivability.

      I wonder if a modern destroyer or cruiser costing a couple of billion bucks would be hit by even a weak 324 mm torpedo, would it immediately fall apart and sink, or would it burn for 2 hours and then sink? smile
      1. 0
        7 September 2015 14: 38
        Quote: barbiturate
        Those. If you cover almost the entire ship with even thin armor, then the aviation fuel will not ignite and the ammunition will not detonate, so it turns out?

        No. Armor comes at the expense of weapons. Conventionally, as an example: a thin tin carries weapons that allow in 80% of cases to avoid damage from anti-ship missiles due to its detection and interception. The tin is thicker - in 70% of cases. When operating as part of a group, it may take 99 thin tins, or 3-4 thicker tins, to bring the chance to 5% required for normal operation. As a result, a fleet of thin tins will survive longer in the event of a serious conflict and cause more damage. Well, when modernizing, thin tins have more possibilities. Change the same format of the receiving bunker, transfer light Kevlar armor to new places. But the armored hull of a thick tin does not allow such freedom; changing it is like building a new ship. The light tin again remains at its 80%. And in severe cases, instead of 70%, it becomes 50%, or even less. As a result, it is either preserved or often even scrapped. Those. a fleet of thin tins is also cheaper to build and operate.
        Police tasks are another matter. There, the range of problems solved is expanding. The ship must be prepared for anything, and the likelihood that it will have to deal with modern weapons is small. Anything could happen here. A powerful IED in a boat that reached the side of the ship in the roadstead, a WWII-era mine, ammunition from an MLRS fired from homemade guides. No active protection will help here; a lightweight tin is not designed to withstand such problems and it is unprofitable to use it for police operations.
        Quote: barbiturate
        And why did you decide that there was good armor due to weapons?

        Of the 17 thousand tons of displacement, 3 thousand went to armor. And the guns had a caliber of 155m. For cruisers of this displacement, a caliber of 200+mm was considered normal.
        Quote: barbiturate
        we are modernizing our 1144

        They are at least initially missile-based, i.e. there is something to modernize. Plus forced versatility, characteristic of a missile carrier forced to chase an AUG, but in a surface position, unlike a nuclear submarine. So in the end they crammed a little bit of everything into the project. In the current situation, when parity has been lost and is no longer in sight, this “a little bit of everything” was just right.
        Quote: barbiturate
        Work is constantly underway to modernize nuclear submarines

        In a strategic sense, nuclear submarines at least somehow pay for themselves, unlike battleships.
      2. 0
        7 September 2015 14: 38
        Quote: barbiturate
        I wonder if a modern destroyer or cruiser costing a couple of billion bucks would be hit by even a weak 324 mm torpedo, would it immediately fall apart and sink, or would it burn for 2 hours and then sink?

        You still have to manage to get there. Those. the submarine must approach undetected, shoot and hit. and then get away, submarines aren’t cheap either. By the way, in the case of torpedoes, passive defense always lost. Whatever anti-tank protection system is provided in the hull, the enemy will always be able to assemble a torpedo of sufficient power to be guaranteed to penetrate this anti-tank protection system. Therefore, they again chose to rely on active defense. Those. to the detection and interception system. It makes no difference whether it is a 324mm torpedo or a 610mm “anti-battleship” torpedo if it cannot reach the target. So even many US aircraft carriers do not have sufficiently effective passive protection against torpedo attacks. For example, Nimitz: double bottom and that’s it, above that the foundation of the reactor and the reactor itself begin. Even if the shock wave doesn’t reach the reactor itself, it doesn’t matter, the foundation will warp, and it will probably break the primary circuit. But the aircraft carrier is large, and the reactors are small. Maybe even if they hit them, it won’t be them. The Enterprises had a more thorough fastening of the reactors - a whole platform resting on the entire hull. But the Enterprises were broken, but the Nimitzes remained.
  58. +1
    5 September 2015 23: 26
    You can also recall the X-90/Meteorite project, firing range 5500 km, rocket weight 6 tons, warhead weight 1000 kg. What kind of passive armor can protect against such a carcass?

    Today, the masses and power of warheads of kinetic projectiles are not comparable to those of the era of armored ships.
  59. +1
    6 September 2015 11: 03
    Quote: barbiturate
    The cruiser's hull is armored: the side in the area of ​​the reactor compartment is 100 mm, at the ends - 35 mm, the steering compartment - 70 mm, the deck - 50 mm, the wheelhouse - 80 mm. And as historical examples show, a 50mm deck is already impenetrable to 1000lbs of American bombs and therefore high-explosive and anti-tank warheads of Tomahawks and Harpoons, just like the 70+mm sides.

    To be honest, you write such nonsense that it is simply amazing.
    A microscopic cumulative anti-tank bomb that penetrated up to 70 mm of tank armor during WWII, while weighing 2,5 kg, just everything.

    Today we are talking about multi-ton fools whose warheads weigh hundreds of times more, and which fly on several M. No homogeneous cheap armor is enough for protection. Are you proposing to cover the entire ship with multi-component tank armor? So that it becomes worth its weight in gold? And this will still not be enough!


    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.

    You write a lot and read little. Read about X-90.
  60. 0
    9 September 2015 23: 50
    In general, the author is one of the “blessed”. The type that Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky described. Not about grandma...
  61. 0
    10 September 2015 16: 08
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    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

    What is this about?
    In this case, we have two reactors which, together with the first and second circuits, are enclosed in biological protection. In the event of a violation of biological protection and a breakthrough in the circuits, the generator will not be able to be shut down normally. And the crap from the circuits will spoil everything it can reach. After shutdown, the reactors must be cooled by a battery-free cooling system, when the circulation of water through the circuits is ensured by the temperature difference. If the circuits are destroyed, the fuel in the reactor will eventually melt the control rods, become even more active and attack the reactor vessel and surrounding structures. However, if you load it with something, for example, force it to evaporate sea water, and freely discharge the resulting highly radioactive steam somewhere, then it may be possible to avoid damage to the neighboring reactor. But in this situation we can’t even talk about operating or repairing the ship; the ship is destroyed. Those. the effect significantly exceeds the consequences of the option when a non-nuclear engine receives damage.
    In the case of Kursk, the sixth reactor compartment was not damaged; the reactors and the people serving it survived. But this is a submarine, with a durable hull and bulkheads that can withstand pressure of 10 atmospheres. And this is a submarine, which is much more difficult to get into than a surface ship. Those. The reactor was provided with good protection. And so we were talking about the survivability of ships and types of power plants. My opinion is that when designing nuclear-powered ships for military purposes, statistics are used. The armor and reinforced hull structure try to cover the vulnerability of the nuclear plant. Therefore, it is incorrect to cite nuclear-powered ships as an example of the need to install passive armor on all ships in a row.
    In addition, the example shows how good submarines are, and that it is better to invest the extra money not in police battleships, but in titanium hulls for these boats. Let them then try to detect and destroy them at a depth of, say, 1,5 km (calculated depth for titanium-hull projects).
  62. TWR
    0
    12 September 2015 15: 30
    I will continue here.
    Quote: Dart2027
    And what is the difference?

    In methods.
    Quote: Dart2027
    Those who are now constantly crying that Russia is becoming a threat again?

    And then he “cries constantly”?
    Quote: Dart2027
    For example, Vietnam, Korea or an attempted coup in Czechoslovakia.

    I didn't understand this phrase.
    Quote: Dart2027
    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

    I don’t understand what doesn’t suit you there? In my opinion, any state built into the international system of division of labor is sustainable. In my opinion this is obvious.
    Quote: Dart2027
    and if he had prevented the escape of the English army and, having finished with France, attacked the English with all his might, then he could calmly and until his old age breed true Aryans in Europe.

    You will forgive me generously, but you absolutely do not know or understand what was happening in Europe in the late 30s and early 40s. You have mistakes in every word. You shouldn’t study history from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism out of habit. This sad nonsense will not lead you to an understanding of the truth.
  63. The comment was deleted.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"